Budget action is buttoned up



Legislators lost no time in voting down 407 amendments to the Appropriation Bill by pan- democrats, clearing the way for the passage today of the HK$490 billion budget for this fiscal year.With about 200 amendments to go, several pan-democrats had continued filibustering, spending an hour and 48 minutes on 12 quorum calls. Voting finally finished at about 1pm and business moved to the committee stage.

Establishment lawmakers switched on in different ways to ensure they pressed the right button to vote against amendments.

Poon Siu-ping, who wrongly voted on Wednesday for an amendment to lower the salary of the chief executive, said he had a pen blocking the “yes” button to ensure all went right.

Wong Ting-kwong of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong used chopsticks to ensure he was right on the buttons.

And Jeffrey Lam Kin-fung of the Business and Professionals Alliance pressed “present” with an index finger and “no” with a middle finger. PHOENIX UN

Rocky Horror Department of Education



“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Barack Obama, Oct. 30, 2008

Whatever you say, you can’t say America had no warning about this:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

(Never mind whether their “gender identity” matches their genitalia or their chromosomes. Ignore what you learn in biology class, kids.)

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

(Transgender totalitarianism, in other words.)

The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.
After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

(Via Memeorandum.) How did we get here? You have to go back to 1977, when the city of Miami passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and Anita Bryant publicly opposed it. Bryant was a popular singer (her song “Paper Roses” hit No. 5 on the charts in 1960) who subsequently became famous as the celebrity spokeswoman for the Florida citrus industry. Her opposition to gay rights resulted in Bryant being demonized by the Left, but her Save Our Children campaign was prescient in recognizing that activists were using dishonest claims of “discrimination” to normalize abnormal behavior.

The question, viewed from a legal and political standpoint, exposed a widespread confusion between tolerance (most people don’t want to be bullies or bigots) and the far more radical concept of sexual “rights” advanced by gay activists. This parallels a confusion, which I note in the introduction of my book Sex Trouble, over the meaning of the word “equality.” Most people think of “equality” in terms of basic fairness, which is a much different idea than what feminists mean by “equality.”

Modern feminism, a movement originating in the radical New Left of the 1960s, advances a totalitarian notion of “equality” derived from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Many of the early leaders of Second Wave feminism (i.e., the Women’s Liberation movement) were so-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, and brought to the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s the conceptual framework of Marxism (historical materialism and class struggle) which were adapted to create what Shulamith Firestone famously called The Dialectic of Sex.

In the crypto-Marxist analysis of Firestone and her radical comrades, men were an oppressive “sex class” (analogous to the capitalist bourgeoisie in Marxist thought), women were victims of oppression (analogous to theproletariat), and feminists were the revolutionary vanguard, the sexual Bolsheviks who would overthrow the unjust tyranny of male supremacy.

This was dangerous insanity, of course, and was widely ridiculed at the time. How could such preposterous ideas ever succeed? Yet radical feminists had influential allies in the news media, academia and the entertainment industry, but more importantly in the Democrat Party. During the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern had won the Democrat nomination with the support of the New Left, and one of the things the McGovernites did at the 1972 Democrat convention was to change the party rules and platform to reflect a feminist agenda. After Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, he was expected to advance this agenda, and in 1977 — the same year Anita Bryant began her Save Our Children campaign, and also the year I graduated high school — the“National Women’s Conference” controversy erupted.

The chairwoman of this taxpayer-funded event was Democrat Rep. Bella Abzug, a radical leftist from New York, and the pro-abortion agenda of the conference in Houston sparked protests from Catholics and other conservative Christians. Among other controversies emerging from this 1977 event were reports from the handful of conservative women delegates in Houston about the disproportionate number of lesbian feminists among the 20,000 or so attendees. Lesbian rights were on the conference agenda, a strategy that had been planned from the very outset, with the approval of the Carter administration. In an interview with Anahi Russo Garrido, included in a recent anthology on the history of gay activism, radical lesbian Charlotte Bunch explained how this happened:

I participated in the first White House meeting with LGBT groups in 1977 . . . where I spoke about the immigration problems faced by LGBT couples from different countries. . . .
One of the most important projects we organized was a lesbian caucus for the National Women’s Conference in Houston in 1977. Houston was the national event forr the UN International Women’s Year — the only one ever sponsored by the US Government. . . . We coordinated a national network of lesbians, who attended their state events and sought to be elected as delegates to Houston, as well as to get lesbian rights on the agenda. We built alliances with feminist organizations like NOW and worked with mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW . . .
This broad feminist coalition was successful in getting agreement on a 26-point platform that included planks on sexual preference, reproductive rights, poverty, minority women, etc. It was a turning point for me in seeing that the future of sexual rights lay in building coalitions.

So, here in 1977, you have “mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW” forming a coalition with Bunch, who had divorced her husband, formed a lesbian collective known as The Furies and authored the 1972 radical manifesto “Lesbians in Revolt.” What became apparent at the Houston conference was that feminists were not only determined to destroy the marriage-based family, but that in pursuit of that goal, they welcomed as allies radicals like Charlotte Bunch who were opposed to heterosexuality, per se. As early as 1977, it was apparent that the official feminist agenda was not about “equality” in the sense of basic fairness, nor was “the future of sexual rights,” as Bunch saw it, about meretolerance toward “alternative lifestyles.” By 1977, feminists already had been saying this for years, and they have continued saying it.


“Sexism is the root of all other oppressions … Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.”
Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972, in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution(1973)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Because sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism, feminists must become lesbians and lesbians must become feminists if we are to effect a revolution. . . . To state that feminists must become lesbians assumes that lesbianism is a matter of choice and conviction, not biological conditioning or sexual behavior. Moreover, lesbians must also become feminists, that is, they must ground their sexuality in a political discourse if any social change is to occur. . . .
“I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”
Bonnie Zimmerman, “Confessions of a Lesbian Feminist,” in Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, edited by Dana Heller (1997)

“Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender and which also depends for its meaning on gender divisions. . . .
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference . . . but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination.”
Dianne Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
Sara Carrigan Wooten, 2015

Rationalizing and justifying this radical agenda required the development of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — which in turn leads to the idea that it is “discrimination” to keep boys out of the girls’ restroom:

“Equal rights” sounds so wonderful. Who can be against equality?
Yet as Richard Weaver warned us long ago, Ideas Have Consequences, and the sledgehammer logic of “equal rights” brutally dismantles every common-sense objection. Even the most obvious facts — e.g., boys and girls are different — must therefore be suppressed to conform with The Equality Principle.

Because this radical conception of “equality” has become such an intrinsic component of the Democrat agenda, it is promoted by the liberal media and is also taught in public schools, because the schools are controlled by teachers unions that donate millions of dollars annually to Democrats. You will be accused of “hate” if you oppose this agenda.

“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.”
Anita Bryant, 1978

People called her crazy for saying that. However, when the Democrat Party owes its success to the support of gay activists, feminists, and teachers unions, and when everyone in the education system is required to support this bizarre anti-heterosexual agenda, is it any wonder that Democrats are imposing transgender cult ideology in public schools?

“Fundamentally transformed,” just like Obama promised.

Tokyo Gov Masuzoe admits using political funds for private dining




Tokyo Gov Yoichi Masuzoe on Friday admitted to using political funds for private wining and dining, in another blow to the governor who has been under fire over his use of official cars for frequent visits to his resort villa and expenditures for his overseas trips.

“I deeply apologize for not being conscientious enough,” Masuzoe, who has been in the post since 2014, told a press conference, adding he will correct entries totaling 455,505 yen ($4,200) in political funds reports submitted by groups he headed, which included 84,405 yen of spending for private purposes.

But Masuzoe denied he intends to step down, vowing to continue to “work for the sake of the people of Tokyo.”

According to a political funds report submitted by the now-defunct group Global Network Kenkyukai, a total of 371,100 yen was booked as costs for “meetings” at a hotel in Kisarazu, Chiba Prefecture, in January 2013 and 2014.

But weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun recently reported that no such meetings were held, citing a person linked to the hotel, who added Masuzoe visited the hotel for family trips.

Masuzoe claimed Friday that he had held meetings with people from his office but in rooms that he was staying in with his family.

“It was a political activity, but may have raised concerns,” he said, adding that the expense entries will also be corrected.

Regarding 2014, he explained that the meeting was to discuss issues related to the gubernatorial election. “I threw my hat into the ring a few days later, so I had to decide my campaign pledges and other issues (before that). But I had also promised my children (to go for a trip) during the New Year vacation,” he said.

He also said expenses booked in another political funds report contained 84,405 yen of spending for wining and dining on five occasions at restaurants near his home in Tokyo and his resort villa in Yugawara, a hot-spring resort area in Kanagawa Prefecture.

Of the five cases, he said he could not confirm two as political activities and he erroneously booked individual expenses when he went to a tempura restaurant three times.

“I left the work (of writing the political funds reports) to the people in charge of accounting and was not fully aware of the details,” Masuzoe said.

The former welfare minister has come under fire following reports about his use of public funds.

He was found to have spent more than 200 million yen on nine overseas trips since he became governor in February 2014, including travel and accommodation fees for officials who accompanied him.

During a seven-day trip that took him to Paris and London last year, Masuzoe traveled first class at a cost of around 2.65 million yen and stayed in hotel rooms that cost about 200,000 yen per night.

He has also faced criticism for visiting his vacation home in Yugawara nearly every weekend, using metropolitan government vehicles.

Masuzoe had insisted that the trips were necessary and he followed the rules regarding the use of public vehicles, but later said he will seek to reduce spending on overseas visits and will basically stop using official cars to visit his vacation home.

Islamic Racism: ‘Don’t call me a white b***h!’ Shocking moment ‘racist’ Muslim women face off with white women in vicious confrontation on a London train

This is the shocking moment a group of young women became embroiled in a vicious racist confrontation on a train.

The scenes, believed to have been filmed by an onlooker on a train in London, show the two groups hurling racist insults and threats at one another.

Stunned witnesses sit there as two white women trade foul-mouthed insults with two young women wearing hijabs.


The argument appears to start after one of the Muslim women called one of the girls a ‘white s***g’.

The video, is believed to have been captured on a train in December 2014.


One of the white girls retorts: ‘Calling me a white s***g, that’s racist, don’t be f*****g racist.’

The Muslim girls – who say they are from Woolwich Arsenal – then invite the other women, who claim to be from Peckham, London, to a fight.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3586867/Shocking-moment-racist-Muslim-women-face-white-women-vicious-confrontation-London-train.html#ixzz48ZycB3Ba
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Canada’s government: Muslims are “first victims” of “distortion of the Qur’an”


Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed on May 6, 2016 the Second Forum St-Laurent sur la Sécurité Internationale [St. Laurent international security forum] on Canada’s foreign policy under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, focusing on the role of Canada as a “determined peacebuilder.”

In his speech, Dion emphasized that “Canada’s responsibility, as envisioned by our prime minister and our government, is to demonstrate, in word and deed, that diversity must be considered an asset to humanity, not a threat. Openness, respect and acceptance of difference must be our message for all. We must be the champions of diversity.”

“Saudi Arabia and Iran—both countries [are] symbolizing the tensions between the Sunni and Shiite world,” Dion said, and implicitly acknowledged that “diversity” is the Islamic world has failed triggering civil wars, chaos and genocide.

Referring to extremism and radicalism in the Middle East, Dion mentioned in name only the Islamic State (a.k.a. IS, ISIS. ISIL, Daesh, Caliphate), which he portrayed as an entity that does not represent the true Islam, and furthermore he maintained that its “first victims” are Muslims.

A millenarian, apocalyptic ideology has also emerged—an unacceptable distortion of the Qur’an, which condemns to death all who refuse to submit to it,” said Dion. “This ideology, whose first victims are Muslims themselves, must be fought with the utmost determination by all of civilization.”

Dion statement goes in line with the his Prime Minister’s policy. During the Maclean’s Town Hall (December 16, 2015), Trudeau emphasized that Muslims should not be blamed of terrorist acts committed by ISIS and other groups because they are the greatest victims of terrorism.

“[I’m] talking directly about the Muslim community. They are predominantly the greatest victims of terrorist acts around the world at the present time. And painting ISIS and others with a broad brush that extends to all Muslims is not just ignorant, it is irresponsible,” said Trudeau.

Canadian Muslim perspective on executing apostates and enemies of Islam

Apostates: “they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides”

Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Kader Kandil (أحمد عبد القادر قنديل) serves since 2007 as the imam of al-Jisr Mosque in Laval, Quebec and he is a member of Conseil des imams du Québec (Imams Council of Quebec). In asermon on May 12, 2013 at Alrawdah Mosque in Montreal (originally in Arabic), Kandil explained “The Types of Apostasy” and among other things said the following:

The second case deals with a person who fights against Allah and His messenger and joined a vile group. His verdict will not be a regular execution. His verdict will be identical to the punishment for banditry. ‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides.’ [Quran 5:33]. This is the difference between them. The first will be asked to repent and the second will be killed immediately without repentance or asking him to repent…”

Death penalty for those who insult the prophets

Rageah, a former Imam at the Abu Hurairah Mosque in Toronto and an instructor for the AlMaghrib Institute, was a guest speaker (February 2012) at the University of Waterloo as part of the Islamic Awareness Week organized by the local Muslim Students Association (MSA) and partially funded by the university. Rageah implicitly justified the death penalty for apostates and those who insult the prophets.

Relentless jihad against the infidels

ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) Canada is an Islamic nationalwide organization striving “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam.” Dr. Iqbal Massod Al-Nadvi is the Amir (President) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Canada and is also serving as Chairperson of Canadian Council of Imams.

An online book posted on ICNA’s official website states among other things the following:

Polytheists and infidels should be invited to Islam, and if they reject the invitation, then Jihad be made against them… The objective of Jihad. This objective warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved… it is incumbent on the Mulsims to wage Jihad against them to wipe out Kufr and Shirk and raise the banner of Tauhid everywhere… so long as Kufr [disbelief] is present in this world, it is necessary to wage Jihad against it to finish it off, and so long as all the disbelievers do not openly accept Islam and adopt the Islamic way of life, Muslims are duty- bound to make Jihad against them.”

Book condones stoning, crucifixion and chopping off limbs

Muslim Dawah activists at Dundas Square distributed last year the book “Human Rights in Islam and Common Misconceptions” authored by Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha. On the back cover of the book an official sticker of Walk in Islamic Info Center (WIIC) was attached containing a Quranic verse and WIIC’s contact information (address, phones, email and website).

The following are excerpts of the book that addresses human rights in the ideal Islamic State “in the light of perfectly balanced system of laws and principles of Islam” and contends that “both the Glorious Qur’an and the Sunnah aim to produce an ideal individual in an ideal society”:

Jihad is… an honorable ‘struggle’ and resistance against oppressors and those who oppose the peaceful spread of Allah’s Word and faith in Him and His religion of Islam… Islam prohibits this ‘war’ and allows for Jihad in the three situations, namely:

“1) Defense of Life, Property and National Boundaries, without transgression…

“2) Removing oppression and championing the just rights of the oppressed people…

“3) Defense of Faith and Religion… A ‘Mujahid’ (Muslim fighter for the cause of Allah)… has a clear understanding that Jihad is only for just reasons: to protect Islam and the Muslims, and to spread the message of Islam and Word of Allah. If the enemies of Islam who are fighting the Muslims cease their attack, and accept terms for a just peace, the Muslim fighters are commanded to cease hostilities…

“The non-Muslim residents of an Islamic state are required to pay a minimal tax called ‘Jizyah’which is specific type of head-tax collected from individuals who do not accept Islam and desire to keep their religion while living in an Islamic state and under Islamic rule…

If the robber kills and seizes the money, the punishment may be killing and crucifixion. If he takes money and threatens but does not kill or assault, the punishment may be amputation of his hand and leg. If he kills the victim but does not take his money, he may be executed as in murder… Robbery and Theft: Allah (ft) set the penalty of cutting the hand as a penalty for theft

“As for the previously married male or female who commit adultery, the punishment applied to them is stoning to death

Islamic Shari’ah decrees execution for the person who apostatizes after accepting Islam as a way of life, and rejects Islamic beliefs and laws…”

Sony Music is suing online radio service Radionomy for copyright infringement

sony music one of the companies that produce shitty anglo-american music heard on fm radio  suing radionomy a provider of internet radio services.


Sony Music is suing online radio service Radionomy for copyright infringement – a company that just so happens to be a sister organisation to Universal under Vivendi.

In a lawsuit filed at a California federal court last Friday (Feb 26), a group of Sony brands – including Arista Records, LaFace Records and Sony Music Entertainment – accuse the service of violating their copyright on several counts.

In addition to owning Winamp and Shoutcast, Radionomy hosts 57,000 radio stations which are managed by its users – typically stations which broadcast for free online.

It also controls TargetSpot, the first digital audio advertising network in the United States and in France, as well as offering FM radio stations tools to develop and monetize their digital presence.

Sony is claiming the maximum US statutory damages amount of $150,000 per infringed track.

You can read the complaint in full through here.



The Sony lawsuit reads: “Plaintiffs bring this action seeking to put an immediate stop to, and to obtain redress for, Defendants’ ongoing and willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings and album cover art (“cover art”) (collectively, the “copyrighted works”) via an online service through which Defendants unlawfully reproduce, publicly perform, and/or display Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and/or facilitate and encourage their users to do so.”

It adds: “Although a limited statutory license to publicly perform certain of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings by means of a digital audio transmission is available for certain qualified users, and certain qualified uses, under Sections 114 and 112(e) of the Copyright Act, Defendants have not sought to avail themselves of such a license since late 2014. Moreover, it is clear that at least some, and perhaps most, of the stations Defendants provide on their service do not qualify for such a license.”

Vivendi acquired a 64.4% majority stake in the Belgian-based Radionomy Group last year, becoming a majority shareholder alongside the firm’s founder Alexandre Saboundjian, its employees and Union Square Ventures.

Vivendi said its capital investment in Radionomy Group would ‘provide an impetus for its commercial development, supported by the promising outlooks for the advertising and digital audio markets all over the world’.

It added: ‘Radionomy is also very well positioned to capitalize on the expected evolution of the digital audio market towards targeted advertising, thanks to its technical tools and its partnerships.’Music Business Worldwide



For Barbara Ellen at U.K Guardian: Sex with schoolboys lands Tasmanian teacher Casey Lee Sullivan in jail

Barbara Ellen: “do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t”


A HIGH school teacher who had sex with three of her students has been jailed for two years.

Casey Lee Sullivan, 33, appeared before Chief Justice Alan Blow in the Supreme Court in Hobart today after earlier pleading guilty to nine counts of having sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 17 years between 2012 and 2015.

Chief Justice Blow said Sullivan had sex with a boy she met while still a student teacher in 2012 because he had paid her attention.

The following year, Sullivan sent flirtatious messages to a 15-year-old student via Facebook and later picked him up from his home and had sex with him in a car at a beach nearby.

In 2015 she contacted another student via social media and later took him into the school gym and had sex with him on the gym mats.

The teenage boy told his friends about the incident the next day and showed them a message from Sullivan to prove his claim.

He told a friend and a cousin about the incident, saying that another teacher had nearly walked in on them.

Sullivan had sex with the boy on further occasions in September and October and sent him sexually explicit text messages which included indecent images.

Chief Justice Blow said rumours of the encounter spread and police were called. Sullivan confessed to having had sex with all three boys.

He said the crimes had cost Sullivan her job and had exposed her and her family to abuse and ridicule.

But despite her regret for the offending, the judge said that jail was the only appropriate sentence in a case involving repeated sexual offending over a number of years.

He jailed Sullivan for two years, with eight months of the sentence suspended on the condition she not commit another offence for two years on her release.

Sullivan will be eligible for parole after eight months. Chief Justice Blow also placed her on the sex offenders register for seven years.