The immorality of the Left, under full display:
[…] The highest morality among today’s dessicated Left is to merely to seem good, usually done simply by calling someone else evil. The actual consequences of their posturing politics are ignored or deemed irrelevant. The YouTube clicks and likes are enough.
And so you can call for communism and ignore the millions of corpses. You can call for open borders and ignore the drowned children and the brooding underclass you’ve imported. You can praise Germany’s admission of a million Muslims in a year and ignore the pack rapes committed by the mobs. You can spruik global warming solutions and ignore the pensioners who can no longer afford to heat or cool their homes. You can call for an end to wars abroad and ignore the defenceless civilians being beheaded and the women captured as sex slaves. You can defend Islam and ignore the subjugation of women and the culture clashes in our own streets.
What counts is that you seem good, not matter the evil consequences which others must suffer and deal with.
This is the morality of a child. In an adult such contempt for consequences is selfish and deeply immoral. Stripped down, it is asking others to suffer so that you may seem good.
Andrew Bolt has nailed the left’s ‘seeming good’ agenda in one fell swoop in this piece. Read the rest of his demolition of the left and ABC presenter and ‘academic’ Waleed Aly’s posturing rant.
Update, Chris Kenny has more:
The left and Greens conveniently forget asylum seekers deaths at sea and champion for those on Nauru to come here………….so they can chortle “failed border security”! And present false unsettling hope to those on Nauru.
“Those who have been wrong on border protection all along don’t want to go gentle into the night but instead rage against reality. In the wake of this week’s High Court decision they are shrill again — pontificating, trumpeting their virtue, vilifying others and offering only more chaos.
It is nauseating. People who eschew the sanctimony and search for ways through — Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, even Richard Marles — are targeted with vile abuse from those like Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young whose only contributions are to undermine solutions, stir trouble and encourage uncertainty.
A front page of The Age this week showed pictures of refugee and asylum-seeker babies with the tabloid headline, “Babies bound for ‘hell’.” Apart from being emotive, this is misleading and demeaning towards the people of Nauru, not to mention the Australians working there to care for asylum-seekers and refugees.
It is only three months since I was on Nauru, where the unavoidable ocean views provide false hope for refugees — there is nothing stopping them buying a boat and sailing for the horizon. But the ocean is vast, Nauru’s isolation is extraordinary, and should they ever find landfall their statelessness would follow them. Similarly, the refugee advocates torment the asylum-seekers and refugees with false hope of dramatic policy changes. They promise that protests, stunts and even contrived medical trips to Australia will force the government to back down.
Talking with refugees on the island, those who believe such tactics can work are noticeably more unsettled and anxious. The minority who accept they will never reach Australia are still uncertain and concerned, of course, but seem a little more purposeful in considering alternatives.
The so-called compassionate Left have learned nothing in two decades of border trauma and tragedy. Even with boats dashed on the rocks of Christmas Island and unfolding tumult in Europe, they reject any lessons.
These people — the compassionistas — are epitomised by Hanson-Young and other advocates who campaigned for open borders yet wipe their hands of the terrible consequences.
Having seen more than 50,000 people, including thousands of children, channelled through detention centres as the people-smugglers profited from their illegal trade and more than a thousand people drowned at sea, they now agitate again to weaken our border protection regime.
They are happy to use any emotional device and will throw around claims of rape, abuse and even torture, without evidence and with no regard for the Nauruan and Papua New Guinean people they vilify.
They win unquestioning endorsement and a platform for transparent moral posturing from the ABC, Fairfax and the press gallery — the love media. They deride mainstream Australians by framing a wise understanding of the importance of border security to the integrity of our generous immigration system as some sort of racist panic.
The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy typified this attitude when she tweeted this week that we live in a “political culture that sees votes in responding to asylum claims with offshore prisons”.
“Our prejudices and fears create this toxic debate,” she went on. This is the distorted and demeaning view of the populace from the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra.
The Ten Network and Radio National’s Paul Bongiorno tweeted, “Let’s drop the bull shit not allowing deaths at sea equals compassion.”
The deaths happened. They have stopped. This is a fact. It is not the only fact but it is an important one which, apparently, is inconvenient for some.
Clearly many campaigners use this issue to set themselves apart as the moral and intellectual superiors of their compatriots. It might just as well reveal the opposite.
Having ended the people-smuggling trade, the Coalition has been able to lift the nation’s refugee intake to record levels, including by taking in 12,000 people from the Syrian debacle. It is working on the large backlog of asylum-seekers and refugees awaiting resolution in our nation.
The clear and pressing priority in this diabolically difficult policy area is to find proper and permanent homes for the more than 2000 asylum-seekers and refugees in Nauru and Manus Island. It is the stunts and sanctimony of the compassionistas that has precluded the most attractive resolution.
On my return from Nauru last October — amid vicious lies and abuse directed at me by advocates for daring to report the reality of conditions on the island — I spoke to senior people in government, opposition and even a leading refugee advocate about finding another way.
It is clear many of the people stuck on Nauru would make model citizens. So now that the boats have been stopped, perhaps there was a way to bring them to our country without sending a green light to people-smugglers.
A conditional visa, perhaps, or arrangements to settle in designated areas to work towards bridging visas or residency if certain conditions were met? But it was clear the government and the opposition have tried to consider every option.
They are aware of the myriad problems, such as not advantaging anyone over the 30,000 asylum-seekers on bridging visas already waiting for processing while living in our communities.
But the greatest problem with resettlement here is the one created by the critics of strong border protection. Campaigning against the reimposition of offshore processing from 2009 onwards, Labor, Greens and refugee advocates were quick to deride the Coalition’s earlier success. Most of those sent to Nauru ended up in Australia anyway, they exaggerated (about 30 per cent went home and 30 per cent were resettled elsewhere, while about 40 per cent came, quietly, to Australia).
This posturing was an act of policy vandalism — seeking to undermine the deterrence of offshore processing, when they should have welcomed the fact the deterrence worked even with a humane outcome for the people involved.
What this means now is that any people resettled from Nauru to Australia will be trumpeted internationally as a monumental failure in our border protection regime. The activists have created a situation where backdoor settlement here would undo the success of the policy. It is a terrible conundrum.
Conditions on Nauru are not “hell” and strictly speaking, there is no detention. (Manus Island would be much tougher and I have not been there.) On Nauru refugees and asylum-seekers, in many ways, have better living conditions than the locals. The provision of food, shelter, schooling, healthcare and a monthly stipend, together with a benign climate, make for relative comfort.
But on this tiny, featureless island, the sense of isolation is overwhelming. There is no surprise that the refugees — now mostly living in settlements around the island, freely working and living alongside Nauruans — are desperate to leave.
It is a purgatory in the Pacific; limbo at latitude zero. Each day there is part of their life lost. To end the torment they need resettlement options fast. Only with the finding of third country options, or the repatriation of those willing to go home, will this long wait end.”
Those who have been wrong on border protection all along don’t want to go gentle into the night but instead rage against reality. In the wake of this week’s High Court decision they are shrill again — pontificating, trumpeting their virtue,…
Update 2, More offense from the left:
Cindy Prior’s case, backed by the Human Rights Commission, shows exactly why we must reform 18C, writes Janet Albrechtsen.
Now, here’s Update 3, Rowan Dean at Spectator, a small snippet: […]
On top of which, freedom of expression has now been usurped by the Intolerados of the Left under the guise of ‘human rights’, ‘inappropriate behaviour’, ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and so on; to which we can now add ‘transphobia’, ‘Islamophobia’, and a host of other PC-driven moral ‘crimes’. Very few of which have any genuinely objective legal test – and all of which rely on ‘feelings’, ‘being offended’, ‘identifying as’ and other subjective criteria as reason to prosecute a moral case. Be afraid, because the new wowsers relish wielding the ruthless power of their vigilante weaponry – the vicious tools of social media, as well as the brutal instruments of the media itself with its endless parade of judgmental ‘commentators’, ‘spokespersons’ and ‘experts’ – as lustily and angrily as any mad mullah or medieval witch hunter ever did.
|“Sanctimonious hypocrites!” Read the full piece and other great reads in the latest Spectator, out now.