Seldom Seen, Rarely Heard

I have read Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 very carefully. I know its evils. I understand its malign and epochal significance. I also know the Bill will become law early in 2021 and will not be amended in other than inconsequential ways, and then only to cater for certain Upper House members who are actually very keen to vote for it but wish to gesture some modicum of “reluctance” at doing so.

As I explained almost a year ago, ordinary citizens will risk imprisonment if they speak out against the chemical, psychological and physical mutilation of confused children and adolescents who believe, or are being told, they were born in the wrong bodies.

Premier Daniel Andrews has no reason to compromise. He is a hard-core cultural marxist surrounded by like-minded ministers and a well-rewarded bureaucracy that has come to include a politicised Victoria Police, all of which are as enthusiastic as is he about extinguishing the last flicker of Judeo-Christian influence in public policy and in the law itself. The Victorian and national media, with rare and somewhat erratic exceptions, never challenge him. Indeed, when Peta Credlin grilled Andrews about the hotel quarantine debacle, she was derided by journalists who had been for the most part incuriously content to take down Andrews’ stenography and leave it that. It was a lack of curiosity that came as Victorians submitted this year to the most intrusive regulation of their personal lives of a citizenry in the history of Western democracies.

Why would Andrews & Co consent to alter even one phrase in this Bill? What incentive is there for them to do so, however truthfully and competently and clearly we argue the case? They will not be persuaded. Hard-core leftists do not hearken unto truth or reason.

As to the Opposition, no hope of there. Liberal leader Michael O’Brien’s ‘team’ is feeble, disunited and, on issue after issue, a dictionary illustration of political impotence. Indeed, it seems almost to contain as many members viciously anti-Christian and homosexualist in background as the government itself. As a senior Victorian Liberal recently put it in private conversation, “One-third would be at home in The Greens and another third are wind vanes, the rest are on the outer.” 

What, then, is to be done? We are obliged by conscience to oppose this new law as effectively as possible. But how can we effectively respond to its passage through Parliament, given the present political disposition outlined above?

It seems to me that Christians and even their non-Christian conservative auxiliaries must take this chance to ensure the Liberal Party finds its backbone or is eliminated as a viable political force. If the party fails on this issue, any of us within the party must leave it. We must persuade those who finance it and manage it to abandon it, as if it were a sinking ship, which it is. We must expose and oppose the pusillanimity and faithlessness of its leadership. We must encourage its eminence grise (national and state) to abandon them, John Howard and Peter Costello to begin with. Do they want any legacy at all? This is the party that facilitated the desecration of the Marriage Act, and whose current federal leader, our Prime Minister, abstained from voting on the Bill that achieved that desecration.

This particular fight on this Bill will be lost but much can be done to start upon the creation of a genuinely conservative opposition which would reflexively and, based upon religious conviction and native principle, fight to the death against bills of this kind in future.

This is a very brief explication of the position I have come to after much reflection. It is not a worthy course to go through the motions of opposing an evil with allies we know will fail us.

Stuart Lindsay is a retired Federal Circuit Court Judge

7 thoughts on “Seldom Seen, Rarely Heard

  • jvernau says:

    I suppose the Victorian Attorney-General is stepping down from cabinet quite satisfied, now that this peculiar legislation is all but proclaimed. As is a great deal of law these days, it is written in a strangely childish style. The language is, at any rate, consistent with its aims, which appear to be to change human nature and to outlaw certain beliefs and opinions.
    Here are some examples, from Part 1, Division 1, Section 3: “Objects of this Act”:
    “(1)(c) to ensure that all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, feel welcome and valued in Victoria and are able to live authentically and with pride.
    (2)(a) to denounce and give statutory recognition to the serious harm caused by change or suppression practices; and
    (2)(b) to affirm that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not broken and in need of fixing.”

    The legislation is truly “progressive” because it is anti-life—so-called gender re-assignment might result in sterility—and it can therefore join existing Victorian abortion and euthanasia law in a most unholy trinity.

  • Alistair says:

    Well said Stuart.
    To describe the Liberal Party as “Fellow Travelers” is being way too polite. “Useful Idiots” is much closer to the mark.. Liberal ideology appears to be simply Left – but without the commitment. .

  • lbloveday says:

    NYC’s far-Left Mayor Bill de Blasio is married to Chirlane McCray, who was prior to meeting him a practising homosexual and published an essay in the monthly magazine Essence in 1979 entitled “I Am a Lesbian”. In that essay, McCray “frankly discussed her sexuality and expressed gratitude that she came to terms with her preference for women before marrying a man”.
    Now she’s a practising heterosexual with 2 natural children. Would de Blasio have been caught up by this soon-to-be law? Presumably he had some part in persuading McCray that her “sexual orientation ….WAS broken and in need of fixing”.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The Victorian opposition MPs are totally useless. The leaders had to have words put into their very mouths time and time again by Sky News reporters over the handling of the virus by the Andrews government. But where in all this are the other people whose social position and level of education might have led them to generate some kind of effective opposition to the march of ignorance, cruelty (gender reassignment so-called), folly and tyranny being pursued under the watchful eye of Daniel Andrews? Where in particular are the doctors? Are they too busy slicing off the breasts of adolescent girls or the relevant parts of growing boys to think about what their connivance with this monstrous government and its abominable legislation implies?

  • lhackett01 says:

    This draconian ‘law’ is another evil manifestation of the denial of free speech in Australian society. In this case, the Victorian parliament, its activist supporters, and especially the non-heterosexuals who have successfully created another ‘victim’ group are about to roll over the unfortunately silent majority. The evil is that children who know no better will be encouraged to undergo life-changing ‘medical treatment’ that many will live to regret. This is the fact as evidenced by the increasing number of relevant surveys.

    Children must be offered general and psychiatric counselling before sexual mutilation and Frankenstein hormone therapies are allowed. No ‘law’ must prevent people from obtaining such guidance.

  • talldad says:

    (2)(b) to affirm that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not broken and in need of fixing.”

    Such breathtaking internal contradictions don’t stop them either. I have pointed out the stupidity of this idea to my local MP (government side) without success (not even a response).

    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” doesn’t apply here. The government insists on passing legislation to fix a non-problem (again).

    The legislation endorses and encourages drastic, non-reversible medication and surgery to alter “gender” the first time, but thereafter prohibits all further attempts at alteration.

    So is there something broken which needs drastic measures to fix? Or not?

  • Ross Williamson says:

    Peter Hitchens says the same thing about the Tory Party. The logic does appeal.

Leave a Reply