What PM Howard Owes to Hansonism

[Elias]

Hanson and her subsequent political outfit, One Nation, proved to be the Trojan Horse by which Howard and his fellow reactionaries, the driest of the Liberal dries, smuggled their decades-old prejudices and grievances into the national consciousness.
They invaded the space opened up by the too-fast-too-soon leadership of Paul Keating and his fellow radical-centre progressives, and exploited the fear and uncertainty of people who had traditionally voted Labor. The balance of electoral power now rests with these voters, rather than with the ethnic communities, young creatives and small-l liberals who had been the most fought-over constituencies of the previous 20 years.
Howard had to wait a decade after his 1986 proclamation that "the times will suit me" before his flame-haired messiah arrived on the scene to do the dirty work for him. Hanson's ingenuous image enabled her to thrust into the centre of Australian politics the sort of racial demonisation and social division that Howard had been pedalling unsuccessfully throughout his career.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/what-the-pm-owes-to-hansonism/2006/09/07/1157222261242.html

This explains why our PM is much in favour of free speech and clearing the air. He taps into a latent hostility towards the usual scapegoats. I applaud his courage to risk his reputation by appealing to the lowest common demoninator in Australian public oponion.

[ShinyTop]

I know nothing of Australian politics but I think it indicative of the liberal ego that anybody speaking the truth that does not follow PC lines is appealing to the lowest common denominator. You crack me up.

[dliw]

I give praise to Prime Minister John Howard and his political allies for their sense of saying and doing what is best for Australia. Political and personal courage, plus an unified National Will, are what is needed in these turbulent times.Hanson complained about immigrants who maintained "their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate". She was speaking about Asians, of course, who must now be hugely relieved that they have been replaced as the enemy at our gates by Muslim Australians.

The member for Oxley promised "to find out how many treaties we have signed with the UN, have them exposed and then call for their repudiation". She warned us of "unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language" adding to our dole queues — an alert now being sounded by the Opposition, while the Government bullies migrants to learn English at the same time as slashing more than $11 million from its English-language tuition services in the last financial year alone.

And she called for the complete abolition of the policy of multiculturalism,...
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above quote.

[ditch]

What an imagination you have Elias.

From The Australian. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20389178-601,00.html)

Mr Howard was criticised two weeks ago for suggesting a small minority of Muslim immigrants refused to learn English or integrate into Australian society.
But he told The Australian that despite the criticism, people, including moderate Muslims, knew extremists were the common thread of terrorism.
"We shouldn't pussyfoot around. No decent, genuine Muslim would support terrorism," he said. "We are not attacking Muslims generally but you have to call terrorism for what it is - it is a movement that invokes in a totally blasphemous and illegitimate way the sanction of Islam to justify what it does."

"I find it amazing civil libertarians run around and attack me, or (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair or attack the police," Mr Howard said.
"We haven't done it. We are the instruments of the changed circumstances in people's lives, but the cause is the terrorist threat."

If you believe that Howard is directing criticism at all Muslims then you are simply plain wrong. It is just something that you want to believe. It is not what he says. It is not what he implies. He does not in any way speak derogatorily of any immigrant group other than those who refuse to assimilate .

If I am wrong, show me a quote of his to back up your claim. Not something from your imagination. Show me a quote by Howard that clearly illustrates the racial prejudice you claim he has.

[Elias]

If I am wrong, show me a quote of his to back up your claim. Not something from your imagination. Show me a quote by Howard that clearly illustrates the racial prejudice you claim he has.


In 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988), Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that the rate of Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia) immigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration) into Australia was too high.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/when-talk-of-racism-is-just-not-cricket/2005/12/15/1134500961607.html

[ditch]

So at the time it may well have been too high.

Don't give me soemthing that's open to interpretation Elias. Your logic is a bucket full of holes. Howard said Asian immigration is too high....so how does that relate to him being racist? Are you aware that politicians have commented negatively on the number of English immigrants coming into this country? Does that make them racist? Why are you "Asian sensitive"?

The point with you're reasoniong Elias, is that you consider it impossible to mention any race in anything but the most favourable terms, without being considered racist. I don't believe you understand the meaning of the word adequately.

[Elias]

Don't give me soemthing that's open to interpretation Elias. Your logic is a bucket full of holes. Howard said Asian immigration is too high....so how does that relate to him being racist?


Im curious you were not aware of the furore Howard's statment created both in parliament, media and public. His motivation behind the statement needs to be analysed. Why does more asians equal social instability? From what I see Asians (at least Chinese and Indians) are mostly peaceful, educated and family orientated. If you add John Howard's English/Australian history requirements then you have the makings of excellent prospective citizens. Please explain how Asians will break up the social cohesion/fabric of aussie society?


Are you aware that politicians have commented negatively on the number of English immigrants coming into this country? Does that make them racist?


I am not aware of any politician who has made this an issue. judging by the number of English and NZ residents who havent taken full citizenship living in Australia it never has been a political issue


Why are you "Asian sensitive"?


Not particularly, although I am partial to Sushi and noodles


The point with you're reasoniong Elias, is that you consider it impossible to mention any race in anything but the most favourable terms, without being considered racist. I don't believe you understand the meaning of the word adequately.


Politcal correctness has its limitations. However when high ranking politicians make an issue out of it you have to ask why? I dont for a minute believe Howard is sincere. However I dont think he is racist just an opportunist (like all politicians)