Submission: Why Australia should introduce a formal citizenship test

                The following rationale for supporting the introduction of a citizenship test stresses that the chief reason for the discussion and debate has been the recent crisis of loyalty to Australia and Australian values displayed in the context of international hostilities associated with what is commonly described as Islamic extremism and terrorism.

                I would point out that it is counterproductive to fail to focus on this as the primary matter of relevance, and that to become enmeshed in other complex ethical issues regarding multiculturalism and universal values would endanger the usefulness of the exercise.

             While it may be true that the past lack of a citizenship test is an oversight that should be addressed, it should also be acknowledged that there would be no impetus to introduce one now if it were not for the problem of the above-mentioned crisis of loyalty. That is, while immigrants from many countries have been coming to Australia without a citizenship test for more than two centuries, it is only the fact that there is a looming crisis involving a threat to the future preservation of Australia 's freedom, values and lifestyle that this discussion is being held.

                                    ******************************************

           It is clearly perceived throughout the West that there is a hostile campaign being waged against it by people from many nations who describe themselves as Muslims and who openly profess to aspire to the goal of introducing sharia law throughout the world. Sharia law is law that is based on the Islamic scriptures of the Koran. Many high-level international debates have been held regarding the compatibility of sharia law with democracy, and it is the overwhelming consensus both within and without the ranks of supporters of sharia that it is not compatible with Western democracy. By way of qualification, Western democracy is founded on traditions and values originating in a Judeo-Christian worldview.

          Briefly, some aspects of sharia law that are incompatible with Western societies, and thus with Australian society, will now be touched upon. The sharia laws impinge upon a range of areas of human life. These include religious freedoms (the freedom to change religion, such as to convert to Christianity), freedom of speech (such as the freedom to critique negatively the Islamic religion and, by inference, to scrutinise its founder Muhammed), and punishments for various moral and social behaviours. 

     That which should be first highlighted is freedom of speech. The sharia law makes it illegal to criticise Muhammed, and this includes the critiquing of the Koran in any way that would represent a scrutiny of Muhammed. This is diametrically at odds with Australian values for two reasons.

                [i.] First, it is diametrically at odds with Australian values because of the quintessentiality of Judeo-Christian values to Australia 's way of life. Much of the law of the land derives historically from Biblical principles. For example, the principle of the "benefit of the doubt", the equal value of every human's testimony, and the necessity of the requirement of witnesses as proof. Far more importantly, many Australians, whether nominally or in a more committed sense, identify themselves as Christians or of Christian heritage.

          The doctrine of Christianity is based on its canon of scripture, the Bible. Whether most people hold the Bible to be the inspired word of God, or simply to be a body of scripture that contains certain values, Australians respect the Bible and the values therein. It is plainly evident that the content of the Koran differs from the Bible not only by virtue of contradictory renderings of ancient stories, but in diversely contrasting values. Most importantly, the Koran decries many of the most essential values of the Bible.

          Without doubt, from a Biblical perspective, the Koranic teachings are blasphemous. In previous ages such blasphemy would have been either duly punishable or universally disapproved of in a Christian society. While Australian and Western society has progressed in its tolerance from such times, it should be understood that the Bible continues to be respected by many. Likewise, the Christian clergy who follow and uphold Biblical teachings are themselves respected by many. 

         The support for a sharia law which would protect from scrutiny and criticism a religious figure whose own teachings constitute, unequivocally, blasphemy and contempt for the Christian faith, is a matter of pure contempt and belligerence towards Australia's traditional foundation and most preeminent faith.

           In order for there to be religious freedom in Australia , that freedom needs to validly protect the freedom of the core and central beliefs of the nation and the foundational faith of the nation. Any law that pretends to protect faith in Australia but at the same time restricts the freedom of Christians to profess their faith and engage in private and public dialogue with regard to that profession is actually only a shamful mechanism that restricts freedom of religion. The final corollary of this is that Christianity must preserve its right to respond to the blasphemous statements levelled against it by others.

                [ii.] Second, it is diametrically at odds with Australian values because freedom of speech is regarded as essential to freedom of religious conscience as well as to freedom of political opinion. This value was developed long before the colonisation of Australia and was introduced to Australia by the settlers, and was a foundational tenet of the fathers of the nation. It remained an essential and universally prized value to the generation of our current living fathers and continues to be valued by a rising younger generation of Australians.

               This freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom to appraise and critique all religions, whether in a positive or negative light. The freedom of speech that permits the critiquing of religious and cultural ideas is an Australian value that overrules and cannot be governed by concerns about the perceived offensiveness of criticism.

               Criticism should be assumed to be well-intentioned, regardless of its accuracy, and aimed at producing voluntary improvement. Criticism never implies, suggests or encourages violence. To the contrary, free expression of opinion and criticism is cathartic and promotes engagement between parties in debate and dialogue. Repression of this freedom of speech, rather than freedom of speech, is likely to foster hostility and violence. Wherever in society there happens to be violent hostility by threat or incitement, these should be regarded as phenomena that are distinct from, and not to be confused with, criticism.

           Clearly, freedom of speech itself must have limits, and these limits are already in effect through various laws of the land (for example, the illegality of incitement to violence). For this reason, the criticism of religious ideas must not be confused with the matter of incitement to violence.

           In any confrontation between the right to criticise and the right not to be offended, it is the latter which must give way. Freedom from being offended is not an Australian right, it is not an Australian value, and it is not a Western value. A good and free society is one where people whose ideas are offensive to one another "agree to disagree" and still live and work together while not attempting to restrict the others' right to express their supposedly offensive opinions.

            The impetus to stifle criticism is an understandable and natural, but nonetheless weak, characteristic, whether of individuals, groups, organisations or governments. The stifling of criticism has always been the trademark of despotic leaders and regimes throughout history.

            It is important to recognise that efforts to introduce legislation that would hamper the freedom to critique religious ideologies in Australia have originated in the need to cater for the values of certain individuals who have come to Australia as migrants, and who have found that this Australian value is incompatible with their own. While it is natural that bodies charged with promoting the rights of minority groups, such as recent immigrants, can be expected to champion such values, Australians must see the great danger in this of introducing a foreign and irreconcilable value that is not only odious to Australians but severely anachronistic.

             Australians drafting a citizenship test need to keep in mind the above, when recognising the importance of not allowing the corpus of self-germinated multicultural ideas to be taken so far as to compromise the security and the integrity of this most supreme of all Australian values.

              The most widespread value system in the world today that is antithetical to, and pernicious towards, the spirit of the West and of Australia alike, is found in the promoters of sharia law.

             The first aspect of sharia which its proponents attempt to introduce in a Western context is the prohibition of the criticism of Islam. This sharia principle in itself may appear to the observer as a relatively benign catering to the sensitivities of a traumatised minority group, and thus a good means to reduce "alienation" of an ethnic group. However the impact of such a law, wherever it is enforced (overtly or indirectly through such legislation as vilification laws), is to eliminate freedom of religious conscience.

             The implications of this are catastrophic enough in the loss of a fundamental right that has characterised the West for centuries. The ongoing ramifications are incalculably more devastating, since the juggernaut of sharia ambition is then free to operate without criticism under the protection of the first law.

            Another aspect of sharia law is the prohibition of conversion from Islam. This means that once a person adopts the Muslim faith, if they choose to renounce that faith and follow a different faith, such as Christianity or Buddhism, it is regarded as apostasy. While the proponents of sharia law may not advocate the death penalty, it is nonetheless incompatible with Australian values that such a constraint should be allowed to be placed upon citizens. There is also the real danger that persons who commit "apostasy" in Australia may be in danger if they travel overseas.

           It is superfluous to continue with further examples of incompatibilities between sharia law and Australian values. In summary, it can be said that while sharia law contains some moral ideas similar to most other religions of the world, those values in which it differs from the Judeo-Christian values are quite at odds with that which most Western religious and spiritual leaders call godliness, holiness or spirituality. These contrasting elements of sharia law are likewise grossly at odds with what the ethicists of the West call virtue, altruism, respect of fellow human beings, and good citizenship. 

           Moving on, then, from having pointed out the irreconcilability of sharia law with Australia 's interests, and defining for the purposes of this submission, "incompatible values", it is necessary to turn attention to where this becomes relevant to immigration and a citizenship test.

          The contempt with which most promoters of sharia law regard Western democracy and Judeo-Christian values and heritage is evident within the content of their statements, declarations, articles, popular themes and slogans, and by the approach taken towards key issues by their leaders and public spokespersons. However it is a commonly held misconception that promoters of sharia are extremists, or fundamentalist, or violent.

            In fact the majority of sharia law proponents are understood to be moderate. They advocate tolerance, and are critical of terrorism and other violent activity. In many cases they are also relatively liberal in moral values, contrary to the notion that sharia supporters should be fundamentalist.

           It is important, then, to clearly understand that the promotion of sharia and the dismantling of Western democracy is not only a radical and violent activity but often a campaign primarily undertaken through peaceful means. The attempt at the promotion of sharia law in such as Australia occurs mostly through dialogue and the effecting of legal changes through the opportunities that avail in the political process. In effect, those promoting the destruction of Western Democracy do so utilising the freedoms and political empowerment that Western Democracy gives to them.

            Notwithstanding this, violent terrorists and other militants who promote sharia law also exist, and also have the objective of influencing Western societies to adopt sharia law. While the majority of peaceful sharia supporters do not endorse this violence, they are implicated by virtue of the fact that (1) they themselves are exempt as targets of the extremism and violence, and (2) their own objectives are also furthered by the activities of the terrorists. Thus the objective of the destruction of Western democracy is equally promoted by both the peaceful sharia supporter and the terrorist. Both through diversely contrasting methodologies work towards the same goal.

           Whether it is through peace and dialogue or through terrorism, the goal of sharia law is one which the vast majority of Australians who are cognisant of it manifestly reject. It should go without saying that the underpinnings of Australia 's mainstream culture, its current constitution and its religious and spiritual heritage are Judeo-Christian. As such, sharia law by its inherent characteristics is hostile, incompatible and irreconcilable with Australian culture, law and values.

         The above has been a lengthy preface to the rationale for supporting a citizenship test in Australia . The essence of that rationale is that to the degree that it can be found that people entering Australia as migrants (or as visitors, as will be addressed in the respective section below) may have as an agenda the introduction of sharia law to Australia, this is not in Australia's interests. A citizenship test should be one that achieves some beneficial objective in regard to the challenges presented in having many people wishing to migrate to Australia who have such an agenda.

            These objectives could include:

a. Enhancing the awareness of all people, including people who are already Australian citizens, of the distinction between Australian values and the principles of sharia law, and the incompatibility between them.

b.  Helping to identify applicants for citizenship who have values that are incompatible with Australian values, so that their applications can be more appropriately evaluated.

c.    Eliminating or minimising the migration to Australia of people who have the desire to    promote sharia law.

Question 2

How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?

       The Citizenship Task Force needs to prioritise its focus to the relevant issues in order to fulfil the goals of creating a citizenship test. Such a test has not been required in the past because the values of most immigrants were not incompatible nor irreconcilable with Australian values. It is only a minority of immigrants who have such Incompatible Values and the citizenship test should focus on these, rather than attempting to achieve various other goals which do not represent the matters which in recent history have inspired widespread call for the scrutinisation of immigrants.

       It is doubtful whether "incompatible values" can be eliminated by or in any way influenced by any sort of immigration test. Therefore the value of "knowledge of Australia " is questionable if this proves to be irrelevant to the value system of the immigrant.

        The fact will invariably be that many immigrants who know very little about Australia have the potential to be very good citizens and to be of immediate benefit to Australia, by virtue of their good character, honesty, aversion to being unnecessarily dependent on the welfare system, and genuine hard-workingness. Other new citizens who know a great deal about Australia may well prove to be committed to Australia 's detriment, and may bring about an unfathomable cost to the Australian community.

        The knowledge of Australia in this light is only important if it can genuinely address these values. To some degree an understanding of the history and development of Australia 's values would increase the likelihood that the applicant had an appreciation of those values. By the same token, politically motivated persons are often well studied in the value system of that society which they wish to influence, and so the question of the value of this familiarity with Australia remains moot.

        On the whole, it is more likely that having a good knowledge of Australia reflects compatibility with Australia . It is likely that many persons who have values incompatible with Australian values will prove to have been sheltered from a broad education and from exposure to a variety of views and values. In societies isolated from the West it may be possible that people have values that are against Australia 's interests. A testing on knowledge of Australia could be used to identify and highlight the fact that the applicant has been very sheltered from Western ideas and therefore may have values that are incompatible.

Question 5

What form should a commitment to Australian values take?

          A commitment to Australian values could take the form of an elaborate and specific commitment to individual principles, such as that of free speech. The following is an example of what how a part of such a commitment could appear:

 UNDERTAKING:

     I undertake that I will promote the Australian value of free speech in all circumstances, both when in Australia and if visiting abroad, and that I will not be inconsistent in this promotion and endorsement; nor will I change my behaviour and express contrary views in certain circumstances or at other times.

   I undertake that I will not endorse or promote or teach the practice of a contrary view to this value of free speech, including in regard to religion, nor to do anything or take part in any activity that promotes or encourages a contrary approach to this value of free speech.

    I accept that if I or others whom I represent feel unhappy or insulted by the criticism of my religion or values or someone else's religion or values, that this is not something that I can consider a personal insult to myself, but I accept this as a part of living in a free society with freedom of speech.

Signed, etc.  17 Nov. 2006 .