Why we must discriminate

Outraged residents have slammed the Council over its decision to make Mackay a “Refugee Welcome Zone”.

Have your say: (after the fact)

The mayor smears his constituents as “rednecks” for resisting the “multicultural” blessings he’s determined to inflict on the town.

In other news:

The Greens lie and smear in the politics of hate, now claiming Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton is a racist, fascist and neo-Nazi running a White Australia policy.

Bronwyn Bishop: ‘Critics of Peter Dutton are cowards. They won’t come out and criticise the murder of South African farmers. They won’t stand up for women in radical Islam. We’re entitled to discriminate about who’s entitled to come here’

John Stone in praise of discrimination:

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s remarks about white South African farmers, including possibly granting them special immigration consideration, evoked charges of “discrimination”…

What’s wrong with commonsense policies that discriminate between culturally compatible immigrants (say, Christians) or too often not (Muslims); costly to taxpayers or less so; potential contributors or “victims”; and so on?

We discriminate daily in many ways. We avoid sitting beside that bloke talking to himself, or that obese woman occupying most of the seat. Around our kitchen tables (to former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs’s horror) we laugh on seeing photos of someone as “white” as ourselves claiming Aboriginality, whereas we would never laugh at a genuine Aboriginal from, say, Arnhem.

Why not exercise similar common sense when choosing those immigrants whom we admit to permanent residence (and prospective citizenship)?

 

Baby used as weapon in fight

A MOTHER used her one-year-old baby as a weapon during a shocking street fight in Alice Springs.
.

Too bad, Aboriginal ‘activists’ can’t blame the white-man for the sickening trend of domestic violence in indigenous communities.

Overington vs Bernardi
Overington vs Bernardi

WHY CAROLINE IS WRONG ABOUT CORY

Caroline Overington makes some good points about the ABC calling a conservative a “c..t”, but also a very bad  one:

Bernardi is saying he wants to go after the ABC not on free speech grounds per se but for a lapse in taste, a fall in standards, collapsing manners and so on.

What a crock…

You don’t get to pick and choose. If you’re a conservative, then you’re for free speech, including vulgar speech.

That argument is surely wrong.

In fact, Overingon mistakes being “for free speech” with being “for” whatever anyone then chooses to use their free speech to say. She confuses the right with the content.

Being for free speech surely does not mean you cannot criticise bad speech. Surely I can be for your right to speak, without then having to be for everything you then choose to say and how you say it.

Similarly, I can be for a free vote without being for the choice you make with that vote. For instance, I am for democracy, yet am appalled that a third of German voters once voted for the Nazis.

In this case, Bernardi’s support for free speech cannot mean that Bernardi loses foreever his freedom to criticise the ABC for using foul language.

Nor can it mean that he or other defenders of free speech lose their freedom to criticise should the ABC, for instance, promote hatred of Jews, praise terrorists, lie about global warming or publish panygerics for Castro.

Nor, by extension, does it mean free speech defenders can’t even tell their own children to stop use foul or mean language.

Overington must know this. She attacks Bernardi from the stance of a free speech defender, yet has herself criticised the ABC for favoring Muslim women who choose to cover their hair, thus promoting their conservative form of Islam. She also supported the sacking of Mark Latham from Sky News on the grounds that he’d been rude to the point of defamation- exactly analoguous to Bernardi now wanting the sacking of ABC staff who were even ruder.

That does not make Overington herself a free-speech hypocrite. It means that she knows that she, at least, is entitled to use her own free speech to criticise bad speech, despite defending free speech in princple.

So what is that principle?

It means in this case that the ABC staff who called Kevin Bailey a “c..t” on air should be free to do so without the state jailing or fining them, or orderng their works be censored – as two of my columns on race poliics were. And as far as I can tell, Bernardi has not called for these staff to be so prosecuted.

Indeed, if these ABC “comedians” had abused Bailey like this on a YouTube clip or in a comedy festival show or in their own homes, I doubt Bernardi would even bother complaining.

But if we want the state to butt out of debates, we actually have a greater responsibility as individuals to police them ourselves. We don’t want the state to police language and opinions, but we don’t want nobody at all to determine our community manners and mores.

That settling of manners , though, is often safest done in through debate rather than the law – and most certainly when it comes to free speech.

That way the enforcement leaves plenty of room for dissenters to say as they please and suffer nothing more than social consequences, rather than legal ones.

Let some ABC comedian scream “c..t”. Bernardi will not want him jailed. But Bernardi – and I – will object to paying him through our taxes. We will not want to fund an ABC that so trashes the kind of cultural standards we want – and which we collectively fund the the ABC to actually uphold.

If free speech defenders can’t insist on some such standards then it seems Overington is saying they cannot defend any at all. As free speech defenders we must apparently say nothing even if the ABC defends the Holocaust.

That cannot be what free speech means. And I am sure Overington knows it. After all, she is a defender of free speech who here attacks even the inoffensive speech of Bernardi.

WHITES DID NOT CAUSE BLACK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Mocker, a great new talent, lashes the new politics of race preached on the ABC by the likes of Nakkiah Lui.

How is this for a comedy skit? Two light-skinned, inner-city, tertiary-educated women who identify as Aboriginal are part of an ABC panel that discusses indigenous issues. They are joined by the third member, who, unlike his co-panellists, is dark-skinned, weather-beaten, and has travelled from the remote indigenous community where he lives.

“You’re not supposed to be here,” say the two women in unison, glaring at him. “This is an indigenous-only panel!”

Hilarious, right? Not so. Indigenous playwright and comedian Nakkiah Lui would find it most offensive.

“Being questioned about my authenticity is inherently racist,” Lui said in 2015. She was responding to a critical review of her play Kill the Messenger, which questioned her ability to write from the perspective of a working-class indigenous family. “I am Aboriginal, there is no debate there,” said Lui, who has a middle-class suburban upbringing, as well as a law degree.

Then there’s this correction of Lui’s desperately misleading suggestion that Aboriginal society was sweet until wicked whites appeared:

One might ask Lui why, in her opinion, labels [she has used] such as “white dogs” and “white c…s” do not constitute a big brushstroke or demonising. What she said later was breathtaking….

YOUTUBE

“Violence against Aboriginal women has been happening … from basically colonisation.” (3:30), implying that pre-colonisation indigenous society was a Kumbaya collective.

As detailed by the magazine Quadrant in 2013, early British and French explorers noted the endemic violence of Aboriginal men against indigenous women. “They are in all respects treated with savage barbarity,” observed British marine officer Watkin Tench, who had arrived on the First Fleet. “Condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality.”

In 1995, a paleopathological study of the bones of around 4,500 indigenous skeletons — many of them predating European arrival — revealed a highly disproportionate number of women’s skulls were fractured.

“Few women will be found, upon examination, to be free from frightful scars upon the head, or the marks of spear wounds about the body,” wrote nineteenth-century British explorer Edward John Eyre. To pretend that violent misogyny in indigenous communities is a recent phenomenon resulting from colonisation is to shield its perpetrators.

 

2 thoughts on “Why we must discriminate”

  1. No matter where you go in the West, it’s the same story. Politicians peddling diversity, multiculturalism and the muslim invasion. All over the western world. Don’t tell me there is not a conspiracy here to destroy the West and the white race.

  2. Whites & other Unbelievers of islam must discriminate against invader islams !!!
    … stop and remove invading islams
    … On Sight On Site !
    (islams want to Convert/Subjugate/Rape-Pillage-Murder all Unbelievers of islam
    (ie You/Me/We/Us) ) !

    Whites really must discriminate against diversifier criminal African tribals !!!
    … stop and remove diversifying criminal African tribals
    … On Sight On Site !
    (criminal African tribals want to Rape-Pillage-Murder Whites
    … blacks and whites (the self-hater suicidal ones) call it diversifying)

    Expel islams and criminal African tribals
    … on sight on site
    !

    Remove/Incarcerate the islamophile/diversifying TREASONOUS authorities who import the PROBLEM !
    Expel TREASONOUS authorities
    … on sight on site
    !

    More and more Unbelievers of islam – the silent majority have been and are being incarcerated illegally by Treasonous and islamophile/diversifying authorities
    … The situation definitely and defiantly requires rectification !
    “Remove” Treasonous and islamophile/diversifying authorities
    … on sight on site
    !

Comments are closed.