|Home||The Cross-Roads||Newtimes Survey||blog.alor.org||Library|
8 September 1995. Thought for the Week: "... the Keating Republicans are in the main new class internationalists. These internationalists dictate policy from above against the wishes of the great bulk of the people. They have become so powerful, with their media influence, that they have been able to define what constitutes acceptable political discourse. These unrepresentative pressure groups taken together are even arrogant enough to call themselves the 'community'."
Graeme Campbell, M.H.R.
ANTI LEAGUE OF RIGHTS SMEARING INTENSIFIED
by Eric D. Butler
A representative of the local paper, The Port Lincoln Times, attended the Port Lincoln Meeting, interviewed me and took a photo of myself and Mayor Davis. A subsequent report in the paper, along with the photo, was reasonably accurate. That was some weeks ago. But on September 1st The Advertiser, Adelaide's only major daily newspaper carried the headline, OUTSPOKEN MAYOR AT CENTRE OF RACISM ROW. The story was accompanied with a photograph of Mayor Davis. The story was a classic example of the type of sick journalism generally used when there is any reference to the League of Rights, which is a "right wing extremist" organisation.
Spokesmen for various ethnic groups are quoted as saying that Mayor Davis must be forced from office. Conveniently overlooked was the fact that at the Port Lincoln Mayoral Election held early this year, Peter Davis was elected by an overwhelming majority of the electors. The central issue was a grandiose local complex project, which had caused deep concern in the community. Peter Davis felt that the majority view should be represented and offered himself as a genuine representative of the electors. While his opponents spent large sums of money in their campaigns, Peter Davis spent only $10!
As a former member of the Local Council, Peter Davis had demonstrated time and time again that he was a man of principle. A prominent businessman, Peter Davis has never made any secret of the fact that he has been a long-time supporter of the Australian League of Rights. When the recent storm burst Mayor Davis demonstrated his calibre by refusing to back away from his support for the League. In a series of radio and television interviews he hit back against his critics. He said he was not going to "buckle" and told The Advertiser "The one thing you will find about League of Rights people is they know how to handle pressure".
The Advertiser story carried all the usual smears about the League, but in the radio open line programmes League actionists showed their fighting mettle. One young supporter managed to have the League objectives read out. The Advertiser story of September 1st was followed by another story on September 2nd, when a headline read that the Federal Minister for Immigration Affairs, Senator Bolkus, entered the campaign against Mayor Davis claiming that Mayor Davis might be stripped of his right to preside over citizenship ceremonies. He charged Mayor Davis with being a "redneck". There were various calls for Mayor Davis to resign, which he has refused to heed, suggesting that Senator Bolkus should visit Port Lincoln to ascertain what the local people felt.
There is little doubt that the Mayor Davis affair is part of a growing campaign to discredit the League of Rights and to drive from public office anyone who supports the League. These tactics of intimidation worked in the case of the pathetic former Liberal leader Alexander Downer. Liberal and National Party leaders Howard and Fischer are desperately making every effort to escape Downer's fate, issuing absurd statements about how they not only have nothing to do with the dreadful League of Rights, but adding their voices to the smear campaign.
Behind the anti-League programme there is a long-term strategy, which, in the famous claim by Zionist leader Isi Leibler, aims to drive the League out of mainstream Australian politics. Isi Leibler has at least been frank about his intentions. What remains to be seen is whether he will be successful. The very future of Australia as a free nation depends upon how this matter is resolved. If enough leaders of the calibre of Port Lincoln's Mayor Peter Davis can be found, there is every reason to be optimistic about the future.
A WARNING ON THE CITIZENS' ELECTORAL COUNCIL
by David Thompson
Since the C.E.C. has formed a relationship with a North American group, heavily influenced by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, its original character has changed dramatically. Some Australians have been encouraged to travel to the United States to study, among other things, high pressure fundraising techniques, which involve telephone work. When established, the C.E.C. proposed to concentrate on campaigning for the right for voters to initiate referenda that would bind governments. This has now all but disappeared from their programme.
In our view, the C.E.C. movement in Australia has now ceased to exist, except on paper, and remains merely the Australian arm of Mr. LaRouche's operation. As the C.E.C. group have themselves pointed out, they are now philosophically completely at odds with the League. The C.E.C. is now strongly pro-republican, and Mr. LaRouche advised in 1992 that the Union Jack should be removed from the flag. His economic proposals depend upon the "growth" economy, and it is suggested that Australia needs further mass immigration to create a viable 'market' here. Eric Butler has been variously accused of being a long-term undercover agent for Britain's MI6, and a freemason, and scathing references to the League have appeared in The New Citizen, the C.E.C. newspaper.
Our advice to supporters is not to respond to high-pressure telephone appeals for finance. The C.E.C. group does not have a constructive action programme to challenge the centralisation of power. Its programme and methods of operation are very different from that of the League, and its philosophy now quite opposed to that of the League. In short, we regard the C.E.C. movement as a menace to the free society. It is part of the problem with which we are faced, not a part of the answer.
A VICTORIAN PROVINCIAL PAPER GIVES AN INSPIRING LEAD
The following editorial from a Victorian Provincial Paper, which we reproduce, is inspirational. We would like to see it reproduced right around Australia.
The Wimmera Mail-Times
Celebrated English writer, satirist,
poet and historian, Joseph Hilaire Belloc, 1870-1953, produced
a beautifully descriptive and accurate word package on party
politics. Appropriately framed and illuminated, it should
grace the portals of parliaments across the western world
as an example to members who aspire to represent their people.
Little has changed since 1906.
The party still whips the people's parliamentarians
into line, unless they happen to have the moral fibre of Graeme
Campbell, MHR, genuine representative for Kalgoorlie, currently
pilloried for his tongue-in-cheek statement on a state funeral
for the Prime Minister, Mr. Keating.
MISREPRESENTING SIR WILLIAM DEANE
As we have made clear last week, we have some reservations about the appointment of Sir William Deane as Australia's next Governor General. But we have even greater reservations about the way the pro-republican press, and the republican movement itself, has attempted to co-opt Sir William to the republican cause without his consent. Several of his statements have been misrepresented, and do not reflect his specific words at all. For example, in a radio interview on the ABC'S PM programme, the interviewer misrepresented Sir William's statement that he thought that a substantial number of Australians believed that a republic was desirable, as being that he thought a republic was desirable.
As a result of Sir William Deane appearing at a press conference, The Australian (23/8/95) produced a headline claiming 'Deane Rules Out a Repeat of Kerr's Dismissal.' But a close reading of the article itself; and knowledge of what was said at the press conference, indicates that this is false.
A reader of the newspaper, who studied
the transcript afterwards, points out that Sir William said
no such thing. In a letter to the Editor of the paper, he
wrote: "Sir William merely recited some instances in which
the reserve powers of the governor general could come into
play. He made no comment on the situation in 1975 at all.
In fact the words which Sir William used were very carefully
framed and do not disclose any difference of approach between
his statement and the exercise of the reserve powers by Sir
John Kerr in 1975.
It is clear that a pro-republican press is now engaged in blatant censorship of the news, and slanting it in such a fashion that the overwhelming impression remains that a republic has vast popular support, and is quite inevitable by the turn of the century. Sir William may not be a very good choice for the office leading to the year 2000, but he is being made to appear even worse than he probably is by an ideologically motivated press.
STAND UP FOR OUR HERITAGE
from The Australian, 28/8
'The guardians of culture for the young, and therefore for Australia, are our educators (or educationalists, as they are wont to call themselves). They mostly inhabit State education bureaucracies that have encouraged the process of discontinuity. It's time for most of this ruling class to depart the stage of world history. Large bureaucracies are an irrelevant expense these days.
"So many careers built on being radical, feminist, equal, ethnic, inclusive, politically malleable, correct or whatever. So many fads to be introduced. So much knowledge to be trashed because it does not fit in with whatever is the ideologically correct notion of the time. So much better than history, geography, and Australia's literary heritage. 'This is not a cry for what was, but for what should be. Those that survive and prosper in the global village will be well anchored in their own culture and love its gifts. No point in going into Asia if we don't know who we are.
'This is, of course, a racist letter,
demanding the reintroduction of hegemonic Anglo-Celtic culture,
and unsympathetic to all minorities whose views, cultures
and status deserve affirmative action. But I've read Barry
Oakley's article and I can hear the soft, sliding sound of
an entire culture slipping away. And it is Australia's."
Press Statement 3rd September 1995 - THOUGHT POLICE ABUSE PORT LINCOLN MAYOR
When he was in South Australia recently, Mr. Eric Butler addressed a meeting chaired by Mayor Peter Davis in Port Lincoln, on the issue of local government amalgamation. On September 1st and 2nd, The Advertiser published several attacks upon Mr. Davis, including comments from Senator Bolkus, in which he described Mr. Davis as a "redneck" and as "unreconstructable". Peter Davis, responding to charges of "racism", was strongly critical of multiculturalism, and defended himself vigorously in the press. The following was the League's response, which resulted in several radio interviews, and press references.
The Australian League of Rights condemns the outrageous treatment afforded the Mayor of Port Lincoln, Mr. Peter Davis, because he supports the League. The attempt to intimidate Mr. Davis, and imply guilt by associating him with the League is irresponsible. The fact that Senator Bolkus has aligned himself with the thought police of the politically correct without clarifying Mr. Davis' views on inflammatory issues reflects poorly upon him. If Mr. Davis had revealed that he was a member of the Communist Party, would Mr. Bolkus have reacted as he has?
The. Minister has revealed an alarming intolerance to dissenting views, and his knee-jerk reaction is deplorable. Senator Bolkus' abuse of Mr. Davis reflects a dangerous lack of commitment to freedom of speech, and a poor regard for the democratic process. When Mr. Davis chaired a meeting for a League speaker, the issue was the amalgamation of local government, an issue of substance in South Australia, and some gravity for Councils. It had nothing to do with 'racism" or "anti-Semitism". The Mayor's actions were entirely proper, in keeping with his public position, and in the best interests of his ratepayers. For the Senator to suggest otherwise is disgraceful.
We also completely reject the unfounded and grossly derogatory assertions that the League is "well-known for its anti-semitic views". Which views are these? Who holds such views? What does this mean, and who makes such allegations? The charges of "anti-Semitism" and "racism" are not used to communicate ideas. They are a scathing form of political abuse, designed to silence an opponent, and avoid debating the issues.
The League of Rights has opposed land claims for Aborigines as being divisive, and not in the best interests of Aborigines or other Australians. We have never opposed land claims because we are "anti-black". The League rejects views of racial superiority or inferiority, or activities and attitudes based upon hatred.
The League has also opposed the open door immigration policy, and the experimental policy of institutionalised multiculturalism. It is the natural right of every nation to determine who becomes a citizen, but such policies have been imposed upon Australians without their consent. Debate about such questions is entirely valid, and should not be suppressed by charges of "racism."
We regard the attempt to smear the League
of Rights with serious but unfounded charges of "racism" and
"anti-Semitism", and then, by association, smear the Mayor
of Port Lincoln, and attempt to intimidate him as a gross
abuse of the press, and extremely irresponsible.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.|