Recent discussion has led me to start on a post I’ve been meaning to do asking the question: to what extent are the major parties and their leaders responsible for the resurgence of racial and religious prejudice in Australia, as represented by Pauline Hanson and the treatment of asylum seekers.
Starting with Paul Keating, I think his opportunistic self-reinvention after 1993, as a promoter of various progressive causes in which he had previously shown almost no interest was immensely damaging to those causes, and most particularly to the idea of a tolerant, multicultural Australia. As far as I can recall, Keating’s government didn’t actually introduce any startling innovations in multicultural policy, let alone attempt to reconstruct Australia in some sort of radical fashion. Rather, Keating tied the longstanding bipartisan support for a generally positive attitude to migration and cultural plurality into his general rhetorical stance, in which anyone who opposed either radical economic reform or his cultural agenda was a troglodyte throwback to the 1950s, supporter of White Australia and so on. Although this kind of link had been made previously by people like Paul Kelly and Gerard Henderson, Keating dramatised it skilfully. The end result, however, was not to boost his popularity but to transfer his existing unpopularity (primarily due to his economic policies and general arrogance) to the causes he had suddenly espoused.
There’s an obvious sense in which Pauline Hanson was the mirror-image of (post-93) Keating, opposed to both economic reform and migration. Her appeal undoubtedly owed a lot to the feeling that people were being ignored and overridden by the ‘elites’ of which Keating was the paradigmatic representative. But she would not have got so far if it were not for the promotion and encouragement she got from John Howard. Whenever, it has appeared possible to ride a wave of prejudice in Australia, Howard has sought to do so, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. He tried and failed in the 1980s, during the wave of criticism of immigration policy led by Geoffrey Blainey and Katherine West. He tried again with Hanson, initially with some success, but ultimately with disastrous impacts on his own allies in the National Party, who have never recovered from this episode.
Finally, of course, he succeeded brilliantly with Tampa. As I’ve argued previously, the crucial element in his success was the combination of racial/religious prejudice and law and order (the asylum seekers as queue-jumpers)[1]. This enabled what would otherwise have been recognised as overt racism and plain lies (most obviously in the ‘children overboard’ incident) to be coded as appeals to decency.
I haven’t yet mentioned Kim Beazley, who was Labor leader for most of this period. As with most other issues, his contribution was precisely equal to zero. By comparison with the efforts of Keating and Howard, I suppose that’s not such a bad score
fn1. This was combined with the fortuitous impact of the Bilal Skaf rape gang in Sydney, and the initial failure of the judiciary to hand down remotely adequate sentences
John Quiggin 
I think a fair bit of the anti-immigration sentiment was due to the perception that, under Hawke, immigration policy was getting out of hand in terms of dependence on family intakes and by the accurate perception that both immigration policy and the Labor Party’s endorsement of multiculturalism was driven by its desire to stitch up the ethnic vote in the cities. This is well-discussed in the Gruen/Grattan book. It really was a disgraceful episode — our immigration policy being driven by the political needs of the ALP.
People fear change particularly with respect to the composition of populations occupying their homeland. My feeling is that Asian migrants became more visible (or perhaps our vision was focused on them by the writings of Blainey) and that the change caused discomfit in working class Australia. Keating poured fuel on the fire by talking about Australia being part of Asia and so on, which a lot of people disliked. You can say Howard exploited this sense of outrage.
I also think (and wonder if poll evidence supports it) that the pressure is now off and the sense of change has finished. The sensitivity isn’t there or isn’t there so strongly.
What about the resurgence of prejudice as represented by Margo Kingston?
I agree with your conclusion John, but not the analysis that leads to it. In particular, I don’t think your characterisation of the Keating government is fair – the “general rhetorical stance” you describe is way overstated (hard to find actual evidence of it in the speeches and media releases of the time), nor do I think he was as linked to so-called “elites” as the right wing rhetoric (David Flint, John Howard et. al.) would have it. It is an interesting perspective on how well these right wingers have rewritten the Keating period. IMHO, history will show (particularly when China replaces the USA as the world superpower later this century) that greater engagement with Asia as advocated by Keating – and comprehensively and popularly repudiated by Howard – was clearly what was in Australia’s best interests. The unfortunate issue for Australia is that we have a deep vein of racism, and racism directed towards Asia in particular (you only have to read back through a century and a half of Bulletin magazines to demonstrate this). In this light, the Keating appeal to Asia aroused the underlying anti-Asian feeling. By the same token, consider whether the Tampa incident would have been handled the same way – and been such an election winner – if it had been for example white Zimbabwean farmers on the boat.
and what about how philip adams is fat? and how that turkey was actually real?
Stephen, I can’t see how it can be denied the Keating was and is part of the elite, that is, the relatively small subset of the population within which power and influence are heavily concentrated. The dishonesty is in the use of this tag by members of the elite like Howard and Flint to abuse people who don’t have any of the power or privilege that characterises an elite.
Name names, John. Who are the people abused as elite by Howard and Flint who don’t have any power or privilege?
Gerard Henderson does the necessary demolition here , and here’s Flint himself making it clear that you’re a member of the elite if and only if you hold the wrong sorts of views. Anyone who agrees with Flint is by definition non-elite.
What a terrible post. There has been no “resurgence of racial or religious prejudice” in Australia. Just because you guys didn’t get the result you wanted at the last three elections doesn’t mean that the country is full of racists.
Have you ever considered the possibility that objections to family-based immigration and economic migrants posing as asylum seekers may have a basis in something OTHER than racism? Like good sense, for example?
Whenever the left talks about the asylum seeker issue, it’s always couched in terms of racism and bigotry. The fact that most boat people are not genuine asylum seekers is never mentioned.
These people came from Indonesia and Malaysia, and in all these debates Ive never seen anyone explain to me why they couldn’t apply for asylum in those countries, or at least to the Australian embassy there, rather than try to sneak in.
No, no, we’re just all horrible racists. In fact, everyone in the world who is not a left-leaning academic is a racist. They must be, what other reason could they possibly have for voting for Howard?
The Hanson/Howard combination,one using the initial spadework of the other to build upon…created a situation just like those in Austria,France and now in Britain,where people like Le Pen,Haider and the fascist bullies of the BNP used racism to appeal to those sections of society with a variety of grievances against society ,often arising from the side-effects of globalization.Howard is a skilled practitioner of this snide rascist/divise tactic,whilst appearing to be a cleanskin…though he was able to tap into a deep zenophobic streat in some Australians,and this was added to by the tideof Islamophobia which has been rising in recent years.
Pr Q’s commentary wanders out of our universe into another aspect of the multiverse where every political thing is the opposite of ours.
In 22 short words Pr Q manages to get as wrong as it is possible to get on this issue.
This would be the same “John Howard” leader of the Liberal Party that disendorsed Hanson for inflammatory racial statements?
And the same “John Howard” whose Machiavellian manipulation of civic and migration issues stole the style of her politics whilst preserving the substance of post-White Australia policy.
And this “John Howard” character that Pr Q so loves to bag, would he be the chap whose legal tactics practically destroyed One Nation as an organised political entity, as well as putting Ms Hanson behind bars and destroying her political career?
If this “John Howard” is an example of a Hansonite friend, then the Po-Mo, Multi-Culti, Pee-Cee, Identiy-Politicians are out of a job as her enemies.
It is perhaps fortunate for Ozblogistan that, in this “John Howard”-bashing post, Pr Q is taking a blog-busmans holiday to an alternative universe or else we would have to conclude that Pr Q is psychologically incapable of being fair-minded about our universes version of the that being.
Pr Q seems to live in some kind of liberal-left media cocoon getting false positives on the presence of bigoted behaviour in Australia and false negatives on the flaws in, so-called, “progressive” policy outcomes.
The early-to-mid nineties were a wake up call to financial and cultural elites. But Pr Q, like so many in the elites, is in a cranky we-wuz-robbed mood since his pet theories of cultural progress failed the acid test of mass political reality. So he blames it on Keatings ineptness and Howards iniquity.
Democracies can be fooled for a little while, but sea-changes in political opinion occur because of bitter experience, not manipulation.
The masses rejected Hewsons Eco-Rat revolution in 1993 just before for the same reason they rejected Keatings Pee-Cee cultural revolution in 1996: these ideological policies failed to get results that helped the majority of the nation and hurt minorities they were meant to help.
Eco-Rat got ditched by the electorate because they had had a gutful of free-market which had enriched the financial elites, whilst the masses had to work longer hours for the same pay with less security.
Same deal with Pee-Cee. The electorate was sick of seeing “progressive” issues (Republic, Reconciliation, Assylum-seekers) hijacked by empire building bureaucrats and apparat wielding ideologues whilst no real progress was made.
Pr Q charge that there was a resurgence of “racism” and “sectarianism” in Australia during the nineties is fact-free and apparently false. In fact, majority Australian anti-minority attitudes and actions were weaker then than at any other time. Through the nineties in NSW, reports of majority racism against minorities recorded an absolute decline, from 1212 in 1989-90 to 1124 in 1989-99. This occurred whilst Australia’s NESB ratio,and the whole population, increased.
The worst, non-minority-sourced, sectarian remarks came from the Margop Kingstonite-Left, railing against Zionist conspiracies. One Nation rose and then was, by the Right of Centre parties, destroyed.
There was a fairly significant uptick in race hate crimes but they appeared to be going in the minority-to-majority direction. Such sectarian activity, eg synagogue vandalism, as did occur came, not from skinheads in the National Front, but from, how shall I put it, sources dear to the hearts and remuneration packages of the multi-culti industry.
The bitter truth, so hard to swallow, is that the Cultural Left (to which Pr Q has given a life-time free-pass) beloved “progressive” agenda made the less-advantaged, and the cause of progressive society, go backwards during the nineties. The net result: the neo-Bourbon Republicans shot themselves in the foot, Aboriginals sank deeper into welfare state dependency and lax migration policies allowed some unsuitable persons into the country which caused social pathologies to emerge in certain suburbs.
There was an inevitable mass political back-lash. Pr Q wants the easy way out: blame “Bad King John” for misguiding the Rednecks et al. This wont wash. Cultural Leftists should own up to the error of their ways, take a deep look at what went wrong and, instead of blaming the stars in the political firmanent, take heed of Cassius advice to Brutus:
Ah this takes me back! A good old ‘John Howard – anti-elitist or racist?’ blog clash.
All those so quick to defend Howard should note that JQ’s post is a more detailed criticism of Paul Keating than John Howard. Nowhere does he say that Australians who voted for Howard are racists, nor does he say that Howard IS a racist. But only those trapped in a Right-wing Death Beast blog cocoon could possibly argue that race prejudice didn’t return to political centre stage in the late 1990s. Sure, Australia didn’t become Nazi Germany, no-one said that it did. But Australia stepped back from being a state for all its citizens into being a state for all it white christian citizens. Those who suggested otherwise were ‘elites’.
John, you’re right about Howard, of course, but has he really made an enduring difference? Interesting that the other day the NAB, that bastion of the Melbourne Establishment, appointed a senior executive who, by the looks of him and judging by his name, has got more than a touch of the tar brush about him.
Good for them. 10 years ago, it wouldn’t have happened.
Can someone please explain how economic and social factors always seem to translate into “racism” and “xenophobia”? Can’t people simply oppose excessive levels of Asian immigration or the entry of asylum seekers on purely sensible grounds? Why are people always portrayed as having been “duped” by politicians like Hanson and Howard into focusing their anger on immigrants?
Confused, perhaps if you could present an argument explaining how the economic effects of “Asian immigration” differ from the effects of immigration in general (bearing in mind that that migrants from different Asian countries have very different profiles in terms of skills, English competency and other potentially relevant characteristics) I would be willing to take your comment seriously.
Jack says
How, exactly, do you adopt the style of Pauline Hanson, without appealing to racial and religious prejudice?
As regards substance, I imagine Messrs Al-Kateb and Al Khafaji might have a different view – or is their indefinite imprisonment just part of the Machiavellian act?
Yobbo, are you seriously claiming that Pauline Hanson did not appeal to racial prejudice?
Or are you saying that the subsequent refugee “crisis” was an entirely unrelated episode?
I think you’ve misunderstood me. What I meant to know was how come high levels of support for Hanson and Howard’s policies are often put down as having their basis in other factors like unemployment, and that these people have instead focused their anger and frustration on immigration? How does this work?
Jack, If we are to use code words like “Eco Rat” and “Pee Cee” revolution, I would argue that the masses went cold on the “Keating Eco Rat revolution” at some time in the mid-1980s. They continued to return Labor governments because in successive elections Howard, Peacock and Hewson offered more overtly radical versions of the “Eco Rat revolution”, without the residual social democratic elements of the Hawke/Keating period. The most important of these elements were Medicare, environmental protection, social welfare policies which protected the very poorest, and a gradual and regulated shift from centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining with union involvement rather than radical deregulation and deunionisation. By 1996 the Coalition had learned the art of not frightening the horses, and had also learned from the Queensland Coalition’s successful “put Labor under pressure” strategy in the 1995 State election. None of us expected the Howard government to be as right-wing as it has been.
Getting back to the issue of attitudes to race, I haven’t thought deeply or in detail about whether or not Labor in government handled public perceptions of engagement with Asia and Asian immigration well or badly. However, studies by Murray Goot show that it is clear that by 1996 public attitudes on “race issues” were considerably to the right of the attitudes of candidates from both major parties. Clearly Federal Labor hadn’t taken the broader public with it – the question is, why not?
On indigenous issues, I would argue that the following happened:
1. Some State Labor governments (notably in WA and Queensland) took an antagonistic stance towards Aboriginal land claims in the 1980s and early 1990s, and succeeded in spooking the Federal Labor Government into soft-pedalling on this issue. This sent a partisan cue to traditionally pro-Labor constituencies (especially in QLD and WA) that Aboriginal aspirations weren’t really legitimate.
2. In 1992-93, the combination of the High Court’s Mabo judgement, and the ability of the Senate to insist on a legislative outcome which basically codified Mabo, produced “the reconciliation we had to have”.
3. However, Keating did not subsequently sell the Native Title legislation as “the reconcilation we had to have” which conserved rather than expanded Aboriginal rights, but rhetorically parleyed it as a huge and groundbreaking reform in which he and Labor were the heroes, and anyone who was not entirely on side was a villain. This rhetorical stance went down badly with those socially conservative Labor-identifying people who had previously been given the partisan cue that indigenous land aspirations weren’t legitimate and were potentially economically threatening.
Finally, as far as 1996 is concerned, I think more attention needs to be given to why suburban Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney did not see quite the same collapse of blue-collar support for Labor as we saw in Brisbane, Perth and regional centres.
I think some people who play on race do so without intention. John assumes it’s intentional while Hanson assumes it has nothing to do with race. That’s why they can’t even understand where the other person is coming from.
We have not been getting more racist and that’s an absurd statement. There has always been One Nation voters out there… but before Pauline there just wasn’t a “One Nation”. If anything, it is the drift away from racism generally that has made the racists more isolated and more in need of a new alternative – such as One Nation.
the economically marginal groups in society are always the most racist and prejudiced, and the most ready to don the blackshirts. this is a simple fact of human nature and why some sort of welfare state net is a guarantor of social stability in an inevitably volatile capitalist system. Keating can only be blamed for any ‘resurgence’ insofar as the necessary economic reforms he instigated unleashed the forces of creative destruction in that period.
Pr Q, in his never ending quest to bag the liberator of the socialist republic of Asian-ethnic East Timor, focuses on trivial issues, produces lame arguments and ignores the 800 lb anti-racist gorilla that Howard brought to heel in the middle of every Australian living room.
On Howard’s racist style: Pr Q’s charge is old-hat and out of date. Howard has changed his tune since the Bad Old Days of his 1980s anti-Asian immigration freak. The Tampa-phobia was a one-off election stunt that destroyed One Nation’s political form without accepting its policy substance. Howard now publicly affirms the virtues of a multi-ethnic Australia.
It is the Cultural Left (Pr Q excluded) that still resorts to whipping up race anatgonism with its endless playing of the race card (Tickner’s “racist! racist!” slur) against anyone who criticises its divisive agenda.
On Howards racist and sectarian substance: Pr Q’s charge is significant fact-free and wrong. I acknowledge, and regret, that Coalition ethno-phobia may still play a part in the continued persecution of assylum-seekers suffering punitive detention orders. But the numbers are in negligible and against trend.
In the Cultural Left’s alternative universe Howard’s policies have driven back to the ethnophobic White Australia 1950s. In the actual universe that Australia lived in during the nineties, which Howard’s policies helped create, there has been a large increase in Australia’s racial and religious diversity.
In a democracy, the final verdict on Howard’s effect on Australia’s level of pluralism and decency is with public opinion. Howards cross-wired ethnic politics/civic policies have restored public faith in a race-neutral alien intake program that Cultural Left rorts and follies had almost destroyed. The public opinion results speak for themselves.
So the working-class are always the “most ready” to don the blackshirts? Funny, I don’t recall Hitler, Mussolini or Franco ever receiving much support outside of the middle-class, the aristocracy or the right-wing industrialists. As for your assertion that they are “always the most racist and prejudiced” is proof of how “civilised” and “educated” people have always, and will always look down on the working-class like the snobs they are.
Steve is right on this. It’s not the working classes who have latent fascist tendencies. It is the lumpenproletariat lower middle classes.
I hope people won’t mind if I place a bit of ‘myself’in this discussion. I came from Italy in 1974, right in the middle of the Withlam era. I knew little about Australia. But I wanted to know more about my new country. I read about 1788 etc. But I also heard from the Italian migrants who came in the 1950’s about how it was hard settling in Australia. How the society was generally wary about ‘non-anglo’ migrants. But immediately they said how this was changing. I may be wrong, but I suspect that it was Withlam and Grassby who initiated the change towards viewing Australia not solely through a anglo prism.
Fraser to his enormous credit took the ball and took it even further. I can see now how Ian McPhee was undoubtedly one of the best Ethnic Affairs Australia ever had. There was true bi-partisan spirit. The first boat people arrived but the matter was handled sensibly and without whipping up hysteria. Fraser even instituded an amnesty! So illegal migrants could be permitted to be within the law (do you see Howard doing that now?). In school I read about the White Australia Policy, about Aborigines being placed into reserves, but I knew that this was only the past. That Australia had changed, that its people welcomed people from different cultures. That the xenophobic streak was over. Of course you had loopy groups like ‘Australians against further immigration’ which were on the par with the flat earth society.
I was such an enthusiastic new member of the Australian community (which I repeated at nauseam every time I visited Italy). The 80’s were such a vibrant exciting time to be in Australia. We were getting noticed and I think that we were getting a good reputation in the world. Our movies and music were all over the place!
Then John Howard mentioned ‘Asian immigration’ as an issue in an election during this decade. He was howled down and lost badly. I knew then that Australia was changed forever, the fear of Asia of the foreign born was truly consigned to the dustbin of history.
This feeling remained even when Howard became Prime Minister. Australia was so radically changed he could not change it.
The 2000 Olympics were not only one of the best organised Olympics but a celebration of a open and diverse society.
Then in 2001, we went into this vortex: 9/11, the media hysteria about the sexual assaults in Sydney, and the clincher: TAMPA.
It was not blatant xenophobia that I saw in many Australians. Because I am still fundementally convinced that the vast majority of Australians is not racist. It was fear. That fear that I did not recognise it is so ingrained into the Australian psyche. The fact that we are a Anglo/European culture so far away from our points of reference (Britain/USA). I believe that it is a fear which started with the first fleet. Bali again streghtened the fear. We are confronted by the ‘arc of instability’. It is dangerous out there. Refugees which are not strictly invited by us are potentially dangerous, who are they? Let’s lock them up.
And of course we need a protector. We were always close to the USA but now in this uncertain world we need to ingratiate ourselves to this superpower. Let’s go to war with them, lets tie our economy to theirs.
I distinctly felt such a sharp change in the mood of the country since 2001. Australia will remain my country, but that spirit of progress, of achievement has dimmed, and with it my optimism about the future of Australia.
I doubt whether a Latham government will be any different on this matter. Maybe I was fortunate to arrive at one of the extraordinary times in Australian history, and where I am now is sort of back to normal.
I think Howard is a racist but even more so he is a ‘culturalist’,that is, he believes in the superiority of Anglo-Protestantism as a culture. Therefore, if a non WASP espouses/immerses in the anglo-protestant ethic, thats good enough, at least politically, for Howard.
This makes it difficult to tar him with the racist brush.
But, say the attacks on Howard were to focus on this ‘culturalism’?
To a large extent it wouldn’t make sense because the accusers on the left are themselves, culturally “anglo=protestant”!!!!
While the economic thread may have some traction, this could have corresponded with another broader thread.
Post WW11 there was the rising awareness of imperialism and with this rise would come the inevitable overswing of the pendulum of blame for Western liberal democracies. Its most forceful impetus would be felt with the loss of face and will in Vietnam, which really started as a conflict against French colonial power, but eventually became muddied by Cold War politics. The apparent victory for Communism/freedom over cultural and economic imperialism of the West(symbolised by the US), would be short-lived with USSR’s similar failure in Afghanistan and eventually the fall of Communism itself. Withdrawal from Vietnam would provide a fillip for those elites who wished to denigrate the US and by inference Western liberal ideals. Welcome to the blame game and much self analysis and self-loathing, a pendulum which would inevitably swing too far and for too long. Eventually the blamers would go too far, as we would have to accept graciously the superiority of the Mugabes, while we had supported the proper dismantling of Aparthied. All cultures were now equal, but some were to be more equal than others, or if they weren’t, it was our fault. Welcome to the new black armband of history, for which we all had to say sorry or else. Sorry Mr Mahatir and others like him, irrespective of the issues. Australians in particular had to know their place now, as the poor white trash of Asia and repent accordingly. We had to listen to the Arafats, Ghaddaffis and Saddams as equals now.
What wasn’t apparent immediately throughout this was the fall of Communism, as a salutary lesson that not all philosophies and their cultural expression were equal. Freed from the unpleasantries of Cold War expediency, the West could be more circumspect about its own behaviour, its successes and shortcomings. It had proved a major point to itself although the blame pendulum was still swinging. With Sept11 that pendulum and those who pushed it, would come to an abrupt halt.
Of course now the blamers wish to point to my countrymen’s Islamophobia. Now phobia is of course an irrational or unwarranted fear of something. The accused of course, observe Islam in contact with atheists in NY, Bhuddists in Bali, Judaeists in Israel, Christians in Kosovo, Hindus in Kashmir, Russian Orthodoxy in Chechnya and now tribal Africans in Sudan. We in the West should naturally be the usual phobic suspects in all of this. Now I can’t understand why lots of my countrymen don’t see their inadequacy so clearly. Can you?
Both sides of the debate seem to be missing the point somewhat. The argument that racism is somehow a cultural leftist fantasy might have had some substance prior to the children overboard disgrace but it no longer flys. It is one thing to question immigration policy or question whether anyone who makes it by boat to Australia should be allowed to stay, it is another altogether to demonise desperate people and have no sympathy for their plight. The hostility generated towards these people by large sections of the community who are lucky enough to live in the most liveable country on earth was simply sickening.
On the other hand, many multiculturalists or multicultists have contributed to the problem by their double standards. The same people who rightly get outraged when Christian groups attempt to ban (albeit often dubious) works of art such as PissChrist (made with the artists own urine) or Monty Pythons brilliant piss take the Life of Brian, are quick to criticise even the mildest criticisms of Muslim and other minorities groups etc. Can one imagine anyone today making a movie entitled the Life of Mohammed or Piss Mohammed for that matter? If it is OK for Muslims and other religious people to criticise secular society and atheists such as myself without facing death threats it should be OK for secularists and atheists to criticise religion without facing death threats(especially given that unlike evolution theory it has no basis in fact).
In being quick to criticise mainstream society Multicultists also ignore the fact that many minority groups are simply far more racist and sexist than the mainstream populations of western societies – a fact not lost on even the dumbest listeners of talkback radio. For example, three years ago I was in a hospitable bed in Manchester next to a very friendly Pakistani guy for three days. He was also there to donate a bone marrow to his brother. Given that the ward served halal food, I expressed some surprise that his young sister travelled (with her three young kids) twice a day to bring him cooked food. He actually replied that ‘the deal is that she has no social life and marries who we tell her but that we look after her in return’. When he found out that my wife was Asian, he expressed the view that this was good as western women were mostly sluts. I would suggest that it is mainly appalling views such as these and not British racism that has prevented Pakistanis from integrating more into British society.
In Australia and other western countries it would also help if far more so-called mainstream Muslims were more honest and vocal about the evils done in the cause of Islam and stopped blaming western societies or, at least, Israel for the appalling mess their own societies are in and the backwardness of many Muslim communities in the west. I also don’t think the initial refusal of sections of the bureaucracy and media to recognise that Lebanese crime and violence was a major problem in Sydney helped their credibility .
Michael, since we so often disagree let me stress my agreement with you on most of this, particularly your first para, but I don’t find much to disagree with in the rest of your comment.
These people came from Indonesia and Malaysia, and in all these debates Ive never seen anyone explain to me why they couldn’t apply for asylum in those countries, or at least to the Australian embassy there, rather than try to sneak in.
neither indonesia nor malaysia is a party to the refugee convention, and thus one cannot apply to them for asylum under that convention. non-signatories are under no obligation to hear claims for asylum, indeed, they need not even help an asylum seeker reach a signatory. such countries can [and in the case of indonesia and malaysia, often do] deport or imprison even geniune refugees. asylum seekers who stay there run this risk.
also, there’s the fact that [obviously] most people would rather live in australia irrespective. but still.
Actually I’m sure that it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that unlike Australia Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. It makes me wonder whether there is some wilful deafness at play but you have to wonder why people in Australia with all its wealth expect so much of much poorer countries….
Over here in the wild west,van tongeren and graham campbell were singing from the same songbook until a few weeks ago.
Now jack is in jail and campbell is silent-thank christ.
We can do without people who hate the chinese
in this resource rich state.
snuh, sp, try to pay attention.
No one said that those muslim countries were signatories of the UN Convention on Refugees. But as Muslim countries, their religion trumps any Convention. They are obliged under their religion, which is more powerful by a magnitude of ten to look after the people of the Ummah (Source Koran)
They will burn in hell if they send their co-religionist to Dar Al Harb, Australia (the Dominion of War where they must kill any infidel who refuses to convert to islam or pay the tax (jizya?)
So what to do?
The Koran says that all Indonesians and Malaysians must be killed if they do that, which I think is a bit rich. However we should save them from the eternity of hell by sending all their co-religionist back to them, so that they can do the right thing in the eyes of Allah, and eventually enjoy their 72 raisins, if they ever decide to take up the glorious calling of a suicide martyr.
having paid attention, i have determined that reality and yourself are only tenuously connected. it remains a fact that both malaysia and indonesia have deported and imprisoned seekers of asylum [even muslim ones], koranic objections notwithstanding.
and here was I thinking that Indonesia and Malayasia had more than one religion and were sectarian states…
Tipper, that’s really absurd. I’m assuming this is satire. If not, for a start, the Islamic tradition indeed distinguishes between the Umma and the Dar al Hab but the consequences of this distinction are much more pacific in most of the tradition that you indicate. The greater Jihad, for instance, refers to conversion of oneself – it’s an inner process. There was a very good article in the Fin Review yesterday about the difficulties of translating the Qur’an and the misperceptions that have slipped into our understanding through older and biassed translations by Christian clerics. Maybe you should have a read of it.
You are well named,yobbo,for you are ignorant.
In fact most boat arrivals are classified as refugees,whether you like it or not.
As for naming names of those alleged elites-me,me,me.
Howard just before the war started calling us dissenters-“the mob”.
Hanson certainly let the racists out of the closet,welcomed by howard at the time as the death of political correctness.
Of course he now applied his own version of political correctness,and anyone who had an opposing view was either a member of the elite or the mob.
Shame,australia,shame.The land of the fair go has gone.
sp
Do you mean secular states, or was that just a slip of the tongue in a Fraudian sense.?
Mark Bahnisch
I wish it was satire
“The collapse of the Soviet Union followed this same path. It is ominous, I think. That is to say that there likewise was an overreliance on employing capital as a factor of production at the expense of investing in a quality labour force. They didn’t invest enough in their people, and they figured it out too late – Gorbachev’s
reforms were part of the attempts to remedy it, but it was too little too late. Same thing is happening in the US, for example all this dumb-’em-down stuff of the so-called
Reagan conservatives and later is creating a nation of trailer-park trash that is completely
unemployable. And unemployed people don’t buy stuff – in fact they eventually vote to
confiscate the property of the elites if left to do so. The interesting part is how they are
going to anticipate this and try to pre-empt it. Keeping a focus on inflation appears to be
part of that strategy.” Hugh Whinfrey
Have the faithful Australian dogs – of both/all parties – and individual “leaders”, Hawke, Keating, Howard – led us along a path to self-destruction, slavishly following a society – the American society of the last 20 to 30 years – headed for “shipwreck”?
Do you mean secular states, or was that just a slip of the tongue in a Fraudian sense.?
do you mean freudian sense, or was that just the best witticism you could come up with?
Tipper, yeah, but I’m taking issue with the implicit suggestion in your comment that all Muslims would share these sentiments. I could find similarly over the top and distasteful websites from fundamentalist Christians expressing violent and hateful views.
Mark Bahnisch
These are not fundamentalist, they are the true voice of Islam. If they are not, you will no doubt be able to link me to a ” mainstream moderate” site which rejects those stinking, homicidal, supremacist values.
snuh opined in an odious manner:
“it remains a fact that both malaysia and indonesia have deported and imprisoned seekers of asylum [even muslim ones], koranic objections notwithstanding.”
Now I love facts. So would you care to point out some of those “facts” for me, where they have deported muslims to non muslim countries, so that I can change my mind.
However I won’t be holding my breath, waiting.
Marklathanm, it’s a bit rich to call me ignorant when you haven’t even worked out the concept of hyperlinking. If you had, you would have gone to the Australian Government website which says that people may apply for asylum at any Australian consulate.
So, I’ll repeat with a clarification for the web-illiterate. The people who come here on boats from Malaysia or Indonesia could have applied for asylum at the Australian consulate in Malaysia or Indonesia. For some reason they decided instead to try and circumvent the process by sneaking in to the country. This is what all we Howard voting racists disagree with.
Tipper, so you’re suggesting that all 1.2 billion Muslims in the world would agree with the statements made on that website? If I were to assert that all Catholics agree with some statement I found on an integrist and anti-Semitic Catholic website, would you believe me? Aside from what you have gleaned from your website, what other steps have you taken to inform yourself about Islam? Can’t you see that you’re reproducing the prejudice that you claim Muslims hold about the West? Anyway, in answer to your request, try reading this article by Edward Said. And since Said, sadly now deceased was a Palestinian Christian reknowned for his scholarship on Western attitudes towards the Middle East (and a Professor at Columbia University in NYC) and you asked for a webpage maintained by an Islamic source, you might like to read this, and I’d recommend you continue exploring the site. Following up the links from this google search should also give you some relevant reading matter.
And as I understand it, snuh is correct about Indonesia and Malaysia not being signatories to the refugee convention. This was a real issue with the Tampa, as you may recall – the reason why the refugees on that ship didn’t want to go to an Indonesian port.
The real thing I object to in your comment is your assumption that everyone in the world who is Islamic holds the same views. With respect, this “logic” leads to prejudice. Islam is an incredibly diverse faith, just like Christianity. Aside from the differences between Sunnis and Shias, there are also innumerable other religious differences, and Islam also manifests itself differently according to ethnic and national cleavages. Incidentally, the brand of Islam favoured by Usama bin Laden – Wahabbism – is the same one supported by the Saudi royal family – those close allies of the Bush family. Part of the problem with the spread of Al-Qaeda’s ideas was the use of Saudi government funds to establish and takeover mosques in Western countries. Another example of blowback, one might argue.
“Good for them. 10 years ago, it wouldn’t have happened.”
Of course not, Dave. He was only 27 then. Needed a bit more mileage, part of which he was getting in the financial world ten years ago.
Another typically stupid Ricardo faux pas!
Tipper is confusing the use of religion to justify “stinkig homicidal supremicst values” with religion itself. Anyone who cares to, can do the same thing with Christianity or Judaism or probably any other faith, unfortunately.
Tipper seems to doubt the existence of any moderate Muslim points of view. Perhaps this is a case of not finding what you don’t look for.
If Tipper is really interested in doing something other than making broad negative generalisations, he could always try reading – Akbar Ahmeds’ “Discovering Islam”, might be helpful.
PQ’s contention that Keating (and others) had a role to play in increasing prejudice is tempting. It was always tempting to disagree with Keating just for the sake of it. His unfortunate habit of wanting to rub his opponents nose in it, was gratifying I’m sure, but not at all conducive to harmony.
That said, Keatings’ rise coincided with a low point in the net migration flow. I think it was ’93 that saw one of the lowest net migration figures since the mid-70’s. The other interesting trend was that it was the mid-90’s that saw the number of British-born Australians fall to the lowest ever level as a percentage of the total overseas born population, and the percentage of overseas born Australians rise to its’ highest level since 1900.
But, I think Australians have never quite got over the fear of the “yellow peril”. There has been great progress, but with prejudice, all it takes is a concerted effort to appeal to peoples’ fears, simplification of the issues to a nonsense and a bit of inflammatory language. A bit like baking a cake – apply enough heat and it will start to rise.
Jack mentioned some results from a survey done by DIMIA. Keeping in mind the usual caution about opinion poll results, they are interesting. They apparently record an increase, from 35%(in 1996) to 65% now, of people saying migration is a positive.
Given that the overall rates of immigration haven’t changed that much from ’96 to now, how much of that change could be explained by the absence of an opposition utilising the issue of immigration to attack the government of the day?
Tipper that article Mark referred to in the Fin Review is available on the internet. See Islam’s sacred text lost in translation.
I find that articles in the Review section that are reprinted from other sources often are.
Overall, I think MH could be on the right track, although I take some issue with this statement:
“Tipper is confusing the use of religion to justify “stinkig homicidal supremicst values” with religion itself. Anyone who cares to, can do the same thing with Christianity or Judaism or probably any other faith, unfortunately.”
I’m not really sure where you can support this. The closest you get is Christ’s caution to Peter that “those who live by the sword die by the sword”, even though this was after Peter cut the guard’s ear off! Indeed, I’d have trouble justifying Christians becoming police officers or perhaps even public officials, if the Sermon on the Mount (which of course takes the traditions of the prophets and then amends them) is to be obeyed.
I don’t think a Christian is allowed the right of self-defense, assuming the Gospels are the most important books to follow!