Maybe Rudd can bring the Left to sanity on Islamists

Follow @icjsr

SOME election predictions are downright dopey. Remember Malcolm Fraser predicting the Howard Government would deliver us a “Muslim election”? Here’s the good news, Mr Fraser.

Having scanned the myriad press releases, interviews and doorstops, so far it's all about tax and the economy. Not a word about Muslims. But it is worth revisiting the context of Fraser’s preposterous warning. Cast your eyes around other parts of the Western world.

The cultural clash between the West and Islam is not going away. It will remain a critical issue for political leaders. Should he become prime minister, the question is how will Labor’s Kevin Rudd respond.

The Left’s embrace of cultural relativism has seen it sometimes align itself with opponents of Western values rather than risk appearing to support the cultural superiority of the West. It has been a betrayal of Western values - values originally championed by the Left.

Recall how Fraser, the pin-up boy for the intellectual left-wing clerisy in this country, chastised the Howard Government for condemning Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali when he likened women to uncovered meat, blaming rape and adultery on how women dress and behave.

Howard’s censure of Hilali was causing division, said Fraser. The former Liberal prime minister warned that the Howard Government would try to win a fifth term by exploiting fear of Muslims, encouraging Australians to believe that Muslims are different and “don’t really fit in”. It was nonsense.

The only person causing division, promoting Muslims as different, was Hilali and his left-wing apologists.

The vacuum created by the Left, as it failed to recognise and address the challenges that Islam poses for the West, allowed the conservatives to dominate this issue. None more so than the Howard Government, which has excoriated those who use Islam to spurn basic Western values.

Contrary to Fraser, this is not about beating up on Muslims for the heck of it. Instead, Islam has thrown into focus the need for the West to work out precisely which values it will not surrender - values such as the equality of the sexes, the rule of law, free speech and freedom of religion. To be sure, when asked about Hilali, Rudd apparently condemned the sheik as being “a few sandwiches short of a picnic”.

Yet, with Rudd pursuing so much me-tooism, it is hard to identify his real convictions. If elected PM, Rudd’s challenge is to recapture that ground on his own initiative, proving that the advancement and protection of Western values is not a left/right issue. He will, as circumstances arise, need to divorce himself from those elements on the Left, many residing within the Labor Party, that cling stubbornly to cultural relativism at the expense of Western values.

And circumstances will arise.

Recent snapshots from Britain are interesting pointers of the challenges ahead. Indeed, under former Labour PM, Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown, Britain also offers a hint of how left-liberals have cowered to minority claims, allowing a divisive political correctness to prevail.

A few weeks ago, the British Medical Association confirmed reports that some Muslim students are refusing to go to lectures or complete exam questions dealing with alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because it offends their religious beliefs. Other Muslim medical students have also refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. While the BMA does not approve of such behaviour, elsewhere others have capitulated in the name of cultural diversity and tolerance.

As London’s Sunday Times reported earlier this month, supermarket giant, Sainsbury’s, allows Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle alcohol purchases on religious grounds. Muslim pharmacists at Sainsbury’s pharmacies may refuse to sell the morning after pill on “ethical grounds”. Same story at the Boots line of pharmacies, where again the predilections of some Muslims trump the legitimate choices made by wider British society.

These demands have been made of Britain for one reason, and one reason alone. They often work. British multiculturalism endorses the idea that even the intolerant among minority groups must be tolerated.

Those who wish to claim that their Islamic faith prohibits them from selling alcohol or the morning after pill are counting on British society being too soft to reject their demands for special favours.

It is a logical punt given the enduring political correctness that one still finds in the West, fuelled by cultural relativism and tolerating intolerance. Indeed, Britain abounds with episodes where a strong defence of the West by leaders is sorely lacking. When Channel 4 broadcast its controversial documentary, Undercover Mosque, featuring Muslim clerics spreading extremist messages of hate from their mosques, the West Midlands police were eager to investigate. But get this. The police lodged a complaint with the British broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, claiming that the program makers had distorted the message from Islamic preachers and had undermined community cohesion. In fact, the police decided that the program makers should be investigated for stirring up racial hatred.

This shoot-the-messenger lunacy is a sign of a society that has surrendered its values to the extremists. Needless to say, these issues are necessarily heightened in Britain, where a more virulent version of multiculturalism encourages a much larger Muslim population to claim a sense of entitlement and victimhood.

But note, this has happened under a Labour Government hailed as otherwise centrist and sensible.

That is why the lessons from Britain resonate as far afield as Australia. We have not been immune to similar, albeit fewer, problems.

The preference by some leaders to sweep the clash of cultures under the carpet in the name of community cohesion has the polar opposite result in the long term.

It encourages extremists of all persuasions to flourish, not just those who preach hate towards the West.

By refusing to confront a few in the Muslim community, the entire Muslim community risks being tainted. It allows those opposed to immigration to point to preachers of hate as justification for shutting the door on all Muslims. It’s how the Pauline Hansons of politics survive and prosper. No, this is not a Muslim election. But if he ends up leading the nation, Rudd will have to choose between those willing to confront the cultural clashes when they emerge and those who prefer to hide from them.

Just as Howard claims only a conservative government can deliver a constitutional preamble on Aboriginal reconciliation by uniting both the conservatives and the progressives on the politics of symbolism, perhaps only a Labor leader can drag the Left to a more sensible centrist place on the clash of cultures.

If so, it will be an important achievement in the long-running battle between Islam and modernity.

Over to you...

# reads: 435

Original piece is http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/maybe_rudd_can_bring_the_left_to_sanity_on_islamists/

Printable version

Tell us what you think

You only have to ask your self who would the Islamists, arab/Muslim community and all their left wing affiliates, allies and supporters, Labour/greens Or Liberals.Who would they prefer to win the US elections democrats or republicans?

Posted by michael on 2007-11-04 11:54:19 GMT

I feel that the best way to maybe understand this issue is via a two-stage process. The rationale for this is to firstly, understand the problem, and secondly, identify the most appropriate responses. To start from an analysis of political positions, I feel, is a limiting way ahead. I feel that we all need to understand the broader phenomenon of anti-Israel/Zion (and its various contemporary PC expressions that appear moderate) as a first step. This will help us understand the underlying problem. The next step is to understand the local political responses. At this point, we should be able to make some informed opinions about the Rudd response. My biggest concern about a likely landslide to Labour is that the Islamists-Left relationship will be further enhanced (via the hard Left, which is a clear ally of the Islamicist movement).

Posted by dr dan on 2007-11-04 08:24:09 GMT

Labor is good for Israel: Spigelman .....in the AJN This week..

Posted by michael on 2007-10-30 07:17:42 GMT

We're not. But the article is basically anti ALP and we are replying to it.

Posted on 2007-10-30 07:10:16 GMT

If Jews can advocate for a LaBOUR government {see this weeks AJN] surely other Jews can advocate for a Liberal government why are jewish labour supporters so defensive and sensitive?

Posted by michael on 2007-10-30 05:15:43 GMT

You want actions? When will the conservatives put up Jewish candidates in safe seats in Federal elections and not just when they have a Jewish candidate they want to defeat? When will international conservatives groups run successful campaigns and petitions against atrocities in Muslim countries? When will they reform the powerful Melbourne Club? The factions in the ALP are out in the open, amongst the coalition anything can happen we do know Howard's attitudes towards minorities. Aren't you glad that the Unions saved our architectural heritage from oblivion? There is no ideal but please take off your blue tinted glasses.

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-30 00:34:06 GMT

. Harry, It will be interesting to see what happens when labour comes to power [Most likely} and the next Arab backed anti Israel Un resolution comes up how Rudd/labour will vote. Going on his previous record it is highly unlikely Labour will support Israel once they are in power why should they change their attitude.There are too many anti Israel factions along with the very anti israel Greens who Rudd will owe favours and have to please.Unfortunaly the left has taken sides with the Muslim/Arab community ,jews have nothing to offer them here . I predict labour will abstain at future antgi Israel resolutions as not to offend their many Muslim /Arab and large anti Israel constituency. We will then see Jewish labour voters use twisted logic and argue that by our government abstaining it is a good thing ....

Posted by michael on 2007-10-29 23:01:21 GMT

Why are you so gung ho in favour of the right? ALP have put at least two Jews with pro Israeli views in seats which they might win, the Conservatives have done not. Howard is a firm believer in Anglo Protestant superiority, and has shown a degree of racism towards Muslims and Asians. Would Jews be different? Did he help Zelman Cowan to join the Melbourne Club? Would his support of Israel have been so strong if George had not said so? What will he do when Hilary takes over? I fear the hard right more than the hard left, and so should you. And the left is not "terrorist loving" and if the election is the predicted landslide there will be at least two Jewish Zionists in government, if Howard wins there will be none. Don't be fooled by the union bashers the unions have had success in opposing Iranian and Arab abuses of trade unionists and have rarely found criticism of Israel, what have the right done to help here?

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-29 22:02:05 GMT

Why Peter is so gung-ho in support of Rudd is baffling. The left's support for Israel is from a by-gone era. Danby's ALP support is countered by Irwin's hostility and a Syrian Assad toady's election in Vic. MM is absolutely right: the labour movement is anti-Israel. My point still is that Rudd may not be able to stand up to the terrorist loving hard left.

Posted by paul2 on 2007-10-29 13:02:51 GMT

It's now the Trade Unionists. A union in Britain puts a motion for a boycott (ultimately scotched) another tries it on and the International Trade Union Movement is now suspect. If you subscribe to Labour Start www.labourstart.org/ you will forever be signing petitions against abuses in Iran and other Islamic countries, but fwe if any against Israel. I suspect some rusted on Conservatives will never see good in anything the Trade Union movement is associated with.

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-27 00:01:48 GMT

Harry when it comes to supporting Israel where it counts at the ''UN'' You will find Jewish labour supporters will either say ''it is not important if Australia doesn't vote against the Arab backed anti Israel resolutions'' or If Australia abstains just as Rudd said a labour government would ''it is in Israel’s best interests'' or they will say well ''abstaining is better than voting for the anti Israel resolutions'' so to them abstaining will become a positive thing.. Australian supporters of Israel just don't get it they think if Rudd tells a room full of Zionists Jews that labour supports Israel and at the same time sits on the fence on the world stage at the UN it is acceptable.. {There are 400,000 Muslims in Australia how many would vote for the Libs? & only 100,000 Jews out of which perhaps 40-50 % would vote labour why would a labour government upset so many of their constituents..Hello?] With so many anti-Israel supporters and affiliates labour supporting pro Zionist Jews have a conflict of interest but they just won't accept it.

Posted by michael on 2007-10-25 11:27:13 GMT

And ask Howard whether he would be so supportive of Israel when Bush is replaced by say Hilary Clinton.

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-25 11:23:24 GMT

The government of fascist Italy was a conservative, morality-based government, so was that of Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain. I don't think much of that argument. It was Dr Evatt who supported Israel and Hawke who shed tears over it. It was a Labor government who made Sir Isaac Isaacs Attorney General and then GG. It was Evatt who allowed Jewish refugees into this land after the war. Only the ALP have put a Jew and Zionist into a winnable seat in this election. It was the Australian Trade Unions who marched in support of Dreyfuss. And what about the Melbourne Club, a bastion of the Conservatives. Some people are in denial of history.

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-25 10:43:00 GMT

Conservative, morality-based governments and individuals are always going to be the best friends of the Jews. The Jews of Israel represent a moral democracy in the midst of a superstitious, stoneage anarchy. I work with Leftists. When I suggested that Israel was not at fault for the problems in the Middle East, they all jumped down my throat, unable to see the morality but rather aiming for the Liberal, kneejerk reaction to Leftist media brainwashing about the 'victimized' Palestinians. I'm surprised that the usually coherent Janet Albrechtsen would even toy with the idea that populist socialist, Kevin Rudd, will lead a pro-Israel government. He even recently commented that he is a href="http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=1038" powerless /a against his own union team members. Even if he were sincere about supporting Israel (which I doubt) he's unable to control the rogue elements of his own party. Jewish people in the west need to take notice of the defecting American Jewish Democrats who are realizing that the Left are no friend of Israel!

Posted by Aurora on 2007-10-25 10:23:46 GMT

Janet Albrechtsen is one of only a few smart switched on Journalists that are not afraid to stand up and be counted. She’s one very smart lady. There is no doubt the islamo facsists, Islamists, radicals, extremists Or just bad Muslims that have hijacked Islam at this point of time are the enemy. What is disappointing and very hard to understand is why the left has joined them. Whilst the Islamists murder and cause worldwide mayhem the left [including Jewish left] from Loewenstein to Pilger, Fisk, Chomski and many many more do their PR and advocacy work via the left wing media i.e Fairfax, sbs, abc, New York Times, Guardian, CBS etc, Universities/Academics, Human rights/civil rights /Ngo organizations, trade Unions etc. Rudd may be a nice guy and no doubt he would support a secure Israel but he will be owing many favours to many people and groups when they are elected that will include the Muslim /Arab community, Trade Unions and all the other Israel haters. Rudd will certainly not be changing his tune when it comes to UN Votes against Israel he will be at the very best from Israel’s stance abstaining and not voting along side USA supporting Israel just as he stated he would have done if labour were in power at the last UN anti Israel vote . Each time the Albrechtsens, Bolts, Sheridans, Pipes, gabriels, Phillips etc are shouted down for warning us we will end up like UK {and most of Europe} the left call these people racists which goes to show how far these people will justify the Muslim intolerance and racism against Jews and the West. The statement that not all Muslims are terrorists but at this point of time in history all terrorists are Muslims rings so true.

Posted by michael on 2007-10-25 04:48:47 GMT

Paul2 you summarize the issue as the existence of a "PC left" which is assumed to be strong in the ALP, but not in the coalition. This undefined group is anti-Israel and may not be controlled by Rudd. That argument is strong on rhetoric and cliches but totally lacking in substance, it looks to me like a subliminal plug for the conservatives and nothing more. Never mind the presence of Michael Danby or traditional ALP support for Israel. Jews are not fools we see right through this ploy. Give us some facts Janet or shut up.

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-25 01:32:56 GMT

I am not sure if the previous commentators read the same article that I did. Albrechtsen points to the tolerance of the intolerant by the PC left. Her concern (which I share) is that while Rudd is a decent person, there are many PC types on the left whom he may not be able or willing to control. By contrast, Howard squashed the bigots in his camp. Rudd has shown that he can assert himself, but will he on matters of PC? That is Albrechsen's question.

Posted by Paul2 on 2007-10-24 12:24:00 GMT

AMP, you want just one Australian culture. Which one? The aboriginal, the Torres Straight Islanders (they are different) perhaps we should all become Anglicans, or would you prefer Irish Catholic. I personally would prefer us all to become Jewish but a bit agnostic, no Hasids please. And which of our many existing cultures do you want the Muslims to adopt? This oversimplification is what Howard is good at. Please tell me why the English refused to adopt the pertaining aboriginal culture. Should they have been thrown out?

Posted by Peter on 2007-10-24 12:07:30 GMT

Speaking about Mr.Fraser, let us not forget that apart from his famous"Life wasn't meant to be easy" pearl of wisdom and an occasional pecadillo in a motel, Australians do not have much to complain about. Spare a thought about Zimbabweans, who were made to wear Mr.Fraser's decision as a member of the prominent statesmen group, to award the Prime Ministership to Robert Mugabe. These poor souls have to live under the insane Mugabe regime, thanks to Mr.Fraser's love of the progressive ideas.I believe, we all should thank our lucky stars that Mr.Fraser was not asked to form the Government of Australia. Although, I suspect he would be willing to respond favourably, if asked.

Posted by Michael Galak. on 2007-10-24 08:25:52 GMT

John Howard and Alexander Downer are well aware of the Islamist threat that Australia faces and they are doing something about it (albeit not enough or fast enough) - we do NOT need Kevin Rudd, ever. I found Janet's discussion scattered, confusing. Let's simplify the argument for those who just don't get it. (The war in Iraq is a separate issue.) Suppose you allow visitors into your house to partake of your hospitality. Does that mean that you would allow them to re-arrange your furniture, change your house rules, help themselves to anything and everything in your cupboards, spend your money, wipe their dirty feet on your carpets, criticise your way of life, .... etc. etc.? No, you wouldn’t? Then what is different to allowing guests in our country to do all of these things? Welcome those who want to become Australians, whatever their creed, colour or religion. Eject those who only want to change our country to be like the very country they left and rejected. It's simple: To all migrants (and I am one myself): "If you don't LOVE Australia, then GET OUT!" Countries like Britain, France and Holland have broken their backs bending over backwards with their 'TOLERANCE'. All discussion is stymied because of the 'racist' slur. Is it ‘racist’ to protect our hard-won values and to reject those that conflict with ours? Why should the host country be the one to ‘adapt’ and ‘tolerate’ - shouldn’t that be the visitor’s lot? They don’t need to stay if they don’t like it. Forget having a multi-culture - it doesn’t work. Let’s have a multi-racial society by all means, but, PLEASE, just ONE culture - AUSTRALIAN! We're not saying that it is perfect, but it is preferable by far to one coming out of the Dark Ages, as is Islam.

Posted by AMP on 2007-10-24 07:59:49 GMT

The demented Left in Australia are just as demented as the Islamists, You cannot have a rational discourse with an irrational person. So we just have to live with our own demented Left. They owe nothing to Rudd and would not concur with anything he suggested,so do not lookto him for remediation. By the way the Islamists are not so much demented as driven by a supremecist supercessionist religous ideology, so never look to the possibility of having a rational discourse with any of t hem.

Posted by Howard Nathan on 2007-10-24 05:57:33 GMT

Who in Hell are the left. This pejorative term refers to an undefined basket usually including environmentalists social reformers and of course pro Muslims and anyone who supports the ALP. It is a lazy, sloppy form of argument and has no value. Catholic doctors have been known to refuse prescriptions for contraceptives or to perform abortions. This is nothing unique to Islam. We have a real problem with a growing extremism from Islam. This will not be solved by hysteria or exaggeration, or by politicking. The ALP has a Zionist as one of their MPs. The Coalition has a poor record of allowing Jews to contest winnable seats, look real.

Posted on 2007-10-24 04:58:48 GMT

Links

Maybe Rudd can bring the Left to sanity on Islamists

Tell us what you think