Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Debate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and freyer Leitch coming
Speaker 3: up tonight. Chess isn't generally regarded as a great spectator sport,
Speaker 3: but you may rethink that when you see the world
Speaker 3: number one lose.
Speaker 1: And his reaction will show you a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus, when we look at what's making news tomorrow, Tasmanian
Speaker 3: politicians reject a massive pay right, that's right, you heard
Speaker 3: me correctly, they rejected.
Speaker 1: A massive pay rise.
Speaker 3: And the Australian newspaper reveals the extraordinary amount the federal
Speaker 3: government is spending on climate change every single year. I
Speaker 3: promise you it's eye watering. We'll get to all of
Speaker 3: that shortly, but first, is it okay for a man
Speaker 3: to refuse to shake hands with a woman because well
Speaker 3: she's a woman. Take a look at what happened Sunday
Speaker 3: night after the Champions League game in Europe when CBS
Speaker 3: Sports welcomed UFC fighter Kabib Nugomv to their panel. Now,
Speaker 3: he shakes hands with all the male panel members, but
Speaker 3: when the only female broadcaster extends her hand, well, take
Speaker 3: a look.
Speaker 4: Wow, how are you agree?
Speaker 3: Welcome to the show, apologize, Thank you so much for
Speaker 3: b in the UFC fights.
Speaker 1: It is a pleasure to have you.
Speaker 5: We didn't know you were.
Speaker 3: Here now could be visit about Muslim So refusing to
Speaker 3: shake a woman's hand is part of his religion.
Speaker 1: Here's the question. Was he rude or was he principled
Speaker 1: a man of faith standing for the tenets of his religion.
Speaker 6: Caleb Well, I mean he is entitled to his religion,
Speaker 6: as we are all entitled to whatever religion we may
Speaker 6: or may not ascribe to. But when you're on Western soil,
Speaker 6: I think you have to play by Western rules.
Speaker 2: I mean, I wouldn't go to a.
Speaker 6: Majority Muslim country and begin to tell them how they
Speaker 6: should behave, and I would adhere to whatever expectations they
Speaker 6: had of me while I was there, because they would
Speaker 6: probably expect that while I'm there, I would not shake
Speaker 6: a woman's hand, And I'll say, that's fine, that's your culture.
Speaker 6: I'm in your country, so I'm not going to do it.
Speaker 6: I disagree with that, but I'm not going to do it.
Speaker 6: And by the same token, if you come to our countries,
Speaker 6: you should also have to adhere by our standards, and
Speaker 6: our standards are that women are equal to men. The
Speaker 6: idea that you cannot shake a woman's hand is rooted
Speaker 6: in misogyny, and we in the West say that is
Speaker 6: a bad thing.
Speaker 2: So, yes, you're free to practice your religion.
Speaker 6: But when it comes to fundamental standards and values that
Speaker 6: we hold, Dear, everyone should be held to the same standard,
Speaker 6: regardless of religion or creed or anything else.
Speaker 1: What do you reckon?
Speaker 7: I mean, I totally understand what you're saying, Caleb, and
Speaker 7: there definitely are aspects of fundamentalist Islam that are discriminatory
Speaker 7: towards women. Unequal access to divorce, unequal shares in inheritance,
Speaker 7: a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's. There
Speaker 7: are plenty of examples. But I do think in this instance,
Speaker 7: one of the rules of Western soil is that we
Speaker 7: are a pluralist civilization. You can practice your religion and
Speaker 7: you should be free to practice that religion, and so
Speaker 7: I think in this instance there are plenty of aspects
Speaker 7: of fundamentalist Islam that are genuinely sexist. I don't know
Speaker 7: if this necessarily was one, and I would also note
Speaker 7: that Orthodox Jews also don't shake the hands women. I
Speaker 7: don't think that's rooted in misogyny, so I would say
Speaker 7: it was awkward. It's awkward that he then embraced the
Speaker 7: other men. But like I mean, he should be free
Speaker 7: to practice his religion rude. I don't think it was rude.
Speaker 7: I mean, I don't think he was trying to make
Speaker 7: her feel uncomfortable. I think this is his religion. And
Speaker 7: if you want to have a conversation around sexism in
Speaker 7: fundamentalist Islam, that's a valid conversation to have. But in
Speaker 7: this instance, he's just practicing his religion. We would ask
Speaker 7: an orthodox doe to shake a woman's hand, so why
Speaker 7: are we asking?
Speaker 1: I wouldn't.
Speaker 2: I would.
Speaker 6: I don't care what religion you're a part of. If
Speaker 6: you're on Western soil, you obey by the rules that
Speaker 6: we have, which is that we believe women are equal
Speaker 6: to men.
Speaker 2: What's wrong with that? But what about what others?
Speaker 5: That you should be able to practice your religion freely?
Speaker 6: Okay, But at what point does practicing your religion freely
Speaker 6: then impinge upon the majority's rights and freedoms?
Speaker 1: I have long held don't have a right to have
Speaker 1: someone shake your hand.
Speaker 2: That's okay, sure.
Speaker 6: Sure, But if the reason that someone is saying they
Speaker 6: don't want to shake your hand is because of their religion,
Speaker 6: and their religion dictates that you can't shake a woman's hand,
Speaker 6: you can't tell me that that's not sexist and in
Speaker 6: some way rooted in misogyny. For what reason can you
Speaker 6: not shake a woman's hand?
Speaker 7: But plenty of people have sexist and misogynist views. They're
Speaker 7: not outlawed, they're not banned. You might not like it,
Speaker 7: but I still defend it right religion.
Speaker 6: I never said that it should be in law, but
Speaker 6: I'm saying we should call it out and say it's wrong.
Speaker 6: I mean, you can say something misogynistic or sexist on air,
Speaker 6: and then I can say that's a lot of odswallop.
Speaker 6: That's how this works. That's what we're doing with him there. Yes,
Speaker 6: he's free to practice his religion. But if we say
Speaker 6: that women are equal, then I would expect to see
Speaker 6: people adhere to that. And if they don't want to
Speaker 6: adhere to that, why are you in my country?
Speaker 3: Well, I agree that he's free to practice his religion.
Speaker 3: That's a pluralistic society, as you pointed out, But I
Speaker 3: don't think that allowing people to practice their religion, demands
Speaker 3: that we approve of how they practice their religion, and
Speaker 3: I think he's been rightly condemned. My question is where
Speaker 3: are the feminists calling this out? This is the bigotry
Speaker 3: of low expectations. If the Catholics don't allow women to
Speaker 3: be priests, then everyone is quick to slam Catholicism as
Speaker 3: a misogynistic religion. But if a Muslim Man refuses to
Speaker 3: take the hand of a woman who extends it in
Speaker 3: friendship because I can't touch a woman, well that somehow
Speaker 3: gets a free pass. It's a bigotry of low expectations,
Speaker 3: where people expect and allow less from I think from
Speaker 3: the religion of Islam than they do for other religions.
Speaker 7: Well yeah, I mean imagine if Popo Leo refused to
Speaker 7: the hands of women, there would be global outrage, like
Speaker 7: a complete convulsion and meltdown in the West. So yeah,
Speaker 7: it is interesting to note the silence from some quarters.
Speaker 6: I do wonder where our good mate Clementine Ford is.
Speaker 6: Clementine Ford's Instagram and you can have an Instagram story
Speaker 6: highlight like a collection of stories that she's actually.
Speaker 2: Got one dedicated to me.
Speaker 6: So I get a guernsey. But oh mate, kebeb doesn't
Speaker 6: get one. I mean, come on, Clementine, surely it's a
Speaker 6: fair go here, isn't it. Now.
Speaker 2: Of course, you may be aware.
Speaker 6: That it has been Reconciliation Week leading up to today. Today,
Speaker 6: June the third is the last day of Reconciliation Week.
Speaker 6: They don't adhere to general weeks on the calendar, it
Speaker 6: would seem, but it runs from I think it's the
Speaker 6: twenty sixth or the twenty seventh.
Speaker 2: Of May every year through to the third of June.
Speaker 6: But I think it's gone a little bit too far
Speaker 6: in this case. And I have no problem in saying
Speaker 6: that as a country, of course, we should all strive
Speaker 6: towards reconciliation. And let's not forget the definition of the
Speaker 6: word reconciliation assumes that you reckon style, which means you
Speaker 6: come together and you settle your differences and you all
Speaker 6: move forward as one.
Speaker 2: I think that is a great thing.
Speaker 6: That we should all be working towards. But that is
Speaker 6: not what they mean when they talk about reconciliation. The activists,
Speaker 6: of course mean that we should divide people, and that's
Speaker 6: exactly what North Kottai has been doing. Down in Victoria
Speaker 6: where they've taken it one step over the mark, I think,
Speaker 6: and have put a sign out the front of the
Speaker 6: school which you will be able to see on the
Speaker 6: screen here, which says sorry, and of course Sorry day
Speaker 6: marks the day that we apologized for the stolen generations,
Speaker 6: or Kevin radd apologized for the stolen generations, and henceforth
Speaker 6: we must always be sorry for everything that was done
Speaker 6: in this country, apparently including settling it etc. We sent
Speaker 6: our cameras down this afternoon to take a look at
Speaker 6: this sign out the front, which, of course is it
Speaker 6: right in front of the flag poles. So as the
Speaker 6: kids arrive at school with the Australian flag there, they
Speaker 6: are made to feel like they have to be sorry
Speaker 6: for something. And once the camera's turned up, the sorry
Speaker 6: sign was taken away. Now we don't know whether it
Speaker 6: was taken away because our cameras turned up or because
Speaker 6: today was the last day of Sorry Day.
Speaker 2: That would seem convenient that it.
Speaker 6: Was taken in at precisely the time our cameras arrived.
Speaker 6: We did contact North kot High for comment and they
Speaker 6: said no comment on the phone. But this idea, I mean,
Speaker 6: you know you're a kid going to school. I mean,
Speaker 6: the teenagers should admit. It's not like they're the little kids,
Speaker 6: but this idea is being put into their heads that
Speaker 6: they must feel guilty for things that other people may
Speaker 6: or may not have done generations ago. I mean, I
Speaker 6: wonder if you're saying, we obviously have a great Margrant story.
Speaker 6: This is that's from last year. By the way, they've
Speaker 6: done this multiple years in a row. Now that photo,
Speaker 6: we have a great Margaret story in this country which
Speaker 6: we celebrate even though they're living on stolen land.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how you marry those two up.
Speaker 6: But if you're an Indian kid going to school at
Speaker 6: North kot High now you know you weren't involved in
Speaker 6: the first fleet in any way, and you have to
Speaker 6: feel sorry for what someone else?
Speaker 2: Do you? I mean, for Heaven's sake.
Speaker 6: Sure, reconciliation, but why do we keep telling people they
Speaker 6: must feel guilty for what has been well?
Speaker 3: I mean, the sign begs a number of questions. Right, firstly,
Speaker 3: sorry for what, Second, sorry on behalf of whom?
Speaker 1: And third sorry to who exactly?
Speaker 3: And this is counterproductive because you're teaching kids two things
Speaker 3: that kids should not be taught. Number one, you're teaching
Speaker 3: them collective guilt, and there's nothing worse than collective guilt
Speaker 3: that you are guilty of the sins of your father
Speaker 3: and his father and his father. Western civilization moved away
Speaker 3: from that, and that's what helped Western civilization become great.
Speaker 3: We rejected the idea of collective guilt. And the second
Speaker 3: thing they're teaching kids through gestures like this is to
Speaker 3: make empty, meaningless gestures, as if somehow they are accomplishing
Speaker 3: something quite profound. Sticking a sorry sign on the grass
Speaker 3: out the front in front of the flag pole and
Speaker 3: then hurriedly removing it when cameras turn up does nothing
Speaker 3: to change a single indigenous life. Somehow, kids are taught
Speaker 3: that if you make these empty gestures, you're making a difference.
Speaker 3: And I think it's a dangerous thing to teach young people.
Speaker 3: That's not how you change the world. It's not how
Speaker 3: you make a difference. And collective guilt, as I said,
Speaker 3: is an evil that I thought we'd move beyond.
Speaker 7: Yeah, look, it's all performative activism. I see this among
Speaker 7: my friends all well, most of them aren't really my friends,
Speaker 7: but I see this among my age group quite a bit.
Speaker 7: People will have their little bios on Instagram and instead
Speaker 7: of saying they're from Sydney, they'll say Eora on stolen
Speaker 7: Land or Gadigul or num And it's just like, what
Speaker 7: are you actually accomplishing here?
Speaker 5: It really doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 7: And I also think just the bombarding young people with
Speaker 7: guilt about something they can't control and they had.
Speaker 5: No part of. I mean, what is this doing?
Speaker 7: How is this helping our nation move forward towards reconciliation?
Speaker 7: As you say, Caleb, who will reconciling here? It doesn't
Speaker 7: make any sense.
Speaker 3: As part of their reconciliation plan at the school, they
Speaker 3: had students watch an eight minute video of the former
Speaker 3: police chief make a groveling apology for the stolen generations,
Speaker 3: and so they had kids sit in class and watch
Speaker 3: that eight minute video. I'm just not sure how that
Speaker 3: brings people together when you're continually pushing one side of
Speaker 3: the story, and that is the wrongs that were done
Speaker 3: years ago that these young people have nothing to do with.
Speaker 3: And as you said, many of these kids in a
Speaker 3: city Melbourne probably weren't even born in this country as immigrants.
Speaker 6: I think we've reached a point now where we need
Speaker 6: to be honest about what this is really all about,
Speaker 6: and it's not about reconciliation. Reconciliation is a misnomer.
Speaker 2: Continually.
Speaker 6: What is pushed is an US and them idea that
Speaker 6: you the white man, and then everyone else who's come
Speaker 6: after the white man has committed terrible atrocity, atrocities and
Speaker 6: you must home for them forever. I mean, there is
Speaker 6: no end timeline, seemingly to the point at which we
Speaker 6: reach reconciliation, because the activists don't really want to reach reconciliation.
Speaker 6: They want an admission that the settlement of Australia was wrong.
Speaker 6: And once you admit that the settlement of Australia was wrong,
Speaker 6: you open yourself up to reparations and land back and
Speaker 6: all these other things. That is the ultimate end goal.
Speaker 6: It's not, as I said before, that the dictionary definition
Speaker 6: of reconciliation to reconcile, to come together and settle your differences,
Speaker 6: is not the end aim of this. And does anyone
Speaker 6: talk about the fact that when the British came out here,
Speaker 6: that the people who were sent out were charged to
Speaker 6: treat Aboriginal people as British subjects. I mean, I have
Speaker 6: at home and South Australia is a free setless state,
Speaker 6: so it's slightly different to the convict states. But I
Speaker 6: have the Proclamation of South Australia on my wall at home.
Speaker 6: I look at it every morning when I have a
Speaker 6: cup of coffee, and it says explicitly on there that
Speaker 6: the people, the Aboriginal people who were found in South
Speaker 6: Australia were to be treated as British subjects as though
Speaker 6: they were any other person who was moving to settle
Speaker 6: South Australia. So there was no intent for a genocide,
Speaker 6: there was no intent to kill people. They were sent
Speaker 6: out he to settle peacefully. Do you reckon the kids
Speaker 6: are being told about that? No, of course not, because
Speaker 6: it's not about reconciliation, it's about division.
Speaker 2: They should call it division well.
Speaker 7: And there's no doubt that there definitely was discrimination against
Speaker 7: Indigenous people and that was absolutely terrible and the repercussions
Speaker 7: are probably still being felt in communities today. But that
Speaker 7: doesn't mean we continually have to live in this guilt
Speaker 7: of things we can't change. Let's focus on practical ways
Speaker 7: to move forward. At another kindergarten in Victoria, a local
Speaker 7: council has come under fire for a pamphlet promoting this kindergarten.
Speaker 7: On the pamphlet, proudly on the front was displayed the
Speaker 7: prime flag, the Indigenous flag, the Torres Strait Island flag,
Speaker 7: but notably missing was the Australian flag. One ratepayer said,
Speaker 7: now it appears the council's kindergarten acknowledges the gay, Aboriginal
Speaker 7: and Torres Strait Islander communities, as evidenced by eliminating the
Speaker 7: Australian flag, which represents all of us from the official paperwork.
Speaker 7: Does that mean the rest of us are exempt from rates?
Speaker 7: I mean, I think that's a pretty fair question. I
Speaker 7: understand presenting other symbols under certain circumstances, but removing the
Speaker 7: Australian flag seems like a deliberate political point to I
Speaker 7: don't know, eraise our national identity.
Speaker 3: It would seem fairly deliberate at the Council's job to
Speaker 3: collect rubbish, not distribute it. The mayor, Anthony Marsh, he
Speaker 3: said he was appalled by this brochure and he's investigating,
Speaker 3: and maybe he is.
Speaker 1: I'll take him at his word.
Speaker 3: However, he has previously made a big deal about the
Speaker 3: fact that the council is flying the Pride flag out
Speaker 3: front of the chambers for International Day against Homophobia and
Speaker 3: every other sort of phobia. So he certainly committed to
Speaker 3: pushing those sorts of agendas. Back in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: there's an interesting incident at this very council where a
Speaker 3: female council member objected to the fact that they were
Speaker 3: flying a Pride flag and she was sent for personal
Speaker 3: development and banned from speaking to other council staff until
Speaker 3: she had finished that re education. So you know, the
Speaker 3: mayor says, oh, that he's appalled and he's investigating. But
Speaker 3: this is a council that has been pushing the LGBTQ agenda.
Speaker 1: And if you want to push the agenda, that's fine.
Speaker 3: The issue is council members are paid by rate payers
Speaker 3: to do the normal sorts of things that councils would do,
Speaker 3: not to push different ideologies, and certainly not on three
Speaker 3: and four year olds. I would say this, If Anthony
Speaker 3: Marsh the mayor, is appalled by this brochure that's gone
Speaker 3: out on the council dime, and he's investigating to find
Speaker 3: out how it happened, will we ever be made aware
Speaker 3: of who did this and who was promoting this to kindikits.
Speaker 2: Well, I should hope.
Speaker 6: So. I do find it curious that you say councils
Speaker 6: are meant to collect rubbish, not distributed. I would say
Speaker 6: councils are probably some of the greatest distributors of rubbish
Speaker 6: in this country and point and to be fair to
Speaker 6: the council, and I mean the elected members of the council,
Speaker 6: none of them would have had any idea that this
Speaker 6: leaflet was being put together. It's been done by a
Speaker 6: staff member who's obviously got some responsibility for the kindergarten.
Speaker 6: And then when the elected members have been made aware
Speaker 6: of it that the mayor has come out said he
Speaker 6: will do something about it. So good on him, and
Speaker 6: let's hope all of that is done. But I can't
Speaker 6: get my head around why exactly those flags were there
Speaker 6: in the first any of them, to be perfectly honest,
Speaker 6: I mean, if you're selling a kindergarten or places in
Speaker 6: the kindergarten, I mean I'm not looking at the front
Speaker 6: of it, not that I have children in that position,
Speaker 6: I wouldn't be looking at the front of the leaflet
Speaker 6: for the kindergarten.
Speaker 2: Where's the flag?
Speaker 6: I can only send my kid here if it's got
Speaker 6: a flag on the front. I mean, I want to
Speaker 6: open the thing up and find out that they're going
Speaker 6: to do a good job.
Speaker 2: For my kid. I don't particularly give a toss about
Speaker 2: any flags.
Speaker 6: So you then have to say, Okay, if you've made
Speaker 6: a conscious decision to put some flags on the front,
Speaker 6: you must have done it for a reason. You've not
Speaker 6: put the Australian flag there, so you know, we'll read
Speaker 6: into that whatever you want.
Speaker 2: But you have deliberately put the Pride flag, the Aboriginal
Speaker 2: flag in the Torres Straight Islander flag.
Speaker 6: So is the suggestion that we are an inclusive place,
Speaker 6: and we are inclusive of LGBTIQA plus and Aboriginal and
Speaker 6: Torros Straight Island are people.
Speaker 2: They're three to five year olds.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's not relevant. It's completely irrelevant. Certainly on
Speaker 6: the point of the Pride flag. It's completely irrelevant because
Speaker 6: they're three to five years old. Is it a message
Speaker 6: that that's what we're going to teach them about?
Speaker 2: I don't know. Perhaps it expands upon that. But if
Speaker 2: the purpose.
Speaker 6: Of having the Aboriginal and the Torys Straight Islander flag
Speaker 6: is to say that we are accepting, tolerant of indigenous people.
Speaker 6: Where's the Indian flag and the Pakistani flag and the
Speaker 6: Schlangan flag and the Bangladeshi flag and the Argentinian flag?
Speaker 6: I mean, is this to say that this kindergarten is
Speaker 6: exclusive of Argentinian children, that it will discriminate against them
Speaker 6: if their parents dare to enroll them there? What is
Speaker 6: the point of the flags being there in the first place,
Speaker 6: That's the bit I would like to understand, unless they're trying.
Speaker 2: To make some weird political point. But again, what you
Speaker 2: got to do with three to five.
Speaker 3: Year olds having listened to you speak there, Maybe we
Speaker 3: should be thanking whoever designed this brochure for designing it
Speaker 3: in the way they did, because it's an alert to
Speaker 3: all parents. If you said you said you are Kady
Speaker 3: in the Mornington Peninsula, this is the kind of stuff
Speaker 3: they're going to think is appropriate for three to four
Speaker 3: year olds.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: After October seven, there was a lot of anti Israel
Speaker 3: sentiment that went into anti semitism, just outright and ground
Speaker 3: zero for that were universities, Sydney University not least among them.
Speaker 3: For two months there was a permanent pro Palestinian encampment
Speaker 3: on the campus that meant Jewish students feared going to class.
Speaker 3: Many of them stayed home rather than going to lectures
Speaker 3: because they felt unsafe. So the university has spent four
Speaker 3: hundred and forty one thousand dollars reviewing how they could
Speaker 3: do things differently to combat anti Semitism. Gee, for half
Speaker 3: a million dollars, you'd think, wow, what could we do?
Speaker 3: Maybe don't allow an encampment on the student grounds stopping
Speaker 3: students from getting to class. Anyway, They've come up with
Speaker 3: five revised policies, one of which is actually a pretty
Speaker 3: good idea. They've decided to end what's commonly known as
Speaker 3: lecture bashing.
Speaker 1: That's the practice, and I'll get Freyer.
Speaker 3: To explain it to us in a moment, because you're
Speaker 3: more recently out of university than i am.
Speaker 1: Freyer.
Speaker 3: But this is the practice of before or after a lecture.
Speaker 3: The lecture up gives an open forum to a student
Speaker 3: to then make a political speech on all manner of
Speaker 3: things not necessarily related to the subjects. Students have paid
Speaker 3: to sit in that lecture theater and learn. And many
Speaker 3: of these student bashings or lecture bashings have been quite provocative.
Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly, And that's kind of what happens these socialist activists.
Speaker 7: It's always the same ten or fifteen socialists who come
Speaker 7: into these lectures and basically yell at you about whatever
Speaker 7: social justice cause is of the day. But obviously last
Speaker 7: eighteen months it's all been about demonizing Israel, and they
Speaker 7: will come into your lecture theater whether or not the
Speaker 7: lecturer wants them to. In fact, check out this case
Speaker 7: where the lecturer did not want these protests to come in,
Speaker 7: yet they came in. Anyway, if you're opposed to the
Speaker 7: genocide in Palestine, you know there's a ralliant Thursday one PIO.
Speaker 6: You can come along to that one.
Speaker 7: Instead of letting these absolute idiots yell at that class
Speaker 7: about pro Palestinian rallies, the guy the lecturer just started
Speaker 7: playing Beyond Sy to shut them up. I think that's
Speaker 7: an absolutely amazing response, really, But there is a deeper
Speaker 7: problem here that I don't think banning lecture bashing is
Speaker 7: really going to solve, and that is that our universities
Speaker 7: have been captured by radical, radical activists. I went back
Speaker 7: to my alma mater a couple of weeks ago for
Speaker 7: an event where people got to put on VR headsets
Speaker 7: that depict October seven, and as I was leaving the event,
Speaker 7: this is the greeting I got from some very tolerant
Speaker 7: left wing activists.
Speaker 5: Shime on you, Oh it's you mine. Wow wow wow wow.
Speaker 7: And then they proceeded to follow me and my dad.
Speaker 5: It was just insane.
Speaker 7: They were waiting out there for the full duration of
Speaker 7: the event, like three hours. I mean, the first thing
Speaker 7: we learn is none of these people have jobs or
Speaker 7: really care about their studies, because they have all the
Speaker 7: time in the world to harass people.
Speaker 5: But it is just crazy, and so I don't know
Speaker 5: what it will take.
Speaker 7: For the university to truly root out all these anti
Speaker 7: Semitic activists, but it seriously is ground zero for the
Speaker 7: general collapse in social fabric that we're witnessing across the country.
Speaker 6: I just find the whole concept rather bizarre. I mean,
Speaker 6: putting aside the content of what they're saying. I mean,
Speaker 6: they could be talking about the regulation of farm equipment
Speaker 6: in US bigger Stan for all I care. Who gives
Speaker 6: you the right to stand up in front of a
Speaker 6: captured audience, I mean, talk about whatever your pet project is.
Speaker 6: I mean they're there to learn, presumably that's what they
Speaker 6: are paying fees for. That's what the taxpayer for many
Speaker 6: of these cases is paying their fees upfront in terms
Speaker 6: of hex and then they'll pay it back later. For
Speaker 6: of course, the taxpayer also gives other significant funding to universities,
Speaker 6: and we do that because we expect that students will
Speaker 6: be churned out on the other side with skills that
Speaker 6: will be helpful to this nation and instead they're going
Speaker 6: off to UNI.
Speaker 2: And the unie says, yeah, it's all.
Speaker 6: Right, you can have the soapbox, stand up and talk
Speaker 6: about whatever the hell you want.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not what it's for.
Speaker 6: I understand that unis of places should be places of
Speaker 6: free speech and debate, and nothing should be off the table.
Speaker 6: It's all up for discussion, but not when the lecture
Speaker 6: is going on.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you want to stand on the front.
Speaker 6: Lawn and bleed about whatever your issue is, that's fine.
Speaker 6: That's what the town square is about. But the town
Speaker 6: square doesn't extend into a captive audience. You have a
Speaker 6: right to say what you want to say, but you
Speaker 6: don't have a right to a captive audience that can't
Speaker 6: just get up and walk out.
Speaker 3: So Mark Scott, the Vice Chancell's made a good decision
Speaker 3: on this bat and the practice. But of course the
Speaker 3: student Representative Council they're up in arms saying it impinges
Speaker 3: on the long history of political debate at Sydney University,
Speaker 3: which is kind of ironic since it was only a
Speaker 3: few weeks ago that the student union held a meeting
Speaker 3: to debate the definition of anti Semitism, and when a
Speaker 3: Jew got up to speak about it, a huge number
Speaker 3: of people in the room all turned their backs on
Speaker 3: the speaker at the student Union or Representative Council, So
Speaker 3: I'm not sure how their commitment to political debate is
Speaker 3: reflected in that Caleb.
Speaker 6: It's all good when it goes your way, speaking of
Speaker 6: political debate and matters of religion and free speech. A
Speaker 6: shocking case out of the UK overnight, we're bloken by
Speaker 6: the name of Hamid Koskin has been convicted found guilty
Speaker 6: of a religiously aggravated public order offense. This is blasphemy
Speaker 6: laws by any other name.
Speaker 2: Now. His offense was to back.
Speaker 6: In February, he is from Turkey himself, to go out
Speaker 6: the front of the Twokish embassy and burn a copy
Speaker 6: of the Quran which he was waving around and saying
Speaker 6: f Islam, Islam is a religion of terrorism, and Quran
Speaker 6: is burning. He was protesting against President Erduan in Turkey,
Speaker 6: who he says is running.
Speaker 2: An Islamist regime.
Speaker 6: He was attacked by another man in the process of
Speaker 6: staging this protest, but he was then arrested, taken off,
Speaker 6: gets his day in court, and he's told the offense
Speaker 6: is not that he sets something on fire in a
Speaker 6: public place, and I would understand that we don't want
Speaker 6: people going around starting fires in public places, but it
Speaker 6: was specifically aggravated motivated by religion. And the judge in
Speaker 6: fact said in this case that one of the aggravating
Speaker 6: circumstances was not just that he had a hatred of Islam,
Speaker 6: but by extension, that means that he has a hatred
Speaker 6: of Islamic people. And so the display that he put
Speaker 6: on his peaceful protest, because of course he didn't hurt anyone,
Speaker 6: was somehow discriminatory, and he has now been convicted essentially
Speaker 6: of a form of blasphemy.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 6: Again, find him whatever for starting fires in public places,
Speaker 6: But what does it matter what he set fire.
Speaker 3: To that the irony is that he was attacked as
Speaker 3: he burned the Qur'an, and he was attacked by a
Speaker 3: guy with a knife who allegedly stabbed him and allegedly
Speaker 3: kicked him when he was on the ground. The attacker,
Speaker 3: do you think he's been to court yet?
Speaker 1: Not yet.
Speaker 3: He's walking around free on bail. He's not due in
Speaker 3: court for another two years.
Speaker 1: So the guy who allegedly does a stabbing, he's walking around.
Speaker 3: But the guy who burned the Qur'an, he's already been
Speaker 3: tried and found guilty. Kirs Starmer went to the High
Speaker 3: Court as a lawyer defending a woman for the right
Speaker 3: to trample on a US flag, and he said at
Speaker 3: the time even the most insulting acts are protected by
Speaker 3: free speech. But of course now as the Prime Minister,
Speaker 3: he's been absolutely silent on this issue. Even his own
Speaker 3: party call for the desecration of religious texts to become
Speaker 3: a crime. The leader of the Conservatives, Kemy Badenock, has
Speaker 3: said de facto blasphemy laws will set this country on
Speaker 3: a road to ruin this case should go to appeal.
Speaker 3: Freedom of belief and freedom not to believe are inalienable
Speaker 3: rights in Britain. As I said in this interview. I'll
Speaker 3: defend those rights to my dying days. He was originally
Speaker 3: charged with harassing the religious institution of Islam. That's what
Speaker 3: the prosecutors originally came up with, as if Islam is
Speaker 3: somehow a person, it's an idea, the same as Christianity
Speaker 3: is an.
Speaker 1: Idea, the same as communism, capitalism. They're all ideas.
Speaker 3: And if we're not free to criticize, debate, if necessary,
Speaker 3: mock and ridicule ideas, then we are not free in
Speaker 3: any sense at all. This is a terrible judgment in
Speaker 3: the UK. And if Keir Starmer doesn't do something to
Speaker 3: overturn this and speak strongly against it, then the whole too.
Speaker 1: Tiakia applies doubly.
Speaker 7: It's a very dark day for the West when you
Speaker 7: can't criticize religion without being hauled before courts. It's like,
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, are we in the twenty first century or
Speaker 7: the sixteenth century?
Speaker 5: Here? Seriously?
Speaker 7: And there are other countries in Europe that have now
Speaker 7: banned the burning of korans for fear of public disorder.
Speaker 5: Hmm, let's just think about that.
Speaker 7: They're scared of public disorder when you criticize is Lam.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think any religion, any idea, any political
Speaker 7: philosophy should be up for debate, and you should be
Speaker 7: open to criticism. And the poor guy, the poor protester here,
Speaker 7: he fled Turkey as an atheist because he was being persecuted.
Speaker 7: He has first hand experience with the danger of fundamentalist Islam.
Speaker 5: And also the harassment didn't stop. Apparently two people.
Speaker 7: Invaded his home, he received death threats, and he's now
Speaker 7: being protected in a safe house. Seriously, Britain, not only
Speaker 7: can they not guarantee the safety of people who criticize Islam,
Speaker 7: they're also now prosecuting them. How have we gotten to
Speaker 7: this point?
Speaker 6: And we should point out as well that it's one
Speaker 6: thing to be able to criticize ideas, but what this
Speaker 6: does is put a certain set of ideas.
Speaker 2: On a higher pedestal than all others.
Speaker 6: Because if you burnt a copy of the Communist Manifesto,
Speaker 6: for instance, in somewhere in London, I don't think they'd
Speaker 6: be charging you with some sort of you know, otherwise
Speaker 6: aggravated defense. It would be a public order offense that
Speaker 6: you're setting things on fire in public places, But I
Speaker 6: don't think they would say, ah, that was a politically
Speaker 6: motivated defense and.
Speaker 2: Therefore it is different.
Speaker 6: But you know, so often these things come up now
Speaker 6: where you think back to an old movie.
Speaker 2: You're an old TV show.
Speaker 6: And you go, jeez, when they did that, that was satire,
Speaker 6: like they were making fun of these things, as though
Speaker 6: it could never happen again. It turns out most of
Speaker 6: the time they were actually instruction manual. Sir, in this
Speaker 6: case the life of Brian, you have.
Speaker 4: Been found guilty by the elders of the town of
Speaker 4: Uttering the name of our Lord, and so as.
Speaker 5: A bless fever.
Speaker 6: You are to be stoned to death. Look, I had
Speaker 6: a lovely supper and all I said to my wife
Speaker 6: was that piece of honey.
Speaker 1: But was good enough for Jehovah? He said it again.
Speaker 6: Direct from the UK courts in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 5: So funny.
Speaker 7: And that's the thing, right, if you burnt a Bible
Speaker 7: in front of Westminster Abbey, I highly doubt he would
Speaker 7: be getting prosecuted. But do you guys remember the Olympics
Speaker 7: in Main colleig.
Speaker 1: Trying to forget the Paris Way that was so bad?
Speaker 5: True?
Speaker 7: Another example, do you remember the drag show of Jesus
Speaker 7: at the opening community that was never prosecuted. But imagine
Speaker 7: if that was the prophet Muhammad. Different story. But anyway,
Speaker 7: a Algerian boxer in Main Khalif caused quite the stir.
Speaker 5: There was a lot of speculation.
Speaker 7: Was she a male, a female, inter sex, transgender?
Speaker 5: It was all very unclear.
Speaker 7: The Olympic Committee said because her past sport identified her
Speaker 7: as a female, she was able to compete in the
Speaker 7: female category and won the gold medal, except leaked medical
Speaker 7: records from the Boxing Federation shows she was actually excluded
Speaker 7: from an international boxing competition back in twenty twenty three
Speaker 7: because she showed some male chromozoone markers. And they've now
Speaker 7: said she has to undergo or I guess he they
Speaker 7: the boxer has to undergo further chromosome testing to prove
Speaker 7: that they're actually a female, because these initial tests showed
Speaker 7: they were in fact a male.
Speaker 5: Now, the worst part of all this is that.
Speaker 7: The Olympic Committee knew at the Paras Olympics that there
Speaker 7: was doubt, serious doubt over the Algerian boxes gender and
Speaker 7: that the boxing Federation had already excluded them from competition.
Speaker 7: Yet they allowed them to compete beating females, rubbing females
Speaker 7: of the chance to win the gold medal. And now JK. Rowling,
Speaker 7: who has been a fierce defender of women's rights, has
Speaker 7: spoken out against this, essentially calling for the medal to
Speaker 7: be revoked. We call for medals to be a revoked
Speaker 7: when cheating occurs. This is an unfair advantage. I don't
Speaker 7: see why it's any different.
Speaker 1: Of course the medal should be revoked.
Speaker 3: It's say boxer who has male chromosomes competing in a
Speaker 3: women's event and winning. That's not fair, It's not right,
Speaker 3: and the medal should be returned. Otherwise, you could choose
Speaker 3: next time the Olympics roll around, to watch the Olympics
Speaker 3: or watch your cartoon. What's the difference, watch World Federation wrestling.
Speaker 3: The whole thing is just make believe that. The silly
Speaker 3: thing about this is twofold one, the one who always
Speaker 3: say follow the science, trust the science, and yet on
Speaker 3: this one the Olympic committee said, we don't want to
Speaker 3: know about the science. Forget a DNA test or a
Speaker 3: chromosomal test. We're happy to take the athlete's word for it.
Speaker 3: And so they simply allowed athletes to self identify according
Speaker 3: to their own passport, which of course is based on
Speaker 3: their own say so. The other thing I found strange
Speaker 3: about this story is now that it's being reported Khalif
Speaker 3: has male chromosomes. The New York Post, which reported it,
Speaker 3: continually referred to Khalif as she and her. And this
Speaker 3: is what a topsy turvy, mixed up world we're in now,
Speaker 3: where even after it's discovered male chromosomes, the media are
Speaker 3: still using female pronouns to refer to the person.
Speaker 6: And you have to feel sorry for Khalif on some
Speaker 6: level because it would seem that she. I mean, obviously
Speaker 6: they choose to go by she, but probably lived most
Speaker 6: of their life as a girl or believing that they
Speaker 6: were a girl, but for whatever reason, a gender disorder
Speaker 6: exists whereby they're not actually entirely a girl.
Speaker 2: Now that of course.
Speaker 6: Gives you some level of advantage, and I can imagine
Speaker 6: it would be really difficult.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is not a case of.
Speaker 3: Way, can I break in for a second. You can't
Speaker 3: be half a boy and half a girl. There's not
Speaker 3: this third dimension, well there is in it was delayed
Speaker 3: sexual development. Whereupon I believe the story is that when
Speaker 3: Khalif was born, it was believed that Khaliff was female. Yes,
Speaker 3: but later discovered Kalif is actually male.
Speaker 6: Yes, so you can understand why that would be a
Speaker 6: difficult situation. But there are two problems here right. One
Speaker 6: is that Khalif continues to compete in the knowledge of
Speaker 6: that which is unfair. And the second is that the
Speaker 6: IOC did nothing about it.
Speaker 1: They called it Russia propaganda.
Speaker 6: They were aware, well aware of this testing and they
Speaker 6: chose to do absolutely nothing about it. The IOC needs
Speaker 6: to be hauled over the coals for that. Of course,
Speaker 6: as we said before, they said it was oh, you
Speaker 6: just show your passport. I mean, for Heaven's sake, in
Speaker 6: many states of Australia now you can have this stuff
Speaker 6: changed in five minutes flat. So you can't trust what
Speaker 6: is on the front of a passport. And for the
Speaker 6: IOC to say that is an absolute joke. If they
Speaker 6: don't fall on their swords for this thing, you know,
Speaker 6: what's the point, It's all over for us.
Speaker 3: So before we go to a break, I want to
Speaker 3: get your thoughts on comments out of Beijing. After the
Speaker 3: Defense Symposium in Singapore, where the US Defense Secretary Pete
Speaker 3: Hegseth encouraged Australia's Richard Miles to convince alban easy to
Speaker 3: increase defense spending to three point five percent of GDP,
Speaker 3: which makes sense. We live in a perilous world at
Speaker 3: the moment. But a retired colonel from the People's Liberation
Speaker 3: Army in China has told journalists quote, is it necessary
Speaker 3: for you, Australia to follow the US to challenge China?
Speaker 3: If you do not go to China, There's no way
Speaker 3: China would come to Australia to fight against you. This
Speaker 3: is a moment for US Australia to do some soul searching.
Speaker 3: Why would China, Freyer be encouraging Australia not to spend
Speaker 3: any more money on defense. You don't need to arm yourselves,
Speaker 3: even as they embark on the greatest military upgrade since
Speaker 3: World War Two?
Speaker 1: Would there be a slight agenda there? Do you think?
Speaker 7: And not only that, he says there would be no
Speaker 7: reason for China to come to you.
Speaker 5: They're already here.
Speaker 7: Do you not remember the PLA naval flotilla that circum
Speaker 7: and navigated Australia. Do you not remember the research vessel
Speaker 7: that tracked our undersea cable. I'm sorry, China is already here.
Speaker 6: Look, they just sending dictation to the handsome boy, aren't
Speaker 6: they saying this is what you WoT to do?
Speaker 2: And look, it is a.
Speaker 6: Real testing moment for the Prime minister because if he
Speaker 6: chooses to take the side of China, then we know
Speaker 6: exactly where he stands. I think when they sent that
Speaker 6: vessel down, the Twister, that Submarina vessel during the election campaign,
Speaker 6: it was a test of the Prime Minister to see
Speaker 6: in the middle of an election campaign who he would
Speaker 6: side with, and in that case he sided with China.
Speaker 2: He did what they wanted him to do. So it
Speaker 2: would be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Speaker 3: And Alberinezi says, we have our own policy. We don't
Speaker 3: just follow America. Fine, don't follow America in upgrading our
Speaker 3: defense capabilities.
Speaker 1: Just do it because Australia should do it.
Speaker 3: It's pretty obvious, as you said Frey, You've got Chinese
Speaker 3: warships live firing off the coast of Sydney. You've got
Speaker 3: a massive armament build up happening in China.
Speaker 1: We don't need to follow the US.
Speaker 3: Just do it, because it's a blindingly obvious thing to
Speaker 3: do when you're living in this part of the world
Speaker 3: and you've got China arming at such a rapid rate.
Speaker 1: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including a great story on the front page of The
Speaker 3: Australian about just how much money the federal government is
Speaker 3: spending tackling climate change.
Speaker 1: Promise you it'll make your eyes water. That's coming up
Speaker 1: in a moment.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the program. Let's take a look at
Speaker 3: what's making news tomorrow. And Caleb, I've got to admit
Speaker 3: when I saw the front page of tomorrow's Hobart Mercury,
Speaker 3: I thought that must be fake news.
Speaker 2: Are you talking about that sculpture looking thing?
Speaker 1: Sculpture?
Speaker 2: I'd agree with that. That does well. It ought to
Speaker 2: be fake news, I think.
Speaker 6: But if you're referring to the story below it, which
Speaker 6: says poly paycheck check. Premier Jeremy Rocliffe has rejected advice
Speaker 6: from the Productivity Commission that Tasmanian politicians receive a twenty
Speaker 6: two percent pay rise from July one, saying the recommended
Speaker 6: increase is out of step with community expectations. That I
Speaker 6: would say, yes, I can understand why you thought that
Speaker 6: might be fake news. Apparently they haven't had a pay rise.
Speaker 6: The pollys in Tazzi for seven years and so the
Speaker 6: base salary for an MP would have gone from one
Speaker 6: hundred and forty thousand to one hundred and seventy one
Speaker 6: and a half thousand. But you know, Rockcliffe has quite
Speaker 6: rightly pointed out that it's rather out of kildeer with
Speaker 6: community expectations right now, so perhaps we should not take
Speaker 6: our own interest first here, and good on him for
Speaker 6: doing it. I do find it extraordinary that they haven't
Speaker 6: had a pay rise for seven.
Speaker 2: Years, but you know, good on him for not having one.
Speaker 3: We're just to point out the premier himself, his pay
Speaker 3: rise would have been from three hundred and one thousand
Speaker 3: to three hundred and sixty eight thousand, so he's taken
Speaker 3: a big hit by showing leadership on this issue.
Speaker 1: But that's the problem.
Speaker 3: If you don't take pay rises when they're due, then
Speaker 3: seven years lady, you think, gee, we better get up
Speaker 3: to where we should be. Everyone says, what a twenty
Speaker 3: two percent pay rise? We can't do that. Little mind
Speaker 3: that they haven't had a pay rise since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7: And seriously, inflation now versus twenty eighteen, they've actually had
Speaker 7: a real pay cut when you consider the amount of
Speaker 7: inflation we've had in Australia. So I don't know, but
Speaker 7: principal decision from Rockcliffe nonetheless, but also down in Tasmania,
Speaker 7: he may not last long as premier because apparently he's
Speaker 7: at mercy of house revolved. Tasmanian Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe
Speaker 7: appears to have lost the confidence of the House of
Speaker 7: Assembly and, barring any Cross bencher backflips, will have to
Speaker 7: resign or call a snap election. With three Cross benches
Speaker 7: late on Tuesday publicly supporting a foreshadowed Labor no confidence
Speaker 7: motion in the beleagued Liberal leader, his premiership appears doomed.
Speaker 7: The final decision will now rest with the States Greens,
Speaker 7: who will meet as a party, most likely early on Wednesday,
Speaker 7: to decide mister Rockcliffe's fate. I mean, this can't be
Speaker 7: just over the twenty two percent pay rise.
Speaker 3: Surely, I was going to say that's probably only over
Speaker 3: the teat.
Speaker 1: Didn't Tony Abbott.
Speaker 3: Do his He basically did his number when he made
Speaker 3: changes or suggested changes to politicians' pensions. Didn't your superinnuation
Speaker 3: or something in that was there.
Speaker 6: There was also the small problem of giving Prince Philip
Speaker 6: as well as well, though though I have to say
Speaker 6: you can't call him the greatest prime minister we never had,
Speaker 6: because of course he was prime minister for a short time.
Speaker 6: But I think he's the greatest prime minister we sort
Speaker 6: of missed out on who was there for such a
Speaker 6: short time and could have done great.
Speaker 3: But the timing of this rejects a play rise form.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it.
Speaker 2: Is rather interesting.
Speaker 6: It is.
Speaker 5: It's very interesting.
Speaker 6: They only had I mean the election, say election there
Speaker 6: was fourteen months ago. It was March last year, and
Speaker 6: already they are in trouble. And of course it took
Speaker 6: a few days for them to sort of come out
Speaker 6: of the wash in that election as to how things
Speaker 6: are actually going to turn out. But you know, if
Speaker 6: you can't last fourteen months after an election, you're in trouble.
Speaker 2: And even if you survive.
Speaker 6: An incident like this, you really should be thinking about
Speaker 6: your future anyway, because if they're talking about no confidence,
Speaker 6: it'll come back again. If it doesn't happen.
Speaker 3: Now and later in the week, we could be talking
Speaker 3: about Premier Eddie Erica.
Speaker 7: Beet Yes, perhaps stay tuned. Also, in the Australian climate
Speaker 7: change spend surges to nine billion a year, the federal
Speaker 7: government spending on climate change and ntzera policies have reached
Speaker 7: nine billion a year, up from six hundred million just
Speaker 7: a decade earlier, and up more than four hundred percent
Speaker 7: in the last term of parliament. New analysis shows despite concerns,
Speaker 7: progress on emissions cuts is too slow and the costs
Speaker 7: of electricity keep on rising. I mean, this is the problem, right.
Speaker 7: We've now got a government that is spending billions mitigating
Speaker 7: climate change, trying to cut emissions to very limited success.
Speaker 7: And as we say, Australia is less than two percent
Speaker 7: of global emissions. So we're spending billions and billions of
Speaker 7: dollars every year to achieve what.
Speaker 6: Nothing I mean is nine billion now was one point
Speaker 6: seven billion in March twenty twenty two. I mean, forget
Speaker 6: about it was six hundred million a decade ago.
Speaker 2: We're talking three years ago.
Speaker 6: We've gone from one point seven billion to nine billion.
Speaker 6: And what has been delivered for that? Well, I was
Speaker 6: going to say nothing, but that's not true. Everything's just
Speaker 6: become more expensive.
Speaker 3: Meanwhile, we can't afford to properly defend ourselves. We know
Speaker 3: where the money can we.
Speaker 6: Can defend ourselves against carbon dioxide.
Speaker 3: The greatest threat facing this country, no doubt, Caleb. Let's
Speaker 3: go to the advertiser in South Australia. Six point eight
Speaker 3: million dollars to stop jail balls up reads the headline.
Speaker 3: Tougher barriers to prevent people lobbing tennis balls filled with
Speaker 3: drugs into the women's prison a part of a six
Speaker 3: point eight million dollar corrections package in this week's state budget.
Speaker 3: The Treasurer said the funding would include building new railings
Speaker 3: on the jail's perimeter defense, where people recently had been
Speaker 3: caught hitting tennis balls filled with contraband into the prison yard.
Speaker 3: They'll also pay for new high tech security scanners to
Speaker 3: be installed. Weirdly enough, this is not unique to the
Speaker 3: South Australian Women's prison. Some years ago there were guys
Speaker 3: prosecuted in New South Wales for lobbing tennis balls filled
Speaker 3: with drugs into the prison yard, and I read stories
Speaker 3: this afternoon about similar activities in UK prisons as well.
Speaker 3: So apparently it's a very common way to try to
Speaker 3: smuggle drugs into a prison just whack a tennis ball
Speaker 3: over the fence.
Speaker 6: It's a little more low tech than the video we
Speaker 6: saw last week of a throne being used to drop
Speaker 6: vapes and stuff into prison. But look, to be honest,
Speaker 6: I would have thought there's always been a ban on
Speaker 6: balls in women's prisons. Let's go to the front of
Speaker 6: the Herald's Sun Tomorrow where it says exclusive by Rebecca Ball,
Speaker 6: greenlight for Principles to suspend expel students who attack peers
Speaker 6: or teachers away from school bullies Beware is the headline.
Speaker 6: Victorian students bullying are attacking other children and teachers outside
Speaker 6: of school house faces benion or expulsion under a crackdown
Speaker 6: on vicious behavior.
Speaker 2: The Herald Son can reveal.
Speaker 6: The States Principles will soon have the authority to discipline
Speaker 6: students whose actions, both in person and online outside school
Speaker 6: grounds risk the welfare of their peers and educators. And
Speaker 6: I think it's a common sense move because, of course
Speaker 6: we know once upon a time bullying occurred in the
Speaker 6: school yard, but essentially the school yard bullying now just continue. Used,
Speaker 6: you know, ad for an item, because it goes straight
Speaker 6: onto Facebook or or TikTok, whatever the hell the kids are.
Speaker 2: Using now and it doesn't stop.
Speaker 6: And it is fundamentally a school issue because that's where it.
Speaker 7: Emanates exactly and that is the dangerous part of social media.
Speaker 7: The bullies follow them home literally in their pocket in
Speaker 7: the courier mail. Thugs get a clear record. Kid creams
Speaker 7: who invade Queensland homes armed and attack resonance with knives
Speaker 7: in heinous acts should not have convictions recorded against them,
Speaker 7: the state's highest court has ruled. In a decision handed
Speaker 7: down yesterday, three Court of Appeal judges declared that the
Speaker 7: two teens who stormed the home of Wallaby's rugby legend
Speaker 7: two Tai Kefu should not have convictions on their record.
Speaker 5: Is this fair, James?
Speaker 3: If you break into a home, and if you break
Speaker 3: into a home with a knife, and you break into
Speaker 3: a home with a knife and threaten people, it doesn't
Speaker 3: matter how old you are, that should stay on your records. Sorry,
Speaker 3: but you just can't go soft on things like this.
Speaker 3: You've got to stamp it out. And we've tried the
Speaker 3: soft approach doesn't make a difference. Got to get tough
Speaker 3: on it. We're going to go to a break when
Speaker 3: we come back. Chess is not normally regarded as a
Speaker 3: spectator sport, but maybe that's about to change. When you
Speaker 3: see the tantrum thrown by the world number one when
Speaker 3: he lost.
Speaker 1: That's coming up in a moment.
Speaker 3: Prior to the break, we were looking at tomorrow's newspapers,
Speaker 3: which made me think, what sort of newspapers would you typically.
Speaker 1: Go to for news? Thought?
Speaker 3: Washington Post, Caleb. Would you go to the Washington Post
Speaker 3: to get your news?
Speaker 6: Oh? Most definitely you would, because it'll tell you things that.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't tear anywhere else.
Speaker 6: Probably because no one else would dare to say them,
Speaker 6: because it'd bit silly.
Speaker 2: Particularly in this case.
Speaker 6: The Washington Post had this great expose on fentanyl being
Speaker 6: taken into the United States dropping by record numbers. I
Speaker 6: mean they say in this article that there's a new
Speaker 6: and puzzling reality confronting people working at the bottom. Why
Speaker 6: could this be that fananel going into the US has
Speaker 6: suddenly dropped Habe. It's because Donald Trump is president, and
Speaker 6: of course he said he.
Speaker 2: Was going to crack down on this, and so they thought.
Speaker 6: Well, maybe we won't bother taking it over the border.
Speaker 6: It's gone from seventeen hundred pounds was averaged last year
Speaker 6: going over the border each month of being ceazed at
Speaker 6: the border to seven hundred and forty six pounds, and
Speaker 6: the Washington Post is ah, but this started before Trump
Speaker 6: became president, ignoring the fact that, of course, for two
Speaker 6: months between the election and him becoming president, they knew
Speaker 6: he was coming anyway.
Speaker 7: Come on, It's almost like if you police the border,
Speaker 7: people stop smuggling legal things in. But look, finally someone
Speaker 7: has made an honest Harvard ad.
Speaker 5: It is a parody, but it's pretty funny. Check this out.
Speaker 8: Ever, wish your child was a full blown liberal idiot
Speaker 8: desperate to turn them into a Jew hating extremist who'd
Speaker 8: rather burn a flag than think for themselves, Well, Harvard
Speaker 8: University has the answer. For the low, low price of
Speaker 8: half a million dollars will transform your kid into the
Speaker 8: kind of zealot who sets bags about on fire in
Speaker 8: the street, screaming about whatever CNN's whining about today. Our
Speaker 8: elite program guarantees they'll swap reason for rage and facts
Speaker 8: for feelings faster than you can say protest permit. But wait,
Speaker 8: there's more. Our tuition doesn't cover the essentials. Blue hair dye,
Speaker 8: nose piercings, and a weak, flaccid body are sold separately for.
Speaker 7: The small price of five hundred thousand USAU.
Speaker 5: Sounds like a pretty good deal, James.
Speaker 3: The best humor always comes from telling the truth, and
Speaker 3: that's the reason lefties hate humor. He chess isn't normally
Speaker 3: a spectator sports. Probably pretty boring to watch other people play.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, maybe I'll change my mind after
Speaker 3: watching Magnus Carlson, he's the current world number one lose
Speaker 3: a look at his reaction when he loses to a
Speaker 3: nineteen year old kid. He's certainly not happy about it.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, that's about as exciting as chess gets.
Speaker 1: But it reminds me of when I was a kid
Speaker 1: and you'd lose a game. In you it is still it.
Speaker 6: Is still one of the most polite responses to losing.
Speaker 6: I think you should see me when my horse gets
Speaker 6: done on the line.
Speaker 2: It's a lot worse than that.
Speaker 1: That's all from us. Good night, stick around to bit
Speaker 1: a penalty up in just a moment.