I asked:
“Do you have any idea how much potential this idea has to make a laughing stock of both the ALP and of Australia internationally?

First, please define what you mean by “Australian Values”. I am an Australian, and my values are in general far removed from those of John Howard in that I believe in honesty, civil rights and liberties, and upholding International Law. Would you prefer our visitors to swear to uphold Howard’s values, or mine? 

Secondly, if you think it is appropriate to require visitors to sign a statement that they uphold whatever “values” we state, then would it also be appropriate, for instance, for Saudi Arabia to require its visitors to swear that they believe women should not drive cars, and that adulterers should receive the death penalty?

Visitors are already required to obey our laws, which is as it should be. Values are subjective and personal, and are not the province of Government…”

Local MP replied fast and was sympathetic.

Beazley didn’t reply.

Burke wrote back fast (and did so again to address my further comments), and was polite, but unrepentantly me-tooist. He mentioned that other countries have similar affirmations of supposed compatibility, such as the US’s immigration silly checklist that includes “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of other Socialist organization?” or whatever it now says. I pointed out that just because others do it (particularly the US) does not make it a good idea.

I stand by what I said then, to the effect that if some type of *behaviour* damages society, then make it illegal and prosecute those who do it. But it is stupid to try to constrain thoughts, beliefs and “values”.

But running in parallel with those essentially secular beliefs are religious beliefs that are not necessarily compatible with common secular beliefs and in some instances are markedly different from the values of the majority. The truth is that for all the shared values of people around the world, and in Australia, there are areas of passionately held differences of opinion.

In some ways it is a remarkable thing that the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Australia have co-existed peacefully with a culture of bikinis, underage sex, over-indulgence in alcohol and lack of punishment for religious offences such as adultery. It is equally remarkable that Fundamentalist Christians have managed to co-exist with abortion clinics, non-observance of the Sabbath and disparagement of their God on television. What has made that peaceful coexistence possible is respect for law, NOT shared values.

So to me all the talk about values other than what is enshrined in our law is just distilled essence of bullshit. Or a nasty political wedge issue.

Lol!

As an exercise in puncturing the distended bellies of the punditariat, Rudds early moves were a master stroke. I have to admit I was thoroughly confused when Rudd announced Bonhoeffer as his personal hero (mostly because nobody, including me, had ever heard of him). I thought it was a silly exercise in posturing, a means of reassuring the religious that he was serious about his oft-mentioned christianity. When he called Howard a “Hayekian fundamentalist” I scratched my head again, wondering what the point was of associating Howard with a Libertarian hero. I’m not as clever as Rudd though. Two simple moves framed the areas of debate, defined Rudd as definitely not Latham or Beazley, yet still left him as definitely not Howard. He wasn’t a scary, fundie christian, and he wasn’t a scary, fundie neo-con. It’s a huge space to operate in, stops Howard wedging to any large degree and makes every attempt to differentiate policy look like extremism (it’s Latham in reverse).

I’d hate to play chess against the bugger, he’d be five moves ahead the whole time. Personally, I think I’d prefer Gillard as prime minister. Politically, Rudd is playing an incredibly professional game and she could probably use a few lessons before assuming that role. He’s the Tiger Woods of australian politics right now.

Doesn’t matter David. “Burkeian” conjures up a comfortable mental image of chintz and french polished furniture with the English garden outside and the Empire still intact. It’s entirely a calming and affirming exercise for the Liberal voting denizens of Malvern, South Yarra and Double Bay.

mr speaker, after all, mr speaker, mr burke never does something, mr speaker, for nothing, mr speaker.

on this point of reading lists, i do wish these fools had actually read hayek, like they all intimate they have. you’d think mrs thatcher ran a weekly book club at kiribilli.

now, i would never say hayek was totally right. after all, he fails to account for distributed media technologies and virtualization in reshaping how we prototype the future, and he worships dead white guys a little too freely for someone who claims an anti-rational position.

but if they actually read him, then at least the libs would know:

a) why they now are heading out the door despite “the economy being so good” – contrary to popular opinion this is a totally predictable event,

and b) why they should not be conservatives in the first place.

i’ll post something a little more detailed later, but for now, get your copies of “constitution of liberty” and turn to page 45 for a preview (routledge classics edition)…

(i love hoisting these nut-nuts on their own pseudo-theoretical petards, don’t you?)

Yes, Winnie’s account of the Regiment keeping the Wog hordes at bay with their trusty Maxims at the Battle of Omdurman is a ripping yarn, but I must say it’s hard to go past Kipling.

I mean, at least he could take the piss.

all the betterer for kiddies to read and understand our bl-ack arm-b-and his-tory. excellent.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2089070.htm#comments