KTLA News

Disney officials say they stopped putting Imane Boudlal on the schedule during the ongoing issue.

The hotel workers’ union claims that Boudlal, a restaurant hostess at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel, was suspended without pay.

Disney officials deny that Boudlal was suspended, saying that they stopped putting her on the schedule while the matter is ongoing, said Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman.

On Tuesday, Boudlal rejected a third, alternative head covering that Disney provided and she was sent home for the eighth time.

Disney previously offered Boudlal four other assignments that would allow her to wear her own head scarf, called a hijab, which some Muslim women wear as a form of modesty.

Disney is known for its strict dress code, called the Disney Look.

Boudlal, through the union, described the most recent head covering as an over-sized chef’s hat. She previously rejected a hat over a bonnet.

“The hat makes a joke of my religion and draws even more attention to me,” Boudlal says. “It’s unacceptable. They don’t want me to look Muslim,” Boudlal says. “They just don’t want the head covering to look like a hijab.”

Two months ago, Boudlal told her managers she wanted a “religious accommodation” to the company’s dress code to wear the scarf to work during the holy month of Ramadan and beyond. Disney, however, refused Boudlal says.

On August 15, Boudlal wore her hijab to work but was told that if she wanted to work as a hostess she would have to remove the head scarf. Disney told her she could work in the back of the restaurant — away from customers — or go home without pay. Boudlal chose to go home.

Disney says the company has very strict uniform rules.

“Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn’t wear something like that, that’s not part of the costume,” Brown said. “We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home.”

Boudlal says she doesn’t understand why she cannot wear her scarf to work. “My scarf doesn’t do anything to harm Disney or the guests.”

She filed a discriminaton complaint against Disney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last week.

Boudial has worked at Disneyland for two and a half years, but didn’t try to wear the hijab to work until a week ago.

She is an immigrant from Morocco and has been in the United States for five years. She became a U.S. citizen in June.

After being granted her citizenship, Boudlal decided to challenge Disney’s strict clothing rules. She says the U.S. Constitution grants everyone religious freedom and that right applies in this case.

“The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf,” Boudial says.

“Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?”

Tahlequah Daily Press

TAHLEQUAH — A Northeastern State University student was formally charged Tuesday afternoon with first-degree burglary and assault and battery.

Mohammad Saleh Alaji, 23, was charged with forcing his way into the home of Amy Proctor on Aug. 2. Reports state Proctor and her two children were asleep when the incident occurred.

An affidavit filed by NSU Police Sgt. Jim Flores states Alaji, a native of Saudi Arabia, was attempting to get on top of Proctor while she slept on the couch. She was able to escape from Alaji and get him out of the house.

One of the children was allegedly assaulted by Alaji. Court documents state Alaji put the child in a choke hold.

Flores’ affidavit states he spoke to the Bureau of Consulate Affairs after taking a report on the incident.

Alaji’s bond is set at $10,000. He is represented by Tulsa attorney Marvin Lizama. Assistant District Attorney Josh King is prosecuting the case.

First-degree burglary is punishable by imprisonment for seven to 20 years. Assault and battery is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

——————————

Heads_Up Fuck France

The Washington Times–Editorial

The Navy wants to judge sailors by the color of their skin, not the content of their seamanship.

The latest national security leak is a shocking e-mail from a Navy admiral on “Diversity Accountability.” The message, sent to a list of other flag officers, notes that “a change in focus of this year’s diversity brief is the desire to identify our key performers (by name) and provide insight on each of them.” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, who apparently originated this order, “is interested in who are the diverse officers with high potential and what is the plan for their career progression. He may ask what is being done within to ensure they are considered for key follow on billets within the Navy.”

The message specifies, “This list must be held very closely but will provide ready reference to ensure we are carefully monitoring and supporting the careers of the best and the brightest the Navy has to offer.” That is, the best and the brightest provided a sailor is one of the euphemistically “diverse.” If you are a white male, it might be time to set sail and seek opportunities elsewhere.

In practice, the Navy will be creating a list of privileged “diverse” officers who will enjoy special benefits and career mentoring not available to people of the wrong race, as well as a virtual guarantee of fast-track access to the highest reaches of command. Fifty-six years after the Supreme Court struck down the concept of “separate but equal” treatment of races, the U.S. Navy is erecting a wall of segregation between what will amount to two parallel promotion systems: one for the “diverse” and another for the monotone. If this isn’t illegal, it should be.

How this dual-track system will be implemented is difficult to discern. Will officers doing fitness reports on those on the list be made aware of their subordinates’ privileged status? Will the people on the list have knowledge that the system is looking out for them? If they get a poor fitness report, will they have special means of getting a second look? Will there be repercussions for reviewing officers who did not know they were supposed to just keep the list members on the fast track no matter what? The devil will be lurking in these details.

This type of backward, 20th-century, overtly racial thinking has no place in 21st-century post-racial America. The Navy leadership apparently believes the way to promote racial harmony is by engaging in blatant, invidious discrimination. In practice, however, this system will, in fact, relegate “diverse” sailors to a form of second-class status. Any nonwhite male sailor who – through intelligence, initiative and drive – builds a stellar career will simply be seen as just another special case, just one of “the Listers.” Those sailors may achieve rank, but they will have to work twice as hard to command respect.

In the contemporary naval bureaucracy, this type of politically correct nonsense has run out of control like a loose cannon on deck. The Naval Academy lists racial diversity as the “highest personnel priority,” apparently even over the mission of educating future Navy leaders for warfare on the high seas. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made achieving diversity a “strategic imperative” when he was chief of naval operations. Call us old-fashioned seadogs, but we’d prefer that the Navy’s top priority be fighting and winning our nation’s wars rather than engaging in social experimentation.

The suggested list of privileged officers is due Monday. The message states that the reporting requirement will not be put into the secretary of the Navy’s TV4 Taskers tracking system “due to the sensitive nature of the by name list.” No doubt, once the secret list leaks, as it surely will, there will be as much discomfort for the people on the list as for those not on it, especially those unfortunates who met the diversity requirement but for some reason did not make the cut. Maybe they can sue, charging discrimination. Either way, the Navy Department has run aground.

If you can sit through horrid Hannity…

Breitbart is spot-on about the whole point of the video was to show the NAACP’s racism via laughing and applauding Sherrod’s personal story of the white farmer before even knowing the outcome of the story.

Reacting to recent accusations by the NAACP and the tea party movement calling each other racist, U.S. Sen. Jim Webb reiterated his belief Friday that affirmative action programs unfairly penalize poor whites and should be limited to assisting only native-born blacks still suffering from past discrimination.

Government-mandated diversity programs work against bringing more economic fairness because they have “expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white,” Webb, a Virginia Democrat, wrote in a Wall Street Journal column published Friday.

Affirmative action programs that assist black Americans who endured institutional racism for generations should remain in place for those “still in need,” Webb wrote. But other government-directed diversity programs should end, he said.

“Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years,” Webb wrote.

“White America is hardly monolithic,” he said, adding that there are vast economic and social disparities that make it wrong to treat whites the same when comparing them to other ethnic groups.

Webb’s column is in keeping with his comments during his successful 2006 election campaign when he argued that affirmative action programs should only be limited to blacks unless they also offer similar assistance to poor, underprivileged whites. He said four years ago that diversity programs that help all ethnic groups except needy whites are “state-sponsored racism.”

He pointed to the history of the South, which he described as a society with a small white elite that dominated both blacks and poor, ill-educated white sharecroppers. The effects of that deprivation are still apparent today, he said.

To bolster his case, he cited a survey by the National Opinion Research Center that reported that in the years 1980-2000, 18 percent of white Baptists and 22 percent of Irish Protestants had college degrees, compared with 30 percent of all Americans, 73 percent of Jews and 62 percent of people of Chinese and Indian descent.

Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder took issue with Webb’s comments Friday, saying the senator has to show more specific evidence than his own opinion that minority groups have an unfair advantage over whites.

“It makes no sense,” said Wilder, who was the first black governor in American history. “If this is what you get from friends, God help us from the enemies when they come.”

“Are the programs existing today run perfectly? Of course not…. They always need constant monitoring and improvements,” Wilder said. “The thing I don’t understand is, in the summer of 2010, with the all the problems of race… Why does he do this? I think the burden is on him to explain.”

State Sen. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, praised Webb for his column. “Poverty and inequality know no boundary, whether it is geography, gender, race, age or disability,” McEachin said in a prepared statement. “We need to provide opportunities so all those individuals can become productive, constructive members of society.”

Webb declined to talk to reporters Friday, but his spokesman, Will Jenkins, said the senator believes the column raised “important questions that have to be asked right now.”

Webb has no plans to introduce legislation to roll back affirmative action regulations but is hoping to provoke debate, Jenkins said.

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political science professor, said there are political risks for Webb in raising the issue. Webb faces a re-election campaign in 2012.

“Of course, this is not your run-of-the-mill politician,” Sabato said. “He says what he thinks is right, and hang the consequences.”

—————————

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal opinion piece

“I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America’s economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white”.
 The full column

Excerpt:

“Obama, she said, “hasn’t lived the kind of life I’ve lived. I know that he’s African-American, or part African-American … many of us are not totally black in our genes. I’m one of them. But he really, you know, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, I think you need to understand a little bit more of what life is like at that level.”

Read the whole article: Ousted USDA employee talks with Obama

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Protesters and police scuffled Tuesday at a school board meeting in North Carolina over claims that a new busing system would resegregate schools, roiling racial tensions reminiscent of the 1960s.

Nearly 20 people were arrested, including the head of state NAACP chapter who was banned from the meeting after a trespassing arrest at a June school board gathering.

“We know that our cause is right,” Barber said shortly before police put plastic handcuffs on his wrists before the meeting started.

Inside, more than a dozen demonstrators disrupted the meeting by gathering around a podium, chanting and singing against the board’s policies.

After several minutes, Raleigh police intervened and asked them to leave. When they refused, the officers grabbed arms and tried to arrest the protesters. One child was caught in the pushing and shoving, as was school board member Keith Sutton, who was nearly arrested before authorities realized who he was.

“Hey, hey, ho, ho, resegregation has got to go,” some protesters chanted.

The Wake County School Board has voted multiple times over the last several months to scrap the district’s diversity policy, which distributed students based on socioeconomics and for years had been a model for other districts looking to balance diversity in schools. Several school board members elected last year have built a majority in favor of focusing on neighborhood schools.

The board’s chairman, Ron Margiotta, said the panel would not be distracted in its effort to “provide choice and increased stability for families.”

“This board does not intend to create high poverty or low-performing schools,” he said to scoffs from the crowd.

At a morning rally that drew 1,000 people, speakers quoted Martin Luther King Jr., remembered the days of segregated water fountains and likened the current situation to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education battle. Barber talked about America’s legacy of racial strife to galvanize the crowd.

“Too many prayers were prayed,” Barber said. “Too many lives were sacrificed. Too much blood was shed. Too many tears were shed. We can’t turn back now.”

Barber’s supporters believe the new policy will resegregate schools. They carried signs that read: “Segregate equals hate” and “History is not a mystery. Separate is always unequal.”

George Ramsay, a white former student body president of Enloe High School, said it was necessary to keep the diversity policy in place to prepare students for an increasingly connected world.

“It is shortsighted to ignore the way students like me have been enriched by diversity,” Ramsay said.

By Thomas Sowell

Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race card fraud is an even bigger problem.

Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.

No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons– and it worked.

This year’s target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.

All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.

When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable– indeed, unbelievable– that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.

The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.

This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.

Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.

Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.

Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama’s past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man’s rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.

Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.

On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.

As Obama’s own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer– Ring Lardner, I believe– once wrote: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody– even the members of Congress– to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with “empathy” for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. “Empathy” is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama’s first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with “empathy” for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters’ case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama’s injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn’t know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama’s Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

Racist Maxine Waters is slipping affirmative action provisions into legislation that will force federal agencies to favor blacks…”The law would create at least 20 new offices and up to 29 if every Treasury agency is required to create a minority office…”
LiveLeak
In the financial overhaul bill that is on the cusp of becoming law, House Democrats have included a largely overlooked provision that would create diversity czars to promote racial and gender hiring in federal agencies — a move that has sparked concerns about racial quotas, government waste and charges that Democrats are attempting to politicize the Federal Reserve.

The bill would establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at each federal financial services agency to “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management.

The diversity czars would also aim to “increase the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conduct “an assessment” of those goals.

Each diversity czar would be a presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate and have power “comparable to that of other senior level staff,” the bill says.

In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal accused Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., author of the provision, of trying to politicize the Federal Reserve.

“The Waters provision will also give Congress and the White House a new and powerful lever to influence the operation of the 12 regional Fed banks,” the newspaper wrote. “Accusations of racial or gender indifference, much less outright bias, are politically deadly.”

“With the threat of such an accusation in their holster, the Waters czars will have enormous clout to influence Fed governance and regulatory decisions, perhaps including monetary policy,” the newspaper added.

Waters’ office did not respond to a request for comment but the lawmaker vigorously defended the provision in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, saying the newspaper’s critical editorial was “filled with misrepresentations, unsupported conclusions and outright distortions.”

“Nothing in the bill mandates lending to minorities or women,” she wrote, denying charges that the provision would politicize the Fed or allocate credit by race and gender. “The provision does not even mention lending. The offices will only be responsible for employment, management and business activities of the agencies.”

“What this legislation will do is help address an indisputable problem, the lack of diversity in financial services,” she said, arguing that studies show the “discrimination that women and minorities face compared to white men of similar educational background and age.”

Waters cited the Treasury Department where minorities make up 17.2 percent of employees at senior pay levels and a recent Government Accountability Office report that shows the lack of diversity within the financial services industry has barely improved at the management level from 1993 to 2008.

“The provision is designed to broaden and improve the work force of these agencies and expand opportunities for our nation’s small businesses – including minority-and women-owned businesses – to participate in programs and contracts instead of continuing to rely on the same ‘old boy’ network and handful of Wall Street firms responsible for the crisis in the financial markets.”

The provision remained in the legislation during a conference committee between House and Senate negotiators. The House approved the final version of the bill late last month but the Senate delayed its vote until after the July Fourth holiday.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the bill should be sent back to conference stripped of this provision, citing concerns about racial quotas and costs.

“The chief concern is that you’re moving from a situation where discrimination is prohibited, which is well and good and that is established law, to a situation where there are quotas in the workplace,” she told FoxNews.com, contending that the law would extend the provisions to contractors and subcontractors – a situation that could lead to quotas in the private sector. “And those are two very, very different things.”

The law would create at least 20 new offices and up to 29 if every Treasury agency is required to create a minority office, she said.

“It would probably cost a million or over” to operate on an annual basis for each office, she said.

Furchtgott-Roth also noted that the Cabinet-level departments all have similar offices in place and questioned why more is needed.

“This is a very serious concern,” she said. “We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. Every American knows that we need to cut the deficit and not only is this a waste of money but it implies that the existing offices we have are a waste of money.”

Melanie Phillips

AT first blush, Julia Gillard’s volte-face over immigration would seem to be as unlikely as Osama bin Laden singing the Star Spangled Banner or Richard Dawkins taking holy orders.

Here is a politician with a solid pedigree on the “anti-racist” Left rejecting former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s call for a “Big Australia” formed by continuing large-scale immigration.

Instead, Gillard has said she understands the anxieties of folk in western Sydney, western Melbourne or the Gold Coast growth corridor in Queensland.

As for the boats of asylum-seekers, Gillard has made clear she wants to be even more effective in stopping them in order to protect “our sanctuary” and “the Australian way”.

In other words, Gillard is signalling that she sympathises with the concern that large-scale immigration and multiculturalism are threatening Australia’s core values and identity, a position the Left denounces as bigotry.

Consequently, Gillard’s remarks have produced predictable cries of “racism” and “dog-whistling”. So why has the new Labor leader ventured into this particular cultural minefield? The explanation is that something tumultuous is happening, not just in Australia but in Britain too, something so unusual that people are stumbling around in a state of stunned disorientation.

It is that politicians are at last actually taking seriously what their electorates are saying to them about immigration and multiculturalism. This is that they will no longer put up with a policy which threatens to destroy their country’s values and way of life, and will vote accordingly.

In Britain even more than in Australia – where at least John Howard or Tony Abbott have tackled such issues – race and culture have long been totally taboo. No debate has been possible about whether mass immigration might be a bad thing for communities or the country as a whole.

Even to question this has been to invite instant denunciation as a racist from the dominant left-wing intelligentsia, for whom anti-racism has long been their signature creed.

The Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, David Cameron, who is driven by the need to bury the label of “the nasty party” that was hung round the Tories’ neck, was accordingly too nervous even to mention immigration during the recent election campaign, even though it was at the very top of the list of voters’ concerns.

But Cameron didn’t win the election, and is now forced to govern in a coalition with the left-wing LibDems. His failure to talk about immigration is said to be the reason why he failed to win an election that was thought impossible for him to lose.

Nothing concentrates the political mind so well as the spectre of defeat. And so now in both Britain and Australia a political sea change is taking place.

In both countries, voters are stating unequivocally that they have seen through all the spin about multiculturalism, all the false arguments about the alleged economic advantages of mass immigration, all the bullying and name-calling about racism.

They look at their neighbourhoods and realise that their culture and national identity are being replaced by something entirely new. No one has ever asked them for their consent to this. And they are simply not going to take it any more.

In Britain, the public services are buckling under the sheer weight of the numbers coming into the country.

More explosive is the cultural transformation, particularly by the large influx and expansion of Muslims who, rather than accommodating themselves to British society, expect it to accommodate itself to them.

So Britain is being steadily Islamised, with more than 1700 mosques, the development of a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law in Muslim enclaves, banks offering sharia financing, extremists given free rein on campuses and relentless pressure to suppress and censor any criticism of Islam or the Muslim community.

In parts of Australia too there are similar worries about the growth of the Muslim community, the pressure not to criticise any aggression it may display and the simultaneous onslaught upon Australian values by the likes of [Muslim cleric] Sheik Hilaly.

Listening to such concerns pays electoral dividends, as shown by Abbott, who has made such headway by defending the traditional values and national integrity of Australia as an entirely justifiable and moral position.

So Gillard is now humming the same tune, saying she sympathises with voters’ desire for strong management of Australia’s borders, and pledging “sustainable population” increase with the “right kind of immigrant”.

A similar political convulsion is occurring in Britain. The Conservative Home Secretary, Theresa May, has promised to put a cap on immigration, a pledge that was in the Conservative manifesto but rarely mentioned during the election campaign.

Even more striking is the abrupt change of tune among several contenders for the leadership of the defeated British Labour Party. While front-runner David Miliband is sticking with its open-door immigration policy, his younger brother Ed has said “we never had an answer for the people who were worried about it”.

Former Labour health secretary Andy Burnham claims the party has been “in denial” about the issue, which was “the biggest doorstep issue in constituencies where Labour lost”.

Most jaw-dropping of all, former education secretary and hard man of the Left Ed Balls has said high levels of immigration under Labour had affected the pay and conditions of “too many people”, and has called for better protection for British workers if the European Union expands any further.

Such death-bed conversions are of course driven by cynical political considerations. Nevertheless, they are levering open an ideological fixation which has not just sunk democratic politics into disrepute but driven culture and morality in both Britain and Australia off the rails altogether.

For the doctrines of anti-racism and multiculturalism have not ended intolerance, prejudice or discrimination. They have instead institutionalised reverse discrimination and up-ended truth, morality and justice.

Following the Marxist doctrine that prejudice is restricted to those with power, they have given Third-World ethnic minorities special protection from rules or conventions that apply to everyone else.

They have also served to falsify the history of both Britain and Australia in the minds of countless thousands of young people, who are taught propaganda based on a false or distorted story of national oppression and shame.

Multiculturalism threatens to undermine societies, by removing the cultural glue that binds all citizens together and balkanising the country into interest groups fighting for supremacy.

Once upon a time, the need to have strong borders and endorse a historic cultural identity were axiomatic elements of citizenship and national survival.

But mass immigration and multiculturalism are predicated on what is called “transnationalism”, the belief that the nation is the source of all the ills of the world and must be replaced by supranational institutions and cultural identities.

This is precisely what -at a visceral level – the people of both Australia and Britain understand and are refusing to accept.

And at last, in both Australia and Britain, politicians are being forced to listen.