More success for the homosexual political campaign

A political event I have long expected happened in June 2004. It may not be the first case, but it was the first case I have heard reported. I found the report on the website Religious Religious tolerance. These are the first paragraphs of the report:

Sweden passed a constitutional amendment during 2002 which included sexual orientation among a list of groups protected from being targeted by "unfavorable speech". The law protects persons of all sexual orientations equally: both heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. In practice, it will probably only be used to criminalize verbal attacks on homosexuals and those bisexuals who engage in same-sex behavior. [my emphasis]

During 2004-JUN, a Pentecostal pastor was convicted of directing hate speech against homosexuals during a sermon in his church. He was sentenced to one month in jail. Many in the conservative Christian community in North America were alarmed at this development. They feared that a similar threat might materialize against their personal freedom to cite their beliefs that homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation are sinful and immoral.

Of course, shutting people up with undesirable opinions – that's the immediate object of the powerful homosexual movement all through the world's liberal democracies. The traditional moral framework that has underwritten Western Society until now must go to be replaced by their opposing moral framework. No deviation – especially by Christians – is to be tolerated. All the evidence points to this. Enacting legislation with teeth was a goal that has been achieved. It remains now to tighten laws that will eventually penalise any utterance made contrary to the prescriptions of the homosexual activists. The homosexualization of society is the ultimate aim and we are well down the track.

By 'the homosexualization of society' I don't mean that the aim is to turn everyone into a homosexual, something that is impossible; I mean that the aim is to replace the traditional moral and political framework of Western society with the homosexual moral and political framework, and to the fix the priority of the homosexual state: the recognition that the state of homosexuality is of a higher quality morally and aesthetically, and being 'straight' implies an unenlightened condition and civic inferiority.

Just how well down the track we are in Australia, is amply demonstrated by the latest homosexual victory.

Homosexual activist, Gary Burns, declared Monday outside the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal: 'It is indeed the sweetest victory to knock off those who preach fear and hate in society (The Courier Mail).' This declaration came after the tribunal said 'comments by [Steve] Price and [John] Laws on Sydney's 2UE were "homosexual vilification within the meaning of the Anti-Discimination Act" and "even if done in good faith and in the public interest [were] not reasonable (The Daily Telegraph).'

Have a close look at the words of that decision: 'homosexual vilification within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act'. It's the law formulated and enacted by the ideologues of the dominant political class. Reminiscent of Soviet law-making and judgment? Something's not reasonable even though done in good faith and in the public interest? Despite their wriggling refining arguments, the law-makers condemn themselves with their own words. They are blowing great breaches in the centuries-old walls of our liberal democratic society.

But what were the precise words that caused Gary Burns great distress and sent him to the tribunal to be cuddled and comforted? What were the tremendous words that 'incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, and severe ridicule of homosexuals' (The Daily Telegraph)? What did Price and Laws say to draw that whining wimpish complaint that 'I was so distressed that I vomited...I felt as a homosexual male that I was less important, of less value in society' (The Age)? One can almost hear the flick of the wrist.

The truth is that Laws and Price said things that one would hear frequently in casual conversations in pubs and around the dinner table and BBQs. We'll see in moment what they were. But the immediate warning is this: the ears of the State are not far from your recreation or dinner table.

Burns's specific complaint before his tribunal friends was about Price's and Laws's comments on the two homosexuals, Gav and Wazza (Gavin Atkins and Warren Sonin) appearing on the Nine Network hit show 'The Block'. What particularly irked about Gav and Wazza was their insistence on skipping frequently in front of the cameras dressed only in their white underpants.

At the time I heard many comments from people who thought their behaviour tacky and objectionable and just the sort thing you would find homosexuals doing. The fact that the other three (heterosexual) couples on The Block did not behave in this manner seemed to support that opinion. That was something that the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal conveniently overlooked. But what did the tribunal find that Price and Laws said? Let me take it direct from their judgment. First Price:

19 In further comments regarding The Block, Mr Price:

- called the showing of a male homosexual relationship in the program “overly politically correct”

- asked of the inclusion of a homosexual couple in the program “Why do they feel the need to trick it up like that?”

- said “we all know that most interior decorators are gay”

- speculated on the making of a “Disneyland version of The Block”

- on three occasions to three different people speculated on the making of “the uncut The Block”

- said that in “the uncut version of The Block . . . they could do all sorts of grubby things at about 11 o’clock at night”

- said that in the uncut version of The Block participants would be “in the renovated spa together rubbing each other down with some sort of incense and oil”

- said that in the uncut version of The Block participants “could renovate with no clothes on at all”

- stated that “these two blokes like to renovate in their undies” and referred to this as an ‘admission’ that they had made

- volunteered as a description of the show that a homosexual couple are “renovating in their undies”

- said “They’ll be the first to ‘give them the arse’ I was going to say, but flicked out of that Block

- said “Now Big Brother, it’s rating its backside off”

- answered a query “Are you well and happy?” by saying “Very well and happy apart from the gay blokes who’ve taken over The Block . . .”

- called the homosexual couple “young poofs”.

20 Mr Price’s speculation about the content of The Block “uncut” was in a context that clearly indicated that he was referring to the representation of a homosexual relationship. In that context he said that in an uncut The Block “[w]e could renovate with no clothes on at all”.

21 When saying “give them the arse” and “it’s rating its backside off” Mr Price paused and gave emphasis to “arse” and “backside”.

22 Mr Price made these comments over a period of 50 minutes. It was the only topic that he maintained as a theme of his presentation throughout that time. [my emphasis]

23 Mr Price’s conduct ridiculed homosexual men. The reference to “grubby activities” verges on the contemptuous.

Oh, wow, gee whiz, how shocking! Yes, that is what Price said in a 50 minute period that wasted the time and money of some our richly remunerated public servants and earned their condemnation. Pretty tame stuff that you would have heard from thousands in response to the high camp antics of Gav and Wazza. Were Laws's comments any more shocking? Again from the tribunal's judgment:

26 Mr Laws’s conduct comprised comments he made in the period of a few minutes before 9.00 am, taking into consideration the manner in which he made them. As we set out in more detail below when considering whether the conduct was capable of incitement, some of what Mr Laws said was merely inquiries as to the nature and content of The Block. In further comments regarding The Block, Mr Laws: [my emphasis]

- responding to Mr Price’s saying “they’re renovating in their undies these blokes”, said “Oh God. Working on the ballroom”

- referred to the homosexual couple as “a couple of old poofs”, and as “a couple of young poofs”

- said ‘I don’t know what’s happened to Kerry’s taste”

- said “ I think Kerry is a man of good taste. I don’t know that he’d be happy for that being on at 6.30”

- referred to the homosexual couple “doing it in their little knickers”

- suggested that showing a homosexual couple on such a show indicates a lapse in “Kerry’s taste”

- responding to Mr Price’s saying “[w]e could renovate with no clothes on at all”, said “yeah, no you’re talking”.

27 The references to “Kerry” are to Mr Kerry Packer. Mr Laws clearly implied that to show a homosexual couple painting a room is in poor taste.

28 The tone that Mr Laws adopted gave emphasis to the ridicule that was conveyed by his comments.

Really, is that it? Oh, woe! Once again it is nothing more than thousands of viewers would have said in jest and satire about Gav and Wazza. Laws and Price were enunciating the thoughts and feelings of their fellow Australians in a typical mocking Australian manner. It was the same mocking manner that underwrites the great comedy successes on Australian television. It's the same manner to be found in healthy enjoyable social groups in Australia. Thus to bring the weighty authority of the State down on Price and Laws and punish them for their jest and satire has major political implications:

1. There is a concerted State attack on a deeply cultural aspect of the Australian way of life.
2. The ordinary person will have to think twice about expressing their private opinions about homosexuality, for it is clear that any negative or pejorative remark about homosexuals constitutes inciting fear, contempt and hatred of them. That's the reason Burns and his homosexual activist mates reach immediately for hyperbole.
3. Effectively, though not directly in law, a legitimate political and moral stand on homosexuality is outlawed by the State.

Of course, the tribunal and their political supporters will scoff at these assertions, claiming that there is a lot more to the legal judgment than the mere words used by Price and Laws, and my claims do not follow from their judgment. The tone, the manner, the profile of the radio personalities, the susceptibility of the audience and so much more have to be taken into consideration in the judgment. And, indeed, in a wriggling refining manner that would embarrass anybody who thought of themselves as sober-minded and rational, they go on to discuss these aspects.

The legal judgment and its professed scope is one thing; the political aspect is quite another. Few people will read the detail of the judgment; most of the community will hear of the punishment dealt out by the State to those jesting about homosexuality. They will have heard that the mild words they often use will be considered to 'incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, and severe ridicule of homosexuals'. The shadow of the soviet state will be felt and instinctively the ordinary person will remain silent. Just what homosexual activism wants.

That this whole episode is essentially political in nature is demonstrated by Gary Burns himself. His actions and words bespeak the activity of the professional homosexual activist thunderously bringing down the accusations of fear and hate in the face of something so prissy and trivial. We see it continually in a mostly compliant media. Are we to believe that Price and Laws caused Burns such distress that he 'vomited and felt less important, of less value in society'? Fair crack of the whip! Who could believe that someone could be really so whingeing, whining and wimpish in response to words which in themselves were pretty mild - something that the tribunal virtually acknowledges. If anything in this episode is calculated to cause the community generally to be confirmed in their stereotypical opinion of homosexuals and to feel contempt for them, it is Burns's absurd scarcely credible reaction.

But, no, we are not to be believe he is being truthful and sincere. It's a political tactic, no more no less. We are take it as political manoeuvring calculated to sway the sympathetic minds of The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal and to ensure that they condemn all pejorative statements about homosexuals as hate speech, no matter how trivial or serious.

This brings us to one of the great questions about this episode. Why didn't the media look into Gary Burns's background and find out who he is associated with? Why did he, in truth, take up the cudgel for Gav and Wazza when Gav and Wazza declared they were non-political?

In following comments I will look more closely at the pitiful argument that comprises the tribunal judgment.

Naturally, if Burns and his political mates get to read this, the first accusation that will fly my way will be the the charge of 'homophobia'. The status of the word 'homophobia' as the outstanding bigot word thus far of the 21st century is another discussion – for another time. But in ending, I will say that as far as Gav and Wazza are concerned fear does not come into it, and apart from their tacky antics in their underwear, I have nothing more to say about them. I hope they do well in the business they have set up since being on The Block. I have no political issue with them as long as they have no political issue with me. They are open to enjoy all the rights and protections of our liberal democracy, as I am. But I and others reserve the right in our liberal democratic society to meet political movements which are opposed to our political and moral ideas. We do not expect the apparatus of the State to shut us up because we take up our democratic rights.