The definition of the word Bigot in the Cambridge dictionary is listed as – “a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:”
Whenever any group or individual has the position that others should be excluded from any debate you know that they, in fact, have a flawed position. There have been four examples of this in the past few weeks.
The first one is through the emotionally charged abortion debate. It has been brought back into the forefront of public debate in Australia recently with the contentious bill that was debated, amended and has now passed through the NSW parliament.
Having already passed through the NSW lower house in the dead of night and with the bill being sprung on unaware Coalition mp’s after not being discussed in the recent NSW election, NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian had to rely on working with the Greens to introduce the bill and to have it passed in the Lower House before it progressed through to the Upper house.
What was she thinking?
This has led to demonstrations and debate amongst the wider public, in public places, newsprint media amongst our media scribes, on our airwaves and of course on social media. Worse it was many in her own base that she has antagonised. No matter your stance anybody who wishes to put forward an opinion or position should be able to be heard on any subject in a civilised society. If you disagree with that opinion or position then put forward your own argument.
Not according to some of the Pro-choice side. Apparently, if you’re a male then you have no right to have an opinion in this debate. We men with a pro-life position in this sphere are supposed to look the other way and not engage in a debate that according to some is all about women and reproductive rights which is an oxymoron in itself if you think it through.
I am thoroughly pro-life, not just in matters concerning humans but also in the animal kingdom for instance. I am no vegan, but I would argue loudly against any inhumane animal harvest for human consumption. I virulently am against game hunting, bullfighting, the ivory trade, the slaughter of dugongs and sea turtles in our waters, the slaughter of whales and dolphins for so-called scientific research and things such as the annual dog meat festival conducted in Yulin, Guangxi China. The list goes on.
Interestingly when I argue for pro-life in these instances my voice is welcomed and not derided.
Yet the likes of feminists such as Jane Caro, for instance, don’t believe a male can have a voice in the killing of human life.
Jane and her like love to call any male with a pro-life argument irrelevant, a bigot, a misogynist or the now routine Nazis slur, which is, if it can be, in such a serious emotional debate, a little amusing. Wasn’t it the Nazis who engaged in the killing of humans on an industrial scale. The abortion industry has put them to shame.
Whenever there is a case of domestic violence, rape or even the murder of a woman by a male, feminists love to bundled all men in with these monsters and implore men as a collective to take a stronger position, to get more involved and change attitudes amongst other men. While I have an issue with all men being lumped into the same vile category as monsters who attack women, I would have no issue in supporting men taking more accountability in mentoring other men and in particular impressionable boys to be more aware of their responsibilities towards respecting all women and especially the women in their lives.
Yet despite it being widely acknowledged that more female babies are aborted than male babies, men in this instance are supposed to stand by and not say a word for the rights of those defenceless female babies, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to their pain, their silent screams and their agonising deaths, all because a man cannot become pregnant. The invalid argument that you can’t have an opinion because the biology and anatomy of your body don’t allow you to bear children has always conveniently and stupidly tried to avoid the obvious argument that any abortion involves two bodies, the mother and the unborn child’s. It also avoids the rather obvious point of debate that no human baby can reside in the womb of a woman without the assistance of a man, which includes IVF babies who need to source of male sperm from the male population to be able to work.
Quite simply without us men, there would be no abortion debate
So despite being the cause of the problem, apparently men who realise this and take some form of responsibility for it cannot have an opinion? Despite knowing the termination of pregnancy represents the agonising death of the most defenceless of humans we aren’t supposed to be able to take a stand? Despite knowing that the infant in the womb can’t speak out for itself we are supposed to remain silent instead of speaking out for them?
How are those men taking accountability for their actions?
So for any Jane Caro types out there who contend that position, I simply say, Pigs arse!
Many men can be beats who simply look at women as a sexual contest and who will always be pro-choice so they can continue on in their promiscuous ways. I would imagine feminists such as Jane have no issue supporting those types of men having a voice in the debate.
All through human history people have suffered as others have refused to speak out, have refused to take a stand. Where you can voice an opinion especially if you consider it a voice against injustice or even evil, then you have an obligation to do so, Man or Woman. What would the Nazis have accomplished if good men had not have spoken out, if good men had not have fought in some of the bloodiest battles in human history, if good men had not have sacrificed their lives in their millions to defeat fascism?
Does that mean men cannot understand the pressures on women who have to contemplate undergoing an abortion? Of course not, there should be empathy and support to provide women with all the options possible with abortion being an absolute last resort.
Men on the pro-life side have every right and further, in my opinion, are morally obligated to engage in this debate as powerfully as they possibly can.
Certain hardcore feminists who are against men having a voice in the debate have actually boasted and celebrated about having multiple abortions and how that they were great things for them in their lives making them better parents and people. Excuse me? Where is the sorrow for the unborn lives they destroyed, where are the tears for the children they never will know, never will nurse, never will celebrate anniversaries and accomplishments with, where are the tears for the potential of these innocent lives never lived except for in the womb and for some just short periods outside of it?
Most women who do go through the trauma of an abortion live with the regret for the rest of their lives. They need strong empathic and supportive men in their lives. Disappointingly they never find them and that is a sad and poor reflection upon us men.
Men most definitely have to bear responsibility here as well, they have a responsibility to not treat women as simply another notch on the belt, another conquest to boast about to their mates and realise their part in any killing of innocents. Men can be the demons that lead to this position that women face, they also can be the catalyst for bringing about something better.
For those women who are simply promiscuous and never inform men about their child that they will never know, well I have no words.
In another recent incident, Coffs Harbour council recently tried to prevent Alice Springs Councillor, recent Coalition federal candidate and most importantly indigenous woman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from speaking at the Jetty Memorial Theatre which she booked for her Mind the Gap tour.
Coffs Harbour’s female mayor, Denise Knight, wrote to Price, saying it would “appreciate” her “requesting permission from Gumbaynggirr Aboriginal people to enter the land”. Excuse me?
How many people who have spoken publicly, let alone travelled to and through Coffs Harbour had this requirement imposed on them? Especially an indigenous woman?
For some reason, people find Jacinta’s positions on a number of subjects as controversial.
For example, Jacinta contends that she would prefer to see indigenous people taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on government handouts, she also contends that the vile behaviour in indigenous settlements shouldn’t simply be excused as a result of white colonialism and she is no fan of the welcome to country ceremonies that now are a feature of all sporting and political events as well as plenty of other happenings across this continent.
on a side note, I wonder how many people actually realise these welcome to county ceremonies are a recent invention of two men Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley, who both are alive and well in this great country of ours.
So controversial are these positions that certain people not only felt they needed to silence Jacinta but even to prevent from entering the Coffs Harbour region. To Jacinta’s credit, she called the mayors bluff, didn’t ask for permission and simply turned up and made her voice heard.
Mind you considering what Jacinta has had levelled at her by others, this effort by the Coffs Harbour council was mild in comparison. She has been the recipient of some of the vilest forms of abuse, physical attack, misogyny and even death threats for simply not accepting what is seen by many to be the policy platform that has been an abject failure in delivering true improvements to the quality of life of our aboriginal brothers and sisters.
Jacinta has the courage to call this out and is pilloried for it when she should have been applauded for her courage. Don’t forget this is an aboriginal woman being told by a “white” council led by a female mayor that she in effect wasn’t welcome. Imagine if Tony Abbott had been that mayor?
In fact, instead of being applauded, our ABC turned on her. Fiona Poole, an ABC Coffs Coast presenter described her as “very divisive”. Claire Lindsay, an ABC colleague repeated on air a defamatory excerpt from an indigenous community media release that Price “spreads racist vitriol, vilifies and ridicules Aboriginal people and cultures”. All this with no input from Price.
Rather than go on about the hypocrisy of these and other comments covered by the ABC they are clearly articulated in a great article in the Australian newspaper, by “The mocker. Check it out.
Does anybody think for one moment that if Jacinta was going to lecture the country on all the normal indigenous talking points that we are normally subjected to, she would have been asked to request permission to visit Coffs Harbour?
Don’t ban her, debate her and convince us of why she is wrong. The only reason you are not prepared to do so is that you know she would hit it out of the ballpark.
These days, everywhere you look we are inundated with the Climate Change debate. You have alarmists, deniers, extremists, extinction-level predictors, the list goes on. Everybody has an opinion. Heaven help you though, if like me you have extreme doubts and do as advised, you listen to scientists, read their arguments and then present them when they don’t support the climate change/global warming theorists. How many people noticed, for instance, the submission by 500 scientists to the UN last week who said that there is no climate emergency? No, it was drowned out by the reaction to a 16-year-old attempting to guilt us into being ashamed of the world we had created. Apparently now it is fine to ignore scientists.
Personally I drive a diesel 4WD, barely ever fly anywhere, love a steak still, do my best to recycle. nn while on a hot day I will turn on the colling and cold day I will turn on the heating. I have earned that right like so many others. From my perspective, if we are in an emergency it’s because our politicians won’t look at realistic alternatives such as nuclear power or invest in research to make coal power cleaner or worse simply ignore it.
Righltu or wrongly that’s my brief position on this and like those who differ from me, I have every right to express it, or do I? Over at the conversation website which supposedly embraces “academic rigour” it will now be banning “denier” viewpoints from its articles and comments and even “sceptics” will be banned as well. Considering healthy scepticism is at the core of scientific processes and that this website is a scientific one accepting, directly and indirectly, government funds, that is quite an act of bastardy.
The Conversation’s editor Misha Ketchell says in a statement.
“Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse,” says Ketchell on behalf of The Conversation.
“That’s why the editorial team is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.”
Now there is one totalitarian publication! What a bastion of free thought and exchange of ideas and philosophies. Nope, it’s our way or the highway. A change of name to “The bigotted conversation” would be appropriate.
Again, if all those nasty deniers and sceptics are so wrong, engage them in the debate, embarrass them with your facts, your ideas, your points of debate, why the need to ban them? If you resort to this aren’t you just admitting you cannot win a meaningful argument, it sends a very clear signal that your position is wrong.
Finally, love him or hate him Donald Trump is the President of the United States, yet as we are entering their election year for the presidency, yet another attempt is being sought to impeach him. Other than tiring of all this impeachment talk one has to wonder whether this is all the democrats and the left can bring themselves to think about. Surely if this man is as evil and terrible as they accuse him off they should have no fear of defeating him in 2020?
This latest attempt through the Ukraine whistleblower has the potential to blow up in their face considering the involvement of the Bidens in all these events. If it does, it will simply gift Trump four more years. Are they so fearful of confronting and debating this man on any number of political and policy fronts that they need to take this path? Strategically it makes little sense.
It seems, however, some want to silence him before the election even commences. Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris has called for President Trump’s twitter account to be suspended.
Trump’s tweets about the whistleblower represent a clear intent to harass, intimidate, or silence their voice. His blatant threats put people at risk — and our democracy in danger. His account must be suspended.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 2, 2019
Now I can understand how Trump can rub people the wrong way, but plenty of people are guilty of that, yet these opponents want to silence his voice? This from a country who can quite rightly lay claim to one being one of the bastions of democracy and freedoms especially the freedom of speech.
One doesn’t have to be too bright to realise that there is another agenda here and that they know they can’t defeat this man in any presidential election in 2020. The fact is if you knew you could defeat him why risk the impeachment path and the resulting damage that could and most likely will be inflicted on your own election chances.
What is the common denominator of all these people trying to silence the voices of others? They are all on the left. People on the centre, the right and even those on the centre-left of the political scale embrace the power of the individual and the freedoms that come with it.
I can personally engage with most people on most subjects and if somebody offends me too much instead of silencing them I simply ignore them, leave them to their opinions and in some cases pity them. Whether that person is pro-choice, anti-white or hates Trump I am always prepared to discuss and listen to their points of view, sadly that attitude in others on the opposite side of those debates isn’t always reciprocal, hopefully over time that will change.