In his Australia Day address to the National Press Club in 2003 Professor George Williams reflected on Australia’s record of enacting hasty legislation to deal with the perception of looming ideological threats (historically communism, recently terrorism), and he cautioned:

“National security is not an end in itself to be met at any cost, but should be pursued to the extent that it protects our democratic freedoms and way of life. Maximum security at the cost of living in an authoritarian state is not something that Australians would, or should, accept.”

Two and a half years later we are again watching helplessly as our political ‘leaders’ recklessly take a knife to our democratic freedoms in the name of national security.

As the debris is cleared from the London underground stations, the talk in Australia is turning again to ways in which to deal with the perception of a looming ideological threat. And again, its another ‘ism’ which we fear will be the end of civilisation as we know it: Un-Australianism.

Last weekend the Prime Minister got the dog-whistle out:

“I think we also have to encourage the communities with whom potential suicide bombers might be part of or might mingle with, that their absolute responsibility (is) firstly not to encourage inflammatory attacks, not to encourage intolerance of the value system of the country in which they live, and if people are exhibiting those tendencies, they have an obligation
within their own communities to try and do something about it,”  he said.

The subtext is quite clear: those people are different and have different values to ‘ours’. The Justice Minister heard and bayed along in tune:

“They should really say to them ‘this is not on, this is un-Australian, we live in a free society, which doesn’t advocate violence’, and they should make it very clear to them that this is just not on. If those comments transgress the law, then of course they’ll be prosecuted.”

Them, us. Australian, un-Australian.

So what is the “value system of the country in which we live”? What is ‘Australian’?

You might say that the values we hold dear include democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law. But is that not also true of Austria, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States?

Anyway, those things aren’t really values, are they?

What values are ‘Australian’? Do we have a monopoly on honesty, loyalty, integrity, fidelity, reliability, or compassion? Or is there a particularly ‘Australian’ blend; a recipe for ‘Australianism’? Sift dry ingredients: honesty, integrity, fidelity. Take faith and carefully remove all elements of fundamentalism. Whisk faith and understanding and mix with dry
ingredients. Pour quickly into an ancient and odd-shaped pan (don’t worry about the few dark specks in the pan. They’ll quickly assimilate or be removed.) Etc, etc.

I’m having a great deal of trouble defining these Australian values which everyone seems to have an innate knowledge of.

Perhaps I might get closer to the nub of the issue if someone from the Federal Government (I understand we have at least two in this state) would mind answering these questions for me:

• Is it ‘Australian’ to incarcerate innocent men, women and children indefinitely in desert and island prisons for wanting a better life for themselves?
• Is it ‘Australian’ to invade a sovereign country without justification and in defiance of international law?
• Is it ‘Australian’ to erode the democratic process by restricting the access for young Australians to the electoral process?
• Is it ‘Australian’ to deny the citizens of this country scrutiny of, and accountability from, their elected representatives?
• Is it ‘Australian’ to blatantly disregard this country’s international treaty obligations?
• Is it ‘Australian’ to lie, obfuscate, and/or hide the truth for domestic political advantage?

One man’s threat is another’s opportunity. This government has already turned the threat of refugees into domestic political gold. It’s an extremely cynical viewpoint to suggest that this latest suggested ‘threat’ of Islamic fundamentalism from within might provide an opportunity to wind back cosmopolitanism in this country. But then, there’s a lot of those cynical bastards out there.

And, earlier,

How could anyone with a warm heart not have enjoyed The Great Love-In in Washington ...  Donald loves John; Rupert loves John; George loves John; John loves Yous All.

All the love in the air clearly got to JH. At the White House press conference he said 769 words. Five of them were the word “values”.

John spoke about “the values of democracy”, “the values of aspirational people”, “shared values”, “a common belief in certain fundamental values”, and “sharing values in common”.

The Macquarie Dictionary has sixteen definitions for the word “values”, the most appropriate of those, in terms of the PM’s speech, probably being the tenth: any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself.

Indeed, John Howard nominated some of the “values” shared by the United States and Australia: democratic tradition, individual freedom, individual effort and reward for that effort.

For further clarification of “values” I consulted the International Association for Human Values (IAHV), which is in the business of identifying and promoting the values shared by societies around the world.

”... increased contact between peoples and nations enhances awareness of our kinship and the shared code of ethics and conduct that underlies all civilization. It is these values that we must now promote to create a common vision and means for moving forward toward a more peaceful and sustainable world.”

John Howard also said “Iraq” or “Iraqi” eleven times during that short speech at the White House yesterday. The juxtaposition between “values” and “Iraq” is interesting in light of what the IAHV identify as key principles of human values:

• The innate dignity of human life (think about the 25,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the US led invasion)
• Respect and consideration for the “other” (think about the general persecution of Muslims)
• The interconnection between humankind and the environment and thus the need to care for and preserve the earth (think about the plundering of oil from underneath the sand)
• The importance of integrity and service (think about the “integrity” of both administrations and ask yourself for whom they “serve”)
• An attitude of non-violence (D-oh!)
• The individual and collective quest for peace and happiness (and a fast buck — sorry, I mean ‘individual effort and reward for that effort’).

Rosinante Quixote is, as the name implies, a faithful old hack. As the horse was to Don Quixote, the author would like to be to this island. Rosinante could be Eeyore, but for the small, but hardy, vein of hope which dwells within.