A New White Australia Policy: Senator Fraser Anning Makes Maiden Speech

7

Did the White Australia Policy ever actually kill anybody? How many people were killed as a direct result of the White Australia Policy? When you think back to your erliest memories from school, when your teachers told you it was The Worst Thing That Ever Happened, what were the actual stats? You’d think if the White Australia Policy did actually kill somebody, they would have told you. The stats would have to be out there. Surely there would have been an apology by now.

The answer, of course, is that the White Australia Policy kiled nobody.

Regardless, this speech by Senator Fraser Anning of the Katter Party, calling for a New White Australia Policy, an end to Muslim immigration, a plebiscite on immigration and a focus on Australia’s Western and Christian heritage, has sent Australia’s entire political and media establishment into apoplexy:

Maiden Speech

My maiden speech which has kicked an absolute hornets nest. Before you form any judgement watch the speech.

I have called for a plebiscite to allow the Australian people not bureaucrats to decide who comes here.

Some in the media and left wing politicians are simply afraid of the Australian people having a say on who comes here.

As I called for a plebiscite on the immigration mix, this baseless and ridiculous criticism is simply an effort to play the man and not the ball.

It is ironic that those on the left such as the Greens and some Labor who seek to criticise me are the same people who refused to support my efforts to stop Australia funding the Palestinian Authority who finance terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli women and children.

Posted by Senator Fraser Anning on Tuesday, 14 August 2018

From the Unshackled:

“In possibly the most provocative maiden speech to hit Parliament since Pauline Hanson 22 years ago Queensland senator Fraser Anning has called for a return to a “European Christian” immigration system and a ban on Muslims migrating to Australia.

“We as a nation are entitled to insist that those who are allowed to come here predominantly reflect the historic European-Christian composition of Australian society,” he told the senate in Canberra.

He said migrants should embrace the English language and Australian values, saying cultural diversity undermined social cohesion.

He also pointed out that for most of Australian history up until the election of Gough Whitlam in 1972 the social and cultural cohesion aspects of immigration policy had been a bipartisan affair, reminding the parliament that:

“Great Labor statesmen – Ben Chifley, John Curtin and Arthur Calwell – all strongly supported an immigration program that actively discriminated in favour of Europeans.”

But he said this was dismantled when “Whitlam and his hard-left cronies adopted Soviet-inspired United Nations treaties on discrimination and banned preferential selection of migrants based on their ethnicity”.

“Ethnocultural diversity … has been allowed to rise to dangerous levels in many suburbs,” he said.

“In direct response, self-segregation, including white flight from poorer inner-urban areas, has become the norm.”

As if calling out the communist inspiration behind the deliberate disolution of Australia’s original British origins wasn’t bad enough, the left have deliberately taken Senator Anning’s use of the phrase “a final solution to Australia’s immigration policy” out of context:

“In particular critics leapt on the senator’s use of the term “final solution” to describe his recommendation of a plebiscite to settle the matter of immigration in this country once and for all. The term was of course used in a different and far more sinister context by the Nazi regime in Germany eight decades ago.”

As Dvir Abramovich from the Anti-Defamation Commission pointed out just the other day, it is not okay to call someone a ‘nazi’:

Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Dvir Abramovich said today the debate on the issue was legitimate, but urged commentators to steer away from comparisons with dictators which downplayed genuine crimes that had been committed.

“While I understand that there are strong views regarding this issue, Mr Latham’s inappropriate comparison of Jacinta Allan’s decision to Nazi Germany is insensitive, outrageous and needlessly causes further pain to survivors and to their families,” Dr Abramovich said.

“Yes, the debate about pulling Sky News bulletins from public train stations is a legitimate one, and people are entitled to disagree with the government’s stance. However, it’s a gross and odious distortion of history to compare Ms Allan’s actions to Goebbels’s genocidal propaganda.”

We expect that if full apologies are not forthcoming to Senator Anning, the ADC will take strong action to reprimand those who have belittled the actual suffering inflicted on Jews by acrual national socialists.

Today in Federal Parliament all sides of politics have condemned his speech, backed a censure motion against him and called for him to be sacked from the Katter Party. Like a boss, Senator Anning has refused to back down from his comments:

MUSLIM MIGRATION BAN

Fraser Anning says “the vast majority of Australians agree” with his call for an end to Muslim migration and he “didn’t even think about” the connection of his words ‘final solution’ to Hitler’s policy. #9Today

Posted by TODAY on Tuesday, 14 August 2018

You can read a full transcript of Senator Anning’s maiden speech here.

The XYZ will follow updates to this story.

  • Taipan

    Finally a parliamentarian who tells it like it is.

  • Taipan

    It was never officially the “White Australia Policy”. The Immigration Restriction Act was what it intended to be. Restrict immigration that was best for Australia.

  • thegentlemantroll

    Now there’s a rock through your Overton window…

  • Maryanne

    If all sides of the parliament are condemning Anning’s speech he must be onto something good because the parliament is full of traitors and drongos.

  • Harry Stottle

    If she’s ok with Islamic immigration and the unavoidable terror of children being blown to pieces, why doesn’t she just say so? I would honestly rather she said that, than reel off the usual “inflammatory, divisive and hurtful” bullshit.
    It needs to be said. It needs to be dealt with.

  • People

    F R A S E R!

    If you want to quietly counter the echoes and sustain your team during attack, you’ll want to provide your subscribers with some manageable but not insubstantial decals or bumper stickers, for conspicuous public display. You don’t even have to put them on your car. Just being seen in numbers will do.

  • Jonathan

    Hanson’s response to this was just appalling, same slander used against her after her maiden speech. I expect its out of jealousy. This egotist really needs to step aside for someone like Latham now. She’s been exposed.