Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: March 2013

As a parent of a kid going though Australian Public School (Government) Primary education I am astonished at the overt social engineering of my children’s minds by the Soft Left controlling the teachers and education unions.

For example, in honour of some United Nations bureaucratic fantasy my children today had to wear an Orange clothing item in honour of Harmony Day which AFAIK has no real- or cartoon-world existence outside of Peppa Pig. In combination with No Waste Wednesday and Ride To School Day, the Jesuitical objective of the Watermelons running Primary School Education is clear: Global Governance + Greenie Recycling + Anti-Carbon.

A balanced curriculum should include Border Protection Day in which Muslim kids are locked outside the school gates for five months or until they contract Mental Illness. This is only fair since as Scott Morrison has pointed out, they are criminally lazy, diseased bludgers who cannot adhere to expected community standards of behaviour. And that’s not Xenophobic. That’s just calling it as it is.

Border Protection Day in conjunction with Mass Over-Consumption Day and Carbon Fuels Appreciation Day would address sorely needed balance in the curriculum, properly educate spawn of illegals about the prevailing Aussie values and support the Mining Industry on which the current and future wealth of the Commonwealth firmly depends.

You know it makes sense.

Advertisements

Western Sydney Demands Fairness

Tuned into The Drum tonight and heard Miranda Devine describing how the voters of Western Sydney feel misunderstood. Miranda helpfully explained (see vid from 25:45) that the voters of Lindsay and Greenway are not xenophobes and are in NO WAY tuning into Scott Morrison’s nasty dog-whistles.

No.

Its just that asylum seekers get reams of welfare payments and Lindsay focus group participants do not. Its unfair. Unjust. Hurtful. Or as Tony Jones put it in an advert for Q&A, ‘In the Western Suburbs no one can hear you scream’.

How To Get As Much Free Stuff As An Asylum Seeker

Miranda and Lindsay can rest assured that the Australian government is committed to equity in the administration of welfare. To get as much free stuff as an asylum seeker you simply need to qualify as an asylum seeker. So first step, renounce your Australian citizenship, emigrate to Oruzgun province Afghanistan and become a Shia Muslim.

Your Taliban neighbours, who are genocidal maniacs, will then try to kill you. You may find yourself decapitated and lying in a ditch like these unfortunate 11 individuals found by an Australian Army patrol some time back, but maybe not. Soon ethnic Kuchi Sunni tribesman will turn up. They will be heavily armed and demand all your property. Never mind negotiating. They will take everything you own, all your flocks, land etc. then they will burn down your house and perhaps rape and/or kill you or several/all members of your family. If you again survive you may decide to become an asylum seeker. Congratulations! This is your first step to procedural equity.

Do not bother to apply for an Australian Visa in Kabul on your way out. Its location is kept secret for security reasons and it does not issue visas anyway. Scott Morrison will later ask you why you do not have a visa and describe you as an illegal. This is not personal. You just are.

Next you must escape through the rest of Afghanistan and Pakistan, also populated by genocidal maniacs. At any time you may be gunned down at a bus stop or perhaps merely kidnapped and have your eyeballs gouged out. Don’t worry, fabulous wealth awaits.

If you survive this you must then travel the thousands of kilometres overland to Indonesia. I’m sure you will find a way. In Indonesia, wait for an indeterminate length of time, do not pass customs, give all your remaining money to a people smuggler and board a horrifically crowded, unsanitary and unsafe fishing boat to cross the Timor Sea. You may or may not make it. C’est la vie!

If you do make it you may well be sent to Manus or Nauru Island for about five years for reasons of fairness to other refugees. Mental illness may help you while away the hours.

Once in Australia you will receive exactly $0 in welfare. After six months this increases to approximately $200 per week. After you have been recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, you are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less.

Yes, you may receive a household goods package worth about $10,000 while your claim is being processed but you can’t keep that stuff. It goes to the next family after you. Same with some temporary health care benefits during that phase too.

Congrats. You have now been treated as well as an asylum seeker.

One more thing. Do not speak English. As an asylum seeker you must obtain employment in a radically different language that you have never learnt before. Try Korean. Writing it is fun too.

Joe Hockey Says You Are Getting Too Much

Miranda, while empathizing with the pain of the Western Sydney voter, may also need to explain that Joe Hockey thinks you are getting far too much rather than not enough. Quite likely he’ll be the next Treasurer. Unless you vote Labor. Or Green.

So, What’s Scott On About Then ?

Miranda and Lindsay et. al. might also like to encourage Scott to pull in his dog-whistle. It appears no-one is listening. Scott is just missing the point when he describes asylum-seekers as parasitical, cunning, manipulative, violent, diseased, invasive criminals, who cause societal discohesion and overload public services and are unable to conform to respectable public behaviour without a system of local supervision by decent citizens. It is disgaceful that they should be assisted to attend the funerals of their parents.

Similarly other Coalition members are just talking to themselves when they claim asylum-seekers are a societal cancer similar to narcotics and not completely distinguishable from sexual predators.

Plainly all that is just WASTED in the Lindsay Focus Group.

Is Scott aware ?

Poor bloke.

This past week saw Scott Morrison descend further into the sewer in relation to asylum-seekers, calling for Mandatory Behavioural Protocols to be applied to asylum-seekers housed in the general community while their security assessments are being completed.

Morrison took the opportunity to call for such protocols as a result of an indecent assault on a university student allegedly perpetrated by an asylum-seeker. Morrison saw this as a magnificent opportunity to further evoke fear in the community and ride further on the crest of xenophobia toward an increasingly likely looking electoral victory in September this year.

Morrison’s colleagues were appalled by his comments as shown by their distate in having to defend them to the press and public. Senator Eric Abetz looked decidely queasy as he stood before a press crew in front of Parliament House and Julie Bishop became tongue-tied to the point of almost complete stuttering incoherence as she tried to recast Morrison’s bile into something resembling reason in front of the general public during a broadcast of ABC’s Q&A.

Mind you, while Abetz and Bishop both nervously attempted to make Morrison’s comments mean something different to what Morrison plainly intended, Abetz further fouled the air by failing to make a distinction between asylum-seekers and sexual predators saying he would not necessarily put them in the same category.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Eric Abetz was also questioned whether the idea was akin to treating asylum seekers like convicted paedophiles.
ERIC ABETZ: I wouldn’t put the two in the same category necessarily.
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: In a transcript released by his office later, the word necessarily was missing.

Abbott, as usual, was shifty on the whole thing, saying that he had not seen Abetz’s comments, but neither did he repudiate the conflation of asylum-seekers with sexual predators

Mandatory Behavioural Protocols

Julie Bishop directly lied to the public on Q&A when she said that Morrison’s protocols were only meant to cover notifications to police, council and public that asylum-seekers had moved into the area.

Morrison plainly stated, and you can watch him say so here, that these protocols should apply to the asylum-seekers personally and that they should have an incident-reporting mechanism attached to them so that infractions can be reported. In addition Morrison has proposed a dob-in-an-asylum-seeker mechanism whereby members of the public can complain to the government about misbehaving asylum seekers, obviously so that miscreants can be immediately deported

Morrison’s comments carry the unmistakable ordure (not odour) of Securitate

Under the regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu, the Securitate employed some 11,000 agents and had a half-million informers

Here’s Julie Bishop lying on Q&A about what Morrison meant by Mandatory Behavioural Protocols:

TONY JONES: What are behavioural protocols because no one’s explained this yet.

JULIE BISHOP: [..] So we are rightly asking the question that the Parramatta Council asked. Why weren’t they told that people were moving…

TONY JONES: But hang on a sec, what are behavioural protocols?

JULIE BISHOP: Telling the Parramatta Council, for example, that a large number of people are going to be moving into accommodation. In this case…

TONY JONES: Sorry, one second. Behavioural protocols are to be imposed upon the people themselves, the asylum seekers, so the question is what are they?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, I believe he was talking about reporting requirements.

TONY JONES: Well, he’s talking about that, as well as behaviour protocols were imposed on the actual asylum seekers.

JULIE BISHOP: Well, I see it as a reporting requirement.

Not The First Time

This is not the first time that Morrison has appalled his own Shadow Cabinet colleagues, let alone small-l liberal backbenchers like Mal Washer and Russell Broadbent. At a strategy meeting in late 2010 Morrison advocated pursuing an anti-Islamic strategy as part of Coalition tactics to generate voter support among xenophobes.

Morrison’s proposal was rejected at that time by Julie Bishop (chairing the meeting in Abbott’s absence) and leaked, perhaps by Malcom Turnbull. Morrison denies he ever proposed an anti-Islamic strategy but the leak was reported by some of Australia’s most respected journalists such as Lenore Taylor, David Marr and Peter Hartcher, whose reputations have been too long- and too hard-earned to fritter away on mere gossip. Hence I conclude the reports that Morrison proposed an anti-Islamic strategy are true.

The scary thing is that Tony Abbott is not troubled by Morrison’s venom at all. In fact he encourages it. The sum total of Morrison’s remarks on asylum-seekers are that asylum seekers are diseased, cunning (because Document Destroyers), parasitical criminals who cause social discohesion and who do not deserve to attend the funerals of their parents; who are poised to swamp Australia and who will cause an overload, if admitted, on essential services thus causing a breakdown in the general amenity and comfort of society.

To this end they require extra policing and conformity to Mandatory Behavioural Protocols to be supported by the vigilance of decent citizens.

Others in the Coalition compare asylum seekers to a societal cancer comparable to illegal narcotics , predisposed to violent affray and not completely distinguishable from sexual predators.

Morrison does not contradict those colleagues. Nor does he contradict radio hosts who say, in so many words, that asylum seekers come here merely to sponge off welfare payments. On the contrary Morrison is an honoured and welcome guest on such programs and is treated by those hosts as a like mind.

Crime Wave

On Insiders George Megalogenis pointed out that the report rate (not the conviction rate) of criminal activity for asylum-seekers this year is 5 reports for 12000 asylum seekers. That’s 0.41%. The corresponding statistic for Federal Politicians this year is three reports for 226 persons. That’s 1.32%.

Thus, Federal Politicians are 33 times more likely to be reported for crime than asylum-seekers.

Scott, please explain to me again, why are Mandatory Behavioural Protocols necessary ?

What Motivates Morrison ?

Morrison is highly intelligent. He’s no redneck shooting his mouth off in the pub. He can count. He can understand law. But he misrepresents both law and statistics and deliberately vilifies vulnerable persons. Why ?

Morrison states that he is a committed Christian, a member of the Pentecostal Shire-Live Church in Sutherland. When I found this out I asked him directly by email if he was behaving this way to prevent the Islamisation of Australia. In other words I thought maybe he allows himself the sins of misrepresentation, distortion and vilification in order to serve a Higher Truth, namely to prevent Australia from becoming Islamic.

He said no. He said the reason he does it is for security concerns, to regain protection of our borders.

I say that’s rubbish.

Because there is no security issue.

The Australian Navy has indicated unambiguously through unofficial channels (as they cannot officially state a desire to refuse orders or potential orders) that they do not support TowBack. This is a clear indication that there is no security issue with asylum-seekers. If there was a true security issue the Navy, as always, would professionally respond. Who could doubt otherwise ? If the Navy does not think there is a security issue, there isn’t one.

Secondly, does Morrison really think that Gillard cannot prevent Indonesian fishing vessels from landing in Northern Australia ? This page describes the armaments currently operated by the Australian Armed Forces. One well-placed shell from the M102 Howitzer attached to any of the S-70A Blackhawks should ensure border security for some time at minimal taxpayer expense.

Any grimy, sodden, Hazaran refugees who enter Northern Australia on the floating death traps that labour across the Timor Sea with faulty engines do so because they are tolerated to do so.

Border Security? Porous Borders? That’s just Morrison invoking the deeply resonant Invasion Myth so beloved of the latent Australian xenophobic mind.

So its not Border Security motivating Morrison. And if not’s that then my bets are back on the anti-Islamisation horse. And if it’s not that, then Morrison is inflaming xenophobia simply to win a nice job for himself.

Which would be reprehensible.

Towback for refugees is not new. Intolerant regimes have always needlessly harassed and persecuted minorities.

Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott would no doubt approve the actions of the Turkish government during WW2 when it denied transit to Polish Jewish refugees on the basis that they did not have the correct paperwork and were therefore ‘illegals’ to coin the Lib/Nats inaccurate and vilifying terminology for asylum-seekers.

Huge numbers of Polish refugees were generated by the Nazi/Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 which commenced WW2. Having survived Luftwaffe strafing of the columns of refugees walking out of their ruined cities, the Polish displaced then sought shelter all over the world. 120,000 were accepted in Hungary alone and none rejected by that nation.

Turkish Towback

Thousands of Polish Jews sought to travel to Palestine, but were prohibited from transiting through Turkey because the Turkish authorities noted they did not have the correct paperwork (namely a letter from the British government authorising entry to Palestine).

Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott are big fans of paperwork, insisting Hazara from Afghanistan should be carrying valid Australian entry visas despite the fact that the location Australian embassy in Kabul is kept secret on security grounds and cannot issue visas anyway.

The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not publicly disclosed due to security reasons.

The Australian Embassy in Kabul has no visa function. For visa information, visit the Australian High Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan.

The Turks, anticipating Lib/Nat Coalition approval from Tones and Scott, then instituted a tow-back policy for refugees, dragged the refugee ship out into the Black Sea with its 769 human cargo, where it was then sunk by a Russian submarine. All died except one. One can only say that gutless illegals get what they deserve.

British Tradition

Scott and Tony may also be gratified that the British government described the Jewish refugees as ‘illegals’ and that the British expressed ‘security concerns’ about the refugees. The British government was offended that any person, even its own Ambassador in Ankara, could object to their treatment of security-dubious illegals on spurious humanitarian grounds. As one Colonial officer complained:

… the first occasion on which … the Turkish Government … help in frustrating these illegal immigrant ships, and the Ambassador then goes and spoils the whole effect on absurdly misjudged humanitarian grounds.

Colonial Secretary Lord Moyne, passe Morrison, continuously asserted that the prime rationale for turning back every Jewish refugee was security concerns, specifically Nazi agents secreting themselves among refugees (a tactic also approved by John Howard), although not one instance was ever found.

The British High Commissioner, MacMicheal, endorses Tony and Scott’s arguments that the refugees are unproductive persons and a drain on State resources, saying they would be an unproductive element in the population.

Scott and Tony likewise approve of the forced takeover of the Struma by Turkish authorities. Said the only survivior of the sinking David Stoliar:

some of the passengers … came to blows with the police, but the police overpowered them and there were some 100 to 200 policemen.

Naturally, MacMichael held the view, shared by many of his government colleagues and Scott Morrison, that if a small number immigrants were permitted into Palestine, the floodgate would open and completely undermine our whole policy regarding illegal immigrants.

Scott and Tony would also approve that the British acted in contempt of international obligations, in the Brits case the Balfour Declaration, in refusal to honour the immigration of Polish Jews to Palestine.

Finally, Scott, a master of double-talk on International Refugee Law, would simply love the gobbledegook generated by the British on the status of Jewish arrivals in Palestine and indeed the entire paranoid and obfuscatory logic of British policy in this matter. As the pro-Jewish website EretzIsraol.org notes:

‘The Jewish immigrants who made it to the Jewish-settled area of Western Palestine under the status of illegal were in fact placed in a detention camp on arrival. Only if they passed the careful security check and were adjudged not to threaten the overriding principle of economic absorptive capacity would they be released. And then they would be “set off”–deducted-from the quota.. This meant that they were in fact not illegal at all, since they had merely taken some of the inconceivably few Jewish places that the Arabs had agreed to.’

The Ship

[NB Much text in this section cut-n-pasted from linked articles]

The ship carrying the Polish refugees was called the Struma. The full story of that vessel is told here. What follows is an excerpt. Similarities to Indonesian fishing vessels are obvious:

The Struma was unsafe (having engine troubles), horrifically overcrowded (built for 100, 770 persons were aboard), and lacked adequate sanitary facilities. Despite engine problems, it reached Istanbul on December 16, 1941. There, the passengers were informed they would not get visas to enter Palestine and, furthermore, would not be permitted entry into Turkey.

The boat was kept in quarantine in Istanbul’s harbour for more than two months. Turkish authorities denied the passengers permission to land without British agreement to their continued journey to Palestine. On February 23, 1942, the Turkish police towed the boat out to sea and abandoned it. The next day, on February 24, the boat sank, torpedoed by a Russian submarine.

More information on the Struma is here. Similarities to refugee voyages from Indonesia to Australia abound. For example, passengers had paid hefty sums to people smugglers, the passengers were not permitted to see the vessel before the day of the voyage. They discovered that the boat was a wreck, with extremely cramped sleeping quarters, only two lifeboats and a faulty engine which gave out several times after setting sail. Passengers imprisoned upon the Struma in the port in Istanbul began to suffer mental problems.

Just as Indonesia has firmly stated they will not permit tow-back, despite Coalition obfuscation on this point, the Romanians did not permit the Struma return to port of embarkation.

You Did WHAT?

Many British were ashamed of their governments actions in refusing entry to the Poles.

On June 9, 1942, Lord Wedgwood of the British House Of Lords opened the days proceedings by alleging that Britain had reneged on its commitments. He stated with bitterness:

I hope yet to live to see those who sent the Struma cargo back to the Nazis hung as high as Haman cheek by jowl with their prototype and Führer, Adolf Hitler

Anglo-Jewish poet, Emanuel Litvinoff, serving in the British army at the time, wrote a scathing poem, mourning the loss and betrayal of the Struma. Having volunteered in the British army to fight the Nazis, he now called the British khaki he wore a badge of shame.

Morrison, if true to form, would no doubt see these as the tired, predicatable criticisms of lazy, arrogant elitists.

Turkish Rationale

The Turks were by no means passive observers in the affair. Though the Brits denied visas for Palestine, the Turks prohibited the Polish Jews from proceeding overland. The full rationale for Turkish denial of overland entry to the passengers of the Struma is not yet known because the Turks have not opened their archives on the matter but some superficial evidence suggests that they too may have been worried that about a putative flood of refugees should they permit this group through. As Ira Hirschmann notes in her book, Life Line to a Promised Land (p.32)

The gateway of escape through Turkey had been technically open since 1941 to a small number of refugees moving by rail from Bulgaria. In order not to overload their trains, the Turks had made a restrictive limit of sixty persons to be carried each week from each of the
Axis satellite countries –Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.

Like Scott Morrison in his perenniel dog-whistle to Sydney’s West, the Turks were more concerned about the inconvenience of overcrowding on their train system that Jews being liquidated via Zyklon-B. Its nothing personal. Its just that we’re full.

Struma v. Tampa; Abbott v. Fraser

The TowBack of the Struma was a notorious and notable incident of callous disregard for civilian life perpetrated by the British with Turkish force. It is illuminating to me to note how the self-serving arguments of the British are so exactly mirrored in the mouths of Morrison and Abbott and the Lib/Nat Coalition generally.

The Struma incident is well-remembered by Israel and the Jewish community as an act of betrayal, even murder, and disgusted principled contemporaries in Britian and elsewhere.

Now the British have this excuse: Jewish arrivals in Palestine were resisted by local Arab populations and neighbouring Arab states. It was fair of the British to consider this as a security factor. Morrison and Abbott have no such excuse. Note that the security issue the British faced is reaction to refugee arrivals in the local and neighbouring populations and not a security issue relating to the refugees themselves. Morrison, Abbott and the Coailition keep impying or stating that refugees themselves are a security risk because they are terrorists, violent or prone to sexual predation.

The supposed security concerns Morrison and Abbott cite are non-existent. The Australian Navy has indicated unambiguously through unofficial channels (as they cannot officially state a desire to refuse orders or potential orders) that they do not support TowBack. This is a clear indication that there is no security issue with asylum-seekers. If there was a true security issue the Navy, as always, would professionally respond. Who could doubt otherwise ?

Furthermore the fear and suspicion in the Australian community toward asylum-seekers has been inflamed and nurtured by Morrison and Abbott. While Australian xenophobia is always latent it can be overcome by principled bi-partisan leadership as proven by Fraser and Whitlam when Fraser admitted 150,000 Vietnamese to Australia during the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. (55000 as boat people, 95000 through family reunion). Though Fraser’s policies on asylum-seekers were far from fully idealistic, they are light-years ahead the xenophobic swill expectorated by Morrison and Abbott today.

A 1975 Gallup poll found that 54% believed Vietnamese refugees should be allowed to settle in Australia, while only 33% did not. Of those in favour, 61% were Coalition supporters. This was undoubtedly a result of the fact that Malcolm Fraser’s Coalition government argued that Australia had a moral responsibility to take refugees because of its involvement in the Vietnam War. The RSL pressed for more liberal entry criteria and criticised media attacks on those arriving by boat

The current Lib/Nat xenophobic impulse is tawdry, dangerous and getting worse day-by-day as the ALP follow them into this particular sewer.

What is the more distressing is that Morrison and Abbott are the most public of MPs about their supposed Christian values and yet enunciate the most inhumane policies without embarrassment and intentionally fuel fear and suspicion of defenceless persons.

Australia deserves better.

This year’s pre-Christmas family argument was introduced by a Labor-voting female senior relative who said, guilelessly, it costs a lot to look after all the refugees, doesn’t it ?.

Male senior relative (SR) quickly outlined his position on Hazara asylum-seekers which was that they should not be here seeking asylum but that rather they should form an indigenous resistance front against the Taliban, remain in their country and defend it, similar to what the Poles did against the Germans in WW2 and that they haven’t done so because they are tribal people who do not have the initiative to do things for themselves and instead opportunistically accept charity from others and that this passivity would leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban with Afghanistan inevitably becoming a wasteland. In this way the Hazara can be viewed as national traitors.

Sub-Human

I told SR that he was suggesting that Hazara were lazy and cowardly and indeed sub-human since they choose not to do what ordinary people have always done i.e. to defend themselves from aggression. SR said, no, Hazara are not really lazy or cowardly, but that ‘it’s just culture’ i.e. the Hazara culture being tribal is dominated by passive, lazy and opportunistic characteristics. This culture is to avoid work or fight, to expect others to work or fight for them, and to gratuitously seek and accept charity without contribution to their own well-being.

Myth

SR is ignorant of Hazara history and has simply constructed a racist myth based on his own lazy and superficial observations of the Hazaran predicament. That myth is a variation on the general form of the Hazara Asylum-Seeker Myth in the general psyche of the Australian right-wing and disengaged voter which has developed under the tutelage of the dog-whistling Liberal/National Party Coalition who have unashamedly inflamed and reinforced xenophobic stereotypes as a means of garnering voter support.

The myth, of course, exists to explain and validate cultural norms among xenophobic Australia. And that desired cultural norm is that Australia should remain white.

History Of Resistance

The simplest research (i.e. a visit to Wikipedia) soon shows that the Shi’a Hazara have a long national history of resistance against the continued persecution of the Sunni majority of Afghanistan. This resistance commenced as soon as the Pashtun Sunnis attempted annexation of the neighbouring Hazara homeland from 1880. Resistance was immedaite with three major uprisings in the period 1888 – 1893 and another in 1940. Sixty per cent of the Hazara were massacred in the 1888-1893 uprisings, the equivalent of twelve million Australians being liquidated by an invading force, of course with accompanying rape and atrocity.

Oppression of the Hazara by the Pashtun and their fellow Sunnis, the Kuchi has continued unabated to this day whenever the Sunnis had power. Relative safety for the Hazara only occurred when Afghnaistan was ruled or controlled by local Communists or colonial powers i.e. the English, Russians and Americans.

From the late 1980’s, following the expulsion of the Soviet regime, the Hazara faced intensely renewed attacks aimed at their genocide or ethnic cleansing from Sunni clans strengthened by fundamentalists recruited and financed by the USA to fight the Russians. Outright massacre of Hazara occurred in their major cities of Bamiyan, Yakaolang and Mazar-e-Sharif between 1998 to 2001.

The Hazara faced contidions of intended genocide until the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

Similarity To The Poles

SR offered the example of the WW2 Polish as a model of how the Hazara should resist Sunni totalitarian invasion. He, like his fellow thinkers, is unaware of the actual similarities that exist between the Poles and the Hazara in relation to their courage, their resistance and their determination to fight back against overwhelming odds.

The Poles were the first to suffer invasion from expansionist Germany, sharing an immediate land border with them, and immediately resisted the German invasion. Likewise the Hazara share an immediate land border with the Pashtun Afghans and as soon as the Pashtuns invaded under Abur Rahman Khan in 1888, the Hazara fought back. It is obvious that the Hazara must have formed a national resistance army to do so.

A century later, Hazaran national resistance was expressed through the Hizb-e-Wahdat, formed in 1987 (p. 728). Just as the WW2 Poles received assistance from Western Allied powers, so the Hazara Hizb-e-Wahdat received assistance from Iran which they used to fight against the Sunni fundamentalists (many bought to Afghanistan by the USA) and, sadly, fellow Hazara splinter groups, such fighting continuing through 1994 against the Mujahideen and from then until 2000 against the Taliban (who arrived in 1994) (Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, Hazara, p. 729)

National Resistance Army

SR claims that the Hazara did not form a national resistance army to fight the Taliban, but in fact the Hazara did and have done so. This rebuts the arguments voiced by xenophobic Australians that the Hazara do not deserve to come to Australia because they do not bother to fight for themselves. The Hazara have continuously fought for themselves ever since they were first invaded in 1888, more than 120 years ago.

As we have seen, the political/military resistance arm of the Hazara is called Hizb-e-Wahdat and was formed in 1988. Hizb-e-Wahdat fought the anti-Communist (and anti-Shia) Mujahideen who come to power in 1992 and, following them the Taliban who arose in Afghanistan in 1994.

Prior to the Hizb-e-Wahdat, the Hazara unified against the local communist government, under a body called the Council for the Islamic Revolutionary Alliance. The Council or Shura fought in alliance with other Afghani Islamic bodies against their Communist government until 1984 when they were expelled from the alliance by the Sunni-dominated membership

From about 2000, the Hazara fought alongside the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. With the arrival of the US-led anti-Taliban forces in 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom, the Hazara then fought alongside the US and allied western powers, just as the Poles have been commended for, (ESN, pp. 730-731), assisting in the capture of Kabul with US air support . Under the relative security of the US-aligned Afghani government and on-going Allied military action against the Taliban, large numbers of Afghani refugees, naturally including many Hazara, returned to Afghanistan.

As the respected US Council On Foreign Relations put it:

Made up predominantly of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara Shiites, the [northern] alliance opposed the Taliban after its formation and assisted U.S. forces in routing the group after 9/11

Resurgent Taliban

[This section uses much material verbatim from: Denise Phillips, ‘Why Hazaras flee: An historical perspective of their persecution.’ Submission for the Government’s Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers]

If the Hazara gained victory over the Taliban in 2001 why are they still coming to Australia ? Doesn’t this prove they are merely economic migrants looking for a free handout ? No. Quite simply nothing much changed for the Hazara despite the capture of Kabul. Their enemies are still dominant.

After the Hazara in conjunction with the Northern Alliance and US Forces captured Kabul, there followed a time of relative security for the Hazara, but the Taliban had not been eliminated and progressively regrouped. In 2008 the US Department Of Defence described the Taliban operations as ‘resilient and evolving’. It was assisted by regional and elements of national Pakistani government allowing safe haven for the Taliban in border areas. In 2010 the Taliban, operating with the consent and assistance of local Pashtuns, demonstrated effective control over towns and regions in which Hazara lived.

In Oruzgan province, the decapitated corpses of 11 Hazara males were discovered in the Khas Oruzgan district on 25 June 2010. Police official Mohammed Gulab Wardak reported that the Taliban killed them ‘because they were ethnic Hazaras and Shiite Muslims’. This occurred in the very province where Australia’s Defence Personnel have been deployed in a security and reconstruction role, showing the dire threat to Hazaras, even alongside a broader military presence.

Kuchis regularly arrive in Hazara districts heavily armed for conflict. In 2008, approximately 60,000 Hazara were displaced by Kuchi Sunnis who seized the fields belonging to the Hazara and burnt their homes.

Even in Kabul, centre of the moderate government of Mohammed Karzai, Hazara are killed with impunity. On 6 December 2011, a suicide bomber killed at least 56 Shiites pilgrims worshipping at the Abdul Fazal Abbas Shrine in the Murad Khani district in Kabul during commemorations for Ashura, the holiest day of Muharram. On the same day, a bomb attached to a bicycle exploded, killing Shiite pilgrims in Mazar-e Sharif and bringing the death toll to 60.

Neverthess Hazara resistence continues. These days Hizb-e-Wahdat posts videos of their exploits on You Tube, so you can follow them on a daily basis if so inclined.

No Escape

The Taliban, an indigenous Pashtun Afghani movement, was never eliminated from Afghanistan and neither of course were the local ethnic Pashtun and Kuchi clans. They live there, so they will always be there and connot be expelled except by the counter-atrocity of reverse ethnic cleansing involving half the population of Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the Hazara they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by local people who hate them and who are assisted in that hatred by the and well-funded Taliban who also happen to be supported by Pakistan.

This means that Hazara will always be subject to genocidal persecution including kidnap, multilations, random killing, systematic murder and the rest. And that’s Taliban or no Taliban. There is no escape.

No Excuse

For xenophobic Australians, the fact that Hazara live among genocidal maniacs who outnumber them five to one in count and about a thousand to one in armaments is NO EXCUSE. They MUST stay in Afghanistan and RESIST. Anything else is simply gutless, irresponsible cowardice. The staggering ignorance of the xenophobic position is monstrous. But they will not tolerate any Hazara leaving the killing fields to come to Australia and stand ahead of them in the queue at Maccas.

So it is in the xenophobic Myth of the Undeserving Hazara that the fleeing, cowardly Hazara refugees are juxtaposed against the brave, resilient Poles who all stayed and fought.

Tony Abbott Re-Institutes Turkish Towback Policy Toward Illegals

Xenophobes are therefore unaware that a vast number of Polish refugees during WW2. There were 120,000 in Hungary alone. They were tolerated and were not sent back to Nazi/Soviet-controlled Poland for execution, nor were they reviled in Hungary as gutless cowards. 1000 Poles ended up in Iran. About 12000 Polish Jewish refugees went to Romania, 2000 to Japan; another 13000 Jewish refugees went to Lithuania, thousands more went to Bulgaria.

More thousands sought to travel to Palestine, but were prohibited from transiting through Turkey because the Turkish authorities noted they did not have the correct paperwork, a fact which would be approved of by Scott Morrisson and Tony Abbott. The Turks, anticipating Lib/Nat Coalition approval from Tones and Scott, then instituted a tow-back policy for refugees, dragged the refugee ship out into the Black Sea with its 769 human cargo, where it was then sunk by a Russian submarine. All died except one. One can only say that gutless illegals get what they deserve.

To return to the point the Hazara have behaved exactly like the Polish. The Polish formed a resistance army, so did the Hazara. The Polish resisted the Germans for 5 years, the Hazara have resisted the Pashtuns for 125 years and counting. There were an enormous number of Polish refugees, there are an enormous number of Hazara refugees.

If the Polish can be commended for their actions, then the Hazara can also be commended for their identical actions. If the Polish refugees can be forgiven for leaving the killing fields, then so can the Hazara.

If War Then Refugees

To state the obvious, where there is war there are refugees. Polish males did not in toto form guerilla units, though many did. On the whole they left the fighting to the trained military. Can we not then afford Hazara the same consideration ? In any case I will wager that the proportion of guerilla Hazara is at least equal to the proportion of guerilla Poles. Why would it not be ? Hazara are human too. They love their homeland as much as anyone else.

The Polish Western Army Became Asylum Seekers In Europe, Australia and North America

Just as xenophobic Australians are unaware that there were hundreds of thousands of Poles who did not stay in Poland and fight the Nazis, so also they are unaware that the Polish Western Army did not return to Poland at the conclusion of WW2. Rather, the Polish soldier/citizens remained in the West as refugees and asylum-seekers, refusing to return to now Communist Poland as they feared persecution, imprisonment and execution at the hands of the Communists.

In this the Poles are exactly like the Hazara who seek refuge in the West from a severely persecuting national government. Like the Hazara, many Poles even came to Australia.

Here’s how Wikipedia puts it:

[The Polish citizens who fought for the Allies] were often seen by the Polish communists as ‘enemies of the state’, influenced by the Western ideas, loyal to the Polish government in exile, and thus meeting with persecution and imprisonment (in extreme cases, death)…

The number of Polish ex-soldiers unwilling to return to communist Poland was so high that a special organization was formed by the British government to assist settling them in the United Kingdom: the Polish Resettlement Corps (Polski Korpus Przysposobienia i Rozmieszczenia); 114,000 Polish soldiers went through that organization.

Since many Poles had been stationed in United Kingdom and served alongside British units in the war, the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 allowed all of them settle in United Kingdom after the war, multiplying the size of the Polish minority in United Kingdom. Many also joined the Polish Canadian and Polish Australian communities. After the United States Congress passed a 1948 law, amended in 1950, which allowed the immigration of Polish soldiers who were demobilized in Great Britain, a number of them moved to the U.S. where, in 1952, they organized the association Polish Veterans of World War II.

So we see in every way that the Hazara have behaved exactly like the Polish. The Polish formed a resistance army, so did the Hazara. The Polish resisted the Germans for 5 years, the Hazara have resisted the Pashtuns for 125 years and counting. There were an enormous number of Polish refugees, there are an enormous number of Hazara refugees. Poles became asylum seekers in the West to avoid living under an intensely persecuting national government; so also have the Hazara.

If the Polish can be commended for their actions, then the Hazara can also be commended for their identical actions. If the Poles can be forgiven for leaving the killing fields, then so can the Hazara.

They Should Just Work It Out

SR was keen to differentiate the Hazara from other people groups who have suffered war or persecution. His three examples were the Poles (dealt with above), the Irish and the Cambodians. The latter groups, he said, bravely stayed in their countries despite the troubles and did not passively nick off to other places and let someone do their hard yakka for them.

SR must therefore be unaware that there was a huge refugees exodus of Cambodians following the rise of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge 150,000 went to the US alone. In the single year of 1979, 270,000 Cambodians fled to Thailand. Lastly, the Khmer Rouge were deposed by invasion from Vietnam, not by internal political settlement. The Cambodians did not work out a solution to their murderous government.

As for the Irish Troubles, this is the idealised model for SR as the sectarian violence was eventually dissolved into a political solution with not one immigrant coming to Australia as a result (that he is aware of). SR might be surprised to learn that of course the Troubles did indeed produce refugees with small numbers of Irish emigrating to New Zealand and Australia and a large number to Canada as a result of that awful sectarian violence.

Dr Raymond Russell, in his paper ‘Migration in Northern Ireland: an update’, prepared for the Northern Ireland government summarizes:

…during the 1970s and 1980s, Northern Ireland experienced a consistently large net population loss due to out-migration. This period coincided with the ‘Troubles’.

Stay and work it out ? Pol Pot was not negotiating with anyone. Let us recall that 1.7 million Cambodians died of starvation. SR speaking for xenophobic Australia says the honourable option is for those being starved that they should organise into guerilla units and fight back, presumably using straw brooms or office staplers as weaponry against Tanks in between scrounging for bark and spiders to eat.

Stay and work it out? The Pashtun and Taliban are not negotiating. In their view the Hazara Shia are infidels who can and should be killed. And doing so is no offence to God or man. So the Hazara must resist. And they have done for 125 years. Thing is, the Hazara have now been defeated and yet still face an implacable enemy unsatified with mere victory.

Taliban governor Mullah Manon Niazi publicly [incited the attacks on Hazara], preaching that, ‘Hazaras are not Muslim. You can kill them. It is not a sin’.

125 years of resistance should be recorded by any reasonable observer as an honourable effort. To insist the Hazara stay on to be daily massacred in cold blood is just macabre.

I say let them in. They’ve earned it.

But Why Should They Come Here ?

Its a matter of survival.

As Denise Phillips recorded, in summarising why Hazaras risk their lives on boats, an Hazara refugee says:

When the government and law enforcement agencies can’t provide protection, when your house is on fire, when your home country becomes hell for you, when you can’t go anywhere without the fear of being killed, when your religion and your facial features make you the easy target. When death is hovering over your head every day, then you don’t have options but to flee, seek refuge, knock at other people’s door for help, sit on a leaky boat, choose a dangerous journey that possibly leads to death. Today the Hazara Shias (boat people, the asylum seekers) are in a state of desperation and struggling for their survival as it is a basic human instinct.