Umm, We Told You So

A broken record can sure become tedious, and I realise that the constant flow of evidence that I offer about the slippery slope can become tiring after a while. But truth matters, and as long as the activists lie through their teeth about these issues, I will keep taking a public stand to get truth out there.

It seems like just two days ago that I pointed out more cases of paedophile rights being championed because of the success of homosexual rights. Well, it was indeed two days ago. Then I spoke about English academics pushing paedophilia because of past homosexual wins, and now I have to speak about Australian judges who are also making this connection.

pandora's boxA Sydney judge has rightly connected the dots and said that if homosexuality is now fully acceptable, then why not incest or paedophilia. Yes he actually said that. It seems on a daily basis now the slippery slope I and others have been warning about keeps on playing itself out right before our very eyes.

Here is how the story goes:

A Sydney judge has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”. District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner”.
He also said the “only reason” that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.

His remarks drew a lot of attention, but for varying reasons. Some folks got mad at him for daring to compare homosexuality with incest and paedophilia. In their eyes, homosexuality is just fine, but the other two are not. But they are missing the point here.

The judge was not so much comparing these things as saying – rightly and logically I think – that if we as a society embrace homosexuality, then the same arguments can be used to embrace these other things. He is simply telling it like it is in this sense. There is indeed a slippery slope in action, and it is hard to argue for the criminalisation of these other things when we have already “progressed” on matters like homosexuality.

So he is simply spilling the beans here, and saying what many of us have been warning about for decades now: once you normalise, legalise, and grant special rights to one type of aberrant sexual behaviour, it is hard to say no to other forms of sexual deviancy.

Whether this judge actually wants to see incest and paedophilia accepted as normal and made fully legal may not be clear. But what is clear is that he rightly sees the connection that so many others refuse to accept. When we warned about granting special rights to homosexuals, including marriage rights, and how it would open the door even wider, the activists poured scorn and contempt upon us.

They accused us of scare-mongering and lying. Well, how many more Australian judges, how many more English academics, and how many others need to say exactly the same thing before we start realising that the door sure is wide open, and Pandora’s Box may now be impossible to close?

My forthcoming book will have dozens more such examples of this very thing. The whole hog of sexuality is now being argued for, be it incest or bestiality or group marriage or paedophilia. And all this is now happening because the homosexual militants have been so successful in promoting their war on sexuality, morality, marriage and family.

Theirs was among the first domino to fall, and the rest seem to be well and truly on the way. When we even have sitting judges and professors making the case for the normalisation of these things, then we can no longer dismiss folks warning about this as nutters and panic merchants.

All we can do, sadly, is say, “We told you so”.

[725 words]

9 Replies to “Umm, We Told You So”

  1. Incest was spoken about very clearly in 2004: see NZ Herald 22nd May. “Academic takes on incest taboo.” Emeritus Professor Peter Munz suggested, according to the article, a law change to the law and order select committee,”but in modern civil societies it is an outmoded prohibition”. The article says that the M.Ps were “gob-smacked”.”Peter Munz sees no problem with incest these days if adults consent”. Perhaps Munz was before his time, or perhaps he was simply suggesting we all revert to pagan behaviour? I recollect a year or two ago,that a U.S. professor, with tenure, was engaged in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. I never read what his wife thought of the choice they were making. As a Mother myself I found the whole idea very distressing and an abuse of the Father’s family headship role.

  2. I suppose the slippery slope for our culture really began when adultery and fornication were considered allowable without restriction or penalty. I can become overwhelmed when I consider the increased rate of deterioration in our common social fabric…and cling ever closer to Jesus Christ!
    Thanks Bill…for your many prophetic warnings.

  3. Funny how our “civilised modern societies” copy and adopt the very worst of the Greek and Roman ones…..and we all know what eventually happened to them. It will be no different for us because we are following precisely in their footsteps.

  4. Being a judge too he is in tune with how these sorts of things proceed logically and well knows that allowing a certain precedent in one area will mean it will be illogical to not allow it in another. He recognises the slippery slope because he has seen it happen in his own sphere.

  5. The discussion about ‘incest’ as a ‘crime’ has been going on for a long time.
    Back in the 1990s, the federal and state Attorneys-General reviewed the ‘Criminal Code’ to try and get the various jurisdictions to have consistent laws.

    In 1996, the Discussion Paper on Chapter 5, ‘Sexual Offences against the Person’ RECOMMENDED that ‘The Model Criminal Code should not provide for an offence of incest”!
    The paper provided reasons FOR having such an ‘offence’ and reasons for NOT having an offence of ‘incest’ – the main reason given for abolishing ‘incest’ as a crime was that the crime of having sex with an underage child, or the crime of ‘persistent sexual abuse of a child’ would apply and show what was “actually being done to him or her”.

    But of course the law of ‘incest’ provides a moral guideline to what is WRONG!

    Some of us put in submissions, and thankfully the final REPORT, in May 1999, recommended that, since ALL jurisdictions still had an offence of ‘incest’, that ‘incest’ should remain as a crime! (See from P 187)

    The Introduction to the Report claimed that some submissions had ‘misunderstood’ some of the recommendations – in particular the “proposal to legalise adult consenting incest” and the “proposals about the age of consent”.

    The problem is that removing the word incest from the statute books removes any notion of it being wrong – for adults or children! For children, it then becomes a matter of ‘sex with a child’ without the additional implications of ‘incest’.
    The final report is online –

    It’s the Discussion paper which had the ‘reasons’ for getting rid of ‘incest’ as a crime (P 133) but it isn’t currently online – I’ve asked the official body to also post the Discussion Paper online (I have hard copies, which I am quoting from here!). If they post it, it will be at this link:

  6. Today the Attorney-General of NSW came out and said: “Accordingly I have taken advice as to the appropriate course and have today determined that I will, on behalf of the NSW Government and on behalf of the NSW community, refer His Honour to the Judicial Commission of NSW.

    “I will also be writing to the Chief Judge of the District Court to request that His Honour remove Judge Neilson from undertaking any criminal trials whatsoever until the Judicial Commission has dealt with the necessary processes it must undertake.”

    Once again these articles use the term ‘compare’. Seriously, do these people not know that the Slippery Slope is a this leads to this (sequential) statement, not a comparative statement.

    Full article here:

    So what, Neilson is effectively going to be silenced for having spoken of these relationships in sexual behaviour.

  7. ” …sees the connection that so many others refuse to accept.” – Indeed, Bill, and I think we have to ask just why that should be. I think many perpetrators of things that are “now acceptable” (to the law, and to “society” – some people) think purely in terms of THEMSELVES, with a mentality that now their own … practice is “acceptable”, a line can be drawn, hence they refuse to see the “connection”, or any slippery slope.

  8. As a psychotherapist and christian counsellor who has been working in the area of same sex attraction for some years let me assure you that Bill is right. Our society has given permission for our base sin nature to be unleashed by the agreement to normalizing homosexuality and these other areas will follow, unless there is radical repentance. Unfortunately the boundaries that a Judeo-Christian heritage provides has gradually been broken down over the years and so we see the fruit of that in not only homosexuality, but abortion, pornography and the coming other violations as in Bills article.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: