Geert Wilders and the ALA do not stand for liberty–they undermine it

by on 28 October, 2015
Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders, Dutch politician. Photo c/- wikimedia

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician famed for his anti-immigration views, recently launched the Australian Liberty Alliance, a political party whose platform calls for banning Muslim migration to Australia. While there is no denying that radical Muslims exist in our community and overseas, Wilders and the ALA’s call to ban Muslim immigration amount to a call for tyranny of a different kind: a tyranny that denies individuals the right to live and migrate here merely because of their religious background. I do not dispute their right to express their views, but they are profoundly mistaken.

Those who argue that our laws should ban Muslim immigration overlook the profound impact on civil liberties these laws will have. Collective punishment undermines the presumption of innocence. Migration bans presume that all foreign Muslims are completely incapable of respecting our freedoms. They are found guilty of that charge without a trial. Abandoning the right to a fair trial and imposing an ideological test for migration is the antithesis of liberty.

The ALA and Wilders no doubt wish to trade liberty for security. But where does that stop? Should we lock up all of the Muslims here from fear that some of them might be extremists, as Roosevelt did to Japanese-American citizens? Deport them? What will come next? If we concede that individuals do not have the right to a fair trial merely because of their religion, anything seems possible. Those who think they can build and control anti-Muslim sentiment and abolish the right to a fair trial without any repercussions forget the lessons of the French and Russian revolutions, which led to waves of collective punishments for imagined crimes.  They may find themselves next in the firing line.

There are many secular and moderate religious Muslims in our community. They speak their minds openly and without fear of retribution. Nothing would do more to breed distrust, division and suspicion of Australia among them than establishing a religious test for immigration. Nothing would do more to breed extremism amongst Muslims than laws that ban perfectly innocent, law-abiding people from migrating here on account of their religion.

Contrary to Mr Wilders’ claims, Islam is not a fundamentally extremist creed. Islam is simply a set of religious texts. It is not fundamentally anything. All religious texts contain passages that condone religious war of some kind or another. Centuries ago, Muslim lands were ruled in a manner that was far more tolerant and accepting than their Christian European counterparts, which quashed all dissent. To claim that Islam is a fundamentally extremist creed is an obvious instance of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

While Muslim extremists do advocate violence against non-believers, their influence in Australia should not be overstated. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Australian Muslims are law-abiding. Terrorism remains exceedingly rare, and most attacks have been prevented by law-enforcement action, sometimes as a result of cooperation with the Muslim community. You are more likely to be hurt climbing a ladder.

Those who argue that Muslim refugees are more likely to be terrorists overlook that these refugees are fleeing a civil war wrought by extremists. These refugees are the people most likely not to adhere to extremist ideologies in the first place. They are also the most likely people to abandon those views once living in our flourishing and free society.

Far from banning Muslim migrants, we must embrace them together with migrants of all backgrounds. Migrants enrich our community and contribute valuable skills in a range of areas in the economy. For decades the bulk of them have integrated successfully into our liberal society. We should celebrate their presence and contribution.

Vladimir Vinokurov is a solicitor and a deputy Victorian State director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. The views expressed here are his own.

Vladimir Vinokurov is a solicitor and a deputy Victorian State director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. The views expressed here are his own.

30 thoughts on “Geert Wilders and the ALA do not stand for liberty–they undermine it

  1. There’s a civil war brewing in Europe, but we should act like ostriches according to this retarded article.

  2. There’s paranoia boiling in your brain. But I suppose we should all act like aggro, paranoid bigots according to your comment.

  3. So beheadings, the banning of music, the segration of sexes, stonings all cool with you then? Islam is neitehr a race nor a religion but a nasty, viscious political ideology that should be stamped out.

  4. “So beheadings, the banning of music, the segration of sexes, stonings all cool with you then?”

    I don’t see where the article advocates any of these; it merely states that presumption of innocence should prevail and we should not be treating people as guilty without even a trial.

    I’m pretty sure all of those things are mentioned in the Taurat (old testament), and some in the Injeel (new testament), two of the holy books of Islam, and while I think anyone who believes in any religion is deluding themselves, I wouldn’t want to ban or lock up Jews, Christians and Muslims simply because the texts of their religion (which they probably haven’t even read) have some very kooky bits, or because extremists of their religion like to blow things up, such as the Lockerbie bombing

    We should, however, definitely put the extremists on trial (those who do the beheadings and stonings).

    As for things like banning of music — if a religion wants to ban music, or alcohol, or pork on Friday, or whatever — then that is fine, so long as they don’t try to inflict it on anyone else.

  5. The author seem to not understand that complete and total “liberty” is in fact anarchy.
    Most libertarians are intelligent enough to understand that there needs to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of the collective.

    Citizenship to EVERY country on the planet is already determined based on character assessments, refugee status, skills, education….etc, etc, etc.
    Migration is a PRIVILEGE….not a right.
    Islam has proven it is COMPLETELY incompatible with western values, laws and practices, so it is perfectly reasonable to prevent it’s adherents from being allowed into countries where they will never assimilate.

  6. The European experience shows Australia that its not too late to turn things around. Hopefully the ALA wins some serious votes and does just that!

  7. “Zeev” ??? Isn’t that a Jewish name…..??? Left wing Jews are the enemy of Israel…..and the enemies of representative democracy the world over.

  8. No. You are doing it for us. Calling us all rednecks and bogans……and neo-Nazis.

  9. “All religious texts contain passages that condone religious war of some kind or another.”

    Where is the advocacy of religious war in Jainist religious texts? If Zeev Vinokurov can not point it out, he owes the Jains an apology, and must amend this post.

  10. The new Liberal Labor Party is so afraid of ALA, as it is the only right wing party left to vote for in Australia since the Liberals have turned to the left with Turncoat. You know the former votes are leaving in droves after dumping the elected PM.

  11. “then that is fine _so long as they don’t try to inflict it on anyone else_”

    Almost every religion has rules *for it’s own members*, e.g. Catholics aren’t allowed to use condoms, Hindus can’t eat beef, Amish can’t use technology, etc.

    If a religion want’s to ban music *for it’s own members* (and membership is voluntary), then I don’t have a problem with that; it’s none of my business.

    I think they are stupid, for believing in a bunch of garbage (applies to every religion), but it is their choice.

    So long as it is voluntary, and doesn’t affect anyone else, then who cares.

  12. People
    naively think Islam is “just another religion”, as if it was akin to
    being a Methodist or Episcopalian. It isn’t. The political content is
    very strong – Islam is the equivalent of both a religious and a
    political ideology in ways that most other religions no longer are.

    political content is It’s also misogynistic and homophobic,
    monarchistic, fascist, totalitarian and intolerant. If you honestly
    think it’s just another religion, film yourself burning the Koran and
    post it on youtube along with your Australian address.

    might add that there is a reason that Islam is different. Their prophet
    was a political leader who held power for many years whilst having his
    “revelations”. This has intertwined the religion with governance in the
    foundational texts.

    was in fact a rationalist movement that arose in Islam, akin to
    Protestantism, but unlike Protestantism the movement was rejected and
    it’s name is now used as an insult –

    long as a country is in the business of restricting immigration, it
    makes sense to block a group of fascists who intend to raise fascist
    children. Sure, the vast majority, indeed, nearly all of them won’t be a
    problem as long as they are a small minority, but why bother when we
    have non-fascists lining up?

    don’t even really need to debate this – the social problems (or
    perhaps, the lack of them) arising from large Muslim minorities in
    modern secular democracies will play out in Europe. We can just wait and

  13. Have you ever considered that the reason you get called a “dumb fucking redneck bigot” all the time isn’t the result of some nebulous Green-Left conspiracy but because you are actually a dumb fucking redneck bigot?

  14. Great article Zeev. You’ve effectively demonstrated the link between collective punishment (which groups like the ironically named ALA advocate) and anti-Liberal forces (Socialism, Nationalism, Fascism, various blends of all those).

    The boganesque comments below are to be expected – they tend to swarm, much like the radical Left (one wonders what both groups do all day 🙂 ).

  15. Care to point to the policy or statement by ALA wanting to ban Muslim immigration? Does the author understand at all the difference between ideology and biology? Does he not understand that Islam, Muslim and Migrant is not one and the same? The author displays such blatant ignorance for the basic tenets and history of Islam, this piece is an embarrassment for MH.

  16. > All religious texts contain passages that condone religious war of some kind or another.

    The New Testament doesn’t. Literally, not at all.

    There are passages saying ‘God will strike so and so down,’ but none saying ‘you, believer, go strike so and so down.’

    Ditto Buddhist texts, Jainism, Taoism, etc.

    Sometimes you need to sacrifice liberty in the short term to protect it in the long term. This article is naive and foolish.

    The point of Australian laws is to protect the living Australian people, not to protect the abstract rights of every person in the world who might ever want to become Australian at some point in the future.

  17. His point is entirely accurate. Chances of a European war have radically increase in our lifetimes due to the policies over the last 20 years.

    ‘Diversity’ has caused dozens of civil wars, just in the last 50 years. Ethnic groups with fundamentally different desires tend to clash when put into a small area. Google ‘ethnic civil wars’ and read about some of them; Yugoslavia and Lebanon are just two examples that spring readily to mind. Syria too has a major ethnic/sectarian component.

    Ignorant, poorly educated people like to point fingers at others, desperate in their search for people even more ignorant than they are.

  18. Hear, hear. I don’t care what the opinion polls say; I want nothing to do with this Goldman Sachs scoundrel. Australia voted for Tony Abbot; he isn’t perfect, but he’s a thousand times better than this snake.

  19. The issue is reform, and acknowledging Islam needs reform. There is no benefit to opening borders to a culture that is opposed to liberal secular democracy based on the regressive view that all cultures deserve respect. Just as it irrational to ban a person entry because they are muslim.

  20. Better that than a brainwashed retarded Islam-loving, ideologue fucking Leftist moron.

  21. Their flag is green…..??? …..and he thinks green….??? ……and he smokes green…..???

Leave a Reply