|
September 21, 2005
The Age reports that the Executive director of the Australian Multicultural Foundation Hass Dellal, said there were moral limits to freedom of speech. He added that Dr. Andrew Fraser's views about ethnic homogeneity of the Anglo-Australian people and that a multiracial society forces white Australians to bear "painful social, economic and political costs" disrupted social harmony. Hass Dellal said:
"Most Australians finds these views abhorrent. For a country like Australia that has been so welcoming and has benefited from its diversity, socially politically and economically, most Australians don't accept these views."
So the open society is dumped to preserve social harmony of the nation state in a globalized world. Oh dear. That is a dogmatic conservatism for you isn't it .
This article is what is being banned. The argument is laid out:
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.
For sure. I'm a lefty and I concur with that. Fraser continues:
The most revolutionary, by far, of these radical changes has been the decision to open Australia to mass Third World immigration.... 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.
Provocative for sure, with words such as 'flood' , 'Anglo-Australian homeland ' and a 'polyglot mass of Third World immigrant'. It is provocative in the light of the mass imgration from Europe after WW2. But hey, this is the political language of the One Nation conservatives. It's not mine. It all depends on whther there is an argument from a clear position that clearly defines the opposition. in a way that is acceptable to the adherents. Fraser does this.
He continues:
Chief among the ideological weapons deployed in that campaign have been the interwoven myths of equality and universal human rights...The official ideology of the globalist regime has been enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [5]. 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."
Yes that is a justification for a multicultural Australian society. It is stated fairly. I personally have difficulty with the language of rights but that is beside the point on this. The language of human rights is used to defend a culturally pluralistic Australia.
Fraser then states the obvious: that 'racial egalitarianism flies in the face of the more realistic premises of the White Australia Policy... and ethnic homogeneity.' I would challenge 'more realistic' but that is a quibble. The substantive point is that the founding fathers of the Australian nation did regard racial differences as a fact of life; racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society and they did act to preserve ethnic homogeneity as a cornerstone of the Australian nation. Australia was to be a white nation. He's right on this.
Fraser then says that he wants to undertake a well-informed reappraisal of the White Australia Policy and the decision to dismantle it. So he wants to defend a Anglo-Australia, assimilation, and one nation. And he proceeds to argue his case. But he is banned from doing so by the university authorities at Macquarie and Deakin. That is one issue. A key one. We cannot assess Frasers' arguments until the article is published.
Comments can be found at Redrag, at Larvatus Prodeo at Catallaxy The former two are quite negative about Fraser.
|
This has always been the case for any topics with "One Nation" and "free speech" in the same breath. It seems Australia is a country of free speech, but only if you're saying what the majority wants to hear.
I'm not making a claim either way since I am yet to read the article, however the author has a right to say it. Even if the article turned out to be utter claptrap, I'd still defend his right to say it. People (for the most part) are smart enough to make up their own mind on the content.
If you don't like what you're reading, switch off the computer - but don't censor it.