The Australian Human Rights Commission


Prefacing Comments

Allow me the opportunity to propose a Monty Pythonesque scenario.

I am the Prime Minister of the Day. I propose a fully government [tax payer] funded, independent national statuary body, headed by a magnificently paid president and seven handsomely paid commissioners, assisted by generous numbers of extremely well-paid research officers, lawyers and administrators whose sole job it is, with no accountability whatsoever to the Australian people, to ensure that my government abides by the letter of the law to some seventeen [17] international treaties, protocols and agreements that the people of Australia have not assented to and most of whom know absolutely nothing about. 

If I put this to the people as an election promise I would quite rightly be given short change.

This, however, is exactly what Prime Minister Bob Hawke did in 1986 when his Labor Government introduced and passed the Human Rights and Equality of Opportunity Commission Act through parliament. This folly morphed into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act thereby establishing a formidable bureaucracy which is now supported by a numerous supplementary legislation relating to race, age, gender, disability, fair work, and now gender identity.

This Draconian institution emerged and grew, incrementally, out of the Race Relation Act [1975] of the Labor Government of Gough Whitlam, together with a proliferation of innocuous sounding legislation such as the Fraser government’s Anti-Discrimination Act [1977].

At the time, in the laconic Australian idiom of ‘she’ll be right mate’, these were generally accepted as being a ‘good thing’. Their proponents at the time argued that as Australia was the only Western country not to have a Bill of Rights it was imperative that these matters should be enshrined in legislation. I remember my response at the time was that this country had done perfectly well without a Bill of Rights: we were then one of the most democratic societies in the world with a genuine and proud history of welcoming genuine refugees and a country that had recently concluded a successful assisted passage immigration programme. Why add to the potentially regulatory mess?

It was one of the few political matters I have not changed my mind upon. I have held the view and expressed in writing several times elsewhere that you cannot legislate goodness. That comes from strong internal morality. More regulation does not make man good. Legal coercion prevents him, perhaps, from being bad. But in doing so it hands over his moral responsibilities and conscience to somebody else. I remain steadfast in this view.

This is why I consider the Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] to be the most intrusive, pernicious, draconian and Orwellian cancer in our body politic.

Allow me to extrapolate. 

In 1951, when the world was a very different place, the then international community saw fit to draw up a convention addressing the plight of refugees from war – specifically inspired by the immediate aftermath of the 1939-45 world war. The administration of this convention was entrusted to a body within the UN entitled ‘The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ [UNHCR]. This grew to be a significant office within the UN. Drawing from its website:

The 1951 Refugee Convention is the key legal document that forms the basis of our work. Ratified​ by 145 State parties, it defines the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of the displaced, as well as the legal obligations of States to protect them.

The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law. 

UNHCR serves as the ‘guardian’ of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. According to the legislation, States are expected to cooperate with us in ensuring that the rights of refugees are respected and protected.[1]

The Convention was drafted and signed by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, held at Geneva over the period 2-25 July 1951. The Convention was adopted on 28 July 1951; in accordance with Article 43, it entered into force on 22 April 1954. The Protocol was adopted on 31 January 1967.

Australia signed the convention on 22 January 1954 and the Protocol in December 1973. This presaged the first of many such accords that Australia signed, in my view, uncritically, thereby gradually signing over much of its sovereignty to the United Nations.

I say uncritically because some forty-one [41] countries, including China, the UK, France, Germany, other Western European countries and the USA signed the protocol with reservations or objections. Australia however signed up for the full-Monty with one minor provision that: "The Government of Australia will not extend the provisions of the Protocol to Papua/New Guinea."[2]

Of course, having signed once, Australia was further obliged to continue signing to further protocols and further concords. Thus, has Australia, in seeking to be ‘liked by everyone’, gradually emasculated itself.  

Let us look therefore in some detail as to what Australia has signed up for.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity under the Public Governance, established under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act [1986]. Its “operations are determined independently of the government through our President and Commissioners.”[3]

In short this means that it is funded directly by the taxpayer without direct accountability to the taxpayer with the authority to do as it chooses within its extremely broad terms of reference without any direct supervision by the taxpayer’s representative, being, the Minister of the Crown.

As at March 2019 the AHRC comprised a President and seven Commissioners:

Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM

  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
    Ms June Oscar AO
  • Age Discrimination Commissioner
    The Hon Dr Kay Patterson AO
  • Children's Commissioner
    Ms Megan Mitchell
  • Disability Discrimination Commissioner
    Mr Alastair McEwin 
  • Human Rights Commissioner
    Mr Edward Santow 
  • Race Discrimination Commissioner
    Mr Chin Tan
  • Sex Discrimination Commissioner
    Ms Kate Jenkins [4]

In 2014, then Commissioner Tim Wilson, enjoyed a total salary of $389,000 plus vehicle and telephone expenses.[5] In December 2015 the then President enjoyed a salary of $417,800 plus travel and allowances[6] These are extremely large figures by any means.

It is instructive at this point to examine the AHRC Terms of Reference as detailed in the Commission’s 2017/18 Annual Report:

Australia is a party to the seven-core international human rights treaties:

  1. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
  2. 2.    the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
  3. the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD)
  4. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW)
  5. the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
  6. the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
  7. the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

It is against these treaties that human rights scrutiny processes under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 are undertaken. Australia also has periodic treaty body reporting obligations under these treaties.

Australia is an active participant in the Universal Periodic Review process which provides an in-depth analysis of Australia’s compliance with our international human rights obligations. 

Australia is also a party to:

  • the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishing an individual communication mechanism
  • the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty
  • the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
  • the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
  • the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Womenestablishing an individual communication mechanism
  • the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesestablishing an individual communication mechanism.
  • Australia is also a party to the individual communications mechanisms under the CAT and the CERD. 
  • The Australian Government also supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons as a non-legally binding document.[7]

These seven ‘core’ international human rights treaties, six protocols and a further four compliance and periodic reporting/review scrutinies and support mechanisms indicate the depth to which Australia is in thrall to the United Nations.

Domestically the AHRC also operates under the federal laws pertaining to discrimination on the basis of:

  • age
  • disability
  • race
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
  • intersex status and gender identity

Last but certainly not least, the Commission also has specific responsibilities under:

  • the Native Title Act 1993
  • the Fair Work Act 2009[8]

The unelected elite who comprise the Australian Human Rights Commission are, effectively, answerable not to the Australian Government representing the Australian people, but to the United Nations. The plethora and range of their ‘obligations’ to this equally unelected and unrepresentative body provides a breathtaking scope and opportunity for social engineering.

Consider firstly the composition of the commissioners. Unsurprisingly the majority are female. It is also unsurprising that all, by definition, belong to the progressive side of politics – the classic ‘bleeding heart brigade’. It would be impossible to operate in such a reformist hothouse otherwise.

Two recently retired commissioners – former President Professor Gillian Triggs and Dr Tim Soutphommasane [Race Discrimination Commissioner 2013-18] were, by any political standards, outright activists for their cause and unashamed opponents of Australian governments. Both publicly made little secret of their political beliefs and both delighted in the political fray. We must remember here that both were paid handsomely by the taxpayer to indulge their political beliefs.

Many of the AHRC treaty ‘obligations’ are, in themselves, innocuous sounding - but they are in fact completely intrusive and, used selectively, have had the effect of altering the complete cultural and ethnic fabric of our society. Consider for example the notion of ‘multiculturalism’.

What does the term actually mean? When was the Australian body politik ever asked if it wanted to be ‘multicultural’? Has there ever been a public and open political debate about the subject? How are opponents of ‘multiculturalism’ regarded and categorised? What is the difference between a multicultural and a plural or a multiracial society?

The list of questions that could be levelled are extensive – but have they ever been subject to public scrutiny discussion? No. Has the subject been put to the Australian people? No. 

I have treated the subject elsewhere so I will not re-tread old ground.[9] I will however make this critical observation that the Australian peoples and their culture have, without their consent, been enforced to accommodate to all other minority cultures. One of these cultures is ipso facto [by the fact itself] antithetical to the host culture. 

Consider the question of refugees – the Australian government is effectively bound by the decisions of an unelected elite as to whom the government may or may not admit into this country. The people of Australia have no say in this matter. 

Again, consider the critical question of Islam and Australian society. The civilisations of the West [Christendom] and Islam have been at odds for a long time and for explicable reasons. At the heart of this conflict is not the presumed ‘religious differences’ per se but the deep cultural divide between the two. The Western World has long separated church from state. Islam is locked into its Medieval culture because of the very indivisibility of religion and state.

Australia is a secular society. Freedom of religion has always been assumed. Some accommodation to religious beliefs has always been accepted and those of religious mien are generally respected for their belief. However, when churches have stepped beyond their ‘mandate’ so to speak, the general public has made its position clear.

The problem Islam poses for any Western society is that because of the indivisibility of religion and state, the Mohammedan exercises greater demands upon his host society, to the point of expecting his host culture to conform to his values and expectations. A most obvious and serious example is the question of sharia law. Moreover, Mohammedans, because of their religious-cultural requirements are far less likely to assimilate with the host culture, thereby creating a distinct and socially unhealthy separateness.

Referring back to the point of refugees – any superficial review will confirm that Christians suffer horrendous persecution around the globe. Surely common-sense dictates that we accept Christian refugees first – they will acculturate more readily and so forth. To have done so in the first place would have obviated the politico-cultural problems of trying to accommodate a culture that is, quite simply, antithetical to ours. For this sheer cultural and political lunacy, we may thank the UN and its office in Australia, the AHRC.

But perhaps the most unpalatable aspect of the AHRC is its arrant hypocrisy. It uses the United Nations human rights aspirational apparatus in force against the Australian people whilst blithely ignoring the trenchant refusal of so many other countries to abide by the same apparatus. Real human rights violations occur every day across the globe. These are conveniently overlooked by Australian human rights advocates. Australia by contrast, in the eyes of AHRC, is expected to prove to be the international exemplar.

I ask the question why? Not, I suggest because the elite running the show have any particular humanitarian feelings for the rest of the world, but rather that they are implementing their own, personal visions of what a progressive Australia should look like.

The Australian electorate should be profoundly disappointed, to the point of violent objection, that this unaccountable body acting against the interests of Australian society, is continually supported by Australian politicians.

I reserve my strongest condemnation for the failure of the supposedly conservative leaning politicians for not making their constituents aware of the implications of signing away our sovereignty.

The matter amply differentiates between the ‘people’ and an entrenched political class. It is, I suggest, a further and potent example of the manifest failure of liberal democracy.



[1] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.




[5] 21 April 2014

[6] Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2015/21.

[7] loc.cit

[8] loc.cit

[9] Coe op. cit.

Australia and the United Nations


It has been my long-held view that the fundament of many of Australia’s internal problems lay, in very large part, in its membership of the United Nations [UN]. As a founding signatory to this institution Australia takes its responsibilities very seriously and, unfortunately, literally. 

Drawn up and signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945, the United Nations Charter commits its signatories to a liberal democratic world ideal. The preamble opens with the portentous: 

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our generation has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and... …to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small… 

 And, in Article 1.3.

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our generation has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and... …to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…

 And, in Article 1.3.

  To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, language, or religion.[1] 

Several points need be made about this high-minded document.

Firstly, it was the product of the victors of the Second World War, namely those countries, with one notable exception, deeply imbued with the dominant ideology of the time – liberal democracy. This document set in place what became known as the liberal order of geopolitics and diplomacy. Any first-year student of political philosophy will recognise in the document the sentiments of Locke, Paine, Bentham and the United States Constitution.  

This document also formed the fundament of what was to become the realist school of international politics. One of the great theorists of this school, Hans Morgenthau, observed in his founding text book [1948] on the subject:

Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguished between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted – and few have been able to resist the temptation for long – to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purpose of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one’s side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.[2]

Morgenthau continues by positing the ‘intellectual autonomy’ of the political realist as distinguished from other disciplines such as the economist, lawyer and moralist. This became a founding premise in the liberal notion of international relations.

Secondly, the United Nations Charter has been equally observed by its signatories in the breach as in its concord. This charter has been subject to some of the grossest acts of hypocrisy in the annals of diplomacy. Consider the very ideals detailed above and then consider the modern history [1945-hence] of China; Russia; Eastern Europe; most of the post-colonial states of Africa; the Middle East; Iran; Indo China; Indonesia and South America – all of whom, remember, are signatories.

Consider today, some seventy-four years after the UN’s inception, the activities of most of the countries [all signatories] in the Middle East; Iran; Turkey; the dysfunctional countries of Africa; China’s totalitarian repression of minorities and its growing military and imperial ambitions; the continued tensions between the nuclear powers India and Pakistan; South Africa’s open persecution and killing of whites to say nothing of course about the war of terror prosecuted by Mohammedan extremists against themselves and anybody else.

The United Nations is a legacy of the liberal democratic world view, which, I suggest, is now long past. It was established to reflect the ethnocentric political and moral values of the then dominant world civilisation, being Western Civilisation. Indeed, the very siting of the UN Headquarters in New York provides ample indication of its cultural fundament.

The United Nations Charter provided the world with a yardstick to measure international behavior. It was an imperfect measure but a measure nonetheless and, quite obviously, better perhaps than nothing. The UN provided a vehicle wherein the international community could express itself – in this it has served many worthwhile purposes and has been an agent in preventing some wars; it has been an active agent in providing peacekeeping forces; it has done much good in the field of international health, education and agriculture and, to varying degrees, it has done much good in the provision of international humanitarian aid. It has however also done much harm to its founders.

By this I mean that in reality, the only nations that have ever really adhered to or at least endeavoured to meet their obligations to the UN Charter were those of the liberal democratic order.

These countries adhered in general to its idealist precepts, they met their ever-increasing financial obligations to the ever-increasing bureaucracy and the ever-increasing aid programmes; they dutifully joined the ever-increasing numbers of international committees often chaired by ever-increasing numbers of third-world bureaucrats representing some of the vilest dictators on earth. Moreover, they dutifully signed ever-increasing numbers of protocols committing their nations to all manner of innocuous sounding but binding policies which proved to serve to their complete disadvantage.

All of which has been ongoing for the past seventy-four years under the noses of, but largely unnoticed by, the ordinary citizens and electors of the Western World.

Although the UN as a corporate body is financially dependent upon the United States and other Western countries, its General Assembly is politically in thrall to those forces working against the very idealist fundament of its Charter: namely, those countries outside the once called ‘Western Bloc’. Many of the partisan, blatantly biased and politically charged decisions of this egregious and undemocratic mob verge on the unbelievable. Nonetheless its deliberations are held seriously and accepted largely uncritically by Western diplomats for fear of giving offence.

The growth of the Asian super-economies, the rise of China and India and the decline of the West has changed the geo-political dynamic. As the old liberal order of international relations stumbles into decrepitude, now is the time to review and chart new directions for same. But this is not the object of this essay.

I am concerned here to illustrate that most Western countries have swallowed whole-meal, and to their own detriment, the idealistic cant of the ‘liberal world order’ they created. I further suggest that this is not wholly the fault of inept politicians.

Most Western countries are served by a well-schooled and privileged elite known as the ‘diplomatic service’.  It is of course perfectly natural that a country should be represented at international level by well-trained diplomats. It is however a completely different thing for a country to be represented by members of an international cocktail set of globalists.  It is only natural that anyone, well-educated and sophisticated, exposed long enough to the nuances of the international language of diplomacy, with an extensive network of friends and acquaintances throughout the world, would become internationalist in worldview. At some point, depending on the home government policy, some dis-arrangement between department and minister is therefore bound to arise.

Diplomats, by the very nature of their being, have refined the subtle arts of persuasion to the point that it takes a most strong minister of character to truly master his or her foreign affairs department. Indeed, after being wined and dined internationally a couple of times, at the taxpayers’ expense, it is easy to succumb to the charms, eloquence and assurances of your departmental ‘hosts’ and, remember, your public servants.

I write by way of example of my direct experiences of Australia’s own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT] in Europe and in South-East Asia. I was both witness and unwitting party to the ‘wining and dining’ and manipulation of a then, most senior and unprepossessing, Australian politician in Paris. Elsewhere I have had various other social and business contacts with DFAT. I cannot fault the hospitality and charm of the officers concerned – it was impeccable – but it provided me with insights into their profession.

As noted above, diplomats are well-schooled. All have good university degrees. It is therefore axiomatic that such reflect similar values to their contemporaries in the professions. Given the undoubted reality that academia is today a reflection of the ‘progressive’ side of politics it is understandable that the young diplomatic trainee will be filled with a zeal imbued by his academic training.

He will join an elite department, distanced diametrically from the electorate and well away from direct public scrutiny – a department that has long been known for its separate and distinctive culture. At the end of his first couple of postings he will be well-inducted into departmental protocols and mores. He is well-schooled to play his part in the ongoing ‘Yes Minister’ diplomatic drama.

It might be added that his view of the world, by virtue of his education, his training and experience will, almost by definition, be completely at odds with the average elector and totally at odds with the aforementioned sections of the electorate that hold grievances about the social and political direction their country is heading.

It is of course in the interests of all diplomats to further their country’s interests without ‘rocking the boat’ unduly. Thus, at times, a judicious silence is considered better than raucous protest. In the Australian context this country’s persistent silence on the monstrosity that is Saudi Arabia, the Yemen War, the persecution and slaughter of Christians throughout the world, the dire plight of the white tribe of South Africa et. al. is damningly resounding.

A friend of mine is fond of saying that the problem with Australia is that we want to be liked by everyone. I think he is absolutely correct. The Australian character thrives on praise – we love to be told how nice our country is, how welcoming we are, how good our climate is and so forth. In the military, many decades past, my friend and I well remember parades for various visiting foreign dignitaries who would, on cue, extol the virtues of the Australian serviceman, the Anzac Spirit and the loyalty of this country to whatever alliance he represented. It was embarrassing but also expected of visitors – even military ones.

Much of Australian foreign policy appears to be predicated to this imperative of popular appeasement ergo ‘likeability’, rather than principle. It is also locked into what would seem a completely inappropriate foreign aid programme seemingly designed to further this imperative in the eyes of its United Nations colleagues. Examples abound.

Australia has failed to speak up for the aforedetailed persecution of whites in South Africa. Indeed, in 2019 its High Commissioner to that country, Adam McCarthy tweeted a photo of one of his High Commission staff with his arm around the shoulders of one Dali Mfopu, the National ‘Chairperson Advocate’ of the Economic Freedom Fighters [EEF].[3] The EFF are a significant minority party in South Africa. Consequent to the 8 May elections in 2019 the EFF won nineteen [19] seats from the African National Congress, increasing its share of the national vote from 6.3. percent to 10.79 percent.[4] The party manifesto openly repudiated the 1994 accords that established the multi-racial state South Africa; its first political pillar is:

Expropriation of South Africa’s land without compensation, for equal distribution in use[5]

The remainder of the manifesto thundered at the alleged iniquities being perpetrated against blacks in South Africa. It was an openly racist document in which its leader called for widespread constitutional change, economic nationalisation, all land to be under the ‘custodianship of the state’ and, as befitting its modern socialist tendency – it even contained an extensive section on LGBT matters.

Moreover, the EFF has privately advocated the killing of whites, but on 5 March 2019 its political leader, Julius Malema generously conceded that he didn’t want the white population killed – he just wants them to serve the black population.[6] 

That the Australian High Commissioner should think that tweeting a photo of one of his staff arm-in-arm with a leader of such a race-hating mob as being a ‘good thing’ speaks volumes about the state of our diplomatic corps. 

Australia remained curiously silent over the Huawei dispute between Canada and China - one would have thought it should be steadfast in its support of its political cousin; it has been silent over the homicidal megalomania of Philippines President Duterte; Australia has been significantly silent on the subject of persecution of Christians around the world. Indeed, despite strong lobbying by its own Christian groups, Australia does not discriminate in favour of Christian refugees – indeed, the opposite seems to be true.

Australian politicians have consistently practiced studied ignore at matters closer to home such as corruption and violence in Papua New Guinea and the Australasian region. For decades it neglected the South Pacific despite the early rumblings of discontent in Fiji followed by the first of four coups d’état in 1987 [which I am on record as foreshadowing]. It continues to ignore the plight of Tibet. The non-Chinese minorities in China have been completely forgotten by Australian politicians who appear only too anxious to sup from the seemingly overfull economic rice bowl that is China. The double-dealings of Pakistan in Afghanistan and its dubious role in the farcical war on terror are completely overlooked, and India’s military arms race has caused no public admonishment. Finally, the unconscionable behavior of most African governments towards their subjects is treated with disregard by Australian foreign ministers.

Indeed, these species of foreign policy dilettantes love to swing around the globe, to and from an endless round of conferences, being wined and dined in the most fashionable and salubrious of locations at taxpayers’ expense. Whilst doing so, these privileged eminences are wont to hand out billions of taxpayers’ dollars to undeserving recipients all in the name aid – or more accurately - buying Australian goodwill. A review of Australian foreign aid recipients is instructive: it includes India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Sub-Saharan Africa [$121 mil], the Latin and Caribbean region, Palestine [$43 mil.2018Est] and of course the devastated trio of Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.[7]

Let us briefly review this list. Why are we sending aid to Pakistan and India? Both of these have sufficient funds to maintain and increase huge military establishments – not the least the huge financial resources to develop, build and maintain nuclear weapons.    

Why are we sending aid to Indonesia? That country has sufficient resources to equip itself with a $1.5 billion squadron of Russian made SU-35 fighter jets together with other arms and military hardware. [Note: Russia is Indonesia’s largest military supplier].[8]

Why is Australia sending money and resources to Sub-Saharan Africa? It is not within our sphere of interest and never has been. The same may be said of the Caribbean region and Palestine.

The tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were, in part, of our own making and this country has to accept its obligation in their restitution.

To conclude this overview of Australia and the United Nations, I take issue with the founding premise of that organisation - it is apparent to me that the ideals of human rights, gender equality and indeed the equality of man were not, never have been, and will not be universally shared by mankind. Differing cultures have differing views on these matters, particularly in the context of today’s post-modern and relativist Western society. Who is to say they are incorrect or otherwise? It was perhaps the supreme arrogance of our Western civilisation to attempt to impose this order on the world.

However, we did and we are now reaping the dubious rewards. Our political representatives and diplomats have on our behalf signed numerous UN ‘protocols’[9] and trade agreements requiring us to accept the unforeseen consequences of varying ‘equalities’ embodied therein.

To this end, I take some delight in a supreme irony in the following hiatus:

On the one hand our modern progressive culture asks: Who’s values are more correct than another’s? Why should homosexuals not be allowed to marry? Why should we be stuck in gender stereotypes? Why shouldn’t we allow all refugees into our country? Why shouldn’t we have a huge open lovely multicultural society? Why shouldn’t Islamists be allowed to practice their faith in full? What right have we to dictate to the world our values? And so forth.

Yet, on the other hand, we laud the United Nations and all its doings despite it having imposed upon, and continues trying to impose upon the world, a value-laden charter of obligations drafted by the very civilisation that we are hell-bent upon devaluing if not destroying. Our own!



[1] ‘Charter of the United Nations’. In Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations. Alfred Knopf. 1973 ed. Appendix. P.554.  

[2] Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations. Alfred Knopf. New York. [Fifth Edition] 1973. P11.

[3] Twitter.Adam McCarthyAU@AuHCs 2 February 2019.

[4] Morken, Ben. ‘South African Elections 2019: widespread fury and big gains for the EFF’. In Defence of Marxism. 13 May 2019.

[5] Our Land and Jobs Now. 2019 Election Manifesto. EFF. manifesto

[6] ‘Whites Should Serve Blacks’. RT News. 5 March 2019.

[7] DFAT. Where we Give Aid. Htps:///

[8] ‘What’s Next for the Indonesia-Russia Fighter Jet Deal?’ The Diplomat. 16 February 2018.

[9] Conventions; codes of behaviour; mutually accepted rules.