The Australian Greens have started a campaign to bring queer refugee’s into Australia. They have basically admitted that homosexuals are not safe in Muslim controlled countries. According to their website they have stated:
LGBTIQ asylum seekers under threat
Right now, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton, gay asylum seekers held on Manus Island are facing a dangerous and terrifying choice. To return to their country of origin where they could face the death penalty, or stay in PNG and risk up to 14 years’ imprisonment for being gay.
There is no pride in detention – Australia is a place that openly accepts the LGBTI community. We have a proud history of being a safe haven for refugees fleeing extreme persecution. But this horrific offshore detention regime has tarnished our record.
The Greens call on the Turnbull Government and the Labor opposition to close the camps on Manus Island and Nauru, and bring every man, woman and child to Australia.
Your voice is one of hope and strength to those most vulnerable – there is no pride in detention.
As usual the Greens have used individual circumstances to try and score political points. Most Australians would welcome genuine refugee’s but what constitutes a genuine refugee? In some countries it is illegal to chew gum – Singapore. One would argue that by disallowing citizens to chew gum is a breach in human rights and if you do chew gum, you face extreme persecution such as 2 year imprisonment (I would imagine Prisons in Singapore aren’t as humane as ours)
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim controlled countries and often they do face dire circumstances such as the death penalty. Does this really constitute a genuine refugee? Australia only just passed legislation to allow same sex couples to Marry. America and the United Kingdom passed this law years ago – does that mean gay couples could have jumped on a boat to New York to seek refuge because the Australian law discriminates? Further to this, it wasn’t that long ago that it was illegal in Australia for people to be Homosexual – did we see a mass exodus of gays seeking refuge elsewhere? Of course not.
The Greens, as usual, are playing with peoples emotions on this matter. They are blackmailing Australians making you believe that we should have open borders if people are not happy with their country’s laws. Being gay shouldn’t give you an automatic right to be given refugee status and kudos to Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton and Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull for standing their ground on this.
What are our politicians doing?
Why are we paying them $200k plus when we haven’t seen any real outcomes since Tony Abbott stopped the boats and repealed the Carbon Tax?
Malcolm Turnbull was suppose to be a better Prime Minister than Tony Abbott but what has he actually achieved besides his own annihilation?
At the moment Australia faces:
- An energy crisis. No talk about real energy reform such as Nuclear but more subsidies to renewables which have proven in South Australia to be a dud.
- Out of control debt. The Liberal National Governments is throwing money away like it grows on tree’s. The fact we are spending $300,000 a minute on Welfare should be of concern.
- Out of control immigration levels. You can only have to look at Sydney and Melbourne to see that our immigration levels are not sustainable. Sydney itself have embraced the ‘go high’ approach to living with high rise apartments clogging up Sydney streets. Yet Government refuses to outlay any infrastructure such as frontline health services, roads, schools, police etc to deal with the massive growth.
- Increased terror risks. Government tends to tip toe around Islam and the potential risks it imposes on the Western World. Now of course not all muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists in the modern world comes from a deranged bunch of Muslims. Even ASIO has admitted that we have to tread carefully when it comes to Islam because if you criticise it, you risk more terror attacks.
- A technological brain freeze. The Government has piss farted around with NBN which is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Government should never have nationalised NBN instead they should have given tax incentives for the private sector to deliver state of the art internet.
These are just some of the issue which are facing our Australia today. Yet our politicians are more worried about same sex marriage, transgender reassignment, changing Australia Day, having quotas for women to serve in Parliament, giving themselves a pay rise, getting on the United Nations (this will be a story for another day) and the list goes on. Gone are the days when Governments, like the one John Howard led or even Bob Hawke, tackle real political issues – issues that affect all Australians rather than just the minority. It is sad that the media play on these minor issues only to get good ratings because lets be honest, same sex marriage is a highly emotional topic which gets people feisty on both sides of the argument.
Bill Shorten, the alternative Prime Minister looks almost certain to be our Prime Minister after the next election. What he stands for is no where near the likes of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, this bloke embraces identity politics and populist mumbo jumbo. When he wins the next election, I predict he won’t last very long, because like most modern Governments, they don’t tackle the big issues. Australia is Doomed!
2017 will see the demise the of Liberal Party as we knew it. No longer will it be a centre-right party espousing a broad-church base, instead it will be an extreme centre or mild centre left party with a base that is made up of progressive moderates. Many conservative members of the Liberal Party have resigned. Some have decided to go with another political party and others are waiting to see what progresses so that they can find their new home. As far as I can see, there are three alternatives in our political landscape which could house ex liberal members. Lets call them the three disciples. Together they are The Triangle of Hope.
On the bottom far right side of the Triangle of Hope we see Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. One Nation has proven to be an effective player on the electoral scene. Social policies such as climate change, tough immigration, tough on crime, and tough on welfare attracts conservatives however their economic viewpoints – which historically united the liberals – veers to the left of politics. They do believe in protectionism on industry and they aren’t fond of free trade. This could be a major turn off for conservatives. Many conservatives believe in economic freedom therefore no regulations should interfere with economic progress. On the other hand to give credit where it is due, Pauline Hanson and One Nation have treated many economic issues on merit rather than having a blanket rule approach. For example One Nation does not believe in foreign ownership, however they do support the Adani Coal Mine in Townsville. This shows that One Nation is willing to negotiate for the good of the nation in particularly when it comes to jobs. Organisationally however Pauline Hanson’s One Nation belongs to Pauline Hanson. It is her Party. This will not gel with conservatives. One of the main reasons why many conservatives within the Liberal Party are leaving is because the membership is not allowed a voice. If One Nation wants to pick up these conservative votes then they need to change their organisational structure. Otherwise conservatives will look to others within the Triangle of Hope.
On the bottom far left side of the Triangle of Hope we see the Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP have a libertarian slant to their policies. They stand for low taxes, small government and individual responsibility. This sounds more like a conservative party however whilst they may feel at home with their economic viewpoints they may struggle to comprehend their social policies. The LDP do believe in legalising same sex marriage (but protecting religions from being sued if they refuse to marry same sex couples), legalisation of drugs, prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. At the end of the day they believe that humans should be free to make decisions about their own lives without the nanny state interfering. Whilst conservatives don’t believe in the ‘nanny state’ as such these policies are not something conservatives feel strongly about, many conservatives despise prostitution, abortions and euthanasia. As for the organisational structure of the LDP it is not based on personalities unlike Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. All members have a say and this is a potential win for conservatives.
Is there a better way? Finally on top of the Triangle of Hope we see the Australian Conservatives. A newly formed Conservative Party founded by former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. The Party believes in advocating for building a sustainable and prosperous economy and maintaining civil society. What does this mean? Well as the Party has just only been founded there are no exact policies on issues however when you go through Hansard and other media outlets and you read up on Senator Cory Bernardi, you will find that he believes in the free market, limited Government, personal responsibility, and a civil society (traditional Judeo-Christian values). The party also believes in democratic processes therefore according to it’s website, all party members will have a say on party matters. According to Paul Murray Live (3/7/2017) the Australian Conservatives in NSW have already reached 4,000 members, this is impressive hence why it is on top of the Triangle of Hope.
Conservatives in Australia have a choice. They could continue to stick with the Liberal Party and be frustrated with being powerless and support leftist policies such as the folly of renewable energy targets, open borders and gay marriage. Alternatively they could consider the Triangle of Hope. Australian Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. These three disciples have potential to shape our nation. There are options and there is a better way.
There is a lot of talk at the moment about the thought of banning Islam in Australia. Queensland Senator, and Leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson has introduced this as part of her policy. Senator Hanson has recognised that before banning Islam, constitutional constraints hold this policy back.
Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonweath
One Nation has called for a Royal Commission into Islam to see whether or not it is a religion or a political ideology. By determining whether it is a political ideology or a religion, Senator Hanson believes this will solve the constitutional constraint to ban Islam.
The concern I have with such Royal Commission is that any religion that has a vast history such as Islam will always be determined as a religion not a political ideology. All religions have a certain degree of political ideology and that is due to it’s past existance. For example you only have to look at the Roman Empire to see that it had a catholic ideology behind it’s governance. Therefore having a Royal Commision into Islam would be a waste of time, effort and taxpayers money.
One Nation could adopt a policy whereby that they will push to have a referendum to ammend section 116 of the Australian Constitution. This referendum would also cost taxpayers a lot of money and with a Double Majority rule for constitutional change, could mean that such move could be lost. Not many referendums are successful. On the otherhand One Nation will be giving the people a say on the matter.
The other areas where One Nation could focus their attention is to adopt a discriminatory immigration policy. One Nation has already upset the apple cart by saying that they want to ban Islam – as I pointed out this is hard to do – so by having a discriminatory immigration policy whereby there is a halt of immigration on those from Islamic Arab Nations, will slow down the rise of Islam in Australia and will not hinder One Nation’s political capital.
Many on the left, centre and even the right will say that we can’t have a discriminatory immigration program as it will take us back to the White Australia Policy – the fact is Australia already has a discriminatory immigration policy, we discriminate on the basis of health and occupation therefore this argument is flawed. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as I see it right now is the only hope for Australia to follow in Trumps lead, they just need to clean up their policies first.