Leading article Australia

Imaginary villains

1 September 2016

1:00 PM

1 September 2016

1:00 PM

There are many similarities between the way the Left, in all their wisdom and touchy-feely clear-sightedness, react both to the issues of same sex marriage and to terrorism. In both instances, they are more concerned about the imagined actions of hordes of fantasy phantom villains than they are in dealing, in an adult and mature way, with the real issues at stake.

This was obvious during both Sydney’s Lindt Café siege and the Curtis Cheng murder, when the NSW police appeared more concerned about preventing some imaginary backlash than in being honest with the community about what was actually taking place. So perverse and so prevalent is this thinking that it saw senior police officers seemingly more worried about imaginary suburban bigots than with doing their duty to the hostages by rescuing them – preferably after putting a bullet through Man Monis’s head.

The twitterati and most of the mainstream, left-leaning media joined in this act of mass self-delusion, leaping on (literally) the ‘I’ll ride with you’ bandwagon; whipping up a vast imaginary backlash of illiterate bogans presumed to be unable to cope with the fact that another Islamist terror event was taking place without launching a pogrom on every hijab-wearing or bearded Muslim they could lay their hands on. That no such backlash ever occurred, or ever would have, troubles them not one whit. At every act of extremist Islam-inspired violence (sorry, ‘mental health’ event) that has occurred, or is yet to occur, Australians can rely on the luvvies battening down the hatches for yet another non-existent mass outbreak of phantom anti-Muslim behaviour.

The imaginary villains were also at the heart of this week’s parliamentary shenanigans over Mr Turnbull’s same sex marriage plebiscite. Bill Shorten, Penny Wong, Richard di Natale and a host of ABC and other commentators went to great lengths to explain to the rest of us, repeatedly, that it would be immoral to allow the public to vote on whether or not the definition of ‘marriage’ be changed to include same sex couples because of all the ‘hatred’, ‘homophobia’ and, yes, ‘suicides’ that such a public vote would, in their fevered imaginations, unleash.


Yet, as Michael Davis insightfully points out, the real whippers-up of homophobia are not to be found where you may think. Don’t miss his article in this issue.

The reality is that, as usual, the Left are conjuring up bogeymen to justify to themselves as much as to the rest of us the brazen dishonesty of their actions. There is no question that the government has a mandate to hold the plebiscite and, indeed, that the majority of people approve of putting this decision squarely into the hands of each and every one of us.

Which is of course the real problem. Having spent years assuring us that ‘over 70 per cent’ of the population approve of gay marriage, the Left are suddenly not so sure. Could it be that their own ‘anti-bullying’ hysteria, their own hatred and intolerance of any alternative point of few, has given many people pause for thought?

If gay marriage is not legislated in this country next year, it won’t be the fault of the imaginary villains. It will be down to all those who recklessly promoted the Safe Schools gender fluidity project, including the premiers of NSW and Victoria, and all those who demonised the plebiscite, including the leaders of Labor and the Greens, the ABC and their fellow-travellers. Let’s hope the gay community remember the real villains, not the imaginary ones.

Playing the fool

In this week’s issue, James Allan implores Liberals and conservatives who understand and value genuine free speech to sign our petition in favour of amending or repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. At the minimum, the words ‘offend’ and ‘insult’ must be immediately removed.

You can read many of the reasons why in the two articles by Mr Allan and by John Elsegood, but above all, the question that must be answered – posed by the The Speccie’s own Brendan O’Neill to much left-wing mirth on Q&A last week – is whether you believe it is right and proper that three young Australian students should be subject to secret investigation by a government-backed Human Rights Commission, apparent extortion, potential criminal convictions, massive fines and loss of career plans and earnings for comments they posted on Facebook in response to not being Aboriginal?

The Attorney-General, George Brandis, has labelled attempts to amend 18C – a political cause he himself commendably championed in Opposition – as a ‘fool’s errand’. In that case, we are more than happy to play the fool.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close