(1) The Culture War over Toilets(2) No Urinals on the USS Gerald R. Ford - only Unisex toilets(3) Gender politics burning down the house - Mark Latham(4) Mark Latham backs Tony Abbott's call to cut Immigration(5) Mark Latham is being sued over "White' comments(1) The Culture War over Toilets, by Peter Myers, November 30, 2017At the annual Festival in Childers, there are always long lines outside the main Female toilets. Lines for the Men's toilets are always much shorter, because men mainly use Urinals, whereas women use sit-down toilets in Cubicles.But that may be about to change. Bundaberg Council recently demolished the Men's and Women's toilet blocks in the IGA carpark, and replaced them with four Unisex toilets.At Bargara, on the coast, Bundaberg Council recently built a new toilet block - with only Unisex toilets.Council denies that it has a policy of building Unisex toilets; but is building them anyway, without public statements or consulting public opinion.Who cares, you might ask. A few days ago, my wife and a female friend were in Bargara, and visited the new toilets. But when they saw that these were all Unisex, they "held it" and waited until they got back to Childers - an hour or so.A man had spoken to them, saying "I'll go in with you". That was not the only concern; health was another.Sharing a toilet at home with family members is one thing; sharing a toilet with large numbers of strangers is another.When men use a Urinal, they rarely miss the mark. But when they urinate into a bowl, they often splash the seat or the floor. Urinals are more hygenic; replacing them with bowls is a health risk.Urinals also take up much less space than Cubicles, and are cheaper to build and maintain.This is being done for ideological reasons - because a small % of people do not identify as either Male or Female, e.g. Transsexuals or Intersex people.It's fine to build a Unisex toilet for those who prefer them; but the needs of ordinary Heterosexuals need to be catered for too. In public toilets, most men prefer to use Urinals; and both sexes prefer separated Male and Female toilets.These can all be provided in one toilet block - e. g. a Male Toilet, a Female Toilet (usually at the other end), and a Unisex Toilet with Change facilities and Disabled access.The new US aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has no urinals. All its toilets are Unisex cubicles, and one reason given is that this makes it easy to cater for sailors who have a sex-change.Yet more than 80% of the 5000 sailors are men. Their views, it seems, were not consulted. This decision was made by Gender Warriors behind closed doors.Such people will continue their Culture War until the public resists. It is time for a debate on this matter, before our Councils and Governments waste $ millions of our money on Social Engineering.Peter MyersWed Nov 29, 2017(2) No Urinals on the USS Gerald R. Ford - only Unisex toiletshttps://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/07/21/no-urinals-on-the-new-navy-aircraft-carrier/No urinals on the new Navy aircraft carrierBy: Peter Rathmell _ July 21170408-N-WZ792-198 NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (April 8, 2017) The new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford has all sorts of high-tech gear equipped for 21st century naval warfare. But there is one thing that male sailors will notice is no longer available: Urinals.For the first time, every bathroom on the Ford — known throughout military circles as a head — is designed to be "gender-neutral," meaning all of the urinals have been replaced with flush toilets and stalls, Navy officials say.The vast majority of the 5,000-plus sailors who will deploy aboard the carrier Ford are men, as women account for only about 18 percent of sailors in the Navy.Bathroom design experts say water closets with seated toilets are less sanitary and take up far more space than wall-mounted urinals.Nevertheless, the Navy says there are advantages to eliminating urinals.It will allow the Navy to quickly and efficiently change a head’s assigned gender, so depending on the ship’s demographics at the time, berthing areas can be switched between male and female to accommodate the crew’s needs."This is designed to give the ship flexibility because there aren’t any berthing areas that are dedicated to one sex or the other," Operations Specialist 1st Class Kaylea Motsenbocker told Navy Times recently.Every head on the Ford is being integrated into a berthing, she said.As such, the Navy claims that gender-neutral heads will make living aboard the Ford more convenient for sailors.Every berthing area on the ship has a head attached to it, and some heads service multiple berthing areas, giving sailors more privacy."So if this space was needed for males, we could shift the females to other berthing areas and make this all male without any modification being necessary," Motsenbocker said.It’s a decision that comes as a surprise to many professionals who design restrooms."[A toilet is] by far a less clean environment than a urinal. By far," said Chuck Kaufman, president of the Public Restroom Company, an organization that specializes in designing bathrooms.For men, traditional seated toilets are farther away, making them harder targets to accurately focus on.Thus, men who use a water closet are more likely to miss the bowl and hit the floor, says Kaufman.He says that when men are obligated to pee in water closets, urine tends to build up on the floor, leaving an abysmal stench."A urinal is a target," said Kaufman. "What is a problem is [with a water closet] you have a very big target and we can’t aim very quickly."The only way to ensure men accurately aim into a toilet bowl is to force men to sit down, which is unlikely to happen, said Kaufman.(3) Gender politics burning down the house - Mark Lathamhttps://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-gender-politics-burning-down-the-house/news-story/d50398724cb99baee7f448b088cf26b7http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-gender-politics-burning-down-the-house/news-story/d50398724cb99baee7f448b088cf26b7{Mark Latham was Leader of the Australian Labor Party, but has since had a re-awakening - Ed.}Mark Latham, The Daily TelegraphAugust 8, 2017 12:00amIn my southwest Sydney community, barely a day passes without people asking me: What’s gone wrong with our country, whatever happened to common sense in politics?These are good questions, reflecting the single greatest tension in Australian public life today, between theory and reality.Political elites have a theoretical view of society, wanting to impose their values and beliefs on what we should be.This is what we call social engineering.The public is much more practical, believing that in reality there is no point in pursuing changes that conflict with the basic laws of human nature.For most people, what matters is what works.Take, for example, the question of physical strength.Nature has made our species so that men are stronger than women.This is a reality we accept in most parts of life.In the world of sport, who would pretend that female footy players could match it with men?A battle-of-the-sexes game in the NRL or AFL would result in an all-male team scoring hundreds of points and an all-female team zero.That’s the simple reality of men at that level enjoying a massive advantage in size and strength.Why then, in jobs dependent on the exercise of physical power, is there a political push to recruit women in equal numbers to men?This is left-wing gender theory gone mad. In NSW, it is now Fire and Rescue policy to apply a 50/50 gender quota to the recruitment of firefighters. Regardless of physical strength and prowess, for every man who gets a job there must be a corresponding woman.A male applicant who narrowly misses out on a position can have test results far superior to the weakest female recruit yet still be excluded. Merit has gone out the window.With major Australian employment sectors now enjoying majority female representation (such as GP doctors, lawyers, teachers and federal public servants) why do we need to reserve spots for women in emergency services?If your family is trapped in a car accident, you want the best available firefighter to rescue them, not a gender quota.If you are overcome by smoke inhalation in a burning building and need to be carried out, you want a strong man for the job — not someone hired on the basis of having a vagina.Sorry, but this is the reality of life-and-death situations.There is no room for sentimentality or political correctness.Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) recognises this fact in its Health and Safety standards but not in its recruitment testing.The agency has developed a split personality.It wants new recruits to be able to "drag a collapsed firefighter to safety on their own", yet to accommodate female applicants, the Physical Aptitude Test has been reduced from a 90kg dummy drag over 20 metres to the relatively easy task of carrying a 30kg weight for 10 metres. Official safety standards require "the use of fire rescue ladders which are 10.5 metres long, 49kg and awkward to manoeuvre, requiring a high degree of upper body strength".Yet the ladder test has been watered down, with one participant describing it as "a hopeless joke that even weak people can pass".In a further concession to female applicants, the separate test component for Mechanical Reasoning has been removed, as has the Shuttle Run Assessment.The gender warriors making these changes are trying to overcome the way in which past tests have exposed big differences in male and female performance.In the first round of the 2013 Work Safety test, for instance, 47 women scored below 50 per cent but not a single man.As a senior FRNSW officer told me: "The tests have been changed so women are far less likely to fail."It’s been rigged for the sake of politics."The Fire Brigade has turned itself inside out with PR spin, pretending that employment quotas can be introduced without compromising public safety.When announcing the new recruitment system to coincide with International Women’s Day in March last year, then commissioner Greg Mullins said: "The overwhelmingly large number of male applicants and the staged processes we employed (in the past) had the unintended consequence of disadvantaging female applicants."Mullins continued: "Changes will be made to address this imbalance."In an amazing piece of Orwellian doublespeak, he claimed that: "Merit selection will determine the best candidates for the job, regardless of gender, but we will deliver equity in the number of male and female firefighters."How can the selection process be merit-based if gender-based outcomes have been predetermined?How can men easily outperform women in the Work Safety and Physical Aptitude tests but not be awarded extra positions?The reality of emergency services is that none of us know when we might need them.This is why Fire and Rescue should never be made into a political plaything.The only policy that matters is the selection of the best applicants and the creation of the very best fire brigade for saving lives and property. As citizens and taxpayers, we should be concerned that public safety in NSW is being compromised for the sake of radical gender theory. Incredibly, this is happening under a Liberal and National Party state government.Mike Baird sent them down the path of social engineering and under Gladys Berejiklian nothing has changed. When it comes to implementing the dangerous theories of the elites, the Coalition is no different to Labor and the Greens.(4) Mark Latham backs Tony Abbott's call to cut Immigration{Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia, before he was rolled by Malcolm Turnbull - ed.}https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/former-pm-tony-abbotts-ideas-on-immigration-and-spending-might-still-save-the-government/news-story/4e062c2a611aa32f846a8d5d710b6369Former PM Tony Abbott’s ideas on immigration and spending might still save the governmentMark Latham, The Daily TelegraphNovember 28, 2017 11:20amAFTER 40 years of being involved in politics, it’s still possible to witness amazing events.On Saturday I was at the Australian Christian National Association conference in Burwood, in Sydney’s inner west.The keynote speaker was Tony Abbott, for whom the crowd went crazy, treating him like a political rock star.I’ve never seen anything like it. With hundreds packed into the room, he received three standing ovations and a wild outpouring of love.Abbott generated the rarest of attributes in modern politics: energy.People were genuinely moved and animated by his 30-minute speech — an impressive summary of the challenges facing Western civilisation.At one point, dozens of women were yelling for him.In knifing Abbott two years ago, Malcolm Turnbull jettisoned the party’s conservative base — an essential foundation stone for electoral success.If it hadn’t been a strictly Christian gathering, it could have progressed into a Tom Jones-style chucking of knickers.You don’t usually get this kind of passion in today’s politics — an era dominated by public disengagement and cynicism about our leaders.For the conservative base, Abbott is incredibly popular. They admire his policies, his values and his resilience.He also has the sympathy vote locked up.As one fan interjected: "Tony, you should be prime minister — you’re the one the people voted for".This is the tragedy of today’s Liberal Party.In knifing Abbott two years ago, Malcolm Turnbull jettisoned the party’s conservative base — an essential foundation stone for electoral success.Now conservatives are forging the habit of voting elsewhere.In Saturday’s Queensland election, the LNP suffered a 7.8 per cent swing, bottoming out with a primary vote of 33.5 per cent.Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was an obvious beneficiary with 13.7 per cent support.Cory Bernardi’s breakaway Conservative Party is also poised to cash in on the Abbott-Turnbull schism.We are watching the Liberal Party’s decline as a cohesive electoral force.As long as the Abbott conservatives feel disenfranchised by the Labor-lite Turnbull-Pyne-Brandis wing of the party, this divided house must fall.With his prime ministership hanging by a thread, Turnbull urgently needs to resolve the Abbott question.Yes, the two men hate each other.Yes, it’s a replay of the spite and vengeance we saw with other great intra-party rivalries, such as Rudd-Gillard, Hawke-Keating and Howard-Peacock.But, to save his bacon, Turnbull needs to look beyond this personal animus and find a way of bringing Abbott back into Cabinet.My advice would be to smoke the peace pipe and offer him Treasury.Scott Morrison has been hopeless in the portfolio.The government actually has a decent story to tell on the economy but Morrison is incapable of retailing it.He has no presence in the public debate and seems out of his depth when talking about fiscal policy.Earlier this year, Abbott announced his support for two important economic measures.The first is a cut to immigration — taking the pressure off housing demand and costs, while also easing labour market competition and the suppression of wages growth.The second is an embargo on new federal spending until such time at the budget returns to surplus.These policies would give the government a much-needed economic narrative, using one of its best campaigners to sell them.A united Turnbull/Abbott economic team, no matter how artificially constructed, is the Prime Minister’s last best shot at survival.In these troubled times, as voters look at most MPs like a new form of scabies, it makes no sense to leave a star-turn like Abbott on the backbench.(5) Mark Latham is being sued over "White' commentshttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/defend-mark-latham-defend-free-speech/news-story/a8b13a1e2d440eff0d0d2e16d197c605DEFEND MARK LATHAM. DEFEND FREE SPEECHAndrew Bolt, Herald SunNovember 1, 2017 10:55amIn my view, attempts to shut down Latham's free speech are repulsive and dangerous:Former Labor leader Mark Latham plans to turn defamation proceedings that have been launched against him into a test case on whether those who criticise white people can legitimately be described as racists.Latham is being sued by commentator Osman Faruqi over a broadcast in which he said Faruqi and others were fomenting hatred of white people and effectively encouraging terrorists...Faruqi, who works for Junkee Media, wants the Federal Court to impose a permanent restraining order on Latham to prevent him publishing any defamatory imputations from the episode...Latham has submitted more than 10 pages of tweets in which Faruqi disparages white people. His defence document says it is open to the Federal Court to infer that the defamation claim had been launched by Faruqi, through solicitor Josh Bornstein of Maurice Blackburn, for an illegitimate and improper purpose.Three things about this case strike me as sinister.First, of course, is the use of the law to attempt to silence or censor someone.Second, is that it's a journalist using the law the silence or censor someone else. Journalists should defend free speech, and have the power to answer criticism.Third, the involvement of Maurice Blackburn makes me wonder if this activist law firm is in some way underwriting the costs or the risks for Faruqi. Is this a case where a very rich and powerful law firm is helping a fellow traveller to muzzle an ideological enemy who has no resources other than his family's assets? I hope Maurice Blackburn spells out the exact terms of its involvement, and Junkee as well.I urge you to donate to Latham's legal fund here. I have offered also to do fundraisers for him. It is not because I think him right - or wrong, for that matter. It is because we cannot allow such attacks on free speech to succeed or stifle anyone, particularly when the mere process is the punishment.Go here to donate.UPDATEThe irony here is that I know for a fact that Faruqi has written damaging falsehoods, in this case about me. My latest book has in fact sold between 20,000 and 30,000 copies. Should I now sue him right back?UPDATEFaruqi's stand on racism may be judged by the following:Osman Faruqi @oz_f |
Archives‎ > ‎