Posts

Our Rejection of The Islamophobia Report

This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda!

I want to share something very important with you – my response to the Islamophobia report which was commissioned by the Albanese government and produced by the Special Envoy to ‘Combat Islamophobia’ over a three-year period.

The author, Mr Malik Aftab, is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations ‘Global Expert’ on Muslim Affairs.

For many reasons, the report is a frustrating body of work that fundamentally fails to explain why Australians may hold views critical of Islam.

The report does not acknowledge the failings of Islam to integrate with Western society. In particular, there is no discussion on Sharia Law cited by Australia’s allies as being of significant concern for the continuation of civil and human rights for women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Australians are naturally protective of their legal progress toward making the country a world leader in rights and first-world ideals.

When a culture arrives on our shores whose core religious beliefs, or even cultural interpretation, threaten these advancements – there will be pushback to ensure that society is protected from a regression of rights.

Politicians owe minority groups and vulnerable people protection from imported ideas. After all, even the United Nations acknowledges the large gap between the human rights of the Islamic world compared to that of Australia.

We will not go backwards and undo our civil rights movements to accommodate the feelings of newly arrived migrants who made a choice to enter this beautiful country.

This, as they say, is not a negotiation.

Australia will not be commanded to re-write its moral core based upon hastily defined ‘phobias’ because of cultural disagreement.

The report also complains about the negative impact on Muslim communities due to counter terrorism laws following September 11. This is handwaving. Islam is the largest perpetrator of terror across the world. The ever-present threat of such attacks has resulted in the degradation of our freedoms and innocence of Australia. Remember a time when Christmas markets didn’t need the protection of bollards to stop cars driving into people?

It is not the fault of Australian citizens that violence is being conducted in the name of Islam by both lone wolves and well-funded groups attached to state entities such as Iran. Australians do not have a ‘phobia’ toward Sikhs, Jews, or Buddhists as would be the case if the phobia was rooted in racism. Islam is responsible for its reputation.

Look to Europe, where children are butchered and religious figures beheaded in broad daylight.

In July 2005, four Islamic terrorists attacked London resulting in the murder of 52 people. In 2017, two Islamic terrorists bombed Manchester Arena killing 22 and injuring 1,017 people – mostly teenagers. Despite being alerted to suspicious behaviour, the terrorists were not approached by security for fear of being called … racist.

Global statistics state that between 2013-24, 56,413 Islamic terror attacks have taken place – or 84.4% of all recorded terror attacks in the world. These are not insignificant facts. Yes, it matters that the latest wave of mass migration coming into Australia is originating from locations where this sort of religious violence is normalised.

We don’t want religious violence ‘normalised’ or excused as ‘resistance’ inside Australia.

Being worried about terrorism is not ‘racist’. A map of the world showing which nations are most worried about Islamic terror reveals Asia and the Middle East as hotpots. These are not ‘white majority’ areas.

The report on Islamophobia says in its forward:

‘The feeling I got from others was that Christianity was this white, wholesome religion, while Islam was something so foreign it was hard to understand. Although I knew deep down inside that was wrong.’

How bizarre. Christianity is not a white-based religion and to say so demonstrates the setting of ignorance that pervades the rest of the report.

Christianity is, however, a peaceful and reformed religion that has adapted to the modern world – driven Western Enlightenment – and led directly to the end of the global slave trade. Islam has been the most powerful slaver since before the West’s first slave ship, and there are still Islamic groups carrying out human slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Australia’s government deals with state-funded Islamic terror on the geopolitical stage and its existence is naturally of concern to citizens. This isn’t helped by groups declaring themselves to be ‘humanitarian’ protesting for a cause deeply rooted in Palestinian terrorist organisations such as Hamas and the PLO. The report fails to point out the self-inflicted harm the Muslim community does to itself by calling for a ‘Global Intifada’.

Yes, people may feel a sense of concern and even fear when large groups of people call for an Intifada or hold signs supporting violent regimes.

Instead of allowing an open discussion – free from the fear of legal retribution – Western leaders are seeking to codify ‘Islamophobia’ to protect themselves from electoral backlash.

A leading British KC, who is an advisor to the Attorney General, issued a dramatic warning last week about the dangers of defining Islamophobia in law.

He was not concerned about so-called ‘discrimination’ against the Islamic community – rather, he wanted to alert the government about the inherent danger of creating a ‘fear of being called Islamophobic’ and that might interact with the legal system.

‘The conflation of the two categories of “Islam” and “Muslims” could have dangerous outcomes…’ he posed, asserting it might be used to re-write various pieces of harassment and hate crime laws.

‘Suppose that such a definition would, in practice, be relied on in objecting to the use of powers by the police and security services to investigate persons who happen to be Muslim for criminal offences, including of the most violent or sexual nature…’

We have seen this work in practice already, with a fear of being called ‘racist’ allowing the UK’s horrific network of Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs to operate for more than a decade with the knowledge of police and politicians.

Too many were cowered by their fear of being called ‘racist’ to save young poor white girls. Over 1,400 victims. During the investigation, council staff admitted that they had been told ‘not to mention the ethnic origins of the perpetrators’ while another report said that Rotherham police effectively ignored their duties out of fear they might ‘increase racial tensions’.

The saga demonstrates how the fear of being attached to a slur overrode the basic moral principles of law enforcement, the courts, and government leaving citizens with no protection. It also revealed the role free speech played in shaming politicians into action.

This ecosystem only works if government allows the digital realm to remain an active participant in democracy.

When a hundred thousand people march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge calling for a Global Intifada, the ethnic cleansing of Jews, and comparing Australian ‘settlers’ with illegal occupations – ordinary Australians of a mostly Christian or secular heritage have every right to feel frightened and concerned about what has happened to the fabric of society.

These days, local government doesn’t have the nerve to repair a statue of Captain Cook because they’re frightened of pro-Palestine activists. Even the Prime Minister was chased out of his office of 30 years in Marrickville.

This is frightening.

Australians are being painted as the ‘aggressor’ in this scenario, instead of the victim of the government’s ‘Big Australia’ policy which was never voted upon or consented to.

It is not Islamophobic for Australians to be concerned about child brides, forced marriage, genital mutilation, honour killings, polygamy, and acid attacks. Once unheard of in Australia, these things have appeared on our streets.

Australia’s legal system isn’t prepared for these imported crimes, nor can the media accurately report these events for fear of being pulled up with complaints. Who suffers? The next generation of Australians, often the children of migrants, who were promised safety.

Our fear is that these ‘reports on Islamophobia’ and even the report on ‘Antisemitism’ will create a sectarian framework to silence Australians and override their legitimate concerns about the future of the country they were born to and whose ancestors sacrificed everything to create.

The protection of Australia must always triumph.

My Response in Full

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Mathew 7:5

About the Author

Aftab Malik, a British-born migrant to Australia of Pakistani origin, was named as the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia for a period of three years, commencing on 14 October 2024. In this role, he produced a report on Islamophobia in Australia.

Mr Aftab Malik is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations “Global Expert” on Muslim Affairs. He served for nearly a decade in the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, as well as the Premier’s Department, advising on community engagement, social cohesion, and countering violent extremism.

Mr Malik is a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Sydney, where he co-teaches an Introduction to Shariah.

Short Summary

The report praises Islam, yet fails to acknowledge any reasons why people have anti-Islamic opinions. The report fails to mention “Shariah”, despite the fact that it’s simply not possible to consider Islam’s role in Australia without talking about Shariah – especially given that the author lectured on Shariah.

This omission is secondary to the report’s primary omission, which is the absence of a definition of Islamophobia. In effect, the report is, in essence, saying “on this thing I can’t define, here are all the things I want done to prevent it”.

The report does not mention Hamas, although it defends Palestine at length and often. How can you defend Palestine without acknowledging the actions of Hamas?

In dismissing anti-Islam sentiment as Islamophobia, the report fails to take any responsibility for the horrors committed in the name of Islam.

This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda.

I could just as easily to the same and fill this response with data on Islam’s war against Christianity. From there, I could make the case for the appointment of a Christian Envoy to root out ‘Christianophobia’.

It raises the question: why do we have envoys for antisemitism and Islamophobia, yet none for Christianity — especially considering that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three major Semitic religions? Surely, one set of rules would work for all three, unless the intention is to elevate one above the others.

This report appears to support such an outcome by conflating Islam with racial discrimination—similar to that of Aboriginal and Asian communities—rather than religious discrimination. In its recommendations and where it suits the report’s purpose, Islam is framed as a race rather than a religion. This framing allows all other religions to be excluded to the sole advancement of Islam.

Mr Malik has constructed his recommendations to exclude all other religions. The opportunity to counter religious discrimination against all Australians, against all religions was not taken. Surely one set of rules could have been written to assist all religions counter discrimination. This report chose instead to elevate Islam above all others.

Let Islam Be Judged on Its Actions

Debating Islam from a cultural standpoint is counter-productive because it first requires agreement on the meaning of Australian culture. This has been a minefield for a generation as it provides an opportunity for the sneering “left” to display their contempt for Australia in a way that avoids the debate.

Instead, I ask the Envoy why he failed to mention the actions taken in recent years in the name of Islam – violent, unlawful actions which cannot be defended. This is an indefensible decision because it’s these actions which give rise to legitimate anti-Islamic sentiment.

Surely the correct approach would have been to consider what version of Islam could exist comfortably with the other religions that make up the wider Australian community. Instead, the report whitewashes Islamic atrocities and suggests all of Islam must be defended, even Hamas.

Below are examples of ongoing atrocities committed in the name of Islam, included to highlight issues that SHOULD have been addressed in the report, along with proposed solutions.

  • Islamists’ violence against Christians rose 60% since 2023, with 380 million Christians facing high/extreme persecution globally in 2025, many in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa saw Jihadists displace 16.2 million Christian.
  • Militants often demand faith renunciation (e.g., reciting Islamic prayers) before killing; women and children are disproportionately affected, with abductions leading to forced conversions (e.g. Leah Sharibu case, ongoing since 2018).
  • In this period Islamists have murdered between 40,000 and 55,000 Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of these Christians have sought safe harbour in Australia. (Is it Mr Malik’s position these people should not be able to talk about their lived experience of religious persecution, rape and murder of family members at the hands of Islamic fighters?)
  • According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC), anti-Christian hate crimes reached 2,444 in 2023, corresponding with the increase in Islamic immigration.

I could refer to the 3,647 proven cases of rape in the UK involving Islamic grooming gangs, with victims as young as 11. As with the Australian Skaif rape gangs, there is a clear use of rape as a weapon of Hijrah, albeit this being an interpretation scholars contest. If so many Islamists choose the violent interpretation of Islam, how can it be simply glossed over by the report?[i]

And of course, nobody mention October 7th [ii] or the Yazidi Genocide[iii] (survivors lived experience on this link) and this link[iv] from the UN Human Rights Council.

I might suggest the missing definition of Islamophobia could simply be ‘anyone who refuses to ignore the violence, hatred and conquest wrought in the name of Islam’

Report Preface

The preface includes this quote:

It is strange that we should not realise that no enemy could be more dangerous to us than the hatred with which we hate him, and that by our efforts against him we do less damage to our enemy than is wrought in our own heart.  ST. AUGUSTINE

This passage is used to warn Christians of the damage they do themselves in hating Islam. It is misattributed – this quote does not appear in the works of St Augustine.

Instead, it encapsulates an ancient wisdom that hate begets hate, which is contained in the meaning of Mathew 26:52. The actual author is Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

The other quote, stated first in the preface does come from the Hadiths:

The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand people are safe, and the believer is the one people trust with their lives and wealth. [Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith 4995]

The juxtaposition of these two quotes sets the tone for the report. Put simply, Muslims are to be trusted and Christians should stop hating them.

I think it is necessary to talk about our options as Christians when confronted with evil, in response to the aggressive Islamic agenda and whitewashing of Islamic terror evident in this report.

What the Bible Says on Defence from Evil

During the Sermon on the Mount, at Mathew 5:39 Jesus says:

But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 

In Mathew 26:52 a disciple, identified as Peter in the Gospel of John, draws a sword to defend Jesus from being arrested and struck a guard, and Jesus tells him to put away his weapon. The lesson is that violent behaviour can lead to more violent behaviour.[v]  Debate on this lesson goes to the plan Jesus had to martyr himself, which Peter’s actions threatened, rather than a blanket instruction to never defend oneself.

The debate on self-defence more commonly turns on the meaning of Luke 22:36:

Then he said to them, but now he that hath a bag, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath none, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.[vi]

Is this passage allegory, or is this a command to take up a literal sword? The footnote to the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) says:

All this talk is by way of an allegory, as if he said, O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived hitherto as it were in peace: but now there is a most sharp battle at hand to be fought, and therefore you must lay all other things aside, and think upon furnishing yourselves in armour. And what this armour is, he showeth by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden, and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.

Ephesians 6:10-18, which is too long to reproduce here, supports this viewpoint. And yet Romans 12: 17-19 says:

Repay no evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.

The Bible does not make an explicit statement that violence in defence of oneself or of another is a sin. It does make the point that revenge is a sin and defending oneself out of hate for the other is a sin.

John 15:13 instructs:

Greater love than this hath no man, when any man bestoweth his life for his friends.

This can be interpreted as self-defence of others. If one gave one’s life out of non-violence, simply kneeled and let them take your head, then your friends would be next. This verse only works when read in the context of dying in defence of one’s kin.

The Book of Esther describes the Purim, where Jews defended themselves using weapons as an organised resistance to King Xerxes 1, who had caused an order to be made that they be slaughtered. This use of self-defence of their kin decimated the King’s forces. Significantly Jesus celebrated Purim (John 5:1).

For mine, the last word in this debate is contained in Section 132:26-27 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A sacred text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes it clear that the sin of killing another relates to the spilling of “innocent blood”.  

This verse is also found in Proverbs 6:17 where God condemned “The haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and the hands that shed innocent blood,”

Those who come into your community with the stated intent of “convert or die” are not innocent, once their actions turn violent. Self-defence is then permitted.

This accords with my long-held belief that free speech, including religious speech, stops where calls for violence begin.

There can be no religious exemption to speech calling for violence against another.

Aboriginal – Indian Admixture

The report appears to be providing ‘air cover’ for a growing argument that Western settlers are migrants, no different from Indian and Muslim migrants today, and therefore have no more of a claim to Australia than they do.

This relies on the report’s mis-dating of Javanese contact with Australia (see next section), and secondly on the juxtaposition of Aboriginals and Islamic traders in the report’s Acknowledgement of Country.

This relates to the level of Indian genes found in Aboriginal DNA, especially those in Western and Northern Australia. [vii]  

It’s true the race we know as Aboriginal came ‘out of Africa’ like the rest of us around 70,000 years ago. So, we are all one people in that respect. Evolution of Aboriginal DNA mostly stopped around 10,000 years ago with the loss of the land bridge between Australian and Asia/PNG.

There was migration from North Indian/Bengal settlers who came to the west coast around 4000 years ago. They make up between 4% and 11% of Aboriginal DNA, called an admixture event. This is hardly a claim to country.

Islam Predates Western Settlement in Australia

The report does accurately mention the Javanese contact with Australia, coming from Islamic traders from Makassar (modern day Java). This coastal trade extended from Darwin to the Pilbara, which Mr Malik dates to the 15th Century.[i] There is confirmation of this in the earliest known map of Indonesia from 1601, which clearly shows this part of Australia.

Conveniently, this corresponds with the spread of Islam in Indonesia, which started with Persian traders in the 1400s and came to end with a caliphate in the 1500s.

A glaring error in Mr Malik’s report is the start date for Javanese exploration of Australia. It was not the 1500s. It dates back to at least 931 AD. This was the first known mention of a southern land contained in the historical records, etched into a copper plaque called Sri Mpu Sindok Inscription of Waharu IV (931)[viii] which the Indonesian Government now holds.

With a sailing distance of 12 days and the Javanese in possession of ocean-going sailing boats, it stands to reason this exploration and subsequent trade did in fact happen.[ix] This is confirmed in the a sharing of language and customs between Northern Aboriginals and Makassar people.

Mr Malik describes in glowing terms the Makassar contact, and in keeping with the rest of the report, he fails to tell the other side of the story.[vii]

Mr Malik’s report, like so much government communication, is riddled with misinformation or disinformation.

Anthropologist Ian McIntosh has speculated that the initial effects of contact with the Makassan fishermen resulted in “turmoil” with the extent of Islamic influence being noteworthy. In another paper McIntosh says – “strife, poverty and domination … is a previously unrecorded legacy of contact between Aborigines and Indonesians“. He claims that the Makassan appear to have been welcomed initially; although, relations deteriorated when, “aborigines began to feel they were being exploited … leading to violence on both sides“.

The argument that Australia should be Islamic because they were here first is a rewriting of history. Javanese visited Australia, they did not colonise it. Islam came 500 years after that contact and they did not colonise it either- we did.

It is interesting to note that the Javanese had steel, advanced ship construction, weaponry, cannons, gunpowder, advanced tools and of course the wheel at the time their presence was documented in the early 1700s. None of these were shared with the Aboriginal people, as would be the case if the intention was exploitation not assimilation.

This does suggest the exchange was one sided and limited to economic exploitation of marine resources and not the rosy love-in that the report portrays.

Palestine

Palestine gets quite a run – four pages plus multiple other mentions (49 total). Hamas is NOT mentioned and October 7th is used as an example of people hating on Muslims. This suggests Mr Malik supports Hamas and is using this report to cover for them.[ii]

The section concludes with this call-out:

The destruction of Gaza”, writes Peter Beinart, has become “a symbol of our age” signifying “unchecked cruelty and unbearable pain.

This really sums up the report. Hamas do unspeakable things and people understandably respond with suspicion and hostility to anyone defending Hamas’ actions. Along comes Mr Malik who defines this reaction as Islamophobia and calls for a massive government apparatus to silence those reacting in that manner.

The attempt to define Gaza in terms of Israel’s demolition of Gaza after the event, in part to get their hostages back, fails to acknowledge the horror that led up to that action. This is disgraceful behaviour from a government official.

Islam and Terror

Quote from the report:

Assertions regarding the inherent violence of Islam are not confined to far-right extremist echo chambers; such claims have also been propagated within scholarly and popular literature. In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, there was an overwhelming proliferation of publications that contributed to narratives depicting Islam as intrinsically associated with violence, extremism and terrorism. Despite more than 2 decades of grassroots initiatives by community organisations and efforts by Muslim scholars, imams and academics to distinguish between terrorism and mainstream Islam, the continued rise in global terror incidents post the 11 September terror attacks perpetuated the obscuring of extremist acts within the broader, diverse spectrum of Muslim beliefs and practices.

This passage, central to Malik’s refutation regarding Islam and terror, makes no sense. To me it reads as follows. Since September 11 we have tried really hard to distinguish between Islam and terror, and yet Muslims keep committing atrocities so nobody believes us.

As a result of this failure Australians have “Islam anxiety…Muslims feel isolated, marginalised and disenfranchised, as they are perceived to be framed as the threat from within, and divided along the lines as “good Muslim, bad Muslim”

On one hand Mr Malik is acknowledging Islamists’ ongoing extreme acts, then on the other hand complaining about the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy. The report combines all shades of Islam into a single entity, in effect using peaceful Muslims as human shields for Islamic terrorists.

This was the time to defend the good and excise the evil within – however this is not the path that the report takes.

Christianity and Judaism have their issues, yet it is Islam the report is trying to whitewash – so let’s stay with that. The report concludes the section with this statement:

Conversely, the combination of local and global terrorist attacks, the promotion of a constant fear of, and threat from, local Muslim extremists, confusion, distortion, and misrepresentation of Islam, has generated significant anxiety and fear toward Muslim Australians. This has resulted in them being perceived more negatively than members of any other religious group for an extended period.

If there were not “local Muslim extremists”, local and global terrorist acts (nice self-own) then there would be nothing to fuel ‘Islamic Anxiety’!

The absence of a single Christian terrorist attack in Australia stands in contrast to the behaviour of the Islamic community and explains the absence of ‘Christian Anxiety’ – except amongst “left” wing social media commentators concerned about their chances of sudden immolation when passing a Church. [see references below]

Freedom of Speech

Report P21 quotes:

Freedom of speech is a critical pillar of a free society. It is imperative to affirm that these recommendations are not aimed at censoring legitimate, lawful discourse or even the dislike or critique of Muslims or Islam. Instead, they are intended to address the serious issue of prejudice, racism and hate that incite discrimination, hostility or violence. Criticism of Islam or Muslims, when grounded in respectful and lawful debate, must remain protected as a fundamental exercise of free speech.

I am pleased to see this included, yet the conflict with the recommendations calls the intent of the statement into question. As an example, this is the next point in the report:

I am confident that we can foster a society where anti-Muslim hate and prejudice are acknowledged, challenged and rectified.

Rectified? I can’t ask someone who criticises Christianity to rectify their comment! On one hand Mr Malik talks about freedom of speech and on the other he talks about forcing people to rectify their behaviour and comment.

The Recommedations

There are 54 headline recommendations, many of which contain multiple parts, extending across 12 government departments (I won’t go over all of these in detail as many repeat).

  • Recommendation 5: Commission of Inquiry into Islamophobia

Establish a commission of inquiry into Islamophobia, with Terms of Reference to examine all aspects of Islamophobia.

This recommendation takes the anecdotal evidence of anti-Islamic sentiment that the report advances and turns it into a root and branch inquiry into every limitation on the expansion of Islam in Australia.

In this, we see the report laying the groundwork for a British-style police state, where criticism of Islam is prosecuted, while similar actions against Christianity or Judaism are not.

Additionally, this inquiry is to look at whether a definition of Islamophobia is needed. When taken together with the absence of a definition in this report, one could suggest the intention is to allow Islam to decide what is Islamophobic.

  • Recommendation 6: Whitewash Palestine

Establish a commission of inquiry into anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism.

This continues the approach to ignore anything the Palestinians and/or Hamas have done and to characterise the motive for everything else as solely racism, instead of outrage at the slaughter of innocents.

  • Recommendation 7: Home Affairs to Lead Islamic Propaganda

Strengthen funding to enable research teams to gather evidence on effective interventions that combat Islamophobia in Australia, and to develop, evaluate and disseminate anti-Islamophobia programs.

Home Affairs is not the only Department being tasked with propaganda duties.

  • Recommendation 8 – Home Affairs to physically defend mosques

This recommendation sums up the report. Home Affairs is to lead programs to guarantee the security of Islamic schools, Islamic community centres and mosques. Shouldn’t this be written without the Islamic descriptor? Isn’t it the Government’s job NOW to protect the safety of schools, community centres and places of worship? And why not use the laws we already have which apply equally to all religions?

  • Recommendation 15: Mandatory Sensitivity Training

Mandate compulsory religious sensitivity training for all Australian Federal Police officers.

This same initiative has turned the United Kingdom into a police state. Recent incidents include arresting a citizen for saying he doesn’t like to see Palestinian flags flying in his street,[xi]

The Coskun case this year is relevant here. A man burnt pages from the Quran while criticising Islam for defending Islamic terrorism. He was convicted for hatred against Muslims, even though his comments were a discussion of the contents of the book, not personally against Muslims themselves. This is the problem with the report’s attempt to restore blasphemy laws for Islam – and not Christianity and Judaism. No matter how this is implemented, the laws will prevent any criticism of Islam in any situation. Even terrorism.[xii]

In case there is any doubt of the purpose of this section to implement the UK policing model in Australia, the report includes:

  • 20b. hate crime scrutiny panels, similar to the United Kingdom model, at district levels, to improve communication, operational policing of hate crime and community trust over time.                                             
  • 22. Implement religious discrimination training for all legal professionals within the Attorney General’s Department. Just to make sure nobody trusted with judicial fairness stops to consider should people be prosecuted for criticising the Palestinian flag.
  • 23. Establish workshops to assist staff in all divisions to recognise and address unconscious biases that may affect their work and decision-making process. Struggle sessions for Islam-hesitancy.
  • Recommendation 21: Counter-terrorism Laws

Establish an advisory panel consisting of representatives from diverse Muslim communities to provide insights into the potential impacts and unintended consequences of new counter-terrorism legislation on Muslim communities.

The report did not establish that our current laws were unfairly affecting Islam, so why is this needed?

  • Recommendation 28-31: Brainwash Our Children

Review the national curriculum pertaining to Islam, Muslims, and Muslim history, in both primary and secondary education, to ensure content is accurate and to make inclusions of and acknowledge Muslim contributions to Australia, Western civilisation and the development of universal values.

(Provide) clear, actionable guidelines specifically aimed at combating Islamophobia, alongside broader anti-racism, diversity and social cohesion measures. It should ensure a whole-sector approach to fostering diversity and equity in the Education Sector.

There are three pages on how to use education to advance Islam. The report conflagrates Islamophobia with Aboriginal discrimination and ethnic racism. In this construction, Islamophobia is a product of racial discrimination rather than religious discrimination. The effect is to exclude religious discrimination against other religions from the debate entirely.

The report reveals government will continue its role as the chief purveyor of misinformation and disinformation.

  • Recommendation 41: Islam in Sport

Invest more in funding community-level sporting initiatives and organisations. These community grants must be evaluated, leveraging the research capacity this report advocates (such as) a. support the organisation of interfaith sports tournaments, with mixed-faith teams participating.

Sounds reasonable, until the reason for this is explained:

  • b. provide funding for training programs that educate coaches and volunteers about cultural sensitivity and religious practices. Which Iassume includes segregation of the sexes, not shaking hands with unbelievers after the match, etc.
  • e. fund the development or renovation of community sports facilities, including spaces for prayer, reflection and meditation.

Prayer rooms at the footie, cricket, swimming etc, using taxpayers’ money to pay the cost. Add up the cost of that idea.

  • g. encourage partnerships between sporting organisations and local Muslim community groups to co-host events, workshops and discussions that focus on building relationships and understanding.

Send your children to footie training and they end up in a Mosque, or getting Islamic instruction in the changing sheds.

  • Recommendation 50: Government-funded Islamic Propaganda

Establish an educational not-for-profit centre that affirms the presence, contributions and achievements of Muslim Australians and that promotes initiatives in arts, culture and media…foster active collaboration between media outlets, journalists, community organisations and educators to promote narratives that foster understanding, respect and social cohesion. This includes:

  •  i. supporting media campaigns that challenge stereotypes and misinformation about Muslim Australians and Islam
  • ii. creating platforms for Muslim voices and stories to be heard authentically and positively

In other words, Government-funded propaganda. This isn’t an isolated recommendation; it is one of the recurring themes.

  • Recommendation 54: Subvert Parliament

Develop codes of conduct for all Australian Parliamentarians and staff on what constitutes Islamophobia, and implement mandatory …annual…training programs on Islamophobia for all parliamentarians and their advisors.

This recommendation continues the intention that these measures should not be written generally to protect all religions, rather they should be written only for Islam. The Jenkins report established the dangerous precedent that Members of Parliament can be forced to undergo re-education. This recommendation is therefore NOT unprecedented. It is, nonetheless, an unacceptable interference in the exercise of the duties of a Member of Parliament, as is Jenkins.

The report seeks to impose penalties on Members of Parliament for “wrongthink”:

Introduce clear contingencies for responses to parliamentarians who engage in hate speech or behaviour. These contingencies may include…formal reprimands and temporary suspension from the party room or various party-granted roles…establish an independent oversight for conduct complaints.There is already a formal complaint process in the Parliament, the report seeks to overturn that tested procedure and replace it with a Kangaroo Court of his own construction.

Conclusion

There is talk on social media of a Voice-style body to monitor legislation, yet this is not what the report says. It calls for a co-ordinating committee to oversee the implementation and operation of these measures. That is not unprecedented in social change initiatives. The Government may choose to make this an ’Islamic Voice’, and that would be a significant and risky policy.

Instead, the report targets the Australian Government and seeks to root out any impediment to the expansion of Islam in Australia. Additionally, the report calls for taxpayers’ money to be spent indoctrinating and compromising our entire society – education, judiciary, legislature, policing, media, communications and even sport.

The report fails to define Islamophobia and instead chooses a “we know it when we see it” approach. That is, Islamophobia is defined from lived experience – with those experiences no different to many others in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious community.

No cost/benefit analysis is attempted; there is no debate on the practicality of the measures proposed. This is nothing other than a shopping list born of ambition for Islam in Australia, with zero consideration of what the wider community wants or needs.

Mr Malik clearly does not want Islam to take an equal place amongst all of Australia’s religions. Rather he seeks to elevate Islam above all others. It seems that he wants the government to give Islam an opening, and support from social, legislated and financial means.

I will be researching whether the report and some of the recommendations contravene the Commonwealth Constitution.

One Nation opposes all the recommendations, as well as any others from any source that seek to divide Australia—particularly those that promote racial or religious division.

We are one community, we are ONE nation and our laws must protect all of us equally. 

References

[i] https://sovereigngb.substack.com/p/how-the-teachings-of-islam-led-to

[ii] https://www.hamas-massacre.net/

[iii] https://www.nadiasinitiative.org/the-genocide

[iv] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A_HRC_32_CRP.2_en.pdf

[v] https://www.bedlamfarm.com/2024/07/13/on-putting-good-out-there-hate-begats-hate-good-begats-good-im-putting-my-weapons-away/

[vi] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022%3A36&version=GNV

[vii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makassan_contact_with_Australia

[viii] https://pieterderideaux.jimdofree.com/2-contents-901-1000/sri-mpu-sindok-931/

[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javanese_contact_with_Australia

[x] The Hilton Hotel Bombing is still blamed on the Ananda Marga, and Wieambilla shooting was in no way related to Christian teachings, the cause there was perceived government oppression combined with some radical sovereign citizen beliefs.

[xi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5zeM5Tn7Y

[xii] https://unherd.com/newsroom/criticism-of-islam-remains-uniquely-dangerous-in-britain/

Report by Aftab Malik: A National Response to Islamophobia

Final ReportDownload

/6 Comments/by

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

,

The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.

The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?

Dr Cody: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?

Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.

Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?

Dr Cody: I’m not.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?

Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?

Dr Cody: I have.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?

Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.

Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.

Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.

Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:

Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …

Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?

Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?

Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?

CHAIR: Yes. Good question.

Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.

CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.

/3 Comments/by

Christian Minister Faces Legal Action Over No ‘Welcome to Country’

,

In a worrying development of the growing threat to religious freedom in Australia, Christian Minister Dave Pellowe is facing legal action from the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complaint stems from comments he made at a recent Church and State conference, where he recited Christian theology on land ownership. Specifically, Pellowe refused to perform a “welcome to country” on the basis that ownership of the land belongs to God, not to Aboriginal people.

Psalms 24:1 teaches us that “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,” and there are similar verses found in Genesis and Leviticus, therefore the theological basis for Pellowe’s statement is not in dispute.  He argues that God delegated stewardship of this beautiful country was entrusted to those who follow God in faith – his image leaders – bestowing the right of individuals to keep and use land and property in service of God.  This implies that no single group, whether Aboriginal or Christian, has sole ownership of the land.

This complaint is not about hurt feelings but raises a fundamental issue regarding the right to practice Christianity.

Transcript

In an alarming example of the growing threat to religious freedom in Australia, Dave Pellowe, a Christian minister, is facing legal action in the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complaint stems from comments he made at a recent Church And State conference, where he repeated Christian theology on ownership of land. Specifically, he refused to provide a welcome to country on the basis that Aboriginals do not own this country; God does. 

Psalms 24:1 teaches us that ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it’ and there are similar verses in Genesis and Leviticus, so the theology of the statement is not in dispute. God delegated stewardship of this beautiful country to those who follow God in faith, his image leaders, bestowing the right of individuals to keep and use their land and property in service of God. Neither Aboriginal nor Christian can claim sole ownership of this land. We both exercise stewardship, on behalf of God. 

The complainant purchased a ticket to attend a Christian conference, marketed as a Christian conference, and was apparently offended to hear a Christian message! Church And State conferences teach the gospel. One attends a Church And State conference to hear the Bible taught and to be actively involved in society. 

Isaiah 24:4-6 offers a warning against supplanting God’s word with another teaching easier on the ears and easier on any superficial consulting of conscience. The church is losing supporters because established religion does not offer leadership. Today it has fewer warriors and no longer has use for the armour of God. The answer to the erosion of support for Christianity is not a softer message; the answer is stronger messaging and deeds that defend the faith. It’s time to end the age of appeasement. 

To those listening at home, Church And State are holding a telethon tomorrow night to fund legal challenges to the war on Christianity. I urge Christians and those who care for religious freedom to tune in online tomorrow night. We have one flag. We are one community. We are One Nation. 

/9 Comments/by

Faith in Healthcare Attacked by Canberra’s Autocrats

Speaking in support of the ACT Self Government Amendment Bill 2023, I commended Senator Canavan for introducing this Bill. I strongly support pushing for an inquiry into the ACT government’s seizure of the Calvary Hospital in Canberra. This is a blatant attack on religion in healthcare. It cannot be dressed up as anything else.

The issue that is being tiptoed around here is the clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living, viable foetus. Those same principles stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person who may make a different decision, free from coercion or momentary despair, on a different day.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia whilst the Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules.

This has inflamed the ACT autocrats who have decided that there is no place for religion in healthcare. So much so that they planned this takeover for 12 months without telling Calvary who continued to negotiate on a new Northside Hospital in good faith.

These are the same mindless, hypocritical zombies that push for drag queens to expose themselves and read adult porn to young children in libraries and schools. Their answer to the uproar against this perversion is “if you don’t like it, don’t go”. This works both ways. If you don’t like religion in healthcare, aged care or education, the remedy is simple. Don’t go. Freedom of choice! Except the Canberra autocrats don’t like freedom either. They’ve embraced a totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in Australia.

Federal Parliament has precedence over ACT law and this matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview.

My message to the Canberra Health Bureau autocrats is this: God decides who lives or dies. Not you.

/5 Comments/by

Faith in Healthcare Attacked by Canberra’s Autocrats

Speaking in support of the ACT Self Government Amendment Bill 2023, I commend Senator Canavan for introducing this bill. I strongly support pushing for an inquiry into the ACT government’s seizure of the Calvary Hospital in Canberra. This is a blatant attack on religion in healthcare. It cannot be dressed up as anything else.

The issue that is being tiptoed around is the clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living, viable foetus. Those same principles stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person who may make a different decision, free from coercion or momentary despair, on a different day. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia whilst the Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules.

This has inflamed the ACT autocrats who have decided that there is no place for religion in healthcare. So much so that they planned this takeover for 12 months without telling Calvary who continued to negotiate on a new Northside Hospital in good faith.

These are the same mindless, hypocritical zombies that push for drag queens to expose themselves and read adult porn to young children in libraries and schools. Their answer to the uproar against this perversion is “if you don’t like it, don’t go”. This works both ways. If you don’t like religion in healthcare, aged care or education, the remedy is simple. Don’t go. Freedom of choice! Except the Canberra autocrats don’t like freedom either. They’ve embraced a totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in Australia.

Federal Parliament has precedence over ACT law and this matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview. My message to the Canberra Health Bureau autocrats is this: God decides who lives or dies. Not you.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. Senator Canavan is quite correct to want an inquiry into the ACT government’s seizure of Calvary hospital. I commend him for introducing this bill to the chamber. I was the first senator to speak out against this takeover—on 27 May 2023 at the March for Life rally in the Rockhampton Riverside Precinct. Senator Canavan was in attendance as well. I commend him for taking it up. 

This is a blatant attack on religion in health care. It cannot be dressed up as anything else. I note that the Catholic archbishop has avoided using those words. That may be because the archdiocese is reliant on government funding across many health and welfare areas and does not want to ruffle feathers. It wants to protect that funding. What has happened to churches in this country is that they’ve been captured. I consider the Catholic archbishop’s decision a poor decision. Bending in the wind is not what religion is about. Defending religious theology is a central function of the Roman Catholic Church. 

This issue is a clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living viable fetus and health bureaucrats that would kill such a fetus, a human. It’s a clash between religious principles that stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person, who may make a different decision free from coercion and momentary despair, and health bureaucrats seeking to use euthanasia as a device to balance their budget. The only god autocrats respect is the god of power. 

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules. That has inflamed ACT autocrats. The common reply repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies is: ‘There’s no place for religion in health care.’ It seems to me that this is the most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in drag queen story time the religious groups were told, ‘If you don’t like it, don’t go.’ Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don’t want religion in your health care, don’t go to a Christian-managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don’t like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility. If you don’t like religion in education, don’t send your children to a religious school. See how it works? Freedom of choice. That is what is irking the Canberra autocrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in this country. 

Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital and who are grateful for it. We know from many media reports the enabling legislation was prepared a year ahead of this takeover. Calvary were not informed of this and continued to negotiate on a new northside hospital in good faith. We know the ACT government just had its credit rating reduced. There has been no progress on negotiations over the cash compensation the ACT government must pay to Calvary for the seizure of its assets. I wonder if they have the money to pay? 

Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview, and I am strongly in support of this bill. I said this before and I’ll say it again: my message to Canberra health autocrats is God decides who lives or dies, not you.  

/2 Comments/by

Calvary Hospital Taken Over Suddenly

In the wake of the sudden and unjust takeover by the ACT Labor-Greens government of Calvary Public Hospital, the Senate conducted a public hearing inquiry.

I asked questions of a representative from the hospital. It is unusual that due process was not followed and a long-term contract was removed without consultation.

Calvary had a very strong workplace culture with well-supported values. It was more than a location for people of faith, and staff often described working there like they were part of a family.

People are deeply upset by this compulsory acquisition and the reasons that could be behind such a move at this time.

I asked the ACT’s Minister for Health questions about the specific reasons behind this move. The answers don’t match the sudden nature of the takeover, as you will hear.

What is clear though is the ACT government does not welcome any interference in its ability to exercise its own powers.

/4 Comments/by

Calvary Hospital takeover a frightening attack on religious freedom

Canberra Health Autocrats have decided there is no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital. It seems nobody is going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

Transcript

There is trouble in Pan-em from Hunger Games. Or ‘Canberra’ as some still call it.

Australian Capital Territory Health Autocrats have decided there’s no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital.

Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has been presented to the ACT Parliament.

Legislation developed over a long period of time. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health Autocrats have made to steal the Calvary Hospital.

Nothing irks autocrats more than an organisation that refuses to buckle to their heathen agenda.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed the ACT autocrats.

Nobody’s going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

There are 14 Calvary Hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing millions of Australians since their start in 1885.

Churches around Australia provide hundreds of aged care homes.

Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what the Canberra Health Autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.

I urge all members of the ACT Parliament to reconsider this evil act.

If not this will go to the Federal Parliament which has precedence over ACT law.

If ever there was a time to use our power of veto it’s now.

The Federal Parliament must send a message to these autocrats and their heathen agenda.

And the message is this:

God decides who lives and dies, not you.

/12 Comments/by

Beware fake Christians

,

Scott Morrison and Dominic Perrotett claim to be men of faith, yet seek to further divide our society.

There are fake Christians in politics. They pretend to be of faith but are actually trained to lead sheep to a slaughter, like a judas goat.

The Judas Goat: https://youtu.be/8_MDc77awHQ

Transcript

Fake Christians are the Judas goats of the 21st century. We have a fake Christian prime minister and in New South Wales, a fake Christian premier. Both are forcing the faithful to break their covenant with God or be destroyed, unable to provide for themselves and their families. Both are not ambassadors of God’s light; both are harbinger’s of hatred.

That the billionaires who own the world would advance these two men as their pawns says more about the billionaires than it does about Prime Minister Morrison and Premier Perrottet, who, we already know, are the elite’s sock puppets. Elite billionaires clearly consider Christianity as nothing more than attendance at church and pious words.

In the case of our prime minister, throw in a little happy-clappy Christian theatre. How little they understand us. The book of Matthew tells us that Jesus did not turn away lepers; Jesus healed lepers. In many such lessons throughout the Bible, Jesus was instructing the faithful, quote,

“Purity laws that categorise and isolate others are not of God. Our inner beings, our hearts must be pure and purity involves integrity of the whole person.”

These teachings support religious objection to COVID injections. If these fake Christians were indeed men of God, they would know this fundamental Christian belief and would defend that belief, not destroy it. There’s nothing Christian in these men’s actions.

Maintaining this facade of Christianity leads the faithful away from God towards segregation, towards persecution, towards the destruction of our families and our communities. That’s the role of a Judas goat.

The faithful will flourish. Those who desert their faith for anti-human corporatism will not. Perhaps this Christmas, Scott Morrison and Dom Perrottet can contemplate Jeremiah 34:8-22. Thank you.

/by

Christians silenced in WA and Defence Suicide Royal Commission – 2SM with Marcus Paul

I talked to Marcus Paul on Thursday about the current inquiry into casuals in the workforce, the WA government’s shocking move to ban the Australian Christian Lobby from a state-owned venue and progress on the Defence Suicide Royal Commission.

Transcript

[Marcus] With a smile on his noggin, is Malcolm Roberts, One Nation Senator, hello mate.

[Malcolm] G’day, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus] All right, well you saved a little bit of face up there on the Gold Coast last night.

[Malcolm] Yeah, I didn’t get to watch it because I’m calling from Bowen right now, and last night I was addressing the Chamber of Commerce, we had a fabulous night.

[Marcus] Okay.

[Malcolm] Bowen’s the place with the world’s best mangoes, but I saw the result this morning.

[Marcus] Yeah, and Bowen, I remember it well in my travels up in north Queensland, gorgeous spot, and you’re right, that’s where the world’s best mangoes come from.

[Malcolm] Bowen’s specials mate, absolutely unbeatable.

[Marcus] All right, tell me about this inquiry into security of work at the focus of course, on the casualization of our workforce. What’s happening here?

[Malcolm] Well mate, you know that I’ve been, really pushing hard on this issue for coal miners in the Hunter Valley and in central Queensland, and initially even Labour ridiculed me and just said, no this is nonsense, it’s not happening. I think some of the Labour MPs were trying to cover it up. But it’s now come out after two years of pushing this issue, it’s now come out into the open, and Labour and Liberals, sorry, Labour and the Cross bench, and the Greens have got together and we’ve got this inquiry up, sponsored by Senator Sheldon, and we’re looking into it. They’re taking the gloves off and getting right into it. And, but what I’m doing now is that I’m broadening it because job security, which is what this is all about, is not just about casuals, it’s about industry security because the Labour and Greens’ policies are ending coal mining, and it’s also about personal security because I’ve been shocked, as I’ve shared with you quite openly over the last few months.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] That people’s safety is really jeopardised and people have been crippled, and just tossed on the scrap heap with no workers’ compensation. That kind of stuff has got to end and state and federal governments are at fault, and we’ve really got to shake things up. And I’ve been very critical of the Hunter Valley CFMEU, and I remain so.

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] They have abandoned workers, completely, they’ve enabled enterprise agreements that have sold workers out. But I want to compliment the CFMEU construction division, because I read their submission into this inquiry, and it is first-class, comprehensive. And what was very disappointing was, yesterday, we did it, we asked questions of various organisations on Tuesday when I was in Rocky. And then yesterday, I had to stop at Marlborough in the bush and ask questions of the mining companies and labour hire companies. They were evasive mate. They just don’t get to the point, ’cause I think all along this whole issue has been, how do we cut miner’s wages? That’s what it’s all about.

[Marcus] Labour hire companies, essentially cut real wages, I don’t care how anybody tries to spin it, that’s exactly what happens. You and I both know it, and it’s high time that we do something about it. Tell me what’s up.

[Malcolm] Some of the companies mate, are actually giving people an introduction to mining. There’s some very good labour hire companies around.

[Marcus] Yeah, but I don’t agree with them.

[Malcolm] But some of them, they’re just ripping people off. I mean how did you get a mining company employing its own people, and then paying a commission to a labour hire firm for hiring other people? Unless you cut mining wages. You can’t give them a profit on top of miner’s wages, so they cut miner’s wages. That’s what’s going on, but there are some good ones.

[Marcus] Yeah well, maybe I might just disagree with these sorts of labour hire companies anyway, because eventually, it comes down to first and foremost how much money the labour hire company can make and workers, who are the ones putting in all the hard yards are always those that seem to lose out. Anyway, let’s put that aside now.

[Malcolm] Well, what it also shows Marcus, is that some of these mining companies, don’t understand that safety is not a cost, safety actually saves money and increases production. They also don’t seem to understand that if you pay people doing the same job, different rates of pay.

[Marcus] Of course.

[Malcolm] Then you’re gonna create animosity, it hurts morale, hurts safety, hurts commitment. That hurts productivity. It doesn’t make sense.

[Marcus] Yeah, it’s not just in the mining sector, labour hire companies hire people in factories across Southwestern Sydney and I can tell you some stories and I will one day that’ll make your toes curl. I mean, they just are ripping off workers.

[Malcolm] Yes.

[Marcus] All right, WA, let’s move over to Western Australia. I see the government there is upset. The Australian Christian Lobby, they’ve cancelled an event hire at the convention centre. The ACL had hired the convention centre, and the Labour state government cancelled the booking. Why?

[Malcolm] Well, apparently some gay and trans activists complained, and so the Labour government said, no, you can’t have that event. After they’d already signed up the Australian Christian Lobby to have that event in their convention centre, and also at one of the towns south of Perth. But Martyn Iles has been doing a fabulous job, I attended his presentation in Brisbane, it was first-class, really getting done. I think he calls it “The Truth of It.” And he’s doing a really good job, and what McGowan’s government, in the Labour of government in WA, I think they’re afraid of what he’s doing, and they’re just trying to shut him down. But really, it’s getting like Nazi Germany and China. It ends religious freedom. These people went out as a legitimate, everyday organisation and booked a venue, and then they’d been cancelled. So, this is just an end of free speech in our country. That’s what Labour is doing in Western Australia.

[Marcus] All right, well, the ACL, I’m certainly no fans of theirs, I think they’re a little too far right in some of their views, but look, they certainly do have a right in this country to assembly and get together and discuss issues that are of concern to them. So, I find it very odd and you’re right, I tend to agree, why are we shutting down conversation? That doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

[Malcolm] No, and that’s a form of control, and Marcus, you know I’ve said it many times, wherever there is control, beneath control there is fear. The Labour government in WA is afraid of these people speaking up. There are a lot of Christians, good solid Christians in WA, and they’re shutting them down. That’s not right.

[Marcus] All right, of course we know that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has been set up, we’ve got an interim report due in August of next year, a final report, not until 2023. We certainly do need to do more to support our veterans.

[Malcolm] Yes, it’s something that Pauline and I have been pushing for quite a while, but I must give compliments and appreciation to Jacqui Lambie who has been pushing this Royal Commission for quite a while now.

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] And it’s not just in the veterans, it’s also in the defence suicide, and they wanna look at systemic issues and common themes around suicide, contemplation of suicide, and feelings of suicide, you’ve given a date, and I encourage all veterans and current members of the defence force, who have a point to make, to contact the Commission and make a submission, and then see if you can become a witness before the Royal Commission, it’s really important. I’ve said it before, we have a fabulous armed forces in terms of the commitment of these people, over 100 years. And what it is, is that we actually send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them. And that’s where we’ve gotta do a better job of looking after people, when I think the Romans first noticed that, you know, what’s that a couple of thousand years ago. When a man is sent to war and he comes back, he’s a different person. We’ve gotta acknowledge that and look after these people.

[Marcus] All right mate, good to have you on, we’ll chat again next week.

[Malcolm] All right mate, thanks.

[Marcus] Take care. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts.

/by