Australia: Militant vegan who earns $40,000 a month on OnlyFans and stormed Louis Vuitton while half-naked and covered in her own menstrual blood says she feels 'empowered' when screaming 'animal abusers' at strangers
I have always said that self-promotion is a major motivation for Leftism so this admission is no surprise. She demonstrates because it makes her feel good. Whether she actually cares about animals is unknown
A militant vegan who allegedly stormed Luis Vuitton wearing a g-string and smeared with her own menstrual blood says she'll never stop protesting against the 'animal holocaust' - even if her friends and family abandon her.
Tash Peterson was charged with disorderly conduct after she allegedly interrupted shoppers at the high-end store at Raine Square in Perth's CBD on August 21 yelling: 'If you're not vegan, you're an animal abuser'.
She will face Perth Magistrates Court in mid-September and believes she will be hit with a $6,000 fine, but the 27-year-old is unfazed and believes the alleged demonstration was a wild success.
'I think it was my most powerful disruptive protest yet,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'It's important for me to be as creative as possible so more people see my message - the moment my clothes come off, I get a lot more attention.'
A day after the bloody stunt, she was at it again outside the same store carrying a megaphone and wearing a cropped black hoodie with 'end the animal holocaust' on the front and 'if you're not vegan, you're an animal abuser' on the back.
The serial protester then started accusing stunned strangers on the street of being murderers.
'Who was murdered for your leather bag, down jacket and woollen jumper? If you buy animal skin, fur, wool, scales, feathers and silk, you are paying for the most horrific animal abuse on this planet,' she bellowed into the megaphone.
While the footage of Ms Peterson being dragged out of Luis Vuitton by burly security guards while wearing next to nothing and drenched in her own fluids was alarming, the serial protester said she's only just getting started.
She has now traded in her job as a pool lifeguard to sell topless and nude selfies for her Only Fans subscribers, and earns staggering $40,000 per month - more than enough to fuel her dream of being a full-time activist.
'I was trying to figure out how to sustain my life as a full-time activist,' she said.
'I'd been considering Only Fans for almost a year, and I thought deeply about it and realised I'm on a mission to help animals - I'm willing to do almost anything to help them.'
Unbridled by finances, Ms Peterson is thrilled to be able to pour all her energy into her 'creative' public demonstrations.
'I want to go inside facilities and expose the [animal] industry,' she said.
'There are so many amazing forms of activism - I'm so grateful to be a full-time activist now - maybe eventually one day I can travel the world and do it.'
Ms Peterson's abrasive demonstrations usually involve chastising customers at non-vegan restaurants, supermarkets and shops for consuming animal products - while scantily clad and dripping with blood.
Earlier this year, her wild stunts saw her banned from every pub in Western Australia.
On Friday she revealed that Instagram deleted her Vegan Booty page, which boasted about 31,000 followers, for repeatedly uploading photos of animal abuse to 'expose' the industry.
When asked if she ever feels embarrassed or ashamed after any of her protests, which are filmed and widely distributed on social media, Ms Peterson said any backlash she receives only encourages her to keep going.
'It's a very surreal feeling going inside a venue and doing a unique protest - it's difficult to explain what it's like in the moment, but I'm there for these trillions of animals who are suffering,' she said.
'I do get incredibly nervous before disrupting, but once I'm inside I feel empowered.'
Ms Peterson already has a criminal record for trespass after she ran on to Perth Stadium in the first-ever women's Western Derby in 2020 while holding a black flag reading 'right to rescue' - until Fremantle midfielder Kiara Bowers tackled her.
When she walked free from Perth Magistrate's Court, she and a fellow activist stood on the court steps for several minutes with black duct tape over their mouths holding signs reading 'it's time to listen to the animals'.
Peterson refused to answer questions from reporters while the squeals of cows and pigs being slaughtered in Western Australian abattoirs played from nearby speakers.
She acknowledged that she will have to be careful not to land in jail where her animal rights messages would fall on deaf ears, but feels that her brushes with the law are justified. 'I don't want to have to be breaking the law, but I believe one has a moral obligation to break unjust laws,' she said. 'If I'm getting a criminal record because I'm getting my message out there, that's something I'm willing to risk.'
Ms Peterson is also happy to forgo precious relationships with family and friends who can't handle her very public form of activism.
'I'm willing to risk any relationships with family and friends - nothing is going to stop me - I find I'm only wanting to do more than I ever have before,' Ms Peterson said.
'I've lost many friendships already because people can't handle that I do this sort of thing - I don't really speak to a lot of my old friends anymore.'
Ms Peterson recalled her mother laying in bed for months because she was so riddled with anxiety over the amount of times the police came knocking on the door looking for her only daughter.
She said it put an 'enormous' strain on her family, who became increasingly stressed over her antics, 'but it wasn't going to stop me,' she added.
While her mother eventually went vegan herself and now supports her daughter's active vegan lifestyle flourishing Only Fans page, her father has had a harder time trying to accept her life decisions. 'He says he's proud, but it doesn't quite sit right with him,' she said.
'It's affected our relationship a lot, but it's not going to stop me.'
********************************************
Critics Are Wrong on Texas Abortion Law
After Texas enacted legislation that bans abortions after a heartbeat is detected (usually about six weeks), the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. That’s largely because of the law’s enforcement mechanism: Rather than state executives enforcing anything, private citizens do through lawsuits against violators of the law. Yet many conservatives fear that the law will do little other than rally Joe Biden’s base in coming elections.
Andrew McCarthy says that such fears should take a backseat to the ultimate goal: Saving babies’ lives.
One of the objections has to do with the fact that “the Texas law does not expressly specify exemptions to terminate pregnancies attributable to rape and incest.”
It should be noted, however, that rape and incest are not relevant factors in at least 98 percent of abortions. (The Guttmacher Institute has estimated that rape accounts for about 1 percent of abortions, and incest about 0.5 percent.) The act does bar a male who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape or incest from bringing a lawsuit under the statute, but it is true that no one else is subject to this bar.
The law also provides an exemption if a physician performs an abortion under the belief that a medical emergency exists, but, though it defines a number of pertinent terms, the statute fails to define “medical emergency.” As I understand it, this concept is broadly construed under Texas law, but it is unlikely to include non-life-threatening physical injuries or mental anguish attributable to a rape/incest pregnancy. …
Rape and incest exemptions in abortion restrictions have always been more politically appealing than logically sound. The rationale is that, as noted above, the exemptions green-light only a tiny percentage of abortions while exhibiting compassion for the terrible plight of women victimized by such abuse; thus, they are sensibly said to be a practical and political price worth paying in order to enact restrictions that would protect the vast majority of unborn children.
Nevertheless, the basic point of a fetal heartbeat law is to focus on the patent humanity of the unborn child. The rape and incest exemption would thus defeat the law’s express purpose.
Whatever the political appeal, it would be internally contradictory for the Texas law to posit that an unborn child lacks sufficient human dignity to warrant protection if the child was conceived through an act of rape or incest. Yes, the woman is the innocent victim of the former enormity, and often the latter; but so is the child. If human life begins at conception, then aborting a human life after the detection of a heartbeat is no more justifiable in a rape or incest situation than in any other situation.
He goes on to discuss the political and legal wisdom of the law, all of which is certainly debatable. He rightly notes that Roe v. Wade is a “travesty” “ as a matter of constitutional law,” which Casey v. Planned Parenthood could only uphold in essence while gutting its reasoning. All of that will be litigated not just with Texas, but primarily with Mississippi’s law at issue in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a case before the Supreme Court this year.
McCarthy concludes: “For conservatives and pro-lifers, abortion is a matter of core principle, not tactical politics. If we can save unborn children, the downside of saving Joe Biden from steeper polling declines is a risk most of us are willing to run.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/82509-in-brief-critics-are-wrong-on-texas-abortion-law-2021-09-07
*****************************************Governments Must Pay $800,000 in Legal Fees to Church for COVID-19 Overreach
California officials have agreed to pay $800,000 in prevailing-party attorneys’ fees to a popular Christian megachurch in Los Angeles after state and federal courts in California issued permanent injunctions barring government officials there from ever again imposing discriminatory restrictions on houses of worship.
In the United States, unsuccessful litigants only rarely have to pay their opponents’ legal fees, even when their cases are weak.
Although it’s common in other parts of the Anglosphere such as the United Kingdom and Canada for the unsuccessful party in civil litigation to be required to pay the legal costs of the successful litigant, it’s “very rare” for it to happen in the United States, Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society special counsel, told The Epoch Times.
The Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm, represented Grace Community Church (GCC) and Pastor John MacArthur in legal proceedings that began in March 2020 when California and local governments initiated a sweeping response to combat SARS-CoV-2, the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19. Government officials repeatedly tried to shut down in-person church attendance after the pandemic began.
On Aug. 31, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles voted to approve the settlement with GCC and MacArthur. Under the agreement, the county will pay $400,000, and an additional $400,000 will be paid by the state of California as compensation for the attorneys’ fees incurred by GCC and MacArthur.
MacArthur was pleased with the settlement on fees.
“We are very grateful for our Lord’s protection and providence throughout this past year,” MacArthur said in a statement.
“Our commitment to the Word of God and his church has never wavered. We have simply continued to stand firm, as we always have and always will. We put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the head of the church. Over the past year, our congregation has seen his hand of blessing in ways like never before, and the Lord’s promise has been realized: ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.’”
Thomas More Society special counsel Charles LiMandri said in a statement: “This was a very hard-fought case every step of the way. Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church refused to bow to government tyranny and they finally obtained the excellent result they deserved. Thanks to their courage and perseverance, justice prevailed and the First Amendment was vindicated. No longer can the County of Los Angeles and the State of California treat people of faith like second class citizens. This result is a victory for all Americans who cherish religious liberty.”
Had government officials refused to settle on the issue of legal fees after having court orders issued against them, the courts would probably have ordered them to pay a larger sum than they ultimately settled upon, Jonna said.
The other side “knew that they were going to be exposed to significant attorneys’ fees if they didn’t settle these cases.”
“The general rule in American law is that each party bears their own fees,” Jonna said.
“In civil rights cases, a prevailing plaintiff who vindicates a constitutional right is entitled to an award of fees, too, and the reason is to encourage people to bring forward meritorious cases that vindicate these important constitutional rights.”
In the settlement that was finalized, “no one admitted anything,” but “obviously” the actions taken against the church were “very clearly retaliatory,” Jonna said.
A year ago, the county abruptly canceled a lease for parking space that the church had been using since 1975, as The Epoch Times reported at the time.
“If you look at the timing, there was no basis to revoke the lease other than to intimidate them,” Jonna said.
Officials also tried to intimidate MacArthur, threatening him with jail time and citations, the lawyer said.
The Thomas More Society will use the $800,000 to help underwrite other legal cases, Jonna said.
The nonprofit law firm “was able to not only protect these important rights, but recover a significant sum to keep basically to finance other future cases.”
***************************************
UK: Fury as mahogany bust from 1817 of King George III with two African men is REMOVED from museum after bosses said it was a 'hurtful reinforcement of racial stereotypes'
Leading historians have slammed a decision by the National Maritime museum to remove a bust of George III flanked by two kneeling African men.
The museum says the figurehead, which is understood to have been created to celebrate victory at Waterloo, was the subject of 'frequent criticism' and was 'a hurtful reinforcement of stereotypes'.
Authorities at the museum determined it was no longer appropriate in its current location and it has been moved offsite after a review.
One leading historian called the decision 'absolutely absurd' while a Conservative MP has said he will make a formal complaint to the culture secretary.
The bust, which is made of mahogany, was once the figurehead on the Royal George Yacht which was built in Deptford Dockyard and launched in 1815 and had been on display at the museum for more than a decade.
Most recently, it made up part of an exhibition called 'The Atlantic: Slavery, Trade, Empire, Enslavement and Resistance' before it was moved to its conservation studio at a site in Kidbrooke, south east London.
In it's place, the museum have installed an explanatory plaque which reads: 'For many visitors and staff, its imagery of a powerful white king with two subservient black men is a hurtful reinforcement of enduring racial stereotypes.
'Monarchs are typically portrayed as the dominant figure, with others shown in a secondary and more deferential stance.
'However this figurehead is often seen as celebrating the role of white people in ending slavery. 'Such images overshadow the determined actions and huge sacrifices of black people to achieve this goal.'
The museum said the Black Lives Matter protests in June last year hastened its decision to remove the bust from display.
The museum's catalogue says the context and symbolism of the bust remains unclear and said some have speculated in the past that it may serve as a celebration for the abolition of slavery.
The yacht was launched a decade after parliamentary legislation abolished the British slave trade in 1807.
The reasoning behind the anti-slavery claim is that it bears slight resemblance to the famous kneeling figure used as an image by anti-slavery campaigner Josiah Wedgewood.
But the museum reiterates that it is 'very unlikely' that such political iconography would be installed on a royal yacht.
The catalogue gives the more likely symbolism as: 'While they may represent vanquished foes begging for mercy from the victor, it is more likely that they are 'supporters' in the heraldic sense, with their supplicant pose designed further to elevate the monarch's regal status.'
A spokesman for the museum said: 'The Atlantic Worlds gallery opened in 2007 and has been under review since 2019. The figurehead of HMY Royal George (1817) was removed in August 2020.
'Research into the iconography of George III suggests more strongly and persuasively that it commemorates victory over Napoleon in 1815 rather than celebrating Britain’s abolition of its slave trade in 1807, making the object inappropriate for the slavery and abolition section of the gallery.
'This was specifically highlighted, and correctly brought to our attention, during the summer of 2020.'
Critics have slammed the decision with leading historians branding it 'absolutely absurd'. Sir John Hayes, chair of the Common Sense Group of backbench Tory MPs, told the Sunday Telegraph he will write to the Culture Secretary, Olive Dowden to make a formal complaint.
The group was set up by a number of Conservative MPs in response to what they called the rise in 'extreme cultural and political groups' such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion and believe they are 'subversives fuelled by ignorance and an arrogant determination to erase the past and dictate the future'.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Black, emeritus professor of history at Exeter University and biographer of King George III, said the decision was 'absolutely absurd' and that the argument could be used to 'denigrate just about everyone in British history if you were so minded'.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment