|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
18 November 2005 Thought for the Week:
"The truth is essentially not a matter of dogma, but of demonstration. As with individuals, so with nations. The national culture which produces the greatest degree of individual freedom, mental and material, is the Christian community Political Christianity - the representative system of government - slowly developed in England."
Norman F. Webb "European Background," The New Times, 20th December 1940.
IT'S THE LAW THAT IS THE REAL TERRORISTby Ian Wilson LL.B.
The "Anti-Terrorist Bill 2005" in its first version, was placed on the web by ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope who believes in the principle of free debate, even though he supported the Bill. The result of this is that the ACT has not, and will not receive a copy of the latest draft of the bill which will probably be law as you read this essay. So I will wait now until we have the ink dried on the black letter law before offering a summary of the existing law.
For the purposes of freedom movement people I wish to draw our attention towards these issues which relate most directly to our activities. I assume that most of us do see an "Islamic threat" to Western civilisation, although there will be some differences between us on the causes.
What our concern is: how might the new terrorist laws be used against us?
The new terrorist bill implements a number of new regimes: Control orders will allow the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to obtain from Courts a 12 month control order which would permit the use of tracking devices, travel and restrictions on association. This concept builds on already existing apprehended violence orders.
The regime of preventative detention has received considerable media coverage. Originally detention was to be permitted for up to 48 hours in a terrorist situation, to stop further attacks. Terror suspects can now be held for 14 days incommunicado. This has raised an issue of the Constitutional validity of this part of the law and federal government Solicitor Henry Burmester QC has said that there is no guarantee that the proposals did not breach the Constitution.
The High Court held in Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 that "the involuntary detention of a citizen in custody by the State is penal or punitive in character and, under our system of government exists only as an incident of the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt."
However the Howard government probably has a way around this through the creation of "thought crimes". Make it a criminal offence to be suspected as such by ASIO and AFP and - bingo - no messy problem of Constitutional separation of powers. That seems to be the government's implicit strategy.
Up front though, Constitutional concerns about preventive detention are a worry only for federal law. States can to a greater extent escape this limitation (e.g., Kable v DPP (1996) 189 CL 51) and that is why the federal government has persuaded the States and Territories to implement the preventive detention measure.
There have also been constitutional doubts raised about the use of judges to impose preventative detention and control orders as this prima facie breaches the separation of powers of the judiciary and executive and the obligation of a court to act fairly and impartially. But there are ways round this: have the judge act as a person, rather than a member of a court, or use state court judges where the separation of powers is not as rigorously defined.
The controversial shoot-to-kill powers have been dropped from the "Anti-Terrorist Bill 2005". The strategy has been to rely upon State law once more: whatever applies under State law will apply to federal law under the "Crimes Act". At present lethal force can be used by the police in arrest situations under appropriate circumstances, so the present changes are something of an "overkill".
Other changes include access to airline passenger information for ASIO and AFP; a new ASIO warrant regime with widened search warrant provisions and an extension of stop, question and search powers for the AFP, where there are reasonable grounds that a person might have committed, might be committing or about to commit a terrorist offence.
There will also be a new "notice to produce" regime which will allow AFP to make extended requests for information that will assist its terrorism investigations. Already under the amendments to the "ASIO Act" people may be held in detention because they may "substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence".
American peace activist, Scott Parkin, was deported on ASIO's advice for posing a security risk even though he had no history of violence. He was taken into "questioning detention" and held in a maximum security lock up until deported. That is a sample of how the anti-terrorist power will be used.
"People who pose a terrorist risk to the community" is intentionally vague and will be used, in time, against anyone the dark lords do not like. Thus the offence of sedition will be replaced by the new politically correct thought crime of "inciting violence" against the community. Already the sedition laws have criminalised a wide range of non-violent political protests and at present it is an offence under the "Criminal Code", (subsection 101 C1), punishable by life imprisonment, to threaten politically-motivated violence with the intention of intimidating some section of the public.
The basis for prosecuting political speech will be widened giving seven year gaol terms for people "promoting feelings of ill-will or hostility between groups," or "racial hatred'. Court decisions have indicated that almost any criticism of non-Anglo racial and ethnic groups would qualify. Although a "legitimate criticism" defence is offered, as in the racial hatred Acts, the "good faith" clause ensures that no defence will ever get up because someone saying X (where X is the "hate speech") couldn't really be in good faith! At the present time virtually all such racial-based criticism (such as Professor Fraser's defence of the White Australia Policy) is open to potential legal action.
The new laws will do nothing to stop terrorist attacks upon Australian soil. Sedition laws cannot stop suicide bombers, only change in political policies can - if at all. Australia's coasts are freely visited by illegal fishermen now (e.g., The Weekend Australian 22-23 October 2005, p.9) so who is to stop the smuggling of an atomic bomb to Australia?
Could it be that the "terrorist threat" within Australia shouldn't have occurred in the first place and that it occurred only as the result of a "terrorist" immigration and multiculturalism policy designed by social engineers as a weapon of mass destruction against Anglo-Australians?
George Orwell's 1984 is realised in Australia in 2005:
"There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire, was guess work. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time."
The all-seeing eye of Mordor seems to have been operating that way for some time.
THE AGENDA BEHIND "RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION"
Ian Wilson LL.B.
Democracy has nothing to do with
multiculturalism. Democracies may be composed of ethnically and racially diverse
people, but a democracy cannot survive on a foundation of relativistic value.
If truth is not a legal defence and if truth-telling is effectively criminalised,
then democracy has broken down.
BE WARY, PUBLIC WARNED: RUSHED LAWS 'UNHEARD OF'Source: canberrayourguide.com.au, Markus Mannheim 6/11/05
The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, has called for a more "active, interested and suspicious citizenry" to scrutinise what he says is Australia's "degenerated" parliamentary system. The comments follow widespread criticism of the haste in which two highly contentious Bills - the proposed new laws for anti- terrorism and workplace relations - are likely to be debated.
Both pieces of legislation were introduced into Parliament last week, and the Government expects them to be passed before the end of the year.
Mr Evans, who has presided over the Senate for 17 years, accused the Prime Minister, John Howard, of taking a "monarchical" approach to governing, saying the decision to rush such controversial legalisation through Parliament was unprecedented.
He said Mr Howard exercised much stronger control over his backbench than previous governments that had commanded Senate majorities, such as those of Malcolm Fraser and Robert Menzies.
"[There] is a greater concentration of power in the office of the prime minister, greater party discipline and greater concentration on spin and media management," he said. Mr Evans also said the media's captivation with National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, who voted last month against a government plan to overhaul competition laws, highlighted a general lack of effective scrutiny in federal politics.
Parliamentary system has 'degenerated':
By contrast, when Malcolm Fraser held a Senate majority from 1975-1981, up to nine Coalition senators would cross the floor on various issues. "The fact that people are so excited about this one person, who's crossed [the floor] just once so far, is in itself symptomatic of how the system has degenerated," he said.
An example of this discipline emerged during a party room meeting this week, when angry Coalition MPs urged the Prime Minister to sack the Veterans Affairs Minister, De-Anne Kelly, because she had earlier supported Senator Joyce's right to vote against the Government.
But Mr Evans said recent events in Britain and the United States, where the governments of both Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush were under increasingly strident attack from dissidents within the ruling parties, had left him with a "faint optimism" for the future of Australia's parliamentary democracy. "People are getting fed up with the style of Tony Blair, his control freakery. You can see signs of that in the US, too." (Would to God we could also see it happening more in Australia ed).
UNEASE AT THE CHINESEby James Reed
The US, unlike Australia, is concerned at the rapid militarization of China. At a regional security conference in Singapore, US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, asked: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?"
Rumsfeld flew into Beijing on 18 October 2005 to press for greater transparency over China's manic militarization. Yes Don - financed by the same financial folk who control everything else; we are beefing up now to prepare for your nation's ultimate demise when before 2050, through Third World mass immigration, your nation falls apart and every city will be full of rape and murder of dumb white Americans, as witnessed in the fall of New Orleans. Our new masters are moving in with us already and will rule the smouldering ruins of the West from the new capital of the world. Donny, is that transparent enough for you? Good, now go eat your rice.
China's "booming economy" has produced hundreds of millionaires. The wealthiest ten per cent of urban Chinese own 45 per cent of the urban wealth and the urban poor 10 per cent less than 1.4 per cent. This wealth differential is greater than when the communist party came to power. Certainly economic growth has benefited millions but well-being is relative and so is resentment.
The communist leadership is presently concerned that major social unrest will occur threatening their economic dream. No doubt any unrest will be handled in the way it has been in the past for military toys can be used just as effectively at home.
The Independent on-line edition contains an insightful article by Michael McCarthy: "China Crisis: Threat to the Global Environment," 19 October 2005.
Even the greenies are starting to get worried about China's appetite. Almost five out of every 10 tropical hardwood logs from the world's rainforests goes to China. China exceeds the USA as the world's leading consumer of grain, meat, oil, coal and steel. Soon China will overtake the USA as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. How that one will upset the greenies who have installed global warming as part of the new environmentalist religion. If you doubt this, have a look at Tim Flannery's new book "The Weather Makers" which contains the now familiar Gaea idea. But no criticism of China, thank you very much.
If China continues to grow at the same rate as today, by 2031 it will consume two thirds of the world's grain and 99 million barrels of oil a day - the world currently produces 87 million barrels a day. If China consumes paper at the same rate, it will by 2031 consume twice as much paper as the world now produces. And then, if China consumes all of these resources what is left for India? Of course they won't use all of those weapons of mass destruction which they have accumulated.
They will sit down and think of Gaea and find a politically correct anti-racist solution! Don't bet on it.
PEOPLE POWERby James Reed
Since South Africa has been "handed back to the Blacks," Black rule has produced lawlessness. Attacks on White farmers continue, uncontrolled. Black people too, suffer. Johannesburg has become a war zone, and like all of South Africa's cities, is terrorised by thieves, murderers and rapists. This terrorist war is conducted, not merely against the White Afrikaner population, but also against hard-working, law obeying Blacks who are a particularly favourite target of these street gangs who resent Blacks getting on.
With the conventional police force unable or unwilling to fight this plague of crime, decent people have responded by forming "lynch mobs," taking the law into their own hands. When conventional law ceases to operate, the people themselves will create law. The law "taken into their own hands" becomes their law. But it is a brutal frontier law without checks and balances that conventional trials provide.
Sometimes the accused thieves, rapists and murderers are hung; other times they are hacked to death by knives and beaten with rocks. Some "lynch mobs" are directed against those suspected of witchcraft - as in many Black communities the age-old belief that disasters like a sick child dying are caused by a witch, continues to be held. However, most of the lynchings are against people accused of more conventional crimes.
This is a shocking state of affairs for both Black and White people and indicates that the rule of law has broken down and that anarchy effectively reigns. The lesson in all of this for the White liberals has not been learnt and our own intellectual maggots continue to feed on the rotting flesh of our own nation.
The liberals' first major victory in Africa, Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, under the rule of Robert Mugabe, has gone from a prosperous nation to a bankrupt one where at least 4 million Zimbabweans are in need of food aid. The economy was once propped up by mainly White farmers, but Mugabe has essentially declared open season on them.
The liberal maggots in the West shed no tears for them, for their deaths are seen as the poetic irony of a former racist regime. But as the liberal intelligentsia eat themselves to heart attacks, the Black people starve.
WHITE AUSTRALIA AND RACIAL REALISMby James Reed
Readers who may have read Professor Andrew Fraser's banned essay on the White Australia policy may be interested in reading the entire essay, rather than the diluted version that appeared in The Australian 1 September 2005. The most relevant section of the essay, rather than the review of two books on the White Australia policy is the introduction to the paper which gives a concise statement of the plight of Anglo-Australia.
"Rethinking the White Australia Policy" by Andrew Fraser
Not even scholars challenging the orthodox view that the White Australia Policy was a "racist" blot on the nation 's honour support suggestions that its abolition was a catastrophic mistake. An unshakeable consensus among managerial, professional, political and academic elites in favour of racial egalitarianism has prevented a long overdue re-assessment of the policies permitting mass Third World immigration into Australia.
Recent advances in genetics, palaeo-anthropology, psychology and medical science have demonstrated the existence of significant racial differences in cognitive and athletic ability, temperament and behaviour.
That newly-emergent racial realism confirms the wisdom of the nation's founders. They understood that the comparative ethnic homogeneity of the Anglo-Australian people was a source of strength and unity. The later shift toward a multiracial society has been the product of an ongoing, transnational, managerial revolution from above which can and should be resisted by all patriotic Australians.
Over the past thirty years, Australia, along with just about every other Western society, has been transformed by a revolution engineered from the top down by the leading echelons of the corporate welfare state. New Class cadres of managers, professionals, politicians and academics have dismantled the foundations of Australian nationhood laid down at the time of Federation.
The arbitration system, the protective tariff and the White Australia Policy: all have gone in order to facilitate the free flow of capital, technology and labour in a globalist economy.
The most revolutionary, by far, of these radical changes has been the decision to open Australia to mass Third World immigration. In taking this step, the managerial regime has, in effect, followed the wry advice tendered by Bertolt Brecht to the East German government on the occasion of the worker's revolt in 1956: Rather than relying on crude repressive measures, Brecht suggested, the Communist regime should simply dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Indeed, since the end of the Second World War a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants. Chief among the ideological weapons deployed in that campaign have been the interwoven myths of equality and universal human rights.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:
The official ideology of the globalist regime has been enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
According to that document, "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous." There can therefore be "no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere." Those who subscribed to the doctrine of racial egalitarianism were bound to oppose a colour bar on immigration to Australia as being both immoral and pointless: it was axiomatic that "racial differences are not significant differences that need divide mankind." Racial egalitarianism rather obviously flies in the face of the more realistic premises of the White Australia Policy.
The founding fathers of the Australian nation regarded racial differences as a fact of life and racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society. In their view, ethnic homogeneity was one of the great strengths of the Australian nation, one that ought to be preserved and not squandered or thrown away in pursuit of utopian visions of universal harmony in which lions could be re-educated to lie down with lambs.
Forty years after Australian governments began to distance themselves from the White Australia Policy, advances in genetics, palaeo-anthropology, psychology and medical science are placing the universalist doctrines of racial egalitarianism under serious pressure. A vast range of studies in a number of disciplines have revealed real and important differences between the races in cognitive and athletic ability, behaviour and temperament. Faced with such intellectual challenges, defenders of the ruling orthodoxy are resorting to social ostracism, legal repression and even the sort of physical coercion deployed against members of the One Nation Party some years back.
The time is clearly ripe for a courageous and well-informed reappraisal of the White Australia Policy and the decision to dismantle it. Unfortunately, racial realists, concerned to bring common sense to contemporary Australian debates over race and immigration, will be disappointed with two recent books on the White Australia Policy. Both promise much but deliver little because of their authors' determined refusal to take race seriously."
As I have argued in many articles in the past, and as other contributors have done, the time is right for an Anglo-Australian anti-immigration movement. We need to organise before the life blood of our people drains away in the chaotic sands of communistic multiculturalism.
LETTERS TO EDITORS AND POLITICIANS
The Courier Mail, 29th May, 2004.
COME ON NSW - NOW'S THE TIME FOR ACTION!We have been informed that a private members Bill is now in the NSW Parliament which seeks to replace the Oath of allegiance to the Queen with an Oath of allegiance to "the people".
Would all NSW readers contact their State Members of Parliament and vigorously protest; also contact the State Governor and request that assent to such a Bill not be given.
SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUBSupporters please note new venue.
The next meeting: 7.30pm Thursday, 24th. November (last for the year) will be held at the Russian Club, 7 Albert Street, Strathfield. This venue is close to the Railway Station and has the benefit of a Bistro open for evening refreshments.
"Have Your Say," as it is our practice for the last meeting for the year, the audience are given the opportunity to 'have their say'. On arrival, give your name to the chairman and you will be allocated 5 minutes to express your viewpoint. Strathfield is central to all Sydney suburbs, and it is hoped that this will revive the interest of supporters from the Northern and Eastern suburbs.
Could the Victorian readers who have
books they wish to return, please contact the Melbourne office on 6950 9749.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|