Tweet
Border Mail, Australia
16/09/2006
Beazley values proposal borders on high farce
BY CHARLES MOTT
NORMALLY this column doesn't give much attention to Kim Beazley
because he just seems to be so inconsequential, out of things.
Lately he seems most intent on establishing himself as a flint-edged
leader of the moment, quite able to outmuscle John Howard, when
unfortunately his image is more akin to a windy sort of yesterday's
man bereft (like Howard, indeed) of a captivating vision for the
future.
It may be this approach that led him to propose that people wishing to
come to Australia should declare as a condition of entry that they
would respect Australian values.
The jaded brain cries `enough' with all this claptrap about the values
of the lucky country - time to pipe down surely.
But no, the alternative prime minister wants to go even further than
the incumbent in sanctifying `our' values, things such as mutual
respect, fairness, freedom, respect for our institutions, religions,
cultures, and whatever else.
One wonders what fool planted the idea in his brain, and more - what
sort of a brain is it that would accept it?
Does it betray fear on the part of our leaders that if they do not
stand tall in defending values in an insecure modern world the
electorate will punish them; for that matter, does it betray a timid
and fearful community prone to turn in on itself and against the
world?
Whatever lies behind it, Mr Beazley's proposal takes us to the edge of
high farce.
One of the Australian values bemused foreigners would have to accept
is that of `hard work'.
Some cynics would say that a substantial number of native Australians
have failed utterly to accept that value, so how can we seriously ask
foreigners to sign up?
Then there is the fact that the obligation would apply not only to
long-term residents, but also to tourists, some of whom come here only
for a few days.
One can imagine the ranks of Chinese and Japanese visitors, some of
whom would not even speak English, and who wish only to see the
barrier reef, Uluru and the Sydney Opera House, solemnly and
uncomprehendingly agreeing to respect the virtue of hard work, and
lots of other virtuous things besides.
Perhaps the Beazley plan could become yet another triumphant
Australian first, and other countries would adopt it as well, so that
travellers would find themselves signing up to the local value scheme
in whatever country they visit, no matter that values in various
countries may be at variance with one another.
Perhaps each of our states might adopt their own values, and people
crossing state borders would have to ditch one system for another.
Who will decide on Mr Beazley's definitive list of values and what
will happen if new values emerge, demanding inclusion on the list?
And it's only a short step from a declaration of values to setting up
classes for those who don't understand our values or those whose
adherence to those values is deemed too weak.
And another short step, for example, to the point reached in Turkey
where a young novelist is facing court (and a possible three years in
jail) on charges that she insulted `Turkishness' because a character
in her book The Bastard of Istanbul refers to the deaths of Armenians
in 1915 (read Aborigines in the early days, or the stolen generation)
as genocide.
If all this means that Messrs Howard and Beazley are now in
competition to out-value each other, what a desolate electoral
landscape lies ahead.
What on earth are sane and sensible people, who are quite capable of
making up their minds about their country's defining characteristics,
to do about intrusive authorities who insist on doing the job for
them?
16/09/2006
Beazley values proposal borders on high farce
BY CHARLES MOTT
NORMALLY this column doesn't give much attention to Kim Beazley
because he just seems to be so inconsequential, out of things.
Lately he seems most intent on establishing himself as a flint-edged
leader of the moment, quite able to outmuscle John Howard, when
unfortunately his image is more akin to a windy sort of yesterday's
man bereft (like Howard, indeed) of a captivating vision for the
future.
It may be this approach that led him to propose that people wishing to
come to Australia should declare as a condition of entry that they
would respect Australian values.
The jaded brain cries `enough' with all this claptrap about the values
of the lucky country - time to pipe down surely.
But no, the alternative prime minister wants to go even further than
the incumbent in sanctifying `our' values, things such as mutual
respect, fairness, freedom, respect for our institutions, religions,
cultures, and whatever else.
One wonders what fool planted the idea in his brain, and more - what
sort of a brain is it that would accept it?
Does it betray fear on the part of our leaders that if they do not
stand tall in defending values in an insecure modern world the
electorate will punish them; for that matter, does it betray a timid
and fearful community prone to turn in on itself and against the
world?
Whatever lies behind it, Mr Beazley's proposal takes us to the edge of
high farce.
One of the Australian values bemused foreigners would have to accept
is that of `hard work'.
Some cynics would say that a substantial number of native Australians
have failed utterly to accept that value, so how can we seriously ask
foreigners to sign up?
Then there is the fact that the obligation would apply not only to
long-term residents, but also to tourists, some of whom come here only
for a few days.
One can imagine the ranks of Chinese and Japanese visitors, some of
whom would not even speak English, and who wish only to see the
barrier reef, Uluru and the Sydney Opera House, solemnly and
uncomprehendingly agreeing to respect the virtue of hard work, and
lots of other virtuous things besides.
Perhaps the Beazley plan could become yet another triumphant
Australian first, and other countries would adopt it as well, so that
travellers would find themselves signing up to the local value scheme
in whatever country they visit, no matter that values in various
countries may be at variance with one another.
Perhaps each of our states might adopt their own values, and people
crossing state borders would have to ditch one system for another.
Who will decide on Mr Beazley's definitive list of values and what
will happen if new values emerge, demanding inclusion on the list?
And it's only a short step from a declaration of values to setting up
classes for those who don't understand our values or those whose
adherence to those values is deemed too weak.
And another short step, for example, to the point reached in Turkey
where a young novelist is facing court (and a possible three years in
jail) on charges that she insulted `Turkishness' because a character
in her book The Bastard of Istanbul refers to the deaths of Armenians
in 1915 (read Aborigines in the early days, or the stolen generation)
as genocide.
If all this means that Messrs Howard and Beazley are now in
competition to out-value each other, what a desolate electoral
landscape lies ahead.
What on earth are sane and sensible people, who are quite capable of
making up their minds about their country's defining characteristics,
to do about intrusive authorities who insist on doing the job for
them?