Posted By Bernard Gaynor on Friday, June 1, 2018 4:58 pm | 11 comments

According to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, saying something that someone may find offensive about Islam can land you in hot water.

A lot of it.

As Sonia Kruger is now discovering.

And this is so, even though there are no religious vilification laws in New South Wales. There are, however, racial vilification laws.

For those of you whose brow is now busy furrowing, let me try and explain what is going on.

When we don’t have religious vilification laws (as we mostly don’t in Australian states), Islam is protected because it is a race.

And when we do have religious vilification laws (which will soon be another unwanted consequence of the legalisation of homosexual marriage) Islam will be protected because it is a religion.

And pretty much everyone else can go to hell (I say this with an ironic caveat that will be addressed later in this article).

If you think the anti-discrimination industry will use racial or religious vilification laws to protect a middle-aged white man who expresses a conservative Christian view from being sacked, or vilified, or having his bank account shut down or being told he can’t apply for a uni course then you clearly don’t understand what the purpose of this industry is.

The whole reason it exists is to legalise discrimination against those who express views that support our Western Christian society. It champions the opposite of Christianity, which is man-centred morality enforced by the High Priests of the State.

To make my point a little clearer, answer this: what type of person would derive job satisfaction from sitting in some bureaucratic office all day and processing complaints from activists about people like Sonia Kruger.

Or this: who in their right mind would go home to their boyfriend feeling chuffed that they’ve achieved something useful after rubber stamping the 100^th complaint of a serial homosexual activist?

It takes a special person to do this job. One who not only feels that they are the new moral enforcer of Australian society but that they were born for this role.

I can absolutely guarantee you that the Anti-Discrimination Board and every other taxpayer leeching organisation like it is not filled with people like me. Or you. Or Sonia Kruger. Or the plumber who likes to have a beer at the pub on a Friday night.

Normal people would rather gouge their eyes out than burden themselves with determining whether a gay man who called a transgender man ugly has crossed some line (and that, my friends, is exactly what the anti-discrimination industry does).

Ordinary Australians don’t work in these places.

Extraordinary Australians do. You know the type.

They are vegans with stickers of rainbows on the back of their electric scooters and they have Twitter accounts so they can hashtag social justice.

They wear turtlenecks and depressing frumpy clothes and analyse tampon ads for unconscious male bias. The ones who are male carry handbags and shave their legs, while the non-male types don’t.

They use their Facebook page to raise awareness about ‘Invasion Day’ and tune in to the news to watch the protest at the Adani mine.

They believe that it’s kind-hearted that almost all babies with Downs Syndrome are aborted in Australia even as they put anti-discrimination posters of Down Syndrome people up in workplaces and then boast about how they are helping our society become more compassionate.

They spend their lives worrying about whether someone will apologise to someone else for something that happened before any of us were born. And how big the taxpayer-funded compensation cheque will be.

They’re the kind of people who work in the anti-discrimination industry.

So if you think you will ever get a fair hearing from this lot then you are as deluded as they are.

To them, fairness has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with factors.

If you have been assigned an attribute at birth that they don’t like then its bad luck. You’re stuck with it until you kick the bucket unless you are so willing to humiliate yourself that you purposefully look absolutely freakin’ ridiculous by attempting to ‘authentically’ live an attribute that you clearly don’t possess.

And people willingly degrade themselves this way.

Now that’s real power. And that is really what all of this is about.

There never has been and there never will be an institution of state that believes it has the power to make morality that does not also believe it needs more power.

And what may start out with the best of intentions is always perverted. Originally power is required to enforce anti-discrimination laws. But, inevitably, anti-discrimination laws are required to enforce more power.

The real purpose of this industry is not about making sure that gay people don’t call transgender people fat. It’s about making sure that all of us are under its control.

I might have been caught in the crosshairs of this industry. But, in the long run, it is just as likely to wind up executing Penny Wong as me. We’ve seen the Thought Police in action before. That’s where they always end up and that’s what they do, whether it be in Russia in 1917 or France in 1789.

Both Trotsky and Robespierre, the High Priests of their respective nations’ anti-discrimination industries succumbed to the blade. Or the ice axe. Or whatever happened to be handy at the time.

That might not yet be the fate awaiting Sonia Kruger. She’s one of the early runners who will just be harassed and told to shut up. She’s there to become an example of what not to say.

And what, exactly, did she say. Well, this:

By the way, I do note that only a few days ago an Islamic convert peacefully killed a number of people in Belgium, two of whom happened to be armed female police officers. I could go there today but I won’t – so just read this (later).

However, I will make this point: it’s unlikely someone will convert to Islam unless there are other Muslims around.

So Sonia may be onto something here.

But wait, there’s more.

Islam is based around the life of Mohammad. If he did it, Muslims should do it too.

Mohammad was both peaceful and aggressive.

He was peaceful when Islam was in the minority. And he was aggressive when it was not.

He also taught that all Muslims should strive to see Islam rule the world. This includes taking all measures that are lawful according to Sharia law to overthrow and replace governments that are not Islamic. And it is lawful to do this by violence because Mohammad did just that when he went to war and defeated the Meccans.

True, in Islamic law there are some qualifications about when violence is justified. One of them, interestingly, is that the violence has to be permitted by a lawful authority.

This is the primary reason many in the Islamic world condemned the Islamic State. The problem was not that that it used violence, but that it did so while there was dispute over its legitimate authority.

Another caveat is that the violence must not cause greater discord than the injustice it seeks to destroy. This is a very subjective matter, which is why some get a rush of blood to the head and others don’t.

And it is also true that of the others who don’t, most of them won’t.

They don’t Islam seriously enough. That is good for us but it is not an argument supporting Islamic immigration.

Out of all of this, one thing is clear. The more Muslims there are in a community, the closer the conditions are to being met justifying violence.

So Sonia may be onto something here as well. Perhaps Islamic immigration is not such a brilliant idea after all.

Unfortunately, the Thought Police don’t care about any of this. All they care about is their power and making sure people live their lives in accordance with its maniacal decrees. Even if it means promoting gay marriage and a religion which condemns homosexuality to death at the same time.

Which is why, as I said earlier, when it comes to religion it will protect Islam and tell the rest of us to go to hell.

Well, almost the rest of us.

The Australian Capital Territory’s anti-discrimination mob have made an exception for Satanists, as reported recently by the Canberra Times:

A NSW-based blogger has been ordered to take down material from his site that described a small and mysterious religious order as a “satanic paedophile cult”. A Canberra tribunal found that the material was archetypal hate speech…

… At the hearing, Mr Bottrill said the Ordo Templi Orientis was about 100 years old and that it had been created out of a collection of Masonic rights in Europe.

“Since about 1912 it’s been the main vehicle for promoting the religion of Thelema … It’s a religion based on revelations given to and then published by Aleister Crowley.”

The UK Guardian also ran an article in 2011 mentioning followers of Mr Crowley. It read somewhat differently:

A former security guard who led a cult from a cul-de-sac in a Welsh seaside town was told he might spend life in jail for committing a series of sex attacks on boys and girls…

… The cult is said to have been inspired by Aleister Crowley, the late mystic and magician nicknamed the Great Beast who in 1904 published a text called the Book of the Law extolling permissive sex.

During the five-week trial the prosecution claimed “the book” formed the basis for Batley’s organisation and he would read from a laminated copy of it while dressed in hooded robes at the start of orgies.

And now, after homosexual marriage has been legalised, it is likely that the Commonwealth will create a federal religious vilification body similar to the one in operation in the nation’s capital. Heaven help us all. Literally. And soon.

Sonia Kruger should not be the focus of the state. Instead, there should be a detailed investigation into the anti-discrimination industry before things get any worse.

It should be put under the spotlight. And then it should be bulldozed into the ground.