Last week an offensive, pornographic, putrid and reprehensible image of Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell appeared on the wall of a Newtown pub.
It depicted the two men engaged in an indecent homosexual act.
The mural was supposed to show support for homosexual marriage and homosexuality, while at the same time denigrating two key figures from Australia’s Catholic community.
And then the media took up arms after it was ‘defaced’. When I say defaced, I mean that the offensive image was covered in paint, so that it was no longer so offensive.
Let’s unpack this a little.
There are two points to make.
Firstly, this image is a reflection on the depravity of the ‘Yes’ crowd.
These people hate themselves.
On the one hand, they claim that homosexual behaviour is something to be esteemed, applauded and respected.
And on the other, they insult those they hate by hitting them with the greatest slur they can: depicting them engaged in homosexual acts.
Anyone who was involved in the marriage campaign knows what I mean: I have never been a called a ‘faggot’ so often in my life as in the past two months.
It is bizarre and twisted. It is akin to ‘No’ campaigners putting out flyers to ‘insult’ the leaders of Australian Marriage Equality by depicting them as happily married men tending the front gardens of their white-picket fenced homes.
True. That would not be much of an insult. That’s because the idea of heterosexual family life has an inherent ‘goodness’ about it.
So it is interesting to unwrap why pro-homosexual activists seek to hurl abuse that is based on nothing more than the very nature of homosexuality itself at defenders of traditional marriage.
And there is only reason why it is insulting: the very nature of homosexual behaviour is degrading. The insult is the attempt to infer that people like Tony Abbott and George Pell are somehow tainted with this same degrading behaviour.
It is an admission that there is something off about homosexuality. Yet those making this admission are the very same people cheering it on.
It is twisted and it reflects twisted logic and morality that expresses itself so profoundly in the sneering rejection of the idea of ‘straight’.
That’s point number one. It’s philosophical.
Point number two is straight out of the New South Wales criminal code.
It is against the law in New South Wales and most other places in Australia to publish images without consent that depict personal sexual activity, or that are altered or doctored to do so.
(1) A person who intentionally distributes an intimate image of another person:
(a) without the consent of the person, and
(b) knowing the person did not consent to the distribution or being reckless as to whether the person consented to the distribution,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.
(1) In this Division:
(a) send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate to another person, or
(b) make available for viewing or access by another person,
whether in person or by electronic, digital or any other means.
“engaged in a private act” means:
(a) in a state of undress, or
(b) using the toilet, showering or bathing, or
(c) engaged in a sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public, or
(d) engaged in any other like activity.
“intimate image” means:
(a) an image of a person’s private parts, or of a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, or
(b) an image that has been altered to appear to show a person’s private parts, or a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.
Yet that is exactly what happened to Tony Abbott and George Pell. ‘Artist’ Scott Marsh distributed an intimate image in a public place of them engaged in a private act.
It would seem on every count that this image violates section 91Q of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – a section that carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years.
New South Wales police, over to you. Do your duty and enforce the law.
Or are we to add a perpetual state of lawlessness to the consequences of ‘marriage equality’ as well…