"The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) has the potential to be even more divisive and harmful than One Nation!"

the-world-is-divided18-1

Smell the sulphur, people! Here’s comes the ghost of Pauline Hanson and the dust of the Grand Wazoo!

RackMultipart20131208-19568-12ye57dBenjamin T. Jones, a wakademic ,  appears to be a self-indulgent clairvoyant  who writes a lot – and knows very little.

It seems he can’t hold his ink  when it comes to the Q-Society. From an ivory tower in his multicultural swamp,  Jones  calls Muhammad a ‘prophet’  and shrieks that Geert Wilders calls the ‘messenger of allah’  a “warlord”,  a“terrorist” and  a “paedophile”.  He desperately  tries to make it sound as if Islam was not “evil”, “intolerant” and a “mental prison”.  Jones  flogs the dead donkey of “xenophobic stereotypes and anti-Muslim prejudice” like thousands of Islamic taqiyya merchants before him. Not sure if he already converted or if he is about to.

Jones suffers under the mental baggage of the far left supremacist, loaded heavily with free-speech-0-phobia. His  ignorance is dressed up  as tolerance for the intolerant. He gets his Islam  spoon-feed from Muslim ‘advisers’, and squirts it around as if it was Jesus juice from the fountain of truth. He worries about “diversity”….

Jones writes a bit more intelligently than his fellow traveler, the self-proclaimed  anarchist “slack bastard” Andy Fleming who fantasises much about  “Aussie Neo-Nazis” whom he resembles more than anyone…..


A political party inspired by controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders is set to launch next year.AAP/Julian Smith

.

News that an anti-Islam lobby group, the Q Society of Australia, plans to launch a political party to contest the next federal election should be cause for alarm. Based on the principles of Dutch MP Geert Wilders, a successful result for the new Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) has the potential to legitimise extremism and normalise far-right rhetoric in Australia’s political discourse.

The Australian political landscape is still coming to terms with the successful launch of the centre-right Palmer United Party at the last federal election. Conservatism is enjoying a political renaissance in Australia. It is predicted that after this weekend’s state elections in South Australia and Tasmania, the Coalition will control all governments at state and federal level, save for the ACT.

The Q Society is attempting to seize the rightward swing of the political compass and fill the void once occupied by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. It recently gathered in Melbourne for the 1st International Symposium on Liberty and Islam in Australia. In a video message of support, Wilders denounced:

… politicians who don’t share our values and foolishly declare all cultures are equal.

The new party has a clear agenda in presenting Islam as an unwanted and inferior other. Commentator Alice Aslan has suggested that the refusal to recognise Muslims as “real Australians” is a key contributor to Islamophobia in this country.

In February 2013, Wilders toured Australia amid much controversy and protest. In a speech at Sydney’s Roma club, Wilders used the pretext that Islam is a political ideology, not a race and not a religion comparable to Christianity or Judaism, to unleash a torrent of invective.

Islam was openly called “evil”, “intolerant” and a “mental prison”. The prophet Muhammad was called a “warlord”, “terrorist” and “paedophile”. The crowd roared approval as Wilders called for a “spirit of resistance” and a ban on immigrants from Islamic countries.

While it is unlikely the ALA will enjoy immediate electoral success, the fact that it seeks to occupy a legitimate political space presents problems in itself. Professor Deepa Kumarof Rutgers University has written extensively on the legitimisation of Islamophobia since the 9/11 attacks. She notes that:

… the politics of liberal Islamophobia at the top of the society enabled the extreme Islamophobia of the right.

When prejudiced views are articulated by those holding a respected office, they automatically gain a degree of social currency and the message becomes far more effective.

Professor Humayun Ansari at the University of London has produced similar findings in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. In response to two 2011 studies that suggested a majority of Britons thought Islam was violent and incompatible with the “British way of life”, Ansari suggested the legitimisation of Islamophobic rhetoric was key:

So what or who is fuelling this belief? I believe that political rhetoric and the media has a lot to answer for. In a whole host of speeches and acts since July 2005, Islamophobic discourse has become normalised and become more coded and subtle.

The political elite represent a key forerunner of the hegemonic voice in any society. As British legal academic Maleiha Malik has argued, language has been a powerful tool in normalising xenophobic stereotypes and anti-Muslim prejudice. The inclusion of extreme, discriminatory rhetoric in the accepted political discourse will contribute further to the process of Muslim othering.

The example of Wilders’ own Freedom Party in the Netherlands sets a worrying precedent. Many dismissed the party as a fringe right-wing group beyond any mainstream appeal when it won nine out of 150 seats at the 2006 election. But after four years in parliament, Wilders’ anti-Muslim rhetoric became less shocking. In 2010, the party more than doubled its representation, winning 24 seats.

Despite ceding ground at the 2012 election, the Freedom Party still commands 10% of the national vote. Having formed an alliance with Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front, Wilders has realistic ambitions for the European Parliament elections in May.


Islamophobia feeds into our worst instincts and needs to be courageously opposed, not elevated to parliamentary status. AAP/Mick Tsikas

 As the ALA prepares for a national launch next year, the federal government is debating changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This makes it unlawful to do or say something that is likely “to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on racial grounds.

While the Q Society insists that anti-Islamic sentiments are not racist, a new mood is taking hold in Australia. Strong attacks on minority groups, often without the right of reply, are being accepted in political discourse under the auspices of free speech. With the Coalition enjoying nationwide electoral success, members of the extreme right are eager to put their conservative stamp on the national discourse.

One Nation tapped into a xenophobic vein and enjoyed temporary popularity on a general anti-immigration platform. The ALA has the potential to be even more divisive and harmful than One Nation. It aims its aggression at a specific, already marginalised group.

A ten-year national study released in 2011 suggested that nearly 50% of Australians hold anti-Muslim attitudes. The ALA will aim to exploit existing suspicion and intolerance while giving its own extreme rhetoric the authority of political debate.

The ALA presents a character test for Australia. If the party succeeds at the next federal election our parliamentary standards will lurch further to the right. Victimisation of minorities will be introduced as part of the normal political narrative.

Islamophobia feeds into our worst instincts and needs to be courageously opposed, not elevated to parliamentary status.

11 thoughts on “"The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) has the potential to be even more divisive and harmful than One Nation!"”

  1. Pauline Hanson with One Nation!
    • Why didn’t I vote for One Nation?

    The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA)!
    • Why I will definitely consider a vote for ALA! – (To assist “Allah” be gone)

    In my mind Absolutely, Definitely, Positively – NOT THE SAME THING.
    • Anybody care to give me a piece of their mind!

    Oh dear – Benjamin T. Jones – (A Stupid Assister/Enambler) ….
    • Another example of a misguided ‘person‘ existing under assumed intelligence.
    • Another example of a ‘person‘ inappropriately employed in a school of higher learning and knowingly marketing deceit and lies as truth – by him for Islam.
    • Ideally – Benjamin T. Jones should be removed from this polluted position of trust and be legally required to refund all remuneration received by him during his tenure – then incarcerated for the crimes of Treason and Sedition (along with his Assisters and Enablers and masters) – then as newly created non-citizens of Australia – deported to any Islamic Country (if these types of Countries still exist then).

  2. Good maybe they can tackle other problems like mass immigration free trade ideology and the short sightedness of the other political parties and offer a real leader like Putin

  3. Muslim or Islam is not a race.

    There is no Muslim race or Islam race so why do people keep making this mistake.

    What is Wilders’ racism?

    Why don’t Muslims of whatever race reply in a civilized manner rather than resort to violence or violent protest?

  4. Daniel,
    Wilders is definitely NOT a racist – read his comments in speeches, texts and interviews. Neither are Geller, Spencer, Darwish and all the folks who try to explain the truth of islam to people who are to lazy to recognize the demon at the door. They have been labbed a racist by ignorant and stupid left wing morons, as well as vile muslim apologists, simply because they have no case to answer and the muslims/left are unhappy that they are exposong the damage that the left/muslims are doing, and planning to our communities.

    You can ask your questions as many times as you like to left wing whingers and muslims – you will receive no answers

  5. An American checking in. I just have a hard time understanding that all people of almost any Ethnic, Racial, or Religious persuasion can wear a shirt proclaiming pride in their affiliation with the aforementioned. But if a White Person wears a shirt expressing pride in being of White descent, you are a racist. There are associations in America for Black, Hispanic, Or Muslim Professionals (Just examples, not picking on anybody.) But if any of such groups started the name of their organization with “White” would be considered Racist.
    I find the fact that people are willing to accept this double standard pretty perplexing. Sort of an X And Y and Z are equal, But X can’t do what Y and Z do. How can people justify this without resorting to lies and obfuscation?

  6. Refusal of muslims to recognize any sovereign national country as legitimate (as opposed to man-made, false idols which must all eventually be destroyed and replaced by the one-world islamic ummah, to be ruled by their theocratic caliphate) is what’s behind legitimate crime-o-phobia.

    And islam is not even an inferior and unwanted “culture” at all – it’s simply an ancient and ongoing extortion-racket crime-gang of holy mobsters.

    That the Q-society seeks to “legitimise extremism and normalise far-right rhetoric” cannot be seen as a bad thing, since ‘extremism’ is a neutral term, (extremely kind? Extremely loving? Extremely generous? Extremely law-abiding? OH, the Horrors!) should be legitimate if and when used legitimately, and not n some sort of an emotive propagandistic way by idolatrous lefty cracktards, as is the case os the presstitutes at work here. And “far-right” rhetoric must be, by definition, in defense of individual citizen’s basic human rights to self defense, and so also opposed to idolatrous group-might-made-rights and extortive victimology scenarios promoted by said lefty gangsters!

    To whom, I might add, it’s apparent that attempts to tell the truth – that islam IS indeed an “evil”, “intolerant” creed and a “mental prison”. The prophet Muhammad was indeed a “warlord”, “terrorist” and “paedophile” – should not qualify as a “legitimate” use of political “space”(whatever that is LOL)!

    In fact, to lefties, only their idolatrous and nonsensical metaphor-speech (“legitimate political space,” “degrees of social currency,” “normalising discriminatory prejudicial stereotypes,” “hegemonic voices,” and “xenophobic veins”) is legitimate; plain facts be damned, and their speakers be imprisoned!

    Although I’ve gotta admit, that ALA bastard has always been divisive!

    😉

  7. Pauline Hanson was not racist. She wanted the same for both black and whites in Australia no matter where they were from.
    Muslims also want Sharia law in all western countries. Unfortunately we are allowing the muslims to get their way. Have a look at many of the countries in Europe. Muslims dont believe in tax or paying interest at banks. They quite happily accept the free handouts by Centrelink. Something is not right.

  8. I dont believe Q Society is seeking to legitimise extremism. They are trying to show the rest of Australia that the ‘islamic cult’ is in fact demanding that we allow their extremism to be legitimised. The islamic cult is doing it through using the political correct words like ‘vilifying islam’, ‘religious rights’, etc.

  9. An Islamic mayor from hobsonsbay council sold community parkland to his Islamic society to build an Islamic place of worship. No councillors opposed him in fear of being labelled racist despite thousands of locals objecting. What will happen if the Prime Minister is Islamic? If the Islamic mayor gave land to Islam, what’s there to stop Islamic PM adopting Islamic Law in Australia? Those who believe in Islamm their number one goal is to spread Islam, and democracy and equal opportunity does not exist. I have experienced this first hand.

  10. John,

    Surely the good people of Australia will stand up and collectively voice an opinion and object to an Islamic prime minister?

    A Muslim leader will absolutely put his co-religionist first.

Comments are closed.