I expect nothing less from the self indulgent clique, the born to rule class, of which our very own good queen Bess is the titular head. You speak of;
"hostility towards the Australian prisoners in Guantanamo, Australia's inclusion in the war in Iraq, plus the Howard government's cruel treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, I wonder what the Queen had in mind when she rewarded this man."
I'm sure once Mrs Windsor had reviewed our Johnny's credentials she would have no doubts that he was cut from 'the RIGHT kind of material'. May have even alluded to Phil "My dear Phillip, I do find young Howard, although not a person of breeding, to be one, shall we say, of the correct disposition." Phil "Quite so Mom."
Is anyone else under the misconception that the Queen of England actually cares about people like, prisoners, war victims, asylum seekers, refugees. next thing you know she will have sympathy for the unemployed, do you think the woman is a communist or something?
Sorry have to stop typing they are playing 'Good Save The Queen' on my feet!

It amazes me that John Howard still incites such critism within the community. I feel he is being falsly targetted and history will write favourably re the years of prosperity under his leadership. I would be surprised if history writes favourably about the Rudd/Gillard era of lets get Australia into debt. The problem the next Liberal/National coalition which leads this country will have to tax us so heavily to get us out of debt they will probably only get one term in power as the free loaders/do gooders and independents will see them gone and like now we will a non-democratic government again.

I agree generally with the comments regarding Howard's political record of subservience to the US , and to British royalty . One hopes that the present Australian government did not condone this award . One whose recommendation , if any , did the British monarchy make this award ?

What most appals me is that he accepted any award / reward from the British monarchy . No Australian should accept any such award , even while Australia retains the monarchical system .

Perhaps the next reward from the British monarchy will be a peerage to Lord Howard of Wollstonecraft .

John Howard's well-deserved honour from the Queen has given me double pleasure – it has pleased the people I like and it has annoyed the people I don't like.
DIS

OLO publishes more left wing propaganda as part of its ongoing struggle with editorial judgment.

This article, particularly, slides and slimes from one unsubstantiated assertion to another.

Rees writes of [Howard's]"hostility towards the Australian prisoners in Guantanamo", as though there were many. David Hicks is the only one mentioned by Rees and Mamdou Habib is the only other I could name. What was either of them doing in Iraq when arrested?

Rees laments that "Hicks is not allowed to sell his book, not allowed to profit from his story about Guantanamo." While Rees insinuates that this is somehow John Howard's fault, the action was started by the Gillard government in July 2011. And they were right to do so, in my view. Again, what were Hicks and Habib doing there and why should they profit from it? Rees can no doubt elaborate on his commitment to capitalist opportunism.

Rees claims that "The Pentagon admits that 100,000 Iraquis lost their lives but by several other accounts over one million Iraqui civilians died in this war." Several? Name them. And their dates and methodologies. The Opinion Research Business survey of 2007 nominated 1,033,000 deaths but was dismissed as "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" by one peer reviewed study, according to Wikipaedia. So where are the other, credible, "accounts"?

Rees claims that the invasion of Iraq began with no UN authorisation. He fails to mention the unanimous UN Security Council resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002, offering Saddam a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 or 1284.

Rees also claims that there were "never any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq." Weasel words. "Never" and "not left" are mutually exclusive.

And for all Rees's foot stamping, he offers nothing as a solution for the daily mass murders perpetrated by the Saddam regime, for which Saddam and others were duly executed by Iraq. But don't mention that, eh, Stuart?

In trying to be deadly serious this sarticle is really funny.

I do not hold out any hope of living to see the day when Howard in company with Bush and Blair are all standing before the court in The Hague for war crimes. By any standards they should be and would be convicted.
Unfortunately even if this were to happen it would not undo the harm these three men have caused.
It shows how the so called democratic and justice systems we have are a farce.
It also proves the saying “the winners write the history”.

Oh the outrage!

Is it because the headline was on the front page of the SMH? A place usually reserved for criticism of conservatives. The author must be one of the last remaining readers, probably picked up a free copy.

Is it because of an honor bestowed on someone, and I notice the author doesn't mind receiving honors himself .. Emeritus Professor no less, how quaint. (hypocrite?)

Or is it just the ongoing disability to understand PM John (MOS) Howard was immensely popular, that the election he lost was by a whisker, and his seat loss .. well, we all know how much skullduggery was involved and it was but a moment later and the ALPBC person, whatever their name was, lost it, and with typical ALP bad grace, complained it was not their fault. (boo hoo)

Losing his seat after a lifetime in politics has not reduced the man's stature, though his haters revel in it, like dogs returning to their vomit (that line describes Howard haters so well).

Trying to stir up hatred of a fine man, just reflects badly on the author, as it does for most purveyors of hate speech and poisonous writing.

So Howard's a monarchist, big deal, and I used to be a republican until the attempt at a republic exposed the likes of Turnbull et al as being greedy, self obsessed prima donnas with no plan beyond gaining power for themselves in the republican "movement". Turnbull fits so much better into the philosophical camp of the ALP, who reflect his obsession for power, with no plan of what to do with it.

Howard himself said it, "being in power is an opportunity to do great things" and he did, and yes, he should have passed the baton and moved on .. but I forgive him, as do most Australians.

I do miss him .. the current lot are just hollow vessels.

I find it amusing that so many of his haters, are so hypocritical and display it constantly.

It's about picking sides isn't it, not principles for the left.

Many of the asylum seekers were receiving better treatment than most people in Australia. (Eg swimming pools, air conditioning, TV's and videos, free food etc). In fact someone would have to pay considerable amounts of money at a tourist resort to receive such treatment.

The economy always looked better under Howard than under (what's her name, can't remember it now), but if she ever says "people of Australia" one more time, then no more TV time for her.

Howard's fawning towards George Bush was a major blemish, but nothing compared to what's her name's fawning towards Obama, not to mention Oprah.

In all, Howard wasn't great, but a major plus compared to what's her name. I wonder if he would be interested in running again for Prime Minister.

Not much opposition really.

The author's critique of Howard is typical of the Lefty moral elite, short on facts and big on opinion and hyperbole masquerading as facts.

Its funny how the Left doesn't assume Gillard is similarly complicit in any drone bombings of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Apparently when Obama and Gillard fight wars they are immune from the same types of criticisms from the same types of academics.

I'd love to know how Howard and Bush in Iraq is any different from Gillard and Obama in Afghanistan. I can't wait for the rationalisations to stream forth.

Authors, like the above believe, as the Left commonly do, that if they fill their 'analyses' with opinion and sad stories that everyone will automatically feel outraged and supportive of them. The real issue here is that the Professor's facts are thin on the ground while his emotion is high.

The author apparently cannot remember the years of taunting by Sadam Hussein during which the world believed he was hiding nuclear weapons. For 10 years he sent UN inspectors away.

Now Iran is doing the same thing. OK Professor do we let Iran go? Sorry, academics are only wise after the event, I shouldn't have asked.

The fact is Professor your mob runs the show now and we are still fighting wars.

I had not heard that Tony Jones had retired or is their another spot on the ABC/SBS propaganda machine vacant that the Professor is looking for.

Julia Gillard.

That's it.

I'd forgotten her name.

I am trying to work out which part of the Good Emeritus Professor Stuart Reess'present Job Descriptionis appearing here ?

As Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.is it the Peace part coming through in the Article.. or the CONFLICT ?

"Many of the asylum seekers were receiving better treatment than most people in Australia. (Eg swimming pools, air conditioning, TV's and videos, free food etc). In fact someone would have to pay considerable amounts of money at a tourist resort to receive such treatment."
vanna do you have the same contempt for the British royal family as you have for asylum seekers. After all the royals have been living off the public purse for centuries, no swimming pool or air conditioner can compare to having your very own string of 500 room palaces, crown jewels, servants galore, $80 million weddings etc, and no one is ever going to ask you to get a real job. Can I ask your view on these royals who have their snouts well and truly fixed in the public trough.

Paul1405,
Well I believe a certain Prince now has 3 chauffers employed, after his dear wife wanted an extra 2.

However, I like the idea that there has never been a war between any two commonwealth countries, although the queen herself doesn’t enter into politics much at all.

As for our present Prime Minister (still keep forgetting her name), her appearing on TV to say that she was allowing a permanent US military base in Darwin was the last time I ever saw her on TV.

Seems like a good summation of the negative legacy of the lying rodent.

After all in 2004 even the former president of the federal liberal party, John Valder quite correctly called the rodent a war criminal.

Peace studies institutions throughout the world do of course study violent conflicts of all kinds. Such is a necessary part of their job description (as it were).

The first Peace Studies institute was set up in Stockholm after the founder did a review of the then available literature on the topic of peace and found out that there was none. There was of course heaps on the topic of war. In response he created what was the first peace research institution - the first of many.

In my view the award says everything that needs to be said about the values that pertain in our monarchy, and about the anachronistic nature of our relationship with it.

J.Howard et al started shaky but evolved to become an effective body that tried to bring Australia back to its proper place in the world and happier people within.

First to bring into law shared care parenting...opposed by who...no surprise, the office for women(OFW), but increasing father death toll in separation allowed bill to become law...eversince OFW trying to dismantle it...

Aboriginal children death rate higher than the third world...mostly from diseases...so intervention...guess who disrupted it...yep...OFW, by forcing creating 'sexual predator' clause as main cause they tunrned inot 'women all good(so no need to assess their part), men all bad(remove and isolate them as threats)...tried 'befriended'(if such is possible with ofw) aboriginal women, empowered them to grab and remove child, where did we see this?...oh yes...us...now no one knows the real death rate...and 90% of billions spend went into 'administration'...then declared a failure...

create proper education in Australia by making teachers accountable, than the 'trained flow chart following monkeys products' thats happening now including health sector...who interfered at every opportunity...yep ofw...largest teacher percentage is women...and at this time, at height of their popularity in Australia, they mysteriously loose the election badly...

these are some that jump to mind...

Agree the Iraq debacle is a negative...but the trade center was wiped out...and who new the genocidal maniacs controlling the american military execution had no value for human life and condition since world over...cant blame J.Howard et al for this, but Rudd/Gillard when this fact became obvious...include Libya now, soon all middle east...

I agree there is great dishonour...but get your facts right MrS.Rees before your labelled another tool of ofw and more...

sam

Hmmm,

I smell sour grapes.

I wonder if a Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies aims to illuminate and promulgate means for avoiding and resolving major conflict, and acts, or should act, to provide informed advice to governments on means for achieving lasting peace? Or, does it only review history with an interest in identifying errors in strategy and in laying blame? Which interest is paramount - evaluating conflict, or developing strategies for peace?

Perhaps our esteemed Professor could offer an opinion on appropriate international action (or even an avoidance of same) to resolve the situations in Syria, Iran and Israel/Palestine?

John Howard may not have been a perfect Prime Minister, but he was effective, led Australia to fiscal security, and fought effectively for national sovereignty and security. The author ignores the positive and unfairly emphisizes negatives, and ignores operative international context. In result, the article is a poor example of headlining. (Did the author forget that Sadaam invaded Kuwait, and poisoned portion of his country's populace with chemical weapons?)

If the author has some suggestions for achieving world peace we would love to hear them.

Jaylex says...

# Perhaps the next reward from the British monarchy will be a peerage to Lord Howard of Wollstonecraft #...

…Wraps it up pretty well me-thinks!

…John Howard was one of the most “hated” politicians amongst the working-class I have witnessed. Sadly, the traditional working class alternative has proven a match!

...Maybe an award for the most despised politician would be of some interest to the community. This award is a “Joke”

Diver, come up for air mate, you've been down for too long. When your brain becomes starved for oxygen it becomes addled. There is a real chance you will start to believe your own bull dust when that happens.

No mate the "working class loved him, how else could he have had those landslides?

It was the long haired radical ratbag far left, the public servants, particularly the welfare community, lefty academics & other lazy no hopers who didn't like him. They all hated him because he could see through their cr4p to the crux of most things, a real problem for those with only bull dust to offer.

What exactly did John Howard do, to be given recognition by a foreign head of state.

No, i think Howard did a pretty good job, although his record was also not perfect.

I suppose focused concerns on individual issues may lead some to despise him.

For myself, judging his govt's response on the many issues, i think he did quite well.

It is always harder for a centre-right leader, less prone to make as many populist decisions than say Labor.

As a person, who would i prefer Howard or Rudd? No contest, I would rather have a beer with Howard any day.

Professor Rees makes some goods points but fails to present a balanced account of the Howard Governments achievements – which is hardly surprising coming from a Hicks apologist who fails to find anything positive in the 12 years of Howards way. True there were mistakes but there were also many good achievements and a few brilliant successes.

The Order of Merit is offered by the Queen. It is in her personal gift and is made after considering a range of advice. We do not know and are unlikely to ever know what advice was received by the Queen.

What we do know is that Prime Minister Hawke sensibly made it clear that there should be no move to a republic during Her Majesty’s reign. That advice was ignored by the republican movement which pressed an ill-conceived, half-baked proposal for a republic.

John Howard presided over a referendum which wisely rejected that proposal and brought the republican movement to the realisation that a lot more thought needed to be put into their project. It is possible that the Queens advisors reminded her of that.

The referendum on a Republic did not ask Should Australia become a Republic yes or no, it was an expensive filibuster question that John Howard put forward.

I always thought it was Janet Howard who was running the country at that time, I seem to have missed something with John, the award should have gone to her.
Yes! Paul1405 and Pericles I do agree with you regarding that superfluous wealthy Royal family, they live in their own unreal world and give unreal awards to non deserving politicians.

It is regrettable that Prof. Stuart Rees AM appears to have written hurriedly and purely on the basis of personal detestation of Mr. John Howard OM AC SSI.
Mr. Howard served four terms as Australia's Prime Minister, with previous senior cabinet service. In objective terms he is a more eminent Australian than Prof. Rees. Perhaps Prof. Rees might have been better submitting his criticism of Mr. Howard to his successor as Prime Minister prior to Mr. Rudd recommending Mr. Howard for the award of Companion of the Order of Australia (two ranks above the Membership held by Prof. Rees).
As the Order of Australia is granted by the sovereign, Prof. Rees' objection is clearly not to Australian's accepting such awards. Previous holders of the order include a number of eminent Australians, including Howard Florey, McFarlane Burnet and Sir Owen Dixon.
Prof. Rees,despite his academic status, also does not appear to have conducted any research into the nature and history of the Order of Merit. Membership of the Order has included a large number of people who would undoubtedly qualify as war criminals had they lost the wars in which they were involved. These include Sir Winston Churchill, Earl Haig, and Baroness Thatcher. Perhaps the most perplexing of all members was Field Marshal Smuts, who had led troops against British and Empire forces prior to converting to become a fervent supporter of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Multiple politicians have been appointed, ranging from David Lloyd George to Jean Chretien.
Prof. Rees may well disagree with some of Mr. Howard's policies and actions, as I disagree with Churchill's support of the air offensive over Germany. This is not relevant to the award and the award should not be used as an excuse for personal abuse such as this article.

Hasbeen: (A big “thanks” for your charming comments)!

True…The weather has improved, and I struggling to maintain my high standard of comment in the limited time available back on land. But one thing I remember well; I “once” had a neighbour in a very working class town (city), who would blatantly advertise for the Liberal party at election time. The neighbour would have made “Hitler” proud; he regularly accumulated a rare (for the neighbourhood) collection of black spray painted “swastikas” on his billboard/house/truck and anything else that was stationary or movable. But to be honest, that was back in Malcolm Frasers’ time.

But in view of the facts Hasbeen, Of the 17 ministers in the Howard government cabinet, 12 were lawyers and one a party hack, in 2007. So really that must prove the point that Howard was simply the leader of the “pack” of the bunch of rabid scumbags. That is simply one litmus test of Howards probity! I await your serve sir

This article is just rubbish from an embittered man who just cannot get over the fact that the majority of his fellow Australians do not agree with him. Sorry mate but you are just one of the herd, just one vote we think you are wrong. So just get over it and have a bex and a lie down.

Kipp: .#...The referendum on a Republic…#.

...Thanks a million; you just nailed my comment beautifully. See, here alone, is a fine example of connivance from a bunch of lawyers in Cabinet, ungarciously summersaulting Democracy to land on its ear!

Naturally the Queen rewards such connivance in her favor. How can one "not" be cynical at the presentation of this award to such as Howard?

Dan..

This article illustrates why academics are losing the prestige they once had. This sort of copy earns you $160000 a year now? Gee and he is supposed to be a professor and director of an institue! He is nothing but a second rate political hack.

How could any student attendending that institute expect to receive a balanced view? Anyone doing a course there would not want to submit an essay saying anything positive about Howard. How is that academia?

We should strip public funding from universities. They are out of control.

According to our conservative friends on here John Howard did the following:
(1) Brought us World peace.
(2) Eliminated World poverty.
(3) Turned water into wine.
(4) Fed the multitude with a few fish and a loaf of bread.
(5) Walked on water.

But the best thing I liked about Johnny Howard was when he dressed in his baggy green track suit and went on national TV looking like Kermit the Frog. Now that's an achievement, not just anyone can look like Kermit.
vanna: you say there has never been a war between 2 commonwealth countries. I can tell you if a certain Kiwi woman, I know, doesn't leave the credit card alone, a certain Aussie bloke, me, will declare war on New Zealand. Skirmishers have already taken place and the battle lines are drawn! When the war comes I expect all Aussie men to do their duty.

Paul,

Politics is about compromises, and if you can improve the lives of all the country you are doing well.

By comparison to disaster of KRudd and Juliar, Howard was a visionary and an achiever.

There, thanks to paul1405, you see the essential difference in the politics of Australians .. between the left and right

Paul1405 reads the comments of conservatives and through his view of the world, sees all the comments that are positive about a popular politician, who was PM for 11 years .. as one eyed rusted on types.

I read them and saw that while people thought Howard had his faults, he was a good leader.

The left however worry not about the man but hate the side that is not theirs. They feel it is OK to insult, call names and generally lambaste a good man. If someone had called Julia Gillard a lying bitch who resembled a cheap pickpocket, might they have been offended, one expects so. it amuses me no end when the left complain that no one should insult their leader, or her past, but feel free to delve into the past of the opposition leader endlessly, but hypocrites are well known inhabitants of the left.

I don't hate the ALPGreenIndie coalition, I think they are fools who have no idea how to use power beyond getting it.

The left though, hate, and hate anyone who is not like them, look at the insults collecting here.

There you have it ..Australian politics in a nutshell, conservatives who consider principle and do not think John Howard was by any means perfect, but a good leader and the left/liberals (who consider themselves "progressive" whatever that means) who just hate anyone not like their "side"

To top it off we have a lefty hater, author who is a recipient of academic welfare who uses his time to complain and whine. Such is our education system .. and what is a "peace Center" but academic welfare .. what other possible use is it but to prop up otherwise unemployable academics .. and people wonder why respect for academics is on the wane.

I have more to add to the above post.
My justification for war with New Zealand. Firstly they have developed a weapon of mass destruction, they call it The All Blacks Rugby Team, and it has already been unleashed on Australia more than once. Secondly I visited Rotarua where the Kiwi's have developed some kind of nerve gas, the place couldn't stink like that naturally, must be a secret weapon. Thirdly the 'Plane People', forget about the 'Boat People', its the Plane People flying across the Tasman in rusty old 707's and landing in Bondi we have to worry about, they are coming in droves. I do think the Aussie Government should consider off shore processing for these Kiwi refugees I propose the 'Antarctica Solution' whereby Gillard and Abbott with some bipartisan agreement, alone with the Government of Antarctica, of course, set up off shore processing of people flooding in from NZ. For my better half all I can say is "stop it with the credit card or get your woolies on."
As for the war I propose we send in the shock troops, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke, fresh from their annihilation of the Ingin bowlers at the SCG, I think they were Comanche's or some tribe like that. Anyhow, if Ricky and Mick can sail into Auckland Harbor, undetected, that's after 6pm, cause all Kiwi's got to bed at 6 and the place is shut up for the night, Kidnap their 'netball' team and we will hold them to ransom until they give us back the cup they stole which Bondy and Hawkey won for us back in, I think it was 1927 or about then! If the Kiwi's don't play ball we will send over John Howard and make him their Prime Minister, then they will be really sorry.

I was certainly surprised by the level of nastiness and uncritical partisanship of this article. It doesn't read like the article of a thinker, but rather of a mere political mouthpiece. The assumption that Her Majesty would (or should) be invested in the political talismans of Australia's hard left (or, indeed, the political contest itself) tends to suggest the writer hasn't exactly thought his arguments through

So, our Queen is a conservative, and recognises value when she sees it.

What can I say? Thank you Maam.

How about a William and Kate celebratory $2 coin, or $100 note? (Or a PM Howard esquire $500 gold coin? Even better!)

If Kevin and Julia ever get to do the tango together, then we'll know we're headed for some real strife. The very thought brings tears to my eyes.

rpg you write: "There, thanks to paul1405, you see the essential difference in the politics of Australians .. between the left and right
Paul1405 reads the comments of conservatives and through his view of the world, sees all the comments that are positive about a popular politician, who was PM for 11 years .. as one eyed rusted on types.
I read them and saw that while people thought Howard had his faults, he was a good leader."
How I see Howard, like his heroes Menzies (Korea) and the drowned Holt (Vietnam) of which I have my own personal tragedies to remember, the loss of a friend and a cousin. The young conservative Howard was a keen supporter of the Vietnam War, something I never forgot or forgave. When Howard came to office, he was so quick to send young Australians (again) to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why are conservatives like Howard so quick to war, to protect freedom and democracy, that's what they will have us believe, the truth, to protect the interests of Capital. Who pays the price for this protection, the sons and daughters of the ordinary Australian.
Would I give Howard an award, maybe an award as a Warmonger!

Well, I think the people of Honest John's former electorate got it right and gave him is due reward?
They sacked him!
Let the aging British dowager Queen pin a big blue ribbon on him; preferably while in a bent over position, with a very large pin; and, the posterior most prominent; and, awarded for the best pork pies on the planet?
At least one or two hundred Australians will be glued to their TV sets; to watch the ceremony?
She will need to be very careful not to piece the hide; [albeit, it ought to be fairly calloused from all those years of bench polishing,] least she is prepared for a very sudden down sizing event?
Pinning something on him; and a few meaningless mumbles, won't change any aspect of John's unique character, or make him a more "honest" decent human being; than he already is?
The cast has long since set and the mould thrown away!
As treasurer, he was arguably our poorest in living memory; and, was only rescued as PM; by mining boom mark one, welfare for the rich and billions in pre election pork barrelling?
[It is said, "you can fool some of the people all of the time"!]
I will remember him; for, the disgraceful humiliating sight of Aussie special forces storming a civilian Tampa, to point their fully loaded with live ammunition weapons; at completely unarmed non combatant men, women and children; all of who were; as history reveals, fleeing from endless persecution; or, for their very lives!
Yes let him stand on his record; or go through the tired archaic feudal England charade; and theatrical hyperbole of accepting the Queens gong; and or, something really nice to put on his coffin?

paul, some history, Malcolm Fraser was Minister of Army when we went to Vietnam, Howard had nothing to do with it, except in your imagination. So you never forgave him for the Vietnam war, you must have worked yourself into a lather to invent that.. surely? (or is that a "Wiki fact"?)

"Why are conservatives like Howard so quick to war"

As quick as Bob Hawke was in 1991? First Gulf War? How could Howard say no to the second one, when the precedent was set by Hawke, some might say. Another weak example of the self induced hypnosis of the left.

Why did Rudd and Gillard not bring Australians home from wars? (Must be John Howard's fault?)

Just admit it, there is no basis for hating Howard except he is not of the left, ALPish side of politics.

Howard (and Hawke) went to war because we have agreements that we stick to once made, the Americans are our allies and we theirs, if they call we go because we are a pissant in this world and we need them for protection, they need us for the look of the thing.

The left are more apoplectic than ever since Howard left office as they thought they were done with him, and yet he lingers because their replacements are easily shown not to measure up to him.

Being the stuck on lefties they are and having picked a side, they do not have the depth of principle to admit it.

Yes, he was sacked by the constituency of Bennelong and by 50.1% of the population - hardly the landslide the left brags about, and now we know it was a mistake.

This mistake will be corrected at the next opportunity.

So enjoy yourselves, and stop reminding yourselves that a better man is still out there, still more popular than any ALP MP today, even after leaving office and losing his seat, even after all the mistakes, scandals and embarrassments of his time .. is still a better person than the ALP has produced.

Howard's ALP replacement in Bennelong, popular?

Who?

Speaking of the Queen of England she is technically and legally the worlds largest landowner. She owns 6.8 billion acres all of which outside of the UK was stolen from the original native owners.

The third largest landowner is the "catholic" church - 173 million acres.

How much did Jesus own?

Re the politics of peace one can either practice and advocate the politics of the open vulnerable hand, or the closed aggressive fist.
John Howard and most/all of so called conservatives are very much committed to the closed fist, while pretending otherwise.

This reference provides links to many individuals and groups that promote the politics of peace.

http://www.transcend.org

Is it only me or does anyone else find it in rather
poor taste that so many people seem to get some sort of
peverse pleasure in trying to demean a former PM in such
an unpleasant way.

We may not approve of what our politician's do -
during their terms in office - but we do have the option
to vote them out at elections.
Which is what happened in the case of Mr Howard.
We can criticize our pollies for their policies,
however to claim that someone does not "deserve"
the honour that someone's
received from our nation's Head of State after they've
left office - is in my opinion - rather a poor show.

Mr Howard was a staunch monarchist, he was one of the longest
serving of our PM's and what he did or did not
deserve was a decision that was not ours to make - that
decision belonged entirely to Her Majesty. It honours a
loyal former PM who Her Majesty obviously thinks did a
good job. Why can't some people simply accept that and
leave the man alone now that he's no longer in office.

Lexi the comments are why John Howard, whom Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha does not know from a bar of soap! Name one thing this person has achieved, he was a highly paid politician and used the status to full; there it ends!!

rpg where were you in 1970 I suspect not even a twinkle in your fathers eye. As I'm going on 60 I am well aware of 'history' I lived through that little piece of history so don't quote history to me.
You said "some history, Malcolm Fraser was Minister of Army when we went to Vietnam, Howard had nothing to do with it, except in your imagination. So you never forgave him for the Vietnam war, you must have worked yourself into a lather to invent that.. surely? (or is that a "Wiki fact"?)"
rpg my words were "The young conservative Howard was a keen supporter of the Vietnam War, something I never forgot or forgave."
You say that "as Howard had nothing to do with it, except in your imagination." A bit of history for you that you wont find on wiki whatever, the young Liberal parliamentarian Howard was a keen supporter of the war in Vietnam, he spoke often on the rightness of that very perverse war, and as far as I know he's never apologised for the SUPPORT he gave the war. Do I need to say more about facts for you to understand where I'm coming from.
p/s you wrote "when we went to Vietnam" what unit were you in (we)!

Dear Kipp,

I don't know the criteria required to receive this
or any award for that matter. I presume that a person
has to be nominated for whatever reason to receive
any award - and I don't imagine that these awards are
handed out to just anyone. I believe that mention was
made that this particular award was given to only a select
few and obviously the Queen as our nation's Head of State
agreed with the nomination and thought Mr Howard deserved
it. I believe this award is also one that the Queen herself
selects who gets it. So although as you claim the Queen
does not know Mr Howard - she obviously thought highly
enough of him to award him this Order of Merit. And as
I stated in my earlier post - I for one do think it's
not in good form to try to demean the man for accepting
something from his Head of State.

Kipp,

Your statement that Queen Elizabeth "does not know John Howard from a bar of soap" is just crap: no doubt she has met our former PM on many occasions, at least through CHOGMs and no doubt at other times.

What always amazes me is that people like you, who have presumably never met a politician of any sort, are so quick to denigrate them.

In my experience, politicians across the spectrum are generally good people trying to do the right thing according to their beliefs and attitudes.

They certainly don't deserve the vacuous complaints they get from nobodies like you, who have achieved...well, what, exactly?

...To be fair to Howards reputation, we must not forget Howards “pogrom” against “workers rights and conditions” and his constant attack on Public Education, with a steady course of defunding of State Educational institutions, which spanned his entire term in Parliament, culminating in his ignominious decline and exit by the back-door; kicked out by his own electorate and universally rejected by a broad element of Australians, fed-up with his Anti-Democracy ideology.

paul, why should Howard apologize, you need to get over it .. he has nothing to apologize for. The support of the US in the Vietnam war was based on a fear of the spread of communism, you were probably too young and silly to remember what the world was like back then. Do you remember the Malaysia emergency?

What unit was I in, none of your business .. okay. Please do not try to identify people on line .. there are a few lately on this site who pursue angry little vendettas with people they disagree with, don't become one of them. It's an opinion site, you have yours and I have mine, you can start with the insults the way you insult Howard, but it doesn't do anything except expose your personal problems with life.

I don't agree with people who spray PM John (MOS) Howard the way they do and will defend him because, overall, he is a good man. You can cherry pick things to hate, but that's your problem, not mine or his.

His government made mistakes, probably the worst was the AWB thing, and people should have gone to jail for that.

Ultimately Australia is a better place for his stewardship, I cannot say the same about the current government who are intent on class war and being in power for the sake of it, not because they have any plan to better Australia.

I'm guessing you can forgive the current government, because "Howard was worse", which is a pretty poor effort at dealing with reality, maybe I'm wrong, but do you maintain the rage, to compensate for the current government's disastrous incompetence?

I've never been one to go along with the notion of left and right in politics / life. Rather I tend to think of people as being either conservative, those that want to maintain the status quo, including existing Institutions like the monarchy, continually resisting change. One the other hand there are those who I would call radical, in favour of change. No one is entirety conservative or radical, We all tend to be a bit of both. An example of what I'm saying is the political leadership of China, 60 years ago they, the communists, were radical, wanting to change the social order, tear down the existing institutions, a new beginning. Today the very same group are conservative wanting to maintain the status quo etc.
In Australia its difficult to identify much radicalism on the political spectrum, on many issues you would find people like Howard, Gillard, Rudd, Hawke and others named here as being very conservative. It's very much where you sit as to how you perceive others, was there not some mad bloke in American who thought Ronald Reagan was a communist, its all perception.

rpg You said "you were probably too young and silly to remember what the world was like back then. Do you remember the Malaysia emergency?"
rpg you should read my post aged about 60, some simple maths will tell you how old I was in 1970, then you wont have to use the word probably . Insults I'm young and silly, "What unit were you in" a rhetorical question as you said WE were in Vietnam, I didn't think you were even born in 1970 little alone remember it or be in any unit, you show your age by referring to the 'Malaysia emergency' it was in fact the MALAYA emergency, The unification of Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia had not taken place, hence there never was a Malaysia emergency, if you are going to refer to the past please use the correct terminology. The only insult I've posted about Howard was I said "he looked like Kermit the frog in his baggy green tracsuit, some insult (to kermit) if facts are an insult then I have insulted Howard.

Paul1405,

There was a sort of Malaysia emergency circa 1962-66, but we knew it as the Indonesian Confrontation - when the Brits gave British North Borneo its independence, and it chose to become part of Malaysia (along with Sarawak), and adopted the name Sabah. As Indonesia held the larger part of the island of Borneo, and Indonesia being the sort of regime that it was and continues to be, they wanted the lot. Brits posted Gurkhas on the border, and we provided Engineers (RAE) extending the road from Keningau inland towards Sapulut and the border. It was classified as a conflict zone, and those of us who participated are classified as returned servicemen. This campaign pales into insignificance in comparison with the campaign in Vietnam, which was rattling along in this same timeframe. Sabah continues to thrive as part of Malaysia, and is quite the tourist destination.

Vietnam surely could have been handled better, but since China was funding and supplying the North, if the West had not intervened there may well have been a very different outcome for this neighbour of ours. We cannot know. It remains nonetheless a pain in our conscience, but the bulk of the fault for the direction of the campaign must lie with LBJ and his backroom. Alongside the infamy behind "Well may we say 'God save the Queen', but nothing will save the Governor General" by Gough Whitlam in '75, will sit "All the way with LBJ" from Harold Holt in '66.

John Howard led the diplomacy through which East Timor gained its independence. The man stood tall in this endeavour, and if for no other reason (and I think there are many others) he should rightly be revered. (I think the East Timorese would agree.)

Saltpetre I will give Howard his due over East Timor, thumbs up, but it was the Whitlem Labor government that failed the East Timorese. In part Australia's failure to act more decisively led to the Indonesian invasion and the atrocities that followed. Today we still don't do enough for East Timor, overall we can't be proud of what Australia has achieved for the East Timorese people.
Indonesia has always had a policy of 'no divided islands' be it Borneo, Timor or New Guinea. Australia should be doing more for the forgotten people of West Papua and their treatment by Indonesia as they fight for independence.

Paul1405,

I agree that there have been, and will undoubtedly continue to be diplomatic failures by ours and other governments regarding Indonesia, not the least being our failures regarding West Papua - which appears to be suffering similar atrocities from Indonesia to those suffered in East Timor, and our government and the world should not sit still until this unacceptable situation is resolved in favour of the indigenous peoples (as also applies regarding China in Tibet).

However, I don't see our current Fed gov doing anything in this regard, or of being likely to. Lack of moral fibre perhaps? Or, just too busy trying to shore up possibilities for the next Fed election, and so not willing to rock any boats (asylum seekers included, given the quiescence of our gov regarding Indo's failure to stop boats at point of origin, and having related open borders to Islamic 'refugees').

I'm not sure East Timor is doing all that badly post independence, though, and Aus is still helping to improve things, including regarding Gas reserves in the Timor Sea. It is certain however that they are faring a whole lot better than they were under Indonesian occupation.

Indonesia is a slippery and somewhat untrustworthy regime, with too much control resting with the military (and with a lack of humanitarian conscience all round, it would seem). Unfortunately that means one must hasten slowly in related diplomatic endeavours, sadly so for the people of West Papua (as well as some other minorities held against their will under this opportunistic and comparatively ruthless regime).

As a predominently Muslim nation of 200 million odd, not far off our shores, Indonesia warrants a certain degree of caution and a respect borne of unattractive possibilities.

I really do think every one forgets the atrocities that were the lot of the Aborigines with the British invaders, when they came to Australian shores, if only writers would remember this, we are only too happy to condemn other nations as to what they are doing regarding other countries, but one must always look in their own backyard first, but then writers will say this is a long time ago and things were very different then, but was it? Queen Victoria was wanting to control the world by force or marriage of family.

John Howard lost a lot of voters including myself with his decision to go along with Bush and Blair regarding Iraq, to my way of thinking and to most of my friends as well, he should be up with the others on war crimes,not receiving a medal from the Queen, but this will never happen. I really do wonder how these people sleep at night when so many have been killed in their name and doing.

Ojnab writes

'I really do think every one forgets the atrocities that were the lot of the Aborigines with the British invaders, when they came to Australian shores, if only writers would remember this, we are only too happy to condemn other nations as to what they are doing regarding other countries'

I really do think that every one forgets the atrocities that aboriginals did to each other and are still doing despite white man's presence.

The fact that Mr Howard did something to save some kids is to his credit despite the dogma of the left that claims compassion but shows little.

Saltpetre: I agree with your summation of Indonesia. For far too long successive Australian governments, Labor and Liberal, have hitched Australia's foreign policy to the American horse as demonstrated by our involvement in Iraq ans Afghanistan. I am not a supporter of ANZUS as it puts Australia (and New Zealand) very much in a subservient roll to the US. While we are looking at the World picture things are happening on our own doorstep which often are being neglected. Unfortunately our neighborhood is not all palm trees and white sandy beaches there are problems, some of the poorest people in the World live in our neighborhood. Australia should show leadership in our region.
Ojnab: What can I say on the subject of Aboriginal Australia, the white man has failed our indigenous people from the first day we arrived. There have been many wrongs done and there have been many good intentions, most have failed. On the political side I would like to see the Aboriginal people be given seats in Parliament, giving them a stronger voice, I know this idea wont go down well with our conservative friends, Howard couldn't even make the token gesture of saying 'sorry'. W need to do a hell of a lot more for Aboriginal Australia but not on our terms but on their terms.

<<I really do think that every one forgets the atrocities that aboriginals did to each other and are still doing despite white man's presence>>

Yes indeed, Runner, well said.

<<Aboriginal elders have blamed Facebook and social networking sites for a rise in "blood feuds" between warring clans>>

http://www.news.com.au/technology/indigenous-leaders-want-to-ban-or-censor-social-media-including-facebook/story-e6frfro0-1226237850730

I would daresay that Aboriginal vs Aboriginal atrocities are not much covered at *Centres for Peace and Conflict Studies*--unless it be by way of sheeting the blame to whitey.

runner and SPQR, How fortunate for the Aboriginal people that Europeans arrived when they did. For 40,000 years the Indigenous were committing unspeakable atrocities against each other, no doubt often alcohol fueled acts of barbarism, caused by the social alienation that existed at the time. By 1788 Australia was unoccupied 'terra nullius'. The people that existed here had no claim to the land, they were not farming it, nor developing it in any way, it was there for the taking, and Europeans took it, just as they took indigenous lands everywhere. How ungrateful have the Aboriginal people been towards the European. Even considering Aboriginals were not God fearing Christians, they weren't even white, yet the European was quite prepared to make them citizens, alas it would be third class, but citizens never the less. Europeans were prepared to 'educate' these people, the girls would make fine domestic servants in the white mans house, and the boys excellent farm labour. Did the Aboriginal show gratitude for the Europeans generosity, no way, look at them now, its all their fault!

Oh yes Paul it must have been wedded bliss for those young girls with their uncles, the barbaric rituals and the pay back system. To bad for the deformed children getting beaten over their heads. I am sure they would choose to go back to that rather than join the rest of the world. I suggest you read more than the bits of dogma you choose.

KenH I agree the majority of Pollies are conscientious, sadly there are some who are not.
BTW I am very active in the political arena, and I wish you well also!!

runner, your line of argument against the cruelty of the European towards the indigenous people of Australia I don't understand.
You say "it must have been wedded bliss for those young girls with their uncles, the barbaric rituals and the pay back system. To bad for the deformed children getting beaten over their heads." If we are to accept the above as common practice before white settlement how does this justify the treatment of the Aboriginal people by the European for the past 223 years.

What a lot of anger here!

I must say I was amused at the Queens award to Howard, and saw it merely as a poor consolation prize for a soundly defeated ex PM.

He was not made the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports though, was he?

Nor blessed with the Order of the Thistle?

No hint of a small cottage in Kent flowing his way, even though he seemes to hanker for the Ming style.

No, this was a very lowly prize indeed, compared to Ming's booty.

It does, however, raise again the issue of our low status here in Australia, still hanging around as an appendage of the not-so-Great Britain.

For instance, I was listening today to RN, a modest discussion concerning the changes to 'our' Australian Constitution.

Blow me down, it's not even 'ours'.

It seems it will be hard to add, or subtract, anything in relation to the recognition of Indigenous peoples because 'our' Constitution is, in reality, a part of an English Act, and we would have to ask them to change that before/at the same time as we change 'ours' here.

Frankly, that is of more concern than a clapped out ex PM getting a jamboree bag prize from some ageing queen.

Finally, it is worth noting here that Keating seems to be the only PM of honour, eschewing any such frippery as a mock knighthood from the state as he continues to decline to accept an OA: or is it an AO?

The other PMs have all grabbed whatever prizes came their way, not content with being paid to do the job they self-selected themselves for.

For those who despised the Howard era, and even the man, this prize confirms him and his era as wearing the fagend of Empire, as old men wear their dandruff on their backs.

Never mind that other political charlatan and his association with this phrase, but, 'it's time' for a new Australia, a Republic of Australia, cut free from queens, princes and the not-so Great British public, not to mention being freed from all religions too.

KenH,"he offers nothing as a solution for the daily mass murders perpetrated by the Saddam regime"
Better to have international troops killing civilians than Saddam. They do the right sort of murder and torture....is that what you're saying, Ken?

Blue Cross I agree with you in what you say in your Post, very well said.

Pual you write

'runner, your line of argument against the cruelty of the European towards the indigenous people of Australia I don't understand. '

I don't have a line against the cruelty of the European people. It was your sarcastic post that referred this this subject. I like thousands of others am sick of the one eyed view of history which allow an excuse for the appalling behaviour of many aboriginals today. Many of those who have travelled from overseas have not been given everything on a platter and yet you don't see their youth bashing people in their 80's and 90's, stealing consistently and then whinging they are over represented in prisons.

Its typical of many with their innate prejudice against Aboriginal people that they firstly stereotype, the lazy drunken layer-about who is given everything, nothing but a criminal who does little but whinge and make demands, felling sorry for them self. This stereotyping is then reinforced by referring to such groups as the 'silent majority' or some such reference saying the majority agree with me. Then they point to a group they consider virtuous saying look at these good people. There is nothing new in this type of attitude, its been seen the World over. White America cast the negro in very much the same light. When a people are marginalised, some will act as per the stereotype, but others will fight to better themselves and their people. Many are quick to blame the victim and if you only want to see the bad side then that's all you will see. In that way those that harbor these prejudgements will feel fully justified with their attitude.

strange the response one gets when the truth is told.

Runner you say "of those who have travelled from overseas have not been given everything on a platter and yet you don't see their youth bashing people in their 80's and 90'"
Runner let me say Ivan Milat the infamous Backpacker killer was the son "of those who have traveled from overseas". I see one of theirs doing far worse than "bashing people in their 80's or 90's." Should we now stereotype MANY sons of immigrants as serial killers? Of all the serial killers in Australian jails what percentage are 'sons of immigrants' I don't know but I'll assume the majority. This about Milat is all nonsense but what you say about Aboriginal people is so RIGHT!

Didnt know Julia and Bob had so many fans.The tall poppy thinking is still alive and well. of course the Satan worshipers will always be there. But we do have something in common, most of us dislike the Royals, and the poms and the class system that is very much British.

Paul1405,

I suggest you have a chat with the Police Commissxioner of WA. Denial might be bliss but you only add to the problems with your blindness.

Runner what would I learn from the number one European law enforcement officer of Western Australia? His expertise is the enforcement of white mans law, a career cop no less. I don't think he is a social expert on the plight of the Aboriginal people of (Western) Australia. I would hardly hold up anything to do with Western Australia as a shining light of successful government policy towards our indigenous people.
I think considering the treatment of Aboriginals by Europeans for the past two centuries in Australia its remarkable that they are not all in the Europeans jail.

It's a very long way from a gong for a former PM; to the invasion of Australia by whites? Most of who, who arrived in chains; and, only after enduring one of the longest and most dangerous sea voyages, with many arriving in body bags or simply jettisoned at sea; after succumbing to the terrible rigours of enforced transportation.
My Irish and Scottish ancestors had no love for the English or their invading armies!
One can't justify history; or indeed, hold anyone to account living today; for any part of it!
My Tasmanian forbears have their own oral history, which tells of a time around 12-14,000 years ago, when a mini ice age lowered the sea level and allowed northern aggressors to invade; replete with fire stick, hunting dogs and murderous intent.
They drove the first Australians; peaceful fisher folk in the main, before them like chaff before the wind! Murdering the men and raping and enslaving womenfolk; and their children, which keep the women compliant!
The few who survived; only did so by undertaking an incredibly perilous journey on/in rafts or canoes; from mainland Australia to Tassie.
There is archival records and an oral history; that tell of routine infanticide and marriage ceremonials; that were little more than brutal rape, which perpetuated an ingrained custom of treating women like mere bagatelle or property.
I'm really tired of people bemoaning history or the fact that some better armed and equipped interloper dispossessed them of land they took from others?
Get over it! All the participants are mouldering in their graves! And stop using it as a very worn out miserable excuse for inexcusable behaviour; and or, an over representative prison population!

Rhrosty, I don't know where you get your 'history' from. You say in reference to migrants "most of whom arrived in chains" of all the migrants to Australia, transportation of convicts accounted for only 160,000 between 1788 and 1868. The gold rush period of 1850-60 alone saw no less than 500,000 new arrivals. The vast majority of migrants to Australia arrived post WWII, none of whom arrived in chains. Consequently today about 6,000,000 people living here were born overseas. The rest of your post with its references to 'archival records' and 'oral history' of 12 to 14,000 years ago etc is just as fanciful as your slant on migration. Then you go on about the 'strong conquer the weak stuff' as if that is the natural way of things. Even if every claim you make was to be true, none of what you say will ever justify the Europeans genocide against Indigenous Australia.