The anatomy of Green bigotry

Cultural intolerance, bigotry and hatred, wherever they may lie, are born of two basic elements; fear and the absence of any stake in the thing that is loathed.  This is demonstrated in the comparison between the hunting culture and the culture of Islam, yet increasingly a culture of hunter-hatred is accepted as a reasonable, even a responsible philosophical position, by our politicians and social welfare groups:

a)    “I hate hunters because they kill indiscriminately.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they kill indiscriminately.”

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re cruel to animals.”
b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re cruel to animals.”
 

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re obsessed with weapons.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re obsessed with weapons.” 

a)    “Hunting should be banned in Australia because it’s cruel to

         animals.” 

b)   “ Islam should be banned in Australia because it’s oppressive to

         women."

a)    “Guns should be banned in case they fall into the wrong

         hands."

b)    “Superphosphate should be banned in case it falls into Muslim

         hands."

a)    “Hunters are evil, low-life, redneck, weekend-cowboy scum.”
b)    “Muslims are evil, murdering scum with no respect for human

         life.”

There is ample evidence to support the proposition that in a very small minority of cases, opinions in both a) and b) categories are applicable. However, it is only opinions in category a) that are promoted daily by politicians, the media and anti-hunting groups, with no fear of repercussions for promoting cultural hatred. Why? The answer is simple…

First and foremost, those who seek to vilify hunters - The Greens for instance - do so in the mistaken and somewhat arrogant belief that they are the final arbiters of what is, and is not, a legitimate culture worthy of respect.

Further, the people and groups that promote the sort of intolerance demonstrated in a) are not hunters; they are not interested in hunting, nor do they understand why others are interested in its culture and practices. They have no stake in it at all, so it may be safely disposed of without consequence to them.

They have no stake in weapons ownership either. They fear guns and bows and they fear those who don’t share their fears. In fact the latter they believe to be abnormal, and therefore must be eliminated, not for society’s benefit, but for the benefit of all the ‘normal’ people who have no use for, and fear, weapons.

Of course the anti-gun lobbyist will challenge this proposition with something like;

"We have no evidence that Muslims present a threat to people here in Australia, but we do have examples of gun violence in Australia every day; and examples of mass-murder too in Port Arthur and Hoddle Street.” 

However, these same people are fond of quoting statistics about US gun violence, warning the public about America’s undesirable “guns culture” - which they say is promoted by organisations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) - and they express concern that similar influences exist in Australia e.g. Game Council NSW.

Based on that evidentiary criterion, could it not be said that 9/11 was an act of violence promoted by the organisation known as Islam? If it is reasonable to assert that the "guns culture" is a threat to Australia based on statistics from the United States, is it not also reasonable to assert that Islam poses a similar threat based on the appalling statements and actions of some of Islam’s high-profile representatives around the world? If not, why not?

The media confronts us almost daily with images of masked machine-gun-rattling Muslins making demands and threatening unspeakable slaughter if those demands are not met. The media brings us shocking reports of the oppressive and often extremely violent treatment of woman and girls in Muslim countries. Yet it is readily acknowledged that these atrocious acts are perpetrated and perpetuated by a relatively small group of extremists, and are therefore no reason to lobby against the spread of Australia’s emerging Islamic culture.

Some will say that my analysis is simply justification for the banning of guns wherever they may be, but would that solve the problem?

The doctrinal interpretations used to justify the violence and oppression that many associate with Islam, are not prescriptive about the weapons that should be used to enforce them. Indeed violent enforcement of the ‘fundamentalist’ doctrine can be traced back a thousand years or more before guns were invented. A zero tolerance towards Islam, however, would surely go some way to preventing its establishment on Australian soil.

Let me state for the record that I harbour no fear or objection toward Islam, but like all rational people, I object, very strongly, to unnecessary violence and oppression.

I use the examples above only to demonstrate the philosophical hypocrisy of organisations such as The Greens, who, while actively promoting a climate of intolerance and hatred against the culture of hunting and weapons-ownership of which they do not approave, move swiftly to denounce any person or group that expresses concern about the spread of Islamic culture in Australia, of which they do approve, calling it bigotry and racism. 

Their reason for doing so is clear; it is a matter of personal preference, of likes and dislikes. They like Muslims, but they hate weapons and they do not trust anyone who does not also hate weapons. They hate hunting, and loath and distrust anyone who does not share the anti-hunting philosophy. They lobby ardently for an end to both weapons-ownership and hunting because their hatred of them means they stand to lose nothing by their abolition.

Politicians and lobby groups have for too long, promoted a climate of hatred and ridicule, both in the media and in the community in general, and they have done so with pride and absolute impunity. This has been possible because to date no individual or organisation has sought to prosecute them for their promotion of hatred, their vilification and cultural bigotry. Perhaps that should change?

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….