All true but we buried Diocletian. We’ll see off Daniel Andrews

James Macpherson in The Spectator isn’t wrong: Hate speech laws silent on Christian attacks.
This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of the left, Religion and faith. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to All true but we buried Diocletian. We’ll see off Daniel Andrews

  1. Franx says:

    Turning the other cheek first requires acknowledging that one cheek, one facet of existence, has been violated. The silence from the hierarchy suggests, though, that no offence has occurred, in which case no need for invoking any Christian virtues in response. Perhaps no need for Christianity at all.

  2. Buccaneer says:

    Obviously, they aren’t willing to extend ‘my body my choice to Mary’… 4 legs good 2 legs bad

  3. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Several points…

    1. Firstly, that sign and Murphy are a disgrace.

    2. Would Murphy have held up a sign, smiling, calling for the abortion of Mohammad?
    Nope. And if she had, she’d now be in hiding.

    3. Murphy should have been sacked. Pity Kerry Packer is no longer the proprietor of Nine. Whilst not a believer he would have ordered her immediate termination.

  4. Lee says:

    Paywalled for me.

  5. C.L. says:

    Here you go, Lee:

    The Left are always banging on about ‘not offending’ this group, and ‘not upsetting’ that group – words are literal violence.

    Don’t misgender a trans woman. And don’t start a meeting without acknowledging the Aboriginal people – even if none are in the room. Don’t imply disabled people are in any way disadvantaged. And don’t criticise adult men in fishnets reading stories to preschoolers as anything other than perfectly normal.

    But, of course, there is one group for whom the normal sensibilities do not apply.

    ‘Inclusiveness’ means excluding Christians. ‘Diversity’ means everyone except Christians.

    And so it was that absurdity ensued when Nine News reporter Lana Murphy was handed a pro-abortion sign at a Melbourne protest that read:

    ‘Mary (the virgin) should have had an abortion.’

    Now, abortion rallies are not exactly known for their niceties. And, let’s face it, people wanting to kill Jesus is hardly a new phenomenon. But this sign was beyond the pale.

    Murphy evidently thought it was hilarious and posted a photograph of herself in fits of laughter holding the sign on Instagram.

    Imagine the reaction if you went public with a sign saying, ‘George Floyd’s mum should have had an abortion’. The Left would be rightly enraged.

    Keeping the comparison to religion, would Murphy have thought a sign ‘funny’ that suggested something similar regarding the Islamic faith and its most-revered individual?

    Not if she valued her life, she wouldn’t.

    Not only would Australia’s human rights watchdog come for her, she would likely spend the rest of her life surrounded by police protection, living in terror like a French cartoonist working for Charlie Hebdo.

    In this case, however, the tasteless joke was directed at Christianity. The rules of respect and tolerance don’t apply to the Christian faith.

    The Left decries every kind of phobia under the sun apart from Christianophobia, which – like biology – they don’t believe exists.

    It’s this double standard that exposes Leftism for what it is – a shameless assault on Christianity.

    Christianity is the one minority (according the latest census only 44 per cent of Australians now identify as Christian) that can be ridiculed, insulted, and mocked with impunity.

    I personally support the right of anyone to mock anything they like. If free speech doesn’t apply to speech I don’t like then it is not free at all.

    And if Jesus is real then He is well able to deal with his detractors.

    If a Nine News reporter wants to take in hand and laugh along with a sign like that, that’s her business. It’s the double standard that I take issue with. What happened to equality?

    Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said last year:

    ‘All forms of hate are unacceptable and have no place in Victoria.’

    I imagine a sign saying that the founder of the Christian religion should have been poisoned in the womb and sucked into the trash before ever drawing breath would be reasonably hateful?

    I look forward to Premier Andrews coming out tomorrow to condemn this hateful, vile, disgusting attack on the Christian faith.

    I’m joking of course. It’ll never happen.

    Daniel Andrews is no more likely to defend Christianity against hateful attacks than he is to remember who recommended the security team for his failed hotel quarantine program.

    Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act makes behaviour that incites or encourages hatred, serious contempt, revulsion, or severe ridicule against another person or group of people, because of their race or religion, unlawful.

    Will Murphy be charged with a hate crime? We all know she won’t.

    It’s Jesus who is being mocked, not Muhammad. It’s Christianity that is being pilloried, not Buddhism. Play on…

    For the record, I think hate speech laws are absurd. It’s not the government’s job to protect my feelings or to adjudicate on my enemy’s emotions.

    Again, it’s the double standard that insists hate is terrible except when directed toward Christians who should not be so sensitive that I object to.

    Some Christians took to social media demanding Murphy’s employers sack her. If Israel Folau lost his job for saying homosexuals would go to hell, Murphy should lose her job for saying that Mary should have had access to um, health care.

    This is foolish. You can’t complain about cancel culture and then demand the cancellation of people you don’t like.

    As for the double standard, perhaps Christians shouldn’t be too upset by that either. That Christians are expected to turn the other cheek and to forgive every slight against them is the unintended compliment the Left pay to the Christian faith and to its founder who, when nailed to a Roman cross, said only, ‘Father forgive them, they know not what they do.’


    Editor’s note: fellow Speccie writer Joel Agius’ Tweet about the incident was quoted in the Daily Mail as being partly responsible for Ms Murphy being ‘punished and counselled’ on why the sign was not appropriate.

    Ms Murphy issued the following statement:

    In my role as a journalist I always strive to remain impartial and respectful to either side of rational debate.

    On Saturday, while reporting on the pro-choice rally, I was photographed being passed a sign made by one of the attendees.

    The words on the sign and my subsequent posting of that image on my personal social media account has caused offence to some in the religious community. This was not my intention, and I wholeheartedly apologise to those that were hurt.

    I acknowledge that in my professional role, it was not the appropriate time to appear to have chosen any side.

  6. Lee says:

    Thanks for that, C.L.
    Roughly half the time for me (I am not a subscriber) I can read a full Speccie article, the other times, no.

    The same sort of people who find that sign amusing or approve it would be the first to say that blaming Muslims or their religion for Islamist terrorism is “Islamophobia.”

  7. NoFixedAddress says:

    Bloody Christians always getting in the way of building towers to Babel.

    Utopia is a Christian free world.

  8. Entropy says:

    Of course it is. There is no sin in Utopia and it is populated by the new Soviet man.

  9. Entropy says:

    And woman!

  10. NoFixedAddress says:

    Entropy says:
    6 July, 2022 at 6:03 pm

    And woman!

    You have gone too far Entropy!

    When it is proven that a man can give birth what need of a woman in the New Soviet Utopia!

  11. Perplexed of Brisbane says:

    C.L. says:
    6 July, 2022 at 5:11 pm

    And if Jesus is real then He is well able to deal with his detractors.

    That is one small detail they forget. He is and will deal with them and their eternal punishment will be more terrifying and agonising than anything they could suffer on earth.

    So, we Christians can wait.

  12. cuckoo says:

    All true but we buried Diocletian. We’ll see off Daniel Andrews


  13. Not Trampis says:

    Perplexed is correct.
    One of the problems in banning certain types of speech is what exactly do you ban and for what reason. The sign was disgusting but banning it? If you read the bible then Christians aint going to have a ‘gentle’ life.

    I always though the reason behind banning hate speech was to reduce the violence which might follow.

  14. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    I always though the reason behind banning hate speech was to reduce the violence which might follow.

    Then existing laws against incitement to violence should have been employed. So-called “hate speech” broadly translates as “speech that upsets leftists”.

    That said, the whole “hate speech” meme is a farce. As Mao said, “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend”. Then, having identified his enemies by their speech, he purged them.

  15. Morsie says:

    I didn’t use to but now let’s play by the same rules until we get back to normal.She should be sacked.
    No turning of cheeks anymore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *