Taking Back the Moral High Ground

Multiculturalists and the outlawing of dissent

The purpose of the Multiculturalists legislating against free speech can readily be described:

    Racial Vilification laws have been enacted at both state and federal levels specifically in order to crush the opposition of Australians to the Asianisation of their country (not, as various politicians have suggested, to stop illegal behaviour against minorities - as such behaviour is already covered by existing legislation, such as laws relating to offensive behaviour, assault and battery, defacing property, incitement to riot, etc.).[2]

Mark Uhlmann, editor of The Record, verified this view.

    A major aim of Federal racial vilification legislation... is to complement the social intimidation which already greets anyone, particularly in public office, who dares to criticise matters connected to immigration and multiculturalism.[3]

Those opposed to the Asianisation of Australia have, for many years, realised the purpose of these Multiculturalist laws, and have recognised the true face of Multiculturalism.

    The Establishment proclaims "democracy" and "freedom of speech" when such posturing serves its purpose, and for ordinary matters these ideals are basically observed, but when its liberal-internationalist creed is threatened - then its "true colours" are revealed.

    ...While the System claims it is democratic, it actually has a hidden tyrannical, or quasi-fascist, nature. This is why it deliberately continues mass Asian immigration, even when it is widely known that most Australians oppose it; and this is why they try to silence, or crush, the activities of Australian patriots and nationalists, because they fear the potential of these groups.

As existing laws already cover illegal activities against minorities, the anti-Nationalist usage of these laws are readily apparent. Why have the Multiculturalists introduced anti-democratic laws? The short answer is "Because they can"; that is, because they have the power to threaten and jail their ideological enemies, they will do so. It is quite obvious that the Multiculturalists adhere to the fascist maxim of "might is right".

Racial vilification laws can be used to target organisations which oppose mass immigration. Any "politically incorrect" utterances could be used to threaten jail or fines. Of course, with around 70% of Australians opposing mass immigration, there's a lot of people to be put in jail. Would it be cynical to suggest that this law has been designed to scare ordinary Australians into silence? In actual practice, these laws would be mainly used against Nationalist activists and organisations, along with some prosecutions against members of the general public.

As Mark O'Connor says,

    The great advantage of such 'thought crimes' is that since they are not tangible, the accuser need not produce solid evidence.[5]

These new laws are introducing a new concept into modern Australia; that of the true "political crime". Although they are mainly designed to squash patriotic political parties by fear, and to scare ordinary Australians into silence and passivity, eventually they will have to be used, thereby creating something that na´ve Australians thought existed only in places like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia: "political prisoners".

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada have racial vilification laws, but it seems that the Multiculturalists are following the lead of the Nazis, who were quite adept at crushing opposition with various laws (all in the name of the "common good", of course).

In effect, the Multiculturalists are saying to anyone who wants the right to voice their opinion in public: "Agree with us or go to jail". The so-called "racial vilification" laws are authoritarian and neo-Nazi in nature.

Freedom of speech under attack

Free speech in Australia is under severe attack by Multiculturalist bigots. The various "racial vilification" laws are nothing but draconian laws banning opposition to Multiculturalism and intimidating people exposing its effect upon society.

Such attacks upon freedom of speech can be compared historically to other authoritarian measures by regimes against those who oppose the underlying ideology of the ruling class, whether it be anti-democratic laws against republicans, trade unionists, or racial nationalists.

In any fair dinkum democracy, citizens are able to criticise any public policy, institution, or ideology without fear of harassment from the Government, especially without the fear of being carted off to jail.

Of one case, Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wrote that

    To see a couple of churchmen dragged before a tribunal to stand trial for what they've said about Islam is to see Victoria steeped in shame. What totalitarian instinct inspired the Bracks Government to pass this wicked racial and religious vilification law - this offence against free speech?"...

    Judge Michael Higgins last week began hearing a complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria against the Catch the Fire Ministry, which held a seminar, featuring Pastor Danny Nahlia and Pakistani Christian Daniel Scot, on Islam's teachings. In particular, the speakers quoted passages of the Koran that incited violence against Christians and Jews. But in the audience were three Muslim converts, taking notes.

    ...This law must not be allowed to stand.

Notice that Andrew Bolt referred to a "tribunal"? Why were these charges not heard at a trial by jury? The answer is simple: Multiculturalists fear that the ordinary men and women on a jury will see their law for the brand of Multiculturalist Nazism that it is. Citizens should realise that such anti-democratic trends are not new under Multiculturalist regimes, where ordinary freedoms are perverted or disappear altogether. Similarly, in discrimination cases, the presumption of innocence often disappears, whereby the prosecution no longer has to provide the traditional burden of proof; simply claim "discrimination" against your boss to give grief to your employer.[7]

No trial by jury?
No burden of proof?
No presumption of innocence?

Multiculturalism cannot stand up to close scrutiny and criticism, and that is why it is a creed that can only exist by creating a climate of fear and intimidation amongst ordinary citizens. Multiculturalism is an authoritarian ideology, full of evil, hatred, and loathing, whilst posing as a creature of beauty, light, and love - it is truly a slavering wolf in sheep's clothing.

Rabid Multiculturalists

John Bennett, President of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, revealed that many Australians face threats from Multiculturalists:

    The laws relating to libel, contempt of court and racial vilification continue to inhibit freedom of speech. People who speak out may receive death threats, may be threatened with loss of employment, may be expelled from organizations, and may be subject to often effective pressure from their friends, family and fellow employees. Distributors of books and magazines have sometimes refused to distribute books with unpopular idea.[8]

Mainstream journalist Paul Sheehan, in his informative book Among The Barbarians relates a story that reveals the ugly face of Multiculturalism, whereby - out of the view of the general public - leading Multiculturalists discuss plans to impose laws to take away our freedoms.

    At the height of the news media's Hanson mania in late 1996, I attended the monthly meeting of the Ethnic Community Council of New South Wales. The meeting began with the chairperson, Angela Chan, holding up a copy of the Bulletin with a photo of Pauline Hanson on the cover and the headline: POLL SHOCK: AT LEAST FIVE SEATS. The latest opinion poll had found that if Hanson formed her own party it would win five seats at the next Senate election.

    'She is a danger to Australia,' said Chan, who had campaigned vigorously during the 1996 federal election, warning that a Coalition victory could mean 'the death of multiculturalism'. When she handed the meeting over to her vice-chair, Josie Lacey, Lacey continued the rhetoric.

    'If the Human Rights Act is weakened, this country is lost.'

    Attendance at the meeting was larger than usual, about forty people, because lawyers from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission had come to talk about proposed changes to the Racial Hatred Act.

    'How long does it take before she [Pauline Hanson] goes to jail?' Josie Lacey asked the lawyers.

    When told that Hanson could not go to jail under existing laws, she said the Act needed amendment. This led to a discussion about the Act's effectiveness. It soon became obvious that everyone in the room (other than me) wanted to get rid of the section which stated that 'a fair and accurate report' in the news media was exempt from prosecution as an act of racial hatred.

    'The British invented the concept of race and used it to rule the world,' said Dr Anthony Pun, a vice-chair of the Council, who would replace Angela Chan as chairperson the following year.

    It was not exactly a gathering of civil libertarians.

Suppression of free speech even applies to the reporting of crime. Journalists are discouraged from reporting the race of offenders. Apparently, the Australian public cannot be trusted with the truth.

Dr Richard Basham, one of Australia's leading authorities on the links between crime and culture, has courageously noted the pressures brought to bear against those who speak out about ethnic crime trends in Australia.

    Organised crime, drugs, gangs, extortion, tax evasion, fraud, these have now reached a level where they are damaging the national economy. What has happened at Cabramatta is just the tip of the iceberg, but it often seems that anyone who dares to talk about Asian crime in this country is shouted down as a racist.

    ...to use charges of racism as a moral skewer to silence discussion of ethnic-based crime is arrogant and, ultimately, dangerous. Censorship has divided this country. All crime has its cultural base and it is foolish to pretend, for example, that Asians don't dominate the hard drug trade in Australia.

Normally, Dr Basham would be shouted down as a racist; however, unfortunately for the Multiculturalists, he is married to an Asian wife and has a Eurasian daughter, and thus has avoided the often used tag of "racist" that the Multiculturalists so readily dish out against anyone who doesn't provide unequivocal support for their social theories.

The usage of the tag "racist" is aimed at anyone who argues against Multiculturalists and their policies. It is a cheap and easy way for the media, academics, politicians, and Multiculturalist lobbyists to smear and denigrate any opposition. They use the tag freely, no matter whether they have any idea whether their victim is "racist" or not. Often, the truth seems of little importance to Multiculturalists, and they use accusations of "racism" as an effective way to silence their opponents, especially against those in public office.

The trend to use such constant accusations of 'racism' in the Australian immigration debate has been recognised by the immigration scholar, John Atchison.

    One of the most disturbing features of the so-called and inaccurately described Blainey debate was the associated latent fascism in the labeling of opponents as racists.[11]

Considering Sheehan's account of Multiculturalists in New South Wales, along with similar instances, there is little doubt that the term "latent fascism" applies to Multiculturalists.

Under the rule of Multiculturalism, "Free speech" has become an empty phrase, without any true meaning, except perhaps for the maxim attributed to the Multiculturalists: "the speech we approve of will be free".

Perhaps this loss of one of the main pillars of democracy is due to the fact that our current generations have become so used to having freedom of speech as part of the general background of life, that they do not recognise the threat when the Multiculturalists of the "elite" ruling class begin to attack this basic freedom. This is, no doubt, a trend to be repeated throughout history, and evokes memories of Polybius, who, in his history of the Roman republic, complained that the Romans had lost interest in freedom of speech.

    But as soon as a new generation has succeeded and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become by this time so accustomed to equality and freedom of speech that they cease to value them and seek to raise themselves against their fellow citizens, and it noticeable that the people most liable to this temptation are the rich ...and then the rule of democracy is transformed into government by violence and strong-arm methods.[12]

Multiculturalist laws

Graeme Campbell, as the Member for Kalgoorlie (Labor Party), spoke out in Parliament against Multiculturalist racial vilification legislation.

    I can give the House a much more succinct, current and germane description of racism and of a racist. A racist today is anyone who wins an argument with a multiculturalist.

    I believe the Racial Hatred Bill is an insult to Australia and Australians. It is an absolute disgrace that it has even been brought before the parliament and it will be an infamous day in our political history if it is passed. This is one of the most draconian pieces of legislation ever brought before the parliament in peacetime. It is in the same class as the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and the case for it is shot through with mendacity and misrepresentation. The fact that this bill is before the parliament and may well be passed says a great deal about our political leadership.

    Our system has always been able to cope with corrupt individual politicians, but when entire political parties have been intellectually corrupted the system begins to break down. On key issues such as immigration, multiculturalism and Asianisation we have a tyranny of the minorities and a disenfranchisement of the majority. This bill is the starkest indicator of that process so far.

    The elites who have been pushing these policies realise that, even though they dominate the bureaucracies and academia, they are losing the intellectual argument. Their crude cries of 'racist' and 'racism' are proving less and less effective. Now they want a piece of legislation to compliment the declining power of the social sanctions against speaking out. It. can be observed that one cost of increasing the cultural and racial diversity of democratic nations has been a decline in the ability to speak freely.

Attacks by Multiculturalists upon public freedoms are happening not only in Australia, but also in other Western nations. Leo McKinstry wrote in The Spectator of the British trend towards Multiculturalist authoritarianism.

    In our modern secular society, we pride ourselves on our supposed tolerance. We sneer at the bigotry of the past, wondering how the monstrous cruelty of events such as the Spanish Inquisition could ever have occurred. But we should not be so smug. For in Britain today we have our own powerful creed - multiculturalism - which is imposed on the public by a political establishment that is brimming with self-righteous fervour. And anyone refusing to accept this dogma is likely to be branded a heretic, bullied and brainwashed until they change their opinions.

    ...But the creed of multiculturalism is so powerful that almost any form of repression and thought-control is justified in the name of 'rooting out prejudice'.

    ...Instead of facing up to reality, the multiculturalists are becoming more authoritarian in their suppression of negative thinking. In their eagerness to impose the ideology of diversity, they are like the old Soviet Politburo, which pretended that communism had created an earthly paradise and that anyone who claimed otherwise was either a crank or a criminal. Over the last three years, there has been a raft of new regulations designed to crack down on dissent.

    ...The fixation with racism has also overturned one of the essential principles of justice, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The race regulations of 2003 have shifted the burden of proof in employment-tribunal cases from the accuser to the alleged discriminator. In sinister, bureaucratic language, the Commission for Racial Equality warns that 'for the discriminator, the consequences of the new burden of proof will be significant. Any failure to provide a satisfactory or adequate explanation may be determinative since the courts and tribunals must find in favour of the complainant.'

    Freedom of speech and rights of association are also disappearing. At this year's Labour party conference, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, promised, to resounding cheers, that a new law will soon be passed allowing trade unions to expel members of the BNP. Ironically, the police, so widely condemned for their supposed racism, are now being turned into instruments of social control. Gloucestershire Police, for instance, have employed undercover plainclothes officers to observe the behaviour of diners in Indian and Chinese restaurants, in an exercise called 'Operation Napkin'. In the wake of 9/11, the government created a new offence of `religiously aggravated threatening behaviour', which can be used against anyone who challenges the anti-Western outbursts of Muslims. Indeed, an Exeter man, Alistair Scott, was sentenced to 200 hours' community service in October 2002 on just such a charge, after he had rowed with a Muslim neighbour who called bin Laden a great man, 9/11 a 'glorious day' and Mr Scott a 'Zionist pig'. Inevitably the Muslim, Mohammed Hudaib, was not prosecuted. A month later, the television presenter Robin Page was arrested - though never charged - for opening a speech at a countryside rally with the words 'If there is a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry-driver present, then you may be offended at what I am going to say, as I want the same rights that you have got already.'

    But perhaps most worrying of all is the attempt to reclassify racism as a mental illness. In the United States there is now a serious debate over whether those accused of being racists are actually suffering from delusions which require treatment by the state, including the use of anti-psychotic medication. Dr Alvin Poussaint of the American Psychiatric Association has said, 'If we want to do any kind of prevention, psychiatrists have to know and believe themselves that this is a serious mental disorder.' Another psychologist, Dr William von Hippel, even claims to have located the part of the frontal lobes in the brain that makes people racist.

    ...Psychiatry has often been used to silence those who refuse to accept the official doctrines of the state. The Soviet Union was notorious for branding political dissidents as 'mentally ill', incarcerating them in psychiatric institutions. In communist China it has been estimated that 15 per cent of psychiatric inmates may be in custody for political reasons, many of them suffering from what the gruesome Ministry for Public Security calls 'political abnormality illness'.

    We should remember that, even in our own country's past, single parenthood and promiscuity in women were sometimes treated as signs of insanity.

    ...in its myopia over race and its hysterical intolerance of dissent, this doctrine is dragging us along the road towards tyranny.

The anti-democratic nature of the Multiculturalists is shown by their moves against free speech, and their wish to jail opponents of their ideology by using Nazi-style laws thinly disguised as "racial vilification legislation", as well as by various other underhanded sly moves towards silencing political and social dissent.

Taking Back the Moral High Ground