November 14, 2005 1:08pm by David Farrar

Costello speaks common sense

I’m more of a Howard than a Costello fan, but my opinion of Costello has gone up with this common sense statement last week:

If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law.

We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.

We do not derive our laws from religious instruction.

There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment54

Uncategorised
International Politics

Comments (54)

Login to comment or vote

Ed

If you read Tim Blair’s blog I’m sure you’re familiar with the Lebanese Muslim Association’s response to Pete Costellos comments, just shows how intolerant the Australian Muslim community can be.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 1:56pm

Cadmus

I bet former One Nation leader Pauline Hansen is having a good laugh

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 2:21pm

Rich

Part of being a democracy is that people who disagree with the nature of the state still have the right to live there and campaign, if in vain, for it to change.

I don’t choose to live in NZ just because of it’s political status. Continental European social democracies come closer to my ideal. However I choose to live here because I speak the language, have a reasonable standard of living and for personal social reasons.

Muslims are entitled to live in Australia (or NZ, GB) even if they disagree with how that country is governed.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 3:19pm

David Farrar

And nowhere did Costello say they could not peacefully campaign for change. He did however say that they will probebly never be happy in Australia if they want to live under sharia law.

And it is extremely legitimate for immigration to take account of one’s views on society.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 3:49pm

Paul W

I’m no fan of the liberal party, but would far rather have Costello leading it than Howard – Howard’s more a conservative than a liberal.

That said, Costello’s comments are not unreasonable but a wonder how fine the line is between this and winding back traditional freedoms of expression (I agree with Rich on this point). It’s worth nothing that Costello’s religious affiliations are pretty traditional and mainstream but his election campaign visit to Hillsong (born again WASPs with real estate) was surprising.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 3:50pm

tim barclay

The are elements who advocate the violent imposition of sharia law. those people are a menace to the security of the state and should be deported back to where they came from even in cases where they have managed to become NZ citizens. That citizenship should be revoked.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 4:13pm

err..

tim, I’m right with you. Just as long as we can revoke the citizenship of the National Front while we’re at it, along with anybody who voted for New Zealand First.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 4:44pm

Rich

I accept that it is legitimate for immigration decisions to take account of potential immigrants views. That’s saying that free speech is ok for nationals but not for immigrants.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 4:47pm

baxter

I bet there was a mass exodus from the various mosques to catch a flight to Indonesia after that speech.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 4:52pm

Kimble

“saying that free speech is ok for nationals but not for immigrants.”

How do you figure that? How is it infringing on peoples right to free speech? Or is any form of political discrimination an infringement on free speech? Think about where that path of thought would lead you.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 4:57pm

nickgavey

Peter Costello is not threatening anyone’s freedom. He is not treading a fine line. Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights, therefore should never become law in any proper constitutional democracy.

Liberals in the classical sense recognize the importance of a constitution, because there are some rights that should never be taken away. Peter Costello is telling Muslims that even should they become a majority, Australia will always uphold these rights. And so they should! No country should ever allow a tyranny of the majority.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 7:37pm

Paul W

nickgavey: well made points, but it is equally a right of a citizen to advocate a religious or political view (with the standard caveats re hate speech etc).

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 9:09pm

Ed

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/2005/151.asp

Costello makes it quite clear there that he is not intending to impinge on anyone’s free speech :
“Well the point I would make is this, Australians are free to express themselves about political views, let

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 9:30pm

war & peace

I notice DPF, that while you have plenty to say/quote about Islam, it seems to have escaped your notice that the Auckland Muslim Girls Association won the Sonja Davies Peace Award last week. Why not try a (positive) post on that for a little bit of balance? Or are you opposed to providing any positive news about Muslims?

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 10:34pm

Paul W

Ed: also useful information but I remain concerned about free speech in Australia. It is a right that is at risk and having politicians advise you to leave the country if you state a preference for sharia law (something I do not support) is not promoting its status.

0 0
Report
November 14, 2005 11:35pm

Gaz

War & Peace – I’m sure that David didn’t not post about the Sonja Davies Peace Award because he’s “opposed to positive news about muslims.” He is a busy man and it probably escaped his attention. Either that or he thought that it was irrelevent or he is not interested in it. It is his page and he will put what he wants on it, it is up to him if it is “balanced” or not.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 1:01am

Gaz

Oh yeah, I forgot. When in Rome do as Romans do. Or read Plato’s Apology and Crito.
These people have every right to come to Australia (and NZ for that matter) provided that they don’t whynge and moan about the laws, or break the laws, as they can always leave if they don’t like it.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 1:24am

Psycho Milt

Paul W: doesn’t free speech also encompass the right to say that anyone wanting to see Sharia law in Oz is a complete fuckwit the country would be far better off without? It does, I think. Costello’s view is milder than mine, as you can see.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 4:17am

David Farrar

I posted on the inspirational decision by the parents of a palestinian child killed accidentially by Israel to donate body parts to anyone who needs them regardless of nationality.

I didn’t even see the article on the sonja davies award, let alone know there was one.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 8:15am

Ed

The Sonja-Davies award was buried in the herald a while ago, not exactly newsworthy stuff. Even if it was, it’s equally wrong to stereotype all Muslims as being good because two girls won a peace prize as it is to stereotype all Muslims because Muslim countries practise sharia law which protects every obscure part of the Koran be it on wife beating, killing homosexuals or martyring onesself.

Oh, by the way, there was senior prizegiving at my school last week and I got the school’s speech cup among other prizes. Does this mean DPF is biased against comfortably middle class, well spoken europeans because he didn’t cover my awards ? Or does it mean that all comfortably middle class europeans are well spoken ?

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 9:11am

war & peace

The peace award was covered by both television news channels, so not quite that buried. And how is the mention of this one award “stereotyping”. Is this the typical right-winger mentality: one example (good or bad) should be extended to cover everyone?

Ed, I think there are plenty of middle class European news stories. For example, almost every news item covering any MP of the National Party (bar about 4 or 5 of them) is about middle (or upper) class Europeans.

I don’t think however, that there are that many Muslim groups that have won a peace award in New Zealand, which would make it a bit more of a newsworthy item than your little speech competition.

DPF, point taken re the Palestinian story. I don’t think it genrated many comments though. Funny that.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 9:28am

Hullabahlu

What the hell is a peace award? I’m a pretty peaceful guy, I’ve never thrown a molotov cocktail at my neighbours house so maybe I should get one too. @Would you post about it if I did David? When was the last time a middle class WASP (is there any other variety?) got a peace award?

“DPF, point taken re the Palestinian story. I don’t think it genrated many comments though. Funny that.”
Yes, side splitting. It probably fuels your preconceived notions that we are hateful racists, shame on us all for not rushing to that post and commenting that it has changed the way we live.
Maybe you can start up your own blog, posting stories about that show typical right-wingers in a positive, touchy-feely light to prove to us that you aren’t completely intolerant of people with views that differ from your own.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 9:46am

Adolf Fiinkensein

I must admit I did notice the SD award in the Herald. What a co-incidence that it happened at this time to go to two girls whose main claim to fame is their adherance to Islam. Did anyone make a fuss or even notice the last time such an award was presented to the child of a Presbyterian or a member of the Exclusive brethren? They are both very peaceful outfits. Just more of the pathetic PC junk with which we are bombarded daily.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 10:12am

Ed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=500817&ObjectID=10354585

There’s the story everybody. Two muslim girls worked on a camp for muslim girls to promote peace so they got an award only open to women. I do admit it’s slightly more newsworthy than prizegiving at a school (it’s a national prize donated by a socialist for women). I don’t expect coverage and I don’t see why anyone feels that anything more than a story in the herald is necessary. DPFs blog is not meant to be a balanced and even news site, it’s a blog for him to voice his personal opinions and I think it’s something readers should respect.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 10:22am

Bob

Who cares about two camel jockey sheilas getting a stupid award anyway?

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 11:19am

Paul W

Psycho Milt: sure, Costello can say precisely what he wants but surely you can see that having a very senior Minister of the federal government invite you to leave the country if you have specific beliefs will affect confidence in the right? The right to freedom of speech must be protected for the least popular of messages for it to be truly secure.

It’s purely a matter of opinion, but my view is that Australia is becoming more and more conservative, more repressed and less tolerant. These individuals may in fact be guilty of conspiring to commit a violent attack on Australia, I am concerned for my personal safey in Sydney (particularly travelling on the train twice daily), but I am also concerned about the fact that many political leaders, left and right, are eroding some important freedoms that ought to define a western liberal democracy.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 11:59am

Gaz

Every statement like this, every action, every time we compare pay rates makes Australia more and more attractive. If the Aussie government was that bad then noone would want to go there. New Zealand should take a leaf out of the Australia book.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 3:46pm

Paul W

Yeah that’s it Gaz, people leave NZ for the Gold Coast not for the weather, the perceived wage advantages and the metermaids, no no no… it’s NZ’s damned neutral foriegn policy and crazy religious tolerance that drives them away.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 4:54pm

Ed

I think what Gaz is saying is that people leave Australia for the Gold Coast for the weather, real wage and tax advantages, the metermaids, New Zealand’s foreign policy (or lack thereof) and our apologist stance on Muslim extremists.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 6:12pm

Ed

Shit, what I meant to say is that people leave NEW ZEALAND for the Gold Coast…

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 6:15pm

whalerider

That’s funny, because most of the NZers I’ve met in the Gold Coast were there because of the weather – the bright sunshine helped them work on their red necks…

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 6:44pm

Kimble

And dont forget, they get away from those dirty, stinking, black maoris too.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 7:03pm

Matt

I’m just wondering why Costello said it. Is it a hint of something to come? It does seem to be a bit of straw man, I have never been aware of any serious discontent amongst Australian muslims with the existing law, there has never been a movement to change Australian law to sharia law. The terror suspects wouldn’t have been trying change Australia’s laws, rather they would have been trying to affect Australia’s presence in Iraq (etc etc etc). Has he ever said the Closed Bretheren should f*** off elsewhere if they want to live away from Australian law (and human rights – which they do to an extent)? What about Prince Leonard of the Hutt River Principality – he seceded from Australia, yet no one is particularly bothered about it, he decided he didn’t want to live under Australian law, yet no-one is too fussed because he doesn’t actually break the law. One of the things that Australia has shown in the past is tolerence, they let the 10 pound poms stay despite the fact they whinged and moaned. Maybe a better way of dealing with it is if someone breaks they law they are punished for it regardless of race, religion etc?

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 7:27pm

Kimble

um…. he never told anyone to fuck off, he never said that local muslims had a problem with the laws, he never said that people of certain races or religions would receive a different form of justice to everyone else. He simply said that Australia is a secular democratic state, and those wanting to live under sharia law would be happier living elsewhere as that dream will never be realised here.

So basically, you’re full of it, eh.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 7:45pm

Matt

Look a bit deeper kimble, why did he feel he had to say it at all – what was the subtext. Obviously Australia is a democratic secular state and it would never be under sharia law – but is there any single person in Australia who seriously believes that it is otherwise??? His statement was a case of ‘so what of it?’ – but being the second most powerful politician in Australia he’s not known for making redundent statements, so why did he?

(and why did you feel the need to say – ‘so you’re full of it’ – how old are you? 10?)

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 7:52pm

davro

exactly Matt, how incredibly insightful of Mr Costello to remind er … who exactly ? that Australia would always remain a secular state etc etc … phew, glad thats settled then. You have to wonder for whose benefit was the statemant made ? strange …
Ed congrats on the speech cup .. your’re young , a bit of advice – try and get out a little more .

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 9:16pm

Ed

“try and get out a little more”

Heh.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 9:42pm

Paul W

Which apologist stance to Muslims is that precisely – the same as Zhoui so pissed about or the one where we went to Afghanistan?. What utter crap Ed and Gaz (I couple of Queenslanders with monosyllable names, wonder if there’s any connection?)

This was dog-whistle politics by Costello designed to show that he too is tough on terror and reassure all those little battlers that he’ll be their mate when he finally desposes Howard.

0 0
Report
November 15, 2005 11:59pm

Trevor

Costello was making the same calls a few months ago. He seems to have taken a bit of time to finesse them this time. I saw him interviewed on Lateline in August after he expressed a problem with a comment from an Australian Islamic leader that he lived by two laws, Australian law and Sharia law. Costello came out and said that there was only one law in Australia and people who were not comfortable with that would be better off living somewhere else. He saw no hypocrisy in that statement arising from how his Christian beliefs inform his life. He also equivocated on whether he was advocating proactive moves to expatriate those who adhered to a two laws principle.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 8:10am

Kimble

Each of the ten commandments is either compatable with our laws or is something not really addressed by them (coveting and worshipping false idols). There is no hypocrisy in following both.

And Matt, why did he say it? Could have been a response to a question, or it could simply be that he is reaffirming the governments (and Australia’s) unequivocal stance on the desired nature of the country and government in the future. God forbid a politician should reassure people, god forbid they should assuage the possible concerns of some of his constituents.

Everything you have insinuated is pure speculation based upon the characiture of what you expect Costello to be. You cant fault what he DID say, so you read into his words (or rather invent some new ones for him) and create this fantasy about his motives. Each of your assertions were basely false and/or dishonest. So, yeah, you are full of it.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 10:54am

Jimmy

He’s a politician Kimble. Are you really so thick that you take his words at face value and don’t look for the subtext. Matt’s was the smartest take yet on what he said.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 12:02pm

Kimble

Matt was fantasising that what Costello said meant that the government was planning to expel people based on political beliefs and that Australia was going to start prosecuting people on the basis of their race or religion. Why do you consider this a smart take, rather than the eccentric and borderline hysterical day-dream it clearly is?

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 1:24pm

Jimmy

Considering the performance of DIMIA under this administration Kimble this is not fantasy.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 1:51pm

Ed

“Which apologist stance to Muslims is that precisely”

Is that the one where our Primeminister refuses to issue a statement condemning the ‘wipe Israel of the map’ comments ?

Or maybe it’s the one where our Foreign Minister takes two days to dither before issuing a stealthy press release describing the comments as unhelpful ?

Maybe it was the ex foreign minister who snubbed Ariel Sharon to meet with a terrorist in his compund and is then photographed holding hands with him ?

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 1:55pm

Kimble

The hell it isnt, Jimmay.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 2:53pm

Paul W

Ed, I’ll not interested in a debate on zionism, you’re beating this up. NZ (under both National and Labour) has a balanced stance on Arab/Israeli matters, favouring neither side. It seems to me that what you’d rather is a US-style pro-Israel position; given that’s never going to happen, perhaps you need to leave the country?

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 3:04pm

Ed

Unlike those Peter Costello has targeted his speech at, I can acknowledge that some things will and should not change.

Now I’ll slap on a kippah and you can call me Jacob but I don’t see how I’m being a dirty unreasonable pro zionist for defending the right of Israel to exist peacefully but I don’t believe it needs to be acheived through military conflict with it’s Arab neighbours.

That said a country with a balanced stance on Arab/Israeli relations shouldn’t be seen to be openly supporting one side, nor should it attempt to contextualise a call from a democratically elected president to destroy another country. I do support a peaceful resolution to the current situation and stern words need to come from the international community against anyone who wants to disrupt the peace process.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 3:49pm

Matt

Kimble I wasn’t fantasising anything. I was pointing out that it was a strange thing for Costello to have said – any Australian (me being one) knows that Aust is secular and democratic, this does not really need to be stated – migrants to Australia also know this – one of the main reasons many come. So, why is Costello saying it? I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, just trying to initiate some discussion on the reasons for the statement and maybe its context (eg. is he trying to drum up support in the party to roll Howard, has he lost it a bit, is it to try and garner support for anti-terror leg, etc.).

I also know that Aust isn’t going to go feral on us, Australia is a fundamentally fair country.

Kimble, maybe you should ‘think’ about what people say before you answer – and then maybe address what they say rather than a weird ‘straw man’ that you try and create.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 4:04pm

Paul W

Ed, you may not be a zionist but it’s hard to distinguish you from one when you criticise NZ for its stance on Israel (Peters statement clearly says that NZ supports “Israel

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 4:06pm

Kimble

Well pardon me for interpretting phrases such as,

“Is it a hint of something to come?”
“Has he ever said the Closed Bretheren should f*** off elsewhere..”
“if someone breaks they law they are punished for it regardless of race, religion etc?”

as speculation about of motives followed by a misrepresentation of what Costello actually said and an assumption that Costello, his party, his government, his judiciary and his country are racists and bigots. I dont know what I could have been thinking.

You didnt mention anything else in your comment, so I had to assume that you answered your own question of what may be to come by insinuating that racist and bigoted laws will be created which will forcibly expel muslims for not being Australian enough.

“address what they say rather than a weird ‘straw man’ that you try and create.”

I WAS addressing what you were saying, by pointing out that what you were saying was nearly delusional, and that it was YOU who was creating a straw man by putting words into Costellos mouth.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 4:29pm

Kimble

Arafat WAS a terrorist (he was hardly a statesman) and Sharon has relinquished a significant chunk of territory (committing political suicide in the process) in efforts to promote a sustained peace.

The goff/arafat affair (heh) is more than enough to define NZ’s stance on Israel, regardless of the formalities uttered later on.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 4:34pm

Ed

A balanced reply would have been to absolutely tear the comments apart, not because they were targetted at Israel, but because they were targeted at disrupting peace negotiations.

Sharon, as far as Likud politicians go, is a shining beacon of peace now. Sure he had a pretty ugly past but his moves on the current relationship with Palestine have been quite progressive.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 4:37pm

Trevor

Kimble, Sharon hardly committed political suicide, he may have killed Likud as it’s currently know, but polls suggest he would attract more votes leading a new party than Likud without him (probably killing Shinui and hurting Labour in the process).
And his Gaza policy (which I heartily commend as a good start) is no great indicator of Sharon’s benevolence. It’s political realism on the part of a leader who values the West Bank and Jerusalem over Gaza. It’s part of the path to sustained peace, but it’s mitigated by settlement expansion in the West Bank and racist civics in Jerusalem which are clear efforts to cement realities to influence negotiated peace.
And the whole thing about Goff meeting Arafat and not Sharon was all Sharon’s call. Goff wanted to meet with Arafat who in 2003 was still a potent figurehead for Palestinian asperations, which New Zealand has always supported (to our credit IMHO). Sharon refused to meet with any foreign minister who met Arafat. Instead Goff meet with the DPM and a number of other Israeli politicians and officials. So the whole event doesn’t demonstrate any Palestinian bias, lack of balance or apologist stance toward Muslims. Kimble, it is you and Ed who are fantasising.
And Ed, the comments were not targeted at disrupting peace negotiations. They were in part to cement his credentials within Iran and in part to posture within the process of negotiation and stand-off on the nuclear issue. They were absolutely unhelpful, but in context they were hardly dangerous. Israel’s posturing on taking out Iranian nuclear facilities is probably of greater concern to regional security. They have a history of following through on stuff like that (and actually being able to).

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 5:26pm

Trevor

Just to be clear, I think Iran is dangerous and harbour dangerous intentions toward Israel. I just don’t think that the comments made are a significant departure from the branch of Iranian politics that Ahmadinejad represents. In that sense I think it is more useful to call them unhelpful than to froth at the mouth over them.

0 0
Report
November 16, 2005 5:33pm