Election time and the squeaky gates are truly grating. One such rotten portal is that of the Australian Greens.
Like all political millenarians [believers that consider that they alone are the possessors and purveyors of the ultimate truth], this rabid neo-Fascist conglomerate talks
of tolerance but practices vicious intolerance of dissenting opinion. Their recent and fulsome embrace of the homosexual lobby group in all its various guises is a prime example of intolerance in action.
What people do in private is not my business. But, as a citizen with civic responsibilities, what people do in public is my business. The troublesome question of same sex marriage is case to point.
The government has offered the country a plebiscite on the question should it be re-elected. In other words – let the people make their decision. The Greens, however, in accordance
with the time-honoured millenarian view that the end justifies the means, consider that moral decisions should emanate from an enlightened few in government and that morality must be legislated, irrespective of public opinion. To this end they unequivocally
“The Greens will keep pushing the government to ditch the plebiscite, allow a free vote and just get on with marriage equality.”
Far from allowing a ‘free vote’ the Greens want to ‘ditch the plebiscite’ - deny giving the public a say in the matter - and have the matter resolved in parliament. Intolerance in action!
I happen to be against same sex marriage. I am however quite prepared for it to go to the people. If the people say yes, I will go along with it, however sadly. I will consider myself out of step,
I will accept that. That is called in the broadest of terms, democracy.
I might add that a political decision does not necessarily equate with a moral
decision. To this end, I am not obliged privately to hold to any politically legislated regulation. Provided I obey the law I am at liberty to hold and articulate a contrary view. Thereby is freedom of conscience expressed in a free society.
Moving on to a segment of core business for the Greens - I happen to disagree with the popular orthodoxy of Apocalyptic, man-caused climate change. Of course the
existence of mankind has, is and will continue to have some affect on the climate – it is the degree to which, I question. My views are shared by a large body of scientists, technologists and commentators. We may be wrong. But we may be right. It is
a matter up for continued consideration, and action, as may be appropriate.
Let me say now that there is no such thing as ‘disinterested
science’. Aside from the fact it is a contradiction in terms, I have sat through too many National Estate grants committees to know that. Nearly all academic grants revolve around jobs for researchers, assistants, travel, allowances and so forth. Some
organisations such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science [A.I.M.S.] are past masters of the art of submitting applications that tug at the political heart strings. Such applications paint in graphic terms why the monies should be ‘granted’
and the consequences of not granting same.
The Great Barrier Reef is the most recent case to point. Yet again it is under dire ‘threat’:
for the third time in fifty years if my memory serves me correctly. A.I.M.S. is positively lathering-on the emotion for UNESCO and the international community in order to pressure the Australian government to expend more tax-payer monies on this fathomless
Having said thus, I have no doubt that the reef is under stress. It is after all an ecosystem that is constantly subject to stress, change, morbidity
But I think we may be all assured that the publicity surrounding the recent threat is as much about employment and career enhancement
as it is about the reef. The current threat, thus supported by no less a luminary than the omniscient Attenborough, has the potential to provide legions of marine scientists the wherewithal to publish obscure papers in equally obscure journals for their Almighty
CV. Been there, done that. Watch this space for the musical.
How therefore would the Greens treat my cautious views? Aside from being vilified
as a dinosaur and bullied by such nonsensical assertions such as - “the science is in …” - from a career perspective they might consider me able enough to clean the ablution block in order that I may contemplate upon the falseness of my
What if I disagree with their views on progressive Étatism – namely the refashioning of society into a paradise
of liberated and rarefied ether comprising self-realised carbon neutral homosexual couples with their gender neutral children? I have no doubt that, if these zealots had their way, I would be promptly despatched to Soylent Green!
So let the dice roll. I remain happy in my intellectual freedom – a freedom afforded me by my country as it currently stands – and I welcome the opportunity to fight those
Gauleiters of intolerance when they try to take that freedom away.