Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the school at the center of the Gina Rinehart controversy, St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls, suggestions they censored mining magnate Gina Rinehart by only playing part of her speech are a misinterpretation of their actions.
Gina Rinehart takes issue with climate change ‘propaganda’ in speech to private girls’ school
Mining magnate complains students were made to watch Al Gore documentary in video that was edited by her former school
Michael McGowan @mmcgowan
Thu 7 Oct 2021 18.30 AEDT
The mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has taken aim at what she called climate “propaganda” during a speech to high school students, which was later partially edited out by the principal because a historic assembly was “not the context or the time” for it.
Rinehart was asked to give a video address to students for the 125th anniversary of St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls in Perth, her former school.
The school said the speech was only supposed to go for five minutes, but it ran for 16.
But the speech was not run in full by the school, prompting claims of censorship by spokespeople for the mining billionaire.
In a statement to the West Australian newspaper, her spokesperson said it was “very unusual for Mrs Rinehart to be asked to give the keynote speech, then the morning of the speech be told it would in effect be censored”.
“It’s very, very sad to see after the school’s fine history of education over more than a century [that it is now] subject to the political views of its new headmistress,” the spokesperson reportedly said.
But the school said the video sent by Rinehart had been “much longer than the allotted five minutes” and the school was “only able to play the first five minutes which shared her recollections of her time at the school”.
“I can confirm that the messaging in the video was not shared in its entirety with the students at this assembly,” a school spokesperson said in a statement.
“The School encourages our students to think critically and analyse all facts presented to them, particularly in this age of the internet. The School does not endorse the personal views shared in the full video.
…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/07/gina-rinehart-takes-issue-with-climate-change-propaganda-in-speech-to-private-girls-school
The following is a video of Gina Rinehart’s speech. The school admits they only played the first five minutes to students.
There seems a very simple solution to this disastrous PR stumble – play the speech in full, to eliminate any suggestion of censorship, and invite Gina and any experts she wants to bring to answer questions from the students. The school should also invite a few of Gina’s critics, say a member of the Climate Council or CSIRO, to present their side, and also answer questions.
What a learning experience that would be for students – a battle of wits, debating one of the hottest topics in Australia, played out right in their school, with the students themselves invited to participate.
“prompting claims of censorship by spokespeople for the mining billionaire.”
A billionaire with her own spokesperson, PR division, The IPA on a leash, all the levers of power at her fingertips, politicians kowtowing to her (and loyal Eric too of course putting his shoulder to the wheel for a second time – because y’know, billionaires need all the help they can get) says she is feeling censored. What a useful idiot.
Loydo, you might be jealous of her wealth that she multiplied multifold while in charge, you may not like her politics or ideology, she even might be useful, but judging by your comment it is crystal clear who is an idiot here.
Poor Gina. You feel sorry for her too do you?
Like most socialists, Loydo hates those who have been successful in life.
“…Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.”
Or as Jordan Peterson summarized it: “They don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich”
Talk about spitting bile
Have lie down, you clearly need one
And an absolute delusional concept of what Gina, as a billionaire, has at her disposal.
lolly takes vindictive fantasies to a new low.
One thing that always amazes me is how much hatred socialists have towards those who have been successful.
You’re the one that keeps mentioning hate. Loydo doesn’t hate anyone. Btw, do you think Gina’s right to free-speech is at risk?
It’s more a socialist trait to accuse anyone who disagrees as being a ‘hater’.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually believe you don’t hate. However every word that oozes from your keyboard indicates how much hatred you have towards those who have been successful in life.
The question is, is it right for this school to censor the video before displaying it. Your attempts to change the subject are duly noted and well ridiculed.
Referring to oneself in the third person. Rich Davis doesn’t do that. It’s a symptom of megalomania and delusions of grandeur or something isn’t it Loy?
Oh, but you do; your assertions betray your little twisted envious mind.
Loydo doesn’t hate anyone.
Having read a few of your contributions I can tell you fretslider is inclined to laugh at that claim.
Rich Davis laughs out loud!
Did you forget your own delusional assumptions or the vile way you viciously accuse Gina AND Eric?
You are the one overtly displaying envy colored hate. Others, are simply responding and describing your explicit hate.
Fella, I called Eric an idiot because I think barracking for the uber-rich elite in their deluded quest to control an even higher % of the world’s wealth is an idiotic cause (Unless Eric was uber-rich himself, then at least the insatiable idiocy would be explicable.) I doubt he was that upset about it, coming from me. But if you found that word “vile, vicious and hateful” then I apologise for bruising your intertube delicacy.
Once again Loydo shows that hatred has so filled his thoughts that there is no room left for facts or reason.
Pointing out that a school has censored a video that it asked for, becomes a wish for the super wealthy to become even wealthier.
Loydo speaks of Loydo in the third person, just as does Eli Rabbet.
What a dick. I’ve used the third person once in five years.
So you say.
Poor Loydo, nobody worships him, the way he worships himself.
“What a dick.”
Make that Twice in five years.
No you hate quite a lot you are just unwilling to recognize that because you lack self awareness everything you say shows your envy and spite.
Ah. that’s right, you know me better than I do.
“What a useful idiot.”
Why yes you are…
Loy-d’oh has trouble with little tiny abstract ideas, like humor and irony; but give him a ratio of ten to one for deaths from cold as opposed to those from heat, and he goes all in calling for more cold!
If you were really trying to reduce “climate related deaths,” all you’d have to do is let the planet warm a few degrees! That alarmists are so concerned about preventing such from happening speaks volumes about their true agenda! If they cared about humans and other life forms, then they would be ecstatic about the possible expansion of the highly diverse tropical regions, as well as a mild warming of high latitude regions like Canada and Siberia!
Climastrology cult members follow their priests just as devotedly as Jim Jones’ and Marshall Applewhite’s flocks followed them. The biggest difference is that Gretatards only seem to expect others to die; they never follow their nihilism to it’s logical conclusion!
Indeed, indeed, nothing is at greater risk than the free speech of the uber-rich. But do go on.
How typical of a socialist, only those people who you agree with have rights.
Powerful people already have all the rights they need, but they’ve brainwashed a small legion of useful idiots into thinking they don’t. You seem to one of them.
Wow, so much hatred, so little actual facts. Definitely a socialist.
You seem to believe that it’s ok to attack anyone who has the ability to fight back.
Curious definition of rights, Loydo. It betrays the fact that in your socialist totalitarian worldview, there are no rights at all (properly understood). For you, rights equate to government-granted privileges.
Thus it can make sense to you to say that someone has “enough” rights (privileges), or too many rights, rather than to understand that rights are inherent and inviolable, the same for everyone.
There can be no “right” that requires others to pay someone else or do something. (That is the definition of a duty, not a right). All rights involve protection against acts which are prohibited. You socialists try to denigrate this view embodied in the US Constitution as being “negative” rights.
You can create privileges through laws that burden others with new duties to pay taxes in order to pretend that there are “positive” rights. You can pretend that there’s a “right” to childcare or a “right” to genital mutilation “therapy” to pretend that you have changed your gender.
The most maddening thing about you nihilistic misanthropes is your hypocrisy. When a person’s speech is obviously and blatantly censored, you can’t bring yourself to admit the manifest reality.
Geez settle down, Mark made it about “rights” and I took the bait. But no it’s not about her rights it’s about her access and the gall of her. Someone who has a phalanx of bought and paid for activists at the IPA advancing her AGW denying vested interests, whimpering about having her poisonous, misanthropic bs rant to children cut short. But yeah, fancy poor Gina getting cancelled like that.
It was about rights from the beginning. It was also about your belief that attacking those who have been more successful don’t have the same rights that you do.
And still, the closest you can come to a straightforward acknowledgment of censorship is to use the euphemism “cancelled”, while heaping additional scorn. Pretty pathetic, Loy.
Are you referring to Bill Gates, Tom Steyer or Al Gore; who have all gotten rich or richer off the CAGW scam!?
It’s truly amazing how difficult it is for some people to see the truth right in front of their eyes, but I guess many people like to be told what to say, or to think!
Why are you so uncaring about the huge discrepancy between cold and heat caused deaths? If you believe population should be reduced, why aren’t you volunteering?
“… all the levers of power at her fingertips …” With governmental and NGO trillions being spent on CliSciFi. Anyway, its only Aussie billions.
One of the most respected people in Australian mining and you belittle this great lady Loydo. You’re the useful idiot and a hell of a lot more.
More like a useless idiot…
If the science is so certain, Loydo, what’s the problem with letting her speak? Surely she’d just make a fool of herself?
No, this is a PR disaster for the school as it’s just drawn attention to the issue; and, yes, her PR machine will make the most of it. As, indeed, they should. Here’s a speech about climate propaganda that’s been censored — you couldn’t make it up.
I think I know who the idiot is here and it isn’t Gina Rinehart.
You think billionaires need to be allowed to speak?
You’re drowning in their kool-aid.
No Loydo, I think people must be encouraged to think for themselves. The fact that a school does not encourage it, and seemingly actively discouraging it, is deeply concerning to me.
Why do you believe billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to speak?
Why do you so fear hearing anything that your handlers don’t want you to hear?
Why do you think billionaires suffer from a lack of opportunity to be heard? Why do think the only opinions we should listen to come from billionaires?
LOydo, I know that you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even by your low standards, this response was pathetic.
Do honestly believe the fact that rich people have other options justifies censoring them in this instance?
Do you honestly believe that objecting to a billionaire being censored means I believe that only should be listened to.
Hatred rots the brain, yours is just about gone.
Loydo, if you were as clever as you think you are, you’d realise your comment actually supports her speech.
If a “billionaire with her own spokesperson, PR division ….” can’t get air time this clearly demonstrates the massive bias towards CAGW proponents who support an unproven hypothesis – other than via computer models that have demonstrated themselves to be wildly inaccurate.
“if a billionaire…can’t get air time”
If you think this is a thing you are insane.
The school asked her…as an successful old girl. She couldn’t make it so sent a video instead.
I don’t she normally even gives interviews
Please explain Trump being banned from Twitter! You guys must be celebrating; Trump falls off the Forbes 400 list, while four drug execs get added for their work making vexxines that aren’t effective!
Maybe you can work out a way for Lil’ Tony Fauxi to receive enough stock options to get him on the list as well! He at least has earned a Hero of the Revolution medal for the counter-revolutionaries he’s killed the last two years!
As usual, Loydoo can justify anything, so long as his side benefits from it.
What a hypocrite it is.
As usual Mark’s nutty bias and fear of the ‘other’ gets in the way of his comprehending the issues.
Mirror , mirror on the wall …
As usual, Loydo can’t deal with reality, so he invents his own.
As usual Mark starts a comment with “as usual.”
Is it a bot? Bloody hard to tell. I think the comments starting with “As usual…” and “Fascinating…” are bots, a human would be too embarrassed.
As usual, Loy-d’oh and Simple Simon can’t find anything smart to say, so they resort to simple ad hominems!
What style blinkers are you guys sporting? Is there a preferred style for the willfully blind now, or do your masters make the choice for you?
Why don’t you brainiacs weight in on the difference between cold and heat related deaths? If there are ten times as many deaths from cold, how is preventing warming anything but a desire to kill more people!? I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve had parental controls installed on your computers without your knowledge to block you from seeing the rest of the story!
And here comes Russia colluuuusion Simon for the fail
When you socialists do the same stupid things over and over again, is it a crime to point that out?
As usual, socialist simpleton Simon has only psychotic snark to offer.
In what passes for the minds of Loydo and Simon, anyone who doesn’t hate the rich and want to suppress them at every opportunity is just a sycophant’s.
I wish that Loydo would declare their pronouns. I live in terror for fear of committing a micro aggression.
Instead of playing the woman, how about you show where the mistakes in her argument are?
Show us some of your critical thinking skills.
“the girls should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit…as the globe had heated and cooled in the past, global warming was not caused by humans”
If this is not the most banal AGW denialism then what is?
“critical thinking skills”? This is just flagrantly false. Unfortunately some here have arbitrarily packed their “critical thinking skills” away, I guess because they’re drunk on koolaid and won’t or can’t admit it. And if you think her bs needs any more ‘splainin’ then sorry that just means you’re having another giant slug of kool-aid.
It’s funny that you just described yourself and you cannot even see it?
The earth has cooled and warmed many times in the past, without the help of CO2, and neither you or the rest of the Scientology brigade can explain why that happened, nor can you explain how you know for sure these same factors aren’t at work today.
You really are a sad little person
Pointing out that the world has heated and cooled in the past, and man had nothing to do with it, is now a form of denialism????
It’s pretty obvious that Loydo believes that critical thinking involves believing whatever his handlers tell him to believe, and never questioning authority.
It seems that’s what Loydo has been doing. That is to say the lack thereof.
Gina has been very successful in investing money, because she has people that can put together a sound business plan, that provides a solid return on investment. World governments are prepared to dish out trillions, on “changing the climate” without a business plan and associated measurable return on investment. Their only return on investment at the moment is “a warm and fuzzy feeling”
And the complete destruction of the economies involved with this fantasy scam. Alarmist parasites don’t care as they get paid no matter how economies fail.
And yet according to the email addressed to parents said it was because it does not “endorse the views“. Now that is very definitely censorship.
What a difference between you and Gina, Loydo! You a loser, she a billionaire
Let’s guess, you have a list of insults and you use them without knowing their meanings?
Lrp’s comment has content and intelligence.
lolly’s vacuous insults and vacuous delusional claims are clearly empty headed cut and paste nonsense.
Just like Bloomberg;)
“….play the speech in full ….. and also answer questions…… with the students themselves invited to participate.” +1
Was she told prior to speaking she would be limited to 5 minutes? Have all others been cut off at that length? When was the length imposed? Who imposed it?
Wasn’t it a pre recorded clip as she couldn’t be in person
Why not just simply poll the students to see who wants to see the video?
It wasn’t ‘R’ rated was it?
Rated R for Realist, no one under 65 admitted.
Who conducts or reviews the poll?
The same biased school administrators trying to minimize Gina’s influence?
The intelligence and accuracy of the criticism of Global warming Mantra by Gina Rinehart have obviously prompted the directors of St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls to act and censor Gina’s speech in case of funding being terminated from the Great Green Blob being activated. Western Australia is a very small mental pond set in a big land and damage can quickly occur.
Just how much funding do you think posh private girl’s schools receive from the “Great Green Blob”? Given the location of the school it is probably a good guess that many of the girl’s families got their money in mining and would support Ms. Rinehart’s views. In all likelyhood the school would get more donations by airing Ms. Rinehart’s views.
It’s great to see you are finally starting to get you head wrapped around some basic climate realist concepts! Rather than using “Great Green Blob” though, you might want to consider GangGreen instead! It’s pithier, and has the underlying connection to the death and destruction inherent in most climate alarmist policy!
Please work on some new messaging for pushing the heat related death hoax! I’m sure you can come up with some reasons why the ten to one cold/hot death ratio isn’t really important! Maybe you could blame it on racism in the weather systems!
I guess, if I was asked to send in a video, I would be a little peeved if they only showed part.
The request for the video probably came with a request for money. I suppose her money would be all good.
If they cut my video to a third then I would cut my donation to a third. You don’t like my words then you won’t like my money.
If they only kept a third of the video, they should only keep a third of the money.
The principle sounds reasonable enough at first, but I would argue that it is akin to signing a contract to provide some expensive goods, delivering empty boxes that constitute 1/3 of the shipping weight, then agreeing to accept “only” 1/3 of the payment.
It should be no donation if any portion is censored.
Censorship should not be rewarded. The donation should be rescinded in toto for any censorship.
Is it this school’s position to censor or is it the Anglican Church? I’d like to hear from the Anglican Church on this – presumably they support the school financially so the must endorse, or otherwise, this action.
I doubt the Anglican Church supports the school financially. The fees start at $20k per year for primary school and rises up to 27k for the final years of high school if you are Australian and $43k if you are a foreign student. The Australian government is probably subsiding it to some extent but I doubt the Anglican Church is.
Izaak is right.
Corporate religions are takers, not givers.
The Anglican Church still exists?
It’s changing into the Woke Anglican New Church, or WANC, as we speak! Those that follow the old teachings are still called Anglicans, while the hip, modern devotees are call WANCkers!
The school said –
“which was later partially edited out by the principal because a historic assembly was “not the context or the time” for it.”
Not the time for it. The occasion was an anniversary of the founding of the school. Anybody using the event to inject a contentious political topic would be wildly off-topic. Such a move would be seen as tone-deaf and tacky. Imagine if somebody pulled something like this at a wedding or funeral.
On The Other Hand:
“The school said the speech was only supposed to go for five minutes, but it ran for 16.”
Oh Please! Long-winded speeches that go too long are the order of the day here. Big long speeches full of warm fuzzy feelings and tons of self-congratulations. I have had to sit through a few of these myself.
“The School does not endorse the personal views shared in the full video.”
They straight-up did not like the message.
It is still a huge insult to invite a speaker and then censor. Protocol is that once an invitation is given, the guest speaks. If the speech was not to your liking, that is on you, not the speaker. The standard is that you had the choice and made the selection, therefor you can only be more careful in the future.
It is unfortunate that Gina was unable to attend in person. Had her speech been delivered live the school would not have been able to censor it. Can you imagine the uproar if they had attempted to give her the hook partway through her remarks? After this uproar, she may be reconsidering future gifts to her alma mater.
This is beyond censorship it is a serious atavistic cultural problem.
Reminds me of an old skit I saw a long time ago of Ladies against women.
It seems to me the worst enemies of the education of young women are older women. The older women like to put younger women in their place. I had to play academic hard ball to protect the educations of my two daughters. In one instance one of my daughters was taking algebra. I taught her the 11 axioms for a numerical field (a+b=b+a, additive identity. multiplicative identity, existence of a reciprocal, etc),
Her teacher told my daughter and sent me a note that I did not know what I was talking about. I told this to my ex wife, who was was a university professor at the time. She was also a member the college accreditation board for the region. A snap inspection was performed on the school. It was discovered that the math teacher in question had no math teaching credentials, additionally it was discovered that many of the teachers had no credentials in what they were teaching. The school was put on probation. The uncredentialed teachers were immediately substituted with credentialed ones after the parents got wind of the situation. This happened in a very wealthy neighbourhood where the parents seriously care about education and fund the school very well.
Both of my daughters are exceptionally attractive, which caused additional friction with the older women. One of my daughters worked her way through college as fashion model. I insisted they both work and that I would pay in full for their university educations. One of them now is a project manager at a software company and the other is a VP at an international AI company.
It is sad to think that the education of 51% of the population is hampered by educators and institutions that belong in the 19th century or the middle ages in some cases.
Great little story, and congrats on raising two bright and beautiful women! I have to argue with your last sentence, however, as it seems clear that the correct figure is more like 99% of the population has their education hampered!
Yes, people… persons, not sex-specific affirmative discrimination (i.e. diversity [dogma]).
If I may ask, what part of the world are you in?
Your story is alarming, and I am frequently alarmed by what my grandchildren say the are being told by their teachers.
My grandson recently stated his unsolicited interpretation of what he was being taught at school about what his future held –
Just like getting climate information from an uncredentialed mining heiress.
Ah yes, attack the person, very good.
She probably knows far more than you
Didn’t she ask that the girls think for themselves
“Didn’t she ask that the girls think for themselves”
Yep then told them a load of garbage. Hopefully the girls saw through it.
How is that any different from getting climate information from you?
Or like getting climate information from an uncredentialed journalist?
Or getting statistical reports from a person who has never taken a statistics class?
It’s not it’s the same. Thank you for making my point. That’s why you should get your climate info from people who are credentialed to give it not load mouth business people.
Of course it’s not the same. You agree with one and disagree with another.
In your mind, the fact that you agree with someone is all the “credentials” they need.
I also notice that as usual, you can’t refute anything she said.
This is no more censorship than cutting off actors’ acceptance speaches after 30 seconds at the oscars. Ms. Rinehart was asked to make a 5 minute speech about her time at the school and in response she produced a 16 minute video full of her political views. The school is perfectly entitled to use the relevant bits and similarly Ms. Rinehart is entitled to post her video on youtube.
If she posted it on TikTok with the title –
“Free Climate $$$s For Schoolkids Now!”
it would get millions of views, upvotes and shares.
Izaak. You are absolutely right. If the school wanted an informed speech about climate change they would sensibly have got a a climate scientist who knows their stuff, not an opinionated, misguided, uninformed business person. She was there to tell the kids how wonderful their school is and what lucky kids they are to be fortunate (and rich) enough to be going there.
It really is fascinating how the alarmists actually believe that only their fellow alarmsts are qualified to talk about climate alarmism.
The vast majority of the people who you consider “experts” have less in the way of “credentials” than this woman does.
the constant refrain here is how claims about the scientific consensus on global warming is vastly overstated so it should be easy to find somebody more qualified than Ms Rinehart to present the contrary view. Ms Rinehart has zero qualifications to speak about climate change and simply being very rich does not count. She is not doubt an expert on aspects of running mining companies and on how to avoid paying tax and if the school wanted her to speak on that there would not be an issue.
I just love how you alarmist declare that only those who are recognized as experts are allowed to talk about climate change, then only apply that standard to those who disagree with you.
The vast majority of those you quote have fewer credentials that Ms Rinehart does.
“The vast majority of the people who you consider “experts” have less in the way of “credentials” than this woman does.”
Really? What qualifications does this business woman have to speak about the complex science of climate change? Mark, the fact you think she has even a shred of understanding or credibility, illustrates how far from reality your mind and morals have wandered on this issue.
What complex science of climate change?
There is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand.
Give us an expert …please
To Simon, an expert is defined as anyone he agrees with.
Once again, Simon can’t provide any evidence that shows that those he considers experts, are.
Once again, Simon’s argument boils down to attacking those who dare to disagree with those he has declared experts.
I’ll take someone who’s lifetime of study and profession is in the field of climate science, over opinionated business women. Yes that includes Roy Spencer and Judith Curry. And so should you, but your bar for filtering information now is so low you don’t care who says what as long as the message fits your narrative. Sad.
There is not field of climate science. That is your first lie.
The fact that you reject any information that doesn’t come from a Simon approved source just goes to further prove that you have no interest in learning anything that isn’t already pre-approved by your controllers.
I reject information from a business woman whose facts are 20 years out of date and they weren’t right when they were said then… re volcanoes spew more CO2 than humans. It’s laughable you see her as some authority.
Once again, it’s only a fact when it supports Simon’s religion.
Care to nominate who such a “climate scientist who knows their stuff” might be?
If any of the “climate scientists” who promote AGW “know their stuff”, they’re keeping their knowledge well hidden from the world.
How about Gavin Schmidt, who says the models are crap.
No, wait for it, he’s not a climate scientologist he’s just a mathematician so look for him to be cancelled soon.
Scientology brooks no deviation from the orthodoxy.
Those who go along with the fraud, do so because they crave certainty. The “scientists” and true believers who provide that are relatively safe from cancellation, black listing and shadow banning. Everyone else on the list … censored and gaslighted.
Why would I waste my time? In your book someone qualified is someone you agree with.
IN other words, Simon knows he’s wrong, but he isn’t paid to be honest.
Socialists believe in free speech. But only as long as you say what they want to hear.
That might be but I doubt there are any involved here. This is a spat between the rich and powerful in Western Australia all of whom would run a mile from socialism.
HOw typical of the economically and politically illiterate.
Izaak actually believes that if you have money, you can’t be a socialist.
you can have money and be a socialist but you certainly can’t be a socialist and send your child to a private school which charges 47k a year in fees. There are plenty of people who despite earning a decent wage send their kids to state schools because of what they believe and who work towards improving education for everyone rather than a privilaged minority.
Wait – I thought “minorities” were who we all supposed to be ‘advancing’.
“Progressivism” is so confusing, isn’t it?
Once again a very fine comment. A quality education should be a right for every child, irrespective of their parents’ bank balance.
We had quality of education for everyone. Then the socialists took over the public school system.
A right to education, health care, childcare, housing, high-speed broadband…
What you’re saying there is that society must enforce a duty on those who produce wealth to turn it over to be given to those who do not contribute to society. “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.” (“Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen” —Karl Marx 1875)
You just illustrate my point that you socialists have a newspeak definition of a right. You use the term interchangeably with privilege or benefit.
Nothing can be a right if it could not happen without enforcing a duty on others to take an action (as opposed to a duty to refrain from an action).
If every “right” exists only because the government decrees it, then no rights are protected ultimately. When it becomes inconvenient, any government benefit can be rescinded. As we are now seeing, the right to free speech is in your socialist worldview nothing but a privilege granted to us at the pleasure of government.
‘A right to education, health care, childcare, housing, high-speed broadband…”
Nope, I’ll settle for education and health care. Kids deserve the best in education irrespective of their parents ability to pay. If they screw that up, then that’s no them, but at least they have had a fair start in life.
You fail to address the principle which is that education and health care can only be provided to anyone by having someone pay for it. If not the consumer, then others in society. If there were no others able to pay, how could these “rights” exist?
You confirm my statement that in your mind, all rights come from a policy decision of government rather than a natural result of personhood.
The right to life imposes a duty on others NOT to kill. The right to free speech imposes a duty on government NOT to use its police powers to restrict speech. The right to be secure in one’s home and person imposes a duty on the government and individuals NOT to trespass, search, or seize property without due process, and so on. These are true rights which do not require any third party to perform any positive act in order to be observed.
The government benefits that you persist in calling rights do not fall into this category. You may believe (as indeed I agree) that it is a prudent government policy to raise taxes and provide for all citizens to receive an education. That policy doesn’t create a right but rather an entitlement under current law.
” You fail to address the principle which is that education and health care can only be provided to anyone by having someone pay for it. If not the consumer, then others in society. If there were no others able to pay, how could these “rights” exist?”
Ummm…. I know lets take an amount from people and use it for the greater good. We will call it tax. And before you tell me that is unfair…. many many countries across the planet do it pretty well. It’s only in the Gollum infested US that people sit round reciting “No it’s my precious.”
What a pathetic non-response. Every country, not least of all the US, raises taxes to fund policies that are deemed to be beneficial for society as a whole. I even commented that I would agree with funding education for all children as a prudent example of this. You go off on some batshit anti-American rant only demonstrating your poisoned hate-filled mind.
What I want you to acknowledge is that you deny that there are inherent natural rights. Your view assumes that government has unlimited absolute power over citizens and it is only the decree of government that provides citizens with what you call rights. Those “rights” are therefore all provisional and could in theory all be revoked at any time. They are in reality nothing more than benefits granted for the time being.
If I misinterpret your view, then please identify the natural rights which no government may justly infringe.
And a corollary to this is that “rights” in a socialist regime, since they do not derive from the fact that one is a human person, are not necessarily applied to every citizen. Being contingent, socialist “rights” can easily be withdrawn from groups of people who are deemed to be enemies of the state. As often did happen in Soviet Russia or national socialist Germany.
“You go off on some batshit anti-American rant only demonstrating your poisoned hate-filled mind.”
Sorry, who has the hate filled mind?
You, Simon. Everyone can see that except you.
And let it be clearly noted that you refuse to state that there are any natural human rights that can’t be justifiably infringed by government.
Which means that you believe that the state holds absolute power over every aspect of society. You recognize no principle preventing the state from executing 50% of the population except perhaps that 50% plus one person votes for it.
Like most socialists, Smon lusts after other people’s money.
They spend all their time thinking how if only they had enough of it, they could perfect the world.
The easiest way to screw anything up, is to turn it over to government to run.
“Like most socialists, Smon lusts after other people’s money.”
Wrong again, I have enough money to live a good life and do not lust for yours or anyone else’s money.
Then why do you always want other people’s taxes raised so the government can spend more money on you?
Once again, Simon judges quality based solely on whether he agrees with it. The comment was total nonsense, but that isn’t relevant.
Do you mean like the former Senator Hussein Obama from Illinois!?
Those people who send their kids to state schools and are trying to improve them are called parents, but now the Bai Den Regime wants to investigate them for complaining about our lousy schools!
Are you and Simon advocating for school choice now? If quality education is a ‘right,’ then surely the parents are justified in pulling their children out of failing public schools! Many liberal, urban centers have schools that fail to properly teach 75% of their students! Is that what you guys call a quality education!?
LIke most socialists, Simon and Izaak define quality education based on how much the teacher’s are paid. Whether the kids are learning anything beside how to recite trite socialist mantras is not important.
What is wrong with you? Did a socialist steal your wife.
What’s wrong with you, did a non-socialist refuse to provide you with something you wanted?
BTW, I really do love the way Simon changes the subject rather than deal with the issues already raised.
It’s a socialist education. Izzy and Simple don’t have any other quality considerations.
Ah there you go. A man commenting on the quality of my considerations uses childish put downs. Oh the irony.
I didn’t comment on the “quality of your considerations”, I noted that your considerations of the quality of an education extend only to the concern that the education instills socialist beliefs.
So sorry that my pet names offended you, snowflake.
They are not pet names, they are puerile 6 year old level name calling. And I am sorry if my pointing out your childishness upsets you.
Simon, insulting others while complaining about insults. Oh the irony.
Simon, insulting others while complaining about insults
He once explained to me that “it’s different when he does it”, Mark.
Simon whining about insults. Oh the irony.
That has got to be the stupidest piece of self serving illogic that I have ever been unfortunate enough to read.
Having lots of money doesn’t keep one from being a socialist, but only so long as you don’t spend that money.
“That has got to be the stupidest piece of self serving illogic that I have ever been unfortunate enough to read.”
Clearly you don’t re-read what you write…..
Once again, can’t be bothered with anything beyond insults.
Says the insulter in chief….
(Come on you guys all of you are off topic complaining about each other, better to stick with the topic instead) SUNMOD
Fair enough mod.
Damn. I am neither rich nor powerful. But I do have my running shoes.;)
They are certainly anti-capitalist. Socialism is a class-based (e.g. diversity [dogma], inequity, and exclusion) leg on the path to a democratic/dictatorial regime, exploited by a majority/minority seeking to consolidate capital and control.
Was Rinehart informed that her speech could not be presented in full and permitted to make adjustments in order to fit their preferred format?
According to the article I quoted she was only informed the morning of the speech it would be cut short. There is no mention of her being given an opportunity to amend it.
Opposing views, censorship, not agreeing with a “narrative”, free speech, liberty are all disappearing in Australia. Loydo is a brilliant example of what is happening here. Dumb. Dumbed down sheeple.
The film “An inconvenient truth” presented by Al Gore, runs for 1hr 58 mins. It was shown to the School four times so just under eight hours of study time.
I would have thought a mere 16 mins film time from a very successful old girl would have been reasonable to present in full?
Hey, Izaak and Simon!
If you can take some time out from your mutual admiration society, could you guys explain what qualifications Albert (ManBearPig) Gore has to lecture anyone? I mean besides inheriting an oil company and getting rich from various climate related grifts that is?
If you think that socialist elites aren’t rolling in dough, than you need to catch up with reality! Some notable examples would be Castro’s daughter, or ANY of the Venezuelan junta; but those who get filthy rich, then start espousing Socialism for others are a dime a dozen here in the US of A!
Watching you guys interact is like having porn pop-ups on WUWT; get a room!
Alarmists have not shown any desire or action in allowing free open discussion by skeptics.
Allowing alarmists plenty of time to study Gina’s speech and tailor their ‘side’ is not a fair discussion or presentation.
Inviting alarmists, giving them time and opportunity to bring in their “experts” then dropping Gina with her speech into their middle is a bad idea.
If you see this as an opportunity for debate, say so and allow both sides to come fully prepared. Also ensure that Gina realizes the size and complexity of a full climate debate.
I doubt Gina is prepared or even equipped for a debate with “experts”. Perhaps, as a billionaire, she can afford to find, collect and pay for their expertise and time. Unlike CSIRO and Climate Council who are far more prepared to confuse non-experts and innocents.
CSIRO or Climate Council will be pleased to spend as much of the public’s money as they desire.
Gina’s speech is neither the place nor time for opening that can of worms. Alarmists get to give biased anti-science speeches at many institutions.
The real problem here is that Gina is not a believer or participant of the green scam. She is outside of the “consensus”.
Historically, alarmists refuse any fair “debate”. Instead alarmists prefer to isolate individuals/companies and then destroy their reputations.
If the school desires to invite CSIRO/Climate Council to give their five minute speech, so be it. That is a “St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls” decision.
Schools demanding individuals to only give a ‘five minute speech is bizarre. That is a specious excuse. Schools may recommend ‘five minute speeches’, but I’ve never attended a speech held to such constraints.
Usually speakers are given a thirty minute to 45 minute window. Even then, it is not unusual for the speakers to use twice as much time.
It is censorship or Gina Rinehart.
Allowing the left any opportunity to further censor or muckrake Gina Rinehart is improper.
Any debate or speech opportunities must be “St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls” independent decisions and actions.
fossil fuel billionaire, you say? And she denounced climate science… well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?
Once again, the troll can’t be bothered actually dealing with the arguments presented. Then again, it’s not like griff has ever demonstrated a grasp of facts or logic.
From the article: ““The School encourages our students to think critically and analyse all facts presented to them, particularly in this age of the internet. The School does not endorse the personal views shared in the full video.”
Somebody appears to be speaking for “The School”, but I’ll bet no vote was taken as to the preferences of everyone in “The School”.
Someone is assuming to speak for everyone. This someone favors censorship when it comes to information about the Earth’s climate. This someone is a petty dictator. We have petty dictators coming out of the woodwork nowadays.
The long arm of the climate change cult is never far away.
Given today’s Australia, the opposition approach would most characteristically be to have police swarm tackle Ms Rinehart and beat her into prone acquiescence.