Wednesday 18th December 1996
Search news archive by day | Search archive by text (NB - News Index) |
Definitive Guide to Aussie webs | Global Web Builders Gold |
The Kid's Locker Room | World Wide Websters |
Ms Hanson responded by saying, "Dr Mahathir has no high moral ground when it come to labelling other nations racist.
"Virtually every overseas visitor to Australia is treated with respect by the vast majority of Australians - something that probably can't be said to be true in Malaysia."
Ms Hanson said it was about time that the Federal Coalition stopped their "whipped dog approach" when dealing with Asian leaders who "are quick to point the finger and brand Australia as racist because we dare to question our immigration policy."
Malaysian students at the University of Queensland yesterday denied that they had suffered any racial abuse in Australia and told politicians to "stop playing games" with the race debate.
"Just because one student is attacked, recalling all students is very unfair - many Malaysian students have very good relations with Australians," said Rahmen Iziani a fifth year medical student.
Cabinets decision has angered conservationists who say that the move will significantly weaken the Government's forest conservation strategy.
After several weeks of negotiation Environment Minister Robert Hill and Resources Minister Warwick Parer won the concessions. The proposal was originally put to the Cabinet in early November by Primary Industry Minister John Anderson.
Acting Democrats leader Meg Lees said, "We have lost most of our native forests to land clearing, logging and woodchipping and now they want to drag the destructive mining industry into the equation."
Opposition Environment minister spokeswoman Carmen Lawrence also slammed the decision saying, "This is a weak and sneaky attempt to wriggle out of the Government's election promise."
>Rev. Cedric Mannington < cman@gil.com.au wrote:
Geez! - I wish I'd said that!!
Les
>>I was most disturbed, as would be most right-thinking Christians, to
>>read in the paper this morning about proposed changes to the age of
>>consent. Apparently the Federal Attorney-General wants to lower
>>the age to 16 across every state, irrespective of sex, orifice,
>>or sexual preference. It appears that every state has different rules,
>>especiallly about homosexuality, which in Tasmania in banned outright,
>>and so it should be except in extreme situations.
I think we should allow local councils to pass their own rules about
these things. Then people could have really exciting sex on council
boundaries, where the combination of rules will allow exceptional kinds
of activities (provided they keep all the relevant orifices in the
right jurisdiction). Brothels could be built where three areas meet,
and would be able to charge special rates for the use of the boundary
intersection.
>>Now this is patently absurd. Even for those who refuse to accept God's
>>law, how can the state say that it is alright for teenagers to have
>>real, live, hot, sweaty sex at the age of 16 when they can't get to
>>watch a sexy movie or buy pornographic magazines until they are 18?
>>Surely the real sex is far more dangerous to young minds than movie sex
>>or dirty pictures? Not that I am condoning R-rated movies or pornography
>>of course, but at least there are restrictions about who can see them.
None of this 18+ and 15+ restrictions on films. We need *real*
restrictions! Every film should be given a real number rating,
representing the minimum age (in nanonseconds) required to view it.
Babies will be timestamped at birth to make this easy to implement.
And those complex (and perverse) art-house films will be given *complex*
ratings, which will prevent anyone who can't prove Cauchy's theorem from
viewing them.
>>What does everybody else think? Even if we can't get everybody to
>>obey God's law, shouldn't the state at least raise the age of consent
>>for real sex to be the same as for movie sex?
No, we should have a proper schedule of allowable activities. For
example, we might want to make oral sex legal only for those over 40.
This would provide couples with something to look forward to as they
age and thus help to hold marriages together.
Following the sale by Conrad Black of his shareholding in the Fairfax group to New Zealand based Brierley Investments Mr Murdoch said that he believed the Government's restrictions on foreign ownership were the reason.
Now excuse my surprise but that is pretty bloody obvious.
Mr Murdoch was reported as calling Brierley an opportunist and said it would probably try to sell the shares in the next year or two.
Black's spokesman, Dan Colson, denied that there was any bad blood between Black and Packer saying, "This us versus Packer stuff has been blown out of all proportion", adding that he was close friends with Packer's "lieutenant", Brian Powers.
"We were partners at one stage. Our relations with Mr Packer are good. I'd say they are more than cordial."
In closing - the Federal Government are expected to make a decision on media ownership next March.... just three months away.
The Pakistani cricket team were bundled out for just 176 after a great spell of bowling by Jimmy Adams who took 5 for 37. In reply the Windies knocked up the required runs in just 36 overs and with only 3 wickets down.
Have a great day!
Return to Australian National News of the Day