This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
About ten days ago it was reported that US combat simulations showed that it would lose a war to China by 2030.
2030 is ten years away. That’s not a long time and the first of our new $50 billion subs won’t even be wet by then.
Yet five days ago the Royal Australian Navy responded to this alarming and ‘eye-opening’ finding by asking sailors to study ‘Gender, Peace and Security’ at Monash University in Victoria.
So I guess it’s safe to say that if all hell does break loose in the Pacific, either now or in the next decade, the Royal Australian Navy will be of no use to anyone at all. But it will be able to tell the Americans why their sinking aircraft carriers are symbols of the patriarchy.
This won’t be the fault of the brave and patriotic sailors who have signed up to serve this nation. It will be the fault of their admirals who are still sculling the PC cool-aid.
Basically, and I mean no offence to those busy studying gender theory at the moment, the Navy is beavering away pinning tits on a bull while the entire global security order is being revolutionised.
You can read all about the Navy’s latest PC fiasco below:
The Graduate Certificate in Gender, Peace and Security costs a cool $12,100. Defence will shoulder this cost (thanks to the taxpayer) and I’m sure Chairman Dan also extends his gratitude on behalf of the Chinese Dictator for this vote of confidence in a Victorian education.
There are two units in this course.
Gender, security and conflict draws upon feminist theorising in international relations, security studies and global political economy to provide a thorough gendered critique of the theory and practice across the areas of conflict and security.
And Gender-based policy and planning introduces students to innovative established and new methodologies for generating evidence and developing evidence-based policies that are gender-sensitive, gender-inclusive and gender-responsive.
The course is overseen by two highly qualified academics, Professor Jacqui True and Associate Professor Katrina Lee-Koo. Naturally, because both of these people identify as feminists, they are well placed to mould the thinking of Australia’s future naval officers. No doubt they are also chuffed to have been given the responsibility to shape the defence of the realm.
Jacqui True’s writing has focused on dealing with the effects of COVID-19, Brexit and climate change.
In April she wrote that:
…countries with some of the most successful responses to COVID-19 and with a lower morality rate (~ 1 percent versus global ~5 percent), such as Germany, New Zealand and Norway, appear to have one thing common: women leaders.
The COVID-19 plans in women-led countries are working because their leaders are behaving like true leaders, unlike others.
Australia’s mortality rate from COVID-19 is lower than Germany, New Zealand and Norway despite being lead by a bloke but there is no doubt that if Sco Mo slapped on some lipstick and identified as a woman less people here would have succumbed to this disease.
True has also warned that COVID-19 affects women more than men. She argues, therefore, that our response needs to be gendered: after all, the majority of nurses are women and their workload has increased because selfish men are far more likely to die from this disease than women.
In 2019, True complained that international climate-change gab-fests are ‘too male, pale and stale’. Who knew that women are some kind of global air-conditioner? Well, True knew.
Four years earlier she wrote an article titled, ‘Why we need a feminist foreign policy to stop war’. Hey, I guess if women can bring global temperatures down they can also secure world peace.
But True’s best work deals with Brexit. In 2016, she co-authored a working paper for Monash University that stated:
What becomes clear through a feminist political economy lens is that Brexit is a politically construed crisis, manufactured not only by a generic male-dominated British political elite but in this case quite literally by men who happen to have gone to the same elite schools and have been competing with each other since adolescence. That their own private conflict could be transformed into a public issue of such magnitude – into a scandal – was only possible by keeping others – women and immigrants – outside of the discussion, disallowing their participation and transforming them into objects rather than subjects of the debate. Brexit is a product of gendered intra-elite conflict that has been simmering in Britain for decades.
However, due to the ineptness of the male political elite during the Brexit campaign and referendum, women leaders are now at the heart of Europe’s fate. By the end of 2016 – another year marred by violence, political extremism and racism, and desperate cries for help by millions of refugees – it is very likely that the world’s greatest powers and its most important financial institutions will be run by women.
If capitalism, as Jens Beckert (2016) persuasively argues, operates as a future-oriented project based on fictional expectations than it is very important how distinct population groups envision that future and their own identities within them. It is the breakdown of these expected roles, themselves based on racial and gender assumptions, which have been richly supported by the media pumping air into neoliberal fantasies that has led to such massive disappointment of the “middle England” and found its expression in the Brexit vote.
I particularly liked how this paper hinted that the Islamic State was merely the inevitable reaction of ‘criminalised refugees’ to the militarised British economy.
Importantly given the priority that gender and security studies place on diversity of thought, Jacqui True’s colleage, Katrina Lee-Koo, is a perfect partner for this course.
While both of these women identify as women and also claim to be feminists they could not be more diverse. Just look at Lee-Koo’s last name. It oozes diversity.
Naturally, however, Lee-Koo does have all the other requisite qualities that are important for shaping young military minds.
Her Twitter feed makes it clear that she doesn’t like Cardinal Pell but she does support abortion and homosexual marriage.
And her recent articles focus on the state of toxic masculinity in the Liberal Party. As such, I’m really not sure why the Navy hasn’t sent its sailors off to learn from her words of wisdom sooner.
Lee-Koo has noted that the only reason Julie Bishop wasn’t elected leader of the Liberal Party after the demise of Malcolm Turnbull is because:
The combination of revenge-seeking, ego-centric and opportunistic politics on display…demonstrates that an aggressive masculinist politics continues to destabilise the leadership of the Liberal Party. And in the fury of this politics, the party room has simply overlooked Bishop as a legitimate and credible leader.
Ultimately, Julie Bishop is the collateral damage of the Liberal Party’s macho politics.
She’s also gone on to argue that the language that emanates from the Liberal Party is, well, pretty much straight from the Patriarchy’s handbook of human rights crimes:
Third, we must be more attuned to the gendered use of language in policy debates. Revived electoral campaigns to be tough on borders and “stop the boats” or criticising the lack of grunt of electric cars arguably rely upon gendered (and nationalist) constructions of masculine strength and protection in favour of feminine weakness.
Fourth, we must address the gendered structures that govern access to political leadership. Morrison’s election catch-cry that ‘those who have a go will get a go’ cover overs the deep, structural discrimination that exists in this country around more things than just gender.
Sorry. I’ll be the first to apologise for not knowing that the concept of a fair go was sexist.
It is this fierce desire to address the scourge of toxic masculinity that has Lee-Koo promoting the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s ‘Gender and Security Toolkit’.
Tool 3 is titled ‘Defence and Gender’ and it boldly asserts that physical strength and things like infantry soldiers are not all that necessary on the modern battlefield before waffling on about the Dutch military’s gay pride boats. It goes on to wax lyrical about what a ‘gender diverse’ military would look like:
All educational and training curricula are designed with input from qualified Gender Advisers* and gender subject matter experts. Where relevant, they include guidance on how to apply a gender perspective to the subject matter as a learning objective and assessment criteria. As a result, all defence personnel have the capacity to apply a gender perspective to their specialized areas of work. Military exercises are conducted in a way that highlights the benefits of working in diverse teams and requires teams to apply a gender perspective to succeed. A network of Gender Focal Points supports the continuous integration of a gender perspective by their respective teams, while identifying knowledge gaps and lessons learned to Gender Advisers and senior leaders.
These feminists, who between them have zero operational experience, believe that the modern military must rid itself of gonads and replace them with GENADS, or gender advisors. Only when there is a gender perspective applied to all aspects of the military’s operations – presumably including decisions about who gets bravery medals – will it be able to defeat the enemies of peace and justice.
Anyway, whatever the patriarchy is, I’m sure it’s far worse under a communist regime. Strangely, I didn’t notice that Monash Uni’s course would delve into that tricky area of study.
As for the Royal Australian Navy, Australians don’t want an outfit that can explain why the phrase ‘as useless as tits on a bull’ is basically a crime against humanity.
They just want an outfit that isn’t as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to conflict in the Pacific.
Yet, unfortunately, at this rate we’ll have all the gender advisors we need to man a submarine by 2030 but we just won’t have any submarines…
Mark Latham has introduced a proposed law to force the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board to:
- reject vexatious and frivolous complaints; and
- reject complaints against people with brain damage.
This bill also clarifies that the ADB has no power over people who do not live in New South Wales and closes a loophole that allows vexatious complainants to bring matters to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, even if they have been rejected.
The truth is that none of these changes should be necessary. However, the ADB has become so drunk on its own power that it is out of control. So much so that it needs to be spelled out in black and white writing that vexatious complaints must not be processed.
The ADB has allowed one man, Garry Burns, to lodge hundreds of complaints against me to bankrupt me (even though I don’t even live in New South Wales) and to destroy a brain-damaged man, John Sunol, who has mostly been unrepresented in the legal system for over a decade and fined over $50,000 for his incoherent commentary.
This is an enormous scandal.
You can lodge submissions in support of Mark Latham’s bill here until 26 April.
You can also sign my petition below which will be sent to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. I will also include it in my detailed and lengthy submission.
Support Mark Latham's anti-discrimination amendmentsRead the petition
|2,795||Ms Vanessa W.||Melbourne||3201||Aug 30, 2020|
|2,794||Mr Garth P.||Wamberal||2260||Aug 25, 2020|
|2,793||Ms Garth G.||Boronia||3155||Aug 24, 2020|
|2,792||Mr John R.||Bendemeer||2355||Aug 21, 2020|
|2,791||Mr Alan P.||Girraween||2145||Aug 17, 2020|
|2,790||Mr Robert W.||Narooma||2546||Aug 16, 2020|
|2,789||Mr Kathleen and Malcolm T.||RENMARK||5341||Aug 11, 2020|
|2,788||Mr Stewart H.||Foster's Valley||2795||Jul 28, 2020|
|2,787||Mrs Robyn H.||Bundaberg||4670||Jul 27, 2020|
|2,786||Mr Graeme W.||Sans Souci||2219||Jul 27, 2020|
|2,785||Mr Scott D.||Brisbane||4503||Jul 17, 2020|
|2,784||Mrs Louise B.||New Farm||4005||Jul 04, 2020|
|2,783||Mr Jared A.||Smithfield||2164||Jun 28, 2020|
|2,782||Mr Donald B.||Oakdale||2570||Jun 25, 2020|
|2,781||Mr Wilhelmus H.||Bridgetown||6255||Jun 24, 2020|
|2,780||Mr Samuel C.||Adelaide||5008||Jun 23, 2020|
|2,779||Mr Ralph W.||Campbells Pocket||4521||Jun 21, 2020|
|2,778||Ms Ingrid W.||Melbourne||3136||Jun 21, 2020|
|2,777||Mr Paul L.||KATUNGA (VIC)||3640||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,776||Mr Clarence M.||Launceston||7250||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,775||Mrs Lynda L.||Sydney||2754||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,774||Mr ALEXANDER D.||Townsville||4814||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,773||Ms Michelle S.||Bunbury||6230||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,772||Ms Fran P.||Camberwell||3124||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,771||Mrs Marion H.||Hervey Bay||4655||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,770||Mr Rex K.||Melbourne||3201||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,769||Mr Linton H.||Coraki||2471||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,768||Mr Jim C.||Castlereagh||2749||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,767||Ms Janice F.||Castlereagh||2749||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,766||Mr Scott F.||Castlereagh||2749||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,765||Mrs Anne T.||Sydney||2570||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,764||Mrs Elizabeth L.||SYDNEY||2205||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,763||Mrs Vicki P.||Marks Point||2280||Jun 20, 2020|
|2,762||Ms Megan I.||Farrants Hill||2484||Jun 12, 2020|
|2,761||Mr David B.||Abbey||6280||Jun 10, 2020|
|2,760||Mr Craig C.||Flinders View||4305||Jun 09, 2020|
|2,759||Mr Terence B.||Orange||2800||Jun 09, 2020|
|2,758||Mr Aaron M.||ONSLOW||6710||Jun 05, 2020|
|2,757||Mrs Cathryn C.||Perth||6163||Jun 02, 2020|
|2,756||Mr James R.||Gold Coast||4223||May 31, 2020|
|2,755||Mrs J M.||Mitcham||3132||May 30, 2020|
|2,754||Mrs Jillian L.||Pimpama||4209||May 29, 2020|
|2,753||Mr Simon B.||M Downs||4503||May 28, 2020|
|2,752||Mr John W.||Highfields||4352||May 28, 2020|
|2,751||Ms Le Anne D.||Bargara||4670||May 25, 2020|
|2,750||Ms J R.||Glandore||5037||May 24, 2020|
|2,749||Mr wasyl l.||boyland||4275||May 23, 2020|
|2,748||Ms Alfredo B.||Brisbane||4551||May 22, 2020|
|2,747||Mrs Therese N.||Brisbane||4055||May 19, 2020|
|2,746||Mr Lance P.||Mount Annan||2567||May 19, 2020|
Yesterday it was reported that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) has rejected Garry Burns’ complaints against Israel Folau.
And they’ve been rejected because they were deemed vexatious.
I cannot tell you how relieved I am to finally hear these words.
On the vexatious scale of one to ten, Burns comes in at eleven. He gets off on dragging people into court. He describes this as ‘work’. He makes a living out of complaining to the ADB.
Burns lodged three complaints against Folau in late 2019 – about a nanosecond after he was hit with bankruptcy proceedings for failing to pay costs to me and Tess Corbett resulting from his rejected High Court case against me.
He must have thought that a cashed-up Folau would be the solution to his problems.
Given the ADB has made a habit of rubber-stamping Burns’ complaints and then flicking them on to the NCAT and the five months of silence, I believed that Folau must have paid Burns his ‘go away’ money.
After all, that was the stunt Burns tried to pull with me.
But I was wrong. And I have never been so happy to be wrong.
The ADB’s decision is good news for Folau. And me. And you. It effectively ends Burns’ ‘career’ dragging others into court.
There is one person who must be thanked for that: Mark Latham.
Burns’ first cottoned on to the ADB gravy train before Sydney hosted the Olympics. Facebook wasn’t even a thing when he started lodging complaints.
In the two decades since, Burns has ramped up a campaign of terror.
John Sunol, a brain-damaged man from Newcastle has borne the brunt of this vicious, vexatious onslaught. He has almost been destroyed and was on the brink of jail due to Burns’ efforts.
Others have been dragged through years of costly litigation.
Burns has boasted that he would lodge complaints until he bankrupted me. My wife and I have had to sell our home. He started on me in 2014.
Yet not one single politician in New South Wales has batted an eyelid at this. Except Mark Latham.
Last year, Latham raised Burns’ campaign of terror in parliament.
And early this year, he introduced a bill to force the President of the ADB to dismiss vexatious complaints. The speech he gave with it is a must read.
That bill is not yet law.
Lo and behold, all it took to get the ADB to act with sanity was scrutiny. Mark Latham’s scrutiny. Any other politician (and apparently the state of New South Wales is run by the conservatives) could have done this.
But they didn’t.
So thank you Mark.
Burns is all but finished. And just as I’ve always predicted, now that the ADB has realised that Burns is all washed up they’ve dropped him like a mangy dog.
The cockroaches are scuttling for cover. Grab the popcorn and watch as the ADB attempts to shift all the blame for this sordid, scandalous affair onto Burns. He deserves it.
But I’m not going to let the ADB get off that easy. This mob, who once complained when I likened them to Dr Evil, have spent the better part of the past decade making Dr Evil:
- look like a good guy, and
- seem competent.
This is the beginning of the end of Burns. However it’s just the start of the beginning of the world of hurt headed the ADB’s way.
The reality is that Burns is not the real evil in this story. That responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayer-leeching, do-gooder bureaucrats at the ADB who’ve made careers, complete with long-service leave, out of pandering to Burns. And they’ve done it because they are just as much ‘gay activists’ as he is, except they exercise the power of the state to destroy the people that Burns whinges about.
And while people have lost real jobs due to Corona Virus, this mob is still beavering away accepting Burns’ complaints. I had to respond to the latest one just last week.
The best part about yesterday’s news is not that the ADB rejected Burns’ complaints against Folau. It’s the implications that come with it.
The ADB just nuked itself. It has given up the pretence that it was administering the law with Burns and this politically-correct charade has been exposed for what it is: a monumental abuse of office by those inside the ADB who decided that 1984 was the manual for their ‘jobs’.
This is what the news report states:
But ADB president Annabelle Bennett this week wrote to Mr Burns “declining” the complaint because she was satisfied it was vexatious and “a flagrant abuse of process such that no further actions should be taken”.
She found Mr Burns had not pursued the complaint under the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act “in order to avail himself of the processes afforded under the ADA but for a collateral purpose, as a means to pressure the respondent to settle with him”.
The president wrote that the inference was that the settlement sought by Mr Burns was “directed to the payment of money”.
She noted the activist had disregarded the confidential nature of the process by issuing a media release which stated, in part: “Fellas, I’m just like a vicious Alsatian dog. Once I grab hold of the leg, I don’t let go until the bone is bare and bloodied. One way or another, I will get that remedy from Mr Folau.”
Dr Bennett also wrote that Mr Burns had sent numerous “inappropriate” emails to Mr Folau’s lawyers.
Now it’s time to find out why the ADB has so completely changed its tune. After all, the ADB has been happy for Burns to act like this with me since 2014. It’s even decided that I have to jump through hoops after Burns complained about his own press release that he posted on my Facebook page.
Why has the ADB refused to even investigate whether Burns’ complaints against me are vexatious?
Why has the ADB removed my evidence that Burns was lodging complaints to bankrupt me or that he was using the process as a form of extortion, labelling it ‘of limited relevance’?
Why has the ADB ignored the hundreds of vile and harassing emails that Burns has sent me?
Why has the ADB ignored the similar emails that he has sent to my legal team, including calling on people to assault them, and me, at NCAT hearings?
Why has the ADB ignored the fact that Burns lodges complaints simply so that he can put out slanderous ‘media releases’ about me?
And why has the ADB done this 37 times and still allows it to continue after almost six years of serve after serve of vexatious drivel from Burns?
This farce has cost the taxpayer millions.
It has also cost me my home and all my assets. It has imposed a huge burden on my family and destroyed our lives. This suffering, caused by the ADB, demands restitution.
When this process is over these questions will be answered. Those responsible for allowing this to occur, including the current and past ADB Presidents and their cronies who have harassed me since 2014, better get their dancing shoes on because the music has just started…
This appears proudly on the SBS’s webpage today:
And this is what the High Court said yesterday:
…there is a significant possibility in relation to charges one to four that an innocent person has been convicted.
I know the SBS does multicultural stuff but, all in all, I’d prefer it if this taxpayer-funded outfit wasn’t such a champion for foreign ideas, such as innocence being a ‘technicality’ when it comes to criminal charges…
There have been some, not many, in the media and political class who have shown the courage to address the blatant witch hunt against Cardinal George Pell.
The Australian newspaper. Quadrant. Sky News. Gerard Henderson, Greg Craven and Tony Abbott. Even Frank Brennan.
All these and others deserve praise and recognition.
But no one has probed these issues with such clarity, strength and courage as Andrew Bolt.
Yet, amazingly, Andrew Bolt is not Catholic. He is not even Christian. No one can accuse Andrew Bolt of being religiously biased in his support of Cardinal Pell.
Andrew Bolt’s thirst for true justice has seen him unjustly and viciously vilified, abused and accused of even supporting paedophilia.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
If Bolt believed that Pell was guilty, he would not have raised questions about the case against him.
And now we know that Pell was innocent and that the allegations he faced were fanciful.
An innocent man was jailed because of the hysteria of the mob, whipped up by many of Andrew’s own colleagues in the media. This hysteria ensured Cardinal Pell was never provided a fair trial and it led Victoria’s highest judges to abandon the safeguards of the criminal process to keep an innocent man locked up.
Bolt knew that he would be ridiculed, mocked and derided for daring to raise concerns about the way Cardinal Pell was jailed.
Yet he stood firm in the face of this. More than anyone, he proved the importance of a free media. And, in doing so, he gave courage to others and kept hope alive.
When group think and peer group pressure led the majority of his colleagues to illogically, unthinkingly and vengefully defame an innocent man, Andrew Bolt went courageously and with principal in the other direction, pursuing the truth.
And, now, Andrew Bolt and a very few others have been proven correct.
All Australians owe Andrew Bolt a debt of gratitude for his courage. After all, given state-funded institutions so abused their powers to jail Cardinal Pell, any other Australian could find themselves in those same shoes. And if that happens we will need an Andrew Bolt to speak out.
The Australian Press Council’s ‘Press Freedom Medal’ has been irrevocably tainted during this scandalous affair, awarded to Louise Milligan for her defamatory articles and book on Cardinal Pell.
If the Australian Press Council wishes to restore its reputation it can do nothing less than revoke this award from this discredited journalist. And it could do nothing better to restore the reputation of this award by granting it to a man who has shown such courage in the face of the mob to defend true justice and lead the public fight to release an innocent man from jail.
Andrew Bolt truly deserves this award. However, I doubt he will ever receive it.
The majority of those in the media class were shown to be stupid yesterday. Today we’ll start to see that they are also remorseless, bigoted and hateful.
Andrew Bolt, as they say, was on the right side of history. The majority of his colleagues are likely to now dig in on the wrong side.
So, please God, Andrew Bolt and others will keep defending truth. We need it more than ever.
About 18 months ago a New South Wales judge made a remarkable admission.
He acknowledged that he was under pressure to jail Archbishop Philip Wilson ‘simply on the basis that he is a Catholic priest’.
Thankfully, Judge Roy Ellis did what was right, rather than bow to the might of the mob. He freed Archbishop Wilson, overturning a guilty verdict that was a travesty of justice and that had shamed the New South Wales court system.
Judge Ellis’ statement should have sent alarm bells ringing.
It was an admission that the justice system was being pressured to lock up innocent men by the media. Indeed, he specifically stated that the media had become the ‘elephant in the room’ in some cases.
Yet, just six days later, Cardinal Pell was imprisoned.
Thankfully, today the High Court tore the case against Pell apart in 129 unanimous paragraphs.
The allegations against Pell were always fanciful. But the High Court’s summary of the case against Pell in today’s judgement devastatingly outlined just how absurd they were.
Cardinal Pell is now freed after 405 days spent behind bars, much of it in solitary confinement.
This brings to an end one of the most shameful legal episodes in Australia’s history. But it does not bring an end to this matter.
Those who allowed hateful prejudice or sheer negligence to get in the way of duty and helped to jail an innocent man must now face a reckoning.
And all those who cheered and jeered as Pell was jailed have been utterly discredited. Some of them now hold positions that are untenable.
Yet even now they refuse to accept responsibility for their failures.
The Victorian Police opened an investigation into Cardinal Pell before a single complaint against him had been made. It then advertised for complainants to come forward.
This is an outrageous abuse of law enforcement powers. It shows that senior Victorian police officers were out to get a man, rather than out to solve a crime.
Yet even today, after every single allegation the Victorian Police dug up has been found to be without merit, this discredited, biased and vengeful outfit cannot accept reality.
Instead of apologising to Cardinal Pell, this morning the Victorian Police issued a press release stating that they continue to provide support to complainants while praising their ‘tireless work’ on this case.
This tireless work jailed an innocent man.
All those involved in the Victorian Police’s witch hunt of Pell should be looking for new jobs.
The Chief Justice of Victoria, Anne Ferguson, simply cannot remain in her position after today’s High Court decision. Ditto for President of the Victorian Court of Appeal, Christopher Maxwell.
These two had to resort to extreme lengths of fantasy to keep Pell in jail, while trashing the legal safeguards of the justice system. Today their reputations have been shattered by the High Court.
As stated in the High Court’s ruling, their ‘analysis failed to engage with whether…it was reasonably possible that [the complainant’s] account was not correct, such that there was a reasonable doubt as to [Pell’s] guilt.’
The High Court went on to rule that there were ‘compounding improbabilities caused by the unchallenged evidence’ of those who were with Pell that ‘plainly’ raised doubt about Pell’s guilt.
As such, the High Court emphatically and unanimously judged that ‘there is a significant possibility…that an innocent person has been convicted’.
The Australian’s legal affairs editor, Chris Merrett, best summed up the situation now confronting Maxwell and Ferguson in an article last year, writing:
The stakes are staggeringly high. This affair now concerns not just the freedom of a cardinal but the continued public standing of Victoria’s top judges and the man who might well be the nation’s greatest lawyer.
If the assessment of Walker and Shann is accepted by the High Court, it will amount to a crippling blow for Ferguson and Maxwell.
The public standing of Victoria’s top judges has been destroyed. These two should now resign.
Finally, many in the media class have been irrevocably damaged.
Louise Milligan, in particular, and the rabidly anti-Catholic ABC which wantonly used taxpayer funds to promote her defamatory book on Cardinal Pell, are now left with shattered reputations too.
Milligan was the very tip of the spear in the media campaign against Cardinal Pell, but it was a spear that the majority of her colleagues were happy to throw.
Last year Milligan was awarded the ‘Press Freedom Medal’ by the Australian Press Council for her ‘reporting’ on Cardinal Pell. The blue tick brigade of journalists on Twitter then lined up to sing their praises of her ‘courage’.
In a cab on Harbour Bridge in rainy Sydney, & bowled over to have just been presented 2019 Press Freedom Medal. I dedicate it to J, a courageous man who stared down apex of power to achieve justice, to R, who didn’t make it, & to all the men who told me their truth. #journalism pic.twitter.com/RyCovo6WIa
— Louise Milligan (@Milliganreports) August 30, 2019
Ironically, this medal is presented to those who have ‘demonstrated extraordinary commitment or service to the cause of press freedom’.
Let us remember the words of Judge Roy Ellis, who six days before Pell was jailed, warned that he was under pressure from the media to jail an innocent man because he was a priest.
Louise Milligan’s ‘work’ was a large part of the reason why an innocent priest was jailed.
Today the High Court has done its part to rectify this assault on freedom. Now it’s up to the Australian Press Council to do its job and revoke this award for freedom from Milligan, who did so much to unjustly take away the liberty of Cardinal Pell.
Two days ago it was Wednesday.
And on Wednesdays in New South Wales the ‘Thought Police’ throw open the Garry ‘Herpes’ Burns file and rubber stamp whatever it is that has been thrust in there recently.
No one really knows why. It’s just the way things have been done for so long now that it’s become an ingrained habit.
Generations of ‘Conciliation Officers’ have ambled into the lift and pressed the button that says ‘The Entire Floor Filled with Garry Burns’ Complaints’ and then moseyed on out and stamped away with gay abandon for a good hour or so before going on to attend the International Whatever Woke Day it is morning tea.
Hence the reason I’m writing this. The Thought Police kindly informed me on Wednesday that they’ve proudly rubber-stamped Burns’ 37th and latest complaint against me.
I have no idea how much the Department of Burns that oversees the Burns Act 1977 (NSW) has cost but the savings on rubber stamps alone would probably fund a transition to a zero carbon economy for the entire nation.
Indeed, there are probably small Pacific islands sinking under the waves right now just from the carbon emissions produced by the Thought Police’s rubber stamps. These islands are slowly disappearing from view as I type. And it’s all because some factory in China is open 24/7, crammed full of Corona Virus infected children working night and day filling boxes with neat little rubber stamps all destined for the Temple of Approved Speech in Sydney.
Alas, we could have a clean, green future but Woke World would rather fund the Bureaucracy of Burns. Won’t someone please get Greta onto this mob.
I must admit that it’s probably good for some.
Connie Santiago in particular.
Connie’s spent the better part of a decade receiving Burns’ complaints, furrowing her brows and then eagerly stamping ‘approved’ across the front of them. Without Burns, I reckon poor old Connie would probably have to do something useful for a living. Like get a real job.
But waddaya know.
Burns is keeping Connie busy doing something so insidiously and farcically inane that her only possible purpose can be to make others feel better about themselves because they’re not her. For instance, it’s likely even the producers of Married At First Sight breathe a little easier each night, soothing themselves in the knowledge that they haven’t stooped so low as to do Connie’s job.
Personally, I don’t know how Connie does it. I’d rather lick the insides of that cruise ship quarantined off Japan than work for the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board.
Normal people would’ve tried to escape or sucked cane toads until it was all over but Connie seems to like this job. I’m guessing she thinks that she’s making society a better place by poking her huffy and official New South Wales government nose into my views in Queensland and turning up to the odd Mardi Gras event on the taxpayer dime.
For the young people reading this: please don’t be like Connie. Do something useful. Anything.
Just don’t sign up for the ‘Thought Police’. Before you know it you will be hunting Christians and resolving disputes between gay men who think transgender ‘women’ are ugly and proudly telling people that Garry Burns is your ‘client’.
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Connie. I’m sure any day now that she’ll be eligible for long service leave and New South Wales will have to employ someone else for three months just to rubber stamp Burns’ complaints as they spill out of the fax machine.
Or, it could just do a Homer Simpson and get a typing bird to automatically hit ‘approve’ on any and all complaints.
Just in case you are wondering if the Commonwealth government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill will do anything at all to end this insanity, I have some sad news for you: the Commissar of the New South Wales Thought Police overseeing this little operation is Annabelle Bennett.
And Annabelle – the same Annabelle orchestrating the latest hunt for me – was one of the key members of the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review. And the Religious Discrimination Bill is one of key recommendations of the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review.
In other words, the Thought Police designed the Religious Discrimination Bill.
If I just destroyed your confidence in the entire system, spare a thought for me. I’ve been making my lost and lonely way in this world, entirely bereft of hope, for approximately 2,000 days now.
So. What it is that has got Burns’ knickers in a knot this time?
Well, that would be the views of Queenslanders, expressed in Queensland, about what happens in Brisbane City Council libraries.
Specifically, Burns is all frothy at the mouth because I shared a petition launched by the Australian Christian Lobby on the Brisbane City Council website opposing ‘Drag Queen Story Time’.
Obviously, this means that the Thought Police in New South Wales have donned their capes, jumped into the #loveislove wagon and raced northwards again, tut tutting away as fast as they can.
This is the 37th time they’ve decided that there isn’t enough going on in New South Wales to keep themselves busy and they’ve hot-footed it up over the border to interrogate me.
Given Burns and his bureaucratic cronies have a 100% failure rate so far, maybe this time will be their lucky break.
I doubt it though.
For those who would like to see the complaint, I have uploaded it in all its glory here.
I now have until 8 April 2020 to explain myself to anti-Christian, communist, totalitarian overlords from another state that I don’t even live in, let alone get to vote in.
I’m inclined to simply give them the finger this time.
I’m far more interested in what will happen in the New South Wales parliament where an inquiry has now been launched into the Thought Police. It’s about bloody time.
Finally, just in case your name is Garry Burns and you are obsessively going over every dot and jot in this article, I note that you seem a tad upset because some people believe that there is a drug problem at the end of the rainbow.
Really? I wonder how on earth they ever came to that conclusion? It just beats me.
Perhaps they read one of the umpteen reports that have found people involved in this lifestyle snort far more cocaine than the average Australian.
Or, perhaps, they just might have picked it up off your very website. Who knows?
Do you remember this little article you published way back in 2011. Do you?
Burns added that acon discredited the gay community and was concerned that the mainstream media may fear reporting on acon’s outrageous conduct for fear of being branded homophobic.
“Acon gets away with this because many in the media are too scared to touch them because they’ll be branded homophobic,” said Burns.
“Well have no such fear because I’m gay and I’m prepared to criticise acon.”
Burns said the publication of a ‘how to take illegal drugs guide’ was catastrophic for the gay community.
“The publication of this guide is not a disaster,” he said. “Not finding a parking space in the city is a disaster. This is a catastrophe. Acon is condoning and encouraging the use of substances that harm and kill people – and the public is funding it.
“I can only hope the new NSW Government, when it is elected in March, shuts this organisation down,” Burns concluded.
Oops. Who would have thought that one of the peak gay groups in New South Wales issued guidelines on how to take drugs?
Alas, despite Burns’ huffing, ACON is still here, funded by both Liberal and Labor governments.
And ACON argues that it needs to put out such ‘safety guidelines’ given all the drugs ingested, snorted, injected and taken anally at ‘family friendly’ events like the Mardi Gras.
I guess it’s no surprise why this happens either.
If I knew that Burns was batting on the same team as me, I’d want to scull a schooner of LSD too…
To the casual observer, the general tenor of media commentary about the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill has been that Christians want this law so that they can be bigots, while the LGBT community and ‘progressive’ society oppose it because it will plunge Australia back into the dark ages.
Personally, I think that this media promoted line is a lie. A big load of tosh.
Christians want the freedom to be Christian, not more anti-discrimination law. So it is wrong to pretend that Christians are marching up and down the streets clamouring for this law.
Now it is true that LGBT groups oppose this law. God only knows why. After all, it will place ‘religious freedom’ in the hands of the Thought Police at the HQ of Acceptable Speech in Canberra.
Normally, suggesting that this mob be placed in charge of ‘religious freedom’ would prompt LGBT activists to march naked down Oxford Street in celebration.
Indeed, just 6 months ago a collective group of LGBT groups (it was like a rainbow of rainbows) united to issue a press release calling for religious-based anti-discrimination laws. In their wisdom, the Super Rainbow Collective felt that such laws were needed to protect Islam – so long as those same laws did not protect Christianity.
Why gay and lesbians lobby groups think it is a good idea to protect Islam over Christianity is beyond me. But it does bring to mind that famous saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
And now the government’s Religious Discrimination Bill will do basically everything that the LGBT activists demanded (read here to understand the Muslim-only job advertisements that this law will allow).
Unsurprisingly, the professional whingers and perpetually unsatisfied are still not happy.
Why? It’s a perception thing.
And the perception in LGBT World is that this bill won’t empower the Human Rights Commission and will instead empower Christians. Thankfully, this means that we were spared the parade of wild, undressed hordes skipping down Oxford Street in celebration of this bill.
Not so thankfully, it also means that we still got a naked march down Oxford Street. But this time it was a protest against the Religious Discrimination Bill during the ‘apolitical’ and ‘family friendly’ Mardi Gras.
It is yet another sign that we live in times of anarchy, chaos and confusion.
Christian groups are generally supporting this law because of a ‘perception’ that it will save the next Israel Folau, when it will in fact become a guillotine to be used against any and all Christians. And LGBT groups have panicked themselves into a cold sweat because they cannot bear the thought that Christians could be free, when this law will in fact destroy freedom for Christians in Australia.
It’s almost as if no one involved in this debate has comprehended the proposed law at all.
Fortunately, we now have You Tube videos of deranged people fighting over trolley loads of toilet paper to distract us from this madness.
Finding useful contributions to this debate is difficult to say the least.
Which is why it was a great joy to read an article commenting on this bill that actually makes sense.
Last week, Dara MacDonald wrote in The Australian the best piece on this insane idea penned to date, stating:
This law, at least in part, originated because state and federal anti-discrimination laws systemically infringe freedom of speech (and particularly expression of religious ideas).
Instead of abolishing laws that violate basic freedoms, the government has decided that it is going to fix the problem of illiberal, convoluted anti-discrimination laws by enacting yet another illiberal, convoluted anti-discrimination law.
Doing the same thing over and again but expecting a different result was Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity. History will repeat itself and, just like the notorious section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, it soon will become a bureaucratic goliath that no government can or wants to control.
The article is now available for free at the IPA website. Do yourself a favour and read it.
In other words, as I have said from the moment this bill was proposed, we do not need more anti-discrimination law to be free. If we want freedom, we need to repeal the existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws. And then, just to make sure, we should bulldoze the Temples of Wokedom into the ground and sow salt over the debris so that nothing ever grows in those locations again.
And if that doesn’t make sense to you and you are Christian and you still think this proposed law is a good idea, watch the video below. The Religious Discrimination Bill, if passed, will put these guys in charge of your freedom. Good luck with that…
Early this year the Australian Financial Review reported that Australia’s new $50 bazillion submarine program was already late and that the there was no proof that the truckload of cash already spent on it had achieved anything useful at all:
The navy’s submarine program is officially running nine months late and the Defence Department is unable to show that spending of $400 million on design work has been “fully effective”, the auditor-general has found.
You’d think, then, that the Navy would have better things to do than organising morning teas for International Women’s Day and basically turning this arm of the services into some kind of perpetual and bureaucratic version of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
But you’d be wrong.
Below are two signals that someone in the Navy was paid to write, others were paid to send out and the rest of them were paid to read. And, on top of that, your money continues to be spent paying for the waste of time that these signals drone on about, including coming up with an acronym for the Navy’s Diversity and Inclusion Council.
This just happens to be ‘NDIC’.
Personally, I couldn’t think of a better word myself to describe this organisation.
Normally you’d hear about this kind of thing in some satirical comedy. Or maybe even watching re-runs of Monty Python.
I suppose this is to be expected when you set up a committee with a ‘Diverse Sex, Sexuality and Gender Advisor’ to meet regularly with the Deputy Chief of Navy to discuss capability and strategy and how many ships the Chinese have.
If you don’t feel safe, there’s a good reason for that…
A few weeks ago, the Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner sent this letter to a conservative concerned about ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ being held in Brisbane City Council Libraries:
Strangely enough, Adrian Schrinner sent another letter about the same topic which turned up on the Facebook page of one of the ‘drag queens’ who featured at the last ‘Drag Queen Story Time’.
See if you can spot the difference…