Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over

time, evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

But today, we observe a small tribe, akin to a group of meerkats, that

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Hello out there in, uh, Podland or wherever you are.

This is Trevor from the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.

This is a podcast where we talk about news and politics and sex and religion.

We're up to episode 312 and with me as always, Shea the Subversive.

How are you, Shea?

Very well.

Thank you.

And Joe the Tech Guy.

And Joe the Tech Guy from Central Queensland.

Good on you, Joe.

So do this, we've got a bunch of topics that we're going to run through.

We normally look at news and events and what's going on in

the world and thrash it out.

If you're in the chat room, say hello, and we'll try and get to your comments.

Don't defame anybody when you're in there, because.

Potentially, uh, I could be liable for it.

Or, or even Joe might be.

We'll get to that.

So.

So anyway, we're going to talk about defamation.

We're going to talk about Texas abortion law.

We're going to talk about some COVID stuff.

A coal mine that was approved by Susan Lay.

A little bit on climate change.

See where we get to.

Join in and say hello in the chat room.

Now, first up there, I found this quite interesting.

I don't know how interesting you guys found it about the

High Court coming out about.

Facebook comments and that the owners of Facebook pages would be liable for

defamatory comments made by people commenting on their Facebook pages.

So do you come across that, Shai?

Did you see that in the news?

I didn't see it in the news, but I saw your

article on it.

Yeah.

So this comes about because of a case of Dylan Voller, who was in.

Northern Territory Juvenile Detention, and various media outlets on their

Facebook pages had stories about him.

And it wasn't so much the stories were defamatory, but the comments that

were made by people on the Facebook pages, Dylan alleges, were defamatory.

But what he's saying is that the media organisations that owned those pages are

responsible for those defamatory comments.

And so it went to the High Court, and our High Court, which I reckon

is a pretty good one at the moment.

said, yes, you control that Facebook page, you have the ability to remove

stuff, and importantly they sort of emphasised as well that the media

groups were encouraging comments.

And it was in their interest that people commented lots, and that there was a

sort of a business reason why these media organisations wanted lots of comments.

So, they said, yep, people who comment in such a case, the publisher is liable.

So, it now goes back to the trial judge to now look at the individual comments and

decide whether they are defamatory or not.

This was sort of a preliminary move just to see whether the comments

can be held against the publishers.

So, that, uh, has put a, well, that should have put a scare down the

spine of anybody with a Facebook page that they're administering.

The scary,

the scary part was they said it didn't matter whether they removed

the comment, as soon as they became aware of it, the fact that the comments

had been published in the first place

was enough.

Yes, and that's always the case with defamation.

Once it's done, it's done.

Although it will potentially reduce the amount of damages

if you've removed it quickly.

So not as many people got to see it.

So the thing though, I sort of read through most of the case and

it focused a lot on the owners.

Mainly the newspapers as being responsible, but it did use the word

administrators a fair bit in there as well, and it didn't specifically say

that admins of Facebook pages would be responsible as well, but they didn't

say that they wouldn't, and they used the word admins a fair bit in there.

So, so, you know, turning my mind to something like the Noosa Temple of Satan

page, where Often there are articles sort of put out there that paint

Christians in a bad light and people feel encouraged to get in the comment page

and start Swinging hard at Christians.

You know, as, I'm not the owner of that page, but as an admin,

I might be, I'm not sure yet.

So, something like our little chat room that we've got going here, the owner

of this podcast, and could be liable for defamatory stuff said in the chat

room, so keep it clean in there, James and Don and John and Bronwyn and Tony.

Very defamatory stuff.

But potentially, Joe, who can sort of control the comments,

potentially liable as well?

Maybe.

Who knows?

Like, it's actually, if you're in a group that is exposed, or seems

to have a high exposure, you might want to consider resigning from it.

Joe, ever thought of that?

It's obviously, now that's not that much redone.

It may be moderated content only, so people can boost, but it has

to be approved by a moderator.

Yeah.

And whether we see those tools becoming available for certainly the

Australian pages will be interesting.

Yeah.

In this case, it's,

it's a bit difficult because there is

no, even if Facebook turned it on, we'd still have YouTube and

Twitch potentially.

Yes.

Yeah.

So they made the point in the case that people could set up the page

so that nothing gets published as a comment unless it's approved.

Like, you can set up a page like that, but of course that requires manpower and work

and effort and, you know, people don't want to do that if they can avoid it.

But, uh, the court said, well, you You're able to control these things.

So, I remember when we were talking about freedom of speech, oh, going back

one or two years with The Twelfth Man, and we're looking at whether groups were

a platform or a publisher, and looking at Twitter and whether it could ban.

The fact that it was banning Donald Trump meant that it had control over

what occurred, and that then meant that perhaps they're responsible?

So, if you have control, tends to indicate you also then get responsibility,

whereas if you are something like GoDaddy, who just provides an ability

for people to publish websites, you don't really have a control on that.

So, yeah, the more control you have, the more exposure to liability, and if you're

out there and you're, you're not even an owner, but just an administrator of.

A Facebook page and ephemerality comments are made.

There is some risk there.

So do you think it

could have some like good implications though, as well, for

instance, so having a conversation with a teacher today who was saying maybe

less attention on clickbait type articles and more attention on factual reporting,

because if it's actually problematic that you're going to be causing up

controversy, perhaps you'll avoid it.

And another possibility is that.

Do you think it would give some commenters pause before?

I know they're not technically liable,

but Oh, no, they are too.

So the commenters are also liable, but the point is, do they have any money,

and it's just difficult to sue them.

So from Dylan Voller's point of view, he could undoubtedly have sued the

commentators, but it's just much easier to sue News Corp, isn't it?

So, yeah, he could sue both.

So the commentators are still liable.

Yeah, that's a point I didn't mention.

So yeah, I think you're right.

To your point,

Trevor, around the comments on the Notice of Emplacation, to you.

I don't know that you could be necessarily infamatory

against a group, so if you went All Christians are flogs.

Yes.

Hypothetically.

How easy that would be to prosecute.

Whereas if you named an individual

and made defamatory comments about the individual

that would be different.

Yes.

We'll get on to what's defamatory.

So that's true too.

One option is, as well, so, well, the Parliament can

just pass a law to fix this.

So, you know, the High Court said, well, here's the law as it stands.

Now it's entirely open to you.

the Parliament to pass a law and say, well, actually under this Communications

Act of 2021, the owners of Facebook pages are not liable or something like that.

So that can be fixed that way.

So there is that.

The other thing you could do is you could think about Putting

the ownership of a page with an entity that can afford to be sued.

So you could have shell companies or things like that that you could use.

You mean like the Catholic church, um, cemetery fund or whatever it was?

Yeah.

Yes.

So the, the Catholic Church has lots of different entities, so when things

go sour on one of them, it's sort of limited to that particular entity.

So, I mean, it's a common practice in business that you would,

with a business you might have.

A holding company that owns all the assets, and you would have an operating

company that operates the business.

So if a legal liability is created through operating the business,

then that operating company gets sued, but not the holding company.

So, you know, that's a sort of a common thing is to try and just think

about who owns these businesses.

So, you know, maybe the Noosa Temple of Satan needs to create a company

limited by guarantee that then owns the Facebook page, so that

then that's where you get sued.

So, incidentally, dear listener, this podcast is owned and

produced by Xenor, P D Y L T D.

If you would like to sue for any defamation made by any of

the participants or the owner, it's Xenor that owns it, not me.

So, that sort of thing is going to become increasingly important

until the courts fix this up.

Little disclaimers like that, so.

So yeah, that's things to think about.

But, according to Facebook, an admin, an editor, and a moderator are able

to respond to and delete comments.

So potentially they're all Potentially liable for defamatory comments.

It's an interesting one.

So, so I think it actually will help maybe make Facebook less toxic, which is

what you were talking about before, Shea, that I reckon even something like the

Nursery Temple of Satan might just say This article here, we'll just reframe it

or we'll calm it down a bit because we don't want people going too rabid on it.

I think, I think you could see groups maybe instead of unleashing

the wolf pack, if you like, they'll Think twice about it perhaps.

So

I've seen from most of what I've seen from the news, the Temple of Satan.

Mm-Hmm.

Uh, their comments are often hilarious.

Yes.

And they, they and, and sensible.

Yes.

But I guess I'm on, I'm on a particular team, aren't I?

Yes.

But it's actually when some of the people who are opposed

to the Noosa Temple of Satan.

They have the really ugly, ugly comments.

And for them it still stands, right?

Yeah.

Well, you know, the other point is, I might be able to go onto different

Facebook pages and find people who have defamed me because of my court case.

And make a claim against the publishers of those comments.

So, Joe, I did an interview with, it was RT or something,

and um, like an international, um, website, and it was crazy.

It's Russia Today.

Russia Today, yes.

It's owned by Vladimir Putin, or at least his government.

He's a wholly owned state publisher, and it contains about as much truth as

Pravda did.

Yeah.

The main focus of the comments was whether I was Jewish or not.

Yes.

They were convinced I was Jewish.

A couple of them said There was an amazing amount of anti Semitism in those comments.

A couple of them said Look at his big nose!

Seriously!

And how Bell was obviously a changed name.

That

you weren't of Irish descent.

Yes, exactly.

But you'd obviously changed

it from

something very obviously Jewish.

This is all true, Shane.

This is absolutely all true.

They were convinced I was part of a Jewish conspiracy.

And why had you been invited on?

Oh, because the guy had seen the articles and found it an interesting topic, and

he gave me a fair interview, and it was all very fair, the interview, but it was

just crazy how these people had jumped to this conclusion about, sort of, some sort

of Jewish conspiracy that I was part of.

Just found

that a musical accent was interviewing an Aussie on a Russian show.

Yeah, Joe, your internet is going a bit off on us.

You might have to take your video off if your stream isn't strong enough.

Joe, dear listener, is in central Queensland tethered up to some, some

mouse running on a treadmill or something.

So we might take Joe's Hotel Wi Fi.

Yeah, Hotel Wi Fi.

Okay, so that's better.

Joe's gonna disappear video wise and we'll just have his audio, which will help, so.

But yeah, I don't look at the comments on any of these things, it was just that Joe

alerted me to the whole Jewish conspiracy thing, so I had to look at that, so.

So, yeah.

So anyway, but yeah, there'll be plenty of people who've said awful things about us

that we might actually have a claim, so.

Works both ways.

Hmm.

Might turn it, might actually turn this Satanism into a profit making exercise.

So look, we just need to, let's talk about what is defamation, just briefly anyway.

So it's a question of fact to be determined by court, considering a

number of judicial principles, whether reasonable members of the community,

either seeing, hearing or reading the matter, will likely lead to a lowering

of the relevant person's reputation, Lead others to think less of them.

Make others shun or avoid them.

Cause others to ridicule, hate or despise them.

So, that's the nature of the sort of, what is defamatory.

There are defences, if it's, uh, justification, if it's substantially true.

Things like privilege in parliament, public documents, fair reporting

of, of a public thing, so a court reporter, court reporting.

The difficult one is an honest opinion, expressed as an opinion.

On a matter of public interest and based on material that is

apparently and is substantially true.

So someone like Friendly Jordy's, I guess is relying on that as

one of his defenses with Barros.

So, and there's also innocent dissemination if you're a bookseller or a

librarian handing over a book that's got defamatory material in it, you could have

that defensive, innocent dissemination.

So.

So yeah, defamation, I think this is one where the core, where the

parliament could possibly step in and do something about that.

Now, so that's enough about defamation.

In the chat room, I'll have a look at those.

Shay, I, well, I heard about a voluntary assisted dying.

Well it wasn't a prayer vigil, it was just a get together yesterday.

You want to tell us about it?

You were there.

Yes.

So, yesterday, outside Parliament House in Brisbane at, I think, 5.

30, about 200 people gathered, Deep Throat was there.

Did he talk?

Was he one of the official speakers or was he just

No, so the president spoke on behalf of their group.

So, a whole range of groups were there.

There was a couple of MPs already there.

Nothing we haven't really heard before.

Paramedics were just discussing.

what it's like to be frontline staff and have to come to scenes where

elderly, frail or really sick people see no other way out than suicide

and they've accidentally overdosed or that type of thing and having to

be the first responders and let the families know and you know, it is, it

is unnecessary and they were calling for compassion and I think these laws

are really fair, really well considered.

Really fair.

I can't see why you'd

oppose them.

They make baby Jesus die.

They make baby Jesus

cry.

Yes.

So anyway, Deepthroat was saying, I think he said they needed 47?

Yes.

And he's expecting 56 MPs to

vote yes.

Yeah.

I saw a report in the Courier Mail or the Sunday Mail which said that,

There were 43 already who were kind of public and said they were definitely

going to vote yes, and there was a whole bunch of undecideds to draw from,

and then a reasonable number of no's.

But on people who had already publicly said they were going to vote yes, 43

already, and in a fair number of people who hadn't yet said to be drawn from.

So that sounds good, yes.

All the word on the street is it's quite positive.

So for people in other states, Queensland, our parliament is

debating it over the next day or two.

I think a vote might be Thursday or something, I'm not exactly sure.

The big question will be the.

Really, the Catholic Church is the biggest fighter against it, and what

they're really arguing for, they've kind of given in that they're going

to lose in terms of some sort of voluntary assisted dying being allowed.

This particular act allows for it to occur in Catholic hospitals in

certain circumstances, and so they're really pushing hard to try and

have that part of the legislature changed before it's passed.

So, yeah.

The Catters

have also come out to say that they want the bill amended to

include something around palliative care for regional Queensland.

And yeah, so anyway, it should still pass without amendment, but

there's lots of people trying to cash in and have it amended to suit

their needs.

So with a bit of luck, I might have, he doesn't even know it yet, but I

might have Deep Throat on next week, hopefully, to talk about the success.

He's like, I want it to

come, but I'm at capacity.

He's like, I've got all these jobs my wife wants me to do.

Yes, he's a busy man, Deep Throat.

So Alison was there.

Alison's in the chat room and I see she was there at the.

Gathering.

So took a lovely photo as well, Alison.

Nice photo.

I might even use that with this podcast, Alison, if that's okay.

So yeah, so we remain to see in Queensland, but it's looking pretty

good at this stage and it will be

And the opposition leader, he came out and said he voted no.

Yes.

Catholic as well.

Yeah.

So yeah, there's a real, it's, it's pretty good.

It seems to be purely based on religion.

The people who object are all relying on their mostly Catholic faith.

What way is Tim Mander voting?

I haven't heard.

Don't know.

Does anybody in the chat room know, Alison, know what Tim Mander's doing?

But I'm not sure.

Actually, it might be in the Sunday Mail article, but I don't

know that I've got it handy.

I don't think I do.

All right.

Well, still on, uh, Religious groups trying to interfere with good laws.

Let's turn our attention to Texas, in the United States of America.

Or should I say Gilead?

So, this is quite extraordinary what's happened in Texas, dear listener.

So, in America they've had Roe v.

Wade, which was the case which basically legalized abortion in Texas.

America.

The whole abortion debate, by the way, is just such a beat up, because if

you go back long enough, the religious groups just didn't care, and it was

really done as a political move by some religious groups, and it just

got developed a life all of its own.

But there was certainly a period in American history, going back to the

50s, I think, where, 50s and 60s, where the religious groups, it was

no big deal, abortion law, but it was made a big deal for political reasons.

So anyway, Roe v Wade.

Um, was, you know, the decision that legalised it in America.

And what Texas has done, as a state, to try and overcome this law, is they've

basically passed a law to say that women who get an abortion after the sixth week

of pregnancy, they can, they could be sued by any person in Texas for 10, 000.

And not only the woman who has the abortion, but anybody who assists,

which could be the surgeon, the nurse, and the Uber driver who

took her there, can all be sued.

So it's a kind of a vigilante system where they've set up to

encourage private citizens, rather than the state, private citizens.

To sue these people, and the way it's been framed is that if you do decide

to sue somebody, to say they were involved in one of these abortions,

then, then, actually John in the chat room says, not the woman, okay, must

be all the people who are assisting.

Thank you, John.

So the, so the doctors and assistants and the facilities, et cetera.

So what they've done is they've said to a Texan, if you do sue and you happen to

lose, you won't have to pay their costs.

So it's really easy for them to start actions against people and not

even have to worry about the cost.

And of course, if they win, they'll get their costs.

So really tough for potential defendants to have to defend these potentially

spurious claims and not be able to get costs back as a deterrent.

So Tony in the chat room also confirmed specifically not the

woman getting the abortion.

Thank you guys.

Okay.

That's why it can still stay within Roe v Wade and doesn't

In their eyes, Contravena.

That makes sense.

So What do you reckon, Shea?

Sixth week, sixth week of pregnancy.

Most women wouldn't even know they are pregnant.

That's right.

So, speaking of fairness, there just isn't any in this law.

And from what I heard on the news, a whole range of people are scrambling.

So a transport company has come 1 million pool fund.

to defend any of their employees who come up against this law,

which is just so unnecessary.

And they made perfect, perfect argument about, we don't really ask people why

they are going where they are going.

That's not part of the service either.

And a question of bodily autonomy.

And yeah, it's just like, it's hard.

I'm, I'm struggling to get words because I'm just like raging.

Because.

It probably will be unconstitutional, but that could take years.

And in meanwhile, abortion centers are so alarmed by this law that

they haven't been open for business.

So the law has worked per se, because women can't get a service.

And then as, as the point you make.

So unless you're actively practicing to get pregnant, six weeks is not

a long time because you have your, I mean, I know everybody knows,

probably too much information, but you get your period every month.

So you could likely conceive right after your period and be four weeks, six weeks

pregnant before you even think to check.

Why you, you know, aren't normal in your cycle.

Just, it's so fucking unfair.

Yeah, you've got to make a decision and decide and go somewhere and get it done.

Like it's just Roman in the chat room says, the Texas governor argues

that six weeks is plenty of time for a woman to get an abortion.

Therefore, they're not banning abortion as such.

And it's technically

not six weeks.

Uh, eat.

Fetal heartbeat.

Yes.

Which is around six weeks.

Yes.

So it's about whether a heartbeat is detected or not.

So, so it's just an extraordinary situation where these conservative

religious groups They've taken control of Texas and thumbed their nose at

women, like half the population.

According

to this podcast I was listening to today, they've also taken

control of the Republican Party.

So it's very unlikely now that you'll have a Republican ever run who is

pro choice, and it's unlikely you'll ever have a Democrat who's pro life.

Fracturing these party lines this way is, you know, really impactful that

you just, you're over here on this team so you think this particular

way on this particular issue.

It's a spectrum.

People think this sort of stuff won't happen in Australia.

I think that's

naive.

You've only got to look at the Queensland Parliament right now with this bad

law where it's, it's basically the hardcore Catholic religious on one side.

And everybody else on the other, to a large extent, so I saw a comment today on

the

Jared Blay post, that the Noosa Temple shared,

which was saying it was the satanic Labor government that had

introduced abortion laws and they were hoping that when the LNP came

into power, they would overturn

it.

There you go, of course.

Like, I mean, I started this podcast with Scott and then with Paul, you

know, six years ago, and we were banging on about secularism and the need for

it and, and railing about religious people sort of taking control, too

much influence and too much power.

And this is the sort of thing that had us worried, as we could see happening

in the States and is increasingly happening here in Australia.

You need to know what your politician's religious belief is

in order to understand, to a large extent, much of their voting, what

their voting practice will be.

So it's a hugely relevant thing and if you want to know, in terms

of our Federal Parliament, you can have a look on the website.

Website for the Iron Fist Velvet Glove and have a look at the secular index where I

got down there Every member of parliament to the best of my knowledge what their

religion is And also i've given them a score as to how secular they are So so,

you know, it is possible to be religious and secular and Dan Andrews in Victoria is

one example but gee, they're few and far between so just I think as James in the

The chat room said, what did he say, he said I'm difficult to believe that America

can throw its weight around globally and behave like the Taliban in Texas.

It's, it's true.

Yeah.

So, frightening, really.

I mean, this is the United States of America, and if it can

happen there, it can happen here.

Just give it enough time.

So, that's scary.

Two weeks

ago I was at another rally for the discrimination bill, supposed to

be coming in the end of this year, and largely I'd say it's probably

about 100 people there, mostly.

I always get the letters wrong.

I apologise for my,

LGBTIQ?

No.

community.

And I was just standing there thinking, yes, these people are clear that this

law will be largely enforced upon them.

But couldn't you be a middle aged divorced man and lose your job over that?

My point is, is that it's not likely to be enforced on particular groups.

It's only likely to be enforced on these particular groups.

So how do we get the people that are less impacted to care?

Because that's what we need.

We need

more humans.

How do we get people to care, Shai?

Yes!

I thought you'd have the answer.

Well, I've said it before, but part of the problem is people are too busy

and they're scrambling around with no time on their hands to even know about things,

let alone, I think when people know they might summon up some empathy and care, but

people are so busy, they don't even know.

So I think that's part of the problem, but I have no solution for that.

If you've got one in the chat room, please put it forward.

Sorry.

So that's, of course, what's also happening in America then is

that other states have said that they're going to do the same thing.

So North Dakota, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota

and Arkansas have said they are looking to adopt a similar ban.

There we go.

Oh dear.

Have you read Margaret Atwood's books on Gilead with The Handmaid's Tale, Joe?

You've read them at all?

Good books to read, dear listener.

Yeah, in those books, the USA just gets taken over by these, these guys.

And it's looking more and more like a documentary than a dystopian fiction.

But anyway, so in America, the satanic temple over there has joined in the fight.

And they're arguing that according to their strongly held religious belief,

people have their own right to their own body, and that this would be a

breach of their religious freedom.

But previously, the Satanic Temple hasn't had much luck in these sorts of

arguments in the United States, where the courts have basically ignored them.

So don't know that they'll have much luck, but good luck from us in that one.

And Joe, you made a comment about gun control, do you want

to give your gun control theory?

Yeah, it's been suggested

that a state such as California, which is very left leaning, by American

standards very left leaning, could possibly introduce an equivalent law that

allowed, in the case of a shooting death, that the people involved in the supply

of the weapon could be sued by any court.

Any party in the state and make it a mirror law of the

Texas.

Yes, you wouldn't have to be a victim of a shooting.

Yeah, the Supreme Court had refused to stay.

So they haven't refused to hear it, they just refused to stay it.

So somebody would have to be sued, and then it would have to

be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court before they'd actually

hear it, and have to make a ruling.

But in the meantime, one of the other states, one of the

democratic states, could introduce gun patrol in the same way.

Yes.

Which might push the Supreme Courts to think very, very hard

about whether they want this.

Yes, yep, so that's, that's one option that could be done.

The other thing, of course, is that people have been flooding the website

with Supposedly false claims of, of assisting abortions by the legislators

who have passed this stuff, so, you know, if there's no cost against

you for making a false claim, well, why not just make a false claim?

Is that right, Joe?

I, I believe the legislators are exempt.

Ah, okay.

But it was suggested that their families are not.

Okay, so, so yeah, cluttering up the system with, with a bunch of

claims is one thing that's happening.

Mm hmm.

So anyway, that's Texas and the United States of America, and if

you, that's just another piece of evidence of the decline of the empire,

as it withers away into irrelevancy over the next couple of decades.

Right, just quickly, I found this one, I always think of Japan as being

relatively reasonable, but a right wing female nationalist has Bolted

into the contest to be the next Japanese Prime Minister, Taka Ishii.

If Paul was here, he could give a really good pronunciation.

She's 60.

She's a conservative nationalist who wants to promote patriotic

pride and rejects apologizing for Japan's actions in World War II.

She worships at the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo where hanged war criminals

are revered as Shinto deities.

And her policies include changing the post war constitution The post war constitution

to remove the constraints on the armed forces, and she opposes Japanese women

keeping their own names when they marry.

So, Japan getting a little taste of Religious right wing nuttery,

I think, potentially there.

Nobody's immune.

I also read something, I haven't heard much about this, but there was, I

think they passed the legislation that political parties now need 1500 members.

Joe, did you see anything about that?

Yeah,

I did see some commentary around that.

The International Socialist Youth, I think, were asking people to join them.

But they, they reckon that 30 small parties will be deregistered

when this law comes into

effect.

Yep.

So Just from our own experience back when we were members of the secular

party, they needed 500 members and it was always a bit of a struggle,

but eventually they got there.

But I couldn't imagine a group like the secular party being

able to rustle up 1500 members.

Unless something dramatic has changed since I was there, so a lot of minor

parties are going to disappear.

I don't know.

What do you reckon, Shae?

Like, I mean, if you can only rustle up 500, 1, 500 doesn't

sound like an unreasonable number to be a political party.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I think, I think when you look at the Palmer United Party and

Craig Kelly and all this mad.

Bizarre stuff that's happening, seems kind of sensible to do it, but then

It's 1500 people or a member in

Parliament.

Yeah.

And of course, Craig Kelly is in

Parliament.

Oh, so it doesn't help us there.

That's right.

So Clive Palmer doesn't need to rustle up 1500, he just needs the one member.

Yeah.

Oh, he's cleverer than me, that's for sure.

Yeah.

Of course, if he has a falling out with that one member, then he

no longer has a party, does he?

She has a reputation

for it as well.

You could put money on that, perhaps, but yeah, so if you've

just got one member, that's enough.

You don't need the 1, 500.

Well, I don't know.

You

were part of a minor party.

I was never part of it.

Did you think it was, like, really worthwhile?

You think 500's plenty?

I didn't really think about the number at the time.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But, um, as I think about it now, like, you know, 500 isn't many for a team.

Yeah, but, um, my understanding

is even the major parties have problems getting members.

Yes.

Mm.

People are just that pathetic.

Yes.

So, anyway, that is what it is, and a lot of minor parties are going to disappear

from the scene over the next little while.

Oh, look, we're scooting around various different topics at the moment, but just

another obscure one to get through is, you might remember Susan Lay, who was

part of a case where these kids sued her and said, if you approve coal mining.

operations, then that is harmful to us because it will exacerbate climate

change and therefore you owe us a duty of care and therefore we're suing you

under this new notion of duty of care seeking an injunction that you not

pass a law enabling this coal mine.

And at the time the court said good argument, like it, yes she

does owe you a duty of care.

But we're not actually convinced that she's going to approve a coal mine at

any time in the near future, so we're not going to give you your injunction.

But we like the idea of it, is what the court said.

Anyway, she's come out and she's approved a coal mine.

Well, she's approved Wollongong's coals application to expand

existing underground coal mining.

It's Russell Vale Colliery.

North of Wollongong.

And yeah, back in May, the Federal Court ruled that the Environment

Minister had a common law duty of care to protect younger people.

So, so what's happened here is, I think as part of the argument in this, that's

going to come forward, and I'm not sure where I got this from, but her defence,

or her argument in this case, Lay wrote that she had found the mine's expansion

was unlikely to lead to an increase in global average surface temperatures.

based on advice she received from the department.

She said this was because the mine was unlikely to cause more coal to

be consumed globally than would be consumed if she refused the project.

So she also found the project was unlikely to cause harm due to human safety

because it was likely that a comparable amount of coal Would be consumed in its

place if she rejected the development.

I think this was in her reasons for approving the development.

So She will basically be saying I'm not exasperating Exacerbating climate

change problems I haven't breached my duty to these children because if we

don't sell the coal to these people They're just gonna buy it from somewhere

else and burn it anyway So we haven't really That's a clever argument.

She's done them a favour!

She's actually done them a favour.

See?

She's not surprised she has a duty of care.

She hasn't

broken it because, hey If I don't sell it, someone else will, so how could

you say that I've It's interesting, eh?

Excellent.

So, so you can kill someone because they were going

to die at some stage anyway.

Yes.

Meanwhile, she's appealing, so she's trying to get that duty of care

thing.

Yeah, but I think in her reasons she said, well, even if I do have a duty

of care, I haven't breached it because, overall, in terms of the planet.

If we don't provide the Coal, somebody else will.

So, there we go.

Interesting argument.

We'll see how that one flies.

We'll come back to that at some stage in the next few months.

But yeah, I thought that was a really cute argument anyway.

Alright, let's talk about some COVID stuff.

So one of the things I was thinking about, although it's been going

through my head, is about people, we're obviously now turning our attention

to what rules we can impose on people to force them to be vaccinated.

Is a big thing that we're all turning our attention to and these vaccine passports

and the need for people to get vaccinated who don't want to and what we can do.

in terms of pressures on them to force them to come to the party.

So, so what I was thinking about or what's become apparent was that

what harm does somebody who is unvaccinated cause to the rest of us?

And because we know that vaccinated people can still catch the COVID and

can still Pass it on to other people, so if vaccination doesn't prevent

that, then what's the difference?

People can either get it from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated

person, so that's kind of the argument that people are making,

is that, is that sort of argument.

And At the end of the day, the evidence seems to be that, well,

breakthrough infections don't always happen with vaccinated people, so

it does have some effect in stopping people from having a breakthrough

infection by being vaccinated.

And also, when you are vaccinated, then you just, you clear the virus more

quickly, reducing the length of time you are infectious and can pass the virus on.

So, if you hear the argument from people to say, well, you can get it even if

you are vaccinated, the point is you are still a much greater risk to the rest

of the community if you're unvaccinated because your chances of actually passing

it on are greater and you're going to be holding the virus with a high viral load

longer than somebody who is vaccinated.

So, so Trevor, you remember,

you remember your discussion of the R0?

recently.

Yes, yes.

That was the rate at which people infect someone else.

Yes.

And with Delta, it was kind of five, six, seven, somewhere, not sure, one person.

Yep.

And

so what they're saying is the vaccine and masks both have

an effect on the R0 figure.

And if you are vaccinated and you wear a mask in enclosed spaces,

you could drop the R0 down by possibly a couple of, uh, degrees.

So you could drop an R0 from six down to four.

So you're still infectious.

But, uh, you know, as we saw with the figures from a six to a four was

the difference between what was it?

10 deaths and a thousand

deaths?

Yeah.

Huge difference.

A couple of notches in that number.

Yeah.

Yep.

So, so anyway, I thought that was interesting because it is something that

you see in Facebook posts and commentary.

Where people, uh, talk about why should they get vaccinated, uh,

if they don't want to, it's their own risk, and the answer is, well,

actually, you're also more of a risk to the rest of the community.

That's just how it is.

That's the science of it.

Um.

Yeah, it's kind of like

saying, oh, well, it doesn't matter whether I'm, uh, 0.

06 on my blood alcohol or 0.

70.

Because, you know, if I'm drink driving, I'm drink driving,

it doesn't matter how much

over the limit I am.

So, I never watch morning TV.

Shay, tell me you don't watch morning TV.

Watch Sunrise?

Okay, so, a high profile of Australia's most popular breakfast

show, Sunrise, have refused to have their noses powdered and hair styled.

By any crew members who are unvaccinated.

In what is likely to be a landmark development for the

entire local television industry.

So many staff who do hair and makeup are freelancers who work

on other shows throughout Sydney.

So there's one in particular who refused to go.

get vaccinated and she has been barred from working on the show.

So what do you reckon Shay?

Fair enough.

Well, we've certainly seen during this COVID, like I just related to

our, like flight attendants experience.

So we've seen how quickly an unvaccinated flight attendant, she

could be doing four sectors a day.

So she could come up against a thousand people in that day, kind of

freelancing from Melbourne, Sydney, Sydney, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane.

So if she's.

If she isn't vaccinated, could be a super spreader event.

So Qantas mandated vaccines.

Meanwhile, there have been people who genuinely need an exemption and they're

just like, I'm not kissing my job goodbye.

And I don't know what the answer is for them.

I genuinely don't.

Why

did they genuinely need an exemption?

They're

claiming that they have research to suggest it would mess with IVF.

Ah, okay.

That's interesting.

Yes.

I believe that's not correct.

So there

has been concerns about fertility and my understanding

is the concerns are unfounded.

But

fertility and actually using IVF is different.

So it might not be

actually your ability That's an interesting one.

I think when we talk about things like vaccine passports,

I think it's, we need a doctor's recognition that you are sufficiently

protected, and whether that's you're unable to have the

vaccine, you've had the vaccine, or you've been exposed recently

enough for you to have a degree of

protection.

Is it not a bit lazy mandating?

Couldn't we run an education program or have people speak to doctors,

nurses, people in their community?

It is

lazy, but unfortunately it's very difficult with the amount

of misinformation that's out

there.

Do you reckon though we could have a, why do we need something mandatory about blood

alcohol levels when people are driving?

Surely if we just educated people and said to Don't drink and drive.

It's the threat of getting caught and having a fine that stops people.

Same with speeding.

All the education in the world, people sometimes need, you know,

it doesn't always cut it, does it?

If you look at it from that point of view.

Yeah, you're right.

We can coerce or we can use

incentives.

Yeah, or we can do both.

Yes.

Or we could do both.

Yes, or we could use carrots rather than sticks, maybe.

So I've got on the, on the screen for those watching in the chat room,

this is, In your opinion, should being vaccinated against COVID 19 be

mandatory in the following circumstances?

And there's a list of occupations.

And starting at the top, health workers at hospitals and clinics, 83 percent

of people reckon, yep, it should be mandatory for health workers.

Aged care and disability care workers at care facilities, 82 percent of Australians

think, yep, it should be mandatory.

I think Queensland,

they're actually having problems finding aged care nurses that are willing

to be vaccinated, which is shocking.

Yeah.

Is

it?

Is it shocking, considering their conditions are so low, just because you're

an aged care nurse doesn't actually, I don't think that always means that

you've done a nursing degree, does it?

Is it, is it nurses or just workers?

Joe, well, you probably don't know.

No, no, it was nurses.

Yeah, yeah.

One of the nurses unions.

to be something going

on in aged care in particular.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I find it strange.

But a nurse would not want to be vaccinated.

But nurses

are notorious for pseudoscience and quackery, unfortunately.

Right.

There

is a, there's a large number of them because a nursing degree

isn't necessarily around the science.

Yes.

Okay, it's more vocational.

And,

but my thought was, you know, aged care, you're going into a facility where

there's an at risk population, you know,

I, it just,

it's beyond belief, I think.

Knowing that you're working with

a high risk group.

Yes, if you're in the caring profession and you are really caring about your

clientele, the little old ladies and men in your nursing home, you would,

yeah, but I guess if, as you say, there's, as Tony in the chat room

said, sort of, at the same time you were saying it, Joe, he commented and

said, there's a lot of pseudoscience and woo in the nursing community.

Yeah.

You

know, I, I just think people never valued these sorts of caring professions.

Suddenly they do.

Now we're all like, Oh, how could they?

Yeah.

That's so frustrating.

Yeah.

They've

let us down.

So anyway, back to this.

So in terms of professions where Australians think it should be mandatory

to be vaccinated to work in them.

So the top one was health workers at hospitals, then aged care facilities.

Third one on the list.

Can I just

quickly say to John, if you don't want a nurse who isn't vaccinated,

looking after your parents, come to some rallies around increasing

their wages and their conditions.

What is that expression about?

Pay them, value them, appreciate them, and you never know, they

might follow health advice.

So

annoying.

Anyway, as you were saying, Trevor.

I'm

in a bad mood

today, sorry.

Good on you, you're feisty.

Yeah.

For passengers going on flights, 77 percent of people think it

should be mandatory for passengers.

Doesn't talk about flight attendance, but one assumes even higher.

You would have thought.

Teachers and teachers aid, 74%.

Spectators at events, 69%.

For patrons to visit hospitality and entertainment venues, 68 percent of

Australians think if you want to go to the cinema or a pub or a cafe or

restaurant, you should be vaccinated.

That's what 68% It's interesting looking at the male female spread.

So health,

aged care, passengers to go on flights, more women

than men, and teachers.

But as soon as we get to sports events, hospitality venues, employees,

it's suddenly women less caring

than men are.

Yes.

Don't know what's going on there.

No, it's a bit bizarre.

Yeah.

Given that, yeah, I don't know.

Customers at retail shopping stores, 58%.

I don't know.

Look, in Denmark, I believe, at the moment, it's, it's quite

liberal there at the moment.

They've basically said, we're working as if, if you've had the

chance to have a vaccination, you've either got it or you haven't.

It's up to you.

And we're just charging on as per normal now.

We're not having passports or anything.

We're just doing it.

And I've got the feeling, my prediction will be in Australia, we will have

initially these sorts of requirements and then we will, then we will

abandon them, I reckon, after a while.

So I reckon we'll be dead keen first up and then after a while, we'll just

go, we're over this and we'll drop it.

So.

Well, I

think once it becomes endemic rather than a pandemic.

Yes.

It'll be, it'll be much like the

Flea Vax.

Yeah, so that's where I think we're heading.

So anyway, that was from Essential Poll today, and just briefly in that poll for

I'll never get vaccinated, it was only 6%.

So that was a nice low figure.

So hopefully that carries through for the rest of the population.

Oh, I see a lot of comparisons between.

A driver's license and a vaccine passport and seems a sort of a fair

analogy to me on a lot of levels.

Seeing that, one thing I was, you know, one law I'd like to consider.

We did this actually, Scott and I, years ago, I remember we were

talking about organ transplants.

And people who refused to be an organ donor, we thought that they should, there

should be a system so that those people are then put way at the bottom of the

list to not receive an organ if there was multiple applicants for the one organ.

Seemed like a fair solution at the time.

And, One of the things with the unvaccinated would be, it's kind of

tempting to say to them, even if, okay, the fact that they're actually causing

more, potentially more harm to other people means it's just, it's hard to

just let it go through to the keeper, but if, for example, there was no

extra risk from unvaccinated people.

It would be really nice to be able to say to them, Well, of course,

if our hospitals are full, then you don't get to go in, and bad luck.

So, so that will sort of, these people are at risk of, of being

segregated or discriminated against anyway for legitimate reasons.

So if the hospitals are full at some point, and they're talking about

the hospitals getting full, doctors will be able to say, well, this

particular person has, is vaccinated.

This one isn't.

The vaccinated one, we actually got a better chance of saving

them if we will use our limited resources on this vaccinated one.

And we won't, in the same way that we won't give a lung transplant to

a smoker, these sorts of things, these sorts of decisions are made

when there's limited resources.

So, so that's only when there's limited resources and the beds

are numbered and they're having to really Distribute scant resources.

Hopefully we won't get to that point and even stupid people who are voluntarily

unvaccinated who could have but decided not to, hopefully we're still able to

look after them in a hospital somewhere.

So a bit like when, you know, in hospitals we do look after people who have had

lung issues but they're a smoker.

Or, they are in a car accident and they didn't put a seatbelt on, or a

motorbike accident and they didn't have a helmet on, we still say to

these people, well you bloody idiot but we'll look after you anyway, so,

so provided we've got the resources, that's, now that should pan out.

Oh, the other one I thought, here's a, here's an interesting

one, how about this law?

No sick leave for COVID if you're Unvaccinated.

And the employer can ask to see a negative test.

Interestingly enough, in negotiation with unions at the moment

about

mandating vaccination for frontline staff, and those who are required

to come into the office to work.

Right.

So they're very, very

keen on supporting people working from home.

Yeah.

But they're saying for, for the people who are out in the community, for those

who are in the shops and those who are in the data centers or the, the

operation centers where they babysit the network, they are negotiating around

making it mandatory.

Right.

And, and the usual anti vax spiel was in the forums about

whether or not it should go ahead.

And they're saying, look, we'll transfer you where it's possible, maybe.

But at the end of the day, if there's no suitable role, it's

quite possible you will be let go.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And

they're saying, because at the very least, you know, the people

who are out in the field and stuff.

Ha ha ha.

I think to go into a local government office in New South Wales, you're

now going to need to be vaccinated.

So they have a legal requirement for their staff and again for aged care facilities.

One of my customers is an aged care facility and they're saying that

the government has mandated that all workers must be vaccinated fairly soon.

Visitors or contractors must be

vaccinated.

So in the chat room, what do you think of my sick leave idea?

No sick leave if you're unvaccinated and the employer could say, well, you're sick,

just show me you've got a vac, you know, that you've, you've been vaccinated and

otherwise your sick leave may not apply.

I mean, if people get really, really ill and they're out of work

for months because they weren't vaccinated, there's an incentive.

Sounds a bit hardcore, I know, but a little bit tempting.

And you're

less likely to get long COVID if you're vaccinated.

Yes.

Or the completely

impossible to get long COVID.

Yeah.

But if you're vaccinated, you'll get your sick leave.

If you're not, and you're sick because of COVID, then, anyway, haven't heard

of that one, bandied about, maybe because it's just totally outrageous.

So, so there's that.

Possibly too sensible.

Yeah.

So, Prime Minister Scott Morrison at one point stressed, yes, stressed

that under existing property law, businesses have the right to deny

entry to unvaccinated people.

He says that is the law.

He says a business or a shop can refuse entry or service to

any person as long as they don't breach anti discrimination laws.

So you can't do it on the basis of race, age, gender, or disability.

For example, employers have a duty of care as well.

But for example, restaurants are able to deny entry to customers who choose

not to meet dress codes, as long as the rules apply equally to everyone.

So, people often talk about their freedoms, and they, you know, freedom

of speech, and they forget about all of the things that actually are

on the books already that prevent freedom of speech, like defamation.

And when it comes to entering businesses and being able to enjoy

the facilities, there are already restrictions on, on your entry.

So, yeah, there are dress codes.

And if you want to enter a club, like a surf club down the Gold Coast,

you have to bring your driver's license with you to prove your

address and where you've come from.

No driver's license, you can't get in.

So, It's, you know, another example of having to present a document in

order to eat at, you know, a surf club.

That's how it operates, unless you're a member, in which case you've got

to bring your membership card along.

So, there are already some restrictions in our community for these sorts of things.

What else have I got here?

Did you get a text message from What's his name?

Great Kelly.

Did you get one?

I've not only got one, I've also sent two texts to his private

number.

Yes.

Have you?

Yes.

Yes.

Now, is that his old number?

Very politely.

Is that his old number or his new number?

One

was his new number and all they said was, Please remove

me from your SMS marketing

campaigns.

Right.

Because

obviously it's illegal to send abusive, offensive or threatening

messages through a carriage service.

So I would never do

a thing like that.

Yes.

So Crikey has been publishing his phone numbers.

So they published his most recent one just the other day.

So people might want to know what that one is.

Um, let's see if I can Apparently it's already been turned off.

Ah, okay.

Ah, damn!

Ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Okay.

Sorry James in the chat room, no point getting to you.

So, um, giving that one to you, cause he's already changed it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Right.

What else have I got here?

Guy Sebastian, you're aware of what he's up to?

Yes.

Mm hmm.

Yes, even Ben Lee criticizes you, you've really done.

Ben Lee's the one who sings that song about being happy.

Yes.

I don't know if you've heard of that, but anyway, little folk singer.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So, uh, Guy Sebastian, um, joined hundreds of his peers lending their

names and voices to a pro vaccination campaign named hashtag VaxTheNation.

And he removed a Facebook post supporting the initiative and he

said it was posted on his Facebook page without his direct involvement.

And he took issue with how the message was framed for his 837, 000 followers.

And he said, quote, it is not my role to communicate in the way

that that post was communicating.

I would never, ever tell people what to do when it comes to personal health choices.

I just want to say I'm really sorry.

It was not a post that communicated with love or compassion, which I feel

is what's needed when it comes to addressing things like vaccinations.

So he's come on board on this thing and then he's backpedaled out of it.

Don't take vaccination advice from pop stars, my advice.

So he says he's personally, he says he's double vaccinated.

He just doesn't think he should be telling other people what to do.

Did you see who won The Voice during the week?

Only because of your notes, Trevor.

So the winner was Hillsong Devotee.

So, one of the theories going around is that they would have been red

hot in the Hillsong movement for voting for her, and I reckon that

could easily have been the case.

Like, they know how to motivate people and to rustle up noise, don't they?

We've seen that numerous times.

Has she got any talent?

No, she's a good singer.

Apparently she has.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Beautiful singer.

Because I was

going to say, like, the one time Curiously Go Down to

Hillsong, I did notice that.

Very professional stage show, they get, obviously get proper training,

I mean, there is a chance she won on

talent, don't you think?

No, she had an excellent voice, but yeah, yeah, with Guy Sebastian sort of

in that Hillsong thing and her as well.

Well, apparently he's not.

He's not?

Ah.

No, apparently he's an evangelical, but he's not part of Hillsong.

Right, okay.

Bye.

Interestingly, the BBC just did a documentary that was filmed

over a period of months with

Hellsong.

Right, and I'm just

saying, friends Might have possibly made it available to me,

which was an interesting watch.

It was mostly about Hillsong, um, London and Hillsong, New York, and lots of ex

members, including the usual one from Sydney, who wrote a book about them.

And she's interviewed in every time somebody does a thing

about Hillsong.

Yeah.

Actually, in the chat room, Camille says Ben Lee's song was Catch My Disease.

Which is more for the conspiracy crowd to steal on.

That's very good.

Well done, Camille.

That's my disease.

And that's for James.

I think your last word was not needed.

Right.

We avoided any defamation claims in those comments, Joe.

Keep an eye on them.

I think so.

And delete any that are defamatory.

Because, uh, Zen or P D Y L T D, and potentially you, are liable.

Well,

I don't know he's calling Craig Kelly a prick, if I'm not wrong.

Oh,

that's substantially true, perhaps.

He didn't name him.

Right.

That's true.

Yeah.

Okay, there's an Ezekiel Declaration, which I read about in Eternity

Magazine, and it's basically an open letter to the Prime Minister.

We write.

To you regarding a matter of significant concern, namely the

proposed introduction of vaccine passports into Australian society.

For many Christian leaders and Christians, this is an untenable

proposal that would inflict terrible consequences on our nation.

And so Christian groups, including the ACL, really anti

vaccine passports, many of them.

They seem to be find something in scripture that anticipated

this and find it un Christian.

It's the mark of the beast.

Yeah.

Apparently.

You see what it really.

Sorry, Shane.

I was just going to say, what we've seen with this, Republicans are

anti abortion, Democrats pro choice.

We are starting to see here.

I just think the Australian Christian Lobby is picking up on some of these

issues as a way to get more members.

And I think it's working.

I think the left needs to be paying attention.

Yeah, so on this one it's a bit of a freedom argument because

the ACL in particular is keen for the freedom of institutions to deny

people who are not part of their faith, wherever they feel like it.

So, so they like to promote freedom, in some circumstances, On the other

hand, they disagree with the freedom of an individual to end their life

voluntarily when they see fit.

So, they pick and choose when it comes to their freedoms, but they're

big on the freedom side of things.

So, they, this fits in with their freedom narrative, I think, for the ACL.

So, One of the quotes from this Ezekiel declaration is that a vaccine passport

would represent the dangerous precipice of a therapeutic totalitarianism.

And they made some different statements in there that are misleading and untrue.

Thankfully, say, someone like Tim Costello in Eternity criticised

them and said, In the end.

An individualist, libertarian ethic of my rights is not a Biblical worldview.

Focusing on my liberties and my rights has little resonance in Scripture.

The message of Scripture is always about the needs of the other

person, or the least in the kingdom, not the rights of the strong.

Indeed, the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served.

But at least there's somebody out there.

In the Christian camp, who's basically calling out this whole libertarian,

my rights argument that the likes of Martyn seem to love promoting.

Should be more of that, I think.

Right, just quickly, some climate change stuff.

So, Barbie Joyce.

Oh, did you see my spreadsheet?

I might have, Joe.

What did it say?

So this

was the, was it

James who commented?

Yeah, it was.

Okay, it was rightly commented, because I'd mentioned historical emissions.

Yes.

And

there was the question around what was each country's impact globally,

and I think China was the biggest polluter overall in terms of total

emissions.

I'm going to put something up on the screen, Joe.

Hang on.

Keep going.

But then I

pulled the raw figures and then did a per capita cumulative emissions.

Right.

And did a spreadsheet, which was a league table of who were the worst polluters.

And there were some weird ones in there that I couldn't quite figure out.

Right.

But effectively, China's per capita total emissions are negligible.

Yes.

In comparison, the USA was something like a thousand tons per person.

Yeah.

Europe were in the High hundreds.

Australia was up there, but I can't remember exactly where and, you

know, some of the smaller countries It was like five tonnes per person.

Well, I've got on the screen, Joe, from Our World in Data Which is cumulative

CO2 emissions by world region So this gets back to what Tom the warehouse guy

was talking about when we were doing the climate change Episode last week was about

how much is China admitting right now, for example, and one of the arguments

is that in the developing world, you know, they're making all of our stuff and

they also need a chance to get through industrialization into service economies,

perhaps, so it's a bit unfair for The Western world to say, well, having done

all this, created all this pollution, we're now going to penalise the people

who, and now that we provide services, we're now going to penalise the people

who producing current levels of carbon.

So it was, it was unfair to not take into account the historical

amount of CO2 emissions by sort of Western powers, if you like.

So on the screen is From Our World in Data, a calculation of cumulative

CO2 emissions by world region.

And basically Europe, because it was the big emitter in the 1750s, 1800s, 1850s,

has a huge responsibility for the amount of emissions that have been generated.

Gone on since 1750.

United States, big but slightly decreasing.

China, very small but now increasing.

And Asia was very small and now increasing.

So there's an interesting chart, Joe.

Is that the sort of thing you were trying to get to with your spreadsheet?

Is that the same sort of thing?

So that was one of the charts from that page that I found.

There was also a, uh, I'm just trying to remember what they call it, but basically

a blockogram which showed the size, so the bigger the blob, um, the more

emissions.

Right.

And

the raw data for that I then divided by per capita.

Right.

To produce a league table.

Okay.

Of who had made the most cumulative emissions.

Well, next time you do that, give me a nice, pretty

graph like this one, Joe.

All right, I can do that.

Okay, so I still don't Don't bother sending it to me, I hate charts.

Okay, so Barnaby Joyce is being quizzed about About his beliefs or his

understanding of climate science and he was refusing to say and he said Joyce who

was reinstated as leader of the Nationals in June likened basic questions about

climate science to a baptism where parents are required to Quote, denounce Satan and

all of his works and deeds, end quote.

Have you been to a baptism at all?

A Catholic baptism, Shea?

Yeah, not for a lot of years.

Okay, do you remember when the priest said that?

It just sounds so weird.

They say to the parents, don't they?

Yes, and to the congregation, kind of.

the baby.

Yeah, and the godparents.

Do you denounce Satan and all of his works and deeds?

Everyone's got to go, yes.

In all seriousness.

That just reminds me of Blackadder 2.

Yes.

When he gets kidnapped by the Catholics.

Right.

And what happens to him?

You'll send me it.

Oh, uh.

And he's, I'll send you a link, but basically he's tortured and

he has to, uh, confess to being in

league with Satan and all of his minions.

In order for the rack to stop stretching or something like that?

He's in a box, but anyway, yes.

Okay, let me see what else.

Oh, here's the other one was climate change and school chaplains.

So coalition MPs have urged Scott Morrison to increase funding to the

government's school chaplaincy program to help address concerns that activism

against global heating is causing mental health problems for Australian children.

Basically, we need more school chaplains because climate change concerns.

Uh, causing mental health problems for Australian children.

Yes,

we're not going to address climate change.

No.

We're just going to give you some more clowns, sorry, um, uh, chaplains.

From the very

heart of society, least likely to want to do something

about climate change, statistically.

And is there anyone, like, we've just had earlier on, this whole thing about

Texas and the abortion law, and we say, oh, couldn't happen here, could it?

Well, when you just see nuttery like that, Oh, because of climate change

concerns and mental health of children, we'll throw more school chaplains in?

If we, clearly, the Gilead that's taking place in America can, can

happen here, and is happening here, When coalition MPs Say that openly.

So

I'm really keeping an eye on the Respect at Work report

because one of the recommendations has been education and similar.

I am really fearful about who's going to get that mission.

I'm keeping a very close eye because where sexual harassment is, we

definitely don't want chaplains.

Part of the solution is ending the shame, not creating more shame.

Right.

And they are not qualified to assist in the area of sexual harassment.

We want proper, properly educated, trained people talking to young

people about sexual harassment.

Yeah, they're not educated to talk about anything.

Right.

Fucking hell.

I thought

Yeah, if they get that portfolio as well.

So, okay, what, just enlighten me a little bit about this.

This, this is which, what are we talking about

here?

So, Kate Jenkins is a brilliant woman.

She's sort of become the guru for Sexual harassment, but she wrote a report with

the assistance of a whole range of things.

She really did a very comprehensive report called Respect at Work,

which was submitted in 2019.

I think end of 2019, sat on Christian Porter's desk and then This year

unravelled between Brittany Higgins, Grace Tame and Christian Porters,

uh,

all the allegations, right?

Yep.

And the March for Justice.

So, recently, Scott Morrison came out and announced that he was in

part or in principle agreeing to putting in All the recommendations.

Since then, Kate Jenkins said that there have been 12 legislative

changes that are recommended, and of those, Scott Morrison has agreed to

six, but he wants consultation, some more consultation on the other six.

Right.

So, so far, so good.

But one of the recommendations is around education.

In the workforce.

Education around consent

laws, Ah, okay.

I'm off.

Right.

Yep.

Yes.

Yep.

So that's why I'm really fearful about who's going to

get that, what do you call it?

Portfolio

or task.

Right.

Okay.

You're worried that they're gonna give the role chaplains to chaplains?

I, yeah.

I don't think that could happen.

Don't think so.

Because they're not teaching at all.

It I, that would be a stretch.

I think we can relax about that.

The way they have

bumbled this so far, I swear they consulted the ACL on that

stupid video about milkshakes.

Yeah.

Yep.

And not

actually anybody appropriately trained.

That's how it looks.

And I know that they

consult, but just

Interestingly enough, studies on Sex addiction shows that the people who are

most likely to consult with a psychologist about sex addiction are not those who

have a higher amount of sex or watch a higher amount of porn than other people,

but those who are the most religious.

Really?

Yes.

So,

it's not that they're doing anything that their peers aren't

doing, they just feel more guilt

about it.

Ah, I see.

Right.

I'm surprised that they would seek help.

So, yeah, there we go.

Just back onto the climate change things I've got under this heading, and the

final few minutes is, we mentioned about News Corp, changing its tune

to be now more of in line with the consensus when it comes to climate

change, and I listened to the Juice

Media on that.

Yes.

It's a good podcast.

And what was our theory, Joe?

It's all about

greenwashing, carbon capture and storage.

And basically, carry on digging up for coal that's in the ground because

we're going to have some magical technology that pulls the carbon

out of it.

So basically, easiest way to be obstructive is to pretend to agree.

But if anything substantive crops up, anything real, then say, Oh, that's too

hard, too early, you know, we, you know, put a worm farm in your backyard and

sort out your trash a bit better and very minor sort of meaningless things that

they will concentrate on, but not the big items that people really need action on.

So, there was an article from, I think There's a website called the Renew

Economy, which goes into their theory of, of what's going to happen, and it's

in the show notes, and whatever policies they can delay or destroy, they'll

simply keep running scare campaigns about insisting that the balance isn't right.

And that the threat of climate action is greater than the threat of climate change.

So while pretending to be sympathetic to sort of action on climate change,

they will just work on the easy things that aren't really effective

and that don't cause a problem for their, their sort of coal companies

and other miners and people like that.

So that was the theory.

Big long article, but read that one.

There'll be a link in the show notes.

And I think that was about all I wanted to get to.

Did you guys have anything else that you wanted to put on the

table for this week at all?

We're about done.

I thought it was

interesting you raised Joe Rogan, so do you remember

sending that in your notes?

No, I don't.

What did I say about Joe Rogan?

So he got COVID and then what did you say?

Now I'm second guessing myself.

Anyway, here's what I wanted to say about Joe Rogan.

So I started listening to Joe Rogan as a opportunity for me to

challenge my worldview and find out what the other people were saying.

It's been very interesting for that, but he has something like 13 million people

listening to his podcast and a lot of his ideas are just totally bizarre.

So for instance, he has this premise that by not giving Americans free healthcare,

it actually makes them more innovative.

Oh,

they go to the school of hard knocks, you know, they don't get,

you know, just free medication.

Yeah.

And so his other thing about, he's all about comorbidities.

Comorbidities, comorbidities are the reason people get COVID.

And they're the reason people get really sick.

And I just thought it was really interesting that prior to him getting

COVID, he, A, thought he'd already had it.

He had invited a doctor on who tried to talk about vaccines.

And typically Joe is like, quite amiable.

He just sits there and drinks whiskey and smokes weed.

He doesn't really get fired up, but around vaccinations, he was really fired up.

So he is like, yeah.

So my point is, is that regardless of the human, this whole, this whole anti

vax thing is getting really polarizing

even for someone.

I was about to say, I used to listen to him.

And the problem was, he had some great people on, and it was a great,

it was a great long format platform that you could listen to somebody that

knew what they were talking about.

But he would also have people on who would just spout the most ridiculous bullshit,

and he wouldn't challenge them either.

And so I gave up when Kelly Brogan came on, and she's a psychiatrist, I

believe she's lost her license now, who doesn't believe in germ theory.

So she doesn't believe that germs cause disease.

And he spent three hours just nodding along with her as she spouted this crap,

and I just couldn't listen anymore.

And yeah, so recently he got COVID, he took a whole bunch of stuff,

including monoclonal antibodies.

Which are probably very effective and Ivermectin and of course

all the anti thousands dollars.

Yeah, yeah.

And of course all the anti-vaxxers are going, oh, it's the anti,

the Ivermectin that cured him.

Yep.

Yeah.

And it's

like you can't just.

Assume from one case, and he took a whole load of other drugs, you can't

just pick one because it suits your agenda and say that this was what cured

him.

But that's exactly what he's done, and he was so determined.

Yes, because I run because I run every day and I lift that's

why I didn't get really sick

Yeah, I can see how that whole thing about making people more inventive

and Americans would love it Yeah.

American Intinuity.

American Exceptionalism.

We're special.

There's lots of Libertarianism.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I think I've listened to about 20 minutes of Gerry

Rogan at some point and, yeah.

Alright, well, anything else before I wind up?

We're done, we're dusted.

Okay, next week I'll be doing something, I'm not sure what it is.

The panel will be back in two weeks time.

I think maybe Social Contract Theory, maybe next week.

Not sure.

Bye bye.

Dust off one of my books and deal with that.

Thanks in the chat room.

You guys have been going well and it looks like nothing defamatory

that will cause me or Joe a problem.

And all right, well, we'll see you, I'll see you next week.

The panel will see you in two weeks time.

Bye for now.

See you later.

Bye.

Have a good night from him.

George, where it is so clear, it is a lynching at the highest level.

Nobody can deny it.

And I thank God that we have people in the streets.

Can you imagine this kind of lynching taking place and people are indifferent?

People don't care.

People are callous.

You have just a few people out there with signs.

I recall the moments in which during the Reagan years, there

was a few of us out there.

In the 60s, you had masses out there.

Now you've got a younger generation of all of these different colors

and genders and sexual orientations saying, we won't take it any longer.

But you know what's sad about it though, brother?

At the deepest level?

It looks as if the system cannot reform itself.

We've tried black faces in high places.

Too often our black politicians, professional class, middle class,

become too accommodated to the capitalist economy, too accommodated

to the militarized nation state, too accommodated to the market driven culture

tied with celebrity status, power, fame, all of that superficial stuff.