Saturday, May 16, 2009

The fucking bastards! Being ‘noticeably drunk’ is not a crime! It is a legitimate lifestyle choice!

Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I am, to say the least, slow to anger.

Generally speaking, I am pretty laid back. Little bothers me.

Carlo “Serenity” Sands — that’s me to a tea. It sure takes a hell of a lot to get me worked up.

I have always taken as my touchstone the advice offered by my good friend V. I. Lenin of how to proceed when faced with people who disagree with your historically correct analysis and prescription: “Patiently explain.”

But even “Carlo the Calm” (as I am popularly known) has his limits.

Sometimes, something occurs so blatantly outrageous and unjust, such a violation of what any decent person holds dear to their heart as the very essence of humanity, that, I, yes even I, get really fucking angry.

What could possibly upset the equilibrium of such a profoundly balanced human being as Carlo Sands?

I can barely bring myself to type these words. Tears of anger and sorrow roll down my cheeks.

The NSW government has launched yet another crack down on drinkers.

In it's latest assault on our fundamental rights, NSW police (famous the world over for their sobriety) have been given increased powers to tackle the scourge of alcohol consumption.

The law has been changed so that the point at which police can arrest you has been lowered from being “seriously drunk” to “noticeably drunk”.

Now, the original law was bad enough.

I mean, who the fuck wastes their time drinking if they are not aiming to get seriously drunk?

What the fuck is the point? If you are not going to take your drinking seriously, get out of the fucking way at the bar!

But noticeably drunk???

For christ sake, do these lunatics think people consume alcohol because they have run out of Bushall teabags?

Why the fuck would anyone waste their time and hard-earned cash drinking booze if the effects were not even noticeable?

If you can't notice the effects after a drinking session, you haven't been doing it right. You need to get back there and fucking drink some more!

Let's just look at the potential consequences of implementing a law that makes it a crime to be “noticeably drunk” in Australia:

Parliament would be emptied by the constabulary. All journalists would be rounded up and interned. English backpackers would face mass arrest. Footballers of all codes would be pre-emptively detained.

Now, I know what you are thinking: sounds pretty fucking good.

Yes! But because they are all noticeably arseholes!

Booze has nothing to do with it.

You want to pass a law declaring it a crime to be seriously, or even noticeably, an arsehole in public, then you've got my vote. The above mentioned groups would all be rounded up and hauled away, for the undoubted betterment of humanity.

But leave the great mass of us honest drinkers alone.

Let's just think about some of the consequences of this new law a bit more. If it was applied consistently, across the board, there could be disastrous consequences.

For one, The Shannon would never be open — what with bar manager Paddy's endless cycle of arrests and court appearances.

Every 15-year-old in a park on a Friday night with a bag of goon would end up in jail — just for taking it upon themselves to go out and learn some of life's important lessons.

In short, as my protest placard intends to read, Australia is noticeably drunk.

Apply this law across the board, and all of civilised life in this god-forsaken island would ground to a halt.

And surely our benighted rulers are not that stupid?

That is, could it be that actually this outrageous law is not intended to be applied to all, or even the overwhelming majority, of NSW citizens?

Well, some cynics have suggested such an interpretation.

Yes, it seems that this law is, in fact, just yet another way for the upholders of law and order to kick the most downtrodden even harder.

Thalia Anthony, a law lecturer at Sydney University, pointed out: “New laws giving police the power to move on people who are slurring their words will cement a long tradition of criminalising Aboriginal people for public order offences.”

Anthony explained: “History shows indigenous people are most likely to be caught by this type of legislation and incarcerated for the mere appearance of intoxication.

“The move-on laws have the peculiar flavour of targeting people who are not committing a crime or even suspected of committing a crime. They are activated where people are deemed drunk.”

Such outrageous laws are not unprecedented, and neither is their consequences, Anthony said. ”The discriminatory policing of drunk Aboriginal people is blatant. Indigenous people are 42 times more likely than other Australians to be in custody for public drunkenness.

“In 2005 the Australian Institute of Criminology identified public drunkenness as a key issue relating to police custody. In October 2002 it found that of those detained by police there were 17 times more Aborigines than all other groups.”

Anthony concluded: “Through its move-on slurring powers, the NSW Government has provided another back-door means for incarcerating drunk Aboriginal people ... It is another sad attempt to criminalise indigenous behaviour rather than criminal activity.”

So that is the story, eh?

What a bunch of racist scum. And to think, they would use booze as their weapon to attack a people already largely destroyed by ongoing colonisation. Such an innocent thing used to such evil ends.

But I say, we don't have to accept this.

The Indigenous people have never stopped resisting. They have never ceded sovereignty over this land, and they continue to raise their demands for justice.

I say we follow their example.

I hearby call for a campaign of mass resistance to these patently ridiculous, outrageous, absurd and outright racist law.

I call for a mass civil disobedience in a Day of Drunken Disorder throughout the state — bring it to its knees.

Personally, I hearby pledge, as an act of protest, to be noticeably drunk at all times until this law is repealed.

Being noticeable drunk is not a crime, it is a legitimate lifestyle choice.

In the worlds of Chicago-based band Bondo : “Fuck you I'm drunk, fuck you I'm drunk! And I'm gonna be drunk till the next time I'm drunk!”

Thursday, May 14, 2009

A reply to a reader on Eurovision

I received the following correspondence from a reader, posted as a comment to my celebrated post exposing Great Balkan Eurovision Scam in the lead-up to last years Eurovision — in which I revealed the way that the fundamental right to national self-determination was being abused in order to score the Balkan region more votes.

I include the note and my reply below, for readers consideration before the May 17 2009 Eurovision Grand Final.

From Emily Boots...

Dear Mr. Sands,

Unfortunately, I am not privileged like you and can neither join you on the clean floor of the Shannon nor can I watch the Eurovision contest [I now realise I have been missing all of my miserable life].

Will you be ranking the contenders in the latter, and do you have any suggestions as to how I can watch the contest? Also, where can I place my bets?


My reply...

Dear Emily Boots (if that is your real name, and I have my reasons for doubting the claim),

I have yet to make a proper study of various contenders in Eurovision 2009. However, for reasons that should be clear from my post last year, any of the Balkan nations are a reasonably safe bet.

They are appear to be quite confident this year, judging from the fact that there have been no new moves since last year's contest by the region’s people to create yet another nation with which to rig the vote.

Having said that, there is still three days to go, so we'll see what they do.

Beyond the Balkans, the Scandinavian nations are always a decent chance, especially if one of them decides to put up a Death Metal band in fancy dress troll costumes — such as enabled Finland to take out the prize in 2006.

It is worth noting that Georgia would have been considered a genuine threat, having taken out the 2008 Junior Eurovision Award.

However, it has withdrawn under controversial circumstances — with its chosen song deemed to have breached the competitions rules.

With the contested being held in Moscow (after the surprise Russian 2008 upset) this outrage can only be interpreted as a "Greater Russian" power play.

Under no circumstances put money on England.

As to how to watch it, there really is only one way: with large quantities or rum.

While actual footage may prove hard to come by, something tells me, Ms Boots, that, where you are, rum is one thing you'll find little difficulty laying your hands on.

Rum is the essential ingredient to enjoying Eurovision. Visual and audio from the actual contest are at best a useful addition, and some argue even a hindrance, to the evenings enjoyment.

Yours in the abuse of alcohol,
Carlo Sands (actually deceased — a long story)