Home Blog Page 1742

Open letter: Bring New Zealand-bound asylum-seekers stopped by Australian authorities to New Zealand for processing

0

We are calling for the New Zealand Government to bring approximately two dozen people currently held at an immigration detention centre in Kapung, Indonesia, to New Zealand to assess their asylum claims in New Zealand itself.

This is the first case in which the publicly available evidence indicates a group of people both intended to and had the capability to reach New Zealand territory by boat to seek asylum from persecution under the Refugee Convention. Their journey, however, was forcibly and illegally stopped by Australian authorities in international waters. This was done with the knowledge of the New Zealand Government, and possibly with their agreement or even instruction. The New Zealand Government has refused to release details about the incident under the Official Information Act.

We believe processing this group’s asylum claims in New Zealand is the only course of action that could meaningfully demonstrate the New Zealand Government is committed to uphold the spirit of the Refugee Convention, and is not complicit in Australia’s much condemned Operation Sovereign Borders.

Maire Leadbeater

Kevin McBride on behalf of Pax Christi Aotearoa-New Zealand

Ricardo Menéndez March

Shane Montague-Gallagher

Sam Taylor

Michael Tavares

Leilani Tamu

Shanti Ahluwalia

John Hart

Barry Coates MP

Damon Rusden

Stefan Grand-Meyer

Teall Crossen

Marama Davidson MP

Chris Perley

Golriz Ghahraman

Kate Fulton

Robert Stewart

Rochelle Surendran

Bridget Walsh

Richard Wesley

Teanau Tuiono

Thomas Nash

Jo Wrigley

Chloe Swarbrick

Background:

In May 2015, a group of asylum-seekers was intercepted by the Australian Navy and Border Force on their journey to New Zealand according to evidence published in an Amnesty International Australia report.[1] This incident – the interception and current detention of these asylum-seekers – most recently received coverage in the New Zealand media in early 2016.[2]

The Amnesty report finds that:

The boat was first intercepted in international waters, on 17 May, near East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, by two Australian ships: one Navy and one Border Force. …The crew members, who said they thought from their GPS that they were located in international waters, told the Australian officials that they did not have the right to board. Nevertheless, the Australian officials boarded and spent about half an hour inspecting the boat’s equipment and food supplies… then disembarked… The two Australian ships continued to follow the boat for several days, until – on 22 May – a second interception took place

The passengers were removed from their boat and put on two smaller, less seaworthy boats bound for Indonesia. After one boat ran out of fuel, the passengers had to transfer onto the other boat in the middle of the ocean. This boat then ran aground off the coast of Indonesia and the asylum-seekers were rescued by Indonesian fisherman, and subsequently detained by Indonesian authorities.

According to the Amnesty report, the asylum-seekers suffered abuse in the custody of Australian authorities, and their journey on the two less seaworthy boats seriously endangered their lives. Significantly, the actions of the Australian forces denied the group’s opportunity to claim asylum in New Zealand territory.

The Amnesty report states:

The crew and asylum-seekers – interviewed separately – consistently told Amnesty International that the boat was not in distress at the time of either interception on 17 or 22 May. The captain explicitly told Amnesty International: “No, we never made a distress call.” An asylum-seeker who was a fisherman and who told Amnesty International that he had 10 years of seafaring experience said:

“I don’t know why [the Australians] stopped us. We didn’t enter Australian territory, we had enough fuel, food, and everything to reach New Zealand – the boat was in good condition.”

He said he was confident that they could have reached their destination, and none of the asylum-seekers heard the crew members express any doubts about this either. When asked if the interception was a rescue operation, the asylum-seeker was categorical: “No, we were simply caught.” The other asylum-seekers agreed with him.

Given these circumstances, the pertinent question is whether these actions were conducted on behalf of the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Prime Minister stated he had been informed about the group of asylum seekers and their ability and intention to land in New Zealand, and had engaged in discussions with the Australian and Indonesian authorities about the situation.[3] While Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders has been rightly condemned[4], New Zealand’s role in this policy has thus far attracted little scrutiny.

Available information indicates the New Zealand Government has been interested in establishing an offshore asylum-seeker processing regime.

In 2010, Radio New Zealand reported that “[the New Zealand] Government is open to talks with Australia about a regional solution” and was in talks with “East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key” about off-shore processing.[5]

In 2013, the New Zealand Herald reported that “John Key and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a deal for New Zealand [which] would also give New Zealand access to Australian intelligence and other resources to disrupt [boat arrivals]” and that “Mr Key said Australia was receptive to processing any mass arrival to New Zealand in its offshore centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.” [6] Michael Timmins, a refugee lawyer, writing in New Zealand Herald stated this agreement made New Zealand “clearly complicit in Australia’s … asylum system.” [7]

While this deal was never formally implemented due to a change in the Australian Prime Minister, it showed a willingness on the New Zealand Government’s part to play an active role in Australia’s ‘turnback’ policy.

In 2016, in a news segment regarding the Kapung case, the New Zealand Prime Minister stated in a press briefing that:

[t]here’s no question that their [the Australian authorities] vigilance there and the work that they’ve done is essentially discouraged people coming to New Zealand as well because some of those boats if they couldn’t have got to Australia would have tried to come to New Zealand. That’s certainly the indications that we’ve had. [8]

Considering this group of asylum seekers for resettlement in New Zealand as part of New Zealand’s refugee quota system, as suggested by Labour leader Andrew Little, would be a preferable outcome to letting these asylum-seekers languish in Indonesia in detention.[9] However, not processing their claims in New Zealand would suggest tacit approval by the New Zealand Government of Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders which hopes to achieve just this type of outcome: forcibly turning away boats to countries that have not signed the Refugee Convention for offshore processing of asylum-seekers.

Endnotes

[1] “By Hook or by Crook – Australia’s Abuse of Asylum-Seekers at Sea”, Amnesty International, 2015, pp. 14-24.

[2] See, for example, “‘Don’t come back’ Aust navy tells Sri Lankan asylum seekers”, One News, 15 February 2016; “Refugees detained trying to reach NZ”, TV3, Newshub, 15 February 2016; and “Interview with Phil Miller and Nicolai Jung” 95 bFM, 15 February 2016.

[3] On 3 June 2015, the NZ Herald reported: “Prime Minister John Key said New Zealand was alerted to the boat ‘some time ago’ and was working with Australia and Indonesia. He would not be more specific about what preparations were being made here. “We didn’t get to the point where we had to make some of those tougher calls” (see Nicholas Jones, “Key warning on boat people”, NZ Herald, 3 June 2015). Four days later, the paper reported that “Prime Minister John Key has previously said he had been advised that the boat heading for New Zealand had a credible chance of making it”

(see Nicholas Jones, “Asylum-seekers make plea for help to NZ Government”, NZ Herald, 7 June 2015).

[4] See, for example, the open letter signed by 53 legal scholars from Australia in which they state: “Australia’s reported conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders clearly violates international law, is inconsistent with Australia’s position as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and adherence to the United Nations Charter, and Australia’s frequent calls for East and Southeast Asian countries to respect international law in the resolution of territorial and maritime disputes” (see

“Statement By Legal Scholars Regarding The Situation Concerning Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers ”, Scribd, 7 July 2014). Similarly, the New York Times Editorial Board has written that “Australia is pursuing draconian measures to deter people without visas from entering the country by boat. In doing so, it is failing in its obligation under international accords to protect refugees fleeing persecution” (see “Australia’s Refugee Problem”, NYT, 4 July 2014).

[5] “NZ should stay out of Australia’s refugee problem – Labour”, Radio NZ, 8 July 2010.

[6] Staff reporter and AAP, “New Zealand goal for boat’s asylum-seekers”, NZ Herald, 10 April 2013.

[7] Michael Timmins, “Michael Timmins: Key’s refugee policy misses the boat”, NZ Herald, 12 February 2013.

[8] Refugees detained trying to reach NZ (at 0:55), Newshub, 15 February 2016.

[9] See Nicholas Jones,”Boat people ask for asylum,” NZ Herald. Boat people ask for asylum, 8 June 2015: “Labour leader Andrew Little said authorities should investigate whether the group were genuine refugees, and if so, consider processing them as part of New Zealand’s quota.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Any Discussion about Retirement Must Address the Issue of Student Debt – NZUSA

0

The New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) says that any discussion about retirement must address the issue of student debt.

‘With those born after 30 June 1972 affected by the government’s proposed new pension age, it is precisely the generation of student loan borrowers and who have had to pay for their tertiary education who will be most affected by a rise in the pension age’ says National President Jonathan Gee.

‘It is a particular irony that the dates chosen match exactly with the school leavers in 1990 who faced tertiary fees for the first time.’

‘Far more than those initial tuition fees, many students today are having to borrow more to meet their current living costs, which increases their debt burden and therefore their ability to save for the future’

Students tell us that they are extremely worried about the coupling of the issues of debt and retirement, with 72% of respondents in NZUSA’s recent Income and Expenditure Survey saying they believed that student debt would have significant impact on their ability to save for their future, including retirement.

‘Raising the pension age without any form of student debt relief for ‘Generation Debt’ will make students worse off than they have been not just as recent graduates, but for a lifetime.’

‘If the Government wants to make a difference to the lives of Generation Debt, then they need to be exploring ways to reduce the debt burden that students currently face.’

‘It is worth remembering that those with student debt include many in highly physically demanding jobs, as the period that has seen the introduction of fees has also seen many trades and other occupations that used to be learned on-the-job shifted into polytechnics and other training institutions where the learners incur debt. Often these debtors take longer to repay their debt, but also, necessarily, will not be able to work as long. They are also dominated by groups of New Zealanders who do not live as long.’

‘As an immediate step, we’re calling on the Government to increase the Student Allowance from its current rate of $176.86, and broaden its availability, so that students can borrow less and therefore graduate with less debt.’

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Yes, Andrew Little and Jacinda intend to campaign together – that’s because Labour intend to win

16

The Corporate Media narrative is it’s odd that Andrew Little and Jacinda intend to campaign together for the 2017 election.

Duh!

Why the hell wouldn’t they?

Jacinda appeals directly to the generation who don’t vote  and she has built a huge social media presence. Andrew Little is not so shallow and needy that he has any problem sharing the lime light to reach out to electorates Labour have lost.

So yes.

Labour are playing this election to win.

As for the new mainstream media conspiracy that Jacinda will overtake Little in the popularity polls (alongside all the hypothetical questions of how that will weaken Little) – if anyone can seriously view Little’s staring down of a faction over Willie Jackson and Greg O’Connor’s candidacies and his surgical removal of Annette King and still think that Little doesn’t have the spine and strength to command Labour, I’d suggest they have dangerously underestimated the bloke.

Andrew Little wants to be the next Prime Minister, he has a passion for it and he is prepared to do everything possible to maximise Labour’s vote in September.

This is what wanting to win looks like,  the corporate media’s reading is hollow.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Toxic masculinity, Wellington College and social media

5

Wellington College investigating students’ social media posts

Wellington College has started an investigation after two students posted offensive comments on social media relating to rape and consent.

The two students described having sex with intoxicated, passed-out women in their posts to a closed Facebook group, with some of the comments “liked” by other students.

One of the comments, which were believed to have been posted on Sunday night, said: “If you don’t take advantage of a drunk girl, you’re not a true WC boy.”

The comments were also seen by other students who were so concerned about them, they notified parents.

Wellington College principal Roger Moses said he was notified by a member of the public and the school was investigating.

Macho posturing and toxic masculinity have collided at Wellington College.

It’s important to note that there were only a few of these voices and other students alerted parents, it would be wrong to write off all students there, and I think it would be wrong to crucify these two students with national media attention.

You want these young men to learn a lesson here, you don’t want to damage and brand them for life.

Calling for leniency however isn’t easy, especially when one of them is effectively boasting about raping drunk girls.

The horror of the damage of rape culture and toxic masculinity on women is an ever expanding horizon.

The day to day sexism, the gender pay gap, the double standards, the lack of justice when it comes to sexual assaults and the domestic violence rates all conspire to create an ongoing civil war against women.

I think for many men, they look back on some of their previous interactions with women and see how their own head-spaces were clouded by the sort of toxic masculinity these Wellington College students have exhibited and this past behaviour makes for a peer group too privately guilty to take any leadership.

We are a nation of fatherless children with boys and men unable to articulate emotion beyond anger.

Our ever growing prison population and suicide rates are proof of that.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

FLAPS Retouched

0

I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours.

FLAPS Retouched is the second cumming of the sell-out 2016 season of FLAPS, a visceral, honest, celebratory exploration of all things VAGINA. After being nominated for four awards and winning Most Innovative Set at the Auckland Theatre Awards, Bits and Pieces Ensemble’s FLAPS are back and are Retouched.

The piece feels and pokes its way around the unashamed vagina-laden experience. Exploring hidden truths and relationships, celebrating difference and acceptance. FLAPS Retouched offers a myriad of styles and genres throughout the journey of over 40 vignettes.

FLAPS Retouched welcomes director Torum Heng (Go Girls, Keep Out Of My Box, Filthy Rich) to lead the cast of seven emerging female artists. An exciting addition, Heng has already made waves as an actor and writer in both New Zealand and Edinburgh.

FLAPS Retouched is produced by Bits and Pieces Ensemble, a company founded in 2015 by The Actors’ Program graduates Emily Campbell and Brie Hill; and UNITEC graduate Alice Kirker. The Ensemble aims to provide a platform for female practitioners in the NZ theatre industry and to cultivate an ethos of collaboration among established and emerging female creatives.

“Such a personal, fresh and warm experience from a diverse group of women exploring beautifully taboo topics with great heart and humour” – Sara Wiseman (actor – A Place To Call Home, Rake)

“FLAPS is a rebellion, a celebration, a call-to-arms, a grab at your heart, a sigh of grief and relief” – Amanda Billing (actor – Shortland Street, Boys Will Be Boys, The Book of Everything)

Who’s cumming? FLAPS Retouched will amuse you, include you, heal you and encourage you, from March 28 – April 8, at Basement Theatre, Auckland. Maybe you’ll cum twice.

FLAPS Retouched
Dates: 28th March – 8th April
Venue: Basement Theatre
Tickets: $15 – $20
Bookings: Basement Theatre – or iticket 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

E tū; Saturday event rallying point for public over Cadbury

1

E tū has welcomed a community initiative to rally support for saving Dunedin’s Cadbury factory and the jobs of its workers.

Neville Donaldson, E tū’s National Industry Strategy Director (Food) says the rally planned for Saturday will be a chance for the public to make its feelings known about the proposal by Mondelez International to close the plant.

He says it will also be a rallying point for Cadbury workers, and others in Dunedin who have watched as manufacturing jobs have headed out of town or businesses have been shut down.

“To date the community has not had a forum to express its support for Cadbury and this will be the perfect opportunity.

“If people care about Cadbury, they should seize this chance to make their voices heard, and express their anger and frustration at Mondelez for this misguided proposal,” says Neville.

“We have been in talks with Mondelez who are supposed to genuinely consult over their proposal. However, to date they have shown little interest in working through the issues or any concerns about the effect on staff.

“A strong show of opposition on Saturday to its plans for Cadbury may persuade them it’s time to take the consultation process seriously and reconsider.”

Neville says E tū will do everything possible to see a change of plan by Mondelez and this action will help.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Rally in Dunedin to oppose proposed closure of Cadbury

0

A rally will be held on Saturday, March 11th in Dunedin to protest the proposed closure of the iconic Cadbury factory, with the loss of nearly 400 jobs.

The rally will begin at 11am in the Octagon and will feature guest speakers.

The rally is being organised by the Save Cadbury Community Action Group, comprising concerned locals who want to save the factory.

Its Chair, Don Pryde says this will be the first opportunity for the people of Dunedin to express their opposition to the planned closure.

“To date the Dunedin community has not been able to express its anger and dismay over the plans by Mondelez to shut this factory down”, says Don.

“There are civic and business leaders who support keeping it open and saving these jobs, while many working people are very emotional and angry about this. This is a chance for people to have their voices heard.

“We are not letting this factory go without a fight”, says Don.

“Cadbury is a profitable business and a major private sector employer in Dunedin. Mondelez needs to know the people of Dunedin support this business which has been a part of its DNA for decades.”

What: Rally to protest closure of Cadbury, Dunedin
Where: The Octagon, Dunedin
When: Saturday, 11 March, 11am-1pm

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: John Stroh – Pragmatic Politics

6

Next Tuesday, 14th March the TOP party is holding a meeting to introduce itself to Christchurch. The meeting is at 5:30pm in the Phillip Carter Family Concert Hall, 156 Armagh Street.

I like TOP’s pragmatic approach, the policy focus, the well researched rationale and the core values that sit behind the vision of TOP. The Education policy is no exception. What I feel may be missing, however, is an overarching statement of principle that is easily understood by a voting public. It will take time to absorb the mostly inevitable changes required to constructively participate in a deliberative democracy.

I am developing more and more dislike of our personality politics and the kind of class-conscious elitism that comes in the guise of most, if not all, “isms” that drive our traditional political parties in New Zealand.

Surely there is one guiding social principle that a majority in New Zealand will subscribe to, now and in a more mature deliberative democracy of the future: ‘cohesive community’ at all levels of society.

In the Netherlands’ Green leader, Jesse Klaver, has quadrupled his party’s polling in a few months on the back of a simple tactical formula: Out would go the old “holy trinity” of economic growth, the market and the rollback of the state, and in would come empathy, economic equality and protection of the climate.He wants to fight inequality and create a more equal society. But the nature of the inequality is different in Holland. But there is a common thread: the wish to reinvigorate social cohesion, inter-connectedness, community spirit.

The ongoing, largely inane, laughable political charades in the U.S. are an example of what can happen when a political system is based on confrontational and largely thoughtless personality politics. Society goes haywire and succumbs to primitive patterns of social behaviour.

In simple language, our political activity should focus on creating balance in society and the cohesion of diverse interests within the Community. That does not mean leveling to a lowest common denominator and it does require a willingness to not only tolerate but to support healthy diversity across our communities. We need to urgently pursue ways of devolving political responsibilities and developing ways of introducing accountability at a local community level.

We have so much going for us and are fortunate to be geographically remote from the mayhem. I sincerely believe that TOP’s policies can make New Zealand an even better country to live in.

 

 

About John Stroh
Following a professional and management career with IBM in New Zealand and overseas, John owned and managed small companies in IT, niche market food exports to Japan and business consultancy. After his first wife, Annie, died in 2010, John ‘retired’ and spent several years in the remote outer Sounds. Now a Gold Card holder, he has remarried, has a husband & wife landscaping business and lives in an old farm homestead near Christchurch.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

NZ Politics is broken – lowering voting age to 16 could be a solution

8

Mixed reception in Rotorua to debate on lowering voting age to 16

There’s been a mixed reception in Rotorua to a call to have the voting age lowered to 16.

Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft said New Zealand should consider changing the voting age to 16, saying it could help with voter engagement and while 16-year-olds could drive, get a job and get married, they could also have a say in their own futures.

While most countries have 18 as the voting age Austria, Scotland, Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador have legislated to allow 16-year-olds to vote.

Rotorua Lakes Council people portfolio leader Tania Tapsell said she would support the move, saying it’s something that should be considered seriously.

“There are a lot of very independent 16-year-olds who work and are active in their community; I think they should be able to have their say.

“Legally, they are allowed to do a lot of other things, so I think they are mature enough.

Let’s be honest, New Zealand’s Political System is broken. The manner in which Political weight is solely targeted on the wealthy who have a vested interest in a no capital gains tax economy, kills off youth participation in politics. The grim reality that policy is built for baby boomers and the rich is blindingly obvious to 18 year olds who have a cynical view of politics. The difficulty in getting them to engage is that they are actually right, the system is built by those who profit from it and numerically that’s baby boomers. The state subsidised universals of education, healthcare, superannuation and housing have been denied younger generations as they also have to deal with climate change which will impact them far more disproportionately than those with a property portfolio.

So how do we change the dynamics in NZ politics? We lower the voting age to 16. The sudden influx of tens of thousands of new voters with their own concerns and their own voice finally being heard could be the very means of not only lifting our participation rates, but reinvigorating the very value of our democracy.

How would we go about this? I think that a compulsory unit of the Social Studies curriculum is a civics course that explains NZer’s rights as citizens and the importance of democracy as our political system, and that part of this is activism by students to lower the voting age to 16 so that their views on the world they are inheriting can be heard.

I don’t see the lowering of the age to 16 as a means of getting the Left elected, that’s not the point of my argument. The current weighting of politics is for baby boomers, if we are to change that, younger voices with their interests need to be included. I’m not suggesting the lowering of the age of voting to 16 so that ‘the left can win’, I’m suggesting the lowering of the voting age to 16 to end the intergenerational theft that has become official party policy under National. Ongoing inequality, renter rights, tertiary education debt and climate change are concerns that 16 and 17 years olds face in a way that boomers don’t, forcing politicians to listen to those voices is the only way to ensure the quality of our democracy isn’t simply tipped in favour of those with the money to play the game.

If we want people to buy into society and the common bond upon us all, then we need to have a universal suffrage that takes into account those younger citizens whose interests are being ignored.

We would be a better democracy for it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Why raising Superannuation to 67 is so unethical

25

Raising the age of Superannuation to 67 in 20 odd years is ethically wrong.

For National, they are always focused on destroying and eroding any universal benefit they can seize upon. For them, pushing Super up to 67 is just step 1, means testing it will be step 2.

For Maori, working people, Pacifica and Gen X however, raising the age of eligibility is a slap in the face.

Maori and Pacifica live shorter life spans, working people have broken bodies and Gen X and under are the first generation who will suffer most from obesity and a lack of wealth.

The impact of raising benefits on those who have bugger all is a special kind of cruelty.

On top of saving for a house in a property market Gen X, Gen Y and Millennials have been speculated out of, on top of paying for their education and on top of paying for their Kiwisaver we might now have to also wait 2 years longer before we can retire?

If National are concerned about future costs, they should dump their tax cut plans and put that money into the Cullen Fund now and restart paying into it.

It is insane that this Government have money tax cuts but not for our pension scheme.

Bill English is far more a slave to neoliberal philosophy than Key ever was. If he gets his hands on another 3 years, privatisation and elimination of basic Government obligations will follow.

With shorter life spans, it is unethical to allow Maori, Pacifica, working class and unhealthier generations to wait two more years to get to Super so National can bribe the electorate with tax cuts that benefit the rich.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Makeup Purchases

0

The first time I purchased my own makeup was in 1994 at a pharmacy in Chartwell Square, a sprawling shopping mall in suburban Hamilton. I’d been pilfering my mother’s for years, but in my ill-fated first year of university I had drawn down the “materials costs” component of my student loan and I was heading in for some concealer.

My friend had come along with me, because to me, it was a too subversive and scary an act to be carried out alone. I still remember the shiny deep crimson of the smooth plastic clamshell case that contained the foundation, and another matching case that contained a light green concealer that was to perform a colour correction, that these days I wouldn’t worry about.

There was some awkwardness at the end of the transaction, as the EFT-POS terminal refused to process my card, and we were taken to another counter. The discomfort of the sales assistant had grown with each fruitless swipe of the card.

I’d made some new friends at university, as I’d hoped to do so; Waikato University, in 1994, was my ticket out of the repressive world of small town Ngāruawāhia. It wasn’t until later that I realised that I would need to move further than just Hamilton to be myself without public harassment. One of my new friends was a drag queen, a new species of humanity that I found fascinating. She told a funny story about purchasing makeup in Hamilton and being asked “are you in a show?” her dry response, as she told the story was “my whole life is a show”.

Drag Queens in Hamilton in the 1990s were a tough breed. Although I never saw it myself, there were stories about the lads from the public bar down the road from the gay bar, both located in Hamilton’s own rust-belt: Frankton. The lads would give girls cheek and, as the story went, they would be chased across the railway lines and bashed by the queers.

Twenty years later and I still get a little sense of unease when I wander into the women’s wear section of Farmers Lambton Quay, or spend fruitless hours looks for a non chintz print edition of a t-shirt dress in the Lyall Bay Warehouse. I still notice the glances I get when I’m going around with makeup on my face, that are absent when I’m being read as male.

I used to love the attention I got being an outrageous drag queen, but these days, I’d like an off button. I’d like to be myself, in my own quirky way, without causing a lot of fuss and bother. I’m a walking contradiction and I know it, and as I like to joke semi-seriously “the pills help”.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Poem – 1st Gardenia by Sonya Young

0

1st Gardenia by Sonya Young

She was in a midnight mood
in the middle of the day again,
with thoughts that smelt
like dark chocolate.
Her hair was on fire…
flaming saffron tresses.
The music she had chosen
surrounded her like
a velvet cloak
and her voice was
like wild honey
as she sang along
half-heartedly.
She sipped spiced-whiskey
from a heavy crystal glass
and sighed blissfully
as it slid down her throat.
She wore a floaty silk dress
that whispered softly
as it caressed
vanilla scented skin.
The finest French lace kissed soft
gardenia thighs as her
elegant fingers caressed the
fur-throw…
This went some small way
towards calming
her restless spirit….
A heady incense swirled exotically
around the room
and she wondered how many times
she would have midnight moods
In the middle of the day

 

http://poetry.org.nz

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

10

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Daily Blog Guerrilla Radio – Lorde – Green Light

0

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Top 5 International Stories: Tuesday 7th March 2017

0

5: Advocate: Trump’s New Muslim Travel Ban Will Be As Unlawful As First Executive Order

President Trump is expected to issue a new executive order temporarily banning all refugees, as well as people from six majority Muslim countries, from entering the United States. The New York Times reports the new ban would apply to people from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, but not people from Iraq. Iraqis were included in Trump’s first Muslim travel ban, which was blocked by the courts in February amid massive nationwide protests. Unlike the first ban, the new executive order is also not expected to apply to people from these countries with green cards or who already have a visa.

Democracy Now

4: Why Universities Really Should Be Dominated By Left-Wingers

A new report claims right-wing academics are the minority, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s good we’ve got right-wing think-tanks to look out for these things, because according to a report by the Adam Smith Institute, our universities have a serious problem: they’re far too left-wing. The report identifies a pronounced left-wing bias among academics, especially in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

This is bad – the ASI says – because “social settings characterised by too little diversity of viewpoints are liable to become afflicted by group think, a dysfunctional atmosphere where key assumptions go unquestioned, dissenting opinions are neutralised and favoured beliefs are held as sacrosanct”. For this reason, universities ought to start promoting “ideological diversity”, just as they would diversity of gender or race, presumably by positively discriminating in favour of right-wing academics.

There are at least three issues here. Firstly, is there really a left-wing bias among academics? It must be noted that the ASI report’s methodology is far from watertight, leaning heavily on a sketchy survey studying voting intention among people with a university email address. Indeed, what ring of plausibility their hypothesis has is largely enforced anecdotally: of course university lecturers are a bunch of lefties because, well… George Orwell mentions that it’s a stereotype, basically.

That said: fair enough. As someone who has worked as a university lecturer, I have to admit: my own experience suggests the anecdotal evidence is correct – academics lean more left-wing than the general population do. But that doesn’t mean academia is a hotbed of revolutionary socialist sentiment. It just means your average university lecturer is pro-EU, politely liberal and in favour of some sort of economic redistribution.

Secondly, why are academics more left-wing? One answer might be: left-wingers are more intelligent than their right-wing counterparts. This is something you may have heard before because it was the conclusion of a psychological study from 2012 that still often re-surfaces as viral news. This study’s general hypothesis is: stupid people are drawn to right-wing views because such views make them feel safe, insofar as they maintain the status quo.

The ASI report mentions this study, but dismisses intelligence as an explanation – largely because there is no analogous left-wing bias among people in the top 5 percent of IQ. The think-tank does, however, find a partial explanation for the bias in the fact that being left-wing correlates to what they call “openness to experience”, a personality trait which, apparently, makes you more likely to pursue “intellectually stimulating careers like academia”.

This notion of “openness to experience” sounds incredibly vague to me. The report defines it as follows: “People high on openness are more artistic, creative and intellectually curious, and tend to prefer novelty and variety over familiarity and sameness.” But in real terms, what does this mean? Enjoying meeting new people? Being into travelling? Perhaps – but why would enjoying those things make you more likely to be left-wing? There are plenty of Tories who’ve been on gap years. And why would they make you more likely to become an academic? I know plenty of brilliant scholars who can barely stand to be in a room with unfamiliar human beings.

Vice News

3: Trump signs new Muslim travel ban excluding Iraq

US President Donald Trump has signed a revised travel ban that will temporarily halt entry to the United States for people from six Muslim-majority nations.

Under the order announced on Monday, a 90-day ban on travel to the United States will be imposed on citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Travellers holding pre-existing visas would still be allowed entry, according to the new order, which will come into effect at midnight on March 16.

Unlike the previous ban, the new directive does not include Iraq in its list of countries targeted, following pressure from the Pentagon and State Department which had urged the White House to reconsider given Iraq’s key role in fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.

Aljazeera

2: Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed

ONE OF THE most bizarre aspects of the all-consuming Russia frenzy is the Democrats’ fixation on changes to the RNC platform concerning U.S. arming of Ukraine. The controversy began in July when the Washington Post reported that “the Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces.”

Ever since then, Democrats have used this language change as evidence that Trump and his key advisers have sinister connections to Russians and corruptly do their bidding at the expense of American interests. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke for many in his party when he lambasted the RNC change in a July letter to the New York Times, castigating it as “dangerous thinking” that shows Trump is controlled, or at least manipulated, by the Kremlin. Democrats resurrected this line of attack this weekend when Trump advisers acknowledged that campaign officials were behind the platform change.

This attempt to equate Trump’s opposition to arming Ukraine with some sort of treasonous allegiance to Putin masks a rather critical fact: namely, that the refusal to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons was one of Barack Obama’s most steadfastly held policies. The original Post article that reported the RNC platform change noted this explicitly:

The Intercept

 

1: John Oliver on Trump’s wiretapping claims: ‘Stupid Watergate’

John Oliver has criticized Donald Trump over his latest baseless claims that Obama secretly recorded him, referring to the situation as “Stupid Watergate”.

On Last Week Tonight, the comic expanded upon this idea, calling it “a potential scandal with all the intrigue of Watergate except everyone involved is really bad at everything”.

He went on to say: “The relevant question isn’t so much ‘what did the president know and when did he know it?’ as it is ‘is the president physically capable of knowing things at all?’”

He then referenced Trump’s series of tweets at the weekend, including the fact that he misspelled “tap”. “We are now at a point where the president is so busy hurling destabilizing conspiracy theories around, we can’t even pause to enjoy the fact he misspelled the word tap,” he said.

The Guardian 

 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service