Political leaders in democracies seldom lead but almost invariably follow. This is from Instapundit, which is following an international trend to laugh at Australia and Australians, but I wish we were not so clearly following a lead set elsewhere.
Just in case you thought the politician in charge of Australia’s financial stability has a clue, the following interview with the Guardian should settle any doubts.
Ok, Covid is a scam just like global warming. But we didn’t start it, we are just going along with the rest of you. It’s not us who are the idiots, if you ask me, but the rest of the world. You want to know our priorities, see below:
It’s a little know fact that Enabling Acts were not a particularly unusual event in early 20th Century Germany. It’s also not widely known that to bring one into existence, it took a successful two-thirds (2/3) majority vote in the Reichstag, currently known as a Super Majority.
This would seem wholly appropriate, given the power that is bestowed upon the applying government. Granted that it appears not to have worked as intended in 1933, however, the theory behind it remains sound. Being a process that is designed to provide extraordinary powers “to respond to emergencies that threaten safety, property or the integrity of the state”, it would not seem difficult or unreasonable to get bipartisan support, and the required two-thirds majority, if it was a genuine emergency of that magnitude.
The Germans recognised the danger of such legislation, and they still do. The Victorian ‘Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008’, and the associated state of emergency provisions, are every bit as dangerous as the 1933 Enabling Act. Yet, we don’t have the safeguard of the Super Majority necessity for either implementation or extension thereof. I believe that any such powers should have this safeguard built-in.
Upfront, I would say that this is an incredibly dangerous oversight. We have already seen the state of emergency extended beyond its safeguard time limitations, based on the vote of three cross-benchers. These three cross-benchers essentially determine the duration of a dictatorship in this state. It’s conceivable that they may be greased with concessions for their particular agendas, and plied with accommodations that are not necessarily relevant to the emergency, or in the best interests of the public as a whole.
This brings me to a rather concerning development, and one which highlights the necessity of a requirement for a Super Majority provision.
The highlights, or lowlights, more accurately.
“The Andrews government is secretly negotiating with three crossbenchers to introduce specific pandemic laws that would permanently replace controversial state of emergency powers and significantly change the way the state manages COVID-19 this year.
Demands made by the powerful crossbenchers in return for their support include a requirement that police record the racial appearance of people they stop or fine for breaching health directions, and that the government is forced to be more transparent with the information and trigger points behind interventions such as lockdowns. Disadvantaged Victorians would also be exempted or pay reduced fines if found contravening restrictions.
Human rights lawyers and opposition MPs say the sweeping powers, which are usually reserved for short-term disasters such as fires and floods, do not include enough safeguards to enforce proper government accountability and transparency.
The Age can reveal the government is designing the new laws to cover all future pandemics, not just the coronavirus pandemic. It is intended that they will be in place by December, when the current state of emergency provisions expire, and a first draft is expected within the next two months.
The pandemic legislation will be permanently shaped by the demands of three upper-house crossbenchers: Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick, Reason Party MP Fiona Patten and Greens leader Samantha Ratnam.
In an unconventional move that has infuriated the Coalition and other crossbenchers, the Health Department is negotiating the new legislation with only Mr Meddick, Ms Patten and the Greens, and has held a series of meetings with them behind closed doors in recent weeks.
“If you didn’t vote for it in March, you didn’t get a seat at the table,” said one source familiar with the discussions.
Strengthening the crossbenchers’ power is the fact that if one were to pull out of negotiations because their demands were not met, the government would be back to square one in its attempts to pass powers that are integral to managing the coronavirus pandemic.”
This is thoroughly dangerous stuff. The ultimate Kingmakers.
Neither this sort of power, nor the ability to continue such tyrannical measures, should reside with one side of Parliament and a couple of crossbenchers. These are extraordinary powers, and they should require extraordinary political agreement…a Super Majority. If a particular emergency truly warrants such powers to safeguard safety or state, it shouldn’t represent a partisan issue and getting 2/3 of Parliament onboard should be a laydown Misere. If they can’t, perhaps it doesn’t require such a heavy hammer, and the provision will have worked as designed.
We live in dangerous times, and things need to change if we find our way through them.
Living during lockdown in Sydney meant we didn’t have to wear masks outside. That important freedom distinguishing us from Melbourne. That ended ten days or so ago. Can’t remember what date. Days merge into days these days.
I live in Gladys Berejiklian’s electorate. She’s obviously part of the overwhelmingly majority in her party; the new breed of green-left Liberals. Nevertheless, I still intended to vote for her. Sounding down to earth, looking homely and having an ill-advised affair endeared her to me. She lost me some time ago when she warned that when we stepped outside we should deal with other people as though they were infected. It’s hard to imagine how destructive that would be of civil society.
One side effect of the new mask mandate is that I can no longer spot ghouls (def: those morbidly interested in death) – my rather pointed description of people, particularly young people, wearing masks outside when they were not required to. Someone in England who I read referred to them in kinder terms as muppets. Anyway, I can no longer spot the muppets – who I partly blame for encouraging the despotism of state premiers, aided and abetted by the wind vane Scott Morrison.
From The Toronto Star — ‘Let the Unvaccinated Die’. And that’s not a letter to the editor but the actual front page. This was the message the paper wanted its readers to read. They believe they are being virtuous and on the side of the angels, but they are as evil as it is possible to be.
In what appears to be his latest salvo against Covid-19 vaccinations and the lockdown, Eric Clapton has surprise-released a new single, “This Has Gotta Stop,” with an accompanying animated video that also addresses climate change disaster.
A bluesy shuffle, “This Has Gotta Stop” appears to reference some of the medical issues that Clapton said he experienced after receiving an AstraZeneca vaccination earlier this year with what he claimed were “disastrous” results: “My hands and feet were either frozen, numb or burning,” he wrote at the time. As he sings in “This Has Gotta Stop,” “I knew that something was going on wrong/When you started laying down the law/I can’t move my hands, I break out in sweat/I wanna cry, I can’t take it anymore.” In the chorus he sings, “This has gotta stop/Enough is enough/I can’t take this BS any longer.”
People are dying from taking these vaxxines. It is hardly the obvious choice since the vaxxines are not actually vaccines and hardly anyone is dying from Covid anyway.
Don’t know. That is an individual call you would make after consulting a doctor.
What do you mean by “The vaccines won’t do jack”? It’s enough just to say that general thing as a commenter and let people make of it what they will. But once one posts a piece on the front page of a blog that will hopefully grow to become the centre right Australian blog of record, it requires a bit more.
I don’t think this vaccine rollout will get us out of the moves made to restrict, monitor and control. I don’t think they are the mechanism by which we all get to travel again, work again, go to the shops without signing in, get rid of mask mandates or ensure that Premiers don’t again lock us in our homes for 22 hours a day.
At the very least, they aren’t sufficient to do so. What might reverse these things? The resignation of everyone involved in this shambles might do it.
I’m not really interested that much in the effect the vaccine might have on individuals, or even medically on populations, but it’s easy to get sucked down into the minute details of all that, which is endless and fruitless. I’m interested in how the heck we get out of this dystopian stupidity, and I have thought for a very long time that vaccines aren’t it.
I have it on good authority that in Victoria (at least), the government is very seriously CONSIDERING introducing a ‘No Jab, No School’ policy for kids down to 12 years old.
Yes, yes, I know, we’ve heard all this before. Not from this source, I haven’t. In my opinion, it does now represent a real threat.
Please note that I emphasised the word ‘considering’, so please, no recriminations if it doesn’t eventuate.
No matter. The very suggestion of it, from those who are armed to force it on the most vulnerable, should send shivers down every thinking adult’s spine. These kids are not in a position to enquire, to research, to give informed consent. We as parents are entrusted to do this on their behalf. But no, what is being suggested is effectively taking that out of our hands.
And for what?
As you can see from this graph, throughout the entire 18 months of this ‘pandemic’ only a single person below the age of 19 has died with/of COVID-19.
In fact only 14 people below the age of 50 have died from the nearly 50,000 cases we’ve experienced. Why even come for the under 50’s, let alone the children?
What’s more telling, is the loss of perspective in all this. In 2017 alone (yes, just that single 12 month block), 21 people under 44 years old died from the standard Flu. Covid has been prowling for more than 17 months, and has managed less than 14.
In 2019 (the year before this rock show started), 16 kids between the ages of 1-14 years old died of Influenza and pneumonia. Compare this with a single death in nearly 18 months, and did they enforce a ‘No Jab, No School’ policy effectively removing parental rights and responsibilities? No, of course not. We live with ‘the Flu’.
I don’t care how docile, malleable, non-confrontational you may be as parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents, there comes a time when Mama and Papa Bear need to bare their claws in defence of the Cubs.
Whether people want to admit it or not, we really don’t know the long term effects of these vaccines, especially on children. The constant moving of age restrictions, etc, is evidence of the ‘suck-it-and-see’ approach behind their introduction. We seem on the verge of jumping clean over the atrocity of forcing adults to expose themselves to it, in order to work, and are now approaching the twilight zone in which kids are threatened with the removal of what was, only 18 months ago, considered a Human Right.
I’d be extremely disappointed if this prospect didn’t raise the hackles of even the most stringent adherent of the Church of Dan (though nothing would surprise me nowadays). However, I can promise them, try forcing this on their kids, and there’ll be a great many fathers (and I hope mothers) going straight to punching stations in defence of their children’s rights and futures (NADT).
P.S. As an aside, I’m getting a wee bit tired of being constantly threatened with the removal of services that I am currently forced to pay for.
I was watching Fox News earlier today. The names of six of the thirteen American soldiers killed in Kabul had been revealed. Their names and pictures of them were shown. It was clear enough that of the six, five were white. Or so it appeared to me. Ordinarily, this would be a completely irrelevant observation. In fact, one out of place. What does it matter what colour they are? Brave men serving their country lost their lives. But the execrable comments of Milley came to mind.
I wondered whether any of them suffered from “white rage” of the kind that General Mark Milley, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed he was interested in exploring. Did any of them have white privilege I wonder, and how exactly did it help them.
Critical race theory, white rage, white privilege only exist in minds remote from the ordinary business of life, suffering and death, which is quite colour blind. And definitely remote from a battalion of soldiers fighting the enemy. I dare say the colour of your mate’s skin is the last thing on your mind. Milley, you would think, would know that. How people in his position come to think as he does is beyond me.
CELEBRITY demises don’t move me for an obvious reason: I didn’t know the celebrities. Naturally, I emphathise with the bereaved but, alas, lack Bill Clinton’s gift of feeling their pain. The sad news of Rolling Stone Charlie Watts’ death in London on Tuesday was slightly different. For a start, the drummer Keith Richards has described as “the main man” in the world’s greatest rock ‘n roll band wasn’t really a celebrity. He gave very few interviews in 60 years and most of those were accidental rather than organised.
The lovable quality Watts exuded was being so truly, innocently himself that people didn’t need to know more to vouchsafe their esteem. It is rare for the public to read a figure so trustingly for so long, even as his occasionally indecorous confreres did their best to do their worst. Aged 80 when he died, Watts was married to Shirley for 57 years.
Rated as one of the best-dressed men in the world – and that long before man-boys began wearing trouser cuffs above sockless ankles – the ease with which Watts styled himself was mirrored in the swing he tailored for the baby Stones. That was no doddle given how roseate but scrappy Jagger, Richards and Brian Jones were as an outfit when, in 1962, they head-hunted the drummer Alexis Korner (no less) had recruited as beat-keeper for Blues Incorporated a year earlier. At that time, jazz-obsessed Watts was the only honest-to-goodness musician in the fledgling Stones line-up. By the time I started buying my own music, the Rolling Stones were already a Rolling Stones tribute band but the advent of CDs allowed me – like legions of others – to immerse ourselves in a back-catalogue so beloved throughout the world that it fuelled 40 years of touring after the band’s last smash-hit album (1982’s Tattoo You).
Everyone has favourite guitar riffs and they’re easy to cite: Keith’s spare, chilling solo right before Merry Clayton’s storied star-turn in Gimme Shelter; Mick Taylor, Love In Vain, live in 1969; Keith and Ronnie at the peak of weaving in the late 70s. But Watts didn’t do solos. Richards dismissed John Bonham as a “little heavy-handed for my taste.” By a little, he meant a lot. Pete Townsend put up with Keith Moon but always slightly resented the fact that The Who’s drummer did more riffing than he did. The nearest thing to a solo for Watts was the traditional banter between himself and Jagger whose best-known example the post title references.
He may not have wanted attention but listen to the jazzy feel of Can’t You Hear Me Knocking, the Gibb-equalling mastery of disco in Emotional Rescue and Miss You, the generalship over chaos on Midnight Rambler and the sympathetic order he brought to Jagger-Richards grime on dozens of b-side gems and you’ll get that it’s the “Wembley Whammer” starring every time. Farewell, Charlie. As Paul McCartney said yesterday, he was a rock and a lovely man.