Religious believers in Australia will be protected from being sued if they make anti-gay comments, under a proposed law that Scott Morrison, the prime minister, said would guard against “cancel culture”.

Why not just have the one overarching law? Folks can say what they want in the absence of, say, libel and immediate incitement to violence? We could call it free speech or summat?

13 thoughts on “Erm?”

  1. We could call it free speech or summat?

    A dangerously radical idea Tim – you must be some kind of Nazi as you obviously want the genocide of teh gayers.

  2. Obviously some sort of sop to the Mohammedans. I doubt that it will apply to the Christian “God hates fags” brigade.
    Be interesting to see the Left’s argument against it.

  3. The same bit of the Old Testament that has a single verse about banning the gays, also has a verse that bans tattoos. Will street preachers be allowed pour out hate speech against tattooed people to?

  4. Yeah Otto. I think it’s outrage about the Christians being able to speak freely too, and even worse the average white Aussie, that’s jacked the bill up to about 60 pages so far.

    No doubt once the lawfare has done its job, matters will be worse than ever.

  5. Bogan, I’ve often thought that the three year cycle in Oz is too short and leads to rushed or poorly thought out laws or more often inertia. Is there any desire to lengthen a parliament, do you think ?

  6. No Otto, I’ve never heard of any proposals to lengthen parliamentary terms. I suspect that the pollies’d hate it because they’d have to wait longer for another chance to be elected.

    Proportional representation means that we have to make coalitions, so this tends to clog up any attempt to do anything. Unless the left can gaslight the Libs into adopting some of their stupid views, and get them pushed through Parliament.

    Still, since an election is coming up, I’d guess that’s why ScoMo is pushing this one. The rugby player Israel Folau is still remembered for being sacked for saying, ‘Gays will go to hell.’

    Though I’ve noticed the media giving ScoMo a good boost lately. They attack him directly for his betrayal of the planet by failing to buy into all the bullshit at Glasgow, and his corrupt support of the fossil fuel capitalists. That certainly appeals directly to his voting base – you know, people like me.

  7. What do you have to do to prove that you are a religious believer? Will saying “Jesus, those queers need killing off!” be enough? What about a small cross you can hang next to your medallion which guarantees certified exemption?

  8. Will it be legal to say “religious believers are bonkers”? Will it be legal to add “some more than others”?

    Will it be legal to say “some religious believers are evil bastards and their wickedness is expressed in their religion”?

    Will it be legal to say “some religions instruct their believers to be wicked”?

    Will it be allowed to quote Randolph Churchill’s remark while reading the Bible “God, isn’t God a shit!”?

    P.S. I hope it won’t become compulsory to make anti-gay comments. But you never know.

  9. That certainly appeals directly to his voting base – you know, people like me.

    With the army now carting people off to quarantine camps, normal voting priorities should be suspended and replaced with bricks.

  10. Thanks very much BB, the idea of three year parliaments dates back to the Civil War, which us why I found it interesting.

    It is nice to see that Oz’s federal allows for the same sort of deranged power crazed maniacs that we have running the devolved governments.

  11. under a proposed law that…would guard against “cancel culture”.

    But it won’t ‘protect against cancel culture.’ Cancel culture is not some aggrieved party threatening to sue because you said “God hates fags” or “Allah will punish the unbelievers.” Cancel culture is a group boycotting (or threatening to) your store because your CFO is a member of a gun club, or shouting down a speaker because he has the audacity to suggest academic positions be filled on the basis of merit, not melanin.
    None of the ‘cancel warriors’ has the least interest in a court challenge – it is more expensive, more time consuming, and less certain of victory than throwing a tantrum. That latter fact is our fault, for giving in to them too often.

  12. That would involve the idea of having a government of limited and enumerated powers though. No one’s gonna go for that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *