Complete Blog

This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.

Legal update

Posted by on 4:03 pm in Featured, Values | 0 comments

Legal update

A quick update on legal matters:

High Court challenge against the Chief of Defence Force

I had my appointment as an officer in the Army Reserves terminated in 2013 for expressing my views about Islam, morality and the Mardi Gras in my own spare time.

The Federal Court found in my favour in late 2014. Then the Full Court of the Federal Court found against me earlier this year. The High Court will hear oral arguments before making a determination as to whether to grant leave for an appeal on 18 August.

As noted in the Canberra Times and Barry Nilson lawyers, if leave is granted this case will have significant implications for every worker in Australia. Essentially, it will determine whether they can be sacked for their political beliefs – even if those beliefs are expressed outside the workplace and have no impact on it at all.

At the moment it is entirely legal for workers to be sacked for expressing political views that bosses disagree with…

Gary Burns vilification drama

Until earlier this year, I was facing up to $1.6 million in fines for my views on marriage. All of it would have been payable to serial litigant, anti-free speech activist and the homosexual that even the homosexual community hates the most, Gary Burns.

However, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board breached the constitution every time it rubber stamped Gary Burns’ complaints and referred them to the Tribunal. Gary Burns, the New South Wales government and the New South Wales Attorney-General have all sought leave to appeal this decision in the High Court.

The High Court will hand down its decision on the appeal applications on Thursday.

I will be defending any appeal strongly. It is simply outrageous that activists are seeking to use one state’s laws to go after conservatives all over Australia.

Thank you for your support in these matters. I could not have fought them alone and a great deal has been achieved in this fight.

I will keep you informed as matters progress.

Hunt, thump and dump

Posted by on 3:38 pm in Featured, Islam | 3 comments

Hunt, thump and dump

Remember this?

Run Hide Tell

It’s the advice issued to Londoners in the event of a terrorist attack.

Muslims aren’t so silly as to trust the government for their safety in these strange times. They’ve got a different set of procedures.

It goes like this:

  1. Hunt – find the attacker.
  2. Thump – beat him into submission.
  3. Dump – drop him into the back of the paddy wagon.

You can see it in action here after the vigilante retaliation attack outside a London mosque yesterday:

I can understand this reaction.

What I don’t understand is the dumbed-down helplessness that the government wants to impose upon the rest of us…

Money over morality

Posted by on 2:31 pm in Featured, Values | 5 comments

Money over morality

The Catholic Church packs a powerful political punch when it wants.

That much is apparent with its fight with the Turnbull government over school funding.

It’s a pity this organisation can’t do the same when it comes to marriage. Or abortion. Or euthanasia. Or even Safe Schools.

In fact, one could easily form the view that the people leading the Catholic Church in Australia are more interested in money than morality. No wonder so many pews are empty on Sunday mornings.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Catholic schools are entitled to funding. But the funding model is not in the bible. It’s not in a papal encyclical. And Gonski has not been declared a saint.

I and many other Catholics would prefer it if the Church simply focused on moral issues and stayed out of the political fight over government cash. And while I am no great fan of Prime Minister Turnbull, I do offer this advice considering the Catholic Church is engaging in politics.

He should make it clear in no uncertain terms to the bishops that he is giving them a choice: they can back a party that will give all Catholics a say on marriage, or they can back a party that will fund them like any other government department and force them to ‘wear it purple’, like any other department as well.

That should cause some division within the Catholic Church and blunt the political attacks.

And for those of you under the mistaken belief that Catholic schools would never be rainbow ‘Safe Schools’, please think again.

This is from a ‘professional development’ slideshow titled ‘Rainbow Network’. You can find it on the Kildare Ministries website – a Catholic educational order that runs numerous schools across Australia:

Heteronormativity

It peddles the myth that upwards of 15% of people are members of the LGBTQIWHATEVER community.

And Edmund Rice Education Australia has just released material into 52 Catholic schools that is praised by the Safe Schools Coalition director in this way:

The design of the program is very similar to ours.”

I think what he meant was that the Catholic version of Safe Schools is pretty much the same as the version developed in a university department led by a bloke who is on the record as describing paedophilic relationships as akin to the love of a parent for a child.

For your information, Edmund Rice Education Australia runs the schools that were previously staffed by the Christian Brothers. They haven’t come out of the child abuse royal commission with glowing colours. But it’s hard to see how implementing this program is going to decrease the likelihood of sexual abuse.

It’s an absolute joke. Maybe the government should cut funding of these schools until they start teaching facts instead of fiction.

In fact, if Turnbull really wanted to throw the cat among the pigeons, he should consider having Catholic schools investigated by the ACCC for false advertising. Any school found to be providing a non-Catholic education to its students should be forced to repay the government funding it obtained under false pretences.

It’s happening…

Posted by on 5:51 pm in Featured, Islam, Politics | 17 comments

It’s happening…

It is happening.

The retaliatory violence.

I warned of this almost four years ago to the day, writing on 5 June 2013:

There will be three types of violence in this country.

Firstly, the Islamic community at large will harbour those who will threaten, injure or kill Australians because they are not Muslim.

Secondly, within the Islamic community there will be sectarian war. This will make the bikie wars of old look like child’s play. Much of this conflict will be driven by arguments over who hates us the most.

Thirdly, some Australians will take the law into their own hands and retaliate against Muslims.

None of these forms of violence are in the interests of the Australian community. But unless Islamic immigration is stopped dead in its tracks, they are all inevitable.

We have not seen the third form of violence erupt in Australia (yet). But as I have also written many times before, we will watch it unfold first in Europe.

And that is exactly what we saw today. It appears that a man (possibly with others) deliberately drove his van into Muslims outside a mosque in London’s north. At least one person has been killed.

This attack is morally reprehensible. It is politically stupid. And it is utterly illegal.

But there is a but. This attack was also entirely foreseeable and predictable. And, just like Islamic terrorist attacks, it was also easily preventable: all it would have taken is a government with the intestinal fortitude to halt Islamic immigration.

Islamic immigration has created a volatile social cocktail. It is ready to explode. And this dangerous environment cannot be rendered inert with PC indoctrination. In fact, PC indoctrination is simply increasing the pressure and raising the lethality of the inevitable spark when it comes.

Western governments have acted entirely irresponsibly for decades, welcoming in a community that is at war ideologically, politically and, all too often, physically with Western values.

This truth is obvious but it cannot be spoken.

To point out how obvious this truth is, one need only look at this attack in London today: it was a direct copy of multiple Islamic attacks across the Western world. And it targeted a mosque that has a long history of association with violence.

The Finsbury Park mosque was previously led by Abu Hamza. As The Australian reports, his sermons inspired the failed “shoe bomber”, one of the 9/11 plotters and one of the suicide bombers who blew up a number of buses and trains in London in 2005.

And the attack comes only hours after this protest in London, where the flag of Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation, was flown brazenly in front of watching British police:

Islam has brought the violence in. And Islam is actually teaching those who wish to retaliate violently how they can do so.

The only thing that is surprising about this whole situation is that it took so long for someone to retaliate.

I cannot emphasise too strongly how dangerous this situation is. It is getting past the point of control for the British government.

There can be no doubt that this attack will be used to inspire additional Islamic terrorism. And there can be no doubt that each new Islamic terrorist attack will increase the likelihood of further retaliation.

We are watching the start of the downward spiral into civil war…

Ben Fordham and Cory Bernardi on the Defence imam

Posted by on 6:28 pm in Defence, Featured, Islam, Politics | 1 comment

Ben Fordham and Cory Bernardi on the Defence imam

This afternoon Ben Fordham interviewed Australian Conservatives leader, Cory Bernardi, about the Defence Force imam.

You can listen to the interview by clicking here.

You can see Cory Bernardi’s question to the Defence Minister below.

And you can see my video outlining the four key things you need to know about the Defence imam too:

Finally, if you haven’t signed the petition to sack the Defence imam yet, it will only take a few seconds:

Sack the Defence imam

Dear Senator the Hon Marise Payne

Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem has backed Hizb ut Tahrir and called for Sharia law. He was a key member of the Australian National Imam’s Council when it opposed Defence operations against the Islamic State and criticised laws that prohibit the advocation of terrorism.

Yet he has been appointed to the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services to help increase Islamic recruitment into our Army, Navy and Air Force, even though more Muslims from Australia have signed up to fight for the Islamic State than the Australian Defence Force.

He gets paid over $700 per day to do this.

The Defence imam’s views are dangerous, his position is untenable and he must go.

[signature]

13,230 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

Latest Signatures
13,230Tama W.Ballina2478Jun 27, 2017
13,229Cheree C.Loganholme4129Jun 27, 2017
13,228graham w.Jun 27, 2017
13,227Melissa S.Huntfield Heights 5163Jun 27, 2017
13,226Paul B.Jun 27, 2017
13,225william g.hawthorn3122Jun 27, 2017
13,224William C.Jun 27, 2017
13,223Jane H.ringwood east3135Jun 27, 2017
13,222julie m.3550Jun 27, 2017
13,221Lorin C.RIVERWOOD2210Jun 27, 2017
13,220Kurt S.Mooloolaba4557Jun 27, 2017
13,219Craig H.Jun 27, 2017
13,218Caroline I.Jun 27, 2017
13,217Dominic S.SydneyJun 26, 2017
13,216Ruth S.Innisfail4860Jun 26, 2017
13,215Robin H.byaduk nth3300Jun 26, 2017
13,214Fiona d.Fletcher2287Jun 26, 2017
13,213Dorothy W.Ayr4806Jun 26, 2017
13,212Keith G.Yundi5172Jun 26, 2017
13,211Diana E.Sydney2120Jun 26, 2017
13,210sarah s.maryborough3465Jun 26, 2017
13,209Larry S.Sydney2030Jun 26, 2017
13,208Justin L.Bulleen3105Jun 26, 2017
13,207Keith B.Jun 26, 2017
13,206Betty D.Merino3310Jun 26, 2017
13,205Michael O.rosebud3939Jun 26, 2017
13,204Ruth B.Norwood5067Jun 26, 2017
13,203Charles M.Royston, Queensland4514Jun 26, 2017
13,202Deborah K.Wangara6069Jun 26, 2017
13,201Jacob W.Townsville4818Jun 26, 2017
13,200Catherine A.2145Jun 26, 2017
13,199Lindsay F.Cairns4870Jun 26, 2017
13,198Kelly R.Murchison North3610Jun 26, 2017
13,197BRETT C.Jun 26, 2017
13,196Drew K.Jun 26, 2017
13,195Grace F.Sarina 4737Jun 26, 2017
13,194Michael O.4075Jun 26, 2017
13,193Mark H.Brighton East3187Jun 26, 2017
13,192luke l.curramulka5580Jun 26, 2017
13,191D W.Jun 25, 2017
13,190Dennis M.Melbourne3043Jun 25, 2017
13,189George W.Jun 25, 2017
13,188Noeleen W.Mount Warren Park4207Jun 25, 2017
13,187Alison G.Forster2428Jun 25, 2017
13,186Frank C.Longwarry3816Jun 25, 2017
13,185Greg K.Grafton2460Jun 25, 2017
13,184Mandi P.Coonabarrabran3267Jun 25, 2017
13,183Mark E.Leeton2705Jun 25, 2017
13,182Arlene J.Newton02465Jun 24, 2017
13,181terence b.Brisbane4101Jun 24, 2017

Defence Minister backs Hizb ut Tahrir sympathising Defence imam

Posted by on 11:47 am in Defence, Featured, Islam, Politics | 15 comments

Defence Minister backs Hizb ut Tahrir sympathising Defence imam

One week ago, Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis announced plans to ban Hizb ut Tahrir.

And one day ago, Commonwealth Defence Minister Marise Payne refused to sack the Hizb ut Tahrir-sympathising Defence imam, Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem. Instead, she got into the trenches with him and defended his views.

It is a sign of a government in disarray. It doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going (according to polling ‘going’ is the likely answer). But Australians know that Turnbull’s mob are not conservative.

That’s clear enough after Marise Payne’s abysmal performance in parliament yesterday.

As a political target, this scandal was hard not to hit. It was like shooting at the side of a barn and Cory Bernardi scored a bullseye. He rose to his feet in the Senate and started with the words:

“My question is to the Minister for Defence.”

That was the high point for the Minister for Defence. It all went pear-shaped after that. Very quickly.

Senator Bernardi pointed out that Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, the imam appointed to the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services, signed a petition in 2015 supporting Hizb ut Tahrir.

Bernardi then referred to the fact that Hizb ut Tahrir has called for the overthrow of democracy and the imposition of a global caliphate under Sharia law.

And then he asked Marise Payne how she could justify the continuing employment of the good Sheikh (he gets paid over $700 a day to advise Defence about how it can recruit ‘moderate’ Muslims just like him).

This is how she started her answer:

“As we all know the Australian Defence Force is committed to providing, uh, support to its members and seeks out information on non-Christian faiths, uh, in the very broad, uh, to improve our cultural understanding, ummm, and of course, more broadly, ummm, any Australian citizen and permanent resident eli, eligible for Australian citishen, citizenship, can apply to, uh, to join the ADF.”

I don’t know if you know what any of that actually means. I don’t. And neither did Cory Bernardi.

This is how he looked while the Minister for Blathering responded to his fairly simple question:

Bernardi

I don’t think Marise Payne herself knew what she meant. After all, this is how she looked as she was giving her answer:

Payne

You’ll notice the bald head in the bottom right corner. That noggin belongs to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, George Brandis. He, no doubt, had absolutely no idea where this was going either, apart from the fact that he now has to deal with banning a group that is supported by the most-senior Islamic advisor in the Australian Defence Force.

Fun times for George.

However, it was not long before Marise let us know exactly where she was going. She was going to hunker down in the corner with Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem:

“We, uh, are also committed to providing support to members of all face, faith groups therefore, including the Muslim faith. Diversity and inclusion are fundamental elements of modern Australia and of the ADF.”

The Minister for Defence went on to claim that employing people like Mohamadu Nawas Saleem actually increased the ADF’s combat power.

She might be the Minister for Defence but I think it’s fair to say at this point that she has no idea what combat power is or how to increase it. That’s the only possible explanation for her bizarre statement.

She went on to claim this as well:

“When the decision was made, I’m advised that it was a considered decision by the Australian government.”

I’m not really sure if that is a glowing endorsement of the government’s ability. Rather, statements like this are why people are prepping doomsday shelters and waiting for the end.

And then the Minister for Defence went on the attack. It might have been with a wet lettuce leaf (no doubt halal certified), but an attack of sorts it was.

It was just no good.

She said it was wrong to characterise Mohamadu Saleem as a Defence imam.

Unfortunately, that is exactly how the government was happy to have him characterised in the media when the appointment was made back in 2015.

This is the headline from the Sydney Morning Herald. No one was complaining back then about references to a ‘Defence imam’:

SMH headline

If the Australian Defence Force is to get its first imam, then it’s fair to describe him as the ‘Defence imam’.

Payne gets no points for her first point.

Then she went on to claim that the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services is comprised of non-uniformed representatives.

And here is a picture from the Army newspaper just under a year ago. It shows the Chair of the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services in uniform. And in the Middle East.

Chair Lambert

So these guys are non-uniformed except when they are in uniform.

And, by the way, it is entirely appropriate for members of this committee to wear the baggy green skin when required. This entire scandal is about whether it’s appropriate for a bloke like Mohamadu Nawas Saleem to be on that committee.

Payne gets no points for her second point either.

After that, she claimed that the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services does not provide chaplaincy services.

However, this is what former Assistant Defence Minister, Stuart Robert, told parliament when announcing that Defence would get itself an imam:

“There is no impediment to service based on religion, and our chaplaincy and religious advisory committee to the services are designed to provide such support where required. To this end, I have asked my department to move as quickly as possible to identify a part-time Islamic imam to join the ADF’s religious advisory committee to ensure those 96 ADF members of an Islamic faith have appropriate representation.”

Stuart Robert’s press release announcing the appointment of Saleem also stated that the decision reflected:

“…the ADF’s pastoral care responsibilities for all its members…”

Further, according to the law of the land, no chaplains can be appointed to the ADF without a recommendation from the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services.

So, the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services is a key part of chaplaincy support for the ADF.

Again, Marise gets no points for her third point.

Finally, she claimed that the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services plays no role in Defence policy formulation.

Here is a screenshot from the Department of Finance. It details the role of the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services:

Finance

And here is a screenshot of an SBS article following an interview with Stuart Robert after he announced the appointment of Saleem:

SBS

All of that sounds like Saleem has been involved in policy formulation, contrary to what Marise Payne told parliament.

There are no points for the Minister for Defence here either. All four of her counter-attacks failed and instead they only highlight the absurdity of her position.

For instance, if her claims that the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services has absolutely nothing to do with chaplaincy support or policy formulation then, according to Payne’s logic, it seems that this body is entirely useless.

More likely, the description applies to Payne rather than the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services.

On the bright side, Marise Payne did point out that the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services links Defence with faith-based groups in Australia. Given Saleem is the link between Defence and Islam, I guess it’s fair to assume that the rest of Australia’s Islamic community are hunky-dory with Sharia law and Hizb ut Tahrir as well. After all, I’m pretty sure Stuart Robert would not have been stupid enough to appoint Saleem if he could find a more ‘moderate’ imam floating around out there somewhere.

Basically, Marise Payne’s answer was not really an answer.

So Senator Bernardi rose to his feet and once again asked a very simple question:

“Sheikh Saleem supports Hizb ut Tahrir, or has defended Hizb ut Tahrir, supports Islamic Sharia law, was previously associated with an organisation that opposed support to forces fighting the Islamic State – an enemy of Australia.

Will the Minister agree that Sheikh’s Saleem’s views and beliefs are wholly incompatible with those of the Australian Defence Force and that, in the national interest, his employment should be terminated immediately?”

In response, Marise Payne blathered on a little more and then stated:

“We, of course, support his right to express those views…”

Really?

Now that the Minister for Defence has stood up in parliament and supported the right of the Defence imam to back Hizb ut Tahrir, she will also, no doubt, stand up in parliament and support my right to express views about uniformed participation in the Mardi Gras, Defence’s sex-change operation program, front-line combat roles for women and the link between Islam and violence.

After all, it would be a little hypocritical to claim that the Defence imam has a right to express views but ordinary Australians don’t.

Oops. I forgot. Hypocrisy and moral cowardice are the hallmarks of Defence leadership today. And I’m not an imam but just a very naughty Anglo-Australian boy who supports our Western Christian heritage.

So I won’t be holding my breath on that.

On one hand, you kinda-hafta feel sorry for Defence Minister Marise Payne over this issue.

She was left carrying a political suicide vest created by Stuart Robert.

He firstly packed it full of a Hizb ut Tahrir sympathising imam who he appointed to a high-level Defence committee. Next he placed in a volatile detonator in the form of calls for Sharia law. And then Robert got caught out in yet another Chinese-linked political donation scandal and promptly racked off to the backbench, leaving it as a ticking gift for poor Marise Payne.

And yesterday that vest exploded.

When Cory Bernardi asked his question, Marise Payne’s heart must have sunk. She was placed in a position of choosing between a defence of the government-appointed Hizb ut Tahrir sympathiser or throwing Stuart Robert under a bus.

And she chose the former.

Hey! Who says loyalty is dead in politics?

Rather than undo the diverse, tolerant and completely scandalous work of Stuart Robert (who I have previously described as the Minister for Stupidity), Payne essentially grabbed hold of his political suicide vest, strapped it on tight, and kissed her career goodbye.

This scandal is only going to grow, along with numerous other PC disasters unfolding in our nation’s military as we speak.

That is why, on the other hand, I have no sympathy for her at all. Instead of fixing up the mess, Payne’s only making it worse.

Indeed, it’s scary what we also learnt from her yesterday.

Marise Payne informed the parliament that Sheikh Saleem is not only the Defence imam but that he also plays high-level roles within the Department of Immigration, Australian Border Force, Victorian prisons, Victorian police, Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Department of the Attorney-General.

His role: countering ‘extremism’.

No wonder we are losing this fight. Fortunately, with people like Senator Cory Bernardi we can counter-attack and turn the tide.

You can watch his entire question below.

Enjoy:

And you can sign the petition to sack the Defence imam here:

Sack the Defence imam

Dear Senator the Hon Marise Payne

Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem has backed Hizb ut Tahrir and called for Sharia law. He was a key member of the Australian National Imam’s Council when it opposed Defence operations against the Islamic State and criticised laws that prohibit the advocation of terrorism.

Yet he has been appointed to the Religious Advisory Committee to the Services to help increase Islamic recruitment into our Army, Navy and Air Force, even though more Muslims from Australia have signed up to fight for the Islamic State than the Australian Defence Force.

He gets paid over $700 per day to do this.

The Defence imam’s views are dangerous, his position is untenable and he must go.

[signature]

13,230 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

Latest Signatures
13,230Tama W.Ballina2478Jun 27, 2017
13,229Cheree C.Loganholme4129Jun 27, 2017
13,228graham w.Jun 27, 2017
13,227Melissa S.Huntfield Heights 5163Jun 27, 2017
13,226Paul B.Jun 27, 2017
13,225william g.hawthorn3122Jun 27, 2017
13,224William C.Jun 27, 2017
13,223Jane H.ringwood east3135Jun 27, 2017
13,222julie m.3550Jun 27, 2017
13,221Lorin C.RIVERWOOD2210Jun 27, 2017
13,220Kurt S.Mooloolaba4557Jun 27, 2017
13,219Craig H.Jun 27, 2017
13,218Caroline I.Jun 27, 2017
13,217Dominic S.SydneyJun 26, 2017
13,216Ruth S.Innisfail4860Jun 26, 2017
13,215Robin H.byaduk nth3300Jun 26, 2017
13,214Fiona d.Fletcher2287Jun 26, 2017
13,213Dorothy W.Ayr4806Jun 26, 2017
13,212Keith G.Yundi5172Jun 26, 2017
13,211Diana E.Sydney2120Jun 26, 2017
13,210sarah s.maryborough3465Jun 26, 2017
13,209Larry S.Sydney2030Jun 26, 2017
13,208Justin L.Bulleen3105Jun 26, 2017
13,207Keith B.Jun 26, 2017
13,206Betty D.Merino3310Jun 26, 2017
13,205Michael O.rosebud3939Jun 26, 2017
13,204Ruth B.Norwood5067Jun 26, 2017
13,203Charles M.Royston, Queensland4514Jun 26, 2017
13,202Deborah K.Wangara6069Jun 26, 2017
13,201Jacob W.Townsville4818Jun 26, 2017
13,200Catherine A.2145Jun 26, 2017
13,199Lindsay F.Cairns4870Jun 26, 2017
13,198Kelly R.Murchison North3610Jun 26, 2017
13,197BRETT C.Jun 26, 2017
13,196Drew K.Jun 26, 2017
13,195Grace F.Sarina 4737Jun 26, 2017
13,194Michael O.4075Jun 26, 2017
13,193Mark H.Brighton East3187Jun 26, 2017
13,192luke l.curramulka5580Jun 26, 2017
13,191D W.Jun 25, 2017
13,190Dennis M.Melbourne3043Jun 25, 2017
13,189George W.Jun 25, 2017
13,188Noeleen W.Mount Warren Park4207Jun 25, 2017
13,187Alison G.Forster2428Jun 25, 2017
13,186Frank C.Longwarry3816Jun 25, 2017
13,185Greg K.Grafton2460Jun 25, 2017
13,184Mandi P.Coonabarrabran3267Jun 25, 2017
13,183Mark E.Leeton2705Jun 25, 2017
13,182Arlene J.Newton02465Jun 24, 2017
13,181terence b.Brisbane4101Jun 24, 2017

Rainbow-coloured egg is on the VCDF’s face

Posted by on 5:13 pm in Defence, Featured, Politics | 10 comments

Rainbow-coloured egg is on the VCDF’s face

On 25 May, the Vice Chief of Defence Force (VCDF), Vice Admiral Ray Griggs gave an extraordinary speech to the Order of Australia Association.

During this speech, Griggs hypocritically blasted ‘conservative’ media outlets while claiming that the ADF’s decision to march in uniform at the Mardi Gras is apolitical:

More fraught has been the decision that we took in 2013 to allow ADF members, many of whom had been participating in the Sydney Mardi Gras in civilian clothes for a number of years, to join the NSW Police and wear uniforms in the parade.

As a senior leadership group it took about 15 months to make this decision. We believe it was the right decision, the only decision we could make if we wanted to show tangible evidence and send a strong message to the broader ADF that we as a team were committed to our cultural change path.

There is no doubt that the Mardi Gras started as a political event nearly four decades ago. We don’t deny it. It was then social and political activism fighting for improved rights, recognition and acceptance for the Gay and Lesbian community. But as society evolved, so did Mardi Gras, and from its political roots it has emerged to be a celebration of pride and self-expression. More than that, it is now about inclusion and tolerance – that is why we participate; that is why each year our contingent includes members who identify as LGBTI and others who don’t, marching side-by-side to show support for their workmates.

Of course elements of our society do not agree with the decision that we took. More conservative media outlets have attacked the move under the charge that it “politicises” the ADF. It is a charge that the leadership of the ADF utterly reject.

It is simply astonishing that the second most senior officer in the ADF could, in a few short sentences, completely destroy the apolitical standing of Defence.

Marching in the Mardi Gras, an event that Griggs himself unashamedly acknowledges is political, politicises the ADF.

And doubling down on this tremendous leadership failure by attacking ‘conservative’ commentators such as Miranda Devine absolutely reinforces the fact that senior Defence leaders have declared war on Australian conservatives.

Miranda Devine called out Defence’s troubling foray into domestic politics in an excellent article written earlier this year:

“The Mardi Gras constitution states the parade is a “cultural, political and protest” activity, and its Board has called on the Government to “pass a Marriage Equality Bill”.

This was the context in which roughly four ADF platoons marched last night down Oxford Street, wedged between the City of Sydney’s “Say Yes to Love” float, featuring dancing brides and grooms, and the “Australians for Equality” float, whose “key message is to achieve marriage equality via a free vote in parliament”.

So there was no ambiguity about the message the ADF is endorsing. It is a party political message, because the position of the Coalition is for a plebiscite on whether marriage is redefined, while Labor and the Greens want a parliamentary vote. When young Army leaders at a recent diversity training course expressed concerns that marching in the Mardi Gras constituted political activity, they were told it was simply a “cultural event”.

But that is manifestly untrue.”

And manifestly untrue it is.

We don’t need Miranda Devine’s word to demonstrate this. Nor do we need mine.

Embarrassingly for the VCDF, all we need is the word of the Sydney Mardi Gras itself. And here it is, in a submission lodged with Parliament’s committee into ‘marriage equality’:

Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras is a not-for-profit community organisation that organises and co-ordinates events of celebration, commemoration and protest for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) community and engages in other activities as part of that community.

Among the company’s objectives as per our constitution is sustaining and strengthening the LGBTIQ community by contributing to its social economic, cultural and political development and advancing the goals of our community, which includes the full acceptance of the community and equal rights within Australia and internationally. This includes support for Marriage Equality in Australia and across the world.

There we have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The Mardi Gras is a protest that is carried out for political purposes.

And what would that purpose be? Let’s again look at the submission:

This year marks the 39th anniversary of the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade and with the theme of ‘Creating Equality’ will shine a spotlight on the way she can all work together to eliminate discrimination and prejudice in all its forms. By its very definition, “Equality” ensures everyone is treated fairly and equally – an no-one is discriminate against because of their sexuality, sex, gender identity, race, beliefs, age or abilities.

The Board of Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras supports the amendments of the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as being between two people.

The VCDF is lying to himself and to the rest of us with his pretence that the Mardi Gras is not political.

His credibility and judgment are left in tatters. And this is now on the parliamentary record as well.

Griggs was asked in Senate estimates earlier this month by Senator Malcolm Roberts about political activity in the Defence Force:

Senator ROBERTS: What is the current defence policy on ADF members engaging in political activities?

Vice Adm. Griggs: I think we covered this in the last session. The policy is very clearly laid out in what is called the Mil Pers Man, or military personnel manual. The overriding factor for the ADF is to remain apolitical.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Has defence policy on political activity changed since 2012? What were the reasons for any change?

Vice Adm. Griggs: I do not believe there has been any significant change to the policy.

In this short exchange, Griggs was wrong. Not once. But twice.

There has been a very significant change to Defence’s policy on political activity since 2012.

Previously, Defence members were forbidden from attending events of a political nature in uniform under any circumstances. Now the CDF has given himself the power to determine what political events Defence members can support in their official capacity. And he has also given himself the power to restrict the private political activities of Defence members that he disagrees with, or to even sack Defence members who happen to hold conservative political views.

One can only speculate why Griggs would try and downplay this revolution within Defence policy.

But it also means that his claim that the overriding goal of Defence’s policy on political activity is to keep the ADF apolitical is wrong as well.

The policy does nothing of the sort. Instead, it allows the CDF to use the ADF to promote political causes domestically – provided they meet the approval of the nation’s most senior military officer.

What an absolute joke. This truly is the stuff of banana republics. How very South Americanish we’ve become.

If it’s time for plain speaking, let’s speak plainly

Posted by on 6:01 pm in Featured, Islam | 6 comments

If it’s time for plain speaking, let’s speak plainly

Normally The Australian’s Greg Sheridan speaks sense.

He started out so well earlier this week:

“While it is right that we should not glorify or overstate the influence of Islamic State, it is profoundly ill advised to deceive ourselves, not to speak truthfully and plainly to the public and to pretend that terrorist attacks are not terrorist attacks unless there is a signed order from Islamic State central command.”

And he finished with these words:

“You can’t treat a problem unless you diagnose it properly and speak of it honestly.

And you certainly cannot take the public with you if they can see that you are patently talking rubbish.”

Unfortunately, Greg Sheridan’s work was undone entirely with this clanger:

“Islamism describes an ideology derived from Islam. It acknowledges the connection with Islam but it does not attribute terrorism to the religion as a whole.”

It showed that Greg Sheridan, one of Australia’s leading conservative commentators, is still unable to diagnose the problem properly or to speak of it plainly and honestly.

His pretence that Islamic terrorism comes from Islamism but not Islam is patent rubbish. Sadly, he is not alone in speaking this rubbish. Our political leaders still insist on it.

Frustration is growing in Australia and across the Western world. Citizens want plain speaking but for years they’ve been told that Islam is a religion of peace.

Now, finally, our leaders are moving away from that phrase. But they’ve replaced it with yet more meaningless sophistry.

Islamism is the problem, we’re told. Not Islam.

It’s like arguing that sharks as a whole aren’t a problem, but swimmers should avoid their teeth.

So let’s have some plain speaking. Some honesty. Some proper diagnosis.

Violence is integral to Islam. The religion’s founder is one of history’s great military commanders. And he subdued political, religious and military opponents without hesitation.

That’s how Islam was born.

That’s how it spread.

That won’t change.

It does not matter if individual Muslims eschew violence. It does not even matter if the majority of Muslims are peaceful.

A bunch of Muslims does not make the ideology. It is an interesting question to ask why they don’t follow Mohammad’s example entirely, but it is not the question we need to be asking as a nation.

We need to be asking whether it is in our interests to allow Islam in and loose inside Australia.

And the answer to that is no.

And if the answer is no, then it logically follows that Islamic immigration must end. Government funding of Islamic programs, schools, mosque open days and community groups must cease. Mosques must not be approved. Individual Muslims who pose a violent threat must be locked up.

That’s all common sense.

But if you want some truly plain speaking, then here is the truth that most are unable to utter: steps must be taken to remove Islamic communities from Australia.

If it means the government pays Muslims to return to their ancestral homes, then so be it.

The problem we are facing today has nothing to do with the Islamic State. It would be a problem regardless of whether the Islamic State was ever formed.

The problem today is entirely due to the fact that a people with a foreign and totally incompatible concept of life, morality and law has been allowed lodge within our borders.

And that means the problem will only grow if that foreign community grows. It means the problem won’t be confronted and dealt with until that community goes.

In a nutshell, Muslims should live in Muslim countries. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, if this plan was enacted, it would mean that individual Muslims who may contribute to Australia and assimilate would not be able to do so. In fact, many Muslims would fall into this category.

But so what?

Australia is safer without them and the community they are part of. Plenty of others in this world can contribute and assimilate too.

And here is some plainer speaking.

The time of reckoning is coming. Anger is rising. If the government won’t take common sense steps to protect its citizens, then citizens will lose confidence in the government and protect themselves.

When that happens, there will be bloodshed. Lots of it. And on both sides.

That is bad enough, but I greatly fear that this evil will be compounded by a government that responds with totalitarianism and oppression of everything; including those things that made Western civilisation great.

We’ve already seen the rise of vigilantes and reactionary and retaliatory attacks against Muslims. This is not a lawful, legitimate or moral solution. But it is a sign that our institutions are failing.

Additional reactionary attacks are coming, just as sure as the next Islamic terrorist attack is as well.

That’s why it is in all of our interests, Australian and Muslim alike, to deal with this situation before it worsens.

Eyes on Sydney: Sharia finance

Posted by on 2:38 pm in Featured, Islam | 1 comment

Eyes on Sydney: Sharia finance

Islamic jihadist attacks during Ramadan across the Western world become so ‘ho hum’ sometimes.

So, in an effort to lighten things up, I bring you the latest update from Eyes on Sydney. This was snapped in Western Sydney a few days ago:

ICFAL

Islam is not just about terrorism. It’s about Sharia finance as well.

The good news is that when we have all become dhimmis and payed our jizya tax, there’ll be a halal certified and Sharia compliant banking institute to take our cash.

*****

If you wish to contribute to ‘Eyes On Sydney’, drop me a line at personal@bernardgaynor.com.au. ‘Eyes On Sydney’ will report on the growing Islamisation of Australia’s first city…

Wooley’s thinking

Posted by on 12:50 pm in Featured, Islam, Values | 2 comments

Wooley’s thinking

After the Manchester bombing, 60 Minutes reporter Charles Wooley wrote in The Australian:

Perhaps it’s time for rational people to start knocking on doors.

This was preceded by 900 words decrying Christianity and accompanied by an image of what appears to be Margaret Court with two evil looking crosses in the place of her eyes.

Charles Wooley also likened Christian martyrs to Islamic State jihadis.

If only Wooley did a little research before launching off on his emotional and irrational rant, he might have written something a little different.

Salman Abedi was the Muslim jihadi who carried out the Manchester attack. He took the lives of 22 others with him. By all rational moral standards his actions were heinous. But they were justified by Islamic teaching.

That explains a little about where Islam fits in with the world’s great ideas.

The day Wooley’s article was published just happened to be June 2. It is the anniversary of the death of the Catholic martyrs of Lyons, executed under the reign of Marcus Aurelius in 177AD.

As far as early Christian martyrs go, this mob was fairly stock standard. They didn’t blow themselves up. They didn’t protest or coerce others into their religious beliefs. They just died because they were Christian.

And the torments suffered were nothing special either. You can read a hundred other stories with a hundred other methods of execution. The martyrs of Lyon were simply beaten to death, or tortured with red hot irons until they expired.

In all, 48 were executed for their beliefs.

If they were vegetarians, Charles Wooley would probably laud them for their courage in the face of brutal totalitarian oppression. But because they were Christian, he compares them to the Islamic State.

And that brings me back to rational people.

We need them. I’m all for rational people knocking on doors. But there’s no reason without facts and truth. Wooley lacks the latter so he’s also off on the former.

So I hope he doesn’t go door-knocking anytime soon. He’ll just embarrass himself.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!