From: Paul Edwards, mutazilah@gmail.com
To: Committee Secretary, PJCIS, PO Box 6021, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
Date: 2021-01-16

Dear Sir,

This is the FIFTH ADDENDUM to my previous submission regarding:
"Inquiry into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia".

In my fourth addendum, I suggested that the Australian government
set up a free speech server and encourage Al Qaeda and Nazis to
turn up and speak their mind so that citizens of the entire free
world are given an opportunity to out-debate them and hopefully
get them to change their mind (and if not, arrange for people LIKE
THEM (doesn't need to be them exactly) to be killed). They should
be allowed to "glorify a terrorist act" (like 9/11). They should
even be able to say "Someone should assassinate Paul Edwards, he
is an enemy of Islam". I do not believe that anyone will actually
be incited by such a statement that wasn't already incited. It is
a natural thing to think - "I wish he were dead" - whenever you
encounter an ideological enemy. What SHOULDN'T be allowed is
saying "Paul Edwards lives at 123 Infidel St, Allawah, let's all
assemble outside his home with baseball bats at 9am tomorrow and
beat him to death". The same as people shouldn't be given an
opportunity to join forces to launch the Charlie Hebdo attack.
There shouldn't be an opportunity for 2 terrorists to join
together in an attack.

Another thing about the "free speech platform" is that it should
be restricted to English. Machine translation isn't good enough
to understand what terrorists are saying. We don't need every
single terrorist to turn up to voice their opinion, we just need
ONE, who is representative of the MENTALITY. Well, ideally we
need more than one, as we want them to put up the best arguments
available for their cause. It is more-or-less physically impossible
that the best pro-terrorism argument is only available/held by one
guy who only speaks Arabic, and that he would only be willing to
divulge this brilliant argument if the Australian government
allows him to write in Arabic.

Note that I am not expecting open slather free speech to generate
any extra crime at all, and it would be quite difficult to even
detect such a change. However, I could be wrong. If I am wrong,
then the Australian government should reserve the right to change
its server policy. But before jumping to the conclusion that I am
definitely wrong, that no testing is required, let's look at
other situations where the Australian government has grossly
erred.

For DECADES, X-rated and "Unclassified" porn was unable to be sold
in NSW - even to adults. We were assured that the government was
"protecting" us (in actual fact, they were violating our human
rights). There was a theory that without this "protection" that
there would be hordes of rapists. To add insult to injury, there
was a special category of Australians, the only first-class citizens,
called "censors", who were able to watch whatever they want and were
apparently immune from turning into "raging rapists" (it is unclear
exactly what quiz the Australian government gave them to determine
they were immune - it was probably the same test that the Pope gave
to Catholic priests). Then the internet arrived, completely bypassing
all censorship. There were no hordes of "raging rapists". To this
date the Australian government has not apologized to the Australian
people for violating their human rights for so long. In fairness to
the NSW government, they did eventually stop violating people's
right to get money for sex instead of only being allowed to do it
for free, and now brothels are legal (and regulated), and finally
we have something that REALLY reduces sex crime.

Another Australian government insanity is speed limits. Whenever
governments around the world have eliminated speed limits, even
temporarily, there has not been any evidence of mass carnage, or
any detectable change at all. The government actually runs ads
saying "speed kills". This is technically true. But what they
fail to point out is that the speed of the SPEED LIMIT (e.g.
110 km/hr) is more than sufficient to kill. A more appropriate
ad would be "The current speed limit is set to a fatal setting -
please contact your MP to lobby to have it reduced to 10 km/hr
so that we're no worse off than when we were using horses". It
would be good to have a government apology on that one too. Or
just be honest and say that the 1500 dead per year is the price
we need to pay for the convenience of being able to visit granny
quickly instead of just contacting her via Zoom.

I'd now like to discuss "damage limitation" strategies with regards
to extremists, especially with regard to immigration. But first we
need to lay some groundwork. The Australian government needs to go
to war with "political correctness". This war may be so intense that
the American government may get involved and threaten Australia with
trade sanctions. If that happens, let it be known that the American
government is responsible for continued international terrorism, and 
then back down to whatever the Americans will allow.

But first make a concession to the left-wing communist ratbags who
use Aboriginals for political gain. There is a sign on a letterbox
near where I live that says "Change the date - no pride in genocide".
Actually there is no reason in particular to celebrate the arrival
of the first fleet. The FIVE (5) people Australia-wide who could
care less about that can just hold their own private celebration.
In addition, there is no particular reason to celebrate Australia
being created at all. This actually happened on 1st January, which
is already a public holiday, but literally no-one in Australia even
remembers that when they wake up drunk as a skunk on 1st January.

So what you should do is say that 26th January will no longer be
officially celebrated. Instead, you should encourage the Chinese
government to have a day of mourning for this date, and for
left-wing Australian ratbags to head to China to participate in
the commemorations. If the Chinese government "cares" enough about
Afghan civilians murdered by some rogue Australian soldiers to go
to the effort of creating a doctored image of an Australian soldier
killing an Afghan child with a knife, then they presumably "care"
about Aborigines to the same extent. Specifically ask them to come
up with another doctored image of the Australian PM slitting the
throat of an Aboriginal child.

The left-wing ratbags will have no idea what to make of this.
Wait for a week before delivering the killer punch - Australia will
instead be celebrating "International Freedom Day" on 4th June to
commemorate the Tiananmen Square Massacre on 1989-06-04.

Next thing to fix is the "Queen's birthday". The Queen herself
neither celebrates this day nor even knows what the date is. We
should change this to "Tank Man's birthday". No-one knows when
his birthday is either, or even who he is. This is very fitting
for Australia.

The Australian government has already made a good step against
political correctness with their advertising slogan of "where
the bloody hell are you?". The Chaser took it to the next level
changing it to something like "where the fuck are you,
motherfuckers?". Now the Australian government needs to go in
with another killer punch - "Why the fuck aren't you Wogs here -
are you racist against Skips or what?". It will take a while for
people to understand the significance of that. There will be a
lot of international wailing, but it is unlikely the Americans
would institute trade sanctions (or war) for that, so it would
be "under the guns".

Now on to immigration.

The new policy of the Australian government should be that anyone
whose country of origin is so bad that they need political asylum
should first of all send a letter to the Australian government
that says "Hello Australian government. My country, Xyz, is failing
to protect my human rights, specifically a, b and c. Please arrange
for the ADF to liberate my country and install a constitution that
will protect these rights. I am not concerned whether the new
administrator is an Australian or an allied local - that is up to
your discretion.". The Australian government should make a
determination whether those alleged "human rights" really are
rights, and whether the current government is genuinely failing to
protect those rights and then give an estimate of where this country
is in the queue for the ADF (and allies) to liberate. It is
unreasonable that just a lucky few get to escape their home country.
Especially no priority should be given to those who can afford to
fly to Indonesia and pay for people smugglers and have no qualms
about breaking Australian law and queue-jumping. The right thing to
do is to fix the problem for EVERYONE, including people who don't
even speak English, but are well aware that their human rights are
being violated.

In the case of China, and specifically Hong Kong, we know that the
ADF will never be arriving. The ADF doesn't have the technical
ability to get past China's nuclear shield, at least at the moment.
The people of Hong Kong have tasted freedom (to a large extent),
both under the British and even with Chinese communist troops
occupying their city. It was only on 2020-06-30 that the people of
Hong Kong truly lost their freedom. It is particularly cruel that
these people who know exactly what it means to be free, have seen
that disappear in front of their eyes.

While I support (as part of human rights) an adult's right to
use his freedom of speech to claim a book that supports gassing
Jews or raping women is "holy" or "inerrant", NOBODY has some
gods-given right to enter Australia. If we choose to give
favoritism to citizens of New Zealand (which we do), that is
totally up to us.

But let's look at New Zealand. They are such left-wing lunatics
that they even refused to live up to the ANZUS commitments even
while the Cold War was in progress. They also opposed liberating
Iraq in 2003. These people are not friends of the free world. We
should no longer be giving Australian jobs to them. They can
manage their own affairs in their own little cesspit. They have
freedom of speech and democracy so they are empowered to come to
their senses in their own time and then we can reevaluate.

So where should we get our immigrants from? No country, race,
religion speaks with one voice. There are people who share so-called
"Australian values" everywhere. But in some places they are a small
minority. There is no particular reason to be taking people from
these places. Those people should simply wait for the arrival of
the ADF, so that they can have all the benefits of Australia in
their own country, and all their fellow citizens get the same
benefit. In Hong Kong we have a duty similar to that of resupplying
West Berlin.

Any Hong Kong resident who is willing to say "I am a global citizen.
I have no affinity to ethnic Chinese or the nation of China. I just
happen to speak the Chinese language, the same as Taiwan (another
member of the free world) does. I am a man of science and I hold no
supposedly-inerrant dogma. Especially no non-humanist dogma such as
communism. I already hold what you refer to as 'Australian values',
and I have recent history of risking my physical and economic
well-being trying to uphold those values, which is more than any
Australian can say other than the brave soldiers of the ADF." should
be evacuated as soon as the Australian economy can handle it.

Any other foreigner who complains about not being able to get into
Australia should be told that instead of complaining about their
own inconvenience they should be complaining about the poor people
of Hong Kong being stuck under the cruel Chinese dictator, and be
helping change their own country's political system so that they
too can take in Hong Kong refugees.

The bilateral arrangement between Australia and the US can stay, as
very few people are interested in travelling in either direction,
so there is no harm in catering for those.

When we've finished evacuating the 60% pro-democracy Hong Kong
citizens we can look at reopening immigration from other places.

Now for the controversial stuff that may provoke trade sanctions or
even war with the US. And may require us to withdraw from UN
treaties.

We should no longer accept any immigrants who subscribe to any
supposedly-inerrant dogma. This is broad-ranging. There are some
who claim that the US Second Amendment is a gods-given right
(that only adults have, and only one sort of weapon, not an RPG)
that cannot be disputed. There are some who claim that Marx's
rantings are indisputable. There are some who claim that the
bible is indisputable. Australia is not so desperate for
immigrants that we need to accept such people.

There are some people who are confused about their religion, so
should be given a chance to clarify their position. E.g. someone
from the Philippines may claim to be "born a Catholic". The
immigration department can respond with "Babies have no concept
of religion. Do you mean you were indoctrinated as a child into
the Catholic religion?". If they can answer "Yes" to that, then
move on. "What is the most disgusting ideology that Jesus held,
that is incompatible with Australian values?". Correct answer is
"Pacifism in the face of evil - that saw many Christians wanting
to forgive Saddam for his horrendous crimes instead of going and
arresting him". The Australian government has a "revised bible"
that has removed the various references to stoning people to
death, and in Chapter 1 Verse 1 has "Slavery is wrong. Racism
(including anti-white racism) is wrong. Rape is wrong.". "What
do you think of that?". "Love it". Ok, you can migrate to
Australia.

Similar questions need to be asked of potential Muslim
immigrants. "What were Mohammad's biggest crimes?". "He was a
slave trader, a pedophile, a rapist, a murderer and a thief.".
"Did he do anything good at all?". "Yes, he ended the cultural
practice of killing baby girls.". "Have you seen the revised
version of the Koran published by the Australian government?".
"Yes, it's great that you removed 33:50 saying that it is OK
to rape slaves, but you left in 27:18 that introduces the
concept of 'talking ants' - priceless! (And harmless, and
strategic)".

Another thing that should be cleaned up - when I was doing a
stint as an English teacher I did some training to be a potential
teacher for immigrants. I noticed a question from the Australian
government that went "What values is Australia founded on?".
Possibilities were "Readings from the Koran", "Judeo-Christianity"
and "Secularism". Even though I was born in Australia, I assumed
the answer was "secularism". As far as I know, all Australian
laws are now secular, there's nothing based on the bible. But
the correct answer is "Judeo-Christianity". I don't even know
what that is supposed to mean. There is no clear definition of
"Christianity". Certainly the Australian government isn't
promoting the stoning to death of anyone working on the Sabbath.
Quite the contrary. People often get paid extra for working on
Sunday, and Australia no longer even has the death penalty, much
less using stoning as the method of killing.