Thursday, September 15, 2016


I hold the view that Parliament is there to govern.   If you can muster the votes you do the deal.   That the use of referenda/plebiscite (call it what you will) to determine matters of the moment should be limited to a quite narrow range of what may be broadly characterised as constitutional issues.

In Oz the Turnbull government is pressing ahead with its determination to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.    Just why they wouldn't allow parliamentarians to determine the matter on a conscience vote quite beats me ... actually it doesn't.   Certainly the coalition is split on the matter and having it determined by plebiscite is a convenient way to wash their hands of the issue.  

I guess they will argue it was in their election manifesto but the counter would be that few electors would have determined their vote solely on that question.

I see that Shorten is opposing the move on the basis that public debate on the matter may cause 'closet' gays to commit suicide.   Shorten is as doppy as Turnbull in running that line.

I declare my hand.   I am neutral on the question of same-sex marriage tending opposed.   I guess that's me reflective of my generation.   I'm unsure how I would react if one of my children/grandchildren were to involve themselves that in that sort of relationship but, in the end, it's their decision and I'm not going to play God.   They would have my support.

I also believe in parliamentary democracy.   I elect my MP to make decisions and in a conscience vote decision to do would he/she thinks right having consulted widely in the electorate.

Not sure that across the ditch they have reached that level of maturity.


Redbaiter said...

The decision to use a plebiscite is a clear indication that Tony Abbott understands that many think politicians are completely out of touch with their electorate. I'll say it again. Tony Abbott understood that fact, the massive public disillusionment with politicians. That is why he favoured the plebiscite.

Citizens have had it up to here with politicians and the media/ political class telling them what is good for them.

Australia too is not anywhere near as far down the commie tube as NZ, so there is a lot more independent and contrary thought abroad.

You might be happy with these unrepresentative progressive arseholes assuming to impose their moral standards upon you Vet, because you largely think like them. As do many NZers.

Those of us who are not part of the progressive wave and do not ever want to be have a different view. Once again, such people and such views are far more prevalent in Australia than far left NZ.

Look again at Trump's rise in the US. Look at the huge vote for third parties in Australia. Look at Brexit. All signs that citizens have had it up to here with progressive politicians in the two main parties assuming too much power, overriding their constituents views,and acting in a manner that generally exceeds the limitations of the brief they have been given.

Marxism deeply infects both major parties in most western democracies. Those of us not infected with this disease look forward to the day when this disease retreats, but until then, we don't want brain damaged commies attacking our traditional customs and culture in the mistaken belief they are bringing improvement.

The plebiscite is there so people can voice their opinion. If any redefinition of marriage is done in Australia the same as it was done in Communist NZ, any law change will be seen as illegitimate. As it is ssen by many still in NZ.

The plebiscite actually helps your cause Vet because it does provide legitimacy for the decision. (Not enough IMHO, it should need a 66% majority)

To assume that we elect politicians to make these kind of decisions is assuming far too much, and it amazes me you seem so unaware of what low regard the public have for the political class these days. They're mostly taxing thieving lying Marxist scum, and you wish to give them moral authority??

You need your head looked at.

David said...

You are right on the money. We elect a parliament to represent us and to make decisions.

The Howard Government changed The Marriage Act 1961 in 2004 without a plebiscite. That change actually defined marriage in Australia so it can just as easily be redefined and something that has only existed for 8 years can hardly be called traditional.

At the time Howard was reported as saying We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation.. Emphasis added.

Howard had the courage of his misguided convictions, and as much as I disagree with much of what he did, Howard was not afraid to lead where he thought we should go.

Abbott is a failed candidate for the priesthood, a misogynist Roman Catholic and beholden to his church. He surrounded himself with Roman Catholic fellow travelers and fundagellical evangelicals so it is no surprise that he could not make a dicision. He could see the way the tide was rushing, Canute like he knew he could not stem the tide, but he would try to delay and obfuscate as much as possible.

I'm unsure how I would react if one of my children/grandchildren were to involve themselves that in that sort of relationship but, in the end, it's their decision and I'm not going to play God. They would have my support.

As they should. I have a gay stepson and a gay step daughter, from two different branches of the family tree. My son, the step father of the gay grandson, was a typical Aussie macho male with the ingrained hatred of the poof - until Jordy came out and he loves that boy as much as he loves his two natural sons.

We do not need to waste $160 million so the parliament can avoid doing its job. And we do not need to give millions more to Lying Lyell Shelton who will not use the money to oppose marriage equality, but will use it to push his other barrows of sexual ignorance, forced birthing, Kinder, Küche, Kirche.

Redbaiter said...

"We do not need to waste $160 million"

You gotta laugh at these communist scum. Suddenly they care about "wasting $160 million".

A few years ago when in Govt most of Labor agreed with Abbott.

Even the arrogant smug commie dykes.

The Veteran said...

Two quite interesting points of view. I side with David on this one. Trouble with referenda is that the vast majority of people don't have the time nor whit to properly research the issue. They instead rely on the media for information. Would have thought the Red of all people would understand that the media ain't the font of all knowledge. It can be manipulative and biased ... indeed, Red has often pointed that out.

The Veteran said...

Red... Did Penny Wong really say that? No voice over.

Redbaiter said...

You missed the point Vet.

The media are the politicians and the politicians are the media.

They are all part of the same progressive power bloc, and we, (Conservatives) are fighting that power bloc. We have been for decades and will continue to fight for decades to come.

"I side with David on this one."

One of the most filthy cowardly lying lowlife Marxist scum commenting here.

Surely that must give cause for reconsideration.

Redbaiter said...

Vet, sorry, did not see your question.

Yes she did, as did so many other Labor politicians who were also broadly for the plebiscite.

They have completely changed their tune for this occasion.

Redbaiter said...

Actually, should also have said the reason they have changed their tune.

1) Shorten is now leader and,

2) They perceive Turnbull as having a very weak grip on power. They therefore seek to divide the Liberals and possibly see Turnbull challenged for the leadership or even fresh elections.

As Rowan Dean said on ABC Q and A Monday night, the Labor party is merely exploiting the issue of SSM for their own political advantage.

The Veteran said...

Red ... and you missed my point too (although actually you didn't). We agree the media can be biased and manipulative. I actually give the majority of politicians (NZL at least) more credit than you do. The Select Cttee process allows for a wide range of views to be heard. The information is there. No so the media. The ten second sound bite is hardly conducive to informed decision making.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Nailed it, Red. Absolutely nailed it.

Anonymous said...

"The Select Cttee process allows for a wide range of views to be heard"
But aren't they guided by their Terms of Reference.
And who sets the TORs.

Noel said...

Anon 11.15

"In order to provide a focus for inquiries they decide to initiate and to assist groups who may wish to make submissions on them, committees usually draft and adopt terms of reference when they set out on an inquiry under their inquiry function. Provided the inquiry on which they have embarked is within the terms of reference conferred on the committee by the House, internally adopted terms of reference are for the committee’s guidance only and no question of the committee acting outside those terms can be raised other than by committee members themselves at the committee. [24] Having adopted terms of reference for an inquiry, the committee may proceed to advertise them in the press and call for submissions, and may announce them at a press conference."

Psycho Milt said...

That the use of referenda/plebiscite (call it what you will) to determine matters of the moment should be limited to a quite narrow range of what may be broadly characterised as constitutional issues.

Even more to the point, referenda should definitely not be used to ask the majority to decide something that affects only a small minority, especially in a situation where there's a lot of bigotry against that minority. The term "tyranny of the majority" exists for a reason.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... you've got it.

For Red ... I just saw pigs flying. Adolf likes you.

And Red again ... how is it that anyone who has a contrary view to you is by (your definition) a Communist. Is it just possible that on occasion you could be wrong? ... reminds me of that great Mac Davis composition 'Oh Lord its hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way'.

Redbaiter said...

"how is it that anyone who has a contrary view to you is by (your definition) a Communist."

Please take this answer with the sincere spirit I offer it in Vet.

1) Its not everybody who has a differing view. I have disagreements with people who are not communists. I have agreements on some rare occasions with people who are communists.

However in most cases, the issues we disagree on have some matter of core communist conviction at their core. In most cases, those who I call communists are living breathing and speaking those core convictions without a clue as to their source.

So to summarise, most issues have communist roots, and communism has gradually become so pervasive in the country, or even the whole West, most NZers (and citizens in other Western countries) are communists without realising it.

2) The driver of all of these events, SSM included, is progressive political culture, and even you may at least realise the Marxist origins of the word "Progressive". Progressive political culture is basically Cultural Marxism, a term that refers to the gradual cultural ascendancy of Marxist ideas.

Mao termed it the "long march through the institutions". Its greatest means of success comes by way of its stealth, in that change is so gradual its unnoticeable.

If you want to understand further, please read this article What is Cultural Marxism and What is Critical Theory ?

SSM is clearly an issue driven by Cultural Marxism. It seeks to divide us. It promotes the idea that our traditional culture is flawed. It attacks the patriarchal nuclear family, long thought of by Marxists as the cornerstone of the white power structures they need to crush (deconstruct) so they can rebuild their communist Nirvana.

Family violence. Racism. Multi-culturalism. All these issues are underpinned by the same core motive. (outlined in the paragraph above).

So you can see Vet, most contentious issues today are driven by Frankfurt School generated Cultural Marxism, and that's why I use the word communist and describe people as such so frequently.

End of part one.

Redbaiter said...

Part two-

Lastly, here's a piece I have posted here once before. It nutshells so perfectly the way the Cultural Marxists have succeeded in taking control of our community by means of infiltrating our institutions and slowly perverting our culture.

Read it and think about it. If you can't see the answer to your question there then I give up.

The important point is this. Until we recognise the left's strategy, identify it and design a counter strategy, its going to keep happening and the left will keep winning.

So that is the mission, and that is why I have written this long reply to you, in the hope you will waken and do something so that your efforts in Vietnam (and of all of your brave comrades) all those years ago are not totally wasted.

The quote, written by one otherwise unknown Dan O'Connor.

If you occupied what was considered the ideological/ moral centre ground in 1965, and went to sleep for so years and woke up in 2015, you'd find yourself occupying the ideological/ moral "far right". You didn't have to budge one inch ideologically to find yourself there. That whizzing sound you heard was the ideological /cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard left.

Everything that was considered mainstream obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965, is now considered by our political, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist, and some form of mental abnormality.

In other words, within the space of so years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group self-preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies it and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy. European man is in a civilizational death dance.

Redbaiter said...


Was Ireland an example of "bigotry" and the "tyranny of the majority"?

The Veteran said...

Red ... well I guess I asked for it. Clearly you identify evolving societal change as cultural marxism. We could have a long debate about that. Some might argue it is evidence of a free society. But, and in the context of this thread, pray tell why in the few Communist countries still around they abhor same-sex marriage like the plague.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

David said...

Worried of Tauranga said...


Was Ireland an example of "bigotry" and the "tyranny of the majority"?

There are several differences between ireland and Australia, but facts seem to a stranger in your world.

Yes, Ireland was a case of the tyranny of the majority on marriage equality then, as it is now on women's health, deferring to the Corrupt Catholic Church, rather than to medicine.

Yes, there was much bigotry expressed in the lead up to the referendum. Bigots will always be bigots, as you so amply demonstrate, even when they are small minority.

And finally, Ireland has a Constitutional definition of marriage that required a referendum to change. Australia doesn't. That's why John Howard was able to redefine marriage in Australia in 2004 without a plebiscite. Don't recall you screaming about that.

Redbaiter said...

"pray tell why in the few Communist countries still around they abhor same-sex marriage like the plague."

There is no need for them to weaken their own society with the kind of subterfuge needed in Western society, where traditional regard for freedom still stands as part of our heritage, although growing weaker every day.

In their countries, they already have total power. So the kind of issues the West tears itself apart over are not even an issue. Hardly a need to indulge in Frankfurt school gradualism when the objective has already been achieved.

BTW, only someone whose hero is HST could imagine that Cultural Marxism was the path to freedom.

Did you know the Moynihan Commission, looking at cold war communist successes in America, said this about Harry?

"President Truman was almost willfully obtuse as regards American Communism."

Psycho Milt said...

Was Ireland an example of "bigotry" and the "tyranny of the majority"?

If you mean "Are you a hypocrite?", the answer is "Not in this respect at least." As mentioned above, the Irish government was obliged to conduct a referendum on the issue. If they hadn't been, conducting one would have been wrong for the same reasons it's wrong for the Aus govt to do it.

Anonymous said...

So many words, all rendered meaningless until you define communist or communism. By definition democracy is a system that allows communists, whatever their shape or colour to exist.

The alternative is to have a fascist state, whatever their extremes, where you can paint big red stars on them and then lock them up in large barbed wire compounds.

Now what is a communist? An before you bang on about "failed' communist states I can assure you that the only thing communist about them was their name.

True communism's failings are that is does not take into consideration human nature and man's greed, true communism is a utopia that never will work, much like hard core capitalism. It's called "balance".

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Red ... wash your mouth out ...

HST gave permission to drop the bomb
He sidelined Roosevelt's crypto Communist VP ... Henry Wallace
He desegregated the military
He was the driving force behind the Marshall Plan
He drove the Berlin Airlift against all advice
He faced down the communists in Korea
He fired MacArthur when MacArthur started believing his own rhetoric that he was God

And you have the gall to cheery pick from the Moyniham Commission report 35 years after HST left office. You conveniently forget that Truman in March 47 issued Executive order #9835 providing for the establishment of the Federal Government Loyality Programme providing for uniform standards of investigation and procedures and authorising the establishment of Loyalty Review Boards across the public service.
Hardly the actions of the communist smear you throw so readily.

Red .. you purport to know history. Some of us know it better. You destroy your credibility with these sorts of frolics of fancy.

Redbaiter said...

"So many words, all rendered meaningless until you define communist or communism."

Not relevant at all.

The issue here is the constant criticism of our society by the left. Manifested in this particular case by SSM, with the clear implication our traditional values regarding the family and marriage are seriously out of whack.

In other words same old same old critical theory that underpins every issue the left pick up and run with.

It happens right across the West. UK. Europe. USA. Australia. Canada. NZ. All the same pattern.

Every issue they raise is a criticism of the society you and I built, and therefore it is also a criticism of you and I. It is a criticism of our history our customs and our values.

They want us to feel ashamed, thereby clearing the way for further destruction. Or as they call it, deconstruction. They even state their objectives, through many left wing organisations, and still you guys deny what is right there in front of you and allow them to continue with their strategy.

Every issue the left pursue is an attack on what they perceive as white power structures.

I challenge you to apply this test yourself, to any issue you choose, and I guarantee you will see it fitting in almost every case.

Violence against women for another topical and clear example. The unmistakable implication our society is flawed and needs serious rebuilding, especially in the matter of its target, the target the left aim at most of all, the white male patriarch. Forget that it has been proved false so many times. Its the psych-ops that matters.

Read Mr Dan O'Connor's analysis above and think about where we will be in another sixty years if you guys don't wake up and start resisting the left's gradualism strategies.

Anonymous said...

I don't need a parliament to make decisions for me as I am a grown up and will make my own in keeping with civilisation that stalks my every thought. I am of a view tat had we had a referendum about homosexual marriage in NZ it would not have become legal and that was the reason the progressives didn't dare seek a public endorsement. Marriage is a big deal and underpins a healthy society. I suspect that the whining in Oz is not about the money but a response to the fear that it will not get passed if the public have a say.

My gay son thinks its a load of bollocks and doesn't care about homosexuals being able to marry. He's just one of course - he's a bit like Milo Yiannopolos in his world view.


David said...

And here, we finally discover what it is that Worried of Tauranga doesn't like. I've always wondered why he so against progress and so in favour of regress.

Worried of Tauranga is upset that

- blacks no longer have to sit at the back of the bus
- women can decide when, and with whom, they want to have sex, or even decide they don't want to have sex at all.
- women can control their fertility
- white, straight, christian males no longer get to make all the decisions.
- that it is OK to be atheist, to point and laugh at religious foibles
- education is about exploration, not rote learning
- The National Anthem is no longer played before every movie
- divorce is easily and readily available
- superstition has given way to scientific knowledge
- women are allowed to own property, vote and stand for election.
- women can enter in to contracts without the permission of a male.
- healthcare is based on need, not bank balance
- minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority.

In fact, Worried of Tauranga is terrified of anything that is not exactly the way it was when god handed the tablets to Moses in 1948.

Worried of Tauranga has never been able to exactly articulate what he does like, just everything he doesn't like. Which is everything good, everything people have fought for over the last 300 years. A bit like the so called Conservatives in the US.

I read an excellent attempt at winkling out Conservative Principles yesterday, but as the author found, it is easier to nail jelly to a tree.

The Veteran said...

David 10.23 .... 'God handed the tablets to Moses in 1948' .... Ok, I know HST is one of the better ones but I doubt that even he thought he was Moses when he defeated Dewey in 48'.

As for Conservative Principles ... try these

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects.

Redbaiter said...

This androgynous progressive's shirt says it all.

A wonder he/she can bear to live in such a hostile and suppressive society.

Maybe he/she should FO to another one.

David said...

Thanks Vet, well put. I'll try to respond later in the day. Shame Worried from Tauranga had to just pop in and shit all over you. This perhaps deserves a thread of its own.

In just a few short words, Worried of Tauranga has managed to clearly point out the difference between Conservative Principles in theory (your post) and Conservative Principles in action (my link).

Worried of Taurnaga wouldn’t fit in Trump’s basket of deplorables, but Trevor Noah has a far better place for him.

Redbaiter said...

Hey Vet, good attempt at explaining Conservatism.

You'd need to write it out again in words of one or two syllables before millennials educated in our Progressive education system could even have a hope in hell of understanding.

The more ignorant the left can make our children, the more power those children will donate to the progressive state.

David said...

Aaaaannnnd again - Worried of Tauranga shows the difference between Conservative Principles in theory and Conservative Principles in action.

The dumbing down of education has been at the hands of the conservatives, it is they who keep trying to get science out of the curriculum and mythology in, it is they who yell "Teach the controversy" when the only controversy is one they manufactured, it is they who are replacing reasonable sex education with "abstinence only".

If you want to see how dumb education is under Conservatives, look at a few Texas High School text books.

If you want to see how well Progressive Education works, look to Scandinavia.

The Veteran said...

David ... in NZL and my experience is that the 'left' have elevated the dumbing down of education to an art form ... remind me who it was that promoted courses on homeopathy for pets.

Gerald said...

promoted courses on homeopathy for pets.

We are aware the Queen and Charles favours homeopathy.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David, I wouldn't look too closely at Scandinavia if I were you. You might find all is not as it seems.

Anonymous said...

Just as I was enjoying this debate up pipes the Beijing blogger to once again give us his wide experience of other people and cultures. No country is as it seems fool.

Try "NZ 100% pure" for a start. Stay out of the grown ups conversation.

Lord Egbut