Sarah Hanson-Young accuses David Leyonhjelm of sexist slur during debate on women’s safety

I’d no idea Senator Leyonhjelm, radically libertarian in matters of economics, had such a sense of humour. We are all aware Senator Hanson-Young has none.

 

“The Senate was debating a motion put forward by crossbencher Fraser Anning to relax importation restrictions on pepper sprays, to allow women to better protect themselves.

Leyonhjelm: “Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young interjected, saying something along the lines of all men being rapists, I responded by suggesting that if this was the case she should stop shagging men. I did not yell at her.”

He said he would not be withdrawing his remarks.

“I do not agree with Senator Hanson-Young’s sentiments about all men being rapists and I believe I have the right to voice my opinion accordingly, That Senator Hanson-Young took offence from my comments is an issue for her, not me. However, I am prepared to rephrase my comments – I strongly urge Senator Hanson-Young to continue shagging men as she pleases.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/sarah-hanson-young-accuses-david-leyonhjelm-of-sexist-slur/9920766

 

Sweeping foreign interference and spying laws pass Senate

“The Senate has passed laws that amount to the most significant overhaul of Australia’s security and foreign interference laws in decades – creating new espionage offences, introducing tougher penalties on spies and establishing a register of foreign political agents…

“The original bill risked sweeping whistleblowers, aid workers, journalists and other not-for-profit workers into its net through its wide-sweeping definitions, but the government and Labor insist amendments to the legislation have accounted for those concerns.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/29/sweeping-foreign-interference-and-spying-laws-pass-senate

So, apparently Catholics are no longer to be deemed “foreign agents”?

 

John Howard warns China could use its expats to grow influence in Australia and the region

Okay, not exactly my favourite person. But when the man is right…

 

“China could use its 1 million expats in Australia to help grow its influence and power in the region, former prime minister John Howard says.

“Speaking in London on a panel discussion about the Five Eyes intelligence network, Mr Howard said “Chinese assertiveness” was more pressing than the cyber threat posed by the world’s most populous nation.

“China has a massive diaspora in South-East Asia,” Mr Howard said.

“Australia’s population will reach 25 million soon, 1 million of them are ethnic Chinese.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/john-howard-warns-china-could-use-expats-to-grow-power-in-region/9918114

 

Why Macron accepted a title from the Pope

“President Emmanuel Macron’s papal audience, which touched on several current issues, was primarily significant for the religious symbolism of the day. The Vatican said the “private” discussion covered “protection of the environment, migration, and multilateral commitment to conflict prevention and resolution, especially in relation to disarmament,” as well as prospects for resolving conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and the future of Europe. Macron said they had also touched on abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and “the place of Catholicism” in France…

“The American media highlighted that Macron met the Pope for longer than President Obama, and for twice as long as President Trump, but Macron noted “we didn’t look at our watches, which may explain why it lasted so long, that’s what it’s like when you have an intense discussion.” This led to the lateness of the main symbolic act of the day. The Papal Archbasilica of St John Lateran, cathedral church of the Diocese of Rome and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, installed Macron as ex officio the “first and only honorary canon” of the basilica.

“The title is offered to every President of the French Republic and predates the modern presidency, originally going back to 1482 and King Louis XI. The tradition was renewed in 1604 when King Henry IV, having renounced Protestantism, donated the Benedictine Abbey in Clairac along with its income to the basilica. The title was created as a token of gratitude. Each December 13, Henry IV’s birthday, the honour is marked by a Mass celebrated at the basilica for the “happiness and prosperity of France.”

“The symbolism of Macron’s acceptance is that it builds on his notable April speech at the Collège des Bernadins in Paris, which was significant in its tenor of rapprochement in state and church relations. In the speech, Macron set out his view: “As Head of State, I am the guarantor of the freedom to believe and not believe, but I am neither the inventor nor the promoter of a State religion which substitutes divine transcendence with a Republican creed.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2018/06/28/analysis-why-macron-accepted-a-title-from-the-pope/

 

Sts Peter and Paul

Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Et tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum. Quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis. Et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum et in coelis.

 

Pauline Hanson’s changing stance on company tax cuts over 72 hours

This is one of those “not being sure whether to laugh or cry” moments.

Last March Pauline Hanson had agreed to support the government’s tax cuts for companies with an annual turnover in excess of $50m.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-27/pauline-hansons-changing-stance-on-company-tax-cuts/9914914

“Struggling to keep up with where Pauline Hanson stands on the Federal Government’s corporate tax cuts? You’re not alone.

“It prompted Labor senator Doug Cameron to declare her “the most unstable senator I have ever seen in my decade in Parliament”, adding: “No-one knows what she will do.”

Monday, 7:30am
“Pauline Hanson says her party will not support company tax cuts unless the Coalition takes action on multinational tax avoidance, among other things.”

Tuesday, 5:15pm
“One Nation will not be supporting company tax cuts. So I haven’t flip-flopped, I said no originally, then I said yes, then I have said no and I’ve stuck to it.”

Wednesday, 7:25am
“Pauline Hanson appears to soften her stance on Channel Nine’s Today Show, indicating she is open to negotiations. When asked where she stands, Senator Hanson replies: “I’ve made my point really clear about this.”

“In the chamber today again [Labor’s] used flip-flopping, that’s my prerogative! And I will change my mind as many times as I want to, to ensure I come up with the right decision.”

Wednesday, 7:30am
“Pauline Hanson tells reporters in a Parliament House corridor… “I’m not going to apologise to anyone for that, That’s not a bad thing to do. If you get better information, you want things for the country — why not? It’s about what’s right for the country.”

Wednesday, 9:10am
“Pauline Hanson does change her mind – again. She tells Melbourne radio station 3AW One Nation has settled its position.”

“We have come to a firm decision, we are not supporting the corporate tax cuts. It’s not changing. I’ve sent a message to Minister Cormann this morning, so anyway, he knows.”

 

 

 

Migrant separations: US judge orders family reunifications

“A US judge has ordered that migrant children and their parents who were separated when they crossed into the US should be reunited within 30 days…

“More than 2,300 migrant children have been separated from their parents since early May under the Trump administration’s controversial policy, which seeks to criminally prosecute anyone crossing the border illegally.

“Tuesday’s preliminary injunction, issued by a federal judge in San Diego, California, orders the government to reunite parents with their children aged under five within 14 days, and with older ones within 30 days…”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44622596

“Last week President Trump issued an executive order promising to “keep families together” in migrant detention centres.

“However critics have said the order is vague, and does not specify when and how those already split up would be brought back together.”

 

 

ABC, Fairfax criticised by judge in Chau Chak Wing defamation case

Background:
https://seamasodalaigh.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/french-wine-gift-at-centre-of-chau-chak-wing-defamation-case/

 

“A Federal Court judge has criticised the ABC and Fairfax for attempting to use comments made by a federal MP as proof allegations of bribery against Chau Chak Wing were true.

“The Chinese-Australian businessman and political donor is suing the two media organisations, as well as journalist Nick McKenzie, for defamation over a Four Corners program and accompanying online story published on June 5, 2017.

“Mr Chau argues that among some of the imputations the story conveyed were that he bribed or was involved in a scheme to bribe the former president of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe.

“The ABC and Fairfax wish to file a defence relying on, among other things, a May speech by the Federal MP Andrew Hastie in which he used parliamentary privilege to name Mr Chau as a co-conspirator in the Ashe matter.

“When that was raised in an interlocutory hearing on Wednesday, Justice Steven Rares said it was “extraordinary” that the media companies were “trying to use that as evidence of truth” and that is was an abuse of parliamentary privilege.

“The fact that Mr Hastie wants to say something doesn’t prove anything,” he said…

“The media companies’ barrister Peter Gray SC said the story was about warnings from ASIO to major Australian political parties about Mr Chau.

“Federal Parliament is currently considering amending Australia’s national security laws in part because of this applicant,” he said.

“Mr Gray said that means their defence will rely on inferences, because the story was concerned with “spheres which are notoriously opaque” and actions which seem innocent but have concealed or ulterior motives.

“However Justice Rares asked: “Why does the fact the subject is national security or espionage, why is that different from any other case?”…

“Mr Gray said the “traditional or conventional notion of ‘espionage’ is not all that word means these days”. He said that the present world of espionage and intelligence is “much more complex and subtle” than “old-fashioned” methods such as eavesdropping, peeping through holes or stealing microfilm like James Bond and now involves the exercise of “soft power”.

“But Justice Rares challenged that.

“If you had said foreign interference you’d not have a problem … you’ve said he’s a spy,” Justice Rares said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-27/chau-chak-wing-andrew-hastie-comments/9915628

 

 

US Supreme Court rules that requiring Christian pregnancy centres to notify clients about the availability of abortions violates free speech

“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday a California law placing requirements on crisis pregnancy centres that oppose abortion violated the First Amendment.

“In its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, the court found that the law changes the content of the clinic’s speech “by compelling petitioners to speak a particular message,” and that the law went further than being a mere “regulation of professional conduct that incidentally burdens speech”.

“Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, praised the ruling as “an important victory for the free speech rights of pro-life organisations”.

“The Supreme Court today has affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of all organisations to choose for themselves not only what to say, but what not to say,” he said in a statement.

“This includes allowing pro-life pregnancy care centres to continue providing life-affirming support to both mother and child without being forced by governments to provide free advertising for the violent act of abortion in direct violation of the centres’ pro-life convictions,” he said.

http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/06/27/supreme-court-ruling-a-victory-for-the-free-speech-rights-of-pro-lifers/