Senator Penny Wong cannot let go of this obsession with silencing the voice of the Australian people in the promised plebiscite. See yesterdays ARTICLE in The Guardian.
She says that views which oppose Labor's stated policies to introduce SSM "within 100 days" and fund the appalling Safe Schools program are a "peril" and no further discussion should be entered into.
Let us look at the list of "perils" that Senator Wong identifies from the recent election campaign:
1. That Chinese voters in the electorate of Chisholm "believe same-sex marriage is “against normal practice”". That is a very bland and factual statement about normality: statistically, physiologically, culturally, any way you cut it. A statement of the obvious - no "peril" to see here. Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.
2. That "Chinese people didn’t want the next generation “destroyed” by “rubbish” like transgender identity" - as peddled relentlessly by the Safe Schools material. But wait a minute - Senator Wong's former party leader, the Hon Mark Latham, said just the same thing. He wrote:
Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”. It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity… As parents we need to make our views known to election candidates and school leaders alike. Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation.
The Chinese are only speaking the same common sense as Mr Latham on a gravely serious matter. Good on them all. Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.
3. Hey, the AMF president is in her sights, too!
Another example was a flyer authorised by a past candidate for Liberal preselection and circulated in marginal seats that warned that a vote for Labor was a vote for “radical gay sex education”, Wong said.
Be proud, Senator, and own your party's policy! Your leader says he is "absolutely supportive" of the Safe Schools program in all its uncensored and mind-messing detail - as the flyer stated: "the radical ‘Safe Schools’ sexuality program teaches children they can be any gender they like; makes Year 7 students imagine they are 16 and going out with a person of the same sex; has taught kids they can have “two virginities, my first time with a chick and my first time with a dude” and much more…"
That, Senator, is the very essence of "radical gay sex education".
Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.
4. The one objectionable item on the Senator's list is not even an endorsed piece of election material - and nobody has owned it. Written in Chinese and distributed to one part of one safe liberal electorate (in other words a farce as a campaign leaflet), allegedly it says that homosexuals cannot have children and therefore it is a "death curse" to families. That is not a very civil way to make the point about the sterility of homosexual acts, and we share the Senator's objection. But if she is having to pick up scraps of unendorsed and obscurely translated paper in Chinese from one booth in one seat to use as her reason to stop a civil national debate proceeding amongst mature citizens, that is really dredging the bottom of the bucket.
Now we get to the pointy end of her interview with The Guardian, where she damns the character of all people who disagree with her:
I doubt the integrity of the opposing campaign,” she said. “I doubt the principles of those who have already demonstrated a willingness to stoop to hate speech, misinformation and falsehoods in their desire to avert equality.
The Senator is at risk of being removed from the chamber for that gratuitous bit of slander. What "hate speech", Senator Wong? What falsehoods? And what grounds do you have to question the integrity or principles of your fellow Australians? Remember - you are the servant of the Australian people, not its self-important judge.
Finally, the bottom line from the Senator:
"I oppose a plebiscite because I don’t want my relationship, my family, to be the target of discussion, disrespect and derision.”
Right, Senator: so it is OK for you to pose with your lesbian partner and her baby girl in the newspapers - as you have more than once - when you want to create a useful political image for the LGBT cause, but nobody else is allowed to discuss what such a family structure means to children? Free kicks to your side to argue that it is right and good for a lesbian couple to deliberately deprive a child of her father, but nobody is allowed to express a different opinion? We know of no person on our side of this debate who is interested in "derision" of any relationship, but we are all interested in "discussion" - and a politician should not be trying to silence discussion.
The AMF holds a different opinion to the Senator's on same-sex family structures, and we will say it now, as we have for years, and will continue to say during the plebiscite: no two women have the right to deliberately deprive a child of her relationship with her dad. To do so is to place the emotional desires of adults above the primal kinship needs of a child. It says a father does not matter to a child. It is, in our view, an abuse of adult power and deserves the strictest social criticism - indeed, we commend the law of the Senator's home state of South Australia, where (last time we looked) a lesbian couple is not allowed to create a child by artificial reproduction. Why such a law? Because the lawmakers, rightly, considered that it is not in the best interests of the child to be deliberately deprived of a father.
The rights of adults end where the birthright of a child begins. That point of view will not be silenced, Senator. Viva la plebiscite!Share