Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Reds Under the Bed and the Axis of Leftists

Reds Under the Bed and the Axis of Leftists

It's no great secret that every political party has its 'talking points' for the week. They're easy to spot, because every time a member of that party is interviewed they'll use the same language and make the same points as each other.

One of the enduring talking points for Australia's Liberal and National Party coalition government is to accuse the Labor Party and the Greens of being Marxists, Leftists, socialists, communists ... and ... shock horror ... politically correct ...

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, when someone is being 'politically correct', run ... run like the wind ...

Political correctness is a savage beast that has come to slap a gag across our mouths, make boys dress as girls and have us all apologise to chickens for the hormones we inject in them. Scary.

Now, sadly there are some people who have accused the L/NP of living in the 1950s. What sort of rabid political correctness is this? Just because they believe that coal is the way of the future, and that copper wire is a good substitute for the more expensive fibre-optic cable, is no excuse to accuse of them of being 60 years behind the times.

So to prove that they aren't living in some pollution-riddled paradise with naught but rotary phones to communicate, they resurrect one of the greatest strategies of the mid-twentieth century: Reds Under the Bed.

Just when one thinks the L/NP couldn't get any more 50s, they completely knock it out of the park.

In almost every single interview, L/NP politicians are accusing the Labor Party, the Greens, and other dissenters, of being part of some great left-wing conspiracy. Not content to attack Unions, they have now turned their beady little bigotry on GetUp!, a politically independent activist organisation that dares to campaign for human rights, workers rights, marriage equality, and to challenge racism, bigotry and xenophobia at its roots. Apparently sticking up for the rights of people is part of a neo-Marxist agenda and political correctness gone mad. The government's attack on GetUp! is to claim it is a political 'associated entity', similar to the Unions, and therefore costing its political independence(1).

As an aside, if you wish to contribute to a legal expenses fund for GetUp! to defend itself against this unwarranted attack on its independence, please do so here:

This followed the biggest attack on the Union movement in 30 years(2), which was aimed at weakening workers' rights and destroying any form of collective power that could represent workers against unscrupulous employers. Instead, the government painted the Unions as being lawless, when employers have been abusing worker rights for years.

The Reds Under the Bed campaign of the 1950s, successfully demonised communism and convinced the gullible that communism was going to take over the world if mighty capitalism didn't conquer it.

The L/NP has resurrected the Reds Under the Bed scare-mongering, with illustrious MPs such as the Finance Minister, Mathias Corman, supported by a number of his colleagues, claiming that Labor leader Bill Shorten's economic agenda would lead Australia down the same path as East Germany and Cuba(3).

The government doesn't let up in its hyperbole, accusing Labor of the 'politics of envy'. Obviously singing from the same song-sheet, this was repeated by Corman(4), Treasurer Scott Morrison(5) and Prime Minister Turnbull, who ramped up the Reds Under the Bed campaign by maximising his bang for buck by accusing Shorten of being the 'most dangerous left-wing leader in generations' AND that 'he is a wholly-owned subsidiary of militant, left-wing unions who have no regard for the rights of others ...' (6). Apparently, wanting to share the wealth is envy, but wanting individuals to accumulate wealth by exploiting workers is not. Unions have no regard for the rights of others? Perhaps these conservative politicians could take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror ... or look at the innumerable businesses who are under-paying staff or denying employee entitlements, when they don't have Unions protecting workers.

Turnbull twisted the idea of equality by claiming that 'Labor's war on inequality is nothing more than a war on aspiration'. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party continues its war on wages. The coalition is using this Reds Under the Bed fear-mongering to dog-whistle the electorate into fearing unions, fearing Labor and worshiping the wealthy as their only means of attaining employment or economic security. Meanwhile, workers' rights continue to erode and wages stagnate(7).

In 2015, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott banned his front-benchers from appearing on Q&A because the show had allowed Zaky Mallah, to appear in the audience and ask a question. Mallah had been acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005, but had pleaded guilty to threatening to kidnap and kill Commonwealth officers. Mallah asked a question in relation to what would have happened had the Minister been deciding his case, rather than the courts. This was at a time when there was debate about having the Minister make the final call, rather than the courts. Abbott then described Q&A as a 'leftie lynch mob'(8). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Mallah appearing, Abbott yet again had to dog-whistle the gullible with a derogatory comment about the left-wing.

In continuing the Reds Under the Bed dog-whistling, James McGrath, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister appeared on the ABC's Q&A on Monday 27 November 2017, where he launched a tirade against GetUp!, The Greens and Labor, claiming that the right-wing of politics was now facing an 'Axis of Leftists'. A claim he repeated a number of times, before culminating in an 'Armageddon of Leftists'(9). Was he trying to equate the left-wing with the Axis of Evil. Queue the scary music.

Everything that the Liberal or National Parties oppose is being branded as leftist, Marxist or politically-correct. National Party MP, George Christensen was one of many to brand the anti-bullying program, Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, as being some sort of neo-Marxist gender theory. Christensen: 'We need to look at other methods that aren't originating in an ideology of queer gender theory, and let's be honest, Marxism'(10)

Former Labor leader, turned rabid right-wing apologist, Mark Latham wrote in his Daily Telegraph column, 'The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum'(11).  No, Mark, the crazy thing is labelling everything you disagree with as Marxist. Considering Marx espoused an economic theory that put the means of production in the hands of the workers, an anti-gay-bullying program does not qualify as Marxist ... neo or otherwise. There is nothing Orwellian in the naming of BRR as it was about ensuring schools would be safe from homophobic bullying ... such as we see from many of these politicians who attack it.

This is the standard that the Liberal and National Parties are bringing to the table; that the left-wing is full of evil Marxists who would turn Australia into Cuba or East Germany.

It is pure fear-mongering. It is aimed to manipulate the gullible with untruthful claims that turn workers against the very people who are fighting for their wages and rights, while driving them into the hands of those who would deny them those wages and rights.

More insidious and disturbing, is the dog-whistling of Marxism and leftist agendas to be used to justify homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and straight out bigotry. We saw it during the Marriage Equality survey, where Yes campaigners were portrayed as neo-Marxists, we see it in the attacks on those who defend the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, the attacks on those who campaign for indigenous rights.

An article in the Cairns Post claimed that practically every element of our lives was being attacked by Marxists, including marriage, police, education, gender, religion, and crime. According to the article the only anti-Marxist crusaders in Australian parliament were Cory Bernardi, David Leyonhjelm, Pauline Hanson, the now defunct Malcolm Roberts(12). Each one of these is a disgrace to parliament and an insult to democracy as they attack many of the people who make up the Australian population. Leyonhjelm is currently attempting to have Milo Yiannopoulos address a gathering at Parliament House(13). Yiannopoulos is a well-known racist, xenophobe, misogynist and pedophile-apologist(14). Hanson is well-known for her hateful comments against indigenous people, Asians and Muslims(15). Bernardi is well-known for his hateful and false claims against Islam and Muslims, his raging against homosexuality and linking it to bestiality, and his demonising of asylum seekers(16).  And Roberts? Well, he had a spectacular fall from grace after being found ineligible to sit in parliament because of being a dual citizen. This was welcomed by many, as Roberts expressed his bizarre conspiracy theories on government and climate change.

Sadly, this is where the Liberal and National Parties are taking us. All their dog-whistling and fear-mongering about Marxism is driving people into the waiting arms of extreme right-wing parties such as One Nation. The 2017 Queensland election saw a 13% swing to One Nation, 20% in some areas, and most of that was from disenfranchised Liberal National Party voters. Ironically, One Nation struggled to win a single seat, and the swing to them took the LNP down as well.

While the LNP and One Nation try to blame Labor for this, part of it has to rest with the constant fear-mongering about Marxism which is resulting in people truly believing that extremists such as Hanson and Bernardi are the only way to innoculate society against it.

Masking the attacks on Labor and the Greens as an attack on neo-Marxism is disingenuous and dangerous. The real attack is on the people; on indigenous rights, workers' rights, refugees, Muslims. The scare-mongering is dividing the people against themselves. Workers are hating Unions, non-Muslims are hating Muslims, straight people are hating LGBTIQ people, non-indigenous Australians are demonising indigenous people ... and on it goes. Meanwhile, while the electorate's energy and passion is directed at hating others, the government continues to undermine the rights of us all, including attacking our freedom of speech and expression as we see with the incessant attacks on the ABC, SBS and now GetUp!

The right-wing may be scaring itself stupid with fear of the left and launching into paroxysms of rage with every claim of Marxism (neo or otherwise), yet the biggest threat is the slide towards the ultra-right-wing, where diversity is not tolerated or celebrated.

Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian novel of a theocratic USA, succinctly describes the demonisation of 'others', when she said, 'Heroes need monsters to establish their credentials. You need something scary to overcome'. The L/NP has been demonising others for years. It is the only way they can portray themselves as the heroes, the saviours of modern Australia.

It is this turning of Australians against each other by attacking human rights, that will usher in an end to the freedoms that Australia enjoys, and it is this that Australians should all be standing up against - as one!


1. The Sydney Morning Herald, Adam Gartrell, GetUp! readies for court battle over bid to link it to Labor and the Greens, 23 October 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

2. The Guardian, Patrick Wintour, Biggest crackdown on trade unions for 30 years launched by Conservatives, 15 July 2016, Accessed 28 November 2017.

3. The Australian, Greg Brown, Bill Shorten 'will turn us into Cuba', 27 August 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

4., staff writer, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann slams Bill Shorten's 'communist' economic policy, 24 August 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

5. SBS,  Source: AAP, Shorten chasing politics of envy: Treasurer, 24 July 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

6. The Sydney Morning Herald, Amy Remeikis, Bill Shorten the 'most dangerous left wing leader in generations', says Malcolm Turnbull, 12 August 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

7. The Sydney Morning Herald, Anna Patty, War on wages: Australians are working harder and going backwards, 5 August 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

8. The Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Knott, Q&A fallout: Tony Abbott orders frontbench ministers to boycott ABC show, 6 July 2015, Accessed 28 November 2017.

9. ABC, Q&A, Royal Commission and Election Results, 27 November 2017,, Accessed 27 November 2017.

10. ABC, Michael Bradley, The problem with evoking Marxism in the Safe Schools debate, 24 March 2016, Accessed 28 November 2017.

11. The Daily Telegraph, Mark Latham, From reason to radicalism: Gender fluidity, 31 May 2016, Accessed 28 November 2017.

12. The Cairns Post, Julian Tomlinson, Marxism aims to destroy conventional society ... and it's happening every day, 29 June 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

13. SBS, Source AAP-SBS, Greens want to ban alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos, 28 November 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

14. Anti-Defamation League, Milo Yiannopoulos: Five Things to Know, Accessed 28 November 2017.

15. Huffpost, Josh Butler, Pauline Hanson Says She's Never Said Anything Racist Ever, 29 March 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

16. ABC, Ashlynne McGhee, Cory Bernardi: Where does the Senator stand on key issues?, 6 February 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

triple j's Hottest 100 is about music, the government makes it about politics

triple j's Hottest 100 is about music, the government makes it about politics

ABC's national youth radio station, triple j, caused shock-waves on Monday, 27 November 2017, when it announced that it would no longer broadcast its annual iconic Hottest 100 on Australia Day. This caused a massive wave of lemon-sucking lip-pursing from people who have can't even spell JJJ ... and from a few who claim they're triple j fans, but apparently would rather be listening to Kyle and Jackie O.

lemon-sucking lip-pursing from people who can't spell JJJ

One of the reasons for the move, is that the Hottest 100 has been unwittingly caught up in the increasing debate over moving the Australia Day holiday to a more culturally sensitive date. The show plays the 100 most popular new songs played on triple j during the year prior, as voted by listeners.The show was never meant to be political and was never about Australia Day and all it's patriotic 'glory'.

The station surveyed its audience and found that some 60% of 65,000 respondents were in favour of the move(1).  After also consulting with artists, the community and indigenous groups, triple j's management moved the Hottest 100 to the last weekend in January commencing 2018. This does mean that on occasion, including in 2019, the weekend will coincide with Australia Day ... and the next time that will happen will be 2030. This removes the political element of the the show being held on a day that is increasingly the subject of significant political debate about indigenous recognition and the genocide and human rights abuses that followed white settlement.

It may surprise some people, but the Hottest 100 was not played on the First Fleet that landed in 1788. It is not played during citizenship ceremonies and it certainly isn't required listening to be a dinky-di ocker.

The lemon-suckers who are arguing against the move, clearly are not aware of the history of this great radio show and the fact that it hasn't always been held on Australia Day. The Hottest 100 first went to air on 5 March 1989. It wasn't until 1998, that it began regularly appearing on Australia Day, however, in 2004, the show was held on 25 January(2).

So what does Australia's conservative government do about this move? They threaten to cut funding to the ABC if the show is moved. It is a radio show playing music for god's sake, yet the government is acting as though the ABC should be its propaganda arm, sycophantically falling in lock-step with every government policy. Who says that conservatives welcome freedom of speech?

Every time the ABC dares to challenge the government, it is accused of left-wing bias and not being patriotic. This is a disturbing development by the government, to constantly challenge the independence of the national broadcaster, one of Australia's few truly independent networks with fair and balanced reporting. The Liberal and National Party coalition does not consider criticism of the government to be fair and balanced, and considers anything outside of its myopic viewpoint to be a personal attack on Australian values. As if the Liberal and National Parties are the sole guardians of Australian values ... god help us ... the only values the coalition has been the guardian of are those of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and the systemic human rights abuses meted out on persecuted and suffering peoples seeking asylum.

triple j has been accused of making a political statement by moving the Hottest 100, yet that is exactly what their management is attempting to avoid. It is the coalition government and those opposed to the move, who are making this political. The government, yet again, is hiding behind its dog-whistling by accusing the ABC of being 'left-wing' and 'politically correct'.

Ironically, while many in the government are currently arguing for marriage equality legislation to allow for conscientious objection, it is also opposing those who have a conscientious objection to being part of an increasingly toxic debate about Australian values on day that is synonymous with invasion.

The Hottest 100 is an awesome show playing awesome music. Yes, it was a great accompaniment to a BBQ and a few beers with mates on the Australia Day public holiday. However, it will still be a great accompaniment to BBQs and beers on a weekend. If anything, it will be better because triple j will countdown the Hottest 100 on the Saturday, and then follow up on the Sunday with the top 100 to 200 songs. What a fantastic way to spend a weekend.

What's better than one day of the Hottest 100? Two days of the Hottest 200! Party time!

You rock, triple j.


1. ABC, Paul Donoughue, The Hottest 100 won't be held on Australia Day next year, triple j says, 27 November 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

2. triple J, triple j's Hottest 100 is moving to a new date and here's why, 27 November 2017, Accessed 28 November 2017.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The No campaign isn't defending freedom of speech, they're defending fear & hate speech

The No campaign isn't defending freedom of speech, they're defending fear & hate speech

As the divisive and spiteful campaigning over the marriage equality plebiscite inches closer to the day of reckoning, the No camp have been claiming that legalising it will be an attack on their freedoms. Ironic, considering it is they who are trying to limit the freedoms of LGBTIQ people.

To support their claims, the No camp has regaled us with tales of misery and woe from nations that already have marriage equality. Most of these claims have been disproven and shown to be complete fabrications. Canada was one such nation, and yet Irwin Cottler, the former Canadian Justice Minister, has stated that marriage equality has had no impact on religious freedom, but has warned that Australia is exposing the LGBTIQ community to hatred through this public survey. Cottler went on to state that 'You don't have a referendum on minority rights issues ... As I said then, if this legislation passes the sky won’t fall and the earth won’t open up, and I said, five, 10 years from now this will not only be behind us but people will ask what was the fuss all about'.. And in fact that’s been the case in Canada. There’s a strong support now for same-sex legislation.' (1).

While the No camp continues with its fear campaign, it is the freedoms of LGBTIQ people and the supporters of marriage equality who are having their freedoms curtailed. For instance, American rapper, Macklemore, performed during the opening ceremony of the recent National Rugby League grand final. Controversially, he performed his hit song, Same Love, which had spent four weeks at number 1 on the Australian music charts, and is about love between people of the same gender. The No camp went into melt-down and declared that sport should not be politicised. In an act of sensationalist censorship, radio stations 2GB and 3AW refused to broadcast Macklemore performing the song, even though they were providing live coverage of the grand final. Instead, they cut to a rap song that broadcaster Ray Hadley had recorded with his daughter in 2012. Hadley claimed it had nothing to do with marriage equality, but was instead because he believed Australian performers should perform at the grand final(2). Yet, he recorded this five years before and hadn't replaced any other international acts during the intervening years with this self-indulgent song. If he really supported Aussie acts, why didn't he play an Aussie act? Freedom of speech? Censorship.

For the record, Macklemore's inspirational performance at the NRL 2017 grand final can be viewed here:

One of the No camp's claims is that people will lose their jobs for failing to support marriage equality, yet recently an Anglican priest was stood down for his support of marriage equality, which the church framed as having 'tones of blasphemy'(3). Interesting that the No camp isn't defending his freedom of speech.

Perhaps if we are to look at what is happening in other nations, the United States would be a good place to start. The United States Justice Department, is arguing that employers should be able to sack people for being gay(4). Additionally, the US Attorney-General, Jeff Sessions, issued a directive overturning a previous policy that had banned discrimination against transgender people(5).

This comes at a time when the feckless US President Donald Trump has banned transgender people from serving in the military(6) and has become the first US president to appear at a conference run by the actively anti-LGBTIQ organisation, Family Research Council, that has been classified as a hate group. The Summit attracts religious extremists, white supremacists and far-right activists(7), and promotes conversion therapy. In other words, they want to force LGBTIQ people to converted to heterosexuality, a process renowned for the harm it can cause(8). Sadly, there are some in the No camp in Australia who promote conversion therapy and uphold Donald Trump as the ultimate freedom fighter against the hordes of gay-agenda-pushing neo-Marxists trying to tear down the fabric of western society. Because, you know, marriage equality will do that ... where's an interrobang when you need one!?

Attending forums run by hate groups isn't just the domain of the United States, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott addressed the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a staunch anti-LGBTIQ organisation that's been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. The ADF supports recriminalising homosexuality. Abbott addressed the ADF in January 2016 when he spoke against marriage equality. He will again address them later this month.(9)

This followed hot on the heels of the US voting against a United Nations resolution condemning the death penalty being imposed for having gay sex. There are six countries that actually execute people for being in same-sex relationships: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia. In doing so, the US joined 12 other nations to support executing gay people, including China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.(10)

There is no attack on the freedom of religion or freedom of speech of those opposed to marriage equality. Instead, the almost militant No camp is propagating the hate and abuse that LGBTIQ people have experienced for years. The No camp is demonising the Yes campaign and making it into some sort of battle against political correctness. They are making this into anything but about the real issue, which is that consenting adults want to be able to marry they person they love, regardless of gender. LGBTIQ people simply want the same rights as everyone else to marry. Hence ... wait for it ... marriage EQUALITY. The fabric of society will not unravel if Adam and Steve marry each other.

Challenging the lies and bigotry of the No camp is not an attack on their freedom of speech. It is, however the exercising of freedom of speech by those who are not fooled by the homophobic fear campaign being waged by the No camp.

So why is this so significant? Many on the No camp claim they are voting No 'for the children'. Yet, their very behaviour is exactly what is causing great angst and increased self-harm among LGBTIQ children. They have opposed the Safe Schools program which aimed to teach students tolerance and understanding of LGBTIQ people and hopefully end bullying. Looking at how their parents are carrying on, the country needs the Safe Schools program more than ever. Clearly, they do not understand the negative impact that their actions have on people. National Party senator Matt Canavan displayed his ignorance of this when he said that people should 'stop being delicate little flowers and have a proper debate ... Can’t we all just grow a spine and grow up? ... The debate hasn’t been that bad.' Not surprisingly, mental health experts criticised Canavan. Before calling this public survey, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was warned that this debate would be toxic and harmful to LGBTIQ people. Mental Health organisations have seen a significant increase in people accessing their services since the survey was called.(11)

Demonstrating the No camp's complete lack of concern for children, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, stated that claims of LGBTIQ suicides were emotional blackmail, even though five mental health groups have advised that legalising marriage equality could prevent 3,000 adolescents from attempting suicide per year.(12) This isn't just a lack of concern, it is the outward expression of hatred towards LGBTIQ people by people who claim to be Christian, who claim to be defenders of the nation's moral values. Apparently, when given a choice between suicide and marriage equality, these 'Christians' would rather see kids kill themselves, while accusing them of emotional blackmail, than allow loving people to marry. No wonder, there is such a high incidence of self-harm among young LGBTIQ people, when they are made to feel they have no future; when they are made to feel they are an abomination in the eyes of a God who would rather they die than live a normal life.

Author Jodi Picoult most succinctly expresses the importance of acceptance of LGBTIQ people, when she stated, 'Gay teenagers are four times as likely to attempt suicide as straight ones. I wish they knew that there's nothing wrong with them; that they are just a different shade of normal'.

Voting for marriage equality is not forcing others to do anything they don't want. That would be the No camp who are forcing LGBTIQ people to live by the values imposed by people who propagate fear and hate. The No camp is fighting tooth and nail to protect their own selfish and misplaced interests. This selfishness that forces bigotry in the name of 'family values', was summed up in the word of the renowned writer, Oscar Wilde, a person who suffered for years, including being jailed and exiled, because of his homosexuality ... and just a reminder, Tony Abbott will have twice addressed a group that supports recriminalising homosexuality. Wilde's words resonate today as much as they did more than 100 years ago and perfectly describe the selfishness of the No camp:

'Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live'.

The No campaign has included advertising which uses dog-whistling typical of people who have never been oppressed or victimised. It claims marriage equality is 'political correctness' being run by the 'thought police', and invokes the boogey man of 'unknown consequences'. The No campaign may as well replace their ads with people running around in circles carrying signs warning the sky will fall in, while screeching, 'help, help, I'm being oppressed because I can't oppress others'.

In Oscar Wilde's day, the homophobes wanted LGBTIQ people in the closet. 100 years later, they still want the 'love that dare not speak its name' to remain unspoken - this is the real attack on freedom; the attack on equality.

Taking this further, and revealing their true aim, anti-marriage-equality group, The Coalition for Marriage, stated in an interview with The Guardian on 20 October 2017, that they supported the right of service providers to refuse service for any wedding whose 'message' they disagreed with. This was in response to numerous questions from The Guardian which included scenarios such as 'mixed faith, mixed race, who had engaged in sex before marriage, used contraception or been divorced'.(13) This is the real threat from the No campaign, the actual attempt to dismantle anti-discrimination legislation, to allow discrimination ... it is no wonder that the No campaigners are being called homophobes and bigots when they are supporting the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race or any other criteria these small-minded people disagree with.

And they claim it is the Yes campaign that is attacking freedom of speech and religion‽ They hide behind the facade of religion when it suits them. I'm sure we're all familiar with their hypocritical support of the human rights abuses meted out by right-wing politicians in direct contravention of the bible that says to look after the poor, the widow, the oppressed and the 'stranger in the land' (the refugee), while these same politicians claimed to be Christian.

To quote from Dan Brown's latest novel, Origin, 'To permit ignorance is to empower it'. Lyle Shelton has already stated that if Yes is victorious, then the No campaign will continue unabated(14), so regardless of the outcome of the survey, the bigotry of the No campaign must continue to be challenged.

This public survey should never have happened. Politicians are the only ones who can change the law. They should have just put the marriage bill to parliament and voted on it ... as they will have to do once the survey is over. Rather than making an issue of 'same-sex' marriage and all the hate and fear that has accompanied opposition to it, it should be called for what it is ... marriage equality ... or simply: marriage.

Pink on marriage in interview with Gaydar Radio, 19 September 2012(15)


1. Nine News, Mary Jordan, 'It affects nobody else': Former Canadian Justice Minister says marriage equality hasn't hurt religious freedoms, 12 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

2. Sydney Morning Herald, Broede Carmody, 2GB, 3AW didn't play Macklemore song during NRL broadcast, 2 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

3. SBS, Natasha Christian, Priest who supports same-sex marriage suspended from Anglican Church for 'tones of blasphemy', 2 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

4. The Independent, Tom Embury-Dennis, Donald Trump's Justice Department launches bid to make being gay a sackable offence, 27 September 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

5. Buzzfeed, Dominic Holden, Jeff Sessions Just Reversed A Policy That Protects Transgender Workers From Discrimination, 6 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

6. ABC, Donald Trump says transgender individuals can no longer serve in US military in any capacity, 27 July 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

7. The Independent, Maya Oppenheim, Donald Trump to become first president to speak at anti-LGBT hate group's annual summit, 12 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

8. Human Rights Campaign, The Lies and Dangers of Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Accessed 17 October 2017.

9. Huffington Post, Josh Butler, Tony Abbott To Visit Anti-LGBTIQ 'Hate Group' Again, 19 October 2017, Accessed 19 October 2017

10. The Independent, Tom Embury-Dennis, US votes against UN resolution condemning gay sex death penalty, joining Iraq and Saudi Arabia, 3 October 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

11. The Guardian, Paul Karp, Mental health expert attacks Canavan's 'grow a spine' comment on marriage equality, 18 September 2017, Accessed 17 October 2017.

12. The New Daily, Luke Henriques Gomes, LGBTI suicide fears are ‘emotional blackmail’, says ‘No’ campaigner Lyle Shelton, 18 October 2017, Accessed 19 October 2017.

13. The Guardian, Paul Karp, Marriage equality opponents call for broad right to discriminate, 21 October 2017, Accessed 21 October 2017.

14. Star Observer, Jess Jones, Lyle Shelton says the No campaign won't take Yes for an answer, 19 October 2017, Accessed 21 October 2017.

15. Huffington Post, Pink Talks Gay Marriage, LGBT Fans And 2012 Election In New Interview, 20 September 2012, Accessed 17 October 2017.

Updated 21 October 2017.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Abbott: the architect of ugliness in the marriage equality debate

Abbott: the architect of ugliness in the marriage equality debate

It doesn't take former Prime Minister Tony Abbott long to demonise others for political expediency. It's how he rolls.

Within moments of being headbutted by a self-proclaimed hater, Abbott managed to accuse the Yes campaign of perpetrating most of 'ugliness' of the worsening Marriage Equality survey and to also state that crime against LGBTIQ people was 'long gone'. Eric Abetz, who was with Abbott that evening, made the contradictory statement that the incident wasn't typical of the Yes campaign, but it highlighted the general "ugliness" of the movement.(1) Abetz then said it was 'harbinger of what is likely to occur' if same-sex marriage were legalised(2).

As it turns out, Abbott was headbutted by Astro 'Funknukl' Labe, an anarchist and DJ from North Hobart, who has since stated that his actions had nothing to do with Marriage Equality and everything to do with fulfilling a life-long ambition to headbutt a fascist ... oh, that and his personal hatred of Tony Abbott. He went on to call Tony Abbott 'an evil c***', and stated 'It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It’s just about Tony Abbott, the f***ing worm that he is. ... All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I’d had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the c***'.(3) Astro Labe waxed lyrical by describing Abbott as a 'completely disgusting person' who doesn't respect others. He went on to describe Abbott: 'He's one of the sickest examples of why Australian society is so archaic in 2017. There's no connection to the Bible in his actions. He's a gentrified rich kid. He personifies everything I hate politically, and he's not even good at it ... If I see an opportunity to improve my life and those around me by nutting Tony Abbott, I'm a pretty pragmatic guy'.(4) 

During a television interview on 22 September 2017, taking a contemplative drag on a cigarette, Labe explained, 'It has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. I decided I'm never going to get the opportunity to headbutt Tony Abbott again', with a what-can-I-do shrug of the shoulders, he concludes, 'so I seized the moment'.

This clearly articulated hatred of Abbott was Astro Labe's motivation for the headbutt, yet Abbott used this assault to attack the Yes campaign ... nothing like two wrongs making a ... oh wait, nothing right about that.

An ugly incident by a drunk anarchist fulfilling his bucket list, was exploited by Abbott to vilify the entire Yes campaign. 

The headbutt was an unacceptable form of political protest and Yes voters were quick to denounce it. As for Abbott's claim that most of the ugliness has been from the Yes campaign, here's a shortlist of the No campaign's crowning glories:
  • Violent assault and subsequent hospitalisation of the godson of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd(5). The perpetrator was allegedly yelling, 'I hate faggots! I f***ing hate faggots'.(6) 
  • A 14 year old girl received death threats from the father of a classmate(7)
  • Numerous accounts of vile homophobic abuse(8) 
  • Significant scare-mongering and blatant lies promulgated by many in the No campaign, some of which have been addressed on this blog previously (refer below to 'Related articles').
The demonisation of the Yes campaign is no great surprise. Many in the No camp have been trying to portray themselves as the victims in this debate, even though hate crime has been the cause of emotional and physical trauma, including killings, of LGBTIQ people for years ... often at the hands of those who are now in the No camp, opposing marriage equality.

Tony Abbott is the architect of the 'ugliness' of this debate. It was him that shirked his parliamentary responsibility by refusing to debate marriage equality, instead making a nefarious promise of a plebiscite at some distant time in the future. This kicked the issue so far downstream that Abbott was no longer Prime Minister when it was raised again.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was advised that the plebiscite-now-survey would be highly divisive, and would cause great harm to LGBTIQ people by sending the message that they're an aberration, that they're not normal, that their relationships are not legitimate or worth the same as a heterosexual person's relationships. Turnbull denied any claim that the marriage equality debate would be hurtful or offensive. Yet, here we are ... with violence, abuse, and irrational conclusions ... meanwhile, mental health agencies have reported an increase in the number of LGBTIQ people accessing their services since the survey was released(9). And Abbott and his ilk continue to victimise the victims of homophobic violence and abuse.

No voters are upset that people on the Yes side, are calling them bigots and homophobes ... even though for many of them, they are bigots and homophobes.

While it is ok to vote No because that's how you interpret the bible or because you believe in a 'traditional' family unit; what isn't ok is to spread fear and lies. A phobia is an 'irrational fear or aversion to something', so it is homophobic to perpetuate fear of marriage equality and LGBTIQ people. 

Many of the No camp's arguments have been irrational and pure rubbish, including claims linking marriage equality to pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and marrying bridges. Some of these voters dispute the idea of anthropomorphic climate change but blame earthquakes, floods and hurricanes on same-sex marriage. At the No campaign launch, there was the claim that legalisation of marriage equality would usher in a period of thought crimes, in which it will be illegal in deed and thought to oppose same-sex marriage(10).

Nothing like a campaign of fear when you're trying to prove you're not homophobic.

Sadly, people love being scared and many a successful political campaign has been run on a platform of fear ... such as both John Howard and Tony Abbott whipping up racism and xenophobia, using fear of refugees and Muslims, to scare the electorate into voting for them. And disturbingly it worked.

The No campaign are well aware of the power of fear, hence their incessant attacks on the Yes camp, on LGBTIQ, on ill-defined concepts such as 'cultural Marxism', 'gender fluidity', 'neo-Marxist agenda'.

Poor ol' Karl Marx ... blamed for anything that Conservatives disagree with

As a side note, speaking of the Neo-Marxist Agenda, if I could speak to anyone in history it would be Karl Marx ... I want to know how he knows Neo and what their agenda is. Maybe there is something in this, after all The Matrix was a transgender film, whose director, Lana Wachowski was forced out of the closet during the making of the Matrix series. Some years later, Lana's sister and co-director of The Matrix, Lily Wachowski, also came out as being trans-gender(11). The Matrix was metaphor for transgender - take one pill and remain who you are, take the other and bust out of the Matrix, see how deep that rabbit hole goes. But I digress.

The No camp's pet claim is 'won't anyone think of the children'. Yet, 12% of same-sex couples have their own children living with them and their partner. Studies have shown that children in same-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as those in opposite-sex parented families(12).

Switching off the white noise and dog-whistling from the No campaign, Marriage Equality is purely about two consenting adults choosing to marry. The benefits from this include tangible mental health benefits that come from being an accepted member of society. It will mean true equality for their relationships, which is not currently the case. No campaigners claim there is equality, because of changes implemented in 2008 by Labor, to remove discrimination in de facto same-sex relationships. However, there are still differences not equality. Same-sex couples face far more rigour in proving their de facto status then opposite-sex couples, and for many, their next of kin status is not recognised which can add all sorts of complication and heartbreak to situations, including during health care or when one partner passes away(13)(14). Marriage Equality will remedy this.

Astro 'Funknukl' Labe - Abbott-hater & anarchist

Tony Abbott trying to turn Astro Labe's headbutt into something it isn't, is purely about turning the No campaign into the victims. However, LGBTIQ people have suffered hate, discrimination, stigma, rejection and violence for years(15). Despite Tony Abbott claiming that attacks on the LGBTIQ community are 'long-gone', this is not the case, with 18% of young LGBTIQ people experiencing physical homophobic abuse and 61% experiencing verbal homophobic abuse(16). A New Zealand pastor even preached a sermon in which he stated, 'My view on homo marriages is that the Bible never mentions it so I'm not against them getting married, as long as a bullet goes through their head the moment they kiss ... because that's what it talks about ... not homo marriage, but homo death'.(17)

When Abbott and many others in the No camp accuse Yes voters of being hypocritical in their intolerance of the No voters' freedom of speech, they are being disingenuous. No-one is stopping No voters from exercising their freedom of speech, however, people are calling out and challenging the veracity of their claims. This is not an attack on free speech, but the exercising of it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of retort. In terms of tolerance, there is a little thing called the Paradox of Tolerance ... in other words, to tolerate intolerance is to destroy tolerance. It is necessary to challenge intolerance in order to preserve tolerance.

Yes voters are not stopping anyone from doing anything. That would be the No voters who wish to prevent two people from marrying the person they love and choose.

Kevin Rudd's godson, Sean - victim of  alleged homophobic bashing by No campaigner

Marriage Equality will help to remove the stigma and rejection that LGBTIQ people experience, and will help reduce the incidents of self-harm among LGBTIQ adolescent(18). Surely, if the No campaign is truly concerned about the children, this is plenty reason enough to vote FOR marriage equality, rather than continuing with the rejection and demonisation of LGBTIQ people.

It's time to move from headbutts, vile personal attacks and demonisation of LGBTIQ people, to wedding rings, marriage certificates and living happily ever after 'till death do us part' ... regardless of gender.


1. Herald Sun, Claire Bickers, Malcolm Turnbull condemns 'unAustralian' headbutt attack on Tony Abbott by gay marriage supporter, 22 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

2. The Age, Michael Koziol, Matt Maloney, 'Nothing to do with same-sex marriage': Anarchist DJ who headbutted Tony Abbott, 22 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

3. The Australian, Joe Kelly, Primrose Riordan, Tony Abbott 'headbutted': man charged, 22 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

4. The Guardian, Adam Morton, 'Nothing to do with marriage equality': alleged Tony Abbott attacker speaks out', 22 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

5. ABC News, Man charged with punching Kevin Rudd's godson in same-sex marriage row, 15 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

6. Huffington Post, Josh Butler, Kevin Rudd's Godson Allegedly Assaulted in  Homophobic Attack, 13 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

7. Pink News, Meka Beresford, 14-year-old targeted with death threats over support for marriage equality, 19 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

8. Huffington Post, Josh Butler, LGBTQ Aussies Share Stories of Vile Homophobic Abuse with #TheyGetToVote Hashtag, 14 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

9. ABC News, Same-sex marriage survey sparks spike in access of LGBTI mental health support, 18 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

10. The Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Koziol, Thought crime fears motivate same-sex marriage opponents at 'no' campaign launch, 16 September 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

11. The Huffington Post, E.A. Lockhart, Yes, 'The Matrix' is a Transgender Film, and Some of Us Noticed That a Long Time Ago, 9 June 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

12. Australian Government, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Lixia Qu, Ken Knight and Darryl Higgins, Same-sex couple families in Australia, September 2016, Accessed 22 September 2017.

13. SBS, Liam Elphick, Do same-sex couples really have the same rights as married couples? 21 September 2017, Accessed 23 September 2017.

14. Amnesty International, Hannah Robert, Fiona Kelly, Explainer: What Legal Benefits Do Married Couples Have That De Facto Couples Do Not?, 22 September 2017, Accessed 23 September 2017.

15. Australian Government, National Mental Health Commission, Statement on Marriage Equality, Accessed 22 September 2017.

16. ABC News, Jessica Haynes, SSM: Are attacks on the LGBTI community actually 'long gone', 22 September 2017, Accessed 23 September 2017.

17. New Zealand Herald, Dubby Henry, West Auckland pastor preaches gay people should be shot, 15 August 2017, Accessed 23 September 2017.

18. Black Dog Institute, Marriage equality improves mental health, 21 February 2017, Accessed 22 September 2017.

Related articles on Ranting Panda

Love is Love & Fear is Homophobia

NO! The YES campaign is NOT worse than Racism - a response to Karina Okotel's claims.

The simple right to say 'I Do' and the real consequences of marriage equality

The Tennis Legend, Lesbians and the Devil

Updated: 23 September 2017.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Love is Love & Fear is Homophobia

Love is Love & Fear is Homophobia

The No campaign in Australia's upcoming marriage equality survey, played their hand early by revealing that they will run a campaign of fear if marriage equality is legalised; declaring that everything from bestiality to marriage with inanimate objects will suddenly become the norm ... it is clear that fear-mongering and catastrophising is their modus operandi as they discuss everything but the real consequence of marriage equality, which is simply that two people in love can get married.

Oh, even though they are running a campaign of fear ... don't call them homophobic because ... er ... according to them ... they are not afraid ... right ... yep. The Oxford English Dictionary describes phobia as an 'irrational fear or aversion to something'. The No campaign: Irrational, tick; fear, tick; aversion, tick. Yep, it ticks all the elements of phobia ... ergo, the No campaign is homophobic!

Let's quickly go to bigotry - because that's another thing they don't like being called. Firstly, it is not bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage - everyone is entitled to an opinion. So why are some of them being called bigots? A bigot is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as 'a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance'. It is one thing to hold different views, but to force another group to live by those views is bigotry. Preventing someone from marrying the person they love because you are so obstinately unable to accept their love, is bigotry. Conversely, marriage equality does not force anyone to marry someone of the same sex, nor does it force opposite-sex couples to divorce. There is no impact on heterosexual people. They are still free to marry whoever they want, to have children if they can and want, to divorce, to criticise homosexuality. That doesn't change. Yet, the obstinate No campaigners are preventing people from marrying in order to enforce their intolerant views - that is bigotry!

One of the tactics of the No campaign has been to catastrophise issues that followed marriage equality in other nations, so let's unpack some of those.


An article in The Spectactor(1), listed four things that supposedly happened in Britain after same-sex marriage was legalised.

1. Gender reassignment surgery will no longer need medical consultation. The UK government stated that this was to continue on building an inclusive society for all people, including the LGBTI community following the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, marriage equality in 2013, and Turing's Law in 2017 that posthumously pardoned men who'd been charged under the now abolished anti-homosexuality laws(2). Medical diagnosis is seen as an intrusive and unnecessary procedure for someone who wants to change gender. The law aims to make it easier for LGBTI to transition to the gender of their choice. How is this a bad thing? It's only impact is on trans and intersex people, and given the significance of it, it isn't a decision that they would make lightly.

2. Freedom of religion. This point is argued on MP Justine Greening stating that churches should 'reflect modern values' and marry same-sex couples which currently the Church of England is not legally allowed to marry. The Speaker of the House also stated that in true equality, people should be able to get married in a church if they choose. And why shouldn't they? Nonetheless, in Australia, it is proposed that religious leaders would have the option as to whether or not to allow couples to marry. This will mean that there will be a number of churches available for couples to marry in, and those who feel strongly against conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples can still say no. How is this a problem?

This point went on to discuss a Pentecostal Christian couple who were denied the ability to foster children because they 'would not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable'. They argued that this was because of THEIR religious views. The court ruled that the right to live in a non-discriminatory home took precedence over religious views. And why shouldn't it? It is already well known that LGBTI children face significant emotional trauma over rejection and difficulty in reconciling their sexual orientations to those that parents, guardians, schools and churches try to force on them. Why should adults who refuse to accept homosexuality be allowed to foster homosexual children. What sort of impact would this rejection and emotional abuse have on the child. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. No-one is preventing this couple from worshiping in the way they choose, it is however, about ensuring homosexual children are raised in a nurturing and welcoming environment.

The article claimed that the Vishnitz Jewish Girls School, which in 2013 (prior to marriage equality), was assessed by Ofsted (the body responsible for assessing schools) and 'passed with flying colours'. It then claims that in 2017 (after marriage equality was legalised), Vishnitz was assessed again by Ofsted and failed the school assessment 'on one issue alone', namely the 'inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment' and is now facing closure as a result. It has since been revealed that this is a lie. Marriage Equality became legal in the United Kingdom in March 2014. Vishnitz was already running foul of Ofsted prior to this date for a number of reasons as stated by by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) on their website(3), which included failing 'to have policies in place that would require it to report incidents of abuse and neglect. ECAJ went on to state that the UK Equality Act 2010 protected sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The UK Equality Act explicitly allows for schools to teach their own beliefs about sexuality and marriage 'in a way that does not disrespect LGBTIQ people'. In October 2016 and May 2017, Ofsted found that Vishnitz was not meeting the standards required to respect LGBTIQ people. Furthermore, the school failed on a number of other issues not related to  LGBTIQ people, including 'facility maintenance, lack of a medical room and poor labelling of suitable drinking water'. In May 2017, Ofsted found the school had rectified these issues, except for the requirement to respect LGBTIQ people. Ofsted did not mention teaching marriage equality and certainly was not forcing Vishnitz to teach gender reassignment surgery(4). Vishnitz is protected under the UK Equality Act to teach their own beliefs, as long as it encourages respect for LGBTIQ people. Is there anything wrong with respecting others?

Is the right to disrespect others at a school level, at an educational level, what the No campaigners want? Are they arguing that it is ok to lie in order to make one's point and that children should be indoctrinated to disrespect others? What an example to set children by people who claim they have the children's best interest at heart.

It should be made clear, that not all Christians feel threatened by marriage equality. There is a large number of Christians who support it, including groups such as Australian Christians for Marriage Equality(5).

3. Freedom of speech. This section talked of horrendous bullying that anti-same-sex marriage campaigners suffered, including excrement being thrown at one person's house and their children receiving death threats. Clearly unacceptable. However, this is an extreme example and fails to acknowledge the violence and abuse that LGBTI people have suffered for years at the hands of those who feel they are an 'abomination'. During the Australian debate over marriage equality, there have been terrible claims made about the consequences of marriage equality, including it leading to pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy. Even those who think they're being less ludicrous, still draw illogical conclusions with no evidence, such as marriage equality will damage children and fundamentally change society. The No campaign is based on such non sequiturs aimed at shutting down the Yes campaign.

Those who argue that proponents of marriage equality are opposed to free speech forget one very important point; free speech cuts both ways. If someone voices an opinion, others are entitled to challenge that opinion. That is free speech. It isn't the proponents of marriage equality who are trying to stop people doing or saying anything; that would be the No campaign who want to stop people in love marrying those they love and being able to talk openly about it.

The article goes on to list a number of workers, including public servants, who have lost their jobs for failing to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The funny thing about public servants is that while they may not always agree with a particular government policy, they have agreed through their employment to act impartially - regardless of their political views. A public servant who has a significant conflict of conscience would have to seriously consider their future if they can't remain impartial.

The article cites the example of a North Ireland bakery that discriminated against a marriage equality activist who asked them to bake a cake with the words 'Support Gay Marriage'. Any employee who feels strongly against homosexuality, whether they worked for a large chain store or a small business, would have to question their future employment if they refuse to serve customers on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is reminiscent of the days when some Christians refused to serve mixed-race couples.

The fact is that baking cakes is not a religious activity, it is a commercial one, so no-one's religious activities are being curtailed. In terms of freedom of speech, well speech just happens to be that - speech. It is not behaviour, and it certainly isn't the right to discriminatory behaviour. A person may feel strongly against someone or something, and they generally have the freedom to speak out about it - other than when it comes to hate speech or behaviours that encourage violence against others.

Now that LGBTI people might have the same opportunity to marry as others, the bullying has intensified and the homophobic No campaigners are trying to portray themselves as the victims, yet LGBTI people have been victims of bullying and abuse for years.

The hate-speak and fear-mongering of the No campaign, has given impetus for a neo-Nazi group called Antipodean Resistance to oppose same-sex marriage through vandalism and spreading of vile posters that link same-sex marriage to pedophilia(6). The group admits they recruit radicalised individuals and hasn't ruled out violence in achieving their goals. Is this the sort of bigotry, discrimination and hate crimes that the No campaign feels should be part of the future?

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for a reason; and that is to protect the rights of all people to live a life in which they enjoy the same rights as others, free of discrimination. Is this really too much to ask?

Speaking of freedom of speech, like with much of the No campaign, this is only freedom for some people - namely, those who the No campaigners agree with. Recently, a Victorian church refused to marry a heterosexual couple because the bride posted her support for marriage equality(7). The Presbyterian minister stated that this contradicted the 'teachings of Jesus and the church' ... really? Considering there are a large number of Christians supporting marriage equality, this is a shaky premise to take. It is unrealistic of any church to expect everyone they deal with to have exactly the same views as them. Freedom of speech? Not in the convoluted mentality of the No camp and disturbingly, Prime Minister Turnbull is condoning this attack on freedom of speech.

4. Children. The article discussed a number of independent religious schools which were brought to task for failing to promote homosexuality and gender reassignment. It mentioned that there was a push by the Minister for Equalities for sex ed classes to be LGBTI inclusive so that students were 'equipped for life in Britain as it is today'. This is similar to the concerns that were aired over the Safe Schools program run in Australia a couple of years ago. Safe Schools specifically addressed LGBTI issues with age-appropriate classes from primary school to high school. The idea was to reduce the stigma that LGBTI children already experience and which is the prime cause of their emotional trauma.

A recent study by the Centre for Social Research In Health at University of New South Wales concluded that marriage equality has a beneficial outcome on the mental health of LGBTI adolescents(8). Surely anyone who is concerned about children would accept that this is a good thing. If children are taught to accept that not everyone is born heterosexual, that there are a number of variations to sexual orientation, and for that matter gender is not always a simple male/female issue, then this will help to reduce rejection and bullying of LGBTI children ... which clearly won't happen if they follow the lead of homophobic parents.

There is no disputing the fact that some people are born intersexual. This is clearly biological. Why should intersexual people be required to live in hiding so that some small minded people are not offended? As for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender - the science around the causes is complex with evidence to indicate biological causes for some, while issues in early development may be the cause for others. Regardless, some people are gay ... or lesbian ... or bisexual ... or transgender... or intersexual ... or some other variation. This exists regardless of whether LGBTI people can marry.

Marriage Equality will not force or encourage anyone to 'become' gay.


Similar arguments to the above have been claimed in Canada(9), such as supposed restrictions on freedom of expression, parental rights in public education and religious institutions' right to autonomy. Each of these have been addressed above regarding Britain and also addressed below about Australia. Ultimately, the opponents of same-sex marriage want the right to discriminate regardless of the harm it does to LGBTI people and their children.

Back to Australia

Failed Labor Party leader, Mark Latham claims that same-sex marriage will open a 'can of worms'(10) by allowing 'gender fluidity', into the Marriage Act. This has been the latest ploy by the No campaign to remove the debate from same-sex marriage to ... shock horror ... any two people getting married regardless of their gender identity. Really? We're still looking at two people getting married. Latham then bangs on that 'Through Neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated the class-room'. Goodness. Poor old Karl Marx cops a hiding for stuff he never did or said. But resurrecting the 1950s 'reds under the bed' zeitgeist is part of the fear-mongering against same-sex marriage .... and they want us to believe they aren't homophobic. I'm not sure what part of 'safe' and 'respectful' that Latham and opponents of Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships don't understand. Why would they want the opposite: unsafe and disrespectful?

Imagine being a child who feels they don't fit within the definition of 'normal' or expected behaviour for their gender? Often they are battling with confusion and depression. Children are most likely to either withhold this information or discuss it with the people they generally trust most, their parents. How much will it damage them if their parents reject them, abuse them, tell them they're an abomination in the eyes of God. If people truly care about children, they would support programs such as Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships.

In an insightful article on transgender children, Benjamin Law quotes Paul Thoemke, an American case manager for LGBTI children, who says '... I sometimes think the greatest risk for these kids is their families'(11). If those families understood that gender and sexuality is a spectrum, they would be more inclined to support their children instead of forcing them to be someone they aren't .... or worse ... rejecting them, abusing them, kicking them out. Law goes on to quote statistics regarding the high levels of homelessness among LGBTI young people; America up to 40%, Britain up to 25%, and estimated in Brisbane of around 13%. Clearly families are rejecting their LGBTI children. Is this the world that the No campaign is campaigning for?

Ironically, the anti-marriage-equality people are concerned about children being forced into gender and sexuality models that they don't believe are natural, when in fact, it is THEY who are forcing LGBTI children into lives that aren't natural for them. 

What's the worst that could happen?

Consenting LGBTI adults will be able to marry the person they choose.

Will Ministers or other people of faith be forced to marry same-sex couples? No.

Will butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers be forced to sell their wares to same-sex couples? Possibly - because ... anti-discrimination. Hmm ... let me see, not baking a cake - yeah that will teach people for being gay - goodness, if the cake is tasty enough, it might even motivate them to give up the gayness. What's more important? Someone's bigoted interpretation of scripture, or someone's right to live a life free of discrimination and abuse!

Will kids be denied the right to a mother and father? No. Marriage Equality does not steal children from their parents. Divorce does that, yet No campaigners are strangely silent around this ... perhaps because quite a number of them are divorced, so that would mean shining the light on themselves. 12%  of LGBTI people in Australia already have children of their own who live with them(12), and further, they are legally able to adopt. Additionally, a comprehensive study into child-rearing over a 30 year period concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as competent and effective as heterosexual parents. The authors observed that the inability for same-sex couples to marry adds to stress for their families and that 'because marriage strengthens families, and in so doing, benefits children's development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married'. (13)

Will schools teach gender fluidity rather than the binary male and female genders? Unlikely, but so what if they do? Biology classes will obviously go into detail about male and female as these are the two genders required for reproduction, however, will it kill anyone to understand that the world is not black and white, that there are people who are intersexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender or have other views on gender and sexual orientation. This is not the end of the world, it just means children will have a better understanding of the real world than their parents did - perhaps this means they won't grow up with obstinate and intolerant views on those who are different to them.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are a spectrum, they are not a neatly categorised binary system. Why should children be taught an inaccurate paradigm of gender because reality is too uncomfortable for some who can't reconcile their limited views with fact.

The rainbow that represents LGBTI people is appropriate as sexual orientation and gender identity are not black and white.

The No campaigners are trying to re-engineer themselves as the victims in this debate, claiming they are being bullied, demonised and victimised. Why? So they can continue bullying, demonising and victimising LGBTI people who have suffered from homophobic violence and discrimination all their lives.

Many of the No campaigners are Christian. Which means they are bound to have repeated the scripture that 'perfect love drives out fear'. So why are they so hell-bent on using fear to drive out love?

The positive effects of marriage equality

With all the fear-mongering from the No campaign, we cannot forget what marriage equality will actually achieve:

1. Same-sex couples will have the same opportunity as heterosexual couples to marry, providing greater legal protection and recognition of their next-of-kin status.

2. Same-sex couples will be able to provide the support of a recognised family for their children.

3. A reduction in the stigma of same-sex couples and their children.

4. A reduction in hate-crimes against LGBTI people.

5. Freedom of religion for LGBTI people.

6. Freedom of expression for LGBTI people.

7. Greater community awareness and appreciation that gender and sexuality are not binary, that there is a spectrum and no matter where on that spectrum people are, they are entitled to the same opportunities as others.

If two consenting adults are in love, why shouldn't they get married? Their ability to love, to marry, to commit, is not dependent on their genitals or where they want to put them.

Love is Love - regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation.

It's time to end the discrimination and victimisation.

It's time for marriage equality.


1. The Spectator Australia, David Sargeant, What's changed in Britain since same-sex marriage? 7 September 2017, Accessed 9 September 2017.

2. UK Government, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, Government Equalities Office, New Action to Promote LGBT Equality Accessed 9 September 2017.

3. Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Factual inaccuracies surrounding London's Vishnitz Girls School #DebateWithoutHate, 4 October 2017, Accessed 6 October 2017.

4. The Guardian, Paul Karp, Claim UK school failed inspection over marriage teaching 'factually inaccurate' 5 October 2017, Accessed 6 October 2017.

5. Pink News, Jasmine Andersson, Christian group backs marriage equality campaign in Australia, 30 August 2017, Accessed 9 September 2017.

6. ABC News, Danny Tran, Antipodean Resistance Neo-Nazi group trying to sway Australia's same-sex marriage postal vote, 5 September 2017, Accessed 9 September 2017.

7. The Age, Michael Koziol, Malcolm Turnbull defends right of church to refuse to marry couples who support gay marriage, 15 September 2017, Accessed 15 September 2017.

8. Hopwood, M., Treloar, C., Kolstee, J., Koonin, J., (2016), The Impacts of Marriage Equality and Marriage Denial On the Health of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people, Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW, Australia,

9. The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse, Bradley Miller, Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada, 5 November 2012, Accessed 10 September 2017.

10. The Daily Telegraph, Mark Latham, Same-sex Yes Vote Will Open a Can of Worms, 29 August 2017, Accessed 9 September 2017.

11. The Canberra Times, Benjamin Law, Why do transgender children raise the hackles of 'tolerant' Australians?, 9 September 2017, Accessed 10 September 2017.

12. Australian Government, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Lixia Qu, Ken Knight and Darryl Higgins, Same-sex couple families in Australia, September 2016, Accessed 22 September 2017.

13. Perrin, E.C. & Siegel, B.S., 2013. Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Pediatrics, 131(4), pp.e1374 – 83, Accessed 10 September 2017.

Updated 6 October 2017.