The Australian Labor Party has had some policy issues which with we, at AFF, disagree. I am including just a few such as:

  • illegally displaying pornographic magazines to children
  • free standing abortion clinics
  • sexual penetration of children
  • legal prostitution
  • age of sexual consent at 13
  • absolute job preference for union members
  • dealing in heroin removed from the Major Crime Index
  • homosexuals adopting children

The Australian Capital Territory Labor Party Platform of 1991/92 in their policy handbook states under HEALTH that the ACT will “Have as a priority a free-standing abortion clinic.” (Page 43, 5.2.4)

Under INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS the ACT ALP says it will “Legislate to provide that ... unionists be given preference in filling vacan cies and in promotions.” (Page 50, 3.3.4) They also say that they will “Legislate to ensure that the provision of absolute preference for union members in all employment matters.” (Page 54, 3.11.3)

Under the title LAW REFORM AND CIVIL RIGHTS it is stated that they will “Reform the law ... so that sexual acts ... between consent ing minors above the age of 13 ... are not contrary to criminal law.” (Page 58, 9.5)

The ACT Al P handbook also states that “All ALP members of the legislature will be bound by the ALP Platform.” (Page 3,4.1)

In Queensland it was the Beattie ALP Govt that initiated the nice-sounding “Boutique Brothels”. The Cain ALP Govt in Melbourne was the first to set up legal prostitution in Australia. It certainly seems OK for the ALP to allow our girls to continue in this very dangerous profession. When AFF Director Jack Sonnemann appeared about this on the Today Show, he said he was sure the QId ALP Premier or Steve Liebmann would not want their own daughters working in any brothel, “boutique” or otherwise!

There is a law on the books in Qid for the entire time Beattie was premier. This law was passed after intensive lobbying efforts by all of our readers in Queensland and by Jack Sonnemann meeting with Queensland political and church leaders. This existing law prohibits the display of pornographic magazines to children in the family marketplace. The Beattie ALP Govt has refused to enforce this sensible legislation.

The Queensland law simply states that if a publication contains editorial or pictorial content of sex or nudity; if it contains advertisements and order forms for products or services of a sexual nature; if it contains ads for brothels, homosexual sex services and “Adult Only” products and services then such a publication is deemed to be for an “Adult Only” clientele. According to law in Queensland the covers of such publications cannot be displayed in the family marketplace where children have unrestricted access. The ALP in Queensland refuses to enforce this law. ALL Queensland readers should ask QLD’s new premier if she will enforce the law.

In the Victorian Mansard House of Assembly of 20 September 1990 the Kirner ALP government was bragging about the ALP clearance rate for Major Crimes. Believe it or not, the ALP government in Victoria had just removed trafficking in heroin and sexual penetration of a child from the Major Crime Index. Then Shadow Police Minister Peter McNamara is quoted as demanding, “The Minister should respond! If the sexual penetration of children and dealing in heroin are no longer considered major crimes there should be a major reassessment of the government priorities.” We at AFF agree.

A Coalition media rdease (ignored by this nation’s media!) entitled “Police in Crisis” was issued stating “... Labor amendments to the Ma jor Crime Index which police use to grade serious crimes, offences such as the trafficking in heroin and the sexual penetration of children are no longer considered major crimes.”

The media release continues “... previously the rape of a woman by three persons was to be considered three separate offences, but now this same incident was counted as one offence of rape.”

According to the Canberra Times of June 93 the ACT Labor Party adopts a policy to ensure that homosexuals have access to adoption. The ALP in the ACT wants to ensure that access to adopting children shall not be restricted by the “sexual preference of those applying to adopt”.

The Australian Federation for the Family has for many years been in the forefront of the battle to protect children from the further corrup tion of our culture. We find it hard to believe that ANY political leader in ANY civilised country would allow it’s women and children to continue be placed in such danger.

The OECD in March last year listed Australia once again at the top of the list for rape and violent assault. It is a well known fact that Aus tralia also leads the world in youth suicide - it is not so well known that we lead the world in ecstasy use and amphetamine use!

Playing with fire

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The finding against two Catch the Fire pastors is a deeply disturbing glimpse into Victoria's politically correct future

Herald Sun, 22 Dec 2004

HOW odd that a Christian pastor has been found guilty of vilifying Islam after quoting the Koran.

Is this really what Premier Steve Bracks intended with his absurd racial and religious vilification law?

Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Danny Nalliah were last week found to have committed religious vilification after the first trial under this new law.

Judge Michael Higgins found Scot offended by quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter".

Yes, Scot made his audience of 250 Christians laugh at Islam. He didn't inspire them to burn a mosque, shout insults at Muslims, plant bombs or paint nasty slogans on fences.

He just made the audience laugh. And that in Victoria is now a crime.

But that's not the only absurdity in a case that has so far cost these two pastors more than $200,000 in costs.

The absurdities start with the excuse the Premier gave in 2001 for imposing this law, threatening us with six months' jail and $6000 fines.

"Victorians take considerable pride in the fact that people from . . . diverse backgrounds live together harmoniously in our community," he told Parliament.

Yet even though we got on well, we now had to limit our free speech -- despite Bracks conceding "freedom of expression is crucial to our democratic society".

Publicly saying hurtful things about a race or religion would now be illegal.

Fear not, Bracks soothed. This law was "confined to prohibit only the most noxious forms of conduct", and would "promote racial and religious tolerance".

But it wasn't and hasn't.

With a new law to play with, it was inevitable activists would try to use it.

Meet May Helou, an official of the Islamic Council of Victoria, who'd also been hired by the Equal Opportunity Commission to ensure "Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws".

In 2002, Helou alerted several Muslim converts at the ICV to a seminar on jihad to be run by a Pentecostal church, Catch the Fire.

AS two of the converts told the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing, she urged them to go so it wouldn't be held, one explained, "without any Muslims present".

So they went, and were horrified to hear Scot, from Muslim Pakistan, discuss the Koran. Once they'd reported their horror to Helou, the case against Scot and Nalliah, the Catch the Fire leader, was on.

Already we see how this law inflamed tensions. Without it, the three Muslims would probably not have gone to Scot's seminar to be offended. Nor would Christians since, in retaliation, be going to Muslim events to do their own monitoring.

What a farce. Why, for instance, was the Islamic Council now so righteous about vilification when it voted to install as Australia's Mufti Sheik Taj El-din El-Hilali, who has praised suicide bombers as "heroes", accused Jews of using "sex and abominable acts of buggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world" and called September 11 "God's work against oppressors" -- as well as "the work of 100 per cent American gangs"?

Why was the Islamic Council silencing two pastors who'd laughed at their religion, when it refused to sack its own Mufti who'd shamed it?

So what did Judge Higgins finally find in his summary judgment, released in the Friday before Christmas, with the full judgment and penalties still to come? Most of his summary criticises Scot, who had "made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct". The judge gave 13 examples, starting like this:

"Pastor Scot, during the course of the seminar, made statements --

"(1) that the (Koran) promotes violence, killing and looting

"(2) that it treats women badly ...

"(5) that Allah is not merciful and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing ...

"(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews, humiliate them and fight them until they accept true religion (sic)..."

Indeed, at least eight of the accusations arose from Scot quoting the Koran at the seminar, and -- it seems to me -- for the most part accurately. The Koran indeed tells Muslims to "kill disbelievers where you find them" in defending Islam, to "fight those who believe not in God ... until they pay the jizya (a penalty tax for non-Muslims)", and to share loot after a war.

It also instructs men how to punish "ill-conduct" in their wives -- "admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly)".

Thieves must indeed have hands lopped off, and so on.

So what did Scot, in those 13 examples the judge gave, say that was actually false?

Higgins in his summary does not say -- other than that he used wrong immigration statistics and failed to cite a verse of the Koran that claimed Allah was indeed merciful.

But he ruled that in quoting the Koran Scot "failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, (and) that he preached a literal translation of the Koran and of Muslims' religious practices which was not mainstream ..."

Perhaps Scot should indeed have said more clearly that many Muslims would not accept his interpretation of the Koran -- or, more likely, were too peace-loving to take all its instructions so seriously. Certainly he and Nalliah put their case more stridently and luridly than was wise or fair, but that's just my opinion.

But is Scot's "literal" reading quite so far out of the Muslim mainstream?

Our own Mufti this year told Muslims to "prove our manhood towards God" in "a war of infidels". Melbourne's Sheik Mohammed Omran, the influential head of the Islamic Information and Support Centre of Australia, last year told SBS jihad was appropriate -- but outside Australia.

Feminists have also railed against Islam's treatment of women, as Iran this year sentenced to death even a mentally handicapped teenager who'd been prostituted by her mother.

Only last year, a Melbourne Muslim told a court she'd helped her husband to torch their shop because the Koran allowed him to beat her.

AND last week we learned Prince Charles had met Islamic and Christian leaders to try to stop Islamic countries from killing Muslims who'd become Christian.

It seems to me mainstream Islam is not as obviously sweet and peaceful as the judge appears to suggest, and it's perhaps naive to have laws which make Scot guilty of vilification - and fine him - for insisting it isn't.

No, not naive. It's unfair and it's dangerous - not only to our right to speak our mind, but to our right to demand reform of a religion that needs a frank debate.

by Midge Decter

The term "civil marriage" or "civil union" has become a euphemism for both the legal and social legitimation of homosexuality. In the current public conversation the phrase no longer means the wedding of a man and woman conducted by a civil authority - a town clerk or a justice of the peace or a judge. In that old sense of the term, of course, every legal marriage is a civil one, because the ministers and priests and rabbis who conduct weddings according to the established rites of their respective religions are at the same time acting with full civil authority to do so. The fact that so many of the fully sanctioned marriages in recent years have turned out to be too casual and thin-blooded to hold out for very long against the trials of real life is nothing to the point. For while the number of easy-come, easy-go marriages in our midst speaks to the failure of spiritual education in this great, rich, lucky, but somewhat spiritually impoverished land, there has not until now been any kind of real assault on what marriage is supposed to mean: one man, one woman, formally and officially joined in the hope of becoming a real family.

Today what is being called "civil marriage" is a kind of trick of language, a term used as a political euphemism for surrendering to the most recent demand of the homosexual rights movement. For now what it is intended to mean is that the mating of two men or two women must be regarded by society as equally hallowed. The surrender to this idea has taken place very quickly, and I think we cannot understand it without going over the history of how we got here.

Homosexual rights is an idea that began to assume the force and energy of a movement hard on the heels of the women's movement (which itself, of course, gained energy and force from the civil rights movement that preceded it). It began with the demand that homosexuals no longer be considered pariahs, bedeviled by the authorities and viewed with unconcealed discomfort by many of their fellow citizens. In the abstract, this demand seemed very reasonable, particularly among people still stung by the shame of the country's long history of both attitude and behavior toward the blacks. The movement was what you might call a smash success - perhaps because it was the third in a row and thus was presenting its case to an already softened public, or perhaps because to assent quickly to the movement's claims made it a lot easier to avert one's eyes from homosexuality itself. In any case, rapid is the word.

Let me tell you the story of two parades. Some years ago my husband and I happened to be strolling through midtown Manhattan on a sunny afternoon when we came upon a large and noisy crowd lined up on both sides of Fifth Avenue. We had quite forgotten that that Sunday was the day of the annual gay pride parade. It was, as the kids say, a very "in your face" occasion. A number of the men had made-up faces and were dressed in satin evening gowns, blowing kisses to the crowd from the backs of open cars. The parade passed by St. Patrick's Cathedral, and some of the marchers ran up the front steps of the cathedral virtually naked and proceeded to express their opinion of the Church by going through a repertory of obscene gestures (the following year the cathedral was barricaded). We left wondering how all this would sit with the city authorities. If they had any views of the matter, they kept them to themselves.

A number of years passed, and last June one of my daughters and I were running an errand downtown on a Sunday afternoon, and again, all unthinking, we happened on this year's parade. As we approached the corner there hove into view a large, simply decorated float on which were seated a group of people, including children, smiling and waving to the crowd. The sign on the float announced that its passengers were representing the Episcopal Archdiocese of New York and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. As the old commercial for Virginia Slims cigarettes had it, "You've come a long way, baby."

Put on the Defensive

In the years that stretched between those two parades, the country had been confronted with the phenomenon of AIDS, a mortal disease that at the beginning of the epidemic in America was contracted in one of two ways: either a common form of homosexual mating or the use of dirty needles for injecting heroin. And AIDS, it will be remembered, was for a time threatening virtually to decimate the male homosexual community. Though at first there was a good deal of lying about the problem of AIDS - "We are all at risk," said the sympathizers and those raising funds for medical research to find a cure - the lie could not be sustained for long. Heroin addicts, prostitutes, and recipients of tainted blood aside, among homosexuals it was and is spread through a kind of blind and rampant promiscuity that had been growing ever more blind and rampant in certain institutions of the homosexual community, primarily the bars and the bathhouses. In any case, what the Cathedral of St. John the Divine was revving up to embrace, Mother Nature was obdurately rejecting. The impulse of compassion for the discriminated against had become so habitual that rather than expressions of horror, what the discovery of AIDS elicited from the community of the sensitive was a great outpouring of sympathy. Though AIDS was a disease contracted by a species of sexual behavior that might have straightened the curls of many a fashionable lady to hear about, the issue was spoken of in polite circles as a kind of mysterious tragedy that struck out of the blue. And finally, men dying of the disease were not merely pitied but positively beatified among the artistic community in both song and story - song and story, indeed, in which the word "angels" figured heavily.

It goes without saying that there are homosexuals who are not and have never been activists, who do not storm the streets, who do not frequent the bathhouses, and who keep their sex lives - as most of the rest of us do - to themselves. But in the current debate these homosexuals are, alas, irrelevant. They are neither the stuff of which movements and flamboyant public gestures are made, nor are they people whose ambition is to overturn the conditions of ordinary, everyday life.

Eight years ago, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states in so many words that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Imagine: a congressional act that certifies something - more properly, reminds us of something - that one might have thought should need no reminding. Just think of it: a defense of marriage - not from a galloping divorce rate, not from marriages more easily sundered than many business contracts, and not from the idea put about some years ago by the women's movement that marriage is no more than a form of indentured servitude for women. No, the members of Congress who proposed and then passed this Act were defending marriage from the already looming demand that it be redefined to include homosexual coupledom. As we now know, the act was insufficient to hold off the assault from the idea that marriage be defined as an act of commitment between any two people of whatever sex. Imagine again: many of the leading defenders of marriage in the land propose that we - at least the citizens of three-quarters of the states - include among the articles of the Constitution a statement that denies definitively the demand that homosexuals be granted the legal right to marry.

Thus doth compassion, combined with a certain willful blindness, make cowards of us all. A culture grown sick with the refusal to uphold common wisdom - not to speak of common sense - sinks to requiring the services of politics and politicians in the face of difficulty.

The Real Stakes

Because the question of homosexual marriage has at this time been left in the hands of judges - mere legislation having proved to be of little avail against the forces of activism - we have been treated to the sight of homosexual couples celebrating outside of courthouses and city halls in such places as San Francisco and Boston. By the way, and not surprisingly, it seems that a number of the male couples admitted they had no intention of getting married - it was merely their having won the battle that they were there to celebrate - while every one of the female couples declared their intention to marry. I say not surprisingly because - some might think it impolite of me to point out - homosexual men are essentially no more like lesbians than heterosexual men are like the women whom they either merely pursue or marry. In short, men are men and women are women, whatever their sexual proclivities. Which brings us to the nature of modern, that is to say, voluntary, marriage.

In the contemporary world, marriage is the result of a voluntary agreement between two people that they will swear to make a home together and be faithful to one another. It is, in other words, a deal. Cleave unto me, says the man, and I will cherish and protect you; cleave unto me, says the woman, and I will make your life comfortable, bear your children, and be faithful to you. Of course, this deal is sometimes - nowadays, indeed, fearfully often - honored in the breach. Nevertheless, it is the best arrangement ever devised for those, meaning all of us, who are considerably lower than the angels. Nor is it merely happenstance that so very large a number of these deals are consecrated by formal ritual in houses of worship, where they are blessed in the name not only of the state but of God.

Female homosexuals who have achieved coupledom tend to approximate this arrangement far more closely than do male homosexuals - even those male homosexuals who remain together for life (and who are, by the way, many, many fewer in number). Why is this? Because, again, women are different from men. They wish - correction: need - to be monogamous and faithful; it is in their nature. Men, on the other hand, in the most elementary sense of the nature of males, have impulses to promiscuity. A woman says to her prospective mate, "Be faithful to me and I promise that I will make it worth your while." It is a bargain men who marry not only agree to but in a very important sense are saved by. Being women, lesbians are most often given to a facsimile of this same deal. Moreover, they can be, and often are, mothers and thus inclined to stability. Men who are sexually attracted to, and even truly love, other men have no such exchange to make. In an all-male society, promiscuity is thus the norm. And as things have grown easier and more comfortable for men to be openly, often flagrantly, homosexual in our ever more tolerant society, the promiscuity of the bathhouse and orgy has become ever more the norm. Hence, for example, the wildfire of HIV and AIDS (and now, I am told, certain even newer forms of venereal disease). That is why the right to marriage, fought for with every weapon at their command by homosexual men, would - or must I say will - be largely acted on by lesbians.

Why, then, are these men fighting so hard for it? The answer is, the right to legal marriage that they are demanding is not about them - it is about the rest of us. It is, and is meant to be, a spit in the eye of the way we live. And whatever the variety of efforts to oppose it - another law or even a whole set of laws, let's say, or a constitutional amendment - none of it will matter unless and until all the nice and decent people in America begin to understand that we are in a crisis, and it must be up to them to sustain, and with all good cheer defend, the way they lead their lives.

The Best Defense

I tend to oppose a constitutional amendment because I fear the oh so easy use of that great document to deal with problems that arise from this society's sloth and unwillingness to face the mess that has become of our culture in general and the issue of sex and family in particular. It would be a shame, I think, if we had to tinker with so rare and precious an inheritance as our Constitution because people who hate the way we live storm the streets while others try to look away. Also, we should keep in mind the nature of politicians. A key part of their job is to keep people happy. Indeed, doing so is the way most of them got that job in the first place. That is why only a very few moral heroes among them risk being frowned at by their constituents, or worse, making them angry. There is no sense in anyone's complaining about this; it is in the nature of our political system - and it is the best system that has yet been devised by man. But politicians simply do not - I would even say cannot - make useful arbiters of cultural problems, let alone spiritual ones like this.

Let me return to the idea being proposed by some that we invent a kind of second-level marriage - call it "civil union" - that would provide homosexual couples with certain legal and financial marital rights without the full standing of heterosexual marriage. I am not against allowing a homosexual to be his partner's legal heir, for instance, or to be granted official status as rightful partner in a hospital emergency room or other such things. But this idea of creating a new level of marriage - call it whatever you want - smacks of the congenital passion of politicians to invent a compromise where none will serve. For it is not compromise that the homosexual rights movement is after. Nor do they even want the standing in the community that heterosexuals have. They are radicals. What they want is not a room of their own; they want to bring the whole damned house down.

By now we as a society have pretty much ceased the persecution of homosexuals. They are not ostracized from polite society - and indeed, if truth be told, many of them never were. In addition, they now freely camp around to a most appreciative audience on prime-time television and, as we know, have for some time served as the arbiters of high fashion. In New York City they have a high school that has now become an official part of the city's public school system. And though they have been seen on the newscasts standing outside the San Francisco courthouse smiling and waving their new marriage licenses, it is vitally important to remember that they are the denizens of a radical movement: I will say it again, they do not want what the rest of us have - they want to bring the whole house down.

So if the lady tends to be against a constitutional amendment and opposes unequivocally the idea of civil union, what does she want? The answer is, I want us to stick up for ourselves and the way we live, be as mighty a force in the culture as we are entitled to be if nothing else by virtue of our sheer numbers. I want us to resist all attacks on the way we live, whether from our kids, our grandkids, their momentary culture heroes, or from the overpaid, mindless, sheep-like followers of fashion in the press and academic community who make so much noise in the world around us every day. In other words, let's take back our country. Let us be decent, civil and even loving to our homosexual fellow citizens; but draw the line on what they stand for and on everything else that makes light of our existence.

For the privilege of living in the most nobly founded, the freest, and the richest country in the world we owe nothing less, not only to ourselves but also to the oncoming tide of generations. We are given the choice of leaving them with a blessing or a curse. Not so many people in the world have that choice. I hope we can go down in history as having deserved it.

Copyright © 2004. Permission to reprint in whole or part is hereby granted, provided a version of the following credit is used: "Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College ("

The Age, Monday, Dec 20: "Freedom of religion is...specifically guaranteed by the Australian Constitution. The freedom to worship as one chooses is entrenched as a right...The same cannot be said of free speech, for which there is no constitutional guarantee." click for full article

Friday, Dec 17: Catch The Fire Ministries and co-respondents Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found to have breached Section 8 of the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act 2001. The judgement summary was handed down in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal today by Judge Higgins, in favour of the complainant, the Islamic Council of Victoria.

In his summary Judge Higgins named statements said to be made by Pastor Scot at the seminar, and then concluded that Pastor Scot vilified. Many of these statements were direct references from the Qur'an.

The truth is no defense against either vilification or defamation in Australia.  I was issued with Supreme Court writs several years ago for acurately quoting a letter from a politician.

It's time for something to be done.

#1 Prayer

#2 In a democracy, if the outcry is sufficient, almost anything can be changed.  Click to write to the Attorney General Mr Philip Ruddock, your State Attorney General and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. 

  • If you are concerned that defamation and vilification be subject to the truth of a matter, let them know.  Ask them to tell you what can be done to change the law/act.
  • If you are concerned that your rights to express your beliefs as a Christian or to quote the Bible (on such subjects as homosexuality, etc) are in jeopardy, let them know.

This is a timely issue - they are hearing from a wide cross-section of the community at this time because of the Gunns/Greens writs*, so strategically your email or letter is

Click for's report on the Catch the Fire issue.

* On the same day the judgement against the Melbourne pastors was handed down, Senator Nettle (Green, NSW) said, "...This is an attack on free speech and democracy." He was referring not to Pastors Nalliah and Scot, but to writs issued against 20 Greens.

"This case is putting free speech on trial. If Gunns are successful in getting injunctions against protesters then they will have effectively made political protest against corporations illegal. 

"This suit is clearly intended to bully into silence politicians, protesters, and anyone attempting to exercise their democratic right to speak out," said Sen Nettle.

 See the full report

As seldom as we seem to have anything in common with the Greens, the fact that we are lobbying at the same time on similar issues is a tremendous advantage.

That was the battle cry of Shepparton, Victoria's local community concerns group, The Goulburn Valley Community Action Against Pornography.

Shepparton News, 30 Nov 2004, had pictured on its front page a large sign that reads, "Club X No Way" and contains a headline that says, 'Passionate Plea Against Porn".

Canberra's professional pornography apologist Fiona Patten says "they were experiencing more protest in Shepparton than they had in other areas."

The usual lies were spread out of Canberra about me (keynote speaker) but the almost 1000 people at the public rally heard the truth about the clear link between pornography and rape!

I was invited to address the public rally, speak to youth and community leaders and speak in several combined church services to help the women, children and families stop the application made for a Club X Mega Porn Supermarket in Shepparton.

Business leaders, Aboriginal leaders, church leaders, youth leaders, community leaders, families and individuals young and old all came out to express their opposition to this super porno outlet.   One excellent speaker has just been awarded the Boy's Town "Father of the Year" award!  The two aboriginal ladies were terrific!  They simply stated 'we don't want it', 'stay away from Shepparton', 'we were here first and we don't want you here' etc.  They were great.  

Horns were honking by passing cars, trucks and semi's because two of Shepparton's young girls were holding a placard on the footpath beside the public rally that said, "Honk Horn For No Porn"!  Fantasic.

After being attacked in the media by the porn professionals the TV and newspaper reporters at the rally I feel confiden t that I presented a clear and concise picture of why I was there and what we stood for.  Under my picture the paper's caption read, "National anti-pornography campaigner Jack Sonnemann's message rang loud and clear at yesterday's rally - 'pornography causes rape'.  As pornography increases, more women in Shepparton will be raped and more children will be molested".

I was able to quote from numerous scientific, peer reviewed studies that link pornography with rape and no-one left the rally without that fact firmly implanted in their minds.

The Goulburn Valley Community Action Against Pornography is a committee made up of strong Christians and have stood up to the wimpish councillors in Shepparton.  They have made it very clear that the community does not want Club X, they have documented the proven causal relationship between porn and rape, they have made newspaper headlines and television appearances.  They have asked Club X to show how their products will benefit Shepparton and of course no-one from Club X or Canberra's porn industry would debate me.  They cannot defend what they publish.

The Goldburn Valley community group has really done this right.  Please visit their excellent website at and see how to protest if the mega porno supermarkets try to come into your city.  Send them an encouraging email and you can even contact the Shepparton newspaper and Council through their website.  It's great!

Please pray for them - they are in the thick of the battle.

About A.F.F.

We have been full time lobbyists for Aussie families since 1983.  AFF is dedicated to upholding Biblical family values, promoting a Biblical Christian worldview, and educating and mobilising concerned individuals to positively affect their homes, communities, country and world.

We not only encourage Christians to be "salt" and "light", but provide credible strategies for doing so.  One of our specific goals is the removal of pornography from the family marketplace where children have access.

Contact A.F.F.

Australian Federation for the Family
c/o Grove Post Office
TAS 7109

Email Us

Come and Join Us

Back to top