Fraser Anning’s ill-articulated concerns are a fight for Australia’s soul, by Sanjeev Sabhlok.
I moved to Australia nearly 18 years ago. … To me Australia represented both a well-governed country and a country that had largely adopted the concepts of liberty and rule of law: concepts that underpin the idea of Western civilization, also known as liberalism. …
But I am also keenly aware of Australia’s rapid drift to the left. The foundations of liberty that attracted me to Australia are being rapidly eroded – not so much by any “blacks” but by “white” leftists.
My concerns are similar in some way to those of Fraser Anning, but the confusions in his speech made the media lose the bigger picture – the defence of Western civilisation that he was talking about. A careful review of Anning’s speech suggests that he was basically defending the foundational ethic of Australia as a Western liberal democracy.
He did not even remotely suggest that anyone be exterminated. All he suggested with regard to immigration was a plebiscite. If the media can’t understand the difference between the two, then something has gone seriously wrong with basic English education in this country. …
I consider myself more “Western” (as a firm promoter of critical thinking and liberty) than most Australians. In fact, not many people are aware that the core ideas of liberty, tolerance and good economic policy first arose 2500 years ago in India and spread, through Greece, to the West. It is a tragedy that India has by now long forgotten its roots – perhaps driven by the kinds of collectivist forces that are now beginning to take roots in Australia. Collectivism always finds a way to crush liberty. And then only the rubble and ruins remain. …
I am concerned about the concept of multiculturalism by which “ethnic” groups are specially funded by taxpayers to maintain their culture. I cannot agree with my taxes going towards funding even Indian cultural societies and groups to which I belong. No one must get any special favours from the government on grounds of their “race” or culture. Let Indians who want to maintain their culture do so with their own money.
The opinion forming class condemned Anning in no uncertain terms, falling over themselves to signal their virtue by damning his suggestion on halting Muslim immigration. The usual vitriol ensued.
Yet 49% of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration and 40% are opposed to a ban. Clearly Australia’s ruling class deplore and rather dislike at least half of Australians. I wonder if the objects of their scorn have noticed? I wonder how they will vote?
