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?
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.