According to Grendel, the Hawke/Keating governments managed to ban dissent over the multicturalism issue.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223905172/43#43

Actually mantra under those governments dissent was not allowed and people were vilified and discriminated against, for holding opinions that were not acceptable to the progressive left and multiculturalists.  that might be why you thought it was being accepted.  Believe me it wasnt.  Not by those of us at the coalface, and it wan't just older australians either.

Apparently everyone knew this, though the only evidence that has come up is the rhetorical techniques used by some supporters of multicturalism.

Does anyone have any examples of dissent being banned?

Public disclaimer....  I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM.

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:

Public disclaimer....  I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM.

It's right there in the link I provided. I did not edit the quote.

You claim FD I said the gov BANNED DISSENT... never made any such claim.

Your exact words...

According to Grendel, the Hawke/Keating governments managed to ban dissent over the multicturalism issue.

the topic title...

BANNING DISSENT

YAWN.  

You've out pedant-ed yourself this time cookie boy.

on the subject...  from the Net.

back on topic...

this article focuses on Asian Immigration but that's just because under hawke and Keating and Labor there was a large increase in it.

It is also a fact that the Australian people never asked for this process of Asianisation; nor were any referendums ever carried out; nor were the people - as a whole - ever consulted. The reason for this is simple: the Government knows that most Australians are opposed to the Asianisation of their country. Therefore, this policy has been carried out by subterfuge and stealth; by lying and cunning; by knowingly ignoring the wishes of the community - therefore implementing a process which is one of the most evil and undemocratic actions in Australia's history.

The undemocratic nature of the implementation of the Asianisation of Australia can been seen in the following notes:

1) Refusal to hold a referendum. There have been various calls for a referendum on the subject of immigration, but all of the major political parties have refused or ignored these calls. They know what the outcome would be. In 1988, one opinion poll showed that 70% of Australians thought that we should hold a national referendum on immigration policy".

2) Give little or no publicity to organisations opposing Asianisation. It is an established media tactic to give little or no coverage to organisations opposing Asianisation and Multiculturalism. Many media outlets follow this tactic; and in those rare instances where coverage is given, it is almost always negative.

3) The media's "conspiracy of silence". As the editor of The Australian Financial Review once admitted, the media in Australia have co-operated with the government in maintaining a "conspiracy of silence" in relation to immigration policies.

4) The Government's "conspiracy of silence". In 1993 Bob Hawke, former Labor Prime Minister, confirmed that "the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda". The major political parties have been prepared to impose mass Asian immigration upon our nation, to advance the interests of their cosmopolitan-internationalist beliefs, despite their knowledge that most Australians opposed their plans).

5) Government-approved "brainwashing". The Sydney Morning Herald exposed how "The Department of Immigration had a plan to feed themes sympathetic to immigrants into popular television soap operas". The intent was (and is) to use television as a propaganda tool for the promotion of Australia's "Asian Future" and to try to create an atmosphere of acceptance for the increasing Asian proportion of our population.

Australians can only wonder as to what other amazing plans the Department of Immigration, and other government departments, have "cooked up" in order to indoctrinate and "brainwash" the public into accepting Asianisation and Multiculturalism.

6) "Brainwashing" via advertising and the media. Various government institutions give "positive discrimination" (a euphemism for discrimination against Australians) to Asian immigrants; and, in matters of public propaganda, often seek to have Asian ethnics portrayed in disproportionate numbers or "in a positive light".

7) Covering up research results; and the suppression of intellectual dissent. On several occasions over the years, studies have been kept hidden from public view because their results were not in accordance with what the government expected.

8) Bans on so-called "racist" immigrants. In 1987, it was revealed that intending immigrants have to undergo a "rigorous settlement assessment to screen out extremists, including racists, holding views inconsistent with Australia's multi-cultural and multi-racial society". Of course, to cosmopolitan-internationalists, anyone who opposes Multiculturalism is an "extremist".

9) "Brainwashing" of students. Trainee teachers are unofficially screened for so-called "racist" views (the same often applies to other positions within the public service). Teachers are also well-trained in Multiculturalism, and are encouraged to promote internationalism; both philosophies which have only one end for Australia: Asianisation. To this end, teachers are "armed" by internal training sessions, special journal articles, and even entire books (for example, Anti-Racism: A Handbook for Adult Educators, all of which have been developed to help brainwash students (euphemistically called "shaping students' attitudes") into the doctrine of Multiculturalism (and hence, our "Asian Future"). Teachers seize upon the opportunity to preach multiculturalism in a whole range of classes.

As Donald Horne has stated: "I agree with Al Grassby that one of the great battles for multiculturalism must be fought in the schools".

10) Willingness to ignore democracy. In order to carry out their anti-Australian policies, the cosmopolitan-internationalists of the Establishment are quite prepared to cast democracy aside in pursuit of their goals. Cosmopolitan-internationalists believe that, no matter what 75% of Australians believe regarding immigration, the self-given duty of the Establishment's media and politicians is to press on with immigration policies that are opposed by the majority of Australians.

11) Racial vilification laws, and the silencing of dissent.
"We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation" - Bob Hawke, 1984 (then Labor Prime Minister).

oh dear...  ;D

http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/campbell1.html

We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take of political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and can only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the media and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia’s predominant ethnic interest – those of Anglo Celt and European background. We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of denunciations of Professor Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988. I then became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration in the early 1990’s, Australia First, and in more recent times of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for saying that we should slow down the rate of South East Asian immigration to a level that we could accommodate. It did not occur to me that this was racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has been building, ironically but aptly, since 1984.

so you were ignorant of this fd?

So what you're saying is that the government didn't ban dissent, but they didn't allow it either?

yawn

I never said they banned dissent...  you did.  ;D ;D ;D

maybe one day you'll absorb some facts eh?

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:38pm:

yawn I never said they banned dissent...  you did.  ;D ;D ;D maybe one day you'll absorb some facts eh?

I didn't say they banned dissent.

rotflmao

Oh that's right I never said it YOU said I said it...  that's called lying fd.

ahhhh..
just a question...
do you carry on like this all the time?
Don't you think that eventually all the other people here will think you are a complete idiot?

I note...  I thought you were back on Cracker and Dt has very recently asked you to go away. ::)
I could probably source other such sentiment, but I wont.

Try to debate the facts eh and not just be a pedantic twit.

back on topic...


THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE CANNOT BE SILENCED
While the revelations concerning Mr. Bill Hayden's views of some of Australia's Asian neighbours tended to overshadow the immigration debate last week, it is now clear that the immigration debate is going to continue, and that at long last a vital question about future can no longer be ignored. Labor's own ranks are starting to crack, with WA backbench Member Campbell receiving open support from some of his parliamentary colleagues. Campbell claims that a third of the Federal Labor caucus privately agree with him. We believe this to be correct.

In spite of the continuing anti-Howard campaign, with Australian columnist Greg Sheridan dramatically stating last weekend that John Howard had to resign "in the national interest", the Opposition leader has tenaciously held his ground and finished the week in a strong position. The referendum result has consolidated John Howard's position at least for the time being.

Professor Geoffrey Blainey returned to the immigration debate with a powerful and devastatingly logical article in The Weekend Australian, September 3-4, appropriately headed, MEDIA BULLIES THE BLIND PUPPETEERS ON IMMIGRATION. Blainey charges that over the previous two weeks there had been a rare event in modern Australian history, with media commentators trying to muzzle a debate.

He points out that they are attempting to ridicule and silence a point of view held by the majority of Australians.

There is no doubt that a large number of people are becoming disgusted at the manner in which the commentators in the media are attempting to bully them into accepting their point of view.

Professor Blainey selects Laurie Oakes as an example of how the media commentators operate, mentioning a recent article by Oakes in The Bulletin. Oakes charged John Howard with being "divisive, dangerous, opportunistic," by inference suggesting that the Australian community's attitudes are so precarious that a few comments from John Howard are sufficient to produce a great national division. The truth is that the Howard view reflects that of the great majority of the Australian people.

Professor Blainey writes, "We must cultivate good relations with the nearer Asian nations. But surely it is folly to argue that such relations will necessarily arise from taking in even larger numbers of Asian immigrants. Fiji's relations with India are far from harmonious even though Fiji was swamped with migrants from India. Nor is a big inflow of Asian migrants essential to promote foreign trade, to its great credit, is king of trade. Where are its new Asian migrants?"

A very telling point which the advocates of multiculturalism never face. It is the media bullies who are fostering anti-Asian sentiment. Most of these bullies were in favour of referendum proposals, which they thought could be won.

But they are not in favour of a referendum on immigration, well aware that their views would be overwhelmingly rejected.

The immigration question is going to be a major factor in the run up to the next Federal Elections. The tragedy is that the blinkered views of Mr. John Howard and his colleagues on economics, leaves them at a disadvantage as Labor positions itself to promise the taxpayers some of their own money back in the form of massive tax cuts just prior to the elections.

GEE I WONDER WHY THE TITLE STATES.......
THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE CANNOT BE SILENCED

I have to agree with you Grendel, while you said dissent was not allowed, I did not have any difficulty understanding your meaning, and I certainly knew that you didn't mean banned.

I read it as a systemic promotion of multiculturalism, and an overt sense of oppression against rednecks and racists, freedom to be as openly bigoted as they wanted.

Whenever they popped their heads up they were soundly ridiculed.

Your average bigot and xenophobe, just couldn't get a fair hearing.

Those amongst them, who may not have actually been rednecks and racists, also felt the pressure to back off from the topic, fearing that they may just look like ignorant fools.

thanks Mozz I was waiting for you to have a say actually...  knew you could back me up  ;D

fd just cant admit hes wrong.

lol...  I make allowances for your bias and obvious prejudice.  ;D

Aside from which the evidence is overwhelming.

Lol ;D
initially I was just going to post the bit how I interpreted you post, but the devil got the better of me, and I had to throw in a jibe to go with it, I'm a bad, bad, boy. ;)

That said, while FD could argue his case on purely semantic terms, I doubt that any who read your post would have misinterpreted the way he implies.

I posted a pic a while ago when I was arguing with FD over something, that I felt encapsulated his approach to debating, I will repost it here for you, you may get a laugh.

---

The ideology of multiculturalism has been useful for suppressing protest against this massive population growth by tarring as 'racist' any protest against immigration for whatever reason.

It is ironic that the White Australia policy, which was introduced to combat the kind of slavery which the USA was built on, has been replaced with a much nicer-sounding Multiculturalism, which allows the importation of low-wage labour and the flooding of the housing market to benefit speculators, in the context of rising land prices and rising homelessness.

More Cowbell. (yellow cowbell!)

concentrate Mozz...

MULTICULTURALISM
SUPPRESSING PROTEST
TARRING AS "RACIST"
ANY PROTEST AGAINST IMMIGRATION

if you want to talk about discouraging dissent and censoring/censuring others, the Howard govt would be a prime example

On the topic of racism and multicultralism. You should check this out:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9_N3wYsno

Rolling out the obsessive anti_howard LW rant Gaybriel?

In Howards time at least Multiculti and immigration could be spoken about openly.  At least the shackles of PC were broken for a time.

The cries from the Left were just garbage no laws or tribunals were set up to silence them.  I fact they just ranted longer and louder...  hypocrites that they are.

[quote author=grendel link=1224211412/15#20 date=1224300204]Rolling out the obsessive anti_howard LW rant Gaybriel?

In Howards time at least Multiculti and immigration could be spoken about openly.  At least the shackles of PC were broken for a time.

In fact it was encouraged, and all the wacists cheered.

yawn

Typical outburst Squip...  

You mean the wacists in the Labor party.
lots of them you know.

now back in your straight-jacket and back to the padded room for you ok

It still can be spoken about openly. You're free to complain about immigration, just as others are free to disagree with your point of view. Even if you stopped immigration now, you'd still have a multicultural society. So I don't see the point in getting worried about it. The days of white Australia are finished and will never return.  The other day I heard that by 2042 white people will no longer be the majority in the USA. I suspect this will eventually be the case in Australia too.

lol
Did you read the opening post Rev?

Yeah. What about it?

I was commenting in response to the posts that said you can't question multiculturalism without being called a racist.

lol
You are referring to the now..
The topic is about the then...

and it's an incorrect premise anyway due to fds lie.

lol

Okay.