By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

All the Section 18 C News Fit to Report by Ian Wilson LL.B.

Just in case one may think that we have been exaggerating about the desire of the ethnic multicultural lobby for preserving section 18 C, here is a direct quote, cut from “Chinese Tycoon Risks New Battle Over 18 C,” The Australian, November 29, 2016, p. 6:

“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.
In an opinion article titled “18C is a bedrock of society” published in Chinese-language newspaper Sydney Today, the Chinese billionaire argued against winding back section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which restricts speech that insults and offends.
“If the hard-line advocates of free speech succeed in having section 18C of the act repealed major cracks could open in society,” Mr Huang said. “This is the last thing we need at a time when there is heated debate in many places around the world about such things as immigration, foreign workers and radical Islam.”

This pretty much sums up why we should abolish section 18 C. The section’s sole existence is to keep the Anglo “deplorables” in line until they can be completely demographically displaced. All challenging debate about immigration and multiculturalism must be shut down. But, common sense alone would indicate that at a time of social crisis, we need more, not less free speech, for otherwise the evils that the ethnics fear may fester underground, and produce populist revolt. It happens.

Then there is the moral panic generated by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s remarks on Sky News’ The Bolt Report, that former prime minister Malcolm Fraser made mistakes in bringing some refugees into Australia in the 1970s. What exactly did the minister say? I will move carefully here and quote from SBS News, which has the story:

“Peter Dutton says it was a mistake bringing Lebanese refugees to Australia,” at  Here is the story as told by SBS in their words, not mine:

“Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has said the government of Malcolm Fraser made a mistake in bringing Lebanese refugees to Australia in the 1970s, saying they formed a majority of those recently travelling overseas as foreign fighters.
“The advice I have is that out of the last 33 people who have been charged with terrorist-related offences in this country, 22 of those people are from second and third generation Lebanese-Muslim background,” he said in parliament after being pressed on the issue during Question Time.
Mr Dutton said last week that many foreign fighters getting involved in conflict zones were the children or grandchildren of migrants that came during the 1970s but did not say what country he was referring to.”

Dutton went on to explain the source of the immigration mistake and its relevance to today. Once more I quote from SBS:

“In an interview with Sky News last week Mr Dutton said: “The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in the 1970s and we’re seeing that today,” the told Sky News on Thursday. “We need to be honest in having that discussion. There was a mistake made.
“Lessons from past migrant programs should be learnt for people settling in Australia today.”

At the time Mr Dutton was being asked about the recent gang activity in Victoria involving youths of African - in particular, Sudanese - background.
He attributed much of the blame to the state government, whom he labelled “weak” on law and order.
But he said his department was working with Victoria Police to try to identify people of poor character and cancel visas where necessary.

“If it can be demonstrated that we have a significant proportion of a particular community - we’re talking about the Sudanese community in this instance - then we need to work out what’s gone wrong,” he said.”

Needless to say, the Left went absolutely berserk hearing this, because the remarks constitute a rare criticism of an ethno-racial group. But the minister had his defenders, with Gerard Henderson, “Fraser’s Lebanese Concession Became a Disaster,” The Australian, November 24, 2016, p. 11, giving the historical background to Fraser’s decision. The idea was to accept Maronites fleeing the civil war, but who were not strictly refugees. Few Maronites came, but many Muslim Lebanese did instead, even though they were not affected by the civil war. Few immigrants were rejected. This is now known as the “Lebanon concession,” and Henderson says:

“The cabinet papers in the National Archives of Australia reveal that the Lebanon concession was an unmitigated disaster. In September 1976 cabinet considered a report that concluded that Immigration Department officials were “completely overstretched” and had lost control of the program.
The report expressed concern about “the possibility that the conflicts, tensions and divisions within Lebanon will be transferred to Australia”.

By November 1976 the situation had deteriorated further. Immigration minister Michael MacKellar told cabinet that a high percentage of applicants under the Lebanon concession were illiterate and were being admitted to Australia without “any regard to their economic viability, personal qualities or capacity for successful settlement.”

Now, it was also stated in The Australian:

“The Lebanese Muslim Association has also condemned the “implicit racial vilification” in Mr Dutton’s remarks about migrants who came to Australia in the 1970s”:

I quoted them correctly, cut and pasting from the on-line document.

So, we have members of the discussed ethnic community who claim to have been vilified. Thus, they are likely to have been offended, insulted, humiliated and perhaps even intimidated by the remarks and the public debate. That would seem to enliven section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act. If the university student’s case and the Bill Leak section 18 C cases could get as far as these cases did, then maybe there is an even better case here to pursue a section 18 C case against the minister!

While some remarks were made under parliamentary privilege, not all were and there seems to be enough said for a complaint to be made. There is a prima facie good section 18 D defence, but the point of the debate is that the hypothetical complaint would proceed through the system. Wouldn’t that be a delicious irony, and perhaps then the Liberals will finally move to do something about the tyranny of section 18 C, if the heat of “The Law” is placed on one of their tribe



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Tuesday, 26 May 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.