Andrew L. Urban
Peter Malinauskas quipped at the Labor national conference this week: “In an erratic world filled with ill-discipline and division, we’ve been reminded this week of that time-honoured political truth: if you can’t govern your dog, you can’t govern the nation.” Funny ha ha, sorta, but wrong. Barnaby Joyce barked at his dog on camera just once, and that did actually govern his dog.
Quick to mock, Malinauskas then said, “And the Libs, who now live in the desperate fear of being accused of being Labor-lite are now embracing Hanson-heavy,” Again, good word play, but again, wrong. Clearly not supported by evidence. For a start, the Libs, far from embracing ‘Hanson-heavy’, are twisting out of Hanson’s way, attacking her and her policies, accusing One Nation of bot being fit to govern. (Careful with that one, old son …)…or rather insisting she has none worthy of embracing.
Albo & Malinauskas in front of disgraced Aussie flag in wrong (centre) position
Speaking in front of federal Labor’s new slogan, “Delivering Real Change”, Albanese was standing in front of an Australian flag demoted in favour of the Indigenous flag at the conference, placed as it was in the middle of the three versions of the Labor flag display. Change indeed. As the official flag protocol dictates, ‘The Australian National Flag should always be flown on the far left (the position of honour) of a person facing the stage or press conference.’
If you don’t respect the flag, you don’t respect the country.
Meanwhile at the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, Liberal Senator James Paterson managed to self contradict on the subject of cultures mono and multi. Like so many in the public square, Paterson seems confused about the issues. “There has been a lot of debate in recent weeks about how we practise multiculturalism in Australia. Two things can be true at the same time: That Australia is a multicultural country. Also that it’s reasonable to disagree about whether the policies that underpin multiculturalism are working well, or not.”
That’s a bit self contradictory … or timid.
“One thing that would be totally alien to our history and political culture would be a government-imposed monoculture. We should be very wary of those on the right who want to import foreign concepts of cultural uniformity to Australia.”
What? ‘Government-imposed monoculture’? What? ‘We should be very wary of those on the right who want to import foreign concepts of cultural uniformity to Australia.’
His seeming confusion is further revealed when he says “In an Australian context, that means we can – and should – insist on the respect for and adherence to shared Australian values as part of any successful embrace of multiculturalism. If we don’t, we run the very serious risk of descending into a nation of tribes. That is why I would never support our migration system discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, religion or nationality, as some have advocated, and I am more than comfortable with it being discerning about their values.”
I suggest that to be discerning about their values you need to be aware of their ‘culture’. Our values are embedded in the Judeo-Christian culture, shared throughout the West. There is a clear and discernible conflict between that culture and Islamic culture.
I remember when Australian multiculturalism was monoculturism. I migrated to Australia in 1966 and after a few months in Sydney, spent some months working in the Riverina before returning to Sydney. Everywhere I went there were migrants from all over. But there was never any doubt about the unique culture in which we all lived and worked. It was Aussie; an egalitarian and larrikin mob that was all football, meat pies, Holden cars – and cold beer. Australians didn’t have to make way for Muslim culture. Muslims, too few to stand out, were subsumed, even if not assimilated.
I still can’t work out why so many Muslims (close to a million now) have moved to Australia, the country whose culture is perhaps the most evidently the opposite of Islam, with our hedonistic lifestyle that seems to upset many Muslims. And ab Islamic culture that seems to upset many Judeo-Christians.
That old saying about ‘when in Rome do as the Romans do’ is relevant in this context. It certainly applies to Judeo-Christians visiting or living in Islamic countries. I maintain that the host country is entitled to expect immigrants to respect and to exercise the responsibilities of a loyal citizen.
By its belligerence towards Israel, (mostly) Labor politicians have surrendered to the Muslim vote (in their electorates and beyond), which has grown and grows in size and influence. The Muslim Vote, which is “dedicated to empowering Australian Muslims in the electoral process,” boasts “We are the largest Muslim political campaign ever set up in the history of the Australian Muslim community.” Would a similar movement, say, The Christian Vote, be tolerated in a Muslim majority country?
Tolerance, of course, is the trip word. We in the West tolerate too much for our own good, as philosopher Karl Popper warned.
Back to the pollies: Paterson ends his speech with the confusion evident earlier: “Frankly, the explosion of antisemitism in Australia in recent years is partly because we have failed to do this. We cannot practise multiculturalism in a way that tears us apart. We should never be afraid to insist that people who make a life here be from among the many in the world who share our values and want to sustain them, not those who want to change them.” That last phrase is made complete, in my opinion, when you insert after “not those” the words ‘like Muslim extremists’.