Australia is still so totally gay

Last month James Delingpole said that Australia was “so totally gay”…and this month they prove they still are so totally gay:

Australian states have been accused of “nannyism” over a range of new laws beginning this year, including a ban on ladies’ nights – where bars offer free drinks to women.

Other new measures include a ban in Victoria on smoking within 50 metres of the beach and guidelines issued to some schools in New South Wales asking parents dropping children off to avoid wearing revealing clothes or racist T-shirts.

The ban on ladies’ nights will commence from January 18 in South Australia and was introduced by the state to try to curb binge drinking. The measures also require bars to offer free water and at least one non-alcoholic beverage that is cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic drink.

PJ O’Briens, a bar in Adelaide, said it would change the name of its weekly ladies’ nights – a Thursday deal offering free vodka drinks to women – and would allow men to access its promotions.

“As long as you offer the special deals to everyone, it is OK,” the manager said.

And the nanny state has extended to the countries beaches as well:

In Victoria, smokers will face fines of $140 from today if they smoke near the beach. And about 20 state schools in New South Wales have provided guidelines to parents urging them to avoid wearing bikinis or offensive T-shirts.

The Australian Council for Civil Liberties said smoking bans were justified as public health measures but the other new rules were excessive. States already had liquor acts that banned serving drinks to people who have drunk too much, it said.

Chopper would be crying tears of shame.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • bristol

    Ah, the joys of socialism.

  • Just more evidence that the so called “liberals’ who are socially and politically ascendant today (in Australia and NZ) are really just authoritarians in disguise.

    • hence they are not true Social or Neo Liberals Baiter if one reads the definition of them properly. Looking at those laws it looks like Neo or Social Conservatives would pass such laws as Australia just did. “Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual”

      And for Common Good:

      “Another definition of the common good, as the quintessential goal of the state, requires an admission of the individual’s basic right in society, which is, namely, the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape his life by responsible action, in pursuit of virtue and in accordance with the moral law.”

      Individual Freedom, Individual Choice, Individual Responsibility (with a mix of collectivism in there) seem to ring through that.

      I also note that apparently that the earliest teaching of Common Good was from Catholic Social Teaching – go bloody figure

      So baiter, a true Social Liberal (like myself) and a true Neo Liberal would not necessarily embark down the path the Australian’s just did with alcohol or “questionable” clothing

      Where does that put Labour and The Greens – in the Social Conservative authoritarian box along with NZ First and Colin Craig’s Conservative Party.

      In simple terms – a true liberal would go to the state: get the fuck out of my life (while accepting that there are some who are in genuine need of state support (hand up not hand out as ACT use to say))

      • That is tl;dr for Redbaiter to even begin ti understand. His knowledge of politics is as deep as a carpark puddle.

        • Sadly so Cam, sadly so. Do I even bother to try and get that entire spiel into a 6-second sound bite for dear old baiter?

          • Kimbo

            I appreciated it, Ben Ross. I took the test on the link you posted a few days ago, and found I was just off dead centre, slightly right, slightly libertarian, which probably sums me up (I voted for Peter Dunne twice!).

            However, I found some of the questions in the survey simplistic. Like (from memory) do you believe business has no other social responsibility other than to make a profit? My real answer, ‘yes’ – except to laws that holds them accountable to genuine and true competition, and necessary transparency for the consumer, and appropriate work safety, health, and environmental laws such that no harm is done to others’.

            Put it this way, I don’t see why, in a true libertarian spirit, you get to run unsafe sweat shops, sell poison in food, or lay waste to the environment, and not be held to account. Doesn’t mean you have to exert inefficient and costly bureaucratic controls and regulations that are usually a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut and usually makes things worse courtesy of the law of unintended consequences – which is the Labour/Green solution to a problem that libertarians would in principle agree with – I think!.

            But if and when someone transgresses, the power of the judiciary needs to be exercised with utmost vigour, and without fear or favour so that the best means of keeping people accountable – a deterrent – is clearly seen to be in force.

            Is that a practical demonstration of the nuance you are seeking to explain?

            Either way, there is something eerily similar about how RB and, say, Andrei argue, and also, say, Kosh, and the other leftie trolls who roll in from time to time looking for a feud over slogans. They all have a form of ‘persecution complex’, and a belief that only their (marginalised) perspective is the to path to political salvation.

            Anyway, that was also probably tl:dr

          • Probably was tl:dr as Cam would say but for me personally; yes some of those questions were simplistic however I am not sure if we would want a full university style type Political Compass test on the web (in saying that there is probably one) as it might go right over people’s heads.

            However your tl:dr reply as it might of been, yes that would of been the practical demonstration of the nuanceI was tryiing and seeking to explain.

            As for our resident three you mentioned – would agree there

          • Travis Poulson

            That’s Master to you, Ben.

          • Mas-ter Baiter – my apologies Travis

  • J.M

    There has been a fair bit of this sort of shit recently in NZ as well. Will only get worse once Key loses the next election (as much as I don’t want this to happen),