Daily Insight

They claim to be representative of all Australians, but Woolworths have done away with Australia Day dumping all Australia Day merchandise, and now they’ve made a commitment to flying the Aboriginal flag outside stores “where practicable”, whatever that means. But recent news suggests that they’ve backflipped on this plan, or perhaps clarified their position. In a statement, a spokesperson said, “We don’t plan to add flags outside our supermarkets. The specific statement refers to displaying the flags ‘where practicable’. The locations deemed practicable are those where the Australian flag is already flown.” Whatever, I’m done with Woolworths. Instead of bringing harmony to society by taking a neutral position on divisive issues, they instead continue to try to divide their customer base based on their political beliefs or ancestry. Coles made an announcement that they would continue to stock “a small range of Australian-themed summer entertaining merchandise”. I downloaded their latest catalogue just to see what they mean by “a small range”. This is their catalogue dated 17-23 January 2024. First thing I noticed, they have this ‘Australian Grown’ flag plastered throughout the catalogue. Rock lobster. King prawns. Leg of lamb. They even have a picture of an Aussie farmer – Australian Grown. Another leg of lamb. Beef burgers. Beef steak – All proudly flying the Australian grown flag. This entire page is covered with the Australian Grown flag. This page is titled “Summer” and has some Aussie Aussie mugs, paper plates, napkins, bunting, and so on, a G’day Mate can cooler, and some cups with “I love… something”. The something is strategically hidden from view. Aussie Grown tomatoes, strawberries, mushrooms, and sweet potatoes. There’s Australian flags everywhere! But did you notice one thing they didn’t mention? Australia Day! There is not one mention of Australia Day. They’re happy to show heaps of flags and sell Aussie cups and so on, but they don’t want to say the words “Australia Day”. You know, that might cause offence. On the other hand, they have two pages dedicated to the Lunar New Year, a traditionally Asian celebration. It’s funny, they’re not scared to use those words “Lunar New Year”, which is the correct name of the celebration, but Australia Day, nope! Not one mention of it. The Australia Day page is instead labelled “Summer”. So although Coles have kind of supported Australia Day, they also kind of haven’t. Drakes Supermarkets, on the other hand, are proudly including Australia Day in their latest catalogue, also dated 17-23 January. “Ingredients for Australia Day”, with Aussie flags for sale, and so on. “Celebrate Australia Day with your wingman!” I know, it’s all just marketing gimmicks, but so what? They’re having some fun with it. Is anybody calling for a boycott of Drakes because they dared to mention Australia Day? Of course not. It’s only the companies that are abandoning Australia Day that are being rightfully criticised. That’s what I don’t get about Woolworths and others. What are they trying to do? What’s their end goal? Why are they so set on removing Australia Day from their stores? Even if a small percentage of Australians hate Australia Day, so what? That’s not a reason not to include it. A small percentage, or perhaps a large percentage of people don’t like Halloween, yet they’re happy to include all that tat in their catalogues. But yet, they continue to play this divisive game of going against the majority of their customer base to appease a small minority. After careful thought, there’s only one word I can use to describe the leadership at Woolworths. Idiots! MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

The Cook Labor Government in Western Australia is drafting a bill to give away 20 million hectares of land, approximately 8% of the total area of Western Australia, equivalent to three Tasmania’s worth of land, to “Traditional Owners”, i.e. Aboriginal people. Apparently there are 142 permanent Aboriginal settlements settlements in the area home to an estimated 12,000 people. I’m a maths guy, so I like to crunch numbers. If this bill goes through, 12,000 people will have control of 8% of the land. WA has a population of approximately 2.8 million people. So 12,000 people represents 0.4% of the population. This means 0.4% of the population will own 8% of the land, almost 19 times more than their fair share if we were to distribute land evenly to all Western Australians. If all land was distributed evenly, then 12,000 people should own 1.1 million hectares, not 20 million hectares. Look, I’m not suggesting that all land is equal in Western Australia. Perhaps much of this land is not very inhabitable. Perhaps it’s not very good for growing crops, or raising animals, or anything else. I don’t know. But I wonder, will the Traditional Owners be paying council rates on this land like the rest of us? Will they be paying land tax? According to the WA Government, “You must pay land tax if you own land valued in excess of $300,000”. Man, the land tax on 20 million hectares must be astronomical! Of course, I’m being facetious. I presume these communities will be exempt from paying land tax, while the rest of you foot the bill. According to the Western Australian Government, the purpose of this massive land transfer is “to empower WA First Nations communities by giving them direct control over their land”. The land is currently under the control of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, which apparently has prevented land development in these communities, leaving Indigenous people mostly locked into public housing. In a written statement, the Government said, “The Cook government is committed to delivering on its objective to divest the Aboriginal Lands Trust (ALT) estate into the direct control of Aboriginal people and entities, to facilitate social and economic outcomes that can be delivered through land tenure. A draft bill is being prepared for parliament to remove barriers to divestment and open up more opportunities for Aboriginal people living on the ALT estate. The draft bill has been informed by consultation with ­Aboriginal community residents, native titles parties and other stakeholders, and will be subject to a further round of consultation. A key outcome of legislative change is to maximise opportunities for Aboriginal land ownership and management and economic activity.” Again, it seems like only certain people were consulted. I wonder if the vast majority of Western Australians were ever consulted on this? I doubt it. The biggest thing I have reservations about, something that has been brought to light during the disastrous Indigenous Voice campaign, is that it seems again that only people of a certain ancestry will be entitled to certain land. It was only last year when hundreds of farmers succeeded in killing off Labor’s Aboriginal heritage laws in Western Australia, which were introduced to protect Indigenous culture at the expense of land owners, but the laws were axed just weeks after coming into operation after a massive backlash. But the WA Government doesn’t give up. They’re set on giving WA back to its traditional owners, your opinion and democracy be damned. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

An Australia lady by the name of Alex Marks recently opened a sushi restaurant, Sushi Counter, in New York City serving Aussie-style sushi. Some people took offence to an Australian person making sushi, specifically, Eric Rivera, a Seattle chef, who accused Ms Marks of cultural appropriation. “Give me a break coloniser. If you don't see why this is a problem you are part of the problem.” Rivera has since deleted this thread, but did not address his own plans announced last year to open a Puerto Rican/Japanese restaurant in North Carolina, despite him being of Puerto Rican descent, not Japanese. Obviously, this isn’t the first case of accusations of cultural appropriation. Canadian artist, Amanda PL, who states she is of Italian descent, has used Canadian Indigenous paintings as inspiration for her artwork. Consequently, a Toronto gallery cancelled her show after complaints that her artwork ‘bastardises’ Indigenous art. In the same vein, one of my son’s classmates, a young girl, started painting an Australian Aboriginal dot painting, but she was soon scolded by the teacher (a non-Indigenous lady) who took it upon herself to say that only Aboriginal children can do dot paintings, which my son thought was ridiculous, and she ended making the little girl cry. Student union officials at the University of East Anglia banned a Mexican restaurant from handing out sombreros to students, because for anyone other than a Mexican, wearing a sombrero amounted to “cultural appropriation”. In 2018, English girl group Little Mix singer Jesy Nelson posted a picture to Instagram of herself wearing her hair in dreadlocks. Nelson was accused of “cultural appropriation” and told to apologise. For 30 years, Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons was voiced by Harry Shearer, but in 2021, the producers decided that the voice actor’s real ancestry had to match Dr. Hibbert’s fictional ancestry, so they changed the voice actor to Kevin Michael Richardson. Food, art, fashion, hairstyles, is it all off-limits now unless you can prove you match the correct ethnicity? This is bonkers! Yes, I get very angry now when I see Gordon Ramsay cooking a curry or a pasta dish. How dare he cook anything but porridge or haggis! All those white people learning Spanish or Chinese, or those who enjoy watching Bruce Lee movies? How dare they participate in something that’s not their own culture! Let’s take this madness to its logical conclusion. Segregation. Only Japanese can eat at Japanese restaurants. Only Mexicans can eat at Mexican restaurants. The first modern-day automobile was invented in Germany by Karl Benz in 1886, so obviously, only Germans should be allowed to drive cars now. Learning a new language? That’s cultural appropriation! Only Koreans should be allowed to speak Korean, and only people from England can learn English. And now nobody can communicate with one another anymore. Let’s go back to the stone age. This whole notion of cultural appropriation is just a fool’s errand, and a backwards step in my opinion. It’s the opposite of equality. Actually, it’s not even based in reality. It’s very much a modern, Western, liberal view of the world. I’ve travelled and lived in other countries, and every country I visited enjoyed foreigners participating in their cultural practices. Of course they did! Personally I think participating in other people’s cultures is a great thing! We open up the world, instead of shutting it out. Sharing each other’s cultures brings us closer together. It promotes unity and togetherness. Unfortunately, these people who are constantly crying “racism” and accusing people of “cultural appropriation”, are probably the most racist people of all. All they constantly seem to do is categorise people into racial and ethnic groups. I think that probably they are very unhappy people. They’re certainly not interested in unity and togetherness, quite the opposite. They’re more interested in hatred and division. UNCONVENTIONAL SEATTLE CHEF ERIC RIVERA PLANS A PUERTO RICAN IZAKAYA IN RALEIGH https://carolinas.eater.com/2022/11/8/23446926/chef-eric-rivera-raleigh TORONTO GALLERY CANCELS SHOW AFTER CONCERNS ARTIST 'BASTARDIZES' INDIGENOUS ART https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-gallery-indigenous-art-cancels-amandapl-1.4091529 STUDENT UNION BANS 'RACIST' SOMBREROS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/uea-student-union-bans-racist-sombreros LITTLE MIX SINGER CRITICISED FOR WEARING DREADS https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43126568 THE SIMPSONS SAYS IT WILL STOP USING WHITE ACTORS TO VOICE NON-WHITE CHARACTERS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-27/the-simpsons-to-stop-using-white-voices-for-characters-of-colour/12399760 JAPANESE FANS REACT TO ‘GHOST IN THE SHELL’ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/japanese-fans-react-ghost-shell-992255/ MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

The Queensland treaty is going ahead, assures the interim body charged with implementing it. The group is called the Interim Truth and Treaty Body. Looking at their website, they call for the Queensland Government to stay committed to Truth and Treaty. They ask, What is Truth? It sounds like something the Ministry of Truth might ask from George Orwell’s 1984. Of course, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite. But what we’re interested in in this video is, What is Treaty? Inclusion: Treaty is a conversation for all Queenslanders. Oh, that’s nice. But at the bottom of the page, they have some bubbles answering, What could a Treaty involve? Just by accident, I’ve cut off their name: Interim Truth. You know, like Provisional Truth. How fitting. Some of the things that are involved include: School curriculum, Education about truth telling, and Cultural education for children. Yes, this is sounding more and more like the Ministry of Truth. Tackling Inequality. Redress / reparations for Stolen Generations. There’s that word that everyone keeps saying won’t happen, but it’s there right on their website. Language. Naming of places. The Premier says that it’s absolute nonsense that we’ll be renaming the capital Brisbane to Meanijin, but on the other hand, she was happy to rename an entire island, Fraser Island to K’gari. Where is the line drawn? What can and can’t be renamed. There seems to be no rules. Culture. Cultural Heritage. This is a big one. Outside of Queensland, there’s been some cultural heritage issues, for example in Victoria, rock climbers have been threatened with $346,000 fines under the state’s cultural heritage laws. Country. Return of land to Traditional Owners. We must have known that this was what this was all about from the beginning. Ultimately, they want their ancestral land back, even if it currently belongs to you. Because it wasn’t yours to own in the first place, according to their logic. There will also be changes to Law and Justice to help First Nations people stay out of prison. And of course, under Legal, Enforceability of treaty. Obviously, this treaty is no good unless they can enforce it. Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers has had enough of this Treaty talk and wrote an opinion piece for the Courier Mail yesterday. “It appears that Queensland’s own version of the Voice 2.0 has a divisive agenda to further segregate our society. The Truth and Treaty’s own website states that there will be reparations paid to First Nations people, return of land to traditional owners, brainwashing of our children with changes to the school curriculum to include truth-telling and cultural education, and ‘revive naming of places’ meaning widespread place name changes, and most dangerously of all, changes to the justice system to favour First Nations people. In this woke world there may be the concept of sharing your own truth, however in the world of policing, truth is not subjective. It is objective. Either something is the truth or it is not.” Of course, the usual suspects attacked Mr Leavers for having an opinion. ABC, “Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers condemned for comments claiming Path to Treaty legislation would give Indigenous criminals 'free pass'”. Minister for Treaty, Leeanne Enoch, wrote a disparaging message on Facebook. Minister for Transport, Mark Bailey, tweeted, “Ian Leavers’ ignorant and factually wrong diatribe is an embarrassment to the Qld Police Union.” He sent out a total of four tweets disparaging Mr Leavers, which I can’t be bothered reading. The Guardian, “Police union boss condemned for ‘ludicrous’ and ‘factually incorrect’ opinion piece on treaty in Queensland”. And our favourite person of the decade, the Premier herself, Ms Palaszczuk, said in response to the Police Union president’s article, “I think they are very unhelpful comments and they are divisive. We want to unite Queenslanders and we want to make sure that we do go down the path of reconciliation.” Oh I see! She just wants to unite us by dividing us by our ancestry. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. QUEENSLAND TREATY IS GOING AHEAD, ASSURES INTERIM BODY CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING IT https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/20/queensland-treaty-is-going-ahead-assures-interim-body-charged-with-implementing-it INTERIM TRUTH AND TREATY BODY – WHAT IS TREATY? https://www.truthandtreatyqld.org.au/resources QUEENSLAND POLICE UNION PRESIDENT IAN LEAVERS CONDEMNED FOR COMMENTS CLAIMING PATH TO TREATY LEGISLATION WOULD GIVE INDIGENOUS CRIMINALS 'FREE PASS' https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-25/police-union-ian-leavers-truth-treaty-first-nations-mark-bailey/103018512 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Australian political cartoonist, Mark Knight, is in the firing line again. In 2018, he drew a cartoon depicting Serena Williams having a tantrum, which she did, which drew accusations of racism and sexism, despite the Australian Press Council ruling that it did not breach any media standards. Knight recently drew a cartoon of the new premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan – here’s a real-life picture of her – where she is walking down a runway at a fashion show wearing nothing but her glasses. The caption reads, “From the Commonwealth Games cancellation collection… The Premier’s new clothes”. Obviously, this is linking the Premier’s involvement in the Commonwealth Games fiasco to the Hans Christian Andersen fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes, where an emperor is conned into wearing a magnificent set of clothes that are invisible to stupid or incompetent people. As he proudly marches in a procession before the whole city, the emperor’s servants and townsfolk go along with the pretence, not wanting to go against popular opinion. As expected, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork criticising the cartoon for being ‘sexist’. “In 2023, to be going through that sexualised imagery… is just not on.” Ben Carroll, Deputy Premier of Victoria. “I think it uses sexism. I doubt Mark Knight would think it’s sexist but it’s definitely something we see happen a lot with women in authority, that the focus is on their clothes and their bodies.” Niki Vincent, Victoria’s Gender Equality Commissioner. “Today’s Herald Sun cartoon of Premier Allan is disgraceful. It says more about an old guard establishment that can’t cope with women in leadership. So, they try to ridicule, sexualise and minimise us. Yet another reason we need more women in power.” Samantha Ratnam, Leader of the Victorian Greens. The Premier herself said, “It’s 2023. I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect – very reasonable to expect – that women can be depicted without using sexualised imagery.” I don’t think it was sexualised, no more than you could say that a copy of the children’s book The Emperor’s New Clothes is sexualised, and I certainly don’t think the cartoon was sexist. What would be sexist is if the cartoonist refused to draw the Premier in this way because she’s a woman. That would be sexist. To be fair to the cartoonist, he has drawn many images of male politicians in similar ways. Here’s former Premier Daniel Andrews swimming naked underwater chasing those 0-case-donuts. Here’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott not wearing a mask, and when he gets a fine, he uses his Speedos to cover his face. Did anybody claim this was sexualised or sexist? Here’s another one of Daniel Andrews being objectified in a cartoon as a scantily clad firefighter. Doesn’t this espouse outdated male beauty standards? What about Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton wearing a loin cloth? Actually, this cartoon was nominated for an award! I don’t remember any of the Greens complaining about this one. What about on the cover of the New Yorker, or any other of the many versions of this cartoon showing a naked Trump, again using The Emperor’s New Clothes analogy. Because he’s a man, does it not count? Now who’s being sexist? Mary Crooks, Executive director of the Victorian Women’s Trust seems to think that it’s different when it’s a man. She said, “The depiction of a naked female political leader does not convey the same meaning as a male leader, such as Tony Abbott in his budgie smugglers. In a weird, kind of perverse way, that was… a subliminal appeal to the manliness and the alpha male, testosterone male, so it was a different subliminal intent.” Oh was it now? A subliminal appeal to manliness? Does this image of Daniel Andrews reek of manliness to you? I think not. You know what we should do to people who criticise these cartoons as being sexist? Politely disagree with them, or simply ignore them. HERALD SUN CARTOONIST DEFENDS NUDE CATWALK DEPICTION OF VICTORIAN PREMIER JACINTA ALLAN https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/jacinta-allan-victorian-premier-herald-sun-cartoon-mark-knight/103013652 JACINTA ALLAN KNEW COST OF COMMONWEALTH GAMES HAD NEARLY DOUBLED MONTHS BEFORE EVENT ABANDONED, INQUIRY HEARS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-09/commonwealth-games-jacinta-allan-knew-costs-doubled-months-ago/102951612 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I suppose it comes as no surprise to many of you that Australian independent Senator Lidia Thorpe is part of the so-called Blak Sovereign Movement. Just looking at the name alone and based on Senator Thorpe’s previous actions and comments, I presume the Movement is only open to certain people based on their ancestry. That immediately indicates to me that it’s very divisive. Sovereignty is defined as “supreme power or authority”. So I can only assume that the ultimate goal of the Blak Sovereign Movement is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have total control and authority over Australia. I don’t think this could ever be achieved peacefully. For example, she confronted police last year during a protest outside Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation where a busload of handcuffed detainees were being transferred to Christmas Island, and she screamed at the officers, “You are the criminals, you are the only criminals on this land! How dare you do that to innocent people!” She also walked into parliament and called the Queen a coloniser while making her oath of allegiance in the Senate, “I sovereign, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth II.” Throughout the entire performance, she gave a black power salute, no not that salute, although she didn’t have many nice things to say about Israel recently while wearing a Palestinian scarf into Parliament. At various times, Senator Thorpe has called Australian occupation a war. For example, at an Australia Day (Invasion Day) protest this year, she brandished a war stick and screamed, “This is a war! They are still killing us! They are still killing our babies! What do we have to celebrate in our country?” Obviously, she has done so many other controversial things, far too many to mention here. Imagine if you did even half the stuff she’s done. Do you think you’d still have a job? It’s amazing the Parliament let her get away with all this. I doubt she’d have the same freedoms elsewhere. Believe it or not though, there is something that Senator Thorpe and I agree on. We both did not want this recent referendum, “This referendum has done nothing but hurt people, divide communities, divide families, and we know literally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right now as a result of this referendum”. Senator Thorpe has stated many times that sovereignty was never ceded. In an interview in December last year with Junkee, she made it clear that the end goal of the Blak Sovereign Movement is for Australia to cut ties with the Crown and Commonwealth and form a self-governing nation, a so-called Blak Republic. “We need to, to end that war first and then through a treaty, we could have a republic… We need Blak people, First Nations people in this country to be in the driver’s seat.” In her own words, “This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement, full of staunch and committed warriors, and I want to represent that movement fully in this Parliament. First Nations sovereignty is crucial. My focus now is to grow and amplify the Blak Sovereign Movement in this country, something we have never had. There is a Blak Sovereign Movement out there that no one wants to listen to, so I will be their Voice, to defend our sovereignty, to save black lives. This is my goal. Keep infiltrating. Keep your integrity, and keep the fire burning. But, more importantly, keep our fight alive.” To be clear, not one of you listening stole anybody’s land, and not one of you listening had any land stolen from you, because none of you are more than 200 years old. We’re talking about our ancestors. Yes, some of our ancestors committed crimes, and yes, some of ancestors had crimes committed against them, but those people aren’t us. We didn’t participate in whatever horrors happened in history. But as Senator Thorpe said right at the end of that clip, the most important thing for the Blak Sovereign Movement is to keep the fight alive. That is, they don’t want to forget what happened 200 odd years ago. They want their members to be perpetually angry so that this fight rages on. And they won’t stop. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. For them, this won’t be over until they have sovereignty over every last piece of Australia. BLAK SOVEREIGN MOVEMENT https://blaksovereignmovement.com/ WHAT IS 'BLACK SOVEREIGNTY'? THE INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT LIDIA THORPE WANTS TO PURSUE IN PARLIAMENT https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-07/lidia-thorpe-what-is-black-sovereignty/101937924 “MORE THAN A VOICE”: SENATOR LIDIA THORPE ON WHY IT’S TIME FOR A BLAK REPUBLIC https://junkee.com/longform/lidia-thrope-interview-blak-republic MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Almost 70% of Queenslanders voted against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This is a clear message that the majority of Queenslanders just don’t want this. The only electorates to vote for the constitutional amendment, were the federal seats of Griffith, Brisbane, and Ryan. And they were close. It wasn’t like their constituents overwhelmingly supported the Voice. It should be noted that all three electoral seats are held by the Greens. Despite this, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk pushes forward with her state-based Path to Treaty. Based on the referendum results, no Labor federal electorate in Queensland supports her on this. Only the Greens do. Is she now only working for the Greens? But in a major turn of events, the Liberal National Party has dropped its support for the Path to Treaty, as they should. Their constituents do not want this. Technically, Labor constituents do not want this. Although initially, LNP leader David Crisafulli did support the Path to Treaty legislation, today he realised that his electorate just don’t support him on this, and as a politician, who are you beholden to? Your constituents. You are a representative of the people. If you no longer represent the people, then you should no longer be in parliament. Politically, he’s done the right thing. He wrote, “It’s clear to me Queenslanders do not want to continue down a path that leads to more division and uncertainty. Pursuing a path to treaty will lead to greater division, not reconciliation, and I cannot support that. When Queenslanders speak it is the duty of leaders to listen. Queenslanders have spoken and I have listened. We must find a better way forward to improve the lives of Indigenous Queenslanders that unites us all in this cause. The LNP can no longer support a Path to Treaty and will not pursue one if elected to government.” So we have one of the major parties listening to the people. Katter’s Australian Party and One Nation have always been against this from day one. I believe they were the only ones to vote against the Path to Treaty in Queensland. The Greens, well you might not like them, but they do exactly what their supporters want. The only political party that seems to be ardently against their supporters are the Labor Party. They just don’t want to listen to their constituents, at least, not on matters regarding Indigenous treaty. They’ve just abandoned their voting base. You don’t stay in government by appeasing three or four percent of the population. You are their to govern for the majority. Hospitals, schools, housing affordability, electricity prices, community safety. You fix these things, you improve these things, then you improve the lives of all Queenslanders regardless of their ancestry. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has walked away from a pledge to hold a second referendum to constitutionally recognise Indigenous Australians, because he can see the writing’s on the wall. The electorate don’t want this anymore. He’s a politician after all. If he pushes ahead with something that’s going to cause more division, it would be a major political mistake. This is kind of breaking news as I was almost ready to publish this video. It turns out that the Premier has backed away from the Path to Treaty as well! The Premier has backflipped after the LNP backflipped. It’s a full on acrobatics performance! Thank you to the viewers who inform me of these changes, because I can’t keep up with all this news. According to the Guardian, “Queensland treaty appears doomed as Annastacia Palaszczuk makes it contingent on LNP support”. When asked if she thought Queenslanders still support treaties being negotiated with Indigenous people, she said, “That’s a long way off and that would require bipartisan support. It’s obvious these laws were put in place with bipartisan support, and they are now walking away from that bipartisan support. For effective reconciliation, and Path To Treaty – that would require bipartisan support. We need unity in this state and we need to be talking about the issues that really matter out there amongst Queenslanders – and that is cost of living.” There you have it. It seems like we’re all on the same page (except the Greens). I guess the Premier saw that her political neck was on the line. Either way, the people of Queensland have spoken, and finally, their leaders seem to be listening. QUEENSLAND OPPOSITION LEADER DAVID CRISAFULLI SAYS PATH TO TREATY 'WILL ONLY CREATE FURTHER DIVISION', RETRACTS SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED LAWS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-19/david-crisafulli-backflips-on-path-to-treaty-support-queensland/102984166 QUEENSLAND TREATY APPEARS DOOMED AS ANNASTACIA PALASZCZUK MAKES IT CONTINGENT ON LNP SUPPORT https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/19/queensland-treaty-qld-premier-annastacia-palaszczuk-lnp-backflip-indigenous-first-nations-truth-telling MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“At the end of the day, there’s one unavoidable reality…” said Chris Hipkins, the defeated New Zealand Labour prime minister, “We lost because not enough people voted for us.” Perhaps it’ll go down as one of the most insightful things ever spoken by any world leader. In 2020, the centre-left Labour party under Jacinda Ardern won 50% of the vote, a historic high, winning 65 seats, but on Saturday, Mr Hipkins only attained a dismal 27%, and 34 seats nearly halving Labour’s seats in parliament, with conservative former businessman Christopher Luxon winning a decisive election victory and he will become New Zealand's next prime minister. So what went wrong for Labour? Well, we all know Ms Ardern sensationally left office in January this year citing occupational burnout, but I suspect she had a suspicion that Labour were on the nose and she wanted to get out before the electorate got their revenge. Her replacement, Chris Hipkins, managed to say a couple of stupid things. He famously said that it was not compulsory for New Zealanders to take a certain medicine. Yeah, it wasn’t compulsory. It’s just that, if you didn’t take it, you’d lose your job. That’s not compulsory. Compulsory. Adjective. Required by law or a rule; obligatory. Involving or exercising compulsion; coercive. See, it wasn’t compulsory. It was just not optional. I think Mr Hipkins, like most leaders nowadays, enjoys playing word games. Compulsory, optional, mandatory… These are just words! Now let’s get back to playing Boggle. He also thought himself a bit of a comedian at times stating, “It is a challenge for people in high density areas to get outside and spread their legs when they are surrounded by other people.” Yes, that certainly was a challenge. Under Mr Hipkins watch, New Zealand started giving priority to Māori and Pacific elective surgery patients, while European New Zealanders and other ethnicities, like Indian and Chinese, are lower-ranked. Yes, ethnicity is being used as a factor to determine when you can get surgery in New Zealand in a bid to “combat racial inequalities”. The whole idea is completely unethical and medically indefensible in my opinion. It goes against all traditional triage practices where patients should be prioritised on how sick they are, how urgently they need treatment, and how long they have been waiting for, not on their ethnicity or ancestry. It’s absolutely disgusting. Anyway, New Zealanders have spoken, and Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party are out. Good riddance, I say. PROLOGUE Two days after the 1896 US presidential election, Democrat William Jennings Bryan conceded defeat to Republican rival William McKinley by sending the very first concession telegram. He wrote, “I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.” Not bad, not bad. But it wasn’t as good as Mr Hipkins. IN THE NZ ELECTION, THERE WERE SWINGS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, BUT ALWAYS AWAY FROM LABOUR https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-15/nz-election-analysis-labour-loses-support-in-both-directions-/102976938 NEW ZEALAND STARTS GIVING PRIORITY TO MĀORI AND PACIFIC ELECTIVE SURGERY PATIENTS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-starts-giving-priority-to-maori-and-pacific-elective-surgery-patients MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

South Australia, which got the second lowest Yes result in the nation at 35.2%, is going against its electorate and forging ahead with a state-sanctioned legislated Voice. Apparently they don’t seem to care how South Australians voted and are pushing ahead nonetheless. These are the ten federal electorates in South Australia, and every one of them voted No. It’s hard to imagine that the constituency are okay with pushing forward with this new state-based Voice. Despite the resounding objection to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, Premier Peter Malinauskas remains confident that residents “know the difference” between the rejected federal Voice and the his brand new, shiny state Voice. Apparently, they’re completely different. He said, “South Australians are pretty smart… I think they know the difference between a constitutional change and a piece of legislation, so I’m not too concerned about that. It’s very different by nature. It’s also a proposition that’s had bipartisan support from a state Liberal party in the past. So it’s not an extreme proposition. And like I said, it doesn’t involve constitutional change. So I think they’re very different. I think most people appreciate that.” If you’re South Australian, do you appreciate that? Do you think this is completely different, and therefore, you have no objections with it? Personally, I think he’s playing word games. Perhaps he should stick to Boggle. Although the Queensland Opposition are not against the Queensland treaty, the South Australian Opposition are certainly questioning Mr Malinauskas. South Australian Opposition leader David Speirs said given the proportion of people that have voted No, he’d like to reassess whether the Voice should go ahead. He said, “We’ve got a state-based Voice here in SA. I’m not sure we really know what to do with it now. SA has overwhelmingly rejected our interest in having a mechanism such as a Voice to the federal parliament and there are clearly going to be misgivings around a Voice to state parliament as well. I’ve always said we were very open to amending this legislation, should it be deemed not to be working, or should we conclude that South Australians don’t want this state Voice. They clearly don’t want a federal Voice. Do they want a state Voice either? I think they’d be immensely surprised that we have a legislated Voice.” One Nation’s Sarah Game, Member of the Legislative Council, posted a tweet calling for the First Nations Voice Act to be repealed. She said, “An overwhelming majority of South Australians voted no to The Voice. The division caused by The Voice Referendum has been sad to watch and experience. There is no place for the remnants with the legislated South Australian Voice. I’ll be introducing my Bill for an Act to repeal the First Nations Voice Act 2023 this week. It’s time for a plan for needs-based support, not race or heritage-based support.” I’m not South Australian, but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this one. Mr Malinauskas responded, “I think it's important that politicians honour their commitments. It'll demonstrate that a non-binding advisory committee can occasionally make representations to the parliament on various matters. It'll be up to the parliament to determine whether they accept or reject that advice. It's not particularly controversial and will roll out as planned.” Basically, Mr Malinauskas is saying, “I don’t care what South Australians think, I’m going ahead with the Voice NO MATTER WHAT!” WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S FIRST NATIONS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT FOLLOWING REFERENDUM DEFEAT? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/what-happens-to-sa-voice-to-parliament-after-referendum/102977318 THIS STATE HAD THE SECOND-HIGHEST NO VOTE, SO WHY IS IT INTRODUCING ITS OWN VOICE? https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/this-state-had-the-second-highest-no-vote-so-why-is-it-introducing-its-own-voice/qxrasyk03 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Indigenous Voice to Parliament – REJECTED. Despite all the celebrity endorsements. Despite all those people writing Yes on their hands. Despite all the big companies with their Yes23 campaigns. Despite the politicians telling you how to vote. What did you do? You didn’t listen! This was all about listening and you f***ed it up! These are only preliminary results, but the result is clear. Australia voted against the Voice. I’m not here to celebrate. I’m not holding anything against anybody. I said from the beginning, I would accept the outcome no matter what happens. I know a couple of Yes voters, and their reasons for voting Yes were pretty straightforward. They just wanted to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They wanted to help their fellow Australians. You can’t blame somebody for wanting to help. Obviously, they had good intentions, and I presume the vast majority of Yes voters had the same thinking. But Australia is a multi-cultural country. People won’t accept if one of those cultures is given some constitutional advantage over the rest of us, no matter how slight that advantage might be. One thing that we pride ourselves on in Australia is our egalitarian society. The principle that all Australians are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Under the law, we are already equal, and when people try to toy with that, well, you saw what happened. Australians overwhelmingly voted no. So what could have the government done? Obviously, just telling us to vote Yes didn’t work. Importing famous NBA all-stars from overseas didn’t work. To be fair, we’re not nine years old. I’d hope that no adult Australian would be swayed by such a stunt. Not to mention that there was so much confusion over how the Voice would operate. The constitution represents all Australians. The moment this amendment started to cause division, was the moment we realised it just didn’t belong. But what I really didn’t like about the whole campaign was that they told us that a No vote will change the way we see ourselves. It will change the way the world sees us. That we will be seen as some sort of racist backwater, and send the most unloving of messages to Indigenous Australians. Well, I think that’s unfair and almost coercive. At the very least, it’s very threatening language, isn’t it? I didn’t ask for this referendum, and I’m sure many of you were in the same boat. We didn’t want this. The very act of holding this referendum was what caused all the division and hurt feelings. The Albanese Government pushed this at the expense of everything else. He was a man obsessed. The Government could easily have trialled the Voice. They could have legislated it at any time, even though that wasn’t what the Uluru statement was calling for. But who’s in charge here? The Uluru statement, or the Australian Government? They could have trialled the Voice for a couple of years during Albanese’s term, and then see how Australians reacted to it. If it truly helped out Aboriginal people, then they could have said, “See, it works!”, and then pushed for constitutional change. But just blindly putting it in the constitution with very little framework, expecting us just to accept a body for one group of Australians based purely on their ancestry, common sense would tell us that this was always doomed to fail. If the Government’s goal is to truly stop racism and its effects, wouldn’t it make more sense to remove all mentions of race from the constitution? I think Australians could have really gotten behind that. And if they didn’t get behind it, you’d have to question why? Section 25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting. And in Section 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: Part 26, the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. If the Government are truly against racism, why not remove this? Because I think they like having this power to divide. Not only did they not offer to remove this, they wanted to actively insert more racial language. It’s absurd that they thought that this was okay. It’s a false narrative that Indigenous people don't have a say. They have just as much rights as the rest of us. They can elect representatives to the parliament, and have done so. We already have so many bodies in Australia dedicated to helping Indigenous Australians, but yet, they have delivered such poor outcomes. Perhaps we need to bring a measure of accountability to these existing bodies. With all their billions of taxpayer money, how is that they’ve failed so drastically? Anyway, the people of Australia spoke, and they spoke loudly. The constitution is not a document to be toyed with. It is not a place to divide us by our ancestry. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I’m not a big fan of Black Lives Matter, as you probably would have already known from my previous videos. But now they’ve really started to show their true colours. BLM Chicago, apparently unaffiliated with the global network, posted this since-deleted tweet showing a paraglider with a Palestinian flag and the words, “I stand with Palestine”. The paraglider is in reference to the Hamas terrorists who paraglided into Israel and started shooting civilians. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is what BLM now support. To make their message clearer, they should probably have just posted a picture of a famous Austrian and changed the words slightly. It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Here’s BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors from 2015 calling for the end of Israel: “If we don’t step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that’s called Israel, we’re doomed”. Wasn’t it funny how all these politicians took the knee a couple of years ago in support of BLM? #shorts

I don’t claim to be an expert in Middle Eastern relations, but one thing is clear, some members of one religion wish to completely annihilate all members of another religion. “From the river to the sea!”, they shout, in reference to the establishment of a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the State of Israel and its people in the process. To be clear, I’m not here to side with one religion over another. My ethical stance is clear. Everyone should be allowed to peacefully practise their religion – “peacefully” being the operative word. The moment people are no longer peaceful, well, they’re no longer practising religion. They’re practising extremism or fanaticism. Case in point, the events that unfolded on the forecourt of the Opera House this week. “F*** the Jews!”, “Shame Israel!”, “From the river to the sea!”, “G*s the Jews!”. Yes, this is Australia – the tolerant country – in 2023. We are harbouring extremists. The NSW Government lit up the Opera House in Israeli colours, and the fanatics came out of the woodwork, lighting up flares and burning and stomping on Israeli flags. Not only that, the police allowed this to unfold. Jewish people were not welcome. Actually, one Jewish person who was waving the Israeli flag got arrested, not because he committed a crime, but for “his own safety”. While the fanatics were allowed to shoot off flares and shout out religious and racial epithets unchallenged, peaceful protesters, or even people there to peacefully support the Jewish community, were not allowed. Burn the flag, you’re okay. Wave the flag, you’re breaching the peace! Don’t worry, some politicians came out in support of the radicals. Senator Lidia Thorpe, former Greens Senator, for some reason, she’s still on the Greens website. “In 2023, Lidia left the party to advance the Blak Sovereignty movement. By the way, you spelt ‘black’ wrong. Yeah, I know, it’s on purpose. But you see, spelling was something the evil colonialists thrust upon us. Anyway, on X, just after Hamas had invaded Israel and killed innocent people, she wrote, “I stand with Palestine”, with a map of Israel over the last few decades, and the writing, “Unprovoked They said”. Another Greens Senator, and Greens Deputy Leader Mehreen Faruqi, who migrated here from Pakistan, also sent out a tweet in response to the Parliament House being lit up in Israeli colours. She tweeted, “One colonial government supporting another. What a disgrace. #FreePalestine”. What exactly is she trying to say? Is she condoning the attacks on Israel because it’s a colonial state? Is she implying that it’s okay to attack Australia, because we’re a colonial state as well? Noting that modern Australia gave her citizenship here. This is probably a good time to point out that all those people protesting on the forecourt of the Opera House who were calling for the death of other Australian citizens because of their religion, they were also granted residency here as well. Perhaps Australia needs to do a bit of reflecting on its immigration policy. To be fair to the Premier of NSW, Chris Minns, he did announce the following… Anyway, as I said, I’m no expert, and I’m not here to favour one religion over another. I’m all for peaceful religious practice, and peaceful protests, but this is not peaceful. We can’t accept this extremism in Australia. SYDNEY PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTEST ORGANISER FLAGS LEGAL CHALLENGE AFTER PREMIER VOWS CRACKDOWN ON WEEKEND RALLY https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-11/nsw-protestors-minns-legal-challenge-rally-sydney-weekend/102961840 SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE RALLY: POLICE DEFEND ARREST OF MAN CARRYING ISRAELI FLAG AMID OUTRAGE OVER ANTISEMITIC CHANTS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/police-defend-arrest-of-man-carrying-israeli-flag-after-antisemitic-chants-heard-on-steps-of-sydney-opera-house LIDIA THORPE STILL ON THE GREENS WEBSITE https://greens.org.au/vic/person/lidia-thorpe MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“This is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is!” This will be my final commentary on the upcoming Indigenous Voice Referendum before the vote this Saturday, but I will certainly have something to say about it after the results are known. I’d just like to point out that I’m not here to sway anybody’s vote. I assume that all of you have already made up your minds. I’m not stupid enough to think that I can convince you to vote one way or the other. Guess how this Albo voted? I’ll give you a clue: It rhymes with ‘mess’. As in, this entire f***ing referendum has been a complete and utter mess! When we see all these polls showing that some people are still undecided, I think they’re lying, not in a bad way, I think they just want to keep their vote secret. Fair enough. That’s their right. The latest polls show that only Tasmania is swinging towards Yes. The entire mainland is polling No! The Voice is often touted as simply an advisory committee. If you look at the Uluru Statement website, it states, “You’re the Voice!”, well, you’re the Voice as long you’re one of the 3.8% of Australians who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The other 96% of you or so are not the Voice, and never can be. Further down they state, “The Voice will be an advisory body that gives First Nations Australians a say on matters that directly affect them.” An advisory body. That’s all it is. The Government’s Voice website also reinforces this idea, “The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government”. Advice. Nothing else. My only question, we’ll be voting on a constitutional amendment, where in this amendment does it say anything about advice? You might be asking, why am I looking up dictionary definitions? What am I trying to do? Well, what I’m doing is exactly what constitutional lawyers will be doing in the High Court. This is the constitution. This is not our opinion on the latest sporting event. If I can see ambiguity in this constitutional amendment, so will they. This will be debated in court, exactly what I’m doing now. And decisions of the High Court are final. There are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the High Court, and the decision is binding on all other courts throughout Australia. “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” Okay, so as far as I can tell, there is nothing in here stating that this is only an advisory body like the PM has been going on about in all of his interviews. Next, is the Voice actually non-racial? According to the PM, “And what this is about is Indigenous issues, not race. So, that is what this is about.” He’s not the only one to claim that this is not about race. On the ABC’s Q&A program, one of the panellists, Director for Centre for Indigenous Training Wesley Aird, mentioned race in connection to the Voice and the panel didn’t know quite what to say. The Yes campaign seem to be stating that this referendum is not about race, and therefore it’s wrong of the No campaign to accuse it of being racially divisive. But then a quick question comes to mind, “Can Indigenous people in Australia experience racism?” Of course! they will answer. Then doesn’t it follow that this is about race? I think this has become a game in semantics. They say the Voice is not about race. It’s about one’s cultural identity. It’s about one’s ancestry. One’s Indigeneity. One’s ethnicity. Are these not all one and the same? Okay, let’s not use the word ‘race’, but then we could still say, “Only people of a certain ancestry can become members of the Indigenous Voice”. Is this not a racial notion? If I said, only people of Scandinavian origin may join my club, what do you think the activists would say? Racists! Of course they would. Mr Albanese has said that he will walk away from the Voice if the referendum flops, which in all likelihood, it probably will. “If Australians vote no, I don’t believe it would be appropriate to then go and legislate anyway”. Don’t worry, this is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is! Do you buy their BS anymore? PRIME MINISTER TRANSCRIPT INSIDERS: INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM https://www.pm.gov.au/media/television-interview-abc-insiders LABOR WON’T TRY TO LEGISLATE INDIGENOUS VOICE IF REFERENDUM FAILS, ANTHONY ALBANESE SAYS https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says THE ULURU STATEMENT https://ulurustatement.org/ REFERENDUM QUESTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Prominent Yes Campaigner Noel Pearson, an Indigenous Australian lawyer and land rights activist, gave a speech to the National Press Club last week. When asked by an SBS journalist about how the Yes campaign is resonating with culturally and linguistically diverse Australians knowing that many come from countries where democracy has been so fragile, and that perhaps the Yes vote will undermine the status quo, Pearson replied with a somewhat illuminating comment about people’s colour not matching their opinions. He said: “I say to Multicultural communities in the campaign that I’m involved in around the country, I say to them, listen, where do you fit into Australia? It’s a bit unclear. Are you with the mob from the UK? Are you kind of honorary settlers? Because, some of you are the wrong colour… or you don’t come from northern Europe. You come from Africa, you come from Asia, you come from South America, you come from all over the joint. You come from China. I say to them, where do you fit in Australia? Because we can move to an Australia where the Indigenous, the British descendants, and the Multicultural mob become one.” Yes, Mr Pearson sees us, and perhaps encourages us to be a divided nation based on our ethnicity. This is Noel Pearson’s game. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton responded, “It’s a confused campaign the Yes activists are running at the moment. It started with people like Alan Joyce and others dictating to Australians as to how they should vote. Now you’ve got leading people in the Yes campaign like Noel Pearson talking about our country being segregated, and different people being worth different amounts depending on when they came here. I don’t understand the logic behind it.” I think I understand their logic. They want this. They want us divided. It furthers their perverse goals. Every polling firm, no matter what their affiliation, has found that the Yes vote is sliding dramatically. To pass, the Australian Constitution requires the proposed amendment to attain a double majority in the referendum, that is, a majority of votes nationwide, and a majority in at least four of the six states. It’s just not going to happen based on recent polling without some sort of intervention, divine or otherwise. Even Prime Minister Albanese has essentially accepted that this is not going to pass. He recently told the Guardian that the referendum is worthwhile even if it is rejected by voters, because it has succeeded in bringing Indigenous disadvantage front and centre. Mr Dutton responded, “The Prime Minister says that now it doesn’t matter whether it’s Yes or No, it’s been a worthwhile exercise. It’s cost half a billion dollars! And it’s dividing our country.” So we’ve got Marcia Langton, another highly paid activist, who famously said, “Every time the No case raises one of their arguments, you get down to base racism… Or, just sheer stupidity.” We’ve got Noel Pearson essentially telling multicultural people that if they support the No case they’re the “wrong colour”. Not to mention that Mr Pearson said some choice words regarding No campaigner and Indigenous Senator Jacinta Price. He said, “Jacinta Price is trapped in a redneck celebrity vortex and being used by right-wing think tanks to punch down on other black fellas”. Links to these statements below. Actually, I think this whole campaign has been worthwhile, because it’s made it abundantly clear to Australians what these people are all about. They’re about division. That’s what they want. They want Indigenous Australians to continue to think that they are victims. It keeps these people relevant. They’re intelligent people, don’t get me wrong, so that makes me tend to think that they know exactly what they are doing. They’ve got power, and they don’t want to give it up. NOEL PEARSON CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB https://www.youtube.com/live/5aDiWiDOU7g?si=IcFCq5AT3vD1KJ0E&t=2544 ANTHONY ALBANESE SAYS VOICE REFERENDUM WORTHWHILE EVEN IF REJECTED BY VOTERS https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/27/anthony-albanese-says-voice-referendum-worthwhile-even-if-rejected-by-voters MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

There’s been this article floating around on the internet published on The Conversation, our beloved ABC, and SBS. In this video, we’ll be taking a look at the SBS version titled, “What are the philosophical concerns about the Voice referendum? An ethicist explains”. It was published on 25 September 2023 by Paul Formosa. Paul Formosa is a Professor at the Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University in Sydney. Of course it comes as no surprise that he’s probably a Voice supporter as we’ll see throughout his article. It’s supposed to be a piece on ethics, but it reads more like a Yes23 campaign. Professor Formosa posits two ethical concerns. First, is it appropriate for members of one group to decide what rights members of another group get? Why should non-Indigenous Australians get to decide if the First Peoples of Australia are granted an institutional Voice? Okay, without diving too deep, I would suggest that of course non-Indigenous Australians should have a say in this. If they didn’t, then it would only be Indigenous Australians voting on this. Essentially, the minority would be able to change the constitution of the majority, and that would be an absolute disaster if we allowed it. Whatever we have left of our democracy would be dead. Second, is it appropriate to give members of one group rights that members of another group lack? Isn't our system of government based on the idea that we are all equal and therefore we should all have the same rights? I would answer Yes to that last sentence. Of course we should all have the same rights! It’s the first Yes I’ve answered this whole campaign. I don’t like this question. It’s making it sound like that there are two distinct categories of Australian citizens, Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people, with one requiring constitutional protection, as if they’re not already covered by the same constitution that all Australians are covered by. Moving on to the second concern: Should one group get something others don't get? This leads to the second issue, whether there is something undemocratic about members of one group having different rights to members of other groups. Something similar would apply to the Voice, with First Nations people having the right to elect members to the Voice that members of other groups would not have. Okay, but it still raises the ethical question, why should First Nations people be entitled to this Voice, where other Australians will not? First Nations people of Australia have suffered specific and significant injustices that other groups have not, such as the loss of sovereignty over their traditional lands, and they are therefore entitled to redress, which could (in part) take the form of a Voice. If you go back far enough in history, we have all suffered some sort of significant injustice. For example, many of us are descendants of convicts who were forcefully transported to Australia. We didn’t ask to be taken here. We were made to. “We match the rights to the kinds of disadvantage being compensated for”. For example, Australians with a disability are entitled to certain rights, such as disability support, that members of other groups are not. On a range of measures, from health to education and wealth, Australia’s First Nations people face significant disadvantages, and it's therefore reasonable that members of that group receive specific rights to counteract the specific forms of disadvantage they experience. I just don’t think that’s comparable. You know what I think? I think this entire article, and other articles like it, serve one purpose: To allow comfortably middle and upper class Yes voters to bask in their own sense of self-importance and profoundly superior moral righteousness. They’re blinded to their own racism. It’s almost like they’re trying to convince themselves that it’s okay to give one ethnic group a constitutional advantage. And they don’t even realise that these articles with their questionable arguments do nothing to sway people’s vote. Do you think Terry who works down at the local IGA is going to be swayed by the ethically superior ramblings of a professor from Macquarie University? No, of course not. Actually, the whole debate is kind of pointless. Any answer will very quickly conclude that the sovereignty and power of a nation state is pretty much arbitrary. Nations don’t need to be right and good. Just look at any country across the globe. It’s a perversely contemporary Western ideal that our countries should be ethical and justified. WHAT ARE THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE VOICE REFERENDUM? AN ETHICIST EXPLAINS https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-are-the-philosophical-concerns-about-the-voice-referendum-an-ethicist-explains/xt5w7xm1a PAUL FORMOSA DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/paul-formosa MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I’m sure you’ve seen celebrities posting pictures of themselves with the word Yes written on their hand in support of the upcoming Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum. Tom Gleeson, one of Australia’s favourite comedians, according to his own website. Non-binary actor Kath Ebbs. TV presenter and comedian Rove McManus. Australian comedian Celeste Barber. Independent MPs, the so-called Teals, alongside the Prime Minister all writing Yes on their hand in pen. Taxpayer money hard at work, hey? Even the Chinese Communist Party are in on it with their Little Red Yes Book. Okay, that last one was made up, but it may as well be true, right? All the little children holding up their Yes books. The message is clear, just vote Yes. Yes! Because, you know, that’s how modern-day Australian democracy works. Politicians tell us to vote Yes. Big companies tell us to vote Yes. Celebrities are telling us to vote Yes. But you know what I think? I think there’s no way to prove how they’ll vote. They can tell us they’ll be voting Yes. They can write it on their hand and post it to Instagram. But when it comes to actual voting day when they’re in the polling booth, they can write whatever they want. Nobody will know except for them. Sometimes I think half these celebrities are just doing this for completely self-serving interests. Perhaps they’re doing it to protect their employment. Perhaps they’re doing it so they’re not accused of being racist. Perhaps they’re doing it out of fears of being cancelled. We certainly don’t see any celebrities writing No on their hand. Well, not mainstream celebrities. But as I said, how they actually vote in the polling booth is for their eyes only. Nobody will know. Current polling suggests that the Yes vote will fail, but if it fails by a lot more than expected, then we can only assume that some of these celebrities and other Yes supporters have been lying. They’ve just been telling people what they think they want to hear, that they support the Yes campaign. But in actual fact on polling day, they write the opposite. We won’t know, and they won’t have to prove it. Will you be letting celebrities influence your voting? Or, like me, will you just ignore them and use your own brain? Vote Yes? No! MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

When I was a kid, I loved weapons (I suppose I still do). I used to spend my days in the library reading up about firearms, and medieval warfare. I didn’t care what the weapon, I loved reading about them, and using them. I used to hang out with friends practising archery in the backyard. We used to make our own swords and armour and have mock battles in the vacant block next door. Well, ‘mock’ battles, they were real battles, just not to the death. I still have the scars to prove it. My friend learnt how to make chain mail and other armour on his Dad’s forge (he still makes weapons to this day). We’d test out the armour using different weapons to see what was effective and what wasn’t. But my favourite weapon, by far, was the throwing knife. That’s not me suggesting they’re a good weapon, just my favourite. I’ll get to that soon. 0:00 I Love Weapons 0:51 American’s Thoughts on Weapons Ban 3:25 Queensland Weapons Laws 5:07 Reasons Throwing Knives Suck 5:24 1. Disarming Yourself 5:37 2. Stopping Power 6:25 3. Accuracy 7:14 They Suck, but I Still Love Them 7:57 Weapons Ban Thoughts I know this American guy who lives in Australia. He’s been here for a few years, and generally speaking, he likes Australia. But there’s one thing that really gets his goat. Although self-defence is legal in Australia, the Australian Government have essentially made it impossible in practice, at least, not with weapons. You see, using a weapon in self defence is essentially illegal here in Australia. He comes from a constitutional carry state, Arizona I believe, and he legally carried a concealed pistol back home, as did many of his friends. They all belonged to the local gun club and I have no doubts that they were highly trained and treated their weapons with respect. There’s no doubt he enjoyed his right to bear arms to protect himself and his family. That said, he kind of understands that Australia doesn’t allow guns, well not as a defensive tool, but what he can’t understand is that pretty much all defensive tools are illegal. Stun guns, tasers – they’re illegal. Knives of course, cannot be carried defensively. But the one that he has the most gripes about is that pepper spray and the like are illegal. He thinks that’s just bordering on criminal that we allow the government to disarm us to such an extent. Look, I’m not here to convince you either way. I’m just telling you what some people think. His argument is pretty simple, weapons’ laws only serve to disarm innocent people. Obviously, criminals have their own code of ethics, and by their very nature (that’s why they’re called criminals), ignore any laws that don’t suit them. Criminals, yes, even here in Australia, have no qualms carrying a knife, or a pistol or anything else. To this day, innocent people still get shot by law-ignoring criminals. Yes, I know the opposite argument, less guns means less gun deaths. True. So anyway, my favourite weapon as a youngster was a throwing knife. My uncle happened to gift me a couple. I became good at throwing knives, at trees, but the moment I tried to throw them at moving targets, I quickly realised they were not very good practical weapons. Combine that with the knife’s limited range, light weight, not to mention that you’re throwing your weapon away, you would probably be better off walking up to the bad guy and stabbing him with it. Look, I still love throwing knives. I think they’re a cool weapon. They require skill. They require a lot of practice, but in reality, you’re pretty much better off with any other weapon. Even with years of training, I would suggest that throwing a knife is still slightly less effective for self-defence than say throwing a nice-sized rock. Rocks are cheaper, heavier, and often more aerodynamic. Some Americans feel sorry for us here in Australia, because they think that the government have take away all our weapons. But that’s simply not true. You can buy a nice hatchet at Aldi this week, for example. You can buy weapons. You’re just not allowed to use them as weapons unless you want to go to prison. Anyway, that’s my comments on knife throwing and other weapons in Australia. What’s your favourite weapon, and can you legally carry it? QUEENSLAND POLICE SAFER LIVING https://www.police.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-08/SaferLiving_Website.pdf VICTORIA RECORDS HIGHEST NUMBER OF ANNUAL SUICIDES SINCE 2000 AMID FEARS OF NATIONAL TREND https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/victoria-records-highest-number-of-annual-suicides-since-2000-amid-fears-of-national-trend ALBANESE LABOR GOVERNMENT FAILS TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH RELIEF AS SUICIDE RATES RISE IN THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2023/09/07/albanese-labor-government-fails-provide-mental-health-relief-suicide-rates MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“Stupidity”, “base racism”, are just some of the words prominent Aboriginal leader and Yes campaigner Marcia Langton has used to describe the No campaign and its supporters. She appeared on stage at a forum in Bunbury, Western Australia with Labor state MP Don Punch when she decided to attack everyday Australians. A video of the event was posted on Mr Punch’s Facebook page, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the video seems to have gone missing. But this is the internet, and nothing goes missing. So now I will play you those fateful words spoken by Ms. Langton. “Every time the No case raises one of their arguments, if you start pulling it apart, you get down to base racism. I’m sorry to say it, but that’s where it lands. Or, just sheer stupidity.” Despite saying it and despite being caught on camera saying it, she denies calling No voters racist. She has since stated, “I’m saying the claims being made by the no case are based in racism and stupidity – and appeal to racism and stupidity. And they are appealing to Australians to frighten them into adopting highly racist and stupid beliefs. I did not say what the Australian and the Bunbury Herald are reporting. The media reporting is a very deliberate tactic to make me look like a racist when I’m not. I am not a racist, and I don’t believe that the majority of Australians are racist. I do believe that the no campaigners are using racist tactics.” During Question Time in parliament on Monday, shortly after the Bunbury Herald article’s publication, deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley commented, “We saw Marcia Langton label those advocating a No position as either ‘racist’ or ‘stupid’. Now this is a window into the psyche of the Yes campaign and it’s a window into the psyche of a modern Labor Party. They refuse to accept that everyday Australians do not like what they see when it comes to the Voice. This is the Yes campaign’s ‘deplorables’ moment and it’s really disappointing because we want a fair and honest debate.” If you’re unaware, “deplorables” is in reference to a comment Hillary Clinton made regarding Donald Trump supporters when speaking at a fundraiser in New York City on 9 September 2016. She said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” If you remember, Donald Trump went on to win that election. The “deplorables” came out in force. The deputy Liberal leader went on to ask, “Will the Minister for Indigenous Australians condemn Professor Langton's comments?” Ms. Linda Burney responded with a general comment calling for respect in the referendum campaign and didn’t really answer the original question, but what’s new? Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton called on the Prime Minister to cancel the referendum, because no matter the result, it’s only dividing Australians. I agree in part with Mr Dutton. The referendum is dividing Australians, but I think we have to go through with it. According to the AEC, the writ has been issued, so it’s going to happen no matter what. Polls are showing that the Yes vote has slid considerably, and there’s almost no chance of it winning. It would be some sort of miracle if it did win. The No vote is ahead in every state except Tasmania, which is funny, because it’s the only state in Australia that isn’t ruled by the Labor Party. One would expect the opposite. This just goes to show us that even Labor voters aren’t fully onboard with the Yes campaign. As I said, we need this referendum to go ahead, because when it loses, it’ll show the current government and the activists that Australians do not want this. If it loses significantly, it will tell future governments that this is not on. Australians are not willing to accept a change to our constitution that will divide us up along ethnic or racial lines. The constitution should be colourblind. The Yes voters may have good intentions, but by the looks of it, the Yes campaign is done. YES CAMPAIGNER MARCIA LANGTON DENIES CALLING NO VOTERS ‘STUPID AND RACIST’ https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/yes-campaigner-marcia-langton-denies-calling-no-voters-stupid-and-racist/news-story/bafcc819fb91b694ba9261e4098cdce3 MARCIA LANGTON DENIES CRITICISING NO VOTERS, AND SAYS MEDIA IS TARGETING HER https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/12/marcia-langton-denies-criticising-no-voters-and-says-media-is-targeting-her READ HILLARY CLINTON'S 'BASKET OF DEPLORABLES' REMARKS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Oh the irony. World No. 1 ranked tennis player, Novak Djokovic, has won his most recent US Open in New York. Not only did he win the match, he also was awarded the “Shot of the Day” by pharmaceutical giant Moderna. Novak was famously booted out of my home country for not taking a particular type of medicine. That’s an odd reason for being forced to leave a country, isn’t it? Despite the Serbian winning his court case and being allowed to stay, the Australian Immigration Minister at the time, Alex Hawke, decided to exercise his ministerial powers and kick him out anyway citing, “health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so”. Basically, the Minister did not want any Australians getting any funny ideas in their heads and not taking their prescribed medication. Essentially, Australians were being told, “Shut up and take your medicine, or else!”. Some people lost their jobs. Some people lost their livelihoods. Some people weren’t allowed to got to the pub or the cinema, or even to go see their dying relatives in hospitals or aged care. So of course, how could we possibly take in a world champion tennis player who might convince Australians to go against their kind and benevolent masters. Some commentators were secretly (or not so secretly) hoping that Novak would no longer be with us due to his choices, but instead, the 36-year-old is fighting fit and has since gone on to win multiple tennis tournaments. Is he deserving of the Moderna Shot of the Day even though he never participated in the Moderna pharmaceutical program? Of course he is! Despite not being a shot-taker, he’s certainly one of the world’s best shot-makers and has taught all those younger players a thing or two about playing good tennis. Good on you, Novak. NOVAK DJOKOVIC GAME-WINNER AT US OPEN IRONICALLY NAMED ‘MODERNA SHOT OF THE DAY’ https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/novak-djokovic-game-winner-at-us-open-named-moderna-shot-of-the-day/ HOW WE GOT HERE – NOVAK DJOKOVIC LOSES APPEAL, OUT OF AUSTRALIAN OPEN https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/33050990/how-got-here-novak-djokovic-loses-appeal-australian-open MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

You’re the Voice! Um… NO! Anthony “Vote YES” Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia, has made it his mission to convince you to vote Yes in the upcoming Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum. Tens of millions of dollars has been spent on advertising to try to make you vote Yes (not tax payers’ money, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney assures us). But the latest addition to the Yes campaign is a song from a 74-year-old British-born, former mullet-wearing pop singer, John Farnham, who has apparently gifted his song “You’re the Voice”, to the Yes campaign. Apparently, Australians are so easily persuaded, the simple inclusion of a song will make us change our vote. I don’t know about you, but I’m not buying it. I don’t think Australians are so easily manipulated, are they? Well, I’m certainly not. It might be a good song. It might have some catchy lyrics, but it doesn’t change what we’re voting for. Some commentators have pointed out that the first line of the chorus is an apt description of the upcoming Voice, “You’re the voice, try and understand it”, in that, many voters still don’t know what exactly this Voice will entail. For me, what we’re voting on is very clear: The inclusion of a federal advisory body that can only be made up of people from a particular ethnicity. And that just sounds wrong to me. You don’t eliminate racism by excluding 96% of Australians because they don’t happen to have the appropriate ethnicity. According to the Voice website, “The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities”, and, “The Voice will be accountable and transparent”. That’s interesting, because the Guardian is reporting this week, “Albanese government accused of ‘blatant hypocrisy’ as more than 2,000 Senate questions go unanswered. So are we just supposed to have faith that the Voice will live up to its transparency promises as well? Not only has Johnny Farnham been raked in in an attempt to sway your vote, so have many big Australian companies who are also calling on you to vote Yes. Qantas have famously stuck Yes23 badges on their planes publicly affirming their support. For some strange reason, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has since departed, not on a plane, but he did suddenly quit Qantas. According to Aviation Australia, flight crew have been seen celebrating with high fives after learning the fateful news, with hero pilot Captain Richard de Crespigny describing a “collapse of the brand” under Mr Joyce. Not only are singers and massive companies telling you to vote Yes, so too are Australia’s biggest sporting codes. “More than 20 Australian sporting codes unite in support of Indigenous voice to parliament”. So famous singers want you to vote Yes. The Government want you to vote Yes. Kmart wants you to vote Yes. An entire f***ing airline wants you to vote Yes. All the sporting codes want you to vote Yes. You’d be kind of the odd man out if you voted No. Well… According to the most recent polling, the Yes vote is collapsing, with the No vote now taking the lead. Apparently, Australians aren’t listening to their corporate masters. But anyway, none of that matters anymore, because Johnny Farnham is onboard with one very clear message: “Vote YES!!!”. Remember, “You’re the Voice”. Well, depending on your ethnicity, only about 3 or 4% of you will be the Voice. So my response is, and will always be, a resounding NO! JOHN FARNHAM'S HIT SONG YOU'RE THE VOICE THE OFFICIAL SOUNDTRACK FOR THE 2023 REFERENDUM YES CAMPAIGN https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/john-farnhams-youre-the-voice-for-referendum-yes-campaign/102806260 NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR 'YES' OR 'NO' CAMPAIGNS IN INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM, BURNEY CONFIRMS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-29/no-public-money-for-yes-or-no-referendum-campaigns-burney-confir/101712992 ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER VOICE https://voice.gov.au/ ALBANESE GOVERNMENT ACCUSED OF ‘BLATANT HYPOCRISY’ AS MORE THAN 2,000 SENATE QUESTIONS GO UNANSWERED https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/04/albanese-government-accused-of-blatant-hypocrisy-as-more-than-2000-senate-questions-go-unanswered HERO A380 PILOT SAW QANTAS CREW ‘HIGH FIVE’ JOYCE EXIT https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/09/hero-a380-pilot-saw-qantas-crew-high-five-joyce-exit/ MORE THAN 20 AUSTRALIAN SPORTING CODES UNITE IN SUPPORT OF INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/26/australia-sport-codes-unite-in-support-of-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-sports-yes-vote-referendum VOICE TO PARLIAMENT POLLING RESULTS TRACKER: HOW MANY PEOPLE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE REFERENDUM https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2023/sep/04/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-poll-results-polling-latest-opinion-polls-referendum-tracker-newspoll-essential-yougov-news-by-state-australia MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Climate action? Or vandalism. An environmental group, if you can call them at, called Tyre Extinguishers have hit Australia’s shores and have taken their first action in Toorak in Melbourne by deflating people’s tyres, because you know, the best way to save the planet is by vandalising the vehicles of innocent people. Some people might suggest that it’s not vandalism, but when you think about possible scenarios, it doesn’t take too long to think of potential harm. At the very least, the owners would have to spend time, or even money reinflating, or changing their tyres, and not everyone has access to a pump. But in the more extreme cases, what if somebody doesn’t notice that their tyres are deflated and end up driving on them damaging the tyres or rims, or potentially having an accident? What if there’s a medical emergency in the night, and suddenly the owner’s vehicle is not operational? Okay, I think most of us would agree, at the very least, it’s some kind of criminal mischief. According to their website, “We are people from all walks of life with one aim: To make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4x4 in the world’s urban areas. We are defending ourselves against climate change, air pollution and unsafe drivers. We do this with a simple tactic: Deflating the tyres of these massive, unnecessary vehicles, causing inconvenience for their owners.” They even have a How-to guide. “Locate an SUV. In towns and cities, you won’t have to walk far to find one. Target posh / middle-class areas.” I won’t go on, because YouTube have a policy that video creators cannot “enable, glorify, or promote dishonest or criminal behaviour”. Isn’t it strange that the authorities allow this website to remain up, although I don’t think it takes a brain surgeon to figure out how to deflate a tyre. Perhaps I spoke a bit too soon before. Step 4 says, “Print a leaflet and leave it under the windscreen wipers, so that the owner is aware that the car is unusable and gets an explanation as to why this has been done.” So you know, to save the planet, you need to waste some paper to tell people why you disabled their car. And Step 5, “When you’re done, anonymously let the local press know what you’ve done, where you’ve done it and why.” While Step 7 say, “Repeat, repeat, repeat.” There’s even a video demonstration how to become a petty criminal. Other tips include: “Work under cover of darkness. Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis – there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering.” That’s probably one of the more honest things they’ve said. Many climate organisations and governments seem to think we can just replace all our petrol cars with lithium batteries, but lithium is also a finite resource with an energy-intensive mining process. “Avoid: Cars clearly used for people with disabilities, traders’ cars, minibuses and normal-sized cars.” Not that you can always tell which cars are used for people with disabilities. My wife often drives people around with a disability in my hybrid SUV, without any sort of visible disability placard. Is she fair game? They’ve even got a page celebrating their first offence in Australia: “30 SUVs disarmed last night in Toorak, Melbourne’s richest suburb. Congrats to Melbourne TX on the first ever Aussie TX action!” 1st September 2023. This is their leaflet they’re telling their minions to put on their victims’ cars. “Attention: Your gas guzzler kills!” They talk about the “climate emergency”, that “SUVs are unnecessary, and pure vanity”, and that “You will have no difficulty getting around without your gas guzzler, with walking, cycling, or public transport.” And of course that “hybrids and electrics are still polluting, dangerous and cause congestion.” Do you think these tactics will work? I can just imagine it. You’re late for work, race out to your car to find that your tyres are all flat, and then you sit down and read their pamphlet, and say, “Oh yeah! I didn’t realise I was destroying the environment. I might just sell my cars and walk everywhere from now on.” Yeah, right! The only thing this is going to do is piss people off and make them hate climate activists even more. What happened to handing out leaflets peacefully in the street? Remember the old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”? You know, you can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery than by hostile confrontation. These tactics won’t save the planet. It will just piss everybody off, and maybe even create some vigilantes. TYRE EXTINGUISHERS WEBSITE https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/ CLIMATE EXTREMIST GROUP TYRE EXTINGUISHERS TARGETS SUVS IN TOORAK https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/maybe-try-walking-climate-extremist-group-tyre-extinguishers-targets-suvs-in-toorak/news-story/25b3bc099ec39c5d778e73646d826dfc MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Trudeau Down, Trump Up. What?! Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is not doing so well in the polls. It doesn’t really matter which polling firm you look at, the Conservative Party of Canada is leading the way with an ever increasing margin under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre. Young voters used to be the strongest faction in favour of Trudeau, but surprisingly, they’ve turned a bit sour on him in recent months. “'Getting squeezed on both sides': Liberals a distant third among younger voters”. From its high point of 69% in 2016, Trudeau’s approval rating has now dropped to 33% with young voters, with only 16% support from 18-29 year-olds. I’m sure you’ve heard the news of Mr Trudeau separating from his wife, well, the Conservatives were quick to jump on that, “Canada's Conservatives tout leader as family man after Trudeau separation”. While the Prime Minister is stoking fear and division by offering ridiculous travel advisories to the Canadian 2SLGBTQI+ community (yes, that’s the actual term used inside the Canadian Government), warning them not to travel to some parts of the United States, whereas Pierre Poilievre is taking a slightly different tack saying schools should leave LGBT issues to parents. “It is not the Canadian way for the prime minister to tell a Muslim man that his values are American because he wants to pass on his traditional teachings to his children,” Mr Polievre said. South of the Canadian border (or west if you’re heading to Alaska), Donald Trump is in the news with his world’s most famous mugshot. “It’s a great mugshot. It’s a beautiful mugshot, and nobody takes better mugshots than me, believe me. Biden’s mugshot will pale by comparison.” That’s a real quote... from Twitter. CNN were kind of hoping the mugshot would destroy Trump, but it didn’t seem to happen. “He’s been booked. His mug shot has been taken. And incredibly this might not end Donald Trump’s race for the White House”. Instead, the Guardian are reporting, “Trump improves lead over Republican primary rivals after mugshot release”. You don’t have to like him, but he’s by far the most popular Republican candidate to date. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis comes in at a very far away second. Unfortunately for the current president, according to the Guardian, three-quarters of Americans say Biden is too old for a second term. Anyway, that was my small commentary on North American politics. Trudeau Down, Trump Up. 'GETTING SQUEEZED ON BOTH SIDES': LIBERALS A DISTANT THIRD AMONG YOUNGER VOTERS https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/getting-squeezed-on-both-sides-liberals-a-distant-third-among-younger-voters-1.6539949 CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU SEPARATES FROM WIFE SOPHIE https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-03/canadian-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-separates-from-wife/102682168 CANADA'S CONSERVATIVES TOUT LEADER AS FAMILY MAN AFTER TRUDEAU SEPARATION https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-conservatives-tout-leader-family-man-after-trudeau-separation-2023-08-28/ POILIEVRE SAYS SCHOOLS SHOULD LEAVE LGBTQ ISSUES TO PARENTS https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-lgbtq-pronouns-schools-1.6950029 HE’S BEEN BOOKED. HIS MUG SHOT HAS BEEN TAKEN. AND INCREDIBLY THIS MIGHT NOT END DONALD TRUMP’S RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/25/opinions/trump-booked-mug-shot-fulton-county-zelizer/index.html TRUMP IMPROVES LEAD OVER REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RIVALS AFTER MUGSHOT RELEASE https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-lead-poll-mugshot-republican-presidential-primary 2SLGBTQI+ GOVERNMENT OF CANADA https://women-gender-equality.canada.ca/en/free-to-be-me.html MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

In this presentation, we’ll be looking at v-status mortality by age category as requested by some viewers. This is somewhat of a continuation from my last video. The data we’ll be using is from the UK’s Office for National Statistics Deaths involving [something] by v-status. According to their notices, they will not be publishing this data anymore. I will be downloading their spreadsheet file on Age-standardised mortality rates. Specifically, we’ll be looking at Table 2, mortality rates by v-status by age group, all-cause mortality, which includes falls, illness, cancer, everything. The columns we’re interested in are V-status, Age-standardised mortality, and Age group, noting that the youngest age group is 18-39 year-olds. There are no children in this data, which wasn’t always the case. For example, in their report dated 24 September 2021, they used to include people as young as 10 in a much broader category of 10-59 year-olds, but that’s since gone by the wayside. Anyway, let’s get started. Here’s the youngest age category, 18-39 year-olds. As usual, let’s begin with the unveed control group shown in blue. A viewer asked to include confidence limits, so I will include the 95% confidence interval shown as thin blue lines, just for the control group. Let’s add first dose recipients, who had their dose more than 21 days ago. If anything, they have slightly higher mortality than the control group, remember, there could be other hidden factors. Also, remember that these are all relatively young people, so naturally, their mortality is going to be quite low anyway. For those who had a second dose at least 21 days ago, I would suggest their all-cause mortality is lower than the control group on average. Third dose individuals who had their dose at least 21 days ago, also seem to have a lower mortality. But the surprising one, I suppose, is the fourth dose individuals who have a much higher mortality than the other groups at six or seven or more times the mortality rate. Remembering, there could be hidden variables at play here. Just one example, which is just speculation on my part, young people who are likely to take a fourth dose might already be quite sick from some other cause, but as I said, that’s just speculation and is not verifiable in this data. But from this view, you can see that young people in general, have low overall mortality. For young people’s mortality during the first 21 days after taking a dose, there just isn’t that much data, but you can take a look at the overall mortality across all age groups during the first 21 days in my previous video as shown on screen here. Okay, let’s take a look at the 40-49 year-olds, my age category. Just to make it easier for myself, I’ll show all the data on the one graph, noting that all of these are all-cause mortality 21 days after taking a dose. First dose individuals have a significantly higher mortality than the control group. Those who took a second dose start out having less mortality than the control, but from 2022 onwards, have very similar mortality. According to this data, third dose individuals have less mortality than the control. But again, people in their 40s who took a fourth dose have significantly higher mortality, especially in the first few months of the rollout. For people in their 50s, obviously, the mortality rates are going to be higher as people get older. First dose recipients had a couple of months of low mortality in early 2021, but their mortality skyrocketed and stayed high ever since. As previously seen, second dose individuals start out having less mortality, but from 2022 onwards, have very similar mortality to the control group. And our final group, the UK’s most senior citizens, 90-years-old and above. As you can see, first dose recipients had an extremely high mortality rate in the beginning, peaking at around 80% death rate in June 2021. Second dose recipients also had a similar peak with a mortality rate over 70,000 per 100,000. Third dose recipients started off well, but by mid-2022, were significantly worse than the control group, with fourth dose individuals pretty much tracking the control group mortality. So basically, all-cause mortality for the control group remained pretty steady between 2021 and 2023, but that can’t really be said for first and second dose. Anyway, that’s the last ever report on v-status mortality coming out of the UK, at least, for this period of history. I hope you enjoyed this presentation, but more importantly, I hope that society at least learns something from these last two years of observations. OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS – DEATHS BY V-STATUS, ENGLAND https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

We take a look at the final report ever from the Office for National Statistics website out of the UK, “Deaths involving [something] by v-status, England: between 1 April 2021 and 31 May 2023”. I apologise, I have to watch what I say, because I often get into trouble just by mentioning these things. This data shows the age-standardised mortality rates, meaning it is directly comparable, but please note I cannot offer my interpretation, I can only show you the data and you can interpret it how you will. This is actually their final report ever! If you click on Corrections and Notices, and scroll down to the notice dated 25 August, “We will no longer be updating the Deaths by v-status analysis, England series. The last edition was published on 25 August 2023. This publication was created during the [something] to answer important questions around mortality by v-status in a timely manner.” So yes, this is it. At least they published a lot more information than the Australian Government ever did. We’re interested in number 2. Deaths by v-status, and we’ll be clicking on this link here to grab all the data. So this is what the data looks like, but to make it easier to understand, I’ll create some charts for us. This chart shows the Monthly Age-Standardised Mortality Rates (ASMR) per 100,000 from 2021 to May 2023 for all-cause mortality, so traffic accidents, diseases, everything. The dark blue line represents the mortality of those who did not take any V. We’ll call them our control group. There’s not much to say until we add more data. This is the mortality rate of those who took a single dose only at least 21 days ago. As I said, I’m not here to interpret the data, I can only say that this cohort of people have a higher overall mortality than the control group, noting that there can be confounding factors. Just as one example, people who took a single dose may have been older on average and in worse health than the control group, although, that’s just speculation on my part, and not verifiable in this data. The point is, there can be confounding factors. This data also shows that the mortality rate started off quite high in 2021, and has steadily dropped off since then. The line in yellow shows the mortality rate of those who took two doses only at least six months ago. You can see that in mid-2021, recipients had significantly better mortality than the control group, but this quickly disappeared as time progressed and became significantly worse by 2022. As with the other groups, the mortality rate has significantly fallen since then, although recipients continue to have higher all-cause mortality than the control group, remembering there could be confounding factors. Shown in green is the all-cause mortality for those who took three and only three doses at least 21 days ago. You can see at the beginning towards the end of 2021, they had significantly better mortality than the control group, but that quickly wore off and became worse than the control group, although this difference is only slight in recent months. The last dose they have data on is the fourth dose shown in brown. These are people who took a fourth dose at least 21 days ago. Their all-cause mortality seems to be either the same or worse than the control group, remembering there could be confounding factors such as age and ill-health. Some of you might be asking, “What about people who took their last dose less than 21 days ago?”. Well they do have data for that, so let’s take a look. Let’s just clear the graph except for the control group. The red line shows the mortality rate of those who took a single dose less than 21 days ago, at that time of course. As expected, there’s less data due to the small 21-day window, but clearly mortality went up as time progressed. Those that took a second dose less than 21 days ago also follow a somewhat similar pattern. Their mortality stays around the same as the control group, and then spikes. For those who took a third dose, within 21 days, mortality started off relatively low, but increased over time. There seems to be a pattern here. Similarly with those who took a fourth dose less than 21 days ago, although the spike in mortality doesn’t go much higher than the control group in this case. Anyway, that’s the UK data for all-cause mortality based on v-status. Remembering, that will be the last time they publish this data ever again. So now we won’t know what the hell is going on, probably exactly how they like it. OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS – DEATHS BY V-STATUS, ENGLAND https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I’m sure you’ve heard by now about the infamous kiss where Spanish football President Luis Rubiales kissed midfielder Jennifer Hermoso without her permission. The reaction across the media was swift – BURN HIM! As with many things of late, you’re only allowed to have one opinion on this story, and that is you have to demand that he be punished to the maximum extent possible. He has to lose his job. He has to lose his livelihood. He has to be charged with sexual assault! It’s the crime of the century, right? Right? In this video, as I often tend to do, I wish to play devil’s advocate. First of all, of course I think nobody should be the victim of an unwanted kiss. Nobody should be forced to kiss anybody. Of course not! This is not me supporting Mr Rubiales’ actions, but one thing I like less than an unwanted kiss is mob mentality, and as usual, that’s what we’re seeing. The mob demands blood, figuratively speaking. A simple slap on the wrist will not do! They want him out! They want him to be charged with a crime! But is this a proportionate response? Are unwanted kisses so rare and so evil that we must act with overwhelming force to eradicate them once and for all? Here are my comments, noting once again, I’m not here to defend Mr Rubiales. When I was a kid growing up in Australia, my uncles and aunties would come over, and without fail, my aunties would kiss me. Often on the cheek. Sometimes on the lips. Either way, I didn’t like it. If I protested, they just did it more, not in a spiteful way, but in an affectionate way. Occasionally, I would complain to my parents, but as I grew up, I realised this is just what they did to show affection. Despite not liking it, I got used to it. In my early 20s, I moved to Japan. The Japanese typically do not like public displays of affection, exactly how I like it. However, where I was working, I was surrounded by people from all different countries. One of my flatmates, an American guy, was dating an Italian lady. Whenever I met her, she would always kiss me. In formal settings, she just kissed me on the cheek. In more casual settings, like in a bar after she had a couple of wines, she’d kiss me on the lips – just a quick peck – but I hated it. I know it was just her way of greeting people, because she pretty much did it to anybody she was friends with, or who was friends with her boyfriend. In Japan, I also knew an older Spanish couple. The lady also always kissed me as a greeting or when saying goodbye. Again, I didn’t like it, but I put up with it, because by this stage of my life, I just realised some people liked kissing as part of their culture, or whatever. Yeah, I didn’t like it, but after growing up with aunties who always did it, I just assumed this is what humans do. When I came back to Australia, a lot of my friends’ mothers, or neighbours would come up and kiss me, you know, as a “long time no see” sort of kiss. Again, I didn’t like it, but I just grinned and bore it. Even Seinfeld had an episode where everyone was kissing Jerry when they met him, and he was just sick of it, so he asked them to stop, which they didn’t take too kindly to and ended up defacing his photo. As you can tell, I’ve experienced a lot of unwanted kisses in my life. I presume other listeners have as well. The only reason these unwanted kisses stopped really, is because of the pandemic, but I presume they’ll start up again soon enough. So what’s my point? Well… Mr Rubiales is Spanish. He comes from a touchy-feely culture, one which I’ve experienced. He got caught up in emotion and kissed a player after she won the World Cup. I’m not saying he did the right thing, not at all. I personally hate people kissing me. I completely understand how people didn’t like it. But does this mean we need to cancel him? And just one more point. What if the opposite happened? It doesn’t take very long to find an example on the internet. 40-year-old Jenny McCarthy kissed 18-year-old Justin Bieber grabbing him by the neck and then the butt after announcing him as the winner of the pop album of the year. All in good fun, right? Justin simply replied, “I feel violated right now”. So if he shouldn’t be cancelled, what do I think should happen to Luis Rubiales? Based on this one kiss alone, and assuming nothing else has gone on behind closed doors, personally I think a simple “I’m sorry to have upset you. I got caught up in the moment. I promise to never do it again” would be enough. But actually, he has already apologised, but that wasn’t enough. The insatiable mob want him burnt. SPANISH SOCCER BOSS LUIS RUBIALES ASKED TO QUIT AMID SEX ASSAULT PROBE AND MOTHER'S HUNGER STRIKE https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-29/luis-rubiales-faces-sex-assault-investigation-in-spain/102786468 JENNY MCCARTHY KISSES JUSTIN BIEBER, THEN EXPLAINS HERSELF https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-xpm-2012-nov-19-la-et-mg-mccarthy-kisses-bieber-amas-justin-bieber-story.html MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn