Promising the Impossible: Blinken’s Out of Tune Performance…

Things are looking dire for the Ukrainian war effort. Promises of victory…

Opposition Budget in Reply: Peter Dutton has no…

Solutions for Climate Australia Media Release National advocacy group Solutions for Climate Australia…

Understanding the risk

It's often claimed the major supermarkets would prefer to see tonnes of…

A Brutal Punishment: The Sentencing of David McBride

Sometimes, it’s best not to leave the issue of justice to the…

Climate pollution and petrol bills coming down as…

Climate Council Media Release AUSTRALIA IS OFF AND RACING on the road to…


It’s time we reckoned with what it means to become a corporatocracy.…

Plan B

By James Moore Every time there is a release of a New York…

Australian federal budget falls flat in tackling inequality:…

In response to the 2024 federal budget, Oxfam Australia Interim Director of…


Plebiscite: NOT a Civil and Respectful Debate

A Shorten Labor Government promises to pass Marriage Equality within the first 100 days if they win the election. An Abbott-Turnbull Government favours a plebiscite. Both of these cases were argued at the first Facebook leaders debate last night.

Leadership Debate 17 June, 2016 – Marriage Equality Plebiscite

Malcolm Turnbull: I support same-sex marriage, if we are returned to Government, there will be a plebiscite, then all Australians will get a say on the issue. I’ll be voting yes. Lucy will be voting yes. We will be urging people to vote yes. I am very confident it will be carried.

Bill Shorten: Now the argument says, Oh Plebiscite, it’s very democratic. But the truth of the matter is that this is a debate where I don’t believe that people’s relationships and love for each other need to be submitted to a public opinion poll. I think we have seen two terrible events in the last week that shows hate and extremism exists in modern societies. And I don’t want to give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder for LGBTI people.

Malcolm Turnbull: With great respect to you. I believe Australians are better than that. I believe we can have a discussion about marriage equality. It can be civil. It can be respectful and we will make a decision as a nation and then, as a nation we will respect the outcome.

The debate on marriage equality so far, has been anything but civil or respectful. Therefore, one can conclude Turnbull is one or more of the following:

  • Outright lying
  • Responding with empty platitudes
  • Playing semantics with the words ‘can be’ and ‘will be’
  • Intentionally arrogant and insulting towards the people who have already expressed they have been harmed by this debate
  • Ignorant and out of touch with the commentary already occurring within this debate
  • Supportive of the hateful and harmful commentary from the Anti-Marriage Equality lobby and considers this commentary, a civil and respectful debate.

Let’s take a look just a small taste of how the marriage equality debate has developed thus far. It has been far from civil.

*Warning: This post contains comments and pictures that may be upsetting and hurtful to LGBTI people, their families and allies.

A Taste of the Respectful and Civil debate thus far:


Leaked pamphlets, to feature in an upcoming campaign against same-sex marriage, suggest children of gay and lesbian parents are more prone to “abuse and neglect” and more likely to be unemployed, abuse drugs and suffer depression.

The pamphlets, obtained by Fairfax Media, have been prepared and funded by Chris Miles, a former Liberal MP and member of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

“Not only is the information on this flyer wrong, it will put the lives of young gay people and the children of same-sex couples at risk by reinforcing the message that they and their families are broken.” (Croome, AME)

The Rainbow Noose

Australian Marriage Alliance advertisement opposing marriage equality

AUSTRALIAN anti-gay-marriage group Marriage Alliance has depicted a woman with a rainbow noose around her neck in its latest internet campaign.

The group is claiming that same-sex marriage will increase suicide because people who are against it will be bullied over their views if it becomes law.

What About the Children?

Australian Marriage Alliance television advertisement opposing marriage equality. The central message that only children who have a mum and a dad “Miss out” on a real family.

Alexander Regan, a 17-year-old boy with two lesbian mums, said on the petition that he was deeply offended by the commercial.

“I’m signing this because I’m a child of two absolutely loving lesbian parents and I’m really offended that this advertisement blatantly slandering same-sex parents’ ability to be parents simply based on their homosexuality,” he wrote. “My mums are amazing and I honestly need nothing more than them and their love in my life.”


Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said,

“This booklet denigrates and demeans same-sex relationships and will do immense harm to gay students and students being raised by same-sex couples.”

“The booklet likely breaches the Anti-Discrimination Act and I urge everyone who finds it offensive and inappropriate, including teachers, parents and students, to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks.”

Mr Croome said he has received several complaints from teachers in Catholic schools who were horrified to learn at staff room meetings that the booklet will be distributed.

Comparing Marriage Equality to Animal Sexual Activity


A federal Nationals MP has drawn a comparison between same-sex relationships and two rams having sex in a paddock, provoking condemnation for the ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate’ statements, with the Greens calling on him to apologise and retract them.

Educating Children and Parents about the dangers of Marriage Equality



Parents took to social media to express concern over the event some described as “highly offensive’’, “extremely bigoted’’ and “totally inappropriate to be sent out through a Catholic school parent email list’’.

In a plea sent to the school, obtained by the Mercury, one parent said: “Although the teachings of the Catholic religion is one of husband and wife I find it inappropriate that the Catholic Diocesan of Wollongong would find it appropriate to be “informed” about this topic by a (group) with a clear agenda leading up to a federal election.’’

“There are many families within our school community that would be extremely offended by this type of ignorant propaganda as they are not a ‘family’ as is defined,’’ the email said.


The Australian Christian Lobby has compared same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools program to the Holocaust, dubbing them all “unthinkable things” that happened because societies lacked strong moral guardians.

offensive FFP.JPG

offensive tweet.JPG

Peter Madden is running for the Tasmanian Senate with the Family First party and his campaign is anti-marriage equality and anti-Safe Schools.

On Monday he made a comment on Twitter: “Though Orlando is abhorrent, it doesn’t change the real & present dangers of the gay marriage agenda to Aus children.”

People have condemned the insensitive tweet and even called the hopeful politician “scum”.

“Absolutely disgusting. Completely offensive,” one commented.

As I live in a Regional Town, I am dedicating a section just to debate within regional communities.

There are extra complexities to consider in regional communities for LGBTI people. There is no Mardi-Gras. There is no wide-spread community support. Young LGBTI people often move away from the area quickly and there is a high rate of suicide. A harmful and hurtful debate only places further stress on young LGBTI people in regional communities.


ssm6Mr Christensen, the Member for Dawson, posted a photo on social media showing a gun loaded with a rainbow coloured magazine.

“My point is that people saying ‘let’s follow America’ in their argument for same-sex marriage … well what about the right to bear arms?” he said.

“I mean, you wouldn’t follow America on that one.

George Christensen, LNP Member for Dawson.





“Many kids do flee Mackay straight after high school,” she said.

“I am sure this has something to do with it. People do not feel welcome here. You get shunned. So people leave and go to places where it is acceptable.”

BuzzFeed News asked Christensen (QLD LNP MP) what he thought about LGBTI teenagers in the area feeling as though a program like Safe Schools is needed.

He (Christensen) likened it to children wanting to eat ice cream.

“Kids love everything. Kids would love free ice cream at school,” the MP said. “Is that good for them? Y’know. Of course they are going to defend something they are being told is good.

“But is it good? Is it social engineering? I think it is clearly social engineering.”


Using the plebiscite as campaign fodder.

The Capricornia Young LNP accuse the Labor candidate of vandalising the LNP member’s office. (The Labor candidate responded in the original thread that she was there to support the rally and was writing “Love is Love” on a heart-shaped post it note. The other person in the photo is the gorgeous Ben Norris from Big Brother, who spoke at the rally.

marriage equality rally

I attended this Equal Love Rally. We held a peaceful rally. Marched a distance to the LNP Member’s office and those who desired could place a post it note on her door with a message in support of marriage equality.

Equal Love Rally

SMS to the Editor – Rockhampton Morning Bulletin


This is such a small sample from the commentary within the debate against marriage equality thus far and it does not do justice to the plethora of uncivil and disrespectful commentary from the Anti-Marriage equality lobby found within this debate.

This quote from Shirleene Robinson, spokeswoman for Australian Marriage Equality calls for people to understand that language and narrative can cause deep hurt to people.

“Words can inflict terrible harm sometimes and we would ask that people of all opinions remember that,” she said. “The use of intemperate language can cause deep hurt among LGBTI people and their families.”

Deciphering the Leaders Debate Comments.

A plebiscite – Abbott-Turnbull Government

I refer back to Turnbull’s comments within the leadership debate:

“….then all Australians will get a say on the issue”
“….we will make a decision as a nation”

Normally Turnbull palavers on with great verbosity and his words can be deciphered and reduced to something quite simple. On this occasion he used a few words, but it translates to much more: That is:

“When considering marriage, Australia currently recognises two groups of people: heterosexual people and LGBTI people. Australian law currently only respects the right to marry belongs to heterosexual people and excludes LGBTI people and discriminates based on gender.

The Abbott-Turnbull Government thinks the appropriate way to redress this gender based discrimination is for Australian citizens to decide if LGBTI people are the same as them, or a lesser class of citizen. LGBTI people belong to a minority group.

The Government will ask LGBTI people (the minority group the current law discriminates against) to vote on this.

However we will ask the majority – their friends, their allies, people who are apathetic and indifferent, but we also think it is important to ask people who do not consider LGBTI people ‘the same’ or ‘normal’ and should not have the same rights and also those who harbour a deep-seated hatred and contempt for LGBTI people.

These people will make up of the majority group who will decide whether to uphold discrimination towards the minority group.

To ensure people are informed before they vote, as part of this, we will force LGBTI people and their families, loved ones and allies, to listen to the hateful rhetoric from people who argue that we should uphold this discrimination and LGBTI people should remain as a lesser class of citizen, which could cause deep hurt and harm to this group.

To ensure enough information is out there to decide whether LGBTI people are a lesser class of citizen or not, this will cost approximately 160 million dollars of taxpayer money.

It should also be noted that if a majority votes to continue discrimination towards the minority group, then discrimination based on gender should be fully respected and upheld. “

End Translation.

The Legislative Approach – Shorten Government

The legislative approach states that: Discrimination exists within our marriage law and separates citizens and discriminates based on gender. We will move a bill to redress that discrimination and ensure every citizen is equal under the eyes of the law.

Marriage Equality NOW. Say NO to a plebiscite.


Login here Register here
  1. cornlegend

    John Wren ‏@JohnWren1950 18h18 hours ago

    So @TurnbullMalcolm if, as you say, “homophobia must be condemned everywhere”, why have a plebiscite & why tolerate Bernardi? #auspol

  2. Steve Laing -

    This is unfortunately part of Malcolm’s Faustian pact with his right wing backbench. It proves how weak he is as a leader. Yet people want to vote for him, and the MSM fawn all over him.

    It also underlines that Malcolm himself pushed for the leadership change, rather than a significant subset of the parliamentary party. It proves, that like Abbott, he wanted the role of PM to satisfy personal ambitions, rather than out of any sense of civic duty. He is a hollow man. Bright and urbane for sure, but ultimately hollow.

  3. townsvilleblog

    To provide an answer to the bloke from Rockhampton, no mate we are not all LGBTI people, however we ARE people who respect every human beings right to love to they want to love, regardless. Why should we discriminate against these people, who work, pay taxes etc, when we ignore corporations who should have paid $6-8 Billion in taxes last year and didn’t?

  4. guest

    We have a great deal of ink being spilt at present on denigrating Islam for its anti-gay stance – as if we do not have a Christian anti-gay stance. It even gets down to counting numbers, as in the case of the right-wing Christian/education commentator pointing out that early documents on Safe Schools in Victoria had one page on LGBTI students, but now it has many more, a sure sign of …what? Marxists separating parents from children? proselytising young children into an LGBTI lifestyle? by all means teach anti-bullying in schools but do not mention LGBTI students? don’t give out any LGBTI information to anyone?

    So we get talk in major news outlets of Muslim terrorism caused by radical Islam (think bombings, martyrdom, Orlando) and yet we have neglect of the terrorism caused by radical Christianity (think anything from comparing gays to animals, to bashings, drownings, up to the mass bombings of Muslim countries).

    And strangely this hyped up talk about Islamic terrorism is also a political act, in some egregious cases being attacks on Turnbull and Obama for not being more loud-spoken and provocative against Muslim extremists – and ultimately against all Muslims (just in case).

    What are these political hacks urging us to become? We see what happens when bile and vitriol is spread about, even in a public debate which leads a community member to kill his own sitting government member.

  5. Steve Howton

    Many people see that the proposed plebiscite on Marriage Equality will cause division in the community, and that it may act as a catalyst for the more strident anti-LGBTI people. This may be seen in vitriolic and ill-informed comments posted on social media whenever the subject matter is published and may well manifest itself in occasional violence or worse.

    I take the view that the plebiscite is a deliberate ploy to waste time, that it keeps the conservative religious factions onside with Malcolm Turnbull and that it is a carrot-on-a-stick to lead more progressive voters into an election.

    Given the number of politicians who have declared their intention to vote against the result if they disagree with it, I suggest that it is simply a multi-million dollar fraud.

    Recent reputable polls indicate, quite clearly, that over 70% of the population either support marriage equality or have no objection. Moreover, it would seem that the numbers exist in Parliament to vote the changes in. The Australian Constitution endows the Parliament with the power to make the changes a reality just as the Howard Government did in 2004 when it changed the definition of marriage to read “marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” as the bill sought to formalise the definition of marriage and to respond to the legalisation of same-sex marriages in some overseas countries. The Howard Government was reacting to marriage equality legislation in other countries and knew that, as the Marriage Act existed, it could not be used to prevent such legislation in Australia. That Government proceeded without a plebiscite or, indeed, any consultation with the Australian people.

    In addition, and also without consultation, the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 included Section 88EA in what many believe was a spiteful and discriminatory move to prohibit the recognition in Australia of same-sex marriages performed in foreign countries.

    How many times will this debate ignore the parents of a young person who has taken their own life and who now wonder if they could have been more understanding?

    How many times will this debate ignore the friends and family of the man tortured and murdered – his battered body stuffed into a suitcase – because he was gay?

    How many times will this debate ignore the man savagely bashed in broad daylight in a park in St Kilda because he appeared to be (and was) gay?

    How many times will this debate ignore LGBTI people who walked past signs on the Australia Day weekend of this year saying “Cure AIDS – Kick a poofter to death”?

    In my submission, the Government can – and most certainly should – move into line with over twenty other countries and accept that LGBTI people must be entitled to the same protections and responsibilities at Law as any other tax payer.

  6. Deanna Jones

    No Malcolm, a hell of a lot of australians are not better than that and you know it. How dare you seek to put LGBT people on trial this way – we are not up for public debate on the legitimacy of our effing existence.

    Thank you, Trish.

  7. Trish Corry

    A very moving comment Steve. It really deserves to be a blog post to share on its own.

  8. Freethinker

    Steve Laing I agree with you 100%

  9. Jaquix

    I’m afraid Malcolm Turnbull is just a shameless liar, and a hypocrite, who loves the sound of his own voice. And lazy, no slogging away on policy for him. He is clearly prepared to do anything to get the prize position of Prime Minister, so he has the stage for three more years. He doesnt deserve it and I hope he doesnt get it. Good article today by Elizabeth Farrelly, about how he has “shrunk” (in appearance), suggesting it might be because of the strain of hypocrisy. His claiming that Australians will have a dignified debate on marriage equality, is breathtaking in its nonsense. We have already seen these bigotted creeps coming out of the woodwork. This statement of Turnbull’s will just turn thousands more Australians off him and see him as irrelevant and untrustworthy.

  10. diannaart

    Excellent work here Trish – really puts the lie into Turnbull’s empty rhetoric.

    @Steve Howton

    I think is it all you have posted:

    Many people see that the proposed plebiscite on Marriage Equality will cause division in the community, and that it may act as a catalyst for the more strident anti-LGBTI people. This may be seen in vitriolic and ill-informed comments posted on social media whenever the subject matter is published and may well manifest itself in occasional violence or worse. “


    the plebiscite is a deliberate ploy to waste time, that it keeps the conservative religious factions onside with Malcolm Turnbull and that it is a carrot-on-a-stick to lead more progressive voters into an election.

    Given the number of politicians who have declared their intention to vote against the result if they disagree with it, I suggest that it is simply a multi-million dollar fraud.


    a deliberate distraction from other more difficult issues we need to urgently solve. After all John Howard changed the marriage Act to specify a man and a woman – take 5 minutes to change it back.

  11. Freethinker

    I just wonder how much are the Brethren behind this.
    Reading the long “friendship” between them and the party I suspect that it is quite possible.

  12. trishcorry

    Thanks Diann. I was disgusted by his flippant comments about the marriage equality debate last night. To deny the anger that is out there from the Anti-Marriage Equality lobby shows what a poor leader he truly is.

  13. paul walter

    It’s been pointed out in the past that the plebiscite is a sop to social conservatives who don’t want this issue resolved, regardlessof collateral damage to others or themselves.

    At least some don’t want it resolved as an issue in itself also, because it is a diversion from other issues some folk don’t want examined.

  14. wam

    the measure of the man is his copper lie.
    The hypocrisy of the man is his single parent battler turned catholic.
    The slimyness of the man is keeping the rabbott anti-gay but stating he and his wife will vote yes to marriage equality.
    Labor, surely love is the point of marriage not sex?

  15. silkworm

    Who would take any notice of a fat tub of lard saying ice cream is bad for you?

  16. Trish Corry

    Silkworm, I really hope Christensen loses his seat. His comments in this area of safe schools, marriage equality and his anti-Muslim crusade are very offensive.

  17. corvus boreus

    In addition to his other bigotries, the loathsome Christenson has also broadly slandered environmentalists as ‘terrorists’.
    The electorate of Dawson is shamefully ill-represented.

    As for the ‘plebuscite’, they can save throwing any more money and mud at the marriage matter on my account.
    Official recognition of a ceremonial union between two adult human beings of free will and fully informed mutual consent?
    No problem here.

  18. Terry2

    Malcolm Turnbull’s original view had been that : ‘Because no change to the Constitution is required, there is no legal reason for a plebiscite. The parliament could resolve the matter by a simple vote’.

    I happen to agree with the old Malcolm’s balanced and considered view not the Abbott approach which was designed to be delaying and divisive, not to mention expensive.

    Australian parliaments routinely legislate in respect of socially contentious issues without resorting to plebiscites or referenda. Conscription was introduced in 1942 for the remainder of the second world war. Compulsory national service operated during the Korean and Vietnam wars. None of these matters were expressly put to the people.

    Women were given the vote, the death penalty abolished, homosexuality decriminalised, no-fault divorce introduced, the White Australia Policy reversed and detention centres for asylum seekers set up in the Pacific Islands – all without the mandate of a plebiscite or referendum. No case has been made as to why or how legalising same-sex marriage is different.

    It seems that some opponents of marriage equality were confident that, under Abbott, any popular vote could have been constructed in a manner calculated to maximise its prospects of failure ; they are still out there and will be demanding public funding of their negative, emotive and misleading arguments.

    The proposal for a plebiscite was always an unnecessary and costly abrogation of parliament’s responsibility. We know that putting matters of human rights to a public poll will be damaging and will encourage extremists on to the streets with a high probability of violence. Turnbull should revisit his change of position as it is clearly wrong and sets a very bad precedent.

    Once and for all let’s leave behind the division and hatred of the Abbott era.

    Over to you Malcolm.

  19. Jaquix

    If the Libs got in and held this plebiscite – they still have to do the actual work – to legislate it. So they still have ways to wriggle out of it. The only thing that gives me comfort is that (a) they wont win any new friends out of the process, and (b) the parliamentary system will not allow them to do anything against the public interest. All a total waste of dollars and human effort. And stirring up all the bigots, many of whom fill the Liberal/National benches.

  20. Trish Corry

    I just watched the Labor Launch. The comparison between Liberal and Labor could not be more evident. Not just on marriage equality, but on everything. The Liberals have made it very clear that they will respect the will of the people’s result – however, in the Liberals you are allowed to cross the floor, there is no solidarity vote. They cannot be trusted on this. They must go. For the sake of progress they must go.

  21. paul walter

    Yet the public seem unable to wake up to it all- the Conservatives are said to be back in front in the polls.

  22. Kaye Lee

    No-one thought Cambell Newman could lose.

  23. Trish Corry

    Corny – I love John Wren. I follow him on Twitter. He always says really good things. Do you know him?

  24. helvityni

    Bob Ellis predicted Campbell Newman’s loss. I did not dare to believe him, but took his predictions more seriously after that. 🙂

    He also believed in Bill Shorten, when so many others did not…

  25. Trish Corry

    Yes, a huge loss with Bob Ellis gone. I followed him for years on his blog. He would discuss the polls, just as Cassidy has done this morning, talking about voting intention, rather than 2pp based on last election. Ellis used to take into account the swing factors across the nation and in particular seats, depending upon the issue.

    I called QLD to win for Labor against Newman, much to the laughter of others, including staunch Labor supporters. At best a few more seats was the expectation. The victory party that night was one of the most overwhelming experiences of my life.

    Newman was gone because the mood of the electorate across so many issues was so hateful towards him.

    Shorten has captured the opposite, rather than negative attacks, he has been building progressively a positive mood across many different issues.

    Turnbull has failed to lead on any particular issue.

    Shorten has the advantage there, when swinging voters look at issues that concern them. Shorten has it covered.

    I call Labor will win this election and there will be no plebiscite. How Shorten manages the backlash from the Anti-Marriage Lobby when the Bill is being prepared to be passed, will test his leadership, to us as the people. But I have faith, taking into account, everything he has done so far, he will put the needs of vulnerable people first and he will not allow the hateful rhetoric of the anti-marriage equality lobby to take hold.

  26. Terry2

    I could not imagine the people of Ashgrove re-electing Campbell Newman just as I cannot imagine the good folk of Dickson re-electing Peter Dutton ; a drover’s dog would surely romp home.

    For Australia’s sake I hope I’m right !

  27. TuffGuy

    Correct me if I am wrong but even if the people of Australia vote a massive YES in the plebiscite it is our politicians who still have the final say and can still vote it down. This would explain Abbott and Turnbull’s choice of a plebiscite, knowing that in the end they will just get to vote no anyway.

  28. Terry2


    That’s true in theory and you can expect that the far right including Abbott, Bernardi, Andrews, Christenson etc would vote against a Bill in the House but it would still have the numbers to be passed : if it didn’t you would have a situation where the servants of the people (the politicians) were refusing to obey the will of the people and that would lead to anarchy.

    Believe it or not, our democracy is still founded on the principle of Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

  29. Trish Corry

    Tony Abbott didn’t think he would be overthrown, but rallying within political parties can see stranger things happen. Particularly when MPs fear they may lose their seats. It would not take much for the anti-marriage equality mps to convince others who may have a decent amount of conservative Christians in their electorate to change their mind to an against vote. The MP here, Michelle Landry has never committed either way (but believes marriage is between a man and a woman). It would not take much to change her mind to suit her own purposes. There will be others just like her.

  30. paul walter

    John Wren, eh? A Hardy soul, to be Frank.

    Trish Corry is right, we must not descend to fatalism, there is too, too much at stake.

    Fwiw, I’ve missed Bob Ellis, who’d have thought I would have greived so long for the old fella, but he was good and a friend at times if only at Table Talk.

    He again and again warned his readers about spin and op-polls.and his commentaries on these leave such a gap, their absence is an ache.

  31. Kyran

    For the life of me, I can’t work this out. There is no compulsion in this proposal that requires people marry people of the same sex. The proposal is merely to allow people of the same sex to marry. I have yet to read any article, anywhere, that the children of same sex couples are, somehow, degenerate. Or that their sexuality is defined by their parents The studies I have read suggest those kids are clearer thinkers and more accepting of difference than most.
    If your ‘god’ doesn’t allow you to marry the person you love, shouldn’t you look for a better ‘god’? Or maybe marry the person your ‘god’ likes?
    What is the problem?
    Terrry2 @ 1202 and hevityni, couldn’t agree more. Mr Ellis had a way of cutting through unholy godliness.
    Thank you Ms Corry. Take care

  32. helvityni

    paul walter,I got a bit teary when reading today about Paul Cox’s death, and finding out that scripts for some of his movies were co-written by Bob Ellis; now both of these very creative men are not here anymore.

  33. paul walter

    Helvitiny, he would have had an utter ball with this unfair.

    No armchair rides this time.

  34. Rossleigh

    Malcolm Turnbull: “With great respect to you. I believe Australians are better than that. I believe we can have a discussion about marriage equality. It can be civil. It can be respectful and we will make a decision as a nation and then, as a nation we will respect the outcome.”

    But today:
    “We’re in a democracy,” Mr Turnbull told the 2DayFM hosts.
    “People will often say in any democratic debate, they’ll often say things that are hurtful and unfair and sometimes cruel, that is part of a debate.
    “The only way to stop people saying things that you find hurtful is to shut down free speech.”

    Is that Turnbull’s way of saying he was wrong?

  35. Möbius Ecko

    F#ck you Turnbull. Only a few scant weeks ago when the question of the inevitable nastiness arose, you promised rules would be put in place to stop it.

    Now you’re making excuses for it.

    Worse than Abbott? By a country mile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page