Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
The far right (Read 9893 times)
athiest
Ex Member


Re: The far right
Reply #45 - May 26th, 2008 at 8:53am
 
deepthought wrote on May 25th, 2008 at 6:41pm:
Quote:
deepthought wrote on May 20th, 2008 at 5:04pm:
In my experience it will be the lefty unions who will cause the biggest eruption of fear.  Leftys are the worst racists - the White Australia policy was a Liebor initiative.  In fact the birth of the Liebor Party was due to the fear of the little yellow people.

Listen to the unions today.  They are the ones most opposed to the 457 visa program.


I new this wasn't right when I read it the other day so I did some research deepy and surprise surprise its totally wrong.
Edmund Barton the first PM and the leader of the Liberal Protectionist Party introduced the laws to stop all but WHITE , english speaking people migrating to Australia.
Barton claimed he wanted "a unity of race and customs", this was the beginning of "the white Australia policy".
The immigration restriction act passed by this Liberal Protectionist party prevented Asians,Blacks, and some southern Europeans from migrating to Australia.
In his defence Barton said the act was good as it prevented Kanakas being kidnapped from pacific islands to act as slave labour on canefarms.


I may have already mentioned the content of the Immigration Act so you aren't telling me anything new mate.  However you are attributing it to the wrong dude.

First though, the Protectionist Party was not a Liberal Party.  Before federation there were many different politcal parties in the 'colonies' (states).  The Labor Party had been formed but the Liberal Party itself did not follow for 40 years with Menzies forming it in 1944.

The Protectionist Party and the Labor Party formed government as a coalition and they were the first Australian Federal government with Edmund Barton as PM.

The constituent articles of the Immigration Act 1901 predated federation by many years, it was from the earlier documents that the Immigration bill was formulated.   Acts such as the Chinese Immigration and Restriction Act (a NSW Act in 1870), the unsuccessful Bill for the Exclusion of Inferior Races (a Labor Party bill which did not receive Queen Victoria's Royal Assent) and the Queensland Labor Party act to prohibit the immigration of Kanakas.

Barton's Act was at the urging of his coalition partners, the Labor Party and included such conditions as the 'Dictation Test' which was plucked straight out of the NSW bill "Exclusion of Inferior Races" which had previously failed to get Royal Assent.

I'm not kidding you mate.  The ALP was born to fight immigration of the 'yellow people'.








All of my imformation comes from a book called Priministers of Australia, it is written byJill Bruce.
My other souce is Australian Priministers, edited by Michelle Gratton, It says the same thing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: The far right
Reply #46 - May 26th, 2008 at 11:34am
 
Quote:
All of my imformation comes from a book called Priministers of Australia, it is written byJill Bruce.
My other souce is Australian Priministers, edited by Michelle Gratton, It says the same thing.


It's wrong.   From DIMMI -

Quote:
Abolition of the 'White Australia' Policy

The history

The origins of the 'White Australia' policy can be traced to the 1850s. White miners' resentment towards industrious Chinese diggers culminated in violence on the Buckland River in Victoria, and at Lambing Flat (now Young) in New South Wales. The governments of these two colonies introduced restrictions on Chinese immigration.

Later, it was the turn of hard-working indentured labourers from the South Sea Islands of the Pacific (known as 'kanakas') in northern Queensland. Factory workers in the south became vehemently opposed to all forms of immigration, which might threaten their jobs - particularly by non-white people who they thought would accept a lower standard of living and work for lower wages.

Some influential Queenslanders felt that the colony would be excluded from the forthcoming Federation if the 'kanaka' trade did not cease. Leading NSW and Victorian politicians warned there would be no place for 'Asiatics' or 'coloureds' in the Australia of the future.

In 1901, the new federal government passed an Act ending the employment of Pacific Islanders. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 received royal assent on 23 December 1901. It was described as an Act 'to place certain restrictions on immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited immigrants'.

It prohibited from immigration those considered to be insane, anyone likely to become a charge upon the public or upon any public or charitable institution, and any person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease 'of a loathsome or dangerous character'.


Other restrictions included a dictation test, used to exclude certain applicants by requiring them to pass a written test in a language, with which they were not necessarily familiar, nominated by an immigration officer.

With these severe measures the implementation of the 'White Australia' policy was warmly applauded in most sections of the community.

In 1919 the Prime Minister, William Morris Hughes, hailed it as 'the greatest thing we have achieved'.
Second World War

After the outbreak of hostilities with Japan, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the philosophy of the 'White Australia' policy, saying ' this country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race'.

During World War II, many non-white refugees entered Australia. Most left voluntarily at the end of the war, but many had married Australians and wanted to stay. Arthur Calwell, the first immigration minister, sought to deport them, arousing much protest.

Minister Holt's decision in 1949 to allow 800 non-European refugees to stay, and Japanese war brides to be admitted, was the first step towards a non-discriminatory immigration policy.

The next major step

The next major step was in 1957 when non-Europeans with 15 years residence in Australia were allowed to become Australian citizens.

The revised Migration Act of 1958 introduced a simpler system of entry permits and abolished the controversial dictation test.

The revised Act avoided references to questions of race. Indeed, it was in this context that the Minister for Immigration, Sir Alexander Downer, stated that 'distinguished and highly qualified Asians' might immigrate.

After a review of the non-European policy in March 1966, Immigration Minister Hubert Opperman announced applications for migration would be accepted from well-qualified people on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily and their possession of qualifications positively useful to Australia.

At the same time, the government decided a number of 'temporary resident' non-Europeans, who were not required to leave Australia, could become permanent residents and citizens after five years (the same as for Europeans).

The government also eased restrictions on immigration of non-Europeans. The criterion of 'distinguished and highly qualified' was replaced by the criterion of 'well qualified' non-Europeans, and the number of non-Europeans allowed to immigrate would be 'somewhat greater than previously'.

A watershed

The March 1966 announcement was the watershed in abolishing the 'White Australia' policy, and non-European migration began to increase. Yearly non-European settler arrivals rose from 746 in 1966 to 2,696 in 1971, while yearly part-European settler arrivals rose from 1,498 to 6,054.

Link

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
athiest
Ex Member


Re: The far right
Reply #47 - May 26th, 2008 at 2:06pm
 
"In 1901, the new federal government passed an Act ending the employment of Pacific Islanders. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 received royal assent on 23 December 1901. It was described as an Act 'to place certain restrictions on immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited immigrants'."

How is it wrong, it says the same thing as you have posted here.

The first  Labor government was not elected until  1904 three years after the Protectionist Party introduced it. The protectionist Party went on to form a coalition with the free trade party as an opposition to Labor.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: The far right
Reply #48 - May 26th, 2008 at 4:42pm
 
Quote:
"In 1901, the new federal government passed an Act ending the employment of Pacific Islanders. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 received royal assent on 23 December 1901. It was described as an Act 'to place certain restrictions on immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited immigrants'."

How is it wrong, it says the same thing as you have posted here.

The first  Labor government was not elected until  1904 three years after the Protectionist Party introduced it. The protectionist Party went on to form a coalition with the free trade party as an opposition to Labor.


Had you read what I wrote earlier you would see why it's wrong.

The Protectionist Party incorporated previous Liebor Party clauses (from the 19th century) into their policy at the urging of their coalition partners.

In 1901 there were many individuals and parties, not two major ones as we have today, and they formed whatever they needed to form to get power.  The Protectionist Party often fell out with the extreme Liebor Party and eventually gave up on attempting to work with them.  Throughout the first forty plus years of the 20th century the racist policies remained the province of the Liebor Party and the first steps to abandoning it were with Holt and ultimately with Menzies and Fraser.

Even today the push to stem migration is from the unions and their cohorts in parliament like Martin Ferguson.


Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lapaz62
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98
Re: The far right
Reply #49 - May 26th, 2008 at 6:28pm
 
Why worry about what some political party did 107 years ago, none of it is relevant, all the parties have discriminated against someone at sometime. The fact is, if you choose to be left wing or right wing, its your choice, because you dont agree with another persons philosophy, it doesnt make them less relevant. I do wonder why people who are pro-immigration get so upset when someone has a different opinion, what effect does it have on you if people come or dont come.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: The far right
Reply #50 - May 26th, 2008 at 6:54pm
 
lapaz62 wrote on May 26th, 2008 at 6:28pm:
Why worry about what some political party did 107 years ago, none of it is relevant, all the parties have discriminated against someone at sometime. The fact is, if you choose to be left wing or right wing, its your choice, because you dont agree with another persons philosophy, it doesnt make them less relevant. I do wonder why people who are pro-immigration get so upset when someone has a different opinion, what effect does it have on you if people come or dont come.


I don't have an issue myself.  I said everyone's entitled to an opinion.  However where the opinion they express is based on a historical inaccuracy it does no harm to point out the inaccuracy.  It may make them see that others opinions are factually correct and their own is based on a fallacy.

However in terms of immigration I am all for it - what I am opposed to is the cultural and social engineering we know as multiculturalism.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lapaz62
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 98
Re: The far right
Reply #51 - May 26th, 2008 at 8:09pm
 
I agree with you that the facts are very important when you want to make a case for an issue but when an issue is blurred by the use of religion, which has no factual evidence at all, its difficult to argue the point. I am not anti-immigration but having said that, not all things gel together, some do some dont. Even people of the same culture have discrimination within that culture, its not an easy thing to change.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print