What do the ABC and the New Zealand terrorist horror have in common? Apart, I mean, from the fact that the ABC was the only media outlet silly enough to repeat Brendan Tarrant’s crazy manifesto, as if the idiot needed the extra publicity. Well, the ABC and the New Zealand attack do have something in common, and it is going to have a very chilling effect on public life. We are about to enter a new era of the suppression of free speech and debate. First, the ABC. As you recall, we ended up with a complete dud in Justin Milne as chairman, thanks to the Minister, Mitch Fifield, interfering in the work of the selection panel and trying to manipulate its deliberations, as a result of which Turnbull’s mate got the job. Wasn’t that clever? Then, not long into his term, Milne told the ABC that they should get rid of two journalists who were spreading anti-government propaganda under the guise of journalism, a very reasonable suggestion, if you ask me. But to put it in writing was monumentally foolish. Naturally, it morphed into the left-wing catch-cry that the government, through the chairman, was trying to stifle the independence of the ABC. Naturally, he was forced to resign. The result is that you are now not allowed to make the slightest criticism of the ABC, no matter how valid, or you will be accused of undermining the independence of the ABC, the unforgiveable sin. It does not matter how reasonable your criticism, that the commentators repeat each other like zombies, that Insiders is boring, the news is shallow, there are too many pathetic quizzes and game shows or that the ABC looks and sounds like the increasingly absurd commercial outlets. No matter; all of those criticisms will now be put down as challenging the independence of the organisation, because that’s what Justin did and look how he finished up.  So, Coalition members who complain of the inevitable ABC bias in the coming election campaign can thank Justin Milne who created such a farce and Mitch Fifield who appointed the fool.

Now, the New Zealand horror. This was a monumental tragedy, brought about by a madman. But because the alleged gunman was allegedly a right-wing madman and a white supremacist, the line is peddled by Muslims, their camp followers and the moral guardians who decide what we are allowed to believe in, that the shooting rampage was encouraged by criticism of Muslims and Islam by racists and white supremacists. As this criticism led to deaths, they claim, it is obvious that similar criticism must be banned before it leads to more murders. From now on, any criticism of Islam will therefore be treated as a demonstration of white supremacy, so it must be stifled at once. All criticism of Muslims will by definition become hate speech. If you point to the litany of Muslim terrorism, quaint customs like genital mutilation, murdering gays, mediaeval brutality towards women , hatred of other religions, extreme anti-Semitism, burning Christian churches, hate-preaching,  recruiting for jihad, or cutting policemen’s throats, the response will be the same. From now on, it is officially hate speech to criticise Islam in any form because it will make it easier for right-wing maniacs to attack Muslims. So you are no longer free to say such things. Of course they will add that from now on, only they and their acolytes will decide what qualifies as hate speech although you may rest assured that anything they do not like will be hate speech. Christchurch will thus become the big Islamic opportunity to stop constructive criticism and stifle any discussion of which it disapproves.

So, just as criticism of the ABC today is treated as denying its hallowed independence, any criticism of Islam is treated as racism and white supremacy. Both propositions are nonsense, but both have taken root as a great opportunity to stifle criticism and they are now influencing public debate and freedom of speech with a hysteria that I have not seen in my lifetime. The letter writing squad are thumping the issue to intimidate anyone who criticises Islam, there is a claim that Section 18C should be made even more draconian and any MP who goes outside the approved script is at risk, not only of being censured but excluded from the parliament, like Senator Anning. Then there is Michael Daley, leader of the Opposition in NSW. Apparently, he said that ‘Asians with PhDs’ in Sydney were pushing the locals out of jobs and housing. Now, months later, he has been branded as a racist and forced into a ritualistic apology for using the word ‘Asians’. How ridiculous a reaction when, surely, he was stating the obvious. We should be saying yes, Daley was right, and we should ask why it is so, instead of branding as a racist anyone who dares state the facts. Productive minorities like Asians arise, prosper and gravitate to the best jobs and housing because they believe in education, work, the traditional family, ambition and self-reliance. We used to believe in those things, in our pre-multicultural days, but in our brave new world we have no need for any of them. Asians with PhDs will naturally strive to improve their lives, as they should, and it is not racism to say so. Nor is it racism to criticise extremist Muslims.

None of this is an excuse or justification for the horror of terrorism that we saw in Christchurch. We should condemn it even more vigorously than we have. Fortunately, there is something we can do about it, apart from stifling free speech and apart from the candlelight vigils, hugs, tears, headscarves, self-flagellation, ritualistic royal commissions and, of course, the inevitable Nobel Prize for Ms Ardern. We should re-introduce capital punishment for fatal terrorist crimes. I wonder how many white do-gooders would face up to imposing the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime? Not many, I fear.