WRITE TO: P0 Box 1, South­port 4215 EMAIL: ed­i­to­rial@gold­ FACE­BOOK: face­­coast­bul­letin

The Gold Coast Bulletin - - OPINION -

OUR Par­lia­ment’s lat­est ef­fort to di­min­ish the power of or­di­nary peo­ple in our com­mu­nity is the Cash­less Food Card. The mil­lion­aires who own the com­pa­nies which pro­duce the sil­i­con chips and au­toma­tons which take work­ers’ jobs have tran­si­tioned into buy­ing up homes in towns and cities and land formerly owned by farm­ers.

How­ever, its roll­out is be­ing “tri­alled” in indige­nous nations – per­haps a land grab but it also af­fects city dwellers and job­less peo­ple ev­ery­where. The ef­fect of this Cash­less Food Card will mean indige­nous peo­ple – who have evolved over 60,000 years to ab­sorb food most ef­fi­ciently over the boom and bust na­ture of the Aus­tralian con­ti­nent – will be more sus­cep­ti­ble to health prob­lems with the glut of food avail­able to those with money to pay for it.

Us­ing this card will mean those who eat less and pre­fer to spend money on ed­u­ca­tion or mort­gages and bills or sav­ing to start a busi­ness or to en­ter­tain them­selves to di­min­ish stress will be forced to buy food they do not need and to­tally dis­em­power them.


THE Aus­tralian Chris­tian Lobby says it has lit­tle money for its cam­paign for a No vote on gay mar­riage. How­ever, the ACL is based in Can­berra, so it’s easy to call a joint press con­fer­ence with the am­bas­sadors of the US, Ireland, France, Ger­many, Spain and the Nether­lands, plus the High Com­mis­sion­ers of the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Malta – among oth­ers.

Then the ACL can back up the claim in its re­cent ad that “in coun­tries which have gay mar­riage, par­ents have lost the right to choose”. It can stand in front of th­ese diplo­mats and tell them just what it is which par­ents in their coun­tries can no longer do. And then it can say to each diplo­mat, one af­ter an­other, “That’s right, isn’t it?”


If some­body 20 or 30 years ago had sug­gested that mar­riage laws be changed to al­low same sex cou­ples to marry it would have been met with dis­be­lief and ridicule. Now, we are se­ri­ously dis­cussing it, and it may hap­pen, and this is what both­ers me. What prece­dent will be set? You would have to be ex­tremely naive and short­sighted if you think it will stop here. It will be only the be­gin­ning. How many more amend­ments will it take be­fore a mar­riage be­comes mean­ing­less?

Do we amend the laws to al­low bigamy and polygamy? Some­body sug­gested the age of con­sent be low­ered. To what? Should we lower the age re­stric­tion on mar­riages? Th­ese con­cepts and many oth­ers may seem far­fetched, but will they be far­fetched 20 or 30 years?

I urge peo­ple to think long and hard be­fore sup­port­ing this plebiscite. Think be­yond the tip of your nose. A dumb per­son may have an ex­cuse for not think­ing, but for an av­er­age per­son that re­fuses to think there is no for­giv­ing.

I have no prob­lems with same sex cou­ples co­hab­it­ing. I wish them well, but th­ese peo­ple, like any­one else, needs to think of the long-term con­se­quences of this amend­ment.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.