Mark Latham has written a fantastic column in today’s Daily Telegraph, outlining the attack on freedom from the elites in Australia today.
And, as he points out, if the laws on marriage are radically redefined we can expect far worse to come.
Latham starts by turning his attention to the brutal oppression of the ‘Yes’ campaign. Dr Pansy Lai had the temerity to appear in a commercial supporting natural marriage. Before we knew it, she was facing a concerted bullying campaign designed to force her deregistration as a doctor.
There is a reason these campaigns begin: the political, cultural and legal mindset in Australia now encourages them.
Latham’s second example shows this: the prosecution of three atheistic nationalists for carrying out a mock beheading to protest a mosque in Bendigo.
No one complained about this. No one was injured. And yet the apparatus of state in Victoria swang into gear against them.
Consequently it is uncertain what aspects of Islam, especially those associated with terrorism, can be criticised.
And this is occurring even as the threat of terrorism in Australia continues to rise.
I don’t support the methods of the United Patriots Front. Nor do I support its philosophies. Essentially they deify the state.
Rather ironically, this is also what tends occurs in Islam due to its vision of a combined religious and national infrastructure.
However, regardless of what one may think of the United Patriots Front, all Australians should be concerned at what has happened to Chris Shortis, Neil Erikson and Blair Cottrell. They haven’t proven Australians are ‘racist’; instead they’ve proven that Australians can’t speak their mind about one of the most dangerous ideologies afflicting this world.
We now have a blasphemy law in Victoria that protects Islam (but not Christianity – it should be remembered this same legal system decided a crucifix placed in a bottle of urine was perfectly acceptable).
And then Latham turned to the High Court’s recent decision not to hear my case against the Chief of Defence Force.
This is what he had to say:
If gay-left militancy and legal inconsistency weren’t bad enough, last month there was a third strike against free speech in Australia.
The High Court refused to hear Major Bernard Gaynor’s appeal against his unfair dismissal from the Australian Army.
In June 2013, Gaynor received a notice from the Chief of the Defence Force David Hurley, confirming his sacking on the grounds of “intolerance of homosexuals, transgender persons and women” that were “contrary to (Defence’s) policies and cultural change program”.
As a political activist, in his private time, Gaynor had made a series of contentious statements — most notably, that he would not allow gays to teach his children at school. This is not something with which I agree, but so what. They are Gaynor’s children, not mine or anyone else’s.
As a father he has the right to decide what’s best for his family. Having outlined his views publicly, they should have been seen as an exercise in parental belief and free speech.
Hurley acknowledged that Gaynor “was not on duty, in uniform or performing any service for the Army at the time of the comments”.
He also said Gaynor had “interacted with male and female Defence members in a cordial and respectful manner in the workplace”. Gaynor was a decorated war hero, having served in Iraq. He hadn’t done anything other than articulate political opinions consistent with his Christian faith and parental responsibilities.
Yet he was out on his ear.
After two years of court action and huge personal expense, the High Court ended Gaynor’s matter by not even hearing it.
It’s like the old line about homosexuality: I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t make it compulsory.
In today’s ADF, it is compulsory, even in one’s private life, to gushingly support same-sex and transgender relationships. How is this relevant to national security? It’s another politically correct distraction from the core responsibilities of government.
Australia urgently needs a Free Speech Act. Twenty years ago, in the Lange case, the High Court declared that Australians enjoyed the “implied rights” of freedom of political speech. As our constitution is based on a vigorous parliamentary democracy, we need to be able to debate issues without censorship or punishment.
Yet in Gaynor’s case the High Court ignored this principle. If it won’t defend its own precedents for free speech, Parliament must legislate instead.
You can read Latham’s full column here.
We do need a Free Speech Act.
Unfortunately, however, we live in a nation where the Defence Force has struck a blow against the freedom the ordinary citizen. It has been supported by the highest court of justice.
And it occurred in the midst of the biggest political attack on freedom in Australian history: homosexual marriage.
This attack, remember, is supported by the leaders of both major parties.
So I hold little hope that the current parliament has the capability or intent to do anything to restore freedom in Australia.
And that means all that is left is you: vote no.