Dean Smith's mile high SSM conversion not credible ;the Brandis " marriage to anything at all cost " bill needs explaining

by Ganesh Sahathevan 






George Brandis, Australia's next High Commissioner to the UK, comes 
range of other coercive methods



Readers are invited to compare Dean Smith's story of how he changed his strongly held views on marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. His conversion does not seem remotely credible, and we have the spectacle of  George Brandis's now obvious, central role campaigning for the YES vote. Brandis SC seems happy to forget that he is the Attorney General, and ought to play a neutral role in the matter.
Obviously, SSM is a matter close to heart for Brandis more than  Dean Smith,who not so long ago declared:
"I believe in God. I believe in the biblical story of the crucifixion and the resurrection. I pray. I reject the suggestion of marriage equality. The claim to equality ignores the widely accepted fact that marriage is an institution that has a long and well-accepted definition – a definition that is heavily laden with cultural meaning and values crafted by custom and by law over the years."
The Australian Family Association seem to understand better than Smith what "his" bill entails but then again, one ought not expect him to understand work that is not his.  Smith will continue to look like a fool for so long as Brandis refuses to explain his work. 

END 







AFA action: email alert

Smith bill for "gender-fluid" marriage NOT what Australian’s voted on

View in browser instead?
Facebook
Donate


By removing the possibility of protections being written into the Dean Smith bill to redefine marriage, following the ‘yes’ vote in the marriage ballot, and indicating that it may be dealt with in a separate bill at some time in the future, the Government is asking people to trust them to provide adequate protections to our freedom of religion, speech, association and action, not to mention our right to protest and right to conscientious objection.
But, the decision by the Turnbull Government to appoint a four person panel to look into protections for religious freedom is no guarantee that any protections will be granted to people who hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman, whether those views are based on religion or simply the natural law.
And why should we trust the government? Australians were asked in the marriage survey question, “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” Yet, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed the Dean Smith Bill to be put to parliament was for "gender fluid" marriage: “Well, two people will be able to get married, regardless of their gender, yes”…. “any two people will be able to get married… I think under the bill that’s being debated in the senate, it is basically between two persons regardless of their gender, that’s the proposal”, he said.
Combined with the removal of the definition of male and female from the Federal Sex Discrimination Act in 2013 and insertion of the definition of gender identity as the "gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth", "gender fluid" marriage will force gender-fluid sex education and shared-gender toilets, showers, change rooms and facilities upon school children, force women’s jails and women’s shelters to house men identifying as women with the threat of rape that that poses, allow men identifying as women to compete in women’s sporting teams and force identifying documents such as births, deaths and marriage certificates, passports and driver’s licences to include an indeterminate or unspecified gender.
Australian’s did not vote for "gender-fluid" marriage. They voted for "same-sex" marriage.
On that basis, the parliament has no right and no mandate to legislate for "gender fluid" marriage by passing the Dean Smith bill.
 END

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more