Australian Choices – MultiCult or Freedom?

My first question directed to Aussie readers is – WHY IS IT COLD AND RAINY HERE?

This is meant to be high summer, right? Still, least for today, never mind, I have stayed indoors reading the papers, though with a nice view of Bondi Beach from my rain-streaked window.

Despite the fearsome blow to free speech by the conviction of Roger Bolt for commenting on the bizarre way some very obviously white people with just a tiny wee spot of Abo ancestry have made rather good livings for themselves by elevating the 10 or 20 or 30 (max) per cent of their genes to a sort of transubstantiated majority chromosome and declaring themselves Abos, there has not yet been any formal move to amend the stupid law which saw him ‘done’ by a myopic judge.

A waffling, lefty lawyer named Merkel had a long and partially coherent piece in the Australian on 21st Nov, which included such gems as ‘a particularly pernicious aspect ( of Bolt’s words) was their intimidatory impact on younger Aboriginal people who may be more apprehensive about publicly identifying as Aboriginal’

Who gives a monkey’s whether they call themselves Abo or not?

If they look like Abos, that’s what they’ll get called, whether they ‘public identify’ themselves as such or not. And if they don’t look like Abos, then they can weigh it up, and decide….make a darned good living as an albino Abo activist, like those whingers who took Bolt to law. Or just be boring whiteys like the rest of us.

Why do people get their knickers in such a twist…cry-babies galore…gosh!

But Merkel does make a valid point when he chastises some people’s very selective crusading for free speech. Certain conservatives protested loudly when Bolt was persec/prosec-uted, but never uttered a word of dissent when other cases of less widely-read persons were attacked by the left-lib hate laws.

The cases of Senator Ross Lightfoot, who also upset hyper-sensitive Abos, and two guys in South Australia, Toben and Scully, who were convicted of a crime merely for saying the German holocaust didn’t happen, as if history should not always be open for debate –  those cases were just as heinous assaults on liberty, but, as Merkel says, few rose to those men’s defence.

But then he goes back to silly extrapolation instead of argument, viz, ’just as freedom of movement has to give way to a red traffic light, so freedom of speech has to give way to a legitimate countervailing public purpose.’

Yes, if one orates along the lines of, ‘Hunt them down, they are bad, kill, kill, kill them,’ of course arrest and prosecution should be instant. Slander, false advertising, contempt of court, all involve limits on free speech.

But the red light argument may not be misused to suppress comments on, or criticisms of, race, colour, creed, ethnic or national origin, or nationality. That road leads you to the moron society we see in modern England, where some opportunistic Paddy got compensated because a superviser told an Irish joke. Or that sick case in the USA where the professor was dissed for…what, something to do with Hispanics…?

Minorities, yes, and majorities as well, should GROW UP and accept the fact that ethnic jokes can be funny, as too religious jokes, as any joke told with wit and verve and panache. Not all such jokes amuse, nor are we all amused by the same kind of humour, but that’s no reason for  priggish intolerance. Scrap race laws, restore free expression.


Further to that matter, the same issue of the ‘Australian’ carried too a somewhat shorter article about some dork’s plan to enact a law on multiculturalism.

The only law on multicult that a country like Aussie needs is surely an outright ban on anyone or any group that thinks it can impose alien cultures, traditions or practices on Aussies. Poisonous junk like sharia law should be kept where it rightly is at the moment. Beyond the pale!

But why then does the Victorian State Government WANT Gillard to push through a ‘national multiculturalism act.’

Apparently the Victorians are currently run by the Liberal Party under some bloke named Baillieu, who legislated along those lines this year and now wants everyone else to do so too. So we know that in one state at least, the Liberal Party is no friend to the Oz identity.

As Gary Johns, ex Federal Labour Minister, has the sense to warn us – ‘to legislate for multiculturalism is to introduce the potential for different rules.’

 G. Johns

Of course it will, for that is multicult – the destruction of the common cultural identity which has served Oz well. Johns also said. ’Legislation which tells the electorate to behave or else will not generate respect.’

Sensible man, Johns – he refers to the ‘Abo’ cry-babies in the Bolt case thus – ‘a highly politicised group, the Bolt litigants, were offended by fair comment. The law privileged such sensitivity and in doing so, curtailed fair comment.

..response in society was not increased respect for the litigants but disbelief at the integrity of the law…’

 Scott Morrison

And good to hear Scott Morrison, from the Opposition Front Bench, denounce sharia schemers clearly.

Our only constraint on religion is that, in its practice, we respect the rule of law, the institutions that uphold our laws and the values that we live by and aspire to as a nation.
In our nation there is only one law. Our law cannot be partitioned in sectarian terms, or any other religious divide. I believe this is the overwhelming view of every parliament in the country and why calls for legal pluralism must be rejected, and certainly would be rejected by a Liberal Government.

That was just last week, so still newsworthy as well as commendable!