by PAUL COLLITS – IT’S now considered to be defamatory to say the thought of male homosexual sex disgusts you. Not just socially unacceptable. But actually leaving you open to legal threats.
This is according to NSW MP Alex Greenwich MP – the State’s famously homosexual, self-appointed woke conscience. At first blush, you might think, good luck with that one mate.
- Do what you like with your gender as an adult, but just “leave the kids alone”.
- The gay lobby wants to, in effect, make homosexuality compulsory.
- Greenwich is a Kiwi import who has, almost single-handedly, driven NSW towards a culture of death.
But the way things are with the Australian polity and justice system these days, anything is possible. Lawfare is an ideological weapon.
Just ask Bruce Lehrmann. Or Craig McLachlan, Christian Porter, Fr John Fleming, the late Cardinal Pell or John Jarratt. All of them accused, probably falsely, of sex abuse or rape.
RIGHTS
For those not acquainted with the most newsworthy story in NSW politics since the recent (March 25) election, let us recap.
Just before the election NSW One Nation Leader Mark Latham spoke at an election event on parental rights in the face of transgender and other queer grooming efforts in our schools. This was at St Michael’s Catholic Parish at Belfield in Sydney.
Outside the event, a bunch of placard waving queer ideologues began to protest. They may or may not have snapped in half, and then burned, a crucifix. They may or may not have been there with Greenwich’s knowledge or blessing.
Then a large group of irate Lebanese Christian locals rocked up and gave the protesters what The Saint (Simon Templar) used to call “a lesson in manners”.
(The protesters had been regulars at St Michael’s for around fifteen years, by the way, stirring up animosity with parishioners).
Then the queer protesters went off squealing to the woke corporate media, who faithfully retold their side of the story. Over and over.
Then Greenwich called Latham a “disgusting human being”, among other things. Like the (alleged) Nazis who appeared at Moira Deeming’s speech on a similar topic in Melbourne, the protesters at St Michael’s and their presumably Christian assailants had nothing whatever to do with Mark Latham.
Then Latham answered Greenwich’s war by Twitter-insult with a graphic statement, later deleted, outlining Latham’s disgust at homosexual sex.
He did not mention Greenwich. Yet Greenwich has threatened to sue Latham for defamation (and homophobia) unless he apologises.
According to news.com.au: “Sydney MP Alex Greenwich has threatened to launch legal action against NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham for a homophobic and vulgar tweet shared in March, giving him until May 17 to issue an apology.
“On Monday, Mr Greenwich, who is openly gay, confirmed that his legal team had sent Mr Latham a notice on April 19; however, the One Nation leader continued to talk about Mr Greenwich’s sexuality, referencing an online radio with Chris Smith on Thursday.
“Mr Latham will now have until May 17 to issue a public apology or Mr Greenwich’s legal team will file a defamation suit to the Federal Court.
“ ‘Obviously, he made a very sexualised, targeted attack at me on Twitter and seeked (sic) to impugn my reputation amongst colleagues,” Mr Greenwich said.
“ ‘He has continued to target me based on my sexuality, my role in this parliament and that does a great deal of damage and harm towards me and I will as a result be proceeding with defamation.’
INVESTIGATED
“In addition to the looming defamation suit, the matter is also being investigated by the NSW Police and an anti-discrimination body.
“The Sydney MP’s lawyer, Nicholas Stewart from Dowson Turco Lawyers, invited the former Labor leader to come to an agreement with his client.
“ ‘It could be resolved with an apology. It can be resolved through payment of damages to Mr Greenwich, and it can be resolved through the undertaking of Mr Latham to not to continue persecuting the LGBT community’,” he said.
After Latham’s post, Greenwich said, we now know falsely, that, having had a little cry, he would let the matter rest and move on.
He even said, on Network 10’s The Project, that he didn’t expect an apology from Latham. Let the matter rest? Oh no.
He has, since, declared war on core Christian beliefs and on anyone else who, as is his or her right, finds particular sexual practices repugnant. Even “disgusting”.
He has also declared war on free speech. He has done everything except just shut up and deal with it. Can his word be trusted?
PERSECUTING
His claims against Latham are, on their face, preposterous. Targeting? Persecuting?
Mark Latham, sensibly, has maintained a dignified silence until recently. Equally sensibly, the new Liberal leader in NSW, Mark Speakman, has said that he will work with Mark Latham.
This distinguishes the Liberals from others who claim to find Latham so repugnant that they will “not work with him”. Whatever that actually means.
Mind you, as far as Speakman and the sorry NSW Liberals go, frankly, who cares what they think?
Latham did, however, appear on the Chris Smith show on TNT radio. And on 2HD Newcastle.
In the latter broadcast, he proceeded to take Greenwich’s actions in relation to him apart, forensically, rationally, coolly and in a commendably dignified manner.
He pointed out that it was Greenwich who started this. And he correctly concluded that Greenwich has a “glass jaw”.
Latham referred to Greenwich’s grandstanding and political games and has in mind a counter-claim about Greenwich’s original post on Twitter. And he repeated his stance on transgenderism.
Do what you like with your gender as an adult, but just “leave the kids alone”.
Most significantly of all, he called out Greenwich’s own slanderous description of Latham as a “disgusting human being” for what it was. Far worse than an attack on someone’s politics, even their sexuality, it was an attack on the whole person.
One can only wonder what such an apology might look like:
- I am sorry I described the sexual practices that you as a homosexual male actually engage in.
- What I said was accurate – I am sorry if you are offended by your own activities.
- I did not mention anyone’s name in my original (deleted) Twitter post. Do you assume that everything is about you? In any case, I am sorry that you shed tears over a tweet of mine.
- I am sorry that you felt it necessary to describe me as a “disgusting human being” and a “hateful and dangerous individual” who is “causing a great deal of damage to our State”. Should we declare it a one-all draw?
- I am sorry that you engage in sexual practices that I find repugnant.
- I am sorry that you do not believe in freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
- I will apologise to you if Reuben Kaye apologises for his blasphemous joke on The Project.
Greenwich is a Kiwi import who has, almost single-handedly, driven NSW towards a culture of death through his championing of infanticide on demand (Tony Abbott’s phrase) and of euthanasia, now is proposing to use Latham’s post as the basis for further law reform to drive even harder the homosexual lobby’s attempt to, in effect, make it all-but-compulsory.
No doubt, he will be first in line to include homophobia in the list of sins to be targeted in future social credit-style surveillance regimes that will accompany the almost inevitable centralised digital currency that is coming down the track.
And it will be Greenwich and friends – and he has many – who get to decide what constitutes “homophobia”. A little like the World Health Organisation getting to determine what counts as a pandemic and the Brighton Collaboration (with the Centre for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, CEPI) getting to decide what the definition of a vaccine injury is.
Greenwich is decidedly loose with the truth. He says he was “targeted”. This is baloney.
He wasn’t even mentioned in the post. He is the one who made the song and dance of the deleted tweet. He says that Latham has been targeting queers for a long time. Does he have evidence of this?
What I see Latham as having done is protecting the State’s children from homosexualist and transgender encroachment on schools and libraries – and giving more rights to parents who wish to resist the push.
Payment of damages? For what? Has Greenwich’s reputation been traduced? Nope.
If anything, he has been “affirmed” – a favourite LGBTQ word – by just about every woke person and institution in the land.
He has silenced centre-Right publications from publishing anything that could be construed as a defence of Latham. He has manoeuvred Latham into being regarded as poison.
SUBSTANCE
Oh no, all the damage done here has been done to Mark Latham, and those hundreds of thousands of voters who supported One Nation at the election. Many of whom, no doubt, agree with both Latham’s right to speak his mind and with the substance of his heteronormativity.
Just take a look at the Mark Latham’s Outsiders Facebook page for the evidence of this.
A few weeks ago, I wondered whether it was now acceptable to hold views that hold homosexual sex to be repugnant, and whether it was acceptable to express those views in public.
Clearly, now, the question has shifted to – is it legally safe to express such views? Could you be sued by a queer activist for openly expressing a moral theological (or non-moral theological) position on homosexual sex that has been adhered to by Christians since the Didache of the Apostles.
So, there is a quite a history to the rejection of homosexuality, and not only from Christians. And rejection is surely worse, from the point of view of offended homosexuals, than mere revulsion.
We seem to have entered a whole new phase of our collective imprisonment. We are now all, potentially, on Greenwich Mean Time in NSW.
And as for those folks who are steering clear of the Latham matter, sitting it out, in effect, or who defend Latham’s right to free speech while needing to virtue signal by saying loudly that they “disagree” with him, they are welcome to their view.
As long as they realise that they are acting as Alex Greenwich’s useful idiots. They are controlled opposition. They hide behind words like “vulgar” and “crude” while insisting Latham should apologise.
It is these people who, one day, will wake up to find a very different world, a world of rigidly mandated, correct views and ruthlessly enforced correct-think.
AGENDA
If Greenwich gets his way, we will have police, lawyers and the Anti-Discrimination Board surveilling what we say on social media. He is a champion of cancel culture, and is using lawfare to drive his agenda.
In this context, his tears are ironic, and scarcely believable. He cries over a coarse, barbed social media post, yet, callously, sheds no tears for all of the unborn that will now be killed as a direct result of legislation he sponsored.
It is to be hoped that Latham maintains his intention not to apologise, in order that this absurd legal action can be tested in the courts.
And it will be interesting if anyone – anyone – in the corporate media dares to discuss the case.
Oh, and Alex, the word is “sought”, not “seeked”. PC
What Mark Latham did in his text was describe the process of homosexual male intercourse, perhaps in a crude basic way, but in the vernacular of any number of Australian suburban pubs. What he said was not homophobic, not personally directed, but merely a description of a sexual act. There are people in the world, religious and non-religious, both men and women, who find homosexual sex repugnant; that is their right just as it is for homosexuals to think that normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is repugnant. We cannot be told what to think in a democracy, not even by the Leftists. Mark Latham is one of the most intelligent politicians in Australia with decent values, nobody’s fool, and no shrinking violet. Good on him.
There’s only one ‘disgusting human being’ identified in this article – Alex Greenwich!
If its true about Alex Greenwich (and it may well be) then he should pick a fight he can win…. otherwise he can get stuffed
It should not be forgotten what Greenwich said specifically about Latham which was arguably defamatory. Greenwich said about Latham:
“Mark Latham is a disgusting human being and people who are considering voting for One Nation need to realise they are voting for an extremely hateful and dangerous individual who risks causing a great deal of damage to our state”
That is also potentially an incitement.
Greenwich has also made a complaint under S. 474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995. This section says:
“a person commits an offence if they use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.”
But Latham has not directed his comment at Greenwich personally. Nor repeated it. I would argue there was no menace or harassment there.
The real issue for Latham is the Anti-Discrimination Board which is not bound by the usual court and legal definitions. Homosexual vilification is a wide band and while Latham has accurately described the homosexual sex act the crudeness of the description may be the issue. But then it is nothing worse than what is seen at Mardi gras every year.
This will be a very interesting case, especially if Latham counter sues; as I hope he does.
And there you have it the Gaybo mob crying crocodile tears thus proving most have no back bone at all. I have worked with many gays (males) and some females and the reason people dislike many of them is they are explicit in their sexual behaviour (showing pictures of their sex lives) and calling many heterosexual people names. Others just go about their business as it should be. But this was what I and others warned about if the Rigged Gay Marriage Vote got through and what will happen if the Divisional (Voice ) was the get through. Remember one person’s rights is another inconvenience. How much is enough ? Just a little bit more and it will never be enough .
Once again, Paul is right on the money
Thanks for the opportunity to hear Mark’s response on DH. He is the one who should be doing the suing; but he is too much of a man to bother with the likes of Greenwich’s threats, which might come to nothing anyway, as he wasn’t actually named in the Tweet.
Greens, often called Watermelons, green outside, red on the inside.