ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG thinks that Iranian-born ALP politician Dastyari deserved the insults he got





Revealed: Why Labor-supporting western Sydney voted 'No' to same-sex marriage in HUGE numbers - with migrant Chinese and Muslim communities against any change

It’s a bit awkward for the left how the white people they hate voted yes and the migrants they love voted no

The Australian Bureau of Statistics also provided a breakdown of results via state and federal elect...
Australia has voted overwhelmingly in favour of same sex marriage - with some dramatic exceptions.

A whopping 12 of the 17 seats that voted No were in Sydney's west - taking in suburbs such as Bankstown, Auburn, Villawood in the south and Ryde closer to the city.

The only other major region to follow suit was outback Queensland, a traditionally conservative area.

Two of the country's most respected analysts argued major reasons behind western Sydney's surprise result were its cultural diversity and large migrant population.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said: ''They are all the areas of Sydney with the highest migrant population and have high proportions of non-Christian regions. 'They're religious areas and culturally diverse areas'

ABC election guru Antony Green said : 'I understand there's been some quite specific campaigning within the Muslim community, the Chinese community, in parts of western Sydney'

ABC election guru Antony Green pointed out NSW had the highest proportion of people born in non-English speaking countries.

Demographer Mark McCrindle told Daily Mail Australia he was fascinated by the results released by the Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday.

He pointed out even the 'Bible Belt' style suburbs of Sydney's north shore and Sutherland Shire had voted Yes.

Mr McCrindle doubted the high vote totals in these areas were a reflection of the success of the No campaign.

'I think... any No campaigning has been pretty minimal and not particularly strong in either organisation or impact.

'What we have here in western Sydney or south-west Sydney electorates is just a perspective of people again - because of their cultural and religious diversity - that is different... to what the majority of the rest of the electorates had,' the social researcher said.

Keysar Trad, the spokesman for the Islamic Friendship Association, said: 'It's not just Muslims'.

He pointed out his area of south-west Sydney, which reported some of the largest No vote totals, was home to churches, including of the Orthodox and Maronite variety.

'What this shows it the clergy of all faiths can be successful in educating their parishioners as to what this is all about,' Mr Trad said.

No campaign spokesman Lyle Shelton said he was disappointed, but will respect the result.

SOURCE





'We'll protect our kids from gay sex education': No vote leader vows to fight any 'consequences' from marriage vote

Shattered 'no' voters have licked their wounds behind closed doors after more than 61 per cent of Australia supported legalising same-sex marriage.

Lyle Shelton, the head of the Coalition for Marriage, called the result 'disappointing', but did manage to offer 'congratulations to the Yes campaign' on Twitter.

While thousands of 'yes' supporters packed into public spaces across the nation, Mr Shelton and supporters watched the announcement in private at a hotel in Sydney.

With the result always expected to see a win for the 'yes' vote, Coalition for Marriage supporters planned little in terms of post-result events - with Mr Shelton fronting the media to make a somber statement after the announcement.

Vowing 'to protect Australian kids from being exposed to radical... sex education in the classrooms', Mr Shelton said he hoped the vote would not have 'consequences'.

'Those who seek to deceive parents or deny them information about what their kids learn in school will find themselves called to account by millions of Australian mums and dads who now know what is at stake,' he said.

'Those who seek to place restrictions on freedom of speech or freedom of belief will face tough opposition from millions of Australians who understand how a change in law is used to silence those who disagree.

'Those who seek to push these ideologies through our schools and institutions will not get away with it so easily.'

FEARS OF 'NO' VOTERS

- Gay sex education in classrooms

- Employees being sacked for opinions

- Small businesses refusing to provide services for same-sex couples

- Protection of religious freedom

- Restrictions on freedom of speech

Labelled everything from 'dumb c***s' to 'bigots', one woman even received a threat from a 'yes voter' who vowed to 'f**k her children' if they were gay, in September.

A spokesperson for the Coalition for Marriage said while the abuse had died down in the months since the campaign began, it was expected to heat up after the result.

Among shocking messages sent to the women were abuse and threats of violence to both them and their families.

'F**k you and f**k your spastic kids,' one wrote, while another said: 'Dumb c**t'.

'You're a disgusting f**king disgrace of not only a mother, but a human being,' said one man.

'You are a horrid mother and should be ashamed to call yourself Australian,' another wrote.

Federal politicians painted a troubling picture of Australia if same-sex marriage was legalised in recent days, naming a number of fears of what a 'yes' vote would mean.

Among their fears were parents losing rights to object to gay sex education, workers being sacked for expressing an opinion and bakers taken to court over cake.

Even Labor senators are worried, with several backbenchers voting against same-sex marriage on religious freedom grounds, to the chagrin of their leader Bill Shorten.

In September, a Canberra woman was fired for saying 'It's okay to vote no' on Facebook, with her boss Madlin Sims calling it 'homophobic hate speech'.

Ms Sims, who runs a party entertainment company, said the woman was fired because she was 'extremely out and proud about her views on homosexuals.'

'As someone who has an responsibility to the vulnerable people we work with, could not risk her voicing those opinions to any children of ours,' she said.

SOURCE






Treasurer Scott Morrison leads in fight to preserve parent rights

Treasurer Scott Morrison is leading behind-the-scenes negotiations with supporters of the Dean Smith same-sex marriage bill, as conservative MPs demand the preservation of parental rights but concede on protections for businesses that refuse commercial dealings with gay wedding ceremonies.

Mr Morrison has emerged as the most vocal cabinet voice on stronger freedom of speech and religion protection amendments to the proposed bill amid accusations that members of Malcolm Turnbull’s executive had misled MPs over their promise to guarantee robust protections.

Leading conservative ministers Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann have come under pressure from colleagues over claims they “walked away” from earlier commitments.

The Australian understands the Treasurer has already approached colleagues of Senator Smith seeking a “goodwill” agreement to rescue amendments from the rival bill put forward by Victoria’s senator James Paterson, and which were of most concern to conservatives. Chief among them will be the “safe schools” clause preserving the rights of parents to remove children from classes that do not accord with their values, anti-detriment provisions to forbid unfair treatment in the workplace of people who hold traditional views of marriage, and broader religious freedom protections including for charities.

“The issue of same-sex marriage is settled … the issue now is religious freedom, freedom of speech and parental rights,” Mr Morrison told The Australian. “That’s what we need to debate now in good faith and come to a landing on.”

The move for detente between warring tribes within the Coalition came as former prime minister John Howard warned conservative colleagues to not “get hung up” on whether cake makers and florists should be allowed to conscientiously object to supplying their services to gay weddings.

“Clearly the decision of the public should be respected by the parliament,” Mr Howard said, “but I think it is also very important (to address) quite legitimate concerns that were raised by many people, including me and my friend and former deputy prime minister John Anderson, about the protection of parental rights, religious freedoms and freedom of speech.

“These are not small matters. It is a pity that the government, as I asked, had not spelled out before the vote how these matters were going to be covered in any ­enabling legislation.

“I don’t regard the Dean Smith bill as being sufficient. I think the two things that really do matter are freedom of religion and speech and parental rights.”

Victorian frontbench MP ­Michael Sukkar said the Yes campaign promised Australians that there would not be any consequences for parents’ rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and religion. “Now we must hold them to those commitments,” Mr Sukkar said.

Liberal National Party senator Barry O’Sullivan accused a “cohort” of senior cabinet ministers of misleading the partyroom and called on the Prime Minister to ­intervene. “There is deep discontent amongst a lot of Coalition senators at the way that this has been managed, the introduction of this bill,” Senator O’Sullivan said.

“It’s almost as if some cohort within the executive — there’s ­evidence that we’ve been misled, there’s evidence that decisions have been taken where they haven’t consulted with the broader caucus of the government members.

“And there is deep anger about that ... This is about procedure ... Today we will cede the government to the opposition and the Greens — that’s the effect of this motion this afternoon.

“My call is for the Prime Minister to just intervene in this and slow the process down ... so all voices can be heard and we can develop a piece of legislation that’s comprehensive and reflects not just the will of the people to have same-gender marriage, but the five million Australians who have resisted this and want to see that we provide the appropriate protections in future so we don’t fill the courts and human rights commission with cases.”

Mr Anderson said parliamentarians needed to remember that almost five million Australians had voted No.

“They are worthy of respect and our protections for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and the right to raise our children according to our values are very weak by international standards,” the former deputy prime minister said. “I do have to say to my ­Coalition colleagues, ‘Walk away from that, I would suggest, at your peril’."

SOURCE





Forget hurt feelings, free speech is a birthright

"Human rights are not the same as civil rights — the former are universal and arise at birth; the latter are gifts of citizenship, bestowed by the state on an individual"

The case for same-sex marriage in Australia and the protection of religious freedom could have happened hand-in-hand.

It could have been dealt with in an honest and simple way. This is how a proposal for same-sex marriage should have been put to the Australian people. Two simple clauses should have been laid in front of them. Clause 1: Same-sex marriage is legal. Clause 2: Notwithstanding anything in Clause 1, any right, privilege or freedom that was permissible before the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is permissible after it.

The plebiscite ought to be marked down as a failure of the Turnbull government and the same-sex marriage activists to recognise same-sex marriage and guarantee religious freedoms in a simple and honest manner.

Their duplicity is a glaring reminder of what the so-called “progressive” mission has stripped from the liberal project, deliber­ately confusing and conflating universal rights bestowed on us at birth with civil rights that are gifts of the state.

This mission to lump anti-discrimination rights in with universal human rights is retrograde, and it has happened only by ignoring the history of universal human rights as the foundational principles of a liberal democracy.

As Liberal MP Tim Wilson pointed out when he was human rights commissioner back in 2014, human rights are not the same as civil rights — the former are universal and arise at birth; the latter are gifts of citizenship, bestowed by the state on an individual.

Human rights are not the same as social justice aspirations, that nebulous tag given to the pursuit of equity, an equally ambiguous notion.

And human rights are not the same as anti-discrimination laws, Wilson said, pointing out that human rights are often about exercising discrimination.

Not every discriminatory act is a wicked one, such as the freedom to associate with those we choose and the freedom to speak about and to believe in different ideas.

Human rights conflict not just between themselves but with myriad other civil rights bestowed by the state and social goals set and sought by government, industries, individuals and activists. The question then is whether a universal human right should be treated as less important than these other pursuits. So-called progressives answer yes, and have worked tirelessly to downgrade universal human rights, targeting freedom of speech and freedom of religion as particular hurdles to them imposing their views on others.

To understand the depth of the human rights corruption, consider how section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has been used as a weapon of first resort by those claiming to have been offended by views they disagree with. This is part of a reckless and ill-considered pursuit of feelings-based rights bestowed by the state over universal rights that accrue be virtue of us being human beings.

Consider, too, how section 17 of Tasmania’s anti-discrimination law was used by trans-activist and Greens candidate Martine Delaney, who claimed her feelings were hurt by a pamphlet published by Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous that defended traditional marriage. Section 17 pro­tects hurt feelings but there is no protection of religious freedom. The universal human right to freedom of belief has been superseded by a right not to be offended.

It doesn’t matter whether cases about hurt feelings succeed or not; it’s enough that the law is used to shadow box free speech and freedom of religion, creating a chilling effect on what people can say and believe in a liberal democracy.

Casting free speech and religious freedom as inferior to anti-discrimination laws has been central to the same-sex marriage campaign. And this illiberal agenda has been enabled by silence and obfuscation about religious freedom by Yes advocates within the Turnbull government; by George Brandis, Dean Smith, Trent Zimmerman, Christopher Pyne and other so-called moderates who are more intent on claiming a legacy than doing what genuine liberal politicians should do: find the right accommodation between a new civil right to same-sex marriage and a universal human right to freedom of belief.

Canberra’s elite should remember that in polls taken throughout this process, the percentage of Australians who support guarantees for religious freedoms has been consistently higher than the percentage supporting same-sex marriage.

Remember too that census figures released in June show a growing percentage of Australians tick “no religion”, up from 19 per cent in 2006 to 30 per cent last year. The conclusion is that Australians recognise that guaranteeing religious freedoms is not just a matter for the religious: it goes to the core of individual freedom in a liberal democracy because religious freedom is inextricably linked to freedom of expression.

In mid-September, the Prime Minister said he wanted to “reassure Australians that as strongly as I believe in the right of same-sex couples to marry, even more strongly, if you like, do I believe in religious freedom”.

If Malcolm Turnbull and his government walk away from first principles, from their liberal principles premised on the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, they will inflict further self-harm on a government and a party that can ill afford more brand damage.

Rather than playing dodge-ball, Turnbull should be praising James Paterson as a young Liberal who understands what’s at stake, not just politically but culturally after more than three decades of the liberal project and human rights being vandalised by the progressive mission to insert hurt feelings into the law at the expense of individual liberty and genuine tolerance.

Paterson, a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, released his draft private members bill on Monday. It goes much further than the other bill pushed by Smith, the Liberal senator from Western Australia. Paterson’s bill extends religious freedom beyond the church, mosque or synagogue door. It means anyone directly connected to a wedding ceremony may decline services if same-sex marriage is against their beliefs. It provides a limited right of conscientious objection, too, so that sincerely held views are protected.

It protects speech that is not threatening or harassing, rein­forces the rights of parents to decide whether the so-called “safe schools” agenda fits their values, and more.

The Paterson bill seeks a genuine accommodation between same-sex marriage and universal human rights, though a compromise may be somewhere between the two private member’s bills.

Following the release of Paterson’s bill on Monday morning, Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy immediately tweeted: “Serious question: why are some people’s freedoms more equal than others?” Other critics claim Paterson’s bill amounts to an opponent of a bill of rights now wanting a limited bill of rights. It’s a cheap shot that betrays a poor understanding of universal human rights as the foundational principles of a liberal democracy.

In a liberal democracy, we shouldn’t need a bill of rights to entrench freedom of expression or religious freedoms; these universal rights accrue at birth, and it’s up to the state to make the case for caveats and carve-outs from those rights. Alas, human rights have been so corrupted, the system is now so topsy-turvy, that we have to go cap in hand to government asking that freedom of belief be explicitly accommodated by same-sex marriage laws.

Those with a poor grip on history and freedom should be careful what they wish for. It’s stunningly ignorant to assume that treating freedom of expression and freedom of belief as second-order rights won’t one day bite those who treat them as disposable today.

The outcome of this contest is not just a matter for gay people and religious people. It’s a matter for all of us in a liberal democracy. It will settle, one way or another, whether the country can finally confront and reconcile a 30-year project aimed at the sustained corruption of classical liberal ideas of universal human rights.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here