Chapter 29:        REFORM WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS’ FUNDING!


 

MOTION: That the Rudd Government run a referendum seeking approval to radically reduce the level of funding of religious and private schools and to correspondingly increase the funding of secular public schools.

Rationale:

Mark Latham ex-OL got it right. But the realities of the need not to be wedged on offending a bunch of upper socio-economic voters meant that the first subsequent Beazley replacement and the second subsequent Rudd OL had to abandon Latham’s policy.

Howard and Co were culpable of bulk favouritism in relation to funding private schools, especially those cultivating religious schools and other wealthy private schools to the detriment of the secular public schools’ system.

During campaigning for the 2004 Federal Election, Mark Latham OL promised to axe Howard’s extravagant funding to excessively wealthy private schools such as Kings College and the like with their plethora of sporting grounds, swimming pools, shooting ranges and everything else that switches on and off or opens and shuts. While such schools received $millions in taxpayer funding during Howard & Co’s reign, public secular schools struggled with basic building maintenance. Would have that state of affairs represented “Robust Democracy” or even “Representative Democracy” by any chance? Nup? Not even close.

Howard & Co claimed that their outrageous funding policies for wealthy private schools and for religious schools provided the masses with freedom of choice! Ho! Ho! Ho! Howard’s stance is another example of his fondness for Orwell-speak. In Howard’s realm, “Freedom of Choice” was euphemistic for “The freedom of the wealthy to be superior at the expense of average taxpayers” who could not afford to send their own children to the wealthy schools. Conversely, the funding of Catholic Schools generally is more akin to the funding of secular public schools except that religious brainwashing is a major feature of such schooling.

n general, funding of private religious schools traditionally has been predicated upon a constitutional right to the effect that the practise of religious freedom be actually free. That ought to include the notion that religious schooling be free of taxpayer funding as well. There can be no doubt that Howard was an inconsistent populist. Howard & Costello sucked on the religious vote including the Islamic vote by funding Islamic schools excessively, while unfairly scrimping on secular public schooling.

Considering that the Catholic Church is phenomenally wealthy, having been willed properties by the millions over the centuries, the church could easily fund their own schools simply by selling some of their accumulated assets. However, the tradition of funding religious private schools has not led to serious social dislocation to the extent of revolution, but that may come this century. During 20C the attitudes of the most disparate Christian sects often generated angst in the general population, but the advent of Islamic schools is something else.

Marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic generally results in the Church requiring the offspring of the union be raised as Catholics to enhance the population growth imperative of the Church. Not much give there, but the population growth imperative of Catholicism is a pussycat compared with the non-assimilation modus operandus of Islam. Contrarily, Islam actively seeks to usurp power and to impose its religious imperatives upon an entire host population once it gets its foot in the door. Witness the separate system of Islamic Courts that have been imposed upon Malaysians. Witness today’s predominantly Islamic Kosovo where in effect the practise of emigrant Moslem Albanians to have at least 10 children per family, resulted in the Serbs being outnumbered within a few generations. Witness France and their problems arising from an inability to oblige Moslems to actually integrate and assimilate. Witness Denmark and their subjugation to Islamic blackmail over a few political cartoons with a pointed message. Witness Indonesia and their propensity to transmigrate to extend their empire to the maximum extent to accommodate a rapidly growing population with little regard for indigenous populations such as in West Irian. Witness Russia and the war with Islamic Chechnya. Witness the conflicts between predominantly Islamic Pakistan and predominantly Hindu India. Australia does not need any of that and it could be avoided if the idiocy of blancmange Multiculturalism that allows Islam to impose their values upon their hosts were to be eliminated.

Dedicated Islamic schooling is justifiably viewed with suspicion by large chunks of the Australian population, regardless of whether or not our naïve do-gooders approve. Remember ex-Howard Minister Danna Vale being severely criticised and reprimanded for her comments repeating those of Moslems who believe that Australia will be an Islamic nation within 50 years”? Considering the propensity of Moslems to overwhelm a non-Moslem host nation, by mostly taking and not giving much in return, the prospect must be considered seriously within the context of Australian multiculturalism. The following article contains lots of pro-Islamic views for better and for worse prospects for Australian society.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/02/australia_forme.html

The question for the Australian populace is whether the views expressed are naïve (in the goody-goody-two-shoes style) or are actually visionary which will be appreciated by the masses in the fullness of time. They will be, if the masses are predominantly Islamic.

Howard & Co were severely criticised for pandering to anti-Moslem sentiments amongst the general population and for running populist elections on popular fears. Howard made lots of mistakes during his reign, but in general terms he was on the money by to try to limit the influx of Moslems to Australia, but without much success. Contrarily and paradoxically however, Howard proceeded to fund private Islamic schools because in general, he wanted to fund private religious schools beneficially relative to the secular public school system. Howard vigorously pursued the religious vote. Howard was a populist who displayed pure self-aggrandising expediency - with scant regard for the plebeians? Sure! The prevalence of vote seeking expediency characterised the Howard Government’s reign which contributed to the public perception and comprehension of his undemocratic delinquency.

And so, sooner or later, exclusive home grown Islamic schools will nurture an interest in the extremist Islamic texts and the supposed virtues of irrational religious freedom. The myth of the virtues of our Multiculturalism of the non-assimilating kind is likely to be exploded. The myth of Howard & Co having maintained “Robust Democracy” will have been smashed to smithereens. If Australia one day experiences some home-grown Islamic terrorism, then Howard will be more than likely to be seen to have been largely responsible for it.

Not only that, but as a spiteful response to Mark Latham’s campaign pledge to even up the schools’ funding score a bit, Howard deliberately went out of his way to provide exemplary funding grants to Islamic schools. Howard’s behaviour was completely irrational and undemocratic in the extreme. Political pandering to Islamic schooling under the disguise of Multiculturalism will do nothing to encourage Islamic assimilation. Assimilation is essential to avoid something similar being repeated in Australia, to the rampant Albanian Islamic population growth over a few generations in Kosovo. Today, the UN supports Kosovo’s independence. The ultimate outcome in many non-Islamic nations that have allowed unfettered Islamic immigration has been to become subject to the rule and the dictates of Islam eventually. It all begins with politically inspired perfidy, grovelling to Islamic mores, rather than having policies to eliminate the problem before it arises.

Minimising Islamic immigration to Australia should have a high priority. Those who do come should be obliged to accept legally binding contracts (a) to respect the legal right of women to equality (b) to accept Australian standards and norms of dress and behaviour as their own and (c) to send their kids to secular public schools so that they can be assimilated. No doubt our exponents of short-term political expediency would frown upon such a notion as though it would be undemocratic because freedom of religion would be denied? If so, then please explain why Islam denigrates so-called Democracy. Please explain how Multiculturalism would handle Islam’s intolerance of any other religion? Would our Pollies try running a referendum on continuation of unfettered Multiculturalism versus managed assimilation for everyone, including Aborigines? Would our Pollies try running an election on the issue? No - too hard? If the Aborigines can have their own laws recognised in the Constitution, then it is only a matter of time before the Malaysian system of Islamic Courts will be visited upon Australia.

If so, then consequently the disaster of an overt Islamic take-over of Australia, in one form or another is more likely than not, considering the nature of the conflict between the Judeo-Christian Empire versus the Islamic Empire that has been with us since the Middle Ages.

 

Click here to Return to the INDEX