|
Armchair_Politician
|
Truthful debate is slurred into silence by the Left
ONE of the tactics of political correctness is to brand anyone expressing mainstream views as a bigot.
This allows the accuser to claim the high moral ground while smearing his opponent with the sins of racial, gender and sexual discrimination.
In Australian politics it is no longer possible to speak truthfully about Left-generated issues such as domestic violence, asylum seekers and genderless school programs without experiencing a politically correct bigotry slur (with the apt abbreviation PCBS).
Yet the interesting thing about PCBS is its in-built boomerang.
Invariably, the people yelling ‘‘bigot’’ are themselves guilty of discrimination.
I’m not usually one to defend the Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, but he was the victim of an unwarranted smear when Bill Shorten labelled him a ‘‘homophobe’ for criticising the content of the Safe Schools program.
There are so many things wrong with Safe Schools that questioning its appropriateness is a legitimate matter of public interest.
And that’s all Bernardi did.
In private, Shorten might even agree with him, given that none of the Opposition Leader’s three children are enrolled at Safe Schools.
This is also true of the program’s chief sponsor, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Between them, Shorten and Andrews have six children and they all attend non-Safe Schools.
The two Labor leaders happen to be inflicting classroom lessons involving breast-binding and penis-tucking on everyone’s kids except their own.
In defending Safe Schools, Andrews has said: “I get my advice on policy from the experts, not from bigots.”
This is a classic PCBS. And it has boomeranged badly.
Much of the literature underpinning the Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships programs is based on the notion of same-sex superiority.
In her book Feminist Practice And Poststructuralist Theory, for instance, Christine Weedon depicts heterosexual women as pathetically weak.
Only lesbians, who have avoided male indoctrination, can act collectively to overturn patriarchy and create a gender-fluid society.
Like most men, I love lesbians but not to the point of running down straight women.
There’s a nasty heterophobia in the new ‘‘ungendered” school curriculum, creating more prejudice than it actually solves.
Shorten and Andrews need to understand that the experts are the bigots.
Instead of blindly accepting whatever advice neo-Marxist academics place on their desks, our political leaders need to read the material and understand how ideological propaganda is being introduced into the nation’s classrooms.
Australia’s asylum seeker debate is also dominated by the PCBS.
If an objective observer visited Australia during this election campaign and studied the asylum seeker debate, he would conclude two things.
One: the Howard and Abbott governments stopped the boats and saved large numbers of people from drowning.
Two: the Rudd and Gillard governments lured many hundreds of boat people, mostly Muslims, to their death on the waters between Australia and Indonesia.
By this practical, evidence-based test, Labor implemented a pro-drownings policy for Muslims.
Yet remarkably, senior Labor MPs continue to label as racist anyone who disagrees with them on refugee policy — the ultimate PCBS.
The party’s smearer-in-chief has been Anthony Albanese, who has launched more allegations of bigotry over border protection than most of us have had hot lunches.
Most, but not all, have been directed at the Coalition.
For many years, Albanese’s favourite party trick in the House of Representatives was to interject “Sieg Heil!” on Liberal MPs speaking about refugees.
The voters have also copped a serve.
During an immigration debate in 2001, Albanese complained that parts of the Australian electorate had objected to the arrival of Vietnamese asylum seekers “on narrow, bigoted grounds”.
He railed against mandatory detention and the ongoing “vilification of refugees”, asking: “What sort of nation are we that in the year 2001 tolerates that in order to appeal to some rednecks in our society?”
Since the Tampa incident 15 years ago, Albanese has strongly supported Labor For Refugees, an elitist inner-city cell attacking suburban voters as “ignorant, racist and emotive”.
In August 2003, he told a conference at the University of Technology Sydney that: “Unless we acknowledge that there are some people who don’t actually like asylum seekers, not just John Howard, then we won’t be able to move forward.”
Five months later, at Labor’s National Conference, he said there would have been no refugee debate, “if they were Irish Catholics coming here on boats. No, it’s because they are Muslims.”
Prior to the 2015 national conference, Albanese urged the party “not to appeal to the darker side” of the electorate.
The question of race has consistently underpinned his attitude to border protection.
In his mind, if Australia was not such a racist nation, the boats could flow in large numbers and we could welcome many more asylum seekers.
If this is his record in public, imagine what Albo’s been saying in private.
In late 2001, during a barney in Canberra, he told me that the main barrier to ALP compassion for refugees was racism in Western Sydney.
Now, in the middle of an election campaign, he has denied making this statement, telling Radio 2GB he’s a cleanskin when it comes to “the idea that working-class people are racist”.
Cont'd...
|
Forum
Pages: 1 
