Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

11 May 1984. Thought for the Week: "We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful'
C.S.Lewis in "The Abolition of Man"

MR. HOLDING'S LAND CLAIMS TIME BOMB

Last week saw further hysterical anti-League of Rights outbursts as the Marxist backed and manipulated Aboriginal land claims movement ran into increasing opposition. The most vicious attack was by Victorian radical Federal ALP Member Mr. Pete Steedman, but there was also a smear introduced into a Magazine article in "The Sun", Melbourne, of May 5th, by a Mr. David Langsam who painted a glowing picture of a group of Australians of part Aboriginal background, planning to restore the Barmah State forest and the Murray River "to something resembling their former glories". Mr. Langsam describes the League of Rights as "stridently conservative", which is at least a change from the usual "right wing extremist" tag.

But the worst blow for the revolutionaries and their dupes, is the hard hitting attack on the Federal Government's land claims policy, by one of its own backbenchers, Mr. Graeme Campbell, representative for the electorate of Kalgoorlie. Mr. Campbell's letter is circulating widely amongst ALP groups and is touching a few tender nerves. Campbell rightly points out that the Aboriginal land claims issue not only concerns country people, observing that urban people "in the lower socio-economic stratas - people that we in the Labor Party have or should have a regard for - feel very strongly about what they see, what they perceive to be, an advantage given to any other group".

While it is true, as Campbell says, the majority of his parliamentary colleagues do not understand the realities of the Aboriginal land claims issue, the Burke State Labor government in Western Australia is becoming aware that the issue could bring down the Government at the next State Elections. Unlike their colleagues in the Eastern States, who have tried to avoid the subject, the W.A. State Liberals have grasped the nettle and openly said they are prepared to fight an election on Aboriginal land claims.

In Victoria the desperate Dr. Coghill has written to all Opposition Legislative Council Members, urging them not to be influenced by the "extremist" League of Rights. With the Victorian Aboriginal Land claims bill in the Legislative Council. Mr. Coghill and his colleagues are now apprehensive that the Liberals may join with the National Party Councillors to have the Bill thrown out in the Spring session of Parliament.

The Cain Government knows that the land claims issue would be a disaster as an election issue. A defeat for the Cain Government on the land claims issue would also increase the pressure on Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Clyde Holding. If the Victorian Liberals can follow the lead of the Western Australian Liberals, they could detonate a time bomb that would have far reaching national implications.


MR. HOLDING'S SECOND BARREL

While the anti-land claims campaign pioneered by the League of Rights has forced Mr. Holding to concede that his national Aboriginal land claims legislation will not now be introduced until after the next Federal Elections, another ominous development has been taking place without any publicity. The draft of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill was kept a close secret until two weeks ago. The Mining Industry was then given a copy and asked to respond by April 30th.

Even a casual examination of the draft material confirms the reported view of Mr. Charles Perkins, recently appointed head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs: "if the Heritage Legislation is passed, Land Rights won't be necessary". As indicated by the title of the proposed legislation, it is of an interim nature, operating for two years from the date of commencement. It will then be superseded by comprehensive national land rights and heritage legislation. The manner in which the legislation has been rushed forward indicates that it is seen as an essential first step in the advancement of a long-term strategy.

The Bill proposes sweeping powers, allegedly for the purpose of protecting Aboriginal sites and objects. The legislation would enable the Federal Government to completely override State rights. No private property will be safe. The powers granted to the Minister are Draconian. No compensation will be offered for any detriment to owners or users of property.

In the objectives of the Act, it is stated that not only Sites on land can be designated for protection, but also "seas surrounding Australia which are sacred or otherwise of particular significance to Aboriginals...." The Minister may receive "an application orally or in writing from or on behalf of an Aboriginal person or group This opens the door for the various group of white agitator exploiting the Aborigines. If the Opposition parties at Canberra can bring themselves to display some robust commonsense concerning this latest piece of revolutionary legislation, they will start to demonstrate that they may be fit to be re-elected to government.


WHY BE AFRAID OF FREEDOM?

League journals have on occasions republished some of the articles by Mr. Michael Barnard, Melbourne "Age" columnist, whose views, and method of expressing them, often provide a refreshing contrast to much of what appears in what is sometimes referred to as the "daily edition of the Flinders Street Tribune".
But we have sympathy with the reader who says that Mr. Barnard's article, "Anzac with a Goebbels touch", ("Age" 1/5) "left me feeling depressed; in essence Mr. Barnard, whom I understand is a Christian, suggests that anyone not agreeing with his view of history concerning the gassing of six million Jews, should be equated with Anzac Day desecrators". For our own part, we must also express our astonishment at Mr. Barnard's article.
As Mr. Barnard points out, in West Germany legislation is being introduced to make it a punishable offence even to verbally express doubts about gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz. Clearly the spirit of Hitler still strongly prevails in Germany today.

In Canada, as in Australia, Zionist spokesmen have identified themselves with the campaign to make it an offence to express an alternative viewpoint concerning history. Responding to an editorial in the Edmonton Journal, Alberta, Canada, urging "anti-hate" legislation, Mr. Walter Klink provided a response that at the present time deserves a wider circulation. We quote from our Canadian contempory, "On Target" of April 30th:
"Ron Collister's call for a 'clear, strong, enforceable, anti-hate law' to 'improve, not diminish ... society' betrays a woefully superficial awareness of the principles of human association and mutual respect in a free and democratic society. His resort to non-substantive and emotive catchwords to brand views from which he dissents as 'hate' and his readiness to label those who view the world differently as 'hatemongers' suggest the limits of his own tolerance and respect for the right of other persons to espouse their opinions - right or wrong.
"In a democratic society, public policy originates with the people. All policies derive from philosophical bases, that is, from religion which attempts variously to 'bind back' (from the Latin religio) to reality and truth. Every citizen not only has the right but also the responsibility of unhampered enquiry, criticism, and advocacy concerning any and all ideological/philosophical/ religious positions - the respective unique demands of which contribute to the shaping of public policy. To exercise these rights and responsibilities, each citizen must enjoy - with absolute legal guarantee of security regarding person and property - the opportunity of full communication and exhaustive debate on all issues. No individual or group may be presumed to possess a monopoly on either truth or virtue - otherwise all pretence to the espousal of democracy must be abandoned as pure sham....
"The motives of any persons or groups who do not welcome open ideological criticism of their philosophy and policy advocacy must be regarded with suspicion. So long as all citizens are fully and equally free to criticise and advocate policy, society can learn and develop through ongoing, unhampered - often spirited - but civilised ideological debate, each individual knowing that his input has been heard and considered. Attempts to legally deny such right of expression have no place in a free, democratic and Christian society. They emanate from a dangerous, misguided 'do-goodism' on the one hand and, on the other, from a thinly disguised unethical strategy of those holding or aspiring to power to defeat their opponents by repression - or to subject the established culture to attack by minority revolutionary groups while denying its members an opportunity of defence.
"One person's hate is frequently another person's love. Denial to some citizens of free input into social debate, especially in difficult economic or political times, can only cause a rising level of resentment and frustration. Mr. Collister's stated policy of suppressing ideological expression and debate will not contribute to the social weal - it is rather more likely a blueprint for civil war. That is simply a consequence of one of the immutable principles of human association.
"If Mr. Collister wishes to permit only the state sanctioned 'official' view of theology, philosophy, history, politics and economics, there exist a number of totalitarian states, left and right, in which he might find a spiritual home - Nazi Germany is long since gone, but the Soviet bloc most likely could provide an appropriate environment".


BOOK

Pearl Harbour After a Quarter of a Century, by Harry Elmer Barnes. "The assault (7th December, 1941) was not a 'sneak attack'. Washington had known the attack was coming several days beforehand, but deliberately kept this information from the Navy commanders at Hawaii. Price: $111.00 posted from all League offices.

FROM HANSARD

We have read the Sex Discrimination Bill (now act) debate and have picked out several important extracts, which should be brought to the attention of actionists. We will not be able to present all of them in this issue of On Target Bulletin.

Senator Shirley Walters (l3th December 83) (Lib, Tas.)
"We are told by a Government backbencher that petitions mean nothing. I hope that the Australian people do not really take him seriously because, according to our Australian Constitution and the Standing Orders in this place, petitions do mean something. The honourable senator arrogantly tells the Australian people that the petitions they have been signing mean nothing to the Government. I can assure the honourable senator that there will be a totally different philosophy if the Australian Labor Party tells us that petitions mean nothing…"

Senator Kathy Martin (9.12.83) (Lib.-Qld.)
..."This (Sex Discrimination Bill by the Hawke Government involves, of course, the question of jurisdiction and the use of the Foreign Affairs power in particular to implement certain aspects of it. I was sorry for a number of reasons when the High Court of Australia turned down the challenge to the Bills in relation to southwest Tasmania. My reasons for that are on the record because I spoke at length on the Bills in this chamber. I felt a sinking in my heart because I had a terrible feeling that the decision by the High Court would give the Government an opening to give us a foreign affairs power in relation to anti-discrimination legislation and that it would give some people a stick with which to beat the principle of anti-discrimination legislation...

Senator Noel Crichton-Browne (Lib.-W.A.)
".... the real intention and purpose of this (Sex Discrimination) legislation, which enshrines a united Nations Convention, by the abuse of the spirit of the Constitution through the external affairs powers, is to redefine and to restructure the role of all women, more particularly the family unit within society. It is not a too subtle attempt to destroy the structure, the fabric, the values and the intrinsic role of the family unit..."

Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen (N.P.-Qld)
... "In my opinion the Bill itself, is sexist. It promotes a legalistic and bureaucratic approach to the enforcement of morals between the sexes. I find there is a definite contradiction in that on the one hand it maintains that sexual morality, including sexual preference, sexual status and pregnancy, is a private affair, but that the manner of acting towards someone of the opposite sex is a matter of public concern and can be regulated by law. The Bill is blatantly sexist in that it assumes that where other factors do not sway judgment and where the sole apparent difference between the two applicants for a job is their sex, I presume, naturally, in this case it would favour a woman..."

Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen
... "It includes well over 50 amendments to date and we have heard that the Opposition is bringing forward some more, and so is Senator Harradine; so there will be plenty of amendments to it. In my opinion, after reading it, I think that the best amendment of all would be to forget about it. I do not think the Bill is necessary. If we lived in the Middle East, I would certainly say it was necessary. This legislation is designed, according to the Bill, to outlaw discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of employment, education, accommodation, provision of goods, facilities, and services, disposal of land, activities of clubs, and the administration of Federal laws and programmes. However, in effect, I sincerely believe that it will do no more than create divisions and long-term conflict, not just among women, but between men and women, religious groups, families and employers..

Our Comment
We have no doubt that Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen is correct in her observations. We shall go further! The ostensible purpose of this Bill (now Act) is to remove, or attempt to remove some aspects of discrimination against women (and there HAVE been these aspects in the past e.g. up to the 1880s married women could not own property: all material assets were, by law, handed over to the husband on marriage). But such unjust practices have been being abandoned naturally and organically with the maturing of society by the sheer weight of experience: trial and error, What the Humanists/Socialists (who masquerade behind the name "Labor") are really doing is to build the Humanist legislation around the skeleton of vestigial male dominance of society which has not yet been organically abandoned, but would be without any Sex Discrimination Bill, which is - in reality - an attack on freedom of speech, expression, and action. It is definitely a restriction of the rights of the individual; as all Humanist legislation must be. Next will come Senator Gareth Evans Bill of Rights! A much further restriction of the individual's freedom.

Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen continues
..."This Bill aims at changes in moral and social values that I do not think should be included. It will infringe on civil liberties of employers when affirmative action is introduced. This has been premised by the Minister of Education (Senator Susan Ryan) in two years' time. Actually I was at a Senate Committee meeting at which Senator Giles said that affirmative action would be mandatory. I feel this would take away from employers the right to hire and fire. Under Clause 29 of this Bill, positive discrimination in respect of a previously so-called disadvantaged sex will be lawful..."

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159