Dear White People of MLS

21/3/2017

ASAD KASIM-KHAN

Vol 11, Issue 4

Last year a heritage-listed pub, The Corkman, was allegedly destroyed by developers of an apartment block on the same land.

2016 also blessed us with a Trump presidency – seemingly impossible, especially after he had demonised and denigrated Latinos, women, African Americans, and Muslims.

It was also the year One Nation made a return to Federal Parliament, and polls suggested that close to half of Australians support a Trump-style ban and would be very concerned if a near-relation married a Muslim.

The tendency to populism – which continues to prove ruinous in Russia, threatens the nascent democracy of Poland, and has led to an endless parade of Middle-Eastern dictators – has spread to the Western bastions of human rights and liberal democracy. Sad!

The right-wing form of this populism, the white nationalist alt-right movement, has adherents at MLS. These are students who believe that Western, Christian cultures are superior, especially to those of the Islamic world.

The incompatibility of frothing at the Western world’s tolerance, informed by so-called Judeo-Christian values, while being anti-marriage equality and anti-women seems lost on such people.

Many at MLS have been unwilling to call out expressions of white supremacy. The gaining steam of Western white nationalist movements has clearly emboldened its supporters. Trump’s election might not directly cause vilification against minorities, but it emboldens those who, hitherto at the fringes of society, hold these views. It normalises their expression. When people - including we at MLS - do nothing in the face of the increasingly open expression of these views, we are contributing to this normalisation. Students have told me privately that they see certain open holders of these views as extreme. This is not enough.

Supporting Trump’s policies and being part of the alt-right should be unacceptable positions. This is not to say that right-wing economic populism is an immoral political position. Rather, that the white supremacist rationale overtly and covertly behind the policies and rhetoric of the Trump administration should be rejected, not normalised.

I have empathy with the unemployed, misinformed former-factory worker who thinks their problems arise due to trade liberalisation is easy, even if expert analysis tells us this is untrue.

Empathy with someone who is at one of the world’s best law schools and holds these kinds of views is impossible for those of us who belong to the groups affected by Trump’s policies.

The Corkman demolition was a cause of mass-mobilisation, and the outrage and fury this caused stand in contrast to the non-reaction to the expression of views that are inherently racist and bigoted.

The passion these students showed should be commended and emulated for more significant issues (and more efficient uses of our time).

At the time the Corkman was destroyed, a piece in De Minimis declared:

‘A Law Student working group has been created to look into the matter and to see whether a rebuilding of the Pub could be ordered.’

Never mind that the Victorian government is served by a whole department ready to remedy such acts. Never mind that the government acquiring that same money could spend it on public housing (for which there is a thirty-year wait list in Victoria).

We live in an Australia where women in hijabs are thrown off trains and where some extremists baselessly believe halal certification apparently funds terrorism and that Sharia law is somehow supplanting our legal system. Hindu temples have been desecrated with anti-Muslim slurs because the vandals don’t know what Islam is, and in the US an Indian national was killed, his murderer identifying him as a “Middle Eastern” – yet the Corkman was somehow a priority.

When this kind of idea (i.e. alt-right ideology) gains mainstream currency, when white men and women are Trump’s greatest supporters; and when, at what is still a very white institution, the demolition of a pub is a matter of urgency, there is something horribly wrong.

Surely it should be more controversial to be the supporter or adherent of an ideology whose basis is racial and civilizational superiority than it is to call them out. You’re not impinging on anyone’s rights, you’re standing up for the rights of others to feel safe and welcome. Respecting rights to political views is not a free pass to disrespect minimum standards of human dignity.

Some say that the issues I’ve raised are too big, that the Corkman is an issue that we can do something about. It’s unclear exactly how MLS students were going to add value to the efforts of better skilled government lawyers. On the other hand, there are many organisations ready to help refugees which could benefit from our efforts.

There’s no reason why we can’t care about both kinds of issues. However, it was very confronting that one evinced such a robust reaction, and the other remains largely ignored. I therefore encourage those who care about fairness and justice to speak up whenever bigoted or racist views become visible.

Many of the same students involved with the Corkman challenge are leaders in groups like Law Students for Refugees. My point is that even more urgently than challenging illegal demolitions, at a minimum racism and the open expression of white supremacist ideology should be unacceptable. Those who are not directly affected by the changes taking place in the world must step up and challenge these views. This is something small that we at MLS can do to make it a more welcoming space and place of respite for minority students.

The views in this article are entirely my own. Please check out: facebook.com/lawstudentsforrefugees

Asad Kasim-Khan is a second-year JD student

More articles like this

The rest of this issue

Eugene Twomey

21/3/2017 08:34:39 pm

Thanks for the shoutout for LSFR Asad!

For those curious, LSFR was actually founded in the Corkman Beer Garden, and two of the people running the Corkman working group were founding members of LSFR. From what I saw at least, the students most interested in saving the Corkman were all people I've known to have a pretty strong commitment to the sort of causes you champion in the piece.

That said, I think your wider point about the need to call out racism and challenge white supremacy is a very good one. I hope you made it to PILN's event last Tuesday - they are another student group doing great work on these incredibly important issues.

Porque no los dos

21/3/2017 08:40:50 pm

Exactamente

21/3/2017 11:19:52 pm

Henry HL

21/3/2017 08:44:24 pm

Correct

False Dichotomy

21/3/2017 08:45:35 pm

Where do the PoC who campaigned for the Corkman's revival fall in this debate?

THEY FALL HERE:

21/3/2017 10:39:14 pm

"There’s no reason why we can’t care about both kinds of issues. However, it was very confronting that one evinced such a robust reaction, and the other remains largely ignored. I therefore encourage those who care about fairness and justice to speak up whenever bigoted or racist views become visible."

Anon

21/3/2017 09:24:58 pm

The attitudes in this article are disgraceful, extreme and disappointing. However, they offer a few insights into the increasingly authoritarian views permeating some sections of MLS. Let me break it down the conclusions you make:
- Anyone who rejects or merely disagrees with the political Left's ideology is a right wing populist regardless of their actual views

- Without exception right wing populism is the 'white nationalist Alt-Right movement', white supremacy, and racism

- Western society and white people are responsible for Right-wing populism

- No-one should empathise with or tolerate those labelled with these terms

- Problems like the Corkman are distractions from the real problems

Your article effectively divides society into two camps: 'us' (those who adhere to your political ideology), and 'them' (anyone who holds another view). Western society and its Judeo-Christian foundations are mocked for their value of fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and freedom of thought you use to express your authoritarian vision with. However, only those who adhere to your ideology are entitled to exercise these freedoms, others use them to normalise extreme, unacceptable positions. A corollary of these extreme, unacceptable positions is the need to restrict them through social, cultural and legal mechanisms. Countering this position is in itself evidence I too must be an extremist, a supporter of racial and civilizational superiority who cannot be tolerated.

You rally against racism, then single out an ethnic bloc (if 'white' is even an ethnic bloc) for vilification. You cite (isolated) criminal acts as evidence of Western society excluding certain groups, then argue that whole sections of the community cannot be 'tolerated' and that it is 'unacceptable' for such people to attend MLS.

Your whole article is based on a falsehood, and it's a demonstration of how detached from reality you and your fellow Control-Left zealots are.

Something is horribly wrong with our community when these totalitarian views begin to transition to mainstream at our universities.

Atheist

21/3/2017 10:07:56 pm

Amen. (Woops am I allowed to say that? Or am I promoting a Judeo-Christian ideal?)

Conservative

21/3/2017 10:38:50 pm

Thank you

21/3/2017 11:10:18 pm

I don't recall anyone arguing for restricting those rights to different political expression that you're defending so heartily Anon (if that *is* your real name). Instead, the article argues for (and is an example of) discourse and persuasion as a way of effecting normative change within society such that certain positions won't be tolerated or accepted. This is a normal part of social change. A consensus forming against your beliefs is an outcome of political expression, not something antithetical to it.

The real problem for you here isn't that the debate doesn't exist -- the problem is that you feel that you're losing it. Not that free speech is being censored, but that people are for once speaking against you.

And if you can't tell the difference between those things then you never really cared about political expression in the first place.

22/3/2017 10:49:37 am

The author states that 'Supporting Trump’s policies and being part of the alt-right should be unacceptable positions.'

What he means by this is ambiguous, but I read it as 'this should be forbidden at the law school'.

If he personally finds them unacceptable then that's his business

22/3/2017 12:57:45 pm

Given that the article talks exclusively about civil discourse and social change, and never once even mentions formal restrictions on expression, I would read 'unacceptable' as 'normatively unacceptable' and not 'legally prohibited'.

Please explain

22/3/2017 10:40:34 am

"Without exception right wing populism is the 'white nationalist Alt-Right movement', white supremacy, and racism"

But right wing populism has actually manifested in this way?

The point of the article is that if others (including those on the right and those with conservative values) do not call out people like Trump and Hanson then our silence allows for their power. Silence is as good as condoning their actions. The words of extreme-right political leaders do manifest and give credence to white supremacy and racism on the ground. For example, One Nation blaming immigration for the decline of manufacturing sectors in Western countries is a) wrong and b) castes immigrants as the 'problem' and thus their elimination is the solution in some peoples minds. Immigrants in Australia are predominantly non-white, while the existing populations are predominantly white. So it naturally does become an issue of race. Our grandparents and some of our parents were alive for, and remember the white Australia policy. Australia (and many other Western countries) has a very recent racist history which is part of the reason why right wing populism does result in white supremacy. It in and of itself is not a bad thing, but within the context of othering immigrants it IS a problem. Maybe your view of right wing populism doesn't involve the othering and blaming of immigration for our problems, but so many politicians who push it in Western countries DO run on that platform. If you really don't believe in what they're saying then you need to call them out and actually articulate what right wing populism means to you.

Those with a voice and platform need to be aware that their actions and their words validate racists. This is why we, as a collective at the law school, should call this shit out. If white people don't call out racism then it inadvertently validates racism.

Ironic

22/3/2017 10:44:12 am

It's ironic that the right put forward freedom of speech as a central pillar of their ideology but the second someone claps back then they take personal offence and call that person a 'zealot' and 'authoritarian'.

Aren't the left meant to be the sensitive ones?

Alana

21/3/2017 10:23:04 pm

Thank you for expressing your point of view. Notice how you got to express it, even though it's borderline nonsensical and held together by only the loosest threads of reason? Yeah that's your freedom of speech and thought at work right there for ya. And me getting to insult you like this - also freedom of speech (yes that's right it is not authoritarian censorship or an attack on your precious civil liberties to call you a misguided/deliberately provocative henchman of the new right). It's like totally fine for me to say that your entire worldview is based on a falsehood and you aren't someone whose opinion is particularly worth listening to. but by all means, hold onto that desperate sense of victimhood. you'll need it when the revolution comes

Said Nobody

21/3/2017 10:50:52 pm

Well, that was a proportionate, well reasoned response.

22/3/2017 12:02:46 pm

y--e--e--s--s-s ... much like the original comment itself, a hysterical & histrionic response if i ever saw one. you right wingiez aren't so good with sarcasm hey

21/3/2017 11:12:36 pm

Hahahahahahahahah

21/3/2017 11:16:57 pm

Btw I was laughing at the fact that, when it's pointed out that this is not repression but rather the very political expression you claim to uphold, all that you have in return is sarcastic comments and redditisms.

If you care even 1/10 as much about a reasoned clash of ideas as you claim to, you live up to that care very, very poorly.

not the original commenter

21/3/2017 11:47:01 pm

I dunno.

I can see why Alana is frustrated, but I just reckon arguments sound stronger when they don't contain ad hominem attacks and talk about an oncoming 'revolution.'

RE the original commenter, despite the fact they're obviously OTT, I can also see why somebody with a conservative viewpoint feels frustrated, and feels that the article is divisive and needlessly singles out white people, at the least in its title.

As an earlier commenter suggested, caring about one issue doesn't mean ignoring or excluding other issues. The fact that it wasn't published in De Minimis doesn't mean people don't care, or don't follow these issues in other media.

Perhaps that commenter also feels that De Minimis leans to the left and that its comment threads tend to shut down debate that doesn't also lean to the left.

Maybe that's something to think about instead of dismiss.

@NOT THE ORIGINAL COMMENTER

22/3/2017 08:02:43 pm

De Minimis's editorial policy is that they can and do publish anything and everything that they receive. So if "leans to the left", I don't see why conservatives don't write their own material in order to change that leaning? Is it because they only know how to be reactive, rather than proactive?

Npj

22/3/2017 08:22:36 pm

People operating on levels of irony not previously thought possible.

Win win

21/3/2017 11:17:53 pm

Community anger over the illegal demolition of the Corkman unified broad swathes of Melbourne, and prompted a government response. Leaving it to "government experts" is the attitude that causes the complacency of which you are so critical when it relates to racial issues.

It was a positive sign that there are certain things that still unite us, and outrage us. I agree that this sense of outrage should be expressed over other important societal issues, like racism. We can't direct how that outrage occurs.

For someone who didn't give a shit about the Corkman, but only the principle, I was proud of how MLS students and the Melbourne community responded.

It's wrong to conflate these issues. Property developers flouting the rule of law and ruining our inner city is one issue that we can get angry about. Racial vilification and abuse is another.

Any sign that the community is alive, and angry, is a positive one in my view. One victory doesn't detract from the other. It's not selective outrage - they are two separate issues.

22/3/2017 12:02:28 am

I'm an alt-right person of colour what of it?

Reality check

22/3/2017 10:01:34 am

I'm going to go ahead and confront the elephant in the room. I'll wager that if pushed on the issue, most white students at MLS, are 'white supremacists' as you call them.

And by that I mean, if you asked them 'would you be happy for white people to become a minority in Australia' the answer would be no. And that isn't some fantastical hypothetical question, it's the reality faced by all Western nations with high immigration and is already the reality in the United States.

And I can hardly fault that response. Nothing good has ever come to any group of people dispossessed of their demographic power as any student of history should be aware.

22/3/2017 12:30:04 pm

Whoa whoa whoa whoa dude. I think most students of history could tell you that the sort of paranoid ethnic nationalism -- the kind that treats people of colour as a threat to be managed and contained, the kind exemplified by your comment -- is the problem, not the precise ratios of white people to people of colour in a country.

As one of those white people at MLS let me tell you that I fault that responsein the strongest terms. I would much prefer to live in a thriving multicultural society with no clear racial majority than a white enclave propped up by racism and fear.

Amelia E

22/3/2017 01:35:50 pm

ooooof. Yeah I'd similarly fault that response in the strongest terms. How truly hideous.

Required field

22/3/2017 04:51:06 pm

'I would much prefer to live in a thriving multicultural society with no clear racial majority'

This is called a power vacuum and in a power vacuum there is always a struggle for supremacy.

It is interesting that this is where you draw the line though. You're happy to live in a country with no clear racial majority, but are you happy to live in a country where another group becomes a new majority in its own right? If not, how do you propose to balance populations perpetually so that none of them reach the magic 50% threshold?

These are very real questions that need to be answered by the multi culti open border diversity lobby. This is no longer an issue of bored white 'progressives' looking to spice up their boring white societies by sprinkling it with people from other backgrounds to 'enrich' it to feel good about themselves. Rather it's about demographic replacement.

There isn't a Western nation in the world that isn't on track to lose its White majority or even plurality if long term immigration and birth rate trends continue.

This isn't a controversial proposition. Nor is it extreme. As I already said there isn't a single example from history where a demographic that was displaced by another experienced anything but hardship and suffering. The truly extreme position is to say 'you shouldn't worry about this. You should be happy about losing your demographic power'. Maybe ask the Aboriginal peoples how they felt after losing their demographic power.

22/3/2017 04:57:51 pm

I strongly suspect my comment will be deleteted but the fact remains. White people WILL become a minority in Australia and everywhere else in the Western world on current trends. They must answer the question of whether or not they support this. This is an extraordinarily important question that can't be brushed under the carpet forever.

Apostate

22/3/2017 03:33:31 pm

"Surely it should be more controversial to be the supporter or adherent of an ideology whose basis is racial and civilizational superiority than it is to call them out."

As an ex-muslim, the ideology described above sounds a lot more like Islam than the alt-right. But no, criticising the former is bigotry, criticising the later is just good politics.

22/3/2017 07:51:36 pm

I think we all need to remember that at the end of the day, you can respect someone's right to say something without agreeing with what has been said.

It is important that, before we jump on and react to something someone has said, we try to at least understand where their sentiments have emerged from and to understand how they have chosen to occupy their platform. I know this might sound utopic but if we are going to work together to build a society we need to be able to accommodate differences of opinions without resorting to abuse, and this applies to both the writer and the commenters alike.

24/3/2017 10:38:13 am

Inspired by this article, I'd like to call out the "Reality Check" guy and disavow his views in the strongest possible terms. How gross. Give us your name, so that we may avoid you wherever possible.

Reality Check

24/3/2017 01:59:06 pm

What exactly are you disavowing? The proposition that white people will become minorities in Australia and the West is a simple exercise in arithmetic and is effectively inexorable at this point.

The proposition that this will be bad for white people is a reasonable inference to draw from 10,000 or so years of human experience.

TIRED OF BEING SHAT ON FOR HOLDING A DIFFERENT VIEW

27/3/2017 10:35:28 am

Agreed

Not racist, but maybe maybe a culturalist

28/3/2017 09:55:01 pm

"I'll wager that if pushed on the issue, most white students at MLS, are 'white supremacists' as you call them.

And by that I mean, if you asked them 'would you be happy for white people to become a minority in Australia' the answer would be no."

I think that second paragraph isn't a great definition of 'white supremacist'. I would define 'white supremacist' as something more like either:

1. 'someone who thinks white people are ethnically better adapted to the modern world' (so biologically focused);

or (and usually this is a consequence of 1)

2. 'someone who thinks white people ought to hold positions power and make decisions for everyone else'.

A person who would be unhappy with white people becoming a minority in Australia might not be a 'white supremacist' (1 or 2).

I think it is potentially justifiable for white people to hold the view that they want to remain in a white-majority country. Here are some potential justifications:

Social order:
Knowing that OTHER humans (if not oneself) are imperfect social creatures who hold tribal allegiances and also different cultural norms, society may be more stable if there is a majority of one race that determines culturally sensitive social laws, e.g. if one culture believes strongly in gender segregation and another believes stronger in gender equality, there will be greater social order if one of those cultures is in the majority and determines the law accordingly, rather than there being no clear majority view and so a hopelessly divided populace in regards to that issue.

Moreover, humans seem to be atavistically tribal, and as much as we progressives like to see ourselves as ‘global citizens’, it may be the case that human biases towards their own ethnicity/culture/tribe/group against the ‘other’ are impossible to totally erase. Social order amongst a multicultural populace may thus be difficult to preserve without a majority race.

Ethnicity and associated culture: being FOR a degree of local cultural homogeneity:
While ethnicity/whiteness in Australia cannot be neatly equated with the national culture, white Australians have traditionally passed on ‘Australian culture’ (foods, music, sports, etiquettes, language) down the generations, and a white Australian may hold the view that they like this culture, and prefer to be in a society where there are more people who support/are part of this culture, without it being too diluted by other cultures. This white person may enjoy/tolerate very different cultures in lesser amounts, but would prefer to have a country with a strong, national culture that is supported by a majority, and hold the concomitant view that this is more likely to be protected by locally-born/thus more-likely-to-be-white Australians.
This might be characterised as ‘cultural supremacy’, but I think it can also be explained more as a form of ‘cultural conservation/preservation’. One might decide traditional Australian culture is not inherently better than any other, but rather assert: “as a white Australian, it is MY culture, and I would like it preserved in this country, and other cultures can flourish in other countries.” I don’t believe it is racist to prefer being amongst people of your own race. You often share more in common with them culturally. In fact, it’s pretty natural, especially where language is concerned. I think nearly all people would prefer to be in a bar/club with people speaking their language first. Nearly all plebiscites result in ethnic groups voting to be governed by people of their own ethnicity.

This view may also be justified by the below position:

AGAINST global cultural homogeneity:
As a corollary to the above view, one may take the view that if every country becomes almost perfectly multicultural, there will be lesser national differences, and the world will become relatively culturally homogenous – everyone living in cosmopolitan cities with similar proportions of different ethnicities. So the argument goes, there will be little difference between Melbourne, Singapore, London or Stockholm in the future, there will be (to use crass racial colourings) 25% Whites, 25% Blacks, 25% Browns and 25% Asians. In this sense, ‘too much diversity’ internally leads to not enough diversity globally. Thus, this position is a global justification for protecting local cultures.

I hope I have provided three potentially reasonable justifications for white people to want to be in white majority countries, while at the same time maintaining respect, love and humanity towards all other races/cultures.

Of course, this argument can also justify why Japan prefer to remain a Japanese-majority countries or China a Chinese-majority country. It’s not a ‘white dominating everyone else’ issue (though this of course is and has also been an issue, and is obviously related). It’s a ‘ethnically/cultura

Comments are closed.