Defending Free Speech
Defend free speech for all Australians!
Defend Professor Fraser!
Write a letter, and become a "criminal"
A furor over the future and nature of Australia as a multicultural and multiracial society began when Professor Andrew Fraser wrote a letter to his local newspaper, the Parramatta Sun in 2005. The paper did not just publish his letter, but also used it to create front page news - with a huge banner headline on page one, stating "Keep Them Out".
The choice to highlight Professor Fraser's letter was that of the Parramatta Sun, which decided to give his letter the full publicity treatment, with an article devoted to his views on the front page of their 6 July 2005 issue.
Allegedly "offended" by Fraser's letter, a Sudanese man complained to the Human Rights Commission. The Sudanese involved is having his legal expenses covered by Multicultural lobbyists, and one has to wonder whether or not he was actually "put up to it" by the Multiculturalists, as part of a campaign to stifle the legal freedoms of those who criticise Third World immigration.
Important issues are raised by this situation:
- Do Australians have freedom of speech?
- Do Australians have the right to criticise the public policies of the Australian government?
Laws designed to suppress free speech
"Racial vilification" laws have been passed by Australia's federal parliament, and by some state parliaments. There were community protests against these laws, as it was realised by many people that these "thought crime" laws were measures designed to deny Australians their freedom of speech.
Patriotic Australians quite rightly pointed out that the not-so-hidden agenda behind these laws was to deny freedom of speech to opponents of immigration, Multiculturalism, and Asianisation. The laws were heavily supported by Multiculturalists, as well as by Islamic and Zionist lobby groups, all of whom have a vested interest in stifling free speech.
In 1950, Liberal-Labor politicians banned the Communist Party of Australia by passing the Communist Party Dissolution Act, but this law was declared to be unconstitutional by an appeal to the High Court, and so the Menzies Government conducted a referendum to ask for the power to ban the Communists - and this grab for power was rejected by the vote of the Australian people, who wished to keep their rights to free speech.
Recognising the failure of their predecessors in banning political opponents, and not wanting to be overruled by the Australian people in another referendum, the Multiculturalists decided not to outlaw the organisations of their opponents, but to outlaw their freedom of speech instead. This was a much sleazier tactic; it was a sly and sinister move, and one that bodes ill for the future of democracy in Australia.
In retrospect, looking at the example of the Multiculturalists, a cynic might say that the conservatives would have been better off banning the Communist ideology itself, instead of trying to ban the Communist Party. Perhaps the government of Robert Menzies could have produced "capitalism vilification" laws as a sleazy legal move, similar to that of the modern Multiculturalists.
Indeed, some countries in the world have "nation vilification" laws, whereby if political opponents criticise the nation - or, in actual fact, criticise the ruling elite of the country - then the government can either throw those opponents in jail or bankrupt them via court fines. It's all legal, it's all "justified" as being "for the common good", and it's all Bananna Republic politics - just the same as the morally bankrupt laws that the Multiculturalists and Liberal-Labor politicians are creating in Australia.
Historically, "Racial vilification" laws are the ideological offspring of Communist dictatorships. In fact, it was Communist Russia which introduced the first "racial vilification" law. The 1936 Soviet Constitution, in Article 123, stated that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law". The 1977 Soviet Constitution was very similar, Article 36 stating that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law", and Article 52 stated "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited".
Such laws are not only authoritarian in nature, they are designed to be authoritarianism by stealth; they undermine our democracy and our right to free speech, both of which we have so long taken for granted. The Multiculturalists proclaim themselves to be democrats, but actually operate as neo-fascists.
The right to freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the right to hold and publicly voice views that others may strongly disagree with or find objectionable. Any society that seeks to impose Multiculturalism upon its citizens by silencing dissent is an oppressive society, whether it sees itself as such or not. The fact that most Australians oppose the aims of the Multiculturalists makes such oppression even more telling as an instrument of intimidation and terror against the human rights of the Australian People.
"Racial vilification" laws are nothing but a ploy to deny Australians their freedom of speech, to legally oppress the opponents of the New Class elite, and to institutionalise Multiculturalism as the dominant ideology in this country.
Australians have a moral right to free speech on immigration issues
Australians live in a democracy, where we are free to express our opinions on any issue. Or so we thought. The advent of the "racial vilification" and "religious vilification" laws have changed all that for the worse. Whilst we will always have the moral right to free speech, Multiculturalist politicians have been busy removing our legal right to free speech.
How much is the moral right to freedom of speech worth when any Australian can be arrested and thrown in jail just for expressing their opinion in public? In this respect, neo-fascist politicians in our country show themselves to be much like the Communists, Nazis, and assorted Third World dictators.
Liberal-Labor politicians have instituted high levels of immigration as public policy, and have enforced Multiculturalism as public policy in government departments and in public schools. The Liberal-Labor parties have made these matters to be of bi-partisan agreement, whereby both parties have agreed to ensure the continuance of these policies.
The supposed benefits of high levels of immigration are not facts, they are matters of opinion. Opponents of immigration have produced logical and compelling arguments for the benefits of having very low levels of immigration.
Originally introduced as public policy in the 1970s, Multiculturalism is a political ideology that advocates a pluralistic society, pushing for a polycultural rather than a monocultural or core-culture society. Opponents of Multiculturalism have presented well-reasoned arguments against Multiculturalism, and have campaigned for having a homogeneous society.
Since at least the 1980s, various Liberal and Labor politicians have argued in favour of the Asianisation of Australia, and have deliberately instituted this as public policy by changing immigration policies to enable and encourage high levels of Asian immigration (such as increasing refugee and family reunion components of the immigration programme, a move known to favour Asian immigrants; whilst downgrading the importance of having usable English language skills, a move also known to favour Asian immigrants).
Asianisation is based upon large-scale Asian immigration, and upon an intent for the Asian component of the Australian population to increase until the majority of the population eventually becomes ethnically Asian. Especially during the Hawke and Keating regimes, there was an economic aspect added to the arguments to "integrate" Australia with Asia. Asianisation is not just a matter of opinion, but is a matter of public policy.
Nowadays, it could be argued that the push towards an Asianisation of Australia has instead been stretched from a specific emphasis on Asian immigration to a more general emphasis upon immigration from the Third World overall.
The fact is that all these issues - immigration, Multiculturalism, and Asianisation (as well as Third World immigration) - are all matters of public policy. They are policies that have been rigorously pursued by Liberal and Labor politicians.
In a democracy, the public should always have the right to criticise the public policies of government, to criticise the public policies of the ruling political parties, to criticise the ideology and "pet issues" of the governing "elite".
Under a regime of Multiculturalism, all this is changing. Under the rule of the Liberal-Labor parties, if Australians "have the audacity" to criticise Multiculturalism and Third World immigration, and demand the right to a homogeneous nation, then they can face being jailed or otherwise silenced (by fines, being sacked, or by similar threats). Such is the "rule of law" under Multiculturalism.
Under the reign of those who demand "Political Correctness", to be a critic is to be a "criminal".
All this should encourage us to ponder the question: "Do Australians have the legal right to criticise the public policies of the Australian government?"
Fair-minded and democratic people would say that we should always have the legal right to criticise the public policies of politicians. However, neo-fascist Multiculturalists demand that we must bow to their ideology, or face jail and oppression - such is the face of government in the Brave New World of Multiculturalism.
Australians have a constitutional right to free speech on immigration issues
The Australian Constitution, in section 51(26), states that the Commonwealth Parliament can make laws with respect to "The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". This necessarily entails that the Australian public have the right to debate and lobby both parliament and the public to bring such laws into effect; indeed, this must be so, as - for our democracy to work - the Australian people must be allowed to openly debate matters of public policy.
Recent history has shown that some judges act politically as "judicial activists" rather than as properly impartial judges, and there is a real risk that Multiculturalist judges - acting in a biased and politically-motivated manner - can twist any wording any which way they want, and legally determine that the sky is green and grass is blue if it suits their purposes, because that is how legal lies are created. In such a case, and contrary to logic and historical evidence, a sitting judge may "determine" that section 51(26) does not imply a right to freedom of speech; however, in truth, they would be wrong. Whilst the Australian legal system is largely run by Multiculturalists who would happily destroy any law or any legal justice to enable Multiculturalism and multiracialism, that does not alter the fact that our Constitution provides a defence for our freedom of speech.
Looking at the historical evidence, it is obvious that section 51(26) was intended to enable discrimination against other races, and therefore there is an implied right to argue for such discrimination.
The parliaments of the Australian colonies had laws to prevent non-European immigration, and the Immigration Restriction Act (that enabled the White Australia Policy) was one of the first pieces of legislation to be passed by the new federal parliament when it opened in 1901. Later laws also discriminated, such as laws that required furniture made by non-European labour to be stamped as such. All this shows that it was the intent of the framers of the Australian Constitution that the Australian parliaments should have the right to discriminate against non-Europeans, or in favour of Europeans, as part of the enabling of a White Australia Policy.
As the creators of the Constitution intended to enable the production of laws relating to particular races, they therefore reasonably expected that there would be public debate on any issues that related to the creation of such laws, and that there be would lobbying for such laws - in newspapers, in public, and by politically interested groups.
This Constitutionally implied right to freedom of speech on racial issues overrides any obnoxious and neo-fascist anti-freedom laws that have been passed by Multiculturalist politicians. The Constitutionally protected rights of the Australian People are far more important than the posturing and Political Correctness of Liberal-Labor politicians.
You want the truth? Multiculturalists can't handle the truth!
"Racial vilification" laws are reminiscent of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, where political crimes were the order of the day, where telling the truth was irrelevant, and where stating an opinion was downright dangerous.
A major part of the injustice of these Banana Republic "racial vilification" laws is that they have been designed so that - in court - telling the truth is no defence!
In the case of Professor Andrew Fraser, he stated that having a higher level of Black immigration would lead to a higher level of violent crime. This assertion can be backed up with evidence from around the world (such as from the USA and the UK) which shows that populations of African ethnicity have much higher levels of violence, apparently due to their generally higher testosterone levels and generally lower intelligence levels, as compared to populations of Asian and European ethnicity.
Professor Fraser can produce as much scientific evidence as he wants, but to little or no avail - because, under a Multiculturalist regime, telling the truth is no defence.
In fact, the courts may not even allow Professor Fraser to present evidence that shows that he is telling the truth - because, under a Multiculturalist regime, the truth is irrelevant. Under a Multiculturalist regime, telling the truth can be an illegal act - a political crime.
The evil nature of Multicultural laws
The Communists and Nazis banned free speech under their regimes. Governments in Third World banana republics often arrest their opponents using anti-democratic laws, trumped-up charges, or politically-motivated prosecutions over legal "technicalities" - all in order to silence political opposition. Government-funded Multiculturalists are now operating in the same vein as those Marxists, Fascists, and tin-pot dictators.
Liberal-Labor politicians created so-called "racial vilification" laws which are, in truth, designed to ensure that the government and the Multiculturalism industry can suppress free speech on immigration issues, and hide the terrible truth about Multiculturalism and Third World immigration.
No matter what neo-fascist Multiculturalist laws are passed by Liberal and Labor politicians, their Thought Crime laws are not morally valid. Especially abhorrent are the aspects of the "racial vilification" laws wherein telling the truth is not a defence!
In a democratic legal system, people have the right to a trial by jury. However, under the Multiculturalism style of law, when it comes to the politically incorrect "crime" of supposed "racial vilification", the access to the right of a trial by jury has been denied.
In the normal course of events in a democratic country, juries have the right to refuse to convict anyone who has been arrested for expressing their political and social beliefs. Government campaigns of political intimidation can therefore be stymied in a trial by peers, in which a jury can recognise the injustice of political "thought crimes" and the denial of free speech.
This is why, under the rule of "Political Correctness", opponents of Multiculturalism are being denied the right to a trial by jury. Liberal-Labor politicians fear that any Australians who are prosecuted under their anti-freedom laws will be set free, quite rightly, by Australian juries.
Instead, Australians are subjected to trial by star chamber courts. Australians charged with a "political crime" of "racial vilification" or "religious vilification" are tried not before a jury, but before a single judge or tribunal. Those who have read George Orwell's Brave New World will appreciate the joke that the government deliberately oppresses the human rights of its citizens by having them persecuted by an anti-freedom body that they have entitled "The Human Rights Commission".
When the Liberal-Labor politicians, in the face of widespread public protest, introduced the "racial vilification" laws they assured us that religious rights would be protected. They lied. They also assured us that academic discussion would be protected. Again, they lied.
Christian pastors Danny Nalliah (from Sri Lanka) and Daniel Scot (from Pakistan) of Catch the Fire Ministries, were charged with vilification of Muslims when they criticised the Islamic religion in a religious seminar. During their trial they were not even allowed to quote the Koran to prove what they were saying about the violent and unjust aspects of the Islamic religion.
Professor Andrew Fraser criticised African immigration into Australia. As a consequence, he was sacked from his position as Associate Professor of Law at Macquarie University. Not only did he lose his job, but his academic paper on the White Australia Policy, already peer-reviewed, accepted, and due to be published by Deakin University, was hastily withdrawn by the university publisher upon legal advice that it may contravene vilification laws.
So much for religious and academic freedoms.
After conviction by a "kangaroo court", an Australian can appeal to a higher court. However, considering that the legal expenses involved in a first trial can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it is doubtful that any ordinary Australians can afford to adequately defend themselves in a star chamber court case, let alone mount an appeal to a higher court, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unlike many Multiculturalist lobbyists, ordinary Australians are not financed by grants from the government-funded Multiculturalism industry.
The huge cost of dealing with an Orwellian "Human Rights Commission", defending oneself in a "kangaroo court", and of appealing a negative decision, effectively removes the right of ordinary Australians to legal justice. In a Multicultural Australia, the Australian People shall be deprived of natural rights and justice.
One of the main dangers of politically-inspired vilification laws is not so much the prosecutions carried out, but rather that a common fear of their existence will intimidate people into self-censoring themselves, thus creating a climate of political censorship. Just like Indonesia under Suharto, a few well-publicised prosecutions ensured that the bulk of the media became subject to self-censorship, living in a climate of fear that anything too critical of government policies could bring jail and persecution. "Guided democracy" is not democracy. Rule by neo-fascistic Multiculturalism and Political Correctness is not democracy either.
Multicultural and multiracial societies are intrinsically authoritarian
Societies that are multicultural and multiracial, by their very nature, are bound to become authoritarian. Small numbers of outsiders in homogeneous societies do not create large-scale social tensions, as the predominant population do not see them as a threat to their survival.
However, once the numbers of outside minorities grow to a certain level, then the majority population will consider itself under threat, and react against the presence of foreign groups. Also, the growing minorities will themselves become emboldened by their larger numbers, and will begin to assert their claims to influence upon general society. Both of these developments will naturally lead to a rise in conflict between the different population groups.
In such a case, the governing elites of the multicultural-multiracial society will have to introduce oppressive measures - especially against the predominant population - in order for the society to survive. Unless they fight back, the sad reality is that not only will the predominant population be deprived of their rights and freedoms as a consequence of Multiculturalism, but they will eventually be deprived of their right to survive as a distinct society; a case of genocide via immigration and assimilation. Such is the destructive nature of Multiculturalism.
Fiji is a clear case in point. This Pacific Islander nation was a homogeneous entity until the British began bringing in labourers from India in the 1870s. The Indians became a sizeable minority, and by 1956 they actually outnumbered the indigenous Fijian population. It was only after the pro-Fijian coups of 1987, which prompted many Indians to leave the country, that the Fijian population became the majority in their own land once again, with the Indian population lowering to "just" 44% of the population. The long-term future of the Fijian people is still in doubt.
Similarly, the Liberal-Labor sponsored Asianisation of Australia has enormous ramifications for the future survival of the Aboriginal population. Just as it was wrong for politicians in the 1950s and 1960s to advocate the assimilation of Aborigines into the general Australian population, as that would have led to the cultural and demographic genocide of the Aboriginal populations in Australia, so it is that the Asianisation of Australia is also wrong, as the eventual movement of large Asian populations into Aboriginal areas will lead to the eventual ethnic assimilation of the Aborigines, the result of which would be that the Aboriginal peoples will never be seen upon the face of the earth ever again.
Likewise, the survival of the Australian People is threatened by mass Third World immigration, as well as the political ideology of Multiculturalism, both of which are policies that lead to the Asianisation of Australia. The immigration-led genocide being carried out against the Australian People is part of a pattern of anti- European genocide worldwide; especially when it is considered that ethnically European communities are only about 8% of the earth's population. It must be recognised that this is the true genocide of our time. Genocide by Asianisation is wrong, both for the ethnic Aborigines and the ethnic Europeans in Australia.
The prosecution and persecution of Professor Andrew Fraser has enormous implications for the Australian people, and for the future of democracy in this country.
At stake are the basic beliefs of political freedom held by Australians:
- We have the right to state our opinion.
- We have the right to tell the truth.
- We have the right to publicly exercise our freedom of speech.
All of these rights are under legal challenge, and the defence of Professor Fraser is an essential part of defending our democratic freedoms.
Either we Australians have the right to publicly debate any matter of public policy, or we don't have the right to free speech.
Choose one or the other - it's that simple.
 W.J. Brown, The Communist Movement and Australia: An Historical Outline - 1890s to 1980s, Australian Labor Movement History Publications, Haymarket, 1986, pages 189-202.
 " 'National honour' and the state", (Caslon Analytics), http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile13.htm
Note: in a Chinese law, "Measures on the Administration of Business Sites of Internet Access Services", Article 12 prohibits "(3) humiliating the national honor or damaging the interests of the State" and "(4) inciting national hatred or discrimination, or undermining national solidarity".
"Measures on the Administration of Business Sites of Internet Access Services", (ChinaCulture.org [Ministry of Culture, People's Republic of China]), http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artists/2003-09/24/content_26899.htm
 "The Communist Origins of Anti-Hate Laws", (MajorityRights.com), http://www.majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_communist_origins_of_anti_hate_laws/
"1936 Constitution of the USSR", (Bucknell University), http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html
"Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" [1977 Constitution of the USSR], (Bucknell University), http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html
 Jack Lang, "White Australia Saved Australia" [extract from Jack Lang's book, I Remember, 1956], (Australian Nationalism Information Database), http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/lang-wa.htm
J.L. Clarke, "The Chinese Case Against the Chinese Employment Bill, Melbourne, 1907" [Digital Documents Record: 1252], (The Chinese Heritage of Australian Federation Project), http://184.108.40.206/FMPro?-db=scanned_doc.fp5&-format=format/docs_record.htm&-lay=web&item_no=1252&-max=1&-find=
Defending Free Speech