The true nature of Racial Vilification laws

Andrew Guild

So-Called Racial Vilification Laws

The Australian Government has brought into being a Racial Vilification Law, supposedly to stop "incitement to race hatred or ridicule" against minorities.

The fact is that existing laws already cover illegal behaviour against minorities (and everyone else), such as laws relating to offensive behaviour, assault and battery, defacing property, incitement to riot, etc.

A Hidden Purpose

So, what is the purpose of this law?

The answer is simple: To crush public opposition to the Establishment's policies of Multiculturalism and Asianisation.

"Freedom of speech for all, except for those who oppose my world-view" is the creed of certain politicians.

This law has been made in an attempt to protect Multiculturalism and Asianisation from the wrath of the Australian People. In federal parliament it has been admitted that this law is linked to Australia's "survival as a multicultural society"; indeed, multiculturalists such as Nguyen Trieu Dan want these laws to enforce multiculturalism, because "Australia's cohesion depends on the ability of all... to integrate and be committed to the idea of a multicultural nation" (apparently no matter whether most Australians want Multiculturalism or not)(1).

Pushing for "stronger" (i.e. more anti-democratic) legislation, the President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, Joe Gersh, said that if the law "curtailed" anti-immigration organisations "then that would be to the public good"(2). Because of their concerns over anti-Semitism, it was apparently the major Jewish lobby groups that were the prime movers (through lobbying, etc.) behind the legislation (3).

Mark Uhlmann, editor of The Record, has stated that "A major aim of Federal racial vilification legislation ... is to complement the social intimidation which already greets anyone, particularly in public office, who dares to criticise matters connected to immigration and multiculturalism"(4).

Jail For Opposing Multiculturalism

Phrases such as "incitement to racial hatred or ridicule" are so wide, undefined, and vague as to enable large fines to be levied upon dissenters (which means jail in lieu of payment), for expressing disagreement with government policy.

So called "racist" groups are an obvious target for this legislation. However, we should bear in mind that the Australian tradition of democracy means "free speech for everyone"; and this means especially for those who oppose the Establishment's "politically correct" world-view. Those who support "Stop the Asian Invasion" groups are as equally entitled to disseminate their views as those who support multiculturalism and mass immigration.

The next target are organisations which oppose mass immigration. Any "politically incorrect" utterances could be used to threaten jail or fines for supporters. Of course, with around 70% of Australians opposing mass immigration, there's a lot of people to be put in jail. Would it be cynical to suggest that this law has been designed to scare ordinary Australians into silence?

The Government will try to copy the tactics used in other countries which have implemented similar laws to crush political dissent against multiculturalism. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada have racial vilification laws, but Germany could always provide the true lead for the multiculturalists to follow: Adolf Hitler was quite adept at crushing opposition with various laws (all in the name of the "common good", of course). The so-called racial vilification laws are totalitarian and quasi-fascist in nature.

Making Political Opposition Illegal

The racial vilification law creates a "political crime" (and therefore "political prisoners"?) designed to suppress public opposition to the views of the current Establishment.

It is the same situation as the "political crime" created by the Australian anti-republican law of 1900, when the Establishment's ideology was monarchism, whereby republicans were considered as extremists. Under section 12 of the New South Wales Crimes Act, it is still technically a criminal offence to promote republicanism.

Nowadays, with the Establishment's ideology being Multiculturalism, not only has the federal government got a racial vilification law, but several Australian states have also passed their own such laws. New South Wales even has a law against "homosexual vilification" (incredible!).

Whether someone's views are republican, "racist", anti-Asianisation, anti-Multiculturalism, anti-immigration, anti-homosexual, or whatever, is irrelevant; all Australians have the basic right to speak freely, and any government trying to impose its world-view on the people of Australia makes it equal to any tyrannical or fascist regime.

Racial vilification laws, planned for years by people like Al Grassby and others in the multicultural industry, are authoritarian decrees cloaked under the guise of the "common good" of their Multicultural ideology. In actual fact; these laws are not democratic, but are the work of the Multiculturalist New Nazis.

A Telling Quote

One political leader has said that people should not make the mistake of confusing "freedom of expression with the freedom to insult".

Which Australian politician said that?

Actually, this quote comes from Iran's Muslim fundamentalist President Khamenei, defending Ayatollah Khomeini's death edict upon Salman Rushdie for writing the book The Satanic Verses (5).

As solicitor David Allen has pointed out, "The extremity of the threat against Salman Rushdie should not obscure the fact that they are based on the same rationale as racial vilification legislation - the supposed need to suppress and punish odious views. It is done in the name of truth and justice" (6).

Australia's Multicultural Nazis are in good company.

So-called racial vilification laws are authoritarian, insulting, and downright disgusting.

Quotes Of Note

"Free speech is fundamental to us as a democracy. Democracy is impossible without a realm of free public discourse to which all citizens are in principle entitled to contribute and, on the basis of which, citizens can assert, develop and modify their political and other decisions and preferences... But free expression is not just one value in a democracy. It is a central and indispensable condition of a democratic society".
Martin Krygier, Associate Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales (7).

"As the Nazis showed on numerous occasions, when you wish to persuade people to support unlovely objectives, you should always ignore reason and aim for the emotional jugular. The modus operandi of proponents of this legislation shows that not all the tactics of the Nazis are, today, being eschewed by people who, sixty years ago and in another place, would have been their victims".
John Stone, Senior Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs (8).

"Free speech has never been an absolute right. By any reasonable standards, incitement of racial hatred is an abuse of free speech."
Robert Chong, from the Communities' Council on Ethnic Issues (9).

American comedian and former rabbi Jackie Mason says that he is able to express in public, through comedy, what everyone is thinking but would never say, except in private; and says that people are reticent to express publicly the commonly-held views that Mason puts forward:
"That's the comment I get from everyone. They're all too intimidated to say what's on their minds. They don't even realise they have given up freedom of speech in this country. People say you're not allowed to express yourself in a dictatorship; they don't even realise they've lost their freedom of speech here, too. Whether they're intimidated by society or the system, what difference does it make? People just don't disagree with you - they call you a racist. What way can you call this a free country?"(10). This situation of social intimidation is the same in Australia.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (11).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Attributed to Voltaire (Françoise Marie Arouet), French philosopher, 1694-1778 (12).

The Multicultural Nazis

A favourite tactic of Multiculturalists is to label anyone opposed to Multiculturalism and Asianisation as "racist", "fascist", or "Nazi". The irony is that all these labels actually apply to themselves. They are the New Nazis, hiding under the cloak of democracy.

Consider the reality of Multicultural Nazism:

1) Their vision of a new Eurasian "Master Race" (anti-white racism).

For example, we could look at the statement of Bill Hayden (then Labour's Foreign Minister, and later Governor General), "It is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country... I happen to think that's desirable". Hayden also said that Australia "should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society... we will become not just a multicultural society - which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway - we will become a Eurasian society and we will be all the better for it" (13).

The fact that the Asianisation of Australia necessarily entails the demise of the Australian People shows that Multiculturalism and Asianisation are policies advocating anti-White genocide.

2) They want to lock you up if you disagree with them (the fascist theory of "might is right").

For example, listen to the words of multiculturalist Robert Chong (from the Communities' Council on Ethnic Issues): "Intentional incitement of racial hatred where it is likely to succeed against a person or group on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin should be punishable by a jail term."(14)

3) Create a Nazi-like climate of fear and social intimidation where students, workmates, and neighbours are always careful as to whom they share their views with, in case they lose their job, lose business contracts, be subjected to smear campaigns by multiculturalists and extremist "lefties", or suffer heavily biased media harassment. Are Australians now to be afraid of being "dobbed in" to the Orwellian "thought police"? The "politically correct", especially in the media, are always ready to wage campaigns of intimidation and victimisation against true-blue Australians.

It is particularly interesting to note that in the days of the White Australia Policy it was never illegal to publicly support multiculturalism or multiracialism, as in Australia the introduction of draconian anti-freedom of speech laws regarding race seem to be confined to those who consider themselves as "tolerant" and "liberal". The current major political parties in Australia seem to belong to the "You can say anything you like, just as long as I don't disagree with it too much" school of hypocritical thought. It was the same generations who introduced the White Australia Policy that introduced democracy into Australia; presumably it will be the Multiculturalists who will be the ones to erode away all of our hard-won freedoms bit by bit.

Racial Vilification Laws have been introduced specifically in an attempt to suppress organised opposition to the Establishment's policies of Multiculturalism and Asianisation, and to scare ordinary Australians into silence.

Oppose Racial Vilification Laws!

Support Freedom of Speech!


(1) "Racial Vilification Amendment", Reform, Autumn 1993, p. 24.
Dan, Nguyen Trieu. "Shift Focus of Racist Hate Debate to Victims", The Australian, 3 November 1994, p. 9.
(2) "The Reporting of Intolerance", The Age, 1 May 1993, p. 16.
(3) "Does Australia Need a Racial Vilification Law?" (section written by John Stone), Quadrant, November 1994, p. 10.
Easterbrook, Margaret. "Bill Outlawing Racial Slurs May Go On Hold", The Age, 27 February 1993, p. 21.
(4) Uhlmann, Mark. "From the Editor", The Record, Spring Issue, No. 3 for 1994, p. 1.
(5) Smith, William E. "The New Satans", Time, 6 March 1989, p. 23.

    Similar extremist anti-freedom of speech comments by Muslim leaders have been made over Salman Rushdie and his book The Satanic Verses:

    "How can the West advocate respect for human rights on the one hand and on the other be indifferent to the insult against the holiest belief of more than 1 billion people in the world?".
    (Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister)
    Watson, Russell. "A Satanic Fury", The Bulletin, 28 February 1989, p. 58.

    "You are abusing your rights of freedom of expression to abuse and cause hurt to almost half of the world's population".
    (Dr. Omar Lum, Vice President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils)
    "Peace and Goodwill", The Bulletin, 24 October 1989, p. 12.

    Such attempts at suppressing freedom of speech are evil and disgusting, no matter whether it is in relation to supposed "blasphemy" of Islam or to supposed "blasphemy" of Multiculturalism.

(6) Allen, David. "The Issue of Racial Vilification", Law Institute Journal, August 1990, p. 709.
(7) Krygier, Martin. "Does Australia Need a Racial Vilification Law?" (section written by Martin Krygier), Quadrant, November 1994, p. 21.
(8) "Does Australia Need a Racial Vilification Law?" (section written by John Stone), Quadrant, November 1994, p. 10.
(9) Chong, Robert. "Head to Head: Should People Found Guilty Of Racist Comments Be Jailed?", Herald Sun, 7 September 1995, p. 12.
(10) Shmith, Michael. "Pastrami On Wry", The Age, 29 October, 1994, Saturday Extra section, p. 13.
(11) "Free Speech: Reaching the Boundries in Australia", Australian Society, October 1988, p. 24.
(12) See: Kaplan, Justin (ed.) Familiar Quotations (Bartlett's), 16th edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1992, p. 307.
(13) "For Australia, a "Eurasian" Role", Asiaweek, 19 August 1983, p. 7.
Smark, Peter. "Hayden Hope for a Eurasian Australia", The Age, 11 May 1983, pp. 1, 6.
(14) Chong, Robert. "Head to Head: Should People Found Guilty Of Racist Comments Be Jailed?", Herald Sun, 7 September 1995, p. 12.

1 March 1998