"Welfare recipients will be given cashless cards to stop them from spending
money on alcohol and drugs in a bid to combat violence against women and
children. "
Because it's not like women drink or use drugs and then bash up their kids, or use a baby as a weapon, or kill their seven kids and their niece as well...
Nah! We'll put in this violation
of their dignity and paint it as protecting the womenfolk. If you are
against this, that means you beat your wife!
""The potential upside could be absolutely life changing in terms of community safety for women and children," Mr Tudge said. "
It could also potentially raise the dead and turn water into wine.
And your use of that weasel word 'potentially' means you know it has no scientific basis but you'll claim credit if it works but no blame if it fails.
" it could not be used to buy alcohol or drugs or gamble"
Alcohol and gambling?
See, the thing is, these things are legal. And unless you are under a court order, it's your right to do this.
As for drugs, THAT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Drug prohibition has been a massive failure.
People worked out how to bypass it every time.
A plan to abolish any transaction that isn't government monitored would be an honest way
of tackling drugs - if that was what this was truly about - but then it should apply to everybody.
No exceptions, Minister.
We should all be able to see every bloody transaction you and your kids and your wife makes - because that would be FAIR.
But instead you target the weakest segment of society - the part that often can't vote because they
don't even have a fixed address.
The punching bags of society; the poor.
"The trial would not make people's welfare payments completely cashless, to allow for situations that are cash only"
Then what's stopping the poor wretches from using the cash part for booze or
drugs?
Or from buying credit on things like "The Silk Road"? Bitcoin et al are not so easy to micromanage, Minister.
"Mr Forrest recommended the so-called "Healthy Welfare Card" be made available to all Australians who were on benefits"
The cripples. The old. The dying.
"prevent spending on things such as alcohol, cigarettes, home- brew kits and pornography. "
Huh.
So here we have the Moral Police sneaking in the back door.
To prevent violence against women and children - they are banning pornography?
How does that work? Every bloody study that has researched porn and violence has found no relationship - if anything it works the other way.
To quote http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100219595/does-porn-cause-sexual-violence-probably-not-but-were-allowed-to-want-to-protect-children-from-it-anyway/
. A 2009 meta-analysis in the journal Aggression and Violent Behaviour says that it is time to "discard" the hypothesis that porn causes violence (PDF); a major 1991 study said the same thing. Some go further. As Scientific American puts it:
Perhaps the most serious accusation against pornography is that it incites sexual aggression. But not only do rape statistics suggest otherwise, some experts believe the consumption of pornography may actually reduce the desire to rape by offering a safe, private outlet for deviant sexual desires.
And what gets classed as porn? Fifty Shades of Grey? Of course not - men's porn only, because men are disgusting rape monsters!
So sex aids for men will be banned. Can you imagine the fuss if they banned dildos for women?
Look at the expression on that f*'ers face. Look at the SMUGNESS dripping off of him.
I hope he ends up broke, dying of cancer, only to be told he can't be trusted to manage his meagre income, that the government has to watch every little purchase to make sure he's not looking at filthy pictures.
Besides - I don't know how to tell him this - but since the internet - very few people PAY for porn.
Sh! Don't let him know that!
No comments:
Post a Comment