Is there no limit to the shame which the Albanese government is determined to bring to Australia?

On the UN motion drafted by a corrupt and criminal dictatorship, one with an appalling human rights record, Australia abstained.

This was a motion to undermine Israel, a friendly power defending itself from what has been chillingly described as the deadliest attack against the Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.

Rather than voting with the US and Israel against the motion, by abstaining, the Albanese government proved itself worthy of the gibe that in this, they were no more than ‘gutless fence sitters’.

Worse, the Foreign Minister ostentatiously revealed that not having obtained some or other amendment, she regretted – regretted! –not voting to support the motion.

The foreign policy of this nation is once again being determined, no doubt for the shoddiest of electoral purposes, by what has long been the litmus test of Labor opportunism – whether it can be defended from the steps of the Lakemba mosque.

This shamelessness extends to the government running  down our defences so that,  without the United States, we are defenceless.

Nor does the government even remind  the ABC of its duties, despite the corporation shamefully adopting an agenda to destroy morale within the defence forces just as it attempted to do so in relation to the Catholic church.

The whole point of news on public broadcasting is identical to that expressed in London in 1851 by Robert Lowe, the Times’ editorial writer, who wrote, ‘The first duty of the press’ is to obtain ‘the earliest and most correct intelligence’ of the events of the time, and ‘instantly, by disclosing them’, to make them ‘the common property of the nation’.

There can be ‘no greater disgrace,’ he continued,  than to ‘recoil from the frank and accurate disclosure of facts’. 7News Spotlight recently revealed that, not content with being found by the Federal Court to have defamed soldier Heston Russell concerning his valiant service in the Afghan war, the ABC broadcast a military video of carefully targeted gunfire by men under Russell’s command.

The soundtrack had been changed by the addition of the sound of several gunshots, apparently to support a story that unarmed Afghan civilians were the target. This has been acknowledged and withdrawn as an ‘error’ but so far, Russell’s requests to speak to the ABC chiefs have been ignored.

Given that Australian action in Afghanistan is the subject of a criminal investigation, this ‘error’ could well constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Whether there is any police investigation is unknown.

So will the authorities again do what they are no doubt instructed to do by the politicians concerning criminal antisemitic behaviour, that is, take no action? Let us hope that this does not descend to the farce surrounding Sydney’s Opera House riot.

Instead of immediate arrests, subsequent police action centred on an acoustic investigation which found that a chant which just about everyone heard as ‘Gas the Jews!’ was determined to be a highly improbable usage for antisemitic thugs, ‘Where’s the Jews?’

What was even more ludicrous as an excuse for not taking action was the argument no prosecution could lie under the present law, which to date has not been amended sufficiently to launch those many prosecutions.

Antisemitism is not something new to Australia, but the failure to act against it increasingly attracts international attention.

I first noticed this over twenty years ago. Unlike other places of worship, outside synagogues there was an increasing presence of security guards. Apparently, this was occurring in other places, even kindergartens.

This is the direct consequence of governments failing to exercise their power to admit immigrants with due regard for the national interest. This means that any person who is unlikely to assimilate but instead is likely to import the ancient feuds and hatreds of another land to Australia should never be accepted as an immigrant.

We have seen that power recently exercised with extraordinary negligence, indeed nonchalance, by the Albanese government in relation to those coming from Gaza.

With no proper checks undertaken or indeed possible to undertake, the Albanese government is quite prepared to risk Australians being exposed to terrorist attacks merely for some hoped for electoral advantage.

The result could be even worse than their release of detained illegal immigrants (‘unauthorised maritime arrivals’) as a result of the High Court’s order for the release of a stateless Rohingya refugee known as NZYQ.

Gaoled after pleading guilty of raping a 10-year-old boy, an horrendous crime for which the presiding judge said he showed no remorse, NZYQ served a non-parole period of three years and four months.

On his release in May 2018, he was detained pending deportation. Unsurprisingly, no other country would take him. With the support of the Human Rights Commission, he appealed to the High Court, which, in November 2023, reversed an almost two-decades ruling that the detention of illegal immigrants was constitutionally valid.

The High Court created a new principle that detainees like NZYQ should be released when the judges conclude  there was no ‘real prospect’ that removal would be ‘reasonably practicable in the foreseeable future’. The Court said that such a detention had become a punishment and only a court could impose this. The country was outraged by the decision. The government overreacted and almost immediately released another ninety-three detainees and more later, many with serious criminal records. Their subsequent supervision was shown to be grossly inadequate.

A strong and sensible government would have detained NZYQ for the obvious danger he was to young children and immediately  appealed to the people against the activist judges’ decision.

Never before undertaken, this should have been done through an early referendum, no doubt with opposition support, to confirm the likely original constitutional intention that the detention of illegal immigrants is a matter within federal parliamentary power.

Had it passed, as is most likely, Australia would have been the toast of the Western world.