Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Hate Speech and PC Politicians

Jan 14, 2013

One of the big problems we are finding in many Western nations which basically run on two-party systems is that more and more often, the so-called conservative parties are nothing of the sort. Too often they end up being pale imitations of the leftist parties.

Instead of proudly standing on their conservative credentials, they move ever leftward, thinking that this will prove to be more politically viable. But all they are doing is signing their own death warrants. If they simply want to mimic the left, then they should stop pretending they are conservatives, and in fact jump ship and join the lefties.

Indeed, when we get Republicans in the US for example telling us we need to move more to the left, and start embracing things like homosexual marriage, then you know the party is in bad shape. And when they keep offering moderates to run for President, they just keep shooting themselves in the foot – and keep losing.

Things are just as bad in Australia, certainly at the state level. In one state after another where the Liberals have gotten into power, they end up talking, thinking and acting just like the former Labor leaders. When Liberal leaders in Australia do all the idiotic stuff that Labor leaders do, then we really are in bad shape.

We see this especially in Victoria under Baillieu and in NSW under O’Farrell. One of the first things the latter did when winning office was to say, ‘Sure, we will be more than happy to keep funding the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras’. He has been more or less in this ‘I like the left’ mode ever since.

Consider this latest outrage: “The controversial commentators Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are due to be called before an inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification. The inquiry was ordered by the Premier, Barry O’Farrell, who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations. The move is likely to inflame the debate over freedom of speech, amid warnings that broadening the laws could be dangerous and unacceptable.”

What? More anti-freedom of speech laws? By a conservative government? Just what is wrong with this guy? Is he a closet Labor member or a Greens pollie? The article continues: “The vilification laws have been in place in NSW since 1989. According to figures supplied by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, 27 complaints have been referred by the board for criminal prosecution since 1998 the period for which records are available. But none were prosecuted as the Director of Public Prosecutions did not feel the burden of proof required by the legislation would have been achieved.”

Duh! Maybe that simply means there is not very much vilification going on. Maybe that is just proof that we live in a pretty decent society after all, and we do not need more Big Brother tyranny depriving us of our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion.

We have these lousy laws in Victoria and all they did was tie up two Christian pastors for five years and cost them over a half million dollars, before an appeals case finally threw out the whole ridiculous case. See here for more on this:

Yet this sham conservative leader wants to actually strengthen these bogus laws. As a conservative leader he should be doing only one thing: seeking to get rid of them! Fortunately not everyone is supporting this madness by O’Farrell. Sydney commentator Paul Sheehan has today penned an excellent piece on all this, the final half of which I present here:

“One hopes the parliamentary inquiry ordered by the Premier, which will consider diluting the section of the Anti-Discrimination Act that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of serious racial vilification, will be alert to the way in which anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws are abused.

“Vexatious or zealous litigants, such as religious fundamentalists, have only marginal interest in the outcome of their complaint. It is the threat of formal complaint, and the complaint process itself, with the burdens of compliance, which is used as a weapon against opponents.

“As if to confirm every warning made before the previous Victorian Labor government introduced laws on anti-vilification, the first major test of the law came when Muslim fundamentalists sought to use it as a weapon against Christian fundamentalists.

“This proposal by O’Farrell is part of the latest push by the political class, of which he is a fully paid-up member, to increase the power and reach of the political class. In Canberra, the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has released a draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, which seeks to introduce an expanded never-never of nebulous categories of discrimination offences. It includes speech that ‘offends’ or ‘insults’. It extends the categories of potential discrimination to ‘political opinion’ and ‘social origin’.

“Every aspect of the draft law is biased towards expanding the possibilities of complaint. It will make it easier for complaints to be lodged. Shockingly, the draft bill reverses the onus of proof. A person accused of discrimination will be deemed guilty until the claim has been dismissed. The bill then even requires defendants who have been found not guilty to pay their own legal costs.

“Complaints will be heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is desperate to increase its relevance, and the Federal Magistrates Court, which already has more than enough of a caseload. The draft federal bill has been submitted to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is due to report on February 18. In NSW, the parliamentary inquiry ordered by the Premier will conduct public hearings in April. Both these proposed changes to the law are being treated as paradisaical by the human rights industry.

“This alone should send an alarm to the rest of the community. It should also alarm the parliamentary inquiry but it never seems to occur to the members of the political class – politicians, staffers, lobbyists, bureaucrats and lawyers – that the extension of the government power via micro-management, regulation and compulsion has been cumulatively unceasing for more than a century to the point of social, legal and moral sclerosis.”

Exactly right; it is good to see some common sense being offered here. Now if we could only get some of our lame conservative leaders to get some common sense. A big ask, I realise, but there is always hope.

[1088 words]

23 Responses to Hate Speech and PC Politicians

  • Back in the 60s and 70s, when the loony left was pushing its social agenda, we could rely on conservative upper houses or incoming conservative governments to stem the tide. Not all the leftists were loonies, but too many were and nearly all of them now seem to be so. The Labor Party’s members were once largely conservative on social, as distinct from socialist, matters, but those days are long gone.

    Now that so-called conservatives are increasingly helping to erode common sense policies and support the removal of freedom of speech, where do we turn? I think I’m too old to start a new party.

    David Morrison

  • Bill, another example of the failure of the O’Farrell Coalition government is its seeming determination to press on with the Proud Schools Program in NSW schools. While ostensibly an anti-bullying program, the real intent of Proud Schools I fear is to further normalise the homosexual lifestyle with school children as the captive audience.

    A pilot Proud Schools program was announced with $250,000 funding by then Labor NSW Education Minister Verity Firth in January 2011, just two months before the NSW election. Of course, the Coaltion government that was swept into power in March 2011 should have abandoned Proud Schools immediately if it was genuinely conservative. But instead, it has allowed the pilot program to continue, largely in secret until the lid was blown off in October 2012 following a successful Freedom of Information application.

    I’m pleased to report that there is now considerable back-bench disquiet about Proud Schools and also about the way the matter has been handled (or should I say mishandled) by the current NSW Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli who, you may be aware, is from the National Party side of the Coalition!

    Graeme Mitchell, Sydney

  • Yes quite right David and Graeme.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Spot on as usual Bill.
    A while back I contacted my local state member by email and told him I will not be voting for him or his party again because they are proving little different to Labor.
    He is not a bad bloke but I have communicated before there are 5 votes in my family and we will not support such a weak mob. When it has come to the federal government buying up all our water once used to grow food to send it down the river to please the greens his party should be up in arms but they are proving wimps. His offsider over in Shepparton is even worse and strongly supports Victoria’s evil abortion laws. So much for the nationals representing us.

    Rob Withall

  • And didn’t Tony Abbott and his mates shut down senator Cory Bernardi quick smart as soon as he stood up to make a stand for truth. I was so disgusted with them.

    Rob Withall

  • Bill. Slightly off topic because it concerns a development specific to the UK – but in relation to your comment above about anti-freedom speech laws the UK Christian Institute has just announced:

    “I am delighted to tell you that, earlier tonight, the Government agreed to reform Section 5 of the Public Order Act to protect free speech. In the House of Commons, Home Secretary Theresa May agreed not to contest a House of Lords amendment to remove the word “insulting” from the Section 5 offence. It’s a wonderful victory, at the end of a very long campaign which had broad support across society and the political parties. Reforming the law in this way should mean we see fewer cases like that of Ben and Sharon Vogelengzang, the Christian hoteliers prosecuted for criticising Islam. And we should see fewer street preachers, like Dale Mcapline, wrongfully arrested simply for expressing biblical beliefs in public. And we should see fewer instances of over-zealous police officers saying it is a crime to publicly display Bible verses, like happened to Jamie Murray the café owner. Thanks to all our supporters who prayed about this important matter, and who contacted Peers and MPs. It really made a difference. Thank God for this important reform of the law.”

    Graham Wood, UK

  • I was disgusted that they haven’t dumped Malcolm Turnbull when he’s constantly attacking coalition policy (specifically in respect to same sex marriage)… He’s only part of the liberal party in order to give himself tax breaks…

    Joel van der Horst

  • I agree with you Joel. Malcolm Turnbull is a very dangerous man, and of course, the lefties desperately want him to lead the Liberal Party – this would mean Same Sex Marriage would be on the cards, and also even more taxes akin to the so called Carbon Tax as he is a great believer in Global warming. Remember he is the one who decided we all had to change to “Green” light globes – removing our choice in this small area of life. Woe betide Australia if this man ever becomes PM.
    Joan Davidson

  • C.C. Lewis in Mere Christianity, towards the end of chapter said
    “By the way, this point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials “for the sake of humanity,” and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.”
    Quite so. When we set up homosexuality as the one impulse that we follow at all costs and make absolutes out of the words “offensive” and “hateful”, we all turn to stone, as if we had just been shown the head of the gorgon, Medusa, when accused of being homophobic.
    The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, have thrown out a prosecution I brought against a homosexual,Dr Eric Anderson of Winchester University UK, for assaulting me in front of a room, packed lecture room full of sports students at Bournemouth University. The CPS have accused me of homophobia, simply because I objected Anderson using obscenity, insult and slander a in public debate.
    To give you an idea of the kind of man I faced this is an example of his addressing an audience at Oxford University, 2011:
    “Professor Eric Gumby Anderson….opened his lecture by stating: “My intention is to offend you, I’m going to cuss a lot and I’m going to break down all kinds of hegemonic structures. If you’re offended by discussions of anal sex, vaginal sex, rimming, cheating, having cum all over you face then you should probably leave.”
    “On the topic of religion, Anderson, an atheist, said…….. ‘that Christianity was: “the most disgusting religion in the history of mankind”. He called the Archbishop Rowan Williams an “arxxle”, “a total bigot” and “a fxxxxxg liar”. [1]
    The Chief Crown Prosecutor, Wessex Division, Nick Hawkins describe Dr Eric Anderson as “a man of previous good character.” Whereas, he said that “The views expressed by Mr Skinner were, or might considered to be homophobic: given the subject matter of the audience it would have been plain to him that they would have been likely to cause offence or upset to Dr Anderson and to the other members of the audience.”
    I had expressed no views whatsoever, merely objected to his language, but The Chief Crown Prosecutor never allowed my lawyer to know who these witnesses were or see their witness statements.
    Little wonder that Mr Hawkins is prepared to conduct a secret court, with secret witness, producing false and slanderous statements, when the CPS appears at No 45 on Stonewall’s Top 100 Employer’s Workplace Index List, along with the Home Office at No 2, the Secret Service at 62 and any amount of Police forces.[2]
    On the topic of having to prove that one never said anything “phobic,” it is well known in philosophical argument, that trying to prove that something exists is infinitely, nay impossibly, more difficult to prove than something does exist.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Has anyone noticed that Roxon’s Bill, although ostensibly about anti-discrimination, also includes the term Human Rights?
    Just when you thought they’d forgotten about it, it rears its ugly head under the protected classifications ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’.
    From there its only one small step to SSM.

    Dunstan Hartley

  • I do apologise. I should have said, “On the topic of having to prove that one never said anything “phobic,” it is well known in philosophical argument, that trying to prove that something does not exist is infinitely- nay impossibly- more difficult to prove than that something does exist.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Hi Bill

    Albert Mohler wrote the following article a few years back, one which I have been more than happy to refer people to as it sums up my own thoughts on this matter better than I ever could (although he should have written “Danish” rather than “Dutch” newspaper).


    Mick Koster

  • Bill,

    Perhaps if Christians like you stopped hating others there wouldn’t be a problem. I too was like you once, but I changed my views after a deeply personal experience.

    Gay people are part of human diversity. I have a gay son and I understand the issue pretty well after a great deal of prayer, painful soul-searching and many discussions with him. He didn’t choose to be that way and he suffers terribly from hurtful comments, especially from so-called Christians. He would give everything to be heterosexual but it is something he has no power to change. When are you going to understand that?

    How would you react if you had a gay child?

    Harold Rosano

  • Thanks Harold

    But let me call your bluff here. There is absolutely nothing “hateful” about telling people biblical truth. What is hateful and unloving is failing to tell them the truth, but feeding them lies and deception instead. And it is very telling how you admit that “personal experience” has led you to reject the Word of God. All real biblical Christians know that it is always to be the other way around: Scripture is to sit in judgment over our own personal experiences.

    And no amount of prayer in the world will ever make sin acceptable. Thus all you are doing here is calling God a lair. You are telling Christ that he did not come to set people free and to deliver them from the power of sin. You are saying there is no life-transforming power to the gospel and it is all so much bunk.

    The truth is, Jesus came to set the captives free and to deliver people from the bondage of the devil. That is why he died on the cross. Not just to offer us forgiveness of sins, but to radically transform us, delivering us from the clutches and addictions and power of any and all sin. But you have decided this is not the case, so you declare him to be a liar. That is an extremely dangerous place to be in.

    I know dozens of people who were heavily into the homosexual lifestyle for decades, but they have been gloriously set free by the power of God – the very thing you deny is possible. So all you are doing is also calling the tens of thousands of people who have been set free from homosexuality liars as well.

    And if my son chose this sinful lifestyle or any other sinful behaviour I of course would still love him, but I would tell him truth, pray for his salvation, and work with him as much as he might be willing to. But at the end of the day we are all responsible for our own decisions. I certainly would never ever abandon my son to the lies of the enemy and the dead-end high-risk lifestyle of homosexuality. What kind of sham parent would I be to abandon my own son to a life of sin, degradation, and a lost eternity? I would be a real hater in that case. But because I love him, I would pray for him, counsel him, speak biblical truth to him, and take him to some very successful ministries that help such people – if he wanted to change that is. There would be absolutely nothing I could do if he refused to change or believe that real change is possible.

    Sorry, but I will side with Jesus Christ and the Word of God any day over the lies and deceptions of men.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • As an ex-gay person myself, I can’t understand Harold’s argument. I didn’t find it so hard to say no to my lustful desires. If Harold’s son feels that he is compelled to practice same-sex sexual behavior, and feels completely unable to say no to these urges, then it behooves a loving father to assist him in receiving psychiatric assistance. Nymphomania can be resolved generally through therapy and medication.

    Further it is both hate-filled and unloving to desire your son to spend eternity in hell. Also, worse that one would choose to spit in the face of the Sovereign LORD who bought us with His blood.

    Also, orientation is an idea promoted by the militant gay agenda, not something that exists in reality. People are born male and female. That is their identity. As to how their sexual appetites develop is a different question, but it’s certainly not inborn considering the thousands of people whose sexual desires change throughout their lives. It is extremely subjective and self-defeating to argue that your sexual desires are endemic, since I can point to people (including myself) who recognize that their subjective experience is that their sexual desires are able to be resisted and overtime, changed.

    Joel van der Horst

  • Also, Harold’s statement was entirely irrelevant to the topic being discussed… sounds like a troll if you’d like my opinion!!!

    Joel van der Horst

  • Thanks Joel

    You are a hundred per cent right in both comments. Thanks for sharing. All folks like this are doing is two things: one, being a troll to push an agenda, and two, denying the very thing these people desperately need: hope. To actually steal hope away from one’s own son and abandon him to destruction and death is the most hateful and un-Christian thing I can imagine any parent could ever do.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • David, you don’t have to invent a new party. The Christian Democratic Party has existed for over 30 years now in NSW and Fred Nile has proven himself to be an unmovable, but compassionate voice for Christian truth and a dedicated and studious and diligent representative of the people of NSW. He has chaired and taken part in many parliamentary inquiries and I hope he has been chosen to be part of this one.
    People have the opportunity in most states to vote for this party, though in some states they are known under the name Australian Christians. I have been wondering why, in the light of your article, the truth of which has not just been revealed overnight, but has been known for a while, not more people, especially Christians have voted for C.D.P. I wonder if people want the blessings of a conservative government, because under it both families and the economy have always done better, without wanting the responsibility of up-holding distinctly godly values.
    Harold, I imagine struggling with any sin wouldn’t be a fun ride, but Jesus said we would not be fit for his kingdom if we loved mother, father or any other person more than him. That is hard, but by His grace thankfully not impossible.
    Anyone who struggles with sin, heterosexual or homosexual can, with prayer and support at least get to the point of abstaining from sexual activity altogether. I would say it is worth falling into the category of eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God that Jesus talked about.
    I will pray for you and your son.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • I figured you would have no sensitivity or understanding Bill. Sorry for bothering you.

    I think Joel may be the real troll though. Actual gays find their sexual identity an innate part of their being. The idea that’s it’s a lifestyle choice is just plain bigotry and ignorance from people with no qualifications but a bible school diploma.

    Harold Rosano

  • Thanks again Harold

    I just love the way your side operates. You guys come here pretending to be all sweetness and light, feigning to be biblical Christians. But as soon as you are challenged, your real colours come blazing through for the whole world to see. It is abundantly clear that you are not a Christian at all, and you do not give a rip about what the Word of God teaches. You are simply an apologist for the ideological homosexual agenda. A deceptive troll, in others words just as we suspected.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • More subjective nonsense from Harold. Admittedly not being an “actual gay” whatever this means, Harold has nothing to supply to the argument. But then again, hearsay and rhetoric achieve more for myopic, secular bigots like Harold than any objective evidence or rational thinking ever could. Once again people are born male and female, that is their objective sexual identity. How people’s desires develop is irrelevant to identity since there are thousands of ex-gay people (like myself) who can testify to the fact that sexual desire is not static but changeable.
    Harold has also failed to explain why it is he claims to be compassionate and loving yet hates his son with such a passionate desire that he wants his son to burn in hell for eternity. Explain this contradiction to us Harold?
    Also Harold why do you hate God so much?? Is it because of your own depravity and desire to practice lawlessness??
    The idea that homosexuality is genetic shows complete ignorance of natural selection (which would remove the so-called “gay gene” from the gene pool in three generations for failure to reproduce) and the laws of biology and is the kinda of nonsense that can only be spouted by someone who gets their opinion from the ABC and the militant gay lobby, and then pretends it’s their own!! Please Harold, for all our sakes, read a book on genetics for once in your life!!
    Joel van der Horst

  • Thanks Bill, I think you treated Harold right. Some Pollies would say unfair, but it`s still right what you say.

    Johannes Archer

  • Kudos Joel for having the courage to admit your past and use it towards your testimony. Many in your position would attempt to keep their past in the dark for fear of man.

    Mario Del Giudice

Leave a Reply