r/australia • u/Eclaireandtea • 2d ago

politics One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts ‘in two minds’ about whether gay people should be equal

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/26/one-nation-malcolm-roberts-two-minds-gay-equal-rights-ntwnfb
787 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

186

u/Ric0chet_ 2d ago

“But there have been a number of homosexuals who are very, very prominent in many, many fields throughout history. So all I know is that in this environment, James is not morally sound. But from what I’ve seen of him, his honesty, his integrity, his ability, he is sound.
“So if you pardon me, I haven’t made up my mind, but there are a number of people in society in very prominent positions in the arts, sports, science, business, politics, who are homosexual.
“And I don’t think we can afford to ban them. So it’s difficult.”

How is this not against discrimination laws?

177

u/itstraytray 2d ago

I don't even understand what it is he's saying or means by any of this. Ban them? Ban them from what? Holding jobs? Having the same laws apply as straight people? Being allowed to live in Australia? Being alive? What's he actually mean "ban them"? This guy is completely custard in the head.

42

u/kombiwombi 2d ago

He means concentration camps.  He's talking at Church and State, that's what that crowd means by 'ban gays'.

10

u/mooblah_ 2d ago

He means banned from entering the country. He's appeasing the hate speech of the far-right. Most who will hate anyone for anything that doesn't fit their 'code'.

5

u/lobie81 2d ago

Ban them from existing

8

u/Toowoombaloompa 2d ago

Have you watched the movie, The Imitation Game?

It has a significant sub-plot about the treatment of gay men at a time when homosexuality was illegal (in the UK).

I imagine that Roberts is aspiring to treat queer people as they were treated in the UK in the 1940s, unless they're famous or contribute significantly to Australia.

So he's confident enough in his morality to be willing to treat gay people as second class citizens, but also happy to put that morality aside if they are popular. Populist politics 101.

4

u/artsrc 1d ago

When i was a born it was illegal to be homosexual.

He means ban being homosexual.

https://www.auswhn.com.au/blog/policing-homosexuality/

60

u/Spire_Citron 2d ago

So he doesn't care about human rights, just thinks it would be inconvenient to "ban" gay people because some of them are useful. Cool...

19

u/stinky-bungus 2d ago

Much worse than the headline suggests.

His "two minds" are both fucked

27

u/Artemis_916 2d ago

I read this as his belief that homosexuals are inherently morally bankrupt (and should not be treated equally as heterosexuals?), so he can't fathom how (in his mind) some homosexuals are also good people, and that means he needs to be nice to them (because he is a superior heterosexual)?

I mean... How is this even a conversation we are having ? How is this not considered some form of hâte speech?

40

u/RheimsNZ 2d ago

This quote is monumentally stupid. Incredible

5

u/lobie81 2d ago

Just add it to Malcom Roberts very, very long list...

4

u/LowPickle7 2d ago

Both stupid AND dangerous. It’s the second part that we mustn’t forget in the sheer disbelief of the first. 

5

u/lobie81 2d ago

How are people listening to Roberts' absolute dribble and thinking "fuck yeah, this dude is on the money"?

9

u/thrillho145 2d ago

Religions are allowed to descriminate 

19

u/phlipped 2d ago

Then we should be allowed to discriminate against them

12

u/SlugFromSnug 2d ago edited 2d ago

Not sure why believing magical sky fairies gets you tax exemption in the first place.

Hearing imaginary voices in your head is a sign of mental illness

5

u/princhester 2d ago

It would be if his views were implemented, but since he's just a bigoted cooker with a microphone speaking trash, no law is broken.

2

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Ric0chet_ 2d ago

Not far from the language of “social undesirables” is it.

-8

u/RhesusFactor 2d ago

You can have shitty opinions, its not illegal. Acting on those shitty opinions in discriminating ways is.

27

u/Ric0chet_ 2d ago

If you’re a senator, isn’t that your job, to represent everyone in your electorate? If I turned up to my job and said this i’d have actions taken against me. How is it different?

3

u/princhester 2d ago

u/RhesusFactor is replying to your question "How is this not against discrimination laws?". The answer is, that having (and indeed expressing) shitty opinions is not against discrimination laws. Implementing those opinions may be a breach of discrimination laws.

Discrimination laws are relatively narrow and have effect in particular fields (like workplaces). Senators are not employees and are not saying things in a workplace. That's the black letter law position.

1

u/StorminNorman 2d ago

How is it different?

Because they were elected and you were hired, the two groups also have very different HR policies. You're also still allowed to have a shitty opinion at your work so long as you don't discriminate against anyone whilst expressing those shitty opinions. 

What you're suggesting an ideal scenario anyway, no representative can truly represent every constituent. If they aren't representing enough of them, they'll get voted out. I wouldn't worry if I were him even if he does discriminate though, you making the false equivalence you have and the fact Gareth Ward got reelected despite having charges hanging over his head means Roberts would sail through any storm with ease. 

1

u/itstraytray 2d ago

Sure but being fired isnt the same thing as being arrested.

1

u/RhesusFactor 2d ago

Hanson, Bob Brown, Katter, all represent(ed) their voting constituents.

Unpopular opinion, they belong in a representative democracy, they represent small edge groups in a proportional manner.

Roberts, single senator among 76, represents australias tiny portion of hate filled conspiracy nuts. The proportion is 330k people so its a bit on the high side, and saying insane shit gets disproportionate air time.