Australia Equality Israel Middle East Music Politics Sport the Church

Quantum 273 – A Nurse in Israel, the Voice in Australia and a New Start for New Zealand

On this weeks Quantum we hear an extraordinary testimony of a nurse in Israel;  who bombed the hospital in Gaza?  Is Australia racist?  Misinformation about misinformation; Looking at New Zealand; Five Times August – There ain’t no Rock and Roll; Tusk returns in Poland; Jailing for misgendering; Pastor Greg Locke’s heresy; Andy Bathgate….with our featured album – The Greatest Hits of Simon and Garfunkel….

Get Quantum on I tunes

Catch up on last week – Quantum 272 – Weep, O Israel…

Support Quantum here –

All the music used is on the Spotify October Quantum playlist









  1. David, as on Twitter you have again presented the argument that the Yes vote on the referendum relied on middle class people from the rich suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne while you downplayed the data of votes cast (presented by Anthony Green, by the way) in remote polling booths in Northern Territory (which again, by the way, is also not a state). How does your argument on statistics actually work here?

    1. Yes – its quite amusing how quickly this meme has spread and shows the desperation of the Yes virtue signallers to get some kind of crumb of comfort. The remote polling booths (and lets leave aside the question of illiteracy and legitimacy as raised by Jacinata Price) cover a tiny proportion of indigenous people – less than 5%. They give no indication whatsoever of how the majority of indigenous people voted. What is much more revealing is that the rich suburbs with no indigenous community voted overwhelmingly Yes – and the constituencies with the largest number of indigenous voted overwhelminly No…I wonder who would know better?

      1. David, it isn’t a ‘meme’. It is the raw data from those polling booths where First Nations people are KNOWN to have voted. So your ‘no indication whatsoever’ seems a bit too strong, yes? ‘Legitimacy’ is a possible counter-argument but an unlikely one. ‘Illiteracy’ is an example of a meaningless, even unworthy, meme in these circumstances. I’m surprised that you even mentioned it!?
        As a YES voter one doubt I had about the Voice was that people in remote areas would be left out of the actual reckoning. That many of those people actually voted YES, presumably being willing to take that risk, confirms to me that YES was the better choice.
        David, with over 5 million YES voters there must be a few who are not from ‘rich suburbs’. Maybe even some who are among your fellow believers? Your use of statistics here is not really very revealing.

      2. I’m afraid once again you miss the point….the meme is not that some remote polling stations where indigenous people are in the majority, voted Yes. The meme is that this proves that the vast majority of indigenous people voted Yes. We don’t know that. These remote polling booths – which are less than 5% of the indigenous population prove precisely nothing – but that doesn’t stop the misinformation spreading amongst those who want to believe it! And given the fact that the constituencies where there are the most indigenous people voted No it seems unlikely. Illiteracy is actually a major problem in these areas. I’m not sure exactly what ‘risk’ you think people took in remote areas voting Yes….it would seem to be a non risk thing to do either way!

        Yes – 40% of Australians voted Yes – which is an astonishingly low number given the endless propaganda, the ‘be kind’ message, the white guilt, and the support of all the corporations, celebrities, academics, most media and politicians….and most churches…. And of course some will be poor, and many were my fellow believers….and many were not. None of that proves your rather amusing attempt to prove my use of statistics was wrong. My point was that virtually all the wealthy white suburbs where there is no indigenous community voted Yes…and nearly all the constituencies where there is a strong indigenous community voted No. The reasons for that would be fascinating to find out…

  2. Also, David, you said that Isabella Higgins was indigenous. Are you sure of this? And are you sure that when she talked about the Australia ‘regime’ she wasn’t quoting someone?

    1. She is a Torres Strait Islander whose great grandmother was indigenous- in todays world that counts! There is surely no way that the oh so PC ABC would appoint a non indigenous person as their indigenous reporter. She didn’t say she was quoting someone…she called it ‘the Australian regime’.

      1. OK so you are sure Isabella Higgins is indigenous. Good.
        But this is what she said (starting 0:59 on the ABC tweet): ‘I would not be surprised if more people push towards that message that comes from Lidia Thorpe about not engaging so much with mainstream Australia, not bowing to them, challenging the Australian regime.’ She seems to be reporting on someone else’s idea, not her own (as a good reporter should)

      2. I’m not sure….it’s what she claims. You of course would have been able to work that out if you were not so keen to nit pick…note the use of the word ‘we’….’our’ community etc. She is claiming to speak on behalf of indigenous people…and in that context, as a spokesperson (although you are right – even more of her heritage is white…but why stress that when you can claim both victimhood and being a black spokesperson), she spoke of the Australian regime. She did not challenge it or contradict it. She stated it as a fact. Sadly Higgins is typical of the new breed of ABC ‘reporters’ – they are activists – not impartial news reporters. It is also ridiculous that she claims to be speaking of behalf of the whole indigenous community and leaders – it is not a monolith – and there are people who are far more indigenous than her who would disagree with her claims.

  3. Dear David,

    Thanks for featuring “There Ain’t No Rock ‘n Roll” in this week’s Quantum. What a great song! Such a shame we couldn’t have seen the video to explain it. I heard it on X (Twitter) and ran it several times with a smile on my face. E

  4. Dear David,

    Lovely to be reminded of Duncan, whose steadfast faith and desire for fellowship was such an inspiration to me as a young Christian. I’ve never forgotten him. How ridiculous to suggest that his condition was due to a lack of faith. JWL

  5. God’s blessing upon you and your ministry in Newcastle , Rev. Thanks for the lovely tribute to Andy Bathgate . I am not the greatest fan of some of your musical choices , but Bridge over Troubled Water hits the spot. I recommend though , Cantorian Colin Jones beautiful version .

    On your rugby comments , and as a neutral Scot (defeated) I just watched the Ireland/ New Zealand game . I saw glaring anger toward opponents , I saw brutality in tackles that could lead to arrest ,and for an occasion there were fists flying and throat grabbing . but after it all amidst the shedding of tears and hurt of defeat, and the grateful elation of victory there were embraces of opponents so genuine they could make the church blush !

  6. David,
    Thank you for the podcast. All very helpful. Hope the move goes well.

    I think someone has tricked you about the Ireland v New Zealand semifinal.

    The clip you played and the description given relates to a classic game some years ago; 2013 I think. The semi was just as good but NZ were ahead at 80 minutes and there was no last minute conversion.


    1. David, Andrew is correct All Blacks won by 4points and denied Ireland a record breaking winning run.
      Also the British Labour Party is not planning to imprison people for misgendering. I’m afraid that is fake news.

      1. Thanks John…yes it was the wrong clip! Apologies.
        But the British Labour Party is planning to imprison people for deliberately misgendering. They will make it a criminal offence which carries the potential of up to two years in prison….I assume they will back down before they have to jail J K Rowling!

  7. Thanks for the Podcast – for a change of style try Sound of Silence by Disturbed – the rage & anger can be bottled (much better version imho)

  8. Hi David, thanks again for more insights and thought provoking material.
    You said on the Podcast it was a race based issue. As a note on ‘The Voice’ I was a last minute ‘Yes’ voter. I had been reluctantly tracking down the No path after much listening to both sides and very influenced by John Anderson and Jacinta Price. The whole enshrining race, ‘identity politics’ was a major stumbling block. However on the Friday night, I was talking it over with my wife and had an epiphany. It was about consideration and respect to the people who were here first. They were the caretakers of the land thousands of years before a brutal settlement. It’s basic consideration not just to acknowledge them, but also give them a specific voice for matters about them as they were here first. Thousands upon thousands of years first. So it was not race based, it was first caretaker based. Thats what made the Yes concept unique and helpful.
    The process was far from perfect and I still had issues with the changes and campaigns. However on balance, I felt the Yes was appropriate as a way of acknowledging first ownership.
    Hope that helps reframe it away from ‘identity/critical race theory’ concerns.

    1. Thanks Brendan…your comments are appreciated. The trouble is that there is nobody alive in Australia today who was here thousands of years ago. Virtually all indigenous people are a mixture of aboriginal and European. But the point is that ‘none of them were here first’. Some of their descendants were (as in great, great, great, great grandparents…) and therefore by default if one claims that the descendants of Aboriginal people from thousands of years ago, it is all about race. It cannot but be. But even if you accepted that somehow, on the basis of their race, some people deserve special privilege within the constitution, it is not immediately obvious that the specific proposal of the Voice was actually going to do anything (other than enrich a handful of race based activists)….I have written an article on this for Christian Today which I will put up here tomorrow.

      1. Thanks David, I read the article and align with many of your insights. I know many highly educated people who voted no! In regards to your article and reply, there has been significant mixing of indigenous and settlers and some very blurry edges. However in most cases it’s very easy to identify our indigenous population and to recognise they are (as a distinct people group) particularly disadvantaged.
        I still hold to the ‘Yes’ being about first owners/caretakers of the land. By way of example, if this was the US, we would be giving the constitutional recognition and voice to the Native Americans, but not the African Americans (even though both groups experience significant disadvantage). I know that example is flawed (particularly around the length of settlement as our Indigenous have been here far longer), but hopefully it clarifies the point.
        Thanks again

      2. Thanks Brendan….you identify the main problem. Who are the indigenous? And can these many tribes all be lumped together. My indigenous friend from South Australia says that there is considerable difference between his mob and Pacific Islanders or indigenous from Queensland. There is no problem with constitutional recognition and indeed even repentance for what was done to the indigenous people. However the problem with the Voice referendum was the Voice. Would it represent the third of indigenous people who are really disadvantaged today – or would it represent the indigenous elites in the cities, the activists who will make lots of money out of this? Incidentally some of the ‘indigenous’ activists I have seen were whiter than me!

        I think the American example is a good example of what should not be done. America is a great example of what happens when you divide a society according to race. Sadly in Australia (as in the UK) our elites tend to follow the US elites. As a result critical race theory will really harm Australian race relations…

    2. Brendan, out of curiosity would you apply the same logic in Britain? In other words, should people whose ancestors have been in Britain for hundreds of years have special privileges that more recently arrived communities do not?

      I’m going to guess you wouldn’t….

      1. Hi NSR…? Sorry, I prefer to use names, but presume thats not your name?
        Please note, I was a narrow ‘Yes’ voter- I was uncomfortable with the way it was proposed and progressed, but thought it was a better way forward than No.
        Of course I would not advocate for your theoretical suggestion, nor do I think the historical context fits the principle on which the Yes campaign was based upon.
        The indigenous people of Australia are a distinct people group who were caretakers of the this land for over 40’000 years. They were colonised and dispossessed without compensation. In general, they have been badly treated/ neglected for a significant portion of the last 230 or so years of that colonisation.
        The Yes vote recognised them as the original caretakers of the land. Included in that recognition was a unique (but non binding) Voice about matters pertaining to them.
        Thats hardly a special privilege. It’s just basic consideration they deserve as the original inhabitants and caretakers of the land for over 40K years who have been significantly impacted by the colonisation.
        I get there are some blurred lines around exactly who is a ‘first nations’ person. However its largely pretty obvious who our First Nations people are in Aus.
        While you could potentially apply principle this to other ‘recently’ colonised nations, there is no way it could be applicable to the UK with a vastly different set up historical peoples and circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *