Sunday, 1 November 2015

They are trying to make us afraid to speak. It's working.

Today in the news, there was a story about the publisher of a secular blogger being hacked to death.

 ABC news, 1st November, 2015,

A publisher of a slain online critic of religious militancy has been hacked to death in the Bangladesh capital, police said, hours after similar attacks on two secular writers and another publisher in the majority-Muslim country.
Faysal Arefin published books by Avijit Roy, a US citizen of Bangladeshi origin who was killed by Islamists militants in the same way in February.

Arefin was hacked to death on Saturday (local time) with sharp weapons in his office on the second floor of a crowded market in the capital, police said.
Militants have targeted secularist writers in Bangladesh in recent years, as the government has cracked down on Islamist groups seeking to turn the South Asian nation of 160 million people into a Sharia-based state.

Four secular bloggers have been hacked to death this year for writing critically about Islamist militancy. 

Another blogger is imprisoned and flogged.

Religious Freedom Coalition, 28th November, 2015

Raif Badawi, a Saudi critic of Saudi’s anti-democratic government and its religious police network, was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to a decade in prison and 1,000 floggings.

Badawi endured 50 floggings in January and became so weak he almost died from his injuries. The Saudi government halted the floggings until he could heal. These floggings are to begin again soon and will be done weekly – 50 lashes at a time for 20 weeks in a row.
Until his arrest, he wrote a blog called “Saudi Arabian Liberals” where he advocated for secularism in this religious dictatorship.

Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine.  Twelve people were murdered because they'd 'offended' Muslims. 
'Je suis Charlie,' remember?  A world-wide movement in support of the twelve murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists and cartoonists. A world-wide movement in support of freedom of speech.  They said it - je suis Charlie.  But it didn't happen. People are  more afraid to speak up than ever.

The Tribune, May 6th, 2015  -
NEW YORK: French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo received a freedom of expression award on Tuesday at a gala US ceremony boycotted by some leading authors in protest at the publication’s lampooning of Islam.

Security was tight at the PEN America ceremony in New York, which came 48 hours after an attack targeting a Texas venue that featured a contest to draw the Prophet Mohammed.

Police officers armed with semiautomatic weapons stood guard outside the American Museum of Natural History, where the award was conferred by the literary and campaigning group during a dinner.

Officers also patrolled with dogs outside the building, near Central Park, and guests had to pass through metal detectors.

Charlie Hebdo was hit by a militant attack in Paris in January after regularly publishing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Twelve members of its staff were shot dead.

Chief editor Gerard Biard told the New York ceremony that he was “very proud” to accept the award, and urged others to espouse the magazine’s values in support of freedom of conscience.

“Each citizen of the world must adopt these values and stand up for them, against political and religious obscurantism. The more numerous we are, the weaker they are,” he said.

Two points - the security needed because they were so afraid of attacks by Islamists.  and that far too many people decided to boycott the ceremony - afraid to stand up for freedom of speech.

 It had already succeeded on the other aspect -

The Tribune, April, 29, 2015.

PARIS: Cartoonist Luz, who drew Charlie Hebdo’s front cover picture following the massacre of the satirical weekly’s editorial team by militants in January, has told a French magazine he will no longer draw sacrilegious cartoons.

 “I will no longer draw the figure of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). It no longer interests me,” he told Les Inrockuptibles magazine in an interview published on Wednesday. Luz’s cover image in January portrayed Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) with a sign saying “Je Suis Charlie” under the words “All is forgiven”.

The issue was published a week after militants had attacked the magazine’s office and killed 12 people. It had a print run of eight million — a record for the French press.

“The terrorists did not win,” Luz told Les Inrockuptibles.

“They would have won if the whole of France continues to be scared,” he added, accusing the far-right National Front of trying to stir up fear in the wake of the attacks.

But of course, the terrorists won. People are afraid. 

In more civilised areas, people are not flogged or hacked to death or imprisoned for stating the facts -  but there are some very real sanctions against free speech.  Being vilified on social media is one. 

Pamela Geller -

A couple of days ago, there was a huge controversy about Bild. They took screenshots of what they claimed were hate posts, along with the picture and name from Facebook, and published them. Like a pillory.

They are putting the people’s backs up against the wall and taking down any rational voice that speaks against this tyranny. It’s a recipe for civil war.

They published a list with the “top 10” of “hate posters.” And they meant to publish a list of the worst offenders.

It’s a threat — a warning — letting people know if they say anything against the invasion they will put a target on their heads. The response by freedom-loving peoples should be millions more posts, more tweets.

There are sites set up that encourage the encourage the reporting of  instances of 'Islamophobia.'  A German site offers money for reports of instances, and I've seen an Australian site doing likewise - $1/ report. 

And yet, true hate speech is ignored. 

Check this you-tube video if you think it is not so.

There was a police staff member recently shot dead. He'd just been to Paramatta mosque, and it was there that someone had handed him the gun.

There is also, of course,  just plain censorship: 

It comes in the form of omitting the reporting of important incidents, and the deliberate misreporting of incidents.

 A clear instance of Islamic terrorism is reported as an individual who is mentally ill.  Remember Man Monis?  He waved an Islamist flag, he told his hostages to pass on Islamist messages, and still there was this insistence that Islam had nothing to do with it.  Any who pointed out that there was a very clear religious motivation were labelled bigots and racists.  (And for the 1000th time, I will point out that Islam is not a race, it is a religious ideology.)

On October 27th, there was a man probably having a psychotic episode - he waved a meat cleaver around, causing a Melbourne street to be closed down for a few hours. It was lucky that no-one was hurt, just some property damage and a great deal of inconvenience.  He claimed he was 'the Islamic Messiah.'  But in reports, it was denied that religion had anything to do with it, and then, it was reported that he'd claimed to be 'the Messiah'  - dropping the 'Islamic.'  (Two out of three TV news bulletins I watched that night did not mention it, and the third gave it a scant 20 seconds without mention of motive.)

It is reported that facebook could be deleting 'Islamophic' posts, though it does not seem to have much success when they try and delete ISIS propaganda posts.  So is perceived 'Islamophobia' more terrible than posts urging Muslims to commit violence?
According to Pamela Geller, 31st October, 2015.
Apparently the spineless, gutless Mark Zuckerberg made good on his promise to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel had been prodding and strong-arming Zuckerberg to “do something” about the posts and comments on Facebook that oppose the Muslim invasion of Europe. Attending a luncheon on the sidelines of a United Nations development summit in New York several weeks ago, Merkel and Zuckerberg were overheard on a live transmission broadcast on the UN website as participants took their seats.
After Merkel confronted Zuckerberg about anti-migrant posts, the Facebook CEO is heard responding that “we need to do some work” on the issue. This is so typical of the elites. They control policy, they control the media, they control the culture — but they can’t control the people. And this makes them crazy. If they could, they would change the people.

Islamophobia, they call it.  A phobia, of course, is an irrational fear.  Sadly, a concern about hardline Islam is not at all irrational.  Ask the 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria who were kidnapped, and are now, presumably, wives.  In hardline Islam, a 'wife' is effectively a slave.
And ask the journalists thrown into prison because they were doing their jobs. Others kidnapped and with heads sawn off. This is hardline Islam, and this plague is spreading across the planet. 

So we're not allowed to talk about it?

A little story:

The village folk saw the dragon - breathing fire, killing, standing right there in front of them, threatening. It was too big to kill, and too fast to run from. One young and foolish man had an idea. 'It's not really a dragon,' he said. 'It's just a cuddly pussy cat.' Everyone chant with me, 'Just a cuddly pussy cat.'
A woman whispered, 'It's a dragon and will kill us,' but the man turned to her sternly, 'You will not undermine our peace. It is just a cuddly pussy cat.'

The woman shook her head, but another who stood next to her gave her a thump in the ribs, and she said obediently, 'Just a cuddly pussy cat.'

But it was a dragon. It set fire to the town and killed its residents.

Islam is a religion of peace. Of course. And the dragon is a cuddly pussy cat.

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Internet bullies who don't know they are bullying


Some internet bullying is obvious - the teenage girl whose facebook 'friends' unite to say how horrible she is, maybe how fat, maybe how she should just hang herself and give the world a break. 
It's an awful thing to do, especially as some victims have wound up committing suicide.
But there is another form of internet bullying, and most who pass these things on do so without ever thinking that it is a form of bullying.



 So if you don't 'share' that makes you 'afraid to make a stand' and presumably uncaring besides.

 'I hope I was right about the ones who will repost.'
So the ones who don't repost are awful people? 

The sweet little hearts make no difference.  This, too,  is a form of bullying.

Was it sincere in the beginning?  Possibly, or possibly just another of those memes that are used to harvest facebook names.


 'I'll be watching.'

        Enough said.

  "Let's see who has a strong heart.'

And if we don't choose to share, then, again, I guess we are weak and presumably uncaring besides.

'Have the guts to repost this.'

No, but I do have the courage to call it what it is - internet bullying.


This one is even more explicit -
'I want to see who is brave enough...'

 'I'm pretty sure I know the ones that will.'

Another little piece of blackmail.

The blackmail phrase is nearly always used.
'I know the ones who will,' or 'I'll be watching,' or something similar.

It is bullying.  Please let's stop this nonsense.

To the ABC - facts please.

To the ABC - especially the ABC. but every other news outlet as well.  You are supposed to be the news.  So please give us the news - that is facts, not your agenda! 
The other day on TV, someone was arguing that the bias shown in our media really didn't matter 'because everyone knew who was Fairfax and who was Murdoch.' But actually, no, we don't, and what is more - we shouldn't have to! News outlets are supposed to report the news - FACTS - not pursue an agenda, usually left wing, as most journalists seem to be very left wing.
In Australia, a prime offender is the ABC. One used to regard the ABC as by far, the best of the news outlets. Now it is close to the worst.

Something on this morning's ABC 24, by way of an example - that there was a 'massive' demonstration in support of the 'refugees' swarming into Europe, with a passing reference at the very end to a 'counter demonstration.' On the internet, I see a report of very large demonstrations against the indiscriminate admission of hordes of immigrants.

I have not seen a news bulletin that reported that the immigrants had rioted, had thrown faeces at the authorities simply for trying to achieve some semblance of order, had chanted 'Allahu Akbar' as they forced themselves onto a train, had been fighting amongst each other, Turks against Kurds, for instance, had even thrown away the food rations handed to them.

Instead, we have an outcry because they were 'fed like animals.' To support this allegation, it was shown that they were divided into pens, (not confined to the pens) and as there was no orderly queue, packets of food were tossed to some at the back. It is not unusual to use such 'pens' as a way of sorting large numbers of people who are waiting for something. It actually reminded me very much of last November, when I was one of thousands of people, most elderly, waiting and waiting and waiting to get onto a cruise ship. Except that they queued, they didn't attack each other, and there were no rations available/ (though a few elderly ladies on the point of fainting from the hours of standing in the heat were given drinks of water.)

So what am I saying? That news outlets should STOP censoring the news. The public wants the facts, not what some conceited journalist or news editor thinks it acceptable for us to know.

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Hiroshima - 'those bombs were well placed, and they ended the war.'

70th Anniversary of Hiroshima.

History is being re-written.  Some are now portraying the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an unforgivable crime committed by the is Americans, while the crimes of the Japanese are being glossed over. Instead of re-writing history, we should look at what was actually happening, and the best way is through the eyes of those who were suffering though it. 

'But Sir: the Autiobiography of a Twentieth Century Australian' 
Merv McRae
originally published 1987,  republished 2014.

This excerpt is from Chapter 14. The author was one of thousands of POWs, Australian, British, Dutch, and Americans. He and his brother Dunc, had survived the Death Railway, and were back in Changi prison.   
The Death Railway had a 50% death rate from starvation, over-work, disease and beatings.

We had been working on the aerodrome for some time;  it was a long walk,  and hard work when we got there,  with many bashings from the Japs.  One day two hundred of us were sent out on a last working party,  not far from Singapore city.  There was another party of two hundred working not far away.  Our task was to dig large holes,  twelve feet deep by twelve feet square,  and there were six men to dig each hole.  What were they for?  we wondered,  and I remember one man saying that if the Allies landed we would be shot and buried in these holes.  I didn’t like that idea at all,  and I well remember telling him not to be stupid,  but he was spot on.  It was found after the war that if the Allies had landed in Malaya we were all to be shot and disposed of.  There had also been a proposed date for a landing on Japan,  so it was the Bomb which saved us and untold thousands of others from extinction.  If the bombs hadn’t been dropped,  who knows how long the war might have lasted?  There wouldn’t have been one P.O.W. get home,  and thousands of soldiers,  and as many civilians again would have perished. 

   I have just read a book written by James Bradley called "Towards the Setting Sun,"  in which he quotes some figures.  As he had had access to official records which I haven’t,  I obtained permission from him to use some of his figures.  The two A-bombs killed about 170,000 people,  and as opposed to this over 102,300 Allied P.O.W.s and coolies died as a direct result of the dreadful treatment handed out by the Japs on the railway.  To this must be added all the others who died in the camps in Borneo and other places from the inhuman treatment, and also the mental and physical suffering of the survivors ever since.  How many more would have died had it not been for the bombs?

  James Bradley also confirms that had an Allied landing in fact taken place the big holes we were digging were for us and the civilian internees.  A landing date had been set for November 1945 on Japan,  and had it taken place the Japs were prepared to lose ten million men in opposing such a landing.  The Allies instead dropped those two bombs which ended the war,  thus liberating 14,400 Australian P.O.W.s,  37,500 British and Indian troops,  as well as 16,912 Americans. 

  I feel that if the present generation had more knowledge of this side of the story they may understand why we must go along with the advanced technology of the Americans,  but instead we find these very vocal minorities getting good coverage in the media.  If Australia doesn’t co-operate with the Americans now,  how will anyone have the hide to ask for their help next time?  Owing to nuclear weapons we have more or less had peace for forty years,  but I wonder how much longer we will be lucky.  Everyone wants peace,  but not at any price,  and the lesson that to stop a bully one must fight,  should be learned in the school yard. 

  If countries such as Germany and Japan are able to gather their powerful forces and go all out on aggression as they did (both used the "kinghit" tactic and bombed cities without a thought for the civilians)  then they must expect something back.  Japan had the chance to come to terms before both these bombs were dropped but refused,  so I blame the Japanese government entirely for the suffering their people had to endure.  The Japanese and German peoples were behind their governments to a certain extent,   and so could not be held entirely blameless for what happened in the finish.  The Italians,  on the other hand,  were never right behind Mussolini, and stopped as soon as they decently could.  Mussolini was never more looked up to than when he was dead, being murdered by a political faction and strung up by the heels.    He was really in disgrace with the Italian people,  who even destroyed all the statues of him he’d had placed all over Rome.  So to all the people who say the bomb should not have been dropped,  all I can say is they must have been well out of it somewhere where the war would not affect them.  Those bombs were well placed,  and they ended the war. 


'Those bombs were well placed,  and they ended the war.'
See the scroll to the left.
These are the men of one unit, who were ordered to surrender.  They were treated poorly from the start, but the worst was when they were marched off to work on the 'Death Railway.' Fewer than half survived.  The crosses next to the names are those who did not survive.

If the bomb had not been dropped,  none would have survived.

The unit

This book can be purchased from most online booksellers.   Use coupon code YD75A  to get it free.  (Expires: August 10, 2015)  

A few individuals mentioned in the book:

Jimmy Burr,  teacher,  Ch 4.

Curly Kirk from Ballarat,  Ch 11, and a mention of his death in Ch. 13.

Sunda Singh,  Indian trader,  Ch 9.

Major Kidd, Ch 12

Tom Chowns, and Nora Chowns,  spoken of  in Ch 12.

Lew Lemke and Ted Burrage,  a  mention in Ch 13. 

Major Hunt, Ch 13

Frank Lebas,  Allan Scott, two who died, Ch 13.  Also Jock, a Scotsman.

Horace Roberts,  a  mention in Chapters 13 & 16.

Jimmy Andrews,  Ch 16


Lance Basset,  a mention in Ch 16 in relation to sheep breeding.

Rob Jamieson,  Stony Point station, a mention in Ch 16


Significant events mentioned

The depression years, ch 7.

The Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,  Ch 14. 

The beginnings of the breed of sheep known as the Zenith.  Ch 16.



Sunday, 19 July 2015

'Reclaim Australia' is NOT RACIST!

Racism – as defined by the Australian Oxford Dictionary – theory that human abilities are defined by race.  
Note that it has nothing to do with criticising culture and nothing to do with religion. 
And yet ‘racist’ has become a pejorative term used to discredit anyone seeking to speak of real problems that have to do with culture, and to shut down all discussion of religion, even those when certain religious practices are against the customs and ethics of Western nations such as the forced marriage of young girls. 

Real racism?  I have heard no real racism for decades, and then it was only in reference books – differences in ability as measured by IQ tests. As I recall, Asians tended to measure around 15 points higher than Caucasians who measured around 15 points higher than American Negroes.  That was Professor Hans J. Eysenck. One of his books was ‘The Inequality of Man’ first published  in 1975. As I recall, Eysenck was vilified for reporting the findings, and for a while, lost credibility. Whether or not he was simply and truthfully reporting the results of tests he made was beside the point.

There is a movement now – ‘Reclaim Australia.’   
Here is what they say:

WE are losing our democratic freedom to speak openly and honestly, we are losing our voice and our NATIONAL character. I am an Australian. If I say I love Australia and Australian values I am now labelled a “racist”.

If I criticise Islam I am labelled both a “racist” and a “bigot”.
Since when did speaking the truth about an ideology or practice become illegal in Australia. When did we agree to stop called a spade—“a spade”?
Political correctness cannot take the place of informed discussion or the Truth.
Democracy requires open and free debate. 18C closes down my right to say the truth about Islam because the truth might offend Islam. Yet...

We are not the terrorists.
We are not the beheaders.
We are not the bombers.

Australia is a nation of many people groups with the majority being caucasion and Christian. We have successfully embraced multi-ethnicity for decades...Yet, all of a sudden we have to make all these changes to the way we do “Australian” in order to cater to an minority who refuse to integrate anyway.
If Islam can't cope with how we do “Australian” well then perhaps Islam needs to move along to somewhere where they are not so offended by the locals.
We love Australia, our Values and want our freedom back to be the “Australian”.

And What they call for:

  • Equality and tolerance of all races and religions—which includes Aussies and Christianity, our holidays and celebrations, Christmas and Easter and ANZAC day.
  • Equality at law, no more “cultural considerations”. It is one law for all.
  • Food free of blessings, religious taxes or Islamic Sharia Law Certification (Halal)
  • Freedom of speech—“offence” is a concept derived from Islam and as such is alien to the foundations of our legal system and our practice of democracy and needs removing.
  • Equality of gender—our women are equal. There can be no diminishing of legal rights forced segregation; female genital mutilation (FGM); Sex Trafficking (child brides); Wife beating because they are the ways of Islam. They have no place here in Australia.

 In no way,  in NO way, is this racist.  

Typical members of this movement are these: 

Photo from Reclaim Australia facebook page.
It was a meeting in Cairns.
Note how many of them have grey hair. They are not violent activists, but  overwhelmingly, they are useful citizens who’ve made good lives for themselves and are disturbed at seeing how things have changed. These are the ones who’ve seen Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians, Dutch and all the others arrive soon  after the second world war. And they’ve seen them assimilate, with few problems.

And then there were the Vietnamese after the Vietnam war. Some problems, but I do not remember a single demonstration against them.

But now there are problems, big problems, and to speak out about them is to invite hysterical cries of ‘racism!’


'Freedom, Equality, Democracy' 
How can this be labelled 'Anti-Islam' or 'Racist?'
Sounds fine to me.
Islamic racism?  That would refer to the fact that some Muslims think they should murder 'infidels.' And even that is not racism.  Infidels can be of any race, but the Koran tells Muslims that they are destined to Hell.   Not racism, but it is hatred and intolerance.  It would be nice if we could do away with hatred and intolerance.
But who is being intolerant?  Australia has been generous. We have taken in many refugees, generally without taking into much consideration whether that individual will be a good and useful Australian. We have been tolerant, but even the most tolerant nation will, eventually, start to push against a perceived threat.  This is not Xenophobia. We have lost lives to Islamic intolerance, in Australia itself, and many more in other countries.
Last Easter, 'Reclaim Australia' held some rallies - rallies against the Islamisation of Australia, rallies against losing the essential nature of Australia.  The participants were few and almost all peaceful. They were respectable citizens.
But who met them?  Violent thugs. Not respectable citizens, not at all peaceful.  They were outnumbered, spat upon, abused.

Easter, 2015
 Above pic from the Sunday Age, April 5th, 2015, accompanying a report by John Elder.
I am surprised that any were willing to risk their own safety with new rallies, but some people are very brave.  There were more rallies on the 18th July, 2015, and more planned for the 19th. It would be so nice if the media reported on them fairly, but I do not expect they will.  Political correctness has gone far beyond what is reasonable, and it is more fashionable among those who like to think of themselves as the 'intelligentsia' to attack those who do not follow the PC line.  Often, they act as if Australia needs to apologise for all that is wrong with the world,  instead of remembering that we, the Australians, have made it into a country that refugees strive to enter.

From various reports, if they are to be believed, there may have been violent thugs on the 'Reclaim Australia' side as well.  There are other groups, some truly anti-Islam, and probably, even some extremists on that side.  'Reclaim Australia' and a few of the newspaper reports, say that on Saturday, the thugs were really after members of UPF, (United Patriots Front).  And when they were not available for abuse and the police prevented them from hurting the 'Reclaim Australia' people, they turned on the police and their horses. Some members of the UKF said that the other side were tweeting to others to bring ball bearings in order to hurt the police horses.

A telling picture from the Reclaim Australia facebook site

I saw an early news report on Channel 10 that Saturday; it showed the police being abused by those attacking Reclaim Australia. Just a half hour later, there was another report, (same news bulletin)   but that time, it said that the violence was on both sides.  Had it been re-written to adhere to left-wing conventional thinking?

One-sided reporting is part of the problem.  The ordinary citizen, those respectable citizens everywhere, ones like those at the meeting in Cairns, (pic above)  are being ignored and muzzled.
LNP MP George Christensen made a speech at the  Mackay Reclaim Australia rally.
It is worth reading.
I found it on the blog of Andrew Bolt -
Bolt says: 

"Christensen has been maligned and attacked by journalists and human rights commissions for giving it, but tell me exactly what he says that is offensive - more offensive than the message of those who tried to scream him down yesterday:"
The speech:
We all have a voice: Notwithstanding our choice to use it or not. Notwithstanding the best efforts of those who would render us silent. We have a voice – not a voice of hatred, violence, and extremism – but a voice of warning, defiance, and of hope. Our voice does not go unchallenged but that is the beauty and appeal of the free and open democratic society our voice speaks out to defend.
Long before he became President of the United States, Ronald Reagan was a voice for the American people. At a Republican convention in 1964, he said:
“There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.”
Our voice says: “We will not surrender.” We will not sit idly by and watch the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle that we love and that is envied around the world be surrendered and handed over to those who hate us for who we are and what we stand for.
When Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he warned against the threat of Soviet Russia and those words apply equally now to the threat of Islamic extremism and its complicit defenders. Reagan said: “Every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement” and yet that is the political and social environment that confronts us today – appeasement.
When I accepted the invitation to be a voice here today, I was disappointed (but not entirely surprised) by a tidal wave of hyperventilation and confected outrage on social media, in the mainstream media, and from capital city commentators. Labor’s Shadow Minister for Immigration, Richard Marles said today’s rally was synonymous with racism.
Our State Labor Member for Mackay described my comments in accepting your invitation to speak as appalling, shameful, ignorant, and hateful. In doing so, she has reflected on you and your fellow like-minded citizens. A petition urged the Prime minister to prevent me from even attending today. The apologists of the left, the do-gooders, and the politically correct crowd said I should not address you because you were a crowd of: racists, bigots, Islamophobes, extremists, white supremicists, skinheads, and Nazis.
But I look out at the crowd and that’s not what I see. I see Mums and Dads who love their country – the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle. I see everyday hard-working families who want their kids to enjoy the same freedoms that were enjoyed by the generations that came before them. Some of the freedoms Australians hold most dear are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In this country, I am proud of the fact that someone who has a particular belief can hold that view without fear of intimidation. They can practice their faith – whether they are Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim – at a church, a temple, or a mosque – without fear of intimidation. And the full force of the law can, and should, come down on anyone who does try to intimidate them.
Likewise, we have a freedom to criticise. While it is not my cup of tea to criticise religions, I see that people criticise Christianity every day without fear of retribution, violence, or being called a Christophobe or a racist. In fact, we have seen many examples in the past year alone of Christians being slaughtered for no reason other than the fact that they are Christian. But in this country, that should not be tolerated.
In this country, we also enjoy the right to peaceful assembly. We all have the right to be here today, protesting in a peaceful way against the dangers of radical Islam and the culture of appeasement that allows radical extremism to fester. That culture of appeasement to radical Islam dictated that I should not speak here today for fear of giving you credibility – as if your voice would otherwise have no value.

The right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to feel proud of our nation. These are rights worthy of defending and they are rights about which we need to be eternally vigilant. Last month marked the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta – the charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede on the 15th of June 1215. The sentiments of that document underpin the free and democratic western societies that have delivered the most modern, free, and most appealing societies in the world. But we, as beneficiaries of that society must be ever-vigilant against threats – both internal and external to our freedom and democracy.

We must not ignore the fact that there is another world view. We can not stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is not an alternate world view that is opposed to democracy and freedom. And we must not confuse that ideology with religion. Islamism is a political system whereby everything that happens must fit under the laws of radical Islam. It is not just people in Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria that subscribe to this world view. This is no longer something that is ‘over there’; it’s not a threat that only exists on foreign shores; it’s a threat that is within our midst as well. There are those within our shores who sympathise and even support and actively recruit for Islamic State. These people have declared war on Western civilisations and we would be foolishly na├»ve to think we are not at war.
The spread of repressive ideologies under our very noses right here in our own country has already begun.  I refer to the slow spread of a Sharia-style dispensation of justice which is quietly executed in Australian mosques on a daily basis. It’s a form of ‘justice’ that perpetuates the oppression and abuse of women and yet we don’t dare speak of it because we will be instantly attacked as “racists”. It’s sad to see that those who wish to take a stand against the tyranny of Islamic extremism, the ideals of Islamism, are accused of being racist, bigoted or intolerant.
Yesterday, the leader of the Rent-A-Protestor crowd of Flinders University students, James Vigas was quoted by the ABC as saying people attending Reclaim Australia in Adelaide: “Don’t like Muslims, they don’t like refugees, they don’t like gay and lesbian people, they don’t like trade unionists, they don’t like women.” This comes from someone defending extremists who want to kill non-Muslims, throw gay people off tall buildings, and deny women the most basic of human rights. Reclaim Australia is about none of those things and, in fact, opposes exactly those things. Rather ironically, all the traits these so-called “anti-racism” protestors complain about lie at the very heart of the extremists they protect – the very traits Reclaim Australia is rallying against.
Certainly, as with any movement, there are fringe dwellers who seek to pervert the intentions of others, such as the Neo-Nazi skinheads that turned up in rallies in capital cities. Neo-Nazi skinheads are fellow travellers of the extreme Islamic movement because they share so many of the same hate-filled values. Nazi ideology, like Islamism (Political Islam), offers no right to freedom of speech, no right to association, hatred of the Jewish people and a hatred of democracy in general.
It is extremism of any kind that we must guard against. It is ordinary folk, like those of us here today, who must speak up. It is we who must not give in to the bullying and the intimidation and speak without fear to our friends and family about our freedoms, our culture, our lifestyle, and the threat radical extremism brings to those freedoms. We must refuse to abandon thousands of years of civilisation for the sake of political correctness.
I would like to conclude by returning to Ronald Reagan’s historic speech and applying it to the defence of Western Civilisation. He said: “We’ll preserve for our children this – the last best hope of man on earth – or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”
The choice is ours. The voice is ours. Thank you for allowing me to share in your voice today.