We’re often told that Australia has no fixed identity—no particular ethnic identity, no particular cultural identity. According to our political class, we are merely a patchwork of peoples, customs and beliefs, and no group can ever claim to be more or less “Australian” than any other. That is the vision they promote, and the narrative they work hard to cement into the public mind.
But the moment the government decides to deport someone because his religion, views or opinions are deemed “un-Australian,” an obvious question arises: according to what standard? If “Australian” means everything and anything, then who gets to decide what is suddenly out-of-bounds? What is the objective measure, the criteria by which certain people, customs or beliefs are judged incompatible with the nation?
We’re repeatedly told that such criteria cannot exist—that appealing to a standard of “Australian” fundamentally contradicts the very essence of a multicultural society. If “Australian” is all cultures, then it cannot exclude any culture. And yet in practice, the government is selective. Some beliefs are labelled acceptable; others are condemned as un-Australian. Their actions reveal a contradiction between the inclusive rhetoric and the exclusive reality. So which is it?
The moment you declare certain people or cultures “incompatible with Australia,” you have acknowledged a higher standard—some cultural or moral benchmark to which all must conform. And by doing so, you have implicitly denied the premise of radical multiculturalism. You have admitted that Australia does have a culture, does have a set of norms, and does have a dominant worldview to which others are expected to submit.
So what is that culture? What is the underlying creed? What is the functional religion of Australia—the one before which all others must bow?
The government will not say it, because the answer is inconveniently clear. Having rejected Christianity, which was once the moral and cultural basis of the nation, the state has made itself the new Church. Again, we were warned to fear the Church becoming the State, but that fear served as a distraction from the opposite reality—the State becoming the Church. Today, “Australian values” are whatever those in power declare them to be, shifting at their discretion and enforced at their whim.
In the absence of an acknowledged higher standard, the highest standard becomes the will of the state itself. When a nation rejects God, it does not become neutral—it simply enthrones the state in His place. They might preach an inclusive Australia, but only insofar as it achieves their ends.
And haven’t we seen that in recent days? According to reports, South African White nationalist Matthew Gruter is set to be deported after attending a protest outside Federal Parliament, despite committing no criminal offence.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed the cancellation of Gruter’s visa on “character grounds,” stating that those who attended the rally were un-Australian. Because attempts to drag Australia into a fascist dictatorship where the state defines morality and deports anyone who doesn’t meet its arbitrary definition of “Australian” is clearly something they’re opposed to, right?
Did they really just say all that on national TV?
— Bec Freedom (@BecFreedom) November 18, 2025
Those Africans running around Australia with machetes must be doing it in a nice and loving way. That's why they get to stay here. 🙄 pic.twitter.com/MmqXbmamwl
In a separate case last week, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal restored the visa of an Afghan immigrant who was convicted of sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl in Melbourne. The 28-year-old man had previously faced deportation due to the criminal offence.
The Noticer reports that the man, “a Shia Muslim of Hazara ethnicity, was convicted of sexual assault in 2018, spared jail, given a 18-month community corrections order – which he violated – and put on the sex offenders register, and in August this year had his visa cancelled on character grounds.
The outlet continues: “On Thursday, the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia restored his visa, taking into account the fact that his entire intergenerational family has moved to Australia except for his sister, and that he would face a ‘distinct and real risk’ of harm if he was forced to return to Afghanistan.”
If attending a police-approved, non-violent “Neo-Nazi” rally warrants immediate deportation, despite having no criminal conviction, then why not violent crime? Why not Melbourne’s machete-wielding thugs? It’s the selectivity that highlights the hypocrisy of the whole thing. And the nature of the debate is such that anyone who raises an objection is going to immediately be accused of “defending Nazis.”
But that is a baseless charge, really. Jesus could defend the woman caught in adultery without condoning everything she ever did. What we know, however, is that God hates unequal weights and measures (Prov. 20:23), and we should too. At present, it appears the sword of justice is being wielded selectively, and that means, unfairly.
Of course, we should care about justice, but it must be equal justice—not ideological vengeance. That is the essence of God’s Law. It is what it means to love even our enemies. This is the Christian ethic that once shaped our nation’s religion, culture, and identity— an ethic we traded away for a state-sanctioned religion of political expediency—where anything and everything is “Australian,” until the government arbitrarily says otherwise.
