Andrew Robb is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and here are some excerpts from his interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday programme.
Strong use of the dogwhistle to start:
ANDREW ROBB: The thing is, Laurie, Australian citizenship is a privilege. In a sense, it gives us our identity. It tells us who we are, where we fit in the world. It is a unifying force in Australia, and if we give it away like confetti, it’s not valued.
A convincing run through the common sense straight:
LAURIE OAKES: What level of English will be required? For example I know there is a basic level required already, isn’t there?
ANDREW ROBB: There is, but it is very subjective assessment really of the English skills. [...] the level of English should be struck at a point where people can successfully hold down a job – talk to their workmates in the workplace, read the safety signs, fill out a form. Someone who can comfortably hold down a job and move comfortably within the community. So it’s not a university level of English. It’s a common sense approach over a level of English.
And a fine leap over the anti-intellectualism hurdle:
LAURIE OAKES: They won’t have to read Patrick White?
ANDREW ROBB: No they won’t have to read Patrick White.
His trainers should be proud of his performance.
“They won’t have to read Patrick White?”
Thank “God” for that. That would be punishment.
An even great insult would be if they had to read Matthew Reilly.
Heh, heh, heh.
tigtog, have you ever had to conduct an important work task with someone who could barely speak English?
And why do you think there have been some serious prescribing and administering mistakes made in Sydney hospitals?
Well, I received my piece of confetti way back in ’86 after arriving, as a 4 year old, in Dec ’49 from Malta. Without my piece of confetti, I was conscripted in ’64, had been working and paying taxes from ’61 till now.
I must add, since Malta was part of the British Empire, we did not have to be Naturalized till some time in the 70′s. When I did apply for citizenship in ’86, there was no proof that I arrived in Australia. So, I had to sign a stat. dec. to say I arrived in 49 and which ship we landed in Australia (Castelle Felecia). Whalla, I then received my citizenship without much ceremony (did’nt need any, I already considered myself an Aussie).
So, as I understand it, under Robb’s “I’m-Making-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along” jig for unaccompanied dog whistle, we’ll have the following categories:
1. Pre-existing Australians
2. Australians certified to have passed an as-yet uncompiled test on “Australian Values” and a proficiency in shop-floor shitkickers’ English.
3. Those who have failed the above tests
4. Those who have declined to submit to the above tests
Some questions:
1. Haven’t most of the captured and killed British terrorists been second-generation, native-born Britons?
2. How does passing a test make one less likely to engage in illegal activities?
3. Will citizenship become a qualification for doing shitkicker jobs?
4. Besides not being allowed to vote, will law-abiding non-citizens be faced with additional legal penalties and constraints? Will any additional penalties and constraints be equally applied to (say) a permanent resident US citizen and a permanent resident Lebanese citizen?
Gulp, I’m not arguing against the idea that certain employments require a certain proficiency in English. However, is it compulsory for any employer to give a job to any Australian citizen with a certificate, whether they can speak English or not? I wasn’t aware that it was, so your argument is a strawman, as is Robb’s.
Many if not most immigrants to Australia can find work within their ethnic community without great proficiency in English, and their kids will speak English just fine. I went to school with many children of European immigrants – I could hardly hold a conversation with the parents of my two best friends, but that didn’t stop them from running a very successful small cafe and ensuring that their children gained a standard Australian English education (and go on to teaching your kids Australian history and English).
The immigrant citizens who wish to find (generally better-paying) work in the broad English-speaking community already have a huge incentive to learn English, and generally wish to do so. However, a major problem is that the ESL classes are massively underfunded, make no provisions for childcare or flexible class times for families where both parents are working, and generally can’t cope with demand now. Has anyone in the government even mentioned funding all the extra ESL classes that will be needed, or even fully funding the programmes that are meant to exist already?
Whose government cut the funding for ESL?
To be fair to Andrew Robb, he’s one of the only people at any level of Government these days even trying the dialogue ‘thing’. As I’ve said elsewhere, he’s just hamstrung by his choice of friends.
A common language amongst people who socialise together, in which they can share or dispute ideas, and a common set of basic standards about a standard of living are basic conditions of a mass democracy: there’s no getting around that. The thing is, though, that English nowadays is only one of many Australian languages.
What seems to have been forgotten since the late sixties and early seventies when politicians ‘discovered’ it the first time, is the existence of an enormous sphere in which non-English speakers can socialise together, and share and dispute ideas within democracy. English isn’t the only language of Australian democracy, or education, or even of work. Migrants do tend to organise themselves together, and it’s often very democratic indeed when it happens. Apart from any other institution, as an inner-city Melburnian, Robb should look to his newsstands and find a strong, vibrant, massively diverse ethnic and non-English media. Groups of immigrants who haven’t yet learned English, or for whatever reason (like being ninety years old) can’t, are hardly disadvantaged if they don’t want to be.
WPD, every Government since Menzies’ can have a bit of that glory.
“However, a major problem is that the ESL classes are massively underfunded, make no provisions for childcare or flexible class times for families where both parents are working, and generally can’t cope with demand now.”
Every migrant is currently guaranteed 510 hours of government-funded English language training. Entrants under the humanitarian program are provided with 900 and there’s no obvious evidence of unmet need.
I’m sure more flexible provision would be a good idea but I think it’s a furphy – albeit a politically expedient one – to focus entirely on a perceived lack of access.
One thing that many migrants point to is that English learning is maximised by “on-the-job immersion” be it work, school or life in general, so it’s always going to be a multisourced learning process.
I think the government proposal frames the citizenship language requirement between 18 and 60 so if you’re outside those benchmarks, I’m assuming that a language test for citizenship won’t arise.
Here’s the Second Reading Speech in advance.
“What seems to have been forgotten since the late sixties and early seventies when politicians ‘discovered’ it the first time, is the existence of an enormous sphere in which non-English speakers can socialise together, and share and dispute ideas within democracy. English isn’t the only language of Australian democracy, or education, or even of work. Migrants do tend to organise themselves together, and it’s often very democratic indeed when it happens.”
True Liam, but English is the language that ultimately allows people to fully access – and operate within – the Australian polity. Which is why, I guess, that there are lots of elderly Greek Australians whose Grandkids don’t speak Greek. In Australia, you’re unlikely to be able to operate very effectively outside a specific etnocultural setting without English. That doesn’t mean that there’s no validity in retaining ancestral ties or cultural linkages. It does mean that you will be constrained in realizing the full benefits of citizenship if you’re restricted to operating within them.
Why dance around the word racist tigtog? Why not just say it? We all know what “dog whistling” is a synonym for.
“White Confetti Policy”?
If you are going to insinuate that the new policy is racist you should provide some proof.
You can’t, right, otherwise you would have done so for a chance at winning the lefty “pin a racist tag on the right” jackpot?
What’s that jackpot up to now by the way?
Katz wrote:
So, as I understand it, under Robbâs âIâm-Making-It-Up-As-I-Go-Alongâ? jig for unaccompanied dog whistle, weâll have the following categories:
1. Pre-existing Australians
2. Australians certified to have passed an as-yet uncompiled test on âAustralian Valuesâ? and a proficiency in shop-floor shitkickersâ English.
3. Those who have failed the above tests
4. Those who have declined to submit to the above tests
Regarding category One citizens, can I suggest that The Nine Network revive its National Pregnancy test shows (you know the ones, with fast Eddie and Catriona Rowntree hosting questionaire segments for representative groups of Australians), but have instead a National Citizenship Test show. If they run one show every night of the week, most of us category one citizens could be properly tested, re-naturalized, within the next few years. Unless you failed.
To save time, and get the ball rolling, perhaps Fast eddie could start with the obviously unAustralians: Howard Haters, Latte Leftists, Welfare cheats, university humanities academics, elitists, inner city trendies, postmodernists, cultural relativists, wankers and bullshit artists of all stripes etc.
Like Big Brother, failure would result in immediate eviction: sent back to where you came from, put in a detention centre, put into a re-education camp where Australian values can be drilled into you, work camps, compulsory military service, a three year course in mateship studies (applied, pure and advanced).
As Australia is the land of the fair go, after serving out your time in unAustralia, you could come back for a second national citizenship Test. Although failure a second time would have to have fairly dire consequences.
Yobbo dude isn’t tigtog alluding to the obligatory Patrick White denunciation there?
As Peter Kemp and others imply, this is more about throwing a bone to The Parrot and various rednecks than any serious addressing of an issue (if there is one).
And Andrew Robb is an interesting choice to lead the charge. Wasn’t it he, along with Spectra or whatever his name is, that were sent over by the Libs to the Old Dart to beef up the Tory election campaign through Dog Whistling? The Tories have never done too well with that one since Enoch Powell crashed, and obviously could benefit from the more subtle Oz approach. But it didn’t seem to work at the time.
Maybe instead of running so hard on English, they should look at reviving the old Language Test. That worked a treat in the 20s when they were trying to keep out an IWW agitator from landing here. Our people in charge (not sure if it might’ve been Customs in those days) put him through the Language Test before he could be admitted.
The only catch was that this cove was multi-linguist and well educated. They tried him out in 12 languages and he passed. Undaunted, they finally tested him in Gaelic, and lo, he fluffed it. Entry to Oz was denied because he’d ‘failed the Language Test’.
I like the way you think Ag.
A suggested category for Eddie’s test:
1. Accessorising with the Aussie Flag: Do’s and Dont’s.
Wearing the flag as a cape at a barbeque or Wog Bash–true blue!
Actually barbequing the flag–not true blue!
Also, unAustralia could be administered along the lines of “Survivor”.
Temptations could be placed in the way of contestants: barista-brewed latte, copies of The Age, books without pictures. Anyone succumbing to these temptations would be instantly voted off the Island.
It’s very disappointing that this blog is yet to criticise Labor’s New Hansonism on foreign workers or Kim Beazley’s many references to how Indians and Chinese are a threat to Aussie Working Conditions. Or Premier Carpenter’s assertion that foreign workers might encourage riots and that WA might come to regret their presence.
But be a Liberal who advocates the importance of learning English and -lo! – you’re a “racist”.
Not sure what Peter is talking about re the “Menzian past”. The White Australia Policy was abolished by Liberal governments. Calwell described that policy’s critics as “Presbyterian long-hairs” as late as 1961. The White Australia Policy was finally dropped from the ALP platform in 1965 – SEVEN years after the abolition of the dictation test. (And three years after James Meredith was admitted to the University of Mississippi).
What with all this faff about speaking English, deaf people are really missing out.
I’d say this has nothing to do with migrants at all, and everything to do with people who were born here. There’s a large amount of points in being seen to be tough on outsiders. Or outsiders that come from outside, at least.
Indeed I was, Laura. I’ll cop to a weak pun on that post-title, Yobbo, that’s all.
As for what “dog whistle” is code for, that depends on the particular group the spin is being spun for. “Dog whistle” words appeal to a multitude of kneejerk responses, and don’t have to have anything to do with the actual content of the policy at all.
So saying that someone is using the dog-whistle when throwing out their soundbites about any particular policy in fact has, by design, almost nothing to do how that policy will be implemented nor what purposes it might achieve. It’s acknowledging a deliberately cynical disconnect on the part of the pollie blowing the dog-whistle.
The rote learning test is just stupid and unnecessary but it’s a stretch to call it ‘racist’. What CL said
Geoff, I agree and disagree. There are stacks of elderly Greeks who don’t speak English, and stacks of their third- and fourth-generation Aussie grandkids who only know the swearwords (and those cuss words that they do know are from the 1950s.)
The wonderful thing about freedom is that both groups are perfectly allowed to operate in whatever setting they please, and not be forced to ‘operate’ in polities they don’t care about.
I entirely disagree that Australian residents who don’t speak English are significantly disadvantaged democratically. Apart from my point about the ethnic media, which shouldn’t be underrated as a democratic institution, it’s very uncommon for any Australian resident to not know any English: most people quite reasonably pick up the language they need to get by at work/jobseeking, at the shops, in P&C and parent/teacher meetings, at the doctor’s, at Church, community meetings, etc. People pick the democracy they want, and there’d be a lot of non-English speakers far more engaged with the cogs of democracy than the average English-speaking twenty-something.
Cam from polemica has also a good writeup.
http://www.polemica.info/archives/2006/09/andrew_robbs_sp.html
Alas, CL, your incomprehension is all-too apparent. So it was rash of you to turn suspicion into certainty.
This is what Peter said:
xenophobe â racist
No intelligent person would call Howard a racist. However, his willingness to stir up xenophobia in the electorate is well documented, going back at east as far as his exploitation of the “Asian Invasion” panic.
Ah, memories! It all seems so innocent by contemporary standards.
Jason Soon, were you in Australia during the days of the “Asian Invasion”?
“In Australia, you’re unlikely to be able to operate very effectively outside a specific etnocultural setting without English”
Then why confine the English language test to would-be citizens? It should be applied just as much to would-be migrants. If you need to speak and read English at a basic level to live in Australia, it shouldn’t make any difference whether you are a citizen or not.
For what it’s worth, my Greek grandparents spoke poor English (my grandfathers) or virtually none (my grandmothers). Despite this handicap, they worked hard, paid their taxes, paid their bills, obeyed the law, minded their own business, became citizens and loved Australia.
“and there’d be a lot of non-English speakers far more engaged with the cogs of democracy than the average English-speaking twenty-something.”
But absolutely none in state or federal parliaments where their traditionally assigned supporting role appears to be as branchstack fodder. I suspect that English acts to increase influence and involvement in ethnically-based community affairs. For instance, I don’t think that Morris Iemma would be the premier of NSW if he wasn’t proficient in English. His Italian ancestry, allied with his ability to operate confidently within english-speaking Australia, probably enhances his effectiveness in both spheres.
Most ethnic community leaders and spokespeople are proficient in English which may tell us something about the leadership/partcipation value that’s seen to accrue to having that skill.
The dogwhistle here is against Muslim fundamentalists who are equated in the popular imagination with Arabs and Pakistanis. Both these groups are technically Caucasian (with perhaps a bit of Asian admixture in Pakistanis but see if you can tell, say, Imran Khan from the average Italian). It’s a totally different phenomenon from the Asian invasion one.
…the âAsian Invasionâ? panic.
I agree, Katz – Howard was an idiot for what he did in the late 80s and I’ve always said so.
Moving right along, I’m still waiting for lefties to criticise the ALP’s New Hansonism.
Good points, spiros.
Geoff, I fundamentally agree that bilingualism is an asset and a benefit. I don’t agree that it’s Government’s role to enforce or demand it, unless it’s expected of an entire population.
Morris Iemma is the leader of the ALP because he’s ambitious, clever and personally very well-connected. Of course English has helped him in his career—but his case is quite different to that of somebody’s eighty-year old nanna, or any other migrant who wants to be Australian but just isn’t very good at learning a second language.
In a nutshell, my position is that if democracy depends on access to institutions, those institutions should take responsibility for accessibility and not push the onus onto citizens.
“eighty-year old nanna”
According to an interview with Robb on RN this morning, there is an age cut-off so ‘eighty-year old nanna[s]‘ don’t fit into the equation.
I’m eager to do just that, in slightly greater than the proportion that it exists.
But maybe I’m not your common or garden leftie, so perhaps this may be seen as an empty gesture.
CL, are you a Vanstone staffer?
I ask because Vanstone’s clumsy attempt to play the race card in The Age last week was almost identical to your own comments. Same phrases and cities. Everything.
If you are, it’s just not working, old son. Vanstone was trying to flog the racist angle for at least two weeks but no journalists were biting. So she had to spell it out herself. Good old Mandy.
Just for interest’s sake, in the dozen different places I’ve been this morning everyone was talking about this topic (not tigtog’s: the English language thingy); even in the usually-quiet pathologist’s waiting room where people don’t even look at each other.
Every voice, every conversation enthusiastically supported the idea. I didn’t hear one mildly-dissenting person. And that is why the ALP is on the same bandwagon and will not disagree with the policy, methinks.
C.L. – I think Bomber was stupid to state the nationalities of 457 ‘guest’ workers who come here and work for less pay and conditions and with less safety training than Australian workers. They are mostly of a darker hue (ahem) and we all know that already, so it was pointless to say it. It may have been a deliberate dog-whistle; if so I condemn it.
But the point is about labour markets, responsible employment and economics, not race. I don’t see it as ‘new Hansonism’ as I believe her points were first and foremost xenophobic, with anything more substantial thrown in to lend credibility.
Let me be absolutely clear that Beazley’s recent crap about Values etc. is an abomination, and if he keeps it up the ALP may as well send him off to the glue factory. I hope this will save you the trouble of future claims that “nobody at LP this-or-that-or-the-other”.
“Moving right along, I’m still waiting for lefties to criticise the ALP’s New Hansonism.”
Oh come on, CL. I’m sure you still have an occasional squiz at Road to Surfdom. Aussie Bob’s had to go into overtime defending Beazer.
Song for CL (with love):
I’ve been walkin’ these streets so long
Singin’ the same old song
I know every crack in these dirty sidewalks of Broadway
Where hustle’s the name of the game
And nice guys get washed away like the snow and the rain
There’s been a load of compromisin’
On the road to my horizon
But I’m gonna be where the lights are shinin’ on me
C’MON EVERYBODY!
Like a Vanstone cowboy (do doot -doo)
Riding out on a horse in a star-spangled rodeo
Like a Vanstone cowboy (doot -doo)
Getting cards and letters from people I don’t even know …
CL:
Haven’t you got your very own blog where you could do that?
At the time all this hoo-haa about citizenship exams, we have John Howard singing the praises of the Greek community, with the strong implication that other immigrant groups weren’t holding up to their example.
Yes, the Greek community have made a wonderful contribution to Australia, and they have, in the main, kept some aspects of their culture while integrating with the Australian mainstream through the generations. But the clear undercurrent (at least as reported), was the inference that some other groups of migrants haven’t done so.
It’s not even dog whistling; it’s far too obvious for that.
For what it’s worth, I think there is something to the idea that citizenship should not be taken lightly; the sheer pragmatism with which some of my Chinese-born friends approach the issue leaves me rather cold. But the climate surrounding anything to do with immigration at the moment is so toxic, thanks largely to Howard and friends, that it is impossible to have a reasoned debate on the issue.
Jason Soon, I doubt that your taxonomy has a broad recognition or support in the Australian electorate.
Putative blood ties to Imran Khan and the lack of shared recent ancestors with John So cuts no ice.
Of more importance is whether potential white xenophobes can convince themselves that persons of identifiable ethno-cultural group A will be more flatteringly integrated into Australia’s funny little ways than persons of identiable ethno-cultural group B.
(Interestingly, almost frictionlessly, East Asians have migrated in many white minds from category B to category A. This has ever been the story in Australia, with the exception of Aborigines. Perhaps not coincidentally, Aborigines were for a long time subject to special laws. If current laws become too sharply anti-Islamic, Australia may be recreating for Muslims the subjugated status that it created for Aborigines. This would be a big, big mistake.)
I’ve always seen CL as a One Trick Pony, thanks to Paul Simon:
Ron has hit the nail fair square on the head!
I agree with CL!!
Bomber’s ‘me-too-ism’ is utterly vile, and I often lament the fact that Australia doesn’t have a viable opposition.
CL, are you a Vanstone staffer?
Hardly, nemesis. I haven’t recognised her moral authority for a long time.
Are you a descendant of Arthur Calwell?
I see Zoe still resents those comparisons and topical contrasts that are part and parcel of what most intelligent people regard as “Politics” and “History”.
Bomber (aka “The Rambler”):
Kim said, son, I’ve made a life out of readin’ people’s faces…
And knowin’ what their race was, by the way they held held their eyes…
So if you don’t mind me sayin’, I can see you’re not au fait boy…
For a taste of union mateship, I’ll give you some advice…
So I handed him my visa, and he scoffed at it did Beaza…
Then he scoped my Big Mac and asked me for a bight…
And the night got deathly quiet, and his belch lost all discretion…
Said if you come here, boy, you gotta play it Hanson-ite…
CHORUS:
YOU GOTTA know when to sail here, row in a gale dear…
Know when to walk away and know when to run…
You never brandish 4-5-7, when you’re sittin with the brethren…
These union men will chase you, as they did at Lambing Flat.
Sing along, lefties! You know the words.
“but his case is quite different to that of somebody’s eighty-year old nanna, or any other migrant who wants to be Australian but just isn’t very good at learning a second language.”
Relax Liam. Eighty year old nanna’s aren’t required to pass a language test. Indeed 60 year old Nanna’s are exempted as well according to the policy statement. Learning a second language isn’t actually that hard – millions of people do. Indeed, learning Japanese is touted as an Alzheimers prophylaxsis for elderly English speakers.
No, the phenomenon is identical, it’s just that the target is different and there’s a double standard applying here.
“C.L. – I think Bomber was stupid to state the nationalities of 457 ‘guest’ workers who come here and work for less pay and conditions and with less safety training than Australian workers. They are mostly of a darker hue (ahem) and we all know that already, so it was pointless to say it. It may have been a deliberate dog-whistle; if so I condemn it.”
I suspect that a significant number of dodgy 457 applications are lodged by employers with the same ethnic/linguistic background as the applicants. It kind of reinforces the point that the ability to operate outside a single NESB cultural setting is a great enabler.
“Then why confine the English language test to would-be citizens? It should be applied just as much to would-be migrants. If you need to speak and read English at a basic level to live in Australia, it shouldn’t make any difference whether you are a citizen or not.”
I guess there’s a general assumption that people coming here in other that Austudy/work permit/TPV/visitor circumstances (i.e as permanent residents) are planning to take up citizenship eventually. I recognise that many don’t – hundreds of thousands of Kiwis for a start
– but I guess that’s another debate. Should we require the same linguistic/cultural knowledge standards of permanent
resident applicants as we do of citizenship applicants? It seems a bit fraught as a proposition to me.
I see Zoe still resents those comparisons and topical contrasts
You misinterpret my inability to resist a cheap joke, CL. I have not commented on the substantive issue, and am not resentful by nature.
Also, my song was much funnier.
“Should we require the same linguistic/cultural knowledge standards of permanent
resident applicants as we do of citizenship applicants? It seems a bit fraught as a proposition to me.”
Depends on what the purpose of linguistic/cultural knowledge is.
If you think it is desirable to have a working knowledge of the language in which our laws and constitution are written, our court judgments are handed down, debates are conducted in our parliaments, and so on, in order to become a dinky-di Aussie, then the distinction between mere permanent resident and citizen is meaningful, and the test can be applied to would-be citizens only. (Though it might be noted that English isn’t spoken much in a lot of remote Aboriginal communities, but I guess that’s another debate).
But if you think it is desirable to know English so that you can read your gas bill and converse with the check out attendant at your local supermarket and your childrens’ teachers, that is, participate fully in day to day Australian life, then surely all permanent residents should be able to speak English.
Interestingly hedged CL.
Do you mean that Howard was an idiot for targeting “Asians” when he did, but not at ome other time?
Do you mean that Howard was an idiot for targeting “Asians” at any time.
Do you mean that Howard was an idiot for targeting targeting any minority when he did?
Do you mean that Howard is an idiot for targeting targeting any minority at any time?
Do you mean that Howard was morally reprehensible for targeting “Asians” when he did, but not at ome other time?
Do you mean that Howard was morally reprehensible for targeting “Asians” at any time.
Do you mean that Howard was morally reprehensible for targeting targeting any minority when he did?
Do you mean that Howard is morally reprehensible for targeting targeting any minority at any time?
If I may say, you show a propensity to choke on a sprat served by the Left, but swallow benignly any number of whales dished up on this site by the Right. If you were as interested in accuracy and sense as you make yourself out to be, you might set a few of your fellow-travellers straight, just occasionally.
Such a gesture may help improve your standing with regular readers and contributors, which is what I presume you are trying to do by posting so frequently.
On mateship, the values to be presumably enforced on migrants by law—
Beazley:
Ah yes, the ‘warm glow’ and mildly ‘adhesive’ effects of uniquely Australian masturbatorial male togetherness.
Howard:
Bill Heffernan, Bronwyn Bishop, Iron Bar Tuckey and a few others could doubtless list the exceptions like ‘Ali Babars’ in the Arafura sea, ‘unrootable’ lesbians seeking IVF, ‘poofs’ in the High Court, ‘black arm band’ supporters of ‘blackfellas’ like Robert Manne, hijab wearing ‘facist’ girls, ‘dole-bludging-slut’ single mothers, lazy-perpetually broke-dope smoking-randy sod-centrelink funded-Labor voting-beach dwelling ‘c***s’ who won’t get off their arses and work…
…and many many more to be sure, as a RW night follows day.
So nice to know we are all ‘mates’–to legislate for it will be as funny as when Ma caught her tits in the double rollered washing machine.
Nice pretend quotes, Peter.
“I’m not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political hatreds against us”!
- Gough Whitlam
There’s a real one for you.
Switch to decaff, Katz.
So decaff really does make one immune to nuance? Is that the diet secret of the RWDBs?
Consequently, following the principle of precaution and accepting the narrowest reading of your comment, you meant:
“Howard was an idiot for targeting âAsiansâ? when he did, but not at some other time.”
Long live the dog whistle!
Meanwhile, back in Dog whistle Land:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1743602.htm
How does the Rodent know this. Did he ask them?
When David Hicks was photographed with his bazooka he didn’t appear to be aiming it a anyone’s head. Maybe had had to do that to legitimately be seen as “letting off steam”.
Join the Australian Army. Meet fascinating people. Indulge your xenophobic stereotypes. Kill them.
Katz: There is nothing unusual about what those soldiers did. Mix with soldiers sometime.
It should be noted that the “military chiefs” are not exactly soldiers.
The Defence Force is commanded by an RAAF boy. The light blue shirts have always looked down on the roughnecks of the Army, and from the rarified world of Point Cook, there would not be much contact with the type of person required to be a grunt. Getting up close and personal in an extremely physically violent and deadly situation is not exactly part of the RAAF’s brief.
I can practically see the ADF chief holding his nose before he even talks about the Army.
“Join the Australian Army. Meet fascinating people. Indulge your xenophobic stereotypes. Kill them.”
You obviously have had nothing to do with people in the ADF, Katz.
These were young soldiers being offduty young soldiers. Tasteless, daggy, culturally insensitive, a bit worrying on the weapons front but ultimately, a non-event. Abu Ghraib it ain’t.
I recall similar confected outrage over ADF personnel staging a mock “Mardi Gras’ at a social event in the first Solomons deployment and the Tele discovering the “horror” of RAN “crossing the line” ceremonies.
It’s a commentary on the age we live in but when the ADF leadership is lined up to do bad Queen Victoria impressions, it’s time to bring Catharine Lumby in to consult on freeing the inner hedonist.
Touche on Gough and the Vietnamese, CL. On the other hand, it might also be relevant to point out that he, along with Don Dunstan did most to reverse Labor’s White Australia Policy, which you rightly deplored. And they did it at considerable risk of expulsion.
While we’re on the subject of moral relativism, you rightly deplored the leftist bloggers not distancing themselves from Beazer’s little attempt at dog whistling (although Surfdom and Sedgwick both went for it). It’s 5 years now and so I can’t remember, but I was wondering if you and other rightist bloggers similarly deplored Howard’s Tampa, Children Overboard and Pacific Solution stunts.
Dearie me,
I never denied the attitudes weren’t common. Thanks for reinforcing my argument guys.
And yes, I have had much to do with the military. But that’s another story.
Let’s get a bit of perspective here.
In the increasingly forelorn hope that the Coalition of the Willing will achieve anything from the misbegotten Iraq fiasco, it will not be a military solution.
Rather, the solution, if there is to be one, will come under the heading of “winning hearts and minds”.
Now these callow idiots didn’t just play dress-ups and keep their xenophobic fantasies behind closed doors.
No … they posted their happy snaps on the www.
Don’t they think that Ragheads have access to the internet?
So much for winning hearts and minds.
And now Howard runs the risk of turning it into a full-scale diplomatic incident.
Fools, all of them.
This embarrassing fiasco puts me in mind of a small incident.
Not long after the fall of the Berlin Wall an SS bunker was discovered in no-man’s-land. When it was opened it was discovered that the SS troops that cowered there in the last days of the Third Reich drew racially stereotyped graffiti featuring German supermen defeating Russian untermenschen.
And why wouldn’t they? They were just letting off steam!
But the problem is that all this steam venting is a symptom of despair.
And so was Howard’s pathetic excuse.
I wonder if the rodent will give the same excuse to the Iraqi Ambassador to Australia the next time they meet.
“This embarrassing fiasco puts me in mind of a small incident.
Not long after the fall of the Berlin Wall an SS bunker was discovered in no-man’s-land. When it was opened it was discovered that the SS troops that cowered there in the last days of the Third Reich drew racially stereotyped graffiti featuring German supermen defeating Russian untermenschen.
And why wouldn’t they? They were just letting off steam!”
Katz, you have to be the handsdown winner of the most implausibly stretched blog comment analogy of 2006
.
I read it but I don’t believe it!Soldiers just whoopin it up,young and stupid it aint Abu Ghraib.What arrant rubbish,what utter bullshit,what crap.
If and when they find out who the bastards are that have dis-honoured their unit, they will be out on their fucking ear and good riddence.These bastards are an insult to the service.Unlike most on this blog I am an x serving member of the A.D.F. Army to be precise,and yes there were fuck heads and when they were found out they were out.
Now has the Army sometimes covered up such actions?Yes they did,and it wont be the last time ,any action will not be to save the arses of the guilty, it will be to save the unit and the A.D.F. from embarrassment,the Army looks after its own,but if you overstep the mark they will fuck you up.
Define “implausibly stretched”.
“Define âimplausibly stretchedâ?.
I’ll leave it to posterity.
Your attempt to bowdlerise my criticism of Howard is weird and appallingly daft, dear Katz.
I was wondering if you and other rightist bloggers similarly deplored Howard’s Tampa, Children Overboard and Pacific Solution stunts…
On the Pacific Solution, yes – quite often. On the government’s decision to confront “asylum seekers” who attempted to (or did) scupper and set fire to their own vessels – thus endangering women and children – I favoured that crack-down.
The people-smuggling mafia is now out of business vis-a-vis Australia. John Howard destroyed the racket and he has probably already saved dozens of lives.
Labor’s policy was to let people come here on unseaworthy tubs and, frequently, many of them drowned en masse. Which is pretty racist, I have to say.
“If and when they find out who the bastards are that have dis-honoured their unit, they will be out on their fucking ear and good riddence.’
They know who they are, phill. They’re actually the blokes in the video.
No-one is accusing them of being razor sharp………
That first link again: here.
GH:
Weak.
CL:
Parse ≠ Bowdlerise.
No matter the outcome thay are an embarrassment,and after the investigation and or cover up, they should be fucked off.The A.D.F. does not need this crap.It makes us look like the fuck heads we are trying to defeat.
In case it is unclear to my RWDB interlocutors, my major target here is Howard for choosing to play the electoral card in preference to the foreign policy card.
The soldiers were idiots.
Howard, on the other hand, is betraying Australian national interests.
Muskiemp:
Good one.
Tigtog and Gulp:
WHICH English do you mean? Elementary English for work and social interaction – or – the irrelevant rubbish sometimes inflicted on the innocent?
One example sticks in my mind. A European migrant I worked with could read English language papers and magazines, he had a thorough grasp of the technical subject he had to know; he had no trouble describing and discussing it in perfectly understandable (though accented) English …. but when it came to the textbook needed for a qualifying course, it was written in such a convoluted style that he had great difficulty understanding it …. and so did I, a native speaker of English.
As for accidents in hospitals, I suggest some of them might have been related to lack of real-world experience and to unchecked and somewhat dodgy qualifications than to any language problem
“The soldiers were idiots.”
Yep. That’s pretty much my point too. BTW, automatiically dismissing people who offer an alternative point of view as “RWDB’s” is pretty lame.
I don’t think it’s “betraying national interests” to initiate a discussion about citizenship criteria. Canada, the UK, the US and the Netherlands have all enacted citizenship tests so it’s hardly a fascist plot.
I actually have enormous disquiet about the notion of common values – largely because “values” are individually forged and held – but there’s nothing wrong with debating the intrinsic principles underlying citizenship.
I don’t know about you guys and gals, but I am a NZ citizen – I came here when I was six. Didn’t have much choice about it. But I have stayed – partly to stay in touch with my son; the rest of my family are also important to me as well. But the way the law currently stands I can’t vote, can’t get a HECS loan and doubtless can’t access lots of other things as well. Like Public Service jobs, among other things. OK, the idea of country and nationality must mean something. But we are all citizens of Planet Earth, ain’t we? I have gone into reasons why I am reluctant to take the oath, make the affirmation, whatever elsewhere on Prodeo. But I don’t see why we should approve of a system that makes for multiple classes of Australians – those who have citizenship, those that don’t, those that pass the English test, those that don’t, those that can vote and those that can’t. Etc, etc. I just think it is a really dangerous path to go down where governments start creating different classes of ‘Australian’.
This government surely has better things to do with its time than to run aorund coming up with faux loyalty oaths. Reminds me of the great loyalty oath campaign that features in ‘Catch-22′. And the beautiful thing about it is that anyone who refuses or takes issue with it is obviously – ipso f&%$ing facto – disloyal, and should be sent out to the desert for a period of political rde-education.
How long will it be before some types of people have to wear a yellow star, or yellow boomerang, or something? Maybe we can start a campaign that prevents these people without the right ‘Aussie values’ from being able to sit at the same bus stop as the rest of us….
Cheers…
Straw man.
Any sensible reading of my post would reveal that I was referring only to Howard’s treatment of the ADF issue.
Try to be sensible GH.
On your larger point, it all depends on how one goes about the task of initiating a discussion.
Robb’s chatting with the Imams was a reasonable start. His first efforts at enunciating a set of procedures have been risible, as I suggested above.
“Straw man.
Any sensible reading of my post would reveal that I was referring only to Howard’s treatment of the ADF issue.
Try to be sensible GH.”
Any sensible reading of that part of my comment would reveal that I was referring to the substance of tigtog’s post. I’d already covered your point.
Try not to come across as so insufferably pompous, Katz. You’re probably a nice bloke.
“betraying national interests” is a direct quote from my post, not tigtog’s.
I’m inclined to be sceptical of your assessment of character.
betraying national interestsâ? is a direct quote from my post, not tigtogâs.
Is it? (I didn’t actually notice) but – sadly perhaps – I didn’t have you or that actual form of words in mind when I reponded.
‘Iâm inclined to be sceptical of your assessment of character.’
Now there’s a revelation. …………………….
You seem to imply that revelation is a rare experience…
If so, enjoy.
Uh oh.
I have in my time been every single one of these things except a welfare cheat, so I guess that cancels out the two seven-greats grandparents in the First Fleet, the 1847 pioneers on the other side of the family, and the PhD in Australian literature. I wonder where they’ll deport me to.
Capricornia.
“But I don’t see why we should approve of a system that makes for multiple classes of Australians – those who have citizenship, those that don’t”
There is only 1 class of Australian – Australian citizens. If you are a permanent resident then you are a Kiwi. It’s pretty much as simple as that.
You could apply for citizenship any time you want and you would be granted it. The fact that you don’t feel like it is nobody’s problem but your own.
I actually totally agree with you there, Geoff. My post was all about critiquing Robb’s performance with respect to spinning this, especially the confetti remark. (And seeing as I’m part of the Patrick White Readers’ Group, drawing attention to an egregious slam)
Could we be tougher on citizenship standards? Of course it’s possible to be so. Do we actually need to be so? Robb’s dog whistle soundbites don’t prove the point.
“There is only 1 class of Australian – Australian citizens”
Norfolk Islanders would beg to differ. As might Cocos Islanders (80% Sunni Muslim, by the by).
Telling points, Spiro.
Also in the light of the recent death of that Israeli soldier with Australian citizenship, it might be useful to define exactly who and what it is ok for an Australian to fight for and who and what it is verboten for an Australian to do so.
Couldn’t agree more Katz, (in light of the incredible number of our citizens who were taking in the country air in southern Lebanon at the same time)
Yobbo:
Actually, mate, it ain’t that simple. There are people with permanent residency here – they have this stamped on the visa in their passport. They get all the rights of citizens. They can get on the electoral role, vote, that sort of thing. But the catch is, that under various legislative acts, I am not a permanent resident. I can come as go as often as I like, stay as long as I like, but I am not a Permanent Resident. We have that class of people who came here when they were kids – maybe a few months old – as migrants, have grown up here, think of this as home, yet, because they never paid their money to take out citizenship, remain as foreign nationals. Last year we saw the government deporting some guy in his late 30s to Serbia, because he had been in trouble with the law. And I believe they have done the same thing with people to Vietnam. The truth is that are different classes of people – in the sense that they have different legal rights – who live permanently in Australia and call this country home. And this doesn’t include those people who came here as refugees who are here on something called a temporary protection visa. Anyway.
Cheers…
Begging to differ Mick, but it IS that simple.
One is either a citizen or not. Permenant Residents can vote? Only citizens can get on the electoral roll. UK citizens were able to get on the electoral roll back when the Commonwealth was not considered “foreign”, however for many decades now one has to be a citizen to vote.
Non-citizens who receive criminal convictions being deported to their country of citizenship? Where is the problem in that?
This should be rigidly enforced. Also Permenant Residents who receive criminal convictions should be ineligible for citizenship. This may cause quite an outcry in certain Sydney suburbs….. but Australia will be all the better for it.
Sounds to me like you don’t know the difference between permanent residents and citizens.
“The truth is that are different classes of people – in the sense that they have different legal rights – who live permanently in Australia and call this country home.”
Yes. Permanent Residents and Citizens. Permanent Residents are not Australians. They are guests from foreign countries. When they take the citizenship oath they become Australians.
SATP, Mick and Yobbo – a link to an Audit on Immigration and Australian Democracy from ANU – and includes the information quoted below in reference to your last posts..and other information on immigration, ethnic organisations, migrant representation and so on…
http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/papers/focussed_audits/200311_jupp_migrants.pdf
“This may cause quite an outcry in certain Sydney suburbs”
SATP, the Lebanese gang members were all born here and so they are as Aussie as you are, legally.
Geoff Honnor:
My Goodness. How could you say such a thing. Aren’t you frightened that the government will use its Anti-Sedition Laws to snatch you in the middle of the night, detain you indefinitely, render you to a secret excised location and subject you to vigorous interrogation for suggesting such a thing ….. even if it might be true?
“âThe soldiers were idiots.â?
I’ll say. Haven’t they worked out by now that embarrassing photos and vids ALWAYS end up on the internet.
As for this latest citizenship/Aussie values hoo-ha, well it’s certainly sucked all the media oxygen away from the latest AWB revelations.
This how politics works these days. Got a embarrassing story breaking? Want to reset the media cycle. Want more attention? Create a moral/values panic. Howard’s brilliant at this and Bomber’s learning fast.
Meanwhile we still have shitty and decaying infrastructure, collapsing R&D, a 20th century tax system, really fucked up Aboriginal communities, are getting the bum end of all the FTAs we sign up for and have no coherent sustainable growth plans.
It’s like a communal household fighting over what to watch on TV and who to let crash on the couch while the roof leaks, the pantry empties and the toilet backs up. If we keep going down this track, we won’t even be able to give citizenship away like confetti.
On the other hand, the weather’s been very nice in Melbourne lately.
Nabakov:
Despite all the happy spin about hordes of highly skilled people busting to get into Australia, the reality is that Australia is definitely no longer the most desired destination for the best and brightest …. but never mind, we can always make up the numbers with people who can’t quite get into the U.S., Canada, France or Germany, can’t we?
My apologies Prodeo people:
I knew there was some loophole about non citizens being able to vote. Anyway. Being able to vote or not doesn’t really bother me much. But not getting access to a HECS loan does…
Cheers…
Mick: HECS loans are for Australian citizens. If we offered them to all our foreign students our education system would be broke within a year.
If being a non-citizen is so horrible then why don’t you become one?