Old Mother Hubbard


Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi notes how no-one can take the Gillard Government seriously:

With the budget only a fortnight away, the media is awash with speculation about what is in store for the country.

This week, the Prime Minister finally admitted what many have been saying for many months: the financial cupboard is bare and 'all options are on the table'. This is political speak for ‘new taxes are on the way’.

Despite a healthy 7 per cent rise in tax takings over the past year, the government committed to around a 12 per cent increase in spending. For some inexplicable reason they thought the nation would cough up the extra even when the economy is so clearly struggling. This assumption (which Labor defends as being based on Treasury modelling) clearly brings into question the value and wisdom we are getting from our public service advisers.

If families, business people and members of the Opposition knew that things were tough outside of the rarefied air of the bureaucracy and executive, how did our highly paid specialist advisers sign off on such dodgy modelling? One can only assume that political influence was brought to bear.

If this is true, it makes the credibility of Swan, Gillard and Wong sink to an even lower level than it was. For many months they have been steadfastly assuring the nation that things were on track and a surplus was on the way. When this rhetoric changed, they claimed it was justified because income had fallen short of estimates – the dodgy estimates that they possibly insisted should be used in the first place.

And yet amazingly, these people still want to be taken seriously as credible financial managers.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

The Bold And The Woeful


Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi discusses the soap opera that is the current Federal Labor Party: 

What more can be said about the state of disarray within our federal government?

It has become a theatre of the absurd with a plot line akin to the Days of Our Lives saga. Unfortunately, the events depicted in our daily media are real and the characters are in charge of our nation.

Like every compelling soap opera there are returning players who were previously presumed dead. That role currently ‘stars’ Kevin Rudd, who represents as close to everlasting life as we’ll likely ever see in politics. Even his own team are wondering what special implement is needed to stop him from rising again.

Then there are the characters whose imminent death lingers through episode after episode. Viewers tune in in equal measure, hoping for a miraculous recovery or confirmation of their demise. No one fills this role in modern politics quite like Julia Gillard. There seems to be no doubt within the electorate that she will eventually be put to the political sword but it seems there are a few more scenes to film before that happens.

No good (bad?) soap is complete without the required villains. These are represented in this high political farce by the faceless men. Feared and loathed by most in their own party, few dare risk their ire through failing to pay appropriate homage. After all, when trouble strikes the main players turn to these men to save their skin.

And then there are the bit players; the nodding dolls who stand resolutely behind whomever they are told to for the television cameras, indicating their furious agreement. Sometimes they get to say a few lines of their own but their contribution it is generally limited to the state of parliamentary beef stroganoff or ‘lobotomised zombies’.

Of course, there are the obligatory extras. Sometimes these feature members of the public, carefully chosen from the Actors Equity Union membership list who can be relied upon not to steal the ‘on location’ scene from the main stars – think dining with sympathetic mummy bloggers rather than the punters at the Rooty Hill RSL.

Naturally these outside studio shots are fraught with danger lest a rogue extra stumble onto set and say something unscripted that’s not approved by the caucus focus group. Unfortunately for the publicists involved with this political soap opera, these ‘reality star’ moments are captured by independent cinematographers and can rarely be edited out of existence.

Now that we have the players, it seems that the plot takes care of itself. Surely no one who actually wrote a script along the lines of what we have borne witness to could ever be taken seriously.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

Public or Political Interest?


Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi discusses the latest attack on Free Speech by the government (visit www.FreeSpeechAustralia.com to fight back!)

Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy – at least that's what ‘media regulator in chief’ and Gillard Government minister Stephen Conroy claims.

And yet, despite his rhetoric about freedom of opinion, he has just launched a proposal to increase regulation of media interests. It's a half-baked policy that threatens freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

In the government’s typically belligerent fashion, the propaganda minister has threatened that if his package is not passed in full by the end of next week he will take his bat and ball and go home! Notwithstanding the fact that we’d all be better off if everyone in this government decided to ‘go home’ until September 14, petulant ultimatums aren’t how public policy should be made.

The cornerstone of the government’s bill is deemed the ‘public interest test’. Given that we already have laws that protect diversity of voices, promote competition and prevent market concentration, it begs the question: what additional interference is Senator Conroy proposing?

One might also question the ‘public interest’ of anything this government has proposed. Massive waste of taxpayers’ money, lethal policies, falsehoods and failures have characterised most of this government’s actions. It's clear that political interest, rather than public interest, has been the overriding consideration of the Labor caucus.

Click here to keep reading. 

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

Let’s get Cory Bernardi

There has been much said for and against Cory Bernardi on this forum recently about his links to various entities and matters of non-disclosure. Bernardi himself cannot comment as legal action has been taken. However, this article posted on Quadrant should put to rest much of the nonsense report by Fairfax media. Of course, there will always be those who will believe what they want. That's how smear works. GC.Ed.

Read more:http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/01/fauxfacts-media

In Defence of Freedom

Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi stands with Israel:

I have always been a supporter of Israel.

It is a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. During a visit there a few years ago, I was struck by the resilience and optimism shown by the Israelis under very trying circumstances. The testing of their patience and resolve in the face of repeated attacks from terror group Hamas has since increased.

Most recently, missiles salvaged from the Libyan Islamist insurgency by the rulers of Gaza have been launched at major Israeli population centres – Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This is an alarming escalation from the hundreds of home-made and rather ineffective rockets directed at Israel annually from within the Gaza Strip.

The cowards in Hamas responsible for these attacks usually store and launch their weapons of terror from within residential areas. This is so that any retaliatory strike will likely incur civilian casualties, which can be paraded before a sympathetic and often unquestioning press in an attempt to discredit the justifiable Israeli defence response.

This is a common tactic used in the propaganda war by terrorists. They view the loss of innocent civilian lives as just collateral damage that can be used to further advance their cause. In some instances, they will even target their own people in grotesque public displays of political violence.

This morning’s media carried one such event. 

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is a Senator for South Australia. 

Slippery Slope

Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi discusses Peter Slipper's resignation from parliament – and what it says about the integrity of the Gillard Government: 

Just when you think the Australian Parliament cannot throw up any more surprises, it almost spins out of control.

Peter Slipper, the Speaker of the House who has been mired in allegations of sexual harassment and scandal, finally did the right thing and resigned. This came just hours after the government, led by Julia Gillard, defended his continuing in the role.

It suggests that Mr Slipper, for all his personal peccadilloes, has better judgement than our Prime Minister.

The vitriolic debate conducted by the Gillard Government descended into personal smears and attacks, principally against the Leader of the Opposition. Launching a fusillade of abuse decrying Tony Abbott as a misogynist and a sexist, even Julia Gillard’s hibernating conscience seems to have been stirred from its slumber.

Her attack was launched during what was effectively a motion of no confidence in the House Speaker. The motion was brought on by his degrading and insulting text messages relating to women. Not a word of condemnation about these messages and how they diminished the Speaker’s position in the parliament passed the Prime Minister’s lips. Instead, she launched an attack on a husband and father to three daughters, decrying him in the most unparliamentary terms.

It was a similar pattern from the sensitive souls in what people are calling the ‘handbag hitsquad’. Nicola Roxon was silent about Mr Slipper’s slip-ups, choosing instead to blame Tony Abbott’s dislike for her as being a result of her gender. I’m sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with her poor performance in her portfolio. Her personal antipathy to Tony Abbott certainly doesn't explain why she voted to keep Peter Slipper in the Chair despite portraying herself as a ‘champion of feminism’. Tanya Plibersek chose to support Peter Slipper too. In doing so, she created a serious credibility gulf between her faux outrage at the merest slight and her silence on genuinely offensive matters of principle.

Of course, after the fact, they have all claimed that Peter Slipper has ‘done the right thing’. On that they are quite correct. However, they haven't been able or willing to explain why they didn't do the right thing when they had the opportunity.

This goes right to the heart of what the public perceives to be the problem with modern politics. Australians simply do not trust many of their politicians to put the national interest ahead of their personal or party interest.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is a Senator for South Australia. 

Local media slams Bernardi

The huge fuss made here about the demoting of Senator Cory Bernardi was ballooned by coverage in the UK media. The same words are used for journalistic convenience. The Bernardi travesty was of such international importance that it failed to rate in the top 10 stories viewed in the UK Telegraph. Number 5 was, "Dog shoots owner in France." Priorities, I suppose.

GC.Ed.

Sen. Bernardi’s Now-Infamous Speech

Cory-BernardiHere is the full text of Senator Bernardi's speech on proposed ammendments to the Commonwealth Marriage Act:

NOTE: Menzies House has no editorial position on this matter, and we have published numerous pieces in favour of same sex marriage, opposing same sex marriage, and even calling for the privitisation of marriage. We are reposting this speech simply in the interests of furthering debate and so that people can read Senator Bernardi's comments firsthand – Tim Andrews, Managing Editor. 

I have spoken many times in this place about the importance of traditional marriage. In fact, I spoke about marriage in my maiden speech in this place over six years ago. In that speech I said:

Marriage has been reserved as a sacred bond between a man and a woman across times, across cultures and across very different religious beliefs. Marriage is the very foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society. Thus marriage is a personal relationship with public significance and we are right to recognise this in our laws.

I have been and always will be a strong supporter of traditional marriage and its current definition, being a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is accorded a special place in our society because it is a union that is orientated towards having children, thereby ensuring the continuation of our population and civilisation. Society benefits from marriage, so marriage is accorded benefits by society. At the base level marriage is concerned about what is best for society, rather than being concerned about the so-called rights of the individual. Changing the definition of marriage would indeed change the focus of the institution itself. It would put the focus on the desire of adults, as opposed to having the focus on the production and nurturing of an environment for the raising of children for the benefit of society.

I know that not every marriage has children but marriage is a foundation for the family unit upon which our society is built. It has proven itself as the most sustainable and effective social support and training environment for our future generations. I recall columnist Miranda Devine quoted a UK Family Court judge in 2010 in which he noted that family breakdown is the cause of most social ills and that, despite its faults, marriage should be restored as the gold standard and social stigma should be reapplied to those who destroy family life.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that children of married couples benefit from marriage because they have higher levels of social, emotional and educational development in comparison with children who do not live in that traditional environment. Married mothers are more likely to be employed or hold a university degree and married-couple families are less likely to come up against financial problems. While the authors of the research were keen to stress that this is because of a family's financial situation and the educational qualifications of the mother, it does give me cause to wonder: doesn't marriage itself help to provide financial stability and better outcomes? That seems to be a case for opening marriage up to any environment and to any union of two people, as Senator Cameron said, who happen to love each other, but in a family environment it is children who should be the primary concern and children benefit from having both a male and a female role model living in a house—two people that love each other in a permanent union.

We have all seen the sad effects of marriage breakdown and the adverse impacts it can have on children. We have to also acknowledge that today families do not always come as the gold standard where mum and dad do live together under the one roof of a house and love each other and provide that nurturing environment. I have always said that a child is better in any environment where it is loved and that is irrespective of the circumstances, but it will not stop me from advocating that traditional marriage is the absolutely best environment for the rearing of the next generation. So whatever the forms that families take in this modern day and age—and they do come in so many different forms with some people being individual parents and indeed same-sex couples also raising children and they all do an amazing job in the circumstances—as I said, I will not stop focusing on the importance of promoting and encouraging the traditional family. But simply because marriage is important that does not mean that we should redefine it. We should not open it up to all comers, because I think it would actually devalue the institution.

The move for same-sex marriage is just another step in what I consider an attack on our enduring and important institutions, particularly the social ones. It is another tear in the fabric of our social mores. The proponents of same-sex marriage, and I do not mean to generalise but this is about many of the proponents of same-sex marriage, ask for one step and they think that is all they want or they say that is all they want and they will be satisfied when this has been achieved—'Just this one thing; give us that and that will be okay and all inequality will be diminished and everyone will be equal and it will be fair'. But the harsh reality is that there will never be equality in society and there are always going to be people who feel that they have got a raw deal or have been discriminated against or do not have the same access to opportunities or advantages as others do, and to pretend any differently is really to deny reality. But history demonstrates that once those who advocate for radical social change, which I consider this to be, achieve it in any way, shape or form, there is then another demand and another demand and another demand and they slowly chip away at the very foundation of what provides our social support, stability and cultural mores and we are left with a replacement that is somehow vastly inferior to the wisdom of successive generations.

I recall that in this place only a few years ago people pushed for the same entitlements and benefits for all relationships that were then held by married couples. This was achieved. I opposed it at the time because my point was that just because people are in a sexual relationship that does not mean that they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as society affords those in traditional marriage, and I have outlined some of the reasons for that. Indeed, I advocated at the time that if it is about genuine equality and interdependency then we should advance this to interdependent relationships in which there is no sexual engagement. There are any number of those relationships, including people who live together and share bank accounts and expenses and who, for all intents and purposes, share their lives without having a sexual or physical relationship. But that was rejected, I suspect because it was not really about equality. It was not about interdependency and it was not about sharing your life with someone; it was about chipping away at the institution of marriage.

The legislation got through and I lost that debate—you win some and lose some in this business. At that stage I was one of many saying this was another step that would undermine marriage. Today we see the next step. This is another push—it is not the first time and it will not be the last time—for same-sex marriage. Time and time again the techniques of the radicals who seek to overturn the social institutions and social fabric of our society are out of step with the priorities of mainstream Australia. No-one out there that I have come across says this is the most important issue facing Australia. There are enormous social and economic problems in this country, and this debate will not solve any of them. Time and time again the same characters seek to tear down our institutions that have been built and have sustained our civilisation for thousands of years. The time has come to ask: when will it end?

If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up marriage to all people who love each other.

There are even some creepy people out there—and I say 'creepy' deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, 'These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.' It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared on Q&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these. I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when Australians do not see this as a priority issue.

Senator Cameron was critical of his party denying some of the people in support of same-sex marriage a conscience vote, the ability to speak up in favour of what they thought was important. He neglected to mention that the Left of the Labor Party had never really supported a conscience vote. In fact, they sought to change the party's position to support same-sex marriage. That meant that those that had a conscientious objection to it would have been bound by the Labor Party's platform to support same-sex marriage. On the one hand Senator Cameron decried the fact that some people could not vote according to how they felt and yet he was one of the architects of this, along with people like Mark Butler. In a story in the Sydney Morning Herald Mark Butler is said to be one of those who believes that those who support traditional marriage should not be allowed to put their position forward.

I understand that this is a very sensitive debate. I also understand that senators on both sides of this chamber have very strong views. I understand some of these views are borne by personal experiences or those of loved ones and some are borne by their idea that this is a fairer and more equitable way to proceed. We have seen demands and requests for surveys of what is going on in the electorates. That was put forward by Mr Bandt in the other place. He asked for members of parliament to report back on what their constituencies thought about this argument. I have to say that a significant majority—some have suggested as many as two-thirds—reported that their constituents broadly supported marriage being retained as between a man and a woman, as was endorsed by this parliament some eight or 10 years ago.

In standing up for traditional marriage, advocates are not saying that one group is better than another or that one group is superior to another. This is, in my view, about defending what is right and what is important for society. Last year I read an article by a 19-year-old university student Blaise Joseph, who wrote:

Marriage laws are fundamentally a question of what's best for society rather than a question of individual rights.

That view, in one way, shape or form, was shared by over 32,000 people who wrote in favour of traditional marriage to the recent Senate inquiry.

Add these views to MPs' electorate surveys and the calls and emails I get from my own constituents and it is very clear to me that many Australians want to protect the notion of traditional marriage, for many valid reasons. These people have, in some instances, put aside their fears of being branded as intolerant, uncaring, heartless or in support of inequality by those people who profess to be tolerant of other points of view and who, in my view, look to degrade the notion of marriage. These people who have stood up against same-sex marriage in the face of a very vocal campaign are to be commended in this current culture of political correctness, where those who apparently disagree with the wisdom of the elites are somehow howled down and demonised publicly.

I am sure there are millions more Australians who share these sentiments irrespective of whether they have spoken publicly about it. I will continue to stand with these Australians and to fight for traditional marriage because I believe it is what the people of Australia want. More importantly, I think it is the right thing to do both for our children and for our society.

Senator Cory Bernardi is a Senator for South Australia. 

In Defence of Cory Bernardi

Meuhlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg suggests Tony Abbott took a knee-jerk reaction to Senator Bernardi's controversial statement about bestiality.

Editor's Note: For all our new readers today please note that Menzies House is an opinion website which publishes a wide variety of pieces, including numerous pieces in favour of same sex marriage and some advocating for an abolition of the Cth Marriage act, as well as pieces against. The fact that a piece is published here does NOT necessarily mean its contents are endorsed by any member of the editorial board – Tim Andrews, Managing Editor. 

South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has just been hung out to dry by his own party. Why? Because he had the guts to tell the truth, and his PC political mates were too chicken and too spineless to back him up. He was speaking on the homosexual marriage bill, and had the courage to suggest where all this might lead.

He had given a very good speech in the Senate outlining his concerns about homosexual marriage and how children especially will be impacted. His entire speech is well worth reading (see link below). He also spoke of where this was all heading. He said in part:

“If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up marriage to all people who love each other.

“There are even some creepy people out there—and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, ‘These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.’ It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared onQ&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these.

“I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when Australians do not see this as a priority issue.”

And he is of course exactly right. We have all sorts of our elites right now going into bat for bestiality, including Professor Singer. I have written about him before. He had for example written an article inNerve online magazine in 2001 entitled “Heavy Petting” in which he argues for bestiality.

In it he waxes eloquent about the virtues of bestiality, going into great details about the joys of sex with horses, dogs, orang-utans and donkeys. He said that as long as the animal is not hurt or exploited, what is wrong with it? As a strident vegetarian, all that he is really doing here is telling us that it is OK to have sex with animals, as long as we don’t eat them afterwards.

And bestiality is making a big come back in the West. As but one example, I wrote about this not too long ago:

In Germany we now have “bestiality brothels”. I kid you not. Let me simply present to you the entire article on this: “Animal sex abuse is on the rise in Germany, with bestiality brothels being set up across the country, according to a state animal protection officer demanding stronger laws to protect mankind’s furry and feathered friends. Madeleine Martin, the animal protection official for Hessian state government, said the law needed to be changed to make sex abuse of animals – known as zoophilia – a crime.

“‘It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,’ she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday. ‘There are even animal brothels in Germany,’ she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable. ‘The abuse seems to be increasing rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,’ she said.

“She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet. ‘Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,’ said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.

“Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said. Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.”

But Australia is not immune from this. Consider a very recent news item which said this: “A film depicting sex acts between men and donkeys was screened at a Sydney film festival last week after an exemption from classification was granted to the festival by the Classification Board. I was almost certain they would ask for that film but they didn’t. The federal government agency responsible for classifying films, the Classification Board, did not ask to view Donkey Love before granting permission for it to screen at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival and Sydney Underground Film Festival.”

So nothing wrong with a bit of bestiality in our films, but when a Senator warns of such matters he is promptly treated like the plague and a pariah. Talk about shooting the messenger. Typical MSM hatchet jobs. I had the same experience some years ago.

In a research paper I wrote on homosexuality (now part of my new book) I simply reported what the homosexuals themselves were saying about bestiality. I simply quoted from their own sources. Yet when the Sydney Morning Herald got a hold of it they crucified me just as the MSM is now crucifying Bernardi.

They wrote a big story on it, attacking me, instead of the homosexuals promoting it! They were intent on shooting the messenger in other words. Instead of getting upset at the horrible things the activists were saying, they attacked me instead. Here is what I wrote:

“The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with 3 per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it, ‘What’s wrong with a little bestiality?’

“And another classic homosexual volume, The Joy of Gay Sex became so popular that it was updated in 1992 to become The New Joy of Gay Sex. Written by a New York clinical psychologist, this volume was published by mainstream publisher HarperCollins. In this book the author says this: ‘Moralists condemn sex with animals as disgusting, immoral, and generally horrible. . . . Like other inexperienced city dwellers, we may not so readily fathom the mechanics of cow-, sheep- or horse-f***ing, but see no reason to condemn it out of hand’.”

Now if that bothers you, well it should. It is disgusting that some homosexuals approve of all this. Yet like Bernardi, the MSM decided to attack me instead for simply sharing these truths in public. They ignored the truth of what I said, and concentrated on vilifying me for even raising the issue.

So I know just how Bernardi feels. He was exactly correct to say what he did, and his party should be ashamed for not supporting him. But there are a few things we can do here. Please write and offer Bernardi your support, encouragement and prayers: senator.bernardi@aph.gov.au

And please write to Tony Abbott and ask him to reinstate Bernardi: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

UPDATE: You can sign a petition in support of Cory Bernardi at www.supportcory.com

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch

A Rude Awakening

Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi discusses this weekend's riots in Sydney and the problems with Islamic fundamentalism in Australia:

The dreadful protests by Islamic fundamentalists in Sydney on the weekend were the portend of what I have been consistently warning my colleagues and the Australian population about for a number of years. These warnings have earned me a great deal of criticism from fellow politicians and some members of the media. However, they have been well received by a grateful public who have been struggling with the cultural relativism being practised by too many of our opinion makers.

I have desperately hoped that my fears about the impact of Islamists in our country would never be realised. For the rest of my life, I would gladly have worn the slurs of ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ received in response to my concerns about Islam if it allowed Australia to avoid the problems that extremists have caused overseas.

What occurred in Western Europe a decade ago is now happening here. Even the signs held aloft during the Sydney riots carried the same suggestion as those from protests in the UK – “behead those who insult Islam”. It should serve as a wake-up call to the naïve and just plain foolish who are in denial that a significant problem is emerging in Australia.

Behead1
The naïve cling to the romantic idealisation of the generations of migrants who have successfully settled in Australia, thinking things will continue just as they have in the past. They proclaim multiculturalism as a triumph of tolerance when in fact it undermines the cultural values and cohesiveness that brings a nation together.  Our culture is built upon the two great pillars of Western civilisation – the rule of law and Judeo-Christian values. To allow these great strengths to be undermined by supporting calls for any form of legal plurality or the indulgence of cultural practices that go against our social norms is to abandon reason.

Unfortunately, both have taken place in recent times. In a week when four people were arrested for allowing or performing female genital mutilation on two young girls, it is worth being reminded that some suggest we should allow and facilitate a ritual pinprick of girls’ genitals to appease this abhorrent cultural practice.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia.