August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House

johnboy 15 July 2011 160

Earlier in the week we were disturbed that the kings of Sydney talkback radio, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, and Chris Smith, were coming to Canberra to broadcast from the lawns of Parliament House.

We gather that’s for some sort of anti carbon tax rally.

But now the Sydney gay media is noting that there’s going to be a gay hate march converging on our fair city that same day:

A collection of gay hate groups will join forces to rally against marriage equality in Canberra next month.

An initiative of the Australian Family Association, the National Marriage Coalition, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and Dads4Kids: Fatherhood Foundation, the coalition is aiming for a repeat of its 2004 rally which coincided with the Howard Government’s changes to the Marriage Act.

The groups will meet in Parliament House’s Great Hall on August 16.

The ‘National Marriage Day’ is being advertised by the group as being the first day of sitting for the new Senate in which the Greens hold the balance of power, despite the new Senate having already sat this month.
“You are needed in Canberra to show support for natural marriage and warn all politicians,” its call to action on the ACL website reads.

Is it time for Canberra to get it’s freak on?

UPDATE: Thanks to the readers who’ve pointed out Radio National reporting that the unholy trinity are scared to face the people of Canberra.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
160 Responses to August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House
Filter
Order
wooster wooster 4:56 pm 11 Aug 11

Its good fun to see how, on the one hand, public opinion is cited in support of gay marriage (although whether or not this is the case would depend highly on the way the survey is framed – I can’t comment on that), yet overwhelming opposition to the carbon tax is dismissed. The embracing of the new cause de jour, complemented with enough high-mindedness about how the great unwashed is in no position to comment authoritatively on the subject matter, apparently, is enough to justify the suspension of genuine debate in the eyes of some.

And indeed, Gershwin, ‘marriage’ has exclusively meant the union between a male and a female. Any reputable dictionary (for eg check the shorter OED) would confirm this definition. Several thousands of years of judeo-christian culture and practice have settled that.
And don’t throw any bible-basher bs at me – I don’t believe it – but I put it to you that if the core issue is equality before the law then the most pragmatic manner to achieve it is to avoid the use of the word marriage itself.

Seems like an eminently reasonable solution to me, but then again, it looks like I believe in freedom of assembly, expression and non-violent demonstration, so what would I know?

shadow boxer shadow boxer 4:42 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

lol, nice try but I think your true colours have been revealed.

It’s a shame the proponents of this tax aren’t able to have a reasonable discussion on the best way of attacking the problem without name calling.

Clearly asking a small portion of the community to fund the entire initiative is unfair and flawed. You might be some chance if you had a plan where we all contribute equally, but then where would we put the wedge ?

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 4:26 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

Neither can the majority of the “price carbon or we’ll all be rooned brigade”.

Whilst I believe that there is no argument over the science of climate change, there is a lot we need to look at before we move to implement an economic solution to a scientific phenomena.

I am yet to see any have well-considered and evidence-based economic views on whether now is the time to impose a carbon price given:
a) the current vulnerability in the domestic and global market;
b) there is no international accord on carbon reduction targets;
c) the current fixed price model is a poor model compared to that taken to the 2007 election by the coalition and that put to parliament by the Rudd govt;
d) the potential damage to our terms of trade and the reduced price competitiveness of Australian goods on the international market;
e) the all carrot and no stick compensation scheme for householders does not provide any incentive for the common folk to change their habits in regard to energy usage or their broader carbon foot print.

We have a model for carbon pricing that has very low reduction targets, overcompensates households, will damage our export markets and will be implemented by a government that has failed to implement anything effectively.

Gershwin Gershwin 3:49 pm 11 Aug 11

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

PantsMan PantsMan 3:47 pm 11 Aug 11

Didn’t notice anyone complaining about the 300 carbon extremists demanding a reduction in all Australian’s living standards and a radical redistribution of wealth earlier this year?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:45 pm 11 Aug 11

shadow boxer said :

Gershwin said :

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

Then it doesn’t matter if I litter then, or dump my rubbish by the side of the road? My littering alone will have almost no effect on the environment.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 3:09 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

00davist 00davist 1:51 pm 11 Aug 11

blowers said :

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

1) I think you misread, It’s the OPPOSED peoples parade.

2) TROLL!

MissChief MissChief 1:51 pm 11 Aug 11

There’s a fine line between love and hate. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Stevian Stevian 1:41 pm 11 Aug 11

blowers said :

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

What about all those lefties and gays who have made Canberra their home permanently? You’ll have to stay out of town

blowers blowers 1:26 pm 11 Aug 11

Thanks for the heads up on all these leftys and gays making Canberra their home for a day. I’ll make sure i am out of town. What a load of … well u know.

Gershwin Gershwin 1:15 pm 11 Aug 11

wooster said :

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And that smacks of smugly uneducated narrow-mindedness. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind at least, it has precisely nothing to do with class; it has to do with logical argument and the weight of scientific evidence, and the more the science is denied, the stupider the proponents show themselves to be. I apply this equally to highly educated idiots such as Ian Plimer.

wooster said :

And for the record – ‘marriage’ is a value-laden term.

Yes, it means marriage, nothing less. That is exactly what the issue is all about. Thanks for getting on the same page as the rest of us.

Stevian Stevian 11:09 am 11 Aug 11

farnarkler said :

There’ll be so many Jesus fish stickers to steal!!!

A scavenger hunt, goodie. Is there a prize for collecting the most.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 10:31 am 11 Aug 11

wooster said :

Of the significant proportion of people opposing gay marriage, the vast majority of them fully support equality before the law; they just oppose the use of that particular term.

Source please, or are you just making it up?

farnarkler farnarkler 10:28 pm 10 Aug 11

There’ll be so many Jesus fish stickers to steal!!!

wooster wooster 9:54 pm 10 Aug 11

“especially in Canberra, we are the thinkers of society. We will be prepared.”

Goodness me – we’ve got a lot of pretentious w*nkers here.
“Day of darkness” my ass. As someone else pointed out, why is anyone disagreeing with you any less able to voice their opinions?

This smacks of leftie-elitism at its worst. The self-righteousness manner in which the university-educated class looks down its nose at the legitimate concerns of fellow Australians is disguisting.

And for the record – ‘marriage’ is a value-laden term. Of the significant proportion of people opposing gay marriage, the vast majority of them fully support equality before the law; they just oppose the use of that particular term.

Also, the carbon tax, whether you support it or not, is a legitimate issue to be debated or protested. The mere fact that so many of the self-anointed learned-ones in this forum oppose the very right to protest (rather than the substance of the protest itself) is a seriously damning indictment on their judgement.

milkman milkman 7:56 pm 10 Aug 11

I don’t think disagreeing with gay marriage means you are a gay hater… sheesh…

00davist 00davist 4:34 pm 10 Aug 11

Stevian said :

00davist said :

Erg0 said :

00davist said :

That is how you prioritise your life, and as long as no one is getting hurt, and you are happy, then I can’s see a damn issue.

However, Should people who have different priorities, be stopped from getting married?

You know how it is with these things, they start it off as a voluntary scheme, but eventually it becomes compulsory. It’s a slippery slope.*

*Bazinga!

I’m having trouble following you here, are you suggesting if we allow gay marriage, it will become compulsory?

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting. For the purposes of humour and so he can use the phrase slippery slope

Yes, I just noticed the challenge!

Had me going for a moment there, I fully support gay marrage, but imagine if we ended up full across the board, full nationwide compulsory gay marrage for all.

I’m pretty open minded, but I can see that bringing up a few issues with the missus…

…Such as “Who’s He?, And why is he in bed with us?”

marcothepolopony marcothepolopony 4:32 pm 10 Aug 11

I wonder why Alan Jones won’t come to a Gay Hate parade?

Stevian Stevian 4:19 pm 10 Aug 11

00davist said :

Erg0 said :

00davist said :

That is how you prioritise your life, and as long as no one is getting hurt, and you are happy, then I can’s see a damn issue.

However, Should people who have different priorities, be stopped from getting married?

You know how it is with these things, they start it off as a voluntary scheme, but eventually it becomes compulsory. It’s a slippery slope.*

*Bazinga!

I’m having trouble following you here, are you suggesting if we allow gay marriage, it will become compulsory?

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting. For the purposes of humour and so he can use the phrase slippery slope

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site