Green loons are Pauline Hanson’s best friend

From Crikey comes founder of the Sustainable Australia Party William Bourke:

New South Wales Greens MP Jenny Leong’s recent New Matilda article entitled “Fascism Might Sound Like A Joke, But It’s No Laughing Matter” strengthened my view that the Greens actually sustain One Nation.

In the article, Leong absurdly lumps the political party I founded, Sustainable Australia, in with Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Pauline Hanson to represent ”the rise of fascism”. Why?

Because like the National Roads and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) and other transport experts, Sustainable Australia links immigration (the main driver of population growth) to traffic congestion. Presumably these experts are also to be thrown into Leong’s basket of fascists.

To be clear, Leong is wrong in both fact and logic. The Sustainable Australia campaign poster that Leong referred to in New Matilda actually called for “better public transport and lower immigration” to help ease road congestion, as we are supportive of a holistic approach that prioritises public transport investment over roads. But the opportunity to smear a centrist party was obviously too great for Leong. She wanted to create a perception that Sustainable Australia simply blames immigrants for traffic congestion.

Sadly for Leong, we don’t. We actually blame Coalition, Labor and Greens politicians for mismanaging this country and arrogantly dismissing complaints about declining living standards as fascism. Leong’s elitism actually breeds this discontent and drives people into the arms of the right-wing parties we now see gaining or regaining interest from middle Australia.

Some claim that our rapid population growth would be manageable if only we invested in ever more mass public transport. But that laudable goal is unrealistic.

Firstly, humans love the convenience of cars, and Leong has not convinced people to abandon them to get to work, the shops or to their kids’ sporting fields on a Saturday morning. And secondly, “diseconomies of scale” in our built-up suburbs has created a situation in which major new infrastructure is unaffordable due to its skyrocketing per unit costs.

This is particularly important as it is the Greens’ pet project to densify our existing suburbs with more apartments, in response to also unsustainable sprawl. We cannot cost-effectively drop in new hospitals, schools, recreational green space, train lines and roads throughout existing suburbs. We would need to sell off our public assets, increase rates and charges, cut back services and destroy our environment in a futile attempt to pay for such things … Oh wait!

But supply and demand economics goes way above the idealistic head of Leong.

When the Australia Institute reviewed all Victorian political parties’ — including the Greens’ — state election promises on public transport, it concluded that “it was evident no party had based its promise around meeting passenger demand induced by population growth”.

So how did the modern party come to this?

Green Left Weekly reports that we have to go back to the 1990s when the original Greens members supported exactly the same population policy that Sustainable Australia does now: “stabilising” population numbers (hence the same call for lower immigration).

For fear of being branded racist — or perhaps even fascist — by the far left, the Greens cleared the path for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation by vacating the middle ground on immigration numbers. It allowed John Howard to double immigration (more customers and cheap labour) for big business while using the distraction of stopping asylum seeker boats. The Greens have been played like a fiddle on immigration.

Most people agree that the community division exacerbated by Hanson’s comments about minority groups is highly regrettable, and it certainly rails against Sustainable Australia’s inclusive values. But polling shows that the community is overwhelmingly opposed to Australia’s rapid population growth. If our political elites refuse to address issues of importance to everyday Australians, more and more will turn to political alternatives. Cue Pauline Hanson from stage right.

For political advantage, when it comes to immigration, all Greens politicians ever want to talk about is refugees. This is bizarre given the fact that refugees only make up around 10%t of Australia’s record permanent immigration intake of over 200,000 per year, and also given the environmental origins of The Greens. Sweeping 90% of the immigration issue and our growing population growth pressures under the carpet not only betrays sustainability principles, it builds legitimate community frustration.

The Greens should now join Sustainable Australia in calling for lower immigration, from 200,000 permanent migrants per year back to the long term average of 70,000. This would have no impact on our refugee intake, and indeed could make room for more.

I agree with Leong that fascism is no joke, but when it comes to the environment, it’s the Greens themselves that are threatening to become one.

100% correct. And the Green loons should hang their heads in deep shame because this is what its mad social justice agenda is doing to its raison detre, from the ABC:

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has been ridiculed for visiting a healthy section of the Great Barrier Reef while denying the effects of climate change.

Senator Hanson and other One Nation senators donned wetsuits, snorkels and masks for a tour of the reef in a show of support for Queensland’s tourism industry.

Senator Hanson disputed claims from the world’s leading scientists that the reef experienced its worst ever bleaching event in 2016.

She said the publicity surrounding bleaching events was hurting the tourism industry.

“If you actually go deeper, 12-20 metres deeper in the ocean, the reefs there are in pristine condition,” she said.

“And they’re growing all the time.”

And Nine:

Pauline Hanson’s bogus claim the Great Barrier Reef is healthy is placing at risk up to 70,000 jobs, which will be affected by damage cause by climate change, the Greens say.

The One Nation leader has been accused of selecting a part of the reef unaffected by coral bleaching when she went snorkelling off Great Keppel Island on Friday and later had a crack at environmental groups for telling “untruths” about the reef’s health.

But Greens Senator Larissa Waters has accused One Nation of misrepresenting the health of reef and the future of the tens-of-thousands of jobs which depended upon it.

“Reef scientists are unanimous in saying the biggest threat to the reef is global warming, which caused the recent devastating coral bleaching,” she said on Saturday.

“One Nation are insulting reef tourism workers by visiting an unaffected area of the reef and claiming everything is fine – because they don’t even accept that global warming is real.”

Senator Waters said 22 per cent of corals on the Great Barrier Reef had “just died from the worst ever bleaching event on record”.

“One Nation is putting the jobs of 70,000 Queenslanders in jeopardy,” she said.

…But the trip has been criticised by conservationists.

They say Ms Hanson selected a healthy section of reef unaffected by unprecedented coral bleaching caused by high water temperatures.

Instead, the trip should have been to Lizard Island – more than 1000km away – where the severe coral bleaching begins, according to the conservationists.

“The trip is like taking journalists reporting on a conflict to a five-star holiday resort miles away from the actual war zone,” the Climate Council’s Professor Lesley Hughes said.

Ms Hanson has admitted she isn’t an expert on the reef but does believe humans aren’t responsible for coral bleaching and said agenda-driven groups were pushing “untruths” which were harming tourism.

Congratulations Greens. Your raging intolerance of intolerance is now condemning the environment to the governance of anti-science fruit loops.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. How about renaming it ZNI – zero net immigration party.

    Calling it Sustainable Australia was a mistake because hardly any voters care about the environment.

    (I do care)

    But most do not want to get themselves replaced by 457 visa workers – yet 200,000 voters per year are being replaced by 457 visas.

    Have you considered having a sausage sizzle fundraiser to give a shot in the arm to the party?

    • robert2013MEMBER

      It used to be called Sustainable Population Party. They changed it to ‘sustainable australia’ because they felt they were being unfairly painted with the racist brush.

      • SPP need to lean into it and reposition once they get enough coverage, learn from Trump. If not they’ll get 1% of the vote again and we’ll be stuck with One Nation.

      • @robert2013, It was both. Stable Popn Party -> Sustainable Popn Party -> Sustainable Australia Party.

    • Bringing up migration at all is the problem. Australia and the entire western world has had a great deal of pressure applied to students to be inclusive and supportive of multi-culturalism. I can call up the tune “I am, you are, we are..Australian” in my head at any time because it was on the TV constantly. Australia in particular has a lot of people (ie 98% of them) who are the result of recent migration. On an individual level there is no reason to block somebody from trying to get a better life. Only an arsehole would do that. Its like the dudes on the Titanic locking the poor ppl in. But it doesn’t work to scale. Most people don’t have to even recognise scaling issues. If its good for one, it is good for all.

      SAP will therefore appear racist/fascist because the result of their policy will be someone at an individual level being told “Eff off, we’re full”. There is no argument that can be made at the micro level to support screwing someone else over that doesn’t sound like a selfish villain’s plot. This is part of why we are a representational democracy instead of direct democracy. We do need other people to be the ‘bad guy’ on our behalf. Soldiers to kill, pollies to tell them to kill etc. Part of the problem is that now no pollie in the mainstream wants to be the bad guy.

      • People can have their meat and eat it too.
        If you go onto prime air TV and cut a head off a chicken, you will go down as a murderer.
        Yet guess what the viewers are all eating at home? …fried chicken.

        What is their strategy to deal with cognitive dissonance? Surely it isn’t to bitch and complain?

      • SAP will therefore appear racist/fascist because the result of their policy will be someone at an individual level being told “Eff off, we’re full”.

        This clearly and obviously already happens and people are OK with it.

      • “There is no argument that can be made at the micro level to support screwing someone else over that doesn’t sound like a selfish villain’s plot.”

        This is the argument that needs to be made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

        Unfortunately, the discussion gets hijacked by racism.

        EDIT: Just realised you mentioned micro…

      • Sure no way in the MSM to be polite re stopping immigration flat right now.
        The FACT is that Aus is over the Sustainable Population level right now. A MSM which clearly stated that with clear explanation take out all the ‘bad guy’ game and manipulation plus all the guilt. A Govt who stated that would be clear.
        Very simple.

      • @Freddy – good video. Yeh as you mention in edit, Im talking about the individual level. Explaining the system at a high level is easy. Barring some perfectly good and decent ppl from entering the country because “You’ll make us a fraction poorer” is an incredibly hard sell.

        Yes is already happens, but its the change that matters. People will easily accept the status quo (“Why wouldnt I kill a cow to eat?”) but will balk at making a new decision that traces back to them (“Why the hell would I start eating guinea pigs? I dont care if the Latin Americans already do it…they’re so cute!”)

      • @fek. Convincing at individual level easy. My father was blowing up at govt not increasing refugee intake. He changed his mind after I asked him whether he would accept a cut in pension to fund additional welfare recipients.

        Never underestimate baby boomers protecting their entitlement.

    • The Labor Party is not the 38 hour week Party and The Liberal Party is not the Free market Party.

      Sustainable Australia has a a broad policy platform that shows a thoughtful approach to all issues of sustainability, including overpopulation and lower immigration. Showing only a small and narrow face will only attract a few fringe voters I feel.

  2. I like your phrase “raging intolerance of intolerance”.

    But it is not only that, and it goes well beyond the Greens to the entire politically correct establishment.

    It is raging intolerance, smearing and denigrating of all political opponents, including with false charges against decent people with legitimate concerns. For example, people who have a lifelong track record of associations and friendships with people of all races, are subjected to a smear campaign that they are “racists”. Because they have legitimate concerns about immigration, on economic grounds. Because they have legitimate concerns about multi-culturalism, on grounds of genuine enlightenment progressive liberalism and the compatibility of certain cultures with it. And so on.

    This is why the PC establishment lost all credibility with the masses in the case of Brexit and the rise of Trump. Alternative media and social media gave the masses the awareness that they were far from alone with their legitimate concerns, and the enforcers of political correctness were exposed both for what they are, and as a dangerous minority, not “the court of public opinion” they want people to think they are. This goes for almost the entire mainstream media personnel in most of the West.

    • Yes, even people that traditionally hate political correctness, including libertarians and free markets zealots, Ive found will be quick to name calling and accusation of racism when you question the rate of immigration! They just don’t want to listen. They either don’t delieve or care about the genuine concerns people have.

      • I get all this, and my position is that bad governance and bad policy is responsible for the failures of infrastructure, housing supply, and also in some countries, lack of integration of immigrants (due to rampant PC multi-culturalism), and worse, the authorities pandering to them and looking the other way even regarding serious crime. The Rotherham scandal in Britain, for example.

        The fast-growing median-multiple 3 cities in the USA demonstrate what is possible. Fund new infrastructure for growth the right way, “Just Do It”, get economies of scale, have a strong construction sector building housing at scale and constant real prices, have a strong local culture and expect immigrants to fit into it, and it is “win-win”. Look at Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte, Nashville, Indianapolis, Kansas City … to name a few off the top of my head.

        The South is actually the most non-racist in practice, given the rapid in-migration and successful integration of minorities (lowest segregation rates, for example), while the libbewwal-lefty regions claim the South and heartland are redneck racists, they are ghetto-ising their own minorities and/or pricing them out altogether.

      • I agree with all that Phil, but i think it is the failure of free market globalisation that is the underlying structural problem here. Globalisation as we know it has ripped the heart out of the middle class in the Western world. Cheap debt and asset bubbles covered up the betrayal for a while, but sustainable economic growth isnt coming back any time soon. Governments and businesses can (and should) build new roads, housing and infrastructure, and then go on increasing the population, and that will help economic growth for a while, but the underlying rot caused by the failed neoliberal experiment will still be there. Yes, people hate political correctness, but they’re also annoyed that they don’t have stable jobs, growing wages or a clear path forward. Angry people with no future are easy to manipulate politically (I say that as one of those people).

    • There is a simple test of logic that should / could be used to rebut such allegations of racism.

      Would you be against these immigration levels if the 200 K migrants in question were German, Dutch or English ?

      The immigration issue is simply not about race.

      • I think I speak for most of us, when I say that if we are short of a particular skill in our workforce, such as Doctors, then it does not matter if the immigrant Doctor is a German, or someone like, say, Ben Carson. Plenty of excellent Asian doctors too.

        But if they are going to drive taxis because they don’t have needed skills in anything in particular, then who cares what race they are? They are not welcome, on economic grounds.

        If we want to do our bit and let in some refugees on deserving grounds, then the focus should be on Christians fleeing persecution, mostly in Muslim-dominated countries. I recall an article in Quadrant Magazine years ago, that pointed out that multi-national NGO’s tasked with selecting refugees in camps, for settlement in western nations, were deliberately NOT sending the Christians. They regard it as part of their duty to multi-culturalize the West, to send them the refugees who will NOT fit in. Why do I find this so easy to believe?

      • Refugees should still be judged on potential to make a positive contribution (in every facet) to Australian life, WITHOUT REGARD TO FAITH in my opinion. My point being that there are millions of refugees there are enough to select the best and leave the rest.

        Repeat its not Islam that is the problem but certain elements who want to use Islam as a vehicle for power / change.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Difficult to separate Wahhabism from Islam, Tony. Read the Koran.”

        Yet millions seem to live their lives doing just that, and without perceivable difficulty.

    • Is anyone on here old enough to remember the PC brigade’s disgusting attack on Fred Hollows not long before he died????

      Our country, like so many others in the so-called ‘developed world’ have seriously lost the plot. The ‘PC multiculturalists’ are the real fascists. And on top of this version of elitist imposed cultural suicide we now have the cohorts of SJW’s screaming ‘racist’ and ‘hate speech’ at anyone who has the temerity to question their social constructs – for those that are unaware just google Prof Peterson at Toronto Uni on youtube to see just how truly awful this has already become

      And Phil – your comment in reply to RobW is absolutely correct. I invested in Houston property and having lived and worked in the Texas environment know exactly what yu mean by sustainable housing policies. I sold out and am now focused on Alabama and have had lots of opportunities, be it at a Walmart, in an bank or just on the street to see and experience the interaction of the races as contrasts with the so-called liberal north east (and I stress that IMO the black/white tensions are as much a black problem in many ways as white elitist induced………for eg, the BLM propaganda (which is SJW supported IMO) – they never talk about the facts – that is, the large majority of murders of all (that is all ages and genders) blacks are killed by other blacks, often in gang related voilence

      And as for another favourite of the ‘PC/SJW cabals’ (as I call them) , the fact of ‘white priviledge’ – check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoHAG9UFaKI

    • Correct Phil,
      There are many members of SAP that I know who are in inter-racial marriages or relationships.

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      Clearly the Greens have no clue about fascism, or a Hollywood vision of it. Are they just stupid ignoramuses or is there something more sinister at play? Could they be agent provocateurs for the corporatist and FIRE interests? For those interests it would be cheap as chips. How else to explain the Greens dramatic about face on their original population policy and their slanderous attacks on those who want to pursue it? On the other hand there are plenty of stupid utopians in the world, so maybe I’m just trying to find intelligence where there is none.

      • It is not as if there is not plenty of basis for the already existing term “eco-fascism”. The Greens themselves being completely unconscious of the reasoning underlying this label of them.

      • Jumping jack flash

        A FIRE economy fits well into the green utopia – no dirty factories using non-renewable, high energy density fuels to provide the energy required to process raw materials into finished products as quickly and efficiently as possible.

        If the greens also don’t like expensive houses then they are living in an idealistic bubble. Where else can the money come from if not from manufacturing + sales + profit, or debt secured against house prices?
        Its not magic.

        And high immigration and barely-regulated foreign investment is the natural progression of a debt bubble, as locals run out of debt capacity.

  3. Having been to the Great Barrier Reef last month, the bleaching is pretty obvious even to a non scientist like myself. Nevertheless, that is part of the natural cycle. The danger is repeated bleaching before the coral xan recover.

  4. While I agree the Greens should be adopting a sustainable population policy, I’m not sure why MB is directing so much bile at the Greens in particular, given that the Population Ponzi is wholeheartedly endorsed by the major parties. The only party with significant support that doesn’t support rapid population growth is One Nation, and that’s largely driven by good old-fashioned racism. Of all the parties with any significant support the Greens are closest to the MB agenda. It’s all well and good to endorse Sustainable Australia, but they’re unlikely to win more than a fraction of a percent of the vote anytime soon. Perhaps MB would be better off trying to influence the population policy of the two sane-ish parties The Greens and Labor?

    Regarding densifying our cities, that should happen anyway regardless of population growth — not high rise shoeboxes, more like European low rise — and as for our love of the convenience of the car, that will all change when we can hail a driverless Uber and have it arrive in under a minute. I mean, who wants to own a big chunk of metal that sits motionless 98% of the time, taking up space, depreciating like crazy, and costing thousands each year to insure and maintain. I don’t!

    • You can’t be suggesting that we haven’t directed more bile at the major parties. We’re following the debate here. We didn’t write the piece. Hope the Greens are listening.

      • No, but you’ve been having a go at the Greens a lot lately. At least they get most policies right which is more than you can say for the others. I just don’t see the point in voting for Sustainable Australia because they’ll never win a seat even in the Senate.

      • @HnH
        In that case, you should put all other policies of One Nation under the torch. Currently rather than treating immigration as a issue, you are treating it as THE issue. It seems now all other cascade of failures are excusable as long as a party is tough on immigrants.

    • Read the “Green Left Weekly” link in the article and become enlightened. They are a joke of a party who have abandoned core principles in favour of calling everyone else racist and fascist.

      It was hilarious listening to Di Natale on the radio this morning saying “we should sit down and have a proper debate” about legalising dope. Greens only wanting to debate smoking dope. Every other debate is shutdown with name calling.

      • They ain’t green no more. I think of them as the Pink Rainbow Bunnies and Butterflies Party (With a Dash of Red).

      • Agreed. Legalising dope is hardly national priority No. 1 at the moment. It’s the loopy end if the Greens — anti-fluoride, anti-vax, anti-chemikills — that turns me off. But all the other options are worse, and Sustainable Australia will never get elected anywhere.

      • “anti-fluoride, anti-vax, anti-chemikills”

        Those are hardly majority of Greens supporters, it’s also not Greens policies. Just like how everyone is falling over themselves to point out just because all racists vote for , not everyone in the party is racist, and neither is the party racist.

      • @The Lorax
        That’s the difference between right and left. The right will continue to support each other on the right regardless what the loopy end does, whereas the left starts to tear each other apart over the smallest differences.

      • “all the other options are worse”

        Trying to picture Australia with Greens in charge. We’ll end up with the bankrupt welfare system of Greece, the oppressive socialism of Cuba, and the open border chaos of southern USA.

    • […] and as for our love of the convenience of the car, that will all change when we can hail a driverless Uber and have it arrive in under a minute. I mean, who wants to own a big chunk of metal that sits motionless 98% of the time, taking up space, depreciating like crazy, and costing thousands each year to insure and maintain.

      People who want a car that hasn’t been vomited in, has baby seats, has roof racks and kayak carriers, that they can pack the night before, displays how wealthy they are, etc, etc.

      There’s no reason “driverless Ubers” will be any more convenient than taxis, and people haven’t given up their private cars in droves for those.

      People will buy private cars in the future for the same reason they buy them today – convenience, practicality, status.

    • Sorry Lorax but I don’t think any of the parties are “sane-ish” which of course is the heart of the issue. Each party has policies I don’t agree with but sadly we can’t choose when voting for a party which policies we want and which we don’t.
      For a lot of people while One Nation’s climate stance isn’t ideal (I definitely think it isn’t good) but their position on a number of other issues that are more important to them (in this case immigration which is important to a lot of people vs climate change) more than makes up for that. The funny thing is lower migration is probably the most effective policy anyway overall for Australia’s environment even if they “don’t’ believe in it” – probably much more effective than the Greens environmental policies. Besides poor people struggling for jobs and their livelihood don’t really care about the environment since they usually have more pressing concerns like housing and feeding themselves. If your against migration and are pragmatic about maximizing your vote and its potential against immigration (plus the message your vote will send to the pollsters) then you may be tempted to vote for them. While I have voted for Sustainable Australia I have to admit that One Nation is getting more press and is much more effective in getting their message out and making an impact.

      • No need to get so emotional I’m not saying who to vote for – I’m playing devils advocate here taking the pragmatic not idealistic position trying to understand why things are happening and why people are switching to vote for them rather than the party this article is about. The ‘racist” label btw that your shouting would just encourage these people as they are used to seeing that word as a way to shut down debate rather than discussing truths as other language terms of the “left sife’ of politics. You would be perceived as their enemy using the issue of racism to shut debate about immigration for example. For some people racism isn’t that big of an issue compared to other concerns like losing their jobs, feeding their families, etc. While I personally don’t care either way we definitely live in interesting times.

    • The role of SAP is to influence policy for better outcomes. At the last election nearly 1 million voters in NSW, the ACT, Queensland and Victoria voted fro SAP in their top 6 picks for the Senate. That demonstrates massive underlying support for the party and its policies.

    • The Greens deserve the Bile — Saw over W/end on ABC ? ( Di Natale) where they’re now openly calling for some form of wealth Tax.
      What a F$%#% great idea — NOT ! They’re a bunch of wankers who also facilitated the GST .

  5. If The Greens would only push to have Australia Day cancelled across the nation, like Fremantle Council is doing in Perth, we could then be assured they would meet oblivion at the next election.

  6. Sounds to me that Jenny Leong is nothing more than a spokesperson and backdoor advocate for the Chinese Communist Party.

  7. Underlying the discomfort with a low/no immigration stance is a sense of ‘by what right do we deny others of what we have. Although I appreciate many of the arguments about labour and services (though seriously get over the car stuff dinosaurs), this sits uncomfortably with my sense of privilege provided by the luck of being born in a wealthy nation. This is what is behind the Green support for immigration and this debate needs more nuance and less nationalism.

    • Exactly. Also it highlights our major failing in creating an economy that is diverse. USA built a superpower on the back of immigration, and we in recent years are making a complete mess of it.

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      Such a supposed “right” would usurp the democratic rights of the citizens to determine the fate of their nation.

    • We deny others what we have because we are supposedly custodians of an ancient and fragile land that is already struggling under the burden of the number of people living here. If we don’t want to do that, then what limitations do we impose on those who are elsewhere from coming here? None, so everybody is welcome who can make it? The low limits we have in place at the moment are destroying the livability and environments of our large cities, as regularly reported on MB.

      We have finite resources to allocate to the infrastructure that supports a modern liberal democratic welfare society. If we don’t deny others what we have, all of that will disappear. That may sound harsh, but the world has never been a fair place. We have things that others don’t have that make Australia a good place to live, and we can either defend and sustain those things or we can throw them away to benefit a bunch of foreigners and so that we can feel less privileged. Personally, with all our faults, I still like Australia and I would like to defend our way of life rather than destroying it out of a misguided sense of charity to a bunch of people who mean nothing to me.

      And if you are uncomfortable with the sense of privilege that you have from living here, why don’t you take some practical steps to reduce your discomfort by going somewhere else like South Sudan? I can guarantee that you’ll feel less privileged over there.

      • LSWCHP you have nailed what should be a simple statement of the bleedin’ bloody obvious – but as we know the PC/SJW cabals will not tolerate such plain common sense

        Let’s hope the new winds of ‘anti-globalisation’ may play out in Oz to help a reassertion of simple common sense realities in place of mindless stupidity and dogma

    • In a “fair” world of open borders, all that happens is the most able, educated, wealthy of less ‘lucky” countries abandon them to join the elite in the developed world, draining the country of origin of wealth and talent as they do. The better solution is for us to play a much bigger role in international development so there is less of a crushing desire to leave in the first place.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      The debate definitely needs more nuance, but if the Greens try to argue “what right do we deny others of what we have” they will get crushed. It’s an argument that would rely on some basic psychology being completely wrong.

    • I was born lucky, so it behooves me to shoot myself in the foot.

      ROFLMAO! Great stuff. Couldn’t make it up.

  8. So if the offer was to cut immigration to, say, 50,000 per year, but on the condition that all 50,000 were Muslims, what would people choose?

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      One poster is pulling invented “rights’ out of tthin air that would destroy democracy and now you are coming up with a diversionary question. Hmmmm, seems like a lot of interests are trying to confuse the issue.

      • Um, take a step back. That is what the poster personally feels. Thats their “right”. Don’t confuse that with anything more.

        As for democracy…we had that. 60% voted for Lib/Lab. So democracy wants Big Australia….even when they say nah. They mean meh.

      • Of course Caligula has a right to ask his question and yes, I was being a bit over-reactive in pointing out that it is a logically different issue from the one being discussed.. OTH Felix’s assertion of a “right” of immigrants to enter a country contradicts the sovereign democratic right of citizens to determine such matters. And obviously most Australians don’t care enough about high immigration, to change their votes sufficiently to put pressure on the majors, but that is a different matter from what I was addressing.

      • Assuming ‘Eurobabes’ refers to females aged between 18 and 30 – attracting around 8% of the number of females born each year from a region with sub-replacement fertility, and preferencing the young ones given rapidly increasing median age – sounds sustainable.

    • I would be ok with that. I have a much better chance of getting a job if only 50,000/year come here as opposed to 200,000/year.

  9. Terror Australis

    Your post (actually William Burkes post) makes a reasonable point that the Greens should return to their own early 90’s policy setting of stabilizing the population of the Australian continent.

    But this..

    And the Green loons should hang their heads in deep shame because this is what its mad social justice agenda is doing to its raison detre..

    and this

    Your raging intolerance of intolerance is now condemning the environment to the governance of anti-science fruit loops.

    are just non-sequitors.

    I don’t see how having a social justice agenda is incompatible with the goal of reducing immigration. William Burke says as much himself.

    And btw I’ve never understood how “social justice warrior” and “do-gooders” are meant to work as insults. I mean aren’t those the kind of thing EVERYBODY should be trying to be? What’s the opposite – social INJUSTICE warrior? do-badder? LOL.

      • Thats a head scratcher. Why not just call em Loons.

        SJW sounds quite complimentary as a title. Even each word has positive connotations.

      • This. Point out the astronomical levels of abuse in indigenous families, racist. Discuss Muslim oppression of women, racist. Students who point out racial segregation, racist. Young families wanting less competition for housing, racist.

      • Point out the astronomical levels of abuse in indigenous families, racist. Discuss Muslim oppression of women, racist. Students who point out racial segregation, racist. Young families wanting less competition for housing, racist.

        Straw man massacre !

      • Default lefty position of name calling in lieu of an educated debate.

        Explain how SJWs labeling as racist those who point out social injustices as not being relevant to Hector’s comment.

      • Default lefty position of name calling in lieu of an educated debate.

        Where ?

        You’ve made it pretty clear you have zero interest in “educated debate”. You want to preach to the choir and abuse everyone else.

        Explain how SJWs labeling as racist those who point out social injustices as not being relevant to Hector’s comment.

        Because they don’t.

        Lots and lots of people – “SJWs”, you’d undoubtedly label most of them as – point out and act on social injustices all the time without being labelled racist.

      • Bill Leak highlighting indigenous issues. Labelled a racist and taken to court.

        QUT students highlighting indigenous-only rooms are a form of racial segregation. Labelled as racist and taken to court. Win the court case and still labelled as racist to the point one student has had to change intended careers and commence defamation proceedings.

        Essentially, anyone who publicly points out a social injustice which doesn’t fit in with the left agenda are labelled as racist. Re-read the article. The righteousness has become so perverse the Greens have changed core policy to prevent labeling themselves as racist.

      • “QUT students highlighting indigenous-only rooms are a form of racial segregation.”

        You reckon if Rosa Parks was alive today, she’d want to segregate the back of the bus for African Americans?

      • RP, obviously not. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of social justice in Australia. It has to fit the agenda of the left or it is considered racist. Even when people trying to point out abuse of indigenous women and children by indigenous men they are labelled racist.

      • Bill Leak highlighting indigenous issues. Labelled a racist and taken to court.

        Bill Leake drawing racist cartoons. Didn’t go to court.

        One person. Your argument is that anyone highlighting indigenous issues is called racist, which is false.

        QUT students highlighting indigenous-only rooms are a form of racial segregation. Labelled as racist and taken to court.

        QUT students taken to court due to a (probably) vexatious litigant and a failure in the process.

        Essentially, anyone who publicly points out a social injustice which doesn’t fit in with the left agenda are labelled as racist.

        False.

      • The process had already commenced against Leak. You are just being pedantic.

        The QUT lawsuit not against the original litigants. It is against lefties who appeared on Q and A who persisted with the cries of racism.

        Even when you have nfi about the case you persist with righteous smugness. It will be such a pleasure seeing lefty minorities protesting the streets when Greens lose their significance at next election.

      • The process had already commenced against Leak.

        Because he refused to talk directly to the complainant.

        It is against lefties who appeared on Q and A who persisted with the cries of racism.

        Based on the information they had at the time ?

        Even when you have nfi about the case you persist with righteous smugness. It will be such a pleasure seeing lefty minorities protesting the streets when Greens lose their significance at next election.

        Indeed. You lot are absolutely salivating at the idea of people you don’t like suffering. Making people suffer ‘cuz you don’t like them is just the conservative way, it seems. Cheering in fascism and dictatorship because they think they’ll be the butchers rather than the piggies.

        But, anyway, back to one of your original straw men. There are hundreds – probably thousands – of people who are genuinely trying to help with indigenous disadvantage. Volunteering in communities. Trying to identify and attack racism through legal action and legislation. Executing programs that specifically target assistance at indigenous youth. People who think systemic racism exists. People who think the postcode lottery is real. People who believe that even the kid born to an alcoholic single mother who has been in and out of youth detention since he was seven has potential to be a productive member of society.

        You would decry them all as bleeding heart lefties, SJWs, “reverse racists”.

        But nobody else is calling them racist.

        Please, tell us more about how Bill Leake’s cartoon strikes a bigger blow for Aboriginal disadvantage in Australia.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “Indeed. You lot are absolutely salivating at the idea of people you don’t like suffering. Making people suffer ‘cuz you don’t like them is just the conservative way, it seems. Cheering in fascism and dictatorship because they think they’ll be the butchers rather than the piggies.”

        That’s a bit of a long bow your drawing there Smithy.

        As for Bill Leak, well, he is a cartoonist and his piece was commenting on a disappointing and increasing trend within Australia as a whole,…that being absent fathers.
        Its well documented and widely understood that this problem is more common amongst Indigenous Australians than the average for the wider community and Bills cartoon was (unfortunately) on point.

        Is Noel Pearson guilty of “Vilification” when he said: “Blackfellas have got to take charge and take responsibility for their own children … That part of the message really struggles to get traction”. in response to Leaks cartoon?

      • That’s a bit of a long bow your drawing there Smithy.

        Bullshit. There’s several posters here who have made it pretty clear they’re looking forward to a smackdown on “PC”, which has nothing to do with trying to help anyone else and everything to do with schadenfreude. That’s before even getting to the array of gargoyles out in the public sphere like Bolt, Bernadi, Albrechtsen, et al.

        They are trying to get laws primarily used to protect the vulnerable removed – based on one or two problems that could be otherwise easily addressed – because they want to attack the vulnerable in a way those laws are intended to provide remedy for.

        As for Bill Leak, well, he is a cartoonist and his piece was commenting on a disappointing and increasing trend within Australia as a whole,…that being absent fathers.
        Its well documented and widely understood that this problem is more common amongst Indigenous Australians than the average for the wider community and Bills cartoon was (unfortunately) on point.

        Yes, and the point is that it wasn’t a) news to anybody or b) helpful. So trying to portray it as some sort of eureka moment, or pulling back the covers on a hidden problem, is laughable. Nobody needed to be told there are problems with absent fathers in indigenous communities, least of all those that people like “Freddy” like to throw abuse at.

        Let’s be clear, here. Leake isn’t getting kudos because he made some incisive and insightful commentary on a hitherto untouched topic, or made some great contribution towards addressing indigenous disadvantage, he’s getting kudos because he penned a racist cartoon about a well known problem.

        But, hey, then again maybe to the readership of The Australian, that the blackfellas have a problem with family breakdown actually IS news.

        Is Noel Pearson guilty of “Vilification” when he said: “Blackfellas have got to take charge and take responsibility for their own children … That part of the message really struggles to get traction”. in response to Leaks cartoon?

        Wouldn’t have thought so, but I don’t know the context.

    • I don’t see how having a social justice agenda is incompatible with the goal of reducing immigration.

      Let me try:

      Social justice agenda is incompatible with the goal of reducing immigration, if your social justice strategy is to have immigration.

      Better alternatives include architectural solutions, preemptive management of global issues that would lead to an increase in Australian immigration (ie flooding in Bangladesh)

      It may look to preemptively look at bringing refugees to Australia on the proviso that they build up skills, and then are well placed to rebuild their own homes when they are safe to return to.

      Why does this have to be a zero sum game?

      Zero sum game implies the following

      Total pop = Current pop + births – deaths + skilled immigrants + unskilled immigrants + illegal immigrants

      why not change this

      Total pop = Current pop + births – deaths + skilled immigrants + unskilled immigrants +inbound temporary humanitarian placements – outbound temporary humanitarian placements

      Many bona fide humanitarian migrants with skills do wish to return home and rebuild their own countries and become leaders in these countries when rebuilt. Why don’t we work to enable this?

    • And btw I’ve never understood how “social justice warrior” and “do-gooders” are meant to work as insults.

      The point is to shut down the discussion and not engage with any of the other participants points, identify them as “the enemy” and advertise to other likeminded individuals.

      • It s a simple but accurate categorisation Smithy.- it wouldn’t have caught on otherwise. It means PC Authoritarians and less so to the well meaning dupes who haven’t thought through what they are actually supporting, which is the destruction of the Western Enlightenment and the society it built.

      • It means PC Authoritarians and less so to the well meaning dupes who haven’t thought through what they are actually supporting, which is the destruction of the Western Enlightenment and the society it built.

        What the people labelled “PC Authoritarians” are actually supporting usually bears little resemblence to what the people labelling them “PC Authoritarians” claim they are supporting (assuming they actually claim them of supporting anything at all, since the discussion – as evidenced by dozens of posts here over the last few weeks – rarely includes any actual details).

      • The totally for or against (Political Correctness) positions people take shit me.

        Nobody sticks up for context anymore.

        I try, Ermo, but I usually get accused of (or strongly implicated in) condoning child abuse, rape or something similarly vile by people throwing around words like “Political Correctness” and “Social Justice Warrior”.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        ” It means PC Authoritarians and less so to the well meaning dupes who haven’t thought through what they are actually supporting, which is the destruction of the Western Enlightenment and the society it built.”

        The destruction of the western enlightenment… FFS.

        The extreme PC types might be annoying but they support democracy, scientific reasoning, separation of church and state.

  10. What is the point of the picture next to the heading for this article? What does a My Little Pony fetish picture have to do with either immigration, Green’s policy, or pseudo-Fascism?

    If you can manage an answer that isn’t anti-Gay or questions the sexuality/masculinity of the Greens and Green supporters, that would be great.

    p.s not a Greens supporter at all, but I am a Gay man and I am a paid subscriber

    • This is a good question. What is the MB selection policy for pictures?
      And do MB have image rights to these pictures?

    • how did you know it was a my little pony fetish picture I thought it was just some gay homosexual fairy 🙂

      • I think the hooves gave it away….though, the fact that it would be confusing tells me that the aim was to effeminize the Greens…because ‘everybody’ knows its bad to be effeminate and gay, right?

        Pretty toxic when it comes down to it.

      • lol theyre hooves, ha ha, I didn’t know. I think it was south park that first used the term gay homosexual, cos you can’t just be a homosexual you have to be a gay one lol, sorry if you take offence I got some gay friends who always pay themselves out a lot but I understand that doesn’t apply to everyone

    • I had no idea it was a My Little Pony fetish picture. I just thought it was a picture of some fucking ratbag with a purple mohawk, ie a Loon as per the caption representing a typical Greens supporter.

      Beyond that, I didn’t even know that there was a thing called My Little Pony or that blokes had fetishes about it until you mentioned it. But now, with the help of Google, I know all about the My Little Pony fetish and I wish I didn’t.

      Seriously folks, don’t Google for My Little Pony fetish. That juice ain’t worth the squeezin’. As it were.

      • blacktwin997MEMBER

        This is a little off topic but all the talk of My Little Pony got me thinking.

        Would anyone know what Andrew Robb’s speaking fees are? I like to think we could do a whip round and ambush him in the venue’s car park afterward to take turns kicking him in the balls. At the very worst it would give him a good reason to be sad.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I see more of a young, confused, full of shit, inner city, try hard, trendy douch in the image in question, rather than a gay dude.

      My Grandmother always resented the comendearing of the word gay by Homosexuals, as it was a word she used frequently to describe the “Gay old times” she enjoyed with her sisters, picnicking on the sunny banks of the Parramatta river when a young Girl.
      My brother, Cousins and I would always snigger and giggle,….much to Grans anoyance.

      Like CK Louis, I used to use the word [email protected] for a long time in my youth, not even knowing that it could also mean “Homosexual”.

      https://youtu.be/wS2THqZemoc

    • Also I find it ironic we are not allowed to tar that whole right wing voters as racists based on one of their policies, but is now open season on the whole left wing voters based just on the immigration policy?

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I might ask Nathan, how do you (or we) know the person in the image identifies with being male at all!

      She could be a lesbian or hetro woman, decorating herself in such an unconventional manner, to protest her oppression, at the hands of a totalitorian patriarchy of both hetro and homo men.

      You engaging in this kind of gender sterotyping, clearly makes you unsuitable to be a “Green”.

      By assuming someones gender,…we here, are all oppressors and bigots!
      Clearly this site should be closed.

  11. It is a great pity the Greens have abandoned an important policy setting needed to advance social justice and other worthy objectives. Sad days indeed.

  12. I’m more and more convinced that The Green’s is a party made up of kids who all received participation trophies, where everyone was a winner for trying.

    I’m starting to regret having voted for them in the past.

    • I regret it also. I regret all the time and money given to them and environmental groups like the Fund Raising for the Great Forest… a real true scam, supporters were treated as lowly scum as the uni guy and the greens pocketed the money and refused to act, all in front of young idealist volunteers who had given all they could, and older experienced activists…the people were just nuisances after they’d given. My boy had just graduated, with sandshoes gaffer taped in winter, and gave a big lump of his savings and would have been one of many of the young people full of care.