DISARMING THE POPULATION

Last week a man deliberately drove his car over policemen near Geelong, Victoria, killing one policeman and seriously wounding another. Almost every day there are cases of irresponsible motorists either killing themselves or killing other people. Does this provide a good reason for banning all cars, or only making them available to a select few who can argue they need them? We pose this question because of the orchestrated campaign to deprive the majority of people from owning firearms following the recent tragic shooting of innocent people in Hoddle Street, Melbourne.

The Socialists, aided by well meaning liberals, have always been in the forefront of the campaign to deprive the individual, who so desires, to own some type of firearm. In today's world, only people with firearms have any chance of protecting themselves against the threat of open dictatorship. C.H. Douglas observed that he had, as a consulting engineer, worked on the fringes, of Civilisation, where men wore guns and occasionally used them. Douglas observed that the social atmosphere was much healthier in these areas than in the Big Cities of the world. The British police were for a long period able to operate satisfactorily without carrying guns. But that was because they worked in a very different type of society, one in which there was general respect for law and order, where individuals respected one another. But this is no longer the case. Neither is it the case in Australia, where violence of every kind is on the increase.

It is as certain as the sunrise that the disarming of the honest, law abiding members of society, will not deprive the violent criminal of guns. As recently demonstrated in Melbourne's Pentridge Prison, homemade firearms are relatively easy to make. The point cannot be stressed too often, that guns do not murder people. People are murdered by other people, often with knives, axes or other blunt instruments. Clearly the person, who aimlessly shoots other people is a psychopath. And so is the person who deliberately uses a car to kill people.

Modern societies are producing an increasing number of psychopaths, primarily because of the type of policies being imposed upon society. Placing police on city trains may help to deter the wave of defacement by young people. But this does not deal with the cause of why so many young are in open revolt. Could it be that growing youth violence and defacement of trains and other property is the result of "progressive" education, a breakdown of proper discipline and what appears to be a hopeless future? A large number of the young committing suicide do not kill themselves with guns. Some manage to hang themselves. "Rope control" hardly seems a sensible and constructive policy.

Before Australians get carried away with the campaign for virtually depriving the individual of the right to own firearms, they might consider Switzerland, where practically every household is required to have a weapon and ammunition as part of the nation's defence system. Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of murder with guns of any country in the world. It has one of the lowest incidences of all types of violent crime. The reason is that Switzerland has fewer psychopaths. Taxation is relatively low, along with interest rates and inflation. There is no Big Government. There is no nonsense about "discrimination". But equally, if not more important, the Swiss have a constitution that permits them to have a direct say by referendum on all contentious issues. This helps to remove the frustrations so obvious in today's Australia.

Rather belatedly, the Opposition parties are starting to call for a referendum on the ID Card issue. They have taken one small step towards endorsing the Swiss system, even though many Opposition members still oppose it. They are at one with Fabian Socialist Bob Hawke, who says he does not believe in government by referendum. The call for stricter gun laws has got nothing to do with curbing the criminal element in society. It is a manifestation of the totalitarian programme of increasingly more severe restrictions on the individual.

HOWARD GETS THE 'RACIST' SMEAR

"The Opposition Leader, Mr. Howard, today rejected claims that his criticism of a proposed compact or treaty with Aboriginal people was racist." - The Herald (Melbourne), September 11th.

The Head of the Aboriginal Affairs Department, Charles Perkins, had accused John Howard of "being to the right of Genghis Khan". Yes, it is quite O.K. for Charles Perkins, a coloured white, and a senior public servant, to make a bold political criticism about a senior politician; but not a white Australian public servant. The majority of senior public servants would quickly find themselves in strife if they sounded off as Charles Perkins does.

We viewed Mr. Hawke making excuses for Charles Perkins on weekend T.V. (just passed). A Hawke, dripping with sympathy, could well understand "Charles" intense involvement and commitment to the Aboriginal cause, etc. No, John Howard is not being "racist" with his criticism of a treaty, or compact (whatever that means) with the Aborigines; he is being realistic. We agree with Sir Joh, in Queensland, that the treaty or Makarrata concept is a political minefield that could blow the involved parties sky high. Hawke is being intentionally vague on the subject; perhaps he is trying to hose down the "aboriginal" -militants before the Bi-Centenary celebrations next year.

Both John Howard and Robert Hawke appear to appreciate that a Makarrata could have international repercussions, in that such would have recognition in international law. No one understands the whole Aboriginal question better than Peter English, whose authoritative book - "Land Rights/Birth Rights", is now available from all League bookshops ($17.50 posted). On the Makarrata, Peter English writes: "The point that cannot be overlooked is that if any belated Treaty such as the proposed "Makarrata" were legally feasible, it could only be seen to be valid and binding if signed by the incumbent Prime Minister of the day and those representatives of whatever few remaining tribal groups it would still be possible to identify as bona fide Aborigines".

Peter English goes on to say: "…the question left unanswered by those responsible for such a nebulous proposal as the 'Makaratta' is how can the Federal Government, as the duly elected representative of the Australian Nation, enter into any bilateral Treaty of Commitment with another Nation within its own borders, which did not in the past and does not in the present, exist?"

Brother Hawke would be very well advised to tread warily on this vague "compact", "treaty", or whatever name he chooses to give it. We can expect that any politician who even cautions on the above will be branded "racist", but politicians should not be diverted from the truth because of threatened intimidation. There's nothing like sticking to the truth, and the truth is that we should be as fair as possible to our Aborigines, but that the "Two Australias" concept is a deadly hoax.

AGAIN, THE CARD

"Promises of safeguards (for the Australia Card) for privacy and civil liberties are meaningless, as the body against which safeguards are most needed is the Government itself, and by definition, government will possess the information which the system inevitably makes available." - Professor Geoffrey Walker, writing in Queensland Law Society Journal (June 1986).

John Laws, the multi-millionaire Sydney radio talkback merchant writes in the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney, 13/9) that the Australia Card is all but dead and buried. He is still for it, provisionally. Well, we are not so sure: we expect Hawke to dig in on this one, to the bitter end and the longer it goes on, the more bitter will the end be. We have always believed that Brother Hawke is under international pressure on the Australia Card, and we still believe this. The pollies and their media hacks talk much about "hysteria" and "disinformation" but they won't be pinned down, clause by clause of the Bill: don't let them wriggle off the hook by using vague generalities. Clauses 90 and 189 are clear that the Card is to be expanded and extended. What we have is just the beginning and that's hideous enough. Finally, we notice that Brother Paul Keating is saying precious little about the Card. We think Brother Keating has his eye on the Big Seat.

BRIEF COMMENTS

One of Australia's new breed of Trade Union official, argued at last week's ACTU Congress that if the Trade Unions rejected outright the ID card, they would not have enough bargaining strength to defend civil liberties when the card was introduced. Mr. Crean also further displayed his totalitarian philosophy when he said that the trade union movement had to balance the rights of individuals against the overall interests in society. Society is in fact an association of individuals and the interests of society cannot be divorced from those of individuals.

It was encouraging to see that the First Fleet received a most enthusiastic welcome when it reached Cape Town, South Africa. Such is the pathological hatred against South Africa by the Hawke Government that it suggested that the First Fleet should not call at South Africa, thus attempting to blot history out.

Those who watched the demonstration for "land rights" - "now" - in Melbourne last Friday wondered why large numbers of the demonstrators looked to be more European than Aboriginal. Needless to say, the media did not comment on this fact.

Attempts by Members of the Opposition to obtain a visa for Mr. Eric Butler to make a proposed visit to South Africa in November, have failed. Zionist pressure to keep Mr. Butler out of South Africa demonstrates that they do not want any realism injected into this embattled nation. But it will be eventually injected just the same.