The special envoy’s plan is a timely opportunity to recognize prejudice against Anglo-Celtic Australians – and insist on equal protection for all communities
Blade Maximus
One must acknowledge the remarkably effective multicultural advocacy infrastructure in Australia—well-funded NGOs, diversity consultants, taxpayer-supported media platforms, and government-appointed councils—which has successfully recast Anglo-Celtic Australians not as the founding cultural community of this country, but as an oppressor to be managed.
With their institutional access, media platforms, and activist networks embedded in academia, public broadcasting, and the corporate sector, these groups have successfully marginalized expressions of Anglo-Celtic identity. They’ve delegitimized traditional values as “colonial hangovers,” cast the national story as a source of shame, and conditioned the political class to avoid defending the community that built the country’s democratic institutions in the first place.
The appointment of a special envoy to defend the Anglo-Celtic community—routinely dismissed as “privileged” despite being consistently derided, excluded, and culturally pathologized—offers a necessary corrective. With respect, one might argue that any group, including Jewish organizations, which demands public protection against prejudice, must also extend that respect to the broader Australian cultural majority. There can be no special pleading.
Examples of prejudice are easily found. Australians of Anglo-Celtic ancestry are routinely blamed for historical injustices they did not commit. Their customs are mocked in universities; their faiths sidelined by bureaucrats; their children subject to curricula that portray their heritage as a moral failure. When the national broadcaster portrays “bogans” as ignorant bigots, or arts grants favor “diverse” over “mainstream” voices, this isn’t incidental—it’s institutionalized bias.
Of course, nuance is rarely welcome in such discussions. If a group of tradies complain that “diversity quotas” have made it harder to access apprenticeships, they’re told to “check their privilege.” If ordinary Australians object to their council’s decision to fly the Aboriginal flag without community consultation, they’re condemned as racists. When commentators joke about “white trash” in the outer suburbs, no anti-racism NGO intervenes.
This isn’t a full list of examples, and it should go without saying that all Australians—regardless of heritage—should be free from discrimination. But we must contextualize hostility toward Anglo-Celtic Australians: some of it is ideological, some opportunistic, and much of it is baked into the bureaucratic language of "equity" and "inclusion." Some is actively encouraged by those who claim to speak for “multicultural Australia.”
The publication of a plan to support the Anglo-Celtic community would be a critical cultural recalibration. If other groups are permitted to monitor media, demand ideological conformity from universities, and enforce codes of identity-based grievance, then Anglo-Celtic Australians deserve equal standing. The rules must be the same for everyone.
Let’s take a specific example: the IHRA definition of antisemitism has been pushed as a legally and institutionally binding framework, including in schools and the public service. If this definition, which links criticism of Israel with antisemitism, is to be accepted as law, then similar definitions must be created to identify and prosecute anti-Anglo-Celtic bias: from the casual academic sneer about “colonizers,” to the boardroom laugh at “Boomers,” to taxpayer-funded initiatives that openly aim to “decolonize” Anglo heritage.
The current regime is guilty of selective overreach. No equivalent envoy or office exists to protect Anglo-Australians, despite ample evidence of bias. No publicly funded body exists to monitor negative stereotypes, ensure fair cultural representation, or challenge art that portrays Australia’s founding stock as a national embarrassment.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting against hate speech, racial vilification, and incitement already exists. But these laws are unevenly enforced. Media outlets have been sued for publishing racial caricatures of minorities—but not for mocking Anglo-Celtic Australians as drunks, racists, or relics. Let there be consistency.
Educating future generations about Australia’s civilizational heritage—its common law tradition, Westminster institutions, and Christian ethical framework—should be as high a priority as Holocaust education or the study of British settlement. Every year, schoolchildren read Anne Frank. That’s as it should be. But how many read Burke, Wentworth, Deakin, or Parkes?
If the special envoy for the Anglo-Celtic community were to nominate “trusted voices” to respond to defamation and misrepresentation of this group, there would be outrage. But such lists already exist in the media when it comes to other groups. The current media ecosystem tolerates no satirical jabs at activist orthodoxy—but openly derides the suburban dad with a Southern Cross tattoo.
Universities must be put on notice: you do not get to pretend one cultural group is uniquely pathological and another uniquely innocent. If the IHRA definition is to be enforced in university speech codes, so too should a working definition of anti-Australian bias. Public institutions must choose: either they endorse equal protection, or they admit to being ideologically captured.
Likewise, arts organizations should not face ideological litmus tests from any single ethnic lobby. The proposal for a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council to advise the Minister is fine—so long as it’s matched by one for Anglo-Celtic Australians, and funded in proportion to the relative population size. Anything less would be divisive and discriminatory.
The glaring omission in nearly all anti-racism plans is the hostility toward our core national identity itself—as if Anglo-Celtic Australians can be reduced to the political actions of 19th-century governors or 20th-century immigration laws. Younger Australians, ironically, are often more aware of this hypocrisy. They see the uncritical celebration of all non-Western cultures and the relentless denigration of their own and respond with quiet resentment. It is a legitimate grievance that will eventually explode justifiably into full-throated nationalism unless addressed and atoned for.
Young Australians are told to be “inclusive,” but their culture isn’t included. The hypocrisy is glaring, and has the real potential to be repaid many times over at a future date due in revanchist nationalist fervor. It already underpins a wholesale loss of trust in our institutions, once lost, trust is extremely difficult to regain. Our hypocritical elites have already set in train forces that will shake the foundations of their institutions.
If the Jewish community wants equal protection, it must also accept equal accountability. If it demands legal tools to defend its dignity, it must accept that Anglo-Australians deserve the same. The law cannot play favorites. After all, ethnic favoritism is the anti-thesis of rule of law that marks out Anglo jurisdictions globally as exceptional. It is that very same fairness that has allowed Jewish communities to thrive in the English-speaking world, free of the historical constraints imposed on them by most Continental European countries.
Because once you abandon equality before the law, what you’re building is not inclusion—but a hierarchy of grievance, enforced by bureaucracy and applauded by those already at the top. A regime that deserves to be torn down.
Really