Monday, December 17, 2012

$375m from foreign aid for asylum seekers

THE federal government will divert up to $375 million this financial year from its foreign aid budget to support asylum seekers who are being processed in the Australian community. THIS CLEARLY SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT AUSTRALIA REWARDS QUEUE JUMPERS AND LETS NEEDY PEOPLE OVERSEAS DIE The use of the money is part of the government's battle for savings as it tries to keep its promise to deliver a surplus, and also reflects the bigger than expected influx of people coming on boats, which is putting additional pressure on costs. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said the aid budget - $5.2 billion in 2012-13 - was not being cut. He said the use of the funds for asylum seekers being processed locally was in line with OECD guidelines for the allocation of foreign aid. It was done by the US, France, Canada and others. Paris Aristotle: "If everyone stays in their trenches, then we won't protect anyone." But the aid sector reacted angrily. Advertisement The head of World Vision, Tim Costello, accused the government of ''sleight of hand'' and said Australia was disappointing the rest of the world. He said one of the big arguments in Australia's successful Security Council bid was that it had been increasing its aid budget. That budget is 0.35 per cent of gross national income with a promise that it will rise to 0.5 per cent. The May budget pushed out the timetable for getting to 0.5 per cent by a year; it is due to be achieved in 2016-17. Mr Costello questioned the lack of transparency by the government, and called on it to say which part of the aid budget would suffer from the diversion of funds. ''Will it be health? Will it be education?'' He said money was not diverted from the aid budget to, for instance, indigenous programs, even though some of these people were living in third world conditions. When the story was broken by the Ten Network, Senator Carr initially responded: ''I'm just saying to you that Australia's got a big generous aid budget. We're very proud of that.'' Later he said: ''Money spent on refugees within a country is legitimate aid.'' Mr Carr's spokesman said the funds would only be spent on asylum seekers who were yet to be processed or were being processed, not on people judged to be refugees. Under the government's policy to discourage people coming on boats, those who get refugee status could be in the community for up to five years without the right to work, living on welfare payments. Senator Carr said on Monday night the money would be spent on ''basic subsistence''. ''This will cover food, shelter and other essential items.'' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said: ''Not only can Australians not trust Julia Gillard, the rest of the world can't rely on her word.'' The Australian Council for International Development - which brings together non-government aid bodies - said the decision was a breach of trust between the government and the public. It would ''strip money from the world's poorest'', said executive director Marc Purcell

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Married For A Minute

Over the "Canada" Day long weekend, a Calgary group is holding a conference called The Power of Unity: Islam in a MultiCultural Canada. "Abraham Ayache, chairman of the Muslim Council of Calgary, said the conference is being organized to celebrate 50 years of Islam in Calgary and is all about unity and celebrating multiculturalism. ... A recent posting on the MCC website under the heading 'Ask the Imam' seems to indicate that some of the organization's hired imams haven't read the memo about cultural tolerance and unity. In answer to a question by a single mother concerned about her children no longer being obedient to her, an imam on the site wrote: 'You should instil a hatred for this culture and its ways in the hearts of your children.' He also wrote: 'It is haraam (forbidden) for you to give your children free rein in forming friendships with the children of the kuffaar.'Kuffaar, or kufir, is synonymous with infidel or nonbeliever. Translation: the vast majority of Canadian society." (Calgary Herald, June 7, 2012) ***************************************************************************************** This recoiling from the dirty ways of the immoral infidel is a trademark response wherever Islam encounters the wider world. But apart from veiling and refusing to shake hands with women, what's it like to be morally irreproachable? "In the Islamic Republic of Iran, sex outside of marriage is a crime, punishable by up to 100 lashes or, in the case of adultery, death by stoning. Yet, the purpose of a temporary marriage is clear from its name in Arabic—mut'a, pleasure. A man and a woman may contract a mut'a for a finite period of time—from minutes to 99 years or more—and for a specific mehr [payment, in the Farsi language], which the man owes the woman. ... Remarkably, Iran's Shiite clerics not only tolerate sigheh [the Farsi name for the contractual, um, union], but actively promote it as an important element of the country's official religion. 'Temporary marriages must be bravely promoted,' the interior minister said at a clerical conference in [the holy city of] Qom in 2007. 'Islam is in no way indifferent to the needs of a 15-year-old youth in whom God has placed the sex drive.' Yet, the Iranian mullahs' efforts to rehabilitate sigheh have met a stubborn core of resistance—particularly from feminists, who decry the practice as a kind of 'Islamic prostitution.' ... At the time of the prophet Muhammad, in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, temporary marriage was already common in Arabia, and many Islamic scholars believe he recommended it in circumstances such as pilgrimage, travel, and war. Most Shiites go a step further, maintaining that the practice is endorsed by the Koran. The second caliph, Umar, banned temporary marriage, but Shiites reject his authority because they believe he usurped Muhammad's rightful heir, his son-in-law Ali. The Pahlavi shahs, who ruled Iran until 1979, sought to delegitimize temporary unions as backward, but after the revolution, the Islamic authorities moved to reclaim the tradition. *************************************************************************************** In 1990, President Hashemi Rafsanjani offered a widely noted sermon on the practice, emphasizing that sexual relations aren't shameful. He encouraged young couples to contract marriages 'for a month or two'—and to do it entirely on their own if they felt shy about going to a mullah to register the union. Two decades later, Iran's Shiite clerics continue to endorse temporary marriage as a sexual escape valve. (Sunni variations on the theme are also on the rise throughout the Middle East.) In an interview at his home in Qom, the conservative ayatollah Sayyid Reza Borghei Mudaris offered a list of who might benefit from temporary marriage: a financially strapped widow; a young widow—'She answers her needs because if she doesn't, she will have psychological problems'; a man who cannot afford a permanent marriage; and a married man with domestic problems who needs 'a kind of medicine.' ... While the ayatollahs see temporary marriage as good for both sexes, feminists point out its lopsided nature: It is largely the prerogative of wealthy married men, and the majority of women in sighehs are divorced, widowed, or poor. Only a man has the right to renew a sigheh when it expires—for another mehr [payment]—or to terminate it early. While women may have only one husband at a time, men may have four wives and are permitted unlimited temporary wives. ... Yet, women do derive some benefits from sigheh. Children born of sighehs are considered legitimate, and entitled to a share of their father's inheritance. In a permanent marriage, the family usually negotiates a dowry on the bride's behalf; a woman entering a temporary marriage sets her own terms. A temporary wife has no right to maintenance or inheritance, but she also has fewer obligations than her permanent counterpart—her duty to obey her husband encompasses only sex." (Mother Jones, March/April 2010) ************************************************************************************** [This article appears in the August, 2012 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, May 8, 2012


Australia First is pleased to offer the new email address for all parties to contact. The old email address is now closed .

Monday, May 7, 2012

Inverbrackie: Collaboration Lauded By Hills Courier

The Hills Courier (April 25) has once again spoken out in favour of the Inverbrackie Detention Centre. It has quoted at length Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and his especially commissioned report into the workings of the Centre. We have found it quite amazing, almost surreal, that this report could serious in asserting that nearly 300 jobs could be created for Hills residents. Jobs – for what? Working to achieve the recolonization of your country is not work, but treason. The report indicated that the so-called ‘refugees’ were coping well and that the schools were perfect models of friendly multiculturalism. When one throws vast sums of money at ‘projects’ and polices playgrounds and Parents and Citizens’ groups and so forth, a type of quiet resignation prevails. However, that is not the real position. We were right to have said at the start that many people would seemingly go silent under the glare of media lights. None of that means that they have ‘agreed’ to accept the Centre. Australia First Party has continued resistance and many local people continue to silently and obstructively resist. Because our party set out the model of the Community Strike, the government was forced to spend vast sums on its frauds. We have waged a type of economic guerrilla war against the system and we say quite openly that the day will surely come that the state will surely be short of cash. The multinational SERCO has profited from the centre as have local collaborators. The identities of many of these people are known. During the winter months, Australia First Party will be active in the Adelaide Hills.

One Nation Leader Objects To Our Analysis: Our Reply

A leader in One Nation has protested our article on the crisis in his party. In the interests of fairness, we acknowledge this protest We re-state, over the protest, that at no point was our criticism meant as an ‘attack’ upon One Nation. Rather, Australia First Party acknowledges the quality and commitment to the patriotic struggle of the vast majority of One Nation members. We have worked – and will continue to work – with many of them. But our recent criticism has been one concerning small cliques of so-called ‘leaders’ and particular mainstreamist ideological trends initiated and supported by them. We say that these persons and their ‘ideas’ have engendered the crisis of the party. It has been put to us that we erred when we stated that One Nation might lose its party registration shortly; it was said that One Nation’s registration was just affirmed. The registration of the One Nation party was indeed affirmed last week by the Australian Electoral Commission. However, in reply to our friend, we state that this does not obviate our point that there are forces operating to formally divide One Nation (indeed, they have essentially done so). Whether this registration can now be maintained is the question. It was put to us that we were wrong to say that One Nation had deviated from its policies. It is true that the policies may well have stayed the same. What has changed is the ideological underpinning of these policies. It is that which endangers the interpretation of the policies. The Queensland clique, with their commitment to multiracial assimilation (ie anyone can come to Australia if he ‘assimilates’), the over-concentration on the Islamic migration question (to the detriment of a generalised critique of all immigration) and the offerings to endorse the so-called ‘conservative’ Liberal National Party – point to precisely a satellite position towards the reactionary Coalition about which we have spoken. We cannot see that the Queensland One Nation leadership offers anything that the Liberals could not accommodate. They have betrayed the spirit of the policies. It would be wrong of us to do anything other than offer our political support to the fairdinkum people in One Nation against any who would bring it down. A withering away of the party is in no one’s interest. In our original article, we spoke of the ‘three tier method’ and party building. We have said for some time that if One Nation pursued an electoralist method – it would ultimately fade away. We urge One Nation members to study that question. What is relevant to the nationalist struggle is that those who are true to the original One Nation line, take an independent position. On that basis, it is time they started talking to Australia First. It is not the name ‘One Nation’ that is important. It is the cause. If the organisation has been white-anted and betrayed that does not prevent good people from rebelling and taking the nationalist road. Once again, we affirm our essential friendship for the true upholders of One Nation. But we say – it is time to move on.

Friday, April 13, 2012

A Message to Current and Former One Nation Members:

This statement is intended as a positive, constructive message to the One Nation party, addressed in good faith to all members of One Nation -- and particularly to those members who still want to make a difference and who are now, or soon will be, considering their options.

It is not in any way an attack on One Nation or the many good people who joined that party for a variety of worthy reasons.

Nor is it an exercise in "triumphalism".

Rather it is an earnest attempt to get to grips with a simple matter of fact –that the One Nation Party is now in terminal decline– and to ask, constructively, the obvious question: what options are now available to members of One Nation who still wish to be active, to be part of a change for the better, to confront and overcome the corrupt globalist system that we all, on the nationalist side of politics, must and do oppose?

The options are, as we hope you will see it :
1) attempt to resurrect One Nation
2) give up and admit defeat

3) do something else.

It is option one that brings us straight to the crux of the matter.

One Nation was a lightning rod for an angry, disillusioned and mobilised population. But those days of early triumph and the One Nation juggernaut have long since gone.

One Nation's current leadership has allowed the party to drift away from its original purpose to expose and attack the various forces at work in the sell-off and sell-out of traditional Australia. Under the specific direction of certain individuals, there has in particular been a complete retreat from one of the core complaints that defined the early One Nation party: namely, the Asianisation of Australia. One Nation once clearly opposed this attack on our national identity. It is now equally clear that this is not longer the case.

Pauline Hanson has vanished from Australia's political scene. There is no indication that she will ever be back. Nor has any individual emerged with her qualities who might plausibly revive the populism that underpinned the One Nation phenomenon.

As things stand, One Nation is facing an imminent crisis. The party likely faces Federal de-registration very soon. Some State branches are in sufficiently good shape to withstand similar moves in their own State electoral systems for perhaps some time to come, but the process nevertheless is very much a one-way ride to nowhere.

All in all, the picture would seem grim if we were to suppose that the continued survival of the One Nation party structure and its "brand" were somehow essential to the work that One Nation and its members set out to do.

Fortunately this is not the case.

That said, if One Nation as an entity cannot survive, what are its members to do?

The second option is to do nothing: give up and retire from active work.

While we do not support this option, we note it because the human spirit has its limits and --sadly-- a great many people have been, and will continue to be, burnt out by the long slumber and slow destruction of One Nation. Further, we mention this option because, if a suitable opportunity for real activism is not made apparent to One Nation members and soon, many more may take this path.

So we must look to the third option: find some other way to "fight the fight". Here there is a choice to be made.

There is the Katter party, of course. We have concerns about the Katter party, in particular its insistence on increasing our population no matter what the cost. We quote from their website: "Australia needs to increase its population to achieve acceptable levels of economic, scientific, strategic and personal development. Government must develop immigration and birth rate policies consistent with these principles. In addition, the population growth needs to be distributed widely throughout Australia and especially into northern Australia." Reference: Point 21 of the Australian Party's Values and Principles -- see

The implications of this policy are clear: mass immigration into Australia's north.

Nevertheless we acknowledge that some One Nation people will get on board with Bob Katter on the grounds that he is (they will say) a patriot, a populist and a strong new force in the political scene. We will see what transpires, but note that the Katter phenomenon looks very much like a new variation on the Hanson phenomenon. Yes, there are points of difference, but overall we see a similar strategy, with electoral work being the only focus of the organisation, as well as similar structures -- the "strong" leadership figure and a support base of disillusioned people, but once again no attempt to unite the party around a single, consistent view of the national question.

If the Katter group turns into another One Nation, the danger is that yet again many good people will be first directed into what we feel to be futile vote-chasing efforts, probably for a number of years, and then, when it is all over, a large number of those people will leave yet another organisation disillusioned, worn out and ready to quit the fight for good.

There has to be a better option.

It is the view of Australia First that this better option is to break free from the obsession with vote-chasing and adopt a broader strategy in which electoral work is combined with -- and at times very much subordinate to -- community campaigns and educational work of all sorts.

We have outlined this strategy before:
"The Australia First Party is an incorporation registered as a Federal party. That does not mean that its function is only to contest elections. The party operates to the ‘three tier method’. This means that the party contests elections, wages community campaigns of all sorts to build links with fellow Australians and to unite all Australians - and develops its ideas and principles into an Australianist ideology that also carries on a cultural defence of Australianity against globalisation. The three tiers operate as a unity." ( )

We suggest to One Nation members that this kind of approach is the one to which they too should turn their attention and efforts. We make this recommendation to all activists and would-be activists, regardless whether they remain for a time within what is left of the One Nation structure, leave the party and operate on their own for a time, join the Katter party, or eventually come over to Australia First, by whatever circuitous route they may take. We are not out to exclude or vilify good people. We do however point out that this three-tier approach to activism was largely absent in One Nation, despite the best efforts of some members to change this fact. One Nation, as a whole, sought only to engage with ordinary Australians as "ballot-box fodder". We hope the Katter party will be different, but fear that it too is caught up in the hypnotic dance of the electoral cycle and will likely remain so until its eventual demise.

Only in the Australia First party is such a broad and dynamic strategy front and centre, supported and nurtured by the organisation at every level. Therefore we say to One Nation members: consider your situation. You are a great asset to our nation's cause, if only you will keep up the fight. We have suggested the only option we believe will allow you to do so. When you are ready, we will welcome you.