CRAVEN VICTORIAN IGNOMINY

by Jeremy Lee
Despite the widespread community opposition, the Victorian Upper House finally approved the Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill. One Member, the Hon. Chris Strong, wrote to an elector in these terms: "Thank you for your letter in which you expressed interest on the progress of this Labor Government legislation. This Bill has now been passed. It was passed in the Legislative Assembly on the 5th June 2001 with 69 members voting for, 11 against and a further 8 members not voting. It was then passed in the Legislative Council on the 14th June 2001: with 32 members voting for, 9 against and a further 3 members not voting. Although the Liberal Party supported the Bill, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Denis Napthine, took the unusual step of allowing Liberal Members of Parliament a free vote. I was one of those who took up the opportunity for a free vote and voted against the Bill. My speech to the Legislative Council sums up my very great concern with the Bill. Below, I have extracted some key points from that speech for your interest:

"The Bill is extremely difficult for me, as it touches on two of the principles that I hold to be enormously important. Intolerance and racism are abhorrent to me, as I am sure they are to most members of the house. Conversely, freedom of speech is one of the most important things our society possesses. The Bill limits society's right to free speech in the name of furthering racial and religious tolerance.

How does an individual evaluate this trade-off between these two important principles? Each individual can, on the one hand, abhor intolerance and racism, but on the other hand see great dangers to our society and the democratic principles from limitations to free speech. The Bill is an insult to the tolerant society we have built in Victoria because by its very existence the Bill says that we have a problem. Otherwise why would we need it?

By its very existence the Bill takes out of society's hands the need to work together and find solutions to this problem. It relieves society of the discipline of the need to find solutions and simply hands that problem to the politicians and the lawyers. That is hardly a step forward, because both those institutions by their very nature are adversarial. That is not what is needed to build an inclusive solution to society's problems.

But can we outlaw racism and hatred, or legislate away religious intolerance? We simply need look at what is happening today in Israel and the Middle East generally to get an answer. The truth is that simply passing a law achieves nothing. Free speech in a free and open society, that acknowledges that all people have the right to believe and say what they think, where no individual or group in society can have their voice silenced or be muzzled by the law of the land, this is the first, continuing and enduring prerequisite of building a tolerant and inclusive society. I note that the United Kingdom has had racial vilification laws on the books for many years, and given the recent race riots this illustrates again that simply passing a law to outlaw something like racial hatred is a simplistic and unrealistic solution.

Society has to work through these things together. I, like most of us here, am an adherent of the philosophy built round the primacy of the individual - characterised by the saying 'that while I may totally and utterly disagree with what you're saying, I will equally as passionately and vigorously uphold your right to say it'. That to me is absolutely fundamental to our democratic system, to our rights, beliefs and freedoms, and something I strongly believe in. This Bill turns that in its head - saying 'that while I totally and utterly disagree with what you are saying.... I am now going to make it illegal for you to say it'.
Yours faithfully, The Hon. Chris Strong, MLC, Member for Higginbotham Province.

We can only nod in agreement with the Hon. Chris Strong, and note how well his speech contrasted with the shallow-thinking of the majority of his colleagues. The threat to Australia's freedom has been immeasurably heightened by this Bill. Writing in The Atlantic Monthly just before World War I the internationally-known journalist and commentator Walter Lippman made these points about free speech:

" ..... there is a much stronger foundation for the great constitutional right of freedom of speech. The compelling reason why, if liberty of opinion did not exist, we should have to invent it, why it will eventually have to be restored in all civilised countries where it is now suppressed, is that we must protect the right of our opponents to speak because we must hear what they have to say ..... If we wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilised society, we must begin by realising that because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own and necessary..... This is the creative principle of freedom of speech, not that it is a system for the tolerating of error but that it is a system for finding the truth. It may not produce the truth, or the whole truth all the time, or often, or in some cases ever. But if the truth can be found, there is no other system which will normally and habitually find so much truth. In a totalitarian state the people are being addressed through one broadcasting system by one man and his chosen subordinates. The orators speak. The audience listens but cannot and dare not speak back. It is a system of one-way communication. Nothing comes back to the rulers from the people except the cheers. Even a dictator cannot govern by his own one-way inspiration alone. In practice, therefore, the totalitarian rulers get back the reports of the secret police and of their party henchmen. If these reports are competent, the rulers may manage to remain in touch with public sentiment. Yet that is not enough. It is indispensable that there should exist the freedom which causes opposing opinions to be debated ...... The essence of freedom of opinion is not in mere toleration as such but in the debate which toleration provides .... Experience tells us that it is only when freedom of opinion becomes the compulsion to debate that the seed which our fathers planted has produced its fruit. When that is understood, freedom will be cherished not because it is a vent for our opinions but because it is the surest method of correcting them ...... By bringing men face to face with their opponents, forcing them to listen and learn and mend their ideas, they cease to be children and savages and begin to live like civilised men. Then only is freedom a reality, when men may voice their opinions because they must examine their opinions ......"

Such enlightened concepts, developed through centuries of striving towards liberty in Britain and America, have been trampled in Victoria. Behind the legislation is an agitated fear that suppressed facts of history might be forced through into the light. Those accused of disobeying the global form of censorship being remorselessly expanded may not even use truth in their defence. The Victorian legislation has been fostered and lobbied for by those who are in deadly fear of an open debate on historical events since World War II. It is heartening to see some discomfort, even in the mainstream media, with the sort of legislation just passed by the Victorian parliament. But the main battle is yet to come.

THE CENTRALISED CORPORATE WELFARE STATE

The Australian Financial Review (19/6/01) reported on a detailed survey, comparing the administrations of federal Coalition and Labor governments over the quarter-of-a-century since the end of the Whitlam period. The study examined such things as growth rates, foreign debt, the stock market, interest rates, unemployment and inflation. It was remarkable for the fact that the differences between the major parties were so marginal.

In one area, however, the Coalition outpaced Labor governments. That area was "Government Spending and Taxing as a share of GDP". The report said: "This section looks at the size of the total government sector in Australia; that is, the sum of Commonwealth, State, territory and local government sectors. Figures for the Commonwealth, in isolation, are often distorted by payments undertaken by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States .... In terms of the size of government, the Coalition has an undoubted propensity for big spending and high taxing. Under Fraser, general government outlays as a share of GDP rose from 30.6 percent in 1975 (the last Whitlam budget) to 33.7 percent of GDP by 1983-84. After 13 years of ALP rule, when Keating lost to Howard in 1996, Budget changes were all but unchanged at 33.8 percent of GDP. " In the Budget handed down on May 22, 2001, total general government outlays as a share of GDP are estimated to have risen to 37 percent in 2000-01, a figure without precedent in the 40 years of Budget history compiled by the ABS ...."

Such findings don't tally well with the repeated claims of Howard and Costello that theirs is a "low-taxing government".

THE POWER OF THE LOBBY

Another AFR survey (19/6/01) gave some idea of the clout of lobby groups in Canberra. " .... As chief executive of ACCI (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) Mark Paterson presides over an organisation that is by far the most influential business group in terms of access to government and influence on policy. " It is also one of the richest. It has retained profits of $4.3 million, 35 staff and a collection of policy directors churning out research on topics such as the environment, education and small business ...."

The article pointed out that membership subscriptions from corporations and businesses could cost up to $300,000 a year. It's nice to know that our constitutional democracy is in such safe, secure and prosperous hands! And that members, apparently, get such a good return on their investment!

GLOBALISATION AND THE PRICE OF EGGS

by Antonia Feitz
On a talkback radio show (Howard Sattler, 19/6/01) the president of the Egg Producers' Association said the price of eggs could double before too long to about $6 a dozen. The reason? Low returns have forced farmers out of the industry. Consequently the national stock of laying hens is currently a huge third less than it was a year ago. He said unless the exodus from the industry is halted, things will get worse. Well it seems things will get a lot worse. Why? Well coupled with the problem of low returns is the fact that the industry has to make a $300-400 million dollar investment in new cages to prepare for the looming ban on battery cages already in legislation. For many farmers, it's the last straw. They just don't have the money so they're getting out. As usual, green activists won the battle without suggesting any fair way to pay for their reforms which nevertheless make us all feel so very virtuous, don't they.

Zeus and Sisyphus
In Greek mythology Zeus punished Sisyphus by ordering him to roll a huge stone up a hill only to have it roll back down every time. It's a good image of the human condition: we improve things and then revert. Guarding freedom and progress is like housework: It's never done. Like Sisyphus' boulder, housework is there every day anew - as is the requirement to be vigilant about freedom and progress. But it seems man is doomed to ever re-invent the wheel. He never learns from the mistakes of the past and so must keep on making them. Perhaps the economic rationalists are unaware that the whole point of regulating the egg industry in the first place was to ensure a reliable supply of eggs at a stable price in an ordered market. Ditto with milk. If things keep going the way they are, before too long Australia will be a net importer of food. Perhaps that's the plan. We'll grow truffles and flowers for the Northern hemisphere luxury markets and import our eggs and milk. Advance Australia - where?

A NOTE TO OUR SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS

from Betty Luks, National Director
Due to my decision to withdraw Graeme Campbell's invitation to the Sydney CSC, the Sydney CSC Committee accepted the offer of Mr. Jason Rafty to speak of what were his observations of present-day Russia. Since accepting the offer and publicising the meeting in this newsletter we have received a number of complaints because we are allowing Mr.Rafty to speak on a League platform. There seems to be two main reasons for the complaints:
. Mr. Rafty's political views
. His association with another person who was embroiled in internal problems within another conservative group in Sydney.

My response
If the matter is personal I do not want the League to become embroiled in it. If there are legal matters to be resolved, that is a matter for those concerned and the courts. The principles upon which the decision was taken are: Freedom of speech and freedom of association. Long-term League supporters would have lost count of the number of times League speakers have been portrayed as 'undesirable' 'neo-nazi' or 'fascist' with the result so-called 'respectable groups' were urged to "have nothing to do with the League speakers". I well recall Bishop John Hepworth publicly recounting the number of adverse telephone calls he received about the League, prior to speaking at our National Seminar. His response, to the claim that the League was made up of a terrible group of people, was along the lines: "If they are as bad as you paint them they surely need such a person as me - a Christian minister!"
If the young man is of the political persuasion suggested by the protesters, he will have a lot in common with the present power-hungry bunch in Canberra. Recent rulings in Australian courts show me if we had invited certain people from the politically-correct side of politics, or the courts, or the Church, to speak, we would have had paedophiles, child molesters and/or corrupt persons on our platforms.

Under the heading "Dirty politics" the Sydney Morning Herald, June 12th, 2001, questioned the sources of party political donations: "Australian political parties are taking donations from people with highly dubious backgrounds, including an accused killer..." the article read.

The long-term battle to retain freedom of speech
The League is involved in the long-term battle to retain the right to free speech and free association. Australians once decided, by a national referendum, not to outlaw the communists within the nation. Australians then believed, even though the system of Communism was instrumental in the death and destruction of millions of human beings, banning presentation of communists' views was not the way to overcome it. For those who give some thought to this matter, I feel sure they will agree with my decision. For those who are determined to have their own way, I don't think I could ever convince them my decision was the right one.

In a response to the criticism the Sydney CSC Committee had this to say: "If the CSC is to uphold freedom of speech, we must be prepared to tolerate views that do not conform to our own particular viewpoint. We do not endorse the views of all speakers, but this Club came into existence in 1973 to offer a platform for speakers with a conservative and constructive viewpoint, which on some points we may have disagreement. If we allow ourselves to be intimidated in this way, we are already on our way to enslavement..."

BASIC FUND

THE CASE AGAINST OLGA SCULLY

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

"The letter from Phillip Benwell for the Monarchist League to Archbishop Peter Hollingworth on his acceptance of John Howard's offer to become our next Governor-General may well become a negative in what eventuates. Even Bishops are not beyond conversion to the experience of occupying the key appointment in our Trinitarian government charged with the responsibility of safeguarding our Trinitarian Constitution. There are spiritual powers at work in that office which affect the most unlikely candidates as we well know from others like Bill Hayden, William McKell and John Kerr whose fidelity to their high office confounded those who appointed them.

In the Monarchist-Republic debate there was a distinct failure by the pro-Monarchists to understand the role of John Howard and how as a centralist he has consistently undermined our Trinitarian Constitution. The bald fact is John Howard is a globalist pursuing an anti-Monarchist path in political and constitutional matters. Globalism and the Monarchical institution are completely incompatible. The former is the essence of dictatorial centralised power, the latter the essence of that non-power which decentralises power and works as a medium of love and concern for the individual.

In my view John Howard is a closet republican and played a devious role in the recent promotion of the referendum ensuring the republicans always had the initiative. His lip-service to the Monarchy was just that, mere lip-service. Mr. Benwell rightly declares he should not be muted on Peter Hollingworth's support for the republicans, but possibly had the Monarchists not been muted on the political realities behind the push for a Republic Peter Hollingworth would have been forced to rethink his position.

Over many years, perhaps thirty or more, I have debated these matters with Peter Hollingworth in correspondence, and on his appointment, wrote commenting, that having accepted this appointment he must now come face to face with problems arising from the exercise of power. He replied thanking me for "another of my challenging letters" and requesting that I support him in prayer. I am committed to that request and suggest O.T. readers follow the same path.
Yours faithfully, Edward Rock, Cape Patterson, Victoria.

P.S. Have just come from Ken Smith's MLC (Liberal) office. He voted against the Racial Vilification Bill. He has been inundated with faxes, e-mails and letters from all over Australia.

WEST AUSTRALIA'S STATE WEEKEND

Saturday, August 11th - 35th Annual Seminar & Dinner for the Australian League of Rights

Sunday, August 12th - Australian League of Rights "Action Day": Venue for both days: Perth - Rose and Crown Hotel - Guildford - Phone: 08 9574 6042 For further inquiries and information please contact Maureen Burton, State Secretary: Phone/Fax: 08 9574 6042. After hours: 08 9574 6260

SCHEDULE for Australian League of Rights Tour July/August 2001 with speaker Mrs. Betty Luks, National Director:
Sunday, July 29th - Cranbrook - Murray & Jan Pope - 08 9826 8055
Monday, July 30th - Albany - Murray & Jan Pope - 08 9826 8055
Tuesday, July 31st - Ravensthorpe - Alan Burton - 08 9839 6025
Wednesday, August 1st - Collie - Norm Wiese - 08 9734 4066
Thursday, August 2nd - Harvey - Nigel Offer - 08 9729 3325
Monday, August 6th - Bullsbrook - Helen McKenna - 08 9571 3595
Tuesday, August 7th - Moora - John Broad - 08 9654 9030
Wednesday, August 8th - Morawa - Ed Valentine - 08 9971 1175

ADELAIDE CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S STATE WEEKEND

NATIONAL WEEKEND

QUEENSLAND SEMINAR TAPES

The following tapes are available on speeches made at the very successful Queensland seminar of the Australian League of Rights:
1. Welcome and Opening; An exercise in Social Credit - Terry Rogers.
2. The Victorian Racial Vilification Legislation - Betty Luks.
3. Port Arthur Revisited - Wendy Scurr.
4. Deceit or Terrorism - Andrew MacGregor.
5. The Strategy of Tactics - Sunday Session - Graham Strachan.
6. What is Social Credit? Betty Luks.
7. The Current State of Rural Queensland - Selwyn Johnston.
8. A Challenge from a Young Australian - Damien Symonds.
9. The League of Rights, The National Party & the Rural Disaster - Jeremy Lee
10. The State of the Dairy Industry in Queensland - Dr. John Kingston MLA.

COST: $5.00 per tape, including postage. Money, with order, from: CVA TAPES, PO Box 987, Inverell, NSW, 2360.