Conservative logic: Nazis are better than abortion

Conservative logic: Nazis are better than abortion ... to wit 6 January 2021

By Ranting Panda, 31 January 2021

Evidenced by their blind support for Trump & defending his incitement of an insurrection by neo-Nazis & white supremacists.

Donald J. Trump, the most divisive, corrupt and treacherous president the US has seen, was embraced by many conservatives as if he was the Messiah. Why? Because he promised to protect them from the 'socialist' agenda of the woke left ... and he banned abortion. He also supported, empowered, praised and incited white supremacy, domestic terrorism, Nazis, and used fear-mongering to stir up hate against Muslims, Mexicans and migrants ... but conservatives said that he represented their values. This says a lot about conservative values. 

Christian nationalists were chanting 'Christ is King' and flying Christian flags as they joined Nazis and white supremacists to storm the Capitol building on 6 January 2021. Even up until Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States, many conservative Christians believed that Jesus would somehow intervene and reinstate Trump. As an aside, these terrorists were no different to Islamist extremists who chant 'Allah Akbar' (God is great) before murdering innocent people; they are cut from the same cloth: traitors to their religions and countries. 

Trump supporters still believe his lies that the election was stolen, even though dozens of court challenges failed to produce evidence or prove these claims. 

One of the first things that Trump did when he became president, was to ban the funding of women's health centres if they dared to mention abortion. It was a gag rule that cost countless lives as women sought abortion from less ethical means. The removal of the funding didn't just affect abortion procedures, but also meant that contraceptives and pregnancy advice were not carried out. Not providing contraceptives tends to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Trump's policies had the opposite affect that many conservatives wanted: it increased the numbers of abortions, plus risked the lives of more women through backyard abortions. 

This policy isn't new. It was originally introduced by President Reagan in 1985 as the Mexico City Policy, or the 'Gag Rule' and has been the policy of every Republican president since then. This has presented researchers with decades of data to conduct longitudinal studies. Refer to my article of 4 February 2017, which covered this in detail: Trump's Gag Order banning abortion will increase abortion & kill more women. 

A 2011 study by Stanford researchers found that abortion rates in 20 sub-Saharan African nations increased by 40% when Republicans implemented the Mexico City policy.

Impact of Mexico City Policy (Bendavid 2011)

The United Nations has stated that the Gag Rule is 'flawed on evidentiary and public health grounds' (United Nations General Assembly 2018). The report went on to state, 'There is conclusive evidence that efforts to cut back on or deter the provision of quality contraceptive and antenatal services, HIV/AIDS treatment and safe abortion care contribute to increased rates of otherwise preventable death, including maternal and infant mortality and death and injury from unsafe abortion'. It identifies that sub-Saharan Africa is the hardest hit by the Gag Rule.

The evidence demonstrates that the outcome of anti-abortion policy that Trump implemented, is 'significantly increased rates of induced abortion' (United Nations General Assembly 2018).

One would think that this evidence would be enough to convince pro-lifers to consider alternative ways to reduce abortions. The Guttmacher Institute found that ' ... poor women have the least access to family planning services and the fewest resources to pay for safe abortion procedures; they are also the most likely to experience complications related to unsafe abortion' (Guttmacher Institute 2012). One of the primary drivers of abortion is poverty, yet conservatives tend to oppose measures that would more equitably share wealth or raise minimum wages. 

Conservatives take a very black and white view of abortion. That is, ban it and it will go away! However, the opposite is true: it increases! And the conservative response? They don't care. Clearly their reasoning for banning abortion is not to save the life of the foetus, but to control women, even if it means more women die. 

Conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, are driven by two main things: abortion and homosexuality. 

Interestingly, the United Nations also reported that laws banning the provision of life-saving services to LGBTIQ+ people has resulted in increased morbidity and mortality (United Nations General Assembly 2018).

Is it any wonder then, that conservatives ignored everything else that Trump did, simply because he banned abortion and attacked LGBTIQ+ issues? They ignored his blatant lies ... more than 30,000 lies! They ignored his incompetence, which was on a genocidal scale, in dealing with Covid-19 that killed more than 420,000 while he was president. They cheered on the Nazis, white supremacists, and Christian nationalists who stormed Congress on 6 January 2021.

Conservatives were more upset with Biden for reversing Trump's Mexico Policy, than they were with Trump genocidal incompetence killing more than 420,000 people, or him inciting Nazis to attempt a coup that would unlawfully keep him in power, and ended up killing five people, including two police officers. The rest of the world was like, 'what the actual fuck, America???'. Meanwhile, conservatives were like, 'What? It's just a coup for a stolen election. In the name of unity, let's not charge anyone with a crime'. The rest of the world is like, 'It's fucking treason! Charge Trump & the insurrectionists'. 

Imagine if the world did not hold the Nuremberg trials 'in the name of unity'. Trump has the deaths of more than 420,000 people on his hands, plus the untold damage to democracy. He must be jailed for treason and crimes against humanity.

The problem with Trump's lies is that they pandered to the victimhood mentality of conservatives. Their pearl-clutching fear fed by Trump's lies, culminated in Trump inciting them to stage an insurrection and storm Congress, with the intention of assassinating certain senators. This is serious. This is treason. Yet conservatives are so blind, so myopic, that they refuse to see they have been duped by traitor Trump occupying the highest office in the land. 

But yeah, hey abortion, socialism and gays are all bad, but Nazis are good ... according to conservative logic. 

References

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, & Miller, G 2011, 'United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa', Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 27 September, https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/, viewed 31 January 2021

Guttmacher Institute 2012, 'Facts on induced abortions worldwide', January 2012, https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/induced_abortion_2012.pdf, published by World Health Organization and Guttmacher Institute, viewed 31 January 2021

SBS News 2021, 'Joe Biden reverses Donald Trump's anti-abortion ‘global gag rule’, citing 'damage' from his predecessor'. SBS News, 29 January, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/joe-biden-reverses-donald-trump-s-anti-abortion-global-gag-rule-citing-damage-from-his-predecessor, viewed 31 January 2021

United Nations General Assembly 2018, 'Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms', 73rd Session, Item 74 (b) of the provisional agenda, 7 August, https://undocs.org/A/73/314, viewed 31 January 2021

Virtue signalling, do-gooders, dog-whistlers & gas-lighters

Virtue signalling, do-gooders, dog-whistlers & gas-lighters

- by Ranting Panda, 22 January 2020

(Jesus was a virtue-signalling do-gooder. Trump is a dog-whistling gas-lighter)

It's better to virtue-signal, than dog-whistle.

Ever notice how conservatives often use invectives to demonise people helping others. If you dare to care, you're a do-gooder or bleeding heart, if you dare to show solidarity with a marginalised group, you're virtue signalling. It's a form of gaslighting, in which conservatives are trying to make those who care, doubt what they are doing by questioning their motives and belittling their actions.

It's better to be a do-gooder than a do-nothing ... or worse, to be someone who does actual harm. These attacks on 'virtue-signallers', 'do-gooders', 'bleeding hearts' and so on, are just perpetuating the systemic racism, bigotry, alarmism & fear-mongering of the establishment and the conservatives who focus on individual greed and gain over social good.

Conservatives use alarmism like most people use coffee. They stimulate fears of 'the other', by claiming that virtue-signalling and do-gooders are part of a socialist plot to destroy the moral fabric of society, they argue that climate change is a socialist plot to take over the world and destroy capitalism, they argue that helping Muslims fleeing war and persecution are terrorists who will destroy our society and replace it with a Sharia state, they argue that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional family unit. 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling', screech these conservative Chicken Littles as they stampede blindly into Populism Fox's lair ... ignoring common sense and destroying their own values in the process.

Too bad if conservatives feel challenged over their lack of virtue, kindness and love. These attempts to insult and mock those who care for others, says far more about the person doing the mocking than it says about the person being mocked.

Ever notice that many of those who do the mocking are Christians? It's almost like they would consider Christ to be a virtue-signaller when he protected the woman caught in adultery and stated to the crowd, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.  He was certainly a do-gooder when he said to 'love your neighbour' and 'love your enemy'. Remember the parable of the sheep and the goats, in which Jesus states 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'. Now, if the 'virtue-signalling' wasn't clear enough, Christ then stated the converse, 'whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me'. It seems these Christians don't quite grasp the concept of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. They certainly must be angry that the bible actually tells them that Christians are called to be do-gooders. Ephesians 2:10 states 'For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do'. Then there's the Good Samaritan. By conservative standards, the Good Samaritan was virtue-signalling when he cared for the beaten traveller. Interestingly, this parable was told after Jesus said to 'love your neighbour', and someone tried to trick him by asking who was his neighbour. The parable made clear that anyone is our neighbour and we should be do-gooders, we should be 'virtue-signalling' if that means helping others.

Because, you know, visiting asylum seekers in immigration detention, going to Mosques and befriending Muslims, defending transgender people against abuse, would all be seen as virtue-signalling by conservatives, even though these are the very things people should be doing without criticism.

Denigrating those who care for or show solidarity with others, is similar to the behaviour of some convicted criminals who tear down others to make themselves look better, rather than actually trying to better themselves. That in a nutshell is the hollowness behind labels such as virtual signalling and do-gooder. It's easier to tear others down than to improve yourself. It really is more a reflection of the person mocking others than the person being mocked.

Terms such as do-gooder and virtual signalling, are dog-whistling to conservative victimhood, where conservatives portray themselves as the victims when they get called out for victimising innocent people. Accusations of virtue-signalling are used to salve the conscience of those who do not treat others as they would like to be treated. Instead, they love to reframe the narrative as though they are the victims, rather than the people they victimise. They wallow in this sense of victimisation in another attempt to gaslight those who call them out for the bullies, oppressors and tormentors that they are.

This abuse of others should be called out. People should stand in solidarity with the marginalised and the victimised. It is important that marginalised and victimised people understand that they are not alone, understand that there are people who welcome them, understand that there isn't anything wrong with them regardless of the homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism and bigotry of those abusing them.

Who is empowered by invectives such as virtue-signalling and do-gooder? Racists, bigots, despots and oppressors. Using these terms in the way that conservatives do, only serves to empower racism and bigotry, while discouraging people from being kind, it gaslights people into thinking that identity politics and cruelty to others is normal. It empowers the politics of cruelty and denigrates the politics of kindness. It normalises hate speech and hate crimes. It is fodder for authoritarians, despots, totalitarians and the likes of populist heads of state, such as Scott Morrison, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who have no interest in truth or concern for the poor and the marginalised. In fact, they weaponise fear of the poor and marginalised to stimulate their political popularity.

Some people accused NZ Prime Minister Jacinta Adern of virtue-signalling when she showed solidarity to New Zealand's Muslim community after a right-wing terrorist murdered 49 worshippers in two Mosques. Apparently, Adern was doing this purely for political reasons. Wow! Even if she was, it would be a nice change for the politics of kindness to be more popular than the politics of cruelty.


Alas, in Australia, America and many other countries the politics of cruelty is the popular politics - interestingly, this is supported by Christians and others who claim they are the virtuous ones, the defenders of society's moral fabric. How degenerate have these people become to believe that the politics of cruelty is a necessary part of the social fabric.

It should be noted, that the Christchurch Imam stated that the 'love and affection' of New Zealanders, including the authorities, has resulted in greater unity between Muslims and non-Muslims; it has provided New Zealand's Muslims with a greater sense of belonging (Saqqaf & Theodosiou 2020). This demonstrates the effectiveness of Adern's 'virtue signalling'. This outcome would not have been achieved if politicians chose to perpetuate the marginalisation of the Muslim community. Muslims would have been feeling even more vulnerable, if politicians had chosen to gaslight them or the people supporting them. Muslims would have been more marginalised if politicians had dog-whistled instead of doing good.

Rather than trying to shame people who care, those who are cruel and selfish should be the ones who are shamed. Instead of virtue-signaller and do-gooder being socially-acceptable invectives, they should be unacceptable terms that reflect the racism, bigotry and ignorance of the person using them. Rather than marginalisation, victimisation, racism and bigotry being the acceptable standards, these should be treated with contempt.

Those accused of virtue-signalling and being do-gooders are the heroes, they are the ones whose treatment, concern, care and love for others should be the example that society accepts, for it is this love for others that will truly build up the moral, ethical and unified fabric of society.

It's better to virtue signal than gaslight.

It's better to be a do-gooder than a dog-whistler.

Reference

Saqqaf, S & Theodosiou, P 2020, 'Christchurch imam says unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, not division, was the result of the attack', SBS Arabic24, 23 January, viewed 31 January 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/audio/christchurch-imam-says-unity-between-muslims-and-non-muslims-not-division-was-the-result-of-the-attack

Updated: 15 January 2021

~~o00o~~

In a world where opinions are valued more than fact, government is occupied by fools & narcissistic morons

In a world where opinions are valued more than fact, government is occupied by fools & narcissistic morons



Back in the day, people would vote for politicians based on policies and values. These days, we've seen people quite proudly declare that they vote for politicians such as Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson, because they 'speak their mind'. This indicates that many voters are more interested in a politician's opinion than in their competence or integrity. It also indicates, that when politicians do speak their mind, it will only reflect the populist opinion of the day in order to get elected.

Similarly, back in the day, people would read newspapers to get the facts on particular events. These days, many of the mainstream news services report opinion as though it was fact. Nek minnit, people are running around citing the rantings of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and their ilk as being fact, when they are really just highly-paid, unqualified polemicists looking to stir division and controversy.

As author Toni Aleo once incisively reflected,  'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and most of them are just full of shit'.

Harsh, but nailed it.

When real journalists report facts, provide context and question the claims, actions and double-standards of politicians, these pollies and their cortege of unquestioning devotees scream 'fake news' and blame 'post-modern, neo-Marxist relativism' for daring to provide evidence-based reporting.

Even Kelly-Anne Conway, counsellor to the puerile, maladroit and feckless US President Donald Trump, declared that falsehoods spoken within the Trump administration were simply 'alternative facts' ... so yeah ... this is where we're at ... the greatest empire the world has ever seen, is ruled by a feeble-minded fibber who transmogrifies rubbery opinions and blatant bullshit into 'alternative facts' to suit his narcissistic need for acceptance and popularity among small-minded people who can't accept the slightest challenge to their ignorant world view that often manifests in bigoted attacks on people who are not white, not Christian, not heterosexual, and not right-wing.

Way back in 1920, journo and satirist, Henry Louis Mencken made a blistering observation of what the ultimate fulfilment of democracy would be when the people get exactly what they want. In an era of post-truth Trumpism where opinion is more valued than fact, Mencken's words have proven disturbingly prophetic when he predicted that 'on some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron' ... but hey, at least Trump 'speaks his mind'!

Some of Trump's deluded and fanatical followers are Christians who blindly support him, overlooking his lies, indiscretions and infidelities, while claiming he is annointed of God. The only thing Trump is annointed with is golden showers from Russian hookers. As Willz, one of our guest bloggers recently remarked, it is more like Trump is the anti-Christ who banged the whore of Babylon.

In Australia, the Liberal Party which is currently dominated by extremist right-wing Christians, has dramatically slashed funding of the ABC and SBS. These publicly-funded networks have charters that require them to provide balanced reporting of fact rather than opinion. Yet the rabid right-wing attack ABC and SBS for being too left-wing ... apparently when you're so right-wing that reports of other views and facts that don't suit your little circle of ignorance, must be part of a neo-Marxist, left-wing agenda. With their benighted heads buried so deep in the right-wing paranoia of shock-jock vituperation, balanced reporting looks like a left-wing conspiracy to the rabid right.

The rabid right will claim that they stand for freedom, truth, Christian values, while accusing the left-wing of being snowflakes who are easily offended and who stand for political correctness and social justice (apparently this is an insult in the feeble-minded minds of the rabid right). Yet many on the extreme right curl into fetal positions when the cognitive dissonance between their ignorance and truth gets too much. They'll then revert to one of their comfortable positions: stop same-sex marriage, stop abortion, stop Islam, stop socialism ... yada, yada, yada.

Instead of trying to make the world a better place, to understand facts without going fetal when truth doesn't match their ignorance, they'll wrap themselves in their national flag and accuse the more enlightened of being elitists, traitors, do-gooders. Apparently nothing says patriotism like championing fascism, neo-Nazism and vilifying more moderate voices.

In a world dominated by social media, tweets and memes hold more weight than peer-reviewed, evidence-based dissertation. Even the fustian Trump fires off brash tweets that his minions are left having to justify and defend ... after all, truth is not important in the post-truth world of the Trump empire ... truth is whatever you're told and don't dare challenge it.

Here's some advice for those who get their news from tweets, memes and Fox:

Tweets do not necessarily equal truth ... and truth does not always equal fact, because truth can be based on interpretation rather than context. For example, two people looking at a symbol painted on the ground, one claims it is a 6, the other claims it is a 9.

Which person is correct? Are both correct? Are both wrong? What they have both said may be truth. It may be a 6 or a 9. However, the 'fact' will depend on a number of things. Did the artist intend on it being a 6 or 9. If so, then only one of them is correct, although the 'fact' was ambiguous because it looks like both a 6 and a 9. In this case, one of them needs to reorient their position to see the fact. Perhaps, the artist intended for it to be both a 6 and a 9, so in this case, both people are correct. Perhaps the artist had painted the letter 'g', in which case both people are wrong. What this shows, is that we can't just accept someone's opinion no matter how correct it looks. We should always question, we should always put things into context. This example demonstrates the inherent problem in dissing relativism, because the opposite of relativism is absolutism. An absolutist would defend to the death their view of this, whether it was a 6 or 9, yet they could have been incorrectly oriented or it may have been a 'g' and not a number at all.

The problem is that for a lot of people, their narrow world-view needs to be boiled down to its most simplistic. Former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, realised this and reduced his policy statements to three-word slogans, such as 'stop the boats' and 'axe the tax'. These resonated with his fans, however, it completely ignored the complexity of the issues that underpinned the situations that he was talking about.

Canadian professor and philosopher, Marshall McLuhan (1911 to 1980) summed up the situation well, 'a point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted or insight and understanding'.

Interestingly, McLuhan also astutely observed that 'Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be'. Politicians are not interested in fact, truth and what's good for society, but merely in twisting facts and truth for their own self-serving desires.

In a world of alternative facts, opinionated shysters, deceitful politicians and a gullible public, who needs critical thought when it can't fit into a meme or a slogan?

Political Correctness - the go-to bugaboo of the perpetually offended

Political Correctness - the go-to bugaboo of the perpetually offended


Australia's conservative parties, including the reigning Liberal and National party coalition, as well as right-wing fringe dwellers, Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives, use fear to great effect in attracting people to them. Their chief bugaboos include Unions, Socialists, Islam, refugees, Safe Schools (ironically, an anti-bullying program), and the ill-defined-but-great-as-an-all-round-bad-guy 'Political Correctness'.

What is this evil and insidious beast known as 'Political Correctness'? Well, it is whatever the fear-adled right-wing say that it is; usually it's anything that they disagree with. In reality, this thing called political correctness is about treating people with respect and being sensitive to their situation or concerns. For example, once upon a time, people who were unable to speak, were called dumb. Some would even carry a sign around their necks stating that the wearer was dumb, or if they were particularly beset, the sign might state that they were deaf, dumb and blind. The politically correct term these days for people who can't speak, is 'mute', for blind it is 'vision impaired' and for deaf it is 'hearing impaired'. Similarly, people were once labelled as cripple or retarded, then they were called handicapped, now they are known as 'having a disability', or even as being 'able challenged'. Back in the day, jobs were often labelled with gender-specific titles, such as policeman, fireman or chairman. Now they are known as police officer, firefighter or chairperson. Homosexuals are known as gay or lesbian, or even LGBTIQ+, which recognises the variations in sexuality. Sex change is now known as gender reassignment. This be the evil beast of political correctness. End of the world, right? Sadly, too many right-wingers see it as such.

The right-wing claim that political correctness is an assault on freedom of speech and that it is a facade that hides the true meaning. Some will even say it is part of a larger conspiracy, for instance, to mask a 'gay agenda' to exterminate gender, make us all gay and end procreation as we know it by sprinkling gay fairy dust over our children. So the right-wing wish to call things as they see it, without some namby-pamby politically correct epithet. Unfortunately, the idea of being sensitive to other people is not a strong suit for the right-wing - when it suits them.

The right-wing trundle out political correctness in a self-righteous, smug way as though they are not riddled with such platitudes. They'll even bust out age-old invectives to prove their pride in being politically incorrect. However, the right-wing is riddled with its own version of political correctness. They will use terms that match their own political or world-view. For example, a white person who shoots up a school or concert is referred to as an 'armed assailant' or a 'gunman', but if a Muslim does it, they are labelled as an 'Islamic terrorist' without waiting for the motive to be determined. The leader of a country friendly to western nations, would be known as President or Prime Minister, however if the country's politics are contrary to western politics, the leader will often be referred to as a dictator or tyrant.

Recently, US President Donald Trump banned seven words from use by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2018 budget documents. The offensive words are 'vulnerable', 'entitlement', 'diversity', 'transgender', 'fetus', 'evidence-based' and 'science-based'⁽¹⁾. After all, we can't have a scientific organisation reporting on evidence-based programs in case it offends the perpetually outraged right-wing and disproves their flaky hold on the science of the natural world.

And god help anyone who dares to say 'happy holidays' at Christmas time. Some on the right-wing boycotted Cadbury's at Easter time because of the false reporting that Cadbury's had banned the word Easter from their Easter eggs. While some of Cadbury's products had removed the word 'Easter', or not prominently displayed it, some of this was on products sold all year around or which Cadbury felt was obvious that they were Easter eggs. Additionally, many of their products still had 'Easter' plastered all over them.⁽²⁾.

These days there are a lot of food products that allow for various dietary sensitivities, whether those be physical allergies (e.g. peanuts), physical sensitivities (e.g. gluten) or religious observances (e.g. halal and kosher). The right-wing had no concern with peanuts, gluten or kosher. However, when food companies started catering to Muslims by having products halal-certified, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right-wing. There were petitions and boycotts against products such as Vegemite. The Islamophobes linked halal-certification to terrorism even though the Australian Crime Commission stated there was no evidence of direct links between halal-certification and terrorism⁽³⁾, a finding which was confirmed by a parliamentary inquiry⁽⁴⁾. But let not truth stop the right-wing from stirring up fear and hate in the community.

The way these right-wing fear-mongers and hate-preachers tell it, terrorism is the domain of Islam. Other non-Muslim groups who have used terrorism in their political aims are often referred to by the right-wing as separatists or rebels. This includes groups such as Basque 'separatists', Sandinista 'rebels', Tamil Tigers, right-wing military 'juntas' in Central and South America. And then there's the christian Phalangist Party in Lebanon who, under direction of Israel, unleashed the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians, including children and babies, in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982. But that's ok because, you know ... Israel: God's chosen ... genocide doesn't count when God has tapped you on the shoulder ... and yet the rabid right will have the hide to accuse Palestinians of killing in the name of God, when it is clear that Israel is killing in the name of God to ethnically cleanse the 'Promised Land' of those pesky Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years.

But as the old saying goes, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. While a simplistic interpretation of terrorism, the saying does succinctly summarise the role that perspective has in terrorist activity. Scottish politician George Gallaway made a number of pertinent observations on this when he stated, 'One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. You are totally wrong in saying that in most people’s eyes Hezbollah are terrorists. In most people’s eyes Israel is a terrorist state. It’s the fact that you cannot comprehend that fact that leads to bias that runs through all of your reporting and every question that you’ve asked me in this interview!'. Galloway also stated, 'We want to make reparation to the Palestinian people for the crimes of Balfour which were committed in the building behind me, when one person, on behalf of one country, promised a second people the lands of a third people - the Palestinians. We are determined that we should stop the privatization of basic services of the British people. We are determined to defend the liberty of the British people which is being taken away day by day under the name of anti-terrorism. Ancient freedoms, which we had for hundreds of years, are being taken away from us under the name of the war on terror, when the real big terrorists are the governments of Britain and the United States. They are the real rogue states breaking international law, invading other people's countries, killing their children in the name of anti-terrorism, when in fact, all they're achieving is to make more terrorists in the world, not less, to make the world more dangerous, rather than less. These are our priorities'.

Another of Galloway's poignant criticisms of the west's role in terrorism, 'Stop invading Muslims lands! How can you expect Muslims to love you when you are forcefully occupying their lands and murdering their people?'.

Most terrorism has little to do with religion and more to do with land and power, for instance, the illegal theft and occupation of Palestine by Israel. It's easy for the right-wing to blame Islam while failing to look in the mirror at their own actions. Most of the leaders of western invasions and wars are christian, and many right-wing christian groups cheer on western military actions, as well as Israel's war-crimes in Palestine. For those who like to make terrorism about religion and who revel in xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, Ellen G. White has a great comment, 'Christ tears away the wall of partition, the self-love, the dividing prejudice of nationality, and teaches a love for all the human family'.

Another target of the right-wing's political correctness sensitivity is Australia's public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. Both have been criticised for promoting 'left-wing' agendas. The ABC has faced particular attacks on their alleged lack of bias. These attacks are by people who want to silence any opinion that differs to their own. It is clear that many of the people who attack the ABC do not listen to or watch it. The current affairs shows, such as Radio National's AM, PM and Breakfast, give equal voice to politicians from Labor and Liberal, in addition to the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM and the Treasurer, regular interviews are given to Matthias Corman and Christopher Pyne.

But why allow truth and balance to infiltrate the right-wing. The coalition government has appointed conservative reporters and critics of the ABC to influential positions, including former Liberal Party politician Janet Albrechtson appointed to the ABC panel⁽⁵⁾. This followed the controversial appointment of Michelle Guthrie as ABC Managing Director. While Guthrie was CEO for Rupert Murdoch's Star TV network, she had attempted to bypass China's media ownership restrictions⁽⁶⁾. Since then, Guthrie has restructured and gutted the ABC through axing shows and sacking staff⁽⁷⁾.

Without a doubt, the rabid right-wing has its own form of political correctness, launching into paroxysms of manufactured outrage and spraying spittle at anything that doesn't conform to their narrow world view.

While the right-wing argues that the left-wing is shutting down their freedom of speech, it is often the right-wing who aims to ban or shut down left-wing commentators and media that gives voice to the left-wing, or to people who stand up against the human rights abuses perpetrated by the right-wing, such as Australia's inhumane and malicious treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, or even to scientists who present scientific evidence that discredits the right's benighted postulating.

Many on the right will argue that their freedom of speech has been curtailed because of political correctness. Yet again, this is complete rubbish aimed at manufacturing outrage and fear among the gullible. No-one is stopping anyone from having their opinion. The problem with the right-wing is that they see any form of criticism as an attack on their freedom, while not understanding or accepting that freedom of speech means that others can voice dissent. This results in the rabid right-wing trying to shut dissenters down by screeching 'political correctness' whenever they feel their diminutive world-view is being threatened, in a manner reminiscent of the 'repressed peasant' in Monty Python's Holy Grail:

'help, help, I'm being repressed - look at the evil socialist making evidence-based, fact-checked, peer-reviewed, scientific arguments against my everything-phobia ... help, help, I'm being repressed'.

In the United States, the rabid right melted down when NFL quarterback, Colin Kaepernick dared to remain seated during the national anthem, and on later occasions to kneel, because he wouldn't stand to show pride in the flag of a country that continues to oppress and kill black people. Some military veterans showed support for Kaepernick, saying that they fought for his freedom to make this expression. The right however, wanted him sacked, sanctioned, jailed. The anger was palpable. There were boycotts of NFL games and Kaepernick received death threats. Don't cross the perpetually outraged right-wing. Kaepernick's actions did not affect anyone else, he wasn't trying to stop the national anthem being played, but the rabid right certainly tried to stop him.

One of the lies that the right-wing loves to revel in, is the rubbish claim that they are prevented from saying Merry Christmas, and can only say things like Happy Holidays. Even that doyen of bullshit, President Donald Trump, stated that under his rule, people could again say Merry Christmas ... implying that they had been prohibited from saying it before he rode in like a knight in shining armour. However, former president Barack Obama never stopped people saying 'Merry Christmas'⁽⁸⁾. This was yet another example of Trump's many lies aimed at manufacturing rage and hate in his gullible followers. There is no war on Christmas, no-one is stopping anyone from celebrating Christmas, but the perpetually outraged rabid right create one and then blame 'political correctness' for it.

One of the mantras used to explain the actions of terrorists, is 'they hate our freedoms'. Which is not the issue, however, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many on the right-wing hate our freedoms. They don't want to see the left-wing express their freedom of speech, or see LGBTIQ+ free to marry those they chose, or Muslims free to worship at the Mosque they wish to or wear the clothes they chose.

The right-wing is constantly squawking about their right to freedom of speech, yet most just want the right to not have their myopic views or fatuous beliefs challenged. Nineteenth century Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard accurately nailed the problem with this approach when he said, 'People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use'. Little thought is given to much of the arguments put forward by the rabid right.

What is it that the rabid right wishes to say that they can't say now? The only thing that might land them in trouble is racist or hate speech. Is this what they are so angry about? That they want the right to be hateful and racist? It says a lot about their character.

The following pyramid was designed by Ellen Tuzzolo for Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Non-Violence. Even though it was designed for US audiences, much of it is applicable throughout the world. It shows that Covert White Supremacy is socially acceptable, but just because something is accepted socially, doesn't make it right. It is this insidious racism that 'political correctness' aims to address in order to stop the rise of Overt White Supremacy. Similar pyramids could be developed for other targets of bigotry, such as homophobia, transphobia, and Islamophobia.

Original designed by Ellen Tuzzolo for the Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Non-Violence

But why should the left, or scientists, or academics be silenced because of the bigotry, ignorance, blind nationalism, religious intolerance and hurt feelings of those on the right-wing who can't see beyond their bubble of bigotry and bunkum? As Martin Luther King said, 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter'.

Challenging bigotry and ignorance does matter. Calling out and challenging mindless assertions and hate speech does matter. Those who disagree with the claims of the right-wing should not be silenced. They have freedom of speech too.


References

1. The Washington Post, Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilprin, CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity, 15 December 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html. Accessed 27 December 2017.

2. Snopes, Dan Evon, Easter Bannies, 24 March 2016, https://www.snopes.com/cadbury-banned-easter/. Accessed 27 December 2017.

3. ABC News, RMIT ABC Fact Check, Fact Check: Does halal certification fund terrorism?, 21 April 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-14/fact-check-does-halal-certification-fund-terrorism/6383238. Accessed 27 December 2017.

4. Parliament of Australia, Jean Murphy, Halal certification in Australia: a quick guide, 30 August 2016, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/HalalCert. Accessed 27 December 2017.

5. The Guardian, Amanda Meade, Conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen appointed to ABC panel, 2 July 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/02/conservative-commentator-janet-albrechtsen-appointed-to-abc-panel. Accessed 27 December 2017.

6. The Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Knott, The tumultous News Corp past of new ABC boss Michelle Guthrie, 17 December 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-tumultuous-news-corp-past-of-new-abc-boss-michelle-guthrie-20151217-glq4xf.html. Accessed 27 December 2017.

7. The Sydney Morning Herald, Debi Enker, The news is sad for ABC viewers under Michelle Guthrie's rule, 12 October 2017. http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/the-news-is-sad-for-abc-viewers-under-michelle-guthries-rule-20171009-gywwmj.html. Accessed 27 December 2017.

8. The Independent, Maya Oppenheim, Trump claims he saved 'Merry Christmas' from assault, despite Obama having said it every year, 25 December 2017,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-merry-christmas-assault-twitter-barack-obama-a8127921.html. Accessed 27 December 2017.

Reds Under the Bed and the Axis of Leftists

Reds Under the Bed and the Axis of Leftists

It's no great secret that every political party has its 'talking points' for the week. They're easy to spot, because every time a member of that party is interviewed they'll use the same language and make the same points as each other.

One of the enduring talking points for Australia's Liberal and National Party coalition government is to accuse the Labor Party and the Greens of being Marxists, Leftists, socialists, communists ... and ... shock horror ... politically correct ...

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, when someone is being 'politically correct', run ... run like the wind ...

Political correctness is a savage beast that has come to slap a gag across our mouths, make boys dress as girls and have us all apologise to chickens for the hormones we inject in them. Scary.

Now, sadly there are some people who have accused the L/NP of living in the 1950s. What sort of rabid political correctness is this? Just because they believe that coal is the way of the future, and that copper wire is a good substitute for the more expensive fibre-optic cable, is no excuse to accuse of them of being 60 years behind the times.

So to prove that they aren't living in some pollution-riddled paradise with naught but rotary phones to communicate, they resurrect one of the greatest strategies of the mid-twentieth century: Reds Under the Bed.

Just when one thinks the L/NP couldn't get any more 50s, they completely knock it out of the park.

In almost every single interview, L/NP politicians are accusing the Labor Party, the Greens, and other dissenters, of being part of some great left-wing conspiracy. Not content to attack Unions, they have now turned their beady little bigotry on GetUp!, a politically independent activist organisation that dares to campaign for human rights, workers rights, marriage equality, and to challenge racism, bigotry and xenophobia at its roots. Apparently sticking up for the rights of people is part of a neo-Marxist agenda and political correctness gone mad. The government's attack on GetUp! is to claim it is a political 'associated entity', similar to the Unions, and therefore costing its political independence⁽¹⁾.

As an aside, if you wish to contribute to a legal expenses fund for GetUp! to defend itself against this unwarranted attack on its independence, please do so here: https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/democracy/greatest-threat-to-getup/we-re-under-attack

This followed the biggest attack on the Union movement in 30 years⁽²⁾, which was aimed at weakening workers' rights and destroying any form of collective power that could represent workers against unscrupulous employers. Instead, the government painted the Unions as being lawless, when employers have been abusing worker rights for years.

The Reds Under the Bed campaign of the 1950s, successfully demonised communism and convinced the gullible that communism was going to take over the world if mighty capitalism didn't conquer it.

The L/NP has resurrected the Reds Under the Bed scare-mongering, with illustrious MPs such as the Finance Minister, Mathias Corman, supported by a number of his colleagues, claiming that Labor leader Bill Shorten's economic agenda would lead Australia down the same path as East Germany and Cuba⁽³⁾.

The government doesn't let up in its hyperbole, accusing Labor of the 'politics of envy'. Obviously singing from the same song-sheet, this was repeated by Corman⁽⁴⁾, Treasurer Scott Morrison⁽⁵⁾ and Prime Minister Turnbull, who ramped up the Reds Under the Bed campaign by maximising his bang for buck by accusing Shorten of being the 'most dangerous left-wing leader in generations' AND that 'he is a wholly-owned subsidiary of militant, left-wing unions who have no regard for the rights of others ...' ⁽⁶⁾. Apparently, wanting to share the wealth is envy, but wanting individuals to accumulate wealth by exploiting workers is not. Unions have no regard for the rights of others? Perhaps these conservative politicians could take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror ... or look at the innumerable businesses who are under-paying staff or denying employee entitlements, when they don't have Unions protecting workers.

Turnbull twisted the idea of equality by claiming that 'Labor's war on inequality is nothing more than a war on aspiration'. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party continues its war on wages. The coalition is using this Reds Under the Bed fear-mongering to dog-whistle the electorate into fearing unions, fearing Labor and worshiping the wealthy as their only means of attaining employment or economic security. Meanwhile, workers' rights continue to erode and wages stagnate⁽⁷⁾.

In 2015, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott banned his front-benchers from appearing on Q&A because the show had allowed Zaky Mallah, to appear in the audience and ask a question. Mallah had been acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005, but had pleaded guilty to threatening to kidnap and kill Commonwealth officers. Mallah asked a question in relation to what would have happened had the Minister been deciding his case, rather than the courts. This was at a time when there was debate about having the Minister make the final call, rather than the courts. Abbott then described Q&A as a 'leftie lynch mob'⁽⁸⁾. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Mallah appearing, Abbott yet again had to dog-whistle the gullible with a derogatory comment about the left-wing.

In continuing the Reds Under the Bed dog-whistling, James McGrath, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister appeared on the ABC's Q&A on Monday 27 November 2017, where he launched a tirade against GetUp!, The Greens and Labor, claiming that the right-wing of politics was now facing an 'Axis of Leftists'. A claim he repeated a number of times, before culminating in an 'Armageddon of Leftists'⁽⁹⁾. Was he trying to equate the left-wing with the Axis of Evil. Queue the scary music.

Everything that the Liberal or National Parties oppose is being branded as leftist, Marxist or politically-correct. National Party MP, George Christensen was one of many to brand the anti-bullying program, Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, as being some sort of neo-Marxist gender theory. Christensen: 'We need to look at other methods that aren't originating in an ideology of queer gender theory, and let's be honest, Marxism'⁽¹⁰⁾. 

Former Labor leader, turned rabid right-wing apologist, Mark Latham wrote in his Daily Telegraph column, 'The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum'⁽¹¹⁾.  No, Mark, the crazy thing is labelling everything you disagree with as Marxist. Considering Marx espoused an economic theory that put the means of production in the hands of the workers, an anti-gay-bullying program does not qualify as Marxist ... neo or otherwise. There is nothing Orwellian in the naming of BRR as it was about ensuring schools would be safe from homophobic bullying ... such as we see from many of these politicians who attack it.

This is the standard that the Liberal and National Parties are bringing to the table; that the left-wing is full of evil Marxists who would turn Australia into Cuba or East Germany.

It is pure fear-mongering. It is aimed to manipulate the gullible with untruthful claims that turn workers against the very people who are fighting for their wages and rights, while driving them into the hands of those who would deny them those wages and rights.

More insidious and disturbing, is the dog-whistling of Marxism and leftist agendas to be used to justify homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and straight out bigotry. We saw it during the Marriage Equality survey, where Yes campaigners were portrayed as neo-Marxists, we see it in the attacks on those who defend the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, the attacks on those who campaign for indigenous rights.

An article in the Cairns Post claimed that practically every element of our lives was being attacked by Marxists, including marriage, police, education, gender, religion, and crime. According to the article the only anti-Marxist crusaders in Australian parliament were Cory Bernardi, David Leyonhjelm, Pauline Hanson, the now defunct Malcolm Roberts⁽¹²⁾. Each one of these is a disgrace to parliament and an insult to democracy as they attack many of the people who make up the Australian population. Leyonhjelm is currently attempting to have Milo Yiannopoulos address a gathering at Parliament House⁽¹³⁾. Yiannopoulos is a well-known racist, xenophobe, misogynist and pedophile-apologist⁽¹⁴⁾. Hanson is well-known for her hateful comments against indigenous people, Asians and Muslims⁽¹⁵⁾. Bernardi is well-known for his hateful and false claims against Islam and Muslims, his raging against homosexuality and linking it to bestiality, and his demonising of asylum seekers⁽¹⁶⁾.  And Roberts? Well, he had a spectacular fall from grace after being found ineligible to sit in parliament because of being a dual citizen. This was welcomed by many, as Roberts expressed his bizarre conspiracy theories on government and climate change.

Sadly, this is where the Liberal and National Parties are taking us. All their dog-whistling and fear-mongering about Marxism is driving people into the waiting arms of extreme right-wing parties such as One Nation. The 2017 Queensland election saw a 13% swing to One Nation, 20% in some areas, and most of that was from disenfranchised Liberal National Party voters. Ironically, One Nation struggled to win a single seat, and the swing to them took the LNP down as well.

While the LNP and One Nation try to blame Labor for this, part of it has to rest with the constant fear-mongering about Marxism which is resulting in people truly believing that extremists such as Hanson and Bernardi are the only way to innoculate society against it.

Masking the attacks on Labor and the Greens as an attack on neo-Marxism is disingenuous and dangerous. The real attack is on the people; on indigenous rights, workers' rights, refugees, Muslims. The scare-mongering is dividing the people against themselves. Workers are hating Unions, non-Muslims are hating Muslims, straight people are hating LGBTIQ people, non-indigenous Australians are demonising indigenous people ... and on it goes. Meanwhile, while the electorate's energy and passion is directed at hating others, the government continues to undermine the rights of us all, including attacking our freedom of speech and expression as we see with the incessant attacks on the ABC, SBS and now GetUp!

The right-wing may be scaring itself stupid with fear of the left and launching into paroxysms of rage with every claim of Marxism (neo or otherwise), yet the biggest threat is the slide towards the ultra-right-wing, where diversity is not tolerated or celebrated.

Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian novel of a theocratic USA, succinctly describes the demonisation of 'others', when she said, 'Heroes need monsters to establish their credentials. You need something scary to overcome'. The L/NP has been demonising others for years. It is the only way they can portray themselves as the heroes, the saviours of modern Australia.

It is this turning of Australians against each other by attacking human rights, that will usher in an end to the freedoms that Australia enjoys, and it is this that Australians should all be standing up against - as one!


References

1. The Sydney Morning Herald, Adam Gartrell, GetUp! readies for court battle over bid to link it to Labor and the Greens, 23 October 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/activist-group-getup-readies-for-court-battle-against-coalition-investigation-20171021-gz5nyg.html. Accessed 28 November 2017.

2. The Guardian, Patrick Wintour, Biggest crackdown on trade unions for 30 years launched by Conservatives, 15 July 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/15/trade-unions-conservative-offensive-decades-strikes-labour. Accessed 28 November 2017.

3. The Australian, Greg Brown, Bill Shorten 'will turn us into Cuba', 27 August 2017, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-will-turn-us-into-cuba/news-story/a8545f0f3045b68c6e63ab434803d0d2. Accessed 28 November 2017.

4. News.com.au, staff writer, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann slams Bill Shorten's 'communist' economic policy, 24 August 2017, http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/finance-minister-mathias-cormann-slams-bill-shortens-communist-economic-policy/news-story/d1134a0aa6f3b19ebc4f72f8cca2fcaf. Accessed 28 November 2017.

5. SBS,  Source: AAP, Shorten chasing politics of envy: Treasurer, 24 July 2017, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/24/shorten-chasing-politics-envytreasurer. Accessed 28 November 2017.

6. The Sydney Morning Herald, Amy Remeikis, Bill Shorten the 'most dangerous left wing leader in generations', says Malcolm Turnbull, 12 August 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-the-most-dangerous-left-wing-leader-in-generations-says-malcolm-turnbull-20170812-gxuug0.html. Accessed 28 November 2017.

7. The Sydney Morning Herald, Anna Patty, War on wages: Australians are working harder and going backwards, 5 August 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/war-on-wages-australians-are-working-harder-and-going-backwards-20170803-gxoh9c.html. Accessed 28 November 2017.

8. The Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Knott, Q&A fallout: Tony Abbott orders frontbench ministers to boycott ABC show, 6 July 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/qa-fallout-tony-abbott-orders-frontbench-ministers-to-boycott-abc-show-20150705-gi5olb.html. Accessed 28 November 2017.

9. ABC, Q&A, Royal Commission and Election Results, 27 November 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4752801.htm, Accessed 27 November 2017.

10. ABC, Michael Bradley, The problem with evoking Marxism in the Safe Schools debate, 24 March 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/bradley-marxism-and-safe-schools/7272764. Accessed 28 November 2017.

11. The Daily Telegraph, Mark Latham, From reason to radicalism: Gender fluidity, 31 May 2016, https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/from-reason-to-radicalism-gender-fluidity/news-story/832eb330f1e68c0af8ab37521dc402d7. Accessed 28 November 2017.

12. The Cairns Post, Julian Tomlinson, Marxism aims to destroy conventional society ... and it's happening every day, 29 June 2017, http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/opinion/marxism-aims-to-destroy-conventional-society-and-its-happening-every-day/news-story/368944a48185fd9f208aca6cb8557a48. Accessed 28 November 2017.

13. SBS, Source AAP-SBS, Greens want to ban alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos, 28 November 2017, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/11/28/greens-want-ban-alt-right-figure-milo-yiannopoulos. Accessed 28 November 2017.

14. Anti-Defamation League, Milo Yiannopoulos: Five Things to Know, https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/milo-yiannopoulos-five-things-to-know. Accessed 28 November 2017.

15. Huffpost, Josh Butler, Pauline Hanson Says She's Never Said Anything Racist Ever, 29 March 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/29/pauline-hanson-says-shes-never-said-anything-racist-ever_a_22016461/. Accessed 28 November 2017.

16. ABC, Ashlynne McGhee, Cory Bernardi: Where does the Senator stand on key issues?, 6 February 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/cory-bernardi-profile-who-is-he-and-where-does-he-stand/8244040. Accessed 28 November 2017.

Benighted & bigoted - The Hanson Treachery

Benighted & bigoted - The Hanson Treachery

Australia's 2016 federal election is one for the ages. With the closest result in years that will probably deliver a minority government and both Houses likely reliant on deals and haggling with the Greens, One Nation, the Jackie Lambie Network, the Nick Xenophon Team, other minor parties and independents.

The election had its share of right-wing parties including the Australian Liberty Alliance and Rise Up Australia; parties whose raison d'être was nothing short of nationalistic bigotry and Islamophobia. None of these parties secured a seat in the parliament.

Unfortunately, the perennial Pauline Hanson appears to have successfully resurrected her old party One Nation and will likely end up with at least one, if not more, seats in the Senate.

Her first post-election media conference was a rambling diatribe of insanity⁽¹⁾ as she unleashed a horrendous and disgraceful attack on Muslim Australians. She immediately called for the banning of halal certification, sharia law and burqas while accusing mosques of being hotbeds of hatred.

She also demanded that Muslims follow the Constitution. This last accusation was a little ironic considering that Hanson's anti-Islam policies are unconstitutional.

To legitimise her Islamophobia, she has called for a royal commission into whether Islam is a religion or an ideology⁽²⁾. Of course, she needs it to be an ideology so that she can get around the Constitution and then try to implement her fascist and neo-Nazi policies.

Section 116 of that Constitution states:

'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

In reality, no Royal Commissioner will overturn 1400 years of history or break the news to 1.5 billion Muslims that their religion doesn't exist.

Would Hanson accept the umpire's decision if the Royal Commission confirms that Islam is a religion? Anyway, many Christians go to great lengths to state that Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship. Perhaps we should remove Christianity from the list of religions. While we're at, let's remove its tax exemptions as well, but that's another story.

Hanson wants the Royal Commission to investigate 'hate-preaching' in Mosques. Perhaps the Royal Commission could be expanded into hate-preaching by Hanson and One Nation.

Hanson is out of control with such ludicrous fear-mongering and hatred ... and she hasn't even been sworn in yet. In fact, the dust is yet to settle on the election result.

With the exhuming of the benighted and bigoted Pauline Hanson and her war on Islam, I can't help but ponder the Monty Python declaration:

'Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government'.

Hanson has made many ignorant claims, including the unfounded statement that 98% of Australians opposed halal certification. Most Aussies couldn't care less about whether food was halal certified or not. It's only the bigots that have created such a stir about it.

Hanson claims that she isn't a racist. Yet she has previously attacked indigenous people, Asians and now Muslims. She recently warned that Australia risked being 'swamped by Asians'⁽³⁾. Racists generalise their hatred and fear by portraying everyone in a particular people group as having the same characteristics. Hanson is doing this with Muslims, she is doing it with Asians and she has previously done it with indigenous people. If she doesn't want to be labelled a racist, then she shouldn't act like one.

Another of her statements is that Muslims put God before Australia. Perhaps Hanson might want to spend some time in a fundamentalist church ... the same sort of church which is attended by many of the right-wing Christians who voted for her. Those churches put God before everything else. Yes, they'll preach that they must follow the laws of the land, just as Muslims preach. However, if push comes to shove, fundamentalist Christians will rise up against governments or laws that require them to do things that go against their beliefs. One only has to look at the passionate campaigning against marriage equality by Christian pastors who refuse to marry LGBTI people if it were ever to be made law.

Hanson's racist attacks are putrid and dangerous. Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner has warned that they are likely to incite violent hate crimes⁽⁴⁾.

Hatred and bigotry are not patriotism. Being wrapped in the Australian flag doesn't make a person patriotic. Nationalist maybe, but not patriotic. George Orwell stated that 'nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception'.

Pauline Hanson claims that her life is at risk because of her statements. Yet she is the biggest risk to Australia. Her dog-whistling is appealing to racists who may well feel empowered & legitimised by this hate speech. She warns of Islamic terrorism, however, counter-terrorism experts warn that right-wing extremism is as big a threat as Islamic radicalisation, if not bigger⁽⁵⁾.

If she genuinely wants to combat extremism, she should start with herself and those like her. If she wants to address Islamic extremism, then she should be inclusive not exclusive. Excluding people from society is the quickest way to alienate and radicalise them. Embracing the Muslim community and make them feel welcome and a part of Australian society is the best way to reduce radicalisation⁽⁶⁾.

This next government is going to be marred by Hanson and the bigotry of One Nation. Thankfully there are already politicians who have stated they will stand up against her hate speech.

Hanson is a politician and leader of a political party, which means she and her One Nation colleagues are supposed to represent the electorate; an electorate comprised of hundreds of thousands of Australians who are Muslim or of Asian descent ... or both. If she hates Australians so much and clearly doesn't like the Australian Constitution, she can't claim to be a proud Australian defending Australian culture? She certainly isn't loyal to her country if she can't accept the demographic composition of it. At the very least she is unsuitable as a politician if she won't represent the electorate.

Australia doesn't belong to white people or Christians. It is a secular nation whose Constitution protects freedom of religion. Australia is a nation built by migrants whose culture has been shaped by the cultures of other nations. Attacking and vilifying other cultures, other peoples, other religions is not patriotism, it is treachery.

If Hanson doesn't love Australia, she should leave!



References

1. The Huffington Post, Josh Butler, 'Pauline Hanson's First Press Conference As a Senator Was INSANE', 4 July 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/07/03/pauline-hansons-first-press-conference-as-a-senator-was-insane. Accessed 5 July 2016.

2. ABC News, Kym Agius, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson not backing down on call for royal commission into Islam', 4 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/election-2016-pauline-hanson-royal-commission-islam-banking/7566416. Accessed 5 July 2016.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Nicole Hasham, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson warns of terror on the street and suburbs swamped by Asians', 4 July 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-pauline-hanson-warns-of-terror-on-the-streets-and-suburbs-swamped-by-asians-20160704-gpxzpn.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

4. ABC News, Jean Kennedy, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson's comments could lead to violence, Tim Soutphommasane', 5 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/pauline-hanson's-comments-could-lead-to-violence:-soutphommosane/7568608. Accessed 5 July 2016.

5. Sydney Morning Herald, Rachel Olding, 'Right wing extremism equal to Muslim radicalisation, say academics', 17 July 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/national/rightwing-extremism-equal-to-muslim-radicalisation-say-academics-20150716-giduqp.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

6. United Nations, General Assembly 86th meeting, 'Links between Extreme Poverty, Violent Extremism Can Be Broken by Creating Jobs, Reducing Inequalities, General Assembly Hears as Debate Concludes', 16 February 2016, http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11761.doc.htm. Accessed 5 July 2016.

Turnbull's pyrrhic victory

Turnbull's pyrrhic victory

The results of the 2016 Australian federal election are on a knife-edge. The morning after the night before is no closer to determining who will lead Australia for the next three years. What is clear however, is that the Liberal and National Party coalition who were the incumbent government have been decimated, losing a raft of seats while the Labor Party have picked up a significant number. It is also clear that there has been a large swing to the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team and some independents.

Whoever, forms government will likely have to negotiate with the cross-benches in order to have legislation pass. Not that this is necessarily bad. After all, instead of one party pushing through their own legislation it will be on terms agreeable to all sitting MPs. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard made this work during her term in which she presided over a hung parliament. In fact, she was Australia's most productive Prime Minister, passing more legislation than any other⁽¹⁾.

Courtesy of Guardian Australia

The hand-wringing, soul-searching and character assassinations have already commenced within the Liberal Party, blaming Turnbull for the massive swing against the LNP. However, this swing cannot be placed solely at the feet of Turnbull as there were a number of factors that contributed to it.

First and foremost was the arrogance of the Liberals in thinking they were better than the Labor Party because of their stability and cohesion. They gained so much mileage from Labor's disunity when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was axed in lieu of Gillard in 2010. In 2013, she was replaced by Rudd because of the internal party ructions which greatly damaged Labor's credibility. It was no great shock then that the 2013 election saw the Liberal Party elected with a massive majority of 35 seats and Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the helm spruiking Liberal Party unity. And then the unthinkable happened and the Liberal Party axed a sitting prime minister. Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. The often incoherent Abbott had made numerous blunders and his popularity was plummeting. Turnbull's rise to the top job came with much expectation.

However, the Turnbull administration continued on in the same vein that Abbott had. There were few changes and it became clear that Turnbull was not in charge of the party. Where the Liberals accused Labor of being controlled by the unions, it was obvious that the Libs had two masters: the religious right wing and the neo-liberal Institute of Public Affairs⁽²⁾ which had demanded the abolition of the clean energy fund and the Department of Climate Change, not too mention a number of demands that the Liberal Party sought to implement in one manner or another, including repealing the mining tax, cutting company tax and privatising Medicare.

Turnbull delivered a budget only weeks before the federal election gifting a $50 million tax cut to big business in line with the IPA and big business wishes, at the expense of funding for Health and Education. He also attempted to limit funding for Medicare by freezing the rebate rate at 37% for six years. Some doctors announced that they could no longer be bulk-billing, but instead pass on the gap payments to customers⁽³⁾. Allegations from Labor that the Liberal Party were privatising Medicare were not far off the mark. While not privatising as such, the Libs clearly have an agenda to reduce the public funding of it. Abbott had tried to introduce a GP co-payment. While the co-payment failed, Turnbull has effectively implemented it through the freeze on the rebate threshold. Abbott closed the Medicare Local network and cut bulk-billing for pathology and diagnostic imaging⁽⁴⁾. The Liberals had planned to privatise the Medicare payments system, but Turnbull ruled it out only after it became clear that Labor would make much mileage from it⁽⁵⁾.

Prior to being dumped, Abbott had promised a plebiscite on marriage equality. During the 2016 election campaign, Turnbull reiterated there would be a plebiscite if the Liberal Party won, but then he stated that it wouldn't be binding and that MPs could vote according to conscience. Religious Right members, Cory Bernardi and George Christensen stated that regardless of the wishes of the Australian electorate, they would oppose marriage equality.

The Liberal Party showed their true colours by attacking Turnbull's character. He was seen as being a lefty, pro-gay, pro-Islam, pro-tolerance. Turnbull dared to tone down Abbott's vitriolic attack on Islam and the right wing was apoplectic. Turnbull even attended a community Iftar event during Ramadan. The right-wing gained mileage in the character assassination of Turnbull when it was revealed that one of his guests, Sheikh Shady, held ... wait for it ... homophobic views. Yes, the pro-Abbott, anti-gay, religious right wing were upset that a Muslim had stolen their homophobic thunder. The stench of irony and hypocrisy reeked across conservative Australia.

It was no wonder that the Liberal Party was savaged in the election. Abbott was displaced because of his unpopularity, yet Turnbull was unable to change direction because of the very culture of the Liberal Party.

The pressure was telling on him. Following the election, Labor leader Bill Shorten delivered an eloquent speech which was full of hope for the future. Turnbull wasn't to be seen. In a farce worthy of a Laurel and Hardy movie, Turnbull holed up in his house, unwilling to come out. So absured did it become that the media drove there and set up camp. Turnbull eventually showed his face and delivered a speech reminiscent of the ungracious and self-serving speech that former Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman delivered on his spectacular defeat in the Queensland election. An election result that is beginning to mirror the federal election. Both Newman and Turnbull led parties with large majorities, in Newman's case, he'd won the 2010 election with 78 seats to Labor's 6 seats. Both the Newman and Abbott/Turnbull governments led with a toxic culture that waged war on workers and the poor, while lining the pockets of big business, both led parties that supported neo-liberal austerity measures, and both displayed extreme arrogance believing they would easily win the election given their massive majorities. How wrong they were. Newman was ousted and replaced by a Labor minority government. Meanwhile, it is apparent that Turnbull will be lucky to have any majority and if successful, may well be leading a minority government. Turnbull's speech⁽⁶⁾, instead of being gracious and acknowledging that perhaps he and his party were responsible for the swing against them, he blamed Labor and the electorate, just as Newman had. The only difference is that it is not yet clear if the Coalition will win or lose the election.

Malcolm Turnbull believes the Coalition will be returned to government⁽⁷⁾

Turnbull called the double dissolution that led to the election and replacement of the full Senate. The trigger for the double dissolution was the failure to pass the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill. Funnily enough, during the election campaign, the ABCC wasn't mentioned once. It was merely an excuse for the election which Turnbull saw as an opportunity to clean house in the Senate. He had thought he'd end up with a more favourable upper house, but his plan backfired spectacularly.

However, win or lose, this will be a pyrrhic victory for Turnbull. The old adage, 'be careful what you wish for because you just may get it', will apply. If he does remain Prime Minister he will need to negotiate with the cross-benches while trying to deal with the massive internal power-plays within the Liberal party as well as the external influences from the religious right-wing, the IPA and a hostile media, some of whom are already calling for Turnbull to resign.

If the Liberal Party wins the election, it will likely deliver a government whose term will be marked by great instability and in-fighting, which will further disenfranchise an already jaded electorate. Turnbull is unlikely to survive the term or to lead the Liberal Party at the next election.

References

1. The Guardian, 'Was Julia Gillard the most productive prime minister in Australia's history', Nick Evershed, 28 June 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister. Accessed 3 July 2016.

2. Independent Australia, Pearls and Irritations, 'The Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs: Who is Whose?', 2 April 2016, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-liberal-party-and-the-institute-of-public-affairs-who-is-whose,8837. Accessed 3 July 2016.

3. News.com.au, 'Doctors around the country bringing an end to bulk billing', 26 May 2016, http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/doctors-around-the-country-bringing-an-end-to-bulk-billing/news-story/67adaeb8ee527e0dfc49be11b6ebd674. Accessed 3 July 2016.

4. The Guardian, Shalailah Medhora, 'Medicare cuts to diagnostic scans will cost cancer patients, say radiologists', 9 January 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/09/medicare-cuts-to-diagnostic-scans-will-cost-cancer-patients-say-radiologists. Accessed 3 July 2016.

5. New Matilda, Ben Eltham, 'Under Turnbull's Government, Health is becoming a private affair', 21 June 2016, https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/21/under-turnbulls-government-health-is-becoming-a-private-affair. Accessed 4 July 2016.

6. Daily Mail, Max Margan and Australian Associated Press, 'Malcolm Turnbull slammed by Laurie Oakes and Alan Jones for his 'pathetic' and 'rancorous' speech on election night', 3 July 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671981/Election-2016-Malcolm-Turnbull-slammed-post-election-speech.html. Accessed 3 July 2016.

7. Australian Financial Review, Laura Tingle, 'Election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull short of votes, Bill Shorten short of dollars', 26 June 2016, http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-short-of-votes-bill-shorten-short-of-dollars-20160626-gps9vt. Accessed 3 July 2016.