A belated sigh of relief from me. The election is all over and the lying rodent has weaseled himself out of a job. From me to you John, here’s a big f–k you to you and everything you stood for.
Archive for the 'politics' Category
Uppdate : It’s happened again!
Sydney radio announcer Steve Price told his audience that when questioning Peter Garrett about Labor’s ‘Me-Tooism’, Garrett replied, it wouldn’t be a problem because they would “change it all” when they got into power.
Garrett has come out and said:
“There is no doubt things would change under a Labor government.
“We would launch an education revolution, we would get rid of Work Choices, we would deliver a high speed broadband network across Australia, we will end the blame game on hospitals.
“There is nothing remarkable about that.”
This plays a little to neatly into Howard’s narrative of the sneaky Rudd story for my liking. And with the absence of source materials for the interview (which happened at an airport lounge) I’m sure his mob will use their imagination.
Let’s pray Kevin doesn’t release a clarifying statement.
Meanwhile, the spectre of death, Phillip Ruddock is suggesting bringing in any new people into government reduces our ability to react to a terrorist incident. This is why octogenarians such as Ruddock (perhaps a slight exaggeration) should immediately be sent to Iraq where their wealth of experience can be put to direct use.
Rudd needs to stop being so nervous about losing the election from the lead that he jumps down on his ministers merely when something they say might be construed as ammunition for the Coalition.
He did it with McClelland over his sensible remarks on the death penalty and he’s done it with Peter Garrett over his remarks about a post Kyoto agreement requiring (or not requiring) developed nations to cut emissions.
Read the transcript and /or listen to the audio for yourself.
Update: Apparently Garrett was explicit in an interview with the Australian Financial Review, if anyone has a copy of it, let me know.
Garrett was not suggesting we take part in binding agreements that would not include the US or China. He was emphasizing the fact that Australia should be a part of the process of getting those agreements made. This is in contrast to Howard’s position that unless a wonderful magical all-encompassing consensus emerges binding everybody, then fuck it.
But by being a bit slippery about the question, (if developed nations don’t sign on, then we won’t avert climate change will we?) Howard pounced on it. Rudd overreacted and in stead of standing by what his minister said, he issued a ‘clarifying statement’. Something a diplomat does, not a leader.
Now the government is spinning that in fact there is very little that differentiates Labor from the Coalition on climate change (a good reason to vote Green!). We have an opposition that wants you to believe it’s economics are identical to the government and a government who wants you to believe it’s environmental policy is identical to the opposition. Presumably because each is envious of the other’s poll numbers on the respective issues.
Check out The Big Switch to find out real points of difference amongst the parties and where your local candidate stands on the most important issue (in my view) of this election.
Show those in power and those who want power what this issue means to you by Walking Against Warming.
On Sunday November 11, join thousands of other Aussies at the Walk Against Warming near you to send a clear message to our political leaders – that the community wants bold and effective leadership on climate change!
GetUp Meeting Spots in Capital Cities
In Melbourne:
Meet at Federation Square at the entrance to the Ian Potter gallery at 12:30pm.
Dale Dickins 0405 776 169 victoria@getup.org.au
One of my favourite jokes about irony:
Homer: It seems the cat has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him!
Skinner: How ironic
Another:
(Joe who is in a wheelchair finally catches the theif he has been after)
Peter: So what happend to the theif?
Joe: Ironically I severed his spine.
Peter: Looks like you have more competition at next years games.
Joe: No, he’s dead.
Is it ironic that both these jokes are acutally about a lack of irony? No, it’s not.
I mention it because I find it deliciously ironic (not the salty kind) that after selectively releasing chat transcripts in order to slander Dr. Mohammed Haneef’s reputation and credibility, Minister Kevin Andrews has had some unflattering transcripts of his own released.
CONFIDENTIAL emails between top AFP agents and a senior public servant advising Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews indicate that there was a secret plan to thwart a decision by a magistrate to release then terror suspect Mohamed Haneef on bail.
The emails show the AFP was aware of a weekend “contingency” plan to ensure the Indian doctor would remain behind bars by having Mr Andrews revoke his visa under the Migration Act in the event of bail being granted by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne on the following Monday.
The disclosure of the emails will be used against Mr Andrews, who has always insisted that he made his decision to revoke Dr Haneef’s visa under the Migration Act and that it was “unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane”.
A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews told The Australian last night that she was “shocked and a bit concerned” at the disclosure in the emails.
“That’s something, to be honest, I’m a bit lost for words on because it shocks me,” said Kate Walshe, adding that she would seek urgent advice from Mr Andrews.
“I had never heard of any contingency plan. The minister has never referred to one.”
After getting advice from Mr Andrews last night, Ms Walshe said the minister had “absolutely not” been involved in any “contingency” plan to thwart Ms Payne: “It’s not our email and it’s not something that we considered beforehand.
“My answer would be that the police can explain their correspondence to and from each other but there was absolutely no deal or arrangement or contingency instigated, approved, or discussed by the minister or any of his staff at all, ever.”
The emails, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by Dr Haneef’s lawyers, show that while the AFP was uncertain on Saturday, July 14, after an initial bail hearing whether Dr Haneef would be freed two days later by Ms Payne, the police had developed “contingencies”.
The first email, written by Brisbane-based counter-terrorism co-ordinator David Craig to commanders of the AFP’s counter-terrorism unit at 5.22pm on July 14, states: “Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today.”
Under the Migration Act, such a contingency necessarily needed to involve Mr Andrews.
This email was forwarded at 8.10am on Monday, July 16, by agent Luke Morrish, the AFP’s Canberra-based acting manager for domestic counter-terrorism, to top Immigration Department public servant Peter White.
Mr White, the department’s assistant secretary responsible for character assessment and war crimes screening, gave Mr Andrews comprehensive advice on his powers and his authority to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa and keep him in custody on the basis of secret evidence.
About three hours after Agent Morrish forwarded the email to Mr White on July 16, Ms Payne granted Dr Haneef bail over a terrorism-related charge.
One of the factors relied on by Ms Payne was the extraordinary weakness of the AFP’s case against Dr Haneef, who had repeatedly and strenuously asserted his innocence of any connection with terrorist acts carried out in Britain in June, which were linked to his mobile phone SIM card and his second cousins, brothers Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed. The Gold Coast Hospital registrar was kept behind bars after Mr Andrews made his controversial decision on July 16 to revoke the visa.
Defending his decision on the afternoon of July 16, Mr Andrews said: “This is unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane. This is a direct responsibility set out in the Migration Act. This is simply a matter of me looking at the responsibilities that I have under the migration legislation, acting upon the advice and information provided to me by the Australian Federal Police, and then making a decision both in light of my responsibility and that information and advice.”
The release of the emails, three months after the case against the exonerated Dr Haneef collapsed in disgrace amid disclosures in The Australian of serious errors by police and prosecutors from the Commonwealth DPP, comes amid continuing calls for a royal commission-style inquiry.
Mr Andrews, who has repeatedly maintained that Dr Haneef failed a “character test” arising from his connection to his second cousins, is instructing lawyers for the Crown to appeal against a Federal Court decision that Dr Haneef’s visa should be reinstated.
Dr Haneef’s solicitor, Peter Russo, in Melbourne last night for a speech, told The Australian: “I’m concerned about it. Obviously it’s apparent that there was communication about pulling his visa prior to the magistrate handing down her decision.”
Describing the emails as “a very significant piece in the jigsaw of information”, he called on AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, Mr Andrews and anyone else who knew of the secret contingency plan to “come clean and explain exactly what discussions did take place”.
Mr Russo said he wanted to say a lot more about the emails, “but I’m limited in what I can say because of a pending Federal Court appeal over Dr Haneef’s visa”.
The Saturday July 14 email written by Agent Craig states: “In my opinion, the magistrate did not appear weighted to either side’s argument and the outcome of her decision on Monday is not predictable.”
Agent Craig also reports that Ms Payne had disclosed to the court that she had worked a decade earlier for Dr Haneef’s solicitor, Mr Russo, and that she had asked if this would be an issue for the prosecution.
While the prosecution did not object to her hearing the matter, Agent Craig wrote to his superiors: “This is somewhat of a concern, in my opinion.”
A leading defence lawyer and close follower of the Haneef case, barrister Greg Barns, last night said the emails showed that “the AFP in conjunction with the Government were essentially completely undermining the judicial process”.
“They were ripping up the doctrine of the separation of powers,” Mr Barns said.
“What you are seeing here is the politicisation of an investigation and the AFP working hand-in-glove to formulate that.
“It shows there was a pre-judgment by Minister Andrews and the Government, prior to the magistrate’s decision being taken, and this decision was politically stage-managed rather than being done according to law.”
An AFP spokeswoman said last night she was getting advice and would provide more details as soon as possible.
Considering that the Haneef debacle was an issue Hedley Thomas gained some measure of credibility as a journalist (though he made some mistakes) I’m surprised his still has a job at The Australian.
According to the AFP, circumventing the authority of the Courts is “normal operational contingency planning” and Andrews has taken a break from his “I’ve got a secret dossier” character to the more common Government ‘Schultz’ line: “I know nothing!“.
From News.com.au
A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews said today he had no knowledge of the correspondence.
“He didn’t see the emails. He hasn’t seen the emails. Never heard of the police officer (mentioned),” the spokeswoman told AAP today.
She said Mr White could have received the email and failed to hand it on to the minister, but maintained the minister had a healthy relationship with the department.
“Absolutely, a relationship that any minister would have with his department.
“But there would be no reason for the minister to be seeing such (emails) because they are completely unrelated to his actual decision.”
“A relationship that any minister would have with his department”, well that sums it up doesn’t it? Also known as “plausible deniability”, and what was once known as ministerial responsibility. Just like the Australian Wheat Board scandal or Children Overboard or the entire cultural failure of the Immigration Department or WMD or Abu Ghraib, unless you actually catch the minister in the act -even if you have clear records implicating their department - the minister cannot be held responsible.
The problem is, it works. Fire a minister and you’ve admitted guilt and the public will hold you accountable for it (hopefully). Stick it out and the issue fades from the collective consciousness.
Of course you only get so many fuck up freebies before you’re too much of a liability to keep around. Kevin Andrews is certainly nearing the margin however short of finding a dead prostitute in his car I doubt Howard would sack a minister during an election campaign.
However, am I suffering from the same Confirmation Bias that seems to afflict so many governments around the world? The tendency to attempt to prove rather than disprove your theories?
Perhaps. The emails themselves aren’t really that damning, but I desperately want to see Andrews get what’s coming to him.
I realize that one is not supposed to mention ‘refugees’ this election unless you are a covert agent for the Liberal party trying to wedge Rudd against the lefties and give mainstream (’racist’) Australian ‘battlers’ a reason to go back to the coalition.
Ross Gittins hit on the idea that Labor lefties sincerely hope Rudd isn’t as Howardesque as he is making himself out to be for the purposes of the election campaign.
One of the central issues in this election campaign is what Kevin Rudd would be like as prime minister. Much of John Howard’s campaigning is directed towards convincing us that, once he’d won, Rudd’s me-tooing would stop and the real man would be revealed.
But here’s the funny thing: what Liberal supporters fear, many Labor supporters hope for. They hope that once he’d won, Rudd’s me-tooing would stop and the closet socialist — any kind of socialist — would be revealed.
Michelle Grattan once wrote that the “sniff of power” would keep the left quiet during the election, so intense is their desire to see Howard ride off into the sunset, hunched over and dead with no-one shouting “come back!” Except perhaps for Peter Costello.
I think that nothing short of a ‘Howard-Lite’ candidate is capable of winning power in this country at this time. Perhaps there will be a time for a Goff Whitlam election but this isn’t it, not when the economy is on cocaine and Australian Working Families (AWFs) “have never been better off”.
But in earnest hope we cling to speeches made by Rudd such as the following made back in August 2006.
Industrial relations, asylum seekers and global climate change all needed the attention of Christians, opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said at a Christian conference in Parliament House in Canberra.
“There are of course many other (issues).
“But none can dispute that these three are significant,” Mr Rudd said.
On industrial relations Mr Rudd said the government’s controversial Work Choices laws damaged families.
“The key to family life is relationships and the key to relationships is the time to nurture them.
“These industrial relations changes have a capacity to make our family life increasingly time-poor and therefore relationship-poor.”
A compassionate view toward asylum seekers, Mr Rudd said, was part of a long biblical tradition of welcoming strangers.
“That is why the government’s current proposal to excise the entire Australian mainland from the entire Australian migration zone and to rely almost exclusively on the so-called Pacific solution should be the cause of great ethical concern across the Christian churches,” Mr Rudd said.
He described global warming as one of the great fundamental ethical challenges of the modern age.
“For me it is ethically indefensible for this government to have spent the last decade not only refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but actively working with the government of the United States to marginalise it.”
So maybe you don’t bring up refugees in an election campaign lest you scare working family xenophobes. Nor do you harp on or even really mention or refer to the 2.2 million Australians living below the poverty line lest you scare off working family mortgage belt cashed up bogans. But, you certainly talk up industrial relations as much as possible, this hurts working families. And you can whisper platitudes about climate change thanks to Al Gore making saving ourselves from self-annihiliation vogue. But don’t actually detail the sacrifices people are going to have to make or you’ll scare the CUB crowd. (Though he better bloody not have ethanol in mind.)
Rudd calls them ‘Christian’ values though as an atheist I call them ‘humanist’ values and some philosophers might very well call them, simply, ‘minimal human decency’. However, the best way to push Rudd to the left is to vote for the Greens in the senate, the party who understands the urgency of the climate change crisis. The party who doesn’t have to kiss the ass of big business by pulling some kind of phased withdrawal of Work Choices.
Today thank the proverbial ‘lord’ we learn:
A PREFERENCE swap between Labor and the Greens is “all but a done deal” for the Senate nationwide and marginal lower house seats in every state except Tasmania, Greens leader Bob Brown says.
This is after the ALP’s unforgivable act of putting Family First ahead of The Greens in their preferences which is the only reason Steve Fielding was elected in 2004.
How can Steve Fielding of Family First win one of Victoria’s Senate seats with just 45,260 votes?
In short, because virtually every other party - including Labor and the Democrats - preferred Family First to the Greens and practically every other party.
STEP 1 1st preferences
Liberal/NP 1,048,172
ALP 873,649Greens 205,920
Family First 45,204
Democrats 44,099
DLP 44,084
Liberals for Forests 41,289
You can see how the deed was done in all it’s horrible detail here.
This time around, incredibly, it’s going to be a challenge just to oust the Coalition from the senate. Which is why the ALP, Democrats & Greens are putting up a united front.
It’s about time there was some scrutiny of Family First. There is sure to be some public investigation of this malignant growth on our political system now that FF has disendorsed one of their Sydney candidates, Andrew Quah. He clearly did not have the ‘values’ they were after.
Family First is the epitome of one Australia’s nastiest exports, Dog Whistle politics. From their website:
FAMILY FIRST’s top priority is the health and well-being of families;
FAMILY FIRST believes families are the most important thing in our lives;
FAMILY FIRST raises the issues that really matter to families;
FAMILY FIRST gives your family a voice in Parliament, so the needs of families are addressed;
FAMILY FIRST is independent and represents commonsense, mainstream values and ordinary Australian families.
I can hear dogs howling down the street, this is the most obviously coded bunch of bullshit I’ve ever read. “Commonsense, mainstream values” ? Presumably that means they are against dark people. Families are the most important thing in our lives? What does that even mean? We know they’re against homosexuality.
Family First disciplined one of its workers at Dayboro, in the marginal Brisbane seat of Dickson, for answering “yes” to a question about whether Family First supported lesbians being burned to death.
But, given how important families are and all, I would’ve thought they would support IVF treatment and adoption for lesbians not burning them to death.
How does a pro-family party reconcile children behind razor wire in mandatory detention, or refugees unable to reunite with their families in Australia (especially if they’re from Africa)? It doesn’t. Because for the religious right, Christian values mean only two things, anti-abortion and anti-homosexuals.
I wrote the following to Senator Steve Fielding but am yet to receive any response:
Dear Senator Fielding,
You represent a party that “recognises and supports Australia’s international and humanitarian commitments in regard to asylum seekers.” http://www.familyfirst.org.au
/documents/ASYLUMSEEKERS.pdf What action will you be taking to ensure Australia does not continue to flout it’s international and moral obligations as a signatory if the Refugee Convention, in regard to the 72 Sri Lanka genuine refugees who face the prospect of languishing for years indeterminately on Nauru?
Do you regard it as morally just to punish genuine refugees by refusing to settle them in Australia in order to send a symbolic message to a third party (people smugglers)?
So we come back to Rudd’s re-branding of Christian values (minimal human decency). They are of course informed completely by secular humanist values otherwise we would be promoting murder, genocide, rape and unholy acts of human indignity were we rely solely on the bible for our ‘values’. Jesus had some good stuff to say about social justice, let’s grab that and leave the stoning to death shit to the homophobic, anti-women fundamentalists.
My favourite quote about mixing religion with politics is this one:
Mixing religion with politics is like mixing ice cream with horse manure. It doesn’t hurt the manure, but it ruins the ice cream.
Of course you can guess which one I think is the ice cream, and which one is just a bunch of horse shit. Whatever you believe, the great moral crisis of our time, possibly of all time is climate change. It is not interest rates, it is not gay men trying to get married, it is not union thugs.
Right Wingers would have you believe climate change is an economic question, it’s not. There will be economic costs and in the most consumerist, self absorbed, decadent, selfish, short sighted generation in living memory, talk of *gasp* “self sacrifice” seems akin to promoting self-mutilation.
Either we decide that it is right to spend a lot of money seeking to prevent catastrophic climate change or we decide that it isn’t, but we must make that decision on the grounds of how much we value people and places as people and places, rather than as figures in a ledger.
Geroge Monbiot
Imagine the refugee problem brought about by a global food deficit, seal level rises and complete disruption of regular weather patterns. Billions of people will be affected and they will be disproportionately poor. Here in the comfortable west, climate change affects us last and effect us least. But the humanitarian disaster that awaits us is so great that only a sociopath could fail to grasp the urgency of action.
I’m not sure it’s wise for someone who believes in the literal story of Noah and the flood to be holding or co-holding the balance of power in the Senate!
Don’t be hoodwinked by so called ‘Climate Change Realists’, vote for The Greens, it’s about values.
Stan Goff is a writer, activist, and US Army veteran having served from 1970 to 1996. He is an Anti-imperialist activist, feminist, and socialist. He is the author of the blog Feral Scholar.
Here is his biography from the Huffington Post, to which he contributes:
Stan Goff is a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. He is the author of three books; Hideous Dream - A Soldier’s Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti (Soft Skull Press, 2000), Full Spectrum Disorder - The Military in the New American Century (Soft Skull Press, 2004), Sex & War, Energy War - Exterminism for the 21st Century, and My Year with the Liberals.
He is the former military affairs editor for From The Wilderness, and has written foreign policy analysis for Sanders Research Associates. He also occasionally writes for Truthdig.
He is a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Veterans for Peace (VFP), and Military Families Speak Out (MFSO). His son is in the active duty army and has been deployed to Iraq four times. Goff is on the coordinating committee of the Bring Them Home Now! campaign, and advised Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) on organizational development. His website is called “Insurgent American.”
Have a listen to him speak in the lecture video below. It was delivered March 22, 2006 on the subject: “Is the US liberating Iraq”. I haven’t seen anybody else speak with the same honesty and authority on the real-world imperialist actions of the United States.
If you don’t have an hour and a half just listen to Sgt. Goff give advice to those who would consider joining the military.
From The Age: Somali youth to sue police over ‘unprovoked’ attack
A SOMALI-born youth leader at the centre of race allegations against Victoria Police has vowed to take civil action over what he says was an unprovoked police attack that left him with smashed teeth.
Ahmed Dini, 20, who required hospital treatment after being struck in the face with a heavy torch, announced plans to sue the officer involved last week, following a Melbourne magistrate’s ruling that a charge against Mr Dini of hindering police be dismissed.
The alleged police attack on Mr Dini on February 14 last year was one of 13 complaints alleging police brutality and harassment of African youths received by the Office of Police Integrity in the first few months of 2006.
The claims, including allegations of punching, kicking and choking, prompted a secret “ethical health” review of the Flemington Police Station, conducted for the Ethical Standards Department last year by Inspector Mark Doney.
In one of the most shocking cases, a youth alleged that he was punched twice in the head while his face was on the ground. He said a police officer then called him a “black c—” and stood on his head while smoking a cigarette.
The confidential Doney report, part of which was leaked to The Sunday Age last month, questioned the future of a senior sergeant accused by lawyers of running a regime of “racially motivated police violence” against local African youths.
Lawyers from the Flemington & Kensington Community Legal Centre, who have been trying to get the report under freedom of information, say there are now 19 complaints before the OPI alleging police assaults on African youths.
The alleged assault of Mr Dini — this year’s Moonee Valley youth of the year — took place as police searched a Flemington high-rise estate for youths who had allegedly thrown rocks at a police car.
During the Magistrate’s Court hearing of the charge against Mr Dini, Senior Constable Matthew Alston claimed that he was helping a colleague who was wrestling with Ghafoor Wakil, 20, who was later charged with resisting arrest; that charge also was dismissed last week.
He said Mr Dini was running over to interfere in the arrest and as he tried to stop him, his forearm struck Mr Dini’s chest.
However, Mr Dini told the court that he was standing 30 metres away holding a piece of cake in one hand and a cup of hot chocolate in the other, when Senior Constable Alston ran up and ordered him to raise his arms. He obeyed, still holding the cake and drink. The police officer then used his torch to hit him “with full force” in the face, he said, knocking him to the ground. The court later heard the officer had hot chocolate on his clothes. Mr Dini said the impact of the blow dislodged three teeth. “I was saying ‘hospital’ — I wanted to save my teeth.”
Dismissing the charge of hindering police, Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg said several aspects of the police case were “curious”, such as why Mr Dini would be running over to interfere in an arrest while holding a cup of hot chocolate.
He said Senior Constable Alston’s version failed to explain Mr Dini’s facial injuries.
Mr Dini’s lawyer, Tamar Hopkins, said she would begin civil proceedings for damages, including pain and suffering and medical expenses, against Senior Constable Alston.
However, a 2002 Court of Appeal ruling that police who behaved unreasonably were individually responsible for their actions meant Mr Dini might not be able to sue the State of Victoria, she said.
A Victoria Police spokeswoman said that any legal action taken by individuals was “a matter for themselves”.
No-one in power in this country knows what the god damn word ‘systemic‘ means. “Police who behaved unreasonably were individually responsible for their actions”, are these people representatives of the state or not? They weren’t off duty.
Apparently the only racially systemic problems we have in this country is with certain races of people such as the Sudanese refugees who have been unfairly targeted by Kevin Andrews.
There is no such thing as racism in Australia. When race riots in Cronulla erupted John Howard’s condemnation amounted to:
I do not accept there is underlying racism in this country, I have always taken a more optimistic view of the character of the Australian people.
Maybe he took issue with the ‘underlying’ qualifier and cheerfully welcomes the overt racism in this country and in his government. Kevin Andrews’ demonization of the Sudanese community surely compounded the climate of fear and exclusion which lead to the vicious attack on Ajang Gor.
On Tuesday night, 17-year-old Ajang Gor and his brother Santo were riding their bikes in Melbourne’s western suburbs when they were approached by a group of men who started shouting racist abuse.
AJANG GOR, BASHING VICTIM: Saying, “You black dog,” and all those thoughts, “Can you jump over your bike and wait for us.” Then I said to them, “No, I’m in hurry”.
The brothers claim the group chased them and smashed a bottle on Ajang’s head. He was knocked unconscious and taken to hospital.
Did the minister condemn all acts of racially motivated violence? No. He stood by his comments and said the attack was a matter for the police. Instead he singled out an attack on a police officer by some drunk youths as not reflecting “the Australian way of life”. Even though the assistant police commissioner maintained that the attack had nothing to do with race and was an accidental confrontation with some drunk youths.
Andrews’ comment is a particularly insidious statement to make. Really? Violence isn’t an Australian way of life? You think? The Australian way, Australian values or being un-Australian is all code for you don’t belong here. Are there any values particular to Australia that aren’t universal secular humanist values? Peace,acceptance, friendship, honesty etc. etc. No. So you use these codewords when you want to exclude a group of people from an ill-defined community.
Acceptance and tolerance is a universal value but fear is also a universal emotion and the former has be fostered and nurtured by our leaders. But in a world where politicians are the real ‘terrorists’ by terrifying people with exaggerated threats to their safety and wellbeing, fear is the currency of power.
John Howard describes the invasion and pillaging of the Aboriginal people as a ‘blemish’ on our history. The colonies of Australia were convinced to federalize in part to stop Asian immigration and pacific islanders taking low paid employment. This nation of white European convicts and settlers believed this country ‘belonged’ to them. As a result one of the first acts of the new federal parliament was the White Australia Policy.
If anyone has integration issues clearly it is ‘us’. Look at the history. We have often described this country as a ‘multicultural’ success story, even though this government renamed the Immigration and Multicultural affairs portfolio to Immigration and Citizenship. The whole ‘multicultural’ branding didn’t jibe with their citizenship test designed to limit non-English speakers becoming Australian citizens.
Today The Age reports that up to seventy percent of Sudanese refugees that are settled he receive “no information about Australia before or after their arrival”. And what information do we receive about them? We get bashings and crimes highlighted to us by the tabloid media but there is no context given to the culture of these new Australians. We clearly have some integration issues.
It is easy to see only difference and be fearful of the other. We are a nation defined by our diversity and we must embrace it to foster a community of togetherness. When our leaders fail to do this by relying on fear and exclusion we must all be individually responsible.
There’s an Indian doctor who can’t get his Visa back, a kid who got hit in the head with a beer bottle, another who got his teeth smashed in, a refugee who found no refuge in a country filled with decent people. There’s something wrong with this picture, there’s something wrong with the system that inculcates this culture.
Take a stand for those around you, it’s time to overturn the climate of fear. Let’s make the ‘Australian way’ stand for peace and acceptance of all people. Don’t put up with racist attitudes.
Check out this meta matrix within a matrix action on Howard’s latest video. Every time I see it, I pray the architect will switch Howard off and reboot the last ten years of the Howard Nightmare. Kevin Rudd would make a good Agent Smith.
But then, Howard & Co. really do pull off that evil empire vibe.
My favourite video would have to be this one:
Go for Green!
Joe Hockey, master of political nuance that he is, threw a wrench in the Howard, “The unions are coming to eat your children” scare campaign by calling them, “irrelevant” and describing their role as “essentially over“.
Gradually they’ve been falling and most dramatically even under Keating and now they’re just down to 20 per cent,” he said.
One in five workers are choosing to join the unions.
“Now unions have an important safety role in some industries but overall Australians are choosing not join the unions because they see them as irrelevant to their lives.
Now in an attempt to salvage the narrative Howard enunciated:
Unions have a legitimate and proper role in our society
We are not anti-union, we are anti union control, we are anti union domination, we are anti unions having a monopoly role in the workplace, but unions have a legitimate place in our society, always have. It’s just they shouldn’t run the place.
We’re not against the notion of a union just the idea of it affecting any actual change or policy. Y’know ‘control’. That belongs as a birth right to the free marketeers.
Now Joe -I’m a big teddy bear- Hockey explained further:
Given that the unions now only represent 15 per cent of the private sector workforce, yet under Kevin Rudd they would be 70 per cent of his ministry, I absolutely stand by those comments.
Just like our African refugee intake used to be 70 percent, for the year 07-08 it will be zero perecent. So the plight of African refugee’s is now irrelevant to a modern Australia.
Let’s take a look at the party of the people. In touch with the mythical ‘working family’.
My god, have you ever seen a more representative bunch of people. They’ve got Australian diversity written all over them don’t they? This is the party of inept creepy white men isn’t it?
I don’t think the ALP is any better but let’s follow Joe -I’ve never been too good at- Hockey’s argument.
Howard’s Minions:
100% White Bread
13% Women 87% Men
3% Vampire (Phillip Ruddock)
3% Gollum (Kevin Andrews)
So if you’re a white, male, possibly undead voter who doesn’t give a stuff about workplace fairness, investment in education and thinks that climate change is a hoax, then the Liberal Party is for you.
But if in doubt, there is one statistic which can easily confirm your membership:
Feel free to invent your own captions.
Greens Fly ’sack Howard’ banner outisde Kirribilli House
So the ‘official’ election campaign is on. A good time to reflect on the last ten years don’t you think?
Chaser’s War on Everything - Ten Years of John W. Howard
From The Australian Editorial
Employment Minister Joe Hockey said that since the Government’s workplace reforms were introduced in March 2006, 430,700 jobs have been created.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Since the Government’s workplace reforms were introduced in March 2006, the Australian dollar hit US$0.90 for the first time since 1984, and the arctic ice has melted at an alarming rate. Correlation does not imply causation. Employment was on the rise before WorkChoices, at least show me
Where the rise in job numbers is an objective fact, measured by the ABS, academic investigations into the impact of Work Choices on working conditions and employee security and sentiment have been highly politicised and the data is unreliable as a result.
So because the government didn’t like the results of the study done on the specific effects of Work Choices on conditions they yelled a lot about it and how prejudiced and biased it was even though they funded half of it. As a consequence of their vociferous objections, it was politicised and as a consequence this has somehow magically mutated the data itself.
Jobs growth and higher real wages challenge the view put by social welfare and church groups that Work Choices in some way lacks morality.
Yes it does challenge that view if and only if you are a utilitarian! If morality = utility and WorkChoices increases overall utility then it is not immoral, no matter how unfair it is. You see it’s just a semantic problem, church groups tend not to be utilitarians. They’re very big on the whole moral absolutes thing.
As Health Minister Tony Abbott told a Quadrant and Institute of Public Affairs discussion this week, the problem for the social justice lobby is explaining how 10.9 per cent unemployment under a more regulated labour market is more fair than 4.3 per cent unemployment under the policies of the Howard Government. On examination, Mr Abbott said, what’s called “social justice” usually turns out to be socialism masquerading as justice.
Wow.
Of course, how could I find this point of view so immensely repulsive? Here is how you arrive at it.
1. Become indoctrinated in the free-market ideology that what we call the ‘free-market’ (which is usually pro-business regulation masquerading as the free-maket).
1a. This means a deregulated (pro-business) market results in better social goods for all.
2. Groups who criticize the results of these policies as being to the detriment of social justice fail to see or deliberately ignore the better social goods being produced for all.
C. Therefore these groups must be inherently anti-free market and are actually socialists.
I’m sure the ideologues at The Australian know what I’m talking about, even the most anti-union legislation in this country’s history isn’t ‘free-market’ enough for them:
The Australian has never been a keen supporter of Work Choices because we consider it to be too bureaucratic, resulting in more red tape and unnecessary compliance costs for large and small businesses. But we cannot ignore the fact that a large number of jobs have been created as a result. Reform of unfair dismissal laws giving small business flexibility to take on staff without the risk of having to carry them if circumstances change (that allow them to fire them unfairly) has undoubtedly had a significant impact. The introduction of contract agreements that recognise the reality of working life (that reality being that employers hold all the cards and the little guy and suck on it) have no doubt also played a part.
Keep up the good work guys.
Recent Comments