greens are mad.

Greens means mad
Andrew Bolt
01sep04

Bob Brown's Greens promote policies that are both bizarre and dangerous. Voters concerned for the future of Australia must put them last.

THE moral duty of the Labor and Liberal parties is clear. They must ask voters to put the Greens last.
Labor did this in the 1998 election with One Nation, shoving them to the bottom of all its how-to-vote cards.

But the Greens are far more dangerous than Pauline Hanson's herd of poor farmers and caravan-park outcasts ever were.

I say that not just because Senator Bob Brown's Greens - with many friends in the media, universities and churches - have policies that will make us poor, divided and defenceless.

Which they sure do.

It is true the Greens have quietly left out of their official policies the promises of last year to plough roads and farms back into wilderness, drain our dams, give the dole to people who don't want to work, lift company taxes by half, and make us ride bicycles more often.

But they still vow to limit mining exploration, scrap coal-fired power stations, cut working hours without cutting pay, keep a reduced army only "for the foreseeable future", raise company tax, hit taxpayers with more "levies", close US facilities here, and "reject the US war on terrorism as a cover for the promotion of US interests".

So unworldly are these promises that they make the Greens, perversely, seem innocent, even pure.

And that may be why so few Greens supporters can even imagine their party has other policies that are far more sinister -- policies which could kill the weak and most vulnerable of us.

Whenever I say such things I realise I sound extreme. I know that calling the Greens evil also offends many of the party's supporters, who consider themselves the most moral people of a corrupt society.

After all, how could the party they endorse be bad when it's on an intoxicating crusade to save the planet? To liberate the oppressed?

But it has to be said. The Greens Party may well collapse when Brown finally quits, but its philosophy is deadly, not cuddly.

THIS threat must now be faced. If Labor wins the election, it will need the Greens to get through the Senate any legislation that the Liberals reject.

For the first time, then, a party with the balance of power will demand changes that are more radical than either Labor or the Liberals would want, and not less.

Thankfully, a few Greens supporters are now waking up to the extremism hidden in the Greens philosophy.

Some are shocked to realise their party increasingly rejects civilisation and freedom and embraces the tyranny of tribalism -- the purity of the noble savage.

See the results -- the Greens heckling George Bush, but demanding more aid for Saddam Hussein; vilifying Israel, but largely ignoring the Islamist terrorists trying to wipe it out.

This appalled singer Deborah Conway, who this month declared: "Usually I'm very passionate and sympathetic to the Greens, who actually asked me to stand for them in Victoria."

But Conway is Jewish, and the Greens, she says, "have stunned me".

"I've always been considered Left. It's who I've been. Suddenly some of these people from the Left want to put me up against the wall and shoot me because I'm Jewish."

She's not talking of the Greens' leaders, of course, but of fans of their policies.

Even Brown himself seems surprised to find how far into unreality he's been pushed by the Greens' feel-thyself philosophy.

Take Brown's panicky reaction yesterday to the Herald Sun's report of the Greens' drugs policy -- to decriminalise all drug use, issue free heroin to addicts, and consider the distribution of ecstasy and other "social" drugs.

RATHER than defend his clearly dangerous policy, Brown claimed our report was a beat-up. He tried a similar dodge in March, when Laurie Oakes asked him on Channel 9's Sunday to explain this very same policy.

Oakes: But why don't you . . . go out there and proudly say we believe in the decriminalisation of drugs?

Brown: Well, because it isn't on the agenda at the moment, Laurie.

Oakes: It would be if you said that.

Brown: Well, I - let me tell you very clearly I will not be saying that.

Oakes: But it's in your policy.

Brown: Because I believe -- I don't care what extract you've got from the policy there, as far as I'm concerned . . . where criminals are involved in peddling drugs in this country they should go to jail.

Get it? Here's a leader unable to face the logical results - spelled out on his own party notepaper - of his toxic ideology.

Perhaps the man who is best able to tell us what the Greens' vision means for us is Peter Singer, philosopher, former Greens Senate candidate and co-author with Brown of The Greens.

It is Singer who developed the key Greens belief -- that man is not at the pinnacle of creation, as Christians and Jews believe, but is just one of the animals, with no more rights than any other.

Human life is no longer sacred, but should be judged in a utilitarian way. Is that life a burden to someone? Is that being conscious enough to let live?

And Singer judges with a merciless eye: "If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee . . .

"If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants."

Or even much older ones: "A three-year-old is a grey case," says Singer, author of Should the Baby Live?

True, Brown's Greens don't call for the killing of disabled infants, but their policies still reek of Singer's life-threatening philosophy.

For example, the Greens support euthanasia, which tends to kill lonely women and make the dying feel obliged to hurry up.

The Greens also insist on "repealing all laws which restrict the right of women to choose abortion" -- laws which at the moment stop doctors from killing children just days from birth.

And the Greens, believing humans must submit to Mother Earth, threaten lives in other ways, too.

They want to ban the genetically modified crops which the United Nations says are the best hope of feeding the poor. Green groups overseas have fought the use of DDT, which is the best way of getting rid of the malarial mosquitoes which kill so many children.

BOB Brown will no doubt say the Greens would never endorse the extreme views of Singer, his co-author. It is unimaginable.

But so many things are unimaginable -- until they happen. Who'd have imagined the Greens, a party of "peace", endorsing violent street protests, such as the September 11 riot at Melbourne's casino in 2000?

Who would have imagined Australia's most famous philosopher endorsing the murder of babies?

Who, in pre-war Germany, would have imagined that 60 per cent of the members of the main nature clubs -- just as nature-loving and capitalist-hating as today's Greens -- would join the Nazi Party by 1939?

Brown may find all this hard to believe, but as his confrontation with Oakes shows, there are already some things about the Greens he finds hard to believe. Put his Greens last.

[email protected]