Older Posts

My very own ‘vilification’ case…

Thanks to that loyal comrade, Ron Boswell, for weighing in on my behalf today with a speech in the Senate – concerning the contemptible ‘vilification’ complaint I had to deal with today.

Andrew Bolt cannot question racial politics, Christian pastors cannot criticise Islam, and family doctors may not assert a child’s birthright to be raised by both a mother and father without the law coming down on them! I will be moving at the upcoming State Council of the Queensland LNP that the offending section 124A of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be repealed, or massively amended, to prevent it being used as a truncheon for the thought police, as plain political harassment.

Senator Boswell’s speech in the Senate is HERE. Excerpts:

I did not think that we lived in an Australia where a disagreement of opinion can result in hauling someone before an anti-discrimination board . . . this is a country where people are not intimidated from sharing their point of view.Or is it? First Andrew Bolt, now David van Gend . . . The case of Dr van Gend makes a mockery of the anti-discrimination law . . . if people like Dr van Gend are forced to appear before the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland then this is a threat to one of Australia’s greatest freedoms, the right to free speech.  

Very strange that two men from opposing activist groups – in this case, Gay Dads NSW versus our Family Council of Queensland – can disagree, but only one man can ‘take offence’ and set the thought-police onto his opponent. Anyhow, “I have nothing to conciliate” was the theme of the lengthy ‘compulsory conciliation’ today, not yielding on a single word – and his complaint was unconditionally withdrawn. Never mind the thousands it cost me in legal advice and time lost off work. As Mark Steyn points out, “the process is the punishment”.

These vilification laws are an abuse in themselves, and they must go.


Well, for this sort of support from conservative champions, I would go through this all again tomorrow! Even Mark Steyn’s Blog made mention (overstated, in my view, but still good sport) of my adventure with the State Censor:

“I disagree with you: now go to court”

If you didn’t like what happened to Andrew Bolt in Australia, see what they did to David van Gend.
Andrew Bolt covered Senator Boswell’s speech in my defense, and Senator Brandis’ speech in Andrew’s defense HERE.
Nationals Senator Ron Boswell in Parliament in defence of free speech, now increasingly restricted in this country:
This issue has recently attracted attention in the case of the well known columnist Andrew Bolt. I also wish to draw the attention of the Senate to another case, that of Dr David van Gend, who makes regular public contributions on social conservative issues. Dr van Gend is the subject of a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland for comments he made in a public forum on the issue of same-sex parents….
On 29 June 2011 the Courier-Mail invited Dr Karen Brooks and Dr David van Gend to submit opinion pieces—the case for and against—on gay marriage. Dr van Gend wrote for the case against. This is part of what he wrote:
IF you hold to the old-fashioned idea a baby deserves both a mother and a father, the president of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party, Andrew Dettmer, calls your views “abominable”…
Dr van Gend replied:
Yes, it is discrimination to prohibit the “marriage” of two men, but it is just and necessary discrimination, because the only alternative is the far worse act of discrimination against children brought artificially into the world by such men, compelled to live their whole lives without a mother. Now that approaches the abominable. 
Then Angela Shanahan in The Australian (“Discrimination police indulging in gay abandon”) HERE:
The complainant simply didn’t like van Gend’s point of view, so in effect was demanding that the Commission force van Gend to make a different argument. And by accepting this complaint and forcing a hearing, the anti-discrimination police, despite official denials, seemed to accept the logic of that.

That the complaint did not succeed in going further is neither here nor there. The mere fact the onus was on van Gend to prove his innocence of something that amounts to a person being offended by his point of view should be a warning against this law.

 and Miranda Devine in the Telegraph (“Call off the thought police”) HERE:

Saying anything that is not wholly supportive of the gay-rights agenda is the new taboo — with same-sex marriage and adoption the hottest of hot-button topics at the frontline of the culture wars.

Personal vilification is the chief tactic of the activists, whether they are gay campaigners, militant libertarians or simply bystanders using the issue as a badge of identity.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are being dragged before anti-discrimination tribunals with complaints that are, at times, withdrawn at the 11th hour. But mud sticks, and the time, expense and stress of the process can make defenders of traditional marriage inclined to keep their heads down in future.

Toowoomba physician David van Gend is their latest target, forced to attend a compulsory mediation on Thursday by the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland over an article he wrote for Brisbane’s Courier Mail in June.

“If you hold to the old-fashioned idea a baby deserves both a mother and a father, (Queensland ALP president) Andrew Dettmer calls your views “abominable”, wrote Dr Van Gend, a spokesman for the Family Council of Queensland. Echoing Dettmer, Van Gend wrote that what “approaches abominable” was for IVF children of a gay couple to be “compelled to live their whole lives without a mother”.

A member of Gay Dads NSW filed a complaint under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act, forcing Van Gend to mediation. The complaint was withdrawn but Van Gend is still irate.”The complaint was utterly worthless [but] the problem of these laws is they cost innocent people lots of money and time”. 

Anyone daring to assert that, generally, children are better off with a mother and a father, a fact supported by research, is vilified to their reputational grave. If you are worried about free speech, this is as serious a threat as any.

Comments are closed.

Older Articles
Click HERE for more articles from ~ 1995...
Some Videos