Coercing Tolerance

(Author disclaimer and full disclosure: I am a friend of the subject of this piece, and I was a co-author of the document in question. So string me up already.) It is now clear that the Australian government thinks that homosexuality is the norm and it must be fully embraced by all Australians. And it also seems convinced that men’s issues are not that important, nor is the well-being of children and of families.

That is the strong message being sent out by the Rudd Government after one of the most dedicated champions of the men’s movement and one of the most passionate pro-family advocates was threatened with the sack as a men’s health ambassador by Health Minister Nicola Roxon yesterday. The implication is clear: tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle will now be coerced, if need be. And any opposition to the homosexual agenda will be swiftly dealt with by the Government.

Here is the story: Two men’s advocates, Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation, and Barry Williams, of the Lone Fathers’ Association, were appointed two days ago to serve as men’s health ambassadors. So too was Tim Mathieson, Julia Gillard’s boyfriend, along with some others. But then Roxon learned about a booklet Marsh co-authored some 14 months ago, 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.

This booklet is in fact a well-researched and well-documented look at the importance of gender differences, heterosexuality, and the overwhelming importance of biological two-parent families to children and society. The booklet has 178 endnotes and was produced by a team of academics, scholars, family experts, counsellors, and even former homosexuals.

It affirms that males and females are fundamentally different, and that heterosexual families are in the best interests of our children. But because it does not embrace the homosexual lobby’s claims of moral equivalence, the forces of PC have gone ballistic about the document.

Marsh and Williams were threatened with dismissal, but when Williams said he disowned the booklet, he was reinstated. Marsh refused to back down, so now he has lost this position, and is the subject of some of the most vicious and ugly lies and smear campaigns around.

For example, was absolutely foaming at the mouth over the booklet. Crikey Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane entitled his piece, “Anti-gay bigots on Roxon’s mens’ health taskforce”. It was full of such gems as: “Marsh and Williams seem to have rather peculiar views on some male health issues. Worse than peculiar, actually. Downright evil is a term that springs to mind. Because they appear to have a problem with gay men.”

In the view of crikey, the booklet seems to be on a par with The Satanic Verses, and I await crikey issuing a fatwa against its authors: “This 23-page screed is mostly notable merely for promulgating tediously stereotypical views of people and their relationships. . . . On and on it goes, page after page, ‘supported’ by nonsensical and misinterpreted studies, ranting against gays and lesbians.”

The article continues, “Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams are listed as ‘authors and contributors’ to this vile, bigoted garbage. These men should have nothing to do with any cause associated with men’s health. . . .  The [booklet’s view] encourages violence toward gays and lesbians.”

There you have it: the authors are “downright evil” and the booklet is “vile, bigoted garbage”. And of course anyone reading it will immediately go out and shoot a homosexual. Never mind how much the booklet talks about the need to love, support and help homosexuals. Never mind that the whole booklet is about the well-being of children and the importance of two-parent biological families. Never mind that some of the authors are former-homosexuals themselves.

Another crikey piece said this: “But it shouldn’t have been difficult to see that the appointment of an extremist ‘fatherhood’ advocate who has for years peddled wholly objectionable views about gays and lesbians was wrong. Warwick Marsh has now rightly been sent packing by Roxon, but he should never have been appointed. The simplest background check would have revealed his record of homophobia. And there remain concerns, too, about Barry Williams’s views on same-sex couples and violence against women.”

Of course the Government’s response was just as irrational and incendiary. Roxon said the comments about homosexuality were “unacceptable and repugnant”. In an interview she said, “Well, look I think that these comments, particularly about homosexuality, are quite abhorrent. I don’t share those views. I have asked both Mr Marsh and Mr Williams to give me an explanation and Mr Marsh has not repudiated those offensive comments and I don’t think that his position as a men’s health ambassador is tenable.”

She continues, “I would have preferred to talk to him before I did this interview but it is very clear to me that he has not repudiated these comments. That they are very offensive and it is not appropriate for him to continue in this role.” So telling the truth about homosexuality is simply “unacceptable and repugnant,” “abhorrent,” and “offensive”.

Of course the homosexual lobby went livid as well. Homosexual senator Bob Brown accused Marsh and the booklet of “hate-mongering”. Homosexual activist Rodney Croome said much the same: “If the federal Government is sincere about an inclusive and effective men’s health agenda it must remove these hate mongers immediately”.

And the pro-homosexual academics were up in arms as well. For example, associate Professor Anne Mitchell, from Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria at La Trobe University, said the document amounted to gay-hate literature and its authors should not be associated with the promotion of men’s health issues.

Uber-feminist Eva Cox of the Women’s Electoral Lobby said Roxon had “stuffed it” when selecting the two men: “I think she’s probably had bad advice. [Mr Williams and Mr Marsh] were very popular with the last government and I think maybe she doesn’t realise how toxic that kind of appointment would be”.

Today Kevin Rudd defended Roxon, both for appointing Labor deputy leader Julia Gillard’s de facto as one of the ambassadors, and for dumping Warwick Marsh. Referring to the appointment of Marsh, Rudd said, “Mistakes happen, let’s just be upfront about it and she’s taken it on the chin, good on her – she’s doing a fantastic job”.

There it is folks. Appointing one of the most dedicated and committed workers on behalf of the interests of men, who also happens to not hold the PC line on homosexuality, was a “mistake”. Rudd, who tried to woo the Christian vote prior to last year’s election, thinks pro-family stalwarts like Marsh who have worked with men for years are not acceptable, and only those who endorse the homosexual lifestyle need apply.

Is he really that bad?

In his defence, Warwick Marsh issued a press release. I offer some of it here: “It is a wonderful thing when people vilify you and tell lies about you. Certain journalists have claimed that I am Homophobic. You be the judge.”

“Tell me, is being homophobic bringing a young man into your home with your young family who has the death sentence of AIDS? That same young man needed shelter from the storm. He came from a broken home. He had a father wound. He had been sexually abused by other older men. That same young man ended up working the wall in Sydney. This is not a good place for any young man to have to work. He needed someone to tell him that he was loved and appreciated not for the sex he could give to his paying customers who abused him but because of who he was on the inside a wonderful young man with a future and a destiny however short.”

“Tell me, is being homophobic giving an award at a public function in Parliament House Canberra in August 2005 to a wonderful Lesbian woman from Melbourne who had the guts to set up an organization to help Trafficked women caught in the exploitative web of male driven Prostitution. Unfortunately some men still are bastards. Certainly not all, but some. The white ribbon day tells the stories.”

“Tell me, is being homophobic when I invite a Mayor of a local council in Sydney to give Awards to the Men who have completed our Fatherhood course. That mayor was a homosexual man but as a Lord Mayor he deserves our respect and honour. After all we are all someone’s daughter or someone’s son and as such we all deserve that same honour and respect.”

“If I am attacked it is because I believe that our children matter. If I am attacked it is because I believe that we should give our children the very best we can give them. If I am attacked it is because I believe every child has the right to a mother and a father. Children need a mother and a father not two mummies or two daddies. The document in question is public information and is available for free download at   21 Reasons Why Gender Matters has 34 different authors and contributors. Some contributed a lot and some a little. Ten are doctors while many are practitioners and counsellors. Several had experienced the gender wound first hand so they are well able to write with both authority and compassion.”

“21 Reasons Why Gender Matters shows from thousands of studies the world over that the natural way is the best way and when we break that natural order the statistics show things just start to go wrong. People get hurt. Children are abused. Father wounds are created. Families break up. Relationships break down. Maybe we should rename the father wound the gender wound? The pain of the Gender wound is a nondiscriminatory pain. This pain is felt by heterosexuals and this pain is felt by homosexuals. The story of this pain is well told in the ground breaking Australian movie called the Men’s Group.”

“21 Reasons Why Gender Matters was released some time ago in terms of the news cycle. This document is old news. Every Member of Parliament received a copy in the lead up to the last election. So did the media in the Canberra press gallery. Why all the fuss now? I don’t know where this story came from? I have not said anything about this subject for quite some time. This sort of heterophobia baffles me.”

“I applaud Nicola Roxon for her initiative in getting this policy off the ground. She is a great woman and mother and she is doing a great job. I congratulate the Rudd Labor Government for their courage to tackle the shocking epidemic of male suicide and I am willing to continue as an advocate for Aussie men as an ambassador on their behalf as well as the government. We desperately need a national discourse on a national men’s health policy. I am honoured to work alongside such great Aussie men as Professor John MacDonald, Barry Williams, Tim Mathieson and others. All have a story to tell. They need to be heard. It is sad that these vicious unprovoked personal attacks are obfuscating the real message of Men’s Health and the many slurs that men still have to endure because of their sex.”


Warwick Marsh is one of the most dedicated, compassionate and tireless workers on behalf of men and families that I know of. He has worked for years to help struggling men and families. He has put in countless hours – tens of thousands of hours – in volunteer work on their behalf. But those qualifications mean nothing to our Politically Correct Government. They are only interested in one thing: promoting the PC party line, and above all, doing nothing that will in any way offend the sensibilities of the homosexual activists.

In Muslim-majority nations, one dare not speak against the Koran or Allah’s prophet, Muhammad. To do so places your life at risk. These totalitarian societies do not allow for any dissenting points of view, and those who dare question the established wisdom will be dealt with harshly.

It seems that democratic Australia is not far from such fascism. Our Labor government has declared war on anyone who dares to challenge the powerful homosexual lobby – or pink mafia – that are now calling all the shots. Today someone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality will lose his job. Tomorrow he will likely see prison, fines and other draconian penalties imposed. Such things are already happening in other Western nations, and we can expect to see them happening here as well.

And the bizarre thing is all this coercive denunciation and weeding out of politically incorrect viewpoints is being done in the name of tolerance. But such tolerance is all one-way traffic. It is all about tolerating, embracing and celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. But it is not about allowing any dissenting views to even be heard. So much for tolerance, acceptance and democracy.

This is really about shutting down debate, silencing differing opinions, and forcing the Australian public to embrace the homosexual agenda. The war against faith and family has certainly hotted up. This is simply one battle in a protracted war. Which side prevails is a moot point. But if those concerned about children, families, faith, freedom and democracy do not start to speak up, and speak up soon, this whole conflict may very quickly be decided.

[2222 words]

41 Replies to “Coercing Tolerance”

  1. If people never know, through using common sense and reason as to whether or not their remarks concerning homosexuality will land them up before the Attorney General, many will not want the take that risk; they will censor themselves. But even remaining silent may not be enough to save someone from falling foul of the law. A person could be deemed as inciting hatred towards homosexuals simply by remaining silent when expected to vocally and publicly endorse homosexual behaviour. To remain seated, sitting on one’s hands when everyone else in standing ovation mode may well in the future not be an option. We will all be forced to publicly affirm and celebrate homosexual practice. In order to avoid fines, loss of job and a possible prison sentence, will we all have to attend diversity training centres as is happening in Britain, without the mass of people being aware of what is happening. Or if they are, are only too willing to ignore it. (A Christian policeman who circulated emails at work suggesting homosexuality was sinful has been sacked for misconduct).

    John Adams, the second president of the United States, though not a Christian put it well when he said: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’

    “Our Founders had a better answer than government or even education. God is the answer. God is the moral compass of America. Or He should be, if we ever want to restore morality in our homes and civility to our land. Our Founders believed morals flowed from one’s accountability to God, and that, without God, immoral anarchy would result.”


    The homosexual lobby is determined that after softening up the public with propaganda about homophobic bullying and violence, to crush any dissent and close off any avenues of escape by pressing for legislation that will make it easier to accuse dissenters of inciting homophobic hatred. If bullying can be shown to be taking place there must surely be hatred and they will find it and root it out. But to bring in a law that singles out homosexuals for preferential treatment will fuel that for which the bill was designed to stop, ie, the orientation of the bully towards hatred and violence and whose appetite is fed precisely by those who are given preferential treatment. The bully will know how to avoid detection whilst the innocent, law abiding person will be caught, thus swelling the prison population numbers even further. Those undergoing enforced diversity training will not have had their hearts warmed towards gays; I would imagine that such injustice and coercion has the possibility of giving birth to a smouldering resentment, that will lead to more, not less, tension within society. To destabilise society is the aim of Marxism.

    David Skinner, UK

  2. Homosexuality is not natural and men and women are very different and research such as that behind the publication bear this out!

    The tragedy of homosexuality is that these people have a mental illness as the American Psychiatric Association used to hold, and while we might expect that a mentally ill person may be unaware of their illness, the society around them should be able to see it.

    I became suspicious about the classification of homosexuality some time ago and found that prior to the seventies it was classified as ‘deviant behaviour’. In the seventies or so there was a stacked meeting of psychiatrists (at the APA) who decided to reclassify it as normal. So now mental health professionals are taught this way.

    Tim Pearce

  3. So Mr Rudd thinks appointing Warwick Marsh was a “mistake”? The only mistake was that Mr Rudd and federal Labor were elected to govern in the first place, and I might add with the support of many Christians. What’s it going to take before Rudd’s Christian supporters wake up to the fact that they were conned by Rudd’s claims to be Christian?

    One group (the homosexuals) have come out of the closet and another group (the Christians) are going into one. As you say Bill, “those concerned about children, families, faith, freedom and democracy” need to “start to speak up, and speak up soon” otherwise it may be too late. But if the church on the whole is not prepared to speak up now when it doesn’t cost much (in terms of liberty), then it’s unlikely to do so if and when it becomes illegal to speak the truth about homosexuality.

    Warwick Marsh is to be congratulated for standing his ground whilst Mr Williams (I’ve not heard of him before, does he claim to be a Christian?) is to be condemned for selling out to the PC police.

    Ewan McDonald.

  4. Thanks, Bill.
    Significantly, none of the many bilious attacks said one word of substance against the content of the booklet. Almost all of it was abuse against Warwick Marsh, or the downright evil” sentiments expressed, etc. In other words, ad hominem abuse, combined with expressions of extreme distaste for the views.
    This is post-modern “tolerance” all over: shoot the messenger, but ignore the message. Warwick’s crime, it appears, was to violate the “feel-good” factor which is now all-important. How true the facts, how well-researched the content, or how valid the argumentation, are all beside the point; all that matters is making people comfortable in their sinful lifestyle.

    But the fact that Nicola Roxon, or the boffs at, or whoever, happen to dislike Warwick’s views HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE!! So Nicola Roxon is offended! Well, how about that! Big deal!

    What about the living God? He declares that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination, a manifestation of the moral degeneracy of mankind (Lev.18:22; Rom.1:26-27). and Nicola Roxon, and her fellow ideologues will soon have to give account to the Almighty Judge, although she and others would currently have things the other way around.

    Why has it come to this with Warwick Marsh? It ultimately sheets back to the churches, whose collective soul and has been ripped out by liberal theology, Biblical criticism, appalling compromise with the world, and an overweening desire to be “nice” – in the name of a specious and perverse notion of “love”. It is a long time since churches – even those which would call themselves “evangelical” have preached the coming Judgment, or sung of the issue as in Charles Wesley’s hymn:

    Thou Judge of quick and dead,
    Before whose bar severe,
    With holy joy, or guilty dread,
    We all shall soon appear:
    Our cautioned souls prepare
    For that tremendous Day,
    And fill us now with watchful care,
    And stir us up to pray.

    That is a message for us all, but in particular for the Nicola Roxons of this world.

    Murray Adamthwaite

  5. Well, I think it’s obvious. Neither the government, nor, nor The Age, etc. have any interest in truth on this issue. Stuff nature, stuff common sense, stuff mountains of research that points overwhelmingly in one direction, in fact, stuff everything – no, it’s all about stepping in time to the beat of politically correct views. This is the crux of the matter – Thou shalt think as we do regardless of the facts. Otherwise, it is you that has the pathology, homophobe.

    So much for ‘diversity’. Yes folks, evil is now good, and good is evil. Believing that a child does best with a married mother and father is a sackable offence without notice in Australia and the media agrees.

    The future is desperately bleak when this kind of total insanity rules. But God has something to say about this:

    “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.”
    The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

    (Psalm 2:3-4)

    And through it all, the commodification of children continues. We can kill them, we can deny them the best chance to grow up, we can exploit them. They are not precious and worthy of giving the absolute best anymore. Oh, how it would be if the Church shined the light of Jesus in this dark world that loves lies.

    Mark Rabich

  6. Bill,

    Presently I am enduring an attack from the PC crowd who have taken “offence” to any pro-life agendas. My “crime” is sending an e-mail to the State (Qld) Member for Aspley, Bonny Barry, attempting to hold her accountable for her intention to introduce a private Member’s Bill to legalize abortion in Queensland.

    Apparently under the Communications Act if the recipient of a communication, being a reasonable person, considers that part or the whole of that communication has caused offence, (the nature of “offence” is not detailed- it could be simply feeling insulted or ashamed, or guilty, or whatever) then a charge under the Act may be laid if a complaint is made to the police. For example if I send an e-mail to the Prime Minister labelling he and his policies a failure and subsequently he feels “offended” by this accusation than he is entitled to make a complaint to the police.

    So if I send an e-mail to a politician who intends to introduce legislation to legalize abortion and I label that politician’s actions as a monstrous than that politician, if he/she feels offended by those words, can make a complaint to the police under the Act.

    What are the implications in all of this to free speech? Virtually it shuts free speech down altogether and makes the Nation’s police forces (and of course the Judiciary) a tool of the politicians to quell, suppress and silence any opposition to their agenda.

    She has also referred my e-mail to the Speaker of Parliament in an attempt to haul me before the Chair on charges of contempt of Parliament. Meanwhile she is attempting to have me charged under the Communications Act as well. Last night she caused me to endure a nighttime visit from a Sergeant and Constable of the Queensland Police. They actually drove 100km to investigate/interview me.

    Apparently it is also forbidden to include the word “death” in any e-mail.

    I am a pensioner living in the bush and of course I am not in a financial position to engage legal representation should I require it. I will be compelled to represent myself – naturally I have a fool for a client.

    John FG McMahon

  7. A person could be deemed as inciting hatred towards homosexuals simply by remaining silent…

    Just like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

    It’s abundantly clear that Humpty Dumpty homoactivists have no intention of ‘celebrating diversity’

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less

    It’s instructive to note that Marsh’s opponents are far too busy telling us how offended they are to offer any refutation of points made by the paper in question.

    Michael Watts

  8. Whether the Christian lobbyists who shilled for Chairman Rudd (or Comrade Obamov for that matter) were useful idiots or traitors to the Gospel, I don’t know. But it makes little practical difference. Unless they repent, other Christians should withdraw support from such lobbyists.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  9. You all may be encouraged to read the comments at Andrew Bolt’s blog on this topic where quite a number traced the publication, read it, and commented that it is another example of misrepresentation, bias and a witch-hunt.

    I privately emailed Andrew and linked him to Bill’s post, especially pointing to Warwick’s press release statements about publication date and circulation of the original comments.

    It could be another “Two Dannies” case, if it ever came to a legal arena.

    John Angelico

  10. Fred Nile and the Christian Democratic Party have for years stood against homosexual activism and held to a biblical position on the issue. Imagine then my surprise when a Christian leader recently claimed this to be “paranoia”. Given how rapidly the homosexual agenda has advanced in recent times and how it threatens our religious freedom, I’m surprised any Christian leader could be so out of touch.

    Ewan McDonald.

  11. It is frightening that people’s livelihoods can now be threatened for the act of disagreeing with others’ lifestyles, even if the belief has completely no bearing on how they treat partcipants in said lifestyles.

    John FG McMahon, you may want to consider telling them that charging you under the Communications Act is in breach of the Constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication. It is uncertain whether this freedom covers State matters, but it is worth a shot. I don’t think it covers insults, but I have a feeling that your words fall short of insulting/offensive. Unless you actually threatened her with death (I am not sure of the context you used the word in).

    Natasha Sim

  12. Natasha,

    No threats direct nor implied were given. Nor were there any grounds for offence. My e-mail referred her to the recent newspaper artricle on the prosecution of those involved in abortion in Brazil and suggested that Australia/Queensland adopt the Brazil model but also to include politicians who agitate and advocate for the legalization of abortion. I suggested that she should thus be held accountable. I pointed out to her also that abortion is a capital crime in Islamic countries and that Brazil’s proposal to make offenders perform community service is in contrast to the sentence of stoning or at best a public whipping under Sharia Law. Her conscience it seems is troubling her.

    John FG McMahon

  13. Dear John McMahon I have recently made the acquaintance of Ted Atkinson who sounds a bit like you:

    However he is bit sanguine about going into prison for this was his sixteenth time. On one occasion he was sent down for taking a hammer to a film projector in a cinema that was showing “last Tango in Paris”. Another was when he entered a newsagent and tore up all the pornography. He feels quite at home inside and regards it as a mission field. He is a Catholic and a bachelor with great sense of humour. However, God has not called all of us to enter prison, but that was obviously where God wanted him to be. We can only pray that God will give you His peace, John, and that you will know that nothing on earth can separate you from His presence. We also pray that the people of Queensland come to your aid as the people of Norfolk came to the aid of Ted Atkinson.
    We also need to pray against all those who are enemies of God and our children.

    David Skinner (Disintegrated and Dysfunctional Kingdom)

  14. Brilliant, Bill, clear, instructive, well written. I find your blog of immense interest in preparing a 6 minute segment we have in our church (I’m a pastor). We call it ‘Couldn’t Help Noticing’ and it’s a kind of face-to-face blog. Of anything in the news, something someone has read, particularly to get the congregation thinking of worldview issues, Christian perspectives. It’s like your blog, a culture watch, to get the congregation thinking; and giving them something intelligent to say to their friends and neigbours and work colleagues. I ‘couldn’t help noticing’ your blog. It’s a gold mine!
    Andrew Campbell

  15. To John Angelico,

    Thank you for that referral. I have sent an e-mail to them and am awaiting their response in due course.

    John FG McMahon

  16. Why the censorship, Bill?

    I posted a valid expose of the flaws of two of the references cited in this ‘document’, including one deliberate distortion.

    Why didn’t you post it?
    Don’t you like your followers seeing that your ‘excellently written document’ is, in fact, not?

    Rod Swift

  17. Thanks Rod

    But let me call your various bluffs here. There is of course no censorship going on here. Your first comment did not provide a full name, so it was not posted, just as my rules stipulate. And my rules also state that this website will not be turned into a soapbox for lobbyists and activists who have their own websites. So you and the Gay and Lesbian Equality WA are free to push your agendas elsewhere, but not here.

    As to your claims here and in the earlier comment that 2 references out of nearly 200 in the booklet are suspect – whoopee! Gee whiz, if that is the best you can come up with after all your ‘painstaking research’ you might think about finding a new day job. Indeed, just what are you implying? Even if I accept that these two were somehow wrong or inaccurate – which I do not – that still means that 99 per cent of the references are accurate. That is a heck of a lot better accuracy rate than anything we will find coming from the homosexual activists. So spare us this sob story. I’ll take a 99 per cent accurate document any day of the week.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. John,

    I think that you do have quite a good argument that what they are doing under the Communications Act is in breach of Constitutional implied freedoms. It would be worthwhile to see if any of the big legal firms in your area are willing to take the case pro bono, i.e. no win, no fees; some of them may be quite interested.

    Prohibiting the use of the word ‘death’ when discussing the political matter of abortion is ridiculous and a highly disproportionate measure to take to prevent offense.

    Natasha Sim

  19. Bill,

    Thanks for your post.

    Having read the 21 Reasons document before, I think it is a very handy and worthwhile resource. I agree that endorsing homosexual realtionships does undermine the unique status of marriage, under which families prosper.

    But what would you say to someone who thinks that it is obstinate and unreasonable (‘bigoted’ was the word used) to withold endorsement of homosexual relationships by way of government licences? That is the general charge I have been accused of over at my blog after posting about your article there, earlier today.

    The sense I get is that it is not unreasonable at all. Especially taking into consideration all of the hard work people like yourself and Warwick Marsh have put into publications like the 21 Reasons document.

    I just don’t understand how that makes us bigotted?

    Duane Proud

  20. Natasha,

    As a cattle grazing district there are mainly bovine here with a sprinkling of Human Beings in scattered pockets. The nearest solicitor is some 400km return journey away. As I see it, offence is a selective perception of mind. When giving it, it is in order so say the other side. But when an argument is turned against them the other side readily claim “offence” or some other politicially correct excuse.

    Don’t worry, I believe that the Holy Spirit has ordained me to be in this position at this time. I readily recall the case of St John the Baptist who denounced the daughter of Herod. She found him to be confronting and troublesome to her conscience so she used the political process to have him arrested and martyred. I am not of the calibre of St John the Baptist but he has provided an excellent example of committment to our Lord Jesus, his cousin. Nor am I in imminent danger of being beheaded. However I am certain that they are after my hide (cattle-speak). If you are interested to learn of my strategy and return assault you may wish to contact me. Bill can provide my email. And if Bill permits I shall download on this site. It is not overly lengthy.

    John FG McMahon

  21. At least everyone is now downloading 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters, the more readers the better!

    Dallas James

  22. Natasha,

    Below is part of my response:

    PRESS RELEASE: David versus Goliath

    In Press Release today from the Coalition for Protection of Civil Rights and Freedom of Speech a group spokesman said that the State Government is waging war against a battling pensioner who is tenaciously fighting to protect his right to speak out. The spokesman said that it was reminiscent of a diminutive David standing his ground against the might of a raging bull-like Goliath.

    In an blatant abuse of their public Offices both the Minister for Police, Judy Spence and the Speaker, Mr Michael Reynolds are misusing the powers entrusted to them to stiffle the voice of Mr John McMahon, a pensioner, from the Burnett District in South East Queensland.

    Mr McMahon said that “he is surprised that the State Government Members are not all compelled to wear brown shirts”, alluding to the oppressive days of Hitler and Mussolini whose jackbooted stormtroopers, goons and thugs, all wearing brown shirts, brutally suppressed any hint of dissent or opposition from the populace. These marauding gangs became known as “The Brown Shirts”.

    Asked why he is under assault from the State Government Mr McMahon replied that he had sent a brief e-mail to the Member for Aspley, Bonny Barry alerting her to a recent news item. The news article downloaded from the Courier Mail and provided to Ms Barry, highlighted the attempts of the authorities in Brazil to prosecute those involved in abortion which remains a serious criminal offence in that country. The authorities there are considering imposing community service on those arrested and convicted.

    In his e-mail Mr McMahon alluded to the position in Islamic countries where, under Sharia Law, abortion is a capital offence for those involved. If lucky, those arrested may get off with a public flogging but more likely face stoning or other means such as beheading or hanging from a crane. In contrast those caught in Brazil face a much milder sentence of community service and rehabilitation. Mr McMahon raised the prospect of Australia/Queensland adopting the Brazilian model but asked whether politicians such as the Member for Aspley, who agitates and advocates for abortion on demand, be prosecuted as well.

    Mr McMahon said that, possibly frightened of the prospect of being held accountable for all the innocent victims under the holocaust that she intends to inflict on Queensland by the Private Member’s Bill she plans to introduce to the Parliament, Bonny Barry appears to have conspired with the Police Minister and the Speaker to shut down any growing opposition to her agenda and trample on any poor fellow who may protest. Late October last year, the Premier Anna Bligh who supports the proposed Bill, announced that Ms Barry would be introducing the legislation within 18 months. Some 13 months have passed since that announcement and with a State Election due within 12 months Mr McMahon wonders when the Member for Aspley intends to introduce the legislation.

    Within less than 48 hours of Ms Barry making her threats by e-mail to Mr McMahon, the Police Minister ordered two police officers away from their usual duties in Gin Gin to drive 100km to interrogate him. Mr McMahon, whose father, grandfather, uncles and cousins were all police officers, imagined that the Officers would have found such a politically based order to be not only seriously distasteful but also a gross waste of already strained police resources. Mr McMahon suggested that the Police Commissioner may be unwilling to stand up to the Police Minister and refuse to allow the proud Queensland Police Service to be used as political pawns. “In fact are we now in a Police State?” asks Mr McMahon.

    Mr McMahon wonders when the rights of decent everyday Queenslanders will be protected. Firstly the people in the bush were forced, without consultation, to accept mergers of their Shire Councils. Then the people of the Mary River were forced to sell their land for a dam that now wont be built. Then we were told that we would all be drinking diluted sewerage in our Government provided drinking water whether we liked it or not, and on and on and on it goes. The Government provided no support to Officer Chris Hurley and others in the aftermath of the riots on Palm Island where they were confronted with a howling rampant mob who threatened the property and lives of the police officers and their families stationed there on the island. In fact the police and their families have suffered serious trauma not only on the day of the riot but since through lack of backup and support from the Minister and the Premier. Ms Spence and Ms Bligh apparently don’t give a hoot for their loyal police officers nor for the people of Queensland.

    Meanwhile Ministers and senior public servants can run around having a ball and kicking their feet up at posh restaurants during the Brisbane River Festival, train jaunts and other taxpayer funded occasions.What about the people in the street who are doing it tough and are not able to give themselves hefty pay rises and otherwise poke their snouts into the trough of public money?

    And if it wasn’t enough for Ms Spence to send her private police force to “interrogate” a battler, now the Office of the Speaker of Queensland Parliament threatens Mr McMahon with further sanctions.

    The Coalition spokesman said that all of the unnecessary serious problems and grave threats that now face Queensland can be rectified at the next election when the fed-up voters can vote for change and boot out these incompetent arrogant thugs.

    Then and only then will our democratic rights and dignity be restored.

    The Coalition for Protection of Civil Rights and Freedom of Speech

    John FG McMahon

  23. Already Rudd is starting to show his true colours on moral issues. His outreach to Christians during the election was pure political posturing. The man has no moral backbone, no economic sense, no understanding on climate issues and no insight on matters indigenous. He’s a bureaucrat through and through.

    I miss John Howard…

    Damien Spillane

  24. Thanks Bill

    I did get a chill when I heard the minister say on ABC radio something along the lines of “she would have to speak to Mr. Williams to confirm if those were his views”. In other words: action would be taken based on his views (his thoughts).

    Who would have thought that in 2008 people would be punished for what they think? And it is all ‘off the cuff’ actions too, not prescribed by law, just pollies following their feelings (or the instructions of a lynch-mob).

    I understand why the government so quickly capitulated to the outrageous demands of the ‘pink mafia’. Men’s health is an important issue (I suppose they think all of their initiatives are) and the howling of this lynch-mob is just a small taste of the feeding frenzy that the media would whip up if their had been even the slightest resistance. So though I don’t agree with their spineless appeasement, if the government has intentionally chosen to ‘pick their battles’ … to not spend their credit on health ambassadors … I can understand that, but is it now going to be the rule?

    I think the real problem here is the media. Given that the mainstream media control the dissemination of information, control what is reported, and for many people show what is ‘normal’ or ‘accepted’, how can they be stopped? It is like the book ‘1984’, the MMS filter the news, change the language in order to change meaning and tell the the sheeple what to think! It is pretty obvious from this situation that the lobbyists and media are running the government (instead of the other way round as it was in the book ‘1984’).

    This is disheartening … must pray

    Dale Flannery

  25. Damien: right on all points. But those of us who knew this beforehand were out-shouted by the various churchian lobbyists. Some of them still preach lefty economics despite its widespread failure, and in effect make global warm-mongering a substitute religion.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  26. You can forget any of the Churches speaking out on these matters. Fred Nile has the courage and is an exception. If the Coalition had both the common sense and the courage to go to the next election on these issues they’d win handsomely, with many Labor voters switching. However too many Coaltion politicians are really trendy Labor types, who couldn’t find a Labor seat, so decided to try the Liberals or Nationals and then support trendy policies.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie, Qld

  27. John,

    Sounds intense. I hope it all goes well and that what you are doing will have great impact on many.

    Natasha Sim

  28. This is not an issue about Kevin Rudd or John Howard. This issue is about the spirit of Saul being in man elected to lead Australia. When you like King Saul pick a course of action to appeal to men and not God, expect that you will face similar consequences to King Saul. The nation will be ripped from you and you will go down in history as a tragically poor leader. Mr Rudd you are on the highway to hell.
    Stephen Dowling

  29. I would encourage you Bill to encourage Christians throughout Australia to wake up from their long slumber, to take their lamp-shades off their Chistrian light and start participating in our society. Christians need to join in the political process running as members of parliament and local councils on a grand scale, so we can re-take the lost ground.

    These immoral lobby groups are very organised and they seem to have quietly and subversively gained control of our nations political and media sectors.

    Things may well get worse before they get better, but they will never get better if we as Christians remain in our slumber, having abdicated the dominion required of us by God, to those who are anti-God.

    Craig Manners

  30. Thank you Bill, for expressing your views so well. I can back you up 100%. I know Warwick Marsh and he would have been an excellent men’s Health Ambassador.
    Rhonda Knowling

  31. I’m sorry to put you on the spot Bill but my learned friend over at my blog thinks that it is a fanatical statement to say: “Today someone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality will lose his job. Tomorrow he will likely see prison, fines and other draconian penalties imposed.”

    He also says: “The idea that any westernized country is going to start imposing gestapo-like tactics on those who speak out against homosexuality is just ludicrous. It’s a scare tactic designed to get you riled up, Duane….I hope you’re not buying it.”

    Any info you can help with is appreciated… Ta 🙂

    Duane Proud

  32. Thanks Duane

    You need to call your friend’s bluff. I have been documenting the tactics of the pink mafia for years now. For starters, have him look at the hundred-plus articles I have in my ‘Homosexuality’ section. Many of them document the rise in the number of people losing jobs, being sent to jail, being fined, etc, for daring to speak the truth about homosexuality. Indeed, whole books have now been written on all this. Thus I am afraid your friend is either ignorant, uniformed, or being deliberately deceptive.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  33. 2007 Make it Count – 9 August 2007 – John Howard and Kevin Rudd address Christian Leaders at the National Press Club:
    Kevin Rudd appeared rather “sheepish” when questioned on issues relating to the definition of “family” – he may claim to be Christian, but he is a member of a party with a pro-homosexual agenda – If he can’t stand up for what is right, he should not hold the office of prime minister.
    Scott Easton

  34. Rod Swift might consider the following things:

    1. It is highly ironic for him to be talking about “censorship” when the event that precipitated this article is an excellent real-life example of muzzling a certain opinion regardless of facts. It cost a man his job that he was eminently qualified to do, whereas Rod is whining about not getting a post up on a website (when what he writes is probably dubious in credibility, if what he has written before is any guide). Please explain that one, Rod.

    2. I don’t “follow” Bill, neither does anybody else here, as far as I can tell. I count myself first and foremost a follower of Jesus, and also want to be known as a lover of truth, even when it’s not easy for me to hear. (How about you, Rod? What happens when you hear something that challenges your thinking and can’t be easily dismissed?) As Bill declares himself also to be a follower of Jesus and concerned about the proclamation of truth we have something in common. And given the general lack of this kind of perspective in wider society, it’s fair enough for me to gravitate towards a website like this.

    I observe an ongoing pattern of behaviour from various dissenting posters here where they engage in guerilla tactics – drive-by postings, as it were. I seem to remember some months ago I asked Rod a question which he never answered – something along the lines of whether he would he be OK with fining or jailing or restricting the activities of individuals or organizations that do not tow the line of the politically correct idea that homosexuality is genetic in causation? I considered your non-answer informative, Rod, btw. So how about tackling that now and the other questions above?

    I’m not holding my breath. Obviously the shock of having to give their real name (and on the internet too – how odd!) and support their ideas with evidence and without abuse is too much to ask for some.

    In any case, Bill doesn’t need followers, even declaring myself a ‘fan’ might not be good for his ego… 😉

    Mark Rabich

  35. Bill: Thank you so much for your report about “bi-polar Nicola” and her actions against Warwick Marsh. I found out about this through “Action” the NCC Qld publication.

    I will certainly be following up on this by writing to Ms Roxon and Mr Rudd. As you say, it’s about time to rouse a sleeping church. Very few priests are brave enough to speak up on these matters.

    Tony Connor, Tingalpa Qld.

  36. This is a typical contemporary response to many issues in our day, a result of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The loss of any concept of absolute truth. People do not like moral absolutes; it is symptomatic of our culture and politicians of both parties are seeking to be in line with the majority of this thinking. Consensis is the absolute.

    Even if people are not in favour of homosexuality they would never postulate any statements that counter that as an illegitimate activity. It is exactly the same for abortion – politions are also ducking and weaving over this issue for the same reason. We would however ban puppies having their tails removed.

    Keith Pellicaan

  37. Our Lord JESUS said “when I return will I find faith”; this tells us that the body of genuine believers at the time of Christs return may not be that great. Although the church seems to be growing there is obviously a line between those of us who believe the Lord Jesus and His Word and those who believe that they can invoke the name of the Lord along side their own views. These men and women, such as the ‘Christian’ leader who considers it paranoia to speak against homosexuality and Rudd who used the name of Christ to win the Christian vote, are not true Christians but wolves in sheeps clothing. At that day, when Christ claims his own, these men and women will say Lord did we not say this or that in your name and He will say to them “depart from me for I do not know you”. Only by adhearing to the word of our Lord are we going to be counted as one of the faithful even if this means invoking the wrath of those who preach a feel good gospel. Remember also sitting on the fence is not an option as our Lord said “if you deny me before men I will deny you before my Father”.
    Paul Mewhor

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: