Craig Hill
KC Hill
Paladin
Oracle of DelphiMissing the point on Aussie Values
September 20th 2006 23:39
I love James O'Loghlin on ABC 702 Sydney in the evenings. He a funny guy, very intelligent and has a disarming manners which means he can ask callers the most personal questions without offending them. Sometimes though he gets carried away with his cleverness and misses the point entirely.
For example on Tuesday night in place of his regular "Norman the Quiz" he ran in Great Aussie Quiz which was supposed to test whether or not the two contestants knew enough about Australia to retain their citizenship. This was in the wake of the Howard government's announcement that new migrants would have sit a compulsory citizenship exam testing their knowledge of English and various other facts about Australian society.
O'Loghlin had great fun pointing out how little the contestants knew about such trivia as the length of the Australian coastline and the location of a number of obscure NT towns. In doing so he was hinting that we can't ask migrants to know about our country if we ourselves are ignorant of these details.
However, this misses the point entirely. Knowing the length of the Australian coastline, Don Bradman's batting average or the identity of Phar Lap has nothing to do with living well in Australia. To live productively and peacefully in Australia migrants need only subscribe to one fundamental idea - that the law of the land is paramount and that allegiance to other forms of law be they religious or otherwise must be secondary.
That would be the only question I would put on my immigration test: "Do you acknowledge that in Australia, the laws of Australia take precedence over all other religious codes of law and do you agree to obey and live by the laws of Australia?"
I would then publicise the names of people who have answered this question in the affirmative and made an oath to that effect. This would weed out religious fundamentalists who prefer to follow other laws, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other before they follow the laws of the land in which they live.
For example on Tuesday night in place of his regular "Norman the Quiz" he ran in Great Aussie Quiz which was supposed to test whether or not the two contestants knew enough about Australia to retain their citizenship. This was in the wake of the Howard government's announcement that new migrants would have sit a compulsory citizenship exam testing their knowledge of English and various other facts about Australian society.
O'Loghlin had great fun pointing out how little the contestants knew about such trivia as the length of the Australian coastline and the location of a number of obscure NT towns. In doing so he was hinting that we can't ask migrants to know about our country if we ourselves are ignorant of these details.
However, this misses the point entirely. Knowing the length of the Australian coastline, Don Bradman's batting average or the identity of Phar Lap has nothing to do with living well in Australia. To live productively and peacefully in Australia migrants need only subscribe to one fundamental idea - that the law of the land is paramount and that allegiance to other forms of law be they religious or otherwise must be secondary.
That would be the only question I would put on my immigration test: "Do you acknowledge that in Australia, the laws of Australia take precedence over all other religious codes of law and do you agree to obey and live by the laws of Australia?"
I would then publicise the names of people who have answered this question in the affirmative and made an oath to that effect. This would weed out religious fundamentalists who prefer to follow other laws, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other before they follow the laws of the land in which they live.
| 68 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by Big Cat
Chatterpillar
Requiring a pledge to uphold Australian law could smoke out those who have no intention to comply, like in having several wives (ok by their religion) versus Australia's law on bigomy.
Something about teaching their children would be good to include too, so second generation attitudes are addressed - like the "right" to rape Aussie teenagers because they don't cover up properly.
But what about already-Australians, what do we do about their non-compliance? I used to know many Christian fundamentalists who put bible lore ahead of Australian law, like in the "right" to use corporal punishment on their children based on the bible proverb about spare the rod and spoil the child.
Comment by Suburban Boy
Oz Politics and Kulture!
Do you really think that they rape people for not covering up properly and they do it in the name of religion. Don't you think thats just another cowardly story like the ones that usually get told like see how she was dressed she was asking for it. Rape is a horrible crime but don't join the bandwagon of the Sydney shock jocks and try to cast some wide net over all second generation middle eastern kids as been taught to do this or doing it in the name of religion.
What they did was wrong and they should suffer long and hard for it. However their reason for doing it is a smokescreen to hide behind. The do it to exercise power and control over someone they use the religious excuse alot like contries use religion as an excuse to go to war ultimately its about power and contorl.
As for weeding out this problem as you call it i don't think asking someone to sign a form will make a scrap of difference.
As for your example of a bigamist as far as I'm aware bigamy is a crime in all states and those who break it get dealt with it.
Crime and abuse of so-called Aussie values are broken constantly from people of all colours,race,creed and religion.
It is wrong to single out a crime as being comitted by a Muslim for example if we don't mention the religious background of all criminals.
If three practising catholics gang rape someone or three anglo-australains does the headline read Catholic boys rape someone.
Comment by Big Cat
Chatterpillar
And no wide net intended.
Agree with the balance you suggest and in seeing religious abuse for waht it is, about power and control.
As to your last point and final question, I've never heard of Catholic offenders claiming religious consideration as to why she "deserved" it, not in the press and not from visiting prisons. Have you?