To all supporters of the White Australia Party’s right to exist, the government’s High Court case defending its hate group laws, appears weak and heavily reliant on emotion rather than legal argument, logic or reason.
I hope the barristers representing the White Australia Party take the government’s arguments more seriously than its supporters do.
Not because the government’s arguments have any merit, but precisely because they rely on emotion.
Logic and reason are learned traits of humanity, not instinctive ones. In study after study, experiment after experiment, it has been shown that the majority of people from all walks of life, if left to their own devices, will make decisions based on emotion over reason most of the time. The White Australia legal team should not trust that the High Court judge is any less immune from such influences and should not leave him to his own devices.
As retarded as the government’s arguments are, they still need to be addressed and not simply dismissed as irrelevant. Yes their arguments have nothing to do with the constitutionality of their laws and that point should be made too, but those arguments still need to be countered anyway unless the judge himself rules them inadmissable.
The crux of the government’s case is that the German National Socialist government committed genocide and that it was the ideology of National Socialsm itself that caused it. This needs to be debunked as false equivilency. Even accepting the Holocaust narrative as fact, this does not mean that today’s National Socialists in Australia would become genocidal if not outlawed.
At the time of the High Court’s decision striking down the banning of the Communist Party, the only example of Communists being in power was also a government of mass genocide. Further, since 1951, we’ve had 50 million starved to death under Mao, the killing fields of Pol Pot, even the eating of zoo animals to avoid starvation under Chavez. By any metric Communism is a much more genocidal ideolgy than what has been alleged against National Socialism, yet it is not outlawed in Australia. Communists in Australia insist that they would be different if they came to power and the Australian people, not the government of the day or the judicial system get to decide whether or not to believe them. The White Australia Party also claims it has no genocidal ambitions and it should also be the Australian people who decide on the truth of that.
If “what history shows” is the basis for outlawing an entire ideology, then history also shows genocide under monarchy and liberal democracy. Humans have done terrible things under the excuse of every ideology under the sun, not because ideologies are evil, but because human beings can be. The distinction should be pointed out in this case.
If the White Australia Party is to win their High Court challenge, they should not ignore the Government’s arguments just because they are emotional. For the emotional programming Western civilisation has been subjected to against “Nazis” has been the most prolific in history and we should simply assume that everyone has been influenced by it to the point of throwing reason aside.
The judge should be shown what the prosecution is doing and why. The absurdity of the Government’s case needs to be confonted, spelled out and the propaganda bubble shattered. Just because courts are supposed to function on evidence and reason, doesn’t mean they actually do. The White Australia legal team should be made aware of this and prepare accordingly.
You can find Stephen Wells at Telegram and purchase his books here.
