A vote for the Voice is a vote for a national ban on free speech

24 Responses to A vote for the Voice is a vote for a national ban on free speech

Roger W says:

27 May, 2023 at 1:00 pm

If simply voting No is racist, advocating a No vote must be racist.
Maybe it would be easier if the ALP Government simply filled out all the referendum votes for us.
NFA says:

27 May, 2023 at 1:17 pm

I thought the AEC were already doing that!
I’m from the “F**ken Sick of It Tribe”.
Mantaray says:

27 May, 2023 at 1:22 pm

Roger W (1pm). I already explained the following on the earlier thread about sporting outfits “supporting” Albo’s Voice…..but will repeat.

So what if some low-IQ leftist shrieks “racist”? The fate of Albo’s Voice will be decided in the voting booths = the massive defeat of Albo’s Vanity Project will occur IN PRIVATE, and will have zero to do with Albo’s mates and their shrieking in public..
Fat Tony says:

27 May, 2023 at 1:24 pm

I thought the AEC were already doing that!

I’ve always thought that’s what happened with the SSM “plebiscite”…
Christine says:

27 May, 2023 at 1:32 pm

How to “better understand racism”?
Cast the net wide; they don’t seem to understand this will encourage more resentment/’racism’. Or maybe they do.
and says:

27 May, 2023 at 2:31 pm

The Pirate of Piffle revisits Folau. It’s behind a paywall. Does anyone have access?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/flagging-the-lack-of-logic-in-response-to-folau-backlash-20230526-p5dblf.html
C.L. says:

27 May, 2023 at 3:11 pm

Thanks, Ando. What a grub:

Flagging a lack of logic in coach’s response to Folau backlash

Peter FitzSimons

Here is former All Blacks coach Steve Hansen on the RFU flying a rainbow flag at Twickenham to support the LGBTQ+ community, which is aggrieved by the selection of Israel Folau in Hansen’s World XV taking on the Barbarians this weekend. See if you can spot the problem.

“I think it’s great,” Hansen said. “It’s a consequence of Folau’s selection and I think it’s a good thing. It’s an opportunity to show support to that flag. I don’t have a problem with it. There wouldn’t be one there if Israel wasn’t playing, so whenever we can bring attention to people who are suffering, in a positive way, that’s good.”

No Steve. You don’t invite the most infamously homophobic sportsman in the world onto your team – who has never expressed remorse for those posts, or the damage he did to Australian rugby – and then say, “Hey, what a great thing that we now have the rainbow flag above Twickenham!”

When your action is the problem, you don’t get to boast about how great the reaction is.

Hansen also says to those offended by Folau’s selection: “I want those people to understand that Israel’s belief and views are not ours. And we don’t agree with them.”

Great, Steve. Easy words. But by picking him, you’re saying that literally demonising gay people – they’re all going to burn in hell – and never backing off a jot, is no big deal.

And as for those saying Folau has paid his dues and should be free to return to rugby, not a bit of it. It was Rugby Australia that bloody well paid his dues – millions of dollars after the contract imbroglio – and he left smoking ruins behind him, from which we have still not been able to rebuild.

Giving him an honoured position in the World XV is ludicrous, most particularly when he has been playing second-tier Japanese rugby.
NFA says:

27 May, 2023 at 3:28 pm

Has “The Pirate of Piffle” (love that ‘and’) transitioned or just displaying his simian brain synapses?
Lee says:

27 May, 2023 at 4:04 pm

And as for those saying Folau has paid his dues and should be free to return to rugby, not a bit of it. It was Rugby Australia that bloody well paid his dues – millions of dollars after the contract imbroglio – and he left smoking ruins behind him, from which we have still not been able to rebuild.

Not the slightest bit of sympathy from me for rugby.
All Rugby Australia had to do was ignore what Folau wrote and not sack him.
Instead, in a public display of woke virtue-signalling they scored an own goal.
Buccaneer says:

27 May, 2023 at 4:57 pm

Folau saying to someone who doesn’t believe in hell, that they will go to hell if they don’t repent, is no big deal. Someone who believes in any religion that labels homosexual acts as ones that require repentance and does not repent after performing them, has decided to choose homosexuality over their religion. In my book, that’s their choice. The only big deal here seems to be feeble minded people who think that they should take moral guidance from footballers.
Buccaneer says:

27 May, 2023 at 4:58 pm

And sports administrators who want to tell their player how to think.
Ragu says:

27 May, 2023 at 5:21 pm

literally demonising gay people – they’re all going to burn in hell – and never backing off a jot, is no big deal.

Interesting. If you don’t believe in religion or it’s tenets, then why would you give a plook about Hell?
Franx says:

27 May, 2023 at 6:24 pm

Hell in St Paul is clearly about not inheriting the Kingdom of God.
No reason why the republican FitzSimons is not championing Folau.
Wally Dalí says:

27 May, 2023 at 6:34 pm

They don’t fear hell, in fact they’re busy endorsing it, on earth.
What they do fear is people of Christian faith, because they are called to personal examination and a belief in a power beyond the here and now.
They are Authoritarians, and the faithful are out of reach of their threatss and punishments.
Roger W says:

27 May, 2023 at 6:58 pm

Well put, Wally.
Tel says:

27 May, 2023 at 7:29 pm

It’s an “imbroglio” now, when people who sign a contract are expected to pay what they promised to pay.

No Steve. You don’t invite the most infamously homophobic sportsman in the world onto your team …

If your only argument is to tell lies about the other guy … then you already lost the argument. Thanks for playing.
Entropy says:

27 May, 2023 at 8:24 pm

Leftists hate competition for ideas. Just like the old time inquisition priests they pretend to be superior to.
and says:

27 May, 2023 at 8:27 pm

Thanks, C.L.
and says:

27 May, 2023 at 9:14 pm

Obvious is that, from the Folau saga, the jackass Pirate learned nothing of value… zip.

If your only argument is to tell lies about the other guy … then you already lost the argument.

There are a number of inflammatory lies in just this short Pirate piece. At the time, the Goth head of Strine RU conceded that people had the right to hold religious beliefs BUT should not express them in a public forum if those beliefs conflicted with an employer’s stance. This is contradictory and takes a baseball bat to religious rights.

It seems that sensibility prevailed with the RU defense team, concluding that the chance of success in the courtroom (re unfair dismissal) was slim, if that. Therefore, Strine RU settled out of court for millions. It’s just too much logic for the Pirate’s puny cross-wired thinking to accept that RU was in the wrong… that’s why they settled out of court, still now blaming Folau for the “imbroglio”.

There’s the use of the tired lie of the concocted “homophobia”.

Then there’s the demand for remorse/apology from Folau for quoting the Bible.

The Pirate is a mind-addled authoritarian… kombucha-sipping bully… running on hate masqueraded as “nouveaux morality”. It’s pathetic. It’s sad. But he pursues this path with a [deranged] passion.

The Pirate of Piffle has not only found the wide way that leads to disaster, but may well have found the express lane therein.
NFA says:

27 May, 2023 at 10:35 pm

what and says…
and says:

28 May, 2023 at 11:25 am

Did you hear the one about Hidea Snorp lodging a human rights complaint against the Greens?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/may/28/australia-news-live-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton-lidia-thorpe-richard-marles-indigenous-voice
Rafiki says:

28 May, 2023 at 12:09 pm

It is apparent that those who want to ban speech are running 2 related claims. One is that “hate talk” is not speech at all, and thus banningi it need not be justified. This is calculated to avoid the relevance of common law, statutory (such as the ACT Human Rights Act) and constitutional protections of speech.
Two is that any kind of speech is disregarded if it’s not “truthful”. This seems to be what Stan Grant meant when he said that ABC “balancing” opinions did not warrant making room for untruthful speakers.

Both doctrines are quite pernicious.
Christine says:

28 May, 2023 at 1:35 pm

I didn’t understand why his attackers supposedly cared about Hell.

Evidently, what’s unbearable to Fitzsimons is that Folau didn’t back off “a jot”.
Buccaneer says:

28 May, 2023 at 8:27 pm

The voice yes commercial that says the constitution does not represent indigenous Australians is untruthful, the constitution currently treats all people equally, that also means all people are represented in it and to name one group over all others is simply racism.