There’s nothing edgy about ‘honour killings’

I can’t believe this needs to be said, but the choices of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas suggests it does.

Uthman Badar, spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, will be speaking at the Festival on the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”.

How clever.

It has been many years since FODI has shown any desire to live up to its name. Their existences hinge on the flow of government grants, directly or indirectly through the units that make up the art establishment. It’s not here to disrupt the status quo. It is here because, as a Facebook friend snarked, “the whole idea of a Festival of Dangerous Ideas [is to be] some white–person wankery for inner–city latte drinkers to indulge themselves in a trip to the opera house and [provoke] the special feeling of belonging to that special part of society that attends ‘cultural’ events.

So whilst I am openly impressed that FODI has actually gone and proposed a dangerous idea in that context, as far as dangerous ideas go this is quite safe… which is what makes it so dangerous.

It is dangerous in the first instance because the material is justifying murder. Violence is generally accepted as dangerous.

For anyone who, say, might like to think of themselves as culturally enlightened, the barest of philosophical forays will lead you to the subjectivity of morality and/or its experience by the individual.

Armed with this, it is totally conceivable that people who commit what we call “honour killings” have reasons for doing so. It’s a scary rejoinder to the idea of monstrosity as other and seemingly perfect for a crowd seeking “danger”.

This makes it a safe bet. It’s destined to light up blogs like this, and papers and talkback tomorrow, and possibly the 6pm news from earlier this evening. Helen Dale – who has lit up the local media a few times, including this week – called the decision to give Badar a platform “the intellectual equivalent of streaking”, which is so right not just because it’s flashy, insubstantive, and guaranteed to get your eyeballs on the dangly bits, but also because it isn’t novel.

We know that attention will be paid because we have had these debates before. We have had these debates before because there are millions of people who believe murder is a prurient respond to the exercise of certain kinds of autonomy – but they’re other, safely ‘over there’, and the unbridled, uncritical acceptance of the other is how the worst sort of unthinking leftist gets their counter-cultural jollies.

It will be controversial. Why millions of people would hold values so far removed from our own always will be.

And thus we have Badar at FODI, surrounded by the latte elite, who have already started falling over themselves to demonstrate their open-mindedness by paying to listen to a man who fronts the national arm of an organisation that opposes the close-mindedness of a Western liberalism that would go back to stoning women if the culture wasn’t so close-minded.

If an open-mind is worth keeping on this issue this is still not a justification for FODI’s decision. The point of keeping an open mind is to think, judge, and close it eventually. If it never closes it is no great feat of mind, but the simple abrogation of critical thought. FODI is, by choosing to give this violent idea a platform, abrogating that responsibility in the name of whoring themselves out for attention. This is not an act without consequences; what we say in public sends a powerful message about (are you ready for this?) what is is acceptable to say and do in public.

They’re not concerned about that, nor are they actually concerned about whether we should kill slutty sluts for slutting. They’re concerned about how they can leverage Uthman Badar and the Hizb ut-Tahrir brand and the white guilt that creates the cultural relativism that baby leftists are injected with when they submit their first protest poster for assessment, in service of painting the Festival and it’s supporters as open-minded, critically engaged and edgy, and getting the attention that gets them paid. With taxpayer dollars.

If open engagement is what we desire there’s an endless supply of literature on the subject that could be privately consumed. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants.

That is what I find the most dangerous – it’s lovely to have organisations like FODI that self-consciously hike their skirts and whore their stages in the pretence of glorying in liberalism while trying to undermine it. These ideas don’t deserve to be paraded on a platform as flimsy as amusement. There is no honour in giving a microphone to a man who doesn’t want to give the microphone back, when he will use it to promote a ban on microphones.

FODI sets its own agenda. They made a considered choice to offer the stage to a lobbyist for Islamototalitarianism to promote the murder of (mostly) women.

If FODI wants to truly be provocative, there are orthodoxies far better challenged than the secular, liberal, individualist democracy that permits people – including women – to pursue the free thought that allows them to consider and reject the killing women who exercise autonomy could be totally sweet.

FODI has the right to offer the PR flak for totalitarian organisation a space on its platform, and its secular “cultural establishment” type audience is mature enough to consider the idea without accepting it (the way the Murdoch-media-swilling general publicans apparently cannot, no doubt). Minds aren’t likely to slip out from under the warm, prosperous blanket of liberalism for the rock hard reality of whatever backwards logic makes it okay to kill for a contorted derivative of honour. 

The day the Premier resigned

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has been found to have received a $3,000 bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange as a gift, which he failed to declare, and failed to admit to ICAC, conveniently suffering from memory failure, and has accordingly resigned this morning.

Before all thoughts move to who will move on up into the top spot, our anti-lockout friends at I’m Not The Problem Barry – No Lockouts NSW have been taking advantage of this scintillating story to have a bit of a laugh. The full gallery is here, but some of my favourites are below!

alcoholrelatedcorruption

iguessivehadmylastcabernetmeeting

whinesforlockoutslockedoutbywine

chrisnewman

 

 

 

Sustainable development not part of their plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.

Lead by Donkeys

Vote 1. Donkey cutout

Is it any wonder why politicians elected
under an undemocratic system would defend that system? Well, that’s exactly
what they are doing. 

While we can’t stop people making
uninformed choices at the polling booth, donkey voting is very much a symptom
of compulsory voting.

Some people select candidates at random, take
a stab in the dark, confuse party names, or treat the election as if it were a Melbourne
Cup horse race and pick the party, or should I say donkey, with the best
sounding name, irrespective of form.

Of course it’s easy to blame the
individuals who do this, but it does happen. And the system itself tells people
that they should vote. It’s illegal not to. So technically donkey voters are
obeying the law, even if the system has made donkeys out of them.

And then there is the complex preferencing
system. Where preferences rely on secretive backroom deals, unknown to voters,
or when people select preferences because they have no choice, whether they like the alternatives or not.

So what’s the result? Politicians elected
undemocratically, not based on the will of the people, but due to a sampling
error or a selection bias. And the trouble is, the problem is swept under the rug.

Why would politicians who have prospered
under an undemocratic system complain? Why would they claim that their newly bestowed
power is illegitimate? After all, many of them have worked hard to play the
system.

At best politicians keep their mouths shut
or smugly placate the electorate with glib suggestions of change, while others
promote the undemocratic nature of the system as a virtue, in order to maintain
the system that favours their style of politics.

Clearly we should all have the same free
and equal right to vote, free from government coercion. Our decision to vote
should be democratic, and our choice should be final.

But who will champion electoral reform? The Queen?
Because the politicians almost certainly won’t.

I think Australian politicians are afraid of
democracy. Scared of losing support if the people’s decision to vote
were democratic.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

Turning a blind eye, funding Indonesia’s genocide in West Papua, What’s the risk?

The down fall of dictators and the transition to democratic governments are opportunities to give citizens suffering under these repressive regime hope for a brighter future, writes Anthony Craig.

Opening up these countries to economic growth, democratic freedoms and opportunities is key. Yet most democracies believe or state they will, follow international treaties and conventions against torture, genocide and support for human rights.

Sadly, some regimes are not truly democratic. The fall of the Suharto regime, a military dictatorship in Indonesia in the late 1990's opened the door for those suffering years of oppression, to taste freedom for the first time. East Timorese was given a democratic vote after years of oppression, supervised by the United Nations in 1999.

The Indonesian Military who still have an enormous influence in Indonesian politics today, did not like the outcome of a free democratic vote, the aftermath resulted in a bloodbath. Thousands of East Timorese were murdered, large numbers of the population forced to relocate to West Timor and East Timor burnt to the ground.  

The evidence today in Timor is shocking. Mass graves, burnt out buildings and torture chambers can still be seen. No one has been brought to justice over these war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations report on East Timor from 1975-1999 was damming on both Australia and other countries for supporting Indonesia's genocide.

The same military, murdered the Balibo Five and both Indonesia and Australia covered it up through the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. These strategies are not of a military under democratic control. West Papuans are a people who continue to suffer under Indonesian military rule today. They have suffered another slow genocide spanning 50 years.The world including Australia continues to turn a blind eye.

In June the United Nations Human Rights Committee met in Geneva  and the Indonesian government made a chilling statement. They made it very clear that Human rights are not a automatic guarantee and those pushing West Papuan separation from the Republic of Indonesia will be dealt with appropriately.  

Australia through its foreign aid program gives Indonesia over 500 million a year, when Indonesia spends over 8 billion on their military. A military which coincidentally commits mass murder and torture of the West Papuan people. People might asked the question, why worry about a few West Papuans when economic growth and trade should be the overriding consideration regarding relations with Indonesia.

The answer is very simple, dictatorships and corrupt governments when appeased, continue their corrupt practices which has a significant impact on free trade and open markets as well as companies trying to compete in the marketplace.  

So to say nothing, or turn a blind eye to these crimes, only encourages these corrupt military and government officials to continue a "business as usual" approach and does nothing to support an open, honest or responsible democratic government.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade appeasement policy with Indonesia is alive and going full steam ahead. We have seen what Indonesia appeasement does. Recent history is full of examples of making a bad situation worse. If Indonesia is a democracy, then they should be able to prove it without getting up in arms and demanding payback. When politicians and Bureaucrats believe the rules don't apply to them, all citizens of a democracy need to be alarmed.

The question has to be asked, will turning a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, the murder of the Balibo Five and ongoing genocide in West Papua, come back to bite us. 

Anthony Craig writes from Lithgow NSW and is a Federal Executive Officer for the DLP