Return to Blog Page

My Response to 'We are at war with terrorists' published 10th June 2017 by Peta Credlin

I just read this article, titled "We are at war with terrorists, and that means fighting back," written by Peta Credlin in the Daily Telegraph on the 10th June 2017. This is my response.

While I agree with the the thrust of what Peta Credlin is saying, there were several points in her article which made me feel distinctly uncomfortable, even a bit frightened.

Now when she talks about sacking all the bleeding hearts in the AAT, deporting those convicted of terrorist crimes, and reinstating the vigorous background checks that Labor did away with - all of that, I'm right on board with.

But she talks about throwing out all of the major cornerstones of jurisprudence that have been the foundation of basic human freedom for centuries if not a millennium or more. The presumption of innocence without proven guilt, punishment where due, the right to due process, and proof beyond reasonable doubt, are not abstractions, they are concrete and inalienable human rights without any one of which every one of us are in terrible danger of injustice.

The second most chilling line I read was this: "But the balance between public safety and personal freedom ? and between public order and civil liberties ? may have to change if we are to deal successfully with this threat."

NO. THAT BALANCE MUST NEVER EVER CHANGE. NOT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. IT IS THE ROCK UPON WHICH OUR CIVILISATION STANDS OR FALLS.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

Those words are just as true today as they were two hundred years ago when Franklin wrote them. Every dictator, every tyrant, every despot in history has played upon popular fear to invoke people's desire for safety over freedom and always with the undisputed goal of cementing their own power.

Which brings me to the most chilling line in the entire article; I notice she suddenly expands the scope of her argument at the end of the article: "Killers, rapists, bikies, drug-dealers as well as agents of terror..." Oh yeah, here we go, now we see her real motives. In one swift stroke, Credlin has cynically played upon our fears of terrorism to insist we throw away every right and freedom we have fought and died for since the Magna Carta, and then tossed her tool of terrorism to one side and included other crimes she wants combatted by unjust and totalitarian means as well.

So she wants to do away with presumption of innocence, due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt for those accused of rape, does she? Where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right, that's what the feminists want. And I know, most of you who read this would be against feminism and what it is doing to men, as part of the regimen of political correctness. If Peta's argument were to become law, not a man in this country would be safe. A woman would only need to point her finger at a man she doesn't like and claim he raped her, and by Peta's argument he goes to prison, guilty or not - because she's thrown presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and due process straight out the window.

And bikies? Simply being a member of a bike club isn't a crime and never should be. But she wants to extend all of her destruction of every bastion of freedom to her presumption that all of them are criminals regardless of whether any given bikie has committed a crime or not. Hey, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim, right? How about, not all bikies are drug dealers but all drug dealers are bikies. Hell, let's go the whole hog - how about, not all men are rapists but all rapists are men? So let's do away with their basic human rights and freedoms to ensure we get them all. That's what she decided when she expanded the scope at the end.

And the final icing on this vile and ugly cake is that Credlin wants to punish immediate family members of criminals as well. Not just terrorists, but criminals - she makes that clear with her last sentence quoted above. So if my brother is accused of drug dealing, and found guilty because he has no right of due process, presumption of innocence or reasonable doubt, I should be punished as well, as should my father and mother and sister. That is what she demanded, the instant she used terrorism to justify throwing all those rights out the window, then extended her remit beyond terrorism.

I'm sorry, but I am revulsed at the notions she has stated in this article. I want serious drastic action taken against Islamic terrorism as much as anyone, and I want the traitorous left dealt with sternly and harshly. I want these leftist bleeding-heart judges who are letting terrorists walk free made accountable for their rulings.

But the whole reason I became right-wing is because I stand for freedom and justice above all things, and I believe the left is suborning them to push their cultural Marxist agenda. I will stand against such people to my dying breath. But I will stand and fight against those who would play upon our fears to strip away our liberties with no less vehemence.

And Peta Credlin just revealed herself as one of them.

Return to Blog Page

Mystikan.com: Original content is copyright © 2016- Mystikan. All rights reserved. For commercial reuse of any content on this site, email mystikan@mystikan.com