14 September 2017

Special Edition 178

The Coober Pedy News features quotations from publications which reveal the real stories
behind the mainstream media headlines, and which offer a carefully researched Christian viewpoint on current
issues affecting Australian society.



The Coober Pedy News is online only and not published as a newspaper.
There is no local newspaper in Coober Pedy anymore.

news@cooberpedynews.com.au

0427 815 561

Previous Issues   TV, Radio Programs   10-day Weather forecast for Coober Pedy   512km composite Woomera Radar Loop   Map of Coober Pedy  


MEDIA RELEASE OF THE WILBERFORCE FOUNDATION IN RESPONSE TO THE MEDIA RELEASE OF THE LAW COUNCIL OF
AUSTRALIA DATED 7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ENTITLED ‘VOTE ‘YES’ FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, ‘YES’ FOR HUMAN RIGHTS’

Introduction
1. The Wilberforce Foundation is a coalition of lawyers and legal academics committed to the
preservation and advancement of common law values, rights and freedoms.
Its members include members of the Law Council of Australia, including barristers Neville Rochow SC and
Christopher Brohier and solicitor Greg Walsh.
2. The Wilberforce Foundation is very concerned about the processes of approval, the content and the
implications of the Media Release of the Law Council through its president Ms Fiona McLeod.
Whatever opinions Ms McLeod may hold on our marriage laws, they are not shared by all the members of
the Law Council and it was inappropriate for Ms McLeod to distribute her views under the aegis of
the Council without first consulting with the members. Moreover, the statements made do not withstand scrutiny
under the international jurisprudence relied upon.
3. The question whether or not marriage should be re-defined is an important political question on which
Australians now have an opportunity to comment in the current postal poll.

.........................................................................................

17. The Media Release of the Law Council supporting marriage redefinition is misleading and should never have
been issued without consultation with members. Even more concerning is the inaccurate statements of
international law and the omission of key international cases contained within the Media Release.
18. In order to avoid damaging the reputation of the Law Council and the legal profession and misleading the
community regarding the views of the legal profession and the state of international law the Media Release should
be immediately withdrawn.

14 September 2017

NEW SITE SHOWS BRANDIS AND SHORTEN SSM BILLS CREATE GENDER-FLUID MARRIAGE

From http://family.org.au

Are the concerns expressed by ‘No’ campaigners, like Mr Abbott and Mr Latham, valid?

The Australian Family Association has launched a new site that shows they are valid, and explains how with
brief (and extended) Q and A sections.
Launched in the wake of the High Court decision, TransgenderMarriageVote.com.au explains why there is a mismatch
between the postal survey question and the bills put forward in parliament.
“Attorney General George Brandis is wrong to claim the postal survey is only about
‘allowing same sex couples to marry’. His own department has confirmed that non-binary gender
identities are included if marriage is redefined as the union of any 2 people,” said Patrick Byrne, researcher
for the Australian Family Association.
“Our new site claims upfront that, ‘It’s really transgender marriage, no matter what the postal ballot says’ and
then explains how this is possible,” said Mr Byrne.
“What this means is schools would have to teach kids that your gender can be fluid, that marriage can be
gender-fluid, (e.g. Pangender married to Astralgender) and boys who identify more as a girl can use the
girls’ facilities,” said Mr Byrne.
See all the claims and references at www.TransgenderMarriageVote.com.au.


Which political parties or politicians support transgender (gender fluid) marriage?

From www.TransgenderMarriageVote.com.au.

In early 2017, the Federal Attorney General’s Department said that marriage between “two people” would allow
marriage between “[s]ame-sex couples, and couples including people who are intersex or of a non-binary gender.”
Hence, marriage between “two people” would encompass transgenders in marriage (transgender marriage), same-sex
marriage and opposite-sex (heterosexual) marriage. (See Department’s submission 78 (pg. 2) to a Senate Inquiry)

The Australian Greens’ policy is to “end to discrimination in marriage against same-sex attracted, gender diverse and
intersex people.” To that end, “Marriage equality is an important step towards reducing discrimination faced by
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex Australians in same sex relationships, and their families.”
The Greens have been the most persistent in attempting to redefine marriage. Greens members sponsored or cosponsored 11 bills to redefine marriage, variously coming from Adam Bandt, Sarah Hanson-Young (six bills),
Kerry Nettle and Michael Organ.

The Nick Xenophon team’s policy has supported transgender marriage: Remove all discrimination from the Marriage Act to
ensure that all people, regardless of their sex or gender identity, have the opportunity to marry.”

Liberal Democrat, David Leyonhjelm, sponsored a transgender marriage bill in 2014.

One Nation policy is to let Australians decide the issue of marriage to “in a referendum, rather than a vote on the
floor of Parliament.” If there is a parliamentary vote, its members/senators will have
“a conscience vote” on the issue.

The Labor Party appears to be conflicted on the issue of transgender marriage. On the one hand, the 2011 Labor
National Conference adopted a policy to “amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for
all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.”
The ALP public campaign has been for same-sex marriage.
On the other hand, Labor Party members of Federal parliament – including the leader of the Opposition,
Bill Shorten – have moved, or co-sponsored, four bills since 2015 in which marriage defined marriage as being
between “two people.” In three of these bills, the Objects of the Bill is to be recognise marriage between
couples to marry “regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

For example, see here

Liberal and National Parties: Under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Liberal National Party Coalition government
changed its policy from support for opposite-sex, heterosexual marriage to holding a plebiscite of all
Australians to decide the definition of marriage. Under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the same policy has
been maintained.
However, two members of the Liberal Party, Warren Entsch and Teresa Gambaro, co-sponsored a 2015 cross-party
Bill for transgender marriage and six Liberal parliamentarians presented a transgender marriage bill to the
Coalition joint party room in August 2017 (Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017.)


Same Sex "Marriage" Plebiscite Policy Remains the Same for the Liberal Party

Know your traitors:



The seven Liberal Party MPs who voted to change the policy in today's Liberal Party meeting are:
Warren Entsch MHR for Leichardt (Qld)
Trevor Evans MHR for Brisbane (Qld)
Tim Wilson MHR for Goldstein (Vic)
Jason Wood MHR for La Trobe(Vic)
John Alexander MHR for Bennelong (NSW)
Trent Zimmerman MHR for North Sydney (NSW)
Senator Dean Smith (WA)


This Week: Vote Likely in Federal Parliament to Legalise Same Sex "Marriage" in Australia

Gary Atkins

Tim Wilson, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans are all homosexuals, and all are Liberal Party Federal MP’s in
the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia.
It is reported that they will bring on a vote this coming week on a bill to legalise same sex “marriage” in Australia.


What I am wondering is, of the people who voted them in, how many knew at that time,
a. that they are homosexuals;
b. that they would be going to be involved in going against their party policy to bring on a vote for
a bill to legalise same sex “marriage” in Australia?
I am also wondering if, during their election campaigns, they told voters,
a. that they are homosexuals;
b. that they would be going to be involved in going against their party policy to bring on a vote for
a bill to legalise same sex “marriage” in Australia?
I am also wondering if, during their campaign for Liberal Party preselection, they told members of the Liberal Party,
a. that they are homosexuals;
b. that they would be going to be involved in going against their party policy to bring on a vote for
a bill to legalise same sex “marriage” in Australia?
.................................................................................................
Below are 2016 election results, with the first preference votes for each of these three Liberal MPs, and the
suburbs and localities in each of their electorates.
I hope that people in these localities, will, if they voted for any of these three MP’s without being aware that,
a. that they are homosexuals;
b. that they would be going to be involved in going against their party policy to bring on a vote for
a bill to legalise same sex “marriage” in Australia?
make it known their disappointment that they have been deceived, and make it known that the Liberal Party has
received votes that were intended for bona fide Liberal Party candidates, the Liberal Party never having promoted as
campaign policy that it supported same sex “marriage” in Australia.
I also hope that people all over Australia who voted for a Liberal Party candidate in the 2016 election make it known their
disappointment that the Liberal Party has ineffective preselection methods, and that it has deceived voters through
endorsement of candidates who had the intention to deceive voters and the Liberal Party.
………………………………………………………………………
Tim Wilson, Liberal Party, House of Representatives, Victoria
Electorate: Goldstein
State: Victoria
2016 election first preference votes: 52000
% of votes: 56
Suburb etc:
Brighton, McKinnon, Caulfield South, Brighton East, Gardenvale, Black Rock, Hampton, Ormond, Beaumaris,
Hampton East, Glenhuntly, Bentleigh, Highett, Elsternwick, Sandringham.
………………………………………………………………………
Trent Zimmerman, Liberal Party, House of Representatives, New South Wales
Electorate: North Sydney
State: New South Wales
2016 election first preference votes: 48,000
% of votes: 51
Suburb etc
Artarmon, Castlecraig, Greenwich, Henley, Cremorne, Crows Nest , Hunters Hill, Kirribilli, Lane Cove,
Narenbum, Middle Cove, McMahons Point, Northbridge, North Sydney, Riverview, Woolwich, Willoughby, Waverton.
………………………………………………………………………
Trevor Evans, Liberal National Party of QLD, House of Representatives, Queensland
Electorate: Brisbane
State: Queensland
2016 election first preference votes: 47,000
% of votes: 50
Suburb etc
Everton Park, Stafford, Brisbane River, Ascot, Hendra, Herston, Bowen Hills, Albion, Brisbane City,
Clayfield, Alderlie, Fortitude Valley, Gordon Park, Gaythorne, Kalinga, New Farm, Grange, Kelvin Grove,
Milton, Hamilton, Lutwyche, Newmarket, Newstead, Red Hill, Everton Park, Wooloowin, Spring Hill,
Enoggera, Ashgrove, Wilston, Paddington, Bardon, Windsor, Stafford.

...............................................................................

Why the Nordic prostitution model is a bad bad thing

http://www.ausfamily.org/

Top 12 reasons why a Biblical Christian must take a vigorous stand AGAINST the Nordic Model on prostitution:

1) The Nordic Model allows our daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, wives and granddaughters to work as prostitutes. Anyone with a
Biblical Christian Worldview will protect women from working in such an immoral, unhealthy and dangerous profession.
2) The Nordic Model was implemented in New York and rescinded after it was found to only curb brothel visits by those men who may have been
embarrassed at being found out. In Australia there is not much shame in visiting a brothel anymore. Brothel shares are traded publicly and
they are even listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
3) The Nordic Model has at its base a feminist, man-hating ideology, not a Christian ideology. Instead of protecting women it simply
punishes men - bad, bad men - nice, nice women.
4) It makes no sense from a lobbying perspective. Lobbying 101 demands that you ALWAYS ask for more than you expect to receive. Sadly the Nordic
Model is the end goal, even for the Christian lobbyists in Australia. It is simply not good enough for a Biblical Christian to
embrace the Nordic Model on prostitution. We must lift our vision.
5) A Christian with a Biblical Christian Worldview will vigorously withstand every aspect of prostitution as it is a pernicious trade in
human flesh and places all women at great risk. A Biblical Christian, especially Christian men who haven't forgotten that their hands have
been trained for war (Ps 144:1, Ps 18:34, 2 Sam 22:35), will take action to prohibit legislation that allows Aussie women and girls to
work in the prostitution industry.
6) Christians should be abolitionists, not regulationists when it comes to prostitution. Imagine Abraham Lincoln regulating the slave trade in
America's southern states instead of abolishing it? William Wilberforce, a hero of the Christian faith, was also an abolitionist when
dealing with slavery. Look what he accomplished in the UK. A Biblical Christian will support moves to abolish - not regulate - the sex-for-hire
industry, each and every aspect of it.
7) CS Lewis famously stated "Reach for the heavens and you get the earth thrown in, reach for the earth and you get neither." The Nordic Model is
demonstrably reaching for the earth and is a lame attempt at addressing this very serious problem. It has been fought against by Christian groups and
individuals in each and every country where it has been foolishly enacted. Remember it only punishes men who visit brothels.
8) The Nordic Model is most assuredly not a Christian model and makes no such claim. It is what its name implies, simply a
Nordic Model. A Biblical Christian should only accept a Biblical Christian model which would prohibit ALL forms of prostitution.
9) Moral absolutes are to be embraced by Biblical Christians. The Nordic Model on prostitution, as it allows our daughters to work as
prostitutes, is manifestly immoral and dangerously exposes them to physical and emotional harm, incurable STDs, potential violence, rampant drug use,
sex slavery, human trafficking gangs and organised crime.
10) In Christianity the good is the enemy of the better and the better is the enemy of the best. The Nordic Model simply proscribes an aspect of
prostitution whereas Christianity rejects every aspect of prostitution.
11) If we recognise that prostitution is a sin then the Nordic Model must be rejected out of hand by anyone with a Biblical Christian Worldview as it
legitimises women working in the unhealthy sex-for-sale prostitution industry. Have our Christian political activists groups invested so much
currency in the Nordic Model that they are embarrassed to be wrong?
12) Jesus said to the woman involved in illicit sex (John 8:11) "I don't condemn you, go and sin no more.” This tells us that although we should never
"condemn" prostitutes, we should also never encourage them in their sin. Remember the Nordic Model legitimises prostitution by not proscribing it. Just as
the ridiculous homosexual sex registry does nothing to discourage homosexuals from their sin, the Nordic Model on prostitution does not
convict women that prostitution is sin, as Jesus would most assuredly have us do.

Go to http://www.ausfamily.org/take-action/politicians.html to get information on how to contact South Australian politicians.


Sexualising school kids

FEATURES AUSTRALIA
https://spectator.com.au/2017/04/sexualising-school-kids
Moira Deeming
22 April 2017
An extremely disturbing arsenal of social engineering schemes has been lined up against Victorian children and
their parents in the triad of Safe Schools (SS), Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships (RR) and
the Doctor’s in Secondary Schools (DISS) programs. Scratch beneath the surface of these three sweet-sounding
initiatives and you will find Kinsey-esque child sexualisation, unproven sociological gender theories being presented as
fact, and unsupervised GP appointments being conducted behind parents’ backs on school grounds, during school hours.
Both NSW and Tasmania have now axed Safe Schools due to its highly inappropriate content and will replace it with
genuine anti-bullying programs. But Premier Daniel Andrews has dug his heels in and even supports these
schemes being carried out in schools against the express wishes of parents.

Imagine that a 13-year-old boy discovers his set of personality traits do not dovetail neatly at the
masculine end of the ‘Gender Spectrum’ presented to him as an undisputed fact by his English teacher. He learns that
this means he might not actually be a boy after all, but a girl trapped in a male body. It might also explain why
he feels not only embarrassed, but also aroused by all the sexual descriptions and role plays, in class lately, and
not just the heterosexual ones. The boy skips math class to go and see the school GP, who decides that the child is
a ‘mature minor’ and so parental consent for treatment is not required. The child is conveniently diagnosed as
having Gender Identity Disorder and prescribed therapy, drugs and surgery to transition from a boy to a girl.
Based on informal discussions with the child, the teachers judge that the parents would not be supportive of the
decision to ‘transition’ and decide not to tell them. Obviously, this scenario would take some time, but everything
it contains is legal now. But of course, if you’re a parent or teacher (I am both) who objects to the erosion of
parental rights and professional boundaries, you will be portrayed as a misogynist, enabler and even supporter of
domestic violence and LGBTI bullying.

When I first began reading the SS and RR curriculums, I was hoping they would not be as terrible as had been
reported. We teachers feel a heavy burden to prevent, stop and heal bullying; not only because it is in our
job description, but because our students are dear to us and when they are in pain, we are in pain too. And so I
wanted my students to learn to discuss important issues with confidence, humility, and respect when values and
opinions collide, as they inevitably do in our multicultural society. But they won’t get those skills from
these curriculums. The majority of this so-called anti-bullying material – from kindergarten up, is in
fact explicit sex education. Kinder teachers faced with a student asking ‘what is a clitoris?’ are instructed to
nswer, ‘If you rub it, it feels good.’ They’re teaching masturbation to 4 year olds.

Page after page of lesson plans made no mention of bullying, but instead graphically fixated on – and normalised – the
high-risk sex lives of fictional, seemingly emotionless teens, always categorised as LGBTI, Cis, etc.
Sexually-transmitted infections were literally described as a ‘normal part of sex’, something to test for and
treat, not to avoid. Discussions of domestic violence focused almost solely on male to female violence, further
humiliating male victims and embedding harmful gender stereotypes. There were no caveats in the material acknowledging
that gender fluidity, male privilege, and unconscious bias are disputed sociological theories, worthy of
investigation and debate, but not objective, settled science.

The existential premise of the Safe Schools Coalition is that ‘humans are sexual beings from birth’. But that goes
against common sense, natural law, and the blazingly obvious reality that pre-pubescent children do not express
sexualised behaviour unless first sexually abused. Apart from narcissistic perverts, nobody believes the
Safe Schools premise, but this claim is exactly what is used to justify sexualised content being taught to
pre-pubescent kids.

How and when was it proven that children are sexual beings? It wasn’t. But the notorious creep Alfred C. Kinsey tried
to prove it during the ‘40s. He used convicted paedophiles to carry out sexual ‘experiments’ on 2,035 boys and
girls, some as young as two months old. Observations of ‘fainting and weeping’ when abused were recorded as
‘orgasms’ which in his sick mind meant that children are ‘unharmed by sexual contact with adults’ unless the
parents were ‘disturbed’ and ‘made a fuss about it’. The depraved nature and methodological flaws of his study only
came to light years later. Yet this ugly truth is swept under the rug by those who seek to have paedophilic
predilections sanctioned, celebrated, and spread. These three Victorian education programs are not about
addressing bullying. They’re not about promoting discussion and understanding between students who disagree about
sexual morality or the (pseudo-)science of gender. They’re not about helping to heal family bonds stretched to
breaking point by the stress of ‘coming out’. Certainly they do nothing to help children tragically suffering the
consequences being misinformed over highly disputed theories about Gender Dysphoria. So what do they offer to those
poor LGBTI kids who are suffering bullying and the utterly misguided students perpetrating it? Or to boys
suffering domestic violence at the hands of their mothers? Nothing at all, except some esoteric ‘privilege’ guilt and
a bunch of poorly researched, highly subjective, and high risk sex tips. The claim that these programs
genuinely attempt to make schools safer, healthier and more respectful, would be laughable if they didn’t
represent such a contemptible betrayal of children. They corrode wise and legal boundaries of teacher
professionalism, which aim to protect both teachers and students from unnecessary misunderstandings and
accusations. They mock any notion of academic honesty, endangering children by presenting radical, unproven
theories as settled, scientific facts. And they usurp the principle that schools exist to support the family, as they
turn parents into powerless, scorned, spectators, or ‘bigots’ as Andrews puts it. Instead, he wants teachers to
disseminate erotic materials and conduct sexually graphic discussions with minors that would have any other
adult rightly dragged off in handcuffs. He wants doctors to conduct physical and sexual examinations and
prescribe drugs to lone children, in school rooms, during school hours, without parental knowledge and
despite parental objections. ‘Safe’ schools? Kids have never been less safe in Victorian schools!



The LGBT fraud has been exposed, and they’re definitely not happy about it

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/deceit-and-lies-we-have-been-told-on-homosexuality
November 15, 2016 (REAL Women) -- Those who are setting our so-called “values”, such as the small but powerful group of academics, mainstream
media, and homosexual activists, do so by attempting to impose strange myths and ideas that have no scientific basis.
These myths include the one that homosexuals are “born that way”, can’t change, and must be accepted for “who they are”.
Further, those claiming they are a different gender than that with which they were born, i.e. the transgendered, who “feel” they
belong to other than their gender at birth, must be accepted as such.
The public is supposed to put aside its intelligence and common sense, and respectfully bow collectively in obeisance to these “expert” opinions.
These opinions, however, are complete and utter hogwash.
We know instinctively that they are not authentic, or worthy of our belief. However, the myth-makers attempt to force their nonsense on us by the
heavy hand of the law, claiming that it’s “discrimination” to refuse to accept the myths as truth. Jurisdictions which don’t obey their rulings
are economically punished, parents are forbidden to protect their children from the monstrous “bathroom” laws that permit males to use
girls’ showers, lockers and change rooms. It’s all a fraud based on propaganda with no scientific legitimacy.

Bombshells Explode the Myths

However, two bombshells have exploded that have shattered these myths, and the opinion-makers haven’t yet controlled its fall-out.
The first bombshell was a landmark study published in The Journal – The New Atlantis, (August 23, 2016). The Journal is a well-known
journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues
published to date in scientific journals.
The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona
State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly
supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this
report without reservation since it is about science and medicine. He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over
500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in
Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the
biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:
The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not
supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a
‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.
Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.
There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and
social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa
Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted
that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable.
By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory.
She summarized the relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University stating that abundant research has now established that
sexual orientation – including attraction, behaviour and self-identity – is fluid for both adolescents and adults for both genders.
Her announcement flies in the face of legislation in several U.S. states and Ontario, Canada, which ban “reparative therapy”, which
seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction.
It also destroys the argument by homosexual activists that sexual orientation is the “civil rights movement of our times”.
This is poppycock.
Sexual desire is based on something other than genetics, including primarily, a person’s relationships, culture and other
experiences, not genetics or prenatal hormones.
The only thing that science actually tells us is that we are born either male or female.
Errant, harmful ideologies and lies, especially those which diminish and endanger the lives of children, should be condemned without delay.
Clearly, the laws on sexual orientation and the transgendered must be reassessed in light of the truth now being exposed.
We can waste no more time on such inanities.

Reaction of Homosexual Activists and the Media

The mainstream media ignored these bombshells.
The homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC), however, was not about to allow them to affect its continued existence, and the estimated
nearly $49 million it hauls in annually from contributions, which maintain its luxurious headquarters in Washington D.C.
More importantly, it was not about to relinquish the tremendous power and influence it holds over society – especially the
law makers and the media.
The HRC reacted as it usually does when its power base is threatened. It is to attack, attack, and attack. On this occasion, it went
for the jugular of the New Atlantis Journal, which had defied it by exposing the true facts about homosexuality. The HRC published a
criticism of the Journal’s research review, characterizing Drs. Mayer and McHugh as “Anti-Trans All-Stars”, and “anti-LGBTQ” promoters seeking to
“marginalize” and mock people.
They accused the authors of intentional “misleading statements” and “biased interpretations.”
The editors of the New Atlantis Journal, however, were not about to put up with HRC’s nonsense.
The latter was only lies and distortions.
In a special publication entitled “Lies and Bullying from the Human Rights Campaign” it delineated how HRC had distorted the journal’s recent
publication on homosexuality stating in the introduction, “Most of the HRC document is an exercise in distortion”. It then tackled
in detail these distortions.
We can also be assured that HRC is scrambling behind the scenes to find suitable ideologically correct researchers to commence a
study, funded either by the HRC directly, or, more probably, by one of the corporate mad dogs held in its kennel, to
dispute the study in the New Atlantis Journal and APA.
When this new study is released, probably within a year, it will be with great fanfare and extensive coverage in the media.
It will be presented as “The Truth”.
It will, however, be a fraud and deceit based on flawed methodology.
How can it be otherwise, when its findings are pre-determined?
The purpose of the study will be for propaganda only and it will be merely a feeble house of cards.
It should be disregarded by those with any intelligence and common sense with the knowledge that such a study is only an
attempt by well-funded homosexual activists to continue their control over society.

Reprinted with permission from REAL Women of Canada.



Letter to Editor

Dear Friend of the Friday Fax,
We fought for months both in Geneva and in New York. We tried our very best to stop the UN from establishing a new
homosexual enforcer because we knew he would aim his deadly propaganda at your children.
In a meeting last week he actually said your children would be “soft entry points” for his ghastly work.
The Africans tried to stop this abomination. We tried to stop it.
But the European Union and the Obama administration forced it through. And this is what we have, a propagandist who is
coming after your children and your grandchildren to fill their heads full of his nasty theories.
They told us he would do no more than protect homosexuals from violence. We knew they were lying. They are always lying when
it comes to this issue. And now we know.
I dare say you would not know he said this except that we were there. I dare say no other group was even in the room to
record what he said.
C-Fam and the Friday Fax desperately need your help in the work we have to do in the coming days, weeks and months.
We ended last year with five pieces of terrible news.
Besides the establishment of this UN LGBT Czar, there is this:
Pro-life and pro-family nations have begun to waver on the life issues at the UN. Key states have begun to accept the
phrase “reproductive health” as acceptable language and without qualifiers making it clear that it cannot include
abortion. This is a disaster.
The UN General Assembly has established a global campaign on bullying. While the world burns, UN radicals want to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on bullying and you know and we know that bullying is no more than code for the homosexual agenda.
UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies have become even more perverse. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have reinterpreted
a key human rights treaty to include a right to abortion and to remove protections from doctors who resist.
Finally, to show their utter contempt for traditional people, the UN Secretariat issued homosexual-themed stamps showing
homosexuals kissing.
Friends, this is what we are up against. This is what we have been up against for going on twenty years. We cannot fight this
fight without you, YOUR PRAYERS, and your financial support.
I am writing to you tonight because I am truly frightened that C-Fam is not strong enough to fight this alone. The Friday Fax alone
cost more than $200,000 a year. And it remains the only weekly source of pro-life and pro-family news coming out of UN headquarters.
People like you from all over the world rely on the Friday Fax. It is a lifeline.
Our UN office alone costs $9000 a month! Folks suggest that we move our office further away so that it would be cheaper.
What this would mean is that we would not be near the UN on a moment’s notice, which is what our UN partners need.
We are there practically every single day!
And then there is our work in Washington DC. There is no group in Washington DC that follows the UN pro-life and pro-family fight like
we do. Staffs in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives rely on us and our unique expertise.
And now with the new Trump administration, we are desperately needed to help them understand what is really going on at
the UN and to ensure the new Trump administration does the right thing (it is not a guarantee they will! The State Department is
staffed with activists gays in permanent jobs!)
Please understand as I tell you constantly, we are happy warriors. Each and every one of C-Fam’s very talented staff are so blessed to
be doing this work. We walk with a skip in our step and a song in our hearts because we know that we are truly doing God’s work.
But, we cannot do God’s work without your help and we need it right now. Please say a little prayer, and go to www.c-fam.org/donate and
give as much as you can. We need to raise $15,000 over the rest of this week to help us cover our bills. Can you do that right now?
My pledge to you is that we will work our hardest to stop this hideous UN LGBT Czar who says your children as a “soft target” for his
propaganda. Doesn’t that just make your blood boil? We will stop him.
Pray for us...and give…
Austin Ruse
President/C-Fam
Publisher/Friday Fax

A visit to a baby market in Brussels

A donor-conceived Belgian woman visits a fair for same-sex couples who want to be dads

Stephanie Raeymaekers, Oct 4 2016
(Reproduced by permission)

BRUSSELS
For the second time around a surrogacy fair organised by the American company Men Having Babies landed on Belgian soil.
This time it took place in a slightly more upscale venue. The ground floor at The Brussels Hilton became a stage where 220 potential
customers from 12 European countries were welcomed.
Like last year, I was present. Me: the first in our generation to provide adults with a semi-biological child. It was the start
of a lucrative business when fertility doctors discovered that the techniques used on a pig farm could also be useful for infertile
heterosexual couples.
From the 1950s Belgian wombs were being filled with the sperm of unknown men. Fertility techniques improved and not much later they tapped
into new target groups: single women and lesbian couples.
Branding unwanted childlessness as discrimination and injustice, several branches of the LGBT community are lobbying for gay men and
transgender women to have biological children of their own.
Last Sunday almost everything was on offer: interpreters, gadgets, price lists, different formulas, the dos and the don’ts. But most
of all, straight-to-your-heart-and-into-our-wallet sales pitches from companies which are able to connect anyone directly with
eggs, surrogacy agencies and lawyers to make “a dream come true”. Lawyers handed out the metaphorical road map with instructions on how to
by-pass laws to get your purchased child(ren) “legally” in your own country.
Towards an ethical framework
This year Men Having Babies also presented an “ethical framework” to convince opponents of their sincere and honest intentions. They claim
to be a non-profit organization aiming to provide tools and means for gay men to pursue their right to have a biological family. The fact that
their biggest sponsors happened to be the very fertility centers and law firms that pitched to the 220 attendees wasn’t viewed as
a conflict of interest.
Surrogacy was described as “the act of a woman, altruistic by nature, gestating a child for another individual or couple, with the
intent to give the child to the intended parents at birth”.
I have a very different perspective. I would describe it as the outsourcing of a personalized pregnancy that aims the trading/adoption of
a donor-conceived child to those who ordered it whilst paying a fee for expenses.
New terms were launched to keep the transactions as business-like as possible: the surrogate mother was called “a carrier”, the
egg donor “a genetic material contributor”. Some agencies also offered a money-back guarantees(no kidding) and
“Multiple Cycle Package” deals.
Several times speakers advised against adoption. They said that nowadays there are not many young children to adopt and the probability that
the mother may decide to keep “your” child is too great a risk. Surrogacy, once again, brought salvation.
Speakers strongly advised the participants to use eggs from a woman other than the surrogate, because the birth mother will then be more
likely to give up the baby.
An enforceable 50-page contract also offers reassurance that you can take the child home with you after it is born. The contract even
allows payments to stop if the surrogate does not comply with the terms of the contract. I must also mention that many contracts have a
non-disclosure clause: they prohibit women from speaking publicly about any malpractice they endured.
A lot of time and attention was spent on the topic of conceiving as healthy a child as possible. Gender selection is included in
this “service”. My consternation was huge when a fertility doctor asked the audience who would chose to abort a child with a
defect. Most hands went in the air. Just for the record: abortion can also be enforced by contract.
Belgian hypocrisy
Apart from “I want my child to be as healthy and perfect as possible”, discussion of the welfare of the child was – as it is in Belgium – limited to
the legal uncertainty that is created when there is a legal conflict between genetic lineage and legal parenthood. Only twice (and very briefly) was
the right of the child to knowledge of his or her ancestry and identity mentioned. But these were immediately countered by economic and
practical arguments.
Once again certain Belgian politicians have sought the media limelight to express their personal disgust regarding this event. Yet their dismay is
hypocritical. They refuse to acknowledge that similar practices are taking place all the time in IVF clinics with the same ethical framework to
justify them. Apparently a policy is ethical when the price is low, transparency is not needed and fancy brochures are not being handed out.
An ethicist once told me that something is not ethical when someone’s action harms another. Isn’t the intentional creation of a human being who has
been deprived of vital information about themselves and a meaningful relationship with their biological family harmful? In my view the only
ethical standard that needs be applied when considered whether or not to allow surrogacy and donor conception.
As disgusted as one might be by the American event, it is time to reflect, and to acknowledge that for decades we Belgians have been
violating human rights on our own soil when we enabled the commercialization of “Plan B parenthood” at the expense of children who are
conceived to fulfil the dreams of an adult.
Stephanie Raeymaekers is the chair of Donorkinderen, a Belgian organisation that promotes cross-border registration of donors and the right of donor-conceived persons to know their parentage. The above article is reproduced from the Donorkinderen blog with her permission.
Contact her on stephke.r@pandora.be
Copyright © Stephanie Raeymaekers . Published by MercatorNet. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and
non-commercial use only. Contact us at mcook@mercatornet.com if you wish to discuss republication.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Johns Hopkins (University, USA) psychiatrist drops TRUTH BOMB about transgenders – liberals furious

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-drops-truth-bomb-about-transgenders-liberals-furious

By Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief, 5:50pm May 10, 2016

It is simply amazing how such a tiny minority in our country….just three tenths of a percent… has forced a
national debate about whether the public bathroom they visit should or should not match the gender of their
plumbing.
The entire notion of gender is being questioned. It is now “bigoted” to believe we live in a
“gender-binary” world. The idea that humans come in only two flavors: male and female, is seen as
outdated, old-fashioned, antiquated and just plain mean.
Now we must accept “gender fluidity.” Children as young as four are being encouraged to choose their
gender identity, as if it were a Halloween costume.
And according to a noted psychiatrist, that’s just about right.
As CNS News reports, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at
Johns Hopkins University and former psychiatrist–in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, who has
studied transgendered people for 40 years, said it is a scientific fact that “transgendered men
do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.
All such people, he explained in an article for The Witherspoon Institute, “become feminized men or
masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’”
Dr. McHugh, who was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 26 years, the medical institute that
had initially pioneered sex-change surgery – and later ceased the practice – stressed that the
cultural meme, or idea that “one’s sex is fluid and a matter of choice” is extremely damaging, especially to
young people.
Now this will REALLY whip liberals into a frenzy, but Dr. McHugh says those who wish to change their
gender suffer from a psychiatric condition, not an accident of birth.
Gender dysphoria — the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex — belongs in
the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and
body dysmorphic disorder,” said McHugh.
“Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats
obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction,” he said.
Perhaps the most tragic part of this new trend is the consequence. After the immense pain and hardship of
transitioning, a high percentage of transgendered individuals eventually take their own lives.
When “the tumult and shouting dies,” McHugh continued, “it proves not easy nor wise to live in a
counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people — extending over 30 years and
conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered — documents their
lifelong mental unrest.”
“Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone
sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers,” said McHugh.
I will probably get hammered by our liberal readers for apparently “trivializing” this issue, but here
I go anyway…
When I was growing up in the ‘70’s there was a TV commercial for Chiffon margarine, which apparently
tasted just like butter… but it’s not. The very last (and very famous) line from the commercial was
“It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”
Apparently that is still the case.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Four reasons it’s vital to keep marriage between one man and one woman only

Australian Family Association

Laws don’t operate in isolation. They work in combination with other laws.
Same-sex marriage law will operate in combination with Federal, state and territory anti-discrimination
laws that now list as protected attributes:
sexual orientation (straight, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender); and
gender identity (self-identified, gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms without regard to
a person’s sex at birth). Over 60 so-called new genders have been “identified”; they are pure
inventions, but are protected in anti-discrimination laws.
The effect of same-sex marriage in combination with Federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws will be:
Compulsory gay sex education: Same-sex marriage will make it legal to teach homosexual and lesbian
marriage and sexual practices in sex education classes in schools. This is already happening to a
limited extent in schools.
Then, if a teacher or schools objects, they will be accused violating protections for sexual
orientation/gender identity in anti-discrimination laws. At that point, teaching gay marriage will
effectively be made compulsory in schools.
It is the right of parents to determine when and how they teach their children about gay issues, not the
courts and not the school.
Changing birth certificates: There will be a concerted effort to replace “mother” and “father” with “parent 1” and
“parent 2” on birth certificates. “Mother” and “father” will become terms that discriminate against
homosexual and lesbian parents. The ACT legislature has already replaced “mother” and “father” with “parent 1”
and “parent 2” on birth certificates.
This denies the basic right of children to know from their birth certificate their biological mother and father.
No safe place for girls and women. Males identifying as females will be able to use female bathrooms,
change rooms and female only gyms. Already, young boys identifying as girls are demanding the use of girls’
toilets in schools.
Girls and women have the right to have their own toilets and change rooms and safe places.
Losing our democratic freedom of speech. Will it be considered discrimination to speak in favour of
man+woman marriage and natural family? Will it be discrimination to state the fact that research shows that
overwhelmingly boys wanting to transgender to be girls, or girls wanting to be boys, eventually grow out of
this and identify only with their biological sex by the time they are adults.
Australians cannot have a free democracy without freedom of speech.
It is important to keep marriage between a man and a woman:
to protect the rights of parents to determine the education of their children;
to protect the rights of children to have their birth certificate clearly name their biological mum and dad;
to maintain safe places for women and girls; and
to protect our democratic freedom of speech.





Wrong even if it were made Law



Picture From rt.com

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


















..........................................................................................................................................

     
        powered by FreeFind