New South Wales

Jan 15, 2015

Fred in denial: the Christian Democratic Party has lost all relevance

Fred Nile's tired attempts to stir up controversy after the Sydney Siege are just further signs that the Christian Democrats have lost all relevance.

Alex Mitchell — NSW politics correspondent

Alex Mitchell

NSW politics correspondent

As regular as clockwork, New South Wales upper house MP Fred Nile makes an outrageous public statement in the lead-up to a state election to create headlines, controversy and notoriety for himself. It is a public signal that Nile has come to the end of another eight-year term and he is standing yet again.

12 comments

Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “Fred in denial: the Christian Democratic Party has lost all relevance

  1. wayne robinson

    There was the Montreal Massacre in 1987 in which a deranged gunman entered a classroom and ordered the male and female students to separate, and then proceeded to shoot the female students. The male students were later unfairly criticised for not attempting to overcome the gunman.

    How could the male students know that the gunman was intending to shoot? He might have been wanting to take hostages for a siege, choosing female students as being more controllable.

    Anyone in a siege, male or female, with the possibility of escape should grab it. It provides information to the authorities, and it’s standard practice to offer the hostage taker minor concessions to gain the release of individual hostages.

    Fewer hostages mean that it’s easier to storm the premises if required too.

  2. Cantbeeffed

    The gay community loves Fred, he’s a constant reminder of how whacky his mob are, and prevents the fair-minded from falling into a false sense of security. There was a great cartoon in the Sydney Star Observer many, many years ago about a young, brave gay activist who pledged his life to pretending to be a homophobic loon to garner support for gay rights, and so became Fred Nile.

    We all need reminders of just how dreadful other human beings can be.

  3. wayne robinson

    I should have read the article before commenting. Fred Nile is wrong in asserting that Jesus is greater than Mohammed. There’s a convincing theory that Mohammed was Jesus. ‘Mohammed’ means ‘he who is to be praised’. Islam started off as a Christan sect, which rejected the incoherence of an indivisible God divided into three in the Trinity. ‘There is but one God, and Mohammed (ie Jesus) is his messenger’ is just a slogan differentiating Islam from other Christian sects.

    There’s as little historical evidence for the existence of Mohammed as there is for Jesus. Precisely zilch, plus or minus.

  4. Honest Johnny

    I once saw a couple of Christian Democrats at a polling booth handing out pamphlets saying that the Greens attracted paedophiles. I responded by saying that I hadn’t met or heard of any paedophiles among Greens but couldn’t say the same about people from the Churches.

  5. Norman Hanscombe

    So the Crikey Collective felt Fred Nile has to be attacked for suggesting those who did no more than flee from the Martin Place siege shouldn’t automatically receive a Bravery Medal.
    Even if the word “bravery” has been badly cheapened by the way it’s now used, what’s so wrong with someone pointing this out?

  6. Tim Davies

    Mad Fred actually proposing a bravery award for a gay man?
    I wonder if he has really thought this through, I propose an award for all those who have opposed this lunatic throughout the years.
    Who are these bigots who support this fool?

  7. michael dwyer

    What happened to Fred’s previous fellow upper house member Rev Gordon Moyes. They were great buddies at one stage. Gordon would be 76 now, and may not be interested in resuming a political career.

  8. Justin

    @Norman I agree with your sentiment. It does seem a little over the top to be awarding the hostages with bravery awards for trying to survive.

    But it seems as though you have missed Fred’s point. Fred only singled out the male hostages who fled as being unworthy for bravery awards. As if their gender somehow instills a greater responsibility in situations where one faces imminent danger. Conversely, it implies women are expected to flee from danger and should not be expected to behave “bravely” (by staying within the hostage situation and trying to protect the other hostages).

    It is the old-fashioned gender roles that Fred’s comments represent, as though he lives in a world where women are helpless beings needing to be rescued, and men who do not seek to be the rescuers are weak. Do you believe that Fred is correct?

  9. MAC TEZ

    Just Fred trying to grab a headline,in the hope it will gain a few votes. Looks like he may have won over Crikey’s swinging voter/Labor loyalist at least.

  10. AR

    The ever present reminder to NSW voters that all religious luatics are just that, religious lunatics and nothing more.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...