|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 7:49:24 GMT 8
RE: Boy, 13, in mass killing threats
The Editor
The Sunday Telegraph
A lad stands accused of “bombarding students at his school with social media posts about hate crimes”, (Boy, 13, in mass killing threats, 24/09).
He’s “been charged with using carriage service to menace/harass/offend…”, but is social media really a “carriage service”?
Telstra and Australia Post are carriage services. They don’t edit and block your phone calls and letters, but social media companies do edit and block posts.
Newspapers edit Letters submissions because they’re publishers and threatening content leaves them legally liable.
Social media companies are clearly publishers and not carriage services, so when will the company who carried posts designed to “menace/harass/offend” be charged alongside the boy?
(107 words)
Peter Campion
Tolga
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 7:50:45 GMT 8
I wonder what he said?
I hope he didn't sing a song that translates to something like "kill the boer"!
Wouldn't that be threatening!??
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 7:55:05 GMT 8
To comment on two Voice articles and an op-ed, 24/09
-
The facts not widely reported about Brisbane’s No march, (“Yes and No voters march in city”, 24/09), are that it was far bigger than the Yes march and it had no corporate or government funding: it was a genuine grassroots effort, organised by word-of-mouth.
Proving the Voice is not a grassroots movement is the RedBridge poll showing the Yes campaign’s dwindling support, (“Whimper, not a shout”, 24/09). The more voters learn about it and the ruder its proponents become the fewer Aussies plan to vote for it.
James Campbell wonders why “Albo decided to put the Voice at the centre of his victory speech on election night last year, (“Voice way down the list of things we care about”, 24/09). I posit he did so because that’s what his corporate sponsors wanted.
So why is the corporate sector alienating more than half the population with a plan to change our contract with our government? That’s because the three companies which have controlling interests in all of them, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, want them to. And who owns those three? The globalists-who-must-not-be-named do.
The Voice is not a grassroots Aboriginal movement: it’s a control-matrix globalist movement.
Jennifer Short
Edge Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 7:58:40 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 8:00:18 GMT 8
To comment on three Voice articles, 24/09
-
The fact not widely reported about Sydney’s No rally, (“Discordant voices united in resounding no”, 24/09), is that it had no corporate or government funding: it was a genuine grassroots effort, organised by word-of-mouth. When genuine grassroots protesters are described as “conspiracy theorists” by corporate media, that signals to everyone that the corporations are losing the argument to ordinary Aussies.
The AEC wonders why trust in it is evaporating but then it, too, suggests Aussies who do their own research outside the boundaries of the controlled corporate narrative are conspiracy theorists, (“Fears of violence on the big day”, 24/09). That will reset trust to net zero.
Proving the Voice is not a grassroots movement is the RedBridge poll showing the Yes campaign’s dwindling support, (“Voice in one ear, out other”, 24/09). The more voters learn about it and the ruder its proponents become the fewer Aussies plan to vote for it.
So why is the corporate sector alienating more than half the population with a plan to change our contract with our government? That’s because the three companies which have controlling interests in all of them, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, want them to. And who owns those three? The globalists-who-must-not-be-named do.
The Voice is not a grassroots Aboriginal movement: it’s a control-matrix globalist movement.
Jennifer Short
Edge Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 8:04:30 GMT 8
RE: Absent fireys a safety hazard
The Editor
The Sunday Herald Sun
With the fullness of time and the emergence of abundant evidence in published and peer-reviewed research, we know the Covid jabs were neither safe nor effective.
Nonetheless, the Andrews regimes’ jab mandates are keeping firefighters off work and leaving responses undermanned, (Absent fireys a safety hazard, 24/09).
So why is the regime doing that? Don’t they care about public safety? Isn’t public safety what they claim the jab mandates were all about?
No, the jab mandates were obviously about forcing everyone they could to take injections that have caused more disease and death than they prevent – and yes, there’s an abundance of evidence for that, too.
The jab mandates were and are crimes against humanity, so the Andrews regime cannot and will not acknowledge their disastrous outcomes because to do so would be to incriminate themselves.
Victorians are now wondering, quite rightly, if Andrews was re-elected by a rigged election system.
(151 words)
Peter Campion
Tolga
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 8:08:22 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by NFA on Sept 24, 2023 11:15:48 GMT 8
RE: Scared, weak feds capitulate to states
The Editor
The Sunday Mail
The headline for Dan Petrie’s column (Scared, weak feds capitulate to states, 24/09) draws our minds to the powers of our federal government as described in the Australian Constitution, specifically Part V – Powers of the Parliament.
The first section of Part V, section 51, begins thusly: “Legislative powers of the Parliament. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:”
At section 51(xxiiiA) it states, “the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;”
“… medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription) …”.
What did we see the federal government do during the Covid years? It civilly conscripted federal government employees into receiving certain injections.
Some Constitutional analysts argue that this phrase actually relates only to doctors and nurses being pressed into the civil service, but it’s a plain language document and that’s not what it says.
Section 51(xxiiiA) was introduced at a referendum in the weeks following the Nuremberg Trials. It was intended to prevent any repeat of the Nazis’ forced injection programs.
But that is exactly what the ScoMo regime did: it behaved like Nazis. That alone needs critical examination by a Royal Commission.
The other big question that needs to be examined is why our governments – all of them – adopted the badly-flawed, one-size-fits-all action plan issued by the communists at the WHO.
We had highly qualified experts arguing against that set of responses from the start – they were all silenced by AHPRA, acting on the WHO’s behalf.
To fail to expose that putrid mess is to plan to repeat it - at unimaginable cost to our economy and our population’s health.
(314 words)
Peter Campion
Tolga
|
|
