Episode 225 – The top 1% and the bottom 70% and Satanists march in Noosa

Satanists prepare to march in Noosa and Christians are worried. The top 1% of Australians own 70% of the wealth and no-one cares. The emissions of one cow equal driving the average car for 12,500 km.

1:21 Robin Bristow and the Noosa Satanists

What will happen on Hastings St?

His original press release.

Praise be Scott Morrison. His proposed “Religious Freedom Bill” will open the gates of Hell onto the Streets of Australia.

For all of us quiet Australians who are condemned to the underworld we are planning a queer Halloween celebration of our Freedom of Speech and Religious Freedoms. Halloween on Hastings invites all Mad Fkn Witches, Sodomites, Warlocks, Pagans, Satanists, Atheists and Whores to our 2nd November event. We are going to take back the streets of Noosa from the State and Local Government sponsored homophobes and misogynists.

We will be preaching the gospel of where to obtain abortions, handing out condoms, how to support Voluntary Assisted Dying, where to find brothels and sex shops, how you can stop chaplains from messing with our children and many other issues.

We ask you, as fervent supporters of Freedom of Speech and Religious Freedom, for letters of support to be read out before our main speeches, invocations and street parade.

We also wish to acknowledge at this time the call from LNP stalwarts George Brandis and Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells that “everyone should have the freedom to manifest in public his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching”.

It is going to be one hell of a party.

A YouTube video response by Sonja Howard

Here is the link

The Julian Porteous case

By Martine Delaney in New Matilda

The Federal Government’s rationale for overriding the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act is that the Archbishop of Hobart was hauled before a discrimination tribunal for simply stating Catholic doctrine on marriage.

Every word of that rationale is a lie. This article is about what actually happened.

Mr Porter claimed the complaint was made against the Archbishop over statements of doctrine, “… no more than statements, Christian statements about their preference for a traditional view of marriage”.

The message, … , was that the complaint was taken to silence the Archbishop, to limit his freedom of religious expression, and that federal legislation is needed to stop such actions.

In relation to my complaint, none of the above claims are true. It is deliberate misinformation to continually publish them as fact.

It’s also concerning that neither interviewing journalists, nor political commentators, have taken the time to discover the facts, or question these statements.

It is especially concerning as the complaint is being offered up as a major reason for legislation which will expose some of Australia’s most vulnerable people to very real harm.

Here’s what actually happened.

In 2015, as Australia’s marriage equality debate heated up, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference distributed a booklet nationally, through its churches, schools and online.

The resulting document told us, as fact, same-sex-attracted people are, somehow, “not whole”; their relationships no more than friendships and inferior to heterosexual marriage in quality and importance; that they raise unhealthy children; and, most offensively, that same-sex parenting is “messing with kids”.

The bishops had to know that, for almost every Australian, “messing with kids” directly refers to paedophilia.

As evidenced by the outpouring of anger and hurt, the booklet was widely viewed as something other than simply a statement of Catholic doctrine, by and for Catholics. For thousands of Catholics, it was a demeaning attack on the worth of same-sex-attracted people and their families.

In response to many weeks of public outcry, much of it from Catholic communities, the bishops did nothing – apart from continuing to distribute the booklet. So, around September 2015, I lodged my complaint.

From the outset, the substance of the complaint was very clear: I was not against Catholic bishops putting the Church’s view on marriage. I was against them stating their view as fact, as well as the demeaning and unnecessary references they used to make their case.

… At conciliation, I offered the bishops a written statement, assuring them I was committed to ensuring the Church was able to voice its opposition to marriage equality, and to express its beliefs on marriage.

Personally, I found the Church’s position on secular marriage law absurd, but I completely respected the right to hold those beliefs.

I simply asked them to express those beliefs in a manner which made it clear they were statements of Church doctrine, not fact, and to re-word the more offensive phrases so they weren’t as overtly accusatory and demeaning to LGBTIQ Australians and their families.

31:41 RD Bill – How is the consultation going?

From The Australian

Attorney-General Christian Porter has rejected a key concern from big business over the Morrison government’s draft religious discrimination bill, declaring they had gone “a little bit too far” in telling employees what they can and can’t say outside work hours … he said he found the business complaints “less persuasive” than other issues that had arisen in the consultation process.


Mr Porter flagged amendments to the draft bill that could ensure religious hospitals and aged care facilities were protected for acting in accordance with their faith.

Under clause 10 of the draft laws, religious bodies “may act in accordance with their faith” and do not discriminate against a person if their conduct may reasonably be regarded as being in accordance with their doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings.

A religious body that “engages solely or primarily in commercial activities”, such as a hospital or aged care home, is excluded, which has been a chief concern of religious groups.

“In our draft, it did not include hospitals and age care at first instance, because we wanted to learn more about how those organisations actually operate, and we have learnt a great deal during the consultations that I’ve conducted,” Mr Porter told the ABC’s Insiders program.

“There are going to have to be some refinements of the drafting in that area. But those exemptions can’t extend too far, clearly.”

35:42 Alison’s Petition

Grace Grace says No No

Here is a link to her BS response

It’s time to get approval for a Satanic RI lesson.

39:10 An Anglican Split

Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies has told Anglican supporters of same-sex marriage they should leave the church rather than “betray God’s word” in a scathing speech condemning progressive elements within the faith.

He said the church must focus on “evangelising Australia” rather than “the constant pressure to change our doctrine in order to satisfy the lusts and pleasures of the world”.

But …

Father Sempell said the Sydney diocese was positioning to protect its slew of property in the event of a split in the Anglican church here.

“What they are saying is: we remain the mainline church and if you have a different point of view it’s your job to leave, it’s not our job to leave,” he said.

“That helps them to retain the property and say: we are the ‘real’ Anglican church.”

40:16 Allowing the skin to sniff the steel

From the ABC

In 2015, the girls’ mother and a former nurse Kubra Magennis were found guilty of two counts each of breaching the ban on female genital mutilation in NSW.

All were sentenced to 15 months in jail but, while the women were allowed to spend the sentence out of custody, Mr Vaziri was jailed.

It was Australia’s first female genital mutilation prosecution.

But the charges were quashed by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal last year, after the trio argued the ceremony was only ritualistic and new evidence showed there was no visible physical damage to either girl.

Today, in a divided ruling, the High Court found the law did cover the circumstances in the case and that it was meant to criminalise the practice in its various forms.

The religious ceremony of Khatna is said to involve a girl’s clitoris being nicked or cut in the presence of elders.

The girls were believed to be aged six or seven when the ceremony was carried out at their homes, one in Wollongong and the other in Sydney, between 2009 and 2012.

At the original trial the eldest child had given evidence describing Khatna, saying “they give a little cut … in your private part” using a tool similar to a pair of scissors.

However, Ms Magennis said the ceremony had used forceps, not a blade, and the “symbolic” form of Khatna involved a “ceremony of touching the edge of the genital area … allowing the skin to sniff the steel”.

43:18 A woman is convicted over circumcision. What happens next?

A case in the UK.

On Wednesday, Martina Obi-Uzom was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to an 11 month old baby boy. She was entrusted to look after the baby while his parents went away one weekend. During that weekend, she took the baby to London to be circumcised, in accordance with her own Nigerian Christian beliefs. She knew the baby’s mother did not want her baby circumcised. So she posed as the child’s mother, recruited a man to pose as his father, and convinced a Jewish circumciser to perform the procedure…

But Obi-Uzom will not go to jail. She was given a suspended sentence of 14 months. She was also ordered to pay costs of £1,500 and a £140 victim surcharge, which seems paltry compensation for amputating part of a person’s genitals without consent or medical need. Last month a man was awarded £20,000 for being circumcised by mistake at Leicester General Hospital.

Judge Freya Newbery said although the offence merited a prison sentence, “circumstances” meant she decided to suspend the sentence. The judge said she accepted that Obi-Uzom’s intention “wasn’t to harm the boy” and that she was of “impeccable character”. She also said she was a “professional person” and “highly qualified”.

It will strike many people as bizarre to describe a woman who took a baby in her care to have his genitals cut in defiance of his mother’s wishes, and used highly deceitful means to do this, as of “impeccable character”.

Why is the parents’ consent the central issue, and not the child’s?

The question we all must ask is why parental consent should determine whether or not non-consensual cutting of a boy’s healthy penis is grievous bodily harm.

The judge said the lack of parental consent “is what is missing here”. She added that circumcision “can only be lawful with the consent of parents”.

And herein lies the real problem. What’s really missing here is the lack of consent from the person being circumcised – the child. Whether or not the parents want the procedure should not be the central issue. In the case of the Ugandan woman sent to jail for FGM, it’s clear that she wanted her daughter’s genitals cut. But UK law regards FGM as child abuse, no matter how sincerely parents may believe it is in the best interest of their daughters to be cut. And rightly so.

At last year’s Healthcare & Secularism conference, barrister James Chegwidden argued that non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting children is incompatible with many facets of the law. It’s at odds with criminal law because court cases have established that religious reasons cannot be used to justify other forms of physical assault on children, including scarification and flagellation. It’s at odds with civil law because it violates the child’s right to bodily autonomy. And it’s at odds with the laws of freedom of belief and conscience because it ignores that child’s right not have his parents’ religion imposed on him.

46:10 How much does it Cost to detain 4 people

A lot

Senator Nick McKim.

48:56 Boris Johnson

Forced to ask for an extension, he asked for one and he wrote a separate letter asking the EU to ignore the first letter.

A Downing Street source said Mr Johnson had sent a photocopy of the letter contained in the law that requires him to ask for the delay if there is no Brexit deal, but he didn’t sign it.

The Prime Minister has however signed another letter, which makes clear he does not want to delay Brexit beyond the end of this month.

A third letter written by British EU ambassador Tim Barrow explains that the Brexit delay letter is only being sent to comply with the law.

51:46 Climate Change

From Listener Zac:  … Is Scott a vegan or does he eat meat, one of the largest contributors to the greenhouse effect? “The overall impact of livestock is greater than that of burning coal, natural gas, and crude oil”

From Freakonomics:

As the WPF report shows, veganism offers the single most effective path to reducing global climate change.

Vegans are still considered as sort of “out there,” a fringe group of animal rights activists with pasty skin and protein issues. However, as a recent report from the World Preservation Foundation confirms, ignoring veganism in the fight against climate change is sort of like ignoring fast food in the fight against obesity. Forget ending dirty coal or natural gas pipelines. As the WPF report shows, veganism offers the single most effective path to reducing global climate change.

Ruminants are mammals that are able to acquire nutrients from plant-based food by fermenting it in a specialized stomach prior to digestion, principally through microbial actions.

Are cows the cause of global warming?

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2’300 kg CO2 per year.

Let’s compare this value of 2’300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1’000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12’500 km per year (7’800 miles per year).

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector).

58:36 Most of Australia’s biggest companies are majority-owned by US investors.

By Clinton Fernandes Professor, International and Political Studies, UNSW

The attention being given to possible covert influence being exercised by China in Australia shouldn’t distract us from recognising that very overt foreign influence now occurs through investment.

Right now US corporations eclipse everyone else in their ability to influence our politics, through their investments in Australian stocks.

Using company ownership data from Bloomberg, I analysed the ownership of Australia’s 20 biggest companies a few days after the 2019 federal election in May. Of those 20, 15 were majority-owned by US-based investors. Three more were at least 25% US-owned.

According to my analysis, all four of our big banks are majority-owned by American investors. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the nation’s biggest company, is more than 60% owned by American-based investors.

So too are Woolworths and Rio Tinto. BHP, once known as “the Big Australian”, is 73% owned by American-based investors.

The ASX’s top 20 companies make up close to half of the market capitalisation of the Australian Securities Exchange.

1:00:48 Wealth Distribution

Wealth distribution in the USA

Perception Vs Reality

What about Australia?

A great article by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

The top 1% own as much as the bottom 70%

What we think the distribution is

What our voting preferences show

Eighty one percent of LNP voters underestimated the level of wealth held by the top 1% compared to 67% of Greens voters and 65% of those who support the ALP.

Is it a priority?

What would be effective?

Median income is similar irrespective of home ownership

But median net worth depends on home ownership

Does age matter?

Tax concessions based on wealth favour … the most wealthy

From The Grattan Institute

This report may be cited as:

Daley, J., Coates, B., and Wiltshire, T. (2017). Housing affordability: re-imagining the Australian dream, Grattan Institute.

What do people want the government to do?

Bubbles are dangerous

What about interest rates?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Regular per episode donations

One off donations

IFVG Index