Balancing the fiction and propaganda of The Australian Vaccination Network against reality.
This video looks at some essential facts about the conduct, deception, insouciance and legal problems of Meryl Dorey and The Australian Vaccination Network. It covers quite a bit of ground from 2009 to the present. A serious message with a dash of dark humour in exposing the absurdity of their operation.
I happened to notice that a tweet from Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Network at around 9 am today, led to her Facebook post on Caught in the vaccination wars (Part 2);
Caught in the vaccination wars Part 2, by Dr. Brian Martin to which she refers, is here. It is the second follow up to Debating Vaccination, in which he argues in defence of AVN anti-vaccination lobbyists. Or rather, as the title suggests that vaccine efficacy and safety is a matter for honest debate. Roughly, arguments presented are that attacks on vaccination are usefully observed as “a scientific controversy”, genuine cause for “public debate… differing values”, that vaccine induced autism, autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and under-reported reactions are legitimate accusations from critics. Meryl Dorey is a legitimate “dissenter” acting for the public good. In addition criticism of Ms. Dorey and The AVN is an attack on rights and is conducted unfairly or unethically.
The concern for supporters of evidence based medicine is that Meryl Dorey’s documented risk to public health, breaches of charity fundraising laws, misappropriation of member donations, long standing copyright breaches, sending hate mail to grieving parents and the many falsehoods she has engaged in, seemed justified to Dr. Martin – or at least insignificant. Added to this is that Debating Vaccination supported Dorey’s diversionary tactic that she had supposedly done none of these things but faced an orchestrated campaign to silence her right to free speech. This was doubly frustrating given Dorey’s documented censorship by deletion, refusal to publish evidence based comment replies and banning of her own group members who dared question or expose her mistakes.
At the time a catchy video appeared that was dismissive of Martin’s pro-AVN stance and was no doubt buoyed by his many other works: The suppression of dissent in science, Polio vaccines and the origins of AIDS, The burden of proof and the origin of AIDS and similar works on the “debate” surrounding water flouridation. Dr. Martin also listed “derogatory comments” directed at him in part one of Caught in the vaccination wars. He was quite right to point this out but one suspects he is not familiar with Ms. Dorey or has a predetermined agenda to follow. I don’t mean to be alarmist but when you engage in activity that ultimately leads to infant and childhood morbidity and mortality, crushing heartbreak for families and the resurgence of vaccine preventable disease, people will become angry.
It was felt that, had he spent a fraction of the time reviewing the egregious behaviour of Dorey rather than highlighting an unhelpful Stop the AVN (SAVN) comment about Dorey’s subscription to and publication of David Icke, the Illuminati, deliberate public infection with H1N1 by Baxter and her decade long belief in microchipping by vaccines [Source], a more robust discussion would ensue. Public opinion of Dr. Martin wasn’t helped in that Dorey exploited his work as proof of malignant suppression of herself, abandoning any pretence of answering to her crimes.
Whilst Brian Martin still holds to these views, and has as we shall see been quite selective in the material he chose to publish, I do want to stress that his input is valued. He is of course demonstrably wrong, but unlike Ms. Dorey one can exchange views and differences of opinion with Dr. Martin. He will admit when and where his argument is imperfect and point out the flaws he sees in opposing arguments. More so, it is highly likely Martin is as much a victim of Dorey’s deception as are her members and those who seek to refute her. Which brings us to her latest misrepresentation of his work.
Typically in reviewing Dorey’s publications we find immediate falsehoods. Brian Martin isn’t identifying as a victim saying he was “attacked by members of SAVN”. Nor is it true that attempts “to get him fired” occurred. Dr. Martin contacted one SAVN member directly, prior to publishing Debating Vaccination. Another member had complained about the nature of Dr. Martin’s work. This person, whose contact details are not public, realised these details had been actually passed to Dr. Martin without permission. This one SAVN member complained arguing that this was inappropriate. Yet Dorey writes;
As a result of this article, Dr Martin came under attack by the same group of people. They actually contacted his boss at the University and tried to get him fired! Luckily, the University values free speech and the rights of citizens in democratic nations more than this group apparently does.
During a lengthy Skype conversation the SAVN member gave their side of the story about, and I quote – “veiled intimidation and harassment” – via the tone of emails he sent to the member who had complained. The SAVN member had taken offence at some rather unprofessional observations of Dr. Martins. I can’t comment on the professionalism or otherwise other than to say the quoted material wasn’t indicative of SAVN content. It has now been expunged from its initial resting place, suggesting that someone at the University or Martin himself respected the complaint.
Sadly, the complainants details were revealed to Dr. Martin. Yes, that’s correct. Martin responded to the complainant alluding that in his experience complaining to superiors was typical of suppression tactics. Further complaints were made to the university about what was deemed “harassment” from Martin, using the universities email domain and eventually the complainant was reassured Dr. Martin would not be contacting her again.
Dr. Martin concludes that it’s reasonable to infer he could have been fired. Which begs the question: why intimidate of even directly approach a member of the public who already feels you’re behaving unprofessionally. In this case, Dr. Martin has only himself to blame. In representing the University of Woolongong, he is rightly subject to scrutiny. Such scrutiny and justified complaints about defending Meryl Dorey’s enterprise are not suppression tactics. If it can be inferred that job loss from an account of ones conduct is realistic, then that conduct must be called into question.
Dorey omits of course, that Dr. Martin now accepts that her claim of SAVN members sending her pornography as intimidation is unsubstantiated. He writes that he previously should have written that this conduct was “separate from SAVN”. Secondly, in view of accusations from Dorey that the SAVN threaten her, and her telling refusal to provide evidence of this Dr. Martin was provided with extensive evidence and screenshots (one example) of AVN attacks on grieving parents, SAVN members and cyber-stalking via false identities. He wrote;
What I can say is that I oppose the use of personal abuse by supporters or critics of vaccination, and I have sympathy for all those who are subject to it. Not only is abuse in poor taste but I think in many cases it is counterproductive.
This is a significant blow to Meryl Dorey, perhaps explaining why she lied about the content of Dr. Martin’s article, and uses the fabrication to yet again argue that her opponents are out to suppress free speech “and the rights of citizens in democratic nations”. In a nutshell Dr. Martin is defending his own argument, not Dorey’s. This is the second article by Martin since Debating Vaccination and nary a syllable has been voiced in defence of Dorey. She seemingly wants to bask in his integrity and gain credibility by dent of libelling key members of SAVN, by extension of Martins work. She is clearly desperate.
On June 26th Brian Martin published Shouting down our freedom to choose, in the Illawarra Mercury. He defends his, albeit mistaken, belief that SAVN tries to suppress free speech critical of vaccination. He confuses the input on Facebook from thousands of Australian’s disgusted with Meryl Dorey with an imagined stated intention of SAVN. He wrongly claims “dozens of complaints” have been lodged. Essentially, Dr. Brian Martin is quite mistaken about the key activists of SAVN, and the wider involvement from citizens, skeptics, science advocates and health oriented media identities across Australia, much less the independent activity of government health agencies.
In defence of so many mistakes on the part of Brian Martin I would suggest that he completely fails to see the impact of social media. Struggling to comprehend global and national networking, online activism and an entire new language that has grown to describe it he has been easily misled by Dorey’s neoconservative “the enemy is upon us” protest. Perhaps the most significant flaw in this article from the Illawarra Mercury is that it paints the AVN as benign citizen campaigners.
The criminal activity, business name or copyright theft and exploitation of members is not mentioned. The lies and cleverly crafted false stories of “vaccine reactions” are not included. It omits Dorey’s never ending threat that mandatory vaccination “for your family” is imminent or that claims of toxic and foetus cell filled vaccines that cause cancer, autism, immune disorders, death… has damaged public confidence. Likening a judges decision to back a father’s right to vaccinate his daughter to “Rape with full penetration” is absent, as is demanding to see the laboratory confirmation of a deceased infants COD from pertussis.
He forgot taking a neonate from maternity to avoid hepatitis B vaccination, hiding from police and DOCS then leaving the parents to face jail sentences – only later prevented by DOCS. Her defence of child murderers and use of the term “Shaken Maybe Syndrome” (because vaccines really kill babies) went unnoticed. The bogus 1998 threat to sue Michael Wooldridge for his role with Immunise Australia, refusal to cooperate with the HCCC, breaches of charitable status uncovered by the NSW OLGR, the rise in vaccine preventable disease, permanent disabilities, brain damage and death and on and on and on… all missing. No, this was no group meeting to discuss a noisy freeway, dredging the bay or the importance of ducks crossing a new bicycle path.
Still, Dr. Martin has a right to voice his views. This article led to further involvement of myself and others due to his final paragraph;
I wrote a careful response to the comments by SAVN members, documenting their methods, and posted it on my website. This seems to have worked a charm: no SAVN member has challenged my account.
This wasn’t correct in the eyes of many. I wrote a comment;
Brian,
Here is my email of April 23rd clearly refuting your claim “I wrote a careful response to the comments by SAVN members, documenting their methods, and posted it on my website. This seems to have worked a charm: **no SAVN member has challenged my account.**”
Part 1:
Not only did I challenge your account – I provided evidence refuting it.
Part 2:
Links to 3 articles: later removed temporarily by false DMCA claims by Ms. Dorey (I have her submissions).
And you claim Ms. Dorey is subject to attacks on free speech?!
I also wrote in another comment;
The UDHR Article 30 states no one article may be exploited to suppress any other article. Hence free speech in this case goes further than the right to speak in dissent. It challenges the international right to health, of which the UN has a Special Rapporteur.
We all have a right to freely voice our own opinion. I find my defence of free speech stops at the border of freely voicing our “own facts”.
In fairness to Dr. Martin he still doesn’t fully accept that anyone challenged his account. He has written that more accurate wording would be, “no SAVN member sent me abusive comments”. In fairness to SAVN that’s shifting the goal posts. Regarding myself he wrote;
Paul Gallagher posted this claim: “Not only did I challenge your account – I provided evidence refuting it.” He provided a link to http://i.imgur.com/JAA30.png
I failed to see how this link to an article about microchipping and cancer related to my account, much less refuted it. I emailed Paul asking him to explain.
You can compare that to my actual comment/s above. You may wonder what the second link points to. Regrettably, despite the fact I point to four items in the email Dr. Martin uses only the first image – selectively leaving out the second and larger part of my email. The evidence he omitted has been published on this site here as 1.) How the AVN misleads Aussies on pertussis vaccination and 2.) How Meryl Dorey plagiarised and edited a WHO graph on pertussis.
The third document I provided a link to clearly demonstrates how Meryl Dorey misled the HCCC over pertussis in The Netherlands and Denmark. So I still maintain that yes, I both did challenge, and provided evidence refuting his account published here in clear dissonance to his conclusion. The original email of April 26th – that led me to comment – is extensive and contains 14 hyperlink references, 8 of which are of Meryl Dorey’s own writings. How Dr. Martin could have missed this challenge is beyond me.
Nonetheless Dr. Martin did email me and quite delightfully asked if I wished to offer any corrections before he published Part 2. I pointed out that he had shifted goal posts again, now writing that he “had received no substantive corrections”. I also offered many thoughts to Dr. Martin hoping they would be acknowledged. The full email is embedded below. Now that he has published his article I can see he has selectively quoted the email text. As we see above, he writes “I emailed Paul asking him to explain”. Then;
He replied on 6 July saying “the screenshot I sent you plainly shows Meryl Dorey’s post”, and then quoted its text:
This is an excellent video about the dangers of mandatory vaccination and microchipping. I had never heard of the link between microchips and cancers before. This is something we all need to be aware of!
He continued by saying that the screenshot provided
a video offered by Dorey entitled ‘Mandatory Vaccination and Forced Microchipping’. More so, Dorey states she hasn’t heard of microchips and cancer before – not microchips and vaccination.
By now, it must be clear I have refuted … Ms. Dorey’s denial that she believes in a conspiracy.
The sections quoted by Dr. Martin as my explanation are highlighted in red;
I was a tad cranky. It was becomming clear that Brian was going to maximise my reference to Dorey’s conspiracy – a topic I consider extremely time wasting. This was most unfortunate as we can all see the screenshot of Meryl Dorey’s comfort with vaccines and microchipping is not the only point made. Nonetheless, Brian wanted proof positive, “for example a survey of AVN members”, about a certain comment that was prominent on the SAVN Facebook page. It is of course, entirely correct to challenge accusations of conspiracy leanings. Brian Martin is correct in that the comment below cannot be fully substantiated. I have no idea who the author is;
They [AVN] believe that vaccines are part of a global conspiracy to implant mind control chips into every man, woman and child and that the ‘illuminati’ plan a mass cull of humans.
I was of the mind that it was ambitious but could reasonably be inferred. Having ridden the 2009 H1N1 insanity from Jane Burgermeister’s enforced human cull via vaccine, to claims of mind control chips in vaccines, and knowing the AVN were conspiracy devotees I felt he was being deliberately pedantic in order to avoid more pressing matters. One I had raised was that if Meryl Dorey publically denied being “anti-vaccination” where did this leave his role as a defender of her as a dissident? Nonetheless, my disdain for conspiracies was, as we shall see in the next post, about to be put to the test with more and more requests to provide evidence to justify that single comment.
As I mentioned above, the email I had initially sent Dr. Martin on April 26th precipitating my comment was far more extensive, and had already gone over this ground. It included links to much of Dorey’s legal transgressions and I provided Dr. Martin screenshots and links to AVN material supporting David Icke, the “human cull” but most importantly a post by Meryl Dorey arguing that whilst the AVN subscribe to conspiracy theories it was unwise to be seen publically to do so. I identified Dorey’s habit of denial and censorship.
I had requested that future writings of his include these observations as a possible reason for the comment he had made much of in Part One of Caught in the vaccination wars. I also asked for a brief deconstruction of Ms. Dorey’s conduct, that I had documented such that he could show it “as anything but unconscionable”.
Sadly, whilst it is his right to choose, Dr. Martin has not seen fit to offer either transparency.
In the next post I’ll introduce the evidence for Meryl Dorey and the AVN’s cornucopia of conspiracy theories which were sent to Dr. Martin with a further request he list them as “possible reasons” Dorey was linked to the only game in conspiracy city over 2009: The Human Cull via H1N1.
Not that far back, we left Meryl Dorey and her dishonest inner circle $11,000 richer after scamming members to donate toward a non existent Generation Rescue advertisement on the non existent scam of “vaccine induced autism”. A favourite still of the Australian Vaccination Network.
This type of almost febrile exploitation and abuse of gullible parents was abruptly halted when Ken McLeod and others lodged two complaints with the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. Presently Ms. Dorey is mid testimony in her Supreme Court case against the HCCC over their recommendation that she publish a warning on her web site.
We’ve also previously consulted Meryl Dorey’s reply to the HCCC specific to Mr. McLeod’s complaint, exposing demonstrable plagiarism and untruths about pertussis vaccination. Basically her line is that pertussis vaccination doesn’t work because increasing notifications (in all 18 age groups) have occurred with a rise in vaccination (in the youngest 2 of the 18 age groups).
This failure supposedly occurs across the globe where effective pertussis vaccination regimes exist, Dorey claims. On July 11th I published an article on another rambling attack on the pertussis vaccine in which Dorey claimed, “So not only is the pertussis shot not preventing vaccinated people from getting pertussis – it could also be responsible for the increased death rate.”
Returning to the HCCC reply we find one of my all time favourites. Meryl Dorey’s blatant editing of a WHO graph on pertussis vaccination, cutting out explanatory text favourable to the programme and popping in her own text to make it seem like the vaccine was leading to morbidity and mortality in babies under 12 months, “as indicated by the following graph”. The article in question is Global Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases – Chapter 2, Pertussis: by Arthur M Galazka and Susan E Robertson. Part of a lengthy 1995 submission on vaccine preventable disease by these authors to the European Journal of Epidemiology.
On page 7 of her reply to the HCCC Dorey submits;
The data spans 1951, 1975, 1991 and 1993. It looks compelling. The grey bars show pertussis cases before widespread use of pertussis vaccines, the black show cases after. In both Poland and The USA babies less than one year old show markedly greater infection than children from one year and above post vaccine introduction.
Yet, what do we know of vaccine induced immunity against pertussis? Newborns cannot begin vaccination until about 6 – 8 weeks of age and this varies across nations. It can take a full 12 months to complete the regime and to gain vaccine induced immunity. Indeed babies under 12 months are considered to be partially protected or not protected against pertussis. Children one year and up are considered fully protected.
In this light we can now see that the graph reflects the morbidity pattern changes we would expect after wide spread immunisation (black bars). A marked reduction in the age groups that are protected by vaccine and a comparatively higher infection rate in the under 12 month, unprotected age group. We also know that vaccine induced immunity begins to wane at about ten years. This is exactly what we see in the USA.
Fortunately, Meryl was kind enough to not crop out the names of authors the data was sourced from. Let’s seek out the original source, shall we? I say! What’s this on pages 34-35;
Now we can read the text that Dorey expunged prior to submission to the HCCC claiming, “In fact, many studies have indicated that rather than protecting young infants… routine mass vaccination can lead to an increase in pertussis”, in under 12 month old babies, “as indicated by the following graph”.
It actually reads;
The introduction of widespread immunization against pertussis has changed the pattern of the disease (Figure 2.1). Apart from a considerable reduction in the number of cases and abolishing the endemic pattern of the disease, there has been a clear change in the age distribution of pertussis morbidity.
Perhaps the sources of data confused Ms. Dorey. Perhaps she just completely missed any explanatory text. It’s not like a pertussis vaccine critic should read research on pertussis vaccination is it? Let’s check up on Gordon and Hood (1951), Adonaijlo (1975, 1993) and Farizo et al. (1991). Perhaps it’s all their fault. Ah, on the same page Galazka and Robertson continue in the very next paragraph.
The scope of these changes differs depending on the schedule of vaccine delivery and the coverage rates achieved. In Poland, for example, the most noticeable reduction of pertussis morbidity has been among children 1–4 years of age and the peak incidence has shifted to infants. Infants represented only 12 per cent of all pertussis cases in Poland 1973, compared with 49 per cent in 1993 (Adonajlo 1975, 1993).
In the United States of America during 1980–1989, children under one year of age accounted for nearly 50 per cent of all cases; the incidence rate among infants was nearly 10 times higher than that among children of 1–4 years of age, and more than one hundred times higher than that among adolescents or adults (Farizo et al. 1992).
On page 33 under Epidemiological Aspects – communicability we read [bold mine];
Pertussis is a highly communicable disease. It is likely that no one escapes pertussis in the absence of immunization. By the age of 16 years, almost 100 per cent of children have suffered an episode of pertussis but about 25 per cent of episodes are unrecognized (Thomas 1989). This has been demonstrated by data from epidemic investigations, studies of secondary spread within families, and serological surveys.
In pertussis epidemics, attack rates in unimmunized children are high, ranging between 11 per cent and 81 per cent depending on age (Table 2.1). The high degree of communicability has been repeatedly demonstrated by secondary attack rates of 70 to 100 per cent among susceptibles within families (Gordon & Hood 1951).
Try as you might, you will not find these authors attributing increased infection in under one year old babies to the vaccine itself. Their data on the graph is unambiguous. The jury is in. Meryl Dorey lied. On page 20 Galazka and Robertson write, under Impact of immunisation against pertussis [bold mine];
Immunization is the key to preventing pertussis. Whole cell pertussis vaccines, widely used in industrialized countries since the late 1950s and 1960s, and introduced in developing countries within the WHO Expanded Programme on Immunization in the 1970s and 1980s, are of proven efficacy.
Well, Meryl Dorey can angle this one any way she likes. The graph she sourced was literally surrounded with material reinforcing both the efficacy of pertussis vaccination and the dangers of not vaccinating. Pleading innocence is not an option. It is a clear and intentional breach of copyright, submission of fraudulent material to a government health body and rank plagiarism.
Business as usual one might argue.
Just for the record it might be worth noting the pertussis complications table Ms. Dorey also had access to in consulting this document. Pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy. It beggars belief that she can refer to this disease as “just a bad cough”.
You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it
So reads Matthew 16:18.
What a splendid analogue we have today with self appointed missionary and cross bearer, the Reverend Canon Dr. Evonne Paddison, receiving the blessing and permission of fellow Christian Peter Garrett. Also raised as an Anglican, if his desire was to transform from rock star to rock of foundation it has certainly been realised.
Garrett’s so-called “federal inquiry” into the proselytising of ACCESS Ministries and their stated, observed and reported intention to convert public school children has miraculously “cleared” them of doing any such thing. Backed by the insistence of devout Catholic and career Christian education whip, who recently became Victorian education minister, Martin Dixon, that not a single substantial complaint has been received, Paddison is now free to build. Of course Evonne never doubted the righteousness of her “God given open door”. The justified concerns raised and reported to ministers with the bipartisan staying power of wet tissue paper, were simply a grossly unfair “concerted attack”. As she reinforced, perhaps a little creepily at last Sunday’s Forward Together rally;
We know with absolute certainty that our message and the centre of our faith remains the same. It remains firm because the one we serve is the same yesterday, today… forever. And his purposes will not be thwarted.
In The Age today Jewel Topsfield and Dan Harrison report;
A FEDERAL investigation into the Christian group that provides religious education in Victorian schools has found no evidence that its chaplains tried to convert students in breach of government guidelines.
The federal and Victorian governments ordered inquiries after a recording emerged of Access Ministries’ chief executive Evonne Paddison telling a 2008 conference: ”We need to go and make disciples.” […..]
But federal Education Minister Peter Garrett said the investigation found there had been no breach of the guidelines and no further action would be taken. He said he had received an explanation for the comments made by Dr Paddison and was satisfied the group was not trying to convert students.
Access Ministries had recently sent a letter telling chaplains who also taught Christian religious education in schools to stop doing so to avoid any blurring of lines in the roles.
”There are very strict guidelines in place to ensure that chaplaincy service providers do not engage in proselytising or misuse their positions, and we will fully investigate any complaints,” Mr Garrett said.
Victorians and the Education Union who have voiced concerns – and voted for an end to ACCESS funding have every right to be appalled at this whitewash. The concerns raised are specific to CRE and the evangelical passion of volunteers. Volunteers who in the main have less than one days training. Manufacturing a “solution” wherein chaplains have been told to no longer conduct CRE is poppycock. More so, this raises an entirely new dynamic. Is Paddison now admitting chaplains did proselytise to children or is this just a token gesture to “avoid any blurring of the lines”? More so, it is totally dismissive of the needs of our multi-faith and multicultural society.
And intentionally so. Last month, for example, ACCESS Ministries and education department representatives were invited to partake in preparation, and contribute to genuine parental evaluation with Hawthorn West Primary’s school council. They played along only to apply pressure – after considerable grassroots effort – to withhold the survey. The stated reason? That the “survey withheld the fact that under the present legislation schools are obligated to offer special religious instruction when it is made available by providers”, suggesting that the council had overstepped it’s obligation to comply with the Education and Training Reform Act, 2006. In other words the thrust should have been “you have no choice”.
Finally, Garrett’s continued mantra of “the guidelines, the guidelines, the guidelines” being in place to prevent abuse of Paddison’s “God given open door” is laughable. Evonne Paddison is the real thing when it comes to snubbing “earthly laws”. Her aim is “to implant the gospel in every school” so that the ACCESS goal can be realised. Paddison wants to “reach every child in Victoria with the transforming love of God and His son, Jesus [and] through CRE we aim to reach 80% of primary school children by the year 2012”.
This is not a person who even considers the option of compromise, laying ownership to student issues such as “bullying, drugs and self worth… The need is great but God is greater”. The needs of students who are not Christian, not theistic, not heterosexual or not celibate are bound for the scrap heap. What’s worse is that it’s now clear ACCESS have a distinctly anti-science and anti-evolution theme to their teachings. God most certainly did not make the world and everything in it.
By 2050 when these students will be at the peak of their careers Australia’s population will have grown at a rate of 65% to an unsustainable 35 million. The global population will grow at a much smaller 38%. Land temperatures in Australia may be 5 degrees Celsius higher – with mean global rises at least 2.5 degrees. The very last thing our youngest minds need now is to be targetted by blinkered, if not arguably deluded zealots intent on pursuing demonstrably fatalistic falsehoods at the expense of anything, and anyone, else.
We recently found out her goal to “reach every child in Victoria” includes independent schools – some of her harshest critics. In the mind of a zealot like Paddison, a woman who sees herself as Jesus’ scarred disciple there must be no barriers to the divine plan she has been chosen to deliver. Despite children being at these schools for the benefits of a secular education Paddison sees it as her business to change this. Reported in an Age opinion piece two days ago, was Paddison’s pronouncement at the ACCESS rally;
Those poor independent schoolchildren – I don’t want them to miss out
One of the basic tenets of the Victorian Education Act is that public education should be secular, a sentiment that first emerged in the 19th century, and was reaffirmed in the past decade when the act was reviewed.
Herein lies the sheer temerity and arrogance of Evonne Paddison and her discriminatory view that “Without Jesus our students are lost”. Whilst a few anti-theistic voices are raised to claim that this means no religion in schools, the clearly specified intention in 1872 was that no religion should dominate to the detriment of any other. No doubt a wise choice in days when Protestant and Catholic rivalries were high, but there now can be only less doubt about the wisdom of this approach. Her defence is that CRE is “entirely voluntary… that’s the beauty of it”. But of course, this is in utter dissonance to her stated goals, aims and ambition. It is in every way offensive to parents who are essentially pressured to not evaluate CRE and to remember there is no choice. Or the hundreds and more parents fed up with having their children’s minds filled with confusing debris that clashes with family, diversity and social values. There is only compulsion.
The problem is very simple. The wording of the legislation includes the word “may” offer religious instruction. It is conveniently interpreted as “must” offer RI. From here flows the ridiculous notion that it is compulsory for schools to allow these misguided and opportunistic purveyors of fantasy and bigotry into our children’s presence and thence begin misrepresenting the very world in which they live. As Paddison declared at the EFAC National Conference – 2008;
We must give our children and young people a model of discipleship that promotes belief in, and responds to the word of God. And trains them to abide in it. It teaches and models for them the love of God and how to be in a community of faith to love one another and love God’s word. We need a model that is marked by fruit bearing and involves our young people in evangelicalism and disciple making.
We need a model that points to the glory of Christ in his incarnation his work on the cross his resurrection is exultation and sees his disciples continuing that work and reflecting in in his world. We are constantly tempted to water this down in order to attract young people through our activities, our music, our fun, or whatever it is. Resist the temptation to replace substance with superficiality.
Our gospel is not in need of massaging for acceptability. It alone will transform lives and bring salvation. My view is that we have every opportunity to create new congregations through our schools ministries, as we do this we have the responsibility to fulfill the great commission of making disciples. We need to see our Scripture teachers, our chaplains, especially as facilitators of this as established Anglican churches.
We need to be missional. As leaders in the church we are called to be leaders and enablers of god’s mission for his world…. Our task is to have a biblical model of discipleship that is presented in a contextually appropriate manner… What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity we have to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost.
Our churches in the West are on a slow death march. We have the opportunity to create life. It may be uncomfortable but so what? What a commandment, make disciples. What a responsibility. What a privilege we have been given.
Let’s go for it.
Evonne Paddison is a clear and present danger to the psychological health of Victorian children. ACCESS ministries can be viewed as nothing less than a malignant and corrosive presence in our education system.
Peter Garrett must be proud that he is the rock on which this exploitation is being built.
As Tony Abbott pushed his vengeful NeoCon apocalyptic anti-carbon tax hatred at Frankston on July 13th, he, his attendant minions and assorted flying monkey’s were suitably wound up by Greens member Vicky Kasidis. Vicky announced, rather politely, to The Church of Denial, that she was in favour of the tax.
Then Vicky plunged the Green Dagger into the Black Heart of the party faithful. She admitted that her tea cosy hat, rainbow coloured scarf, imitation carpet bag and sweeping sorceress’ coat weren’t just for show. Nay! Vicky had actually been to the Other Side. She’d voted Greens! Vicky was heckled by the evidence denying crowd who, lost in their monochrome world, had never seen a critical thinker in real life. Being a former militant leftist Vicky took this in her stride.
After the Abbott style “Evangelical Amway For Wreckers” had pumped his crowd into submitting to his idea of making up reality as you go, things got ugly for Vicky. As she was speaking to media, an apparently heavily pregnant – or perhaps pot-bellied – Liberal Party Flying Monkey, Declan Stephenson told Vicky to “get back under your rock”. Coming from the irksome lurker Stephenson himself, that comment alone was sheer gold. But it merely got better.
Stephenson is a long time Liberal party member in the Dunkley FEC. Dunkley covers the majority of the City of Frankston and part of the Shire of Mornington Peninsula. Not happy with just verbal abuse of the very polite Vicky – who was invited to attend, and had RSVP’d – Stephenson took his anti-democracy show on the road. Just prior to this it is rumoured Abbott’s Press Secretary was seen instructing members to “fly and bring me that girl” – apparently caught here on video.
The below footage is ample explanation of what occurred next. Using his belly like a battering ram, the malfunctioning Neocon flying monkey Stephenson, follows Vicky with perhaps the best example of dysfunctional and cowardly passive-aggressive intention I’ve witnessed for ages. Vicky ends up trapped between a power pole and a pot belly as the seemingly witless Stephenson self sabotages with a mix of arrogance, misogyny and thuggery.
Poor Declan. His pomposity is first rate. He appears convinced he has a right to bully a much smaller female. “It’s a free country, a free city, I live in Frankston, I’m prepared to walk around Frankston”. He surely must have lost his grasp on cognition, actually admitting he lives in Frankston?! Telling the media it’s “none of their business” what he’s up to, he refuses to move away at their urging. Vicky had clearly stated she felt intimidated.
One media member points this out. Getting in his face, Stephenson offers, “Why don’t you and the rest of your people leave her alone… then she won’t feel intimidated”. Asked if he treats women in his family this way, and told it’s appalling he answers Vicky, “That’s your opinion”. He maintains he’s not following her despite having followed her for some distance and indicating he would not leave even if the media did.
At one point Vicky says, “I wish for you to leave me alone”. He replies, “I don’t wish to”. He also urges Vicky to go to the train station – her stated intention. Hilarious given the member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson opined in Declan’s favour in parliament last September 30:
“It is important to acknowledge that team: Geoff Shaw, Robert Latimer, Declan Stephenson, …. just kept contributing day in and day out, whether it was at arctic dawns at railway stations through to the slog of letterboxing with a campaign that needed to be quite resourceful, given the funds available.”
Somehow I doubt this creepily resourceful flying monkey was intending to hand Vicky a brochure.
Losing In The Lucky Country 
