THE CRUCIFIXION OF ALEXANDER DOWNER

by Eric D. Butler
However much one disagrees with some of the policies of Federal Liberal leader Alexander Downer, he is entitled to be treated as a decent human being, But there is not much decency about modern party politics where personalities are allegedly much more important than policies, and personal abuse replaces rational discussion. Last week's Keating campaign against Alexander Downer was, of course, primarily designed to further fragment a Liberal Party which has lost a coherent philosophical base.

Today's Liberal Party is far removed from the Party established by Sir Robert Menzies and his colleagues, including Alexander Downer's late father, Sir Alex Downer. But is today's Labor Party far removed from that led by John Curtin, Ben Chifley and Arthur Calwell? The League of Rights grew out of a Social Credit Movement, which had the support of John Curtin, Labor Premier of Tasmania Ogilvie, and many other Labor politicians. I was personally associated with Labor politicians like Senator Richard Darcy of Tasmania. Were those men all "racists' because they supported the same immigration policy that I do today - one designed to maintain a homogeneous and harmonious nation?

What has emerged from last week's remarkable smear campaign, with the League being used to attempt to undermine Alexander Downer, is the influence of Zionist leader Isi Leibler, who has openly and arrogantly insisted that no politician be allowed to associate with the "racist", "extremist", "anti-Semitic" and "bigoted" League of Rights. Leibler has said that following Alexander Downer's appearance at the now famous League of Rights Seminar in Adelaide in 1987, he "warned" Alexander Downer against the advisability of appearing on League of Rights platforms.
It was not coincidental that Downer was dropped from the Liberal Party's Shadow Ministry on the eve of the Adelaide Seminar.

When it became clear a few weeks back that a major national campaign was being prepared to assist Paul Keating, it declined all requests to make available the League's video of the 1987 Adelaide Seminar, at which Alexander Downer was the first speaker. The League is unaware of where TV7 obtained the video which was used in such a blatantly dishonest way by sections of the media and Paul Keating.

The Age, Melbourne was the worst offender with a front-page photo on September 1st, of Downer, the caption under the photo reading, "Channel 7 footage of Alexander Downer and Eric Butler at the Adelaide meeting of the League of Rights in August, 1987". I did not appear on the platform with Mr. Downer at any time. The second person shown in The Age photo was the man who chaired his Paper. Those who claim to have a copy of the video are well aware of this fact. But they are not interested in facts.

Age Political Editor Mark Baker, accepting the accuracy of the front-page photo, charged Downer with telling "an outright porky" because of his "vagueness about sharing the stage with League founder, Eric Butler…" The only people telling lies are those who, for their own purposes, have been attempting to link Alexander Downer with the League of Rights.

At the end of a week of torrid interviewing by the media from all over Australia, my attention was drawn to an item in On Target concerning the fact that after having had a close association with South Africa for many years, I had suddenly been denied a visa. The On Target report correctly said that I had been unable to regain the visa even with the aid of the Opposition. Several media representatives asked was Alexander Downer one of those from whom I had sought assistance. The truth is that it was the South African Opposition, which sought to have my visa re-established!

In an attempt to twist the meaning of my comments, one interviewer responded to my observation that while Alexander Downer had not handled the League affair well and that I felt he should be given "a fair go", by asking, "Does this mean that there is some association between the Liberal Party and the League?"! When the full story is told, it will make revealing reading concerning the low level to which public life in Australia has sunk.

LIBERALS REEL FROM MERCILESS ASSAULT

by David Thompson
As we go to press, the media-driven assault on Alexander Downer and the Liberal Party continues, in which the League of Rights is being invoked as the political equivalent of a blunt instrument. This entire development is a major assault on the conservative element of Australian politics, and while the Liberal Party appears to be the major target of the assault, it is quite clear that the League of Rights is being singled out for special attention.

But as the Liberal Party progressively retreats and compromises, the critics of the League of Rights find it much more difficult to deal with. I was in Canberra on the day that Mr. Downer moved that Parliamentary question time be suspended, to debate a censure motion in which the Prime Minister, Mr. Keating, was to be condemned for accusing Downer of "anti-Semitism".
I watched from the public gallery as Downer attempted to retrieve his position of having been accused of associating with the League at a Seminar in 1987, by producing a document indicating that the leader of the A.L.P. Opposition in W.A., Mr. Ian Taylor, had invited a division of the League, the W.A. Branch of the Heritage Society, to take morning tea with the Shadow Cabinet. The unedifying shouting match that followed was observed by several classes of young schoolchildren in the galleries, and sending children to observe the Parliament in action would now have to be regarded as a new form of child abuse.

Mr. Keating inevitably amended the Downer motion to condemn Downer's appearance on a League platform. Immediately after the vote was taken to condemn Downer, Mr. Clyde Holding, A.L.P. Member for Melbourne Ports, called for the urgent introduction of the racial vilification legislation, in order to be able to deal swiftly with groups like the League. There is no doubt that the A.L.P. strategists are positioning the Coalition so that they will find it extremely difficult to oppose the racial vilification legislation in the face of allegations that they are trying to "protect" the League of Rights.

POLITICAL TERROR TACTICS

Throughout the entire affair, Downer and the Liberals have been out maneuvered by the A.L.P. As the League pointed out in press statements, the terms racist" and anti-Semitic", used to condemn the League and, by association, Mr. Downer, are nothing more than a blatant form of political abuse. They are not descriptive terms, but intimidation tactics. The only counter for such tactics is to confront the accusers head-on, which the Liberals have difficulty doing.

When Immigration Minister Bolkus quoted from The International Jew, by Eric Butler, as an example of "extreme anti-Semitism", Coalition members were in no position to point out that the book was being quoted out of context in the most dishonest way. Mr. Downer's response was to quote Keating's hero, former A.L.P. Premier Jack Lang, out of context to imply that Lang, too, was "anti-Semitic". The truth is that if the New Testament is quoted out of context, Christ Himself can be depicted as "anti-Semitic", misquoting The Merchant of Venice can depict Shakespeare as being "anti-Semitic". The use of such terms is nothing less than political terror tactics, but Downer seems unable to counter them.

THE LEAGUE'S POSITION

Being driven further and further into retreat by the press, Downer is now reported as ordering an internal enquiry to determine the extent of League "infiltration" into the Party. In press statements the League has made it clear that the Liberal Party is simply not worth infiltrating. In our view, the Federal Liberals are suffering from terminal decay, and we find it increasingly offensive to be associated with them.

The League rejects the charges of "racism" and "anti-Semitism" as terms of meaningless abuse, for which neither Keating nor the press have provided justification. However, it is quite legitimate to debate such questions as immigration policy or multiculturalism. It is quite valid to point out that multiculturalism simply does not work, and that a responsible government must adopt an immigration policy that prevents social fragmentation and racial friction. Some Asian countries openly use such policies.

It is sheer intimidation to apply the expletive "anti-Semitism" to anyone who dares to examine the influence of the Zionist or Jewish leadership on Australian politics in proportion to the numerical strength of their communities. Similarly, to note the deep divisions about Zionism and Israel within Judaism, or to observe that the loyalties of Australian Zionists may be divided, are quite valid matters for discussion free from intimidation.

If special consideration is apportioned to Jewish people because of past persecution, it is also valid to satisfy ourselves of the nature of such persecution. The League recognises that Jews were persecuted in World War II, as were others. Cambodians were persecuted by Pol Pot, the Chinese were murdered in their millions by Mao, and Stalin purged many millions of Soviet citizens. The study of the nature and extent of such "holocausts" is a legitimate field of historic enquiry, whether the victims were Jewish or otherwise.

The League does not take the view that the Jewish holocaust did not happen, but observes that evidence for some aspects of this persecution, like that of mass gassings, has been dramatically exaggerated.

While we have some sympathy for Mr. Downer, he has clearly mishandled the Keating/media assault. He should insist that he is free to address whatever group he pleases, free from intimidation, as others, like A.L.P. backbencher Graeme Campbell, have successfully done.

MINISTERS CAUGHT OUT ON DRAFT LEGISLATION

from The Australian, August 25th
You can hardly accuse the States 'of losing the plot on reform' with competition reform being implemented in most States at a pace never seen before in our country's history. "I hope your newspaper does not fall victim to the 'briefings' by the Federal Government both before and after COAG meetings. "I find it insulting to read articles in the press outlining the outcomes of these meetings two days before the meeting is actually held. "The so-called 'draft communiqué' was not approved by the premiers and chief ministers or their officers - it was written by the Federal Government for the Federal Government.

"The debate on competition policy was hampered because the Federal Government had not done homework on one of its own proposals. In a meeting without officers, it became apparent the federal ministers were not familiar with their own draft legislation, which broke many commitments agreed to in Hobart. "It brought back memories of how the Federal Government drafted the Federal Native Title Bill - if you put up constructive criticism, you simply do not get invited to the next meeting.

"It should be a relatively simple exercise to put together a co-operative policy on competition reform, taking in the States' and Territories' needs to retain some autonomy, just as the Federal Government demands on these issues. "The States are driving a huge reform agenda, so please strip away the rhetoric of your briefings from the Federal Government and look at what is happening in States such as Western Australia, where the major energy and industrial relations reforms are driving record levels of new investment."
(Richard Court, M.L.A., Premier of W.A.)

FLUORIDE QUESTION STILL NOT ANSWERED

HOMOSEXUAL LIAISONS AND CHANGING LAW

FROM SENATOR ERIC ABETZ: LIBERAL SENATOR FOR TASMANIA

from The Australian, August 29th
The Tasmanian Government was elected on a policy of retaining the Criminal Code provisions in question …That's democracy isn't it? Or are you telling Tasmanians all wisdom resides in Canberra? "Your commentary was lacking in fact and had the hallmarks of propaganda. An example: 'Some lawyers believe the laws also prohibit oral and anal intercourse between heterosexuals, including married couples'. "Any lawyer who knows the Tasmanian law would tell you,
1. Oral sex is not outlawed. As a reference see Stingwell's case of 1989.
2. The law outlaws both homo- and hetero-sexual anal intercourse. These 'some lawyers' you refer to must be 'some lawyers' to be so ignorant of the legal position.

"The U.N. decision told us that 'sex discrimination' in the Covenant was not gender discrimination only but also sexual preference discrimination. No one would have placed that interpretation on the Covenant when it was signed. "In any event the laws deal with practices and not preferences. The U.N. decision also told us that the 'right to privacy' included the right to consensual activity in private. So what about consensual incest? Mr. Toonen's submissions to the U.N. were not tested by cross-examination and were heard in private. The U.N. Covenant allegedly gives accused people the right to cross-examine their accuser! No such right was afforded to the Tasmanian Government.

"In relation to your comment that Tasmania is one of the few places in the Western world where such laws still apply, let me simply state that 23 of the States of the United States of America have similar laws to Tasmania. Why is it that the United States is not internationally embarrassed? Why is it that the trade with the United States has not been affected?"
(Eric Abetz, Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T.)