Why I Love Great Britain
A very recent talk by Jordan Peterson. Wonderful to hear him in good voice again. I have been pretty Anglophilic at times but Peterson easily outdoes me in that.
My surprise is that he still finds in Britain its historic virtues. British legislation in recent years has seemed very authoritarian to me, with Leftist ideas leaking even into the Conservative party.
What Peterson reports however is that his contacts with eminent Britons revealed among them a civility and tolerance that I had assumed were no more. Despite the crazy legislation, the old and truly Great Britain lives on among the British people.
*********************************************
UK to unveil Human Rights Act reform proposals
The government is launching what it says will be "common sense" reforms to the Human Rights Act that will "restore confidence" in the legal system.
The proposals commit to staying within the European Convention on Human Rights, despite pressure from some Conservatives to leave the treaty.
Justice Secretary Dominic Raab says the plans will prevent a right to family life being abused by foreign criminals.
Critics warn the final measures could be muddled and unnecessary.
What is the Human Rights Act?
The Human Rights Act was introduced more than 20 years ago and it sets out in law a set of minimum standards of how everyone should be treated by public bodies.
It includes basic rights to a fair trial, life and freedom from ill treatment - and protections against discrimination or unfair interference in private and family life.
The act's wording comes from the European Convention of Human Rights - a treaty agreed by almost every nation in Europe after World War Two.
The convention is enforced by a court in Strasbourg, France, which includes judges from the UK and all other nations. It's nothing to do with the European Union.
Since the Human Rights Act came into force, most claims of unfair treatment are dealt with by British judges, rather than going to Strasbourg.
The HRA has been under repeated attack from critics on the right of politics who say that it puts European law ahead of British law.
What does the government want to do?
On Tuesday the government will publish its long-awaited review of the act and a consultation on its future.
Under the three-month consultation, the government proposes changing the law to introduce specific circumstances in which a foreign national offender could not claim a right to family life in the UK to challenge their deportation.
Ministers want to introduce a new legal test which would allow judges to block what the government says are "spurious" cases making it to court.
Mr Raab, who is also deputy prime minister, said the plans would also ensure that the UK Supreme Court would have the final say on UK rights by making clear in legislation that they should take their cue from British laws and experience, rather than rulings in Strasbourg.
It's not clear how that differs from the current situation where British courts can choose to ignore the views of the European Court of Human Rights if they have good legal reason to do so.
The plans do not include proposals that would change the law concerning the potential return to other countires of migrants arriving in dinghies.
Mr Raab said: "Our plans for a bill of rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense."
The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric.
Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws.
"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59646684#:~:text=Mr%20Raab%20said%3A%20%22Our%20plans,healthy%20dose%20of%20common%20sense.%22&text=British%20judges%20deliver%20British%20justice%20based%20on%20British%20laws .
*********************************************
South Dakota’s Noem Praised for Bill Banning Biological Males From Women’s Sports After Conservative Firestorm
The governor released draft text legislation Tuesday that would codify her executive orders mandating that only biological female athletes can participate on sports teams designated for girls or women.
The legislation defines “biological sex” as “the sex listed on the student’s official birth certificate issued at or near the time of the athlete’s birth.”
“This legislation does not have the problematic provisions that were included in last year’s House Bill 1217,” Noem said in a Tuesday statement. “Those flawed provisions would have led to litigation for our state, as well as for the families of young South Dakota athletes—male and female alike.”
The South Dakota governor ignited a conservative firestorm last spring when she failed to certify a bill banning biological males from playing women’s sports. In the face of heavy criticism from conservatives, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the governor insisted that H.B. 1217 would subject South Dakota to lawsuits the state could not win.
The Daily Caller News Foundation first reported in March that Noem was wavering in her support for H.B. 1217 due to pressure from special-interest groups in South Dakota, though she previously had said she was “excited” to sign the legislation.
Critics accused the governor of “political theater” and caving to pressure at the time, accusations that Noem and her team vehemently denied.
American Principles Project President Terry Schilling and the group’s director of policy and government affairs, Jon Schweppe, were two of Noem’s most vocal critics in March. But on Tuesday, both Schilling and Schweppe praised Noem’s new legislation.
“We’re pleased that Gov. Noem is finally taking action in South Dakota to adequately protect female athletes,” Schilling said. “Our initial impression of her proposed legislation is that it is a strong measure to defend the integrity of women’s sports from K-12 to college. We encourage state lawmakers to support it and officially make South Dakota the 10th state to enshrine protections for women’s sports into law.”
The American Principles Project president said that it is “unfortunate” that Noem took nine months to “arrive at this point.”
“The reality is that these protections should have been implemented back in March,” he said. “Instead, Noem vetoed the first bill to arrive at her desk, after promising initially to support it, and signed a series of toothless executive orders afterward.”
“Although it’s good to see her correcting her mistake, she missed a golden opportunity to show leadership on this issue. We hope she will learn from this experience and choose to stand up to woke business interests and leftist institutions the next time a similar fight arises. She still has much work to do to gain back conservatives’ trust.”
The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles quoted Catholic St. John Vianney in response to Noem’s announcement, tweeting, “The saints did not all start well, but they all ended well.”
Jay W. Richards, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, told The Daily Signal that Noem’s bill is an improvement over the “current situation in many states.”
“But the South Dakota bill defines biological sex as the sex given on the birth certificate at or near birth,” he said. “Until recently, this wouldn’t have been much of a practical problem.”
Richards warned that Noem’s legislation might open the door to two potential problems.
“First, sex is a biological, not merely a legal, category,” he explained. “We trust that medical providers usually designate the correct sex of a child at birth—except in very rare circumstances. But sex does not equal ‘assigned at birth.’ Sex involves chromosomes, organs, and gametes.”
“Second, there is a movement to stop designating the sex of children on birth certificates,” he noted. “If it becomes law, what would South Dakota direct under such circumstances? The state had an opportunity to define sex biologically, but, by my lights, waffled a bit.”
Noem emphasized in a Tuesday statement that the legislation “is about fairness.”
“Every young woman deserves an equal playing field where she can achieve success, but common sense tells us that males have an unfair physical advantage over females in athletic competition,” she said. “It is for those reasons that only girls should be competing in girls sports.”
“Women have fought long and hard for equal athletic opportunities, and South Dakota will defend them, but we have to do it in a smart way,” she added.
**************************************************
Australian businesses are desperate for staff - but instead of going back to mass immigration, we should END the dole and get lazy Aussies off their backsides, writes MARK LATHAM
Sometimes in politics you can only shake your head in amazement as to how public policy is made.
For nearly 30 years our governments have been spending billions of dollars supposedly to make young Australians 'job ready' through vocational training.
Now, in the post-Covid economic recovery, we are being told there are 50,000 fruit picking jobs, 30,000 hospitality vacancies and 15,000 trades and construction jobs in NSW that can only be filled by foreign workers.
Pacific Islanders have been brought in for the farm harvest - while the other positions will be filled by going back to big immigration numbers of 200,000 per annum.
Meanwhile, some parts of western Sydney and country NSW have youth unemployment rates of 30 and 40 percent.
How hard is it to ensure Australians get first crack at the jobs?
The immigration program should be designed, first and foremost, for the benefit of people who live here now, not new arrivals.
Australia has a one-off opportunity to reduce unemployment to zero and slash the cost of the dole for taxpayers.
Yet the Federal and State Governments are blowing it through their obsession with 'Big Immigration' and going soft on welfare abuse.
There are so many job vacancies at the moment, anyone who says they can't find work is not really looking for it.
The only possible barrier for some is a vaccination requirement, but in many NSW workplaces this ended today (December 15) with the abolition of vaccine passports.
Bringing workers from overseas puts pressure on housing prices and adds to urban congestion. It floods the labour market and holds down wages.
The logical alternative is to end the dole.
We can't have permanent youth unemployment in Australia, a generation who think that work is optional and taxpayers will carry them forever.
Ending the dole would be a culture shock to these job snobs, a wake up call about the necessity of work.
It would end the labour shortages quick smart, save the government vast amounts of money and avoid an over-reliance on overseas workers.
If young people in particular got off their backsides they would find work tomorrow on farms and in cafes, restaurants and pubs.
What's wrong with these Liberals – Morrison, Treasurer Frydenberg and Premier Perrottet – that they only see the soft option as viable? Why have they lost the ability and backbone to make tough but effective decisions for Australia?
****************************************
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