Your Choice: Homosexual Hegemony or Free Speech

It is becoming abundantly clear that we either insist on a whole raft of special rights for homosexuals, or we defend freedom of speech, but we cannot have both. Every day we find more appalling examples of homosexual militants and their allies in the State clamping down on freedom of speech.

Simply dare to take a contrary view to the reigning homosexual orthodoxy and all hell will break loose. That is why in my 2014 book Dangerous Relations I had an entire chapter on the erosion of freedom under the homosexual juggernaut. I offered 165 examples from a 34 month period of individuals being persecuted for holding differing beliefs.

Simply to state that marriage is between a man and a woman on your own private Facebook page for example can result in you being fined or fired. And some of the horror cases I cite show that differing viewpoints can even see you being jailed.

free speech 1I finally had to stop adding new examples to that listing, since the book would otherwise never get printed. But the cases continue to mount up, and we keep reading of what can only be described as fascism in action – in this case, homosexual fascism.

In today’s climate of homosexual hegemony, all dissenting voices will be silenced. Freedom is now all one way traffic: all things homosexual and transsexual are now a politically protected species, while those remaining voices of sanity are being hunted down and punished.

Let me offer just a few recent examples of this. Consider this shocker:

A Christian postgraduate student has been expelled from his course, effectively ending his chances of a career as a social worker, for voicing opposition to gay marriage in a Facebook discussion.
Felix Ngole, a 38-year-old father of four, expressed support for Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky in the US who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences after the introduction of same-sex unions in September last year.
He argued that homosexual activity is against the teaching of the Bible, quoting a verse from Leviticus describing it as an “abomination”.
The post, from his private Facebook account, was part of a discussion thread in which other users voiced their opinions on all sides of the debate.
It was not until two months later that he was summoned to a disciplinary hearing at Sheffield University after a fellow student complained about his post.
He said he was initially not even told what he was accused of doing. He was eventually told that it involved breaching social work guidelines on “personal conduct” and “bringing the profession into disrepute”.
At a further hearing, a university “fitness to practise” panel concluded that he was entitled to his opinion on the issue of gay marriage but that there was a danger he “may have caused offence to some individuals” by voicing it.
They concluded that, even though he was not yet even qualified as a social worker, his comment on the Facebook thread would affect his ability to operate in the profession.
As a result he was effectively expelled from the university, ordered to hand in his student ID and even his library card.
The case has striking parallels with that of Adrian Smith, a housing trust manager from Trafford, Greater Manchester, who was demoted in 2011, effectively having his salary halved, over a private Facebook post in which he voiced opposition to plans for gay marriage.
The trust claimed that Mr Smith’s posting could damage its reputation for “diversity” and that even though it had been posted outside work it breached policies forbidding upsetting colleagues.

Another UK case can also be mentioned:

A Christian prison worker who was barred from participating in chapel services after quoting a Scripture that references homosexuality will have his case heard by an employment tribunal today.
Barry Trayhorn has been employed as a gardener at HMP Littlehey since 2011, and since 2012 he has volunteered to help with the chapel services at the invitation of the prison chaplain. The facility houses those who have been convicted of sex offenses.
In May of last year, while leading worship, Trayhorn felt led to quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and exhort prisoners that forgiveness is available to those who will repent.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God,” the Scripture reads. “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
“As I led the worship, I spoke about the wonder of God’s love and the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ to those who recognize their sin and repent,” Trayhorn said in a statement. “I simply said what the Bible says. Prisoners need to hear God’s word just as much as anyone else. If people come to a Christian chapel service, we cannot hold back the gospel truth that God forgives those who repent.”
A complaint was lodged against Trayhorn four days later, and he was barred from assisting further with chapel services, being advised that he had violated prison policy and U.K. equality laws for speaking against homosexuality.
“The mere mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible verses that I quoted provoked complaint,” he outlined. “I was barred from taking part in chapel services and trouble came my way.”

One or two examples alone do not make a case, but many hundreds of them do. My book would easily be twice as big if I had continued to document all these cases of anti-Christian bigotry and clampdowns of freedom of speech. And back in Australia, things are no better.

I have done hundreds of media debates over the years, including those wretched TV “debates” where you are the sole conservative voice pitted against the rest of the panel and audience. They are always stacked decks, and are really painful experiences to have to go through.

But the hope is a little bit of truth will at least emerge. Lyle Sheldon from the ACL was on last night’s Q&A on ABC TV, and as expected, it was utterly woeful. One voice against a horde of secular left haters. Whenever he tried to speak he was shouted down by the audience, interrupted by other panellists and the moderator, and prevented from being able to carefully make his case.

And of course the audience was stacked with personal cases of poor trans this and poor homo that. Emotive personal stories always trump mere talking heads. And the ABC does this constantly. The outcome in other words was predetermined.

Thus the ABC offers a pretence of free speech, when in reality it is one long propaganda exercise, with the militant homosexual agenda given a free ride. So censorship can take various forms. We see it everywhere in the ABC and our other mainstream media outlets.

Many of us have been warning that legalising homosexual marriage here will only make matters worse. Thus it was great to see Michael Sexton in today’s Australian with a piece entitled, “Same-sex marriage: laws against ‘offending’ shut down debate”.

He begins:

A Christian group has been heavily criticised by a number of commentators because it raised the question of whether it would be necessary for the commonwealth to override areas of state and territory legislation if a plebiscite on same-sex marriage were to take place.
But there are various laws in these jurisdictions that could make it unlawful for bodies opposed to same-sex marriage to put their case to the electorate.
Take the example of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, not least because it has already been used to bring legal proceedings against the Catholic Church over its distribution of a booklet supporting traditional marriage to the parents of Catholic school students.
This legislation makes it unlawful to offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule a person on the basis of various attributes. Those attributes include sexual orientation, marital status and relationship status, provided a reasonable person would have anticipated that the subject of the conduct in question would be offended or otherwise affected.
It would therefore be open to persons in same-sex relationships to complain they were offended by a “no” campaign in the course of the plebiscite that argued same-sex marriage was sinful in a religious sense or simply socially undesirable.
These views may not represent those of a majority in the community, but that is no reason why they should not be allowed to be put to the electorate.
This is why the proposed plebiscite throws into sharp relief the problems of this kind of legislation in a way that individual cases might not. Laws that make it unlawful to offend various groups in the community inevitably stifle public debate on contentious social, economic and political issues. This is because some will always be offended if their lifestyles or views are criticised or disparaged.

He continues:

Of course, freedom of speech is not an absolute value. It has always been subject to many qualifications including the law of defamation (to protect individual reputation) and the law of contempt (to protect the administration of justice). But this is very different from a restriction on speech designed to protect a person’s feelings from being offended.
The rationale underlying these laws has been taken to the extreme in some US universities, where lecturers have been required to warn students about passages in textbooks they might find offensive.
No doubt there will be a move to follow suit by some zealous staff in the history and international relations departments of universities in this country. Universities were once thought of as places where the views of students — and teachers — could be challenged fearlessly. Once freedom of speech is curtailed in this way, there is no reason to allow any contrary views to be heard.
Even assuming the commonwealth could quarantine state legislation for the purposes of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, it would face greater difficulties in a referendum on the recognition of indigenous people in the Constitution. The reason is that section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to offend racial, national and ethnic groups. It is certainly possible that arguments against amending the Constitution in this way for whatever reason might be offensive to Aboriginal organisations involved in supporting a referendum.
How have we got to the position in Australia where laws might have to be suspended so there can be a proper public discussion of a serious social and political issue in a plebiscite or a referendum?

Yes we have gotten there, as has the rest of the West. Hello homosexual tyranny; goodbye freedom.

[1805 words]

16 Replies to “Your Choice: Homosexual Hegemony or Free Speech”

  1. I really felt for Lyle last night, his words were often deliberately misconstrued and he was not shown the respect that he gave the other panellists.

    I honestly have no idea why any conservatives bother going on Q&A. I believe the Lord used the phrase “you don’t cast pearls to swine.”

  2. Thanks Mark. Yes I speak to that in my article. As I said, I have done hundreds of these media events, and they are painful indeed. But as I also said, there is a very good reason why we do them: we desperately need to get truth out into the public arena. That is why we go through the hell of it all, because some people may hear snippets of truth, and that is what matters.

    And remember, while our side of 5-10% will not convince the other side of 5-10%, it is the 80-90% in the middle that we are trying to reach. They are still open, and if they hear a bit of truth, even on the despicable Q&A, then it is worth it. They are the ones who have not yet made up their minds, and they are the ones we are trying to reach.

  3. There is an answer to the Q&A problem. You have to be cunning like Donald Trump. Look at his debates carefully and how he responds.

    He leads them to a trap by saying something like, “I always being audited by the IRS, which I think is very unfair I don’t know maybe because of religion, maybe because of some thing else maybe because of I’m doing this although this is just recently”.

    The host responds, “What do you mean religion?”

    Trump goes “maybe the fact that I’m a strong christian and that I feel strong about it and maybe there’s a bias.”

    “Do you think you get audited because you a strong christian.”

    Trump responds “Yous can see whats happened I mean you have many religious groups that are complaining about it. They’ve been about it for a long time.”

    You need to be able to direct conversation. A cleaver speaker and the four on one debate can really go your way. The person who does it has to be very brave but if he wins, to the victor goes the spoils.

    “A prudent man should always follow in the path trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent, so that if he does not attain to their greatness, at any rate he will get some tinge of it.” ? Niccolò Machiavelli, Prince

  4. Bill, your courage in attending these appalling TV “debates” is wonderful. We all need to speak up with your level of commitment. Fortunately, the truth will out: homosexual acts are indeed an abomination and homosexual “marriage” an impossibility. No amount of bullying will change these facts. If free speech dies it will be because we Christians let it die. It’s time for every true Christian to speak out and continue to speak out whatever the cost.

  5. Breaking news.

    Joe Bullock, one of the Labor politicians still opposing homosexuality, has quit. He cites the Labor Party’s eventual rejection of conscience vote on same-sex marriage as the reason.

    He says “Instinctively I know if your job requires you to do which you believe to be wrong, there’s only one course of action: resign” and also “As a Labor Senator, it’s my job to tell voters that it doesn’t matter that Labor will outlaw the conscience vote on homosexual marriage, and to recommend a vote for Labor without reservation. That’s the job description of a Labor Senator. It’s a job which I can’t do.”

    On the one hand, it’s good to see he has some integrity. On the other hand, his departure means the Labor Party is probably going to get even more entrenched on the issue.

  6. Well written Bill. In this week leading up to the Sydney Mardi Gras the GayBC and SBS have been blatant in their promotion of all things with that theme, expect it to ramp up to a crescendo as we approach the plebiscite. Richard Fydler’s conversation hour featuring peachy interviews with gays etc etc. Thank God for people as yourself, Lyle Sheldon, Cory Bernardi & now West Australian Labor Senator Joe Bullock who is resigning from Parliament as he will not bow to the homosexual fascists and vote for same-sex marriage. Joe also wants the “Safe Schools Program” snuffed out as well, a lone voice from the Godless Labor Party. Hopefully unshackled from the Labor Joe will gain some oxygen to state his case. Joe was the lone dissenter at the Labor Party conference last year when the rainbow flag was celebrated and worshipped. As you say Bill, this is war. One thing I sense is a lot of people switching off their TV’s, radios etc not giving the left the chance to get their propaganda oxygen. God bless you Bill.

  7. Bill, when you say that, “there is a very good reason why we do them: we desperately need to get truth out into the public arena. That is why we go through the hell of it all, because some people may hear snippets of truth, and that is what matters” – I respectfully disagree. There are other ways of getting your message out without subjecting yourself to this painful charade. These shows, such as Q & A, are deliberately designed as a set-up, a hatchet job, and a demolition exercise – to boost the egos of the hosts and sycophants (e.g. Tony Jones and Kerryn Phelps). Why should Lyle Sheldon, or yourself, or any other conservative, give them oxygen and fodder?

    If you keep feeding the monster, he will stay on the rampage; starve him and he will die!

  8. Thanks Murray, but I disagree. It is a fallacy to suggest one either does these types of shows, or uses other means. Both can be used when appropriate. And it is wishful thinking to claim that if every conservative and Christian boycotted shows like Q&A they will simply wither and die. Of course they won’t. They will keep going on and on with our tax dollars. All that will happen then is no conservative and Christian truths will be heard there, instead of some as they are now. I much prefer the latter.

    I will use any means to proclaim truth in the public arena that God calls me to, and leave others to do it their way.

  9. In the “gay law reform” days in Tasmania, the sodomy movement said that in a democracy, if something is illegal, they still had the freedom of speech to campaign for the repeal of that law.

    So, a fortiori, if sodomy is now legal, there should be more freedom of speech to criticise it, not less.

  10. The UK Human Rights Act 1998 on Freedom of Expression, Section 10, part 2 are not absolute but limited:
    “the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such ….. restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of … public safety…..for the protection of health or morals.”

    But the last thing gays want is either to be protected from themselves or for parents to be able protect their children from their corrupting influence and predations.

    Boy George served a prison sentence for imprisoning a male escort and beating him with whips and chains [1] After serving a fraction of his time he was the guest of honour at London Pride where he objected to the presence of Christians, speaking up for public safety and the protection of health and morals [2] . In other words the freedom of a child to scream and cry for help if it is being sexually abused by homosexual predators, should be denied them.



    How long O lord must we suffer this in our nation?

    David Skinner UK

  11. One can never exhaust highlighting the terrible injustices and cruelties perpetrated by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender (LGBT), who have assumed a power out of all proportion to their numbers, in Britain. Theirs is a tyranny which apparently mad King David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth 11 are determined to impose on us all.
    In 2013 Her Majesty allowed her government to pass the same – sex marriage bill. Emboldened by this, one of the BBC’s figureheads of homosexuality, Stephen Fry, bragged about the Queen’s unreserved approval. He related how he had heard that when the bill came to Buckingham palace to receive her royal assent, she was supposed to have said, “ Well in all my sixty years. … who would have imagined….Isn’t it wonderful!” [1].
    This is surely designed to destabilise and divide our nation even further, just in the same way our governments have destabilised the Middle East and intend to export our own dysfunctional society to the rest of World [2]. All this, as David Cameron boasts, has the official blessing of the Queen, who in 2013 reneged on her promise to respect Commonwealth countries, like Jamaica to live according to their respective Christian laws and customs, by signing a declaration putting pressure on them to embrace the slavery and bondage of homosexuality [3]; as if Jamaica had not had experience of being under British slavery two centuries before [4].
    King David Cameron, Queen Elizabeth 11, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Teresa May the Home Secretary, Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education and the rest of the government have only one message for us and our children and it is this….[5]
    [1] Stephen Fry (13 minutes 20 seconds)

    [2] [1] David Cameron’s message to the rest of the World.

    [3] Queen fights for gay rights in Commonwealth countries

    [4] Shirley Richards, Jamaican Attorney

    [5] The Queen’s real Chrismas message to the nation.


    Manchester Gay Pride 2009

    Manchester Gay Police Association at Manchester Gay Pride 2012

    Manchester Gay Pride 2010: I just wanna a dance

    Star Grade pupils in Equality and Diversity

    The Queen’s message Christimas message to us Christians

    How long O Lord will you stand by and see your Holy Laws and Majesty being mocked? Come Lord Jesus, Come.

    David Skinner UK

  12. The home of the Magna Carta no longer believes in what that great document once stood for.

  13. Keep on exposing these abominations Bill. It does stir us up and you know it does. People like David Skinner, add so much value to your pages, as many others do. I am glad to note your’e not discouraged to bring these matter to the surface. Even if just one person gets second thoughts it is all worth it. Take for example it Fred Nile had never raised voices of decent about the Sydney mardi gras abominations, would the MSM have picked it up. Same applies for Lyle, his presence was incredible courageous, right there in the lions den of iniquity. How is that outrageous claim for example, that the majority of Australians are all for SSM? What is this based on, what statistical fact can they quote to substantiate this claim? If it was such factual truth, why then are the LBGT so horrified to allow the plebiscite to do its work for them. They know full well that the people of this great Nation will throw out the same sex marriage bill, like they have with most referenda that seek to change the core of our constitution and fundamental mandates.
    Bill Heggers Bridgetown W.A.

  14. Wilhelmus I have just watched a recording of this Q&A .

    It was distressing to say the least to hear Lyle Sheldon and lone Christian voices in the audience, being blanked and derided by the slathering jappernakes. As for those who like to play the numbers game, 100% of the passengers on the Titanic believed it be unsinkable; the vast majority of Germans thought Hitler was their saviour of and of course the ultimate example of mass delusion or sheepling was the majority vote to crucify Jesus Christ, or not to get into the Ark.
    There must be volumes, apart from 1984, dedicated to mass delusion

    LGBT Marches and rallies have been held throughout Western nations with the same battle cry of “What to want? Equal Rights ! When do we want it? Now!”

    They are reminiscent of the homosexual Ernst Rohm addressing the Storm Troopers in Nazi Germany

    David Skinner UK

Leave a Reply

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