This is What Progressives Think About Your Freedoms
One of the major differences between conservatives and progressives is that we demand protections for all citizens, whereas in general, progressives demand rights for their adherents exclusively. This difference has been particularly noticeable during the campaign for marriage equality, although it shows up across the board.
Progressives have taken to openly criticising us for our desire to preserve our freedoms. Gay rights activist, Rodney Croome, goes so far as to say that for conservatives – whom Croome refers to as the radical right – the fear of losing freedoms is actually an attempt to gain power:
But the threat-to-freedom narrative was never meant to win the postal survey.
Its real goal is to stop a yes vote being implemented.
If Australia votes yes, Coalition conservatives will attempt to load down marriage equality legislation with so many exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation that it will be difficult for the Senate to support.
So apparently, Australian parents, teachers and others in the community are part of a huge conspiracy to lose the postal vote then subsequently try to secure legal protection of their rights and freedoms.
This article will examine five freedoms that are dear to Australians and will consider what the progressive Left thinks about those freedoms. Remember, not all of these are explicitly guaranteed under the Australian constitution, but are some commonly-held rights of Western democracies.
You have No Right to Religious Freedom
Australia already has a fairly poor track-record on religious freedom protections. And supporters of marriage equality have told us that they don’t intend to make allowances for religious freedom if marriage is redefined. The Dean bill, which is being used as a yardstick, offers protections only for religious ministers, but not for other Christians who have conscientious objections to servicing a same-sex wedding.
Rodney Croome again has gone even further. In commenting on potential religious freedoms protections if the Yes vote wins, he states in this article: “
The politicians who supported the ‘No’ case should not be drafting the legislation.
Read that again. Croome wants only politicians who believe that marriage is not a sacred institution and is not exclusively between a man and a woman and is not traditional for a very good reason – that is, politicians who do not have the best interests of the nation at heart, should be the only ones to have input into same-sex marriage legislation. There is absolutely no way that such politicians can be trusted to protect the religious freedoms of all conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage. These are the people who have nothing to lose from such legislation.
It’s Worse if You’re Pro-Life
Hostility to deeply-held religious beliefs raised its ugly head in last week’s voluntary assisted dying debate in Melbourne. According to the Hansard website, text of the debate is still a draft and not to be quoted – here’s the link to the text of the proof. On page p 108 you can read Labor MP Shaun Leane’s passionate defence of assisted suicide and his equally outrageous condemnation of the pro-life position. He stated that the pro-life politicians were hiding their true reason – their religious beliefs – for opposing VAD behind their factual and well-reasoned arguments. So again, the progressive narrative is that Christian conservatives are hiding some hidden agenda behind fact and reason.
Leane is almost as bad as the American abortion advocate who says that ‘only religious zealots oppose abortion.’ Bonnie Blodgett and others like her fail to acknowledge the pro-life beliefs of atheists and the nominally religious. And obviously, this position fails to acknowledge the facts and logical arguments behind the pro-life position generally.
Sure, Christians make up the bulk of the pro-life movement, but as I often note, Christians don’t usually come into pro-life work simply because of their faith: it is our faith that keeps us there.
You have No Right to Freedom of Assembly
According to this article by Miranda Devine, Australian Christians are fast losing our freedom to gather and speak about topics relevant to us. The article centres on group of young Catholics who had gathered for monthly talks at the Rose Hotel in Chippendale. After a talk entitled Resilient Faith: How to Survive When Under Attack, the hotel management cancelled future meetings at their venue.
The talk, organised by the University of Notre Dame’s Catholic chaplaincy, was not about gay marriage, but how to cope with being attacked for your faith.
Sister Patrice quoted the Gospels: “If the world hates you know that it has hated me before it hated you.”
She mentioned gay marriage as one issue, along with euthanasia, for which Christians would be persecuted.
The article goes on to mention some similar examples of Christian or conservative events which were shut down, infiltrated or where the participants were otherwise harassed solely on account of their beliefs. This phenomenon is happening with alarming regularity around the country.
Progressives like to call themselves tolerant and peaceful. Since these were once known as attributes of Christianity, maybe we should sue for cultural appropriation?
You have No Right to an Opinion
As shown on this website and elsewhere, it’s not only religious people, or even heterosexuals, who object to marriage being redefined. It’s simply an opinion, and is usually based on a study of the facts and evidence.
As also written here, supporters of marriage equality have universally insulted, harassed and intimidated others in an unprecedented display of hate-speech. There seems to be be unanimous agreement among Yes voters that their opposition – even those who may not identify as ‘conservative’ on any other issue – have forfeited their right to be treated with respect and common decency. The opinion of conservatives is now being seen as entirely irrelevant and unwanted.
This refusal of the right to an opinion is to reach an even more extreme point when in 2018, Labor party politicians will be given no conscience vote on the subject of marriage. There will be only one opinion if you’re a Labor MP: vote with the party line.
Around the world, the infringement on your freedom to hold an opinion is threatened in other ways: in Oregon, it’s punishable to hold to an alternative opinion about someone’s biological gender (this was once called ‘science’). In the UK, having an opinion can get you more than a fine: a student social-worker was rejected from his university for stating the Biblical view of homosexuality on his Facebook page: [Read the whole article here]
In the opinion of the university’s “fitness to practise” committee, holding and articulating a view about marriage which is held by billions of people worldwide, and quoting from the best-selling book of all time, was incompatible with being a social worker.
After appealing to the High Court, Felix Ngole lost his case. The judge concluded:
“Public religious speech has to be looked at in a regulated context from the perspective of a public readership.”
Thus opinion must now be ‘regulated’ in the UK. Even if it is stated only on social media, and even if it contains no threats, hate-speech or harassment.
You have No Right to Parental Authority
Progressive’s view on parental authority is one that should have all parents very concerned.
Canada has led the way in denying rights of parents to teach and nurture their own children unhindered by state interference. For example, this new law stops parents from evaluating their child’s gender according to long-standing (read: since the dawn of time!) criteria. Using the same types of laws designed to prevent child abuse, children can now be removed from the family home if parents fail to recognise their child’s ‘chosen’ gender. Similarly, in the US, the freedom to express self-evident facts is now regarded as something dangerous and subversive.
The tragic Charlie Gard affair in the UK drew international attention because of the way parental rights were undermined by the British High Court. But even here in Australia, parents have far less control over their children than many would like to have. Children can access contraceptives, abortions, or gender transition counselling and drugs without their parent’s consent. As written elsewhere in numerous places, parents aren’t being told the content of their children’s sex ed classes, let alone given the right to opt their children out of these highly sexualised programmes.
Progressives offer abundant protections for life. If you are a tree or a duck, that is.
You have No Right to Life
The United Nations is teetering on the edge of respectability but its documents still hold some weight in discussions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, those freedoms were given another blow this week, as the International Convention on Human Rights failed to defend the right to life of pre-born children. As reported by the Centre for Family and Human Rights:
Despite pleas from more than one hundred governments and pro-life organizations, including the United States and Poland, the UN Human Rights Committee excluded unborn children from the right to life in international law this week in Geneva …. The committee barely flinched as the United States, Russia, Egypt, Japan, Poland, and other states and organizations denied the committee had any authority to read a right to abortion into the treaty.
In one sense, this is a tragedy of unparallelled proportions. But in another sense, it merely brings the UN into line with abuses already being perpetrated by some of its arms. The UNFPA, for example, is committed to extending China’s One-Child policy, aka forced abortion, to other developing nations under the guise of population control. The WHO, in an equally hypocritical stance, has long championed abortion under the name of ‘reproductive health’. This dubious service has even crept into packages created for countries in crisis situations such as natural disasters.
For those of us who manage to make it out of the womb – whether by mere chance or on the basis of ‘wantedness’, there is yet another hurdle to navigate. With assisted dying expanding to become involuntary euthanasia, there is no guarantee that any of us will be allowed to live out our days and die naturally. Progressives have sent mankind the strong message that they believe there is no right to life. And beware if you happen to be the disabled or sick child of progressive parents: you may quickly find the limit of their highly conditional love.
This is What Progressives Think About Your Freedoms
There is a small difference between rights and freedoms. Rights refer more to privileges conferred us by our governing body. Freedoms refer more to a lack of restriction. When it comes to conservatives and Christians, our ruling elite and their useful idiotic minions care for neither rights nor freedoms. They mock the rights we are guaranteed under international covenants and also those implied in our constitution. Our fundamental freedoms are routinely denied us on the basis of our beliefs. If anyone thinks that this persecution of conservatives is waning, let them think again. It is only a fool who believes that those who have manoeuvered their way into the upper echelons of our country’s management are prepared to live and let live, or to respect true diversity of opinion.
It’s customary to end with a relevant quote by a famous person. Today I’ll break with tradition and add a snippet from a conversation I recently had on Twitter. It ensued after I posted the link to the article above about Christians not being free to gather publicly. It’s only anecdotal, but is indicative of the mentality of the left.
Further reading: 101 Freedoms & Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have – ( I predict you’ll agree with 90% of these.)
Editor, The Freedoms ProjectClick here to find out more about Kathy