Free speech in Australia under heavy threat over homosexuality

 Free speech is under siege. Everywhere we look, there’s a new attack on the rights and liberties of Australian citizens. In the same-sex marriage postal vote, gay-left militants are showing their true colours.

For them, “marriage equality” is not about love and tolerance.  It’s part of a spiteful obsession to get their own way in life, wiping out contrary points of view.  Instead of debating the issue, freely and openly, their preferred tactic is authoritarianism: vilifying, bullying and boycotting anyone who disagrees with them.

If a doctor like Pansy Lai says she believes in traditional man-woman marriage, they try to have her thrown out of the medical profession. If two parliamentarians have a civil debate about the Marriage Act, hosted by a beer manufacturer like Coopers, the militant tendency tries to close down the company. If parents organise a meeting at their local church to discuss the education of their children and Safe Schools program, as they did in Brisbane last Thursday night, gay-left protesters try to block them from entering the building.

Is this a forerunner to the type of division and intimidation that will dominate Australian politics if the Yes vote succeeds?

A nation where anyone who chooses not to worship at the altar of homosexuality and gender fluidity will be run out of town?

I fear for the Christian cake-makers and tailors who chose not to be involved in gay and transgender marriage ceremonies. In the United States, with the passage of “marriage equality”, these small businesspeople have been attacked and demonised — fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to defend their rights.

The only way to stop a similar reign of terror in Australia is to vote down the postal ballot.

The Turnbull government is not proposing to legislate to protect the religious freedoms of these people.

The only practical freedom for Christians and conservatives is the freedom of gay marriage never coming into law.

If gay-left militancy and legal inconsistency weren’t bad enough, last month there was a third strike against free speech in Australia.

The High Court refused to hear Major Bernard Gaynor’s appeal against his unfair dismissal from the Australian Army.

In June 2013, Gaynor received a notice from the Chief of the Defence Force David Hurley, confirming his sacking on the grounds of “intolerance of homosexuals, transgender persons and women” that were “contrary to (Defence’s) policies and cultural change program”.

As a political activist, in his private time, Gaynor had made a series of contentious statements — most notably, that he would not allow gays to teach his children at school. This is not something with which I agree, but so what. They are Gaynor’s children, not mine or anyone else’s.

As a father he has the right to decide what’s best for his family. Having outlined his views publicly, they should have been seen as an exercise in parental belief and free speech.

Hurley acknowledged that Gaynor “was not on duty, in uniform or performing any service for the Army at the time of the comments”.

He also said Gaynor had “interacted with male and female Defence members in a cordial and respectful manner in the workplace”. Gaynor was a decorated war hero, having served in Iraq. He hadn’t done anything other than articulate political opinions consistent with his Christian faith and parental responsibilities.

Yet he was out on his ear.

After two years of court action and huge personal expense, the High Court ended Gaynor’s matter by not even hearing it.

It’s like the old line about homosexuality: I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t make it compulsory.

In today’s ADF, it is compulsory, even in one’s private life, to gushingly support same-sex and transgender relationships. How is this relevant to national security? It’s another politically correct distraction from the core responsibilities of government.

Australia urgently needs a Free Speech Act. Twenty years ago, in the Lange case, the High Court declared that Australians enjoyed the “implied rights” of freedom of political speech. As our constitution is based on a vigorous parliamentary democracy, we need to be able to debate issues without censorship or punishment.

Yet in Gaynor’s case the High Court ignored this principle. If it won’t defend its own precedents for free speech, Parliament must legislate instead.

SOURCE