Being criticized by these folks is often an outright endorsement.

“Law and order” breaking the law is reaching a middle, I see.

Toonen/7

Toonen also noted that in addition to the legal threats people in power in Tasmania routinely made threatening and dehumanizing comments about the gay community there.

He sums up that this is discriminatory and harassment towards the people of Tasmania.

Weird, it that’s the case where are all the people concerned about the rights of the states?

Also, Newsom is resisting segregation, not desegregation.

Toonen/6

Toonen’s complaint was Tasmanian law banning “…all forms of sexual contact between consenting adult homosexual men in private.”

In addition to being illegal it also empowered the police to investigate him, even if not charged.

I’m not finding if this did happen or if just a threat.

This is why dehumanization is the first step - if they don’t see us as human, they don’t have any problem with what they do.

Moshe Dayan’s quote about Israel being a “mad dog” means this is very likely an intentional posture.

Probably because the people in charge of going after the drug traffickers are now abducting children from elementary school.

Lack of enforcement of the law does not mean there’s less crime.

Taking the name in vain is so old there’s a commandment about it.

Toonen/5

Toonen was a member of the Tasmanian Gay Law Reform Group, an organization that appears to no longer exist. Searching for it they appear to be best known for being prohibited in 1988 from having a stall in the “family friendly” Salamanca Market in Hobart.

He can’t legally do anything with the WA guard because of Posse Comitatus.

It becomes very hard to claim “Law and order” is the goal when they’re actively breaking the law.

Sadly this is the horror every dystopian author thinks about.

It’s bad journalism to say non-lethal.

That’s the formal term.

They are very capable of being lethal and using the term “non-lethal” is inaccurate and bad journalism.

The term “less lethal” is what they’re often called formally to warn cowboy cops not to use them frivolously.

Toonen/4

Toonen is described as the author of the complaint, a citizen of Australia residing in Hobart, Tasmania.

Tasmania is the smallest Australian state and one that leans more conservative (the Australian Liberal party). In 1990, it was a comfortable Liberal win.

I mean it’s not exactly a priority but it’s part of who he was.

Anything beyond a cursory review will turn up a lot of unpleasant facts about historical figures.

It’s part of why putting the past on a pedestal is so foolish.

Toonen/3

The document starts with a reference to a rule 91 decision. According to this, that’s a request for more information made of the state party (Australia in this case).

Toonen submitted the complaint in December 1991, rule 91 in April 1992, decided 1994.

hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/...

Toonen/2

There are three articles mentioned as “substantive” in the complaint - 2-1 (access to legal remedies), 17-1 (right to privacy, explicitly including a right to the sexual activity of consenting adults), and 26, (equality under the law generally).

17-1 is the main issue at hand.

Toonen/1

juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/...

Decision is here. I think the jumble at the top is covenant on civil and political rights (CCPR), communication (C), Session # (50), Decision (D), tracking number (488), year (1992).

Toonen submitted the complaint in 1991, it was taken for review in 1992.

The next document isn’t that old, all of 1994, but it’s a relevant discussion for Pride - the Toonen decision.

This landmark case in the United Nations Human Rights Commission found that sexual orientation was a protected status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

34/Fred

Jackson closes his dissent with an evaluation of the recently decided Hirabayashi case as precedent, similarly war powers being used for unconstitutional actions.

He argues that the mild inconvenience of a curfew is not comparable to basically imprisonment, a major infringement of liberty.

Exiling them is the entire point of having a designated location to exile them to.

That’s what Israel is to some - a designated place to send exiled Jews.

Poland’s election results leave me concerned.

Sad but true.

My pet conspiracy theory is that antisemitism is 100% pro-Israel because it gives an opportunity and an incentive for the Jews to be forced out.

I think the challenge is that some things get labeled as “antisemitism” when they are antizionism or just criticisms of Netanyahu’s government or IDF tactics.

When the AFDL tries to silence people for challenging some sieg heils it’s easy to get frustrated and confused.

What they want in broad brush is similar, the extent is usually where they differ and where the wedge issues come in.

Israel being safe and Palestine being free are going to be a great example of things we all want but have a lot of differences in how we might accomplish them.

Kim Jong Un?

Li’l Kim doesn’t have that much impact. He could be a real regional threat but he’s not starting anything global.

Are the protests really about “hatred for those who are Jewish” or are they about the crimes against humanity like ethnic cleansing and support of despotic governments that have traditionally gotten protests out of American students?

The war isn’t even about religion, it’s about land.

Not enough information to say.

I wish I could say wait until the facts are in but given this administration’s history with facts I have little hope we’ll get those.