Brazen lies told to the public: Why do so many people suspend disbelief, and authorities do nothing?

In public debates, hoaxers regularly pop up and take their chances. What is troubling, however, is that in recent years institutions, governments and the media (who we would all expect to trust) often actually promote such deceivers in the first place. Worse still, these agencies often continue to promote mistruths after such chancers have been outed or after serious doubts have arisen about their assertions.

It all shows that some of those in positions of power want to believe and promote certain (mainly woke) ideas irrespective of their veracity. Made-up "facts" can only persist as long as key people say and do nothing

False claims of Aboriginality and revisionist Aboriginal history

By now most people will be familiar with the discredited but formerly acclaimed "Yuin, Bunurong and Tasmanian Aborigine", Bruce Pascoe. Pascoe's claims to Aboriginality have been publicly refuted by multiple investigators, including Andrew Bolt, Tony Thomas, professional genealogists, and some Aboriginal groups.

Bolt has stated that Pascoe is not of Aboriginal descent. "I've made clear for years that Professor Bruce Pascoe, the Dark Emu author, is a fake Aboriginal, no Aboriginal ancestors at all in his genealogy. "He refuses to show any proof." Tony Thomas found the same. Pascoe's family tree in its entirety has been traced back to Britain.

Pascoe's Dark Emu thesis is that, prior to European settlement, Aboriginal people were not just hunter-gatherers but engaged in agriculture, engineering, and built permanent structures. Dark Emu achieved sales of 400,000-plus and has been widely promoted by the "progressive" side of politics.

Pascoe's work was initially acclaimed and won numerous awards. These include the Prime Minister's Literary Award, the NSW Premier's Literary Award, the ASA Medal, and several for Young Dark Emu, which has even been a part of the NSW school curriculum. The ABC has promoted Pascoe intensively to schoolchildren.

Pascoe was also awarded a Melbourne University Enterprise Professorship in Indigenous Agriculture, and is listed as an "expert" on the university website.

Pascoe's thesis has found academic refutation in Sutton & Walshe's "Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate" and other studies. According to Tony Thomas, Pascoe's status at Melbourne University has changed recently from part-time to honorary professor. He was originally described as Indigenous, but the university later changed this to "writer and farmer". Pascoe, through his Aboriginal-controlled Black Duck Foods charity, raised at least $2.6mfrom government grants and other sources. The federal police in 2020 dismissed as groundlessa complaint by an Aboriginal political staffer about Pascoe wrongly receiving government funds as an Aboriginal.

Despite all that has been revealed about Pascoe and his work, there has hardly been a peep from his supporters in government, the progressive media or from Melbourne University (regarded by many as Australia's premier university). They have all said and done virtually nothing to help get the facts straight and correct the public record.

Australia deserves better!

Biological males claiming to be women

The issue of men claiming to be women has reached "emperor has no clothes" levels of farce, with politicians and others struggling to define what a woman is or ducking the issue entirely. Women have had to fight to exclude biological males from their change rooms, from women's prisons, and from competing in women's sports competitions.

I could write a whole book about various absurdities related to policies on sexual orientation, gender identification, use of pronouns etc. For brevity, I will deal only with the matter of biological males claiming to be women. I deliberately exclude the small minority of cases involving those with unusual genetic or hormonal conditions (such as hermaphrodites, those with Swyer syndrome, persons born without functional sex glands etc.) to avoid "hard case" distractions.

To understand how this issue has come into prominence you need to look at the gay and lesbian rights lobby and how it has "pushed the envelope" over time.

Up until about the 1960s most legal systems in the West oppressed gay men, and to a lesser extent lesbian women. In some jurisdictions a conviction for having consensual gay sex could even result in imprisonment. It was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its "illness" classification.

The gay and lesbian rights movement initially sought decriminalisation, and tolerance of their lifestyle. Nowadays this has widespread public support. Seeking tolerance subsequently expanded into a call to "celebrate" the gay and lesbian community. Widespread adoption of same sex marriage across Western countries was a further turning point in emboldening activists to go even further.

Transgender activism evolved from within the gay lobby and there became increasing usage of terminology that questioned binary gender classification. Tensions between lesbian and trans activists, which had existed under the surface, grew to involve more general opposition to the diminution of women's rights. We are now seeing a clash between the trans and women's lobbies, and "progressive" politicians, who historically backed both lobbies, are in a quandary. The public has also been largely intimidated into silence on these issues through both political propaganda and a plethora of anti-discrimination legislation.

The trans movement has tried to bolster its position by changing definitions from being biologically based to ones based on self-proclaimed "identity". (In some jurisdictions it is legal to change one's gender identity multiple times.) While laws can legalise lies (e.g. by "deeming" black to be white) some official positions have become absurd. Introducing the concept of identity into what is primarily a biological issue has only caused confusion. It is also the case that, in all matters of assessment/identity, self-assessment is rarely considered objective.

Hard cases aside, normal biological men are typically individuals assigned male at birth, and characterised by male reproductive organs, XY chromosomes, and typical male hormone patterns. This also leads to physical traits like broader bones, greater and stronger body mass, facial hair, and specific muscle characteristics that are life-long.

Some things are unalterable.

Scientists unanimously tell us that a person's genetic inheritance, including their biological sex, is a permanent characteristic. It is possible to change a person's outward appearance, including bodily features. In addition to make-up and clothes, hormones (oestrogen and testosterone) and surgery can be further used to this end. While individuals can choose between virtually any number of gender identities, only two genders exist according to biology. Thus, in respect of biological sex, one is either male or female, a clear binary distinction.

Based on biology, males unhappy with their bodily appearance can become lady-boys, transvestites, castrati/eunuchs, etc. They cannot, however, become biological women. The notion of gender identity is a recent invention that has no basis in biology/science and does not pass the so-called "duck test".

Introducing the concept of gender identity has caused unnecessary problems.

In Britain a BBC news reader was told off by the BBC for using the term "pregnant women" instead of the politically correct "pregnant people".

In Ireland a teacher was hounded and jailed(for over 500 days) andaccumulated around €225,000 in finesfor refusing to apply female pronouns to a biological boy. The fundamentalist Christian teacher had refusedto obey a direction that a transgender pupil be addressed as 'they'. The school had also obtained an injunction restraininghim from trespassing on the school premises, which he has defied a number of times. The teacher sees himself as fighting a battle against gay activists and the State for freedom of religion, free speech and conscience.

Claims that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity

This "old hairy" gets trotted outad infinitumby climate activists and "progressive" politicians. Given that electricity prices have risen greatly with the switch to "renewables" and that countries where the market penetration of "renewables" has been greatest, have the highest electricity tariffs, the thesis seems totally at odds with reality.

Below is a truncated example of arguments put forward by columnist Crispen Hull in a recent piece. Hull is also a former editor of the Canberra Times newspaper.

In his article "The quickest way to beat the Coalition's lies is to slash your power bill", Hull states that "the facts are in. Climate aside, renewables are the cheapest form of electricity generation".

"The truth is that new Coalition policy has nothing to do with lowering electricity prices. It is based upon allowing the fossil industry to profit from burning coal and gas for as long as possible, and on attracting direct donations from the fossil industry and the likes of Gina Rinehart…..

Renewables are not causing higher bills. Renewables are causing lower wholesale prices which are not being passed on by greedy electricity retailers and privatised, profit-driven grid owners. The quicker the government can convince households with solar to add batteries, the better. The battery subsidy scheme ticks the boxes. Free power generated in the middle of the day is sent to the battery to be used at night.

The battery subsidy should apply to people without solar panels so they can charge a battery when power is free and use it instead of expensive peak-hour grid rates……. At present, solar produces too much electricity in the middle of the day. The government's free three-hour midday power window is a smart way to change habits. People love a freebie. The policy will encourage them to change their habits so washing machines, dishwashers, swimming pool pumps, hot water and the like are set for the time when power is free. Their bills will go down. And so will everyone else's as the grid load is made more even.

How is this to be paid for? In the face of an onslaught of anti-Labor fossil industry lies and disinformation, Labor should cut its losses. Why appease a dog which is going to bite you anyway? The government should redirect the $15 billion-a-year fossil subsidies to boost the subsidies for household and industry batteries".

The article is based on fuzzy logic and ignores key issues.

Without subsidies, batteries to back up solar have been uneconomic and were not commonly employed. (To cite an example, governments could make Grange Shiraz cheaper than "Riverina plonk" by simply employing a big enough subsidy!) Hull also ignores the need for alternative energy sources when wind and solar don't work, and that the energy system would collapse if coal-fired generation ceased overnight.

The only sense in which "renewables" are cheap is that they have near zero variable costs when conditions are favourable. The fixed costs (installation, depreciation and transmission costs) are, however, sky high. The "renewables" industry, in almost its entirety, runs on (huge and largely hidden) subsidies, and requires expensive backup. Solar can't ever work at night. Wind is variable and widespread wind droughts are not uncommon.

Men wrongly declared guilty of rape

We all know that it is difficult to get convictions for rape because the offence is often not reported and generally has no witnesses. In an alleged rape, determining what took place often reduces to a he said / she said matter as to who to believe.

The feminist lobby has pushed to change rape laws to increase the chance of conviction. Lawmakers have caved in and enacted legislation that has resulted in unwarranted convictions in many instances. Grave miscarriages of justice are occurring in our courts whereby men are being convicted of rape, when no rape in the normal sense of the word happened.

The latest example occurred in Canberra, when on 28 November a man was charged with rapeafter he allegedly refused to pay a sex worker. The 30-year-old was refused bail after he pleaded not guilty to a single count of sexual intercourse without consent relating to a mid-October incident.

According to several messages on the dating app Grindr, the man and his alleged victim organised for the exchange of $200 for sexual acts before meeting in a hotel room. The defendant, however, did not pay the money in cash as agreed and left behind his car keys and an eye mask as "collateral". "Could do 100 today and transfer you 100 tomorrow," he messaged. While there was further back-and-forth communication, the defendant never paid up.

The prosecution case was that the worker was unable to consent to the sexual acts because he took part in them because of fraudulent misrepresentation. When he spoke to police, the defendant said he had always intended to pay the money. He was also said to be experiencing homelessness and had told the same sex worker he could not afford his services days before the encounter.

Special Magistrate Wilson did not agree that the prosecution case was very weak and found the agreement between the two men was for immediate payment. The Defendant was remanded and is set to make a second bail application before Christmas.

On 6 February 2015, the same issue came into prominence, when a Canberra man was sentenced for "raping" a prostitute. According to the Canberra Times the defendant handed over a sealed envelope (supposed to contain $850) but stopped the woman from opening it to check the money, saying: "No, no, don't open it now, it's – you have to trust me on this – it's part of my fantasy that it's all about the romance." The pair had sex, but the woman later opened the envelope to find that, instead of money, inside was a folded paper bag that had been made feel like a wad of cash. The woman later reported the incident to police and the man was charged with rape.

The Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and received eight months' jail and a two-year good behaviour order.

All of what happened in these two cases was legal because the ACT's version of the Crimes Act 1900 (Section 67) states that the grounds, on which it can be established that consent of a person to sexual intercourse is negated, include "consent caused by a fraudulent misrepresentation of any fact made by the other person". (Consent can also negated by a range of other factors). Negation of consent laws have the effect of reversing the burden of proof onto defendants because lack of consent is presumed.

Similar legislation in Queensland and NSW has also led to convictions for sexual assault, when fraud (for non-payment) was the real complaint.

At a practical level, the law is an ass because it is obvious that in all these cases the "victims" clearly consented to having sex. Their only issue was that they weren't paid. Based on common sense, a fraud and not a rape was committed.

Non-payment of bills is so common in our society that creditors routinely write off millions in small debts annually as being uneconomic to pursue, and it is rare for those committing minor frauds to be even prosecuted. For the man in the Grindr case to have been jailed for a month over an unpaid debt of only $200 (with realistic prospect of even further imprisonment) was manifestly unjust and excessive. The same can be said for the second case, where the fraudster got sentenced to eight months imprisonment. In both cases both men (unfairly) had a rape conviction on their record with all the implications which that entails. Also consider the cost to the taxpayer of the trial and placing the men in custody.

I would argue that, in terms of public policy, cases where the law inappropriately labels people as "rapists" are worse than the other cases where lies are promoted by individuals. The reason is simple. This is the State itself telling the lie!

Overall, in all these cases many members of the public are intimidated by authority and politicians show a lack of principle and courage. Commonly much of the public will either stay silent or (more pointedly) kowtow, when faced with a government promoted or politically correct paradigm. The result, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth", which is a key law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.