Govt ‘declaring war’ on HK people: opposition

The Democratic Party on Friday accused the government of “declaring war” on pan-democratic lawmakers and the people of Hong Kong, following the disqualification of another four legislators over their oath-taking.

The party’s chairman, Wu Chi-wai, said the rights of lawmakers to express their views in Legco could be restricted, if rules on filibustering are tightened now that pan-democratic lawmakers have lost their veto power.

He warned that the “One Country, Two Systems” principle could be adversely affected, as the Beijing and Hong Kong governments can do whatever they want now.

His colleague James To said the four “are still the ones chosen by the people”.

People Power lawmaker Raymond Chan said Hong Kong people, including those who did not vote for the latest legislators to be disqualified, will not agree with the government for using the courts as a “tool” to overturn election results.

Hong Kong First lawmaker Claudia Mo, who broke down in tears during a media briefing, claimed the government’s action was “calculated”, as it wants to make sure the pan-democratic camp will not win back all the seats it has lost in upcoming by-elections.

Leung Kwok-hung said he and the other three affected by Friday’s court ruling, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu, all intend to appeal over their cases.

They have been given two weeks to clear their Legco offices.

Lin defends Cabinet’s budget requests

Premier Lin Chuan (林全) yesterday defended the Cabinet’s drafting of the budget for the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program, saying it was neither illegal nor different from how previous administrations had drawn up their budgets.

Lin held a news conference yesterday afternoon at the Executive Yuan to explain the Cabinet’s budget requests for the program after Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers blocked him from briefing the legislature earlier in the day.

Responding to KMT accusations that the budget proposals were illegal, Lin said he was at “a complete loss” as to which act the Executive Yuan had breached.

Lin said the KMT has been boycotting the budget because it believes the Cabinet has broken the law by making budget requests that lack long-term planning, as they only cover the early stages of projects under the program, whose overall budget and time frame are set at NT$420 billion (US$13.8 billion) and four years respectively.

The KMT also believes that since the program’s budget has been cut from NT$882.49 billion to NT$420 billion, along with the time frame, following the passage of the Special Act on the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program (前瞻基礎建設特別條例) last week, the Cabinet should have updated its budget proposals before sending them to the Executive Yuan for approval, he said.

Lin said the Executive Yuan drafted and approved the special budget proposals to show the legislature that it bears full responsibility for their content — unlike special budget requests made by former administrations, which were often not capped and were criticized as “blank checks.”

As such, even though those special budget requests had been approved, they could be subject to change and became only a reference for legislators, Lin added.

The special act stipulates that the projects should be divided into several stages, so the Executive Yuan budgeted funds for the first 16 months of the projects, he said.

“The budget proposals were made in exactly the same way previous special budgets had been planned. There is nothing illegal about them,” he said.

Setting fixed budgets for each stage of the program at this point is impractical and not feasible, because the budgets could be slashed during upcoming legislative reviews, in which case the Executive Yuan would have to adjust the distribution of funds, he said.

Lin said he did not see why the proposals should be redone as the KMT had demanded.

In related news, the Presidential Office yesterday denied rumors that Lin would soon be replaced by Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德).

The Presidential Office urged the public not to take the “fabrications” seriously.

Lai said the rumor stemmed from misleading news reports, adding that he fully supports Lin and his team.


Rajabbi Khurshed, 18, committed suicide 40 days after her arranged marriage to Zafar Pirov, 24.

She passed a government-required prenuptial exam but Pirov, from Tajikistan, demanded two further tests and called for a new wife after refusing to believe the results.

Pirov faces jail and stands accused of pushing his wife to commit suicide in the village of Chorbogh.

Ms Khurshed’s family claim Pirov cast their under-pressure daughter out and say she admitted she “couldn’t take it any longer” as she lay on her deathbed.

Her mother, Fazila Mirzoeva, told Radio Free Europe Khurshed had never had a boyfriend or intimate relationship before marriage.

Describing her daughter as a victim of “slander and violence” she has issued a plea to President Emomali Rahmon to intervene and save Khurshed’s reputation.

She said Khurshed dropped out of school to care for her two disabled brothers.

Pirov, who faces eight years in prison if found guilty, insists his wife was not a virgin.

He said: “My wife gave me a written statement that she allows me to get a second wife because she wasn’t a virgin when we got married.”

Medical checks before marriage were made compulsory for men and women in 2015 to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases but expanded to include virignity tests.

Sex before marriage in Tajikistan is taboo and brides passing their virginity test receive a doctor’s letter to confirm the results.


Clementine Ford is close to breaking point


In her latest article This is the personal price I pay for speaking out online, Clementine Ford plays the victim once again.

However this time she gives us a promising sense of self defeat. That’s right, it appears that all the public backlash against her is finally taking its toll, and the cracks are starting to emerge.

As we have mentioned before, abusing her with degrading comments is pointless. Not only is it a waste of time, it helps her profit from playing the victim. Her whole agenda and business model is based on this so if you must attack her in this way, do so privately with others (for a laugh).

If you really want to get to her, you must play smarter and give her a taste of her own medicine. Remember when she publicly shamed fathers and their daughters by posting screenshots of them on her Facebook page? Well since she decided it would be a great idea to expose the identity of these fathers and their innocent children, it was only fair that someone did the same back to her. And guess what? This hit her harder than the most disgusting foul mouthed abuse anyone has ever thrown at her. It seems poor old Clementine doesn’t like getting a taste of her own medicine.

She mentions this in her article:

It’s in seeing the obsessive blog posts they write about you (on the website that seems increasingly devoted to monitoring only you) expand to include first your partner’s name and then your child’s.

It’s in understanding that the vigilance you thought you enacted before to protect both of these people has to increase tenfold – because they didn’t ask to be implicated in the unfortunate consequences of your chosen profession, and any fears you’ve ever had about your safety pale in comparison to the ones you have about your baby.

Funny how safety of children didn’t seem to bother her when she posted images of them with their fathers on her Facebook page. A page which is followed by 177,000 man hating feminists who believe in vigilante style justice.

If she is really that concerned about her son Frank, will she stop spreading such vile hate speech about men? Does she hate men more than she loves her son? She has to ask herself what is more important, her son or hating men? It will be a difficult decision for her to make seeing as though its the only way she can make a living after a useless degree in “gender studies”.

It can’t be healthy for her son to grow up in such a toxic environment that hates men. Imagine when he is old enough to ask the question “Mummy, why are you angry all the time? Why do you hate men? Do you also hate me?”. What will her answer be? “No Frank, I don’t hate you, just all the other men”.

The poor boy never chose to be brought into a world of such hatred and contempt for the male species. One can only feel sorry for him and hope that someday he will be strong enough to reject his bigot mother and tell her to fuck off. In the meantime, you can sign this petition to have DOCS investigate potential child abuse against her son.

Continuing with the article…. she goes on to say that “one pathetic man in particular” (who might that be?!) has made up falsehoods about her over the years:

Because of the things one pathetic man (an anonymous coward) in particular has written about me over the past few years, I am regularly accused of utter falsehoods. That I bullied a disabled man. That I bullied schoolboys. That I told schoolboys they would grow up to be rapists. That I had a reporter fired because I didn’t like the questions he was asking me. That I had a man fired before Christmas and made his family homeless. These things can all be printed and shared and pointed to as “evidence” despite the fact there’s not an ounce of truth to any of them.

Firstly, I’m not sure what she’s referring to with a reporter being fired, or the fact that she told school boys they would grow up to be rapists. Maybe someone else stated that, or maybe she simply made it up. However, we do know that for a fact she bullied a disabled man and school boys and have evidence of it in the links.

Why is she claiming that these are falsehoods? Because she is in damage control after an increase in public backlash against her. As we continue to expose her and ruin her reputation, more and more people see her for the man hating bigot she is. She has no choice but to claim that these are lies, in the hopes that the general public will believe her word simply because it is written in the Australian Media (which is controlled by feminists, by the way).

As the article concludes, more cracks start to show as she mentions that she is becoming paranoid:

It’s in knowing where the exits are. It’s in grimacing each time you open your email, and wondering what new and inventive subject lines you’ll see today.

It’s in watching yourself become a more paranoid and fearful person, because you have been sent so much abuse and hate and violence and threats for years that there’s literally no other way to be.

This is the cost. But I’m not done paying it yet.

It is only a matter of time before the public backlash starts to take a toll on not only herself, but also her family. She will then be forced to make the tough decision between her man hating career, or her family. Hopefully she will choose her family and we won’t ever hear from her again. This would be a major victory against all male hate speech in Australia.

She may think spewing vile hatred about men is worth the cost today, but the future may tell another story as her son Frank grows older.