That’s just straight-up racism, Mr Howard!

Prime Minister John Howard rides his white horse into Aboriginal Australia to save the kiddies. Yes, banning pornography will prevent child sexual abuse, apparently — despite a complete lack of evidence to support that idea. Despite the fact that whities committing sexual abuse against white kids won’t have pornography banned in their communities. And despite JWH being on the record as saying he’s opposed to censorship of any kind. Just how many ways can you be a complete hypocrite in the one news story?

13 Replies to “That’s just straight-up racism, Mr Howard!”

  1. So what would you recommend be done in communities where sexual abuse and alchohol abuse are endemic (whether black or white)?

    Admitedly Johnnie is being a bit of a hypocrit atm, but something does need to be done, does it not?

  2. What would I do?

    Well I wouldn’t barge in with some half-arsed racist neo-colonial white-man-knows-better scheme which is really about appeasing far-right rednecks. I certainly wouldn’t screw around with the rights of everyone in the community just because some of its members have committed crimes.

    I’d ask someone who actually knows something about the causes of child sexual abuse and address those issues. I’d actually consult with the communities and figure out what they think is appropriate. I’d identify the criminals and do what’s appropriate with them.

    In short, I’d do what’s going to work best for the people concerned, not for my flagging opinion poll figures in an election year.

    I am totally fucking sick of “we must protect the children” being an excuse for abandoning human rights for others. Even the title of the report, Little Children are Sacred is offensive. Little children are humans, just like you and me, no more or less “sacred” than anything else.

    “Every sperm is sacred,” and all that shite — bah!

  3. Oh yes, I was angry when I wrote my comment last night! Angry that an otherwise-intelligent friend had been suckered into the “But something does need to be done, does it not?” argument.

    That’s the syllogism that goes “Something needs to be done, this is something, therefore…”

    If child sexual abuse is “rampant” somewhere, then der, of course something needs to be done. However:

    1. It needs to be the best “something”.
    2. It needs to be done by the right people.
    3. It needs to be done in the right way.
    4. It needs to be done at the right time following the right timeline

    Howard’s plan clearly fails the first 3 criteria and I reckon the 4th looks a bit wobbly too.

  4. Hey, I’m not sucked in, I agree with you that this is all being gone about the wrong way, I just wanted to know if you had any idea what a right way might be… i suspected you did… and now we all know.


  5. A couple of things:

    1. I see this is being reported as a “crisis”. What — it’s only a crisis because the govenrment has decided to do something about it in an election year? This is an issue that has been around for a very long time — why hasn’t the government addressed it before? I am a bit surprised nobody has tried to make a big deal out of this fact yet (or maybe I missed it).
    2. The policies suggested are not that radical. In fact, they reinforce the status quo and the disempowering nanny stateism that has led to this situation in the first place. I think this whole “crisis” is a big non-sequitur — the real issue is the poor socio-economic status of Aborigines. Make serious attempts to improve this and I think the social problems will start to diminish.
    3. This is Howard’s modus operandi. He likes to pick on minorities to play wedge politics: Asian migrants in the 80s, asylum seekers, Muslims. How is this latest front of his not racist? Is there not child abuse in other areas of the community that need to be addressed as well? Why isn’t the greater community subject to this? However, I think there is a section in the Constitution that does allow for laws to be applied to particular racial groups. Constitutionally lawful racism — noice.
  6. @quadrapop: I haven’t the faintest idea what to do about this situation. But I do know that it’s usually best to talk to the people who do know and follow their advice.

    And just so everyone’s clear on what I think about children, this recent Gaping Void cartoon sums it up:

  7. @Snarky Platypus: Yes, while more enlightened nations have laws prohibiting racism, Australia had chosen, um, a different path. Section 51 is your friend:

    51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

    (xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws

    I’ve written about some on the other points you raise in a new post just now, too.

  8. Yeah, this is Mr Howard’s much needed Children Overboard.

    It’s a pity that something so fundamentally important has been (seemingly) reserved for this political crossroad.

    There are many forms of child use and abuse, and this is surely one of them.

    (And this coming from someone who tends to favor Coward over Crudd.)

  9. @jason: What I like about you is that you’re not a completely pre-programmed Howard-supporter. 😉

    Nice point about him (ab)using the children for his political gain. That is ugly.

    As an aside, I like the way they’re referring to this whole issue over at The Road to Surfdom: Howard’s War on Indigenous Unpleasantness.

    (That’s a nice article, by the way, pointing out that Howard’s managed to create a structure for this “War” which for now makes it look like he’s strong and in charge but which sets up a body to be the scapegoat if it all goes wrong. Sweet.)

Comments are closed.