Same Sex Marriage Plebecite Discussion

Same Sex Marriage has become very topical and pretty hotly debated but aside from the usual up front "Are you for or against?" line designed to knock people off the fence and choose a side, what about the side issues. Yes the side issues that exist for those of any leaning.

General answer is, its as Senator Richard DiNatale said, currently its a denial of a fundamental human right. To put it more accurately, from the Greens website "The Greens believe that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights"
Well they probably, quite genuinely & honestly do believe that, but strangely from a Biblical point of view, they're quite right. You DO get to choose. You may be denied human rights but Scripture is clear, we choose to follow God's Word or break it. So actually, the only denial a person faces is via the law of the land.  At present if you identify as Same Sex Attraction oriented, you're good to go, no long wagon train to a concentration camp. Your persecution really exists as not being able to be legally married as Men & Women have since laws became laws in Australia. In fact if you look closely DiNatale gives the impression you are denied a human right by not having the freedom to identify sexuality & gender. No such denial exists. You are denied the legal process of a legal marriage though.

For most of us, what people do, chose to do is their own business. But the REAL issue is can a same sex couple marry? Currently no but is it a human rights violation? No one has tested that but currently the answer is no. In Richard Di Natale's (and the Greens) case its a recognised fundamental human right...well if so how so, please present the standard by which you make the claim.

If we look to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, go to Article 16 it states...

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

No mention or inference nor clear cut clarity on Same Sex Marriage. You can argue "Men and women" means mixed gender marriage or it means both genders have the right to marry any gender but it doesn't say anything like that. In 1948 I'd suggest it was not the latter that was intended. Irrespective there is no clear case that denying SSM is a fundamental human rights issue. If you think it is, you should change the standard before making the claim.

If the Greens truly maintain that view then things will go awry when SSM is actually passed as law in Australia. How, why?
Its then possible for a same sex couple to approach a priest and ask the priest to perform the ceremony, to be married by him in his church. Now according to Di Natale's current claim that being unable to be Same Sex Married is indeed a denied "fundamental human right", the priest can be reported for refusing to marry same sex couples because he is effectively committing a human rights violation against the intending couple. Even if the priest/pastor is following their own Scriptures.

Yep I know, the argument will begin, but here's the thing human rights apply to humans, governments & groups. You cannot have a government denying human rights (by denying SSM) without a priest denying it if he denies to marry a couple when SSM becomes law.
A priest can deny human rights, but a whole country cannot?

Silliness. Dizzy yet?

Whether you support or oppose SSM, you cannot legitimately agree that DiNatale's "fundamental human right" is a legitimate argument when it fails intellectually flat. Say its unfair, or its get with the times or whatever else, but its not a Human Rights Violation.

Slavery, torture, murder, forced marriages, marriages of under age people, rape, genocide, child soldiers and any number of other Human Rights Violations occur every day in immense numbers in a lot of countries. Its estimated that 40,000 female sex slaves are sold & smuggled into Japan every year. Sorry, although not our country, that's a bigger travesty than SSM on the Human Rights Abuses list. Religious, cultural and racial persecution. Real human rights violations. Greens utter silence compared to their loud voice on SSM. There is some validity for saying the Greens will always push for preservation of human rights, more so when Christianity gets placed second or gets placed outside. I've heard the argument that they're more accommodating of eastern religion than Christianity or Judaism and it does kinda look that way from time to time.

But aside from that, at least the priest isn't intellectually corrupt. He can claim that SSM or Same Sex relations are immoral. How? Well he has a Moral Law, handed to him from a transcendant moral law giver. He actually has, through proper in context exegesis of Christian Scriptures, the ability to cite a moral law given by a transcendent creator God with which to judge an action as being moral or immoral. He cannot judge or condemn the person though.

Oh but if you don't believe there is a God, morals are just evolutionary traits, designed to make the gathered group work together better and more safely thrive. Mighty good for the group, but not binding until a legal system comes along and even then not morally binding.

If it were the case that there is no God at all, Morals are useful, engender co-operative interaction but really aren't binding. Morals are just a preferred but non binding code of practise, a code of conduct.

In fact if we notice some cultures have some things being ok, whilst others its not. Cannibalism is and was quite ok with some cultures, it wasn't just morally ok, it was a spiritual imperative for self improvement. European culture has a different view, even without the European being in the pot cooking we observe to opposite cultures. We soon see that whilst some will call them cultural differences, or regional points of distinction, fact is they're different and for the atheist, they are all invented by humans over time. They are relative and they're only binding by whatever legal system is in place.

Meaning (if you're an honest atheist) in countries of the Middle East where SSM is not allowed under law, its cultural and/or regional, decided by the majority as a part of law. Some its a result of religion, but if you don't believe in God its not moral or immoral. Its the law and its based on cultural differences. In any case its relative, not universal as a Human Right is supposed to be. Keep it, break it, change it but its not a fundamental human right.

Headline of the future maybe...
"PASTOR IMPRISONED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"
because perhaps he stuck with his religion & refused to marry a Same Sex couple.
If we stick with the DiNatale line, a Priest/Pastor refusing to marry a SSM is breaching Human Rights. Strangely if a Priest/Pastor who is forced to marry SSM against their will, that has its own human rights violations problem. See Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Come on Richard, support or oppose SSM. Support a Plebiscite or Act of Parliament, we really don't care, but apply rigor to your argument, keep it uncorrupted and cogent.

Now here's the thing, its bad enough that the SSM issue is an issue at all. Its somehow, in the mind of the Greens, leap frogged all other Human Rights Violations in priority even though SSM will affect less than 2% of the Australian population. How did an issue affecting so few, come to impact so many at potential a huge cost to the public purse?

The Courier Mail reported the Greens propose to decriminalise Ice & party drugs in general.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking the Greens have little credibility in areas of great harm and their moral compass has dead batteries.
Legal Ice is good, Illegal SSM a breach & violation of human rights. Yep, I got it.

Richard needs to get his act together or go harder so he is taken for the loud fool he is and therefore more readily dismissed by clear thinking Australian.

Now before you yell Intolerant Bigot at me, I haven't even said I support/oppose SSM.
But if you yell that you should first be reasonable about the dangerous absurdity of DiNatale's basis of claims and be well hoarse in the throat before you "GUESS" where I stand and make a condemning judgement. Maybe you need the wise council of a good pastor.

If that Pastor uses proper in context exegesis to explain his moral compass and you reject it, he might yet tell you not to follow Richard's themes because they're twisted and not actually human rights abuses as Richard claims. Remember just because you like something doesn't make it moral or ok.

Just because you don't like something or you're being denied something, you should not use emotional leverage like citing Human Rights to bolster your otherwise bland and lacking argument.

Richard, stop the tricky dicky. Prosecute your position with proper reason please.

Bigotry, how hard is it to define?

Bigotry - based on ignorance, its drives a dogma on, despite data or facts...well that's my view at least. First person to yell bigot somehow isn't a bigot somehow. Its a debate closer. Any discussion on feminism that goes places with full sunlight to search out more facts can from some people urge the yelling of "Sexist pig". Other debates "Capitalist dog", "Agrarian Socialist", "Lazy Bludger scum" "Scab". The derogatory name tag of unfair bias, immoral hypocrite etc is meant as a convenient shut down button to discourse and free thinking by the plain dim witted. Its using bias to shut the differing opinion.

Radical vegans will call hunters "Murderers" and dairy workers "rapists"

Its a bizarre Year 3 logic tanty tactic that's slowly taking over & taps into people's fear of being branded "offensive"...the bigot is the offensive bigot therefore they are to be railed, ridiculed and prevented from exploring anything on the subject.

Now this came up in a twitter feed of a well known, very well regarded Journo. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges people's thinking, challenges mine. He's been accused of being a Liberal Stooge & a Labor Stooge. How that works I don't know but it works in his favour as far as journalistic credentials. Badge of honour whether he know, cares or not.
So even though we disagree from time to time, I hold him in some high regard.

Now on his feed the topic of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) came up. This journo's only comments were about where we'd be in years to come looking at the plebiscite. He made no comment about Christians, but another person in the feed did. The journo did well not to get drawn in.

But I did.

In short, genuine Christians would not shave beards & would avoid shell fish if they were true genuine Christians. The premise is "times have changed" and you should never cherry pick some things to be ok for change. Its all or nothing. If you prefer to be clean shaven or decide its ok to chow down on prawns, crays or yabbies you must also be ok with SSM. Its about being consistent

Extended, if shaving is ok then so too is eating shell fish or having a same sex relationship because all Leviticus must either be maintained or dismissed.

Here's where it runs aground badly.

The shaving, shell fish thing, that's Levitical/Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when Christ was born, lived and even as He died, but when He became the New Covenant it was already gone. It stayed on in practice, but as far as God & Christ were concerned, it passed away before Christ did. So its not in effect today so no one has to feel the need to avoid shell fish or never shave.

Christ was clear, what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man, not what he eats.

Secondly, Levitical & Mosaic Law ONLY applied to the Hebrews, not Gentiles then nor Christians at anytime. Using it now as some sort of twisted leverage device to allow Same Sex Relations within God's Word is wrong. 100% Scripturally wrong. 100% False Exegesis.

When the Temple was destroyed, around 78AD, it was definitely 100% gone for Jews as well.

Then up comes the clobber clause, which says in Luke 7:1-10 that the centurion came to Christ to get his "slave" healed, which Christ did. The claim is that in the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, the word slave should be replaced with the word "lover" because in the Greek it uses the word "pais" which translates to lover.

The contention is, the sick servant on the edge of death was the centurion's same sex lover. True or not we don't know, but this is held up as Christ being quite ok with Same Sex Relationships.

Thing is, it doesn't.

What it says is Christ will be there for anyone wanting to be saved. None of us are worthy, all of us are sinners. That no matter who you are, you cannot get into Heaven without Christ. The Bible is clear that forgiveness is there for anyone who genuinely asks for it, even murderers, thieves and adulterers.

So yes, Christ being Christ he healed the "slave" without even seeing him.

So why mention this slave being healed at all? He saved a centurion's servant but what's the big deal, what's the big point, why is it so relevant?
Christ referred to the centurion as having the greatest faith in Israel. It has to be more than that.
Its possible the slave and the centurion were lovers & this is showing even people on the widest extremes of sinning have a chance of salvation & redemption. After all the Scriptures describe homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. He Hates it.

If the centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, its most likely he was no longer in a homosexual relationship with the slave. He called Christ "Rabbi", he was clearly a follower of Christ so its not hard to think God was showing that any sinner, even those guilty of "abomination" before God could, if they asked, be saved. Christ didn't do things for the sake of doing things. There was meaning and instruction involved.

Levitical & Mosaic Laws were gone, but God's Law was not. If it was an abomination before God in the beginning, it still is today as it was when Christ walked the earth.

The thing that some people don't get, can't answer and don't like being pointed out to them is this...

If God has changed His mind and is now perfectly ok with homosexuality well he's going to have to apologise to everyone from Sodom & Gomorrah. At no point did He say someone is devoid of hope or salvation. Those that aren't saved are those who don't ask for it. Its become this "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that spells it out most eloquently. If there was a same sex turn around by God or Christ, it has huge implications and would not have stayed as something that's inferred , it would be clearly spelt out. It is not because that's not how it is.

Here's another very clear comparison. Christ saved a prostitute from being stoned to death, he didn't do that to say young school leavers today, short of a few dollars, are now ok to enter into the sex trade.

Now if you're pushing a doctrine that's based on ignorance you can call it bigotry. The doctrine of twisting Scripture you don't believe in nor understand to somehow call Christians "bigots" is sadly full blown bigotry itself.

If I could I'd challenge this Scripture twisters to the simplest of tests, a simple question.
How many wise men visited Jesus in the manger?

Now I bet London to a brick, that despite all the nativity plays at school, despite all the nativity scenes on Christmas cards and in shop windows most would get it wrong...

Maybe not always. Some will get it right after cohorts get it thoroughly wrong and are embarrassed.
But regardless if they're relying on Shell fish & beard arguments to somehow undermine Christians as hypocrites they're going to come unstuck...or they'll continue along falsely believing that which isn't so and deceiving others who are not sure.

I think ALL humans are hypocritical. Moral high ground has few if any full time residents and generally those who think they possess it the most, probably possess it the least.

If you're game, go to the comment section below & say how many wise men you think visited Jesus in the manger. Just a number will do or if you're a more private person PM/Email me a number. No prize or penalty.

And you won't get called Bigot ;-)

Women Quotas For Parliament.

At first it seems like a good idea & perhaps it has some merit if some good women with merit are being blocked because of a boys club. The worry is that this will turn into an engineered outcome and the possibility that might create outcomes that are unfair with any critics being labelled sexist bigots or the like.

If that happens, then it can be a detrimental outcome, an outcome of unfairness protected by a system that was supposed to stop such rorts. First off though lets look at what we know and prod at what we don't.

We know the numbers of women in Parliament are vastly outnumbered by the numbers of men. This has been deemed to be unfair. Without question any person who's qualified and of good merit who's been kicked outside due to a purple circle manipulating things to their chosen outcome is unfair and repugnant.

Is 50/50 representation on the front bench a thing we should try to attain, or recognise when it does happen?

Here's the thing. Some women in the corporate board sphere have reported that being the first woman through the door is brilliant. It affords you a slightly more equal position and many men unsure of gender politics over compensate in trying to be equal. Some have even acknowledged that being the first through the door sometimes (in earlier days) was easier than being the second through the door, that the first women through have protected their position by helping to install a glass ceiling themselves. True or not I don't know...but its some women's claim and one prominent director admitted she'd been guilty of it.

Any system to rectify glass ceilings must encompass all of those wishing to create favour. Factions must come into it (good luck). It must prevent token women coming in, token men coming in.

And before we get to a set of policies and procedures to curtail the various purple circles, what do the numbers say already? How many women have sought pre-selection in each party? What percentage of pre-selection applicants are women? If you have 85% men & 15% women then how is a 50/50 front bench fair and equitable and equality based?

How too does what ever checks & balances introduced ensure no token women are introduced to reach the required numbers? There are some under performers in Parliament now, some are men, some are women. How do we install a performance evaluation criteria across every MP, an independent scoring system to see what their ratings are? And should we...short answer yes, sooner the better.

Its all well and good to call for equality, but for who?

Why is there a gender quota being pushed for Federal Parliament, yet no one is pushing for 50/50 gender representation in sewerage industry workers? Or panel beaters and roo shooters. Is there a quota required for the nursing profession? Its generally female but shouldn't we be pushing and legislating for 50/50 male/female numbers?

What about teaching, is there more men or more women? Both serve well if they're good teachers that is. For many school kids a male role model is absent at home and one running the class room is a positive thing for several of the years of a child's schooling. Quotas anyone?

I've seen female shearers. Do we apply legislation to ensure half of all shearers are women? Rubbish collectors?
What about chefs? Can anyone sit in a restaurant and say definitively "that meal was definitely prepared by a man & that one definitely by a woman" ?
No they can't. And in pushing for equality some of the structures that get built are walls not bridges.

And why do we only focus on quotas on the high paid ministerial positions?

The thing is, in Parliament we lack measures of proper performance. If such a regular rating was applied and the final score presented prior to polling day we'd have a much better chance of having merit based MPs irrespective of their gender. Which I suspect is how it should be anyway. Isn't it? People judged on their abilities not their gender, faction, religion, family ties?

A progressive party could put 2 people on the ballot paper if they were allowed to, but they have to put one first ahead of the other. Toss a coin? Yeah, merit removed again and people encouraged to vote whichever way they want but some suggestion that voting based on gender?

It concerns me all this talk of gender bias and gender equality. True gender equality is when people get the job based on merit, experience and all other performance related criteria. True gender equality is when we're happy or unhappy with your rep because they're really good/bad & gender doesn't come into it.

Again, how many men & women applied for pre-selection for each party for each seat?
Some seats have no women apply for pre-selection at all.  How is that factored in without skewing data & applied outcomes via regulation?

Julie Bishop is a good party member to the detriment of her electorate some argue but she's a woman, she's in arguably one of the safest, if not the safest Liberal seats in the country. She's deputy party leader. Did she overcome the purple circle, is she part of the purple circle, did she get there despite the purple circle. Do we apply gender fairness & let her in only every 2nd election and have a man represent Cowan in the terms in between? No that's madness...gender equal madness.

Quotas are a quick fix idea with perhaps a lot of thought behind them, but certainly very little wisdom.

Just looking at the gender split on the floor of parliament is not enough & regulating a 50/50 split wouldn't happen in real life, so why apply it only to very high paid Canberra MP positions?

Remove ceilings and impediments and demand merit based, but 50/50 quotas can, when misused, actually favour ones gender over another at the cost of merit. It also makes gender a criteria...that's the bloody very thing we should be trying to stamp out.

                        What do you think? I'm gunna get some hate mail aren't I?

Animal Rights...again.

Simple points in simple point form...things to remember.

1. Animal Rights and Animal Welfare are 2 completely different things. One wants to improve the conditions and treatment of animals to humane and acceptable standards. The other is worrisome cult driven ethos of wanting to ban Live Export, the consumption of meat indeed all animal based food products and wants all animals "released" - There are plenty of "Animal Rights" nutters hiding amongst the genuine, reasonable Animal Welfare groups. Sift them out.
2. The "Moral" dimension. Apparently meat and other animal based products (not restricted to food) is "immoral". It isn't. Its just one of the usual hocus pocus vague over statements lobbed like a hand grenade. Its designed to go off before you have a chance to throw it back or look at it and disarm it. Once you know how to crack it open and look at it closely you soon find the nutters are throwing a pin and holding the grenade. Once you get to this point, expect personal attack or indignation...generally both. Eating meat is neither moral nor immoral
3. Milk is rape - Yeah well that'll take about 2 seconds to dismiss. Its bizarre if not sad that we have to put up with this rubbish. Again, they're throwing the pin at you as they scurry back to their trench tightly clenching their own grenade. They get away with it every time no one calls them to account. Milk is not a sex thing, its a food. Lets spell that out big & slowly F-O-O-D. It's what its for, its what it does its what it designed to be. Food is collected like honey from the hive and sold. Tomatoes are a great plant, the actual fruit is part of the tomatoes reproductive organs but no one is mortifiably stupid enough to say picking "tommies" and eating them is a vile act of debauched rape.
4. Investigators - If they're trespassing they are criminals. Interesting thought they have been known to defend this practice by playing the moral high ground card. That doesn't work and kinda looks pretty sad too. There is no legal defence for breaking the law under moral grounds. None, never has been, never will be. If you're a criminal, you're a criminal not a moral crusader. I cannot break into a vegan's house, put in secret cameras to see if they're drinking milk or nibbling on beef jerky. If they did those "immoralities" would you argue they do it mainly in the shower & install cameras there? Hideous lie at best.
5. RSPCA - Slowly seeing Animals Welfare being replaced with Animal Rights. I'd expect this organisation to be re-born and reinvented in years to come, especially as its likely it government role will probably be lost as impartiality is exposed. Recently come under an WA Upper House Committee & haven't read a report nor sure its available yet. I expect no shocks but lots of process driven charter derailments.
6. Animal Rights groups forming alliances with Meat Worker Unions. Yes its happening and its stunning on every level. Currently the idea is to keep slaughter works here the only place to kill and process me and to ban Live Export. Problem is, if you draw a line from Geraldton to Cairns, maybe Brisbane...you'll need close to 30 abattoirs to process all the current Live Export animals. Then you need all the staff that currently equates to 457 visas. There's not enough Australian staff in the south. Then there's the factor that its not financially viable for many of the overseas customers, they want Live because its affordable & sustainable to them.

And I can see this point form exercise blowing out. I'll add to it periodically

Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheist Career Options

Militant atheists are on the rise...or decline, depending who you talk to. Ironically it was atheists who suggested to me the militancy is on the decline and that the existence of this aggressive version is rather embarassing. Nope, I didn't see that coming.

Not the only do I have trouble seeing militancy is on the decline but 2 of the more prominent "M.A" folk are Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss. Both have made startling comments about raising of children in a religious way in a religious family is comparable to child abuse. As Krauss has said, to be a believer in the science of morality (yes I have to go seek out whatever that's meant to mean) he thinks its child abuse to raise child in a Christian world view. Both he & Dawkins see things only their way to be moral & differing views immoral. And it didn't take long for both to cop critics' abuse over their own personal lives and when comes to raising children. They both have each had more wives than children so probably should stick to their qualified fields rather than advise on child raising.

I don't know a lot about Child Abuse, but I do know raising children in a religious house hold is not child abuse. Unsure about Krauss but Dawkins himself was raised in a religious family and somehow only he was able to break free of the shackles and rise above that influence where as his comments suggest too many children are indoctrinated and cannot leave. I'm sure this can happen and many children can become trapped within a dangerous cult by guilting parents. Not sure likening them all to child abuse isn't the answer.

Empowering families to learn and use proper exegesis of their religion's scriptures is. Its amazing how many will implode but after several thousand years one still stands and also tells followers to listen to the pastor then check the Scriptures daily to see if its so. Richard & Lawrence won't follow that path.

Both have copped flak for profiting handsomely from their militant atheism. Hard getting a precise net worth on Lawrence, some have it around $2 million which for a bestselling author and a clever fellow we assume can manage money but he has gone through one divorce. Dawkins on the other hand is thought to have a net worth of $135 million which for a zoologist who's been divorced twice is a remarkable effort. However at a guess, much of his earnings these days would come from talk circuits, appearances & books. Not on zoology or biology, but on secular promotion, lampooning creationism and religion. This massive income stream all comes from Militant Atheism.

No not sledging people for making a quid, but it is a lucrative field & although it doesn't automatically skew their opinions it does set them squarely in the field where standing out is a career advancement move. The more provocative the better earnings wise.

So what is so wrong with raising your own children your way? Nothing, however as a society we have society expectations and we are wise to set boundaries for raising children. Its understandable that society prefers a love based set of boundaries and not a racist, sexist and/or human sacrificing devil worshipping based raising.

I think Dawkins aim is not so much what happens to individual children, most of who do exercise their free will and free thinking when they leave the home, but to change society's expectation which is not so much secular but militant atheistic. Somehow we're supposed to believe that is not a world view and if it is it's morally ok and not comparable to child abuse.

If we extend it fully then we should exert as little influence as possible on the children growing up, provide a moral vacuum and allow them to find their own way. I read of such a family that did that with their 2 daughters. One ended up dead prostitute junky and the sister not far behind. Had they been raised in a traditional Biblically sound Christian household then apparently that's akin to child abuse. Odd, I'm sure those very hippy parents aren't suffering just a little regret over their actions in raising the children. (?)

One thing for sure about Dawkins & Krauss, whilst Krauss certainly can stick to his knitting and career he still pops out with his militant atheism whenever possible whereas Dawkins is the full time convert and zoology will only get mentioned if its in connection with slamming creationism. More noticeable with Dawkins is his lack of tolerance of those with a differing view. Anyone disagreeing is subordinate or perhaps sub something else.  He has elevated himself and on the occasions he's gone too far, he has apologised...although he has later retracted the apology.

He's fared quite well in one respect, his lack of respect, his dogma like pursuit on the religious views of others is akin to intolerance and bigotry but somehow the Teflon covers him. Its almost like bigotry applies to anyone who is intolerant, except those who are intolerant of Christians and Christianity.

Terrorist Attacks, Views & Responses

Its not more than a few days old, the attack on Nice, France. The French President Francois Hollande says they're in for a long battle because they have an enemy who will continue to hate.

How right is he? Very.

There's possibly some added twists here though. If you were able to sensibly question the attacker/s you'd probably find they regard themselves as soldiers in a religious war, a war against non believers and to them the devil which is all things non Muslim. As hate filled as they are, they somehow believe they're on a righteous path, in a righteous struggle against all things, to them at least, demonic and they'll be rewarded greatly for it.

How does a person get to this point, able to kill innocent men, women & children going about their normal everyday peaceful lives? Radicalisation is the usual reply, youth at risk, no job, no hope, no prospects are somehow easy pickings for the cunning people targeting them.

That may be true to a point, but the good orators who are rousing these disaffected, disillusioned young people to slaughter, how are they radicalised & why is there little or no attempt to de-radicalise them? What is it they believe?

Probably similar to the attackers, they may even be the attackers, but ideally they're motivated by a religious conviction. Does it reflect Islam as a whole or is it some twisted offshoot that's perverting or totally ignoring their holy book?

Well here's where we get close to where perhaps the focus should be in responding to these attacks to lessen the chances of further attacks. Propaganda war.

When Islamic leaders come out at journalists insistence and make comments on attacks its generally the same. They condemn the attack, they declare it is not what Islam is about and not always but sometimes they go close to playing a victim card themselves citing they're in fear of their lives because of the possible backlash of ignorant people who decide to target them.

So how can we see a way forward? How can people comment about these attacks, condemn them solely as the evil they are and keep moderate Muslims away from reprisals?

It might be easier than we think. We may only need Islamic leaders, clerics and imams to come out and use specific language regarding the attacks. We may only need them to verbally condemn the attackers and their actions from a theological viewpoint considering that is the motivation & reason they cite for the attacks in the first place.

We may only need clerics to come out and declare the attackers as APOSTATES, as enemies of the Prophet and their cause along with its reasoning behind it to be total heresy. THEN and only then do we have a stop and think position. Islam or at least a branch of it is central to the reason behind this, it has to be central to the opposition against it.

Had we used proper in context exegesis of the Christian Scriptures to test the actions & decisions of the powerful and those in control the Crusades might have been called off, so too the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition. All the killing, torture and false imprisonment that was done in the name of Jesus Christ was never and can never be sanctioned by Christ or the Word of Christ.

The same stands for the modern day terror attackers. If they're doing it because of Islam, then Islam will have to be front and centre in the battle to stop it, in the war to win the hearts & minds of militant muslims.

If a person attacks and their justification for it is related to their religion, then that religion needs to test the attackers claim against their respective religion. In the case of ISIS, their actions are either the work of Muslims who are properly following their holy words OR they are heretical APOSTATES. Or extended even further they're HERECTICAL APOSTATES DOING THE WORK OF THE DEVIL.

There is no grey area in which to hide. There is no grey area, no middle ground. Its one or the other and only the clerics can publicly come out and use their scriptures to clarify...and hopefully de-radicalise youth at risk.

Sorry but the attack in Orlanda Florida was an abhorrent act of mongrel bastardry. The world leapt to condemn it, clerics mouthed words of shock and opposition and we saw buildings and bridges of note being covered in projected light of rainbow colours. Now again we're seeing French National colours being projected. No colours of Iraq or Turkey that lost many people in determined Islamic driven attacks. Why is that?

Why project colours at all, but if you are does life in some countries count for a lot whilst others are not worth anything at all?

Why not push hard for full and proper religious decrees on what's acceptable, what's not, what's heresy and what is the work of APOSTATES?

The answer might be closer than we think but I fear it'll stay close but unseen

The Funny Thing About Conspiracy Theories...

With the recent federal election delivering a more difficult floor for passing legislation calls for various Royal Commissions has popped up again. Some people think with the cross benches being as they might end up being we'll see pushes for a Royal Commission into the Banking Industry go ahead. Will we? Who knows, but since deregulating the industry the advantages first suggested certainly haven't happened and banks have gone onto to be dominant over its customers.

Another Royal Commission being called for is one into the Port Arthur massacre. The push for this is understandable from some perspectives but others are a little more based amongst wacky "conspiracy theories" type position.

Firstly I don't know what happened there apart from what history has recorded. Some of those pushing for a Royal Commission claim the massacre was a "false flag attack" meaning they claim the "government" organised the entire massacre, was committed by trained people & the convicted shooter was a framed "patsy".

Its a pretty big call but they generally claim how does a left handed person, with no gun training or skill, shooting right handed from the hip and kill & injure so many people, therefore its a false flag attack.

I have copped flak for my view but I think that conspiracy theory has flaws and possible its a dog that won't hunt.

First problem I see is I don't see a problem with the historical explanation of nut doing what was presented to us. He was a deranged psychopath who's prison pysch case worker clearly declared the gun man is a psychopath with problems discerning some parts of reality. With that in mind, I think that such a person would kill and have no feeling of regret or understanding what he'd done and keep shooting so people keep falling down.

The places he fired were crowded. No one was expecting it and it also then means we should look at the ammunition he used. A frangible round kinda spreads as it impacts. They're used for hunting and its what police might used because the idea is the full impact of the round hits the target and is more likely to kill and not pass through easily.

Full metal jackets are projectiles that are not hollow pointed or plastic tipped so they're solid. They can therefore pass through several people easily. At close quarters as people are running for the doors, if the people were ever 2 or more people deep one shot would easily hit several people. Although they'd possibly pass through several people the result is lethal. One round at close quarters could kill 3 or 4 people.

Its a possible reply to the idea he couldn't have done it, wasn't proficient etc.

BUT the False Flag thing is not actually what anyone should primarily be focusing on. What we should be focusing is the point lost by people of all sides and shades on this topic. Firstly, forget the conspiracy theory, suspend your disbelief and trust the position the government held and look solely at that position and the action authorities in the months after the atrocity. A response that failed victims, survivors, their friends, their family members and all of Australia.

A deranged psychopath with no car licence drove his car there on that day, used firearms bought with cash on the black market without any firearms licence and committed the worst mass killing on Australian soil in the 20th century.

The government's hand was forced, they had to respond and they had to respond big and loud. And they did. Misdirected though.

They caused the National Firearms Agreement, they outlawed certain firearms, created an amnesty period and bought back a lot of firearms.

Certain firearms are now outlawed and the only people with them are outlaws, some police and the military.

Perhaps they should have looked at the problem closely and targeted the individual problems.
The buy back had several flaws, it saw many inoperable firearms being handed in for payments that were far greater than repairs and saw people cash in & go buy better firearms. It saw some plumbers to be flat out cutting rifle size lengths of PVC, end cap glued on one end and screw cap the other and sell them. To this day we do not know how many illegal guns were created during the gun buy back.

Some of those firearms were not on a register so were untraceable, some were licenced firearms which were declared lost or stolen and "disappeared".

The other problem was it took firearms off the one group of people who would hand them back, law abiding people. They're the ones least likely to commit a crime. A bit like confiscating the car keys of a non drinker so as to reduce the chances of them drink driving.

The next "other problem" is 2 groups that were missed possibly still are missed. The criminally inclined and the mentally ill. The gunman fell into these groups easily and its that which caused the problem.

Australia spent more than half a billion dollars buying back guns off the Law Abiding Firearms Owners and no extra money was poured into the illegal gun trade or serious mental health.

False Flag Attack or it was what was reported and recorded. Irrelevant as the fact is, the overall worst fact of all is in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting on Australian soil in the 20th century caused a response which failed by not targeting the illegal gun trade and serious mental health. It could have been smart & introduced checks and balances that may have prevent a Port Arthur type tragedy ever happening again.

Now we have a odd arrangement where in Queensland if you're a feral contractor you can get a special permit to own and use a centrefire semi automatic to clear ferals but if that contractor tries to come to WA to fix pigs, dog, donkeys etc from station country from vast pastoral leases they can be arrested and the firearms seized and destroyed. That firearm is legal in Queensland, outlawed in WA.

Mind you if a pastoralist has a legal pistol for work on the station but wants to join a pistol club they cannot use the work pistol. They'd have to buy an identical pistol for the range and ironically never ever use it for work on the station. They break the law if they do.

20 years on and we're still looking at a fractured and ill focused approach to firearms in Australia.

The Adler shotgun is legal in every state, its here. Imported and sold. The originals held 8 rounds, but Tony Abbott's import ban stopped it. The 8 shot was legal to own but couldn't be imported, but a 5 shot could. So some people imported a 5 shot Adler Shotgun and legally converted it to 8 shot. You could convert it to 10 shot legally but its too heavy to carry for long periods in the bush. But wait there's more...you could prior to the Adler schamozzle legally buy an 8 shot lever action 12 gauge firearm in Australia, could do for decades just different brands. The Adler issue became an issue because the importer did youtube videos of torture testing the Adler by firing 5000 rounds as quickly as possible on a gun range to see what would happen. Internet sensation. Followed by import ban. Both the video & the subsequent ban elevated the lever action shot gun to lofty levels of coveting desire. Odd because its not a new or fantastic design. Great for shooting feral pigs when on foot, but in the prone position you have to left the firearm to cycle spent round out and cycle new round in. Not real great for accuracy. The whole stink of the ban may actually have helped sell more of these lever action shotguns than anything. A ban that wasn't needed, wasn't required and made no sense helped sell more guns. Tony Abbott very much followed in John Howard's footsteps.

Bizarre arrangements.

The Adler was not new technology. Its a lever action. They've been around since the 1860s. Rapid fire? Compared to what. Get double barrel shot gun and an Adler and speed test them as many already have. Fire 12 rounds through both, you soon see the double barrel is faster. Point is, faster you shoot the less accurate it becomes. Another point lost. Its not semi automatic, its not high powered but it does suffer the same ill informed governance that was prominent during the Port Arthur legislative response.

Meanwhile Lindt Café, deluded psychopath with no gun licence, with an illegal firearm bought on the black market.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail.

The tragic 2015 brutal killing of unarmed Sydney police worker Curtis Cheng was another heart breaker. The gunman a radicalised youth, with no gun licence and an illegal firearm bought on the black market.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail.

Some have suggested (and I'm trying to see if its confirmable) that the pistol used outside the Paramatta Police station was never ever sold in Australia, it was illegally imported.
A smuggled in pistol was legally sold in America.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail.

Then there's the home made guns.
In June 2014 NSW Police seized 10 illegal guns & 2000 rounds of ammunition.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail

July 2016 WAPolice seized drugs, a home made gun and 2 other illegal guns in a Mundaring raid.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail

Meanwhile record numbers of homemade guns are thought to be on Sydney streets & that 10% of all seized firearms and home made guns known as "junk guns" because they're made from scrap. They apparently sold for as little as $100.
1996 Gun Buy Back Fail.

Legal guns are not for self defence in Australia. If you apply for a firearm for self defence you will be denied a licence and a gun. I'd argue little if anyone in this country needs a firearm for self defence BUT I do see how sporting and recreational shooters as well as farmers& pest controllers can feel "disarmed" with the prime if not sole focus being upon legal, lawful, law abiding firearms owners.

I see too how conspiracy theorists are gaining traction, becoming louder and bolder and in some cases gaining support for their theories. It is an issue which is a landscape full of deception, ill focus and therefore poor results.

The current National Firearms Agreement is in a circling pattern until the election is finally done & dusted. It remains to be seen if the determination continues to replace focus. It remains to be seen if it continues to be a case of 1996 Gun Buy Back Fail.

So whether you accept the events of Port Arthur as they're recorded or whether you subscribe to a False Flag Conspiracy Theory the fact is the government response was ill focused and mismanaged & therefore missed the cause of the problem and strangely targeted the people who actually are inclined to follow the law leaving criminals and psychopaths outside the focus.

20 years on, its still out of focus.