RACE HATE LAWS AND ABORIGINAL VIOLENCE

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
I need not add to the debate on Aboriginal violence, in Alice Springs and elsewhere, any remarks about its horror and misery. Nor am I a social scientist ready to wade into this debate with a tool kit of repairs for a bleeding community. However, I do know as a civil libertarian that no solution will be possible unless there can be free discussion of cultural, ethnic and racial issues without fear of prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act. However, in the light of the recent finding by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission finding that Professor Andrew Fraser was in contravention of the Act for his remarks about Black African migration to Australia (and the rejection of a section 18D defence) it looks like politically correct law could be used by the new class elites to stifle debate and inquiry.

Neill and Reed:
Let us consider a compassionate, insightful and brave article by feminist journalist Rosemary Neill, "Aboriginal Violence has a Lengthy History," The Australian 19/5/06, p.14. James Reed has written an interesting commentary on this article. Sexual abuse is rife in Aboriginal communities, in part, because Aboriginal culture has traditions of misogyny "deeply inimical to women." Reed goes on, after agreeing with Neill, to blame pornography, "porno culture" as well and without sustained argument supports the ban of both alcohol and pornography. All this is not new. Sexual violence in New Guinea by 'rascals" led community elders to all call for a ban on alcohol and pornography. I do not agree with Reed on philosophical grounds. Philosophically he is accepting the same principle as his new class opponents, against whom he rages each week. As a matter of practice, prohibition doesn't work, as the American experiment shows. All it does is create a black market. Greedy and evil White men will only be too eager to get in their utes, filled with grog and girlie books and DVDs to sell to Aboriginal men. It is bad enough that Aboriginal women and children are suffering: let us not make the unscrupulous Whites richer in the process! Reed says that "the road to hell is paved with political correctness," but the original proverb is wiser. Mere "good intentions" will not solve this problem.

Saying Hard Things:
Let us now turn to Rosemary Neill's central thesis. Neill said: "It's still unacceptable to say so, but it's clear that some aspects of traditional Aboriginal culture are deeply inimical to women. French and British colonists and explorers recorded how Aboriginal men inflicted serious injuries on their women with seeming impunity." Neill then quotes from Joan Kimm's book "A Fatal Conjunction": "The sexual use of young girls by older men, indeed often much older men, was an intricate part of Aboriginal culture, a heritage that cannot be easily denied." Such customary marriages still occur. Neill cites the case of a Northern Territory Aboriginal man of 55 years, who abducted, anally raped and bashed his 14 year-old promised bride. His one month in goal was increased after a public outcry.
Neill concludes: "if the indigenous children and women are to enjoy the same protections the rest of us take for granted, forced marriages and sex with underage girls must be condemned and challenged, not just under Whitefella law but also within those indigenous communities where these misogynous customs persist."

Race Hate to the Rescue:
In my opinion Neill has made a fair comment on an important public issue even though what she said, is, in her words, "still unacceptable to say". But let us look at the case of McGlade v Lightfoot ( [2002] FCA752 (13 June 2002); [2002] FCA 1457 (26 November 2002) heard before the Federal Court of Australia. Senator Ross Lightfoot had said to a journalist with the Australian Financial Review that "Aboriginal people in their native state were the most primitive on earth" and "If you want to pick up some aspects of Aboriginal culture which are valid in the 21st century, that aren't abhorrent, that don't have some of these terrible sexual and killing practices in them, I'd be happy to listen to those." (quoted from [2002] FCA 752 at [4]) The remarks were published in the context of the senator's opposition to the teaching of Aboriginal culture in schools.

The Aboriginal applicant sought relief - an apology and compensation under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) which makes it unlawful for a person to do an act, other than in private where "the act is reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and "the act was done "because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group."

Section 18D gives exemptions, for acts "done reasonably and in good faith" in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work, for scientific, academic purposes, or in the public interest or in reporting events, and finally if the comment is a "fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment."
Lightfoot first defended himself by arguing that the comments were made in private: it was the act of the newspaper which made the statements public. The Court rejected this argument and held that Lightfoot's giving of the interview caused the words to be communicated to the public. (at [19]) Even so, that is still consistent with Lightfoot's act of vilification i.e., the speaking of the words being done in private. The act itself did not cause the words to be communicated to the public for the words spoken disappeared at the time. The cause was the journalist recording an act, done in private.

In McGlade v Lightfoot [227] FCA 1457 the court found that Lightfoot's act was reasonably likely, in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Aboriginal people, based upon witness statements which said just that. The Court consulted the Explanatory Memorandum to the Racial Hatred Bill which stated that the bill "is not intended to prohibit people from having or expressing ideas." Rather the bill was directed at acts "calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person." Lightfoot's remarks were found to be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Aboriginal persons. This was the true for both the Statement about primitiveness and also the one about Aboriginal culture.

In other words the Federal Court found that it was in contravention of the Act to say that "there were some aspects of Aboriginal culture which were abhorrent" including sexual and killing practices. [63-64] In this case Lightfoot did not argue for a section 18D exemption so the Court assuming that the onus of proof was on him, he lost.
Lightfoot's remarks seem somewhat mild compared to what "shock jocks" have been saying on radio, often cold heartedly, about the Aboriginal violence situation. Further, numerous politically incorrect things have been said by journalists (in opinion and not in reporting events). In the light of the virtual non-existence of a section 18D defence, I wonder if the thought police will be doing the next round of prosecutions?

A GOOD LAW FOR RAPISTS

by Ian Wilson LL.B:
In August 2005 a 55 year-old Aboriginal Elder was given one month's gaol by the Northern Territory Chief Justice Brian Martin for the bashing and anal rape of a 14 year-old Aboriginal schoolgirl promised to him as a wife. The attack is described in The Weekend Australian (20-21/5/06, p.4) thus:
"While holding a boomerang, with which he threatened the child, the man dragged her by the leg, screaming, into a bedroom as his wife and children went into another room. He subjected her to a terrifying two-day ordeal in which the child tried to resist his advances, kicking him in the groin and telling him: "I'm too young for sex." This is truly a horrific crime.
The Chief Justice accepted that the man's customary law beliefs had lowered his moral culpability. The Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal found the one month sentence manifestly inadequate and gave the man a three year term of which only 18 months of the sentence had to be served because a suspended sentence was given. The maximum penalty of 16 years sits on the books, but of course that is usually only given to Whites who have no such "customary" beliefs to use as a "shield".
The Aboriginal Elder took his case all the way to the High Court. The Full Bench of the High Court refused to grant the man special leave to appeal against the sentence. High Court judge Michael Kirby said that this was not a case in which Aboriginal customary law should be explored. Why not? If ever there was a case where it should be explored, this is it.

On the 24 May 2006 The Australian on page one carried the headline: "I got it wrong on tribal rape: Chief Justice." The Northern Territory Chief Justice Brian Martin admitted that he had made a mistake in sentencing the Aboriginal Elder to only one month's gaol for the rape of the 14 year-old girl and the assault with the boomerang, as he placed too much emphasis on Aboriginal customary law. However the learned Chief Justice still maintained that an Aboriginal belief in customary law reflects their moral culpability in an offence. Whether Aboriginals "hide" behind customary laws is an interesting mooting question. Our concern though should be with a judiciary who allow multiculturalism and political correctness to dilute punishments. As the Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough said, even an 18 month sentence for a two day abuse of a minor showed that there are "some very serious questions to answer."

The Northern Territory Opposition Leader Jodeen Carney has said that customary law was a shield to protect violent Aboriginal men. She hopes that the Federal Racial Discrimination Act should be changed to stop customary law being used to reduce sentences for convicted criminals. Let's go one more step: Let us repeal the UN inspired Act completely. One Law for all people.

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL POWER

Readers are enquiring: Under what powers did the Governor General disallow the ACT legislation which sought to recognise gay and lesbian relationships?

ABC online, 13/6/06 reported: "The Federal Government objected to the law, which recognises gay and lesbian relationships, saying it was at odds with the Marriage Act.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says in a meeting of the executive council this morning, the Governor-General agreed to overturn the law. The move is effective from today, and Mr Ruddock says it will prevent the ACT Government's attempt to speed up the approval of civil unions. "In effect the ploy of bringing forward the date of operation and endeavouring to provide for registration of civil celebrants has failed," he said.
The Governor-General had heard a request from the ACT Legislative Assembly Speaker, Wayne Berry, that the laws be upheld. In an address at Government House, Mr Berry told General Jeffery that the Civil Unions Act was within the ACT Government's law-making powers.
"The Federal Government has decided for partisan political reasons to intervene on a law which removes discrimination," he said. But Mr Ruddock says the Federal Government respects the rights of the ACT to make laws, as long as they do not exceed the Territory's powers.
"We have no quarrel with the Territory's legislating in those areas in which it has responsibility, and we accept the decisions that they make supported by their electorate," he said. "Except when they provocatively and deliberately seek to intrude into areas in which they have no responsibility.""

Constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell has kindly explained for our readers:
"ACT and Northern Territories are "colonies" of the Commonwealth. The "colonial power" (Commonwealth Government) has ultimate authority over the laws of the "colonies" and can disallow any legislation passed by the Territory (colonial) legislatures.
"In order to be valid, every decision of the Commonwealth government has to be "allowed" (or, to put it another way, the executive minute has to be signed) by the Governor-General. The ACT civil union issue went before the Commonwealth Parliament and the Governor General signed the executive minute of disallowance.
"The disallowance of the ACT legislation on this occasion is neither ground breaking nor unique. Another recent instance was the disallowance of the Northern Territory legislation relating to euthanasia."

TELSTRA AND THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S REPLY

Those who have written to the G-G on the 'Sale of Telstra' have received a type of form letter from the G-G's secretary along the following lines: "…the Governor-General considers it would be constitutionally indefensible for an unelected Governor-General to refuse or delay assent to a Bill by reference to his or her own personal opinion in relation to either the substance of the Bill or the question of whether the Bill should or should not come into operation in the ordinary course. Accordingly, any Bill passed through both Houses of the elected Parliament, would be duly signed by the Governor-General."
Dr. Mitchell writes: "The Governor General does have constitutional power to exercise his discretion to disallow any Commonwealth legislation (section 58)."

One wonders would the G-G still sign a Bill if both Houses passed a law calling for the death of all blue-eyed babies? The people have seen their nation's real assets carved up and sold off to international conglomerates and multinational corporations and can get no satisfaction from the one with the constitutional power to safeguard their interests.

PREPARING FOR THE NWO ARMY?

Whilst reading the following article keep in mind the message from a South African (White) correspondent:
"Looks like the ambition of the New World Order is soon to be fulfilled: a global police force, attached to the UN. Those who expect the UN to straighten out matters need only look at the record of the UN thus far:
Wherever the UN "kept peace", they ensured that Communist Governments came to power. This happened throughout Africa and everywhere else they intervened, and that was supposed to be "peacekeeping" imagine how effective they will be when they can actively engage on the Communist side. Already, they are talking about intervening in Dafur, but there is nary a word about preventing the genocide of the Boers in South Africa, nor can we expect there to be."

United Nations 'Army' (of mercenaries) proposed:
Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army" - an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe. Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals (read mercenaries…ed) hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.
Its actions would be authorized by the U.N. Security Council - according to the Toronto Star: "It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity," which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.
"With countries moving away from U.N. Peacekeeping, and troops overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid reaction force) has new appeal."
The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, less than the wars that have plagued Africa and Asia in recent years. "A U.N. Agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis, enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars through early and often preventive action," the book states."

There is vast army of unemployed Chinese males who probably wouldn't mind seeing the world by way of a paid UN 'peace enforcer'.
God help us.
Videos: The League carries a number of videos on the subject of the NWO. Australians must come to grips with what these power-crazed men have in store for them, and ask themselves what are they going to do about it? Send for a list from your State Book Services.

REPUBLICAN PREFERS TIMOR REPUBLIC TO AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

David Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy reports:
"Ms Nicola Roxon, of the front bench of Her Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition, recently called on republicans "to apply the blowtorch to constitutional monarchy."
"Ms. Roxon," writes David Flint, "rejoiced in the fact that" being a republican is a core condition of membership to the (Labor) caucus". But, "She forgets perhaps that so was being a (Fabian…ed) socialist until Mr Hawke and Mr Keating sold as much of the family silver as they possibly could." Ms Roxon said that monarchy was not suggested as an option in Timor, Afghanistan or Iraq and she asked her audience to "imagine if instead of Xanana Gusmao the East Timorese had to rely on Sir John Kerr, as the representative of a distant foreign monarch, to restore order. One shudders at the thought."
David Flint asks:
"Is Ms. Roxon seriously saying that the East Timorese constitution, modelled on a Portuguese model, is superior to ours, one of the world's most successful constitutions? Is Ms. Roxon proposing to model the Australian constitution into one similar to Timor's? Will Ms. Roxon's campaign for a Timor style constitution for Australia go the way of the "mate for head of state campaign"?"
It will be worthwhile to include with this article portions of a National Civic Council editorial, "Timor crisis - Alkatiri's murky role" sent to us by a supporter:
While the editorial acknowledges the Fretlin Party in control of the East Timor government "is responsible for much of the misgovernment and criminal behaviour which has provoked the current violence in East Timor," what took my eye was the following:.
"Marxist party: After winning independence in 2002, East Timor has been governed by Fretilin - an acronym for Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor - the political party which won power briefly in 1975 following a civil war, and which waged guerrilla war for 24 years after Indonesia invaded. In elections conducted in 2001 for a Constituent Assembly, Fretilin, the only party with effective organisation, won 55 of the 88 seats and has controlled the government since that time."
Alkatiri's exile years spent in Communist regimes:
"There have been widespread allegations of corruption against leaders of the new government, particularly Mr Alkatiri, who spent the war years in communist Angola and Mozambique. Alkatiri's relatives have been given diplomatic postings (one was ambassador to Malaysia).
In 2004, Mr Alkatiri categorically denied allegations by Oceanic Exploration and its subsidiary Petrotimor that he was offered or accepted US$2.5 million from ConocoPhillips Petroleum to secure their investment in the Timor Sea.
Mark Aarons, son of a former general-secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, and for many years an activist in the pro-Fretilin campaign in Australia, highlighted the misgovernment which has occurred under Alkatiri. He wrote in The Australian recently that, before the East Timorese people voted for independence, "Alkatiri's main work in exile was to move among Timorese refugees, organising Fretilin (Marxist?…ed) cells and giving ideological direction in preparation for running the country".
He added, "Alkatiri has held power for almost five years, during which time stories of nepotism, corruption and authoritarianism have been too persistent to be lightly dismissed. The struggling public service seems to have been stacked with Alkatiri loyalists. "Merit and ability have not been the main criteria for job selection. This has undermined professionalism, politicised the civil service and sown the seeds of resentment, disaffection and now revolt. " Alkatiri's shortcomings do not end there.
Authoritarianism, of an eerily Stalinist kind, has too often been the Government's response to dissent. "The means used by Alkatiri to ensure his recent re-election as Fretilin leader illustrate the point. By replacing a secret ballot with a show of hands, he not only thwarted his challenger, but actually undermined democracy in order to proclaim his own 'democratic' victory.
"The malaise in governance and the endemic abuses of power are also personified by Interior Minister Rogerio Lobato, brother of resistance hero Nicolau Lobato who was killed by the Indonesians in 1978. I knew Rogerio in 1976 as a swaggering Fretilin commander. "He helped me obtain tens of thousands of dollars in Mozambique to keep an illegal radio connection operating with East Timor, which I smuggled into Australia, risking a lengthy prison term.
"A few years later, Rogerio was jailed in Angola for smuggling diamonds, not to assist his country's struggle but to enrich himself. Lobato's appointment to a sensitive post in Alkatiri's Government was an important warning sign. The recent allegation in UN cables that he spends much of his time managing his own business affairs is consistent with his criminal activities in Angola…"
Aarons added that "some Fretilin leaders are certainly behind the mismanagement and violent criminal behaviour that have caused and been featured in the current crisis". (The Australian, March 28, 2006).
"Until a new government emerges which is not corrupt, and not beholden to either Fretilin or Indonesia, the poor people of East Timor will continue to suffer cruelly. The challenge for the people of East Timor is to find a way to achieve this."
So there you have it. Marxism is alive and well and right at our front door. Of course it is not referred to as that these days. Don't forget it was Australian troops who helped 'free' the East Timorese people from the cruel grip of Indonesia.

To continue David Flint's article:
"Ms Roxon boasts of her work with Liberal republicans, especially Senator Mitch Fifield, who tells her a slim majority of Liberal candidates for election are already republicans. Presumably they haven't read the works of the liberal founder, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. Or perhaps they share the remarkable ability of Senator Vanstone who communes with the next world. This has allowed the good Senator to declare to the nation that Sir Robert Menzies is now a republican…
Marxist 'inevitability':
"Ms. Roxon turns the current fashion of republican inevitabilism into a scientific doctrine. Ms. Roxon mirrors the approach taken by Karl Marx, who "found" that history is governed by scientific immutable laws. Marx said that under the laws of dialectical and historical materialism, the inevitable direction of all society was to the communist utopia. Ms Roxon claims to have discovered an immutable law of history, that constitutional monarchy is a stage between absolute monarchy and a republic, presumably any old republic, even the disastrous Timorese one, which if adopted here would indeed be a cane toad republic."