Trudeau pushes for more compelled speech


You can’t make this stuff up. The Trudeau government plans to ban front-line public service workers from saying Mr., Mrs., Mother, and Father. In what can only be seen as another push toward more compelled speech legislation,  the majority have to put up with more political correct nonsense for the benefit of peoplekind.

Seriously though, if someone is going to be so irreparably mentally damaged by the misuse of a pronoun that it requires legislation to protect he/she/xie, the victim has far bigger issues that require immediate help. How fragile can one be?

The beauty is that for the 99% of us that identity with our biological make-up must make way for the 1% of which it’s actually only 1% of that who would benefit from this legislation. Take the same sex marriage debate in Australia. The 2015 Census showed that only 0.03% of all couples identified as a traditional marriage and same sex. It isn’t questioning equal rights but most campaigners had next to no idea how many it truly impacted. Yet don’t step in the way, else be shot down as a bigot or homophobe.

To put the shoe on the other foot, shouldn’t our rights to be addressed Mr. or Mrs. be equal to that of those who don’t?  Like Bill C-16 the apparatchiks in charge of introducing these laws are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. What are civil rights if legislation only applies in favour of certain groups? Surely Canada’s social service systems can field and burn in requests on which people wish to be called what without having to blanket ban language.

The laughable fact with respect to Bill-16 (which is designed to protect gender identity and expression), is that the Trudeau government did not consult transgender people widely. The sheer fact that they clump all transgender people as “one” distinct group just shows how ignorant Trudeau’s cabinet is. There aren’t individuals within the trans community who think differently from other trans? Who’d had thought?

Yet the left see that such legislation is all about positive outcomes which judged by the complaints by the transgender community show the opposite. Many transgender people do not want to have their identity widely advertised. Yet this legislation seeks to disrupt others into compelled speech many trans people aren’t calling for.

Welcome to the slippery slope. At least one thing is for sure, if the polls are right and  Trudeau gets booted in the 2019 election, Qantas will happily put him in charge of the political correctness department so as to make sure all of the aircraft safety videos address gender equality over the more important safety aspects.

Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

The unbiased ABC happily calls and treats us as c*nts

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says it is strictly impartial when it comes to politics. No bias whatsoever. The point was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when it came to one of its comedy programmes calling conservative politicians c@nts. It is not a question of humour (if one can call it that) being like cartoons addressing political satire, it is a question of the organization flagrantly violating its own charter. Australian taxpayers deserve better. The financials of the ABC reveal how out of touch it is.

The ABC was originally established to make sure even rural communities could access news. Scroll forward c.90 years and we are able to stream radio programs from Berlin or TV shows from Canada right to our mobile handset, desktop or TV screen. Media choice is everywhere. Yet the Aussie taxpayer funds multiple ABC radio and TV stations to cater to markets well covered by the commercial sector. The ABC and the SBS get over A$1.5bn a year in funding.

Let’s dig a bit deeper in the stats of the ABC. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 we see that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

Australia’s largest commercial terrestrial station, Nine Network, has 3,100 employees against revenues of $1.237bn. So to put that into context, Nine can generate c. A$400,000 per employee whereas the ABC generates A$217,236 in tax dollars per employee. In a sense the ABC could be shut down, and each employee paid $108,000 in redundancy costs annually for two years simply by selling off the land, buildings and infrastructure. The SBS generates A$281,000 in tax dollars per employee. The ABC will argue it deserves $400,000/employee revenues rather than a 46% headcount reduction to be on equal terms with the efficiency in the private sector.

On a global basis, the BBC generates GBP 4.954bn and employs 21,000 staff. 22.7% of those revenues are spent on salaries. Average salaries have grown 17% since 2007/8. Average income per employee at the BBC is now GBP236,852 (A$428,000) thanks to the generous mandatory licensing fees. Average salaries at the Beeb are now GBP 55,651 ($A100,728).

Imagine if the ABC was listed and forced to compete. If it is infinitely confident it has the right content which captures future audience trends (which by its own measures doesn’t) then it can call whoever it wants a c*nt and see whether the ratings stack up when it comes time to attract revenue and capital. Why not give the ABC staff a choice to list and say what it wants or stay government owned and tow the line of the charter? Of course the answer is stay under the protectorate of blind politicians and say what they please. The beauty of the private sector is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Is it really our ABC? There is no balance in content and even less balance in its accounts. It should be massively defunded.

True colours of the left exposed when it comes to white Sth African farmers


There is something to be said of the left when it comes to compassion. For all of the sanctimony of how we must do our bit for social justice and fight to stop every -ism in the world, whites need not apply. It shouldn’t have escaped many that certain “white” South African farmers are fleeing persecution while their land is being confiscated. Murders, beatings of men and women, children having their faces given the “joker’s cut” with razor blades. It’s truly horrific. Yet some are prepared to cynically fire off “the poor whites…”

Yet because of their skin colour some on the left deem their “white privilege” should be checked first. It would seem in order to restore justice, white South African farmers should get a taste of their own medicine after the oppression of apartheid some 30+ years ago. Surely people in need are indeed just that – in need. Are all white farmers guilty of apartheid? Back of the line. Sacrifice your lives for the sake of equality.

Australia is often beaten over the head for its asylum seeker policies. That somehow asylum seekers kept in detention centres (where they demand Hyatt 5-star  services and amenities) awaiting processing on Manus Island got a raw deal as ‘fellow whites’ get a fast pass. What the media, like The Guardian often fail to do is report the balance. Immigration Minister Dutton fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who had escaped ISIS rape gangs. They aren’t white. They were in grave danger. Instead of congratulations it wasn’t reported.

On the flip side 12 Iranians had their visas revoked by Dutton’s office for lying in their applications. They had pleaded they were fleeing persecution in Iran yet the first thing they did on receipt of visas was to fly back to the very danger zone they had escaped for a holiday. Was that racist policy or one that is simply preventing visa fraud to ensure integrity in the immigration system?

Asylum seeker policy is a touchy subject. How Angela Merkel was praised for her social caring programme by granting a come one come all refugee policy, one which ended up being the mother of all misguided altruism. Instead of helping the truly needy, the EU tallied that 80% were economic migrants seeking better fortunes in the West. That’s right 80% weren’t fleeing war zones.

Since she started her benevolence, Merkel gagged the media, muzzled the police and silenced those that spoke out about the cover up of the deterioration in public safety, rapes and crime which even now Merkel admits has led to the creation of no go zones which never existed before. She’s now paying for refugees to leave with generous incentives. Yet where is the left’s media outrage? Why not just admit it was a dreadfully executed policy which cost her the worst election result for her party in 70 years and gave the anti-immigrant AfD the second largest following in Germany from nowhere?

Then the folly is extended to the EU which then tried to cover up for Merkel by enforcing migrant quotas like they were cattle. Asylum seekers were mostly making a B-line to Germany yet the EU in its infinite wisdom thought all members had a duty to take a share. If they truly spared a thought for asylum seekers, why would any wish to be allocated to countries like Hungary that held a referendum on the topic and got a 98.4% response against having them? Not a promising starting point.  Then we sit back and wonder why the Italians voted for anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Or why the UK voted Brexit? Or why the Austrians also voted in a government that put a right wing anti-immigration party in charge of immigration? Or The Netherlands? Poland? Hungary? The list goes on.

Yet the media focuses on a drowning 3 year-old boy on a shoreline and tried to shame our collective lack of compassion. Still the media refused to focus on the billion dollar illegal people smuggling industry that lured so many who weren’t fleeing persecution to their deaths. That poor little Aylan Kurdi died, not  because he and his family were fleeing  to safety (they already had been for 3 years in Turkey) but that his life was put at risk without a life jacket in a flimsy vessel for the sake of his father’s own dental treatment.

Why not beat Gulf states over the head for not doing their bit? The Saudis can accommodate 3 million, chair the UN Human Rights Council yet refuse to step up and the media stays silent. Why not smash up Japan for letting in low double digit numbers of asylum seekers? Is it a coincidence that the 98% homogeneous society has such low crime rates, social harmony and safety record the envy of the world? It is not to say that foreigners commit most of the crime in Japan because they don’t (per head of population they do) but Japan is not prepared to throw its culture out the window to get with the times on doing its bit for humanity. Japan would prefer to throw billions in foreign aid to fix the problem at source.

The better narrative is to pick on the West. Shame our white privilege. Mock our colonialist past and tell South African farmers to go to hell.

Compassion for the truly needy should only depend on the danger faced. Skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or any other identity based criteria should be irrelevant. People who are desperately fleeing for their lives should fall over themselves to willingly respect the rules of their new house. They should be only too happy to repay the generosity of those that provide safety and strive to become model citizens. Many Vietnamese fleeing the ravages or the Vietnam War have paid back our support in spades.

Yet too often those who have not escaped persecution end up being the ones that expect society to bend to their culture not the other way around. Our authorities and judiciaries are becoming self annointed justice warriors often turning a blind eye to crime by meting out lenient sentences for armed robbery, rape, child grooming, assault and manslaughter with paltry community service orders. Take this example. Ibrahim Kamara, from Sierra Leone, received a suspended sentence of just over one year, with an 18-month good ­behaviour order, after admitting to five counts, including grooming and having sex with a minor. The ACT Supreme Court judge said “(Kamara) has tried to make a good start on his life in Australia”. Or last week a Sudanese woman, Ayou Deng, was given 80 hours community service for running over and killing a 13yo boy in a car she was driving unlicensed. What message is being sent to the people that we would hope want to integrate in the great Aussie way of life? Do what you please as the worst you’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

Then should we criticize Australia’s asylum seeker policy when we ask for the recipients of asylum visas to sign a code of conduct order which explicitly tells them that rape and sexual harassment of women and children is not accepted? Surely civilized society shouldn’t need to have to force new arrivals to sign a document for common decency but apparently they do. Clearly the immigration department saw it as a requirement supposedly to stem the tide of countless incidents before it was introduced. Then again Canada is trying to remove female genital mutilation from its new citizen’s code of conduct for fear it might offend. You can’t make this stuff up.

So to the left that wants to selectively administer asylum seeker policy based on prejudices. In the quest for diversity they should check their own hypocrisy before asking white South African farmers to check their privilege as they cry for genuine grounds for asylum. The true colours of the left are exposed for what they are. Institutionalized diversity folks is anything but. No one wins acceptance by denying their own identity,

If only politicians put as much energy into policy as they do in the bedroom


Everywhere we turn, social media is tagging another politician who can’t keep “it” behind closed zippers. It is nothing new. While not condoning extra-marital affairs, the media seems more intent on reporting infidelity in nauseating  detail than things that actually matter on the policy front. Growing deficits, unsustainable household debt, eye-popping unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities should be front and centre but the mainstream media (feeding junkies on social media) thinks it gets more mileage by pointing out bedroom antics. Who needs steamy soap operas with expensive stars? Politicians literally offer the best “bang” for the buck going for networks and media outlets. It is endless clickbait. We are also to blame for feeding this nonsense.

Perhaps that is what is meant by “moving with the times?” While we’re all told on one hand how we must behave and talk without causing offense in the new world, the thirst for reporting/sharing secrets from the bedroom seems to tell the real story of the sorry state of journalism. Our level of “being out of touch” has never been higher. We’d be well advised to wake up to the warning signs ahead. Sadly it will be too late when reality finally dawns. Watch social justice issues like climate change and identity politics slide to the very bottom as people realize prioritizing such nonsense doesn’t pay the mortgage or feed a family.

In recent times, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has been in the spotlight for getting a staffer pregnant. How he chooses to conduct his private life is his (and her) business alone. Indeed another dysfunctional family is born. The main problem seems more about giving high paying jobs  on the taxpayers’ purse to his lover with the tacit approval of the PM. If the timeline is true then the actions by the Deputy PM were unethical to be sure and no amount of song and dance to defend it will find a comforting ear. Allegations of expense abuse only adds to the growing list of reasons to ditch mainstream parties.

Consenting adults should bear personal responsibility. It is not a question of Joyce’s infidelity but politicians (not limited to himself) taking taxpayers for mugs is an issue. Joyce only recently won back his seat of New England in an expensive by-election. At the time he must have been hoping his lover’s bun could stay in the oven.

If anything the manner in which our political class is handling this scandal only re-enforces the abysmal level of moral authority our government has. Even before Joyce’s issues came to light.

Prior to this fiasco we voted in a near as makes no difference hung parliament with a feral Senate. In recent times we’ve had by-elections over dual citizenship (still it did violate the constitution although PM Turnbull preempting the High Court’s ruling was daft), the Dastyari scandal with respect to leaking secrets to China or Foreign Minister Julie Bishop frittering away multi millions in aid dollars without any due diligence on the back of pop-star Rihanna’s Twitter account.

We are being run by clowns (not limited to Australia mind you) who clearly put their own survival above all else. Despite the polls showing a clear and present danger of the incumbent government being turfed out at the next election there seems to be a level of complacency within the Coalition’s ranks that believes that being less worse than the opposition is somehow virtuous and believing a self created myth that disenchanted voters will somehow reelect them again.

Infidelity doesn’t reflect well for politicians preaching family values. However  it would be fair to say that many voters would turn a blind eye to these indiscretions if those same bureaucrats would exercise the same amount of vigor in putting through sensible policy (that betters their constituents) as they do between the sheets.

Perhaps the media should be doing more biopsies on things that truly matter. That way there will be fewer autopsies. As it stands delving into the privacy of others seems far more important to ratings.

Playing down a mass suicide note


With the release of the Nunes memo, do top Democrats honestly believe that such collusion by the DNC with the nation’s judiciary and intelligence services doesn’t expose the hypocrisy of a party which proclaims its platform is all about equality and liberal ideals? Does it not expose that these politicians are only in it for themselves? Is it any wonder the Democrats are proclaiming this memo is ‘misleading’ or worse that Americans are too stupid to understand the memo? On reflection they probably had wished they’d stood and applauded during the SOTU address instead of childish frowns of bitterness and playing Candy Crush on their smartphones.

While many Americans probably suspected corruption (so brilliantly conveyed in ‘House of Cards’) for decades, they have had it transparently confirmed.  The DNC hope was that the illegal and doctored FISA application would sink Trump as a candidate and lock in a Clinton White House. By then the scam could be lost as easily as 33,000 emails. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who could forget Bill Clinton’s chance meeting on a Phoenix tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the day before her testimony on Hillary’s email scandal? Did anyone honestly believe they just talked about grand children? Lynch downplayed the severity of the private server as ‘careless’. Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch has found 30 pages related to the encounter at the FBI, after being caught for hiding them in another lawsuit.

Obama was front and centre of the Clinton campaign. Hillary caught the jump seat on Air Force One numerous times. Are we to believe that this dossier was never discussed on board? That Obama, so obsessed with protecting his legacy,was in no way complicit in making sure Trump wouldn’t get in the Oval Office?

If we go back to mid 2006, news broke that the NSA was tracking the calls and emails of tens of millions of Americans to create  the “largest and most comprehensive database ever assembled in the world.” In the summer of 2007, the Bush administration pushed FISA amendments known as the “Protect America Act” through Congress which authorized the surveillance of any phone call or email by any American suspected of ‘suspicious dealings’ with ‘foreigners’.

As a presidential candidate in the 2008 election, Senator Barack Obama pledged that there would be “no more illegal wiretapping of Americans”. Post the election win, Obama reversed his position and continued the Bush-era surveillance via FISA. Obama’s Department of Justice aggressively defended court challenges from anyone who suspected their phone calls or emails had been illegally traced.

In his last days as president, Obama authorized the NSA to share its volumous databank on Americans with other federal agencies, opening a can of worms for politicians to dig up dirt. Talk about muddying waters in an already dirty swamp. This seems like a move that could badly backfire if a cleaning house of the FBI and DOJ is undertaken. What option has the president but to do it? What better way to talk of transparency to the American people than lop heads of such duplicitous people.

Therein lies the problem. When the state’s own intelligence services are working so closely hand-in-hand with political parties to keep dynasties alive one has to question democracy. Despite Wasserman-Schulz stabbing Sanders in the back, a mainstream media overwhelmingly behind Clinton, a p*ssy grabbing opponent, we now learn that not even a dossier paid for by the DNC in cahoots with the FBI and DOJ to cheat FISA got Democrats across the line – what a hatchet job.

Even Turkish President Erdogan would blush at the level of ‘duplicity’ of this scandal. This is abuse of power on an industrial scale.  One wonders whether the often made claim that the ‘Obama administration was one without scandal’ maybe tarnished with one of the worst. We haven’t heard the last of this.

Zip It or be Zapped


It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times