Free Speech Is The Only Remedy

bag searchIn his excellent Quadrant essay, “Weaponising Our Weaknesses”, Edwin Dyga detailed the peril faced by Western civilisation and the maladies rendering us all but incapable of mounting a credible defence in the interests of its survival. That article identified the disease and outlined the dire prognosis if left untreated. What follows are the obvious and clinical steps which logic says governments must be encouraged to adopt as the most efficacious remedy.

The first and fundamental requirement is the changing of prevailing attitudes and the language that goes with it. Political correctness must be banished. The legal and moral acceptability of any view or opinion is to be determined solely by its veracity, irrespective of the way it is subjectively perceived by any group or individual. The only restriction on freedom of expression must be that which prohibits the expression of actual and outright hate and which advocates violence, as distinct from mere criticism or disapproval. Laws contrary to the letter or spirit of this determination — Section 18C, for starters —  must be abolished. Our Western traditions take as a given that democratically elected governments will be champions of free and unfettered speech. Any hedged or qualified restriction on what can be said, written or broadcast betrays all those who, in many cases, gave their lives to win for all who came after the liberty of candour.

Next, with absolute confidence in the protection of the law and authorities, we must actually dare to say what we think. If, for example, you find the veiling of young girls an insult to our traditions of female emancipation, being told that such observations are “offensive” or, that universal catchall, “inappropriate”, cannot be accepted as a valid defence of repugnant cultural practices. Let those at the pointy end respond to such criticism on its merits or otherwise. Yes, harsh opinions expressed openly can be upsetting, but those that are suppressed fester and burst like toxic abscesses.

In daring to say what we know to be true, we must openly acknowledge and decisively proclaim that our civilisation, based on Judeo-Christian principles, is under mortal threat from Islam. It must be proclaimed, and proclaimed unambiguously, that we are determined to maintain our culture and customs and, further, that we firmly oppose all attempts, open and surreptitious alike, to change them. The inevitable objections by Muslim leaders and non-Muslim “progressives” is to be firmly and confidently countered by the wealth and breadth of empiric evidence, starting with Islamic scriptures’ assertion that the faith of Allah is divinely destined to rule the world. We must not be deterred by spurious accusations of racism and Islamophobia. Only the facts must matter. The inconvenient ones can no longer be swept under the rug in order to placate the habitually offended.

Western governments must desist from granting any concessions or privileges to Muslim residents under the guise of freedom of religion and cancel any such arrangements already in existence. Security services must actively and relentlessly monitor Muslim communities and suspected individuals, ignoring the inevitable accusations of bigotry. The surveillance is to be sufficiently vigorous for Muslim communities to be constantly aware of it, but without gratuitous harassment. Agitation against the lawful authorities or institutions must be punished, with those convicted of planning, or having committed, jihad-related crimes are to be given the option of voluntarily and permanently departing the country or being indefinitely detained, with the expulsion option remaining permanently available.

Having thus put Islamists on notice, diligent application of the above measures would be a decided disincentive to prospective Muslim migrants to Australia (or any other country with similar policies), rendering irrelevant calls to restrict or prohibit such immigration. Muslims who still wish to move to Western countries would likely be those  prepared to join us, rather than those who reject our traditions while scheming to change them.

These are, in reality, very simple and sensible responses to the West’s growing challenge. All it would take to enact them are common sense and courage.

Sadly and alarmingly, none of the above is likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Our culture is far too enfeebled by the tyranny of the left to effectively defend itself, the proof of this being the legions of self-serving politicians eager to look the other way as the civilisation they are pledged to defend and protect comes under ever greater pressure. Have you visited a major stadium lately? Those bag checks and security scans we must all endure are the response to the symptom, not the disease itself. And the disease is obvious, as Malcolm Turnbull made obvious by inviting “moderate” Muslim leaders to dinner, then declining to make no more than a passing criticism when it emerged that a body of opinion among his guests advocates death for homosexuals and the eternal torture of unacceptable women.

Ultimately only two possible courses lie ahead. The first is a meek, gradual and inevitable erosion of the freedoms we should hold dear. The other, inevitably, is violence when the abscess bursts and poisons the future for all.

  • ianl

    > ” … a meek, gradual and inevitable erosion of the freedoms we should hold dear”

    I fear you don’t get it yet, Bill. This has already happened. The reversal of the Rennaisance is well underway. The reaction of the Aus bureaucrats, politicians, academics and parasites of the MSM to Brexit is a resolute decision never to allow such questions to be asked of the populace here; this is a simple example of the status quo.

    The consequences of disagreeing with politically correct stances are obvious and have been increasingly so for 20 years. This cannot be dissipated in our lifetimes. The battle is long lost, although I expect most here will not yet accept that. In fact, this statement will be studiously avoided.

    • Salome

      At the very least, we should make an attempt to begin the reconquista. It mightn’t be achieved in our lifetimes, but the next generation might be interested in carrying it further.

      • Warty

        I’m with you there, Salome: the battle is by no means lost, though the ‘enemy’ seems to have infiltrated nearly everything that can be infiltrated. I can imagine that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, might have regarded the Nationalist Socialists in a similar way, at times. But he never gave up, despite dying for his beliefs.
        Bill has prescribed a number of steps for dealing with a quietly encroaching Islam (because that is the phase, in this country . . . considerably more ‘in your face’ in Europe) but a good many of those prescriptions are as yet unconstitutional, for example, the relentlessly monitoring Muslim communities, and that is if we had the enormous resources to do so, which we don’t.
        I think debate is important, and if each and everyone of us were to gain a thorough understanding of Islam, via the Qur’an and the hadiths, we’d be able to, as it were, hold up a mirror unto the adherents of Islam, to show that it is very far from a ‘religion of peace’. This mantra has been allowed to proliferate, thereby obscuring the truth of the matter: Islam is one of the most intolerant ideologies around today. ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’ (Qur’an 9:29)

    • whitelaughter

      “reversal of the Rennaisance”? I wish. The Rennaisance, like the Enlightenment, saw our rights and freedoms go backwards, not forwards – and the reason you think otherwise is they killed anyone who said otherwise.

  • Lacebug

    I agree with you IanL. It’s all too little too late. We lost the fight. How we move forward with that knowledge is another thing.

  • nfw

    While I agree with you don’t expect it from Mr Loss of Mojo Turnbull. How could he have all his sand people mates who support the keeping of sex slaves, slaves in general and the killing of homosexuals over for an halal BBQ if we could say nasty things about them? Their delicate feelings might be hurt.

  • dcb

    I agree that as it stands, all appears pretty hopeless… but that view is only valid if you accept that ALL avenues of redress have been exhausted. Yes, as ianl says, the Rennaissance is being reversed and all the philosophical and political gains are now in full retreat…
    but again I ask: Have ALL avenues of redress been exhausted? I suggest you keep a close eye on Europe in the coming period – fully expect a political backlash – already underway to some extent – but do not discount a more robust (& brutal) reaction… History tells us that sooner or later people rise up against tyranny & despots… it happened a little over 200 years ago, it will happen again.

  • Mr Johnson

    A timely piece. My wife and I were lamenting the costs of Islam in the West just recently – France has soldiers on every corner, Germany has deployed troops to its streets for the first time since WW2, airlines have extensive monitoring processes and equipment, and now even churches and schools need to have visible security details – all paid for by us dupes, the taxpayer. And all this, as we’re told, is because a few bad apples have a mental disorder (or don’t have a job, friends, or still can’t get over the Crusades). If we can’t articulate this in public due to being squeamish about being labelled Islamophobic, you would think there’s got to eventually be an economic argument to be had.

  • ArthurB

    Bill: a fine piece, I agree with what you have said.

    A long time ago, someone — B.A. Santamaria, if I remember correctly — said that any society is always only twenty years away from collapse. The implication is that twenty years is the interval between birth and attaining adulthood for a generation, and if a generation has been told to believe that you don’t need to take responsibility for your own decisions and actions, there are serious consequences for you as an individual, and for the society around you.

    About fifty years ago the Left began the long march through the institutions, and its victory is now close to being complete, though, I hope, not irreversible.

    As a reader of Quadrant online, I am impressed with the essays that are put on the website, and with the responses from readers. However, I feel that analysis is easy, but effective action infinitely more difficult. Menzies and Howard were conservatives who were attuned to the aspirations of the people, but I wonder whether they would have had the same success in an era of Twitter, instant gratification, sound-bites and gotcha journalists.

  • Keith Kennelly

    Now now, the answer is not an outright rejection of everything Islamic.
    We should attack the Islamists weaknesses.

    Understanding the divisions within Islam, and using them to divide and conquer is our best approach.

    The answer is to directly confront only those sects within Islam that foster intolerance. They are the fundamentalists of Wahabism and Salafists of the Sunni branch.
    Those that have a more tolerant practise and which have mechanisms that moderate the violence should be confronted as well but with an attitude of pointing out the divisions and differences. The Shafi’i of the Sunni and the Shia are completely at odd with the fundamentalists.

    These sects hold sway in both Malaysia and Indonesia and apart from Sunni fundamentalist stacks on westerners ons the Shia of Aceh violence is not much in evidence in the region

    Note also the position of women throughout Malaysia and Indonesia. Quite as liberal as westerners.

    While Sunnis make up 80% of Islam the Shafi’i are a significant portion of that.

    Our knowledge ofIslamneeds to be much more specific.

    As an example Wahlid Aly needs to be asked what sect of Islam he practises.
    No matter what his answer, it would place him at odds with large sections of Islam. The traditional frictions would soon surface and his reputation and standing within the msm would be irreparably damaged.

    Simple really. Knowledge and reasoned application, things the citizens of the west have mastered and understand, will stuff sophistry and deception all the time.

    • [email protected]

      “The answer is to directly confront only those sects within Islam that foster intolerance.” – Writes Keith Kennelly. Islam is intolerance, period. Challenge any of the “tolerant” muslims to denounce a single word in the Koran; to accept that Muhammad was a sex-obsessed pedophile and vicious murderer; that the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression; that Islam is not the perfect religion and not destined to rule the world. Need any more to be said? As for asking Waleed Aly anything, get ready for a tirade of obfuscation, sophistry, half-truths and lies but don’t expect a meaningful answer. Likewise with other western educated “tolerant, peaceful Muslims. Trying to reason with Muslims is a fool’s errand.

  • [email protected]

    The more sincerely a Muslim practices his religion the more closely he will follow the teachings of its founder. The same could be said of practitioners of any religion. So it is interesting to read research, quoted from an article an article by Selwyn Duke, which reveals the truth about the “religion of peace”.

    “A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period.

    Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira. And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/why_the_establishment_cant_grasp_the_nature_of_islam_.html#ixzz4GFkGsrdt
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Warty

      You are entirely correct. I like your analogy of the devout Catholic vis a vis the devout Muslim, the one attempting to follow the tenets of Christ and the latter, the sayings, the behaviour and attitudes of the perfect example of Islamic rectitude. Your conclusions are, unfortunately, not self evident to the population at large, but one needs to study Islam a bit to know what Mohammad was actually on about.

    • MattP

      Christians are “moderate” because of their attachment/closeness to Christ and the Christian Faith. Muslims are “moderate” because of their detachment/distance from Muhammad and the Muslim Faith.

      • ian.macdougall

        Spot on.

  • Brett_McS

    This is exactly right.

    Our perspective is often short term so we despair when we don’t see much change of attitudes in a few short years. Real change typically starts slowly but then when enough attitudes change in enough people the change happens quickly across society (because most people are followers), in the so-called preference cascade.

    Another thing to note is that the left disguises its failed ideas as “our” failures; “we” failed, when it is only the left that failed. Apart from diverting criticism, their purpose in doing this is to create widespread despair at “our” failures.

    Truly, despair is misplaced. How many people are, like me, now very aware of the true nature of Islam when not long ago (specifically 2001) I had assumed it was just another religion, and looked on with insouciance, or even approval, at seeing a new mosque being built. Now every new mosque is resisted and many are stopped. People are waking up and what the author says must happen will happen.

  • Homer Sapien

    Australia doesn’t need Islam.

  • MattP

    Bill noted: “Western governments must desist from granting any concessions or privileges to Muslim residents under the guise of freedom of religion and cancel any such arrangements already in existence.”

    This (concessions or privileges in the name of religious tolerance) is one of the greatest lies and misappropriations of the definition and use of Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion affords two things: 1) The Right to Worship (which is absolute) and 2) The Right to Observance (observances, manifestations or practices). These, unlike worship, are not absolute.

    Thus no religion necessarily has the right to all of its observances. They are subject to the regulatory norm of the established public order, which is built on tradition, rule of law, culture and values inherent to this country. Any religious observance that runs counter to, contravenes or undermines the established public order is rightly regulated out of use. It is beholden on government to ensure this. It is the established public order that is the tent-pole or lightning rod that helps establish and maintain a pluralistic society. It must he maintained lest cultural parallelism ensues.

    There are many attributes of Islam for which there is no precedent in this country, and for this reason alone should be questioned and subsequently regulated out. For example, the Catholic coif could be a precedent for the hijab or shayla, but certainly not for the burqa or niqab.

    Shariah must be disallowed, for it is fundamentally anti-democratic in light of the Rule of Law, which is fit for all men in this country.

    The key question is: if these Islamic obervances (Shariah, honour killings, underage marriage, polygamy, standing for judges, etc.) cannot be regulated out of the religion (loosely applied of course) what next?

    Lastly, I think we’ve largely forgotten what the established public order is, and so have let it be eroded further and further.

    • Warty

      MattP, in an ideal world one might see ‘built on tradition, rule of law, culture and values inherent to this country’, but we are very far from that. And statements like ‘it is beholden on government to ensure this’, is, I say this respectfully, mere wishful thinking. As many have intimated: we are fighting a war (and it is a war) on two fronts, and in order to fight the Islamic threat, we need to ‘clear the decks’ i.e. deal with the radical left: the Muslim apologists, who are doing their utmost to fire the first shots for their beloved Islam.
      ‘It is beholden on the government’ assumes that our current government is on the same page, which it most certainly isn’t. If the government runs around appeasing Muslim leaders, because they don’t want to further radicalise the young, disenchanted (an understatement), easily led, social media-addicted Muslims, then our leaders are ‘dealing’ with the issue with one hand tied behind their backs.
      Shoulds and shouldn’ts, musts and mustn’ts belong to a world of principles, and it’s not as though one shouldn’t hold on to principles, but we have to strip off and get into the mud before hand: our own government is infected with the socialist ‘bug’; Marxist ideas permeate the judiciary; political correctness has turned our military into an inglorious powder puff; our police have all sorts of sociological restraints applied to them; our MSM lives in a pink fairyland.
      So we have to deal first with the spider’s web, one of our own making, before we can come to grips with the steps you advocate. My personal feeling is that things will boil over before we ‘and come to grips’ with the situation.

      • MattP

        Hi Warty, I generally agree with the overall thrust of your comment. However, if you look at how the Marcusian Lefties misappropriated and redefined our historical institutions (using soft tactics), the very least we can do (as one prong in a multi-pronged attack), is to try to re-assert the correct definition and use of Freedom of Religion. I do not expect a war to be won on that aspect alone, but if we can say “Freedom of Religion is not what you think it means; it means this:…,” it is about attacking presumptions. It’s about offensive Apologetics. How do you fight Muslim Apologetics…with Christian or other Apologetics!

        At one very real level, there is a War of Hearts at stake here – a war of belief. The overall war is a war on many fronts, not just two. To kill Medusa, you cut off her head, not the snakes’ heads – that doesn’t work; they just keep sprouting. And we are up against more than one Medusa.

        You say, “… but we have to strip off and get into the mud before hand…”, which, with all due respect, is a singular, linear and one-dimensional line of thought or plan of attack. There is no reason why people can’t be fighting in the trenches, and others challenging MSM group-think simultaneously. Let those who can fight, fight. Let those who can write, write. Let those who can talk, talk. You say, “Marxist ideas permeate the judiciary,” and we know the judiciary is not in the trenches. Getting down in the trenches takes the judiciary out of the line of sight. You at least need to fight on the same playing field. It should be very clear, I hope, that there is a vertical (or hierarchical) aspect to the war. All tiers need to be challenged, and engaged: from the trenches, to the echelons of Faith, and everything in between.

        You use everything at your disposal, especially when you are losing, especially when much of this is an “informal” war, especially when this is a war of attrition. Every little bit counts, no matter how little.

        Lastly, an unchallenged error cannot possibly be corrected. Or do we just give up on that front?

        • Warty

          No, I entirely agree. It ought not to be a single pronged fight-back. If you look above, in the response to Salome, I suggested actually reading the Qur’an and some of the hadith, as a means to getting to know one’s enemy. You of course go much further, and I agree: each to his own, using the talents available to the individual.

  • Keith Kennelly

    Things are already boiling over.

    Violent incidents are already occurring.

    My position is to 1. Identify the enemy. Be specific.
    2. Isolate them. Divide them from all of Islam
    3. Use the inherent weaknesses in Islam against itself.

    Islam is not a huge monolithic religion it is made up of a displayed

  • Keith Kennelly

    A disparate number of sects. They are opposed to each other. That’s its weakness.

    Across the Islamicworld the differences are obvious. The same applies in Australia.

    That strategy sure as hell beats attacking all Muslims. To attack all is folly … Many Muslims accept the non sectarian society and function well within it simply because the interpretation of the Koran and Hadith is not literal as in the Sunni sects of Wahabism and Salifism. They should be our target… Not all Muslims.

    • Warty

      Indeed, things are already boiling over (in some countries) but the problem (of Islam) is a little more widespread than you may(or may not) have realised. If I may refer you to a PEW research article:
      In most of the countries mentioned, and in accordance to strict Sharia, death is the penalty for apostasy and blasphemy, and you don’t have to be a Muslim to have the head, you are undoubtedly a little attached to, cleanly lopped off.

  • ArthurB

    Quadrant readers may already be aware of it, but in case you are not, there is a website that is indispensable for anyone interested in the war between the West and Islam that has already begun in Europe, and which could easily become a civil war, with horrible consequences – I would not like to see Paris, or Amsterdam, or other historic European cities reduced to rubble. The site is http://www.gatesofvienna.net, it was recommended to me by a friend, and I now read it every day.

    There is another site that I recommend, http://www.fredoneverything.org, a blog by an American former soldier and journalist, often amusing, and about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be. See in particular his post of 9 June 2016, titled ‘Whither the Shards of America’.

    Happy reading.

  • [email protected]

    A good article Bill, you might want to consider a couple of the most obvious ways to respond to Islam which are often overlooked. Stop supporting it with Government money and enforce the citizenship laws.
    A Muslim is a person who subscribes to an ideology which requires the following: killing or enslavement of the citizens of Australia if they do not become Muslim, Replacing the Australian Government and legal systems with Sharia, Lying about their purposes to conceal their activities, Payment of protection money by non-muslims to Muslims (Unemployment benefits, DSP, Chid-endowment, sickness benefits? – all their moral right). How can a person holding such beliefs honestly swear allegiance to the Queen and her government in Australia? No oath of allegiance from a person following such an ideology can or should be accepted by the Australian government under the current law. They are clearly people of bad character.
    Muslim schools (places where such an unacceptable ideology is taught) operate in Australia with the support of State and federal money. The various Australian Governments must stop giving money to organisations which are essentially fomenting rebellion against the Government.

Post a comment