Abortion

Fresh audio product

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 22/11/2019 - 8:10am in

Just added to my radio archive (click on date for link):

November 21, 2019 Ryan Grim, author of We’ve Got People, on the long fight between insurgents and establishment in the Democratic party • Jenny Brown, author of Without Apology, on the history and politics of abortion in the US (check out National Women’s Liberation and Redstockings)

Sargon on the Gay Rights Civil War between Lesbians and Trans Activists

Sargon of Akkad, real name Carl Benjamin, is a shabby individual. I’ve blogged about him several times before, not least because his recruitment to UKIP along with Mark ‘Nazi Pug’ Meecham and Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars infamy, effectively destroyed whatever electoral credibility that borderline Fascist party had. Sargon is very definitely a member of the extreme right. He’s islamophobic, anti-feminist and has been credibly accused of racism. He claims to represent the moderate left, but also defines himself as a ‘classical liberal’. Which means that he favours the complete privatisation of the economy, and the destruction of the welfare state. He’s notorious for sending a particularly noxious text to the Labour MP Jess Philips telling her ‘I wouldn’t even rape you’ when she was describing the threats of sexual assault and worse she receives.

But this time, surprisingly, he sounds like a reasonable human being.

In this video he comments on a letter sent last month to the Sunday Times, signed by 22 leading gay rights activists, including Simon Fanshawe, the co-founder of the gay rights organisation Stonewall. The letter condemns that that organisation for its support of trans activists and their denial of the biological basis of gender identity, which they feel is a dangerous threat to women’s rights. They are particularly concerned about the way their ideology – that gender identity is a mental construct – threatens to undermine women’s rights and voices in issues like FGM, pregnancy and abortion. Sargon agrees with them, noting that concepts like lesbianism and bisexuality are based on there being only two genders, which the trans activists deny. Sargon and the gays here object to people, who have been born men, claiming to have a right to speak for women on these issues. They also state that it is dangerous for trans activists to go into schools to encourage children to review their gender identity. Sargon also agrees with this, stating that half the time if ask children about what gender they identify with, they’ll answer with fire-engines and dinosaurs.

The lesbian activist Julie Bindel is also concerned about the violence and threats coming from trans activists. She states that there are no threats of violence coming from the terfs – an acronym standing for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. But there certainly are threats made by the trans activists. Such as slogans like ‘Punch a Terf’. Sargon also shows a video on the Mail Online page, in which Bindel walks down a road in which trans activists are holding a counter demonstration against a meeting by an anti-trans feminist group. The trans people are chanting ‘Trans rights are human rights’ and kicking at the windows of the building in which the meeting is being held. Bindel states that this being done to intimidate the women inside. She states that women are being threatened, and criticises the police around the building for not doing anything to protect the women inside.

So great is the conflict between gays, bisexuals and lesbians, particularly the latter, with the trans rights activists, that the letter to the Times talks of a split occurring in the LGBTQ group, with the formation of a splinter organisation, LGBQ.

Naturally the video also contains Sargon’s sneers about feminists and gay rights activists. He states that he finds their views ridiculous and laughs at them. In a dig at progressivism in general he replies to Bindels comment about women being intimidated that the police will do nothing against the trans activists, as trans people trump women as being a more oppressed group. Well, there’s that. But the way the cops moved Bindel on when she tried to stop and talk to some of the counterdemonstrators suggested that they were more worried that any action by them would turn it into a violent riot. Sargon does say, however, that although he laughs at the Terfs, they have a right to their views and to express them. And so he opposes their deplatforming and the way some organisations, like the Cooperative Bank, have refused to deal with Terf groups.

It’s a crazy situation when a near Fascist like Sargon actually starts to make sense and defends free speech and democracy. I think he’s right in that most people would see gender identity as based in biology, and it is dangerous for trans activists to try to encourage children to question their gender identity. And he’s right when he says that women faced with issues like FGM cannot escape them by claiming to be a different gender mentally.

There are caveats to his views, however. Some transpeople, like the trans vlogger Rose of Dawn, draws a distinction between the genuine transgendered and the gender radicals. Rose of Dawn is a transwoman herself, and has stated that trans people like her have invested a great deal financially and psychologically in their transition to the opposite gender. The gender radicals, however, consider gender to be simply a mental construct. They make little or no effort to change the physical markers of gender identity or their biological gender itself. They have created any number of different genders, some of which come close to, or are indistinguishable from parody. One of them is a ‘gender that identifies with space, stars and nebulae’. Most dangerously, these people consider that as gender is a mental construct, they wish to overturn the 2004 act that stipulates that diagnoses of gender dysphoria – the medical condition in which one’s mental gender does not match one’s biology – should only be made by medical professionals. Rose of Dawn is, unfortunately, like Sargon in that she is a person of the right. Nevertheless, she makes some excellent and interesting points.

The radical trans activists do seem to be a threat to women’s rights, although I would argue that some, hopefully the majority of transpeople identify so strongly with the gender to which they have transitioned, that they should be treated equally to born members of those genders. I also have a read accounts by trans activists, who have been physically assaulted by radical feminists, so I don’t believe that the violence and threats are all on one side. But there is a genuine issue here, and it’s a sad state when only the right is discussing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joyce Refuses To Pull Out…………….Again

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 16/09/2019 - 8:28am in

Barnaby-420x0

Former deputy Prime Minister and self confessed ‘families man’ Barnaby Joyce has once again refused to pull out. Of speaking at an anti-abortion rally in Sydney over the weekend.

“People want, no they need to hear my opinion on abortion,” said former Minister Joyce. “I mean who do you expect to speak at these rallies, women?”

“Hearing people like me and former Minister for Women Tony Abbott is just what these sort of rallies need. That and they are a great place to meet some good sorts.”

When asked why a lowly Parliamentary backbencher like himself was entering into a debate in what is effectively a State matter Mr Joyce replied: “Just keeping my options open, I mean Premier Barnaby does have a nice ring to it.”

“As well as I said earlier you can meet some wonderful sheilas at these type of events. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to pull a root.”

Mr Joyce’s office later called to clarify that by pull a root he was talking about some work he was doing at his farm in clearing tree roots from paddocks.

Mark Williamson
www.twitter.com/MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook.

We Won’t Be Silent

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/09/2019 - 5:00pm in


“Nobody wants to think about the women risking their lives for abortion access. But they did. And they will.”

Pro Life Lobby Goes To Sleazy Backyard Parliament To Block Abortion Bill

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 16/08/2019 - 8:16am in

Back Alley.jpg

Having been rejected by the legitimate NSW parliament, the anti Abortion lobby has found a dodgy backyard parliament willing to block the bill that intends to decriminalise abortion.

“We’ve found a cockroach ridden parliament down a back alley and up two flights of stairs in Ashfield that’s willing to re-criminalise abortion, no questions asked,” said leading anti-choice activist Brenda Katzarse. “Sure the speaker’s chair is just a hessian sack filled with sheep dung and Hansard is written on the back of a beer coaster, but it’s all we’ve got.”

“Yeah we get plenty of desperate legislators turning up here late at night trying to block and pass bills,” said unlicensed parliamentarian Sid Corflute. “Any complications and we just dump the bill on the backsteps of the legitimate parliament house in Macquarie Street and drive off.”

The decision to demolish the Sydney Football Stadium was believed to have been passed at a run down parliament in a back shed in Greenacre.

Peter Green
http://www.twitter.com/Greeny_Peter

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook.

Remake Of Mel Gibson’s What Women Want Tipped To Star Fred Nile

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/08/2019 - 8:14am in

fred-nile

Minister, NSW Politician and self-appointed expert on all things female, Fred Nile has been tipped to star in the planned remake of the Mel Gibson film What Women Want.

“We’ve been looking for someone to play the title role for a couple of months now,” said a Hollywood Insider. “And then I found myself inside the NSW Parliament and heard this 80 something-year-old man going on and on about woman’s reproductive rights.”

“There and then I knew that this was my leading man. I mean could you imagine the confidence on a guy to think they could tell women all about their bodies and rights?”

A chuffed Reverend Fred Nile spoke to The (un)Australian about his new role, saying: “It’s good to see that someone is finally listening to what I have to say, took long enough.”

“I can’t wait to tell the world’s women how to act, behave and handle their bodies. I’m an expert you know been married twice.”

Filming for What Women Want will commence filming after the Reverend Nile has finished legislating in NSW what women want.

Mark Williamson
www.twitter.com/MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook

Anti-Disabled People Hate Tweet MP Nadine Dorries Now Minister for Mental Health

In the words of the late, great Victor Meldrew, ‘I don’t believe it!’ Boris Johnson, in his infinite wisdom, or massive lack of it, has decided to make Nadine ‘Mad Nad’ Dorries minister for mental health.

This is nothing more than a slap in the face for disabled people, and shows exactly the contempt Boris has for them. Two years ago Nads Dorries issued a hate tweet at her disabled critics on Twitter. She called them ‘window-lickin’ trolls’. An excerpt on Mike’s post about this, which quotes the leader of Inclusion London, Anne Novis, explains why it’s so offensive. According to the staff running disability equality training sessions, the term ‘window-lickers’ started as an insult to people with Down’s Syndrome or cerebral palsy because these poor souls often have difficult controlling their tongues. Since then, it’s expanded to cover all disabled people. The excerpt then quotes Novis explaining why it’s unacceptable, and makes Dorries completely unsuitable for the post to which she has now been appointed.

Novis said: “It indicates not only that Nadine Dorries would use such offensive language but also that her understanding would be very poor about issues faced by disabled people, including mental health issues.

“You wouldn’t accept it around racist, or religious or cultural difference; you just wouldn’t accept that sort of language and expect someone then to go into a post that is meant to be assisting those people.

“There would be no confidence in her. We would have no confidence in this person being a minister because of what she has brought across through her language.”

Absolutely. It’s hate speech, pure and simple.

And a petition has already gone up calling her to be dismissed. To sign it, as I have, please go to Mike’s article at

Window-lickin’ bad: Disability ‘hate tweet’ MP appointed mental health minister

And follow the link.

But this really is amazing. Johnson seems to be choosing all the wrong people for their ministerial posts. Of course, as they’re Tories they’re not the right people in the first place. But he’s gone further than that and posted men and women who are supremely, actively incompetent or otherwise unfit for their office. Like Sajid Javid. Today Mike put up an article revealing that the Mekon’s minion in the financial sold duff financial policies, CDOs, when he was at Deutsche Bank. These were financial instruments designed to turn toxic bad debts into good investments. Like so much of the other financial investment being flogged by banks like Goldman Sachs before the Crash of 2008, they did nothing of the sort. In fact they contributed to that disaster, which the poor of the rest of the world is now having to pay off while the fat cat rich, like BoJob and Javid himself, get even richer. It’s a good question whether Javid was stupid and naive in selling them, or if he actually knew the open secret in the financial sector that they were toxic. In which case, he’s a fraudster.

Sajid Javid helped cause the UK’s financial crisis. Why did BoJob make him CHANCELLOR?

Then there’s Priti Patel, who was sacked from Tweezer’s cabinet because she decided that her position meant that she could work for herself and for her friends in Netanyahu’s wretched extreme right-wing Israeli government, rather than for her country and its people. She’s an active security risk, but Johnson has made her Home Secretary.

And the leader of the House of Commons is Jacob Rees-Mogg, an ardent Brexiteer, another millionaire, whose riches are based on his investments, with an extreme right-wing voting record, who doesn’t believe in women’s reproductive rights.

It’s almost as if Johnson is doing this deliberately to wind up the British public as far as he can, while the Tory press and lamestream media praise him to the heights as some kind of genius, who will deliver us from the mass poverty Brexit will inflict and has already inflicted.

Get him out, and get these incompetents and frauds out too!

Right, Absolutely Not.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/08/2019 - 2:54am in

What would the world be like if women were unable to withdraw consent with regard to sex? You would be living in North Carolina, is what. Now, as an aside, I would totally live in North Carolina (please don’t tell my dad I would live in the wrong Carolina.) It’s lovely. But boy howdy does it have some terrifying rape laws and legal precedent. I mean, would I let my daughters live there?

Some cases are more difficult than others, especially if the initial act began with consent.

In 1979 the Supreme Court of North Carolina that once a sex act begins, a woman cannot withdraw her consent.

The court wrote that: “if the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused was not guilty of rape, though he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions.”

DA Welch called this a “troubling precedent.”

“I feel like you should be able to withdraw consent at any time,” Welch said. “If you have consented to one act, to me it doesn’t mean that act can keep going as long as necessary.”

“However, again it comes back to juries and how they view consent.”

“You will see someone who is consenting to a particular act, and all of a sudden it gets rougher than what they bargained for, or they change their mind, and we’re stuck,” Welch said. “If it goes from one act to another I don’t feel that that law apples, but you still have to deal with that issue in front of a jury, and that’s going to be very hard to convict.”

Oh but surely at least sometimes the juries are reasonable, right, and see that the law shouldn’t apply to cases in which people go from one sex act to another? Wait, or at least the prosecutors, right?

Two cases she’s [Monika Johnston Holster, head of NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault] heard recently are very similar. The prosecutors told both there is nothing they can do.

Even though the women did not consent to sex, “the offender felt like fooling around was consenting to sex,” Johnson Holster said.

OK let’s think about how banaynays this is. To be blunt and explicit about it, you could consent to making out with someone and touching them in explicitly sexual ways, but with both of you having your clothes on, and then that person can force you to have anal sex. This might strictly violate the law as noted above, but the prosecutors don’t appear to think so, because they won’t even try to bring a case. But wait, there’s more!

While state law defines sex with an incapacitated person is rape, court precedents say those laws don’t apply if the person caused the incapacitation through drinking or drug use.

OOOOoookay, as far as I can see this means you could just wait around at a party for a women to get too drunk to consent to sex, and then rape her with impunity. That can’t be right at all. But on the first part about withdrawing consent, I think we can all see how important and it is that a woman (or man, but these laws are written explicitly with women in mind) be able to say “no” at any time during any sex act and that the person having sex with her be required to stop, and the minute they go on regardless, then they are raping the woman, full stop. (The N.C. legislature apparently made some changes in the law, but left the treatment of withdrawal of consent alone.) Here I expect Kiwanda’s hypothetical thread in which I force everyone to agree with me, because it’s my party. Except I won’t force you, you’ll just all agree anyway. “Wow Belle that’s terrifying,” you’ll say.

Joyce Argues That A Sperm Becomes A Human The First Time It’s Dad Sees His Staffer Across The Room

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/08/2019 - 8:10am in

Barnaby-420x0

Little Aussie battler and current member of Parliament Barnaby Joyce has entered into New South Wales’ abortion debate declaring that in his eyes a sperm becomes a human the minute it’s owner sees their staffer from across the room.

“In my eyes the first time I saw Vikki from across the room and got that glint in my eye, that was the moment that my boy became a human,” said the Member for New England. “Well either that or the moment that I accidentally ripped a hole in the johnny.”

“But that’s beside the point, now are you going to give me some cash for this interview or what?”

When asked why all of a sudden he was commenting on issues left, well more right and centre, Mr Joyce said: “I got families to feed and you know a back benchers pay doesn’t buy much.”

“So you know I’ll keep sticking my head up and either ScoMo and the boys will put me back on the front bench to shut me up or I’ll get a paying gig on Sky News.”

“Hustlers gotta hustle.”

Mark Williamson
www.twitter.com/MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook.

In Defense of Purity Tests

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 17/06/2019 - 4:33pm in

Image result for ivory soap pure

            Supporters of center-right Democrats like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have a response to left progressives who criticize their candidates for cozying up to Wall Street banks and trying to execute innocent men: stop with the purity tests!

            The term is everywhere these days. “In the political world,” Alan MacLeod writes for FAIR, “the term ‘purity test’ has a very specific meaning, largely used by elites to chastise and attack the left, or to gaslight them into supporting more centrist or right-wing policies.”

Progressives should not fall for the purity-test smear. Voters have every right to demand certain standards of behavior and policy positions in exchange for their support. And so far, lefties have not asked for much: $15-an-hour minimum wage, Medicare For All, free college tuition, eschew donations by corporations. Yet even these modest attempts to nudge the needle to the left go too far for the Third Way/Democratic Leadership Council/moderates clinging to control over the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama is leading the charge. The former president and self-described “moderate Republican” recently argued that Democrats “sometimes creat[e] what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues.” The word “allies” is interesting. Is someone who disagrees with you on important issues really an ally?

Here’s a typical use of the term from the June 6th edition of that most elitist of establishmentarian power-sucking publications, the New York Times: “In a contest where purity tests on the left have already propelled leading campaigns to disavow super PACs and reject money from federal lobbyists, is [accepting] tech money still politically acceptable?” The corrupting influence of super PACs is well-documented yet the Times wants us to think a politician can take their cash without being bought.

Framing is everything in politics and the “purity test” trope is one of the cleverest reframes in recent history. Describing the world as complicated—well, duh—the purity test narrative portrays politicians who fall short of the progressive Puritans’ impossibly high standards as victims of a shrieking mob. Virtuous attackers become fanatic Javerts, persecutors of minutiae. Corrupt, bloodthirsty scoundrels deserve our sympathy—and our votes.

Screw that.

Everyone—left, right, center—assesses candidates based on their personal metrics. Some are demographic: Is Mayor Pete too young? Is Bernie too old? Some are relatively arbitrary: Is Amy Klobuchar too mean of a boss? Is Beto too spazzy?

What right-wing Democrats call “purity tests” are what used to be called “standards.” They’re about ideology. And they’re valid.

Eighteen years into the losing war against Afghanistan, left-leaning Americans have good cause to question militarism and its enablers. Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. He’s never even apologized. Bernie Sanders voted no when it was unpopular to oppose Bush. Why shouldn’t progressives conclude that Sanders is closer to them—not to mention smarter? Biden voted to kill more than a million Iraqis for no reason whatsoever; being held accountable for contributing to one of the biggest mass murders in history no more constitutes a purity test than voting against Charles Manson for mayor.

The Democratic tent has long included officials who oppose abortion. Now that states are passing bans against abortion that don’t even include exceptions for incest and danger to the life of the mother, however, Democratic presidential candidates like Harris and Julián Castro say that all Democrats should be pro-choice. Given how strident the pro-life movement has become and the fact that Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned, it’s hard to dismiss this as an inane “purity test.”

Don’t be fooled, progressives. You have the right to vote for, or against, any candidate you want, for any reason you want. Personally, I can’t support anyone who doesn’t oppose drones, Gitmo, torture, militarism, wars of choice and doesn’t support huge cuts in defense spending. I can’t support someone who doesn’t think saving the planet from ecocide is our top priority. I can’t support a person who doesn’t want to tax the hell out of the rich and eradicate poverty.

Center-rightists tell me that my standards are too high, that none of the current field of 24 presidential candidates can pass my test. They’re probably right. But it’s not my problem. It’s theirs.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Francis: The People’s Pope.” You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)

Pages