David and the Rainbow Jihadists

David Van Gend recently did that most rare of things – he defended the freedom of his opponents. David’s book, Stealing from the child – the injustices of ‘marriage equality’ has courted controversy. In fact, the book proved so controversial that publisher Connor Court’s usual printer McPherson’s refused to print it. How did van Gend respond to this refusal to print? He defended their right to do so.

David van Gend justified his stance by saying, “It is a shock to find a commercial printer acting as a censor for the gay lobby. That has a chilling effect on free public argument in a free society. However it is within their right as a private company to discriminate against people like me on ideological grounds. I accept that. We are not like some people who would take anti-discrimination action. We do not think those sort of laws are worthy of a free society and we do not use them.”

Now imagine for a moment how the Marriage Equality lobby would respond to a refusal to distribute, Gayby Baby. We all know what would have happened. They would have declared a rainbow jihad against the company involved, and they would have gone to the courts utilising anti-discrimination laws. We have seen exactly this kind of campaign used against any conservatives advocating for traditional marriage. In fact, Van Gend himself has been dragged in front of Queensland’s anti discrimination commission for views on same sex marriage published in the Courier Mail. He’s also has had his practice vandalised and been the target of social media smears.  

Although the government has not outlawed the printing of Van Gend’s book, it’s important to note that a printer refusing to print a book is a free speech issue in the sense that it is a form of cultural censorship. Naturally, this culture of censorship is only targeted at conservative voices. There is a joke that’s attributed to Ronald Reagan: “An American tells a Russian that the United States is so free he can stand in front of the White House and yell, ”To hell with Ronald Reagan.” The Russian replies: ”That’s nothing. I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell, ‘To hell with Ronald Reagan,’ too.” In the People’s Republic of Australia it’s increasingly the case that one can stand out the front of a church and say, “To hell with those bigoted Christians.” The rainbow jihadist could reply, “That’s nothing, I can go on the ABC and say, ‘to hell with those bigoted Christians,’ too.”

Brendan O’Neill wrote in Spiked, that the same sex marriage debate is not about gay marriage at all, but gay validation. It’s about the government declaring full recognition of gay relationships and effectively outlawing belief in traditional marriage. This is why many in the Same Sex Marriage lobby never got behind Senator David Leyonhjelm’s private members bill because it preserved the right of people like David van Gend to publicly support traditional marriage. It’s very important that we don’t advance one freedom by denying another. People like Van Gend rightly fear that legalisation of Same Sex Marriage will be tied in with a whole lot of anti-discrimination laws targeted at them.

GetUp’s campaign against the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite has called the equal funding for the No campaign, funding hate. In one sense, I agree that our government shouldn’t be using our taxes to fund propaganda for either side. However, this isn’t GetUp’s argument, they don’t disapprove of government funding for political campaigns, they just don’t like government funding for political campaigns they don’t like. This is increasingly the tactic of the left and rainbow jihadists; to use any means possible to censor views they don’t like. Considering much of our limited protections for free speech in this country rest on the ‘reasonable person’ test, it’s important they don’t win this culture war.

Only a decade ago, the Australian parliament voted in favour of defining marriage as being between a man and woman. Regardless of the outcome of any plebiscites, votes in parliament, or High Court Rulings, many people will continue to hold that view. It’s extremely important that the gaining of one freedom, the right of same sex couples to marry, isn’t followed by the restriction of another freedom, the right of people to believe and act in response to that belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The seismic change in public opinion on same sex marriage has been achieved through freedom of speech. Activists for the marriage equality cause have been free to advocate a view that until very recently many found distasteful. We need to have some faith that a continued discussion where everyone is free to speak their view and act on their conscience will continue to advance freedom. Dragging people through the courts because of their deeply held beliefs is completely unacceptable and will only harden resistance to same SSM and greater equality for gays and lesbians.

As a libertarian I don’t like government meddling into the personal lives of individuals, however, if it is to meddle it should do so equally. Therefore, I could never agree with the continued restriction on the right of same sex couples to marry. But, I defend David’s right to his beliefs. Whatever one might think of David van Gend’s views, we can all learn from his defence of freedom.Ultimately, if we are only willing to defend the freedom of people we like or agree with then that’s not freedom at all.

Justin Campbell is on the executive committee of LibertyWorks. This article was also published by The Spectator Australia on 3 Oct 2016.

Follow me

Justin Campbell

Justin works in technology and has degrees in accounting and economics. He lives in Brisbane, Queensland. He is a reformed leftie having previously been a member of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. Justin is passion about protecting free markets and a free society. He is interested in free speech advocacy, social liberties and free market economic reform.

Can you read more of Justin's writing at www.justinscampbell.com
Justin Campbell
Follow me

33 Comments on "David and the Rainbow Jihadists"

  1. If you don’t like gay marriage don’t get married to someone who’s gay!

  2. Rainbow Jihadists? Only one side of this debate is taking as its premise a book that indicates it’s okay to kill people for being gay…

  3. “It’s about the government declaring full recognition of gay relationships and effectively outlawing belief in traditional marriage. ”

    How exactly will your “belief” in “traditional” marriage be outlawed if SSM is legalised?

    And honestly, which is more important? The mental health and well-being of a sizeable minority in Australia who want equal human rights? Or the ability of conservatives to comfortably cling to the idea that marriage is a religious institution, and a privilege only they can enjoy?

    “However, this isn’t GetUp’s argument, they don’t disapprove of government funding for political campaigns, they just don’t like government funding for political campaigns they don’t like.”

    Many of the complaints aimed at the potential “No” campaign advertising for the marriage plebiscite are due to the fact that “No” campaigners would not be restricted to only including true or accurate information in their commercials. So essentially, they could put up all the hateful misinformation that they saw fit, despite the fact that it in no way represents the LGBT community or their intentions.

    • Because the agenda of the gay community is make their lifestyle the norm and heterosexuality the abnormal – already the agenda is in our schools teaching our children the lgbt lifestyle through the very unsafe school program which came in on a lie that it was an anti-bullying program that it isn’t. Came in through the Andrews gov in Victoria, Simon Birmingham and James Merlino ok’ing it and spending $8 million of our money to do so although they ‘forgot’

    • to inform parents what they were teaching their children. Another $21 million of our money is to be spent and they will are targeting 4 year olds. Your little 4 year old will be able to ‘transgender’ – although child health professionals know that children usually grow out of ss attraction during puberty, our gov. takes no notice of them, nor of the ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’ i.e. people such as myself and every other concerned parent and grandparent. D.Andrews takes no notice of them even though he knows that the childhood professionals have spoken out against this program – D.Andrews has to go, he is so detrimental to Victoria in so many areas.

    • and if legalized it will mean extra money for the economy, something we sorely need with our over-dependence on mineral resources

    • We could reskill miners to be marriage celebrants.

  4. Marriage is bullshit.Its just a way of controlling people.SSM will be only good for Lawyers to make more money outa divorce .I dont give a shit if they want to get married but Australia has got bigger issues like jobs and the take over of our country by foriegners.Only 30% of Australia is owned by us ..

  5. This post is trying to drum up support by pushing the proposition that allowing gay marriage will prohibit traditional marriage.

    This is exceedingly dishonest. No-one anywhere is proposing to outlaw traditional marriage.

  6. I remember when growing up (in the UK) the controversy of choosing to get married in a registry office by a celebrant, it was legal but kind of frowned on. Today no one batters an eyelid at those decisions. if you believe that marriage should be between a heterosexual couple in a church, fine keep those rules in your church. I don’t believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry denigrates the sanctity of marriage – it is still two humans committing to spend their life together. Divorce was always seen to be a sin too yet I have seen plenty of (heterosexual) couples who have religious affiliations with a church get divorced. Who says their love is (was) “better” than that of a ‘gay’ couple. When I fill out forms etc I am proud of my status as being “married” why should that be any different for a person who loves someone of the same not opposite sex?

  7. Conservatives are now painting themselves as some kind of persecuted minority victims. If you publically disagree with them, you are ‘suppressing their opinions’. This, in spite of having their views widely validated, by a conservative government that is actively trying to ‘wind back’ every progressive measure that has been introduced over the years.

  8. Most western countries have abandoned their Judeo-Christian belief system in favour of a belief system ” we will do what is right in our own eyes regardless of the consequences”. I wont be around in 50 years’ time but fear that those living then will be in a totalitarian world with no free speech run by homosexuals and lesbian lefties where beastiality, paedophilia and other disgusting practices are considered normal and encouraged by the State……… we are on a slippery slope to destruction of our own choosing.

  9. Jihad as in holy war they are the ones raging Jihad not the gays . I am a christain BTW

    • Actually it doesnt mean Holy War. It means struggle against unbelievers; or the strugle to live by the Quran.

      So in a sense marriage equality activists are waging a jihad against non believers. Obviously the title isn’t intended to be taken literally anyway.

  10. Are you retarded. We do not live in a Republic. This article is trash.

  11. TRUTH!!!!!!……..

  12. Safe schools is a Marxist agenda to destroy children, families and Males………..

    • What exactly does Marxism say about homosexuality? Let me answer. Marx: Absolutely nothing. Engels? Two sentences, both of which would be regarded as unforgivably bigoted by today’s standards. People who throw the term around clearly identify themselves as crackpots before they have a chance to say anything else.

  13. Why did I get this post? Shove your Cultural Marxist crap up ya fuckin’ arses.

Comments are closed.