This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
Three days before Christmas, a van packed with gas bottles detonated outside the HQ of the Australian Christian Lobby.
The very next day, after conducting an interview that lasted about 7 minutes with a man suffering from massive burns, the ACT Police made this statement:
Police spoke briefly with the man before he continued with treatment. Police were able to establish the man’s actions were not politically, religiously or ideologically motivated.
Now the ACT Police clearly are not superheros with an ability to read minds.
Because if they could read minds they would not have needed to make this statement a little later in their same press release:
Police will be conducting a thorough investigation including previous threats to the Australian Christian Lobby.
There was always something fishy about the ACT police’s response to this incident.
In no way, shape or form do these two sentences from their press release make any sense.
If the attack was not politically, religiously or ideologically motivated then there was no need to investigate threats to the ACL.
If the investigation was ongoing and still in its initial stages, then it was simply impossible for the ACT police to claim that the bombing had nothing to do with the ACL.
And the investigation had to be in its initial stages. After all, the ACT police had nothing more to go on than a seven minute conversation with a badly-injured man who was suspected of causing the ‘incident’.
In short, it all stinks.
And the smell has wafted into the front pages today.
From The Australian:
The man accused of driving a burning van laden with gas bottles into the Australian Christian Lobby headquarters was a gay activist who disliked the group because of its “position on sexuality” and had searched online how to make plastic explosives and a pressure-cooker bomb.
Court documents tendered to the ACT Magistrates Court yesterday reveal Jaden Duong had also run searches about gay marriage in other countries and, a month before the alleged attack at 10.45pm on December 21 last year, had searched for the “Australian Christian Lobby”…
…Police allege 36-year-old Mr Duong had stepped up internet searching from July last year for terms including “how to make ammonium nitrate”, “pressure- cooker bomb”, “C4”, “how to buy a gun in Australia”, “gas leak explosion” and “how much gas to cause explosion”…
…His hospital records allegedly showed Mr Duong had attempted suicide previously, had chosen to target the ACL spontaneously and had “quit his job to plan this suicide attempt”.
“He is ‘not a huge fan’ of the ACL, or religion in general, due to their beliefs and position on sexuality,” the records from Sydney’s Concord Hospital state…
…According to documents tendered in court, soon after the explosion, police asked Mr Duong why he had picked the location.
“Because I dislike the Australian Christian Lobby,” he allegedly replied. Asked why, he allegedly said: “Because religions are failed.”…
…Police asked if he had “any thoughts about the property”. “Well, if that blew up — yay — but actually I was just trying to blow myself up,” he allegedly replied.
You’ll note I quoted from The Australian and not the ABC. It chose not to report these details.
I think it has the same questions to answer as the ACT police.
One could reasonably form the opinion that the ACT police has engaged in a political cover up. There needs to be an immediate investigation into its handling of this incident.
And it needs to answer why the ACT police were so quick to rule out any political, religious or ideological motivation when the evidence it had received directly pointed to the opposite conclusion.
And let’s have an end to the constant haranguing of the ‘yes’ crowd that the current debate is dangerous.
We all know it is. But it’s not the rainbows who have been targeted…
This case remains before the court. Comments are closed.
Two days ago I revealed that the Islamic community was quietly being urged to vote ‘yes’ in the plebiscite to redefine marriage.
It might seem strange.
But it is actually logical.
The argument for ‘marriage equality’ has no logical basis for restricting this institution to just two people. In fact, homosexual ‘marriage equality’ will necessarily and inevitably morph into a battle for the recognition of multiple partners.
And this is why: biology.
A heterosexual couple only needs two people (a husband and wife) to become parents (the mother and father).
Homosexuals, regardless of how ‘equal’ things become, are simply unable to match this reproductive efficiency. They need a third person to assist in the process of creating a child.
Part of the argument for ‘marriage equality’ is the creation of legal certainty for homosexuals, and it is clear that ‘marriage equality’ for two cannot do this. One of the ‘parents’ is not recognised in the relationship.
As I said, it is inevitable that there will be a push for recognition of multiple partners in marriage.
And this is why the Islamic community, despite violent Koranic antipathy towards homosexuals, wants to see the plebiscite to redefine marriage succeed. They want legalised Sharia polygamy ‘marriage equality’ as well.
A ‘yes vote’ does not just open the door to recognition of multiple partners, it sets the Sharia train speeding from the station.
This train will become a wreck the Australian community does not need or want. But it will come hard and fast come if the plebiscite proceeds.
And if you find it hard to believe the Islamic community will be riding it for all its worth, just know this: Germany legalised ‘marriage equality’ six weeks ago.
Every. Single. One.
You might be surprised, but not all homosexuals support ‘marriage equality’.
And, in what may be even more of a surprise, some of them even talk to me. And I talk to them.
We might disagree on many things, but we don’t have phobias and nor do we engage in hate.
One of these men is Ben. He has put forward his view outlining why he’ll vote no in the plebiscite and I respect him for his courage. All too often the LGBT community rips apart one of their own for dissent.
This is what Ben has to say:
The one-sided same sex marriage (SSM) debate has been raging for a while now and with the postal plebiscite on SSM now confirmed for September this year, I thought it was about time I had a good think about the situation and explain why myself and my partner of 15 years will be voting NO.
Firstly, SSM is an attack on the institution of marriage itself, the foundation of our civilisation and most importantly the bedrock of our family relationships. Changing the definition of marriage paves the way for other types of relationships to be recognised and I honestly don’t think many of my fellow Australians have fully thought through or realise the consequences and ramifications of changing the definition of marriage…
Most will vote yes out of fear of offending the many homosexual people they have as friends and family.
As a gay man, my partner and I have never personally experienced any type of discrimination or homophobic behaviour because of our sexuality or relationship with each other. Both of us have been accepted into each other’s families. After 15 years I now feel that my partner’s family is my family, and my family accepts my partner as part of our family.
Homosexual relationships have the freedom to be whatever those involved want them to be. Why is there such a need to constrain that to a religious ceremony that is more than likely going to end in divorce? SSM is a step backwards for the gay community in my honest opinion.
If anything needs to be changed or redefined, maybe it should be to recognise same sex unions rather than use the term marriage…?
Marriage itself is about children. Until gay people can give birth to their partner’s children it is a non-issue for me personally.
It’s time people stopped falling for catchy slogans and obscure hashtags and start thinking of the future they are helping to create for their children and their children’s children.
After 15 years with my partner, a piece of paper and pretty ceremony will not change our relationship at all. We will still remain just as committed to each other as we always have been. Our relationship has never been defined or never will be defined by a piece of paper and a religious ceremony.
My views on these issues is well known and it’s clear that Ben and I have philosophical and religious differences. But Ben’s voice is important in this debate and that is why it deserves to be heard.
Not all homosexuals will be voting yes because of the impact this change will have on families. And that means we should not be afraid to join them and vote no too.
Friday will be a very important day.
The High Court will hear arguments for an appeal application that will hopefully clarify this nation’s laws on freedom of political communication.
Essentially, a decision will be made as to whether this challenge goes ahead, or whether the current judgement of the Full Court of the Federal Court stands.
And I will be there in the middle of it, making my case with my legal team.
So, obviously, I am somewhat biased. As a result, I will let others speak to the importance of this matter below. One way or the other, this case affects the freedoms of all Australians.
But by way of background for those new to this website, this dispute between myself and the Chief of Defence Force goes back to 2013.
In a nutshell, after Defence decided to march in the Mardi Gras it changed its position on the expression of political views outside the workplace, while simultaneously allowing uniformed attendance at political events.
Consequently, those with conservative views like me were no longer free to speak their minds in their private capacity. And others, with different views, were able to march in uniform for their cause publicly.
I didn’t take this lying down. Hence I was sacked after almost 15 years of service and three deployments. Then the legal warfare began.
You can read more about the background here.
I am not the only person hoping that it does.
This is from the Canberra Times earlier this year:
Gaynor’s views were expressed in his own time, in his capacity as a private citizen and not while he was on duty or in uniform. While his comments did draw a connection with the ADF, he was not purporting to speak on its behalf. There is something deeply unsettling about the government seeking to regulate an individual’s views, whether public servant, army reservist or ordinary citizen…
…The High Court has a preference for sidestepping such big-picture questions and focusing solely on the narrow point of law in dispute. For the sake of public servants wanting to express their political views without fear of reprisal, we can only hope the High Court is more ambitious when it delivers the final word in the Gaynor saga.
And this is from The Conversation earlier this week:
The Australian Public Service Commission’s (APSC) recent guidance for public servants shone a spotlight on the issue. It advises employees they could be in breach of their code of conduct for liking or sharing posts on Facebook that are critical of the government.
So are Facebook or Twitter posts protected political speech? It depends. There are tensions in the law, including the extent to which employers can control the expressions of their employees.
Former Australian Defence Force reservist and conservative Catholic Bernard Gaynor is testing these limits. He is challenging his dismissal from the Army Reserves, which came after he breached its online commentary rules by posting anti-LGBTQ statements.
The High Court will decide whether to take up his case later this week. If it does, the scope of Australia’s freedom of political communication could be clarified…
…Freedom to discuss political matters is one of the few constitutional guarantees we have. Given growing questions over political speech on social media platforms, we will be looking to the High Court to clear up the scope of this protection.
Of course, there are many who disagree with my views and believe that I should have been sacked. However, they should consider the consequences of the Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision against me, as outlined by Barry Nilsson Law:
Employers may, in certain circumstances, terminate an employee for the making of social media comments in a private capacity where those comments are extreme and unacceptable in accordance with the position the employee holds. However, the circumstances of each individual case will first need to be considered taking into account the nature of the employee’s employment and applicable policies.
Assessing what is ‘extreme’ is the domain of the boss. And currently, the boss is free to assess ‘extreme’ when it comes to differences of political opinion expressed outside the workplace.
I do not believe this bodes well for any Australian.
And that is the primary reason I am fighting this case.
Unfortunately for my grey hair and sanity, it is not the only case I am in before the High Court.
There is another fight that will touch on free speech that has also been accepted by the High Court: the Garry Burns saga appealing against my win in the New South Wales Court of Appeal earlier this year.
It now involves Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, as well as the Commonwealth, myself, a grandmother from Victoria (Tess Corbett) and homosexual activist, Garry Burns.
When this one does go ahead, there’s a fair chance most lawyers in Australia will be saddled up for it.
It will decide whether one state’s tribunal can hear matters against a resident of another state. That might sound all very legalistic but it does have implications for all Australians: if I lose this matter I’ll face the possibility of fines up to $1.6 million for my views on marriage and morality. And activists will be able to lodge complaints against anyone in Australia under state anti-discrimination law, even if the person does not live and did not act in that state.
In other words, you will not just be obliged to abide by the laws of the state you live in. You will also be required to oblige by the laws of the most PC state in Australia as well.
And that will be bad news for all conservatives if marriage is redefined later this year. It will open the door for the legal terrorism of any Australian who dares to speak out against such things as ‘Safe Schools’.
Fighting these battles has been important. But it has also been expensive. Since 2013 my bills have risen to over $250,000.
I could not have managed this without your support. There has been an army behind me the whole way which has filled me confidence, hope and courage. And that army was a key component in obtaining the first victory in the Federal Court against the Chief of Defence Force and the more recent victory in the New South Wales Court of Appeal against Garry Burns.
However, I must once again ask for assistance to fight in the High Court. I apologise for doing so and find it enormously humbling.
If you wish to donate to this fight for freedom, options are listed below:
Paypal: click here
Family Values Action A/c (Donations fund legal actions to support family values)
BSB: 084 134
A/c: 39 446 4501
Gaynor Family Support A/c (Donations fund this website and the Gaynor family)
BSB: 084 134
A/c: 84 082 9276
PO Box 766, Park Ridge, Qld, 4125
And I believe that the success achieved to date is also due to the helping hand of Divine Assistance.
Your prayers are appreciated. I have been praying the one below:
O God, who has appointed Mary, Help of Christians; St Francis Xavier, and St Teresa of the Infant Jesus, Patrons of Australia; grant that, through their intercession, our brethren outside the Church may receive the light of faith, so that Australia may become one in faith under one shepherd, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
– Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us.
– St Francis Xavier, pray for us.
– St Teresa of the Infant Jesus, pray for us.
Thank you once again for your ongoing support.
Today, Army Chief Lieutenant General Angus Campbell addressed the National Press Club.
But his address wasn’t about the war against the Islamic State. Nor was it about rising tensions and threats of nuclear war from North Korea.
And when he was asked about the upcoming independence referendum in Iraq’s Kurdistan region and the potential impact it might have on operations there, Campbell admitted that he was not across the issue as he should be.
So what did he speak about?
Domestic violence. That’s what. He’s definitely across that issue.
The Chief of Army didn’t wave the white flag. But he did raise the White Ribbon. And he supported its political campaign which Defence has also signed up to.
In fact, giving such speeches is just one requirement of White Ribbon accreditation. It appears that the Chief of Army is actually working to White Ribbon’s tune rather than doing the job he’s been given under the Defence Act 1903.
Now, let’s get one thing clear for all the breast-beaters out there. I don’t support domestic violence. No one does.
But you don’t need to be coerced into joining the White Ribbon brigade to hold this position. Nor do you need to uphold dubious campaigns that give an impression that all Defence members and, indeed, all Australian men are wife-beaters.
In fact, according to statistics in the Chief of Army’s own speech, a grand total of 0.4% of Army members have been linked to domestic violence. And, if you care to read White Ribbon’s definition of domestic violence, almost everything can be deemed evil.
Indeed, this is one of four examples the Chief of Army gave about domestic violence:
Elsewhere, as one of our Platoon Commanders was walking by, he overheard what he later learnt was a recruit’s ex-husband very loudly abusing her during a phone conversation. She described a very controlling relationship, in which her ex-husband was continually pressuring her to quit her training and return home.
There is no example of what the verbal ‘abuse’ was. It may have been terrible.
Or it may, just perhaps, have been nothing more than a husband trying to get his wife to leave the Army, return home and restore the marriage. We just don’t know.
But this is the point.
Both possibilities amount to violence against women according to White Ribbon’s definitions. And we are all expected to condemn both with equal ferocity.
And there is no detail of the ‘controlling’ relationship. On the face of it, it cannot have been that controlling. After all, the husband wanted his wife to return home. And she was ignoring that desire and was instead in the Army.
So the real surprise is that more people have not been labelled a perpetrator.
The truth is that White Ribbon is nothing less than hypocritical virtue signalling of the highest order. And, even worse, support for White Ribbon equates to support for the worst form of domestic violence in Australia.
It is also part of the leftist program and political agenda to criminalise dissenting thought in this nation. And even if you do support abortion, which I will touch upon below, you should still understand this because it has ramifications for you.
Now, these are harsh words. But they are true.
I will explain shortly.
But first, this point needs making. The reason the Australian Army exists is to wage violence and engage in lethal combat to protect Australians.
The focus on diversity and anti-domestic violence campaigns might sound nice. But they do absolutely nothing to ensure the Army can do its job. Despite all the catch-phrases, zero evidence has been presented that our Army’s capability has been increased by any of these politically-correct policies.
And when they result in insane recruitment programs that prioritise women over men, they actually decrease our national ability to defend ourselves.
Ironically, they also put women in harm’s way for no good reason at all, which seems quite contrary to the goals of anti-domestic violence campaigns. I can’t explain the logic but I’m not a feminist, so I won’t try either.
Now, let’s turn to White Ribbon.
It supports abortion.
Let me say that again: White Ribbon campaigns for abortion.
Abortion involves the deliberate destruction of a baby. In other words, its death.
It is the most brutal, violent and prevalent form of domestic violence in Australia. It also occurs on an epic scale, with about 100,000 abortions each year. That’s about one every six minutes.
If our nation truly does have a systemic problem with domestic violence, then I helpfully venture the suggestion that ending the culture that legalises mass infanticide will probably do more to increase respect for life and limb than anything else.
However, the organisation that pretends to campaign against domestic violence is out unashamedly campaigning for it.
This is a quote taken from White Ribbon’s webpage earlier this year:
Because of this, we advocate for:
– Decriminalisation of abortion, for example we support the It’s Not 1899 Campaign by Pro Choice Queensland.
Just so you know, the ‘It’s Not 1899 Campaign’ urged the Queensland government to decriminalise all forms of abortion, including late-term and gender selection abortion. White Ribbon is loud and proud in its support for your right to abort unwanted baby girls.
Pictorially, if you buy a White Ribbon you are donating to political campaigns to legalise this:
Unfortunately, the Australian Defence Force has signed up to White Ribbon, as detailed by former Chief of Army, David Morrison:
Your Army’s commitment to White Ribbon is not merely symbolic; it reflects the best of our culture and values. We are challenging ourselves to promote positive attitudes and behaviours in the workplace and in the community. I encourage Army members to intervene to prevent violence against women. I also encourage my commanders to become White Ribbon Ambassadors and our soldiers to swear the White Ribbon oath.
In fact, the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and even the Australian Defence Force Academy are all White Ribbon accredited workplaces.
They fork over taxpayer dollars to this organisation so that they can display the virtue signalling, pro-abortion White Ribbon logo on things like our nation’s military equipment:
I have no idea how much this costs. But considering the Diversity Council of Australia charges a cool $10K per year for an organisation with more than 3,000 employees, one could guess that the Australian Defence Force bill each year might close on $100,000.
At this point, you might be saying so what. Especially if you support abortion.
Well, this is the first so what.
Defence has no business in sponsoring or promoting organisations that are campaigning politically to change laws in this nation.
The fact that it is doing so affects all Australians. It undermines our democracy because it violates the convention that Western militaries do not interfere in domestic political matters. They have had a tendency to do so in the past and it didn’t end so well for the general population.
But if that is a bit airy-fairy for you, let me get to the second so what. It’s a major threat that you now face to your own personal freedom. And not just if you work in Defence. But if you work in any organisation that is seeking White Ribbon accreditation.
If you don’t support abortion, your job in such a workplace has suddenly become a lot less secure. And if you do, you should be aware of the way these things work. I have not yet met any person who is actually politically correct enough to withstand all the demands of the new Thought Police.
Every single one of us still lingers in the real world in some way.
White Ribbon states that this is domestic violence against women:
Reproductive coercion is any behaviour, physical and emotional, aimed at establishing and maintaining power and control by restricting a woman’s reproductive autonomy, denying her control over decisions related to her reproductive health and limiting her access to reproductive health options.
This language makes it clear that opposition to abortion is a form of violence against women.
The White Ribbon workplace accreditation program also requires employers to implement policies that:
“define VAW [violence against women] in the broadest possible sense”
If the above definition did not cover liking pro-life Facebook posts, the workplace accreditation program does.
It gets worse.
As part of accreditation, all employees are required to sign a code of conduct that recognises violence against women is unacceptable as part of the job.
It might not have happened yet, but if you are in a White Ribbon workplace like the Army and you state that you do not support abortion, or you like a Facebook post of a pro-life group, then technically you are in breach of your code of conduct and should face disciplinary action.
And White Ribbon requires accredited workplaces to take action against all such ‘perpetrators’ of ‘violence against women’.
This includes counselling, warning, and ultimately loss of employment.
Just because no one has been sacked yet at a White Ribbon workplace for actually wanting babies to live doesn’t mean that the sackings aren’t coming.
The framework is in place for draconian, totalitarian crack downs from the Thought Police.
All it take is one huffy pro-abortionist to lodge a complaint and all of sudden a workplace like the Army will face questions about the disciplinary processes in place.
By the way, this is exactly what happened to me in the Australian Army, although on the issue of marriage and family. Homosexual members of the Defence Force lodged complaints and next thing I knew I was in the middle of an investigation and termination procedures.
The White Ribbon framework also encourages complaints from subordinates.
There’s nothing like the old Communist strategy of turning children against their parents and workers against their bosses. It keeps everybody on their toes, fearful and compliant.
Accredited workplaces need to demonstrate that they have addressed ‘perpetrators’ adequately if they are to keep the right to use the glossy White Ribbon logo that they have already paid so much to obtain.
So when it comes to weighing up the job of a pro-lifer against the complaints of a female victim of ‘violence’, you can guess who’s gonna win. No one wants the ABC on their back for failing to address ‘verbal abuse’ against women around the water cooler.
However, perhaps you think you can get by with being silent.
Unfortunately, that won’t work either.
The White Ribbon accreditation program does not require all employees to sign up and take its oath: just the ones who want to get ahead in life.
If you want to be promoted in a White Ribbon workplace, it’s more than likely you’ll have to start meeting performance measurement indicators for your support of the White Ribbon campaign. This includes participation in White Ribbon events, donating monthly, acting as an ambassador and generally promoting the logo.
All of this implicitly involves active support of White Ribbon and its campaigns for things like abortion.
You’ll also need to be seen to do things demanded in the White Ribbon accreditation program like ensuring females are prioritised for promotion, training and leadership roles.
So on top of the hypocritical participation in a campaign to eradicate domestic violence that actually supports the killing of innocent children in Australia, you’ll also have to participate in the feminist movement’s attempts to discriminate against men in the workplace.
All of sudden, White Ribbon is not a colourful flourish you wear on your suit or uniform once a year to demonstrate you don’t beat up on women. It’s an insidious cancer that is steadily hijacking your workplace and emplacing measures that will also silence your political opinion and replace it with theirs.
There’s no better proof of this than the Chief of Army’s speech today.
We face significant military threats across the world. But our nation’s most senior soldier is giving speeches to meet White Ribbon’s workplace accreditation demands.
The only way to stop this is to push back and end the political correctness that is being thrust upon society.
No one wants domestic violence. But no one needs a solution like White Ribbon either.
Next time you’re asked to buy a White Ribbon, tell them no means no.
Parents of young men and women hoping to get a job in the Australian Defence Force might not know who Zulkarnain Naim is.
But they will see his smiley face on Defence’s latest recruitment campaign.
Naim is a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. And he’s pictured posing with his father. It’s designed to make parents feel warm and fuzzy.
But it shouldn’t.
After all, the video with Chief Petty Officer Naim starts like this:
The major concern my mum had with regards to me joining the navy was the loss of identity and our cultural heritage – how much I would have to assimilate to be able to fit in.
The Navy has changed a lot.
Twenty years ago when I first joined the Navy fixing aircraft was my life.
Now I’m advising senior leadership about multicultural and multi-faith aspects of our Navy community.
The message is loud and clear. Twenty years ago, people were expected to fit in. Now they get to advise the Navy how it should change to accommodate them and their Islamic beliefs.
That’s all fine and dandy if you’re an anarchist or a Muslim. Not many anarchist parents see their children sign up to put their lives on the line for the nation. And Muslims get to see the world change for them.
But if you are the parent of a child who is neither and they are thinking about serving at sea, it might be a tad worrying.
A cohesive team was previously deemed necessary to win wars. We haven’t seen if a disparate group of individuals will fare so well, but I’d be less than keen to see one of my own children used as the guinea pig in such a naval military experiment.
But I doubt the Navy really cares about that. Naim is not there to recruit budding young patriots from the majority of Australian families anyway. He’s there to promote recruitment from a special minority group: the Islamic community.
As a short aside, we understand that this program remains, thankfully, almost entirely unsuccessful. But it’s not due to lack of trying. It’s just that other armies seem to have captured that recruiting market.
Back to Naim.
He’s also the Chief of Navy’s Assistant Strategic Advisor on Islamic Cultural Affairs (otherwise known as the deputy to the infamous Captain Mona Shindy).
And he told the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia in 2015 that his job was all about Islamic recruitment, stating his role was to see:
“…better engagement with the Australian Islamic community to understand any potential barriers to recruitment and to promote the Navy as an employer of choice.”
It’s not a bad gig either.
After all, the Navy flew Naim to Saudi Arabia in 2015. With your taxes. And then boasted about it in the Navy newspaper:
THE RAN is primed to represent Australia at the next Prince Sultan International Military Quran Memorisation Competition after observing this year’s competition.
Last month, 27 nations were represented at the prestigious event, which was hosted by the Ministry of Defence of Saudi Arabia.
CPO Zulkarnain Naim, assistant to the Chief of Navy’s Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs, said as the first ADF representative to attend the event, he was able to lay the groundwork for ADF members to compete in 2016 and beyond.
“The competition finds the most proficient defence force member from around the world who can best recite the holy Quran from memory,” CPO Naim said.
“The Quran has 114 chapters and is written in eloquent Arabic poetry.
“Many find it a challenge to read and recite from the holy book in general, particularly if they have not had formal Arabic training.
“The task of memorising the entire scripture is incredibly harder again, but a goal many Muslims set for themselves from a young age.”
Isn’t that nice…
And if you missed it, the Navy is also advertising elsewhere for devout Muslims too…
Only a few weeks ago, Mark Latham warned that Australia Day was about to come under sustained attack.
The same PC mob that is breathlessly demanding gay marriage is pushing other barrows as well. Late last week we saw their impact on Defence with the imposition of emotionally-charged recruitment policies that prioritise women over men for front line combat roles.
And now they are targeting Australia Day.
For the endlessly offended, this day must go and be replaced with a year long procession of Sorry Days to apologise for an invasion that never happened and no one alive today saw anyway.
From The Age:
A Melbourne council has voted to stop referring to January 26 as Australia Day in a move that has come under fire from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who says he is “deeply disappointed” by it.
Yarra City councillors on Tuesday night voted to stop referring to January 26 as Australia Day and to cease holding any citizenship ceremonies on that day from 2018.
Instead of celebrating Australia Day, Yarra City Council will now use ratepayers’ funds to hold smoking ceremonies on behalf of Aboriginals (even though a female Aboriginal has just today written in this website that she opposes the manufactured political culture imposed by these ‘lefty’ politicians). And it will lobby the federal government to change the date of Australia Day.
As they say on twitter, #priorities.
It is clear that Australians are not just being asked to cast judgement on homosexual marriage later this year. We are being corralled into a campaign of political correctness that will only extend to all areas of life and increase in its ferocity.
We can fight back against political correctness by voting no to the plebiscite. And we can fight back to save Australia Day by supporting Mark Latham’s petition.
Miranda Devine has written an article for the Daily Telegraph today that further highlights the insanity of Defence’s push for females in combat roles:
Of 70 women who applied for Infantry Corps, just 40 progressed to training. Of those 40, just 11 have graduated, seven into the Regular Army.
That’s a drop out rate about four times the male rate.
Anecdotally, what you hear is that women are “breaking” during recruit training, which includes running up hills carrying 40-60kg packs, the typical load for Afghanistan, and casualty rescue exercises dragging an 80kg mannequin 50m.
Officially, says Defence media: “women moving through infantry training are more likely to be injured than their male counterparts.”
No kidding. US Marine Corps studies show a cumulative injury incidence of 80 per cent for females in basic training.
Can someone explain how “breaking” women advances the feminist cause? More to the point, how does it enhance our war fighting capability?
The Chief of Army will today give a speech, of all things, on domestic violence against women.
— The Australian Army (@AustralianArmy) August 14, 2017
Ironically, it seems the organisation he leads has no problems breaking women at all…
Last week, it was revealed that females and Indigenous males were being recruited ahead of others in the Australian Defence Force.
As such, it is interesting to hear from a female Aboriginal soldier currently serving in the Australian Army.
She wishes to speak anonymously as she fears for her job. This is not unique. I have spoken to many serving Defence members in recent times who have said exactly the same thing.
This is her story:
I joined the Army from a young age. There were no diversity panels and no special entry ways were needed. My time in Defence has been great. I have not faced any circumstances of discrimination, although I have heard stories about things gone in the past.
I also studied at university. As I was Indigenous, I was pushed to apply for my degree as part of an Indigenous pathways program.
I won’t deny that it helped. I was poor and from an unstable background.
However, it was a double-edged sword that opened up the world of ‘black politics’. As I was Indigenous, it was expected that my views would always be left-leaning, no matter my status. Worse, I was supposed to uphold a ‘victim mentality’ or I would not truly be Indigenous.
Knowing that this environment exists within the university, I abstained from ‘black politics’ whenever I could. However the Indigenous community would look at me strangely if my views were not the same as theirs. ‘Victims’ were expected to stick together.
The more I studied, the more I became aware of the true statistics behind the issues pushed by feminists and social activist journalists in the mainstream media.
I started to realize how distorted stories and ‘facts’ were with regards to rape statistics, ‘gender pay gaps’ and the idea that women were the same as men. My belief is that women and men complement each other, just like salt and pepper.
I choose to abstain from Indigenous politics as it always follows lefty tactics of blaming the Anglo-Australian community and declaring that all problems are the ‘white man’s’ fault.
My view in this regard is that we should be thankful that it was the British and not any other European country that chose to settle here.
Being in the Army has shown me that even if you have a different skin colour, you’re still green at the end of the day. That is something I am very proud of.
I don’t need a special treatment because I have ancestors that come from this land; one of my ancestors is a half-caste of British and Aboriginal decent. I wouldn’t dare spit on his grave for being what he is, and neither should anyone else.
I believe in an Australian identity. Indigenous people are not from a separate state that needs to be closed off from society. We need to be a part of it together and have a joint identity with all Australians.
I have come across Aboriginal & Torres Strait people who even tell me that I’m not ‘black’ enough to fit in to their community as I am not that ‘right’ shade of black.
I am concerned about immigration, diversity propaganda, the stigmatisation of ordinary Australians, the growing welfare state and the purchase of our land by foreign governments.
I am also concerned about the spread of foreign enclaves in our cities, especially the growth of Islamic and Asian only areas in Sydney.
I am especially concerned about the ‘left’ side of politics using Indigenous people for votes.
The government has no role to play in the manufacturing of a ‘culture’ for Indigenous people. History repeats itself and with that many cultures have died out due to technology and changes. The more advanced a society becomes the less favourable are the relics. They hinder people of self-growth and development which can be a hidden shadow of tall poppy syndrome.
Many of the Indigenous leadership roles have been created by the political left. These people are not elected and do not reflect the will of all Indigenous Australians. They are placed into these positions so people can say, ‘look I have an Indigenous person here, your area is bad because they are not as diverse as us’.
It’s stupid and doesn’t make any sense.
As are ‘Indigenous cultural advisers’.
How is an elder from a different state and from a different tribe an expert at telling me who my family and heritage is? How are they a true representative of my now manufactured culture?
I understand that we do have Indigenous people that live in the remote communities who do need help.
However the ‘help’ that politicians and social advocates have provided is beyond dumb.
You don’t throw money at problems and hope for positive outcomes. You create structure and guidance and reinforce that with persistence and patience which is something that those in need…really do need.
Growing up in a changing society has shown to me how dangerous the ‘left’ is with regards to pup petting Indigenous people for their votes.
They never ever consider the true problems of integration of all ethnic groups in Australia.
It’s frustrating to even see Indigenous people burn Australian flags and to be placed on media panels in order to further identity politics.
Our society needs to know that Indigenous people with mainstream and right-leaning views do exist. They too get angry when idiotic Indigenous people make fools of themselves on television or in the news for some political sway.
If boundaries need to be broken down to fix the issues I am for it. However, I am not for strawman arguments and pandering. I am fed up with the current Australian politicians and hope that actual leaders take control and apply a common sense approach to their impact on our community.
These are my views alone and do not reflect those of the Department of Defence.
I have no doubt that this ‘diverse’ thinking – that breaks all stereotypes of Indigenous females – is too diverse for the policy wonks pushing Defence’s new age diversity agenda…
It seems that the media’s interest in gay weddings is not matched with the same level of enthusiasm in the general population.
Polling has consistently shown that opinion is divided on the issue, but there is a general agreement in the community that it is just not important.
As far back as 2010, the Essential Report found that almost twice as many Australians thought gay marriage was unimportant compared to those who do. And in June, Essential Report surveys showed that when it came to shifting votes, this issue simply didn’t.
Most Australians said the homosexual marriage made zero difference to how they voted. And when you include those who could not make up their mind along with others who said it only made a little difference, you get a grand total of 68% of Australians who said ‘meh’ when it came to rainbow weddings.
The Australian newspaper’s polling tells the same story.
A report published just under a year ago found that only 13% of Australians thought this issue was a top priority.
Despite this, I get the feeling that there is a level of wedding weariness within the community. Most could not give a tinker’s cuss about it and some are probably inclined to vote yes in vain hope that the rainbows will go away.
They should think twice.
The experience in Europe is that the rainbows keep coming.
This agenda is being pushed by the endlessly offended. There is always something new that needs ‘reforming’ for ‘equality’.
And there’s also the other forms of ‘marriage equality’: Islamic marriage equality.
If the rainbows win, you can bet your bottom dollar that the fighting over marriage won’t end. It will simply ramp up and move to another phase.
Let Italy be a lesson for us all.
It legalised same-sex marriage in May 2016.
And by the end of the year, the campaign for polygamy was in full swing:
ITALY is facing calls to legalise polygamous marriages but more than 20,000 already exist among Islamic communities in the European nation.
Muslims also claimed there was “no reason” to object to polygamy after same-sex marriages, which are frowned upon under Islamic laws, were approved earlier this year…
…Hamza Piccardo, founder of the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations (UCOII), said: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.
“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it.”
Voting yes for homosexual marriage will be voting yes to opening the door to ‘marriage equality’ for the Islamic community as well.
And yes, as well, to years more political argument over marriage pushed by the ABC, Fairfax and the Australian Human Rights Commission…