Robert Weil dehumanises LGBTIQ+ people, likening us to excrement

It seems Robert Weil has no boundaries, as he has now likened LGBTIQ+ people to excrement. He does this while he is still a Vice President of Caulfield Shule.

Wonderful. Is there not one part of Eretz Hakodesh that can be spared from being defecated on in the name of “diversity”. The comparison to the candles of the menorah is absolutely sickening.

Robert Weil has tried to back-pedal his original comment:

It has come back to me that some of the wording in my above comment has caused offence to various people and I do apologize for this. My feelings about the original post on which I commented are strong, but I do admit that my language, particularly the word ‘defecated’ was overly offensive and therefore I withdraw it and apologize unreservedly.

These comments were posted to a semi-private share of this public post which appears on Ittay Flescher’s Facebook page:

Likening a group of people to excrement is not “overly offensive”. It is outright repulsive, sick, perverted, and depraved. No amount of apology from Robert Weil will make up for the litany of hate he has sprayed at LGBTIQ+ people over the years. His sincerity here is clearly wanting, especially as hs comments are likely to impact his standing as Vice President on the board of the Caulfield Shule.

I have raised this latest outburst of hate speech from Robert Weil to the attention of the President of Caulfield Shule, David Mond. I have requested the board remove Robert Weil from the board.

The last two times I wrote to David Mond about Robert Weil’s campaign of hate against LGBTIQ+ people he ignored my requests. I feel this time there will be too much pressure for David Mond to let this pass with inaction.

Watch this space.

Lyle Shelton praises Europeans for stopping “black-on-black” violence in Australia

According to Lyle Shelton, indigenous Australians should be grateful for the European invasion stopping them from killing each other.

“Thank goodness that the Europeans came and the black-on-black violence, which was limiting their population growth, stopped.”

Lyle Shelton; May 2 2020

Caulfield Synagogue Vice President Robert Weil derides Jewish Care’s support for LGBTIQ+ people

Robert Weil spits the dummy again because he doesn’t believe in diversity and treating people with respect.

Much like a child having its favourite dummy taken away from it, serial anti-homosexualist and Vice President of Caulfield Synagogue Robert Weil has doubled down and taken aim at Jewish Care Victoria for their strong support of LGBTIQ+ people:

Seems Jewish Care is also infected with the political correctness virus and virtue signalling and the ‘rainbow tick’ are now it’s proudest achievements.

J-Wire: “Marching with Pride”; February 8 2020

At this rate there will be few aged care facilities who will want Robert Weil on their premises knowing how threatened and hostile he becomes in the presence of LGBTIQ+ staff and residents.

Caulfield Synagogue Vice President Robert Weil wants gays who are taught to loathe themselves to be able to pray their gay away

The law to ban conversion therapy in Victoria has not yet passed, yet serial anti-homosexualist and Vice President of Caulfield Synagogue Robert Weil is prematurely spewing confected outrage over the issue of people with “unwanted homosexuality” being denied the right to pray their gay away:

I’m not aware of any of the affiliates of the JCCV being consulted on this matter. Again, it’s just virtue signalling by the JCCV and Jewish Care. While falling over themselves to pander to homosexuals, they ignore the hate and insults being leveled at people of faith who wish to preserve religious freedoms and values. Without entering the debate about homosexuals being ‘born that way’, which, in many cases, is probably true, the fact remains that those who are uncomfortable with their position and wish to inquire about or discuss available options are now prohibited from doing so by this draconian ban.

J-Wire: “Jewish Care Victoria and JCCV partner to support ban of LGBTQ+ conversion therapy”; December 15 2019

It’s not surprising vulnerable gay people would want to rid themselves of their homosexuality (or their life) when they encounter the type of rabid mouth-foaming attitudes that tell them they’re broken and sinful.

Lyle Shelton’s latest tamtrumette

Lyle always has a tantrumette when he doesn’t get his way.

Has anyone noticed that Lyle Shelton always manages to turn everything around and make it about him?

My article Lyle Shelton calls the police puts Lyle’s silly trantrumette into perspective.

Graham Young admits gay activists brought him to his knees

Lesson to Graham Young: Don’t be surprised when your pro-gay advertisers object to your homophobic opinion.

Who would have thought that gay activists could have sucked dry Graham Young’s rivers of advertising gold:

While On Line Opinion may have contributed to some small softening of political debate, that would be impossible to detect compared to what social media has licenced.

In 2010 we were the subject of an advertising boycott, organised by gay activists, which destroyed the business model of the site. (Read the full details here.) Our sin was that we published this article by Bill Muehlenberg as part of a feature containing 25 articles on gay marriage, 75% of which were in favour of it.

But to activists 75% is not enough. It has to be 100%, so in a technique, since used by organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Sleeping Giants, our advertisers were targeted to pressure us to stop publishing anyone who disagreed with the activists. $17,000 income from advertising in the month of November 2010 went to virtually nothing in January 2011.

The same thing is being done to Rugby Australia over Folau, but instead of protecting his human rights, RA is caving in.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20260&page=0

He gives a lot of credit to these gay activists for their actions. But stop for a minute and think about what he’s saying.

These activists approached his advertisers with a simple request not to advertise on his site, and they made an informed decision not to place their brand amongst the content he chose to publish.

Short of taking credit for the distasteful content his advertisers chose to avoid, be blames homosexual people for daring to take exception to homophobic content he published.

If there ever were the monthly thousands pouring into the On Line Opinion coffers that Graham Young claims, the fault lies at his feet for not having done the necessary risk analysis to cater for the day he might not have the loyalty of his most profitable advertisers. After all, they’re only trying to protect their brand from being tarnished by the toxic content he was publishing.

And that’s exactly what Qantas is doing by not wanting to have their brand tarnished by the homophobia emanating from Rugby Australia’s midst.

Hark Graham: Don’t be surprised when your pro-gay advertisers object to your homophobic opinion.


POSTSCRIPT

After I published this article Chrys Stevenson contacted me and brought to my attention the following extract from her 12-Feb-2011 blog MY FREE SPEECH FIASCO, which paints a different reality to that which Grahan Young believes occurred:

So, when I heard that Graham was being persecuted for publishing an anti-gay marriage article by Catholic conservative, Bill Muehlenberg, I was outraged.  I disagree with everything Muehlenberg said in the article, but, in the cause of free speech, I supported his right to put his point of view, and Graham’s right to publish it.  Muehlenberg’s article is highly selective, makes some ridiculously broad assumptions and is clearly biased.  On the other hand, it is reasonably well written and, while being critical of what he sees as homosexuals’ proclivity for infidelity, he doesn’t (in my view) directly vilify GLBTI people, either as individuals or as a group.


The story I heard, initially, was that someone had taken offence at the article, complained to some of the advertisers on the site (specifically IBM and ANZ) and that these companies had removed their ads – at significant financial cost to Online Opinion.


Impulsively, I contacted Graham and offered my support.  I also did a quick survey of articles about same-sex marriage on Online Opinion and found that pro-gay articles far outnumbered anti-gay articles.  There was no question of anti-gay bias.


Graham then made me aware of an article about the incident on the gay online journal, SX.  The story suggested the problem was not so much Muehlenberg’s article, as Graham’s failure to remove an offensive comment, by ‘Shintaro’ on another article which suggested that gays should either stay in the closet or be murdered.  Graham protested that he hadn’t removed the comment because it had been taken out of context.  He provided me with the link and I satisfied myself that the person who posted it was not advocating violence at all; he was pro-gay and anti-violence and the comment was intended to show where the anti-gay rhetoric in the discussion could lead.


Now, in high dudgeon at the injustice of it all, I posted a comment on SX defending Graham and Online Opinion and I wrote an email to a number of influential bloggers and columnists suggesting that they join me by writing in Graham’s defence.


Graham emailed back saying, in effect, “Nice email, but the facts are wrong.”


It seems that in my rush to play the part of Crusader Rabbit,  I hadn’t done my homework on the issue thoroughly enough, and Graham had (quite rightly) assumed that I had.  The advertising, it seems,  wasn’t lost because of the comment mentioned on SX, it was withdrawn because of another comment altogether.  This comment read:


“It’s interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt’s want their perversion to be called “normal” and “healthy” and they’ve decided the best way to do this is have their “marriages” formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these “marriages” are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.”

Posted by MrAnderson, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:09:39 AM


A gay reader brought the comment to Graham’s attention and asked for the reference to the ‘perversion’ of LGBT people to be removed.  Although Graham did not agree with the remark, he felt that it was a view which was commonly expressed among a minority of Australians, which did not incite violence, and which would have been acceptable (if widely condemned) in a parliamentary debate.  Given his commitment to free speech, Graham refused to delete it.


Having been rebuffed by Graham, the reader then decided to complain to the site’s advertisers.  Someone within IBM (it is not clear whether it was the same person) also complained to their management.  As a result, IBM and the ANZ decided to withdraw their advertising from Online Opinion and a number of other advertisers followed.  Sadly, as Online Opinion is part of an advertising co-operative, this meant that other bloggers also lost a substantial amount of their income, despite having nothing to do with Graham’s editorial decisions.


Now I was in a quandary.  In fact, I felt like I’d been hit with a ton of bricks.  All day I’d been sending supportive emails to Graham and shouting loudly from my ‘freedom of speech’ soap-box.  He thought I was an ally.  I thought I was an ally!  Now I realized I’d gone off half-cocked and, with this new information to hand, I felt I couldn’t defend Graham’s actions.  I felt sick, conflicted and embarrassed.  OK, I felt stupid.  I’d emailed all these people and said ‘stand up for freedom of speech!’  Now, if I was to be true to my own moral compass, I was going to have to write back to them and say, “Given new information to hand, I’m no longer standing up for free speech.”  I wished that a large black hole would just open up and consume me right then and there.


When I told Graham that I could no longer speak out publicly in his defence, he said I didn’t understand what free speech means.  Perhaps he was right.  I support free speech within limits, but not untrammeled free speech.  Perhaps that’s a terrible cop-out.  Perhaps it is ideologically unsound.  All I know is that every ethical atom of my being was screaming at me that I couldn’t defend the right of anyone to call a gay person perverted.  Nor could I support the decision not to delete a comment which was not only highly offensive, but, given the weight of expert medical and sociological opinion, patently untrue.


https://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/my-free-speech-fiasco

How I got my latest 30-day Facebook ban

I scored another 30-day Facebook ban that served no purpose.

On July 14 Facebook rewarded me with another 30-day ban for posting this story and accompanying comment, which apparently breached their “Community Standards”.

20180714 Pink Apostates post gets me a 30 day ban on Facebook

I was not actually told which part of my post breached their standards, so am unclear about what I shouldn’t write in future.

These insane 30-day bans make no sense, and with no practical appeal process the entire exercise is a complete farce.

Lyle Shelton scores a hat trick against himself

Lyle Shelton had three of his domain names deregistered in under two months due to breach of auDA policy.

“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” — Oscar Wilde

In the wake of the deregistration of Lyle Shelton’s domain names lyleshelton.com.au and lyleshelton.net.au, and his subsequent claim this was an attempt to silence him, it’s interesting to note that he made no such fuss when his domain lyleshelton.org.au was also recently deregistered.

The Internet Archive shows us the existence of the domain lyleshelton.org.au:

Lyle Shelton had been publishing articles under lyleshelton.org.au, in parallel to publishing them on lyleshelton.com.au, evidenced by records of posts received via RSS subscription between April 12-20 2018:

April 12 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/why_truth_should_always_trump_prejudice

April 16 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/consequences_what_consequences

April 18 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/this_pathway_to_totalitarianism_must_be_reversed http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/qld_education_minister_drops_truth_bomb_about_safe_schools

April 20 2018
http://www.lyleshelton.org.au/here_s_what_the_chronicle_is_saying_about_my_call_for_conservatives_to_be_conservatives

On April 23 2018 the domain lyleshelton.org.au was no longer able to be reached:

lyleshelton.org.au domain can't be reached April 23 2018

The WHOIS record for lyleshelton.org.au indicated on April 23 2018 that it was in a pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete) status, effective April 20 2018:

Whois response for lyleshelton.org.au:

Domain Namelyleshelton.org.au
Last Modified20-Apr-2018 14:10:06 UTC
StatuspendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)
Registrar NameGoDaddy.com, LLC
RegistrantWhitestone Strategic Pty Ltd
Registrant IDACN 618607051
Eligibility TypeOther
Registrant Contact IDCR315360472
Registrant Contact NameDavid Hutt
Registrant Contact Emaildavid.hutt@whitestonestrategic.com
Tech Contact IDCR315360477
Tech Contact NameDavid Hutt
Tech Contact Emaildavid.hutt@whitestonestrategic.com
Name Serverns10.nationbuilder.com
Name Serverns11.nationbuilder.com
Name Serverns12.nationbuilder.com
Name Serverns13.nationbuilder.com
Name Serverns14.nationbuilder.com
Name Serverns15.nationbuilder.com
DNSSECunsigned

auDA says of the pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete) status:

Domain names that are deleted due to a breach of an auDA Published Policy will transition from a “Registered” to a “Pending Policy Delete” state at the time the deletion command is submitted by the registrar. At this time, the domain name will be published on the Official Domain Drop List for 14 calendar days after which it will be purged at the next drop cycle.

auDA policy states of a .org.au domain name:

SCHEDULE F

ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ORG.AU

The org.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations.

The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document.

1.  To be eligible in the org.au 2LD, registrants must be non-commercial organisations as follows:
a) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or

b) a political party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission; or

c) a trade union or other organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; or

d) a sporting or special interest club operating in Australia; or

e) a charity operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation; or

f) a non-profit organisation operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant’s constitution or other documents of incorporation.

2.  Domain names in the org.au 2LD must be:

a) an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name; or

b) otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant, in accordance with the categories of “close and substantial connection” set out in the Guidelines on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs.

The domain name lyleshelton.org.au appears to have breached all the auDA requirements of a .org.au domain name.

Lyle Shelton lost his lyleshelton.org.au domain name due to breach of auDA policy.  The registrant for the domain name, David Hutt, would have been notified of this in advance of the domain being taken offline.  Clearly David and Lyle weren’t able to sort out the discrepancies with their two other domain names before they were also found to be in breach of auDA policy.