You are here

Should all Australians condemn the "No Room for Racism" movement?

On April 4, 2015 the ABC and other new services reported on fierce 'clashes' as a newly formed organisation turned up in large numbers to oppose rallies in several states by a political group called Reclaim Australia.

"Organiser Mel Gregson [1] said No Room for Racism was formed with the express purpose of shutting down the 16 rallies across Australia planned by Reclaim Australia. The Reclaim Australia members, on their facebook page, describe their mission as "We as patriotic Australians need to stand together to stop halal tax, sharia law & islamisation.""

Gregson also campaigned against the Melbourne Tunnel Project.

Reclaim Australia.

So is Gregson, and all who support her, denying people the right to demonstrate peacefully about something they believe in, thereby displaying intolerance and bigotry? If she was at an anti-nuclear demonstration, would she cry "evil capitalism" if thugs hired by the nuclear power lobby turned up for a hostile confrontation against her?

Oxford Dictionary Definitions: (Additional observations in bold)

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. Does this mean the Aborigines who threw spears at the invaders of the First Fleet were xenophobic?

Does the banner "No Room for Racism" prejudge that Reclaim Australia is made up of racists without even understanding the meaning of the word? Is denying people the right to peacefully express a (non racist?) point of view in a public gathering analogous to autocratic imposition of martial law denying those people their rights?

This is not an argument about one side being right and the other side being wrong. This is an objective criticism of the motives and moral legitimacy of No Room for Racism.

No Room for Racism was chanting:
"The Reclaim members sang renditions of Advance Australia Fair, but the anti-racism protesters’ chants of “immigrants are welcome, racists are not” could also be heard throughout the CBD."

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places. SOURCES: Department of Immigration; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So is No Room for Racism not only confused about the meaning of the term racism but also confused about immigration and its impact on infrastructure expansion and the capacity to accept refugees in preference to relatively wealthy migrants? Isn't lack of population growth management driving the infrastructure expansion that Mel Gregson also opposes? Are Gregson and her supporters totally confused about the differences between refugees, mass migration and population growth management? Is this the kind of confusion that is endemic in Australian society as a direct result of the ABC (and other media) suppressing public policy debate of population growth management? Is this a form of confused "socialism" which is actually acting against global social equity by supporting exactly the same values as globalisation and right wing extremism?

Is a valid conclusion that Australia should have "No Room for Duplicitous, Self-Righteous, Incoherent Bigots" whose confused logic is carefully nurtured by dishonest taxpayer funded ABC broadcasters?


[1] Mel Gregson is a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. See and


Here is what I believe the story behind the Reclaim Australia and No Room For Racism probably is.

In a nutshell, the Reclaim Australia protests are a logical consequence of current and recent governments' foreign affairs policy and local promotion of a perceived need for terrorism laws. The Reclaim Australia protests would be a reaction to the grotesque war-propaganda repeatedly conveyed by US/NATO, Australian newsmedia and our government that Middle Easterners are naturally unstable sectarian obsessives and in need of firm external guidance and bombing into oblivion. Recent terrorist attacks - false flag or real - have reinforced this message. On that basis it should be expected that some or even many Australians will start to consider Muslims in Australia as a dangerous group. They have repeatedly been told this by their government.

The Government isn't going to change the message that it keeps upsetting such Australians with (and Muslim Australians) because the message serves a purpose of its own, however the Government also does not want Australians to think that they can start giving the government their point of view with impunity. Because if that happened, we would pull out of wars, cut immigration right down and bring down house prices, among other things.

Hence, the government deploys the 'Socialists' rent-a-thug crowd to intimidate the worried Australians so that next time they try to organise a rally about their concerns, no-one will turn up.[1]

Problem solved: 'apathy' produced through fear. Police state by the handy proxy of so-called socialists. (No offense meant to real ones) and a belief that you can't win.

ABC (and all other press except maybe present what happened as a random clash between diverse groups of Australians (although visibly more young vs old) - rather similar to the way they present 'clashes' in the Middle East, and anyone who was not involved is totally mystified. No-one mentions that Mel Gregson is a prominent member of the Socialist Party of Australia. No-one comments on the resources that were found to organise the 'protest' or the crowds in several states at once at this protest and many others in the past.

Somehow the 'socialist' 'anti-racists' come out looking a bit better in the press reports than the anti-sharia law people, even though they will have started the violence. A few will have been arrested, but nothing important will happen to the group.

Any experienced activist will recognise this syndrome. It's either intimidation in the streets or take-over of any successful and positive movement. And the same tactics keep 'order' in the Greens and Labor Party.

Now, I don't have any direct proof of this in these circumstances, but its a very familiar scenario to most real activists. Anyone with another explanation, please write in.


[1] It's easy to get some actual volunteers to participate if they believe they are combatting racist demonstrators because Australians have all also been schooled in another belief which is that Australians are riven by racism. So we have self-identified anti-racists vs anti-terrorists stopping each other from effective political expression while old civilisations are reduced to dust by bombs in the Middle East. Many of the feared Muslim refugees and immigrants come from these places because we are bombing them. But no-one gets round to asking questions about this, unfortunately.

There were reports of missiles thrown by the counter rally-ers, including horse manure, bottles and a placard which hit a young woman and knocked her to the group. An elderly lady was pushed to the ground.

Because they have resources (money and people) and they have little to do (you rarely see any charity from these groups), they expend the resources on rallies. The thugs are then let loose on any organisation or collection which is ideologically removed from them. Unfortunately, in my experience, there is no reasoning or discussion with them, as they can't say anything other than pre-prepared "arguments" and talking points.

It is important to note that there are very few people who think, who are even ALLOWED to think. The mass of the movement are young people who think they can run the world, have NO knowledge of it, and are armed with hate and a sense of being Fascistic warriors and tropes and set loose.

Their membership is very unstable, as most leave once they grow up, but there is no shortage of young, naive people. Their membership turnover is actually very high, as personally witnessed and reported by others I know who took part.

I don't think the government specifically deploy them, but there is little doubt the Government tolerates them more than they otherwise would, because these "Socialists" (they are NOT Socialist at all in practice) paradoxically support the system by enforcing the ideals which the system needs and opposing and true anti-capitalist, anti-status quo movement. They do what the state isn't allowed to do, which may be why when they harrass Liberals, they seem to get away with it.

However, when you combine close mindedness with a sense of moral supremacy, and combine with fanaticism and a lack of a sense of proportion, you get a very dangerous combination. You get people who will stop at nothing, who will do anything to anyone to advance the cause du jour and attack anyone without trial, without evidence, without a hearing.

P.S., Having spent months in Europe, I do understand the concerns of Reclaim Australia, though the response, just being critical of Islam and leaving it at that doesn't address the core problem (in fact, I wager Reclaim Australia don't mention it, which after a look through their facebook page, confirms my suspicion), which is population policy set by an elite.

It is also ironic and amusing that they consider Islam as the primary threat to free speech, but when they rallied it wasn't Muslims by the hundred opposing them and using violence. I hope they've learned something about who stops speech.

P.P.S. I noted that the image in the article was about the Tunnel protests which turned nasty. It is interesting because the man at those protests, Anthony Main was also organising the "Rally against Racism" and speaking to the Police at Fed square on Saturday. Unfortunately, some people make a LIVING doing this, and as such, have to justify their living by rallying against the world.


I will be pressing charges against the three Anarchist perpetrators who attacked Party for Freedom members and supporters last Sunday outside the Halal Expo 2015.

We've had many running battles with different anarchist and far left outfits over the past 5 years. Wherever and whenever we've held a rally or counter rally none of our members or supporters have been arrested on any charges. The violent leftist thugs mainly from Antifa or other anarchist or socialist groups have always been the initiators of violence and threats. There have been arrests on their side but left wing magistrates have always dropped the charges, surprise! Surprise!

The anarchists are tools of there state. Anarchists collude with Communists and Islamists to battle Patriots but behind the scenes they are funded and supported by internationalist organisations including the Australian political hierarchy. Have you ever seen any anarchist organisation stage a protest against the Labor or Liberal parties? Some anarchists do move in different circles supporting the usual social justice nonsense. An anarchist is someone who is opposed to the state yet the anarchists concentrate their energies fighting powerless political organisations like Party for Freedom. If they were true anarchist, they would be attacking the major political parties.

In the UK, the UAF (United Against Fascists) who repeatedly attack BNP, Britain First and even UKIP are actually FUNDED by the Tories and Labour. So, the major parties fund a UK anarchist organisation to destabilise any growing opposition so why would it be any different here?

I had a meeting with City Police yesterday regarding Sunday's rally. Police are concerned about possible violence emanating from the left and do not want us to stage the rally. We have a democratic right to stage a peaceful rally and if anarchists or leftist thugs attack us, we will be pressing charges against those perpetrators. Police have information that many threats have been made against me by the same anarchists and their motley crew. It is about bloody time the aggressors were charged for their thuggery over the years.

I have spoken to our Lawyer regarding the attacks and we are now in the process of taking out private AVO's against [name suppressed by editor]

and two male perpetrators who attacked protestors last Sunday. Our lawyer also advised us to hold the rally and if we are attacked, we will press charges against the perpetrators.

[name suppressed by editor]

a member of Antifa. She was present at our Marrickville Woolworths rally. She made online threats to 'bash us'. At the Marrickville rally, the anarchists and their dirty minions arrived with knives and bedposts. View the first picture and you will see the bedpost attached to the back of a placard. I also have video and sound footage of a Policeman stating that weapons were confiscated from the anarchists.

We need your help to identify the two male perpetrators who attacked me so if you have any information please inbox me or leave a message on my timeline.

Our Sunday ‘Rally against Illegals’ is going ahead. We will not be silenced with threats of violence emanating form the lowest levels of the gene pool.

Today, I received approval from City Police to hold Sunday’s rally so please inform your family and friends to join us in protest against the ‘open border’ lunatics.

SBS News: Anarchist thugs attack anti-halal protestors

‘Stop Animal Cruelty’ Halal Expo 2015

Nick Folkes [Party for Freedom]

The above comment makes more coherent to me the current confusion of political cries in an apparent wilderness of messages. What the author seems to be saying is that the forces of globalization come in many different guises and under counter intuitive banners. But from my observations the forces against the oppression, recklessness and destruction (which characterize globalization and unfettered capitalism) have a very difficult time making their case coherent to the masses and of forming a united front.

Hi Katie,

I think the lack of a coherent message and united front is a major hurdle. Part of it is because these forces haven't quite followed through thought about the issues. A shortcoming I see is many people see a problem, see a cause, then stop. For example, one might see the horrendous traffic, realise that the rapid population growth is the cause (and therefore the reason the crisis will turn to disaster), then stop. While I think it is good and correct to state that population growth is the underlying cause, I think, at least for those who are in the 'think tank' roles, it is in error to stop here.

Globalists get their way largely because people accept their moral premise. I think there is a contradiction with groups like Sustainable Population Party pushing for a population target, because it seems to accept the premise that a state or national entity CAN and SHOULD set a target. The debate is then framed simply about what that number must be, which is a tough debate to win, because it would necessarily involve economic and logistical arguments that most people won't understand. I may be wrong, and I welcome debate on this matter, but I suspect it's an issue.

I take the view that having A population policy, or target, or otherwise government/corporate/church/political/etc mandated population size or goal or composition is, frankly, evil, or leads to evil, and in the past, usually has. I think this ties in with BOTH the issues of population numbers AND the issues of cultural and ethnic/demographic change, as BOTH are the result of bureaucrats, technocrats and vested interests assuming the right to do so. Whether it be to manipulate the economy, or fulfil some social goal or simply to change the demographic make up because some consider the current composition to be a problem..

I advocate that a society should determine its make up, through its own reproductive choices, at least for Western nations or Australia. For the rest of the world, they may need something else, but that's for them to decide, not me.

Again, I may be wrong, but as no one really thinks about this, there is no one to debate it against.

I think if people in power had their right to shape our culture, size over our own choices challenged, they may start to come unstuck.

Distorting the definition of "race" and "racism" is a way of bringing in the dreaded word into a movement, and an effort to silence debate. Islam is not a "race" and objecting to some of the new forms of "diversity" being brought into Australia is not a "racial" but a cultural issue, introduced by mass immigration!

Australia does not have to be international territory, or be the face of every culture and ethnic group or power lobby. Each nation, and sovereignty, has a right to determine their own futures, values, and population. We are being manipulated by "Political Corectness" (PC), and silenced by heavy social controls. Redefining words for convenience is a clever tactic, but it should be exposed as such. It's time Australia was reclaimed, and not considered a blank canvas for whatever religion, culture and imported values, or determined by big dollar investors - such as the housing lobby.

I may elaborate on this more, perhaps in an article, but I think, and observation seems to support this, that this terminology bandied about, or thrown at people regarding them being "racist" has a lot more to do with an exercise of political power, than in actually making an accusation.

I'm pretty convinced that in most cases, actual concern about racism, or concern other ethnic groups or the wellbeing of others doesn't factor into it.

It is an exercise of political power, which, for young, impressionable, dependant people may be one of the few opportunities they have to exercise power over another. Especially if they view themselves as the underclass and don't believe they will have other avenues of power over themselves, i.e, a good career, etc. This gives them an opportunity for cathartic release.

More mainstream people use it too, for example the growth lobby, but they are more selective than the radicals.

That is to say, SOME people use "racist" as a means of asserting a dominant position, because the response the person whom it is targeted at, is almost always to either immediately go into the defensive position argumentatively, or to stymie discussion by making the accused try to disprove something that is impossible to disprove. How can you prove you are not a racist, to someone who has made an accusation without any evidence, and who won't withdraw the charge because the existence of the charge gives them an imagined 'one-up' over you?

It used because it works, because people react strongly to it in a psychological way. If you had a word you could use, which would make anyone who supported any kind of growth automatically pee their pants and become defensive, you'd use it frequently when arguing a pro-growth, especially pro-population growth advocate, right? Well, maybe not you personally, as that would be crass, but some would.

The other downside is, that by suppressing the more intelligent, clued-up, level headed people from discussing sensitive issues, these issues are left to the fringes such as "Reclaim Australia", and they are dealt with, shall we say, rather poorly and crudely. The far-Right's power comes from the unwillingness of others to discuss things they feel free to discuss. They are kind of like the only cop in the police force who fully believes your story that you were mugged.