|
December 15, 2005
This is the ugly face of Australian conservatism that defines Aussie identity and Australian nationality ethnically--- -as Anglo-Australian. It's the face of street violence of the thug and the vigilante. It has nothing to do with defending democracy, and little to do with the Burkean conservative disposition that conserves what is valuable and advocates moderate reforms in line with existing institutions and values.
This Canadian interpretation of the politics of race on a public surf beach:
Gable
is too American. It jars. Though it captures the violence of the Right, the politics of possession, and the perversion of the commonsense of ordinary people, it misses the traditional Aussie values of mateship and nationalism of populist conservatism. The suburban lads are not Klu Klux Klan, nor do they take their bearing from the KKK in the US. What is missing is the Australian flag the Romper Stompers drapped themselves in as they practised their form of racial exclusion in the name of the nation.
The civilized side of conservatism are articulated by Peter Faris in terms of nationality as assimilation:
Any Muslims who wish to stay in Australia must become Aussies.They must understand and support our Australian culture and traditions. They must assimilate. Every other migrant group has done so.Unfortunately, the Islamic religion prevents this. Sharia is God's Law and is superior to the man-made laws of our democratically elected Parliaments. Islam demands that only God can govern. We have made too many concessions in the name of Multiculturism (a concept that was forced on the Australian people). Muslims living in Australia must learn to speak English, especially at the mosque. They must dress in Western clothes and not mark themselves as different and apart. They must treat their women according to Western values. They must send their children to secular schools where they will learn to be Australian citizens.The sad truth is that the more Muslims we have in Australia the more problems we have, particularly from terrorism.
There is not a liberal concept in that passage. It is authoritarian with no concessions being made for individual freedom at all. It is also unclear what we assimilate to as Australian citizens.
The civilized face tacitly supports the vigilante face in the name of ensuring law and order and the failure of the state to be tough on Arab Australians. It does by saying why they are justifed to act like Romper Stompers due to a series of events: the problem of young Lebanese guys defining their tribal identity against what they see as Anglo Australian identity, being into criminality in a big way (just like some of the southern beaches surfie culture), engaging in sexual harassment, and at times sexual assault, on the beach and their racism against white Australians.
What links the two as Marilyn Lake notes, is the appeal to the military tradition:
"...they redeem their action by locating their campaign in another Australian tradition, the national tradition of military defence, that has in recent years become central to official versions of Australian history. Rioters were heard last Sunday to liken their action to earlier generations' battles to defend Australia from the Japanese and other enemies. Resurgent militant nationalism feeds on celebrated military tradition.
This justification---conserving traditional Anzac values in the face of excesses of the contemporary world, states that as Australia is at war with a militant , extremist Islam so its followers should be interned as were the enemy residents during WW2.
The third face is that of Big Business. Big Business has captured the state to the extent that it ensures, through its intricate webs of cartels and business associations, that the vast bulk of recent federal legislation favors the interests of large commercial enterprises at the expense of the citizen. This legislation also aims to undermine, and cripple, the power of organized labor. Big business in Australia calls for more deregulation and deeper tax cuts, works to gradually erode the little antitrust legislation we have, and encourages consolidation in many sectors of the economy by way of mergers and acquisitions. The Australian economy has become more oligopolistic since the 1970s and this has been at the expense of the free or competitive market.
So we have lots of radical reform to established institutions and regulations to protect the interests of big business. There is no desire for the minimal state here nor any no fear of the big state here. There is only the desire to wield the big state's power in the interests of big business, now that the Howard Government has control of the Senate. a strong state pursuing market liberalization for big business centralizes power in Canberra with little real concern for the rights of individuals.
'Cronulla' opens up a space in which we can put the three faces of conservatism together. What is dsclosed is that Australian conservatism has become a different political tradition to liberalism. It is no longer just neo-liberalism. Those neo-liberals at the Institute of Public Affairs who equate the two as economic liberalism and the free market are mistaken. They talk in terms of the New Right and its agenda of the efficiency of markets, a distrust of government intervention in the economy, freeing the labour market, eliminating tariff protection, privatisation of state-owned assets, applying competition to government services and reducing the size of government. The New Right, or the "economic rationalism" of the 1980s, is not the conservatism of today.
Those who contine to equate the two after 9/11 are misinterpreting what is now happening around them.
|
Bigotry exhibited by the Anglo-Australian working class I feel is probably related to the anxieties and insecurities of their parents combined with xenophobia - strange peoples speaking strange languages and I guess practicing strange religions in the case of Muslim immigrants!
Anti-Muslim media people Jones, Laws et al, have been continuously stoking the flames of racism against Sydney’s Muslim community, probably never having met or spent any time with them out there in Bankstown. If there's bad element involved in terrorist activities then by all means arrest and prosecute them however don't denigrate and vilify the whole community in the process. Because they’re Muslim you don’t think they can integrate? Atleast give them a fair go.
Having made the decision to allow Muslim immigrants into the country I assume the labour state and federal govt’s of the day put a lot of work into assisting them integrate into Australian society. Having been allowed to enter the country surely these migrants assumed that they would be allowed to freely practice their religion without being harassed for doing so and this includes wearing of the head scarf for women. They are Australian citizens and as such they deserve to be treated a lot better than they have been by govt, the media and Australian society in general.
Since Sept 2001 Muslim Australians have received a lot of flack, I can well understand if they feel completely marginalised and are suffering from a siege mentality. Their religion is not that strange, it's practiced by over 1 billion people on this planet, including some 200 million people to the immediate north of us. So what is John Howard going to say to the president of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono next time he meets him, gee Mr president we Australians really appreciate all the trade that we do with your country and the military and cultural links that we have, however we think that the religion you practice sucks! – oh and by the way, in my opinion there is no underlying racism in Australian society.
Peace.