This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
I’m not surprised.
So I doubt you will be either.
Chief Inspector Nicole Bruce from the New South Wales ‘Professional Standards’ Unit and Richmond Area Command contacted me yesterday.
She rang to inform me that the New South Police would take no action against Gary Burns for this email:
Or this one:
Or for any of the hundreds of other abusive emails I have received from him about such things as my children’s sexual preferences or how he thinks I deserve to be raped in jail.
As you may know, my family moved our home due to safety concerns after Gary Burns thought it would be a laugh to contact Islamic organisations and offer them my personal details. Hence my complaint to the police that Gary Burns was using a carriage service to harass, menace or cause offence.
Previously in this saga, the Queensland Police took no action because Burns lives in New South Wales and the New South Wales Police took no action because I live in Queensland. Hilariously, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) did take action. Against me.
It believes it has universal jurisdiction to silence all dissent to homosexual activism and was upset that I didn’t appreciate Burns’ emails.
However, the law in question here is a Commonwealth law. There is no jurisdictional issue and I was relieved yesterday that I did not hear the word ‘jurisdiction’ once.
Nope. There is a whole new excuse as to why the New South Wales Police won’t touch Burns’ emails. Nicole told me that no action would be taken this time around because Burns has claimed that his email was hacked.
As a story it sounds exciting. But it’s actually full of holes.
Have a good look again at the second email above. And then look at this screenshot of Gary Burns’ old website:
The article and the email, strangely, have identical titles and subjects. So either Burns’ website was hacked as well, or the mysterious ‘hacker’ decided to break his way into Burns’ computer for the purpose of emailing me a link to Burns’ article, or Burns’ email was not hacked at all.
Given Burns left the post up on his old website for months, I would be betting on the latter option. Especially so, given the same words also went up on his Facebook page:
Suffice to say, I was rather irate when told by the good Chief Inspector that the case was closed due to the information police had received about the ‘hacking’. And the phone call ended shortly thereafter.
Then I quietly pondered the implications of what I had been told. I found them rather disturbing.
Let’s examine what this really means.
The New South Wales Police believed that there is some truth to the story that a cyber-criminal mastermind weaselled his way into the email account of one of the most prominent homosexual activists in New South Wales and started flinging outrageous messages to Islamic organisations that also contain very personal information.
If this ‘hacking’ claim has any skerrick of truth then Gary Burns’ life is in danger. Mix hackers, Islam and homosexual activists and you’re setting up an ‘Allahu akbar’ moment.
Yet there will be no police investigation of this at all, let alone any further investigation as to how my personal details came to be involved. And I am supposed to be entirely content with this situation.
However, I am not. That is why I called Chief Inspector Nicole Bruce back to ask why there would be no investigation of this serious problem.
It was then, I think, that we came closer to the truth.
Nicole also explained that nothing further would occur as the emails were considered to be ‘free speech’ in the context of my ‘relationship’ with anti-free speech activist Gary Burns and that a normal person would not consider them to be harassing, menacing or even offensive.
So I would like to put on the public record exactly what my ‘relationship’ with Gary Burns entails.
I write about attacks on the normal family unit. Then Gary Burns lodges complaints about me with the ADB because he claims there is no such thing as free speech. He also then bombards me with abusive emails because, like, free speech. I then have the pleasure of moving for my safety and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending myself in the courts, lest I be forced into a position of choosing between being ordered to apologise to Burns by magistrates who also like to chat with him privately or be jailed for contempt (I’d choose the latter by the way).
And, as the icing on the cake of this ‘relationship’, when I publish Gary Burns’ emails (the same ones that New South Wales Police have now informed me he claims were hacked), he lodges complaints with the ADB that I have ‘victimised’ him for making fun of his emails. Strangely enough, in all the documentation sent to the ADB, Burns has never once claimed that his email has been hacked.
As you can see, this kind of ‘relationship’ is not conducive for the exchange of Christmas cards.
By way of background, it should be noted that Chief Inspector Nicole Bruce is also a GLLO – that stands for Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer. She didn’t seem to think that this detail was relevant. I beg to differ. But I am probably just biased and homophobic.
No doubt, as a Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer, Nicole Bruce is extraordinarily well placed to determine that a gay activist’s emails threatening me with assault on the basis of my Catholic faith and causing significant safety concerns for my family are not harassing or menacing.
But, if this is going to be the way things are, I do have a suggestion for the New South Wales Police: amend your webpage on bias crimes. The way it’s written, people like me are liable to gain an impression that everyone is to be protected from bias crimes that target people as a result of things such as their religious beliefs.
That’s obviously not the case when it comes to Catholics.
I don’t want you to get the impression that the various police forces in this nation don’t take the offence of using a carriage service to harass or menace seriously.
Just last week an Adelaide-supporting Aboriginal woman was charged with this offence for writing on Facebook that Port Adelaide star, Eddie Betts, should ‘go back to the zoo’.
And recently an Ipswich woman in Queensland was charged for the statements below to an Islamic activist who objected to supermarkets selling T-Shirts with the Australian flag and the words, ‘Love it or Leave’:
She was convicted and sentenced to 180 hours of community service.
I don’t condone this behaviour. It certainly does not help us to win the arguments that we need to win. But I would like some consistency. This is just another of the emails sent to me by Gary Burns:
It is obviously nothing like the words sent to the Islamic activist…
…oh yeah, Burns is also having people charged with this offence too – probably after a Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer made an assessment about what an average person might find offensive.
This is from Burns’ website in March this year:
Tomorrow is Anzac Day.
We will see politicians blather on about freedom. We will see ‘community leaders’ drone on about its importance to the current generation.
And we will see the day high-jacked by a uniformed LGBT clique to send a political message that even Anzac Day needs to be re-imaged in the rainbow.
All will nod their heads wisely and mouth platitudes about remembering, even as they forget everything about this day’s history.
As a nation, we are not just forgetting the sacrifices of those from a century ago. We’ve even pressed CTRL + ALT + DEL on the efforts of the past 15 years.
Consider this. The Gallipoli campaign was a military disaster that was still supposed to have been worth it because Kemal Ataturk, the bloke who organised the Turkish eviction of the Anzacs, eventually became the President of Turkey, promptly killed off the caliphate and set the foundations for modern Turkey. And just last week Recep Tayyip Erdogan set about restoring the caliphate while denouncing the West’s ‘crusader mentality’.
Lest we whatever.
Also consider this. A century ago large numbers of Australian men were engaged in the brutal and bloody work of defending France and Belgium. And this week France finds itself utterly divided and in the middle of a presidential election that has brought to the surface a horrible truth: there are more than 16,000 people on the French terrorism watch list. There have been more than 25 Islamic terrorist attacks in France since 2012.
Lest we whatever.
France and Turkey might be on the other side of the world. Australians are not responsible for slow-motion train wreck playing out over there. But a close look at our own backyard should remove any smugness.
To put it bluntly, over the past 15 years Australia has been fighting an enemy while welcoming it in. We’ve been sending bullets and Arabic-language Centrelink information sheets to the same people.
Like I said, lest we whatever.
Tens of thousands of Australian men and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. More than 40 have given their lives. Hundreds have been wounded. And in that time Australia’s Islamic population has doubled.
This community has repaid its debt by sending its sons off to the same wars. They’re just fighting for the other side.
More than 70 Muslims from Australia have died fighting for the Islamic State. This is from just over 2% of the population. To put it in perspective, if the rest of Australia suffered casualties at the same rate as our Islamic community, we’d have lost about 3,000 soldiers on operations over the past decade and a half.
There is going to be a lot said tomorrow about PTSD and suicide among veterans. I don’t profess to be an expert on this issue, but I can say that it can’t be good for the mental health of veterans if they feel betrayed and that their military service was worthless.
I also don’t profess to speak for all veterans. But I reckon I speak for a few.
And I can say this: we have served and we are angry. The government has betrayed our sacrifices. Each soldier deployed is asked a question: are you prepared to give your life for your country?
That’s what military service entails. Thousands have answered that question to protect Australia from Islamic violence.
Unfortunately, cowardly politicians in Canberra have sent our soldiers off to die while allowing the enemy in the front door.
There is no clearer proof than this: in 2001 we were chasing Osama bin Laden across Afghan Badlands whereas today Hizb ut Tahrir uses council libraries to hold meetings in Sydney and call for laws that allow the execution of Islamic apostates.
Osama might be dead but we are not winning this war. That is plainly obvious.
Not to worry, tomorrow the Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service (DEFGLIS) will lay rainbow wreaths to commemorate ‘the silent’, even as they take active steps to drum out of service anyone who dares to speak contrary to their ‘tolerant’ worldview.
It was the DEFGLIS chairman who had me investigated for ‘racism’ for my views on Islam and then lobbied Defence hierarchy to have me punished and/or sacked.
I think it’s fair to say that if we do lose this war, it will be due to self-inflicted wounds…
Good Friday marked a month since the passing of Hedley Thomas (Snr) AM. He died on the Gold Coast on 14 March 2017 and served with distinction in Vietnam as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.
Hedley first contacted me in mid-2014. He was straight to the point:
“I have some material for your talks. I’m an ex RAAF wing commander – not a nutter.”
And he certainly was no nutter. Rather, Australia is worse for his loss. As reported by Des Houghton in the Courier Mail, Hedley was alive to the threat posed by Islam long before many Australians had even heard of it:
“The former RAAF helicopter and military jet pilot, and avid long-distance solo sailor, began to warn incessantly about the looming risks to the West of Islamic extremism in the early 90s, a decade before the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
His antenna for strife was well tuned as a 28-year-old RAAF chopper pilot in the Vietnam War, as a leader of squadrons, and, later, as commander of a United Nations taskforce in the Middle East.
Thomas was a genuine Australian warrior and one of the most plain-speaking blokes I have ever met…
…He had been campaigning to alert people to Saudi and other Islamic hardliners for years. He understood the Saudi mentality better than most, having lived for six years in Riyadh as a pilot instructor with British Aerospace, a decade after he left the air force as a Wing Commander.
The oppression and anti-West sentiments he found in Saudi Arabia shocked and worried him. He was especially concerned by the persecution of women whose rights are brutally suppressed under Islamic law.”
Hedley Thomas was responsible for raising concerns about Saudi funding for Griffith University a decade ago. Those concerns remain with leaked Saudi documents revealing in 2015 that this funding continues across Australia in order to influence universities, media and Islamic groups.
It was Hedley who first drew my attention to the Navy’s infamous Mona Shindy. He sent me a link to her 2015 speech to the Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales stating:
“When I first came across it I thought it was a practical joke, as the article contains so many errors. However, Shindy actually exists and the article is genuine.”
Indeed Shindy does exist and remains in the Navy. And it was not surprising that her speech concerned Hedley. Shindy, in her capacity as an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, called for government funding for mosques, imams and pro-Islamic ‘education’ of the Australian community. She also offered excuses for the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, blamed terrorism on our continued ‘oppression’ of Muslims and demanded that the actions of the Islamic world cease being viewed through a ‘Western lens’. You can read my article about Shindy’s speech here.
Fortunately, the efforts of this website did result in the removal of Shindy’s Twitter account. That was an important victory and it would not have occurred without the initial actions of Hedley Thomas.
I remain extremely grateful for the support that Hedley Thomas provided this website and for the support provided by many other Vietnam veterans. His name is now on the 9 Squadron Association honour roll, sadly with an increasing number of others.
Australia treated these men with contempt on their return from operations. It took many years for this shameful chapter in our history to be addressed. Today’s veterans have not had to face the same problem. However, I personally am concerned that they may face one far worse: a nation that appears grateful for service on the surface, but that underneath has shown far greater contempt by opening the door to the enemy.
Hedley Thomas provides an example for today’s veterans: the war might be over but the fight to defend our values goes on. As Anzac Day approaches, it is fitting that he be remembered for his service to Australia. Both in Vietnam and at home.
Lest we forget
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him.
Two weeks ago, Cory Bernardi visited Brisbane. The function he held was not advertised widely. Bernardi’s new party, the Australian Conservatives, did not plug it and nor did Cory’s regular weekly email.
Yet the event organised by Liberty Works quickly sold out and it was standing room only. A number of prominent Queensland conservatives from a spectrum of political and community groups attended.
This demonstrates the South Australian Senator’s unique position in conservative politics. Unlike any other politician, Bernardi has the potential to unite conservative Australians.
This is one key factor that will assist Bernardi as the Australian Conservatives begin the process of registering for state and federal elections. The other is time.
Firstly to his support. Bernardi is highly regarded across conservative groups. He still has links and influence with the conservatives left inside the Liberal Party. And he is well supported by those who make up the membership of the large number of minor conservative parties.
This has already seen the Australian Conservatives assemble talent from across conservative politics. Kirralie Smith, formerly the Australian Liberty Alliance Senate candidate for New South Wales, has joined forces with Bernardi. Meanwhile, Bernardi’s Chief of Staff since March has been Rikki Lambert. He comes from a high profile background with Family First.
The crowd at Bernardi’s Brisbane function told a similar story. There were increasingly unhappy Liberals, a large number of people heavily involved with the Australian Liberty Alliance campaign in Queensland and members of Family First and other conservative minor parties.
One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts, was also in attendance.
This all speaks to Bernardi’s unique ability to bring conservative Australians together. We may well see this result in some form of unification of the minor conservative vote – a vote that exceeds that of the Greens but has not been able to exert anywhere near their level of influence.
But this will take time and brings us to the second factor favouring Bernardi. He does have time and it will take time for any mergers to play out.
Family First may be considering one given that its South Australian leader, Dennis Hood, went on the public record in February to state that his party would aim to support Bernardi. Furthermore, it is reported that Bernardi reached an agreement with Rikki Lambert to allow him to quit to take Bob Day’s Senate seat if the opportunity arose. However, the recent appointment of Lucy Gichuhi to that seat is likely to change the dynamics of any potential merger discussions.
The Australian Liberty Alliance did begin discussions to merge with the Australian Conservatives but that has since been ruled out.
However, regardless of whether the Australian Conservatives and other parties agree to formal mergers, the result is likely to be the same: the membership base will move to Bernardi anyway. We have seen that with Kirralie Smith and it is the common story that I have heard over and again in Queensland.
Another possibility is some kind of coalition. This may occur with One Nation especially as both Cory Bernardi and Malcolm Roberts made it clear to the crowd in Brisbane that they are already cooperating in some form of loose alliance on many issues.
However, Cory does not need to rush into any agreements.
He needs to build slowly, strongly and credibly. If he is to be successful, he will need to build a party that is more than a fan club. He will also need to replicate what has worked well in the major parties and that is their organisational strength and structure. It is only this structure that has kept them together even as their leaders and elected representatives pursue agendas that are loathed by a growing number of voters.
Furthermore, if the Australian Conservatives can build credibly it will position the party well if either the Liberals or One Nation self-detonates.
The Liberals appear increasingly likely to lose the next election. As time runs out for the Turnbull government the pressure inside the party room will only increase. It is only a bunfight away from civil war over an issue like homosexual marriage, Islam or free speech. Cory might appear to be alone now but that could quickly change.
Similarly, there is a widely-help perception that One Nation is a headline away from implosion. Pauline Hanson might have a great deal of support for her tenacity and strength of character. The same cannot be said for her ability to build and maintain a team. Further, with James Ashby at the centre of One Nation there are real question marks about the party’s position on social policies and the principles behind them. If the issue of homosexual marriage is a hand grenade for the Liberals, it could be a minefield for One Nation. It was the issue that tore apart Katter’s Australian Party after Bob Katter promoted candidates who held views that did not align with the party base and Pauline could easily find herself in the same position.
Only time will tell if there are any eruptions. But politics is increasingly volatile and one cannot be ruled out. Any friction on the conservative side of politics is likely to increase Bernardi’s strength.
And then there’s the upcoming budget and yet another year of massive deficits from a ‘conservative’ government. It will mean that Bernardi has a target-rich environment and can focus on economic issues as well as conservative concerns about social policies.
All of this means that Cory Bernardi and the Australian Conservatives should not be dismissed.
Polling out earlier this week found that only about two percent of Australians strongly support Cory Bernardi. I suspect that this polling is probably correct. If there was an election tomorrow, it is hard to see a successful outcome for the Australian Conservatives. However, there is no election tomorrow. Furthermore, Pauline Hanson had similar numbers in the lead up to the last election and we all saw how rapidly her support increased.
At the moment many conservative Australians are behind Pauline Hanson because she has had the courage to point out that we are headed down the wrong road. However, this is not the same thing as leading Australians on the path to success. That requires an entirely different type of leadership. If Cory Bernardi can provide it his numbers will only increase. And they won’t just come from One Nation and the other minor conservative parties. There are still many Liberal voters looking for something better as well. They will move to Cory too if he can provide a home. His response to the upcoming budget will provide him an opportunity to lay the foundation to that home.
I’m not one to wantonly praise Waleed Aly. However, every now and again he does a work of public service that deserves recognition.
And, to be fair to Australia’s coolest Muslim, last week he did just that.
He proved that halal certification is a scam.
I’m not sure that’s what Waleed Aly intended to do. I think he was rather more intent on smugly and condescendingly trolling ordinary Australians who simply want to buy an Easter egg that celebrates Easter rather than funding Islam. Considering Easter is a Christian celebration, it’s really not a strange request.
I am well aware that many Australians have taken their business from Cadbury and instead moved to Lindt as a result of Cadbury’s decision to pay for halal certification. So, on prime time television, Waleed Aly attempted to give these people the finger by eating a Lindt bunny.
Good for him. All it proves is that the entire halal certification industry is costly and pointless and that the ‘product’ it ‘sells’ is worthless. Muslims don’t need a halal certification logo as Waleed so emphatically demonstrated.
It was all a bit of a laugh for the cool brigade that tunes into Channel 10’s The Project. But at the end of it all Waleed Aly was literally left with egg on his face. And it was not halal certified.
A few weeks ago an interesting little story surfaced.
And then it was promptly forgotten.
No. I’m not talking about Keysar Trad helpfully explaining that Islamic law allows a husband to beat his wife. Instead, I’m referring to Hizb ut Tahrir’s confession that Sharia law demands the execution of those who leave this ideology for something else.
This story comes due to the courage of Alison Bevege. She attended a Hizb ut Tahrir conference at the Bankstown public library in March and confronted Uthman Badar about its proposed constitution for an Islamic Australia. Article 7 (3) states this:
Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have themselves renounced Islam. If they are born as non-Muslims, i.e., if they are the sons of apostates, then they are treated as non-Muslims according to their status as being either polytheists (mushriks) or People of the Book.
You can read the rest of this document here.
You can watch Alison Bevege’s question here (and please note how she does not allow Badar to weasel his way out of an answer):
And you can contact the City of Canterbury Bankstown Council to congratulate them on demonstrating their diversity and tolerance of Hizb ut Tahrir here.
Of course, some may find it wildly newsworthy that:
- Islamic law requires the execution of apostates, and
- Islamic organisations support this law.
However, the reality is that the former is not newsworthy to anyone who’s cared to spend more than 3 seconds googling Islamic law and the latter is about as newsworthy as news that the Labor Party supports the goals of the union movement.
So this little story is interesting, not for what we have learnt about Islam, but for what we have learnt about ourselves: collectively, we don’t have much of an idea about this barbaric ideology at all. And the fact that it has already been forgotten so quickly is proof that we are not really interested in learning about it either. But that’s another issue.
To be fair to Uthman, he’s not calling for the execution of Islamic apostates now. He’s just saying that they’re safe until Sharia law is implemented in Australia. When Hizb ut Tahrir first released its Islamic constitution the forecast was that this would take about 25 years. It’s since been revised and Islam is scheduled to take a little longer to conquer Australia: set your clocks for 2670.
As an aside, Uthman Badar’s reticence to go about executing Islamic apostates is a key insight into most of the objections in the wider Islamic world against the Islamic State.
As a general rule, beheading apostates in Islam is not a problem but it’s only one half of the law. The other half requires the sentence to be given by a person with the authority to give it.
And that’s the really tricky question. Mohammad left behind a legal system that was heavy on every aspect of daily life but pretty light on when it came to succession planning and power. As a result, Islam has been riven by an internal civil war since the day he died. That’s hardly surprising given the only thing his warring band of followers agreed on was that violence was a legitimate way to sort out problems. All of them.
So Uthman has helped us all understand the Islamic world’s opposition to the Islamic State: it’s all about power and authority and has nothing to do with morality.
It’s not what the Islamic State does that is questionable under Islamic law; it’s whether the self-declared caliph and his cronies have the authority to do what they do that gets imams across the world hot and bothered. Furthermore, any imam that recognises the caliphate has to give up his own power. So it comes as no surprise that there’s not a lot of takers for that.
This eternal and internal Islamic power struggle is clearly evident in other ways. For instance, the Australian National Imams’ Council spends a lot of time berating ‘unrecognised’ imams. Advising imams of other such things as the finer points of Australian law in regards to child marriage is a lesser priority:
And the regular stories of warring imams at your local mosque are merely another reflection of this reality:
But back to Uthman, Hizb ut Tahrir and our surprise that Islamic law requires the execution of apostates.
Just over two years ago a number of Islamic clerics signed a petition supporting Hizb ut Tahrir. I assume these clerics were ‘moderates’ because one of them was appointed as the first imam for the Australian Defence Force. And I would hate to uncharitably judge our government by rashly coming to the conclusion that they deliberately appointed an ‘extremist’ to the job.
So where does Sheikh Mohammadu Nawas Saleem stand on Hizb ut Tahrir and Sharia law now?
Does he believe that the penalty for apostasy under Islamic law is death?
More importantly, does he reject this aspect of Sharia law?
Given Saleem has previously called for Sharia law in Australia, has happily backed a group that condemns Anzac Day and was part of the peak Islamic body in Australia that rejected laws prohibiting the advocation of terrorism on the basis that they infringe the free speech of Islamic preachers, his track record is less than encouraging.
On the balance of probabilities, it seems likely that the Australian Defence Force is now being advised by a bloke who shares similar views to Uthman Badar on the lawfulness of executing apostates.
Welcome to diversity world where everything is tolerated except common sense.
Yesterday I filed an application in the High Court appealing the full Federal Court’s judgement that it was lawful for the Chief of Defence Force to sack me for my conservative political beliefs.
We now wait for the High Court to grant leave for an appeal or to reject the application. I am hopeful that the appeal will proceed and I remain confident of success.
I issued this press release yesterday:
5 APRIL 2015
FREE SPEECH CASE FILED IN HIGH COURT
Today I filed an application in the High Court seeking special leave to appeal the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s judgement that it was lawful for the Chief of Defence Force to sack me for my political communications.
Writing about this case yesterday in Fairfax media, employment law specialist, John Wilson, noted that this case had significant implications for all public servants.
He also identified the reason this case must be fought, stating:
“There is something deeply unsettling about the government seeking to regulate an individual’s views, whether public servant, army reservist or ordinary citizen.”
Indeed there is. That is why I have fought this case.
I thank my legal team and all those who have assisted me to get this far.
The Canberra Times article covering this case can be read here. It highlights the implications this case will have for all public servants. I believe it goes much further and will have ramifications for all workers in Australia. Essentially, it will set an important precedent deciding whether workers give up their political freedom and hand over their allegiance to the ‘corporate line’ when they go begging for a job.
And with news over the last week that big business is also seeking to force workers to wear ‘same-sex marriage’ rings, it is clear that we are facing a form of political slavery in Australia.
Yesterday I also filed a response to a number of appeal applications lodged in the High Court by Garry Burns, New South Wales and the New South Wales Attorney-General. This matter will decide whether New South Wales can use its draconian anti-discrimination laws against anyone in Australia.
Again, I remain confident that we will win this case and defend the ruling we obtained earlier this year in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
Both of these matters are symptoms of a growing disease we face in Australia: totalitarianism. Under the guise of anti-discrimination laws, activists have high-jacked the public service, Defence and big business to push their anti-freedom agenda.
As Stephen Chavura writes in today’s Australian newspaper, it doesn’t really matter what the laws say if totalitarian activists deny freedom in other ways. And he highlights an important point. It is the ordinary citizen who decides if this freedom will be taken from them via cultural oppression:
What’s the difference between a repressive totalitarian state and a state with liberal democratic laws whose citizens do not respect the freedoms that such laws guarantee? Nothing.
A country can have the most liberal freedom of speech and association laws in the world, but if its citizens are not animated by the spirit of the laws, if they do not believe in them, then these laws are a dead letter…
…And that’s the distinction on which we need to be clear: between the right to freedom and the ability to enjoy that right. Only politicians can curtail our rights to freedom as embodied in our laws. Yet our fellow citizens can make sure that those rights are more costly to enjoy — so costly that we cannot afford to enjoy them.
That’s precisely what is happening in Australia with Hirsi Ali’s aborted speaking tour, not to mention pro-traditional marriage conferences across the past 18 months where citizens have tried to intimidate venues into cancelling contracts to host events.
Yes, the right to freedom of speech still exists, but the cost has become too high for speech that falls foul of Muslim and LGBTI identity politics.
We cannot allow freedom to be stolen from our children by remaining silent today. That is why we must continue this fight. I thank you for your ongoing support and generosity. Without your assistance we would not have an appeal application sitting in the High Court, nor would we be able to defend the victories we have already achieved.
This website and the many readers who support it are at the forefront of this fight for freedom today. While many conservative groups are doing important work writing about these issues, organising petitions and raising awareness, this army is out on the battlefield directly involved in the fight. I believe we have done more than any other group to defend freedom in the courts while the politicians prattle on in the parliaments.
I am proud of our achievements and believe there is much more to come: we are not silent or inactive; rather, we are vigilant and we have already proven that when we act we can win. This is the most pleasing thing about our efforts. It provides hope to the many who have lost it and believe that nothing can be done to turn the tide.
Nothing is further from the truth. We can win. The only barrier between our current position and victory is our own willingness to act.
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…