Commitment to social justice: Dorothy HoddinottSo. On this Queen's Birthday holiday, Australians who receive honours are:
* A gay rights campaigner.
* A school principal who used her own money to enable an 18 year old asylum seeker finish her education.
And
The man who dedicated his entire working life to making the lives of gay Australians and asylum seekers as miserable as he could manage.
How does this not render the awards utterly meaningless? John Howard is a despicable human being who was paid vast sums of money by Australian taxpayers over several decades to screw over the poor and downtrodden. Other people who received the awards have dedicated their lives to making other peoples' lives better. The idea that John Howard is worthy of anything other than a World's Biggest Arsehole Award is just laughable.
Reacting to his Queen's birthday honour, Prof Altman questioned the structure of the awards, which he said didn't always award those who were deserving of recognition.
"Of course it's gratifying and I suppose a sort of mixture of pleasure and embarrassment," Prof Altman said.
"Part of me is delighted but I also feel somewhat ambivalent, the advantage of having been given one is that I can say that without having sour grapes."
13 comments:
Bloody Blogger ate my comment!!
It's unsurprising, though sadly disappointing, that Howard was 'gonged'. The man has never been a servant of the people, he's a hateful blight on our nation.
Hopefully this is the last we hear of him for some time.
Oh you have got to be kidding. The Queen's choice was he *hardens resolve for Republic*.
I feel sick thinking about this prick receiving an award for the ten years of misery he inflicted on us all.
Fucker.
Alternatively, this suggests that the Awards are give out to people across the political spectrum for actions across the political spectrum. As much as I dislike a lot of what Howard represented in Australia and was deeply hurt by the damage that, in my eyes, his particular brand of conservatism did to my country, I recognise that there are a very significant number of Australians who feel his policies were of the appropriate 'achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia'. This isn't an award for a leftist view on what service to Australia, but nor has it traditionally (in its' short history) been an award for a right leaning view either. It is because heroes of the right like Howard can be given the OA honors that the awards given to heroes of the left, like Altman AM, retain validity.
n.
If Hoddinott and Altman's achievements in fighting against the state-enforced bigotry under John Howard are really worthy of recognition then how is Howard worthy of an award for his years spent implementing the policies they undermined? Sure there are a significant number of Australians who feel that he deserves the award; a lot of Americans supported segregation and a lot of Germans supported Hitler. Majority rules, sure, but majority isn't always right.
Giving Howard the highest award is effectively spitting in the face of people who made genuine sacrifices and fought to make other peoples' lives better. It's not that I think that the awards had any particular validity prior to today and it's all been ruined by handing one to John Howard, it's just the sort of hypocrisy inherent in the way they're handed out. What sort of message does it send when the awards imply that the powers that be value bigotry and oppression as much as humanitarianism and social justice?
it's not a left right issue. gay rights aren't leftist, enabling someone to complete school isn't either. your comparison is a little off because you have to compare people who occupy similar positions on the left/right socio-political spectrum. in this case you'd have to point out that howard getting a tiara or whatever is unremarkable because john pilger got one.
these awards go to nameless everymen, the decent centre-left and the entire right wing spectrum. they are handed out by an establishment which is more interested in making sure the recipients aren't going to head-butt the queen than the place they occupy on the political spectrum.
i'm not saying i'm expecting pilger to get a piece of royal tin foil, or that i would care if he did. i'm just pointing out that the recipients are the result of the source of the awards. and incidentally another reason to get rid of the queen as hos because it's harder for me to boo her in public.
"What sort of message does it send when the awards imply that the powers that be value bigotry and oppression as much as humanitarianism and social justice?"
that's not true. bigotry and oppression are valued way more than the other two things.
Oh those Fairfax subeditors - 'queens award for gay'... tragically bad.
Meanwhile, I've been to a forum by Altman before. My goodness what a boring speaker!
The coalition are still at it: They're blocking same-sex equality still. A link to the mp3 file of an interview with Shadow AG George Brandis explaining why they're still being shits is now available at http://queerious.blogspot.com/2008/06/brandis-confirms-super-delay.html
Who was it that said bigotry is blind to colour, creed and class?
Sarah, firstly, the point of the Order of Australia to recognise high achievement and commitment to Australia. The awards are to individual people not to the values they stand for. Commitment to Australia doesn't just mean recognising achievements in humanitarianism or social justice - although it can. Neither are the awards supposed to only be handed out to nameless everymen - they are supposed to go to people who have demonstrated a high degree of merit or capacity in their field. Some people who have achieve this sort of merit have done so loudly - but this doesn't mean they don't fulfil the criteria.*
Secondly, Gam, my point of the whole-political-spectrum was not to suggest that allowing people to attend school or supporting gay rights are activities that are solely in the domain of the left. However, I would note that the two people you have identified have undertaken those activities in their lives from a leftist platform. The point is not that the awards are arranged to achieve a balance but that they are presented on the basis of merit not political leaning. If they were presented in order to balance political view points they would be of no more value than if they were only awarded to far rightwingers, people focused solely on social justice, or people of a certain religion. Instead, it appears from history that people are given honors independent of the colour of their panties.
Thirdly, of course the recipients are the result of the source of the awards! This is the nature of awards! However, in this case, the awards formally represent recognition by the Queen**, who in this case is acting under her title as Queen of Australia. Under this title, she is actually supposed to embody the Australian nation and its' people, not just one aspect of it.*** As for only picking people who are going offer the correct soundbyte about the Queen, the man your article is about, Altman, used his soundbyte to question the value of the whole awards themselves. IMHO The message that the Awards appears to send is that if as an Australian you do well in the path in life you have taken, you will be recognised by your nation as a entity, even if some of your fellow country men and women don't like what you stand for.
So endth this rant
n.
* Btw: nice work bring Hilter into the conversation so early! I would point out, however, that whilst I'd rather not rather live a Hilter lead government, if I was making a list of the most important or high achieving leaders of the modern history, he would be on it. Not liking his policies doesn't take away my capacity to recognise his ability, any more than I could fail to recognise Howard's ability, capacity and dedication to Australia, even whilst I watched him burn the values I felt Australian society nshould have been founded on. This was why in my eyes Howard was such a dangerous political figure.
** Before some random reader abuses me for mentioning the Queen: no matter how much you dislike having a Queen you have still got one. She remains part of your constitution. You are still her subject. Ignoring this doesn't make it go away any more than ignoring taxes mean you don't have to pay them.
*** Clearly I'm not suggest that the Queen is omnipotent anymore than I'm suggesting that the Queen actually picks the list. However, in picking the list, this embodiment remains an important criteria.
Hmmm I don't think Howard was dedicated *to Australia* so much as dedicated to moulding Australia in his own image, i.e. white, British to his bootstraps and Christian when it suited his purposes.
I also don't believe you can objectively measure (if such a thing even exists) 'commitment to Australia'. Of course you'll point out that the awards are inherently *not* objective, being the Queen's awards, but in that case shouldn't we refer to it as "the Queen's ideal of commitment to Australia", or something similar? What *is* commitment to Australia?
And if people are awarded for 'doing well' in their path of life regardless of the path of life they have taken (very arguable), then why does John Howard get the higher award? Why is being PM equate to being more of a success than someone else who reaches the pinnacle of an equally valid if not as public a field?
Finally, it's a great thing that you're reminding us that the awards are from the Queen... It does explain a lot, and the more that fact is uppermost in everyone's minds, the sooner Australia will be rid of her!
Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure I heard on the news that John Howard was in England when he accepted his award. If only we could revoke his citizenship...
the upper echelons of the order of australia, knights and dames, are occupied by menzies, the gg who dismissed whitlam, businessmen, ggs and a couple of scientists. i never said that no left leaning personalities get acs, though you'd have a hard time arguing that they get aks. i'm saying that the list of companions of the order of australia is overwhelmingly made up of people from the centre to the right of the political spectrum.
I'm going to stop posting on this, because I doubt we'll agree on much. However I'd like to make a last couple of points - I'm interested to see what you think:
1. Sarah, Howard may well have seen the best thing for Australia was for it to be moulded it into his image. In part that is why he is a politician. But a similar comment could be made about the other people you mention. Just because you and I personally don't like Howard's views or the image he was working towards doesn't mean he that he wasn't doing what he thought was best for the country.
2. 'The Queen' in the sense of these honors is more than an actual person, she is an entity that actually embodies Australia. In pure political terms and in a very real legal sense, what this institution that we call 'the Queen's' says her view of what commitment to Australia is, is what the continuous multi-dimensional entity known as the Federation of Australia says that it is. You don't have to like that - in fact, you not liking that is part of that multi-dimensionism (and has an influence, see point 3) as much as me dislikinge of certain aspects of myself forms part of my entity-self.
3. Whilst I hold to the belief that historically the awards and honors have been pretty well granted on the basis of achievement and not political bias, I would certainly not disagree that the right and centre-left appear to be over represented. But in Australia history in almost every field from sports to science even to the union movement historically the right and center-left have been over represented. Even if - and it is a massive if - Australia as an nation is moving more leftward in outlook - the Order of Australia, as a continuous body is going to continue to reflect its' history for some time to come. However, if this is the case, as social shifts occur, we will slowly see longer-term change - as you have demonstrated in the original post.
4. Politicians, governors and, in previous eras, high ranking soldiers do tend to be over represented in these sort of lists in many nations. Historically, and even to today, there remains a position that says if you are committed to making Australia a better place (whatever you might think that is) these are roles which require a great deal of personal sacrifice to the nation. An alternative way of looking at it might be to note that these public positions provide a person with the capacity to demonstrate their commitment to the nation. I felt that this is starting to changing as the social fabric of our society shifts to acknowledgments of the more open ways we can be dedicated to our nation within our smaller spheres, but I don't think that is a wholly widely held view in Australia yet.
5. I wasn't writing in support of the lists then or now, I was highlighting that a 'I agree with their views so they deserved to be honor / I don't like his views so the awards must be corrupt/broken/wrong' was perhaps the wrong lens to look at this particular event.
Cheers as aways,
n.
PS in response to your other post, I'm not actually a monarchist - actually quite the oppose! However, until we actually remove said monarchy it is silly to pretend it isn't important in terms of Australia stable political system as it currently stands. This isn't in itself an argument against such a removal, of course, any more than saying that we use computers for work is an argument against a reduction in energy use.
Post a Comment