Uncle Len’s Amazing Transgender Encounter By Uncle Len, the Gender-Suspender

     Have I got a story for you…I am so excited that I just dropped a slimy sandwich which I rescued from the dumpster last night. Already the cockroaches are fighting for it on the floor of the shed, but once I finish this article, I will fight them all for it. This time, I may even win.

     I have met my first transgender person, and found her, or him, to be well…just a person like me. Here is how it happened. I was going through bins on North Terrace, Adelaide, looking for food, which the rich Asian students usually throw out. For new readers, I add the footnote that I am the resident homeless, near-senile dispossessed Anglo, a living symbol of your future. Right. Now where was I?

Continue reading

All “Our” Politicians Have Divided Loyalties By Bruce Bennett

     It seems that Barnaby is a New Zealander, and that a whole host of other MPs may not have done enough to denounce their foreign citizenship, in accordance with section 44 of the constitution. The Australian of August 15, 2017, p.1, mentions that “South Australian senator Nick Xenophon yesterday conceded he never heard back from Greek and Cypriot authorities when he attempted to renounce any possible foreign citizenship, raising fresh questions about his election.” Well, he should have done more, as this was his duty. This is one MP who needs to go, given his blockage of reforms to section 18 C.  And what an irony if an old Australia clause takes out modern multiculturalism and political correctness.     There are a host of Labor MPs that could be hit as well. But, in reality, with a few exceptions such as Pauline Hanson, what is called “our” politicians are nothing of the sort, but are the puppets of the globalists, and they dance to the cosmopolitan tunes they play. All are happy to see Australia as an Asian Republic with same sex marriage, run by an Aboriginal review council, with no freedom of speech.     In my opinion, they are all have alliances to a foreign power, and thus are from our point of view, traitors.

Letter to The Editor - A Provisional ‘NO’ in the Postal Vote Remains the Wisest Option

to THE AGE     In the current marriage debate, it ought to be widely admitted that more than the welfare of gay people is at stake. Also to be fairly considered are the welfare of children (in a number of contexts), the welfare of adherents of Christianity and other religious traditions and the welfare of the whole nation. Issues of freedom of speech and religion are intimately tied up in the controversy.     In recent correspondence to ‘The Age’ there have been too many over-simplistic remarks, including ‘smart jests’, at the expense of supporters of the ‘No’ case. My feeling is that the nation is muddled and divided on this issue. More thought needs to be given to how best the needs of all parties can be met in the best possible compromise for us all. Thus a provisional ‘no’ in the postal vote remains the wisest option.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Stampede Other Australians into Premature Acquiescence

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Graham Richardson says that ‘gay marriage is an idea whose time has come’ (‘Expensive opinion poll lets PM ditch principles’, 14/8). This remark is of the same quality as claims that the monarchy is ‘out of date’. It is vivid but has no validity.      Observation of the current controversy suggests that the nation is not ready yet to make a final decision on whether or not to adjust the legal definition of marriage. Whatever the result of the postal vote, it should be used as another tool to get an end result that takes note of the welfare of all Australians present and future and not just of gay people. The best possible compromise is yet to be articulated.     The whole debate has many ramifications and supporters of a ‘yes’ vote should not try to ungenerously stampede other Australians into premature acquiescence.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

The Same Sex Apocalypse By Mrs Vera West

     Are conservatives and Christian – I know that there are still some out there – taking the same sex marriage vote seriously, seeing it as the existential threat, which it is? By that I mean exactly what Paul Kelly has said (The Weekend Australian, August 12-13, 2017, p. 15), namely that a “Yes” vote is likely to be returned, and religious freedom “will have a second and far more important consequence — an assault on religious freedoms made possible by inadequate laws that will see a major shift in Australian society.”

     These avenues include: “intimidation against individuals, schools, charities, businesses, adoption agencies and civic organisations. This includes consumer boycotts promoted by social media and even commercial boycotts against other commercial entities.” Those supporting traditional marriage will be treated just like immigration critics are now.

Continue reading

All the Referendum News By Bruce Bennett

     The “indigenous recognition campaign ditched” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/indigenous-recognise-campaign-ditched/news-story/b444305a94a3acccc26f1cb96a1223000, headline, refers to the abandonment of the Recognise Campaign, which gobbled up tens of millions of our taxpayer’s dollars over the last five years. This is a specific campaign, distinct from the entire referendum issue.

     Therefore, do not mistake this piece of news for any end of the Aboriginal constitutional recognition threat. Aboriginalists and the politically correct establishment have abandoned any “minimalist” proposal, and have showed their true colours, by now advocating substantial constitutional reform, with a referendum probably being held in May 2018. The main issue will be to add an indigenous voice to parliament, which I see as being to implant a new Aboriginal overlord committee to rule over Australia. As every law impacts on Aboriginals, there will be an influence over all Australian laws, and the culture of subservience set up. The sovereignty of parliament will be lost, and that is the clear agenda.

Continue reading

The End of the English Language in Australia By Peter West

     One of the neglected aspects of immigration and multiculturalism is the problem of enclaves, the creation of nations within nations, which was raised in the 1980s, but is not heard much nowadays. However, there is an informative article by Bernard Salt about “non-English-speaking clusters” in our capital cities:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-curious-nature-of-nonenglish-speaking-clusters-in-our-cities/news-story/4eaf844601ae657450e40c9c942b4473

“Last year’s census figures confirm our extraordinarily diverse cultural and linguistic composition. About 18 million out of 24 million speak English. About three million were born overseas but are English proficient, including about 1.5 million British and Kiwi immigrants. However, there are 820,000 Australian residents who described their English proficiency as poor and a further 193,000 who are about as proficient in English as I am in Mandarin.Indeed, the number of residents who say they do not speak English is up from 118,000 a decade ago, which suggests that this cohort is growing by an average of 7000 people a year. If Australia is to remain one of the most welcoming and inclusive immigrant nations on earth then we also need to develop our language skills. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that all migrants must immediately learn English. I think that given the basis of modern Australian prosperity it is entirely appropriate for Mandarin to be taught universally in schools. I learned French in secondary school in the 1970s; today’s kids should be learning the language of our single most important trading partner.Across the country 16 per cent of the population does not speak English at all or well, but in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide this proportion is closer to 18 per cent. And in parts of each of these cities there are well-defined non-English-speaking enclaves including the northern suburbs of Adelaide centred on Salisbury, the southwestern suburbs of Sydney between Lakemba and Cabramatta, and in Melbourne’s west around Sunshine and southeast around Dandenong. Brisbane’s southside centred on Logan and Sunnybank is also a non-English-speaking hotspot.”

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - Being Named on a Partner’s Death Certificate

to THE AGE     The Prime Minister is right (‘Hate mail - Fears of malicious campaign’, 10/8) that, during the run-up to the marriage postal vote, ‘the views of all sides should not be censored, even if offensive and extreme.’ That is an essential aspect of free speech. On this question there are obviously powerful arguments on both sides: it is not a simple black-and-white matter. Views which one commentator sincerely believes to be truthful and relevant may well appear to an ideological opponent as ‘misleading and deceptive’.      Is a compromise possible? Defenders of traditional marriage are unlikely to object, for example, to gay partners having ‘rights such as next of kin or being named on a partner’s death certificate’ (Letters).NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Difficulty of Changing the Constitution

to SUNDAY AGE     No better example of political gobbledegook could be found than the promise of the Leader of the Opposition to make the constitution ‘better, more equal, more Australian’ (‘Shorten backs Indigenous “voice”’, 6/8). Equality does not permit of degree. To what does he intend to ‘equalise’ our constitution, which is already completely Australian?     It is chilling to see the ALP leader backing a ‘truth-telling commission’. Shades of Stalinism and Maoism! His language (‘the right-wing rump’ of the Liberal Party) is also coarse and uncivil. As for his support of a ‘treaty’, the Australian people are currently one; and a people does not enter into a treaty with itself. He says that Aboriginal Australians do not need a ‘lecture about the difficulty of changing the constitution,’ but he evidently does.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Unjust and Destabilising Change to our Book of Rules

to THE AGE     Lyn Mitchell asks why Malcolm Turnbull is ‘taking on nearly all of Tony Abbott’s policies’ (8/8). Perhaps because they are wise and he is bowing, albeit reluctantly, to reality.  ‘Stopping the boats’ is a vital first step in curbing immigration into this continent and maintaining a reasonable quality of life here. A plebiscite on marriage gives all Australian citizens a chance to indicate their wishes. Climate change is a reality, but whether and to what degree it is caused by humankind is a question still being debated.     On one issue the PM will be wise not to follow in Abbott’s footsteps: constitutional recognition. The Constitution should not be tampered with to favour one small group at the expense of the great majority. Recognition, yes, of course; it already happens in many ways; but not by unjust and destabilising change to our book of rules which has long protected our free way of life and largely civil society.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Future Ideological Meddling with Proven National Treasure

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Noel Pearson is at best only half right in claiming (‘Memo Richo: Facts count, not lazy fictions’, 8/8) that ‘constitutional conservatives’ are ‘passionate advocates’ for the proposed ‘indigenous voice in Parliament’. What about the real conservatives on this issue: Keith Windschuttle, Andrew Bolt, John Roskam, Frank Salter and Greg Sheridan? Moreover, on this particular matter Julian Leeser cannot validly be described as a ‘hardcore constitutional conservative’. He has long been supporting constitutional recognition.     The true conservative position is warm and respectful recognition of Aboriginal history and culture, but not by misuse of the Constitution. It would set a bad precedent, too, for future ideological meddling with what at present is a proven national treasure.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Grenades! Now That’s Real Vibrancy and Vibration For You! By Peter West

     Forget about knife and car attacks, Sweden, a once Nordic country, now has embraced further diversity and  pluralism, with an increase in – yes, you guessed it – grenade attacks! Here is a reliable true news source on this one:

“The number of hand grenade attacks in Sweden has risen by 550 per cent in just three years, with police describing the situation as “completely unacceptable”.Police data shows that in 2014 the Swedish force investigated eight grenade incidents, none of which involved a detonation.  But last year this figure inflated by a massive 550 per cent, as officers saw a total of 52 grenade-related incidents, 27 of which involved detonations.At first, the grenade attacks were mostly directed at cars and homes linked to criminals and their relatives  — but from two years ago perpetrators began to target the nation’s “society and state”, an expert at Sweden’s National Police Department told SVT.” At: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/06/hand-grenade-attacks-sevenfold-sweden/https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/handgranatsattacker-har-okat-markant

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - True Statesmanship Would Seek Other Ways of Honouring the Aboriginal Peoples

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Graham Richardson claims (‘Spouting feel-good fluff is no proof of foreman material’, 7/8) that constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is ‘within reach if both sides get behind the campaign.’  On the contrary, irrespective of what MPs do, the Australian people will almost certainly reject any form of constitutional recognition, provided that they have been adequately informed beforehand by a fully articulated ‘No’ case supported by equitable government funding (50% of allotted funds to each side).     This is because there has been too much gung-ho talk by the Aboriginal lobby about a treaty and Aboriginal sovereignty, to say nothing of special seats in Parliament or an entrenched advisory body, and the people are too savvy not to realise that success in achieving constitutional recognition would be used as the basis for pushing the more wide-reaching demands in the future.  In short, widespread public faith in the whole campaign has been irretrievably lost. True statesmanship would recognize this and seek other ways of honouring the Aboriginal peoples, ways that do not threaten national unity and security and which are just to other Australians.NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

Letter to The Editor - Republics and Presidents Simply Can’t Compete

to THE AGE     My defence of the spiritual nature of monarchy and its unifying capacity within the realm has struck a few nerves (letters, 1/8). Yes, of course there have been some very bad monarchs and others have been unable to successfully protect their peoples from disorder; but the majority of kings and queens, and not only those of Britain, have by and large ruled well and not betrayed the ideal. History has, too, a lengthy list of corrupt republics.     It is significant that the world’s arts and literature are filled with the joyful celebration of royalty. By their very nature republics and presidents simply can’t compete, and no amount of derision can hide this.    NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Pursues an Obviously Divisive Course

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Galarrwuy Yunupingu has given a clear and noble account of the traditional Aboriginal process of settlement, but seems unaware of how, after the history of the last two or three centuries, it is irrelevant to constitutional procedures in the Australia of today.  Another mistake he makes is to imagine that Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten can speak on the issue of constitutional recognition for all Australians. They cannot, and true democracy demands that any change must be effected by means of a properly conducted referendum. Finally, there is a contradiction between his professions that he and the authors of the Uluru statement wish to be part of a unified nation, while he pursues an obviously divisive course which does not represent the wishes of all Aboriginals anyway.NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

Letter to The Editor - Referendum Should Be Completely Fair

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Is the Leader of the Opposition planning to avoid the rigor of a referendum in his push to make us a republic? (‘Revival for republic plebiscite’, 29-30/7) Our forefathers wisely gave us a model for constitutional change that avoids hasty acts that might later be regretted. It does this by requiring rather more than a mere 50% plus 1.     The proposed question for the plebiscite should be asked at a referendum. If the plebiscite does occur, then the subsequent referendum should include an option for the people to say ‘no’ to a republic.     And it is essential that government funding and publicity for any plebiscite or referendum should be completely fair: 50% each.NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Campaigns to Split Australia and Australians

To THE AUSTRALIAN     Cheryl Saunders, in advocating constitutional recognition (‘Their distilled voice of hope’, 28/7), claims that there is ‘a deep fissure in our national identity’, but perhaps this is a figment of her imagination or a piece of wishful thinking by a committed political activist. There are a lot of other Australians apart from the 1200 who produced the unimpressive and unconvincing ‘Uluru statement from the heart’ and I believe that most of them are very pleased that they live in a free nation in which civic unity and co-operation is found throughout the land.     Aboriginal culture is highly regarded and deeply respected by most of us; and we are happy for public funds to be deployed generously to assist Aboriginal persons and groups in need. What we do not want is campaigns to split Australia and Australians.NJ, Belgrave, Vic    

Mark Steyn - Speech to the IPA's Gala Dinner in Melbourne 2016


Letter to The Editor - Selfish Interests ahead of those of Australians as a whole

to THE AUSTRALIAN     Marcia Langton asks (‘Put nation first, Langton tells indigenous MPs’, 26/7): ‘Are the indigenous parliamentary representatives serving party interests rather than the national interest?’ I ask: ‘Is the Aboriginal lobby, whose numbers have been inflated by a questionable mode of definition of Aboriginality, putting its own selfish interests ahead of those of Australians as a whole?’ NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - High Court Judicial Adventurers

to THE AGE     As James Paterson notes (‘Radical approach to Indigenous recognition will fail’, 25/7), the Referendum Council’s recommendations have 'far-reaching implications for all of us.’ He does not, however, seem to have grasped the problems associated with the proposal for a ‘declaration of recognition.’  From one point of view, why do we need an official statement of the obvious? On the other hand, is it so obvious? Government should be wary of making historical assertions about controversial matters. That’s the stuff of totalitarianism. There is some doubt as to whether our Aboriginals really were the ‘first people’ on this continent or whether they displaced an earlier group. Then again, no present-day Aboriginals existed in time before other present-day Australians.     And who knows what radical implications future High Court judicial adventurers might claim to read into even the declaration’s seemingly innocuous statement about ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’? NJ, Belgrave, Vic