The
"debate" was moderated by one Anna Reynolds who used to be involved with
ABC television on Current Affairs programmes and was organised the Queensland
University of Technology's (QUT) school of journalism.
Commentary by Scott Balson, Global Web Builders
A balmy Queensland day. One which would bring out all the city's new-age multicultural bureaucracies in a debate which featured:
The
"debate" was moderated by one Anna Reynolds who used to be involved with
ABC television on Current Affairs programmes and was organised the Queensland
University of Technology's (QUT) school of journalism.
When I arrived I found a collection of about 100 people representing a large number of ethnic communities but very few regular Aussies. During question time we were to discover just how large the local "multicultural" lobby was as titles were proudly presented before prepared questions were fired exclusively at Robyn Spencer. The old guard Aussies, were there but looking at the demographics of Australia's population the weighting was about 100:1 against mainstream Australia's opinions in the "debate".
I guess the debate being held at 11am on a Saturday morning would have something to do with that.
Before getting in I had a "Fact-sheet" handed to me at the door by a well known member of the "anti-racism" Loony Left. The Fact sheet from "Action Against Racism" was "exposing One Nation's Racist Lies" - the mood for the debate was pretty obvious.
No lynch mob could have had a better disguise than those who "represented Australia" at the event.
On the seats in the large room was an expensive looking folder headed "Australian immigration the facts" with a picture of the Hon Philip Ruddock MP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the inside sleeve. A small politically correct booklet featuring a number of Asians and headed "Dispelling the myths about immigration" set the trend.
The booklet set out to dispel concerns raised by Pauline Hanson's One Nation while not referring to the party. Accompanying the booklet was a letter from the minister and a number of A4 size pamphlets including one on "Racial tolerance: and another on "The evolution of Australia's multicultural policies".
The foundation of the debate turned out to be a Public Journalsim Project headed "Immigration beyond 2000 - your say" sponsored by News Limited's Courier Mail, "Walking Together", the Australian Research Council and the QUT.
The Journalism Project questionnaire read: Immigration beyond 2000 is the second of three public forums which will address race relations in Queensland. It is part of the Public Journalism Project - the first of its kind in Australia.
Public Journalism is based on the belief that a democratic society depends on individuals participating in public life; it aims to improve the quality of media coverage of issues considered important to the community; and recognises that the media has a responsibility that goes beyond reporting and analysing the facts, by facilitating the community's search for resolutions.
The project is sponsored by the Australian Reserach Council, together with The Courier Mail. the Australians for Reconciliation (Qld project} and the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland. The research is being conducted by the School of Media and Journalism at Queensland University of Technology. Project leader is Cratis Hippocrates...
The introduction was followed by a three page questionnaire. I looked behind me at the rich splattering of well-placed multicultural representatives - many of whom I could recognise for their virulent anti-Hanson points of view reported, with photograph, in The Courier Mail.
Yes, this would be a perfect "research" project based on an unbalanced segment of Australian society participating in the hidden corridors of academia - then pumping out their politically correct results as representative of "Australian views on the issue".
It was at events like this where the politically
correct hung out - distorting the real picture of Australia's
concerns and issues to suit their own agendas. An added bonus was
that the
mainstream
media were also there!
The event was introduced by Cratis Hippocrates (right) the head of the
school of journalism at the Queensland University of
Technology.
After his introduction he handed over to Ms Anna Reynolds (seen left) who set down the groundrules for the debate saying that each speaker would have eight minutes in which to present their case.
First
off was One Nation's Robyn Spencer (right) who talked about the problems
facing Australia including issues such as:
and then she compared that to 20 years ago when Australia was the "lucky country" with little foreign debt and offering the youth a fantastic, employed future.
"Immigration,"
said Spencer, "is not like a tax. You cannot remove it's impact three years
later. Migrants are here to stay."
She talked on how the "set of scales" had gone into complete imbalance with political correctness resulting in migrant-supporting bureaucracies exploding across the government body.
She talked on One Nation's Zero Net growth policy.
Spencer said that based on current immigration Australia would double its population by the year 2050.
She referred to a comment by New South Wales Labor state premier Bob carr
who said that Syndey is "full and cannot take any more migrants" and a comment
by Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating who said, "It is time to assess the
cost of
immigration".
New South Wales residents in Sydney currently suffering from tap water contaminated by crypto-sporidium.
All the time Mr Soorley - right - (Mayor of Brisbane) sat with arms folded staring stonily ahead except for when he took notes.
It was time for Soorley to make his presentation which started off surprisingly low key with the bigot saying "I will not be drawn into any conflict over One Nation"... a statement which was to be his first lie of the event.
Before going into Soorley's comments, readers might recall his obnoxious anti-One Nation statements at a "fund raiser" last year. At the function he held a watch in his left hand, and today he did the same. Thus the tag "time is in his hand".
Soorley spoke about the environmental impact of immigration, claiming to be a greenie - a point which was contradicted shortly thereafter by another speaker Sheila Davis who produced a Brisbane City Council letter signed by Soorley talking about the unavoidable impact on growth in Brisbane on woodlands.
Soorley
talked on the quality of life issues: Concepts: Technology; Competence:
Delivering a quality product; and Connectivity: Understanding the global
network.
He said that a growing economy was dependent on a growing population and
that Mrs Spencer had distorted facts about the cost of immigration. "Don't
be discouraged by false numbers and dishonesty..." he said in a
direct
reference to comments by Mrs Spencer.
His closing gambit claiming that Australia should target for a population of 50 million by the year 2050 contradicted everything that he had said before about keeping population in balance with the environment.
Sheila
Davis (seen right) represented Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable
Population. She made the statement that as soon as she talked about restricting
immigration the "racist" tag was trotted out by the politically correct lobby
groups.
She talked about the depletion of our arable land claiming that the amount left now measured an area smaller than the landmass of New Zealand.
Ms Davis was followed by a wonderful product of the politically correct lobby. His name was Uri Themal.
Uri,
seen right, is the Executive Director of Multicultural Affairs in Queensland.
Here are some quotes: "Migrants stop being migrants the moments they take out Australian citizenship."
"Cabramatta
gives Asians a place to call home before they become Australians."
"This is not a race based statement."
Uri claimed that a zero net growth would result in a negative population growth and that the claim that multiculturalism was divisive was a myth. Saying that Australia is the most diverse country in the world with 160 community groups.
"If we are divided by the way we look then Australia as we know it would fall apart," Uri said.
What
followed was "question time". The first questions were
from representatives of politically correct lobbies. They were presented by Asians and an Indian
questioner and surprise, surprise all taking to task Robyn Spencer's credibility. These well (tax-payer-funded) travelled Australians
(as confirmed in their boasts leading up to their questions) worked for
the Multicultural Development Association (MDA).
They read out their careful prepared questions challenging Mrs Spencer on
a totally biased, pre-conceived attack. What surprised me was that the convener
Ms Anna Reynolds seemed to know where they were and, despite a show of hands
across
the room (including my own), Ms Reynolds always seemed to pick an MDA staff
member - or maybe it was just that their staff filled the room.
This was the time when Lord Mayor Jim Soorley showed his ugly side - constantly interrupting Robyn Spencer and Sheila Davis with stupid comments and derogatory statements.
The few fair-dinkum Aussies who had bothered to come started demanding the mike to answer questions and, at times, the small audience became quite unruly.
I
had my hand up continuously Mrs Reynolds looking right through me until I
started clicking my fingers when she could not escape my eye.
With my hand acknowledged and the microphone in my hand I said that I found it strange how two out of four of those involved in the "debate" had referred to "racism" while talking about immigration and the obsession by politically correct questioners with "racism" when talking about immigration. I made the point that they were unrelated issues and should be treated as such. We were there to debate immigration.
I
then said, in response to MDA questioners, that I did not want Australia
to be "Asianised" and why should I. I asked why the Japanese were not questioned
about their "racism" for wanting to maintain their identity. Or, for that
matter, any other Asian nation north or Darwin. Was this not racist? Why
did Australia have to stand out like a pimple on a rock accepting any cultural
change thrown at it under the banner of "multiculturalism".
I was approached by a young lady from The Courier Mail who wanted to interview me on my views on immigration. She asked if I could wait awhile. I was happy to oblige.
After the question time I met a couple of One Nation people who had been at the debate. After waiting about twenty minutes for The Courier Mail reporter, to no avail, I left after enjoying a few sandwiches and orange juice.