De Bortoli first published the angry essay that turned into Fallaci's
controversial best-seller, "The Rage and the Pride", which described Islam
as oppressive and Arab immigrants in Europe as dirty, foul-mouthed and
bigoted.
She called on Europeans to defend their culture and values instead of
adjusting to immigrants' needs.
"Antimulticulture" wrote in message
news:450a94aa$0$7290$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Multiculturalists and the outlawing of dissent
> http://www.epado.bravehost.com/takingback02.htm
> Andrew Patterson
>
> Chris Anderson, in The Asianisation of Australia, has described
> the purpose of the Multiculturalists legislating against free
> speech:
>
> "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.)."
>
> 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".
>
> Nationalist organisations 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. Chris Anderson wrote;
>
> "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 naïve 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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."
>
> 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."
>
> 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'."
>
> "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.
>
> --
> Antimulticulture
> "Bring Back Democracy!..."
>
> Newsboard:
> http://www.gossiping.net/phpBB2/?mforum=newsboard
>
> http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
> Unite Against Multicult'ism!
>
> "Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
>
> http://www.alphalink.com.au/~eureka/mccorm.htm
> Asianisation of Australia: The Grand Plan
>
>
>
>
|