D2 We may be a cross purposes _ I didnt suggesst we set up RVLegislation re the Asians - it was that they were the rednecks whippng boy at the time - I tohught it was you who implied the RV laws were established to protect the muslims.

If the old laws against the incitement of hatred and violence where adequate we would not have the new ones.

What's wrong with special legislation? pollies have it re their superannuation and parliamentary privelege, it is a feature of the IR laws, the tax act is full a special considerations - there are some who loose sleep because in some jurisdictions there are Women only nights at local swimming pools - that's special law but wont bring about the end opf the world as we know it.

Life is full of inconsistencies;

And as for asking the people about immigration or any thing for that matter - there is a political process - it is that process that the so called silent majority - whoever or what ever the hell they or that is - can get involved in.

We weren't asked about the War in Iraq, Tampa, excising tracts of land from our boundaries to isolate refugees, floating the dollar, compensation packages for the dairy, suger or fishing industries - if we insisted on being consulted on every detail we'd still be a bunch of colonies - the only way to know or to have a say is by getting involved.

Who gagged who over the immigaration debate? I recall a great kerfuffle over G Blaineys comments in the 80's letters where exchanged in newspapers many agreed many did not

Sneekeepete:
It was "necessary". Who decided? Of course Parliaments made the laws, but who wanted them and why? Free speech is a pillar of freedom. It isn't in the category of more or less taxes. Why was the debate conducted in academia but not in the daily newspapers? Why was it suddenly necessary except to silence those who would not agree to the rapid, organised destruction of the culture on which Australia is based. That is Anglo-Celtic. Those freedoms are the source of Western wealth and happiness that made us the envy of the world. Cultures that came in the mass migrations of the 20th Century are valuable, but not foundational.

We can now be fined or jailed for expressing views that might be unpopular,annoying or even insulting to others. Critical analysis of any culture (other than Anglo-Celtic),any religion other than Christianity, is forbidden, exceptions only for academics and religious discussion. Warning: don't take the religious exception seriously without studying the Victorian Catch the Fire Ministries judgment and the so-called vilifying statements complained of by Muslim clerics.

Freedom of speech is not negotiable if you value Australia as we knew it. When people may not speak their doubts or objections, eventually they will act on them. That is where this debate began - at Cronulla.
Merry Christmas. D2