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. 

Trudeau: It’s My Party And I’ll Shut You Up If I Want To

FrontOne of the often reviled features of the campus left, across the planet, is the way in which anyone who dares to argue a different viewpoint is shouted down, sometimes threatened, occasionally harmed physically, or, on rare occasions, have their lives threatened.

Thankfully, the vast majority of those campus ferals often grow out of their totalitarian proclivities, if not their socialist ways, and develop the ability to string three words together in a voice which cannot be heard in two separate cities at once without technological assistance.

Those who tended not to grow out of their authoritarian attitudes end up joining parties of the ultra left, such as the Australian Greens or the Canadian New Democrats.

Now, there’s a new voice on the ultra left, shutting down dissent, a wolf dressed in sheeps’ clothing, looking to dine out on freedom of speech, thought and conscience.

Continue reading

Sustainable development not part of their plan


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.

The sisterhood of multiculturalism and bias


Toby’s humour temporarily soured when he learned that the ABC has no conservative presenters in their ranks. Given that the Absolutely Bias Corporation is merely a propaganda instrument of the socialist left, but also subsidised by all those on the right, Toby applied to replace the presenter of Q&A Tony Jones.

Toby was accused of being a mentally deranged madman who should be locked up. The letter in reply contained two words: “Piss-off!”

Knowing there must be a vacancy with Britain’s BBC given the departure of Jimmy Savile, Toby went to England to seek advice and perhaps a recommendation from fellow Aussie Rolf Harris. Rolf supported Toby’s self-written CV but all was to no avail.

The BBC refusal in reply had a familiar tone: “Piss-off Aussie misogynist!”

Similarities between the BBC and Auntie appear obvious. “They’re joined at the bloody hip,” as Toby writes. GC.Ed.@L.

News has just escaped from Great Britain that induces bladder malfunction and an irresistible impulse to drop the jaw. A 25-year study found that the BBC downplayed every negative story on multiculturalism and, conversely, up played every touchy-feely warmy-fuzzy dry-my-tears ‘success’ of multiculturalism.

 “Downplayed” hardly does justice in some cases. They didn’t report it at all.

As if we didn’t know.

The BBC took a wide view of ‘multiculturalism’. To the BBC, multiculturalism embraces immigration and religion; it is not just Serbian folk dances, Khana Pakana with chips, and colourful salwar kameez and lehenga choli.

No indeedy, the BBC thought it best to give anybody space who wanted to question Christianity, condemn the Pope or sneer at the Archbishop of Canterbury, cast doubt on the accuracy of the Epistles of Paul, while happily playing along with the concept of Islam as the Religion of Peace. Christian nut-cases were routinely bagged while—to quote the report—the ‘left wing Corporation’ downplayed ‘violence by Islamists’

Mind you, said the report, the BBC bias was manifest but the bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.

Corruption, no doubt, biases no doubt, but corruption for a noble cause.

So that’s all right then. Basically decent chaps distorting and suppressing news for a noble cause.

As to immigration, the report says that the corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’.

Ah, decent chaps caught up in unrecognised (by them) thinking alike.

Who wooda thunk?

Others might have put it; “fools never differ.”

“In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority—even elitist—viewpoint.” And, “in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices.

‘In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas. ‘It would be no exaggeration to say that a foreigner who subscribed only to the BBC might visit this country and be blissfully unaware of many of the social problems associated with immigration.’

Never mind the foreigner, the Brits themselves who watch the BBC have been subjected to nothing less than brainwashing for 25 years.

The report tipped the can over BBC article on ‘Migrant Myths’ published in 2002.

The BBC article had said the idea of the ‘scrounging, bogus asylum seeker’ was a ‘misconception’, while opponents of mass immigration were guilty of ‘racism, political opportunism, misinformation, media mischief-making and sheer cowardice’ as well as genuine concern.

The report added: ‘The BBC feels uncomfortable tackling Islamic extremism or aggression by minorities; it feels more at ease to see Muslims as victims of racism or Islamophobia.’

Yes, and clearly much more at ease slandering anyone outside the groupthink cocoon as a racist cowardly stupid mischief-maker.

It’s not only immigration. The European Union is regarded as the pinnacle of Multiculturalism. This was praised and exalted in spite of the fact—as the poet puts it:

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.

The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch

And we don’t like anybody very much!

Thank God the Australian ABC is not like that.

Not one bit.


The ABC gets itself completely facted

By Perkin-Warbeck

In this other world there is a publicly funded TV and radio broadcasting organisation – let’s for argument’s sake call it the ABC – which gets more than $1 billion a year from the taxpayers and which has a public commitment to the highest ethical standards of journalism – a commitment to truth, balance, impartiality and all of that.

This ABC has long prided itself on being above politics; in fact it has made a point of publishing and promoting its journalism code of ethics and stresses that all journalist employees must pay heed to it. Presumably, the journalists employed by this ABC are also members of the reporters’ trade union, the Media Alliance, which also has its own lofty code of ethics.

Now it is only four months or so to an election in this parallel universe and a conservative government headed by a Prime Minister – who for want of a better name is called Tony Abbott – is desperately hanging on in the face of overwhelming opinion polls which shows it is headed for electoral oblivion. An aggressive, hard-hitting Opposition headed by – again for want of a better name – Julia Gillard is so far ahead in the polls that the likely outcome almost defies gravity.

Now this ABC decides to appoint what it is pleased to call a “fact checker” and they hire, again for want of a better name a journalist called Russell Skelton. It is obvious that this position is necessary because ABC journalists cannot be relied upon by their own management to adhere to the ABC lofty code of ethics. 

The CEO of this ABC appears before a Senate committee and is grilled by Opposition senators about the independence of the “fact checker” and they cite numerous examples of the “fact checker” tweeting comments which blatantly support Abbott’s tottering government and denigrating Opposition Leader Gillard and her Shadow Ministers.

While the CEO flounders about trying to justify this appointment, the Communications Minister – again for want of a better name we will call Malcolm Turnbull – keeps up a constant flow of openly political comments defending the “fact checker” and the ABC. 

The Minister’s enthusiasm for this goes far beyond just defending the impartiality and integrity of the ABC when he agrees with tweets produced by Opposition Senators from the “fact checker” openly abusing the Opposition and making wildly untrue claims. The best the CEO can do is lamely complain that these tweets were broadcast prior to the appointment of the “fact checker”.

Well, this parallel universe doesn’t, of course, exist.

What does exist is that all of what is imagined about the parallel universe has happened in the real world but in mirror image.

Our ABC of the real world does have a marvellous code of ethics – it runs to 22 pages and has 13 separate sections. Words such as “integrity”, “independence” and “impartiality” abound.

An example: “ … the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality: a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principle relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.”

It begs the question about the actual need for any “fact checker” at all, much less Mr Skelton, if ABC journalists follow the organisation’s own code. I wonder if the appointment is a tacit admission by ABC management that their journalists don’t, or won’t, adhere to the code.

Some of Mr Skelton’s tweets produced by the Opposition included his retweet of an absurd claim that Senate Liberal Leader Eric Abetz wanted to start a “race war” with Aborigines, while Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has been described as “super snide”, “a dense opportunistic carpetbagger” and as “Bananaby”. Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey was described as being “not the sharpest pencil in the box” while Abbott himself was frequently referred to as “The Monk”- a snide reference to his Catholic background.

If anybody ever called Ms Gillard “The Nun”, there would be another deluge of confected outrage from her defenders alleging misogyny and worse.

If this controversy wasn’t enough for the ABC, they must face the collective cross-party outrage of the under fives when the current batch of Bananas in Pyjamas episodes end and B1 and B2 are put to bed at least until next year.

Conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for thinking that as B1 and B2 go beddie byes just as a Coalition Government takes office, distressed parents may well blame brand new Communications Minister Turnbull.  There is an insidious trend emerging here.

Some of us are old enough to remember that the ABC closed down the radio serial Blue Hills in 1976 at about the time the Fraser Government was hitting its stride and we all remember who copped the blame for this bit of ABC high-handedness.

Run that by your fact checker!















ABC’s Waleed Aly, another snout in the trough.

Waleed Aly's article in the Age might well identify him as a fair-dinkum "Wally" for his foaming appraisal of "illegal immigrants" which, he dutifully calls asylum seekers, being placed on Nauru. It seems that lefties are seldom satisfied.

Welcome to Kafka's Australia, where rights are guaranteed, but
preferably forgotten. So we maintain that we respect due process and
human rights, even if it's clear we don't always like them very much.
We have been doing this for ages. ''Screening out'' has been around for
the best part of a decade; long enough for the department to call it a
''long-standing policy over successive governments''.

Imposed Censorship!

Allan Essery contends that commenting on opinion pieces in leftist media is waste of time. Dissenting comments don't make the grade. More fool them as they preach only to their ilk – no new customers. Maybe that's why such publications suffer plummeting sales.

If you contribute comments to opinion pieces and editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age, it doesn’t take long to work out that their ‘Moderators’ work outside their own rules to assign comments that they deem inappropriate to the rubbish bin.  God forbid you should criticize one of their leftist journalists, regardless of what tripe they dish up in the belief that they are being fair, honest and balanced.

They also disregard their own rules when it suits them to publish comment that is so obviously a breach of those rules, but so obviously supportive of their leftist agenda.  This in my opinion constitutes a form or unreasonable and inconsistent censorship and removes your freedom of speech.

There is a little club of regulars, and very much left-leaning contributors, who can be found in the comments sections every day, all day.  They take over the comments sections and prattle on to each other with, in the main, pure drivel that has little to do with the subject at hand.  They are rude, offensive and intolerant of anyone from outside their little clique who dares to have something to say.  These people, who are all pro-Labor, are given the freedom to say what they like, but try and serve it back to them and you will be rejected.

A couple of months ago, Ross Gittins, the Sydney Morning Heralds Economics Editor wrote of self-funded retirees, “These Well-Off Retirees’ Claims Are A Bit Rich.”

In typical leftist fashion he inferred, in an incredible rant, that self-funded retirees were hypocrites that were bludging off the taxpayers because they were given concessions to encourage them to put away for their future retirement and took advantage of other concessions that were available to all other retirees.

He completely disregarded the fact that these people were ensuring that they wouldn’t be a burden on the taxpayer in retirement.  Even though this man admits to having a more than generous superannuation nest egg, he claims, for some obscure reason, that he found it repulsive to call himself a self-funded retiree.(?)

He also ignored the fact that old age welfare pensioners were such because, for one reason or another, they had not put enough away for their retirement and therefore were totally reliant on the taxpayers for the remainder of their lives.   For Gittens to ignore these facts solely to lend credibility to his own agenda is a bit rich in itself.

It was fine for Gittins to call self-funded retirees hypocrites and infer they were bludgers, but when I commented that he himself was being hypocritical by taking advantage of the same concessions that other self-funded retirees were taking and therefore his scribblings had little credibility, out came the big red texta and my comment was rejected.

Try commenting on or objecting to the objectionable opinion pieces of Mike Carlton who, like Gittins, is prone to using a whole opinion piece to insult those in his sights, and your comment will never appear in print.  Carlton’s piece in today’s Sydney Morning Herald is a classic example of a pointless, offensive and nasty rant that would brook no opposing view.

The rejection of contributions that are slanderous, untrue and/or contain foul language is reasonable, but the rejection of a comment because the Moderators’, or their bosses, don’t agree with your opinion is nothing less than unwarranted censorship.

We worry about the government wanting to impose restrictions on our freedom of speech, but while the leftist print media bleat about proposed government curtailment of their freedom of the press, it is they, in fact, that actively practice censorship to prevent you from expressing opinions that don’t suit their agenda.

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He
was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and
is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a
savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.

How to kill Australia’s golden goose

Sometimes conservative thinkers need to be reminded exactly why they think that way. This inaccurate drivel should do the job!

'Gina Rinehart’s moral universe is twisted'

'In richest-woman-in-the-world Gina Rinehart's twisted moral universe, workers in Australia need to work harder for less to compete with African mine workers (including an estimated 100,000 to 250,000 child miners in West Africa who slave for $2 a day. She says that's what competition in the “global market” dictates.'

Further cure is here, if required.

Thanks Abe.


BHP Billiton has added to the wave of closures in the coal mining sector, shutting a central Queensland mine due to low prices and high costs. The announcement came as fellow coal miner Xstrata announced it was slashing around 600 jobs across the country.


Quebec: Where it’s cool to be racist


Keith Topolski explains how Quebec's public discourse is founded on discrimination.

A long time ago, in a land far far away, a red cross and a white flower did battle over a piece of snow covered land.

 In non-fairytale speak, a couple of hundred years ago, England, surprise surprise, handed France another military defeat by taking over what is now Canada.

 However, the English never really finished the job and allowed the little pocket of French resistance to set themselves up as they pleased, provided it was within an acceptable framework. IE accept English dominance, and we won't put your heads on pikes.

 This was a mutually beneficial outcome, and today we have the province of Quebec in the nation of Canada.

 Except Quebec really isn't part of Canada, whether it be culturally or economically speaking.

 With the exception of the genuinely bilingual province of New Brunswick, Canada is split in three: Anglophones, Francophones and migrants.

 Canada has always prided itself on being accepting of migrants. That is, Canada minus Quebec.

 You see, as part of the 2012 provincial election in the dole bludger province of Canada, it seems it is acceptable to deride foreign born candidates for being so, all but demand the eradication of all languages except one and boss around small business owners for having the temerity, the audacity, the sheer arrogance to commit the heinous crime of saying hello in French AND English! Oh the pain, the pain of it all!

 What is most embarrassing about this, however, is not the focus on insignificant issues like language laws when Quebec's economy would have to climb three or four rungs up the ladder to find itself in the toilet, or even the incessant demands from a province which demands more and more Federal money while demanding more and more autonomy.

 No, what is most embarrassing is the double standard in the racial and ethnic bashing that is taking place under the guise of 'cultural protection'.

 The leader of the opposition, Pauline Marois, even had a crack at the horrific news that there were parts of Montreal inhabited by people whose first language was not French.

 Here in Australia we have had a journalist declared a criminal because he dared to ask questions which might have offended some people, in some people's minds, under some interpretation of the law.

 Yet, in Canada, the alternative premier of the nations second largest province can run campaign slogans which make Pauline Hanson look like Malcolm Fraser, and it's all acceptable.

 Oh, and I haven't even got to the banning of all religious icons, save for the crucifix in the 'National' Assembly.

 The tone of the election has become so bitter (unless you're a Francophone, in which case it's a rosy future for you, madame et monseuirs), that premier Jean Charest has led a chorus of non-Parti Quebecois politicians to say that they would never take non-Francophone voters for granted.

 However, when these parties have the opportunity to call Marois out for being a few sandwiches short of a picnic, they instead attack each other. Attacking bigots goes down badly in Quebec if the bigot does, indeed, parlez francais, you see.

 Trivial little things, such as the right to petition the Parliament, are unimportant unless you speak French in Quebec apparently.

 But the exception is made, all because the poor old Quebec Francophones are a minority in Canada.

 The Calgary Herald asked its readers to imagine a scenario:

Imagine if an Alberta politician campaigned on the need to ban French on signs outside of stores in this province, or at least to have English twice the size of French. Imagine also if she demanded that businesses with more than 10 employees enforce English as the lingua franca of the workplace.

For good measure, imagine if the Alberta politician also demanded that new immigrants to the province educate their children in English, and no other language. Then think about the reaction to a proposed “secular charter” bill that would restrict the ability of public servants to wear “conspicuous religious signs,” but would make an exception for the crucifix. Then consider the reaction to a party campaign video that went so far as to highlight a cross to further make the point.

Yes, if the same thing happened anywhere in the western world, we would have an endless array of human rights lawyers wheeled out to campaign for the rights of the oppressed, declaring 'insert offending plan here' to be the greatest injustice since the Spanish Inquisition.

 But it's ok in Quebec, because those evil English speakers are the devil's spawn I tell you!

 Let's pause for a moment. What would happen if it wasn't about those filthy Anglos. What if a party leader urged Quebec residents to conduct themselves more like Asians? You know, work hard, honour the family, etc. Etc.

 Yes, he is accused of, get this, 'junk populism'.

 Junk populism! In a province where whacking those evil foreigners is as common as taking the bus to work in the city! Well, that's when university students aren't protesting a $1 a day fee increase.

 You can't expect too much, though, when the debate over the replacement for the coach of the Montreal Canadiens NHL team didn't centre around whether he could actually get the team to the playoffs or not, but rather whether he spoke French.

 It's not good enough to justify such clear and badly disguised racism as a minority speaking out.

 The irony is that, in a small part of Canada, where the so long picked on minority is now in a majority, they are attempting to disenfranchise, eliminate, remove, expunge those who do not conform with the norms of those with newfound power.

 A wise man once claimed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it is hard to imagine a more corrupted public discourse right now than that of Quebec.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.