Tuesday, July 21, 2015
In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG thinks the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter scandal is overkill
Reclaim Australia address by George Christensen
Text of 19 JULY speech for Reclaim Australia rally in Mackay
I am proud to be a voice for North Queensland today. 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 naïve 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.
Establishment judges stick together
We saw it in the defenestration of Tim Carmody in Qld and now NSW judges are involved
Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Commissioner Megan Latham is refusing to answer questions regarding alleged corrupt conduct by herself and ICAC. Ms Latham and ICAC have covered up judicial bribery which includes a $2.2 million bribe by the Mafia as reported last week by Fairfax Media and the ABC’s Four Corners program.
Megan Latham, who is a former NSW Supreme Court and District Court Judge, has refused to investigate numerous allegations of judicial bribery in NSW.
Ms Latham and ICAC have also failed to have someone from interstate investigate the alleged judicial corruption. Protocol and precedent say that an interstate person should have been brought in for the investigation given Megan Latham is an ex judge and would know many of the judges that would be investigated. It must be noted that it is highly likely that at this stage Megan Latham would be a possible suspect as well.
The issues in this article are not complex. Megan Latham and ICAC have an obligation to investigate when public servants like judges take bribes. There have been mainstream articles saying that NSW judges took bribes totalling $2.2 million.
If the Mafia bribed NSW judges $2.2 million in one matter how much is the total amount that NSW judges are taking in bribes per year? $10 Million? $20 Million? $100 Million?
There is a powerful prima facie case to have Megan Latham charged with the criminal offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice and concealment of a serious indictable offence.
I wrote to ICAC and Megan Latham asking questions for this article and the reply as per below was that my working title was defamatory and they would not answer the questions. That is a stock standard type of reply for people who are caught out acting corruptly and have no answers to justify their actions.
Australia signs live cattle export agreement with China
A new front in relations with Beijing has been opened by Barnaby Joyce who has extended the live cattle trade to China in a new deal expected to deliver up to $2bn a year to the Australian economy.
The Agriculture Minister today signed the deal to open up the “massive new market” which aims to see Australia delivering a million head per annum to China within the next decade, effectively doubling the size of the current trade.
Mr Joyce said that exports could begin within weeks after appropriate safeguards were established.
Volumes of feeder and slaughter cattle would start small but increase over time.
“We’ve signed a live cattle deal with China today,” Mr Joyce told The Australian. “This is a massive new market.”
“We would not be able to supply what they want immediately. We will build up to those numbers over eight to ten years. Ultimately, they want around about a million head a year. We couldn’t supply that now.”
“If we get to where we hope this will arrive in maybe a decade, it will be worth more than $1bn a year to Australia … Between $1 and $2bn.”
Australia currently supplies about 1.2 million head of slaughter cattle per annum to a range of nations including Indonesia, Egypt, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia.
The deal with Beijing is timely, coming after Jakarta shocked the Australian beef industry with an 80 per cent cut to its live export quota this quarter.
Mr Joyce said that over the past five years Australia has nurtured a significant trade in breeder cattle with China, mainly for dairy heifers.
“I’m pleased to announce we are a step closer to the commencement in trade in live slaughter and feeder cattle to China,” he said.
The Australian Livestock Exporters Council flagged the historic nature of the agreement, saying that Australia would become the first country to export feeder and slaughter cattle to China.
““Recent market access achievements have contributed significantly to improved farm gate returns for Australian producers while continuing to support over 10,000 jobs across Australia,” said chief executive Alison Penfold.
The deal with China is yet to be signed by Mr Joyce’s counterpart, Minister Zhi Shuping, but he confirmed that negotiations had been continuing for more than 18 months.
“We’ve been diligently working away for a year and a half,” Mr Joyce said. “Hopefully, it shows globally that the protein market is a premium market … Everybody is securing supplies and those people who supply to those markets are going to be in a good space.”
“Superfunds, start asking yourself a serious question: should you be looking at an investment in rural markets.”
The deal is separate to the free trade agreement negotiated with Beijing. However, it is assisted by provisions within the FTA that will reduce the current ten per cent tariff on live cattle exports from ten per cent down to zero.
ABC hides Green Left bias by reading out questions
The ABC seems to have found a novel way to guard against the Green Left bias shown by so many of its leading presenters. Instead of having them conduct their own interviews, Auntie can simply have them read out questions from audiences.
On Lateline last week Tony Jones was interviewing former Labor environment minister Greg Combet. "Let's go to a Facebook question," said Jones. "This is from Linda Mae Reeb and it's on this subject, she asks, `Can you estimate the investment required in the Australian renewable market to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in emissions?'?"
Combet nodded as Jones read it out. Why wouldn't he? What a pleasant break from the rigours of a forensic television interrogation.
We look forward to similar intermezzos when government ministers are grilled. "I know you're on the back foot now, Treasurer, and my questioning is getting just a little snide," Sarah Ferguson might say, "so let's go to a Facebook question on taxation reform".
Given revelations about high ABC salaries, perhaps this is also a way to save the public broadcaster some money. There are plenty of presentable and relatively cut-price juniors who could sit in the chair and read out the online questions.
No doubt government staffers are busy setting up fake Facebook accounts so they can post their curly queries. "Prime Minister, if we could just leave the Speaker's woes and budget difficulties there for a moment we have a Facebook question," Leigh Sales might say. "This one is from Jenny at Mt Druitt and she asks, `To what do you attribute your greatness?'?"
Next, no doubt, we'll have to commission an investigation into question selection. Perhaps a committee could be formed to devise an ABC code of conduct for social media question selection and presentation. A strong tip for rule No 1 would be to ignore Zaky Mallah's Facebook questions until further notice.
Speaking of that interminable Q&A controversy, there is another reason that infamous Mallah episode was memorable and MediaWatch Watch has been meaning to get back to it ever since. It relates to that regular frustration for regular viewers that we might refer to as Q&A interruptus. Not only do right-of-centre panellists tend to be outnumbered two to one but they often seem to have some difficulty getting any flow into their answers. A random sample might turn up Sophie Mirabella in July 2013. "Tony, the polls have changed," Mirabella said, "but a third of the frontbench, very experienced ministers, refuse to serve with Kevin Rudd and, you know ..."
But the host chips in. "OK," says Tony Jones, "I am going to interrupt you there ." Later in the same episode Mirabella went on. "Over the last 12 months, Tony Abbott has done twice as many interviews as Julia Gillard has done and he is out there every day. He's out ..."
Again, Jones jumps in. "Can you explain why we don't see him doing long format interviews? Why he won't do this program or Lateline or Insiders?" Good question, perhaps we could take it as a comment from the Prime Minister. Back in 2010 (believe it or not) Abbott was on the program and spoke about Labor's leadership coup. "Now, that would never happen in our party," said the Liberal leader. "Because you openly stab people in the back, OK," Jones snapped back. "We don't have," Abbott began before the host jumped in again. "All right, sorry, no, I'm just going to interrupt."
In November last year Attorney-General George Brandis was a solo panellist. "But this is a particular threat to your community because you're the victim of these predators," he said. "Well, George, I'm going to interrupt you there," said Jones. The Education Minister joined the panel in March. "Christopher, I'm not meaning to interrupt here but I'm actually," said the host. Christopher Pyne protested. "I was asked a question," he complained, "so I was just answering it."
You get the picture. It's all part of the cut and thrust and all the more reason, in my view, for Coalition MPs to get back on the program and robustly argue their case. Politicians boycotting television are like fishermen refusing to go to sea.
Still, just in case they might like to know how it is done, there is an alternative method to Q&A interruptus. "I'll start with Antony Hegarty on this because you've made a kind of, I guess, best to say a spiritual connection with the Martu people," Jones said to his panellist during last month's Mallah episode, "and you are here in Sydney with them at the moment. So maybe you could start us out on this subject."
Hegarty wasn't so keen. "Well, I don't want, I think it would be great if they answered the question first," responded the Green Left activist, transgender singer. "Let these guys answer their question," she instructed, motioning to the politicians. "All right," said Jones. "Well, we can start on the question of why, we'll go to Steve Ciobo first, if you like, and then you can respond afterwards." There you go, just take charge. And Hegarty directed proceedings a second time. "Antony?" Jones asked, looking for a response on the indigenous issues. "Yeah, maybe we could ask them about their experience, you know," deflected Hegarty. "Sure, well, I'm happy to," said Jones. Easy done. No Facebook required.