Stirring up trouble

This revolting piece of paper was in my mailbox:

Anyone know who’s behind it? Is it from Australia First, down the road in Tempe?

Update 18 January: My vote is on our “friend” J Citizen being behind it. Check this out:

It’s on a site by a group calling themselves (We) can do better. They’re a mixed bunch, calling for an end to live animal exports, no privatisation, no fluoridation, affordable housing, and for Schapelle Corby to be freed.

But it gets better. Check out J Citizen’s comments at the Inner West Courier and at matjjin-nehen. I shall call him “J Cut n Paste Citizen”. He puts his little note in mailboxes and then anonymously trawls the internet, desperately hoping someone will talk about him.

27 responses to “Stirring up trouble

  1. That’s horrid.

    BTW, my partner and children and I are 5 of those immigrants. But we’ve all got white skins, so I’m guessing that we’re acceptable to the writers of this dreck.

  2. UGH. I just. UGH.

    Do you mind terribly if I hotlink to your picture in order to blog about it?

  3. Revolting. Horrid. Dreck. Ugh.

    Didn’t your parents read you “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”? (or should that be Cried Adolf?)

    Questioning the *number* of immigrants is now a thought crime?
    We just continue forever and ever, regardless of the economic, environmental or social consequences, eh?

    “I doubt the writer of that note gives a shit about Indigenous rights.”

    And I doubt you’ve ever asked an Aborigine what they think of TODAY’S immigration (not Captain Cook, TODAY).

    Deborah, if we only got 5 immigrants every 4 years, if wouldn’t matter who they were.
    When it’s 600,000, then it matters.

    That’s why debating the *number* is of primary importance. But nobody will debate it, sidetracking off into tangents like race and religion to stop the debate before it even starts.

    • J Citizen, it’s disgusting because there is no name, no organisation attached to it. It’s disgusting because it’s designed to stir up ill feelings towards immigrants, without adding anything intelligent to a debate on immigration. Questioning immigration is not a thought crime, and to level this accusation is a convenient way for you to dismiss opinions that are different to yours. Let’s have a debate about immigration, and about how much space and resources we have. Let’s also talk about the 81,000 Australians who left in 2009. And the 77,000 who left the year before, and about births and deaths, because if we’re going to talk about those coming in, we also need to consider those going out. So, over to you.

  4. It’s ‘designed’ to make people question, which by the “Revolting. Horrid. Dreck. Ugh.” responses seen here people are not truly willing to do.

    People have tried to debate this before (remember a certain fish and chip shop owner?) and are just shouted down with insults.

    Twice in the last week or so, I have seen people try to link this Sydney leaflet about permanent immigration to a MURDER of a temporary Indian student that occurred in *Melbourne*. Does that sound reasonable?

    If immigration were just about ‘topping up’ the losses from emigration, why is it almost DOUBLE the number?
    If its about ‘aging’, why is the average age of immigrants significantly OLDER than the local population?

    Births and deaths are irrelevant, they’re already figured into the net migration statistics.
    The *only* people who can migrate are people who’ve been born and haven’t yet died.
    So that leaves net migration.

    According to the Dept’s “Emigration 2008-2009” report, “Overseas born residents departing permanently as a proportion of total permanent departures has been approximately 50 per cent since 1998-99.”
    So half the emigrants were themselves (supposedly permanent) immigrants!
    If immigration stopped then, it would only be the Australian-born emigrants that would affect population size.

    So how many is that? Half of 81,000 is 40,500.
    Do these people need to be replaced?
    Do we want a smaller population?
    If we *need* replacement, 40,500 people is only one extra baby for about every 500 people. That’s not much, considering how many abortions happen every year. Could women considering abortion be helped financially so they have those extra babies?

    If that isn’t an option, then 40,500 immigrants (*younger* than the average age) could be selected.
    Who? People from cultures completely unrelated to ours (currently about three quarters of immigrants)? People who can’t speak English (currently about half of immigrants)?

    Since the current number of immigrants of Anglo-Celtic people (yes, our traditional ancestry whether you like it or not) is about 27,000 a year, that leaves only about 13,500 remainder.

    So that’s just 13,500 non Anglo-Celtic people per year required. I’m sure we could find enough continental Europeans (related to us, and often ESL) to fill the gap.
    Problem solved.

    Over to you.

    • So only white people who speak English should be allowed to move here? And maybe a handful of Europeans who look like us. Wow, modern multicultural life must really shit you.

      You say you only want Europeans who can already speak English, but what difference does it make if they learn it here or somewhere else? And since you also say you want a white Australia, and white immigrants, then the rest of your comment is just noise designed to distract people from your racist view. This is not a blog you should be hanging out on.

  5. “This is not a blog you should be hanging out on.”
    Now isn’t that “a convenient way for you to dismiss opinions that are different to yours”.

    Despite claiming you are willing to debate, you address virtually none of the points I raise:

    1. Do we *need* to replace emigrants?
    2. Can we encourage more native births instead?
    3. Plenty of people speak English who aren’t European (Indians, Jamaicans, Black Africans and Afro-Americans, Hong Kong Chinese, Indians, Maori, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Jews, yadda yadda yadda) but to live in Australia will require that ability, so why choose *half* the immigrants from non-English speakers?
    4. Why is immigration *double* the emigration?
    5. Why are they *older* not younger, if its about the aging problem?
    5. Why are we allowing so many ‘permanent’ immigrants, who end up leaving anyway? What’s wrong with our selection process? (Could it be that NESB makes living here too difficult?).
    5. Europeans don’t just ‘look like us’ (predictable!). They are *culturally* related. Thousands of years of a linguistic, religious, political, artistic and philosophical relationship. Cultures outside that relationship have their own histories, unrelated to ours.

    You address *none* of this, and just sum it all up as “White Australia policy”.

    It is no more ‘racist’ for Australia to be filled with Anglo-Celtic people than it is for Turkey to be filled with Turks, or Korea to be filled with Koreans. It is simply the existent reality, a result of historical events.

    Since that *is* the reality that’s developed here, maintaining that reality is in the interests of the local population. Changing it requires some justification, but I’ve yet to hear an adequate one.

    BTW, “modern” life isn’t multicultural. Everything “modern” is a product of Western Civilisation, *our* civilisation, the one from which I welcome immigrants.

    All ‘multiculturalism’ means to most Australians is a choice of restaurants (aren’t there enough of those now?).
    ‘Multiculturalism’ disrespectfully treats cultures like varieties of canned soup, showcased in anachronistic theatrical facades called ‘restaurants’. That’s not authentic culture, it’s a play with actors and sets and costumes.
    When was the last time a Chinese song was played on the radio? Um, never?

    If you’re not truly willing to debate, perhaps you shouldn’t bring up the subject in the first place.

    • I don’t need to address any of the points you raise (most of which you didn’t raise at all) because you are clearly a troll. Your understanding of multiculturalism is woefully simplistic. There are many radio programs in different languages; there are festivals; there are church services held in different languages; you can learn a new language from a native speaker; you can learn more about the world by meeting people from different parts of it; you can buy delicious ingredients to cook with that would never have been available if we’d stayed a meat and two veg nation; when a political situation erupts overseas, you can find a local expert to help you gain a more nuanced understanding of what’s going on. But the most important thing multiculturalism brings to us is removing our fear of The Other. Obviously you are still afraid of people who don’t look and sound like you, and for that I feel sorry for you. And as I said before, you make a lot of noise but your message is clear. Don’t bother replying, as your comments will no longer be published. My blog, them’s the rules.

    • “Multiculturalism’ disrespectfully treats cultures like varieties of canned soup, showcased in anachronistic theatrical facades called ‘restaurants’.”

      My, my someone got a dictionary for Christmas didn’t they? Although I suspect this patched together sentence has been a personal favourite of the authors for a while. I am sure it is trotted out whenever they are trying to present their low brow racism as a high brow and deserving debate topic. Long words and pretence at debating will not disguise this covert and overt racism and, as you say NWN, the ‘fear of the other’. Especially from a commentator who raises the spectre of the previously convicted politician (and I use that term loosely) Pauline Hanson as a credible debater.

      In addition, the age issue raised is incorrect. It is quite hard (not impossible mind you) to migrate to Oz if you are ageing, even if cashed up, white and middle class. This is an attempt to slow down the ageing population concerns. Migration is targeted (especially skilled migrants) at the young and actually at English speakers. You get extra points (literally). How do I know this – because I am an Anglo migrant with ageing Anglo migrants who would like to migrate here. If the commentator is serious about policy issues, surrounding population control there is a lot of information out there but the economic argument frequently concludes with advice that Australia actually needs to increase its population. We are a lucky country that we have the space and capacity to do this (water shortages & Sydney housing market aside for the moment). Over population worldwide is a huge problem so if we have the space then why breed more born Australians where there are displaced (or just willing migrants) who want to come here. As this person so neatly concludes…problem solved!

      Ps I notice the commentator managed to slink their anti-abortion opinion in there as well. I am not engaging on that one but I believe that it sheds a little more light in their (why do I keep wanting to write ‘his’) political and moral positioning.

      Final word of advice for you NWN direct from my mother “never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell the difference”

      • I ignored his anti-abortion comments because it wasn’t worth arguing with him. Once I blocked his comments, he sent me a nasty email. And yes, it’s a he.

        • J Citizen wants to be let back in so he can dazzle us with his “eruditeness” and “rip every argument we present to shreds” (even though he can’t spell it). He contravened the comments policy. Do we let him back in?

    • “It is no more ‘racist’ for Australia to be filled with Anglo-Celtic people than it is for Turkey to be filled with Turks, or Korea to be filled with Koreans. It is simply the existent reality, a result of historical events.”

      J citizen – if you wish to use that argument, which implies that countries should only populate with native born or native speakers, then Australia should be a purely Indigenous nation. BTW the use of the word Aborigine is frowned on – you may want to reconsider your language choice.

      • See, here’s the thing J Citizen – I was prepared to give you the right of reply, until you sent me emails saying you are waaaay smarter than I am, that I should “grow up”, and the priceless “please explain”. I don’t know if that approach often works for you, but surely you’re smart enough to know that demanding to be heard on a feminist blog doesn’t work. Let it go.

  6. I love the cowardice of the liars spreading this garbage anonymously. If they were honest, they’d admit who they were. A leaflet with smears and no attribution should be discarded like the garbage it clearly is.

    Same with “J Citizen”‘s crap.

    • Hi Jeremy, welcome aboard! Anonymous leaflets are absolutely about cowardice. And since all J Citizen wants is a nation of white English-speakers, then any other point he makes is rubbish designed to distract from his racist view.

  7. Sure, why not. You are an equal opportunity blogger and welcome diversity of opinion, otherwise NWN risks becoming blinkered by only allowing consensus opinion. Having said that, you should not tolerate unnecessary nastiness and speaking personally, I do not enjoy all that competitiveness – i.e. a stated intent of ripping arguments to shreds rather than a desire to have a chat and share opinions about media and feminism (the stated purpose of the site). As I see it, this is a friendly site not a playground for arguments. People who simply want a battle just cos they like battling don’t quite fit the vibe of thing (it’s Mabo, it’s the constitution it’s the vibe of the thing).

    J citizen may wish to bear in mind that no matter how vociferously he argues for a white (or cunningly disguised as English speaking…you know…like some of them Jews) Australia policy or his pro-life platform that there is very little chance he will change mine (and I suspect several other commentators) opinions on such large issues. I believe in choice and oppose discrimination – it’s that simple.

    Out of interest does he have any interest in any of the other articles you comment on or just the migration ones?

    • Just migration. I’m tempted to keep him blocked, as he did break the comments policy, and what’s the point of having it if I don’t enforce it? And he sent me two name-calling emails. I don’t want to reward that sort of behaviour. Oh, and apparently I’m sexist because I said he was a he, when you asked.

  8. I had the same piece of paper placed in letter box in Paddington NSW…..I felt uneasy and upset. My whole life was called a wog as family came from argentina. But i have an irish sername so was called a good wog. This country is full of bigots.

    • Paddington eh? They must have dropped thousands of them. I’m waiting for the follow up – surely there’s a stage two of their little plan? There are indeed many bigots in Australia – including an old housemate of mine who went to church twice a week and said people with AIDS deserved it – but, thankfully, there are many people who aren’t.

  9. I just got one in rozelle 😦

    Cowardly creeps if they can’t even put their names to their rubbish

  10. I’ve reported this to the electoral commission and they confirm that this is considered unauthorised electoral material and should thus be prevented. Unfortunately, they say, since the leaflets are entirely anonymous, there’s nothing they can do.

    I think I’ll forward them as many of J. Citizen’s details as I can muster from blog comments, as well as links to this discussion, his comment on my post relating to this, as well as his comments on the Inner-West Courier website as evidence that he is the culprit.

    If anyone sees someone dropping such leaflets, approach them and demand their name, or take a photo.

    J. Citizen, you’re completely welcome to have the debate if you like. But if you want to take it out of the anonymity of the web and into politics, the law says you must be accountable for your opinions in the form of electoral authorisation.

  11. yep, catch him I say – i feel really uncomfortable at the thought that this disgusting person has been close enough to my house and family to drop off the leaflets. makes me think of the type of loonie who would do scarily rash and dangerous things to innocents

    • I must admit, he does make me laugh. At him, not with him. He thinks that blocking him from my blog will end my career. Talk about being so far up yourself you couldn’t smell a fart in a car. And while he keeps hiding behind the highly unoriginal nickname “J Citizen” we can say whatever we like about him, because he can’t prove that his reputation has been damaged.

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s