Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Strawman, I didn't say any of those things.

Then why are you using Howard's political years as reason deride his ability to administrate? Your personal bias and dislike of Howard is misrepresented. I didn't like Howard as PM but I am all for his ability to administrate.

No, I have never been the representative of the nation-state of Australia.

What's that got to do with it?

No, I am condemning his steadfast refusal to apologize on behalf of the nation he was leading. Say what you want about Rudd, at least he had the guts to apologize for the most heinous crime in Australian history.

John Howard - "I feel deep sorrow for those of my fellow Australians who suffered injustices under the practices of past generations towards indigenous people. Equally, I am sorry for the hurt and trauma many here today may continue to feel, as a consequence of these practices."

I'm not sure what Labor's position on the issue has to do with anything. I'm also unsure about how the media's complicity somehow absolves Howard of any wrongdoing.

Firstly Howard hasn't done anything wrong. Secondly if both parties agree on such issues, it is then something you can take that the majority of Australians to agree on. The media sensationalised an issue, then took it out of context and did not report in neutrality.

Howard's political past caught up with him. His opposition to sanctions against apartheid South Africa, believing they would do more harm than good

,

So basically you are saying he did not support apartheid but opposed the sanctions against he believe such methods didn't work. I'm just guessing here because I can't find anything anywhere suggesting that Howard didn't oppose apartheid nor have you provided anything to support as such, rather just personal opinion and recycled media reports.

and support for selected sanctions and travel bans against Zimbabwe's Mugabe regime, which included Zimbabwe Cricket president Peter Chingoka, were held against him.

And I don't see anything wrong here, all I can see is contradictions. Peter Chingoka was denied entry to the UK in 2007.

As far as strawmen go, this one is particularly pathetic. Howard should have attacked both regimes equally hard, not picked and chosen which ones were worth fighting against.

Apartheid was from the late 1940's to the mid 1990's. John Howard was the leader of the Liberal Party from 1985 to 1989, not the PM of Australia. One can be forgiven for thinking that there could be better alternatives after 50 years without a change in thought. In summary you believe Howard has been treated justly because he took a stand against racism in one instant and suggested that alternatives maybe tried in another.

Actually, it isn't.

Children Overboard Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Australian Senate Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident later found that no children had been thrown overboard and that the government had known this prior to the election. The government was criticised for misleading the public and cynically "(exploiting) voters' fears of a wave of illegal immigrants by demonising asylum-seekers"

A minority dissenting report, authored by government senators on the committee, described the inquiry as driven by a "misplaced sense of self-righteous outrage [felt] by the Australian Labor Party at its defeat in the 2001 federal elections". An appendix to their report documented cases where passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, thrown a child overboard who was rescued by another asylum seeker

See above quote

It's still dribble.

and who unilaterally declared that Australia's culture was to be one of white Europeanism - One Australia policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't say that at all.

and that Australia has no place for multiculturalism.

The objection I have to multiculturalism is that multiculturalism is in effect saying that it is impossible to have an Australian ethos, that it is impossible to have a common Australian culture. So we have to pretend that we are a federation of cultures and that we've got a bit from every part of the world. I think that is hopeless.

So you object to Australia having an ethnicity and being able to govern and protect that ethnicity?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Then why are you using Howard's political years as reason deride his ability to administrate? Your personal bias and dislike of Howard is misrepresented. I didn't like Howard as PM but I am all for his ability to administrate.

I didn't mention his ability to administrate at any stage, I merely said his history and apparent character should hold him ineligible for such a position.

What's that got to do with it?

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an apology from the current head of state of a country that has committed evils against you or your family, and an apology from some guy who has no involvement whatsoever at any level of national politics?

John Howard - "I feel deep sorrow for those of my fellow Australians who suffered injustices under the practices of past generations towards indigenous people. Equally, I am sorry for the hurt and trauma many here today may continue to feel, as a consequence of these practices."

Not sorry enough to make a formal apology in parliament, it would seem. Also:
Following his 2007 loss of the premiership, Howard was the only living former Prime Minister who declined to attend the February 2008 apology made by Kevin Rudd with bi-partisan support.

Firstly Howard hasn't done anything wrong. Secondly if both parties agree on such issues, it is then something you can take that the majority of Australians to agree on. The media sensationalised an issue, then took it out of context and did not report in neutrality.

I'm not sure how 'violating the UN treaties on refugees on human rights' isn't doing anything wrong. The fact that you would conflate 'asylum seeker' with 'illegal immigrant' is telling, given that it is perfectly legal under the UN convention to enter Australia without a visa if you are making a legitimate claim for Asylum (as all 'boat people' are). On the other hand, 'illegal immigrants', are overwhelmingly students from western countries overstaying their visa. Perplexingly, the real illegal immigrants who come on planes do not get pursued nearly as hard as the legitimate asylum seekers who come on boats.
I don't care what the other parties think, or what the majority of the public think, what Howard did, and what Rudd did after him, and what Gillard is looking likely to do now, is plain wrong, and the UN would agree with me.

So basically you are saying he did not support apartheid but opposed the sanctions against he believe such methods didn't work. I'm just guessing here because I can't find anything anywhere suggesting that Howard didn't oppose apartheid nor have you provided anything to support as such, rather just personal opinion and recycled media reports.

And I don't see anything wrong here, all I can see is contradictions. Peter Chingoka was denied entry to the UK in 2007.

Apartheid was from the late 1940's to the mid 1990's. John Howard was the leader of the Liberal Party from 1985 to 1989, not the PM of Australia. One can be forgiven for thinking that there could be better alternatives after 50 years without a change in thought. In summary you believe Howard has been treated justly because he took a stand against racism in one instant and suggested that alternatives maybe tried in another.

Basically yes, that is the crux of what I am saying, regardless of your word-twisting. I will concede here that this is probably one of the weaker arguments against Howard. I found a multitude of supporting documents, but they are predominantly from sources susceptible to bias (Lefty publications, Indian media reports etc).

However, as I cannot back this claim up with a reputable source, I will withdraw it.

A minority dissenting report, authored by government senators on the committee, described the inquiry as driven by a "misplaced sense of self-righteous outrage [felt] by the Australian Labor Party at its defeat in the 2001 federal elections". An appendix to their report documented cases where passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, thrown a child overboard who was rescued by another asylum seeker

Yes, I'm sure this 'minority dissenting report', created by a handful of Liberal MP's, is certainly the authoritative voice on the matter. You'll notice that even this 'minority dissenting report' concedes that no children were thrown overboard in this instance, and that apparently lying about it was OK because children were treated poorly on different ships, and one child was thrown overboard on a different ship.

Trying to defend Howard in the Children Overboard scandal amounts to historical denialism, and does nothing to help your cause.

It's still dribble.

Doesn't say that at all.

The quote you provided below pretty much says exactly that.

The objection I have to multiculturalism is that multiculturalism is in effect saying that it is impossible to have an Australian ethos, that it is impossible to have a common Australian culture. So we have to pretend that we are a federation of cultures and that we've got a bit from every part of the world. I think that is hopeless.

So you object to Australia having an ethnicity and being able to govern and protect that ethnicity?

Yes, I object to this concept and find it deeply offensive, because Australia does not have a national ethnicity. Any attempt to pigeonhole all of Australia into a single ethnicity to protect is going to disenfranchise a huge number of Australians, because our multicultural heritage includes people from a variety of cultures and backgrounds. This was exactly Howard's problem, he thought the Australian identity could be characterised in such blunt, ham-fisted terms. He failed to understand that 'One Australia' was essentially removing a sense of identity from anyone who did not conform to the currently accepted 'Australian' ideals of the time, and that not everyone hopped off a boat straight into a footy jumper and a meat pie. Here's a fun quote from Bob Hawke:

"In the field of immigration and ethnic affairs, the 'One Australia' ideology seems to connote a return to the dark days of narrow minded intolerance, fear of difference and pressure to assimilate. It is less about uniting Australians than dividing them."

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I didn't mention his ability to administrate at any stage, I merely said his history and apparent character should hold him ineligible for such a position.

So what part of his history isn't his ability to administrate and why is Pawar not admonished for the same reasons, considering that Howard is acting in the interests of a country and Pawar and other ICC board members are acting for themselves only.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an apology from the current head of state of a country that has committed evils against you or your family, and an apology from some guy who has no involvement whatsoever at any level of national politics?

Do you not understand that it does not matter? It is paying lip service, can you not comprehend that? So you still haven't apologised though and still criticising someone who has.

Not sorry enough to make a formal apology in parliament, it would seem. Also:
Following his 2007 loss of the premiership, Howard was the only living former Prime Minister who declined to attend the February 2008 apology made by Kevin Rudd with bi-partisan support.

Because it is paying lip service.

I'm not sure how 'violating the UN treaties on refugees on human rights' isn't doing anything wrong. The fact that you would conflate 'asylum seeker' with 'illegal immigrant' is telling, given that it is perfectly legal under the UN convention to enter Australia without a visa if you are making a legitimate claim for Asylum (as all 'boat people' are). On the other hand, 'illegal immigrants', are overwhelmingly students from western countries overstaying their visa. Perplexingly, the real illegal immigrants who come on planes do not get pursued nearly as hard as the legitimate asylum seekers who come on boats.

You use examples of a big phony organisation passing a law but don't use any of the examples of the referendums and resolutions that have been blocked or ignored or vetoed. All boat people are not asylum seekers. Usually the illegal immigrants that come on planes, are held by customs/border security then returned to the country of origin, hence no pursuing.

I don't care what the other parties think, or what the majority of the public think, what Howard did, and what Rudd did after him, and what Gillard is looking likely to do now, is plain wrong, and the UN would agree with me.

It isn't wrong and you are entitled to your opinion, to use it as a reason for Howard not to be ICC president is wrong.

Basically yes, that is the crux of what I am saying, regardless of your word-twisting. I will concede here that this is probably one of the weaker arguments against Howard. I found a multitude of supporting documents, but they are predominantly from sources susceptible to bias (Lefty publications, Indian media reports etc).

However, as I cannot back this claim up with a reputable source, I will withdraw it.

Sambit Bal hasn't got a reputable source?

Yes, I'm sure this 'minority dissenting report', created by a handful of Liberal MP's, is certainly the authoritative voice on the matter. You'll notice that even this 'minority dissenting report' concedes that no children were thrown overboard in this instance, and that apparently lying about it was OK because children were treated poorly on different ships, and one child was thrown overboard on a different ship.

I was looking at the whole incident, not just one ship. But I guess because they threw a child off another ship, doesn't apply.

Trying to defend Howard in the Children Overboard scandal amounts to historical denialism, and does nothing to help your cause.

I'm not sure what we're discussing.

The quote you provided below pretty much says exactly that.

No it doesn't. It says, why can't Australia have it's own ethos.

Yes, I object to this concept and find it deeply offensive, because Australia does not have a national ethnicity. Any attempt to pigeonhole all of Australia into a single ethnicity to protect is going to disenfranchise a huge number of Australians, because our multicultural heritage includes people from a variety of cultures and backgrounds. This was exactly Howard's problem, he thought the Australian identity could be characterised in such blunt, ham-fisted terms. He failed to understand that 'One Australia' was essentially removing a sense of identity from anyone who did not conform to the currently accepted 'Australian' ideals of the time, and that not everyone hopped off a boat straight into a footy jumper and a meat pie. Here's a fun quote from Bob Hawke:

"In the field of immigration and ethnic affairs, the 'One Australia' ideology seems to connote a return to the dark days of narrow minded intolerance, fear of difference and pressure to assimilate. It is less about uniting Australians than dividing them."

But you're still saying that Australia can't have it's own culture for the expense of other cultures. So you are happy for Australian ethnicity to be dissolved for cultures not relevant to our society. I don't agree with Howard's concept but I agree that Australia does have it's own ethnicity and that cultures that come to Australia should be accepting and contributing not degrading it.

Nothing you have written is relevant to John Howard's nomination for the ICC presidency. You can't be in politics for 40 years, be as pro-active as John Howard and not have issues arise. The fact is, he did his job, he did it well and he followed his party's guide lines. Why would the ICC look at that negatively?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I'm not going to bother continuing the back-and-forth because I can't see this discussion going anywhere other than around in circles, rehashing our own arguments and forgetting the conflicting viewpoints.

I'm sure you will agree that racism is rarely an black-and-white issue, and more often than not can only be distilled into varying shades of grey. It was perhaps unnecessary of me to go off an extended anti-Howard rant, but at the same time I hope you can see why someone could possibly have legitimate qualms about Howard's legacy and how it should impact his bid for the ICC presidency. Whether or not it should have excluded him completely from the running, is still up for debate, as witnessed by the multitude of varying opinions throughout the world of cricket and political journalism. I contend that the ICC would be better off without his input, and you obviously believe him to be the right man for the job. It is worth pointing out that I do not agree with the manner or method of Howard's rejection, I simply have a passionate distaste for the man and his ideology, and believe that in the end Sir John Anderson would make a better ICC president than John Howard.

As for the concept of Australian identity, it is an issue not restricted solely to Australia. Obviously, multiculturalism is a relatively new phenomenon brought about by the invention of air travel, and an issue that countries are only now beginning to face. The UK and US face similar issues with national identity, fuelled by high levels of immigration from South Asia (UK) and Latin America (US). The reason I am reluctant to accept the concept of a national identity is that too often it does come at the expense of minority cultures, breeding nationalism and hatred of those who do not conform. One only needs to look as far as One Nation in Australia, the BNP in the UK, or the Tea Party movement in the US to see the caustic and dangerous effect that forced adherence to a particular culture or ideology can have. However, the solution to the problem of holding a national identity whilst at the same time not alienating those from minority backgrounds is not readily apparent, and will likely be one of the challenging social issues of the 21st century.

As a side note, I'm currently reading this book Reclaiming Patriotism - Cambridge University Press, and it has a pretty fascinating take on the matter.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

I'm not going to bother continuing the back-and-forth because I can't see this discussion going anywhere other than around in circles, rehashing our own arguments and forgetting the conflicting viewpoints.

I'm sure you will agree that racism is rarely an black-and-white issue, and more often than not can only be distilled into varying shades of grey. It was perhaps unnecessary of me to go off an extended anti-Howard rant, but at the same time I hope you can see why someone could possibly have legitimate qualms about Howard's legacy and how it should impact his bid for the ICC presidency. Whether or not it should have excluded him completely from the running, is still up for debate, as witnessed by the multitude of varying opinions throughout the world of cricket and political journalism. I contend that the ICC would be better off without his input, and you obviously believe him to be the right man for the job. It is worth pointing out that I do not agree with the manner or method of Howard's rejection, I simply have a passionate distaste for the man and his ideology, and believe that in the end Sir John Anderson would make a better ICC president than John Howard.

As for the concept of Australian identity, it is an issue not restricted solely to Australia. Obviously, multiculturalism is a relatively new phenomenon brought about by the invention of air travel, and an issue that countries are only now beginning to face. The UK and US face similar issues with national identity, fuelled by high levels of immigration from South Asia (UK) and Latin America (US). The reason I am reluctant to accept the concept of a national identity is that too often it does come at the expense of minority cultures, breeding nationalism and hatred of those who do not conform. One only needs to look as far as One Nation in Australia, the BNP in the UK, or the Tea Party movement in the US to see the caustic and dangerous effect that forced adherence to a particular culture or ideology can have. However, the solution to the problem of holding a national identity whilst at the same time not alienating those from minority backgrounds is not readily apparent, and will likely be one of the challenging social issues of the 21st century.

As a side note, I'm currently reading this book Reclaiming Patriotism - Cambridge University Press, and it has a pretty fascinating take on the matter.

I find the term 'patriot' so debased now that I will never use it about myself. And I wish I didn't feel this way so I might take a look at that book.

 

[Boris]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Gideon Haigh: The case for Howard | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

This is a great article by Gideon Haigh from a point of view that dislikes Howard the politician, but likes Howard the ICC president wannabe. He really does well to disprove any argument against Howard.

The thing really to remember here is to forget Howard's past as a politician as much as possible. "A politician out of office is like a batsman without a bat: just a man, of greater or lesser ability" so says that article.

Out of all the people in administration for the ICC, Howard has the best looking past, least corruption, less scandals and at least a sniff of normalcy as far as it comes.

It's fine if you don't like him for president, as a person or a politician. The fact of the matter is, though, that these boards blocked him. That is an outrageous thing to do, especially with no evidence to back up your claims but "he is an outsider" and "he isn't the right man".

Most of this thread, IMO belongs in the Australian Politics thread in the 99.94 club.

I'd like to ask A for Effort for his opinions on the countries blocking Howard, something they have the only right to do if the person is a threat to the safe continuation of the ICC. You still have to admit that Howard would have done a decent enough job and would have kept things going. If he became president (who has no input into anything really, more or less a figurehead), the ICC would not have fallen apart into nothing. He should have been allowed the job.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

As I said, I do not think that the countries who blocked Howard did so in good faith, and they should have been more transparent in voicing the basis for their rejection. However, I am pleased that despite the apparent shadiness surrounding the rejection, the end result now looks likely to be what I had first hoped for and expected (Anderson as president).
As you said, the ICC president is largely a figurehead role, and as such I think it would be of far greater benefit to all involved for said figurehead to be a person who is widely liked and respected, rather the one whom does not have the support of the majority of the nations beneath him.

If he became president (who has no input into anything really, more or less a figurehead), the ICC would not have fallen apart into nothing. He should have been allowed the job.

As far as I am aware, the ICC has not fallen apart into nothing, nor is any such a fall anticipated in the near future.

 

[Boris]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

As I said, I do not think that the countries who blocked Howard did so in good faith, and they should have been more transparent in voicing the basis for their rejection. However, I am pleased that despite the apparent shadiness surrounding the rejection, the end result now looks likely to be what I had first hoped for and expected (Anderson as president).
As you said, the ICC president is largely a figurehead role, and as such I think it would be of far greater benefit to all involved for said figurehead to be a person who is widely liked and respected, rather the one whom does not have the support of the majority of the nations beneath him.


As far as I am aware, the ICC has not fallen apart into nothing, nor is any such a fall anticipated in the near future.

Sorry for not reading too far into your past posts, became a bit overwhelming.

I agree with you there one the figurehead needing to be in good stead with everyone, but still doing something that just should not be done.

I became angered when I heard the decision because of the way in which it was made. To me it just seemed like a racial decision against Australia, "he once headed the most racist country in the world, certainly he can't be a good leader" sort of thing, just blatant stereotyping from ill informed people. But then maybe I'm looking from a different viewpoint in my comfy chair in my comfy country, not looking at their point of view.

With the split between Asia/Africa and Aus/NZ/Eng, it may also end up in the Asia/Africa's advantage if Australia/NZ passes on to Pakistan and refuses to vote, as there has been a suggestion as well.

I don't like John Andersen for the role either, though. And it may look like he doesn't want the job now.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

Sri Lanka news: Kumar Sangakkara wants balanced FTP | Sri Lanka Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

A fine case for Sri Lanka's administrators.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

How does the FTP actually work? I was under the impression that it was up to the countries to the organise their own series', and the only requirement was that they play each other nation home and away in a 5-year period. If this is the case, what's stopping Sri Lanka from playing more tests? It doesn't seem like the FTP is to blame.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Howard Nomination Under Scrutiny

It works terribly. The players union proposed a significant change to the FTP but India refused because it would disperse the money from significant series. SL's board are failing their players. Conspiracy theory of maybe a slight black out for touring Pakistan? Their opportunities are even less when the IPL and other such leagues begin to take precedent.