Speaker 1: Lately. Welcome to the late Bad, Well Good evening and
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with Freyerlitch and filling in for Caleb
Speaker 2: Bond who's just hosted Paul Murray Live. Caroline Marcus coming
Speaker 2: up tonight. We all saw the French president's wife shove
Speaker 2: him in the face, but now a lip reading expert
Speaker 2: reveals what she said to him right after that incident.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that shortly.
Speaker 2: Plus, when we look at what's making news tomorrow, a
Speaker 2: radical imam apologizes to Jews and then in the next.
Speaker 1: Breath calls for all oppresses to be killed.
Speaker 2: And a man narrowly escapes death after accidentally taking his
Speaker 2: wife's euthanasia medication. All of that shortly, but first, working
Speaker 2: from home, at least part time is at least as
Speaker 2: productive as working in the office. That's according to a
Speaker 2: new report from the Productivity Commission that was released this week.
Speaker 2: The report found that people working from home take less
Speaker 2: sickies and are less distracted. They also report a higher
Speaker 2: level of job satisfaction, which then begs the question, well,
Speaker 2: what's happening to productivity in this country? Because it's going down. Well,
Speaker 2: the productivity Commission says it's nothing to do with people
Speaker 2: working in their pajamas from home. It's just the fact
Speaker 2: that the employers aren't providing enough new technology. They're not
Speaker 2: equipping staff with the means to have greater output.
Speaker 1: So here's the deal.
Speaker 2: Working from home is obviously contentious because the Coalition went
Speaker 2: to an election and lost promising to put public servants
Speaker 2: back into the office. So does this settle the matter?
Speaker 2: The Coalition lost an election on this issue. The Productivity
Speaker 2: Commission say working from home doesn't affect productivity? Is the
Speaker 2: debate finally over? Is working from home here to stay?
Speaker 3: Freyer Well, I think it definitely is here to stay
Speaker 3: in some form, and now that we've got hybrid work arrangements,
Speaker 3: I think they're too entrenched to really wind back.
Speaker 4: But I would say that I probably.
Speaker 3: Disagree with this Productivity Commission study on a few levels.
Speaker 3: I mean, one, with economics, you can kind of make
Speaker 3: modeling say whatever you want it to say if you
Speaker 3: use the right data. But also it is true business
Speaker 3: investment has been going down for the last twenty years, really,
Speaker 3: but we have seen a dramatic fall in productivity since COVID.
Speaker 3: It's down about five point seven percent from its peak. Now,
Speaker 3: when you hear stories of public servants working from home
Speaker 3: but actually going on caravan rides around Australia and then
Speaker 3: you see that huge collapse in productivity, it does make
Speaker 3: you wonder. Surely, I know some people are super productive
Speaker 3: at home, but on the whole there have to be
Speaker 3: some people that are just raughting the system. And that's
Speaker 3: my issue with working from home.
Speaker 5: You know what, you don't have to be working from
Speaker 5: home to rule the system. And I think we all
Speaker 5: know people in the workplace, you know, present company, people
Speaker 5: in the workplace who take the piss frankly and slacking
Speaker 5: off and really are dragging it down for everyone else.
Speaker 5: And I think those are the same people who, if
Speaker 5: you put them in a home environment, are going to
Speaker 5: rut the system even further. I mean, aside from this report,
Speaker 5: I know from my own personal experience is having young children,
Speaker 5: I've often had to do some of what I can
Speaker 5: do in this job, whether it be research or writing
Speaker 5: up pieces for the website or a lot of you
Speaker 5: know work that goes behind the scenes in a television job.
Speaker 5: I'm able to do that from home, and it's often
Speaker 5: means I'm up late but I can be there for
Speaker 5: the bedtime for the kids where possible, and it is
Speaker 5: a godsend. And I think for young families who do
Speaker 5: not have a choice except to be working at the
Speaker 5: time where they've raising their children, because who can afford
Speaker 5: not to these days, it is an absolute blessing. And
Speaker 5: my husband often does it and helps out, and he's
Speaker 5: absolutely not slacking off. So I hope long continue. I'd
Speaker 5: like to be public servants, not wrought the system. I
Speaker 5: think a lot of them probably are. And it's a
Speaker 5: shame that the coalition's policy on this went down like
Speaker 5: a lead balloon, because in many respects I think it
Speaker 5: was It was good because I think for a lot
Speaker 5: of people there's no excuse they can easily be in
Speaker 5: the workplace.
Speaker 2: I'm going to argue that you and your husband, wonderful people,
Speaker 2: are the exception. I think most people slack off when
Speaker 2: they're working with that's.
Speaker 5: Not what they actually found.
Speaker 4: And I know.
Speaker 2: Lies and statistics, right, and if you're slacking off at
Speaker 2: the office, I agree. There's a lot that slack off
Speaker 2: at the office, but it's easier to slack off at home,
Speaker 2: so I think.
Speaker 5: But in some respects, you want to prove yourself even
Speaker 5: more you want to continue to have that privilege. I
Speaker 5: mean not if you're in the public service and your
Speaker 5: sort of your salary is you know you've got it
Speaker 5: on some kind of tenure, you're like locked in. That's
Speaker 5: the problem with the public service. The problem is also
Speaker 5: that it's taxpayer funded, so we there needs to be
Speaker 5: accounted there. But if you're working for a company, if
Speaker 5: I'm working for a network like scut, if I'm not
Speaker 5: producing stories, I'm eventually not going to be able to
Speaker 5: hold my job. So I think people have to prove
Speaker 5: themselves even more when they're working from home.
Speaker 2: In some respect, I still think if you're a boss,
Speaker 2: then you have the right to say, if I'm paying you,
Speaker 2: then I want you here not there, and that's my right.
Speaker 1: I'm paying the wages.
Speaker 2: If you don't like it, go work somewhere else. So
Speaker 2: I don't think this issue is over by a long shot.
Speaker 3: And that's part of my issue with it. When people
Speaker 3: see it as a right more so than a privilege.
Speaker 3: You should have to earn the privilege, prove that you're
Speaker 3: capable of being productive at home, and then you get
Speaker 3: that opportunity.
Speaker 5: It's not just productivity, though this report found that it
Speaker 5: also increased job satisfaction and actually, yes, well you're not
Speaker 5: stuck and it's not just the pajamas, but I don't
Speaker 5: know what's with you and your pj's very very close
Speaker 5: to them. But it's also the commute who wants to
Speaker 5: be stuck in people that is a huge problem, being
Speaker 5: able to pick up your kids from school, if you're
Speaker 5: a working mum. It's all those factors. Job satisfaction rated
Speaker 5: really highly and I can understand why for all those reasons.
Speaker 5: And it's so difficult to retain good employees for bosses
Speaker 5: these days, especially when you're looking at millennials and younger,
Speaker 5: so why not continue?
Speaker 3: And I guess one of the challenges is that women
Speaker 3: are often asked to work two jobs in the home,
Speaker 3: that's one full time job and then out of the
Speaker 3: home at work. So working from home does allow young
Speaker 3: families to integrate them a little.
Speaker 5: Hopefully the men are also working yea, some kids.
Speaker 3: I am moving on now let's look at the childcare sector.
Speaker 3: I think it's fair to say that childcare in Australia,
Speaker 3: certainly the peak body has been well and truly captured
Speaker 3: by the woke left, and I think this story perfectly
Speaker 3: sums it up. The National Early Learning Regulator has issued
Speaker 3: new guidance to childcare workers saying they should ask for
Speaker 3: consent from babies and preschoolers while changing their nappies, taking
Speaker 3: them to the toilet, and even playing with them. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't know what kind of babies and toddlers these
Speaker 3: guys are dealing with, but the idea not really that
Speaker 3: their children that young even know what consent or even
Speaker 3: decision making really is. I'm pretty sure they just have
Speaker 3: natural impulses and then act. I mean, this just shows
Speaker 3: that even the childcare regulator has been captured by this
Speaker 3: left wing language of we need to create a culture
Speaker 3: of consent.
Speaker 4: What does that even mean?
Speaker 2: Glad to say, Caroline, I'm now a convert to work
Speaker 2: from home. Why would anyone want to put their kid
Speaker 2: in a childcare center when this is the sort of
Speaker 2: nonsense they go on.
Speaker 5: It hasn't just been in childcare centers and when two
Speaker 5: young kids. I've come across this. In the last few years,
Speaker 5: there's been this huge push and a huge movement in
Speaker 5: gentle parenting, which I'm largely I never thought i'd be
Speaker 5: like that, having been spat myself as a child would
Speaker 5: be the product of top parenting. But I now subscribe
Speaker 5: to this gentle parenting, but not the permissiveness. You still
Speaker 5: need to have firm boundaries, and kids need to have
Speaker 5: firm boundaries. They need to know that you're the adults.
Speaker 5: You're not their friend asking them for permission to parent
Speaker 5: and do your role. But the funny thing is, James,
Speaker 5: I'll often say to my three year olds or oh,
Speaker 5: can mummy do your hair? And she'll be like no,
Speaker 5: and I'll say, well, that was a rhetorical question. I'm
Speaker 5: doing your hair.
Speaker 2: That's my problem with this, right, because if you're trying
Speaker 2: to teach consents, so you should ask for the baby's
Speaker 2: consent before you change the nappy. So clearly baby has
Speaker 2: a pooey nappy, and so you say, I'm about to
Speaker 2: change your nappy.
Speaker 1: Is that okay?
Speaker 2: Now the baby can't speak, let alone give consent, but
Speaker 2: you're supposed to read I don't know the facial expression.
Speaker 2: So your hope to god the baby doesn't break wind
Speaker 2: at that moment. Otherwise you interpret that as a no.
Speaker 2: But that if the baby sort of signals no, I
Speaker 2: don't want my nappy.
Speaker 1: Change, do you leave.
Speaker 5: That would be negligent, you know exactly.
Speaker 2: But you know, actually, here's my point though, So you're
Speaker 2: going to change the nappy after the baby's indicated no.
Speaker 1: Well, now you're teaching them that no doesn't mean no.
Speaker 5: That is a really good point. However, I do see
Speaker 5: the idea behind this. I mean, you're not just teaching
Speaker 5: them about I don't think this is the right way
Speaker 5: to do it for you. Don't give me that look,
Speaker 5: but you know, I do understand that because we have
Speaker 5: had a real issue with child abuse in this country,
Speaker 5: and it happens often from trusted No, don't no, you're right,
Speaker 5: You're right, it happens often from trusted places, including in
Speaker 5: childcare centers, you know. Shockingly, I don't think it's all
Speaker 5: together a terrible thing to teach children that their body,
Speaker 5: they have agency of their bodies from a pretty young age.
Speaker 5: I've been trying to do that as well, in a
Speaker 5: way that isn't like woke and just you know, ideological
Speaker 5: theater as one person has called it, with.
Speaker 2: Don't to workers have to go to the toilets. But
Speaker 2: there's always got to be two workings things of.
Speaker 3: Cour of course, we obviously don't want that happening. But
Speaker 3: I think the problem here is it looks like the
Speaker 3: childcare regulator itself has gone woke. So if you look
Speaker 3: at the early Learning framework, that is essentially the curriculum
Speaker 3: they're supposed to be teaching in childcare centers, explicitly stated
Speaker 3: within that framework is that educators need to promote diversity, equity,
Speaker 3: and inclusion, and it essentially embeds critical race theory into
Speaker 3: daycres by saying they need to critically.
Speaker 4: Engage with world views and biases.
Speaker 5: I think you'll just look after the care. I mean,
Speaker 5: you're going to have a real shop when you have
Speaker 5: kids and they go to daycare, preschool prayer, because I
Speaker 5: tell you they do a version of Welcome to Country
Speaker 5: pretty much every day. And I'm not just talking about
Speaker 5: my kids, like I'm talking about prayers. It's pretty much standard. Now,
Speaker 5: just one more.
Speaker 1: Question on this.
Speaker 2: How do they police it? Like, how do they then police?
Speaker 2: You know, you change that baby's nappy without consent?
Speaker 3: Well, how are they going to police exactly?
Speaker 5: This works when the child is nonverbal. As soon as
Speaker 5: they can say no, you have to drop this straight away.
Speaker 1: Well let's go to Victoria.
Speaker 2: We've been talking all week about netball in Victoria after
Speaker 2: a Victorian netball league banned two transgendered players.
Speaker 1: Now the players were.
Speaker 2: Banned one of them after footage made the rounds on
Speaker 2: the Internet of a female player being thrown to the
Speaker 2: ground after bumping into the transgendered play. Now, I must
Speaker 2: say the transgendered play didn't throw her to the ground,
Speaker 2: but she obviously fell pretty hard after coming into contact
Speaker 2: with the transgendered play. Now, this story, unsurprisingly and that
Speaker 2: video has gone right around the world, and the transgendered
Speaker 2: player has become pretty upset. It's goppt a fair bit
Speaker 2: of flack for it, and has made this statement. This
Speaker 2: won't be a long novel, the transgendered player wrote on
Speaker 2: social media, because frankly, these bigots don't deserve my time
Speaker 2: or energy. Melton South Football Netball Club and your netball
Speaker 2: coordinator players, this is the team that wanted to boycott
Speaker 2: the transgendered players team. You're in total to your opinions,
Speaker 2: But let's clear some things up. Your head coach tried
Speaker 2: to recruit me to play for your club. Yes, your
Speaker 2: head coach tried to recruit me. Now, a couple of
Speaker 2: points on this. First of all, I can understand to
Speaker 2: an extent, the frustration of the transgender player, because there
Speaker 2: are all these weird rules for some sports you're allowed,
Speaker 2: some sports you're not. In one league, this transgendered player
Speaker 2: was banned, but then in another league, the transgendered player
Speaker 2: was permitted to play. So that would breed a level
Speaker 2: of frustration. And second of all, whether you agree with
Speaker 2: the transgendered player or not, a pile on online can
Speaker 2: be very hurtful, and so I could understand why that
Speaker 2: transgendered player would react.
Speaker 1: No one, no matter who you are, wants a pile
Speaker 1: on online.
Speaker 2: But if you're a biological man playing netball against women,
Speaker 2: should you really be crying fairl and saying, oh, I'm
Speaker 2: being bullied.
Speaker 1: That's sort of a bit rich, is it not.
Speaker 5: Look I agree with a lot of the first part
Speaker 5: of what you're saying, and having covered this issue extensively,
Speaker 5: including a Skyinese documentary call fair Game The Fight for
Speaker 5: Women's Sport available and full online, now I can say
Speaker 5: that I think the real issue is with the clubs
Speaker 5: and the policies, and as you said, the fact that
Speaker 5: they're so confused and conflicting that even within one kind
Speaker 5: of sport or code, you have different policies at different levels.
Speaker 5: The elite level has one policy. Amateur levels might allow
Speaker 5: transgender players, whereas elite levels don't. Whereas you think, how
Speaker 5: is it any you know, more fair or safe? In fact,
Speaker 5: it should be even less safe for women who are
Speaker 5: not elite athletes to have to compete against biological mals.
Speaker 5: So I feel for this transgender player, but at the
Speaker 5: same time.
Speaker 2: Heart, I mean, just as a normal human being, you
Speaker 2: know this isn't fit.
Speaker 5: I never said it wasn't I did a whole documentary.
Speaker 1: I mean a transgendered perpose.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't think so that's my child.
Speaker 5: They absolutely don't.
Speaker 4: Well that's pretty clear from the post.
Speaker 3: They feel like they're the ones that have been victimized,
Speaker 3: which if there's an Internet pylon, I totally understand.
Speaker 4: But I also think, even if there are.
Speaker 3: Conflicting rules in different sports codes, if you know you
Speaker 3: were a biological male, if the images that we just
Speaker 3: showed you so clearly depict you as having a huge
Speaker 3: physical advantage, and by the way, this player has played
Speaker 3: in a men's team before, would you not demonstrate the
Speaker 3: good sportsmanship and just go I might identify woman, I
Speaker 3: might identify as a female, but for the purposes of
Speaker 3: playing sport, it is only fair that I am in
Speaker 3: the male category.
Speaker 4: That is the fair part. But one of the funny.
Speaker 3: Things and about this was in the post, the transgender
Speaker 3: athlete tried to say that essentially this was all just
Speaker 3: kind of payback from the opposing team because she wouldn't
Speaker 3: join their team. And then she says that they're now
Speaker 3: hypocritical for calling her out. But I'm like, I totally
Speaker 3: get the coach on the other team wanting to recruit
Speaker 3: them to their team, because if I knew there was
Speaker 3: a biological mail on the other side, I want them
Speaker 3: on my team.
Speaker 1: Well, it goes back to the rules, right, If you're
Speaker 1: allowed to recruit.
Speaker 5: Then why wouldn't you exactly exactly I mean, speaking of
Speaker 5: transgender issues, there's this huge another uproar in the States.
Speaker 5: You might remember Dylan Mulbainy. Now I don't know what
Speaker 5: pronounces to use anymore, guys. He She and the transgender
Speaker 5: model activist who started this bud Light commercial a few
Speaker 5: years back that led to a huge backlash against the
Speaker 5: beer company. It's sales dropped thirty billions of dollars. Well,
Speaker 5: now Dylan has again this time in a fragrance ad
Speaker 5: for Jean Paul Gautier. You wouldn't believe this. The product,
Speaker 5: the perfume is called feminity feminity, not femininity feminity, and
Speaker 5: it is all about how it is most the peak,
Speaker 5: peak feminine, peak feminine product to make women feel as
Speaker 5: feminine as possible.
Speaker 4: It is so frustrating.
Speaker 3: And what I find even more annoying about this is
Speaker 3: that the model of femininity that Dylan Mulvainy displays is
Speaker 3: actually extremely sexist. So during his TikTok transition, he've logged
Speaker 3: it every day gave an update about his transition, and
Speaker 3: this is one example of the kinds of things he
Speaker 3: would post about what it's like to be a woman.
Speaker 6: Day four of being a girl, and I am exhausted.
Speaker 6: The hair, the makeup, the clothes, the heals. It's a
Speaker 6: lot to keep up with and I need to learn
Speaker 6: early on that those things do not make me a girl.
Speaker 6: It's what's in here that matters. And I actually didn't
Speaker 6: shave my face today because I was like, Gil, even
Speaker 6: with your facial hair, you're a girl. And even though
Speaker 6: I'm having it removed, women can have facial hair.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I mean that's entirely confusing, is okay, it's
Speaker 5: a being a girl apparently, Frayer, it's all about having
Speaker 5: hair and makeup. But apparently it's not being a girl.
Speaker 5: That's not being a girl, because having a beard can
Speaker 5: you can still be a girl. But it's on the
Speaker 5: inside what counts. But not on the inside down there,
Speaker 5: and not the hormones or the chromosomes.
Speaker 3: Well, I wish he would actually look on the inside
Speaker 3: and tell us, Dylan, what is actually there, because it's
Speaker 3: a whole bunch of male chromosomes.
Speaker 2: Here's my question that this perfume. Who is it being
Speaker 2: marketed to? Is this marketed to women or is it
Speaker 2: marketed to men with gender dysphoria? But I do know this,
Speaker 2: I know what that perfume smells like. Smells like bud light.
Speaker 2: That's what it smells like.
Speaker 5: No one who's it smells like failure go broke. And
Speaker 5: companies never seem to learn it. But they will. Although
Speaker 5: it is a different product. It's not aimed at blokey blokes.
Speaker 5: It has aimed at a fresh and crowd. I guess
Speaker 5: who might be more open to the sort of cost.
Speaker 2: Speaking of people not learning lessons. Let's go to the
Speaker 2: US where universities you would have thought learned something from
Speaker 2: all the pro Palestinian anti Semitic rallies that have taken
Speaker 2: place on their campuses and gotten their houses in order,
Speaker 2: but they haven't done that. Columbia has given lip service
Speaker 2: to what went on. Harvard has steadfastly refused to do
Speaker 2: anything to protect their Jewish students, and so US President
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has taken action. He's withheld about three billion
Speaker 2: dollars worth of funding from Harvard. He said that Harvard
Speaker 2: aren't allowed to bring students from overseas at the moment
Speaker 2: until further notice. But now the US administration has extended
Speaker 2: that action regarding foreign students, with Marco Rubio tweeting the
Speaker 2: US will begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those
Speaker 2: with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in
Speaker 2: critical fields. That comes a day after US embassies around
Speaker 2: the world were advised to hit pause on approving visas
Speaker 2: for foreign students to travel to the US while the
Speaker 2: Trump administration decided how they would expand vetting of prospective
Speaker 2: students social media accounts. This is a massive step when
Speaker 2: you consider foreign students a five point nine percent. I
Speaker 2: think it is of the nineteen million tertiary students in
Speaker 2: the United States. Harvard, it's worth a lot of money
Speaker 2: to these universities. And the Trump administration is now saying
Speaker 2: we are hitting pause on all foreign students. As you
Speaker 2: can imagine, the unis are up in arms, and we'll
Speaker 2: get into this. But my first point would be it
Speaker 2: didn't have to happen. If the universities had taken responsibility
Speaker 2: for making sure they had students not activists, students not radicals,
Speaker 2: that Trump administration would not have had to step in exactly.
Speaker 3: And Trump made it very clear that unless they took
Speaker 3: concrete action to address the anti semitism and hand over
Speaker 3: the details of all the international students that Harvard was enrolling,
Speaker 3: he was going to cut their funding. This has been
Speaker 3: clear for months. He also made these same demands of
Speaker 3: a bunch of other universities, all have either complied or
Speaker 3: are currently negotiating with the Trump administration. What Harvard has
Speaker 3: done is sue Trump, and obviously he does not well,
Speaker 3: he's not afraid of illegal battle, that's for sure, and
Speaker 3: so he's just gone bring it on. And it looks like,
Speaker 3: I mean, there are some interesting legal questions and constitutional
Speaker 3: questions around the First Amendment? Is this presidential overstep? Does
Speaker 3: he have the authority to do this? But I think
Speaker 3: regardless of the exact legalities of all of this, we
Speaker 3: can all appreciate what Trump is trying to do. And
Speaker 3: I think the way he's doing it and just saying
Speaker 3: hang on a second, American universities were founded to build
Speaker 3: this nation. The only thing they are building now is
Speaker 3: a generation of student activists who fundamentally hate the country.
Speaker 3: The facts he's cracking down on that, I say, good
Speaker 3: on him.
Speaker 5: Well, look, I think it's going to be a real
Speaker 5: problem for the survival of universities in America because, like here,
Speaker 5: a lot of them depend on the financial the finances
Speaker 5: that they get from international students.
Speaker 1: I could stop paying their advice chancellors.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean that's one thing that America has more
Speaker 5: than a million foreign students, and that includes forty five
Speaker 5: hundred Australians. So what happens to all of those? And
Speaker 5: I mean, I do agree with you, because I think
Speaker 5: it's gone. It's become completely ridiculous, both in the US
Speaker 5: and here, where these activists are basically allowed to run
Speaker 5: complete riots over these campuses and do whatever they want,
Speaker 5: and the university just say contact and academic freedom and
Speaker 5: you know, freedom of speech. Suddenly they believe in freedom
Speaker 5: of speech when it comes to these issues. So I
Speaker 5: do like that something is being done about it. I
Speaker 5: just don't know if other people will get caught up
Speaker 5: in the in the wash with a new administration. What
Speaker 5: happens if another Biden administration, Biden style administration comes in,
Speaker 5: then what will your social media activity? What will what
Speaker 5: won't be allowed? Then? Will it be the opposite? Will
Speaker 5: you have to be pledged some sort of far.
Speaker 2: Left woke It's got all over it, right, But I
Speaker 2: think Trump is facing realities, whether it's in the teriff situation.
Speaker 2: Now you might not agree with the terrorists, but he's
Speaker 2: facing the reality. The US have got massive deficit issues,
Speaker 2: whether it's illegal aliens not. Everyone is happy with the
Speaker 2: ways dealt with it, but there's a massive problem. And
Speaker 2: when it comes to activists coming into the United States,
Speaker 2: it's not just the enemies without, it's the enemies within.
Speaker 2: And will there be some short term pain, Absolutely there
Speaker 2: will be, But you pay at one point or another. Right,
Speaker 2: you either pay now by taking strong action or you
Speaker 2: just let things drift and you pay a greater price later.
Speaker 2: And Trump is a sort of guy who's saying I'm
Speaker 2: not afraid of some short term pain to address some
Speaker 2: major issues.
Speaker 3: And just interestingly on that before we move on, the
Speaker 3: Trump administration is also announced that they are going to
Speaker 3: start aggressively revoking the visas of Chinese international students. Now,
Speaker 3: this is particularly interesting for Australia. As a recent graduate
Speaker 3: of Sydney University and someone who was involved in campus politics,
Speaker 3: I can tell you this stranglehold that the CCP has
Speaker 3: on a lot of Chinese students around the world is
Speaker 3: really frightening for us, for our country, but also for
Speaker 3: those students themselves. Now, by law, they have to cooperate
Speaker 3: with NASH with Chinese intelligence gathering, so it puts them
Speaker 3: in a really tough spot, especially when they're participating in
Speaker 3: critical research. So it's interesting to see Trump.
Speaker 5: But what gives you the idea that it's a lot
Speaker 5: of Chinese students that has a strangle hold on I
Speaker 5: know that there's obviously the Confucius institutes that were cracked
Speaker 5: down on. I've done stories about how the CCP infiltrates
Speaker 5: Chinese language schools, but I don't think it's fair to
Speaker 5: tar all Chinese students, or even international students more widely,
Speaker 5: because so many come from Asia. I mean I did,
Speaker 5: I was an international student. I just don't think it's
Speaker 5: I think a lot of them are non political and
Speaker 5: they're just coming here for the pure experience of having
Speaker 5: an education in Australia.
Speaker 3: The challenge is under China's National Intelligence Law, all Chinese
Speaker 3: citizens are obligated to cooperate with national intelligence gathering.
Speaker 5: So we get rid of all Chinese Australia.
Speaker 3: Of course not we shouldn't blanket anyone with this, but
Speaker 3: that's just the reality. And the other reality is that
Speaker 3: a lot of the students that come here come from
Speaker 3: very wealthy, elite Chinese families. And the main way to
Speaker 3: move up in a in a society you have to.
Speaker 4: To a certain extent participate.
Speaker 3: In the political structure, which involves being close with the CCP.
Speaker 3: So naturally, the students you're getting here, for example, Jijiping's
Speaker 3: daughter went to Harvard. That's the caliber of people that
Speaker 3: you know, These are a that we have done in society.
Speaker 5: And also Australia, not be called exactly, and I don't
Speaker 5: think that's fair, but I think if it wasn't for
Speaker 5: the wealthy Chinese, in Australian particular, we would not have
Speaker 5: our universities. Australians wouldn't be able to attend on a
Speaker 5: highly subsidized fee for local students.
Speaker 2: To be clear, the problem is not Chinese people. The
Speaker 2: problem is the Chinese Communist.
Speaker 5: Part, of course, a stranglehold over them. I think that's
Speaker 5: probably so.
Speaker 3: Moving on now, there's a really interesting and concerning case
Speaker 3: in Georgia where a woman who has been pronounced legally
Speaker 3: dead is being kept on life support while a baby
Speaker 3: or her baby Jess states, and she continues to be
Speaker 3: pregnant with the baby, so doctors hope that when she's
Speaker 3: about thirty two weeks pregnant, they will be able to
Speaker 3: safely deliver the baby and then the mother will be
Speaker 3: taken off life support. Now this is causing a big stir,
Speaker 3: with pro abortion advocates saying she is being forced to be.
Speaker 4: Pregnant against her will.
Speaker 3: She's not giving consents because she's obviously legally dead. But
Speaker 3: then others argue, well, if there's a chance to save
Speaker 3: the baby's life, isn't that a good thing that can
Speaker 3: be Perhaps the positive legacy out of this woman's life.
Speaker 3: I'm personally with the latter, and I think, well, if
Speaker 3: there's a chance to save a human life, then why not.
Speaker 1: The woman was.
Speaker 2: Eight weeks pregnant when she was declared brain dead. In Georgia,
Speaker 2: the law says that abortions are illegal after six weeks,
Speaker 2: so that's the law, although the attorney general says it's
Speaker 2: got nothing to do with abortion laws at all. He
Speaker 2: says turning off life support doesn't therefore isn't done in
Speaker 2: order to procure an abortion. The two are completely separate issues.
Speaker 2: But have listened to the woman who will be the
Speaker 2: grandmother when the baby is born. Keep in mind, there
Speaker 2: is concerns that this baby may well be born with
Speaker 2: certain disabilities. The family say they will love the baby.
Speaker 2: They just argue that it should have been their choice,
Speaker 2: not the states, as to whether or not the baby
Speaker 2: is born.
Speaker 1: Have a listen, my grandson may be blind, I mean,
Speaker 1: I be able to walk wheelchair.
Speaker 5: Bout we don't know if he'll live once.
Speaker 1: She hasn't.
Speaker 5: And I'm not saying that we were to chose to
Speaker 5: terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have
Speaker 5: had a choice.
Speaker 2: I don't see any reason why you would not allow
Speaker 2: this unborn baby the opportunity to be born and have
Speaker 2: a life.
Speaker 5: Why wouldn't you, Well, the family do want, would have
Speaker 5: made that choice regardless, But I don't think it should
Speaker 5: be an issue for the state. And I tell you
Speaker 5: why it's different from the abortion issue, because had there
Speaker 5: been not in an abortion issue, you're saying you want,
Speaker 5: you don't want. Women shouldn't be able to have a
Speaker 5: choice to This is the pro life argument to take
Speaker 5: control of their bodies and decide whether to terminate a
Speaker 5: pregnancy that is viable. In this case, the pregnancy would
Speaker 5: not be viable if nature was allowed to take its
Speaker 5: course because a fetus would not be able to survive
Speaker 5: in a brain dead woman in a dead body. Basically,
Speaker 5: they're keeping her alive on life support and basically running
Speaker 5: a scientific experiment on a baby that has never been
Speaker 5: done before. Actually it was done once in twenty thirteen
Speaker 5: when this happened to another woman. The husband and up
Speaker 5: turning off the life support after a couple months of
Speaker 5: illegal battle, So we don't know what would have happened
Speaker 5: to that baby. In this case, there's a lot of
Speaker 5: fluid on the brain that the brain is obviously important
Speaker 5: for the mother for the baby survival. Is this cruel
Speaker 5: to the child else to force it to be born
Speaker 5: into a world without a mother where it could be
Speaker 5: severely disabled that it would not have survived in nature
Speaker 5: had it not been for the hospital.
Speaker 1: For they're not sure baby will be.
Speaker 5: Because that no one knows, but they already found a
Speaker 5: lot of fluid on its brain, so it's very very
Speaker 5: likely it's going to be not be a healthy newborn.
Speaker 5: That's what the medical experts are saying.
Speaker 3: What do you think for I think you do raise
Speaker 3: a good point, and the pro life argument is that
Speaker 3: you shouldn't take an innocent life when it's viable, and
Speaker 3: in this case, it's already in an extraordinary condition. Keeping
Speaker 3: the mother on life sport. There's nothing against just accepting death.
Speaker 3: But I think given we are fortunately at the point
Speaker 3: in humanity where technologies like this exist, I think it's
Speaker 3: a really encouraging sign that there could be a chance
Speaker 3: of life here.
Speaker 4: But again, it really should be the family's decision.
Speaker 5: I think so, and I don't know what I would
Speaker 5: do in this personal situation. I think it's a really
Speaker 5: interesting ethical and spiritual argument, James, because do you I mean,
Speaker 5: do you agree with commercial rogacy, for instance, where a
Speaker 5: child would be born and then not have access to
Speaker 5: their biological mother Like it's it's fraught with ethical issues
Speaker 5: and people and doctors playing god basically because this wouldn't,
Speaker 5: as I say, would not be able to happen without
Speaker 5: medical interventional.
Speaker 1: I do agree with you.
Speaker 2: It's different to the abortion debate because if you switch
Speaker 2: off the life support, you're just allowing mom to die
Speaker 2: as she would without the machine. You're not switching off
Speaker 2: life support to end the baby's life.
Speaker 1: So it is different.
Speaker 5: Actually, the article was fear mongering about the abortion issues
Speaker 5: and about Roe v ways, So I think we need
Speaker 5: to be really careful there because this is whipping up
Speaker 5: fear Overlook, this is hospitals are forcing people to do
Speaker 5: this because of the laws, where the Attorney General, as
Speaker 5: you point out, clarified that it doesn't have anything to
Speaker 5: do with the law.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a very interesting ethical challenge. Let's move on
Speaker 3: to Israel. Now you've probably seen in the news over
Speaker 3: the last couple of weeks there has been absolute hysteria
Speaker 3: about this accusation of mass starvation in Gaza, and of
Speaker 3: course it's caused controversy. It's been peddled by the United Nations,
Speaker 3: and here is a labor MP Julian Hill, repeating much
Speaker 3: of the same talking points.
Speaker 7: Mass starvation, manipulation and use of humanitarian aid to collectively
Speaker 7: punish civilians as part of a military conflict is outside
Speaker 7: international law. The Prime Minister's language has rightly been strongly
Speaker 7: condemning of Israel's recent behavior of the humanitarian blockade, and
Speaker 7: we couldn't be clearer. Israel must let AID in.
Speaker 4: But here's the challenge.
Speaker 3: It's not that Israel doesn't want AID to go into Gaza.
Speaker 3: The problem is that when it does, it gets captured
Speaker 3: and looted by Hamas, which then sell it on the
Speaker 3: black market to continue funding their operations. So Israel has
Speaker 3: now taken this into their own hands. They've established a
Speaker 3: new food district UI network backed by the US, and
Speaker 3: they're aiming to take back control of the AID.
Speaker 4: Here's what Netanyahu said.
Speaker 8: In the last two days. We are making a dramatic
Speaker 8: turn towards the complete dismantling of Hammas. We are taking
Speaker 8: away their control over food distribution in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 8: This is their money machine, this is what builds their
Speaker 8: terror army and this is what dismantles their ability to control.
Speaker 3: But what is so interesting is now Israel is taking
Speaker 3: back control.
Speaker 4: Of the AID. Obviously the UN plays less of a role.
Speaker 3: And Israel has offered to cooperate with a bunch of
Speaker 3: local NGOs in Gaza.
Speaker 4: And here was the UN's response.
Speaker 3: They have started boycotting and blacklisting NGOs that cooperate with
Speaker 3: Israel in distributing the AID directly to Gazas. So for
Speaker 3: all their claims about wanting to end the salvation deliver
Speaker 3: the aid, they an't really. They just want to be
Speaker 3: the ones delivering the aid because it maintains their grip
Speaker 3: on power. But we know Caroline. They've been thoroughly infiltrated
Speaker 3: by her mass. Their links to her Mass are extensively documented.
Speaker 4: So what is this really about?
Speaker 5: Well, the United Nations, I thought this is interesting. The
Speaker 5: spokesman for the United Nations Secretary General said, we won't
Speaker 5: participate in operations that do not meet our humanitarian principles.
Speaker 5: And yet they were perfectly fine having her Masks run
Speaker 5: tunnels under their own headquarters, having members of the United
Speaker 5: Nations staff participated in October seven. I mean they came
Speaker 5: out and contended that afterwards, But how did they not
Speaker 5: know that these people were actually involved? As beyond me,
Speaker 5: I mean, where has the condemnation been though? We've heard
Speaker 5: the story about fourteen thousand babies starving, which was so
Speaker 5: implausible within forty eight hours, was so implausible that only
Speaker 5: someone who could readily believe that Israel as a demon
Speaker 5: state and capable of such We really, frankly blood libel
Speaker 5: as to want to kill babies. We're spreading this information
Speaker 5: like wildfire on social media, and yet I only see
Speaker 5: my Jewish friends, people who support a small section of
Speaker 5: society who are very pro Israel, out there talking about
Speaker 5: how her Mass is not letting their own people access aid.
Speaker 5: Where's the condemnation?
Speaker 2: That's what annoyed me about Julian Hill's state. And he
Speaker 2: talks about collective punishment of civilians. It's Hermas who are
Speaker 2: using civilians as human shields. He talks about a military conflict.
Speaker 2: This isn't a conflict between two militaries. That civilians have
Speaker 2: been caught in the middle of Gaza is essentially a
Speaker 2: terrorist camp.
Speaker 1: And as for Israel must let.
Speaker 2: The aid through, well, the aid could get through if
Speaker 2: the hostages were released. It'd be interesting to hear Julian
Speaker 2: Hill talk about that before we go to a break.
Speaker 2: Got to show you King Charles, what do you call it? No,
Speaker 2: I was going to say, cal it's a motiicaate motiicate.
Speaker 2: He was in Canada, of course, and he's on his
Speaker 2: way to the airport to fly out of Canada. Get
Speaker 2: a load of how many cars help King Charles get
Speaker 2: to the airport where he boards his jetplane. And remember,
Speaker 2: this is a king who prides himself on his green credentials.
Speaker 2: In fact, this is a king who refused to allow
Speaker 2: he throw airport to name a terminal after him because
Speaker 2: he said, in good conscience he couldn't do that, because
Speaker 2: he's someone who fights for the environment.
Speaker 1: And yet did you see how many cars were there?
Speaker 5: There were twenty four apparently, James, they were twenty four
Speaker 5: according to this report. And then of course he gets
Speaker 5: on this massive plane to jet home. I mean, it's
Speaker 5: always the biggest climate alarmist who are the biggest hypocrites
Speaker 5: as well, who tell everyone else what to do and
Speaker 5: preach like Leonardo DiCaprio taking his private jets out to
Speaker 5: you know, exotic places to lecture all the rest of
Speaker 5: us on why we need to not use any electricity
Speaker 5: and coal and why everything is.
Speaker 2: Evil exactly, and that's why we just don't really believe them.
Speaker 1: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we'll look at tomorrow's headlines, including
Speaker 2: a radical Australian imam apologizes to Jews for comments he
Speaker 2: made and then in the next breath calls for all
Speaker 2: the presses to be killed. That more in just a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. Well, you get tomorrow's news tonight on the
Speaker 2: late Debates. So we're going to go to the headlines
Speaker 2: that will be the talk of the town tomorrow. And
Speaker 2: as always, the Australian Newspaper's got some great stories, Caroline.
Speaker 5: Yes, So radical imam's apology to Jews one day, call
Speaker 5: for Allah to kill all the presses the next. Now,
Speaker 5: this is a story about an extremist cleric, Amad Zud,
Speaker 5: who you might be familiar with because he was recently
Speaker 5: forced basically to apologize to jew after being after abilification
Speaker 5: complaint was laudged by a Jewish body. But the interesting
Speaker 5: thing about this is what he's gone on to say
Speaker 5: after that apology, which the Australian has obtained which is
Speaker 5: oh Allah, deal with the tyrants and the oppressors, count
Speaker 5: them one by one, kill them all and leave none
Speaker 5: of them behind. And I can tell you that that's
Speaker 5: not the first time we've heard a radical shake say
Speaker 5: those words. Closely after October seven, there was a Shake
Speaker 5: in Roseland's mosque in Sydney who said the same thing,
Speaker 5: but he built the cat when he explicitly said it
Speaker 5: was in regards to Zionist Jews, and New South Wales
Speaker 5: police investigated him at the time and then dropped the
Speaker 5: investigation saying there was nothing that could be done. Clearly,
Speaker 5: this apology is not genuine and we have more of
Speaker 5: this nonsense. But again I really doubt authority is it
Speaker 5: going to take any action.
Speaker 3: It's so concerning because words have consequences.
Speaker 4: I mean what we saw in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: Just last week with people attending a Jewish event literally
Speaker 3: gunned down just because the terrorists thought they were Jewish.
Speaker 3: It just shows you that words have consequences. And of
Speaker 3: course we believe in freedom of religion. Of course we
Speaker 3: believe in freedom of speech. But there is a line
Speaker 3: between freedom of speech and incitement to violence, and that
Speaker 3: is the key tension that we're walking here.
Speaker 2: When you're calling for allah to kill your enemies, it
Speaker 2: sounds awful like incitement for There is one other story
Speaker 2: on the front page is The Australian.
Speaker 3: That's really interesting and the headline is Indigenous not same
Speaker 3: as disadvantage. Indigenous is not a byword for disadvantage, and
Speaker 3: much of the left truth telling ignores the nation's many
Speaker 3: Aboriginal and terrest Strait Islander success stories. The Liberal Party's
Speaker 3: new voice on Aboriginal affairs, WANs Karen Little, an ironite
Speaker 3: woman from Central Australia, has declared that sound Indigenous policy
Speaker 3: begins with nailing down good services to the nation's.
Speaker 4: Most vulnerable communities.
Speaker 3: That is such a good point and I'm really excited
Speaker 3: to see where Karen Little takes this portfolio. But it
Speaker 3: is true that in a lot of the discourse people
Speaker 3: just say indigenous as if that is the same thing
Speaker 3: as disadvantaged. But as just Senter Price also so often
Speaker 3: points out, you can be a very successful Indigenous person
Speaker 3: and conflating the two is actually basically creating a cycle
Speaker 3: of permanent victimho.
Speaker 5: Self fulfilling prophecy. Basically, you're just saying that you will
Speaker 5: do no better than what we tell you. You're under educated,
Speaker 5: you're disadvantage. You can never rise above them.
Speaker 4: Based on your race, and that is what stands.
Speaker 2: You could be very disadvantaged and white, yes country, which
Speaker 2: is why we should not help people on the base
Speaker 2: of race. Help people on the basis of need, and
Speaker 2: that would be a much better society and people would
Speaker 2: actually get help who need it. Let's go to the
Speaker 2: front page of the Courier Mail. COVID is back. Get
Speaker 2: a load of this headline. COVID strained to hit hard
Speaker 2: vax rates leave state exposed to new variant And do
Speaker 2: you remember the days where every variant was like the
Speaker 2: worst thing ever?
Speaker 1: And when the next was the worst one ever?
Speaker 2: And well it's back to the future. Vulnerable Queenslanders are
Speaker 2: under threat as the most contagious strain of COVID nineteen
Speaker 2: ever recorded rips through the state. The new wave comes
Speaker 2: at a time when vaccination protection has fallen to the
Speaker 2: lowest since the JAB was introduced. More than fifteen thousand
Speaker 2: COVID nineteen cases recorded in Queensland this year, with infectious
Speaker 2: diseases expert Paul Griffin saying, quote, we have dropped the
Speaker 2: ball on vaccinations. I got to admit, you know, obviously
Speaker 2: the TGA, not the TGA, it's America.
Speaker 1: But health authorities in.
Speaker 2: Australia say if you're old and vulnerable, or if you've
Speaker 2: got comorbidities, you should get vaccinated. But to me, I
Speaker 2: know people who have had COVID recently and it's really
Speaker 2: regarded as nothing more than a bit of a it's
Speaker 2: a bit of a nothing burger. So I got to say,
Speaker 2: when I saw this headline, I was pretty surprised.
Speaker 3: It is really strange and what we should actually be
Speaker 3: looking at our excess deaths, not just case numbers. And
Speaker 3: unless we see excess deaths due to this new strain
Speaker 3: of COVID, I really don't think we should all start
Speaker 3: getting too panicked about it.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I was a bit surprised actually to see that headline.
Speaker 5: It seems a little bit like a scare headline. But anyway,
Speaker 5: we move on. Gold Coast Bulletin has an interesting story
Speaker 5: a probe after the wrong man took end of life
Speaker 5: drug Now a man has narrowly escaped death after allegedly
Speaker 5: taking voluntary assisted dying drugs basically euthanasia drugs intended for
Speaker 5: his partner and this happened at Gold Coast Unit Diversity Hospital.
Speaker 5: The alleged incident is being investigated and authorities are having
Speaker 5: a look into this. But I think while we don't
Speaker 5: know all the facts around this case obviously, and these
Speaker 5: are just allegations at this stage, it does raise some
Speaker 5: of the concerns that have previously come up about euthanasia
Speaker 5: and voluntary assisted dying, that the risks that can happen,
Speaker 5: and I can't say we've often, or at least I
Speaker 5: haven't often brought up the fact that maybe it could
Speaker 5: the person could take get their hands on it and
Speaker 5: could use it. It's troubling. We don't know if it's intentional,
Speaker 5: if it had it happened by mistake.
Speaker 1: I think I said at the top of the show,
Speaker 1: he accidentally, But when you read the.
Speaker 5: Article exactly when you look at it.
Speaker 2: Clos possibly and this is just possibly. It could have
Speaker 2: been intentional. And this is the big problem with euthanasia
Speaker 2: drugs being intended for one person accessed by somebody else
Speaker 2: who should not be accessing these drugs. And unfortunately the
Speaker 2: man has survived, so that's good.
Speaker 3: Well, thankfully, it sounds like this all took place at
Speaker 3: a hospital, so I guess the one place you'd want
Speaker 3: to be when you're about to die.
Speaker 4: But anyway, moving on to the Herald Sun. Now this
Speaker 4: is an awkward one for the Liberal Party. As if this.
Speaker 3: Week couldn't get much worse for the Victorian Libs.
Speaker 4: Grath negligence.
Speaker 3: Lib's deputy leader misled colleague and wrongly used her taxpayer
Speaker 3: funded chauffeur car to ferry him wife one hundred kilometers
Speaker 3: home after getting smashed at tennis. Sam Groth faces calls
Speaker 3: to stand down admid revelations he misled a senior colleague
Speaker 3: and wrongly used her taxpayer funded chauffeur driven car to
Speaker 3: ferry him and his wife one hundred kilometers home after
Speaker 3: a boozy day at the Australian Open. This does seem
Speaker 3: to be a little bit of an awkward story.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: It hasn't been a great week for the Victorian Liberals
Speaker 3: with the looming deadline for John Pizzuto to pay two
Speaker 3: three million dollars to Moiy Deeming, and.
Speaker 4: This just seems to make it even worse.
Speaker 2: It's just another example of Victorian Libs shooting themselves in
Speaker 2: the foot. And the amazing thing about the Victorian Libs,
Speaker 2: you can't accuse them of lacking creativity because they continually
Speaker 2: find new ways to destroy their chances.
Speaker 1: Just sib to Allen, all her Christmases have come at once.
Speaker 2: Gets the machete band, which is a stupid idea off
Speaker 2: the front page, and the libs are making headlines again.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the Daily Telegraph here in Sydney next
Speaker 2: Gen fight Club reads the headline.
Speaker 1: And it's an exclusive story.
Speaker 2: Cops blitz viral teen brawlers in CBD, so that five
Speaker 2: times quickly. A shocking escalation of violent teen bashings and
Speaker 2: assaults in Sydney CBD is being fueled by the pursuit
Speaker 2: of social media fame, with kids filming and uploading videos
Speaker 2: of each other in brawls and random attacks across the city.
Speaker 2: Concerning are we really surprised? Probably not this generation. Will
Speaker 2: you tell me, Frey, you're a couple of month.
Speaker 1: It's younger than me.
Speaker 2: I don't think I know much about their life, but
Speaker 2: I mean social media, it's all about likes and followers
Speaker 2: and doing.
Speaker 1: Whatever you can to increase your interaction.
Speaker 4: Well, it is interesting you bring this up.
Speaker 3: I mean this was something that Peter Dunton was promising
Speaker 3: to ban if you want a post and boast offenses.
Speaker 4: Because it is a big driver of a lot of
Speaker 4: this activity.
Speaker 3: Kids want the street cred for beating people up and
Speaker 3: committing crime.
Speaker 4: It's pretty disgusting.
Speaker 1: We're to go to a break, but stick around.
Speaker 2: We all saw the French president's wife shove him in
Speaker 2: the face. But now an expert lip reader tells us
Speaker 2: what she said to him right after that event.
Speaker 1: That's in a moment.
Speaker 2: Okay, everybody's been talking about it the last few days.
Speaker 2: What really happened between Emmanuel mccron and his wife and
Speaker 2: Caroline we think we know, well, thank you.
Speaker 5: To a lip reader, we know what was actually said
Speaker 5: between between the president and the first laid The lip
Speaker 5: breaeder has said that after this now viral infamous shove
Speaker 5: with both hands that Bridget mccron did on Emmanuel Macron,
Speaker 5: she then says she then says stay away, you loser.
Speaker 5: Those were the words that were uttered. He tried to say,
Speaker 5: let's go, let's just walk out of the plane, and
Speaker 5: she replies stay away, you loser. So I mean, that
Speaker 5: doesn't quite gel with Emmanuel mccron's version of events. He
Speaker 5: went on to tell the media, I don't know why
Speaker 5: everyone's making such a big deal about this. It's just
Speaker 5: a squabble. It was joking around. I'm sorry, but in
Speaker 5: ten years of marriage, I have never shoved my husband
Speaker 5: with both hands on his face or any hand or anywhere.
Speaker 5: And I've never called him a loser. I may have
Speaker 5: called him other things, but not I got.
Speaker 2: To ask what would have hurt Macron more than shove
Speaker 2: in the face or been called a loser?
Speaker 3: Oh, it's pretty embarrassing, Oh my goodness. And also in Europe,
Speaker 3: if you are on a Turkey Airways flight now, if
Speaker 3: you get up into the aisle or prematurely unbuckle your seatbelt,
Speaker 3: you could be fined up to seventy dollars. I think
Speaker 3: we all know when you're flying, even if the seatbelt
Speaker 3: signs still on, you've come to a stop. You're not
Speaker 3: moving anywhere. Everyone's jumping up into the aisle. Is this
Speaker 3: just another way to rake in.
Speaker 4: Some more revenue for Turkish.
Speaker 5: I love you back this because I made it. When
Speaker 5: people jump up and they start queuing up and they
Speaker 5: have to get out first, it's like, what's your rush?
Speaker 5: We're going to be grounded for at least another isn't
Speaker 5: it more? Efficient. I've got your butt in my face
Speaker 5: if you're standing there trying to get out.
Speaker 1: First, there's other options.
Speaker 2: You find people who don't put the seat thing down
Speaker 2: those people.
Speaker 1: Find people like they.
Speaker 5: Did put the seat down, or who.
Speaker 2: Don't know who don't put the arm resturant, or people
Speaker 2: who put their legs on the other side of your level.
Speaker 1: Find those people.
Speaker 2: Find people who put their bags in the overhead compartment
Speaker 2: not adjacent to their Find those people, and find the
Speaker 2: staff at Virgin for not upgrading me when I'm flo Well, no,
Speaker 2: I have a.
Speaker 3: Little bit of sympathy for this, because I do find
Speaker 3: it's so frustrating when you're just sitting there and you're like, well,
Speaker 3: I could be getting my stuff down, I could be
Speaker 3: progressing these a lot of run of dose, Like one
Speaker 3: of these I might be one of those people.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, guys, Right quickly before we go, my favorite
Speaker 2: Catholic preacher on TV, Fulton Sheen.
Speaker 1: He's now de ceased. You can watch him on YouTube.
Speaker 2: He's brilliant, but maybe his preaching's got some competition with
Speaker 2: these Brazilian nuns on Catholic TV who in the middle
Speaker 2: of a religious program.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll just let you watch skies, I'm going to
Speaker 1: mess on Sunday.
Speaker 3: I love their beats like they've got a good sense
Speaker 3: of rhythm, and look at those dance moves.
Speaker 5: I don't get the context of this. I don't really care.
Speaker 5: I mean, I don't know why. Where she learned to
Speaker 5: be Boxburg?
Speaker 2: Good on her No idea that's from us. Good night,
Speaker 2: stick around, Brida Pinnhey up now,