Older Posts

Posts Tagged ‘‘human rights’ commission’

And here is the second AMF TV ad – also a little bit banned…

One radio interview from today gives the context – in this case on ABC 612 with Steve Austin, but also with the Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson agreeing that our side of the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate has every right to e heard and not to be censored or silenced.

This was my article at Mercatornet published yesterday:

Last week the anniversary of an old injustice and the prospect of a new injustice came together and challenged us. March 21 was the second anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoption. In 2013 our then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, spoke movingly to the nation about “the most primal and sacred bond there is: the bond between a mother and her baby”.

Support Senator Brandis & Free speech – last day to act!

George Brandis

Public submissions into the proposed amendments of section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act close on the 30th April – tomorrow.

It would be 5 mins well spent if you care to log onto the website HERE

– to have a quick look at the proposal, and click on the email link:


– and say something to the effect that you support the Attorney-General’s attempts to defend free speech for all citizens, and his intention to remove the laws that stopped Andrew Bolt discussing some matters of public importance just because some other citizens felt “offended”.

St George poised to slay the dragon of thought-suppression

This may be the most important announcement in the election campaign: PM-in-waiting Tony Abbott has declared today that he and Senator George Brandis are committed “to roll back Labor’s laws that limit free speech on the basis of not ‘giving offence’, defend religious freedom and reform the Australian Human Rights Commission.”

Senator Brandis is the man for this job. I only hope he will not just inflict a flesh wound on this greens-left dragon but will slay it good and proper. I know he will roll back the laws, but rolling back a dragon and tickling its belly is not good enough.

Federal Court: marriage laws NOT “discriminatory” (Hello, Media??)

The mainstream media largely ignored the Federal Court ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot last month that our federal law blocking same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. But the ever-vigilant Andrew Bolt did report it on 4th March:

Andrew wrote:

A gay man is as free as a straight man to marry a woman.A lesbian is as free as any other woman to marry a man. That’s equality.

What same-sex marriage activists want is very different — a new freedom to marry someone of the same sex. What they want isn’t marriage at all, since marriage is the union of a man with a woman, excluding all others.

Reaction to Roxon’s “Debasing of Human Rights & Anti-Free-Speech Bill 2012?

It is worth reading in full the typically pithy article by barrister Janet Albrechtsen in the Aus yesterday: “Nanny Roxon won’t let you spit the dummy” (plus the cartoon above):

EXCERPT… Throwing even less caution to the wind, the Gillard government has also drafted a new anti-discrimination bill. We now enter truly uncharted and unfree territory. Attorney-General Nicola Roxon may look demure but she is a social engineer on legal steroids. She appears intent on Australia breaking new illiberal ground.

Note to the Senate Enquiry into Nanny Roxon’s new Anti-Free-Speech Bill

Note to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Re: Exposure Draft, Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012

December 21, 2012

Dear Senators,

The signs in this Bill that point to an underlying sickness in the once robust and rational body of human rights law include:

– enshrining a fake and sickly new “right” not to be offended, and using this fraudulent thing to infringe on the true and fundamental rights of free expression, free conscience, freedom of religious practice.

– enshrining subjective, highly questionable new “attributes” like political opinion and sexual proclivity to be protected alongside the objective, unquestioned attributes of race, sex, age etc, and so debasing the objective attributes.

Bolt faces the State Censor

The trial of the country’s most popular columnist, Andrew Bolt, is due to complete hearings today.  Andrew has “offended” a group of white-skinned part-aboriginal activists, and they are asking the federal court to impose a lifetime ban on him ever hurting their feelings again. State-suppression of speech and ideas, pure and simple. The activists have selected one of several weapons from the Australian PC enforcement kit, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, as amended by Paul Keating in 1995 to make it unlawful to cause offence to anybody where the offending act “is done because of the race, colour or ethnic origin” of the other person.

Islam and the self-censoring of Europe

Read and be very worried for one of the hardest-won freedoms of the western world – the core freedom to challenge all ideas, philosophies or religions in the court of public opinion.

A world where native citizens of Europe, the culture where democracy was invented and defined by Aristotle as “free citizens deliberating the question: how shall we order our lives together?”, can no longer deliberate certain questions deemed “unacceptable” by an intimidated elite. Where speaking the truth in public argument on a matter of existential importance to society is no defense against conviction for ‘insulting speech’; where one is not judged by one’s peers but by a panel of state censors.

Albrechtsen on Bolt and the thought-police

This is a must-read in today’s Australian on the right to argue our case and provoke opposition in the public square, even if – and especially if – somebody is offended by our opinion. Our politicians have an urgent task on their hands: to hack away the suffocating tangle of ‘vilification laws’, the despicable soft-tyranny of those who would determine the parameters of acceptable, progressive opinion. 

Free speech is not a Left v Right thing, as Steyn said. It’s a free v unfree thing. The case against Bolt shows we are all unfree.

Gay marriage – it’s all about the child

In response to the ugly article by Courier Mail resident writer Paul Syvret, the Family Council Of Qld was able to get a right of reply – and my article can be read online HERE. At last count it had 400+ comments and 1600+ Facebook ‘Likes’, which I am told counts forsomething.

It starts:

Gays are not second-class citizens (Viewpoint 9/11) but a gay man certainly makes a second-class mother. Two lesbian women may be model citizens, but neither of them can be a Dad to a little boy. The most serious objection to gay marriage is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of either his mother or his father. The gay marriage debate, at its heart, is not about the rights and needs of the adults, but of the child.

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