Australia is hosting the G20 meeting next year, and the whole thing is being turned into a circus by Julia Gillard. Of course.
The only up side to this whole thing is that Julia, whether by election or replacement, has no chance of presiding over this carnival of rent seekers.
Anyway, Gary Johns reports that as part of this whole waste of taxpayers money the organisers are putting on a C20 Summit, a committee of twenty of the great and good to prepare Civil Society recommendations to put before the G20 meeting.
Yeah, sure. Not quite what one would call representative. The whole lot, with one or two exceptions, span the whole political gamut from the far left to the really far left. No representatives from mainstream charities or grassroots civil organisations, and no representatives from any organisation in the centre ground, or of liberal or free market persuasion. At a guess, between two thirds to three quarters of civil society is excluded from this Civil Society Summit.
This is just the normal pack of oikophobes, working against your interests. These people really do despise you, you know.
Am I still allowed to discuss what I call the poisonous doctrine of multiculturalism?
This blog is based in Australia, and it has now been determined that, when discussing matters of cultural identity and multiculturalism, there are statements which may not be said, and tones of voice which may not be used, especially if the tone used is not sufficiently respectful, or if inferences can be read between the lines – yes, that’s right. It is not what is actually written, but what is also inferred by someone who may or may not share your opinion as to what you meant in not writing certain stuff……..
If anyone has doubts about the subjectivity of yesterday’s decision, they should read Justice Bromberg’s findings about how often a “reasonable reader” might have read the articles, and whether or not they would have done so with “analytical care”. He discussed how the “style and structure” of the articles “invite supposition” and, remarkably, said: “Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised.”
I don’t know what comments you may leave here may mean in terms of the law as it may affect me. Be polite.
It is unlikely you will be able to appreciate the true resonance of these words. Byron Bay is a beautiful country settlement about 75 km south of where I am on Queenslands Sunny Gold Coast. Rural hinterland with areas of subtropical forest, everything wealthy celebrities would want with their multi million dollar beachfront properties, middle class green communes, and the uber privileged choosing an earth mother lifestyle. The place is country living for those who can afford to escape real country living. There are places there for the rest of us as well, but the image of the wealthy and privileged econuts dominates. And best of all? Nimbin is just a short drive away. When you truly need to purchase authentic organic goats milk soap while celebrity watching on the beach and sipping a delightfully crisp local chablis you picked up at this divine little vineyard you passed on the drive up, well, then Byron Bay is the place for you.
Anyway, if you might think the Australian race classification laws may be being scammed, well, who are we, as Australians, to comment?
And here’s Roger Scruton, extending it into its most recent meaning:
No adequate word exists for this attitude, though its symptoms are instantly recognised: namely, the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours’. Being the opposite of xenophobia I propose to call this state of mind oikophobia, by which I mean (stretching the Greek a little) the repudiation of inheritance and home. Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which some people—intellectuals especially—tend to become arrested.
The oik(ophobe) repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence’s question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
You have the right to analyse, criticise, judge, satirise, mock, lampoon and ridicule any belief and opinion to any extent you see fit, without let or hindrance. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fatuous and intellectually junk term whose combined purposes are to smear the target, deceive listeners and protect Islam from this critical analysis, placing it above all other belief systems in this society – a position to which it has no entitlement.
The sole legitimate role the state has in this matter is to ensure both your freedom to do this, and your security following.
Counting Cats (CC) was taken to task by several other commenters for being too squeamish and perhaps even morally neutral about who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here. While I don't share CC's reaction to the video, I rejoice in his (her?) existence. What kind of a world would it be if people like CC didn't exist or if they had to hide their views? Who knows, we might all be living in something akin to Somalia.
CC's civilized response is precisely why our military is a force for good in the world.