Gay decision protects paedophilia

In what must be an unwanted first in Australian history, the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal has ordered a political candidate, Tess Corbett, to publish an apology in the Sydney Morning Herald because of her comments opposing paedophilia.

Yes. That’s right. Tess spoke out against paedophilia. And now some judicial body has ordered her to apologise.

And in another bizarre twist, this candidate was from Victoria. The New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal, as the name suggests, has its HQ somewhat north of the Murray River. It didn’t matter that Tess was campaigning in another state altogether.

The case was launched at the hands of Gary Burns. He’s a gay rights activist. He took exception to Tess’s comments that made it clear she was concerned that those who support paedophilia will use anti-discrimination legislation to seek the same rights and privileges as homosexuals.

So he went ahead and used anti-discrimination legislation to shut Tess down for expressing her concerns about paedophilia.

I’m not sure if Tess’s prophecy was literally fulfilled by Gary or not. More probably, he’s just a bangle short of a gay rave. But thanks to Gary, politicians are no longer free to state their concerns about paedophilia. He might like to think about that, considering how he is such a leading figure in the homosexual community. It’s not exactly what I would call a great way to demonstrate that the homosexual community is opposed to those who sexually molest children.

Now, the limp-wristed elites out there, if they’ve read to this point, will be apoplectically choking on their weeties because I dared suggest that homosexuals have privileges, and because the words paedophilia and gay are in the same sentence.

So let’s just examine these two little volcanic sources of outrage.

Do homosexuals have privileges? Absolutely is the answer. In all sorts of ways.

In fact, thanks to Gary Burns, we now have proof that gay activists have more rights than anyone else in Australia. Gay activists don’t just get to vote like the rest of us, they also get to decide what candidates can believe. That’s pretty nifty.

From now on, any political candidate who utters something that Gary and his glitter-buddies dislike may wind up in court and forced to apologise. It’s only a matter of time before Gary and his mates drag an anti-gay marriage candidate before a tribunal because they believe those views incite serious contempt of loving, committed homosexual couples that just want the same rights as the rest of society.

Here’s another privilege. If Tess had said something waaaay out there, like she was concerned that those who support paedophilia will use anti-discrimination legislation to seek the same rights and privileges as [insert any other group than homosexuals – like, say, Catholic priests] guess what would have happened?

Legally, nothing.

But there would have been a positive media storm. Tess would have been toast of the town and nominated for some international human rights award.

And this adulation would have completely missed a logical absurdity. Catholic priests don’t use anti-discrimination laws. It’s just not their style, mainly because they don’t have any laws privileging them like Gary has. And that’s why Gary gets to use the law to demand apologies from Catholics, rather than anyone else ever testing Gary’s views in the legal system.

Gays have been given special legal categories of protection not available to the rest of society. In New South Wales, the anti-discrimination law protects homosexuals, but it contains no protections for heterosexuals. None. Zero. Zilch.

Maybe that’s because politicians think gay blokes are saintly people who like gardening, art and sunsets. But I think that’s pretty much a load of, well, you know.

Incidentally, it is also why people get away with making blanket and offensive statements all the time, explicitly stating that all Catholic priests are paedophiles. It’s also why there are no full-time, anti-discrimination campaigners out there protecting heterosexual people who face the loss of their job because they don’t support the Mardi Gras.

But there are people like Gary Burns. Gary, it seems, works full-time securing the privileges that homosexuals have and that others don’t.

Gary’s website describes him as an anti-discrimination campaigner, but I actually like his web address better. It’s more truthful: he is a discrimination activist. And, most recently, he’s been actively seeking to discriminate against those who oppose paedophilia. Look at his address:

Here is another way the homosexual community is privileged.

If any other group proudly exposed their children to lewd displays of sexually-explicit behaviour, they would be rightly condemned.

If Arabs, or motor-bike drivers, or teachers, or office clerks, or Methodists, or Catholic priests, or disabled aged people, or military veterans or any other category allowed their children to watch as adults bared their breasts and buttocks and engaged in sexually-explicit embraces, they would be condemned. (Actually, let me add one exception because this is not quite fair to the LGBT community. Muslims are also allowed to state how wonderful it is that Mohammad had sex with a nine year old girl, but that is a topic for another day).

But homosexuals are allowed to do this. That’s because people like Gary Burns have made it politically incorrect to point out that the homosexual community has a lower standard of what is publicly acceptable sexual behaviour than the rest of society. This ‘privilege’ also means that they are allowed a different standard regarding child sexualisation than the rest of society too.

In fact, the LGBT community are so ‘privileged’ in this area that they can claim it is broad-minded to expose children to sexually-explicit activity. A vice for anyone else is a virtue for them.

It is also why homosexual publications are allowed to brazenly used words linked with paedophilia. Most gay publications use titles that are full of provocative sexual innuendo. South Australia has a gay publication called Blaze. A Royal Commission (incidentally also from NSW) found that this term stands for ‘Boy Lovers and Zucchini Eaters’. No one seems to care about that, but I bet they would if it was the name of a journal from a Catholic boys’ school.

And that brings me to the gay and paedophile volcano.

Are homosexuals paedophiles? Of course, the answer is not all of them. Just like heterosexuals, or Catholic priests.

But some are. Let’s get that out of the way. Some homosexuals are paedophiles.

What that percentage is, I don’t know.

But these are verifiable facts. Most people who abuse children sexually are men. The vast minority of men identify as homosexual. It is less than 3 per cent. That means about 97 per cent of men are heterosexual.

All things being equal, and assuming that homosexual and heterosexual men abused children at about the same rate, you would expect to find that about 97 per cent of child sexual victims abused by men are female.

However, that’s not the case. About 30 per cent of child victims of sexual abuse are boys and more than half are abused by males only.

Mathematically, those stats don’t correlate. Obviously, there is a reason that boys are sexually abused at a much greater rate than should be expected. It might be a good idea to find out why.

But it is disturbing that gay activists, instead of questioning why boys make up such a large proportion of child sexual abuse victims when the vast majority of males are heterosexual, see this figure as a good thing. Why? Because they brazenly use it to support their fraudulent claims that gay men are not such a small minority in society. You only have to read through the hundreds of vitriolic Twitter messages I received yesterday to see this depraved logic in full flight.

I have my own theory about why so many boys are abused. The question is, am I allowed to state it any more? More importantly, who cares what I think. Is an academic allowed to study the issue now and publish findings that Gary Burns does not like?

It would seem the answer is no.

Vote Australian Liberty Alliance this Saturday



There is growing support and momentum building for the Australian Liberty Alliance as it contests its first election this Saturday. Your support can make a difference and will help to elect truly conservative Senators for our federal parliament.


This election, fight for the future of your children and grandchildren. Fight to stop the Islamisation of Australia. Fight to end wasteful government spending.


Vote for the Australian Liberty Alliance in the Senate.



Click here to view all Australian Liberty Alliance how to vote cards.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Share This Post On

24 Comments

  1. Here is a man for our day – Well spoken Bernard. Stay safe and continue to speak the truth in love, for to denounce wrong practices is to show true love. “For evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.” Reverend Charles F. Aked.

    Post a Reply
    • Thank you Neil for your support.

      Post a Reply
  2. Bernard you missed this.
    When asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as paedophiles, Ms Corbett replied “yes”.

    Post a Reply
    • Well what is that category Paul? It could be many things. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are morally perverted forms of sexuality. That is one category. They are also forms of sexual expression that have been illegal. Now one of them is not, and Tess made it perfectly clear she is uncomfortable with the second being legalised and protected in law, just as homosexuality has been. What Tess did not say was that all homosexuals are paedophiles.

      Post a Reply
      • One minor difficulty is that “morally” is a loose term depending on the ideology and ethics of the individual person who holds a given set of morals. I agree, Bernard, that the ideological system generally extant in Australia regards tends to see pedophilia as repugnant, and for a range of reasons. But I would be inclined to the view that homosexuality per se is more of a “natural” perversion – and that our moral sense of repugnance about it is then developed from a more deep-seated sense that it’s a natural evolutionary dead end. Bottom line is the same, but (yes, that WAS a deliberate pun! ).

        Post a Reply
  3. What a low level form of tabloid distorting commentary. Let get this right she associate paedophilia with being a condition of being gay. So she should retract her comment and apologies.

    If we were to do the same association that all paedophilies are straight men probably closer to the truth.
    I am sure we have to do more then give an apology.

    Stirring up such homophobic hate is not a good thing. Distorting facts and misinformation won’t make it more real.
    Making people believe that homosexuals are paedophilies is simply wrong.

    Same sex people or gays like adults not children.
    Associating someones sexual orientation with paedophilia is just showing youself as a homophobe.

    It always amazes me the unchristian behaviour of “homophobic” Christians.
    I am sure if Jesus was alive he see your comments as pure and simple hatred.

    Anyone straight or gay who is a paedophilia should be arrested and sent straight to jail.
    Gay people find it offensive to even be associated with the idea of paedophilia.

    Stop hating homosexuals.

    Post a Reply
    • Tess Corbett did not associate paedophilia with a condition of homosexuality. I challenge you to back your defamatory allegation with facts. What she said was that she did not want paedophiles getting rights like gays. Your condemnation of Tess starts leading one to believe that you do want paedophiles to have rights like homosexuals. Maybe you would also like to clarify your views on this point.

      Post a Reply
      • You missed the comment about locking away paedophies, I am totally against abuse of children by anyone.
        What I object to is a inference that gay people are more likely to abuse children. This I don’t believe is true.

        It hard enough for gay people to come to terms with being gay.
        Let alone also being label as paedophies .

        Post a Reply
        • Just because you don’t believe something does not mean it is not true. Not all gay people are paedophiles, but by your own admission in the post above, on a per capita basis, more engage in this behaviour than in the non-gay community.

          Post a Reply
        • The truth hurts sometimes Anthic but it is a fact that boys who are abused by a male are very much likely to become offenders themselves when they grow up and who will they target? Other boys. There are some sexual abuse committed by “heteros’ but then if a grown male sexually abuses a male boy, is he hetero or bi? If bi then he is still gay as well isn’t he?
          The only pedophiles that are not gay are those that are straight and prey on young girls. The ones who prey on boys are either gay or bi. Doesn’t that make sense? Straight is male to female. gay is male to male, bi is male to female or male. Hence, male pedophilia is committed by gay or bi men.
          Maybe that’s simplistic but a straight man cannot possibly be gulity of male pedophilia because if he had been ‘straight’ previously, the moment he engages in sexual intercourse with another male, grown or a child, he is no longer straight, he is gay or bi. .

          Post a Reply
    • “If we were to do the same association that all paedophilies are straight men probably closer to the truth.” ———————————————————- How so? Why would a straight man find a boy sexually attractive? You cannot be a straight man and be turned on by other males. Only about 2% to 5% of men are homosexual or bisexual. ——– http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629 ——- 30% of paedophiles prey on boys and most paedophiles are men. Frend and Watson found that an alarming number of paedophiles are also homosexuals. —————————————— “Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

      Post a Reply
      • Thanks Bruce for those stats – greatly appreciated.

        Post a Reply
      • Based on your figures 70% of paedophiles are not attracted to boys but girls.
        This would infer the majority are straight men. Your own numbers.

        Should we then have a discussion about straight men rights how they are dangerous to children.

        Your just hiding your obvious homophobe behind stats.
        Everyone knows stats can be distorted to say anything you want to infer.

        Post a Reply
        • Hi AnthLC. Thanks for pointing out my ‘homophobe’ stats and making the comment about statistics being distorted to mean whatever you want. The ability to use statistics is based on the ability to identify what they mean. Saying that because 70% of child abuse by men comes at the hand of heterosexual men means that heterosexual men are dangerous to children would make sense if less than 70% of men were heterosexual. But this is not the case. What is alarming is that you accept it is perfectly fine for 3% of men to commit 30% of child sex abuse. Furthermore, you do not want anyone to point it out, simply because of how it makes you feel. That’s pretty selfish, considering this information should be being used to make children safer.

          Post a Reply
          • Maths was obvious not a strong talent. By your own omission 70% of paedophies attack girls thus the majority are straight men. Associating a percentage of gay men in the general population does not change this fact. The majority of paedophiles are straight, not gay.

            I would even suggest those attacking boys are probably straight. Going off the number of catholic priests accused of such acts. I don’t believe catholic priests associate with being gay.

            All your pious arguments about religion, well you just have to read about the Catholic Church.
            Their Inaction in protecting children in their care for many decades.

            If your argument is about attacking paedophilia then I agree with you but you need to attack all of them.
            But if your argument is about vilification of gay people and trying create an association then your wrong.

            You views around homosexuals blindsides you to the fact the majority are not gay.
            I don’t think I can convince you. But I hope I will help convince others the wrongness of your arguments.

            Lastly paedophile is abhorrent and I hope the laws around protecting children and for institutions looking after children such as the Catholic Church are forced to report all occurrences of abuse.

            No more cover ups.

          • “I would even suggest those attacking boys are probably straight.” ——————— On what basis? Frend and Watson used phallometric testing methods on paedohiles to see if they’re sexually attracted to men (androphilia) or women (gynephilia). Their results found that for every paedophile they investigated who turned out to be sexually attracted to men, there were 11 who went the other way. That works out to 9% of them being homosexual. Their words. There was a reference to previous investigations finding that two-thirds of all victims of paedophilia are female, but don’t take that to mean 30% of the kids who were abused by the offenders in Frend and Watson’s study group were boys. There was nothing stated about the ratio of boys and girls who were raped by the offenders in the study group.

    • Dear AnthLC, You said ” if Jesus was alive”. Well, Jesus is alive. He rose from the dead on the third day after he was crucified to pay for the sins of the whole world. Sin and death are defeated. Hallelujah. Have a happy Christmas and remember why God sent His only begotten Son into the world. (John 3:16)

      Post a Reply
  4. Thank you Bernard. What a breath of fresh air to hear someone ‘gutsy’ enough to speak the truth.
    Ms Corbett has the right to express her own opinions on homosexuality. Unfortunately, Mr Burns wants every one to agree with what he believes otherwise he plays the anti-discrimination card. Could it be that he is heterophobic? For he discriminates against heterosexuals who hold a different opinion to his in regards to homosexuality! Should Ms Corbett also use the anti-discrimination card on Mr Burns for his discrimination against her right to free speech?
    The minority homosexual populace has been granted a lot of legal rights-so don’t abuse those rights Mr Burns. You will have to learn that all people have a right to their own opinion, just as you demand the right to express your own opinion with freedom.
    Those who do not agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle are the ones being discriminated against in any case. The acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is being forced on everyone & if one doesn’t comply, they are being threatened with legal action; fined; suffer loss of jobs; are discriminated against; raged at; intimidated; endure character attacks; restricted freedom of religion; homosexual education is being installed in schools whether parents want their children taught it or not; freedom of speech is under threat as governments interfere with people’s beliefs and opinions; and ‘political correctness’ is one sided.
    The shrill shrieks of “discrimination” blocks out the real reason why many people do not want to normalize the homosexual lifestyle and which begs honest discussion, review & community consideration & concern. (i.e. the high risks of physical damage; rampant sexually transmitted diseases; lowered life expectancy; and the high percentage of male children sexually molested by males & the rights of a child to have a biological mother & father)

    Post a Reply
    • Thank you JoBeth. Unfortunately for Tess, it is my understanding that the law in NSW does not provide any protection for heterosexuals. That means that homosexuals could not face action for discriminating against heterosexuals on that basis. However, I’d appreciate it if any legal experts could clarify this situation.

      Post a Reply
      • Just how thick are you? Since when does anybody discriminate against a heterosexual? I have never seen nor heard of any such discrimination.

        Post a Reply
    • I would add to the above that the LGBT lobby, will like the Green Labor lobby, push the boundary too far as Mr Burns is doing and suffer a backlash from the broader (majoriy) community. There comes a point when tolerance is trespassed on, and when they start using legislation/law to enforce their agenda, people start saying enough is enough. I think its time we started pushing back and see how they like it. Perhaps they’ll take their feather duster and go home.

      Post a Reply
  5. Thank you for an extremely informative and interesting article. I do believe that the “Gay” community have far too many special rights and that the NSW Anti Discrimination Board has overstepped the mark with this decision. I do hope that there is the right of appeal. As the grandmother of adult grandchildren, I am just so concerned about what is going to happen when they have their own children and as to whether or not they will have the right to bring them up in a Christian home – after all, in certain places in the UK, the reading of the Bible in public is banned as ‘hate speech’.

    Post a Reply
  6. Romans 13 tells us to obey the laws because the lawmakers or those who administer laws are Gos’s servants. So they should be obeyed. What if they order us to apologise for speaking the truth? Could it be that they are then acting as God rather than being just his servants ? The early church faced emperor worship compulsion and refused, so often faced very unpleasant consequences.

    Post a Reply
  7. Bernard, I checked for NSW – it does entertain applications to have a person declared a “vexatious litigant”. Worth checking out, I reckon.

    Post a Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Open Season on Christians » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch - [...] bernardgaynor.com.au/gay-decision-protects-paedophilia/ [...]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!