Helping Christians to make a difference
Dealing with current Issues
Helping Christian families to make a difference
Last week we reported on the latest news about the Infant Viability Bill, which has been introduced into the Victorian Legislative Council by Dr Rachel Carling-Jenkins (DLP). Rachel has added two short videos to the Infant Viability website, outlining the Bill.
The Bill will be debated on 25 MAY, 2016.
NOW is the time for ACTION!
Please share this with your church and your friends, post and SHARE on Facebook, Twitter etc!
Print it and hand it out!
Have you contacted your MPs yet? It is VITAL that ALL Victorians contact their SIX MPs (ONE in the Legislative Assembly and FIVE in the Legislative Council) – and ALSO the leaders of the political parties.
You don’t have to say a lot. Be polite and positive. Tell them that you are a constituent in their electorate and give your full name and address.
Ask them to support the Infant Viability Bill – it supports women and ensures that babies who are viable, those born after 24 weeks, are given every opportunity to live! And yes, it amends the awful Victorian abortion laws that allow a baby to be aborted up to birth.
FULL Contact details BELOW. PLus the details on the RALLY on Saturday 21 May at 2pm - and Rachel speaking at the Life Coalition Dinner on Saturday 14 May.
One of the promises of the federal Coalition that failed to materialise was the REMOVAL of Section 18C from the federal Racial Discrimination Act, which says it is unlawful to offend or insult a person because of their race or ethnic origin:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
We fully support the removal of s18C, because this section silences and censors people, who are too afraid to speak because they fear being taken to the Australian Human Rights Commission and to COURT!
The repeal of s18C all seemed to become too hard, as some in the Liberal Party didn’t want to upset ethnic and Jewish communities which ARE covered by the Act, and the Muslim community which would LIKE to be covered by the Act!
In this post we report on calls by former PM Tony Abbott to renew attempts to repeal s18C – and a new BOOK by law lecturer Augusto Zimmermann and two colleagues, which questions the constitutionality of s18C.
Tony Abbott calls for a renewed attempt to repeal s18C
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has recently called for a renewed attempt to repeal of 18C. The Courier Mail wrote,
“Warning of a new wave of censorship, Mr Abbott ... called for a new attempt to change racial discrimination laws that he abandoned in 2014… The provision was a “bad law” and backed a compromise proposed by Family First Senator Bob Day that would allow “offensive” and “insulting” statements but ban intimidation and humiliation.
“He argued all Australians have to accept “offensive, insulting, humiliating, and even intimidating” comments about divisive topics and warned “the alternative is a suffocating politeness at best”.”
A NEW BOOK – says s18C is ‘unconstitutional’
Augusto Zimmermann, a Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law and Legal Theory at Murdoch University in WA, along with colleagues Joshua Forrester and Lorraine Finlay, all from the Murdoch University Law School in WA, recently published a very interesting article in News Weekly, about Section 18C. They have followed it up with a book.
In the article, they highlight the case of an employee, Cindy Prior, from Queensland University of Technology – it involves the use of an ‘indigenous only computer lab’ and comments made by students after they were asked to leave the lab.
As Tony Thomas points out at Quadrant, it isn’t JUST Andrew Bolt and these students who are being sued!
He reports, “Right now the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is considering eighteen more complaints – a fact elicited by the Institute of Public Affairs via a Freedom of Information request. And in the past six years, as we now know, aggrieved citizens have lodged a stunning 832 complaints.”
He points out that the vast majority – 97% - are settled at ‘conciliation’ – behind closed doors, where we never get to hear about them!
From experience, having assisted many people who have been subject to a ‘complaint’ under various discrimination and vilification laws, we know that people who receive a complaint are told to NOT TALK about it– something we ignore, since it is vital that the public DOES HEAR about the imposition on free speech from these laws!
The important question the law experts ask … Is Section 18C, with its prohibition of insulting or offending, actually unconstitutional?
Read the article - 18C may render all speech ‘inoffensive’, News Weekly, 26/3/2016.
NOW for the BOOK…
Augusto and his colleagues have now published a book explaining why Section 18C is WRONG.
It is titled "No Offence Intended: Why s18C is Wrong"
Augusto writes, “In "No Offence Intended: Why s18C is Wrong", we explain that s 18C is too broad and too vague to be constitutionally valid. We argue that relevant international treaties do not support the sweeping scope of s 18C. Further, we argue that s 18C’s breadth and complexity impermissibly infringes the freedom of communication about government and political matters implied from the Commonwealth Constitution. In the course of our argument, the book also covers issues relevant to Australia’s common law legal tradition and liberal democratic heritage.”
The book had a launch at the University of Notre Dame in Sydney on 27 April – and there will be a launch in Perth, hosted by the Freedom and Prosperity Club this Thursday, 5 May. Click here for event details.
You can ORDER the new book online – click here.
Below are links to some articles mentioning the new book:
Quadrant online: Hundreds More Reasons to Detest 18C
Andrew Bolt's first post: Fight for free speech while you dare still speak at all
Andrew Bolt's second post: A wicked law that secretly gags so many
Last week, Casey Council, on the outskirts of Melbourne, voted to reject an application for a mosque. The Council cited planning reasons for their decision and said they listened to local residents.
A large number of protesters, organised by various groups, attended the Council’s meeting.
It didn’t matter to them that this was rejected on planning grounds (it is on a major road and in a ‘green wedge’, and a school for 1,000 students is planned eventually) – or that the Casey Council has previously APPROVED other mosques.
Many of the people supporting the mosque claim that ANY rejection is because of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’. Ironically, as I point out below, some of the protesters were from ‘revolutionary feminist groups’ – which are hardly the most likely collaborators with Islam!
We‘ve often noted that some of the main supporters of Islam and the building of mosques are the lobby groups on the LEFT. However, if Muslims were to ever gain power, it is the agenda of the left that they would be most critical of, with the left’s support for issues such as homosexuality, abortion and radical feminism.
When someone unfurled a banner saying ‘Stop the Mosque’ at an AFL game, prior to the Council decision, there was an outcry. But as Kirralie Smith, founder of Halal Choices and now a candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance, said, people take to displaying a banner at a football game when they feel they aren’t being listened to anywhere else. Kirralie’s short video clip on You Tube about the incident has received over 240,000 views.
So what’s it all about?
Casey Council rejects application for Narre Warren North mosque
Casey Council, on the south-eastern edge of Melbourne, unanimously rejected an application to build a large mosque in Narre Warren at their meeting early last week...
27 April 2016
The Infant Viability Bill has now been introduced into the Victorian Legislative Council by Dr Rachel Carling-Jenkins, who represents the Democratic Labour Party in the Western Metropolitan region.
The principles of the Bill are listed on the front page of the Infant Viability Bill website. The Bill focuses on preserving life when a baby is ‘viable’ and would stop abortions after 24 weeks.
Rachel gave an excellent SECOND READING speech for the Bill on 14 April. The speech explains the purpose and intent of the Bill.
There is one change – the Bill now sets the date for VIABILITY at 24 weeks from conception – one reason for the change, after discussion with medical professionals, is that most hospitals in Melbourne will actively try and save the life of a child born more than 24 weeks from conception, but not before. Catholic hospitals do this for babies 23 weeks after conception.
We’re now in the next phase … we NEED your HELP!
The DEBATE on the Bill will be held on 25 May.
- There will be a PUBLIC RALLY on Saturday 21 May.
- Contact MPs (and Party leaders) - It is vitally important that all Victorians CONTACT their Members of parliament – we all have ONE representative in the Legislative Assembly and FIVE representatives in the Legislative Council.
If the Bill passes the Legislative Council it will then go to the Legislative Assembly – so it is very important that you contact ALL your MPs – plus the leaders of the parties.
This post provides the DETAILS and links for the BILL, Rachel's Second reading speech, the Rally and Contacting your MPs and Party leaders…
1. Infant Viability Bill - Second Reading speech
Read Rachel’s SECOND reading speech – click here.
Another week (two, actually since our last News Update) and another thousand issues. I’ve been selective – I could easily write on another dozen topics!
Think of it as a ‘mini Journal’ – have a coffee and see what’s been happening.
Includes an Update on responses from TELSTRA – you’ll be amazed at how they are misleading the public!
Read the News Update: