Incat Crowther launched of Spirit of the Wild, a spectacular new tour vessel for Gordon River Cruises, and the first in Australia to operate in World Heritage-listed wilderness with Silent Drive. Offering interpretive tours into the heart of the UNESCO Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Spirit of the Wild will give customers a unique natural experience.
The NSW opposition leader, Luke Foley, has apologised for using the term “white flight” to describe changing demographics in Sydney’s west, hours after he defended it.
“I won’t use that term again. Some people find it offensive, so I apologise. I want the entire focus to be on growing jobs and building better schools and Tafes in these suburbs,” he told Ten Eyewitness News.
Mr Foley was forced to defend the comments made in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, which appeared under the headline “Stop White Flight”.
He told the NSW tabloid that “many Anglo families” are relocating from suburbs such as Fairfield because they lack the education, resources and employment opportunities to support huge numbers of refugees.
Earlier, the Labor leader defended the language, saying the issue is more about class than race, and that it’s an academic term.
“It’s an identifiable phenomenon in many western cities that reflect the changing cultural mix of many suburbs,” he told ABC radio on Thursday when defending his comments.
“This is a class issue more than a race issue.”
Mr Foley named Fairfield, Guildford, Yennora, Sefton, Granville, Regents Park as suburbs of concern where there were large numbers of Syrian and Iraqi refugees.
“I don’t want anyone to think you have to move out of those suburbs to do well in life, that’s what I’m fighting,” he said.
When asked whether he was simply engaging in dog-whistle politics, Mr Foley said he supported the refugee intake but wanted more services to support the communities.
NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley (left).
He also highlighted that he was the only NSW political leader who had ruled out any preference deal with One Nation’s Pauline Hanson.
“I won’t have a bar of her divisive race-based politics,” he added.
Meanwhile, One Nation senator Pauline Hanson praised Mr Foley for his “white flight” comments.
“I’ve been saying this and I said it twenty years ago, there would be places that we won’t even recognise as being Australian,” Senator Hanson told the Today show on Thursday.
“I said they’re forming ghettos and that’s exactly what’s happening. And people are starting to talk about it. Yes, they are … people are forced out of their homes that they grew up in … because they are not assimilating.
“We don’t put restrictions on that they must speak English, they must assimilate into our society, respect our laws and our culture.
“Good on Luke Foley because it needs to be debated.”
The post NSW Labor Leader Backs Down on ‘White Flight’ Comments Amid Backlash appeared first on American Renaissance.
IAB Australia has announced that Cameron King will chair its board, effective immediately. King, who is currently managing director of digital revenue at News Corp Australia, will serve as chair at IAB Australia until News Corp’s board chair tenure ends …
“Show Dogs” — a new “family comedy” that’s rated PG — has seen a growing wave of attention of late; but for all the wrong reasons.
What’s the issue?
The comedic flick about — what else? — show dogs features lead undercover police dog Max (voiced by rapper/actor Ludacris) learning to get comfortable with strangers touching his genitals for the dog show inspection. Critics have said such a plot line sends a dangerous message to kids.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation released a statement saying as much, noting that the movie “sends a troubling message that grooms children for sexual abuse … It contains multiple scenes where a dog character must have its private parts inspected, in the course of which the dog is uncomfortable and wants to stop but is told to go to a ‘zen place.’ The dog is rewarded with advancing to the final round of the dog show after passing this barrier. Disturbingly, these are similar tactics child abusers use when grooming children — telling them to pretend they are somewhere else, and that they will get a reward for withstanding their discomfort. Children’s movies must be held to a higher standard, and must teach children bodily autonomy, the ability to say ‘no’ and safety, not confusing messages endorsing unwanted genital touching,” Deadline reported.
Cineplex Australia pulled “Show Dogs” from its theaters, the outlet noted, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation also asked the likes of AMC and Regal to do the same.
What’s being done about the scenes in question?
The movie’s distributor Global Road Entertainment on Thursday told Deadline in an exclusive statement that it’s recutting “Show Dogs” by removing two scenes:
“Responding to concerns raised by moviegoers and some specific organizations, Global Road Entertainment has decided to remove two scenes from the film ‘Show Dogs’ that some have deemed not appropriate for children. The company takes these matters very seriously and remains committed to providing quality entertainment for the intended audiences based on the film’s rating. We apologize to anybody who feels the original version of ‘Show Dogs’ sent an inappropriate message. The revised version of the film will be available for viewing nationwide starting this weekend.”
Global Road released a statement Tuesday regarding viewers’ concerns about the scenes, Deadline reported — but it defended the scenes’ inclusion and said they contain “no hidden or ulterior meanings.”
“It has come to our attention that there have been online discussion and concern about a particular scene in ‘Show Dogs,’ a family comedy that is rated PG,” the statement read, according to the outlet. “The dog show judging in this film is depicted completely accurately as done at shows around the world; and was performed by professional and highly respected dog show judges. Global Road Entertainment and the filmmakers are saddened and apologize to any parent who feels the scene sends a message other than a comedic moment in the film, with no hidden or ulterior meaning, but respect their right to react to any piece of content.”
How one writer reacted to the original “Show Dogs” version
A writer whose piece appeared on Kirk Cameron’s faith-based website, The Courage, described taking her family to see “Show Dogs,” noting she was disturbed by the genital-touching plot line. Her daughter, however, said “her favorite part of the movie was when Max got his privates touched and the funny reaction he had.”
Terina Maldonado, the author of the piece, shared that she “decided to use that moment to help reinforce what we have taught our children since they were little, private parts are just that, private.”
“We talked about how I didn’t feel that part needed to be in the movie. We talked about how we never let anyone touch our private parts, and what they should do if anyone tries,” she added. “We reinforced that if anyone tries to touch their private parts or asks them to touch their private parts they should talk to us about that. We talked about different ways children can feel pressured to participate in those types of behaviors.”
You can read Maldonado’s entire piece here.
ZURICH (AP) — FIFA has cleared Croatia Under-21 international Fran Karacic to switch eligibility and play for Australia at the World Cup. FIFA says the formal “change of association” for Croatia-born Karacic, who is named in Australia’s provisional squad …
The miniseries ” Picnic at Hanging Rock ” , based on the novel about four young women who vanish without a trace during an outing in the Australian outback in 1900, takes a darker, eerier approach than Peter Weir’s dreamy 1975 film. Natalie Dormer stars as the mysterious headmistress of a boarding school filled with secrets and repressed emotions.
Sour Samantha Markle continues to wage war: Meghan’s half-sister defends their father’s staged paparazzi shots and says she’d rather be in the US than in ‘London traffic’ after being snubbed from wedding Rupert Murdoch’s bitterest billionaire rival has launched an audacious bid to gazump the Australian mogul’s ‘exit deal’ to sell his US TV assets to Disney for $52.4billion and hand the reigns to his sons. The American owner of Comcast, Brian Roberts, has sparked open warfare by plotting an all-cash deal to challenge the sale of Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox film and TV studios.
<p>El último ejemplo de colusión y manipulación masiva de los principales medios para promover la cultura de la muerte se produjo en la presentación de Exit International, a principios de este mes, de la muerte del reconocido científico australiano David Goodall en Suiza.</p>
Rarely do we stop to consider how uniquely dirty our national fuel of choice, unleaded petrol, is. But Australia’s obsession with it needs addressing and government inaction is leaving the country sitting in the dust in a race for cleaner fuel. Australia …
By Chris Knox and Jeff Knox
Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, turned ubiquitous talking head on left-leaning cable news and radio, recently published five talking points that he claims shoot holes in the NRA’s (here meaning all gun-rights supporters’) arguments. The points are not at all unique to Mr. Reich, so we thought it would be worthwhile to take a closer look.
Reich’s Point Number 1: Gun laws save lives.
“Consider the federal assault weapons ban. After it became law in 1994, gun massacres – defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed – fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.”
Nonsense. Reich doesn’t cite a source for his claims because there is no credible source drawing that conclusion. Start with his definition of “gun massacres” being shootings resulting in 6 or more deaths. Despite a rash of those horrible events, massacres, by any definition, remain rare. But because of their horrific nature, they draw media, following the ancient newspaper adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a result the nation fixes its gaze on a single-digit percentage of all crime involving guns, and a fraction of a percent of overall deaths.
With such a small sample size, a difference of one or two incidents has a dramatic impact when presented as a percentage. Thirty-seven percent of 10,000 would be a significant result, but 37% of 3 would be one more or less – a meaningless statistical anomaly. There’s no way of knowing exactly what Reich’s percentages are based on though, because he provides no source, and most tellingly, no real numbers. In short, Reich’s first point is just short of a total fabrication.
Reich’s Point Number 2: The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter.
When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers’ goal was [to] permit a “well-regulated militia,” not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.
The First Amendment was written more than 200 years ago and the founders’ goal was to protect people’s right to assemble in person, and protect the press – newspapers printed on paper, not to enable the mass propagation of fake news by internet trolls. But few today would argue that the First Amendment does not apply to online communications. The rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are not dependent on technology.
It is also worth noting that during the framers’ time, it was common for private citizens who could afford them to own canons, and even fully-armed warships. The right to arms does not “permit mass slaughter,” and restricting that right does not prevent mass slaughter. Every day over 100 million lawful gunowners don’t kill anyone or terrorize their communities. Restricting their rights will not prevent evil people from doing evil things.
Reich’s Point Number 3: More guns have not, and will not, make us safer.
“More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide. In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory buyback program to reduce `the number of guns in private ownership. Their firearm homicide rate fell 42 percent in the seven years that followed.”
Once again, Mr. Reich throws around “studies” but fails to mention which ones. We can easily present more than 30 studies that show that gun control laws don’t reduce risks of violence. In fact, in the late 1970s Wright and Rossi produced a study funded by the Carter Justice Department, with the objective of determining which “gun control” programs were most effective. They found none. In the mid-2000s, both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Science Foundation did independent reviews with the same objective. Both reviews reached the same conclusion as Wright and Rossi: that there is no clear evidence that any gun control laws have effectively reduced crime.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Reich also fails to mention that murder rates in Australia were declining prior to the massacre that triggered their gun ban and confiscation. The rates went up slightly in the year right after the ban, then resumed their downward trend at a slower pace than previously, and slower than the rate enjoyed in the U.S., where gun laws were being liberalized, and gun ownership was skyrocketing.
Reich’s Point Number 4: The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun safety laws.
“According to Gallup, 96 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 75 percent support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and 70 percent favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police. Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common-sense gun safety laws.”
Gallup polls also concluded that Hillary Clinton was supposed to be our president.
Poll results depend on how questions are phrased and asked. A good many Americans support some of the general ideas around gun control, but absolutely reject specific proposals. Rephrase the question about “universal” (sic) background checks to ask whether it should be a felony for you to lend your gun to a friend for target practice, and different answers come back, as they did in Nevada and Maine when such proposals were put to voters.
Reich’s Point Number 5: The National Rifle Association is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican Party.
“In 2016, the group spent a record [for them] $55 million on elections. Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.
America is better than the NRA. America is the young people from Parkland, Florida, who are telling legislators to act like adults. It’s time all of us listen.”
Gun prohibitionists routinely target the NRA instead of ordinary American gun owners. It’s certainly easier to stir fear and uncertainty about some large organization funded by a faceless industry than to risk humanizing the opposition. Even so, the NRA’s power does not arise from industry money, it comes from millions of individuals who freely choose to defend their rights with their voices, their votes, and their dollars.
Something else worth mentioning is that while Reich and other media accuse NRA of buying politicians with their $55 million in election spending in 2016, labor unions reportedly spent $1.7 billion on those elections.
If those talking points are the strongest assault an Ivy League lawyer can launch against the unfettered right to arms for defense of self, family, home, and homeland, then the Second Amendment should be safe for a while longer. Unfortunately, these and similar points rarely get any sort of honest scrutiny in the media shouting matches, so it’s up to you to call them out every time they pop up again.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.
The post How To Prove The NRA Is Wrong: Just Make Stuff Up… ANTI-GUN VIDEO appeared first on AmmoLand.com.