Categories
Allegations of foreign influence Anti-China Narratives General

Irony succumbs to moronacy

Rudd must register his connections with Asia Society Policy Institute, but Paterson’s membership of IPAC is deemed not to be foreign influence. 

In his latest of a set of self-congratulatory videos posted on YouTube (deliberately not linked), serial China basher James Paterson highlights a mini-speech that Scott Morrison delivered on his phoney campaign for re-election. Morrison cites the complaints made by the Chinese Embassy about a speech given by Paterson to the European Parliament. In that speech, Paterson attempts to rally white nations to adopt the hysteria that he champions – that of attempting to suppress free speech by those who might complain about Australia’s absurd anti-China posture, such as the Chinese embassy.

There are layers of irony and moronacy in both Paterson’s and Morrison’s speeches that might not be obvious to a casual viewer.

The first is Morrison’s use of ‘irony’. Believing himself to be terribly clever, but actually confirming moronacy, Morrison labels the complaints by the Embassy as ‘ironic’, supposedly because Embassy complaints are considered ‘foreign interference’ and it was that topic that was supposedly the intent of the complaint.

If one genuinely understands irony, one would know that irony only works if the outcome of a statement is the opposite of its intention. The complaint made by the Embassy was not about either foreign interference nor free speech, but a reflection on how whipping up anti-China sentiment will not help the China – Australia relationship, as any relationship requires mutual respect, an element totally lacking in both Paterson’s and Morrison’s attitudes to China. To paraphrase, “Countries that respect one another don’t talk about one another like this. They don’t accuse each other of ‘beating their wife’.”

The Embassy was doing what embassies have always done – registering disapproval. If this is foreign interference then, ironically, one must consider every complaint made by an Australian embassy to a foreign country as ‘foreign interference’. So Morrison must explain how this particular complaint is so different from those made by every country in every country.

Morrison and Paterson are either unable, unwilling or simply too dishonest to clarify why this complaint should have a label of ‘foreign interference’.

The other ironic point is that Morrison defends against what he sees as an attack on free speech by… criticising the free expression by the Embassy of their concerns.

‘Free speech’ advocates such as Morrison and Paterson are, in fact, pushing the most restrictive constraints on free expression that this nation has known. In an attempt to silence past Prime Ministers, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme requires any person who might be giving a speech on behalf of or to a foreign entity to register this.

Reminiscent of the worst of McCarthyism, although cloaked in plausible deniability, the intent is to ‘expose’ influence where there is none. Rudd’s presidency of the American not-for-profit thinktank, the Asia Society Policy Institute, and his consultancy work, are among the real target. Any membership of any transnational organisation can be seen as ‘foreign influence’.

And, in a stunning ironic performance, Paterson, in his witch hunt against the University of Queensland regarding the Drew Pavlou suspension, directly castigated the University for not acting against an adjunct professor (the Consul General) for public comments he (the Consul General) made and grilled the University representatives at length (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iezdK_32ok&t=1200s) on the reasons for not removing him. So much for free speech. Free speech is granted to those who agree with you, but disciplinary action is appropriate for those who make contrary statements.

As yet another example of true irony, Paterson’s membership of IPAC, The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an association of legislators, has not been registered as ‘foreign influence’ (https://transparency.ag.gov.au/Registrants -> “James Paterson” -> zero entries), despite the significant influence it has on Australian legislators, such as Paterson and Hastie. IPAC is directly funded by instruments of foreign governments, namely:

  • The National Endowment for Democracy
  • The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

and George Soros through the

  • The Open Society Foundations

IPAC is a ‘white people’s’ club, with representation from most of the prominent former colonial states and has values to match.

But, of course, the legislation was never about transparency or accountability, but was concocted to enable witch hunts against China and Chinese people.

So, to clarify:

  1. Morrison and Paterson object to the free speech from the Chinese Embassy complaining about Paterson’s speech.
  2. The Embassy was reflecting on the relationship between Australia and China and how it is not helped by people like Paterson. It had nothing to do with challenging free speech, which continues without interruption.
  3. Free speech continues without interruption, not threatened in any way by a complaint from the Chinese Embassy. The suggestion that it is threatened is gratuitous fear mongering.
  4. In breath-taking hypocrisy, Paterson supposedly champions free speech while demanding disciplinary action against those exercising free speech.
  5. Certain kinds of foreign influence, such as that by IPAC in regards to Paterson, are off limits to this legislation.
  6. The legislation imposes McCarthyist constraints on the free speech of those who are most vocal in attempting to balance the opinions on China, such a Kevin Rudd.