This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
It appears that a nuclear bun-fight may have erupted inside the Department of Defence, prompted by this webpage’s reporting of politically-correct and insane Defence policies that have also been covered by the Daily Telegraph and The Australian.
News broke this morning that the Australian Defence Force Academy had its first ‘genderless’ officer cadet.
It has reverberated around the nation, much in the same way as news did that Defence was actively discriminating against males (also broken on this website along with the Daily Telegraph).
The Mandarin is reporting that media inquiries about the ‘genderless’ cadet have prompted the Minister for Defence Personnel, Dan Tehan, to order Defence to reverse its policies and seek exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act. And it appears that this is not just for ‘genderless’ persons, but potentially also opens the door for a reversal of the decision to employ females in combat roles as well.
But the real bombshell (if true) is this: it is reported that Dan Tehan took the opportunity to order the reversal while the ‘progressive’ Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, was away overseas:
Last night, while Defence Minister Marise Payne was out of the country, junior minister for Defence Personnel Dan Tehan ordered the department to find a way out of protections for non-binary gender individuals. The same legislative protection shielding women from discrimination also protects non-binary gender individuals since a 2014 High Court ruling.
The instruction was prompted by media inquiries about the first non-binary gender cadets at the Australian Defence Force Academy…
…Defence’s move has not been qualified to just X, rather suggesting it would be excused from all protections in the Sex Discrimination Act, which includes marital status and pregnancy.
If successful, Defence would be the first Commonwealth government organisation to be granted blanket exemptions to discriminate since the 2012 anti-discrimination law reforms. Doing so would undermine the efforts of the Attorney General’s Department, Office for Women, and prominent champions including the Minister for Women Michaelia Cash and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.
It almost seems like it is time to bring out the champagne…
The Mandarin’s journalist, Harley Dennett is also reporting that ‘horrified’ Defence staff are claiming that the decision was made behind Marise Payne’s back. Further, speeches are now being re-written for a ‘workplace diversity’ event – this almost certainly refers to the LGBT ‘Military Pride Ball’ which will be held tomorrow night and is being run by the pro-same sex marriage lobby group, DEFGLIS.
Incidentally, this website has also launched a petition seeking Defence to withdraw from that event in order to maintain its apolitical standing during the marriage postal vote survey. So I won’t shed any tears if it has just been blown off the rails.
There is no way of knowing whether any of this is true.
However, it certainly seems likely that something is up and that can only be good news.
Firstly, the response issued by Defence yesterday contained this curious statement:
The Defence of our nation is our first priority and we will examine anything that arises that may impact on our ability to achieve that.
In this regard, the Government and the Australian Defence Force are currently considering the need for an exemption to the Act (Sex Discrimination Act 1984) and the guidelines due to the unique operational requirements of military service.
I am always sceptical about such statements – unless they are backed by action they are meaningless.
But this one just may be.
Secondly, Harley Dennett is the ‘boyfriend‘ of the DEFGLIS chairman, Wing Commander Vince Chong.
— Harley Dennett (@harleyd) May 27, 2013
He is likely to have extensive links with LGBT staffers across Defence and in the ministerial departments. And his article indicates that they have just erupted.
Things could be about to get very interesting indeed…and not just inside Defence but in Turnbull’s government as well.
I’m sorry to report this. I really am.
If you hoped a vote for ‘marriage equality’ would make the LGBT crowd happy and that they’d simply disappear into the nearest wedding reception centre for an endless party, then think again.
Already the battle lines for next ‘progressive’ social crusade are being drawn.
And that means even if homosexual marriage is legalised, you should not get your hopes up for some peace in the anti-culture wars.
The next conflict will be the gender wars. And the Australian Defence Force has already entered them with all rainbow glitter-guns blazing.
The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) now boasts its first ‘genderless’ cadet.
This follows news that ADFA has also established an official ‘LGBTI community’ and released an LGBTI guide for instructors last ‘Wear it Purple’ Day – see Facebook posts embedded below:
Defence has also helpfully issued a policy guide for transgender school cadets, although it has also just as helpfully decided not to release that to the public either. No one wants the Upset Mothers’ Brigade that is dismantling the Safe Schools program to turn its sights on the nation’s military.
I know who would win (apologies to all the soldiers out there trying to do their jobs in the midst of this insanity).
The ‘genderless’ officer cadet is biologically female and in her second year of training. She wishes to be recognised as neither a man nor a woman.
Instructional staff that I have spoken directly with have stated that they have concerns about providing the cadet feedback for fear of being hit with anti-discrimination complaints. Staff are correcting themselves, rather than the cadet, in order to avoid offence. For obvious reasons, no one is prepared to put their name to these concerns.
It would be a career-ending move.
This situation simply boggles the mind.
Instructional staff also have been ordered not to use the pronoun ‘she’ when referencing the officer cadet.
Nor are they able to use the pronoun ‘he’.
For the time being, instructors are to address the officer cadet as ‘Officer Cadet [Last Name]’. Or, in a more personable manner, they can refer to her simply as ‘The Cadet’.
It should not need pointing out that this situation is entirely farcical.
The top brass might have wrapped itself up in knots over pronouns. But the Diggers will have words for this situation. And all of them are perfectly understandable and fit for purpose, even if they are not fit for these pages.
And while everyone is stumbling around the pronouns, Defence is busy re-writing policy.
Lots of policy.
There are standards for females relating to fitness, dress and bearing.
There are standards for males as well. Even though Defence is ‘non-discriminatory’, males are still required to meet higher physical requirements.
But there are no policy standards anywhere for ‘genderless’ Defence personnel. Some boffin buried deep in a bunker at Russell Offices in Canberra is busy writing new policies that will enlighten us all as to how many push ups a ‘genderless’ soldier is required to do.
And what ‘new’ pronoun the physical training instructors can use when yelling at them to go faster (except that yelling is probably now out as well).
I’m guessing that ‘Ze’ won’t be it. No one wants an army where soldiers dress up in weird uniforms and then go about sounding like they’re imitating the SS.
But then again, I could be wrong. Stranger things have happened.
I first mentioned this circus three days ago on my Facebook page.
Since then, I’m aware that Defence has already launched an inquiry into how this weird story has made its way out of ADFA.
Cadets are ducking for cover. And so are parents. No doubt, the solution will be a ban on 17 year old trainees talking to their mothers about the LGBT induction sessions that are held in the cadets’ mess.
No one wants to lose their job. But, somehow in the midst of this ‘debate-about-how-changing-the-law-on-marriage-won’t-result-in-lost-freedoms’, no one quite feels comfortable that they’ll be able to keep it either.
To be perfectly honest, this story is so bizarre that I’m actually quite surprised it’s somehow managed to be kept under wraps for almost two years.
But it’s out now and so it should be.
The most powerful military in the world has just made a decision that transgender persons are unfit for military service.
The US came to that conclusion after some soul searching. While it was all going on, generals were briefed about how they should deal with ‘male’ soldiers who were ‘pregnant’ because they ‘forgot’ to take their hormones.
That problem is not a war stopper. The enemy will just keep rolling on, even during labour pains. But it is not a war winner either.
Hence why gestational males can no longer go to war for the United States.
Actually, according to US Army briefing notes there was not a lot of that going on anyway.
Almost every problem caused by transgender soldiers (such as a non-biological female taking up a posting for a job that required an actual female to search other actual females) resulted in the commander being given the ability to simply not deploy the transgender soldier anyway.
On average, every transgender soldier spent almost 7 months ‘transitioning’ and on leave – all funded by the taxpayer. Even after the process, one transgender soldier reported being hospitalised for swollen ankles as a result of an estrogen overdose.
Unfortunately, while the US military is getting back to its core business, the Australian Defence Force is focused on non-discriminatory ablutions, policies and pronouns. Diggers who might have been hoping for generals that would protect their lives on the battlefield are now taking cover from friendly fire.
It’s one thing to put your body on the line for the nation. It’s another thing entirely to find yourself in a job where wrongly-gendered language is likely to make your life more difficult than a stray round or a roadside bomb.
And there’s something else that needs to be mentioned as well.
Transgender persons are 20 times more likely to attempt suicide than others. They are 10 times more likely to suffer from serious depression. A staggering 80% of young transgender persons have self-harmed.
This is not a joking matter. These statistics are deadly serious. And it is morally wrong to put someone who is far more likely to suffer from suicidal thoughts than others in charge of Australian soldiers.
This practice will lower morale, not only of Defence personnel, but of their families as well.
It is difficult enough for a wife to farewell her husband to a war-zone. It is far more difficult if she knows that her husband will be placed under the command of someone who statistically is likely to be suffering from suicidal thoughts far more than others.
Those who suffer from gender dysphoria face an immense personal crisis. They need help and support so that they can accept biological reality.
However, those who pretend there is no problem are responsible for the lunacy currently gripping the Australian Defence Force. They don’t need help at all. They need to be removed from command…
Christopher Pyne is one of the leading figures in the supposedly ‘conservative’ Turnbull government.
Yet he’s out and about campaigning with the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young and Labor’s Penny Wong. It’s part of a campaign from Liberal politicians claiming that legalising homosexual marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage and is in keeping with conservative principles.
All I can say is that if you claim to be ‘conservative’ but are campaigning with the Wong and Hanson-Young, you’re doing ‘conservative’ wrong…
Meanwhile, Senator Cory Bernardi has spearheaded the launch of the ‘No’ campaign.
This debate is not just about marriage. When the dust is settled, it’s likely the entire political spectrum in Australia will be realigned. And Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives is set to be one of the big winners.
It comes as a complete non-surprise that the ‘Yes’ campaign’s response to the latest Coalition for Marriage commercial is both hypocritical and anti-freedom.
The commercial is shown below:
In response, the ‘Yes’ campaign has claimed that ‘marriage equality’ has nothing to do with the education system.
Despite that, activists have gone on to state that if ordinary parents with ordinary families don’t like ‘marriage equality’ and the programs it will bring into the school system, then they should be forced to home-school their children.
This is from 9news.com.au, reporting the response from ‘marriage equality’ supporters to the latest commercial:
“I actually do not see the connection between this (inaccurate argument) and marriage equality?” one Facebook user wrote.
“Same-sex marriage and Safe Schools are two totally different things,” another said.
“Amazing how these people try to work on fear and bigotry! If you don’t want your children to be taught tolerance (which you obviously don’t have) then home school them,” a third suggested.
There is something very wrong with the argument if the side in the ‘debate’ supposedly pushing ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ claims the solution to the impact on freedom is for concerned parents to resort to home schooling…
…and if these guys win, does anyone really believe that they will allow parents to take their children out of the schooling system anyway?
The second Coalition for Marriage commercial has hit the airwaves tonight.
You can get a sneak preview of it here before the radicals probably do what radicals do, and try to have it banned:
‘The Gender Fairy’ is an ‘educational’ book that is rolling out across schools. Its purpose is to teach children that gender is entirely up to them. To visit the website, just click here.
As the Gender Fairy website explains, this book:
“…is about two transgender children who are not fluid and make the choice to socially transition. It’s up to children to decide where they are on the gender spectrum. As the Gender Fairy says, “No one can tell you. “
Changing the law on marriage will make these kind of programs compulsory.
It is ok to say no. And it’s easier to say no now…
Malcolm Turnbull has admitted that he cannot protect freedom if the laws on marriage change.
This is what he said this morning, as reported in The Australian:
“No doubt it [same-sex marriage] will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”
Any change to the law on marriage will be subjected to a Senate controlled by the Greens and Labor. And that means the only protections will be the ones that the radical ‘Left’ wants.
To make it even worse, the states actually control homosexual vilification laws. So the government has no power to protect freedom of speech and religion, even if it had the numbers to do so…
Over 5,000 Australians have signed the petition calling on the Defence Minister, Marise Payne, to ensure the Australian Defence Force remains apolitical.
Defence is currently supporting a dinner for DEFGLIS – an organisation that campaigns for homosexual marriage – on 23 September. Defence has also previously sponsored DEFGLIS with thousands of dollars.
This is completely unacceptable at any time, but particularly during the national postal vote survey on marriage.
I sent this letter to the Marise Payne a few days ago and I spoke to her office this morning. I have been told that a response is coming…possibly at the end of September.
I was also told that Defence has not sponsored DEFGLIS.
Yet these documents are up on the Defence website under the FOI section:
They clearly show that in 2015 Defence gave thousands of dollars to this organisation. And the DEFGLIS website is advertising that Defence Pride, a new LGBT network within Defence, is supporting this dinner once again…
I received a letter recently from a concerned father of an Australian Army soldier.
This father has previously served. This father understands what operational service entails. And this father also knows a politically-correct Defence Force will not be able to protect Australia and will place his son in danger as well.
Most importantly, this father is well aware that political-correctness means that he cannot even speak openly, lest his son suffers the consequences.
Hence there are no identifying names on this letter.
This is the letter:
I am writing to you to discuss my son’s enlistment and raise my concerns about the Australian Army and its apparent lack of forward planning.
I am a former Defence member and I was quite taken back by the suggested quota system being broadcast through Defence recruiting. I served in both infantry and armoured corps.
My son worked hard to gain entry into the Defence Force. Sadly, despite wanting to be an infantry soldier, he was denied the opportunity, being told he would have to wait two years.
My son allocated his second preference as armoured corps and was also advised there is a two year wait on that position as well.
It became apparent that the process of enlistment was skewed in such a way that infantry and armoured positions were only made priority if a person was of the female gender. This was reinforced by the posters in the recruiting centre calling for infantry as priority positions now, ladies apply within.
I encouraged my son to continue with the process of enlistment and seek a transfer to his desired corps once within the system.
I still have connections within Defence. Senior NCOs that I associate with have suggested that political correctness has gone mad in the Army and it is impeding on training.
This statement was backed by my son who said during a call home, “Dad the discipline is not like when you joined, the discipline you gave us at home was tougher than what I am experiencing here, this is so easy.”
It was stated to me by senior NCOs that there are 2500 young men on a waiting list for infantry and if a female decided to corps allocate to infantry at the recruiting centre, then they are immediately moved to the front of the line.
Recruiting in itself was quite bizarre and while I understand Defence has taken the attitude of equality, fitness standards appear not to have caught up seeing females having to achieve much less a standard than males.
I observed the recruiting fitness assessment to gain entry into the Army, which consisted of the beep test, sits ups and push ups and watched as some female recruits allocated to infantry could not achieve the minimum standard of push ups or sit ups just to gain entry into the system.
Feedback from Defence sources suggest that females allocated to infantry cannot carry the required amounts for a combat soldier and males are having to carry the load for them.
Training at recruit and IET levels has become a “let’s give it a try and you’ll pass system”, instead of setting a high standard that recruits have to meet and meeting the required standard that the Australian Defence Force is so proudly renowned for.
We have youth unemployment at record highs and yet the federal parliament won’t sanction opening another battalion or armoured regiment to accommodate fighting age individuals, regardless of gender, into infantry or armoured corps. I wonder how many of the 2500 are waiting on Centrelink benefits.
While I support a level of equity, I don’t support the notion that a role in infantry is for everyone and should not be made available on the basis of gender equality. The criteria should be suitability and assessed accordingly.
There appears to be some sought of notion from public servants and politicians that a position in the Army is like applying for a public service job and it should be about quotas.
The fact is the Army, or more to the point an infantry soldier, is like no other job. It is the tip of the spear when it comes to despatching an enemy or seizing and holding ground. The very role of the infantry is described as:
The role of infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground and to repel attack by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain.
Being an infantry soldier doesn’t allow for the luxuries that others may take for granted and quite frankly it is a dirty, tough job, which sees the toughest individuals break.
I won’t even venture into the area of prisoners of war and how cruel certain societies are towards Western women. The entire country is ablaze at the moment about domestic violence and how females are the victims to abuses so detrimental that there needs to be funding allocated and education systems in play.
What is more detrimental, domestic violence or the violence one perpetrates by driving a bayonet into the upper torso of an enemy at close range on the battle field? Is this what we want our daughters involved in, let alone some of our sons?
The two-way firing range is brutally violent and the federal government can’t bleat on about domestic violence and then throw our daughters to the most violent means of abuse, which is to be an infantry soldier in modern warfare.
Frankly I am quite disillusioned at the path our leaders are taking us and shudder to think what our fighting capability will be in years to come. I won’t even start to rant about cross-dressing senior officers in positions of making policies for Defence, but needless to say, s*** is happening and it isn’t for the betterment or fighting capability of our Army.
A concerned father
You can already be sacked for defending traditional marriage outside the workplace. Business and government ‘cultural change’ agendas trump legal freedoms of speech, religion and thought in this nation.
My wife has spoken for the first time about my case involving Defence and the threat that now faces families:
Authorised by Bernard Gaynor, Brisbane.
Most Australians don’t really give two hoots about homosexual marriage.
They’d rather the government sorted out the problems and pricing of power.
But, instead, the nation has virtually been driven to a standstill for the rainbow regiment. An issue that is simply not on the radar for most Australians now dominates media, politics and even business.
The strategy is simple: harass, harangue and hector voters until they simply give up in despair and wearily vote yes, if only to buy a little peace and quiet.
However, Australians should realise that the longed-for serenity is only an illusion.
There have been ten key moments of marriage madness since the postal vote was announced.
Nine of them outline the ‘politically-correct’ culture that comes with a ‘Yes’ vote. This brutal culture will be emboldened, legitimised and strengthened – in law – if the ‘Yes’ campaign succeeds.
These nine moments show that the peace Australians are buying is not silence, but rather the requirement to remain silent.
And the tenth moment is the scariest of all.
Because there is a flipside to the coin that demands your silence; it comes with the demand that this silence be filled with the din of the activists. They are determined to ensure that the next campaign is one in which they suffer no interruption or objection.
This is the package deal that comes with ‘marriage equality’.
A ‘Yes’ vote will do nothing more than kick off the next round of hectoring, harassing and haranguing culture wars – the same wars that Australians are already hoping will go away.
So here we go: the ten key moments of marriage madness thus far in this ‘debate’.
- It’s a David v Goliath battle
Right from the start, this battle has been uneven.
The ‘No’ case faces an uphill battle, while the ‘Yes’ case has the support of the elites.
Both the Australian Medical Association and the New South Wales Law Society have declared support for homosexual marriage, despite failing to consult their members and contrary to their wishes. The AMA even went so far as to publish a statement that claimed its position was based on medical evidence – only to have that evidence shot down in flames and shown to be false and deliberately misleading.
Big business has joined the push filling the coffers of the activists, led by a personal $1 million donation from Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce. He is also happy to support ‘marriage equality’ in his position as CEO. Noticeably, no junior Qantas employees believe they have the same freedom to speak their support for the ‘No’ case.
Defence is supporting organisations promoting homosexual marriage equality. The City of Sydney and the ACT government have donated taxpayer funds only to the ‘Yes’ campaign. And across the nation helplines have been established to ‘counsel’ public servants dealing the one-sided debate in favour of ‘marriage equality’.
Of course, the media has enthusiastically supported the idea of revolutionising marriage. ABC journalists have thumbed their nose at directives to report this issue fairly. Even pro ‘same-sex marriage’ commentators have been savaged for not being supportive enough.
And both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are pushing the ‘Yes’ case.
That’s a David v Goliath battle. It’s also a pretty clear message that the elites think ordinary Australians should vote their way…
- Australians can’t be trusted
Though the ‘No’ campaign may enter this survey as underdogs, even that was not good enough for the activists. If they got their way, ordinary Australians would not get a say on marriage at all.
Those pushing to radically redefine marriage were desperate to halt a people’s vote.
And then the activists went to the High Court in another attempt to shut it down, amid the echoes of Bill Shorten’s description that supporters of traditional marriage were ‘haters’.
Why this desperation from the ‘Yes’ campaign?
Well, that’s simple. Advocates for ‘marriage equality’ are concerned that Australians just might not actually vote for it.
So they tried to stop the vote altogether…
- Eradicate Father’s Day
Father’s Day was one of the first casualties of the marriage postal vote survey.
A commercial celebrating this day was banned for being ‘too political’.
Free TV Australia declined to run the advertisement because it may ‘influence a certain outcome’ in the postal vote.
The implication is clear: if Father’s Day advertising is banned during a debate for ‘marriage equality’, Father’s Day itself will be eradicated for causing offence if the laws change. So will Mother’s Day.
Instead, we’ll face a push for genderless days to recognise ‘Partner 1’ and ‘Partner 2’. And ‘Partner 3’ who donated the eggs…
- A cavalcade of #@*%!
‘Father’s Day’ may have become a four letter word no longer used in ‘elite’ society.
But the elites have replaced this word with others.
First off the rank was Tim Minchin. He lovingly called Australians who vote no ‘c****’.
And he was followed by Benjamin Law – an activist who has just written a 25,000 word article on why the ‘Safe Schools’ program should be implemented in every school in Australia.
His contribution to the debate:
Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-fuck all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.
— Benjamin Law (@mrbenjaminlaw) August 31, 2017
Law went on to claim that a ‘hate f***’ was a Gen Y term for ‘consensual sex with someone who is disagreeable’.
It’s a new age way of describing rape and it’s being rolled out in support of the ‘Yes’ campaign…
- Deregistering doctors
The first rule of this campaign is that if you dare to defend traditional marriage, your job security will be challenged.
At the beginning of the campaign, the High Court upheld a ruling that workers could be sacked for expressing personal views contrary to ‘cultural change’ agendas in the workplace.
And after the first ‘No’ campaign commercial aired, there was an immediate push to have one of the mothers who appeared in it, Dr Pansy Lai, deregistered.
A GetUp! petition was launched which soon received over 6,000 signatures and it outlined the case against her well:
“It is clear that Dr Pansy Lai has misused her privileged position as a medical practitioner in the harmful and hateful ’no’ campaign…”
If ‘marriage equality’ passes, this type of bullying will only become more frequent. And activists won’t have to pull back because the bad press is losing votes…
- All the news that’s fake to print
The ‘Yes’ campaign’s bullying was not supposed to be part of the narrative of ‘marriage equality’.
It was the traditional supporter of marriage who was supposed to be responsible for self-harm among the LGBT community. The only problem, however, was that there was simply no vitriol from the ‘No’ campaign.
So fake-news stepped in to fill the void.
Channel 10 photo-shopped images of an alleged poster that no one had actually seen onto a stock photo of a bus stop billboard and ran the line that the ‘hate campaign’ was in full swing.
It was a great story until it became so obvious that it was fake that even the ABC had to admit it:
- It’s not about Safe Schools – except when it is
The ‘No’ campaign has been labelled as hateful and irrelevant for expressing concern about the impact of ‘marriage equality’, including on the education system.
It seems rather logical that if the nation recognises homosexual marriage in order to end discrimination, then sex education within schools will also need to do the same.
And that’s exactly what the Safe Schools program seeks to do.
The ‘Yes’ campaign has sought to avoid this issue by claiming that Safe Schools has nothing to do with the push for ‘marriage equality’.
And then at ‘marriage equality’ rallies across the country on Sunday, marches were led off by banners supporting ‘Safe Schools’:
This was followed by an article from the nuanced and articulate Benjamin Law (referenced above) that called for the ‘Safe Schools’ program to be implemented in every Australian school.
“Here’s the uncomfortable reality: parents don’t always know best.”
Safe Schools is only part of the marriage agenda when the activists want it to be – and then it’s used to remove parental rights…
- From dies to lies
The radical homosexual marriage activists also shut down a meeting for parents in Brisbane late last week.
Its topic: Safe Schools.
Apparently, despite claims that Safe Schools has nothing to do with ‘marriage equality’, we are not even allowed to talk about this program anymore – a program so secretive that the Queensland government refuses to disclose which schools have implemented it.
If it’s bad enough that ordinary citizens can no longer meet in peace (the meeting was cancelled to avoid a confrontation with protesters), it’s even worse that activists then claimed to the media that they were targeted by cars driven at full speed towards them.
This is what was reported on Friday morning:
“I suffered an injury because people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners here today,” she told Nine’s Today.
“It was extremely scary, extremely irresponsible, and police actually tried to help the people in the cars get through the crowd of protesters.”
The story ran for 24 hours, painting supporters of traditional marriage as car-wielding maniacs ready to rain down death and destruction on the oppressed ‘marriage equality’ advocates.
But the true picture emerged a day later. Unfortunately, by that time the story had run and not many agencies were prepared to correct it:
Footage from the protest, outside St Michael’s Church in the Brisbane suburb of Ashgrove, shows a car blocked from entering a driveway by about 20 protesters, before police officers move one of them to the back of the crowd.
“We monitored it, but nothing really came out of it,” a police spokesman said.
A Queensland Ambulance spokeswoman said the service received triple-0 calls from the protest for an “alleged assault” of a woman but she declined treatment or transport.
- Don’t mention the war
The ‘No’ campaign has been branded as homophobes with murderous intent.
But it is actually the headquarters of the Australian Christian Lobby that has been blown up by a homosexual marriage activist, according to court documents.
As the postal survey campaign began this story was quietly unfolding in a Canberra courthouse, although it has since received scant attention:
The man accused of driving a burning van laden with gas bottles into the Australian Christian Lobby headquarters was a gay activist who disliked the group because of its “position on sexuality” and had searched online how to make plastic explosives and a pressure-cooker bomb.
Court documents tendered to the ACT Magistrates Court yesterday reveal Jaden Duong had also run searches about gay marriage in other countries and, a month before the alleged attack at 10.45pm on December 21 last year, had searched for the “Australian Christian Lobby”.
Unfortunately, a million media hours focusing on a fake car rampage in Ashgrove will outdo the truth that a homosexual activist allegedly managed to blow up the headquarters of the Australian Christian Lobby.
When it comes to ‘marriage equality’, the truth does not matter at all…
- This obsessive tyranny is just the start
All the examples above go to the heart and culture of the ‘marriage equality’.
But this next one goes to what comes next: a full scale cultural war on pronouns, gender and the remaining notion of a traditional family unit.
Benjamin Law wrote in his essay on Safe Schools:
“…it might be stating the obvious but same sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia…”
It’s a warning shot across the bows. After ‘marriage equality’, much more is to come.
It’s exactly what the Greens are saying:
And the Greens have been pushing and prodding us into this debate for two decades. Now they have won over Labor and even the Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
They won’t stop now.
And Labor has already revealed plans to widen the scope of 18c to silence speech critical of homosexual marriage.
Given all of this, and the fact that we do not even know what the proposed law will be, vote no.
That’s the only way you’ll buy some peace from this radical and revolutionary cultural war…