Simon Hickey’s Submission to the Inquiry into Extremist Movements and Radicalism in Australia

4
Simon Hickey.

January 30, 2021

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to make what I consider important submissions to this committee relating to its current review into the extremist movements and radicalism in Australia.

I feel I am in a position to speak with some experience on these matters as I have been labelled a ‘right wing extremist’ by both the state and federal government for some time. I believe my categorisation as an extremist is both unfair and ill-informed. This categorisation has caused me huge financial, emotional and productivity losses, without justification. I have been refused licenses, had existing permits / licenses removed or revoked on the most trivial of grounds. I have been harassed extensively by Queensland police, specific instances will be detailed at the end to avoid diverting the overall direction of this submission. I have been subject to investigation / audits by more government organisations than any person should ever be subject to. It’s no coincidence that my problems with the government started at the same time as my political positions became public knowledge.

Holding and expressing one’s own political opinions is allegedly a protected human right in Australia, and all other Western nations. But that’s not really true in reality.

Our governments are actively trampling all over that right using a number of devious underhanded tactics. They cannot charge me with being a nasty right wing extremist, because it’s not against the law – yet. They can and do make my life so difficult that anybody else who shares my opinions is too scared to voice them, ‘lest the government go after them too’.

To be clear on this, although I shouldn’t have to justify my politics to you or anybody else, I don’t hate or dislike anybody because of the colour of their skin. I make informed decisions on who I want to socialise with, work for or live around because I value my property, my safety and that of my family. Not all Africans are going to rob my house – of that I am certain. I can be equally certain that once a bunch of African families are living in my street, there will be increased risk of vandalism, theft, violence and anti-social behaviour. These people do not think like us, behave like us or even want to. That in itself isn’t wrong, but it is an observable fact.

That doesn’t mean I hate Africans, it means that I have observed their behaviour and decided that it’s better not to be around them. I don’t buy a pit bull terrier for my daughter as a pet – why? Not all pit bulls are going to maul her without provocation. What I do know is that the risk of attack from a pit bull is far higher than that of a Labrador. Local councils agree and place restrictions only on this breed of dog. The height of racism. If the diversity myth about behaviour patterns not being genetic were true, councils would not need to have these laws.

You yourselves make similar decisions based on the same observations I do, although you’d never admit it publicly for fear of losing your job, career, social position and all the rest. Not one of you lives in a suburb with high African or Aboriginal populations. Why? You choose not to. The reasons you choose not to are the exact same reasons I choose not to. Deny it all you like, but it’s the truth.

Holding these opinions does not make me an extremist. But try telling that to the intelligence agencies tasked with keeping this country safe. They actively seek to label men like me terrorists, because it’s in their financial interests to have a bigger workload. These people will deny this accusation vehemently, but I can prove it with one simple observation.

The current government wants to allocate 40% of its counter terrorism budget to ‘identifying and combating potential terrorism from right wing extremists’. Why? We have not had one terrorist incident or fatality in Australia from right wing extremists in over twenty years. In contrast, we have had approximately 12 incidents, 7 deaths and dozens of people injured from Islamic terrorism over the same period.

Even if we go all the way back to 1971, there was only one terrorist fatality attributed to a right wing extremist group, in Perth, 1988. We can confirm these numbers by checking against many contemporary articles and publications:

AIC: Violent Extremism in Australia

Time: A Timeline of Recent Terrorist Attacks in Australia

Wikipedia: List of terrorist incidents in Australia

News.com: The other “imminent” terror attacks Australia narrowly escaped

So, by the numbers, one fatality in 33 years from right wing extremists is so insignificant that we shouldn’t even waste our time talking about it. It is extremely irresponsible to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money fighting a problem we don’t have. By contrast, between 2003 and 2004 we had 7 people killed by lightning strikes.

Extrapolate those numbers to twenty years and 70 people were killed by lightning. Why aren’t we allocating the same resources to fighting the problem of random lighting strikes as we are right wing terrorism? If anything our budget allocation should be 70 x as much just for lightning strikes.

Further to that I believe it is a warped sense of equality that drives these people to inflate the perceived risks of terrorism by right wing offenders. They are so attached to their equality beliefs that they just know if Arabic Muslims are doing terrorism this frequently, then everyone else must be doing it too. The only reason they haven’t witnessed any right wing terrorism incidents in Australia is because the government is not spending enough to root them out. Here we see the common problem modern liberals have where reality doesn’t line up with their world outlook. So they seek to change or modify real world data to conform to what they believe should be happening. There isn’t any right wing extremist related fatalities in Australia right now, so the solution is to create some. They simply move the goal posts, or change the criteria for the definition of right wing extremist so as to inflate the numbers, and reinforce their theories. Where once an extremist of any political spectrum was defined as someone who had used threats or violence to push a political agenda, now all one needs to do to be labelled a right wing extremist is say the words, ‘I think we need to re-think this country’s immigration policy.’ Perhaps, you might try saying: ‘I prefer that my children grow up in a mostly white neighbourhood, for their own safety.’ Both observations are logical, rational and supported by all the evidence. Yet none of you dare say it in public.

I wouldn’t say these things so openly if I worked in government, academia or even big business. I couldn’t, despite Australia’s human rights legislation guaranteeing every person’s right to freedom of expression. I speak my opinions openly because I am self employed. The general public keeps me in work or deprives me of it as they see fit. The media tried to bankrupt me but it backfired spectacularly. Some Fairfax reporters noticed some right wing memes on my website and I was framed on national television as the ‘Nazi sparky’

The Brisbane tradie sponsoring a prominent neo-Nazi website

Neo-Nazi website labels Fairfax Media ‘main pig filth’ over Brisbane tradie report

Did I go out of business? Quite the opposite. We lost some customers yes, but we gained a stack more. The opinions I hold and express are not fringe, definitely not extreme. If they were, media attention like that would have sent me out of business. The proof that most White Australians want to keep this country majority white European, is the fact that my business didn’t suffer at all from such accusations, but instead expanded.

It took a concerted effort from a myriad of Queensland state government departments to finally destroy that business. They did so, not because we had any complaints about my ethics or business practices.

“…. in 2018 a Queensland department of justice investigator Siobean Dash stated in Holland Park court under oath that not one complaint had been received by her department or any other about Smerff Electrical from a member of the public.”

The state of Queensland spent millions to destroy me only because of my political opinions.

Freedom of speech in Australia? Not even close. You’re on the left, or far left. No other position is allowed. If you’re not far enough left, you’re a right wing extremist.

Conclusion about this first point:

There needs to be some oversight or set of inflexible criteria that must be satisfied before any person is added to this list of right wing extremists.

The criteria must be rigid and inflexible because the Overton Window is continually drifting further to the left. They are adding people for simply opposing their arguments in public. A person must have been convicted of a terrorism offence to be added to this list, or the list of ‘fixated persons’. (Note this ‘fixated persons’ list is there precisely to identify and harass people who haven’t committed any offences worthy to have made the terrorism grade. If someone in government wants to cause you problems, your name is added to the ‘fixated persons’ list without any oversight, redress or accountability.)

No person should be added to any terrorism related list without proven violent criminal behaviour. No organisation should be added to any proscribed organisation or list without the same. Citizens are entitled to hold and express any opinion, no matter how offensive it is to liberals. Patriotic men are duty bound to care about the long term prosperity of the community and nation. Popular opinions are not always correct. People who hold unpopular positions have put more thought into it than the average person. They have to – because they are reminded of it so frequently.

The situation we have currently is that foreign political lobby groups – primarily the Anti Defamation League – has far too much influence in Australian law enforcement, political policy and national direction.

ADC: Re: Unsuitability of the Citizens Electoral Council to continue to be registered as a
political party in Australia

ANTI-VILIFICATION LAWS AND PUBLIC RACISM IN AUSTRALIA: MAPPING THE GAPS BETWEEN THE HARMS OCCASIONED AND THE REMEDIES PROVIDED

ADL: Partnering with Law Enforcement

Forward: Activists want bias training for cops. The ADL provides it. But does it work?

AHRC: Internet Regulation in Australia

UNSW: Australian Hate Crime Network

The ADL have no interest in the long term good of Australia. These people want only what is good for the Jewish people, and that in itself is not wrong. The problem lies in our elected leaders taking direction and advice from this group, without understanding that their loyalty lies elsewhere. What is good for Israel, is not necessarily what’s good for Australia. Often their goals conflict with our own, and we as Australians are entitled to work and act in our own self interest just as much as any other group of people. The ADL are the prime movers behind inquiries like these. It is their behind the scenes lobbying which pushes our politicians to announce that ‘the threat of far right extremism is growing in Australia’. That statement is untrue, inflammatory and has no basis in reality. The ADL push this falsehood because the right wing is the only vocal opposition to some of their destructive policies. We disagree with them, so they push the idea that we are dangerous right wing extremists only to discredit their opponents. The very definition of right wing politics is identifying and working toward what is good for one’s own nation and people.

This goal conflicts with the Israeli goal, because they want what benefits them, and we want what benefits Australians. This enquiry is held in Australia, so the primary focus needs to be on what benefits Australia. Right now White people of European ancestry make up the majority of Australians.

Therefore this enquiry, and any other must take the direction of what is good and beneficial for the long term prosperity of the White European people who make up this nation. All other objectives are secondary. Any ADL recommendation, objective or opinion need to be seen for what it is – only of benefit to a foreign people and country.

I shouldn’t need to add this but I will, just to be clear. Our people’s goals do not include the harm or detriment of any other people. It is possible and desirable to work towards your own interests, without oppressing any others. It is rational, healthy and normal to be White, and want what’s best for your own family, community and nation.

That is not extremism.

I believe this enquiry and the people behind it are attempting to criminalise normal people who hold opinions the left doesn’t like. It needs to be stopped in its tracks. My first submission is made clear above, but my second is that we wind back and reduce the expenditure allocated to combating ‘right wing extremism’. It should be allocated in direct proportion to the real, proven and repeated terrorist threat to this nation.

The Islamic / Muslim connection to nearly every terrorist incident worldwide in the last ten years is undeniable. These are the people we should be focused on. These people should be discriminated against in immigration, employment and academia. They pose an elevated risk of potential danger, in every country where they have significant numbers.

Any claim that ‘not all Muslims are terrorists’ can be countered accurately with ‘All terrorists are Muslims’.

Until the facts support the theory, White, right-wing terrorism should be treated for what it is: A fantasy only present in the minds of the ADL and far left across the board.

Sincerely,

Simon Hickey.

You can read about Simon Hickey’s most recent trial here, his initial period of harassment and imprisonment here, and a movie he made about the whole ordeal here.