What?! Will George Newhouse Denounce Israel Too For 'Racial Separatism'?
George Newhouse SC is an intelligent man who has just put his foot in it. In The Australian newspaper, September 30, he has entered into the historical debate between Associate Professor Andrew Fraser and Keith Windshuttle over the political, cultural and ideological basis of the original White Australia Policy. In doing so, he may have demonstrated crass hypocrisy.
First up, some might think, that as the lawyer representing a complainant against Associate Professor Andrew Fraser to the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), he should keep his professional graces and not appear as an 'interested party'. Rather he decided to jump right in. Mr. Newhouse is on a mission and his role in the case against Andrew Fraser should itself be under examination.
Second up, he has made a political mistake. Newhouse said of Fraser's view that it: "deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history along with the ethnic separatist politics that underpin it." Here Mr. Newhouse (who is a prominent member of the Jewish community and a supporter of Zionist causes) has opened himself to a charge of hypocrisy.
So, Mr. Newhouse is opposed to "ethnic separatist politics"? Well, let's see. The relevant questions for Mr. Newhouse are: are you opposed to the ethnic separatist politics that sustain Israel on Palestinian land? do you support the Zionist ideology which justifies separation and the colonisation of Palestine and which describes Israel as a "Jewish state"? do you agree with the comments of Australia's most significant Jewish leader, Isi Liebler, who said that multiculturalism was fine for Australia, but not for Israel? do you support equality of rights for Arabs who are actually citizens of Israel?
It is a matter of fact that some members of Australia's Jewish community have pushed for the legislation that now sees Andrew Fraser before the HREOC. These same persons have argued the case for multiculturalism and open immigration as suitable policies for the Australian state to pursue. At the same time they have never criticised Zionist Israel for its war against the Palestinian people. This inconsistency is something that politically-correct and polite company in Australia refuses to discuss - lest a hoary old charge of 'anti-semitism' be trotted out - and their public reputations be ruined. Times have changed and many Australians (including those whom Mr. Newhouse might himself refer to in public as 'Moslem Australians') have noted this inconsistency. It is the 'emporer's new clothes' of moral hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.
If Mr. Newhouse is opposed to ethnic separatist politics, we await his declaration against Zionist Israel, a stand which would establish his consistency and integrity to speak against Andrew Fraser.
Home: Defend Professor Andrew Fraser