Practicalities in Regard to the Repatriation of Moslems from Australia
Recent events in regard to Iraq, and derivatively in a large range of other Moslem countries from Algeria to Indonesia, have served as a warning in regard to the aggressive aspects of Islam.
Tensions throughout the Moslem world, which have been brought about by Israel and are being regularly exacerbated by Israel, have given rise to a surge in Moslem aggressiveness and hostility to the West, including Australia.
There appears little prospect of any fundamental change in Moslem attitudes, at least for some very considerable time. Australia has unfortunately already admitted many Moslem immigrants, who have tended to form enclaves, maintaining their own traditions as an extreme case of the multiculturalism that has been so rashly adopted here. Australian Moslems mix little with non-Moslems, and in recent years actual hostility towards non-Moslems has become increasingly evident.
Hostility from Australian Moslems towards the West, including Australia, is discussed by Mr. Raymond Watson in this Issue of National Observer.1 Mr. Watson discusses for example the incendiary statements of Sheikh El-Hilali, of the Lakembra mosque in New South Wales. El-Hilali preaches support for a Moslem fundamentalist jihad (holy war) against the West. Mr. Watson discusses also the violent physical attack by Moslems on an S.B.S. television crew. He discusses also gang-rape cases where non-Moslem women were targeted by Moslem youths (these rapes being blamed by El-Hilali on "Australian society").
Mr. Watson considers the very pertinent question whether the increasing Moslem presence is leading to an actual or potential fifth-column within Australia with consequent dangers to Australian society.
It is unfortunate that it is necessary to consider these matters. It is also unfortunate that constant attacks by left-liberals on those who raise them have prevented their proper consideration in the past. The pejorative term "racism" has become much abused. It is a term that (a) is applied differentially - Aboriginals, Jewish people, Africans and Asians are not referred to as "racists" although they openly apply racial criteria - and (b) is extended to legitimate attempts to preserve cultural traditions and prevent tensions and aggression.
It must be accepted that nations have a legitimate interest in their cultural traditions, social harmony and security, and they are fully entitled, for example, to limit immigration by particular groups accordingly. Indeed, such limitations are applied in most nations of the world, and particularly among Asian, African and Middle-East countries. Only in the West do left-liberals, in the name of purported opposition to "racism", attempt to undermine their cultures by insisting on the immigration of unsuitable groups.
The "white Australia" policy adopted by Australia for many years had general community support. Its successor - a Restricted Immigration Policy - was in due course abandoned. A difficulty with departing from the Restricted Immigration Policy was that, when it was gone, the flood-gates would eventually be opened. More and more non-Europeans would be admitted on one basis or another, and would form groups to lobby politicians and threaten not to vote for them if large numbers of their countrymen were not admitted.
Is it possible to undo the consequences of excessive Moslem immigration to Australia? Many Moslems have already been naturalised, and in such cases deportation is rarely achievable. In the case of Moslems who have not been naturalised - and especially when they are Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians or from similar tribal backgrounds - more care should be taken before naturalisation is permitted. In many instances those who have obtained visas have done so by fraud or the supply of false information. In all such cases visas should be withdrawn and, a fortiori, naturalisation refused.
In addition, any further Moslem immigration should be curtailed. Permitting the Moslem community to increase has already given rise to long-term difficulties for Australia, and it would be dangerous and foolish to exacerbate these further.
The foregoing requires that Australia should not maintain the unwise principle that immigrants are assessed regardless of race, religion or culture. In doing so some fortitude, and a degree of diplomacy, will be required. As noted here, most other countries have restrictions on immigration that are based on criteria of these kinds. Indeed, virtually no other countries have gone to the utopian lengths of Australia. Where other countries apply suitable restrictions they do so by a variety of formulae, sometimes expressing their purpose openly, sometimes concealing it in order to avoid causing undue offence.
1. "The History of Appeasement Repeats Itself", pages 12-22, infra.
National Observer No. 56 - Autumn 2003