Andrew Bolt gives a good summary of how the media have been compromised and are fully engaged in the coup in Canberra:
"Journalists should know better than anyone how critical it is to have a free debate.
Journalists should be fiercer than anyone in fighting any attempt to muzzle and to censor - especially to muzzle and censor people whose political views challenge the political class.
It is alarming that they are instead the loudest in demanding the muzzles. It is another sign that journalists, especially of the state-funded ABC, are now part of the power elite that is trying to control debate and punish dissent. The mindset is totalitarian. Punitive.
Censorious. Oh, and cowardly, too, given the failure of so many to defend the one freedom they need to defend all the rest.
We saw this starkly when the Gillard Government called an inquiry to punish its media critics and tried to appoint a state-backed media supercop to monitor even blog sites - a supercop backed with laws that could put journalists in jail. Shockingly, media academics were the noisiest in support, and many prominent journalists either endorsed or failed to resist Labor’s plans.
This week ABC 774 presenter Jon Faine defended laws requiring Christians and others from having to get approval from a human rights commissar before putting their arguments in favor of traditional marriage. He even denied that such laws - and the threat of fines and legal costs - had a chilling effect on free speech.
This week, too, Helen Dalley of Sky News reprimanded a student protesting against the use of the law to punish students who’d protested on Facebook about being banned from using university computers reserved for Aboriginal students. Dalley unquestioningly supported “the law of the land” determining “what you can and can’t say” and chided the students who’d been sued, who in almost every case had expressed themselves without abuse: “Perhaps they should think about their language.”
The ABC’s Chris Uhlmann gives another disturbing insight in the crumbling support for free speech and the rise of the totalitarian:
I had decided to tweet into the maelstrom of media rage created by former prime minister Tony Abbott’s decision to fly to the US to address the Alliance Defending Freedom.
It had been prompted by an interview where an American tolerance commissar opined it was appalling, in a democracy, that people opposed to abortion and gay marriage were allowed to air their toxic views.
This progressive truth was so self-evident it went unremarked by the interviewer.
My clear intent was neither to defend Abbott’s world view nor his decision to speak to a cabal of “reactionary” Christians on the hand-grenade topic “the importance of the family”. It was simply to say: “Once upon a time journalists believed in free speech …”
It wasn’t surprising that there was a social media storm in the Twitter teacup because its obsessives are always stewing over something. But that defending free speech could be cast as a crime against tolerance screams something very disturbing about our times.
That some who lit torches with the mob were journalists says a lot about the state of the media. These reporters have appointed themselves the prefects of progressive verities.
That is disturbing because when journalists parade as pointers to moral true north then check your bearings, we have drifted badly off course. Yet I had naively hoped that free speech was one of the few things on which journalists in a democracy could agree: neutral ground in the culture wars. I had long feared this was not the case and so it proved…
Stripped of their fashionable clothes, what’s striking about the tolerance police is how similar these new moralists are to the old. They pursue heretics with an inquisitor’s zeal, blinded by the righteousness of their cause.
Dangerous times. How is it that the Liberal Party - note the word liberal” in the title - has done absolutely nothing to extend free speech and protest at its limitations?
Gerard Henderson on yet another example of the ABC’s bias and its punishing of dissenters. When the ABC is so huge and so biased it is a menace to debate and free inquiry. Add to this the laws used to stifle alternative views - to the cheers of many such journalists - and we are faced with a serious threat and a monstrous insult to our intelligence.
Every child comes from and needs BOTH a mother and a father. Same-sex "marriage" intentionally keeps either a mother or a father from the child. Government should protect the child through upholding traditional marriage.
There is “a time to be silent, and a time to speak”. (Ecclesiastes 3:7). Now is the time to speak, so please speak up and defend children, truth and freedom. Craig Manners
“What the world needs most is a voice that courageously speaks the truth, not when the world is right, but a voice that speaks the truth when the world is wrong.” Fulton Sheen
True marriage offers true equality for children. Every child comes from and needs BOTH a Mum and a Dad. Every human being has dignity and deserves respect. All sorts of relationships can be respected at law without having to change marriage laws. In fact that has been the case legally for many years. The simple fact remains though that not every relationship is marriage.