Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #46

Originally Posted by Jennifer Oriel
The Western world is edging towards a precipice. The postwar consensus that cast internationalism as a global ideal is unravelling. The Muslim migrant crisis has revealed that the political ideals of the West’s ruling elite and the people they govern are not simply different but apparently opposed.
Historically, such a clash of ideals between the governing and the governed tends to produce the mass suppression of dissidents by the elite, or a grassroots revolution from below. Each tendency has become amplified in the battle ­between sovereign citizens and supranational elites over border policy.
In previous centuries, mass revolt usually has been caused by a combination of economic inequality and political disenfranchisement. The modern trust deficit between the rulers and the ruled is civilisational. It arises from a widespread belief that Western elites are ruled by and ruling for foreign interests against the sovereign wealth of their states and the sovereign interests of their people.
Historian John Fonte offers a scholarly account of the development of supranational elitism in his book Sovereignty or Submission. He analyses the emergence of a transnational system of unelected officials populating the UN, the EU and NGOs, who believe in imposing rule from above on sovereign states and citizens.
Recent evidence supports Fonte’s analysis of emergent supranational rule. Documents published by WikiLeaks and DCLeaks have exposed the influence of unelected elites, NGO networks and so-called human rights activists on Western politics. In particular, the leaked files illustrate a pattern of supranationalists funding Western political parties and civil society organisations that back open-border policy, complemented by the organised mobbing of freethinkers who dissent from the Left party line.
The old term used to punish Western dissenters from the UN’s porous border policy and PC politics was Islamophobia. The new thought crime is xenophobia.
At the September UN meeting attended by Malcolm Turnbull, the General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The UN aims to develop a global compact for migration in coming years. The declaration’s introductory paragraphs outline the contours of the new thought crime: “in many parts of the world we are witnessing with great concern increasingly xenophobia and racist responses to refugees and migrants. We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of … xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants … we deplore all manifestations of xenophobia.” To solve the UN’s problem, its members endorsed a new global campaign to “counter xenophobia”.
There should be no need to state the obvious truth that immigrants make great economic, social, intellectual and cultural contributions to their nations. There are innumerable examples in Australia including last week’s heroic act by taxi driver Aguek Nyok, who saved passengers from a burning bus. Nyok is an immigrant from Sudan. However, it would benefit social cohesion to celebrate the contributions of immigrants not as immigrants, but as citizens who have an equal share in advancing our great country and the civilisational values that sustain the free world.
The problem with the UN’s demand that only positive stories about migrants and refugees should be promoted as a part of its anti-xenophobia campaign is that it requires the censorship of truth, thereby deepening the trust deficit between supranational organisations and sovereign citizens. By permitting only positive reports about the effects of porous border policy, the UN has become a propagandist of PC ideology.
The politically incorrect truth is that people entering the West as asylum-seekers also commit serious violence against our citizens and undermine our civilisational values.
Soeren Kern, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, has reported on several rapes of German women and girls by migrants, including teenage boys. In October, a 19-year-old Moroccan migrant was arrested on suspicion of raping a 90-year-old woman as she walked home from Sunday mass.
Speaking to Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper, German police union chief Rainer Wendt notes that criminal migrants from North Africa “despise our country and laugh at our justice”.
Journalist Ingrid Carlqvist has documented a shockingly high number of arrests and convictions of asylum-seekers in Sweden during May. Their crimes include extraordinarily brutal rapes of women and children.
Norwegian police inspector Thomas Utne Pettersen reports that mass immigration has led to an increase in the rape of women and children. Speaking to Breitbart media, he cites the high incarceration rate of some migrant groups and cases of rape committed by asylum-seekers from Afghanistan and Syria, concluding: “People’s xenophobia in relation to this group is highly rational and justified”.
Despite the reports of horrific violence against Western citizens arising from open-border policies, the UN and activist groups continue their campaign to demonise sovereign governments that support a rational immigration policy.
The Australian’s associate editor Chris Kenny analysed open-border activists’ response to Australia’s offshore immigration processing on Nauru. In short, green-Left politicians backed by the activist press lie by portraying offshore processing as “torture” while demonising Nauru’s decent citizens. Like their supranational comrades at the UN, Australia’s open-border activists are shameless propagandists for PC ideology.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has a history of agitating against the Coalition government’s immigration policy. However, the commission’s supposedly landmark report on children in immigration detention was methodologically unsound and biased. Documents revealed the inquiry’s main conclusion that Australia’s immigration system is non-compliant with UN conventions was stated in a 2013 work plan before the main investigations had commenced. Yet the Left media continues to laud AHRC opinion on border security and immigration policy.
Popular support for Brexit and figures like Donald Trump is driven by the lies and propaganda of supranational elites. Their hostility toward the creed, culture and citizens of the free world is evident in their campaign to enforce open-border policy on Western states and demonise dissenters.
Politicians who believe in democracy, human rights and the rule of law should resist the corrupted ideology of a once great UN. Instead, they should fulfil their primary duty of care to citizens by defending their peoples’ sovereign right to safety and security against the elitism of unelected ideologues.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #47

Originally Posted by Janet Albrechtsen
A chap in America, let’s call him the Bernard Salt of Rhode Island, recently wrote a grumpy little letter to his local newspaper about the poor sartorial choices made by women of a certain age who wear yoga pants. Boom. The cult of taking offence reared up, offended women gathered in their yoga pants to protest, social media lit up and the organiser took to radio stations, expressing outrage over “Bernard’s” criticism of her choices. Sure enough, it made news across the globe, from the BBC to the ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald with nary a question asked about the ramifications of the growing predilection to take offence.
To be sure, America is the home of the modern-day propensity to find offence. If this was a cult called Scientology, progressives would be carefully deconstructing its concerning presence in modernity. But the cult of taking offence is a slyer virus because it is largely unchecked. And it’s running rife on university campuses, where it threatens to do the most damage.
As Caitlin Flanagan wrote last year in The Atlantic, campus students who race to find offence are the inheritors of three decades of identity politics. Student fraternity leaders at Tufts University recently sent an email warning fraternity members not to wear: “inappropriate, offensive, or appropriative costumes”, or “outfits relating to tragedy, controversy or acts of violence”, or costumes that appropriate cultures or “reproduce stereotypes on race, gender, sexuality, immigrant, or socio-economic status”. Why? Because the dean of student affairs at Tufts warned of university and police investigations and the “wide gamut of disciplinary sanctions” if students engage in actions that “make others in our community feel threatened or unsafe, or who direct conduct towards others that is offensive or discriminatory”.
Indiana University’s Affirmative Action Office found a student guilty for reading Notre Dame v The Klan, a book that pays tribute to student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan, because a student was offended by the book’s cover. Oberlin College in Ohio released a list of areas that demand trigger warnings, everything from classism to privilege. Students at other universities have demanded trigger warnings for The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. And on it goes.
The cult of taking offence has become a determined game of what Jonathan Rauch has called the “offendedness sweepstakes”, and it keeps lowering the bar on what words, ideas and freethinking analysis are to be mowed down to protect the hold identity politics has over academe. Political correctness, the soul brother of identity politics, may have started out briefly in some quarters as a sweet-sounding search for a very civil utopia imbued with respect for minorities. Now it is the weapon of choice in the pursuit of power and control over ideas, words, books, teaching and much more.
Students seek “safe spaces” to avoid ideas they don’t like and even comedians are not welcome: Chris Rock no longer appears on campus because students are more interested in not offending anyone than sharp humour that may offend. Jerry Seinfeld has said he has been warned to stay off campuses too because they’re too PC.
And the result, best described by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, has been the coddling of the American mind where emotional reasoning now determines the limits of university debates. “A claim that someone’s words are ‘offensive’ is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness,” they write. “It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong” and must apologise or be punished for committing the offence.
This made-in-America phen­om­e­non is no longer an only-in-America one. Students studying archeology at University College London were recently given permission to leave class if they encounter “historical events that may be disturbing, even traumatising” — in other words, if they are freaked out by bones.
The coddling of the Australian student mind is under way too. Last week at the University of NSW a well-meaning lecturer teaching a class on 20th-century European history told his students he felt obliged to issue a trigger warning about material they would cover. At the same university last year, a lecturer teaching a course on terrorism and religion issued a trigger warning too. Isn’t the trigger in the title? Isn’t history replete with traumatic events?
The Australian asked UNSW, the University of Sydney, Melbourne University, Monash University, Queensland University, Queensland University of Technology and the Australian National University in Canberra about their policies, formal or informal, about trigger warnings. Those that responded issued bland comments about having no formal policy, with some offering statements such as this one from Melbourne University: “We encourage academics to be sensitive to student needs and some may choose to give warnings about confronting content.” Or this from Merlin Crossley, UNSW’s deputy vice-chancellor education: “Some of our academics and teaching teams may choose to provide trigger or content warnings depending on course materials and in some cases possible confidential sensitivities of their students.”
In 2017 Monash University will introduce what it calls “a radical and far-reaching reform of our education and pedagogy” involving an “optional inclusion of content warnings where appropriate”.
While Monash rejects any dilution of learning outcomes and multimedia introduces a new perspective, this is how the censoring of intellectual debate and the cosseting of student minds started in the US. Trigger warnings and safe spaces run counter to why universities exist: they are places where students should be encouraged to engage in open and robust debate, exercise free speech and test and challenge orthodoxies in the greater pursuit of knowledge and progress.
The anti-intellectual consequences of trigger warnings led the dean of students at the University of Chicago in August to send a welcome letter to each new student advising them that the university “does not support so-called trigger warnings”, it won’t cancel controversial speakers and “it does not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own”.
The lack of intellectual diversity on American campuses has led scholars from the west coast to the east to form the Heterodox Academy, an advocacy group that seeks greater intellectual diversity on campus in the face of rigid ideological orthodoxies that discourage both academics and students from speaking freely.
Co-founded by Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University and author of The Righteous Mind — Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, the push for greater intellectual diversity has earned praise from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Under the headline “A confession of liberal intolerance”, Kristof wrote: “We progressives … we’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.” That could be the motto for our national broadcaster, sections of Fairfax media and much of academe here in Australia.
After all, try finding the Australian equivalent of Chicago University’s letter for new students entering Australian universities. Go looking for an Australian version of the Heterodox Academy or even a refreshingly honest progressive such as Kristof. You would have a better chance of finding a Tasmanian tiger.
The Australian asked each of the above-mentioned Australian universities whether they support the letter from University of Chicago to its freshers advising them of the university’s commitment to freedom of expression and opposition to trigger warnings because students are “encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn without fear of censorship”. Our leading universities responded with thunderous silence about that apparently thorny question.
Indeed, there are few signs of Australian academics trying to ward off the American-born disease taking hold on our campuses. Quite the contrary. QUT vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake told this newspaper last month that the university did not choose to be associated with the current public debate about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. That’s unfortunate because section 18C, which makes it unlawful for someone to act in a manner that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity, is the legislative extension of trigger warnings that stifle open debate and infantilise students.
Praise then for psychology professor Joe Forgas from UNSW who wants to see all universities, not just those in Australia, follow the example of the University of Chicago and strongly and explicitly reaffirm their commitment to freedom of expression and the diversity of views. “We have always taken this freedom for granted, but in the current climate of rampant identity politics and political correctness, it is important to give these values added and explicit emphasis,” Forgas tells The Australian.
The psychology professor is also opposed to trigger warnings because any “device that is designed to impose ideological self-censorship on academics can be hugely costly in terms of imposing limits on free speech and making lecturers hesitant to cover important but controversial topics”.
Forgas is a rare breed of scholar in Australia. The sole Australian member of the Heterodox Academy says he joined because defending the completely free exchange of ideas “is absolutely essential not only for the proper functioning of universities, but also for the long-term health of liberal societies”.
That some groups or individuals might find the discussion of controversial topics unpleasant cannot be a justification for limiting free speech on campuses, he says: “Quite the contrary, it is especially those issues that are controversial that need to be openly discussed and argued about if they are ever to be resolved.”
The alternative is the closing of the student mind, those same minds entrusted to universities to become our next generation of intellectually curious and emotionally resilient thinkers. As Flanagan asked, perhaps rhetorically: “O Utopia. Why must your sweet governance always turn so quickly from the Edenic to the Stalinist?”
But back to the bloke from Rhode Island. He would have been safer staying away from yoga pants and challenging the practice of yoga as a case of cultural appropriation. For seven years, yoga teacher Jen Scharf taught a free yoga class for students with disabilities at Canada’s University of Ottawa.
Until last year, when she was effectively shamed into shutting down her classes because Ottawa University’s student union was concerned over the cultural appropriation behind practising yoga.
Where does it end? That depends on where we start when it comes to freedom of expression, and currently too many self-indulgent Westerners are starting in entirely the wrong place.

Posts: 6,803
Reply with quote  #48 
While I have found myself more or less at odds with most of the views you have reproduced in this thread, I was in cautious agreement with the above. This 'cultural appropriation' thing was new to me, and rather baffling I thought. Surely the whole idea of diversity is for different cultures to learn and gain from and so enrich each other?

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #49 
But you see that's not what the ideology of multiculturalism actually is. Anyone who's been around long enough, and read books like Melanie Phillips' The World Turned Upside Down, will know that. It's not about respect or "equality" of cultures. It's a complete sham and fraud.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #50 
A list of enemies of free speech in media and academia for a start:

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #51

The explosion of vitriol triggered by the Bill Leak case demands a psychological explanation. For stating a truth that should not be stated, according to a sizeable minority of the population, a cartoonist — for whom there is conventionally broad ­licence — is pilloried as a racist, deluged in hate mail and dragged before the Human Rights Commission.

Freud’s concept of negation ­explains a lot. What appears in surface behaviour is the opposite of its unconscious motivation, the act deliberately inverting its true ­nature. In Freud’s own examples, negation is provoked by feelings of guilt — as with the mother who worries she does not love a child enough and compensates by spoiling it. Or, in another illustration that is of greater relevance here, there is the forced smile in someone whose ideal of themselves is that they are a nice person, who smiles on the surface to cover up unconscious aggression. “To smile and smile and be a villain.”

In the present case, “racial ­hatred” is invented in order to persecute it. This allows the pious accusers to vent their own hatred with a good conscience. The accusers’ self-image is that of peace-loving compassion, of a good person committed to social equality and harmony, yet the psychic reality is one of simmering ­resentment. Irritability and free-floating rage are then projected on to the perpetrator, in this instance Leak. It is imagined that by silencing him, the anger within will be silenced, exorcised, with the troubled self liberated from impulses in itself that it doesn’t like.

Moreover, the venting of rage without normal accompanying guilt allows the powerful pleasure of emotional catharsis. Such catharsis not only quickens the blood but may contribute to identity. I hate, therefore I am! More specifically, the morally outraged ­becomes a person of merit and significance, crusading for the good under the flag of virtue. All crusaders are dependent for their identity on their targets; and given the strange twists of masochistic guilt, the more innocent the target often the more intense the persecution.

Edvard Munch’s painting of The Scream has struck a chord over the past century, becoming a symbol of a particular modern type of anguish. It seems apposite here, picturing an emaciated skeletal head wrought by wide-eyed terror as it blocks its ears to silence the swirls of nightmare that ­encircle it. A throbbing counterpoint of explosive word and reactive scream rises to a crescendo, followed by redemptive silence.

Good conscience is easy in the case at hand because the projected victims, remote community Nor­thern Territory Aborigines, are an extremely underprivileged group. The supposed championing of them represents a compassionate and charitable cause that cannot plausibly be questioned.

The argument so far requires some qualification. One needs to separate rational concern — even justified guilt — from false guilt mobilised for a political purpose. The British settlement of this continent did mean the dispossession of the indigenous population from their lands. While ­“invasion” is the wrong word, in that the takeover did not happen by means of a landing army followed by set battles over territory, the traditional term “settlement” is too benign. Many European Australians are rightly uneasy about how the prosperity they enjoy today was enabled in the beginning, and about the long-term consequences for some ­descendants of the displaced original inhabitants.

The rational and sober analysis of the dreadful conditions that exist today in most remote indigenous communities was made by Peter Sutton, an anthropologist working with Aboriginal populations for 40 years, who assisted with many land rights cases. His 2009 book The Politics of Suffering was a troubled, measured critique of three decades of liberal compassionate policy, on the grounds it has made suffering in remote communities worse. Sutton was as far from an unsympathetic or ­uninformed observer as one can imagine, yet he was met not just with disagreement and counter­argument by some of his fellow ­anthropologists but he was ­attacked with breathtaking vitriol. Like Leak, he had spoken the unspeakable truth. It was ­demanded that he shut up.

The Spanish Inquisition exemplified this kind of pathology in ­extremis, as did the medieval practice of persecuting women deemed to be “witches”. A society pervaded by paranoid fear of the devil within searches under every leaf for ­imagined heresy or blasphemy.

Post-religious societies have experienced their own variants. Secular Nazism persecuted min­orities who it claimed were polluting the purity of the nation. More recently, and with less gravity, radical groups in universities have demonstrated violently, and since at least the 1960s, shouted down opinion they did not want to hear. Munch’s scream looms like an emblem spirit over campus politics.

Here is another example of ­negation, with modern institutions whose very reason for being is dedication to the free discussion of ideas and the objective pursuit of truth, becoming the location for illiberal intolerance of views that go against the fashionable grain. Once again, the assumption seems to be that the expression of such views will corrupt the innocent ­listener and pollute the institution. It is as if the one remaining freedom is the freedom to silence the stigmatised other.

Any crusade needs a faith. Since the 1960s, it has mainly been a neo-Marxist ideology of domination and oppression that has prevailed. According to it, modern Western capitalist societies are ­Satanic oppres­sors of the weak and the disadvantaged. Bill Leak’s caricature of a dysfunctional indigenous family hit the nerve with unintended forensic precision.

What is new in this history of intolerance is the role of the state. The civic order representing the citizenry — the state — should be defending the primary democratic principle of free speech. A society that limits free speech, limits the freedom of the press and interferes in the untrammelled capacity for free association — citizens gathering together voluntarily to form clubs, unions, interest groups, charities, indeed for any kind of mutual enjoyment. Hereby are compromised two out of three of the key conditions for democracy as a successful and flourishing political form, a free press and voluntary associations, as spelled out by Alexis de Tocqueville in his study Democracy in America. Tocqueville’s third necessary condition was an independent judiciary.

The civic culture of the West has prospered to a large degree ­because of the separation of politics from religion. As Jesus taught: “Leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act goes against this wisdom, inviting pseudo-religious zeal into the public sphere and providing it with poten­tial legal authority. It induces any aggrieved citizens to take those of whom they disapprove to court, if in the quasi-judicial form of the Human Rights Commission.

We are rapidly learning that there is nowhere practical to draw the line about what speech is tolerable and what is not to be tolerated — apart from that limited by ­existing defamation laws and perhaps laws proscribing incitement to ­violence.

The Coalition government could in the past, with some ­cogency, decide that the repealing of section 18C was not worth the expenditure of political capital that would be required. Events have now taken over. The government, via its own Human Rights Commission, is complicit in promoting a new order of blasphemy law. It is complicit in giving legal clout and status to those offended, for whatever dark psychological reasons, by what someone else, for instance Leak, might say. This situation is no longer tenable in a self-respecting liberal democracy.


Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #52

Frydenberg is Jewish, and he supports changing our absurd "hate speech" laws even when members of his own community oppose it. Yet this is the biggest problem facing Jews here: their own community leaders support a law that can be used to suppress criticism of Islam, and thus endanger the Jewish community even further. That far more threats are made against Jews than Muslims is forgotten, even more so that violent and vicious anti-Semitism is actively promoted among Muslims.


Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #53 
Originally Posted by Jennifer Oriel
The Australian Human Rights Commission embodies the elitism that is spurring a global renaissance of populism. It is an activist organisation funded by the taxpayer that acts against the interests of the people by advocating porous borders, manufactured minority politics and the suppression of dissent. Its elitism is expressed in the vast waste of taxpayers’ money on overseas junkets, the reversal of formal equality and the prosecution of freethinkers under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
With a national debt of $450 billion, a foreign debt over a trillion dollars and a bulging deficit, the Australian people cannot afford the vast system of activism swamping taxpayer-funded minority groups, media, academe and the law. To paraphrase Donald Trump, it’s time to drain the swamp.
The AHRC is an activist organisation, the purpose of which has expired. It should have been retired after formal equality was introduced across Australian jurisdictions. The realisation of equality as a national condition is good for human rights, but bad for business. And human rights is a big, redundant business funded by taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet. To justify their appalling waste of taxpayers’ money, activists curate a culture of complaint in which citizens are grouped by state-designated “attributes” such as race or sex and encouraged to complain about perceived offence. Section 18C is the perfect tool to sow endless division and the culture of complaint that sustains the human rights industry.
For more than three years, undergraduate students from the Queensland University of Technology were pursued under section 18C. The complainant, indigenous staffer Cindy Prior, sought $250,000 in damages after refusing the students entry to a computer lab reserved for “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students only”. She described the unit that housed the lab as “culturally safe space” and took issue with the students who criticised the race-based spaces on campus with ironic observations such as: “QUT stopping segregation with segregation?”
As reported by national chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, some students were dropped from the 18C case after they agreed to pay Prior. As yet, no details of the payments have been made public by Prior’s solicitor Susan Moriarty.
In their response to judge Michael Jarrett’s dismissal of the case, lawyers acting on behalf of the students excoriated the director of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, for her handling of it. Tony Morris QC criticised Triggs for taking a $400,000 salary while failing to dismiss the “completely hopeless” complaint before it escalated to the Federal Circuit Court.
Having dispensed with one vexatious case, Morris must now turn to the absurd complaint against illustrator Bill Leak. As reported in The Weekend Australian, activists in Western Australia have encouraged complaints against Leak over his cartoon. The drawing depicted an Aboriginal policeman taking an inebriated man to task for neglecting his son. Retired indigenous musician Kevin Gunn reported that legal aid came to his house, showed him the cartoon and asked him to sign a statement. Gunn was reportedly unaware the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia had lodged a complaint to the AHRC on his behalf seeking financial compensation under 18C.
The use of 18C to sow social discord and encourage vexatious complaints against freethinkers and dissidents should provoke its repeal. But the activist left is so entrenched in establishment institutions that repeated attempts by elected politicians to amend the RDA have been stopped by unelected minority groups. When conservative Coalition senator Cory Bernardi recently proposed amending 18C to remove the insult and offend provisions, the manufactured minorities levied the usual smears against freethinkers designed to silence us. The PC left can smear us with false accusations of racism and we have no recourse to action under the RDA.
The idea underlying complaints against Leak is patently absurd — that a cartoon can cause racial discrimination. Originally, racial discrimination meant the refusal of or unequal access to employment, housing, goods, services or facilities on the basis of race. It was prohibited — rightly so. But under 18C, discrimination means feeling averse to the truth and having a state-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded right to punish those who reveal it. That’s not anti-discrimination. It’s a licence to silence dissidents.
There are multiple reforms ­required to return Australia to the path of formal equality before the law and drain the swamp of glorified activists who live off the earnings of taxpayers while betraying their interests. The AHRC is ­redundant, so too state discrimination and equal opportunity commissions. Their members can fund their own activism on their own time. The only remaining useful function such commissions serve is complaints handling, which they seem to serve poorly because of systemic political bias. The function should be designated to an ombudsman whose independence from government and the activist establishment would restore the principles of impartiality and natural justice to the discrimination complaints process.
At a minimum, section 18C should be repealed and replaced by a general provision against incitement to violence that would apply to all equally. Such reform does not require the parliamentary inquiry proposed by Liberal senator Dean Smith. We are drowning in debt and do not need another taxpayer-funded confab on the starship flaccid enterprise that would delay vital reform yet again. Just man up and get the job done; repeal 18C, reform it, or refer free speech to a party with the moral courage to defend it.
The final reform needed is to replace current discrimination legislation with codified formal equality and reduce the protected attributes to people with disabilities, and primary carers for the disabled, the young and the elderly. We should support welfare for those genuinely in need and use it to assist fellow Australians find suitable employment. The AHRC and state discrimination commissions are fossils from an era where citizens were treated unequally before the law. Today, they promote new forms of inequality under the euphemism of affirmative action while silencing political dissidents under 18C. The AHRC has become a force for social discord and division. Let it go.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #54


Prosperity and cohesion are two sides of the same coin in this immigrant nation. Tolerance is as central to our success story as ingenuity or commerce; and, similarly, it demands constant care. Frankness is an important part of the compact because we need to discuss differences and problems if we are to find accommodations and solutions. So when we tackle the serious security challenge of Islamic extremism we cannot be too coy. We cannot pretend away dilemmas past or present.
We know we have a problem: two innocents killed at Sydney’s Lindt cafe told us that; if not, two police officers stabbed at Melbourne’s Endeavour Hills; or police worker Curtis Cheng gunned down at Parramatta; or dozens arrested over domestic terrorist plots and more than 100 leaving our shores to join the Islamic State slaughter; or perhaps 100 more supporting those jihadists and wanting to join them.
Yet in the volatile nexus between immigration, security and harmony we have a problem with the truth. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is being excoriated by the Labor Party, some community leaders and elements of the political/media class for daring to draw attention to an unpalatable truth. Mr Dutton linked the insidious issue of domestic extremism to the Lebanese Muslim population and, in particular, the large cohort that arrived under the so-called Lebanese concession in the mid-1970s. “The advice I have is that out of the last 33 people who have been charged with terrorism-related offences in this country, 22 of those people are from second and third-generation Lebanese Muslim background,” he told parliament. There have since been calls for his sacking and Bill Shorten has labelled the comments “ignorant”. “Loud, lazy disrespect,” the Opposition Leader said, “wholesale labelling of entire communities for the actions of a tiny minority, aid and abet the isolation and resentment extremists prey upon.”
Mr Shorten has chosen to fuel a volatile and divisive controversy. He does not claim anything Mr Dutton said is untrue but claims he shouldn’t have said it. Yet Mr Shorten says that one reason this community should not be mentioned in this way is because it might push more individuals towards extremism — a revealing paradox. But Mr Dutton, rightly, has been at pains to stress that the entire Lebanese Muslim community must not be tarnished with the sins of a comparative few. He would have known his comments might provoke a backlash, no matter their basis in fact. He decided to discuss the facts regardless, presumably because he thought the public deserved frank discussion of serious matters. Tellingly, as outrage ensued, he was not admonished by the Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull instead praised his record. When the hysteria subsides we will be left with reality; the facts that must inform current policy.
The Australian previously has reported and discussed the Lebanese concession as a poorly managed episode of our immigration history producing consequences that are palpable to this day. The rushed and inadequately supervised program was subject to rorting and was brought to a close late in 1976. With the addition of family reunion immigrants it saw the Lebanese Muslim community grow from about 3400 to more than 15,000 during the 1970s. Most settled in the Sydney suburbs of Arncliffe and Lakemba. Statistics show this community has not integrated as well as other migrant groups, with joblessness and welfare dependency at significantly higher levels. As we reported last year: “The integration problems of Lebanese Muslims in Australia have been well canvassed. A comprehensive study by Swinburne University of Technology, released in 2006, revealed half of this group aged between 25 and 64 were out of work. The income of Lebanese Muslims was half the national average. Overall, Lebanese Muslim households were deemed ‘relatively large, poor and disconnected from paid work’.”
Combined with crime troubles, confirmed by the existence of the NSW Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad, and the overrepresentation in identified terrorism and foreign-fighter episodes, these are social issues worthy of the attention of all Australians along with welfare agencies, state and federal politicians, law enforcement authorities and Muslim groups. Lebanese Muslim Association president Samier Dandan dubbed the minister’s words “racist” and said he was manipulating “bigotry” for political gain. Mr Dandan said extremism involves “social/economic status, political disempowerment and racial discrimination” but was not confined to a single cultural group.
Without diminishing myriad success stories in this community or tarnishing all Lebanese Muslims, issues of crime, radicalisation and integration must be addressed, co-operatively. Lessons need to be learned — covering screening processes, education, support services and community engagement — to help future migrant intakes. None of this can happen effectively if people don’t dare to speak about uncomfortable truths.

Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #55 
We have similar discussions here. Yesterday the second trial against Geert Wilders ended with the final statement of Mr. Wilders to the judges, as suspects have the last word. The verdict is expected in December. The full statement of Wilders can be found through the link below, and he makes some good points:

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 6,803
Reply with quote  #56 
How anyone can even contemplate that Mr. Wilders (whose attitudes toward the Monarchy and the Arts I do not personally like) ought to be deemed guilty of any crime is beyond me. I suppose that's my American-ness showing...

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #57 
It's frightening that Wilders' visit to Australia could be controversial, and that he needs the level of security to travel wherever he goes. Who are the intolerant ones here?

In Australia, we had gang rapes and other crimes, and yet Australian society is being pinned as "racist" if anyone dares highlight the ethnic background of perpetrators. This is after all what gave us Rotherham.

Lately a lot has been talked about the sort of people who've tried to make a name for themselves latching onto the Trump campaign while not disguising their extremist, even pro-fascist views. As much as I find such people appalling, I'm afraid to say they will only seek to gain more ground when things like this keep happening.

Read Melanie Phillips' latest article btw:

Posts: 1,057
Reply with quote  #58 
Mr Wilders is lucky he gets into Australia. Dutton, though strong in other respects, has been somewhat craven in giving into political pressure to bar people from Australia for ideological reasons. I don't understand why, as the activist behind the campaigns won't respect Dutton any better.

America's free speech protections are definitely safer for a Trump victory. I believe Justice Briars and others have indicated they would be open to allowing hate speech prohibitions in US law. America's robust free speech provisions rest only on a Supreme Court majority, and some schools of left-liberal jurisprudence have signalled hostility to them. This is all somewhat ironic, given it is only a generation or two ago that liberals were trying to constitutionally enshrine as much free speech as possible - in the 50s and 60s and 70s the cutting edge liberals were free speech absolutists - often against conservative opposition in support of things like local and state laws against obscenity and pornography.

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #59 
Today's progressive internationalists want to reinforce their idea that no culture or civilisation can have primacy over the other, that rejection of moral relativism and multiculturalism is akin to fascism or Nazism, that Western civilisation is not worth defending, and so forth.

In the English-speaking world, the Left's version of history is zealously enforced this way. The whole "White Guilt" complex over colonialism and race has served as the basis for multiculturalism and moral relativism, and ultimately for the denigration of the values, traditions and institutions upon which Britain and the Commonwealth are built.

We can see here that academia has established itself as society's new most despised class, owing to their pretentiousness and detachment from the reality of common people:

Posts: 4,640
Reply with quote  #60 
"Culturally Inclusive" alternative to Australia Day forwarded by Frementle council:

And this, my friends, is precisely why people are now rebelling and voting the way they do.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.