Now the Feminists want those places - completely to themselves. They declare everywhere to be a SafeSpace - free of men.
Feminists have long talked about separating men and women, with men getting the worst of it - to the point Feminists openly discussed a Final Solution through books such as "The Female Man". (source)
WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE PUT UP WITH BEING TOSSED OUT OF OUR OWN BLOODY COUNTRY?
In 2014, Dr. Bryana French released research reporting that “[a] total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.” http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex.aspx
The Minister for Women. Why not call her the Minister for Feminism? Isn't it interesting there's no concept of a "Minister for Men"?
Because it's against men that this law will be applied. No defense, the presumption of guilt, and not even the right to face your accuser.
"Imagine the bravery it takes to stand up to a violent partner" she says, assuming all accusers are innocent victims, and all accused are guilty. No burden of proof. The trial is just for show.
"We hold red rose rallies every time a person dies in Queensland"
How many are held for men?
None.
Yet more men die than women, by a substantial degree.
Men... aren't persons. They aren't people. They are the victimisers, the enemies, the ones who lay the real people in the Earth.
This is the rhetoric of every hate movement.
"A change where victims, a change where fathers like myself, will be left without worry that our daughters will be treated with respect from males in their lives," he said.
How much respect are women treating their men with?
Hmm, it turns out:
"In 70% of the non-reciprocally violent relationships women were the perpetrators of violence."
So maybe the parents should be making sure their kids are protected from violence - not just blaming their sons for whatever happens to their daughters, not giving their sons no protection from the women in their lives.
I have confirmation, in writing, from the Australian government, that men are NOT protected by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) - equality only applies if it benefit women.
It is perfectly legal in Australia to underpay men, and that the AHRC is all in favour of it.
Does this make sense to anybody outside of SocJus?
Dear Brett Thank you for your email below and apologies for the delay in responding to you. Thank you for raising these concerns with us. ANZ recently announced that they would pay female employees an additional annual superannuation contribution. The purpose of this measure is to address the fact that women have lower retirement savings than men. This measure is one of a range of measures ANZ is taking to address inequality between men and women in its workforce. These include: • measures to ensure equality in recruitment, promotion and remuneration between men and women • measures to promote flexible work arrangements • payment of superannuation contributions on behalf of employees on parental leave • providing a child care allowance. The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) provides that a person may take 'special measures' for the purpose of achieving substantive equality between men and women. The phrases ‘special measures’ and ‘substantive equality’ are not defined in the SDA. However the secondary materials, as well as the text of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, suggest that special measures should be measures designed to overcome inequality caused by historical and structural barriers faced by women. Generally, the Commission’s view is that special measures must be intended to address such barriers, and must be reasonably capable of being characterised as addressing such barriers. The Commission has no power to certify special measures under the SDA. However, the measure ANZ has implemented, in the context of the other measures the ANZ is taking, appears to be designed to address an inequality in retirement savings between male and female employees. As such, in the Commission's view, it appears to be consistent with the objects of the SDA. Thank you again for your inquiry. Best regards
-----Original Message----- From: Australian Human Rights Commission [mailto:webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au] Sent: Sunday, 2 August 2015 3:55 AM To: Communications Unit Subject: Form submission from: Contact us
Submitted on Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 3:54am Submitted by anonymous user: 14.200.204.35 Submitted values are:
==Web enquiry form== My enquiry is regarding: Communications - <a href="mailto:communications@humanrights.gov.au">communications@humanrights.gov.au</a> (Messages for the Commissioners, queries about information on our website or just to lodge your opinion or comments, or anything else that doesn't fit in the other categories) Name: Brett Caton Email: Comments: The ANZ has announced it will be paying males less than females for the same work, and claims that it has sought permission from you for this deed, and that you endorse such discriminatory practises.
"As a result of this we were advised by the Australian Human Rights Commission that they believe this initiative to be “consistent with the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act” and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission granted a 10 year exemption"
Is their interpretation correct? Do you really stand for equality, but only in the Animal Farm use of the term?
The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/node/9203/submission/26273
*********************************************************************** WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together with any attachments.
" the AHRC differentiates formal from substantive equality.
Formal equality is equality of all citizens before the law and commonly associated with equal opportunity.
Substantive equality is inequality under the law in favour of state-designated minority groups towards equality of outcome.
Substantive equality thus reverses genuine equality. It is a prime example of the neo-Marxist doublethink that characterises contemporary Left thought and undermines universal human rights. "
Lifestyle Support Worker (Female) Sherwood Private Individual through Homeswest Inc - Sherwood QLD 40+ year old female applicants only. Person required Thursdays 9am to 6pm and as a back up -
Case Worker in Training The Salvation Army - 4,015 reviews - Gold Coast QLD +1 location Casual As this role is in a Women's only accommodation centre, only female applicants need apply. Salvation Army Still Waters is a crisis accommodation centre for...
Research Assistant Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia - Sydney NSW $91,568 a year R&DVSA holds an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act and only employs female staff. Orientation/training is paid, and is scheduled to commence Wednesday...
Case Managers B Miles Women's Foundation - Sydney NSW B Miles Women's Foundation holds an exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act and only employs female staff....
Corporate Receptionist Bridge Consulting - 2 reviews - Sydney NSW Please submit your resume in "Word" format only. Our client values diversity in the workplace and encourages applications from females, Aboriginals and Torres... [not explicit but it's coded that they are discriminating on the grounds of sex and race]
Senior Accounts Officer- Kelly Services - 7,060 reviews - Gold Coast QLD Be able to work well within an all female accounts team including Management. Please forward a cover letter addressed to Sheryll Dobson that outlines your...
Senior Accounts officer - Manufacturing Industry Exp essenti... Kelly Services - 7,060 reviews - Gold Coast QLD Be able to work well within an all female accounts team including Management. Only candidates who have the required Manufacturing Asset reconciliation...
Support Worker Southern Cross Community Healthcare - Parramatta NSW Females preferred to start training ASAP. This position is only open to Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents....
So that's 8 (possibly 7; might be a duplication?) on the 1st page.. I found 30 pages of these there, but it's hard to get an exact answer because there's no standardised format.
However, note they keep referring to the exemption - that's the loophole the AHRC provided to make sure businesses can discriminate against men, but not women.
I tried searching for male only jobs by the same method but couldn't find any; searching by "male only" gave 4 results including...
General Practitioner Opportunities Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (CAAC) - Alice Springs NT $172,385 - $198,965 a year - Full-time, Part-time General Practitioner - Male Health (PN811). This is a male identified position. Our Ingkintja Male Health Service and Men's Shed is a male-only place providing...
Aboriginal males > white women so you can discriminate in that case.
Inner South Community Health - Melbourne VIC Male Only worker as per Equal Opportunity Act (2010). ? Prevent male violence through challenging the attitudes and behaviour of men and male youth....
This is a feminist propaganda job, so it doesn't surprise me that it's exempt from normal law.
Chief Officer Superyacht Crew International - Australia Permanent Male only due to cabin arrangements. This is a great job for a suitably experienced Superyacht Chief Officer....
Probably a good example of a male only job, but i wouldn't mind betting they could get it challenged; after all, it's less efficient to have gender neutral toilets and they seem to be moving in anyway.
Because violence against women is unacceptable! Errr... wait...
Just against women?
This is equivalent to having it say violence against straight people, or white people, or tall people... why narrow it down just to women, it takes MORE effort to do that than to just say "domestic violence is wrong".
These regional services can also provide information and referrals for women who have experienced domestic and family violence or sexual abuse and assault. "
Yup. It's pretty clear they aren't going to help you if you're male.
"The organisation also provides counselling for women who experienced sexual assault in childhood from a number of Women’s Health Centres across NSW. "
So here's a question. Say you were born a girl, and were raped. You would get help. But say you were transgender... on the day you transitioned, you would be thrown out, no support, regarded as a victimiser automatically.
"Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia is committed to upholding the rights of all people to live in a socially just, equitable and non violent society."
Social 'Justice'? So long as you're not male, of course.
https://archive.is/UUUKD In each case (except in New South Wales), the legislation allows “special measures” to be taken and states that such measures do not constitute unlawful discrimination.
Huh. So justice for all - except the people the commissioners don't like?
In essence, ANZ considers that paying extra superannuation contributions to female employees constitutes a special measure under the relevant legislation.
Like not paying Jews an equal salary would be. Oh sorry, I mean Jewish MEN. Discriminating against them is fine. And Aboriginal MEN. And gay MEN.
In fact, I have to wonder who is protected from discrimination under this law?
Oh right - anyone not a MAN.
Everyone was equal under the law in Nazi Germany, except, of course, for those for whom “special measures” applied.
ANZ also consulted with the Australian Human Rights Commission, which advised that in its view ANZ’s initiative “addressed an inequality in retirement savings between male and female employees” and was “consistent with the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act”.
Hmm. Aboriginals have less savings than white people. Should white people be paid less? Asians have more savings. Should they be paid less?
I look forward to an announcement by ANZ that Asian workers will now be docked wages because they work too damned hard.
The Holocaust wasn't built in a day. The gas ovens were built brick by bloody brick, with little acts of discrimination masking the hatred underneath.
You can even force your victims to build the machinery of their execution, after a while.
Work - "The Wheelbarrow Kommando", drawing by Henri Gayot. (source)
The fact that the Australian Government approves of this galls me the most - and let's make it clear, this is occurring in a supposedly conservative government!
An alleged offender must have a "reasonable" belief that a victim had consented. The new definition means the defendant must detail the steps they have taken to find out whether the victim has consented.
Note: They have no defined standard here for innocence. They have to present what they have and hope it is enough. Do you record all your sexual activity? Is it signed? Are there witnesses to the signing? What about blood tests - she might have been drinking - can you prove she wasn’t? If she was, her consent is invalid. You just should have known.
Removal of a time limitation that prevented prosecution for some child sex offences committed before 1991
It’s retrospective. You kept all your records of what happened thirty years ago, didn’t you? Remember: no physical evidence of a crime is required. If a woman says “give me thirty grand or I’ll say you raped me”... you better have that thirty K!
"an offender must prove that if they believed a victim was consenting, that belief was not unreasonable". How? Will video recordings and witnesses be required? Some sort of contract? All this is is a license to accuse any man of rape, without a defense.. and I guarantee you no women will be convicted.
Victorian sperm donors are to have their privacy violated under new retrospective laws, despite assurances, years beforehand, that they would be protected.
I presume this will now be followed by retrospective child support payment demands.
"Victorian fertility clinics look overseas as sperm donors wane "
Yep. There's no sane reason for an aussie male to donate sperm now. At least African sperm merchants won't find their clients subjected to child support payments.
"The fact that you can only and absolutely focus on school shootings, which are very emotional and gripping events, and avoid discussing mass killings at schools and churches and on airplanes and in night clubs and other places that did NOT involve firearms indicates that you are either a shill for some anti-gun group or you are simply someone who has absolutely swallowed the propaganda being distributed about guns."
I'm trying to think of any of those mass-killing in Australia.
Nope. Maybe I was asleep or something?
"Australia has successfully implemented strict gun control."
Yep. We could see us heading down the American path. We said Nope.
" Australia’s rape rate (as reported by Australian government) is **fourteen times higher** than the rape rate in the U.S."
If true (and no reference is ever given so I'm not going to bother debunking if you can't be bothered presenting anything to check in the first place), then there's still no connection.
Most rapes happen from people you know.
Are you actually advising people to carry a drawn weapon at all times in case their spouses or friends attack them?
You realise almost all rapes are actually carried out by a minority, our Aboriginal population, which is why we staged The Intervention, which is effectively martial law for one racial group? "Australians cannot even carry mace or tazers or **fucking walking sticks**"
Tazers are weapons, yes. It's pretty easy to attack someone with them, harder to defend. They kill people. And either this website is lying or pepper spray is legal in WA. State laws vary.
But walking sticks? I'm sorry, what the hell are you on about? Seriously?
" or _screwdrivers_. There is a higher penalty for carrying a screwdriver “without a lawful reason” in Australia than there is for mugging someone unarmed."
Yeah. You can't just carry burglary tools. Are you on your way to a job? That's fine. Going to fix a friend's door? Easy to check, police call friend and ask about door. Context matters.
Screwdrivers are a great murder weapon btw, so if you do see someone on the street walking, screwdriver in hand.. get the fuck away.
Even if they are just going to repair something, they can trip and impale themselves or someone else. It should be on a belt or in a bag, not in someone's bloody paws.
"You will literally face higher legal penalties for walking down the street with a screwdriver in your hand to fix your neighbor’s screen door than you would if you mug that neighbor and take their wallet and phone."
21C—Offensive weapons and dangerous articles etc (1) A person who, without lawful excuse— (a) carries an offensive weapon or an article of disguise; or (b) has possession of an implement of housebreaking, is guilty of an offence.
(1) A person who commits theft is guilty of robbery if—
(a) the person—
(i) uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to commit the theft; or
(ii) uses force, or threatens to use force, against another in order to escape from the scene of the offence; and
(b) the force is used, or the threat is made, at the time of, or immediately before or after, the theft.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for life.
"Gun crime has not dropped dramatically in Australia since the implementation of gun control."
Australia's always had gun control. Every time new weapons have been invented, it's only been tightened.
(We only started in 1900 btw, so if you can find some law since Federation saying you can own any weapon, feel free)
We tightened it up a bit. The problem is that guns get shipped in from overseas because, i dunno, some countries make an awful lot of them, not naming any names, we're all friends here AMERICA but you don't seem to be very good at keeping control of the weapons you make.
18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
In other words, if you say something nasty about white people, theoretically at least, they can do you, Jimmy.
As far as I know it's only ever been applied to people who offended non-whites, but I could be wrong.
Now an attempt to fix it, a ham-fisted one by some people's reckoning, attempts to change it from offend to vilify. Frankly, even by that increased standards, you would have to arrest the great majority of SJWs, who happily pour loathing daily on anyone deemed not a "POC", as they put it.
I'm currently trying to argue against this law with Senator Penny Wright on her Facebook page, but I'm somewhat handicapped as if I took the typical SJWcomments I get and colour-flip them to point out the inequitable applications of it; e.g. taking the SJW "Die white skum!!1!" to "Die dark-skinned scum!"; by an application of the existing law, I could be arrested by almost anyone with a grudge.
I cannot discuss the problem with this law except in very circumspect ways. My free speech is limited.
They defend the existing law as somehow stopping the rise of any new Hitlers. Well, Hitler rose for many reasons, and one of the big ones was that his thugs beat up anyone who dared speak against him. In my case, the thugs are in uniform and have badges, but the principle is the same.
In Australia, there are no protections for free speech. Every attempt to set up something has been blocked by the major parties.
People just have the illusion it exists.
For example, say you are talking to your friends, and one of them asks "so what were they like in bed?"
Now you might think that's something that should be private. I've often been surprised at how open women are to their friends about their partners, and I'm not terribly comfortable with having what we got up to broadcast! But it's a fact that many people take for granted that this is legal.
So if it's legal to do it face to face, why is it suddenly a serious crime to do it via technology? Why does slapping 'Cyber!" on everything mean you can pass any piece of draconian legislation you want?
"A group of young people created a “Root-Rater” page on Facebook. The page asked Facebook users from local schools to send in information about the people they had sex with, including descriptions of their bodies and scores for their sexual performance.
The page then posted this information for all its friends to see.
The page was taken down, but local schools threatened to expel students who were involved, and NSW Police said that “RootRater” and other gossip pages could lead to criminal charges for the girls and boys who participated."
As we know, Feminists believe all men are rapists.
"What?!! They do not!", I hear you say, assuming I have hacked your webcam, as is my wont.
Well, how do you explain this poster?
The evil man is suggesting that she drink, because her feeble ovaries are incredibly vulnerable to an alcoholic onslaught, whereas his virile testicular fortitude makes him immune, and so unable to have his ability to consent compromised.
Men. We really are that wonderful.
"section 61HA (6) provides that the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include: (a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug" (source)
Of course, Australian law at least pays lip service to gender neutrality. We can at least hope women will be punished, however half-heartedly, for the same acts as men.
But think about this. Two people* meet at a bar or a night club, hit it off, they have sex, Alpha wakes up the next day and realises "OMG the wedding my partner will kill me I'm doomed I'm doomed... but hang on... I can say this person raped me..."
They call the cops, and sho'nuff, the other person is bundled away in the van.
"Fine!", Beta cries in Dopplered despair, "two can play at that game!"
And the wedding will have to be cancelled because now Alpha's being booked.
"But how can I be a rapist? I'm a victimmmmm!" insists Alpha.
"Yes!" says Detective Inspector Chief (no relation).
"Err?... so you agree I'm a victim?"
"Clearly! 61HA (6) is unambiguous! You couldn't consent and we have a blood sample to prove it! If only your partner had thought to take one and analyse it, they could have avoided this altogether!"
"But, then, why arrest meeeee?" sobbed Alpha dramatically, wishing the usual hankie hadn't been taken away as a possible offensive weapon. To be fair, it really could do with a decent burial, but, well, sentimental attachment will have it's way.
"Well, you nasty piece of work, did YOU take a blooood sample to determine if your partner could consent? I think not! You did not know their bhhiochemical status, as it were. And it turned out, they were a bit under the weather. So it's in the klink for the pair of your sickos, wahey!"
And so our sad story ends. Truly, the only safe way to have sex is alone... although best not, what if you've had something intoxicating and forgotten about it? Presumably you can still be done.
You'd remember getting intoxicated? You think so? Like that Stilnox... you don't recall taking it? Probably for the best. They still haven't found that banana.
*to make it interesting we don't know their gender, call them Alpha and Beta
(6) The grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include: (a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug
This leads to the issue exposed by mr-cappadocia: Feminists always imagine a man will be plying a woman with drinks, and cannot conceive of a woman being arrested as the rapist.
Multi-Intoxicated Lesbian Feminist Rape Paradox or “If two lesbians, equally intoxicated have sex, did they mutually rape one another? If not, why not?” (source)
Expert evidence may be called on this issue to give the jury a further understanding of the complainant’s inability to comprehend. However, a person may be ‘affected’ by alcohol or drugs, but still be aware and capable of voluntarily consenting.
A case referred to by the Taskforce was Chant and Madden. ... His Honour said, in this regard:
"...the fact that a person is affected by alcohol or drugs is a factor to be taken into consideration in this case on the question of consent or lack of it in this way.
You have the evidence of Dr Gaffney that both alcohol and Indian Hemp, pot, marijuana, call it what you will, are drugs that affect the central nervous system and that they both have an initial affect of inducing euphoria and a feeling of well being that could result in a lowering of inhibitions. ...
Nevertheless that does not mean that a person in a state of euphoria or well being or intoxication induced by drugs or alcohol cannot consent to an act or acts of intercourse.
They obviously can. "
... The inclusion of s61HA(6)(a), however, has been controversial. In the second reading debate, the danger of including such provisions was highlighted by the hypothetical scenario of the drunk young female victim and drunk young male defendant.
So an ordinary person has buckley's of assessing whether or not someone is intoxicated to the point of not being able to consent. Even this judge doesn't seem to be very clear.. they can consent, possibly, maybe not. You do have an expert on intoxication on hand at all times for those times you feel frisky, don't you?
I have to wonder - what will they do to us if we refuse to sit in the back of the bus? I doubt they'll be as gentle as they were with Rosa Parks.
