-
Latest Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- October 2023 (2)
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
-
Which reminds me, when is the ‘pandemic’ Royal Commission?
This entry was posted in Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.
Sickening motives in a sickening culture. We had no idea of the extent of the evil that lay latent until the jab irrupted as the macabre force for the good of society.
“We’re not going to hold you down and inject you”, laughed the GP.
Not aware enough to see the obvious response coming: “You don’t have to; you know the authorities have threatened us”.
Yes, for the good of society.
But many have pretty much forgotten.
‘It’s a great idea’, says Cuneen. So was the jab. Has no trouble wearing pearls.
If they drug you and you don’t know where the body is, are you pardoned and the conviction overturned?
I wonder how the drug would have worked with Lindy Chamberlain.
“‘It’s a great idea’, says Cuneen. So was the jab. Has no trouble wearing pearls.”
Margaret Cuneen is a top person, and a very good barrister. I’ve met her numerous times. She’s on our side of the culture wars, and she’s been personally targeted by NSW ICAC because she’s not progressive. The left loathe her. As for injecting truth serum to convicted murderers like Ivan Milat, Chris Dawson and Bevan Spencer Von Einem, so that they can reveal where their victim’s bodies are, I have zero problem with this idea. Just imagine the torment of families not knowing where their children are. The Beaumont parents lived with this horrendous pain and grief for almost sixty years. By the way, if we don’t have the death penalty, and there are pros and cons to the death penalty arguments, why can’t we have this truth serum?
As far as I’m concerned, the Covid vaccine roll out was a state sponsored programme of forced injections, and those who refused were (and remain) smeared as fringe extremists. Yet, during this grotesque invasion of our bodily autonomy and medical rights and liberties, did you notice the silence of our various human rights organisations? The silence was deafening, because it’s okay to forcibly jab ordinary and decent Australian men, women and children. Their rights don’t matter. In fact, their rights have never mattered to such organisations as the AHRC* et al. But just wait and see how quickly they rush in to speak up for the bodily rights of vermin like Von Einem. Hypocrisy writ large, but nothing surprises me anymore………nothing.
* it was a good legal win last week for Lyle Shelton, who refused to kowtow to the “vermin rights organisation” that regularly target Christians, conservatives and so on. Kol hakavod to Lyle.
My only problem with the truth serum idea is that it requires me to believe that the state will not abuse and expand the power. We start with convicted murderers and then we use it on drug smugglers. Then uncooperative witnesses. Then suspected tax cheats. We have to be exceedingly careful about giving the government tools of this kind.
“My only problem with the truth serum idea is that it requires me to believe that the state will not abuse and expand the power. We start with convicted murderers and then we use it on drug smugglers. Then uncooperative witnesses. Then suspected tax cheats. We have to be exceedingly careful about giving the government tools of this kind.”
Yes, I agree.
Foot in the door for modern versions of torture, the new ruling class – having now fully cemented its grasp on power post covid mania, are going after the class mores and rules that define them as a group in society, and also bind their own behaviour. They want to be unshackled to go medieval on our arses, this is obvious.
Couple of hundred years ago legal people agreed that government interference with a persons body to get them to do x, y or z only ever led to one place: a culture of medieval torture first, justice last. Governments always love these sorts of dumb ideas because they’re red meat to the mob, but it was the unelected people in the judicial class that always rejected it on principal and, from a class perspective, saw it as prolish / bogan smooth brained thinking.
So now we’re losing the legal class too. Looks like covid mania really was a total cultural revolution and now we’re snowballing down a hill towards shitholeness in all areas of life.
FIFY
Doesn’t go unnoticed that it’s two women that are fronting the “calls” for this by the way.
Today female compassion coupled with power is always harnassed for the abolition of abstract, sometimes tricky, protections that were argued for, created, fought for and built and sustained for centuries by men, in favour of soothing specific problems for individuals right now, today – which naturally makes perfect sense: it’s simply maternalism vs paternalism played out again and again and again. But peer behind the curtain and you’ll always find a group of men with an agenda.
This should be rejected on principle. It’s a small step from this to a Canadian euthanasia needle.
Yet the same two women who aren’t concerned about rights are quite happy for people to go untreated in Qld hospitals because of staff shortages but refuse to allow 3000 nurses and medical staff back to work because of refusing the ineffective Covid vaccine. Who is Pallachooks boss?
One could also liken this proposal to VAD.
Every month or so, the ABC or News Corp runs a ‘heartbreaking’ story of so-and-so who was dying of such-and-such and it was cruel and slow and, inevitably, hard for loved ones to watch. Voila: poison. Kill them and call it ‘assisted suicide.’ As Twostix says, there is always a brand new ‘now’ solution that overturns centuries of imperfect but long ago weighed and enunciated moral truths.
On Cunneen, she can be flighty. I saw a speech she gave LOLing about all the people Roger Rogerson shot and she attended his book launch. Rogerson is a maggot.
No, it isn’t a great idea.
She’s wrong.
Truth serum? Seriously? FMD who would believe such tosh? If there is such a thing, what is the point of waterboarding?
There is no truth serum.
Still, volunteers are needed for a (false) ‘trial’ to prove it not so. Miserable convicts cannot of course be the volunteers, in all logic. The likes of Cunneen are a caste exempted from the covid jab. They disgusted me then and more so now. Even so, I would not subject them to any truth serum’ trial’.
Also disgusting is the encouraged pretence, suggestive at times of a fetish, that knowing the final resting place of a murdered victim is the ultimate consolation, beyond which there is no further promise. The families of victims are preyed-upon by nihilist monsters wielding syringes.
The entire legal class completely and utterly abandoned their posts for two years during the most insane outbreak of mob insanity and government overreach in Australia’s entire history.
I remember growing up these legal dumbos, when it came to calls for accountability to the people, democracy in the judiciary, taking them out of their ivory towers – that sort of thing – nose up in the air, they’d sneer and bite back. From their exclusive, expensive, insulated little world, they’d say that they need to be exclusive and separate from democratic society, as they operate on higher principles that the proles just wouldn’t understand. “Trust us”, they say, when when the government, when the mob, came for you, it was they who would stand in the way in the courts they promised. That was the deal.
Yeah well, the government did come, and the judicial toffs abandoned their posts faster than the toff British ran from Singapore when the Japs turned up ready for a fight. And now we know that like everything else: the judicial and legal class is all just a complete racket at best, circle jerk of intellectual autists at worst.
A handful of men in the ACTU and CFMEU, plus her dad would have more than a bit to say to her.
More interesting question along these lines, is who was Thatcher’s boss.
Well, yes, they were quick to make vapid replies about the good of all, but really, and as a matter of self interest, and because they themselves were exempt from the jab, they could not possibly countenance being seen to be ‘anti vaxxers’ supporting the cause of liberty. Imagine denouncing jabbing when they were free from jabbing. No, and moreover, the good of society, the common good, lay in the court of the coalition of the willing who were oh so keen to be safe and jabbed at the outset and who thus came to be the silent enforcers of the state’s ever growing brutality. Now why any this of this continues to matter is that, for one, the entire edifice was built on a claim to ‘the common good’, as are so many of the covid-inspired corollaries – climate, health, foreign policy, biology, inclusion, diversity, whatever. For, the common good under covid was not the common good but the contingent, ‘safety’. The common good is again sold out when a contingent allows if not requires, eg, that we inject truth serums, for the ‘common good’. And so on.
And ‘their’ politicians are, in the main, from this same elitist cohort!
Also see,
America’s top law schools are openly abandoning the Constitution
I’m fine with it being used on crooked politicians and senor civil servants … to find out where the money went … and since all of them should be presumed guilty until proven innocent (same methodology as they use against taxpayers) then the occasional false positive and risk of rare but unavoidable side effect is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.