Justice Done As Passengers Throw Bogan Scrag Off Train

Many people would have already seen the Youtube video of the drunken bogan woman swearing at, hitting and spitting at passengers on a Sydney suburban train. Eventually, as the train pulls into Hurstville station (in Sydney’s south), the young guys filming her grab her bags, then throw them and her out onto the platform. With the hypocrisy so common to grubs, she then yells to the station guard: “Officer, I’ve been assaulted!”. You can tell the station is Hurstville from the sign on the platform at 13:45 into the video. At 14:08, one of the passengers asks: “What station are we at?” His mate replies: “Hurstville.”

This is how idiots should be dealt with: quickly, summarily and without excessive force. She wasn’t a serious physical threat to anyone (even the middle aged man she hit for telling her to sit down and shut up); just a nuisance who had escalated to intolerable. None of the young guys punched or even slapped her. In fact, one of them can be heard telling her: “I don’t hit women” when she spat on him and challenged him to a fight. When the train finally stopped, they just picked up her bags and threw them out the door, then threw her out after them.

In a liberal society, people should have the right to use an appropriate level of force to defend themselves against not just direct physical attack, but against nuisances such as this bogan scrag.

No one flattened the woman in the video. She wasn’t punched and held down until she agreed to be quiet. That is what would have happened to a man behaving as she did. Despite her breaking the tacit taboo against women threatening men (the quid pro quo being that men don’t hit women), she still wasn’t hit. There was a small and appropriate level of violence used to throw her off the train. Of course the guys laughed at her afterward: by her behaviour, she deserved ridicule.

Women can’t have it doth ways. If you behave like a lady, you’ll be treated like one … and yes, men will have significant input to what behaviour constitutes “ladylike”, because that is what exempts women from male social rules concerning appropriate uses of violence. If some women break the taboo against threatening and physically attacking men (or other women important to them), they are likely to receive violence in return, because that’s how many men deal with physical threats. If violence wasn’t effective in immediately countering violence, the police wouldn’t need to be armed.

An open society doesn’t need police to solve minor problems such as this. Suppose the police had been called. Even had they made it to Hurstville prior to the train, everyone would still have been held up as the train was stopped while the woman was removed and (possibly) arrested. Some might say that this is the correct course of action: better that people on the train suffer the inconvenience of a time delay in order to have authorized security or police deal with the matter.

No it isn’t. Just chuck her off and let everyone get on with their journey. The passengers have been inconvenienced enough by her behaviour; no need to add to it by stopping the train.

“Oh, but if citizens take the law into their own hands, they or she might have been injured.”

So what? That’s a risk adult citizens should be entitled to decide for themselves. In a liberal democracy, citizens make the laws. They are already in OUR hands. If police are not around, citizens should and do have the right to enforce our laws. Ever heard of a citizen’s arrest?

In NSW, it’s Section 100 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Section 231 says that only sufficient force required to make and maintain the arrest is allowed to be used.

The guys on the train effectively arrested the woman, then let her go. They actually used less force than would have been required to hold her until the police arrived (as would have been their duty after exercising their right to make an arrest). In any sensible society, police looking at this video would say: “Fair enough” and get on with some real police work.

Looking at the incident and its outcome, I reckon justice was done. The summary action of the passengers was a far better outcome than wasting the time of police and witnesses, not to mention the expense of a court hearing.

The reporting of this story in Britain is quite revealing. The Daily Mail, hardly a lefty flag bearer, ends its article with a quote from a Brit:

Michael Murphy added: 'Why can't passengers do this in my country? Everyone just stands around and pretends it's not happening.'

That’s what happens in a nanny state. Nobody will take any action in case they are accused themselves. Better to all just suffer in silence and wait for “the authorities”. Even if they do turn up before the person leaves, the police probably won’t do anything meaningful either, in case they are accused, particularly if the perpetrator (read “victim”) is not white.

Can you imagine if the spitting bogan thrown off the train was an Aboriginal woman? We’d have had lefty hand wringers crying racism and the press calling Anthony Mundine for a quote.

Had it occurred in America, the woman would probably have manufactured an injury, then sued the guys, with aggravated damages for the “humiliation” of putting the video on Youtube.

Let’s continue to deal with minor incidents in an informal, Australian way, rather than emulating the spineless nanny statism of the Brits or the ridiculous litigiousness of the Yanks.

The Macquarie Dictionary Of Newspeak

Misogyny means hating women as women. Someone who hates a particular woman or group of women as a result of their actions, political positions or some other reason is not necessarily a misogynist. The many facets of a person’s identity are not relevant to a misogynist: they hate women on an ontological level, purely on the basis of the qualities of their gender.

Misogyny is a pathology. It is visceral. It is not the same as paternalism (believing that women, among others, are not suitable for positions of responsibility), sexism (prejudice against women) or chauvinism (being a biased supporter of your own side ie. men). Misogyny is far stronger and its consequences are abnormal social interaction, often associated with violence.

Thus, the Macquarie Dictionary changing its definition of misogyny to include “an entrenched prejudice against women” is absurd. Entrenched prejudice is sexism, which does not require hatred.

Most people love their own children and are fond of children in general, but treat them with prejudice. We don’t allow them to drive, vote, drink alcohol, obtain credit or a host of other freedoms reserved for adults, because we believe they are incapable of handling the responsibility. Men did not hate women in the entrenched prejudice of 1950’s or Victorian era sexism; they simply believed women were not capable of a range of tasks and responsibilities reserved for men.

To suggest these types of “entrenched prejudice” derive from misogyny is absurd: they derive from feelings of paternalistic superiority.

Both sexism and misogyny are serious matters, however I suggest that instances of genuine misogyny are more serious than instances of sexism. Although sexism and misogyny are correlated, they usually have different psychological and social origins. Thus, we should use different words to talk about them and not confuse the two concepts.

People often misuse words. Sometimes that misuse can perpetuate itself and even become common. That does not make the usage correct. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some ignoramus say “in agreeance”. Will the Macquarie Dictionary now include “agreeance” as an English word?

It is not sufficient for a significant proportion of the population to misuse a word for its meaning to actually change. These people have not deliberately used the word in an alternative context. Their variant usage is unintentional and is just plain wrong.

For a word to actually change its meaning, it must be persistently and deliberately used in such an alternative way. One possibility is via slang. For example, “sick” can now mean “good”.

Moreover, deliberately misusing a word for a political purpose does not count. To conflate misogyny and chauvinism or sexism in order to reduce your opponent’s standing in the eyes of female voters does not magically alter the meaning of the word misogyny. The speaker is simply being dishonest.

Of course, words do change their meanings over time. The word “egregious” used to mean remarkable or distinguished in the sense of great importance. Now it means remarkable or distinguished in the sense of outstandingly bad or wicked.

For example, Princess Mary, mother of George V’s wife Queen Mary, was widely reported to be rather large. In fact, she had the nickname “Fat Mary”. In its former usage, one might have said that Princess Mary had an egregious vagina, in the sense that it was both large and quite important. Nowadays, using those two concepts in a sentence would be more along the lines of: “You sir, are an egregious cunt!”

The purpose of a dictionary is not merely to reflect currently reported usage. It is to defend against malapropism by instructing the ignorant on what the words actually do mean. In particular, a dictionary should be an accurate record of a language. Its editors have a responsibility to distinguish genuine cultural changes in the usage of words from ignorant or deliberate misuse for political purposes.

The attempt by left wing feminists to paint anyone expressing sexist or chauvinist sentiments as misogynist appears to be a calculated campaign. Is its real purpose to make people believe that anyone thinking women are less able than men at certain tasks or that women should behave differently to men in social settings does so because they actually hate women and therefore have a behavioural disorder, the result being to equate sexism with mental problems?

I suggest that is their true purpose. These are typical tactics of the left: social engineering via the appropriation and control of language. Deliberately alter the meaning of a word reserved for a psychological disorder so that it will now be used to describe anyone accused of behaving in a patronising or exclusionary manner towards women. Now any criticism of a woman can be met with accusations of misogyny, therefore we can exclude the criticiser from debate on the grounds of lunacy.

Want to stifle legitimate debate over one of your ideologically derived positions? Just label your opponent a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever category of thought criminal you decide.

“Women are statistically underrepresented in senior management. That proves discrimination. We must legislate to overturn this entrenched male privilege.”

“Of course they are underrepresented. They probably always will be. Most women in management take time out to have children. That puts their career back because their male peers increase their job specific knowledge and professional contacts more during that period. It's hard enough for men to climb the management ladder.”

“Well, that just shows that the whole system is rigged by the sexist patriarchy of which you are a part. Misogynist!”

A dictionary especially should not involve itself in politics and social engineering, which is what I suspect is the root of the Macquarie Dictionary’s attempt to alter the meaning of “misogyny”.

To quote editor Sue Butler:

“Misogyny was strict hatred of women and it probably does need a second definition to cover entrenched prejudices of women, as opposed to an out and out fundamental horror at women. We need to add a second definition, which is slightly stronger than sexist but heading in that direction towards entrenched prejudice rather than a visceral hatred.”

Why would a person with an apparently strong grasp of language say that we need to add a second definition, which conflates strongly sexist attitudes (which do not require hatred) with the pathology of a visceral, ontological hatred of women ... unless perhaps they are a fellow traveller, happy to play a part in the social engineering campaign.

As a custodian of linguistic record, the alternative course of action for the Macquarie Dictionary would have been to correct Julia Gillard et al’s misuse of the word, then point out the true meanings of all the words being bandied about.

We could have an evidence based discussion of sexism and genuine gender differences and roles. Perhaps we could even do it in such a way that men would be interested in participating.

For all the plaudits surrounding Julia Gillard’s “defining” speech, it was largely a rallying diatribe to the sisterhood. Do women actually think any men were won over? Because if you don’t care what men thought of the speech, or whether they even listened to it at all, all the sexism and “misogyny” you’re complaining about won’t go away.

If Julia Gillard and other feminists want men to actually listen, they’ll need a less shrill approach. Because if Julia gave that speech to a group of men, one would be blowing a vuvuzuela and another would have their hand cupped to their ear, saying: “What’s that? No, sorry … can’t hear a word you’re saying, love.”

There Are Some Ladies Here To Put Their Heads In Your Pants

In the field of comedic yobbery, that’s just gold: inane, but memorable and able to be adapted to a multitude of situations. It could be offensive, except it barely makes sense.

You could have a butler entering a drawing room, or a concierge entering an office:

“Excuse me, sir, there are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

“Excellent. Please show them in.”

The behaviour of the Canterbury Bulldogs on their Mad Monday celebrations was certainly disappointing - disappointing that three offensive comments (see embedded video), called out from a window:

“There are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

“Suck me off, you dumb dog.”

“I want to punch you in the face.”

were all that a club with a strong reputation for sexist yobbery could muster on its designated day for bad behaviour. The last one was even sung.

I would have at the very least expected a large barrage of barking noises to have accompanied “Suck me off, you dumb dog”, followed by a couple of players with bags over their heads dancing nude in the window.

Despite their absurd protestations to the contrary, Channel Nine went out of their way to provoke the players and then acted extremely preciously when they got exactly the result they were after.

Even though the Canterbury players were locked away inside Belmore Oval, Channel Nine flew over it in a helicopter, then sent reporter Jayne Azzopardi and crew down to hang around outside with a directional microphone, which they must have had to pick up what was being said through an open window 50m away.

What genuine news value is there in hanging around outside a locked gate, waiting for a bunch of drunken blokes to do something which can be construed as wrong (which they inevitably will), then broadcasting it, accompanied by finger pointing and confected outrage? If this is what passes for journalistic standards at Nine, it’s no wonder Seven is beating them in the ratings.

All the precious indignation from Jayne Azzopardi is disingenuous in the extreme. You’re not a sport reporter. You weren’t invited. You have no relationship with the players. They are at a private function. So what were you doing there? Why should they treat you with any respect when you were clearly there for an opportunistic and negative report? Why do you think you can antagonize people, but they shouldn’t say anything nasty in return?

“Oh, but the comments were demeaning and disrespectful to all women. I don’t think that any woman should have to put up with that and no man should think it’s OK to say those things.”

What? No man should ever belittle a woman sexually or make sexist comments part of an insult?

Because women never belittle men sexually, do they? Never make insinuations about penis size?

It’s not nice, but insults are meant to be offensive, you stupid bitch. We insult people when we’re angry. The more offensive, the better. If you’d made some effort to greet the players and hadn’t been so obviously looking to manufacture a negative story, you wouldn’t have been insulted in the first place.

How will respectful behaviour toward women be made more likely by an unwelcome female reporter antagonizing a bunch of yobby blokes who are drinking inside private premises? Do you think you can irritate whoever you like, then bung on an act of righteous indignation when those blokes say something rude to you?

Now they really do think you are a dumb bitch. So do most other men who say these types of things to women who annoy them. These are the people whose behaviour you are trying to change. Do you think they now have more respect for and less suspicion of women they don’t know?

Channel Nine hasn’t even reported either the text or the context of the comments accurately. It now appears that the first comment was in fact

“There are some ladies here to put their hands in your pants.”

and derives from Youtube footage of a previous event in England where an old lady put her hand down the back of player (and ear biter) James Graham’s pants.

It was probably literally directed at James Graham or another player, but really intended for Jayne Azzopardi. The “Suck me off, you dumb dog”, was almost certainly directed at her, despite the risible dissembling in the subsequent report by the Bulldogs’ management.

The alleged insult: “I want to punch you in the face” was sung to the tune of a Barney song to a guy dressed in a Barney costume, according to the Bulldogs report. Could be true. It was certainly sung, so couldn’t be construed as aggressively as Channel Nine have insinuated.

This whole episode has just been bullshit heaped upon bullshit heaped upon bullshit, all because the media want to make a headline out of any behaviour by footballers which is even mildly offensive or below par. They haven’t had any sex scandals or drunken violence lately, but can’t move on to another topic.

Channel Nine went looking for a negative story, then pretended they didn’t. They have inflated a minor incident with confected outrage, then pretended they haven’t. The Bulldogs’ management produced a “report” which is full of dissembling, but pretends that everyone should accept it or “agree to disagree”. They then paid a $30,000 “fine” to charity. What a load of crap that never needed to happen. What a waste of time and money.

The fact that teams have to be shut away in private premises for Mad Monday shows that the venerable institutional piss up is probably on its way out. But surely it could go out in a blaze of glory. If this is the best modern players can come up with, they may as well just call it Sane Monday.

The ARL could handle all these incidents far better. They don’t need to make hand wringing press statements after each one. The less they say, the better.

Players need to understand that their high salaries come from sponsorship. Gate takings will not be sufficient to pay them $200,000+ a year. Players bring in part of their own incomes by attracting sponsors. If sponsorship falls, their salaries will also fall, so if they behave in ways which will cause sponsors to leave, they get paid less. It’s pretty simple. This should be (and I believe usually is) written into contracts.

The ARL should have responded to this incident by simply saying: “We fined Canterbury under the behaviour clause in the ARL sponsorship agreement. It’s up to the club how they subsequently discipline the players. If they keep behaving badly, they’ll keep getting fined until they learn not to. No, we don’t think the behaviour is acceptable, that’s why we fined the club.”

Just leave it at that and it would all have blown over in a week.

Alternatively, why not have some clubs who don’t care if middle class women don’t support them? Let them decide on their own fan base and sponsorship. The Bulldogs manager could have held a press conference to “apologize” on behalf of the club. Halfway through, an aide could have come over, leaned in his ear and said, just loudly enough to be heard:

“Excuse me, sir, there are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

As the audience turned to see a couple of tarts just behind the curtain, he could say: “I’m sorry, everyone, I’ll have to cut this short. Thank you for your time.”

No "Misunderstanding": All Your Fault

A French customer received a telephone bill from Bouygues Telecom for €11,721,000,000,000,000. That’s 11 quadrillion Euro, roughly 1,000 times the United States government debt.

OK, so computer errors happen and the company cannot know the error has occurred until the customer contacts them to have the problem fixed. The real issue here is that what happened next is symptomatic of the way large organizations, both corporate and government seem to deal with errors entirely of their own making.

The call centre operator told the customer, Solenne San Jose that they could not amend the bill or stop the amount being debited from her account. What a load of bullshit.

It smacks of the all too common try on when poorly trained staff do not know how to fix a problem and are too lazy to go and find out what to do, so they just lie to the customer and pretend they cannot solve the problem in the hope the customer will give up and go away. How many of us have experienced this crap?

Many readers might be thinking: Call centre … India or Philippines (or their Francophone equivalent for those who spotted that the customers would speak French) … what do you expect? But no: according to Bouygues Telecom, they have 6 call centres, all in France.

It took several calls to have the matter resolved. The company finally admitted the real amount was €117.21, then waived it in compensation for the inconvenience (and to try to ameliorate the PR damage), which was the least they should do.

Even then, Bouygues Telecom stated that the problem had been due to

“a printing error and a subsequent misunderstanding between the client and staff at their call centre”

Yes, certainly a printing error, but no “misunderstanding” BETWEEN the customer and your staff. The blame lies entirely at one end: with your idiot employees. Obviously the amount was wrong, so just apologise for the inconvenience and arrange to send a new bill with the correct amount. Even if you can’t work out the correct figure immediately, put a stop on the bill, then refer it. Simple, but still too hard for the staff at Bouygues Telecom.

Why don’t you just tell the truth and admit that your staff should have fixed what was obviously a billing error the first time the customer rang? Don’t pretend it was a “misunderstanding”. Your staff are clearly stupid and poorly trained. That is the fault of management. Rip the call centre manager a new arsehole and have him / her commit to ensuring improved staff training and quality, or be sacked.

Unfortunately, this episode is an example of the way large organizations too often deal with customer complaints, even when as in this case, it’s obviously a system error. First, they require the customer to do most of the work, usually exacerbated by their staff’s failure to promptly identify and solve the problem (even when it’s blindingly obvious). Staff often instinctively deny any responsibility for fixing the problem, or sometimes for the problem itself. Then if the matter does blow up, as in this example, some oily oxygen thief from Corporate Communications adds insult to injury by trying to pretend it was all a “misunderstanding”, the insinuation being that the customer is partly to blame.

It’s part of a modern, Western malaise: nothing is really ever anyone’s fault. No-one will take responsibility for anything and we can’t blame anyone because that would be unfair.

No it isn’t. If a customer tells you they have received a bill for 11 quadrillion Euro and you say you can’t fix it, you are a lazy idiot. Your manager is probably incompetent for inadequately training you or employing you in the first place. Both of you should be told to improve your performance or be sacked.

The correct approach is to take the customer’s details and only call back when the error has been fixed. But how many times have you experienced this? In my experience, it’s a minority of cases. If organizations did this properly at the first contact with the customer, they wouldn’t need bullshit statements from Corporate Communications.

The Price Of Taxi Licences Needs To Be Reduced SLOWLY

The inquiry into the Victorian taxi industry has submitted its report to the Victorian government. This report and its recommendations are in the process of being released publicly.

Various speculations are being made about plans to significantly reduce the cost of a taxi licence and the consequent effect on the financial position of owners who have borrowed large sums to buy existing ones.

Taxi licences are a scarce and closely held asset, particularly in Victoria. If the owner does not wish to drive the taxi themselves, the licence may either be sold or held and only the operating rights transferred ie. the licence is leased.

Page 5 of the inquiry’s fact sheet shows a graph of taxi licence sale prices from 1974 – 2011. They have increased from a value of $20,000 in 1974 to around $500,000 now. That’s an average annual capital gain of 12.7%. In fact, plate prices have only been rising since mid 1982. That’s an average annual increase of 18% since 1982. In comparison, average inflation has been 7.35% p.a. since Dec 1974 and 6.1% p.a. since June 1982. Even factoring in real economic growth, per capita GDP, a better estimator of the long term growth of asset values such as property or taxi plates, has only risen by an average of 9.6% p.a. and 9.25% p.a. over the respective periods.

The graph on page 2 of the inquiry’s fact sheet shows taxi licence “assignment fees” ie. yearly lease charges are now over $30,000 p.a., giving an effective rental yield varying between 6 and 7.5% since Jan 2004. With rental returns significantly greater than residential property, no wonder taxi plates have increased in price so much … and no wonder so many licence holders are keeping them and renting out their plates. The fact sheet says that approximately 80% of Melbourne taxi licences are leased out. Some people own several licences.

The price of taxi plates is clearly too high. The rate of increase over the past 30 years has been twice that of per capita GDP. That is unsustainable. It has reached the point where the yearly lease fees are so high that fares must increase beyond a point the public will tolerate just to allow the tenant drivers to make a normal wage.

Now, somewhat ironically, we have a new class of rentiers earning high rental yields and until recently, even higher capital gains from licences to drive a taxi which have been turned into classic cash flow assets. This situation has developed over the past 30 years as successive governments have ignored and thus exacerbated the problem by not continuously releasing enough new taxi licences into the market, while facilitating the creation of this asset class by allowing the licences to be leased.

Prices and lease rates of taxi licences need to fall in real terms ie. versus per capita GDP. However, to abruptly decrease the value of licences by immediately selling a large number of new ones at heavily discounted prices and / or removing the right of “assignment” would have disastrous consequences for particularly those owner drivers who have borrowed to buy their plates. Additionally, it would irresponsibly expose Australian banks to significant and unnecessary credit risk and have a knock on effect on bank share prices and superannuation accounts.

Banks will typically lend up to 50% against the value of a taxi licence. This means prospective purchasers must come up with $250,000 of their own. Some borrow a large proportion of this against their home. So, suppose the government decides to flood the market and sell an additional 1,000 licences for $250,000 each (there are currently around 5,250 Victorian taxi licences).

What would happen to all the people who have borrowed the money to buy a licence for $500,000? If banks decide to call in loans because of the decrease in collateral, they will lose their plates and / or their homes. In fact, banks probably won’t call in the loans as long as the repayments are being made. They don’t call in home loans when property values fall because they know they’d destroy the value of their collateral even further.

However, the banks will be exposed to much greater credit risk because of the decrease in collateral values. They will need to provision these loans and also take a higher capital charge. This will affect profits, dividends and thus their stock prices and the value of many Australians’ super.

Aside from the responsibility of government to minimize the human cost, it would be economic vandalism. Some might argue that most plate holders have owned them for a significant period of time and have had it too good for too long. Those who bought recently are like property owners who buy at the peak of the cycle and just have to suffer the consequences. However, there is a gentler and more economically stable solution. It is possible to manage taxi plate prices and lease rates down slowly in real terms over a long period.

Fortunately, taxi plates are an asset class in which prices can be slowly deflated. Extra taxi plates can gradually be released, at the prevailing market rate of $500,000, or a not excessive discount to it. If the population of Melbourne is growing at 2% p.a., ceteris paribus there will be demand for about 100 new plates per year. That’s $50M p.a. in revenue to the government. But that doesn’t solve the supply and overpricing problem.

Suppose the government released 500 new plates per year for the next 10 years at the static price of $400,000. It’s hard to release more than this amount because the increase in demand for taxi vehicles will be difficult to fill. Notice from the graph in the fact sheet that licence prices fell by this much over 2007 – 09 without a significant increase in supply. In fact, it was the tightening of bank credit during the GFC which was as much to blame as loss of consumer confidence due to the stock market falling.

As well as guaranteeing $200M p.a. in government revenue for the next decade, there would be twice the number of taxis on the road by 2022. That’s probably the upper limit of what is needed. Plate lease rates should fall to around $20 - 25,000 p.a. and stay there. Even with a modest average per capita nominal GDP increase of 6% p.a. over the next 10 years, this would effectively mean falls in licence prices and lease rates from their current values of 50% in real terms.

It’s not fair to make taxi licences “non-assignable” ie. not able to be leased. What if the owner becomes sick or injured, or even goes on a holiday? Why should they not be able to earn an income on their plates? They should not have to sell them just because they cannot work.

If the government wanted to place a firm ceiling on plate prices, they could regulate that a taxi licence could be assigned / leased for a maximum of 5 (or 10) years, after which it must be sold, or the owner return to operating the cab. If the owner then drove for only 6 months, they could only subsequently lease the plates for 6 months, to prevent rorting. This would be a sufficient time period to allow for recovery from any illness, to earn a living immediately post retirement in case the owner decided to later return to work and to transition from the current system.

The high prices of taxi licences and the ability to rent them out are major contributors to high fares for customers and low incomes for tenant drivers. There are ways to effectively deflate the prices of taxi plates without unnecessarily harming existing owners, chief among them slowly increasing supply by selling more licences at a constant price.

Tyranny In The Nanny State

In what insane society could someone who accidentally sent sexually explicit text messages to his entire contact list instead of just his girlfriend even be charged with a criminal offence, let alone jailed for it?

A prudish, “sexual morality” obsessed Muslim state like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia? The authoritarian and equally prudish Singapore? A communist state waiting for the opportunity to persecute a dissident?

No … modern Britain. The fount of Liberalism.

This is precisely the fate which befell 24 year old Craig Evans, who was sentenced to 18 months jail in Birmingham. How could this be, you might well ask?

He is a swimming teacher. As such, amongst his contacts were a 13 and a 14 year old girl. The explicit text also found its way to them and so some idiot copper consequently decided to charge him with inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

Surely incitement must require intent. How could there be such an act as negligent incitement?

Which idiot(s) at the CPS allowed this case to proceed? They should be named and required to publicly justify their actions to the citizens they serve.

Why didn't the original judge throw the case out?

Why did the appeal judges not quash the sentence altogether? Instead, they simply reduced the sentence to nine months, wholly suspended. Craig Evans still has a conviction for a sexual offence against children. He will be on a sexual offenders’ register for the rest of his life. His career is destroyed, as he will never be able to work with children again.

For what? A mistake using his mobile phone. There is nothing more sinister here: the offending message was sent to his entire contact list, including his parents. It was clearly accidental.

How does this farce in any way represent justice? Would any of the people involved, who allegedly represent the justice system, have lost a wink of sleep?

Of course not. They will all keep plodding along, moronically ruining more people’s lives as they go.

That Craig Evans was even charged at all is a travesty. His life has effectively been ruined. He should be able to sue for wrongful prosecution and defamation. The police who laid the charge, the CPS prosecutors who pursued it and the judge who sentenced him should all be sacked. How can such people possibly be trusted in positions where they have the power to destroy lives with accusations?

It is a good example of the justice system being taken over by morons and mindless bureaucrats. The separation of the powers of parliament, the judiciary and the executive is a long and deeply held principle in Western democracies. However it is being destroyed in the country of its origin as the police, CPS and judiciary become infected with the disease of nanny state politics.

This is not simply an occasional perverse outcome from badly framed legislation in a blind justice system: it is tyranny.

We usually think of tyranny in the organized form of the totalitarian police states of the communists or Nazis or Robespierre’s Republic. But tyranny is usually not so well organized. In modern, Western societies, it is arising via the correlation of the actions of hand wringing nanny staters and social democratic ideologues, mindless bureaucrats, arse covering jobsworths and cynical, careerist politicians, all aided by interconnected databases and lazy media.

This is the tyranny which charged and convicted Craig Evans. No Stalin, Hitler or Robespierre signing death warrants. Not even a hegemonic conspiracy. Just gutless, mindless stupidity, flowing from one idiot to the next within a channel of either ideologically based or fearful, reactionary legislation, all incompetently written.

In the police states of the Communist era, had a man been falsely accused of a child sex offence on a spurious construction and interpretation of “facts”, most people would not have believed it. It would have been done as a warning to dissidents or vindictively as a result of a personal dispute. The prosecution would have been seen as an act of raw political power. This enemy is known and does not even attempt to hide itself; in fact, it makes itself known at every opportunity.

But in Craig Evans’ case, the enemy is not a unified, coherent entity: it is the combination of the above mentioned nanny staters, bureaucrats and careerists with the fear, apathy and stupidity of the citizens who could organize and vote this crap out, but don’t bother.

Who will fight to clear Craig Evans’ name … to have his conviction overturned, his name removed from the various databases and the media print the story of his innocence such that a significant proportion of people will actually read it?

Very few could be bothered … too busy with job and family. Life’s pretty tough these days, you know. The lumpen middle class not even realizing that his struggle is their struggle.

In some ways, that tyranny is more terrifying, because we are fighting the willful ignorance within. People pretend it’s not really happening because the alternative is to admit to themselves that they are regularly presented with the opportunity to remove the enemy at the ballot box, yet consistently fail to take it.

Instead, they pretend that the tyranny does not exist: it is a fantasy of conspiracy theorists, Tea Party reactionaries or redneck racists.

TYRANNY DOES NOT REQUIRE A LARGE SCALE CONSPIRACY.

Human societies are complex, self organizing systems. That self organization is not always directed or even initially evident. Tyranny can arise via the unwitting, but persistent correlation of the actions of various people or groups who have different motives. All it takes to become established is for no-one else to organize to stop it.

Satire In America

Subtlety in satire increases its value as humour because it widens its target to those who don’t pick up on the joke. Laughing at the earnest reactions of these idiots is usually considerably more funny that the original article, as it was with Roger Simon’s piece on Republican VP hopeful Paul Ryan’s antagonism toward Mitt Romney.

Satire works best when people can see an element of truth in the caricature. Despite this, it is a defence to defamation because it is not intended to be taken literally, even though what makes it funnier is the knowledge that many people will take it literally. In that sense, the irony of the actual satirical target(s) not being the literal target greatly compounds what would otherwise be an only mildly humourous piece.

Satire is one of the most important elements of free speech for precisely this reason. Mockery is and has historically been in many cultures, including our own, a powerful social device against hypocrites, self-aggrandisers, tyrants, urgers, curmudgeons, malingerers, whingers and in general, people who take themselves just a bit too seriously. Not only does the satire ridicule them and their positions; it also mocks their supporters and those who pretend that the ridicule itself should be censured.

As most Americans have little grasp of irony, the compounding nature of subtlety in satire unfortunately makes such humour an elitist, almost esoteric pursuit in the United States.

Even the Bloomberg article discussing the plethora of commentators duped by Simon’s piece ended with negative judgement (and thus made itself part of the satire):

“Satire should actually be funny."

Well, the original piece may have been only mildly funny, but it’s a lot funnier now.

“Or, at least it should be pretty obvious. There is no underestimating the literal-mindedness of the American reader.”

What? Why would anyone want to laugh at the average American? I don’t get it. That’s just un-American.

“Naturally, no writer wants to put a blinking sign indicating "This Is a Joke" above his or her parody piece. But editors should realize that if there is even a chance that such a sign is necessary, it's probably best to spike the whole idea.”

Yes, much better to take the Golden Girls approach:

1.      Spend most of the scene setting up the joke

2.      Deliver the line

3.      Look pointedly at the target for several seconds with tongue in cheek

4.      Play canned laughter just in case

No wonder Americans just didn’t get Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin.

Bummer For Eel Smuggling Ring

Things went embarrassingly awry for an “eel mule”, who ended up in Auckland Hospital last week. The unnamed man is believed to be a pawn in an international frog and eel smuggling operation.

“I was only worshipping Tunaroa”, was the man’s lame excuse.

“Thet’s not how you worship Tunaroa”, replied a burly Samoan orderly. “Here, see how you like these coconuts instead!”

The Country Would Be So Much Better With A Venomous Old Queen In Charge

There aren’t many young, misogynist, gay men. It seems to be a generational thing. There are very few young, gay guys who aren’t comfortable around women, don’t have women friends and generally eschew the company of women. As gay people have become more comfortable with their sexuality, significantly because the majority of (Western) society have realized there are far more important things in life than moralizing about what other adults do in the privacy of their own homes, the separatism which was a significant subculture within the gay community has largely evaporated in the younger male generation.

There is however, a subset of older, gay men who really do not like women (or most people for that matter). Nasty, bitchy, poisonous old queens¹.

There’s a different kind of separatist subculture amongst lesbians, with its origin in left wing, feminist politics: men are responsible for the oppression of militarism, capitalism, racism, sexism and therefore most of the world’s evils, from war to famine to sexual abuse to global warming.

Separatist lesbians don’t like gay men because they see them as vacuous and apolitical, aspiring lumpen-bourgeoisie. As a result, many gay men are suspicious of most lesbians. They see them as ugly, aggressive and humourless (as indeed, some of them are).

I’ve never met Alan Jones, but he makes (more than) enough public comments to give one a sense of the man. He strikes me as the archetypal, poisonous old queen.

There’s nothing particularly bad about occasionally being misanthropic, but in such moods, one should hold both sexes in equal contempt. The venomous misogyny which so often suffuses Alan Jones’ references to women is something altogether different.

His railings against Julia Gillard seem to have that extra dimension. There was his over reliance on referring to Director of Military Prosecutions, Lynn McDade as “this woman”. I remember hearing the sneering contempt in his voice.

Women are wrecking the joint, eh? I agree that Julia Gillard, Christine Nixon and Clover Moore are all poor performers, but I doubt that has much to do with their gender.

The problem with Jones’ misogyny is that it obscures his political points.

Lynn McDade should not have had the power to ultimately decide whether Australian soldiers are prosecuted for acts committed in combat, because she has never been in combat and therefore could not have adequately understood the soldiers’ situation. That’s not to say she should be unable to have input from a legal perspective; just not the decision making role. Being a woman should exclude her not per se, but because of the circumstances: Australian women do not serve in combat roles. Many men should also have been excluded from that decision making role.

I don’t want $320 million of taxpayers’ money spent by Australia promoting Pacific island women in business and politics either. It smacks of a typical, lefty pet project: lacking in clear measures of performance, wasteful, open to abuse, largely unaccountable and funded as always with someone else’s money.

But how about some evidence based, rational analysis, instead of invective ultimately focusing the listener on Jones’ psychological problems with women instead of the political issues?

Of course, Australia would be a far better country with an ignorant, venomous old queen at the helm. The ministries could be staffed entirely with athletic, young men. Instead of taxing them, we could pay energy firms to produce more CO₂. It’s not a pollutant: plants thrive on the stuff.

We could all hold our heads up high as our PM gave the opening address at the APEC summit after having been charged with "outraging public decency" and "committing an indecent act" in a London public toilet.

“I was just looking at his cock to make sure he didn’t piss on my shoes, Your Honour.”

¹ Not all gay men are queens, but all queens are at least a bit poisonous; some are highly venomous.

An Employer Has No Business In This Dispute

What business does an employer have involving themselves in a private dispute between an employee and other people, when that dispute is unrelated to their employment?

None, but Monash University seems to believe otherwise.

Monash University employee Tanya Heti told Charlotte Dawson to “go hang yourself” via Twitter. A bit over the top and excessively aggressive, particularly since it was the first communication between the two, but not sent by any Monash University media and therefore nothing to do with the university.

I suspect Tanya Heti’s tweet was provoked by (NZ born) Charlotte Dawson’s recent comments to New Zealand’s Herald on Sunday that:

"New Zealand is small, nasty and vindictive. It's a tiny, little village ... a tiny country at the end of the earth"

This is not a concerted campaign of continual harassment; it is partly a bitch with a chip on her shoulder and nothing better to do saying something nasty, but also a New Zealander defending New Zealand, so Charlotte Dawson is being a tad precious and in my opinion, not entirely honest in trying to push this incident under the umbrella of the anti bullying campaign.

Saying something nasty to someone you don’t like is not a crime and not grounds for termination of employment. Nor is responding to:

My fiancé hanged himself HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING

with

If I was your fiancé I'd hang myself too

Since when did Australia become such a nanny state that nasty retorts should be banned?

Someone being an arsehole can be upsetting, but it should not be a crime or even a tort, unless it becomes a campaign of continued harassment.

Charlotte Dawson is not averse to being a bitch herself.

One day, I watched about 15 minutes of Australia’s Next Top Model, because someone else was watching it and it was their house. A contestant, Cassie Van Den Dungen was telling the judging panel that she wasn’t sure about her commitment to modeling because she had a boyfriend.

“Ditch the boyfriend”, replied role model Charlotte, giving Cassie the benefit of her own successful love life.

Cassie Van Den Dungen and her boyfriend are still together, by the way. They have even had a child.

It appears from the linked article that Charlotte Dawson looked up Tanya Heti online, found her business contact details, rang her to remonstrate and was essentially told to fuck off. It seems the only way she knew Tanya Heti was an employee of Monash University was by actively searching. Tanya Heti did not represent herself as such during the exchange of tweets.

So what did Charlotte Dawson do?

Rang Tanya Heti’s employer and tried to get her into trouble at work over a personal dispute only related to the university because Charlotte Dawson had actively searched and drawn this connection herself.

You absolute cunt of a bitch. You’re every bit as bad as Tanya Heti. I doubt the world would be poorer if you both hung yourselves.

What if Tanya Heti had walked up to Charlotte Dawson in the street and told her what she thought of her and her comments about New Zealand? Suppose then another person recognized her and told Charlotte Dawson where she worked. Does that make it the employer’s business?

No, it doesn’t.

Monash University stated that it “encourages lawful freedom of expression”. Clearly it does not. There is nothing unlawful in telling someone publicly that you hate them or that they are a waste of space or even that the world would be better without them in it. Nor should there ever be. If you support freedom of speech, you need to support speech with which you don’t agree, as long as it is not defamatory or harassment, the latter requiring a continuing set of actions, not merely a derogatory exchange.

Finally, how about the title of the person Charlotte Dawson rang: Pro Vice Chancellor for Social Inclusion? Monash is by no means the only Australian university to create this position.

What a load of mealy mouthed, namby pamby, hand wringing, wet left crap.

We must ensure no-one who wants to go to university is excluded. Yes, of course, what a great idea … let lots of dumb people into uni, then water down the courses so they can pass them. That ought to help both our national technological development and our education export earnings.