I've watched a chorus of politicians brand the March for Australia as an "anti-immigration" march, and called it "divisive".

This seems inaccurate, starting with the fact there were three different marches, which seemed to have had three different colours. I think it is fair to say they were "anti-immigration", but from what I could see on TV they were much more than that. The Australian flags weren't just saying "stay away", they were also saying "stay together".

There was a neo-Nazi speaker in Melbourne, which was a bit more than unfortunate, and because of the secretiveness of the organisers, I have no idea whether this was on purpose or not.

But putting that to one side I can't see how you can label these marches as divisive, but stay quiet and say nothing about the much larger marches of a couple of weeks ago calling for the elimination of the Jewish state. Seems to me that the rhetoric of division is in this case divisive itself.

I wasn't at the march, but the marchers have a legitimate point. Our immigration policy has brought too many people in too quickly, and many of those people do not accept Western liberal democratic values, let alone Australian ones. That policy is divisive, and it's time that mainstream political players buy into it instead of leaving it to the amateurs, Bob Katter, and One Nation, or allowing Labor and Greens politicians to try to delegitimise debating this issue all together.

The answer to your question is pretty easy, Graham,

The pro-Palestinian rallies, while absolutely including problematic slogans and fringe elements, are rooted in opposition to a specific government’s actions, not to the presence of an ethnic group in Australia.

The "March for Australia" was rooted in broad generalisations about immigrants, framed a whole class of Australians as incompatible with our values, and leaned into "take our country back" nostalgia that often excludes far more than it includes.

One protests what a government does.
The other protests who gets to belong.

The difference is one between disagreement and exclusion.

We can and should criticise antisemitism where it occurs. But let’s not pretend that branding multiculturalism as the root of national decay is somehow less socially corrosive.

You say the marchers have a legitimate point about immigration levels. Fair enough, let's have that debate. But once again, it’s being hijacked by those who package it in nationalist dog-whistling, scapegoating, and cultural panic.

For mainstream the discussion to take place, the fringes need to be disavowed. We can't pretend they’re not there.

Because right now, they’re marching at the front.

All demonstrations/protests/riots give me the pip. But, it was obvious that Sunday's expressions of support for Australia - with Australian flags, not those of proscribed terror groups as per the regular anti-Israel, anti-West hate gatherings - were doomed to criticism, before they even occurred, by the usual communists in the media, within the left political machine, and among nutty social media posters.

And, that's what happened. Use the same tactics the loony leftists use, but in a positive way FOR your country and not against it, and they go off the planet - the effing hypocrites.

As for a few people playing ‘Nazis’, when the boot is on the other foot with cameo performances from terrorist supporters on the Bridge, how about someone like our PM saying, it was “mostly peaceful”. No. It doesn't work that way, does it.

It's really pretty simple. The migrants until about the mid 70's were looking for a better life. Those like myself didn't. We came for a different lifestyle, for what the nature of Australia had to offer etc. Nothing economical or political or religious. Then gradually, there were those who were instructed to infiltrate Australian society to change it away from its Western European origins. That movement has gained momentum due to vote buying politicians & corrupt bureaucracy.
The is resulted in the dumbing down of Australians of anglo heritage which wasn't accidental-it is planned & no government has stood up against it & now Anglo heritage society is starting to pay the price. Those, like in the deliberately misnamed anti immigration march are still a minority but they're now gathering support to keep this Nation as it was first planned to be. A multicultural society regulated by the original Western principles.
Many opposers have not adhered to their pledge at naturalisation ceremonies & they're now openly challenging our society which with all its faults is still the only salvageable society. The increasingly blatantly pushed alternative isn't, judging by the situation in the lands they come from.

ttbn,

You’re flattening two very different things into the same category. Flying the Australian flag at a rally isn’t automatically "support for Australia" any more than flying a Palestinian one is automatically "support for terror."

Flags are just symbols. What matters is the context and the message wrapped around them. In Melbourne, that context included a neo-Nazi speaker. That’s not "a few people playing Nazis." That’s giving them a platform.

Likewise, pro-Palestinian marches absolutely should be called out when they tip into antisemitism. But those rallies are framed around opposition to a government’s policies. The "March for Australia" was framed around who gets to belong here at all.

One is about politics. The other is about identity and exclusion.

That’s why the reactions aren’t symmetrical, and why "mostly peaceful" lines don’t work as cover when the extremists are the ones with the microphone.

John

"One is about politics. The other is about identity and exclusion."

What sort of ethnic and cultural diversity is there in Gaza? And with chants like "from the river to the sea" and "gas the Jews", expansion and genocide might be on their agenda. Of course, it could be the Iranian Republican Guard giving things a nudge, but I think the entrenched hatred of others make neonazis look amateurish in comparison.