Latest newsletter #150 Click to read online

Anti-discrimination again rears its ugly head

Moira Kirkwood

Moira Kirkwood BA (Hons) University of WA, Grad Dip. Info Lib Stds,WAIT (now Curtin) edits our E-mail News Service. Email Moira: to receive our email news.

The Gillard government proposes an “overhaul” of antidiscrimination laws, on a pretext of streamlining and simplifying litigation cases to “consolidate Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation from five acts to one”. New provisions are to remove all difficulties for plaintiffs, and to place the burden of proof and the full financial burden of litigation entirely on defendants. As columnist, Chris Merritt, points out The Australian, November 20, 2012), this constitutes a presumption of guilt until proved innocent – a reversal of justice as understood in democratic societies.

It has further been pointed out that there are serious concerns about repercussions for the business sector. The proposed legislation would be particularly burdensome on small businesses in having to pay legal costs in defending cases.

The Institute of Public Affairs has launched a campaign to address serious violations of freedom of speech. “Discrimination” has been defined as “unfavourable treatment”, including any conduct that “offends, insults or intimidates another person”. Political opinions that cause offence may become illegal. Union ties also may be a basis for discrimination.

Among such legitimate concerns, however, the gravest danger in the proposed legislation may pass unheeded, namely inclusion of a category of anti-discrimination against “sexual orientation” and “gender diversity”. This is a measure which radical activists have been attempting for decades to impose on the entire human race at national and international levels.

In Australia such activists have failed in an attempt to impose same-sex “marriage”. They now pursue another avenue to violate our democratic rights and freedoms and legitimize their deviant lifestyles. It has become apparent that the elephant in the room of the SSM debate is a threat to the fundamental and inalienable rights of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience/religion, and parental rights.

There is irrefutable evidence that, wherever same-sex unions (under any term) have been legalised, any disagreement becomes a “hate crime”, penalties for which include imprisonment. All citizens are liable to be coerced to participate in same-sex “weddings”, whether as marriage celebrants (religious or secular), hiring out of venues, caterers, musicians, or any other provision of services. Children are subjected to compulsory indoctrination in homosexuality (at variance with biological science and human reason) that such behaviour is “natural” and “normal”. Parents are powerless to protect their children and are even denied a right to know the content of the curriculum.

When attempts to impose same-sex “marriage” on a community fail, those who seek other means of compulsion to “normalise” diverse forms of sexual activity have a Plan B, namely “anti-discrimination” legislation. In fact SSM is merely the tip of the iceberg. Those who practice any diverse behaviour are deemed worthy of special protection.

An agenda has long been in traction under an umbrella designation of LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex). Various other letters have been added to the acronym, but the ultimate category that must inevitably be included, if this “logic” is followed to its conclusion, is P for Paedophile.

In 2009 an issue was raised in the US Congress in relation to the introduction of “hate-crime” legislation. This was termed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Prevention Act, after a homosexual who had been brutally killed in 1988 during a robbery. It is very doubtful whether his sexual orientation were in any way linked to the crime, nevertheless this case gave rise to establishing a special class for all persons living alternative sexual lifestyles to provide them protection against so-called “hate”.

The term “sexual orientation” was included in the proposed US legislation. Rep. Steve King proposed an amendment that “The term sexual orientation as used in this act does not include paedophilia”. The amendment was rejected. Rep. Alcee Hastings argued that “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race … gender, sexual orientation, gender identity … or all philias and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward (by the American Psychiatric Association) need not live in fear because of who they are”. They were “born that way”. It seems rather that the entire community is to live in fear because of what they do.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel spoke out against H.R. 1913 (House of Reps Bill) a number of times. “As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling ‘hate speech’ laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle,” he said.

Legislation currently proposed here in Australia would make it a criminal offence to express any opinion at variance with granting special privileges of “protection” to “sexual diversity”, hitherto known as sexual perversity.

It is a sad irony that, at a time when a Royal Commission has been set up to investigate child sexual abuse for the protection of children, simultaneously legislation is being proposed that would ultimately condone paedophilia.

The inevitable consequence of sexual anarchy is demolition of the family, described in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society, entitled to protection by society and the State”.

<< Back to newsletter