In this episode we discuss:

• Satanic Drinks
• The World Today
• Kakistocracy
• Morrison says NSW ICAC is a Kangaroo Court
• Gladys and ICAC
• There is still sympathy for Berejiklian
• Horse Race Journalism
• Social Media Trolling
• Such Fucking Hypocrites
• Peter Dutton
• Pig Iron Dutton
• Remember the Extradition treaty?
• Dutton beating the drums over China
• PJK on Dutton
• Chomsky on USA China relations
• Peter Dutton on communication with France
• Religious Discrimination Bill – 3rd Draft
• Why Does it matter – where are we heading?
• Roe V Wade
• Ginsberg disagreed with Roe V Wade
• Brett Kavanaugh
• Madison Cawthorn
• They play a long game
• The Christian pollie factory
• So we end up with this
• Who are the nutters?
• The Concession
• Details
• Under the Guise
• Labor will capitulate … again
• Keneally says religious schools should be able to choose all their staff
• IVF Discrimination
• Victorian Bill and a High Court Challenge
• NSW public not concerned by religious views
• Subs

Well, hello there, dear listener.

This is the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast, episode 320.

I, of course, am Trevor, a.

k.

a.

the Iron Fist.

With me, as always, is Joe, the tech guy.

Evening all.

And if you're one, if you're watching the live stream and you're thinking,

why is there only two white guys there?

What happened to Shay?

The answer is, well, good news and bad news.

The bad news is Shay's not with us tonight.

The good news is, it's because she is, uh, working.

In her profession as an airline hostess, she's currently somewhere in the

sky, landing at 8 o'clock, and if she touches down, gets in the car, gets

home, and gets on a computer quick enough, she can join us remotely.

So, that's good news for Shea, that she's back in the swing of things

with her job, so, and we'll be able to organize, organize ourselves a

bit better in future, make sure we don't miss an episode with Shea.

So, anyway, it's just Joe and I tonight.

And, if you're in the chat room, please say hello, and, oh, a bunch

of different topics to talk about.

Um, we're going to look at news and politics and sex and religion, everything

that's happened in the last two weeks, try and figure out what's going on, try

not to cry too hard over The Plight of the World, gonna look at Corruption, Gladys,

ICAC, Horse Race Journalism, what's been going on with Peter Dutton, and

of course, the Religious Discrimination Bill, and maybe a bit of COVID at

the end, who knows what we'll get to.

What rabbit holes we'll end up down, so, well, let's kick off and see where we

end up, and, look, I, oh, first off, we had Satanic drinks the other night, so,

Robin and I met with some of the local Satanists in Brisbane, at a place in

Newfound, and that was, that was okay, few of us there, some nice, the most

interesting part was that, some of you may have heard of Drew Pavlou, or Pavlo,

or Pavlou, you may have heard of Drew Pavlou, or Drew Pavlou, or Drew Pavlou.

He's the guy who was having a fight with the University of Queensland over the

influence of the Chinese Communist Party.

And he's, anyway, his bodyguard, Dr.

Bruno Starrs, came along, who was supportive of our cause and also was

telling us a bit about Drew and his party, the Democratic Alliance Party.

So that was interesting.

Bruno, if you are watching or listening, Thanks for dropping in

the other night, that was good.

I have to say though, Drew's party, they've got a long way to go in terms

of developing policies, I think.

They're a bit of a one trick pony in that they They have 1, 500 members?

Well, they do!

More than, yes.

So do you listen to the rules change that having 500 members is not enough anymore?

So a number of smaller parties, Secular Party, Science Party, I think?

Oh, Pirate Party.

Pirate Party?

They've all had to, well, they're looking at amalgamating

in order to get the numbers.

Oh, it's a coalition.

Yes.

Because they, 1, 500 members.

Meanwhile, Drew, I think has got well over that.

I think he might have had two and a half thousand and plenty of donations as well.

So He's got the numbers, remarkably, to create his own

party, so, so it's a first step.

But now they just need some policies, because, well, it kind of started off

where Bruno, you know, was saying, well, what's this party about, Bruno,

and he said, well, of course everybody is against the Chinese Communist

Party and its influence in Australia.

And I We'll just stop right there, hang on a minute, like, don't

you think it's a bit overblown?

So we started getting into a conversation and, um, about that, where I was

really saying if you're worrying about foreign influence, shouldn't you be

more worried about America's influence on our culture and our systems?

Anyway, he was very polite and we had an interesting conversation and yeah, so

that was the satanic drinks in Brisbane.

Okay, moving on to more current events that don't involve us.

So I also had some friends over for a sort of social gathering, and some of them

sort of traditionally vote Conservative.

And honestly, dear listener, if you're thinking Morrison's lost, think again.

Like the people who voted for him, in my anecdotal experience of the

Conservatives that I met who previously voted for him, they, they don't see that.

He's done a bad job.

They think he's done okay on COVID.

Well, that's what the two party preferreds were saying.

Yes.

And that Albanese hasn't done enough to warrant changing over, and they

actually still have a generally favourable impression of Would

they ever swing voters, though?

I don't think so, I don't, I can't be sure, but not even

a hint of shifting, really.

So, you know, it's easy to get stuck in a bubble, I think, and be

reading things and think, oh, surely everybody sees through this clown.

No, there's still lots of people still attached to him and, and just don't

have an issue with His theocracy?

Yes, or, you know, the one that came out in the last week,

Joe, was about Gladys and ICAC.

Mm.

Like, to come out, let me jump to that one, so, so, they're angling for

Gladys Berejiklian to take over as a candidate in the seat that they lost.

Tony Rabbat's Warringah or something like that, I think it's called.

So with Federal Cabinet Ministers still considering draft integrity laws, Mr

Morrison told Parliament he would not meet demands from Labor about the Federal body

because doing so would create a kangaroo court like the New South Wales Commission.

Quote, those opposite want to support the sort of show which has

seen the most shameful attacks on the former Premier of New South

Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, he said.

What was done to Gladys Berejiklian, the people of New South Wales

know, was an absolute disgrace.

How long have the Liberals been in power?

Federally?

No, no, no, in New South Wales.

I don't know.

She's been there a while.

She's been there, yeah, well, exactly.

So she's had time to cripple the ICAC.

Yes.

So it's not like it was stacked by her.

Oh, sorry, no, it wasn't stacked by the opposition.

Right.

She's had time to get the old guard out and do whatever she needs to.

Yes.

And it's still, I'm not, it hasn't found anything against

her yet, as far as I know.

No.

But, yeah, it should have investigated her.

It sounds like there was collusion between her and her boyfriend,

even if it was turning a blind eye.

Correct.

And all it's done is saying, we need to investigate, and they've questioned

her over the money that was channeled to the electorate of her boyfriend,

and the nature of her relationship.

Yeah.

And, and her saying.

I wasn't in a relationship with him, and yet she was talking

about how they were in love.

Yep.

I mean, this is an allocation of public money.

Was it done according to law?

Was it done according to protocols?

Like, this is what bodies do.

And for our Prime Minister to say, It was just a kangaroo court.

Surely he's in contempt.

Well, I don't know if they've got contempt laws on a thing like that.

So, what he said, I'll just go on.

I'm not going to allow that sort of process, which seeks to publicly humiliate

people on matters that have nothing to do with the issues before such commission.

To see those powers abused and to seek to traduce the integrity of

people like Gladys Berejiklian.

The Australian people know that Gladys Berejiklian was done over

by a bad process and an abuse.

She resigned voluntarily!

Hmm.

She, she knew that it looked bad and she decided to step down.

It just, this is not normal dear listener for a Prime Minister to, to

interfere in a criminal investigation and to just declare that a, you

know, a corruption investigating commission is just a kangaroo court.

And completely dismiss what they've done.

Where have we got to?

Like this is, well, this is just Trump all over again.

So the people, you know, my conservative friends who will still vote conservative,

this just doesn't matter to them.

It should, it should matter, but we've.

So, so truth, I think no longer matters.

I don't know if it ever did, but I think there was much more concern

about at least looking to be correct.

Yes.

Integrity just, just doesn't matter anymore.

It's so.

Scott Morrison doesn't remember that he's ever lied in public.

I keep giving the example, because this is what people say, is the

argument that comes back is, look, politicians have always been like this.

It's always been the case.

It's a matter of degree.

It's not so blatant.

They at least used to pretend that they were humiliated when they were caught.

Yes.

We had situations, we had a minister who imported, when he came back

from overseas, a Paddington beer and didn't declare it on his customs form,

and he resigned from the ministry.

The same with another minister who brought in a colour television and

declared it as a black and white and paid less duty as a result.

And that was the bottle of wine I remember.

Exactly.

Like, these things had some importance and now Just blown away.

Like, it just doesn't matter.

So now we're looking at Gladys being parachuted into this with the full support

of Morrison and the Liberals, who have calculated that the public does not

care and she's got a chance of winning.

And it depends what her position on climate change is.

Right.

And I think there's a lot of LNP members, or sorry, Liberals, who

Voted last time on the basis that the Liberal Party Was beholden to

the nationals around climate change.

And so they were willing to vote independent, and I

think they will do again.

If the Liberal Party is unwilling to change.

Yeah, I don't know.

Unless they're placated by the whole We, we might do think We're

thinking about possibly maybe doing something by 2050, but no guarantees.

I mean, it'd be a very sad state of affairs if she is put forward.

I mean, it's sad that they've actually said there's nothing

wrong with her, and here she is.

And then if she actually gets put forward and then if she actually gets charged?

So.

Because as a federal politician, you can't, you can't have a criminal record?

Yeah, I don't know.

I mean, I don't know.

Well, there's a discharged, an undischarged bankruptcy.

And there are a few other things that buy you from being a politician,

but I can't remember what they are.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know.

Don't know.

Have to look it up.

That'll come out, won't it?

So, there was a poll in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, last Thursday it must

have been, or maybe two weeks ago, which showed that many of the state's voters

continue to have sympathy for Berejiklian.

54 percent of voters saying they still like and respect the former Premier.

And, on a separate question, 43 percent agreed with the proposition that Mrs.

Berejiklian should not have resigned based on what had emerged from it.

25 percent disagreed and 32 percent were neutral.

So, 43 percent said she should not have resigned, 32 percent were neutral.

Only 25 percent said she should have.

That was a resolved political monitor poll, only 515 respondents, not the

greatest of polls, but still frightening numbers, so, this is not normal.

This is not good.

Well, I, I, yeah, I mean, the question is, did she purge her herself?

Mm.

Was she Yeah, even if she was turning a blind eye, was she going, or did she

actually actively conspire and funnel money that shouldn't have gone there?

Well, I think just her own, you know, the recordings that

they have are pretty damning.

And she wasn't able to provide any.

Mitigating Circumstance.

That seem to make a better picture of what looked like a pretty ugly scenario.

So, yeah, we're in a bad state of our democracy when, when people

with such a dark cloud over them.

Have been considered before being cleared for another role straight

up and our Prime Minister says the whole process was a complete kangaroo

farce and an abusive process.

I mean Yeah, I mean that, that's more worrying.

He's undermining the process.

Yes.

Yes.

It's even more worrying than them selecting her, is the statements he made.

Nobody cares.

Nobody cares.

Ah, in the chat room you guys are going off.

So, what have we got here?

James is saying that the Liberals are a four term government

and the ICAC is underfunded.

Right.

There we go.

So, New South Wales four term government.

Robyn says hello.

Ross says the Liberal Party in New South Wales instigated ICAC

and were quite happy with it when it was pursuing Labor members.

Exactly right.

And the fact that Morrison is singing her praises means the LNP have done

some testing of the voters opinions, which I assume were positive.

Grown.

Yeah.

Honestly, it's just a really sad state of affairs with our democracy.

Or should we be calling a, calling it a Kakis, Kakistocracy.

From the Greek word, Kakistos, meaning the worst, and Kratos meaning rule.

So a Kakistocracy.

Essentially refers to a government by the least suitable or competent.

Or even the worst, citizens of a state.

So, in this article by Michael McKinlay, in the John Menendee blog, he says

we're in some form of kakistocracy, we're no longer talking about just

normal corruption, it's the inevitable consequence of political parties becoming

so beholden to special interests with no connection to democracy that their

immune systems are totally compromised.

They have ceased to stand for anything except pure politics.

That's the case.

Morrison, you know, a lot's been coming out that, other than

religious freedom bill, he's really got nothing on his agenda.

The fact that they scheduled a handful of days of parliament for the next nine

months meant they had nothing pressing that they wanted to do in terms of change.

Well, they wanted to fob off any climate change action.

Yes.

I think they've managed to do that.

Right.

Because it's, it's technology, not taxes.

Yes.

But that's the strategy.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, it's lots of words and absolutely nothing happening.

Yep.

So, you know, they've got nothing on their agenda except bloody religion.

So anyway, that's where we are with Morrison, Kangaroo

Court, Gladys and Kekistan.

And, and yes, and Cacastocracy.

So, what's our media doing to help us in what's happening?

Joe, dear listener, we're going to play something here.

We're using a new system so that we can get the video come

up on the, on the live stream.

So, I'm a little bit worried that the volume is going to

be a bit low in this next bit.

So, if you are listening for the next two minutes on the live stream, you

might have to turn it up a little bit.

So, let's just play a bit of the one that had New sales?

Yes, that one, yep.

Well, horse race journalism is sort of a reusable model for

how to do campaign coverage.

In which you focus on who's going to win, rather than what the country needs

to settle by electing a prime minister.

And it's easy to do because you can kind of reuse it sort of

like a Christmas tree every year.

And it requires almost no knowledge.

And it kind of imagines the campaign as a sporting event, right?

And everything that happens in the campaign can potentially

affect the outcome.

And so you can look at it as, how is it going to affect the horse race?

And every day you can ask, who's ahead?

And what is their strategy?

And I think this perspective appeals to political reporters because it

kind of puts them on the inside.

You know, looking at the campaign the way the operatives do.

By the way, I'm told that you actually have a program here on

Sunday morning called the Insiders.

We do.

Is that true?

We do.

And the Insiders are the journalists?

That is right.

That's remarkable.

Mmm.

The nature of, basically what you've just described there is basically

what modern, the data So, horse race journalism, I like what he's saying

there, in the sense I think he's right.

So much of what I see is punditry about how the parties are going and the point

scoring, but nothing about the actual policies and whether they're good or bad.

And a classic example to me, 30 report, not Lee Sayles, but who's the other lady

who comes on with blonde hair, her name's just escaped me for the moment, was

going out with the actor, Laura Tingle.

So Laura Tingle gets a lot of positive press from other journalists and

lefties who think Laura's fantastic.

And to me, it's a lot of horse race journalism a lot of the

time, and not really willing to get into the weeds on policy.

So I remember with Submarines, when that sort of blew up, she really hadn't done

any study of the submarine issue in the sense of what makes a good submarine

for our purposes and what doesn't.

She had no idea at all.

She was like, oh, well, you know, of course, what's a good submarine?

No, that's technical stuff.

I'll leave up to other people.

But here's the fight that's going on between people rather than

addressing the policy itself.

And, uh, just all the time, I think.

The politicians going, he said, she said.

Yeah, and who, who leveled the best gotcha or whatever, without

really examining the nuts and bolts.

Whether or not it's good for Australia.

Pros and cons.

As opposed to whether it's good for a politician's career.

Correct.

Is this just a good policy or a good idea?

It just doesn't get discussed.

No, I think it's a lot about, you know, the false balance.

It's very much, we can't be seen to be taking sides, so we'll report

on what the politicians are doing and we'll ignore the policies.

Because there's a chance in that, in examining the policies, you might decide

one of them is really good or bad, and that's good for one side of the, one

party and not so good for the other one.

Yeah, yeah.

So if you find out that, you know, 97 percent of climate scientists believe

that humans are causing climate change and that sticking your head

in the sand and pretending that it doesn't exist is probably bad for

the country, you may decide that one political party is better than another.

Yeah.

So, yeah, we just don't get enough discussion on the nuts and bolts of policy

and whether they're a good idea or not.

One, so, you know, the sources I'm really enjoying at the moment, I still enjoy

John Menendee's blog for different things that does get into the weeds on policy

and I'm also really enjoying Crikey.

So, if you're thinking of expanding your news sources, dear

listener, then give Crikey a go.

They're doing some good stuff, and they've done a lot of work on religious freedom,

yes, and the goings on with Hillsong and other backroom people with, who are

involved in dominionism, essentially.

So, so I'm quite liking Crikey, and highly recommend that you

take up a subscription if of spare cash for a Crikey subscription.

They're doing some good stuff.

The rest of them are doing nothing, I think.

And, and honestly, as you know, do this and I look at all the Murdoch papers,

the Courier Mail, the Australian.

Big fan.

And each day, I have to say, the Courier Mail doesn't have

that much on China, necessarily.

And then I open up the app for the Australian.

And I just, before I even start, I go, I wonder how they've managed to weave

anti China stories into this paper today.

And sure enough, there's three, four, six of them, often on the front page,

with some anti China bent outrage.

And it's mind boggling how anti China the Australian is and how it dominates that.

Not newspaper, that newsletter for the Liberal Party.

For the IPA.

Yes, that's it, yeah.

Yeah, I have the Apple News app on my phone, which really is probably

where I see a lot of headlines.

And if it's bagging Donald Trump, it comes from Vanity Fair.

Right.

If it's Banging Palaszczuk, it's The Courier Mail, right?

Yes.

Yeah, you can, you can almost just read the headlines and tell which,

which, which news source it comes from.

Yes.

I'm a bit the same with Spectator authors now.

Right.

Um, because I've been, I've been hearing the unsubscribe button on Spectator

emails for the last week and these things still keep appearing, but, but

I can, I can now pick a Rammish the Cooler article just by the first line.

I can say, ah, that looks like Rammish, and sure enough, it's him.

And spiked, I can pick a Brendan O'Neill one pretty well, and a

Douglas Murray pops out at me.

They've just got a certain style and outrage from the first line, so.

Yeah, so yeah, our, our media is failing us.

ABC, in particular, who should be helping us, where there is some

expectation, they are not getting into the weeds, they're just doing the,

what do we call it, the horse race journalism, I reckon, a lot of the time.

Okay, so, yeah, James says, can you imagine the pile, pile from

the IPA, the CIS and the ILC if the ABC started evaluating the policy?

Oh, that's That's probably true and that's why they're probably scared, James.

So, mind you, so IPA, Institute of Public Affairs, CIS, Centre

for Independent Studies.

I saw Commonwealth of Independent States.

No, Centre for Independent Studies, another right wing group.

Right.

I saw Rationalist reproducing one of their articles.

It was about public housing.

Okay.

The article was saying how the government shouldn't be in public housing because

it's, it's not a good investment.

And that was shared on, I think, the Freethinkers group.

And I found an article that was arguing back in the eighties, Maggie

had a big, big policy about selling off the UK social housing stock.

Yeah.

How'd that go?

Some people got very, very rich because they bought cheap

houses in the middle of London.

And now they have a shortage of housing stock.

And, but the whole premise of the article was that the government

shouldn't be in it because public housing is not a good investment.

It's not supposed to be a good investment.

It's supposed to be a service.

It was like, why is the rationalist sharing this?

No, no government service is supposed to be a good investment.

Right.

They're not, they're not supposed to run a profit.

No, that's right.

And so I was like, why is the rationalist running this?

And they also ran this article, which I'm going to talk about later, if we

get to it, by Carrick, now what was his name, Carrick Ryan, I think it is.

They used to have a section, and I don't know, maybe it was in that

section, of policies that we disagree with, but here it is, for interest.

Okay.

Then I'd like them to say that, if that's, if they've got it there

as On the daily newspaper, it was down the bottom, there was always

a section of things to be aware of.

Right, okay, because I sort of took it as they thought it was a good idea.

Possibly.

Anyway, what's happened social media stuff?

So, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram have been given an ultimatum.

Either reveal the contact information for users posting abusive content,

or pay a hefty defamation payout.

Under trial blazing proposed legislation taking on the social media titans,

new changes would force social media companies to provide the phone

number or email address of trolls if a defamation litigant wants it.

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese asked, how are we supposed

to police a global industry?

Like, what if someone registers an overseas ISP so they look

like they're in Australia?

So It's easy done.

Yes.

So for this to work The Australian government is trying to tell the

social media giants that every user in the world, you're going to have

to take their contact details and provide them to us if we want it.

Like, that's just not going to work.

They're going to tell Australian government to go jump.

The other thing about it is that this isn't about protecting small, everyday

Australians because they don't have the money to pay for a defamation case.

This is just enabling people who have already got plenty of power and money

to shut down dissent amongst the ranks.

So Yes.

Certain litigious multi millionaires and politicians.

Yes, indeed.

So it's, it's promoted as a means of keeping the social media free of

trolls, but it's actually a means of suppressing dissent for the rich and

powerful who can afford to do it.

It just makes it easier for their lawyers to find the defendant.

I mean, the classic case, because the UK is known as being a bad place to

defend against a libel accusation.

Yes.

Uh, with Simon Singh versus the UK Chiropractic Association, whatever

their formal title is, I can't remember.

Right.

He'd written an article in the newspaper saying that chiropractic was quackery.

Right.

And they took him to court over it.

The quacks took him to court.

Quacks took him to court and he crowdfunded A defence, a legal

defence and it was expensive.

It was not cheap.

And he finally won.

Right.

He, he basically proved in the court of law that there was no scientific

evidence behind their claims.

Right.

And I don't, I probably won damages, but you know, there's

no way he got back what he spent.

No.

But that was a big, big push for changing the UK libel laws.

Right.

And he also, I think, set up a defence fund for Similar scientists to be able

to speak publicly about pseudoscience and to be defended against libel charges.

Yes, yep.

It was a pretty brave effort by the Quacks to take him on, I would have thought.

Well, I think they thought that they had the financial might to shut

him up with the fear of a lawsuit.

Yeah, we'll never get to court.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We'll just beat him to death.

See, in the States, they've got anti SLAPP, or SLAPP provisions, which

is the Strategic Lawsuit Against Something, which basically says.

If you've made a claim that, uh, can be proven, and they try to

see you for liable, effectively, you're liable for the costs.

Oh, okay.

But they've also got a law in America where if you're a public figure,

then pretty much It's open slather?

Yeah.

And public figures are, uh, really have to have a thick skin, essentially.

It's quite different to here.

Right.

So, yep, different laws.

And so, hard to imagine that one being, uh, actually able to be implemented.

But in any event, if it is, it's not going to help the little guys.

It's just going to help the already powerful crush dissent.

So, that's that.

So, in other words, set your sock puppet accounts up now.

Right.

Whilst it's easy.

Okay.

And then use them to defame when, when the powers come.

So you've got a pre existing one there.

Speaking of defamation, Peter Dutton won his defamation case against

refugee advocate Shane Bazzi.

Poor hard working man that he is.

Peter Dutton that is.

So Bazzi had tweeted a link to a Guardian Australia article reporting Dutton's

claims that some female refugees on Nauru Were making false rape allegations to try

to get to Australia and Bazzi added the comment Peter Dutton is a rape apologist

So the judge found that the meaning that readers would have taken from the

tweet was that Dutton is a person who?

excuses rape and Dutton won 35, 000.

It's just Really?

Is it really?

You know, sometimes it's okay to say, okay, that is defamatory,

but in the circumstances, uh, 1.

The amounts are crazy.

Is it really worth 35, 000?

I'm surprised that given his comments on Certain victims of rape.

Right.

That it wasn't found truthful.

Well, Bazzi's defense was honest opinion.

To succeed, the opinion must be based on true facts, which

are either stated or notorious.

And no, it's not notorious, and it hasn't been stated.

So, he lost.

So He was accusing these women of making up being raped.

Yes, and And were they found to have been making that up?

Well, it was the words, Peter Dutton is a rape apologist, sort of go beyond that.

So, right.

Okay.

Not just these women, but Right.

Generally that in that was going too far.

So, but in the context of everything Surely Peter Dunne's comments were

defamatory against the refugees?

Well, up to them to, well, up to them to sue him.

Oh, guess what?

They don't have the money, so it's too hard.

Yep.

Exactly.

At least they know his phone number and email address.

They won't be relying on any laws to do it, so.

So, so yes, things are, that's defamatory, clearly.

You just have to wonder, can the scheme be changed so that you say

yes, but it's not worth 35, 000.

A figure like Dutton in that situation, seriously, it's not worth it.

So.

So really what we've got now is the government saying, well, this trolling,

this insulting of people, these defamatory comments, that's evil on social media.

Of course, doing that's perfectly fine if you're stating a religious belief.

Like, this is all happening at the same time.

On the one hand, it's a terrible thing to do on social media.

On the other hand, well, if it's a religious belief, go for it.

I'm fairly sure that satanic practices are about the sanctity of the other.

Right.

The inviolability of one's own person.

And therefore, in those grounds, I'm fairly sure it would be a religious

belief that Dutton was a rapapologist.

No, I don't think that would be the case, Joe.

And he's really, you're skating on thin ice here, Joe.

It would, it would not be.

If somebody were to say such a thing.

Yes.

I don't think they could say that as part of a religious belief.

No?

No.

I don't think there's a religion that has that specifically in

mind as part of its doctrine.

What else we got from that?

Oh, and the other thing is, you know, the secrecy of trolls.

We can't have people being secretive.

No, no.

Unless, of course, they're donating millions of dollars to a former

Attorney General for his case.

Yeah, in which case, there's nothing to investigate.

That's right.

Yeah, we'll keep that secret.

Yep.

And, you know, more hypocrisy, a woman crosses the floor

in the Senate over the ICAC.

Senate?

House of Reps?

Can't remember.

But essentially, over whether to debate the federal ICAC, and one of the female

liberal politicians crossed the floor, and basically Frydenberg hauled her into

Morrison's office and counseled her.

Meanwhile, five guys crossed the floor to support Pauline

Hanson's vaccine mandate laws.

And they weren't hauled in.

You saw the Jackie Lambie video?

Do we talk about her two weeks ago or not?

Possibly.

She was very good, like, a bit over the top, but the emotion was good, it

was plain speaking, it was genuine.

Yes.

It's what you don't hear, so.

And she's declared that the religious discrimination bill is dead in the

water, she's not going to support it.

Good.

So that's off to a Senate inquiry.

We'll talk about that bill in a moment, but I still want to have a bit of a

go at Peter Dutton before moving on.

So, you know, he has been beating the drums of war with China.

Well, he's got an election to win.

Yes, and really, you can tell now that the campaign is going to be on that the

Conservatives claim to be the better economic managers, and they're going

to keep us safe in a security sense.

China.

And so he's beating the drum and he can sense that Morrison's in trouble and he's

positioning himself as The natural leader.

Correct.

Yep.

And the allegations were that he was behind the last coup.

Yes, that Morrison got the inside run and beat him to it.

Yes, because he had a more fanatical support group of Christians

who just worked feverishly.

Yep.

Unrelenting.

Yeah.

Of course, dear listener, right now I'm guilty of horse race journalism,

but hey, we'll do it anyway.

But, so So Dutton is saying, let's not forget the 1930s, you know, essentially,

where there were people saying nothing to worry about with Hitler.

And he's saying, you know, the same can be said of people who are saying

nothing to be worried about with China.

And I just want to make the point that if he really thinks that's the

case, that China is going to build up this military that's going to end up

attacking us and taking us over, why are we still selling them iron ore?

Because Hand colour?

Yeah.

Stop some growth.

Yeah.

Like, if you honestly thought that China was the threat that you think,

you say it is, Then you shouldn't be supplying them with the metal that

they're gonna use to build their ships and their missiles that's gonna come

riding down on us like, and the coal to produce the power to forge that metal.

So it was back before the second World War that, uh, pig iron, Bob Menzies got his

nickname because the wharfies said, why are we shipping this pig iron to Japan?

Things are hiding up here.

Mm-Hmm, , this doesn't make sense.

They had to go and strike.

To stop the iron being exported over to Japan, because they could

see the writing on the wall.

So, you know, Dutton, why aren't you, you know, reducing or cancelling our

iron ore sales to China if you're so convinced that they're going to be

attacking us in the foreseeable future?

Or anybody else for that matter, if you truly think But they're

our enemy and they're gonna be, um, attacking us soon, so.

Look, it's Tom the Warehouse Guy.

4BC Radio has some good comment moments, but every now and then there

are comments about China, and he Okay, so 4BC Radio is selecting people on

the basis of an anti China threat, according to Tom the Warehouse Guy.

Haven't they always been right wing?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, sabre rattling, yes, that's what's going on.

So, the other thing to remember, just with the hypocrisy of these people,

so, they've got a credibility problem.

Morrison and Dutton were senior members of the Abbott and Turnbull governments when

they signed a free trade deal with China and welcomed Xi Jinping to Australia.

And they then sought to enforce an extradition treaty

between Australia and China.

In 2017, this is only four years ago, that these guys were more than

happy to extradite people to China.

Indeed, it's just a few years later.

So, this article says, this is from March 2017, not that long, four years

in a bit, four and a half years.

The Coalition's decision to pull the treaty this morning came suddenly.

Ms.

Julie Bishop had been defending the treaty just minutes before heading into

a meeting of the Coalition leadership team where its fate was decided.

Quote, this is Mrs.

Bishop, Ms.

Bishop, this is about our national interest.

This is about serving our interests in not being a haven for criminals

around the world who would seek to escape justice by being in Australia.

So she's advocating for the Chinese Australia Extradition Treaty.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce also furiously denounced Labor's decision

to vote with the cross branch and block the Australia China Extradition Treaty.

Barnaby Joyce called it crazy.

to block the treaty.

Surely there's a Trade Minister or an Attorney General or whatever who

understands the ramifications that if the Labor Party participates in this,

they show they've really evolved not into an alternate party but into some

sort of sensational band of rubbish.

Mr.

Joyce said, this is what they were saying only four years ago.

Yeah, well, you know, of course the Labor Party would be blocking the

supply of goods to a communist state.

Yes.

The hypocrisy of these people.

And now just in terms of his beating the drums over China from a Guardian article,

Australia's Defence Minister has ramped up his pre election warnings about the

threat posed by China, declaring Beijing wants countries to be tributary states.

and is building up its military at a scale that is unlikely to be peaceful.

Dutton said on Friday, dark clouds were forming in the regions, and

countries would be foolish to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.

He said it was a time of great uncertainty and that Australians

can be certain that the Morrison government will act to keep them safe.

Does the Chinese government wish to occupy other countries?

Not in my judgement, Dutton said, but they do see us as tributary states that

surrender sovereignty and abandonment of any adherence to the international rule

of law is what our country has fought for.

Against since Federation.

He says if Australia were a weak and unreliable and untrustworthy

friend to its top security ally, USA, then it could not count on U.

S.

support in the future, an outcome that would be disastrous.

And he also says Because we've counted on their support so many times in the past.

Yes, and he also says that he believes China has no right to

reclaim Taiwan, and if the U.

S.

committed forces to defend the embattled island, It would be inconceivable that

Australia, as an alliance partner, would not join in that military action.

So if America decides to defend Taiwan, inconceivable that we wouldn't join them.

There's a statement by Paul Keating responding to all of that and basically,

um, making the point that the US is actually a Having discussions with China

and trying to come to some workable The USA is not as hawkish as Australia is, so

I'm not mad they've changed president, no.

Yeah, so, so Peter Dutton ignored and went out of his way to ignore attempts

by President Biden in his recent meeting with Xi Jinping to reach some sort

of understanding or detente in the relationship between the USA and China.

So, so basically Biden is trying to reach some sort of more less toxic, less heated

relationship, mind you, selling them the stuff that we can't sell anymore.

And, and Australia's being more hawkish than the US is

essentially Keating's arguments and basically declaring him to be.

A dangerous person, Keating declaring Dutton to be dangerous, so look,

this is not just Paul Keating, it's not just me, it's, when you read the

John Menegee blog in particular, the number of different former ambassadors,

former heads of department, really well credentialed people who have been

ambassadors, deputy ambassadors, have spent enormous amount of time in China,

Overseas in Asia, really so much, sort of, ex personnel from our diplomatic

corps write articles in the John Menendee blog, basically saying the same thing.

This is crazy to be stirring up this, this hornet's nest with

China in the way that we are.

And It's got to stop.

So, it's the people beating the drum are these goddamn stupid journalists

and the Australian, the likes of Greg Sheridan, and our Defence Minister.

Yeah, it's like the seventh year in the playground, picking on the year 11 kid

just to look tough in front of his mates.

Yeah, probably dragging the rest of us in.

Well, exactly.

Yeah.

So, I was listening to something where, uh, Noam Chomsky was talking about

it, and here's how he described it.

He said, the US government sees the world in much the same way

as As the head of an organized crime syndicate views a turf war.

The threat of China is China's existence.

It exists as a major power that the United States cannot push around, cannot

intimidate, and does not follow U.

S.

orders.

That is intolerable.

Any Mafia Don can explain that.

Dear listener, that is A good essence of what's happening is it's a big important

corner of the world that is getting bigger and more important and the U.

S.

cannot tell them what to do.

And it just drives them crazy as an empire.

And essentially what it comes down to is They can't access the Chinese

market in the way that they want to.

So they're kept out on purpose.

Other countries have all capitulated to US investment, particularly

through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

As soon as they got into any trouble and they got a loan from the IMF,

The idea was, well, you have to open up your economy and allow foreign

investment and that's, that gave the Americans Entry into all sorts of

Asian countries, Latin America, etc.

And China never signed up for it, Trevor.

China never agreed to it, didn't take it.

And so, they basically kept them out, and it's the last area of exploitation on the

planet, and the Americans are just licking their chops wanting to get in there, and

it infuriates them that they can't, so.

Oh, Shea's in the chat room, so.

I just saw that.

Yeah, so.

So I think that's a good way of looking at it.

It's a turf war, and if you're running an organised crime syndicate, you just

can't have dissidents floating around.

It's not good for business.

Any mafia don can explain that.

Has always been the case.

America has been happy to prop up dictatorships as

long as they turd the line.

Yes.

That was the key requirement.

And, and that's what a lot of this is about.

And, you know, like, they're not perfect, for goodness sake, they've

got You know, issues of all sorts of things, but in the scheme of things,

in comparison to the other group that we're hitching our wagon to, they've

got a long way to go before they are as dangerous as the United States.

Anyway, one other thing about Peter Dutton before I leave him was, so we

had all this discussion about Morrison and Macron, and what did Morrison

tell Macron about dumping the subs, and did he know or did he not know?

And Dutton says, Mr.

Dutton also defended the timing and manner of the cancellation

of the submarine contract.

He said to tell the French earlier would have jeopardized the AUKUS partnership.

Quote, there's a quote from Dutton, if you had have informed the French earlier,

and they have made that public and not respected the advice that we have given

them, the Americans probably would have pulled out of the deal with violent, with

the violent reaction from the French.

So he's essentially saying, we didn't tell the French that we were pulling

out of the sub deal until AUKUS was announced, because maybe the French

would have bitched and whinged so much that AUKUS might not have happened.

That's confirming the French didn't know.

Mm hmm.

So when Morrison says they did, he's a liar.

No.

Yeah.

Morrison's never lied.

Yeah.

So Not that he recalls anyway.

Yeah.

Again, quoting Dutton here, the US, the UK and Australia had a group of high

level officials working essentially around the clock on this deal.

It was choreographed to the minute.

In terms of when people would be notified by whom, and the sequencing

was agreed by the three countries.

So that's the important point to make.

There were no surprise arrangements between the three partners.

So Biden saying, Oh, I thought they already knew, Dutton saying, Bullshit.

We all agreed they wouldn't know until we announced August.

The other thing, of course, just on subs.

Is that one of the key things that our defense department has said about

getting subs is that we've got to have the latest in terms of technology,

but we don't want any hold ups that might occur through technology

that's so new that it's untested.

So we essentially want the latest technology that has already been produced.

We want the Goldilocks technology.

Well, no, we want the latest technology that has already

been manufactured and produced.

What's the newest car, not on the drawing board Well, Newest Sud, not

on the drawing board, but is actually floating out on an ocean somewhere.

So we can say, that's what we're going to get.

There's no surprises, but it's the latest at this point in time.

And guess what?

The U.

K.

and the U.

S.

have essentially shelved and are not producing Anything of their current fleet.

Their plans for subs all involve brand new designs.

So the only group in the world who is producing a sub which is of the

latest technology are the French.

Correct.

So the very thing that we want from the submarine, the only supplier

at the moment would be the French.

Other things about it of course, that, let me see here, yeah

just to re emphasize that.

No, you understood what I just said there.

The problem with the American new platforms, that they're

going to be even bigger.

So the Virginia class has a crew of 135, which is 80 more than our

current Corinths class submarine.

That we can't get enough crew for, at the moment.

And the British version has 98.

So would we be able to populate these very large submarines?

Even the British, which, with much bigger population than Australia.

have difficulty recruiting and retaining crews for their submarines.

So, yeah, the UK's got three times the population of Australia.

Yeah.

So the French design is not only a relatively recent design that's

actually being built, but it only needs a crew of 60, five more

than the current Collins class.

At some point, A future leader is going to have to go back to the

French if we still want subs and go, Intense, we can strike a deal.

I was just wondering whether the nuclear would make a difference, but no, the

French subs are actually nuclear.

Right, yes.

We just chose not to have the nuclear.

Yes.

For an additional cost.

Yeah, so their, their form of nuclear power Is a slightly lower grade,

so you have to replace it every 10 years, but you pop it in and out, and

you've got to maintain these things and put them in a dry dock anyways.

The problem was, after the French, the perfidious French, left NATO, we

don't trust them with our secrets.

We're all stuffed now.

But the point was, we had a deal with them, with their

current, the deal had got canned.

I don't know, but that wasn't their electronics, was it?

It was their hardware.

But they had agreed, the US had agreed we'll help you put your, put the US

weapons in these French made subs.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because they were gonna be diesel and therefore how,

uh, maintained by Australia.

Right.

Well, they still had to provide a lot of information to the French Oh yeah, yeah.

About their weapons systems so that they could be slotted in.

So what, just a shemozzle, don't ask Laura Tingle any of this.

'cause she doesn't know.

So, okay.

Religious Discrimination Bill.

Where are we at?

Shay, did you have a good flight?

She's in her pyjamas, so she'll just participate via chat, if that's okay.

Good on you, Shay.

Right.

What does she think I wear when I talk?

Okay.

Religious Discrimination Bill, third draft.

What does it, why does it matter?

Where are we heading in Australia?

And let's do a little diversion.

To Roe V.

Wade in the United States, Tom the Warehouse Guy, if you're still in

the chat room, I'd be interested to know if you're up to speed on Roe V.

Wade, which I read an article that came out after she died, because she

was a lesbian who, and that's why it surprises me this was her third child,

but she was hailed by Uh, Christian pro lifers, a few years after Roe v.

Wade was won, that she changed her mind and she'd become a born again

Christian and that she was, you know, she, uh, changed her sexuality.

And she thought this was a horrible thing and that abortion was wrong.

And in her later life, she actually said, no, she was paid huge amounts of money.

And that's the only reason she did it was because she was getting such

large amounts of money that she was basically selling her integrity.

Ah, okay.

So I'd heard that she had flipped.

And I'd gone to the Christian side.

Yeah.

But I hadn't heard that she hadn't done it.

So on her deathbed, she basically, uh.

Deathbed confession.

Confessed, uh, getting huge sums of money.

Right.

Which basically meant that she could live a life of Riley.

Right.

She lived a quite nice life thanks to the fundies who were quite

happy to fund her, to pay her way.

Okay, so anyway, the decision involved the case of Norma McCorvey, known in

her lawsuit under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, like John Doe, who in 1969 became

pregnant with her third child, and she wanted an abortion, but she lived in

Texas, where abortion was illegal, except where necessary to save the mother's life.

So a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

And the interesting thing is that it was seen by the, uh, the, uh, Protestants

as being a purely Catholic problem.

Yes.

The Protestants supported a woman's right to choose.

Until the majoral, the moral majority decided that this was a wedge issue.

Correct.

It was not a problem for Christians in general, non Catholics, until they

saw it as a wedge issue for politics.

Basically.

And that was in the 70s, I believe.

Yep.

Indeed.

Anyway, they were right on that score.

It's a wedge issue.

We've made it one.

So, so, in 1973 then, the Supreme Court issued a A 7 2 decision ruling that there

was a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's right to choose

whether or not to have an abortion.

And it ruled That this right is not absolute and it's got to be

balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's

health and protecting prenatal life.

So they created a balancing test and basically looked at the three

trimesters of pregnancy and said during the first trimester, governments

could not prohibit abortions at all.

During the second trimester, governments could require

reasonable health regulations.

And during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely.

As long as the laws contained exemptions for when it was necessary

for the life or health of the mother.

So they had this sort of trimester thing, but basically Roe v.

Wade was, you know, didn't matter what the state laws were, you could get an

abortion in America based on this right to privacy found by the Supreme Court.

Now the interesting thing is, dear listener, I'm mentioning all this

because there's just been a recent case heard before the Supreme Court and

essentially Based on what the judges were saying, it looks like Roe v.

Wade is going to be overturned at some stage in the next six months

when they come out with a decision.

And there'll be lots of states in America where abortion will

become illegal as a result.

So a little bit of the history is interesting here.

So the 14th Amendment, so they found this right to privacy.

They said, oh, women have a right to privacy, it's in the Constitution.

They said it's in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, which reads, All persons

born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

are citizens of the United States and of the state within they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

I didn't see anything about privacy in that.

Like, it really does look like they've pulled that one out of their bottoms.

Yeah, and they Applied it to, I believe it was gay rights, saying that the

government didn't have a right to interfere in a couple's private life.

So they've really, I think, um, drawn a long bow to try and find this

right to privacy out of that 14th amendment, which on the face of it

just says, we're all citizens, we're all going to be treated equally.

And we all get due process under the law.

So, so a subsequent case of Planned Parenthood versus Casey said, Ah, Roe

vs Wade, still okay, except rather than trimesters we're going to look

at whether the, um, fetus is viable.

And essentially you could get an abortion up until the point when the

fetus becomes viable to live on its own without requiring being inside the mother.

So, so that was the Roe v.

Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and the American law

that's been in place up until now.

And of course, with Trump coming in, urging to get more Supreme

Court appointments, this calibre and type of person who has come in,

Brett Kavanaugh, and um, and others.

Lacey B.

Amy Coney Barrett.

Very hard line.

Well, she's a Catholic, isn't she?

Yes, with at least five of her own kids and two adopted or something like that.

Yep.

Plucked out of obscurity in academia and popped into the Supreme Court,

and so, let me just find this.

Oh, actually, this is interesting.

So just in the Roe v.

Wade case, the defense, so this is the text of the attorney for the Texas

law, he, in his opening argument, made what was later described as

the worst joke in legal history.

Yes.

So this is at the start of Roe v.

Wade, and he said, appearing against two female lawyers, Floyd began Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the court, it's an old joke, but

when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they

are going to have the last word.

He was met with stony silence.

Holy smokes, what a bad thing to say.

There's your opening address.

There we go.

Anyway, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died.

In recent years, and lauded for her work as a great jurist.

She actually said Roe v.

Wade as a problem.

She didn't like this privacy.

No, I've heard lots of arguments against it.

Yes.

She said that they should have relied on equality provisions in it.

In that, in that section.

Remember it said something like, Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

So she said you could have relied on the equal protection provision

rather than this made up privacy idea.

And that would have achieved the same result and it would have

been a more convincing argument.

So what's happened in this case is that in, in this current challenge to it,

the, the argument from people wanting to maintain the right to abortion has been

basically the court made this decision in Roe versus Wade and really the law of

stare decisis is that you don't change an old precedent just because it's wrong.

You actually have to have other reasons like before you change an old precedent

and basically saying it didn't meet.

The criteria for a new, for a new, for a new decision.

Yes.

So, and Brett Kavanaugh made an interesting observation.

He said, look, if the constitution is silent about this, then it's just up to

the states as to, and they can decide what law will apply in each state and.

The way you're saying it was, in my view, looking at this constitution,

it does, it's silent about abortion law and it's really up to the

states to make their law about it.

Because federal laws, unlike in Australia, to be explicitly devolved from the states

to the federal government, don't they?

Well same here in Australia.

So our constitution says we basically, the colonies, the states,

who started and were there first.

Said, oh, we need to create a federal Commonwealth system.

Mm hmm.

We'll essentially retain all of the lawmaking capacity that we currently

have, except for the specific bits that we allocate to the federal government, e.

g.

creating a defence force.

Printing money, entering into foreign agreements, stuff like that.

Things like education was not in it.

So each state retains control over education.

One of the things that was handed over to the federal government was

laws in relation to corporations.

So that's why the federal government can make a lot of laws.

Because anything to do with a corporation, they can make a law, so that sort

of gives them quite a lot of power.

We'll talk about that a little bit later in this Religious Discrimination

Bill and the potential challenge to it.

So Yeah, it was just whether the Americans could create a federal law.

Yeah.

That allowed abortion.

They'd have to So it wouldn't override the states.

No, so they don't have, they don't have the law.

The power.

They don't have the power in their constitution, is essentially

what Kavanaugh is saying.

Yeah, okay.

Whereas Roe v.

Wade said So unless it's in the constitution Yes.

That you have a right to whatever, privacy, equality, whatever, that would

be imposed upon the states from a federal, the federal government itself can't

create a law that overrides the states.

Correct.

So, and our constitution works the same way.

Right.

Unless you can find a power in the constitution.

If it gives the federal government the ability to make

a law, then they can't make it.

So we're, well, well we're on that topic then.

So with the Religious Discrimination Bill, there's potential challenges

to that because there's nothing in the Constitution that says The

federal government shall have power to make laws in relation to religion.

No.

It's not one of the categories that was handed over.

Other than section 116.

So, no, and that wasn't a, that was about supposedly the

separation of church and state.

But only for the federal government.

Yes.

So, so, so in our constitution, there isn't a law that says

the federal government can pass laws in relation to religion.

So.

They have to scamper through the Constitution and try and find

something for their power to do stuff.

And what's happened with, in our laws, is that there's a, the Federal Government

has the power to make, um, laws in relation to international treaties.

Right, and they're claiming it's under the UN.

So if you make a treaty to deal with human rights, then arguably you could

pass a, a law that fulfills that treaty.

So you could pass an anti discrimination law because you've signed up to a treaty

for human rights and anti discrimination.

Essentially, it's a great way of expanding the power of the federal government.

If you really want to have power over something, sign a treaty with somebody

about it, and you'll get power.

But the interesting thing is that the human rights agreements Are

very strict in their limitations as to the freedom of religion.

Correct.

Yes.

They say that specifically you can't interfere in other person's freedoms

through enforcing religious freedom.

Yes.

Arguably the power of the commonwealth.

Doesn't extend to some of the, um, more militant attacking powers that they're

giving religions under this religious discrimination bill because it's not part

of an international human rights law.

Yeah, I mean, the, the, the international law says, or sorry, the treaty says,

except where it would interfere with the rights of somebody else.

Yes.

Indeed.

So you've got ability to, I think the International Covenant says

you have the right to worship, uh, any religion you want, but your

ability to manifest that religion is subject to other rights people have.

So that will be interesting if the federal government It doesn't look like

they are going to pass this religious discrimination bill, but if they

did, then I don't think they want to.

Well, Morrison wants to, but he's afraid of losing.

He's afraid of a count.

I think, oh, well, that's exactly it.

I think it's very much a, hey, religious nutjobs, vote for me.

Yes.

Because, you know, I'll get this done.

But he doesn't actually want to do it because he's worried

that it will lose him votes.

Yes, and he's worried about an embarrassing loss on the floor.

And the crazy thing is the hardline right wingers don't

care, they want to force him.

Yeah, indeed.

So, so anyway, just wanted to mention Roe v Wade because it has been this

case and essentially America is really heading towards a situation

where The Handmaid's Tale is becoming more fact than fiction every day.

And if you think I'm joking about that Then, have a listen to a

Republican representative, Madison Cawthorn, as he gives his speech

in relation to this issue of Roe v.

Wade.

We'll play that now.

Yeah.

Madam Speaker, imagine you've just walked out of this chamber.

And outside is a gorgeous sunset.

You have a Polaroid camera, and you snap a beautiful picture, and the

great photo pints out the front.

You hold it and shake it, waiting for the picture to appear.

But suddenly, someone walks by and snatches your photo, ripping it to shreds.

You're stunned.

You cry, Why did you destroy my photo, my picture?

The person replies, Oh, it wasn't a picture.

It wasn't fully developed yet.

All of us in this room realize how asinine that reasoning is.

That photo was transforming into a beautiful image.

This illustration by Seth Gruber is simple, but it's what our nation

has done to the most precious image of all, the image of God.

Madam Speaker, a silent genocide has slipped beneath the conscience of America.

Precious works of our Creator formed and set apart meet death

before they breathed life.

Eternal souls woven into earthen vessels, sanctified by Almighty

God and endowed with the miracle of life, are denied their birth by

a nation that was born in freedom.

God's breath of life blown away by the breath of man.

This cruel and fallen world may seem too filthy for their very presence.

But these precious temples are crafted in the image of God himself.

One day, perhaps when science darkens the soul of the left.

Our nation will repent, but until then, the carnage of this unconscionable deed

will stain the fabric of our nation.

I hope that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v.

Wade.

I hope that we stop the genocide of abortion in this country.

With that, I yield back.

Give us ten years, and we'll have our own Madison Cawthorn.

I wonder If he feels the same way about the genocide that God does, because

my understanding is for every one live birth, there's 99 miscarriages.

That's a technicality that Madison doesn't want to hear,

but honestly, give us 10 years and we'll have our own Madison Cawthorn,

and I'm going to explain why in a moment, but it's already This

is where we're at at the moment.

We don't have a Madison Cawthorn yet, but they're not emboldened.

Yeah, not as open as that But just give us ten years and we'll have one.

So at the moment what we've got is Coalition MPs have urged Scott Morrison

to increase funding to the government's school chaplaincy program to help

address concerns that activism against global heating is causing mental health

problems for Australian citizen children.

In the coalition party room on Tuesday, Liberal MP Andrew Wallace

compared children's fear of climate change with the threat of nuclear

annihilation in the 70s and 80s and requested full funding for chaplains

in every school to help ease concerns.

Assistant Youth Minister Luke Haworth has backed the call to expand the

program in comments to Guardian Australia, saying climate activism

is alarmist and does cause mental health problems for young people.

That could be helped by chaplains.

Sorry, what was it Christopher Hitchens used to say?

No child's behind left?

Yeah, no child's behind left.

Big American thing, no child left behind.

Yeah.

Yeah, no child's behind left.

Unattended.

Yes.

So moderate liberals interpret the push as preparation for increased funding

to appease conservative party room members in the event the religious

discrimination bill is stripped back.

So, uh, so that's, we haven't got to Madison Cawthorn

yet, but we're not far off.

And also the whole Seven Mountains.

Yes.

And the very much training of the youth into getting them into government.

Yes, and the seeding of them.

So, so one of the judges in the Roe v Wade was, uh, Amy Coney Barrett.

And I was listening to this podcast, Opening Arguments, and I think it said

something like, she was conceived in a Petri dish and nurtured in a test tube by

hard right religious conservative forces.

So, what happened previously was conservative presidents, I think

Reagan and others, appointed judges who they thought were

going to be quite conservative.

And right wing.

And then when they got into the court, turned out to be rather leftish.

And this just outraged the Christians.

So they created a thing like the Federalist Society, so that they

could really knuckle down and study people and vet them, and not get

this sort of thing happening again.

So they keep incredibly close tabs on their potential.

Judicial Supreme Court nominees and watch them closely to make sure that they are

absolutely online with what they want.

And also make sure that politicians, staffers are young evangelicals.

Yes.

Yes, so just on the, the Federalists who are in relation

to the judicial sort of system.

So, so it's evolved into a de facto gatekeeper for right of center lawyers

aspiring to government jobs and Federalist judgeships under Republican presidents.

So it vetted President Trump's list of potential U.

S.

Supreme Court nominees.

And as of March 2020, 43 out of 51 of President Trump's.

Appellate court nominees were current or former members of the

Federalist Society, so 43 outta 51 were members of the Federalists.

And of the current Supreme Court, of the nine members, six of them are current

or former members of the Federalists.

So this is all part of this Dominionism idea where they work hard to put

people, seed them as youngsters in positions, and if you seed enough of

them Eventually the guys you've put in, some of them will rise to the top.

So, so yeah, founded in 1982, the Federalists, and they play a long game.

Here we are, 40 years later, six of the members of the Supreme Court, Federalists,

and they now will just overturn Roe v.

Wade.

It seems We're absolutely certain that that's what's going to happen,

and this is the long game that religious groups play, and they've

been doing that in America, and, and they're doing that here in Australia.

Not so much, to my knowledge, in relation to the judiciary, but

certainly in relation to politics.

So, I mentioned before that Crikey has been doing great work in

terms of looking at The Christian Credentials of our Political Leaders.

And there's a guy, David Hardacre, in Crikey, who's been doing a lot

of investigations as to the sort of Christian origins of a lot of people.

So, in this article from him, in Crikey, he says, We know of Prime Minister

Scott Morrison's Pentecostal brothers in the government, Brother Stewie,

that's Stuart Robert, and Brother Matt.

Which is Matt O'Sullivan.

What about Sister Anne?

Dr.

Anne Webster, a National Party MP from Victoria, elected in 2019, has the

plum role of Chair of the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Which is set to examine the Government's contentious religious discrimination bill.

As chance would have it, Webster, this is Ann Webster, is a product of the

Christian politician factory known as the Lachlan Macquarie Institute.

In her first speech to Parliament, she paid tribute to

her local pastors in Mildura.

She's a self described vibrant, or the church she went to was

Diggerland Church, a self described vibrant Pentecostal church.

So, Dr.

Ann Webster, a product of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, and she's The head

of the Human Rights Committee that will be examining the Religious Discrimination

Bill and again, according to Crikey, the fine print of Webster's CV reveals that

she graduated from Lachlan Macquarie Institute training course in 2011 and

Crikey describes it as a secretive institute that works hand in hand with

the Australian Christian Lobby and wants strong gut religious freedom guarantees

in the Morrison government's legislation.

A key figure in Lachlan Macquarie His influential Christian

businessman, Tony McClellan, he's Emeritus Chairman of the ACL.

Two other directors of Lachlan Macquarie, James Wallace and David

Burr, also directors of the ACL.

And the Institute's objective is to prepare Christian men and women for

political and cultural leadership, what it calls Wise Leaders.

It runs training programs jointly developed by the Lachlan

Macquarie Institute and the ACL.

They are the most sophisticated being a 14 week course.

Aimed at producing leaders in politics and public service, the course costs 30, 000.

With our Lachlan Macquarie Scholarship Meeting, 26, 000 of that, and it

offers unparalleled access to Christian leaders, experts, and influencers.

And if you get the show notes, you'll get some information about who

else is from the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, including Martyn Iles,

funnily enough, who would have guessed.

So, so that's in relation to sort of.

Political operatives emanating from the Lachlan Macquarie Institute,

and I was talking before about the Federalists supplying the judges

for the Supreme Court in the U.

S., and that is the long game that these people are able to

play, and the money they've got.

Yeah, unfortunately, our judges aren't as political as the U.

S.

Correct.

Nowhere near as political, so, so we've escaped that so far, and,

but I know that there's Thanks.

Whispering's where they would like to start.

I'm sure.

Making more political Appointments.

Yep.

And of course as I've argued before the problem with the Bill of Rights is

that a Bill of Rights is necessarily vague In its terminology and decided by

the judges rather than the lawmakers.

Correct.

So there is a risk to a Bill of Rights.

We don't have one.

So In terms of the energies of, of the religious right in Australia,

there's not a lot of points in Working extremely hard in this area because

there just isn't a Bill of Rights that committed that they can skew.

Correct.

Yep.

So, so we're fortunate at the moment that our judiciary, I think,

hasn't been tainted by that as yet, but keep watching this space.

Okay, in the chat room, you guys are going off.

Julia's there and Alison as well, so.

Discussing Luke Howarth.

Yes, Luke Howarth's wife used to be a director of scripting in Queensland.

He's up to his eyeballs in Chaplaincy.

Ha, so.

Okay, so that was that part on the religious discrimination bill.

I've got a link to an article by Luke Beck who talks about the bill itself

and a bit more about the nuts and bolts.

Really, this all comes about in response to the marriage equality debate.

When that was lost, basically Morrison, I think it was, announced a review by,

to be led by Philip Ruddock, that was to keep the religious nutters happy.

Like, sorry, you've lost on this marriage equality, I'll tell you what, we'll

do a review into religious freedom.

Here's Philip Ruddock, he can run around the country.

He'll find all the instances of, of people's religious

freedom being contravened.

Because he was a Christian, wasn't he?

Yes, of course.

And, and then, you know, we'll have an inquiry and we'll

see what comes from that.

Of course, Ruddock.

Findings were that, in fact, he couldn't really find any

significant instance of places where religious freedom was impinged.

That's right.

Or discrimination against people because of their religion.

But just in case, let's create a bill anyway.

Created a bill, and of course, one of the things in it was children

in a religious school could be refused enrolment based on their

sexuality, sexual gender, or whatever.

And people were up in arms, and were like, what?

And, and then, and Morrison said, well, it's always been the law.

And people said, well, if that's always been the law, it shouldn't be.

Like, it sort of backfired at that point.

So they can stop you joining a school.

because of your sexuality, but once you're in the school, they can't kick

you out because of your sexuality.

Who knows?

I'm not sure.

On the third draft, I'm not sure what, what they're allowed

to do in relation to children.

You know, one of the things is, and actually Luke says here in

his article, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill is

the statements of belief provision.

So this is the bit where you can say nasty things about people

provided It's a statement of belief, like you could say of a co worker.

You're a woman and you're in charge of this section?

That shouldn't be the case, under God's holy reign?

Something like that.

I actually don't think that's the worst part.

Like, for me, the worst part, and the part I always talk about, is the ability

to discriminate against teachers.

And the fact that you can hire and fire teachers Based on their

religion in a private school.

I think the fact that any religious institution is given the power of belief

as if it was an entity, which it isn't.

Yes.

Yes.

That they can have an ethos.

Yes.

A religious ethos as an institution.

And, you know, a school possibly, but a hospital.

And what they're saying is provided you have a written policy that says you

hire and fire based on religious belief.

Then that's okay.

But, you know, it's a bad idea.

It doesn't get whitewashed just because you've written a policy and publicized it.

If the policy said we don't hire people because they're black, you

wouldn't say, oh, that's okay then, because it's a written policy.

So to me, I just Well, particularly when, how much, how many, what

percentage of schools are religious?

I don't know, but I think nearly 50 percent of high school

students are now educated in private Mostly religious schools.

So, so it would be 45 percent of teaching roles are in religious schools.

That's right.

As a physics teacher, you're, you know, as a gay or satanic physics

teacher, your employment prospects are halved through discrimination that is.

Deemed lawful, and that to me is the one that's the big one.

Well, no, no, the concern for me is actually public health and aged care.

I mean, religion is bad.

Sorry, education is bad.

But the idea that if I go to a hospital, I could be denied a medical

procedure purely on the grounds of It being against somebody's religion,

or even the institution's religious ethos, it's not even the provider.

So some of that stuff was abandoned in terms of pharmacies not providing

stuff due to religious belief.

Pharmacies, yes, but hospitals?

I don't know.

I haven't gone through the detail of it.

So, anyway, counter worms, horrible stuff in there.

Absolutely.

The, sort of, the fallow clause is gone, but is back there in a in a

smaller way in relation to qualifying bodies like a medical board.

And Luke goes into the constitutional concerns that we spoke about earlier.

So, I've got this one here from News.

com.

In a statement, Attorney General Michaela Cash's office stressed that any decision

to preference heterosexual applicants over gay applicants Would need to

be done under the guise of religious views, not purely sexual orientation.

So, importantly, the Religious Discrimination Bill does not enable

religious schools to discriminate on the basis of a protected attribute such

as gender, age, or sexual orientation.

So you would rely on religion rather than that.

Anyway.

Yeah, so they would be in a non biblically ordained relationship.

Yes.

And therefore, sorry, can't come in.

Why do you want to go to one of those schools anyway?

Anyway.

Because otherwise you've halved your employment prospects.

Yes, that's right, if you want to be a teacher.

Labor, what's their response?

Well, looks like they're going to capitulate.

Of course they will.

Anthony Albanese is backing the bill.

Saying he personally knew of no example where a LGBTIQ teacher had to leave their

job, which hasn't looked hard enough.

I was going to say, surely the SAC teachers should then

write to him and let him know.

Indeed.

So, Crikey has a link to a classic example and scratches its head

why Albanese wasn't aware of it.

Meanwhile, also, Christina Keneally.

Mm hmm.

Labor leader in the Senate.

Catholic.

Mm hmm.

She says, religious schools should be able to choose all of

their staff based on religion.

Got a link to an article from Out in Perth, where she says, religious

based schools should be able to make choices about all their staff members.

Arguing that all employees of a religious school play a part in creating

the community of those institutions.

She outlined her view while speaking in an online seminar with conservative

group Family Voice Australia.

And this is quoting Keneally here.

It's a community of faith and values.

Whether it's the sports coach that leads prayers before you go out on

the basketball court, whether it's the homeroom teacher or the classroom teacher

who has to take children to liturgy, whether it's staying after school to

supervise sacramental preparation.

All of those aspects, even the values you live out and profess while you

are interacting with people, all of those things are inherent in

the job, Senator Keneally said.

The sports coach that leads prayers before you go out onto the basketball court.

For fuck's sake.

Like, this is the classic example I gave last time we were talking about this.

I was talking about a basketball team.

It's, it's not unfair to demand a six foot eight.

Surely the chaplain comes out and prays for the kids.

If they have to pray,

honestly, it's just, and yeah, I agree, Ross, the big problem with

this is the taxpayer is funding them.

It's just outrageous, Christina Keneally.

Because it wouldn't be 45 percent of teaching jobs, it wouldn't

be 45 percent of the population.

If it wasn't funded by taxpayers, if this was purely those people

that were so committed to getting a religious education.

The problem is we've pulled funding from the state schools.

We're propping up private schools.

And so the state schools are left with the kids, the dropouts,

the kids that are left behind.

And you've effectively got a self Self, uh, propping up system where

everyone's now going, well, if I can afford it, I'm going to send my child

to private school just because better outcomes and, and, you know, the,

the figures don't actually show that.

Correct.

Yep.

But they, there's a mentality of that.

But that's, yeah, that's the idea.

And it's, it's.

It's our own version of gun control.

Yeah, absolutely.

And effectively, if you had to really reach into your own pocket

and pay for it, I think that choice would be a lot different.