Wednesday, November 23, 2016
There isn't a 'silent majority' of racists in Australia
By Tim Soutphommasane, Race Discrimination Commissioner.
Tim's headline above is beyond dispute but he goes downhill from there. I have written previously about the do-gooder Scanlon Foundation and its reports and what I have said previously still seems to apply.
Peter Scanlon was the man behind stevedoring business Patrick Corporation but he now seems to be mainly in shares and Real Estate.
This year's report has made a big issue over question wording. They know, I know and all survey researchers know that the wording of a question can greatly influence the answers. And by dwelling on that fact they apparently hope to obscure the reality that they are themselves great sinners in that regard.
Just to take a simple example from their survey, one of their questions is: "Marriage equality for same sex couples". They find that 66% of respondents say they support it. But the question is ludicrously biased. It is put in a way that argues for it. Were the question a straightforward "Homosexual marriage" they would undoubtedly get a very different percentage of approval. The Labor party certainly thinks so. That is why they strenuously resist a vote on the question. They know that a referendum on the question would be lost.
And the Scanlon questions about "refugees" are amusing too. One question asked for agreement with a statement seeking support for resettling ‘refugees who have been assessed overseas and found to be victims of persecution and in need of help'. A real tear-jerker! Unsurprisingly, two thirds of respondents agreed with that. I would have liked to ask for responses to "Most so-called refugees are really just economic immigrants in search of a country with generous welfare payments". I might have got two thirds agreement with that too.
So Tim is entitled to believe the Scanlon report but from my viewpoint as an experienced survey researcher it is basically rubbish. To believe their results you would have to show that they are similar to results that have been obtained by other researchers. And they themselves admit that their results are often very different. They say that the other researchers have bad research methods but I think it is more a case of Luke 6:42.
So when Tim says "An overwhelming majority of people (83 per cent) believe that multiculturalism is good for the country", we have to ask WHICH cultures do people see as beneficial? Muslim culture? Probably not. Scanlon doesn't ask that question. They don't want to know.
Having said all that there were nonetheless two points which even Scanlon picked up, two points that other surveys have found: Environmental issues are bottom of the barrel in importance for Australians and Australians are far more anti-Muslim than they are anti any other religion
Mr Scanlon has set up an organization that campaigns for immigrant acceptance. Sad that they think they can further that aim by dishonestly pretending to do objective research
These are challenging times for race relations. In the United States, just a fortnight after the election of Donald Trump, there are already numerous reports of hate attacks on the rise. A similar trend was reported earlier this year following the Brexit vote in Britain.
This is what happens when political debates normalise attacks on immigrants and foreigners. This is what happens when populist nationalism trumps the normal rules of liberal democracy.
Australia is not the US. Neither is it Europe. But we are not immune from racial anxiety and xenophobia. There remains a small minority of people in our society who are hostile towards cultural diversity and immigration. These are people who believe that an Australian national identity is under threat from cultural change.
It is important that we deal with such concerns, that we understand why people may feel that way. Yet, as the Scanlon Foundation's Mapping Social Cohesion report shows, we shouldn't overstate such cultural angst. Those who are uncomfortable about multiculturalism do not constitute some "silent majority". The political mainstream mustn't rush to conclude otherwise.
Here are some of the facts, according to the Scanlon Foundation. An overwhelming majority of people (83 per cent) believe that multiculturalism is good for the country. A clear majority of people (59 per cent) believed that current levels of immigration were either "about right' or 'too low".
Such results, consistent with the Scanlon Foundation's findings over the years, are the best indication we have of where Australian public opinion really lies. It is confirmation that Australia remains a successful and harmonious nation of immigration.
Of course, recent commentary has painted a different picture. For example, one Essential Media poll about Muslim immigration has been frequently cited to support the proposition that half of Australians want to ban Muslim immigration.
Such commentary has tended to ignore other evidence indicating far more robust support for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. In a previous survey, the Scanlon Foundation in fact found that three-quarters of the population supported immigration being conducted on non-discriminatory lines. This year, the Scanlon Foundation found that with respect to Australia taking in refugees from Syria, 69 per cent indicated that "there should be equal consideration to all religious and ethnic groups".
The lesson is this. Political debate must avoid jumping to conclusions based on single opinion polls – especially when polls need to be interpreted with care. The best polls are those that can show trends over time. On matters of social cohesion, the Scanlon Foundation's findings have been robust and reliable.
Which is why there are some findings in this year's survey that should give us pause. There has been an increase in the reported experience of discrimination, which rose from 15 per cent of respondents in 2015 to 20 per cent in 2016. This is the highest proportion recorded since the Scanlon Foundation surveys began in 2007. Those of a non-English speaking background reported the highest experience of discrimination (27 per cent).
There can be no complacency on prejudice and discrimination. It remains fundamentally important that our society sends an emphatic signal that racism is unacceptable.
'They want us to be Islamised. They despise our country and our values'
Translator at German refugee camp says Muslim migrants display 'pure hatred' of Christians
A translator at German refugee camps has revealed Muslim migrants are showing 'pure hatred' toward Christians and want the country to be Islamised.
The Arabic speaker worked in a number of asylum centres across the country and went undercover to discover migrants were preaching 'pure hatred' about non-Muslims and women were planning to have more children to 'destroy Christians'.
She said the hostility is also visible at asylum homes, where Muslim children refuse to play with Christians.
The Eritrean woman, 39, worked in several refugee centres across Germany and found fellow translators were part of the problem.
Talking to Catholic website Kath.net, she said they 'show their true colours' when Christians are out of ear-shot and they have a Muslim-only audience.
'They want Germany to be Islamised. They despise our country and our values,' she said.
She had arrived herself as a refugee in 1991, and has volunteered in asylum centres for five years to 'give something back'.
After unearthing the worrying findings, she headed to the mosques to find out more.
'Pure hatred against non-believers is preached, and children are brought here from an early age here in Germany,' she told Kath.net.
'It's very similar in asylum housing, where Muslim boys refuse to play with Christians.
'Some women told me "We will multiply our numbers. We must have more children than the Christians because it's the only way we can destroy them here".'
In an attempt to quell these feelings, she was told helping and defending Christians is a sin.
Germany has been rocked by terror attacks this year, heaping pressure on chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door immigration policy.
A bloody week of violence that rocked Germany began on July 18 when Pakistani teenager Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, 17, posing as an Afghan refugee, hacked at passengers on a train in Wurzburg with an axe, wounding five.
He was shot dead by police.
Four days later mentally unstable German-Iranian teenager Ali Sonboly shot nine people dead during a rampage through a shopping centre in Munich before taking his own life.
Sonboly claimed he was taking revenge for being bullied at school with no political motive to the murderous rampage.
MoH Recipient Uninvited From Marine Ball
Why would one of the Marine Corps' biggest heroes be uninvited from the Marine Corps Ball in Afghanistan?
Sergeant Dakota Meyer received the Medal of Honor for his actions on Sept. 8, 2009, during the Battle of Ganjgal, in which five Americans and eight Afghan security personnel were killed in action. Meyer made five runs into enemy fire to evacuate wounded personnel and recover the bodies of American KIAs.
For this year’s Marine Corps Ball held to celebrate the 241st birthday of the Marine Corps, Meyer had been invited to attend in Afghanistan, where he had served with Embedded Training Team 2-8. According to a report by tribunist.com, the celebration was to be held at the American embassy in Kabul due to security concerns. Such concerns are valid, as a recent murder-suicide bombing at Bagram Air Base left four Americans dead and wounded 17 others.
Meyer’s invite was reportedly rescinded at the direction of Amb. P. Michael McKinley over Meyer’s “political views.” On his Facebook page, Meyer has been vocally critical of the Obama administration on a number of issues, including a push for additional gun control laws. Meyer’s wife, Bristol Palin, is also the daughter of former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
“It’s disheartening that he’s using the Marine Corps Ball as a chance to be petty and political. This should be beyond politics and a time for him to support the men and women who defend he and his staff at the embassy,” Meyer said. On his Facebook page, Meyer added, “I want to make sure the Marines in Afghanistan know I really wanted to join them for our birthday, but politics got in the way. Let me know when you guys get back in country and we’ll rock out then!”
Sanctuary City Showdown
Perhaps nothing defines progressive arrogance better than the idea the Rule of Law can be ignored when it doesn't align with the Left's "superior" wisdom. Thus, of all the battles president-elect Donald Trump will wage against entrenched progressivism, the effort to deconstruct sanctuary cities is one of the most important.
Trump has the law on his side. Section 1373 of the U.S. Federal Code is clear: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."
It further notes that no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, the same entities from exchanging such information with ICE, maintaining it, or exchanging it with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. Reciprocally, ICE is expected to respond to those entities "seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information."
There's also Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 that allows the U.S. attorney general to enter into an agreement with a state, or any political subdivision therein related, to carry out "the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States." This authorizes the AG to train local police for the purposes of identifying and detaining illegals.
Despite these statutes, more than 340 municipalities in the nation have been identified by ICE as having polices non-cooperative with, or obstructive of, law enforcement.
A report released last August by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) illuminates the damning consequences of that defiance: Between January 2014 and September 2015, more than 17,000 ICE detainers were rejected by these municipalities — including about 11,800 detainers for individuals with prior criminal histories.
Detailed information of crimes committed by illegals would go a long way toward underscoring the recklessness of sanctuary city policies and galvanizing public opinion against them. Yet the same government agencies that crunch numerous sets of crime statistics are either unable — or unwilling — to provide comprehensive data on illegal alien criminal activity. Former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, who characterizes immigrant crime as a "wave of staggering proportions," explains why: "These numbers would expose how serious the problem is and make the government look bad."
How bad? U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member Peter Kirsanow released hard numbers for illegal aliens "imprisoned for homicide-related offenses" in five states — Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas — with high illegal alien populations. Assuming they only committed one murder apiece, these illegals accounted for approximately 5,400 homicides.
For illegal immigrant advocates, that level of slaughter is apparently tolerable because "using the data we have, it seems impossible to responsibly claim that those immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than their American-born neighbors," writes columnist Alan Gomez. In other words, Americans are supposed to take solace from the idea that people who shouldn't be here are at all might be murdering, raping, molesting and otherwise accosting them at lower rates than American criminals are.
It doesn't get more intellectually or morally bankrupt than that.
A Trump administration aims to cut federal funding for sanctuary cities. By contrast, until Congressman John Culbertson (R-TX) used his position as chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee on Appropriations to force the Obama administration to reverse course, it was actually rewarding sanctuary cities with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money.
Thus, is it any wonder why politicians in cities like Chicago, New York, Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Denver and Washington, DC, etc., insist they will maintain their sanctuary status? Mayor Emanuel, whose city has endured more than 600 murders and 3,000 shootings so far this year, epitomizes their arrogance. "I would say to the president-elect that the idea that you're going to penalize Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia — these are the economic, cultural and intellectual energy of this country," he contended.
No, they are not. They are leftist strongholds populated by elitist, illegal-immigration-supporting officials who believe they're entitled to defy the law and embrace de facto anarchy.
Trump's efforts to stop this nonsense will be hindered by one certainty and one possibility. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that any withholding of federal funds by Congress must be "reasonably related" to the purposes for which those funds are allocated. Thus, it is likely law enforcement agencies in various locales will take the hit, and it remains to be seen if political officials will be willing to endure the likely wrath of American citizens who realize their safety is being held hostage to progressive-inspired lawlessness.
It also remains to be seen if a GOP-controlled Congress can summon the will necessary to withhold that funding. The Senate failed to pass a couple of bills targeting sanctuary cities because vote totals fell short of the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster. That's the same 60-vote threshold eliminated by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's invocation of the "nuclear option" when it suited Democrat purposes. It remains to be seen if traditionally spineless Republicans are willing to return the favor, especially those attuned to the leftist siren song of "comprehensive immigration reform."
Nothing says reform better than reining in the rampant lawlessness sanctuary cities epitomize. Trump's nomination of staunch anti-illegal immigration advocate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for U.S. attorney general is a great first step.
A suggestion for Sessions: In addition to exploring ways of limiting funding, the DOJ could lend its unambiguous support to citizens like the parents of Kate Steinle, murdered by seven-time felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who had been deported five times. They have filed a suit against former San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the city and federal officials for failing to do their respective jobs.
Successful litigation by sanctuary city crime victims, making officials liable for large cash awards, should be pursued with vigor all over the nation. There's nothing quite like the prospect of facing personal financial calamity — for supporting lawlessness — to focus the progressive mind.
In 2016, millions of Americans voted to upend the status quo. Sanctuary cities are one of the worst aspects of that status quo.
American have lived with lawlessness orchestrated by leftist politicians long enough. Being a nation of laws is about having respect for all laws. Not just the ones leftists like.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.