ABC Fabricates, Debunks and then Backflips on Transgender Claim Made by Binary Australia

The ABC and RMIT’s CheckMate fact check has exposed its bias by fabricating and then “debunking” a claim it attributed to Binary Australia in the lead-up to the Victorian election. Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith demanded a formal apology, and the ABC later backtracked.

In an embarrassing episode, the ABC’s fact-checking service, CheckMate, published in partnership with RMIT, has published the very kind of misinformation it ostensibly tries to combat. In the lead-up to the recent Victorian election, it debunked a claim that was, in fact, never made.

Under examination was Victorian premier Daniel Andrews’ school policy to allow children to transition without parental knowledge. Binary Australia’s flyer (see below) highlighted a section of the Victorian Department of Education’s website, which states:

“There may be circumstances in which students wish or need to undertake gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners.

If no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent/s regarding the student’s gender identity, or if the parent/s will not consent to the contents of a student support plan, it will be necessary for the school to consider whether the student is a mature minor.

If a student is considered a mature minor, they can make decisions for themselves without parental consent and should be affirmed in their gender identity at school without a family representative/carer participating in formulating the school management plan.”

Binary RMIT FlyerBinary RMIT Flyer

A Fabricated Claim by the ABC

Of course, the ABC was quick to leap to the rescue, accusing Binary Australia of spreading misinformation about the government’s policy.

The earliest iteration of the ABC’s “fact check” aimed to debunk a “claim” that Dan Andrews was allowing children to “access gender-affirming medical treatment without their parents’ consent”. It said that the “anti-trans group” had raised a “false alarm” in its flyer.

“An anti-transgender activist group, Binary Australia, has incorrectly claimed that it is Victorian government policy to allow school children access to gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent.

The claim appeared in a flyer produced and distributed by the group ahead of this month’s state election.”

The entire premise of the “fact check” should have been obviously false — at least to anyone who had seen the actual flyer. Not just misleading — blatantly fabricated.

Firstly, Binary Australia never “claimed” that the Victorian government’s policy permitted children to “access… gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent” (emphasis added).

Their actual claim was that the government allowed children to gender transition without parental consent. This claim was established — word for word — by reference to the Victorian Department of Education’s own website — the link was included.

As can be clearly seen, there was literally no mention of medical transition anywhere on the flyer. This point was noted by Binary Australia in an article responding to the ABC’s CheckMate article.

As Kirralie Smith from Binary pointed out, the ABC then went on to demonstrate exactly what the Binary flyer had claimed in the first place — that gender transition without parental consent was permitted by the Victorian government. Quoting from the same Department of Education page that Binary linked to in its flyer, the ABC wrote the following (apparently oblivious to the fact that they were establishing Binary’s claim by quoting the document that Binary cited):

“The government website listed by Binary Australia outlines the process for a student ‘affirming their gender identity’ at school, not undergoing medical treatment. … in cases where ‘no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent/s regarding the student’s gender identity’, a school can consider whether the student is a ‘mature minor’ and thereby able to make decisions for themselves. Such students ‘should be affirmed in their gender at school’.” (emphasis added)

The same Department page states that, under certain circumstances, a child can undergo a “gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners”.

Binary Hits Back — and the ABC Backpeddles

The original article was published on 11 November 2022. Three days later, the Binary Australia group responded to the fact check with an article entitled, “ABC and RMIT gaslight Victorians”.

A full week later, an ABC editor attached a note to the fact check, stating that the article had been “updated” 1) “to clearly define the difference between ‘social transition’ and ‘medical transition’” and 2) “to accurately reflect Binary Australia’s materials”.

ABC - Binary - correction

Translation: we misleadingly conflated gender transition (as per the Victorian Department of Education) with “access [to] gender-affirming medical treatment” (emphasis added). We also falsely claimed that Binary Australia was referring to medical treatment and lied about the contents of Binary Australia’s campaign materials.

However, the article was more than just “updated”. A text comparison analysis shows that the updated article is almost a completely new piece, with sizeable portions deleted and numerous additions.

Instead of claiming that Binary raised a “false alarm”, the new article insisted that their material was missing “important context”. The original article asserts that the group “incorrectly claimed that it is Victorian government policy to allow school children access to gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent” (emphasis added). The revised version has the following:

“Flyers distributed in Victoria ahead of the 2022 election by anti-trans lobby group Binary Australia claim Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’s policy allows ‘gender transition’ without parental consent.” (emphasis added)

In fact, the flyers do more than just “claim” it; they literally show the policy — word for word. It’s not a claim; it’s a fact.

Rather than asserting that the claim was false, the new ABC article declared that “the flyer contained little information about what the organisation means by ‘gender transition’”.

Presumably, they mean the same thing that the Victorian Department of Education means by “gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s)”.

Whereas the original article confidently asserted that “RMIT FactLab found this week, such suggestions are false”, the new article vigorously backpedalled:

“The lack of detail on the flyer and the use of a medical professional detailing serious physical medical outcomes could lead readers to surmise the government could give permission to minors to access medical interventions.”* (emphasis added)

The exact same accusation could be made against the Victorian Department of Education’s page that permits “gender transition without” parental consent.

One factual error that has not been updated in the revised “fact check” is the caption to the article image, which still states, “Despite a claim by Binary Australia, the Victorian government cannot give permission for a student to access medical treatments for gender dysphoria.”

It should read, “Despite a claim that we made up and then accused Binary Australia of making…”


In the end, the RMIT ABC fact check cannot debunk any of Binary Australia’s actual claims. Instead, it surmises that people could possibly be misled by the potential of confusing gender transition with medical intervention.

This kind of bias is not unexpected, coming from an organisation that is a member of ACON and gets rewarded for promoting transgenderism and other LGBTQ agenda items. This is something that even the ABC’s own Media Watch has flagged as a potential conflict of interest.

In the meantime, Binary Australia continues to wait for the retraction and apology they demanded. I think they deserve it.


*The reference to a medical professional was on Binary Australia’s website — where a paraphrased quote from Australian paediatrician Dr Dylan Wilson is included — not on the flyer itself. The flyer included no reference to medical transition. Hence, the ABC’s argument that the flyer could be misleading itself lacks evidence.

Thank the Source

End Veteran Suicide: The Fight for Those Who Fight for Us

Veteran suicide is a terrible and preventable phenomenon. Our armed forces deserve better care after laying their lives on the line to defend our country.

In 1890, Rudyard Kipling immortalised the forgotten soldier with the words,

‘The widow’s uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.’

Kipling called his protest Tommy, and with it, managed to engrave in stone society’s stoic treatment of the men (and women) it sends off to war.

Two stanzas illustrate the two-faced treatment of vets:

I went into a public house, to get a pint of beer
The publican up and said, “We serve no red-coats here.”

I went into a theatre as sober as could be
They gave a drunk civilian room, but hadn’t none for me.

Midway through, Kipling’s forgotten soldier remarks,

Yes, making mockery of the uniforms that guard you while you sleep,
is cheaper than them uniforms, and their starvation is cheap.

Slamming down the gavel, Kipling leaves the reader stunned by the mirror he puts to the reader’s face, declaring:

It’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, and “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of his country” when the guns begin to shoot.

Kipling’s intention was conviction. His advocacy for the fallen is a defence of the veteran.

Although 1890 England — bathed as it was in the twilight of the Victorian era — remains far removed from today’s fog-of-war, 130 years later Tommy Atkins, and the warfighters who resemble him, are still shown the door.

“Their starvation is cheap”, even though these soldiers, and the uniform they wear, still protect us while we sleep.

Terrible Toll

According to Australia’s Department of Veteran Affairs, around one ex-ADF service member takes their own life every two weeks.

So endemic is the pattern, veteran suicide became the focus of an independent Royal Commission, championed vociferously by former MP Craig Kelly in 2021.

For perspective,

‘More Australian veterans have lost their lives by suicide than have been killed on active duty since ADF personnel were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.’

In the United States, the numbers climb higher.

The CDC stated that 17 vets a day took their own lives in 2019. The report adds that between ‘2001 to 2019, the rate of suicide among Veterans increased nearly 36% relative to an increase of 30% in the general population.’

Official numbers provided by America’s National Veterans’ Association (NVF) claim “20 veteran suicides per day.”

The organisation said, ‘The number is more likely 24-25; the rate has increased over the last five years.’

Linking poor health to poor services, post-tour of duty, they explained,

‘For every suicidal Veteran out there, there are 5-10 Veterans who are at risk. These Vets may be suffering from PTSD or Traumatic Brain injury.’

NVF then added,

‘[Veterans] may be unemployed or suffering from other problems. They are often dealing with multiple issues that put them at risk for becoming suicidal.’

Speaking Up

Just as today’s Tommy Atkins has his modern-day mockers, modern-day Atkins has his Kipling-like defenders.

It’s worth noting, says Greg Wark, who recently authored a book on veteran suicide.

He backed the NVF, stating in a 2019 appeal to kickstart a — now non-existent — programme he called Mission Force:

“22 veterans a day make the decision to kill themselves. Of the USD $158 billion dollar budget [allocated to] Veterans’ Affairs, $58,000 of it goes towards suicide prevention.”

The reason why, Wark explained, is because the VA doesn’t see veteran suicide as their problem to solve.

“I’ve served them for 22 years. Some of them are the most amazing human beings I’ve ever known.”

Sharing his experiences working with past and present service members, Wark told CBN,

“Veterans have had almost no help whatsoever. They come home and the VA gives them pills, or they get platitudes from somebody, but what happens? The suicide rate goes from 1 to 44 a day. What kind of baloney is that it’s ridiculous. It’s unconscionable.”

“We’re just not very good at handling our warriors,” the pastor and chaplain concluded.

21st-century vets are no different to 19th-century ones.

As Rudyard Kipling would say: Tommy’s still taken for granted, forgotten and maligned — thrown out like a brute, but quickly brought back in and celebrated once the guns begin to shoot.

The ways we can engage include prayer and veteran advocacy. For ‘greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.’ (John 15:13) Pray for those involved in the current Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. Pray for our veterans, and donate to their cause where you can, when you can, if you can.

Fight for those who’ve fought for us, and for those who still stand ready to lay down their lives, despite knowing they’ll be thrown the bitter end of our fickle neo-pagan society’s contempt and disgust.


Photo by RODNAE Productions.

Thank the Source

Democrats’ “Respect for Marriage Act” Would Hurt Children

Control of the US Senate has been decided, and now we hear that Senate Democrats have scheduled a vote Wednesday on the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act, in hopes of legislatively cementing the mother- and father-loss that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling endorsed seven years ago.

With Obergefell, the Supreme Court made gay marriage the law of the land and mandated that government institutions and processes could make no legal distinctions between adult romantic relationships.

Two married men cannot be treated any differently than a married man and woman. Indeed, from the perspective of adult emotional fulfilment, there may be no distinction.

But from the child’s perspective, these two couplings are polar opposites.

Children’s Basic Rights

A child who is the product of a married man and woman receives the complementary developmental benefits of a male and female parent, the two adults who are (statistically) the safest, most connected to, and most invested in them, and are granted 100% of their biological identity.

A child raised by married men is deprived of the emotional and developmental benefit conferred exclusively by mothers, is being raised by at least one adult who statistically increases their risk of abuse and neglect, and is deprived at least 50% of their heritage and kinship network. In short, same-sex marriage requires child loss.

Many of us warned that making husbands and wives optional in marriage would result in mothers and fathers becoming optional in parenthood. The past seven years have validated those concerns.

In the name of nondiscrimination, the Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that two married women may be listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate, legally erasing the child’s father on the day of birth.

Alongside biology and adoption, some states have added “intent” as a pathway to parenthood for adults who employ third-party reproduction to assemble sperm, egg, and womb, even if they are unrelated to the child. That’s easier than ever.

Infertility” has been redefined so that same-sex couples can have their child “trappings” of marriage covered by insurance. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., proposed legislation that would use tax dollars to subsidise creation of intentionally motherless or fatherless children. Surrogacy tourism is on the rise, and entire industries are devoted to procuring custom-ordered motherless babies.

How will the children of this more equitable definition of marriage fare?

Questionable Research

In the years leading up to Obergefell, social scientists miraculously discovered that children of same-sex parents fared “no different” than their peers raised in intact, heterosexual households. It was indeed miraculous, because few researchers dispute that children of divorce and remarriage, children abandoned and subsequently adopted, and children created through third-party reproduction suffer diminished outcomes, even if raised by a mother and father.

And yet somehow these “studies” found children, who could arrive in same-sex households only through one of those three diminished-outcome paths, fared “no different” despite also missing a mother or father. It seems these researchers had to move at “the speed of science” to prove that gay marriage would be good for children.

It’s now clear that “the speed of science” required cutting methodological corners. In 2016, after examining every single same-sex parenting study, researcher Walter Schumm concluded:

“[S]tudies that show ‘no difference’ often used poor methodology (non-random samples, parental (self-) reporting vs. actual child outcomes, short duration, etc.) to reach their conclusions.”

Unsurprisingly, when you employ the gold standard of the scientific method, “no difference” actually meant “significant difference.”

Severe Disadvantages

One such study found that compared to children with opposite-sex parents, children of same-sex parents:

  • Experienced “definite” or “severe” emotional problems at a rate of 14.9% versus 5.5%.
  • Were diagnosed with ADHD [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder] at a rate of 15.5% versus 7.1%.
  • Struggled with learning disabilities at a rate of 14.1% versus 8%.
  • Received special education and mental health services at a rate of 17.8% versus 10.4%.

Perhaps the disparity is a result of the same-sex couple’s inability to marry, you argue. There’s data on that as well.

A review of outcomes for children raised by unmarried and married same-sex couples found that “above average child depressive symptoms rises from 50% to 88%; daily fearfulness or crying rises from 5% to 32%; grade point average declines from 3.6% to 3.4%; and child sex abuse by parent rises from zero to 38%.”

Turns out you can’t legislate away the benefit that children receive from being raised by their own mom or dad, even if you call it marriage.

The judicial redefinition of marriage in Obergefell victimised children. The right to marry predictably morphed into a right to parenthood, or rather, the right to deprive a child of his mother or father in the name of nondiscrimination.

For children of same-sex parents struggling to make sense of their emotional turmoil, a legislated redefinition of marriage simply would communicate that their innate longing for their missing mother or father is wrong, not the definition of marriage that made their mother or father optional in the first place.


Originally published at The Daily Signal. Republished from Them Before Us.
Photo by PNW Production.

Thank the Source

Millions Support Men and Boys

International Men’s Day 2022 was marked by people all over the world on 19 November, demonstrating their support for men and boys everywhere.

“I’d like to say a massive thank you and give my support to all the men who do their best each and every single day for their loved ones, for society, for humans in general, to make the world go round. Thank you, it’s very much appreciated.” These are the words of praise from a young woman from Ireland called Cat Dobson, celebrating International Men’s Day.

Cat Dobson’s comment can be found as one of thousands — possibly tens of thousands — of comments on the Dads4Kids International Men’s Day Facebook page. When you start to add up all the different organisations and NGOs promoting International Men’s Day, you are probably talking about millions of collective comments in support of International Men’s Day.

Groundswell of Support

Certainly, from a social media point of view, International Men’s Day is growing amazingly. Last year the paid social media global campaign reached over 6 million people. This year, with the same expenditure, the team at Dads4Kids reached 14 million. True to form, the intrepid MPs in the UK Parliament set aside official time to talk about men’s issues in the halls of Westminster in London. In this, they are leading the world.

The pushback against the celebration was relatively miniscule this year; less than last year. The trend has been all positive for a number of years. The big countries for International Men’s Day this year were India and Nigeria! Here are some more samples of social media posts by men and women from over the world.

David Ukpong from Nigeria said, Congratulations!!! Happy Men’s Day to All the Men in Nigeria and The World Over.”

Jenny West from South Africa said, It is just as important to celebrate men’s day as it is women’s day. Let’s celebrate the men that have made and continue making a difference. Give them the respect they deserve. Honour them, apply TLC and spoil them tomorrow and every day thereafter. They’re worth it.”

Hema Maraj Ramjit from India said, Happy International Men’s Day to all those loving and hardworking fathers, sons, brothers and men who always ensure their families are well taken care of, and by extension, all human beings. Thank you all.”

Brian Beitz from Australia said, Males fulfil such an important role in families and society in general and it is a real shame that man-bashing appears to be a big thing in recent times. Bad behaviour by some males is not acceptable at any time and decent males feel this way also. Valuing everyone’s contribution is so much better than negative stereotyping. Happy International Men’s Day.”

Pamela Jean from St Lucia in the West Indies said, Happy men’s day to all the men around the globe, especially the real men who hold on to their responsibility as loving and caring fathers to their families no matter how difficult it has been. Happy men’s day to the men who love and respect women and children, it’s a blessing, your children will be loved and respected by others. Hats off to you all.”

International Men’s Day now has its own identity on Facebook. In other words, even Big Tech, which has often bought into the campaign of misandry hook line and sinker, are recognising the cultural shift across the globe. More and more women like Jenny West from South Africa epitomise the cultural shift, which is coming at a grassroots level to even the playing field for the male of the species.

Reaching Out

There are still issues that women face that need to be addressed collectively, by both men and women, but the same now goes for men, and has been so for many decades. Last week I spoke at a large prison to the staff about International Men’s Day. The overall theme was improving men’s health. It was well received. The opening session was about Celebrating Mateship. Did you know that having no close friends (as we say in Australia, “mates”) is as bad for your health as smoking 15 cigarettes per day?

This is the sort of important information that is getting into circulation through the wonderful work of men’s groups, men’s educational charities, NGOs, business groups, government organisations and the men’s movement in general. Australian Men’s Health Forum is one of those groups and they are doing an amazing job.

Let me finish by sharing a few new videos marking International Men’s Day. The first is by a courageous Australian female men’s advocate, Daisy Cousens, titled “Never Underestimate Men’s Suffering“, celebrating International Men’s Day 2022. Daisy has many great videos in support of men.

Check out this great short 1-minute 50-second video commemorating International Men’s Day 2022: Veolia ANZ Celebrating Mateship: Australia & New Zealand”. It is a positive push for men’s health in the workplace and deserves huge congratulations.

Last but not least, we go to an oldie but a goldie, the Brilliant Indian Men’s Day “Show Men Some Love”  anthem from 2015. Sure to get your feet dancing. This YouTube clip has English subtitles.


Watch some of the great International Men’s Day YouTube videos or read some of the very encouraging International Men’s Day posts on the International Men’s Day Facebook page.

Your children need to know that helping boys and men is just as important to you and your family as helping women and girls because, together, we can make a difference.

Yours for Boys & Men,
Warwick Marsh


First published at Dads4Kids. Photo by Ksenia Chernaya.

Thank the Source

Critical Theory or Critical Thinking?

These two terms sound very similar, don’t they? Nothing could be further from the truth. Today I would like to explore their differences, as well as the danger of one and the importance of the other.

Critical Theory

Critical theory (CT) can be traced back to the Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy known as the Frankfurt School in the 1920s. Since the 1970s, CT has become immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.

From the 1980s, it has gained an even bigger following on the back of ‘critical race theory’ (CRT), which has proven to be the central backbone of the CT movement. Recently, CRT came to the fore in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. He was a black man, killed in the US city of Minneapolis by Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, the tragedy igniting the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests around the globe.

CT focuses on the twin dynamics of ‘power’ and ‘submission’. It challenges the assumptions of power and seeks to liberate those in slavery. That sounds good, doesn’t it? However, in contrast to the traditional concept of a ‘theory’ that relies on evidence and data to prove or disprove, CT simply relies on ‘perspective’ and a ‘person’s lived experience’ alone. That’s where it gets dangerous.

A theory is, by definition, a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘theory’, until proven to be true. Then it can become a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘fact’. But CT and CRT are ‘right’ only because someone says so. There is no debate, questioning or discussion. What is more, so many in society are following it, not even aware that they are.

CT has its roots firmly in Marxism, a left-wing social and political movement that favours communism and socialism over capitalism. As such, it is at pains to stand up for the underdog, the minority, and those perceived to be discriminated against. That’s good, yes?

Yes, laudable goals, I agree. But with the goal to demolish capitalism and the abolition of the need to provide objective evidence, the outcomes of CT can be tragic for the individual and for civilisation as a whole. I will give a few examples of the effects of CT from the state of Victoria, Australia, under the leadership of Daniel Andrews. You may say I am being extreme. Well, this short piece does not have the space to explore the full chain from CT to the premier of Victoria, but it is quite clear that his regime is firmly rooted in far-left socialism, Marxism without the name:

  1. So as not to discriminate, Victoria became the first state in Australia to adopt same-sex adoption laws.
  2. Again, supportive of minorities, the establishment of the Pride Centre in St Kilda to encourage LGBTIQA+ activism.
  3. The introduction of Hate Speech laws.
  4. In 2008, Victoria was the first state in Australia to introduce abortion on demand right up to birth.
  5. The introduction of a criminal offence for offering alternatives to those seeking abortion.
  6. The “conversion therapy” laws prohibit parents from being able to object to a child wishing to change their gender.
  7. The abolition of Special Religious Education in schools and its replacement with ideological classes which have resulted in an explosion in the number of children with gender dysphoria.
  8. The banning of Christmas Carols in schools.
  9. The funding and promotion of the compulsory Safe Schools Program for children with its overt emphasis on anti-Christian views on morality.
  10. Employment laws are making it extremely difficult for Christian schools to employ teachers who can support their own ethos.
  11. The introduction of doctors into schools so children can consult a doctor without their parent’s knowledge or support.
  12. The politicisation of the police force, that no longer supports the keeping of law and order around Christian events.

These are just some of the legacies of the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria that I have collated from a piece by Martyn Iles, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

Critical Thinking

In a study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as the ability to think critically, involving three elements:

  1. an attitude of being disposed to consider, in a thoughtful way, the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences
  2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and
  3. some skill in applying those methods

Critical thinking expects a persistent effort to examine any belief or form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it. It also generally requires an ability to recognise problems, find workable solutions for those problems, gather and marshal pertinent information, recognise unstated assumptions and values, comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, interpret data, appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, recognise the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, and draw warranted conclusions and generalisations. (Glaser, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher’s College, Columbia University)

critical thinking

This figure is from a modern take on critical thinking by Jennifer Herrity (2022). It always starts with careful observation of the facts; it is never sidetracked by a subjective perspective or individual lived experiences alone. The second step returns to the first observation and seeks to collect a deeper understanding of the issue or circumstance.

The third stage is very exciting — it is an exercise in lateral thinking. Namely, an examination of the implications for others and apparently unrelated situations if we progress along this line of thinking. In essence, it is being careful and thoughtful about the impact of our thinking on those around us and society at large.

The fourth stage can be described as testing out our thinking with trusted others, a safeguard against self-deception. And finally, at stage five, the problem is solved, or the situation is understood.

Further, I would like to add an additional dimension to critical thinking, namely the ‘scientific method’ (I wrote about this in the Daily Declaration, 22 December 2021). It seems to me that the rationality, and objectivity of the scientific method of enquiry is a natural partner with critical thinking. At the heart of this method is the assumption that something is ‘not true’ until it can be ‘proven’ by the evidence.

It seems to me that as a society and as individuals, we have lost our appetite for the scientific method and for critical thinking and as a result, we have become prey to the onslaught of critical theory (CT).

I would argue that if we have lived our own lives unaware of the advance of CT into our own lives, our families, and our communities, it is because we have neglected or ignored critical thinking and the scientific method. For me, critical thinking is the clear first line of defence against CT and the march of modern Marxism into every aspect of our lives.

Cosying Up to the CCP

Let me conclude with the story of the Belt and Road Initiative. This is an investment strategy developed nearly ten years ago by the Chinese. This initiative seeks to form a network of Chinese infrastructure and investment that covers the globe an empire in all but name. It has often focused on the takeover of key ports such as Haifa in Israel and Piraeus in Greece, to say nothing of Darwin in the Northern Territory, Australia.

With great fanfare, the Victorian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese government on October 8, 2018, and later a ‘framework’ agreement on October 23, 2019, to develop one of the Belt and Road Initiatives for Victoria. This was done behind the then Prime Minister Morrison’s back; he swiftly wound it back. What does this say about Daniel Andrews’ agenda? Not just the concept of facilitating even greater Chinese investment/ownership in Australia, but his seeking to do this international trade deal without the federal government’s approval!

Let’s never give up on the importance of critical thinking and always be aware of the dangers inherent in critical theory (CT).


Photo by cottonbro.

Thank the Source

Abortion Euphemisms Running Riot

This is a shocking bit of propaganda presented as journalism.

To defend the indefensible always means one has to resort to euphemisms, subterfuge and deception. Telling the truth about what is clearly unacceptable just will not cut it. As George Orwell put it, “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” And he said that the goal “is to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

This is most clearly exemplified in the rhetoric of the pro-abortionists. You will just not find them speaking truth and calling a spade a spade, or a scalpel a scalpel. All the language is heavily doctored so that the exact opposite of what is really going on is spoken of.

But it is not just those who work in deadly abortion mills who thrive on lies and falsehoods — most of those working in the mainstream media do the exact same thing. They might as well look at you straight in the face and tell you that black is white and white is black. Dishonesty seems to be a hallmark of most journalists today.


Consider a piece I just came upon. It has to do with abortion legislation in Western Australia. The online newspaper article is a case study in euphemism and deception. Consider just the opening lines of this piece:

Western Australia has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, which have forced some women to travel interstate to access care, but the state government is now finally seeking to overhaul the outdated legislation. A four-week consultation period has been opened to help modernise WA’s abortion laws, which have gone unchanged for almost 25 years, with a bill expected to go to state parliament next year.

Feedback is being sought on the need for a GP referral before 20 weeks gestation, current mandatory counselling requirements and the timing of when an abortion can be accessed. The government says abortion will be fully decriminalised, but it will remain an offence for an unqualified person to perform or assist with an abortion. Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson said the government wanted to hear from women and stakeholders.

One can have a field day assessing the way truth is twisted, logic is mangled, and morality is inverted in this article. Let’s start with this: “strictest” abortion laws. Here the term is used in a pejorative sense. But we must get to the core reality here. What if the piece was on murder legislation, and the article was bewailing the fact that WA had the strictest murder laws in the nation?

Most folks would say that is a good thing. And given that abortion is just that — a type of murder — why should we decry strict legislation on this? The stricter the better. But this circus of words keeps getting better — or worse. So women have to go elsewhere to kill their own babies. That also sounds like a good thing to me — the harder to do this the better.

And they go to “access care”? Really? Care for whom? The baby sure is not getting any care — he or she is being cruelly butchered. And how can we call a mother seeking to do this to her own baby a type of care? There is nothing caring about it.

Moreover, we are informed that this is “outdated legislation.” How so? Is the morality of killing babies simply a function of the clock or the calendar? We once believed it was the greatest thing we could do to defend the vulnerable, but now we think that is outdated? Good grief.

The state wants to hear from “women and stakeholders”. You mean like women, men and children? We are all stakeholders here. And given that roughly half of all babies are male, you better believe that us males are stakeholders as well.

And the government says it will make it an offence — not to kill an innocent baby — but to not have the killing done only by officially approved executioners. How very thoughtful. No amateur or rogue killers need apply — only the ones the state considers to be up to the task.


It is not just the abortionists and media that are covered in blood here. Heartless and callous politicians are as well. As the article goes on to state:

“Attorney-General John Quigley said criminal law had no role to play in regulating abortion services. ‘The Criminal Code currently raises the risk for medical practitioners and patients that an abortion may be considered a criminal act if certain strict legal requirements are not met,’ he said. ‘It is entirely inappropriate that such a crucial healthcare service is dealt with in this way’.”

Murder has always been considered to be a criminal act. And one need not be a religious person to understand that basic truth. The old Greek Hippocratic Oath that predates Christianity made it an absolute principle of medicine to “do no harm,” and abortion was included in its list of unacceptable practices. Even pagans knew that killing babies was wrong.

However, the most outrageous and patently false euphemism of all appeared in an accompanying photo. A woman held up a sign which had these words: “Abortion access saves lives.” Good grief. Abortion TAKES lives — deliberately, intentionally, and proudly.

Of course, she will say she is referring to women who have abortions. But this is patently false as well. As I carefully document in my 2015 book, The Challenge of Abortion, women were NOT dying in the tens of thousands before abortion was legalised.Challenge of Abortion book

I even quoted a leading abortionist who admitted to lying about how many were killed in “backyard abortions” and the like. He deliberately inflated the numbers, knowing they were false. Moreover, women are still dying from legal abortions today. So if the concern is to save the life of the mother, legalisation has done little to change things.

But the utter barbarism of speaking about “saving lives” when one really means taking lives is the epitome of diabolical deception and euphemism run amok. The simple truth is this: two living human beings enter an abortion mill, but only one of them walks out.

No one can tell the truth about abortion while seeking to defend the indefensible. We either lie about it and live in denial and fairy-tale land, or we acknowledge the reality of the situation. The only thing as evil as killing unborn babies is the way so many will lie through their teeth to try to make it sound acceptable.

Shame on the lot of them, including journalists like this who have willingly allowed themselves to peddle falsehoods and myths, and pretend they are being good journalists. Truth is the first casualty not only of war, but of the war on the unborn.

Let me finish with two quotes from two brothers — one a committed atheist and one a committed Christian:

“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even — this was seriously maintained — a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
~ Christopher Hitchens

“Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think too violent and obscene to portray on TV. This is not because they are squeamish or prudish. It is because if people knew what abortion really looked like, it would destroy their pretence that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do about unwanted babies.”
~ Peter Hitchens


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo by Lerone Pieters.

Thank the Source

Faith-Based Schools in the NT Threaten to Close

The NT parliament is currently considering amending the Anti-Discrimination Act so as to end an existing provision that allows “religious educational institutions to discriminate against staff based on their sexuality”. This would mean people who do not share the beliefs or values of a faith-based school or institution could no longer be excluded from employment.

In response, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Darwin, Charles Gauci, has said that he will consider closing all eighteen Catholic colleges and schools in the Northern Territory. Christian schools have also thrown their support behind the decision, strongly suggesting they would follow a similar course of action.

According to The Australian, Bishop Gauci said denying parents the right to send children to schools with religious teachings was “reverse discrimination”. Bishop Gauci went on to say:

“Denying faith schools the right of ensuring that their belief systems are upheld by employing the right people is a violation of religious freedom.

Can you imagine a Catholic school employing a leader of a school who advocates atheism, or thinks that the beliefs of our church are silly?”

Christopher Brohier, the Australian Christian Lobby’s NT director, has also called on the NT government to reverse the amendment, saying,

Everyone understands the right of political parties to hire staff who are members of their parties, and for other values-based organisations to hire staff who adhere to their ethos.

And yet the NT government plans to deny faith-based schools this same right. Religious schools should not be forced to hire staff opposed to, or out of step, to their beliefs.

The Australian Association of Christian Schools has outlined the following key concerns:

The Bill will:

  • Remove the ability of Christian schools to hire only Christian staff by repealing the Religious Educational Institutions Employment Exemption (s37A)

This means a religious school would be unable to require all staff members to share the same religious belief and activity of the school unless it could be proven to be a ‘genuine occupational qualification’ (s35(1)(b)) which is a much higher bar and would ultimately need to be tested in the courts.

  • Prohibit conduct that could offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people (s20A(1)(a))

This introduces a very low bar for unlawful conduct, meaning a Christian teacher or pastor could be forced to defend a complaint for merely sharing the gospel or a Bible reading that offends someone.

  • Prevent Christian schools from being able to prioritise students on the basis of religious belief (s30(2))

This means that where a Christian school is reaching capacity, it will be unable to preference Christian families in enrolment decisions.

  • Introduces a representative complaint system where a party may file a complaint about ‘systematic discrimination’ resulting from the ‘behaviour, practice, policy or program’ of an organisation without having to name or identify any actual complainant (s62A(2)) or even obtain the consent to the complaint being lodged (s62A(3))

This means a school which holds a traditional Biblical view of male-female marriage could be accused of ‘systemic discrimination’ based on this belief, despite support from the school community.

The statement from the Association of Christian Schools goes on to state:

Implications for NT Christian Schools

There is clearly a direct conflict between the Federal Labor Government’s expressed intention and direction to the ALRC to allow religious schools to ‘build a community of faith by giving preference, in good faith to persons of the same religion’ and the NT Labor Government’s legislative agenda. Also, there are concerning implications for other states, such as QLD and WA, where there are new anti-discrimination laws being drafted, and these governments might look to the example of the NT and consider following a similar approach.

If the Bill passes unamended, it will leave the Northern Territory as the only Australian jurisdiction without explicit legal protection for religious schools in employment matters. They will be open to complaints of discrimination for their policies, employment and teaching practices and could be in the courts within the next six months defending themselves against vexatious complaints from activist representative bodies.

The Lie of Same-Sex Marriage

Marsha Gessen, a lesbian political activist, let the genie of deliberate public deception out of the bottle all the way back in 2012 when she told the Sydney Writer’s Festival:

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie.

We should have woken up to the alarm bell then but here we are, five years later, and the agenda of LGBTIQ activists is being well and truly realised.


Photo by Pixabay.

Thank the Source

Covid Rules and the Science Behind Them

Today I’m bringing you the very best of Covid Rules and explaining the complicated science behind them.

We were treated like idiots for two years. We must never, ever forget.

Covid dining rule

The Rule:

We had to wear masks when entering a restaurant and walking to the table, but were allowed to remove the mask when seated at the table. Mask had to be reapplied in order to leave.

The Science:

Covid doesn’t spread when you’re eating and drinking.

George Floyd riots covid rule

The Rule:

No one was allowed out in public except to riot over the death of George Floyd.

The Science:

A pandemic of racism (yes that’s actually what some media called it) was more deadly than an actual pandemic.

The Rule:


The Science:

Covid can tell time.

The Rule:

In Ohio, the sport of wrestling was permitted ,but competitors were not allowed to shake hands at the end of the bout.

The Science:

Covid hated good sports.

Covid lockdown rule sunset

The Rule:

Melbourne residents were told it was “not in the spirit of the lockdown” to watch the sunset.

The Science:

Covid kept a list of people who glanced at the setting sun and eventually infected them.

The Rule:

People walking alone on secluded beaches were arrested.

The Science:

An infected walker could infect grains of sand, or possibly even fish.

The Rule:

Go safe, go “glory hole”. Also, don’t rape people.

The Science:

Covid will not attempt to infect sexual deviants.

Covid rule - grass circles

The Rule:

When sitting in a park, you and your friends were required to sit within circles painted on the grass.

The Science:

Covid agreed not to penetrate inside the painted circles, but anyone outside the circles was fair game.

The Rule:

In France, people had to fill out a form authorising themselves to go outside for a walk. In the absence of a form, people could write a letter and sign it, or else give themselves permission via an app. If you left the house without giving yourself written permission to do so, you had to pay a fine.

The Science:

Covid would not spread if you had a note saying you were taking the pandemic seriously.

Covid elevator rule

The Rule:

Do not speak in the elevator.

The Science:

Covid respects silence.

Covid AFL goalposts

The Rule:

AFL goalposts needed to be disinfected by men in hazmat suits.

The Science:

Researchers calculated that it was technically possible for an infected player to touch the ball which, when kicked, might hit the post, transferring Covid from player to ball to post. A player who subsequently touched the post and then inadvertently put his finger near his mouth could get Covid, maybe.

The Rule:

Supermarket workers were required to operate behind a perspex safety screen even though they were touching all the grocery items you had just touched before returning them to you for transportation home whereupon you would touch them again.

The Science:

Covid got confused by the perspex screen and forgot it could transmit itself via people’s hands.

The Rule:

In the UK, you were not allowed to drink an alcoholic beverage onsite unless you also ate something.

The Science:

Opening your mouth to pour liquid into would attract Covid, but opening your mouth to shove food down would not.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.
Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)