Animal Cruelty Laws

*Climbs on soapbox*

Bravo to the Daily Telegraph and other media outlets for posting the face of the evil psychopathic woman, Lily Maihi, who last week threw her four-month puppy off a 15 metre high balcony in Sydney because... blah blah blah. No-one cares what reason she has to defend herself; she should be in jail.  Animal cruelty is an issue that makes me, and most of the community, see red.

Since it happened, the media have shown pictures of the puppy being loved and cared for by veterinary staff on the nightly news; clearly standing up for a victim that is unable to defend itself against unspeakable cruelty. At the woman’s bail hearing, the magistrate said that cute pictures of "doey-eyed puppies" won't play any role in the court case, which is an attitude that we, as a society, should find greatly disturbing.

Seriously, what the hell? There was no jury to sway, although I think every animal cruelty case brought before a court should go through a jury. Well, the magistrate can spare me his dog-shit analysis. I note that judges don't seem to have any problem making emotional rulings when it comes to the rights of aboriginals or anyone in the islamic community.

Humans come to the defence of animals because they are vulnerable and are unable to stand up for themselves in a court of law and let's not forget the puppy is the victim here. Secondly, the RSPCA, the media and members of the public have to appeal to emotion because the animal cruelty laws are so lax in Australia - in every country - that there is no disincentive for the truly despicable people of the world to not do it.

How about we apply human regulations to animal cruelty cases? For example, if you throw your puppy off a balcony, you will be charged with attempted murder. If the dog dies, you will be charged with first degree murder.  On the whole, I generally think society is better off with less laws and less big government.  But the laws that we have are supposed to be in place to guide human behaviour which enables the efficient functioning of society. Thus, breaking laws should come with harsh consequences and penalties that should provide a disincentive to criminals who will most assuredly break the law again.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who have thought that the best thing for Maihi would be a dose of her own medicine, but no-one would do that because most people are generally good, unlike Maihi, who is pure evil.  The other reason no-one would push her off a balcony is because it is against the law.  There's that crazy deterrent of a life-time in prison working again.  Wow, applying the law really works, doesn't it?  Who knew.

I’m also a little tired of the argument that we don’t have enough jails. Well build more fking jails then.  It's not fking rocket science. And then allow the police a bigger slice of the state budget so they can have the resources to manage the penitentiaries so we can put these disgusting people where they belong, and keep them there.   

Granting bail to a woman who has been charged with an appalling act of animal cruelty is a disgrace. The only lesson she will take out of this is don’t get caught in the act. If the current crop of politicians won’t enact stricter animal cruelty laws and the current mob of judges won’t interpret the laws in a harsher context, they all need to move on so we can have competent people in charge who are capable of actual law enforcement.

Next time a human pushes another human off a balcony I shall ignore the victim’s sob story about their desire to catch the perpetrator and have them see justice. The magistrate in this animal cruelty case says that’s the right thing to do, so that must be the right thing to do.  We must refuse to let our emotions be clouded by histrionic hospital bedside pleas by the human victims and their families.  Because that would be humane and we can't have that.

As a society, we should demand tougher penalties for those who commit animal cruelty.    

*Gets off soapbox*

Personal Responsibility. Take some

So, I hear it's National Cyber Security Awareness Week, where the Federal Government pretends to have a clue about cybersecurity risk and who the hell they are trying to target as predators.  I'm sure the eCriminals are shaking in their boots. 

The Government are offering terrific tips too, like stop sending your banking passwords or personal information to strangers.  Seriously, those people probably deserve to have their identity stolen and sold for a cheap pack of cigarettes in Eastern Europe. 

Speaking of upseting the iApplecart, the new iPhone technology sure is crim friendly.  Gone are the days when burglars or stalkers had to go to extremes to seek out their target; rifling through their garbage, peeping through their curtains in the middle of the night, and following them around a Coles supermarket before creating a chance meeting with their prey in the frozen food aisle and coincidently having identical items in their basket.  Oh-my-god, we are soul mates!  

I imagine this is how the pre-iPhone stalker worked.  One has to admire the devotion that stalkers put into their art back in the day, assuming a commitment and dedication to their subject that lifecoaches and personal trainers could only dream of. 

I think I'm far too apathetic about life in general to get that interested in anything.  Last year it took me a couple of months to get excited about planning an overseas holiday, like it was some sort of university essay I just didn't want to begin.

I've started to notice on my Facebook news feed that people are advising me where they are and who they're with, generally from they time the awake until ... well, it doesn't stop really.  This relatively new stalker-burglar friendly application is courtesy of Apple technologies.  Thanks a bunch, Apple.

When it comes to technology, I think I reside somewhere in the 1990s.  I still use a Video Cassette Recorder on occasions, and will continue to do so until it decides to stop working.  So with this track record, I will probably purchase an iPhone or its equivalent sometime in August 2020.  But I sure as shit won't be telling anyone where I am and what time I'm there.        

It all seems fairly harmless I suppose, but where does it sit legally when the technology is inevitably abused?  As it already has been.  You can probably put my reluctance to engage with these types of applications down to paranoia, but how many of your Facebook friends meet the following description?  Attractive, above average IQ, generally well liked, performed well in school, bullied as a child, fairly shy, often socially awkward, had their heart broken, signs of depression? 

Yeah, well that pretty much sums up Ted Bundy too; a sadistic sociopath, as it turns out, who murdered more than 30 young women in the United States in the 1970s.  Now it's highly unlikely there is a serial killer on your friends list, given they are extremely rare and there are only about 100 active ones working in the United States at the moment.  Wait a minute; 100 is quite a lot, right?  So my question is this - why do people make it so easy for people who wish to do them harm?

We all have to take a bit of bloody responsibility for our own safety and welfare, but some people think that's just too much trouble on their part.  Take the dubiously named Slutwalk in Toronto, Canada, which took place this weekend.  As far as I can tell, the march involves women dressing up in slutty clothes to march in protest against a statement that was given by a Toronto Police representative in January this year, saying “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. 

Sounds like a timely message from the authorities to me.  So why are these women trying to make a big statement to the rest of society that they should be able to wear anything they want and still stay safe on the streets? 

Well, this is just one of those issues that feminists like to hijack, by labelling any call for them to engage in a bit of common sense as victimisation.  The protesters seem to be angry at the police and the court system and society in general, but we really shouldn't be the target market for their protest - they are preaching to the converted. 

Yes, we all agree, women should be able to walk down the street in a bikini without being harassed, but that's not friggin' realistic, is it?  Rapists don't care for human rights or sexual harassment claims or feminism or your feelings.  I imagine they wouldn't be raping women if they did. 

Rape is a problem in society, but it's not society's fault, in that it's not caused by class or marginalisation.  Despite their issues or background, all rapists have a choice about their own behaviour and they choose to rape.  And if you're wearing a short skirt, they will likely choose you over someone who is not in a short skirt.  Yes it's wrong that they target you, but it's REALITY.  Good luck trying to make them more sensitive to your rights as a woman.

The argument that we all should take some responsiblity for our actions, and use a bit of common sense, is not saying we're asking for it if we neglect to take personal responsiblity.  Far from it.  But considering what law enforcement agencies, the legal system and forensic psychiatrists know about rapists, the Slutwalk approach seems nonsensical, irresponsible and downright dangerous. 

The whole idea pushed by feminists that police are appealing to women for any reason other than their welfare is so ridiculous, but I would expect nothing less from feminists, who seem to care more about progressing the feminist movement than womens safety.

Taking a bit of responsibility by not wearing a slutty short skirt down a dark alley in a dodgy area of town is a smart, necessary message, and should not be used as an avenue for feminists to get on their soapbox and bang-on about women's right. 

Rapists don't care about women's rights, so giving young girls the message that they should be able to dress like this and shirk all personal responsibility defies logic.  Common sense is the key; dressing up as a hooker to make a point is counterproductive and just bizarre.