Lately the general man, welcome to the late Base.
It's great to have your company. Thanks for joining us. I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up tonight. Huge crowds q at Sydney's Botanic Gardens to get the smell of a new plant, not because of its fragrancy, but because it's quite putrid. We'll show you that a little later. Plus, when we look at what's making news tomorrow, the Courier Mail have an exclusive story about gender clinics prescribing puberty blockers for children without parental consent.
That's a huge scandal brewing there. Will bring you that. Plus The Australian has a story about the Prime Minister of Fiji saying that Australia should not be blamed for climate change. All of that when we get to tomorrow's news. But I want to start by posing a question. Should clubs that exclude members of the opposite sex be allowed to operate in twenty twenty five or are they a relic of a bygone past that should be banned. That's a question being asked in Victoria at the moment after
a woman was denied membership of the Sandringham Club. That's a club on Melbourne's Bayside. The club was established in nineteen twelve and it features an array of sporting facilities. We might be able to show you some of those. They've got tennis courts, bowling greens, cricket pitchers and golf courses. And while membership is open only to men, their families are allowed to join them on site. That, however, was not good enough for one Melbourne woman, who, after being
denied membership, now insists these clubs should be banned. The problem, of course, is they're perfectly legal, as was pointed out by Monash University professor Dominic Allen. Professor Allen said it's unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex under Victoria's anti discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services, but there's an exception in the legislation which means clubs can exclude members of the opposite sex from membership if
membership of that club is only available to one sex. Now, interestingly enough, there are thirty clubs or around that number in Australia that offer membership only to one sex, and they include Sydney, Melbourne's Alexandra Club and Sydney's Lyceum Club, both of which are open only to women. Curiously enough, no one is asking for those clubs to be shut down.
Victorian's Women's Minister, Natalie Hitchins, she got involved in this debate and she said that clubs like the Sandringham Club, which is for men only, have no place in twenty twenty five. A relic from the past, she said, which always makes me curious when people think that by quoting the date they're making an argument, the fact that it's twenty twenty five has no bearing on whether something is
moral or immoral. In fact, that's based on the rather modern conceit that somehow, because we're alive today, we are automatically more morally evolved than say, our grandparents, which isn't always the case and probably not the case in Natalie Hutchins instance. Here she is the women's Minister can't even define what a woman.
Is because the quality is not negotiable here in Victoria's speaker, and the rights of trans Victorians is not negotiable here in Victoria. As Minister for Women, I proudly stand up for all women, that includes trans women.
So a women's Minister Caleb, who proudly stands for all women that includes men who identify as women, should probably just sit this debate out as to whether sex exclusive clubs should or should not exist in twenty twenty five.
Yeah, that is true.
Counterpoint though, is that if she believes that men should be allowed into women's clubs, perhaps she also has a point saying that women should be allowed in the men's clubs, by which I mean the men being allowed at the women's clubs as those claiming they are women. But you pointed out before the Alexandra Club and the Lyceum Club,
and there's a Lyceum Club in Sydney. There's also a Lyceum Club in Melbourne which is right next door to the Melbourne Club, right, so you know a couple can walk up and the man goes in that door and the woman goes in that door.
I don't see what the problem is here.
And this woman who tried to sign up to the Sandringham Club, I mean, how dopey do you have to be as a woman to try and sign up to a men's only club and then get outrage that they didn't accept.
Your membership application.
If you go on the Sandringham Club's website and click on the about section. The first thing it says Sandringham Club is a private men's sporting club, so she must she should have known that when she went to a plan.
Oh. I can't believe they didn't let me in.
I mean, if we can't have men's only spaces, I've never heard of anyone say that we can't have women's only spaces. Apart from transgender activists of course, but no one ever says that we can't have the Alexandra Club, or we can't have the Lyceum Club. It's always we can't have the Adelaide Club, we can't have the Melbourne Club, et cetera, et cetera, because it's all when men go and do things on.
Their own that is bad. We must let women in there. Well, it's up to the club.
If the membership of the club says they want to let women in, that is their prerogative. If they don't want to let women in, that is their prerogative. Why as a man can I not have a space where I can go and hang out with other men without being bothered by women. I don't see what the problem is, and I don't see why women can't do the same thing.
It's a quality of the story for all men's clubs is just ban women entirely.
Look what happened. You gave them an inch this lady once a mile. Just ban them entirely.
Make it an exclusively only men's club, because I swear for women like this.
Can't believe this makes the news.
One person finds something offensive these days, and oh it's front page news and let's write a whole article on it. Meanwhile, it's just nothing from nobody from nowhere, being like, oh I found this offensive, and I'm just I just want everyone to know. If we just ignore these people, all these problems wouldn't exist. But okay, it's happened. So and
so is upset. What do we do about it? I just reckon ban them entirely, because what a lot of women like this find far more offensive than a men's only space is those spaces.
In which they can access, just like.
The Australian Club, as long as they are accompanied by a man. A man has to get you in the door, and for certain women that is very triggering, which speaks to the fact that you don't have any man to get you in the door. Do you, because you're the exact kind of women that has driven men to make men's only spaces in the first place. So look, I think that is the moral of the story. These men's clubs need to go, oh, we've upset you.
Let's double down.
From now on, No women, under any circumstances can cross this hallowed ground. And I think society as a whole, whether it's women's spaces or men's only space, need to double down on this.
I think we should have way more of them.
Because in today's society where they are deriding everything feminine, everything exclusively female, and likewise for masculine everything, trying to convince us it's all just a spectrum. We're all, they them, It's just a hodgepodge of whatever, and you can switch depending on however you feel like it, and we're all. Equality isn't sameness, period, Tattoo that on your forehead. Equality isn't sameness. Men and women will never be equal in the sense of sameness.
That is what they're trying to achieve.
So anything like single sex spaces, which highlights our differences. Women love to get together and be women and talk about all the women and stuff that would make the men be like, oh dear God, why.
And likewise I love it.
It's a celebration of masculinity to just be like, here's where we smoke our cigars, we talk about manly things, we play the sports, we do, all the stuff that women aren't remotely interested in. I think we need more of them, because it thumbs. They flips the bird to this lefty Marxist idea.
Of all, no, we're all the same, and so what do you say to the counterpoint? There was one university professor who said the problem with these men's clubs is that men sit down and they talk business my bed and they make deals, but the women aren't there. So women are excluded from you know, corporate Australia. Because these exclude.
Why would these women agree with you us? I think about why would these women want to do business? Why would they want to be in the room doing business with men who would obviously rather do business with other men, not women.
Like if if you've got a pile of men who are like, we'd rather do business with.
Men, we choose to hang out at a men's only club and conduct our business here, what kind of stupid half wit woman is going to be like, well, I.
Want their business and I want a seat at the table.
It's like, you are exactly the kind of women men don't want to work with, and you're damaging our cause.
Get out.
And if you're going to have a business meeting at a men's club like the Melbourne Club or the Adelaide Club, et cetera, and it pertains to a deal that would involve a business woman, you can invite her into the club for the meeting. So there's no reason she can't go to business meetings. Just like if the CEO of Quantis these days is a woman. I mean, what if she goes down to the Lyceum Club in Melbourne and starts doing business deals in there with other women?
Why can't I get it on that?
Oh, she could just invite a man in if he had to go to the meeting for heaven say, and Mac showed you before Natalie Hutchins, the Minister for Women in Victoria, she doesn't know what a woman is.
I'll tell you who else does know what a woman is.
The police in the UK, in fact, probably the police everywhere, but the police in the UK have been dumb enough to actually write it down and put out a Handbook to all the coppers the plods over there, saying this is how you must now speak about everything, and they go into all sorts of nonsense about you know, there's no such thing as there being only two genders. Gender is a social construct. There's much more than male and female,
et cetera. But it gets even worse. You can no longer say if you are a Bobby in the UK. You can't say black sheep. You can't say blacklisted. You can't say something's got a black mark on it, because it suggests that black is bad, and therefore that is racist.
This is directly out of the handbook.
It's is don't say any expression that uses black in a negative way, for example, black sheep, blacklisted, or black mark. Now, as far as I'm aware, there's no racial connotation to the use of.
Black in that circumstance. It refers to death, etc.
Which comes to all of us regardless of race. So I don't really see what the issue is. There. Can't call depression the black dog anymore. In fact, black dogs all have to be killed now because it is racist to.
Even acknowledge that they exist. I mean black cats.
Remember, you can't have a black cat walk under a ladder because it's bad luck.
We're going to kill all the black cats now work. No, don't you dare do that, because that's discriminatory against the short blacks as well. That you could also order one of those if you go into a cabe.
The handbook goes on, well, many people who are pregnant or have given birth identify as women. There are some non binary, trans and intersects. People who do not identify as women, and who may be.
Pregnant and give birth.
Try to use gender neutral language such as pregnant person or expectant parent where possible. And then it gives possibly the most common sense thing in this entire thing.
Never ask someone if they are pregnant.
I'm not quite sure how that relates to the paragraph before it.
I thought that was just common sense.
If you don't want to get yourself in trouble with a woman who's put on a few kilos, don't ask her if.
She is pregnant. The thing goes on.
It says some there's a difference between non racist and anti racist, and the police, for some reason or another, need to acquaint themselves with the definition of those two terms. It talks about white frigility, which is apparently when white people don't want to hear that racism exists. I would have thought suggesting that that was exclusive to white people is in and of itself racist. It says don't generalize
about people. For instance, as an example, saying that older people are boring and grumpy, or that women in their fifties are men a pausal. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with policing. I didn't know the coppers were walking around sizing up fifty year old She did that because she's mean a pausal. It also says not to refer to mature adults, because that would be to suggest that a younger person couldn't be mature.
But of course you would use maturer adults where you.
Didn't want to call someone old because you thought that might be offensive. So the long and short of it is, there's nothing you can say anymore if you're a policeman in Britain, I mean police person or police stay then.
And also, for the long and short of it, I found you are very good, very good, But.
I mean this is utterly absurd. I mean, imagine you've signed up to be a copper and you thought, okay, I'm going to stop some crimes, and then they lobb this handbook in front of you, telling you you can't say that someone's got a black mark on them because it's racist.
The bad news is there's a lot of knife crime in the UK. The good news, though it's hurty, words are not in use anymore. I would have thought police have a lot more important things to do. But this advice caleberin Liz, I would have thought is racist in and of itself because it implies that black people are stupid, in that black people can't differentiate between a racial slur and a perfectly innocuous mark such as this person has
been blacklisted. It implies that black people are emotionally fragile, that they're going to get triggered at the first word that implies anything about them, and that they're easily offended.
And it's also racist because no one's banning things like whitewashing or white board those things about we know the difference between a racial slur and that because we're white, the inference being we're more intelligent, and of course worse than being insulting to black people, it's just downright dangerous.
The UK is in the middle right now of trying to unpick this grooming gang scandal where Muslim men predominantly from Pakistan, over a period of a decade, raped thousands and thousands of young girls and it was allowed to happen primarily because police and government officials were so afraid of offending people of a different race that they talked in vagaries about these crimes rather than got specific about
them and the rest of the perpetrators. So this is the last sort of advice that police in the UK should be worrying about.
And certainly should make it into the news. Right now, the UK is a tinder box when it comes to racial tension. They've had one too many terrorist attacks and yes, the latest being these Pakistani grooming gangs, where it has been shown that people that the community is told to trust, these very policemen, care more about being accused of racism than protecting vulnerable British natives in their country girls from these Pakistani grooming gangs. This is, like I say, worse
than tone deaf. If I was in the UK, I think this might be my dipping point because the fact that they are still paying attention to this, putting this out in their guidelines, pouring over their handbooks, does my head in You guys have far worse problems. Do your jobs for crying out loud. But as a wider issue, what really boils my brains about issues like this is.
The same people who laugh.
At measures like this and just be like, this is so ridiculous, I pose it are the same people who do advocate for hate speech laws if and when it
suits them. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to concede worse, legislate that words are hurty, some of them too hurty to be used, some of them must be eradicated all together, then you are going to end up with this because once you have ceeded that ground, you have ceded that ground to people who are then in charge of deciding which words are hurty, which words are classified as hate speech, and therefore can
be wiped off the entire societies lexicon. So just remember next time you're like, yes.
Well, actually I think it should be illegal to say this or this.
Because cancel culture is siding with your opinion on one very rare day. If you're a conservative, then just remember you're seeding ground to that very same side.
Who are like well, marvelous hate speech laws. This is bad, this is banned.
But speaking of institutionalized hate speech laws and banning this and we kind of information all, especially on the socials, Guess what the EU have done. I know you're not not expecting anything good to come out of that parliament anytime soon.
No one's holding their breath.
But goodness me, they have doubled down on laws that were introduced last year.
It's called the Digital Services Act.
Came into force last year and it's only twenty twenty five, but they've already decided to make it worse. Here are there renewed guidelines under this revised code that they've come up with regarding who can post what on social media platforms and how they are to be censored under the revised code. Companies these are the platforms like X like Meta that are signed up must allow a network of monitoring reporters that are nonprofit or public entities with expertise on illegal hate speech.
Is that opposed to legal legal speech.
Even legal guys, to regularly monitor how the signatrees these platforms are reviewing hate speech notices. They will have to review at least two thirds of h speech notices. Received from monitoring reporters within twenty four hours. No, there's no speaking to the magnitude within twenty four hours. Any platform could receive one thousand, five thousand, one hundred thousand, and they're expected to address over two thirds of those within twenty four hours. And now the EU has ensured that
this process is being monitored. So any platforms that have signed up to this, and they all have by the way, they're forced to if they want their platforms to be operational in Europe. So they all have X meta, you name it. They've signed up. They want to be operational across Europe. Now the EUS like, ea, EA, you signed up on it.
We don't trust you. Now we've got these extra layer.
To ensure that not only are you doing it, but you're doing it in a timely fashion. And to us, timely fashion is addressing two thirds of any number of complaints within the last twenty four hours. It is utterly ludicrous and it's just bald place censuship. I mean, this is not just hate speech. This is anything that they deem disinformation.
Don't we love that word. It just keeps popping up.
So one of these not for profits that will be monitoring our tweets for disinformation is Amnesty International. So they have been nominated by the EU to go through our Twitter feeds and make sure it's all you know, true and correct. This is an organization that tweeted in twenty twenty two that abortion is a human right. Amnesty International can tweet that, so you get no idea of maybe their bias. When reading your.
I can tell you a lot more about a speech.
In twenty twenty three, they tweeted non binary rights human rights. I would have thought non binary people have human rights. It's a bit of a nonsense. And in last year, in April ten, Amnesty International made a big deal about a terrorist leader responsible for the death of an Israeli nineteen year old who was abducted, held for ransom, then when he wasn't ransomed by the Israeli government, he was tortured, sexually assaulted, he was castrated, his eyes were gouged out.
Then he was shot dead and the terrorist leader who was responsible for that died in an Israeli prison. An Amnesty International called that an example of Israeli cruelty that they allowed this man to die in prison. And this is the organization at the EU. They're so concerned about this information, they've put Amnesty International as one of the
key umpires of people's social media posts. Who will Amnesty International answer to and how will they define aid speak subs information according to their worldview, which, as you can see, is i'd say pretty different to ours and most of the people watching tonight.
Well, well, if it's up to Amnesty International, I mean, if you said Jewish women should should not be raped and taken hostage on over the seventh twenty twenty three, they'd say that was hate speech, given the way they carry on, And it's much like they are being forced into a position that social media companies for a while
put themselves in them. And you think of here in Australia, Facebook was signed up with the RMT fact check right, and we know, particularly during the Voice debate, what was going on there where they were claiming that whatever the nose side of the campaign said about the campaign was somehow disinformation, and so Facebook was censoring that because it was either wrong or it was hate speech.
Et cetera.
But anything that was of the Yes campaign just got a green flag. There was no problem there whatsoever. So the social media companies had actually tried this out before and it didn't work. They got rid of it. Facebook got rid of r MIT fact Check. The ABC used to have an association with rimat fact Check. They've also stopped that because they've worked out that this stuff doesn't work, because these people just have a bent that they keep trying to put forward. And so the EU has gone fantastic.
They tried it for themselves and it didn't work, So now we're going to make it law.
How much better could it get?
And see, it's no different from what was suggested here in Australia, which was a misinformation Disinformation Czar or whatever it was going to be down at AKMA, the Communications and Media Authority, which would have done exactly the same thing, but just at a governmental level. The EU now gets to say, well, this is not happening as a tool of the governor. We've got nonprofits coming in to do
it for us. Who do you think they choose the people who agree with them, and the idea that they have to assess all of the complaints within a twenty four hour time frame. If I decide now that I've got a particular bent against X, an X would be the most likely one to face this kind of thing given at c Elon Musk running the show. We just get a campaign of people together to just report every post as a piece of hate speech. I mean by law, they are forced to assist them within twenty four hours.
Tell me how then the EU would say, oh, this isn't happening, We'll have to take over this function.
Ladies and gentlemen. We gave them a chance. It's not working.
I also don't think it's coincidental that these kind of measures we just finished talking about the UK police they can't even mention blackmail, black this, black anything that these kinds of institutionalizing thou shalt not say fill in the blank is rife in the UK and in Europe. Why because these are countries that are being absolutely pummeled with immigration, whether illegal or illegal, and that is going to result in people noticing and writing things, inventing online as they
can and should be able to on their socials. But no, no, we're going to call that hate speech. We're going to take you're just noticing something. You don't even have to be derogatory about it. You're just noticing something, and we're going to make sure you don't dare mention it because we are doing this, We are orchestrating the takeover in
your own countries, this invasion by design. But hey, we don't want you guys talking about it and actually finding each other getting together and going, hey, what can be done to keep my country my country?
And the clue is when officials start banning things like hate, which is an emotion. One of the EU officials said there's no place for hate online or offline in Europe. Well, the definition of what hate is, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and typically that means government will decide what they want to be said and everything else is banned. But it just gets better and better in Europe, of course, where they keep cracking down on
free speech. Open borders continue to be propagated. But there's a new sheriff in town, and that's Donald Trump. Three days into his presidency, he addressed the meeting and your meeting in Davos of the World Economic Forum. I just imagine all the World Economic Forum people. They're gritting their teeth as Trump is beamed in on the big screen.
And Donald Trump did not hold back. He got stuck into the Biden administration, calling them a totally inept group of people, which is just beautiful because people like John Kerry, the Democrat, would have been sitting there in Davos listening
to all of this, trying to maintain a smile. Donald Trump said that America is open for business, and then he had this to say about the Green scheme, so loved by all of those pushing for globalization, especially those in the World Economic Forum have listened.
I terminated the ridiculous and incredibly wasteful Green New Deal, like all it the Green New scam, withdrew from the one sided Paris Climate Accord, and ended the insane and costly electric vehicle mendad.
I mean kind of this disrupts everything. Right. Everybody at the World Economic Forum is all about globalization, what they call it, the rules based international order. And in comes Donald Trump, who says America first, if you want to do business with us, great, If you don't, you're prerogative. But we're not going to play nice guy and be rolled over anymore. We're going to stand up for what's best for us. And they've got four years of this.
I mean, you love the balls on the guy, don't you. He just rocks up and says Look, this is how it's going to be. I don't care if you're not on board.
Get stuffed, which is exactly what Harvey and Malay did last year.
He was elected over in Argentina, and you look at Malay's track records since he went over there and basically said, everything is stuffed. I'm just going to completely rejig Argentina and we'll see what happens.
Well, it's worked. He's backed it up.
And that's what Donald Trump now has to do and he will do. He goes and tells these people this is how things are going to run. And then in four years time when he walks away, everyone at the World Economic Forum will have to look even if they can't outwardly say it because we can't admit that we were wrong, but they will have to look at what Donald Trump has done during his term and but grudgingly admit that, yes, he was right. They'll never say it, but they'll have to think it.
And that's the.
Best part of it is that he can go in there and say, look, I know you're wrong.
I'm going to show you that you're wrong, but you won't be man enough.
I'm mad enough to come and talk to you and tell you how I see the world and that I think you're wrong. But you'll never be man enough to tell me that I'm wrong. You know why, because he won't be.
He won't be.
He's taking them on. He's taking them on at the WEF. He's taking them on in America, and much like the leadership you've seen from Donald Trump before he became president, since November, the way he's changed the culture in the US. We just have to hope that this flows on elsewhere and changes in countries like Australia and the UK, etc. That's how you bring down a big thing like the world economics. We can't bring him down, but you know, try to counter the world economics.
Oh, they will just buy their time. They know what to expect because it happened the first time, and they have been dreading this for the previous four years under Biden. They've been talking about the possibility, especially once he announced. Obviously, they were quaking in their boots. In this time round twenty twenty five in DeVos, they've at least admitted, well, yeah, sure, we hate him, but Trump's one.
And that means we at the WEF we've lost.
Trump has done something no person in the world has ever done before. A dead band, a dead politician has risen somebody who the year were four years ago at the US he's buried dead politically known to me, he's now returned. This is the greatest comeback in political history of a politician. And then therefore he thinks he can do anything.
We need to also factor in not only who's one, which is Trump, but whose loss.
Which is to say US, And I guess.
I would add throw into that that the epitome of the US who is losing here is Europe?
Really did he become Europe's president? I miss that?
But there they are, these world leaders, these elites that get together and shoulder rub every year to make our lives miserable worldwide. I'm just like, oh, big dog Energy's back in the White House. How are we going to pull this off anymore? But check out this guy. His name's Larry Fink. He's the CEO of Black Rock because they couldn't just name the thing evil af And he's got this fascinating take on AI that I'd never entertained before.
Here he is speaking to Davos saying, essentially, these countries who are very tight immigration policies. They're very nationalistic. They don't let in huge wads of people from all over the world preaching to their people, say, oh, we've got to do it for GDP, we've got to do it for growth, we've got to do it for all these hair brained reasons. No, they are passionate about keeping their country exactly as it is. They're very nationalistic, they're very prideful.
He's saying AI is going to work a treat for these people because governments who have implemented those policies once they have AI, which can do one hundred people's jobs. Just one computer doing one hundred people's jobs around the clock doesn't need to sleep or eat well that whole but we need it for manpower.
Argument is going to go out the window.
In my conversations with the leadership of these large developed countries that have xenophobic immigration policies. It'll allow anybody to come in, shrinking unemployment, excuse me, tricky demographics. These countries will rapidly develop robotics in AI and technology. And if the promise I didn't say it's going to happen, but as a promise of all that transforms productivity, which most of us think it will. We'll be able to elevate the standard of living countries and the standard of living
of individuals even with shrinking populations. And so the paradigm of negative population growth is going to be changing, and the social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations.
Well well, well, I love how we call nationalist countries, which is an awesome thing. In my opinion, I think every country should be nationalists. I think every country should be filling the blank First, when did it become a sin to stand up for your own interests? For crying out loud? Love that he calls them xenophobic countries?
Like how dare they?
But I'd never thought of this take on AI before, right, because this is what the Australian government certainly preaches to us, and we're just having big Australia foisted on us. None of us voted for this, but we wake up in a country every day now we're only a third of us born here, Like, how do we end up here?
How did this happen?
But to our government has always preached to us, Oh, we've got to do this.
It's for growth, it's all about GD But most.
Australians don't even know what gross domestic product is, but that this is what they water board the public with and say, look, we have no other choice. We've got to do this. Once AI gets kicking, that's simply going to go out the window, unless you're talking about tradees, because I think it's.
Going to take her while before AI can build your house.
So he's saying countries like Japan that are wealthy countries, highly developed countries, they've got a declining population, but they're going to be okay because AI will mean they don't
need to import labor force, computers will do it. On the other hand, those countries that have been listening to people like him in the World Forum and have gone for diversity and important huge numbers of people, they're going to not only have problems with social cohesion, but when AI comes in, they're going to have millions of migrants
have imported who no longer have jobs to do. So they've got social cohesion problems and they're going to have massive economic problems and what to do with all these people who no longer have jobs?
Correctamen and I do wonder the argument makes sense, but there is a point at which AI can go too far. And I get the idea that AI can replace potentially a lot of office jobs and menial types of work, but there is a point where it puts too many people out of work. Even in those countries where they have type immigration policies, potentially you could have so many people out of work that you just can't cope with it.
I mean, you can't possibly have everyone in the country building houses, because if your popularity, your popularity, your population is declining, then you've got no one to build the houses for, right That's the only work that will be left over, potentially is physical labor of some description. So I buy the argument, and I get the argument, and I think that's fine as long as as we know at which point to stop AI from taking everyone's job away.
If it own, if it means that you don't need to bring in extra people to service the population, great that makes sense. But if it goes too far and you end up replacing the jobs of the people who are already there, then yes, you're going to end up in a lot of trouble. And of course we talked about Donald Trump before and his power being able to go to the WEF and tell him exactly what he thinks. How's this for Donald Trump exerting a bit of power.
Of course, he said, first day back in the job, as present, we will have mass deportation, and he is delivering on that promise. They sent two planeloads of illegal margrants back to Colombia. Now, when the plane's got to Columbia, the president said, no, we're not taking them.
You can't do this.
So Donald Trump got on social media and said, well, I know what I'm going to do about that. I'm going to whack on you a twenty five percent tariff, which within a week will be fifty percent. Anything that Columbia imports into the United States. I'm assuming HIPT cocaine because that comes in away from taxation, et cetera.
We'll have a fifty percent teriff on it.
And so within two hours, the president of Columbia changed his tune and said, actually, yes, you can deport the illegals back to Colombia. I'll even send my own presidential plane to collect them for you. I mean, you talk about the big dog energy of Donald Trump, this is it or it large he's gone not having it.
He may just have to fall off.
It has got to be the shortest trade war in three of the universe. He never actually got to take place. So first Donald Trump said, I'll start out with a twenty five percent tariff all the goods that you sent us. But within a week it's going to go to fifty percent.
And not only did the President fold and be like, okay, okay, okay, we'll take them, he then shared on here his own social media that he was you he was offering his own presidential plane to help ferry these criminals out of USA and back into Columbia.
What a win.
Trump's been very firm on this and saying, hey, look.
We want to be friends with all our neighbors.
We're a very friendly country here, but friends don't leave each other's rubbish in.
Each other's backyards, and you only take your criminals back.
Don't you wish that we had something similar here in Australia. How many times have we talked about these detainees, etc. And so on, those who have re offended, those who should have never been here in the first place. But Australia's just like, oh, well, what can we do We've got.
To keep him.
He's just like mate, by the jet load. We are sending your back and.
You only had to do this once. He's made an example of Columbia. Every other South American country will have taken note, and I suggest he probably won't have any more problems. Good to see a present actually take action too. Joe Biden would have had to go on a trip to the beach, take a nap, consulted committee before he would have done anything about this. We're going to go
to a break. When we come back, look at what's making news tomorrow, including an exclusive in the Career Mail about Queensland children being prescribed puberty blockers without parental consent. All of that in just a moment. Welcome back. Let's take a look at what's making news in tomorrow's papers. The Career Mail has a front page exclusive. I should point out there's a cyclone bearing down on North Queensland, but there's about to be a cyclone hit promoters of
gender ideology in Queensland. With this exclusive, clinic gave kids puberty blockers without parents consent. Children's gender scandal, reads the headline. The article says Queensland kids as young as twelve have been prescribed puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones without proper
medical support and parental consent. The Chrisofoley government has been rocked by explosive claims that rogue gender services have been operating in Cans, with Queensland Health now launching an independent inquiry. The article goes on to suggest that the can Sexual Health Service has apparently delivered unauthorized gender care gender care, gender service to about forty two children, as I said,
without proper medical supervision or parental consent. Now, of course, here in Australia, our politicians have resisted calls for an inquiry into the way kids with.
Five times five times.
Pauline Hanson five times, as Liz says, has called for such an inquiry, and our politicians have been completely incurious about what we're doing with kids. Just maybe this is the tipping point that might arouse the curiosity of some of our politicians who think maybe we should take an interest in how our kids are being.
I don't think it's going to arouse anything for years now. Remember it was twenty twenty three when doctor Gillian Spencer a.
Child syke in Queensland.
There's been a concentration of Queensland doctors, pediatricians and child sikes, like doctor Gillian Spencer, who tried to speak out about this specific in Queensland, saying, these guys are just running a mark up here. We cannot back this gender affirming care that's going on and they knew, so.
That's my point. This isn't going through. Oh yeah, maybe we'll finally get action. They've known for years.
Doctor Gillian Spencer was stilled down in twenty twenty three. I've lost counter the amount of articles where Queensland has specifically will like cut this out and they were either stood down or penalized in other ways. That is how absolutely militant certain people are about driving this agenda. And like I say, five times, not once, not twice, not a third time, Senator Pauline Hanson has just tried to get up an inquiry.
It's not like.
I'm trying to pass a bill to ban gender affirm No, She's simply said I want an inquiry into this, especially since the CAST report in the UK where they.
Banned this treatment.
Nobody's getting puberty blockers anymore because had massive issues, rendering some kids infertile for the rest of their lives had bone density issues, you name it, it's got it. They banned it nationwide. Can I just get an inquiry into this? And the powers that be, those evil, evil individuals said no five times five times, So no, I don't think we're.
Going to get any action on this.
It wouldn't matter what the headline was, they will do nothing.
But this is the thing, bugg of the inquiry. The inquiries have already been done.
Overseas exactly know what's going on.
Just skip to the part where we scrap it Like this shouldn't even be a discussion that we are having tonight. We shouldn't then be waking up tomorrow to hear politicians saying, oh, we're going to look into this and something has to be done. Just do it, Just do it like they could have done it years ago. The Cash report, as you said, the NHS scrapped it, the Tavistock clinic shut down. The UK has been through all of this, and Australia
is so far behind the rest of the world. The US, I mean in New York Times, for heaven's sake, is publishing stories now about people who regret having transition when they were children that would not have happened.
Five years ago.
The culture, the talking points have changed so much overseas, and yet here in Australia we're in exactly the same place we have been for years. Just do something about it and stop it.
Now.
It's like we're back in pandemic days. The science changes depending on which state you're in, sometimes which city you're in. Certainly which country you're in, the science is totally different. So in the UK it's banned, it's evil and they know it. But apparently here in Australia we don't even want to know their science, and we certainly don't know ours. We're just determined to push an ideology on innocent children.
To the front page of the Townsville Bulletin, Now electricity meters ripoff Queenslanders.
Oh, Queensland heavy.
New electricity meters being rapidly rolled out. In the bush's slash, carbon emissions are quote enabling a ripoff end quote according to an economics professor that Federal Labor appointed to the Climate Change Authority, University of Queensland's John's Quiggin told the bullet In, many households with smart meters had been moved to demand tariff power plans that were just crazy.
Wait a minute, so we've actually.
Got these being rolled out which are ripping off Queenslanders like you wouldn't believe it. It's being done at the state's behest, of course, as everything is being done, and Queenslanders already have the most expensive power prices in the nation. It's been that way for I think well over a year at this point, and now they're finding out that the state is just like, look, while we're ripping.
You off, let's just make it worse.
And it's not small. It's, according to the towns Or bullet In, an extra eight hundred dollars a year on top of people's energy prices because of what the government is doing, supposedly to help them. What's that old thing government? Everything they touched, they make it worse? Was it wrong?
Yes?
Who says are the worst words you can hear in your life after from the.
Government here to help, which which Kevin rad Than reappropriated to.
You know, I'm Kevin from Queensland and I'm.
Here to help them when we're on about having a nice Bova with your cup of tea that night when he became PM two. But it's it is ridiculous that they create this system. Well, we know why they've created the system, because you know, it allows them to interfere with.
Your air conditioners.
They can turn it down when they're worried that the electricity is going to be turned off because there's not enough power to go around, et cetera. But they have a system that they say, well, this will be good because we know exactly at what times you're using power, et cetera. So you know, we can offer you a discounted rate during the day when people are less.
Likely to be using power.
So you should run your dishwasher and your washing machine, et cetera. Then, but of course it also means that they know when you're using power at night. So you go on this deal which they have sold to you is great, great, great, You'll get cheap power during the day and then at night they're just jacking it up to high heaven and pretending it was a good deal.
Thank you very much.
Let's go to the Australian where it says AI and g hotpot falls quiet on China.
I wonder why China's answer to chat.
GPT has plenty to say about Australia, labeling it's human rights record a mixed picture and the national holiday deeply divisive, but it draws blanks when asked about the ti Anaman Square massacre in nineteen eighty nine, Jijingping, the Cultural Revolution, or China's own record.
On human rights. Gee, I wonder why that might be a So.
If you ask, what's this thing called deep seek? If you ask it about Donald Trump, or about Anthey Albanesi or Peter Dutton, it will give you an opinion. If you ask it about Xijingping, it says, can we change the subject or talk about something else. So it just goes to show everyone in China is scared of the authoritarian leader. Even Ai is too scared to talk about him.
So you say divisive device division yep, yep, okay.
Well have you kel not on this one? I think both are okay, but I'll take this goes.
To show why Trump's pursuit of pre eminence in Ai is so important, correct, because if China dominate, then it allows them to set the narrative for the whole world, which cannot be allowed.
That's why the race, that's what TikTok's for, they've already done. It's maked into the next gener race.
Have Ai and it'll all be over, including those jobs. Apparently another story very quickly before we go to the break.
Pacific dose of green clarity for gen. Prime Minister Civitenni Rabuka has rejected claims by fellow Pacific leaders that their countries are being endangered by Australia's hypocritical expansion of gas and coal production, declaring we should not blame Australia for climate change, and he said that the transition to green energy must walk apace with development and affordability.
I can't believe it.
Someone actually making sense and saying, no, the little country with twenty seven million people is not the reason that you're supposedly going to end up underwater.
I can't believe he's actually covering a.
Sort After Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords, all these islander nations would be like, well, that's it, We're sunk.
Where done, It's over. Like why at.
This point would you ever berate Australia ever again.
That the problem is the Albanizer government will jump on this and say, see, we're not responsible. But the Albaniza government are excited because they want to host COP thirty one. And one of the contentions is that Australia is not a good citizen. This will be proof that we are. Therefore we can host COP thirty one, which will just cost us a whole lot more money in climate change mitigation costs. Anyway, we're going to go to a break when we come back. Lots of people lining up at
Sydney's Botanic gardens to smell a flower. Not because the fragrance is nice. It's futrid and people want to whiff that's coming up at.
This a moment.
Okay, welcome back. Well, huge crowds queuing out the botanic gardens to smell the flowers. But Caleb, this is slightly different kind of smell.
Indeed, there is a big stink in Sydney, and I can report it is not James McPherson. That's just localized to mcquarie Park and this studio here at the Lake Debate, but the titan Arum, otherwise known as the corpse flower. I had to make sure I got the real name in there because my father is a horticulturalist. This thing takes ten years to first bloom, and then after that
it blooms every three to five years. But when it does, the stink is absolutely putrid, so much so that people actually take time out of their day to go and smell something that apparently smells like rotten eggs. According to one boy who went to visit, it is a bizarre idea that you would be like, Okay, here is something that smells like something I don't want to go near at all, but I'm deliberately going to go near it because it is so unusual that this thing smells like
it does. I can't make sense of it.
So only when you can watch the good part online like this was live streams, you can sit in the comfort of your home smelling it. No one savory smells and watch the thing bloom.
But no, they wanted to smell it.
Funnily enough, the brother of the kid who said it smelt like rotten eggs, his little brother piped up and said, and poop, it smelled ape.
Always the little brother. The ABC interviewed a woman who traveled an hour to smell it. I think that's the thing, right. You can watch it online and you can see it, but the experience is really sure to be smelt. This woman traveled an hour to smell it. She told the ABC it smelt like wet towels, and then advised after she got home she'd get friends and she'd come back to smell it all over again.
Look, it must be such an enriching experience. I think we all have to go down and perhaps check it out for ourselves and love it and see and see how we go, and see whether or not it does, in fact smell worse than James McPherson.
That might be a feat.
I'm going to take Cale about back. We're going to have words, but you stick around. Coming up is the reader Penny Show. Couldn't I