Letter to The Editor - Nor is it true that the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s proposals ‘won conservative support.’

     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.

Has the Bush Escaped Political Correctness? Don’t Bet on It By Paul Walker

     We love rural people. Yet, regarding the same sex vote, there was no country/city divide:

“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.”

Continue reading

Same Sex Aftermath; The End of Religious Freedom By Michael Ferguson

     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?

     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:

Continue reading

Why Conservatism is Doomed By Peter West

     Reading Tony Abbott’s piece; “Vote shows We Can Respect Views with which We Disagree”:
  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:

     Abbott seems to think that the same sex vote went swimmingly well, when in fact there was intimidation and threats against the No side:

Continue reading


Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese, 
15 Nov 2017 

Most Rev Anthony Fisher OP

Continue reading

The Same Sex Marriage Apocalypse By Mrs Vera West

     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.

Continue reading

Paedophilia the Next Big Thing By Mr Vera West

     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”.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - Thus these key themes should be weighed carefully by those framing legislation

     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

Letter to The Editor - the full force of the law should be brought to bear on these public nuisances in our capital

     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

The Yessers May Well Lose. Ha! By Mrs Vera West

     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:

     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!

Letter to The Editor - demands for more, leading to an inexorable slide towards the division of the continent into two nations

     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.

Letter to The Editor - a leader bequeathed by a process rich in tradition and sanctified by religion

     There have been monarchies and republics for thousands of years, so neither model is more ‘anachronistic’ than the other (‘Symbolism matters: why I’m a staunch republican’, 6/11). Nor is it true that our monarchs have ruled ‘through no other merit than birth’; they had good genetic endowments and long periods of training to prepare them for their arduous responsibilities.
     Then again, Her Majesty the Queen is not accurately described as an ‘unelected foreign monarch.’  She shares her ethnicity with most of us; she is constitutionally an Australian as well as a Briton; and she has been chosen (‘elected’) by a respected system, even if it is not by the kind we use to change our governments.
     I wonder why Dan Crowley is so enamoured of having a national president subservient to popular whims and vested financial interests, rather than a leader bequeathed by a process rich in tradition and sanctified by religion.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - reconciliation needs no tampering with the Constitution

     The Government is right to have rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s recommendation for a constitutionally enshrined ‘indigenous Voice to Parliament’ (‘Coalition contempt for our first peoples’, 5/11).  The proposal is fundamentally inequitable and endangers the integrity of the nation.
     A distinction needs to be made between ‘the Aboriginal people’ (meaning those of the past, the present and the future) and living Australians who have some or whole Aboriginal ancestry.  No one has dispossessed anyone in the latter group; nor are they the only indigenous Australians.  As for the dispossession of ‘the Aboriginal people’, it is a fact of history that no-one can undo in any way.  No one living today can justifiably be blamed for it.
    There is widespread goodwill towards contemporary Aboriginals, and Aboriginal culture and history are rightly recognized and celebrated throughout the land.  Thus reconciliation needs no tampering with the Constitution.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Adequate recognition can be achieved without any tampering with the Constitution

     How amazing to learn that a law professor was able to persuade some netball parents in five minutes that the indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament should be supported (‘Pollies, not people, the real obstacle’, 3/11)! How could the rest of us not see that it’s all so simple? It’s odd, however, that nowhere in Rosalind Dixon’s statement can we find a single reasoned argument justifying the proposed change.
     By contrast, Simon Breheny (‘Decision on “indigenous voice” a big win for liberal democracy’) gives us at least six such arguments to justify the Government’s decision. The most important of these is that any ‘advisory’ voice does not need to be constitutionally enshrined. Adequate recognition can be achieved without any tampering with the Constitution.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - We want no Catalonian division here

     Mark Leibler claims (‘Voice of the people spurned’, 31/10) that the Government’s decision to reject the proposed indigenous ‘voice’ in Parliament has deprived Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders of ‘a form of recognition that might make a difference to their lives.’ How? What difference? What change that cannot be made by avoiding risky tampering with the Constitution? It’s too vague!
     So what if ‘more than 1000 First Nations people’ participated in the Uluru process? That is a miniscule number out of the whole body of the nation. It is not even clear to what extent those attendees truly represented the opinions of other indigenous Australians. Nor is it certain that the ‘voice’ would not have become a de facto ‘third chamber’ of Parliament, one that might receive greater powers under some future ALP government.
     The Government’s decision has protected the integrity of the nation. We want no Catalonian division here.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

Letter to The Editor - Unrealism about these matters will help no one.

     We live in one of the wealthiest, freest and happiest nations in the world, and yet Rob McCasker (31/10) views our political order as ‘a system that continues to fail Indigenous Australians and all Australians.’  He provides no evidence at all to support his claim that the Government’s rejection of the ‘voice’ in Parliament was ‘driven by cheap and nasty politics.’ His speculation is almost certainly groundless.
     Those who wish to benefit the descendants of our first peoples should admit that it has now become apparent that any kind of constitutional recognition carries unacceptable dangers to the stability and security of the nation. No matter how it is phrased, no referendum will succeed. Unrealism about these matters will help no one.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - It is reasonable and not ‘absurd’ for the Government to defend ‘equal civic rights’.

     The significance of the Government’s decision to reject a first people’s ‘voice’ to Parliament is being misrepresented (Letters, 30/10). Aboriginal leaders already have and will continue to have the means ‘of expressing their voice and vision on behalf of their people’ and will certainly be listened to by governments fully aware that most Australians wish our Aboriginal fellow citizens well.
     Nor is the decision ‘a silencing of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders’. They remain as free as ever to publish their views and promote policies of their choice. Moreover, it is anachronistic to argue that ‘this is colonial politics’ or motivated by ‘white paternalism’. Finally, it is reasonable and not ‘absurd’ for the Government to defend ‘equal civic rights’. That is one of the core issues.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - There is ideological bullying as well as a woeful fanaticism here!

    An opinion poll of unproved reliability that involved a mere 1500 people (‘PM rebuffed on indigenous voice’, 30/10) is no evidence at all that the Government decision on an indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament ‘has been blown out of the water’. The claim is out of all proportion to reality.
     More importantly, the call by Referendum Council member Megan Davis for ‘a mechanism that compels the Government to listen’ sends shivers down my spine. There is ideological bullying as well as a woeful fanaticism here. The majority of Australians won’t buy it!
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

Senator Gichuhi Socks it to the Same Sex Marriagers By Mrs Vera West

     The papers have been celebrating the appointment of Senator Lucy Gichuhi, Australia’s first African-born senator. She held second spot on the Family First ticket, and received only 152 direct votes, but by the magic of our political system, when it was found that the election of Bob Day was invalid, she entered parliament, joining the Australian Conservative Party, as Family First no longer existed:

     Senator Gichuhi is opposed to same sex marriage and has this to say:

Continue reading

Turnbull Got Something Right on Recognition By Jim Jones, Your Local Butcher

     The chattering class have been screaming loud about Mal Turnbull’s decision to abandon the report recommending an indigenous advisory voice to parliament, along with a separate commission to oversee “treaty-making and truth-telling.” “Truth-telling”? That smacks of something out of South Africa, doesn’t it?

Let me quote from the above article:

Continue reading