On the Aussie Beach Riots

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Updated: While it is not clear whether these riots have anything directly to do with terrorism, it is plain that multiculturalism and Islam factor in. In that respect, I see the events developing in Australia as part of the larger clash between Islam and the West, and of the "civil war" within Islam as it grapples with modernity and the need for reform.

Upon first hearing about the riots in Australia, my initial reaction was, "This is probably an inappropriate, but understandable reaction to some kind of provocation." This seems to be the case. This timeline describes how events unfolded.

A bunch of Muslim Lebanese jackasses start the ball rolling by standing-over, frightening, assaulting at law, a bunch of skippy whitebreads at Cronulla beach.

"She's not worth 55 years" says one leering jackass to another, standing over a skippy teen in a bikini and her friends, blocking the sun from her as she lies on the sand, in an overt reference to gang rapes conducted by Lebanesers a couple years back.

A couple skippy lifeguards try to get the disgusting assaulting wogs off the beach and out of people's faces, and for their trouble get the crap beaten out of them by said wogs.

A week later a bunch of sober appalled skips, including parents of the girls getting assaulted, who have had enough of the Muslim Lebs giving everyone the shits on Cronulla beach when they've behaved leeringly to girls and threateningly in groups to regular punters, decide to protest the whole lifeguard beating. Off to the beach they go.
That's just the start. Read it all.

For more reports, Tim Blair posts an excellent roundup here.

All in all, Wretchard of The Belmont Club offers what I think is the best parsing. (HT: Mean Mr. Mustard. And follow his advice: Read the comments.) Wretchard bears quoting at length.
My two cents worth on the Maroubra beach riots (Eastern suburbs) is this. There's a perception, justified or not, among some Anglo Australians that authorities are not cracking down hard enough on Middle Eastern gangs, who are in Western Sydney. Some days ago, a Lebanese gang supposedly attacked lifeguards, who are an iconic part of Australian beach culture. That's a little bit like spitting on the Flag and writing grafitti on the Liberty Bell. So guys revved up by beer decided it wasn't just Miller Time, but payback time.

I have no doubt that some of the Middle Eastern guys beat up were innocent. But that's what happens when perceived political correctness undermines public confidence. We rely on the state to dispense justice, when that is thought to fail then mob rule steps in and punishes innocent and guilty alike.

I've been warning about this for some time now, both with respect to the torture debate and in an old post called the Three Conjectures. Like most people in Oz, I have Muslim or Middle Eastern friends and the way I got it figured is if we don't start cracking down on the Osamas and the Zawahiris and the al-Arians because they are draped in this bogus human rights shield, then the Joe Samadis and the Bill Mansours of the world are gonna start catching it. What's the use of being innocent if the guilty go scot free? One day if a nuke goes off in Sydney or Manhattan all the bets are off.

I get a little emotional sometimes watching these peacenik types defend blatant murderers because by frustrating justice they are building up tectonic pressures that will go snap one day, and it won't be their necks at the end of a rope. What the world needs isn't the fake sympathy of the Euro-human rights crowd but justice. They should remember that in the absence of justice there is only revenge. [bold added]
The last part there in the bold is haunting, for it is the distillation of how the Islamists, aided by multiculturalism (i.e., political correctness as opposed to pluralism based upon respect for individual rights), can ruin our civilization.

When a government refuses to do obvious things it should be doing in the defense of its citizens, like enforcing the law, profiling Moslems at airports, bombing mosques in war zones when they house enemy forces, or not shrinking from the prospect of torturing the accomplices to an impending murder when lives hang in the balance -- all omissions made for the sake of not offending Moslem sensibilities -- it is committing a grave injustice. Such a government is sacrificing the innocent citizens whose purpose it is to protect, for the sake of platitudes divorced from reality.

The man on the street feels slighted every time, and he stands to suffer serious harm as a direct result of all this mincing around during a time of war. Ultimately, if a government fails to fight against Islamism in the most effective way possible, the rioting in Australia is a sample of one possible outcome: The people will rise to defend themselves. Given that dhimmitude is the other possible outcome, I would say that while the rioting is certainly a serious crisis, it reflects well on the psychological health of the Australian public. This is a people who will prevail. They are fighting back, which is more than can be said for the French.

I was going to open this post by saying how saddened I am by the events unfolding in Australia, because I have fond memories of my honeymoon there, and have never met an Australian that I didn't like. But that would be gilding the lilly because it's my war, too, and the governments of the West are not fighting it hard enough. As far as I am concerned, this is happening to my countrymen.

-- CAV

PS: As in France, a major part of the problem seems to be a multiculturalism-inspired lack of law enforcement. From an open letter in an Australian newspaper by a policeman (linked at "enforcing" above):
If these hoodlums hadn't already run off because they knew what was coming, they would cop a flogging, a kick up the bum, a slap over the head. The young kids were afraid of the police and that's how we controlled and protected the community.

Fear is the only thing a young male understands. That real power is now lost forever.

Let's look at how the new police force would handle the same job.

Firstly, we changed our name to a "service" because it was aggressive to use the word "force". We send two small female officers, wearing silly little yellow caps.

If we want to move these thugs out of the area, we have a very strict procedure we must follow. We have to announce our name and place of duty. The thug laughs and starts calling us by our first name.

We have to tell them why they have to move on. We have to warn them that if they fail to move on, they may be arrested.

If there is more than one thug, we have to do this to each one.

They tell us they don't speak English, start stating their rights and call their friends by mobile phone to come to the location.

The process we have just started doesn't work with a drunk who wants to argue - it just makes it more confusing.

We have to make detailed notes of the conversation and caution them not to say or do anything in case it incriminates them.
It goes on from there.... From the comments at The Belmont Club, I'd say that the Australian left is going to be in the fetal position after this. Multiculturalism takes a well-deserved body blow.

Related Posts

Aussie Riot Update -- "Robert Tracinski at TIA Daily made a couple of good points I missed when I discussed the Australian riots recently. His analysis of this story bears repeating."

Home-Grown Terrorists -- "It is this lack of guidance on the part of liberal parents who are unable or afraid to teach standards of conduct to their children that explains why some Western children are drawn to Islam, and, more generally, why France is in so much trouble today."

The Kristallnacht of the Altruist Nazis -- "Via Cox and Forkum, I have learned that an excellent TIA Daily article by Robert Tracinski on the French Intifada is now available online."

All Riot on the Western Front -- "Via Instapundit and following links from there is some alarming coverage of the rioting (to use a euphemism for "civil war") that has been going on in Europe."

McCain Preaches in Gitmo Rag -- "Senator McCain, who has proposed an ill-advised law on torture, made his case for said law."

Thwarting Needed Cultural Changes -- "Moslem society must change fundamentally before the terrorist threat will subside much. But our overly-solicitous treatment of Moslems is not helping matters."


12-14-05: Added some clarifications and another link. Added PS, prefatory note, and links to related posts.
12-17-05: Added link to update post.


Vigilis said...

Gus, Like a weakened virus, muslim thugs worldwide are helping innoculate the world, country by country, against the more potent threat of Islamic terror cells.

Reaction to the thugs is in reality a production of antibodies (appropriate attitudes) by freedom-loving societies. The thugs produce more informants (among fellow Muslims), more infiltrators and more targets than could be hoped for by surveillance techniques alone.

Apparently, America will be among the last countries so innoculated, thanks to senatorial apologists for Islamic terrorists and their ample supporters in liberaldumb.

The future of freedom is brighter because of the juvenile muslim outbursts. Let their stupidity continue.

Gus Van Horn said...


Hah! Saw this on your blog first. You make a good point, but the "immune response" metaphor comes with a caveat: Human beings have free will, unlike the machinery of our immune system. Every society faces a choice: to surrender (like France, which alternately seems to be in denial or accepting dhimmitude) or fight back (as in Australia now). While that choice may seem like a no-brainer to us, some will not find the choice so simple. Why?

That choice has emotional and intellectual components, the latter ultimately being what will carry the day or not. How do civilized men kill or imprison terrorists? We don't act upon whim. We act in accordance to what we think is right. "Do we fight back, and if so, why?"

On an emotional level, Australia is there, but a sustained resistance that does not descend into mere barbarity will ultimately require Australians (and others in the West) to rediscover the sanctity of individual rights. Part of this redicscovery will necessarily entail a rational case for same that ties the morality of respecting the lives of others to the practical consequences for one's own life. (Otherwise, how do we explain to those who may be attracted to Islam what is wrong with it? And conversely, how do we acount for those who reject our social norms and adopt Islam, even four years into its open warfare against the West? The choice is an intellectual one.)

But (as you point out) the terrorists do make the intellectual battle easier in this sense: They show the practical consequences of their belief system, an existence nasty, brutish, and short. To the extent that people value their comfortable, enjoyable lives, they will be motivated to answer the calls of the Imams to murder. This is what must happen to win this war, which requires us at once to fight the enemy while not simply becoming a variant of him.


Gus Van Horn said...

Clarification: I said, "To the extent that people value their comfortable, enjoyable lives, they will be motivated to answer the calls of the Imams to murder."

Better would be "refute" or "reject" than "answer", which can come off as having exactly the OPPOSITE meaning I intended!


Vigilis said...

Gus, metaphors are always imperfect, but truthfully, your point about "free will" is a good one. My rebuttal to that is what passes for free will is (50% of the time) no more than an automatic emotional response -not a product of critical thought.
I believe emotional responses are as programmed as viral actions.

I am guessing, therefore that you own (or did have) a canine versus feline pet. Give me a few more months, and I may even be able to tell you its breed. LOL

Gus Van Horn said...


Hmmm. Your speculation on what breed of pet I own mystifies me, but.... I'm a cat owner. Read about my favorite one at the upper right ("My Fact Checker"), and you won't even have to guess the breed.