This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
Last night the allegedly ‘conservative’ Turnbull government completely lost its marbles (again).
It put forward legislation making it illegal for the Australian Defence Force to discriminate against women in combat roles. Worse than that, Defence will also consequently be required to meet other standard ‘workplace’ requirements in relation to pregnancy and breastfeeding.
It’s one thing for your local Coles checkout chick to be given flexi-time and maternity leave. It’s another thing entirely to expect the enemy to coordinate his attacks between gestational cycles.
Our infantry training programs are about to factor in the lactation requirements of Private Jane’s bouncing baby and Lieutenant Trailblazer’s obstetrician appointment.
Actually, if this is what a menopausal woman can do to a local cricket game (as reported by news.com.au), maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all:
When all you wanna do is a few sit up at deep square 😳😳 pic.twitter.com/CMq8b8CvLn
— Ollie Pope (@OPope32) February 4, 2018
The video shows only one part of the woman’s epic spray, according to former Eastern Suburbs club captain Matt Coles — the man in the video trying to persuade the woman to leave the ground.
Coles, who was keeping score during Easts first innings, said the match was around 40 overs into Easts innings when the woman bizarrely wandered onto the field and began doing sit-ups around 5m in from the fence.
The woman was not able to hear the cries of players and umpires telling her to move on because she was wearing head phones…
…“She just saw red,” Coles said.
“She didn’t really know what to say. She just kept repeating herself. She just kept saying, ‘I’m a rate payer. Why can’t I use it? You’re ganging up on me, a menopausal woman’. It was just ridiculous.”
This is the kind of lunacy (both the cricketing capers and the Defence do-goodering) that you would expect from Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens. But it is coming from the Liberals (at least the latter is, although the woman above does strike me as a Turnbull supporter too).
I’ll get to the political shenanigans in parliament in a second, but first let me state this clearly: putting females into combat roles will kill people.
And not the right kind of people. It won’t kill the enemy but it will harm our people. Our daughters. And our sons as well.
It will kill our own because females are simply not as strong as males. And warfare – even the modern type – is all about strength.
Strength of mind and body. And if you don’t have the strength of mind to understand basic biology then we are setting ourselves up for a painful lesson.
Take this example faced by British soldiers in Afghanistan:
Caught in the killing zone and unable to advance into the hail of fire, the soldiers withdrew to the relative safety of the water-filled ditch to return fire but were trapped as the insurgents moved in to try to overwhelm their position.
“We had to react quickly,” said Cpl Jones.
“There was something different about this. It was obviously a well-planned ambush and they overwhelmed us with fire from three points initially.”
Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, Cpl Jones ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across 80 metres of open ground raked by enemy fire.
There is always the exception that results from bizarre unforeseen circumstances, but when two people go at it with a bayonet, 99 times out of 100 the blade that belongs to the strongest, fittest and fastest combatant will spill the guts of the other.
It’s game over, in a big way, for the weaker of the contestants.
Given the Australian Army’s basic fitness test only requires females to punch out half as many push ups as males and gives them approximately 20% more time to run 2.4 km, it is fair to conclude that when it comes to combat, blokes stand more chance than sheilas.
And don’t just wave the above example away as irrelevant because it is British rather than Australian.
An exhaustive Australian study has found that Aussie Diggers in the Middle East were shouldering average loads of over 56 kg. It also found that females suffered the same injury risk as men – but this was reached when they were carrying loads equal only to 66% of those carried by males.
In other words, if you put females on the front line you reduce your carrying capacity by one third.
That’s the practical ‘progress’ of ‘progressive’ thought bubbles.
Like I said, this insanity will kill Australians.
When an Australian soldier dies because a female gun-slinger can’t carry enough ammunition, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
When an Australian soldier dies because a female turret-head can’t pull her mate out of a burning hull, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
And when a female combat engineer is captured, raped and forced to mother the enemy’s children, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
Eventually this madness will be seen for what it is. I can only hope that it is not after an entirely predictable and preventable tragedy. Here’s praying for miracle number one.
Unfortunately, thanks to Turnbull, when that happens the government will need to change the law again before common sense is actually lawful.
So here’s praying for a second miracle. Let’s hope Labor and the Greens don’t control the Senate at that point because our nation’s ability to defend itself will rest entirely on the judgement of Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale and Sarah Hanson Young.
There are those who claim that this idea shows that our modern society respects and loves women.
This line of thought is akin to arguing that legalised prostitution demonstrates respect and love for women too. Maybe that’s why the new-age Australian Army thought it fit to discuss sending taxpayer-funded prostitutes to combat zones late last year as well.
And now we get to Canberra.
This all blew up last night because Senator Cory Bernardi had the courage to call this madness out.
And then the predictable froth-a-thon began. We can’t have a bloke actually state the truth that men and women are physically different. So, instead, we’ll twist ourselves into morally bankrupt and hypocritical contortions in a vain attempt to appear sane and virtuous.
However, all it does is highlight the absolutely ridiculous state of affairs we find ourselves in.
Thus it is entirely unsurprising that Bernardi was able to easily hone in on the absurd.
The government wants to remove section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows the Defence Force to reject females in combat roles.
But it wants to keep section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows the Wagga Wagga Wombats Division 3 rugby club to reject female players because of their ‘strength, stamina and physique’.
There’s only 106 words between these two legal clauses but they contain everything you need to write a thesis about the insanity of our age.
If the Nar Nar Goon Numbats Darts Association or the Weipa Tug-a-War team or the Mittagong Boot Throwing Club think that discriminating against women will help them win, under this law they can.
Of course, the legal hum-drum is not what the Davos and Maccas of every footy club in Australia care about. They just want to win and they know that Mrs Macca can help them do that by handing out oranges at quarter-time rather than by getting walloped on the half-back flank by the 100 kg dude with tattoos who turned up to play on a Harley.
Unfortunately, this common-sense approach to winning at the local sporting club is not replicated in Canberra.
When it comes to the world stage, next time Australia takes on the Taliban Tornados inside the death cage where two enter and but only one leaves, the government says it will be unlawful for us (but only us) to put forward contestants if there has been any discrimination on the basis of their gender.
I know Australians love their sport but, on the whole, I do think it is rather more important that our laws help us win the main game rather than just helping the Wagga Wagga Wombats win theirs.
Cory Bernardi pointed out all of this in far more Senatorial language last night:
Let me get that point across: where stamina, strength or physique of competitors is relevant, you are allowed to discriminate and exclude individuals, for sport. But we are not allowed to do that in our armed forces.
It’s okay to say, ‘Yes, women should play three sets of a grand slam tennis match instead of, potentially, five sets.’ Or that, ‘AFL women players are not to be in the AFL draft because they’re women.’ It’s okay to say, ‘You can’t have a transgender person trying to get into the AFL women’s competition, because physically they are a male.’ The list goes on and on and on, because there is deemed to be an unfair advantage.
So, I wonder why we are imposing lower standards in order to achieve this goal of equality that is going to put women, potentially, at the front line of war and combat.
It’s a good question that no one seems to be able to answer.
Liberal Senator David Fawcett tried. He started with this:
…for those who have missed this point, that around half of Australia’s population is made of men and around half is made of women, and if you limit the ability of one-half of your population to do a certain role then you potentially limit the efficacy of your force.
I’m not sure if David got the memo (maybe he just missed the point), but no one Canberra is limiting the ability of one half of the population to do anything.
Nature does that all by itself and without any help from that hill of knowledge in the Australian Capital Territory.
Nature limits one half of the population from giving birth and limits the other half from producing testosterone. I know they have big heads in the nation’s capital but to assume that the federal parliament has the power to pass laws overriding those of nature seems slightly more than arrogant.
And then he went on with this:
I come back to the basic premise, which I apply to politics and any sphere of life: if somebody is willing and capable, without lowering the standards, and able to meet the competence requirements then I don’t have a problem…However, if somebody is capable, willing and able to do the task to the required standard with the same amount of training and support that any other person has, then I don’t think their gender necessarily should disqualify them.
That sounds wise. But considering that Senator Fawcett actually served in the military, these words are entirely shallow. They do nothing more than demonstrate that he has no idea what he is talking about when he should, in fact, know more than most.
A little earlier in this article I made reference to the Army’s basic fitness assessment. You can see the requirements below:
As Senator Fawcett should well know, this test discriminates against men and requires women to pass a far lower physical standard than them.
He has done this test. And now he has the front to stand up in parliament and defend a law that will require the Army to place women in the front line by talking rubbish about equal ‘standards’ and training times when there is no such thing.
Interestingly, when it comes to the ‘same amount of training’, as Senator Fawcett put it, you will be pleased to know that females have a special course designed just for them. It is known as the Army Pre-Conditioning Program. It is a seven week course to help them reach a standard of fitness where they can complete a grand total of 8 push ups and commence basic training at Kapooka.
And if, after seven weeks, they fail? Well they get to do it again. And even again after that.
So if Senator Fawcett walked his talk, he would not speak of equal training times to promote female combat roles. There are longer training times for females and he knows it. And he also knows that at the other side of it they are still not required to meet the same standards as men.
Senator Fawcett is doing nothing more than hiding behind empty clichés to promote this vacuous absurdity.
Then came Senator James Patterson. Unlike Fawcett, he did not even bother trying to answer Bernardi’s question and instead claimed it was irrelevant:
But it seems to me that a very important Liberal principle is at stake here, and that is that no-one should be discriminated against on the basis of totally irrelevant considerations.
Who could ever have predicted that the bunch of clowns in Canberra would pass laws making strength and stamina relevant to football contests but unlawful considerations for our nation’s military?
Actually, let me rephrase that. Put your hand up if you didn’t see this coming. Now beat yourself around the head for your sheer stupidity.
Finally came Senator Linda Reynolds. If Fawcett tried to answer Bernardi’s question and Patterson attempted to deflect it, she just ignored it altogether and launched straight into hector-mode:
I want to say to Senator Bernardi: shame on you! Shame on you for your comments this evening. To come into this place in this day and age, when we have over 400 women serving overseas, and say what you did shames us all, and it is certainly not in line with our fundamental principle of equality of opportunity. For a senator and somebody who was a member of the Liberal Party to come in here and argue for keeping entrenched discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act, simply for the fact of someone’s gender, is a complete and utter disgrace.
It’s not surprising. If Senator Reynolds ventured into answering the question she might have had to detail how, throughout her entire military career, she did not have to reach the same physical standards as men.
And then she would have to explain how that correlated with the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’.
Good luck with that.
I did hear somewhere recently that Australia faced growing threats of conventional military conflict.
That does not seem to be a concern to those in Canberra, nor those running the military who have already plunged headfirst into this world of gender equality.
By the way, what does a female-friendly military spend its time on?
Cartoons about sexual consent, that’s what:
This video is part of the new 2018 training program for the Royal Australian Navy.
So good luck to Australia too. We’re gonna need it far more than we’re gonna need the modern military…
The Queensland Law Reform Commission has been ‘tasked’ by the Queensland government to provide recommendations on the legalisation of abortion.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human person. It is an evil action that is contrary to all right reason and even the Queensland constitution which limits the power of the Queensland Legislative Assembly to make laws only for the ‘peace, welfare and good government’ of the state.
We only have until 13 February 2018 to provide submissions to the Queensland Law Reform Commission, which is also looking at whether it should be made illegal to provide assistance to women outside abortion centres, or for doctors to refuse to participate in abortions.
Or you can sign my comprehensive submission by completing the form below:
Don't legalise abortionRead the petition
|1,449||Ann S.||Warwick||4370||Feb 22, 2018|
|1,448||Linda W.||Perth||6166||Feb 21, 2018|
|1,447||William S.||Russell Island||4184||Feb 21, 2018|
|1,446||Alvar D.||NORMAN GARDENS||4701||Feb 20, 2018|
|1,445||Brigette M.||Feb 19, 2018|
|1,444||Geoff J.||Beaudesert||4285||Feb 17, 2018|
|1,443||Stephen T.||Feb 17, 2018|
|1,442||Benjamin C.||Northam||6401||Feb 15, 2018|
|1,441||Denis S.||Paddington||4064||Feb 15, 2018|
|1,440||Ann S.||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,439||Angela R.||Kureelpa||4560||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,438||Ruth W.||4556||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,437||John B.||Plympton||5038||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,436||LAURIE S.||INNISFAIL||4860||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,435||Peter M.||Gymea||2227||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,434||Donna M.||O'Halloran HIll||5158||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,433||Ted M.||O’Halloran Hill||5158||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,432||Irma M.||Seaford||3198||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,431||Alan M.||Warracknabeal||3393||Feb 14, 2018|
|1,430||Ian J.||Clayfield||4011||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,429||Fiona W.||4068||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,428||Wayne C.||4420||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,427||Wayne Z.||Underwood||4119||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,426||Kate H.||Emerald||4722||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,425||Sergio A.||Nerang||4211||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,424||Naomi S.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,423||Therese G.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,422||wasyl l.||BOYLAND||4275||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,421||Lynne K.||Emerald||4720||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,420||Victoria K.||Briabane||4030||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,419||Jacek O.||4720||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,418||Marie K.||BUNDABERG||4670||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,417||Sue M.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,416||Karen B.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,415||Elizabeth K.||Highfields||4352||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,414||Carlee E.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,413||Suzanne D.||Centenary Heights||4350||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,412||Elizabeth W.||Geebung||4034||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,411||Joan N.||Upper Mt. Gravatt||4122||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,410||Paul R.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,409||Scott B.||Springwood||4127||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,408||Malessa B.||Springwood||4127||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,407||Anita S.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,406||Nicky S.||Eatons Hill||4037||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,405||Shirley J.||Bowen||4805||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,404||Manfred H.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,403||Daniel L.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,402||Alexis L.||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,401||Josh T.||Frenchs Forest||2086||Feb 13, 2018|
|1,400||Karen L.||Kureelpa||4560||Feb 13, 2018|
This website will be welcoming a number of new regular columnists this year as it upgrades. As such, please say g’day to ‘The Full Bottle’ whose first post is below.
Just when the ‘anything-to-make-them-happy’ Yes voters thought they could return to their summer of cricket and hear no more about SSM, the new world of rainbow rules has made its way onto the sporting field. Unfortunately, for average, hetero-normative, cisgender Aussie blokes and sheilas, this is the new normal.
GOLDOC (Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Corporation) has issued guidelines and instructions for the use of gender neutral language by volunteers, officials and contractors for the Games:
The Games Shapers handbook, which has been handed to 15,000 volunteers and official staff and contractors instructs workers to avoid phrases like “ladies and gentlemen” and “boys and girls”.
It also includes instructions to use the term parents instead of mother or father and partners, rather than husbands or girlfriends.
On planet GOLDOC, those associated with the Games in an employed or voluntary capacity are counselled to take an inclusive approach to groups of people and use terms like ‘Hey you lot’ or ‘Hi folks’ (no I am not making this up).
Speaking recently to Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, Dr Lauren Rosewarne (a lecturer in gender theory and feminist politics at Melbourne University), stated these guidelines were necessary:
We don’t want a silly slip up of Australia looking retrograde on the world stage…
When pressed to comment on whether the term ‘ladies and gentlemen’ was offensive, she gave a ‘no’ and a ‘but’, which means ‘yes’.
According to Dr Rosewarne, we can’t have visiting Canuck nonbinary rainbow families (gendered ‘Zv’ and ‘Zvi’ ) with 2.5 gender-queer children and a pet satyr thinking that Australians are a bunch of gender retards.
Just in case you thought this was a freaky one off, I have bad news. GOLDOC is not on its own. In fact, a Victorian government-led initiative could also see such violent words as batsmen and ruckmen replaced:
AN AFL ruckman should be known as a “ruckperson” and cricket batsmen referred to as “batspeople” under a Victorian-led push to reduce violence against women.
A university-led conference has called for gender-neutral language to be used across all sporting codes at every level…
…The project was commissioned by the Andrews Government’s Office of Prevention and Women’s Equality. Pilot testing of the recommendations is set to be carried out next year.
Unfortunately, the Australian Commonwealth Games and Australian sporting codes are only the latest Australian institutions to come under the Rainbow Arc.
Now firmly established on the platform of SSM, our Australian social life is being turned into theatre for identity politics, tranny grandstanding, toilet dramas, pronoun offenses, deployment of gender detectives, nanny lectures from the progressive Left and the clear possibility that second-rate male athletes, declaring themselves women, could do real and serious harm to female competitors (that would be the genetically XX variety for our non-cis readers).
This last seems to not even be on the radar of the feminist grievance industry.
So ‘hey you lot’ – what could go wrong?
I’m surprised that the climate change lot haven’t kidnapped Peter Van Onselen.
He’s so chock full of that warm inner glow of moral righteousness, hypocrisy and smarmy new age smugness that I’m sure that if it could be bottled it would power several smaller countries (or even a larger one at that) without burning any fossil fuels at all.
Unfortunately, it would also come with a toxic dose of hot air. So, unfortunately, the effect on global warming would probably be negligible.
Anyway, in the lead up to Australia Day, he penned this self-righteous statement in The Australian:
Free speech is important, so much so that opponents of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act want it amended to allow humiliating and intimidating rhetoric to prevail. But many of those same free speech warriors now want to shut down debate about whether Australia Day should move to another date.
That can’t be right, can it? Hairy-chested defenders of free speech turning into shrinking violets offended by heady debate over a change of date for our national day? Is the idea really so controversial that even indigenous advocates for change shouldn’t dare speak of such things?
Pete loves nothing more than sticking the boot into the anti-18c crowd.
And over Australia Day he thought he found a chink in their armour. Apparently, it was a debate ‘free speech’ warriors were trying to ‘shut down’.
I’ve seen no evidence of that. But I’m going to assume that what Peter means by this is that some of us have said that we don’t want the date shifted. As a result, it appears that PVO has concluded that we’re ‘stifling’ debate.
So he jumped in headfirst with his ridiculous diatribe.
But if Peter was really interested in the debate over free speech and if he was really interested in a debate about Australia Day and the broader issues relating to those with Aboriginal ancestry, rather than just searching for his next dose of feel good moral vanity, he might stop for a second to consider:
- You can burn the Australian flag and 18c won’t do anything.
- You can burn an Aboriginal flag and 18c will.
Indeed, you don’t even have to burn an Aboriginal flag at all to cop the wrath of 18c.
All you have to do is say something that is deemed offensive by an Aboriginal activist. Van Onselen would do well to remember the wrath faced by his fellow contributor to The Australian, Bill Leak.
Further, burning flags is not really the best example to use. Peter might get the idea that I’m somehow building a shadowy army equipped with lighters and ladders.
For the record, I’m not. Here’s a better scenario.
- If you decline an invitation to attend the workplace Australia Day function, 18c and associated laws will protect you from discriminatory ‘retribution’.
- But if you refuse to take part in the now obligatory ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony, these same laws will allow you to be sacked, denigrated and dragged before a Commissar of the Thought Police to answer charges of racial hatred.
So in these circumstances it’s a risky business to enter into the debate over Australia Day unless you have pale black skin.
Oops. Did I just say that?
The ‘debate’ that Peter’s so lovingly jeered is not a free debate at all, precisely because of laws like 18c.
On one side, there are those who are calling for this nation to be burnt to the ground. This is not merely rhetoric. It actually incites violent and destructive behaviour, promoting vandalism of our nation’s heritage.
And on the other side are those who seek to preserve our nation’s history and recognise the achievements of the past (which, I might add, include the achievements of Aboriginal people).
But it is hard for the latter side to properly argue their case. They cannot really speak freely about the benefits of settlement for Aboriginal people because it implies that there were limitations within Aboriginal society prior to settlement.
These implications, whether spoken or unspoken, are exactly the kind of ideas that laws like 18c silences.
And they are increasingly forced to participate in made up ceremonies celebrating the ‘repressed’ culture and spirituality of Aboriginal activists, even if they don’t want to.
If you can’t even make a comment about the segregationary nature of Aboriginal-only computer rooms without being dragged before a court, it’s gonna be kind of risky to even speak about flaws in Aboriginal culture or the problems facing some dysfunctional communities today.
These are the issues that 18c opponents want to discuss openly and freely. They are part of the backdrop of the ‘debate’ around Australia Day and this nation’s past, present and future.
We certainly are not interested in vile abuse. And 18c has not stopped that anyway. Indeed, because of the inherently hypocritical nature of these laws, they actually protect racist speech.
A court ruling has determined that 18c is not designed to silence vile statements made against ‘white people’.
That’s why the face of the ‘burn Australia to the ground’ mob can say this:
Watching @GetOutMovie in the cinema with a bunch of white people. Fuck this. Get me out of here.
— Tarneen (@Tarneen) January 14, 2018
And that’s why the tribe she fronts can say this:
Because 18c is designed to protect racist speech from one mob and to prosecute reasoned arguments from the other, it is rubbish for grand-standing new age moralists to claim that proponents of free-speech are trying to shut down debate over Australia Day.
Because of 18c there has been no real debate at all. It’s time Peter Van Onselen acknowledged that.
Oh yeah, when he comes to discussing Australia Day and free speech, PVO he might like to reflect on news reported in the Herald Sun today that the City of Yarra has banned workers from even using the phrase ‘Australia Day’:,
THE CITY of Yarra has banned its 1000 employees, including childcare workers, librarians, and gardeners, from even uttering the words “Australia Day”.
A January 15 bulletin from council chief executive Vijaya Vaidyanath directed staff to refer to Australia Day as “the January 26 public holiday” when talking to the public.
“Council made a resolution to change the way we mark our national day on January 26,’’ her bulletin said.
“This includes no longer referring to this date as Australia Day.
“All staff are asked to use the words ‘January 26 public holiday’ rather than ‘Australia Day public holiday’ when notifying clients or customers of the opening hours of their service or centre on this day.”
I thought harnessing the power of ‘electricity’ was supposed to help us to prosper and live better lives.
But I am wrong.
The government has other ideas.
Firstly, companies will be paid to shut down –from The Australian:
Under the program, big energy users are paid incentives to power off or cut back energy use during summer heatwaves and large power producers are given incentives to “power up” extra generators to meet surging demand.
There go the jobs and with it prosperity.
Secondly, families will be asked to go without – also from The Australian:
Victorian families could be asked to power down airconditioners, dishwashers and lights to assist in staving off blackouts, as part of an initiative called “Help the Grid”, which asks households to help free up energy reserves to protect the grid during extreme conditions.
There goes the comfort and with it the better life.
Power prices have only doubled in Victoria and South Australia in the last year. People are paying twice as much to have the lights turned off.
The insane push for renewable energy is sending us back to the stone age. All those frothing at the mouth over Australia Day should calm down. They’re gonna get exactly what they want and it will be powered by useless windmills, as detailed by the Herald Sun’s Terry McCrann:
VICTORIANS and South Australians didn’t just swelter through two consecutive days of 40 degree heat on Thursday-Friday two weeks ago, they also had to pay an extra — and hidden — $390 million to keep their air conditioners and lights on…
…When it really mattered, in the heat of the two afternoons and into the early evenings, all the turbines which are supposed to be able to generate a massive 3200 MW of electricity — that’s equal to two of the now-closed Hazelwood coal-fired station — produced as little as 200MW or so.
Whatever the state and Commonwealth governments are doing with their power policies, they’re doing it wrong.
After two decades of growing and massive ‘investment’ in renewable energy, Australia has regressed to the point where we are solving the electricity crises by shutting down homes and businesses.
These policies are not helping Australia grow. They are only powering poverty.
Tony Abbott, writing in The Australian today, had this to say:
Late last year, ASIO boss Duncan Lewis told a Senate committee that about 85 Australians had been killed while fighting as terrorists in Syria and Iraq, and 40 Australian foreign fighters had already returned. But about 110 Australians were still in the war zone. Most of the returnees, he stressed, had come back before the declaration of the Islamic State caliphate and were not now considered threats to security.
It seems the hallucinogens doing the rounds are in Canberra are stronger than usual.
According to the ASIO boss, we should not be worried that the Islamic community in Australia has produced well over 200 hundred individuals who decided that signing up and shipping off to the fight with the Islamic State was a good idea.
No should we be concerned that at least 40 have returned ‘home’ because most of them are not now considered a threat to security.
All of them, every single one, is as mad as a cut snake.
We will see Australians die because they are on the streets.
And you can take the assurances of ASIO with a grain of salt. This is the same organisation that decided Man Haron Monis was not a threat either…
I’m a little confused by our society’s puritanical hedonism.
Formula One has just axed ‘grid girls’ because they are no longer appropriate in a world of sexual liberation, as reported by the ABC:
There won’t be any so-called “grid girls” at the Australian Grand Prix this year.
The F1 has decided the long-standing practice is no longer appropriate, and they won’t be used at any more Formula One events.
Grid girls normally walk onto the track before the start of a race to stand in front of each driver and hold up their number.
They are usually dressed in tight uniforms.
“Over the last year, we have looked at a number of areas which we felt needed updating so as to be more in tune with our vision for this great sport,” F1’s managing director of commercial operations, Sean Bratches, said in a statement.
“While the practice of employing grid girls has been a staple of Formula 1 grands prix for decades, we feel this custom does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms.
So far as I understand it, the two most empowering jobs for females these days are to be a prostitute or a CEO. The former makes a business selling female ‘services’ to men and the latter makes a virtue promoting female-driven change in a man’s world.
One literally sells sex 24/7, while the other sells a message that a focus on sex is sexist.
One makes a business based on man’s attraction to females, and the other is leading the business of denouncing man’s attraction to females.
Somewhere in between these two is the Hollywood starlet. They make a buck selling sexuality on the big screen and then go around denouncing the fact that men proposition them off it.
And so far as I understand it, the only moral position that is deemed worse than whatever moral position Harvey Weinstein follows, is the one that advocates monogamous marriage.
Put your neck above the parapet for that idea and you’ll quickly realise it’s not an idea that has much support in today’s world.
Remember the broo-ha-hah when it was revealed that American Vice President Mike Pence would not dine alone with a woman other than his wife? This was a small part of it:
“The revolting thing about Pence’s no-meals-with-women rule isn’t prudishness. It’s that he’s limiting key professional opportunities to men,” wrote Ian Millhiser, an editor at ThinkProgress.
It’s not on to hit on women in the workplace today. Nor is it acceptable to take measures to prevent it. And protecting a marriage ‘hurts’ women.
You need to be extreme today. Extremely hedonistic. Extremely puritanical. Or extremely hypocritical and both at the same time (this one seems to be the favoured option).
The one thing you can’t do is promote ‘normal’ or the limits that underpin it and stave off confusion and anarchy.
You cannot recognise that there’s a time and place for sex and that it is called marriage.
Nor can you acknowledge the inherent sexual attraction and tension that always exists between men and women and that daily overcomes and destroys the vows of marriage, or take any measures to protect marriage from destruction.
So we end up with rules for the extreme and bans on grid girls but legal protection of pornography, prostitution and perversity…
Advocates for ‘homosexual marriage’ deliberately kept silent about programs like Safe Schools during the marriage postal survey to keep ‘soft’ ‘Yes voters’ onside.
This entirely predictable but still startling admission comes from none other than Rodney Croome, the face of Australia’s ‘homosexual marriage’ movement:
As the main spokesperson for Australian Marriage Equality I was summarily told not to speak about Safe Schools, even though I had helped develop a version in Tasmania that had strong bi-partisan support and was relatively immune to attack.
The majority of Australians have no idea of the havoc that they have just unleashed upon themselves.
Legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ does much more than that. It will necessarily lead to a revolution in social affairs, powered by draconian laws imposing a new state morality.
A big warning sign was when the parliament agreed to pass these laws while specifically voting against protections that would merely allow parents to exercise discretion when it came to programs like ‘Safe Schools’.
These programs will become mandatory in Australia, just as they have in other nations that have legalised this madness:
Welcome to the age of political slavery.
Free speech as a concept is dead in Australia. Culturally and legally it has become a fossil of another era, soon to be placed in a dusty museum next to the ossified skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
And while the big extinct lizard would have posed a threat to humanity, speaking the truth only poses a threat to those in charge. Nature might have ‘selected’ T-Rex for termination, but it has done no such thing with free speech. It has been unnaturally ‘selected’ out of our culture by those pursuing and protecting their own power.
Another legal commentary has been written about my case against the Chief of Defence Force, confirming the view that we now live in an age of political slavery. This time it was penned by Michael Barnes of Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers. He had this to say:
The Full Bench rejected the notion that the matter was a case of Mr Gaynor having been terminated for expressing his political opinion. Rather, the Court found Mr Gaynor was terminated for not complying with the policies and directions of the ADF.
Put in plain English, it is unlawful to sack someone for expressing personal political views. It is unlawful to pass laws silencing the expression of personal political views. But it is entirely lawful for government departments and businesses to implement ‘cultural change’ agendas silencing the expression of political views and to then sack someone, not because they express views, but because they are ‘disobedient’ by expressing those views.
Which pretty much amounts to the same thing as sacking someone for expressing political views.
As only the legal profession can, it has twisted words and meanings to come to the conclusion that black is white.
And here’s the warning for all Australians. Barnes goes on to say:
Accordingly whether you are in the Army, the public sector or the private sector, [an] employer has the capacity to set out a range of policies over issues that pertain not simply to the narrow traditional economic focus of an enterprise but to a much broader range of policy criteria including being a “good corporate citizen”.
A breach of these policy prescriptions in the workplace certainly can give rise to disciplinary consequences, but more importantly, a breach of the policy prescription by your behavior outside of the workplace, including what is said in social media, can still bring an employee to account.
Remember all those crazy people suggesting that laws legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ would hit freedom for six?
They were right.
A business can legally back the rainbow and sack anyone who might dare to offer resistance in their own private capacity. Not because they are silencing ‘free speech’.
But because the employee just happens to have a ‘disobedient’ moral world view.
This is far more than silence. It’s the forced observance of a new state-imposed religion in every aspect of your life.
And to make matters worse, the ‘policies’ that are used to sack you don’t even need to exist at all.
In my case, Defence did not have a policy requiring my silence in my personal life. Instead, it had a policy that explicitly permitted the expression of private political views on any matter.
It’s a little hypocritical.
But it should be no surprise that a nation that willingly embarks on a path to totalitarianism will necessarily need to accept that the laws and policies in place today are meaningless, in the sense that they can be interpreted any way the dudes in charge want.
The same legal system that ruled against free speech in my case is quite happy to support it in others. Last year the High Court ruled against Tasmanian laws banning protests that would hinder or obstruct businesses in a case brought by former Greens leader, Bob Brown:
At the hearing in May, Brown’s counsel, Ron Merkel, told the court the law discriminated against protesters by allowing companies to give consent to certain political activities, in effect silencing only those opposed to logging.
The message is clear.
When it comes to free speech and the law, it does not really matter what you do or who you impact. All that matters is whether you are deemed ‘progressive’. If so, you’ll get a pass. If not, you won’t.
As I said, welcome to the age of political slavery.
Australia is on the verge of legally recognising Sharia law.
The Religious Freedom Review, launched after the ‘homosexual marriage’ postal survey, contains a panel member who has previously argued for legal recognition of Sharia law. This is what Professor Nicolas Aroney wrote in 2012:
From a Western point of view, the practice of Shari’a is in part a religious liberty issue and, to that extent, its conscientious practice ought to be a right enjoyed by all committed Muslims, qualified only by strictly justifiable limitations imposed by the general law.
Even if this inquiry does not directly recommend the recognition of Sharia law, it is likely to jam the door wide open for its protection anyway.
Another panel member is the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rosalind Croucher. She might not carry the same baggage as Gillian Triggs but she does represent a body that has used ‘human rights’ as a cover to increase its power over all aspects of Australian life and to wage war on our culture, history and civilisation.
And it currently has a glaring vacancy: a Religious Discrimination Commissioner.
It is highly likely that this review will pave the way for another ‘Thought Police’ commissar.
Some might see this role as necessary. It I see it as helpful to this nation as a bullet to the head.
The Race Discrimination Commissioner’s job is to ensure state-sanctioned protection of racial hatred against our Anglo heritage.
The Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s job is to ensure state-sanctioned protection of sexual discrimination against men and heterosexuality.
The Children’s Commissioner’s job is to ensure state-sanctioned protection of discrimination against parents.
And there can be no surprises for guessing what job a Religious Discrimination Commissioner will have or which religion it will target most: Christianity.
It might be too difficult in the current environment to bring in direct legal recognition of Sharia law, but it is quite easy to do the same thing by appointing some trendy Muslim to the role of State Religion Commissar and setting him loose.
After all, this back door method has been working well for some time.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is busy promoting Sharia compliant clothing under the guise of international relations:
The rise of the ‘hijabista’ presents valuable opportunities for 🇦🇺. Apart from the obvious economic benefits, the emerging modest fashion market can help advance 🇦🇺’s public diplomacy objectives. https://t.co/YuC6pWzdH3 #modest #fashion #muslim @AusHCMalaysia pic.twitter.com/H3ywzKxOXf
— DFAT🇦🇺 (@dfat) January 27, 2018
And the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources actually oversees and certifies halal certification in Australia:
There is little time to act. Turnbull’s Religious Freedom Review might be a sham but we still need to make our voices heard.
You can sign my comprehensive submission to this inquiry here. It calls for the protection of our Western Christian civilisation and provides a detailed legal and philosophical explanation why the government must limit freedom for Islam in order to ensure religious freedom for Australians.
And you only have two weeks to do it, so get it done today.
Some might wonder how we managed to get into this situation following the marriage postal survey.
The answer is simple: legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ was always going to result in us stumbling down this road.
Many might find this hard to believe.
After all, Islam hates gays, right?
Well, yes. It does.
And aren’t homosexuals smart enough to recognise the danger?
Well, actually, no.
The LGBT movement is so obsessed with its unholy crusade to destroy Western civilisation that it sees Islam as a key enabler in breaking down the institutions of our society. And it may well be right about that.
The LGBT movement and Islam are on a collision course. But that’s some time off. Before we get there the common enemy, Western civilisation, must be destroyed. Both are chipping away at its fabric. And both want to see Christianity eradicated.
Whatever problems may come in the future, in the here and now, Islam and the radical LGBT movement have a lot in common and are mutual allies.
Furthermore, any ‘advance’ for one of these ideologies will necessarily advance the other.
Take ‘marriage equality’ for example. All of the arguments used to push through homosexual marriage (love is love, equality) happen to be the same arguments that will see polygamy accepted as well. We are on the threshold of the campaign for Sharia marriage equality.
Tim Wilson, the homosexual Liberal MP and former Human Rights Commissioner has already put forward ideas that will see Sharia law recognised:
The proposition is simple: we separate the civil and religious traditions of marriage, but treat them equally in law.
In practice it works along these lines. The Marriage Act would recognise civil marriages. A civil marriage is defined as a union between two people voluntarily entered into for life and can be solemnised by a licensed civil celebrant. The act will also recognise religious marriages in different religious traditions in a different section of the text.
He wrote that back in 2015. In black and white writing he is proposing laws that will recognise Islamic marriage equality.
And the day the postal survey results were announced the Greens gave up any pretence that they were concerned that laws recognising ‘homosexual marriage’ would lead to polygamy:
Now that we’re here, can I stop pretending that gay marriage being a gateway to polygamy actually bothers me? Because if that is true, I honestly could not give a shit. #MarriageEquality
— Matt Siegel (@Mattsiegel1) November 14, 2017
Those words come from the senior media advisor to Greens’ leader, Richard Di Natale. They were written less than an hour after the postal survey results were made public.
And now we have the Orwellian ‘Religious Freedom Review’.
It’s time to fight back. Sign the submission today.