The researchers studied 28,649 individuals in same sex marriages in Denmark and Sweden (where the same sex marriage legislation was introduced in 1989 and 1995, respectively) and the suicide rates within that group.
They also compared the suicide rates in the opposite sex marriage cohort.
The suicide rate in same sex marriages was 0.3% and in opposite sex marriages, 0.2%.
Interestingly, the researchers split the time period in half. The reason isn’t made clear:
The following covariates were examined: country (Denmark, Sweden), period (1989–2002, 2003–2016), sex (males, females), age group (18–34, 35–64, 65+) and current civil status (married, divorced/widowed).
The data showed a decline in suicides across the two periods for both groups (top left chart below):
Is it just me or can anyone else spot a flaw in the study methodology, conclusions and subsequent reporting?
I believe one can safely draw several conclusions from the study:
The suicide rate of people in committed relationships in Denmark and Sweden has fallen since 1989.
The suicide rate is higher in same sex relationships than opposite sex marriages in Denmark and Sweden.
What one can’t safely conclude from the study is that the introduction of same sex marriage resulted in a reduction of the suicide rate.
There’s no data presented for the period prior to the legislation being introduced.
There’s also no data presented for unmarried people, which seems another major oversight.
If you were one of the Ctrl C/V reporters who published the fake conclusion of the study, ask yourself this question; wouldn’t it have served the world better to have known which group of people are most likely to commit suicide and why?
Peter’s wife was fired by Brian resigned two years ago and Peter is still spitting tacks over it.
Question for Peter; how absolutely awful do you have to be at your job to be fired by Brian Hartzer whilst in possession of female genitalia?
Ainslie was part of the diversity diversion problem at Westpac. She, like many other diversity quota hires, had the easiest job in the world; turn up late, attend some “women in banking” conferences, collect pay cheque. Rinse. Repeat.
If he’d gone to court, perhaps he wouldn’t. But, as we say in our house, “if me mam had wheels she’d be a trolley“.
I daren’t look at Pirate Pete’s opinion piece on the settlement. I genuinely haven’t read it but I imagine it will contain virtue signalling to the diverse (but not religious brown people), wokescolding against the religious bigots (but only one type), and soft criticism of Rugby Australia for signing inadequate contracts of employment.
As I have said repeatedly on this subject, I don’t care nor want to know what an athlete’s views are on theology.
I also would prefer to live in a world where those views, as long as they don’t call for violence, don’t result in them losing their job either.
Finally, the heuristic remains; if you need to quickly determine what is correct or to predict the future, check what Peter Fitzsimons has preached and assume the 180 degree position.
Congratulations to South Africa for outplaying England in the rugby World Cup this weekend.
The Springboks made history on Saturday for two reasons; they were the first team to have lost a match during the pool stage to then go on to win the final. Secondly, they joined only New Zealand in the club of teams to have won it three times.
It’s actually better than that; two of New Zealand’s victories had the home advantage and the first one (1987) was at a time when the rest of the world didn’t pay their players whilst New Zealand only pretended not to.
England were the favourites in most pundits’ minds, so this was a brilliant upset by the Saffas.
If you can bear to look, there is a concerted effort to frame this victory as “1995 redux”.
For those not interested in rugby, the 1995 World Cup victory by Francois Pienaar’s team against the All Blacks was lauded as a unifying moment for the newly-democratised country, not least because Nelson Mandela publicly supported the team by wearing the jersey with the captain’s number.
It was a really great moment in sport but does it really translate to the wider situation in South Africa? Is it going to make a difference?
Anyone who has visited South Africa in the last, say, fifteen years knows that this “moment for change” narrative is built on sand.
In fact, anyone who’s met a South African recently will also know it’s total bullshit.
Why? Every South African you meet has a tragic home invasion story about either themselves, a close relative or personal friend. This is not something a safe, civilised country with a positive economic and social future experiences.
Since the end of Apartheid, South Africa has simply switched the race of the 1% of the ruling class. Perhaps the Apartheid era rulers were also massively corrupt, but they managed to maintain some level of protection of personal safety and property rights (albeit for a minority of the population all of the time and the rest of the population some of the time) and could at least keep the lights on and drinking water flowing.
Through incompetence, corruption and an undisguised animus for people with the wrong colour skin (there’s a word for that which escapes me), the new ruling class have managed to reduce the size of the minority for whom living conditions are tolerable to an even smaller number than before universal suffrage.
Anyone who thinks 80 minutes of kicking and catching an oddly-shaped football will reverse the inexorable slide towards Zimbabwe V2.0 has not been paying attention or is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
There is a joke the non-ruling class blacks tell each other in South Africa; we wanted freedom but we got democracy instead.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
The mood after the race was jubilant. Sixteen-year-old Noor Alexandria Abukaram, who had just run her best time yet, hugged her high school teammates as they realised they were headed to regionals.
So far, so inspiring.
Then the students went to check their individual times at last Saturday’s Ohio cross-country meeting, Abukaram remembers. It seemed there was a mistake – her 22 minutes 22 seconds was not listed.
Oh no! Why not?
Other team members who’d sat out Abukaram’s race told her what they’d heard: an official at the Ohio High School Athletic Association approached their coach just before the race to say Abukaram needed a waiver to wear her hijab. Without it, she couldn’t compete.
That’s awful. Imagine thinking you’d competed and won fairly only to discover an obscure rule you’d never known previously had disqualified you.
Abukaram had never experienced this type of bureaucratic nonsense over religious clothing before, after all.
Abukaram says she’s watched her older sister come home crying from soccer games, after being told to change out of religious garb like the long pants she wears in addition to a headscarf.
Oh, that’s awkward.
The article then mentions a different, elite-level, athlete with similar problems:
Ibtihaj Muhammad, the first US athlete to compete in the Olympics with a hijab, has described sticking out uncomfortably at competitions and being asked to remove her headscarf for an event ID photo.
Well, unless everyone is forced to wear a headscarf, then I suppose she would look different, wouldn’t she?
As for ID photos requiring an unrestricted image of the competing athlete, I’m sure someone with even the mildest ability to hypothesise could think of how waiving that rule might result in a bad result.
Back to Abukaram’s tragic case. What say the athletics event organisers?
The Ohio High School Athletic Association says it wasn’t singling out Abukaram last weekend, just enforcing its rules. Students need a waiver to run cross-country in “religious headwear”, spokesman Tim Stried told The New York Times, and Abukaram’s school had not requested one.
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they, the bigots.
Abukaram’s request after Saturday’s race was approved “immediately”, Stried said. That means Abukaram can run this weekend in regionals.
For Abukaram, the decision to strike her time was still hurtful. She wants the waiver requirement dropped – something OHSAA is now considering, Stried told the Times.
Quite right too. Everyone should be forced to change because of one person’s inability to ask for a waiver….which was granted immediately when requested.
Crybully is an interesting noun which explains much of what we see in cases involving participants in “The Oppression Olympics”.
In the entire article linked above, and the countless clones of it available via a Google search, the word “why” is conspicuously missing.
As in, “why does the Ohio High School Athletic Association ban head coverings unless agreed in advance?”
I can’t find the reasons on the association’s website, mainly because the bylaws and general rules pages have been removed. Interestingly, they are proud enough of their transgender policy to leave that up (spoiler alert; it’s a fudge, like Cricket Australia’s).
We’ll have to speculate then.
I imagine the rule was made because, unless they legislated for every possible religious headgear, they had to reserve the right to review each individual case and not be unreasonable in granting the waivers.
How might a general rule allowing headgear be abused?
Well, we could ask why cyclists wear this type of helmet, for example:
Then there might be reasons of safety; headphones are banned because its restricts competitors’ ability to be aware of other runners.
It seems reasonable, therefore, to check each proposed headgear before a race.
But, claiming victim status and throwing accusations of bigotry is rewarded because incentives matter.
This follows on from the Sydney suburbs of Leichardt and Haberfield being renamed to “Little Italy”.
What a great idea and an utterly genius way to improve the social cohesion between various ethnicities living in the melting pot of Australia.
Let’s step through some versions of the possible logic behind this decision:
Everyone is envious of Chinatown having a name other than “the southern part of Sussex Street”, so we should let everyone else name their place accordingly, or
We love multiculturalism so much, although we can’t really explain what it means but it feels like it’s a warm and lovely version of that 1971 advert for Coca Cola, or
There’s a majority of a particular ethnic group in my constituency and this locks their vote in for me next election.
As with all political decisions, the implications of this are only considered when they directly impact the next election cycle.
More curious minds might ask whether naming areas of a city after the majority ethnic groups residing there is a sound long term strategy?
Where might this lead?
Slippery slope fallacies are to be avoided but, if we now have three areas named in such a way, there’s obviously some level of trend to be observed.
It’s not hard to imagine a situation in the near future where tensions are inflamed because of a perception that this is “our area” and a particular ethnicity isn’t welcome.
It probably happens already to a certain extent but now such an attitude has a perception of legitimacy through Council decree.
Where might this end? Here’s some suggestions for future naming changes:
Lakemba: Little Lebanon
Glebe: Big Lesbos
Mascot: Little Guangzhou
S’nives: Little Jo’burg
Point Piper: Little Taxation
Paramatta Road: Little Hope And Maintenance
Gosford: Little Dentistry
Mosman: Little Empathy On Sea
Canberra: Little Accountability
Bondi: The Irish and the Jewish communities will have to fight it out for naming rights. The clever money is betting Mossad will beat Continuity Backpackers by a cricket score.
As fun as this is, there’s a couple of versions of the future that could be reasonably envisioned. They are both probably unrealistic, but I suspect only one was ever in the minds of the people behind this push to rename suburbs:
Not really; the click bait headline tricks you into learning she’s just been given his code name after James Bond has “retired”.
Putting aside the ridiculous journalistic contortions required to rely on “reports” as a source of news, and who the hell is Lashana Lynch anyway… who cares?
But seriously, who gives a stuff whether Bond is played by a man, woman, Indian, Eskimo or African? It’s a fictional character in a film, a make believe story with people pretending to be someone they aren’t.
If people watch the movie and judge it to be fun and/or credible, they’ll tell other people who will then pay money to watch it. If it stinks, everyone who sees it will loudly say so at every opportunity.
Unlike, say the appointment of a diversity hire CEO of bank, movies have quite a rapid feedback mechanism. The studio accountants will know within weeks of the premiere whether or not a break from the standard formula has worked with the ticket-buying public.
The next James Bond could be played by a wheelchair-bound gay Native American amputee with a pet squirrel for all I care.
James Bond is not some sacred religious figure who can only be played by a macho white English alpha male. If fact, Daniel Craig is only the 2nd Englishman to have played the part (3rd if you count the David Niven spoof).
At last, chance to chat about something unrelated to
religious rugby players…..
People sometimes ask me why we moved from London to Sydney? Reasons they are correct in assuming played a factor include the weather, the beaches, sailing and the chance to work in the vanguard, nay, the cutting edge of business and industry.
Ok, nobody seriously suggests the latter; if you think
Sydney is leading the world in anything commercial, you’ve not been paying
attention. It’s not even leading Australia in making good coffee; that’s
Melbourne. Sydney sniffily looks down on it’s northern neighbour, Brisbane, as
being backward but at least Brisbane has the humility to rarely pretend to be
anything other than an oversized country town where everyone is related.
The main reason we moved out of London is that we didn’t fancy
burying one or more of our children after they’d bled out on a London street.
Don’t get me wrong, London is absolutely still my favourite
city in the world. If you’re earning a decent wedge of cash and enjoy good
food, drink, music, arts and great value travel options, London is the place to
live. If you’ve got kids of high school age, however, it’s really a holiday
We could see the trend years ago with a general and pervasive atmosphere of danger increasing over the years. I lived there for most of my adult life and had a great time but this was partly due to the fact that I was, (1) able to afford to live in one of the nicer areas, and (2) physically confident in most conflict situations (thank you Mr. Hamilton, my junior school teacher who introduced me to rugby).
Even with those mitigating factors, there were still a few occasions where the danger crept into our lives. My significant other still berates me for the time when we were travelling home on a bus one afternoon after I’d been playing rugby and I foolishly prevented a young man from attempting to get on through the rear doors (to avoid paying his fare) and he and two mates jumped me. Two factors were in my favour that day; I was in significantly better physical condition relative to the youths and, most importantly, they didn’t have any weapons. Thanks to that second factor and the help from another bloke on the bus, I was unhurt and they left with bruises. It was still stupid of me, however.
One doesn’t just arrive at being financially independent and handy in a fight though, you must survive adolescence and the initial phase of your working life first. High school age children are at a disadvantage, therefore.
Since we left, for reasons unclear to us, Londoners elected (and subsequently re-elected) a mayor who seems uninterested in delivering the most basic of requirements of his job description; i.e. keeping the population alive and physically safe.
Sadiq Khan has overseen the most rapid escalation in knife crime and other forms of serious violence that the capital has experienced since before Robert Peel thought about getting some hairy-arsed blokes together to calm things down a little.
Figures from London’s Metropolitan police showed that knife crime surged by 16 per cent in the capital year-on-year in 2018, as Britain’s crime epidemic continues.
There were 1,299 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.
In 2017-18, there were 137 knife offences for every 100,000 people in the capital.
2018 was London’s bloodiest year in almost a decade as the murder toll reached 134.
These statistics are appalling but they also tend to obfuscate even worse realisations. For example, how young those 30 murder victims are.
The reason I used The Sun’s article above rather than a more
“respectable” mainstream media outlet is because it lists each of this year’s fatalities
and gives their ages. Take a moment and scan down the list. Most of those
murdered were 25 years old or younger.
When one looks at the probability of being stabbed in London,
the “137 in 100,000” is not relevant if you are, say, an 18 year old. Clearly
the risk is far greater for you and nearly everything an 18 year old would
consider as being fun is likely to contribute to worsening that probability,
such as going to a party, drinking in a bar, attending a music festival,
walking home from a friend’s house at night, etc.
Things are likely to get far worse before London improves.
The good news is that crime epidemics can be reversed in large global
cities like London. New York in the 80s and 90s is the precedent for this.
However, it’s clear that the leadership is where the change
starts. If your mayor is more interested at ranting on Twitter about his distaste
for the President of the United States than, say, increasing visible policing, targeted
stop and search, curfews for school age children, enforcing truancy laws, and
generally being bothered about the rule of law, then don’t expect knife crime
and other violence to reduce in a hurry.
Christ, can we please all just shut up about Israel bloody Folau?
No? Ok then, here’s our 3rd sodding blog post in
a week about the ridiculous saga…..
For those who care enough to continue reading this blog and
this specific post but aren’t bothered enough to keep up with the news, which I
suppose is probably the square root of bugger all people, the latest update is as
Go Fund Me have taken down his donation page because it breaches
their terms of service.
The money will be refunded to the donors.
The Sunday Project (“prow-ject” in the vernacular) host,
Lisa Wilkinson, berated a God botherer in a hard-hitting interview last night
because he was of the wrong opinion.
Firstly, the Go Fund Me terms and conditions are linked on our previous offering on this subject if you’re curious. They really don’t explicitly exclude Israel’s campaign, but have a big clause about the website’s discretionary powers which would allow them to shut him or anyone else down at a whim. The reporting of this that tries to claim a breach of terms is either wrong or duplicitous. At this stage of the culture war, it’s probably going to save you time if you just assume the latter.
In summary, they are a private website and the contract you
sign when you use it allows them to do whatever the hell they want. That isn’t
the same as pre-emptively banning on principle Israel Folau’s campaign or
Refunding the money will be interesting, however. As commenter,
Sgt 73rd Regt mentions on our previous post, the inference is
that the money goes straight to a trust bank account and doesn’t sit on the Go
Fund Me account earning interest for them. I will be able to confirm what
really happens shortly as I, ahem, may have considered it worth an amusing tenner
to donate under Lisa Wilkinson’s beta male husband’s name….
Which brings us on to the increasingly haggard, post-menopausal
Last night on a TV show nobody was watching, she gave a 30 year old God botherer a proper lesson in investigative journalism. Nah, not really; she just did the easiest thing in the world and ran logic rings around someone with faith. If this is important work, there’s a billion people in India who believe God looks like a blue elephant whom she could doorstep with a willing camera crew.
Picking on God botherers is fine, if that’s how you want to
make your money but we would like to point out two reasons why La Wilkinson is
being incredibly hypocritical;
Her co-host on The Prow-ject is an outspoken
muslim who has struggled in the past, on
camera, to explain his faith’s doctrinal view of homosexuals. Presumably, her
hard-hitting interview with Waleed will air later this week?
A very lucrative part of Lisa’s annual salary is
earned from hosting “Carols in the Domain” each Christmas. One assumes she’s
spotted the underlying religious element of that TV program?
I promise this is the last missive on this subject until something halfway interesting occurs (and that doesn’t include faux legal advice in the comments from a failed civil engineer).
It’s probably worth clarifying my personal faith regarding this issue first; I’m an atheist who enjoys the benefits of where the Judeo-Christian tradition arrived in 2019. Perhaps a “cultural Christian”, if you will. I have no animus whatsoever toward homosexuals, to use the cliché, some of my best friends, etc.
If I could be so inclined, I could seek out discussions with people of faith and run logic rings around them just for fun. In fact, when I was younger, more foolish and cruel, I often did, asking my Christian relatives what they thought about those awkward fossils in the Natural History Museum and what the implications were for their reading of the Old Testament, for example.
What seems odd to me is that Lisa is applauded for poking fun at someone of a particular faith, especially as she’s very fucking happy to take their coin every Christmas. We can play the whataboutery game here too; why doesn’t she ask the question of other religions, for example the bloke she sits next to several evenings a week?
If you don’t believe in the tenets of Christian faith, why would you care about whether it teaches some people will go to a place you don’t believe exists?
Those who suggest this is no longer just about a kick and clap football player and his employer are correct. This is a cultural war being played in AND BY the media. Go Fund Me were bullied into closing down the campaign after a concerted effort by the a small subset of the media. It will be interesting to see where the battle is fought next.
Next week on the Sunday Prow-ject, Lisa Wilkinson angrily confronts Harry Potter fans who claim she can’t travel to Hogwarts.
GoFundMe’s fine print says the crowdfunding site cannot be used for “campaigns we deem, in our sole discretion, to be in support of, or for the legal defense of alleged crimes associated with hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism, or intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or sex.”
Here’s my take on his previous attempt to steer the narrative.
There was a time when journalists used to at least attempt to offer their work as being without bias. I recall a time when they would be referred to as “reporters”. That noun seems to be out of favour now.
It’s absolutely fine to be an “activist”, we all have causes we support, but it’s highly disingenuous to pretend to be a “journalist” at the same time.