Actress and same-sex marriage advocate Magda Szubanski has come out today to clear her name from any involvement in the Australian Communist Party, after ABC Q&A host Tony Jones accidentally referred to her as ‘comrade’ in the heat of last night’s discussion.

The term ‘comrade’ which has been common in both the left-wing Australian union movements and communist USSR, carries with it a stigma that the people saying it are enemies of the state and attempting to bring capitalism to it’s knees.

During a Q&A episode dedicated to the divisive debate, panellists from both sides of the debate answered a range of questions touching on issues of freedom of speech to potential consequences of the change, veteran ABC panel host Tony Jones attempted to steer the conversation towards Magda, but a rare slip of the tongue showed his true colours.

“Now, please, comrade – tell us what you think about this particular issue that we haven’t stopped talking about on this show for 18 months?”

The crowd gasped as Jones began to backpedal.

“I mean, Magda, sorry. It was her European name, it threw me”

Twitter lit up shortly afterwards with Magda and Jones both accused of working against the Australian government during a brief couple years in the early 2000s when they were both employed by the national broadcaster.

A crowd member was quick to call out Tony Jones’ gaffe.

“Are you a fucking pink or something mate?” roared Glenn, 52.

Tony Jones was quick to respond.

“Andd…. We’ll take that as a comment”


  1. Emotive stories don’t justify changing marriage to include same sex couples – regardless of any hate or otherwise, marriage is between a man and a women since the dawn of time. No emotional blackmail or tricky word-smithing like calling it “love”, “equality” or “human/civil rights” makes a difference. The word “marriage” is intrinsically heterosexual as much as the word “heterosexual” is heterosexual. Redefining the word marriage to make homosexuality look normal and acceptable is just a perception stunt and it trashes marriage in the process. If people want more welfare payments or different road rules, this doesn’t justify changing the law if they don’t qualify (ie. a working person cannot claim welfare payments and an unlicensed car driver cannot be allowed to drive a car). Laws ALWAYS discriminate otherwise there wouldn’t be laws. Marriage is exclusively heterosexual and anything else just isn’t marriage.

    Australia is a democracy. If the No vote got up….would the Yes campaigners give up? No – they would rally and try again. The Australian Republican movement lost – now they are trying again. If the Yes vote wins, it’s still legitimate for the No group to campaign to have the vote overturned in the future. That’s what democracy is. Technically, it could be overturned at a later date, if enough Australians motioned strongly against it in future. Unlikely, but still possible. So debate is still valid, especially once the ramifications of change to the marriage act manifest in ways not previously thought of. But conservatives will prolong the gay marriage debate mainly because allowing SSM marriage will embolden others who want to push for more, such as programming our children in schools with distorted views on gender, legalizing bestiality and polygamy, perhaps lowering the age of consent to 16, penalizing churches for rejecting marriage ceremonies for SS couples….When the state replaces the church it’s a totalitarian regime. The soviet union and a few others showed us that. It doesn’t work. People might wise up and reverse SSM.

    The radical sex topics in Safe Schools were introduced by the same activists pushing SSM. SSM is the thin edge of the wedge for an unending series of Social Science engineering to ostensibly protect a miniscule minority from offense but in reality to smother freedom of speech and thought. Ben Rogers and Mark Poidevin , two gay men who oppose “Gay Marriage”, have expressed concerns with the hidden agenda that goes well beyond changes to the “Marriage Act”. These include: “Restrictions on free speech, and penalties for acting according to one’s beliefs about marriage”, “Forced exposure of young children to radical sex education content without parental consent”. In Ontario, Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that parents will not have the option to exclude their children from radical sex education classes. The same applies in Australia. In Ontario, Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that parents will not have the option to exclude their children from radical sex education classes. The same applies in Australia. The English Education department is wielding the big stick of Political Correctness over religious schools for not “ensuring a full understanding of fundamental British values”. SSM legislation will effectively deny the rights of the majority to free speech and exercising their parental role!. The exemptions for religious bodies to which the legalization of SSM were subject in England have been nullified by stealth. The unanticipated consequences of the covert introduction of LGBTIQ topics under the rubric of culture and inclusiveness will be even more damaging to the majority of the population. A relevant indicator of things to come, “the mathematics and statistics department of the University of NSW has warned students to drop the word “marriage”. Australians will be progressively gagged and bludgeoned into submission by huge legal costs, career destroying accusations and social ostracism.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here