An attack has been made on the Australian media from the front page of Life Decisions International (LDI), whose domain name is the far more accurate fightpp.org (PP being the USA’s Planned Parenthood, the family planning organisation that offers comprehensive sex education and pregnancy services including abortion for those who choose it). The LDI are upset that somebody noticed an association between them and serial ministerial bungler Kevin Andrews.
Australian Media Shows No Regard For The Truth
It is not unusual for pro-abortion activists to use their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. But some in the Australian media are taking the practice to a whole new level. LDI has issued a response to an attack on an Australian lawmaker.
When we go to the response, the target of our media’s attack is made more explicit (the weird hyphenation of some words is in the original):
Australia Media Shows No Regard For Truth In Attack On Pro-Life Minister
8.6.2007WASHINGTON, D.C.–It’s nothing new. Pro-abortion activ-ists work with their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. The most recent vociferous attack is against the Honorable Kevin Andrews, a Member of the Australian Parliament and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
“It is obvious that some pro-abortion zealot was in the United States or was searching the Internet in an effort to find something that could be used to attack Mr. Andrews,” said Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions Interna-tional (LDI). “They eventually discovered that Mr. Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of our Board of Advi-sors. To pro-abortion activists, one may as well be a mem-ber of the Ku Klux Klan.”
In an article by pro-abortion apologists Kerry-Anne Walsh and Michelle Singer of Australia’s Sun-Herald titled, “Andrews in radical group that boycotts Disney,” Kevin Andrews is called an “adviser to a radical right-wing inter-national organisation that advocates economic boycotts to achieve social and political change.” In the very next sen-tence, Andrews is said to be “officially listed as a board member to Life Decisions International (LDI).”“Talk about admitting a bias right off the bat,” Scott said. “LDI is called a ‘radical right-wing’ organization. We are later referred to as an ‘extremist body’.”
Right. A group of people that not only want to end all abortions but also target the practise of contraception in it’s entirety aren’t extremist at all! Note that whenever they are confronted they claim to be only against abortion, but a perusal of their press releases shows that they actually call any approach to sexuality other than chasitity part of an alleged “Culture of Death”. This includes instructions about Safe Sex procedures to help control STIs (they blame Planned Parenthood for changing the terminology from STDs to STIs as well, I’m not sure what nefarious goal that is meant to further).
LDI is part of the broader anti-contracepting movement which is allied to the anti-abortion movement. Because a majority of anti-abortion supporters see no moral problem with contraception per se, these anti-contracepting organisations tend to bury this agenda under layers of the usual emotive anti-abortion arguments. The opposition to all forms of contraception tends to be covert, because most people simply do not agree.
If the LDI are wanting to defend Andrews from the general impression of incompetence that flows from a perceived conflict of interest between his ministerial position and his position on the LDI board, implying that Andrews makes all his decisions without due consideration won’t be helping.
The writers suggested that Andrews should not serve in the Australian cabinet because he has a “conflict of inter-est.” After all, they suggest, he could have to “make deci-sions that affect companies boycotted by the extremist body he advises.”
“This is nonsense. We do not even send The Boycott List to Kevin and Margaret Andrews. And even if we did, the Minister would have to carry it around with him to know which corporations to target. Walsh and Singer cannot be serious!”
Yeah, whoever heard of a senior legislator and government executive office holder taking time out to for due diligence checks on matters of record before making a ministerial decision?
The response to the Australian media attention also asserts that Andrews and his wife have nothing to do with the policymaking of the organisation, because they are part of the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors:
“Kevin Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of LDI’s Board of Advisors,” Scott explained. “He has had ab-solutely no role in determining LDI policy or strategy. The listing of prominent lawmakers or business leaders on let-terhead in an advisory capacity is nothing new.” (emphasis added)
Here’s what the website says about the Board of Directors:
A respected Board of Directors establishes policy relating to life issues and fiduciary accountability. This talented group of volunteers actively oversees LDI activity in these areas. They ensure that LDI employs only the highest ethical standards. (emphasis added)
Interestingly, of the long list of names on the page detailing the members of the Board of Advisors/Board of Directors, the only two people identified as Hon. Advisors rather than Directors are Kevin and Margaret Andrews. This distinction may possibly be purely because they are the only non-North Americans on the Board, or it may be intended to provide a layer of plausible deniability as to their level of involvement in decision-making.
Like so many other recent matters, Kevin Andrews refuses to answer all the questions put to him. Way to continue to erode public confidence in the probity of the Howard Cabinet, Mr Andrews. Do keep up the good work.
that’s interesting that LDI identifies Kevin and Margaret Andrews as “Hon. Advisors” to their board of directors. You’d probably already be aware that our favourite DIC head, Kevin Andrews, was on the ABC Insiders program yesterday and he very succinctly and clearly stated that he has never played a policy role with the LDI but had for a number of years been a “patron” of the organisation.
It’s an interesting skeleton in Andrews’ closet (not that he would approve of that metaphor).
Obligations according to Kev(PDF) Some nice quotes in what people see as obligations from their political representatives. Pity it is still not believed by him.
ABC News Top Stories, 6 August 2008:
India’s new Immigration Minister Dr. Mohammed Haneef has refused to issue a visa to former Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews on the grounds of character. Dr. Haneef stated that, on the basis of advice he had received, he had formed a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Andrews, by virtue of his association with the self-described “pro-life” organisation Life Decisions International, may have had an association with persons suspected of terrorist acts against reproductive health clinics in the US and Australia.
And it looks like LDI felt so strongly about the issue that they got themselves into a edit war over Andrew’s Wikipedia page:
Pathetic.
Kev 1999
Maybe Andrews is trying to pad out his resumé by being a member on this board. Perhaps he’s gunning for a position as Minister for Discrimination.
Is it true that LDI booted Scrooge McDuck off their Board of Directors/Advisors because the stingy old fowl refused to come clean about the paternity of Huey, Louey and Dewey?
Don’t LDI realise that by labelling “pro-abortion apologists Kerry-Anne Walsh and Michelle Singer of Australia’s Sun-Herald“, they are smearing valued employees of Rupert Murdoch, High Potentate of the Right-Wing MSM Empire of the World?
I want to hear more about how useless Kevin Andrews is to LDI. I wonder if Kevin Andrews is more useless to LDI than he is to the Howard ministry.
To pro-abortion activists, one may as well be a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
well, yeah. Right wing extremists relying on mangled Biblical interpretation, campaigns of violence and murder against people they disagree with/hate… sounds about right.
To be fair Barry, the LDI has an extremely strongly worded statement against violence of any sort as part of their anti-abortion mission.
They sure use language that is guaranteed to inflame the nutters out there though.
Andrews’ association with LDI is proof of his religious bias, and casts doubt over his ability to act objectively in the Haneef case, a Muslim. Andrews must resign. If he doesn’t, it becomes the responsibility of the electorate to dump him at the election.
It would be interesting to know what advice he has given LDI.
I agree with Gough Whitlam: abortion should be retroactive for some people.
thanks tigtog. good point.
still an organisation that uses intimidation to restrict the freedom of people though.
No amount of justification will change the truth; violence is wrong–in and out the womb.
Unless that violence is forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term, then it’s ok. They don’t really go out of their way to condemn the death penalty or the carnage in Iraq either.
Just what is it about this group that makes it ‘extremist’ and ‘radical’?
Oh they oppose abortion – let’s arrest and execute them quick! And wait, they boycott organisations they don’t like – so does Greenpeace. How terribly radical. How terribly extremist. It’s just like Bushitler!
This coming from the ‘intellectuals’ who don’t even consider Hamas to be ‘extremist’.
Tell us which Howard government minister belongs to Hamas.
If you do, I promise to boycott him/her.
“Opposition Environment spokesman Peter Garrett today was forced to defend his links with radical eco-terrorist group Greenpeace.
Garrett, who joined Labor after a stint as head of the ACF, denied that his association with the radical green organisation affected his ability to make impartial decisions. When contact, Garrett distanced himself from the group stating “I was a board member for two years in an advisory capacity only”
Greenpeace, while condemning violence, is notorious for engaging in violent practices such as ramming ships to stop whaling. Associations between Greenpeace and ELF eco-terrorists have also been documented.
Greenpeace have organised and led boycotts around the world against globally respected international conglomerates. Garrett’s office today issued a statement denying present links with this extremist group.”
Oh wait – Greenpeace and Garrett are from the LEFT.
That makes it ok then.
know many greens who’ve murdered people in australia? how about pro-lifers?
oh, they’re from the RIGHT, that makes it ok.
“Right. A group of people that not only want to end all abortions but also target the practise of contraception in it’s entirety aren’t extremist at all!”
No, they aren’t. Opposition to abortion is not extreme. It is possible to have an opposing view to you the one leftists hold. Oh hang on, opposition to ANY of the Left’s policies is extremist. How silly of me – I keep forgetting.
What happened to ‘celebrating diversity’ leftists?
I fail to see how an organisation that campaigns for an issue it believes in and boycotts companies it doesn’t like, is ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’. Groups on the right and on the left do this all the time. If this particular group incited violence or condoned violence then those terms are justified.
As it stands, there is no evidence for any of that and this is just poor journalism from the socialists at Fairfax. It is abundantly clear the only reason these inflammatory terms were used is because the Herald wanted to do a hack job on Andrews.
You may disagree with this groups view – to label them ‘radical’ and ‘extremist’ is, as the saying goes. a bridge too far.
Peter Garrett is both a pro-lifer and a supporter of eco-terrorism.
barry
Ah dude, is that your best shot? 1 death six years ago?
You are focussing on the anti-abortion position, which I agree is not especially extreme, and bypassing the fact that I very clearly emphasised their opposition to contraception as the policy which made them radical and extremist.
I made it clearly enough. You are being disingenuous.
Incorrect. The Catholic Church also opposes contraception. Are they too ‘radical and extreme’?
The main goal of LDI is to fight planned parenthood. You may find that distasteful and wrong.
It is not radical. It is not extreme.
Neither is their opposition to what they see as ‘the culture of death’
Celebrate Diversity, Hypocrites.
The correct response is “Greenpeace fight injustice. You may not like their tactics but at least they stand up for what is right. As Environment Minister I applaud anyone who’s got the balls to take on a Japanese whaling ship”.
So, fighting planned parenthood is not radical or extreme.
Riiiiight.
Repeat after me: “Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate” (Apologies to Monty Python).
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood.
re: the killing, no, it’s not my best shot. more a throwaway line for a pointless troll. I’m amused that you’re so happy to dismiss a coldblooded murder though, when property damage gets you so upset.
“As Environment Minister I applaud anyone who’s got the balls to take on a Japanese whaling shipâ€?.
Or the stomach. Ever been on a Zodiac running at 20 knots plus in choppy seas? It’s like skateboarding – on cars.
Also my parents ate whale meat during WW2 and they said it tasted awful. Chewy and oily. Mind you, domestic cuisine in the middle of the last century was not a signal highlight of Brit culture.
Who cares?
The secular fundamentalists will all die out due to sodomy and abortion anyway.
Why do we bother arguing against them?
Let them have as much Mardi Gras as possible, the more AIDS and Drugs are disseminated among their community, the better for us.
All the Christophobe bigots spewing forth their bile about Kevin Andrews are worth absolutely nothing to civilisation, absolutely nothing, zilch.
Members of this dead-end-demographic, barren feminists, anemics benders, and their assorted soft-cock moron supporters are all going to die out, convert to Islam or get raped & beheaded when the rags take over.
Sucked in.
Kilroy, you have made the scales fall from my eyes. There’s obviously nothing radical or extremist about your point of view, nothing at all.
“Why do we bother arguing against them?”
Is this a rhetorical question? I’d say it’s because you don’t have an argument. Why do you hate people so much? What makes you think Western civilisation is threatened in any way?
You just sound like a bitter crank who hates intellectuals.
Kilroy
And good day to you too, sir!
Tigtog:
I have little to no interest in the scales on your eyes. Your blindness has no effect on me and I have long stoped caring what you “progressive� morons do or think. A child that wails in bed after shitting itself, that is a typical example of the leftist mindset: harping on about the ills of society while ignoring the fact that your liberalism is its root cause. BTW, I have never claimed not to be “radical�; I am by your definition, sure, but then again, you probably think anything two inches to the right or Lenin is “conservative.�
But the pathology you and your co-idiocrats suffer from will naturally see anything that opposes the “progressive� worldview on every level to be dangerous… since your diseased thought now permeates every aspect of public life, opposing you is, I suppose, an almost (counter)revolutionary act.
FDB:
Rhetorical question? You can answer it if you like, I’m not that concerned to be honest. And no, I don’t hate “people� only hypocrites such as those who:
(a) claim to celebrate diversity, BUT only when it falls in line with the dominant leftist group-think in the media.
(b) claim to support equity, but not for those who pose challenges to the leftist world view.
(c) claim to be spiritual, while mocking, berating, vilifying and generally spreading hate aimed at the greatest religion to grace this planet, upon which this civilisation is built, and without which, your liberal rights would not exist.
Furthermore, I am taking back the word “intellectual�. You pea brains aren’t worthy if the title, nor should you use it in any way. You aren’t intellectuals; you are ideologues pushing a self-destructive agenda shrouded in post-modern rhetorical clap-trap.
Like I said:
“Members of this dead-end-demographic, barren feminists, anemics benders, and their assorted soft-cock moron supporters are all going to die out, convert to Islam or get raped & beheaded when the rags take over.
Sucked in.�
Sympathy factor: Big Fat Zero.
Kilroy
Given that about 97% of the globe’s HIV population is heterosexual and a significant majority are Xian, one wonders at the nature of the “angels,” on whose side you presume to be.
Who are you talking to Kilroy?
Me? You don’t know the first thing about me – other than that I seem to have greater belief than you in the durability of Western social/cultural institutions. Why are you so afraid? Why the apocalyptic claptrap? Take a deep breath, listen to some Bon Jovi and go throw the frisbee.
Everything’s going to be fine.
Greenfield:
Did you pull that statistic out of your butt, your partner’s butt, or your love-childs’?
The infection of the heterosexual population with AIDS was through bisexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals.
This only give further weight to the moral teachings of the “extremist” church you “tolerant” leftist secularists keep vilifying.
FDB:
Let me give you a crash course in what’s actually happening.
1. There isn’t a single Western country with a growing population.
2. Instead of rectifying this, we are promoting abortion, homosexuality and other dead-end “life style choices”.
3. The only blips in population growth are among the adherents of Another Prominent Religion which are not blighted by feminism and homosexuality, or migrants from that pert of the world where that Other Prominent Religion is the order of the day.
4. That Other Prominent Religion is in a tactical alliance with the Western secular Christophobic left because of your mutual hatred of the West and it’s Christian foundations (along with Christianity’s absolutist moral teachings).
5. Once you remove the “Christian Right” from influence, you’re going to have a society made up of (a) barren feminists, dead-end sodomites, secularists and a rapidly breading Islamist demographic.
6. You don’t have to be a wizard to see how the Islamists treat “progressives” and people who have “alternative life styles” in their own countries, so I guess you don’t have to be a wizard to predict what will happen when the convenient alliance in pt. 4 becomes redundant in their eyes.
7. Instead of strengthening our own culture and people, we are slandering those who are most loyal to it, promoting relativist nonsense in schools, and self-flagellating about our history.
So,
If I seem a little peeved that “my own people” are a bunch of twits who are about a useful as a chocolate teapot in these times, excuse me, I have good reason.
Hey, I can think of a use for a chocolate teapot, oh paranoid one.
To your points:
1. Not true.
2. ‘We’ are?
3. Not true. See 1 above
4. Really? Learn to use apostrophes, paranoid one.
5. Not true, but sounds good to me.
6. Not being a wizard..
7. Why am I bothering. You really don’t get out and about very much do you?
Adrian,
For somebody who appeals to Wiki as authority for anything, I feel secure in dismissing your retort offhand.
Go back to your progressive Mardi Gras where all those heterosexuals rub-up each other stupid and spread AIDS among other heterosexuals.
Moron.
Ah, the ravings of a paranoid nutjob. Good for shits and giggles I guess. Islamists don’t scare me. They don’t even know what they’re trying to achieve, and in this neck of the woods they aren’t even trying. That’s because we have it so good. We’ll end up a bit browner, and their religion will go the way ours has. A few nutters like you who nobody listens to any more, a powerful political lobbying faction with mostly non-religious aims and means, dwindling interest in the face of a wonderful real world full of fun and surprises, and successive generations of increasingly broadminded intelligent people – content to leave religion in the private sphere where it belongs.
You are a dinosaur, and your ice age will soon be here.
Hey I got a little story for you all:
Three mates walk into a bar: an AIDS infested bender, a Feminist and Muhammad.
Muhammad saws off the bender’s head, rapes the feminist and then stones the bar tender for selling alcohol.
Moral of the story:
“Islam has nothing to do with violence, and what we really should be doing is opening the borders and showing more tolerance to jihadis.” – brought to you by the good people at Leftists R Us.
Kilroy, for someone who claims to be reclaiming “intellectual” for the nutty Christian Right (where apparently it belongs), your research skills are very poor. If you’d bothered looking, you’d have seen that like most wiki pages the source for the info is given. Address your complaints to the notoriously left-wing and postmodernist CIA.
FDB:
“Islamists don’t scare me. They don’t even know what they’re trying to achieve, and in this neck of the woods they aren’t even trying.”
- How easily we have forgoten about Bali.
“your ice age will soon be here”
- And all this time I thought we were facing Global Warming TM!
Bored now.
*plonk*
TT:
Kilroy was here?