Race

MOAB meets Afghanistan

April 21, 2017 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

America once again participates in its favourite past-time of bombing countries that can in no way retaliate. There is a word that describes people who act that way, but the name alludes me.

It’s not just Trump or republicans for whom this is an engaging “sport”, as the last few administrations have bombed the “proverbial” out of Afghanistan. Worth noting: The Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone, although distributed unevenly across seven countries (and of course Afghanistan received some of that “rainfall”. The seven countries he did bomb were Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia and Trump’s national Muslim ban included 5 of these countries.

This time, however, America set about to destroy a facility they built in Afghanistan. At least you can assume that the MOAB bomb was dropped with pin point accuracy to cause the most damage. Especially since the CIA would have likely retained the blueprints of the facility they built in collaboration with Osama Bin Laden. Spending $314M building a bomb – that by itself cost $16M each – is an expensive way to destroy a constructed facility which had cost untold millions in the first place.

All this for a country that can’t afford the “horrendous expense” inherent in serving meals to the elderly, as Trump decides that Meals on Wheels is a burden the economy can’t afford. As many a pundit has observed, money to conduct war is always in plentiful supply. For example, here in Australia, $195B on defence is affordable, but increases in spending on health, welfare and education are not. The hypocrisy and bullying of nations previously beaten into submission to the point that – because of America – a violent caliphate arises called Daesh/ISIS. It has repeatedly been said “wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism“. Having done that, it doesn’t help if you start funding and supplying equipment to these terrorists as America did for a long time for ISIS.

The shock discovery for the American senate, for example, that Toyota appeared to be supplying ISIS with massive numbers of Toyota vehicles, was ultimately revealed to be sourced from the America US state Dept dropping crate loads of vehicles into Syria. Without America, ISIS would never have been as well armed, trained or supplied. It would have died as a movement in the Middle East without the American military education and equipment to support them. Presently America is bombing their creations in both the insurgency they funded and the facilities they build and funded, yet they apparently can’t spare to resolve the poverty of their own country.

Not unlike, in an obscure manner, Gerhard Richter taking to 60 of his photo-based paintings with a box cutter and matches. Odd coincidental numbering, but wasn’t that the number of Tomahawk missiles fired at Syria recently at an Airfield that was operational 24 hours later? OK, OK, I am stretching my analogues to the point of ridiculousness but perhaps my weird segues will induce you to remember the facts. The truth is that neither America or Australia should be putting air-force, troops, or bombs into the region. That is presuming we want to establish peace in the middle-east, which admittedly is probably an invalid assumption.

It is small wonder that when Wikileaks revealed this rampant corruption and hypocrisy by America that the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, branded them a “hostile intelligence service“. Odd change of face as Mike was apparently a fan when the information Wikileaks supplied suited his agenda. But for now, Julian Assange is the “bad guy”? Really? So what does that make America in the light of everything else!?

Trump – fascist or fascistic?

December 5, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Philosophically changing landscape.

Just before the election, President elect Donald Trump, published his intentions for his first 100 days in office. It is insular and sequestered towards his take on focused American interests. From building walls to encouraging non-renewable pollution builders like shale, oil, natural gas and coal, which will result in undermining climate rectification. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a boon many would welcome, as alternative RCEP will be far more beneficial to the Australian economy.

Post-Truth world.

Tony Abbott the masterful beguiler of the Aussie Punter!

Whatever your values on these intentions, what is emerging, is that since the election, he’s made statements that are at variance with the dialogue from his rallies and his initial plans. That “lies”, featured in Trump and Clinton’s campaign dialogue, has become par for the course for political bargaining with voters. This “post-truth” phenomena drew criticism that the Trump campaign countered with assertions that the media should not be ‘fact-checkers’. Since the election, building walls, the death of Obamacare, the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, and the demise of the Iran peace treaty are all being quickly watered down in Washington. At least Tony Abbott waited a few months before he instigated proposals to make cuts to education, cuts to health, change to pensions, increasing GST and cuts to the ABC and SBS. While the Senate foiled many of the LNP’s valiant efforts to break their promises, much of the public showed their willingness to ignore Abbott’s apparent about-face. But lies are a negotiation the public has struck with politics for decades. Unless one engages in extensive fact-checking and pragmatic reasoning, such lies remain unchallenged; and many can’t be bothered to do so.

Observations of Fascism.

Some folk listened to their Grandfather's stories — Some folk listened to their Grandfather’s stories

Trump’s plans or renegotiations (or “lies”) are admittedly not standard Republican ideology. His thinking is hard to pin down, echoing sentiments from across the political spectrum. Trump is something else altogether. An interesting observation was made by an American teacher, which has landed her in hot water. She was teaching students about the parallels between the rise of Trump and German dictator Adolf Hitler. It’s an observation that has also been made by veteran Jewish Americans who fear the rise of a “new Hitler”.

Gianni Riotta in the Atlantic disagrees with the assertion Trump is a fascist. She talks about a “brand of fascism” defined by Mussolini’s original Partito Nazionale Fascista rule. Being of Italian heritage, she is very wed to that being the only legitimate fascism. For folk like Riotta, unless they are goose-stepping down Broadway, it isn’t fascism. As though the final goal defines the process, but not, until you get there. Fascism deniers hold to the rather odd presumption that unless we have set up gulags in the manner that former Italian fascists did, then we are not there yet. Perhaps we should poll the unwilling residents of Guantanamo Bay, Manus and Nauru.

As Robert O. Paxton in his book “The Anatomy of Fascism” says, “Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. […] In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.” So Riotta attempt to define it as an elaborated philosophical system or fixed creed rather than a syndrome or a “beehive of contradictions“, lies on somewhat erroneous premises. Or as Nicholas Clairmont (also from “The Atlantic”) explained, “But the debate over the definition of fascism is much richer than Riotta covered.“

Jobs and Growth.

It is not an insignificant difference that America is a mature democracy, where Germany was not, at the time of Hitler’s rise. Hitler was elected Chancellor in January 1933 in what was a relatively new democratic system established in 1919. And in this latter American variation, there are both systematic differences and protections in place to stall degeneration into the Nazi’s historical outcomes. Nevertheless, striking similarities remain. Like America, the German economy had hit rock-bottom and was at the time recovering. Hitler also vowed to pull out of the Versailles treaty and repayments, much like Trump is pledging to renegotiate NAFTA and cancel the Pacific Trade Agreements. Both were promising to protect internal jobs and build infrastructure. In short, the familiar politico battle cry of “Jobs and Growth” was on both their agendas.

As Llewellyn Rockwell writes, “He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits.“

Can Trump can be similarly successful? Trump’s immediate promotion of jobs growth was very similar in manner to Malcolm Turnbull’s approach in providing jobs for unemployed friends. Trump has engaged the former mayor Rudy Giuliani (if you go to the link, note Rudy’s unusual nickname), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, and former federal prosecutor Jeff Sessions. Not unlike Malcolm Turnbull’s recycling of former MPs or George Brandis’s job stacking, Trump is “bringing jobs back” … to lobbyists and republican insiders. One of his more controversial “jobs for the boys” decisions has been the selection of Steve Bannon as Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon is the chairman of “Breitbart” the alt-right anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, conspiracy filled news site. No doubt some readers will find that description a little harsh, and I’d have to concede that “news site” is probably inappropriate. Trump’s choice of a strategist, is emboldening the rise of identity politics in America. Reminiscent of a familiar Nazi German salutations, “Hail Trump” echoed from attendees at Richard Spencer’s recent annual conference of the National Policy Institute in Washington.

Historical similarities & differences.

Like Trump, Hitler was not the popular candidate. Political machinations got Hitler into power, as he controlled the largest block of seats. For Trump, his path to power was winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. Both leaders lead a racist mass movement, along with being misogynistic and ultra-nationalistic, eliciting violent reactions from their attendees at national rallies. The difference in Hitler’s case was protesters who tried to shout him down, were ejected by Hitler’s army friends armed with rubber truncheons. Trump was not so organised, but his followers still ejected peaceful protesters, violently. Trump displays contempt for liberal democratic norms and has identified a class of people he is quite happy to direct blame for America’s failings. Muslims replace Jews as the preferred targets despite the unconstitutional nature of his desires. Hitler, equally, had contempt for the Weimar Republic Constitution which changed Germany from a monarchy to a parliamentary democracy. The original Nazi party was filled with disenfranchised youth as a movement, whereas the Tea party Republican adherents found their primary support from older white men. Trump represents an avatar for their anger, marginalisation and resentment. In both points of history, the people had lost faith in the ability of their government to look after them. Coupled with a loss of confidence in the civil system, they sought a political option that came from outside the “system”.

Precluding Minorities.

Neither Hitler, not Trump spoke about exterminating the ethnic minority they were using as scapegoats, in their pre-election period. Hitler only talked about expelling Jews and removing their civil rights. Trump’s platform was to deport 2 million illegal immigrants, to eliminate birth right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and keeping Muslims out of America. There are differences worth considering here too. In the 1930’s data retention machines were primitive, but still, IBM rose to the challenge with a punch card sorting/cross indexing system to evaluate the census data to locate, identify and catalogue Jews. Without IBM’s help, the mass extermination of the Jews would have been logistically impossible. Today’s technology is streets ahead of anything IBM had then. IBM’s census collecting apparatus is so more sophisticated and accurate now, despite the issues Australia suffered via IBM on their last census. The American government with access to the NSA’s extensive data records on Americans – as Edward Snowden has revealed – can so quickly identify ethnic minorities.

Hitler promised to make Germany great and restore national pride. In echoes of Charles Lindbergh‘s “America First” isolationists rhetoric, Trump claimed, “I promise to make America great” and then spoke of isolating America. Hitler threatened and did persecute his political opponents, and Trump threatened to jail Hillary Clinton during public debates. He has since reneged on that, but his earlier rhetoric was worrying. Honesty among politicians in a “post-truth” era is unexpected, but even in Hitler’s time, a former finance minister described Hitler as thoroughly untruthful. Washington Post gave Trump 3.4 “Pinocchios” (as compared to Hillary Clinton getting 2.2), and noted of the 92 Trump statements that were fact checked, only 11 were found to fall into the category of mostly true or neutral. Attitudes towards women by both Hitler and Trump were quite simply appalling and deeply misogynistic. Hitler and Mussolini declared themselves as opposed to feminism, while Hitler’s predominant offence was in objectifying women for reproductive purposes. As for Trump’s Billy Bush conversation, I am opposed to giving that any more oxygen than it already, by linking to it here. If perchance you don’t know to what I refer, then all I can say is, “Welcome back, I trust that your absence from civilisation over the last few months has not been unduly traumatic”.

The results of Fascism take time.

Under Hitler, unemployment figures began to drop. Public work schemes were introduced, and the German Labour Front was set up to “protect” workers. Measures to ensure the leisure time of the work force was entrenched. It was a good month after he was “elected” in 1933 before Hitler began suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights. Jews didn’t lose their citizenship until 1935; about the same time conscription was brought in. Government income increased to ℛℳ15 billion Reichsmarks by 1939 (from ℛℳ10B in 1928) but then spending increased too. The invasion of Poland didn’t occur till 1939. Hitler had been in “legitimate” power for seven years by then. If Trump stays in power for two terms, he will have eight years to bring to fruition what he desires and the fact that four of the last five presidents served a full eight years is not encouraging. If you hold to the belief that Trump isn’t intimately aware of Hitler’s strategies, then you don’t want to read this.

What have you done?

Of course there are subtle differences. It is 80 years later, after all. But in essence, how is any of this not similar in spirit (if not exact fact) to the rise of Hitler’s Fascist German Nazi Party? And on that point, I should acknowledge the impeccable research work of my wife, who provided me with far more comparative information than I could fit into this one article. Perhaps as Jeet Heer says, ”even if Trump is only fascistic rather than a fascist, that’s more than scary enough“. However you phrase it to make yourself feel more comfortable and sleep well at night, in the end the question remains, where will the rise of Trumpism take America and the rest of the world? Good luck America!

WTF Trump!?

November 10, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

When even Murdock’s “Daily Telegraph” leads off the day after the American election, with the letters “W.T.F” in 72mm high characters in reaction to “a political triumph that seemed impossible 24 hours ago“, you know something major has happened. Mind you, given how supportive Murdoch’s media influencers in Fox News was initially for Donald Trump, it is disingenuous for the Telegraph to be milking the global shock reaction. But of course, the Telegraph knows such a response will sell papers, and as usual the profit motive “trumps” ideological approval of the result. Turnbull very quickly – as he does so often – capitulated to the ultra-right and affirmed his alignment with the new administration.

Two rather interesting and telling reactions to the growing realisation that Trump would win were the markets plummeting and the Canadian immigration website collapsing. While the markets have made something of a recovery there is an element of nervousness in the future because of his unpredictability. In regards Canadian immigration website, one can only infer Americans began immediately exploring their options at leaving America. Like our Australian Census website, the canadian site was not built to withstand so much “natural” traffic and failed.

When my Father was alive, he made a number of efforts to have myself and my family relocate back across the border from NSW to Queensland. As he pointed out on one occasion that over a thousand people a week were moving up to Queensland from New South Wales. Like the appeal now to moving to Canada, my Father promoted it as the choice sane, rational and smart people were making. I agreed with him, at which point he joyously reveled in his apparent “win”. It was at that point I raised the point that my wife as a psychologist, made a living out of treating dysfunctionality. I countered that, the migration of smart and sane people to Queensland meant greater opportunities for my wife to ply her trade here and less in Queensland. He replied with “Touché!“. And so we stayed put. Perhaps now we should hurry to America. I suspect now the Canadian immigration will be inundated with people contacting them once they restore their website. Certainly, the Chaser, is satirically suggesting that to the south, the Mexican border may now be swamped with fleeing Americans.

Trump as the 45th President embraced so wholeheartedly by middle America is fueling anger amongst democrats and socialists in America. But it is not leveled so much at Trump – although some has, as riots have shown – but at an introspection at the failures of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Many articles reflected that the choice of Hillary Clinton was a choice of the lessor of two evils. Certainly Dr Lissa Johnson’s pre-election analysis did this. In terms of the lesser of two evils, Clinton was not the popular choice, although she was the corporate choice, as evidenced by her significant corporate donors list. It is becoming apparent that many Bernie supporters simply abstained from voting or voted for minority candidates or even switched to vote for Trump. This although was offset by another rather ironic development. Many Trump voters couldn’t vote – as evidenced by the many complaints on the right-wing “4chan” online hangout – because they didn’t register to vote. The sheer irony of the alt-right trolls complaints on the day of voting, that many forgot to register (or didn’t realise they had to) was amusing to some. Clinton – on the other hand – had made ensuring supporters registered was a major part of her strategy, which Trump had largely neglected.

The question remains as to what was the offset difference between Bernie voters abstaining or voting for Trump verses non-registered Trump supporters. Certainly the overall effect – whatever it may have been – did not hamper Trump’s success. The Democrats although, created a rod for their own back. The DNC corruptly undermined Bernie Sanders when he clearly had the more popular following but failed to take corporate money and therefore be beholden to them. Hillary gladly accepted her donors and the faustian bargain was completed. She got the nomination. The DNC have only their own corrupt internal arrogance to blame for this failure to beat Trump. Sanders was never behind Trump in the polls, although to be honest the polls did not predict a Trump win. So polling should be approached with large pillars of salt. If the final choice weren’t so disastrous, I would say it served the DNC right. Their arrogant complacency and willingness to bend over to bow to the will of their corporate donors has handed America over to a racist, misogynist, incompetent, liar and failed business man who has run a trail of corporate wreckage behind him. Political party’s need to wake up and start listening to their supporters, not their donors and internal lobbyists and factional politics. It’s the same in Australia. Political donations by corporates are well overdue for review.

The media was also complicit in handing America to Trump. I would just like to quote former Democrat Senator and now Greens member, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans’s reflections on the media. “But if the level of disgust in the process of government is enough to turn a US Presidential election, one must also wonder about the effect of the media. For years, news has been replaced by infotainment. What is important is replaced by what is titillating or exciting. News is trivial, what is important is often not covered, particularly things like falling middle class jobs and stagnating wages. […] So the non-expert, pontificating and criticising overcomes the expert discussing sensibly- how many of those are on TV? The shock jock has become more important than the politician. So why are we surprised when it now happens in real life? The shock jock beat the politician. And the pollsters got it wrong again- just like in Brexit.”

The American political élite were not inclusive of what they regarded as the Hoi polloi of the population. The people who once engaged with Obama have turned on the Democrats as they have continued to cater to corporate interests. The grass roots support for Bernie Sanders demonstrated this. But DNC undermined Bernie Sanders when he was clearly more popular and with far less baggage. Given the turnaround in voting patterns there had to be many former democrats who changed their allegiances and not merely because of a racist or misogynist agenda – even if Trump represented that. There were other influences that guided Americans. The Hoi Polloi saw an establishment that bailed out banks rather than implement banking regulation on Wall Street. The brutal destruction of the Occupy Movement by a coordinated national effort led by the FBI won no favourable impressions. Despite long-term unemployed Americans having dropped by 614,000, it was still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession at the beginning of 2016. Home ownership dropped and while worthy projects such as the Heidelberg Project converted abandoned houses into Art works in Detroit, that such a project even exists, is telling of the America’s economy. The myth of the “great American dream” for opportunities for success have been dashed as the administration has failed to provide genuine opportunity for social mobility amongst Americans. This administration continued to fail to facilitate a lack of educational opportunities for the masses. Interestingly, the largest significant characteristics of Trump voter demographics was an apparent absence of a college degree. And of course their foreign policy which resulted in America bombing seven countries during the last administration and adding to the huge worldwide mass of refugees on the move through out the world, is winning few friends. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria, in case you weren’t keeping track.)

Exit polls have shown that Trump maintained a strong lead amongst white Anglo Saxon men supported by the conservative religious right. Which leads us into examining the category of folks who had other reasons other than simply rationalising their disillusioned with the performance of the current administration. There is that group of white Anglo Saxon men and women who aligned with Trump’s core values. They who sought to assert their claim to racial dominance and hierarchical social control. As with Australia, many Americans rejected egalitarian pluralism for bigotry, misogyny and racism.

The “right to be Bigots” (as Brandis lobbied for) has been implanted in the moral ethos of three major western democracies. Brexit for Britian, Trump for America and Turnbull’s capitulation to the neo-conservatives of his party for Australia. All the progress in values, morality, fairness and equality which so many folks at the grass roots in this generation witnessed slowly emerging, have been dashed on the shores of hatred, pettiness and division. The blow to egalitarianism that Trump represents has been a crushing blow many are still reeling from. But having been hit so hard we can not stay down. We can not surrender to the hatred. Like the followers of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu or Martin Luthor and the like, we have to pick ourselves back up off the ground. We have to face they that defile our hopes and stand for true freedom from oppression, racism, bigotry and misogyny. The battle for a more progressive, egalitarian and inclusive society continues and we cannot let these defeats define us.

Banning Muslims

August 12, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Calls to ban Muslim immigration are irrational and economically unviable since Australia’s Muslim community, and tourist visitors have brought peace and prosperity — not terrorism.

Our Australian borders, “Girt by Sea”, apparently, require strict border protection. Is the Government’s security claim justified and should we ban Muslim immigration?

In the light of fears expressed by Sonia Kruger and Pauline Hanson calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and Morrison and Dutton’s harsh detention policies for any desperate enough to approach our shores, justified?

Asylum Seekers are not Terrorists

All despite no asylum seeker arriving by a boat ever being implicated in political terrorism in Australia! Yet “Reclaim Australia” adherents and government MPs keep raising the fear levels. They imply terrorists are trudging from country to country, risking life and limb in leaky fishing boats for the expressed purpose of carrying out terrorist acts. Hiding as victimized refugees defies logic, rationality, and common sense, especially when it is easier to fly in simply. This really this is seriously the type of expressed argument by politicians like Cory Bernardi, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson and George Christensen.

The closest thing to any “Muslim terrorist” we have experienced in the last decade flew in on a comfortable plane on a business visa with the expressed approval by the conservative Government of the day. Granted a protection visa in 2000, Haron Monis became a citizen in 2004. Aside from having a criminal & psychological history and fallouts with the Australian courts for implications in crimes, it was evident that Man Haron Monis only thought of using the “terrorist” angle for his actions in the Lindt Café, as an afterthought. His request for an ISIL Flag to be brought into the cafe reflects the lack of intent of an organised act of terrorism, and is more accurately described as a “violent rampage by a narcissistic and mentally unstable man”.

Perhaps we should stop cutting mental health programs as a mitigating effort? Even if you do consider this an act of political terrorism, (and let’s generously give it the widest definition possible), the death of one person (the police killed the other person) might bring the death toll due to “terrorism” in Australia to five. That number includes the 1978 Hilton Hotel bombing (which killed three) and perhaps adding the Turkish consul-general murdered in Sydney in 1980. Adding this murder as a “terrorist death” is stretching credibility.

It’s hard to manufacture any numbers of significance for actual terrorist acts in this country. Of course the strict interpretation of section 100.1 of the Criminal Code’s definition of a “terrorist act” would suggest only the Hilton Bombing is relevant. If you count world-wide terrorist deaths of Australians killed since the 1978 Hilton bombing, then only 113 deaths are represented. At an average of 3 a year, frankly horses kill more Australians (at a rate of 20/yr). I curiously await the announcement of the closure of the horseriding, rearing and racing industry and sport. Really? <sigh> We tend to become hysterical about hypothetical possibilities, while inadequately dealing with more prominent causes of mortality. (i.e. women’s deaths from domestic violence).

Domestic Terrorism

Australia spends billions on the negligible threat of “terrorism”, while our conservative government had reduced by $300 million the amount we spend on risk mitigation for domestic violence. Kate Stone reported 79 Women were killed last year yet while resources for domestic violence have shrunk, counter terrorism measures for the theoretical possibility of death, has increased by $1.2 Billion in 2016.

White Terrorism

Frankly, the most significant post World War 2 loss of lives on Australian shores due to a single individual was accomplished by a blue eyed, blonde, Caucasian (non-Muslim) man at Port Arthur named Martin Bryant in 1996. Before that, there was the Queen Street Post Office massacre by the Catholic Caucasian Frank Vitkovic who killed nine people (from which the term “going postal” entered the Australian vernacular). In the same year, 1987, the right-wing Caucasian non-Muslim Australian Army officer, Julian Knight killed seven people. In fact the more you examine the history of massacres in Australia (and in particular the ones before the World Wars), the more you realise the real profile of mass killers is very similar to the American experience. The lessons are, restore mental health programs and beware of white, Catholic, right-wing, non-Muslim Caucasians!

We are content to ignore the fact that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are peaceful law abiding citizens, who are more often the victims of radicalised elements within their society. They have a greater risk of death by terrorism than any non-Muslim Australian.

That doesn’t include deaths instituted by the Western government’s ‘war on terror’ which estimates have put at 4 million people.

So many terrified of so few

Yet death by Muslim terrorist rates as a fear that preoccupies our social media chatter, our racial vilification, our TV talk show conversations. Our irrational fear of barely 2% of our population who are Muslim (a third of which are Australian born) is odd in the face of so many other more fatal causes.

Between 2003-12 the ABS recorded a few causes for deaths many of which were outlined in Crikey’s article. Still, we will spend billions on anti-terrorism.

Are you a Muslim?

With the return of prominent racial vilification on the national political agenda with Hanson’s “One Nation” party returning to power, new calls for action have emerged.

The proposal that we should lock out Muslims from entering our country poses some significant issues. Not unlike the Donald Trump response to the threat of ISIL by locking down borders to any Muslims, the identification of Muslims is problematic. Given Muslim culture is expanded by conversion and spans beyond typical skin colour demographics, do we adopt the Trump methodology of discerning Muslim identity by having Border Force, ask each entrant “Are you Muslim?”

Would we oddly expect a person who is entering the country intent on doing us harm to answer honestly? Who would we then stop? How would Sonia Kruger’s ban be implemented?

Are you a Refugee?

Muslims enter the country as refugees, immigrants, or for education, business or tourism. Refugees & immigrants, historically, add considerably to the economic welfare of our nation. Not only do this asylum seeker population NOT generate terrorist incidents, but they do create economic wealth in Australia (and not by taking jobs so much as creating them). The example of Karen refugees making $40m worth of contributions to the economy in Nhill, Victoria, is a classic case. Spending 1.2 Billion a year to keep them in detention, when they could be boosting our economy by millions is wasteful. So, if it is not refugees that are a threat, then what of the alternative group that fly in on a plane every year? Which industry in Australia are we prepared to damage to allay our fears?

Of the 7.78 Million visitors to Australia, for reasons of holidays, business, employment or education; many originate from Muslim countries.

Tourism.

While Tourism from Japanese has been decreasing, Asian and Muslim countries have been on a long running increase.

In 2015, visitors from Malaysia (with a 61% Muslim population) generated $1.1 billion in total expenditure. Indonesia (with an 87% Muslim population) generated $0.6 billion and the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates with a combined 82% Muslim population), about $1 billion. ¹

Tourism Queensland has been marketing to Arab travellers for quite some time and definitely would find Queensland’s Pauline Hanson’s call for a ban, detrimental.

Education.

International students contribute $19.7 Billion to the Australian economy and while Islamic students tend to concentrate their numbers at the Universities of Melbourne, Griffith and the Western Sydney, preventing Muslims from participating in Australian education would have a significant economic impact. If – like the Australian population – Muslims represent less than 2% of university students, then we might be discussing a $400M hit to our economy.

Business

Then there are the business and 457 visas, which facilitate Muslims entering the country for employment or trade. Trade for goods, services and technology with the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) is a $16 Billion industry.

The Economic rationalisation?

The question we need to ask is how much of the billions of dollars in tourism, education and business markets are we prepared to sacrifice or adversely affect? All this in the name of a hypothetical possibility, we haven’t seen actualised in 38 years? If we’d only stopped sabotaging funding for mental health programs perhaps we’d have less murderous events we like to call “terrorism”, inappropriately? To what extent will we lock out the Muslim world from Australia because of this disproportionate fear? I thought true conservatives sought to be prosperous, measure real risk rationally and be economically responsible? So why choose an economically irrational and highly expensive path based on an obscure risk with negligible statistical occurrences? Will the Coalition Government ignore it?

——//——–

TTF submission into the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade inquiry into trade with the Middle East – Nov 2014