Each contribution was passionate and well expressed. But the problem remains to identify what version of multiculturalism is being praised or criticised. We are constantly fooled into thinking that multiculturalism has only one meaning. This is not true. Multicultural integration conveys a totally different notion from multicultural segregation.
The highly intelligent Citizenship and Multiculturalism Minister, Alan Tudge, favours multicultural integration. He calls for social cohesion, quite rightly recognising that Australian values have emerged from many cultures, which newer Australians should adopt.
As the son of Holocaust survivors, I fully understand the meaning behind the term “final solution”. In my view, Jewish community representatives have overreacted to Fraser Anning’s use of this term, first because I am aware of his background and public support for the Jewish community. Some examples include lobbying for our government to stop funding alleged Palestinian terrorism and moving Australia’s embassy to Israel’s capital Jerusalem — hardly the actions of an anti-Semite.
I believe Anning used this term included in his speech more out of ignorance than malice towards either Muslims or Jews, and in a completely difference context to what the term was originally formed. But I would have preferred him to apologise for using this controversial term only for insulting the Jewish community.
I am far more outraged by the performance by Muslim Labor MP Shaoquett Moselmane for refusing entry to a multicultural event in NSW parliament to a senior member of the Jewish community, Vic Alhadeff, who arrived with an invitation. Moselmane has form for his dislike of Jews and Israel in particular
The main point in Fraser Anning’s speech is his anti-Muslim racism. His use of “final solution” was clearly related to Muslims, not to Jews or the Holocaust. For Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and others to twist Anning’s words to avoid condemning his anti-Muslim bigotry and address this serious racism issue is appalling.
Before I joined the throng hyperventilating over Fraser Anning’s speech, I took the trouble to read it. I found his speech to be nothing but patriotic and uplifting. He highlighted the need to retain and defend our Christian heritage, the importance of agriculture, the perils of unrestricted immigration, the need for affordable home ownership, and the benefits of jobs over unfettered welfare.
His big mistake was to trot out the truth. He made the quite rational observation that Muslims have consistently shown to be the group least able to assimilate and integrate. Furthermore, he pointed out that the influence of Islam can paralyse the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. The reasons for ending Muslim immigration are compelling and self-evident.
Anning says that diversity should be managed to remain compatible with social cohesion and national identity. What we need is a cultural reconquest of our own country to take back Australia from the left-wing elites that have subverted the very basis of our society. Today, traditional society is rapidly unravelling, and we stand now at the turn of the tide.
It is time for us to decide whether we will rise up against this, hold fast to the threads of kinship that define and unite us and strive once more for the light on the hill, or concede the field to enemies of Western civilisation and see all that we were and all that we might yet become fall away to ruin.
I find the confected outrage over Fraser Anning’s speech nauseating. He told our elected representatives some unpleasant truths and all they appear to be doing is trying to destroy the message rather than seriously considering the points he made.
Use of the words “final solution” may be unfortunate, but in context were only intended to stress the fact that Australians should be given the democratic opportunity to express their feelings on immigration levels.
Letters printed here were published in The Weekend Australian.