The Red-Capped Prophet

At least, former National Party senator John Stone doesn't.

He apparently think that if you substitute "culture" for "race", it's ok to discriminate against people.

What a crock of shit.

It's an appalling article. He lists six things he thinks would "handle our growing, self-created Muslim problem". I wonder if Andrew Bolt will be pissed off at Stone for pinching his turf. There's only room for so many ignorant, deranged polemicists peddling lies and illogical claptrap. Or so we hope.

Quite apart from the fact that he makes the assumption that we even have a "Muslim problem", which is a false assertion, Stone's six points are such utter bollocks it barely seems worth the trouble to refute them. But you can't rely on someone else to expose his tripe, so I'll do it here, and if somebody wants to do it more thoroughly, good luck to you.

1. "Official multiculturalism policies must be abandoned outright."

So explain to me how abolishing SBS contributes to preventing some fanatic setting off a bomb at the Sydney Opera House. What horseshite. This does nothing except disadvantage those of non-white backgrounds. If Stone can explain to me how denying us all our French film fix and banning Deutchse Journal TV keeps au safe at night, I'm a Dutchman.

2. "we must sharply reduce, indeed virtually halt, Muslim immigrant inflow. "

Why? The bombs in London were set off by British citizens. Stopping immigrant inflow wouldn;t do jack about that. But even more pertinently, how do you decide if somebody is a Muslim? See, this is where Stone's piece falls down - for him, I suspect that "Muslim" is code for "Arab".

This is where all discrimination falls down, because instead of judging each person, and in this case, each application, on its merits, you start setting up ridiculous arbitary boundaries based on things like religion.

Lastly, this point relies on the logic that "all Muslims are terrorists, and all terrorists are Muslims". Which is such crap I hardly need to say anything. Suffice to say, when the Oklahoma bombings went off in the 90s, I didn't hear Stonie Baby suggesting that we should halt all Christian immigration from the US.

3. "...the precious gift of Australian citizenship must be harder to obtain...".

So how does this change jackshit? In fact, if it's HARDER to become an Aussie citizen, won't that lead to even more of the social dislocation and disenchantment among migrant communities, that Stone purports to want to address?

Of course, any redneck dickhead can still be an Aussie and not appreciate it, just by being born here. Once again, it's a matter of birth and race for Stone - nothing else.

4. "citizenship should be conditional on reasonable fluency, appropriately tested, in English. If ethnic ghettos are to be avoided, newcomers must learn our language".

How fluent are you in the local Aboriginal language of your area, John?

I would suggest that if ethnic "ghettos" are to be avoided, some social intergration policies, might be in order. A dearth of racist viewpoints in the community might help too.

5. "citizenship applicants should also have to pass a reasonable written test of citizenship's meaning: parliamentary democracy, respect for others' rights, the rule of law and a general understanding of the Australian values to which they swear commitment".

Once again, this only applies to foreigners. The fact that most Year 12 graduates don't know our national anthem is of no concern to John, he just wants to keep the foreigners out.

And just what "national values" is he referring to? The ones which lock up kids in detention centres? The ones that disposess Aboriginal people of their land? The ones that invade countries half a world away on a pretext, because a foreign power asks us too?

Or does he mean a fair go, equality, and decency? Perhaps, if it's the latter, he should write another article next week explaining the IR changes the Government proposes.

6 "emphasis on English in our immigration policy should be enhanced. Today, English-language proficiency earns points towards an applicant's overall score. It should be made an absolute requirement (including, in other than exceptional cases, for our humanitarian intake)".

Which is basically what he said before, except for the part about wanting reugees to be able to speak English. Which is great, really....are you fleeing for your life? Looking to escape death and persecution here in Australia? Well, only if you can speak-a da English, my friend.

This is nothing but the racist rantings of a senile, foolish old man. For me, the real worry is not that people think such things. You come to expect that after a while. It's more that people seem to see events like the London bombings as an excuse to let their racism off the leash. Adn what's more, the fact that this drivel got published is scary.

Imagine the flip-side scenario - could you imagine the Imam of Australia getting into print with an op-ed piece about how we need to increase Muslim immigration, and be nicer to Mohammedans?

There's an almost funny side to Stone's whole piece, though. He doesn't like foreigners...they're out to get us, he says. They don't speak our language, they're as like as not the dregs of the earth, and they have no right to come here.

Wouldn't it be great if you could go back in time 217 years.... and introduce John to the Aboriginal people of the day. 'Cos I don't think we spoke their language, we were certainly out to ge them, we were the crims and the scum of English society, and by any reading of it, we had no right at all to be here. So pop your racism back in it's box, John, and slink off back to whatever rock you crawled out from under, lest ye be judged yerself, you great oxygen thief.