Rainbow Repression: A Tale of Two Ads

I have said it repeatedly, but since it does not seem to be sinking in, I will keep saying it. If the bullying, intimidation, repression and assaults on traditional families and religious freedom are this bad now, just imagine how much worse they will be when homosexual “marriage” is legalised.

Every day we have crystal clear examples of the militant homosexual lobby’s war on faith, family and freedom. I have documented hundreds of cases of this already, and the new examples just keep on pouring in. Just in the past few days we have witnessed more shocking cases of rainbow activists and their war on everything.

Let me mention several recent cases of homosexual intolerance and bigotry that should send shivers down your spine. They are simply mind-boggling. The hatred and bullying on display here is simply shocking to behold. And it will get much worse if we allow the activists to redefine and destroy marriage.

Both have to do with television ads. The first case involves a completely harmless television ad for Father’s Day. The 30-second ad is a terrific reminder of this important day and the vital role fathers play on the life of their children. Yet the PC thought police have determined that this is somehow a “political” ad and must not be allowed to be shown.

Wow! The banned ad can be seen here. See for yourself what all the fuss is about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtkK_zDPJBE&sns=fb

Today the Australian wrote about this moonbattery:

A heart-tugging television commercial celebrating Father’s Day by promoting the special role of fathers in the lives of their children has been pulled after being deemed too “political” ahead of the government’s same-sex marriage postal ballot.
This year’s commercial – featuring a father singing his baby a lullaby – will not be broadcast after Free TV Australia, representing the free-to-air commercial networks, informed not-for-profit group Dads4Kids that its Father’s Day ads “likely contained political matter”.
After being told this week that its ad had been rejected, Dads4Kids released a statement to The Weekend Australian yesterday expressing its disappointment, as opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage defended the commercial.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott said the development was the latest example of how the “thought police” would operate in the “brave new world of same-sex marriage” while gay marriage advocate and Victorian Liberal MP Tim Wilson slammed the Free TV determination as “ridiculous advice that should be ignored”.
“If you don’t like being bullied by activists, vote no,” Mr Abbott told The Weekend Australian. “If you don’t like political correctness, vote no, because it’s the best way you have to stop it in its tracks.”

David Rowsome of the Canberra Declaration said this about the ban:

Every year it is our special joy to encourage the Canberra Declaration community to celebrate both Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. This should not be surprising for the Canberra Declaration states that “Lifelong marriage between a man and a woman guarantees children their biological birthright to a mother and a father and has a proven track record of providing them with protection, education, welfare, support and nurture. No other arrangement has improved upon the benefits of marriage.”
In the face of all that is happening in the marriage debate, with aggressive moves to redefine marriage and silence debate, we believe that celebrating Father’s Day is very important. It is a wonderful way to affirm with the Canberra Declaration “the importance and social utility of marriage between a man and a woman and the families formed thereby.”
So now we are very excited to share with you this year’s Dads4Kids TV ad for Father’s Day. This is the latest in a highly acclaimed series of TV ads produced by Dads4Kids for Father’s Day and Mother’s Day. Twelve TV ads have been produced since 2002. Many are seen year-round on different TV stations across Australia. The ad for this year, which can be seen below, shows a number of fathers singing and engaging with their children, giving the story of life through a father’s song.
We hope that you enjoy this inspiring and heart-warming one-minute ad.
At 4 pm on Wednesday, Dads4Kids received some very disturbing news from a Free TV Australia body called Commercial Advice or CAD. The above TV ad, which had been approved by them seven days earlier, was now banned for broadcast. The reason given was that the ad was a “political statement”! But the bad news didn’t stop there. CAD went on to inform Dads4Kids that the three TV ads that have been going to air over the past year were also disallowed.

So now Father’s Day is deemed to be too dangerous and too political. Good grief. Just what is wrong with these people? But it keeps getting worse. Just a few days ago we had this frightening headline: “Activist pushes politically correct plan to rename Father’s Day ‘Special Person’s Day’”.

The story began: “An early childhood activist has been labelled ‘offensive’ after suggesting Father’s Day be renamed ‘Special Person’s Day’ so kids without dads wouldn’t feel left out. Dr Red Ruby Scarlet, an activist with a doctorate in early childhood studies, is pushing for the name change to the annual holiday.”

Madness! My second example is one I first wrote about yesterday but the fallout from it continues. It involves another 30-second TV ad, this time affirming natural marriage and warning about the consequences of radically changing what marriage has always been about. My piece on this is found here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/09/01/three-brave-mothers-world/

But even in the past 24 hours things have gotten way out of hand with this. The ugly and vicious assaults on the three women who were featured in the ad have only gotten worse. One news report explains:

The mothers featured in the “No” campaign ad against same-sex marriage say they have been “demonised” for defending their rights. Heidi McIvor, who is a pastor at City Builders Church in Sale, Victoria appeared in the TV ad for Coalition for Marriage, which aired on Tuesday.
“Kids in year seven are being asked to role play being in a same-sex relationship,” Ms McIvor says in the ad. Ms McIvor’s comment has sparked a backlash, with Ms McIvor and her husband Julian McIvor also falsely accused of being behind a newspaper ad that appeared in The Gippsland Times and entitled “What is Marriage?”
The ad includes the line that: “When the wife’s egg is fertilised by the husband’s sperm in the marital act of love, a flash of light occurs and a baby is conceived. Nine months later, ‘their’ baby is born. It is not ‘hers’ and it is not ‘his’. They have created new life together.” One Facebook user of the couple said: “Let’s burn there (sic) church”.

And consider this Brown Shirt hatred and bullying of another mother featured in the ad – Dr Pansy Lai. There is actually now a campaign to have her deregistered as a doctor, all because she dares to stand for traditional marriage. I kid you not. Here is part of how this online petition reads:

This petition calls on the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to review the registration of Dr Pansy Lai as a Paediatric Medical Practitioner for violation of it’s code of ethics and violation of the Declaration of Geneva by her participation in the recent ‘no’ campaign against marriage equality in which she willfully spread misinformation and non-scientific evidence in order to promote the discrimination of LGBTIQ people in Australia….
We urge the Australian Medical Association and Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to investigate Dr Pansy Lai’s use of her profession in a public political manner to cause harm due to the serious nature of the breach she has undertaken.

Um, excuse me: Lesbian activist Dr Kerryn Phelps, who was even once the President of the Australian Medical Association, has constantly used her position to push her pro-homosexual agenda in a “public political manner”. And the AMA just this past week came out saying they supported homosexual marriage.

So let me get this straight: any doctor and/or anyone associated with the AMA who pushes the homosexual agenda can freely do so, but anyone who dares to take a different point of view is somehow abusing their position and should be booted out? Really?

And plenty of doctors were livid about this stance by the AMA:

A former senior Australian Medical Association official has lashed out at the peak medical body’s campaign for same-sex marriage, accusing it of using false and misleading information in claiming the reform was a public health issue.
Dr Chris Middleton, a former president of the Tasmanian AMA, has joined with five AMA members in penning a 15-page report savaging the credibility of the national body’s Position Statement on Marriage Equality.
Dr Middleton, who was inducted in the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2011, renounced his life membership of the body and was critical of its process to adopt a position in favour of gay marriage, saying the membership was not consulted.

Things are so bad that one political leader said the abuse she is getting from the homosexual activists and their supporters is actually worse than the racism she has had to endure. As one article explains:

Liberal Party vice-president Karina Okotel says the “disturbing” bigotry she has faced for being against same-sex marriage is worse than any racist labels she endured because of her Sri Lankan background.
In a split with federal party president Nick Greiner on the same-sex marriage campaign, Ms Okotel will be advocating a No vote in the postal survey.
Ms Okotel rebuked Mr Greiner’s claim there were not broader implications to the vote such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. She said she had been racially vilified for her skin colour but that discrimination paled in comparison to what is levelled at her when she argues that the Marriage Act should not be changed.
“I do from time to time experience discrimination on the basis of race,” she writes in The Australian today. “I have, for example, been refused service in shops and people have made derogatory comments about the colour of my skin.
“I have even been told to go back to my own country, which is difficult given that I was born in Australia. However, the discrimination and hate I have faced just by querying whether we should be legalising same-sex marriage has been like nothing I have experienced before.”

As I said, if all this abuse, hate, bigotry, vilification, bullying and intimidation is so bad right now, just imagine what things will be like if and when homosexual “marriage” is legalised. It will simply get far, far worse. All the more reason to stand strong and defend marriage while we still have the chance.

It is certainly possible that if we don’t, we may lose all our freedoms in this regard, and the ability to make any sort of “NO” case will forever be taken away from us.


Just moments ago on the Ch. Seven 6 o’clock news I saw a father’s day ad from Toyota. But…. Toyota is clearly involved in public political activism on the issue of homosexuality. See this ad from a few years back for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjWfRS0q5I

And this homosexual magazine called Toyota a “Gay-Friendly Automaker”: https://gaywheels.com/gff/

Um, the Dads4Kids ad was pulled because it was alleged the group has a political agenda. So they cannot have ads, but Toyota can? Please explain Free TV Australia. Double standards much? Hypocrisy much?


[1832 words]

20 Replies to “Rainbow Repression: A Tale of Two Ads”

  1. I am sharing the Fathers Day ad everywhere.

    Milo Yiannopoulos said that somehow he did not think the lecturer would similarly complain about Mothers Day!

    Angela Shanahan wrote a great case for the No side and how it will kill free speech to legalise SSM in The Australian today —

    One of the reasons I love being Australian is that in deep contrast to some other countries, where the slightest bit of controversy draws angry mobs to the streets, we usually debate in a relatively civilised fashion.

    However, lately there has been some publicly expressed anxiety about the tone of debate on issues ranging from gay marriage to the so called statue wars. Indeed the tone of these debates is as much a subject for debate as the debates themselves, and there is no doubt the hysteria of the Yes campaign has to some degree propelled people otherwise inclined to lean towards the No side.

    That same-sex marriage is an acrimonious subject is hardly surprising, considering the Yes side sees it as a purely emotional and personal issue. The emotional young have a tendency to go in, boots and all, but it is not so understandable when sober and mature people such as Bill Shorten latch on to the coat tails of that hysteria, throwing around insults.

    Those who want a Yes vote see marriage as a personal relationship, denying any broader implications, while the No side sees marriage as a social institution and points to the ramifications of gay marriage in countries with similar political structures, including human rights commissions and boards that have alarming power to impose a view about what is human and what is a right. These deeper issues are lost on the general public.

    So far the Yes side has captured the emotive high ground. The tactics it has used range from the slogan “marriage equality” and sentimental photos of same-sex couples in Qantas lounges to the ACT government spending taxpayers money on a Yes campaign. At the bottom end of the scale there is still the bullying and aggression that dominates social media, especially targeting the Australian Christian Lobby. The Yes vote is backed by big money and corporations such as Qantas telling us that we won’t be able to fly, bank or do business if we don’t agree with this. They have even picked on old ladies like the rather formidable Margaret Court.

    Meanwhile, despite the fuming about homophobia, the No vote has managed to keep the tone rational, civilised and polite in general, largely because it has steered clear of the personal — until now. The television ads featuring mothers worried about what their children will be taught in school, including so-called queer theory, ramp up the case against same-sex marriage. Is this the right thing to do, or is it emotive, wrong and irrelevant? Does it lower the tone? Even relatively impartial critics have said so.

    There are precedents for the wider application of queer theory in countries where the introduction of gay marriage has meant wider acceptance of gender fluidity, and this is being taught to children. Queer theory is part of the compulsory curriculum in Canada and parts of Britain. Even supporters of gay marriage have been alarmed at the spread of this ideology.

    Since it has already been introduced in Victoria and will be compulsory there from next year, its possible widespread compulsory introduction nationwide is, contrary to what Simon Birmingham might say, hardly a far-fetched prospect. Parents are appalled by mad gender theory, but they have little power to curb it because of new forms of human rights law.

    A reinterpretation of human rights has allowed same-sex marriage. Further such reinterpretations are what we face in the future — something George Brandis has deliberately ignored.

    The immediate consequences for religious liberty with the legalising of same-sex marriage have not been properly canvassed and there is not enough noise about these consequences. The so-called debate on this aspect has been superficial and extends only to weddings, not tmarriages.

    Marriage in the church is a lived sacrament that, where possible, should produce children. It isn’t the wedding. Nevertheless, that did not prevent the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteus, being summonsed to appear before a human rights board in that state, to answer a claim by a transgender person that disseminating a booklet outlining Catholic teaching on marriage to Catholic schoolchildren was discriminatory .

    There are two things to be alarmed about here. First, this statement was part of the doctrinal education of Catholic children, via the school and their parents. It simply set out the church’s teachings on marriage as a sacrament with virtually no reference to homosexuality. So challenging its dissemination was a direct challenge to that teaching. This goes to the heart of what parents will be able to teach their children, because the principle of Catholic education is that it exists only as an extension and complement of parental education.

    Secondly, the booklet was produced by the entire Bishops Conference. So if this complaint had been upheld, the entire body of Catholic bishops would be eligible for punishment by the human rights apparatus.

    This is similar to what has happened in parts of Canada and the US when bishops have taken a line vigorously opposed to the radical sexual agenda. What can be taught in schools is part of the broader debate, as are the effects on Catholic social services, particularly adoption and fostering.

    In Boston, Catholic adoption agencies have had to close because they refuse adoption by same-sex couples.

    Instead of addressing these issues, the Yes campaigners think that they can simply ignore them, call them alarmist and irrelevant, and forget about them. However, this debate has broadly revolutionary consequences. Many who want gay marriage don’t all see this, but those pulling the strings have ramped up this debate as purely personal, deliberately steering away from the wider implications, and that is why the tone is so shrill. It is very radical and sounds a warning for the future of free speech in this country.

  2. Brilliant article. I think too many Christians have an attitude that if we are nice, winsome and loving we will win people over to our point of view. I cen see that logic, but Jesus and John the Baptist certainly didn’t mince words with the Pharisees and Herod’s sexual affair.

  3. To all the people who are offend by the father’s day ad or any parent ad in general, gimme me a break. My father died back in 2011 and i never got upset or offended by anything father’s day related. Not to mention, if we have to get rid of those 2 holidays because we don’t want kids who don’t have parents left out, why don’t we get rid of every holiday, like Valentine’s day? Because you know it could offend all those poor single people who can’t find love. How about we get rid of Easter or Christmas because it offends anyone who doesn’t celebrate these holidays? As for the homosexual lobby resorting to censorship, i honestly believe the more they censor, the more they’re proving that homosexuals aren’t born that way. (Yes i do know about their being no scientific evidence for it, even some homosexuals admitted it.) If they had powerful arguments for this, then why do they turn down debate? Why don’t they make a fool out of all those bigots then if they’re so sure they’re right in this case?

  4. Marriage is suppose to be between a man and a woman , read the Bible, transgender should absolutely not be taught in schools no way shape or form!!!

  5. Maybe we should launch a campaign to deregister Kerryn Phelps since she appeared in a Yes ad saying the No spreads lies and there will be no issue. But of course we will be demonised.

  6. Who ever knew the day would come when fair minded Australian would suffer under the jackboot of pink tyranny?
    The AMA is only a political lobby group funded by its members, so I have to wonder why any medical practitioner would waste their money by paying for membership in this unrepresentative swill??
    And for the record, the petition is nonsense, both the UN and EU court of human rights have ruled that same sex marriage is NOT a human right and they’re the most international of law courts: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/what-does-human-rights-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552 (though the opinions of courts run by myopic left-wing activists who forget they’re not the legislature is hardly the vanguard of truth and rationality, but the point stands that the petitioners have no standing in terms of the international human rights laws they’re appealing to)

  7. The petition against Dr Pansy Lai is being run by GetUp! Australia so reflects of the Left’s view of the subject. Any views which are not pro-SSM much be silenced, and those espousing them punished. Ironically while the petition attacks Dr Lai for “… willfully spread[ing] misinformation and non-scientific evidence in order to promote the discrimination of LGBTIQ people in Australia” it is happy to willfully spread misinformation and non-scientific evidence in order to promote the LGBTIQ lifestyle.

    Sometimes it seems like rather than being Australia 2017 what we’re seeing is Germany 1927.

  8. Today on Foxtel there was a report about what happened to a little girl – a first grader in California. This little girl was chastened in the playground for giving the wrong name to a so- called transgendered boy to girl (maybe the other way round). She had said ”hello”” and used the former name of the child who was a friend. Then she was sent to the Principal. Parent was reported as saying they would leave the school district, because the girl would have to be investigated! The parent said the transgender movement was increasingly being pushed nationwide. A commentator said children often get names mixed up. How cruel and unbelievable.

  9. But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

    “He committed no sin,
    and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

    When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. – From 1 Peter 2:20b ff [NIV]

  10. Dear Bill,
    I earnest pray that these actions by the LEFT will encourage and scare Australians into voting NO.

    They will realise that approval of SSM will erode and destroy their freedom of speech,

    best regards,

  11. And then 60 minutes quietly pulled the story they advertised about a boy who took hormones to change his gender … and then changed his mind. Suddenly, it didn’t feature. Why? I reckon it was deemed to help the no vote but it’s only about SSM!

  12. I thought I was a normal 82yr. old mother, grandmother and great grandmother but…after reading the incident at Rocklin Academy, am I normal?? Did this five year old boy (oops, sorry “girl”) come to this conclusion by himself? And what about the real six year old girl, who must have been bewildered and upset by all this nonsense!
    The Lord Himself said that the world would change for the worst before His return. Praise Him that I am on the way out, instead of just coming in!

  13. The above TV ad, which had been approved by them seven days earlier, was now banned for broadcast.

    Interesting little factoid – it is not simply that FreeTV didn’t approve but that they changed their mind – or someone persuaded them to do so.

  14. It is beyond any explanation what is happening in this country.
    Every day I talk to the costumers about their opinion, of what happen here now. Out of 20 people 1 will have different opinion about the gay-lesbians marriage. This nation is build on the faith in God. Lets not change this, who sins they shall perish, to their own last. Lets unite putting our hands together to pray and overcome this wave of demonic influence, be strong stand your ground the Lord God Almighty is with us. He is helping us. Be strong and say NO.

  15. The militant gays might think they have managed to high-jack our democratic system to their advantage in belligerently demolishing every decent traditional values that we have lived by for these centuries. Perhaps they are naive enough not have given thought to the fact that homosexuality is in diametric opposition to Islam. When it does come they will not know what hit them. All this arrogant campaigning by the Rainbow Brigade serves as a recruiting call for the redefenders of Islam to a Jihad in defense of Islamic values, I shudder to contemplate the future of this clash.

Leave a Reply

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