Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Are Aborigines Howard's Tampa 2?
So, he's prepared to recall Parliament to take over Aboriginal communities, eh? And it hasn't been to Cabinet, eh? And it was all so urgent they didn't bother to contact the NT chief minister first, eh? And the announcement was made, without detail, only ten days after the report that allegedly sparked it, eh? Smell something in the air, folks? Judge for yourself how considered this policy is from Howard's Lateline interview last night. This was my first take, in a response to Ern Graham in Ern Graham, Labor man:
"Ern,. my guess is that Rudd will try to go along with Howard to stop himself being wedged. There's a mix of bad and good in Howard's plan. I think there'll be trouble in the ALP over some of it. We'll see if Howard tries a Tampa play by putting up some stuff he thinks Labor could never agree to. The problem is that with the Tampa legislation part 1 - which allowed officials to kill boat people without recourse to the Courts! - dissident Libs were quiet because it was close to the election and they knew the Senate would knock it off. It did, then Howard put up something more reasonable and Beazley agreed. Then Howard ran the line throughout the 2001 campaign that Beazley had squibbed it. Good wedge. This time Howard controls the Senate, so it's harder to run that play. We'll see what the detail is like. I think this policy is part of the election game - otherwise Howard would have done something in 2001, when the very same issue hit the headlines for weeks, about the same time as a Queensland report very similar to the NT one now. Nothing happened then. For a Webdiary reprise of the 2001 scandal, see the links under Here I am. In particular, see Time for action (June 2001)."
And here's the take of a former Webdiarist who emailed me in despair this arvo:
"JH's solution to the child sex abuse in indigenous communities is
classic JH. Like other things that he did with education, GST, Medicare, Climate Change, broadband, security, East Timor etc etc. He is now being regarded as a hero by the rest of apathetic Australian community and the Media, yes especially the Media, just roll-over and swallow it.
"His modus operandi has always been to let the problem run. In most cases he ignores the problem or actively make it worse. Then when the political timing is right and ripe, eg a few months before the election, he announces a big bang "solution" and dresses it up as a solution that he is forced to make. A solution that we had to have. So he is the
white knight, the caring party and the hero.
"The apathetic Australian community and the media make me not want to be engaged."
So here's the press conference transcript. Note the takeover of Aboriginal land rights. Let's see what happens on this one.
I reckon Rudd's response yesterday, to pledge to help address the problem and seek an immediate briefing on the detail, was a bid to avoid the tragedy that happened to Labor on the Tampa legislation, Mark 1. That was cooked up in Howard's office, rammed through the Coalition party room without any of them even seeing the legislation, then rushed through the House of Reps. To her credit, only Lib MP Judi Moylan abstained, on the grounds that she couldn't form a view on it until she'd read the damned thing! To relive those dramatic months, go to Webdiary's 2001 archive from August 28. My first take was Moral Panic.)
Let's see what happens...
Joint Press Conference with the Hon Mal Brough, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra
Subject: Indigenous emergency
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, Mr Brough and I have called this news conference to announce a number of major measures to deal with what we can only describe as a national emergency in relation to the abuse of children in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
Anybody who's read or examined the report prepared by Pat Anderson and Rex Wild entitled Little Children Are Sacred will be sickened and horrified by the level of abuse. They will be deeply disturbed at the widespread nature of that abuse and they will be looking for the responsible assumption of authority by a government to deal with the problem. We are unhappy with the response of the Northern Territory Government. It is our view that if it hadn't been for the persistence of Mr Brough in elevating this as an issue, the inquiry conducted by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson would never have been commissioned. The report was in the hands of the Northern Territory Government for some eight weeks before it was released and subsequently the Chief Minister has indicated that they would have a response in a period of six weeks and it's only today that I've received a letter from the Chief Minister and Mr Brough has, indicating that there is a desire on the part of the Northern Territory Government to work with us to deal with the issue.
We're very happy to work with the Northern Territory Government, but it will need to be on the terms that I'm about to announce. We regard this as akin to a national emergency. Mr Brough's put it to me this way; that if this set of circumstances had been disclosed as taking place in the suburb of Dickson, can you imagine what the local response from police, from medical authorities and from the state government would have been? It would have been horror and immediate action and a demand by the community that something be done. That has not happened in relation to the Northern Territory and we therefore believe that the action I'm about to outline is totally justified and warranted given our overarching responsibilities for the welfare of children throughout Australia.
These measures are going to be overseen by a taskforce of eminent Australians. It will include logistics and other specialists and child protection experts. The measures involve a number of actions. Firstly in relation to alcohol the intention is to introduce widespread alcohol restrictions on Northern Territory Aboriginal land for six months. We'll ban the sale, the possession, the transportation, the consumption and (introduce the) broader monitoring of take away sales across the Northern Territory.
We will provide the resources and we'll be appealing directly to the Australian Medical Association to assist. We will bear the cost of medical examinations of all indigenous children in the Northern Territory under the age of 16 and we'll provide the resources to deal with any follow up medical treatment that will be needed. We're going to introduce a series of welfare reforms designed to stem the flow of cash going towards alcohol abuse and to ensure that the funds meant to be used for children's welfare are actually used for that purpose. The principal approach here will be to quarantine as from now through Centrelink, to be supported by legislation, 50 per cent of welfare payments to parents of children in the affected areas and the obligation in relation to that will follow the parent wherever that parent may go so the obligation cannot be avoided simply by moving to another part of Australia; and effectively the arrangements will be that that 50 per cent can only be used for the purchase of food and other essentials.
We're going to enforce school attendance by linking income support and family assistance payments to school attendance for all people living on Aboriginal land. We'll be ensuring that meals are provided for children at school with parents paying for the meals. The Commonwealth Government will take control of townships through five year leases to ensure that property and public housing can be improved and if that involves the payment of compensation on just terms as required by the Commonwealth Constitution then that compensation will be readily paid.
We'll require intensive on ground clean up of communities to make them safer and healthier by marshalling local workforces through Work for the Dole arrangements. We will scrap the permit system for common areas and road corridors on Aboriginal lands. We're going to ban the possession of x-rated pornography in the proscribed areas and we're going to check all publicly funded computers for evidence of the storage of pornography.
Law and order will be a central focus of the measures I've announced. There will be an immediate increase in policing levels, they're manifestly inadequate. The existing laws even with their shortcomings are not being adequately enforced. We'll be asking each state police service to provide up to 10 officers who'll be sworn as police in the Northern Territory. We will provide the additional cost and we'll provide special incentives and bonuses for the police around Australia to participate in this activity. We're going to provide additional resources to set up an Australian Government sexual abuse reporting desk and we'll appoint managers of all government businesses in all communities.
And there are two other very important actions. Next Thursday there'll be a meeting of the intergovernmental committee on the Australian Crime Commission to formally, and at that meeting, I'm sorry, our Minister will ask the ministerial council to formally refer this issue to the Australian Crime Commission to allow the crime commission to locate and identify perpetrators of sexual abuse of indigenous children in other areas of Australia. And this is will be a precursor we hope to the effective prosecution of those people by the relevant state and territory law enforcement authorities.
I should also indicate to you that Mr Brough is bringing to Cabinet at its next meeting some proposals to further extend the conditionality of welfare payments to all Australians receiving income support to ensure that these payments are used for the benefit of their children. I should indicate that if necessary Parliament will be convened during the winter break for a special session to deal with the legislation that will be needed to give effect to the announcements I've made.
These announcements will involve amendments to the Northern Territory land rights legislation and also amendments to the Territory self government legislation. They do represent very dramatic and significant Commonwealth intervention. We're doing this because we do not think the Territory has responded to the crisis affecting the children in the Territory and we believe that our responsibility to those children overrides any sensitivities of Commonwealth Territory relations. In the end the duty of care to the young of this country is paramount and nobody who has any acquaintance with that report could be other than appalled by its contents, appalled by what it reveals, appalled by the cumulative neglect of many over a long period of time and frustrated in the extreme at the inability of governments to come to terms with an effective response to deal with this problem.
We are dealing with children of the tenderest age who've been exposed to the most terrible abuse from the time of their birth virtually and any semblance of maintaining the innocence of childhood is a myth in so many of these communities and we feel very strongly that action of this kind is needed; it is interventionist, it does push aside the role of the Territory to some degree, I accept that, but what matters more: the constitutional niceties or the care and protection of young children? We believe the latter is overwhelmingly more important. We hope that the Northern Territory Government will cooperate and see the wisdom of working with the Commonwealth Government, but our resolve to implement these measures is firm and we intend to set about them from the time of this announcement.
Can I pay tribute to Mr Brough for the way in which he has identified this issue, and pursued it, and as a result ensured that the Northern Territory Government appointed the inquiry and his contribution to this has been immense and without his efforts I wouldn't be making the announcement I just have. Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
...I mean this is clearly directed at the Northern Territory but is this a problem in Aboriginal communities elsewhere?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes it is but we have the power to do something in the Northern Territory. And can I say, Michael, I hope as a result of the announcement I've made today the Premiers of Western Australia, and of New South Wales and Queensland, where there are similar problems, will announce the same measures that I have announced. We don't have the power to do these things in other parts of Australia but those Premiers do and I'm asking them to do what we have said we will do and we will cooperate with them. And let me make it clear any additional expense involved in what I've announced we will carry.
MINISTER BROUGH:
Can I just add one thing, you should be aware that New South Wales had its own report, and it's been sitting on it for nine months, which went to the core of these issues and found the same sort of findings and to date we have still seen no substantive action. So here is a chance to actually step up to the plate, but the in the event that they don't, by the referrals by the Minister for Justice to the crime commission, we can give those people the power to go beyond the Territory, that is something practical we can do.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister why have you judged it necessary to take control of land bestowed under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act as part....
PRIME MINISTER:
Because we don't believe we can effectively implement these changes without taking that authority. Having decided to do something in this area you've got to make sure you have the authority to implement your decisions and unfortunately this is an area which has been bedevilled by the falling-between-the-stools phenomenon of federal state relations in this country where you have a desire and a will at a federal level to do something, you don't have a sufficiency of power and you can't complete it and you end up with a lowest common denominator response. Now we don't, because it's the Territory, we do not have to accept that as an outcome and that is why we are taking the action we are. And I mean I'm quite blunt in saying that if the response of the Northern Territory Government had been different then I wouldn't be saying what I am today.
JOURNALIST:
Are there estimates of the total cost?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no, I mean it will be some tens of millions of dollars. It's not huge but there could be some costs in relation to the extra police. There'll be costs in relation to the medical examinations of children, that is very extensive task and I'll be asking directly the AMA, which has spoken very strongly about this, to encourage doctors, and I believe there'll be many doctors in Australia who will be more than ready to help in regard to this.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Brough do you expect that the extension of conditionality of welfare payments to other Australians would be on the same terms as the Prime Minister's indicated in the Aboriginal communities?
MINISTER BROUGH:
We'll discuss that in Cabinet. I've made my points very clear and that when you provide payments for the benefit of children, particularly through the Family Tax Benefit, the Australian population has a real desire to see that money only spent in the welfare of children. That has been our clear objective, that is what I've been working up, in addition to that is, of course, school education. It shouldn't have a black or white boundary every child should be going to school and if this can help do that then they are two areas which we are currently examining and will have further to say after the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST:
I was thinking you were only meaning unemployment benefit payments but you are talking about Family Tax Benefit payments as well.
MINISTER BROUGH:
Indeed, we are talking about the payments that are directed to the benefit of children.
JOURNALIST:
And how would you police that, how would you know?
MINISTER BROUGH:
Well you'll have to wait a little while because we are still going before Cabinet, we have numerous discussions with state authorities on this issue, to deal with their court system for child protection to do with the education system to see what is practical, what is possible and what we can deliver in the interests of the Australian population. (Margo's emphasis)
PRIME MINISTER:
The point should be made that, Lenore, that and you may be getting it that this is in the end we are prepared to apply the same principle to all sections of the Australian community, it's just that the grosser examples and the more concentrated examples of this problem are to be found in Aboriginal communities. I am not saying for a moment that there wouldn't be some other areas of Australia where Australians who aren't indigenous are just as neglectful of their children, I accept that.
JOURNALIST:
Would you still call it a national emergency?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do.
JOURNALIST:
But across the whole country?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. You can have a national emergency in Far North Queensland, an emergency in North Queensland where there is a cyclone, I mean...
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) in relation to...
PRIME MINISTER:
They are separate issues those two. Look let's not misstate the situation, the grossest examples of this problem, sadly, are to be found in indigenous communities particularly in the Northern Territory. There are examples of it in other indigenous communities in other parts of Australia. There are examples of this sort of thing in many parts of Australia, not as concentrated and therefore not as apparently gross and as distressing as can be found in the Northern Territory. And the point I am making is that the principle will be applied without discrimination but the particular problem and the emergency of which I am speaking is the emergency effecting young Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory which has been identified in this very graphic report.
JOURNALIST:
After the medical examinations take place, will doctors be able to recommend that children are removed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the doctors will do what they think is professionally appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Will that be the kind of power...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the doctors will report on the condition of the children, I am not going to pre-empt what the doctors are going to say and...I am certainly not going to do that, but I think the first thing we ought to do is to find out how the children are that's the very first thing we should do. We will bear all of the cost of that, we will bear all of the cost of any follow up medical treatment. Obviously we will listen to what doctors have got to say.
JOURNALIST:
Will these tests be compulsory and do you think you would have the power to actually force children under 16 to have a medical examination?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we would hope that communities will cooperate and let's hope that compulsion and the like is not necessary but all parents have responsibilities to allow medical examination of their children where there is a good need for that and I hope the commonsense of the Australian people will understand that in the end parent's responsibility for the welfare of their children is the greatest responsibility of all.
MINISTER BROUGH:
You must understand that the conditions will have changed fundamentally. The fear that people may have today if we said we were to do it when grog flows in, drugs flow in and that the strong men prevail, won't be there. We'll have our people on the ground, we'll have additional police so they will have the protection to actually be able to have their children...the women have their children examined knowing that they are not going to have any repercussions from someone who wants that evidence protected.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Brough, in your mind's eye the acquisition of these townships, how will they operate if everything goes through today. What kind of extra resources, what kind of extra administration?
MINISTER BROUGH:
Look right now the problem we experience in Wadeye, which as you know not little of 12 months ago there were 300 men rioting in the streets, and women I might add and children, houses being destroyed, men being speared, they were real circumstances happening in Australia today. When we tried to clean up the houses because we didn't have any jurisdictional responsibility, we don't own the homes, we don't set the conditions, the cleanliness, the hygiene, the repairs, we had all sorts of barriers, it took a longer than necessary. What we are trying to do is to remove all those artifical barriers, ensure that people live in a clean, hygienic environment, we'll put the money in to have the houses repaired, people will be part of work for the dole, doing it themselves with professional assistance, we'll have managers on the ground to do that. So we'll have managers on the ground to do that and we'll have adequate policing on the ground as well. They are the fundamentals that we have articulated for 15 months. Law and order, good governance, then you get normality, you can't have a community with a lot of grog.
PRIME MINISTER:
One more question, we've got to get ready.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister if this program is to be extended to these states what sorts of powers would have to be referred to the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, we are asking the states who clearly have the power to do all of this within their own jurisdictions, we are asking the states to do within their own areas of responsibility what we are able to do in the Territory.
JOURNALIST:
Would you fund that...any extra costs for the states, you said before you'd fund...
PRIME MINISTER:
We fund everything in the Commonwealth, we talk to the states about cost but you know the states have responsibilities, they've got a lot of money. One more.
JOURNALIST:
Did you consult with Clare Martin?
PRIME MINISTER:
I endeavoured to contact Clare Martin earlier today and I was unsuccessful.
MINISTER BROUGH:
As my office attempted to do as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
Attempted to do as well but, you know, I will be happy to discuss these matters with her but I think it's very plain that we are unhappy with the response of the Northern Territory Government, they've had adequate time. I mean bear in mind this report would not have been commissioned if it hadn't have been for Mr Brough. They had the report for eight weeks before they released it and then having released it, she said that she was going to take another six weeks to indicate the response and I got a very general letter today saying well we've had a look and we are getting ready to say something about it and we'll happy to talk to you. Well I don't think that's a government that regards this as an urgent problem, I don't think it's a government that sees it with any sense of crisis or emergency, that's in a sense a metaphor for the inaction of the Northern Territory Government. That's why we've acted. Thank you.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Pearson "drunk with power" and Howard is a "racist bastard "
These two pieces are in the SMH
Prime Minister John Howard is attempting an "occupation" of the Northern Territory and Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson is "drunk with power", the new chairwoman of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council says.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-accused-of-black-land-grab/2007/07/09/1183833415790.html
An MP for New Zealand's Maori Party has labelled Australian Prime Minister John Howard a "racist bastard" for his radical intervention aimed at stopping child abuse in Aboriginal communities.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/maori-mp-blasts-howard-as-racist/2007/07/09/1183833415967.html
"A Fascist Australia". Mk. 1.
Many people have been concerned at the "progress" of the Howard "New Order" towards totalitarian control of our nation.
When Howard's draconian laws closed down The Canberra Times HYS Margo's Webdiary became IMHO , the only "free speech" at least on the east coast of Australia.
A typical Australian opinion on Howard and his removal of Human Rights was given by a Lady contributor dated 14 April 2005 - id=91637.
I believe that it is consistent with item 10 of "A Fascist Australia" viz:
10. Labor Power is Suppressed. Unions are eliminated or disempowered in the name of reform and fairness.
"The language that John Howard uses is no accident, it is intended to deceive people into thinking his actions are benign and by the time that we find out what he has done it is too late, there will be those who will discover that they are not one of the "us" for whom Mr. Howard has promised comfort and relaxation.
The Liberals continualy talk about the Labor party being in the grip of the "Unions". The Unions were created because there was grievous need for them. Men, Women and children were working long hours in workplaces with unsafe machinery, in a dirty environment on a wage that could not give them adequate nourishment and accommodation. [Does that ring a bell today?]
Groups of people banded together to protect themselves from those despotic employers - that was the beginning of "Unions". Generally speaking their cause is to ascertain fair and safe working conditions, and a wage that is capable giving the necessities of life (that includes some leisure and reasonable comfort) for employees and their dependants.
How can that be wrong?
There are other groups that have banded together to obtain benefits for their members in the same way, such as International Chambers of Commerce, AMA, National Farmers Federation, RSL, Real Estate Institute, Australian, Institute of Public Administration, Master Builders Association and many more - they are all "Unions" giving advice to their members in return for their subscription and not doubt making a goodly donation to the political party that gives them the greatest benefit.
The apparent difference between the labour [sic] unions and the other unions is that the other unions do not want to share the increased profits that the improved technology has brought to this nation and some do not want to contribute to the cost of education and good health of the "working class".
John Howard talks about "free trade agreement" because he wants us to think that that is what they are and he will keep saying it and louder and oftener but it is propaganda and we must seek information from other than politicians and the media.
End of quote.
List for yourselves, the behaviour of the Howard "New Order" and the "prosperity" of the average Australian worker, who Howard and Hockey consider "bludgers".
NE OUBLIE.
COMMENT: How prophetic?
You are wrong
Ernest William, you say
"When Howard's draconian laws closed down The Canberra Times HYS Margo's Webdiary became IMHO , the only "free speech" at least on the east coast of Australia". However this is what Damien wrote on his blog.
"The result has been the censorship and heavy editing of much of the left’s more radical opinion and commentary – certainly, at least, of mine. The overall result is that Webdiary has caved in to the right for what seems to be purely commercial reasons. Margo has made no bones about the importance of right-wing commentators coming over to her new Webdiary after she shifted from SMH. Their move, Margo inferred, was crucial to the success of her new venture. With the success of the new venture in terms of political audience, will also come financial success – provided Margo can maintain the right-wing’s participation. What seems to be happening is that the left is being moderated, edited and, in my case, fully censored, out of fear of annoying the right to the extent that they leave Webdiary high and dry and without point".
Which one of you is right?.
Is Howard "Taking us Forward" into total fascism? 6.
Continuing the Lawrence Britt research into fascism and the 14 characteristics they all have in common.
UPDATE: We have had so far:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism. [Flags everywhere].
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights. [Howard's laws].
3. Identifying of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause. [Muslims, boat people, refugees and people in distress].
4. Supremacy of the Military. [Disproportionate funding for war].
5. Rampant Sexism. [The fascist theory that Women are second class citizens]
6. Controlled Mass Media. [Media compliance or control].
7. Obsession with National Security. [Fear and hatred].
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined.[Religion tenets ignored but used nevertheless].
9. Corporate Power is Protected. [Politicians owe their tenure to corporate supporters, and return favours to business]
10. Labor Power is Suppressed. [Unions are eliminated or disempowered in the name of reform and fairness].
11, Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. [Free expression is attacked and government funding is threatened or removed from those it doesn't approve of].
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. [Civil liberties and judicial independence foregone].
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption. [Cronyism without accountability: those who protect politicians from scrutiny are rewarded with favours, promotions and possessions].
14. Fraudulent elections. [Fraudulent elections: electoral rules are manipulated and media reports distorted, and cooperative judges legitimise the outcomes].
Following on from "our federal government is fascist too, or on the way to becoming fascist."
"Take Number 11, Hostility to intellectuals. Last year Padriac P. McGuiness, the Education Minister's lay appointee on the quality and scrutiny committee of the Australian Research Council, opposed 27 research applications in the humanities and social sciences, which he reportedly described as silly, ill-designed, and contributing nothing to knowledge in Australia. Dr. Nelson himself overruled the chair and expert members of the committee and vetoed seven projects without explanation. TheAustralia
Take Number 12, civil liberties. The Federal government and the compliant premiers have agreed to write additional sedition provisions into the new Anti-terrorism legislation. Even after some amendments, they restrict freedom of expression in ways that are unprecedented in our history. They are unnecessary, and are designed to intimidate, silence criticism, and give unprecedented powers to police and intelligence agencies.
Fascism can be defeated by rational argument (that's why fascists hate intellectuals), by genuine democracy (that's why they despise civil libertarians) by legal principle (that's why they criticise independent Judges), and by international conventions (that's why they fulminate about the United Nations). They claim they are defending our way of life, or our civilisation, even while they are undermining it fundamental principles. All civilisations have tried to raise people above fascism, but the fight has to be had over and over again.
Fascism always poses as the national interest; fascist methods are always deceptive and illegitimate; and all fascists seek to control people's words and thoughts. Fascism was not the way to deal with communism, and it will not stop terrorism: we already have enough laws to do that. These laws don't defend freedom: they curtail it, which is what terrorists also want to do. Are we too behaving like terrorists, and not only abroad but at home?
What can we expect from a fascist government? Inside Australia, worse conditions for workers whose jobs aren't exported; an even wider gap between the highest and the lowest paid; further erosion of social security, and destitution for those on welfare; less affordable health insurance and pharmaceuticals; refusal to take long-terms decisions to prevent environmental destruction; increasing impoverishment of public education; debilitation of independent media, control of the Internet, and evisceration of the ABC; tightening controls on freedom of artistic expression and civil liberties; detouring around Parliament and banishing Opposition to the margins of public life; ostracism and criminalisation of those who protest.
Outside Australia, our escalating defiance of international law and unquestioning involvement in our allies' unending wars will make Australia the target of more threats, not just from Muslim terrorists, but from those exasperated with the US and its supporters. That will lead to more fear, more patriotism, more calls for 'security', and more people in jail for no offence, or for sedition. Many of us will be too scared to joke about it, let alone express outrage.
When this happens, and I am not exaggerating its likelihood, it will be illegal or at least courageous to hold this conference, and for all of us to make statements like these. So than you to the organisers for bravely taking this opportunity.
Endnote:
[1] Laurence Britt, in Fascism Anyone? compared social and political agendas common to the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, France, Suharto, and Pinochet. Free Enquiry, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2003. See also a A Sermon on Fascism, by Minister Davidson Leora, 1 November 2004, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Texas. (Loehr's summaries appear above in numbered paragraphs).
More rubbish
14. Fraudulent elections. [Fraudulent elections: electoral rules are manipulated and media reports distorted, and cooperative judges legitimise the outcomes].
Could you tell us which election was fraudulent, and is this the reason why Labor keeps on losing.
Alan, there are many examples of manipulating electoral rules by the Howard Government. The latest is closing the rolls at the moment the next election is called. Which major party would that favour, Alan? It also effectively disenfranchises more than a few Australians. What do you think of that, Alan? Perhaps you should start reading regular update ion the state of our Democracy, Democratic audit. There's a couple of cases of corrupting the electoral process in the last one.
For the basis of my assertion that Howard's government is proto-fascist - ie heading in that direction - see my 2003 pieces Howard's roads to absolute power and Faultlines in Howard's plan for absolute power and my 2004 speech to the Sydney Institute after the launch of my book, Not, Happy John! Reflections of a Webdiarist.
Fascist Australia is already here.
What a pleasure it has been for me to read so many positive opinions and factual contributions on the active fascism of Howard's "New Order".
Whether Margo's Webdiary and the Management Team of volunteers succeeds in reaching a significant number of Australians - the effort is here and - robust.
I like to believe that the truth being correlated in Webdiary is certainly giving the "big picture" about the practice of fascism in Australia.
Lying, rorting, incompetence, reward for corruption, debt ridden economy etc, all become insignificant when they are finally recognised as integral parts of total fascism.
Howard doesn't want the electorate to put together his actions [and inactions] over a period of at least nine (9) years because it would demonstrate an ultimate objective. And ALL of the Liberal MPs are as responsible as Howard himself.
The apparent aim of the Howard "New Order" is to remove more and more freedoms from the Australian people - first by creating fascist legislative powers and keeping them in reserve - and then by removing the only organised opposition to their regime, the Australian Trade Unions.
Just recently, a test case was heard in the Australian Industrial Commission regarding a person being sacked, "predominately because he had a Union Agreement".
The Commission found that the WorkChoice laws allowed the employer to do that if he mentioned any other reason. Fair dinkum.
This of course, is the precedent that Howard/Hockey knew would be set. It is not difficult to be dictators when you have the biggest Terrorist Nation in the world; the Corporation Unions and the Corporation media, all supporting that principle.
If we concentrate on the fact that the behaviour of Howard's "New Order" is based on secrecy, lies, punishment and an increasing list of punitive legislation - then we know it is fascism.
The reason that we, in Webdiary, have not been attacked by the draconian and unnecessary laws created by Howard and his Senate, is surely that they are not ready to enforce them for fear of alerting the electorate this year?
Why Murdoch backs Howard's entry into a total fascism is because his global power protects him - even from the U.S. pseudo dictatorship and, it makes them indebted to him.
The democratic - no - the only way to avoid the suppression of independent voices and the removal of basic human rights - is to vote out these people in that, which I am reasonably sure, will be our last democratic chance.
I also refuse to believe that there would be one Military Veteran, male or female, who would want to allow fascism to pollute our nation, after having contributed to prevent that very thing from happening to our country.
I resigned from the RSL because of their leadership support for the Howard government is tantamount (IMHO) to endorsing the Crimes against Humanity that we were told we were sworn to fight against.
Surely we must vote anything except Liberal and National?
NE OUBLIE.
Is Howard "Taking us Forward" to Total Fascism? 5.
Continuing the research of Lawrence Britt, an American scholar who has studied fascist regimes and published the 14 characteristics that they had in common:
14. Fraudulent Elections.
Sometimes elections fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media.
Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
All of these characteristics of fascism, you will notice, are now evident in the United States. Number 14, electoral fraud, appeared in Florida in 2000, but has not yet migrated to Australia: not unless you count the use of taxpayers' money for fraudulent political campaigning, or government overriding the expressed will of the majority. But some aspects of all the others apply to Australia. So according to most of Britt's 14 criteria, our Federal government is fascist too, or on the way to becoming fascist.
NOTE: Well on the way.
COMMENT: Is there anything in these 14 characteristics that doesn't touch Howard's "New Order" at all?
By all means look for an excuse, like "they didn't know or weren't told" or, "they are economically smart", and that supersedes everything else? With the enormous number of Treasury and Finance back-up staff - perhaps even I could be a Treasurer who just tells them what he wants and they provide it.
But I don't think I could match Lord Haw Haw in his trained monkey act in parliament.
The next and final quotes will encapsulate the rest.
NE OBLIGE.
I hope Eden-Monaro wakes up soon.
As an appendage to "Is Howard 'Taking us Forward' to total Fascism" item 14 viz: "Fraudulent Elections" I bring to the attention of the Eden-Monaro electorate, this timely warning, on a day when Howard is paying them a visit,
When Howard demanded that the Australian Electoral Commission give a "faster than the speed of light" authorisation of his Liberal fund raising in Kirribilli House, it was shown on T/V that one of the AEC staff objected.
Some time later, Howard's "New Order" Special Minister Of State (whatever that is) denied in Parliament that he had told that person to, quote: "Shut up".
It is common knowledge that the media's assessment of Howard as a "clever politician" is, in great part, for the way he silences any opposition of any kind.
It appears that the "silenced AEC staff member" has recently been proved correct. I wonder if he still has a job?
It is also common knowledge that, before an election, Howard chooses timing and changes rules to eliminate as many "suspected" Labor people from voting. The likes of Aborigines and the "WorkChoice's" exploited young people.
So I called up the AEC website and found this gem:
Use of electoral roll data by Magenta Linas and Trade Unions.
21 June 2007.
Following a request by the federal Special Minister of State, The Hon Gary Nairn MP, the AEC has examined whether electoral data usage by Magenta Linas and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is in breach of sections 90B, 91A or 91B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act). The AEC sought legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor.
Information on the electoral rolls and the certified lists of voters is given to political parties including the Australian Labor Party (ALP), under section 90B and, therefore, is protected information for the purposes of section 91B of the Act. The ALP provides that information to Magenta Linas to run the ALP's electoral database.
Protected information provided to political parties may be used for any purpose in connection with an election or referendum under the Act.
As a Federal election will take place a some stage this year, there is clear evidence that the ACTU campaign as described in Appendix 1 of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) document: Federal Election 2007: Union Political Strategy Manual, is intended to influence voters, and is a purpose in connection with an election and as such does not breach the Act.
Nevertheless, it is timely to remind all persons (Gary Nairn also) who receive information under section 90B that such information may only be used for the permitted purposes specified under the Act.
COMMENT: The Gary Nairn attempt to silence the ACTU from acting quite legally is somewhat disingenuous when you consider the amount of taxpayer funds are being used by Mr. Nairn and his cohorts to "influence voters".
I wonder if he will advise the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Australia, two Corporation Unions, that as "disinterested" parties to the Election proper per se to be careful how they use of the Liberal Party's information.
After all - they did claim that their only purpose in spending millions in advertising is solely with regard to keeping the Howard draconian WorkChoices in place. Isn't that correct?
Struth - the Howard "New Order" must hate this free forum!
NE OUBLIE.
Is Howard "Taking Us Forward" into total fascism? 4.
Continuing the research of Lawrence Britt, an American scholar who has studied fascist regimes, and published 14 characteristics that they had in common:
10. Labor Power is Suppressed.
Because the organising power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
COMMENT: Work-no-Choices is a perfect example of destroying the Resistance to fascism by organised labor. Of all the continuous and "slight of hand" moves towards totalitarian control - Howard's "New Order" went too far. Even the small l Liberals are being affected now or will suffer more should Howard succeed in conning the electorate again.
When the foreign Corporations commence their "don't work to live - live to work - it's good for us" campaign, just remember that the Industrial Relations Commission has been forced to agree to an employer sacking an employee for even having a Union Agreement.
And guess what - Peter Hendy (Peter Reith's "baby overboard" mate) as representing the Chamber of Commerce Corporations Union says - it was a good decision. Trust him eh? Struth.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
COMMENT: Where do we start on this one?
Ignoring Climate Change; ignoring the Murray-Darling pending disaster; Anti-Terrorism laws; Sedition laws; application of "Onus of Proof"; refusing to fund Australian movie companies; ignoring the American retired Admirals, Generals etc. that the "Son of Star Wars" is unnecessary; Julia Bishop blackmailing public schools to do all things "their way"; the enforcement of $200,000 HECs fees; favouring Private Schools against those whose families cannot afford it; Ruddock saying he will expand censorship laws, et al, etc. Fair dinkum.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment.
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
COMMENT: Again - where do we start?
The abuse of Keelty (AFP) when he told the truth about Iraq; the power for the military to shoot to kill in Howard's "considered" emergencies; the anti-terrorism act; increasing the Federal Police Force deployments with armed Troops (in the "independent" Pacific Islands), using punishment for not accepting unacceptable employment; using punishment for Koories who do not behave as dictated; using punishment if teachers do not behave as dictated; punishing genuine refugees by Privatised Concentration camps et al etc. This is the "New Order's" claim of democracy!
And "never ever" treating Australians as the real "employers" of the Howard "New Order".
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
It bugs me that the Corporation's media always claims that a Labor Government that rewards one of its own is - "jobs for the boys".
Yet, especially during the Howard "New Order" years - so many of his "robots" have been rewarded when in fact, they have rorted, stolen public money and/or failed in their portfolios, but - kept their mouths shut!
What about twice gonged Alan Jones - for what? For deceiving the mainly elderly Australians that they are really doing well?
Well might the "New Order" consider him and John Laws good citizens. "Gravel voice" will retire soon but - not till after the election.
COMMENT: Think about it. Reason. And while the moving target continues to move, look for the little petals of sleaze that will be hidden by the ridiculous.
More to come.
NE OUBLIE.
Apologies - Correction to Item 13.
This item should have read thus:
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
[This was accidentally missed]
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to govearnment positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability.
It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.COMMENT : It bugs me that the Corporation's media always claims that a Labor Government that rewards one of its own is - "jobs for the boys".
Yet, especially during the Howard "New Order" years - so many of his "robots" have been rewarded when in fact, they have rorted, stolen public money and/or failed in their portfolios, but - kept their mouths shut!
What about twice gonged Alan Jones - for what? For deceiving the mainly elderly Australians that they are really doing well?
Well might the "New Order" consider him and John Laws good citizens. "Gravel voice" will retire soon but - not till after the election.
Think about it. Reason. And while the moving target continues to move, look for the little petals of sleaze that will be hidden by the ridiculous.
More to come. [Apologies to Management and readers].
NE OUBLIE.
Labor power
Ernest William, Howard has not suppressed the unions, they have done this all on their own. They now represent a small percentage of the population. Not only have they buggered up their own organisation they are now going to kill off any chance that Rudd had of winning. Take Education and Public Transport in NSW which is run by the unions. We have a shortage of busdrivers, and those that are driving are running over pedestrians in the city. How hard can it be to drive a bus, crikey if these drivers had twice as many brains they could have been bus conductors.
Get real Ern, the unions are finished.
Defining Howard's New Fascist Australia
I also wrote this back in 2006 regarding Howard’s march toward fascism; it seems just as pertinent today as it did then:
Howard’s New Fascist Australia is seeking to become a ‘new’ kind of fascism. In pursuit of this ‘new’ fascism Howard cleverly transcends the stereotyped images of the ‘old’ discredited fascism of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s
The ‘new’ fascism denies emphatically that it is ‘fascist’, an association which would immediately discredit it. The right-wing Howard-supporting media therefore, attempt to deflect fascist name-calling from the Left by belittling the notion using various countering techniques, including pointing out that fascism had its roots in the ideology of the Left, an argument that the commentator Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in November 2005 used to counter the increasing observation that, indeed, Howard was becoming ‘fascist’.
He wrote: “Calling Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic…” and then went on to demean Bob Brown, Gough Whitlam, and Paul Keating, accusing them of all having ‘fascist’-like tendencies after having pointed out that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s beginnings were, as Bolt asserts, ‘socialist’.
Other right-wing Howard-supporting commentators use other forms of rhetorical countering techniques.
Gerard Henderson, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, uses the simple device of comparison, whereby he infers that Australia is not becoming ‘fascist’ because, “Real fascist societies, as in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler, had authoritarian regimes which possessed a state ideology enforced by terror or the threat of terror.”
In a similar article over a year earlier, Henderson attacked the notion of Australia becoming a fascist state from a slightly different perspective which included the patronising invocation of the memory of those that suffered under fascism. In his August 2004 article ‘Fascist Australia’ he writes, “To suggest Australia… today [is] fascist is just, well, nuts. The use of such a label in a modern context indicates a total misunderstanding of both democracy and fascism – and has the unintended consequence of diminishing the memory of fascism’s many victims.”
Keith Windschuttle, the rightwing historian, attacks the accusations that Australia is heading toward fascism from yet another perspective – comparison to that of the overt kind of fascism often seen in Europe. In the 2005 Earle Page Memorial Oration, delivered at Parliament House, Sydney, on 22 June 2005, he told his audience:
Windschuttle’s reluctance to mention that Pauline Hanson’s ‘populist nationalism’ was in itself a form of fascism merely exposes Windschuttle’s own polemics.
Since it denies actually being fascist is also the reason why it does not have the trappings, at least not overtly, of what one might usually associate with fascism. For example, there are no massed parades of black uniformed soldiers, no grossly oversized flags hanging vertically in neat rows from government buildings, there are no brown leather-coated men at every railway station, bus depot and airport asking to see ‘your papers please’ – or at least not yet there isn’t.
Howard’s New Fascism doesn’t revolve around himself; he has no desire to be a ‘dictator’ per se. He does, however, wish to establish on a permanent basis, a political structure coexisting in and hybridising our existing system, within which the vision of his New Fascist Australia can be perpetuated. As commentator Tony Kevin observes: “His [Howard’s] rule is steadily degrading the values of our society and corrupting its political institutions. The longer he stays in power, the more the checks and balances of our society will crumble. We will continue our slow slide towards an Australian model of fascism”.
Howard’s vision is for a regionally strong and influential antipodean, essentially white-European Christian dominated nation that predominately is corporatist in economic structure and where its inhabitants are strongly encouraged to participate in the machinations of that corporatist economic structure. A nation where those that, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to participate are both marginalised from the system and demonised as being somehow inadequate and of little worth and therefore only worthy of being kept at barely subsistence levels.
Part of the process of creating the New Fascist Australia involves projecting the notion of a primarily white-European Christian dominant society where non-Christian values, particularly and especially those of Islam, are demonised in order to create a climate of fear within which a compliant population is nurtured and polarised toward a pro-Christian value that sees other religious and/or cultural values as being abhorrent or, at least, marginalised.
As the process evolves toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard seeks to strengthen Australia’s armed forces not just in order to defend Australia’s shores but also with weapons and equipment that will allow him to project Australia’s power and assert hegemony well beyond Australia’s shores and into, when deemed necessary, other nations within Australia’s region.
Part of this process also includes the mythologising of Australia’s military heritage and the cultivation of a militarist attitude among Australia’s youth via the promise of a career in its armed forces which could follow on from an armed forces cadetship.
Howard’s close relationship with President Bush in the light of the events of and after 9/11 has served Howard’s purpose well in terms of providing closer ties in trade and defence with a nation that has a similar predominantly European heritage and political outlook.
Australians and our neighbours, quite rightly, should be aware of Howard’s drive toward fascism and recognise it for what it is before it is too late to reverse the process.
Howard’s march toward a New Fascist Australia is slow but insidious. Only last week new laws were introduced to allow ASIO and the police unfettered powers to tap innocent Australians’ phones, email and text messages. Following this is the push to have an ID card issued to Australians, ostensibly for the purposes of Medicare and welfare, but clearly a back-door attempt, yet again, to introduce a form of universal Aussiecard designed to keep tabs on the Australian people. The treasurer, Peter Costello, has put his support behind the push arguing, quite blatantly, “…that anti-terrorism security measures had made people more tolerant of intrusions into their privacy,” demonstrating clearly how the New Fascism’s creation of fear via the so-called ‘War against Terrorism’ then, in turn, allows them to dismantle even more of our rights, in this case, to privacy.
It is this insidiousness that is the most illusory aspect of Howard’s New Fascist Australia. It is foisted on us a piece at a time and we are lied to about the reasons or necessity for the new law or changes. Sometimes it is so insidious that even those that profess to be leftish are unable to see what is going on before their eyes. There are even some elements within the Labor party that now support many of the steps that Howard has taken having been deluded into believing that these measures are, indeed, ‘for your protection’.
Is Howard "Taking us Forward" into total fascism. 3.
Continuing the research of Lawrence Britt, an American scholar who has studied fascism regimes, published 14 characteristics that they had in common:
5. Rampant Sexism.
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
COMMENT: IMHO it was Labor which began the introduction of Women into the military "proper"on an equal basis and Howard has continued that policy. It would certainly help him to keep up the numbers he contributes to the U.S. Occupation Policies.
6. Controlled Mass Media.
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
COMMENT: In "democracies" the media elects or ejects the government by misinforming or persuading the voters as you would in any big business. "Selling snow to an Eskimo" so to speak.
I believe that Murdoch and other venal media barons have too much power and the actions by the Howard "New Order" has been to concentrate that power into fewer hands, making them easier to deal with after the multi-million taxpayer dollars dry up.
Note that "the knee" Ruddock has already flagged increased censorship laws. That is the "New Order" policy of claiming mandates for their progression to total fascism. Note it with the others.
7. Obsession with National Security.
COMMENT: With the Howard "New Order's" continuing use of fear, racism and hatred should be obvious to every Australian and no explanation is necessary.
If not, no explanation is possible.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined.
Government is fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
COMMENT: Peter Costello never fails to act, sing or laugh with some religious group before an election. While making a fool out of himself (as he would) he still gets votes from these pressure groups.
With the clear exception of Tony Abbott, I do not believe that there are too many who would act that way in either party.
9. Corporate Power is Protected.
The Industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
COMMENT: In Howard's Australia, we have had that situation increasing in power since he almost lost the 1998 election when Beasley's Australian Labor Party had many thousands of individual votes than Howard.
Howard, his government of "jack-booted" robots, ensure that there will no longer be a level playing field. The Corporation media is one of those businesses that continue to support a rising fascist government for their own financial benefit. I feel that the very few "fair dinkum" journalists must be feeling the pinch.
Howard's madness and his narcissist need to be photographed and flattered for his so-called "political astuteness" by his minions and the media makes this poor example of a democratic Prime Minister look more an more pathetic by the year.
NE OUBLIE. More to come.
Oh dear, the people don't trust the trickster
Someone has probably posted the link to the Galaxy poll, but if so it's my pleasure to do so again.
Question: Do you think Prime Minister John Howard is addressing problemes in Aboriginal communities because of the upcoming federal election or because he really cares about the problems?
Answer: Federal election 58% (including 29% of Coalition voters), Really cares 25% (52% of Coalition voters), and uncommitted 17%.
DNP dupStatolatria
Damian Lataan says;
Actually, in Fascist countries, such as Franco's Spain, Castro's Cuba, and Mussolini's Italy, they generally didn't have elections.
Although, after Franco and Mussolini died, elections were introduced in Spain and Italy, though not in Cuba despite Fidel being dead for months.
Italians used to refer to Statolatria, or the 'Idolisation of the State', as being a typical Fascist tendency, and like other totalitarian systems, Fascism subordinates every aspect of civil life to the idolisation of the state.
Howard is exceptionally conservative, and seems genuinely committed to the preservation of the private sphere, even to the point of obsession with avoiding intereference in family life and domestic realms - with the obvious exception of Aborigines' families and also regarding pedophiles.
Pedophiles are the ultimate nightmare for people preoccupied with families. Hence the resort to pedophile hysteria when trying to whip up fear in people. Especially other families.
It seems to me that conservatives would also valorise their personal definition of family over any other idea of family, and what is appropriate behaviour to it.
So, somebody with a conservative, family oriented and Euro-centric view of life would probably feel inclined or entitled to condescend to interfering in Aboriginal communities' in order to 'fix' pedophilia as they defined it.
So, there's probably nothing 'fascist' about that. Just very socially conservative. Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine are not Fascists.
A Fascist would just round up the 'offenders' and kill them. And there'd be no elections involved. You know? Like in Iran?
A fascist would just round up offenders...
I think part of the answer lies in the term "globalisation".
The West's industrial base has been dismantled and sent off- shore to the third world. We still live in a violent world, it's just that the violence no longer happens overtly in "our" neighborhood; a leafy green heatland exclusive suburb in the global village. That is, compared to many parts of the third world.
We could parallel ourselves to the heartland of Rome and its plebs, circa fifty BC or more aptly perhaps the German Reich, circa 1939. The world looks civilised to us and we know little of the violence going on elsewhere or the real nature of an evolving global leadership that now includes elements way beyond the control of our little part of the world. For much of ww2, the worst bloodshed occurred away from the core areas of the Reich; people like Niemoller and the Moltkes were exceptions to the rule as to violence employed against Germans, although the Nazi state had purged political opposition in the 'thirties as a warm up for ww2. But here "Germans" did not conflate to "Communists", as the categories were mutually exclusive in the eyes of Nazis.
What makes me uneasy is the deliberate erosion of the primacy of certain ideas once held as self-evident and incontrovertible in and for a Democracy, including separation of powers, the rule of law and the ideal of justice, presumption of innocence; hence no torture and open trial, the 'community' and 'freedom' of the individual as conducive rather than oppositional to one another, participation in the life of the 'polis' as worthwhile rather than foolish, freedom of information and the value of discourse rather than a narrow focus on 'costs' of inconvenient ideas.
If consciousness, ideas, thinking, expression and discourse are attacked as they were in seventeenth century by the Inquisition, for example, ideas will seek and find another home quickly enough. Because certain regimes couldn't cope with the ideological implications of science and logic-based, science and logic- based thinking migrated elsewhere and within a couple of centuries North Europe ( including in the broad sense the USA and other new world nations who are also core parts of the new empire, like Australia ), had ground the Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic mediterranean Southern and Eastern European empires into the dust.
What bothers me is a sense that people like George Bush, Howard and Cheney are like the stubborn Habsburg and other monarchs of the seventeenth century, including the Papacy, who lazily tried to suppress cultural impulses and explanatory ideas because they had the power to, rather than engage with ideas that were unfamiliar or incomfortable, as to the world, value and meaning, social status and its (un?)importance and appropriate uses of resources.
And, yes, the People seem to have become lazy, too as a result of the subtle suppression of ideas and thinking.
Part of our modern diaspora is a flight to the cyberworld or piratical corporations outside of the law, or dreamy esoteric worlds. But what becomes of 'civilisation' at its current state of development, when ideas that operate for the progressive good of the many through freedom of consciousness are again being ground down and scarce resources increasingly wasted on propping up modern feudalists? Think of the cost, the sheer wastage of Iraq and the rest of the Third World, too, where mass aspirational impulses are monotonously suppressed rather than understood and accomodated.
And by 'Feudalists', I do not only or even specifically residual atavistic Wahabists or other unsustaining theological fundamentalisms, but also those with anti-social attitudes closer to the actual hubs of power.
Statolatria
Damian Lataan says:
Actually, in Fascist countries, such as Franco's Spain, Castro's Cuba, and Mussolini's Italy, they generally didn't have elections.
Although, after Franco and Mussolini died, elections were introduced in Spain and Italy, though not in Cuba despite Fidel being dead for months.
Italians used to refer to Statolatria, or the 'Idolisation of the State', as being a typical Fascist tendency, and like other totalitarian systems, Fascism subordinates every aspect of civil life to the idolisation of the state.
Howard is exceptionally conservative, and seems genuinely committed to the preservation of the private sphere, even to the point of obsession with avoiding interference in family life and domestic realms - with the obvious exception of Aborigines' families and also regarding pedophiles. (Margo: Huh? What about his long held antipathy to homosexuals? And the increased censorship under Howard?)
Pedophiles are the ultimate nightmare for people preoccupied with families. Hence the resort to pedophile hysteria when trying to whip up fear in people. Especially other families.
It seems to me that conservatives would also valorise their personal definition of family over any other idea of family, and what is appropriate behaviour to it.
So, somebody with a conservative, family oriented and Euro-centric view of life would probably feel inclined or entitled to condescend to interfering in Aboriginal communities' in order to 'fix' pedophilia as they defined it.
So, there's probably nothing 'fascist' about that. Just very socially conservative. Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine are not Fascists.
A Fascist would just round up the 'offenders' and kill them. And there'd be no elections involved. You know? Like in Iran?
More on Howard's New Fascist Australia
Following on a bit from Ernest’s comments, readers may be interested in this that I wrote in April of 2006 on the very subject of Howard’s New Fascist Australia. It went like this:
John Howard plans to take the country another step down the road toward his carefully planned New Fascist Australia. As today’s article in The Australian (1) explains, Australian Prime Minister John Howard is considering cutting funding to schools that insist on teaching literature that the Prime Minister says ‘succumbs to political correctness’.
Howard apparently doesn’t understand the way literature is being taught today. He says that it is ‘gobbledegook’ and asks what ‘does it mean to have an outcomes-based education system’. (This, mind you, comes from a man who is unable to read cables, memorandums and reports from his senior public servants and diplomats.)
In June 2004, in an earlier step in Howard’s march toward his New Fascist Australia, Howard took the education system to task over not flying the Australian flag at schools, threatening to cut funding to those schools that continued not to fly the flag. At the same time he demanded that schools ensure that children undertake at least a minimum of two hours of physical activity a week. (Some may ask, ‘what’s wrong with that?’ and, of course the answer is: in itself, nothing. It’s just that it comes from Howard who is not an expert in kidz physical health but is an expert in stick and carrot fascism. In other words, it’s an attitude thing.) Howard stopped short of tying funding to the singing of Australia’s national anthem every morning at school though he did mention that he would prefer it if they did.
And in a piece today, written by Howard and published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Howard makes it clear that he is likely to be around at least for the next election to ensure that Australia continues its march toward his New Fascist Australia.
ENDNOTES
(1) Steve Lewis and Imre Salusinszky, "PM Canes 'Rubbish' Post-modern Literature", The Australian, 21 April 2006.
Unfortunately the link to note [1] at ‘The Australian’ no longer works but the other two still do.
A few steps closer
Ernest, I recently read David Marr’s Quarterly Essay 'His Master’s Voice – The Corruption of Public Debate under Howard'. Also watched the interview on Lateline in which Marr said that even News Ltd was complaining at the amount of clamp down on information coming from government. And in addition to this everyone is being silenced, be it the media, NGOs ABC or whistleblowers. And it seems nothing is being done about it.
I have quoted some of the following before in WD but I will do so again as it is becoming more relevant as each day passes. It is taken from They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer:
This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’
"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.
I would also add to this a piece from On Equilibrium by John Ralston Saul and it is in the chapter on Intuition:
A German minor aristocrat – a conservative opponent of the Nazis – kept a remarkable diary of the events from 1936 to his execution in 1944. Friedrich Reck- Malleczewen had an unerring ability to understand what people and events really menat. His descriptions of the early Hitler are eerie – as if they were being written today, with full hindsight. In August 1936 he wondered:
How much we really know about the vaults and caverns which lie somewhere under the structure of a great nation- about these psychic catacombs in which all our concealed desires, our fearful dreams and evil spirits, our vices and our forgotten and unexpiated sins, have been buried for generation? In healthy times, these emerge as the specters in our dreams……But suppose, now, that all of these things generally kept buried in our subconscious were to push their way to the surface, as in the blood-cleansing function of a boil? Suppose that this underworld now and again liberated by Satan burst forth, and the evil spirits escape the Pandora’s box?
Hi Denise. I read that diary, and recommend it to others. Malcolm Fraser's pre-occupations have a resonance with him. I commissioned an investigative chapter for my book on closing down non-government organisation voices, and it's got worse since then with the Tax Office now beginning to strip charities of their tax deductible status if they protest at a government actions. Its first strike was on Aidwatch; the background to that is here. It's on appeal, and if the appeal fails they'll go after the big targets, including Greenpeace.
Is Howard "moving us forward" into total Fascism?
I have para-phrased Omar Kyam before thus: "The moving target strikes and, have struck, moves on".
Howard has always been a moving target so that among the wedges and diversions there are matters about which he will claim mandates and - so far the venal media has assisted him.
It concerns me that the media is not behaving with the original honour of their profession and therefore spin, misinformation and downright lies are being printed, announced and filmed for the benefit of the Powers that Be.
Paul Bongiorno on his Meet the Press claims that he is setting the political agenda for the week. Perhaps he does - but his bias towards Howardists - whether through fear or favour - is pretty evident.
The Insiders is even more biased. Any program that has Gerard Henderson, Piers Ackerman, Malcolm Farr or [good heavens] Andrew Bolt - has declared its objective before a word is said.
While it is all to obvious that the major National media spin for the "New Order" regime - I cannot name one journalist that is blatant Labor. The ABC's Kerry O'Brien and Tony Jones are robust interviewers being as strong with Liberals as with Labor.
The good referees. I have even complimented them for interviewing without bias to or against any politician of whatever persuasion.
However, I notice that with the injection of Lisa Miller and Leigh Sales there seems to be a definite move to the conservative. Could this be because Howard has recently appointed another Mate as boss of the ABC?
It concerns me that there are things happening with unbelievable apathy on the part of the Australian people.
It is apparent to many people of various backgrounds that the Howard government IS fascist and wise counsellors have warned when they were given the opportunity to do so.
Some time ago Webdiary printed those warnings made by Dr. Alison Broinowski in her speech "A Fascist Australia".
I would like to take them a few at a time and allow the readers to judge their value by themselves:
"Whose government does Dr. Britt's [expert on fascism] list of characteristics of fascist regimes make us think of? Here they are.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic motto's, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Question: Besides Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Franco, Sukarno and the military regimes of Greece, Portugal and Argentine.
Which nations behave in that manner today?
NE OUBLIE.
Margo: Ern, I had to find that piece and link it. Do you know how to link? Copy the link, highlight the text, then left click chain 6th from left, then paste the link in there.
Is Howard "taking us forward" into total fascism? 2.
Continuing the research of Laurence Britt, an American scholar who has studied fascist regimes and published the 14 characteristics that they had in common:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism. [Flags everywhere - already printed].
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners etc.
COMMENT: In my lifetime, Howard is the only Prime Minister who has intentionally and consistently, breached Human Rights - especially for Australians. R.G. Menzies had his "communists under the bed" but, when he tried to introduce the "Onus of Proof" legislation, he went to a Referendum and was soundly defeated.
While Howard still controls the Senate, he can do as he likes if re-elected. His Royal Commissions, multiple Committees and "Task Forces" are nothing but scams since the result is assured by the terms of reference and the people that HE chooses to "advise".
HIS (Australia's) total failure to abide by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is well known throughout the world but, is not reported in Australia.
However - suddenly - after a decade of neglect and reduction in the basic benefits of any democratic society - the Howard "New Order" recognises the problems of Aborigines but - only where the foreign Corporations want Uranium.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause.
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; terrorists; minorities, etc.
COMMENT: The Howard "New Order" considers the Intelligentsia as enemies of his fascist style of government and therefore he and his sycophants marginalise them. They are subjected to all sorts of intimidation and abuse, without any recourse to justice. Muslims - Trade Unions - Gay people - Opposition parties etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military.
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorised.
COMMENT: Without any military or boy scout service, Howard is unquestionably a warmonger. He tries to make wars of choice a proud National duty. He serves the most powerful lobby in the world - the U.S. Military/Corporate. To assist them in garrisoning their occupational requirements overseas, Howard limits our military potential at home to help the Bush Administration.
He has tried many means to increase the numbers of troops for this very purpose and, IMHO he will do a "Menzies" and introduce conscription [should he be re-elected], probably as "National Service". This will allow him to either put more young Australians in harm's way by sending them overseas (Menzies did) or having them relieve the permanent service personnel to handle the U.S. "wars of choice".
This does exactly nothing for Australia's future, independence or its international standing. Does that help trade? Struth.
At the same time he ignores the services needed by our people and cuts back on Health; Education; Veteran's benefits; proper military equipment; and purchases second hand U.S. war material.
Whatever the Americans have decided that they want from us - a re-elected Howard "New Order" will accommodate them.
You don't have to be a Military genius to apprehend that the enemies of the U.S. are automatically enemies of Australia. We and Alaska will constitute the "weak links" in the unnecessary "Son of Star Wars shield for America. This takes some of the "targets of choice" off them.
Think about it. More to come.
NE OUBLIE.
Article 'Howard's New Tampa - Aborginal Children Overboard'
I have just found this article in the Asian Tribune http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/6307
It is written by Jennifer Martiniello who was a former Deputy chair of the Aboringinal and Torries Strait Islander Arts Board of the Australia Council for the Arts :
It has been an openly stated agenda that Howard wants to move Aboriginal people off their lands, and has made recent attempts to buy off Aboriginal people by offering them millions for agreeing to lease their lands to the Federal Government, e.g. Tiwi Islands and Tangentyere in Alice Springs. There was also the statement by the Federal Government that it could not continue (?!) to provide essential services to remote communities, which raised an uproar of responses in the press. The focus on the sexual abuse of children is guaranteed to evoke the most emotive responses, and therefore command attention, just like the manipulation of the Tampa situation.
Indigenous people are not to blame
Paul Briggs a Yorta Yorta leader, is right the subliminal message is that aboriginals are the blame for this problem. The truth is that successive failures of Federal and State governments have got us to this situation. The failure of the Howard government to support reconciliation. The massive under funding of supporting departments in aboriginal communities has led to family breakdown. The only way forward, is to work with aboriginal leaders, supporting them, so slowly we can give pride back to the aboriginal people of Australia. The solutions will come from the aboriginal communities. We need more aboriginal policeman, more aboriginal doctors and health workers. Education is the key.
Christian gentlemen?
Margo says:
To what extent do you think it's a moral panic thing, too? And perhaps just old fashioned paternalistic racism?
Like, Aborigines are an endangered species not unlike, say, Tasmanian Devils or Koalas, and as Christian gentlemen we have no choice but to zoom in and save them from themselves?
I mean, I'm just speculating, and while people are right to be wary, I guess the medium term will tell.
Only in QLD
Margo, I hope this post is still on a topic that has become bigger than King Kong. By the way, I see The Age wrote its editorial (28/6) in defense of its 'overboard' story yesterday.
I shouldn't have mentioned Peter Beattie yesterday, because there he was on last night's Lateline, larger than life and in full, shameless opportunistic flights of fancy. Sure, grabbing hold of the PM's promise to improve schooling in communities, to pull some Federal cash out of Canberra, is what we expect from a Queensland Premier. But, a sensible man would have given a few minutes thought to the actual requirements for effective schooling, before spouting on with grand visions. What is going on? Has Beattie noticed the gap on the stage left by Tony Blair's exit right? Can Beattie jump up behind John Howard on the white horse, as Blair did with Bush? Is this just what Beattie does in the political theatre? Or, is he more cunning than Howard, and is there an element of self sacrifice in Beattie's gestures (again, a la Blair)? Beattie is so close to the edge of flagrant and obvious opportunism. Is he prepared to grasp hold of Howard in the current mode of 'national emergency', like a limpet, and go with him over the precipice of public opinion? If that's the plan, an Anna Bligh parachute will be more helpful than a truckload of mortgage debts.
There is a sad note about today. Rudd is releasing Labor's health policy. Will it push past page 5? Will Labor go along with the 30% private health insurance rebate? Who will be on Lateline tonight?
Begging bowls
Read with interest Trevor Kerr's post.
Firstly, you perhaps saw the 7.30 Report last night, as O'Brien reminded Brough on the stripping away of commonwealth aboriginal funding during the nineties by Costello?
On a different level a few WD-ists would have seen tucked away in some obscure back corner of a few newspapers, the announcement by destructive Abbott of a billion dollars in funding previously earmarked for the states health funding. Others will remember the interference with state funding for universities and the like predicated on the accomplishment of Howards various ideological agendas involving his fantastical "culture wars" and IR.
Trevor, I don't entirely swallow the myth that the states are"awash" in GST funds. I look at the billions squandered by the feds over many years on botched defence procurements, empty detention centres and middle-class and corporate welfare and wonder how many of our real problems could have been solved more effectively over the last decade had the money been directed to where it should have been .
If the Premiers are reduced to abject timidity loss of vision and morale and fitful opportunism through doing things like having to grovel for necessary funds to accomplish real aims, maybe we have to look at what creates the culture, as we have been doing with contemporary aboriginal culture. Claire Martin is another example, btw, in this case as to aboriginal affairs itself, when she received nothing but snubs and discouragement from the coalition last year , when trying to be constructive. It was easier for the coalition to use her as scapegoat in a politically motivated campaign to raise their own profile by default.
I think it's federalism or its mismanagement that we should really look at, rather than blaming those who are the victims ( in this case people like Carpenter, Martin and Beatty; down to the poor they are unable to service ).
It is absolutely fair to lather the opportunism and incompetence of state governments. No one loathes certain of the eastern states governments more than I!
But it is fair also to point out that federal structures as well as changes in economic structure are underlyingly important in understanding the development, reinforcement and ascendancy of pragmatism and neoliberalism in Labor and the wider issues of deteriorating balance and separation of powers.
The PM's latest, from Queensland
Doorstop, Amberley airbase, relevant extracts:
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, a leading economist says that your indigenous plan will be more likely to be $5 billion over five years, but you've allocated millions. What is your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen that analysis and people fly...throw figures around. It won't be $5 billion but I am quite sure that whatever is needed will be made available by the Commonwealth.
JOURNALIST:
You said this morning you would have been criticised for the timing of this announcement whether you made it now or whether you waited six months. Are you concerned that with the election approaching the politics might overshadow the positive aspects of your plan?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not. The point I was making this morning was that if we had put off acting on this until after the election we would have been criticised; that is the point I am making. And this idea that when you're in the run up to an election, that you don't do anything through fear it would be seen as political means that you are paralysed in the year leading up to the election and that's not government. We only have three years and if you cut a year out of that, or close to a year out of that because it's too political to take a decision, you end up paralysing government for a third of your term. I mean I think that argument, which has been advanced by some of the Premiers; although they appear to be dropping off it now which is welcome, I think that argument is ridiculous. We acted now because we had clear evidence from the Northern Territory report of how the serious the situation was, how dire it was and it was obvious that the Northern Territory Government was not handling the situation and that is why we've intervened. And it's got nothing to do with the election, it's got nothing to do with politics, it's got everything to do with caring for indigenous children and I don't really care what other people say about our motives. Our motives are correct, our motives are about the protection of children and I will wear any criticism from anybody in the community about what we're doing because I believe in my heart it's absolutely right.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, some reports have emerged of some communities actually expressing alarm and being afraid of incursion of police or troops or whatever. Have you had a briefing on this matter?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the information I have is that some people are mischievously spreading criticism of what we're doing and creating fear for their own purposes. I am satisfied that once people get on the ground, and there will be some people on the ground today, once people get on the ground there will be reassurance provided to those who might have been misled into thinking that the intervention was a hostile one rather than a benign and supporting one. And there is no reason for anybody to be concerned. The whole object of the exercise is to help people, to protect people, to secure people, to reassure people. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. But there are some people who don't like what we're doing because it's not the old way. Now what matters is what is the best way to protect children. I don't care about doctrine or philosophy or debates about, you know, broad approaches, it's what works. And the old way has failed and that is why we are intervening. And I feel very strongly about this. I mean you have no greater obligation as a Prime Minister, anybody, as a Premier, than the protection of vulnerable children. These kids deserve more of this country than they are getting at the moment and I am not going to be deterred by a lengthy debate, I am not going to be deterred by people who want this to fail. I mean look at what Noel Pearson said last night. He was astounded that people actually want this intervention to fail because they will then be able to say we were right and Howard was wrong. Look in the end, we will be judged by the care that we extend to the most vulnerable in our community and the most vulnerable in our community are the very young and the very old. And the care that we extend to them is crucial in discharging our responsibilities.
JOURNALIST:
If any children are found to be in abusive situations in the Northern Territory who will have the power to take them out of those situations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the laws of the Territory in relation to that, except to the extent that they may be amended by the legislation we're bringing forward, will apply.
JOURNALIST:
Will the troops and police being sent there at the moment...
PRIME MINISTER:
The troops and police will act in accordance with the law as it is and as it might be in the future after it is amended.
A simple yes or no
Kerry O'Brien couldn't get a straight answer out Brough on 7.30 Report tonight, either.
Asked a simple question- yes/ no about whether medical officers were being sent , Brough hummed and hawed for so long that OBrien looked apoplectic.
O' Brien got in back at the end, with a question concerning the half billion Costello trimmed off aboriginal affairs in late nineties. Suddenly, after spending a lot of time in engaging in recriminations against labor state governments and "nay sayers", Brough suddenly decided that past failings needed to be left behind and moved on from, in the cause of the current (manufactured) "emergency". ..
Flattery
Reading that, it could have been Peter Beattie prior to his last two elections, on facing up to corrupt cronies and the Bundaberg hospital crisis. Howard may have performed his imitation too early. If he tries it again, it may begin to look obvious. Still, the signs are good. I doubt Janette will let John strut around in Speedos, but someone should keep watch at the Sunlounge Tanning Studio in South Yarra.
There he was today, boasting about copulation figures, while some have to live in squalor. I bet Costello had to bite his tongue, saying "Of course, it will be a very substantial cost because it's having people on the ground, it's having law enforcement officers on the ground, it's having medical specialists on the ground, and over a long period of time it will be a very substantial cost." Let's get the cadence correct. "A ... very ... substantial ..... cost".
Yeah, not $5billion, oh no. More like 10, to do it properly. Don't you just hate it, Peter, when old Mr 18% drops in to raid the biscuit tin?
Alex Mitchell in Crikey
I got this unsolicited email from Crikey with an interesting piece by Alex Mitchell.
"Long-serving Sydney political journalist Alex Mitchell writes: This is the last throw of the dice for John Howard. He is doing one big favour for the mining industry which he has faithfully served in public life for the past 30 years by rolling back Aboriginal ownership of their tribal lands. Cynically, cruelly but utterly predictably, he’s doing it under the hypocritical colours of humanitarianism. (Very similar to the invasion and occupation of Iraq sold as “spreading democracy”). In his four terms as PM, he has starved indigenous health, education and housing of funds, abolished ATSIC and pointedly marginalised the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. This particular pre-election pitch is aimed at Lateline viewers, readers of The Age and The SMH and ABC stalwarts, the demographic that constitutes Australian (small “l”) liberalism. These are the feeble-brained, hand-wringers who are congenitally incapable of separating the wood from the trees. They are types currently heard sobbing: “I’m no fan of Mr Howard, but at least he’s DOING SOMETHING!” Yes, he is: he’s giving the mining giants the leg-up they need to start exploring, digging and quarrying in indigenous lands in the Northern Territory and then elsewhere.
He is being aided and abetted by Kevin Rudd’s craven behaviour. Instead of falling into line with Howard’s agenda, he should have demanded complete details of the plan, the highest-level briefing, sought face-to-face meetings with Aboriginal leaders, state premiers, police and army officers and taken the lead in a national debate. Instead, he mouthed pieties such as “I’m taking Mr Howard at his word” and “I believe the Prime Minister when he says he is responding to a national crisis” etc etc. Has anyone realised that these are almost the same words used by Kim Beazley when he backed Howard during the Tampa scam? By his pusillanimous approach, Rudd has vacated leadership on the tragic issue of rescuing Aboriginal communities and given Howard the opportunity to play his sickening Father of the Nation role. Paul Keating, you were right about the Rudd team of fixers, hucksters, flyweights and spineless opportunists".
Margo: PF, I saw that too. Alex was state political correspondent for the Sun Herald.. Great bloke, been up close to power for a long time, but never lost his independent outlook. Dunno what he's doing now.
Sales of the century.
So others are wondering about Latteline, too.
Like 7.30 Report, every so often it gives a tantalising reminder of the show it once was before the management zealots buggered it. The interview by Jones with a PLO leader a week ago was an example; an utter gem. But rather than interviewing someone from Hamas the next night ( after all, what was being discussed was an internal Palestinian thing ), it somehow decided that its censorship "balance" policy needed to appeased by the presence of an Israeli government spin doctor.
This writer was troubled by the treatment of the original Mutitjulu indigenous issue last year by Latteline, and challenged the producer in a series of emails.
Charley stuck robotically to a particular spin "line", so I reckon the show was commandeered, since a government-line stooge took over the news department. My sense is that Lateline was coerced into running interference for Howard and Brough, to prepare this issue to its current stage, as to public opinion manufacture.
Let's not forget that Ron Brunton, Howard's favorite anti-black arm band ideologist is on the ABC board, either!
I don't blame the people working at SBS or ABC any more- look at the passing parade of current affairs producers fired recently from these organisations. The public gave Howard too long, particularly from its abandonment of the Senate in 2004, and he has strangled independent media the same as he strangled independence in the public service and qangos.
As Margo pointed out, Ron Walker is now running Fairfax, so it all fits together as to a fairly comprehensive right wing take over of press and media.
A modest wager
Interesting that Mitchell named Lateline first in his bracket of "feeble-brained, hand-wringers who are congenitally incapable of separating the wood from the trees". On that note, I wonder if Leigh Sales (current host for Lateline) has a different approach from Tony Jones (or is under other orders).
If I could find a bookmaker (not looking too hard) I'd put down good money that The Age will support the re-election of the Coalition. Why do I say that? Why am I asking myself a question? Because Costello is the darling of the Melbourne set, and any PM from Victoria is preferable to one from another city. And did I mention Ron Walker is chair of the Fairfax board?
$10, anyone?
Margo: It backed the Coalition last time. The SMH, for the first time, refused to back either party, saying it was a new policy from now on. It then backed the Libs at the NSW State election. Former Federal Liberal Treasurer and fund raiser Ron Walker is Fairfax chairman.
Is Big Brother interferring with our website?
I note that Margo has received some complaints regarding problems with our posts.
I have also. When I write, perhaps a lengthy item, but always one that is critical of the Howard government, I hit the Enter or the Backspace button and I lose the contents of the comment box.
Today I have lost two articles - both reasonably lengthy, both on webdiary, and both critical of Howard.
Paranoia? But isn't that the excuse of the CIA?
And isn't that now the excuse of ASIO?
Wake up Australia.
Let me just say one thing - IF all incumbent politicians lie - keep kicking them out of office. Some day you must get the message across.
NE OUBLIE.
Margo: As a BB fan, I protest! Yep, there seems to be a few hassles - please copy your post before pressing the submit button. We're trying to fix the problem.
Big Brother
Ernest William, I told you that if Bryan Law interfered with Pine gap the CIA would get you all. However Microsoft Word is a very clever program and if you keep on writing things that are critical of Howard, it is going to throw them out.
However I think it is our old friend Syd Drate having some fun.
What the .... !
Very interesting article in The Age Margo - thanks for the link.
This had my head spinning:
But "why us?" and "why now?" are the questions underpinning this afternoon's long meeting outside the Mutitjulu Community Office, painted in the colours of the Aboriginal flag. A three-week investigation of allegations of abuse in the community by a joint police task force last year — including over 100 interviews with local people — failed to find evidence of abuse capable of prosecution in this community, local elders say. "Where is the evidence? Put up or shut up."
Margo: I liked this Golding cartoon in The Age today.
Wow!
The Age broke ranks with the uniformly positive coverage fo Howard's plan, in a big way. Splashed across the entire top of page one was this:
"The government is using these children to win the election..."
'THIS IS OUR BLACK CHILDREN OVERBOARD'
The non-Wow
It's just a report, Margo. Wait to see what comes out on the front page over the next few weeks.
Costello's wonder Budget, the last one that was caressed by all the main outlets for its prudence, etc, blah-blah, had a gaping hole. Where was the plan for a major effort to correct the flaws in management of remote communities? Where was The Age then?
I had a thought, at the time, the government may have been waiting to pull out the rabbit during the campaign, using the billions left in the purse. It would have been a risky ploy, without knowing what Labor had to offer, but Labor in the States and Territories would have ensured an eventful contest. I can only hope that Howard let the rabbit loose just to enjoy the sight of Costello standing flat-footed on the sidelines. And where is brother Tim Costello? Where is Ted Egan, the beer drinkers mate?
Now, I am waiting for The Age to run defence for the alcohol and "hospitality" industries, when they find one of their sales outlets has been cut off. Where will they redeploy their energies? Into the urban youth market, no doubt. Remember the hypocrisy of the corporates' handmaiden when it runs more shock-horror on teenage drinking, and its consequences like STIs, other drugs, and babies.
Oh well, when its all over, we can all get together over a few beers and a bit of choof.
Margo: Hi Trevor. I share your cynicism of the mainstream media, believe me. However The Age has a strong record on covering Aboriginal issues. My Wow! point was that it was in your eye for Howard, something the mainstream media does very little of these days.
Election winner?????
Bet The Age sold a heap of papers though !
There was nothing in that article to suggest
'THIS IS OUR BLACK CHILDREN OVERBOARD'
If initially it was Howard's intention to use these children to win the election, well ,I'd say he's failed miserably!
The Government's plan has bipartisan support here, certainly making the issue an election nullifier in my opinion.
It's not going to convince me to vote for him.
He is finally doing something about this very serious situation with our indigenous kids. About bloody time too! And, Rudd is right to support this.
Please... someone , anyone , tell me how this can be an election winner for the government?
Margo: Hi Kathy. We'll know if it's a wedge thing when we see the legislation Howard puts up. People will be looking at land rights in particular. The wedge would be in if Labor could not support elements of the legislation. I've been thinking about this today, and wonder if Howard might just be digging himself into a hole on this one. Remember Mabo, when PM Keating got obsessed with what was a huge and very complex area? Voters got jacked off that he wasn't paying attention to the bread and butter issues. I wonder if Howard's dramatic plan may see him forced to talk about little else for a while. Rudd has kept his troops together so far, and promised a bipartisan Aboriginal affairs Cabinet if he wins office. If the communities riot, or flee, or whatever, Rudd can be talking about the stuff that changes votes while Howard is mired in the fallout of his plan. Who knows? But this issue is definitely one to watch.
Military Madness
Since when military solution will ever solve the social and political problem. The Aboriginal issues have always been a social and political problem. As Matt Price wrote in The Australian today : "Resources are “deployed”. Situations are “stabilised” and then, hopefully, “normalised”. Towns will be “secured”. Maps are distributed. All part of a “three-phase operation” to rescue the children". Have we not learn from Vietnam, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, East Timor, Solomon Island, Iraq etc. As in East Timor, how many times the troops have to be sent in again and again.
It is now obvious that Howard and Brough have no clue on how to solve this social and political problem. They are just making it up as they go along and hang on to the only hat that they can, namely military solution. Howard likes very much to hang the L-Plate to the Labor Party on a number of issues. On this issue, they should be wearing a big L-Plate around their neck. But the tragedy is, they have been driving for a long long time.
I have great respect for Noel Pearson, but I disagree with him on this one. This military solution will not work. A solution that will not work is not a solution at all. Noel Pearson was very chummy with Kevin Rudd last night on Lateline, I wonder how Howard would take that. Interesting time.
PM comment today
Doorstop
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that a number of people have sent me a letter asking for more consultation about our intervention in the Northern Territory, my reply to that is that my Government has never stopped talking to indigenous people, but what has to be understood now is that the old approach has not worked and if we are to save generation of indigenous children from the most appalling abuse we must intervene in the way that I have outlined and we will maintain our position very strongly, we believe it is right and we believe that by providing communities through greater law and order with a breathing space we can begin to address problems of health and education, which sadly because of the chaotic state of those communities have not been sufficiently addressed in the past.
JOURNALIST:
Labor supported Noel Pearson's plan, are you now concerned that that means they're backing away from their in-principle support for your proposals?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Noel Pearson's views on this issue and mine are very similar. As far as the Labor Party is concerned it is sending confusing signals. Mr Rudd says he supports our plan yet a number of Labor Premiers are attacking me. But that's their problem. They'll have to explain that. I'm not especially interested in their confusion. I'm just committed to implementing our plan and we will go ahead with that and not be deterred in anyway.
JOURNALIST:
Would you be concerned or disappointed though with Kevin Rudd did back away from that......
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'm not going to give a commentary on Mr Rudd, you ask Mr Rudd questions about Mr Rudd's position. The public knows where we stand and it's for the Labor Party to explain the different signals it is sending to the community.
JOURNALIST:
Are you surprised that Noel Pearson has aligned with Labor....
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Are you surprised that Labor has aligned with....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Noel Pearson talks a lot of sense and...but look, the purpose of this is not to get into a debate about political position, it is to solve the problem and we have embarked on a course of action which is the right thing to protect the indigenous children of the Northern Territory and we intend to go ahead with that. We've made very good progress but it's going to take time, it's going to take a long time and there are going to be difficulties along the way. But it's the greatest obligation we have and the plan that we have laid out is necessary because the old approach has failed.
JOURNALIST:
...that your plan was dramatic, do you think that this is one of the most drastic or dramatic things that you've done....
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I don't want to get into that sort of debate, that's irrelevant, what matters is the substance of what we are trying to do, not some kind of scale of activity. Thank you.
Jenny, check out the new ASIO laws
Under the ASIO laws Ruddock pushed through he has the right to order anyone he wants picked up and locked up even if they are totally innocent of any crime, he can do it for 14 days, the people are not allowed to tell anyone and if they do they can be jailed for 5 years.
Those are the facts. That is torture.
Ruddock know Mamdouh Habib had been rendered to Egypt by the US and was being tortured and lied to.
You know Jenny, there is a disconnect in some brains. Those brains say that if the person didn't personally do something they are not guilty.
But if they make it legal they are responsible. See?
Brough has no worries
Ruddock was not sacked for years of child and adult torture in his concentration camps that continues to this day. He was rewarded with the right to arrest and torture muslim Australians who look "dodgy", lock them up and interrogate them for 14 days even though they are not even suspected of any wrong doing, tap the phones of innocent people and then send anyone who reports it to jail for 5 years.
Vanstone was in charge of cleaning up the mess surrounding locking up and deporting hundreds of Australian citizens and residents. Margo I trust you read the interim report to discover that 10 of the first 22 investigations were kids - it was said they were "visiting" the centres and not detained at all. For nearly a year in some cases.
What has been done - nothing. Cornelia is still waiting and boy I am so proud of myself for stirring up that little shit storm of horrors.
Vanstone got "sacked" and is horribly unlucky to be exiled to Italy.
Brough will probably get Paris or the Holy see if he acquires the lands but doesn't do anything more than steal the $3 million from the Mutajula township and take away all the services in the communities so he can start new "missions" near the towns.
All to save the children of course because everyone knows there are no child abusers in big towns and cities don't we?
The right to torture?
Mary j Shepherd: You say Ruddock was rewarded with ....the right to arrest and torture muslim Australians.
Now, I am no fan of that dead pan seemingly emotionless man but I have yet to see any document that legally gives him or anyone else in this country the right to torture muslim Australians as you put it.
If you make sweeping statements like that then I think we are entitled to know the source of what you clearly present as a fact. So can you quote the law or regulation that specifically sets out that he has the right to torture. Oh, never mind, clearly that statement is rubbish.
You make some good points on some issues, but you then discredit yourself when you make such statements as this.
PM spin
This is the text of the PM's weekly radio message:
Implementing the Federal Government's plan to stamp out sexual and other abuse of defenceless Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory will take time, but the Government has already started.
Yesterday, the Minister Mal Brough met Commonwealth officials to map out the first stage of the intervention.
The top priority is the restoration of law and order. The communities concerned must be stabilised and given a breathing space. Additional police will be on the ground within 10 days.
I welcome the promise from both New South Wales and Victoria of more police; the other states should follow suit. Giving the women and children of these remote Northern Territory communities a greater sense of physical security is essential before our initiatives in health and education can be implemented.
Mr Brough is assembling a talented taskforce to oversee the Government's plan. Already included are Doctor Sue Gordon, a magistrate from Western Australian and chairman of the National Indigenous Committee.
Shane Castles who led the AFP operation in the Solomon Islands and Doctor Bill Glasson, a former federal president of the Australian Medical Association have also agreed to join the taskforce.
This is most encouraging. Equally heartening has been the spontaneous response of the general public. There have been numerous offers of help right across the spectrum of Australian society.
Throughout our nation there is a genuine desire to make sure that we respond effectively to this national emergency. Our obligation to the vulnerable children of the Northern Territory is absolute. We must not let them down.
The Lone Ranger
In his speech last night, Mr Howard said that: “Mr. Brough and I would take full responsibility for the success or failure of this plan". Please excuse my cynicism, but do note the exact order of his words “Mr. Brough and I”. Classic Howard, he is already starting to build his escape route. If he were fair dinkum, he should say, “I would take full responsibility for the success or failure of this plan". Not “Mr. Brough and I”.
It reminds me of the old Lone Ranger joke. Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by the hostile Indians. LR turns to Tonto and says: “Tonto, Tonto, we are in big trouble”. Tonto turns to LR and says: “What do you mean WE, white man?”.
His comparison to the Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath of "human misery and lawlessness" in New Orleans is a curious one. Because everyone agrees that New Orleans was neglected because it was a black town and the victims were neglected because they were black. So it was pure racism. Is he now admitting that the "human misery and lawlessness" of the Aboriginal communities have also been caused by Australian racism? If so, maybe it’s time for him to say “Sorry”.
The storm
PF, this situation has the ingredients of a perfect storm. But I don't think the Hurricane Katrina analogy was all Howard's own work, and it will only last until the next round of Labor bashing. While we wait for Kevin to respond with an epithet, tune in to Prof Peter Sutton and a paediatrician from the Kimberley, on Lateline Monday night. They spoke with all the wisdom and clarity that we hope is still out there, unbowed by the ravages of managerialism.
Howard's choice of words alludes to Brough's key role in getting some movement. I can't imagine the toffs, bluebloods and dries at the Cabinet table wanted to spend another cent on indigenous welfare. I wonder if Brough made a stern offer that took Howard's breath away, and Howard hasn't quite recovered yet from the enormity of the impending cascade that he has stirred up.
The key ingredients of the pickle that NT Labor finds itself in are in the introduction to the Report. The Report was a hand grenade tossed up to the NT government, and the authors must have had an inkling of the repercussions. The first recommendation is built around the all-important concept of 'coming together' to fight the problem of sexual abuse of children. 'Coming together', not dividing, separating or segregating. So, when the NT Ministers read the recommendation to act in concert with the national government to declare a national emergency, did they reckon a few more weeks of sitting on it wouldn't be noticed? Is it the climate in Darwin, the grog, or just the plain awfulness of the reality? I mean, what's more important to Territorians than another excuse, like a car race, to go out and get drunk? If Clare Martin was a journalist, what happened to her nose for a front page splash?
Another word on the need to get specific evidence of wrongs done. Any evidence of a sexually acquired infection (STI) in a minor is grounds for intervention by child protection. What's been going on up to now isn't all that forthcoming in the report, but it seems the numerous instances of STIs have not been followed by prosecutions and convictions, as they surely would have anywhere else. (Pearson elaborated on the reasons yesterday). But the need is there now, stark and insurmountable. The technicalities and forensic requirements of testing for STIs in this situation have not been detailed in the Report, but they are both significant and of prime importance. From now on, every health care agent sent in to the desert communities will be on a hair trigger to suspect, test and report, not to mention treat. (Despite Tony Abbott backing away from the STI issue.) There cannot be any room for mistakes. So, I suggest the testing regimen will prove to be a lot bigger, in terms of resources needed, than surmised to date. I suggest that some consideration be given to options and alternatives to the usual ways of doing things.
I suggest that some major corporations will be pleased to volunteer, or accept invitation, to assist with expertise and resources. How about asking the last major Aussie company to make a huge killing from an STI to step forward with real money? That would be a small dent in the extraordinary profits guaranteed by subsidisation of the papillomavirus vaccine. Over to CSL.
The Illiberal
Justin Tutty, thank you for your reply. I read it, and re-read, it at least once. There is little doubt you understand the workings of the NT better than I. It would therefore; only be right, I accept what you state, as truth.
You wrote:
Yes it is paternalistic, but you will, "cop it".
You wrote:
Poor people making decisions! Where will it end?
Lucky for them they have you on their side. Where do I sign? Then again, I do believe in liberty, so perhaps not.
Excellent points on proposed medical examinations
There was an excellent letter to the editor in the SMH today by a retired pediatrician, Dr Clare Cunningham. The doctor expressed a number of concerns, the main one being the question of consent from a child’s parent for intimate and intrusive medical examinations. What would ants to know what happens if such consent is not given or/and if children refuse examinations. What then ?
There are many grave concerns brought up in this letter. Well worth considering for discussion.
Yes Denise, an interesting letter
Denise: Yes that is a very interesting letter. Not only will the procedures themselves be very upsetting to children subjected to them, but parents, who may already know their child has been molested, will be most reluctant to co-operate, I would think, for fear of what might be the outcome, for both them and for any abusing relative or spouse.
Surely children will not be forced into compliance if parents object? That would only make it ten times worse. If you have to start holding children down for those sorts of medical tests, then there will be real problems of trust and co-operation.
And in some communities there will be real language problems. I recall the difficulty we faced as nurses when the indigenous patient could not understand English and we could not communicate properly with sign language to them. Even with translators I soon learnt that much was lost in translation, which led to all sorts of disasters.
So I really hope the doctors and nurses have some good translators who can explain things properly to both children and parents.
I would have thought the better approach would have been to send in police to establish order, then put teams of social workers in to work with the children in specific age groups, with a respected same sex elder in each group who could help the children to understand that if they were being abused, they could be helped to deal with that rather than put up with it.
Even when a home is dysfunctional, it is the child's only world; and children will protect that world when they know no other, even in the face of that dysfunction. The indigenous children in those communities know nothing else. They will have a lot of fear in the face of sudden intervention, and a great deal of time and effort would have to be spent in gaining their confidence and trust. Otherwise they will be easy victims of the fear mongering their perpetrators will be engaging in. And if that is their own father or brother or relative, the families are likely to close ranks, as happens in white dysfunctional homes as well. The co-dependant family system can be the biggest barrier of all to dealing with abuse.
And if there is one thing that characterises indigenous people, it is their strong bonds of kinship and family. They will not allow those to be threatened or undermined lightly.
But I hope for the children’s sake that the intervention can be made to work. But it will take a long time so time will tell, no doubt.
Universality
Mary J, my initial reaction was distaste but I think perhaps the medical examinations, whilst invasive, are the lesser evil. I say only that it is a minor discomfort relative to the abuse that it has the potential to prevent. I think we need to have more faith in children and their ability to handle traditionally "adult" issues. It is a heavy request of these individuals but it has the potential to do some good. I don't like it, but, neither do I like the situation which manifested this response.
Yet if we are going to do this I think it should be done across the board. There is no reason for confining it to Indigenous communities. Abuse is everywhere. I think that either we target high-risk individuals, or, go all out and test everyone. Having a kind of qualified targeting towards particular ethnic communities seems illogical to me.