28th, 30th August 2001.


Allan Jones is "the other" top radio journalist in Sydney (c.f. John Laws) and by extension, in Australia.  Listening to his show this morning (28th August 2001) SPIN was struck by the revelation that ethnic criminal gangs can now summon help faster than the police.

The news item detailed how a pair of police accosted a pair of Lebanese who were behaving reprehensibly.  The police called in reinforcements, and, using their mobile phones, so did the miscreants.  When police reinforcements arrived they found a pair of badly beaten up policemen.

Another item detailed an incident where a policeman in a similar situation was able to fend off ethnics by discharging his handgun into the air.  He was reportedly concerned at the time that the gang members might retaliate with guns but that "fortunately, in this instance, none seemed to have been carrying a gun". When police reinforcements arrived they found one beaten up & one frightened policeman.

Perhaps, as some elements of the liberal press are suggesting, there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to vilify muslims and ethnic arabs.

Another interpretation is that arab criminality has been festering for a long time in our multicultural society, protected by the scab of political correctness.

That same political correctness has prevented an earlier diagnosis of the ethnic roots of this disease & suitable inoculation.   Now the disease has erupted beyond the limits where a "politically correct" Band-Aid can continue to staunch the ethnic roots of this violence.

Analysis of the situation is:

The prognosis is that unless something new is introduced, the "thin blue line" must inevitably be overwhelmed.  Possible solutions:
  1. More police and more jails. This alone will not solve the problem of ethnic crime gangs in the "common law" legal system.
  2. Legislate police power to include the right to tap into or deny mobile telephone communications.
  3. Permit the public to defend itself by allowing the purchase of handguns by any person without a criminal conviction.
There are rather obvious problems with each of those.


As a libertarian, SPIN has difficulty with the philosophy behind the restriction of immigrants into Australia.  If people want to live in our country, then why should they not be permitted to enter?  Are we so concerned with nationalistic issues?  Are we afraid that a flood of immigrants will make a political takeover of our country?  True, most refugees come from regions of the world where violence is rife.  They bring that violent cultural experience into Australia, and in absorbing them our society must inevitably become more violent.

The irregular immigrants (boat people) entering Australia seem very aggressive.  The flow seems to be increasing exponentially.  In the most recent incident more than four hundred persons reportedly from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan & Pakistan were rescued from a sinking ship off the coast of Indonesia.  They claimed to be refugees, yet they threatened the Norwegian captain of the "Tampa" with suicide until he agreed to take them to a modern western country, not to the nearest port, which was Indonesia or Singapore.  Australia's Christmas Island was the closest territory that fitted their demands.

Many irregular immigrants seem to come from nations where a single dictator or clique rules with the proverbial "iron fist".   When Australians consented to the signing of the UN protocol on refugees, we perhaps had an impression that the test for refugee status would be stronger, that only political activists having public status would apply.  Not just (as it seems) those who are mostly economic refugees or criminals who have sufficient funds (obtained how, SPIN wonders?) to pay the "people smugglers".

Perhaps it would be better if all irregular immigrants claiming refugee status were refused entry.  In this way their thoughts might concentrate on the methods that might be employed to bring about reforms to the political processes in their own country, rather than how to raise the funds to pay people smugglers.

It is recent history that the citizens of many western democracies brought about their own reforms, mostly by violent and bloody revolution.   Reforms were frequently more hazardous because of the existence of foreign powers that had alliances with the displaced governing clique, as for instance Austrian opposition to the French revolution, or UK opposition to the US revolution.  At least any successful revolutionaries in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan would not have the problem of contending with inimical external governments.

(30 August)  It appears that our Prime Minister has been outmaneuvered by the Norwegian government at Christmas Island. The simplest action now is to accept the refugees and then return them all to their respective countries.  All that would be required would be legislation that prevented illegal immigrants without any papers from entering Australia.


The solution proposed by John Laws and Pauline Hanson et al of reducing foreign aid to Indonesia unless they take the refugees is interesting.  A close examination of just what foreign aid is provided would probably find that the majority of aid went to providers such as "Johnny & Partner immigration Legal Services" or "Kim's instruction module for establishing A Trade Union", or even "Paul's Piggery Exporting Company".  My point being that the foreign aid offered is probably nearly useless to the recipients, and SPIN suspects that most of the benefit is to the exporting company that is getting rid of unwanted or outdated stock at a premium price.

Indonesia is a neighbor and we should not involve the Indonesian people in any arguments with Megawati, who because her father was murdered by Suharto with Western support is probably not our closest admirer.

The real problem in Australia is the judicial system.  Most judges were appointed as representatives of the "boomer" generation, and are committed to the so called "Politically Correct" attitudes of that era.  Perhaps Australians need a revision to the constitutional mechanism that will encourage the justice division to adopt a contemporary approach to judicial issues.

That means equal sentences for everybody.   No special treatment of ethnic minorities because of "cultural" issues.  No special reductions of sentence for serious crimes just because the criminal is a "youth" or a "first offender".  Sentences should be a harsh Nemesis in the name of the victims, not a reform camp for mistreated juvenile recidivists.  Jail is not meant to be easy.

This also means that we expect those who claim to be refugees should be able to prove their status with documents, not merely make assertions and expect to obtain the benefit of doubt where their story is unverifiable.  Our judges should be encouraged to understand that the Australian community expects them to reject refugees on the same grounds as the Jakarta office of the UNHCR, which reportedly rejects 90% of applicants, rather than accepting 90% as does the Australian Justice system.


email here