This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
It is madness.
I’m not talking about the London attack. That is as predictable as the religion that spawned it. I’m talking about our response. Or, more appropriately, lack of it.
This morning four people died and another 40 were injured after another ‘incident’, this time outside the UK parliament.
According to the ‘experts’ on ABC radio, it is too early to say anything about the motive or, indeed, the mental state of the person involved. All we know is that the vehicle he was driving lost control and then the knife he was wielding also lost control.
And then four people lost control of their lives and another 40 lost control of their health. It’s all very regrettable really.
On September 11, the world was shocked. It was the attack no one saw coming.
Today, no one is startled by a random ‘incident’ that has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Fairfax Media’s most read story on the incident that we all saw coming started out just like this:
“London: This is an attack everyone saw coming.”
Just as everyone knew that this attack was coming, so no one can be the least bit surprised that an article pointing out the predictability of the attack could also, predictably, go on to claim that the motive for it is entirely unknown and unknowable:
“At the time of writing this is not a confirmed terror attack. The motives, state of mind, background and mental health of the attacker have not been publicly reported.”
And therein lies the madness: we now accept that attacks are ‘certain’, even as we state with certainty that they are ‘random’.
There is no doubt that four people died today as a result of a person following the example of Mohammad. And there is no doubt that tomorrow a bunch of politicians will claim that Islam is not only peaceful, but an integral part of the Western world.
These words are a lie and they hide the problem, obfuscate it, confuse it, and even promote it.
It’s also important to note that there’s nothing like a bit of bloodshed to get the MPs into the mosques. It kinda sorta seems like these ‘random’ acts of violence certainly do something for Islam after all.
After the politicians slip their shoes back on they’ll get to work ‘protecting’ us. A whole bunch of effort will be put into mitigating the effects of the ‘weapon’ that was used instead of dealing with why it was used. Get ready for a conversation, not about whether Islam should be banned from our cities, but whether cars should be banned from them.
A sane world would acknowledge the truth: the key enabler of Islamic terrorism in the West is an Islamic community in the West.
You don’t get the former without the latter. And when you have the latter, you have the former as well. Plus, in a deal that always has more, you get a newspaper ready to write about the ‘randomness’ of ‘certain’ attacks thrown in for free too.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a sane world. We live inside the asylum where confusion reigns supreme. So nothing is done to change any of this.
In the last decade and a half Islamic terrorism has not been defeated in the West. Instead, it has been normalised by governments too afraid to act.
Only two things have changed since September 11, 2001.
Firstly, back then no one knew what Allahu Akbar meant. Today, none of us would be surprised if we were to realise that ‘Allahu Akbar’ were going to be the last words we ever hear.
Secondly, the mitigation and security efforts have done nothing to address Islam and everything to reduce general freedom across society. We all put up with metal detectors and bollards on boulevards and bans on free speech because the government thinks that it’s easier to cage us than Islam.
So if today’s attack allows for knowing heads to nod wisely and say, ‘I predicted this’, let me issue one more prediction. And anyone with half a brain can see this coming too.
If the official insanity continues for much longer, ordinary average people will give up on the idea that the government is looking out for their safety and they’ll start taking the law into their own hands.
We are headed for blood on the streets. Much of it will be Islamic. Retaliatory violence is just around the corner.
It will spell the end of Islam in much of the Western world. But it will also spell the end of the institutions that have provided civilisation in the Western world as well. That will not be a good thing.
It will result in complete chaos. And there is only one rule in chaos: might is always right.
I don’t want my children to live in that world and that is why I will do everything I can to restore sanity now before it is too late.
Earlier this year a flurry of news reports proclaimed that Germany’s population had reached 83 million – the highest in the country’s history.
This occurred even though Germany’s birth rate has been amongst the lowest in Europe for half a lifetime.
Since 1975 its birth rate has been well below replacement levels and, as a result, the population of native Germans will both decline and age rapidly over the next half a lifetime.
So how does a nation with an ageing and diminishing population reach record population levels?
The answer is simple: with someone else’s babies.
Remember these headlines?
Number of Refugees to Europe Surges to Record 1.3 Million in 2015
A record 1.3 million migrants applied for asylum in the 28 member states of the European Union, Norway and Switzerland in 2015 – nearly double the previous high water mark of roughly 700,000 that was set in 1992 after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency.
From President Angela Merkel down the Germans have outsourced reproduction to others. So much so, that people are now Germany’s biggest and most required import.
Indeed, this is how the International Monetary Fund spun Germany’s requirement for ‘human resources’ just under a year ago:
“The projected decline in the labour force due to ageing after 2020 calls for measures to boost labour supply in the medium term. Additional policies to integrate the current wave of refugees into the labour market, to broaden opportunities for full-time employment of women, and to extend working lives, would be important in this regard.
These reforms would not only counter the projected growth decline in the medium term but also stimulate private consumption and investment in the short term.”
In other words, if Germany wants to keep its economy after all the current Germans have spent everything on themselves before collectively kicking the bucket at the end of the post-sexual revolution orgy, then it will need workers and consumers.
And they don’t drop down each time the stork flies by. As Germany literally screws itself to death it’s more than ironic that this fact of life needs explaining.
Germany’s future will belong to those who are there to live in it. Increasingly, these people will be Islamic. They are there because the Germans have aborted their own future off and then mortgaged everything else to millions of Muslims walking across the border.
And they were always going to come. They aren’t in Germany because of the Syrian civil war. They’re in Germany because a human vacuum has been created by the nation’s decision to prioritise instant gratification over, not just the next generation, but any further generation.
That’s what Islam has to do with abortion. The former fills the whole left by the latter. It has not gone unnoticed. In fact, just this week the Turkish President, Recep Erdogan, has urged Muslims in Europe to have at least five children:
“Go live in better neighbourhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That will be the best response to the injustices against you.”
If you are concerned about the growth of Islam in the West, then you need to come to grips with this. Australia, like the rest of the Western world, is headed in the same direction. It will not be able to withstand Islam in the long run if it is relying on Islamic families to provide the next generation.
In other words, the arrival of Islam in the West is not the problem. It is the symptom of a deeper problem of our own making. It is here because of our own bad habits.
And killing off the next generation is one hell of a bad habit.
Of course, anyone who spends more than a few moments truthfully examining what happens during an abortion knows that abortion is a moral failure. Every single abortion results in the death of living human being and it always occurs because those involved in it prioritise fear over love.
I’m not denying for a second that love is always an easy choice to make. I’m not denying for a second that an unmarried uni student with a deadbeat boyfriend might find the thought of pregnancy tremendously difficult.
But that’s just the problem with evil. It often is the easy choice. So next time you see a single mother give her a hand: she might not be perfect but she is certainly courageous and she’s investing far more in the future than the childless President of Germany.
Australia might not be as far down the road to destruction as Germany. But we are still heading down that road.
And that leaves us with two unpalatable conclusions.
Firstly, when it comes to condemning the Islamic State, we’re all quick to join in. It is hard finding reliable casualty figures for its atrocities but one report from the University of Maryland estimated that the Islamic State was responsible for 33,000 deaths between 2012 and 2015.
In contrast, about 80,000 to 100,000 children are aborted in Australia. Every year.
In Queensland, a child is born alive after an abortion about every ten days. And then it is left to die as well.
The Islamic State is evil. But our nation has its own confessions to make.
Secondly, if morality is not your thing, then there are still plenty of reasons why it is clear that abortion is not in the national interest. Just look at Germany where the social, demographic and economic impacts of abortion mean that there might not be any national interest left at all that can be remotely described as ‘German’.
Last week US Republican Steve King was labelled a racist for proclaiming the truth: we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.
He’s absolutely right. To keep Western civilisation going we need to regain the confidence to have our own children again. If we can’t do that, Islam will be the least of our problems…
Ever more increasingly you see headlines like this:
Car dealership worker wins unfair dismissal case after he was sacked for looking at scantily-clad women while on the job
AN EMPLOYEE of a car dealership in Perth has received $25,000 in compensation after he was wrongly sacked for looking at pictures of swimwear models in their bikinis on company time.
Months beforehand, Gerard Roelofs, a financial controller at the Westcoast BMW dealership in the city’s north, had admitted to accessing hardcore pornography on his work computer.
But an employment tribunal said Mr Roelofs had not been given the opportunity to defend himself properly when it was later discovered websites featuring swimwear models had cropped up on his work computer.
And you see headlines like this:
Federal MP Graham Perrett releases second saucy book
Lawrence Lalor and his “surly worm” are back.
With the federal election done and dusted, returned Moreton MP Graham Perrett is free to release his second book, The Big Fig, the follow up to his 2008 much-talked-about-if-not-best-seller, The Twelfth Fish.
That novel, set in the early 1990s follows Lalor, a “surfie teacher” “condemned to servitude by the Catholic Education League”, in the small Queensland bush town of Lawson.
Luckily there was a mystery and a couple of ladies to keep him busy – Karen was a fan of Lalor’s aforementioned surly appendage, while Cylla had some problems with a cramping jaw.
The sex scenes, while a small part of the story, were enough to send the political class and its associates into a titillated frenzy.
I just bring this up because the Full Court of the Federal Court has ruled that the Chief of Defence Force was justified in sacking me for my ‘behaviour’ for opposing uniformed Defence participation in a parade with these people:
Perhaps if I had been turfed out for using Defence IT networks to surf for porn I’d now be enjoying a large payout. No doubt, if I spent my time writing pornographic novels I’d probably even be promoted.
After all, Graham Perrett has just gone on the parliamentary record to admit that he’s a member of the Defence Force:
“I should declare that I am a legal officer in the Royal Australian Air Force—a flight lieutenant. I have never had anything to do with your case, I should say.”
Unlike me, Perrett’s behaviour has not come to the ‘attention’ of the Defence Chiefs. That’s probably because he writes pornographic novels while I’ve been opposing Defence participation in a pornographic parade.
Now, who remembers that speech preaching that the standard you walk past is the standard you set…
I need your help.
I sent the email below out a short time ago – it explains the situation.
If you would like to receive my update emails please register by filling in the ‘Newsletter Sign Up’ form. You can find the form on the right for desktop readers or by scrolling below the comments section of this post for those reading on their mobile phone.
I need your help.
Over the next weeks I will be preparing a challenge in the High Court to defend freedom in Australia. The Full Court of the Federal Court has ruled that it is legal for the Chief of Defence Force to sack Defence members for expressing conservative political opinions in their private capacity, even as he allows uniformed attendance at a self-described political event that protests against Commonwealth laws on marriage – the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
This ruling cannot remain unchallenged if we are to remain free in Australia.
I will also be defending five High Court challenges to the victory we obtained in the New South Wales Court of Appeal against serial litigant and homosexual activist, Garry Burns. The State of New South Wales and the New South Wales Attorney General are also appealing this decision in support of Garry Burns.
These battles will be expensive. Unfortunately, I am running very low on the ammunition required for the fight: money. It is humbling to have to ask once again for your financial support, especially as so many have already given so generously. But I must ask once again.
Please donate via one of the options below:
Family Values Action A/c (Donations fund legal fees)
– BSB: 084 134
– A/c: 39 446 4501
Gaynor Family Support A/c (Donations fund legal fees, my website and the Gaynor family)
– BSB: 084 134
– A/c: 84 082 9276
– PO Box 766, Park Ridge, Qld, 4125
These battles are not just mine. They are battles for all Australians who cherish our Western & Christian heritage, values and freedom. Everyone who donates is signing up to play a part in the fight to preserve this freedom.
I also ask that you pray for a successful outcome in these cases as well. And it is humbling to ask for this too. I understand many are uncomfortable that I so openly refer to God and I have been counselled by close friends to ‘drop’ this aspect of my newsletters.
I can understand this and indeed part of me wants to as well. It would make it much easier to be ‘popular’. But to do so would be a lie and it would deprive God of due recognition for His protection.
Please consider this: by every worldly measure these fights should have ended long ago in defeat.
We are outgunned financially. I am today asking once again for donations, while the taxpayer is funding Defence and New South Wales, and Garry Burns has no difficulty securing the assistance of top-tier law firms.
We are outgunned legally. I have a very small and overworked legal team fighting more than 60 separate complaints, tribunal and court matters, while Defence, New South Wales and Garry Burns are represented by numerous firms and battalions of QCs, barristers and solicitors.
We are outgunned politically. Only Malcolm Roberts, George Christensen and Peter Abetz have been prepared to provide public support to these cases (and even Pauline Hanson has attacked me), while the Greens, Labor and a growing number of Liberals back a politically-aligned Defence Force and anti-free speech laws.
We are outgunned in the media. Most conservative commentators refuse to mention this fight while the majority of the media push the politically-correct agenda like zealots.
We have no artillery support. Not one of the major family or freedom groups have provided any assistance in this fight. The bishops are silent and we are left alone and isolated.
Despite all of this, we won the first case against Defence and will take a very strong case to the High Court. We have also been victorious throughout in the battle against New South Wales’ totalitarian anti-discrimination laws. This is not due to me. It is not due to my lawyers. It is not due to you either.
It is entirely due to God.
That is why I ask you to pray. Today is the Feast of St Joseph and I ask that you pray over the next nine days that he intercede on our behalf with his foster-son, Jesus Christ, and obtain victory in these matters:
Oh St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interests and desires.
Oh St. Joseph, do assist me by your powerful intercession and obtain for me from your divine son all spiritual blessings through Jesus Christ, our Lord; so that having engaged here below your heavenly power, I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to the most loving of Fathers.
Oh St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you and Jesus asleep in your arms. I dare not approach while he reposes near your heart. Press Him in my name and kiss his fine head for me, and ask him to return the kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, patron of departing souls, pray for us. Amen
What is at stake?
The action taken against me by Garry Burns, Defence and the State of New South Wales is based on four great lies:
– the lie that same-sex relationships are moral and as fruitful as heterosexual marriages,
– the lie that women are the same as men,
– the lie that gender can be defined by whim, and
– the lie that Islam is as valid and equal to our Western Christian civilisation.
Lies have no power. They can’t win support with logic. Instead, they can only be enforced by deception and tyranny.
As such, our very freedom is at stake in these fights. Our freedom to express the truth. Our freedom to participate in democracy. Our freedom to even have job. That is why we must fight.
Tyranny is never successful in the long run. It always collapses because no amount of coercion can ever defeat the power of truth. However, tyranny can achieve short term success and each time it is due to one factor: too few people were prepared to stand up to it when it was weak and easy to defeat.
No one engaged in this fight is guilty of that timidity or weakness.
Can we win?
Victory is not always easy and we have hurdles to overcome. But we can be successful. That is why we fight. That is also why we pray.
We have also demonstrated already that we can win this fight, with victories in the NCAT, New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
And this is also absolutely certain: doing nothing has never won a battle.
What have we achieved?
Apart from our legal victories, supporters of my website have also assisted in obtaining other victories. Just some of them are listed below:
– forcing the Royal Australian Navy to shut down Captain Mona Shindy’s pro-Islamic Twitter account,
– obtaining widespread media coverage of the Australian Army’s decision to have ration packs halal certified,
– forcing the Australian Army to back down on plans to change hat badges to appease Muslims,
– forcing Defence to remove references to DEFGLIS (a homosexual political lobby group) from its webpage,
– forcing a homosexual group that marches at the Mardi Gras to remove information promoting secret colour codes for those interested in pederasty from its webpage,
– presenting the most-signed and publicly-supported submission the Halal Certification inquiry, and
– presenting the most-signed and publicly-supported submission to the 18c inquiry.
All of these achievements have set the condition for the media scrutiny in the mainstream media of Defence, Islam and anti-free speech laws. That scrutiny has already started with Miranda Devine writing a bruising article about Defence three weeks ago.
There will be more to come. But only if we continue.
Christ is our king!
The Australian Defence Force has pulled advertisements from the conservative website Breitbart.
It did so after receiving complaints that it was racist, sexist and homophobic. And also because it is an alt-right news site.
— Defence Jobs Aust (@defencejobsaust) January 30, 2017
I think the latter objection was the point that sealed the deal for Defence. The thought that it was potentially recruiting conservatives probably sent a shiver through the Green/Labor battalion that conquered Russell Offices some time ago.
Funnily enough, not everyone in Australia seemed to agree. Hey! Maybe we are a diverse nation after all.
This actual diversity of opinion was brought to the attention of the #youradf that likes to go on and on and on and on and on about how it pretends to represent all of us.
And so out came the weasel words.
Here is one email:
And here is another:
It is somewhat ironic that Defence has pulled advertisements from Breitbart on the basis that it is a site ‘aligned with political views’ at the behest of a political activist on Twitter.
In between single-handedly directing Australia’s Defence recruitment strategy, the Twitter account belonging to @__eclectica seems to do nothing more than promote anything that’s anti-Trump, anti-Wilders or that Bill Shorten said.
Interestingly, the Defence Force advertisements were not directly placed on Breitbart. They were google ads that targeted users’ browsing history. So the ads pulled by Defence were directly pulled from readers who had internet histories indicating that they were interested in a military career.
Here are two reasons why this decision is just plain stupid.
Firstly, last year the Chief of Army went on the record to moan about how Defence was not only having difficulty recruiting enough soldiers, but that its new age recruitment strategy was also going to result in less women in the Army.
Secondly, the Army’s own research shows that Australians with conservative views are more interested in signing up serve this nation than those with ‘progressive’ views. I can’t think why.
Strangely, the Army has purged this report from its website as well. So you can read it here. It’s the same report that also found most soldiers think Islam is violent. Again, I can’t think why.
By the way, while Defence is pulling ads from Breitbart because of ‘core values’, it is promoting strategic communications to the LGBTI community. This is from the Defence Diversity website:
Now, please have a look at the photo below:
No. This not the actual Defence contingent at the Mardi Gras, even though you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. I do recognise that it is getting harder to tell who’s in what Army these days, as I have written before.
However, this is a photograph of the Mardi Gras. And it is a photograph of a group that Defence gaily marched with down Oxford Street.
One could surmise that they share the same core values. That’s why Defence would rather advertise to people wearing gimp masks than conservative Australians.
In his submission to the parliamentary inquiry into 18c, Bill Leak gave a powerful case for the repeal of this evil law. You might say that it was his dying wish.
Let us imagine that his wish is granted posthumously.
What then? What does the world look like beyond 18c?
Unfortunately, that world is not good. In fact, in all probability it is even worse than the one we live in now.
Because notwithstanding the urgent need to raze the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to the ground and notwithstanding the fine work and commentary by some media personalities and outlets (such as The Australian newspaper), 18c and Australian Human Rights Commission are only one small aspect of the problem we face.
In all the debate about 18c, it seems that no-one is prepared to look at the bigger picture. All this effort is being focused on one single tree in the forest. Or, to put it another way, knocking off 18c is like putting up a gate on the unfenced field where anti-democratic and anti-free speech political activists disguise themselves as ‘public interest’ litigants and frolic on taxpayer-funded pastures tended lovingly by the Thought Police.
And if 18c goes, these political crusaders will simply move on and use other laws. Worse laws. Ruled over by far worse systems than the Federal Court.
In fact, it is probably only due to the grace of God and the stupidity of the activists themselves that they have not already done so.
This will occur because, for a reason that I simply cannot grasp, there is a desire by those leading the charge against 18c to limit any exposure of other anti-discrimination abuses. Instead of taking on the entire rotten anti-discrimination industry and exposing one injustice after another, there is a belief that more can be achieved by maintaining focus on 18c and one or two high profile cases.
It’s kinda like a football team pretending that it can win a match by focusing on scoring only in the first quarter. But any under 8 kid knows that you win by kicking as many goals as you can.
All this does is give those defending 18c a couple of big get-out-of-jail free cards. They can pretend that there is nothing wrong with the anti-discrimination industry as a whole because no one is exposing this real problem. Then they can argue that the problems with the high profile cases can be dealt with by minor amendments to 18c and the processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Anyone who believes this has simply failed to grasp the reality of the problem facing us.
The problem is not that the law says ‘offend’ instead of ‘harass’. Changing those words will do absolutely nothing. To the social justice warriors, everything is racist. Everything is homophobic. Everything is bigoted hate-speech. And if it’s not, then it falls into the category of latent or casual hate-speech and should be punished anyway.
The first problem (and the smaller one) is that 18c creates special laws for special people. Not everyone is equal but they live in a world where activists define who is to be protected and who can be punished. The law then creates a system where activist Thought Police ‘investigate’ complaints from other activists.
The second problem (and the bigger one) is that the above problem is not confined to 18c. There are numerous sets of backup laws for 18c if it is ever repealed or shut down. And all of these laws are worse. They are managed by kangaroo courts known as state-based tribunals rather than the Federal Court.
Let’s examine these problems by examining what would have awaited Bill Leak if the complaint against him went to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) as well as the AHRC, as it easily could. And as we go through this example, please keep in mind that it only deals with one state. There are five more out there plus the territories, so you can multiply the problems outlined below seven-fold.
First of all, the complaint would have been accepted. Bill would have faced two different investigations and two separate financial punishments for the same cartoon. Anti-discrimination law allows that.
And it would have been accepted regardless of who lodged it and where they (or Bill) lived.
The ADB believes that if it can be read on the internet in New South Wales then they can investigate too. And so does the New South Wales government. They’ve basically given themselves universal jurisdiction to ‘investigate’ your beliefs regardless if what you said is legal where you said it.
And don’t for one minute think that the ruling I obtained from the New South Wales Court of Appeal in February will change any of this (yet). That ruling specifically stated that it made no difference to whether complaints could be accepted by the ADB. It simply said the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) could not hear matters between residents of different states because it was not a ‘court of the state’.
But that has not stopped the NCAT from continuing to do just that anyway. It has not stopped New South Wales from appealing to the High Court. And it won’t stop the New South Wales parliament from passing legislation to make the NCAT a court anyway.
All of this means that Bill Leak would have been caught up in a legal nightmare far worse than the one he already faced.
The complaint against him would have been ‘investigated’ by an organisation that carefully avoids using the offensive words ‘Australia Day’ but that puts this on its Facebook page:
Just so you know, the Yaban Festival is based on the idea that January 26 represents an invasion. And the ADB is all supportive of that idea.
A quick perusal of the ADB’s Facebook page shows that it also likes to share the words of wisdom offered by Commissar Tim Whatsisface and that it also regularly holds seminars outlining the services it can provide to prospective customers. That’s a nice way of saying that the ADB is out and about touting for complaints. Just like the AHRC.
So between you, me and Einstein, I don’t think anyone could believe that a complaint against Bill Leak lodged with the New South Wales ADB would be ‘investigated’ impartially.
Odds on, it would have been referred to the NCAT.
Regardless of what might have happened in the AHRC if the complaint against Bill was not dropped, under New South Wales’ law Bill would have been facing fines of up to $100,000 and orders never to express similar views again lest he face contempt charges. And even if he won, the NCAT is a no cost tribunal. So he would have lost anyway.
But he would not have won.
The NCAT has already ruled that the words ‘pillow biter’ amount to hate, serious contempt or severe ridicule of homosexuals. So there is no ‘high’ threshold for vilification complaints. There is no threshold at all.
It has also ruled against Alan Jones, finding that his comments criticising self-described ‘Lebs’ who taunted police and mocked Anzac Day were racial hate-speech. It is not hard to imagine how the NCAT might have described Bill Leak’s cartoon after a social justice lawyer pointed out that he deliberately drew the Aboriginal father so that he did not even know his own kid’s name.
And lest you fall into the trap of believing that the NCAT is fair or impartial, it’s not. The NCAT division which oversees anti-discrimination complaints is nothing more than a kangaroo court. It is headed by a magistrate, Nancy Hennessy, who has had to recuse herself from a matter because evidence was presented that she held private conversations with the complainant. However, that has not stopped her dealing with complaints from this same complainant again.
And Hennessy has also helped fundraise for the HIV legal service while determining matters in which the HIV legal service was acting. This is a clear cut breach of the NCAT code of conduct which states:
Members are to:
refrain, other than during a hearing or in exceptional circumstances, from any communication (either oral or in writing) or association during the course of proceedings with a party, legal representative or witness in the absence of the other party or parties or their representatives.
Predictably, nothing has been done about it.
But wait. There’s more.
Jennifer Newman is a General Member of the NCAT.
The Australian Catholic University website lists a Jennifer Newman as a doctoral student. This is the photo of her on that webpage:
The same webpage describes her as a member of NCAT and describes her doctoral program researching Indigenous constitutional recognition in Australia, stating:
The form of constitutional amendment presently under consideration is confined to an act of recognition exercised by Australia, to which the responsive role available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is silent and passive.
This sounds like Jennifer Newman could reasonably be described as an academic Aboriginal activist.
And then there’s the Facebook page of a Jennifer Newman. It might be named ‘Jennifer Enn’, but the URL clearly shows that the page belongs to a person who set up an account named ‘Jennifer Newman’. And it states that the owner of that page studies at the Australian Catholic University.
Hmmmm. That’s a strange coincidence.
And here is a photo from ‘Jennifer Newman’s’ Facebook page. It looks very similar to the photo of Jennifer Newman on the Australian Catholic University website:
Except the information with this photo indicates that it was taken on Australia Day. But at an ‘Invasion Day’ protest. And this protest was advertised by the Facebook page set up by a person calling themselves ‘Jennifer Newman’.
It seems that the NCAT really has some questions to answer. Does it allow an Aboriginal activist who promotes ‘Invasion Day’ protests to hear and determine racial complaints?
If it does, and if a complaint was made against Bill Leak to the New South Wales ADB instead of the AHRC, it means that he may well have been facing a tribunal hearing overseen by a political activist instead of a Federal Court hearing in front of a judge.
In these circumstances would anyone be prepared to bet on a finding in his favour?
Luckily for Bill, the complaint never went to the ADB. But not everyone is as lucky as Bill. They do face complaints in this system and they don’t have a national newspaper in their corner. Their hellish stories are simply not told.
It would be fitting if Bill Leak’s legacy was the repeal of 18c. But it would also be a great shame if that change simply made the problem worse by driving complainants to even more woeful state-based systems.
That means we need to focus on more than just 18c. We need to look at the abuses across the entire anti-discrimination industry. And we need to hear from the other Bill Leaks too.
I intend to tell their stories over the coming weeks.
This article is about Grahame Perrett, the Federal Labor MP for Moreton, who also happens to be an Air Force reservist. He claims that this is permissible and that he hasn’t been paid in this role, but the documentary evidence is not so clear. And now it’s time for Mr Perrett to answer some questions.
After all, there is a real question as to whether the Constitution allows politicians to receive payment for holding an ‘office for profit’ under the Crown. In fact, the same kind of question has just seen Family First Senator, Bob Day, booted from the parliament. So it’s a question that needs answering.
And then there’s the other thorny problem of double-standards in Defence, although I’m rather getting the impression that the hierarchy is entirely comfortable wallowing in its own hypocrisy.
However, bear with me because it will take some time to get where we’re going.
Let’s have a bit of background first.
Last week the Full Court of the Federal Court ruled that the Chief of Defence Force could sack me. It did so on the basis that I ‘disobeyed’ orders, even though it also found that the Chief of Defence Force had no legal power to enforce those same orders, that they were directed to my conduct as a civilian and that I could not face any military disciplinary action for not obeying them.
That’s the legal system for you. No other system could find that orders that cannot be enforced and that there is no legal requirement to obey are still orders and that one can be sacked for not following them, even though one does not have to do so. And who knows where this leaves the military justice system, which cleared me at every step and can now be bypassed at the Chief of Defence Force’s whim…
Anyway, just for the moment, let’s pretend that these so-called ‘orders’ were, in fact, orders.
This is part of the ‘order’ I received on 6 February 2013:
“…LTCOL Buxton advised that MAJ Gaynor needed to resign or transfer to the inactive reserve if he wished to be elected to public office. LTCOL Buxton stated to MAJ Gaynor that “if you want a political career, you can’t have a military career. It’s against policy…”
By way of context, this is the actual lawful general order (DI(G) PERS 21-1 Political activities of Defence personnel) that was extant at the time Lieutenant Colonel Buxton got up me:
A Defence member who wishes to contest an election must apply to the member’s Service Chief for transfer to the appropriate Reserve, for discharge, or for termination of full-time duty, as relevant, specifying which election and seat the Defence member intends to contest. This must be done prior to the candidate’s nomination to the DRO or AEO because the point at which nominations close and are declared is the first possible moment at which a candidate, if unopposed, could be declared to have been elected. On receipt of this advice, the Defence member must be formally advised of their obligations and service requirements using the appropriate letter format at either annex B or annex C.
This actual order doesn’t say anywhere that it’s against policy for a Defence member to have a political career. On the contrary, it is all about what Defence members must do if they want to embark on a political career and remain in the Reserves. The same policy also has provisions to ensure that unsuccessful candidates can return to duty in their previous rank and position.
By way of context, I was not a candidate at the time and, even if I was, no election had been called so it was impossible to even nominate to the Australian Electoral Commission. Hence there was no requirement to resign to the inactive reserve. And all of this means that everything I did was in line with a written order signed by the Chief of Defence Force. But it was not in line with the opinion of a lieutenant colonel who was going about issuing ‘orders’ that overruled Defence’s Top Dog.
Also by way of context, the above order has now been replaced. The new one states that Defence members can even conduct political campaigning in uniform – so long as their campaign meets the personal approval of the Chief of Defence Force. Hmmmm.
Back to the ‘orders’.
The Federal Court has ruled that Lieutenant Colonel Buxton’s orders trump everyone else’s, allowing the Chief of Defence Force to sack me for actually obeying the orders that he issued, and for ‘disobeying’ the orders of lower ranked officer.
I guess all this means that if a soldier receives two conflicting directions he should ignore the one coming from the higher-ranked guy lest he end up losing his job.
Now, I really don’t want to harp on too much more about these orders, but I also need to point out another salient feature so that you can fully grasp them.
I challenged Lieutenant Colonel Buxton’s orders on the basis that they were an abuse of power and amounted to political discrimination in the Defence workplace, a serious matter that is prohibited by Defence’s unacceptable behaviour policy.
My complaint was dismissed without any formal investigation.
Because it was ‘found’ that Lieutenant Colonel Buxton did not actually issue me any orders at all and therefore could not have engaged in an abuse of power. This is the decision I received:
“Based on the QA report, the QA could elicit no evidence that CO DIntTC sought to prohibit your political activity. I have determined that CO DIntTC acted in an advisory capacity based on extant Defence policy and his actions do not amount to unacceptable behaviour. Therefore, I have decided that your complaint is not substantiated and no further action will be taken by me in relation to this complaint.”
Luckily for me, the bloke who cleared Buxton was a character of the greatest moral flexibility. He still proceeded to charge me with military offences for disobeying orders that he himself found were not orders at all.
On the bright side, when the charges dropped on the desk of the Acting Director of Military Prosecutions he simply shoved ‘em over the side and into the bin. He was of the opinion that there was not a snowball’s chance in hell of a conviction.
I’m not sure which of the crucial elements saw the scales of justice fall in my favour. Perhaps it was the fact that Buxton was trying to impose himself on my civilian life. Perhaps it was the utter confusion and two-faced double-standards used to both ‘enforce’ his orders and simultaneously prevent any investigation of them. Perhaps it was the fact that Army reservists can only be charged with military offences for things that they do in uniform or on duty. Or perhaps it was the fact that I was actually obeying the written direction of the Chief of Defence Force.
Who knows? And who cares either? After all, the Full Court of the Federal Court has decided that simplicity is key and all these questions can be swept under the carpet.
Which brings us back to the point: let’s pretend that these ‘orders’ are orders.
If it is an order that it is against policy for a Defence member to have a political career, then this order and policy should be applied evenly and across the board.
And this brings us to Mr Perrett.
On 10 February this year, I appeared before the Joint Parliamentary Committee into 18c. I was on one side of the table arguing for sanity and a Roman-style campaign to erase the Australian Human Rights Commission from the face of the earth. Graham Perrett was on the other side of the table. He was clearly in favour of whatever the opposite of this is.
I think, probably, this entails increased funding and a new para-military wing so that the Thought Police can kick in the doors of dissenters in the middle of the night. In the midst of the toing and froing over these various positions, Graham said this:
“I should declare that I am a legal officer in the Royal Australian Air Force—a flight lieutenant. I have never had anything to do with your case, I should say.”
I’m glad a Federal Labor MP had nothing to do with my case. But that doesn’t get me far because my case still clearly involves a hypocritical Defence Force that’s happy to have a Federal Labor MP who is paid to express political opinions on a daily basis in its ranks while ‘ordering’ a conservative nobody that ‘it’s against policy’ to express any political opinions at all as a private citizen.
And that’s the point on double-standards. If Defence is going down this path, it should cut the double-speak and stop the smoke and mirrors. Instead of pretending to be ‘apolitical’, it should just let everyone know that left-leaning members can speak their minds and campaign and that all others must keep their mouths shut.
Actually, on reflection, I suppose that is exactly what Defence’s new ‘apolitical’ policy allows. Silly me.
Unsurprisingly, after Graham Perrett’s admission I decided to approach him at the end of the hearing and raise these double-standards. Again, unsurprisingly, he was not interested in discussing them at all. Graham simply told me that he had not been paid by the Air Force before disappearing as fast as he could.
Given Graham’s admission, he might care to explain this document. It appears to say the opposite of what he says. And it comes from the Royal Australian Air Force:
The last column clearly states ‘Amount Paid’.
And all the figures have been redacted.
True, it is possible that the figures are ‘$0.00’. It’s also possible that it just records the amount that normally would have been paid and that no payments have been made to Graham Perrett at all.
But it’s also true that this redacted document very much gives the impression that Graham Perrett has been paid by the Air Force. After he was elected to parliament. And even though he says that he has not received a dime.
So, I’m prepared to accept Graham Perrett’s word that he has not been paid, but only after he explains this document.
Until then, there are serious questions to be answered. One of them goes to the political neutrality of the Australian Defence Force. And the other goes to the credibility of Graham Perrett’s word.
And this is without even bringing in section 44 of the Constitution. A 1996 High Court ruling overturned Jackie Kelly’s election to House of Representatives because she was a full-time Air Force officer at the time she nominated as a candidate. This was enough to result in her disqualification even though she was not paid after her election and even though many did not consider Kelly to have breached any constitutional requirements.
Who knows what the High Court might rule if it was tasked with determining whether a politicised Defence Force could employ MPs as reservists…
Over to you Graham.
Apparently, life wasn’t meant to be easy. And I’m finding out the hard way.
I’ve received notice that both the State of New South Wales and Garry Burns will be seeking leave to appeal to the High Court and challenge our recent win in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. I remain very confident that we can defend this win and put an end to the tyranny being wrought by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB). However, it is slightly frustrating to have to go through the process again.
For those who are not aware, the ADB believes it has the power to prosecute anyone anywhere in Australia and at any time if they happen to express the ‘wrong’ views about marriage. I was facing up to $1.6 million in fines until recently when some sort of sanity prevailed and the New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that the ADB had no power to pursue complaints against non-New South Wales residents.
You can read the judgement here.
Unfortunately, if you do live in New South Wales then you are stuck with the Thought Police. Tread warily, lest you be caught in their traps.
Because even though I’ve already won in the Tribunal, and won again in the highest court in the state, the Thought Police roll on.
It’s almost like they have absolute contempt for court orders.
Here is part of yesterday’s hearing list for the Tribunal:
You’ll notice it contains one complainant extraordinaire. And it contains a number of victims. Every single one of them lives outside New South Wales.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled over a month ago that complaints cannot be prosecuted against non-New South Wales residents. And yet there I was incurring costs again yesterday as a result of a serial complainant and an out of control Kangaroo Court.
So now I have to go back to court again to put a stop to this farce.
Of course, this irritation blackened my mood but not as much as the decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal earlier this week. It ruled that I am not entitled to any costs for my win. And it also ordered that I pay part of Burns’ costs as well. You can read that judgement here.
This is the second time that I’ve been ordered to pay Burns’ costs even though I actually won the matter.
It’s a good life for a homosexual activist. It’s not so much fun if you’re a straight guy who likes to serve the nation and also feels like he should have the same rights to express himself as others.
Because you’re just not allowed to do that.
On Wednesday, the Full Court of the Federal Court decided that the Chief of Defence Force’s decision to terminate my appointment was lawful. It also ordered me to pay costs.
As a reminder, after Defence started marching down Oxford Street (in uniform) with those who viciously mock my Catholic faith and a bunch of political parties and lobby groups all calling for open borders and homosexual marriage, I expressed my unhappiness.
I also pointed out that Defence policies expressly prohibited uniformed attendance at political events, or support of political and religious vilification, or support of inappropriate sexual behaviour.
Just so you know, much of the Mardi Gras is so inappropriate that it can’t be displayed on Defence IT systems. Instead of upholding these policies and the political neutrality of the ADF, the Chief of Defence decided it would be easier to sack me instead.
And then he promptly changed the policy to allow uniformed political activity – as long as it met with his approval. Now the legal system has decided that there’s not a problem to see here.
You can read the full judgement here as well.
Fortunately, normal ordinary Australians aren’t so blind. Nearly 15,000 have signed a petition in the last week calling on Defence to restore its apolitical status. And I will be taking this matter to the High Court if leave is granted.
The fight goes on as it must. If you wish to assist, it would be greatly appreciated. Click here to donate.
That’s been my week. It was the first full week in Lent. And to cap it all off, it’s ended with my car transforming itself from something useful into a large paperweight out the front of our house.
It has reminded me of the famous story of St Therese of Avila:
And while Teresa’s spirituality was a deeply reverential one, her humor also evinces a kind of playfulness in her relationship with God. Once, when she was travelling to one of her convents, St. Teresa of Ávila was knocked off her donkey and fell into the mud, injuring her leg. “Lord,” she said, “you couldn’t have picked a worse time for this to happen. Why would you let this happen?”
And the response in prayer that she heard was, “That is how I treat my friends.”
Teresa answered, “And that is why you have so few of them!”
Today Australia lost a great.
A wonderful artist. A champion of freedom. A giant of our time.
Bill Leak, the cartoonist for The Australian newspaper, died of a suspected heart attack this morning. He was 61. As a nation we are poorer for his passing.
Bill Leak stood out for one main reason: he was prepared to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day. And he did so with clarity, humour and a rare ability to identify and expose hypocrisy in an instant.
Unfortunately, his gifts may well have led to his early death. Challenge conventional wisdom and you will be hauled before the Thought Police. I know from personal experience how stressful this can be.
It is well known that the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) facilitated a direct and personal attack on Leak recently through section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. This organisation condemned him first. Then it went on to drum up complaints against him – complaints that the AHRC would ‘investigate’ – so that, I suppose, he could be condemned again.
A more blatant example of bias and prejudice is hard to conceive.
It is with some justification that Rowan Dean, a close friend of Leak, states that he has been hounded to his grave. It certainly appears to be the case.
If Bill Leak was great for his work, he was greater for fighting off the attack he faced in the last six months of his life. And the power of his defence was that it was done with laughter: laughter at the expense of those persecuting him. Laughter that was accompanied by the cheers of Australians everywhere, backing him for his fighting spirit.
The cartoon that caused Leak the trouble to start with is shown below.
After revelations of cruelty within Northern Territory detention centres led to the establishment of a royal commission, Leak wanted to make a point: addressing the problem could not be done merely by improving the jail system, but only by strengthening the family system. Leak’s clear hope was that strengthening all families – including Aboriginal ones – would prevent youth from being detained in the first place.
Yet for his troubles he was called a racist. And a bigot. Then hauled before Gillian Triggs’ Thought Police.
Leak’s response was mocking humour at its best. He simply showed the AHRC Commissars to be the empty vessels that they are.
Leak’s talent also struck a politically-correct nerve in other areas: Islam and the totalitarian nature of homosexual politics.
His work was so powerful that he was forced to move his home. He had become a target of the Islamic State. And to read the sad and hateful comments on Twitter today about Leak shows that the politically-correct frenzied mob wanted him dead as well.
Fortunately, his work will live on.
I leave you with three of my favourite Bill Leak cartoons.
Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and may perpetual light shine upon him.
The Australian Defence Force will be unlawfully marching in the Mardi Gras again this year. In doing so, it will also undermine our democracy and show very clearly that the push for ‘marriage equality’ is far more dangerous than most think.
Let me walk you through it.
The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) website makes it very simple. All participants in the Mardi Gras parade must contribute to the political goals of the parade.
There is simply no denying this. It is spelt out in the section titled ‘What SGLMG expects from Entrants’:
The Parade is a protest and a celebration that is world renowned and belongs to a creative and vibrant community. All entrants are expected not just to take part, but to contribute to the artistic and political goals of SGLMG and help create an event that is world standard.
And there is also no denying the political goals of the SGLMG. They are spelt out loud and proud on page 8 of the 2017 Mardi Gras Festival Guide which details the theme for this year’s parade:
2017 is the perfect time to celebrate the progress that has been achieved in creating equality. But with the spotlight clearly focused on marriage equality, now is the time for us to work together to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms.
All parade participants are signing up to ‘marriage equality’. That’s all well and good if it’s just a bunch of private citizens exercising their democratic rights.
But it’s not. Numerous taxpayer-funded state and federal bureaucracies participate to show their support for a radical political agenda that ordinary Australians aren’t even allowed to vote on. With them will be the Australian Defence Force. It will be marching again this year, as detailed in the message below:
The Australian Defence Force will be marching in uniform, a potent symbol of military power. It sends a very clear message: the Australian Defence Force is prepared to join a protest on the streets against the law of the land and the government of the day. It also sends a very powerful and disturbing message to those Australians who might just happen to support this law: the Australian Defence Force is marching against you too.
This might sound dramatic. It is dramatic. But it’s also the truth.
Australia has had a long history in which the Australian Defence Force respected its legal requirement to refrain from interference in domestic politics. Those days are over.
Domestic politics is now very much a concern of the Chief of Defence Force. He has given himself the power to determine what political activity his soldiers can support and in uniform.
This is the wording of Defence’s new policy on political activity (found on page 349 of the document linked here):
1.9 In any political activity, unless permitted by the Chief of the Defence Force, Defence members are not to:
1. take a leading or publicly prominent position or part in the affairs of a political organisation or party where that role would identify any part of Defence with a political activity and/or impair their ability to adequately fulfil their obligations to Defence
2. take part in activities of a political nature on Defence premises unless all of the following applies:
(1) the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has issued relevant Caretaker Conventions
(2) Defence has issued specific guidance
(3) the area has been set aside as a polling place on polling days in accordance with section 80 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
3. use any information gained by, or conveyed to them through their connection with Defence
4. allow such activity to interfere with the functioning of Defence in the performance of its roles, or prejudice performance of their duties as Defence members
5. engage in conduct in such a manner as to identify Defence with a political activity, position or perspective
6. use their rank when identifying, describing, or referring to themselves
7. wear their uniform
8. publish pictures of themselves or other Defence members in uniform
9. wear party ribbons or emblems or other political badges while on duty or in uniform.
Needless to say, there is no lawful power or legal basis that permits the Chief of Defence Force to determine the political activity that can be carried out in uniform. This policy is itself unlawful. It was only changed recently in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that the former and current Chief of Defence Force knew that it was a service offence to march at the Mardi Gras in uniform.
Unfortunately, the government of the day has turned a blind eye to this. In effect, it is condoning military interference in domestic political activity and letting a very dangerous genie out of its bottle in order to avoid a rainbow backlash.
And it is also empowering a clique of officers who are utilising the Defence Force to pursue their own political goals. This clique is called DEFGLIS. It is so brazen in its disregard for the law that it is providing directions, uniforms and ‘orders’ to Defence members on its own non-government website.
This should come as no surprise. Once a military force engages in direct political activity against the government that controls it, it logically follows that a separate and unlawful command structure will also be established.
DEFGLIS also seeks to purge out Defence members who are brave enough to question its unlawful authority. I have the emails where it used its network in the hierarchy to do exactly that to me.
This is a very serious situation. The government must reassert its authority over the Defence Force and end its interference in domestic political activity. Unfortunately, there can be no confidence at all that the Defence Minister, Marise Payne, will do this.
And that means Australia will continue drifting towards a very dangerous place. The rainbow on the road was crossed in 2013. And for the last four years the current and former Chief of Defence Force have allowed the military to go increasingly rogue.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there will be a coup. But I am saying that today the Australian Defence Force is knowingly interfering in domestic political matters.
Both are on the broad spectrum of military threats to democracy.
I’m also saying that we should be under no illusions about where ‘marriage equality’ is headed. It’s much more than a slogan and a rainbow. Behind it is the unapologetic expectation that political, legal, police and military power can be co-opted to ensure the eradication of all dissent.
As an aside, it is important to note that there are significant tensions within the hierarchy of the Australian Defence Force over participation in the Mardi Gras and other politically-correct nonsense.
Not everyone has signed up.
For instance, the former RSM of the Army, Dave Ashley, proudly marched in the 2015 Mardi Gras. He has also informed Defence members that he did not care that it was political.
The current RSM of the Army, Don Spinks, would have been under enormous pressure to follow in his predecessor’s footsteps. However, he has not marched down Oxford Street at all.
Consequently, Warrant Officer Don Spinks deserves a great deal of respect for doing what is right, rather than what is popular. If only we could say the same about the generals he works for…