Daniel Andrews queer theory tyranny
While Christian Porter has delayed the introduction of the Religious Freedom Bill until 2021 due to COVID-19, Daniel Andrews is making hay while the sun shines.
His Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, has introduced the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 into state parliament, and it has already passed the first reading.
There are a plethora of problems associated with this particular Bill — but if you think they only affect Victorians, you’d be wrong. Just consider this section from one of the Bill’s many addendums:
Alan Jones explains how the tactic of lockdown to eradicate a virus has been a total disaster. How could a government be so delusional as to think it could eradicate a virus? Handing the state over to theorists and technical people was always going to end in tears. There was an alternative, but Andrews and his technicians refused to listen.
COVID Dystopia Comes To Melbourne
SEPTEMBER 7, 2020|
GIDEON ROZNER, The American Conservative
It was the image that shocked Australia and soon went global. A pregnant woman, handcuffed in her own kitchen, in front of her children, as police officers seized every computer, tablet and cell phone in the house before frog-marching her off to the station.
It’s the treatment that Australians are used to seeing meted out to drug traffickers, suspected terrorists and child pornography rings. But in Zoe Lee Buhler’s case, her ‘crime’ was a Facebook post.
Zoe had tried to organise a protest against coronavirus restrictions in place in the state of Victoria. For this, she was charged with ‘incitement,’ and now faces a sentence of up to 15 years. She has been released on bail, and will go to court in January.
The most remarkable thing, though, is it’s taken until now for some sort of protest movement to emerge. Melbourne—Victoria’s capital city—has been under some form of lockdown since March. When the coronavirus first hit, the premiers governing Australia’s eight states and territories descended into a kind of unspoken competition to see who could take the ‘toughest action’ against the virus—that is, which leader could close the most businesses, destroy the most jobs, and stifle the most liberties in the name of being seen to be ‘doing something’ about the virus.
Johannes Leak in today’s Australian, 9 Sept. 2020
The second option to deal with COVID-19
There were always going to be casualties from the Coronavirus pandemic. One way or another people would die. No one and no strategy would prevent deaths. So the question was how best to protect our society. The task was to formulate a plan to ensure the fewest deaths and the least damage to society and, in particular, to the economy.
There were basically two options. The first was to shut down society, and thus great chunks of the economy, to prevent infections. If no one became infected, nobody would die. One must keep one’s fingers crossed about the economy.
The state of Victoria, as of mid-August, is one gigantic prison, overseen by a police force of unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Premier Daniel Andrews.
The second was to keep the economy running and focus on the most vulnerable groups. That would reduce the damage to the economy on which everyone is dependent for their well-being and welfare.
Most countries, including Australia, chose the first.
There is a host of people, including highly qualified epidemiologists, holding grave doubts about the efficacy of this first option. The cure is likely to be far more devastating than the disease.
The defence of the first option is all over the leftist media. It was no surprise to see Australia’s billion-dollar-funded ABC swing in behind their dear leader.
But a defence of the second option is hardly to be heard in the mainstream media. The reason is the usual. The left shut down any dialogue that does not fit the view they have prescribed.
I propose, therefore, to do my (small) part for the second option to which I am inclined to give support. I will propagate as best I can links to comments and videos supporting the second option which I find compelling. The first is an excellent piece by Augusto Zimmerman in Quadrant.
Australia, How Have You Let it Come to This?
By Augusto Zimmermann
On August 2, Victorians began living under a “state of disaster” that has seen some of the world’s most severe restrictions imposed on its citizens and their fundamental freedoms. Leaving home after 8pm is banned with hefty fines imposed on those pulled over by police, who now represent the only cars on the road after dark. There are roadblocks to prevent citizens from moving interstate or, much closer to home, more than the permitted 5km from their their listed addresses.
The Victorian government has effectively become an elected dictatorship. It is August 9 as I write and the latest 19 COVID deaths have brought the state’s death toll to 247. These 19 deaths were of one man and a woman in their 50s, two men in their 70s, one man and six women in their 80s, and one man and seven women in their 90s. (editor’s note: today, August 12, the daily death toll is 21, the overwhelming majority in aged-care homes.)
Approximately 99 per cent of all infections for coronavirus have been mild. Of the 515 people in hospitals across Australia with coronavirus, 496 are in Victoria. Most of those who have died were in their 80s and living in aged-care facilities.
Unfortunately, none of these relevant considerations has prevented the Victorian government imposing what is by far the greatest violation of fundamental rights in Australia’s history. Victorians have now been forced into stage 4 lockdown; almost 5 million people have been informed that the police can and will enter their homes for any reason and without a warrant. Police can also stop anyone anywhere at any time and demand to see their papers and determine if they have a valid reason to be away of their homes.
Daniel Andrews, the Premier of the state of Victoria, is a phenomenon. There has not been a political leader in Australia’s history whose brain is so riddled with the ideology responsible for unparalleled persecution and the deaths of millions. Take a list of the foremost Marxists positions and you will find Premier Andrews subscribing to them.
Victoria’s abortion legislation is barbaric. There is no other word to describe it. His anti-bullying policy is in general the imposition of gay culture on the state. Specifically, it is nothing less than the sexualisation of children at a time when the Catholic Church is being justifiably hammered for child sexual abuse. He claims his Safe School’s program (the promotion of gender fluidity) saves lives. There is no evidence for this wild ideological claim. When the Bendigo mosque was built under protest from the town’s people, Andrews took himself to Bendigo for its opening. Media vision showed him smirking, simpering and tugging his forelock in front of the imams.
How does he get away with so much cultural destruction and the upending of traditional morality? Paul Collits poses this question in his Quadrant article while covering in some detail the deeds of this manic Marxist premier.
How Daniel Andrews Gets Away With It
Quadrant, 24 January 2020
Has there been a more successful creation of a modern woke state than that achieved by the current Premier of Victoria? Welcome to MelDanistan!
To the northerner, one can only engage in vigorous head shaking at the gall, the ideological precision and, above all, at the success of the Andrews project. He has not been cowed by the relatively limited powers of a state government operating in the context of Australia’s evolving constitutional arrangements, with all their tilting towards centralism, and the concentration of power in Canberra.
One is torn between revulsion and admiration, for the totality of his achievements in causes dear to a pulsating leftist heart. Bill de Blasio, a tall New Yorker buffoon who changed his name, and the horrid Londoner Sadiq Khan, Andrews’ equivalents in terms of commitment to the cause, can only shake their heads in wonderment at his progress towards a woke nirvana.
Australian and other conservatives must wonder, too, at the apparent incompetence of Andrews’ local right-of-centre opponents and their almost total inability to land an electoral glove on him.
I want to examine the Andrews story, to look in particular at the record in just a few areas – social policy wokeness; the politicisation of the police; abortion and euthanasia; the tilt to the green-left and its associated climate activism – to see if we can comprehend how all this has occurred.
But first, a little background on the man himself. Andrews was born to Jan and Bob in July 1972, in the dying days of the aged Coalition Government in Canberra and merely months before the ascent of Gough. He has been married to Catherine for 22 years and they have three children – delightfully named Noah, Grace and Joseph. Like most contemporary members of parliament, it seems, alas, Andrews went straight from university to working for an MP and thence to the Party machine, and on to the big house in Spring Street. He has been the Member for Mulgrave, in the capital city’s south-east, since 2002, and served as a minister in the earlier Labor governments of Bracks and Brumby.
I have made a comment about Premier Andrews’ unhinged response to Tony Abbott’s visit to Cardinal Pell HERE.
By J.D. Morecambe
This article appeared in a September issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to post it here.
On Monday morning (16 September), voting began to elect the new ‘First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria‘. This ‘voice for Aboriginal communities’ seeks to represent all ‘self-identifying’ Victorian aboriginals in a process which will establish a ‘treaty or treaties’ with the Victorian State Government.
The election will decide 21 of 32 ‘gender-balanced’ seats on the new Assembly, with the remaining 11 set aside for a kind of aboriginal House of Lords, appointed (or ‘self-determined’) by a network of ‘Traditional Owner Groups’ or ‘Aboriginal Corporations‘.Continue reading A corroboree of jobbery: Daniel Andrews’ First People’s Assembly