This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
Graham Perrett is very concerned that the debate over homosexual marriage will be hurtful.
So he put this nice video up on his Facebook page:
Good for him.
However, I think Perrett was actually warning Australia about his own comments. Because not three days earlier, he tweeted this:
Flint is a knob
— Graham Perrett (@GrahamPerrettMP) August 9, 2017
This was a tweet about David Flint. Flint is actually gay. And he doesn’t support ‘marriage equality’.
I guess Perrett is not concerned with vile abuse flung at the way of homosexuals after all. Either that or he’s just a hypocritical bully…
The word on the street has reached Eyes on Sydney: the Islamic community is quietly being told to vote yes in the upcoming plebiscite.
While this particular question is being described by the LGBT+ lobby as nothing more than the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, it represents far more than that to other groups seeking to redefine our nation’s laws as well.
For the Islamic community it is an opportunity to shove open the door to legalised polygamy.
Eyes on Sydney also reports that Muslims see this as yet another chance to weaken Western civilisation by hurling it down the path to degeneracy.
The feedback from Eyes on Sydney is supported by the fact that leaders of the Islamic community have been noticeably silent about the plebiscite.
Further, Crikey reported last year that Keysar Trad, the President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, was unhappy that the concept of polygamy was shot down at a meeting of various Christian leaders planning for the no campaign late last year.
Keysar Trad is certainly no shrinking violet when it comes to the promotion of polygamy. He wrote in Crikey as far back 2009 that polygamy was part of the campaign for marriage equality and that legalising it would be a ‘service’ to all Australian women.
And all of this is backed up by the example of Australia’s most famous Muslim politician, Sam Dastyari.
He’s backing marriage equality.
All the way.
And then there’s this group that has just popped up too:
It seems the Islamic community expects that they’ll get ‘marriage equality’ too.
Defence keeps leading with its chin. And Defence keeps being whacked.
From today’s Daily Telegraph:
AUSTRALIA’S Chief of Army told recruiters to study women’s shopping habits to better understand how to attract them to frontline combat roles.
The extraordinary advice came as part of a politically correct recruitment revolution that led to a ban on men being hired for military roles while female recruits are pushed to the front of the queue.
Lieutenant General Angus Campbell told recruiters in Canberra last year they could learn from a Canadian study called Men Buy, Women Shop.
We are fighting the Islamic State and facing an increasingly uncertain situation in North Korea. Yet our military hierarchy is modelling Defence on the inscrutable ways of the female mind whilst shopping.
Will this madness ever end? Will all soldiers soon be required to follow former Chief of Army, David Morrison, and wear high heels in public?
Defence might as well start issuing the handbags out now.
I previously wrote about Campbell’s crazy speeches to recruiters in February. As I said at the time, they represent insanity.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of them was that Campbell himself admitted that the PC push to recruit women was failing so badly that it was likely to actually result in less women in the military:
“We only met 60% of our ARA general enlistment target for women. We also did poorly in officer entry. We only hit 67% of our target overall, and 55% and 10% for women and Indigenous candidates respectively. Not hitting anywhere near our targets for ARA women means that not only are we not on path to 25%. In fact, the actual percentage of women in the force in being is likely to decline.”
But still the push continues.
In a speech for International Women’s Day, Campbell made this very interesting observation:
“The representation of women in our full time force is still only 12.7% and it’s not enough. But 18% of our commanding officers are women.”
If Campbell actually thought about what he said, and if he actually believed in merit, he could reasonably come to the conclusion that women perform better than men and are accordingly promoted to the higher ranks at a rate 50% higher than there statistical numbers.
But it is clear that this is not about capability. It is about ticking the PC boxes, which is why he was talking about quotas and targets for a gender representation.
The guys I graduated Duntroon with are now lining up to become unit commanders. Many of them are very good operators. And some of them will miss out on this very important career posting because they are male.
Females are being promoted ahead of males in the Army. And I don’t mean in a general sense. I mean in the most specific sense possible.
They are getting the better jobs because of their gender.
And this is not something hidden.
Defence personnel are now explained on career progression courses that where two candidates for promotion rank similarly, gender will be taken into consideration. What ‘similarly’ means is always open to interpretation.
Warfare is probably the most uncivilised thing humans can engage in. However, in the Australian Army it is now ladies before gentleman onto the battlefield.
Oh, and one tidbit of information that filtered my way yesterday.
Apparently 50 females have graduated into the infantry since it was opened up to them a couple of years ago. According to the grapevine, already 40 of them have been, or are in the process of being discharged or corps transferred due to injuries suffered trying to keep up with the blokes.
I have not been able to confirm if this is true. But I am digging…
Following the revelations Defence will not process applications from males for front-line combat roles for at least 12 months that appeared on this website and the front page of the Daily Telegraph today, understandably, the Defence Minister, Marise Payne, went into damage control.
This press release was issued:
And the obligatory tweets were sent:
All roles in the ADF are open for men and women to apply #YourADF
— DefenceAustralia (@DeptDefence) August 10, 2017
There are no Australian Defence Force employment categories which are open exclusively to women https://t.co/GzYREr5gr8
— DefenceAustralia (@DeptDefence) August 10, 2017
However, these were nothing more than a smokescreen that billowed forth from a Russell Offices complex in Canberra intent on obfuscating itself out of this mess.
It is true that all roles in the ADF are open to males and females. It is true that males can apply for any of them.
But that is not the issue.
It is not in dispute that males are applying for these roles. All of them. That happens every day. It’s what happens next that is the problem.
Males are not having their applications processed. And Defence cunningly, cleverly and craftily crept away from dealing with that issue at all.
But if you carefully read the press release above you will see the sleight of hand. Between the first and second line, there is a complete change of tack.
The first line is about the jobs males can apply for. All of them.
And the next line is all about the jobs females get.
After that there’s a bunch of PC bunkum about diversity and statistics that fails to disguise the fact that Defence has admitted it has quotas for females.
And that also necessarily means discrimination against males.
Hence the spreadsheet I received this week named ‘Weekly Target Priorities – 7 Aug 17’ and authored by ‘Defence Force Recruiting’. Defence has not denied it exists or that it clearly shows all front-line combat roles in the Army are closed to males for at least 12 months but are open to females now.
Screen shots of the appropriate cells in the spreadsheet are shown below:
Because you’re a bright bunch, I’ll let you work out what out the (F) stands for. But you can see the meaning of the colour codes below:
After today’s events, I can tell you that angry, frustrated, annoyed and concerned fighting men of Australia are coming out of the wood works. They’ve had enough.
And now I’ve got stories to chase for the next ten years.
Thanks to the lovely, well-mannered Tim Minchin we have the entirety of the ‘Yes’ case.
In song form. It’s pretty short. And mostly expletives.
This would normally surprise.
But I’m just not sure anymore.
The world has drifted so far from the moorings of reality that crazy is the new normal.
I received a document earlier this week. It details Defence recruitment priorities over the next 12 months.
It’s pretty simple really. General enlistment jobs for soldiers, sailors and airmen are colour-coded red, orange and green. The trusty stoplight system.
Green jobs have recruiting targets now. Orange ones have targets for recruitment in 6-12 months. And red jobs are not priorities. There are no targets for these positions for at least the next 12 months.
Male infantry roles are flagged with the red stoplight.
So are male armoured cavalry roles.
So are male combat engineer roles.
And so are male artillery roles.
According to Defence’s recruiting spreadsheet, blokes will not get a look-in for these roles until late 2018.
The details on this document are backed up by what I’ve been hearing as well. In fact, the informed word is that the Army has simply halted processing new male recruit applications for combat roles. Further, those who have already applied for front line positions are being told to withdraw their applications or to apply for a job that’s a little less warlike.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Let me be very clear.
Do not mistakenly assume that the Army is simply not currently recruiting people for combat jobs. It is.
Nor are these positions ‘full’. They aren’t.
That is very clear in the document as well.
It’s just that the only people who have the green light for recruitment into warfighting roles within the Army over the next 12 months are female.
There’s just one exception.
I have also been informed, verbally, that if you happen to be hindered with the unfortunate attribute of being male but you are lucky enough to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent then you may apply for these jobs too.
This recruitment strategy comes after the Chief of Army’s speech on International Women’s Day spruiking the idea of doubling the number of females inside the baggy green skin. It also follows the introduction of new politically-correct indoctrination courses being run in Army brigades that focus on things like gender diversity.
Like I said, this should surprise. It seems unbelievable. But, then again, we are in 2017 and the Australian Human Rights Commission has been running amok inside the military for far too long. Even after former Chief of Army, David Morrison, broke down and started wearing high heels, this mob kept going.
It won’t stop until the rest of the ADF is in high heels too.
Along the way, our nation’s military capability will suffer. And an institution that has been cherished by millions of Australian families will turn its back on them.
Defence has declared war on white, Anglo-Australian males. It is openly discriminating against them.
The Australian Defence Force does not want people like you because of your race. That makes #yourADF (as senior generals and admirals like to hashtag about on Twitter) a racist organisation that is really only #somepeoplesADF. It’s such a shame really.
When I served there were hardworking and dedicated Australians from all backgrounds. They worked well together because they came together as a single team, with one mission and where everyone was expected to do their job and respected when they did.
It’s very different now. And it is shown very clearly in Defence’s latest recruitment campaign.
Everyone is picked due to their minority status. And everyone gets a guernsey except the poor ol’ white fella.
The New Age Defence Force doesn’t advertise with VC winners. But it does use a guy who went to Saudi Arabia on the Defence Force dime to participate in a Koran recitation contest to get recruits through the door.
I’ll let you guess, for the time being, which smiley face above did that.
But don’t take my own word for this. Read Defence’s own documents.
Two years ago, a glossy report with the Defence Force logo on it surfaced after careful consideration in the elite world of academia. And it stated this about Anglo-Australian males:
Compared to the wider community, Defence is an Anglo-Australian, male-dominated organisation.
Such a demographic profile is no longer desirable or sustainable.
Defence clearly has no desire for Anglo-Australian males at the moment. Which means they are being actively discriminated against for recruitment.
And that means the number of them in the Defence Force is most certainly unsustainable. It can hardly be otherwise if the military head honchos won’t let them in the front door.
It is abundantly apparent that this report is now being put into action in a big way. In what should give some comfort to North Korean megalomaniacs, this report also identified that the focus on battlefield courage was a barrier to the integration of minorities into our fighting forces:
It is primarily the Anglo-Australian male soldier renowned for acts of courage in battle who is iconised as the ideal identity in the organisation. Yet other values are just as meaningful for the organisation. This normative language practice excludes other values and other people.
It went on to state:
To counter this kind of inadvertent but systemic exclusivity, it is important that the organisation exemplifies more values than just those values related to tenacity, such as courage, and at the same time creates new kinds of heroes. In an inculcated culture such as Defence, values have a serious role to play in the formation of identity in military members. The effective inculcation of a potentially diverse demographic is at stake.
So it won’t be long before courage is out in order to get minorities in.
The problem the New Age Army has, however, is that the New Age plan has some problems.
From what I’ve been told, only three females have applied for jobs in the infantry in recent times across the entirety of Australia. And two of them were deemed unsuitable, even though the physical requirement for recruit candidates is the ability to eke out four push-ups.
Most likely, if you can’t do that, then you’re probably already on the way to hospital. Or the morgue.
So despite this plan, don’t expect to see battalions of females marching around anytime soon. The Army might want ‘em but the love is only one way. The vast majority of Australian women are simply not interested. And you know what, that is actually normal and natural.
Of course, Army recruiters have been told that if there are no suitable females but a qualified male is ready to go, they still cannot enlist him.
I hate to tell it to you guys, but you’re being ignored even if you are stronger, fitter, faster. That’s how it swings in the post-Liz Broderick/David Morrison Army.
And if you think the Army has lost the plot, things are even worse in the other services.
Only one of the 18 jobs currently a recruitment target priority for the Navy is open to males. And in the Royal Australian Air Force, all seven jobs listed as a recruitment target in the next six months are for women.
The good news, blokes, is that Defence is happy to make exceptions for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons. And, according to a very unhappy recruitment adviser, no one ever checks if people actually do have such an ethnic background.
And who’s to know what indigenous really means anyway? Plus it’s also rude to pry too deeply.
So if you’re born in Australia, maybe you are a native after all.
Failing that, you could also claim to be a women. That seems to work a treat these days too.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for those serving the nation in the midst of this madness.
They can see the top brass have lost the plot. They know if they speak up they will lose their job. And they are telling me that if they do their job and implement these plans, it could well lead disaster.
As I was told by one brave individual this week, the concern is that Defence’s PC madness will not change until someone dies.
And I’m hearing the same story from other men and women serving in the military as well (yes even the girls are telling me this is insanity).
The Defence Force doers who protect this nation, the soldiers, sailors and airmen, are not just prepared to face an external enemy. They are enduring the dangerous and politically-correct morale black holes behind them as well.
And they work in a department overseen by Marise Payne. Don’t expect anything to change anytime soon…
When most Australians think about the Lindt Café terrorist attack they are outraged at the violence.
They are worried about the clumsy police response, the failed immigration process, the inept intelligence assessments and the broken judicial system that all conspired to allow Man Haron Monis to roam free and easy on our streets.
And they want these things fixed.
I say most Australians. But the truth is not all.
When Senator Dean Smith thinks about the Lindt Café terrorist attack he thinks about gay marriage.
This is what he told the ABC on Sunday as he prepared to ambush the Liberal Party in an attempt to force a vote on homosexual marriage:
“I was particularly moved by the story of Tori Johnson in the Lindt cafe. I didn’t know Tori Johnson. I didn’t know his story.
I was reading the Western Australia newspaper on a regular flight to Albany in the state’s far south-west. I was particularly moved by that particular circumstance.
I came – I don’t know Tori’s circumstance. But I came to the conclusion that had Tori and his partner been wanting to get married, or had been waiting to get married, in the same way that so many gay and lesbian Australians are waiting to get married, and then his life was taken in such a tragic way, that moved me and it just reinforced my resolve and I came to the conclusion very quickly, with great clarity, that it is now time to legislate by Parliamentary vote same-sex marriage in Australia.”
If our Senators respond to the Lindt Café terrorist attack by promoting gay marriage, one can hardly be surprised that Australians are increasingly concerned about safety and security.
For most Australians, homosexual marriage is a third rate issue. They are more concerned about paying the rent, getting the kids to school, cleaning their ears and having a beer on Saturday.
I admit that I probably get a little more worked up about the issue than many. But, then again, the vast majority of people have not been forced through the anti-discrimination torture chamber because of their moral worldview.
And this month submissions are flying around the High Court due to an appeal that aims to force me back before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and to face 24 complaints and potential fines of up to $1.6 million.
When ordinary Australians hear about these stories they shake their head. And when they are combined with information about ‘Safe Schools’, they want the whole shebang to go away.
But it won’t unless we win the culture wars. The first victory needs to be a decisive no vote in the days ahead.
We’ve already had well over a dozen bills go before the parliament for homosexual marriage. All of them were voted down.
We’ve had Labor campaign to enact homosexual marriage within 100 days of gaining power. Voters turned away and elected Malcolm Turnbull instead.
We’ve had endless pressure from homosexual marriage advocates seeking to deny Australians any say in a revolutionary legal and cultural earthquake targeting the nation’s most important institution.
And now we’re getting postal votes in the mailbox asking us to tick off this change, even though Turnbull refuses to tell us what is in the proposed law.
And this brings us back to Dean Smith.
His proposed bill for homosexual marriage was released over the weekend. You can read it here.
It is probably the closest thing we have to what the final law may look like
There are no provisions to protect bakers, photographers or any other business that does not want support a homosexual wedding.
If homosexual marriage is legalised, expect Australian small businesses to ‘legally extorted’ through discrimination complaints, just as they have been elsewhere in the world.
There are no provisions to protect ordinary Australians from a new series of vilification complaints under anti-discrimination laws if they dare to disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage.
If homosexual marriage in Australia is legalised, expect Australian mums and dads to be subjected to anti-discrimination complaints for using pronouns, just as they have been elsewhere in the world.
Additionally, by virtue of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which makes it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of marriage, any bill to legalise homosexual marriage will instantly open up an entirely new front and complaint mechanism process for the endlessly offended to continue their war on Australians.
This will come on top of other programs like Safe Schools which will be thrust upon us with greater force as a result of the Commonwealth’s decision to legally recognise that same-sex couples are worthy of the same recognition of heterosexuals, even though the former cannot even have sex in the true sense of the word, while the latter can create life.
And this means that ‘sex’ legally and culturally will be extended to encompass everything and anything. And children will need to learn about it all at school for their ‘safety’.
Parents will get even less say than they have now. And as this mother shows in the video below (which has been viewed more than 4 million times since July), the secretive Safe Schools program is out of control.
Finally, in what appears to be a never ending sweep of political correctness into the Australian Defence Force, Dean Smith’s bill provided provisions for Defence personnel to get gay married whilst on operations in places like Iraq (these guys leave no stone unturned in their effort to wave the rainbow across the entire face of the earth).
And these provisions show where freedom is headed in Australia.
It is true that Dean Smith’s proposed bill would have provided some kind of legal protection for ministers of religions, religious marriage celebrants and churches from being forced to conduct homosexual weddings.
And this protection would have also extended to Defence Force chaplains. It is debatable exactly how well these provisions would have lasted. The experience overseas shows that it can just be a matter of days.
However, Dean Smith’s protection did not extend to the poor old Defence Force officer who is not a volunteer and who is now filling the role of a marriage official upon appointment to this position by the Chief of Defence Force.
He will have no choice but to head overseas on operations knowing that he must officiate at gay weddings. I’m sure it will go down well in the Middle East.
The only way to get around this is for yet more PC-ification of the Defence Force. The ‘logical’ solution to this dilemma is to open up a whole new career within the Army for homosexual wedding officiators.
That is where we are headed; a choice between being forced to participate in homosexual marriage, or accepting that the homosexual industry will carve out little empires for the brethren in every business, industry and government department.
Of course, this commentary all relates to Dean Smith’s bill.
The bill that does get put up if Australians do, for some reason, choose to vote for this insanity, may be completely different. It may have no protections at all.
The government is refusing to release any details about what the legislation may look like.
And that is just one more reason to retain the status quo rather than jumping into bed with a whole new concept.
If you don’t know, just vote no.
This webpage is proud to have its very own resident progressive, Iffiayah Wazza-Lefte.
She has come out of the closet for the plebiscite and has some inciteful remarks about the homophobic hate-speech that our nation is already enduring
It’s such a shame.
Already the battle for ‘marriage equality’ has descended into the gutter. As such, and as a new age Muslim aunt of a gay dolphin trainer who just wants the freedom to be publicly adored by society for marrying whatever he may want, I despair about our nation’s future.
Before I get into the hatred that’s already on display, I also want to make some important and self-evident points.
Diversity is important. It is literally what makes the sun come up every day.
Diversity is also strong. But it is weak and needs protection.
That’s why those who are members of a vulnerable minority need to be shielded from hateful words of disagreement that are hateful by the very fact of disagreement. The vulnerable, despite the strength that they bring to our nation, simply cannot cope with outdated and bigoted views.
So they need protection too.
And they will be protected when we accept that diversity means recognising difference. That’s why it is so important that we change our language to eliminate words like husband and wife, mother and father, he and she.
Diversity means acknowledging that, despite our differences, we are all equal. A truly diverse nation would eliminate any gender, sexual, racial or other stereotypes or language that highlight unfair or negative variance. In fact, in a truly diverse nation, we would all be described in exactly the same way because we are all the same underneath and we would all be welcome to embrace any aspect of the fullness of humanity.
It is only then that we would all have the freedom to accept our differences. It is only then that we could all have the liberty to live as we choose. It is only then that we could all be anything we want, which means there would be no limits and no differences. We would be so truly diverse that we would all be the same.
That is where we need to head. And people like me won’t have children until we achieve such a world – a world where they can be truly free.
Until such a time comes, therefore, it is important that progressives work hard to remove harmful and negative family influences that are currently affecting the very lives of children others have so irresponsibly and selfishly brought into this world.
And one of those influences is the ‘Dark Ages’ understanding of marriage that still festers in our laws today.
It must go.
And we know that the Australian people want it to go. Every credible opinion poll has shown this. That is why it is so careless to allow a public vote. There is a strong possibility that negative scare campaigns could lead to the wrong result.
That is why this debate needs to be respectful, considerate and informed.
So it saddens me to see how dangerous it has already become. And I am not referring to hate-filled Christians who should have no right to speak or vote on this issue at all.
I am speaking directly about those who should know better: our progressive leaders.
Take Mia Freedman from the usually respectful website, Mamamia. She’s normally so sensible.
After all, she did smash Bernard Gaynor’s disgusting comment that he would not let a homosexual teach his children with a fine open letter that included this line:
“Looking back, I have no idea what ‘values’ my teachers held. And the same goes for my children’s teachers.”
Exactly. You go, girl!
And her 19 year old son has just yesterday penned a breathtakingly open, honest and caring article promoting his healthy pornography habit that included this gem:
“Talking honestly about porn is the way we can help raise sexually healthy, feminist men who respect women in and out of bed.”
So if I ever subcontracted my pregnancy out to help a struggling cis-woman from Thailand, Mia is the kind of mother that I would like to model myself on.
But then, yesterday, she also posted this:
— Mamamia (@Mamamia) August 8, 2017
Obviously, I do not need to explain why this is so hurtful. So hateful.
Indeed, posts like this are the reason young, vulnerable gay people are taking their own lives. If this hate-speech keeps up many of them won’t have just temporarily boycotted the plebiscite to hell. They’ll have boycotted it in the most permanent way possible.
That is why the backlash online against Freedman was so swift.
— Washington (@WASHINGTONx) August 8, 2017
One benefit, at least, is that Freedman appears to understand how damaging such ill-considered remarks can be. They contain latent and unconscious homophobic bias and she apologised profusely.
Marriage equality is a human rights issue & is supported by the vast vast majority of straight, married people. If I inadvertantly offended
— Mia Freedman (@MiaFreedman) August 8, 2017
..anyone by calling for legally married women to raise their voices in support of those who can’t legally married, I unequivocally apologise
— Mia Freedman (@MiaFreedman) August 8, 2017
I, too, now take this opportunity to grovel in advance as well, just in case I have shown similar disrespect in my writing. It’s the least we can all do to show our support for the cause.
But it is not just Freedman who has been hurtful.
The Victorian government is spending $15 million to build a Pride Centre in St Kilda. This is the kind of project that taxpayer money should be spent on.
Sigh. Just imagine if the Turnbull government had simply passed marriage equality and allocated the $122 million cost of the plebiscite to similar projects in other capital cities.
Because we surely need them, as the Victorian Pride Centre project shows.
It might be forward looking, as this Facebook post demonstrates:
But just last month at a community consultation event for the Pride Centre project, the convenor greeted the audience with the words, ‘ladies and gentlemen’.
There were several non-binary people at this event and they were naturally deeply offended. Such language is transphobic. And not just when trans persons are present.
It is transphobic. Full stop. All. The. Time.
Again, such language could see vulnerable people self-harm. And so do attitudes from the Victorian Pride Centre that indicate the building will be given a ‘safe space’ for biologically-female lesbians. This will discriminate against those who are freeing themselves from the constraints of the gender unfairly assigned to them at birth. We need to be mature enough to accept that men can be lesbians too.
This kind of unconscious bias shows that transphobic attitudes are rooted deep in society, even within the LGBTIQ+ community.
It needs to stop.
And if the LGBTI community is going to be so heartless to use the sexist, binary and outdated phrase ‘ladies and gentlemen’ with seemingly gay abandon, one can only despair at the other hate-filled comments we are likely to endure over the coming weeks as this entirely anti-democratic plebiscite rolls on.
The only solution is to let rip. We need to see more of this:
I want a plebiscite to vote if Lyle Shelton and Cory Bernardi are human, or disgusting creatures recently emerged from a pool of fetid slime
— Jon Eaves (@joneaves) August 8, 2017
An interesting snippet from yesterday’s Courier Mail about the latest political polling in Queensland:
While One Nation’s support continues to fall, the Government is facing another threat.
Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives has secured 6 per cent of the primary support – higher than One Nation’s 5.5 per cent at the 2016 federal election.
Cory Bernardi visited Queensland last month and met with supporters at a number of sold out events across the state. But the Australian Conservatives is not yet registered in Queensland and has no official structure or branches yet in place.
As such, it is remarkable that this new party is polling even higher than One Nation did federally at the last election. And given all the talk this week about gay rebel Liberal members crossing the floor to join with Labor and vote in homosexual marriage, one can only imagine that the trend for the Australian Conservatives is upwards.
Especially as this was in the news today too:
The Australian Christian Lobby is threatening to take the unprecedented step of campaigning against a Coalition government, warning Liberal MPs that it could direct members to support minor right-wing parties if a free vote on gay marriage is allowed in parliament.
The warning from the powerful lobby to hold the line on a plebiscite will be issued today with a petition of 55,000 signatures presented to the Senate. The group will amplify pressure on Coalition MPs — already scorched by the Catholic education campaign against the government’s school-funding reforms — by forming an alliance with Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi, who will seek to table an ACL petition.
The ACL’s move to campaign against the Coalition would be a first for the organisation. ACL managing director Lyle Shelton told The Australian that more than 350,000 emails had been sent by Marriage Alliance and ACL supporters to Coalition MPs calling on the government to keep its promise.
The drift of conservatives away from the Liberal Party is turning from a trickle into a flood.
In news that should worry all Australians, the Coalition government has today told public servants that they can be sacked for their political opinions.
From The Australian:
The Turnbull government will today seek to impose restrictions on public servants criticising the Coalition on social media, warning that employees risk disciplinary action for “liking” anti-government posts or privately emailing negative material to a friend from home.
Documents obtained by The Australian show public servants would also be warned they could be in breach of the public service code of conduct if they do not remove “nasty comments” about the government posted by others on the employee’s Facebook page.
You can read the new guidelines here.
I have been warning for some time now that workers have lost their political freedom. They, and their political views, are now legally owned by ‘The Company’ 24/7.
This was rammed home by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Chief of Defence Force v Gaynor earlier this year:
“Measured against the respondent’s statements, it is not difficult to conclude that it was open to the appellant to reach the conclusion that the retention of the respondent in the Army was not in the interests of the Army, given the weight placed on the fundamental changes in attitudes and policy about diversity in the ADF, measured against the content, manner and tone of the respondent’s public statements…”
My statements opposed official Defence participation in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Anyone prepared to accept the truth (and the Mardi Gras’ own constitution) knows that this event is political and that it promotes all sorts of things.
Like homosexual marriage.
Which, apparently, is not government policy (yet).
I also pointed out that Defence’s own policy prohibited uniformed attendance at events of a political nature.
So, of course, I was sacked (ironic really considering I expressed views supporting the actual government’s position and Defence’s own written policies).
And then the Full Court found that the Chief of Defence Force was entitled to set Defence on a political course of cultural change (including aspects that were contrary to official government policy) and that it was also lawful to sack me for raising concerns about its process of politicisation.
Lots of people agree with my views. And lots of people don’t. For the purpose of this article that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the totalitarian and communist-like clamp down of freedom of political opinion.
This affects all Australians.
Not that you would know it. From the Catholic Church to the union movement, there has been complete silence even though all will be hit by a new system that says the government can censor, silence and target anyone it pleases on the basis of their political opinion.
I have not had help from any of the institutions that are now seeing their own freedoms eroded through these and other ‘human rights’ law, policies and guidelines, even though my High Court appeal will benefit them all (if it succeeds) or lock the shutters closed (if it does not).
The High Court will hear arguments in relation to my application for leave on 18 August. I will keep you posted.
The targets today are public servants. But this policy (and the principal behind it) has enormous scope for mission creep. Tomorrow it will be anyone who has any link with government funding. And that is everyone.
And it will also spread beyond government.
Qantas, it seems to me, can legally decide to require employees to wear symbols supporting its stance in favour of ‘marriage equality’. And it can also, legally, decide to sack any of them who refuse to do so or who might question ‘marriage equality’ on Facebook.
So don’t think the private sector will escape. The same principles apply there as well. The chiefs set the beliefs in today’s brave new world of freedom. And that is simply another way of saying might is right.
The Coalition might think this policy is good because it will prevent public servants from criticising its policies. But, instead, it is just dumb.
Malcolm Turnbull might be many things but there is one thing he won’t be: prime minister for much longer.
When he goes, it is likely to be Bill Shorten who replaces him. And, credit where credit is due, when it comes to political purges of the public service and socialist policy, Shorten and Labor have it all over Turnbull and the Coalition.
The ‘Blue Team’ might be moving left as fast as they can, but they are mere amateurs at this game. The policy announced today will be a totalitarian disaster under Labor.
And even if the Coalition remains in power for longer than I anticipate, it is still dumb.
Every government department now has bizarre politically-correct policies in place. And the public servants who are most likely to feel the pain of these measures (which openly speak of ‘dob ins’) are likely to be those who aggrieve the endlessly offended.
If you work at Centrelink and like a post supporting traditional marriage, you could well find yourself subject to investigations for a breach of code of conduct for offensive statements launched by a gay colleague. Ditto if you slave away at the Department of Immigration and share an article about the latest push for Sharia law.
This policy is straight out of the ‘Lefty’ handbook and it will be policed by Lefties and for Lefties.
Like I said at the start, we should all be concerned. But conservatives should know that they will be likely to suffer most.
Finally, if that doesn’t convince you, I hope the sheer hypocrisy will.
Public servants have been told that they are likely to breach the APS Code of Conduct if they criticise their department, their minister or even the Prime Minister.
So, if that is true, it seems that public servants could face disciplinary action if they share the posts of the Community & Public Sector Union (of which they may well be a member) on their own private Facebook account in their own free time. Like this one:
However, the Australian Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd, can use his official account to attack the union and its stance. Like this tweet (which is just one of many):
Time for the CPSU to demonstrate awareness of national concerns beyond their immediate industrial strategy. https://t.co/4IIMZ22ZS2
— John Lloyd (@JohnLloyd_APSC) March 23, 2016
I don’t bring this up to indicate that I support the CPSU or any other union.
In fact, it promotes many things that I vehemently disagree with. But if we live in a world where union members are no longer free to express their views about government policy, we are probably living in a world that is closer to communist than free.
And that’s not a world I wish to live in. Or to hand to my children.