Posted By Bernard Gaynor on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:00 pm | 10 comments

Aren’t we lucky to have Aunty ABC.

It’s renowned for its objectivity in reporting and unbiased manner.

And that is why its approach to two similar stories is starkly different.

When Barilla Pasta hit the headlines recently for refusing to advertise its food with pictures of homosexual men and their surrogate children, the ABC report gave the gay militants a good run.

A very good run.

Online petitions in Europe were mentioned. Three of them. Plus a petition started by a lesbian in the United States named Beth Allen. She was also quoted and two ‘gay rights’ groups were given coverage.

All of these individuals and organisations were described in a ‘positive’ way, with an emphasis on their support for ‘equal rights’. There was no mention anywhere that the pro-gay militants might be displaying ‘heterophobia’.

And, of course, not one traditional family or conservative group was mentioned or given an opportunity to speak.

The story was overwhelmingly about presenting the concerns of those who wanted to boycott the ‘bigots’ at Barilla Pasta. And, after reading it, one had the distinct impression that the only person in the world who didn’t want homosexual families plastered all over pasta packaging was the Barilla chairman.

I particularly liked this quote from the Washington DC-based Human Rights Campaign:

“Now, more than ever, consumers are sending a message that they are watching to see if the business they patronise, understand and honour issues important to them”

The message is loud and clear. If a food company from a Christian country decides that homosexual advertising is likely to put people off their dinner, human rights groups are going to get a good run at the ABC.

Given the fact that the ABC will report negatively on a company that is deemed ‘anti-gay’ simply because it won’t make rainbow coloured pasta to meet the whims and fancies of homosexual activists, you’d think there would be a media frenzy over halal certification.

Yet companies are lining up to pay for religious certification from organisations that follow the teachings of Mohammad. And he didn’t just say he believed that pasta packaging adorned with homosexuals was a bad idea. He commanded that homosexuals should be executed.

And don’t take my word for it. Take it from those who recorded his actions, like Sunan Abu Dawood.

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

Book 38, Number 4447.

And in Islamic countries that is exactly what happens.

Homosexuals are executed in Iran.

Homosexuals are executed in Saudi Arabia.

Homosexuals are executed in Iraq. By the good guys that we are now fighting with.

And the Sultan of Brunei has just decreed that homosexuals can be executed there too.

And every time a company signs up for halal certification, a percentage of the profits go towards spreading the message of the prophet. It doesn’t really matter whether it goes to those who spread it with an AK-47 and a suicide vest or to those who just lobby for the friendly mosque and Islamic school down the road.

They all spread the same message.

You know, the one that says homosexuals should be killed. The disagreement is just the manner in which it should be done. Some say stoning. Others say burning. And others say they should be thrown head first from the highest pinnacle (and then stoned).

Of course, this can’t be done yet in places like Australia. It is in the ‘Meccan’ period, where Islam is not in control. First, Australia must be made like ‘Medina’, where Islam flourished. And halal certification fees are simply a means by which ‘Meccan’ Australia is transformed into ‘Medinan’ Australia. And when we get there, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Mardi Gras won’t be part of Sydney’s annual calendar.

So how did the ABC report the story about Australians who campaigned to have Fleurieu Milk abandon its plans for halal certification?

Did this unbiased organisation take the same approach as it did to Barilla Pasta and fill its report with quotes about righteously aggrieved consumers sending a message to companies that they need to understand and honour the issues that are important to them?

No.

Instead, the ABC failed to mention one group concerned about halal certification or the reasons why this concern exists.

It failed to mention one individual concerned about halal certification.

It failed to mention any of the petitions that had been set up to express this concern.

But it did give an Islamic spokesperson an opportunity to rabbit on about ‘Islamophobia’.

And it portrayed opponents to halal certification as aggressive, harsh bullies.

In short, when the ABC reported on Barilla Pasta, the story presented the consumer advocates in a positive light and gave them plenty of space to speak. Those who held different views were not even mentioned. But when the ABC reported on Fleurieu Milk, it gave the consumer advocates no space at all and instead went and interviewed their opponents.

Biased? Absolutely.

Objective? Not at all.

That’s someone else’s ABC for you. It’s an organisation devoted to pushing the views of the intellectual elite. It’s an organisation that makes a virtue out of hypocrisy.

And it is not prepared to ask any of the hard questions. If it did, the ABC might start asking LGBT lobby groups why they whip themselves into a frenzy over a decision to advertise in ‘family-friendly’ way, but are completely silent when it comes to paying a certification fee that will further the spread of a religious belief that executes homosexuals.