It is currently in pre-production, but reports say that the movie may start shooting as early as next month - It's called Wrong Girl and it's about the controversial Sydney gang rapes that took place in 2000 by brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf.
There are those who support the release of such a film because it makes people aware of the issue of rape and furthermore, it makes an example of those who commit the crime.
But there are also those who strongly oppose the film and I believe that their arguments carry more weight.
According to the NSW Rape Crisis Centre the film will only generate traumatic emotions amongst those who are already victims of sexual assault and violence.
NSW police spokesman Mike Gallacher has called the movie a "waste of money" and he's right. News.com.au reports that the filmmakers have already received $51,000 in state and federal funding. That's a lot of money that could be better spent, I think, on educating people at school and in the wider community about the whole issue.
I realise that not everyone may agree with me on this point, but I am of the opinion that anything that makes it to the big screen, regardless of its content, attracts a sense of glamour and I don't think that this horrific occurence should be glamourised or even worse, popularised in any way.
Would you go and see this movie?
Matthew Newton, the son of Aussie TV Royals Bert and Patti Newton, was recently charged with the assault of his former girlfriend, actress Brooke Satchwell.
The blue-eyed rising star faces a number of charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he faces court this Wednesday.
According to Leichhardt Police, the entertainer assaulted Satchwell on two occasions in September and October 2006 as well as making several threats to her and her family.
After spending 11 hours in police custody, Newton was freed until his court hearing on strict conditions. He must comply with an Apprehended Violence Order, stay well away from Satchwell and avoid all contact with her.
Police are currently questioning Satchwell's make-up artists in order to support evidence of bruising allegedly caused by Newton at the time of the alleged assaults.
Reports say that Satchwell was initially reluctant to press charges as she did not want the burden of taking on such a high-profile showbiz family. Indeed, it seems to be a David and Goliath battle with even some of the newspapers providing biased accounts...
Has anyone noticed how the media keeps talking about what a gentle person Matt is and how his new girlfriend's family is sooooo shocked that such allegations have surfaced? Has anyone noticed that bail was initially refused or that he has previously been involved in a number of violent incidents?
He may be TV royalty, but hey, no one is above the law. Not even Bert Newton's son.
Whether or not he is convicted, I think Brooke Satchwell has done a good thing standing up for herself.
One of Australia's favourite faces of Channel Ten News is planning to take legal action after being sacked just 6 weeks after returning from maternity leave.
Tracy Spicer, who has served as the face of the 11am News Bulletin and a number of evening bulletins for over 14 years, will be alleging a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act.
After taking some time off for the birth of her daughter, Ms Spicer was informed by email that her contract with Channel Ten would not be renewed next year. Reports say that Channel Ten had requested Ms Spicer to return from maternity leave early but she refused.
Ms Spicer's agent says he was "extremely disappointed and surprised at Ten's decision....in view of the highly respected standing (Tracy Spicer) enjoys as a newsreader and journalist" and that he has "not received a single complaint from Channel 10 regarding her performance."
Meanwhile, Channel Ten has simply thanked Ms Spicer for her years of service and has wished her the best of luck.
September 15th 2006 07:27
Prime Minister John Howard has recently announced a plan to toughen citizenship laws in Australia. Before becoming eligible for citizenship, it is proposed that migrants will have to do the following:
1. Live in Australia for at least 4 years.
2. Pass an English language test.
3. Pass a knowledge test on Australian history.
4. Pass a test on Australian customs and values.
There have been a number of different reactions to these proposed changes. One is that by instituting such tests, our country is slowly stepping back towards the “White Australia Policy”. According to Senator Brown, from the Greens, “it simply means it’s going to become harder to come to Australia if you don’t have an anglo background”.
So I started thinking…
Are we really all about being “anglo” and speaking perfect English? What about those who are illiterate, aged and as a result, have learning difficulties? If they can’t learn the language as well as Mr Howard would like, do they not have a right to become part of this society too? What if some people just don’t have the opportunity or the money to learn English before they get here? And do we really need to have an in-depth knowledge of the history of our nation? If so, what are we going to teach them? That indigenous Australians were massacred? That we enacted laws to keep the Chinese out? That there were recent racial riots in Cronulla? Can we really instill customs into people by making them sit an exam? And what values are we talking about here? Are Aussie values so different to the rest of the world’s human values?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this country about the delicious mix of cultures that’s made this country one of the top destinations in the world? Isn’t it about driving your friends nuts on Saturday nights on Crown Street in Sydney not being able to choose between some Greek souvlaki and a tasty Italian pizza? Isn’t it about going to the Vietnamese markets and the Lebanese grocery and trying something different once in a while? Isn’t it about learning how to Latin dance and belly dance and cook like the sweet Indian lady next door? Isn’t it about open-mindedness and acceptance? Learning from one another and growing together? Isn’t it? ISN’T IT??
In April 2005, 9 Aussies were arrested in Denpasar, Bali for attempting to smuggle approximately $4 million worth of heroin into Australia. Until recently, two of them were facing the death penalty. These were the so-called “ringleaders” of the operation, 25-year-old Myuran Sukumaran and 22-year-old Andrew Chan. The others were initially all sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking. But today everything has changed.
It has now been confirmed that four more members of the Bali Nine will face death by firing squad. How did this happen?
It seems that after Matthew Norman, Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen and Si Yi Chen won their appeals to reduce their life sentences to 20 years in prison, prosecutors were not happy. They appealed the new decision wanting the life terms re-instated. But instead the Indonesian Supreme Court decided on the death penalty.
Similarly, when Scott Rush appealed to the court, he hoped that his life sentence would be reduced by a couple of years. But, his hopes seem to have backfired as the Indonesian Supreme Court again decided on the death penalty.
Chief Judge, Iskandar Kamil was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald to have made the following comment to AAP:
This narcotics problem is a very heavy criminal act and is very dangerous for the people and the country, not only Indonesia, but also other countries.
And although most of us, if not all of us, would wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, for many Aussies, the sentences handed down are unjust and excessive.
What do you think?
Earlier this year, a 5-year-old girl was in her stroller at a pedestrian crossing at Seaforth when an elderly driver hit her with his car. She remained in a medically induced coma for 10 days and several weeks in the intensive care unit as the nation prayed for her survival.
An 80-year-old man from Frenchs Forest today pleaded guilty to dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm to the little girl we have come to know and love as Sophie Delezio.
Little Sophie first caught our attention in December 2003 after she experienced horrific burns to over 80% of her body. She had been hit by a car and trapped under it whilst at a day-care centre in Fairlight. Not only did Sophie lose both her legs, but also several fingers, an ear and most of her hair.
The person responsible was again, an elderly driver. But he was cleared of negligent driving because medical experts found the man had experienced a seizure which caused him to lose control of his car.
Sophie’s story has prompted much public debate about elderly drivers on our roads. Should there be an age limit? Should there be more frequent mandatory testing of elderly drivers? Should they be driving at all? Are we being discriminatory?
The NSW government has announced that it will investigate the possibility of reducing the age for mandatory medical checks. Currently, the checks regularly occur for those who are 80 and over. But is this enough?
A lot of young drivers are complaining that the NSW licensing procedures are overly restrictive. For those of you unfamiliar with the rules, it goes a little something like this:
You have to fill in a log book and show that you have undertaken at least 50 hours of supervised driving in different weather conditions when you are on your L’s. Then you do an on-road driving test with a grumpy member of the RTA to get your red P’s. After you’ve had your red P’s for 12 months you have to do another computer test to get your green P’s and then when you’re grey, old and wrinkly, you get to do ANOTHER test to obtain your full license.
Stuff up along the way, and you may have your license suspended, you may be fined or you may even have to start from the top.
In the state of Indiana, USA, they’ve come up with a slightly different approach. After you obtain your license, should you commit a traffic offence, you could be sentenced to…are you ready for it… transport by school bus only!
Recently, Judge Julia Jent decided she was fed up with young traffic offenders who don’t take their actions seriously. Her Honour now orders any school students who come before her, to take the school bus to and from school and also warns parents that if they drive their children to school, they’ll be in contempt of court.
And here come my motherly words of wisdom: In whatever form they may be, these laws are making our roads safer for everyone. Especially young drivers. There are many reports and studies that show drivers under the age of 25 are the most at risk of being involved in motor vehicle accidents. In particular, it is the 17 and 18 year old school boys and girls who seem to have this idea in their heads that it won’t happen to them.
The reality is, they’re not invincible. No one is.
Gotta STORY you'd like to hear more about? Write to Legally Brunette at legalherald@hotmail.com
If you ever start up a conversation with me about Members of Parliament, I will probably give you a filthy look and banish you to the corner of the room to think about what you’ve done.
The truth is, MP’s bore me to tears. I have no interest in them. I do not want to know about them. I flick to another channel if I see them on TV.
But today, some Aussie MP’s finally caught my attention.
During a recent debate on technical colleges, Western Australian Senator Glen Sterle was heard using the words “drongo” and “pork chop” to describe a fellow Senator.
The President of the Senate is now being asked to rule on the use of these words when describing an MP. Are these words too offensive?
Hmm...
Off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of words much more crude and insulting than “drongo”, to describe some of our politicians. But I guess the question is, should THEY be using it to describe each other?
Sure, using colourful language can sometimes give a person more character, but when an MP calls someone a pork chop? Well, it just sounds silly.
They are meant to be the intelligent, articulate representatives of our country. And using such words only renders them childish and immature.
A beautiful soul.
Those were the words used to describe Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu at her funeral today. The 8 year old schoolgirl was found dead in a toilet cubicle at a popular Perth Shopping Centre last week after she had been beaten, raped and strangled by a young male.
The entire world was and still is both shocked and deeply saddened by her tragic death. When someone so young and innocent has her life taken away so unfairly, one can only feel disgust towards the person responsible.
The young male is currently charged with wilful murder and sexual penetration of a child. These are offences that generally result in life sentences.
The question I put forward to all my readers is this: if convicted of the crime, what punishment do you think would be appropriate?
Craig Hill
KC Hill
Paladin
Oracle of Delphi
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More
