Diversity, Inclusion, Tolerance, And Attacking Jewish Kids

ANTI-SEMITIC ABUSE and threats to kill a busload of Jewish children on Wednesday have no place in Australia; yet fresh from their win against a repeal of S18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, the voices of the Left have remained mute. Jewish Australians are no less worthy of the open arms of this country than the Muslims the Left has thrown in its lot with. Regardless of the realities of Gaza, the Left’s silence over a vicious attack on school kids is obscene.

Tolerance. Diversity. Inclusion. The sacred mantras of the Left.

Everyone knows the story; Australia is a nation of immigrants. People who have fled countries ravaged by war, or from persecution, or the prospect of being tortured or killed in their homelands are welcome in our tolerant, diverse, inclusive country. Anyone from any corner of the globe seeking a better life and the Australian lifestyle is welcome here, they say.

Not, it seems, if you’re Jewish.

I think by now everyone knows about the shocking incident in Sydney on Wednesday, when a bus full of Jewish school children was stormed by a group of drunk teenage louts; chanting anti-Semitic and fascist slogans such as “Heil Hitler” and “Free Palestine,” the young thugs terrorised these defenceless kids, threatening to slit their throats and to “slit them wide open,” and it is an unprincipled outrage that in the rush to capture the agenda over Gaza and to paint Israel as a villain, the so-called intellectuals of Australia’s Left have remained silent over an incident that — if perpetrated upon a comparable group of Muslims — it would be seething with fury about.

It is a sickening irony that spared the prospect of being obliterated from the country’s statute books, the sheer hypocrisy that spawned Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act in the first place literally took a matter of minutes to become apparent to anyone who cared to look upon it with open eyes.

Just as there is no justification for the attack on the busload of kids, there is nothing to justify the silence of the Left in response.

I touched on this issue briefly yesterday, as I presented a digest of the week’s issues to restart our conversation; one point I omitted to note is that the government’s abandonment of proposed amendments to 18c didn’t derive from community outrage over the changes, or from some about-face on principle: it arose purely from the reality that with the Senate constituted as it currently sits, the enabling legislation had no chance of clearing Parliament.

More’s the pity.

As I said yesterday, there is a very great lie being perpetrated by the Left; the objective is to make Israel the target of international recriminations and retribution over the death of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, with “responsibility” for the deaths of women and children sheeted home to Israel directly and to its hawkish right-wing Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, specifically.

As noted yesterday, the lie derives from the fact that Hamas terrorists use schools, hospitals and other similar places to camouflage their missile and rocket batteries and — when the inevitable retaliatory barrage strikes — it is those establishments, and their occupants, who are hit.

I heard Tom Elliott speaking about this on 3AW yesterday, and he made the point that in a state of war there are losses on all sides, irrespective of who might be right or wrong; so it is in Gaza, and the Left might reflect that it is the very battle tactics of the Hamas terrorists fighting against Israel that is maximising the casualties on their own side: it has nothing to do with any ambit or discretionary action on Israel’s part.

Yet this is now apparently being used to target, vilify and threaten Jewish communities in Australia — including the very children for whom the Left would be deeply compassionate and sympathetic, were they Arabic or Islamic — and it seems the case that for everything the Left’s enemies must be prevented at law from doing or saying, there is always an exemption for the Left to behave as it sees fit.

Its response to this incident, clearly, is one of them. At the very least, it shows up the rhetoric about inclusion and respect as the furphy it is, and underscores the fact that for all the raging and railing against “bigots” and “bigotry,” the Left is well and truly versed in precisely those vocations and is unafraid to engage in them.

I’ve been reading Piers Akerman’s piece in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph this morning and, as he usually does, Piers hits very near the mark; I have avoided discussing the hateful antics of the horrible old reptile Mike Carlton, lately of the Fairfax press, but Piers is absolutely right to take aim at him.

Carlton — and others like him, masquerading as impartial journalists reporting “fact”-based material without fear or favour — have abused their trusted sinecures in acting as the Left’s cheer squad time and again; in this case, their anti-Israel, anti-Jewish rantings have fostered an anti-Israeli view among a public which often knows no better than what it trusts its newspapers to inform itself with, and the distinct rise in anti-Semitic events in Australia in the past few months can be no accident with Fairfax, along with the Guardian, the ABC, SBS and others like them actively, maliciously and deceptively using the cover of the Gaza conflict to proliferate an obsessive ideological idiocy.

As for “Greens” Senator Lee Rhiannon, the less that is said, the better; I simply reiterate my long-held view that she has no moral right to sit in any Australian House of Parliament, and on account of her background as a declared Communist and enemy propagandist for the USSR I don’t think she should have the legal right to do so either.

Certainly, the Senator’s fixation with helping to smash Israel is well known; her advocacy (if you could call it that) for the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) campaign is legendary. But just to rub it in — and as Piers correctly observes — Rhiannon has unsurprisingly thrown her lot in with the Palestinians. It is not too fine or delicate a point to make that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and its tactics in using its own people as human shields are far worse than anything Rhiannon accuses Israel of.

But that’s the point: the terrorists on the one side are excused, explained away, and denied; by contrast, people like Rhiannon would remain mute where “compassion” is concerned if the Palestinian protagonists were to succeed in their objective of destroying Israel forever.

And as I said yesterday, where are the champions for the dead kids, women and other innocents on the Israeli side?

The almost barbaric irony is that Carlton, Rhiannon, and every other “leader” of the Left who share their odious views will never utter a syllable on their behalf.

And that brings me back to the extraordinary attack on some harmless kids in Randwick for no better reason than they were Jewish.

In the welter of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the cabals of the Left to justify the Gillard-era race hate laws that 18c constitute, the objective has been to convince the public of their necessity to prevent the vilification, victimisation, persecution or otherwise causing harm to those sections of the community who might be at risk of being otherwise forced to endure this.

Doesn’t Wednesday’s incident fit the bill exactly?

And isn’t it true that whatever might be going on between Israel and Palestine over Gaza, and irrespective of where one’s sympathies might lie in that conflict, that this is Australia, the very country the Left so vocally holds aloft as a haven for the oppressed and persecuted of the world?

A country that practices tolerance, diversity and inclusion to the point of enacting legislation to force people into doing so?

At least the Guardian had the intellectual decency yesterday to publish an article that conceded Section 18c basically elevates Muslims above criticism, even if there was not so much as a syllable condemning the attack on the Jewish kids apparent anywhere on its website. (If I missed it, I acknowledge the error, but the fact I couldn’t easily find such a statement even if there was one simply proves the point).

The Left has its laws intact, whatever the reason that prevented their abolition, and in spite of the dubious case that underpins their very existence. It now has a responsibility to practice what it preaches; regrettably, its virtual silence over Wednesday’s events show it to be complicit at best.

It might not have been shouting from the rooftops its exuberant endorsement of the fact a group of terrified young Australians had been abused, vilified and threatened with violence on account of the fact they were Jewish.

But based on the very standards the Left loftily purports to uphold and to stand for, its failure to condemn the act in the strongest possible terms means that it might as well have done exactly that, and that reality is the greatest shame of all from this episode, the farce of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, or the charade of the Left in bothering to defend it at all.

If it’s OK for some kids on a bus to have to endure what the Jewish children did on Wednesday, then the Left is a national obscenity. Alas, its sacred “virtues” of diversity, inclusion and tolerance are nothing more than expedient spin, and readily abandoned when the targets of its hatred are exposed in their weakest and most innocent form.

 

More Resources: Military Movements And The Prospect Of War

FOLLOWING OUR post on New Year’s Eve — which pondered whether 2013 had taken the world closer to Armageddon or not — this morning’s post is intended simply to share additional material with readers; the question is receiving considerable attention both in Australia and abroad, as comparisons between 1914 and 2014 are drawn: and a frightening incident off the Scottish coast shows how easily it could occur, even by miscalculation.

It’s not a very pleasant subject this one, to be sure, and — like most readers — I hope and pray it’s one that never advances in status beyond the hypothetical.

Even so, a failure to read the signs, sift the probabilities, or to evaluate the true state of international affairs is incredibly negligent, especially where governments, their advisors, relevant agencies and an investigative media are concerned.

Today, I seek to share some of what has been published — in Australia and beyond — over the past week; the objective isn’t to unduly frighten anybody, but given these matters are being postulated upon I feel it would be remiss not to continue to keep an eye on them.

Readers will know that a little over a week ago, I posted an article that in turn linked to an excellent piece by Tim Stanley, that originally appeared in The Telegraph in Britain; that piece theorised on the question of whether the world drew nearer to a nuclear apocalypse over the course of 2013.

Of course, for that to happen, their first must be a war, and it’s in this vein that I post the material to follow here today. As with my post on New Year’s Eve, I’m not going to comment to a great extent on these; the intention really is to provide additional material.

For those to whom the broad theme is of interest, however, most of these pieces are compelling reading.

First cab off the rank is the recent Brookings Essay, by Margaret MacMillan, entitled The Rhyme of History: Lessons of the Great War, an academic effort that draws distinct parallels between the pre-1914 world political environment, and the one that exists today.

This article — from http://www.news.com.au, of all places — contains some surprisingly good links to other pertinent material (and it is, I will confess, where I initially obtained the link to Dr MacMillan’s essay).

The Daily Mail‘s international affairs editor, Max Hastings, picked up the theme of one of the world’s present hot spots — tensions between China and Japan over a few uninhabited islands in the South China Sea — as a potential flashpoint for a conflict that could easily spiral out of control in this piece published in the Mail a week ago.

Even the Fairfax press gets in on the subject, in a rational and intelligent piece, touching on the same subjects but from the differential perspective of the economic drivers that may contribute to the ignition of any conflagration that might erupt.

Just in case anyone thinks I’m fearmongering for the sake of it, I also include this article — again, from the Daily Mail — which details a terrifying incident off the British coast, involving a Russian cruise ship with a full clip of nuclear-tipped SLBMs on board; the truly terrifying thing about it, as readers will see, isn’t even the fact that the Russians sailed enough nuclear hardware to blast the UK out of existence so close. It’s where the British naval response was parked, and had the Russians been on a live mission, it would have ended very badly, very quickly, with nary a shot fired in response.

This column is predicated on following politics and associated issues both in Australia and in the world around us, wherever they arise; that obviously covers military matters, although the bulk of what we discuss here involves the dour grind of retail and electoral politics, with a smattering of peripheral issues thrown in for good measure.

All that said, we will continue to observe matters that relate to any prospect of global military conflict, as we have done intermittently for some time.

I trust the materials included with this post are of interest to readers, and I will be keen for any feedback you may wish to offer — or any points in the attached articles that may merit further discussion within this forum.

 

World Wrap: Did 2013 Carry Us Closer To Doomsday?

AT THE END of another year, I am for once unashamedly deferring; 2013 has been a difficult year across the world, and whilst I am an optimist when it comes to world affairs, I am also a realist. Did 2013 bring the world a little closer to a nuclear apocalypse? Today we consider a piece by British-American historian Dr Tim Stanley, and his summation of the year behind us — and its messages for the year ahead.

For once I’m not going to say much; I know I threaten often to be brief, only to find a 1,500 word essay on my screen when I have finished. Today I seek only to share — it is New Year’s Eve, after all — and to offer a few thoughts and some opinion.

The article I am linking to today by Dr Stanley appeared yesterday in the UK in The Telegraph, and I have chosen to share it because it not only evaluates the state of global affairs through conservative eyes, but considers them through the dual prisms of two distinct (but complementary) threads of conservative thought.

I urge readers to read it: makes a lot of sense.

There are a lot of the same subjects in Dr Stanley’s piece that we have touched on in this column: the benefits of globalisation and economic liberalism; the need to ensure wealth remains able to be created; the dangers of socialism; and some consideration of the value of conservatism, and why that noble school of thought applies as much today as it did in the days of Locke and Burke, and more recently expressed by the likes of Friedrich Hayek.

And Dr Stanley devotes much of his article to themes we talk about here whenever they are appropriate: specifically, the ever-volatile nature of global politics, and how easily a miscalculation could lead to trouble on an unprecedented scale; to be sure, these concerns cover much of his article, and I think it important to note that issues we have talked about here — the potential for military confrontation with Russia in Syria, the danger of North Korea, and the military adventures of China and their ramifications, to recall a few — are equally taken on by others in a mainstream context across the Western world.

Dr Stanley’s piece is written for a British audience, and conspicuously so, but it could as easily have been penned with Australian eyes in mind. Rather than pick it apart and talk about it in detail, I will be interested in any reader comments today: the discussion, such as it is, will flow from these, and I will involve myself in any debate that arises as those who do so peruse his article, and share their thoughts.

Is the glass half empty, or half full?

 

I should also like to take the opportunity to thank all readers of The Red And The Blue for their readership, loyalty and referrals during 2013 — in the full knowledge, of course, that many do not share my views, or the principles of conservatism that inform them. No matter: the brief here is to present issues for political discussion at the level of the “everyday Joe,” free (as far as restraint allows me!) of highbrow jargon or bogging down too far in advanced concepts that typically turn people off politics, and to get people talking about them. Our readership has increased by more than 350% this year, for which I thank you, and I ask you to invite those around you with an interest in the matters we talk about here to trial the site and to get involved in the conversation.

Politics is all around us, and not just confined to Canberra, or Spring Street, or the Melbourne Town Hall, or the equivalent of these where you live: it affects everything we do, and shapes our lives; in turn (and even if many fail to realise it), it is also directly shaped by each of us.

 

I trust all readers enjoy a festive New Year celebration tonight; be safe, and by all means drink (but leave one in the fridge at the end of the night for tomorrow, so to speak): my drop of choice at present is comprised of some fine beers from Bavaria (in breach of my usual red wine and Islay single malt habits) and I intend to enjoy several of them. Once the festivities are over, I look forward to picking our discussion up again later in the week.