<![CDATA[Geoff Westlake - Blog]]>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:38:45 +0800Weebly<![CDATA[Truths should bother Atheists]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:56:22 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/truths-should-bother-atheistsTruths should bother atheists much more than fiction should bother Christians.

Should Christians be bothered by movies about the presence of aliens, or other "what ifs"?
Meh. Come back to me when you have something real.
Better yet, when you're ready to discuss what is real...

The much bigger question is, should atheists be bothered by observable truths in the natural world that imply the Super-natural?
 
Here's 20 minutes at Mark Fairley's blog (Here on Youtube) about:
- Why Christians shouldn't be too bothered by the latest fiction movie, Disclosure Day.
- A reasonable skinny on what alien phenomena could really be.
- Why materialists/naturalists/atheists ought to be so much more bothered by actual realities in observable science. 
]]><![CDATA[Lord's Prayer in Parliament]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:55:26 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/lords-prayer-in-parliamentLabor MP Dave Kelly MLA has been publicly campaigning to remove the Lord's Prayer from the opening of WA Parliament – a tradition that dates back to 1558.
He has called it "outdated" and suggested it is incompatible with democratic government. 
Wrong on both counts and more...

Click here to make a Public Submission to the Inquiry into Legislative Assembly Standing Orders.

The Lord's Prayer in Parliament should be retained for the following reasons. 

1. It can not be "outdated" because there is and always will be a historic direct connection between Christianity and the values upon which Australian parliaments were designed in the first place. The Prayer recognises the Christianity behind the preamble to the Australian Constitution which says "humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God." Australia's founders deliberately identified Christian values as the most conducive to produce a united Federation.
By contrast,  neither atheism, socialism, Islam, Indigenous animism, nor any other worldview has been able to match Christianity in producing the values necessary for Western freedoms and civic order. 

2. It can not be "incompatible with democracy" because of the causal link between Christianity and the values that produced democracy and the parliament itself.
The erosion of these values and freedoms the further we drift from those Christian roots, only confirms this causal link. 
It stands to reason that to fail to maintain that source of values would produce a cut-flowers parliament. 

3. ​If nothing else, the Prayer is an act of humility acknowledging that Parliament needs divine help. A reference point beyond Government is a humble preventative to tyranny. ​

4. The Prayer is not specific to any Christian church institution, thus represents no breach of separation of church and state. 

5. Atheists have nothing to lose by the prayer being said. If they think there is no god, to them it should not matter if the prayer is said or not. And they do not personally have to say it, so there is not breach of conscience.
Are they really so intolerant that they cannot abide the time it takes to say a prayer?

6. ​Christians lose something significant by its removal. ​For Christians, it matters that Parliament seeks God's help. We think God's help matters. James 4:2 warns, "You do not have because you do not ask God." So Christians in Parliament should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to ask God for help. 
Pascal's Wager is informative: if we pray, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. 

7. Christians are still present in Parliament. The presence of other worldviews in Parliament does not negate the presence of Christians. 

8. To argue that The Lord's Prayer is a trigger for abuse survivors must be insulting to Christians (if not also to abuse survivors.) It is to say that any reference to Christianity, even such a noble one as The Lord's Prayer, must be seen through the worst actions ever committed by people who claimed their name. ​This assertion should be rejected for the following reasons:
​- It is an unworkable approach for referencing any worldview. ​What if any reference to Socialism were to be be seen through the worst atrocities ever committed by Socialists such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, North Korea's Kim family. Is that the lens through which Labor Socialists expect to be seen? Should we never refer to Socialism lest the reference triggers survivors of Socialism's immeasurable record of abuse? Abuses which it should be said were committed as a feature of socialism at the time, not a bug. It would be impractical to reference any worldview that way, especially in Parliament where members must be free to say what must be said.
​- It is offensive to read any reference to a worldview through the most triggering lens.
​- It must be particularly offensive to the respectable name of Christianity, of which it must be said that any abuses committed in its name were a bug, not a feature.

Perhaps Kelly's move is ill-conceived, he just didn't think it through. If so, no harm, withdraw. 

Otherwise it is a conscious attempt to further obscure and disconnect parliament from its foundational, Christian values... to supplant it... With...? ​Hm. Why might a Labor MP push to further obscure the Christian foundations of Parliament? Do socialists want to base our democracy on socialism, as their Constitution declares? 

Now consider, what does history tell us about the success or otherwise of socialism as a source of democracy, freedoms, or civic order? 

Apprehend these reasons for retaining the Lord's Prayer, and reject the suspect reasoning behind moves to remove it.
]]><![CDATA[The AI Race]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 02:47:47 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/the-ai-raceHere, Jonathan Pageau, asks the most important questions.
Are we sacrificing our kids for the AI race?
Who does the race to AI serve? Who does AI serve? Who do I serve?
Watch and pray.
]]><![CDATA[Restricted within a Day]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 02:14:33 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/restricted-within-a-day
Yesterday, Vision radio ran a 30 second news story on the content of my last post (at least, the version published by the Canberra Declaration.) 

Today (less than a day later), for the first time my internet filter blocks my website's videos  in the category of "violence, weapons, hate speech and extremist group sites."

This morning I opened my website's worldview page to update a bit of text. For the first time ever the video on that page says, "Playback isn't supported on this device."
So I checked my device's filters and found that the videos worked if I switched off the filter for "violence, weapons, hate speech and extremist group sites."

Really? I'm tagged in that camp!? Who? How... 

Oh wait - did you read yesterday's blog? 
- I publicly named the Labor party as socialist and restricting Christians; 
- I'm a Christian;
- Today, someone restricted me. 

It is slander to categorise what I do with "violence, weapons, hate speech and extremist group sites."  

It is bad religious equivocation.  

But they did just confirm what I wrote. 
]]><![CDATA[Who is Eroding Australian Christian Freedom]]>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 11:04:21 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/australian-christian-freedomThe Australian Christian Freedom Index has been released, based on over 10,000 Christian responses. Please notice:
  • 92% said it is riskier to publicly affirm Christian beliefs than five years ago.
  • 73% felt pressured to keep their Christian beliefs private.
  • 42% experienced hostility, threats, or harassment for expressing a Christian worldview.
  • 25% were denied opportunities in work, volunteering, or leadership because of their beliefs.
  • 74 laws have been enacted over the past 25 years that have narrowed Christian freedom in Australia – with nearly half of those laws passed in the last 5 years.

Who is responsible for those 74 Acts? 
To prevent further restrictions on Christian Freedoms, we, the voting public, need to know who to resist. And if possible, the worldviews driving them. Learn to name them lest we give tacit approval to their restrictive actions (and all the social harm that ensues.) 

On pages 77-80 of the ACFI25 report, all 74 Acts are listed with the year of their enactment. So I cross-checked who was in government when each Act was passed. 
61 Acts were passed by Labor governments. 
7 Acts were passed by socially “moderate to progressive” Coalition governments: Turnbull, Berejiklian, Marshall, Gutwein. 
5 were passed by Coalition governments that were more “conservative”: Hodgman, Mandatory Reporting 2018; Marriage and Gender amendments 2018. Morrison, Online Safety 2021; Respect at Work 2021. Perrottet, Voluntary Assisted Dying 2022. Mostly, these were under federal constraints or also under pressure from progressives in their parties. 
(See which Acts and which governments here.)

What does this tell you about who is eroding our Christian Freedoms?

Labor openly (p4) declares itself to be Socialist, as a core objective of the party. 
And “progressives” move in that direction (see this Green's Human Rights Bill June 2026), toward whatever is right in secularists’ own eyes. 
Socialism. Note Doug Wilson’s critique of government overreach based on 1Sam 8:11-17. Deu 17:15-17. As a socialist, Karl Marx was quite open about excluding the church, along with nuclear families and personal property, as oppressive. Socialists inherently tend to restrict Christianity to the bounds of their own secularism - a totalitarian tendency. 

Australians all, learn to name the worldviews that inherently restrict Christian freedom: Islam, Ancestral animism, Secularism/atheism, and Socialism.
 
And for the love of Federation, don’t vote them into government. 
]]><![CDATA[Social Cohesion]]>Tue, 05 May 2026 02:25:52 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/social-cohesionThe Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion wants to hear from us citizens about what is causing social division, above and beyond antisemitism. Submissions open until the end of May. Make a submission. My submission starts like this: 
In my professional work, I teach widely about worldviews and their influence on how we behave, individually and as groups and societies. Subcultural groups and government departments are no exception. Our worldviews prompt our behaviours. I offer six causes of antisemitism and social division in Australia, and specific solutions to them. 
  1. Antisemitism Observed, and Security allowing it
  2. Socialism 
  3. Radical Islam [edit: note this info.]
  4. Neo-Nazi Nationalist Racism 
  5. Indigenous divisions 
  6. Obscuring Judeo-Christian values 
]]><![CDATA[Eyewitness Testimony]]>Sat, 21 Mar 2026 02:18:50 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/eyewitness-testimonyPicture
This from J Warner Wallace, on eyewitness evidence:
why-is-the-biblical-eyewitness-testimony-so-important 

]]><![CDATA[Political Seismic Rumblings]]>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:00:00 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/seismic-rumblingsCitizen Go asked me what I see as the big issues beneath the political seismic rumblings of our day. 
Many feel the ground shifting beneath our feet.

1. It is the seismic rumbling of worldviews.
The Hanson train appreciates the value of the historic Judaeo-Christian faith that gave rise to the Western Values upon which Australia was Federated. Grinding against this is the Secular Socialism that now characterises the Labor Party and secular progressive more broadly. Liberals and Nationals are torn between the two. 
Many people don't think deeper than the competing value sets of party platforms. Many don't even think about the value sets; they just vote with their gut, which is also tainted by human fallenness. But beneath the team colours, beneath the Party Platforms and value sets, are competing foundational worldviews.
If these worldview foundations continue to be overlooked, the current rumbling will worsen into earthquakes.
Australian society will continue down a well-worn track of socialism producing decline economically, socially, spiritually, and personally. Socialism historically leads to communism, or these days is more more likely to be replaced by political/militant Islam imitating Mohammed who was a religious, political, then military leader. 
Why would I say Islam? Because since the Ottoman Empire fell, history keeps repeating that trajectory in country after country around North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, across the 10-40 window into Asia down to Indonesia. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali on this. 
Can Australians fail to notice the manoeuvrings of Socialists in inner city politics, and of Islam into the suburbs? 
Christianity has had a stabilising and creative influence on Western culture. It is responsible for the unique goods of Western civilisations, especially in the federation projects of USA, Australia, and in the Pacific. The more nations adhere to Bible-based value sets, the more fair and free they became, conversely the further they stray from the Bible the less fair or free they become. 
Secular socialism has had a destabilising effect. Without a Biblical reference point, factions devolve into tribal power struggles over whatever each tribe deems is right in their own eyes. 
Islam has historically sought to ultimately dominate. Since the rise of Hitler, Islam has entered nations on the coat-tails of Christian compassion and socialist destabilisation, migrating as a religion, then becoming political then militant - just like Mohammed. "The ballot or the bullet." Ratcheting in Sharia Law. 
These worldviews change the fortunes of nations. Which do we want? That's my clarion call to voters. 

2. Reducing Freedoms of Conscience
But, some assert, doesn't a Christian-based government dominate others too? No. 
The Bible-based federation projects (USA, Australia, Pacific) were explicit about freedoms of conscience. Even as Australian federation assumed "humbly relying on Almighty God," and even as Christians educated people to submit to God and upheld Judeo-Christian jurisprudence, Christianity also instituted freedom for people to dis-believe it. 
Over time such freedoms became more detailed, such as removing anti-gay laws, so that you could believe and practice your persuasion. But it was not expected that the Judeo-Christian political worldview that gave rise to such freedoms should be overthrown. 
But socialism has sought to upend Christianity as the freedom-protecting worldview of our federation. "Conservatives" - which now appears to be code for those who articulate a biblical worldview - are wrongly labelled as extremists and oppressive.
Now in 2026 we see socialist governments impose legislations that increasingly restrict Christian freedoms. For example, removing the freedom to disagree about gay lifestyles, on threat of job loss, defunding, heavy fines, prison time. We are now seeing increasing totalitarian overreach, enforcing socialist worldview, excluding biblical worldview. History repeating. 
The need for religious education, worldview education, across all sectors of society cannot be understated. 

3. God
Meanwhile, beneath these worldview tectonic plates is the Ground of all being - God.
The Christian worldview offers God in a unique way that Indigenous animism does not, Socialism doesn't, and Islam doesn't.
Australia's founders knew that, said so, and assumed Christianity generally underlay the Constitution. "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." 
As much as worldview education would really help the world, it is only God who ultimately brings growth/blessing. Deuteronomy 11 is specific that God will bless or curse, depending on whether "we" will try to follow Him or not. 
Widespread personal repentance is key. This too underscores the importance of religious ed, because "we" need to recognise that we need God. There's no good reason to avoid saying so. 

Notice: Australia was not intended to be a theocracy, such as Islam, or as Anglo and Roman governments of the dark ages have tried - in fact having learned from the Reformation, the founders of federation sought to avoid that. But they did assume that the Bible would be its reference point. Not a Christian organisation such as the Anglican church or Catholic church. Sure, we can argue a lot about how to interpret the Bible, but at least we'd be on the same page. 
And so to participate in the democracy as envisaged, our public needs to recapture its Biblical literacy. 
(Also note that Bible-literacy can be manipulated, and has been  by the left in its coopting of the language of human rights and Christian civics, while replacing the meanings of those words with their own definitions. Labor's Platforms should be read through Socialist lenses, not projecting Christian values - the two readings reveal very different visions.) 
Christianity sees the need for government to make room for unbelievers to disbelieve. The rain of good governance should fall on both believers & unbelievers alike. Government is not to force belief, which is the true definition of the separation of church and state. But government should protect the Christian belief that makes it protect freedom of conscience. 

4. The race card furphy
Another danger is referring to race rather than values & foundations. We don't want "white Australia," we want Judeo-Christian values Australia. I know it's harder to say, but melanin levels are not the point!
Besides, because Christianity is the only truly cross-cultural worldview, we have Christians from every country sharing Christian core values. But also, Christianity discerns the good from the bad in every culture, including Australia's. That value set is what we need to appeal to.
It's a value set that can evidently be appreciated by those who don't believe the worldview itself, because of its uniquely freedom-producing consequences. 
"White" does not describe any of that. It is so simplistic as to be wrong. Neo-Nazis need education about this.

[Update: 4b. Multicultural equivocation and as foundation
"Multiculturalism" needs definition. Do we mean to celebrate all cultural differences indiscriminately? including values that would undermine and dominate the country? everyone pulling in disparate directions causing endless conflicts? Or do we define it to mean those various cultural forms below an agreed set of unifying values.
"Monoculturalism"? The word begs the question, what do you mean by that. If you mean all levels of cultural expression must be the same, it is gross overreach.  But if you mean one set of core values that keeps the country unified in a healthy way, to which all citizens should subscribe regardless of their other cultural forms, then yes. Obviously without that a country tears apart. 
If we define words reasonably, we might come to an agreement: multicultural about our various cultural forms, yet monocultural about a set of unifying values. Then we just need to be clear about that core values set, assumed at federation...  
- HOWEVER, that's the cause of this seismic problem - our Government does NOT agree on that unifying core values set. Let us speak plainly about this.
Socialists are consciously seeking to remove & replace Christian core values, with their own. Socialism sees the State as the Saviour, not God. So they seek to remove Christian freedoms of faith, family and foundations, from the public square. 
- See the 74 Acts of Parliament since 2000, that restrict Christian freedoms.
- See recent moves to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament's standing orders.
- See Albanese Labor Government’s Home Affairs Multicultural Framework Review, “Towards Fairness: A multicultural Australia for all.” Read alarm bells here. Listen to Labor sawing off Christian heritage: 
This Home Affairs Dept review says the "nation itself is inherently multicultural." Multicultural. This simplistically ignores the massive national influence of Christian-based British parliamentary democracy, Federation, common law, English language, Christian moral assumptions, civic duty, self-government, military sacrifice, the fair go, loyalty to one flag. All the things that made modern Australia recognisably Australian are treated as background material, while pushing multiculturalism as THE great organising principle. 
The review refers to “violent attempts to eradicate anything deemed counter to Western Anglo society.” It says legal and political structures enabled “Anglo dominance” while reducing the significance of other cultures. It complains that past government responses promoted “shared Australian values” that all groups were expected to follow. It says the move toward “social cohesion” included “assimilationist attitudes.” It even says social cohesion has become problematic “to the point where the term itself has become problematic.” 
It refers to a “once-in-a-generation reform agenda.” This is conscious root-removal, a “whole-of-government and community approach,” to “drive social change.” 
It calls for “continuously applying an intersectional, gender-equality lens to multicultural policy and services.” This is Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory - victimhood theory. Affirm every culture as oppressed, except for the one blamed as the oppressor - ie. the Judeo-Christian values set that can actually unify us under Almighty God.
This government review proposes re-education by its proposed "Multicultural Affairs" offices, with compliance regimes and KPIs... Labor's "social justice" agenda is to remove the values of "Anglo, colonist Christianity," and replace them with their socialist values of oppression-survivors complying with their final authorities - their Government. 
That is the sound of political ground shifting.] 

5. Name the worldviews & values
The Australian Christian Party get it - its in the name.
One Nation is trying to name these values & issues. And name ensuing practical issues.
- They've rightly named "Australian values" as Judeo-Christian.
- And the need for social cohesion.
- They've rightly named the discord caused by Welcome to country ceremonies, the need to become One nation, not co-sovereigns. Christian Values such as "humbly relying on Almighty God," clash with indigenous animism, tribalism, and with the socialism that drives much of government and corporate efforts in Aboriginal lands. 
- They've rightly named political Islam and its over-representation in immigration. 
- They've rightly named simple mathematics when it comes to immigration numbers. 
They've been criticised for being racist when they name these things, but that's the detractors being guilty of simplistic racism in their own categories. 
Jacinta Price and Tony Abbott get it. Does the Liberal Party get it yet, after their long dalliance with 'progressives' within? Depends if the conservative swing is a return of conviction or just a ploy for the popular vote. They need not compete with One Nation, but cooperate.

6. All the green facts
The "Green Economy" has taken so long to release all the relevant facts that we can now surmise it must be ignoring or refusing the relevant facts, otherwise they would produce them, right? Fair to ask if  the facts are not forthcoming because they don't fit the policies & interests?
Page Research Centre has made the best effort I've seen of trying to collate them - the total costs involved, from producing infrastructure to maintenance to disposal, and, equally relevant, all the scientific facts about CO2 and the biosphere's complex capacities to process it over time and long cycles. CO2 levels may indeed be a red herring, such that other adaptive changes are being ignored. 
Scientific "consensus" has become a power play by a mix of political and financial interests. Science always progresses from the margins, not the consensus.
Normal value-driven Aussies have waited for the relevant facts, but we're still waiting and are getting suspicious. Many smell a rat around the push for the electric grid, we are concerned that we could be literally disempowered by the flick of a switch. But we don't have the words or facts to describe the truth accurately. Who can provide the facts & words we're groping for? We appreciate it when some tries to ask these questions. Even more when they try to give the answers. 

7. Fact-based reporting
We need a reliable media outlet that gives actual facts, not just opinions. There are some, but they are dispersed and underfunded. Support the causes of groups like: The Australian newspaper. Jerusalem Post. Discovery Institute (Center for Science and Culture). Creation.com. The Page Research Centre. Australian Christian Lobby. Australian Christian Party. Freedom for Faith. Australia Christian Freedom Index. The Canberra Declaration. 

ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizens) is full of good papers and thinking on such issues as these.

Well, that's my brain dump for you. For what it's worth.]]><![CDATA[The Story of Everything]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 02:37:06 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/the-story-of-everythingPicture

​This movie should be excellent.

​And this is logically uncontroversial. 

https://www.thestoryofeverything.film/home#trailer 
]]><![CDATA[Compass North and magnets]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 02:59:06 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/compass-north-and-magnetsThe Compass is me.
North is God. I’m made for him, to point to him. We’re to glorify him through all the earth. God gently pulls us towards Himself, the true fulfiller of all our desires.  
Sin is what happens when something else becomes magnetic to us. We desire it instead, as a shortcut to fulfilling our desires.
But the shortcuts cannot fulfil, they only ensnare us in an addictive spiral of diminishing returns. 
Pride - Desire for significance pulled toward self-glory. x
Greed - Desire for security pulled toward money/things. x
Lust - Desire for acceptance pulled toward consumption. x
Envy - Desire for flourishing pulled toward comparison. x
Gluttony - Desire for enjoyment pulled toward excess/addiction. x
Wrath - Desire for justice pulled toward revenge. x
Sloth - Desire for rest pulled toward avoidance. x

The desire itself isn’t evil, and the object of desire may not be either, but being pulled away from God is evil. The magnets are misplaced worship. Sin is desire pulled away from its true fulfilment. Sin means missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God. 

​So, with every “no,” God is removing a magnet, so I can receive His greater “yes,” so my heart can turn to Him again. 
Here’s a list of "No to the magnet → Yes to the desire fulfilled in Christ":
No to pride’s self-glory → Yes to significance humbly in Christ
No to greed for things → Yes to security from the Father
No to lust to have → Yes to deep acceptance as one betrothed to Jesus 
No to envy’s comparing → Yes to flourishing in gratitude for Jesus 
No to gluttony’s addiction → Yes to the pleasure of being mastered by Jesus 
No to wrath’s revenge → Yes to trusting the justice of Christ 
No to sloth’s avoidance → Yes to the rest that Jesus gives to His servants

Holiness realigns my life, submitting my life back to The Creator’s intent - filling the whole earth with His glory in Christ. Holiness causes my life to expand, to reach its proper goal. 

In ​Philippians 2, The Cross shows us the properly functioning compass: Power under control. Desire submitted. Glory through surrender. Jesus had every legitimate desire yet never misaligned them.
And He is not just our example, He is our magnetic reset.

When my heart comes near to Jesus, my desire needle steadies on Him. The only true, gentle, life-giving Fulfilment of all our deepest desires. ]]><![CDATA[Ayatollah mirror]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 03:18:39 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/ayatollah-mirrorA thought about reactions to the Ayatollah’s death. 
Many who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, are now openly mourning the death of the Ayatollah as leader of their religion. Some commentators are defending this grief in the name of religious freedom, but they are equating violent Islam with all religions. 
What values does such mourning and commentary mirror? To ourselves and to our governing authorities. 

Nuance check - 
- Yes, we may mourn that a human being has died. 
- Yes, people can be forgiven for irrationality in grief. 
- Plus, I also mourn that it has come to this: that some so misguidedly agree with the views and violence of the IRGC and their terrorist proxies, that they must be so forcefully resisted. 
- And such sword-bearing is not the authority of private citizens. But it is within the avenging authority of governments (Romans 12:17-13:4). 

Equivocation check - 
For discerning governing authorities, mourning the death of the Ayatollah as a leader of your religion is NOT equivalent to mourning the death of the Pope as a leader of my religion. 
- Is your religion the Ayatollah’s religion? It explicitly incites violence against unbelievers and the imposition of his republic by force. This is a worldview from which unbelievers of goodwill must be protected. 
- Is your religion the Pope’s religion? It explicitly calls for peace even with unbelievers, and conversion by informed and free conscience. This is a worldview that unbelievers of goodwill must protect. 
(Note: even if Popes of the past did try to impose their religion on others by force, a rare and overblown instance, Christians themselves opposed this as NOT true Christian religion.) 
- Muslims who do mourn the Ayatollah as leader of their religion are aligning themselves with his Islam, one violently opposed to Australian-Citizenship-values. 
- Muslims who support Australian values for all (not just for muslims) would NOT be equivalent to the Ayatollah’s religion. They ought not mourn him as leader of their religion, lest they equivocate peaceful Islam with violent Islam. 

​To equivocating governments and commentators, I say, under legislation about incitement to violence, Australian citizens who violently oppose Australian citizenship values are forfeiting their Australian citizenship rights, by arrest or deportation. 

What does your reaction reflect to our government about your worldview and citizenship? 

PS: For muslim friends - a 60 day series of readings with the Prophets. 
]]><![CDATA[Israel Tour with Celebrate Messiah]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:00:00 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/israel-tour-with-celebrate-messiahInterested to go? I recommend this tour.
​ https://www.celebratemessiah.com.au/israeltour2026 
Affordable. Profound. ]]><![CDATA[Hate Speech Bill and National Security]]>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:29:31 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/hate-speech-bill-and-national-securityThis is really an UPDATE on my previous post, “Stop Equivocating"

Senator Jonathan Duniam answers ACL's questions about the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026, which was passed this January. Key points: 
  • Is religious freedom affected?
     No, because it must be read with the already existing Criminal Code as the threshold.
    (NB: Greens would have retained the original bad hate speech proposals which would have affected religious freedom.)
  • What is the threshold of a “hate group”?
     Activities have to fall under the Criminal Code. And this Act is about National Security.
    (NB: Greens would have retained the original version and would have expanded the laws beyond national security concerns to include any feeling of offence.) 
  • Why didn't this Act specify "radical Islam" and “antisemitism"? 
     Keeping the big principles in view keeps the law for everyone. And not specifying means bad actors can’t wiggle out of the big principle by playing semantics with definitions (eg ‘what’s “radical” / “Jewish”' etc.) 
  • What is the biggest National Security issue of our time?
     Policing the laws we already have. We already call for assent to the Australian Values Statement upon citizenship. 
The bigger story now is that since 2022, the federal government has underfunded and degraded the capacity of ADF, AFP, ASIO, Home Affairs, National Security Committee (chaired by the PM!), to police bad actors who violate these values. (NB: Greens would make it worse by their recent election policy, “No discrimination in immigration.”) 
National Security’s capacity to act must be restored, to detect, interfere, intercept national security threats as they used to. This is the real story from which Labor’s legislative push has distracted us since Bondi. Reported by ADF, AFP, Home Affairs leaders, in The Australian newspaper. 
- Paul Scanlon (a former ADF tactical assault group commander and a veteran of several deployments with Australian special forces, in The Australian, Jan 9-10, 2025) 
- Mike Pezzullo, who was secretary of the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2014 to 2017, then the Department of Home Affairs 2017 to 2023 (The Australian, Jan 18-19, 2026.) 
As long as we’re talking about controversial laws, we’re overlooking the culpability of the government over National Security! 

The other big story is that Labor and Greens keep trying to limit free speech - especially regarding Christian morals, as per their Socialist views against the church & family. 
- Labor offered no defence when the Australian Law Reform Commission denied Christian schools the right to employ Christian staff; 
- Labor introduced the Misinformation & Disinformation Bill with loopholes to shut down whatever they determine is untrue;
- Labor introduced the first draft of the Hate Speech with loopholes that would have threatened free speech on contentious issues. 
I say, I don’t trust Labor to safeguard free speech and civil discourse, I think they are trying to undermine it, to control us in their way of Socialism. 
​
My previous post applies to how we, and national security, must be free to talk about national threats. ​
]]><![CDATA[Stop Equivocating, Specific Steps]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 03:38:52 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/stop-equivocatingStop Equivocating and Specify 
​To equivocate: To use equivocal language, to deceive someone or to avoid committing oneself to a position. synonym: lie. [Making false equivalents.] 
​All religions are not the same. Islam is not equivalent to Judaism & Christianity. 
​All Muslims are not the same. Moderate Muslim-folks-just-trying-to-get-by are not equivalent to political or militant, violence-advocating, radical Imams who are inciting terrorist actions. We need to apply the hate speech laws to them specifically. 

Specify the causes of bad. 
​It is high time for Australian leaders to speak unequivocally, to specify the causes of antisemitic violence, such as we saw last night on Bondi Beach. 
​The violent ones have been unequivocal over the last two years about what they want. Who? Specifically, the so-called "pro-Palestinian", antisemitic, violence-advocating Muslims and sympathisers. Every week, they explicitly broadcast their violent intent in their ​rallying cries, such as "globalise the intifada," "from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free,” “where’s/gas the Jews,” etc. They rally behind the flags of genocidal Hamas, Hezbollah, and foment with Iran's Ayatollah. ​It's not like their views are hidden; they proudly proclaim violence to the Jewish race - what more evidence is needed! 
We should detain such teachers or deport them to countries that align with their views. Because we don’t want those views taught here, this is specifically what we must not import. Immigration officials, stop equivocating about religions and apply this reasonable, specific filter. 
​Such specific muslim worldviews must be prosecuted under hate speech laws because they promote actual violence, which we've just seen yet again. 
Sure, sure, if the ISIS connection had proved false, and if the perpetrators turned out to have some other kind of antisemitic worldview, then we will specify that worldview too. The point is, name and remove the violent view specifically. 
Equivocating allows specific violence to worsen. It is tacit approval.
Equivocating allows such muslims to do to Australia what happened in: ​Mauritania 1958; Iran 1979; ​Sudan 1989; ​​Afghanistan 1996/2021; ​Somalia 2006; ​Gaza 2007; ​​​​Libya 2011; Yemen 2014… 
In Australia, we must resist such specific, violence-inducing worldviews. 

Specify the causes of good. 
At Federation, Australia worked for freedom - not freedom to spruik “anything," such as these violent worldviews - but freedom to do as we ought, according to Natural Law, to the ways things should be, to a Judaeo-Christian ethic. That's the specific kind of freedom at the heart of the unifying Australian project. So now again we must specify those once-assumed values that do produce a peaceful society. Even atheists agree that these are specifically Biblical values. 

Stop equivocating.
Don’t equate all religions with each other. Don’t say, ​“keep religion out of politics." Politics reflects values, and values come from worldviews, so we must specify which values we do want as our reference points and specify those we do not. Equivocating about worldviews only allows bad values to infiltrate and influence us. 
Specify Judeo-Christian ethics of Federation as a unifier. And specify violent Sharia, violent tribalism/paganism, or violent naturalism/socialism, as dividers. History repeats how these three drift towards tyrany & violence. 
​And don't equivocate about "Christianity causing wars too," because specifying reveals that wars are caused by sin, by departure from Christianity. Christianity is not equivalent to worldviews in which violence is adherence to their core doctrines. 

​Look, I understand the temptation to equivocate to avoid conflict - we give their words the most positive spin we can, to try to sort-of-agree. 
But equivocation produces false agreement. It deceives us. It allows evils that should be resisted. We can’t equivocate our way to real solutions. We can't solve problems we won't even name. That’s why, for some time now, we have seen Australian leadership failing to distinguish between good and evil. Then failing to stop evil’s spread.  
Stop equivocating. ​
Specify. 
​Name the problems, name the solutions, and be specific about what you mean. 

[Update 30 January 2026: This is what we, and national security must be able to say. How laws are made is a bit different - see my future post, Hate Speech Bill and national security.]
Picture
PS: Our card to our local Jewish community on Dec 15 2025.

PPS: Action steps - Mark Leach at Never Again Is Now: (Watch this 5-minute overview)
"And over, and over again, people have asked me, ‘what are we to do now?’, ‘what comes next?’.
So, what can you do now?
Firstly, sign and share a pledge to combat antisemitism. 
Secondly, email (or call) your Federal MP to ask them to address antisemitism in the following ways:
1. Address the scale and composition of our immigration policy. We need to ensure that anyone who is predisposed by virtue of religion or political ideology towards antisemitism, is not granted a visa to enter, or remain in Australia.
2. Show moral leadership by holding to account all those community leaders (religious, political, etc), who rally people around the hatred of Israel, the hatred of ‘zionists’, who lead antisemitic chants and speeches, such as calling to ‘globalise the intifada’ or establishing a muslim state ‘from the river to the sea’. 
3. Shut down any mosque or Islamic centre or community group or charity that is teaching violence against Jews or ‘infidels’, or which calls for the establishment of sharia law or an Islamic government in Australia. These groups pose a clear and present danger to Jewish life in Australia.
Click on the link below which will connect you to your MP. Once you have entered your address it will automatically load your MP (so ignore the first MPs name you see). You can edit the email if you want to change the wording or emphasis. https://actionbutton.nationbuilder.com/share/SPK-QEZDQUY= 
Thirdly, will you donate generously to build our influence?
The more money we have, the more impact we can have to build a country where our Jewish community is safe and free. All donations over $2 are tax deductible. 
What better gift can you give to the Jewish community at this time than using your voice, your networks, and your money to ensure their safety in this country? https://www.neveragainisnow.com.au/donate?

These are practical steps. Will you take them? 
]]><![CDATA[Cheers 2025-10 Worldviews Clarify & Circulate]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:47:35 GMThttps://www.geoffwestlake.com/blog/cheers-2025-10-worldviews-clarify-circulateIt's been a year since Cheers rallied behind local Aussie Jews at Parliament House, and we'll do it again this week. - Local Jews should not be targeted for the alleged 'sins' of Israel. They're not to blame. Fair go, mate! Racist anti-semitism would be unthinkable to my Aussie mates, yet apparently it’s growing in Australia to a rate three times that of Germany in the 1930s! Time to stand against it - Never Again Is Now. 
Cheers crew actively support Worldview Australia which now has three camps per year: the Youth Leadership Camp for teens and young adult leaders; PreView for younger campers looks at the Core Stuff; Family Camp for all ages looked at Faith Foundations for Families, with the topic of “Daniel: Good. Different." All camps were full and blessed everyone as hoped, by Jesus work amongst us all. WVBites open lectures at Woodvale Baptist’s hall Biblically addressed these topics: Disciple-making Tools; Sciencing Well; Bearing under Persecution; and War. 
Plus WVA visited various towns, schools & churches, with messages that inspire people to think and live from a Biblical Worldview. 
Cheers continues to meet at the Westlakes' around the Bible, & prayer, & praise. Topics included: Matthew's Isaiah prophecies and worldview; Suffering well - 1Peter; The Father Heart of God; Faith challenges from Deuteronomy. 
We pray around the table on Thursdays. We work out our faith in our various contexts: residents' association, schools, homes, workplaces, social settings, networks. We pray for and look for who Jesus wants us to share with. Last night I welcomed a person of newfound faith at Worldview Bites. 
So at Cheers, we're all learning to be part of "The Worship Team," in all we are and do. 
Picture
]]>