Hong Kong And The Risk Of Tiananmen Revisited

PRO-DEMOCRACY DEMONSTRATORS in Hong Kong are risking more than just the failure to achieve their objective of “full” democracy, if latest developments are any guide; ominous and bellicose rhetoric — emanating from the central Communist government through its state-sanctioned, state-controlled mouthpieces — suggests there is a real risk that history, 25 years on, may repeat itself. Only a hope that cool heads prevail can avert a catastrophe.

It’s a post this morning to keep an eye on goings-on in our Asia-Pacific neighbourhood, with reports coming out of China and Hong Kong that ought to alarm Chinese people globally, believers in freedom and democracy, and anyone who remembers the shameful day in 1989 that saw tanks crush student protesters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

I have an old friend who has lived in Hong Kong for many years, who has sporadically communicated his rising unease of late in relation to the upsurge in popular movements for democracy in Hong Kong and the unmistakably icy responses they elicit from the Chinese government; now it seems his fears may be about to be realised, and developments in recent days have recreated many of the conditions that existed in June 1989 when the campaign for democracy reached its bloody, but terminal, outcome.

For reference, readers may like to access this article from the Murdoch news wires, which provides an accurate and reasonably comprehensive snapshot of where things stand in Hong Kong, and whilst we pray nothing like the brutal crackdown that occurred in Tiananmen Square (or anything remotely similar) transpires in Hong Kong, the risks are obvious, clear, and the potential for any suppression of the so-called “Umbrella Revolution” to spiral out of control is all too real.

I passionately believe that democracy and the rule of law in a free society is the best form of government among so many more imperfect alternatives; I know most readers share that view, and it is natural that those who do not enjoy these things should aspire to obtain them: at considerable personal risk, and sometimes as the potential cost of their own lives.

Certainly, this is a price paid — for nothing — by the Chinese students massacred in 1989.

It is obvious that any comparison of the conditions that led to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and those that exist presently in Hong Kong, is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

Yet even so, I want to simply make a few comments this morning on the situation in Hong Kong and, whilst I don’t pretend for a moment that these are in any way comprehensive, they point to a situation that could easily draw such a bloody response from the central Chinese government — if the Communist regime in China is of a mind to order it.

There are those who laugh at the prospect of such Chinese Communist brutality happening again, preferring to point instead to the remarkable economic expansion and improvements in living standards for hundreds of millions of Chinese that followed that black day a quarter of a century ago.

But Hong Kong was returned to Chinese control only 17 years ago, and the overwhelming bulk of the population of Hong Kong has first-hand memories of life under the rule of British law, the semi-Westernised culture that existed in their booming territory, and the freedoms that then existed and which have progressively been curtailed.

Certainly, they remember the freedoms and economic liberalism introduced — to China’s fury — by the last British Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, which included full democratic elections and self-governance: reforms quickly subverted and/or dismantled by the Chinese government after it resumed control in 1997.

China watchers know that the ruling Communists face opposition on two fronts: the various pro-democracy movements on the one hand, and resurgent support for Nationalists on the other; I don’t propose to deviate down the tangent of Chinese Nationalism to any great degree, but I would observe that Taiwan — which China regards as a renegade province — has been ruled by the Nationalists who fled China in 1949, and that it is only in the past few years that any resurgence in Nationalist support on the mainland has conspired to pose any serious potential threat to continued Communist control.

Even so, the word from my old friend and others who have spent time in China is that the government is worried (one likened it to a cornered puma) and the risk — with its stern lecturing to the West about its sovereignty, and its sanctimonious assumption of the moral high ground where any international criticism of Chinese law is made — is that the “cornered puma” that is the Chinese government could very well lash out.

The kind of things the pro-democracy demonstrators are doing — demanding the resignation of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, blockading government buildings, staging mass rallies that completely obstruct major thoroughfares and other activities explicitly designed to cause chaos in a system wherein order is rigorously enforced — have already triggered violent clashes with Police that have included the use of tear gas against the student protesters.

To Western minds, the objectives of the protests might seem modest: China is offering elections, but allowing them to be contested only by a handful of state-sanctioned candidates; the pro-democracy movement wants the veto of candidates by Beijing to be abandoned.

But this is enough — more than enough — to enrage Beijing, which will not tolerate widespread and protracted dissent, and which can ill afford the prospect of anti-Communist candidates being allowed to stand for office in “full” democratic elections in Hong Kong.

Ironically, it is the precedent of exactly such an election and its after-effects, presided over by Patten, that hardens Beijing’s position on such matters now.

And whilst China’s relations with the West have been far more open over the past couple of decades — with more liberal figures in the Communist Party succeeding those who ordered and orchestrated the brutality in Tiananmen Square — one of the consequences of the rising nationalism I alluded to earlier is that the cycle has again turned to some degree, with the present generation of Chinese leadership representing a far more hardline Communist cohort than has been seen for some time.

Already, it has effectively told the US (and other Western leaders) to butt out over concerns of where any response to democracy protests in Hong Kong might lead.

It has repeatedly insisted that the elections, in their designated form, are not open to negotiation or alteration, and it has been belligerent in its emphasis on their validity within the Chinese legal system.

This intransigence has now been backed up with rants published in official government newspapers and state-sanctioned publications, warning of dire consequences if the protests do not cease, with one editorial stating that the actions of protesters are illegal and that if they do not desist “the consequences will be unimaginable.”

Based on Beijing’s past record in squashing dissent and extinguishing protest by its own people, and by the most violent means available, nobody should misinterpret such bellicose rhetoric as anything other than an explicit threat of a very bloody crackdown, and it is noteworthy that in the runup to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the same publications carried similarly worded warnings of vague-sounding, but unmistakably chilling, consequences if the protesters of the day did not desist.

And as the Murdoch article notes, next Wednesday and Thursday are public holidays in Hong Kong: providing the perfect opportunity for thousands of activists to mass and linger in the city’s empty streets, making themselves a very clear target for whatever recriminations a malevolent, hardline regime might opt to dispense.

We hope and pray that this situation resolves peacefully, and of course hope the day comes when the peoples of Hong Kong, China, and other countries subjugated by the tyranny of totalitarian rule are able to enjoy the same basic freedoms as we do here in Australia.

But the portents are not good, and the “Umbrella Revolution” has concocted a volatile political mix indeed, and one not at all to the liking of its Communist overlords.

We pray the Chinese government approaches this issue with great restraint and care. The potential for another 1989-style massacre — irrespective of the international outrage it would provoke — is, alas, all too real.

It is to be hoped that cool heads and sage advice are preferable to those who rule in China than the exercise of a collective finger on the trigger.

Sarah Hanson-Young And The Hammer And Sickle

A PHOTOGRAPH of Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young — apparently wearing a brooch in the form of a hammer and sickle — has circulated widely this week on microblogging website Twitter; if the authenticity of the image is disputed by the Senator, The Red And The Blue will offer her an opportunity to respond. If it is a genuine image, however, then this unpopular and provocative representative of the hard Left has some explaining to do.

Readers know that it is only half in partisan jest that I paint the Greens as Communists; the other half of my motive in doing so stems, in deadly earnest, from the fact that impartial consideration of their policies and their platform show them to be a far more ominous entity than simple tree-hugging, harmless, Gaia-loving hippies.

And what most people who think the Greens are harmless don’t realise is that the Green movement itself was originally set up in Nazi Germany as an attempted foil to the advancing tide of Communism; far from repelling the Red Menace, the Greens were subsumed by it.

“Concern for the environment” has little (if anything) to do with Greens policies these days.

So it comes as little surprise that the Australian Greens already boast one openly communist MP in the form of Senator Lee Rhiannon, a former fellow traveller and propaganda writer for the USSR; I have said previously that I don’t believe Rhiannon has any moral right whatsoever to sit in any Australian House of Parliament, and as a declared adherent of a foreign government that for many years was also an enemy power, I don’t think she should have the legal right to sit in the Senate either.

Are there two of them in the Greens’ ranks?

An image has been circulating widely this week on Twitter; it features Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young alongside Melbourne MP Adam Bandt: the pair are at some kind of rally, with Hanson-Young addressing a crowd and a Greens’ placard visible. Apparently visible, too, is a vile and repugnant piece of jewellery on the left-hand lapel of Hanson-Young’s coat.

I made contact with the Senator’s electorate office in Adelaide this afternoon, seeking either confirmation that the image (see below) is genuine or an explicit denial that Hanson-Young has been sporting the hammer and sickle in public. When it comes to images that circulate on social media (and given the ubiquity of Photoshop) it pays to ask the question.

 

 

At the time of publishing this article — 9pm on Tuesday night, Melbourne time — I haven’t as yet had a response from Hanson-Young’s office; to be brutally candid I don’t expect one, either. I think my inquiry will simply be brushed aside and ignored.

(UPDATED, 10.45pm: A representative of Senator Hanson-Young’s staff has contacted me to strenuously deny the Senator has ever worn a hammer and sickle. More to follow).

So first things first: if the Senator or her staff contact me to deny the authenticity of the photograph in this image, I will — subject to agreement on form — publish a statement from Hanson-Young’s office in the interests of balance.

But more broadly, it needs to be remembered that Hanson-Young (and this is an old story) might play well with the Greens’ relatively small electoral constituency, but in almost every other quarter in the country she is either dismissed as an irrelevance at best, or suspiciously regarded as a dangerously divisive (and ill-informed) piece of work at worst.

Like most of her ilk on the hard Left of Australian politics, Hanson-Young and her odious views are anathema to the vast majority of Australians, and her “accidents happen” remark when challenged over the deaths of thousands of asylum seekers at sea, under a policy regime essentially dictated by the Greens to the Gillard government, would at the minimum be an apt summation of her unfortunate re-election last year.

I have no time whatsoever for Hanson-Young, her politics, her policies, her views or her party. I do support her right to say and think whatever she likes: a courtesy she and her colleagues do not reciprocate, and indeed would like to legislate out of existence.

But I cannot and I will not support the “right” of elected representatives in Australian Parliaments to wander around wearing the hammer and sickle.

This insidious emblem — little better than a swastika, to be frank — was the symbol of one of the most brutal and viciously oppressive totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen.

The tyranny and barbarism of communist rule in Russia, eastern Europe and elsewhere enslaved hundreds of millions of people; the regime in the USSR (and, literally by proxy, in the Soviet satellite states) imprisoned millions of their own in gulags, and an unquantifiable number of those were executed by their own government often for the crime of thinking and saying whatever they liked.

And again — as I remarked in relation to Senator Rhiannon — the USSR was a recognised enemy state after the second world war; pledged to the destruction of the capitalist system that underpinned the relative prosperity of the free world and to the overthrow of democracy, the nuclear-armed USSR brought the world to the brink of Armageddon several times, most notably in 1962. And even when the threat of military conflict between the USSR and the West was not imminent, the Soviet tools of deception, disinformation, subversion and subterfuge were a constant that many believe remain in practice even now by the ongoing regime in Moscow.

There is also the small matter of Australians who came here in the 1950s and 1960s, with the specific objective of escaping the cruelty and tyranny of Communism in eastern Europe: that emblem — especially when worn by a parliamentarian — is an affront to decency, and an insult to those Australians who have built lives and contributed in this country once freed of the Communist menace.

There are some good, decent people in the Greens with ideas that whilst I don’t agree with them (or at least, with the prioritisation placed on them) can be characterised as noble; people like Larissa Waters or even Bandt deserve some respect even if their policies do not merit electoral support, although I would add that they would do themselves a favour by arguing their cause on the Left of the ALP rather than as part of an insidious outfit like the Greens.

But Hanson-Young — like Rhiannon, or their horrible, sanctimonious, pious leader, Christine Milne — neither deserves nor warrants such courtesies of latitude.

In Hanson-Young’s case there is already a litany of own goals, anti-democratic policy prescriptions and doctrinaire fancies of the hard Left to her credit to excuse anyone for thinking she’s an embarrassment to governance in this country, and a dangerous — and downright nasty — specimen to boot.

Yet if it comes to pass that the image I have shared here is no triumph of Photoshop, I think Hanson-Young needs to level with the Australian public: on what basis does she believe it acceptable to masquerade openly as a Communist as a Senator, and on what basis does she believe this is compatible with her responsibilities as an elected member of Parliament?

As I said at the outset, depending on what (if any) response I get from my communications with her office today, we may revisit this — and give the Senator her say.

But at first blush, and as small a point as some might find it, this is simply more evidence of why Hanson-Young shouldn’t be eligible to be elected to represent anyone, and if the hammer and sickle are where her sympathies lie, then perhaps she — along with the regrettable Rhiannon — should get out of Australia altogether and go to live in Russia, where another totalitarian despot is hellbent on restoring the USSR to the world stage, and to restoring the “glory” it inflicted upon Russia, its people, and on others who were mortally terrified of its very existence.

 

North Korea: Excellent Horse-Like (Dead) Lady

THE SEQUEL to the “Excellent Horse-Like Lady” phenomenon in North Korea that we covered last year played out last week, with reports that the singer, and mistress of dictator Kim Jong-Un, was executed last week for filming a sex tape. It’s a troubling reflection on the North Korean junta.

I’m not going to spend long on this issue, but in light of the fact I poked fun at the North Korean smash hit “Excellent Horse-Like Lady” last year in this column I think it only right to appraise readers of the unfortunate ending the whole episode has met.

Reports around the world indicate that the lead singer of the band that recorded the song, Hyon Song-wol, has been executed, along with several associates, for apparently making a video of themselves having sex with each other and selling it.

This comprehensive report — from The Telegraph in the UK — is reflective of the information becoming available through news multiple channels.

The “crime” is puzzling from a uniquely North Korean perspective, as pornography and smut are commodities that are not just legal in North Korea, but extremely and openly popular with its citizens.

It is perhaps a reflection on the peccadilloes of members of the North Korean junta that an otherwise brutally hardline regime would tolerate something that is, typically, one of the first things censored out of existence and driven underground in such societies.

Even so, the brutal nature of the execution — Hyon was reportedly killed by rounds of machine gun fire; a previous execution was enacted using a mortar round — underlines the nihilistic violence that passes as everyday government business in this most repressed of states.

For those unfamiliar with the “Excellent Horse-Like Lady” story from its original run last July, the link I’ve posted to my article at the time, at the top of this one, is worth visiting (as is the “music” video I have linked that earlier article with as well).

But rather than laughing, this time I’m shaking my head…

It could only happen in North Korea.

Excellent Horse-Like Lady: A North Korean Joke

Readers will know North Korea and its loathsome junta have periodically elicited a thumping from The Red And The Blue, and not least on the occasion of “Dear” Leader Kim Jong-Il’s death; North Korea is again in our sights, but this time merely to encourage others to laugh at it.

An article in The Age today appears to profile what seems to be North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un’s girlfriend, Hyon Song-wol; the pair have frequently been seen together  of recent times, and are widely reported as having resumed their relationship.

Ms Hyon, it seems, was the girlfriend of Kim when the pair were adolescents; more recently, she is apparently the singer in pop outfit Bochonbo Electronic Music Band, a North Korean group charting hits based on patriotic fervour.

It speaks volumes that an insular, paranoid and rigidly Stalinist society like North Korea could produce a pop band achieving wild popularity with hits of such calibre as I Love Pyongyang and She Is A Discharged Soldier; my own personal favourite — coincidentally, the band’s and Ms Hyon’s biggest hit — is the delightfully named Excellent Horse-Like Lady.

You can view the official music video for Excellent Horse-Like Lady here. It’s special.

Never mind that the lyrics are unintelligible to all beyond Korea, and never mind that this looks like the video prompt at a suburban karaoke bar.

The fact remains that all the key DPRK themes are there: women working in factories, workers happy and joyous in their servitude, images of Pyongyang so photoshopped as to almost look inviting, and lots of flowers — there always has to be lots of flowers in video propaganda made by totalitarian dictatorships.

If only fame and stardom were so simple, and such elementary ditties the ticket to Easy Street; were it so, Australia would be a nation of Popstars, and I use the term with some relish and a little glee.

Worthy of less mirth and more concern is the glimpse these developments, and the history behind them, give of the operational methods of the ruling junta in North Korea and the tactics they appear to suggest.

Kim’s relationship with Ms Hyon apparently met with an involuntary end several years ago, as Jong-Un became the obvious heir-designate to his father, Kim Jong-Il; in the intervening period Hyon married and had a child with another man. The present whereabouts and status of her husband and child are unknown.

It tends so suggest a lot about what represents acceptable and accepted social standards in North Korea, or at least where the ruling elite is concerned; that the leadership may exercise that degree of control and interference in the personal lives of its citizens despite the rhetoric about socialist utopia, and that its citizens may simply “disappear” for no better reason than the romantic whims of its “Brilliant Leader.”

Even so, whilst North Korea is in many ways an international laughing-stock, seldom does such an opportunity as Excellent Horse-Like Lady come along to provide the opportunity to simply laugh at North Korea and the fatuous, ridiculous, disingenuous popular and social culture its evil communist masters have propagated.

And I’m certain that no horses, real or imagined, were involved in the conception or the production of this peculiar piece of entertainment.

For mine, I think I’ll head down to JB Hi-Fi on the weekend and see if I can buy a copy on CD. I know my wife will kill me if I find it; she doesn’t see the funny side of these little impulse purchases.

And if that doesn’t work, there are plenty of friendly Korean karaoke bars in Melbourne…but then again, these are run by Koreans from the South, where the sun rises in the east and the Earth is round, so maybe the YouTube clip I found for it will just have to suffice.

Excellent Horse-Like Lady indeed…good Lord…

Poisonous Ideas (reposted from JR Nyquist): Not Such A Poisonous Argument

Sometimes — when looking to encapsulate a foundation from which to mount an argument — it is necessary to look afield, and to share common thoughts; tonight’s post does precisely that, and Jeff Nyquist’s excellent article is one we will return to and discuss.

In ensuring I keep abreast with everything in the world I want to, I find that I read copious volumes of other people’s opinion pieces, essays and dissertations, in addition to following the raw flow of news, tonight I refer to a piece a read a couple of years ago by American author, columnist and scholar Jeff Nyquist.

To be clear, I certainly do not believe everything I read, and I disagree with Nyquist as often as I concur with him; even so, when he nails an issue he tends not to miss, and so it is with the piece I have linked to this evening.

Over the coming weeks, I intend to intersperse the comment pieces I have been publishing with other articles written from a more purely conservative philosophical bent; I do believe that all is not well in Western societies — Australia included — and whilst shrill generalisation is not the intention, it does seem that many of these problems emanate from the Left of the political spectrum and, indeed, could be characterised as the flows at the end of the tributaries of the “River Communism.”

With the strong caveat that I don’t agree with everything in this article (and to the extent that I do agree with some elements of it, that agreement is qualified), I would urge all of my readers to click the link and read the article I have reposted here.

And to think about it; to discuss it with family, friends and colleagues; indeed, share it: even if you disagree in the strongest terms with the substance of the Nyquist argument, forward the link to those around you with whom you discuss issues of substance, and see what they think.

And send me comments: there will be articles arising from the general ideas that are covered by Nyquist and — as always — all views, assenting, dissenting or otherwise — are encouraged and welcomed.

Please click the link below and read the attached article. I think the issues covered are important, and that it is high time to nudge social debate back onto a more meaningful footing. I look forward to hearing what people think.

And with that, over to J.R. Nyquist…

Poisonous Ideas | JR Nyquist | FINANCIAL SENSE.

 

A Fitting Epitaph: Rot In Hell, Kim Jong-Il

In spite of the risk of instability in North Korea, and the potential for such instability to cause grave problems for regional stability, the death of Kim Jong-Il is to be welcomed. In death, Kim Jong-Il should be treated with the scorn and contempt he deserved in life.

Contrary to his self-styled status as a “great leader” and a “dear leader” this was not a great man; he was not a world leader of any positive stature, nor indeed was he a respected leader in any constructive sense whatsoever.

He was, in short, a menace.

The news some hours ago that Kim is dead is welcome and not a little overdue; indeed, the world has “lost” one of its most dangerous, murderous and nihilistic despots.

The official cause of death reported initially in the official North Korean media — that Kim had died “of fatigue” on a train trip — is perfectly consistent with the other mountains of horse excrement propagated (defecated?) over many years about Kim Jong-Il by his regime’s propaganda machine.

Pearls such as Kim’s ability to control the weather by the power of his mind, or such poppycock as his ability to walk at the age of three weeks, right through to the insultingly misguided belief instilled into his poor countryfolk that North Korea was a world superpower who could engage and defeat the USA in a nuclear war — to name just a few — are indicative of both the idiotic nature of his repression, and of the lame-brained lemmings the North Korean “education” system is specifically designed to churn out.

To subsequently learn that Kim had, in fact, died from a massive heart attack is surprising only insofar as that generally, in order to have a heart attack, one first must have a heart.

Don’t misunderstand: this is a regime, and a tyrant, who has amassed vast personal wealth and accrued colossal military capability — including the development and expansion of nuclear weapons capabilities — whilst his people starved; forced to eat bark and leaf litter, the average North Korean now grows to just 1.4 metres (4ft, 6in).

This is a regime, and a tyrant, who has interned hundreds of thousands of his people in military gulags for dissent; eliminated countless thousands more on political grounds; yet has systematically and consistently failed to provide basics such as clean water and reliable energy to those of his people who hung adoringly, and misguidedly, on his every word.

This is a regime, and a tyrant, who has opted not to be a responsible world citizen, but to be a proliferator of nuclear, biological and chemical technologies — and the missile capabilities with which to deliver them — to equally murderous regimes in other corners of the world.

This is a regime, and a tyrant, who has spent many years causing real military angst for neighbours such as Japan and South Korea, and — since its acquisition of nuclear bombs — has repeatedly and belligerently threatened all-out nuclear Armageddon on the Korean Peninsula, across South-East Asia, and indeed across the world.

When dealing with madmen and lunatics, it matters little that the USA would wipe North Korea off the face of the world in a retaliatory strike lasting all of five minutes; the problem with lunatics — especially nuclear-armed ones — is that they can be dangerously unpredictable; even suicidal.

No, I think it’s fair to say, advisedly, that Kim Jong-Il was a heartless bastard.

Whilst the death of Kim Jong-Il is a welcome development, it fails to solve critical questions of world security and regional security; these will, in part, form the “legacy” of his reign.

Japan and South Korea in particular will rightly be pleased Kim is dead, but equally validly concerned at what might come next.

China — the North’s only (and long-suffering) ally — will most likely, quietly, also be glad to see the back of Kim; in spite of its own military mischief and games of brinkmanship with its neighbours and the US, its recalcitrant neighbour under Kim Jong-Il had become a monster increasingly impossible to control.

Questions abound about the “succession” that will now occur in North Korea.

His designated heir — youngest son Kim Jong-Un — is aged in just his late 20s and, despite reportedly being educated in Switzerland under a pseudonym, is said to be even more paranoid and violent than his father was.

There is the possibility that one of Kim’s other sons may challenge Jong-Un for the North Korean leadership; there is also the possibility that the North Korean military will enact a coup and assume martial control of the country.

Were that to occur, the outcome — quite literally — could be anything.

Yet what is likely to endure in the North Korean psyche is the paranoia; the utter conviction that the rest of the world — and especially the United States — wishes to wantonly destroy their country; the fantasy that the South has a proactive agenda to realise the same outcome, aided and abetted by the US, when in fact South Korea overwhelmingly desires peaceful reunification with the North; and the fairytale that North Korea can wipe out its enemies, real or perceived, simply because it has a small handful of relatively weak nuclear weapons.

Added to this, as outlined earlier, is the famine, the starvation, the appalling poverty and illiteracy of the population, lack of hygiene, or anything more than mediaeval levels of medicine, industrial production, or indeed any basic necessity of life judged against modern first-world standards — an indictment on a regime proclaiming itself as “the greatest revolutionary civilisation in the history of the world.”

And all this capped off with the sheer barbarism and cruelty of a tyrannical Stalinist regime that arbitrarily executes and tortures hundreds of thousands of its own citizens with little or no valid pretext, judged against any civilised standards.

This is Kim Jong-Il’s legacy to his country, and to the world.

North Korea no more needs Kim Jong-Il than the rest of the world will miss the need to indulge, cajole, and manage him.

It is true that there are great risks now in terms of the direction North Korea will take and what the consequences will be for that country, for the Asia-Pacific region,  and for the world generally.

That said, those risks are worth exploring when weighed against the fact Kim Jong-Il, and everything his chapter of the leadership of the murderous North Korean junta represents, is now gone.

Good riddance.

The Problem With Watermelons

I’ve been following, for some time now, a move to strip the federal government of its right of veto over legislation passed by the Northern Territory and the ACT; the move has succeeded, and — what a shock! — Bob Brown and his Communist Party are right in the thick of it.

I’ve made an editorial decision here at The Red And The Blue; I’m not going to even pretend any further that the Greens are not Communists.

I’ll make it clear that Greens are Communists and that Communists are Greens, but beyond that, there will be no further charade in trying to be diplomatic about those facts.

And there is no reason whatsoever to be diplomatic about the so-called “Greens.”

The latest manifestation of the outrage of Communists running the federal government lies in the passage by the House of Representatives of a bill to end the federal government’s veto over “laws” passed in Australia’s territories.

The bill is certain to pass the Senate on account of Communist Party control of the balance of power.

What this means is that the territories — one of which passed euthanasia legislation some years ago, only to be vetoed by a Howard government minister — are now effectively free to do what they like.

The bill (which is certain to become “the act”) now stipulates that a vote of federal Parliament is required to disallow these “laws” passed by territory assemblies.

For the record, I actually support euthanasia in very tightly controlled circumstances, but the rest of what’s likely to stem from this legislative change I bitterly and vehemently oppose.

So-called “Gay Marriage” is in my view the most socially repugnant concept ever devised; marriage derives from biblical origins (irrespective of your Christian, Jewish or Muslim faith) and involves a man and a woman.

In some faiths it involves a man and several women; make your own judgements there.

But in no faith does it involve two men or two women.

In case anyone thinks I’m a bigot, I think homosexual people should have the right to do whatever they like in their lives — with the same rider that applies to those of us who are “straight” that it shouldn’t affect others — and I am very pleased that those people now have equal rights under law and are recognised as couples.

However, marriage is not something that is for them by its definition.

There are a lot of smart gay people floating around; perhaps they might look to create their own institution. I’m not talking of “civil union” per se; how unromantic of a gay or a straight to say to their partner that “I want to civil union you.”

There are too many, talented, creative and inventive gay people around to believe they can’t come up with something unique for their own community.

And if they really are so proud of their difference (as suggested by “Pride” festivals, Queer festivals, and any number of events their community conducts in the name of “gay culture”), the last thing they would, or should, or ought to want is that ancient old hetero status of being “married.”

But back to the point.

Bob Brown (openly homosexual, by the way) has seen to it that the territories will no longer be subject to ministerial veto from the federal government.

Here’s a few things to chew on.

1. The “veto” by federal Parliament he now says will replace a ministerial veto also incorporates Senate endorsement; for Senator Brown to have placed his cards on the table in this manner, it suggests he anticipates controlling the Senate for some years.

2. The Communists openly champion not only euthanasia, but gay marriage, legal heroin injecting rooms, and lots of other things that until now — with them firmly in control of the Senate by virtue of their hold over the balance of power in that Chamber, and by virtue of their firm hold of the Labor Party by it balls — that ordinarily would never get past a majority of the electorate.

3. Opposition frontbencher Michael Keegan moved amendments to the Communist bill on Tuesday that explicitly sought to preclude gay marriage from the litany of agenda items that might be introduced as a result of the bill’s passage; these were shot down by Communist MP Adam Bandt on the basis it wasn’t appropriate to pre-empt what laws the territories might pass.

4. Even now in 2011, the NT and the ACT are not states of Australia and constitutionally do not have the entitlements that other states have.

5. The passage by the Senate of the Communist bill leaves open the prospect of a High Court challenge on the consequent basis that the resulting Act of Parliament would be unconstitutional.

And for any readers who think this is about gay marriage, euthanasia and “shooting galleries” and nothing else — think again…there’s more to this, and it lies in the Communist Green platform.

It’s a little ironic that Menzies’ Communist Party Dissolution Act was invalidated by the High Court; 60 years later the Communists are back in a different guise, and using tactics that leave them wide open to another battle in the High Court.

And just as Menzies took his case to the country in a referendum — which was narrowly lost — should the Green/Communist policy ever go to referendum, it would also be lost.

Most folk don’t go in for the agenda of the Greens; it’s “trendy” until people look closely at it and think about it.

The final consideration of my comments directly concerns Communist Party leader Senator Bob Brown, who claims that the passage of the bill to strip the federal government of veto over the territorian assemblies is a “victory for democracy.”

Firstly, Senator Brown, by their constitutional status, there are certain things the territories are not democratically entitled to.

Secondly, if Senator Brown and his band of Communists are such champions for democracy, perhaps they can explain why they bent Julia Gillard’s government over and demanded it implement a carbon tax when both the Liberal Party and the ALP explicitly promised no such tax would be introduced.

82% of the electorate voted for parties making the clear promise that there would be no carbon tax, but Mr Democracy, Senator Brown, enforced the breach of the promise with a mere 11% of the electorate’s support at last year’s election, and now well over ten million Australians are baying for electoral blood as a result.

And third, the sheer hypocrisy of Dr Brown ought to serve warning to anyone thinking the Greens are just a harmless place to park a protest vote: there are all sorts of nasties lurking in their platform; I haven’t published a fiftieth of it here…yet.

These aren’t nice harmless people making nice harmless noises. These are left-wing lunatics with a Stalinist agenda that is slowly — so ever slowly — beginning to be rolled out.

The lesson is that Senator Brown — Green on the outside and bright red inside — can’t be trusted as far as you could throw him.

Unless you’re a Communist.

The same goes for the rest of his ilk, some carrying explicitly Communist credentials of their own, and at least one who was a propaganda writer for the last Soviet government.

A final point: what do State/territory rights, gay marriage, euthanasia and heroin injecting rooms have to do with the environment?

NOTHING.

Doesn’t it bother people that the so-called Greens are even dabbling in this stuff?

Defend them or not, as you choose; either way…what do you think?