正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups. When I asked whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or...

21,819 次观看 • 6 天前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos's medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender. This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange. When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a "serious risk to public health and safety" to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions. When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer. AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn't provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider "misinformation." I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors' careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

219,551 次观看 • 9 天前

PRESS STATEMENT In the last 24 hours, social media has exploded over my interview with Mehdi Hassan, albeit with varied opinions. Let me set the record straight. When I signed on to the privileged job granted to me by Mr. President, I was well aware of its implications. Selling ice cream, looking fine, and seeking the praises of men were never part of it. Some of the fiercest critics of my interview can not even stand local TV anchors. But the task of promoting and defending the President and his administration is what I do with ease and joy. I am prepared to appear before any interviewer, anywhere in the world, any day and at any time, to defend this government and its policies. I have never, and will never, subscribe to ducking or dodging interviews on matters that concern promoting and defending the administration I was appointed to serve. It is the least of what is required of me. Head to Head contacted me requesting an interview, stating that they wanted to challenge our government on security, the economy, and corruption. Nowhere in our almost six months of communication did they mention that they were going to challenge my past. If that had been their plan, ethically and professionally, they were supposed to inform me so I could prepare my response. But that’s okay, ethically, that is on them, not on me. I refused to swallow the pill of Mehdi’s “opposition research-style journalism,” and even today, if you carefully compare what he read as quotes from organisations and groups, you will see that many were inaccurate and some were outright fake news. But I will leave that for another day. As for what I said about President Tinubu in the past, I am glad those were things I said when I was in the opposition saddle with such zeal. It is all politics. Half of Donald Trump’s cabinet is made up of people who once spoke against him, and quite a number of people in our own cabinet also spoke against President Tinubu in the past. Those things do not bother him if you care to know. The majority of the naysayers are members of the opposition and their sympathisers. It does not bother me one bit. Their temporary excitement over the interview has not lasted and will not last, because it does not take away their obvious problem of lack of vision, mission in conducting and managing a political party; yet they seek to manage Nigeria. Clearly they have no path to victory and no alternative policies or program for the Nigerian people. And if they say they do, they can as well go to head to head and be interrogated on that; as the saying in Hausa goes “Ga fili Ga doki” I conclude by thanking the many Nigerians and non-Nigerians who sent in their commendations over my brave defence of our government in an interview where the anchor would hardly let you answer a question unless it suited his narrative. I still have admiration and respect for Mehdi Hassan as arguably the best debater on the planet. I look forward to part two of the Head to Head interview, and I am glad that by then questions about my past will no longer be news so that we can focus on our administration’s policies, programs and what we have achieved so far. Stay tuned. – D.H Bwala Special Adviser to President on Media and Policy Communication (State House) Saturday March 7, 2026

D. H Bwala

1,486,344 次观看 • 6 个月前

I was one of three parliamentary staff members at The Scottish Parliament who got together in a room to draft the Parliament's first ever Language Policy back in 2004. Here's an archived copy of the policy, as it has obviously been replaced by more recent versions since then: The policy was designed to support use of Gaelic in the work of the Parliament, and to overcome genuine barriers that a minority of people might face in accessing the Parliament or its work because they were not fluent in English. This policy was not designed to prompt politicians to speak any language they liked in the chamber to score points relating to their own identity or ideology. MC would seem to be able to speak English fluently, and therefore I struggle to see any access-based premise for her speaking in Shona in this context. I feel constantly embarrassed by the way in which genuine good-faith work to address genuine barriers to access has been used by people for ideological and political reasons. I feel sad that it has now become difficult to defend inclusion-based activity because it has become associated with virtue signalling and with undermining, rather than strengthening, human connectedness. I wish I had been able to foresee what would happen, so I could have detached myself from equality and diversity work even sooner than I did. This is before we get onto the political symbol Maggie Chapman is wearing around her neck. This whole thing is so unprofessional and embarassing.

Levi Pay

72,471 次观看 • 3 个月前

.David Sacks is questioned about the congressional testimony of the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT and whether students should be able to march around campus chanting phrases like "from the river to the sea" and "intifada"? "I have a very high bar for free speech. So I would allow almost everything. The problem that these university presidents have is that's not their position. They're trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of freedom of speech and academic freedom, but that has not been their practice on campus for many years. On a previous program, we talked about the FIRE survey, which polled students about how free they feel to express opinions on campus. The results were dismal for the Ivy League... And in fact, remember that Harvard got the Blutarsky, a zero point zero. The students there reported that speakers were shouted down, they weren't even invited, and they weren't allowed to continue and finish their speeches. So, Harvard has an abysmal record on freedom of speech. So it's hard to believe the President of Harvard when she claims that she's standing up for freedom of speech. And if you were to apply that same standard to other groups... Imagine if representatives at that hearing had said to the President of Harvard, are you allowed to advocate for genocide of black people or trans people? I mean, would the answer have been the same? I think absolutely not. So the question is, why are Jews being treated differently than these other groups? And I think this all goes back to woke identity politics, where in the woke ideology, certain groups are victim groups, and certain groups are oppressor groups. And if you're in a victim group, you get special protections. And if you're in an oppressor group, then it's just assumed that you can't really suffer discrimination or injustice in that same way. And I think that Jews have basically been put in an oppressor group. They basically are being placed in the same group as all white people. And I think this has come as a great surprise to a lot of donors to these university campuses, who I think we're okay with woke identity politics to some degree when they believed that Jewish people were a potential victim group and that antisemitism was being treated as real. And lo and behold, they found out that no, they're an oppressor group, and they're not protected. And even very explicit cases of antisemitism are not being recognized by these universities. Because, again, it doesn't match up with this woke ideology. It would have been a lot better for a lot of these donors to realize that woke identity politics was a cul de sac. It was something that they should have wanted to avoid participating in. But I think they're now waking up to the realization that in this, again, oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, they're on the wrong side of that." Via The All-In Podcast:

KanekoaTheGreat

2,119,324 次观看 • 2 年前

Senator Malcolm Roberts: Does a health practitioner have the right to refer to a trans person's biological sex? Justin Untersteiner, Chief Executive Officer at Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA): I'm struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as, uh, the regulator. I don't know... Senator Malcolm Roberts: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person's biological sex? Is it discrimination? Dr. Jamie Orchard, AHPRA's General Counsel: In respect of public comments by practitioners, you've heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that AHPRA and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves. Senator Malcolm Roberts: How can a doctor fulfill their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people? Justin Untersteiner: We will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. And again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate causes the community... Senator Malcolm Roberts: Medical Board of Australia's immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor's career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation? Three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints.

Genevieve Gluck

36,615 次观看 • 9 天前