Am I the only PPN shareholder posting on this forum?
I have never been to a brothel or strip club but I bought shares in this company as an investment in a legal business to make money from dividends.
As the actress said to the Archbishop, "money doesn't care who owns it", so come out of the closet and have your say on HC!
The following is a media release by the Nightclub Owners Forum:
BRUMBY GOVERNMENT'S ATTACK ON STRIPTEASE IS AN ATTACK ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS Friday, 18 June 2010 NIGHTCLUB OWNERS FORUM 241 King Street Melbourne 03 9916 9005 http://www.nightclubownersforum.com/
15th June 2010
MEDIA RELEASE
BRUMBY GOVERNMENT'S ATTACK ON STRIPTEASE IS AN ATTACK ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Prominent Melbourne Nightclub Owner, Peter Iwaniuk, has described the Brumby Government's attempts to close down Melbourne's striptease industry as a return to the dark ages and an attack on women?s rights and employment choices.
This comes at a time when the gap between men's and women's weekly wages has widened to $224 per week - its highest level in 21 years (source: Daily Telegraph article 18th August 2009). This is 18 per cent less than men, which amounts to about $1 million over a lifetime. This gross inequity recently resulted in thousands of women rallying in protest across Australia. The strip tease industry is one of the few industries where women earn much more than men's stressed Mr Iwaniuk.
Mr Iwaniuk's attack follows the decision, suddenly and inexplicably, by Consumer Affairs Minister, Tony Robinson to raise liquor licence fees for strip clubs in 2010 by a minimum 500% with the clear motive of closing clubs down and forcing thousands of women into unemployment or underpaid jobs.
While I have welcomed the appointment of new Liquor Director, Mark Brennan, it would appear he has been misinformed by Minister Robinson when commenting that strip club owners should find a real job if they don't like the fee hike (see The AGE June 11, 2010 article: man with the bottle and Herald Sun May 24, 2010 article: Pubs and clubs forced back to school by liquor licensing chief).
By implication, not only of course will strip club owners have to find new jobs but also so will the many staff and entertainers they employ.
I am confident that the Director's view will change when he examines the process underpinning the fee hike said Mr Iwaniuk.
That is why I have asked the Ombudsman to launch a formal investigation into how the licence fees were calculated, the lack of transparency surrounding the process and the apparent intervention by Minister Robinson to appease developers, moral campaigners and special interest groups added Mr Iwaniuk.
Let's look at the facts: Last year, less than 2% of crimes committed in Victoria were associated with late night venues (source Sunday Herald Sun 30th May 2010 article: Home Not a Safe Haven).
Furthermore, strip clubs only constitute a very small proportion of late night venues, and, by their nature, have far fewer problems than traditional nightclubs, bars and pokie venues (see attachment 1). In fact, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research recently indicated that in 2008 people were nearly 6 times at risk of becoming a victim of crime in a church than in a strip club (source Sunday Telegraph April 11, 2010 article: "Aussies safer in a strip club than a church figures show")
So the Brumby Government?s attack on the striptease industry is nothing more than a moral and religious stance against women's right to legally perform artistic strip tease and, as such, is a blatant attack on women's rights stressed Mr Iwaniuk.
Mr Iwaniuk added "Firstly, let me make it clear I respect the rights of all people to have their own moral and religious attitudes. I am concerned, however, when people such as Minister Robinson seek to impose their conservative views on others and make spurious claims in support of their views.
The majority of people in our society are consumers of non-violent erotica in one form or another. This is just a normal expression of human behaviour. Problems only occur when this behaviour is repressed.
The evidence points clearly to a greater predisposition to violence and sexual deviance from people who have sexually repressive upbringings. A large proportion of sexual assaults reported in recent years can be attributed to priests and others in trusted positions in society molesting children.
Exploitation is also more prevalent in a repressive society. Black markets and religious oppression flourish in such environments with little or no capacity to protect the vulnerable, especially women.
Australia has actually sent troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban who are notorious for repression of women's rights. Does the Brumby Government really want us to head down that track and deny the precious freedom of individual choice we currently enjoy in our secular society?
In repressive societies, women's rights are violated in two ways, firstly as the victim of exploitation and secondly in terms of their capacity to be an equal consumer of non-violent erotica.
As society has become more accepting of women's right to choose non-violent erotica, the market in this area has expanded enormously driven purely by demand.
It is worth noting that around half of the attendees at Melbourne's Sexpo are women. It is also now common for couples to visit striptease venues, and there is a healthy market for male striptease for women.
A repressive society also ignores the right of women to choose to work in the adult industry, and to do so under the same rights and conditions enjoyed by others in the workforce.
Claims that striptease exploits women are without any rational basis. Many modern feminists see it as their right to earn income through the creative use of their sexuality. Women working in Melbourne?s world class striptease venues are well paid, and generally well educated and aware of their rights.
There are some excellent publications, which support the argument that censorship of non-violent erotica, actually works against the interests of women. The book by Nadine Strossen entitled Defending Pornography (1995 - ISBN 0-684-19749-9) presents this evidence in a very compelling manner.
The book argues that the censorship of non-violent erotica maintains the masculine patriarchal power base of our current society, which has suppressed equal rights and opportunity for women over many centuries. Censorship also perpetuates the paternalistic "we know what is best for you" attitude which places women in the same category as children when it comes to freedom of choice and decision making capacity.
Another good reference is In Defence of Pornography (1995 ? ISBN 0-86840-023-8) by Paul Wilson, a Professor and dean of Humanities at Bond University in Queensland.
The Brumby Government should recognise and accept that striptease is an entrenched part of the entertainment industry through most democratic countries in the world including the USA, UK, Europe, Russia, New Zealand and Canada.
Not only this but pole dancing, pioneered by strip clubs, is now extremely popular in gymnasiums as a means of motivating women to keep fit and healthy through artistic movement.
When all of these facts are considered, there is a compelling case for licence fees for strip clubs to be significantly less than for other late night venues, and I am looking forward to the Ombudsman exposing yet another example of flawed policy making by the Brumby Government's concluded Mr Iwaniuk.
END
For further Information contact:
Peter Iwaniuk 0411 75 11 99
David Butten 0414 251 474
ATTACHMENT 1 - PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF GAMING VENUES OVER OTHER LATE NIGHT VENUES INCLUDING STRIP CLUBS
ATTACHMENT 1 NIGHTCLUB OWNERS FORUM 241 King Street Melbourne 03 9916 9005 http://www.nightclubownersforum.com/
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF GAMING VENUES OVER OTHER LATE NIGHT VENUES INCLUDING STRIP CLUBS
There is quantifiable evidence of the Government?s manipulation of the 2010 licence fee review process to give preferential treatment of gaming venues and penalise strip clubs.
Whilst saddling strip clubs out of the blue with an exorbitant fee increase, the Government quite inexplicably has exempted licensed gaming venues with any additional risk based fee increase.
This is despite a strong emphasis in the Allen Consulting Group Report (July 2009) - http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/co nnect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Alcohol/About+Li quor+Licensing/Reviews+and+Consultations /JUSTICE+-+Alcohol+-+Regulatory+Impact+S tatement+-+Liquor+Control+Reform+Regulat ions+(PDF) commissioned by the Brumby Government that: ?the analysis provides very strong results to suggest that licensees offering gaming facilities are likely to be associated with higher rates of offences relative to those that don?t offer gaming facilities?.
?The findings regarding hotel gaming are regarded as reasonably robust given that most hotel gaming venues are identified in the data (and therefore captured by the gaming category under the venue type variable) and the findings are supported by the results of the basic data analysis which finds that 70 per cent of licensed premises with hotel gaming were associated with one or more offences.? and ?given that the data analysis suggests strong evidence of a relationship between gaming and offences in or near licensed premises, gaming is regarded as a risk factor that should be included in a risk based licensing model?.
The Government?s own Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) (page 20) - http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/2c758580404aa22f9d65fff5f2791d4a/RIS.pdf?MOD=AJPERES likewise admits that ?the data on Victorian Licences was able to identify gaming venues [and] gaming was associated with higher risk of alcohol related harm... than other types of businesses?.
The RIS then inexplicably states ?However, gaming was not examined within existing literature and was not identified as a risk factor by stakeholders?.
The RIS fails to identify who these ?stakeholders? were, hopefully not the gaming industry itself or the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) which represents hotels with gaming machines.
It is hard not to see a correlation between the licence fees for strip clubs suddenly rising astronomically following only two public submissions, one being from the AHA and the other a hotel with gaming machines ((see http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/resources/file/eb758f4e6666d29/Summary_of_submissions_to_Regulatory_Impact_Statement.PDF ) as reprinted below, and the indefensible decision to exempt gaming as a high risk activity.
EXTRACT
"Risk factors - sexually explicit entertainment 2 Submissions received from Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association & Town Hall Hotel
Argument is that licensed premises offering sexually explicit entertainment represent higher risk relative to licensed premises offering other forms of entertainment.
Government Decision
Significant concerns have been raised regarding the provision of sexually explicit entertainment in licensed premises. Because of these concerns, the Government has decided to establish a separate fee structure for licences with sexually explicit entertainment conditions imposed.
These venues will pay a flat fee of $30,000 annually. From 2011, additional fees will apply for licences with sexually explicit entertainment conditions that have one or more paid infringements or successful prosecutions for responsible service of alcohol offences"
END OF EXTRACT
It would seem quite extraordinary that the Government would make such a significant change to the stated policy position outlined in its RIS, based on the submissions of one competitor and an industry lobby group without corroborating evidence, independent research or further consultation.
It is quite obvious therefore that the Brumby Government has once again given preferential treatment to the gaming industry and at the same time is profiteering from a segment of the industry that has far less capacity to publicly defend itself.
PPN Price at posting:
20.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
