Which Barbie Would Ken Fuck?

Mattel are free to make as many “plus size” Barbies as they want, but I think we can all guess what the marketing department’s response will be. Who the fuck is going to buy a fat Barbie? And no-one else can make one because of trademark.

More importantly, which Barbie is Ken going to want to fuck? Not the one who looks like an ageing Diana Dors, that’s for sure.

I’m told that fat chicks are more grateful, so perhaps a “plus size” Barbie may indulge some of Ken’s more outré requests, such as A2M. However, I think it more likely she’d end up having a couple of drunken one night stands with his friends before descending into a life of alcoholism.

Barbie might think that she has Ken’s cock and balls in a cute little, Swarovski crystal covered jewellery box on her dresser, but Ken can rebel, as this episode of Life InThe Dreamhouse shows. I was thinking the episodes Oh, How Campy and Closet Princess may show Ken rebelling even further, but Barbie is clearly doing enough to keep Ken’s eye from wandering. Actually, I suspect Barbie would go off like a firecracker if Ken stuck his tongue up her arse.

A lot of people bag Ken, but Barbie obviously likes him, so he must be doing something right. I’m pretty sure Ken would rather shag the current, slim Barbie than a big, fat chick. In fact, he confirmed this the other day while we were having a few beers and watching Mana Mamau.

Plus Size Modeling’s Facebook campaign is a good example of the entry into the middle class majority of one of the most destructive inventions of the modern left: identity politics. “We’re being discriminated against as a group! Let’s get together and fight for our right to assert our identity as people of colour / women / LGBTIQ / people with disabilities / plus sized women …!”

Taking a characteristic which society uses to categorise people, then using it as an active grouping mechanism may get many of those groups some gains, but overall it makes society more fractious and creates enmity, as well as influencing people to see one another in more one dimensional, less human terms.

People will always be judged on their behaviour and being fat is primarily the result of behaviour.

You can be as fat as you like, as long as you pay your own medical bills. You can walk around telling everyone you’re just as sexy as any other woman, as long as you don’t bung on an act when you get laughed at, or claim your human rights have been violated through being vilified on the basis of your body shape.

The problem here is that an essentially middle class group has appropriated the left wing ideology of trying to force corporations / governments / society to behave in a certain way in order to validate their “identity”. It doesn’t matter that said identity is merely one of many facets of the person. This is how I construct myself and if you don’t accept my position without question, that’s discrimination! Society’s values and preferences must be re-engineered so that I don’t have less successful outcomes than those outside my constructed group.

Well, if you’re fat, you will find you’re less likely to get a fuck. That’s because less people are attracted to the overweight. BBW sites are fetish, not mainstream.

You’ll also find you’re less likely to get a job, good service and respect in general.

Why?

There are known genetic factors in differences in natural body weight within animal populations. However, aside from pathologies such as brain lesions, there are two causes of obesity: gluttony and sloth.

A significant majority of overweight people want to lose weight and confess they would be happier if they could. Yet they don’t. Genetic differences make it significantly harder for some people to lose weight than others, however the human body is not a nuclear reactor. It is not even a very efficient metaboliser. The reason why most people are fat even though it depresses them is that they lack the discipline and commitment required to lose the weight and keep it off.

People know this. Thus, if you’re a great big blubber and you see a thinner (but equally or less qualified) person get the job you want, it’s because your potential employer has formed the impression that you lack discipline, give up easily or lack sufficient self respect. If you find you’re getting poor service, it’s because the person doesn’t respect you, for these same reasons.

Because they aren’t fat and wouldn’t ever want to be fat, they automatically assume you don’t want to be fat either. Thus, you must be fat due to character flaws.

No amount of social engineering is going to change this widely held view. That’s because it’s in large part correct. Being fat is not like being black or being gay.

Fat women are in general judged more harshly than fat men. That is because some fat men are strong, much fitter than they appear and gain respect on that basis eg. front row forwards. Fat, flabby, unfit men are not respected. Even in the case of fat men who are powerful, their power is respected, but they are still objects of satire or ridicule and referred to as fat cunts eg. Clive Palmer.

Like an alcoholic, drug addict or unsuccessful gambler, you have to work at being fat. No-one becomes an enormous porker overnight. No-one becomes a drunk or a drug addict overnight. Some people are far more susceptible than others, however no-one sleep walks into it and everyone can get out of it with sufficient discipline and willpower, despite the chemical changes in the brain and endocrine system which take place in obese people or addicts.

There is the argument that materially different body shapes are the norm of attractiveness in other cultures both today and historically, so Western society’s preference against fat people is merely an artefact of our culture and has no inherent biological driver. Therefore we could change our society’s views so that fat people were no longer considered unattractive. Then they would not feel pressure to lose weight and would no longer suffer from higher rates of depression and low self esteem.

It’s a lot easier to join with other overweight people and tell each other that you’re beautiful just the way you are and it’s society which is the problem. Maybe they should all join the SPK.

The “fat identity” validators’ reasoning is fallacious. Western society knows a great deal more about medicine and the human body than all of these other cultures. Anyone believing otherwise is deluded. Asian medicine is often posited as an attempted counter to the claim of Western medical superiority. However, despite some demonstrably effective elements such as acupuncture, Asian medicine largely argues by metaphor and is thus still rooted in mysticism.

There is clear scientific evidence that being fat both shortens lifespan and decreases overall quality of health. There is a known, healthy range of body weight as a function of age, sex and height. Being outside it is demonstrably bad for your health.

Thus, given Western society’s medical knowledge, being obese is like being a pack a day smoker or someone who gets drunk every night. There’s a subculture which attempts to validate each of these behaviours, but most people see them as character flaws and wonder why “those people” don’t make more of an effort to stop harming their health.

This post is not intended as advocating a campaign of fat shaming, “nudging” or any form of social engineering beyond appropriate taxation of certain foods and beverages which contribute to health problems. I do however, want to strongly encourage people not to be sucked into pandering to the identity politics of the League of Fatties and their own attempts at social engineering.

I have posited an explanation of why fat people in Western societies have statistically less successful social outcomes and why it’s not going to change any time soon. It’s why we shouldn’t pander to the new fat identity politics. Don’t feel guilty if you think fat people are lazy and undisciplined: they are. That’s why they’re fat.

At the same time, let’s not allow fat control to become a new goal for the nanny staters. The politically pious already have more than enough at which to tut-tut. “You can’t become obese eating organically grown quinoa as part of a socially responsible, vegetarian diet.” “How terrible it is that Westerners eat so much more than they need when all those black and brown people are starving.”

If a person is fat and happy, prefers the joys of gluttony to a longer life and doesn’t care what other people think, they should be free to make that choice, as long as they accept (and can pay for) the consequences. As for fat people who are stung by receiving criticism, less respect or being considered less attractive, no amount of delusion will change that … and attempts to co-opt the left wing ideology of identity politics will fail, because being fat really is ultimately a combination of character flaws and lifestyle choice.

No they aren't ... but they are more grateful.

Not Every KO Is A King Hit

There seems to have been a recent spate of serious injuries and even deaths ensuing from street violence. In politicians’ indecent haste to pander to the bleating classes, each incident is portrayed in black and white. The injured party is an innocent victim of a “king hit”, while the other party is a thug who should be presumed guilty and denied bail. The media’s tendency to oversimplify and sensationalise renders it complicit in reinforcing the hysteria, as opposed to devising a well thought out policy response.

People have died after being punched in a range of circumstances, from vicious, unprovoked assaults to punches thrown in self defence. Every case is different and must be examined on its own merits. We need to make a clear distinction between outright thuggery and a fair fight. We need to be far clearer about what constitutes self defence and not cast the first stone when someone makes a physical response to provocation.

Firstly, not every punch which knocks a person out is a king hit. A king hit is when someone is punched or hit with an object without any warning, often while they are not looking and usually in the head. It is an extremely low act and generally contains strong elements of intent to cause serious injury and recklessness as to the possibility of killing the victim.

We’ve seen genuine king hits of late, for example the killing of Thomas Kelly by Kieran Loveridge.

Now look at the definition of murder and manslaughter in S18(1) of the NSW Crimes Act.

Depending on the relative size and strength of the punched and puncher, prosecution for murder may be appropriate and may succeed, for example if a fit, strong, young man king hit a 70 year old. Even if the prosecution didn’t feel they could convince a judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances of the single punch contained the elements required for murder, a manslaughter conviction allows for up to 25 years’ jail.

The fact that most king hits don’t result in death is not per se a defence to murder. That’s why the element of recklessness is in the definition: it is not necessary to intend to kill the victim; rather that a reasonable person would or should understand a material probability of death as a result. However, juries are often swayed by the absence of direct intent. Allowing police the scope to add circumstances of aggravation to a manslaughter charge in such instances would place the offence at the upper end of the scale, with a sentence approximately equivalent to what would have been handed down for murder in such circumstances. This would probably have been the correct outcome in the Kieran Loveridge matter.

In the same category as a king hit is stomping on a defenceless person, such as recently happened to Michael McEwen at Bondi Beach after a night out. Often in such cases, the victim has been picked on and assaulted, often in company. Had Michael McEwen died, the offence should have been treated at least as seriously as Kieran Loveridge’s. Stomping on his head may well have been sufficiently reckless to support a murder charge.

Since, thankfully, Michael McEwen didn’t die, how seriously does the current law allow punishment?

Seriously enough. Grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to 25 years, the same as manslaughter. Even if the intent could not be proven, the assault was in company and the jury (or judge) has the option to find the accused guilty of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. That carries up to 14 years.

So, except for allowing the addition of circumstances of aggravation, the laws already exist to deal with morons bashing and possibly killing people over trivial arguments, or even at random. They just need to be properly prosecuted and enforced by judges.

Jamie Ennis has been arrested in relation to the matter and denied bail. On its own, his lawyer’s argument appears to raise some disturbing issues. Ennis claims he didn’t throw the punch which knocked Michael McEwen down and didn’t stomp on his head. He was arrested on the basis of a fingerprint found on the bus shelter near to where the attack occurred. The prosecution is arguing protection of the community and the judge is making comments about “community concerns regarding alcohol fuelled violence”.

Of itself, the denial of bail on such apparently flimsy evidence would be a travesty. “Community concerns” do not override lack of evidence. However, this is precisely why each case has to be examined carefully and distinctly.

Jamie Ennis was charged with affray, so the police clearly believe they can show he was part of the group which attacked Michael McEwen. Without witnesses, that shouldn’t be sufficient to deny bail. But that’s not why Ennis was denied bail in this matter: he’s already on bail. For what? Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He’s being denied bail due to breach of his existing bail conditions. Fair enough.

No-one else from Ennis’ group has been arrested, including the alleged puncher and stomper. It’s a reasonable guess that Ennis knows who they are. So, one might infer that his denial of bail is also a de facto punishment (perhaps unintended) for hindering the police investigation. Some readers would probably think that well deserved and I do too, however we need to take great care as a society not to finesse the legal machinery to punish people for acts for which they have not been found guilty (or not even charged). If Ennis is hindering the investigation and the police feel confident they will be able to prove this, they should formally charge him and it should be debated in court as an extra element in favour of denial of bail.

Moronic cunts like Ennis and his mates (I understand he’s a coconut as well), getting pissed up and going around taking out their massive chips on the shoulder on innocent people are exactly who the community is talking about when we say: “We’ve had enough of this shit. Increase the penalties.”

We should also increase penalties for lower level, unprovoked assaults, where people are attacked just walking down the street. Update: Here's another one from this New Year's Eve, where a moronic arsehole attacked four smaller strangers for no other reason than he just wanted to punch people. He didn't even have the courage to risk fighting someone who might have been able to fight back. Shaun McNeil is now in a cage, where he belongs.

Conversely, this one is not a king hit. It's young blokes fighting. There was no need for events to escalate that far and without alcohol, they probably wouldn't have. But let's be careful not to add this event into the media's catalogue of unprovoked assaults (compiled as a public service, of course) and let's not automatically assume the person who hit their head is the victim and the other is a moronic thug.

There is no contradiction with Liberalism in advocating severe penalties for the entire spectrum of mindless thuggery.

These people don’t deserve the benefits of a free and open society, since they obviously resent people who are successful within it. People should be able to enjoy themselves without fear of unprovoked attack. People should be able to engage in a minor argument without fear of serious assault. We need meaningful prison reform, but that doesn’t mean moronic thugs shouldn’t be sent there.

However, we need to take great care to examine each violent incident on its own evidence. The media cannot be lazy and simplistic in its reporting, reflexively trotting out catchphrases like “king hit” and “one punch kill” and choosing a victim and thug. Some cases are clear cut, but many are not. If justice is to be done, the police, politicians and judiciary need to distinguish one class of circumstances from the other.

What if the young guy (Ben) in the linked article above had punched his attacker, who had fallen, hit his head and died? What if that was the only punch the police saw? How would the media have reported it then? “King hit death in another night of violence on our streets”? What if we had a blanket “assault occasioning death” law, as in WA?

The media has even globalised skewed, sensationalist reporting. News.com.au has a “One punch kill” headline from Russia, complete with “incredibly shocking footage”. Watch the video. The “victim” is arguing with and shoves a man who appears to be approximately the same age and slightly smaller, who retaliates with a single punch to the head. He was picking a fight and got punched out. He even got back up and tried to carry it on, dying two days later. How is he “the victim”? The other bloke didn’t do anything wrong: he should be entitled to defend himself.

“One punch can kill! One punch can kill!” bleat the ovine every time someone gets hurt in a fight. If a strong man punches a pensioner in the head, then yes. But people get punched all the time. Very few die. When they do, it’s misadventure which is the cause of death, not the punch.

Jason Toby’s partner has certainly been indoctrinated. Look at the currently known facts of that matter. Jason Toby and his partner Britt Potter were arguing on a public street in Brisbane’s CBD at 4am. Almost certainly, alcohol was involved at that time of the night and their argument was sufficiently robust for a passer by to stop and intervene. Jason Toby decided to fight him and lost. He subsequently died in hospital.

But Britt Potter is sobbing out the nanny state line of “One punch can kill”. The other bloke probably intervened out of concern for you, love. Now, depending on the police and DPP, he might have to defend himself against serious criminal charges. Someone has been interviewed by police and released without charge 15 hours later. But we don’t even know if that’s the person who was fighting Jason Toby.

The ABC's reporting of the incident is ridiculously incompetent. It is exactly the sort of biased description which must be avoided. Firstly, Jason Toby is described as the victim of "a violent assault". How do we know this? He may have been the aggressor.

The report then states that "a man had been arguing with a woman". Yes, it's been established that was Jason Toby and his partner, Britt Potter. Unbelievably shoddy journalism.

Haven’t we just had a campaign against violence toward women? Now a woman who probably supports its aims seems shocked that defence requires force. If she couldn’t stop her “partner” fighting a bloke who had intervened out of concern, what does that imply about Jason Toby’s volatility and his complicity in his injuries?

Maybe if someone had been around to intervene in Maitland a couple of weeks ago, a woman wouldn’t be dead and a bloke wouldn’t be up on a murder charge. But what if someone had stepped in to defend the woman, then had to defend himself and the aggressor died as a result? Would the third person have been charged? Quite possibly … and if they were, the quality of the lawyer they could afford would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome.

What lies are politicians and the media going to trot out next? Resurrect the dishonest “Real heroes walk away” campaign? Heroes don’t walk away: they defend themselves and others.

But people will think twice about defending others if they believe they can’t trust the state not to prosecute them.

In which society are citizens in more danger: a civil society where citizens are prepared to come to others’ aid, safe in the knowledge they are protected by logical self defence laws, or a nanny state in which citizens abrogate responsibility to “the appropriate authorities” out of fear they may end up facing charges themselves?

Dishonest Journalism And The NBN

There’s journalistic bias, which is an undesirable, but unavoidable part of the media landscape … and then there’s outright dishonesty.

Compare the reporting by The Australian and The Guardian of cost blowouts in the Coalition and Labor’s NBN schemes.

The Australian’s right wing bias is well known. It is evident here in its choice of headline:

Labor's NBN Bill Was Set To Hit $73bn

The main point of the article is Labor’s mismanagement and waste, costing taxpayers an extra $29B in excess of the originally budgeted $44B, plus the fact they had either made substantial efforts to hide the massive cost blowout from the public who are paying for it, or worse, were unaware of its size.

The article’s subsidiary (and justified) anti-Labor point was a description of the predictable overstaffing and public service like arse covering culture at NBNCo:

“The culture and leadership of the organisation was widely viewed as a major problem. … a fear among staff of being blamed for mistakes that generated a lack of willingness to accept responsibility in some functional groups.”

“A committed, motivated, generally capable group of people who want to do important, meaningful work … there were also fears of contradicting senior staff and mistrust in the motives of some leaders. People were reluctant to document decisions for fear of the potential consequences.”

Such organisational dysfunction is not uncommon in the corporate world, however it seems to be more prevalent in government projects and in this case, an entirely foreseeable consequence of Kevin Rudd and modern Labor’s bureaucratic management style.

The Australian’s article does discuss substantial delays and cost overruns in the Coalition’s NBN plan, beginning in paragraph 4, sufficiently close to the beginning for the reader to get the picture that there are problems with both NBN plans.

At least the information required for comparison is presented early in the article:

·         Labor’s cost blowout is 65%, the Coalition’s is 40%.

·         Labor’s plan says it will deliver fibre to 100% of homes, but will cost $32B more and be completed several years after the Coalition’s.

·         The Coalition’s plan will employ a mix of delivery mechanisms, resulting in faster, cheaper deliver of a lower bandwidth service to the majority of users. However, the 30% of customers having their internet service delivered by pay TV cable should find the speed more than adequate. So, it’s really less than half of users who will not get the functionality promised by Labor.

The Guardian’s left wing bias is greater in magnitude than the Australian’s right wing tendency and even more overt. Worse, its brand of lefty politics is the hypocritical, sanctimonious cant of middle class, dilettante lefties: the ones who espouse socialism while living in expensive houses and sending their children to private schools.

So, it’s little surprise that the Guardian’s take on the NBN troubles led with:

Coalition’s NBN to cost $12bn more and take four years longer

Strategic review blames cost blowouts and poor management as government breaks promise to deliver NBN by 2016

The Australian and Guardian are both privately owned, so it’s not unreasonable they would each skew their reporting to the politics of their owners. Readers just need to be aware of what to expect.

The problem with the Guardian’s reporting is its blatant misrepresentation, starting with the subheading. It links “cost blowouts and poor management” with “government breaks promise”. Most readers would naturally infer cause and effect ie. poor management by the government has led to a broken electoral promise. I think the Guardian editors are well aware of this and I suggest that was their intention.

In fact, the cost blowouts and poor management were due to the previous government: this one has only been in power three months.

There is a ranking of seriousness of misdeeds in journalism. There’s bias in the selection of the headline and the order of reporting of the facts. That’s largely unavoidable and at least educated readers can see through this.

Then there is selective omission of facts and information which do not support the editorial agenda. That is worse than the bias of order choice because it is directly misleading.

In a similar vein, linking partial descriptions of facts to convey a false impression is worse than mere bias: it is dishonesty. It renders the article propaganda.

Even if the reader senses the article has been selective in its reporting of facts, it's often difficult and sometimes practically impossible to discover the full context.

The first half of the Guardian’s coverage is devoted almost entirely to the time and cost overruns in the Coalition’s plan. It is not until well into its second half that we find out Labor’s 100% optical fibre plan was not scheduled to be completed until 2024. That’s clear bias, but at least the fact is there.

But when do we discover how much Labor’s plan actually cost? You can find the figure $73B in small print type, in the last row of a table, at the end of the article … with no mention of the fact Labor’s original budget was $44B.

That’s the difference between The Australian and The Guardian’s reportage: the former is predictably biased, whereas the latter is predictably dishonest. And these are the people with whom our government broadcaster wants a closer working relationship.

Surely You Jest, Kim

Kim Kardashian is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her appearing topless in Kanye West’s video? A shamelessly tacky self promoter who in many people’s opinion contrived to “leak” her own sex tape is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her getting her tits out?

Are you serious? Being American and not Jewish, she therefore has no sense of irony, so I can only draw the conclusion she IS serious.

It gets better:

“Her sisters Kourtney and Khloe¹ are also said to be stunned at their sibling's decision to bare her chest. They are thought to have questioned how it will affect Kim and Kanye's five-month-old daughter North when she's older.”

Of course, the entire family’s utter lack of class will not pose any problems for the child.

Kim Kardashian didn’t seem too mortified when the world was watching her sucking on a black man’s dick. Yes, she sued, but then took the cash. $5M of it. I wonder what Paris Hilton got for hers. Not a sausage, she claims. At least she put more effort into sucking a cock than Kimmy did.

Then Kimmy gave interviews about the tape. I find it very difficult to believe that in litigious modern America, if she were genuinely aggrieved, a family with that amount of money and legal contacts could not have made life very difficult for Ray J.

It makes me think the mother put her up to it. That woman is seriously fucked in the head. Effectively naming all her daughters after her, she seems to view them as extensions of herself. As far as I can tell, she constantly manipulates her daughters as some form of proxy attention seeking, although she seeks enough attention on her own. Who had the idea to make a show all about their family in the first place?

Wikipedia claims it was Ryan Seacrest, of American Idol fame. But why would he have thought of the Kardashians without some prompting? Keeping Up With The Kardashians was announced in August 2007, first aired in October and the sex tape appeared that February. The series would have taken some planning, even prior to filming and editing. When was the pitch to the studio made? Some time around February 2007, I’d suggest.

Read the synopsis of episode 4 of season 1: Kim’s Playboy shoot. Kris Jenner encourages her to do it and ends up in a shoot herself. Hmm …

Can we let Charles Manson out for a day? Tell him the letter K is evil.

¹ The fat one.

We Need To Clarify Manslaughter, Not Enact Unjust One Punch Death Laws

Reactionary law is usually rushed and rushed law is almost inevitably bad law.

Last year I wrote about the serious flaws in both the construction and practical implementation of Western Australia’s “one punch death” law. Its biggest problem is that by removing the “reasonably foreseeable” test, this law does not distinguish the wide range of culpability which exists in practice. This leads to injustice at both ends of the spectrum of severity as police apply the law in blanket fashion.

People who should be charged with manslaughter will instead be charged with assault occasioning death because of the much greater ease in securing a conviction. People involved in fair fights or possibly even defending themselves will be charged with the same offence. The police’s attitude will be to charge everyone and let the courts sort it out.

Now the NSW government wants to bring in a one punch death law, but with harsher penalties available. The tipping point was the light sentence handed down to Kieran Loveridge for the king hit manslaughter of teenager, Thomas Kelly.

My main point in this post is that we don’t need a new law, particularly one which will deal with circumstances which are already covered by existing law. What is required is proper clarification of the definition of manslaughter, including self defence and provocation, together with the ability to add circumstances of aggravation to the charge. The latter could deal with king hits, stomping, attacking a defenceless person and other acts which could reasonably be foreseen to result in grievous harm and possibly death.

In NSW, S18 of the Crimes Act deals with murder and manslaughter:

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

The problem with this current statute is: what do we mean by “punishable homicide”? This is what needs to be made clear. However, “one punch death” laws will not achieve this. In fact, having another law on the statute which largely overlaps and effectively competes with manslaughter will most likely cause confusion and injustice.

Not all homicides are punishable. Some are purely accidental. Some are in self defence.

Even amongst the set of all punishable homicides, there is a broad range of culpability, not taken into account by “one punch death” laws, as these typically remove the test of death or grievous injury being reasonably foreseeable.

The proposed law will not alter the treatment of situations where a person causes the death of another, but purely through accident or misadventure. These are not considered manslaughter now and would not be covered by a one punch death law, since no unlawful assault has occurred.

However, the proposed law may impinge on the right to self defence. Suppose a person is punched and punches their attacker to prevent being further assaulted. Suppose that the original attacker then falls, hits their head and dies. Most people would agree that this is not a punishable homicide.

But what if the police decide to lay an assault occasioning death charge on the grounds both parties were involved in a fight? It could easily happen. Even if the defendant successfully defends the charge by proving self defence (hence there was no unlawful assault in the first place), how much emotional and financial stress will they have suffered? What if a conviction carried a mandatory jail sentence, as is being proposed by some dim witted, reactionary MPs?

Even without an assault occasioning death law, the police could still lay a charge of manslaughter, however the large body of case law renders a manslaughter prosecution less likely.

It is crucially important that what constitutes self defence is made clear, including the right not to have to first retreat to establish it (which is dangerous). This is as much to prevent the police and DPP harassing innocent people with unfair charges in the first place as it is to prevent wrongful convictions.

Just as important is the clarification of mitigating circumstances, such as provocation. This is rendered even more so by the proposed law’s failure to countenance any mitigation, which is one of its chief injustices.

Suppose a person responded to a continued stream of harassment by snapping and punching their tormentor, who then fell, hit their head and died. Suppose the puncher had been subjected to a lengthy tirade of racial or other bigoted abuse. Now technically, they have committed an assault, which is strictly not self defence because they had not been physically attacked, so there is the distinct possibility the police would lay a charge of unlawful assault occasioning death. Perhaps the defendant could argue the assault was not unlawful because they held a reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of being attacked and perhaps a jury would accept such a defence. But why should it have to come to this?

Under the current manslaughter law, such a situation could still lead to manslaughter charges if the police held some bias against the puncher. But with a decent lawyer, most juries would find them not guilty. However an unlawful assault occasioning death may be much harder to defend, particularly if the dead person’s friends lied in court. If there existed mandatory sentencing, someone would have been sent to jail for reacting to harassment and abuse in a way many of us would.

The unlawful assault occasioning death law is being proposed largely in reaction to recent “king hit” deaths. Let’s be clear what a king hit actually is: a punch when the victim is not looking and has no chance to defend themselves. It is not when someone shapes up to you and you hit them first and knock them down. That is self defence.

The way to deal with king hits or other gutless acts is to allow the addition of circumstances of aggravation to a manslaughter charge, which can then be taken into account during sentencing. This provides all the seriousness required to deal with such offences and sufficient scope for heavy sentences.

My main point here is that if:

1.      What constitutes self defence is made clear,

2.      Mitigating factors such as provocation are clearly set out,

3.      The “reasonably foreseeable” test is kept and misadventure better defined,

4.      Police and prosecutors are given the ability to add circumstances of aggravation,

Then the scope of NSW’s existing S18 b) manslaughter offence (and similar in other jurisdictions) is sufficient to deal with the complete range of deaths resulting from assaults. No blanket “assault occasioning death” law is required. We can concentrate on justice, as opposed to appeasement of the noisy, fearful and angry.

Transurban: Why Not Try Lowering The Toll On The Cross City Tunnel?

Transurban has paid $475 million for Royal Bank of Scotland’s $600 million of senior debt in the Cross City Tunnel. There is a clause which entitles RBS to a further $27.5M if traffic volumes markedly increase, but I think that’s unlikely to be exercised.

In September, the CCT went into receivership for the second time. RBS selling the entirety of the only secured debt at a 20% discount says there is no residual equity value. Thus, Transurban has decided to buy the Cross City Tunnel for about $475M, since their plan is clearly to convert the debt to if not 100% equity, then at least close to it.

Can they make this pay a worthwhile return?

Current estimates for daily traffic flows in the CCT are 36,000. A report with a May 2006 figure shows 34,000, so there hasn't been much improvement over the past 7 years. 36,000 per day at a toll price of $4.95 gives gross revenue of $65M p.a. Some of the 36,000 journeys will be into the harbour tunnel at $2.33 and some will be large vehicles at $9.89. One might balance the other. Then again, it might not. Let’s assume current gross revenue of $60 - 65M p.a.

What would be the CCT’s operating expenses?

More than you’d think if they called in the receivers over a $64M tax debt with a cash flow positive asset. It can’t have been all that positive. Certainly less than $5M p.a. if they couldn’t borrow to pay a one-off tax bill. The linked AFR article above says that RBC Capital estimates EBITDA in the range $25 - 35M, implying operating costs of about $30M p.a. The interest on the $600M is then probably around $35M p.a., although bills + 300 seems a little cheap for the risk of the debt.

Allowing for other expenses, that’s a return on equity of at most 7% for Transurban (assuming they convert the debt).

OK, so where to from there? How could Transurban get to an ROE of 10+%? Increase traffic flows by 40%?

Not with the rip off toll. Traffic flows haven’t increased in 8 years. Why would they start now? It’s the toll which is the problem. Too many people are willing to drive through the city to avoid paying $5. I do, unless the traffic is clearly heavy. I'll even drive down William & Riley Sts to the Harbour Tunnel to avoid the $2.33 toll most times.

Do the arithmetic: Even if you spend an extra 10 minutes in traffic to drive down William, Park & Druitt Sts and onto the Western Distributor, that’s $5 for 10 min work = $30 per hour after tax. Most people don’t earn that in their jobs, so it makes sense to avoid the toll, since the extra travel time is usually closer to 5 min than 10.

For me, avoiding the toll is as much about principle as a rational economic choice. Every dollar I save is a dollar these shifty pricks won't get. Had they priced the toll at a level I consider fair, I'd use their road.

That’s what you’re up against, Transurban. People hate feeling ripped off and many will spend time and effort avoiding it.

Here’s a thought: Why not do some proper behavioural economic research and cash flow modelling, not the dodgy figures consultants are paid to manufacture to meet management’s expectations?

Drivers want to use the tunnel, but not at any price. How about lowering the toll for a while, to say, $3, the same as the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel? Make the Harbour Tunnel exit $2. Do some serious market research, then if it’s positive, advertise the new tolls properly and see what happens.

Traffic flows would need to increase to 60,000 per day to achieve the same revenue, so it’s a risky experiment if it fails, because putting the toll back up to $5 could leave the CCT with less traffic than it had originally. Or you could be more conservative and set the toll at $3.50 and aim for 50,000 per day. The worst that could happen is a 3 month trial which fails to significantly increase traffic numbers and costs about $5M in lost revenue.

Is that worth the gamble? Or is 7% ROE a good enough return for risk for your shareholders?

Kieran Loveridge's Sentence Is Too Light, But It Was Never Going To Be 20 Years

I feel for Thomas Kelly’s parents, outraged that the turd who killed their son might be out of jail in a mere four years’ time. Had someone killed my son in similar circumstances, I’d expect a much harsher sentence, as would most parents.

But how long a sentence is reasonable for an 18 year old who kills someone with a gutless, blind-side king hit? 10 years? 15? 20?

Notwithstanding the apparently light punishment, there has been a significant amount of misreporting and misinformed commentary around the prosecution and sentencing in this matter.

Firstly, the DPP were almost certainly correct in downgrading the initial murder charge to manslaughter. Read S18 of the NSW Crimes Act carefully, including the definition of grievous bodily harm.

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

Could the prosecution convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that a single punch, albeit a king hit, was thrown at a person of approximately the same size and age with “reckless indifference to human life”, or that it was thrown with the intent of causing permanent or serious disfigurement?

That would depend significantly on the relative competence of the prosecution and defence, which is hardly justice. Despite Kieran Loveridge being a waste of DNA who will almost certainly be a net drain on society his whole life, I don’t think he is actually guilty of murder. My sense is that’s how a lot of jurors would see it.

At least a downgrading of the charges to manslaughter secured a conviction for a serious offence (probably the correct one), particularly given the guilty plea. The DPP reduced the risk to justice to a single factor: the judge. As it happened, Justice Stephen Campbell let the community down. However, that is not the fault of the DPP. Nor is it the fault of the government: a manslaughter conviction has always provided adequate scope for an appropriate sentence.

Thomas Kelly’s mother’s complaint that “her family had no rights or say at all” is precisely why the separation of the judiciary and government is so important.

In minor matters, victims have a de facto say by their willingness to pursue the matter and give evidence. In serious matters, victims and their families should have no say at all in the nature of charges laid and eventually prosecuted. That should depend on the application of the law to the circumstances of the case and the evidence available. What is the alternative? Selective prosecution and sentencing based on the grief, anger and philosophy of victims and their families? Blood money?

Secondly, the sentence was not four years. It was seven, with a standard 75% non parole period. The perpetrator, Kieran Loveridge has been in custody since his arrest in July last year, meaning that he has at least another four years to serve.

The maximum available sentence for manslaughter is 25 years, but this would have been discounted for the guilty plea, then further discounted due to the defendant’s age. Thus, Kieran Loveridge almost certainly would not have received more than 15 years, even from a harsh judge. That’s a standard non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, so with time already served, the media would have been reporting 10 years at most.

I believe most of the community would have expected a sentence of more than 7 years, though. 12 would have meant just under another 8 in jail, with good behaviour. Kieran Loveridge would be 27 upon release.

In prison, how much harder criminal would he have become in those prime years from 23 to 27? Is that detriment to the community worth the message of a harsher sentence, as well as allowing the Kelly family more of the feelings of retribution they want and likely deserve? It probably is. If the police keep tabs on Kieran Loveridge after his release, they will be able to tell quickly enough which way he went in jail.

I don’t accept the disadvantaged background = lighter sentence proposition. Justice Campbell stated he had “borne in mind the offender's relative social disadvantage and the difficulties of his upbringing” when deciding on his sentence. This non sequitur seems to have almost been set in stone after the recent High Court ruling.

An explanation is not an excuse. Does the background of the perpetrator make the crime have less impact? Does it mean they are less likely to reoffend? The thesis is that they are less responsible.

So the defendant’s DNA was methylated at key bases due to deprivation and abuse, making certain behaviour more likely. Well, what are any of us responsible for then? To make the environmental argument in a legal setting is a bleeding heart fallacy. It might explain actions, but excuses nothing. Thomas Kelly is just as dead as if he were hit by a private school educated investment banker.

Justice Campbell also stated that in his judgement, “the offender is very unlikely to reoffend”. Really? Why?

Someone from a privileged upbringing, with more support and more to lose is probably less likely to reoffend. Kieran Loveridge is one of society’s dregs. So are his family. His background makes him more likely to reoffend, cancelling out his “deprivation” excuse. This is where Justice Campbell has let the community down: Loveridge should have received no discount due to background or age.

The NSW Attorney General is correct to ask the DPP to appeal against the sentence. However, this is all the government can presently do. There is no need to bring in special laws, almost certainly badly framed. Manslaughter is sufficient. It is Justice Campbell who was the problem in this matter and his sentence is being appealed.

Without breaching the principle of separation of powers, what the government can do is make the judiciary understand community expectations around sentence ranges and the balance of retribution versus rehabilitation for cowardly acts.

What the government should not do is pay heed to ignoramuses like Ray Hadley, who would enact knee jerk responses to every outcome they don’t like, without a glimmer of understanding of the consequences or even inconsistencies. How does calling rugby league games qualify someone to lecture society on points of law?

The Smears Of Mohammed

What are the Smears of Mohammed? Are the Smears a holy relic?

Is there a piece of muslin robe akin to the Shroud of Turin, but covered in brown streaks after Mohammed followed through while scoffing dates?

How do hate protests follow the Smears of Mohammed? Does someone run along waving the Smears, with the crowd behind them screaming: “Death to infidels! No-one may deride our Holy Smears!”?

What if the Smears were dropped in the stampede? Or got wet? How would a devout Muslim know they were the True Smears?

Perhaps the True Smears are kept safely locked away in Mecca, but in a process akin to the Catholic transubstantiation, the smears of any devout Muslim may temporarily become the embodiment of the True Smears in an atmosphere of sufficient religious fervour, such as a mass stoning or the torching of a church.

Now, all of this is very puerile, but that should not be a crime. It is certainly not a justification for murder, assault, arson or any other crime which large groups of disgruntled Muslims have tried to justify under the banner of outrage at blasphemy.

Satire is a vital element of freedom of speech. It doesn’t have to reach a prescribed standard of wit to qualify. Satire with the ironic quality of mocking the people angered by it, rather than the literal target is far more powerful, even if the literal piece is not particularly funny.

Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons on the topic are hardly side splitters per se. But their satire is valid political commentary. Their humour is greatly increased by the fact they satirise the people who are angered by them, rather than the literal targets.

The Onion loves stirring the religious pot. "Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood" is gold (especially the picture). Their more recent blasphemy: "Archaeologists Discover Site Where Desperate Jesus Christ Turned Tricks" seems not to have evoked a wave of fundamentalist Christian demonstrations, beheadings or bombings. Now imagine the speculative violence which would have ensued had the piece been written about Mohammed.

Here’s another one. It is literally directed at pretty much every mainstream religion but Islam, although actually directed at anyone in favour of blasphemy laws, particularly Islamists. It is obscene and childish, but has a reasonable point: Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are not taking to the streets as a result, threatening death to all infidels and blasphemers, assaulting people, burning cars and buildings. As the article said: “No-one murdered because of this image … upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”

In an open society, citizens would never tolerate laws preventing cartoons or literature mocking or satirizing politicians or political parties and their supporters. In fact, this is an entrenched part of political discourse in free societies. Even debasement via ridiculous depiction comes within the ambit of our freedom of expression, as this gem from Pickering testifies:

Ridiculing self important or moralizing targets by depicting them engaged in some sexually deviant act is a common device, favoured by schoolboys and professional cartoonists alike.

If politicians are fair game, why are religious leaders and figures exempt?

A cartoon showing Cardinal George Pell being blown by an altar boy while writing a letter calling for the sacking of the rector of St. John’s College may be in poor taste (to some), but it makes a valid point. How about a cartoon of the Pope stoking his fireplace with copies of reports of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, while dictating a sermon on the sin of contraception?

Many people who aren’t even Catholic would consider satirizing the Pope crossing the line. But this taboo is absurd: it’s a culturally inherited relic of feudalism.

Religion is political philosophy with some fabricated metaphysics and revelations from “higher beings” added as justification for claiming the correctness of the philosophy and hence the error of all others. The metaphysical and revelational components are almost necessarily articles of faith because they are almost certainly untrue. In many cases, the claims are at least practically and often literally untestable. Many other claims are either directly falsifiable or patently absurd.

Adherents who believe the metaphysical and revelational aspects of their religion as articles of faith tend to believe the social and moral elements as corollaries. They are “God’s laws”: instructions for how to live. Hence, religion and politics cannot be separated, since religion tells us all the correct way to live and politics is about how we live together.

These are the people who are dangerous to those who reject their beliefs. They are precisely the types of people who make the ideals of secularism, liberalism and freedom of expression so important.

They are the types who co-opt the law to proscribe blasphemy, which may include telling them their beliefs are delusions.

The likely falsity of the metaphysical and revelational claims religions use to justify their moral and political pre and proscriptions does not invalidate the latter, many of which are reasonable in a liberal society. It simply means that any reasonable moral and political positions need alternative justification, by logical argument and (God forbid) evidence. This is in part how people of religious faith can comfortably live in, support and in fact, create a secular society.

However, part of freedom of speech in an open, liberal and hence secular society is the right to satirise inconsistent and hypocritical philosophical perspectives, which includes religions.

Suppose the beginning of this post had satirized the Shroud of Turin. I’m sure plenty of lefties would have smugly agreed with it. But Mohammed? His worshippers are brown. This article should not be published because it is inflammatory. It reveals me as another crypto-racist!

No it doesn’t. There is no Muslim gene. Their DNA is not the issue. Muslims’ mediaeval, superstitious stupidity is just as bad as Catholics, Baptists or any other white, religious people.

If the left truly believe in a secular society, they must support the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and its extension to satire, not selectively apply it to religions favoured by white people.

And Muslims living in Western societies who use blasphemy as a cover for speculative aggression should be deported. Send them back to the societies whose institutions and structures derive from their interpretation of their religion.

Why Was It Necessary To Go To The High Court For Some Common Sense?

Late last year, I wrote about a workplace injury claim in which the full bench of the Federal Court awarded a public servant compensation for an injury incurred while having sex in her motel room during a work trip.

Initially refused by workplace insurer Comcare, this speculative claim had been to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court. Now, finally, the High Court has rejected the claim.

It only took six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money, but these factors have little relevance to bureaucrats on the public teat.

How could this matter have been allowed to go all the way to the High Court? Comcare have done nothing wrong: they had to appeal the matter because the Federal Court had set a ridiculous and potentially very expensive precedent.

Why did it take all this time and money to find a set of judges with the common sense to say what almost all citizens expect the law to be?

"In order for an injury sustained in an interval or interlude during an overall period of work to be in the course of an employee's employment, the circumstances in which the employee was injured must be connected to an inducement or encouragement by the employer. If the employee is injured whilst engaged in an activity at a certain place, that connection does not exist merely because of an inducement or encouragement to be at that place.”

Exactly. Only acts necessary to the proper performance of your job are induced by your employer. Having sex is not one of them. Neither is playing cards, Justice Bozo of the Federal Court.

It's all very well to argue that this case tests the distinction between work related and personal activities and that the High Court is the best instution to rule on this. It probably is, however this matter should have been clear cut and the Federal Court should have been able to be trusted to set the correct precedent. Amazingly, even the High Court's ruling was not unanimous.

A significant amount of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this matter. There now needs to be a reckoning on our behalf.

Firstly, the Federal Court ruling is incompetent and clearly at odds with public expectations. These judges deserve to be censured.

How was this woman able to appeal to the Federal Court in the first place? I doubt she was funding it herself.

A no win, no fee legal firm? Perhaps. If this were the case, they and the plaintiff should be jointly and severally liable for costs for such an obviously frivolous and speculative claim, funded as it would have been by a bunch of lawyers on the make.

More likely, the plaintiff obtained legal aid. If this occurred, whoever at Legal Aid wasted scarce funding on this matter should be sacked. This is not why taxpayers agree to fund some citizens’ legal actions.

Lastly, with the matter decided, the ban on publishing the woman’s name should be lifted. Her claim is clearly meretricious. Taxpayers have a right to know who has tried to rip us off. If the publicity discourages similar, future claims, all the better. Proven grifters should not be allowed to maintain a cloak of anonymity.

Is It Racist To Refuse To Shake A Black Person's Hand After Reading This?

Reports of penis stealing via witchcraft are again sweeping Western and Central Africa. The specific method is apparently a special handshake, whereupon the victim’s genitalia magically disappear. What the thief does with his hoard of stolen penises remains a mystery.

Cries of whatever “Fuck! Someone’s swiped me knob!” is in Yoruba quickly generate mass hysteria, followed by the summary execution of anyone deemed suspicious, usually an outsider. No-one in the crowd seems to be capable of stopping and saying: “Seriously? Your knob has been stolen? Show us.”

Of course, when they arrive in Europe, they’ll culturally advance a thousand years overnight and fit right in. Or do only educated Africans get on boats to cross the Mediterranean?

Next time I meet an African man, what will I say to avoid any awkwardness, yet ensure my manhood is safe?

I’ve found: “I won’t shake your hand … mine still has some semen on it” has worked a treat in the past.

No Freedom Of Conscience When It Comes To Abortion

If a patient requests an abortion or advice on having an abortion, should a doctor be punished for refusing to refer that patient to another doctor who will provide the advice, or indeed, the abortion?

Victorian GP, Dr. Mark Hobart is being pursued by the state’s Medical Practitioners’ Board for precisely this reason.

Doctors in Australia who are qualified to perform surgery are generally only required by law to perform an abortion in cases when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. However, S8 of Victoria’s Abortion Law Reform Act (2008) requires that in other circumstances, a doctor having a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a patient “to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion”.

There’s a hole in that last clause: the practitioner can claim they do not know another qualified doctor who will perform or advise on the requested abortion. This is Mark Hobart’s defence. In this particular case, an Indian couple wanted to abort a 19 week old foetus because it was female. Dr Hobart claims that he does not know of any doctor who would perform an abortion for reasons of sex selection. He may be right: Victoria’s largest abortion provider, the Fertility Control Clinic states:

“It is extremely rare for us to receive requests for gender-selection abortion and we do not acquiesce to such requests.”

It would be simple enough for a woman or couple to get around this by claiming depression and / or extreme anxiety due to not being able to cope with having a baby at this time of their life. It would also be a simple matter for the couple to just go to another GP, or look on the internet. I typed “Victoria abortion clinics” into Google. Here is what came up first.

Yet the Victorian Medical Practitioners’ Board is pursuing Mark Hobart under S8(1) on an “own motion”. That’s right … Board members have brought the complaint themselves. One might well ask how the Board can credibly act as both prosecution and judge.

In a twisted irony, Dr Hobart’s persecution ensued from his own contact with the Board: when he discovered another doctor had subsequently performed the abortion, he filed a complaint on the grounds that it was knowingly performed for the reason of sex selection, without there being a heritable, gender related condition. In response, some Board members decided to anonymously bring the “own motion” against Dr Hobart. They had no problem pandering to third world cultural practices, however.

One might also ask why the doctor’s accusers on the Board have not been forced to identify themselves. This is not how things work in an open society. A person should always have the right to know his or her accusers and the face them openly. How much weight should we place on charges when those bringing them so lack the courage of their convictions that they seek to hide behind a bureaucratic cloak of anonymity?

The lefties at Crikey have sought to make an issue of the fact that Dr Hobart is a Catholic and a member of the DLP. But so what? It is not necessary for him to detail the set of his political and religious beliefs and affiliations in order to make a philosophical argument. Should everyone commenting publicly on same sex marriage be required to state their sexual preferences?

That the writer (and editor) of one particular story did not uncover these facts is sloppy journalism. The Herald Sun made the connection. Regardless of us explicitly knowing Dr Hobart’s political and religious perspective, the motivations behind such stances are generally not difficult to guess. However, they are not the point.

If a doctor refuses to provide or even give advice on how to obtain a medical procedure which he or she deems unnecessary (or destructive) and moreover, does not seek reimbursement for the consultation, why should they face censure? This is not a case of harm to a patient ensuing from refusal of treatment. Nor is it a negligent diagnosis stemming from perverse beliefs: the doctors at the Fertility Control Clinic probably hold a substantially different set of beliefs, yet stated that neither would they perform an abortion under such circumstances.

I think Catholicism contains a plethora of perverse beliefs. However, that is not the issue in this matter. What is at issue is a professional’s right to abstain from actions which are contrary to their philosophical principles, where such abstention does no material harm.

It does not matter whether you or I agree with Mark Hobart’s principles. He is not required to agree with us either. What he is required to do, as a licenced doctor, is competently treat patients. He is not required to perform what many doctors would agree is an unnecessary surgical procedure. Nor should he be required to scout around for a doctor who would be prepared to perform such a procedure. The patient should do that for themselves.

This matter makes a good case study in the difference in approach between genuine Liberals and the left, who are not Liberal in any true sense.

The attitude of both the conservatives and (in this case) the left is: if you do not buy into our world view, you must be punished and excluded. That is how people whose positions derive from ideology rather than evidence and reason tend to react to dissent. You see the same thing with both the secular left and the religious right. Because neither can refute the dissenter with argument, they use their illegitimate power to concoct rules and procedures and use these to stifle opposing views.

The purpose of the draconian S8(1) is not to formalise a woman’s right to an abortion. The remainder of the Act achieves that. S8(1)’s purpose is to force acquiescence to the ideology of those who drafted the Act, under threat of loss of career. That is its evil.

There already exist provisions for censuring doctors who fail in their duty of care. If a patient presents with symptoms of psychological distress about their pregnancy and requests an abortion, any doctor who does not provide abortions is negligent in their duty of care if they do not properly refer the patient. This scenario is already covered under general negligence. It does not need reinforcement with S8(1).

If a patient requests an abortion for the reason of gender selection, some doctors would perform it and some would refuse on the grounds the procedure is unnecessary. Those who refuse in such circumstances should be free to do so, regardless of whether you or I agree with the underlying philosophical motivation. If the patient is not in genuine distress, there is no failure of care. The patient can go and find a doctor who will perform the abortion. Additionally, they can pay for it themselves. I have no problem with my taxes being spent on providing abortions for women who need them, but there is no way I want to fund medical procedures for “lifestyle” reasons.