If you have entered a major sports stadium recently it will have been only after a bag search and, possibly, a body scan at the turnstiles — one example of the way in which the freedoms and safety we once took for granted are being inhibited. The only response is to speak frankly about the reason why
In 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.