Morning Mail regulars are likely well acquainted with Jack Richards whom always makes compelling comment. This one from last Saturday piqued one reader’s interest enough to request permission to reprint it elsewhere. Both MM and Jack hope the reader does so. We encourage all our readers to widely broadcast anything we post—for the good of the conservative cause, of course! Given the agenda of MSM blogs like MM strive to serve people that know how to think rather than what to think.
If SSM is legalised it will require changes to about 60 existing laws PLUS they’ll want to bring in “protection” laws for homosexuals i.e. more “anti-discrimination” laws – and what they will be is anyone’s guess. Maybe they’ll exempt Churches from conducting marriages and Priest from condemning homosexual practices from the pulpit, but there’ll be no protection for you and me holding “politically incorrect” views. It will also mean the rabid left of the Homosexual movement will be able to push all that disgusting nonsense about “gender fluidity” and “safe schools” onto children from kindergarten up.
If two men or two women are allowed to be “married” and the only criterion is “love” then why not allow 3 men to marry – as has happened OS? Why not allow an old bloke like me to have a harem? Why not let weird Wally marry his prize pigeon?
The whole purpose of this nonsense is to make the marriage “contract” even more worthless than it was made by the sleazy crook, Lionel Murphy” via his Family Law Act – perhaps the worst law ever imposed on this country.
All this virtue signalling crap, like the Racial Discrimination Act , is done so self-righteous politicians can show just how “progressive” they are. Thus Hawke added Section 18 C to the RDA to make it an “offence” to hurt someone’s feelings and then they established the Human Rights Commission to enforce it. We’ve already seen how it was used to torture the QUT students in what was blatant extortion by Cindy Prior who demanded $5,000 from each student ( and some paid-up for it to go away) but others refused so she sued them, aided and abetted by the HRC, for $250,000 each! We’ve seen how they touted for “complaints” over the Bill leak cartoon and how the “action” against him put him under so much stress that he died.
There are already homosexual activists looking for people to report to Brandis for saying anything they regard as “vilification” – and that word has not been defined in these new emergency laws. Make no mistake, those “emergency laws” are not aimed at “Yes” campaigners but solely at the “No” camp; just like the RDA was aimed at Whites who, as we know, can be falsely accused of all sorts of crimes and vilified endlessly with complete impunity.
We’ve seen in England, the USA and Canada how these enforcement of “non-discrimination” laws actually work. In England an old Methodist couple running a B&B in their own modest home were bankrupted by homosexual activists because they refused to let their room with a double bed to two men. They did not want sodomy occurring under their roof but their right to chose who slept in their house mattered not. We’ve seen bakers, cake decorators, venue operators, hire-car operators et al sued in California for refusing to provide services to homosexuals because of their religious or moral convictions – but their morality and religious beliefs don’t matter and they can’t opt out and, if they do, they’re instantly sued for “discrimination”. There are activists who deliberately seek out anyone who may be openly religious and believe what the Bible says about homosexuality – for the sole purpose of “provoking” such business operators into refusing service and thus hitting them with an enormous claim for “damages” and bankrupting them.
In Trudeau’s Canada children from Kindergarten up are being forced to participate in “learning” about gender and sexuality that is the antithesis of everything I believe is healthy and normal – and if you’re a parent who protests against this disgusting indoctrination it’s possible you’ll be deemed an “unfit” parent and be subjected to supervision by the Canadian equivalent of our Child Protection Agency – or have your children removed altogether.
They’ve just introduced a “law” with a fine of up to $12,600 if you say anything a homosexual regards as “vilification” and, as I said earlier, there’s no definition of that word – it’s purely subjective. If a complaint is made against you and some minor Public Servant in the Attorney General’s Department decides to uphold the complaint then you’ll need a lawyer very quickly and you can expect to be stretched on a legal rack for a year or more – and that lawyer will be charging you upwards of $300/hour plus $1000 or more for every Court appearance. If You get a Barrister it’ll cost you $5,000 a day and a QC $10,000 a day. The complainant, regardless of how spiteful and vexatious the complaint, will pay nothing but you’ll be bankrupted even if the suit is later dismissed!
But what happens if you do get found guilty of hurting the feelings of a homosexual, cop the $12,600 fine, but don’t have any money and can’t pay? Do you get sent to prison as happens if you don’t pay traffic fines? If so, for how long? Do you lose your employment? Does Community Services come around and cart your kids off to a foster home or an orphanage? Do they simply send in the Court Sherriff to confiscate all your possessions and sell them off in an unreserved auction as happens to debtors?
Make no mistake, all this twee crap about “equality” and “love” is just eyewash, a smokescreen, for imposing draconian “anti-discrimination” laws on everyone – and the intent will be to silence you, and everyone else, for objecting to the turning of this country into a latter-day Sodom and Gomorrah and objecting to the corruption of children down to kindergarten age with patently false claims that gender is fluid and that marrying someone of the same sex is a normal, indeed admirable, thing to do.
Have a look at the statements made by “Safe Schools” creator, Roz Ward, and think about the reality of her being able to impose her views on you, and your children, on pain of being dragged through the courts, bankrupted and possibly imprisoned if you say or do or even think something she doesn’t like.
Don’t forget that former HRC dictator, Gillian Triggs, in a speech just before she finished up, lamented that she had not had the power to police conversations around the dinner table in private homes. If the YES vote is carried, they will have that power and, like the imposition of s18C a decade after the RDA became law, they will remove all and every protection they say will be granted to Priests in their Churches.
for your freedom of speech, your freedom of conscience; your freedom of religion, your freedom to even have a frank conversation at your own dinner table, your freedom to raise your children as you see fit and even your freedom to think for yourself and hold politically incorrect thoughts! That’s all at stake.