Behring Breivik shows how racism must not be given any air

I really don't like writing about evil people, it only gives them oxygen. Yet on the other hand, not commenting allows their evil to grow quietly. Anders Behring Breivik is evil. We need to talk about this.

I don't think he is insane. 

In fact, he was very successful.  It's a terrible conclusion I've had to come to.  To be insane requires a lack of normal mental functioning. That's not the case with Behring Breivik, he is considered and very logical. He thought about why he was taking action, how to do it, and what would stop him from achieving his goals. He executed his plan extremely well. Indeed, as horrible as the thought is, there are many lessons to take from his approach that can be applied to the successful execution of other projects. That's not insane. It's intelligent, sophisticated, rigorous and tough. All of the qualities we would want on our own side.

He is the latest in a long line of killers in the name of race or religion

Srebrenica massacre memorial

When Osama bin Laden masterminded the September 11 attacks, most of the world launched a war against him. But not all, he had tens of thousands or millions of supporters for his killing in the name of Islam and against the West.  When Slovodan Milosevic ordered the genocide of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims which was meticulously carried out by Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic the world was horrified.  The UN and international community have engaged in years of investigations, trials and convictions against the perpetrators. Yet again though, there were thousands prepared to support and carry out this atrocity directly against Muslims, because they were Muslims.

These are just two examples through time.  Most major racial groups have been guilty of shocking racial/religious crimes and often they have been victims as well, at different times in their history.  Christians, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Hutu, Japanese, Turks, Indonesians, British, Germans, French, Russians, Chinese... Race, religion, ideology - all combining into considered deliberate attempts at genocide.

Breivik is no better or worse than all of them. We must stop all racial/religious intolerance. 

So Behring Breivik is just the same. He had a considered agenda. There are many Europeans with his Islamaphobia. He was the most recent to carry out a heinous act in the name of racial intolerance. We must stop all racial intolerance or we allow ourselves to be slaughtered, or to become the slaughterers.  Marine le Pen must be stopped in France. Ahmadinejad must be stopped in Iran. Rick Santorum must be stopped in the USA. But more importantly all the snide racial comments and jokes must be stopped in our living rooms.

Racism and religious fear and hatred must be stamped out before it takes its first breath. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Hey Lindsay Fox: The economy is no excuse to compromise on women's rights

Lindsay Fox's encouragement to women to have 6 babies in 7 years reflects an outdated view from an old generation.  His economic objective makes sense - grow our population. It's the social element that is two generations out of date.

Fertility rates in the developed world are permanently lower since women's liberation

This chart shows the fertility rates for Australia and the US since 1950.

As you can see, the numbers of children born per women plummeted since the availability of the pill. It wasn't that women actually wanted 3 or 4 children each - they simply had no way to plan their family.


Lindsay Fox would need to turn Australia into Burundi

But take a look at this map of fertility rates around the world. It's only the poorer sub saharan African nations where fertility rates are above 5.0.  Those countries lack the same liberties for women that developed and even developing nations enjoy.

Except for sub-saharan Africa, almost all of the world has lower fertility
rates than Australia in the 1960s

To populate Australia the way Lindsay Fox advocates would require the wholesale rejection of contraception, and decades of feminism. We would need to have a culture like Burundi, where a woman's primary role is to breed boys for agricultural labor.

Obviously that isn't going to happen.


We can import population, Lindsay, so hopefully you support that as well

The first half of Fox's suggestion sounds like a great idea ...  "go home and make love tonight and create another baby for Australia.". But I'd strongly encourage safe sex, and remind Lindsay that you don't have to create a baby when you make love.

The economic premise of Lindsay Fox's suggestion makes a lot of sense - more people in Australia has a whole raft of economic benefits. But there's an obvious alternative to 1950s fertility levels. Let's just increase migration.  I've written a blog on migration here, so won't go over that again.  However, I would call on Lindsay Fox to support that option.

The key issue is that a suggestion to achieve a valuable economic solution by reducing women's options is just not acceptable. It's even more of a concern when it is said in humor or by a well respected citizen like Fox, as it softens the blow, and entrenches very old-fashioned attitudes.

We cannot condone any comments that suggest women should comply with any set of behaviors - especially those that reduce their equality


Let me know what you think

Mark S

We must have progress. We must encourage the unreasonable. Let's start with higher migration

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
- George Bernard Shaw

"The only constant is change"
- Isaac Asimov

Much of 21st century society supports the reasonable man and expects that people will conform to the status quo. But as George Bernard Shaw's famous quote reminds us, we need the unreasonable man (or woman) in order that society can progress.

For those who are satisfied with the status quo, the concept of progress may seem baffling. Indeed, there are many people in our society who think we have "progressed backwards". But as Asimov reminds us, the status quo is not an option.

Nick Clegg learns the dangers of the status quo

Take a look at this chart, showing the shift of UK's LibDems to the centre between 2005 and 2007.

Now consider the result of the recent UK local elections - the movement to the centre (an attempt to be the reasonable man) has spectacularly backfired as the LibDems lost control of 9 Councils without one gain. The voters who had supported the LibDems in the name of progress now recognise that the LibeDems alliance with the Tories show there won't be any progress from Clegg.

The Scots vote for the unreasonable man

Across the border in Scotland and the clans have voted for change. Major change. Who would have thought that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Nationalists would be given a mandate to separate from England?

And yet, that's just what they have voted for - a change to the status quo.  If you stand for something, if you stand for progress, the reasonable man often recognises it.

Immigration policy is a flashpoint

Perhaps the greatest debate in the progress v status quo battle is over the issue of immigration.

On the status quo side are those in favor of monoculturalism. Genocides have been committed in the name of monoculturalism. And more commonly, official government policies have supported monoculturalism, with Australia's White Australia Policy continuing as late as the 1960s.

The most notable monocultural nation is Japan. Only 1.5% of Japanese are migrants. The Japanese economy and society is now suffering terribly from this status quo approach.

In contrast, Australia and America are countries where migrants have built our societies. And both countries are at a tipping point in regard to the next step.

Today, President Obama announced a new policy supporting continued immigration to the US. In his speech he said " immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy." And of course, he is right. You can watch Obama's speech here

He is resisting those who want to retain the status quo, despite emotional, fear-based claims, while still recognising the need

Australia is also at a tipping point. Our aging population cannot be self supporting without an influx of new workers, as demographer Bernard Salt has reported many times. And today Skills Australia estimated that we will need an additional 2.4 million skilled workers by 2015.

More importantly, we need new cultures, to generate new ideas, and continue the regeneration of Australia.  We need to embrace new migrants - new citizens - to Australia.

We need unreasonable men (and women) to achieve progress. If you think calls to increase permanent immigration are unreasonable then bring on the unreasonable.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S