Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (72)
Recently I wrote an article saying that these pro-Palestinian protests should, and could, be curtailed. I expected some pushback along ‘slippery slope’ lines, but I thought I had covered that objection. Apparently not, so let me expand.
These protests are morally repugnant because, make no mistake, they are overtly anti-semitic. They have their genesis in the protest on the steps of the Opera House on October 9, when thousands gathered to celebrate the deliberate slaughter of innocent men, women, children and babies for no reason other than that they were Jews. Some might argue they were slaughtered because they were Israelis or Zionists or “colonialist occupiers”, not because they were Jews per se. But that is not how the October 9 crowd chanting ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘f*** the Jews’ saw things, and that is clearly not how the subsequent protests have viewed them.
No-one from the Muslim community, to my knowledge, has ever condemned those chants. I witnessed the major march in Sydney on October 21 and the demand for more dead Jews were not to be heard, but that was because the NSW Police specifically warned the march organisers that those calls for more Israeli blood would not be tolerated. To help them in adhering to this directive, the marchers were accompanied by a police officer, on each side of Elizabeth St, every ten metres. But we did hear ‘Intifida!’ and ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ and ‘Stop the genocide’. So, it was OK to parade the anti-Semitic sentiment as long as it didn’t cross a certain verbal line. I’m sure Sydney’s Jews were comforted by such restraint.
Of course, moral repugnance is not a defence of an infringement of free speech. What is morally repugnant to you may be perfectly acceptable to me. But anti-Semitism is unlawful in this country. Had a bunch of back-clad, jackbooted whiteys marched along Elizabeth Street chanting ‘From the river to the sea’, would that have been tolerated for a single minute, do you think? Would that be regarded as anything other than anti-Semitism? How would the Greens react to such a display of far-right bigotry and hate? Had the Albanese government not condemned such a protest in the strongest possible terms, would Senator Mehreen Faruqi have led a walkout of the Greens from the Senate, do you think?
You may be prepared to acquit these protests of anti-Semitism on a technicality. But it’s a bit like writing ‘g** the jews’ with polite asterisks. It wouldn’t fool anyone. If these protests were really about innocent Palestinian lives, where was the condemnation of Hamas?
Be that as it may, there is another dimension to this issue. And that is national security.
The West is engaged in a war for its survival. It is being waged on three fronts, in Eastern Europe, in the South China Sea and in the Middle East. One of the responses to my earlier article was that if we were to ban these protests we would be playing into our enemy’s hands by compromising our values: if we allow them to do that, they win. This is the slippery slope argument – that if we are prepared to compromise on a free-speech principle in this case, how long before we compromise on other issues? So, by the same logic, we must allow our enemies to freely exploit our values and turn them against us, with the aim of ultimately obliterating them. That seems perverse to me. We compromise these values regularly in time of war. We sanction killing, including of civilians, in the name of survival. Free speech is routinely curtailed. Arbitrary, internment of ‘enemy aliens’ is commonplace. Generally, once the conflict is over, we, at least in the West, fully restore those rights.
Although we are not yet engaged in a hot war, two of our putative allies are. Ukraine and Israel are doing the hard yards at the moment, and every setback they inflict on their particular enemies buys a little more time for us. As Greg Sheridan and Michael Shoebridge have warned us, we need all the time we can get. And, in the case of Israel, it ill behooves us to give any encouragement whatsoever to those, however ill-informed or misguided, who support Hamas, a prescribed terrorist organisation in this country, whose stated intent is the total elimination of Israel.
We are nurturing a potential fifth column and, incredibly, adding to it with the admission of 860 Gazans after what appears to have been only the most cursory security checks. These are people, 75 per cent of whom reportedly support Hamas. To get a better picture of what awaits us we need look no further than Europe, the UK in particular. Some 100,000 Palestinian supporters were so contemptuous of their country that they insisted on protesting on one of Britain’s most sacred occasions, Remembrance Day. Would those stalwart defenders of the unfettered right to protest be so uncompromising in their principles if protestors here insisted on marching down Elizabeth Street on ANZAC Day, I wonder?
Do we really believe that these ongoing major protests are not fuelling the actions of vigilante groups, such as the disgusting demonstration at the hotel of a visiting Israeli delegation representing victims of Hamas hostage-taking? This was apparently a legal protest because the cops just stood there and watched. Not anti-Semitic, I guess, because they didn’t actually say ‘gas the Jews’. Do we believe that these ongoing protests are not a major factor in emboldening activist teachers to proslytise in the classroom? Do we really believe that schoolchildren will not be influenced by these spectacles? Do we really believe that proud and loud anti-Semitism would have ballooned to the extent it has if these protests not been tolerated as they have been?
Incidentally, and slightly off topic, objections to Jews ‘colonising’ Palestine following the Holocaust and overwhelming the local population, seem a little hypocritical considering the waves of Muslims now flooding into every country in Europe and universally changing them for the worse. Are they colonising Europe? Jews created an oasis in Israel. These Muslim ‘refugees’ are building self-imposed ghettos.
Not all protests are equal. The anti-lockdown protests were totally justified in that they had, as their target, anti-democratic actions of Australian governments adversely impacting Australian citizens.
Not so these pro-Palestinian protests, apparently, which have as their stated aim the destruction of Israel – something to which no Australian government could agree and towards which, even if they did agree, they could contribute nothing. On the meagre plus side, they have the virtue of demonstrating how tolerant and principled we are in maintaining freedom of speech and the right of assembly. It’s not much and that’s it.
On the negative side, they are the engine accelerating the brazen displays of hate we now see, as well as the misinformation poisoning the minds of many young people. They are causing anti-Semitism to become fashionable. As Brendan O’Neill says in this Weekend Australian:
The hotel protest matters because it suggests the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is now very thin indeed – if it exists at all anymore.
It seems if you put on a keffiyeh and wrap yourself in the Palestinian colours, you can get away with as much Jew-baiting as you like.
I would argue the same applies to these major protests. They should be stopped. They can be stopped because they breach the Racial Discrimination Act. But if governments decline to stop them, it will not be because of principle – as the response to the anti-lockdown protests showed – but because they are too squeamish and morally bankrupt to do so. But they could, as I have argued, force the organisers to pay for the police presence that these governments themselves deem necessary.
One commenter to my previous article opined that “the ‘cost’ of the protests is beside the point”. Yet, it is not an inconsiderable amount. It makes the headlines when Defence Minister Marles uses a RAAF VIP jet to fly from Canberra to Geelong, or even when he racks up a US $116 bill for breakfast. The costs of these protests dwarfs Marles’ extravagance. Let’s not give the hatemongers a free ride.
The “progressive left defending oppressed minorities” and “far right oppressing minorities” designations really have passed any logical meaning, if they were ever true. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the “far right” and “far left” regarding Jews is that the far right are happy for them to all be kicked out of the west and into Israel, whereas the far left go much further and want them annihilated in the ME as well.
Whilst I reflexively disagree with your restrictions on this type of free speech, it is tempered by what SHOULD happen after such marches, but what doesn’t ever happen. After a march comprising socialist agitators and pro-Palestinian agitators, headlines and news bulletins SHOULD all trumpet “far right anti-Semitic fascists march for the destruction of Jews and Israel”. Because of the false tropes “leftist causes are good”, “supporting Palestine is a protected leftist cause”, “marches in support of Palestine, no matter what is chanted, are inherently good and noble”, THIS kind of anti-Semitism switches from being far right (unprotected, morally repugnant, all criticisms valid and progressively inspired) to far left (protected, morally correct, all criticisms invalid and anti-progressively inspired). Consequently, every reporter carefully omits what these marches really are, in favour of the best possible interpretation of what the left want them to be.
Surely I’m not alone in believing that the “left” (sic) over the last year have morphed bizarrely into a simulacrum of the far right. From campaigning for a racially separatist referendum, and cheerleading for cultural apartheid, to pouring onto the streets in anti-Semitic rallies, to standing tall and proud in support of an ultra-conservative patriarchal religious pawn of the Iranian theocracy, to erasing language associated with 99.99% of women in support of 0.01% of men who might find the terms offensive, one wonders how they were ever seen as progressive. Listening to these fascists only reinforces my conclusions: as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the Far Left have become the Far Right.
Free speech inciting hatred and genocide (as these marches clearly do) SHOULD be met with fiery denunciation from press to Parliament, and attribution to its proper ideological place – Nazi-inspired far right anti-Semitism – but because it never is, I agree that freedom of speech in this case should be reluctantly curtailed.
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
Has always been this way and always will be this way
We should have paid more attention to Kipling!
We used to be able to say genocidal antisemitism has no place in Australia. It does now.
The sentiments displayed in the pro-Palestinian protests starkly highlight the idiocy of multiculturalism, where all cultures demand equal treatment, while some advocate the oppression, or even elimination, of others. We should have only one culture here, Australian, to which all citizens should pledge loyalty. Freedom of speech should come with a responsibility to not undermine social cohesion by oppressing or threatening other citizens.
Hear, hear!
Fully agree.
Anyone who says all cultures are equal is a fool. Islam is a violent and intolerant one. I am happy with anyone else – Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu – anyone but those from Beheadistan. Bleating about multiculturalism and intolerance our politicians are not just gutless, but they will kill our culture unless there is a civil war. A civil war will certainly come to Europe and soon.
“But if governments decline to stop them, it will not be because of principle – as the response to the anti-lockdown protests showed – but because they are too squeamish and morally bankrupt to do so”.
Too squeemish and morally bankrupt it is. Police mostly take action against ‘the usual suspects’, i.e. soft targets who are easier to single out and control such as grannies, pregnant mothers, christian pastors and lone Jewish protesters bravely waving the Israeli flag whilst confronting Palestinian mobs chanting and ranting for the destruction of Israel.
There have always been limits on free speech in Australia. Long standing limits have been the laws concerning incitement to violence, defamation, treason and censorship. More recently extra limits to free speech were placed on vilification of a person based on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, sex or race. These laws reflect the belief that while it is valid to criticize someone for their choices, it is not right to criticize someone for characteristics over which they have no control. More recently again, although there is no explicit protection of free speech in the Australian constitution, the High Court in Lange v the ABC found an implied right of free speech for communication on matters of Government and political affairs, as an indispensable part of the system of representative government.
Whatever we may think about these various laws, they are none-the-less the law and must be followed and enforced. It is very clear that the Opera House rioters broke the laws prohibiting incitement to violence and vilification. If the NSW police were too afraid to intervene at the time, then prosecutions should have followed based on film of the riot. It is unsurprising to see selective policing in Victoria, as one of the many toxic legacies of Daniel Andrews, but much more concerning that this is spreading to other jurisdictions.
“It is unsurprising to see selective policing in Victoria, as one of the many toxic legacies of Daniel Andrews, but much more concerning that this is spreading to other jurisdictions.” Exactly.
Freedom of speech in the Catholic Church?
.
Pope Francis’ move to evict US Cardinal Burke, 75, one of the Church’s top canon lawyers, from his Roman flat and stop his salary was a tyrannical denial of free speech, a Cardinal close to Burke has told The Australian.
.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/pope-francis-punishes-conservative-u-s-cardinal-burke-one-of-his-most-vocal-critics-421db1e9?st=89tmyq64gf72p5g&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I support prosecutions for incitement to genocide. Chanting “From the river to the sea” is a call for the genocide of the nation of Israel and should be banned.
However, no one should ever have to pay for police protection. Police have acquired enormous rights and powers and they must exercise them properly. On the one hand, the police claim they have discretion, and this means they cannot be forced to provide a particular service. On the other hand, they claim that they have to provide the service in these situations and that you have to pay for it. Sorry, but that is rubbish. Policing should be free for everyone.
Peter O’Brien: Your article seems to be a war-mongering tirade against Russia, China, and the Muslim people of the ME! Dear me, are we really in a desperate struggle for survival against those “others” who wish to annihilate us?
.
There are difficulties, I see, in labelling or defining who is who and what they stand for. There seems to be a dangerous conflation of identification that lumps together; the military wing of Hamas, Muslims, Islamic State, Jihadis, Terrorists and the Palestinians. The same conflation also occurs with the merging identities of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists. These things need to be unpacked.
.
Obviously, the brilliant idea of multicultural migration was a mistake, and what is worse, the Australian people were never consulted by their “betters” about what kind of future Australia they wanted. Going back a generation or two or three, many Australians were not happy with the so-called “Wogs” being brought into the country; the previous wave of “Winging Poms” being bad enough! That doesn’t make Australia “racist”, its about pride in one’s country and in one’s culture. Imagine the response from the ANZACs if they were told that they were fighting so that Muslim Turks & Arabs could be free to become Australians, and march through the streets of Australian cities?
A war mongering tirade. Really? Check the mirror.
Peter O’Brien: I don’t understand what you are communicating when you say: “Check the mirror”. Are you suggesting that I have been hypocritical in some way? Have I been advocating for war, or warning of dire threats from foreign or alien powers? If so, please explain.
No, just writing a diatribe.
OK, fair enough, thanks for clearing that up.
Why is he not entitled to voice his view? Is he ‘writing a diatribe’ and you are not?
Cbattle, the ANZAC in my family, who by the way clambered ashore at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915, would have dismissed out of hand the idea that a Turk, or any Muslim for that matter, should never be allowed, merely for those attributes, to become an Australian citizen.
Sindri: Good on your ANZAC ancestor, and I’m sure he (gender assumed) wasn’t alone in his sentiments. However, there is a difference between holding those noble and commendable ideals, and having a Mosque being built next door and hearing the call to prayer five times a day! I am pretty sure that most of the ANZACs/Diggers were fighting for “King and Country”, and proudly and patriotically in support of the culture they grew up with, which is a natural conservative trait/behaviour. Multiculturalism, as we know it today, would not have been a concept shared by many Aussies in that era, to put it mildly!
I am not suggesting that Pro Palestinian protesters need police protection, and that is NOT what I am suggesting they should pay for. The police presence is not to protect them from vicious Jews. It is to ensure they don’t inadvertently step over an arbitrary line that the police have imposed. It is to ensure that riots don’t break out by protesters reacting to the presence of counter protesters as they did at the Opera House. It is to keep the peace. And CPAC organisers had to pay for (unnecessary) police protection in 2022, as have other conservative groups in other jurisdictions (eg Milo Yiannopoulos).
I share your disgust of the protesters but I don’t see the point in asking them to pay. The protestors aren’t going pay for police to stop them rioting. They don’t care at all.
The protests should be banned for incitement to genocide.
Good piece Peter and I agree completely.
There would be very few people in Australia, certainly among those who were born and bred here, who would not agree I would think, and even plenty who were not.
That sort of oikophobe does exist here but in small numbers ; no, let’s face it , it should be perfectly obvious…..multiculturalism is, and was always going to be, dangerous trouble for us and the virus that it’s spread has got into the aborigines as well.
Thank you Peter
It’s misunderstood. These are not protests, They’re part of the continuum of the war against Jews everwhere, triggered by the successful depraved slaughters by Hamas. Their compatriots around the world heed the call and conducting their part as far as local constabulary permits. And local constabulary here in Australian is far too permissive.
As always, a well articulated and informative piece of true journalistic acuity from Mr.
O’Brien, replete with assertive (not aggressive) and polite retort to those who needed some clarification. Only at Q and the Speccie do we see, in the main, such mature civic discourse, long may that remain.
Amongst such debate it is beginning to emerge that many are finally reflecting upon and sensibly questioning the ill-conceived notion – indeed naive John Lennon-esque fantasy – that is multiculturalism. Even the term should instantly raise an eyebrow, for how is it that any country – the term country implying some degree of homogeneity – be “MULTI” in its culture? MULTI in the ethnicity of its population maybe, but culture? It has never been a plausible let alone possible proposition from the get go.
How so? Well, from this lay persons’ perspective (lay in so far as not being an academic nor learned person in civics) are not the laws of a land derived largely from its originating culture? (And to be clear and correct, in regards to Australia, this means the highly evolved and civilising culture brought with the British, aboriginal culture not ever having formed a continent-wide, coordinated governance).
Are not Laws, at their most fundamental, merely a codified form of accepted (by whatever governing principle exists at the time) organising human behaviour, to which each citizen, by virtue of accepting citizenship or having been born here, agrees to conform? If so, following this reasoning, how would it ever have been possible to have MULTI cultures within a single unified country or nation? It’s an impossibility.
To be fair, I believe what all and sundry have really meant all along is mulitETHNICITY when they say multicultural. Words and their meanings, in this sense, being crucial to true intent and understanding. It is simply not possible to have multi laws in a cohesive country (although some periodically try this trick) least we end up in anarchy (which some periodically try to inflict).
Not all “multicultural” counties describe themselves thus, take for example Singapore. There you will not hear the PM refer to the term, rather, and more correctly, you will hear leaders describe their country as being multiETHNIC. There is a subtle but BIG difference. And no, it’s not simply a splitting-hairs triviality of expression. If we could compel all our leaders and media to more correctly refer to our still cohesive (at least in most respects) nation as mulitETHNIC, just perhaps it might go some way in taking some of the heat out of the rising tide of incivility when it comes to matters of race, racism and cultural conflict.
It seems that in spite of our perceived differences in opinion on matters raised in relation to culture, most still are agreeable to the notion that “I am, you are, we’re all Australian”, and aspire to live in a stable country where that remains so.
So, I submit that, given words are perhaps the most powerful of persuaders, we begin in realigning our collective intention by eliminating the outmoded (indeed never correct) terminology “multicultural” with the infinitely more correct and much more inclusive and palatable term “multiethnic” when it comes to description of our once great, and can be great again nation.
But, what about Queer Culture and Aboriginal Culture and Cancel Culture, etc?
Of course you jest, but very handily illustrate my point about incorrect and highly damaging terminology. None of those groups you mention are of course “cultural” in any true sense of the term. I’d more accurately describe those groupings as having specific Queer Behaviour, Aboriginal Behaviour and Cancel Behaviour. Sure, internal to their grouping they might like to describe themselves as having a “culture”, but as to them representing our county’s culture is a bit far fetched. Are any of them central and overarching to any of our national laws ? I’d argue not. Sure, those groupings (aside from the cancel culture you mention) are but a few of myriad that make up our national population spectrum, but the laws that govern us ALL do not derive from their origins or their specific behaviours, or from any other specific group for that matter. As with ethnicity, it’s mostly advantageous to us all to have a diverse (as opposed to woke diversity) population. When it comes to culture, there has to be a basic central theme if you like, to which we all agree upon. Otherwise what are we? A hotchpotch of nothing in particular. And how do we collectively organise around that and what’s to defend and protect if we collectively become under threat? As increasingly we are.
Well said, Peter.
“Incidentally, and slightly off topic, objections to Jews ‘colonising’ Palestine following the Holocaust and overwhelming the local population, seem a little hypocritical considering the waves of Muslims now flooding into every country in Europe and universally changing them for the worse. Are they colonising Europe?“
Well Peter it is not “off topic”, this is the core reason as to why Israel enjoys so little popular support, and why the PLO, PFLP, Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah even exist.
.
My major complaint with your article is your enthusiastic acceptance of the canard that to oppose Israeli policy, and actions, is anti semitic. It reminds me of the argument trotted out by the yes campaign that people such as you (and me), who opposed the referendum were racists. You should trawl through the hundreds of resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council critical of Israel, it will help you locate all the anti semitic nations on earth.
.
But I will repeat a question I have asked repeatedly on these pages, and which is never answered. Name me an incident of Palestinian or Islamic terrorism directed towards the west, or toward westerners, christians or Jews in the middle east prior to 1948.
There were many acts of terrorism against the British in Palestine by Arabs before 1948.
Well you would think there should have been some, bearing in mind the nature of the conflict. But I can find reports of Jewish terrorism aimed at the British and Palestinians. But please let me know if you are aware of some, and can give a source preferably on the internet so I can read it.
Is that an admission?
Terrorism as a method of political violence as we know it – the attacking of civilians – is a modern concept. Linking it to the independence of Israel is erroneous. It existed before 1948.
The Battle of Broken Hill.
Or is Australia exempt?
Hang on, you said that there were many acts of terrorism against the British, by Arabs, in mandated Palestine prior to 1948. Now you say that it is a recent concept, and instead you are moving the topic to Australia. I take it from that, that your first comment averring to “many acts of terrorism” against the British by Arabs before 1948 was in fact bullshit.
I’m not enough of a historian to answer the question, Occidental, but assuming the answer is “none”, you seem to be falling into the trap of saying “no incident of islamic terrorism prior to the establishment of Israel, therefore the incidents of islamic terrorism since must be due to the establishment of Israel”. Post hoc, proper hoc – an elementary logical fallacy. Islamic terrorism comes in various forms and with various motivations, some undoubtedly motivated by a loathing of Israel; but the other fallacy is this: assuming all or many of these incidents would not have happened without the establishment of the state of Israel, how is that an argument against the establishment of the state of Israel? It isn’t, at all.
*propter, not proper
Sindri, I am not mounting an argument against the establishment of the State of Israel. I am merely pointing out to Peter that the influx of Jews pushing Palestinians off their land is not “off topic”, it is the topic. It has been the topic since its founding, and is certainly “the “ topic with all the groups I referred to. As regards the “logical fallacy”, it is only a fallacy if it is the sole basis for a conclusion, but as we all know there is other evidence to support the notion that Israel lies at the heart of Islamic discontent.
“as we all know there is other evidence to support the notion that Israel lies at the heart of Islamic discontent.”
So what? Why is that a moral argument, or any other kind of argument, against the right of Israel to exist?
“So what? Why is that a moral argument, or any other kind of argument, against the right of Israel to exist?“
It’s not, I never made that argument. You are making it, so you can have an argument.
Fair enough, you didn’t.
“the influx of Jews pushing Palestinians off their land” – it was generally the absentee Ottoman Muslim landlords who pushed the Palestinian peasants off their farms when they sold the land to the Jews, starting from the late 19th century. It’s all there in Benny Morris’s “Righteous Victims” that I’ve referred to above.
Arab slaughter of Jews in Hebron in 1929 was fairly similar in it’s use of depraved sexual torture. Arab attacks on Jews in 1920 when they accused Jews of wanting to demolish the mosque. The Farhud in Baghdad in 1941.
1926 in Syria, almost the same factions in conflict as in Lebanon in the 1970s – no Jews involved and unrelated to the British Mandate.
1930s in the British Mandate was another period of Arab aggression.
You are referring to communal violence, I was asking about acts of terrorism. It is almost impossible to find a country or place with mixed ethnicities who have not suffered from communal violence.
Sindri- “Name me an incident of Palestinian or Islamic terrorism directed towards the west, or toward westerners, christians or Jews in the middle east prior to 1948.” You could start with “The Revolt, 1936-39” at page128 of “Righteous Victims, A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881- 2001” by Benny Morris, Professor of History at Ben Gurion University, Beersheba. Written by a Jew, but as the Financial Times review said, “remarkably objective”.
Sindri – apologies. I meant to reply to Occidental’s request.
With all respect you are simply telling me to read a book, which I don’t have access to. Just recite the events you are referring to and I will attempt to find information about them. Read Katzenjammers comment to see how to specifically provide the information I sought. If you have the book it shouldn’t be hard.
I gave you a reference to one section of one chapter of a book. Won’t be too hard to find if you were serious in requesting the information you claimed you wanted.
Right, so you don’t have any events you can refer to. I suspected as much.
I wrote “The West is engaged in a war for its survival. It is being waged on three fronts”. Perhaps I should have said, as far as Australia is concerned, it is being waged on four fronts, the last being here at home. These demonstrations are as much a part of that war as transgender activism, aboriginal activism, cancel culture, greens anti-development activism, historical revisionism, ‘decolonization’ of universities and so on.
Peter the West is engaged in a war, a war of ideas. For three hundred or so years the West championed the idea of rationality. Why is something so. What are the causes and the reasons for the phenomenon. Many of the matters you just referred are about emotion and feelings, the West will be fine if it some how can put to rest this new zeitgeist that feelings are important. That of course includes our feelings as well.
Occidental writes: “put to rest this new zeitgeist that feelings are important.”
Dear Occidental, are you nuts? It is a general truth that the intellect is the slave of the passions (aka ‘feelings’).
The touchstone of right and wrong is sentiment or ‘feelings’. Pure rationality cannot judge right and wrong. Right and wrong are based on human nature in ways that cannot be properly described without dependence on ‘feelings.’
We are both intellectual and sentimental, and we must accept both, and, when necessary, reconcile them. There are differences between rationality and wisdom, and a difference between wisdom and love. Those differences take account of ‘feelings’.
No I am not nuts. Nor am I advocating that we become machines devoid of emotion- if we were life wouldn’t be worth living. But if we are to solve problems or even discuss them, resort to emotion is to resort to subjectivity, and as can be seen on this site never the twain shall meet. The underlying problem with most modern causes is that they are about feelings, which are unknowable, undefinable, and unique to each person. Neither a community or a discourse can be built on that.
London today (warning, 20 minutes)
https://youtu.be/R_jJIoL-Gd0
Peter says “They should be stopped. They can be stopped because they breach the Racial Discrimination Act”. And not just the RD Act. Sec93Z the NSW Crimes Act: “(1) A person who, by a public act, intentionally or recklessly threatens or incites violence towards another person or a group of persons on any of the following grounds is guilty of an offence–
…(b) that the other person has, or one or more of the members of the group have, a specific religious belief or affiliation,
: Maximum penalty–
(a) in the case of an individual–100 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 years (or both)
“The West is engaged in a war for its survival. It is being waged on three fronts, in Eastern Europe, in the South China Sea and in the Middle East. ”
That’s a very popular sentiment in the Quadrant media but I still believe that it is largely a simplistic misdirection away from the main game. For sure the West (Western liberal democracy) is engaged in a war for its survival on three fronts – but the three fronts are against Islam, China … and, more importantly, its own internal struggle with the globalist agenda of the World Economic Forum and its backers. Personally, and I am by no means alone in this, I see very little point in fighting against China or Islam if that means we are simply handing power over to the globalists. The main existential threat to Australia are not China or the Middle East but the globalists – the weaponising of the referendum, on a Voice, the weaponising of the global warming, the weaponising of digital IDs and digital currencies, the weaponising of the information disinformation legislation. What has that got to do with China, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe?
It’s a delicate tightrope these people have been treading but they now see the finish line ahead. Pedal to the metal race replacement immigration across the ‘five eyes’ (not plus Israel) should see white majorities eliminated in N. America by 2030 and not long after in Australia and NZ. This is when the persecution of White people, especially men, will begin in earnest. Race-mixing will become obligatory for Whites, not just recommended as at present, since the objective is a mixed race population which is wholly severed from its past, objective nearly achieved. This population will have little need of families and will be content with pleasurable experiences as Huxley proposed/warned. Still they’ll need to maintain a reservoir of fighting men for a little while yet. Recent US recruitment has been transparently aimed at White men, rather the usual trannies and lesbians, presumably because serious fighting and dying is in the offing.
Here we go … Watch this latest offering from Neil Olliver and tell me you still think that Islam is our greatest threat….
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/02/neil-oliver-the-season-of-santas-surveillance/
In every sovereign country throughout the West it is the Government itself that is enabling the Islamic threat through open immigration and a certain degree of police protection … AGAINST the interests of their own populations. It Ireland it is now “Hate Speech” to write “Irish Lives Matter” And its coming here.
I am ignorant and am not a lawyer. You write “But anti-Semitism is unlawful in this country.” Please indulge my ignorance, and specify for me the way in which anti-Semitism is unlawful in this country. I tried the Microsoft Bing Chat and failed to find such laws, beyond the Victorian ban on showing swastikas, which I think isn’t very effective.
Searcher, all Australian states have anti-vilification legislation to prevent discrimination of a person based on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, sex or race. Technically antisemitism isn’t illegal (we don’t have thought crimes yet), but publically expressing antisemitic speech or text is, being vilification based on race.
Thank you, tom “The Racial Discrimination Act … ”
How can that be operated to shut down a protest that has become a breach of public order or a riot?
What is the scope of the Riot Act today? It is even on the books, or has it been “improved” out of existence? Why isn’t it read at protests that have become disturbances of public order?
Bing Chat tells me:
“The Riot Act was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that came into force on August 1, 1715. It was aimed at preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and made provisions for more speedy and effectual punishing of those who engaged in civil unrest 12. The Act was repealed in England and Wales by section 10 (2) and Part III of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 1.”
How silly it was to repeal that Act. It should be re-instated. That I remember it shows how old I am !! Did the Riot Act operate in Australia?
Bing Chat tells me that it can’t find anything that indicates that the Riot Act had legal force in Australia. Is that so?
You write: “They can be stopped because they breach the Racial Discrimination Act.” Please elaborate.
The Racial Discrimination Act operates federally, and in NSW there is also the Anti-Discrimination Act which has a broader but similar application. In general terms they make it unlawful to seriously offend or vilify someone on the basis of race. There is no criminal consequence for breaching these laws – they can only result in an civil penalty or order for damages.
Religion was not, until very recently, afforded any comparable protection but that has just changed in NSW at least, with very little fanfare, which is outrageous – a de facto blasphemy law. Ridiculing someone for following a long-dead genocidal pedophile seems like a civic duty and not something that should not be prevented by law.
There haven’t been many claims made under the anti-discrimination act for racial vilification, but one that I found amusing was a claimant successfully suing for being called a “Portuguese pig”. Made me wonder if “whinging pom” would be a breach of the law.
Apart from trying to ensure peace in our multicultural world, the original vilification laws were justified on the basis that while it is valid to criticize someone for their choices, it is not right to criticize someone for characteristics over which they have no control. Clearly no one has any choice in our colour, ethnicity, national origin, race or sex (unless it is possible to replace the Y chromosomes in all 3 trillion cells in a man, or introduce them into those of a woman). The question then becomes is religion or gender an innate fact or a choice? If it is possible to change either, then clearly it is a choice. Why should anyone’s choices be sacrosanct?
Thank you, Ian MacKenzie “Apart from trying to ensure peace …”
How can that be operated to shut down a protest that has become a breach of public order or a riot?
I am irritated by the general refusal to acknowledge that the political views so deplored in this article are those of the recent invasion of people who were never requested/invited by the majority of Australians (or English, or Irish, or French, or Italians, Swedish or Dutch, for that matter).
I am, however, bemused by the implication that the term, ‘anti-Semitism’ does not only apply to an irrational racism or hatred of a person simply by reason of their ethnicity, but now extends to include any disagreement with Israel, in its politics or its actions. That is, any view that doesn’t support Israel is ‘anti-Semitic’ – really? It is a bit lame when the police presence and the express police prohibition in the present instance precluded the abhorrent insults and left those decrying ‘antisemitism’ with ‘from the river to the sea.’ And can you truly tells us that ‘Stop the genocide ‘, referring to Israeli killing of civilians, is anti-Semitic?
And this segue of vague accusations, – that is, accusing people of Arab descent of sentiments that are ‘anti-Semitic’, when they are, in fact, voicing objections to Israeli actions of violence, is put forward so as to justify curtailing freedom of speech. That is, censorship of all Australians- censorship of ordinary people.
There has been a desire over a number of end-if-the-world crises, to use the latest faux horror to justify censorship.
Covid was one call for censorship-disguised as ‘disinformation’ due to the fact that us deplorables could not discern how wonderful the vaccines were for us and were incapable of understanding if something on the internet was true or false.
And now we have cries of ‘anti-Semitism’ as the rallying point for curtailment of our freedom to speak. This is simply censorship, and if the accusation of anti-Semitism Is extended to apply to criticism of certain groups, then it is troubling – why are some groups unable to be criticised?
And we can be sure that when this censorship happens, it will (I can cynically predict), not be enforced to those who are truly anti-Semitic (those people who do not believe that heaven will be attained until the Jews are annihilated).
Rather, it will be enforced on ordinary Australians. And we will be censored for expressing any opinion that cuts across any political viewpoint that is not within that wished by those who dictate. My suspicion is that, as we have seen ad nauseum, Muslim anti-Semitism will be completely left alone.
The article and comments both conflate the issue into agreeing/disagreeing with one side or another.
Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organisation – they are vicious and immoral and I would not like to live in a Muslim country. That is the very reason that I am angry that thousands of Muslims have been imposed upon our country, in full knowledge of the fact that they are directly opposed to our Christian foundations. It is this invasion of a hostile culture that has been deliberately used to undermine the Christian foundations of our culture. We have been inundated, against our will, with a culture that has terrorists in, not only its people but its religion. And we have been gas lit by police and politicians every time a terrorist act has occurred in the name of and under that religion.
Tthe fact that a malevolent body of people has been introduced into our midst by someone or some group is not a reason to further erode our rights – in this case, our rights of free speech. If we are to have freedom of speech it cannot just be lip service. People have to accept that sometimes people may say things that offend other people. And to conflate people saying things that offend, such as, ‘from the river to the sea’ with actions, such as ‘genocide’ is to render invisible those who have been genuine victims of genocide.
“Anti-semitism” – or hatred of the Jews – must be one of the longest-running “morally repugnant” features of Western and Middle Eastern civilisation. Such problems are deeply-rooted in our history, culture and social structures. They cannot be resolved by having gentlemanly debates about what is or is not “morally repugnant”. My Islamic friends regard Western moral standards as “morally repugnant”. All this term indicates to most people is a strong feeling of antipathy generalised into a moral principle.
What has made Western civilation outstandingly succesful as a moral enterprise over many centuries? The answer, in my view, is that it has embraced not only Greek philosophy and Roman law, but also Christian moral principles based on standards established in the Bible. Once you start trying to argue about what is “morally repugnant” without an objective standard to appeal to, the argument becomes circular and the outcome depends purely on personal prejudice. The reason these discussions cannot be resolved today is that the Bible is no longer the moral standard of the West. We have found the biblical standard too difficult, and we have decided to cast off its tyrannical yoke. This is not to say the interpretation of the Bible cannot be debated, or that the answers it provides to moral dilemmas are always clearcut. But it provides the Archimidean place to stand from which civilised moral discourse can be leveraged.
To me, the saddest aspect of the ongoing debates about how to handle anti-semitism in political discourse is that the biblical standard has been rejected. Throughout the West today, the gold standard used to justify censorship is ‘misinformation’. Governments are expected to censor material that is not in alignment with ‘science’. Obviously this means that we have to live without the happy state state which John Milton deplored – erroneously in my view – as a “fugitive and cloistered virtue”. The attempt across the whole of the West to build some kind of new moral universe based on what random samples of the benighted population find “morally repugnant” is not likely to get us very far.