Google+ Followers

Saturday, 11 October 2014

Son Of A Preacher Man – Just who are Abbott’s “preachers of hate”? | Wixxyleaks

Son Of A Preacher Man – Just who are Abbott’s “preachers of hate”? | Wixxyleaks

Son Of A Preacher Man – Just who are Abbott’s “preachers of hate”?














I hope Tony Abbott will forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of his “preachers of hate” red card system legislation he wants to push through the parliament.


Maybe it’s just me, but I’m a bit
cautious when the first time he really seeks to go into the plan is on
the Alan Jones programme. Jones we may remember is the man who has
repeatedly faced court over claims he incited the Cronulla race riots with his own on air hate speech and who had the class to use Julia Gillard’s recently deceased father to launch a vicious attack on her.



I’m also sceptical when the government pushing this “preachers of hate” legislation is the same government that only recently backed down on its election promise on changing the Racial Discrimination Act to allow people to preach hate based on race.


Amongst those preachers of hate Abbott
sought to give a green light to rather than a red card were Alan Jones
and Andrew Bolt. How handy then to be discussing preachers of hate on
the Alan Jones programme, after all I guess he’s an expert.



In Australia the last time I remember
there being this much fuss over “preachers of hate” speaking in
Australia was when Geert Wilders came to our country despite calls to
have his visa application denied. Wilders has many charismatic
followers, amongst them are Anders Behring Breivik who massacred 77 people in Norway in 2011, Andrew Bolt, and of course Cory Bernardi.



When this particular “preacher of hate”
came to Australia it was Tony Abbott’s former Parliamentary Secretary
Cory Bernardi that gave him not the red card, but the red carpet treatment, acting as his guide.



Geert Wilders - Europes pin-up boy for racial hatred
Geert Wilders – Europe’s pin-up boy for racial hatred

Still, “preachers of hate” of hate is a pretty loose term, ones view of it would depend on your views on preachers and on hate.


In the US there is Federal legislation
to protect its citizens from hate crime. A hate crime is deemed a crime
against someone who is based in the victims race, religion. ethnicity,
nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.



Tony Abbott seems to view hate a little differently, saying on radio;


 “Under
the law that we are bringing through the Parliament hopefully before
the end of the year, it will be an offence to promote terrorism – not
just to engage in terrorism – but to promote terrorism.”

Whilst I agree with this, I don’t think
it goes anywhere close to far enough. In fact it would seem to the
casual observer that Abbott believes  a “preacher of hate” is someone
who promotes terrorism, not someone who is on a soapbox making speeches
designed to promote hatred, discrimination, and ignorance.



I would suggest that this is a very narrow view indeed.


Preacher of hate Alan Jones used the
Abbott interview to preach some hatred about an Islamic organisation in
Australia he would like to see banned.



Preacher of hate... who me?
Preacher of hate… who me?

The group is called  Hizb ut-Tahrir and
they are banned in some parts of the world. I don’t claim to know
enough about this group to give my views on them being “preachers of
hate” so I won’t, but banning them would seem futile to me.



Banning hasn’t exactly worked a treat
for bikie gangs, why would this be any different? In fact it seems to
only make them harder to monitor.



Banning an organisation won’t suddenly change its members beliefs, I’d argue that it may even antagonise the membership.


It is rather ironic that the same
people who were arguing for greater freedom of speech when it came to
changing the Racial Discrimination Act are the same people wanting less
freedom of speech for those whose views they disagree with.



I am in 100% agreement however that
freedom of speech should not be a get out of jail free card for those
who incite violence, whether that be done directly or indirectly.
However this needs to be a two-way street.



The handiwork of Alan Jones?
The handiwork of Alan Jones?

Those who claim to be Islamic while
promoting violence against civilians and other terror related activities
should be charged and jailed. By the same token those who promote views
that lead to hatred and discrimination against Muslims and those of
Middle Eastern background should also be charged and jailed.



If it was a criminal offence to preach
hate in Australia maybe we would see less comments from those who seek
to promote class warfare by branding people like the disabled, the
pensioners, the single parents, and the unemployed as bludgers and claim
they are draining our society while others do the heavy lifting.



Maybe also we would see less speeches
made that brand homosexuals as perverts and people with no morals, by
those who claim some sort of moral superiority such as we often see
through church groups and Liberal Party Senators.



Maybe it would stop those who are
trying to ensure that we view every woman wearing a head covering as
some sort of threat with their incorrect and discriminatory calls to
“ban the burqa”.



Maybe it would mean groups like the
World Congress Of Families coming out here to spew forth their preaching
that single mothers and homosexuals are damaging societies moral fabric
would have to tone down their rhetoric or have their visa application
denied. Given their Australian Ambassador is Kevin Andrews Minister for Social Services I’m sure the government wouldn’t agree on them being “preachers of hate”. Certainly not Kevin Andrews or Eric Abetz…






There is no doubt that hate speech is a
current and relevant topic to be discussing and something needs to be
legislated and made into law.



However I’m not sure that it’s a
decision that should be made by this government alone and I’m also not
sure that it should be discussed by the Prime Minister on the radio
programme of someone who has already been found to have
intentionally incited hatred.



This should be something that is
overseen by a completely independent panel and has representatives from
all cultures, religions and minority groups taking part.



This is far too important an issue to let it be overrun by right-wing agendas.


We need only look at the budget to see what a disaster that turns out being.


No comments:

Post a Comment