FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ......................

Winner of the 2022 Archibald Prize (unless it's the winner of the Bald Archies)...

winner

Labor continues to apply pressure on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to explain why hundreds of millions of dollars were spent building car parks in Coalition seats, which is being described as an industrial-scale rort.

A scathing Auditor-General’s report has found the $660 million coalition scheme was not effective or merit-based.

Not one of the 47 commuter car park sites promised by the coalition at the 2019 election was selected by the infrastructure department.

Labor spokesman for cities and urban infrastructure Andrew Giles said the damning report points directly to the involvement of the prime minister and his office, in a troubling echo of sports rorts.

“Now that Scott Morrison has emerged from his stay at the Lodge, he must take responsibility for the train-wreck that is his car park rorts scandal,” Mr Giles said in a statement on Sunday.

Mr Morrison completed 14 days of isolation after his official trip to Europe last Thursday.

His ministers continue to defend the scheme.

“We are going to continue to deliver infrastructure projects for the nation because they lift our national productivity,” Finance Minister Simon Birmingham told ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday.

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2021/07/04/labor-carpark-rorts/

Read also all the bits about sports rorts on this site...

assangex

Some people are not too comfortable with the vision of block and tackle of genderised trans women... The LA Times begs for acceptance of this delicate matter. I would avoid such public spaces in the same way as I avoid public male showers or country outdoor dunnies full of spiders. Are we pushing the heshewomanman too far with hormonal transformations? ... Some women object to the dicky sight in their women only areas... The LA Times flies the uneasy flag of freedom...

The rights of transgender people to act in accordance with their gender identity is fortunately gaining acceptance in many corners — including at the U.S. Supreme Court, which just last week handed a major victory to transgender students seeking to use the school bathrooms of their choice.

But society’s recognition of basic rights for one group also sometimes causes clashes with other groups that have been marginalized or disempowered. That’s why the fracas over a transgender woman using the clothing-optional women’s area of a Koreatown spa is more complicated than it might seem.

There is no doubt that Wi Spa did the right thing in defending the right of a transgender customer to be nude in the women’s area, even though the sight of male-appearing genitalia discomfited at least one female customer, who complained at the front desk. As a public-serving business, Wi Spa had to follow California law forbidding discrimination against transgender people. What’s extraordinary isn’t that the spa’s employees followed the law but that this led to violence outside as opponents and supporters of the law clashed over the weekend.

At the same time, that doesn’t make everyone who feels uncomfortable in such scenarios a bigot. There are women who have been through personal experiences such as sexual assault who might find such a situation intimidating. It could go against the convictions and traditions of observant Muslims and Jews, who have a conservative or orthodox interpretation of gender norms and might themselves feel marginalized for their traditionalist beliefs. Right now, entrepreneurs may not create businesses solely for those who don’t want to be exposed to transgenderism; those businesses, too, would have to follow antidiscrimination laws.

As complicated as the opposing beliefs might be, it is clear where the rights in this matter land. Everyone — transgender customers, members of every faith and women who are upset by the sight of penises — all have the right to use the spa and other public accommodations. It just happens that in this case, the public accommodation also includes nudity.

But no one has an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time. People have a right to use the spa, but that doesn’t include with it a guarantee that they all will feel at ease with everything they see. They might prefer a spa where a certain amount of body covering is required.

There is reason to think that a lot of the hullabaloo over these situations will ease over time. Young people are far more comfortable with the idea of shared spaces for people of all gender identities and sexes. While the state battled in 2013 over school bathroom and locker room rights for public school students, the Los Angeles Unified School District had been following such a policy for years with little to no discontent among students and parents.

This doesn’t solve the issue of where offended people go if they want a group experience in keeping with their religious traditions. It shouldn’t be impossible for that to happen, considering the strong constitutional protections in this country for freedom of religion. Future U.S. Supreme Court rulings might well grant faith-based groups the right to set up spas and other accommodations that are in keeping with their beliefs. The balance between freedom of religion and freedom of association, on the one hand, and the right to equal protection under the laws, on the other, is a delicate matter over which there is not yet a prevailing societal consensus. 

In the meantime, customers of public-serving businesses should be prepared to share space with the public, in all our forms, varieties and customs. Antidiscrimination laws stand for the principle that all are welcome, whether we are comfortable or not.

Read more:

https://archive.is/PcbpB#selection-2329.0-2407.255

assangex