This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
I started writing in January 2013. And I thought things were bad then.
Yet last week the rainbow was joined by the Grim Reaper. Australia will soon usher in a joint union of euthanasia and homosexual marriage.
Next week we will see freedom of political communication and the right to express traditional views on marriage thrown in front of a train.
And today children are now be able to access ‘gender-changing’ hormones. The Army is also publishing articles canvassing the ideas of open fraternisation and taxpayer-funded prostitutes and ‘sex toys’.
Meanwhile, the political system is in disarray: our politicians cannot even get their own citizenship paperwork in order and Senator Sam Dastyari is alleged to have passed on counter-surveillance information to a Chinese man linked to its Communist government.
No wonder the major concern of Australians, feeding and housing their family, is left unaddressed.
Wage growth is at record lows while housing prices are expected to remain high and unaffordable for many for at least the next 40 years. And even before you start paying off your own mortgage, you will be taxed to pay off the debt left by today’s politicians.
Families are being battered on every front.
However, there is good news. The recent marriage campaign awoke a national conservative movement in Australia. I’ve seen this same movement personally: just over five years ago I felt alone and left to charge the enemies on my own.
How wrong I was on that score.
There is an army of Australians who are concerned about the direction of this nation. Over 25,000 have signed up to receive updates from this website. Many more support other organisations. And there are many more still out there as well, looking for hope, courage and leadership.
However, this army remains unorganised and there is no better example than that given by this website.
Over the past five years it has been able to prevent some radical changes in the Australian Defence Force, from changing hat badges to appease Muslims, shutting down the Navy’s Islamic Twitter account and forcing the resignation of the Defence imam.
It has also influenced the media on a number of fronts: freedom, family values and security. And it has served as a foundation for detailed submissions into parliament on 18c and halal certification.
More importantly, legal cases we have fought have stemmed the abuse of state-based anti-discrimination law by anti-free speech activists and laid the foundations for future fights to protect freedom of political communication.
All of this was only possible with your support.
But the website is still just a blog.
That is going to change.
I have given some long, hard thought into planning for the future and how we might organise our army. Over the next two months I will step back from writing to concentrate on building an administrative structure and technological platform to transform the current blog into a campaign support tool for conservative Australians.
The new site will launch early next year.
It will not exist to promote a politician, or a political party or a platform. Yes, it will defend principles of life, family, freedom, civilisation and prosperity. But it’s primary purpose will be to assist Australians who believe in those things to save them. This new website will exist for you.
And provide your suggestions as well. I want them. A survey will be going up next week.
Last week we heard news of yet another arrest. Yet another planned target. And yet another Islam-inspired terrorist plot.
This time it was Ali Khalif Shire Ali.
He also likes to attend Hizb ut Tahrir conferences.
So did Man Haron Monis, the Lindt Café killer. And so did Farhard Jabar, who shot dead Curtis Cheng outside the Parramatta Police Station. In fact, listening to Hizb ut Tahrir was almost the last thing Jabar ever did:
During his final visit [to the mosque], Farhard Jabar was part of the audience for a lecture given by a speaker associated with notorious extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, according to Seven News.
I think there’s a pattern forming.
And you know who else signed a petition supporting Hizb ut Tahrir? The former Defence imam, Sheikh Mohammadu Nawas Saleem.
And guess what? He’s also an imam at the Werribee Mosque. It’s the same mosque attended by Ali Khalif Shire Ali, as reported by The Australian:
The family prays at the Werribee Islamic Centre in Hoppers Crossing. The imam is the highly respected Sheikh Isse Musse, who preaches a moderate brand of Islam. He renamed his mosque the Virgin Mary Majid to promote harmony between Muslims and Christians.
And I’m not sure I’d call Sheikh Isse Musse ‘respected’ or ‘moderate’ either. He also signed the same petition backing Hizb ut Tahrir as Mohammadu Nawas Saleem.
Australia clearly has a problem with ‘moderates’. So we should expect more Shire Alis. And Man Haron Monises. And Farhard Jabars.
And we should expect, at some point, one of them to infiltrate Defence or the police. That is bound to occur when ‘moderates’ like Mohammadu Nawas Saleem can be appointed to help increase recruitment to the military without anyone raising an eyebrow at all…
Next Tuesday the battle over speech and religion will hit the High Court in Canberra.
The dry legal documents might not describe it that way. They speak about the Constitution and the Judiciary Act and jurisdictional arguments over whether one state’s tribunal can deal with matters involving a resident of another state.
However, speech and religious belief are why this case commenced and they are at the centre of what this case is all about.
Self-described anti-free speech and homosexual activist, Gary Burns, is appealing against our win earlier this year in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. He will be supported by every single state except South Australia.
The Commonwealth is lining up on our side.
There’s a great deal at stake: after next week, it may be entirely legal for activists in one state to drag you into another because of your views on marriage and family.
I am confident that our arguments are sound and hopeful that they will succeed again. I am just as confident that if we were not prepared to fight this battle, things would be much different.
Until we stepped in, tribunals in New South Wales and Victoria had taken action against residents living interstate. Victorian grandmother, Tess Corbett, was facing the prospect of contempt charges and the possibility of jail for her views on marriage. And even though this matter is before the High Court, the Australian Capital Territory system ruled recently that it could determine complaints against people living elsewhere in Australia.
We’ve heard a great deal about the need to protect freedom of speech and religion as legal concepts in recent days. The biggest attacks on those freedoms comes from state-based anti-discrimination law.
Consequently, I am not fighting this case only to defend myself from complaints lodged in New South Wales. If we are successful we will put a limit on the weaponised use of anti-discrimination law in Australia. No longer will activists in one state be able to target those living in another state entirely. It will end the possibility that draconian laws passed in one state will be able to affect all Australians.
Your support has been immensely appreciated thus far. And it has enabled us to approach this battle from a strong position: an earlier win in the highest court in New South Wales.
However, the costs of this next phase are likely to exceed $50,000. If you can assist, please donate here. And please say a prayer or two as well. I need those too…
The article sat proudly on the Australian Army’s official webpage, nestled under the words ‘Situational Awareness’.
I’m not sure why.
If anything, it seemed like a tribute to the military’s unique ability to generate oxymorons, rather than an article that was even remotely capable of demonstrating that it had any situational awareness at all.
But before we get to the beginning, let’s check the end. It said the author is:
“currently deployed on Operation Paladin as a United Nations Military Observer.”
I’ve never been deployed on an operation that allowed me time for such free-thinking. And you’ll soon see what I mean.
The article started with these words:
“Is there anything morally or legally wrong with giving ADF members (both male and female) the opportunity to have consensual sex during a deployment on a warlike operation?”
See what I mean?
And then it went on to state:
“…I now want to start a conversation. Initially I considered whether the Army could contract Australian male and female sex workers to service troops in forward operating bases and air bases however after some research, I quickly realised there are too many moral, legal, practical, medical and logistical barriers for this concept to be entertained. Perhaps, the solution is to change the way the Army considers fraternisation in operational theatres and enable consenting adults to have sexual relations in a safe, secure and controlled environment. Another option the ADF could consider is facilitating safe and regulated sexual satisfaction through other means such as providing masturbation facilities or issuing sex toys.”
Well, hello sailor!
Suddenly it seems that the Army webpage is competing with the lewder elements of the internet. No doubt, it is all part of a cunning strategy to increase the Army’s recruiting pool.
To put this in a broader context, just three days ago the Army marked the end of its much-vaunted Pathway to Change cultural ‘reform’ program. It was implemented five years ago in response to the Australian Defence Force Academy ‘Skype’ sex scandal.
How far we’ve come.
After more than 1,800 days ‘reprogramming’ Defence personnel to behave in a sexually-appropriate manner, the Australian Army now publishes articles canvassing the idea that prostitutes could be flown into conflict zones to ‘service’ soldiers.
That’s a pretty good indication that this entire program is morally bankrupt.
And a pretty good indication that it has been swallowed hook, line and sinker was right there in the opening sentence of this article: the author felt compelled to nod to equality. If the Army was going to get sexual on operations, it must be made clear that this opportunity is for both boys and girls.
It seems the new, culturally-changed and entirely situationally-unaware Army believes in equal opportunity immorality.
I just want to make this point: I was sacked for behaviour ‘inconsistent’ with the Army’s cultural change agenda.
I’m so proud of that, I’ll say it again: I was sacked for failing to live the ideals espoused by Pathway to Change.
He may not realise it, but General Hurley has probably written the nicest thing anyone will ever say about me.
It really is inconceivable that the Army, after five years of ostensibly attempting to increase respect for women, would publish an article on its official webpage canvassing the collection of Australian ‘sex workers’ and shipping them off to a war zone.
Or that it would run an ‘informed discussion’ piece designed to generate ‘new ideas that contribute to Army modernisation’ supporting the idea that taxpayer-funded sex toys should be issued for use in special-purpose masturbation rooms set up on the front line.
Yet that is exactly what has happened.
To be fair to the author, she did state that after ‘research’ she realised that there may be a moral issue or two (among others) that would scupper the idea of a front-line bordello.
You don’t say?
I’m amazed that anyone would have to ‘research’ anything at all to arrive at that conclusion. But then it still went up on the Army website.
It’s clear that the author in this article did not consider Defence policies prohibiting sexually-inappropriate behaviour. However, that can be forgiven: the Australian Defence Force routinely ignores this lawful general order to march with topless chicks down Oxford Street every year.
It’s less forgivable, however, for her to have failed to consider the minefield that equity and diversity policy has become. These laws belong to the Thought Police and no mercy will be granted. If these ‘ideas’ were ever implemented people would be finding themselves in hot water all over the place.
Sergeants would be hauled before commanding officers because not everyone was told that the hookers had arrived. That’s discrimination. And, at the same time, they’d be hauled over the coals for telling others that they had: that equates to workplace sexual harassment.
And the entire military justice system would go into meltdown over workplace ‘banter’. You can only comment on the titillation tent if you’re crying. But only in a non-judgemental way.
True. The article was pulled shortly after it went up. No one knows for sure whether it took a day or fourteen of them.
But that at least shows someone, somewhere in the Army has their thinking cap on. But not too many.
Consider the steps necessary to get to this point.
The author states on her LinkedIn profile that this article was stimulated by a discussion on an Army-funded trip to Vietnam for high-performing officers:
“The article I have written…is inspired by a mature, well informed and honest conversation that was conducted during that staff ride between a group of Army Officers and supervising staff from the Embassy and the Australian Army Research Centre.”
She went on to say:
“Opportunities like the one provided to me represent the Army’s positive move towards academic and military professionalism.”
Never in the field of academic or military professionalism have so few words been so damaging.
Step one means that it is not that a single officer has been musing about brothels on base, but a whole bunch of them, notably grouped together because they are deemed to be high-performing. And they were joined by embassy staff and accompanied by the Australian Army Research Centre.
The implication of point one is that a lot of effort spent on ‘professional’ thinking is anything but.
Step two required an officer to take this discussion and turn it into an article.
Step three involved whoever runs the official Army blog carefully assessing this article’s content, analysing its implications and then coming to the conclusion that it should be published under the section titled ‘Situational Awareness’.
And step four presumably involved someone outside this bubble of insanity asking the question: what the hell is going on?
It was only at that point that some form of situational awareness kicked in.
In the good old days, anyone even remotely associated with this scandal would have been hit with military charges for bringing Defence into disrepute. Now, however, the article will probably be given its own float at next year’s Mardi Gras and a guard of honour.
The alleged ‘reasons’ given for the need to consider Defence-funded prostitutes, free fraternisation, sex toys and masturbation rooms are health and mental health, prevention of sexual assault, and force protection:
“There are three key aspects of combat effectiveness that might lead a military to try and regulate sexuality; with the primary one being the health and well-being of soldiers. By creating an environment where sex can occur safely, fewer members are likely to contract sexually-transmitted illnesses which reduces the burden on the medical system and increases manpower. Secondly, it is believed that regulating soldiers’ sexual activities helps prevent instances of non-consensual sex and fraternisation. Fraternisation amongst serving members and non-consensual sex can generate considerable ill will, resentment, and active resistance from both within and external to a military unit. Studies on sexual assault and harassment amongst US combat veterans suggest that up to 41 percent of women and 4 percent of men experienced sexual harassment, with 70% of those incidences occurring during military deployments. Unregulated sexual partners on deployment can also serve as sources of intelligence for enemy troops and foreign intelligence agencies which creates a broader security risk for the entire force.
If sexual frustration is a problem, it’s hard to fathom how an outright war on marital fidelity and Defence families can be the solution. But that is exactly what will happen if any of the ideas proposed in this article are ever implemented.
And let’s pause for a moment and anticipate the ‘research’ that may possibly be required if this exercise in ‘informed discussion’ progresses to policy development.
What are the mental health consequences for a soldier who not only experiences the stress of combat but who also loses his family because Defence began promoting fraternisation in warzones?
And what are the mental health consequences for a soldier in these same circumstances who makes advances but is rejected on the battlefield?
Then we get to the idea that the best way to deal with rape and sexual harassment is to lower standards to the point just marginally above these abominations.
To be honest, this article seems to be rooted in a belief that soldiers are nothing more than animals unable to control their most base desires.
And, to be honest, this is the most depressing and demoralising thing in all the insanity that has been covered by this webpage since 2013.
Halal-certified rations, redesigned hat badges, participation in the Mardi Gras, female-prioritised recruitment and even outright and direct sanction of attacks on Christian belief could all be explained away by some argument that it was achieving a perceived ‘good’: diversity, acceptance, increased recruitment, tolerance.
But this? This is different.
This is an acceptance of defeat; that man is incapable of even aspiring to goodness.
That is where the Army is now. An institution that I love views the human condition as barbaric. More than that, an institution that has served ‘good’ in this nation so well now views soldiers as mere brutes directed only towards the government’s purpose.
The philosophical essence of this article is that mankind is a slave to its passions.
In its implications it offers no counter to the crime of depravity that is wartime rape. Yet that is the worldview now promoted on the Army’s official webpage.
Some may claim that I am over-reacting. I disagree. But let’s assume for the moment that they are right.
What else, then, could possibly go wrong?
Let’s look at some other possible problems that rise from the ideas in this article. Practical problems. Operation performance problems. Warfighting problems.
Let’s get down to brass tacks.
Fraternisation in small combat teams spells their death-knell.
Let’s consider the basic infantry ‘building block’: the four man ‘brick’.
Except one of those men is a woman and fraternisation is not only tolerated but openly accepted.
And that woman is lonely; so are the other three. Tom, Dick and Harry.
She enjoys the attention of them all. But Tom and Harry are rejected while Dick is not. And they are lonely. Away from home.
And Tom is the leader of this brick.
And they are lonely away and from home.
And Tom is jealous.
Where do you think this goes? Where do you think morale and trust and teamwork and sacrifice goes?
And did I mention that Private Goldilocks is also married? And so is Tom. And Dick.
Again, where do you think this goes?
Take Private Goldilocks out of this scenario and throw in Captain Gay. Does it make any difference?
I have seen the consequences of fraternisation on a unit. It destroyed morale and cohesion. And that was back in the day when it was not only unlawful, but socially unacceptable, which meant that it was rare.
The ideas in this article won’t make it rare.
If there is anything good to come out of it, it is these nine words:
“Or maybe it should be stricter in enforcing abstinence.”
They represent 0.7 of 1 percent of the total article and they stick out like a sore thumb. I cannot think of any reason why they are actually included other than as a token ‘here I’ve thrown a bone to something else’.
But, nonetheless, they are there.
And if Pathway to Change is leading to a ‘professional culture’ that is focused on prostitution, fraternisation and taxpayer-funded sex toys, then it is clear that we need to think of something else.
Moral courage is supposedly a virtue within the Australian Army. I dare it to therefore have the moral courage to examine these questions.
If Defence can recruit enough males (and the Chief of Army’s recent correspondence makes it clear that it can), why would it increase female recruitment and exacerbate sexual tension on operations and in the Army’s small team structure?
In the same vein, what consideration has been made of the impact of homosexuality on small team cohesion?
If the Army is truly interested in supporting the families of deployed personnel, what steps will it take to ensure that fraternisation does not see those families destroyed and just another collateral damage casualty of conflict?
If the Army recognises that sexual tension needs to be addressed, why won’t it consider separating male and female accommodation in its training establishments and on bases?
These may seem to be ‘extreme’ solutions.
However, I venture that they are far less extreme, far more in touch with human nature, and far less dangerous to morale and capability than open fraternisation and a defeatist belief that soldiers are nothing more than animals.
The Australian Army proudly published an article that claimed we need to discuss these things. I, and many others, are ready for that discussion.
When will it begin? Or are only the pro-prostitute crowd allowed in this ‘debate’?
Last month many of you chipped in (thank you) to help meet the $1,500 cost of processing an FOI request about emails sent or received by Wing Commander Vince Chong containing the words:
- Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service
- postal survey
The reason this simple request costs so much is because there are estimated to be well over 1,000 pages of emails on Vince Chong’s Defence account containing those words.
You may wonder why so many of these emails are flying around Defence IT networks. So do I.
And they were all generated entirely between 14 August and 14 September this year.
Imagine if I had asked for all such emails sent since Chong started work as an Air Force officer. It would probably fell an entire Brazilian rainforest and halt ADF operations until approximately the next millennium rolls around.
It is worth remembering that the reason Chong has access to Defence IT systems in the first place is because he is an Air Force officer with an Air Force job running the Maritime Patrol Systems Program Office in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group for the Department of Defence. Consequently, I still have not figured out why someone in that job would need to generate an average of 41 pages of emails each working day referencing homosexuality.
Further, if it costs over $1,500 to process this request one can only imagine how much it actually cost the taxpayer to generate, send, receive and process all these emails about homosexuality and the postal survey on Defence computer systems and presumably on Defence time. It would also seem more than likely that someone at the other end of the email was also on a Defence system and also there on Defence time.
As a result of this process we already know that Chong has been sending and receiving these emails.
And now we also know that these emails now somehow involve foreign governments or their representatives.
Just to make it clear, it is not particularly unusual that a Defence member would email a Defence member from a foreign nation. Our military relationship with the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand would not work without these communications. But I see no reason for such emails to cover the world of homosexuality, homosexual activist political lobby groups or things like the marriage postal survey.
Consequently, before this FOI can be processed a foreign government now needs to be consulted.
I’ll keep you informed as the bureaucratic machine inches forward…
The Australian Defence Force isn’t the only Western military in the world that has its own Gay Enforcement Brigade.
The US military has been heading down this path for some time. The latest incident involves the destruction of a promising Air Force career of an officer who failed the new politically-correct requirement to endorse homosexuality:
A highly decorated Kirtland Air Force Base colonel who refused to sign a certificate of appreciation for a retiring master sergeant’s same-sex spouse says he was wrongly disciplined for following his religious beliefs.
Col. Leland Bohannon was relieved of command and a letter was sent by a superior officer recommending against his promotion after an Equal Opportunity complaint against him was substantiated. A religious liberties group is now demanding the reversal of the decision.
In May, Bohannon, then the commander of the Air Force Inspection Agency headquartered at Kirtland, was asked to sign certificates for a retiring master sergeant, including a “certificate of spouse appreciation,” according to an appeal letter to the Air Force from First Liberty Institute sent on Oct. 5.
The certificate is one traditionally given to the spouses of retiring military members; it is not legally required to be given and is not an official document.
Bohannon did not sign the certificate for the master sergeant’s same-sex spouse, as it conflicted with his religious beliefs.
According to the letter, Bohannon consulted others on the base, and his command chaplain suggested he file a religious accommodation request that would excuse him from signing the certificate.
That request was returned “without action” six weeks later, the letter states.
Instead, an off-base superior officer agreed to sign the certificate in Bohannon’s place.
The master sergeant subsequently filed an Equal Opportunity complaint, alleging Bohannon unlawfully discriminated against him due to his sexual orientation by not signing the certificate himself.
The complaint was substantiated, and Bohannon was removed from command. A letter was sent by a superior officer to the Air Force Brigadier General promotion board, recommending Bohannon not receive a promotion.
Religious freedom protections meant squat in this situation. And even though the Colonel made arrangements to ensure that the ‘spouse appreciation’ certificate was signed by someone else, it was not good enough.
Homosexual marriage is not about love or tolerance or even acceptance. It is based entirely on the desire for complete, total, 100% society-wide affirmation.
Everyone must join in.
Bohannon’s battle is not over yet. Eight US senators are now backing him so he may just have a fighting chance.
Meanwhile, the new politically-correct US is pushing the Bohannons of this world out and bringing communists in.
Earlier this year Spenser Rapone, an avowed communist, graduated from the prestigious Unites States Military Academy at West Point.
Here are some photos of him on graduation day:
Rapone continues to serve in the US Army even though he was reported to West Point officials as far back as 2015 for his views justifying the Islamic State and blaming terrorism on the nation he ‘served’. He also had this to say on his Facebook account:
“Fuck this country and its false freedoms…”
Unsurprisingly, Rapone is a huge fan of ‘Chelsea’ Manning, the transgender soldier who passed thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks.
But don’t be complacent or think that this only occurs in America. In Australia, our military marches with these communists down Oxford Street every year:
Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives party is set for its first electoral battle in the seat of Bennelong, as reported by Miranda Devine:
CORY Bernardi will announce this afternoon his Australian Conservatives candidate for the by-election in Bennelong. He is 25-year-old Hunters Hill local Maronite Catholic Joram Richa.
Richa’s brother, Chechade Richa, is the face of the faith-based Verum Media, which played a prominent role galvanising No-voters in the same-sex marriage debate.
This will be interesting.
Bennelong is one of the few seats in this nation that recorded a majority ‘No’ vote in the marriage survey. Yet both major party candidates support the redefinition of marriage, while Shorten and Turnbull have also backtracked on the need for religious freedom protections.
And since the survey results were published a number of vitriolic attacks and insults aimed at Western Sydney’s Christian population have caused outrage, leading to an unprecedented expression of public faith:
Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives will be well placed to represent a large section of the electorate that has now been abandoned at the very same time that it has been mobilised for a political fight.
A vote of over 10% would send shock waves through the current political system, especially with the implications it would hold for the Senate. It would also indicate that ‘No’ voting Australians are prepared to take this fight further.
I wish Joram Richa all the best.
What a pickle we’re in.
The push for homosexual marriage will necessarily hit freedom of political communication and religion very hard.
The only way to address this is to implement laws protecting religious freedom.
And the consequence of that will be legal recognition and protection of Sharia law:
Australians are being warned that a rush to legislate religious freedom could open the door to sharia law, as senior conservatives call for “cooler heads to prevail” in the growing dispute over the protections needed when parliament enacts marriage equality.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Defence Personnel Minister Dan Tehan are urging colleagues to avoid sweeping amendments with unintended consequences, such as creating religious enclaves shielded by law.
It kind of brings back memories of this:
Voting yes for homosexual marriage will be voting yes to opening the door to ‘marriage equality’ for the Islamic community as well.
I wrote that back in August.
And memories of this:
Proposed changes to marriage laws will lead to the inadvertent recognition of Sharia law marriage, polygamy and divorce in Australia.
Any changes to marriage laws to please one minority group will result in calls for other minority groups to also have their views on marriage enshrined in law as well. Furthermore, proposals have already been put forward to recognise all religious marriages in order to ensure that any changes to marriage laws do not limit freedom of religion or political communication.
I wrote that back in May 2016.
And memories of this:
It might seem like an absurd situation. In fact, it is an absurd situation. But the truth is that Islam and the LGBT crowd sleep together. They are strange bedfellows, sleeping beneath a bed head emblazoned with the words “Destroy Christianity”.
On one side you have the LGBT movement: morally-bankrupt, thoroughly-corrupted and vacuous. It cannot logically articulate why anything is wrong, precisely because it does not believe in any form of objective truth or morality at all.
As such, homosexuals generally have no hesitation in joining forces with those who would stone them to death, simply because it is convenient for the moment.
And on the other side you have Islam: a deceitful religious ideology that was founded by a man who knew the importance of playing nice with his enemies until he had amassed enough power to force them into total submission.
As such, Islam is quite prepared to make an alliance with useful idiots in order to secure a bigger victory.
I wrote that way back in July 2014.
Along the way I have been ridiculed. Often by sneering journalists on the ‘Left’. That was expected.
Hot take from Bernard Gaynor lands in my inbox. Marriage equality will lead to Sharia law.
— Cameron Atfield (@CameronAtfield) May 16, 2016
However, it was frustrating to be told by Australians who are concerned about Islam that my concerns about homosexual marriage were a distraction in this fight.
But I was right. Australia’s national newspaper is all of a sudden linking ‘marriage equality’ with Sharia law.
Small comfort. I’d rather be wrong if it meant that we were not now confronting this nightmare scenario.
Legalising homosexual marriage without religious freedom protections will result in a state-sanctioned Christian persecution.
Legalising it while implementing religious freedom protections will necessarily entail giving legal rights and recognition to Sharia law. That will also end up leading to state-sanctioned Christian persecution too.
Of course, the simple solution to this problem is not to legalise homosexual marriage.
Failing that, it would be to recognise that Australia is built on Western Christian values and offer legal protections only to those who defend them.
And that will never happen.
Indeed, Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, both avid defenders of religious freedom while votes were still being cast are now arguing that the problem should not even be dealt with during the rush to parliament’s rainbow altar.
They tell us parliament will look at it next year.
That’s code for they have no intention of debating laws to protect Christians at all.
In any event, the ‘exceptions’ that may be passed are not there for the long haul. It only takes a Labor government and they’ll be repealed, never to be heard of again.
In the meantime, Christians will face lawfare while Islamic enclaves will not.
Practically, Islam will be protected. Islamic enclaves are just that. There’s not much call for gay wedding cakes in those areas. And the homosexual activists, so keen to try on their tricks against Christian grandmothers are not so keen to do the same with Muslims.
They’re cowards and the Islamic world knows it.
It’s one thing to lodge a complaint against a law-abiding Christian charity. It’s another thing entirely to ask Halal Certified Baklava Brothers to make you a rainbow cake. An explosive one might just turn up on your doorstep.
To make matters worse, you can bet your bottom dollar that the anti-discrimination crowd will come up with a solution that will only exacerbate problems: look out for ‘religious freedom’ laws that only protect ‘ethno-religious’ communities.
That way Muslims will be protected legally. And Christians won’t.
That’s the way the elite want it. That’s where it is headed. Australia voted for this. And as I said last week, as a nation it will get everything it deserves…
These men have it in droves.
Offensive walll mural gets much needed face lift – Must watch.MUST WATCH – This offensive wall mural just got a much needed FACE LIFT.
Posted by Verum Media on Thursday, 16 November 2017
Whoever assumed that the post-marriage equality world of diversity would become such a straight-jacket of dullified drudgery?
Just days after the rainbow triumph and the first victims are being strung up.
And it’s not just churches. It’s ‘Tranny Bingo’ too:
Ten pubs across Sydney and Canberra have been ordered to change the name of long-running pub favourite night Tranny Bingo.
Sydney law firm Allens last week sent the pubs letters on behalf of a transgender woman named Katherine Wolfgramme, The Daily Telegraph reported.
The letters demanded the pubs stop using the term ‘Tranny Bingo’ as it is ‘highly offensive and distressing.’
‘Tranny Bingo’ is not my thing. But I imagine plenty of Aussies have headed off to the pub for a night of frivolity doing just that over the years.
And now they can no more.
The pubs are looking to rebrand as ‘GenderBender Bingo’. I have news for them: that is likely to be ‘deemed’ just as ‘offensive’ too. And it will become the subject of legal proceedings as well.
The Fun Police and the Thought Police are one and the same thing. And they’ve just been unleashed.
The good news is that ladies can now also take legal action if someone describes them as looking like ‘a fat man in a dress’.
The only catch is that they actually have to be a man in a dress to make a complaint. Normal ladies don’t get the same legal protection from offence.
This little brouhaha comes to you courtesy of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and involves a gay man and a transgender ‘woman’ who engaged in some verbal handbag swinging a while back.
I’d laugh but I might end up in jail.