Ugly
Posted by James Farrell on Wednesday, May 28, 2008
‘One of my closest friends is Turkish, and she won’t have anything to do with Muslims, OK?’ |
Camden Council has finally voted on the Quranic Society’s development application, and has unanimously voted against it. We now have to wait and see whether the applicants will appeal, and if so there will be another long wait for the outcome.
I’ve already tried to carve out a position on all this, so I’ll just summarise where I stand.
1. I wish we didn’t have religious schools at all. Some forms of religion are harmless, and indeed almost indistinguishable from humanism, in stressing contemplation, love of others and so on. But to the extent that religion demands and rationalises blind adherence to arbitrary doctrines, it’s antithetical to liberal values and it perpetuates tribalism and bigotry. Only the latter kind of religion has any need for its own schools, as instruments of indoctrination.
2. The interests of secular liberalism will not be served by blocking this or that Islamic school. Enlightenment is a long process, and is prone to setbacks as instanced by the resurgence of religious dogma in some middle eastern countries, including Israel, and in the US. But, given the right conditions, it marches on. Among those conditions are cosmopolitanism, freedom of expression (including religion) and social tolerance. None of the above are enhanced when pig-ignorant, Hansonite would-be patriots like Kate McCulloch, are seen to get their way. If migrant groups perceive our planning processes to be captive to that kind of stupidity, it will be no wonder that they feel alienated and maligned, nor any wonder if they turn inward, seek consolation in tribal bonds, and frame their grievances in terms of theological struggle.
3. Only an expert on town planning will be able to judge whether the council had good grounds to reject the application. Especially in the light of the Wollongong capers, we have reason to distrust local government processes. But if there is an appeal, I think we can assume that the proposal will be decided on its merits.
4. Notwithstanding my dislike of religious schools, I hope that there is an appeal, and that Camden Council’s decision is overturned. In the short term, if we are to remain a liberal and tolerant society, we are going to have more Islamic schools rather than less. It will not prove possible to obstruct them all on planning grounds. But blocking Camden will just move the battle ground somewhere else; and the Camden protesters’ ugly tactics, having apparently worked, will lend legitimacy to more of the same.
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 10:35 AM and filed under Blogging - general, Politics - national, Religion, Society.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
I suspect that a big part of local objection to this development is that this proposed school is being parachuted into an area that has basicly no Muslim community at all.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 11:32 am | PermalinkFrankly I find that your forth point is in contradiction to your previous three if the Koranic society want to build their school why not chose a site closer to the places that followers of this faith live?
What had me baffled, when I read this SMH report this morning, was how anyone could call the council decision a ‘victory for decency’:
Maybe my bafflement is because I clicked through the link in the e-mail alert thinking it was going to be another story about the Henson thing.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 11:57 am | PermalinkClose to where they live? You mean those “ghettos” they used to get accused of living in? Have you checked out how much it costs to buy tracts of land in those areas, tracts of land large enough to build multiple classrooms and still have room left over for sporting fields?
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:00 pm | PermalinkFollowing on from point 3, while I agree that it is entirely possible that the Council decided against the proposal on legitimate planning and development grounds (and I do not have the expertise to argue otherwise), at no point in this saga have I seen any member of Camden Council condemn the bigotry and ignorant fear-mongering that exists within their community. It would be nice if at least one of them would have the decency to stand up and tell the ignorant Islamophobes cheering their decision that, while they may agree with Council on the outcome, their reasons for agreeing are abhorrent.
Regarding Iain’s comment - the “followers of this faith” have children, and those children grow up and need to find their own place to live. Camden is on the southwestern outskirts of Sydney. For young Muslims who might have grown up in the greater southwest (e.g., in Lakemba and other suburbs), chances are their best option for affording to buy a home, remaining close to their family, and not having to change jobs is going to be buying or building in the new developments slightly further from Sydney, i.e., in the vicinity of Camden. The Muslim community is continuing to expand, just like the rest of Sydney.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:01 pm | Permalink[...] observes that our local media pussyfoots around issues to do with Islamophobia. More on this at Club Troppo as well. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The honest truthAustralia winsAs the dust [...]
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:03 pm | PermalinkI actually really love that quote. The people behind the school latched onto the move away from public schools by the aspirational middle class and proposed to build a parochial school to facilitate it. They were so willing to accept our way of life they thought parents would be willing to send their kids on hour long commutes to and from school to get an education, and presumably not end up on welfare.
Yes. I adore that quote. A not insignificant chunk of the opposition in Camden were damned by their own words.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:04 pm | PermalinkAs to comments 3 and 4 - Camden is a relatively pricey area, and is not yet contigious to the rest of western Sydney suburbia. It is not therefore your stereotypical boondocks dumping ground. It probably would be more viable for the Islamic community to acquire property in the Canterbury-Bankstown area.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:08 pm | PermalinkI found the “take our welfare quote” quote amusing too. However, I read it in a different way. I read it as if the assumption was that being on welfare was the norm for white(-trash) Australia and if more “non-Australians” go on welfare too, there won’t be enough to go around.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:21 pm | PermalinkIt might be relatively pricey, but it has suitable tracts of land. Suitable tracts of land in Bankstown and surrounds are basically unobtainable. I suppose they could buy Bankstown Airport and shut it down.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:21 pm | PermalinkI agree with glimae - and while it may not be contiguous, it’s easily accessible from Campbelltown and surrounding suburbs, where residential property is about as cheap as you could find.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:34 pm | PermalinkDid anyone watch Insight on SBS last night? It was on the issue of faith based schools - very interesting.
I am an agnostic. I attended a mildly religious school for part of high school, and managed to sleep through the chapel services, such that I didn’t realise that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God until I was 25. (I think I just turned on an automatic “off” switch when religion was mentioned).
I would not want to send my daughter to a strongly religious school (well, we don’t have a faith anyway). I wouldn’t send her to an atheist school, for that matter. I want her to make up her own mind. However, I can understand why someone from a minority religion may wish to send their child to a school where that religion is understood and the values of that religion are taught. My only concern is that all faith based schools adhere to certain minimum standards.
Incidentally, I asked a Muslim friend what she thought of Islamic schools. She laughed (she’s South African originally) and said that the only “coloured” school near when she lived in South Africa was a Christian one, so she got taught Christian values at school and Muslim values at home. She said she thought it was good for her…she got a different viewpoint…
Posted on 28-May-08 at 12:48 pm | PermalinkThere is a great tendency, that only those of us who live in what used to be the rural fringes around the the major cities really understand, of people who come into an area to then object to the things that the locals have legally done for years.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 1:07 pm | PermalinkI suppose the ho-hah about live music in Fortitude Valley (Brisbane) upsetting new residents in nearby developments is a good example for the more city focused.
Another thing to consider is that this school would in all likely hood seek an exemption on paying rates (on the basis that it is a religious institution) yet it would expect services from the Council like water sewerage and rubbish collection.
You mean, like every other religious body in existence?
That’s an argument against tax breaks for religion, not this particular school.
It’s also not an argument that would hold up on appeal, as it’s stupid.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 1:19 pm | Permalink9 and 10 - then the silly sods should have bought the land they wanted in the Campbelltown area, not Camden which is manifestly trying to brand itself on its heritage and rural qualities. And they should only have entered the contract to buy the land on the basis that it was conditional upon the grant of the DA. The whole idea was daft from the get go.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 1:40 pm | Permalink“yet it would expect services from the Council like water sewerage and rubbish collection.”
When I lived in Sydney water and sewerage were provided by the Water Board (now Sydney Water) not local councils. The argument is spurious on that ground and for the reasons others have mentioned (e.g. #13).
As for the argument that they should have bought land at Campbelltown rather than Camden, that appears to be an argument that it’s OK to inflict something undesirable on the rural working class but not on the self-appointed rural residential squattocracy of Camden. I can’t help wondering whether the apologists on this thread realise just how repulsively xenophobic their pathetic attempts at justification look to anyone other than a fellow xenophobe (noting that Islam is not a race so we can’t call it racism). In any event, Camden is immediately adjacent to Campbelltown and not meaningfully further away from the nearer south-western suburbs where a lot of Islamic Australians live. This is just a bullshit argument whatever way you look at it. Since when has any other religion been required to build its schools immediately adjacent to suburbs where the highest proportion of its adherents/prospective students live (even if they could find large amounts of vacant land there, which as gilmae points out they couldn’t)? If that was a valid point, every single GPS school would be on the north shore or eastern suburbs. So much for Newington, Kings, Joeys etc. Let’s compulsorily resume them now!
Posted on 28-May-08 at 1:52 pm | PermalinkAs a Queenslander I am uncertain about the precise arrangements with regard to different aspects of infrastructure in NSW but when you have what is a large draw on resources (1200 students + staff) parachuted into a shire that is a big impost on ratepayers who will never use the facilities no matter what brand the religion is.I would still argue that it is the right of the people who actually live there to object to ANY development that will affect the place they live in.
Ken it was probably a Freudian slip, but I find it amusing that you characterise the development as “undesirable”
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:08 pm | PermalinkBy allah there were some ugly people among those protesters. I particularly liked the one who said he was opposed to the school because “my kids cant speak Islamic and they’d have to learn it”, and also the one who condescended to admit “some Muslims are moderate” but went on to say “better safe than sorry”.
And yeah, if those councillors had any guts at all they’d stand up and denounce this bigotry and make it clear that hard working law abiding Ausralians of whatever background are welcome in their community. That they didn’t leads you to suspect that the decision was indeed not kosher (or should that be hallal?).
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:19 pm | PermalinkIain
Clearly those arguing against the school find it “undesirable”. It’s the plausibility or otherwise of their (and your) sundry attempts at justification that we’re debating. Hence using that label isn’t a slip at all, Freudian or otherwise.
As for your first argument, given that water and sewerage are provided by a State government instrumentality, there is no such burden on local ratepayers anyway. The only other possible burdens would be if the projected volume of traffic generated by the school was such as to require local roads to be upgraded at council expense. That is fairly unlikely, because major arterial roads and freeways in the area (e.g. the S-W Freeway and Northern Road) are in my understanding maintained by the state government as well. However, to the extent that was the case it might well provide at least some proper basis for rejecting the application on legitimate planning grounds.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:23 pm | PermalinkI wouldn’t want to cast statements by random meatheads as common to Camden, but there was one that kept me amused for hours after reading it in the local paper, that if the school was permitted it would eventually mean Camden shops wouldn’t be allowed to sell bacon burgers.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:24 pm | PermalinkWhat about rubbish collection Ken? Who is responsible for that in that area?
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:27 pm | PermalinkThe camden comments serve to remind us that there is a rump of multicultural australia that absolutely refuses to assimilate: the white trash (like me). Washed up like flotsam ejected from their homes, winding up on the wrong damn beach and have been fighting it for over 200 years without giving an inch, without ever realising their ire is directed in completely the wrong direction.
So fellow white and freckly australians with far too many ranga relatives for comfort or sanity, it’s probably time to give it up.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:35 pm | Permalinkyes, won’t someone please think of the rubbihs bins?
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:36 pm | PermalinkWhat exactly was the zoning of the land in question?
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:43 pm | PermalinkScoff if you like Laura but local government is all about grass roots issues like rubbish collections and who actually pays the rates.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 2:45 pm | PermalinkOddly enough, that’s not what opponents of the school seem to think it’s all about:
Rubbish collection, indeed.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 3:04 pm | PermalinkIain, as the OP and others have stressed, this is not about the correctness or otherwise of the Council planning decision, but about the shocking gutter racism and misunderstanding expressed by far too many willing interviewees.
There is absolutely no chance we would be debating this if it had been a Christian school refused permission to build by the Council.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 3:05 pm | PermalinkMy partner works in local govt Iain. I probably know more about it than you mate.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 3:10 pm | PermalinkIs that in the city or the country Laura?
Posted on 28-May-08 at 3:49 pm | PermalinkFurther to Iain Hall’s sundry attempts at justifying the (apparently) unjustifiable.
In my understanding, charitable and benevolent tax exemptions apply to things like rates and taxes but not to user charges like water, sewerage and garbage charges. They are user charges not rates, and charitable/benevolent bodies pay them like everyone else to the extent that they use those services.
What was the zoning? The news articles don’t tell us. however, inferentially from the wording and context, it appears that this was neither a building nor rezoning application. Rather it seems to have been a planning application for a development where the proposed use is a “consent use” under the relevant town plan i.e. it isn’t a prohibited use but a developer needs to make application and the council can/does examine issues like local amenity, traffic congestion, noise, availability of local services etc.
According to the article James linked:
These are the only two grounds for rejection we know about. We can’t form any valid opinion about “fears” of hazardous waste contamination without knowing the basis (if any) for those fears.
As for assertions that public transport to the site is inadequate:
(1) Most schools arrange dedicated school bus services from the school at least to the nearest public mass transit station (in this case Campbelltown train station). Such services are paid for by the school or state government subsidy not by local government;
Posted on 28-May-08 at 4:34 pm | Permalink(2) In any event, the local bus company has a scheduled public bus service passing directly by the gate of the proposed school (on Burragorang Road, Cawdor) to camden with co-ordinated bus connection on to Campbelltown station to connect with scheduled trains to the city. Buses pass by around every 30 minutes or more frequently during the periods both before and after school each day. See the timetable here. This is significantly more frequent than (for example) the public bus services passing by the main private schools around Darwin (most notably Kormilda College which my daughter atttended). This basis for rejection appears to be completely spurious.
James,
I am not going to comment on the actual decision because I dont know much about planning laws and the lie. I leave that to the lawyers on this site. I want to take you up on your central belief:
“Enlightenment is a long process, and is prone to setbacks as instanced by the resurgence of religious dogma in some middle eastern countries, including Israel, and in the US. But, given the right conditions, it marches on. Among those conditions are cosmopolitanism, freedom of expression (including religion) and social tolerance.”
a nobel belief, but also a somewhat naive one. Is social tolerance really compatible with allowing groups to teach whatever they want? Whatever they want? Are you truly so convinced of the evolutionary superiority of enlightenment that it will somehow automatically ‘win’ against the alternatives, i.e. that it does not need fighting for? It does not need to actively win hearts and minds? I so want you to be right on this, James, because it relieves me of any responsibility to fight for enlightenment, but I asmit I often wonder whether it is not plain laziness to presume enlightenment will simply win, irrespective of supposed minor set-backs. I wonder whether this is not just an inability to imagine that other belief systems may win, belief systems that have more passionate defenders.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 4:47 pm | PermalinkYes, Paul, it may be too optimistic. But it’s hard to respond to your comment without knowing what concrete measures you have in mind in pursuit of your fight — in relation to this school issue at least. If you favour moves toward banning or regulating religious schools at the level of national policy, I have some sympathy for this, as you might recall if you read my other post on this topic. But I don’t think you mean to support local resistance like this, which has more to do with keeping towel-heads out of the suburb than with any educational philosophy.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 6:17 pm | PermalinkSome posts are a bit harsh on the local council in this affair. Depending on how it is graded, municipality or shire - one through to four in NSW - will give some idea of what planning resources it has in its professional ranks.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 6:48 pm | PermalinkMy guess is that lowly Camden Council would be under resourced and under pressure given its locality. Even so it’s professional advice to councillors was that the project be rejected and it is a tough call to expect councillors to go against their professional officer advice. And expecting them to grandstand on multicultural issues, let alone inter-religious bigotry is a big ask.
From tv footage of the location this is close to the oldest and best agricultural land in the nation - the University of Sydney maintains an ag research station nearby - and I would bet that the NSW Dept of Agriculture has had something to say about further alienating prime farmland.
So why hasn’t the State Government stepped in to assist this council through it’s new planning powers that determine state significant developments? Too controversial? Too much risk and not enough potential for developer donations?
Best this one go through to the Land & Environment Court if the applicant feels so aggrieved and prepared to allow the local ratepayers foot the bill should they win. It is not an ideal process and no one appears to be coming out of it squeaky clean. One gets the impression it could have been done a lot better.
I look at this from a property rights perspective and am I repulsed as always at the idea that anyone can tell others what they can and cannot do on their property if it doesn’t impinge on the property rights of others.
If the Council and the residents don’t want an Islamic school in their area they ought to pay compensation to their owners for the loss.
I don’t particularly like Islam but have no animus towards Muslims. However they have or should have the right to set up a religious school and it is abhorrent their right is being taken away.
On a wider issue it is dishonest of us to allow people to emigrate here aware of their religious leaning and then prevent them from practicing their religion or building a religious school of their choice.
These people deserve compensation for this state of affairs.
If we had strongly established principles regarding property rights none of this would be happening.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 7:13 pm | PermalinkSounds rather close to an illiberal view to me, even if one accepts the assessment is accurate.
Still, nothing compared to the specific and ugly anti-Muslim bigotry shown by way too many people in Camden. It is a shame that there is so little public criticism of such blatant and divisive vilification. Yet no doubt someone soon will again be demanding that Muslim Australians do more to demonstrate their loyalty to Australia and Australian values - pity a few more people from Camden aren’t asked to do the same.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 7:51 pm | PermalinkThe obvious implicaton of the actual of the Camden residents is that they don’t want Muslims living in their midst or, indeed, as part of Australia - you can label this ‘bigotry’. The Camden residents are probably misinformed about the sins of Islam but we do live in a democracy. Do you disregard the views of the Australian people when deciding who should be admitted as a resident?
I have never been able to answer this question satisfactorily to myself. But it seems to me that you are covering your asses with an irrelevant aside if you simply view the Camden residents as ignorant bogans who don’t know what is good for them. It is a deep question.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:04 pm | PermalinkLegal Eagle, isn’t an “atheist” school simply one whose curriculum does not include belief in god? In which case, surely all Australian public schools would qualify.
Unless you some how mean “actively promoting the non-existence of god”, but I’m not sure I believe such a school even exists.
FWIW, it seems pretty self-evident that the intolerance and bigotry shown by the likes of Ms McCulloch is a far bigger threat to liberalism and enlightenment than the setting up of an Islamic school - providing it’s a genuine school whose job is actually teaching the relevant national and state curriculum (along with, no doubt, the expected Koran study classes). Any particular attempts to indoctrinate students with anti-liberal or illegal notions can be dealt with individually if and when they come to attention.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:09 pm | PermalinkIf we paid attention to the principle of majority wishes about immigration, the First Fleet probably would have had to be turned around.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:10 pm | PermalinkI assume you’re talking about immigration policy, Harry. It’s not a question I would want to dodge, but I don’t have any simple answer either. My main fear is that ethnic tension could flare up in a recession. People get along well when they’re working, shoulder-to-shoulder. But when they’re idle and competing for shrinking opportunities, they are more easily enraged by little things and have more time to pursue vendettas.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:16 pm | Permalinkhc, except we’re not allowing Muslims (or anyone, for that matter) into the country because it’s good for Kate McCulloch and her mates. We’re allowing them in because they want to be here, and they are judged to have a valuable contribution to make.
Camdem residents certainly have a right to feel uncomfortable about a likely increase in the Muslim population of their neighbour, but that doesn’t extend as far as right to openly proclaim on a TV broadcast that Muslims are oppressors of society, stealers of welfare and rejectors of their way of life, and certainly doesn’t extend as far as rejecting their right to buy property and use it for legal purposes.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:17 pm | PermalinkAndrew B:
Not for nothing, but every bit of media I’ve seen about this issue presents those opposing the school as bigoted (and most probably are): starting from the original 4 Corners program
But be honest Andrew, if someone was putting up something you didn’t like in your hood, you’d be up in arms finding some reason why it shouldn’t go ahead. Which comes back to the point I was making. Property rights have become so mangled that everyone thinks they have a right to tell others what they can and cannot do on property they never paid for.
The only difference I see here is the issue of personal preferences.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:26 pm | PermalinkHarry, democracy does not equate to any one group deciding how another should live.
Camden residents have as much right to express their opinion as the muslims. Once a group interferes with another they are denying basic human rights.
Another blow against planning powers of councils.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 8:54 pm | PermalinkGood point Rog. I would bet Harry would be up in arms too if someone wanted to build something in his hood he didn’t like.
This thread is enlightening how both the illiberal left and right intersect at about the same point on the freedom chart.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 9:03 pm | PermalinkOf course people have a right to have say over what happens in their communities. If there was a development in my neighbourhood I didn’t like it, I’d be stating why I didn’t like it. (as it happens, I do have a development I absolutely loathe happening in my neighbourhood at present - the expensive and destructive tunnels and related roadworks being gouged through Brisbane - but I won’t go into my objections here).
I don’t object to people objecting, I object to people using religious bigotry or racial vilification as a reason for stopping a development they don’t like. Although I’ve been following this Camden issue to a degree, I can’t pass judgement on whether the town planning objections are valid. But the objections based on bigotry and vilification are not, and it does much wider social damage if these sorts of views are allowed to determine public policy.
We have migration laws. Those laws do not allow explicit discrimination on the basis of race or religion (although there’s a fair bit of implicit discrimination in various categories). Despite some vocal bigotry which naturally gets media attention, I would be very surprised if anything close to a majority of Australians would actually support removing that prohibition. However, the Australian people have the right to vote for a political party or candidate who explicitly promotes using racial or religious criteria to select migrants and other entrants, who if elected could then try to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act and the relevant sections of the Migration Act.
Were our Parliament ever to pass such changes, I would certainly seek to move to a different country. I don’t ever see that happening, although whenever our political leaders remain silent or acquiescent to continued overt bigoted statements such as we’ve seen on this issue, it makes it that little bit more likely. It also makes it more likely that we will have greater division and reduced cohension between different groups in our community.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 10:33 pm | PermalinkAndrew:
Your knee jerk response was to paint the objectors as being racist bigots. I’m sure, after seeing the 4C report at least few people are as they were quite explicit and it was pretty ugly viewing.
However you can’t paint every objector that way. Like you they could have what they think are legitimate concerns about the “ugly” building going up.
Furthermore in the present set up of loosely defined property rights why should their concerns about a particular religion go unheard while your objection(s) is somehow legitimate. They certainly don’t think it’s illegitimate and why should they?
Incidentally I think both suck big time.
Rather than argue semantics as to who and who isn’t a racist bigot it would be much better to look at this as another example of people showing their personal preferences and getting away with taking away other people’s property rights.
It’s really not that much different than what you’re objecting to from a personal preferences point of view.
If property rights were unbreakable no one would have the right to “steal” other people’s property rights through force of majority rule and scare campaigns.
This is a great example of reaping what you sow. In other words don’t allow personal preferences to remove property rights.
Again this is a perfect example of how your view and harry’s who is on the other side of the political fence manage to screw this up.
Posted on 28-May-08 at 11:42 pm | PermalinkSo Jacques Chester you do believe we should ignore the views of a majority of Australians if they opposed a particular type of immigration. I am uneasy with this although it has been past policy.
NPOV, You are simply saying that immigration policy depends on the interests of the migrants (if they want to come) and the views of experts that they will make a contribution. In my view the people of Australia should plausibly have a say in who lives here.
Andrew Bartlett, For a long time in Australia both political parties offered a bipartisan immigration policy that, according to the opinion polls was opposed by residents. This lead to the creation of the One Nation movement because people felt no choice.
In my view governments can move a bit ahead of public opinion and can provide information that dispells myths about migrants but, in the long-run, should respect the views of the majority of Australians. Moreover this is probably essential if you want to sustain an ongoing migration program.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 7:30 am | Permalink[...] James Farrell’s piece at Club Troppo is a good example of how the left want to punish the communities that they don’t like for rejecting the advances of ones that they do. After putting an argument for a basicly secular education system he makes a snappy about face and advocated the imposition of the Islamic school on the people of Camden . I could not help but conclude that this is just to spite those he characterises as “red necks”. [...]
Posted on 29-May-08 at 7:50 am | Permalink[...] Farrell’s thought-provoking post over at Club Troppo got me chewing over this question, and to that end I thought I’d share [...]
Posted on 29-May-08 at 7:50 am | PermalinkAhh, it’s done a little ping-back for me… that feature wasn’t something we had at Catallaxy. Anyway, I’ve decided to riff on John Finnis’ view that we should take the arguments against high levels of Islamic immigration seriously. I think I finish up saying something fairly similar to Harry’s comments above, but I’m open to suggestions in all directions. About the only ‘rule’ I set for myself was that I had to give my tutor’s arguments their due.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:01 am | Permalink“In my view governments can move a bit ahead of public opinion and can provide information that dispells myths about migrants but, in the long-run, should respect the views of the majority of Australians.”
Harry, that sounds almost defensible as long as it’s completely vague, but what happens in practice? Should we have a referendum on the precise quotas we allow in from each ethnic/religious background, averaged out? We allow “the majority” (identified how exactly?) to simply decide yes or no to certain ethnic/religious groups? Do we let everyone in, then allow racists to coopt local govt planning laws to keep undesirables out of “their” part of Australia?
You see the problem?
[I need hardly add that to "respect the views of the majority of Australians" is not something commonly done in policy-making. This approach would have stopped the floating of the dollar, the GST, so many of your favourite things! What makes immigration an issue that for you suits a populist approach?]
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:11 am | PermalinkJC, as for “why should their concerns about a particular religion go unheard while your objection(s) is somehow legitimate”…that’s easy to answer.
Allowing bigotry to determine development policy is a path to a divided, racist society. Allowing objections based on the noise, disruption and various inconveniences generated by tunnels and roadworks is, at worst, going to lead to a society with fewer roads and tunnels.
If absolute property rights were really some panacea where everyone was allowed to do whatever they liked on their own property as long as it didn’t impinge on the rights of others to do whatever they liked on their properties, we’d have a example society that worked that way. But I don’t believe we do, and almost certainly never will, because it ignores the degree to which people are inevitably affected by what others do on their properties. There’s plenty of valid reasons one might object to a school being built on your street: it will clog up traffic, it will use up parking spaces, it will cast shadows on your own property, it will create noise, it may negatively affect property values, etc. etc. Deciding to what how to weigh those objections of the owners of nearby properties with the desires of the owner of a property on which they wish to build is never going to a be simple job. That’s what we have democracy for: if a neighbourhood consistently determines that the local council is not paying sufficient attention to their concerns, they’ll vote for new councillors that promise to do so. So even if some hard-line libertarian council got itself elected and instituted absolute rights to the owners of property, the laws wouldn’t last very long.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:15 am | Permalinkhc, yes, “the people of Australia should plausibly have a say in who lives here”.
And the One Nation party gave them that opportunity. Not many took it, regardless of how they might respond to opinion polls.
The fact is that many Australians might claim to feel uncomfortable about high levels of foreign (non-”white”) immigration, but it’s a pretty vague level of unease, and there’s simply not even real conflict for it to be a vote-changer.
If allowing in so many Muslims was seriously disrupting our communities and Australian society in general, it would become one, as it has in parts of Europe.
Democracy has never been about “the people” always getting their way - which is clearly impossible anyway - just about governments not being able to maintain policy that the majority of the people strongly object to over a sustained period.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:21 am | PermalinkGreat post James. I saw Kate McCulloch on the news - having just wandered in on a break from cooking dinner, I honestly thought it was some kind of skit on Pauline Hanson i.e. that it was a counter demonstrator. I was quite gobsmacked to learn that she was for real!
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:24 am | PermalinkI understand she’s going to be a surprise intruder in Big Brother.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:26 am | PermalinkSL, it sounds to me like Finnis is offering a straw-Islam. The idea that central tenets of Islamic belief prevent adherents from participating in a liberal good life is a super-shaky one, IMO. Even if true, possible—and I nod to your distinction between possible and necessary—it would still require the Immigration Department of whichever country to tell immigrants that they knew better about their beliefs than they did.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:34 am | PermalinkFinnis’ Islam sounds nastily like the old Australian sectarianism in which Catholics were priest-ridden, questionably loyal to the Crown, interested more in Roman dogma than common law, dangerous to apostates like Sister Liguori, and religiously unable to participate in liberal politics. It’s worth pointing out that Catholics insistence on separate education was always offered as the strongest evidence towards these beliefs.
Harry, I certainly believe the wishes of an “Australian people” should be entirely disregarded when it comes to immigration when they’re wrong. The wishes of the Australian people would have disallowed the Dunera Boys.
(And what FDB said about flouting the wishes of the electorate when it comes to economics).
JC:
My response is not ‘kneejerk’, it is a considered one based on ample evidence that some of the obectors and objections are clearly bigoted. I did not say every objector is a bigot. No doubt there are some other, potentially legitimate, concerns regarding the proposal around issues like capacity of local roads to handle the traffic increase. But using religious vilification as a justification to keep out schools, clubs, places of worship, etc is wrong and should be clearly opposed. It was done regularly in the past against Catholics and Jews, causing great injustice and social division. It was wrong to do it against them and it is wrong to do it against Muslims.
I disagree completely. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their personal preferences to try to influence what they do and don’t want done to their neighbourhood in regards to things like air quality, costs of services, safety, etc. There is something very wrong with people when people base those preferences on bigotry and vilification. It is not something which our society should endorse. Racism and unconstrained religious vilification is very toxic and very dangerous if it is allowed to roam unchallenged.
I should note my objections to the traffic generating and pollution concentrating tunnels in my neighbourhood is not particularly from a NIMBY point of view - I choose to live in the inner city, so I expect noise, air pollution and traffic to be part of that. My objections are that it is stupid policy and a gross waste of money which will put a financial and environmental impost on millions of people, as well as a loss of local housing and amenity, for no gain in relieving congestion. I’d also note I am well and truly on the losing side on that matter - despite being right
hc:
I think the first part of that quote is contestable, or at least oversimplified, but I won’t go down that path here. In any case, I don’t have a problem with the principle of “respecting the views of the majority of Australians” on this or any other matter. People certainly have a right to put that view and run for Parliament advocating such policies - as Pauline Hanson (and now Fred Nile) have done.
However, as I said above, I doubt very much if it really boiled down to it that a majority of Australians would actually support implementing laws which explicitly sought to exclude people on grounds of race or religion. It would certainly be extremely difficult to implement in practice without massive economic consequences, major increases in antagnoism towards Australians in many parts of the world (including in places where many Australians now work and live), etc - but people can debate such things as they can when considering the pros and cons of any policy.
I also believe it would also be very damaging to the development of our society to openly endorse policies and attitudes which were overtly racist or discriminated against people solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. Trying to have an open economy operating from a partially closed society would be rather a problem too I think, but I shan’t go on and on about it. The core problem in my view is that it is very dangerous for decisions of public and elected officials at any level to be based on or driven by overt religious or racial discrmination. There is more than a whiff of that in Camden, which is why public officials in that region and state should be making clearer statements opposing such views.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 8:55 am | PermalinkYes, Helen, I’m keeping an open mind that she may have been part of some kind of spoof for TV. Also, the comments struck me as having been inspired by the ‘Salam Cafe’ vox pops.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 9:03 am | PermalinkNPOV at #36 - by atheist schools, I meant schools which actively promoted lack of belief in God. I don’t think atheist schools do exist - although perhaps Richard Dawkins would advocate starting some? If they did exist, I wouldn’t send my child to one.
My personal view is that people should be taught about all different religions as well as atheism. And history and philosophy of science too (make people learn about Popper, please, please!).
I was a Dawkins style atheist until I hit 25. Then I did a history subject called “Histories of God” which was awesome - it showed me that religion (like everything) has positive and negative aspects. I read the Bible, the Qu’ran and sections of the Talmud. I still choose not to subscribe to any particular religion, but I am more open-minded about others choosing to belong to a particular religion. And I have thought properly about my choice, and rethought my knee-jerk response after coming across some particularly ugly evangelical Christians as a child.
The reaction to the building of the mosque is complicated. It’s a matter of sorting out the legitimate objections to the building from the blind prejudice. There may be some legitimate objections (eg, building is not in keeping with the surrounds, or is too large, or will create traffic congestion in that street etc), but I don’t consider objections such as “we don’t like Muslims” to be a real objection - at least not until the person who says such things has actually met some real Muslims, not just drawn a conclusion from nutbags like Hilaly (a man who doesn’t do his faith any favours) or from highly unpleasant people like the Skaf brothers.
Perhaps some kind of dialogue could be organised so that the fears of the local people could be allayed by meeting the potential students of the school, although perhaps it’s too late for that.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 11:09 am | PermalinkThat’s the usual joke about Anglican private schools, Legal Eagle.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 12:01 pm | PermalinkLegal Eagle wrote:
Yes, the kiddies need to warned about crackpots
Posted on 29-May-08 at 12:31 pm | PermalinkLakemba is 50 kilometres away from Camden, but only 10 kilometres from Newtown. How about we get the government to compulsorily acquire some property on King Street, knock it down, and lease the property to the Society.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 2:43 pm | PermalinkWhat is wrong with wanting to keep towelheads out of one’s suburb? I would argue that anybody who welcomed towelheads would be the irrational nutter, not the alleged (and misnamed) “Islamohobe.”
Posted on 29-May-08 at 5:04 pm | PermalinkAndrew Bartlett
Do you really think you are in any position to deliver sermons on “Australian values?” Your recent sacking from parliament suggests otherwise.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 5:07 pm | PermalinkNPOV
but that doesn’t extend as far as right to openly proclaim on a TV broadcast that Muslims are oppressors of society, stealers of welfare and rejectors of their way of life.
Really? When did you seize the means of broadcast? I would argue they have the right to say whatever they bloody well like.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 5:11 pm | PermalinkJG, actually I’m fairly certain there are broadcasting laws limiting what sort of pronouncements you can make. I assume you wouldn’t support them deliberately inciting the audience to murder someone?
In my book, the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to incite violence and hatred in others. I assume in yours it at least doesn’t include the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. We’re just drawing lines in different places.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 5:19 pm | PermalinkI see the inspiration for the post title has arrived.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 5:23 pm | PermalinkDavid Rubie at #59 - really I was considering Popper’s ideas of falsifiability in relation to scientific experiments. I don’t deny that Popper was a crackpot in some regards(and quite an unpleasant person to boot). But that doesn’t mean that one should just throw out all his ideas. Rather, one should consider arguments in the alternative.
Posted on 29-May-08 at 6:39 pm | PermalinkLiam at #58 - ha ha ha!
Posted on 29-May-08 at 6:41 pm | PermalinkAndrew B.
Why is a specific dislike of one religion considered “ bigoted” while a Dawkins like view isn’t? It doesn’t make sense, does it?
I’m not talking about situations that impinge on the rights of others through those examples you offered. However I don’t see a great difference between the official complaints some of the Camden people made regarding the school and complaints by others about “inappropriate” development in their neck of the woods. It seems to me you don’t like one version of nimbys but have no problem with other versions. (I fully support the school by the way).
How do you square that with Dawkins? People should be free to dislike a religion or religions shouldn’t they?
I’m sorry but still find your view inconsistent.
NPOV
Sure we do, most our cities were built with almost no restrictions. NYC was basically built without any restrictions at all and Manhattan is terrific.
So why aren’t these arguments legitimate for the Camden people?
Why not? If your rights aren’t directly impinged you should have no legitimate reason objecting. People are even trying to control taste these days.
What you mean is it’s a version of legalized rape like we’re seeing in Camden.
Doesn’t make it right though. Theft can happen in many ways and stealing property rights through majority rule is basically wrong.
I would hazard to bet that we wouldn’t be allowed to build a Sydney or Melbourne etc. anymore. But getting back to Camden…….The official objections they are using are appear to be identical to those used by the Save our Suburbs rent a crowd.
Blowback’s a bitch, hey?
Posted on 29-May-08 at 11:54 pm | PermalinkJC is right here, the real crime here is that city councils have the right who decides who builds what on their land.
The people here who scream “racism” when people are opposed to a muslim school but get shitty when somebody wants to build a 25-story hotel, a Woolworths or a brothel are hypocrites.
Either the property owner has the right to do what they want with their land or they don’t.
If you are going to support “community-focused” zoning and approval laws then you have to be prepared that they will occasionally affect the favoured minority of the day as well as the people that usually get screwed by them (secular businesses trying to make a profit).
Posted on 30-May-08 at 1:33 am | PermalinkI was surprised that SL supports nimbyism and the views of Finnis appear to be somewhat irrelevant (eg he is against the violent aspects of some of Islam, well most people are already against violence) - the important aspect is that the school and its attendees adheres to the laws of the land.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 5:21 am | PermalinkYobbo:
How are Mulsims a “favoured minority”?
Don’t worry, it’s a rhetorical question.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 6:26 am | PermalinkThat’s right, Sam. Either my neighbour should be allowed to have a heliport in his back yard, or I should be allowed to dictate what colour clothing he hangs on his clothesline. The idea that there is anything in between is a monstrous lie that has served through the millennia to justify the existence of armies of parasitic legislators, lawyers and judges. Thank goodness someone has at last seen through this deception.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 6:36 am | PermalinkYobbo isn’t close to suggesting that. No one has the right to a free ride enjoying the use of their property at the expense of others.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 7:42 am | PermalinkLegal Eagle wrote:
Yes, it was an unworthy dig at Popper’s expense Legal Eagle (although I also think the idea of falsifiability is insufficient in relation to science). I see Popper invoked far too often by creationists (wrt to his ill-informed later life comments on natural selection he later retracted) and the rest of the flat-earth crowd who have taken his insufficient analysis and philosophy and use it to try to discredit science as a whole. So, I don’t necessarily throw out Popper’s ideas on the basis that he had a few nutty ideas, it’s his central idea that’s fundamentally flawed (although an interesting starting point).
rog wrote:
Given that the piece she wrote was one long (loving) appeal to authority, I’m not surprised at all.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 7:42 am | PermalinkJC, not everyone wants to live in Manhattan. It must also be said that at the time Manhattan was built, people seemed to genuinely care about what city buildings looked like. Why that isn’t the case today, I can’t answer.
Look, I happen to agree personally that it many cases local residents’ objections do get far too much weight. But I fail to see how “property rights” is going to fix the fact that if people don’t like something enough, they will object, and they will pressure governments into acting.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 7:44 am | PermalinkIt’s called giving someone’s ideas a fair run, David. I’m sure you do it sometimes, too.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 7:46 am | PermalinkThe question of whether our property rights are unduly limited by planning laws is an interesting one.
Often property rights are talked of as “freedoms” - but the principal freedom really consists of a right to exclude others from one’s property, ie, a limitation on the freedom of everyone else in the whole world! This is the one that tends not to be limited much. The other attendant rights are the rights to alienate, use and enjoy. These ones are the “sticks” in the bundle which do tend to be limited by the state.
This dispute really comes down to one’s right to enjoy one’s property - how much should one have to put up with conduct from a neighbouring property which detracts from one’s enjoyment?
The problem with invoking property rights and an attendant freedom to enjoy is that your freedom to enjoy may impinge on someone else’s freedom to enjoy. Thus, the Muslims who are building the school on the land could say “We have a right to do whatever we want with this land because we own it absolutely, and thus we have a freedom to enjoy it in whatever way we choose”. Conversely, the neighbours could say, “We have a right to prevent this development because it is impinging on our right to enjoy our property and we do not feel comfortable with the development.” In a sense, both are have valid points! Both have a right to enjoy their property, but one has to balance the competing rights.
Therefore I don’t think one can invoke the property rights of the broader Camden residents without also considering the property rights of the Muslim minority. Then it’s a matter of one’s personal opinion as to what limitations on the rights of each are appropriate.
I was thinking last night as I drifted off to sleep - would I object to a Muslim school being built next door to my house? The answer is generally no. The only objection I can think of which is specifically “Muslim related” is if there was a muezzin (or a tape of one) making that call to prayer. From visits to Egypt, Malaysia and the like, it would drive me wild after a bit…no offence intended…but it is something which is very alien to me. I doubt one would be allowed to have a loud muezzin in this country anyway.
I think I might be concerned about any school being built next door - litter from the kids, balls in the back garden, noise at lunch break, a large volume of people flowing to and from the school at 9:00 and 3:30… But then again, it might raise the value of my property if I wanted to sell it to someone who wanted to send their kid to that school. There’s a silver lining to every cloud.
Geez, this is almost a post in its own right, I’ll shut up now…
Posted on 30-May-08 at 8:30 am | PermalinkManhattan building code is now as big as a telephone book. I kid you not. You need building code expediters just to get you through the maze of City hall. You aren’t allowed to be creative or try to be in case refusal puts your development back in time.
I never said they did. However leaving things well alone is not necessarily going to lead you to hell and back.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 8:46 am | PermalinkJC, still, I can’t imagine too many people objecting if someone proposed something like another Chrysler building even Empire State building. Or that anyone would have objected much at the time they were proposed.
As for leaving things well alone, again, that’s just not human nature.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 9:56 am | PermalinkIf there weren’t extensive building codes in the past it’s because there weren’t enough people doing things that were pissing other people off.
It might also be because new city buildings were such huge undertakings that it made sense to take time to do it well. Now that a building can be thrown up by just about anyone in weeks using prefab concrete slabs and bits of chipboard, it’s not economic to take the time to build something that’s a valuable and lasting contribution to a city’s skyline.
At any rate, I don’t see any reason to assume that instituting a bunch of laws that give complete freedom for anyone to do whatever they like on their own properties is going to improve the quality of architecture in a neighbourhood.
Our local town heritage code has stopped development dead allowing a shopping centre to spring up nearby sucking the commercial life out of the place.
They got their heritage listed facades complete with crumbling bricks, rising damp and white ants at a cost to the consumer. Once a bustling centre it is now full of bargain basement $2 shops, cheap pies, cheap clothes or for rent signs.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 10:29 am | PermalinkAnd the mall! another heritage listed white elephant that you wouldnt walk down at night for fear of being bashed.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 10:30 am | PermalinkAre we straying slightly off topic here, perhaps?
Commenters on the thread so far fall into two broad camps. The first contains everyone who, like me, is unsympathetic to the Camden protesters. It includes people who, like me, are antagonistic to religious schools, and also those who, like Andrew Bartlett, see such hostility as intolerant; but this is a side issue, because we all accept that every ethnic community deserves equal status and rights.
The second camp consists of people who do sympathise: because they personally dislike Muslims; because they sense that the unsympathetic camp consists mainly of elitist, hypocritical left-wingers who never miss an excuse to scorn ordinary folk, and who need a good telling off when ever a pretext presents itself; or because they genuinely believe that local communities have a right, whether one agrees with their aims or not, to determine the ethnic and cultural flavour of their area.
Since the Muslim and lefty bashing is unlikely to produce any constructive result, it seems to me that the way forward for the latter camp is to suggest some new mechanism that would broaden the range of legitimate objections to new developments to include questions of cultural and ethnic flavour. To make it concrete, do any of you want to change the Planning Act along these lines, so that the xenophobes don’t have to rely on rubbery traffic projections to keep out people they don’t like the look of?
Posted on 30-May-08 at 11:20 am | PermalinkAs I see it the question is should the state (from whatever tier) be able to act on the lawful activities of a citizen?
Posted on 30-May-08 at 11:42 am | PermalinkAn addendum to James’ comment. IMO even the commenters who are seeking in good faith to carve out a rationalist middle position between the two camps identified by James (e.g. Legal Eagle and Helen Dale) have adopted problematic positions, in the sense that one can only hold them by ignoring the actual facts of this case.
I attempted unsuccessfully to highlight that aspect in an earlier comment. If you have a look at Google Maps and examine where the proposed Islamic school site is actually located (on Burragorang Road, Cawdor) you’ll see that it’s right outside the urban built up area in a rural residential zone apparently consisting mostly of 20-100 hectare blocks. Thus issues of noise and other impacts on surrounding residents are largely irrelevant. So too with claims of traffic congestion (even though it seems that the council’s town planners cited such problems and the council presumably relied on them in rejecting the development). Traffic accessing the area would approach via the F5 freeway and Camden bypass road so that it would not significantly impact traffic congestion in urban Camden itself. Moreover, it’s likely that most students would arrive by train and school bus causing very little congestion in any event. As for the road where the school itself would have been situated, Burragorang Road is an open, paved arterial road which is unlikely to carry much traffic most of the time. It leads only to several small-ish townships including The Oaks and Nattai and to the main entrance to Nattai National Park which surrounds the upper reaches of Lake Burragorang (formed by Warragamba Dam). It is totally implausible that an Islamic school would cause any traffic problems that couldn’t be fully resolved by requiring appropriate right and left turn lanes and adequate parking areas within the school boundaries, all at the developer’s expense. That’s how it would have been dealt with had the development been of a type that local residents didn’t in fact oppose on grounds having nothing whatever to do with planning issues.
Hence James is quite right to suggest that the real motivations of the great bulk of opponents (if not all of them) are based on xenophobia not genuine town planning issues. At least John Greenfield’s response had the virtue of honesty. He doesn’t dress it up with fake rationalisations, he just reckons it’s fair enough to keep the “towelheads” out of whites-only areas!!
Posted on 30-May-08 at 11:46 am | PermalinkHmm, I guess I was only really responding to the arguments that the property rights of the Camden residents were paramount, rather than the actual site of the school. I didn’t realise that it wasn’t actually near any houses!
If it’s not near any houses, then what rational responses can there be to explain the banning of the planning application? Other than bare prejudice?
Posted on 30-May-08 at 12:33 pm | PermalinkJames Farrell
A more interesting question is why Luvvie Leftists have decided to exploit Muslims as a Culture War sword.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 12:43 pm | PermalinkKen Parish
he just reckons it’s fair enough to keep the “towelheads” out of whites-only areas!!
Your case would have more weight if you could prosecute it without lying about what your interlocutors have said. But it is very telling - and dare I say er, ugly - that you see your Culture Wars as turning on “whites” versus non-whites.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 12:47 pm | PermalinkSo it’s OK to want to keep towelheads out of your suburb, so long as you don’t succeed - is that your position JG?
Forget I asked - just go back to admiring your nifty new yellow frock and Aussie flag hat in the cheval glass.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 1:02 pm | PermalinkYou mean luvvie leftists like these you ex-Marxist muppet?
My position is the same as JC’s and Yobbo’s subject to some caveats. I agree that in the presence of significant physical externalities like smog, toxic waste, etc even people living in a vicinity can object to the use of property which they do not own if less restrictive means of addressing these physical spillovers do not exist. Even excessive parking and traffic could come under these considerations. However Ken’s comment suggests the case on these grounds are rather feeble. So the only rationale left is what can be referred to as ‘psychological externalities’. But this is an illiberal and ultimately non-utilitarian sort of rationale which is also self-defeating and can lead to vextatious abuse of whatever planning restrictions are used. People could object to developments on just about any grounds of taste. I for instance would rather not have some glib poncy narcissist like JG living anywhere near me. What sort of pollution does he emit which I object to? Simply the untestable psychic vibes of being in his vicinity. JG for all his claims to being a conservative would let loose a form of nanny state intrusiveness that is totalitarian in its effects.
Bottom line - subject to some exceptions if you don’t like what’s happening on another’s property, buy it or contract with him. otherwise shut the hell up. Also, if you want to let Muslims or Klingons or anyone else into your country, they have as much right to set up schools *based on the same criteria* as anyone else.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 1:44 pm | Permalink“Bottom line - subject to some exceptions if you don’t like what’s happening on another’s property, buy it or contract with him. otherwise shut the hell up.”
If the neighbouring land is Rural 1A then I’d guess the land purchased as the school site is also.
20 -100 acre blocks are themselves a blight on agricultural land use but as they are now in existence they will continue to have this zoning.
The range of uses for rural 1A are extensive and many people view them as house blocks. I live on just such a 20 acre block and having had an enormous set of cattle yards built 100 m from my home I can attest to the many pollutions from the permitted uses.But if you move to a rural area you must allow normal rural activites to proceed I think.
“Thus issues of noise and other impacts on surrounding residents are largely irrelevant. So too with claims of traffic congestion ….”
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:00 pm | PermalinkSo if a pig farmer starts a biodynamic, organic free range pig farm next to the school, the same arguments will be trotted out to rectify the selfish and intolerant attitudes of the school’s management if they were to complain ?
Actually, Jason, while I essentially agree with you, I’m not sure I can come up with an obvious reason why “psychological externalities” should be ignored while physical onoes shouldn’t.
If for instance, it’s taken to an extreme, and someone constructs a new building in a neighbourhood expressly designed to be highly psychologically disturbing, but causes no obvious physical externalities, would you seriously expect others residents to simply put up and shut up?
And how exactly are you going to stop them pressuring governments to do something about it?
Of course, unless you’re some sort of dualist, psychological effects ARE just physical effects anyway - ones that can only be measured by examining brain activity.
As I said earlier, deciding the degree to which nearby residents’ objections should be weighed against the rights of property owners is always going to be a complex problem, and it’s the sort of thing that governments are under constant democratic pressure to do well at. As for the idea that “majority-supported restrictions on property owners” amounts to “majority-supported” theft - well, I’m pretty sure if theft was supported by a majority then theft wouldn’t be considered a crime either.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:35 pm | PermalinkMost councils have a local development plan; we have one for my area full of flowery terms about existing agricultural enterprises to support planning codes - its just fresh air and scenery.
You can run 3 sheep and a goat and live in abject poverty with dead cars in the front yard and this is all part of the rural ambience however schools are not. I know of an existing school that stopped a garden materials enterprise starting up next door - they said the dust would harm the kids, one of the parents had a similar business not too far away.
If the school is on 100 acres there should be enough of a buffer zone to protect it.
If you want to change the zoning you need deep pockets and lots of patience as the case is referred to back to Macquarie St. Whatever you do you will attract a lot of criticism - people dont like any change, except when their house is built.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:37 pm | PermalinkThey could try to avoid looking at it, or do what we did. There were so many ugly French provincials/fortress like/neo-georgian growing by the day that we simply moved.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:40 pm | Permalink“So if a pig farmer starts a biodynamic, organic free range pig farm next to the school, the same arguments will be trotted out to rectify the selfish and intolerant attitudes of the school’s management if they were to complain?”
That’s certainly what I’d argue, just as I am now. There’s a high probability that the islamic school people would object and attempt to bludgeon the state into imposing their own preferences and tastes on their neighbours, just as the current residents of Camden are trying to do. Except to the extent based on the strictly limited range of legitimate planning matters Jason discusses (i.e. significant physical externalities like smog, toxic waste, etc and perhaps traffic congestion to the extent it can’t be controlled effectively by restrictions on the development), all such objections should be ignored irrespective of their source.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:40 pm | PermalinkThe price of land would pretty much rule out the possibility of a wheat and sheep station in the Sydney Eastern burbs. If this school is built on land zoned rural or within the precincts of rural zoning they run the risk like anyone else.
However they may have a legitimate claim against a pig farm as odor would pretty much prevent the owners of the school from enjoying their property rights. This example is a classic example for the courts/legal precedent red flagging a serious case of externalities.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:52 pm | PermalinkWell let’s hope a feed lot operator isn’t attracted to the neighbourhood.
Rural land use must now satisfy the requirements of many local, state and federal agencies - for example
-if the school’s land has remnant native vegetation( even native grasses are protected, or pastures which have been uncultivated since 1980 ) then they better not remove it, alter it or kill it ;
-all tree removals will be contested and each removal or even branch looping needs approval by the local council
-if there is a waterway on the land they can’t alter any existing natural waterflow , this extends to all drainage works also. All such works need planning permission, are regualrly inspected and the school if successful would be issued a licence to operate them for a set period.
-residents will have a right to object to any increase in background noise and in rural areas the past overclearing of trees results in noticeable noise at considerable distance -particularly after 5pm when extra curricular activites may get into full swing.
These are a few points off the top of my head and aren’t even approaching a beginning of the numerous grounds for the neighbours to start objections to development. It might look bucolic but rural land use and use conversion is probably more problematic than the sponsors of this school have contemplated. As it is I am not surprised , without having seen the specifics of the application that there were reasons to , at this time , reject the application.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 2:59 pm | PermalinkOdour is one reason pig, chicken, mushroom etc farms moved out of the Sydney basin and headed west. Another is land prices, with a pocketful of cash they could build a modern setup with all the latest technology. Keatings pig farm got done on numerous complaints of polluting the local waterways, they really picked a bad spot.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 3:01 pm | PermalinkJC, I choose the organic ,biodynamic model as the only thing they would notice would be the pigs and the farmer.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 3:04 pm | PermalinkThanks Murph
I didn’t know it meant something far removed from factory farms.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 4:02 pm | PermalinkJC, your situation isn’t comparable, because in all likelihood you were in the minority in being bothered by the architecture of houses going up around you.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 6:52 pm | PermalinkBut if the majority of people in a neighbourhood are sufficiently unhappy about a proposed development, for whatever reason, they’re going to do what they can to get their way. Having said that, there’s definitely cases, such as this one, where councils really should be showing a bit more leadership and attempt to persuade residents that a particular development is not going to negatively affect them in any measurable way.
Jason’s right on this score, which is why my essay on Finnis was designed to address the ‘point of entry’ issue - ie immigration policy (about which I am still thinking, btw). The school in Camden shit-fight is only a knock-on from the larger issue over the composition of a given country’s immigration stream.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 8:50 pm | PermalinkThey knocked back an Islamic site in the Hills a few years ago, it went to Court and the Islamists won and its now up and going and there are no complaints.
Which just proves that majorities are not always lawful
Posted on 30-May-08 at 8:55 pm | PermalinkRog: You’re referring to the Annangrove prayer room, which I mentioned in my earlier post on the Camden case. By the way, I don’t think ‘Islamist’ was the word you were after.
Helen: Harry Clark made the same point about immigration, but unfortunately his analysis didn’t go any further than noting that it’s a ‘deep question’. There is a tendency to respond by urging a slower migrant intake or insisting that prospective migrants reach some English language threshold. Where this approach falls down is that it seems to be the people who have the least exposure to Asians, Arabs and so on, that feel the most threatened. My own environment (work, wife’s work, kids’ schools) in Western Sydney is already to some degree ’swamped by Asians’ and Arabs, but I don’t sense that the Europeans feel particularly threatened. But, as I said in responding to Harry’s comment, full employment probably deserves some credit for the harmony we enjoy.
Posted on 30-May-08 at 9:23 pm | PermalinkFinnis’ is also writing in a very British context, where areas with large immigrant populations from a certain religious background tend to correlate with strong levels of support for the BNP. The BNP - with no proper campaign to speak of, and a wall-out by the MSM - even managed to get a councillor on the London Council in the last mayoral elections. They are also only one or two seats away from controlling a couple of local authorities (which have considerable power in the UK - more like Brisbane City Council than Sydney, say).
Posted on 30-May-08 at 9:52 pm | PermalinkThis is the sort of bureaucratic jargon that they use to tie up development
and
The reality is that the land is <6ha so is hardly suitable for regular cultivation for crops and
From the Camden Advertiser