To THE AGE Your scornful description of the decision of the British people to leave the European Union as ‘nativist populism’ (15/1) ignores the big issues behind it: the protection of the monarchy, the retention of national identity, the resumption of a great legal tradition and a return to greater liberty. It is shocking but not surprising that certain powerful individuals and groups are doing everything possible to annul the Brexit result. Other members of the EU had their votes to leave overruled by political chicanery. It is to be hoped that British character and integrity will prevail against it. Better to be poor and free than wealthy and corrupt. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
To THE AGE Justin Malbon (‘A simple way to get a president’, 4/1) ingeniously suggests that the republican cause can be facilitated by the addition of the title of ‘president of Australia’ to the office of governor-general. However, this appears to be yet another ethically dubious scheme for getting around the fact that another referendum might well meet the same fate as that of 1999.
Malbon is right to note that ‘symbolism is potent’. To change our nation from monarchy to republic is no small matter. It has many ramifications, some of them profound (such as the vast difference between sacred and secular authority). Honourable republicans should ensure that no change is effected save by a referendum that has been fairly conducted. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
Relax, let an old lady handle this one. There is a growing cultural war over toilets, with something of a trend to create unisex toilets:http://www.smh.com.au/comment/gender-neutral-public-toilets-should-be-the-norm-20160503-golmtp.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/public-service-push-for-genderneutral-bathrooms-20170511-gw2taq.html
Urinals are on the way out, with the sort of standard toilets we all have at home coming to the fore. Thus, men, being extremely poor aims, will make these toilets unhygienic for women. Ladies, you know what I mean! All in the name of political correctness.
We have seen concern, and quiet murmurs issued by conservatives, about parliament’s complete failure to protect religious freedom. Indeed, “our” politicians saw fit to vote down all amendments that would have protected religious freedom. Even proverbial blind Freddy could have seen this coming, yet the 62 percenters went along with a “Yes” vote with no guarantee of any protections.
As noted here:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/samesex-marriage-mps-no-to-liberty-ushers-in-new-sectarianism/news-story/b2bf56a09fa6312ccc923474c8a328c9
First, the same sex marriage legislation, and then, almost instantly, we have this:http://theconversation.com/we-have-marriage-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-inclusive-sexuality-education-in-schools-87501https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/12/08/opinion-we-have-marriage-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-inclusive-sexualityhttps://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/12/08/day-day-infamy/
Read all about it if you need more details than the headlines.
The 61.6 percenters who voted for same sex marriage, must also have voted for the end of religious freedom, since at present the government does not seem very concerned about its pledge that no bill on same sex marriage would impinge on religious freedom. Before the plebby, 62 percent of voters supported legal guarantees for freedom of religion, even though numerous people strongly argued that this was naïve, and that once the same sex vote was secured, freedom of religion would be forgotten. And, it has. Even the mildest amendments protecting freedom of religion have been voted down:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/marriage-legislation-puts-religious-freedom-in-doubt/news-story/ce9ec86ca4a6f93aadafab5ba283fee1
This is a parliament where the same sex legislation passage was treated like some sort of wartime victory, with pollies hugging in the parliament. What would the Founding fathers have thought if they could have seen that?
to THE AUSTRALIAN Jennifer Oriel is right (Commentary, 4/12) that Australia Day can be celebrated in an inclusive way that should offend no one. We can indeed dance with the descendants of our first peoples, of seafaring British adventurers and the pioneers who followed, and of later immigrants from countries all around the world. This does not mean ignoring the fact that, as with most if not all historic events, there was loss as well as gain involved in the 1788 landing of the First Fleet and the subsequent transformation of human living conditions on this continent. One way of honouring this awareness could be the institution of a very brief period of public silent remembrance at, say, eleven in the morning each January 26th. By contrast, the raking up of past grievances to foment national division or for other dubious purposes should be condemned and shunned. NJ, Belgrave, Vic.
The New South Wales government has now introduced thought crime laws:
“The NSW upper house has passed a bill which will allow the Attorney General to apply to keep an inmate behind bars beyond the completion of their entire sentence if he thinks they may commit a terrorism-related offence sometime in the future, even if they have never committed or even been suspected of engaging in such as offence before.The Terrorism (High-Risk Offenders) Bill 2017 – which was introduced to parliament by NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman – gives him the power to make rolling applications to the Supreme Court to extend an inmate’s sentence for up to 3 years at a time, up to the end of their life, regardless of what they were originally sentenced for.”https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/nsw-government-passes-thought-crime-laws/
No, unfortunately “throuples” is not something one orders at a restaurant and goggles down – that is truffles. No, throuples are three people in a sexual relationship, or polyamory. Polygamy differs, it is said, and involves multiple partners in a marriage.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/throuple-consisting-of-chris-and-matt-brandt-and-cait-earnest-open-up-on-unconventional-relationship/news-story/c8a7b77ebeca442f04c6f094b01c55e5
There will now be a movement towards polygamy, based on the need to accommodate Muslims. In fact, it is already underway:https://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/12/15/islamic-polygamy-rapidly-expanding-west/
to THE AUSTRALIAN Noel Pearson’s latest intemperate attack on Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull (‘Warring PMs betray recognition: Pearson’, 25-26/11) will only damage further his standing in the eyes of Australians generally. For someone who has long advocated a sympathetic approach to Australians having Aboriginal ancestry, he shows a remarkable lack of sympathy for those of us of British ethnicity who cherish the monarchy, admire Prince Philip and enjoy watching ‘Downton Abbey’. Nor is it true that the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s proposals ‘won conservative support.’ They have been strongly opposed by the true conservatives: Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter, Greg Sheridan, Gary Johns and Andrew Bolt. NJ, Belgrave, Vic.
We love rural people. Yet, regarding the same sex vote, there was no country/city divide:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/samesex-marriage-mythbusting-result-shows-social-change-is-possible/news-story/f4f97f231b8818a1ff3772413e7a58b1
“Is Australia a nation divided between city and country? Not on the question of same-sex marriage. Although the strongest levels of support were recorded in east coast, inner-city electorates — overwhelmingly the same electorates that in 1999 backed a republic — majority support for same-sex marriage was recorded in all regional and rural electorates in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW. In Queensland, four of six electorates outside greater Brisbane voted yes.And what of Queensland, lazily lampooned as the redneck state? The results of the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey suggest that Queenslanders are more comfortable with gay marriage than their southern neighbours in NSW. Tasmania, the last state to decriminalise homosexuality just 20 years ago, recorded a yes vote above the national average. In South Australia and Western Australia, not one electorate voted no.Greater western Sydney, long considered the heartland of Australian national politics, is revealed as a statistical outlier. No other population area, metropolitan or regional, rejected the proposed change to the marriage act with the uniformity and strength of western Sydney. Is it simply a matter of religious affiliation and influence, of ethnic cleavages and homeland values held by first and second-generation immigrants, or did voters in western Sydney accept the invitation of Tony Abbott and others to lodge a cultural protest vote against political priorities, political correctness and the social straitjacketing of public discourse? The answer to this question will shape the tone and tenure of the next federal election.”
No doubt the average Aussie punter is feeling good with him/herself, giving the “fair go” with the Yes vote, as he/she was told to do by the elites. But, what about religious freedom, does the average Aussie want a “fair go” there?http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/samesex-marriage-law-before-freedoms/news-story/a44ca382d1a21fa0ee9a8e52b9b9a4c5
According to this, there will be same sex marriage for Christmas, which I suppose will help the economy, such a wedding cake sales, but there will be free discussion about the scope of religious freedom next year:
Reading Tony Abbott’s piece; “Vote shows We Can Respect Views with which We Disagree”:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/vote-shows-we-can-respect-views-with-which-we-disagree/news-story/687245c8d81e53b62c81205bc9eeeaab I felt that conservatives “just don’t see it.” See what? The threat to Western civilisation posed by the progressives, who are not content to play nice and politely drink tea, but as shown in the US, which is a little ahead of us, will play hardball as hard as is needed:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/29/16216346/antifa-violence
Abbott seems to think that the same sex vote went swimmingly well, when in fact there was intimidation and threats against the No side:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-campaigners-show-their-true-colours/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2
Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese, 15 Nov 2017
Most Rev Anthony Fisher OP
If we believe the mainstream media, you know, those who failed to predict that Donny Trump would win the presidency, we can expect that the same sex marriage issue will be decided by Yes, with 27 billion Yes votes, to one No vote. I exaggerate, a little.
In any case the No campaign is disturbed about the threat to religious freedom, as it should be, and has threatened to campaign against the Coalition at the next election: The Australian, November 8, 2017, p. 5. That may or may not be a good thing, perhaps ensuring that Labor gets in and gives us a serve of political correctness harder than we ever anticipated. Or, if they are sensible, they could campaign for One Nation to symbolically attack the cucked Coalition of fools.
A psychologist writing on the Redditt network has said that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, like heterosexualism and homosexualism:
“The idea that sexual attraction to children is an “orientation” is highly controversial as it suggests that offenders cannot change.But, writing on the Reddit networking website, the psychologist said it was possible to treat child sex abusers on “the understanding that the attraction may always remain”.
to THE AGE Magnanimity towards a loser is an important aspect of our cultural tradition. That is why, if the postal survey results in a clear yes for same-sex marriage, the Government should move cautiously and judiciously in framing enabling legislation. This is not a situation of ‘those who opposed change seeking to be the authors of a bill for change’ (‘”Blizzard” of changes likely for bill’, 10/11), but of reasonable requests for adequate and fair protections for dissidents being incorporated as part of the bill. It is not a matter of further attempts to ‘delay the inevitable’, but of respecting the substantial number of no voters. Waleed Ali is misleading (‘When yes means yes but’) in suggesting that the no campaign has ‘lost’ on its key themes of ‘protections for parents, freedom of speech and religious freedom.’ It is more likely that the yes campaign has won on what was perceived as fairness to same-sex couples. Thus these key themes should be weighed carefully by those framing legislation. Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
to THE AGE Who are these ‘Ngunnawal elders’ who are ‘asserting their ownership’ over land in Canberra’s parliamentary triangle (‘Talks fail over Indigenous activists’ occupation of eatery’, 9/11)? I question their authenticity as well as their claim and behaviour, especially when their spokesperson bears two European names. The Aboriginal people lost control of this continent long ago and nothing can be done to reverse that historic change. Today’s descendants of those tribes must accept that reality. The huge folly of the ‘constitutional recognition’ campaign, now exposed for all to see, has alerted most Australians to the danger of separatist movements. We need to defend our nation and the full force of the law should be brought to bear on these public nuisances in our capital. NJ, Belgrave, Vic
http://theconversation.com/social-media-study-points-to-a-close-result-in-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-84436 The Yes site may need help from Yoko Ono, the woman who made a major contribution to the world by helping to break up the Beatles:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6vnXJVAnu8
The statistical argument, stripped down, is that Tweets mentioning the same sex marriage issue were looked at. Once those making multiple references were removed, this brought the Yes number down to 57 percent. But, then over 55-year olds were under-represented, so once the adjustments were made, the Yes figure went to 49 percent. I think though that this team did not factor in the multicult factor, of Chinese and Muslim opposition to same sex marriage. That will bring the percentage down even more. Hopefully, the Yes side will be defeated soundly. But, don’t slack off, you are doing well with your phone calls and door-knocking. Give yourself a big hug and pat on the back!
to THE AUSTRALIAN The current state of ‘moves towards indigenous constitutional recognition’ has not ‘reached a damaging impasse’ (‘Angry Pearson turns on Turnbull’, 6/11). Rather, it has been fruitfully clarified by the Government’s sensible and well argued rejection of the ‘voice to Parliament’ and then by the dogmatic and intemperate responses of those disappointed by the result, including Noel Pearson. Greg Sheridan summed up the situation well (‘Just being Australian is good enough for us all’, 2/11). Opponents of constitutional recognition have proved justified in their fears that there would be ‘no end point to the process’, since any concession would be followed by demands for more, leading to an inexorable slide towards the division of the continent into two nations. NJ, Belgrave, Vic.