Howard teaches Wedge Politics 101
There's been much hoo-ha in the media over the last couple of days after Howard said this:
Some schools think you offend people by having nativity plays. I think that it's a reflection of the extent to which political correctness overtook this country, particularly through the teaching unions, which I think are a bit out of step.
People are looking increasingly to send their kids to independent schools for a
combination of reasons. For some of them, it's to do with the values-driven
thing; they feel that government schools have become too politically correct and
too values-neutral.
So what's he saying? Which values are missing from state schools? Howard has said he doesn't want to articulate them. The next question is: how does he know that parents are doing this? He hasn't cited a survey or study, he's just made this broad assertion that this is what's going on.
So why has Howard said this? He has shown no evidence for what he's saying and he won't explain it further. If he was hoping to achieve some sort of change in the schools, he can't do that without explaining himself and perhaps offering some solutions.
The only conclusion I can some to is that Howard is playing wedge politics (again). What's the message he's trying to send? He wants to remind everyone that he espouses traditional christian values. Using the dog-whistle technique, he has not explicitly said this but in mentioning 'nativity plays' (again, no specific examples) he's made it clear that religion is a factor.
I've no problem with Howard claiming to be a devout christian (each to their own) but I do have a problem with schools or governments teaching that christianity is the superior religion. I prefer the popularly accepted concept that everyone should be considered equal and treated equally. Maybe schools should teach children about the Bible, but that means they should also teach children about the Koran and the teachings of Buddha and the other major world religions. Howard has said in the past that he believes that whole 'equality' concept so he shouldn't disagree with this.
But then we get this sort of garbage from Tony Abbott on AM:
TONY ABBOTT: There's no doubt that many parents are opting for private schools
over public schools. There is an established trend, it's been going on now for a
couple of decades
MATT BROWN: Is that because of political correctness, though?
TONY ABBOTT: Certainly, I think that there is a tendency in some schools to
ignore what might be described as traditional values, to pretend that all value
systems are equal, and I just don't think that's true and I don't think the
Australian people think it's true.
MATT BROWN: What's the proof of that? What's the proof of that happening in our
public schools?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, it's interesting that whenever issues like this come up, the
only value that politically correct educators can come up with is that they
really supported tolerance, and
MATT BROWN: That's a pretty good value, isn't it?
TONY ABBOTT: It is a good value, but sometimes I think that in modern Australia
we end up tolerating the intolerable.
Disappointingly, Matt ended the interview there. The next question should have been: what intolerable things are we tolerating? Note that Matt has asked Abbott to confirm the change is because of 'political correctness' and he then asks him to offer proof for the assertion. Abbott ducks around the question and then finishes with what seems an extraordinary statement that seems to confirm the tack Howard has suggested: religions other than christianity are inferior. In the current climate when Islam is being associated with terrorism, this is hardly useful talk.
But then, maybe it has a use. It is an election year and Howard won the last election by victimising asylum seekers and adopting certain One Nation policies so maybe this is more of the same. Initially I thought it was Howard being careless with his words but with other members of the government lining up to agree with him, it seems clear that this is more than an off-the-cuff comment. To me it looks like he's using (implied) racist statements to again drive a wedge through the Labor constituency and win another 3 years in power. Now that's what I really call intolerable.
Posted by david at January 21, 2004 1:46 PM