Thank you for your thoughtful article, Spencer.

Certainly, the Labour government failed to consider the ground swell of concern among ordinary Australian about the potential threat to religious liberty and free speech. It wasn't just practising Christians who objected to the treatment of Israel Folau and while this case in itself cannot be attributed to Labour, their policy was clearly drifting towards restricting religious freedom.
Another factor Labour and the Greens have failed to consider is the growing resentment of their claim to occupy the "moral high ground" and their assumption that their opponents are somehow lacking in intelligence. I think the "average" Australian has said "Underestimate me at your peril".

Quite frankly, Australia is ruled by gay rights radicalism under their rainbow banner.

The dangerous ideology has set itself in a position of power, usurping the political legitimacy of parliament.

It now governs free speech through corporate institutions, which include the public service.

For example, there once was a time when a school teacher was sacked for immoral behaviour. Now he teaches it to our sons and daughters.

This must change!

Dan

Hi Dan,

You mention that rainbow that the homosexual movement seems to have patented. Wouldn't a rainbow be more a symbol of heterosexual relationships than mono-homosexual ones ?

That male-male and female-female relationships are, by definition mono, i.e. same-sex ?

That their symbol should be a single colour, perhaps beige or grey, while the rainbow should be reserved for the great binary and ecstasy of heterosexual relationships ?

A fool can ask question that wise people can't answer easily.

Joe

An answer to many people's prayer and a dodging of many people's nightmare.

The real sleeper cells were those young folk, around 40%, who just didn't bother voting in the last election? Or showed up and drew pictures of penises on their ballot forms.

There is only one way to address the latter pictorial protest vote and that is by the reintroduction of optional preferencing. Or a first past the post contest, where the leading candidate must win over 50% of the vote or be forced to a runoff post-election contest between the two leading contenders.

Other than that? We could introduce online voting if it couldn't be compromised by hackers or dead folk getting up to vote and often. Online voting would at least limit the number of pictorial protests, being substituted for a formal vote!

As to the Author's assertions? I don't believe God was on the role nor contesting as a candidate! Nor asserting his/her authority anywhere in the Middle East, Turkey, China or Russia?
Alan B.

Maybe who knows but. It'd be ok if folau played in the centres at the tigers for the next 3years and then tried to become the federal member for Macarthur, if he doesn't want to do anything different,