31 January 1986. Thought for the Week: "The complete degradation of children is the aim and the ideal of humanist based education as planned for imposition on the Christian democracies under the direction of United Nations authority. "Nor will this be presented in the old classroom atmosphere that mature readers may recall from their own schooldays. Education has become indoctrination and is now a science that is turning to 'relaxation', 'imagery', 'suggestology-hypnosis', 'values clarifications', 'role playing', and 'meditation', as part of its armory for prising the resistance off the minds of the innocent."
Alan Gourley, in The Assault on Childhood (1985)
PROFESSOR GEOFFREY BLAINEY AGAIN SOUNDS THE ALARM
"Australia's emphasis on granting special rights to minority groups was threatening to cut the country into many tribes, Professor Geoffrey Blainey warned yesterday." The Sun (Melbourne) January 25th.
Professor Blainey stated in his Australia Day Dinner speech that Australia was a nation in decline, and that social cohesion is essential if a nation is to survive. We have all witnessed huge "Greek" festivals, and other ethnic festivals. The point we make is that these are not "Australian" festivals - in which all Australians can share all participate. We recall with some dismay, the erstwhile Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr. Al Grassby, whose claptrap about "the family of the nation" assaulted our ears for many years. He was quite proud of his expression. All the multiracialism in the world does not make a family: rather the reverse - it divides the family. So Geoffrey Blainey is correct: Australia is becoming "tribalised".
He warned of the Bill of Rights by means of a reference - to it and the Frankenstein it will erect, viz. The Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission; which sounds dandy, until it is examined, line by line, with a lawyer's inquiry for detail. He said: "There is a Human Rights Commission in Canberra which will become very powerful unless we are alert".... "and there is a Bill before Federal Parliament with the grand, all pervading title of Bill of Rights." He warned that we are in danger of losing the freedoms Australians have traditionally taken for granted. Nothing could be plainer: Professor Blainey sees that the Bill of Rights is a sly "con" to carry out the reverse of its high sounding title.
Professor Blainey will draw more attacks from the Socialist/ Humanist ideologues, in particular, who attack the credibility of any who question their "religion". The intellectually bankrupt and/or the intellectually dishonest most often resort to "playing the man, rather than the ball". We might mention here that beneath The Weekend Australian (January 25th-26th) report of Geoffrey Blainey's speech was the published result of a poll on the Australian Flag, which finds: "Two years before the Bi-centenary most adult Australians do not want the national Flag changed. "A Newspoll survey ... shows that 2 out of 3 adult Australians believe that Australian Flag should never be changed. Of those who wanted change, the vast majority (72%) wanted the Union Jack omitted from a new flag. Are we surprised? No, we are not. Here's something: "Better educated people were more inclined to have the Flag changed". Are we surprised? No, we are not. All that this means to us is that modern "education" has had its erosive effects.
CLAPTRAP FROM CANBERRA PROPAGANDA SHEET
We made reference, in last week's On Target (January 24th) to Government in Focus (Vol. 2 No, 11) concerning "a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights. We'll wager that Senator Gareth Evans is up to his eyeballs in this continuing clap-trap (what sort of journalistic hacks does the Hawke Government engage to write this bilge?) Where does it find them. No doubt they'll write anything for a price. We recall that Napoleon remarked, "every man has his price". But Napoleon went further. He added that what staggered him was how low it was!
Listen to this: "... the common law does not offer clear or wide ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best, after satisfying procedural matters (whatever that means) the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way. The common law provides no guarantees of such rights as the rights of freedom of expression, movement or peaceful assembly, or the right to a speedy trial, legal aid or many other rights in the administration of criminal justice." And so on, and on.
The common law, in general, lays down what the individual cannot do. Generally, as common law is woven around the Christian ethic, an individual is allowed freedom of action providing the rights of others are not infringed. In 1986, in Australia, pre-Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, we still have the rights mentioned above. We have little confidence that we shall still has these rights IF the H.R.E.O.C is established, with a full set of teeth.
The sly trick of the Bill of Rights "con" is to specify what "rights" the individual has. Then, rights not specified are no longer rights. This is the reverse of Common Law, and is, in fact, an attack upon Christianity, as the Christian ethic is woven into Common Law. The Australian Democrats ("Chippocrats") now hold the key to the fate of the Bill of Rights. Don Chipp is a political realist, if nothing else. He is a shrewd, experienced, politician. If he can be shown (if not already the case) that the new Senate quotas for proportional representation will require his Party to actually increase their electoral standing to hold their present position, and, the campaign the Bill of Rights can be stepped up, then Don Chipp will closely examine the writing on the wall, and the Bill of Rights will be defeated. This will upset Senator Janine Haines, "Chippocrat" senator for South Australia, whose complaint against the Bill of Rights legislation is that "it doesn't go far enough"!
Mark these words - a defeat of the Bill of Rights legislation now coming up, will be a serious blow to the enemies of our Christian civilisation. We can do it again. We have virtually knocked out the Enemy's Land Rights "weapon", right out of his hands. Hence the Enemy's response with an Anti-South African campaign, turned up to screaming point. If we can knock out the Bill of Rights, there will be another frenzied response. But we must accept that, for the fight to the death between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness has been joined. We know what side we are on.
The former New South Wales Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. Murray Farquhar, upon being released from jail recently after serving 10 months of a four-year sentence, said that his time in Long Bay had made him realise the great value of freedom "I don't think people realise how precious freedom is until they lose it", he said. How true, as the millions of victims of totalitarianism can testify. But if Australians do not defend the freedoms they still possess, they will lose them. The most immediate threat is the Bill of "Rights".
Our Canadian contemporary, On Target, (January 6th) comments that "The iron hand of censorship continues to push Canadians down the road of totalitarianism. Two Toronto men were convicted last month of promoting hatred against non-white people. Donald Andrews and Robert Smith were sentenced to jail terms of 12 and 7 months respectively. One suggestion is the accused's literature singled out by Judge Edward Wren was promoting hatred was that repatriation of blacks to their homeland might contribute to a solution to our growing racial problem." If British M.P., Mr. Enoch Powell, lived in Canada, he would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment! Across the Tasman Mr. Bill Daly, National Director of the New Zealand League of Rights, is now being pressured to stop selling certain books, one of these being "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", also banned in Canada. Mr. Daly is threatened with the secret courts, which operate under the guise of Human "Rights" Commissions. Australians should take note, and act, before they also feel the lash of the totalitarians.
Hi-Tech and automation are catching up with the Soviets, and this will be bad news for the Politburo, unless they can funnel the displaced workers (those beloved "toiling masses") into fruitful employment (for the sake of the Politburo). The Soviet Constitution (which has a Bill of Rights "enshrined" in it) guarantees the "right" to work, with almost religious zeal. Communism is a religion. So while Mr. Gorbachev sets about the modernisation of Soviet industry and commerce, the problems spin off for the Soviet bureaucrats (and there are many more of them there, than here, back home.) the dire predictions are that many millions, as high as 20 million Soviet people, will be thrown out of a job. The Kremlin can easily fund their unemployment benefits: the "danger" of millions of people, with too much time on their hands - to think unacceptable thoughts is just what the Kremlin would not want.
What has happened to Senator Durack's "Flag Amendment Bill" (1984)? The Bill laid down no change to our Flag without a referendum.
LORD SOAMES IN ZIMBABWE
We have not seen a word in the print media concerning the presence in Zimbabwe, only recently, of Lord Soames, the hatchet man, on behalf of the British "Government", for the final beheading of Rhodesia. Lord Soames is intimately connected with powerful "British" Merchant Banks, and Finance, with a capital "F" is his business. He was appointed by Whitehall to oversee the demise of Rhodesia during the brief period of direct control from London, after Mrs. Thatcher had been out manoeuved at the Zambian Conference on Zimbabwe Rhodesia, at which Mr. Malcolm Fraser played such a prominent role in its betrayal in London at which the poor, futile, Bishop Muzowera was elbowed aside, and the glittering prize thrown to Comrade Mugabe; no doubt for an assurance that he would play along with Big Finance, which masterminded the whole tragedy.
But now, apparently, Comrade Mugabe is getting out of line, and Lord Soames (who, as Mr. Christopher Soames, married one of Sir Winston Churchill's daughters, Mary, if we remember correctly.) On an A.B.C. news session, very recently, came the report that Lord Soames was in Zimbabwe "as a friend", and that if any of his remarks were taken to be critical of some of the Government of Zimbabwe's policies (without doubt, financial policies!) they were to be interpreted in that light. So Mugabe and his backers are getting out of line. Lord Soames would not be in Zimbabwe, personally, if Comrade Mugabe was getting very much out of line. We could say - "serves him right"- if the matter were not so tragic.
BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS DANGERSThis letter published in the Financial Review (January 21st) over the name of "Eva Malonyay", Hon. Sec. Hungarian Council of the A.C.T., Lyneham, A.C.T.:
"Promoted under the Utopian catch cry of equal rights and opportunities for all, the Australian Bill of Rights is a blatant attempt at social engineering. "Modeled closely on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its concept is international and not Australian. "Many rights we take for granted are omitted, and even those specified therein are subject to interference and open to abuse. "The Bill is heavily loaded in favour of centralised power and the influence of pressure groups to the detriment of the majority of Australians who do not qualify as disadvantaged.
"Its sponsor, the United Nations, whose very name belies its divisive membership, attained immense global recognition since its inception. "While nationalism was equated with Nazism, or at best, isolationism; clever propaganda made the acceptance of internationalism a desired objective. "Now we are told that many countries have embraced a Bill of Rights, and Australia should not be the last to do so. "The temptation to join this brotherhood is quite easy to resist, seeing it includes the U.S.S.R., Hungary, Poland, etc., and recently even Afghanistan. "All those governments use it to silence all opposition, and subdue all dissenters.
"I cannot agree with those complacent Australians who say, 'It can't happen here'. "The influence of the U.S.S.R. and the 'liberated' countries (now under Communist rule) plays a decisive role in the United Nations, including the formulation of U.N. policy.
"Those Australians who wonder why our Bill of Rights does not contain (among many others) the right to own property must not blame the Hawke Government for this omission. "At a debate (Canberra, December 1, 1985) Mr. Peter Bailey, the deputy chairman of the Human Rights Commission, defended the Government with alacrity. "He told us that the original draft of the U.N. Covenant (our model) contained this article, but the U.S.S.R.s objection caused it to be deleted. "It is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the 'Australian' Bill of Rights, comprises only such 'rights' that met with the approval of the U.S.S.R. "The unprecedented inquisitional powers of the misnamed Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission must rate particularly high in that regard."
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|