“Mark Allaby, a managing partner at IBM Australia, has been pressured to resign his board position at the Lachlan Macquarie Institute (LMI) after he was subject to an online campaign for daring to sit on the board of a faith-based organisation.
It seems the idea of the ‘diversity’-supporting IBM employing someone with differing views on marriage was enough to send LGBT activists into a social media rage.” – Damian Wyld, Marriage Alliance.
The Australian has today reported that:
Two Christian charities have been granted official permission to keep their board members’ names secret on the grounds of “public safety”, after abuse and threats from gay activists forced an IBM executive to sever his links with a Christian education group.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission yesterday agreed to keep the boards of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute and the Australian Christian Lobby off the public record because publication “could endanger public safety”.
The Lachlan Macquarie Institute and the ACL applied to the commission last week after militant gay rights activists targeted marriage equality advocate IBM Australia for employing Mark Allaby, who was on the Institute’s board. Both organisations removed the details of their boards and staff from their websites last week, as gay activists increased pressure on IBM and started to circulate the names and jobs of the Christian board members.
The charities commission took all the details of the two charities off its register, a public record, on receiving the request to keep the names private. After agreeing to the request, the commission put the details of the two Christian charities back on its register yesterday with the names of “responsible people” withheld.
If the militant LGBTABC brigade and left-wing professional protestors actually gave a fuck about true equality or standards of safety for the LGBTABC community it wouldn’t be Christian organisations they were going after, it would be Islamic organisations.
After all, when was the last time Christian groups were found to be throwing gays off buildings?
When you take a step back it becomes very clear who is in control of the left..
“One Nation’s result was a disaster” says the media.
“It was a success” say One Nation supporters.
There are clearly two points of views on the recent results of One Nation. The media are spinning it towards a negative point of view whilst One Nation – rightly so – are spruiking it towards a more positive light.
As of Sunday 12th March, One Nation polled 4.7% of the state vote. This, on face value, is a disaster for One Nation considering they were polling around 12% a couple of months ago and that the struggling Greens Party polled 8.5%. On the other hand, six months ago One Nation in WA was nothing but a two-member band, Ron Mclean and Marye Louise Daniels were running the show with the Party going on a membership drive to get registered. Therefore, if you look at it in this light, last night was a success for One Nation.
One Nation stood 45 candidates in the Lower House (albeit some candidates had resigned or were dis-endorsed) and ran candidates in the upper house. Their results in 2017 compared to the last time they were successful – in 2001 – was dismal. In 2001, One Nation gained 9.58% of the state primary vote. The difference then compared to now is that One Nation was an established party. They had a proper State Executive with active local branches being able to assist their candidates on the campaign trail and to assist on election day. The other factor is pre-poll was not around back then, therefore you wouldn’t lose votes if you had limited number of volunteers prior to election day. Preference deals were not an issue in 2001 as both major political parties pledged to put One Nation last therefore One Nation had a split How to Vote Card. That is, on one side they preferenced Labor and on the other side the Liberals, this put the onus back onto the voter.
Finally, they had more candidates in the lower house and they seemed very disciplined compared to 2017. In 2001, despite gaining 9.58%, One Nation was only able to achieve three upper house seats: one for the Agricultural Region (Frank Hough – who was the State Director at the time); one for Mining and Pastoral Region (John Fischer – who was the National Vice President and Leader of WA One Nation) and one in the Southwest Region (Paddy Embry). If you look at Hansard these three members of One Nation were an asset, however, due to infighting in 2002/03 they were forced to resign from One Nation and went separate ways. Subsequently all three lost their seats in 2004.
West Australians won’t get the results for the Legislative Council for at least another week however to date (12/03/2017) One Nation has received approximately 7.10% of the primary vote in the Legislative Council compared to 9.88% they received in 2001. Despite the decrease of support since 2001, they have outpolled their regional foes – WA Nationals – who have received 4.17%.
These results are promising for One Nation and depending on preferences they could gain three upper house MPs. I predict a repeat of 2001 with the possibility of holding the balance of power.
All in all, it’s not all bad news. Mainstream media hyped the One Nation phenomenon which gave a lot of people false hope. The matter of fact is, One Nation was never going to do as good as what we all though due to:
Poor organisational structure.
Poor choice of candidates.
Lack of volunteers.
Limited time constraints.
Different electoral procedures such as pre-poll.
In essence it is a blessing in disguise that One Nation was unable to get a large number of people elected into Parliament. As the Queensland Liberal National Party and Country Liberal Party in Northern Territory experienced that if you have a large number of members elected into Parliament it is harder for the Party to maintain discipline.
Whatever the number of successful members One Nation is able to get into the Legislative Council their focus should be on party structure and how to engage the membership so that they remain motivated. Next WA State Election will be the real test for One Nation.
As you’ve probably seen over the last 2 days, a petition we wrote up last week was picked up by The Daily Mail and thus went viral. At the time my petition crossed paths with Daily Mail writer Stephen Johnson the petition had amassed 10,000 signatures while the petition we were countering had barely cracked 2000. As the day went on and media outlet after media outlet displayed their disgust at our lack of Islamotolerance it seemed that many Australians were equally fed up with this one-sided relationship the Australian people have found themselves in with our media, and by this morning the petition had skyrocketed to over 24,000 signatures – more than 10 times the number the original petition had collected.
With ALTCON being in the spotlight as of late, I cannot help but feel compelled to say something in regards to how we as an organisation have been portrayed by mainstream media in this wonderful nation of ours.
Many labels such as “alt-right”, “far-right”, “right-wing”, and “white supremacist” have been pinned to us and I will not take that sitting down. For too long I have sat silently and pondered what to write and it was not easy to express myself. So here it goes!
I am not white. In fact, I am of Lebanese persuasion. Born and raised as a Maronite Catholic who grew up around Sunni and Shiite Lebanese kids. So there goes the whole “white supremacist” argument that the media have thrown at this site. I can tell you that in my dealings with Kurdish refugees here, it is blatantly obvious that ISIS have killed thousands of Muslims. Whilst we are anti ISIS, the team here at ALTCON are NOT anti Muslim, they are not anti Arab, nor are they anti gay. We are anti bull!
A bunch of battlers who are not bankrolled by special interest groups. We are normal people expressing our views on todays issues.
Are we angry with the ABC and their soft headedness? Yes!
Are we disgusted by the fact that Yassmin Abdel Magied was flown all over the Middle East on our tax dollar to conduct religious business? Damn straight!
Are we angry with the defending of shariah law? Yes! Why? Because look at the people who are fleeing from nations where said law is rampant. I know Iranian people who hate these fanatics who push religious laws. There are Lebanese Muslims who cannot stand fundamenalist nut jobs and their enablers. There are Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians, Algerians etc who are staunch Nationalists and there are more than the mainstream media would like to admit.
So if the media considers us anti Islamic, what would they call Muslims who go crazy at religious zealots?
I implore you, gentle reader, to think for yourself. Ask an actual Arab how they feel about Sharia Law. Ask an Iranian about fundamenalist regimes. Ask an Iraqi how they feel about these zealot sheikhs perverting their faith to suit their own agenda.