CENSORSHIP - ONE OF AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST GROWTH INDUSTRIES!

The following two articles were reports in The Age newspaper about the forthcoming Melbourne International Film Festival. Once again our censors make a laughing stock of their adult population!

Gay zombie porn gets festival flick

By PAUL KALINA

July 21, 2010


THE Australian censor has banned a film from screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival for the first time in seven years - a work described as ''gay zombie porn''.

Festival director Richard Moore received a letter yesterday from the Film Classification Board director Donald McDonald, stating that L.A. Zombie, the latest offering from Canadian provocateur Bruce LaBruce, could not be screened as it would in his opinion be refused classification.

The festival is not generally required to submit films for classification, but after reading a synopsis of the plot of L.A. Zombie, which features wound penetration and implied sex with corpses, the Classification Board requested a DVD to watch, and then refused to issue an exemption. It is the first film to be banned from the Melbourne International Film Festival since Larry Clark's Ken Park in 2003.

McDonald's letter says the decision to ban the film is based ''on information submitted by MIFF, inspection of the film and the classification history of the director''.

Described by Moore as a ''video art zombie film'', L.A. Zombie is to have its world premiere next week at Locarno, Switzerland. The Melbourne film festival would have been its second-only public screening.

The MIFF program describes the film as ''an adventure in cinema's most unmarketable subgenre - gay zombie porn'' and points out the ''schlock'' nature of LaBruce's deliberately B-grade and arty approach. The program also carries a warning about offensive content.

The film follows an alien zombie who roams the streets of Los Angeles in search of dead bodies and gay sex - an activity that reveals a gift of ''shagging'' the deceased back to life.

There are full-frontal nude scenes and erect penises. The zombies have cucumber-shaped penises which are clearly prosthetic.

Moore yesterday told The Age: ''Bruce LaBruce's blend of sex and violence can be confronting, but I would argue that within the context of the festival, it is nonsensical and patronising to not allow people to decide what they want to see.''

The film was scheduled for two screenings during the festival's closing weekend.

Moore said that the festival had yet to decide if it would appeal the decision, which he estimated would cost $2000.

The Classification Board director was unavailable for comment on the matter.

Bruce LaBruce's previous film, Otto; Or, Up With Dead People, screened at MIFF two years ago and many of his other films have screened at festivals in Australia.

He was a guest of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival in 2004 with The Raspberry Reich.

An early LaBruce film, Hustler White, was refused classification in 1997, but was later given an R rating after a scene was cut.

In a media release marking the start of production on L.A. Zombies in May last year, LaBruce said: ''Not unpretentiously, I consider myself not so much a pornographer, as an artist who works in porn.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zombie porn director 'delighted' by ban

By MICHELLE GRIFFIN

July 21, 2010


The director of gay zombie porn film LA Zombie says he is delighted his movie was banned.

‘‘My first thought was ‘Eureka!’’’ director Bruce LaBruce said, speaking from his home in Toronto.

‘‘I’ll never understand how censors don’t see that the more they try to suppress a film, the more people will want to see it. It gives me a profile I didn’t have yesterday.’’
'Eureka!' ... LA Zombie director Bruce LaBruce has thanked the censorship authority.

Mr LaBruce says the Australian classification board should have allowed LA Zombie to screen at the Melbourne International Film Festival because of its ‘‘artistic merit’’.

Festival director Richard Moore received a letter yesterday from the Film Classification Board director Donald McDonald, stating that L.A. Zombie could not be screened as it would in his opinion be refused classification.

‘‘My film is debuting at Locarno in competition, it’s a prestigious festival. So it’s self evident it has artistic merit and most censorship boards take that into account. I’m surprised [the Australian classification board] didn’t take it into consideration, if they knew.’’

'Positive message' ... LaBruce says his film is a metaphor for healing because people are brought back to life.

Made for ‘‘less than $US100,000’’ in Los Angeles last year, LA Zombie was devised as ‘‘a reaction against torture porn’’ says La Bruce. ‘‘People come back to life [in my film], it’s a metaphor for healing.’’

He called the classification board ‘‘hypocritical’’ for banning his film while ‘‘they pass so many mainstream films that have the most extreme violence, with brutal treatment towards women, and torture and dismemberment, but because they didn’t show a penis, they can be screened with impunity.’’

LaBruce admitted that his film did have explicit scenes of sex and violence, but said the version that was banned from the festival was a ‘‘soft core’’ version, where ‘‘it’s obviously a fake prosthetic. It’s a bizarre-looking thing with a scorpion’s stinger, it’s clearly not a human penis.’’

Film festival director Richard Moore said the festival has not yet decided if it will appeal against the ban, but LaBruce has already started a twitter and Facebook campaign urging Australians to protest the classification board’s decision. It is not yet known if the board’s decision to refuse to give LA Zombie an exemption from classification (so that it could be shown at festivals) will automatically mean that it will be refused classification as an R 18+ or X18+ DVD.

This is not the first time LaBruce’s films have been banned. Singapore has blocked several attempts by film festivals to screen his films, the British censors have insisted on the removal of scenes and segments from several of his films over the past two decades, before they could be released on DVD, and in Japan, his DVDs are distributed with a black dot hovering over the more graphic sex scenes.

The director denied he’d deliberately sought censorship when making LA Zombie, which features gaping wounds, corpses, and several [faked] body fluids in close-up detail.

‘‘I wasn’t expecting it with this one,’’ he said. ‘‘My film Otto screened in Melbourne and that also had a zombie penetrating another zombie.’’

ISRAELI SHABAK INTERROGATES ISRAELI ACTIVIST OVER BDS AND BIL'IN PROTESTS

This article is reproduced by permission of Mondoweiss:

http://mondoweiss.net

by Adam Horowitz on July 19, 2010


A month ago Phil posted on an event here in New York discussing Jewish perspectives on BDS. One the speakers that night was Yonatan Shapira, who spoke in favor of boycott. Shapira recently returned to Israel and sent this update. Translation by Dena Shunra.

I moved back to holy land two and a half weeks ago, and yesterday I was summoned for a chat with the Shabak.

So yesterday, Rona from the Shabak called and asked me to come over for a chat with her at the Dizengoff Street police station. She refused to tell me what it was about over the phone, and explained that I was not going to be arrested, and that this was an introductory or friendly conversation.

I got to the Dizengoff Police Station and was sent to a second-floor office in the back building, where a dude was waiting for me who introduced himself as Rona’s bodyguard. I was taken into some room or other and underwent a rather intimate physical examination, to make sure that I hadn’t installed any kind of recording device on either of my testicles. Having found to be clean, I was brought into the room where Ronna sat. She was a fine-looking young woman of Yemeni extraction, in her early thirties.

Rona said that she knew I am an activist working for BDS and for a general boycott on the State of Israel and wanted to know what else I do within the framework of this activity. I said that everything was well-known and made public on the Internet and in the media, and that I have nothing to add and I don’t intend to talk about it with her.

Rona stressed that there is a law being made in the Knesset and that it is very much possible that my activity will be illegal soon. She continued to try and drag me into a political discussion and asked if I knew that the BDS is actually a Palestinian organization.

Rona raised the topic of the Warsaw graffiti and wanted to know whether it was my own private initiative or whether it was also part of BDS, and if I understood that I had overstepped a boundary and hurt the feelings of many people (and apparently, also hurt the feelings of the Shabak.) I again suggested that she listen to interviews and read articles that had been published on the subject. She said that she had already listened and read, but that she wanted to know more. I told her that I would be glad to give a public lecture on the subject for anyone who wants to hear it, and that I would do so in a public and open manner, but not within the framework of a Shabak interrogation.

Other than the BDS topic, Rona asked if I knew that the demonstrations in Bil’in and Na’alin are not legal, and that the whole region is closed to Israelis and internationals every Friday, from eight to eight.

She spoke at length about how the soldiers feel in these demonstrations and about how they are irritated when I talk to them and also answer them.

Rona said that she had been there in the past, and that she had been hit by stones, and that it is terribly unpleasant, and that the presence of Israelis at the demonstrations inflames the violence of the Palestinians, and that I should think about how the poor soldiers feel, and that all she’s trying to do is for the good of the state and comes from her desire to protect the people living here.

I answered that everything that I do also comes from my desire to protect the people living here, and I inquired about where she has all that information about my activity from, and asked if they are also tapping my phone. She said that she could not answer but that in general, the Shabak had more important things to do. So I asked her what I was doing there, and why I had been invited for some sort of political interrogation if they did indeed have more important things to do. I asked again if my calls were being tapped, and Ronna said that she could not answer.

She asked very earnestly that I not publish the details of our conversation, because she’s not the sort of person who seeks fame… In response I said that as a person dedicated to a non-violent struggle against the occupation I would speak and publish everything, including all details of this conversation, and other conversations, if there are indeed such conversations in future. I documented the entire conversation on a slip of paper until Rona started talking about that piece of paper and about what I was writing it. Finally, she confiscated my dangerous piece of paper, claiming that I was not allowed to bring in a recording device and that it was illegal.

Fortunately, I remembered most of the conversation and Ronna has not yet confiscated my memory.

Maybe she’ll do that at our next meeting.

That’s it, she may have said a few more things, but that was the main deal.

As far as I’m concerned, I understand that what interests them is our activity on BDS, and that they may even be trying to prepare cases for us, so they’ll be ready for the moment when the new law is voted into existence.

Noam Sheizaf adds:

I find this account of the conversation very reliable, and similar to other accounts of political interrogations of Jewish activists I heard of. We should remember that political interrogations of Palestinians are not that friendly or polite.

I also think that Yonatan could be right in assuming the police or the Shabak is putting together files on Israelis involved in the BDS. One of the many anti-democratic aspects of the new Knesset bill [Hebrew document] is that it will be possible to enforce it on past actions as well.

(Note: SHABAK is Shin Bet, the security agency of the Israeli government)

REPLY TO MICHAEL BRULL’S ARTICLE “BUT WHAT ABOUT ZIONISM?”

Reply to Michael Brull’s reply to Ned Curthoys and Dennis Altman in Overland 198 Autumn 2010

18 July 2010

When Michael Brull wrote his article for publication in the Overland Autumn 2010 issue, the Israeli butchers had not yet committed murder on the high seas in international waters on 31 May 2010 in the Mediterranean, killing in cold blood 9 Turkish citizens trying to take relief goods by ship to the starving Gazans in the Israeli concentration camp, one of the largest in the world, housing about 1.5 million Palestinians whose crime is to be living in territory which Israel wants to ethnically cleanse in order for its religious fanatics to occupy.

And all with the support of the international community!

Brull spends a great deal of time discussing the Australian Jewish community and its born-again zionism.

What needed to be attacked by his article was the toadying approach which the Australian zionists show towards their United States counterparts, and this was missing altogether.

Back to local Jewish politics and the Independent Australian Jewish Voice (IAJV) group. I am a signatory to this group for one reason only. I did not agree with its watered down version of the UK document attacking the UK zionists and making a much better fist of it than the local version because, as Brull says, it tends to support Israel’s right to exist.

The nub of my argument is that Israel now only has the right to exist in some sort of con-federal state of Israel-Palestine because it is long past there being any possibility of a two-state solution. Israel virtually occupies or lays siege to the whole of the rest of Palestine which is not part of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. So a secular one-state solution is the only possible answer and one both the Israelis and Palestinians find totally unacceptable at the moment!

Brull analyses the different approaches by Curthoys and Altman and agrees and disagrees on many points they both make I their different approaches.

Altman tends to be too moderate and middle-of-the-road in his acceptance of the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and Curthoys is all for the broadening of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) approach to include as much of the Israeli state as possible.

As a South African who watched the BDS campaign against the apartheid state gathering pace, particularly after I left that benighted country for this one in 1978 – this one at the time looking like a moderately progressive modern state, and how quickly things can change – I noticed that BDS actually worked in the longer term by bringing a once very rich country almost to its knees economically, because it was, of course the whites who had all the wealth, and the rest of the community had nothing. (And now in 2010 South Africa, the more things change the more they stay the same!!) But that departs from the central points of this thesis which are a critique of the majority of the Australian Jewish community and its unquestioning support of Israel through thick and thin.

Brull devotes space in his article to various Australian Jewish organizations which could more correctly be called Australian Zionist organizations. Those of us Jews who don’t toe the “party” line are accused of anti-semitism – a furphy if ever there was one. The cause of anti-semitism in the mid-20th century and onwards is the state of Israel and its brutality to the native population of Palestine and its apartheid regime which learnt from South Africa and now applies many of its own variations on a theme.

Why waste time on people like Mendes – someone who has shown over the years by his attacks on people who don’t accept his version of events that he represents views to the right of Genghis Khan or Julia Gillard! And Danby – the federal member of parliament for Israel!

Chomsky is another matter altogether. He has written seminal works on the Middle East and certainly understands the situations in the region better than almost anybody. But although he may support the idea of a two-state solution in theory, in practice we all know this is impossible and unrealistic when faced with what has happened on the ground, more specifically the settlement growth in the West Bank.

Doe Israel have a right to exist? Should it have been agreed to in principle at all? Many Jews around the world at the time Israel came into being, including those who had been Bundists in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century believed there were other solutions to the “Jewish” problems in Europe and around the world. They did not see a land of Israel, even after the Holocaust, when there was a certain amount of guilt felt by countries such as the USA, France and many others that a Jewish homeland may be a solution to ongoing anti-semitism, as solving the problems of systemic and systematic pogroms in Europe and elsewhere.

Ironically, the more Israel has succeeded, with the total support of the USA, in becoming the most powerful state in the region, the more has anti-semitism been on the increase around the world. In addition, it has seen the growth of extremism in many Muslim countries which see the Occupation and suppression of Palestinians as anti-Muslim.

Back to Australia, a mini-scene of zionist and anti-zionist thought and action around the world with the growth of militant zionist Israel and its brutal occupation and suppression of millions of people in concentration camps with appalling conditions and human rights abuses which the world continues to ignore.

Australian Jewish organizations continue to discredit themselves by their attacks on people and groups opposing the zionist path to glory, but are most notable for the fact that they continue to reside in Australia, not Israel. People like Mendes and many others of his ilk enjoy the comfort and security which Australia offers them while, as Brull relates, attacking the likes of Curthoys and Docker, with statements that Curthoys is only part-Jewish, whatever that means.

Michael Brull himself needs to relate somewhat to people who wish to use his articles on their web pages and not ignore possible allies in a world where nationalism and racism have started spiralling out of control – vide the forthcoming presidential style federal election with Hanson-style views being trotted out by all sides for ‘our protection and border control’ and other such crap and bullshit, and where zionism continues to be a racist, sexist, apartheid-style form of control of populations who are just “IN THE WAY”! but beloved by so many Australians - politicians and others, Jewish and not Jewish alike

See Michael Brull’s article in Overland issue 198, autumn 2010, pages 92-98.

UNIONS NOT HAPPY WITH THE ALTERNATIVE LIBERAL PARTY

This article was in The Age newspaper on 15 June 2010, before the bloody coup which saw Gillard replace Rudd. Everything, of course, has been downhill since then!!!

Workers withhold support for Labor

By BEN SCHNEIDERS

VICTORIAN unions have done little or no work in federal marginal seats to support Labor, senior officials say, in contrast to the huge resources used before the 2007 poll.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said campaigning by unions should be in full swing and that dissatisfaction with Labor's workplace regime was to blame for the apparent union apathy.

''The mood and the contribution that trade unions and organised labour made in the lead-up to 2007 to see John Howard off is not there leading up to the 2010 election,'' he said. ''We've got two or three marginal seats to protect [in Victoria] and work to protect them should have started well before now and it hasn't.''

At the last election, the union movement's Your Rights at Work campaign was credited as a key factor in the defeat of the Howard government and the end of its WorkChoices laws. In 2007-08, the ACTU spent $15.8 million on political expenditure but this time there is a smaller effort.

Since Tony Abbott's election as Opposition Leader, the ACTU has launched advertising warning he would bring back WorkChoices and has also appointed campaign co-ordinators.

Other union sources said that while there was dissatisfaction with elements of Labor's laws - in particular the failure to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission - once the election campaign got closer, ''pragmatism will take over''.

''A lot of unions have been pretty taken aback [at] how bad the polls are going for Labor,'' one source said. ''We don't want Tony Abbott. Despite what he says, he is more radical than Howard on industrial relations.''

While views are mixed among unions about the Fair Work laws, opposition to them appears strongest among left-wing Victorian unions.

Mr Boyd, who is also on the ACTU executive, said the laws ''contain too much of the original WorkChoices legislation''.

Restrictions on the right to strike and bargaining rights had carried over from the Howard government's laws, he said.

In Victoria, blue-collar unions have moved against the ALP, with the building commission a big issue. The construction arm of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union recently said it would back the Greens in the Senate.

WHO IS GILLARD? WHAT IS SHE?

From Antony Loewenstein’s web site:
Australia’s Prime Minister is a pale shadow of nothingness
Published on 9 July 2010 in General. 2 Comments
Dissident writer and academic Scott Burchill on the dead heart at the centre of the ruling Labor party in Australia (and the Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard):

Caved in to miners within hours of becoming PM – not prepared to stand up to corporate power in the West, or defend the population’s resources equity
Gushed to Obama – an “honour and privilege” just to speak to him, though we are allies in a (futile) war we are losing
Sucked up to Israel - expressed no concerns about the Dubai passport & identity theft or the flotilla massacre while deputy PM, and will not stand up to Israel lobby as PM
Backed the Afghan war unconditionally – without asking Obama any questions about McChrystal’s dismissal, how long we need to have troops in occupation, what the exit strategy, etc,
Opposed same sex marriage – apparently the state decides which consenting adults can marry, not the adults, though her choice not to marry is hers alone
Copied Howard’s Pacific solution on asylum seekers – substituting East Timor for Nauru, then abandoning it a few days later because the Timorese hadn’t been properly consulted and opposed the idea when they eventually were
Endorsed a government imposed internet filter - then abandoned it a day later because the population opposes it and thinks they should decide what they can and cannot access, not the government
Lost the Government’s two most competent ministers – Tanner can’t stand her and what she did to Rudd, Faulkner opposes the Afghanistan commitment he was charged with implementing

It’s not disappointing because only the naive believed she actually stood for something – principles or good policy, for example. If she did, she would have bailed on Rudd months ago. Concerns that someone from the left had risen to power were always risible – she is hated by her colleagues on the left more than she is by those on the right. She was only on the left of the party for the purposes of factional horse-trading and pre-selection.

What’s more difficult to understand is that like Rudd, she will be rightly criticised for not standing for, or believing in, anything. Sadly, she is actually getting credit for “clearing the decks” before an early election, as if policies are dispensable as long as it is possible to hold on to power. This tells us more about modern Labor than anything. If she is re-elected, what will she do? Manage for the sake or managing? Every other idea and principle has been, or is being, trashed.


Red Jos comments:

2 items we will NOT see Gillard backflip on:

1) Gillard will NOT do gay marriage

2) Gillard will NOT provide single pensions for every pensioner, whether single or "coupled"!

and no doubt the worst is yet to come as the election gets closer!

SYDNEY PARK AIDS MEMORIAL GROVES - MEDIA RELEASE

SYDNEY PARK AIDS MEMORIAL GROVES

SPAIDS
MEDIA RELEASE – 9 JULY 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sydney City Council has advised SPAIDS that Sydney Park is now fully planted and there will be no SPAIDS planting in 2010.

PlanetArk is having a National Tree Day event in another less heavily tree-ed area of Sydney Park on Sunday 1 August 2010 and the public is invited to attend.

SPAIDS friends may wish to enjoy a quiet, peaceful day in the SPAIDS Groves and Reflection Area by having a picnic there to celebrate the lives of those we have lost to AIDS and from other causes.

Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett, SPAIDS co-convenors

LINK TO SPAIDS:

SYDNEY PARK AIDS MEMORIAL GROVES WEB PAGES

GILLARD AND NETANYAHU IN HISTORIC AGREEMENT!

Australia and Israel reach an historic agreement by their decision to take over the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius for resettlement purposes.

Prime Minister Gillard says it gives Australia the opportunity of satisfying everybody over the asylum seeker issue by providing a safe off-shore haven for these desperately needy people, and Prime Minister Netanyahu sees the island as a perfect place to re-establish the Gaza and West Bank concentration camps in a pristine island setting.

It only remains for them to finalise the deal with the Mauritians who are believed to be desperate for the money and trade that the new concentration camps will bring to the island.

IKEA SERVES ISRAEL - PALESTINE IGNORED!

Very interesting to find out what some of the companies we have been dealing with over the years are responsible for - and IKEA is perhaps going back to its roots!


Human Rights

IKEA furnishing the occupation

Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 5 July 2010
Swedish Radio reported on 23 June that home furnishings retail giant IKEA in Israel discriminately ships to Israel's illegal settlements but not Palestinian cities in the occupied West Bank.

Swedish Radio's correspondent in Israel, Cecilia Udden, explained that she was moving to the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank and asked the staff at IKEA Israel if her furniture could be delivered there. She reported that behind the store's counter was a huge map of Israel that showed no boundaries for the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, or the Syrian Golan Heights. Although IKEA's cost of transport is calculated according to distance, to Udden's surprise, transport to Ramallah was not possible. However, the store did inform her that furniture could be delivered to various Israeli settlements throughout the occupied West Bank.

Ove Bring, a professor of international law, explained to Swedish online magazine Stockholm News that IKEA's policies discriminate against Palestinians. In addition, the shipping policies violate the company's code of conduct, which is published on its website ("IWAY Standard" [PDF]).

IKEA stated in Udden's report that because it relies on local transport companies for deliveries it is bound by local rules. However, Bring challenged the company's assertion and stated that IKEA must examine whether the transport companies are truly unable to deliver to all customers who request the products. Indeed, when Udden insisted on an answer from the transportation company about why her furniture could not be delivered to Ramallah, she was informed that the Israeli military prohibits the deliveries to customers in Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank.

In its historic 2004 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice emphasized the illegality of activity that normalizes Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Indeed, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center -- which is building a Museum of Tolerance on a historic Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem -- told the California-based Jewish weekly J. that the opening of an IKEA store in Israel "will be another chink in the attempts that are still out there to boycott Israel" (""IKEA's 1st Israeli store to open in spring," 12 January 2001).

Ironically, before the opening of an IKEA store in Israel in 2001, the retailer was threatened with boycott by the Wiesenthal Center because the company's founder, Ingvar Kamprad, was a member of the fascist New Swedish Movement in the 1940s. The Wiesenthal Center also suspected IKEA of complying with the Arab League boycott of Israel because it appeared to avoid commercial involvement in Israel despite possible opportunities. In a December 1994 letter to the Wiesenthal Center, IKEA President Anders Moberg stated that IKEA had not participated in the Arab League boycott and that company was in the process of investigating the possibility of opening an IKEA store in Israel.

Today IKEA's empire boasts 300 stores in 35 countries, including two stores in Israel; the company intends to open a third store in Haifa in 2012. The IKEA brand survived the revelations of its founder's links to fascism during his youth and the company demonstrated its sensitivity to a possible consumer boycott.

In yet another irony, the boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel movement is already mobilizing in Sweden. At the end of June, the Swedish Dockworkers Union began a week-long blockade of goods to and from Israel. The action by the SDU was in response to a call by Palestinian trade unionists in the context of Israel's three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip and its attack on the Mavi Marmara aid ship on 31 May. Meanwhile the Palestine Solidarity Association of Sweden has called on IKEA to immediately stop deliveries to the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It remains to be seen whether IKEA will rectify the racist policies of its store in Israel before such practices inspire a new consumer boycott threat.

Editor's note: the original version of this article inadvertently omitted the information that the Palestine Solidarity Association of Sweden has called on IKEA to stop delivering its merchandise to West Bank settlements. This version of the article has been corrected to include that information.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.


©2000-2010 electronicIntifada.net unless otherwise noted. Content may represent personal view of author. This page was printed from the Electronic Intifada website at electronicIntifada.net. You may freely e-mail, print out, copy, and redistribute this page for informational purposes on a non-commercial basis. To republish content credited to the Electronic Intifada in online or print publications, please get in touch via electronicIntifada.net/contact

MYPRIMEMINISTER REPORT CARD

Time to issue a report card on our latest prime minister. How different is she from previous prime ministers? Is her performance better? Are her policies different from her predecessors?

No - she is not different except in one major area for which she gets on her score-card 100 per cent - and that is for declaring she is an atheist!!!

On everything else she scores zero except one particular issue for which she is awarded minus 100 per cent - gay marriage!

So, feel free to assess her and award scores on her performance to date - her homophobia and hypocrisy are no different than those who came before!

Oh, and the latest on asylum seekers - Gillard gets minus 1,000,000 per cent!

She is a disgrace to the human race with regard to human rights - she doesn't know Arthur from Marthur!!!!

And the latest attempt to use East Timor to place a concentration camp there is an interesting take on John Howard's pacific solution. Hell hath no fury like a prime minster trying to ensure re-election by sinking to the worst aspects of racism in the Australian communities.

What is the difference between Gillard and Abbott?? There is no difference - they are both racists, homophobes, power-hungry politicians with no shame, no understanding of shame and no hope of redemption - Abbott does it in the name of cristianity and Gillard does it in the name of "desperate for re-election"!

Thursday 8 July 2010 and Gillard does the thinkable!!! She endorses Conroy's web censorship plans - "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MUST BE STAMPED OUT" by Conroy and Gillard's censorship plans?? So, Gillard sinks even lower in the polls - score on censorship gets to minus 1,000 per cent and dropping!