Outreach Leaflets & Stickers – Range 2

 

Go here for pdf versions to print at home or take to a commercial printer.

Outreach Leaflets & Stickers - Range 2

Go here for pdf versions to print at home or take to a commercial printer.

Alert and Alarmed: Australia’s Net Nanny

Nationalist Alternative reviews the Australian Government's Internet Censorship Proposal.
 

By Stephen Wilson 

After a one year internet “filter” trial, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on December 15, 2009, that Australian ISP providers must block content which has been refused classification overseas. Legislation will be introduced into Parliament in 2010 and once passed, the internet “filter” will take 12 months to implement. An “independent body” will determine a list of Refused Classification (RC) blacklisted sites for Australian internet users. Senator Conroy has made assurances that the filtering will be transparent, including notifying websites that they have been blocked, as well as measures to appeal blocked websites.

However one of the fundamental tenets of our society and the pillar and supposed cornerstone of Liberal Democracy, is that of the free and robust exchange of ideas. A "marketplace of ideas" in which debate, free speech and criticism are welcome and tolerated. In fact, in a healthy "marketplace of ideas", dissent is welcomed and those of different political/religious persuasions are permitted to engage in vigorous discourse.

Now imagine the Orwellian nightmare straight from the mind of the 1984 author George Orwell. Speech is suppressed, dissent is stifled and creativity and individualism are crushed.

In March 2002, Electronic Frontiers Australia undertook extensive research into the status of laws and Government policy outside Australia. They were unable to find any indication that any other country broadly comparable to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has introduced, or intends to introduce internet censorship laws, particularly laws as restrictive as the existing Commonwealth legislation and proposed laws.

The internet has since its inception been utilised by persons of all persuasions for all manner of purposes. From on-line shopping, email, to communication and networking of like minded individuals. t has until recently been mostly self regulating and has on the whole, been of tremendous benefit to commerce, private and public companies and individuals. However the Australian Governments recent attempts to impose mandatory internet filtering for "objectionable content" severely undermine one of the most fundamental rights of Man. To seek out information that may be unpopular, critical of institutions or considered challenging. This in and of itself would be an unjust and reprehensible intrusion into a citizens right to communicate with others and inform and entertain themselves. However given the fact that the Government is maintaining a database that is inaccessible to outside scrutiny, is not able to be viewed by citizens and is COMPLETELY SECRET!! The fact that this database is being maintained by the very same Government that refuses to cooperate with freedom of information requests, harangues civil servants who leak information embarrassing to the Government and shields itself deep within the cloak of bureaucratic invisibility, should only serve to arouse the deepest suspicions of all freedom loving people wherever they may reside.

Indeed one would have thought that in conjunction with industry experts, interested parties and ISP's that a series of concrete criteria and benchmarks would have been established to measure the efficacy of the blocking of "objectionable" material. On the contrary, the Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy (the department responsible for the administering of the trials) has actually stated that NO criteria were established in order to measure the effectiveness of the censorship trials. The whole process is being shrouded in great secrecy with no-one permitted to question the motives of the Australian Government no matter how benign they may seem. The pretext that has been given for the internet censorship trials has (ostensibly) been preventing persons from accessing "illegal" and "refused classification" material (see child pornography).

This argument is fundamentally flawed on several different levels.

Firstly Child Pornography as reprehensible, disgusting, exploitative and incorrigible, will never be stamped out by the censorship of the internet. The reasons are complex and mostly outside the scope of this article. I n a nutshell however, the VAST majority of internet child pornography is through peer to peer networks. These are basically private file sharing networks that allow users to share content (music, files and more). However these networks are akin to an exclusive club, if you aren't a member, you can't gain access. These evil networks are a closed haven for like minded individuals and are generally speaking quite distrusting by nature. If you don't know where to look, and you're not a member, the files (pictures of children) are inaccessible. It’s an underground network beneath the internet. Secondly, most aspiring paedophiles are hardly stupid enough to type "Kiddy porn" into a search engine.

So if internet censorship will not have an impact on the very thing it has supposedly been created to prevent, why on earth would the Australian Government insist upon this course of action? Why is the "blacklist" of "illegal" sites kept secret? What is on this list and do you trust the Government to determine what YOU as a law abiding Citizen may view? I would suggest that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we look back some 6 months ago, a minor furore erupted when a copy of the blacklist was released on Wikileaks and other areas of the internet (Ironically the internet censorship blacklist was leaked on-the internet). The list of sites that were banned were rather innocuous. A Brisbane dentist was on the list as well as several Adult bookstores, a mechanics webpage and several fetish sites which are 100% LEGAL to view as an Australian Citizen of the age of maturity. More disturbing is the fact that because you cannot access the list, you have no way of knowing what is and what isn't on it.

Given the fact that only EIGHT small ISP's and Optus (on a limited basis) agreed to participate in the trials, there can be no statistically significant data to be gleaned from this totalitarian exercise of thought control and oppression. Not surprising iiNet (Australia's third largest ISP) withdrew from the Governments internet censorship trials in early 2009, saying it could not "reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility". Indeed all available data indicates that the only effect that censorship will have on the internet is to turn it into an unwieldy (and slow) creature. Speeds will plummet, commerce and trade will suffer and costs will soar in order to pay for the ineffective filtering. Perhaps a more insidious force is at work, one that is attempting to stifle and suppress free speech, dissent and protest. When the Government is able to determine what sites you are able to visit, what you are able to post online and with whom you associate in the digital realm, this really should ring alarm bells. Are you an anti war protester attempting to find a forum with like minded individuals? A political activist trying to organise a meeting or simply a father sending an email to a child living overseas? How will you ever know you are restricted from accessing sites if they are simply omitted from your search results. When "page not found" is displayed on your monitor, has the site been removed or blocked due to Government interference?

The fact that the results of the trial have been delayed and pushed back after repeated calls for Senator Stephen Conroy to release the censorship trial data seem to be indicative of the difficulties the trial has encountered. If things have been going swimmingly, why aren't the results being vaunted and championed to the public after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayers money?

Nationalist Alternative sincerely hope that the internet censorship plan dies a quiet death and slinks off into the night. A remnant of an era that should have died with the demise of the Soviet Union and the KGB. If this plan is implemented the impact on the free exchange of ideas, political view and discourse of all kinds will be severely impeded and crushed. I do not welcome the thought of an Australia where I fear a knock on the door in the dead of night from the Peoples Secret Police for a blog entry or website search that aroused the suspicions of those in power.

How to Prepare an Activist Banner – Hints for Activists

Homemade banners are simply another medium for placing information in front of the public or target audience and one that the Politically Correct system can do little to regulate. They have the potential to reach a wide audience with minimal financial costs, the above banner reached thousands of early morning commuters on a Melbourne roadway into the CBD and stayed there for several days.

The positive impact of a homemade banner is not to be over-looked considering the low risks involved and potential for wide exposure. A homemade banner negates the need to use the biased and controlled mass media, and allows your audience to read your own words rather than unbalanced reporting which comes with relying on external sources for promotion.

A homemade banner over a freeway overpass is also an in-offensive way to get your message across, with minimal environmental impact.

Cheap and effective these homemade banners are used

• in combination with more professional vinyl banners at a protest or
• for leaving on main road overpasses
• draping over a corporations billboard
• wrapping a politicians car
• anything your imagination can devise

Whilst an artist has their works sitting in a studio, our studio is the world and any surface we can stretch our canvas over.

Material

White cloth/ polypropylene banner material can be purchased off the roll at arts and craft stores. Alternatively, old sheets can make for an activist ‘canvas’.

Size
 We planned this banner by visualising 1 letter = 1 A4 sheet.

It is approximately 3 m long x 1.2 m high. This height provided 4 rows of potential message space.

Measure the height of the overpass railing

Ensure the whole banner can be stretched taught over a ‘frame’ displaying the whole message rather than having a part of it flapping in the breeze, which would leave some of your words unreadable.

    

Fixing your banner

Reinforce the section of the banner where holes are to be placed with heavy duty tape. Plastic cable ties are then poked through holes made around the edges of the banner. A plastic cable tie should be placed every 20-30 cm of edging, ensuring that when pulled tight the entire banner is readable.

 

Stencils

Stencils in this case were made by printing on A4 card (Portrait) and then cutting out by hand with a sharp blade. Depending on how stiff your cardstock is you may have to use tape for cleaner edges to ensure that there isn’t any bleed through. Alternatively, you can purchase alphabet stencils from arts and craft stores, or other paint providers.

Paint

Any water based paint on cloth material will do and a roller or brush or spray gun can be used to apply letters to the banner. We used about 250 ml of paint.

Costs

The banner shown in the photos cost $10-$18. To reduced costs, approach local suppliers in your area, many will be happy to provide cloth off cuts or sample paint pots. Better still reduce your costs by leveraging your local networks.

 

Progressivism: The road to nowhere.

Part II of Nationalist Alternatives's series on Political Correctness

"Progressivism: The road to nowhere"

By Gavin James

In the first article, we looked at how Political Correctness and modern day liberalism takes on religious aspects by using concepts analogous to 'Original Sin' and 'stained bloodlines'. Much like mainstream religions, Political Correctness has asserted itself by making bald assertions and requiring people to adopt these as articles of faith.  Political Correctness, despite its name, is therefore more akin to a religion, a new age belief system, a faith, than a political ideology.

Progressivism is a political term which refers to ideologies and policies which favor reform, particularly reform of a liberal or left wing nature.  While the term progressivism doesn't necessarily refer to left wing politics, it is largely used by the ‘left’ to refer to its own ideologies, and has become synonymous with ‘leftism’, particularly in the Western World.  So much so that many liberals will simply refer to Politically Correct ideologies as 'progressive ideologies', and refer to themselves simply as 'progressives'.  In this article we will look at progressivism in Political Correctness, and how the PC establishment determines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive.

The very term 'progressive' has two distinct and obvious connotations. Firstly, by merely labeling any particular idea as 'progressive', one associates that idea with the positive, with progress, going forward, reaching a desired goal. It is usually assumed that this goal or destination is a positive one.  Progressive ideas therefore immediately appear to be ones that support society, which propel its evolution and development. Conversely, by simply labeling an idea as 'regressive', one associates that idea with the negative, with regression, going backwards and moving away from a desired goal. Regressive ideas therefore generally appear as ones that go against society, which retard its evolution and development.

Secondly, the term 'progressive' defines the goals. An ideal which may be value neutral, or morally ambiguous can be made out to be positive, that which works towards a goal. By stating that restructuring the management hierarchy of a company is a progressive step, it implies that the end goal, the new management structure, is a desirable outcome and beneficial to all involved.

Hence the proliferation and overuse of jargon such as 'going forward', 'moving forward', 'positive step' used by managers. Simply defining something as 'forward thinking' or 'progressive' makes the assumption the end goal is a positive one. The use of lexicon is far easier than actually proving the merits of the end goal, or actually having a positive outcome for other stakeholders.  Another example may be the increasing liberalization of marriage, such as the push for gay and lesbian marriage. Gay marriage is often put forward by the left as 'progressive', but the left never really prove this outcome as being the one more beneficial to society at large. They simply assume this to be so and therefore define loosening the definition of marriage as one of progress.  There was no analysis, no reason to come to this conclusion. It was simply assumed to be the case, that humanity would progress towards liberalism and this is how a society SHOULD advance.  It is worth noting, that other spheres of politics also use this idea of a single, desirable outcome which is made out to be the only possible conclusion of a developing civilization. This can be seen in how urban sprawl, economic growth and development of vacant land is seen as inextricably linked with progress of humanity.

Another example, often casually brought up is the 'inevitable' mixing of the races. It's often assumed that eventually there will be one race, and that somehow this is an inextricable part of progress. Again, there is no basis for this other than merely asserting that a particular ideology is the way forward. It also makes the rather ridiculous assumption that the 1.2+ billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians will somehow take in several hundred million immigrants of other ethnic groups and intermarry. This isn't a statement of fact, or observation, as its only the Western world which sees such demographic shifts as 'inevitable', and only the Western world which believes this to be inevitable, or even necessary. This is simply a statement which reveals political bias, and perhaps personal bias against Westerners, Whites, Anglo's or Europeans in general.

Undefined purpose: 

One central tenet of most major religions is fatalism, or perhaps more accurately, the idea of a divine plan or other plan. Fatalism is the idea that existence and humanity exists for a particular, defined purpose. Whether that purpose is becoming more Godlike or making that religion universally followed, there is a purpose which is figuratively, or literally, written by the creator. It can also be a new age belief in destiny, in bringing higher degrees of spirituality. It can be a belief that evolution has an end goal, a final purpose or destination which humanity should be working towards.

Political Correctness takes this concept and applies it in a somewhat secular context. Defined purpose becomes liberalism, and those ideals which are progressive and work towards creating the liberal, left wing utopia are portrayed as being the outcome of social and political evolution. Competing and contrary ideas are considered regressive, which serve only to pull people away from the destined goal. Being a progressive implies knowledge about the future or knowledge of the ultimate end game for human existence. Like the prophets and seers of old, progressivism is some kind of revealed knowledge which would not normally be obvious or attainable. These revelations are then disseminated as gospel truth, to be protected from inquiry and heresy. Indeed, the zeal in which Political Correctness attacks those who hold contrary notions about what social progress involves, is evidence in and of itself, the lack of solid reasoning and scientific proof behind the assertions it makes.

Embarrassing?

Embarrassment is an emotional state experienced by people who have been caught, or witnessed, performing a socially unacceptable or absurd conduct, which reveals ones weaknesses and foibles otherwise desirable that others do not know exist.  Embarrassment is also an emotion often reported by people in regard to political or social decisions that others have made. The embarrassment purportedly stems from being 'caught' belonging to a group which has acted in a socially or politically unacceptable manner. While personal embarrassment, such as being caught with ones pants down in public is an understandable and clear example; however, 'group' embarrassment is a little more complex.

A common critical argument used, by the left AND the right, but more so the left, is an expression of 'embarrassment' at the behaviour of other people in society, or their representative government or social figureheads. This is a common and often used 'argument' by the left.  Expressions of 'embarrassment' that their nation might not pursue 'progressive' policy, or move towards 'regressive' policy.  It can be embarrassment that fellow nationals have not embraced internationalism and still retain a sense of national and cultural identity. The choice to express ones dissatisfaction in terms of embarrassment is revealing. Embarrassment only exists when one is caught or witnessed, when one professes this sort of embarrassment, it is also an admission that one considers there to individuals present whose opinion will be affected. The question therefore remains. Who is witnessing? When one expresses embarrassment that their country hasn't adopted left wing ideals, who exactly is judging? Their peers? This doesn't make sense, as the person professing embarrassment clearly isn't involved, and their peers would know that.  And they would know that. Other nations? Perhaps, but considering that the Western world is largely the most 'progressive' (according to liberalism), again this makes little sense. More conservative nations (such as the rest of the world) would hardly think less. An alien civilization who is observing? Far fetched, but explains a bit more. The conscious universe? Who is this observer whose opinion has been affected is unknown, but it does reveal that there exists a sense of external consciousness, observing and judging. To feel judged, one must know the moral standard by which they are being judged. Therefore, the liberal who is embarrassed is unwittingly admitting belief in some sort of external moral framework, and someone, or something which is judging according to that framework. This ties in with the concept mentioned before of the assumed 'divine plan', or belief that existence itself has a conscious, or designed end goal. It is also further evidence that Political Correctness is indeed a religion.

Political Correctness's underlying weakness here is that assertions are made which have no basis.  Who says that left wing progressivism, or right wing progressivism is right? Where is the edict which states that we must grow economically, or continue to 'develop', or follow Marxist historical inevitability? Centuries of scientific inquiry have not revealed and planned or intended purpose, only unthinking laws. There is distinction between legitimate futures and illegitimate futures. Any future is permissible, and there is no entity outside humanity, aside from a belief in God, who has expectations as to where the human species SHOULD end up. Even Christianity as a religion is largely apolitical. Jesus did not engage in partisan politics.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” - Mathew 22:21

Jesus was concerned with the next life, with God's kingdom, NOT whether one votes Green or Nationalist or Independent. Whether nations remained as separate or distinct entities, or merged was irrelevant. One was not judged on their political convictions here on earth. Political Correctness fills that void and concerns itself with these questions, and forces a specific mode of thinking. It takes an almost 'otherworldly' revelation about what is right or wrong, and concerns itself with very earthly matters.

Conclusion

Perhaps the idea that there is no 'preferred' moral system in the universe makes people uncomfortable. The only universal moral system is the one that an individual will choose. The universe is morally indifferent, regardless of what happens to us, and doesn’t protect us from a 'wrong' decision, nor does it reward us for a 'right' one. Having faith that creation exists, with the intention of people reaching a state of living completely dignified and living comfortably provides emotional security.  Being able to assert that ones political convictions are right, not just because they believe it so, but because some form of higher authority agrees, not only gives further comfort, but gives ones beliefs greater clout.

Political Correctness, while not the only political ideology which acts as if it is derived from a higher source, is one of the most prominent ones. Cold, hard analysis shows that what PC asserts, and what it demands of us is not based on accumulated knowledge, trial and error and precedent, but bald assertions and assumptions. In place of facts, faith is substituted. Where objective and open analysis should be, close minded dogmatism exists. People who take it upon themselves to promote and enforce Political Correctness rely on others to take for granted, the very basis of the source of their beliefs. They rely on people taking at face value, the moral superiority of their ideological position, or failing that, fear of being ostracized as some kind of 'heretic', a small minded bigot working against a noble cause. The “burning at the stake” of Brendon O’Connell is just one example.

The fact remains that there is no solid basis for progressives to define what 'progress' is other than personal opinion.  There is no valid argument which states which direction civilization must head towards. There are no other successful civilizations on other planets which we can observe and make inferences from, so there is no external yard stick. Liberalism claims to hold a morality which propels humanity forward, but there is no precedent for this, no evidence that this is true.

 

In fact, if anything, Liberalism and Political Correctness is demonstratively fatal towards healthy societies. A fact which is masked with oppression of any point of view, or speech or even thought which would mention this flaw.  If it could be widespread, that the basis for Political Correctness is nothing more than opinion; no more sacrilegious than a cult; has no more authority than any individuals own personal bias; would go a long way towards removing the corruptible and oppressive influence that Political Correctness has. By simply refusing to acknowledge its largely unsupported moral basis, it loses relevance. The emperor has no clothes. Nothing more needs to be done than to simply act and speak as if this so.

The Theology of Political Correctness: Original Sin

By Gavin James

“Religion is the opiate of the masses” is probably one of Karl Marx’s most oft-quoted and misunderstood quotes. In its correct context we see a recognition of the need for people to turn to religion to ease their soul and to create comfort where none can be found. It is the way in which people find order in a chaotic world and console themselves in a belief that existence itself has considered them and catered for them. It is the cocoon against a nihilistic universe and a faith in an external awareness outside of humanity. It is a belief system which utilises people’s strongest emotional faculties and as such, has been the most effective means of binding people to those that would exploit this for their own gains and power.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. – Karl Marx

In the western world, at the beginning of the 21st century we can look back and see the decline of theocratic control in western societies. Societies which have slowly and painfully, and not without much martyrdom, discarded the imposed crutches of faith based belief systems. The western world has decided to stand up on its own two feet and confront the vast emptiness and meaningless of existence and understand it for what it is, for how it is, not as we wish it to be. However, with the decline in the power of the church, we have not necessarily seen the end of religion. New religions have emerged to fill the void. New-Ageism, various conspiratorial cults and sects, other Eastern religions and mysticism and perhaps the most prominent of all, Political Correctness. Political Correctness is a moral system which is used to shape language, thought, policies and social standards so as to minimise offence to selected minorities and support liberal/left wing ideals. Political Correctness has not emerged as the result of scientific study, nor is it based on hypothesis proved correct by rigorous testing, but rather a system formulated to fulfil a political need. It is a system of belief, based on faith. In many respects there are parallels with Political Correctness and religion. It behaves in many ways like a religion, fulfilling needs that religion feels and requiring the same mode of acceptance that religion requires. To say that Political Correctness is like a religion would be incorrect. Political Correctness IS a religion. It is quite simply a modern “secular” religion without a supernatural deity. It is the modern, decentralised Church. It is the religion which anyone can become a reverend or clergyman and therefore gain power over people. It is the school of thought which one can demand that people accept without providing evidence. It is the modern ideology which one can excommunicate people from not only the religion, but society for not making the same baseless assumptions.

To adopt the moral system which Political Correctness prescribes is to make moral decisions based on articles of faith, not fact. It is to accept the morality of the “high priests” of Political Correctness as gospel without question, or criticism. Political Correctness has its own doctrine, its own high priests, its own original sin, inquisitors and heretics. It’s faith based because it works on underlying assumptions which are made without any evidence to back them up. It defines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive and just assumes this to be true, relying on adherents having faith that this being so. It is yet another attempt to find order where none exists and create a safe cocoon where humanity has a definite destiny, where nature is accommodating and respectful rather than indifferent. Political Correctness, like many other religions, prescribes a world view where the universe and life on Earth itself, including the Human species, was tailored to accommodate wishful thinking. It gives one the impression that humanity would be in its naturally designed state of harmony and peace, if one would only follow its doctrines.

Original Sin

Genesis begins with Adam and Eve, God’s two creations in the garden of Eden. The serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent did this with little difficulty, and so according to the scriptures, man fell due to disobedience to God.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-19

The sin committed by Adam condemned future generations for all eternity to death, despite their behaviour, despite any effort they may make to remain sinless. There are no propitiations one can make to break the chain, to remove the stain of original sin. Guilt is automatic and inherited at conception, almost as if there was a gene for Original Sin. Humans are destined to go to hell and only certain actions can save one from this fiery demise. It is not enough to remain sinless. It is not enough to be just, compassionate and generous. It is not enough to have a golden heart. Only that which is prescribed by the religious doctrine can provide salvation.

The concept here is a powerful one. Firstly, widespread propagation and inculcation of these religious beliefs onto people creates masses of people who have accepted, or been forced to accept a belief that they are going to face an unimaginable outcome upon death. There will be masses of people will wish to avoid this fate. Secondly, you and only you can offer the way out.

A person cannot extricate from this situation, as they are stained from birth. They have no choice in the matter, no means by which to avoid carrying original sin. This is the moral equivalent of creating indentured servants who inherit a moral debt from birth. A debt of infinite quantity which can never be paid off. The church acts as the intermediary between the debtor and creditor and thus enjoys the position of power. While the Christian doctrine of Original Sin refers to man sinning against God and not to other men, many have taken upon themselves to act as debt collectors on behalf of God. The moral debt at birth enslaves individuals to another who can utilise this belief system for their own benefit.

The benefit of spreading such a belief is too obvious to require restating. Financial debts can be paid off, freeing the debtor from the creditor when the debt is settled. Their descendants are also free from this debt as it no longer exists. Original Sin provides no such escape. There is no way to escape the creditor, as the debt created from Adam’s sin cannot be repaid. The terms of repayment are permanent and will be inherited by every generation. Generation after generation therefore believes they are born with this sin, an article of faith. The theocracy can then claim to offer the only means of salvation. The question of whether it is moral for someone to inherit the ’sin’ of their ancestors cannot be questioned, as that would be heresy.

White Guilt

The term “Original Sin” refers to the very first transgression of humans against God’s will. While the term refers quite specifically to the first sin, and to a tendency for man to commit sin due to the fall, the power in this concept lies in its perpetual nature. Original Sin is a stain in the bloodline. Original Sin doesn’t have to actually exist to hold power over people, nor does it need to be pre-dated by a period of absolute innocence. The very fact that one believes the stain of sin from the ancestors in sufficient.

White guilt quite simply is the guilt felt by Westerners of Anglo Saxon and European heritage of mistreatment of other ethnic groups by Whites (though rarely mistreatment of one White ethnic group of another White ethnic group). People either feel this guilt voluntarily, from learning about past events they believe are unjust and feeling a sense of compassion and empathy towards the victims, or have White guilt thrust upon them, by being indoctrinated into accepting that ‘Whites’ (generally) have oppressed non-whites or other minorities. For the former example, those who come to this conclusion of their own volition, many seek atonement and desire for White people, as a whole, to make any reconciliatory measures necessary. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that like all the Christians who took on the guilt of Adam and Eve for their transgression against God, no one who feels White guilt actually personally committed any transgression. Exceptions are rare. The relationship between ‘White guilt’ and Political Correctness is strikingly similar to the relationship between ‘Original Sin’ and the theocracies of old. Political Correctness has exploited this for similar nefarious purposes. It promotes this idea as a means of creating further indentured servants. White people who have adopted the “debt” of their ancestors sins, are willing to make any repayments necessary to those who were wronged with the Politically Correct “priests” as the debt collectors. The debt is repaid through servitude, and adopting the morality that Liberalism requires you to adopt.

For an ideology which exposes the idea of treating people according to their individual deeds and character, rather than the race they were born into, ‘White guilt’ is a striking exception to this rule that provides the religion of Political Correctness much power. Like Original Sin, where one cannot choose not to be human born into a fallen state, one cannot choose not to be born of a particular ethnicity. For the average White Australian, who had no choice as to what ethnicity they were born, they are automatically burdened with the “dreadful” sin of colonisation and apparent subjugation of the Aboriginal people. Despite the fact that they have committed no crime themselves, they become indentured servants to Political Correctness. This involves a leap of fair. However, one must first accept the moral position that one can even be responsible for wrongs committed in the past. To question this, just like questioning the doctrine of original sin, is heresy. What’s more, Political Correctness doesn’t focus on the individual acting benevolently and compassionately towards Aboriginal people, but rather demands that the individual follow Political Correctness and accept wholeheartedly and blindly any Politically Correct doctrine. The Politically Correct theocracy, the intellectuals, politicians and other self styled leaders who claim to represent this religion of justice, tolerance and harmony demand first and foremost, obedience to their own doctrine and their own edicts.

People who resist the call to feel guilty and subjugate themselves to the wishes of Liberalism and left wing Political Correctness incorrectly focus on the nature of the so-called crimes. Much effort is made to try and diminish the severity of the nature of the historical events in question, or to justify it. Some may even argue that Aboriginals are better off post colonisation or that Africans who were brought as slaves into the New World are also better off, live better lives now than they would have, had their ancestors not have been brought over. Others try to play down the Jewish Holocaust, revise other events or generally defuse left wing or anti-Nationalist accusations by trying to prove them untrue, or at the very least, exaggerated. These attempts are nothing more than attempts to destroy the “Original Sin” of white guilt by challenging the sin itself. The so – called ‘racist crimes’ which supposedly only White people should be guilty of, have in reality been committed all over the world by all manner of races and creeds throughout all history. One can argue as to whether certain events were wrong or not, and perhaps in some cases doubt can really be cast on whether a true crime against others had taken place, but again, this is beside the point. Such atrocities are a hallmark of human behaviour rather than one particular group, but this point is irrelevant anyway. What many fail to realise, is that it is not the crimes (committed universally) which matter, but whether it is moral to suggest that someone who never engaged in such activity, should carry any guilt in the first place. What the opponents of Political Correctness fail to realise, is that we are not dealing with a moral system objectively derived from evidence and historical precendent, but a moral system based on faith. One must accept without reason that one can be guilty of “the crimes of the father” in the first place. While the basis for Original Sin can be found in the New Testament, the Old Testament says something to the contrary.

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.—Ezekiel. 18:19-20

This statement is the more moral one and lies closer to the heart of Western ideals. There is no basis in which to make descendants guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, or supposed crimes. The arguments over the nature of what occurred and who transgressed who, and by what quantity is irrelevant. Consider the events which led to the so-called Aboriginal ’stolen generation just or unjust, necessary or unnecessary, but whatever the conclusion the burden or lack thereof of moral indebtedness does not lie with those whose only connection with the people involved is bloodline. The real issue is whether it is moral to even suggest that one should feel guilty simple because they are Westerners, or White or Anglo-Saxon. To accept that people, simply because of their ethnicity, inherit non-hereditary and non-transferable aspects of previous generations, is in a way racist in itself! The call for Westerners to obey and subscribe to certain ideologies because of the ‘guilt’ or moral indebtedness they carry, is simply a call for faithful obedience. It simply empowers certain people by stupefying others. Ironically, it is obedience to a religion which seeks to destroy the very people who become its adherents. Quite simply, Political Correctness is a religion which demands that people, because of the identity they inherited, destroy their own identity.

The way to break these shackles is to simply recognise the Politically Correct racket for what it really is; a racket. A means of creating ‘moral debt’ by immorally demanding and tricking people into believing they share some guilt. It is tried and true huckster-ism, and because there is no ‘God’ figure, it is not recognised as a crooked religion which was designed to give the few power over the many.

The Hidden Side of Skilled Migration and the Student Visa Scam

Part I of Nationalist Alternative’s Migration Series –

The Hidden Side of Skilled Migration and the Student Visa Scam


By Carla O’Hara

Nationalist Alternative explores the link between Australia’s unemployment rate and the current skilled immigration intake, as the driving force for economic salvation and damnation, with no regard for the social impacts.

It is often represented to the public that Australia’s migration program stimulates the economy, and as such we are informed that Australia is in a “skills shortage” and that to overcome this workforce shortage, we must ensure a high rate of immigration. This article focuses on debunking the skilled component of the migration program.

Econtech, a subsidiary of global corporate KPMG, provides business and government advisory services based on economic modelling. They published a report in 2005 (on behalf of the Australian Federal Government), which claimed that the NSW Government would stand to benefit most from migration. The report claimed that the NSW economy would grow by $60 billion a year and each citizen, $703 a year better off by 2022, according to their economic model. The report states that NSW alone would gain an extra 744,000 people which would create 512,000 jobs. The report also suggested that migrants are on average younger than Australian residents and therefore have longer working lives, and would offset issues associated with Australia’s ageing population.

Another report published by Econtech in 2006, makes clear that the standard of living decreases with an increase in immigration, but claims that the standard of living improves after 12 years based on the concept of a share in the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. This implies that as the labour force in Australia increases, so does the GDP. While the Econtech report states that certain resources are in fixed supply such as water, and should be taken into consideration into the model, it is quite clear that the model fails to acknowledge non financial aspects to population growth.

“The main focus of research, are on the economic effects of migration, i.e., the effects on the supply of labour or human wealth.”

Simply put, the report fails to take into account non economic social impacts of large scale migration such as social cohesion, increased traffic, urban congestion, pollution, the economic impact of water and other scarce environmental resources and a decrease in available recreational areas. Noting that the report makes clear it only uses fiscal variables in its migration model, it is even more damning that the first 12 years of high volume high skilled migration creates a decade long decrease in the average wealth of Australian citizens. It becomes clear that those benefiting from high levels of migration most are the Australian Government Taxation Department and Land Developers rather than the Australian public.

This makes Australians bear costs (additional financial and non financial) which are involved with bringing in overseas employment to employers.  While certain industries may stand to financially benefit from such immigration, the cost is socialised and borne by unrelated parties.  The economic and social impacts which are overlooked in this report result are the costly infrastructure upgrades, including construction of desalination plants and upgrades to major traffic thoroughfares.  Despite these factors, voters have little recourse to change government policy significantly on such issues.

The report by Econtech suggests that the Government’s focus on skilled migration ahead of humanitarian and family migrants would also help raise the nation’s skill levels, and recommends increasing skilled migration by 50%.

“The average skill for migrants in total under the current migration intake is higher than the average skill level for existing residents. This means that by 2021-22 the migration intake will cause a steady rise in average skill level of the Australian workforce.”

Yet, the evidence of skilled migration and increasing the skill level in Australia is quite the contrary.
There are two types of migrants capable of coming to Australia under the skilled migration program discussed in this article. The first is the 457 guest worker visa, while the second is the skilled migrant visa for the tertiary educated or trade certified, either sponsored or non sponsored.

The 457 subclass skilled migration VISA

Contrary to the belief that skilled migration increases the skill level of the workforce, the 457 guest worker scheme facilitates a lowering of the living standards and working conditions of Australian workers. Since the inception of temporary visas, cheap foreign workers have been preferentially employed as a type of slave labour.

In May 2009, Tieman industries in Reservoir, Victoria sacked long term employees in favour of 457 Visa holders. Australian Manufacturers Workers Union organiser Tony Mavromatis claimed;

“The company is pushing out people who gave up to 18 years of service in favour of guest workers who only started 18 months ago.”

When asked why the company would prefer newly arrived foreign workers over locals, Mr Mavromatis stated;

“They shut up, do what they are told or they will be on the first plane out.”

In 2008, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union secretary John Sutton said there had been ”widespread exploitation” of 457 visa workers.


While, in 2007, an expert on 457 skilled migrant visas and former public servant, Bob Kinnaird, of R.T. Kinnaird and Associates, said the 457 guest worker scheme had set up a “race to the bottom in working conditions”,

“the dangerous aspect of the 457 visa is that people from low-wage countries, even if they are being underpaid by Australian standards, are still earning more than at home, so they will be tempted to put up with anything to stay here,” he said.

In 2006, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union South Australian secretary Graham Smith said;

“We told the Minister in very clear terms our concerns in relation to the 457 foreign worker visas. We explained that the visas were being taken advantage of by some unscrupulous employers to bring in cheap labour from overseas, denying careers to locals.”

For perspective, the Immigration Department has only 65 case officers to police more than 100,000 visa holders living across Australia.


The Skilled 457 VISA minimum wage has been increased as is now set at $43,500 pa which is higher than minimum award wages. So, there are other factors which make visa holders more desirable in the workforce than simply economics. In particular 457 workers are preferred as a means of breaking a particular workplace culture, and using non-unionised labour.

International Student Permanent Residency 

The 457 subclass Temporary Working Visa is only part of the problem with the skilled migration program. The jack-in-the-box is Australia’s third largest export; Higher Education, which is now estimated to be worth $15 billion annually. Many migrants come to Australia under the guise of obtaining a tertiary degree for the sole aim of securing Permanent Residency. To an international student in Australia, “PR” is a glittering prize of a new life in a new country.

Professor Paul Rodan, the Director from Melbourne-based Central Queensland University International Education Research Centre said that many overseas students came from such dire circumstances that the overwhelming motivation was to secure permanent residency.

“For some, it is vital to secure work and send money back home to their families. It’s no condemnation to observe that desperate people will often ‘do whatever it takes. Indeed, it may not be over-dramatic to describe a small element of the international numbers as de-facto economic refugees.”

In 2007 there were 455 000 enrolments by international students at educational institutions across Australia, including 5000 funded under Australian Government scholarships. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not include the number of International students who have gained PR; however, it was noted that in 2005–06, 77% of the 180,000 Permanent Residents entered through the migration program, presumably the other 23% are former overseas students. The foreign student PR figures are in addition to the Government’s annual migration intake figures.

The problem is compounded when some of the foreign graduates come from what industry observers describe as false flag “visa factories”.

A private college owner or a migration agent (either registered, suspended or unregistered) acting on behalf of a college owner takes money from a student for fake certificates showing the student attended classes and passed courses, when the student rarely if ever turned up. The migration agent will supply bogus work experience documents via suburban employers who also get a cut.

Since 2001 the number of private colleges has risen from 664 to 4892. Industry insiders suggest Australia is nothing but a Visa mill, as comparable countries don’t offer residency at the end of their tertiary qualifications.
While universities and TAFEs pay about 25 per cent commission on first semester fees, equivalent to about $1200-$1500 per student, private institutes will pay up to 30 per cent of the entire course fee, providing a clear financial incentive for immigration agents to channel students to private colleges, even into courses in which International students have no interest.

Karl Konrad, a former Victorian police officer, said a trade in fraudulent documents had evolved with employers and agents selling students verification they had completed their 900 hours. One university-educated overseas student spent $22,000 and two years doing a hairdressing course she will never use, just to secure her residency. She did her 900 hours work experience in a salon closely linked to the college, where students are required to pay a $1000 non-refundable bond to use the equipment.
Foreign students pay the owner for the paperwork, and because they want to stay here, they will do anything, including 900 hours free labour.

One has to wonder what benefits there are to the skilled migration program, when the skills attained by foreign students in skills shortage industries are manipulated purely for Australian residency. It is well known to Industry insiders that every time a new critical skills list comes out, education providers start introducing those courses. And despite the successful business model of high turnover rates of foreign fee paying students for the tertiary institutes, Central Queensland University, who heavily depended on the backdoor visa program, forecasts cash for general operations to be overdrawn by almost $5 million by the end of the 2011 financial year.

The decline after record growth in overseas student numbers in the 2007 and 2008 financial years, was a change in the Federal Government rules, where International students could get permanent residency more quickly and cheaply through vocational roles and private colleges, rather than public Tertiary Institutes, and high commission fees to immigration agents for private colleges.


Skilled migration and its effect on the job market


Australia’s reliance on skilled migration in any form, whether it be the 457 Visa, Permanent Residency via foreign students or the skilled migrant Visa, all facilitate a decrease in the average job competency level of the local Australian market, whilst putting unnecessary pressure on services and infrastructure.
Skilled guest workers are not necessarily competing with unskilled workers, but Australian workers who have invested in their education and skills in order to obtain a higher salary.  Skilled positions requiring tertiary education have often attracted higher salaries, which not only made education worthwhile, but also provided an incentive for skilled citizens to remain in Australia.  The erosion of these wages to below the national average is leading to many skilled and educated Australians, facing increasing housing and living costs, leaving for higher salaries abroad.  This creates a ‘brain drain’ which ironically exacerbates any ’skills crisis’.
Skilled migration also creates an employer market where Australians without skills or in the midst of developing their skills, will be over looked by already skilled (degree or trade certification holding) migrants through the business sponsored skilled migration program. What this implies is that as the job market becomes tighter, employers will look for workers who have the skills they need, rather than paying for the time required to up-skill workers. Effectively, we will say goodbye to “on the job training” and white collar mentor programs. It also suggests that International students who gain Permanent Residency from third world conditions, will generate a race to the bottom in working conditions (as seen by the “slave trade” of International students needing their 900 hours for course completion).
Dr Bob Birrell from Monash University’s Centre for Population Research believes that there is too high a dependence on overseas skilled migration, for the reasons as outlined above.

“We’re not training enough of our own people, and given that there are about half of young people in Australia in their twenties don’t have any post-school education qualifications at all I think we’ve got a great deal to do amongst our own people. And this reliance on overseas skills is excessive.”

“Some 29,000 professionals, that’s equivalent to about two and a half per cent of the stock of employed professionals in Australia. That’s a very large increment in just one year. Of the order of a third of the growth in our skilled workforce is now coming from overseas sources each year.”

A report published in 2008 by Dr Birrell and Lesleyanne Hawthorne titled “Immigrants and the Professionals” raised a number of questions about Australia’s current immigration policies. One issue of concern raised in the report was that Australia might “be scraping the bottom of the barrel” in regards to taking skilled migrants regardless if those skills are what are needed in Australia.

Currently, the skilled migration program is a points based system with a large list of so called ‘skilled shortage professions’ rather than a system designed to fill actual skills shortages in the workforce. For example, there are a lot of visa points attached to cookery, hairdressing or hospitality management, and there are also no requirements of skilled migrants once in Australia to be employed in the field in which they claimed to have studied. This has been empirically observed with the International Student phenomena. This ‘laissez-faire’ policy can cause a glut in white collar occupations for semi-qualified commercial roles, when skilled migrants abandon their skilled profession once in Australia, or post course completion.

The report by Dr Birrells and Lesleyanne Hawthorns states:

“This point can be illustrated through the fields of mechanical engineering and computing. Australia accepted an additional 3,719 mechanical engineers between 1986-1991, yet according to the respective Census counts in 1986 and 1991 there was a reduction in the number of all persons employed as professional mechanical engineers from 11,706 to 6,773. The inevitable consequence was acute unemployment amongst recent arrivals.”

Even in 1991 it was clear from the statistics that skilled migration to a “critical skills shortage industry”, did not translate to higher employment in that field.

However, even with the obvious short comings in the skilled migration program, and the economic forecast models, the Federal Government in the 2008-2009 budget increased the number of skilled migrants by 31,000 entrants based on the advice of business lobby groups including Econtech. This figure is an increase in 30% of 2007 figures. The Family stream increased by 6500 places to 56,500.

The total migrant intake for the year was set to a total 190,000; composed of 133,500 skilled migrants, which did not include the International students who gained Permanent Residency, which in 2007 is estimated at 50,000.


Government budget cuts

In January 2009, Australia’s intake of skilled workers was cut by 18,500 in order to prevent what the Government described as “an oversupply of labour” and ease the jobless rate during the economic down turn. It was the first cut to the skilled migration program for more than ten years and reduced skilled migrant numbers from 133,500 to 115,000.

The cuts made to the skilled migration intake were sold to the Australian public as a means to increase job security; however, no cut was made to the skilled migration program in 2009 at all, rather, there was still an overall ‘net’ increase in skilled migration of 12,500, or a total migrant intake of 160,000.
To put these figures in context, the current jobless rate reported for June 2009 was 5.8 per cent, (its highest level since August 2003), which equates to over 20,000 people to have lost their jobs in the month of June alone.

ICAP senior economist Adam Carr said the unemployment rate is reflected by the number of people looking for work (the participation rate) and the number of job vacancies.

“The reality is that the unemployment rate is higher because the participation rate rose and that means there are more people looking for jobs and there are less jobs available.” said Mr Carr.

What is also of great concern, is that during an economic downturn, younger migrants will be preferentially employed over older local experienced workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the U.S, workers aged 45 and over form a disproportionate share of the long-term unemployed or out of work for six months or longer.  On average, laid-off workers aged 45 and over were out of work 22.2 weeks in 2008, compared with 16.2 weeks for younger workers.

Tim Toohey, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs JBWere, said he expected unemployment to reach 7.5 per cent by December before peaking at 7.8 per cent in early 2010, while the Federal Government is warning of more job loses to come, with an estimated unemployment rate of 8.25 per cent by the middle of 2010.

“We are seeing the number of job seekers increase at a pretty rapid rate. That’s largely a function of the strength in the population growth rate which is being driven, in part, by migrants,” said Mr Toohey.

The Econtech report clearly states that migrants are the cause of high participation rates.

“Extra skilled migration intake lifts participation rates and this is due to differences in the age-gender mixes of the migrants versus the existing population.”

The skilled migration program does not benefit Australians during an economic downturn, nor does skilled migration increase the overall job skills of the local market, or improve the standard of living. The evidence points to the contrary, between the 457 cheap labour, International students working for nothing, the backdoor residency of International students blowing out skilled migration intake numbers by 30%, and the preferential employment of younger already skilled workers leaves the average local Australian high and dry.

Even the Econtech report which goes so far as to suggest a 50% increase in skilled migration, does not take into account non fiscal factors into its economic model, an economic model which also confirms that Australian’s would be financially worse off in the first 10 years of such high levels of immigration.
Monash University Demographer Dr Birrell, when asked about the Government’s $42 billion economic stimulus package said;

”If the migration program is not cut sharply, the growth in migrant job-seekers will exceed the number of jobs the plan proposes to protect.”

Dr Birrell is correct, Australia needs to completely rethink its skilled migration program, starting with significant cuts and true reporting of our annual migration intake.


References

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25784268-601,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25782678-12332,00.html
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/Econtech_Comparison_Report.pdf
http://www.theage.com.au/national/foreign-students-slave-trade-20090714-dk6d.html
http://www.migrationnews.com/index.cfm/Australia/Home

Yellow Polka Dot Burkini

By Michael Kennedy

Controversy regarding Muslim dress standards has again arisen in Europe. With Europe’s significant and growing Muslim population, we could probably expect this issue to become more and more prevalent.

In a similar vein to the proposal to ban head-scarves in France, Gianluca Buonanno, the mayor of Varallo Sesia has banned the burkini, a ‘cover-all’ swimsuit which allows strict Muslims to bathe while keeping the rather strict standards of modesty, that their interpretation of this religion requires.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25955595-5014090,00.html

As predictable as always, such an issue has caught the attention of both the Politically Correct liberal left, ever keen to display their tolerance to the world, and others who see this as minorities encroaching on their freedoms. Gianluca Buonanno states

“We don’t have to be tolerant all the time, imagine a Western woman bathing in a bikini in a Muslim country. The consequences could be decapitation, prison or deportation. We are merely prohibiting the use of the burkini.”

For many commenters on the news.com.au site, their comments reflect this sentiment. A double standard? Are we in the West overly tolerant? The PC brigade has little to say on the issue. They largely state that a woman should be free to wear what they like. They are actually right, in a superficial sense. In the Western world, we have come a long way since ‘cover-all’ swimwear was required, though strict remnants remain, such as the Amish; a historical curiosity to the Western world, rather than an emerging phenomenon.

Theocracy is not part of the governmental process, with the modern Western world slowly following the example of the USA, a new nation created specifically keeping the oppressive Christian churches separate from the state and keeping their power under control and one that does not define the nation.

Now women are free to choose their clothing, as to what suits them best, and what is most comfortable. Perhaps the women walking around Friday nights in stilettos and short skirts during blustery winter weather have not made the most intelligent choice, but the choice nevertheless is there. Much in the same way political activists may want to freely adopt the ‘black block’ look because they desire to remain anonymous. There is no religious or cultural requirement to cover up excessively, to wear clothing which has no room to breath or ventilation in hot days or to hides one visage. One is free to choose appropriate attire in public, free from having to bend to irrational superstitions, religion and the wishes of theocrats. Granted one cannot choose to wear nothing, or clothing functionally close to nothing, nevertheless, the freedom is there.

The superficial similarities of the burkini to those worn by divers and the Australian Olympic swimming team are also pointed out, often as a rather desperate means of normalising the burkini and make one believe that it is really no different. However one would then have to ignore the vast difference in being able to choose cover-all swimwear for practicality, and one being used because no other is permitted. The issue is further complicated by Muslims who do not believe the religion forces such clothing requirements and that a ban on the burkini is a direct attack on Islam in general.

The dress requirements are debatable as the Koran does not specifically prescribe any particular garments, though does command:

“They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary.” (verse 31 of sura 24).

It’s interpretation is open to abuse, something common to all religions. The interpretation however reflects the morality of the people, perhaps even more than morality is a reflection of the teachings of the Koran, with people taking from holy texts that which supports their moral world-view, and ignoring that which doesn’t. A corollary can be seen with various Christian denominations, with various denominations using a pre-existing moral compass to determine which scriptures to accept, which to reject, and how to interpret that which is open to subjective interpretation. The stricter Islamic denominations would be influenced more by an existing cultural view, than the Koran itself. As with all three of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, the religious teachings and cultural adaptation of them are intertwined and inseperable.

Our western values respects individual choice on what clothes they wear, a choice which is made by and large, free from theocracy, from cultural coercion and from potential retribution. This is in stark contrast to some of the more extreme Muslim nations, where such expressions of freedom would involve corporal punishment, or even worse.

However, the multiculturalists preaching tolerance are missing one vital point. Do many of the women who wear the burkini, or the burqa really HAVE A CHOICE?? While they might mention correctly, that women are free to choose appropriate clothing, the statement completely overlooks the important point, that these women aren’t necessarily free to exercise such choice! There are some Muslim women, who through respect for their religion, culture and relatives, might choose to wear such clothing, such as the hijab though they could prefer not to. But this wouldn’t represent all Muslim women. It certainly wouldn’t be representative of women living under strict Muslim theocracies, who must wear body covering clothing revealing only the eyes, under threat of corporal punishment for disobeying this edict. Does a woman who walks the streets of Melbourne or Sydney in a ‘black ninja outfit’ also have this choice? Is she free to wake up on a warm balmy morning and think “Sod it, it’s a warm day today, I think I will wear shorts and a T-Shirt”. Is she free to decide to walk around in public, and allow people to see her face, to see her facial expressions, her distress, joy or troubles? Is she really free to make a decision to enjoy the cool breezes at the end of a warm day, and make true face to face contact with people outside of her house? Not only this, the clothing must impede movement and make certain physical activities more troublesome. There is much debate amongst Muslims as to whether such clothing is necessary, with a large number believing it unnecessary.

Our laws don’t prohibit this, but are we really supposed to believe that her husband or father or other male relatives would be perfectly OK with this? Are we supposed to believe that religious upbringing and inculcation of beliefs doesn’t result in coercion? Instead, it’s made out as if this is purely free choice, made without coercion, without indoctrination, made rationally and for the benefit of the individual making the decision. We are led to believe that we are oppressive, in taking freedom away by banning clothing which has become symbolic of oppression of women. Some liberals will even try to argue there are no “Australian” or “Western” values. A position of such stupendous ignorance, that it is almost impossible to conceive how one could entertain such beliefs without being completely oblivious of British and European history.

For those who seek to fight any perceived ‘racism’ to fuel their own moral righteousness, in order to promote their belaboured viewpoint, twist this issue into one of a woman’s ‘right’ to wear the burkini, thereby distorting the issue at hand, from one of allowing foreign and oppressive cultures in which to practice ideals contrary to western ideals within our nation. They, by sleight of hand, turn it into the WEST imposing dress standards on others. This trickery makes those who oppose misogynistic practices appear to be the ‘bigots’! The real issue is far from this. However many have not recognised this, and even Mr Buonanno uses the simplistic double standard argument, though perhaps he framed his argument in a manner which might be more acceptable to liberalism.

The Politically Correct Heirarchy

The fact that the Burqa which is a visible representation of Islamic control of women is neglected, is quite telling. In the religious doctrine of leftist Political Correctness, there is a distinct hierarchy. As they often have values which contradict each other, there is need of a hierarchy where some leftist causes take precedence over others. This way when two leftist causes contradict, they just support the one higher up on the hierarchy. For instance, the “ethnic discrimination” cause trumps both “sexism” and “environmentalism”. So where a conflict of interest arises, such as the environmental damage done to Australia due to rapid population growth, the “left wing” simply consult their hierarchy and determine that their environmental causes must be ignored if the solution involves something they would jump on as ‘racist’, (such as a sensible immigration policy). In this simplistic view ‘ethnicity’ and ‘religion’ are one and the same.

In this instance, ‘religious tolerance’ overrides ‘feminism’, as it’s higher on the hierarchy, therefore ‘tolerating’ the importation of misogynistic practices trumps women’s rights. The rights of the women to enjoy the freedom that Western culture brings and liberation from irrational beliefs and theocracy don’t rate highly enough. The ‘tolerance’ card trumps them, so quite ironically, we are asked to tolerate and condone behaviour which is contrary to our values. Worse still, we are supposed to accept this as part of our culture and nation. Should Australia decide to implement anti-blasphemy laws such as those the UN is proposing, it would make it law to tolerate practices.[1] This non-binding resolution titled “Combating the Defamation of Religion” was designed to address speech which criticises religion. However religious groups wish to make this a binding resolution. It seeks to combat defamation of religion and incitement to hatred, however defamation laws are often misused and can be used as a form of protection. It further undermines free speech by making legitimate concerns and observations punishable.

Tolerance isn’t always a virtue.

Appeasing to Political Correctness breeds failure

Mr Buonanno’s comments didn’t address these issues, but rather seemed more like a low rent justification appearing to make a point against the Burkini, and therefore Islam, without addressing the real issue head on. Mr Buonanno says

“The sight of a ‘masked woman’ could disturb small children, not to mention problems of hygiene”.

Perhaps this is true, but it doesn’t address the inevitable cultural regression that would occur in ‘tolerating’ cultural practices which contradict ours. The fact children could be scared sounds like some kind of weak mask for a different underlying motivation. It would be more honest to simply state there is a conflict between Islamic and Western values, and that being a European nation, by default the Western values should triumph. Perhaps to take such a position is to be too politically incorrect, as it would be too exclusive, too Eurocentric. But this watered down position is logically untenable. Perhaps this is what Mr Buonanno really believes, but it is clear that attempts to avoid being politically incorrect can make ones position logically weak, by not stating the real, underlying issues.

The Nationalist Alternative Position

It is not necessarily minorities who ‘impose’ their beliefs on we westerners which causes this division, but the tolerance of many of the vocal liberal minority who allow this assault on our culture and silence those who object. While many, including the media, will frame the argument as one of whether a women should be ‘allowed’ to wear these clothes, this is completely beside the point. The danger here comes from endorsing the establishment and propagation of cultural and religious practices which are clearly contrary to those which make Australia, the rest of the Anglo-sphere and Europe enviable societies. Countries which ironically, many followers of Islam want to move to!

Women are not necessarily free to wear the Burqa/Burkini or not, they have little choice and it’s a requirement based on ungrounded centuries old beliefs. It certainty wouldn’t be true that every case of a women wearing a Burqa in a western nation is purely of free will with no coercion or indoctrination involved. To frame the argument as one of ‘choice’ is dishonest and misleading. The real issue is not the dress, but the acceptance of a greater diversity of unenlightened religious practices into our society. To accept this as part of our nation is to accept this as part of a modern western country, something that Australians, as well as the rest of Europe and European built nations must consider carefully. Such double standards, where one culture within our nation is somehow exempt from the cultural norms of the rest of the nation can only lead to division and conflict and a degradation of our cultural conventions.

There is also the double standard of people being allowed to wear in certain places concealing clothing because of their religion, which other people from a different religion or ethnic group, would not be allowed to wear in such places. It also completely goes against one of the main tenets of western thought and western society, the idea that one law, and one law only, applies to all citizens.

[1] http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5