Why talk about the real victims when you can bash religion instead?

Caption: Bill Leak shone a disturbing spotlight on the terrible reality of life for too many Australian Aboriginal women. Naturally, the left branded him a “racist”

Ideologues have a noticeable habit of picking and choosing when to be outraged. The left is hypersensitive to even the slightest whiff of racism, except when it is anti-white racism.

They are stridently anti-religious: Australia’s state-funded broadcaster, the ABC, obsessively salivated over accusations of child abuse against Christian churches. Yet it can barely rouse itself to mention revelations of staggering rates of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. The discovery of a horrifying reign of depravity by Muslim grooming gangs in the UK doesn’t rate a mention at all.

For a year, ABC journalists Julia Baird and Hayley Gleeson have been bashing religion, in the guise of a “special investigation” blaming religion for creating a culture of domestic violence. Yet the existence of exceptional rates of domestic violence perpetrated within two of their favoured victim groups completely escapes their notice.

Baird and Gleeson have published a subsequent article stating that “One in four churchgoers [are] in abusive relationships.” Although see the devastating critique by Andrew Bolt, who points out that the sample of 438 people from Cumbria in the UK were “entirely self-selected” with “…nearly half the Christians who claimed to have been abused by their partner… living with a non-Christian.” Hardly what you would refer to as a legitimate and unbiased sample.End of quote:

Indeed, the very experts cited by Baird and Gleeson have flatly contradicted their claims.

Dr Steven Tracey, the sole academic source which they quoted to back up their original claims, actually argues against Baird and Gleeson’s position. In fact, in an article for Christianity Today, titled “Headship with Heart, Tracey unequivocally states that “biblical patriarchy prevents abuse.”

Dr Bradford Wilcox subsequently wrote an opinion piece for The Australian titled, “Facts go missing in ABC report on ‘violent Christians’. Clearly, Dr Wilcox didn’t think that Baird and Gleeson were accurately reflecting upon the scientific conclusions that he reached in his research.End of quote:

Yet, despite a year’s worth of investigation into domestic violence, Baird and Gleeson apparently haven’t noticed disturbing rates of domestic violence in the LGBTIQ community.

according to the Australian Government’s website, over 40 per cent of homosexual men and almost 30 per cent of lesbians have experienced DV within a same-sex intimate partner relationship. What’s more, according to the LGBTIQ community itself, this “is twice the rate for men and almost three times that for women, respectively, with a history of only opposite-sex cohabitation.”End of quote:

Perhaps the reason for the journalists’ silence is that these inconvenient facts demolish their entire argument.

a traditional feminist discourse completely falls apart when you’re dealing with those who are in a same-sex relationship. Let’s face it, if you’re a lesbian then there’s obviously no man around to blame, and if you’re a gay man then you can’t both be at fault, can you?! End of quote:

But according to the twisted logic of “intersectionality”, lesbians and gays are “victims”: and thus categorically incapable of being abusers. Another group riding high on the intersectional victim totem pole are Aboriginal Australians, and yet:

The most likely wife-bashers are Aboriginal men, with Aboriginal women at least 31 times more likely to be hospitalised.

Of course, when the late Bill Leak drew attention to this shocking fact, he was pilloried by the left as a “racist”.

Anything rather than admit that their pet victim groups are more abusive than their preferred religious whipping boys.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly