Sexual Politics

Samedi Sordide: Why I Oppose the Sydney Mardi Gras

The 2020 Sydney Mardi Gras (“Fat Tuesday”) parade is nearly upon us. However, it never takes place on Shrove Tuesday or indeed on any other Tuesday. It is always scheduled for the weekend. Its choice of name is now therefore as witless and anachronistic as many of its floats. In my opinion a decent respect for the integrity of the church calendar at the very least requires that it be renamed “Samedi Sordide”—Sordid Saturday.

You need not feel shocked at this suggestion. I am reasonably sure homosexuals and their fellow travellers who participate in the march or watch in Oxford Street or from their homes via the inevitably lavish SBS or ABC television coverage won’t mind the “sordid” descriptor; indeed, they will probably delight in it. Sleazy, slutty, debauched, decadent, outrageous—these are all adjectives that are regularly used to self-describe the behaviour and the appearance of participants and to promote their after-march events. Look at the publications and posters advertising the event and you will be left in no doubt about this. Abandonment to impulse and appetite whilst proudly disclaiming any sense of shame in doing so is the central credo of the festival of which the parade is the culmination.

I used to think the participants appropriated the use of such words ironically, as black activists might have used the word nigger, and many people might imagine that is still what is intended. But how can that be? Lubricious exhibitionism is decadent; celebrating egregious immodesty in dress and language and behaviour is sleaze par excellence, whether it has a straight or a bent angle to its presentation. It is just that relentless media promotion of a narrative of faux-sanctity about homosexual grievance has stopped us calling out this kind of public behaviour for what it is.

I think we need to speak honestly about what this parade now actually “celebrates”. I started with the name. Let me now take a closer look at the purpose of the event. In doing so, it may be that I articulate the views of many readers who have been coerced into not expressing their own view about a significant event that closes down a substantial part of our biggest city every year.

We should start by pricking the conceit that the parade has any form of commemorative status. Often attempts are made to give it a kind of activist-genealogical connection to the Stonewall Inn riots in New York in 1969, when violent opposition to anti-homosexual policing practices in the more bohemian reaches of Greenwich Village erupted and lasted several days. No fatalities were recorded and the police got as good as they gave in terms of injuries. But the riots have acquired phoney propagandist stature in the modern homosexual narrative, just as the “Chicago Seven” trial following the Democratic Party Convention in 1968 acquired in creating a political “counter-culture”, or as the Lady Chatterley obscenity prosecution in 1960 acquired in creating “the permissive society”.

The decriminalisation of sodomy in nearly all of the various states of Australia was achieved forty years ago but prosecutions had become rare long before then. Nearly everyone (including me) would now hold the view that such laws should not be re-introduced, but that is a different question from whether they ought to have been repealed in the first place. Such a question involves a broader evaluation of the state we have reached after decades of dismantling of our social infrastructure. The moral imperatives that laws of that type sought to protect, such as the sanctity of marriage and the keeping of high standards of public decency and order for their own sake, were long ago extinguished by the leftist ascendancy in our institutions. This cultural revolution preceded and facilitated the evacuation of a specifically Christian content from our laws. In turn that accelerated the flight from personal adherence to a traditional morality, particularly a traditional sexual morality. One might as well now seek to introduce the sumptuary laws of Cromwell’s Commonwealth as laws against homosexual soliciting and intercourse. No one today would understand what social imperatives such a set of laws was seeking to preserve.

Should such laws be re-introduced into the kind of atomised and self-fetishing society in which we now live? No, of course not; it would serve no purpose.

But would we prefer to live again in the kind of society in which an understanding and acceptance as to why such laws existed would come to us as naturally as rain falling upon grass? That is a different and more difficult question and I can only answer it here by saying that I would rather walk down Oxford Street circa 1969 or 1959 or 1909 than in 2019 and for all kinds of reasons which speak to the depth and breadth of our civilisational decline.

In 2017 some homosexuals and their political supporters intimidated and sought to persecute many of those campaigning for a No vote in the postal plebiscite. I know this directly. I helped those who were targeted. The “human resources” officers of major companies aided and abetted the silencing strategies of homosexual activists by, for example, sending show-cause notices (that is, “demonstrate why you should not be sacked”) to Christian employees who posted polite messages on internal company blogs set up to discuss the proposed Marriage Act amendments; other employees were just sacked summarily for expressing private pro-traditional marriage opinions. I also participated in a number of quiet marches with placards promoting the No vote; we were regularly spat upon and sworn at (particularly by young women, for some reason). The Australian Christian Lobby offices in Canberra were set on fire after a car-bomb was detonated out the front by a notorious homosexual activist.

As anticipated, the Yes vote victory has seen an intensified leftist preoccupation with what Christians say in public and what they teach in their schools and the beliefs of those hired  to teach in them. The mainstream media, led by the leviathan ABC, is now unceasingly vigilant for traces of “homophobia” in any public utterance. They savage and frequently destroy or derail the careers of those whom they target. Schools, professional associations, advertisers and politicians all now scrupulously self-invigilate to make sure that the latest fiat of the LGBTQ ascendancy is complied with.

And yet the organisers of the Mardi Gras parade still claim—in this regimented social environment, where homosexuality is cosseted and empowered and is itself intolerant of dissent—that the reason why a significant section of our biggest city must be closed down to permit dykes on bikes (their own description) and drag queens and young men in fluorescent underpants to gyrate and prance and proselytise down our streets is that homosexuals are in desperate need of reassurance that they are accepted by the wider population! This is either a disingenuous claim or a delusional one. That is not why they organise this parade at all.  And it works against, and not in favour of acceptance, in any event.

Those that make a very public point of telling us that they are homosexual by organising or participating in the parade appear to believe every homosexual should want to do the same as them and talk about their sexuality incessantly. They are often in my experience shrill and attention-seeking and can be very funny or very tediously unfunny, the latter especially when they get together with their own. Their musical, recreational and sartorial preferences, too, are often of a very narrow bandwith. Victimhood seems to be a necessary part of their self-perception. Their sexuality, they believe, is at the root of all their life problems but also the source of all that is special about them. Their existence might be described as one long demand that society and all of its norms and institutions be reconstituted in their own self-image. Whatever the complex of causes and choices that made up their psychosexual development, all of them must be celebrated; none of them can be mediated or judged or modified. These are people who refer constantly to their sexual identity and for whom that aspect of their psychology and behaviour equates to their identity per se.

These folk don’t seem to make up the majority of the non-heterosexual population, very far from it, but they are the loudest and the most assertive and most organised and they have been allowed to acquire the copyright, it seems, to the authorised homosexual narrative.

Here then are the marshals and the foot soldiers of the Mardi Gras parade. They are not mere revellers or exhibitionists. They are the cadres of a movement that has carried out a wildly successful cultural putsch.

The rout of the natural and orthodox ceremony of marriage in 2017, and the licence the victors now exercise to publicly promote or condone (nearly) every form of sexual behaviour which our Christian heritage formerly regarded as deviant, have not led to the abatement of their hatred or resentment of that heritage; on the contrary, they have fed and sharpened it and garnered new recruits for the task of further diluting the Christian legacies of our culture. Just as feminism is demanding legal recognition of a woman’s right to choose infanticide, so the ideologues of Sodom and Lesbos will never be satisfied with our merely acquiescing to the ever-changing forms of their demands for acceptance. It is our private judgment of their conduct, a judgment that comes from our adhering to the old verities, that is profoundly intolerable to them and will continue to fire up the furnaces of their wrath for years to come.

Persuading ourselves that the Mardi Gras parade is just a harmless annual frolic of the demimonde will become a more difficult task each year. The ABC now promotes the parade to children on its children’s channel; police officers and soldiers make a point of their participation and of the fact that it is authorised by their superiors, thus telling us things about themselves we do not need to know and never wanted to know and undermining public confidence in the institutions in which they serve. The event has been a publicity launching pad and clearing house for all kinds of pernicious medical adventurism in recent years, especially in the field of gender dysphoria and of the rapid-onset female variety in particular.

In short, it is a political parade. It has made much of the blessing given to it by political figures, Turnbull and Shorten most noticeably in recent years. But the event is significant in much more than just the party political sphere.

Those of us who have different beliefs should not be afraid of saying what we think about their parade. Our saying nothing over the last three decades has had profound political consequences.

I am not suggesting heckling participants or physical disruption, as in the leftist playbook, of course. But you can mark your opposition in many other ways.

You could campaign for candidates at state and local government level who want to cancel any form of public funding for the event. You could make sure your children’s school isn’t permitting the event to be propagandised in the classroom, as many already do. If you belong to a church, you could ask your minister or priest or pastor why he cannot find the courage to preach against it. You could even pray for rain with Fred Nile.

You could do any of these things or many others. You could cease to be silent. That’s what I have just done.

Stuart Lindsay is a retired Federal Circuit Court Judge. He contributed the article “The Misguided Faith in Legislated Religious Freedoms” in the December issue.


18 thoughts on “Samedi Sordide: Why I Oppose the Sydney Mardi Gras

  • lloveday says:

    It was decades ago, but I remember with disgust a float with people dressed as Catholic Nuns simulating masturbation with crucifixes.

  • Salome says:

    lloveday–that would’ve been the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. I thought what was decriminalised was homosexual practice in private between consenting adults. That does not appear to be what’s on display at the public parade.

  • deric davidson says:

    The moral disintegration of the Catholic priesthood around the world is homosexual in nature. Homosexuals (Satan’s army) have infiltrated the Church to destroy it. For example statistics show that over 80% of ‘pedophile’ attacks by priests in the US are male on male i.e. homosexual. These attacks are more correctly called pederasty viz. men sexually abusing post-pubescent boys and young men. Furthermore active promiscuous homosexual behavior is still the major cause of HIV/AIDS in the population.
    Satan, the font of evil activity, is real and the Homo Mardi Gras is undoubtedly demonically inspired.

  • Peter Smith says:

    From decriminalisation to tolerance and acceptance has been a civilised change in my view. But being made to celebrate same-sex sex – and this is effectively what gay marriage implies – is a giant step too far. As for the Mardi Gras, public lewdness should be prohibited even if the perps are queer folk. That soldiers and policemen are allowed to march in uniform among cavorting semi-nude exhibitionists is beyond my comprehension so, on that matter, I am left speechless.

  • DG says:

    I have natural objections to the ‘celebration’ of homosexuality (if that’s your thing, just keep it in the bedroom, like most people keep their sexual lives: private). It is not in and of itself productive of children and the debauchery of its public face in the SS parade seeks to undermine (or has the effect of lauding the undermining of) normal family life where children are born, nurtured and raised to adulthood. If we stop procreating, we stop life, if we undermine the family, we do imperil the safety of the next generation.

  • Doubting Thomas says:

    Peter, having served in a relevant staff appointment in the RAAF when changes in the policy against homosexuals in the ADF was being reviewed, I was well aware of all the arguments on both sides of the question, and was personally delighted when the decision to abandon the previous policy was made. But, I was surprised and disgusted when, a few years ago, the ADF followed the NSW Police in allowing their homosexual personnel to parade in uniform in the Gay Mardi Gras.
    That disgust was exacerbated when the ADF publicity drones proudly announced that the ADF contingent in the Mardi Gras would be led by the chief Warrant Officers of the three Services. My immediate reaction was to imagine the scene in the offices of the Service Chiefs when they broke the news to their Warrant Officers, those exemplary people selected for their sterling personal qualities.
    Imagine if you can:
    Chief of Air Force: WOFF Bloggs, I would you like to join your colleagues in the other Services who will be leading their Services’ contingents in the Gay Mardi Gras parade.
    WOFF Bloggs: Umm! I’m not sure I understand. What’s involved? What will we required to do? By whom? (Thinks: What the hell is the silly old b****** on about? How will I explain this to my mates in the Mess? To my wife and kids? How can I refuse?)
    As anyone with experience in hierarchical organisations like the military knows, one does not readily refuse an implied command, albeit couched as a polite statement or request, unless it is an illegal command.
    And it was this that lead me to decide that our then Service Chiefs really were unfit for purpose. If they really believed that the Service Contingents should be led by authoritative figures, then they should have emulated the contemporary Commissioner of the NSW Police and led the contingent themselves without directing subordinates to do so, perhaps against their principles.
    Disgraceful. Unforgivable.

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    “The Last Time I Saw Paris” is a song composed by Jerome Kern, with lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II, and published in 1940. It was sung in the 1941 film Lady Be Good by Ann Sothern. It was intended as a morale-booster following the fall of France to the Nazis.
    The last time I saw Paris, her heart was warm and gay,
    I heard the laughter of her heart in every street cafe
    The last time I saw Paris, her trees were dressed for spring,
    And lovers walked beneath those trees, and birds found songs to sing.
    I dodged the same old taxicabs that I had dodged for years.
    The chorus of their squeaky horns was music to my ears.
    The last time I saw Paris, her heart was warm and gay,
    No matter how they change her, I’ll remember her that way.
    I doubt it could be performed today without the lifting of an eyebrow or two (hundred) in any normal venue, while in certain others it would be greeted with hysterical (if that is the right word) cheering: but for the wrong reasons.
    Gay. A lovely, expressive word has been appropriated, and denied to its former users: the mass of the population. No other word can fill its role in conversation. Not ‘happy’; not ‘cheerful’; nothing. But we can reclaim a right to use it. One can still say “I am feeling gay tonight…” and after the sniggering, snorting and guffawing has subsided add something like: “but not in the way you choose or maybe prefer, to think.”
    The artist Syd Nolan said once in a TV interview something like “I have met many homosexuals in my time; you do in the art world, but I never knew a happy one.”
    From the TV coverage I have seen, that is borne out by the bacchanal known as the ‘Gay Mardi Gras’ of Sydney. (I am not going in it this year [wink].) It is anything but gay, in the original sense of the word. Rather, the participants for reasons best known to themselves, flaunt their sexuality down the road, as a kid might kick an empty can.

  • Salome says:

    The Two Ronnies did a sketch back in the day. Ronnie Barker was an immigration official, and Ronnie Corbett was leaving the UK. The dialogue went something like this:
    “Sir, may I ask why you are leaving the United Kingdom?”
    “Really, why?”
    “Well, 100 years ago you could be hanged for it. 25 years ago you could go to gaol for a long time for it. Now it’s legal, and I’m leaving before it becomes compulsory.”

  • Ian MacDougall says:

    Very good. 😉

  • deric davidson says:

    It is indeed ironic that the L part of LGBT is now in conflict with the T part as women’s sport is on the verge of an intramural war. Women’s sport is about to be destroyed by the LGBT ‘revolution’. Concurrently women’s prisons will become unsafe places for women as trans ‘women’ (men) take advantage of ‘woke’ laws and sentences. Lesbians with real penises!

  • Stephen Due says:

    deric davidson. And specifically in Australia, where the Royal Commission conclusively demonstrated that the vast majority of cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church were of men abusing boys. However the word ‘homosexual’ cannot be found in the Commission’s reporting. One spokesperson for the new sexual orthodoxy to whom I spoke assured me that the offending men were actually frustrated heterosexuals. This inherently absurd suggestion belies the well-known fact that these men deliberately seek to enter the priesthood to participate in the pseudo-religious homosexual culture that exists there.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Apologies. My comment above refers to deric davidson’s previous comment (about the moral disintegration of the RC priesthood).

  • lhackett01 says:

    On 24 Mar 17, I wrote to the Minister of defence stating:

    “I was appalled to see members of the defence forces participating in uniform during the recent Gay Pride activities. Respect within the Australian community for the Defence Forces has been diminished by this action. Australians want to know their Defence Forces are above politics, focussed on defending Australian interests and its people regardless of any personal inclinations or opinions.

    I respectfully ask that you, and the Government, ensure that members of the Defence Forces do not engage in any politically associated activity not part of their remit whilst in uniform or otherwise identifiable as members of the Defence Forces.

    Your response would be appreciated.”

    The Minister responded saying that the Military supported members right to participate.

  • lhackett01 says:

    As I state in my paper about same-sex marriage, at, “The Turnbull government has defrauded the Australian public by not holding the Plebiscite it promised, when voting would have been compulsory and the Government would have been required to clearly present both sides of the argument to the people. The Government has compounded the impact of this broken promise by misinterpreting the results of the voluntary postal survey to bring about a confusion of societal mores.”

  • pbw says:

    A couple (at least) of commentators here have said, in effect, that they were very happy with the elimination of the criminal offence of buggery, but dismayed with the subsequent development of a virulent homosexual ideology. I note that Stuart Lindsay made no such comments.

    Of those who did (Peter Smith for example) I would ask whether they believe that these dismaying developments have been an historical accident (though reproduced in every Western country), and that there is no structural reason why the social situation that pertained in the immediate aftermath of legalisation (complete with the the warm glow of satisfaction and the sense of new heights of civilisation being achieved) could not prove stable?

    Or are they, on the other hand, coming to the reluctant belief that sexual mores are a zero-sum game?

  • heatherkell1960 says:

    I AM WONDERING if anyone knows how the Mardi Gras is funded, and how much it costs for the police to be there, and what amount of taxpayers money goes into it? The pictures I have seen of this year are pretty scary and the mess and rubbish on the street is shameful. I shake my head. And Pray God has mercy on us.

  • tbeath says:

    The Australian Christian Lobby offices in Canberra were set on fire after a car-bomb was detonated out the front by a notorious homosexual activist.
    Is this in fact correct?

    • Roger Franklin says:

      Yep. Very gay and very active — a fact the police kept under wraps for almost a year until, in the end, imminent court proceedings obliged them to admit as much. Quadrant Online quizzed the Canberra police a number of times about the case only to have every request stonewalled. OK, it could be argued that keeping the nosy parkers of the press in the dark was needed to avoid prejudicing a jury. But the genuinely distressing aspect of the police handling of the case was that the Australian Christian Lobby, target of the attack, was also kept ignorant of who attacked them and why.

      When one considers that recent leaders of Victoria Police have been recruited from the feds’ ranks, it’s hardly a surprise that policing in the Garden State has devolved into a shambles — as the Lawyer X hearings, to cite but one of many examples, demonstrated time and again.

Leave a Reply