John Howard didn't exclude all the minority groups,he just put them on level pegging with the rest of society,and guess what,the likes of Gavin Mooney don't enjoy their soap boxes be snatched from their bosoms.It is so easy in the rarified environs of academia,where theory and hypothisis fit so well into your untested sacred vision of your ideal world.If only that reality beast would stop poking his ugly head up,they too might aspire to being Prime Minister one day.

John Howard is far from perfect,but he is light years ahead of the lamentable alternatives.He has just echoed what most sensible hardworking Australians have been feeling for a long time,and the minorities are feeling a little left out.As "the Usual Suspect" said,
"that's democracy."

<<"Religious vilification is illegal, and quite rightly so.">>

Quite "rightly so", huh? I'm interested, based on what standard of right and wrong do you conclude that?

To get back to the topic of the book.... it was not about vilifying Christians, but raises the issues, that Howard is 'using' the Religous right for political purposes, and that there is a real danger in this if it allows the 'Religous right' to have political power.

I have not read the book but I heard an interview with the author and a telling point she made was that Howards website now tells us that he was once a Sunday School teacher. This item has only recently been added to his list of accomplishments.

Cynical and opportunistic? Well that's how I see our Prime Minister and although I think he will do anything for a vote or two, I suspect that his flirtation with the 'religous right' is not a deep and meaningful relationship.

Howard has pandered to plenty of minority groups. The voters of the likes of One Nation and Families First come to mind. Other minority groups could include the Business Council of Australia and the Aged Care Industry. The Business Council of Australia says "jump" and John Howard asks "how high?"

In regard to supporting the full agenda of Christian fundamentalists (that is if they have a single agenda), it is unlikely that the current government will do anything of the sort. As we've seen with the "abortion debate", the likes of Tony Abbott risked the opposition of conservative women inside and outside the parliament. Howard himself seems unlikely to actually do much regarding abortion, homosexuality and other "hot button" issues that are important to the Christian far right. After all, votes are more important than moral principles for the Coalition.

More likely, Howard will do what Ronald Reagan did (probably even more muted - this is Australia after all). That is, mouth Christian rhetoric from time to time but deliver virtually nothing.

In reply to 'Brazuca':

I think that it is quite right that vilification of any kind is proscribed under our laws. That opinion is derived from my thorough enculturation in Australian society, which incorporates my general accordance with its values and social mores, including notions derived from the plethora of historical and cultural traditions from which our society arose.

From this perspective, I applaud the elected Victorian parliament's legislation against vilification, and approve of the Victorian judiciary's apparent willingness to apply the legislation.

As some have commented above, "that's democracy". :)

In reply to "garra", are your views based on an objective standard of right and wrong or on a subjective standard of right and wrong?