Moral Panics grow apace.

December 8, 2008

A Queensland man has been charged for re-publishing on a video-sharing site a viral video of a man swinging a baby around like a rag doll.

wo unrelated, yet eerily similar, cases in Australia show that the Moral Panics of child abuse and child pornography continue to grow and snare the innocent.

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled an internet cartoon in which lookalike child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography.

It seems this judge, unlike the defendant, cannot separate reality from fantasy. No children were harmed in the making of the cartoon, and no children are likely to be harmed by anyone viewing the cartoon.

“If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,”Justice Adams said in his judgement. “Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar.”

The judge, seeing not to understand the import of the word if, then goes on to treat cartoon characters as real people.

Read the whole sad tale at

In the other case, a Queensland man has been charged for re-publishing on a video-sharing site a viral video of a man swinging a baby around like a rag doll. the man did not make the video, he simply republished what had been published many times before.

He was charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material and is scheduled to appear in court in Maroochydore on December 18.

The baby is laughing and smiling at the end of the clip, but the video has attracted criticism from child-welfare advocates because of how vigorously the man swings the baby by its arms.

 Have these people never seen America’s Funniest Home Videos? Perhaps that, too will be banned.

I am sorry, but these cases are over the top, and in fact they also trivilaise what is a very important issue.


Well, it could be worse…

December 7, 2008

“STEVE” has been barred from seeing his daughter for seven years.

He has never harmed his only child or her mother. He has never threatened them and a court has accepted he is of good character.

But last week, after a tortuous 10-year journey through four courts, more than 20 hearings, 12 psychologists and six lawyers, he was told he could not see his daughter until she came of age.,21985,24761929-661,00.html

Although I can’t see how. Here exposed is the idiocy of putting political expediency above good law making.

Is Barack Obama black?

December 7, 2008

Well, only if you are still trapped in the time warp of old time American racism where a single drop of negro blood was enough to tar a person as “nigger”.

Barack Obama is not black. He may be coloured. He is bi racial. But he is not black.

From their latest ad campaign:

Content screening – stops staff accessing unrelated work sites.

Now, I think I can work out what they mean, but why should I have to? How much does the CEO get paid? Maybe some of that should trickle down to a decent proof reader.

EVERY pregnant woman should be offered screening for Down syndrome regardless of age, and screening should be co-ordinated by a national policy, according to experts. 

A Danish study published in the British Medical Journal last week showed a national screening program using a combination of tests for expectant mothers halved the number of babies born with Down syndrome in the Scandinavian country.

Now, as the article goes on to state, not every woman will terminate a Downs foetus, but for those who do, we will be spared the added expense of raising a sub opitmal person.

Just wait for the usual nutters to come out sctreaming about “How life enhancing” it is to parent a Downs child; no thought given to the child. Or the religious wonks railing “Every life is sacred” yet never wondering why their god is was such an incompetent designer that random suffering is part of the design.

How much longer long will The Press (Christchurch) keep inflicting the twitterings of Mike Yardley on its readers?

In his column 6/12/08 Yardley takes his twit stick to those who see prisons as not just a place of punishment, but as a reflection on society as a whole. He seems to have a particular disdain for the Howard League for Penal Reform and their concerns that over crowded prisons do not provide the best results.

Yardley writes “The Howard League and company are apoplectic that serious, violent offenders now face the dire prospect of having to share their cell with a fellow inmate, who might bash or violate them.”

Perhaps Yardley might like to reflect that:

a) Many, if not most, prisoners are not “serious, violent offenders”.

b) Many prisoners are in jail for crimes other than violence, such as deception, fraud, drink driving, drug use, etc.

c) Many prisoners are in jail, more because they have a mental illness or incapacity than because they are hardened criminals.

d) Prisoners have the same rights and expectations as the rest of society to be safe from violence.

Yardley may like to return to the days of the lash, but if so, let him consider

1. Corporal punishment was administered by an appointed authority and under known conditions; it was not a process of random violence inflicted by inmates upon each other.

2. It would be more intellectually honest of Yardley to put the case for a return to corporal punishment, not hide behind throwaway lines like “double bunking (…) delivering more bang for our buck.”

“Why, when you talk about paying to keep the best talent on the board, does that never filter down to paying to keep the best front-line staff?

“It’s disgusting that you can keep continually raising your salaries, giving yourselves slaps on the back and yet it has never filtered down to the people underneath you.”

Qantas shareholder Lisa Marshall