W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Volume  What is New


2016 - An Election or a Mob Riot ?

Has justice been thrown away ? Has it been tossed out even as a principle ?  Must we have provision in our law about speech so that intention and factual reality bow out to enable easily alleged offence to appear, if not as crime, then as cited wrongdoing ? How ? in terms of someone's reaction  in many cases, to what is done or said, however canny or contrived that reaction may conceivably be! Is jawing to become law, claim of upset its basis, while justice dies!

But mercy is one thing; justice is another, and justice is equal in attitude, disposition, to all. It is not ready to be shoved by policy, but instead, poised not to abort the truth, but to defend it and all the evidence with it. Confuse these two and totalitarianism with its grinding grandeur begins. No one failing to apply this is worthy of government, but merely abases the land. Then servitors can strangle people's reputations based on the outward expression of an inward feeling, when this is negative.

Equally, morbid in terms of neo-morals, newly accepted by many, is the conception that it is all right to deprive children of experiencing the potentially delicious difference between parents - as shown in a vast array of mothers and fathers in a movement starting since time began for the race. To the young, thus no choice for the varied norm, but here is the one, doubled, take it or leave it: this can become the imperious rule; but they cannot leave it. Just let others enjoy what they want, and  bear what you lose. Hi kids! that's the deal.

But would you believe that such might become incorporated into law, become a cultural object, so that those who object, differ and so dare to  speak against such an impoverishing gender attitude, will be apt to suffer legal assault for their liberty to follow in thought, word and practice, the way we are made! Defend the child's liberty and you may lose your own ? So be it; but tyranny in the end has its come-uppance.

Further, if many for long have chanted against "injustice" because, quite correctly, male and female have been seen as delightfully different, as well as physiologically inbuilt, a given, enabling physical generation of the race - though indeed the two genders are equal in value - what is now threatening in this land ? What is being blazoned in some other national places ? In a maximum of horror and obvious fraud with hypocrisy, is Australia to follow examples elsewhere, including cases exceedingly well-known and detested today ? Or will it  also act, so that in the ramifications of the law and new culture, there is condemnation both normal and judicial, of non-neophytes,  that is, of people who do not want to remake the race. Would this discriminatory thrust perhaps also be shown in corrective action, re-education to inculcate what  is desired by this new religion into the heads of those who dared to resist it ?

Will the law be used to make its potted opinion known by force in this heart of religion, of meaning and import ? Will this be the forceful way for this new assessment of the values of life, of the ways sound and right for it, with common appeal  to its beginnings and its endings, its purport and its purpose, whether this be to indulge fantasy or to father repression with barbarous hands! and will the Constitution be burnt or otherwise abused!

Will this be the opening made by ever advancing ploys of partisan politics, rupturing all liberty, even to speak! so that those who complained can now themselves flay those who do not accord with the neo-morals! Will the legal whip become wisdom ? will the new evaluations of the place of man become not only irrational in its assumptions, but evacuative of all  contest, so that it becomes a shrine, or will it have  legal guards to enforce ? Some shrine!

It is vain to say, It will not happen. It both has happened in type, in its  early measure, has both started already and is now coming to bloom like flowers of evil, intransigent, unqualified, carrying seeds of arch-corruption, having no basis but will, and any outcome willed. If this is not so, if it has not already happened in principle, let this be shown; and let the cases be removed from history, which currently knows them too well!

It is the use of force in a democracy, to overthrow the ways of democracy, which a nation may well exclude, rather than befoul freedom in order to depart from its own assigned liberties, given constitutional protection for this land. Here, in Australia religions and their attitudes and conceptions are not for force to revise, officials demanding recant (or even apologise!)  or else suffer. Is freedom of expression to be given only to religions officially cited ?  A visit to Section 116 is in order. As far as biblical Christianity itself is concerned, force as an instrument in salvation is strictly forbidden, has always been, even the Messiah deliberately unprotected (John 18, Matthew 26). What then ? Is now some barbarity to become brutal, and having belittled what does not accord with it, will it seek in actual bellicosity, and that on several fronts, to rule!

Assuredly if you morally and legally condemn, you are using morals, and if you force others, and the cause is fundamental to the concerns of life and its meaning, evaluation and approach to it, you are not only using morals, but inventing or sustaining some religion, for this is the job of religion. But what of the proponents of such things, or of what has in practice led to them ? Will you use law to take money (fines), dignity (dismissal from jobs), freedom (either in prisons or meetings - as reported in China- to "re-educate"), by means of force ? And in a country forbidding the State establishing a religion, in precept or practice, is this not like inventing a farce fit for circus fleas! and is not a case of using force to attack those who differ from you, a fine example of results from wars not least to establish liberty, as the blood flowed... A major aim was not to fashion flaws for fall guys  or to flail, but to hold and express in honesty and integrity, as the Constitution requires!

In any war, where fundamentals weigh, it is not wisdom to await persecution as in so many lands, many of whose inhabitants have long wished to come to this one, until departure from violent  clangour is in full flow. The preludes here to such national decline and abuse, require attention, and the assaults preferably prevention. Preventive action can be timely, as in good measure, Britain could attest from its last major war, as the thirties moved into the forties.

Will then any Party seeking election in 2016 in this land, and worth voting for,  make a pre-election pledge, that justice will be honoured, not psychic reaction in any case, mercy will be honoured and concern equally for all citizens, as the due work of government ? Will it undertake before election to legislate against persecution by prosecution of those who do not prefer the neo-morals thrust, this attack brazenly in defiance of the Constitution ? and seek to avoid the forwarding of the oppression by those who prefer anti-design approach to human life, incorporating their own prescriptions for its basic exercise!

Will political parties be willing to undertake this - before entering the track to totalitarian philosophy: to be fair, not fathers of aggressive fiasco and redefinition of what Australia officially is! Or else will they try to sell the change by compulsory vote, call it what you will, so that if the land is to be sold to this kind of slavery, it will at least do the deal itself, so that the whole, and not just a self-selecting few, are to vote, and then the whole take the consequences...

Of course, says some Party, we will see that such hypocritical  prosecution is not permitted! THEN SAY SO, as an election pledge, and pledge further not to withdraw from such an undertaking, but to sustain it, and not let it become a broken election promise.

Is  not Australia worth  more than hypocritical drivel,


virtual assault on religion,


new religious junta brazenly arising as if reason were dead,


righteousness unthinkable,


the defining of observably unequal things as equal, a necessity as basis ?


If the land is willing to capitulate to such concepts,
let it at least make the decision itself,
on a fair and adequate basis, with the issues explicit,
not carefully concealed in terms of neo-morals and
impassioned power pushes, putsches or provisions.