MELBOURNE, Australia – Councillor Rosalie Crestani’s courageous stand against the pro-homosexual discrimination at the City of Casey Council on the fringes of Melbourne has enraged the forces of darkness.

Her fellow councillors have ganged up against her to try to get her removed from the council for what – in their hate-filled eyes – is the crime of daring to speak out in accordance not only with her religious and political beliefs but also with her duties as an elected councillor.

Councillor Crestani, however, is made of stronger stuff than the F. of D. have realized. She got her blow in first, complaining to the Municipal Association of Victoria that the waste-of-space mayor’s repeatedly overriding her in council constituted a criminal offense, dobbing in several councillors by name to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission for their campaign of vicious anti-religious discrimination against her over two years, and reporting the chief executive to the local government inspectors for breach of his duty of impartiality under the Local Government Act 1989 in having written a secret memo to all staff libelously characterizing her views as “extreme.”

For good measure, the feisty councillor has called in the top human-rights lawyer in Australia to start legal proceedings against the chief executive for aggravated libel. She is also planning a series of actions in tort against the council and one or two of its officers.

Councillor Crestani’s twin secret weapons are persistence and relentless niceness. She has offered to make all her complaints go away if the mayor and chief executive circulate short, simple apologies to her, and if the council will pass the following resolution, which is so good that I shall give it in full:

That the Council of the City of Casey,

Concerned that its staff shall in future honor in full their obligation not to discriminate against persons of any sexual orientation;

Noting with alarm that 28 per cent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with 1000 or more males over a lifetime (Kinsey Institute, 1978);

Noting further that four homosexuals in five said that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers (Kinsey Institute, 1978);

Noting further that 1100 sexual partners were the mean for homosexual males and that some reported as many as 20,000 different sexual partners (U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 1982);

Noting further that both heterosexuals and homosexuals had reduced their promiscuity owing to fear of HIV, but that homosexuals continued to have significantly more partners on average than heterosexuals (San Francisco Men’s Health Study,1987, Journal of the American Medical Association 257:3, 323);

Noting further that fewer than 1 in 30 of 2583 older homosexuals said they had had sexual relations with only one partner (Van de Ven, P, et al., 1997, A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men, Journal of Sex Research 34, 394)

Noting further the dismissive attitude to monogamy expressed by certain non-heterosexuals, for instance, “Let’s face it: monogamy is a bizarre human invention – sure, some animals practice it but usually when survival is tough and teamwork is required to eat – in fact, it’s a human invention designed (on a cynical level) for the possession of women” (Jacobs, R, 2004, Is monogamy the death-knell of relationships?, MCV: Melbourne’s Gay and Lesbian Community Voice, January 9);

Noting further that the “duration of steady [gay] partnerships” was 1.5 years, and that the mean number of casual sexual partners claimed by homosexual men with a “steady partner” was eight per year (Xiridou, M, et al., 2003, The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, AIDS 17:7, 1029-1038 at 1031);

Noting further that though lesbians are less promiscuous than homosexual males, more than a third of all lesbians had 10-100 partners in their lifetime (Bell, A, and Weinberg, M, 1978, Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women, Simon & Schuster, New York, p. 308);

Noting further that in Australia more than a quarter of homosexual men had 21-100 partners in a lifetime; that almost two in five had 101-1000 partners, and more than 1 in 6 had more than 1000 partners (Prestage, G, et al., 1995, Report C2, Sexual identity and sexual behavior with both men and women in a sample of homosexually-active men in Sydney Australia, HIV Aids & Society Publications, Sydney, p. 34);

Noting further that almost half of all male homosexuals had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners in the previous six months, that more than 1 in 5 had engaged in sex with 11-50 partners and that 1 in 20 had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners (Van de Ven, P, et al., 1998, Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey: February 1998, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Sydney, p. 14);

Noting further that in a more recent survey more than a quarter of male homosexuals had 11-50 partners over the previous six months, while 1 in 12 had more than 50 partners (Aspin, C, et al., 2000, Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey: February 2000, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Sydney, p. 19);

Noting further that more than three-quarters of homosexual males were never celibate and only 1 in 20 had never in four years had casual sexual partners (Prestage et al., op. cit., pp 7-9);

Noting further that in Queensland almost half of homosexual males had had 2-10 partners in the previous six months; 1 in 5 had had 11-50 partners, and 1 in 18 had 50 or more sexual partners (Van de Ven, P, et al., 1999, Queensland Gay Community Perioic Survey: June 1999, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Sydney, p. 18);

Noting further that one of the largest and most recent national studies, involving 20,000 Australians, had found that more than a third of homosexuals had 10-49 same-sex partners in a lifetime, while almost 2 in 5 had 50 or more (Grulich, A, et al., 2003, Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 27:2, 155-163 at 158);

Distressed at the significantly elevated mortality and morbidity rates prevalent among certain non-heterosexual groups consequent upon the extreme promiscuity and dangerous sexually-transmitted-disease transmission rates prevalent among them;

Determined that residents of all sexual orientations shall be made fairly and accurately aware of the medical and public-health risks attendant upon their choice of lifestyles;

Shall henceforth –

1) Comply with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in its employment procedures concerning staff training by specifying therein that staff are to be made sensitive to and respectful of people of all sexual orientations without discrimination,

2) Cease to single out non-heterosexual orientations as the exclusive focus of staff training, which is discriminatory and contrary to the 2010 Act and will henceforth be forbidden.

3) Refer in any press releases concerning sexual orientation to all such orientations without discrimination, ending the present unlawful indirect discrimination against heterosexuals.

4) Ensure that all its staff involved in sexual orientation sensitivity training are fairly made aware of the pressing medical and public health risks arising from the extreme promiscuity and medically dangerous sexual practices of persons of certain non-heterosexual orientations – practices which put those persons and their own communities most directly at grave risk of disease and even of death;

5) Ensure that all staff are made aware that in consequence of the personal and public health risks attendant upon certain non-heterosexual lifestyle choices, staff or residents who have made or may be contemplating such choices may have or may face particular urgent health needs.

How and why have we allowed the so-called “gay” community to fool us into thinking we should “celebrate” their deathstyle when – in their own interest – we should be warning everyone of the medical risks of the extreme promiscuity that is the custom among them?

And why are some states allowing them to “marry” when the probability that the “marriage” will last for more than a few weeks or months is vanishingly different from zero?

And why, oh why, do a few nations allow them to adopt and bring up children? Do we not care more for our innocent little ones than that?

Let us hope that Councillor Crestani’s gallant stand against the nihilistic, totalitarian left, which has all but succeeded in preventing the well-referenced, scientific facts in her remarkable resolution from appearing anywhere, will stir the conscience of a slumbering world and remind it that no amount of tyrannical bullying should ever be allowed to silence the freedom of speech that is our best guarantee that, one day, morality will again prevail.

Media wishing to interview Christopher Monckton, please contact [email protected].

Receive Lord Christopher Monckton's commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Lord Christopher Monckton's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required

  • Click the button below to sign up for Lord Christopher Monckton's commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.