arguments con

Right: Australian soldiers in Iraq: critics of this war point to it as a reason John Howard should not have received his American award.

Arguments against former Prime Minister John Howard having received the Medal of Freedom

1. John Howard's term of office was marked by reductions in freedom within Australia and a limited recognition of human rights
Critics of John Howard's receipt of the award have argued that the Howard Government developed and implemented policies which undermined the freedom of many Australians.
The Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has stated, 'I find it ironic that a prime minister who has locked children up in detention [and]who has refused to apologise to the stolen generations... is given a medal for human rights and freedom.'
On another occasion Senator Hanson-Young explained further, '"John Howard's record on human rights is blemished, to say the least ...
We're talking about the Australian prime minister who oversaw the locking up of children behind razorwire... who demonstrated an appalling lack of compassion during the Tampa incident, and who disgracefully refused to apologise to the Stolen Generations.'
Mr Howard and his government have also been criticised for putting in place anti-terrorist laws that have significantly reduced the freedom of Australian citizens. On 16 January, 2009, Binoy Kampmark, a commentator for the New Zealand online newspaper, Scoop, stated, 'Both former leaders [[John Howard and Tony Blair] have ... been responsible in their respective countries for the passage of draconian laws that have torn holes in the fabric of basic liberties. None are natural lawyers, believing that if a law is on the books, it must be legal.'
It has also been suggested that Mr Howard's support of Guantanamo Bay has put the rights of Australian soldiers at risk. Stephen Kenny, the former lawyer of convicted terrorism supporter, David Hicks, has stated, 'The existence of Guantanamo Bay is a serious stain on the credibility of America and it significantly undermines the Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war...
[Howard's] role in manipulating the imprisonment of two Australians, [Hicks and Mamdouh Habib], at Guantanamo Bay and his failure to insist that they receive a fair trial and the protection of the Geneva Convention puts at risk all Australian servicemen and women who may be captured in future conflicts.'

2. The United Stated policies John Howard supported involved attacks on the freedom of others
There are those who have argued that John Howard was not an appropriate recipient of the award because of his support for Guantanamo Bay and the incarceration of suspected terrorists without trial. Stephen Kenny, the former lawyer of convicted terrorism supporter, David Hicks, has criticised the awarding of the United States's highest civilian honour to former Australian prime minister John Howard.
Mr Kenny has claimed that Mr Howard was the only world leader outside the US who supported the imprisonment of people at Guantanamo Bay and also failed to ensure Mr Hicks received a fair trial. Mr Kenny has stated, 'I think in view of what's happened at Guantanamo Bay and John Howard's involvement in it, I think that it is extremely regrettable and clearly devalues the Medal of Freedom.'
It has also been claimed that the war on Iraq, which John Howard supported, was an unjustified and unprovoked attack on the lives and freedom of Iraqis. There are even those who consider the actions of Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Mr Howard a war crime. A pressure group International Criminal Court action is attempting to have Mr Howard charged with war crimes for his involvement in the war on Iraq. The group's Internet site states, 'In international law, it is a war crime intentionally launching an attack 'in the knowledge' that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -'which would be clearly excessive' in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. War crimes are defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv).
Accordingly ... John Winston Howard violated this statute by intentionally launching an attack 'in the knowledge' that such attack would cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -'which would be clearly excessive' in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated'. The violation at law occurs if the person 'with the authority', takes the decision, 'knowing the impacts' and 'knowing the impacts will be excessive'.
Those who hold such views of John Howard's support of the Iraq war clearly do not believe he should be awarded a Medal of Freedom.

3. John Howard's actions and beliefs no longer represent those of a majority of Australians
It has been argued that John Howard and the views he represents have been repudiated by a majority of the Australian people at the last federal election.
Mr Howard has claimed that his Medal of Freedom is an award for Australia and all Australians. Asked how he felt after receiving the award Mr Howard stated, 'I certainly appreciated it, and I felt honoured and I felt touched.
There were some very kind things said about me. But I do, nonetheless, put it in the broader context of it being a compliment to my country.' Mr Howard's detractors reject this point of view.
A blog correspondent replying to a report in the Brisbane Courier Mail of the award ceremony said of Mr Howard's remarks, 'No, really, we insist. Don't ascribe it to us - we don't want it, the man who's giving it, or the man who's receiving it. Thanks, but no thanks.'
On January 14, 2009, Mr Iane Holmes, responded to the BBC's Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant's comments on John Howard's receipt of the Medal of Freedom with the following observation.'I worked hard to get rid of Howard and his disgusting cabinet and I considered it was one of the best days work I put in. Now I want him to disappear off my TV screen as I am an Australian and despised his unAustralian attitude to anything that was not Anglo-Saxon.'
A commentator on the independent media site, Worst Episode Ever, stated, 'Can't someone quietly tap them on the shoulder and say, "Hey fellas, it's all over, you can leave now"? It is astonishing that they keep pretending that the disastrous war that they sent our countries into was not one of the most appalling foreign policy disasters for a generation.'
It would appear that a majority of Australians do not support Mr Howard receiving the Medal of Freedom. On January 6, 2009, The Age newspaper conducted a reader poll on the question of whether Mr Howard should have received the award. Of the 11, 360 people who responded 82% considered the former Prime Minister did not deserve the honour.
A commentator on the independent media site, Worst Episode Ever, stated in relation to American support for President Bush's policies that it was similarly low. The implication appears to be that Mr Bush is a rejected president rewarding colleagues for pursuing policies that have also been rejected. 'We do not look forward to watching another orgy of ineptitude when these three unimaginative leaders get together to celebrate their contribution to freedom in the world. What all of this demonstrates is just how out of touch George Bush is. Some 80% of the US population wants him to just go away.'

4. John Howard's award appears partisan and short-sighted
Critics of the Medal of Freedom being awarded to John Howard have claimed that it was a partisan award in which Bush rewarded another leader primarily because Mr Howard supported his policies and was a close personal friend.
The obvious friendship that Bush has for the three former world leaders upon whom he recently bestowed the Medal of Freedom (especially his friendship for John Howard) has been noted frequently during the course of the president's term.
Toward the end of the recent award ceremony, President Bush told the three leaders they would always be welcome in the United States and invited them to visit him on his Texas ranch after he moves out of the White House on January 20.
The president added, 'The opportunity to know them and work with them has been among the great satisfactions of my time as president. I respect them and I admire them.'
When John Howard lost the 2007 election President Bush was reported to have responded in this manner. 'The president told Prime Minister Howard he appreciates his friendship and his strong leadership over the past seven years they have worked together, which has resulted in a stronger U.S.-Australia alliance.'

5. John Howard does not have the stature of many other recipients of the award
It has been claimed that Mr Howard's contribution to freedom has been small compared to other recipients of the honour. Others who have received the award include former South African president and apartheid fighter, Nelson Mandela; former Czechoslovak and Czech Republic president Vaclav Havel, who led the "velvet revolution"; and former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, who oversaw the reunification of Germany.The only other Australians to receive the medal were Nancy Wake, the spy known as the White Mouse, who served behind enemy lines in World War II and Australian Army Lieutenant General, Sir Frank Berryman.
The Australian Greens have stated overtly that compared to such people Mr Howard is an unworthy person to receive the medal. The Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has stated Mr Howard is 'no Nelson Mandela'.
The same view has been put by Stephen Kenny, the former lawyer of convicted terrorism supporter, David Hicks. Commenting on John Howard's receipt of the award, Mr Kenny stated, 'I think that it is extremely regrettable and clearly devalues the Medal of Freedom.'