Australian hypocrisy’s name is Lisa Wilkinson

Christ, can we please all just shut up about Israel bloody Folau?

No? Ok then, here’s our 3rd sodding blog post in a week about the ridiculous saga…..

For those who care enough to continue reading this blog and this specific post but aren’t bothered enough to keep up with the news, which I suppose is probably the square root of bugger all people, the latest update is as follows;

Go Fund Me have taken down his donation page because it breaches their terms of service.

The money will be refunded to the donors.

The Sunday Project (“prow-ject” in the vernacular) host, Lisa Wilkinson, berated a God botherer in a hard-hitting interview last night because he was of the wrong opinion.

Firstly, the Go Fund Me terms and conditions are linked on our previous offering on this subject if you’re curious. They really don’t explicitly exclude Israel’s campaign, but have a big clause about the website’s discretionary powers which would allow them to shut him or anyone else down at a whim. The reporting of this that tries to claim a breach of terms is either wrong or duplicitous. At this stage of the culture war, it’s probably going to save you time if you just assume the latter.

In summary, they are a private website and the contract you sign when you use it allows them to do whatever the hell they want. That isn’t the same as pre-emptively banning on principle Israel Folau’s campaign or similar campaigns.

Refunding the money will be interesting, however. As commenter, Sgt 73rd Regt mentions on our previous post, the inference is that the money goes straight to a trust bank account and doesn’t sit on the Go Fund Me account earning interest for them. I will be able to confirm what really happens shortly as I, ahem, may have considered it worth an amusing tenner to donate under Lisa Wilkinson’s beta male husband’s name….

Which brings us on to the increasingly haggard, post-menopausal La Wilkinson….

Last night on a TV show nobody was watching, she gave a 30 year old God botherer a proper lesson in investigative journalism. Nah, not really; she just did the easiest thing in the world and ran logic rings around someone with faith. If this is important work, there’s a billion people in India who believe God looks like a blue elephant whom she could doorstep with a willing camera crew.

Picking on God botherers is fine, if that’s how you want to make your money but we would like to point out two reasons why La Wilkinson is being incredibly hypocritical;

  1. Her co-host on The Prow-ject is an outspoken muslim  who has struggled in the past, on camera, to explain his faith’s doctrinal view of homosexuals. Presumably, her hard-hitting interview with Waleed will air later this week?
  2. A very lucrative part of Lisa’s annual salary is earned from hosting “Carols in the Domain” each Christmas. One assumes she’s spotted the underlying religious element of that TV program?

Bill’s Opinion

I promise this is the last missive on this subject until something halfway interesting occurs (and that doesn’t include faux legal advice in the comments from a failed civil engineer).

It’s probably worth clarifying my personal faith regarding this issue first; I’m an atheist who enjoys the benefits of where the Judeo-Christian tradition arrived in 2019. Perhaps a “cultural Christian”, if you will. I have no animus whatsoever toward homosexuals, to use the cliché, some of my best friends, etc.

If I could be so inclined, I could seek out discussions with people of faith and run logic rings around them just for fun. In fact, when I was younger, more foolish and cruel, I often did, asking my Christian relatives what they thought about those awkward fossils in the Natural History Museum and what the implications were for their reading of the Old Testament, for example.

What seems odd to me is that Lisa is applauded for poking fun at someone of a particular faith, especially as she’s very fucking happy to take their coin every Christmas. We can play the whataboutery game here too; why doesn’t she ask the question of other religions, for example the bloke she sits next to several evenings a week?

If you don’t believe in the tenets of Christian faith, why would you care about whether it teaches some people will go to a place you don’t believe exists?

Those who suggest this is no longer just about a kick and clap football player and his employer are correct. This is a cultural war being played in AND BY the media. Go Fund Me were bullied into closing down the campaign after a concerted effort by the a small subset of the media. It will be interesting to see where the battle is fought next.

Next week on the Sunday Prow-ject, Lisa Wilkinson angrily confronts Harry Potter fans who claim she can’t travel to Hogwarts.

Take it away, Waleed;

22 Replies to “Australian hypocrisy’s name is Lisa Wilkinson”

  1. For some reason I can no longer pick up channel 10 on the box which according to your post has saved my TV from a musket ball through the screen. The hypocrisy of the MSM is now in orbit somewhere around Mars, I demand that Lisa interviews a devout follower of the religion of peace and ridicule his beliefs (especially about sinners and LBGTXXX practices). I will then sit back and watch while the rest of the MSM piles on and points out the total lack of logic involved in these beliefs.

    The MSM for whatever reason has decided that this issue is to be where they launch their main assault on the Christian faith and freedom of speech, here’s hoping it will turn into their Waterloo.

    1. This is the ground they’ve chosen to fight the big Australian culture war battle on. I suppose it doesn’t really make a difference if it were this or some other issue, just how it plays out.

      I’m not confident logic and reason will win, though. The Australian legal profession seems a good example of a captured institution already.

    2. “For some reason I can no longer pick up channel 10 on the box”.

      I have the same problem with ABC. It isn’t a technical problem.

  2. Next update will be following the mandatory conciliatory meeting on Friday.

    RA -Excuse me kid, none us told you that you cant try and convert pagans or bang on about sodomites or that tattoos were sinful, you can say whatever the fuck you like, you goose, but if in doing so it creates a conflict with our objectives, you are down the road, its our right to decide who we employ, a right that trumps your right that you think that you have that we need to continue to pay you. We dont need to keep paying you and you are free to proselytize away to your hearts content. Take it of leave it sunshine.

    Commissioner will say to Folau after inquiring how many Christians work for them and how many they have fired because of this faith, or any sackings due to other faiths or protected attributes, how his behavior materially and negatively impacted their business objectives and confirmed what RA’s best and final settlement offer is to get rid of the pest. Now you listen to me young man, you have made a complete cock of yourself since this whole thing exploded, you have sent the wrong message out, you have not attempted to mitigate damages in anyway, quite the opposite, the offer is reasonable and you should take it. I take it that you are aware of 772 (2) and where that leaves you if your allegation got legs, even though I doubt it would and it is likely to be thrown out well before it gets to there?

    772 Employment not to be terminated on certain grounds

    (1) An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:

    (f) race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;

    (2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(f) from being a reason for terminating a person’s employment if:

    a) the reason is based on the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned;”

    1. “An unemployed non-lawyer writes”….

      Seriously though Bardon, the legal aspects of this are absolutely the least interesting element of the dispute.

  3. “Seriously though Bardon, the legal aspects of this are absolutely the least interesting element of the dispute.”

    Definitely, its all about whether the Netflix call it Persecution the Movie, or Carry on Pulpit. Although at the end of day it will be decided on based on the legal aspects of his claim alone, that is all that is relevant here, the rest is window dressing.

    But I would pay serious money to see his sister bride, burned at the stake, and he walks and is allowed to play for Tonga.

    1. “…. he walks and is allowed to play for Tonga.”

      Well done, you finally wrote something interesting that isn’t about yourself.

      Yes, the risk of the Pacific Islanders announcing en masse to play for their origin unions must be weighing on the minds of the ARU top brass.

      I find it amusing that, for 300 years, people who look and sound like La Wilkinson and her beta husband forcibly converted the Islander folks at the end of gun barrels and now call for their unemployment for doing as they were told.

      At least you got the chop for something more principled, eh?

  4. “Well done, you finally wrote something interesting that isn’t about yourself.”

    Given your industrious and focused efforts in writing all about me in your posts, means that I no longer need to.

  5. So, an inherent requirement of playing Rugby for Australia is that you never, ever make any comments about your personal religious beliefs, in your own time on your personal social media account.

    I think that Rugby Australia may not be on the firmest of ground in this case, the fact that they have taken out a 10 Million dollar insurance policy would seem to indicate that they are as not as confident as everyone assumes.

    1. “So, an inherent requirement of playing Rugby for Australia is that you never, ever make any comments about your personal religious beliefs, in your own time on your personal social media account.”

      This.

      If I’d have told you, thirty years ago, that one of the major sporting codes was going to go full cultural Marxist and ban religious expression by its players, you would have never guessed which one.

          1. Good on you, I dont have any problem with your qualification to comment. Lets see if it gets through Billy’s arbitrary “this is an acceptable basis to make a legal point on here comment checking and editorial censorship” before we get to carried away here.

            On your point, and on a without prejudice basis, its moot, because it wont get that far into it and your proposition isn’t worded correctly. But if it did, and you got the wording right, the employers rights trump the preachers in so far if the preaching harms their business, they can stop paying the preacher for his sporting services but can not stop him from preaching.

            Lets see what the RA’s Christian workforce have to say about the extent of religious discrimination that prevails throughout the organisation. This needs to be done in an effort to gauge the level of anti-Christian prejudice that the employer allows and putting this particular complaint into context as to whether it was an isolated “reported” incident or that there was sufficient evidence of an unchecked and widespread systemic culture of anti-Christian behavior throughout all of the levels of the organisation.

          2. “Lets see if it gets through Billy’s arbitrary “this is an acceptable basis to make a legal point on here comment checking and editorial censorship” before we get to carried away here.”

            I’ve not blocked a comment on here yet and I’m not minded to start today.

  6. ” It’s probably worth clarifying my personal faith regarding this issue first; I’m an atheist who enjoys the benefits of where the Judeo-Christian tradition arrived in 2019. Perhaps a “cultural Christian”, if you will. I have no animus whatsoever toward homosexuals, to use the cliché, some of my best friends, etc.”

    I like that (and I might use it) , especially “…who enjoys the benefits of where the Judeo-Christian tradition arrived in 2019”.
    I too was a bit of a sneery smartarse in my younger days, but not so now.

    1. Thanks. I think it’s a rite of passage for anyone who thinks about matters of theology to be a dickhead in their youth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.