Features Australia

Aux bien pensants

19 August 2017

9:00 AM

19 August 2017

9:00 AM

Say Yes to No

Just as the appeasement of Nazi Germany ended with Chamberlain’s Declaration of War at 11.15am on 3 September 1939, so decades of appeasement of Pyongyang (and Obama’s appeasement of Tehran) ended at noon on 20 January 2017 when Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President. But when he warned North Korea that any aggression would be met with ‘fire and fury’, the mainstream media used it for their treacherous campaign to remove him. Frau Merkel, whose act of lunacy in throwing open not only Germany’s borders but those of 25 other countries who, unlike the UK, gave up control of their borders to the Eurocrats, has been an absolute disaster, publicly chastised him and naively called for a diplomatic solution. Surely the Chancellor knows that just as the Führer misused diplomacy to his advantage, so the diabolical Kim dynasty has misused diplomacy to entrench its evil. Turnbull was absolutely right to overrule Foreign Minister Bishop and support Trump.

Despite commentariat praise for Turnbull’s performance in his telephone conversation with the President, the Turnbull-Obama agreement is a ‘horrible’ and indeed ‘disgusting deal’, but only for Australia. Turnbull admitted it was in fact a swap, one in which the US is only obliged to appear to vet the smugglers’ clients, but we’re bound to take theirs. These could include, as Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones fear, terrorist suspects from Guantánamo Bay.

Unlike the Left, Western conservative governments have always understood that a democratic state can function only in a free enterprise system based on private property. The corollary is that if government resumes property for a legitimate purpose, fair compensation must be paid. So why are Coalition governments trampling on small business and farmers? We saw this recently in the attempt not only to strangle greyhound racing but to refuse to pay proper compensation, in taking away famers’ water rights, in the attack on self-funded retirees and in Sydney, in the complete abandonment of small business people all along George Street and up to Randwick. This is for a dinky new tramway, a plaything of the Lord Mayor and her council, which should anyway be dismissed so that the city’s borders be redrawn to overcome an outrageous gerrymander. Given the massive increase in population caused by the mismanagement of the immigration portfolio, life in Sydney and Melbourne is becoming impossible as the increased number of inhabitants tries to cope with an essentially ancient infrastructure. It was surely obvious that there was only way to handle the massive crowds frequenting the sporting events along the route, as well as the large number of university students. As the sainted Dr Bradfield planned, this was to bring the underground from Bondi Junction to Randwick, past the various sports grounds and into the city to join the railway network. Then we could have continued to enjoy the avenue of magnificent trees which once graced the long Anzac Parade boulevard and not now seeing the callous destruction by the Berejiklian government of the lives of so many small business families. The extraordinary thing, as Alan Jones has pointed out, is that while refusing to discuss their plight with them, the NSW government was willing to negotiate and placate those healthy welfare dependents who had occupied Martin Place.

So, subject to a desperate court challenge by anti-democratic forces to stop people voting, a same-sex postal plebiscite is to proceed. If costs are an issue, why couldn’t we vote on this and other issues at the next election? None is urgent – the Turnbull-Shorten plan to extend politicians’ terms, giving the indigenous a second vote so that their elite can enjoy all the world-wide CO2 emitting advantages and other luxuries that flow from being Canberra politicians, reopening forced local government amalgamations in NSW, Senate reform and yet another vote on some politicians’ republic with the model locked away in the recesses of Bill Shorten’s mind? Indeed, I cannot see how other than giving Australians the same direct democratic rights as the Swiss enjoy, we will ever improve the shockingly low and declining standards of government by the out-of-touch political class which is running, if you could call it that, this country. The same-sex marriage issue should of course be determined by the people in a referendum, notwithstanding the gratuitous views of the activist judges in 2013 that the politicians are free to change the meaning of marriage to whatever they wish. Will the next cab off the rank be, as Irish judges have already decided, the recognition of polygamous marriages which, incidentally, you’re already subsidising through your taxes? Will there then be, as Theresa May’s ‘Conservative’ government plans, a right to change sex by way of statutory declaration?

If this goes ahead, will we be surprised if some men relish the advantage of being entitled by this deranged law to go into ladies lavatories and changing rooms? A referendum requires a proper debate, with a Yes/No booklet going to every voter. The Gillard government was going to circumvent this in the abandoned local government referendum by its ‘garbage bin’ amendment which the Coalition unthinkingly supported. This was that instead of sending the booklet to every voter just send it to each household, ostensibly to save money. But what happens to envelopes marked ‘To the householder’ in shared accommodation and even among families? They end up in the garbage bin. And very importantly, a referendum, unlike a plebiscite, means that those outside of the Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne triangle have an equal say. Anyone living outside the triangle should, on principle, say No. The fact is a referendum also requires draft legislation indicating how the change will affect other rights, especially free speech. Even if they make draft legislation available for this plebiscite, as the Churches are asking, there’s no guarantee that any safeguard will be adopted.

The solution is clear: in this plebiscite every Australian concerned about free speech must, on principle, vote No.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments