A defence of Muslim hostility from "New Matilda"
Using a typical Leftist strategy, Michael Brull looks at only part of the story in his article below. He addresses in general terms what blind Freddie knows is an issue about Muslims. The plain fact is that Muslims constantly demand that we change what we do to accommodate them and express so much hostility to Australian society that some of them go put and randomly shoot innocent Australians who have done nothing to them. There are some peaceful Muslims but there are a lot of creeps too.
So it is reasonable to suggest that if they dislike us and our arrangements so much, why don't they go elsewhere? And representatives of both major Australian political parties have done just that recently. And in asking that, they were saying that our tolerance has its limits, as all tolerance must. It was saying that our patience with a troublesome subgroup was running out. And there is no doubt that in saying that the speakers were saying what a great majority of Australians think.
But Leftists like Muslims. They are united in hate. Leftists share with Muslims a great dissatisfaction with current Western society generally and Australian society in particular. They too want to destroy the existing arrangements in this country -- what Leftists used to call "the system". I imagine that some far-Leftists still use that term.
So that is where Brull comes in. He mounts an attack on "go back" talk under the pretext that such talk is intolerant and bigoted. And he makes his case by saying that such talk is IN GENERAL intolerant and bigoted -- which indeed it can be.
But circumstances alter cases and Muslims are a particular case. A major reason why we have courts and judges is that general principles don't cover equally well all the cases they might be applied to. And that is where the Muslim situation is going. So far we have put up with their antics but there are limits to tolerance. Brull seems to think there should be none.
But I doubt that he really thinks that. I think he implies that as a way of defending Muslims only. Does he think racism should be tolerated, for instance? I am pretty sure he doesn't. But if so why should we tolerate Muslim supremacism? Why should we not tell them to take their supremacist attitudes elsewhere?
Racial supremacism is not exactly the same as religious supremacism but both are obnoxious to non-members of the group concerned. They are both offensive. And we don't tolerate offensiveness these days do we?
Malcolm Turnbull may be a sophisticated lawyer, but it didn’t take long for him to join in the national dog-whistle. That is, “It is not compulsory to live in Australia. if you find Australian values are, you know, unpalatable, then there’s a big wide world out there and people have got freedom of movement”. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, unable to oppose official racism from the Coalition, rushed to agree: “If you really hate Australia, well then you should go.”
Though it is in a sense predictable, it should be regarded as strange that in the name of Australian values, the major parties are embracing intolerance. Though we are supposedly a secular country, mainstream political discourse is approaching consensus on political dogmas that shouldn’t be challenged. Those who adopt “Australian” values – whatever those might be – can stay in Australia. Everyone else should leave.
There are lots of reasons someone might want to live in a country. I don’t see that one reason is more valid than another. One person might live in Australia because he loves the country. Another might do so because she loves her family. Another person might just live her because that’s where she was born, and out of inertia isn’t interested in looking into living in other countries. Any citizen of Australia can live here for whatever reason they want.
Attorney-General George Brandis once scandalised many Australians with the comment that we have the right to be bigots. Brandis expressed horror that a man could be taken to “federal court merely because he expressed an opinion about a social or political matter”. Yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable to repeatedly, openly state that people with unpopular political views should leave Australia. It seems only those who adhere to official orthodoxies are welcome.
Saying that those who don’t share Australian values should leave contains within it a certain dog-whistle. Suggesting that dissidents should leave implies that there is something less Australian about them than the rest of us. It doesn’t quite go so far as to say that they are foreign. Just that they would be happier somewhere which is foreign. And as it so happens, this rhetoric is targeted at Muslims who don’t like Australian values.
Though this may offend Australian patriots, if intolerance of political unorthodoxy is to be an Australian value, I think Australia should change. Indeed, I think we would benefit from importing values from another country. That is, from revisiting principles of freedom of thought established over 70 years ago in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.