Barely a day has gone by since the London bombings when the opinion pages of British and Australian papers haven’t been filled with tirades blaming multiculturalism for the parlous state of the world (forget Iraq as the front of the War on Terror, Mr Bush, we have an Enemy Within). By way of example, Independent columnist Johann Sari (solution – more sex between blacks and whites) in the UK today, and Tina Faulk writing in The Australian (assimilation is the answer – would Muslim kids fight to defend Oz?).
There are some pretty fallacious assumptions built into the logic of such columns. But in the meantime, a question or two – well posed by Flutey:
Plenty of commentators on the right bemoan the failed experiment of multiculturalism. The likes of Bolt and Albrechtsen would like to see an end to it. What does this actually mean? What is the alternative? What are the precise steps, including law changes, that would be required to effect this new Australia? Is it a language or religion based change? A country of origin blacklist? How would new laws be enforced? Surely some minds on the right can respond as I’m eager to see what the reality is behind the weasel words.
It was the “minds on the right” that got rid of the White Australia Policy racist Labor so dearly loved. Never forget the weasel words of the left’s Mongolian Octopus!
So, that’s your answer, is it, C.L.? A bit of credit claiming. What is to be done now in your opinion?
I’ve seen no commentary advocating an end to the celebration of ethnic and racial diversity; the major thrust of what I’m reading seems to be focussing on where a shared, national sense of liberal democratic values should fit in the mix. What does that look like? How is it attained? Is it attainable?
For all it’s faults, the US seems to do this quite well in comparison to say, Europe, where some immigrant communities seem more inclined to frame themselves against the prevalent values paradigm.
I think there is a tendency to perceive “good old Anglo values” as the quid pro quo to an end to multiculturalism in some quarters, but I’m not sure it’s actually about ‘ending’ or ‘returning’ to anything. It seems to me to be more about evolving. …
I’d agree about the US, Geoff.
The most egregious example of commentary advocating an end to the celebration of ethnic and racial diversity was John Stone’s (stop Muslim immigration, deport some non-citizens, abolish sbs) but the theme that multiculturalism has “failed” is present in most of the papers.
let’s hang on here a minute.
although wahhibbism is probably the correct way to understand the koran, hadiths etc and thus practise as a muslim it is not the way most muslims wish to practise Islam.
It seems to me it is a silly to say to the Islamic community to renounce AQ as it would be to say to Peter Jensen oe George Pell to renounce the KKK.
Suicide bommbers are extremely unlikely to be sufis or shias just sunnis of the wahhibbist variety.
This shouldn’t be a hard task for ASIO surely.
Leftist and ultra-PC multi-culti advocate, Jim Soorley, in the Sunday Mail yesterday has an idea:
There you have it. Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with our culture. Shut down immigration from Islamic countries and welcome instead more Asians and Christians.
That’s because most of the opinion writers who claim multiculturalism as a failure don’t understand what it is.
Multiculturalism is, as this thread is reflecting, a set of ideas about how political power should be exercised between individuals, communities and the State. It’s never been a doctrine regulating how people should behave—quite the opposite—and while there exists a demographic reality of multi-ethnicity within a nation, it can’t fail, only exercise power in different ways.
Geoff, the European nations who host alienated migrant communities are often also the ones which have done the least in opening up their civil societies to migrants. Germany’s g√§starbeiter system is the worst way of promoting social cohesion.
Multiculturalism is not under threat. Multiculturalism is a fact, not a policy. As such, there be no ‘multicultural failure’, though there be unjust multicultural law.
As CL has so intolerantly demonstrated.
“but the theme that multiculturalism has “failed” is present in most of the papers.”
But the next question is “failed to do what?” If we’ve never emphasised attestation to a shared set of values as a fundamental tenet of who we are then I’m not sure that it’s “multiculturalism” that’s failed. I’ve never thought of multiculturalism as some immutably fixed barrier to achieving that sort of outcome – as the US example would seem to indicate.
Homer,
Wahhabism has no more claim being the “correct” interpretation of Islam than, say, the Baptists or Quakers do in interpreting Christianity. It’s a sect that dates back to the 18th century, and would have stayed a backwater puritanism if not for its umbilical association with the House of Saud.
Meanwhile, CL pulls out RWDB play #237: wheel out somebody from THE LEFT to state an opinion you share, thus proving its incontrovertible accuracy. Positively dog-matic, Lassie.
wahhibbism is imcompatible with multiculturism as it is with Western values.
“Geoff, the European nations who host alienated migrant communities are often also the ones which have done the least in opening up their civil societies to migrants. GermanyÄôs g√§starbeiter system is the worst way of promoting social cohesion.”
I think that’s true to some extent though the old guestworker construct has largely been swamped by waves of refugees and asylum-seekers into Europe since the end of the Cold War. They’ve also had (apart from Germany) a steady stream of people from former European colonies and all this against a cultural context that doesn’t frame “a nation of immigrants” mindset into European consciousness. The notion that a Turk might be German, or a Morrocan Dutch, is entirely novel and has nowhere near the currency of a Turk being, say, American, Canadian or Australian.
All immigrants should be required to adhere to our cultural values of tolerance, democracy and the rule of law.
All immigrants should be required to learn English. All immigrants should give their primary loyalty to Australia and not to any other nation or ethnic group.
Immigration of Muslims should be suspended until the current war has been resolved. Radical Muslims should be stripped of citizenship and expelled.
The pernicious and hypocritical tenet of multiculturalism, that Australia’s own culture is inferior to all others, should be denounced and rooted out. The deficiencies of other cultures should be freely discussed rather than covered up.
All laws banning “offensive” speech should be abolished.
Anti-discrimination laws should be applied equally to all races and ethnic groups, not used as a tool to attack Anglos or whites.
That’ll do for a start.
EP,
as a christian my firt loyalty is to God not Australia.
does this mean you would ban immirgants who are christians?
Only if their loyalty caused them to reject the secular government of Australia and its laws.
By “primary loyalty” I mean earthly, as opposed to spiritual, loyalty. Immigrants should regard themselves as part of the Australian community and not as separate from it.
Did you read the post Fyodorene? Flute “wheeled out” the argument that everything was the right’s fault, Bolt and Albrechtsen are evil, bla ba bla (for mentions of both journalists see Leftie Stratagem #1). That one of the left’s most PC Bollinger Bolshies wants Muslim immigration slashed tells us something about how opinion is changing. Labor’s beloved White Australia Policy is gone but what followed hasn’t worked.
Need I remind some people that there hasn’t been a single Islamist terrorist attack on Australian soil yet and there need not be. Calm down, people!
I don’t think it’s a question of “first loyalties” Homer. It’s more that belief in God has, ultimately, to be balanced with commitment to the priniciples of a secular, liberal democratic society. I’m sure that’s not a problem for you, or for most other people professing religious beliefs. You, for instance, believe that homosexuality is unacceptable in a religious sense but you accept that consensual homosexual activity is perfectly legitimate in our society. I doubt that anyone discusses that fine distinction with aspirant migrants – which might be indicative of the problem.
Need I remind some people that there hasnÄôt been a single Islamist terrorist attack on Australian soil yet and there need not be.
True, but I doubt we can undo the damage caused by multiculturalism quickly enough to avoid such an attack.
We can, however, reduce the likely number and severity of Islamist terror attacks by taking appropriate action to address the root causes — the subcultures of violent fundamentalism which have been allowed to flourish by the inappropriate policies of the past.
while we’re on the subject of root causes, EP, how about getting out of a country whose inhabitants are not at all grateful for our help and letting them solve their own problems instead of wasting our money on them and causing resentment of us for their behalf?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD153487.htm
Foreign troops must aim to withdraw from Iraq by the end of next year to
remove one of the biggest focal points for militant groups, former Australian defence force chief General Peter Cosgrove said.
Cosgrove, who retired from the top military post a month ago after 40 years of service, was speaking on Australian Broadcasting Corp.’s Enough Rope programme, to be broadcast on Monday.
“I think we’ve got to train the Iraqis as quickly as we can and to a point where we take one of the focal points of terrorist motivation away, and that is foreign troops,” Cosgrove said according to a transcript released by the television station.
“When there is an adequate Iraqi security force, foreign troops leave … Iraq.”
I assume that your rapid leap off the topic of multiculturalism constitutes an admission of defeat, Jason.
I won’t bother addressing your erroneous views regarding Iraq as the issue is well covered in other threads devoted to the subject.
It isn’t a ‘rapid leap’, EP. It follows directly from your point. Multiculturalism has become an issue precisely because of hysteria over terrorism. You used the word ‘root cause’ as if Islamic immigration was somehow related to the recent terrorist attacks. But if it is foreign policy that is the real root cause then the presence of Muslim immigration alone is irrelevant.
“All immigrants should be required to adhere to our cultural values of tolerance, democracy and the rule of law.”
That’s you fucked then, EP.
Cosgrove is a man of practicalities but is no intellectual giant. He’d have a hard, time-warping time explaining how our troops in Iraq caused the mass murder of 88 Australians in Bali.
I think that blind Freddy could acutely observe the fact that engagement in Iraq has exacerbated Islamist passion – and whether it’s the primary motivation for terrorism is irrelevant. Islamist extremists know only too well how that justification plays in the West as agitprop.
The rather more interesting question is why some citizens of Australia might feel legitimated and justified in murdering other citizens of Australia because of that engagement. It’s not enough to say “these are my co-religionists.” How we get past that is surely the central question here.
A very logical question Mark and I had been thinking about that as a result of the death of multiculturalism with the London bombers. I commented broadly on that on JQs Weekend Reflections which I’ll reproduce here for LP commenters to have a chew on:
Firstly let me direct you to John RayÄôs discussion of racism here
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2005_07_31_dissectleft_archive.html#112325408770260972 which is inextricably linked to the notion of culture also.
“The deeds of Hitler showed the world what colossal evil can be done in the name of race and, in their usual way, the Left hopped onto that bandwagon and pushed the idea to simplistic extremes. Not only unreasonable uses of ideas about race were condemned but ALL ideas about race were condemned. So the Left absolutely shriek and go ballistic about any mention of race.” Read this again substituting religion or culture for race and the critique would be just as relevant. All cultures/religions are equal, but if some are more equal than others, then youÄôre obviously a racist bastard.
There is a fallacy of composition here for tolerant, liberal democracies of course. Keep adding the intolerant and you could end up with democratic Sharia Law for all, which is something the multiculturalists at any costs are having to face up to now. If not a democratic fait accompli, then certainly the high social costs of an explosive, intolerant minority.
A good analogy here would be the Amish, with their ritual clothes, horses and buggies, no TV, mobiles, etc. Liberal democracies can tolerate such quirky religious behaviour, although if carried out at a national level, it may have some serious economic shortcomings. The Amish believe such religious mores should be voluntary and even give their teenagers time out in the big wide world of liberal progressivism, to make up their own minds. They would strongly preach and advocate their lifestyle to all of course. No problems, unless the Amish believe all outsiders are non-believers and evil mobile phone users need blowing up to see the true light of God. If other more moderate Christian sects quietly acquiesce to this behaviour, (we know theyÄôre wrong but….) it would be understandable if other cultures and religions view them all with some suspicion. Welcome to IslamÄôs current PR problems here.
I was accused before of wanting to deport the Bakrs and Omrans. As tempting as that may be for obvious reasons, it would be somewhat counterproductive. It would give the Mugabes and Saddams carte blanche to do likewise with their ‘problemÄô citizenry. Unfortunately, if we gave the Bakrs and Omrans citizenship, weÄôre stuck with them, but many of us question the wisdom of letting them in here in the first place. Like the moderate Turkish Islamic representative on Lateline, weÄôd be happy to pay their airfare home, if they have trouble with our values and culture. I note here that Bakr(here for some 16 years) has joint citizenship with Algeria, which I wouldnÄôt exactly classify as a model of tolerant liberal democracy. Herein lies the answer. We shouldnÄôt accept immigrants from intolerant theocracies or tyrannys, any more than we should seek moral justification for our international stance against them in the current UN.
That brings me to the point Ian Gould raised WRT changing the power of vetos in the UN Security Council. Any power of veto is undemocratic, as is allowing the undemocratic a vote at the table. The notion that MugabeÄôs vote is equivalent to a Howards, in determining your moral stance to international sanctions or actions is ludicrous. A United Liberal Democratic Nations, with no individual country power of veto, would be a much better body to rely upon for such decision-making. The gaggle of gangsters could have their say but no vote, until they meet certain agreed liberal democratic standards. Australia as a member would only agree to reciprocal rights with like full voting members. Interesting to note that intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan would probably have got say a 2/3 majority nod under such a regime. The left reliance on the current UN voting for their moral compass is silly, but there is a case for a ‘more democratic heads are better than oneÄô, censure of the use of US hegemonic power.
In summary I think multiculturalim at any cost, is counterproductive for tolerant liberal democracies. Tolerating the migration of the intolerant into our societies, weakens our ability to fight poverty and intolerance globally, by diverting scarce resources to internal security. ItÄôs time the left wet multiculturalists understood that.
Further to this general stance on immigration, I would add some more stringent requirements. Our language should be first and foremost of paramount importance. No permanent citizenship status should be given until a reasonable (age related of course)proficiency in oral and written English is attained. Further, all administrative areas of govt should revert to English, with no foreign language textual help.(Get a volunteer or relative to help you like the thousands before) It’s costly and only encourages immigrant separatism. Probationary temporary citizenship can allow for assessment of good character and achievement of minm English standards before permanency. I wouldn’t be averse to a civics/culture test either. With immigrants only from like liberal democracies, the problem of intolerant 7th century Muslim applicants would largely disappear. The same language approach should of course apply to aboriginals. The Dreamtime separatism foisted on them has become their worst nightmare and ours as taxpayers.
“We shouldnÄôt accept immigrants from intolerant theocracies or tyrannys”
That’s silly, Observa. You’re essentially saying we not take in refugees. What if they’re *fleeing* tyranny like the Hazaras from Afghanistan? These people were no fans of the Taliban.
Jason, the fact that 88 Australians were murdered by Islamist terrorists in Bali before the invasion of Iraq is sufficient to disprove your absurd theory of “root causes” lying in the invasion of Iraq.
The real root cause of Islamist terrorism is Islamic fundamentalism. Therefore, the elimination of Islamic fundamentalism and the multiculturalist philosophy that supports it is the best way of eliminating the root cause of terrorism.
That’s right Jason, I’m saying we shouldn’t take refugees from intolerant theocracies or tyrannies, but as a member of a legitimate ULDN we should jointly decide if we’re going in there like Afghanistan and Iraq to sort out the root causes of their problems. Remember all those refugees from Iraq that went home to vote under the protection of our troops Jason? Where are all the bleating Islamist here Jason? The same as the African states with Rwanda and Darfur. If China doesn’t want to come in from the cold, but would prefer to hang out with the gaggle of gangsters, then I say let them. You’re either with us or you’re with them buddy.
Mmmyeah, that’s right: putative terrorists never speak English, or lie about their loyalties, or pretend to be moderate, or obey the laws, yadda yadda.
But then this isn’t about terrorism, is it? The predictable opponents of multiculturalism oppose it regardless of any supposed connection between it and terrorism. Doesn’t matter: “fighting” the “War on Terror” apparently justifies all manner of illiberalism, and multiculturalism is the whipping-boy de jour.
“ThatÄôs right Jason, IÄôm saying we shouldnÄôt take refugees from intolerant theocracies or tyrannies, but as a member of a legitimate ULDN we should jointly decide if weÄôre going in there like Afghanistan and Iraq to sort out the root causes of their problems.”
Yup, makes lots of sense, Observa. Spend loads of money and risk Australian lives intervening in their affairs rather getting a free injection of human capital from refugee-source countries.
last time I checked, EP, the Bali bombing didn’t happen on Australian soil. It happened in Bali.
the terrorists attacks on the US, UK and Spain are all foreign policy related. Not justifying it. Just telling it like it is.
I think Geoff is quite right. It’s as erroneous to argue that the London bombings had everything to do with Iraq as it is to argue that they had nothing to do with it.
Jason is typical of your middle class muticultural luvvy. If you pop 20-30,000 Hutus and the same number of Tsutsis into Western Sydney, by the time the high flyers are filtered through our working class suburbs, they’ll make for interesting university tutorials or dinner guests in his leafy suburb. They might even be able to bring along an interesting plate.
My point is that there is a simple and virtually costless way of minimising terrorist attacks now – get the hell out of Iraq and let the natives deal with their own problems.
No, that has to be a fallacy, Jason. As others have pointed out, UBL’s jihad against the crusader West and its various spinoffs and franchises around the world had commenced long before Iraq was even thought of. Wasn’t the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993? Bin Laden’s fatwa – it is the religious duty of all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they find them – was from 1998. And Australia was in his sights because of our assistance in fragmenting the dar al Islam – facilitating the Christians of East Timor’s path to independence.
“My point is that there is a simple and virtually costless way of minimising terrorist attacks now – get the hell out of Iraq and let the natives deal with their own problems.”
As long as you’re prepared to push their problems back across their borders to deal with their problems in their own cultural way Jason. That way we selfish types can concentrate on bringing skilled/business immigrants here that want to speak and write the lingo and adopt ‘our’ cultural ways.
There is no “simple and virtually costless” way of minimising the risk of terrorist attacks.
We are at war, we are a target of ruthless enemies, and no amount of denial or wishful thinking will change that reality.
Those who prefer to believe in fairytales will simply marginalise themselves as society moves on to deal with things as they are.
Personally I don’t see much difference between our involvement in ET, Iraq and Afghanistan, WRT the threat of Islamic terrorists Jason, but perhaps you do, or are you saying the Zarqawis of this world only want us to leave some Muslim lands?
Why am I not surprised?
1) East Timor: peacekeeping in a newly independent country with no history of Islamic terror.
2) Afghanistan: war-sized police action clearing out a rogue government, supportive of terrorists, in a failed state.
3) Iraq: deposing a secular tyrant, incidentally an enemy of Islamic fundamentalists.
Our actions in 1) and 3) had nothing to do with terrorism. They have probably exacerbated the hostility of putative terrorists towards us, however. Whereas 1) can be seen as a noble contribution to regional peace and security, 3) is a strategic blunder of the highest order with no benefit whatsoever to Australia.
Our actions in (1) were the primary motivation for the terrorists who murdered 88 Australians in Bali.
It’s questionable that it was the primary motive, but let’s assume for the moment that you’re right. So what? What does that have to do with multiculturalism in Australia?
“No, that has to be a fallacy, Jason. As others have pointed out, UBLÄôs jihad against the crusader West and its various spinoffs and franchises around the world had commenced long before Iraq was even thought of. WasnÄôt the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993? Bin LadenÄôs fatwa”
Ok, how many attacks have happened before Iraq, and how many after?
So how much power does Bin laden actually have, then?
Butt-all without the added impetous of Iraq.
“The pernicious and hypocritical tenet of multiculturalism, that AustraliaÄôs own culture is inferior to all others, should be denounced and rooted out. The deficiencies of other cultures should be freely discussed rather than covered up.”
That statement epitomises the problems that some Australians have coming to terms with multi-culturalism.
Jeez, where did EP get the idea that Australian multi-culturalists see our own culture as inferior. The idea is that our culture is so bloody good that we are free to criticise ourselves and to refrain from seeing differences in other cultures as ‘deficiencies’.
Nice to know that 1) and 2) didn’t turn out to be “a strategic blunder of the highest order with no benefit whatsoever to Australia.”
Of course with such unbridled success in Afghanistan some of us were wondering why the ALP, among others want us to send troops to the graveyard of empires now. Hindsight’s a marvellous thing now that we’re not bogged down with an incursionary guerilla border war in ET and some of us might question what was the self interest in tearing up a perfectly good Timor Oil treaty with the Indos. You keep repeating it all regularly Fyodor and you might convince yourself it’s not all about long term values and short term risks be damned.
Did you have a point, Observa? What do I keep repeating regularly?
P.S. the Timor Gap Treaty was signed with the Indonesian government, not ET, which is now a sovereign state conducting its own foreign policy.
harry, there’s a good timeline on Al Qaida attacks at Winds of Change, here.
Al-Qaeda specifically linked the London bombings to Iraq. Bush apparently was quite happy with this because he said it proved that he was right that Iraq was the main front in the War on Terror (because he made it so). Whatever. Popper would see something very wrong with the logic of some of these claims.
Anyway, I think this is off-topic. I’d be interested in people addressing the question.
Whatever you think about immigration policy, how do you legislate for multiculturalism now? And how can it be justified if you do?
Bearing in mind, as Fyodor said, the War on Terror issue seems to be largely a pretext for many folks opposing multiculturalism.
Of course, Rob, it doesn’t include all the Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq after the invasion [or those before, naturally]. Fact is, so long as “foreign crusaders” occupy Iraq, Al Qaeda will not want for recruitment.
That doesn’t mean, however, that Al Qaeda will disappear if foreign forces withdraw from Iraq, but then nobody was suggesting that, apart from your straw man, perhaps.
“Whatever you think about immigration policy, how do you legislate for multiculturalism now?”
A liberal society does not legislate for such things. I would note that I do actually agree with some critics of multilculturalism insofar as all they are critiquing is State funding of ethnic community organisations. By all means, abolish all spending aimed at propping up artificial community divisions.
The appropriate policy for multiculturalism is not to have any policy.
We cross to Julie Thomas our resident roving burkha clad reporter in the ME.
Studio: What have you experienced today Julie?
Julie: A public stoning of an adulterous woman and hanging a couple of poofter teenagers.
Studio: Gosh, how did you find all that Julie?
Julie: Oh, a bit different.
Studio: In what way Julie?
Julie: A bit like not being allowed to drive a car really.
Studio: Err, are we ready to cross to the weather now?
Meanwhile back in the real world
http://www.theage.com.au/news/pamela-bone/the-bravest-women-in-the-world/2005/08/07/1123353210652.html
What does [East Timor being the motive for the Bali bombing] have to do with multiculturalism in Australia?
The connection is Islamic extremism.
Islamic extremists committed the Bali bombing because they saw Australia as an enemy of Islam (having liberated East Timor from an Islamic country).
Islamic extremists exist and multiply in Australia under the cover of multiculturalism. Islamic extremists and potential Islamic extremists immigrate to Australia under the cover of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism opposes the criticism of Islamic extremists or the taking of effective action against them.
Therefore, multiculturalism hinders the war on Islamic terrorism by sheltering the enemy.
But Jason, what then is the immigration policy–is it really possible to bail out by not having a policy when there are so many dimensions?
Relevance, Observa? Again, what does the latest dispatch from the Smoko Room have to do with the topic of this thread?
Fyodor beat me to it. Who’s saying that we shouldn’t support Muslim feminists?
I have my doubts that observa supports Australian non-Muslim feminists. I know EP doesn’t.
Fyodor, what the coalition forces – and governments – want to do more than anyting is ‘get the hell out of Iraq’. But they can’t do it until there exists a reasonable approximation of governmental authority (of whatever kind) and police and security forces that are capable of dealing with the insurgents.
On the broader issue of the post, I agree (yes I do) with Jason. Don’t have a policy at all, just let the community work it out for itself. It was doing just fine until the government weighed in with a heavy-handed ‘policy’ and millions of bucks and thousands of bureaucrats. The community never needed government assistance adjusting to Greeks and Italians migrating here after the war, and it never needed it adapting to Africans, Turks, Lebanese, Malaysians, Chinese, Thais, etc., etc., either. Let the deep currents of culture do their business, even if it takes a litle time.
And governments – get out of our faces. Stop telling us what to do and what to think. We’re better at working these things out than you are.
Observa is pointing out the wonderful advantages of incorporating Islamic fundamentalism into Australian society by way of multiculturalism.
As for the topic of this thread, I refer to my earlier post.
To which I would add that we need to renounce the UN Convention on refugees and any other international agreement which adversely affects our ability to control our own borders.
EP,
The Bali Bombing was perpetrated by Indonesian Muslims with a beef against Western non-Muslim foreigners. You state that the motivation was revenge for liberating East Timor.
How does this relate to the Australian population? Last I heard, the independence of ET was not a big deal for our Muslims. Why should it be? Bali is irrelevant to your argument.
What you really want to say is this:
However,
1. There’s no evidence supporting your assertion that government policies on “multiculturalism” encourage Islamic extremism. You could argue the opposite is true.
2. There’s no evidence supporting your assertion that multiculturalism attracts, or provides “cover” (whatever that is) for Islamic extremists.
3. There’s no evidence supporting your assertion that multiculturalism opposes the criticism of Islamic extremists or the taking of effective action against them.
Your argument is unsubstantiated hyperbole.
Peter
Long before there were huge national governments to piss money up the wall, people seemed to get along just fine without Departments of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Take a look at how the Top End of Australia was settled just before the White Australia Policy as described in Henry Reynolds’ book on the policy. You had Japanese pearlers, Chinese shopkeepers, Malay (Muslim) fishermen, Aborigines, fortune hunters all crowded into the Northern Territory, mostly getting along with each other. And though I realise the US in practice had a restriction on colored immigration too, in practice, it too had a little bit more ‘laissez faire’ attitude. The huddled masses came in their boats from all parts of Europe, and some parts of Asia, they worked in their garment factories or set up their laundries and they eventually forged their own culture just as the polyglot society of the Northern Territory would’ve if things hadn’t been brought to a halt by the White Australia Policy.
I don’t think having specially tailored multicultural policies really changed things much for the better or the worse. And our immigration policies today are a lot more selective than they were in the 19th century when people still managed to get along. Perhaps I’m an optimist but I genuinely believe that as long as the State is kept in its proper place (and does not become a prize for dispensing favourtisms as both the extreme Left and reactionary Right would have it) people tend to get along fine.
“I have my doubts that observa supports Australian non-Muslim feminists”
Ah well Kim, you’re just gunna have to understand that the observa is not really ‘deficient’ in any way, he’s just ‘different’ to you
In the context of curent post, what egs of taxes propping up culture, Jason, would you oppose?
Fyodor, your mere assertion that there is no evidence for my arguments counts for nothing. All three of my statements are correct, and the evidence is there for anyone who cares to look (which, of course, you don’t).
As for the motivations of the Bali bombers, they were made clear by statements from Jemaah Islamiyah members shortly after the bombings. Islamists regard all territory once ruled by Muslims as being forever Islamic, and Australia offended them by removing ET from Islamic rule.
If you ever bothered researching the stated motives of the terrorists themselves, you would find that, for example, bin Laden regards Spain as a target because it took Andalusia away from Muslims in the 14th Century.
But I know that you have no interest in the actual causes and cures of terrorism. All you want to do is continue justifying demonstrably unworkable leftist policies by pretending that the most significant political developments of the century, so far, simply did not happen.
This deliberate denial of reality is what makes the Left more irrelevant with each passing month.
If E Timor caused Bali, then why didn’t Iraq cause London?
Jason, yep. These days no sensible person gives a toss if someone is called Nguyen or Malik or Chen or plain old Smith. That would have happened whether governments intervened or not. As for people who aren’t sensible, government intervention doesn’t change their minds either.
That’s a truly devastating and original line of attack, EP: “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
You got nothing, puddy tat. More than usually piss-weak, even for you.
Agree with most of what you said Jason, but to be more explicit, immigration seems to be a salient part of some RWDBs whipping themselves into an heroic lather and proposing cessation of Muslim immigrants. In that sense I agree that a ‘points’ system of immigration needs to be left alone.
Rob says government should get off our backs, and stop telling us what to think. I agree.
That’s why I am deeply suspicious of laws which criminalise “terror speech”. Let there be a debate within the Islamic community (or “communities” – Australian Muslims are diverse in national origin, length of time here generationally, and political and religious beliefs). Engaging with the arguments is the best way to defeat radical views.
And deporting or banning radicals will only create martyrs, and by sending radical groups underground, make it more difficult for security authorities to deal with those who plan deeds not just mouth words.
I also wonder how much demographics have to do with this angst. An ageing population in Australia and the EU will lead to a multi-coloured and cultured population as we need to expand the workforce. Given that immigrant populations tend to have higher fertility rates than Anglos, EU countries and Australia will look very different in the next decade or few.
People can be socialised through education and work – we all have a role to play in forming a consensus of values. Government action won’t do it. And racism is deeply counterproductive to it.
How much of this angst is consciously or unconsciously coming from the same place as Hansonite “real Aussies are being swamped” fears?
If E Timor caused Bali, then why didnÄôt Iraq cause London?
Who says it didn’t? Iraq was a contributing factor to London, as was every interaction between Islam and the West in the last thousand years.
This is a global war; you can’t separate it into little self-contained bits and pretend they’re all separate issues.
Now is anyone else going to discuss alternatives to multiculturalism? Fyodor’s given up and retreated into ad-homs, Jason is strictly for a laissez-faire policy — does anyone else have a policy proposal?
Observa
A chocolate frog for the amusement factor but you didn’t respond to my point that multiculturalists do not regard our culture as deficient. Why do you RWB’s perpetrate this view?
Is it because you are different?
I’m having some problems here. When you guys talk about getting rid of multiculturalism, what do you mean?
Like, no more Thai or Lebanese restaurants? Or that we shouldn’t teach languages other than English in schools? Or that we shouldn’t have world movies on SBS? Or that we should have no SBS at all, and hence no TV programs except American and English (and the very few Australian ones?) Or that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to have mosques to worship in? Or that bookshops should only sell English books? Or that new immigrants aren’t allowed to settle in areas where other migrants already live?
There’s all this vague talk of multiculturalism being bad and I seriously wonder how you think you can just ‘erase’ it. Are Chinese immigrants not allowed to teach their children Chinese as well as English? Are we all to just become Protestants? Should we all change our name to ‘Smith’?
I’m just not getting it. EP gave a few examples and I just want to go back to the concrete examples of how you get rid of multiculturalism. C’mon boys, tell me what you’ve really got in mind?
Julie it’s because of this I believe, in the first link by Mark above :
“It is their way of expressing nostalgia for a monocultural, all-white England without being openly racist. The conservative bromides have a not-so-subtle subtext: Why is everyone so different these days? Can’t we go back to how it was? And, implicitly – why are there so many black and brown faces?”
Typical bluster, EP. Put up or shut up: demonstrate that multiculturalism is fostering terrorism in Australia.
If it isn’t, why do we need to change existing policies?
I’ve explained in some detail, above, exactly what I think the demise of multiculturalism should entail. Read it again if you didn’t understand it the first time.
Some advice for Kim and Peter — the old “you’re just a racist” slurs don’t work anymore. You’ll have to come up with real arguments if you want to convince anyone outside your coffee circle.
Reread my last post and stay on topic, EP.
Demonstrate (you know, like, with evidence and logic – “real arguments”, if you will) that multiculturalism is fostering terrorism.
All you’ve provided so far are your own feeble assertions, which coming from an authority like you are worth diddly.
EP, I wasn’t saying that. My point is that – because the angst about multiculturalism predates concerns about terrorism – it may well be that it’s coming from a similar concern as Hansonite fears – “soon Anglos will be a minority”. Well, they are in California and no-one’s massively upset, but Australia has a very different culture.
And my one use of the term was intending to point out that social integration is a two way street. Just as various immigrant groups are criticised for sticking to themselves, so too can other Australians do something positive and worthwhile by reaching out to their Turkish/Lebanese/Iranian/whatever neighbours and co-workers. The fact that they don’t too often does have something to do with soft racism.
So I’m not accusing anyone, just trying to understand where this is coming from and how we might deal with it together as a society.
There is no way to get rid of multiculturalism. The suggestions EP makes would not stop it. We could stop more Muslims coming and deport a few of the loudmouths but that won’t stop the growing acceptance of ‘difference’ and appreciation of the benefits of diversity.
Multiculturalism is here to stay, and as Kim says Australia will look different in a few decades when those from cultures more willing to breed will be more in evidence.
But dream on EP, hanker away for your conservative paradise where white people just as good as you ruled.
Getting back to multiculturalism,…
In the 50s and 60s this nation absorbed what, half of its population again in different people from different cultures? That worked, as I recall.
OK, how did we manage that?
That everyone had to learn to speak English was a tool to achieve an aim. We can consider the tools separetly.
It seems to me that the aim was willing and voluntary acceptance of a deal. Speaking to people who did this deal (and I’d like to hear a little from them here), it seems that they understood it to be that you accept that you are coming out here to become Australians. Not English-Australians, not Lithuanian-Australians, just Australians. The government will help you a bit, your taxes will repay it, but you have to do most of this yourself – your mates will help. You accept a secular state with separation of Church and State, you accept a liberal western democracy, you accept what it is and you adapt yourself to it. You also accept that your highest secular allegiance is to Australia and on your personal honour pledge to do no act of treason so as to harm the Australian state. You can personanly regard your highest personal allegiance as being to God, but as you have already accepted separation of church and state, this is irrelevant to your secular allegiance. Above all else, YOU LEAVE YOUR OLD NATIONAL, CLAN, (WHATEVER) GRIEVANCES AT THE BORDER, for they are now over and done with, for you are now an Australian. In the process of adapting yourself to it, you also change it from the grass roots up in to something richer, and this change is accepted as the reverse side of the deal. Australia accepted change, pushed by the ‘new Australians’, as a beneficial path.
Most of this seems to have worked in the past.
So surely it gives a clue, that being that we cannot accept people who will not accept this deal except in very small numbers. If a group has proven itself to be immiscible in the melting pot, they cannot be permitted to come in where their numbers are such as to destabilise ‘the deal’. That becomes a case of ‘sorry, no Welsh need apply’: and if Arab Muslims from Saudi, Egypt and Morocco WILL NOT accept the deal, well, they do not come in. If ethnically identical Arab Coptic Christians from Saudi, Egypt and Morocco WILL accept the deal, they are welcome.
(I’d like to just ban hippies, though! )
MarkL
Canberra
Immiscibale is a new word to me, MarkL!
How many parents of Italian and Greek Australians who are now in their 40s never learnt English (particularly the women) except a bare minimum to get by – in blue collar and labouring jobs?
I think you’ve got a very rosy-eyed view of the past. The past was always a better place, of course!
Re the point about deporting martyrs – has anyone considered the fact that the sorts of things Marx advocated in his day would have just been as threatening to the State and political order if they were acrually implemented and acted on as what some Islamist radicals are advocating? of course they would have led to different regimes but Marx also advocated (vaguely)ultimately some outcome resulting in the overthrow of the State. So the people advocating deportation of Islamic radicals today would have back then advocated kicking Marx out of England. Fortunately the English Prime Minister at the time (whoever he was) had more sense and today England still has a historical reputation unparalleled for its political freedoms.
wbb re your question, I would firstly distinguih between spending for generally approved interventions (e.g. education, arts funding) which might need to have its composition changed to reflect demographics (e.g. if Catholic or Rudolf Steiner schools are entitled to subsidy so should Muslim schools ) from subsidies dispensed solely out of some mission of promoting multiculturalism (e.g. grants that department gives out to etnic community federations). In principle I am opposed to the latter though – I brought this up only to highlight precisely what I had in common with some of the critics and what a principled liberal position as I saw it should be – though I did note that in practice I accept that the sorts of money we’re talking about probably don’t make a practical difference either way in discouraging adaptation.
MarkL
even in the good old days, no immigrant was actually given a goverment-funded nanny who would go around telling them ‘ LEAVE YOUR OLD NATIONAL, CLAN, (WHATEVER) GRIEVANCES AT THE BORDER’ did they?
Marx of course landed up in England because he was (in effect) deported from Germany!
Occur to anybody else on this thread that the commenters most opposed to what they understand as ‘multiculturalism’ are also the ones who seem to be arguing for the most stringent and far-reaching social control. It’s all about having no ‘dangerous’ religions, no languages other than English, no wierd behaviour, it’s do as I say or it’s the highway.
Multiculturalism is quite the opposite; in a very real way it’s a set of beliefs that maximise freedom for individuals and communities within a nation-state.
Don’t like multiculturalism? Do some reading about it. It might, just might, not be what you think it is.
That’s why I’ve been trying to draw out those on the right arguing the anti-government line as to whether they support draconian restrictions on freedom of speech and association, Liam. But no-one’s biting!
Quite the contrary liam. I would argue that it’s much better left to the community, without the government intervening. Far better that a fundamentalist Islamist should come to Australia, find his colleagues and neighbours so antithetical to his beliefs that he repatriates to his homeland, tells his mates of similar bent not to go to Australia, because ‘they don’t like people like us there’. And that those others do not come.
“I think youÄôve got a very rosy-eyed view of the past.”
And even in any “golden age”, you’d still find the MarkL’s of this world complaining how yellow everything looked.
Despite all the talk of blogs and the interweb supplanting the mainstream media, they’re still basically just forums for a good whinge or flirt.
Liam, we’re all aware multiculturalism is complex but it is predicated on tolerance. (I grew up in Darwin and can relate to Jason’s description of a very functional melting pot there.) This is not just a question for Anglo countries, but has become a serious question for the West in general. The biggest threat to multiculturalism is the threat from monoculturists like this creep here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16153527-29277,00.html
The complexities of multiculturalism are being explored more widely now http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16182520%255E7583,00.html
However we can’t ignore the threats to our multiculturalism outlined here http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=57290
“I grew up in Darwin and can relate to JasonÄôs description of a very functional melting pot there”
Christ, man, then why do you say some of the things you do???
Brilliant Observa, per the exceptional points of view and the ninemsm link:
“It does face a serious vulnerability in that the country has vast, sparsely populated areas that are difficult to patrol – places where terrorist activities could go unnoticed,” it said.”
Yank think tanks commenting on us indeed, where they most likely never visited?
Blowing up the odd Kangaroo makes us all quake in our boots, and since when in a five dog town is there an incentive, and the TV camera’s to record said event? Even if so, country people are far more observant of strangers aka the French agents after Rainbow Warrior.
We could always ask Downer to invite Indonesia to bomb the terrorists in the Kimberlys now couldn’t we?
Yeah Peter. Not so sure about the sparse outback bit unless they’re thinking of nice areas for paintball games. More the following:
Stratfor said Australia had long been a difficult venue for terrorists, mainly because of its small Muslim immigrant population and lack of a network of safe houses and logistic support.
But that had changed with the arrival of significant number of Muslim immigrants since the 1980s.
“The growth of these communities has created the potential for a terrorist support network,” it said.
“Melbourne and Sydney have growing populations of poor immigrants in urban areas that could provide recruitment and support bases for terrorist operatives.”
Jason, that melting pot didn’t include whackers with these views:
Mr Ben Brika said some of his students had travelled to central Asia to participate in terrorist training camps, but he said he would be betraying his religion if he advised them not to go.
“If I do this, it means I am betraying my own religion,” he said.
Muslims faced a problem in Australia as to whether to obey Australian or Islamic laws, he said.
“This is big problem. There are two laws, there is Australian law, there is Islamic law,” Mr Ben Brika said.
On other religions, he said: “I am not only against the Jew. I am against anyone who try to harm my religion.
“According to my religion, here, I don’t accept all other religions except the religion of Islam.
“I am telling you that my religion doesn’t tolerate other religion, it doesn’t tolerate.”
Now I wonder which political party thought these sort of ‘new Australians’ seemed like a good idea at the time in the 80s?
“Melbourne and Sydney have growing populations of poor immigrants in urban areas that could provide recruitment and support bases for terrorist operatives.”
Could provide=will provide?
Melbourne and Sydney COULD support McVeigh type terrorists as well ? Shit, lets go after those ‘white guy’ gun nut survivalists, they’re dangerous, they will destroy our nation, all 60 of them—and cement trucks should be banned!!!
Crikey, nabs, where did this statement come from, and why?
“And even in any “golden age”, youÄôd still find the MarkLÄôs of this world complaining how yellow everything looked.”
Glad to know you think you know how I’ll react in any given circumstance! How… pavlovian.. of you.
I have postulated that we should look at what has worked in the past and build on that, seeing that Australia has an extraordinary record of importing and merging disparate peoples postwar in to a generally peacful and generally harmonious whole. I did NOT claim perfection in this process, merely that it worked reasonably well.
jason dodges the idea and waffles about government funded nannies who never existed, and Kim about a lack of perfect English diction. Nothing very substantive to add to the discourse there. In fact, if that is the best assessment of the failings of the old process, it is still looking fairly reasonable as a basis to work on.
MarkL
Canberra
That wasn’t Kim’s point, Mark. As I can confirm, having gone to high school in the early 80s with many of the children of first-generation Italian, Vietnamese and Greek migrants, many of their parents spoke little or no English at all. The fathers tended to have a minimal grasp, whereas many of the women never learned English at all. I also suspect literacy rates weren’t fantastic. And of course in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and to some degree in the 80s (but more so with Vietnamese migrants), these earlier waves of migrants were heavily criticised for all settling in particular suburbs, building their own communal institutions, not integrating, etc. And indeed of bringing their politics with them – think of tensions between various Eastern European communities, and far-right groups like the Ustashe. Or if you’d prefer, the significant Italian presence in the CPA in regional Queensland.
There’s every likelihood that the Nigerian immigrants of today will experience the same, but their kids and grandkids won’t.
And Jason and others are right to say that community institutions are not an artefact of multiculturalism per se. They were around in the Italian and Greek communities in the 50s – and even earlier among Northern European and Chinese migrants.
The new sectarianism. Yawn.
We’re stepping around the problem that C.L. boldly advanced, aren’t we? Why is it that so many – not all – Muslims (from the ME, North Africa and Pakistan) have such difficulty dealing with modern and post-modern living in the west, unlike the Greeks and Italians of yore, and the Chinese, Thais and Malaysians of more recent times?
I’m sure Hayek knows.
But how do we know that’s the case? As I’ve tried to suggest, the Greeks and Italians of yore didn’t have a wholly positive experience. Read some literature – and I mean novels – not history.
Obviously, to the degree that the statement is true, greater cultural difference is a factor. By the way, a fair number of Arabic immigrants are Christian (they’ve had a much greater propensity to immigrate out of proportion to their numbers) and Australian Muslims come from 70 different nationalities.
Many have been here for a long time – Lebanese for example, and Afghans for over a century.
So if you want to start talking about religion, some of those people from these areas (Nigeria is about 50/50 Christian/Muslim) aren’t Islamic to start with, and you’re collapsing huge cultural, ethnic and religious (and indeed political) differences into one overarching category. A pretty shaky generalisation.
So C.L.’s mission is to boldly go where every RWDB has been before?
Rob
The Malay Malaysians, Indonesians and Turks seem to be dealing with modern living quite well in their own way (and please let’s not bring up Mahathir’s vulgarly antisemitic speech again as if there are no antisemites among modernist westerners or remaining political authoritaranisms in these countries as if, say, Singapore were any better).
A major factor in the failure of Muslims to assimilate is the policy of multiculturalism, which actively opposes assimilation.
Another good reason to relegate this failed, hypocritical policy to the dustbin of history.
By the way, as Jason, Julie, Kim and perhaps other commenters pointed out above, there are economic imperatives for Australia to attract a diverse population. Like most first world nations (with the exception of the US – though there’s massive demographic change going on there with a huge increase in the Hispanic and Asian populations), we are an ageing country with a low fertility rate. The effects of this in the labour market and skills shortages are being felt very much as we speak. In fact, I’m working at the moment on a workforce planning consultancy for a large organisation which bears out these real issues. There’s no doubt both that we will need to increase our immigration levels (as Howard has already been doing) and that we will gain a competitive advantage from diversity.
I’d like to see more fact in the debate. DIMIA has called for a consultancy into social integration among migrant populations. I’ve looked at the tender, and I’m sure it will attract a team of high powered economists, political scientists and sociologists (and hopefully historians). Social integration is a relevant criterion, but not in the way that impressionistic and ideology/op-ed generalisations would suggest. No doubt there is some existing literature on this – if I get a chance (and I’m very busy with work at the moment) in the near future, I’ll have a quick look around.
“Despite all the talk of blogs and the interweb supplanting the mainstream media, theyÄôre still basically just forums for a good whinge or flirt.”
Yeah. Amen to that. Here I was, asking “important questions” a while back in this thread, like a knock-knee’d Pollyanna on Pixie dust. Inevitably, it was all for naught as the inexorable “take that lefty, piss off righty” exchange ensued. If blogs are the future, I’m Ken Parish………
Here’s some fact for the debate:
Six per cent of British Muslims believe that the murder of British civilians is justified.
That’s a lot of potential terrorists right there.
I’m not aware of any equivalent Australian survey, but I suspect the numbers here would be similar.
No idea why you highlight the bit about Western society being immoral, EP, since 100% of white Pentecostalists probably agree. I’d have thought that number either is a good sign, or proves nothing (because of the vagueness of the question).
Has it occurred to you that the motives might be to oppose British policy? I oppose Australian policy. That doesn’t mean I support terrorism to back up my opinions.
Your 6% figure is the only relevant one, in my view, but it still doesn’t demonstrate what you claim.
And I’d be very interested in seeing the questions and methodology before I gave this survey too much credence.
Good job we deported all of those IRA-supporting Catholics back in the days of the Troubles, eh EP?
Did the IRA target Australia?
A more appropriate historical analogy would be the suspension of immigration from Germany and Japan while Australia was at war with those countries.
Similarly, we should suspend immigration of Muslims while we are at war with Islamists.
Hear that, folks? Apparently we’re at war with “Islamists”. No doubt EP will be seen leading the Mobile Infantry into downtown Lakemba. What a joke.
Did the IRA target Australia?
I thought an attack on the UK or the US was an attack on Australia, according to our Dear Leader.
Similarly, we should suspend immigration of Muslims while we are at war with Islamists.
The first category encompasses the second, but the second, even on a rather stretched interpretation of EP’s poll figures is much much smaller.
Word is that it’s now a “struggle” against extremism rather than a war. Still, if you’re deluded, a splash of drama doesn’t do any harm. On! the suburban curtain twitching jihad of the I’m an English speaker, always have been, and that’s why I’m a special Aussie brigades.
Oh, the wilful ignorance of the remnant Left, forever stuck in the 1970s and soon to be irrelevant, like the British pacifists of 1938.
Like Geoff said, I didn’t get too far by talking about the need for evidence on social integration. What a lovely integrated culture we have on blogs – partisan sniping!
Hey, I supplied some evidence on social integration. It was Fyodor and Antony who then started crapping on about nothing.
You’re too sensitive, EP! The thread as a whole has deteriorated – which tends to happen at this end of a thread and at this end of a day.
I think this thread was doomed as soon as Observa mentioned John Ray with a straight face.
‘The Malay Malaysians, Indonesians and Turks seem to be dealing with modern living quite well in their own way.’
Quite agree, Jason,which gives the lie to the hypothesis that ‘Islam can’t or won’t modernise’. Why it finds it so hard to do so in the context of the Middle East, though, is another question.
Well it seems preaching hate speech in Britain will be an act of treason http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16188102-23109,00.html
I have a feeling we’ll follow down this path probably after a terrorist attack on Australian soil. Treason can of course attract the ultimate penalty internally, if Western societies feel aggrieved enough.
There is also a growing problem with Islam in southern Thailand propagated by Malaysia allowing Arab Muslims, clearly fundamentalist agitators, access through its open visa policy for all Muslims. Malaysia will have to decide which side of the fence it’s on in the near future. One of the problems for those who are tardy about actively resisting and condemning the aims of fundamentalist Islam, is the likelihood of a serious attack with WMD on Western cities in future. The repercussions of such an attack will be very costly for those who side with Islamic terrorists. IMO Malaysia is playing a dangerous game here.
Robert, I have to admit the John Ray reference struck me as well!
observa, I see you watched Lateline. Sounds like you’re itching for a preventive war in the region! Treason of course doesn’t attract the ultimate penalty in Britain anymore, if you mean the death penalty. Or perhaps you’d prefer to return to having people drawn and quartered for treason.
Your bloodlust is showing through, my friend.
Rob, well a lot of the reasons why “Islam can’t or won’t modernise” have to do with repression by the Egyptian government against modernist Islamic scholars, many of whom have been imprisoned and exiled since the early 90s and the Saudi support and export of Wahhabism. That’s if you’re talking about religion. I always get terribly confused because too many people in these discussions seem to conflate “Muslims” and “Islam”.
I pointed out previously that many immigrants to Australia from the Middle East are Christian. There’s not a hell of a lot of cultural difference between them and Arab Muslims – except in the case of Lebanon where of course the civil war leaves scars.
“Quite agree, Jason,which gives the lie to the hypothesis that ‘Islam canÄôt or wonÄôt moderniseÄô. Why it finds it so hard to do so in the context of the Middle East, though, is another question”
I suspect that the running sore that is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is part of the reason behind this, Rob. The resentments it creates are fodder for extremists in that region. The closer the countries are to regions of extremist influence in the ME, the more ‘aggressive’ the form of Islam. The Muslims in South East Asia were for a long time more isolated from all this but not anymore, no doubt partly for the reasons Observa notes, partly because as documented by Naipaul for instance in his books on Islam, modernisation in South East Asia has created culture shock for some of the newly emerging middle classes, drawing some of them to a form of Islam which guarantees more certainty (the sort of ‘engineers’ mentality’ as opposed to the more nuanced rural Islam of the past that was mixed with old pre-Islamic traditions).
Incidentally I think the phenomenon of ‘culture shock’ creating the need for greater certainty in religion can also explain the strange phenomenon of the US where hard core christian fundamentalisms exists side by side with great technological and economic dynamism, and probably also accounts for the emergence of pentecolism and the other sorts of speaking in tongues protestanism among the Latin American middle classes supplanting traditional Catholicism. A strong paradoxical consequence of modernity that Mark can probably shed some light on.
Jason, I tend to agree. Although I am generally pro-Israel, I think the presence of Israel – an outstandingly successful modern state, politically, economically and (most importantly, perhaps) militarily – bang in the middle of the Islamic Middle East has served as a source of fear, resentment, hatred and paranoia that has effectively short-circuited any impulse to modernisation that might have emerged in the region had Israel not been there. Perhaps the Arab states could have dealt with their own failures more creatively, or perhaps not failed so badly in the first place, had Israel – the Jewish-Western interloper state – not been there to pre-empt them in just about every way you can think of.
The same sort of culture shock in times of postmodern uncertainty (media overload, perceived immorality, family breakups, rising crime rates, dissolution of traditional social structures, weakening of traditional authority figures, changes in sexual/social mores) that leads to fundamentalist Christianity in the West. That’s why fundamentalisms are better seen as postmodern than pre-modern – they rest largely on invented traditions which throw out the window centuries of real tradition – an example being the measured doctrine of jihad. And Christian fundamentalism is increasingly appealling to a similar demographic.
Rob, are you talking about Islamic modernisation or modernisation of Middle Eastern states?
I point out again that until recently, Lebanon had a near majority of Christians, and Syria, Egypt and Iraq had significant Christian minority populations.
It’s also definitely the case that there was a great deal of communal tolerance among Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Middle East prior to the post ww1 redrawing of the map by France and Britain, and the Balfour Declaration.
I don’t know that that nexus is right, Mark. One can have reservations about or oppositions to all of those things and still not be a fundamentalist Christian. You could read Fukuyama’s ‘The Great Disruption’ if you’ve not already done so.
Modernisation of Middle Eastern states, Mark. I’m increasingly of the view that Islam is largely irrelevant – well, peripheral – in the overall equation.
“as Observa mentioned John Ray with a straight face.”
Damn right. Another one of those mouldy old blokes who could put the world to rights if only it hadn’t passed them by.
Careful observa you don’t end up like that pathetic old fart. Quick! Back to the smoko room for a lungful of real life.
Fukuyama’s Great Disruption is in a to read pile, Rob. I don’t say that everyone with concerns about those things turns to fundamentalism, just that such concerns are one factor, research shows, in reaching for the sense of security provided by a black and white God.
As to the problems of the Middle East, that opens a vast canvas which is too often painted in broad brushstrokes.
But I’m glad that you’ve come to the view you have – it’s one I share, and I think recognising it advances things one hell of a lot.
Multiculturalism is a natural out-growth of liberty. Monoculturalism cannot be maintained without government coercion. It is interesting to note that most of the proponents for monoculturalism require the government to intervene. If monoculturalism was so appealing then people would be converting to it on their own. They arent, and I think that is a good thing. Diversity is important for a healthy society and culture.
To counter EPs lazy stereotype of Islam, it should be noted that Muslim nations that have free and open elections, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia, have chosen secular liberal governments over fundamentalist or religious parties.
I’m coming to the view that Islam is a mask, an alibi, a method of concealment behind which deeper, structural faults are hidden, is what I mean.
And on Israel, as I said I am generally pro, though I disagree vehemently with the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories. But I do think that Israel has created a problem for the general Middle East which the region has not been able to resolve. Absent that problem, the ME may well have evolved in more positive ways. Yet, perhaps paradoxically, I fully support the establishment and the continuation in existence of the Jewish state.
“IÄôm coming to the view that Islam is a mask, an alibi, a method of concealment behind which deeper, structural faults are hidden,…”
hidden? Hidden!!? HIDDEN!!!?!
MY GOD! THEY’RE CALLING FROM WITHIN THE HOUSE!
ROB! QUICK! CHECK UNDER YOUR BED NOW!
Mark
You may be confusing the Vietnamese inflow into Australia a little. It was not an immigrant inflow, it was a major refugee inflow. Remember the ‘Boat People’ and the ironically named ‘refugee regatta’ in Darwin as the band Redgum so oddly put it? I was at sea enough in the South China Sea in the 1980s to well remember that horror.
refugees (especially those escaping Communist regimes) certainly need not speak English on arrival, but should learn it after arrival. It was remarkable how many Vietnamese refugees were persecuted Christians, too. I well recall the welcome the priest in our parish gave them, and how the parish rallied around to make sure their kids settled well in to the local Catholic primary school. They could not afford teh fees, of course, so they were reduced to tokens and the other parents picked up the tab. I also remember that you’d see every new Australian family so helped fronting, en masse, to the school working bees, determined to say ‘thanks’ that way. One of them said to me as we were digging holes for tree plantings that he would accept the assistance of his fellow catholics, but not charity, and that he was assisting in return at the school that day to maintain his family’s dignity. Great bloke. Overall, the Vietnamese have also begun assimilating reasonably well (in the second generation at least) but I have obtained this impression from personal observation, so it has only the limited and subjective value that implies.
BTW, an excellent and informative ‘take’ on this is in today’s Australian. See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16182520%255E7583,00.html
MarkL
Canberra
As you say MarkL, it is your personal observation about Vietnamese refugees that you base your opinion on. Do you have any personal knowledge of how Muslim immigrants are responding to the circumstances in which they find themselves when they come here?
I suspect that our attitude toward them is different than it was toward the Vietnamese and the previous ethnic groups, for a number of reasons to do with their own characteristics and the world situation which create more problematic attitudes toward them.
I also think that the media (oh the bloody media — blame them for everything) are focusing on a few malcontents and this makes the problem seem worse than it is (in Australia anyway).
I am sure that back in the 50Äôs you could have found an Italian man who would have had attitudes toward Australia similar to Mr Ben Brika’s. His views have been put in perspective by other Muslims, so why continue to present them as if they were important.
It’s important to present the views of radical Muslims who have settled in Australia with a determination to destry our society. It is only with knowledge of the enemy that we can protect ourselves.
Significantly, it is the advocates of multiculturalism who attempt to conceal or play down such realities. In extreme cases, such as that of the Victorian government, they have even made it illegal to reveal the truth about Islamist activities.
Since we are at war and multiculturalism either shields the enemy or actively aids the enemy, we must dismantle this failed policy.
…and he’s back.
How is it that “advocates of multiculturalism” are concealing the views of radical Muslims? For that matter, how does the Victorian government make it illegal to tell the truth? Before you start in on the legislation, please remember that vilification is required for the law to be breached.
Who has the government of Australia declared war upon, EP? You have no case for these hyperbolic assertions. Repeating them doesn’t make them convincing. Put up or shut up.
EP, are you for real? Do you really believe what you just wrote or are you having a go? It might be an idea to see someone about this paranoia, unless you ‘need’ to believe in a world where evil can be found under every coloured stone.
But to deal rationally with your points, just for my own amusement. How many Muslims do you know who have settled in Australia with a determination to destroy our society? They have not been very effective so far, despite the help from their ‘running dog’ multiculturalist allies.
But good luck with your war and dismantling the failed policy that seems to me to be very much part of the Australia that I live in.
From my perspective you are determined to destroy my Australian society and have just as much chance of doing this as that dissaffected Muslim man who sounds off from the safety of his living room.
My very dear friend Fyodor if you examine the transcript of what Danny noth said at their seminar you will see he was dealing with principally wahhibbist islam ( not all the time though).
The Judge found he was bringing islam into ridicule becasue 9 my words) muslims might actually believe it e koran and hadiths!
In victoria you simply cannot talk about Wahibbism.
strike another one up for the tolerant ones in society!
Homer, my most dear and treasured acquaintance, as you should well know by now, the issue was vilification of Muslims, i.e. incitement to hatred, not interpretation of the Qu’ran. And it’s spelled WAHHABISM, after Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, not “Wahibbism”.
Know your enemy, Homerkles.
Julie, your own attempts to trivialise and deny the significance of Islamic militancy are an example of multiculturalism shielding the enemy.
British multiculturalists were saying the same sort of things, until the murder of 50 people by Islamic terrorists made their position untenable.
As for the illegality of exposing Islamic fundamentalism in Victoria, Homer has already covered it. Again, this censorship law was passed because of the government’s multiculturalist ideology.
The war between Islamic fundamentalism and liberal democracy has been going on for at least two decades, though it heated up considerably after the events of September 2001. It is a global war and its aspects can be seen anywhere that Islam collides with modern society. Only the congenitally stupid and the ideologically blinded are unaware of this.
Fair dinkum EP; “It is a global war and its aspects are seen anywhere Islam collides with modern society” … hahahaha; Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia all chose secular liberal democracy at the ballot box over fundmanentalist theocracy. The problem is not muslims, nor modernity, it is monoculturalism enforced through government intervention. The irony is, what you are advocating, will ultimately lead Australia to be a failed state in the same way that Saudi Arabia is now.
My even more dearr friend Fyodor,
you should know they had to burn the school down to get me to finish it!
If you read the judgement it is about bringing Islam into ridicule which is in the legislation!
Are we guilty of treason for “shielding the enemy”? Just sayin…
Nonsense, Cameron.
Indonesia alone has been the site of two major Islamic terrorist bombings directed at Australians, the burning of thousands of Christian churches by Muslims, and an ongoing Islamic separatist war in Aceh. The choice of secular liberal democrats at the ballot box is irrelevant, when the issue is the fact of extremist Muslim violence.
The failure of multiculturalism has now been acknowledged by all but the fanatics; soon it will be regarded as a great mistake of the past, like the White Australia Policy.
Surely all fundamentalists seek to destroy liberal democracy? Hence the terrorism by anti-abortionists.
Consistent with Cameron’s views, it’s quite clear that not all Muslims are fundamentalists and people are more likely to become angry fundamentalists because of attitudes like your own.
It seems to me (but I only have hearsay knowledge) that monoculturalists like you are louder and more organised in Britain, and that is what contributes to the state of mind that leads British born Muslims to become fundamentalists.
Are we guilty of treason for “shielding the enemy”? Just sayin…
Not unless it’s deliberate. In the case of most multiculturalists, it’s an acccidental byproduct of a well-meaning but deeply flawed policy.
It’s interesting that you should raise the issue of threason, though. In the UK, which has advanced ahead of Australia as a result of the recent bombings, the government is actively investigating the possibility of charging terrorist supporters with treason.
It’s likely that Australia will arrive at a similar state of common sense — sooner rather than later, if there is a successful attack here. In that case, the Abu Bakrs and David Hicks-wannabees will have to watch out.
It seems to me (but I only have hearsay knowledge) that monoculturalists like you are louder and more organised in Britain, and that is what contributes to the state of mind that leads British born Muslims to become fundamentalists.
I see you’re blaming the victim now.
British people who want Muslim immigrants to accept British values are at fault when the Muslim immigrants decide to murder British people.
Classy.
How tiresome. Bombings overseas have nothing to do with multiculturalism in Australia, EP. And you’ve shown no evidence supporting your contention that supposedly “multicultural” policies in Australia have a supportive or protective effect on terrorism. Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not an argument make.
Doesn’t make an argument or any sense but it makes him feel good.
Blaming is your thing EP not mine. I see ‘difference’ not ‘deficits’ remember?
And you know, it wasn’t Muslim immigrants who murdered British people. The bombers were born in Britain. Are you suggesting Muslims born in Britain are not British?
EP, Are you claiming Indonesia is multicultural and that led to the attacks at Bali and Jakarta?
I cant determine your leap here “The choice of secular liberal democrats at the ballot box is irrelevant, when the issue is the fact of extremist Muslim violence. The failure of multiculturalism has now been acknowledged by all but the fanatics;
If Indonesia was multicultural; and multiculturalism, as you claim, is a failure that leads to terrorism, that would suggest Indonesians would choose extremist islamic parties at the ballot box? But they didnt.
The reason Indonesia didnt was because they are going through their own little renaissance, and flushing all the ills of the Suahrto regime from their system. Indonesians are loving liberty and all power to them. They are the great hope of the moment.
Australia on the other hand, seems to be going through its own little anti-reformation and seeking monoculturalist authoritarianism through the absolute power of a centralised government.
One country is going forward, one backward. Yet the country going backward has not had a terror attack on its soil, but that hasnt stopped our own extremist peons wetting their pants in anticipatory fear.
Multiculturalism is a natural progression of liberty. Good things happen when government gets out of the way, and the end of the monoculturalist experiment that was the White Australia policy engendered it. The “multicultural” policies of the 80s did not create multiculturalism, government no longer meddling in culture was the reason for the growth and strength of multiculturalism.
But now we have the “history wars” and all other manner of government meddling in trying to define a national culture; the glorious unitary nation-state; c entralised and absolute in its influence. Some of the extreme Australian bloggers need to be reminded that communism and the Soviet Union was done in by the innovation in the decentralised capitalist system that led to greater prosperity than any centralised command and control economy could.
It is the same with multiculturalism, a decentralised system craps on a centralised system every second of every day when it comes to innovation. A unitary system cannot innovate, and eventually cuts its own roots off to maintain the thickness of the trunk.
People such as yourself EP, who are running around in fear, with conflated and irrational hysteria that Australia is promoting domestic terrorism by allowing multiculturalism are chewing at the roots which is the strength of our liberal democratic system.
Seriously, show some backbone mate.
Cameron Riley, thanks for that link above, crystallised many loose ends.
“But now we have the “history wars” and all other manner of government meddling in trying to define a national culture; the glorious unitary nation-state; c entralised and absolute in its influence.”
One of the ways John Howard consciously or unconsciously tries to define a national [mono]culture (and undermine liberal multiculturalism in the process) begins by wrapping himself in the flag, and attending every Anzac shindig even to the extent of flying halfway round the world to attend the funeral of the last Gallipoli vereran. Well may we say that patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel.
The language that goes with this is the exclusive monocultural language of “mateship” but the subliminal implied message from this , (to the monocultural glorious Anzac principled state supporters), which historically acknowledges original Anzac beliefs’ is that the”wogs” and “yellow peril” who somehow slunk into “our” country ARE NOT PART OF IT AND NEVER WILL BE. The “poofs”, “darkies”, “suffragettes”, “Abduls” and “Jackos” are not wanted in OUR little exclusive Anglo-centric club!!!
In 1996 when Howard said his policies were “for all of us” what he really meant was “for all of us” monoculturalists living in a bygone age.
Remember Howards disgrace at the time of the Hawke government, the cutting of Asian immigration that Howard peddled? Years later was that a mistake? No, years later, Howard said, if my memory serves me correctly, that that was “clumsy.”
The Anzac ‘legend” so called, has much mythical quasi religious BS built into it but none more disgusting than Howard’s use of it as a monocultural lever against multicultural Australia. Even the dead can be used to prop up the centralised monocultural state.
Some interesting thoughts (as always) from Salman Rushdie on Islam here.
If the issue is ‘if we are at war’, then yes, we are. Read the striking document known as ‘The Ladenese Epistle’. We are at war with a malignant ideology because it finds the bare fact of our existance to be intolerable. The followers of this ideology have been saying this for many years, and acting on what they have said (ie, attacking and killing us for NOT being THEM).
Is this a majority of Muslims? Of course not, and nobody pretends that it is. Is there a majority of Muslims in certain nations, regions and areas who generally agree with this? Yes, in certain areas of the world.
When people say they hate ‘the westerners’ and they are going to war with them to kill them indiscriminately, then they go and actually DO what they say, I tend to believe them.
I don’t understand why so many people resort to sophistry to try and avoid this issue. We ARE at war, because these lovely people are actively waging war against us.
The only real issue is what we do about it.
MarkL
Canberra
Now this is just getting scary. A thread on multiculturalism, and the question of the day is whether ‘we’re’ at war with other Australian citizens. Holy fucking moly.
I’m going to find my passport in my filing cabinet, and wash the thing out with soap.
Who have we declared war upon, Mark L? You think it’s sophistry, but obeying the rules of war is what separates us from the terrorists. Australia is not at war with anybody. Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. Changing our way of life in reaction to their crimes is the gutless, soft option of the paranoid.
More denial from the Left.
It’s irksome to witness such deliberate refusal to see reality — but there is a bright side.
The further the Left drifts into fantasyland in response to a reality that refuses to fit into its ideological straitjacket, the more influence it will lose.
And that will be a good thing in the long term.
Your inability to deploy a rational, fact-based case proves that you’ve already conceded the argument, EP. You’re the one living in fantasyland.
I think I’ll leave this thread to its fate with this rare quote from the Guardian:
Think about how you’ll look from the perspective of twenty years in the future. It won’t be good.
Do you mean, look from your ideological perspective from now, looking at THE LEFT’s point of view you abandoned several years ago, from twenty years into the future, EP?
Fire up the flux capacitator. It’ll make just as much sense as predicting historical judgments on the present.
You’ll always be a bad loser, EP, even when you change sides.
‘They’ are certainly at war with ‘us’ – they’ve said so, over and over again, and proved it almost as often. I don’t think the parallel with the 30s is exact, because few on the left actually espouse or advocate the ends that the terrorists seek – the return of the caliphate, the global victory of militant Islam, the whole world subordinate to Allah. In the 30s, on the other hand, communists in the liberal democracies openly proclaimed their loyalty to Stalin and the Soviet model.
However, because the left finds it much easier to criticise its own culture and magnify its imperfections, its reflexive response to terrorist incidents is to think that somehow it must be ‘our’ fault. Thus, they understand the terrorists’ motivations in terms of their own critiques of western society, largely ignoring what the terrorists themselves say.
If there’s a parallel with the 30s, it’s probably more in line with the institutional Communist Parties’ response to the rise of fascism. They simply could not see that what they were dealing with was something that had not occurred before, something that was a completely new phenomenon and a deadly threat. They, too, chose to interpret fascism in terms familiar to themselves and were able to proclaim, against all the evidence, that fascism was conclusive proof that capitalism was in its death throes. Trotsky was one of the few with the sense to call it right.
After multiculturalism
The style of multiculturalism we’ve had over the past 30 years has been generous almost to the point of cultural suicide. We need to wind it back a bit. We need to encourage and expect people to assimilate as part…
“I also think that the media (oh the bloody media — blame them for everything) are focusing on a few malcontents and this makes the problem seem worse than it is (in Australia anyway).”
That very point is made here Julie http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16163020%255E7583,00.html
“Consistent with CameronÄôs views, itÄôs quite clear that not all Muslims are fundamentalists and people are more likely to become angry fundamentalists because of attitudes like your own.”
That’s a bit of a chicken and egg observation about mutual tolerance Julie, but we do need to be mindful of ratcheting up intolerance generally.
Yes Cameron’s link does show the diversity of race, and culture among followers of Islam, similar to Christianity. IMO John Ray(yes he does bang on a bit about leftys)was making a valid point about the need to discuss these things openly, without trotting out the hysterical R word all the time, as a sign of one’s intellectual and moral superiority. That certainly appears to be happening here and elsewhere now.
Cameron’s point about democracy and free choice is a good one and presumably why many of us support intervention in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, although the question remains as to whether it can be imposed or kick-started by outside intervention. Certainly 8 million voters in Iraq is a promising start, but we do need to be mindful of some racial, cultural and religious sensitivities. Standing down at the delicately appropriate time. It might be very interesting if standing down in Iraq occurs much sooner than Afghanistan and the fundies who want all infidels out of Muslim lands, only have Afghanistan as their focus of grievance. Presumably when we’ve left both theatres, the fundies will quietly go back to their prayers and all will be sweetness and light again.
The test of a moderate and diverse Islam will be how the different racial and cultural groups handle their next big challenge-Iran. Presumably they will all see the sense in the UN stance here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16200342-23109,00.html
After all no moderate Muslim could possibly support the ‘Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison’ surely? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH09Ak03.html
“Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity”
Yes, well obviously no moderate anybody wants that sort of national psyche’s finger on the nuclear button, so we’ll all be at one on this, unless of course this is a calling that binds all Muslims. In that case, it will also be the call for all infidels to take up art classes. Tolerance will be the first casualty of WWIII. Keep your eye on Iran for all the indicators.
Speaking of the intolerant Mr Rushdie and his outrageous views linked to previously, notice the tolerant from the Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison take the only course open to them:
‘The application form for “Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations” requires the applicant to provide name, age, address and contact details. It also requires the applicant to affirm his “preparedness for carrying out martyrdom operations” and gives a choice of three targets: “occupiers of the Islamic holy sites” (referring to the US occupation of Najaf, Karbala and other places in Iraq), “occupiers of Jerusalem” (referring to Israel), and Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses against whom Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa or legal judgment for death in 1989.’
Fyodor, you are being deliberately obtuse. Formal declarations of war are now no longer used in international diplomacy, and you know it. It is perfectly possible to be ‘at war’ with a non-state actor, and you know that, too. War is a state of political action where violence is applied to further political ends and it is nearly always started by ONE side. So stop playing the ingenue.
We are waging war in the same sense we waged it during the Emergency. Like this war, that one was caused by one actor shifting from discourse to applied violence to obtain his stated political ends.
“Who have we declared war upon, Mark L?”
COMMENT: We are at war with an amorphous group driven by a totalitarian ideology. Declaration is not required. It is a defacto situation. Read their very public statements over the past decade where they explain this in minute detail for people like you to read. Note the congruence of their stated intentions, and their actions. Also note the butcher’s bill.
“You think itÄôs sophistry, but obeying the rules of war is what separates us from the terrorists.”
COMMENT: No, I do not think you guilty of sophistry, but of wilful ignoring of the bald facts. There is no causal link between the first and second statements here. They attack unarmed, by our definition ‘innocent’ civilians. NOte that by their public statement, you (personally, Fyodor) are NOT ‘innocent’ as per our LOAC. They have stated (and acted) as if YOU, personally, are a legitimate target for them because you believe in things they do not, like free speech, religious freedom, and rights for women. That you believe in these things is THE REASON they want to kill you. Do not believe me – look at what they say about it We do not act in this manner. We follow the LOAC. They do not.
“Australia is not at war with anybody.”
COMMENT: No? Then please explain the deliberate application of violence against us (we have well over 100 dead Australian Civilians now) to obtain their desired political ends. By definition, that is an act of war – just one by a non-state array of actors. You choose to use an obsolete legal definition of the term ‘war’. You are utterly wrong.
“Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.”
COMMENT: Wrong. Terrorists are enemy combatants operating outside the LOAC. They define themselves as such by their words and their actions. They disagree with you. Legally, they are “francs tirieurs” as per the Hague Conventions,as they do not bear arms openly, wear no distunguishing uniform, and have no formal chain of command. The ONLY internationally agreed way to treat these people was defined over a century ago. If taken prisoner, they have to be formally identified as unauthorised combatants. Once this is done, it is REQUIRED that they be shot out of hand. This is why I disagree strongly with the US treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees. They have not followed international law and the LOAC. The bulk of those detainees were required by international law to be summarily executed on capture.
“Changing our way of life in reaction to their crimes is the gutless, soft option of the paranoid. ”
COMMENT: Wrong once again. When attacked by a self-declared enemy, it is wise to take such actions as minimise the potential for harm to our citizens. This is the fundamental responsibility of government to its citizens. Perhaps you are unaware of this. That is why both the Libs and the ALP have supported actions to minimise such potential. They know their responsibilities. You, apparently, do not.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL,
Formal declarations of war are used in modern diplomacy, and help to clarify matters immensely. You’ve chosen not to name the enemy, which makes things even more confusing. I should have thought defining the enemy would have been the first step to knowing and defeating him. But that would be too constrictive, wouldn’t it?
I’m assuming by your reference to “The Emergency” that you mean the Malayan Emergency. If you are this is not so much obtuse as grossly inappropriate. You should know better. A civil war fought in a defined geographic area by a colonial government against a guerilla army is nothing like fighting an informal network of international terrorists.
Hyperbole. The fact that non-state actors believe themselves to be at war with us does not mean we are at war with them. They are criminals and do not deserve the status of enemy combatants.
Australian civilians were murdered in foreign countries by non-state actors. These were crimes, but not acts of war. There is nothing obsolete or inaccurate in distinguishing the two. In fact, the distinction is necessary. Not all violent crimes are acts of war.
Remember, it is only your opinion that we are at war with anybody. The rules regarding Franc-Tireurs [please remember the spelling; your French is lousy] apply to combatants in a declared war not wearing recognisable insignia. It does not automatically apply to terrorists. You seem convinced, but wiser legal heads than yours have been wracking their brains over this one, e.g. on the subject of the GTMO detainees, and disagreed with your interpretation, to say the least. All terrorists in Western democracies have been charged with committing crimes against the state, not granted the status of enemy combatants. Rule of law and all that, don’t you know?
Ah, the warming glow of moral superiority, and from an armchair general, no less. Soft on terrorism, and the causes of terrorism? By all means x-ray my shoes, MarkL, but don’t tell me we have to deport Muslims for committing thought crimes. What sort of society do you think you’re defending?
P.S. for the sake of those not blessed with your undoubted mastery of military affairs, you should have explained that LOAC = Law of Armed Conflict.
”If taken prisoner, they have to be formally identified as unauthorised combatants. Once this is done, it is REQUIRED that they be shot out of hand. This is why I disagree strongly with the US treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees. They have not followed international law and the LOAC. The bulk of those detainees were required by international law to be summarily executed on capture. ”
This is also hyperbole, a gross oversimplification of the Geneva conventions on POWs. Mark L has appointed himself as judge, jury and possibly if he had his way? executioner of GITMO detainees. Lack of a uniform is not the absolute determination of what constitutes an ”unprivileged” combatant.
Per:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq4.html
”An “unprivileged” combatant refers to a person who does not have the combatantÄôs privilege, but nevertheless directly participates in hostilities. Such combatants would include, inter alia, civilians who in violation of their protected status engage in fighting or other hostile acts. However, the law does sanction a levee en masse whereby civilians may spontaneously take up arms in order to resist an invading force. **[Russians did this in Stalingrad for example]** Spontaneity means that there is no time to organize into regular forces. Civilians participating in a levee en masse may qualify for privileged combatant and POW status, provided that they do not conceal their weapons and observe the laws of war. This is the single, limited exception to the proscription against civilians participating in hostilities.”
In any case to argue that the Taliban were all civilians and ”illegal combatants” is a self serving argument against the Convention. In relation to concealing of arms, one can assume most of the time that the Taliban kept the ubiquitous AK47 nearby. Since many Gitmo detainees were ‘sold’ to the US such information given by the Northern Alliance which could determine their status would be highly suspect and arguably inadmissable in most jurisdictions, even military tribunals.
”Because denial of POW status entails potentially serious consequences for combatants, such determinations must strictly comply with the dictates of the Third Convention. In this regard, Article 5 of that treaty creates a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on an individual basis. During the 1992 Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict the US convened such tribunals to verify the status of detainees, something that the US did not do — and for which it was justifiably criticized both at home and abroad — in denying POW status to all Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in the Afghan conflict.”
MarkL’s policy of summary execution is also politically insane as it ignores what the ‘enemy’, ie the Taliban would have done with any prisoners or what a ME state may do in a future war in response.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a non-state actor. If you want to declare war, declare it on Al-Qaeda. Damn hard to justify invading Iraq or other neo-con lunacy on that basis.
So Mark et al, should the US turn detainees from Afghanistan over to the court in the Hague? What should the UN do about the other Axis of Evil attempting to acquire nukes(err,WMD)?
Yes, observa, why not? A UN court was good enough to try Milosevic and his evil henchmen.
Funny you should mention Iran and nukes – the UN is talking about economic sanctions. Given that Iran is well integrated into the world economy, this might make more difference than pointless neocon sabre-rattling. What’s your solution, pray? The US would be nuts to invade Iran or even do a few airstrikes. Particularly since they’ve turned half of Iraq or more over to Iranian interests de facto.
The people who have already attacked people, homes and businesses in Australia are the racists and neo-Nazis. Attacking multiculturalism is giving aid and comfort to this enemy.
“What should the UN do about the other Axis of Evil attempting to acquire nukes(err,WMD)?”
In the case of Iran suspicion is not proof and under the NPT Iran is 100% within its rights to engage in enrichment. The EU3 (Germany France UK) have clearly overplayed their hand and the IAEA has no legal basis to recommend a breach for UNSC action because THERE IS NO BREACH. What they signed late last year was a temporary agreement as a confidence booster.
What the UN can do is tip a bucket of s*** over the double standard the US and others apply to NPT issues (ie India, Pakistan, Israel)
Well you see Peter that’s where you and I might totally concur that the current UN by its very nature, must be a fatally flawed and hypocritic body. Well assuming you don’t see Martyrdom Garrisons as morally equivalent to secular liberal democracies, but then you might like to take that up on JQs Weekend Reflections. It also relates to the legitimacy of any international court Mark. Of course if only liberal democracies held sway in a restricted ULDN, there would be no need for it to have authority over legitimate member countries(Westphalian independence could be observed), but rather reserved for those rascally outsiders. In the absence of that now we need the occasional Gitmo. Under a ULDN, non-aggression pact member countries such as the US, Britain, France, Russia, India and Israel would be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Pakistan, China, Iran, etc would not. All very clear to me, but I can understand the confusion of the moral relativists here.
Your ULDN sounds like a French political party, Observa, and would probably be as useful. It’s born out of your apparently atavistic dislike for the UN rather than any constructive approach to international politics.
I also discard out of hand your ridiculous suggestion that we “need” GTMO. GTMO is an affront to democratic rule of law, and if you think we “need” it, you’re on the side of the fascists, not liberal democracy.
Of course that’s where all the confusion about Australian intervention in ET, Solomons, Afghanistan and Iraq comes about. Moral relativists need the gaggle of gangsters in the current UN for their moral compass, but we liberal democrats don’t. All of those engagements would have got a 2/3 or even 75% majority vote, with no right of individual veto, in a ULDN body and presumably the moral relativists would be satisfied. Perhaps!
Yes Fyodor, the French and Germans would be part of my ULDN, but unfortunately your favourite gangsters wouldn’t. The game would be up for the appeasers and apologists for tyranny, but then it has been for quite some time in the West. ‘Constructive approach to international politics’ Fyodor? Think of it as a bit of logical deconstruction meboy!
“Of course thatÄôs where all the confusion about Australian intervention in ET, Solomons, Afghanistan and Iraq comes about”
Observa, these interventions are all strongly distinguishable. I’m a Realist, not a relativist. It is only neo-cons like you who lump them all together.(take the neocon test here http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html)
Here is my take on each of them
1)East Timor – I know I’m dissenting from all here but yes, I would’ve taken the softly softly approach favoured by Gareth Evans re East Timor. As a realist, I don’t give two cents about liberating other countries for the sake of it, war debts or whatever notwithstanding- what matters is national interest. The Indonesian President at the time was going to cut its losses anyway and move towards autonomy. If that had been allowed to take its course, it would then have gradually evolved towards independence. It’s unclear what benefits to the East Timorese or more pertinently to Australia came from hastening the process and we’ve since been left with a charity case.
2) Solomons – one could argue this intervention was justified on national interest grounds. Cleaning up a big mess in our backyard which if it were allowed to fester would result in a big smelly dump of even greater instability in future, a probable sanctuary for troublesome criminal gangs and even sanctuary for terrorists. The closer countries are to our backyard the greater the interest we may have in ensuring they do not become failed states.
3) Afghanistan – I’ve likened this to an Interpol operation or a multilateral clean up campaign like the ones pursued in the past against pirates. Destroying the infrastructure of a multinational criminal gang which might have caused us problems in future.
4) Iraq – big strategic mistake. We’ve turned the country from a relatively stable secularist dictatorship who were not harbouring radical Islamist terrorists but were breaking some of their legs to a virtual satrapie of radical Iranian Shiism – good work Bushies!
I like the Blazing Saddles immigration policy best:
“We’ll take the niggers and chinks but we won’t take the Irish!”
”thatÄôs where you and I might totally concur that the current UN by its very nature, must be a fatally flawed and hypocritic body.”
No Observa, the UN is a body that no-one guaranteed will get us all to heaven, it was designed to stop us going to hell, ”gaggle of gangsters” or not.
The ”confusion” about Australian intervention when you lump in the Solomons with Afghanistan and Iraq points to more confusion on your part than anybody else if you say we can’t differentiate between regional and wider world perspectives.
There was no confusion about ET from the bulk of Australian people, only typical gutlessness from the Jakarta lobby, Howard and Downer et al until they were forced to act by popular outrage. When it was over, they then claimed all the credit with triumphalism and the deputy sherrif label. Such short memories some people have indeed—-ie Downer’s “no linkages between TNI and the militias” Is there anybody who denies that he wasn’t lying through his teeth with that statement, or wasn’t culpably negligent if he didn’t know what blind Freddy knew?
Instead of moral relavitism how does plain RW moral cowardice sound?
Life’s so much simpler in the Smoko Room, isn’t it, Observa? Apart from the grey plastic furtniture and pall of carcinogens, it’s all black & white and complex problems have blindingly obvious solutions for the enlightened Bismarck-wannabes of your acquaintance.
What confusion? Of the interventions in ET, Solomons, Afghanistan and Iraq, only one was opposed by the UN. Guess which one? I’ll give you a clue: it’s a FUBAR clusterfuck located in the Middle-East.
Your ULDN structure needs more work. Yes, I’m sure the US will submit itself to the binding vote of a couple of 2nd and 3rd rate powers. Fuck that. You seem to forget that the USA created the UN and gave itself a veto to avoid precisely that kind of embarassment. The UN will survive so long as the great and lesser powers think it has value. Your ULDN’s a pipedream.
My favourite gangsters are the buccaneers of the 17th and 18th centuries so, yeah, I’m guessing they wouldn’t make it into your scooby posse. Quelle tristesse infinie.
Ending tyranny sounds cool – where do we sign up? Is there a money-back guarantee? Again, I’m staggered that nobody’s picked up your proposal and run it up the flapole to see if it cops a salute. Probably ‘cos it’s a dipshit idea.
“Your ULDN structure needs more work.”
I’m open to suggestions.
“Yes, IÄôm sure the US will submit itself to the binding vote of a couple of 2nd and 3rd rate powers. Fuck that. You seem to forget that the USA created the UN and gave itself a veto to avoid precisely that kind of embarassment.”
Times and circumstances change and countries are raising the unfairness issue of vetos now in case you haven’t heard. As for democratic votes for the undemocratic, what can I say?
“The UN will survive so long as the great and lesser powers think it has value.”
Agreed, but it can hang about too long swinging in the breeze like ATSIC. There’s no excuse for not lifting your head up from the paperclips for a decent SWOT analysis of the whole organisation, especially with some of the gross failings of late. No, no wait a minute, ATSIC analogy baaaad, DIMIA analogy goooood! Now do you get it?
“Your ULDNÄôs a pipedream.”
Martin Luther King had a dream too.
“Ending tyranny sounds cool – where do we sign up?”
First we have to agree to sign up to a ULDN and then those countries can debate such measures, free of the objections or vetos of tyrants. You know, the ETs Solomons, Kosovos, Iraqs, Afghanistans, Darfurs…. No guarantees, just the combined wisdom and prioritised effort of the group that’s largely paying the UN bills now. Unfortunately I have to inform you that we won’t get the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to help us as a group weigh the costs and benefits a priori of our morally superior endeavours. That will still be reserved specially for the afterlife.
“IÄôm staggered that nobodyÄôs picked up your proposal and run it up the flapole to see if it cops a salute.”
Me and my small flagpole here, surrounded by civilians it seems.
“Probably ‘cos itÄôs a dipshit idea.”
Unilaterally, COWs or UN fully sanctioned, which countries have done all the heavy and light lifting in ET, Solomons, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan eh? Which countries are expected to do more lifting in places like Darfur? Which countries have just been excess baggage?
Would it be possible for you to pull yourself away from your little flagpole for just long enough to make a point?
Jason,
Generally I agree with your SWOT analysis of ET, Solomons, Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s just that I despise the hypocrisy of those who rely on the current UN for some relative moral compass here. As hypothetical members of a ULDN, Aust, et al, would still face the same analysis you present. My quibble would still be with you over Iraq and Afghanistan.
“IÄôve likened this to an Interpol operation or a multilateral clean up campaign like the ones pursued in the past against pirates. Destroying the infrastructure of a multinational criminal gang which might have caused us problems in future.”
To topple AlQaeda and the Taliban was relatively easy, as was the invasion of Iraq, but long term success in both would require decent civil govt persist. In this respect, there was no guarantee a priori that the rubble strewn graveyard of empires would prove easier than the oil rich, secular beacon of light. Quite the opposite I would have thought, given the Soviet experience. Now it may be that a ULDN would have got around to both eventually but prioritised and spaced these interventions. However, leaving Saddam in place, may simply have allowed Afghanistan to be the focus of fundies, that we see in Iraq today. It could be that this won’t be fully appreciated until COW stands down in Iraq, assuming Iraqis can take up the slack. The fundies might put Iraq in the too hard basket and throw themselves into Afghanistan. OTOH their back may be broken in Iraq. Could be both turn to steaming manure. Whatever, all the lifting still has to be done by the democrats. If US and UK are stretched in Iraq, the EU, etc are obliged to shoulder more weight in Afghanistan. We certainly are being asked to and are responding in a bipartisan way. Both Afghanistan and Iraq make us a target for terrorists in equal dollops(from among the other reasons touted), but both sides of politics are pretending they don’t.
Fyodor,
I would have thought the excess baggage countries would be China, Cuba, NK, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe…. Need I continue?
I guess what I’m saying is whether it’s Aust unilaterally in the Solomons, the US or UK as COW members in Iraq, or as fully UN backed in Afghanistan, among the many others, it’s always the liberal democrats anyway, so why listen to the bleatings of gangsters? We have enough problems agreeing on priorities and actions among ourselves, without these other distractions.
Fyodor
Formal declarations of war are used in modern diplomacy, and help to clarify matters immensely.
COMMENT: Yes, they do. Please indicate which wars have been formally declared in this manner since September 1939. IIRC is not the answer ‘nilÄô? So this is a diplomatic tool which has fallen in to disuse, yes?
YouÄôve chosen not to name the enemy, which makes things even more confusing. I should have thought defining the enemy would have been the first step to knowing and defeating him. But that would be too constrictive, wouldnÄôt it?
COMMENT: yet again, you lack knowledge of basis facts. The enemy has named himself by word, ideology and deed. It is just that too many people act as if he has not. The enemy is, of course, defined. This is actually one of his own strategies.
IÄôm assuming by your reference to “The Emergency” that you mean the Malayan Emergency. If you are this is not so much obtuse as grossly inappropriate. You should know better. A civil war fought in a defined geographic area by a colonial government against a guerilla army is nothing like fighting an informal network of international terrorists.
COMMENT: Please study a little more history. The Emergency was much wider than Malaya and Singapore. If it was not, just what were Australian and British SAS doing conducting CLARET operations 25miles in to Indonesian Kalimantan against Indonesian forces? Just what was Maoist China doing supplying arms, weapons trainers and tactical training to Chin Peng and his boys in the Kra and in mainland China itself? And how was the duly elected Malayan government of the Tunku ‘colonial??Äô You apparently do not even know that the pre-war Malayan Federation had TEN separate governments in it, the bulk being regionally autonomous Malayan Sultanates!
They attack unarmed, by our definition ‘innocentÄô civilians. NOte that by their public statement, you (personally, Fyodor) are NOT ‘innocentÄô as per our LOAC. They have stated (and acted) as if YOU, personally, are a legitimate target for them because you believe in things they do not, like free speech, religious freedom, and rights for women. That you believe in these things is THE REASON they want to kill you. Do not believe me – look at what they say about it We do not act in this manner. We follow the LOAC. They do not.
Hyperbole. The fact that non-state actors believe themselves to be at war with us does not mean we are at war with them. They are criminals and do not deserve the status of enemy combatants.
COMMENT: Well, some sense. Good. Yes, they do not deserve the status of enemy combatants. Glad you see that. Therefore, under that Hague Conventions, they are unauthorised combatants (or bandits, should you prefer the term) and may be dealt with summarily. BTW, by accepting as fact that they are not enemy combatants, you also have to accept that their current disposition by US authorities is perfectly acceptable. Some common agreement here. That they are criminals as well as unauthorised combatants is true by definition — being an unauthorised combatant is a crime.
No? Then please explain the deliberate application of violence against us (we have well over 100 dead Australian Civilians now) to obtain their desired political ends. By definition, that is an act of war – just one by a non-state array of actors. You choose to use an obsolete legal definition of the term ‘warÄô. You are utterly wrong.
Australian civilians were murdered in foreign countries by non-state actors. These were crimes, but not acts of war. There is nothing obsolete or inaccurate in distinguishing the two. In fact, the distinction is necessary. Not all violent crimes are acts of war.
COMMENT: true, they were crimes conducted, as you have accepted, by people who cannot be defined as enemy combatants and who are also criminals. These are not mutually exclusive terms, indeed, as Nuremberg showed, authorised combatants can also be criminals. The nation in whose jurisdiction these acts occur can treat them how they will. If that nation (say, Indonesia) chooses to regard these as mere crimes with no political intent relevant to the Indonesian polity, then that is their legal choice. If the perpetrator makes clear a political or ideological intent, that is his choice also. If that places him in to the realm of seeking stated political outcomes by acts of violence, that, by definition, is a warlike act by a non-state actor. That a government chooses to ignore this does NOT invalidate it. It remains a fact. If others choose to regard it as the perpetrator intended it to be regarded, then perhaps their view is more attuned to reality. You will note that the Grik rebels in Malaysia in 1999-2000 were indeed treated as a serious political threat to the state, and that their leader was charged under the ISA (Internal Security Act) with ‘conducting an act of war against the KingÄô, the penalty for which is death.
To my mind, you border on regarding Martin BryantÄôs actions, and Mohammed AttaÄôs actions, as the SAME. This is simply wrong. Bryant had no political intent, Atta did. Not only do AttaÄôs recent avatars disagree with you, they do so with bombs, and with stated political intent. Have you missed this?
Terrorists are enemy combatants operating outside the LOAC. They define themselves as such by their words and their actions. They disagree with you. Legally, they are “francs tirieurs” as per the Hague Conventions,as they do not bear arms openly, wear no distunguishing uniform, and have no formal chain of command.
Remember, it is only your opinion that we are at war with anybody. The rules regarding Franc-Tireurs [please remember the spelling; your French is lousy] apply to combatants in a declared war not wearing recognisable insignia. It does not automatically apply to terrorists. You seem convinced, but wiser legal heads than yours have been wracking their brains over this one, e.g. on the subject of the GTMO detainees, and disagreed with your interpretation, to say the least. All terrorists in Western democracies have been charged with committing crimes against the state, not granted the status of enemy combatants. Rule of law and all that, donÄôt you know?
COMMENT: I accept that you regard us being at war as ‘an opinion of mineÄô, as you must accept that I regard you as being incorrect on this matter. I would also point out that there seems to be a a lot of people who seem to agree with my opinion, including a number of governments prosecuting active military campaigns, and the self-styled enemy himself. If the enemy agrees with us that we are waging an assymetric, existential, ideological war of states vs non-state actors, that leaves you in a most peculiar position.
When attacked by a self-declared enemy, it is wise to take such actions as minimise the potential for harm to our citizens. This is the fundamental responsibility of government to its citizens. Perhaps you are unaware of this. That is why both the Libs and the ALP have supported actions to minimise such potential. They know their responsibilities. You, apparently, do not.
Ah, the warming glow of moral superiority, and from an armchair general, no less. Soft on terrorism, and the causes of terrorism? By all means x-ray my shoes, MarkL, but donÄôt tell me we have to deport Muslims for committing thought crimes. What sort of society do you think youÄôre defending?
COMMENT: Ad hominem and extension of the argument are illogical syllogisms and you know it. Use of those old tricks is intended to shift the ground, and indicates that you are very uncomfortable with the point, but unable to refute it at all convincingly. The facts are that both political parties in this nation do support actions to minimise the potential for harm to Australian citizens. That is their job, and all jokes aside, politicians in the main do take their jobs very seriously. (I think everyone on this board would agree that to be a good thing irrespective of political affiliation!) Oddly enough, at present, there ARE actually two men in Australia facing gaol for ‘thought crimesÄô. You are doubtless aware of ‘The Two DannyÄôs CaseÄô in Victoria. But I digress a little. I have not advocated deporting anybody. However, IÄôd regard cases on their merits where people have been found guilty of treason under appropriate laws such as the Criminal Code Act 1995,
Chapter 5ÄîThe security of the Commonwealth, Part 5.1ÄîTreason, Division 80ÄîTreason), this being the law in this country.
P.S. for the sake of those not blessed with your undoubted mastery of military affairs, you should have explained that LOAC = Law of Armed Conflict.
COMMENT: Apologies, I thought the term widely known.
Peter Kemp said
“What should the UN do about the other Axis of Evil attempting to acquire nukes(err,WMD)?”
In the case of Iran suspicion is not proof and under the NPT Iran is 100% within its rights to engage in enrichment. The EU3 (Germany France UK) have clearly overplayed their hand and the IAEA has no legal basis to recommend a breach for UNSC action because THERE IS NO BREACH. What they signed late last year was a temporary agreement as a confidence booster.
What the UN can do is tip a bucket of s*** over the double standard the US and others apply to NPT issues (ie India, Pakistan, Israel)
COMMENT: Peter, Israel is outside the system. They never signed the NPT and do not come under its provisions in any way. They have undoubtedly had tactical nuclear weapons since the mid 1960s, and we should recall that this was in response to NasserÄôs stated intent to develop an Egyptian bomb program. They have, in every way, acted as a responsible nuclear power. To be blunt, if they did not use one against the near-breakthrough the Syrians achieved on the Golan in Äô73, then they have a very good weapons release protocol and truly regard it as a weapon of last resort.
We are fortunate that the Indians have gone to enormous pains and expense to become a ‘responsible nuclear powerÄô, and have been admitted to the ‘nuclear clubÄô because they have demonstrated to the other members state-of-the-art weapons release protocols, all the right safeguards, and invited the other major powers to observe their exercises relating to such matters. I suspect you might agree that this is a very good thing!
Pakistan has not. Worse, Pakistan permitted Dr Khan and his cronies to market their skills, techniques and technologies in the black market to anyone with the cash to pay them. AFAIK the US, UK, France, and Russia (I do not know about the PRC and India) have done there damnedest to root out the network Dr Khan created. The former Iranian president is on record in a speech in the Iranian theofascist assembly saying that the first Iranian nuke would be tested over Tel Aviv. A civil program simply does not need the enrichment technology they are pursuing. That is exclusively weapons-related as far as I know.
I note that both powers ‘behaving responsiblyÄô are western-style parliamentary democracies. Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are not.
The stakes are so high here that I think great caution is a good thing. I trust (to a large degree) New Delhi and Tel Aviv not to ‘go feraÄôl with their weapons. Their behaviour since acquiring the capability to use such weapons reinforces this. I do not trust Islamabad and Tehran to anything like the same extent.
MarkL
Canberra
I take your point. There are always free riders. Question is, do you want them on the inside of the tent pissing out, or outside, pissing in? When you’re talking about unreliable states with nasty weaponry, I prefer to keep my enemies close. The UN facilitates the influence and control of states that would otherwise be openly hostile.
Very well said, as usual, MarkL.
I fear that your well-informed reasoning may be wasted on those who are determined to ignore all facts which don’t fit their pre-determined and immutable ideological positions.
I’m starting to develop a theory of the psychological mechanisms behind leftist intellectual disability, based on the ways some people here manage to avoid acknowledging, and perhaps even perceiving, data that contradict their worldview. Whether this will have any practical use I don’t know.
“Question is, do you want them on the inside of the tent pissing out, or outside, pissing in?”
They can be inside the tent, signed up as associate members, having their say but don’t get to vote until they meet the standards of the club. Presumably they will aspire to full membership obligations and rights and all members would actively encourage that. As to nuclear weapons-what MarkL said. I seriously doubt we’d put a disarm or else ultimatum to China, but moral suasion could see them signing up to a liberal democratic reform timetable. Note: all full members would be automatically signed up to non-agression pact between members(westphalian independence)
MarkL,
My rejoinders:
I take it one example invalidates your claim, yes? Iraq/Gulf War I & II both involved the authorisation by the US Congress of the use of force against Iraq. Iraq/Gulf War I was further authorised by the UN under Resolution 678.
So name the enemy upon whom we have declared war.
Irrelevant data that changes nothing. It may please you to consider yourself an authority on the subject, but you’ve clearly missed the point that the situation is different.
You’re wasting my time. Reread my and Peter Kemp’s comments.
You’ve added nothing but verbiage with this statement. Political motivation does not make a crime an act of war. You’re clearly confused on the whole issue.
We are not in a state of war. I don’t know how I can make this any plainer to you. My “peculiar position” is to be required to state the bleeding obvious to the wilfully obtuse.
The phrase “illogical syllogism” is a contradiction in terms. I have evaded nothing and conceded no ground. Rather, the ad hominem is a mark of contempt for your weak, emotive and hyperbolic drivel, which I have refuted comprehensively.
Tell me something I don’t know. This comment is particularly trivial.
The two men face gaol for the crime of religious vilification. I disagree with the Victorian legislation, but you’re not defending innocent martyrs there. Treason is a serious crime, and not to be trivialised by ignorati with axes to grind over multiculturalism.
Over to you, Peter.
MarkL, Glad to see tonight you are not defending your ”summary execution” of Al Q and Taliban prisoners.
”Peter, Israel is outside the system. They never signed the NPT and do not come under its provisions in any way. They have undoubtedly had tactical nuclear weapons since the mid 1960s…”
That they are outside the system as well as India and Pakistan is exactly my point that in any legal regime or desirable legal regime you don’t have a double standard of excusing those outside and condemning those within. The assertions that some may be “responsible nuclear powers” is both subjective, self serving and has no application in international law any more than you can argue under the traffic act that ”more responsible” drivers can travel at 100km/hr in a 60 km zone. Laws or conventions apply equally.
For the US to help India incidently in its civil nuclear program without the latter signing the NPT is also expressly forbidden by the NPT. You can imagine how the Iranians feel about the US doing that.
“A civil program simply does not need the enrichment technology they are pursuing. That is exclusively weapons-related as far as I know.”
This statement is wrong. That’s why uranium hexafluoride gaseous enrichment technology is referred to as ”dual use technology”. Now I am not a nuclear physicist/chemist, but the cascading centrifuges used, the ones that Colin Powell confused with aluminium Iraqi rocket cases in his UNSC address, can enrich to 3-4% for fuel rods or to 90% enrichment for a weapon. Same technology, two potential purpose, the conundrum of the NPT. A good site on this is :
http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-07.htm
”I do not trust Islamabad and Tehran to anything like the same extent.”
This is understandable as Iran’s hidden program now revealed (no nukes though) does not inspire confidence but has to be also seen in the light of their suspicion of the US who are not incidently following the NPT either (seeking the withdrawal of all weapons as the treaty called upon the possessors at the time it was drafted.) That the US is developing a new bunker busting bomb does not inspire confidence either and is again against the NPT.
So, selectivity as to what the US obeys and its double standards with respect to itself, India and Israel as against North Korea and Iran is the present scene we find ourselves in. By his absence and otherwise US refusal to agree on an agenda, John Bolton torpedoed the recent 5 yearly NPT meeting in New York.
Note that the International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence of weapons manufacture in Iran in a report in January 2005.
I reiterate, without proof to the contrary, not assertion, Iranian enrichment is wholly within international law and specifically within the NPT.
“Irrelevant data that changes nothing.”
I see M. Fyodor, you’ve got the hang of MarkL’s MO too. Someone who confuses knowledge with intelligence and then some. Anyone can google that shit MarkL. It’s what you do with the info that counts.
And all you seem to do with it is play a low rent version of Tom Clancy’s Op-Centre Special Seal Delta Forces Threat Matrix Command Decision: Operation Blind Attack.
The Pentagon has access to far better info than you and boy have they cocked up royally in Mesopotamia. If you can do better, why aren’t you doing better?
I hope I do not have look forward to a long Strocchi-structured, sophistry-sodden and data-laden response that fails to come to any clear conclusion beyond “exterminate the brutes!”.
But as they say, hope dies last.
Hey, tell you what, you swivel-chaired hussar you, try putting what you think is your single irrefutable point into a haiku. I’d be happy to respond in kind.
I would still like MarkL to address the point I made an aeon ago in this thread. Terrorism is a tactic, and not a non-state actor. If war were declared on Al-Qaeda, there would have been not the slightest justification for invading Iraq. End of story.
Nabs, the quote from Conrad I think you are looking for is -
“Kill them all!”.
Mistah Kurtz, he dead.
“the quote from Conrad I think you are looking for..”
No. I was looking for, and found, Hunter S. Thompson’s paraphrase of Conrad at the end of “Hell’s Angels” – a book that is in some ways a better analogy of what’s going down now than “Heart of Darkness”.
“I would still like MarkL to address the point I made an aeon ago…”
You’ll soon get the hang of his MO too. Awkward points ignored as new strawmen are raised with much “I’ve done my googling” huffing and puffing. Think of a more pompous EP but without his sly sense of humour.
On my to read list, Nabs. I am a long time fan of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. Who can forget the creepy baseball conversation the Doc has with Nixon in the 68 New Hampshire primary in the back of a limo, Nixon salivating because someone is treating him like his image of an average Joe? (Australian comparator – cricket tragic?)… Or the image of Ed Muskie in a crystal meth haze seeing enormous lizards everywhere from the back of his campaign train.
The Doc is much lamented. Rest, but not in peace!
“On my to read list”
Fuck that. Read “Hell’s Angels’ and “Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas” right now. They are his two masterworks. Yet, with eerie precision, you seem to have avoided them in favour of compilations of reheated Rolling Stone pieces.
No wonder you have problems picking up strange chicks at bus stops.
But how different would his life have been had LBJ appointed him Governor of American Samoa in 65? Perhaps, Nabs, it’s my Doc Thompson Sharkskin Suit at the bus stop that leads to problems picking up (not strange enough) chicks…
Every moment yer commenting here is another moment when you could be reading “HellÄôs AngelsÄô and “Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas” instead.
Too much Pinot Noir under the bridge tonight Nabs to do the Doc justice. He deserves better from me.
So I gather that, just as the 50 and 100 comment milestones should be marked by references to old euro intellectuals with bad hair, the 200 mark should tip it’s lid to the most original American literary voice since Hawthorne, Poe, Twain, Whitman, Wharton, Hemingway, Kerouac and Burroughs.
200 is a Doc? Right?
Why not?
Though I think we decided that 150 was a Simone de Beauvoir and she was an old euro intellectual with good hair.
Btw, I had no idea before tonight that Tasmanian Pinot Noirs can be so good. Try “Ninth Island”.
And smoke a Cuban panatella in memory of the Doc.
Then, like some good female friends of mine do, go to your local shooting range and shoot some guns.
In the list of original American literary voices, Upton Sinclair, John Dos Passos and Frank Norris should not be forgotten.
Nor, though he was a Bohemian German Jew, should Kafka’s first novel America be overlooked.
Hey Nabs, re the haiku will this do? 5-7-5 Right?
”Maniacal Man
Press the Button Gladly
For no more Iran”
No good, a haiku must have a ”seasonal” reference. One assumes a
neo-conservative season is acceptable, a unique season of expounding good will towards others no doubt.
Maniacal Man
Cherry Blossom after Dark
For No More Iran
President Mahmud Ahmedinejad from the Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison-”Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity”
It’s probably just another cultural way of saying- “Ask not what your country can do for you….”
Fyodor (and EP)
As is now obvious, I have been conducting a civil discussion on these matters, but for many months I have also been conducting a small activity on a reasonably important subject (at least to me): exploring the limits to which rational and intelligent people are bound by their worldview, and the intellectual ‘blind spotsÄô they develop. There is a reason for this, and I want to assure you, Fyodor, that I mean no personal denigration. This is a free country, and you can think, and say, what you want. You perceive the world very differently from me, and you are convinced that your view is the only correct one. My worldview is flexible, it changes all the time in accordance with observed facts. Your view is not incompatible with mine, but mine is to you, I suspect.
I have not shared this activity with anyone, of course.
How interesting that you, EP are the first to pick up on it. Not one of the people I have engaged in direct discussion with has.
More via email, EP.
MarkL
Canberra
Pfft. Come back when you can structure an argument. Or a haiku. Whatever rings your bell.
Fyodor
Not Canberra
Is LP being used for behavioural experiments?
Quelle horreur!
MarkB
Brisbane
Shorter MarkL. Doesn’t matter what you say ‘cos it’s all part of my big secret experiment anyway that you know nothing about.
Ah, takes me back to my playground days that one does.
“My worldview is flexible, it changes all the time in accordance with observed facts.” Yes, I can see you and EP are gonna have a ball together.
Your turn now Peter. His legs are getting really rubbery. One good Atomic Drop should finish him off.
Nabakov
As bloody far from Canberra as possible
aww, shucks
don’t we all feel like rats in a maze now to MarkL’s Menegele?
Hope you liked my haiku Nabs
A Gilbert and Sullivan Atomic Drop?
”In enterprise of martial kind when ere there was any fighting
He led his regiment from behind he found it less exciting”
Peter K
As far away as Canberra inspired experiments or secret plans will force me.
a nice take by Abiola Lapite on this (his post about whether immigrants need to be fluent in English is also well worth reading, as are the comments):
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/08/of_cricket_test.html
While we’re at it, I’d like to say a few words on a much abused term, namely the right-wing bogeyman of “multiculturalism.” This term has seen its usage expanded to such an extent that its meaning can be extraordinarily difficult to pin down, with the sole universal being that it’s always understood, when coming from frothing wingnut types, as a pejorative. Let me make myself clear – if by “multiculturalism” one means government-encouraged self-segregation and ethnic particularism, then I am wholly against it, but if all the term means is allowing peoples who may have differing languages, interests and tastes to go about their business as long as they abide by a single unified law, then call me a “multiculturalist” if you like, I won’t care, and I’ll even wear the badge with pride.
Right on Jason. I’ll drink to that.
Meantime, my comment that the EU3 had overplayed its hand seems to have been correct. Its referral to the International Atomic Energy Authority resulted in :
‘serious concern” ie no case to be answered, per
Leader
Friday August 12, 2005
The Guardian
”The Iranian government has had a good seven days. At first glance, a resolution passed yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Authority, the Vienna-based United Nations watchdog on nuclear proliferation, looks like a poor outcome for Tehran. It expresses “serious concern” about Iran’s resumption this week of its uranium conversion process. In reality, the resolution is as good an outcome as Iran could have hoped for.”
I am the edge.
Yellowvinyl Kim
Libertarian Republic of Monica