If they ever have a good week, last week was an unmitigated disaster for the Greens.
Deputy leader Larissa Waters stood alongside an extremist activist so incapable of seeing any good in men, she declared fire-fighters go home to beat their partners after battling fires.
But few noticed the third person standing alongside them, Nic Holas, Campaigns Director at Change.org. His Twitter bio boasts he “writes about queers” before dropping his preferred pronouns (he/him, funnily enough).
Doesn’t his presence seem rather odd?
The Greens had met with this well-known gay misandrist activist to table a petition in the Senate calling for Pauline Hanson to be removed from the family law inquiry.
The petition had been run on change.org.
Shouldn’t a platform running petitions which are used to influence government be neutral?
Isn’t it wrong that a campaign platform would have such a clear political bias?
After the car crash press conference, there was so much outrage that a petition was launched to remove the activist from News Corp where she is employed as a “journalist”.
The petition was hosted on change.org.
It didn’t last long; it was removed after it reached over 30,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.
An email sent to the person who created the petition stated it had been removed for “bullying”.
Change.org has been used to host petitions calling for the sacking of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Pauline Hanson, Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott. But a petition to remove this green’s activist was pulled for “bullying”?
If change.org is only hosting petitions that are politically motivated by the far left, and removing ones that aren’t in their interest, what does this say about political interference?
What credibility can change.org realistically have after this?
Change.org claims to be “an open platform”. It further claims to “care about free speech and empowering our users to create the change they want to see”.
Surely it’s not correct to give some people a voice but only allow words you agree with to be spoken?
Are these clowns seriously suggesting it’s okay to encourage change only if it’s pushed by leftist activists? Gay anti-family activists?
Isn’t it a positive that so many in our community stood up and wanted to see the back of this hateful green’s activist suggesting that firefighters head home to abuse their partners?
Isn’t it interesting to hear that change.org has also pulled petitions from fathers campaigning to see their children?
And fathers trying to push against parental alienation by mothers of their children?
Change.org’s Executive Director is Sally Rugg, who frequently appears on the taxpayer-funded ABC program The Drum. She is a Sydney based LGTBTIQ activist. She was previously GetUp’s creative and campaigns director. She was the public face of the “Yes” campaign in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.
No wonder there’s talk change.org has increasingly become a subsidiary of GetUp!, a second string to its slacktivism bow.
Isn’t it fair to suggest this is a mob aren’t particularly supportive of the old-school family? So, shouldn’t we all be concerned about the level of their influence in the impending Family Law Inquiry?
In one foul bubbling pot of hatred, we have GetUp!, The Australian Greens, Change.org and a man-loathing activist…
Rather than signing petitions and delivering them to Canberra to have Pauline Hanson removed from the family law inquiry, doesn’t this suggest that the Greens have a clear conflict of interest and should be removed themselves?
Doesn’t it further underline the anti-heterosexual male bias that played such a role in prompting the inquiry in the first place?
And in addition, doesn’t it suggest that petitions run by change.org should be discounted from political discourse in future?
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.