Our best defence against jihadism? Abbott
Until those acts of appallingly primitive barbarism in Paris, the events surrounding Prince Charles’ visit were entirely predictable. I gave my usual tongue-in-cheek warning to fellow monarchists: ‘Never stand between republicans, especially republican politicians and visiting royalty. Otherwise you’ll be knocked over in the rush’. There was the standard love-hate in the media, as well as the staging of yet another stunt – a commissioned opinion poll with a rigged question to mislead respondents into believing that only in some undefined politicians’ republic could we have an Australian head of state. The fact is that whenever an Australian government sends our Governor-General to foreign countries, he or she is held out as our head of state, a term which comes from diplomacy. When in 1987, Indonesia, probably misled by a mischievous republican Australian diplomat, indicated it would not receive Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen as head of state, the visit was cancelled on the advice of the Hawke government. Indonesia apologised.
Compared with other polls, this one, with its rigged question, artificially inflated support from hovering somewhere in the mid 30 per cent range to an unbelievable 51 per cent. But only one commentator, the Daily Telegraph’s Paul Toohey noticed, saying it was a ‘bit cunning’. In the meantime it’s as if republicans are in a demonstration chanting: ‘We want a republic’ adding sheepishly, ‘but we haven’t the foggiest idea what sort’. The ALP has decided to follow the Eurocrat dictum and have the people keep on voting until they get it right – with two plebiscites, a convention election and a referendum− four national votes costing squillions.
The 1999 referendum model would have transformed the PM into a powerful autocrat, the only one in the world able to sack the head of state instantly − without notice, without grounds, and without any right of appeal. A number of prominent republicans first warned the model was flawed, but then supported a yes vote in the campaign, with some admitting afterwards that it was nevertheless a bad model.
Our first major republican movement – in the nineteenth century – aimed to turn Australia into an apartheid republic. Until Kerry Packer acquired what was its flag bearer, the Bulletin, its front page was still emblazoned with the campaign banner: ‘Australia for the white man’ and, in its heyday, with far worse inside. Then there was a Moscow-funded movement for a Soviet People’s Republic. With rigged elections and thuggery, it occupied the commanding heights of the trade union movement. As The Speccie’s Hal Colebatch demonstrated, its agents committed a succession of appalling and unpunished acts of treachery against our soldiers, sailors, airmen and nurses in WW2. Unaware of this history, and not at all influenced by the rigged opinion poll or the republicanism which prevails in the elite political and media salons, rank and file Australians offered a warm welcome to the Prince and Camilla. But then came the outrage in Paris which reminded Australians that there is another far more sinister form of republicanism. This is rule under a caliphate, or Islamic republic. It is a sad fact that in many EU cities there already exist the precursors of a nation-wide Islamic republic. These are no-go ghettos, functioning as autonomous Islamic republics operating effectively under sharia law. One brutal way they ensure ghettoisation is by targeting and persecuting non-Islamic women, as one woman explained to me about her being driven out of Lakemba in Sydney many years ago. An appalling variation of this was in Rotherham in the UK where over 1400 non-Muslim children were enslaved and abused by gangs. This continued over a period of 16 years with politically correct officials preferring not to act rather than being accused of Islamophobia.
Among Western leaders, Australia has been fortunate that our former PM Tony Abbott was by far one of the strongest world leaders in opposing Islamism. Ridiculed by the media and most of the politicians for his monarchism and his religion, he put a stop to the vast and increasing flow of illegal immigrants into the country. He has been almost alone among Western leaders in questioning that ridiculous mantra repeated over and over that Islam is a religion of peace. He resolutely refused to administer immigration, as so many of his predecessors did and so many Europeans do, with appalling negligence or even worse, for electoral advantage. Australians will contrast Abbott’s leadership with Turnbull’s after Parramatta. Unable even to name the source of the problem, Turnbull claimed there is a golden rule that applies to all religions, ‘Do unto others as you would do unto yourself’. No knowledgeable person would ever claim that this is a precept which prevails in Islam.The assessment of a woman caller to Sydney station 2GB was typical: ‘That Turnbull is a marshmallow’. Just before the Paris outrage, Turnbull distanced himself from Abbott’s warning in London that if the Europeans did not secure their borders there would be a disaster. Turnbull was speaking to Angela Merkel, who has destroyed her reputation and conservative credentials by throwing open the borders not only of her country but of those EU countries dependent on Germany. This has been to a vast influx of mainly healthy young men who should have been fighting for their countries, rather than forcing their way into Europe’s overgenerous welfare states. In the intensification of the campaign by jihadists to establish a worldwide Islamic Republic, many Australians are remembering with regret that they were until recently led by a man prepared to stand up in a way few world leaders have against the caliphate. At least he was allowed sufficient time in office to secure our borders.