It’s been a violent week. Actually, it’s been a violent few years.

Islamist terror attacks in London, Paris, Brussels, Manchester, Sydney, Melbourne and in too-numerous-to-name cities of Asia and the Middle East are sadly becoming the new normal.

And then yesterday Muslims were targeted in a revenge terror attack outside a Mosque at Finsbury Park in London.

Civil people settle their arguments with discourse and debate.

Uncivilised resort to violence.

But it is not just the debate about Islamist visions for the West where we see the deployment of violent methods.

Some on the fringes of the rainbow political movement are resorting to menacing and even violent tactics in the pursuit of their agenda.

No doubt they are emboldened by the pejorative language routinely deployed by their mainstream leaders such as Greens politicians who regularly throw around terms like “bigot”, “hate group” and “homophobe” to describe organisations like ACL.

Regardless of where Australians might stand on issues like redefining marriage and teaching children that their gender is fluid through so-called “safe schools”, we should all be able to agree there is no place for violence.

This is why I am so concerned by what happened to the ACT leader of Reverend Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party last week.

A corflute sign scrawled with the words “all bigots must die” was planted in the front yard of David Kim’s Kambah home.

David is an academic at the Australian National University and has a young family.

He was targeted like this because of his participation in the public debate about the so-called “Safe Schools” program, which is to be made compulsory in Canberra schools.

He exercised his political party’s right of free speech and erected corflute signs around town with the words “safe schools are unsafe”.

Now this is a perfectly reasonable debating point, given that “Safe Schools”, amongst other things, encourages irreversible sex change surgery for minors “with or without parental consent”.

It also urges schools to allow young men identifying as women to share toilet and shower facilities with girls.

Instead of taking on David Kim’s proposition, activists destroyed his signs with one prominent gay activist setting a sign on fire, filming it and posting it to his Facebook page.

ACL has been the target of many menacing, threatening and even violent tactics by LGBTIQ activists.

Just last month ACL hosted a meeting in Melbourne for people to hear an expert in child development speak about the harms of puberty blocking chemicals, cross sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery.

Professor John Whitehall is a leading paediatrician and people should be allowed to hear him before they decide whether or not “safe schools” is safe for their children.

Around 30 masked transgender protestors turned up, linked arms and physically prevented 70 people from entering the building. (see picture above of the protestors)

Outnumbered Victoria police stood by helplessly, unable to uphold freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

I never thought the country I grew up in would become like this.

Masked protestors physically restraining people from participating in freedom of speech.

Like Islamist terror, we should not have to get used to this sort of political violence.

I refuse to stop being shocked by the death threats ACL’s receptionist has received or when rainbow activists try and have us kicked out of conference venues.

Who would have thought promoting gender diversity in marriage and the idea that boys are boys and girls are girls would become so controversial that some in Australian society would resort to menacing tactics and even violence?

I don’t recall hearing any leaders of the rainbow political movement condemning the cowardly masked protestors who prevented freedom of assembly at our meeting in Melbourne.

It was certainly wrong for a Christian protestor to push a lemon merengue pie in to the face of Qantas CEO Alan Joyce. If the assailant thought it was funny or legitimate, he was wrong.

Peaceful protesting is legitimate political expression in a free society. I have no quarrel with this.

Menacing tactics, threats of violence and violence itself is not.

If participants in the public discourse to have a point to make they should do so through respectful, civil argument.

People who have lost the capacity to reason resort to name-calling, menacing tactics and ultimately violence.

This growing trend needs to be nipped in the bud.