Book Review: Pans Daughter

 Pans Daughter

The Magical World of Rosaleen Norton

 Revised and Expanded

 

Author:                             Nevill Drury

Publisher:                         Mandrake of oxford

Type:                                 Hard Cover

Pages:                                305

Genre:                               non-fiction

Published:                         2013

ISBN:                                9781906958503

 The book does not have a dust cover but has a lovely colored printed hardcover. Its dimensions are about  156 x 232 x 28mm and it has black and white photos, copy's of Rosaleen Norton's art thorough and there is even a few sigils.
 The book is very well made and printed well. I did notice only two minor errors, the word to where it was superfluous (P83) and the word "was" instead of "as" (p87), so noting major at all.

 The book is an overview of the life of Rosaleen Norton and her associates and contemporary's. Today she would probably be referred to as a Pagan artist. Although mention is made of her magical journals very little of her occult information is included within this book.

 I had heard about Rosaleen occasionally growing up, she has a reputation as "the witch of Kings Cross" and i had always wondered if she was legit. The poem written by her in 1962 and reproduced in this book was enough to confirm for me that she had esoteric knowledge. Indeed it is explained that some of her influences included; psychology, general occultism, ceremonial magic, voodoo, the golden dawn, pantheism, Greek mythology, hypnosis, medium-ship, and a welsh tradition of witchcraft said to have arrived in Australia during the colonial era.
 Her description of the Werplon seemed to have an almost lovecraftian flair to it.
 

It seems much like Alister Crowley (who is detailed within the book) she had a public persona so it is difficult to separate that from whom she really was. For instance she claimed to practice in black magic but there seems to be no examples of her doing any such thing. This may instead be to her upbringing, anything non-christian may have been seen as "black magic" by people in Australia before the 1970s.

Her interview with the psychologist Dr. LJ Murphy is interesting as it outlines Rosaleen's methods in developing her natural ability's. It is quite fascinating to hear her attempt to explain the nature of reality in 1960's mundane world speak. While the words she chose differed than those i would have, it is reminiscent of many conversations i have had with many an occultist and laymen over the years.

Rosaleen Norton's assertion that she preferred sex with homosexual men is a little odd. Not that there is anything wrong with having sex with gay men, i myself prefer gay men over straight men, because while straight men are always enthusiastic they don't always want to cuddle after, but i am a guy. 
 Perhaps she had a different understanding of "homosexual back then, maybe she simply meant submissive, effeminate or or even bisexual men. She might have considered the every man who had ever had sex with another man to be homosexual, hell if that were true today we would no longer be a minority.

 The book uses the proper BCE and CE terminology which is always refreshing. It has numbered notes at the end of each chapter and a detailed bibliography and index is included.

  All in all i  really enjoyed this book. Pick it up if your interested in Australian History, feminism, sex magic, Paganism, astral travel, witchcraft, NDE (or PDE), occultism, law, ceremonial magic, art or Australian culture.

Anti marriage group wants to legalise discrimination.

 Anti-Marriage Alliance submission 

to marriage inquiry.

 Australia recently had an inquiry into marriage equality. This inquiry specifically deals with exemptions for homophobic people and organizations.  Presumably this all came about because it was revealed that the coalitions idea of marriage equality would create a new, different and lesser version of marriage for LGBTI people, and would not be equality at all. 
 Personalty the whole idea is a bit sickening it seems to me to be like allowing rapists to be exempt from rape charges or giving racists exemptions from racial discrimination laws. And some of the groups that gave submissions to this inquiry are known LGBT hate groups, so its like inviting the hate groups to discuss how much they should be immune from prosecution or consequence for their hate crimes.
 So much for Malcolm Turnbulls promise that Australia had no place for Hate speech and no tolerance for homophobia.

 I am not going to go through all the nonsense "alt-facts", and lies of these submissions. They usually read from the same hate-book so addressing one should be enough...but which one. Thee is one that was in the news recently for distributing hate-speech pro-LGBT bullying to innocent children not long after a child died from homophobic bullying at school. You will remember that the (anti)Marriage Alliance distributed this filth on a school bus!

 Now I'm not going to go over every little detail in their submission as its unnecessary, many of the points can be refuted at once and unlike the far-radical-right i don't want to repeat myself.

 The submission makes a big deal about freedom of religion and freedom to practice that religion. Their own submission states that such freedoms are limited by their effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 

 I agree with all this completely. Indeed our own constitution has very similar amendments.  The problem with anti-marriage groups using this argument is of course that the argument is pro-marriage equality.  
 These rights don't just apply to radical fundamentalist Christians, no they apply to all religions. There are many religions and many more deity's that actualy recognize the natural diversity in sexuality. Indeed many christian churches want to marry their LGBT members.
 The current marriage laws which were changed only a while ago in Australia to exclude LGBT couples are actually in violation of the rights to religious freedoms. Because these people are being prevented from practicing their religion, they are unable to marry. It should also be noted that the current laws are unconstitutional as they force others to adhere to a (far-right) religious belief as if it is law. 
 And no, changing the law to allow marriage equality wont impede another persons religion as it will not be mandatory to marry a person of the same sex.

 The submission goes on to say that exemptions for religious ministers are not enough. They seem to want the legal ability to discriminate against LGBT married couples in all areas of life. 

 While i actually don't mind a minister not wanting to perform a marriage on basically any grounds. I do feel that the building itself should be accessible to anyone for free as these religious organizations don't pay tax or rates, because they are expected to provide a service to the community. Now if the church does not want to allow its grounds to be used by the community i also have no problems with it surrendering its tax-free status. (the submission directly addresses this but falsely claims this choice would amount to coercion).
 But as for the hairdresser, doctor, judge, or policeman being able to refuse service based on sexuality or marital status, no way. This is exactly akin to making racists immune from racial discrimination laws. I am sure if "Christians" were refused service because they were in a opposite sex marriage they would be in uproar, just look at the fake "war on Christmas" nonsense just because some stores chose to be inclusive with "happy holidays".

 They use the quote; Governments should respect the moral or religious teachings of parents / guardians. 

 They use this to attack the safe schools program. They claim that parents cant have their children opt out of the program, but i believe this to be untrue. However i think the program is even more important for children of bigots and homophobes, as they are probably more likely to bully other children. So while i think they are wrong saying they cant opt out, i do believe they shouldn't have that option, if your confident in your bigotry you should be able to have your beliefs questioned by your children when they are provided with the real facts.
 They complain that safe schools teaches that normal variance in sexuality is normal, because it differs with the beliefs of their particular interpretation of their chosen religion. Wow, how would they feel if a religion not their own was taught as fact in schools? I am sure they would not be happy at all. No (anti) marriage alliance school should be a neutral ground where real facts are taught, if you want to indoctrinate your children do it at home and on the weekends.
 They go on to bemoan that the time may come when religious schools are not permitted to be homophobic to their students, given the rates of youth bullying and suicide i personally think that day cant come soon enough. 
 And what about the rights of the child? A child should have the right to grow up knowing the reality of gender diversity (puberty is difficult enough without being surprised that your sexuality doesn't fit what you have been taught). A child should have the right to not be bullied at school? A child should have the right to not be shamed or beaten based on their sexuality, And a child should be able to grow up knowing they can marry the person they love. But the (anti) marriage alliance doesn't seem to care about the rights of the child.

 They go on and on about how horrible it is for them to see that normal sexuality is being accepted as normal,
 I fail to see how that's a bad thing. 

  
  They seem to admit that their bigotry is increasingly recognized as extremism.

  I tend to agree, but it is happening too slowly and there is still a reluctance to call a spade a spade. They seem alarmed at this but i can only say if you don't want to be labeled extremist, radical, alt-right, racist, sexist, homophobic just stop fitting that label, its really quite simple. 
 Now if you really feel it is your chosen deity or religion that forces you to discriminate, i have awesome news for you! You are actually free to choose your religion and which deity's you worship in this country. It may surprise you to know that many religions and most deity's actually recognize the diversity of human sexuality. Damn, you could even not follow any religion or powers, many people don't and they live moral, happy lives without feeling the need to discriminate. You don't even need to go that far, many Christians support the fair and equal treatment of other humans. It really is your choice. 

 In conclusion:

 It amazes me that they try to use freedom of religion to argue against freedom of religion for others. That they try to claim anti-discrimination laws should protect them but not their victims. They do this seemingly without irony or self awareness.  Could they really lack such empathy for others that they don't see the hypocrisy of their behavior?
 I think this kind of disingenuous argument comes from the fact that the legislation was changed recently to exclude same sex couples, and that the legislation does not in any way effect the various religious definitions of what marriage is. And their simply came a point where the majority of the public saw through "arguments' relating to this things too easily. You just cant say marriage cant be redefined anymore, because it has, it can and its not.

 If this is the standard of the anti-marriage submissions, it really does seem like the time of homophobic, unconstitutional marriage discrimination in Australia is drawing to a close, as the submission basically boiled down to;

 'We want to continue to discriminate against gay people without consequence and we think our interpretation of our chosen religion should give us cover to continue to do so.'

If you want me to examine more of these submissions, let me know.

Dishonoring the Australian flag.

Dishonoring the Australian flag.

 

 In the lead up to Australia day,  George Christensen the homophobic and child hating Liberal senator has introduced a bill into parliament in order to make burning the Australian flag illegal. It should be noted here that the bill relates to the Australian National Flag and the Australian Red Ensign flag. It does not effect the treatment of the Aboriginal flag or the LGBT flag strangely enough...

 Some claim that people fought and died for the flag, this is admittedly an 'alternative fact', which actually means its a lie. People don't fight for a flag, they fight for the ideals it symbolises. Ideals like freedom to protest, freedom of religion, our constitution, equality and a fair go for all, and sticking up for the underdog.

 As you may be aware bigots and Australian terrorists have draped themselves in the Australian flag. They have succeeded in making our flag a symbol of hate and fear. They may have desecrated the flag beyond all hope of salvation.

 Knowing that, if burning the flag is an act against hate crimes, oppression, racism, bigotry, homophobia, religious intolerance, and terrorism, is that act really a bad thing?

  Again the problem is what the flag has come to symbolise, not what is done to the flag in protest of that symbolism. If we are not going to police what the flag stands for, is it time for a new Australian flag?

  After taking a look at the bill it seems Christensen might be working against his own interests here. The bill actually includes the terms; 

  'Dishonoring the flag with intent to offend, insult or intimidate any group of people would be illegal'

 He doesn't seem like the most informed or reasoned person so he probably doesn't realise that the hate speech he and those like him spout about non-Christians, LGBT Australians and children could never be spoken anywhere near a flag again without legal repercussions. 

 The terrorists and racists who don the flag would have to be arrested on the spot.

 Pauline Hanson would have to be very careful with her many media appearances, she has a history of using the Australian flag and its difficult to find a speech where she didn't intentionally offend, or insult some group for political gain. 

 Obviously police numbers would have to be increased just to arrest and charge right wing politicians.

 While it would be good to see fear mongering, child bullying, racist, science denying, sexist, homophobic, bigots out of politics and in prison. 

 I am sure if this was not a right wing bill it would be called "political correctness" gone mad, and the alt-right would moan that people shouldn't be charged for hurting the delicate feelings of the triggered special snowflakes. But such arguments are only used by the right when they disagree with something.

 

 I honestly don't know how i feel about this bill, if it is implemented justly it could do some good, but i fear it would only be enforced when it serves the current right wing governments agenda.

 Perhaps its a little late for this bill, or perhaps the burning of the flag part should be removed.

What do you think? What does the flag symbolise to you now? What do you feel it should symbolise? Do we need a new flag? Is Christensen's bill a good idea, would you change anything in it?

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId%3Ar5628%20Recstruct%3Abillhome

 http://www.ausflag.com.au/

 

Australia Day: inclusive or exclusive?

Australia Day: inclusive or exclusive?

 Meat and Livestock Australia (MaLA) have a long history of releasing a pro-meat consumption advertisement leading up to Australia day. These advertisements  have proclaimed anything non-mainstream to be "un-australian". 

 Some common threads include, anti vegetarian, anti-health, claims of un-australianism, anti-vegan, pro-nuclear, anti-environment, anti-fruit producers, anti-animal ethics, pro-racist, pro-sexist, anti-freedom to protest, pro-excessive force, anti-refugee, pro-assault, anti-democracy, anti-trans, anti-constitution, anti-freedom of religion, anti-science, anti-LGBT, pro-climate change, the list goes on.

 Some of the worst instances being:

* Sam Kekovich secretly feeding an obviously vegan child meat.

* Sam Kekovich directing the military to break into a home, and when the victim identify as vegan they proceed to burn him and his home with flamethrowers.

* Calling the military action in the advertisement "operation boomerang" as a slap in the fact to Aboriginal Australians.

 However after years divisiveness MaLA have released an advert that is inclusive, it tries to unite Australians in a celebration of being Australian.

 Yes, not all Australians have equal rights, we know Australians treatment of refugees is a disgrace, and Australia was invaded, but there are some things to celebrate. 

 I feel we need to encourage the Australian traits of a fair go for everyone, and sticking up for the underdog. This advertisements inclusiveness is a step in the right direction, or should that be a step from the right into the middle ground.

 Of course some like One Nation*s Pauline Hanson have spoken out against the advertisement as it undermines their reliance on the politics of derision and fear of the other. She rambled on about how allowing other Australians to feel good somehow damaged what it was to be Australian or something...

 Personally i still think its a good day to try vegetarianism, and it would be a great day for the government to grant LGBT Australians their constitutional rights, to free the refugees and bring them home, and to recognize the traditional inhabitants of Australia. 

 Please take the time on Australia day to help make Australia a better place for all Australians. 

Sources and links:

 http://www.adnews.com.au/news/a-look-through-10-years-of-mla-s-australia-day

http://www.unleashed.org.au/change_the_world/go_veg/how_to_tips.php 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/australia-day-lamb-ad-outrages-vegans/news-story/17fce56190808536afeefaa12d67a1c3

 http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/it-really-is-pretty-sad-pauline-hanson-slams-politically-correct-australia-day-lamb-ad/news-story/c4313cd6326d129d45acd4cd9a510f8d

 

Hanson redefines homophobia

One Nation has a homophobia problem

 One Nation* and its professional politician leader Pauline Hanson has a long history of homophobia. One Nations* website states that they want to keep Australians unconstitutional discriminatory marriage laws, One Nation* does not support equal rights.

 Also remember that One Nation* leader Pauline Hanson disgustingly tried to straight-wash the Pulse homophobic terror attack!

 It looked like One Nation* might have been improving its morality with promises of proper venting of candidates which is a good thing considering the science denying, racist and homophobic, conspiracy theory promoting nature of the candidates. Could we hope that this new direction might encourage One Nation to re-think its homophobic policy's?

 Andy Semple who had been selected as a One Nation* state candidate for Queensland. He resigned after outrage at his homophobic twitter behavior. He tweeted a pro-trump (anti-LGBT) meme that was incredibly inappropriate, and then taunted anyone who would reasonably find it offensive by calling them the "queer mafia".

 Despite the meme he shared being alt-right, homophobic and pro- shooting and him saying in the tweet that he isn't supportive of LGBT people having equal rights, He astonishingly claims that he isn't a homophobe. But went on to say he liked to make fun of political opponents, scientists and already vilified minority's. So we can thank One Nation* for actually asking him to rein in the homophobia, even if he resigned and was not fired, we don't need more bigotry in Australian politics.

 Then we had Shan Ju Lin another Queensland One Nation* candidate who seemed to enjoy spreading anti-gay hate speech on Facebook, with posts saying that gays were sick, abnormal, criminals. She went on to support the bullying of LGBT youth, mis-identifyd what traditional values were and that gays should have to take a gay test at a doctors before coming out? Of course Shan Ju Lin claimed her views were not homophobic, before hypocritically saying she was only concerned about child welfare... 

 We need better sexual education and the safe-schools program to be mandatory in all schools, so people don't grow up with such hideously wrong headed views, she is a politician for frights sake!

 Now this may shock many but Pauline Hanson actually fired Shan Ju Lin saying that her views were not supported by One Nation*, even saying that the homophobic views expressed "trashed" One Nation*. 

 It is good to know that One Nation*s homophobia does have limits, though Hanson seems to be drawing the line in a strange place, still its a good thing Hanson recognized Homophobia and dealt with it appropriately. We can only hope this is a sign that One Nation* may be turning a new leaf in dealing with the rampant homophobia within its party and its hideous treatment of LGBT Australians may improve.

 We were then presented with Tracey Bell-Henselin yet another One Nation candidate. 

 She took to Facebook to falsely claim that gays were the real bigots and were out to destroy families. Obviously this is utter nonsense and victim blaming double speak. It is the bigots whose homophobia separates LGBT Australians from their family, we are not responsible for our family's lack of empathy, acceptance, or love. Homophobia is the problem, not homosexuality.

 She went on to claim that defending Australia's unconstitutional, discriminatory law was lawful. Which i suppose is debatable, though i would argue that the constitution should take precedence over Howard's homophobic changes to the marriage act.

 She bemoaned people correctly labeling her as a bigot and homophobe. Seriously people if you don't want to wear your label with pride, simply stop fitting that label. We cant change your behavior for you. 

  She also seems to be under the misconception that gay people are not born like heterosexual people as there are apparently no mothers or fathers of LGBT people in her bizarre world view.
 She is also under the delusion that trans people are predatory sexual criminals, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now i would show statistics on the rates of predatory bathroom behavior among transgender people, but for the fact that their are none, because it just isn't a thing that really happens in the real world. Its just easy for bigots to rile up hate against trans people because their situation isn't easily understood by the majority who are often fearful of anything different.

 Of course Tracy Bell-Henselin is against safe schools, preferring that LGBT kids, and those perceived to be LGBT are bullied despite recent youth suicide due to homophobic bullying. And the fact that the recent homophobia expressed by One Nation* candidates including her own, shows how important good sexual education really is.

 

 In a strange move Hanson apparently laughed off Tracy Bell- Henselins homophobia falsely claiming these homophobic comments are not homophobic at all. Hanson seems to be drawing the line between what is and isn't homophobic in very strange places. It is a very wriggly and scribbled line indeed....

 Homophobes actually don't get to choose what is or is not homophobia. Homophobia is the discrimination, hatred, or vilification of LGBT people. You cant pick and chose within that definition what you want to include and exclude, you just need to stop treating the LGBT community as a scapegoat, stop cashing in on homophobia.

Can you justify why Tracy Bell-Henselins homophobia is any different from the other One Nation* candidates? Why is one candidate spreading the disgusting lie that homosexuality and pedophilia are somehow linked, sacked and the other not? 

 

*  Excludes; Non-whites, Non- christians, Non -straights.

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/13/one-nation-candidates-anti-gay-messages-port-arthur-conspiracy-theory

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-09/dumped-one-nation-shan-ju-lin-wont-apologise-for-gay-comments/8168792

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/third-pauline-hansons-one-nation-party-hopeful-rages-at-gay-bigots/news-story/9d6af1c3bc77c6175fff4a7e543fcfbe

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/20/one-nation-candidate-quits-two-days-inappropriate-tweet

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/one-nation-candidate-tracey-bell-henselin-under-fire/8175544

http://www.outinperth.com/one-nations-tracey-bell-henselin-lgbti-destroy-families/