THE MUSLIM MINDSET IN AUSTRALIA?

When Eric Butler wrote the above book over twenty five years ago, adherents to the Muslim religion in Western countries were not as many as today, and we had not experienced the consequences of the "race-hate" legislation. But thanks to the imposition of multiculturalism, the 'race-religion-hate' legislation and the dismantling of our national sovereignty through UN conventions, we are in great danger of losing our freedom to publicly discuss matters of concern to us. We must come to grips with what has happened to our freedoms and culture - and come out fighting!

Saltshakers www.saltshakers.org.au had this to say:
The Muslim mindset, exposed in the Victorian Court of Appeal puts freedom of speech and the Australian culture under threat: "It is impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable. "If one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief," Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.
If that claim, made in the Victorian Court of Appeal yesterday by the Barrister for the Islamic Council of Victoria, was found to be true it would fundamentally change the freedom we have to speak about any religion in Victoria.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked Mr Woinarski: "There must be, intellectually, a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them?"

Clearly the underlying assumption of Islamic Council:
"We don't agree with that," Mr Woinarski said. "But in this case it's an irrelevant distinction, because Muslims and Islam were mishmashed up together." Despite so-called 'exceptions', under this assumption, any comedian, actor, journalist, and certainly any religious commentator, would be severely restricted to only saying nice things about any religion or face possible prosecution under Victorias Religious Tolerance Act.
Any religious debate, no matter where it took place, could be found to contravene this Act simply because one person could claim they were vilified by criticism of their religion - despite the word vilify not even appearing in the Victorian Act.

This was clearly the underlying assumption of the Islamic Council when they instigated this case against Pastors Nalliah and Scot:
From the first was the encouragement of three individuals to go to a seminar (conducted by these Christian pastors) to specifically lodge a claim that they were vilified by their (the Pastors') critique of Islam through to today.
Such an assumption is totally incomprehensible to a Western culture where free speech is a vital component of a democracy.

Clearly a wake up call to all Australians:
The fact that the barrister for the Islamic Council could make such a claim should be a wake up call to all Australians as to how easily our freedom of speech could be removed by stealth…"

RELIGION IN THE DOCK - AT THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Barney Zwartz of The Age, Melbourne 23/8/06 reported:
"Christians who were found to have vilified Muslims should not be banned from making statements that would be lawful by anybody else, two Court of Appeal judges suggested yesterday.
Discussing orders made against Christian pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, Justice David Ashley said a judge could not restrain conduct that was lawful, and Justice Geoffrey Nettle questioned whether too much was expected of Pastor Scot.

The Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal ruled last year that the pastors and Catch the Fire Ministries vilified Muslims in a seminar, newsletter and article in 2002. They have appealed against the ruling and the remedy orders made by Judge Michael Higgins.
Debbie Mortimer, SC, for the Islamic Council of Victoria, said the Muslim side had sought a public apology and undertakings not to repeat the vilification, but the pastors had refused and said they did not recognise the findings or even the law on which they were based (the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act).

Truth is now 'not a defence':
She said the tribunal gave the pastors another chance before ordering them to apologise in newspaper advertisements and granting the injunctions forbidding them from repeating the statements anywhere in Australia. She said the ban applied only to the two pastors.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said: "Surely that can't justify restraining them from saying something that said by anyone else would be legal? In the case of the newsletter, for example, Pastor Nalliah says many churches have closed down. What's wrong with saying that?"
Ms Mortimer replied: "The tribunal has found there is something wrong with saying it. Truth is not a defence, it's irrelevant to contravention of the act."
Justice Ashley said so many of the statements were entirely innocuous and asked how the pastors could legitimately be restrained from making them. Ms Mortimer replied: "Because the tribunal found that when they made them they made them in a way that contravened the act."
She said the comments had to be seen in the overall context. Justice Nettle said that if she was right that only some comments from the seminar were banned, "a layman whose first language is not English (Pastor Scot, from Pakistan) is supposed to go through 140 pages of judgement and discern from that things he may not say on pain of contempt". Running seminars on Islam is Pastor Scot's occupation.

Question of constitutional validity of the Act:
Ms Mortimer said he would have the same obligation under the vilification act, with no guidance. "There is a lot more guidance in this kind of order than the act provides."
Cameron Macaulay, barrister for the pastors, claimed that Judge Higgins made errors of law and that his orders were too wide, and questioned the constitutional validity of the act. Solicitor-General Pamela Tate said the case did not come under the implied constitutional right to free speech because that right applied only to political and governmental matters. Justices Nettle, Ashley and Marcia Neave reserved their decision."

ANOTHER MATTER OF LAWFUL AND CULTURAL CONCERN

Mr. Nick Maine of >nmaine@bigpond.net.au< has been following up the matter of welfare payments to some of these people coming to Australia as 'refugees':
"I have been following up the payments made to polygamists who have been allowed into this country. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to why these people have been brought here? During my enquiries with politicians and Centrelink I am told that although these people cannot marry again here, as that is then bigamy, they are however permitted to bring in all their existing wives and even accumulate more women and live in a de facto relationship and then claim further pensions.

RESPONSE: ATTORNEY-GENERAL RUDDOCK:
06/6850, MC06/8626:
Mr Nick Maine, 5/40 Duet Drive, Mermaid Waters, Qld. 4218 16 August, 2006
Dear Mr. Maine,
I refer to your e-mail dated 22 May 2006 in which you raised further concerns about bigamous marriages.
As you are aware, under Australian law, a person cannot be legally married to multiple partners. However, there may be people of many backgrounds in Australia who may be involved in more than one marriage-like relationship.
I am advised that if Centrelink assesses a customer as being involved in a marriage-like relationship, each person is paid the relevant income tested payment at the partnered rate. This ensures that people in more than one marriage-like relationship do not get a financial benefit above what is available to other customers.
Centrelink only makes payments to people who are entitled according to legislation and they use a variety of review activities directed towards the prevention, detection and deterrence of incorrect payments and fraud. The Government is also considering whether additional action is necessary.
I hope this information is of assistance to you. Thank you for bringing your views to the attention of the Government,
Philip Ruddock, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 o Telephone (02) 6277 7300 o Fax (02) 6273 4102

HOMEBUYERS BEWARE

If Australians cannot rise to the multitude of threats facing them, then it is curtains for this country. It may retain the name of 'Australia' but it will not be the spiritual, moral and cultural federation that was born 200 years ago.
As you read the following email report from Germany, take careful note of what is really happening. Native Germans are losing their commercial properties and homes and rootless aliens are taking over. In this case it is the international money lenders, such as George Soros.

Email warning from overseas:
August 23, 2006
"If you owe money on your home, beware! For the past three or four years it has been the policy of German banks to lend money for private homes but not to lend money to locals for commercial properties.
This policy has not only forced many local commercial property owners into receivership, but also allowed foreign investors who could borrow money outside Germany, to come in and snap up German commercial properties at a tenth of their actual worth.
The US investor George Soros has spent at least 200 billion buying up German real estate.

Last night on NDR (Nord Deutsche Rundfunk TV) on a programme called Frontal they highlighted a new dangerous trend coming from the banks.
Foreign Investment companies are buying up private debts from local banks, then instead of taking the interest payments, or honoring the terms of the loans, they are foreclosing and demanding the full sum of moneys owed.
If the Person cannot pay the debt they owe immediately, (they don't even allow time for the person to borrow from another bank) they are treated as defaulters and their homes or property are forcefully auctioned off.

Frontal showed a few examples, one man who had his family home auctioned off from under him and was forced to move out, another man had bought a large hall that he had rented out to an ALDI Market. Even though the rent ALDI was paying to him was much higher than his interest repayments to the bank, the Investment Firm took over his property and they now collect the rent from ALDI.

These US/UK Investment firms have names like TEXAS or in the above cases HUDSON. How German banking laws allow the banks to sell off private debts was not explained in this programme, but it looks like the German banks (most foreign owned) use loopholes to transfer debts and although HUDSON has huge modern offices in Frankfurt they refused to be interviewed on camera.

If you live in Australia and think this cannot happen to you THINK AGAIN, most money borrowed for home loans in Australia was borrowed from US Investors operating through Australian banks".

THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST OUR GUNS

by John Steele:
Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America has published an enormously important book entitled "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights," (Nelson Current, Nashville, 2006).
The UN held its global gun ban summit on the Fourth of July 2006 in New York. The idea is simple.
The UN conferences want all private fire arms banned. Weapons held by "rogue military forces" in the Third World and "genocidal governments" are fine by them. (p.x)

Howard's Gun Confiscation Architect:
Individuals, you see, don't have a right to use a firearm for self-defence, even if they face the prospects of rape and/or murder (p.2) This is according to La Pierre, the view of billionaire George Soros' protégé Rebecca Peters who runs the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) which co-ordinates private gun banning across the world. (p.1)
As La Pierre notes, Peters was "The "proclaimed architect of the 1996-97 long gun confiscation in Australia." (p.5) This was the world's biggest forfeiture scheme. The guns grabbed were, according to Peters, "weapons of war" and "battlefield weapons". (p.5)
Yes, that's right, your old loved .22 semi auto rabbit gun. John Howard put her ideas into practice.

How will the UN ban private gun ownership? Primarily it will be done as it has been done with other issues such as multiculturalism and the promotion of homosexuality - through international treaties. The Ottawa Treaty (1997) banning land minds is the model.
The Fabian strategy is to - on the surface - control illicit small arms. To do that requires eliminating legal ownership because legally owned guns can be stolen.
The United Nations Firearms Protocol will allow signing nations under external affairs powers to ban private firearms ownership.

La Pieree goes on to detail in, with full references, the history of the UN's own human rights abuses and corruption, especially by UN "peacekeepers".
Examples of UN crimes:
Sexual abuse of children has been common. (p.111) The UN "facilitated the genocide against the disarmed people of Rwanda" (p.127); "The UN is complicit in genocide, and the international gun haters are complicit in evil." (p.149)
Early in his book La Pierre quotes a passage from Peters where she responds to the question: "Why do you place such unquestioning trust in governments and the United Nations, when you clearly do not trust individuals for the best way to protect themselves and their families?"
Peters said: "It's called civilization. Individuals come together. They form societies. They form governments… I have confidence that people coming together into countries are going to operate better than a whole lot of individuals making their own rules, taking the law into their own hands." (p.4)

It is an instructive passage and an entire essay could be written deconstructing its craziness. If individuals cannot be trusted then why would collective organisations that they create be trusted? Peters' "confidence" is contrary to historical reality and the empirical evidence presented by La Pierre.
Further, individuals exercising a right to self-defence are, and should be, acting within the law. The law should reflect this. After all, if individuals don't have such a right why should they have the even more dangerous right - the right to vote?

Howard must be pressured:
In the build-up to the next election it is time for the Australian gun lobby to put pressure upon gun-banner John Howard as never before. After all, the global war against our guns has already been declared.

AMONG THE BARBARIANS

by Brian Simpson
Paul Sheehan in "Among the Barbarians" examined the adverse impact the ethnic lobby has had on Australian immigration policy. In his latest book, "Girls Like You" (Macmillan, Sydney 2006) gives us a glimpse of the way Australia's legal system allows rapists to often walk free because of the corruption of lawyers and the legal system.

The book focuses upon the trial of the three K brothers, Pakistani-born Australian rapists of teenage Anglo-Australian girls. Another book should be written about the Sydney Middle-Eastern gang rapes of Anglo-Australian girls, but their story - like the story of the French girls raped by the same type of criminals - may not be told. Anti-White racist crimes are freely permitted by the Establishment to disappear down the plughole of history, and Sheehan's book is the exception that proves the rule.

The book shows how the legal system, now biased against victims, can be manipulated to essentially crush vulnerable rape victims. Procedural tricks and stunts delay trials. Offenders lie through their teeth. Lawyers bully victims, rather than merely test evidence, in a court-sanctioned attempt to break witnesses who are suffering trauma. If ever there was a feminist case for the corruption of lawyers and the legal system - this is it.

In an insightful review of this book Janet Albrechtsen put her finger on the key issue when she said: "the chief villains in all of this are the lawyers. They have grown to believe they, not society own the legal system. They know better how justice should be meted out, invoking jargon, mystique and experience to defend their proprietorship… They protect their ownership, their belief systems and their careers against society's legitimate demand that the law serve the interests of society, not a small cabal of lawyers. They have elevated the protection of the interests of a minority - accused people - into a form of oppression of the majority: society at large." (The Australian 26/7/06 p.12) Lawyers have helped to create a legal system which treats criminals as victims; "Burdened by middle-class guilt, they refuse to believe that crime is caused by criminals."

Beyond this though, the legal fraternity champions the right of illegal alien invaders 'refugees' and much free (pro bono) work goes to helping these people. Meanwhile little help goes to battling Aussies facing legal problems: legal aid is essentially for the disadvantaged politically correct 'victim'.

A balance of checks:
There needs to be a book done exposing in full detail the evils of our present system of "rule by lawyers", an undemocratic cabal of elites that have a rule parallel to parliament. Why is it, for example, that the High Court of Australia has the power to interpret the Constitution? Who says they should have this power which effectively gives them a greater power than parliament?
The "rule of lawyers" issue is one which needs to be addressed and resolved because it has led to abuses such as those involved in the Middle-Eastern gang rapes.

As a footnote to this article:
The Weekend Australian 29-30/7/06 p.3 reports that Middle Eastern gang rapist Bilal Skaf received a maximum prison term of 38 years (minimum 32 years) for the 2000 gang sex attacks. Mohammed Skaf received a maximum of 15 years gaol with a minimum of 7½ years.
The brothers were initially convicted in 2002, but their conviction was overturned on appeal when it was found that two jurors had conducted their own investigation.
It was only the determination of the teenaged victim that ultimately allowed the conviction. Otherwise the young Anglo girls would be part of the untold history of rapes, often by ethnic men but also by our own kind, that have not been punished by law.

ADAMS' HATRED OF ERIC BUTLER

by Betty Luks:
It is truly amazing how much space Phillip Adams has devoted to vilifying Eric Butler over the years. Eric was a Nazi, racist, and a traitor to his country - according to Phillip Adams. Adams' article in The Weekend Australian 5-6/8/06, p.42. continues this rave.
Eric, according to Adams had a "squalid toxic" life and "was a traitor to his country, to his professed Christian faith and to human decency". Mr. Adams regards it as "calamitous that he was ever born." Indeed for "more than 60 years this most repulsive creature spread his poison", his "pornographic politics".
Even people who have shared a League of Rights lectern are condemned.

What's needed is a reality check:
But let us take a reality check. According to The Australian (5-6/8/06, p.4) radical Islamists are set to target Australia to die fighting Israel and countries supporting it, such as Australia. Australian-Indonesian businessmen are allegedly funding the plot "to attack Jewish interests". It is said that 217 jihadis, including suicide bombers have been sent to countries supporting Israel.

Now where is Adams' sense of proportion: that is clearly a greater threat than any traditional conservative social credit critic, surely. But to comment on this sort of reality would start to challenge his own comfortable multiculturalism.
And by the way - why doesn't Adams express any guilt for accepting Leftism, when communism in its forms has led to the death of over 100 million people? The smear-by-association game is never played fairly.

Adam's over-reaction - even Jewish critics of Eric Butler have not been so verbally angry - cannot be explained rationally. It is not rational.
There are others who supported apartheid in South Africa, promoted the "Protocols" and accepted racial realism. There are many Left wing and Islamic critics of the Jews that are far harsher than ever Eric was. Why the special treatment?
Could it be the manifestation of an enormous inferiority complex, the realisation, if only at an unconscious level, that Adams is not in the league of Eric Dudley Butler?

ISRAELI CHUTZPAH - i.e. BRAZEN CHEEK

from RePortersNoteBook:
Israel Wants to Sue U.N. for Damages Caused by Hezbollah, 18th August 2006:

"Talk about gall. I just got done eating my supper, and it feels like it wants to come up. I'm speechless on this one!!! Maybe this is why no country will ever make peace with Israel because of this road to Jerusalem mentality: Deuteronomy 20:10-18 states:
"When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you . . . you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies."

Petition wants U.N. reparations for Israel!
"Pro-Israel advocates launched a petition calling on the United Nations to provide reparations to Israel for damage caused by Hezbollah. The petition says the "U.N. Security Council failed to discharge its obligation. It allowed Hezbollah to entrench itself in southern Lebanon and to spread its terror to the people of Lebanon."
As of the latest report, the petition had garnered more than 34,000 signatures. >http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=4255<

FEDERATION

from David Flint's Opinion Column:
"Those who say our Constitution is creaking under the strain, shows its age and is in need of reform really want a different constitution from that which our founders chose. 'Reform' has long been shorthand for centralism, and in recent years has been extended to a vastly increased political role for the judges as well as, of course, some sort of a republic.

As to its age, the American constitution is twice as old as Australia's, but there would be few who would call for a drastic change to it. As John Stone said on the ABC on 13 July, 2006, ours is one of, if not the finest constitution in the world.
The Australian people were more fully involved in the development and adoption of our Constitution than any other people in the modern world. They determined the essence of the new nation in the Constitution's covering clauses when they agreed, in each of the colonies (States?…ed):
"Humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God… to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown and under the Constitution..."

The intention of the founders, and, most importantly, the people was very clear. Had the politicians and the judges kept more to that intention, many if not most of the problems of overlap, of centralisation and of financial irresponsibility by the States would have been avoided.
In particular, if the external affairs and spending powers of the federal government and parliament had been limited to the list of powers which the people agreed the federal parliament may legislate on, the States would have been left alone to do what the constitution and the people intended.
If Canberra's power to make grants to the States had been ended soon after federation, as the Constitution clearly suggests, the States would not have been reduced to their present mendicant status.

The problem is not in the Constitution, it is in those who have changed its intention without seeking the approval of the people, and in the knowledge, it should never be forgotten, and that the people would have been most unlikely to agree.
This is a story well documented in the publications and on the website of The Samuel Griffith Society- (I should disclose that I am on the board).

The answer is certainly not in the dissolution of the States, or in the transfer of even more powers to the Commonwealth, or in a vast increase in the power of the judges to govern us, or in the grafting of some unspecified republic on to our Constitution, at least unless and until the people approve of any or all of these.
In the meantime, the consequences of the present unsatisfactory situation will be considerably mitigated by sensible working relationships between Canberra and the State capitals, such as those that seem to have been reached recently.

But above all, what is needed is a return to the principles of the constitution of our one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown; principles to which the Australian people have given their consent and which they have so recently affirmed."