Friday, February 03, 2017
Soros’s Women’s March of Hate
The Left’s rage unleashed on the streets of Washington
On Saturday, the nation’s capital was inundated with masses of loud, obnoxious, foul-mouthed Trump-hating women (and some men) at what was billed the “Women’s March on Washington.” The Guardian called the event a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights, while Vox spoke of a “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march.
While the mainstream media bombarded news consumers with news stories claiming few Americans were interested in the inauguration festivities, television ratings for President Donald Trump’s inauguration were the second-highest Nielsen has recorded in 36 years, drawing 30.6 million TV viewers across 12 networks. Factoring in live streams provided by the networks, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other online portals adds millions more viewers to the total. But what happened Saturday at the “Women’s March” was not spontaneous. No mass rallies are, especially on the Left.
This so-called “protest”, like the violent attacks orchestrated by the DisruptJ20 coalition on pro-Trump events such as Friday’s “DeploraBall” at the National Press Club, was not an organically generated demonstration.
The usual culprits were involved behind the scenes using the same fascistic tactics they used to shut down the massive Trump campaign rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago in March last year.
The groups that organized the Women’s March on Washington on Saturday were underwritten by radical currency speculator George Soros, the same man who says Communist China’s system of government is superior to our own and that the United States is the number one obstacle to world peace.
The Soros people brought in protesters from all over the country to express their displeasure with Donald Trump on his first full day as president of the United States. These left-wingers don’t accept the votes of the 63 million Americans in 3,084 of the nation’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents who chose Trump as president. They keep telling themselves the lie over and over again that Trump is somehow not a legitimate president even though he received a majority of Electoral College votes, as the Constitution requires.
Writing in the New York Times, Asra Q. Nomani writes that “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.”
Nomani is a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter who describes herself as “a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president.”
As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcome, nixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda.
Nomani burnt the midnight oil poring over, in her words, “the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are ‘partners’ of the march.”
She discovered that “Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s ‘partners,’ including ‘key partners’ Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies.”
According to Nomani, among the Soros grantees designated as “partners” in the Women’s March on Washington are MoveOn, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.
In a spreadsheet she links to in her article she identifies plenty more organizations that are partners in the march that have received grants through the two major Soros philanthropies, the Open Society Institute and the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Some of the other left-wing Soros-funded groups involved in the women’s event were: Advancement Project; American Constitution Society; America’s Voice; Arab American Association of New York; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Center for Reproductive Rights; Color of Change; Communities United for Police Reform; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Every Voice; Green for All; League of Women Voters; Make the Road New York; MPower Change; NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America Fund; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Network for Arab American Communities; National Council of La Raza; PEN America; Psychologists for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; United We Dream; and Voter Participation Center.
Muslim terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour, president of the Arab American Association of New York, was deeply involved in planning march-related events. Sarsour has familial ties to HAMAS and works with the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
One of the angry women to show up in Washington was the entertainer Madonna who told the crowd of Trump-haters that she thought many times about “blowing up the White House” but had decided against it because it “wouldn’t change anything.” She is expected to be investigated by the Secret Service. On stage, Madonna wore a “pussyhat” created for the occasion and used the F-word four times. The vagina motif among leftist protesters is nothing new. Code Pink has been using it for years. But it was given new life after audio footage was published during the campaign that captured Trump’s locker room remark, “grab ’em by the pussy.”
The marchers took the vulvar vulgarity a step further. Apart from the usual pro-choice and male-bashing placards, they carried signs reading: “My neck, my back, my pussy will grab back”; “Stay cunty”; “Pussy trumps tyranny”; “Keep your politics off my pussy”; “Mike Pence has never satisfied a woman in his life”; “Support your sisters not just your cis-ters”; “We are the grand-daughters of the witches you could not burn”; and “It’s feminist not feminazi[.]”
The atmosphere in downtown Washington wasn’t much different from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last summer. The same in-your-face radicalism and hatred of cops and white people.
Radical documentary maker Michael Moore handed the microphone to actress Ashley Judd who read a goofy, childish poem aloud. “I feel Hitler in these streets,” Judd said, “A mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis renamed.”
So many washed-up celebrities turn to political activism as people stop caring about them. It’s a coping mechanism Mother Nature invented to ease them into irrelevance. They shout and carry on and we forget about them.
Angela Davis, the academic and former Black Panther, spoke at the event. She was described by Elle as a “[c]ivil rights activist.” The article left out that she used to be a fugitive and that she ran for U.S. vice president in 1980 and 1984, alongside Gus Hall, on the ticket of the Communist Party USA. In 1991 she was expelled from the CPUSA for opposing the coup against then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. She joined an arguably more radical group called the Committees of Correspondence.
Davis’s speech consisted of the usual tedious ultra-politically correct drivel, praising traitors, terrorists, and cop killers.
Women’s rights are human rights all over the planet and that is why we say freedom and justice for Palestine. We celebrate the impending release of Chelsea Manning. And Oscar López Rivera. But we also say free Leonard Peltier.
“The next 1,459 days of the Trump administration will be 1,459 days of resistance,” Davis said. “Resistance on the ground, resistance in the classrooms, resistance on the job, resistance in our art and in our music.”
Davis saw no need to tone down her rhetoric because she was addressing true believers.
Her co-religionists were busy trying to burn down Washington in the days prior to her address.
Unrepentant terrorist and Obama pal Bill Ayers showed up in Washington for the inaugural festivities with his terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn.
“On our way to demonstrate for several days in Washington,” Ayers wrote on his blog Jan. 19. The same day Ayers appeared on a TV show hosted by a fellow small-c communist, “The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann,” on the Russian government controlled-RT America network.
Former President Obama launched his career in electoral politics in 1995 in the Hyde Park, Chicago living room of Ayers and Dohrn. They hosted a fundraiser for Obama for his run for the Illinois State Senate.
Austin, Texas-based anarchist Lisa Fithian also came to Washington to cause trouble. She led the union goons and anarchists who rioted during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. She also organized riots as part of the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movement and community-organized in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans.
She was part of the “queer dance party” Jan. 18 that was intended to intimidate Mike Pence at his pre-inaugural home in the Chevy Chase neighborhood in Northwest Washington.
“We are here to celebrate the queer liberation and say that love will trump hate,” Fithian told CNN. “Mike Pence needs to find his heart and recognize that this is a country that needs to be loving and welcoming to everyone. If they want to make America great again, we actually need to embrace our humanity.”
Black mask-wearing rioters destroyed private property a few blocks from the White House, smashing windows at a Bank of America branch, a Starbucks, and a McDonald’s. They set cars and trash cans on fire and assaulted police using crowbars, bottles, and sticks. They blocked uniformed Air Force officers from entering the inauguration grounds. They injured at least six cops. About 3,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement officers were stationed in Washington, along with 5,000 members of the National Guard.
Perhaps unaware that he works for their friends in the Russian government, rioters torched the limousine of RT America broadcaster Larry King.
At least 217 individuals were arrested and charged with rioting. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said each offender is facing up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
The violence in Washington and cities across the country was organized by fringe-left groups that wield a lot of influence in organizing circles.
And as my colleagues at Dangerous Documentaries, the documentary-making division of Capital Research Center discovered, organizers from two communist groups, the Workers World Party (WWP) and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) were integral to planning DisruptJ20 demonstrations and riots across America during Inauguration Week.
What's Got Into the "National Geographic"?
The National Geographic Magazine, to which my family has been subscribing since 1963, frequently contains article which are not, strictly speaking, geographic in nature. For many decades they have provided grants for the study of wild animals, the results of which have been published in the magazine, but at least they can be justified as being set in exotic foreign places. Ditto the forays into archaeology, and history.
Nevertheless, it is hard to see the geographic justification of articles on the King James Bible (December 2011), food (December 2014), or beauty (January 2000). This is not to say that I objected to these articles; I found them very interesting. However, in January 2017 they dropped all lip service to their original charter, not to mention common sense, when they jumped onto the latest bandwagon, with an entire issue dedicated to the "gender revolution".
Now, as I have written previously, I have known individual transsexuals, and I am sympathetic to their plight, to the extent that I consider the current bandwagon will eventually run over and crush them. And that is what is so very wrong with the National Geographic issue. It's not that some of its details are incorrect or misleading; it is the approval it gives to the movement, the way it expresses itself to normalise abnormality. They talk about "assigned gender" as if it is merely some cultural attribute and not a recognition of anatomy. They even used the term, "gender-confirmation surgery."
Advice to Parents
There is a page entitled, "Helping Families Talk About Gender", which provides the following advice:
All children need the opportunity to explore different gender roles and styles of play. Ensure your young child's environment reflects diversity in gender roles and opportunities for everyone.
Whatever for? After all, it is one thing not to get alarmed if your children don't completely conform to society's sex stereotypes, but it is quite another to proactively encourage them to deviate from the norm, even if they don't exhibit any such desire. They will find life be much easier if they manage to slip into the roles society expects them to play.
National Geographic prides itself on fully validating their statements (there is an apocryphal story of them trying to find out if corn really can grow as high as an elephant's eye), but here they appear to have uncritically adopted the latest politically correct doctrines - in this case from the politicized American Academy of Pediatrics, from whose website it is taken. For example, they state:
Research suggests that gender [presumably they mean a person's subjective feelings about his or her sex] is something we are born with; it can't be changed by any interventions.
Well, yes and no. It is true that gender dysphoria usually starts at a very early age. But what does "born with" mean except that the victim was programmed from the start to turn out that way? Yet on pages 48-49 they show a photo of two brothers, one of whom decided at age 17 to , so to speak, become a woman. But since they were identical twins, it is hard to see how genes, uterine environment or, indeed, anything simple could have caused it. True, I know of no therapy, effective or ineffective, being proposed for adult gender dysphoria (this extraordinary exception was probably a one-off). However, the AAP admits that for some young children identifying as the opposite sex may be temporary, and some do not end up as adult transsexuals. That's putting it mildly; it is well established that 80 to 95% of children with gender dysphoria grow out of it. Under such circumstances, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they could be helped towards normality with a bit of appropriate therapy.
Similarly, we have the statement, taken straight from the AAP website:
Understand that gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be changed, but that the way people identify their gender identity or sexual orientation may change with time as they discover more about themselves.
Essentially, these are weasel words to avoid the reader seeing the real meaning ie that they cannot be changed (ie by any external therapy), but they can change spontaneously. It is surely important for parents to know whether there is any possibility or probability that their child will revert to normality in his or her own good time.
We have already mentioned the high rate of spontaneous reversion for gender dysphoria. For homosexuality, The US ADD-Health Survey found that 72% of males and 55% of females who were homo at age 16 were hetero at age 22. Nor does it stop at adulthood. Studies in many different countries have established that a high proportion of adult homosexuals revert to normal in later life, and there are many accounts of spontaneous changes. (You can a fully referenced list in PDF form here.)
The Spring 2016 edition of Scientific American Mind vol. 25(1) was a special edition entitled "The Sexual Brain", which included an article by Robert Epstein. In this we were introduced to Matt Avery (a pseudonym), who "came out" as homosexual, and an effeminate one at that, at age 17, and had several hundred male sexual partners, followed by a four year relationship with a male lover. But at the age of 24, he was shocked when his lover announced that being gay "wasn't a truth" for him. When his lover, now roommate, dated a woman, Matt decided he might try it too. To cut a long story short, within two or three years he was dating women exclusively, and at the time of writing he had been married to one for eleven years, and even his same-sex sexual fantasies had disappeared.
As for change induced by therapy, it is incredible that people keep insisting it doesn't work when there are so many ex-gays testifying that they were once wholly or predominantly homo and are now wholly or predominantly hetero. Don't they know their own feelings, or are they all lying for some reason? The only way to prove a therapy doesn't work would be to have a longitudinal study of a large number of conscientious patients and establish a 100% - not 70%, 80%, or 90%, but 100% - failure rate. In fact, a success rate of a third or a half has been established in about 100 different studies.
The Gender Benders
The core article in the issue is the one entitled, "Rethinking Gender". "Gender" is never specifically defined, but it appears to mean the person's subjective feelings. The article describes, more or less accurately, the occasional chromosomal, endocrine, or anatomic abnormalities which muddy the waters.
However, the main focus is on gender dysphoria, but it is presented not as a mental illness, but essentially as a lifestyle choice. There is little about adult transsexuals, and their problems, but a lot about child transsexuals, without mentioning the very high reversion rate to normality, or of the possible dire consequence of mutilating the body.
It features 17 years old Charlie Spiegel, a girl who now calls herself "he". Femininity never felt right for her. Then, in her first year of high school, she went to the school library and found I Am J, a novel about a transgender boy, which clarified matters for her. Why was that book in the library? American school libraries are perverse establishments, which will ban an anti-racist classic like Huckleberry Finn because it uses the word, "nigger", but will plant, like some insidious booby trap, a book whose sole purpose is to validate a mental illness, and lead confused young people down the wrong path.
There is a photo of six years old Henry, who still appears to call himself a boy, but considers himself "gender creative". Does a six year old really know what such a term means? His parents have enrolled him in the Rainbow Day Camp so that he can find the vocabulary to explain his feelings. In other words, they are reinforcing his aberration!
To be fair, some child transsexuals are "insistent, persistent, and consistent" at a very early age. I would hate to be in their parents' shoes. However, it must be accepted that giving in to the child's mental illness, even if it is the only option available, is a recognition of defeat, not some sort of victory. And I really think it is a bad idea to violate their children's privacy by publicising their condition, and putting their photographs on the internet, or in glossy magazines.
And here, I might add, the Australian edition of National Geographic is different from the American original. The cover on our edition features a group of what I can only call weirdos, illustrating the various aberrations of "gender". But the American cover features the photo found on page 31 of our edition: that of nine year old Avery Jackson, who presents as a pretty little girl, but is really a boy. About this, the ex-transsexual, Walt Heyer has some caustic words:
"Even if young Avery is willing to be used in this way, National Geographic's cover photo is exploitation. The health and well-being of this child are being sacrificed to advance a political and cultural crusade. Avery may not realize that his feelings and photos are a revenue source for National Geographic and a strategic tool for the LGBTQ lobby. Yes, the bright lights are squarely on Avery. He is today's poster child - a hero, at least for now. But Avery's male sex is unchangeable, while feelings do change. What will surface eight, ten, or even thirty years from now? Anyone who thinks that affirming his transgenderism can undo Avery's innate male sex has caught the contagion of mass delusion. Avery's mom surely thinks she is helping her son, just as my grandmother thought she was "helping" me. Today, my body bears the scars from all the unnecessary surgeries I endured because as a young boy I was enabled, encouraged, and provided opportunity to act out such a fantasy.
It is naïve to believe there are no negative outcomes from using this young boy as a symbol and presenting him as an activist. National Geographic's irresponsible imagery of a cross-dressing boy on the cover will no doubt ratchet up the spread of the contagion that is transgenderism. Notably, the magazine does not include any interviews with individuals who have had their lives destroyed by the long-term consequences of cross-dressing and gender confusion. Cross-dressing eroded my true gender which in turn ruined my teen years, ripped apart my marriage, and ended my career."
It also reports on various "third genders" accepted in certain societies, without mentioning that they are still expected to adopt an established stereotype, just like the two real genders. In practically all cases, such as the fa'afafine of Samoa specifically explored, they are male homosexuals expected to act like women. As such, it is disturbing to see a photo of two boys already adopting this stereotype at ages 10 and 12 respectively. With some, it appears to run in the family. To me this suggests a form of social contagion; if Uncle Andrew is a fa'afafine, and he's a nice man, why not try it out yourself?
But a professor of psychology suggests that, although the gene for homosexuality cannot be passed in the male line, perhaps it improves the reproductive success of female carriers. Or perhaps the fa'afafine provide a service in helping to raise their relatives' children.
Well, as someone whose degrees were in zoology rather than psychology, I have some serious problems with both hypotheses.
Natural selection will effectively eliminate any gene which produces sterility in one sex, unless it actually doubles the reproductive success of the other sex.
Any investigations of current reproductive success will be based on a low fertility/low infant mortality system - which is the opposite of what it was like just a couple of generations ago.
The heritabilty of homosexuality is very low. If a homosexual has an identical twin, that twin - same genes, same environment - will be homosexual in only 11% of cases.
In any case, that's not how genes work. They affect behaviour by tweaking the amount and timing of hormones, the response to hormones, the response to such things as frustration, and so forth. In other words, they just point the individual in the direction he or she may go. Any genetic effect on homosexuality will thus be indirect, weak, and the result of multiple genes.
If I can spot errors in matters I know about, how trustworthy should I regard the rest of the article?
It also quoted a survey of a thousand millennials, half of whom agreed that gender is a spectrum. Again, this is the sort of thing which gets my BS-detector ringing. What does that statement really mean? More to the point, how does the questioner know exactly what the respondent thinks it means? If it means anything at all, it demonstrates that a lot of young people are confused - and it is articles like this which produced the confusion.
Boy Scouts Spit on Grave of Baden-Powell
This could be fun. The "boys" concerned are actually girls. What ho a few pregnancies out of this?
Rueters reports that the Boy Scouts will begin accepting girls into the Boy Scouts, provided the girls pretend they are boys, or suffer from a mental illness making them unable to comprehend which sex they are, or their parents suffer from a mental illness making them unable to comprehend which sex their child is.
Here is the story:
“Starting today, we will accept and register youth in the Cub and Boy Scout programs based on the gender identity indicated on the application,” Boy Scouts of America communications director Effie Delimarkos said in an emailed statement.
This came about because of a single case, one single individual, am 8-year girl who wanted to join a boy scout troop.
She had apparently sneaked into a Boy Scout troop in New Jersey, and been expelled when it was discovered she was a girl dressed as a boy.
The girl’s parents are willing, in the light of this decision, that she rejoin this troop, but only if the scoutmaster who had expelled her is removed from his position. How gracious and non-vindictive of them.
I was told the parents had no real interest in pressing the matter, but that they were hounded by activist Leftist into doing so.
Unlike the decision to admit sexual perverts into the company of young boys, this decision to have teen girls bunking in tents and showing with adolescent boys in a movement allegedly design to teach boys morals, virtues, and manhood, was made with no previous debate among the membership.
No one was consulted. It was simply an ambush.
I have heard that since the decision to admit gays, the movement has lost approximately half its members and half its funding.
I have been in scouting as a youth, as was my father before me, and my children after me.
A Navy officer’s child, my family was uprooted and moved across country once every few years, so such things as childhood friends, or staying in one school, are unknown to me. But there was a scout troop in whatever new town my father’s new duty station sent us. It was the one constant.
My eldest son is an Eagle Scout. That is one of the proudest things in my life.
The SJWs have effectively killed off scouting. Churches and other non-insane, non-evil groups may or may not start youth movement of their own, but it will not have the universal and international character of Boy Scouts.
My youngest boy is First Class. He goes camping every month, and goes to the meeting once a week. My middle boy is severely autistic and retarded, and cannot speak, but the boy scout troop he is in has always welcomed him and made him feel comfortable. He is a Tenderfoot. Without them, he would have no opportunity for hiking and camping and experiencing the great outdoors.
Must I now pull my boys out of their Troop? Or, by acquiescence, affirm the loathsome evils and insolent lies preached and demanded by the Left?
Something I have supported, respected, and loved dearly and deeply for all the years of my life is ripped away. Something sacred has been cruelly and deliberately desecrated by yowling subhumans who hate all life and decency.
Something good was targeted, marred, demeaned, and slain because, and only because it is good.
In crackdown on illegal immigration, Australia has led the world
The writer below seems to think that is a bad thing but makes no mention of the arguments against illegal immigration -- such as the high rate of welfare dependency among the groups principally concerned
Many have expressed opposition and abhorrence towards US President Donald Trump’s plan to deport undocumented migrants en masse from the United States.
Last Wednesday, Trump signed executive orders vowing to deport or incarcerate an estimated 2-3 million non-citizens who have been charged with or convicted of a crime; who have “abused” public welfare programs; and who, in the opinion of an immigration officer, “pose a risk to public safety or national security”.
A further executive order instructed the US Department of Homeland Security to publish a “weekly list” of crimes committed by undocumented migrants. When signing the order, the president – performing a kind of dark political pageant – recited names of Americans allegedly murdered by undocumented migrants.
Before Trump, the Obama administration deported more than 2.5 million immigrants from the time he took office until 2015, more than any other US president. Two-thirds of deportees had committed only minor infractions, such as driving without a license or jumping a turnstile. Others had no criminal record at all. In the same period, detention of non-citizens increased by 25%.
Trump’s executive orders may take racialised border control, Islamophobia and aggressive deportation of non-citizens to new extremes. But in the last two decades, successive Australian governments have paved the way in showing there is no rock bottom when it comes to strict treatment of refugees and non-citizens.
On Monday, former Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, boasted that “the world is catching up to Australia” by implementing harsh border protection policies. The executive in Australia can already deport adult non-citizens found guilty or suspected of criminal offences. These powers apply to all non-citizens, including people who have lived in Australia for most of their lives or whose immediate family are Australian citizens.
The Turnbull government has repeatedly trumpeted its offshore detention centres, where asylum seekers are held in conditions that have been described by the UN as amounting to torture, as the prototype for tough border control. Indeed, this week Turnbull “welcomed” the US to “emulate” Australia’s approach.
US and Australian border control policies comprise part of what US law professor Juliet Stumpf has called the “crimmigration crisis”: a trend of migration law – with its largely unfettered and unscrutinised executive powers – encroaching on the distinct regime of the criminal law, and vice versa.
A symptom of this crimmigration crisis is that immigration officials increasingly adopt a “law and order” approach to migration control. Police resources are diverted away from prosecuting criminal offences and towards policing “irregular” or “undocumented” migrants. Non-citizens live in a perpetual state of anxiety, fearful that their interactions with police, state welfare agencies, their employers or their neighbours, might result in an allegation that could lead to their removal. Penalties imposed on non-citizens are often cruelly disproportionate to their alleged transgressions.
The Australian government has expanded its visa cancellation powers against non-citizens for criminal or “anti-social” conduct across three key areas.
The first is on “character grounds”. The immigration minister may cancel a visa if s/he reasonably suspects a non-citizen does not pass the character test. Changes introduced under former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2014 significantly expanded these powers.
Before 2014, two consecutive years of imprisonment were required as grounds for visa cancellation. Now, a person may not pass the character test if they are serving a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment; if the minister reasonably suspects the person is “associated” with someone involved in criminal conduct ; if the minister foresees a risk that they may engage in criminal conduct; or if the person harasses, molests, intimidates or stalks someone in Australia.
Between 2013–14 and 2015–16, the number of visa cancellations on character grounds increased tenfold. In 2015-16, the immigration minister Peter Dutton cancelled 983 visas on character grounds.
The Australian government has signalled its intention to expand these already-broad powers. This year, Dutton announced that a parliamentary committee was looking at lowering the age for visa cancellation on character grounds to include children of 16 or 17 years. This would allow the commonwealth to further encroach on “law and order” issues including Victoria’s Apex gang-related problems. Such criminal justice issues are ordinarily within the purview of state and territory governments.
The second category of visa cancellation exists for actual or suspected criminals. The minister may cancel the bridging visas of people who have committed or are suspected of committing a crime. Between 29 June 2013 and 9 October 2016, the minister used these powers to cancel 322 bridging visas of so-called “illegal maritime arrivals”.
These migration law powers reverse the fundamental presumption of innocence under Australian common law. An asylum seeker charged with, but not convicted of, a crime may have just 10 minutes to make their case against visa cancellation.
At the close of 2016, the Commonwealth Ombudsman released two reports expressing serious concerns about the exercise and scope of the minister’s immigration powers. The Ombudsman found that people whose visas had been cancelled faced “unnecessarily prolonged and potentially indefinite periods of immigration detention”. This is due to the combination of delays in the resolution of criminal charges and a neglectful, under-resourced immigration case management system.
One of the government’s unprecedented initiatives was when in 2013, it introduced a code of behaviour for asylum seekers living in the community. This code, which all bridging visa holders over 18 must sign, forbids asylum seekers from engaging in “antisocial” or “disruptive” activities including spitting, swearing, bullying, being “disrespectful” or “inconsiderate”. It demands that asylum seekers respect “Australian values” and cooperate with government authorities. If accused of a breach, an asylum seeker (not the minister) must prove s/he did not engage in the alleged behaviour.
Consequences of breaching the code are severe. They include being sent to an onshore or offshore detention centre (such as Nauru or Manus Island); reduced (already meagre) income support payments; and separation of the family unit.
In recent protests against the “Muslim ban” in New York, demonstrators shouted “let them stay” outside the courthouse that placed a temporary stay on the ban. This demand is all-too familiar to Australians who oppose the government’s treatment of asylum seekers.
Trump’s executive orders against non-citizens constitute crimmigration in action. Rather than sigh with relief in the knowledge that we are not living in Trump’s America, Australians should recognise how his policies are founded and reflected in our own
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.