Well, that was the rally that was.
Or wasn’t.
In brief, on Sunday approximately 20 or 30 members and supporters of the ‘Australian Defence League’ (ADL) gathered at midday at Federation Square. Gathering in opposition were perhaps 1 or 200 or so anti-racists. For about an hour the anti-racists–gathered under the umbrella of ‘The Rally Against Racism and Fascism’–listened to a number of speeches, a man singing about how we are all brothers, and the screams and shouts of the ADL.
Vision of both sides can be found elsewhere on the web, but the featured speaker for the ADL was not, surprisingly, the Londoner Martin Brennan (parachuted in, with EDL leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon‘s blessing, to take charge of the incompetent Australians) but some other bloke. I dunno what he was on about–quite a lot judging by the array of placards he’d placed in front of his impromptu platform.
Anyway, after an hour so, it was decided that it was probably time for the Englishman to lead the defensive Australians in a retreat from the Square. And so, after some five or so minutes of pushing, the ADL was evicted.
And that was pretty much it.
Not an auspicious beginning to Martin’s plan to whip the convicts into shape, but certainly an improvement upon the (other) ADL’s attempt to stand about the steps of Flinders Street Station in April last year. Nobody was arrested and nobody was injured (that I know of) although one older woman–I think there to protest the ADL–was jostled and quite upset when she was finally able to make her way out from the brief melee. Presumably, if he doesn’t piss off back to London, Martin will rally his followers again at some point, and the cycle will be repeated.
Props to all those who took a public stand against the ADL’s bigotry, ignorance and rampant paranoia; the Herald Sun has a report–Protesters clash at anti-Muslim rally in Melbourne, John Masanauskas, May 16, 2011–and presumably there’ll be others in the days ahead…
Counter-demonstration against Fascist rally – Federation Square, peter, Indymedia Australia, May 16, 2011 | Photo of Martin Brennan.
Also: Derryn Hinch.
Actually… andy mate… the number of crimes committed by the ‘peaceful socialists’ would fill a book… and soon will fill a courtroom… I’m hoping… as promised.
Try the following:
-Obstruction
-Unlawful Assembly
-Riot
-Affray
-Offensive Behavior
-Assault (Against Me)
-Property Damage
I look forward to dragging these psychos into court if the police oblige. Especially the freak who was doing the inciting with the bull horn… oh that will be good.
Other than that… we had a great time… [etc.].
Obviously this little blog is biased in the utmost. Please report things intelligently and objectively. The ADL are defending their homeland and Australian culture, there is nothing racist in their comments, and the only yelling, screaming and violence perpetrated was by the racist mob attacking innocent women and families from the peaceful ADL. Police arrested numerous members of the racist ignorant mob and not one person of ADL was arrested. The concerns of this group are legitimate and false reporting will not help the situation.
@Ele: A few things.
1. The ADL is silly.
2. The report is accurate: you merely object to my characterisation of the ADL.
3. Afaik, nobody was arrested.
Oh, I’m getting sick of the self imposed ‘apartheid’ by many (not all) of those of Islamic beliefs. Read the Koran. How about this gem. Quote from the Chapter of Women [sic], [S]ura 35.
“Men stand superior to women in that Allah prefers men, those whose perverseness ye fear”–that is[,] guys[,] women’s perverseness–“admonish them, remove them into bedchambers and BEAT them”–yes, that[‘]s right everyone BEAT, I quote totally accurately, and since I’m a student of religions, I’d make sure of it–“but if they submit, then do not move against them”.
Lovely isn[‘]t it? [V]iolence against women (which is an [sic] anathema to us, you know[,] we abhor it?) is ordained [and?] condoned in their most holy of books. Well, I can imagine there[‘]s a few guys out there who have secret wishes of this sort of thing, and may even convert after reading THAT quote in the hope it gives them total control and dominance over a woman[‘]s mind and body. Yes, isn[‘]t that all your secret fantasy that Islam has ordained and allowed? Because the quote means a woman must adhere to what the man says she must think, believe, behave[;] heaven help her if she has an individual [?] thinking mind. And let[‘]s not even go towards the physical side of things. Oh it[‘]s ALL so horrible. So, if you wish to comment on Islam, PLEASE read the Koran, I assume all those that defend it totally believe and support its teachings. You know pseudo [M]uslims and so on. Would all you men like to be able to beat your woman/women until they totally submit to you? GO ON, BE HONEST.
G’day Bridgit:
Briefly:
Afaik… Surat Al-Mala’ikah “The Angels”, also known as Fatir (سورة فاطر sūratu fāṭir) “Originator” is the 35th Sura (chapter) of the Qur’an.
Dunno where youse got “the Chapter of Women” from.
Sura An-Nisa (Arabic: سورة النساء, Sūratu an-Nisā, “Women”) is the fourth chapter (Sura) of the Qur’an.
Its meaning, like other religious texts, is open to interpretation.
I dunno what your ranting and raving has to do with the ADL rally.
As for men being given authority to beat women: sure, some blokes hanker after that. On the other hand, it’s against the law and the number of men who openly espouse this right are few and far between (but can of course be Muslim or Christian, religious or secular). What’s more relevant, I think, is the fact that men do abuse women in contemporary Australia, and those who regard it with as much repugnance as you do can always assist in implementing programs to support victims/survivors of such abuse and/or to create and sustain movements which aim to dismantle patriarchy.
None of which requires anyone to stand around Fed Square wearing nationalist paraphernalia while bemoaning the presence of Muslims in Australia.
Nazi punks
Nazi punks
Nazi punks-Fuck Off!
If you’ve come to fight, get outta here
You ain’t no better than the bouncers
We ain’t trying to be police
When you ape the cops it ain’t anarchy
Bridgit,
Your use of square brackets amazes and fascinates me.
@ndy, I can’t get my head around how progressive folk can take sides with the islamofascists. Islam stands for anything and everything any progressive worth her salt despises from the bottom of her heart. So for the anarcho brigade from the SA and such, is this to have some spass in trashing people and a good natured biff-up with the coppers? Or is there an agenda I am missing? And be so kind to spare me the tired racialist tribe. We all know Islam is not about ethnicity.
G’day Raoul,
If by ‘progressive folk’ you mean those who shutdown the ADL rally, I think your analysis is mistaken. Taking a stand against the ADL is not synonymous with taking a stand for ‘Islamo-fascism’. By the same token, if by ‘SA’ you mean ‘Socialist Alliance’, they’re a Leninist party, and thus hardly ‘anarcho’. In any case, yeah, you’re missing an agenda, I think, which is that of opposing the assembly of a group which uses irrational fears of an Islamic revolution in Australia in order to fuel sectarian division, and which, like the EDL, provides a laboratory for the development of a reactionary, right-wing social movement.
Hi, ADL 732. Law student here; a few points:
1. Go ahead and “drag” the demonstrators through the courts (you realise you’ll have to identify each one by name and face, and prove that they committed an individual offence, though, right?). You clearly don’t get out much if you think that that’s how this works. If any of the crowd were arrested and charged on the day, you’d have some chance of bringing these charges against them (because they would have been charged with them when there was still some primary evidence anything happened).
Since no photographs or videos (that I’ve seen, from either camp, and which would serve as sole articles of evidence) exist of anybody identifiable performing any actual criminal activity (and I use this term broadly, as a lot went on that day that falls into grey areas), and the police refrained from using any of their legal powers (arrest is a fundamental one, and as far as I hear nobody was arrested and charged), all that’s to go on is your word and some vague videos of people in a generally foul mood shouting (on both sides).
2. I think you may have confused a few fundamental police powers. Your camp repeatedly refers to “arrests” and “charges” which were performed and laid respectively (and which may help you take activists to court), but the record indicates neither. It’s not actually too hard of a mistake to make when one is pretending to know something about the law, so allow me to explain it in simple terms:
An “arrest” may refer loosely to a number of actions which a police officer may perform in order to curtail illegal activity (or assist with an investigation, enforce a court order, yada yada). You seem to think that anybody on the activists’ side who was reprimanded by police was necessarily “arrested” and “charged” and that this will help you in court. Not so.
When somebody is making a bother of themselves in public, the police may exercise one of a few powers in order to curtail the activity, and exercise their authority. These powers include arrest [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 75], search and seizure (which may lead to arrest) [Summary Offences Act 1953 ss 68-72], amended:[Summary Offences and Control of Weapons Acts Amendment Bill 2009], the use of questioning procedures (which may be considered voluntary without charge) and a formal caution or “move-on” order.
Since nobody at the rally was issued with a summons (which would be the result of powers 1 or 2) or taken to a police station (which would be the result of powers 1, 2, and potentially 3 [if the questioning led to suspicion of criminal activity]), we can assume that any chats to the police you witnessed on the activists’ side were the result of either unsuccessful searches, which are not recorded and result in no arrest; unsuccessful questionings, which are not recorded and result in no arrest; or formal cautions or “move-on” orders, which may be recorded (although only for bureaucracy, and usually aren’t, anyway) but result in no arrest on the condition of peaceful compliance.
Sorry if I rambled, I’m no solicitor yet; but what I’m trying to say here is that none of the activists on the day were necessarily “arrested” even if you think so; and none of the powers the police were able to exercise will lead to any sort of charges in court, or support any case you bring against them.
3. The crimes you list don’t match any behaviour recorded on the day. Here’s a blow-by-blow…
*Obstruction (section 4(e) Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic)): Since no public roads or footpaths were obstructed by the demonstrators (although it appears your group had planned to march up Swanston St, and would have committed this offence anyway if the activists hadn’t stopped you), the first is irrelevant (also, that’s the sort of thing police prefer to charge on the spot- otherwise all several hundred people who came through on either side would be charged in an unprecedented investigation of mammoth size)- if you examine the photos, though, the ADL block a large part of the Fed Square footpath themselves.
*Unlawful assembly: (you really don’t get out much, do you?) The police and DPP rarely use this charge anymore, as it is highly problematic and takes a lot of work (all demonstrators would have to be charged) and again it is the kind of charge that really needs to be laid on the day to stick. This charge is used to break up demonstrations which provoke a breach of the peace, not to later punish peaceful demonstrations.
*Riot: I shouldn’t bother responding to this, but if you want my honest opinion, you’d have to either charge both the ADL and RAAF with it, or neither. Anyway, the anti-ADL demonstrators strike a clear distinction with your lot- they were numerous groups with diffuse interests and purposes, only really united in distaste for the ADL, and promotion of Human Rights, and not a group who “used or threatened force or violence”. No acts of violence or force are evident in any of the photos or videos, just a lot of slow walking forward and chanting of slogans (this happens after most football games in my neighbourhood, and nothing is done. I must write to my local member.)
*Affray: No physical violence broke out, no evidence of any “fights” has been presented (except allegations), and nobody was charged with this offence on the day. This is another offence, though, that rarely stands up in court on the back of an event that’s gone cold and resulted in no arrests or charges.
*Offensive behaviour: Okay, you’ve got me here, there were lots of naughty words flying around (and one bare bottom, I hear tell!)… However there are numerous photos of the offensive material you people were propagating, which any judge would consider abhorrent (especially if they start instituting Sharia law, YIKES!). Bottom line, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t fire Muslamic Rayguns. This is a very minor charge that most magistrates would not even consider hearing unless attached to a string of other offenses.
*Assault: That’s really between you and whoever “assaulted” you. If you can’t prove who they are, though, you can’t actually charge them with it. Further, I think you’re fibbing.
*Property Damage: What bloody property? The PA cord got snapped or something? The cardboard signs got torn up? How about you get the demonstrators to chuck you a tenner and call it square?
Cheers.
Martin Brennan (if that is his real name) is obviously a self hating Green Wog / Paddy. Brennan is as English as green beer.
Brennan is an Anglicized form of two distinct Gaelic Irish surnames:-O’Braonain and MacBranan.
Paddy is a moron. Spud thick Mick.
Breeds like a rabbit. Thinks with his prick.
Anything floors him if he can’ fight or drink it.
Round them up in Ulster. Tow it out and sink it.
Green wogs. Green wogs. Our face don’t fit.
Green wogs. Green wogs. We ain’t no Brits.
If the victim ain’t a soldier why should we care?
Irish bodies don’t count. Life’s cheaper over there.
Green wogs. Green wogs. Face don’t fit.
Green wogs. Green wogs. We ain’t no Brits!
Green wogs. Green wogs. Grab ’em boys.
Green wogs. Green wogs. Turn up the white noise.
Turn up the white noise! Turn up the white noise!
Thanks, @ndy. So the point I’m missing is that as long as one lot doesn’t agree with what another lot thinks or says, e.g. that her fear or dislike of islamofascism is deemed irrational, it’s OK to shut her down. Fuck the law or the universal right to free speech, if I don’t like what you think or say, I shut you up. And if I like your tits I rape you and if I like your car or house, I take it. So in consequence it comes down to who’s got the bigger club or is quicker with the gun. Yep, now I see what was missing. I thought that “anarcho” moniker was more of a satirical nature, not literal. Thanks for clearing that up.
G’day Raoul,
It seems to me that you’ve raised at least two separate issues. One concerns the rights and wrongs of the ADL rally and opposition to it, or what I would argue concerns, inter alia, issues to do with ‘freedom of assembly’. The other main issue, raised in your first comment, concerns ‘islamofascism’ and the relationship between it and ‘progressive’ opinion: you claimed that ‘progressive’ opposition to the ADL is the political equivalent of ‘progressive’ support for ‘islamofascism’.
In response to this latter issue, I wrote that “[t]aking a stand against the ADL is not synonymous with taking a stand for ‘Islamo-fascism’”; further, that to the extent there was a common agenda motivating those ‘progressives’ who assembled in opposition to the ADL, it was likely “that of opposing the assembly of a group which uses irrational fears of an Islamic revolution in Australia in order to fuel sectarian division, and which, like the EDL, provides a laboratory for the development of a reactionary, right-wing social movement”.
With regards the former issue, a few things.
I don’t think it’s a simple matter of somebody disagreeing with somebody else. With regards the law, as nobody was arrested, it would appear that, arguably, no laws were broken. (As a point of interest, despite being a ‘public’ space, Federation Square is actually private property, which raises other, related issues not necessarily present in the case of Crown land.) Beyond this, the slippery slope argument you present is obviously bogus. Even assuming that it was necessary to break the law in some fashion in order to prevent the ADL from assembling in public (which is a whole other story), it simply does not follow that a preparedness to do so means a willingness to engage in rape, theft or murder. To suggest otherwise is simply idiotic.
On the charges front, i was threatened with being “taken out” by someone on the ADL side, which is a violation of section 19 or 20 of the Crimes Act depending on how you take it which is worth 5 or 10 years … but i’m sure that doesn’t count for some reason
@ndy, I wouldn’t say the example with theft and rape etc is that far fetched or “idiotic”.
IMHO anarchy is anarchy, big or small; it is a general mindset, not a matter of quantity.
Sometimes it just pays to highlight the issue on hand with a more robust example to get a point across. Either one accepts the limitations of a democratic and civil society, or not. Once we take it upon ourselves to decide which democratically arrived laws we respect, and which not, we arrive in anarchy. Wouldn’t you agree?
One issue is the right of every Australian to lawfully express her views in public without intimidation, violence etc. Or should freedom of expression in true spirit of anarchy be limited to the views of those who have the bigger PA and the more aggressive rent-a-thugs? Fascists and Nazis and Marxists were always good at that, I had hoped we moved on from that.
The second issue is of course the views held by the ADL. First of all Islam is a religious doctrine, not an ethnicity. Muslims are not members of the “Islamic race”. Muslims are black, brown, white and yellow and anything in between. I can become a Muslim today or leave Islam and my skin is still the same. So whoever labels someone opposing Islam and the Islamisation of Australia as “racist” shows himself as a mental flatliner.
Then I may or may not agree with the ADL view that the Islamisation of Australia and the attempt by Islamic organisations to introduce Sharia law into Australia is a dangerous problem. Or I may think that too much Catholic prozelyting or too many Scientologists form a serious threat to our freedoms.
But should opposition to someone’s views or fears entitle others to “shut down” the expression of such views? What comes next? Will we start going to demos with knuckledusters, machetes and sawn-off shotguns? Is this how we want to “progress”?
If one shows clear disregard for one of the most basic democratic principles (freedom of expression) and the rule of law (I understand this was a properly registered and authorised assembly by the ADL), and takes matters into her own hands and decides as the impromptu sovereign and judge in one, what is right and wrong and how the other must be “shut down”, it is but a small step to any other form of discrimination and open violence and barbarism in the streets.
I’ve seen where this goes, first in the 70s in West Germany with the RAF and then in the mid 80s in Berlin Kreuzberg with anarcho squatters. It’s very bloody, it is very nasty and it ends up in more police state than we all wish for.
I am not an ADL supporter, but I’m not ignorant either. You have a caricature of the EDL man with the Nazi symbol “88”. But you don’t understand the EDL, they are a co-opt[ed?] Jewish group, and if you research you will find in any crowd of EDL the flag with the Star of David flying and denouncement of Nazi groups such as National Front and even the milder BNP. You will also find they stand beside blacks and gays, if you care to, rather than relying on slogans. Your characterization is inaccurate at any rate.
Oh, and by the way, check the news today — the news about the same Adam [?] Patel of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has been petitioning the Gillard govt’s ‘new multicultural policy’ for the inclusion of an admittedly mild, but door-opening Sharia Law. This makes comments by the same person in the press regarding the Federation Square protest misleading (“Ikebal Patel said the group was provocative and wrong to believe that most Australian Muslims wanted to bring in sharia law”) and makes the union, [S]ocialist [A]lliance, and others that pugnaciously turned out to counter-protest either ignorant, or running their own agenda (or just acting like violent commies, where ‘violence’ and ‘commie’ are mutually inclusive). Indeed, the ADL are validated by this news, which you haven’t seemed to have read yet. It would indicate that the Muslim community does indeed regard itself as separate in law and process from other ‘Australians’ — if that inclusive parenthesis is not ironic in use. It would also follow that all those that subscribe to the prevailing views here are supportive of their imputed (right) to claim separate consideration from the laws, values, and allegiance to Australian society that this group is asking. If you agree that a group is deserving of separate rights and considerations then it is your duty to renounce your Australian citizenship.
Pingback: antifa notes (may 18, 2011) | slackbastard
Sebastian:
The EDL are not a “co-opted Jewish group”: the vast majority of its membership is non-Jewish; its leadership is non-Jewish; it has been denounced by English Jews. The Israeli flag when carried by the EDL serves two purposes: first, it undermines accusations of neo-Nazism; secondly, it pisses off its opposition.
The denunciation of the BNP and NF is also necessary as Yaxley-Lennon, along with other EDL leaders, is ex-BNP, the BNP is naturally attracted to the EDL, and the two share a common constituency: or rather, they compete for the political loyalties and, crucially, the finances of a similar group of people. The EDL leadership also wishes to maintain its autonomy from political parties–for the time being at least.
Finally, yes, a tiny handful of blacks and gays have taken part in the EDL. But if you’ve followed its history as closely as I have, you’d know that the marriage has not been a happy one. Further, all this demonstrates is that blacks and gays can be stoopid too (but then, I’d always assumed that this was commonly understood).
On the EDL, something someone else done wrote in February 2011:
I haven’t read AFIC’s submission to the Federal Parliament’s Committee on Multicultural Affairs. If I could be arsed, I’ll look it up later [later and here (PDF)]. In the meantime, it’s worth keeping in mind that members of the public are free to submit anything they want to such committees, and consequently they receive all sorts of submissions; committees such as these merely publish reports and make recommendations, they do not legislate; throughout its history, not a single Australian MP, state or federal, has ever declared their commitment to introducing Islamic laws; it’s not exactly surprising that the Attorney-General should immediately declare he has no intention of facilitating “sharia law in Australia”; the exact nature of the proposals being made by AFIC, judging by media reports, seem to revolve around relatively uncontroversial issues reflecting Muslim teachings on marriage, divorce and so on.
A storm in a teacup, in other words.
So basically @ndy the Anarchist has his reasons for opposing the ADL and Sebastian and I, the Pro Whites have ours, which can be simply expressed as “If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck…it’s a Duck”.
What’s more this is Australia not Engerland, there is no “schism”, from the beginning the ADL have conducted themselves like the pack of “merchant bankers” they undoubtedly are and been given…ahem…”short shrift” by Pro Whites.
Anyone who seriously believes that the vultures of the Australian political elite would ever loosen their talons from the reins of power to a bunch of foreign Wahabis and mentally ill White converts probably deserves to have some sense pounded into them.
Raoul:
As I understand it, ‘anarchy’ may be understood in any number of ways–Lord knows, as someone who identifies as an anarchist and maintains a blog endorsing ‘anarchism’, I’ve come across all kindsa variations in meaning, some of which are quite spectacularly bizarre. But basically, I associate ‘anarchy’ with ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’: in political philosophy, when it’s not being employed as a pejorative, the term describes a classless, non-hierarchical society. So, y’know, it’s quite possible we’re talking at cross-purposes here. In any case, I maintain what I wrote earlier.
Beyond this, yeah; reductio ad absurdum, I guess: if yas break one law, who’s to say yas won’t break another/it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from evicting an ADL rally to going next door, slitting your neighbour’s throat and buggering his dog (or vice versa). And yeah, there’s an abundance of scholarly literature which addresses such questions (perhaps not in precisely these terms), and which examines more rigorously (from a legal, moral and philosophical perspective) the basis of the individual citizen’s obligations to the state and to obey its laws. Suffice it to say that the idea that ‘obedience to the law is freedom’ is not one that has gone unchallenged–in either theory or practice–and to assert that “[e]ither one accepts the limitations of a democratic and civil society, or not” is actually quite controversial. But no, I disagree that “[o]nce we take it upon ourselves to decide which democratically arrived laws we respect, and which not, we arrive in anarchy”, both in the sense that the relationship between law and democracy is quite complex, but also in the sense that the refusal of lawful authority has formed a part of human behaviour since the state’s inception, and the considered application of such resistance has formed a part of countless social movements, few of which have arrived at (or intended to arrive at) ‘anarchy’.
In fact, there’s abundant grounds on which to dispute your claims, as a cursory examination of many hundreds of–or even several–years of political philosophy would attest.
Moar later.
Leaving aside your ideas of what constitutes anarchy, yes: the fact that there was a counter-rally raises issues of law and principle, both legal and ethico-political.
Yes, Islam is a religion. The question of race is actually kinda complicated…
Actually actually, there’s not much more I want to add, other than:
Should opposition to someone’s views or fears entitle others to “shut down” the expression of such views?
I would suggest that this may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for abrogating a person’s ‘right’ (which exists only by inference in Australian law) to ‘free speech’; that there are legal mechanisms for establishing precisely this right (cf. ‘intervention orders’); that speech is always and everywhere regulated, and only infrequently by way of direct imposition/repression by law, state, or via extra-judicial means.
What comes next? Will we start going to demos with knuckledusters, machetes and sawn-off shotguns? Is this how we want to “progress”?
LOL.
Again, nonsense. The RAF emerged within a precise historical and social context, most notably the violent repression of student protest movements and the emergence of a counter-cultural milieu within Berlin. The same applies to the squatting movement (which has similar origins). Anybody with a genuine interest could do worse than consult The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life by George Katsiaficas; New Politics along with other journals contains other, useful accounts. On the RAF, for my money, Michael “Bommi” Baumann’s Wie alles anfing (“How it All Began”) is pretty neat.
Pingback: Miranda Devine’s Quest for Sharia | slackbastard
Hey again, hope some of the ADL are still reading these comments, because it’s your faithful law student again. I have spent days reviewing the video footage of the attempted rally and have FINALLY found evidence of an assault. You’re right, at least one assault was committed that day… By a member of your group (who identifies herself by name in the public section of your group forum) wearing a pantomime Burqa and baseball cap on one of the Socialist Alternative demonstrators…
What did I say about people who live in glass house firing Muslamic Rayguns?
Have fun at the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court, it’s a really lovely building- nice to visit…
The message is clear. Fuckwits like the ADL aren’t welcome in Melbourne.
Oh yeah, and if you carry a sign saying “God bless Hitler” you can expect to have it… wrapped around your head.
PS: Grunge is not dead!
@ndy; it’s sad, but I sense it’ll really be the shotguns and such that’ll win the argument. Just look at the comment from gentleman Eric. Doesn’t understand what that sign was indeed about, but wants to wrap it around someone’s head. Same attitude they have in islamistan: ‘I/we don’t like what you say or think or believe –> K@Boom!’. Have you read Karl Popper and his paradox of tolerance?
@ Eric.
The “God bless Hitler” placard apparently originated in Pakistan:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060215Pakistan03.jpg
I can’t be arsed watching that video again but some of the ADL people seem to be holding cards with various Anti Fascist, or at any rate Anti Hitler slogans, including the one you mentioned as part of a montage of photos of Islamic demonstrators from around the world.
As for Adolf Hitler being and admirer of Islam…that’s debatable, he did a lot of flip flopping on such issues but Arab nationalists certainly admired the Nazis and Mein Kampf was translated into Arabic, Syria still has a small NS party to this day. There were Muslim Bosniaks who served in the SS but who performed badly on the field and were reconstituted as a Wehrmacht unit and returned to the Balkans to fight the Partisans. It’s true that the grand Mufti of Jerusalem did visit these troops and that they had Muslim chaplains, Halal rations etc…
There were attempts by the Germans to enlist Caucasian Muslims and there are stories of ten thousand Iranians dying in the battle for Berlin but like a lot of information from that era those tales may or may not be true.
The allies also used Muslim troops from the sub continent. During the invasion of Italy Montgomery complained bitterly about his multicultural force, how the Muslims wouldn’t fight on Fridays and how his Indian and Chinese troops had other cultural preconditions to participation in combat.
While I’m here.
Since I boycott Facebook this might be the only site on which I’d get a chance to pose the following question to the ADL:
Why are you guys so concerned about fundamentalist Islam creeping in from the Third World when fundamentalist Third World Christianity is if anything the greater “threat” to your so called “Aussie way of life”?
If you guys are agog at the “otherness” of Muslims wait until you get an earful from an African Pentecostal Christian…
So glad Eric turned up! Nothing quite like an insider’s viewpoint, especially when it is so eloquently expressed.
Too bad the doofus missed the point entirely; then again, he is in good company.
Eric – the infamous “God bless Hitler” sign was displayed to demonstrate how islamists and pro-islamists have behaved in public already. If you wish to protest ad hoc and willy-nilly, you best at least attempt to get current. Actually, best stick to the football old son. It’s more your speed.
Truth? Facts? Reality? “you can expect to have it… wrapped around your head.”
Sadly, though, I doubt much would penetrate that lunatic-leftie mess that passes for your brain.
However, it’s an ill wind, and all that. We are indebted to you – and the pro-islam demonstrators – for showing us the true colour of our enemy.
It’s yellow, with more than a tinge of rabid red.
Raoul, people can obviously express their opinions in public whatever they may be. They just shouldn’t be suprised when others react with anger and disgust to their hateful messages. As for the Hitler sign. Yeah, I know it was intended to infer a connection between Muslims and Nutzis, or imply that Muslims are Nazi sympathisers but we all know that’s bullshit, and who the real Nazis are.
@Raoul: I read The Open Society some years ago. Stanford Encyclopedia entry on The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes.
@Doug: Re the Nazi placard. I think the one to which you link may be one of several. An ADL protester (see : 1:28 of video) was waving a very small version of a photograph of a placard that was apparently carried at a demo in Melbourne in January 2009. See : Thousands march through Melbourne, AAP, Herald Sun, January 18, 2009. In general, there were a number of placards carried by the ADL equating Islam with Nazism.
Blue Heeler, the point you missed is that people of all political persuasions (not just the lunatic-left, where you incorrectly pigeon-holed me) regard fascist scum like yourself with disgust. And politics aside, anyone with a heart and half a brain will happily join together to stand up to a handful of racist bigots. Sure, I was annoyed to miss my bourgeois Hawks smash St. Kilda on Sunday but it was well worth it to prove the point. The ADL don’t represent Australians and, by the sound of some of the other’s comments, they don’t represent “Pro Whites” either. So, Mr. Heeler, kicking a few fuckwits out of Fed Square is hardly a win for Islam. It is, in fact, a win for common decency and society as a whole.
So everyone seems to know a whole lot, but has no idea what to do with it, and can’t come to a solution with all this, information/ opinion/ stuff! It’s all nonsense to me.
Why can’t everyone see there are problems with the far left and the ADL, both are in fear of quiet possibly nothing, both hate someone for a million different reasons (mostly individual opinions), both are happy to say, “it’s ok, the law gives us right to talk about others badly, with our personal (frequently offensive, inhumane) opinions”.
In other words, they are “two sides of the same coin”.
I give credit to Andy, for having a conscious opinion alongside the facts.
Doug, the answer to your question is a conjunction of things: cultural, media, fear, worry, personal issues, and the list goes on. I call it weakness disguised as strength.
In saying that, it is much more helpful to very careful and consciously talk about things rather than debate them because you will achieve nothing in debate other than possibly feeling good about yourself because you think you made… a good point!
The way i see it, if you’re not helping, or trying to, you’re wasting your life. 🙂
Go ADL!
Never surrender ever!
Yeah.
It’ll be interestink to see what happens when the ADL hold their next rally in Sydney. Will they hold it outside of Siddiq-Conlan’s house, I wonder? Or perhaps Sergio Redegalli’s mural in Newtown?
HI Derek.. were you actually there? It would have been good to have a conversation.. you actually sounded relatively rational in your points about the legal stuff. Pity I never met you on the day.
I’m sure the police have lots of things they’d rather do than do a bunch of legal mopping up of this repeat offending rabble, but in my ‘minimalist’ case.. I was attacked.. assaulted and my property was ‘stolen’. It was witnessed by 2 police.. who arrested the creep.. and ‘led’ him away. Now.. I’m going on the assumption that:
a) They took his name.
b) They recall the incident.
That’s all I need because ‘they’ are my witnesses.
Now.. regarding that ‘attack’ (no other word for it) on our mob and the destruction of private property <$500 (which is the actual offence) that's easily provable in principle but might be a bit harder to get individuals named and shamed.
I'm not behind the bushes re law.. I'm using it to our advantage in a number of avenues.
I'd value your considered opinion though on one thing. The Herald Sun reported it as an 'anti Muslim' rally.. when in fact it was an anti sharia rally. I held up a sign saying just that. I've already sent them a statement of claim for defamation and will be pursuing it legally down the track a bit. I'm going for the jugular there.. $40,000.
I have 3 other cases in the pipeline/going on.. one is against a former federal court judge, one against The Age. A couple of academics are in my sights also and one comedienne.
Consider this mate.. 1 complaint using the RRT cost the Age one solicitors advice letter.. That solicitor’s office charges centrelink (i.e. you and me) $5000 for one eviction letter (I heard).. so.. even just to make a complaint.. *costs* them. If 50 PEOPLE (or more) make a similar complaint.. doncha think they might listen up?
But back to the Herald Sun.
ANTI "MUSLIM" rally- is about "people" inciting hate/endangers my own safety.
ANIT SHARIA rally- is about a legal system.. accurate reporting.
There.. you have just been given your end of term paper 🙂
Oh..I'm working on Andy's 'therapy program' to rid him of his weird ideas.. I'll get to him in due course.. Think John 3:16.
Cheers.
It was an anti-Muslim rally organised by an anti-Muslim group.
@ndy,
The ADL also use Nationalistic imagery from both Australia and Israel to combat what they perceive as an existential threat to either or both states… which amazes me not, Zionism and the “far right” are peas in a pod.
The “media” heavily promote protests by so called Muslims against “British Values” but they rarely bother covering the often large Anti Israel protests by Muslims in that country.
So a few dozen wingnuts burning Poppies or disrespecting dead soldiers is given high rotation but a crowd of 10,000 mainly Muslims in a park in Birmingham chanting “Down with Israel” gets little international coverage.
I don’t agree with your view that the Israeli flags and dalliances with the likes of Rabbi Nachum Schiffren are just to tick off the Islamists, it’s a case of birds of a feather.
I took Sebastian’s point about “Jewish” appropriation of the EDL image to mean “Zionist”, it’s a fact that most pro Zionists outside Israel are non Jews living in “Western” countries and the “right”, including “Right Wing Christians” have always resolutely stood by the state of Israel.
However as I said, this is not England or Israel it’s Australia.
I mean, after the Marrickville BDS goings on it’s beyond doubt that the “Far Right” in this country (of which the ADL are a tendency) are pro Zionist/pro Israel and anti Fascist/anti Nazi… Fascist being anyone who holds a position contrary to their own.
You denounce the ADL as “Fascists” and “Nationalists”, I denounce them as “Assimilationists” and “Nationalists”… I was at the 2010 rally along with the rest of the concerned citizens, unfortunately this time I had to go earn some bread.
Alas! the lot of the Anarch, when one refuses to “play the game” the opportunities to make some cash have to be taken as they come, regardless of what day of the week it is :).
Briefly:
Zionism and the “far right” are peas in a pod…
Maybe, but not necessarily. Depends how you define them. Certainly, there’s leftist variants of Zionism; by the same token, the far right is often characterised by anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. In other words, there’s actually a spectrum of opinion.
The “media” heavily promote protests by so called Muslims against “British Values” but they rarely bother covering the often large Anti Israel protests by Muslims in that country.
Again, maybe, I dunno. Presumably, there are empirical, comparative studies on the question of media treatment on the issue(s). But the media (dunno precisely why this term is in quotes) has its own, usually commercial, and domestically-focused, priorities.
I don’t agree with your view that the Israeli flags and dalliances with the likes of Rabbi Nachum Schiffren are just to tick off the Islamists…
I wasn’t offering an extensive opinion, obviously; the use of such symbology serves a number of purposes. But the other point I was making is that Jewish–and Zionist–support for the EDL is minimal. It appears to me to be a marriage of convenience, not principle, and the chief factor bringing the two together is animus towards Muslims.
You denounce the ADL as “Fascists” and “Nationalists”…
Yes and no. As an anarchist, I have particular objections to nationalism, of whatever stripe. But I don’t denounce the ADL because it proclaims some variant of ‘nationalism’ per se. As for it being fascist, perhaps: I think it constitutes a tiny fragment of what may constitute a proto-fascist movement. Certainly, its politics are objectionable, and should be objected to.
Of relevance:
@ ADL 732: I noticed you like to look at the small picture, not the big one. You focus on what others did wrong, to make the ‘opposition’ look bad, and you claim the rally was ‘anti sharia’. Clever of you, but far from intelligent. Even if the rally was ‘anti sharia’, it doesn’t matter. There is a big picture and a reality you ignore mostly, I think, because it makes you look bad. If I’m wrong about you personally, I apologise, but I am not wrong about everyone in this group you call the ADL.
Here are some questions for you. You don’t even have to answer them.
1. Are there people in the ADL who are there for any other reason than [to oppose?] sharia law?
2. Are you ‘defending’ Australia from anything else other than sharia law, or has anyone ever joined your group with [another] intention?
3. Are there people in Australia that speak disgustingly of Muslims, Chinese etc., through influence of media and ignorant opinion rather than fact?
4. Is it common for people in this country to use the word “gook” or “towel head”? Is that a form of violence? (I can tell you that approximately 50% of people I know use these words with intent to be insulting quite often. Mostly not to anyone’s face surprisingly.) Surely you don’t think this a good mindset for people to be in?
I could keep going, but I think we get the picture.
If you answer NO to these questions, you can only be lying, or seriously deluding yourself. If you answer YES, hopefully you consider changing a few things.
Here is a fact for you. Most people throughout most of their day don’t use their brain, their brain uses them.
The ADL aren’t ‘for’ Australia, they are ‘against’ Muslims. They are not the same thing, don’t kid yourself. You can cleverly hide the truth, or even convince yourself you are doing it for your country. But in reality, you’re not, anything that is ‘false’ exposes itself sooner or later, it has to, you can’t just keep manipulating the truth, it doesn’t work that way. Sad for the ADL 🙁
‘To oppose’ makes more sense, thanks. Feel free to fix any or delete any of my mistakes on your own accord. If you feel it’s necessary or want to, of course. Saves me trying to make my point again, and saves messing up your blog! Cheers.
Aussie… thanks for the opportunity to interact on those important questions.
Bare in mind [sic], the rally was a grass roots emergence of people who hardly knew each other, yet were bound together by the common issue of encroaching sharia law.
Now… if it floats Andy’s boat to say this is just ‘reactive’ and thus falls within his quaint definition of ‘fascism’ fine… but the point is, when you have a status quo… and some other force or idea intrudes into it… you have only ‘reaction’ to expect.
What we are ‘promoting’ by our reaction is the Australia we grew up in, where no-one is going to take away pork or put halal meat in supermarkets or tell us that ‘their’ women only are entitled to use the rock pools at Cronulla (which was one of the incendiary habits which ran up to Cronulla).
I’ll answer your questions but why not shift it from the clutter here and join the ongoing discussion here:
australiandefenseleague.blogspot.com
LEG CROSSERS HAVE HIJACKED THE WORLD!!!! QUESTION? HOW MANY LEG CROSSERS WERE IN CONGRESS WHEN ISRAELITE (?) PRIME MINISTER GAVE HIS CRAP SPEECH TO AMERICAN CONGRESS? 1. no , 5. no , 17. no , 33. no, 79. no , HOW MANY? ALL OF THEM BLOODY LEG CROSSING CHICKEN GIBLET NECK F*CKS HAVE HIJACKED ALL AROUND THE STINKIN WORLD . IF U DONT BELIEVE CHECK IT OUT AS THE CAMERA SCANS THE ROOM ULL C!!! IF WE ARE GOING 2 FIX THIS GO 2 NEW PAGE ON FACEBOOK CALLED tradesmens gazette AND LETS POLARISE NOW? NORTH OR SOUTH WHICH R U?
u`ve got a lot of uni geeks on here mr moderator!
good person mr moderator we`ll all luv u soon c u at tradesmens gazzette look forward 2 chatting now go and ————? polarise is the buzz word of the day bye riicey
WELL DONE SLACKBASTARD KEEP UP THE GOOD AND ITS GOOD 2 C U DONT CENSOR MUCH !!! ? AGAIN WELL DONE !@#$%^&*()
STEVE RIICE RICEY
ADL, I don’t want to comment on your blog to cut a long story short.
I don’t think most people would disagree with you when it comes to halal, or sharia law. As far as ‘boat people’ go, I think the only people who agree with you are the government when they want the racist vote. I don’t know you so I’m not saying you are or you aren’t a racist. It’s too complicated to just simply say you are or you aren’t.
Thing is, people are going to call you a racist because out of the ten million bad things going on in the world, including problems in this country, problems caused by white Australians, you have focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is anything to do with non Australians.
For example.
The government forced the Aborigines to sell land in WA and are going to develop on it, and apparently this will destroy it, it being the Kimberley, BIG problem. (I’m assuming you care, because you claim to ‘defend’ Australia.) Have you ever asked yourself why it makes you more annoyed, that a small amount of people came here for a ‘better life’ in a boat? Would you be more annoyed if it were Muslims forcing Aborigines to sell land?
Would you go on a holiday to Fiji?
Pingback: Australian Defence League : Martin Brennan gets the arse? | slackbastard
Why is an Englishman heading up the ADL? Let’s remember what Australia was like back before the waves of wogs and poms came. Adelaide was an [idyllic] city where one could leave your house unlocked etc. Then in the 1960s and ’70s all the garbage from Britain came out and we had a crime wave. It’s never been the same since. As for the UK and Ireland, what a bunch of backstabbing pricks they are. No Aussie has the right of return there. No Aussie can go and work unless your grandparents were Poms. The Muslims in Australia are guilty of bringing over their Jew hate, their supremacist religion and refusing to assimilate. Fraser was demented bringing in people from the Middle East. Any one of the old diggers WW1 or 7th division in WW2 could have told him what would have happened. It’s a sad state of affairs when a Muslim greets me at customs and asks me how long I intend to stay in my country. The only thing we have in common is a passport.
Pingback: Australian Defence League Rally, Sydney, July 30 : D’oh! | slackbastard