Mark Latham: We need a Free Speech Act (or step up to the plate Malcolm & Bill)

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.

Go figure.

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.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. Bernard are u going to sit for a seat in parliament get cracking boy now the time where ru located at bye now all the best

    Post a Reply
  2. Not only a Free Speech Act. We also need a “Right To Say No” act that would protect anyone from being forced to act contrary to his/her conscience. This would mean, for example, that the doctor who did not believe in abortion could not be forced to perform one, the web designer who did not accept a particular religion could not be forced to design a web site promoting that religion, or the baker who did not support homosexuality could not be forced to bake a cake celebrating it. This would not affect the rights of the other person – the one who wanted an abortion would still be able to get one, just not from that doctor; the supporters of that religion would still be able to get a web site, just not one designed by that person; the homosexuals would still be able to celebrate, just not with a cake from that particular baker.

    Without such a provision the concept of “freedom of religion” is a joke. The government should be honest and declare humanism to be the state religion, and say clearly that anyone who does not act according to its tenets will be punished.

    Post a Reply
    • The above post states my opinion also , without the freedom to express our individual beliefs, we are doomed to a life of savagery, and slavery !

      Post a Reply
  3. We may need one to begin with, but it will not be enough.

    Only a constitutional alteration will be enough to ‘guarantee’ freedom of speech. Even the most professionally and efficaciously drafted acts of parliament amount to nothing in the face of a populist movement to repeal. So much harder to do that if it is constitutional in nature.

    Looking at the circumstances of the implementation of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, we can see the federal government happily used the *External Affairs* powers of the Constitution to control the speech of Australians. This too would need to be changed (specified and limited) lest a future Australian government decide that a new international treaty necessitates further controls of Australians’ natural rights. This is very possible, and must be addressed, sooner better than later.

    This is why the U.S. Bill of Rights is so valuable to them. Acts of government are subject to the Constitution, including those very specific protections listed in the first ten amendments, making it so much harder to take their rights away. It’s still possible, but very difficult.

    Don’t think it doesn’t need to be that way here. Resting on the implication of underlying rights is simply a way of preserving a government’s access to the powers of tyranny.

    Australia desperately needs a Bill of Rights. There is a danger that we could end up with something the Greens (or similar) had a hand in crafting, containing who knows how many ‘rights’ (‘lefts’?), and so great care must be taken pursuing it. There are many versions of Bills, Charters, Lists, etc, that may be referenced in drafting one for Australia. But, notably, even the noble-sounding but ultimately spineless/toothless Universal Declaration of Human Rights is no match for the simplicity of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

    Legislation is a good start, but it will not be enough.

    Post a Reply
  4. It took a lot of moral courage for Dr Lai to do what she did for the good of Australia as a nation and I admire her for it. I am sure she is a doctor that Australia can not afford to lose in the face of the wholesale abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath by the medical profession in this country. She has faced a vindictive campaign of hate from the ‘Yes’ campaign and she has stood her ground.

    The reason why her voice has not been joined more vigorously (throughout our Diverse and Multicultural society) is because freedom of speech in this country is very far eroded. Only people who can play a race card, a migrant card, a woman card, a gay card or a Muslim card are allowed to speak up on any issue. And if they are politically incorrect, they will pay a price. But not as heavy a price as a White, heterosexual male.

    This group, especially, has been stood down by the Political Correctoids and kept in a completely unacceptable place because of the vendettas that will be brought against them. And these voices from the natural leaders of the founding European peoples of the Australian state are the voices that must be raised.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest