Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - The doctrine that believes it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end


Things that have been loved for decades by people, especially children, have now been made into objects of racism and hatred. The children's author Enid Blyton, whose stories of Noddy and Big Ears were treasured by millions of kids since the 1930s have now been pilloried by Permanently Offended People as being racist. What's more, some of these imbeciles have touted the fact that because Noddy and Big Ears slept in the same bed, they were homosexuals. These idiots scrabble around to try and find anything to fit their perverted agendas. Big Ears should not be criticised because of his big ears. Noddy should not play pranks on Mr Plod the copper and indeed Mr Plod's name is offensive. There's no end to this crap.

In July 2016, a classic case of complete idiocy was perpetrated by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau (ADB), that bastion of politically correct Thought Police, who have assumed the power to dictate what we see and hear in advertising. These clowns forced a retro Victorian lolly shop with a golliwog in its logo to withdraw its television advertisement after the ADB ruled that this logo "humiliates and ridicules". Of course this is sheer stupidity, because the golliwog has been one of the most loved and adored toys and symbols by children for over a century.


This is the sort of politically correct bullshit that has been inflicted on this nation by a pack of fools who listen to complaints by Permanently Offended People instead of telling them to piss off and stick their complaints where the sun don't shine. That is why the golliwog will now be featured in the Hotheads banner on the main page of this website and woe betide anybody who thinks that they can make me remove it. In fact, I encourage every free-thinking politically incorrect person to copy the above golliwog graphic and put it on their own websites and in their emails and documents.

The point of this is that outfits like the ADB need to be defied at every step and the laws that have established this gang of Thought Police should be repealed. Obviously there are things that really are offensive and unnecessary. We don't need to see a close-up shot of a vagina in a tampon advertisement. We do not need to see an erect penis in a condom advertisement. We get the idea. But when something is as beloved by generations of kids as a golliwog has suddenly become so offensive that it cannot be featured in lolly advertisements, where it has been for decades, then it's time to tread on the ADB and squash it completely.


In yet another display of complete imbecility in the NSW public school system, in July 2016, clapping was banned at Elanora Heights Public School in Sydney, which introduced "silent cheering", "pulling excited faces" and "punching the air", in order to to respect students who are sensitive to noise. The school now only allows its pupils "to conduct a silent cheer" when prompted by teachers and says the practice reduces fidgeting.

It was the latest example of a political correctness outbreak in Australian schools that banned hugging, singing Christmas carols, celebrating Australia Day and singing the word "black" in the nursery rhyme "Baa Baa Black Sheep".

In its 18 July 2016 newsletter, the Elanora school published an item under the byline, "Did you know that our school has adopted silent cheers at assembly’s” (sic). If you've been to a school assembly recently, you may have noticed our students doing silent cheers," the item read. "Instead of clapping, the students are free to punch the air, pull excited faces and wriggle about on the spot. The practice has been adopted to respect members of our school community who are sensitive to noise."

"When you attend an assembly, teachers will prompt the audience to conduct a silent cheer if it is needed. Teachers have also found the silent cheers to be a great way to expend children’s energy and reduce fidgeting."

Elanora Heights Public School's ban on clapping in favour of silent cheering came after several schools banned hugging. In April 2016, hugging was banned at a Geelong primary school in Victoria and children were told to find other ways to show affection. St Patrick's Primary School principal John Grant said that nothing in particular had caused hugging to be replaced by high fiving or a knuckle handshake. "But in this current day and age we are really conscious about protecting kids and teaching them from a young age that you have to be cautious," Grant said.

He stated that children at the school have been enthusiastic huggers, with hugs given out to teachers and other children. "We have a lot of kids who walk up and hug each other and we're trying to encourage all of us to respect personal space," Grant said. "It really comes back to not everyone is comfortable in being hugged."

The first thing that comes to mind is that the teachers at Elanora Heights Public School need to go back to school themselves. When they wrongly use the word "assembly's" instead of the plural "assemblies", then we know that they should not be teaching anybody because they are largely illiterate. The same goes for mathematics, where so many Australian teachers are mathematically innumerate. How the hell they managed to obtain a teaching degree is beyond belief, but not all that surprising, when one realises that nobody is allowed to fail in academia, whether it be in primary school, high school or even university.

No wonder so many people are opting to give their kids home schooling, because with this sort of politically correct crap going on in the school system, it's far better to keep kids away from the loony indoctrination that is inflicted on them by this LGBTI nonsense. How much worse it can get before parents stage a massive revolt has yet to be seen.


Teachers at the exclusive Cheltenham Girls High School in north-west Sydney were told that they could no longer able to use the words 'girls, 'ladies' or 'women' to avoid discrimination and support LGBTI students. Teachers were asked to refer to their pupils with gender-neutral language such as 'students'. Teachers were also informed to comply with the change in language which was introduced under the Safe Schools anti-bullying program or leave, as they were homophobic and breaking the law.

The move angered some parents who believed that their children were now being forced to feel extradited if they did not take part in LGBTI activities and have since complained to their local Liberal MP Damien Tudehope. Cheltenham Girls High School recently removed their Aboriginal flag to raise the rainbow flag at half-mast in commemoration of the US attack at a night club in Orlando USA. The school also includes a 'Queer-straight alliance' club and features gender equality events such as Wear it Purple Day.

"Some parents are saying that at LGBTI events like Rainbow Day and Purple Day, that if their daughter doesn't comply with what they perceive as the school directions their daughter is ostracised,' Tudehope said. A mother who met the school's principal, Susan Bridge, to address the issue reportedly left the meeting without a solution and instead received the NSW Department of Education's stance on homophobia.

Education Minister Adrian Piccoli was also investigating the complaints following a petition being signed by the parents. "All schools are required to conform with federal government guidelines. I am advised all schools are following these guidelines. I have asked the secretary to confirm this is the case at all schools, including Cheltenham Girls High School," Piccoli said.

The Safe Schools program is one of the worst Trojan Horse attempts to impose the LGBTI agenda onto innocent and vulnerable children and has almost nothing to do with bullying. We understand that there are homosexuals and they should not be ostracised for their sexual preferences, but to shove this crap down the throats of kids is intolerable. Fortunately the edict about calling females 'girls' or 'women' was overturned.


According to academics, schools should drop the terms "Sir" and "Miss" because they discriminate against women. Jennifer Coates, emeritus professor of English language and linguistics at Roehampton University in Britain, said there was no place for the titles in the 21st century. She says that students should be encouraged to use the first names of teachers to free children of the prejudices of the previous generation.

The use of the term "Miss" for all female teachers, irrespective of marital status, is considered by some to be old-fashioned and allegedly embodies the massive status disparity and sexism of previous years. "It's a depressing example of how women are given low status and men, no matter how young or new in the job they are, are given high status," Professor Coates stated. "Sir is a knight. There weren’t women knights, but 'Miss' is ridiculous: it doesn’t match 'Sir' at all. It's just one of the names you can call an unmarried woman," said Professor Coates.

The title "Sir" has been used in English classrooms since the 16th century, where teachers were aiming to convey authority to male students who were generally of a higher class. "Miss" can be traced to the late Victorian era, when women were expected to leave work after marrying, meaning many schools only hired single female teachers.

Education historian Jacob Middleton, observed the notion of females as "Miss" and men as "Sir" has prevailed, regardless of marital status. "It's old-fashioned and it embodies the massive status disparity and sexism of former years," he said. Robin Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, said the traditional title for male teachers always conveys respect, while Miss does not. She recommended that schools call all male teachers "Mr", followed by their surname, while female teachers are called "Ms".

Professor Sara Mills, from the Humanities Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University, said schools should go further and use first names. "Sometimes teachers find that they can control students more when they try to stress the similarities between them, rather than trying to keep as distant as possible," she stated.

This is the sort of idiocy that proves yet again that nobody should pay any attention to academics who spend their entire lives in the politically correct and completely unreal halls of academia and mostly have never held real jobs and have never experienced life in the real world. These academics are imbeciles if they don't understand that those honorifics are used in schools by pupils as a mark of respect. It is the same as soldiers of lower ranks addressing officers as "Sir". Those officers are not knights either. Female officers are generally addressed as "Madam" but they are not brothel keepers either.

Just like in the military, there has to be a system of hierarchical rank and respect in schools and pupils need to address their teachers in an appropriate way. The titles "Sir" and "Miss" have worked very well for centuries and nobody in the modern era can say that female teachers are being discriminated against because of the titles that pupils are required to call them. This is yet another example of the loony theories of academics, who don't have a clue about life in the real world. It's just a shame that governments often listen to these idiots and implement their ideas, usually with disastrous consequences.


US National Basketball League superstar Charles Barkley got into strife after poking fun at the size of San Antonio women. During a broadcast of Inside the NBA, Barkley mocked the city’s overweight women at length, saying, "Some big ol' women down there - that’s a gold mine for Weight Watchers." He also quipped, "Victoria is definitely a secret (in San Antonio) - they can’t wear no Victoria's Secret down there,"

Two obesity organisations hit out at Barkley, who himself is a spokesperson for Weight Watchers, calling on the 10-time All-Star to apologise. "Making slurs about body size is just as offensive as making comments about body colour," National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance spokesperson Peggy Howell stated. "One would think being a black man, he’d be more sensitive to having his physical body criticised. It’s totally out of line. He should absolutely apologise."

The President of the Obesity Action Coalition added: "As a former NBA player and sports entertainment figure, Mr Barkley should encourage equality and respect among society and not look to shame or segment one population because of their size. Obesity is a serious medical condition and not a joking matter."

Barkley is so right. Anybody who has visited the USA could not help but notice the number of grossly obese people. Americans are the fattest people in the world, with 35% being overweight, 34% being obese and nearly 6% being grossly obese. So why should Charles Barkley not be able to comment or even joke about this disgusting state of affairs? And since when was obesity a serious medical condition? Most obese people are that way because they eat garbage and junk food and lots of it.

Until Americans stop trying to justify obesity as being a medical issue and understand that virtually all obese people are in that condition because of their own actions, this problem will just get worse. It's the same as idiots claiming that gambling is an illness. Well it is, if you consider greed to be an illness, which is extremely stupid. More power to Barkley for saying it as it is and he should tell his critics that if being obese is not good, then they should advise people to refrain from eating junk and getting some exercise.


A West Australian school was forced to apologise over a racial discrimination complaint lodged by a family whose child was told their hair was untidy. The child's mother argued that because of her child's mixed cultural heritage, the child had naturally curly hair. She pulled the student out of the school before lodging the complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission.

The school apologised over the incident and agreed to change its hair policy "to recognise that while students do need to retain high standards of grooming, students do have different cultural and ethnic characteristics". The incident was among a growing number of complaints lodged by young West Australians aged under 19 years with the commission. In 2013, 43 complaints have been made by that age group, with impairment, age and sex discrimination making up the majority of incidents. That total was up from just 22 complaints in 2010.

Acting Commissioner Allanah Lucas said that many educational institutions and organisations were developing cultural awareness, but many needed to work more with parents, teachers and students. "It doesn't give you all the answers but if you don't know anything about the changing demographic around you then, yes, you're going to make assumptions - and then, of course, there are these continued stereotypes in our community," she said.

"That's the one thing that has hit me - when people are themselves ignorant they will act in an ignorant way. It's actually ignorance we need to deal with and somehow give people the information, the opportunity to get some sort of understanding." Lucas said that she was concerned that pregnancy discrimination was emerging as an issue for young women in the workplace. "There is that unconscious bias there, which is very sad to hear in 2013," she said.

This is the sort of idiocy and political correctness that is now rampant in Australia. So a school deemed that a student's hair was untidy. That's an observation and an opinion and has nothing to do with racial discrimination whatsoever. Any person of any race can maintain tidy hair, but obviously the parents of this student saw the opportunity to play the racial discrimination card and the Equal Opportunity Commission kangaroo court played its part in penalising the school.

Would the Equal Opportunity Commission make a ruling against a school that criticised a white student's hair as being untidy if a racial discrimination complaint was made? Of course not, simply because the way these ridiculous kangaroo courts work is that only white people can be racist. We have yet to hear of an Aboriginal organisation being prosecuted because they refused to employ white people and the crazy thing is that Aboriginal organisations have an exemption from the Racial Discrimination Act so that they can do exactly that - discriminate against whites.

As for pregnancy discrimination being an emerging issue, well employers cannot be blamed for refusing to take on pregnant women because of the amazingly generous maternitly leave and other allowances granted to female employees who have babies. An employer would have to be crazy to employ a woman who is about to have a child and saddle him with massive costs to cover her absence, not to mention the inconvenience and disruption.

The problem is that human nature cannot be changed by legislation. Every person has the right to an opinion, whether it be about untidy hair or anything else. Every person has the right of free association and if he doesn't want to employ pregnant women, Nazis, Muslims, old people, disabled people, homosexuals or anybody he doesn't particularly like, then that is his right. Nobody should ever be forced to deal with people they do not wish to deal with.

And that is why all the anti-discrimination laws will never change human nature and why they should all be repealed. They are stupid and the people who administer them are idiots if they think that they can stop people from discriminating. Sure, they can punish people for it, but they will never ever stop a white person hating a black person or vice-versa and they will never stop an employer refusing to employ somebody he does not want to employ. As for that WA school being forced to apologise for its hair comments, the apology should have been refused point-blank. People are entitiled to their opinions, whether somebody thinks that they are racist or not.


Twelve Victoria Police officers were charged over racist stubby holders mocking African migrants in Melbourne's west. About 50 stubby holders were reportedly made for and distributed to police officers from the Sunshine police station.

One side featured a cartoon image of a mudfish with the words: "Sunshine police. Whoever says Sunshine brings happiness has never worked here." The cartoon refers to a derogatory slang for African people, which is sometimes shortened to "muddie". Mudfish are a bottom-feeder fish commonly eaten in Sudan and other countries. The other side has the words "My date of birth is 01/01/?" referring to refugees from Africa and other war-torn countries who do not know their date of birth.

The items were believed to have been produced last year and were used regularly at the station's "mongrel" drinking nights. The disciplinary charges relate to the stubby holders, a photograph and email use at Sunshine police station.

Three of the 12 officers facing disciplinary hearings have been suspended. A statement from Victoria Police said the force would not comment any further because of the disciplinary process. A spokeswoman said the process would be dealt with by an internal disciplinary hearing. None of the charges are criminal.

In June 2013, it was revealed that Bairnsdale police had stubby holders that carried racist references to Aboriginal people. The stubby holders were shaped like police-issue capsicum spray and were discovered in 2010. No officer was charged at the time and police are conducting an internal review of the disciplinary process. Police agreed to launch a public inquiry into racism as part of a settlement of a Federal Court case brought by 16 Africans, aged 13-20 and an Afghan man aged 23.

These matters are ludicrous. On the Sunshine Police stubby holders, there is no way to identify the fish depicted there as a mudfish. The caption has does not refer to anything racial whatsoever. The caption about the date of birth cannot be attributed to anything racist and does not refer to anybody. What people infer is their problem, but unless the people persecuting these cops can prove that the cartoon fish is an African mudfish and that the comments are racist will be made to look like fools.

The same applies to the completely ridiculous accusations that stubby holders shaped like police-issue capsicum spray had anything to do with racist references to Aborigines. The police officers who were so wrongly accused of racism should sue the government to its back teeth for this politically correct groundless persecution.

Brazilian Fat Beauty Contest
Ugly obese women think that they look beautiful

Brazilian women are renowned worldwide for their beauty and vivaciousness. The annual Mardi Gras in Rio De Janeiro shows the world how stunning these ladies are. However, obviously in a moment of utter insanity and political correctness, somebody in Brazil decided to stage a beauty contest for gross and obese women bulging with ugly rolls of fat everywhere.

Of course the contestants in this so-called beauty pageant were not referred to as grossly obese. Oh no - they were called "plus-sized" - the problem being that there were a hell of a lot of pluses added to their blimp-like sizes. How anybody in their right mind could consider that grossly fat women are beautiful is beyond comprehension, but here's the evidence of another piece of imbecilic political correctness.


In the USA, a nine-year-old Colorado boy claims he was suspended from his elementary school after fighting back against a bully who was beating him. Nathan Pemberton, a third-grader at West Elementary School in Colorado Springs, was suspended following a physical altercation with another student.

"One kid kicked me in the back, then punched me in the face. Then I punched him in the face and then I got in trouble," the boy stated.

The boy's parents said their son has repeatedly complained of being bullied at school. "Finally, yeah, we told him, if you have to, if there's nobody else around, you do what you have to do," said his mother, Deborah Pemberton.

The school released a statement saying that the district has a no tolerance student discipline policy. "If a student is involved in a physical altercation on school property, they are automatically suspended," the statement said. "District 11 schools employ many anti-bullying teaching techniques and none of these methods include violence or retaliation."

The position of that Colorado school district is so stupid that it is laughable. The right of self-defence is not negotiable. If a person is attacked, he has every right to defend himself in any way he sees fit, right up to and including killing his assailant. Age has nothing to do with such a situation. Imagine if those schoolyard bullies in Colorado assaulted that nine-year-old boy and poked his eyes out or broke his spine? He would be a cripple for the rest of his life.

There is only one way to deal with a bully and that is to fight back and not only beat him, but make him hurt so much that he will never ever attempt to bully his victim again. People who allow others to bully them will continue to suffer unless they deal with those bullies by deterring them with the one thing that bullies understand - immense pain and suffering.


Weight Watchers Australia has banned the word "fat" from its online message board. Disgusted members of the Weight Watchers community forum have been told that the three-letter word is no longer considered acceptable language on the site.

Posts containing any mention of "fat" are blocked and attract an automated reply: "Sorry, but your message contains language that we consider to be inappropriate for message boards and violates our community standards and conduct guidelines, which are part of our terms and conditions. The following word is not permissible on our site: FAT. If you would still like to send your message, go back and delete the word."

A Weight Watchers spokeswoman said that the problem was a technical glitch that had occurred after a website upgrade in December 2011. She said the matter had been resolved, but by 6 January 2011, posts containing the word were still being blocked.

It seems rather strange that this alleged technical glitch on the Weight Watchers website seemed to apply to the word "fat" and nothing else, which would make any reasonable person doubt that this was accidental. Of course there is now the new politically correct crime of "fat-ism" where in Britain, there have been calls by campaigners for denigration of obese people to be made a hate crime. They want so-called "fat-ism" to be made illegal on the same grounds as race, age and religious discrimination.

Protesters want Britain to follow San Francisco, where a law bans "fat-ism" in housing and employment and stops doctors pressing patients to slim down. The campaigners, who belong to the Size Acceptance Movement, say surveys show 93% of employers would rather employ a thin person than a fat one even if they are equally qualified.

How far can idiocy and stupidity go? Well, there seems to be no bounds to it when doctors are stopped from pressing their obese patients to lose weight. And of course employers prefer slim people to obese people, simply because there is nothing pretty about obese or grossly overweight people. Most people find the sight of obese people to be very ugly. There is nothing nice about obesity and employers should have the right to choose their employees on any grounds. It's called freedom.


In Britain, Jenna Mason was arrested in her Suffolk home after her black neighbour Rosemarie O'Donnell complained about her displaying a golliwog in her window. O'Donnell stated that the golliwog caused offence to her family. Mason denied that she displayed the golliwog to cause racially aggravated harassment.

However, when the case went to court in October 2011, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence. The head of the complex casework unit stated that a review had been carried out at the highest level. He stated that on the evidence available, it was not possible to show who was responsible for placing the golliwog in the window and there was not a realistic prospect for a conviction.

This is the sort of insanity that has infected Britain, the USA and Australia. The prosecution did not look at the obvious particulars of the case, that a golliwog was not an illegal toy or artefact, therefore placing it anywhere in sight of anybody or even carrying it around in the street would have been perfectly legal and not capable of causing racial harassment.

Obviously if a golliwog is a legal toy, it can be played with anywhere, taken anywhere and placed anywhere on private property, whether neighbours like it or not. Jenna Mason had no case to answer and should not have been arrested in the first place because there was no criminal offence committed. And on top of that, Jenna Mason had every right to place that golliwog in her window in full view of her neighbour for whatever reason, because it was not illegal to do so.

The prosecutor should be ashamed of himself, because according to his words, he did not drop the case because the complaint was idiotic, but only because he could not determine who placed the golliwog in the window. One can only speculate whether he would have been stupid enough to prosecute Jenna Mason for doing nothing illegal, had he been able to determine that she placed the toy in the window.

Placing a golliwog in a window is not an illegal act. Jenna Mason should sue the living daylights out of the Crown Prosecution Service for wrongful and malicious prosecution and furthermore, she should put a row of golliwogs in her window in full view of her stupid neighbour, because it is legal to do so for any reason.

What this case really proves is that only white people can be racist. If Rosemarie O'Donnell, the black complainant, had placed a caricature of a white person, such as the Muppet Miss Piggy, in her window facing a white neighbour, would the police have prosecuted her for racial harassment? Of course not. Such a complaint would have been dismissed out of hand. If you're white, you can be persecuted for literally anything on the grounds of racism, but if you're black, you are immune. That's the height of stupidity and political correctness.


In August 2011, Australian airline Qantas was embroiled in a race row and apologised after posting on Twitter a photo of two Wallabies fans wearing black face paint and afro wigs as part of the airline's Bledisloe Cup competition. The Twitter competition asked Wallabies fans to tell how they would show their support for the team for the chance to win two Platinum tickets to the Bledisloe Cup on Saturday night.

The winners of the Australian Wallabies vs New Zealand All Blacks match arrived at the game dressed as their favourite player Radike Samo, wearing green and gold, with their arms, legs and faces painted black. But what was supposed to be a show of support sparked outrage among some Twitter users, who labelled the stunt as appalling. Qantas quickly removed the photo and apologised to its followers.

"We understand it caused offence to some people, which is why it was removed. We are really sorry if it has upset anyone," the Tweet read. "We are apologising to those who found it offensive, obviously it was not our intention. Just meant to show their support of Radike."

Qantas put the call out for competition entries on 22 August 2011 and said the 140-character Tweets would be judged on their creativity and reference to the Qantas Wallabies football team. The winner, chosen by the airline, wrote: "We will dress as Radike Samo. Complete with Afro Wig, Aus rugby kit and face paint." A Qantas spokeswoman said the airline had contacted Samo, who posed with the fans on Saturday night and said he did not have a problem with the costumes.

Samo defended the fans and stated that he didn't know what all the fuss was about. "These guys were actually paying me a tribute. It was a bit of fun and I think it's great they regarded me as their favourite Wallaby," he said. "I didn't have an issue with it at all. I was glad to be in a photo with them so I don't know why anyone is getting worked up - that sort of reaction is just silly.

Are these people racists?
Two guys dressed up as their favourite rugby player and two aborigines in whiteface makeup. Are they all racists?

It is appalling that Qantas caved in to this unwarranted criticism and false accusations of racism. There was absolutely nothing racist about a couple of guys paying tribute to their favourite rugby player, but of course political correctness kicked in and Qantas succumbed. Even an Aboriginal mouthpiece, the chairman of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, Stephen Ryan came out with this nonsense, "It is hard to believe that a company that has used Aboriginal iconography to try and improve its image didn't know that this could easily be construed as racist."

Only an imbecile could construe a tribute such as this as racism. Only idiots looking for a reason to be politically correct could claim that a couple of guys imitating their sporting hero were being racist. But what about Aborigines painting their faces white, as they often do in their dances? Should we white folk accuse them of racism just for that? Stephen Ryan would doubtless be outraged at the suggestion that his precious Aborigines were being racist when they painted themselves up in whiteface, as opposed to this dastardly racism of white guys getting into blackface.

Anybody with the slightest modicum of commonsense would tell Stephen Ryan to shove his criticism and comments where the sun don't shine, because he represents a race of people who proudly fly a racist flag, run racist organisations and sporting teams and benefit from racist government policies. He should be the very last person to criticise anybody for racism. He is the pot calling the kettle black, pardon the pun and Qantas is weak for buckling to the completely unwarranted criticism from illogical fools.


At the Egalia preschool in Stockholm Sweden, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys. From the colour and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year for kids aged one to six is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward. Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behaviour that risk reinforcing stereotypes. Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

At Egalia - the title connotes "equality" - boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole. Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.

Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase, she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless - until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg. Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no Snow White, Cinderella or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play. "A concrete example could be when they're playing 'house' and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble," she says. "Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on."

Egalia's methods are controversial; some say they amount to mind control. Rajalin says the staff have received threats from racists apparently upset about the preschool's use of black dolls. But she says that there's a long waiting list for admission to Egalia, and that only one couple has pulled a child out of the school.

Sweden has promoted women's rights for decades, and more recently was a pioneer among European countries in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legalise their partnerships and adopt children.

Gender studies permeate academic life in Sweden. Bergkvist noted on her blog that the state-funded Swedish Science Council had granted $US80,000 ($A76,175) for a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at analysing "the trumpet as a symbol of gender."

Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he's not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go. "The kind of things that boys like to do - run around and turn sticks into swords - will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."

Egalia is unusual even for Sweden. Staff try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her - "han" or "hon" in Swedish. Instead, they've have adopted the genderless "hen," a word that doesn't exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles.

"We use the word "hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," Rajalin says. "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2pm' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view."

Egalia doesn't deny the biological differences between boys and girls - the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct. What matters is that children understand that their biological differences "don't mean boys and girls have different interests and abilities," Rajalin says. "This is about democracy. About human equality."

One can only feel sorry for the poor kids who are being used and manipulated in this moronic social experiment. The human race has evolved for at least 400 million years into distinct male and female gender and biologically wired into specific roles - the male being the hunter-gatherer and the female being the child-raiser. This was no accident, but the politically correct Swedes are trying now to undo evolution and create a society of genderless people as a social experiment.

Like every other politically correct idiocy, this is doomed to failure because one cannot fight the laws of nature. Of course the victims will be the children, who will grow up completely confused and fighting their male or female biological imprint. But as usual, politically correct morons never seem to care about the people who suffer because of their stupid agendas.


A Canadian couple have sparked controversy by deciding to keep the sex of their baby secret, leaving the decision up to him or her. Baby Storm has big blue eyes, fair hair and chubby cheeks. But whether this baby is a boy or a girl is a secret, say the parents.

The bizarre move has led to Kathy Witterick and husband David Stocker being labelled the most politically correct family in the world. There's nothing ambiguous about the baby's sex. The parents know, as do brothers Jazz, 5 and Kio, 2 who somehow are keeping their mouths shut. One close family friend also knows, as do the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool in the couple's Toronto home on New Year's Day.

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to the rest of their friends and family that stated, "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now - a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime."

Storm's grandparents were supportive, but resented having to explain a gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. Friends cleverly accused the couple of taking away the newborn's right to choice by imposing their own ideology on the tiny baby. And pretty much everyone they told or rather refused to tell was united in believing they were setting their children up for a lifetime of bullying.

The couple believe they are releasing Storm from the constraints society imposes on males and females. They claim children can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very young age.

One can immediately see the type of airheads that Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are by the names of their kids - Jazz, Kio and Storm. Those kids are going to spend a lot of their lives explaining those names to the mainstream, filling in applications and all the rest of the trouble with having stupid names that need to be spelled to people every time they are used.

But Storm will have the additional burden of growing up with the knowledge that his politically correct new-age parents refused to state its gender, even though the kid is a normal male or female, as the case may be. This is clearly a case of idiotic parents foisting their idiotic beliefs onto their offspring, almost worthy of being guilty of child abuse.


In April 2011, leading academics called for pets to be renamed "companion animals". They said that rather than being a term of endearment, "pets" is an insult to the animals concerned and their owners, who should be known as "human carers".

Editors of a new journal devoted to animal ethics, including an Oxford University theologian, also want the terms "pests" and "vermin" to be dropped. Wild animals, meanwhile, would be referred to as "free-living" or "free-ranging". Even innocuous phrases such as "sly as a fox" and "drunk as a skunk" are seen as an affront to animals.

The recommendations reflect a feeling in some academic circles that the language we use when thinking or talking about animals affects how we treat them. The call for a new type of animal language is made in the first issue of the Journal of Animal Ethics, which bills itself as being "devoted to the exploration of progressive thought about animals". Although the changes are mainly aimed at those contributing articles to the journal, it is hoped the message will influence how other people view their pets.

In the editorial, Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey, an Oxford theologian who has written or edited 20 books and US philosopher Prof Priscilla Cohn call for a major rethink of animal terminology. He stated, "Despite its prevalence, 'pets' is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers. Again the word 'owners', while technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as property, machines or things to use without moral constraint."

This imbecility merely proves what most people think of academics, that they simply don't live in the real world. One cannot imagine that a dog would be insulted if its owner referred to it as a pet. Then there are those blatant affronts to foxes and skunks that will now send those creatures into paroxysms of rage. The morons who came up with this idiocy would most probably give a fox and a skunk the right to sue for defamation any person who referred to them as sly or drunk.

Of course such lunacy should be expected from people such as Andrew Linzey, who has made his living out of promulgating the ridiculous and very obvious nonsense about a Skyfairy and his mythical son Jesus who died so that all the rest of us could be emotionally blackmailed into contributing our wealth to keep this crap alive. The truth is that most academics spend their entire lives as professional scholars, concocting up really stupid social theories such as this one.


Xbox Live recently banned Josh Moore for violating its gamers’ code of conduct. His offence was filling out his Xbox Live profile. Josh lives in West Virginia, more specifically in Fort Gay Microsoft said that the word “gay” is always offensive, regardless of the fact that several US towns incorporate the word into their name, many people have Gay as a first or last name and most homosexuals do identify themselves as gay.

So despite a total lack of customer complaints, Microsoft froze Josh's account and warned him that he could lose his prepaid subscription if he badgered Customer Service further. Fort Gay Mayor David Thompson tried to intervene, but was told that the city’s name didn’t matter - the word "gay" was inappropriate in any context.

As a result, Josh missed a Search and Destroy competition and his team lost. Microsoft has since carefully reviewed the matter and reinstated Josh with full Xbox Live privileges. Why? The story hit the Internet and Microsoft looked like a pack of idiots.


In 2003, Dennis Tafoya, director of the LA County affirmative action office, issued a memo describing an exhaustive search for any computer equipment labelled "master" and "slave".

He also stated that all offending labels should be replaced with more appropriate terminology. Purchasing officials subsequently requested that all suppliers cease using labels deemed unacceptable and offensive, the first step of a creeping labelling ban.

The county began their investigation after one worker saw a videotape machine bearing the labels and filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance. However, "master" and "slave" are common terms for primary and secondary hard drives in the computer industry and have been used without complaint for decades. Due to overwhelming negative publicity and a near revolt from suppliers, LA County’s Division Manager of Purchasing and Contract Services promised that there would be no ban on computer equipment based on current labelling practices.


In May 2010, administrators at a California high school sent five students home after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, the Mexican Day of Independence. According to those administrators, the kids could not wear their own nation's flag in their own nation, because it might offend somebody celebrating the holiday of a different country.

The story began when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of the five teens to remove their American flag bandanas and turn their T-shirts inside out, so as not to offend any Mexican-Americans. The boys complied, but were still taken to the principal’s office for a chat.

One of the boys told reporters from TV network NBC, "They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday, so we were not allowed to wear it."

It might be a little insensitive to wear an American flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo if those students were in Mexico. And it is an important holiday - In Mexico, not the USA. School District Superintendent Wesley Smith later described the incident as “extremely unfortunate” and ultimately the students were allowed back to school, still wearing their American flag T-shirts


Schoolboys have been banned from a pool change-room because adult male swimmers are afraid they'll be falsely labelled paedophiles. Angry parents described the decision as political correctness gone mad after boys were forced to sit in wet swimmers on the bus back to school from the Hornsby Aquatic Centre in north Sydney.

The rule, imposed in October 2010, initially forced male students from six schools to huddle behind a stack of plastic chairs to get changed. They were later provided with access to an unused clubhouse.

A Hornsby Shire Council spokesman said the ban protected members of the public from facing false accusations and to protect the boys from any undesirables who could be in the change rooms.

"Hornsby pool received several complaints last week from members of the public with regards to schoolboys in the male change rooms," the council spokesman said. "The boys were unsupervised and the members of the public felt very uncomfortable changing in front of the boys. "One stated that he had an untrue allegation made against him several years ago in a similar environment."

Schools teaching students to swim have been ordered to have at least two male chaperones to look after children while they change. Some of the school students are ignoring the new rules and using the male change-room without an adult. A council spokesman stated that the measures were put in place to protect the male students, members of the public and staff.

One has to wonder how much further this insanity of political correctness can go. Men can be arrested for taking photos of kids at the beach, a public place where a few years ago, nobody would have even questioned this. People have to make a stand and carry out their activities in a normal way and if somebody points a finger at them and accuses them of any sort of nefarious act, they should be sued for their back teeth.


A USA food chain has been forced to lower counter heights after a disabled man won a case by claiming he was unable to see his food being prepared. Chipotle restaurants have begun lowering counters that encase food preparation areas in line with a federal appellate court ruling backing the man, who claimed he was denied the "full Chipotle experience” because he was unable to watch his burrito being made from his wheelchair.

Maurizio Antoninetti, who has a history of filing claims relating to violations of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), filed suit because unlike standing customers, he was unable to watch Chipotle employees making his order, reported the Kansas City Star in October 2010. The decision only applies to the jurisdiction of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but the restaurant chain has begun lowering its 114 centimetre walls across the country.

One has to feel sorry for any person confined to a wheelchair, but such people are in the very small minority and the world does not revolve around them. As much as businesses strive to accommodate disabled people with ramps, easy access, special toilets and other amenities, they should not be able to be sued if they do not provide these.

The American Disabilities Act is far too broad and puts too many onerous conditions onto businesses, which are not to blame for the disabilities of people and should not be forced to make expensive changes to their premises and operating methods if they do not want to do so. This lawsuit is yet another example where people from a very small minority can force businesses to accommodate their special needs, where in fact they should be the ones making the arrangements to accommodate them.

In this particular case, if Maurizio Antoninetti wanted to look over the counter to see his burrito being made, then he should have had a special wheelchair with a lifting mechanism, rather than force the food business to demolish their counters to accommodate him.


The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), another one of those politically correct organisations that supports one-way racism (where only white folks can be racist and all other races can say whatever they want about us) decided to threaten to prosecute the editor of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Joseph Evers, for race hate under Australian law, despite the fact that Evers resides in the USA, his website is in the USA and he has not broken any US laws.

Evers had the temerity to publish a satire about Aborigines, which according to the disclaimer on the page, was written by Aborigines and quotes very accurate Australian government statistics and a lot of the conclusions, although satirical, are true. This article can be found at Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

The AHRC quoted the legal precedent of Dow Jones vs. Gutnick, where Gutnick managed to obtain compensation out of US company Dow Jones. The rationale behind this asinine court decision was the fact that even though the allegedly defamatory article was not on an Australian website, it could be accessed by Australians, therefore was considered to have been published in Australia.

So according to AHCR and our courts, if a person in Australia is offended by an article on an overseas website, he can proceed to sue the operator in Australia under Australian law, even though that operator and his website are outside Australian jurisdiction. This is complete insanity and should never be countenanced.

For instance, can you imagine somebody in Russia being able to prosecute an Australian for publishing material that is offensive to that Russian, even though that allegedly offensive material is on an Australian website on an Australian webserver? Nobody here would support this, yet this is exactly what the AHRC is trying to do to this American. It's a preposterous and insidious attempt at Internet censorship and should be shot down in flames.

Joseph Evers published his defence of this attempt to muzzle him at Encyclopaedia Dramatica Blog along with the threatening letter from AHRC.

We really have to stand up against Internet censorship, as the government is trying to impose a filtering regime and we have to stand up to politically correct outfits like the AHRC, who only consider racism against non-whites to be valid. Fight these bastards at every step and don't allow them to usurp our rights.


Police in New Jersey USA ordered a snow sculpture modelled on the famous nude Venus de Milo to be covered up after a neighbour complained. Elisa Gonzalez carved the ancient Greek-style torso from snow on her front lawn and says her work was initially a hit. "It looked very beautiful," she said. "We got a lot of attention from people in the neighbourhood. Some of them got out and took pictures and spoke to us." But one neighbour clearly felt the snow nude, headless, armless and cut off above the knees, was too hot.

"We had a visit from the local police who told us that a neighbour had complained about the statue and we needed to cover it up or knock it down," Ms Gonzalez said. "We didn't want to have any problem with the police so we covered it up." The original Venus de Milo, which is housed in Paris' Louvre museum, depicts a nude woman. She also is without arms, although her head is intact.

This just demonstrates the anal retentiveness of some Americans, who find famous works of art sexually offensive. These are the same sort of idiots who demanded that the renowned statue of David by Michelangelo be covered up because his genitals were visible. Such people need to get a life, instead of inflicting their stupid and archaic false morality onto others.


Wannabe cabbies applying for their taxi licence are being offered their forms in Braille by a barmy British council.

The Portsmouth City Council document is also available in larger print - and even audio format for those with eye problems.

The council has defended the forms. "The form is also for employers to fill in - they could need a Braille version," customer services boss Louise Wilders told London's Telegraph. The Braille system is widely used by blind people to read and write.

British local councils are notorious for their completely irrational politically correct and stupid decisions. The excuse that this council offers that the Braille forms are for blind employers is just a load of crap, like many of their stupid and money-wasting exercises to appease the loony left.


An advertisement for KFC that depicts an uncomfortable white cricket fan giving rowdy West Indians fried chicken has been slammed in the US as racist. In the commercial, screened during the cricket Test , the young man is swamped by rowdy West Indies supporters. The ad, part of KFC's "Cricket Survival Guide" series, depicts Mick the Australian surrounded by dancing West Indies fans.

"Need a tip when you're stuck in an awkward situation?" Mick asks the camera. He then shares a bucket of fried chicken with the unruly crowd, bringing them under control. "Too easy," he says.

Critics said the commercial perpetuated a stereotype that African Americans eat large quantities of fried chicken.

US radio presenter Ana Kasparian told her audience the advertisement was clearly racist. "These people, they're so unruly and uncivilised and so rowdy, jumping up and down," she said. "They just can't sit down unless you give them some damn fried chicken! It's too easy!" Blogger Craig Brimm said the commercial depicted the fans as "noisy negroes that just won't shut up".

Only the Americans could come up with such rubbish. They are asserting that if a white person gives fried chicken to a negro, this is racist. One would presume then that in the USA, negroes never ever eat fried chicken and never eat at KFC, because to do so would stereotype them. Of course this is absolute garbage, because negro Americans patronise KFC just as much, if not more than white Americans.

This demonstration of complete imbecility by people who claim that white people giving chicken to negroes is racist just proves further that only white people can be racist. If a negro handed out KFC chicken to negroes, not a word of complaint would be heard. Logically then, the act of giving chicken to negroes is only a problem if a white person does it.


Bingo fans have launched a campaign to protect traditional number calls after a bingo hall was banned from saying "two fat ladies". The fun phrase has been used for decades to describe 88, because the figures resemble a pair of large women.

But ex-mayor John Sayers was ordered by Sudbury Council in Suffolk, England, to drop it from his weekly town hall sessions because it might upset overweight players, despite getting no complaints.

Rob Hutchinson of, fears politically correct meddlers and bureaucrats will target other number phrases. He has started a petition to preserve them and has already collected 3000 signatures. "The call of 'two fat ladies' in bingo is part of our heritage. What's the alternative - 'two generously proportioned people of either gender'?" Hutchinson said.

One has to really wonder about the sanity of morons who dream up these prohibitions. The term "two fat ladies' has been used since bingo was invented and nobody gets insulted. Fat women don't take it personally or think that bingo callers are referring to them. Sudbury Council should collectively hang its head in shame.


In Washington DC on 29 June 2009, in an unusual display of sanity and commonsense, the US Supreme Court declared that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race, ruling against minorities in a major reverse discrimination case that could affect bosses and workers nationwide.

The court's conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that faulted New Haven and the courts that had upheld the city's discarding of results of an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain. The city said it acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities, but Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that New Haven's action amounted to discrimination based on race against the white firefighters who were likely to be promoted. "No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race," Kennedy said.

In the ruling, Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

The court's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain. Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion. The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a nutshell, what New Haven did was to test firefighters for promotion and the examination results showed that no blacks scored high enough to be promoted. But instead of using these results as the basis of promotion on merit, some moronic bureaucrats decided that exposing negroes to the same test as whites and finding them deficient amounted to racism, so those bureaucrats decided to apply some reverse racism and scrapped the examination, rather than insist that those negroes do something about improving themselves so that they qualified to be promoted.

Although the US Civil Rights Act has redressed the racist laws and policies of previous times, it also has the effect of enforcing a policy where some minority races are more equal than others, thus negating its intention. If for instance a group of people of all races are assessed by a test and it is found that a vastly higher proportion of whites are more capable and smarter than blacks from the results of that test, then an employer who promoted the best candidates on that basis would be in breach of the Civil Rights Act and that is completely stupid and unfair, as well as being racist. This is exactly what happened in this case.

This is the sort of nonsense that is fostered by political correctness, where legitimate and valid assessments can be overturned by some warped idea of dragging everybody down to the lowest common denominator because the "wrong" people (white folk) show more ability than the "right" people (black folk). This sort of lunacy actually promotes racism, not eradicates it.


A book which teaches children about lesbian mums getting pregnant using sperm donors is being pitched at kids as young as two. The controversial publication 'Where Did I Really Come From?' also features a drawing of two gay men holding a baby in a chapter about surrogacy.

The publisher's marketing spruiks the book, which includes in-depth descriptions of sexual intercourse, as suitable to be read to two-year-olds. It is being advertised at some Sydney book stores and inside the cover as being part of the NSW Attorney General Office's Learn to Include program. A spokesman for the Attorney General was unable to confirm yesterday if the book had been funded by the State Government.

In a chapter on assisted conception, the book tells children: "Sometimes, a woman really wants to have a baby but she doesn't want to have intercourse with a man. "Some women want to bring up a baby by themselves, or with another woman, so the baby gets two mums."

However, angry family advocates claim the book targets children too young. The book was first penned in the early 1990s, but has been updated and relaunched by Learn To Include, which has published a range of books featuring child characters whose parents are gay.

Learn To Include's website says the book's "simple, non-judgmental explanations of sexual intercourse, assisted conception, pregnancy, birth, adoption and surrogacy are "suitable for 2-12 year olds".

Author Narelle Wickham defended the book, describing it as a mainstream publication which just went further about ways of conceiving children. "It is just trying to normalise to children that there are many ways to conceive a child," she said.

In actual fact, the use of the word "gay" to describe homosexuals is a blatant hijacking of what used to be a common English word to describe being jolly. There is NOTHING gay about homosexuals - they are merely people with a different sexuality from the mainstream and although they are perfectly entitled to be homosexual, it's just a shame that they don't describe themselves as that, instead of using the word "gay", which has nothing to do with their sexual status.

Having said this, books such as 'Where Did I come From?' only confuses children and puts parents in very awkward positions, when they are instructing their children in matters of sexuality. It seems obvious to any reasonable person that the government's Learn To Include program has an agenda to promote homosexuality as a normal and prevalent practice, whereas in fact it is not considered normal at all by any mainstream societies in the world. To say that such a book is suitable for malleable infants and small children is merely showing that the government is working actively with the homosexual lobby to brainwash the youth of the next generation.


Childcare centres could be forced to fly the Aboriginal flag and use "persona dolls" to teach youngsters about exclusion and ethical issues. The guidelines are contained in a draft Federal Government program designed to help teachers deal with children aged under five. Under the Early Years Learning Framework, childcare workers would be encouraged to teach the children in their care about a raft of social and ethical issues including reconciliation and racism.

Critics of the initiative, which claimed to make children socially responsibly for a "future world", yesterday said youngsters should be left alone to play. The political emphasis of the guidelines had divided early-learning experts. Some, such as educational consultant Kathy Walker, questioned the merits of such issues being "rammed down the throats" of youngsters. "Although I welcome the emphasis on play-based learning, there is an air of political correctness about the document overall," Ms Walker said.

This is so stupid that it beggars belief. Essentially, the government is proposing to force childcare centres to fly a blatant symbol of racism in an attempt to teach impressionable children not to be racist. The Aboriginal flag does not represent a country or a nationality - it represents a race, just like the racist White Power flag in South Africa represents Caucasians.

So is there a difference between the racist Aboriginal flag and the racist White Power flag? And if the government forces the display of one racist symbol, in fairness, any other racist symbol, such as the Nazi swastika, should be allowed. One obviously cannot discriminate between racist symbols, as one would be committing an act of racism by doing so.

One really has to wonder about the mentality of people on the payroll of the government, who have nothing better to do than to destroy this nation with abjectly stupid politically correct proposals, such as this piece of idiocy. The one thing it does underline is that only white people can be racist. Aborigines can fly their racist flags, but if a white person raised a White Power flag, he would most probably be hauled before one of those idiotic tribunals such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal (HREOC), which routinely makes rulings that engender and enshrine racism.

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB)does exactly the same, making determinations that disenfranchise white straight people. If a white person complained to the ADB about the Aboriginal flag, he would not stand a chance, but if an Aboriginal person complained about a White Power flag being flown, one could guarantee that whoever was flying that flag would be prosecuted for racism. The same goes for that bunch of politically correct fools in Victoria, called the Victorian Civil Administration Tribunal (VCAT), which has made some of the most preposterously racist and discriminatory findings imaginable.

This crazy proposal by the government to force childcare centres to fly the Aboriginal flag should be killed off before it ever sees the light of day. However if the proposal is enabled and enforced, then concerned Australians need to take immediate and decisive action to have this piece of racist stupidity eradicated.


A woman in Britain was banned from buying a box of Christmas crackers from the Marks and Spencer store because shop staff feared she was too young under the 1875 Explosives Act. Art student Heather Welsh, 22, was stunned when she was told the crackers were classed as explosives. She had picked out a box of ten crackers at Marks and Spencer in York and was amazed to be asked by check-out staff if she was 16 or over.

Heather said, "The member of staff looked at me for a moment before asking for ID. She refused to believe that I was 22 even though I have nearly finished a degree course. As if that wasn't bad enough, she said that she was protecting me by not selling me them. It's as if she was suggesting that if I was left alone with the crackers I couldn't be trusted and might blow myself up."

A Marks and Spencer spokesman revealed that under-16s are barred from buying party poppers too. The York store has two signs near its cracker displays explaining the age rules. But York MP Hugh Bayley said, "The law is crackers."

It is interesting to note the date of the Act, 1875, that allows such utter stupidity. This Act was passed 133 ago and to think that these days Christmas crackers are classed as explosives is sheer idiocy. Presumably under this piece of asinine law, a person caught carrying a box of Christmas crackers on a bus or train in England could be arrested on terrorism charges.


A homosexual activist says his human rights have been violated by the human rights watchdog itself, because it refused to ban a "homophobic" Telstra ad about two men in a tent. Glebe-based advocate Andrew James has now lodged an official complaint, prompting a call from Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes for people to lighten up. In the ad, two men on a camping trip become suspicious when their two mates disappear into a tent. It later emerges they are simply watching cricket on the same mobile phone.

"Gay men who do choose to have sex in a tent should not have to be afraid of getting caught by their friends," James writes on his website, He complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission about the ad but found there was no official category because it did not occur in the workplace. Instead, he complained under the category "My human rights have been breached by a federal government agency", namely the commission itself. In his formal complaint, he wrote: "You're the one place that should stand up for my rights and my equality and your own website is discriminatory in nature."

AHRC complaint handling director Karen Toohey said there was no legal basis to act against the ad. Innes suggested that people needed to have a sense of humour about such things. "It's important not to vilify or treat people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation," he said. "However, that's got to be taken in the context of the Australian sense of humour and sense of fun."


An Australian man has been convicted of possessing child pornography for having lewd images of The Simpsons on his computer hard drive. Alan John McEwan was fined $3000 and placed on two year's probation, but he could have been jailed for up to 10 years.

McEwan appealed the decision, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people, as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form. But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

This has to be the most ridiculous and completely asinine court case for years. A reasonable and sane person would have to question the rationality of any judge who considered that pictures of such preposterous looking cartoon characters as The Simpsons could remotely be seen as real people.

There is also the matter of the alleged age of The Simpsons. If they are to be considered to be people, they were created, or "born" in April 1987. This makes all of them officially adults over the age of 21 years, therefore the charges of possessing child pornography should have been dismissed. The judges can't have it both ways. Either the child pornography depicts a child under the age of 16, as required by law, or it is not child pornography. If Bart Simpson and his cartoon siblings are over 21 years old, this case should have been thrown out on its ear.

The Internet is loaded with cartoon characters in lewd situations. It is easy to find SpongeBob without his SquarePants, Betty Flintstone, Wilma Rubble and teen Bam Bam; Daphne, Velma, and Scooby Doo; all of the Griffins from Family Guy, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd in naked and very rude situations. But is it child pornography? Of course not, although a case for copyright breach could probably be made.

How could any sane person treat fictional cartoon characters, especially such outlandish creations as The Simpsons as child pornography? Could anybody ever imagine a child molester getting off on a cartoon sketch of a naked Bart Simpson or his sister? It's too ludicrous to even contemplate. However, a couple of judges in Australia decided that this was indeed the case. I would question the sanity of any person who agreed with verdicts of these judges.

Any person who gets sexually aroused by images or animated clips of a naked cartoon Bart Simpson would have to be pitied as a stupid screwball, not convicted of a criminal offence. Almost every person on the Internet has been emailed such allegedly lewd cartoons and clips at some stage. An examination of their hard drives would probably put half the population of Australia behind bars, according to these judges.


In schools around the USA, Halloween costume parades and other festivities have been banned for a variety of politically correct reasons.

In parts of Connecticut, there will be no costume parades because they "disrupt learning and waste limited instructional time," a superintendent of schools was quoted as saying.

School Halloween parties and parades were halted in 2004 in Puyallup, Washington because, education officials said, classroom time is limited and the festivities might offend followers of the pagan Wiccan religion - in other words, witches. A spokeswoman for the school district said that the ban still remains in place.

"Halloween is urban, capitalist and secular," said Douglas Gomery, a resident scholar at the University of Maryland's Library of American Broadcasting. "It began in cities, where you could walk from house to house in your neighbourhood. You celebrate it in your neighbourhood because the key to it is: where can a child go where you trust people and know they won't get mugged? But its religious significance is tiny. It's really a secular holiday."

This is how amazingly stupid people can be, banning a fairly innocent yearly piece of fun for kids, so as not to offend witches and for other idiotic reasons that have no logical foundation. But politically correct people will grasp at any straws to stop others from enjoying themselves.


In October 2008 in Britain, the Black Police Association urged a recruitment boycott of the Metropolitan Police claiming that despite its new leadership, the force was marked by a hostile atmosphere where racism was allowed to spread. The BPA attacked both the senior management of the Metropolitan Police and the Metropolitan Police Association for not doing enough to stop racism and for not protecting its members. The association stated that it will take out a series of advertisements in the national press during Black History Month warning any potential black or Asian recruits not to join the Police.

So an organisation whose membership criteria is based on being of non-white races is complaining about racism. My own feeling is that the BPA is comprised of unthinking imbeciles who can't see that they have no moral ground to complain about racism, when their organisation is blatantly racist itself. Just look at the name - Black Police Association - is that racist or not?

Imagine the reaction of the BPA if a White Police Association was formed that only allowed Caucasians to be members. The BPA would be screaming and complaining that Caucasian people were racist. It is unfortunate that to cretins like the BPA, only white people can be racist, but never anybody else. And check out the Black History Month. Maybe it's time that there was a White History Month to commemorate the achievements of Caucasian people, who were building modern civilisations when some of those black folk were still living in caves or swinging through the trees.


In September 2008, a mother ended up getting arrested in a bizarre case of political correctness gone mad when her six-year-old daughter stuck a golliwog doll on their windowsill. English 39-year-old Amanda Schofield was quizzed on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence after a neighbour complained.

Schofield, of Stockport, Greater Manchester, had removed the toy from the window as she put little Eboni to bed, yet was still visited by cops the same night. She was asked to attend a police station and was not charged.

Schofield told British newspaper paper The Sun, "I feel like a criminal. I can't believe it." A police spokesman said, "It was the latest in a number of previous incidents that the victim perceived to be race-related."

For well over a century, the golliwog has been one of the most-loved toys for children. It is extremely ludicrous to think that a toy that is so revered by children would be thought of as a racial slur. Logically, a depiction of a black person that is loved by white children could only promote love and racial harmony, rather than race hate.

This incident just exposes the politically correct deranged idiocy of people who are so moronic as to complain about a golliwog fomenting race hate. These are the sort of cretins who complain about the much loved Enid Blyton characters Noddy and Big Ears, claiming that they are in an unnatural sexual relationship.


Teachers are being urged to give children safety messages after reading them fairytales, warning not to copy characters such as Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and Hansel and Gretel. A new child protection curriculum being implemented by the Education Department also requires teachers to refer to children's "sexual parts" and use their correct anatomical names with children as young as three years of age.

Child development experts have backed the measures, but critics believe they are an example of political correctness overkill that could turn children into little nervous wrecks. Parents across South Australia are being briefed on the impact of the new curriculum, which aims to teach children from preschool upwards the early warning signs of being unsafe and recognising abuse. Popular modern books would also face scrutiny. The picture book Pig in the Pond, in which a farmer strips off to have a swim on a hot day, would be followed by explaining that it would be inappropriate to undress in front of someone you did not know.

Emeritus Professor of Child Development at the University of South Australia, Professor Freda Briggs, who was consulted in the curriculum's development, supported the measures, calling for them to be implemented nationally. "This is about appropriately empowering the child," she said. "Kids are talking about sex at age five now. It's so in-your-face, I'm afraid that innocence is gone. They are sexualised younger and younger.

So much for childhood innocence. For decades and centuries, children grew up with nursery rhymes where a farmer's wife cut off the tails of three blind mice, a little girl being scared by a spider and of course Goldilocks eating porridge belonging to some bears. Has anybody yet heard of any bears going to the police, complaining that somebody not only stole their porridge, but broke into their house and decided to use it as a motel?

This sort of idiocy only proves that the best thing to do with academics who propose such utter baloney is to get them out of their cloistered positions at universities and send them out into the world to face reality, because when one reads that members of this protected species called academics actually live on an entirely different planet than Earth.


An Australian recruitment firm that staffs retail outlets with Santa Clauses has reportedly instructed its Santas to avoid saying "Ho Ho Ho" and instead say "Ha Ha Ha", or else risk offending women. The story broke when one of the disgruntled Santas called the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, leading to a collective "Give me a break." Fearing a backlash, the recruitment firm noted that they had not banned the phrase, but instead were leaving it up to each individual Santa.

The reason behind this idiocy stems from the inability of many American Negroes to say the word "whore", so they truncate the word to "ho". However, none of this has anything to do with life in Australia, except for those morons who are influenced by idiotic American shows, such as Jerry Springer and Ricky Lake, where stupid, mostly obese and retarded black Americans call each other "hoes" because they don't know any better. For the majority of Australians, the word "hoe" means a gardening implement, but for a personnel recruiting company to even consider instructing Santa Clauses about this just shows how stupid American deficiencies have infected Australia. The person in this recruitment company who initiated this lunacy should be given a one-way ticket to Detroit, where he might enjoy life among the "hoes".


In December 2007 in NSW, four children were removed from their grandparents' care and put into separate foster homes, allegedly because the grandmother smacked one of them on the bottom after the child tried to climb into a drain. The children had lived on and off with their grandparents for six years while their mother battled drug addiction. The children were removed by the NSW Department of Community Services (DOCS) and have been living in foster homes, separated from each other.

This is the sort of insanity that new-age academics and stupid social engineers have foisted upon our society. Parents now do not have the power to discipline their children in the way that parents have done for the past 40 million years. The result of this illogical idiocy has been a generation of undisciplined, antisocial and dysfunctional people who have no sense of responsibility, blame others for their mistakes and many of whom are unemployable for life.

Young children are like young puppies and often do not pay heed to verbal admonishment when they are naughty or in danger. As in the case of the naughty puppy that has to be smacked because it does not understand the spoken word, parents and guardians have to physically curtail their wayward children when they do not obey verbal commands. However, the academics who have managed to gain the ear of the government, have now turned normal human nature on its head, with predictable results.

Can you imagine the headlines if that child that was smacked by his grandmother had not been disciplined and had actually climbed into the drain and was drowned? It's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. But ultimately, apart from unusual sadism, discipline should be left completely to parents, without any intervention by governments, because this sort of interference in normal human activity is detrimental to our society.


In July 2005, a group of teachers proposed that the word "fail" should be banned from use in British classrooms and replaced with the phrase "deferred success" to avoid demoralising pupils. Members of the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) argued that telling pupils they have failed can put them off learning for life.

A spokesman for the group said that it wanted to avoid labelling children. "We recognise that children do not necessarily achieve success first time," he said. "But I recognise that we can't just strike a word from the dictionary."

On first reading, this sounds like an April Fool's joke, but coming from that politically correct bunch of idiots in the PAT, one would have to believe that this cretinous proposal may even be adopted. So no matter how bad a student may be, no matter whether a student bothers to study, do the work required and even if he scores a big fat zero in every exam, that student will be labelled a success. Is there anything more ridiculous than this?

Failure is an important lesson in itself and an indication that somebody has to try harder. But to completely negate failure and replace it with the politically correct term "deferred success" is preposterous in the extreme. But those British loony lefties still manage to invent more and more stupidities as they go along.


In the modern politically correct era, one is not permitted to call a spade a spade, lest people with some perceived deficiencies are offended. Here are a few examples of preposterous politically correct definitions.