Taking Back the Moral High Ground
Hidden threats to democracy
The Multiculturalist Establishment in Australia has enacted several laws that are designed to impede their opponents.
The reality of these anti-democratic laws has been previously recognised:
Aside from refusing proportional representation (which would allow greater representation of voters, i.e. allow greater democracy), the Australian political Establishment has enacted laws designed to "make things difficult" for smaller political parties. One example is that in order to have a candidate's political party listed beside his/her name on the ballot paper (which can gain more votes for smaller parties), the candidate has to belong to a "registered political party", which entails all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles, including submitting the names and addresses of at least 500 party members to the Electoral Commission (which could then be made secretly available to ASIO for inspection) - however, these requirements do not apply to those political parties who have a member in parliament (surprise, surprise!). Another example is that while public funding for election campaigns is available on a "dollar per vote"-style basis, such funding is only made available to those candidates who score above 4%, which neatly excludes the smaller parties - this 4% threshold allows all, or most, candidates of the two party blocs to receive public funding for their campaign expenses (again; surprise, surprise!).
The Commonwealth government, and several state governments, have brought into being laws against so-called "racial vilification". The true purpose behind such laws is obvious.
These laws, while supposedly aimed at stopping acts of "racial hatred", were actually specifically designed to suppress nationalist groups, and any other organisations opposing the Asianisation of Australia, as well as to scare ordinary Australians into silence.
Over the years, political police agencies in Australia have carried out both "legal" and illegal actions against Nationalist organisations. Just as the political police were used in "legal" and illegal roles against Communists in the 1950s and 1960s, nowadays the Multiculturalist Establishment considers "racism" to be the enemy of the state.
In Australia, we don't actually live in a police state; however, the Establishment - or rather, elements thereof - are more than happy to employ police state methods against Nationalists. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to ever come across political police in their regular lives, whereas anyone concerned for the future of our nation, who actively campaigns against the Asianisation of Australia has the chance to cross paths with them at some stage. While Australia is not a police state, perhaps we could term it a "semi-oppressive state"?
The "Banana Republic"
The machinations of government power in Australia sometimes operate as though we live in a "Banana Republic".
Pauline Hanson, controversial for her statements on immigration and Asianisation, won a seat in federal parliament in 1996 to represent the Queensland electorate of Oxley; however, before the 1998 election, the Australian Electoral Commission changed the boundaries of her electorate, cutting out the staunch pro-Hanson rural areas north and west of Ipswich, whilst adding to the electorate a large public housing estate area considered to be loyal to the Labor Party. Was it just a coincidence that the government's Electoral Commission seriously undermined Hanson's chances of regaining her parliamentary seat?
Considering, as Andrew Bolt has commented, that the outrageous vilification of Pauline Hanson by the media created an atmosphere whereby many people, various public employees included, felt free to abuse and harass Hanson, to make her and her supporters "fair game" for almost any dirty trick in the book, it seems likely that anti-Nationalist public servants in the AEC deliberately contrived to "play dirty" when the time came to redesign Queensland's electoral boundaries. Just another "dirty trick" among hundreds played against Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
The Queensland Office of Public Prosecutions was to later charge Pauline Hanson on an alleged technical breach of electoral laws (hinging on whether the 500 people registered for her party were actually members or just registered fee-paying supporters). In August 2003 Pauline was convicted of the charge, and sent to jail. Considering that Hanson's party had well over 500 members, and had gained over 10% of the vote in the federal elections, it was obvious to everyone that this "legal" prosecution, allegedly for her party not having 500 members, was sheer nonsense. Following widespread public protest over what was obviously a case of political persecution, an appeal trial was held, whereby she was found to be "not guilty" in November 2003 and was released.
Fair-minded Australians, and Nationalists in particular, were outraged at what was seen as a political trial, with Pauline Hanson being made a political prisoner. The Queensland Office of Public Prosecutions was accused of using a legal technicality as an excuse to persecute Pauline Hanson. Like many political prisoners, Hanson was jailed on a trumped-up criminal charge, whereas the real reason for her prosecution was that the Establishment in Australia was out to "get her" due to her role in patriotic politics. Political criticism of this matter has been quite clear on the unjust and anti-democratic nature of the situation:
The trial and imprisonment of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were outrages against truth and justice. The process, from 'detection' to 'prosecution' to 'trial' and to 'imprisonment', revealed itself as a corrupt exercise in the use of the criminal law to arrive at a political result, a conveyor belt of falsehood with a false and perverse result.
The trial and imprisonment of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge are not isolated matters. The process is one aspect of an increasing grab for police and thought control over ordinary Australians. Laws on the detention of terrorism suspects or persons with 'information' about terrorism, laws to confiscate firearms, (proposed) laws to refuse persons of 'national security concern' access to telephones and the Internet, 'vilification' laws and other restrictive legislation, all make Australia a frightening and dangerous place. There is no end of petty dictators and thugs in security agencies, the legal system and State bureaucracies, who are prepared to enforce what will soon become a State terrorism, exercised not in the defence of Australians from a foreign enemy, but employed against Australians for the preservation of the power and privileges of wealthy and well-positioned elites.
Technical breaches of law happen quite often in general society; for example, under the New South Wales Crimes Act it is still technically illegal to publicly advocate republicanism, although breaches of this law are ignored. The fact is that government prosecution departments can maliciously decide to prosecute people for technicalities that any reasonable person would dismiss, and in the case of popular anti-immigration politicians, they have made it their business to carry out harassment, using criminal prosecution as their tool.
Scott Balson, who was the webmaster for Pauline Hanson's One Nation, gave a very pertinent example of the Queensland prosecution department's decision-making bias.
Sadly there are dozens of examples of people who have been targeted by a corrupt judicial system in Queensland where the separation of powers has become a sick joke.
In 1999 ...I was arrested for exposing Labor MP Bill D'Arcy as a paedophile. Less than a year later D'Arcy was imprisoned for 14 years - at the time of my arrest he was acting as Speaker of the house and presiding over a hung parliament discussing the issue of paedophilia. The Premier Beattie knew but did nothing. On the day of my arrest I was imprisoned following an authority to prosecute being personally penned by the then Labor Attorney-General, Matt Foley, (who has ambition to be a Supreme Court Judge, God help us). ...Nine months after my arrest an Ipswich Magistrate threw out the charge
...Just a few weeks ago the Premier Peter Beattie and Families Minister Judy Spence clearly breached a far more serious act when they illegally named a family protected under the Child Protection Act. The breach carried a fine of $3000 or 3 years - some six times more serious than the charge I was arrested under ($500 or 6 months). No charges have been laid against the Premier and the Minister for Families. When I lodged a complaint against them with the DPP they responded with a callous letter saying that no action would be taken against Beattie or Spence.
...The Department of Public Prosecutions in Queensland singles out certain people (like Hanson) who are then charged and refuses to act on criminal acts by people who have favour with politicians.
Electoral laws and government oppression
Changes made to the Electoral Act in the 1980s by the multiculturalist political parties were obviously anti-democratic and biased against the survival and operation of minor political parties. In 2004, several political parties were deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission, without any prior warning, just a few days before the 2004 federal election was officially announced. The parties had been deregistered on a technicality that the Electoral Commission can deregister a political party that had not stood for an election in the previous four years (under section 136 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act).
The Australian Electoral Commission has carried out dubious actions in the past. For example, the AEC changed the boundaries of the Oxley electorate in Queensland, thus ensuring, in real terms, that the controversial patriotic politician Pauline Hanson could not be re-elected to the House of Representatives.
Several changes to the law governing elections were designed to give an advantage to the major parties, section 136 in particular. That the Electoral Act was redesigned by the major political parties to be used as a tool against minor parties can be seen in the final words of section 136: "A parliamentary party shall not be de-registered under this section"; that is, this section of law shall only apply to those political parties which have not won a seat in parliament, neatly excluding the major political parties from the onerous requirements of section 136 of the Electoral Act.
These sort of tactics are not isolated examples of government interference and harassment directed against nationalists and patriots in Australia, even though political dirty tricks and Third World style underhand electoral tactics are what one would expect to find in a "Banana Republic", rather than in a Westminster-style democracy. In Third World "Banana Republics" there are all sorts of dirty tricks played against opponents of the government, such as the ever-popular arresting political opponents on a spurious charge the week before an election - is this what Australia is destined for?
The publication How to Combat the Political Police: Understanding the Role of Intelligence Agencies in the "Legal" and Illegal Harassment of Nationalist Movements (And How to Implement Counter-Measures) details various elements of harassments that have occurred against Nationalist activists in Australia over the years.
In 2004, the Australian parliament passed legislation that enables the Attorney General to outlaw any organisation by determining "that a body is a terrorist organisation". Whilst this law was passed under the guise of "combating terrorism", it can so easily be misused as to enable "legal" action against any enemy of the Establishment, such as Nationalist groups. History has shown that many laws that are brought into being for one specific purpose are often later used in a manner that attacks the civil liberties of citizens. Also, the so-called "racial vilification" laws have also been designed as a tool to use the threat of legal force against nationalist parties and their members, in an undemocratic attempt to hinder opposition to the Establishment policies of Multiculturalism and Asianisation.
Paul Sheehan described the situation quite succinctly:
Of all the political problems facing Australia, the growing power to suppress and constrain freedom of expression is the most sinister ...everyday freedoms are being eroded behind the rhetoric of equity.
Under Multiculturalism, democracy is far from safe.
Taking Back the Moral High Ground