The Pickering Post
Saturday, 17th November 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Harry Richardson

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled',


I made an incredible discovery when I was in kindy, I figured out a whole new way to argue. It was awesome. All you had to do was to stick fingers in ears and keep yelling “I CAN'T HEAR YOU” over and over. It worked like a charm, I never lost an argument – until I tried it on dad.

He put me straight across his knee and gave me six of the best (I didn’t see that one coming). When the tears subsided he explained that I’d be a grown-up soon and grown-ups don’t behave that way. Grown-ups are supposed to listen to each other respectfully. Grown-ups aren’t supposed to argue or debate just to win, they do it to find the truth.

Dad told me that I’d be wrong sometimes. It was only by listening to those who disagreed with me that I could find out whether I was right or wrong.

He didn’t tell me (he probably didn’t know) that this is a peculiarly Western, Judeo/Christian point of view.

Voltaire once said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” It is no coincidence that Voltaire was a European, not an African, an Asian or an Arab.

I was too young to know it, but this willingness to listen to the point of view of others enriched our society immeasurably. It allowed us to invent things. It allowed us to build and organise ourselves and to provide comfort and safety in a dangerous world.

Of course, not all people play by the rules, but this is the way that disagreements are meant to be resolved in our culture.

There are many places where we have constructive debates. Whether around the kitchen table or in the boardroom, we argue and debate in order to find the best way to do things.

There is one place in our Nation however, where the most serious debates of all take place. This is of course the Parliament where our elected representatives gather to argue and debate all manner of ideas.

Parliament is so important because the people who debate in there, control the instruments of the State.

They control the police and army. They levy our taxes and not only make, but enforce, the rules. They have the power to enrich our society. They have the power to destroy it.

That is why we give them special dispensation to say absolutely anything. Politicians can propose the craziest ideas or make the wildest accusations. This is what is known as “Parliamentary Privilege.” This is a place where the dirtiest of linen can be aired in public.

Anyone going into Parliament should know that. It is not for the faint hearted nor the easily offended.

When we vote, we therefore have a responsibility to choose people who are intelligent, articulate and are willing to participate in reasoned debate and carefully consider the ideas of others.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of our recent politicians have no concept of this important principle.

This week, Pauline Hanson delivered her second maiden speech to Parliament. Many Australians, including many politicians, disagree strongly with Ms Hanson’s views.

One group of Senators (most allied to the Green Party) didn’t like Ms Hanson’s ideas at all. Rather than listen to these ideas and debate them however, they all got up and walked out.

Now I can’t comment on Pauline Hanson’s speech because at this point I haven’t heard it. Unfortunately, neither have the Greens.

The difference is that I am not being paid 300K+ a year to listen to such speeches and participate in this debate. The Greens are.

The Green Senators whined that Pauline’s speech contained racism. Maybe it did, but so what. That is no reason to throw a childish hissy fit and do the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling out “I can’t hear you!”

Politicians are paid to listen to different points of view. By refusing to listen to and argue against ideas, they are failing to do what we are paying them for.

If Pauline Hanson is putting up ideas that they don’t like, they are supposed to stand firm like grown-ups and offer a counter argument. Not to spit out their dummies and storm out of the room.

If they think that someone who dislikes an ideology is racist, they should explain how this can be. Then, they should make a strong case for why Australia is better off with more Muslims.

Instead, they fired off some vapid tweet about “calling out racism.”

The introduction of such childish behaviour into Parliament is of great concern to all Australians.

If you voted Green, you should be especially angry about this.

These people are supposed to be advocating for you. They are supposed to be fighting for your views in a tough, adult environment.

This behaviour is equivalent to having your lawyer storm out of court because the prosecutor is asking you hard questions.

Maybe you voted for the Greens because you think extreme Left socialism might finally work. Perhaps you voted for them because you think two blokes should to be able to get married in a nice church service.

Maybe you voted for them because you want more Muslims in Australia. Perhaps you even think they might yet do something for the environment.  The fact is the Greens are never going to achieve anything. They have shown themselves to be a bunch of spoilt kids who never grew up.

They are playing in an extremely tough adult environment which takes grit, maturity and patience to survive. The Greens have no chance to make a difference because they simply don’t have what it takes.

They have no conception of the game they are playing. They don’t even understand the most basic of rules.

There is an old saying. Never play chess with a pigeon. It will knock over the pieces, crap on the board and then try to claim victory anyway.

The Greens are supposed to be in Parliament to protect dumb animals, not to try and emulate them.


The Clinton Foundation and Indonesia.

Daffy again thanks for the explanation.

Now let's all get behind One Nation and put our differences of the past behind us.

Daffyd, thanks, I agree with CS. After all the words posted here about the early One Nation issues, you've explained it so that even I can understand.

In contrast to this strong party structure, the Support Movement was an unincorporated association which exposed its members to all claims for liability and damages.

The 'Limited' on the end of the party name provided protection for all members from individual liability. Those like Bruce who never understood the party structure are always keen to promoted confusion over it. It was a standard structure available through ASIC. The court of appeal recognised that Ettridge had made the contract law argument in hispre trial submissions and immediately accepted that there were members of the party. The sentences were quashed and they were released on that issue. Just ignore peddlers of confusion. They just perpetuate their own hate and confusion. The Electoral Commission audited the PHON party annually, The returns were always prepared and filed by an accountant, and NEVER once did any AEC audit find errors.

Hunter, you were members of the One nation Political party. The other false version launched by terry Sharple's with Tony Abbott was that everyone was a meber of the support movement. The reason Hanson and Ettridge got out of jail is that the Court of Appeal once and for all time accepted that all persons used to register the One nation party in Qld were in fact members of the party. It was a simple legal issue based on contract law. People offered to join, paid their money and were accepted. You then had offer, acceptance and consideration. Basic and irrefutable law. So many people have never understood the structure of the party which was at all time correct at law and with elements that protected all members from liability. The PHON Limited was a standard structure.

BILLY B .... some facts of climate change life !

42% of US adults don’t want to pay even $12 a year to stop climate change

This is the devastating question few surveyors are willing to ask. Survey teams usually use mindless motherhood questions instead, like whether we “believe” in climate change. (Who doesn’t?) Or they ask if we want clean energy… (doh, like I want my energy dirty?) But the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research actually did a nationally representative poll of 1097 adults.
Everyone wants a nice climate, but hardly anyone wants to pay for it:

When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month. Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.

The answer has flummoxed people. Sam Ori in the Wall St Journal can’t make sense of it:

This is despite the fact that a whopping 77% said they think climate change is happening and 65% think it is a problem the government should do something about.

This is an upside-down result. The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great…

He thinks that people don’t see this as a threat to themselves personally. But the answer is mostly within the survey, at Q20 which basically asks if people are confident that greenhouse gas obligations will be met. Fully 31% of people don’t think the US will reduce emissions, and two thirds don’t think India or China will. So who wants to pay for something that is likely to fail?

They didn’t go on to ask how many people thought that windmills or carbon markets would cool the planet. The answer to that would scare the pants of the lobbyists, and blow the whole charade. The real story is that everyone wants a nicer climate, but most people know it’s a waste of money. That’s why this is a dead topic in the election.

INFO: Energy and Climate Change in the 2016 Election

Tom, you had the sense to tetract your predictions - turns out you were right doing that- but Shotgun told everybody to get into cash about a year ago and it was just bull shit. Since then the DOW has gone where it has never been before aand markets have performed as per usual. Sure, somethi g is bound to happen but nobody knows when or if they do they are not going to ring the bells and tell us suckers.


Alan Kohler is an expert, and you know what an ex-spurt is. Let's see how things go after 2nd October. No Dante, I'm not making any predictions, I'm just saying, "lets see how things go."

I don't mind the Watermelons walking out. What I object to is them coming back in.

'If you voted Green, you should be especially angry about this.' Come on, Harry, if anyone voted Green, that person won't have read your article.

The public ignorance of the same sex marriage issue is mind blowing. I have spoken to many of my friends who all believe that the plebiscite will somehow grant same sex couples the same rights as hetero couples. "Why shouldn't they be able to form life-long partnerships, enjoy inheritance rights and be able to raise children like the rest of us?" they argue. Guess what? They already enjoy all these rights through legal civil unions. Even de facto relationships enjoy similar property and inheritance rights under Australian law. All the gay lobby is agitating for is the word "Marriage". So forget 'marriage equality' they already have it. All this comes down to is "One-Word Equality" - the right to call their same sex union "Marriage", which under the current marriage doesn't apply to them.

Please the UK Hinkley Nuclear power a good thing or is it another furphy like our Submarine deal with France?

Baldwin: how my Left is killing civilisation

Herald Sun
September 18, 2016 9:18am

Peter Baldwin was a Left-wing Labor minister. But now the Left has changed into a neo-fascist force that promotes racism, anti-Semitism and a violent intolerance of debate. Baldwin unleashes.

In a nutshell, there has been a comprehensive rejection by progressive academe of the intellectual inheritance from the Enlightenment, the “revolution of the mind” that transformed Europe and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment stressed argumentative rationality and the scientific method. It ­favoured open debate of contentious issues, including the ability to freely critique religious doctrines. It is a universalist vision in which people are seen as members of a common humanity, each pos­sessing rationality and agency, and not just creatures of the particular cultural or religious milieu into which they are born...

Today the “Enlightenment project”, as they now style it, is typically disparaged by intellectuals of a progressive bent. The ideal of human universality is discarded in favour of the politics of culture and identity; the value of reasoned ­debate questioned as argument is seen as just a mask for the exercise of power; the quest for objective truth is replaced by an emphasis on narratives and stories; and the right to strongly critique religion abrogated, albeit selectively...

Welcome to the leftist Counter-Enlightenment. In Britain and the US some critics have coined the term “regressive leftism” for this movement. There are two aspects to the regressive Left ideology. The substantive content of the ideology is identity politics, the view that people should be seen in their essence not as members of a common humanity but as bound to a particular identity group...

Note that when members of a particular identity group demand respect for “oneself as different” they are not talking about respecting each person’s individuality and agency. On the contrary, they insist that people accept being defined by their identity and that they stick to the accepted script, the particular narrative of victimhood, that pertains to their group.

Members of each victim group are urged to claim ownership of — indeed, to be extremely proprietorial about — all aspects of their culture, including ephemera such as clothing and cuisine. We must all stick to our own cultural reservation. To violate this tenet is to commit the high crime of “cultural appropriation”...

And woe betide anyone who breaches this cardinal rule, as dissenters from within Islamic culture such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have found...

They will be pilloried in progressive media and will face attempts to bar them from speaking on campuses and elsewhere, as when Hirsi Ali was barred from speaking recently at Brandeis University in the US at the behest of a coalition of “progressive” student groups. Then there are the death threats from Islamist extremists intent on punishing the crime of apostasy. The Council of Ex-Muslims on Britain released a report this year detailing how extremist preachers have been given free rein to speak on British campuses while its own leader, Maryam Namazie, a leftist from an Iranian background, has been subjected to sustained efforts — including death threats — to stop her speaking.

These activities consistently have been backed by campus student organisations including, incredibly, feminist and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.

The de facto alliance that has developed between the Left and militant Islam, the most reactionary force in the world today, is the strangest and most disconcerting political development in my lifetime. If identity politics is the substantive part of this mutant ideology, the compliance and enforcement arm is the system of thought control we nowadays term political correctness.

According to the PC mindset, someone who openly or even privately challenges core tenets of identity politics is not just wrong but morally depraved. Such a person is not to be engaged with argumentatively, but must be vilified, censored and, where possible, pursued legally using instruments such as the iniquitous section 18C of our Racial Discrimination Act and equivalents in other countries...

Regressive Left activists often claim to be fighting against “fascism” or “the extreme Right”. Ironically, they are the ones who, time and again, resort to classic 1930s fascist tactics such as wrecking the meetings of their opponents and in some cases harassing or attacking attendees.

Please read the whole thing. A neo-fascism is on the rise, and if it is not defeated it will destroy us. It will destroy reason, free speech and civilisation itself.

Was he sitting on one of the new squat dunnies in the taxation office at the time?

Not at that time Billy B but surely all Senators need to be informed for the Senate to function properly. They are paid to do a job. And that is their job!

What about 180,000 public servants.

Hot..I'd prefer to fix it...and CS its govt has any mandate to bring immigrants into Australia..but they do it far as i am concerned immigration is an illegal people trafficking fraud. underwritten by corrupt governemnts.

If we need a plebiscite to decide on gay marriage, why don't we need a plebiscite to decide if Politicians get a payrise?