Freedom of the press requires a societal framework that empowers free speech. So it’s rare to witness the Australian media unite together in order to tear down an Australian politician for speaking his mind.
However, what most in the Australian media expressed to the world in their dealings with Fraser Anning this week, is that free speech is only available to a select, and authorized few.
It would appear that Senator Fraser Anning’s biggest sin wasn’t his poorly timed press release, but the fact that he spoke out of turn about things that should not concern him. In other words, Anning is not “approved opposition”.
Had Senator Anning been a woman, or someone of minority status, the 17-year-old perpetrator, who filmed himself physically assaulting an elected Australian official, would have been toast by now.
He’d have been dragged through the mud, and beaten until he, his friends, his parents and some fifth cousin, in some backwards town (someone, living somewhere, he rarely ever saw), were all forced into admitting he did the wrong thing, and was consequently made to attend mandatory cultural sensitivity “classes”.
Those well acquainted with the globalist media, and the Leftist cult of modern liberalism in general know this is exactly how it would go down.
Instead, the crime was applauded, the perpetrator hailed a hero, and Senator Anning was further driven towards the guillotine, by a Leftist lead mob, hell-bent on his destruction.
This same mob, who were right to condemn the premeditated, internet streamed, Eco-fascist terrorist attacks in New Zealand, now seem only too happy to give applause to premeditated, internet streamed, physical assault.
The condemnation of Anning also included ridiculous attacks on the 69-year-old Queensland senator for exercising his right defend to himself.
Anning’s reaction was slammed as unbecoming of a statesman, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, saying, ‘the full force of the law should be applied’1 to the Senator – presumably because Anning hit back.
In addition, Seven news ran an online poll which showed significant support for the Senator’s arrest. It also showed a poll which suggested support for, what amounts to the police turning a blind eye to the actions of the assailant.
It doesn’t take a security expert to know that Anning would have a long list of death threats already made against him. Those are bound to make anyone giving a public appearance reason enough for concern for their own personal safety.
Prime Minister’s have a security detail for this very reason.
The largely Leftist controlled media cannot have it one way, then another.
For example, when in July 2010, ‘a 55-year-old small business owner was charged by police for throwing an egg at Julia Gillard in her first visit to WA as Prime Minister.’ (WAToday)
If a 55-year-old throwing an egg at an elected politician is considered a crime, other than his young age, why is a 17-year-old smashing an egg into the head of a politician treated differently?
None of this has been taken into consideration. Suggesting that thinking rationally about why a high profile politician would defend himself is counter-productive to the group-think used to suck in the gullible.
Anning stuffed up with the timing of his press release, but demonizing him, just because he doesn’t hold to the globalist views of most in the elitist Australian media, is opportunistic.
The same can be said for not showing any level of fairness or understanding. It feeds the self-interest of Anning’s enemies, to selectively use some of Anning’s points to further build the “white supremacist” narrative they appear to be determined to construct, not just around Anning, but everyone who doesn’t side with them.
This determination to link what happened in New Zealand with everyone, not of the Left was exemplified by the violent mistreatment of Pauline Hanson,2 when she was interviewed on Sunrise, by David Koch and Darryn Hinch. Yet, there was no outrage from the usual quarters, accusing Koch and Hinch of “mansplaining”, “toxic masculinity” or “misogyny”.
Qantas joining the press posse3 looking to lynch Anning only goes to prove my point. Qantas management jumping on the virtue-signalling bandwagon, are doing so because they see a profit in capitalizing on a shell-shocked and angry public. Adding the Australian corporation to the list of globalist voices trying not only to somehow link Fraser Anning to the New Zealand shooting but label him a terrorist, gets them publicity. Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
Don’t miss the irony. Carrying out a premeditated act of violence is a crime. Whether it be committed via egg or gun; dismissing the former, gives quiet approval to the latter. It’s hypocritical to laugh at the former. Then condemn the latter.
If the media and celebrities can get away with their attempt to destroy Fraser Anning, and get away with justifying the actual crime committed against him, don’t think they wouldn’t do the same to you.
As warned by ex-leftist, turned Conservative Philosopher, Roger Scruton:
Once again I was forced to acknowledge that crimes committed on the Left are not really crimes, and in any case those who excuse them or pass over them in silence always have the best motives for doing so […] From the beginning, labels were required that would stigmatize the enemies [of the Communist movement] within and justify their expulsion […] The success of those labels in marginalizing and condemning the opponent fortified the communist conviction that you could change reality by changing words […]The purpose of communist Newspeak, has been to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.4
For Leftism to gain total control, it requires Leftists to seek the total destruction of anything not of the Left. Any crime or injustice committed, by the Left, in the process of achieving this, is not considered to be unjust or a crime. It’s simply a means to an end, and the end justifies the means.
Anning isn’t completely innocent. He often appears reactionary, not all that, unlike the late, Bruce Ruxton. Is there a place for some of Anning’s points, absolutely! Is there a place for hotheaded, reactionary politicians, no.
One of Anning’s strengths, however, is that he is no mediocre politician. He doesn’t come off as self-serving, and he has the balls to say what many think, or are concerned about, but fear speaking. He can do better and should aim to do better.
However, given the activism, diatribes and vitriolic standards set by Leftism, will the Leftist dominated society we now live in, take notice of anyone else? They haven’t so far. And they’ve successfully silenced those who have sought to dialogue with the Left on fair terms.
When you send smart delegates into a diplomatic meeting between two camps, and one camp all-but executes the other, the time for “niceness” is probably at an end. A new strategy of diplomacy and communication needs to be applied.
I don’t condone all of Anning’s words, or approve of the timing of them, but when is the right time to discuss the discomfort many Australians feel about having new cultural laws imposed upon them?
The Leftist doesn’t want coexistence, they are out to destroy, control and dominate. Not just the Right, but the traditional Left as well. It’s unjust, naive and senseless, to sit back and let that happen.
If that means not beating about the bush with the truth, and hurting a few feelings in the process, so be it.
We all would benefit from keeping in mind the words of Margaret Thatcher in her 1984 address to the United States Congress: “Let us not forget the 1930’s […] from good intentions can come disastrous results.”
Appeasement only serves those being appeased. It rarely serves those doing the appeasing.
We would also benefit from keeping in mind the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said, “the ultimate possible rebellion, is that the lie [of the serpent] portrays the truth as a lie. That is the abyss that underlies the lie—that it lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie [and we fall for it].”
This is the dark precipice we are being guided towards by many of our leaders. It’s a precipice that few will survive, if the socio-political trends of the past two decades are allowed to continue, unchallenged and uncorrected.
In the process of pushing back against this, may we ALL be drawn back towards the words of Jesus Christ, as he lowered himself in the defense of a woman facing a Pharisaic death squad, “let he who is without sin, throw the first stone” (John 8:7).