Other Fuckwittism - Part 2

The recent display of fuckwittism in yoof put on by Brisbanes very own Abdel-Kader Russell-Boumzar was profound.  Profound, I say, and also very profane.

He managed, in a very short space of time, to do an enormous discredit to Australia – the greatest controlled experiment in multiculturalism the world has ever seen – and stir also some very odd public sentiment.  

There was more to it than some tirade on a train.  

The foolish tittering of Bailey Clout holding the camera phone, egging his mate on with girlish giggles of delight.  Proudly posting the video onto a social media website.  People who ‘liked’ the video.  People who offered supporting statements “Aw, that’s just him man, he was wasted and you know, it’s just him being silly”.  People who re-posted the video elsewhere.

I felt for the target of his diatribe, who we now have a name for.  Mr Josphat Timothy Mkhwananzi, a 56 year old security professional who hails originally from Zimbabwe.  And it seems as if much of Australia felt the same way.  Goodonya, ‘Straya.

Joe is not a small guy, he’s a great big chunk of man who, while he might be easily pushing sixty, looks like he could just as easily push a double-decker bus.  I don’t know his background at all, but if he spent much time in Zim he would have seen a thing or two, in all likelihood.  

My gut tells me that smirking 17 year old Adbel was very, oh so very very lucky, that Joe is of a peaceful disposition and could, no doubt, see that if he did what many of us secretly wished he did – and muscle the young fool – he would have probably crushed him badly.  

He could see, I think, that while the noise coming out of the fools mouth was offensive in the extreme, he posed no physical threat to him, the train driver, or indeed practically anyone else on the train.  

In the video, you see Joe glide into position like a greased submarine when a beardy-looking passenger gets up to shut the yoof up.  Joe did that not to protect the passenger from the fool, but to protect the fool from being king hit by the passenger.  The way the big guy eased into position, yeah, he was ready alright.  Ready to unleash the pain - but only if required.

So, while we saw something very very ugly about Australia in that short video, we also saw something very very grand about humanity in general.  I’m not easily moved to tears but I swear there was a tingle in the corner of my eye today when I read the follow up from Joe – his words speak for themselves and need no interpretation.

It’s fuckwits like little Abdel, like his snickering mate Bailey, a thousand thousand of them, that put their mark on a piece of paper and vote morons like Jacqui Lambie into positions of power.  Little Abdel simply gave voice out loud to the internal dialogue that goes on behind the closely set eyes of Jacqui.

Fuck off Abdel, go and tag a bus, do some meth and cruise around in your mates hotted up VP Commodore with a Chev badge on it.  

Go out and smirk your smirking smirk while I sit here, replete with the knowledge that you my friend are destined for a meaningless life that contributes nothing to society, you brainless fuckwit.

Other fuckwittism - Part 1

It's not just our Jacqui that's a fuckwit.  The media, the public eye, your favourite watering hole and every single university is home to a plethora of fuckwits.

Most are of the harmless "Ah don't mind him, he's just a bit of a fuckwit" variety.

Others are dangerous fuckwits in the way they express their fuckwittism.  Five minutes on the Hume Highway at Easter will convince you of this.

Then there is sport.  Oh, if ever there was a rich breeding ground for the fuckwit, it lies in sport.  

And the really big news for the last couple of days has been Kurtley Beale, who 'just does stupid things'.  True dat.

And on the surface, the whole Kurtley Beale saga looks like a simple case of footy player fuckwit with a phone.

But I think there is more.

KB's idiotic texting  happens in business in the workplace all the time and make no mistake, Australian Rugby Union is a business with its workplace being both on and off the field. 

ARU has a code of conduct - most businesses do - and will act according to that code of conduct. And good on them.

KB will be answering questions - I'm guessing - related to Paragraphs 3(h), 3(k) & 3(m) of the ARU CoC. 

I suspect there is more to it though than we are seeing through the filter of the media. 

I suspect that, if Di Patston didnt report behaviour that was contrary to their code of conduct straight away, then she'll have to answer to Para 5(b) of the CoC.  Which is probably why she has fucked off already.  Nerr nerr, can't get me.

No matter her sob-filled texts with KB, her desire to look after it in house and her 'I'll keep it under the carpet but make *one* more mistake laddie and I'll tell the boss' thing.

You see, while many bleeding hearts out there will defend this action of hers, even if it is contrary to the CoC she was obliged to uphold, in essence what she has done is blackmail the poor thicky footy player.  Blackmail, pure and simple.  Do one thing I don't like KB, and it's career over time for you pal.

This is exactly why we need transparency in the workplace with CoC's - it keeps the fuckers - that's you and me folks - honest.

And worse still, if the CEO knew about it and didnt act on it, then he's going to have to answer to Para 5(b) of the CoC.  He looks like a shifty-eyed fucker as it is.

And as for Di rooting coachy-boy, who gives a fuck - so long as it does not affect the game or the team.  Or that's what a lot of people will no doubt think.  Thing is, unless a workplace rooting relationship is between direct peers in widely separated areas, it cannot help but steer itself toward nepotism.

What of KB then?

There is no doubt at all that he's something of a train wreck.  But really, at the end of the day, what is it that he is hired to do?  Deliver eloquent speeches?  Uphold the highest of virtues?  

He's a fucking footy player for fucks sake - a good one, true - but just another athlete on the short but spectacular career arc of his kind that in 98% of cases ends in a blown knee and a job selling carpet, or pool accessories.  Exceptions exist - but not a lot.  The poor cunts.  We urge them to go out there and play their hardest, throw money at them and then turn our backs when they fall apart physically, or fail to live up to the highest of standards.

You fucked up KB, you thick cunt, with the texting and other shit.  But on that flight, when you called a spade a spade with your team falling apart at the seams, shitty leadership dragging you all down, you paid a high price for your open honesty.  Wish I could have been a fly on the wall.  It says a lot about the others in the team that nobody is talking - staunch lads - I like it.

Look after your mate boys - he may survive yet and surprise us all.  But even if he - almost inevitably - does not survive it, I'm sure if he is quick and sharp on his feet he'll find himself a berth in an NRL side and if he's a smarter man from then on, the future should be rosy - until that blown knee - then he's fucked.

Australian Law - more than just a catchphrase

Jacqui the fuckwit is very fond of inserting references to 'Australian Law' into her didactic.  It makes her sound authoritative, intelligent, knowledgeable.  Well, it does to those who listen to this pathetic pile of shit, at least.

Why does she reference 'Australian Law' and what does it mean when she does?

In Jacqui's outstanding interview with Barrie Cassidy (who seems like a truly nice man) she references it a lot, along with 'Our Constitute' - her magnificent disregard for syntax is applause-worthy in this interview - but seems completely unaware that in the context she employs it, she ties herself into a paradoxical statement.

Let's start with The Constitution - or more correctly the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900).  I hear 'The Constitution' referred to at times by people in almost mythical tones.  "Oh, you can't do that!", they say, "It's unconstitutional!"

I think perhaps the confusion lies with fuzzy-headed Australians being exposed to too much American culture and gaining some sort of hazy impression that the thing we refer to as a constitution is the same thing as the one our American friends do.  But here's the thing - this particular Act is not an Australian Federal Act at all. 

WTF?  I hear you say.  Well, it isnt.  This is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.  It is, in essence, the document that says "The UK hereby grants Australia the right to look after itself - with certain provisions".  It is the document that Republicans want to do away with.  If you have ever wondered just exactly why we have a Governor General, their powers and what exactly their role is - this is the document that sets it all out.  It is the prime, the number one, the ultimate source of all that is law, order and governance in Australia - a pretty important document.

We also now have the dual Australia Act 1986.  Dual in that two almost identical versions were simultaneously passed in both the UK and Australia.  It prevents the UK from meddling with the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, a bit of other housekeeping and not much else.  When people say 'Constitution' - they are referring to that original 1900 UK Act.

As far as constitutions go, it lacks.  There is no 'Bill of Rights', for example.  Anyone in Australia who proclaims something to be a 'Constitutional Right' is in all but a very select number of cases talking pure drivel.  

You do get a couple of express rights in it though.  You get the right to a trial by jury, on one hand.  You have the right to be compensated if the commonwealth acquires your property from you.  You have the right not to be discriminated against in one state because you come from a different state.  And that's it - those three things are your 'Constitutional Rights'.

You do get an express freedom as well - just one.  And it is a particularly important one - most so when Jacqui starts bleating about Muslims and The Constitution.

This express freedom is contained in Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and it says;

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

This is 'Freedom of Religion' in a nutshell - the only express freedom in the entire Constitution is one that guarantees that any person is free to practice any religion they wish to.

So when Jacqui drivels about 'Muslims' needing to observe The Constitution, or GTFO - what she's saying is a complete nonsense.

She says that no Muslims should observe Sharia Law because it is unconstitutional.  But it is the very constitution itself that gives a person the right to live their life by Sharia Law and be, by doing so, a Muslim.

I think, Jacqui, you need to sit yourself down and read up on this shit.  Because this interview took place some while ago now and still you are present in the media still banging on about the same muddled and muddied understanding of 'Australian Law' that resides in your thickly-browed head.

Just fuck off Jacqui, go vacuum the carpets, you braindead cunt. 

Jacqui dribbles more shit about Muslims - what a fuckwit.

My favorite fuckwit is at it again against the Muslims but this time she does (most likely by accident) ask a pertinent question, vis;

"...(how many of them) enjoy Australian social service payments, entitlements and democratic freedoms?"

First, by 'them' she is being quite specific about "...radical islamics who are preaching violence". Three conditions there - must be Muslim *and* must be 'radical' (hard to define) *and* must preach violence (easy to define).

The reason why this is an excellent question is manifold. How many indeed? Jacqui is a Federal Senator for Tasmania, with considerable resources at its disposal as befits a Federal Senator. Surely she is well positioned to provide an actual number for the faceless 'them', instead of a pointless question? Or at least a range, expressed as "between x and y number of persons"?

It is possible to partially answer it without doing any research at all. The question of how many of 'them' enjoy democratic freedoms in this country is unequivocally "Every last one of 'them' - 100%".

Because that's the way it is in Australia.

The other two parts to her question regarding social service payment and entitlements would be answered 'those who are eligible under state and federal legislation pertaining to such social service payments and entitlements'. Anyone who has ever interacted with state or federal government - and you all do, come tax return time - will appreciate that you need to provide a significant amount of information about yourself, your situation and be in a form of semi-continuous dialogue with the Department of Human Services or other Department that handles your particular payment or entitlement.

And these guys are rather good at information management.

So I'm fairly certain that Jacqui would not find it hard at all to be able to assign actual numbers against her proposal, which may help to decide if there even is an issue. She could step next door perhaps and ask Tony Abbot - he is the Chairman of the National Security Committee (NSC) after all. She could ask it of the National Counter-Terrorism Committee (NTSC). She could give the spooks at the Office of National Assessments (ONA) a call, or bang off a senatorial email to the brass at Defence Intelligence and Security Group (DSIG). And there's always the agents over at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS).

Given all the resources that the Federal Government maintains (as above) to ensure the security of this marvelous country, I don't know about you - but I'm pretty confident that somewhere in that slew of organisations there is a list that would provide the number Jacqui needs to make her argument cogent.

The big question is - is there an issue?

Myself and probably a large majority of the Australian public would find - let's speak hypothetically - a cult of sheep blood drinking worshippers of Baal that practiced pre-arranged marriage between Uncles and Nieces, Aunties and Nephews and Cousins with Cousins (all legal here in banjo-plucking Australia) to be, shall we say, somewhat distasteful. But, if certain members of this hypothetical cult were on disability pensions (likely, after a few generations of such marriages), with some unemployed (and dribbly) youth on JobStart and who's leader happened to be an aged pensioner - would that be a problem?

The answer is 'no' - provided no laws were broken.

We'll assume they farm their own sheep and don't steal them.

And that's the critical thing - 'laws broken'.

It's not against any law in Australia to be a Muslim (or 'Islamic' as Jacqui grammars) - and Section 116 of our constitution ensures that that will remain the case for the foreseeable future - a good thing.

It's not against any law in Australia to be 'radical' about any belief, again with Section 116 and the absence of legislation prohibiting people being radical. Which will never occur. The loonies over at Scientology are, by my definitions, pretty damn radical in their beliefs. Read up on that shit, it is mind boggling what they follow. Just one example, trust me there is an unending supply of them. Radicalism is a subjective term and a subject reference - it all depends on your own point of view.  One can be described as a radical left-winger - but generally only by right-wingers.  Etc.  You get the picture.  'Radical' is a non-specific word that sounds impressive but in the context that Jacqui has (ab)used it means nothing.

It is however illegal to practice 'sedition' in Australia - the term that Jacqui no doubt meant to use when she mentioned 'preaching violence'. You can look it up for yourself by reading through the Federal Crimes Act and also consulting the Anti-Terrorism Bill (2005).

Jacqui loves using the 'blender' technique to both create and then argue a point. But she fails to deliver a good punchline - which is this;

It is currently against the law to 'preach violence' (practice sedition) anywhere in Australia, regardless of your creed, your country of origin, your background or your religion. Penalties exist. 

Nuff said.

She dribbles this too;

"...Our taxes should be exclusively reserved for people who love Australia with no formal or informal allegiances to foreign religious leaders and anti-democratic laws, she said."

Guess what Catholics - with your informal allegiances to the Pope - a foreign religious leader - you're all fucked now.  GTFO.

Guess what, members of the Communist Party of Australia - you all need to pack your bags and fuck off somewhere else because you support the establishment of an anti-democratic system of law and governance.

Guess what Jacqui - you, my thick brained and thick ankled dimwitted friend, are a complete fuckwit for giving utterance to such inane drivel as this.  My god, you must have been an unbearable arsehole to work alongside in the ADF.

Just resign and fuck off Jacqui - make someone a sandwich and clean the fucking kitchen, you mindless cunt.