Dear Graham,

The following link might be of some help:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/john-howard-pays-price-of-political-past/story-e6frg7t6-1225886427641

Graham, I refer you to the Tampa issue in 2001 and John Howard, the then PM, personal intervention in making the decision not to accept 434 mostly Afghan refugees, despite Australia being a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and therefore obligated to accept such people, would his decision have been different if it involved 434 white South Africans. I believe any fair minded person would say Howard would have welcomed them with open arms. Australia tried to blackmail the Tampa's Captain into returning to international water, Australian medical personnel who boarded the ship were under orders not to give any treatment to the refugees unless the ship returned to international waters. I can only assume that Howard had full knowledge of those orders and had approved them.
The Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg criticised Australia for refusing entry to the ship. Stoltenberg said "One cannot force a ship which the captain deems unfit to sail into international waters. The Australian Prime Minister does not agree with me,"
A link to ABC news with a July 2013 update on the Tampa issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-07/former-sas-commander-breaks-silence-on-tampa/2785164

I cannot provide you with a link to this, only personal knowledge, but in the days of the White Springbok's rugby tour of Australia and just prior to Howard's election to Parliament, he was seen as one of the younger conservatives supporting the white only rugby tour.

"hope you're not going to defend Mugabe", Graham why would I do that, the man is now seen as an obscenity, and a racists.

@ Foxy,
<<Dear Graham,The following link might be of some help>>
You know, I am sure that if I ventured into the library where you worked/used to work and asked for book on motor vehicle repairs you'd hand me a book on knitting and say "This might be of some help"!

@ Paul,
Whhooooee! One has to be a reallly special person to be a Green. You need a capacity to conflate two of three or four entirely different issues- for example if someone is taking about apartheid in South Africa you must able to divert the discussion to illegal immigration in the Timor sea. And, just as importantly, you need to the capacity to ignore 9/10's of any issue and only perceive the remaining 1/10 which is compatible with your party's lies.

Where did you get your briefing on the TAMPA from --comic books that were lying around the Greens party room?

SPQR, I offered evidence that Howard demonstrated a bias on the grounds of race, not necessarily that he supported apartheid, although Graham did ask; "And can you please direct me to evidence of your assertion that John Howard supported apartheid?" I did not make that assertion, what I said was, quote; "You know very well John Howard is a racists."
I do think Howard's support for a rugby tour be white South Africans could have been construed as approval of the regime. Nothing that Howard did subsequently changed my opinion of him, in fact it tended to reinforce it.
Often when events overtake one, and public opinion solidly moves in the other direction, its not uncommon for some, particularly politicians, to deny that they ever held contrary opinions, or simply say nothing.
Is there any evidence that would paint Howard in a favorable light on the question of race/apartheid, I don't think so.

Paul1405. You have no evidence and you should have just admitted that. If Howard was pro-Apartheid someone would have something on the record - he's not a man who's been backward in putting his point of view.

Lexi, that article does not support the contention either. I'm generally against sanctions, but I was always against South African apartheid, but on your logic if you are against sanctions that makes you pro-the regime being sanctioned. On that logic I'm in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons because I don't think those sanctions are effective either.

i..rekon..its easy solved
did john winstone,..how-hard..attend the funeral?

so..i..pop the question..into the box
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=howard+mandel

clearly..his idols..had no time for terrorists

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/lesson-to-be-learnt-from-nelson-mandela-the-terrorist-who-became-a-president/story-fni0fha6-1226777456785

i was going to quote..but
i only read a bit..because the page redirects
i back-paged..three times..[but the page keeps re-directing]

but..the brief..onthe search result..was clear
ijust didnt get to see..it yet..to quote it..let alone source..it

but cats chase dogs
so..dogs chase cats

i like john...he..didnt pretend
so im fairly sure..he didnt

[but that dont mean/much..bob hawke didnt go either?]
nor john kerry
http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-palestinians-accuse-kerry-of-appeasing-israel-over-iran-at-their-expense/1806433.html?
nor the pope[but he had a good excuse]
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/30/pope-francis-denotes-christianity-as-an-illness/

nor did..israel

Netanyahu has decided not to attend a memorial service
for Nelson Mandela this week because it is too expensive
http://12160.info/page/netanyahu-has-decided-not-to-attend-a-memorial-service-for-nelson

but we know why..
[the linkage..of govt oppression..with palisteinians]

its not just the oil

http://12160.info/forum/topics/breaking-news-3-5-billion-barrels-of-oil-found-between-israel-s

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/12/israeli-government-secretly-pays-for-pro-israel-twitter-propaganda-2457042.html