How can you say that non-Europeans or non-British people are not Australians? What about the people born here? Are you going to send them back?
Yup. Peter Dutton just did.
From the Herald Sun:
Islamic State terrorist Neil Prakash will never again set foot in Australia as a free man after the Government stripped him of his Australian citizenship.
Melbourne-born Prakash, 27, was notified on December 21 that he was no longer an Australian citizen.
Melbourne-born. No surprise there. Pretty much anybody born in this shithole should be suspect. I am surprised the Federal government hasn’t excised Melbourne from the mainland already.
He is the 12th person to lose their Australian citizenship after joining a terrorist organisation, and the first person ever to be confirmed by the Government as having had his Australian citizenship ripped away due to his terrorist activities…
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton told News Corp the Government was determined to deal with foreign terrorist fighters “as far from our shores as possible.”
“Islamic State is opposed to Australia, our interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties,’’ he said.
“To be in the service of such a terrorist organisation as Mr Prakash was, is to act inconsistently with your allegiance to Australia, and we will do everything we can to ensure he is brought to account for his crimes.”
Born in Melbourne in May 1991 to a Cambodian mother and a Fijian father, Prakash held dual Australian/Fijian citizenship.
This is how you deal with Islamic terrorists.
This should set a blueprint. Whether we are working from a civic nationalist perspective or an ethnic nationalist perspective, this works.
A civic nationalist will argue that if you want to consider yourself an Australian, you should make your commitment to Australia number one. If you demonstrate that you have a higher loyalty to a religion, a state or a people whose values are at odds with Australian “values”, you have breached the contract which makes you Australian, and you should be given the boot.
For an ethnic nationalist, somebody with the surname “Prakash” is on the face of it not Australian, and the fact that he has travelled to a warzone to fight for an Islamic terrorist organisation simply proves this point and makes it easier to revoke his citizenship.
The reason this is a blueprint, and a cause for unity amongst civic and ethnic nationalists, is that once you have crossed the line of “ripping” away the Australian citizenship of somebody who was born here for the reason of security and Australian “values”, we can follow the extension of this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What if the residence in Australia of an entire group of people who follow a religion at odds with Australian “values” threatens the primacy of said Australian “values”?
Given that the population of said people of said religion at odds with Australian “values” is steadily increasing to the point where they will alter the demographic balance in Australia, and the fact that they tend to act, and vote, collectively for the interests of their religion, could they alter the political nature of Australia in a direction at odds with the original intention of Australia’s founding fathers?
Could not the residence in Australia of any group of people of any religion or nationality, who act and vote collectively in large enough numbers, have the potential to alter Australian “values” or the political direction of Australia?
What if a small group of people worked collectively, at least in general, to deliberately affect political decisions in Australia which would cause a demographic shift, thus altering the core “values”, political direction and indeed the identity of Australia, to the benefit of that group of people at the expense of the descendants of the people who originally founded the nation?
The thing about civic nationalist concerns about Australian “values” or the threat of Islam to our freedoms and liberties is that once one starts taking these issues seriously, they lead inexorably to the subject of race. This leads to acknowledgement of the demographic displacement of white European people in our homelands and our colonies, the link between culture, “values” and race, and thus the importance of defending the interests of our race and the existence of our people in order to defend our culture and our values.
It is a logical path I have travelled, and the stripping of Prakash’s Australian citizenship is a step in this process. It could be the start of an avalanche.
Two quibbles with the government’s decision:
The three young children Prakash claims to have fathered with two jihadi brides are not impacted by the decision and retain their Australian citizenship.
Isn’t it wrong to seperate children from their parents? Furthermore, children become adults. To whom do you think these future adults will owe loyalty?
Given he has admitted joining Islamic State, observers in Turkey expect he will eventually be sentenced to a likely 7.5 years jail term.
Upon his release from jail, Turkey will have the option of deporting him to Fiji, or sending him back across the border to Syria, a move that would could effectively sentence him to death, with Islamic State still active in Syria, and executing any defectors they can catch.
In July, the Turkish courts rejected an application by Australia to extradite him to face terrorism charges on home soil.
The Turkish Government has agreed, on behalf of the Australian Government, to appeal the ruling.
His arrest warrant is still active, which means that in the unlikely event the Turkish courts do not convict him and turn him loose, the Australian Government can still have him arrested through an Interpol Red Notice if he attempted to cross a border.
The Australian government could save a lot of time and money by letting the Turkish government send Prakash back to Syria. It has a poetic ring to it, don’t you think?