Most commenters or bloggers who disagree with the militant homosexual movement that seeks so called “gay rights”, and have spoken out in opposition, know all too well of the hate and venom that is the standard response.
In more recent times, the movement has stepped up efforts to close down opposition, and taken to regulation to silence critics. Those who challenge or disagree have legal actions brought against them, and find themselves facing inquiries or appearing before commissions or even arrested, handcuffed, and up before judges, defending themselves against such subjective charges as “offensive” speech.
It struck me that a certain well known blogger provides a miniaturization of this situation on his blog. He frequently runs behind the scenes kangaroo courts, where Conservatives are frequently subjected to a partisan review of their comments after objections are filed by anonymous cowards (who no doubt share the socially liberal views of the blog owner). The usual outcome of these kangaroo courts is the banning or “demeriting” of the “offender”.
Australian columnist Miranda Devine has written a fine article on the hate expressed to anyone showing resistance to the “gay agenda”. Some excerpts below-
Saying anything that is not wholly supportive of the gay-rights agenda is the new taboo—with same-sex marriage and adoption the hottest of hot-button topics at the front line of the culture wars.
Yep, it sure is taboo, and while those in opposition can be enthusiastically defiled and insulted, there is rapid action taken against any perceived retaliation.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are being dragged before anti-discrimination tribunals with complaints that are, at times, withdrawn at the 11th hour. But mud sticks, and the time, expense and stress of the process can make defenders of traditional marriage inclined to keep their heads down in future. Anyone daring to assert that, generally, children are better off with a mother and a father, a fact supported by research, is vilified to their reputational grave. If you are worried about free speech, this is as serious a threat as any.
Yep, and what starts on the streets and in the media and in blogs soon finds its way into the courts. The suppression of views under the pretense of “offensiveness” is widespread in the socially liberal blogosphere. It seeps into the culture, and then, through sympathetic politicians, into legislation.
Similarly, when Californian voters backed so-called Proposition 8 legislation ruling out gay marriage in 2008, opponents resorted to mob intimidation and violence, which has been dubbed “homo-fascism”. There were death threats, vandalism and boycotts against churches, businesses and restaurants suspected of being against gay marriage.
Yep again, and yet there has been little if any criticism of these events in the same old sections of the blogosphere and media. Yet a Conservative or a Tea Party member puts a foot wrong and they scream blue murder.
Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, has copped more than his fair share of abuse, yet he is one of the few who continues publicly to defend traditional marriage.He says intimidation is successful.
“It stifles public debate because good people will not go out to get their reputation trashed,” he said. “Senior people in the Church can’t afford to be lambasted with the language and abuse which is put on anyone who stands up for marriage.”
Correct, but of course that is the intent of the social liberals. They do not want debate. They want alternative views silenced.
When Wallace appeared on the ABC’s Q&A recently, offensive comments on the program website included that “Jim Wallace is a c…”.
“Why is it Christians or anyone who stands up for marriage can be attacked in this way and we’re not supposed to take offence?” he asked.
Precisely. The judgment of the social liberals only swings the one way, at the same time as they hypocritically level false charges of bigotry and intolerance. On the blog in question, the most abusive social liberals out there are infrequently demerited or banned, and have virtually free reign to slander and abuse any Conservative whenever they choose. They know they’re always going to be fully protected by the blog owner’s craven supplication to the same fashionable cause.