Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I wonder which idiot advised the Unions and Labor to go to court. I’ll bet that was a nice little earner for them. I can understand Combet and Burrows playing silly buggers with somebody else’s money, they have nothing better to do with their time. However for a possible alternative government to waste money in this way, just shows up once again their incompetence in handling money.

C Parsons and Scott Brown Your dialogue is a classic example of why the system's stuffed. Entrenched tribal positions circling two corrupt ideologies playing polemic ping pong. Puhleeeeeezzzzze....

Marilyn Shepherd I direct you to D Plumb's post on - | 29/09/2005 1:27:43 PM and the country's that have signed it and have to take them in - 'the following countries are signatories to the 1951 Refugee convention and 1967 Protocol - Iran, Kygyrstan, Kazakhistan, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Papua New Guinea, Egypt, Philippines and China. In total 142 are states parties to the 1951 convention and 141 states parties to the 1967 Protocol.' Now Russia is closer, is it not? Turkmenistan? PNG? Philippines? Kygyrstan? Does that mean that they don't have a right to go here, because other nations are far closer, that have to take them in, according to the convention? Therefore they are cherry picking, because there is a plethora of options on every available point of the compass for refugees from Afghanistan to go to, or from Pakistan. The only direction unavailable is directly South. But in the 7,000 odd kilometres between Pakistan and Australia, surely there must be one signatory closer?

Tonight the discussion on ABC while driving home from work was yet again about the new "terrorist" laws. When asked whether these laws went against our very long tradition of being innocent until proven guilty, the lawyer being interviewed could only say he was afraid they might. I am horrified that there is so little discussion about these laws. They are being brought into existence in America and the UK as well. When that is brought into the equation, you would have to say there is an agenda. And I don't think I need to be paranoid to believe that. And of course we always need a "terror" incident to enforce them further. 9/11 wasn't enough, so we needed Bali, Madrid, Djakarta, London... and neverending discussion of these incidents to ensure that we fear... fear... fear... So that we are ripe for the further encroachments on our freedoms and our democracy. Now as I believe that ALL the major terror incidents have been "false flags" to achieve the purpose of creating what 1984 explained so well, it is frustrating and sad beyond measure that Aussies are falling into line so easily. Without a fight. Thanks goodness, Margo, that you are here so that the few who are awake can say our piece. But how do we wake up the rest of Australia? I feel helpless before what is happening to our country, and what I fear will happen first to the Muslims here, because Australians seem to be simply accepting the situation. Of course these new laws are racist, but we are not rising up in indignation. Why? I also worry because although John Howard brought this about, ALL the federal and state politicians seem to have fallen in line. I don't believe politicians are dim-witted. So why did they do it?

I wonder if this sort of UK legislation is far behind as described by Simon Jenkins in The Guardian link here which states the government will-"lock away for five years anyone who glorifies, exalts or celebrates" a terrorist act committed in the past 20 years. He does not care if glorification was not meant". Will this be used to arrest critics of the Iraq War or those who attempt to understand the reasons terrorists attack us as on the 9/11 atrocity ?. It's too late now as well. We've all been electronically recorded with our opinions. When will that knock on the door come ?.

Craig Warton, first, maybe you ought to get that mate of yours who flew an aircraft all on his own after a few hours on a simulator to tell you all about air defence. Secondly, you assert “A defence force is a wonderful idea except for two little problems. The person or persons attacking you will have an offensive capability so to counter that your defensive capability needs to match that. Secondly, the best form of defence is usually attack. This doesn’t mean attacking another country, but it does mean the ability to attack your opponent and put them off balance.” This is complete nonsense. If the best form of defence is attack then how can you not attack another country? We are, as I keep having to remind folk, an island nation-state. As for ‘…persons attacking you will have an offensive capability…’ of course they will, but who has? And why would they?

Regarding the 'Israel=Apartheid' controversy, I share the view of other posters who believe the comparison is valid. Of course, there are specific differences between the two cases, which helps account for the fact that while White South Africa has already been consigned to the dustbin of history, 'Jewish' Israel is still very much alive and kicking. In any case, I believe the solution is much the same in both cases: create a single, pluralistic, multicultural state with a one person, one vote democratic system and a 'right of return' for anyone who can trace a personal or family connection to the land. In other words, transform the Holy Land (Palestine / Israel) into a 'normal' state, with laws guaranteeing equal rights for all its people - replacing a state serving above all the interests of a specific self-identifying group based on religious, linguistic and cultural factors. (Surely not on race! It was, after all, the Nazis who considered Jewishness to be racial in essence – a belief for which there is no empirical evidence.) This, incidentally, was the original position of the PLO, before they were bullied and manipulated into accepting the ‘Two State solution’. It was the position held by Edward Said to his deathbed. These days, the 'One State for all solution’ is kept alive by Israel Shamir and others. It is gaining ground within the Palestinian solidarity movement, as awareness grows that the Israeli regime has absolutely no intention of 'permitting' a viable neighboring Palestinian State. When folding the Jewish State and current Palestinian Bantustans into a sungle pluralistic State, Holy Land residents can benefit from the earlier African experience by copying two other impressive features of the South African model for change. Firstly, all of Israel’s WMDs must be decommissioned. A pluralistic Holy Land will have no reason to fear its neighbors and no need to intimidate them. Secondly, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could oversee the healing process and help replace a vicious cycle of vengeance with the virtuous cycle of forgiveness. Perhaps Desmond Tutu could be asked to chair it? He did a fine job on the first occasion! Incidentally, a visit to the website of Israel Shamir shows that Antony Loewenstein and MUP are not alone. Other courageous anti-Zionist authors of Jewish parentage - and their publishers - also get chased from pillar to post by 'The Lobby'... As the topic of 'anti-Semitism' has been aired again on this thread. I commend the following quotation from the Jewish anti-Zionist Paul Eisen in his thought-provoking essay entitled 'Jewish Power':

"The anti-Semite curse has long served as a frightener to silence all criticism of Jews, Israel and Zionism, and undoubtedly will be used to discredit our cause. But so what? They call us anti-Semites anyway so what's to lose? Edward Said spent a lifetime picking his way through the Israel/Zionism/Judaism minefield and never once criticized Jews, and he was called an anti-Semite his whole life, right up to and even after his death."

Here's how these laws work in practice! 82 year old former refugee from Nazism Walter Wolfgang gets manhandled out of a Labour annual conference in Britain for heckling Jack Straw about Iraq! Not only that but he's briefly detained under the Terrorist Act! here If the whole incident hadn't been recorded on camera and/or if he'd been a 25 year old with a Shane Warne style earring, would anyone have made a fuss? Plus the person would likely end up with their name on some secret database (with no unsubscribe button) of people of interest in relation to terrorism!

Mark Condell wrote "Doesn't anybody else on this forum appreciate what a hypocrite Latham is?" I can only speak for myself, Mark, but yes I agree. Damien Hogan wrote "Those who simple resort to name calling – well, they are as guilty as Mark of playing the man and not the ball. Some might say they themselves are in danger of becoming self-centred hypocrites." Damien, calling someone a 'wanker' or an 'arsehole' - that is name calling. It conveys no meaning or information other than dislike. But calling someone a 'self-centred hypocrite' (or 'arrogant', or a 'narcissist', or 'lacking in empathy', etc, etc) is a descriptive opinion, albeit one that the target may find offensive. It conveys information based on an assessment of the person's behaviour. You're welcome to disagree with this judgement of Latham, but please don't pretend that people don't have the right to this opinion of him, or are 'in danger of being like him', etc

Just got an email from defence.gov about the preferred tenderer for the ‘Battlespace Communications Project’ which Senator Hill reckons: ‘…will increase the efficiency and capacity of the Army and land-based Air Force elements to rapidly share information on the battlefield.’ What battlefield? And the cost of this big boys’ toy? $800 million!