Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Meaningless populism and extremist preferences

A parade of Australian government ministers in recent days advising those regarded as extremists to leave is itself highly offensive and likely to worsen an already tense situation. It is arguably an extremist sentiment that 'democracy' cannot tolerate or educate dissent, a complete failure to uphold the 'values' supposedly being defended. While nobody would argue that terror bombings are not an extreme act, this 'meaningless populism' (talking tough over a specific culture of migrants, using 'dog-whistle' Hansonite statements) has an ugly political resonance in a country with a demonstrated racist heritage, and with a government proven to use the tactics of division and aspersion to retain power.

Televanelgist Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezualan leader Chavez shows that 'extremism' belongs not only to media demons such as radical muslims, but to Christian conservatives that dominate the American Republican Party:

'I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.'

Reaction reported by SBS last night puts it in clear perspective:

'R O.S. GUINESS, TRINITY FORUM: Jesus called for nothing like this, and Pat Robertson sounded more like one of the radical imams.'

and

'JOSE VICENTE RANGEL, VENEZUELAN VICE-PRESIDENT (TRANSLATION): For a presumed religious spokesman to call for the assassination of a head of state because war is expensive and murder is cheaper, puts to the test the anti-terrorist rhetoric of the North American government.'

If such a call for assassination had been made by an Imam and directed for example at John Howard, reaction would be near-hysterical; however there seems to be an explicit tolerance of conservative Christian 'extremism' that remains acceptable 'in our sphere of influence'.

Note: 24 hours later, while his Education Minister is 'reaching out' to tell the 'intolerant' they'd better 'clear off', Man of Steel soft-pedals in a radio interview:

'Australia would have no problem with extremism if it only amounted to a few people occasionally declaring their religion was best...'

A statement which is markedly tamer to the onslaught of intolerance during the week. It would be interesting to know who defined the 'values' espoused by the government, under what conditions, and when: they certainly are not the product of debate, referendum, or constitution, nobody recalls the government being empowered to arbitrarily declare and frame them in the context of a 'terrorism' debate.

Perhaps the curiously named 'Salt Shakers' sect, or the Family First 'Impact Statements' (an unconstitutional measure with no legal or parliamentary status) had some bearing on the list of 'values'. The Salt Shakers are apparently 'dedicated to helping Christians understand the times and equipping them to be salt and light in the community by upholding Biblical values', and seem to have government ministers involved. The influence of the Lyons Group, Opus Dei, Hillsong, and other unelected political moral guardians should not be underestimated.

Eva Cox is one commentator who is capable of putting these 'values' in clear perspective for the media:

'Brendan Nelson is trying to dictate to people how they should think [...] There are lots of Australian values and they're complex'

The Age writes she argues 'what runs most counter to the Australian values [...] is to suggest "you agree with us or you send people back to where they come from."'.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 4:57 pm ::