Howard attacks multi-culturalism, apologises for nothing

Harley Dennett in Washington DC writes:

Former prime minister John Howard has dumped on "multi-cultural" continental Europe, "irrelevant" UN veto nations and the Islamic world while lauding the moral superiority of the English speakers in a speech in Washington.

Howard has travelled state-side to catch up with former ‘coalition of the willing’ partners President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney ahead of launching his autobiography next month. The four-term prime minister has kept to friendly audiences since leaving office, and his delivery of the Margaret Thatcher Freedom Lecture at the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday was no departure.

“There is nothing in my view which is more important than to reassert our cultural self-belief,” Howard said in a passionate defence of the Anglosphere. “There is a tendency to see a response to terrorism in terms of placating alternative philosophies in the hope they will accommodate you and abandon aggressive designs on your society… There is nothing [islamic extremists] despise more than weakness and lack of self-belief in the ideologies they attack.”

He hoped the English-speaking world saw this as a time “not to apologise for our particular identity, but to firmly and robustly assert it": "One of the errors some sections of the English-speaking world has been to confuse multi-racialism and multi-culturalism.”

Howard dismissed the UN as useful in “increasingly limited circumstances": “I experienced, as did President Bush and Tony Blair, the frustration of the behaviour of the French and the Russians on the invasion of Iraq… It's a long debate and it gets heavy treatment in my autobiography that's coming out at the end of next month."

Blair’s autobiography has topped sales in the lucrative US market with a heavy defence of waging war in the name of freedom. Howard’s early trip and photo opportunities with US conservative headliners may signal he wants to share the same.

The intelligence sharing arrangement between the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand could only come about because of the shared Anglo-beliefs, he said, and intrinsic trust we have in those that share those beliefs.

Praising the election of Australia’s first Islamic member of parliament, Ed Husic, Howard said greater focus was required on Islamic embrace of democracy, like in Indonesia, which he said was the greatest success story ignored by Europe and the United States.

The stoic former PM broke composure to share a laugh with the conservative audience when adding he was both literally and metaphorically deaf when it came to questions about his anti-terrorism laws, perceived by some groups in Australia as anti-Islamic.

A Dorothy Dixer from the Heritage Foundation went diplomatically awry, however, when according to the think tank’s Index of Economic Freedom and Prosperity, Australia is third on the list behind Hong Kong and Singapore. “More or less saying Australia is now the leader of the free world,” said one audience member, echoing a current Republican talking point that America is going backwards.

Howard turned it into a criticism of Europe: “I think you Americans are too hard on yourself … the fundamentals of the US economy are still more open and freer than they are in many parts of Europe and when the recovery comes it will be stronger than in many parts of Europe.”

He also earned laughs when describing his first experience with non-compulsory voting, door-knocking conservatives in a block of flats in East London: "There weren't too many in this block of flats in East London. By half past 9 I was still knocking doors, polls close at 10, and people were saying 'she'll be right guv'. The conservatives lost the seat."

He also resisted commenting on the Tea Party movement's impact on Republican chances. "I want the Republicans to do well and I wouldn't want to say anything adverse about their chosen candidates would I," he said to laughter.

Crikey Daily Mail

I haven't read it all...it does seem to be an agenda-based article...but I did pick up on this quote; "One of the errors some sections of the English-speaking world has been to confuse multi-racialism and multi-culturalism.”

I'ts unfortunate that Howard specified "English-speaking", but I will reflect on the probable confusion between "multi-racialism and multi-culturalism.”

There IS a difference in reality....am I guilty of confusing them?

Or, is it moot? Is one dependant upon the other to some extent?

(Good to see Scea here again).

Interesting topic and one that you could get your fingers severely burnt by dabbling in it. Screwed if you approve and screwed if you don't.

Just seems to be the common-sense take no shit kind of talk that more politicians should adopt to stop some from taking liberties. Unfortunately it's these common-sense issues that far right groups like the BNP take advantage of to make themselves appear more vote-able

There is a difference Harcourt.

I have friends and acquaintances across all races, many different nationalities.

Indians, Pakistanis, black Americans, white Americans, many from SE Asia of different ethnic groups, tanned Australians and milk-white Arabs, Egyptians and Israelis, even the odd Kiwi (and they are odd ).

But as to culture - my British upbringing is that God (my Christian God) made us all equal and it is up to us to work hard and improve our lot. And play a lot of rugby. That is my culture and I judge everyone else by it.

All these whingeing asylum seekers, all these class-action law-suits, all these fundamentalist fanatics, none of them match up to what I expect from a human being. Same with wife-beaters, child-molesters, human traffickers. None are worth having on this planet.

Even when I look at the floods in Pakistan (as an example) I see hundreds of people gethered round a camera with their hands out, saying someone should give them food, water, accommodation and all around them are building materials (not good ones, I grant you) but useable, that are not being used. They just sit and whinge.

Even when I look at the floods in Pakistan (as an example) I see hundreds of people gethered round a camera with their hands out, saying someone should give them food, water, accommodation and all around them are building materials (not good ones, I grant you) but useable, that are not being used. They just sit and whinge.

I wonder what they do when the cameras go away? Probably start trying to fend for themselves in some way.

I like this quote from the article:

"The four-term prime minister has kept to friendly audiences since leaving office, "

As if that's really newsworthy. Most politicians whether in or out of office try to stick to friendly audiences. The writer adds it here to give the impression he's hiding from people or something. Maybe he is - like all politicians do.

There is a difference Harcourt.

I have friends and acquaintances across all races, many different nationalities.

Indians, Pakistanis, black Americans, white Americans, many from SE Asia of different ethnic groups, tanned Australians and milk-white Arabs, Egyptians and Israelis, even the odd Kiwi (and they are odd ).

But as to culture - my British upbringing is that God (my Christian God) made us all equal and it is up to us to work hard and improve our lot. And play a lot of rugby. That is my culture and I judge everyone else by it.

All these whingeing asylum seekers, all these class-action law-suits, all these fundamentalist fanatics, none of them match up to what I expect from a human being. Same with wife-beaters, child-molesters, human traffickers. None are worth having on this planet.

Even when I look at the floods in Pakistan (as an example) I see hundreds of people gethered round a camera with their hands out, saying someone should give them food, water, accommodation and all around them are building materials (not good ones, I grant you) but useable, that are not being used. They just sit and whinge.

You said a LOT in one tidy bit of writing, HB. I agree with everything you said. Most problems people have today do with not taking responsibility for their own actions. I can't speak for the weird, radical Islamic groups that treat women worse than animals. I have no tolerance for them.

Treating women badly isn't necessarily a Muslim thing, quite a few other cultures have a bad reputation here as well.

I believe this is more through ignorance and fear than religious beliefs.

The well educated extremist is far more dangerous to those whom he considers his enemies with his ability to convince and recruit others to his cause.

Treating women badly isn't necessarily a Muslim thing, quite a few other cultures have a bad reputation here as well.

I believe this is more through ignorance and fear than religious beliefs.

The well educated extremist is far more dangerous to those whom he considers his enemies with his ability to convince and recruit others to his cause.

Agree with you entirely. The battered wife problem throughout Western culture (not really the right word, is it?) is as bad - but it is not institutionalised. In much of Islam it has been endemic, but is now being broken down (slowly, but effectively) in places like Saudi, where the King is introducing reform. Also, I worked in Sumatera Barat (western Sumatra, Indonesia) in a Minangkabau area, where the women own all the land, pass on their inheritance to their daughters. The men are allowed to work and earn money for themselves, but have few possessions. They mainly live in the Suria (the religious schools) and visit their wives when allowed.

And plausibility is a weapon used by all politicians, of whatever colour, hue or shade to influence peoples perception of statements and events. Probably why so many politicians are drawn from the ranks of lawyers. Used to disputing facts in public. Don't care whether it's Osama or Obama, it's still political and therefore likely to only show what they want you to see.