West Memphis Three Update

First I’d like to thank the official Free The West Memphis Three blog for originally bringing this information to light.  If you’d like to follow the blog you can do so here.  If you have no idea who the West Memphis Three are or would like to learn more about them, then please read my original blog post regarding them here.

Now that we have all of that out of the way we can focus on the new information that has been made public.  DNA samples were sent away a while ago and the results of these have been returned with the report being filed on the 18th of July.  These DNA results conclusively exclude Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin from ever being near the bodies of the three boys.  The DNA was found on the bottom of one of the boys shoes and upon testing have discovered that it belongs to two separate males that they have yet to identify.  They are also still testing hairs that were found at the crime scene and will also make there findings public once it is completed.  All of this evidence however points to the WM3 being innocent as so many of us have known all along.

This craziness has been going on for 18 years now and three innocent boys, who have now become men behind bars, have lost out on their youth because of an immense miscarriage of justice.  These latest findings will go before the judge in December, where he will decide whether this evidence is strong enough to call for a new trial before a jury.  If he doesn't see that there is mounting evidence to prove the WM3 are innocent of multiple homicide then someone higher up the legal chain needs to step in.  This is completely ridiculous and makes a mockery out of the judicial system to keep three innocent people behind bars.  Evidence doesn't lie, and all evidence points to them being innocent.  Keeping fighting for justice people, it will prevail in the end.

Podcast For 24th July 2011

In this podcast I discuss the death of Amy Winehouse, the attacks and mass shooting in Norway, and the possibility of Israeli Spies in Christchurch the day of the February 22nd Earthquake.  Click HERE to listen.  Please feel free to comment and join the discussion in the comments below.

Tranny Basher’s Reduced Sentence

It would seem in this country we reward those who beat transsexuals and cross dressers to death.  In 2009 David Shaun Galloway (18) and Phillip Christopher Sanders (42), beat 64 year old Richard Milton Jones, who was a cross dresser (the media really need to learn the different terms correctly), to death.  Originally David Galloway was sentenced to 10 years in jail for manslaughter with a minimum non parole of 5 years.  The judge gave him this sentence and time specifically because they had admitted their hatred of transsexuals.  In a police interview, Galloway said “that he followed Sanders to the flat ''to beat up a transvestite'', that he ''believed in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'', and that he did not deserve to live.”  Firstly, that should have been classed as murder as it was premeditated, instead of the pathetic lesser charge of manslaughter.  And Secondly, that to me sounds like definite motive for a hate crime, suggesting the judge made the right call.

Well not according to the court of appeals who this week reduced his sentence to 9 years with a minimum non parole of 4 years citing that, “the judge overstated the seriousness of the hate crime aspect of the homicide.”  Obviously the court of appeals didn't get the memo about Galloway hating tranny’s.  How stupid can these people be, he admitted to hating them and that they didn't deserve to live!  Now if they had bashed and killed some poor old “normal” (and I use the term loosely) 64 year old man, everybody would be jumping up and down crying out for more blood.  But because this old fella liked to wear woman’s clothes, he isn't as deserving of justice.  At least that is the message that the court of appeals is sending out to the public.

I am continually disheartened and disgusted with the state of this world and the people in it.  There seems to be ignorance and bigotry wherever we turn.  Its 2011 people, time to drag our arses out of the stone age and realise that we don't have the right to judge others in that way.  ALL hate crimes are unacceptable and we need to stand up an refuse to tolerate them.

To Burqa Or Not To Burqa

I'm overwhelmed by the amount of ignorance that abounds in this country and most other countries when it comes to cultural differences.  You'd think being such a multicultural society we would have more understanding and tolerance, but it seems this is not the case.  While at University studying Anthropology we did a study of the burqa and women.  Based on various studies carried out in recent years it has become apparent that more Islamic and Muslim nations are giving women the choice as to whether they want to wear it.  Most women said that they would rather wear it than not.  Why?  Because THEY feel secure beneath it.  Because THEY feel safe beneath it.  This particular paper by Lila Abu-Lughod poses the question, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” and there are many other papers and studies echoing the same idea should you wish to search them out and learn something about this issue. At the end of the day it is not our god given right to try and tell a culture how they can function.  We do not have the right to come in and tell them what they can and cant do.  Its their culture!  Have you people not learnt any lessons from colonisation?  I'm ashamed that so many kiwis are so Ethnocentric. 

A lot of people use the weak argument that “if I have to respect their laws and dress that way when I’m in their country, then they should do the same when here.”  I really don't see the validity of that argument from my own perspective.  If I go to an Islamic country am I bothered that I must wear a burqa or cover up, No.  At the end of the day it really doesn't harm me or effect me greatly in any way.  Do I care if they come over here and continue to wear the burqa or cover up, No.  Again at the end of the day it really doesn't harm me or effect me greatly in any way.  It seems to me that the main reason people don't like the burqa is because they either feel threatened by them and Muslim/Islam in general, or they think that the burqa represents female oppression and male domination.  Both of these opinions are purely bred from ignorance and bigotry.  I’m all for people having opinions and support that fact whole heartedly, however I do believe that an opinion should be formed by educating yourself on the various facts first and it seems to me that so many people fail to do that when it comes to issues such as this.

For my non Kiwi readers we have a show here in NZ called “Campbell Live,”  hosted by John Campbell, its a half hour investigative type show where journalists get to the bottom of issues happening in our country at this particular time.  Last night they did a segment on the burqa and how people who wear it are treated.  John sent two of his staff out onto the streets of Auckland, Mihingarangi Forbes who is a journalist on the show and Jayne Soons who is a producer.  Both women dressed themselves in full burqa before heading out to film reactions.  Yesterday our Prime Minister stated that “we live in a tolerant and inclusive society”, with the opposing party leader Phil Goff agreeing and adding, “it’s live and let live in New Zealand.”  How wrong and out of the loop these two politicians are, because if they had watched this story on Campbell Live last night they would have seen a different side of New Zealand tolerance.  I was both appalled and disgusted by the pointing of strangers, the staring and the women at a store called “Barbara’s” who refused them entry into her store and said some things that were unwarranted.  For those of you who want to watch the full report you can do so here on the Campbell Live Site.  For those of you who aren't interested in watching the full report here is the transcript of the conversation that took place:

 

Retailer (Standing in the doorway to her store):  No, no thanks

Reporter:  I can’t see your clothes?

Retailer (nodding to the rack outside):  You’ve already looked

Reporter:  I mean the ones inside?

Retailer:  You speak with a New Zealand accent.  What on earth are you doing dressed up like that?

Reporter:  Pardon?

Retailer:  What on earth are you doing dressed up like that?

Reporter:  Religion is a choice.

Retailer:  In some countries it is.  You take advantage of us here.

 

You Miss Retailer, whoever you are, should be ashamed of yourself.  How dare you speak on behalf of every New Zealander.  Who do you think you are to tell people what religion they can or cant choose?  I hope that if you ever do that to someone that is truly Muslim or Islamic, that they haul your arse into court for discrimination quicker that you can blink.  People like you are both ignorant and imbecilic, choosing to believe misinformation about the Muslim and Islamic faith.  You choose to believe that the extremists represent the majority when this is not the case.  You fear what you do not understand and you create a breeding ground for hatred and bigotry.  It is 2011 people, its time that we stopped living with our heads in the sand and took the time to learn the truth about different cultures and belief systems so that we can work towards living in understanding.  If anyone came along and told you that you couldn’t choose the majority western faith of Christianity or go to Church there would be an outcry.  If we deny indigenous cultures their rights it is considered racism, and yet this kind of bigotry against Muslims and Islamic is allowed.  Instead of all this, what we should be doing is working towards having a society full of balance and acceptance of others and their beliefs.

Legal High’s Face The Chop

First we had BZP and now we have legal high’s which for those not in the loop, are a synthetic cannabis type substance that people roll up to smoke.  BZP based party pills were banned several years back and the government announced this week that they wanted to put limitations on legal high products.  We all know this is the first step to them banning the product all together.  These days I don't really drink all that much, nor do I use drugs,  not because I can’t, but because I choose not to; so my opinion on this matter is in no way biased.  However, I do believe that the government is wasting time and energy focusing on a product that is the least of our worries in the society we live in. 

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne is the main catalyst in this movement stating that “changes will be covered when amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act are passed in the next few weeks. The law change will make Kronic a restricted substance, putting in place rules on where it can be sold, the way it's advertised, and who it can be sold to.”  Auckland Hospital has also spoken out against the legal high’s saying they deal with at least two cases a day that are related to the product, although they have not put any concrete evidence forward of this fact.  Our government seems to be following in the footsteps of Western Australia who already passed a law banning the sale of it on the 17th of last month.

It is all well and good that the government are putting our best interests at heart, or so it would seem.  However, I find it ironic and a double standard that they are focusing so much time and energy on this when there is another drug that rates higher than all the rest in the world.  This drug in question is consumed in large quantities on a daily basis the world round, and yet it is allowed to continue to ruin the lives of many without any real concern from any governments world wide.  What is this drug that they constantly turn a blind eye to?  Alcohol.

Last year Professor David Nutt, head of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published his findings regarding the seriousness of alcohol and where it rated in the list of drugs that are regularly abused.  The study weighed the danger of a drug based on a 16-point checklist.  The checklist produced scores out of a total of 100, obviously the higher the score, the greater the danger posed by the particular drug.  Interestingly drugs that we believe to be some of the worst scored in the middle of the overall list, with heroin at 55 and crack at 54.  Shockingly based on the scoring system, alcohol rated at an alarming 72.  In accordance with Professor Nuts other role as Chair of the government’s Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs he was obliged to pass on his findings to the government, who promptly fired him despite his expertise as a neuropyschopharmacologist and expert in drugs and alcohol.  Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs who was also a co author on the study has called for a “redistribution of resources away from illegal drugs to fight the problem of alcoholism,” a suggestion that was promptly ignored by government officials.

If we take a look at our own statistics regarding alcohol in this country, courtesy of ALAC (the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand), we see the following:

• One in six (17.7%) adults (aged 15+) have a potentially hazardous drinking pattern
• In New Zealand, estimates indicate between 600 and 1,000 people die each year from alcohol-related causes
• Between 18 and 35 per cent of injury-based emergency department presentations are estimated to be alcohol-related, rising to between 60 and 70 per cent during the weekend
• At least 33 per cent of all police-recorded offences in 2008/09 were committed where the offender had consumed alcohol prior to committing the offence
• On an average day 52 individuals or groups of people are either driven home or detained in Police custody due to their state of intoxication
• In 2008, driver alcohol was a contributing factor in 103 fatal crashes, 441 serious injury crashes and 1156 minor crashes
• Worldwide, alcohol is responsible for approximately 20 per cent of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents; 30 per cent of deaths due to oesophageal cancer, liver cancer, epilepsy and homicide; and 50 per cent of deaths due to liver cirrhosis

Its time that governments start sitting up and paying attention to the real problem in our society, the drug that far out weighs any other in the destruction stakes.  If I had my way I would legalise cannabis and ban alcohol.  A controversial opinion I am well aware of and will probably shock some.  But I have had dealings with both cannabis and alcohol in the past through friends and family, I have never seen anyone commit a violent act while smoking marijuana, injure themselves or others; however, I have seen the destruction and pain that alcohol causes time and time again.  When will the government get their priorities straight and make decisions based on the scientific facts, rather than biased opinion due to their own selfish desires, or their fear of angering the alcohol manufacturers.  We can no longer have these double standards, the government either want to look out for their constituents or they don't.  We can no longer have one rule for one thing and not for the other.  Its time for change, with more time and effort being given towards combating and managing the problems presented by our greatest drug, alcohol.