October 08, 2004
MARK'S MISTAKE
"Surely an honest prime minister, someone big enough to handle the truth, would 'fess up to his responsibility today and just say straight to Australians: 'I made a mistake.'" So said Mark Latham yesterday ... shortly before making a mistake of his own. Latham accused the Prime Minister of wanting to get rid of Asian migrants:
"I tell you one thing I wasn't doing in the late 80s, I wasn't racing around Liverpool saying we should get rid of Asian migrants and run a racially discriminatory immigration policy."
He’s referring to a Howard interview in 1988 in which the then-opposition leader was asked whether the rate of Asian immigration was too high. Howard’s answer:
"I think there are some people who believe it is. I wouldn’t like to see it greater, I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community, it’s too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater."
The worst you can say about Howard’s 1988 attitude is that he wanted to slow Asian immigration "a little". Which is a long way from "getting rid of Asian migrants". Did Latham admit his mistake? Not at all. He simply recast his words, during subsequent interviews, in a more slippery fashion:
"In the late 1980s, in my community, I wasn't walking around saying we have too many Asian migrants, and Australia needs a racially discriminatory migration policy."
Admit your mistake, Mark. Prove you’re big enough to handle the truth. Latham should be more concerned with the racial views of his own supporters:
He was not impressed when one Labor supporter raised concerns that his party had selected the wrong candidate to stand in the News South Wales seat of Greenway where there is a large Christian community.
The supporter said: "We've, I understand selected a Muslim, that's breathtakingly stupid I would have thought, you're not going to attract Christian voters by doing that."
Mr Latham slammed the supporter's comment.
"I can't believe you're saying 'we' as if you're part of the Labor Party with that sort of attitude," he said.
On the contrary; puzzling and ignorant attitudes on race are a leftist staple. Consider Margo "niggers in the woodpile" Kingston, who believes that fundamentalist Zionists control politics and the media in Australia and the US; Labor zealot Niall "slitty-eyed, slimy Vietnamese prick" Cook; Gary "powerful images" Sauer-Thompson; and confused Christopher Sheil, who used the term "jigaboo" because he thought it was a dance.
Posted by Tim Blair at October 8, 2004 04:30 AMNo, you don't! Expect a knock on your door, shortly.
Posted by: Supreme Zionist Council at October 8, 2004 at 05:46 AMDoes Margo really, really think that Howard is going to lose Bennelong and Ruddock lose Berowra?
She's more delusional than I thought.
Posted by: Quentin George at October 8, 2004 at 07:27 AMstrawman! strawman! everywhere a strawman! Get a life, Timmy 'cos you sure as hell don't have an argument.
Posted by: Niall at October 8, 2004 at 08:15 AMTo view Niall twisting in the wind don't miss the " slitty-eyed, slimy...." link.
Your Howard quote proves Latham correct. He wanted to get rid of asian migrants. Perhaps not all, but certainly some.
Also its good to see that later Latham quote, a leader combatting racism in his support base rather inflaming it. A change for the better wouldn't you say?
The epithet on Mark Latham's electoral tombstone has been cast: 'Bitter in defeat'
Watch for a complete hoax in his concession speech tomorrow night. Democracy and the Australian people wonderful..blah blah.
Does anyone, apart from the man himself, seriously believe he will be a Prime Ministerial contender at the next election?
Posted by: J Lamblet at October 8, 2004 at 10:35 AMI'm looking forward to Andrew Wilkie's admission of defeat tomorrow night. I saw him this morning at Epping (Sydney) station, handing out how-to-vote cards. Nobody was taking any. I asked him whether he understood the issues that concerned Bennelong voters, being the blow-in in the electorate that he is. He just gave me a myopic stare through his rimless glasses. I even felt a bit sorry for him: sad, washed up detritus on the rubbish dump of history, a footnote in some future Master's thesis analysis of the 2004 election. All very pathetic really and what did he expect to achieve? Now go out and get a life, Andrew.
Posted by: freddyboy at October 8, 2004 at 11:30 AMYour Howard quote proves Latham correct. He wanted to get rid of asian migrants. Perhaps not all, but certainly some.
Do you understand the difference between "getting rid" of Asian migrants that are already there, i.e. reducing their absolute number, and reducing the rate of additional migration? I guess not. Such simple mathematical concepts, but I guess they're out of the reach of fervent Latham supporters...
Posted by: PW at October 8, 2004 at 11:32 AMYou've opened up a tin of worms by mentioning the "N" word, and I don't mean nigger either- prepare to be haunted.
It's like saying hello, or even making eye contact with a bag person on public transport- he'll sit next to you, asphyxiate you with hailitosis and gibber at you about the world bank, the Jews, black unmarked helicopters and the wires in his head.
Spot on freddyboy. I mean this Wilke guy, what a friggin dope. I thought he was supposed to be an intelligence officer. Get real. How dumb can this guy be thinking he could beat John Howard in his own seat. Jeez, with intelligence officers like that protecting our country who needs rabid jihadists
Posted by: J Lamblet at October 8, 2004 at 12:12 PM"Do you understand the difference between "getting rid" of Asian migrants that are already there, i.e. reducing their absolute number, and reducing the rate of additional migration? I guess not. Such simple mathematical concepts, but I guess they're out of the reach of fervent Latham supporters.."
Do you understand the concept of racially discriminatory policy? I guess not. Such simple human rights concepts, but I guesss they're out of reach of fervent Howard supporters.
Posted by: k at October 8, 2004 at 12:25 PM"I think there are some people who believe it is." Its not so much what he says, its why he says it. Of course he didnt say "get rid of them" - he didnt need to. Comments like that are classic Howard - mobilising his reactionary constituents by making them believe they have public opinion on their side.
Posted by: jt at October 8, 2004 at 12:32 PMHey k
There's no such thing as human rights. Its just a political propaganda term promoted by the UN, Gareth Evans and others who don't like democracy. By the way, interesting to note how little attention the Age/SMH has paid to the use UN ambulances for smugling rockets has received, not the UN operatives acting as spies against Israel.
Posted by: J Lamblet at October 8, 2004 at 12:34 PMDo you understand the concept of racially discriminatory policy? I guess not. Such simple human rights concepts, but I guesss they're out of reach of fervent Howard supporters.
Umm, it's now a human right for people of foreign citizenship to freely enter Australia and stay there? Who knew.
And as usual, it didn't take long for a Leftist passerby to inappropriately scream RACISM!! at the top of his lungs. Could you please call me a Nazi to put this conversation out of its misery? I'm even German, so that's an added bonus for you.
Posted by: PW at October 8, 2004 at 01:05 PMPW,
Actually I don't think its the Latham supporters who have trouble with Maths but rather the Treasurer.
"The federal Treasury has backed the costings of the main plank of Labor's tax package, contradicting a claim by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, that the Opposition's plan had a $700 million error" SMH
Posted by: steve at October 8, 2004 at 01:42 PMDon't forget about Saint Gough not wanting any f---ing Vietnamese Balts coming to this country. Why doesn't that count as racist? Also let's not forget that it was Bob Hawke that said a sovereign nation has the right to decide who comes to settle in it years before John Howard's "we will decide who comes here". The left also didn,t seem to care when the Hawke and Keating governments built the first detention centres and introduced mandatory detention of all asylum seekers by 1992.
Posted by: doolo at October 8, 2004 at 01:58 PMThis is just indicative of your problems with logic. A racist is a racist is a racist irrespective of what side of politics they claim to be .
Posted by: Biil O'Slatter at October 8, 2004 at 02:02 PM"Umm, it's now a human right for people of foreign citizenship to freely enter Australia and stay there? Who knew."
"And as usual, it didn't take long for a Leftist passerby to inappropriately scream RACISM!! at the top of his lungs. Could you please call me a Nazi to put this conversation out of its misery? I'm even German, so that's an added bonus for you."
No it is not a human right for people of foreign citizenship to freely enter Australia but it is a human right for those wishing to become an Australian citizen not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Therein lies the racism of the policy. Anyone who can't see the logic of that, and who merely concentrates on the semantics of the extent to which Howard wanted to limit Asian immigration, I would gladly label a racist. Even a Nazi. There - the conversation has been put out of its misery. And as a bonus - your sexist too - "his lungs" should be "her lungs."
Posted by: k at October 8, 2004 at 02:04 PMk, you are not correct. A nation has the self-evident right to set whatever immigration and citizenship criteria it wants.
Your pre-emptive labelling is off putting.
Posted by: Sheriff at October 8, 2004 at 03:39 PMDear K,
"Do you understand the concept of racially discriminatory policy?"
Yes, we do, and favoring Asian immigrants (or any particular ethnic group) over and above others is *exactly* that.
Posted by: UB Xardox at October 8, 2004 at 03:41 PMK,
Apart from your fart-brained logic, "your" should be spelled "you're". You do realise this is actually "you are"?
If anyone one's been seriously attempting to stifle Asian immigration they haven't been very successful, have they?
Nevertheless, Howard, Ruddock et al are vicious racist fascist bastards, correct?
And as a bonus - your sexist too - "his lungs" should be "her lungs."
My apologies for that. It occasionally sneaks in from my native language that consistently uses the male forms as the default pronouns when the exact gender of the adressee is not known.
At any rate, your latest response shifted the goalposts from immigration to "becoming an Australian citizen", which is not nearly the same (your implied assumption that every immigrant wants to become a citizen notwithstanding), particularly because acceptance of citizenship generally indicates that the problem of integration (as mentioned by Howard as one of his supporting arguments) has already been overcome.
Posted by: PW at October 8, 2004 at 04:26 PMActions speak louder than words. Under Howard immigration has been at some of its highest levels in twenty years. Two thirds of these migrants are from non western backgrounds.
Posted by: gaz at October 8, 2004 at 08:07 PM*rolls eyes*
latham is a f***ing idiot people. get over it.