Victoria proposes new equality campaign explicitly aimed at displacing white men
John Hagan writes:
They are coming for you. Australia’s southeastern state of Victoria is looking to approve a set of “Positive discrimination” laws against white men. Here is what they hope to implement: “Allow the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed. Business and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint has not been received.”
They can’t make it more plain. They intend to threaten and intimidate white men, and if that does not achieve the goals that they want to implement they will literally kick down the door of your business and seize your property and documents in an attempt to achieve social justice.
There can be no misunderstanding here. This is a state sponsored attempt to destroy white men. This is unlike any thing I have ever seen from a Western government, and the only recourse for whites in the state of Victoria should be one of active resistance. Time is running short for the use of reason, and intellectual debate for white male citizens in Victoria.
LA replies:
Here is the most remarkable passage in the article:
Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had “been the big success story in business and goods and services”.
“Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised,” she said.
I can’t recall ever hearing an official of a Western government use quite such ruthless, totalitarian-style language about whites: “Clearly, they will have their position changed…” Meaning, they are going to be deprived of their big success in business and goods and services, and replaced by others whom we will put in their place.
If the left is going to used threatening language like this against us, language almost like what Lenin used against property owners, isn’t it time that we started using some intimidating language against them, and acquired the power to act on it? How about:
“Liberals and feminists have been the big success story in the control and direction of modern culture, education, and the dissemination of ideas and moral views, as well as recipients of the elite status and high income accruing to such success and power. Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with the people they have been marginalizing, namely white men.”
Here is the article:
Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged
Susie O’Brien
December 09, 2008 12:00am
DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.
Such positive discrimination—treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups—is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls.
The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.
Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had “been the big success story in business and goods and services”.
“Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised,” she said.
“Let’s open it up so everyone can have a fair go.”
Victoria’s peak business body expressed concern yesterday about the need for the proposed laws, and questioned if they would undermine the right of companies to make legitimate business decisions.
At present, individuals or bodies wanting to single out any race or gender for special treatment must gain an exemption from VCAT.
Companies and public bodies accused of discrimination can only be held to account after a complaint has been made.
But the proposed changes go much further, allowing the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed.
Businesses and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint had not been received.
Action could be taken where an unlawful act was “likely to occur”, not just in cases where discrimination has taken place.
The commission would also have real teeth to enforce its rulings via VCAT and, as a last resort, in the courts.
The changes, shown in a Department of Justice report by former public advocate Julian Gardner, would also:
EDUCATE people so they know their rights.
GIVE more protection to people with disabilities, requiring companies and public entities to reasonably accommodate their needs.
GRANT the homeless and people who act as volunteers better protection from discrimination.
Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace general manager David Gregory said business supported the objectives of equal opportunity legislation.
“But I am concerned and curious about whether these changes mean the commission can second-guess the legitimate business decisions of individual businesses,” he said.
The first raft of changes to the Equal Opportunity Act were introduced into Parliament last week.
- end of initial entry -
John Hagan writes:
Reading the Victoria article again I am reminded that much of this anti-white hatred of white males would not be possible without the active effort of white women like this female government bureaucrat. Without going into the natural tension that exists between the sexes I think it’s goes without question that white females are playing a large part in the destruction of the West by actively attacking their own male family members and co-ethnic males.
LA replies:
Your comment about the natural tension between the sexes, and how it has resulted in this particular anti-male vengeance, triggers the following thoughts.
From the level of subatomic particles, where electron and proton need each other, and are unstable until they find each other and get into balance with each other, all the way up to the human level, where male and female are each incomplete and unstable until they find each other, the universe is based on the attraction and tension of opposites. The normal way the natural incompleteness of the two sexes and the natural tension between them is resolved is through marriage. Marriage produces sexual stability and balance both in the individual and the society. What happens then in the modern West, where, for the first time in history, marriage has ceased to be the default life path, and even when it exists is often out of whack as a result of female empowerment (and is now being perverted out of existence via recognition of same-sex “marriage”)? The sexes are no longer in proper relationship with the other and stable, but out of balance with the other sex and therefore unstable, jittery, and resentful of the other sex. This particularly affects women. No longer oriented toward men and finding their true identity as women in relation to men, women angrily turn against men, including not just their mates and prospective mates, but even their own male blood relatives as well as white men in general, and seek to undermine them. (And I suppose a somewhat parallel phenomenon can be seen in black women’s attitudes toward black men.)
For more on marriage as the very cement of human society, read my review of the early 19th century French reactionary thinker Louis de Bonald’s On Divorce. You don’t have to agree with all his ideas (some of which are too extreme for me) to see the basic truth of what he’s saying.
Eric E. writes:
A quick Google of this woman who intends to “positively discriminate” against white males reveals a bit of her background and ultimate intentions:
“The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology”
….or how Lesbians can reproduce without the assistance of evil males.
You get the picture. She doesn’t just plan to disemploy white men, she means to get rid of them altogether.
Wonder if the men of Australia—all those Breaker Morant wannabes—will go down without a fight against this nutcase.
December 13
Alan D. writes:
Eric E. writes:
“Wonder if the men of Australia—all those Breaker Morant wannabes—will go down without a fight against this nutcase. “
As an Australian, I would say “Yes” in relation to the men of the intellectual elite. In fact, they will probably support the nutcase.
Most everyday men will not like the changes, but will fear being labeled “sexist” or “racist” and will say nothing, at least in public.
I think that, basically, the reaction here will be the same as it would be in the USA. Americans (but probably not the ones on this blog) often think that Australia IS as America WAS. However, I would say that Australia WAS as America WAS and IS as America IS.
LA replies:
That’s an insightful comment about the way Americans view Australians. I know it’s true of my view of Australians. I’m sorry to hear I was wrong.
Australians have this vigorous, upbeat, confident quality which creates the impression that Alan is referring to. But, as with all good things under the conditions of modern liberalism, these virtues end up being subsumed under liberalism. Thus the fear of being called racist/sexist trumps being a manly, irreverent Crocodile Dundee type. People seem to be strong, but they’re really weak. Bush’s fans and enemies thought he was a cowboy confronting Islam, when in reality he was a miserable treasonous liberal surrendering his country to Islam (with the exception of taking some important steps to counteract terrorism).
LA writes:
In his comment yesterday Eric E. had put the word men in quotes. I removed the quotes when posting his comment and wrote back to him, “Now let’s not insult Australian men by putting ‘men’ in scare quotes.”
Eric replies:
Heh. Sorry, I worked with a lot of Aussies over the years, drank lots of Fosters with them, they all affect a rugged but friendly macho which I sometimes regarded as a bit of an act.
Now they have a real problem, and they need to react as real men, come what may. We’ll see, won’t we?
LA replies:
But what about American men who act tough but are as afraid of PC as anyone else? As Alan D. says, there’s really no difference between the two countries, except for Americans’ impression that the Australians are different, which, I admit, may be fed by the Australians’ manner.
The thing is, it’s not a question of courage and manliness. It’s a question of understanding and principle. If you don’t understand what liberalism is and oppose it on principle, then no matter how manly and courageous you may be in other areas of life, you will end up folding to liberalism.
December 14
Concerning the same story, Rick Darby writes at Reflecting Light:
My image of the Aussie bloke is being sorely tested. They’ll be weeping a bit, sensitively, down at the boozer. “Crocodile” Dundee will sort out the muggers. “That’s not a mop.” (Whips out Bowie mop.) “This is a mop.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2008 06:59 PM | Send