A Chinese powerbroker at the centre of a political donations scandal, Huang Xiangmo, has moved to rally ethnic community support for controversial hate speech laws, sparking a political brawl and claims he could be trying to minimise scrutiny of China in Australia.
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has criticised the lack of a set definition to determine whether a person is Aboriginal.
Senator Hanson tonight highlighted the possibility for non-indigenous people to be classified as Aboriginal by marrying an indigenous person or being accepted by elders of a community.
In an interview with conservative presenter and columnist Andrew Bolt on Sky News, Senator Hanson said: “That’s not good enough because then if you make a comment about it, well what are you? Are you an Aboriginal or not an Aboriginal?”
My God, don’t they ever go away? First Paul Keating has been back in the news, not only making helpful suggestions for the Labor Party, but also because he does not support the constitutional recognition of Aborigines because this does not go far enough. He wants an indigenous treaty. Thus, in a letter to academics doing a book on the topic he said: “Why would any of you want or need that document to acknowledge you?” (The Australian, November 14, 2016, p. 4)
Here is the full, classic Keating quote:
“I am not a supporter of the so-called constitutional route to recognition. The route to recognition has to be straight through the front door, with a document acknowledging prior occupation, including recognition and atonement for the dispossession.”
“A treaty is the best way to do this, notwithstanding it has to be 200 years late. If my forebears had been here 60,000 years, there is no way I would be fobbed off with some weasel words in this country’s horse-and-buggy utilitarian Constitution.”
Apart from the philosophical implications of section 18 C, from a legal perspective, I am concerned about the consequences of a successful “Yes” vote from the constitutional recognition of Aborigines. This issue is pushed as a big social justice issue, like same sex marriage, and dissents are slammed for disagreeing. Probably discrimination law will be used to silence any critics, because that is the real reason the elites put it in place.
hus it is good to see social critic Keith Windschuttle speaking up. (The Weekend Australian, October 22-23, 2016, p. 20), saying: “Australia as we know it will not survive the agenda of those seeking greater autonomy.” The aim of many, if not most, in the Aboriginal movement, is not to make the constitution complete, but to “get their country back,” and he quotes the title of a recent book on this, It’s Our Country, to illustrate the thought processes. The aim is political autonomy and sovereignty, traditional law in their own separate nation. It is not explained how all of this fits in with multiculturalism and Asianisation, but no doubt, as I see it, China will work all of this out for “us” in the future.
To The Australian
Keith Windschuttle is not, as Gerard Hore claims (24/10), engaging in irresponsible 'fear-mongering' ('Separation, not integration, will result from recognition', 22-23/10), but issuing a wise warning which Australians will ignore at their peril. The threat of the disintegration of our nation, with the ill effects that would bring, is something genuinely fearful. Common sense, not merely 'self-interest', demands that it be opposed. Nothing immoral about that.
It has been apparent for many years that the push for 'constitutional recognition' masks a separatist political agenda. Windschuttle, with his customary thoroughness, has now provided the needed substantial documentation of this new Trojan horse. However, his article does not explore the mystery of why there is so much support in high places for such an obviously destructive policy that is against the interests of most Australians. Perhaps Senator Malcolm Roberts can explain this.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
In the lead up to the referendum over Aboriginal constitutional recognition, every scientific paper thought to support the “long-term view” gets media coverage. Thus, attention was given to A-S. Malaspinas (et al.), “A Genomic History of Aboriginal Australia,” Nature (2016): doi : 10.1038/nature18299.
The research was a genetic study of 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea Highlands.
It is said that there was diversifications in populations 25-40,000 years ago “suggesting pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania)” However, the Aborigines descended “from a single founding population that differentiated ~ 10-32” (thousand years ago).”
To my mind this means that the 40,000 year or even now 65,000 years’ occupancy figure must be incorrect.
They also say: “Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51-72 kya (thousand years ago), following a single out-of-Africa dispersal and subsequently admixed with archaic populations.”
So, “archaic populations,” “archaic hominins” were really here first! Is there going to be constitutional recognition of the ancestors of the Aborigines? Surely there must be, in all fairness.
Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun, October 1, 2016) points out that “hate speech” is taking a mutated meaning. A Perth woman seeing people posting “anti-marriage equality” stickers on a sign that she was standing in front of said: “Does anyone by chance know who is responsible for this hatred? I’d love to speak to them.” Yes, it was a rhetorical question. This is a common point of view of the “Yes” approach.
The sign said “Keep Marriage Man and Woman.” This sentiment, held by the vast majority of the human race throughout time, has now been regarded by proponents of the “new morality” as hate speech. But there is no point arguing with them: call it “late for dinner,” it will be opposed. “Hate” is fast losing any emotional impact it once had.
What happens when feminism clashes with multiculturalism? It seems that multiculturalism wins. As reported in “‘Women Silenced’ in Stifling Culture of Aboriginal Unity,” (The Weekend Australian, October 1-2, 2016, p. 7), in the 1970s many female Aboriginal leaders put ethnic solidarity, “standing as a people” over feminist issues.
According to indigenous researcher Suzanne Ingram, Aboriginal women are still facing racial solidarity pressures, serving as “solidarity stewardesses serving a sophisticated silencing agenda,” on issues of domestic violence in their communities. Ms Ingram believes that the issue of “silencing” has got worse with women who speak out about black-on-black violence being seen as engaging in betrayal.
Her paper “Silent Drivers/Driving Silence – Aboriginal Women’s Voices on Domestic Violence,” published in Social Alternatives (vol. 35, 2016, pp. 6-12), cites alarming statistics that “intimate partner violence” can be as high as 38 times greater for Aboriginal women than non-Aboriginal women.
There has been criticism of the printer of Dr David van Gend’s book, Stealing from a Child : The Injustice of “Marriage Equality” not proceeding with the printing of the book for the publisher because the book opposed same-sex marriage. This is apparently the first time in Australia that a printing firm has refused to print a book on political grounds: http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/doctor-speaks-out-about-book-printing-ban/3093540/. It follows on the heels of a Sydney hotel cancelling the booking made by some Christian groups opposing same sex marriage after there were threats made to hotel staff. At the present time we cannot say that it was gay activists who did this, as a matter of law, because there is not strict legal proof, but most journalists criticising this do anyway.
Brendon O’Neil, “Straight-Out Hate in Politics of Identity,” The Weekend Australian, September 24-25, 2016, p. 19, sums up accurately the new identity politics which LGBTIism is a part of:
TO THE AGE
Despite David McCarthy's claim to the contrary ('Keep tight leash on dogs of hate in marriage debate', 26/9) the controversy over same-sex unions definitely does involve freedom of speech.
He is right to call for mutual respect in public discussions, but wrong to depend on the concept of equality. It is the principle of equity ('fair shares') that should properly be involved and this requires consideration of the rights of children and their welfare.
Three days before St. Valentine’s Day, February 11, 2017, we may have the same sex marriage plebiscite: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” The vote will be compulsory and determined by an overall national majority. Well, the plebiscite will go ahead if Labor supports it, but they are still making up their little minds on that one. They wouldn’t want the “No” side to win.
There is no guarantee of free speech for the “No” case and supporters may violate oppressive state-based anti-discrimination laws. The federal government confirmed to Family First that it will not override state suppression laws.
Of course not; such laws are in place just for moments like this, to be used as a political weapon if necessary.
What we really need is a referendum putting a robust right to free speech into the constitution so that all of these laws can be knocked down in one swoop.
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?
“Come in,” she said, “I’ll give you shelter from the storm.” Bob Dylan, “Shelter from the Storm,” (1975).
If my memory serves me well, John Carroll in “Paranoid and Remissive: The Treason of the Upper Middle Class,” (in R. Manne (ed.), The New Conservatism in Australia (1982)), argued that the Left typically had families with weak fathers and strong mothers. Presumably this led to some sort of mental imbalance. But today it is more likely that the family has no father at all. Or a “new” family of two women.
In this scheme of things, there is no place at all for the traditional “John Wayne” man. Feminists, in general, see this version of traditional masculinity, based on the warrior model of man, tried and proven over all of human history, as flawed in their opinion. Effeminate conservatives probably do too, also falling into this model, having weak male role models, and dominant mothers.
Two trends: the first, Anglo-Saxon people in Australia, the United States and Britain are fast becoming minorities, and in the US Anglos, by contrast to broadly “whites,” already are.
Native Germans, for another example, will be a minority in one generation. In other words, Nordics, people of Northern European descend, will become only a minority tribe.
Second, as Peter Baldwin points out, “Regressive Left Puts Bigotry on a Pedestal,” The Weekend Australian, September 17-18, 2016, p. 19, the Enlightenment ideal of a universal human nature based on reason has been rejected in favour of identity politics and culture.
The Clexit Coalition calls on the Australian Government to conduct a plebiscite on whether Australia should withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty.
The Clexit (ClimateExit) Coalition, comprising over 170 representatives from 25 countries, was launched in London last week. It aims to prevent ratification or local enforcement of the UN Paris climate treaty.
Australia is vulnerable to the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on carbon fuels.
Australia is a huge continent in a far corner of the world, suffering from what that great historian Geoffrey Blainey called ‘The Tyranny of Distance’.
Andrew Bolt has made stronger comments than I will make on this issue re: Malcolm Turnbull and his alleged promise to church leaders that the government would fund both sides of the debate. Thus, first, we hear that Mal denied that he made an “unambiguous” offer to fund both sides of the same-sex marriage debate to church leaders (The Australian, September 12, 2016, p. 4). He said that cabinet will decide whether the “Yes” and “No” cases receive tax payer support.
His current stated position (The Australian, September 13, 2016, p. 2), is that funding both sides of the debate would be “scrupulously fair”. Supporters of the “Yes” side worry that if things are “scrupulously fair” the “No” case might win. Hey, they know the meaning of “democracy” don’t they!
I went back to my old university to work in the library, or what remains of it. On the cement cylinder structures, whose name I never looked up (rotunda), I noted the left/socialists latest anti-Hanson pro-Muslim posters. This one was about eating Halal meat at a special anti-Hanson BBQ. I imagine that these young cubs would like to burn her at the stake, or at the mysterious cement structures, the fires fuelled by their moral righteousness and piety. But do the Muslims support their Leftoid values? In this article, we ponder that question.
I imagine that these folk, who are leading the charge for same-sex marriage will also get behind the next big thing after that: multiculturalism-based polygamy. Andrew Bolt notes in a recent blog “Polygamy Dating Site is a Warning: First Same-Sex Marriage, Next Polygamy,” Herald Sun, September 5, 2016, that polygamy will be the next big thing.
Chris Mitchell (“Amnesia Suits the Politics of Today’s Media Generation,” The Australian, September 5, 2016), notes that the crop of today’s progressives in the media are “publicly contemptuous of everyday Australians, those people who make up journalists’ audiences.” But do every day Australians primarily watch, say, the ABC and SBS? I doubt it, or at least not the ordinary blokes I know. The chattering class who vilify us produce their self-reinforcing bs for members of their own class to maintain group solidarity, as the sociologists would describe it.
Still, Mitchell makes some good points. Then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, was opposed to same-sex marriage right up to 2013 and no “progressive” accused her of “hate speech.” But oppose same sex marriage now, and feel the might of the courts dropped upon you. Why, the Marxist cubs will bash you and the system will do nothing about it, or, almost nothing.
The essence of free speech is the ability of a person to be able to publicly express an opinion, informed or otherwise, true or false, on matters of local, national and international importance, without hindrance. Defenders of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, such as Meredith Doig, President of the Rationalist Society of Australia Inc. (‘Dealing with the contentious matter of 18C’, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/8) decline to uphold this ideal and produce specious arguments to justify their position.
There is no obligation on government whatever to ‘balance’ liberty against ‘equality’. The latter is an arithmetical term foolishly invoked to mask the agendas of interested parties. Equity is the appropriate term to use; and it does not collide with the defence of intellectual freedom.
The headlines back in June 2016, loudly proclaimed:
“New DNA Technology Confirms Aboriginal People as First Australians.” (ABC News, June 7, 2016)
With all the talk about recognition and “first people,” perhaps many were surprised to learn that the “New DNA Technology” reference is to a research paper allegedly refuting an earlier paper of 2001, that had argued that the oldest known Australian human remains, near Lake Mungo, New South Wales (“Mungo Man”), were alleged to not be Aboriginal at all, but from an extinct human linage. This would mean that the Aborigines, in pre-history “displaced” this race of people. This could have been by interbreeding, but more likely involved warfare. Things were tough and different from today.
This would directly challenge the “first person” ideology, but we did not hear much about it.
Some salient points raised by Jennifer Oriel the other day.
21st-century Left waging new war on free speech by Jennifer Oriel