Ok, I am aware that there’s a certain type in the media who relies on saying something shocking in order to create the sort of controversy that gets them noticed. And there are some who’d say anything that someone paid them to say.
They’re the sort who are “housetrained”. Bring out your chequebook and they’ll tell you that black is white.
Sorry, Andrew, that’s just a figure of speech, so don’t get all funny about that court case, and Alan we’ve forgotten all about that Media Watch!
I mean, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are pillars. They are extraordinary human beings.
How do I know this?
Well, a few days ago, someone was suggesting that Turnbull had a “narcissist personality disorder”. And there were descriptions about what such a thing meant, but to use the Wikipedia defintion, it means that “a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy,power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and others.”
And yet, in spite of Turnbull’s alleged disorder, we’re told today, by Andrew Bolt that he’s been “housetrained”.
That’s Turnbull, not Bolt. Nobody could ever accuse Bolt of being “housetrained”.
Anyway, this Prime Minister – the one with prestige and vanity – has been harnessed by Jones and Bolt.
Yep, Bolt wrote today:
“So, yes, I should feel like Samson after a haircut. But here’s the funny thing. We’ve actually won. Me and Alan. We’ve house-trained Turnbull.”
Now some of you may have a problem with the idea that a Prime Minister could be the pet of two people who’s only claim to representing the people is that they give their opinion and that they don’t listen to anyone else. But, in Bolt’s world, this is what democracy means. He has the right to say whatever he likes and anyone who disagrees should be shut down, shut up or shut off.
After all, as he said when that other Murdoch paper, The Australian, had the temerity to critiicism him, he only has his reputation, so nobody should attack that. Particularly a paper that relies on the tabloids to subsidise it.
Now some may see a problem with the idea that Malcolm Turnbull would “housetrained” by such a person, but I don’t.
That’s because I read Andrew Bolt’s column today. And that means that I know all that I need to know. Because even though Bolt never completed his university degree, he’s somehow been able to become an expert on everything.
Even controlling PM’s with alleged narcissist disorders.
Pity he didn’t do it when Tony and Peta were running things …
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
The removal of Tony Abbott is like the lancing of a boil. We may not have cured the infection but the relief is immense.
Whilst some are concerned that the same agenda will be pursued by more nefarious means, there is going to be significant change.
How will Rupert react?
Remember when Turnbull said, in praise of The Saturday Paper’s founder Morry Schwartz and his contribution to Australia’s “intellectual life”,: “You are not some demented plutocrat pouring more and more money into a loss making venture that is just going to peddle your opinions.”
In that interview Jones said to Turnbull “you’ve got not a hope in hell of getting Tony Abbott’s job”.
Or Hadley, who thinks Malcolm is up himself for wearing a t-shirt with the collar turned up.
Will the Telegraph still get its news feed? Will Miranda Devine and Piers Ackerman still be invited to dine with the PM?
I haven’t seen Malcolm on the guest list at IPA gigs either.
Whilst I am savouring the moment of Abbott’s demise (with the added burn of being a few days shy of qualifying for a PM pension), I will take the opportunity to remind Turnbull of his own words regarding the Coalition policy on climate change action.
“Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.”
He’s wrong. Ok, that’s hardly a phrase that’s in uncommon usage when talking of Andrew Bolt’s views, but in this case he’s really wrong.
The Anglo-Australian nation and culture was founded in racism, and racism is wound into the fabric of many of the artifacts that still hold Australia together today. Racism is arguably so embedded in the Anglo-Australian culture, that many don’t see it.
This was never made more clear than in the arguments recently around whether or not ‘booing’ Adam Goodes was racist or not. Here’s Charlie Pickering’s commentary on this from The Weekly:
Australia has a problem with racism
There. I’ve said it. And so, according to a study done by the University of Western Sydney, have 85% of other Australians. We, as a country, have a problem with racism.
Here’s what Aboriginal Australian Stan Grant had to say about this recently in regards to Adam Goodes:
‘Estranged in the land of our ancestors’ – that’s the environment that the Anglo-Australian culture has created for Aboriginal Australians. And while most Aussies of non-aboriginal descent would undoubtedly consider themselves to be more enlightened than our forefathers, we still allow our blatantly racist infrastructure to stay in place.
And while we may be blind to the impact of this racist infrastructure, outsiders aren’t – maybe because it’s often easier to see faults in others than in yourself. In the words of British-American comedian and political satirist John Oliver:
Australia is “one of the most comfortably racist places I’ve ever been”
Comfortably racist. That’s a fairly accurate description. And the reason it’s so ‘comfortable’, is that it’s embedded in the Anglo-Australian culture to such an extent that it’s seen as normal or harmless. Like the chips in the paintwork of your home, you walk past them every day and after a while you stop noticing them.
Racism was embedded in the Anglo-Australian culture right from the get-go
The Anglo-Australian nation was founded in racism
The core principle behind the ‘colonisation’ of Australia in 1788 was a belief in the absolute superiority of the British race. England didn’t declare war on the Aboriginal people when they sent the First Fleet here – they might have undertaken plenty of war-like behaviour after the First Fleet’s arrival – but there was no official war declared. Australia was not taken by ‘conquest’. Furthermore, there was no treaty signed with the Aboriginal people – no exchange of goods to buy the land.
Instead, the English declared that Australia was uninhabited (or ‘terra nullius’) – and therefore up for grabs – ignoring the land rights of the people who had inhabited this country for more than 60,000 years. As historian Bob Reece once wrote about the British attitude at that time:
“The British culture was one with an unquestioning faith in its superiority and in its civilizing role. The whites expected the aboriginal to recognise their superiority and adopt an appropriately subordinate and imitative role.”
And this legal fiction, that Australia was uninhabited at the time the Brits arrived, was maintained for over 200 years. It was only in 1992, that the Mabo case in the High Court overturned this, and that our legal system finally recognised that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples owned the land prior to the Brits arriving. Two. Hundred. Years. That’s how long it took to overturn a racist lie from the 18th century. Are you beginning to get an idea of just how entrenched racism is in our nation’s make-up?
Racism in our national artifacts
There’s no doubt that over the last fifty years, there have been significant efforts to unwind the worst of the infrastructure that has held racism in place since 1788. These include that:
Aboriginals were finally given the right to vote (in 1962)
The ‘Great Australian Silence’ around Australia’s history was finally challenged by W.E.H. Stenner, which brought the frontier-wars and other aspects of history to the fore (1968)
Gough Whitlam adopted the first ‘self-determination’ policy for Aboriginals (1972)
Racism was finally outlawed & Aboriginals were finally free to undertake traditional practices on the land again (1975)
Aboriginal ‘Protectionism’ which took Aboriginal children away from their families, finally ceased (1970s)
Aboriginal right to Land Title in 1788 is finally recognised at law – Mabo (1992)
Paul Keating acknowledges past wrongs against Aboriginal Australians (1992)
Kevin Rudd, on behalf of all Australians, finally says sorry (2008)
These actions have gone at least some of the way to redress legal issues with equality, but only within the last fifty years, which in history is no time at all. But racism is still embedded in many of our national artifacts. In many ways we’re like an ex-Klu-Klux-Klan member, who after quitting the Klan, keeps all their Klu-Klux Klan posters, books, gear and other mementos and then wonders why people think he hasn’t really left the Klan. Here’s some examples of the racist mementos we’ve kept around:
Our Constitution
A constitution is arguably the most powerful legal document in any democracy. It may seem like a boring document – and having studied constitutional law, I can tell you that it reads like a boring document. But in terms of its power, it sits above the Prime Minister, the parliament and the courts – making it very important indeed.
When the framers of the Australian constitution sat down at the end of the 19th century with the goal of bringing together the various states at the time of Federation in 1901, Aboriginals were not considered by them to have – and I quote – “the intelligence, interest, or capacity to stand on the same platform with the rest of the people of Australia” in order to have the vote. Nor were Aboriginals to be counted in the census. They were literally considered not to count.
Today, while issues with the vote and the census have since been resolved, the Constitution – the legal framework for this country – still fails to acknowledge Aboriginal Australians’ traditional sovereignty.
Our Flag
It’s a small thing. But it’s a big thing. It’s what Australians flash around the place to indicate that they are Australian. And we are one of only two ‘colonies’ – New Zealand’s is the other one – that still retains the British stamp on our flag. New Zealand is about to change their flag. It’s time that we did too.
Our National Anthem – Advance Australia ‘Fair’
Really Australia – ‘Fair’? ‘Young’? Why don’t we just sing the old “White Australia song” from the early 1900s and be done with it. (Yes – there really was a song.)
By way of comparison, the second verses of both the South African and New Zealand anthems are in Zulu and Maori respectively. It’s about time we found an anthem which recognised that our history didn’t start in 1788 and acknowledges and respects the traditional owners of this land.
Traditional language
OK – how many non-Aboriginal readers of this article know how to say ‘Hallo’ in any of the estimated 700 Aboriginal languages that existed here in 1788. I’m guessing it’s the tiniest of tiny percentages. By way of contrast, in New Zealand, the Maori language is taught in over 1000 schools, and there have been discussions about making it compulsory.
Australia day
It’s great to have a day where we celebrate the good things about being Australian. But it’s ridiculously insensitive and – you guessed it – racist when we do it on a day which is considered a day of loss by the Aboriginal people:
There are 364 other days we could pick – we should move it.
Aboriginal Artwork and Traditional Sites
What would Paris be without the Mona Lisa and the Louvre? What would Egypt be without the Pyramids? England without Stonehenge? Florence without the Statue of David? Pisa without the leaning tower? I could go on – but I suspect you get the general idea.
Rock engravings at Burrup Peninsula
Around the world great antiquities and ancient sites are valued, protected and appreciated. People queue up to see them. Museums and galleries around the world go to great lengths to identify antiquities and obtain items significant to their culture.
We, on the other hand, have a continent FULL of ancient works of art and sacred sites. But not only aren’t many of them protected, most of us don’t even know where they are. The Western Australian government just deregistered what is arguably the world’s oldest rock art collection so that the Mining companies can get their hands on the site. The site is dated at more than 30,000 years old – THE WORLD’S OLDEST ROCK ART – and there was barely a whimper about it in the news.
What do you think would happen in Egypt if they discovered coal under the pyramids? Do you think they would allow them to be destroyed? NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Well – unless Abbott was their Prime Minister of course – then the Pyramids would be gone in a matter of weeks.
The above are just examples of the many ways that we disregard and devalue Aboriginal culture due to the historically racist perspective that it is unimportant. With the exception of discussions around the Constitution – which have been in the news quite a bit recently – most non-Aboriginal Australians wouldn’t even notice that the issues above are problems, so embedded are they in the Anglo-Australian culture. And if you think these things aren’t important – think again. They set the tone, they set the framework within which values and behaviours are fostered and learnt – and make it hard for us to root out the racist attitudes that have been a part of the Anglo-Australian culture for so long.
More reasons why racism can be so hard to spot
Another key reason we may not immediatelly recognise behaviour as racist is that we often assume that racist behaviour is associated with overtly ‘bad’ actions like violence or abuse. But this isn’t always the case. Racism is an attitude rather than an action – which means it can also be expressed through actions and speech which might otherwise seem to be ‘good’ – like kindness or patriotism.
And the thing is, even when racism is expressed through kindness or patriotism, it can be just as venomous. Here’s some examples of different ways that racism has been expressed towards Aboriginal Australians over the past 225 odd years.
Racism expressed through violence
It wasn’t long after the British arrival in 1788 that the first massacres of local Aboriginal tribes took place. This violence – recently renamed ‘frontier wars’ – was seen as ‘unavoidable’ by the British, and continued to flourish in the 19th century. The exact number of Aboriginal deaths is unknown, but it was certainly in the tens of thousands, and possibly more than 100,000.
The attitude that allowed this to happen was the unwavering belief in the superiority of those from the British race. Here’s an example of a statement published in the Bulletin in the late 19th century which reflects the beliefs about the superiority of the British bloodline at that time:
“civilization marches over the bodies of inferior races….they are compelled to make room for the superior race” (Bulletin – 9 June 1883 pg. 6)
Racism expressed as ‘kindness’ or ‘protection’
Racism expressed as violence took Aboriginal life and land. Racism expressed as kindness, protection and good works aimed to take away what was left – their culture, their way of life, their families, their language, their history, their spiritual beliefs and their pride in who they were. Here’s how.
The British clearly did not see themselves as violent invaders – they saw themselves as as “enlightened and christian” benefactors of the indigenous inhabitants of the countries they ‘settled’. They looked upon the indigenous inhabitants of the lands they colonised – not just Australia, but other lands – with a degree of pity, and settlers were instructed to use ‘humane means’ to defend themselves when taking control of the land that they saw as rightfully theirs.
Of course, had the Brits been serious in their concern for the well being of the indigenous inhabitants, then they would have stopped their wanton ‘colonising’ – but the racist attitude behind their concern meant that this wasn’t going to happen. Instead, they set up ‘Protectionist’ boards and installed people with the title of ‘Protector of Natives’ to ‘look after’ and ‘civilise’ the ‘indigenous folk’. They also sent out truckloads of missionaries, which they saw as their greatest gift – primarily to educate and ‘improve’ the children.
This theme of ‘protection’ – in various forms – continued in Australia right through the 19th century and into the 20th century, when in 1915 the NSW Aborigines Protection Board was empowered to remove Aboriginal children from their families at will. They had been able to do that prior to 1915, but only with a court order. Similar practices were implemented in other states which continued up until the 1970s. Once in ‘care’, children were instructed to no longer speak the language of their parents and taught to forget Aboriginal culture and practices.
Racism expressed as patriotism
Just as being kind to or protecting someone is normally a positive thing – so is patriotism. But it too can be incredibly destructive when it is driven by racism.
Take the policy of ‘assimilation’ – so admired by the Reclaim Australia folk – which was implemented by the Australian Government in the middle of the 20th century, as a tool of patriotism to ‘unite the nation’. The policy was designed to suppress and kill off the aboriginal culture, language and heritage – again, in the misguided belief in the superiority of the Anglo-Australian way of life. Aboriginals were offered limited citizenship at this time on the condition that they ceased practicing Aboriginal customs, did not speak their native language and did not mix with any friends or families who hadn’t also agreed to the same terms.
Looking at these three examples of different expressions of racism, it’s clear that while the outcome of racism is normally pretty bad for the recipient, the perpetrators of non-violent racist behaviour (such as kindness or patriotism), often believe – albeit misguidedly – that they are doing a good thing. Their racism blinds them to the true impact of what they are doing. And this is another reason why it is so difficult for Anglo-Australians to see this in themselves – because racism can be well-meaning, or at least not intended maliciously – like the booing of Adam Goodes recently.
The opposite of Racism is Respect
By @FirstDogOnMoon. Full cartoon at http://gu.com/p/4b464/stw
Ok non-Aboriginal Aussies – we don’t have a good track record when it comes to racism. In fact we arguably have a bit of a blind spot – often not from any malicious motive, but purely because of how embedded it is in our culture and a misunderstanding of what it is. But that doesn’t make it any less racist in the way it is experienced by those on the receiving end.
But it’s time now to do something about this. It’s time, as Adam Goodes says, to bite the bullet and have a conversation about racism so that we can:
Fix the remnants of racism in our National Artifacts
This includes the examples I’ve noted above, but there are others as well. It’s not hard – it just takes the will to do this. Don’t believe the politicians who want to stall this for their own political motives. It may take some time to get consensus, but if we want to do this we can do it. It’s that simple.
Delaying the rectification of these issues is just more racism, as it undervalues the importance of these issues to Aboriginal Australians.
Stop. Think. Respect.
This was a campaign designed by Beyond Blue to counter discrimination in our community – against a whole host of problems. And it is a key antidote to racism. The way to eliminate racism from our national culture, our national values is first to take the time to notice when it’s there and then to turn a racist attitude into respect.
Last week, after Adam Goodes had called out racism from the AFL crowds, we all stopped, thought, and then – it took a little while – but then we showed respect.
Our Constitution does not guarantee free speech. It only implies that we have it. That being said, we assume that anyone has a right to express a view. There are some, like Andrew Bolt, who despite us supposedly living in an enlightened society want to enshrine in law the right to hate each other.
What I am getting at here is that having an opinion about booing Adam Goodes has turned into a national pastime. However, all this week, despite the right to free speech, I have been questioning the moral right of some to do so.
Let me make it absolutely clear: I abhor racism with all the intellectual and moral righteousness that has been bequeathed to me by good people. Something unexplainable within me has its way when I am confronted by nefariousness and I speak out.
Adam Goodes is a victim of racism for two reasons. Firstly, because he was named Australian of the Year which obligated him, or gave him license to speak on issues concerning Aboriginality. Secondly, he confronted a young girl who called him an ape. This is the most rancid racist thing you can call any dark skinned person.
He was no longer a champion footballer. He had crossed the line that former Collingwood Football Club President Alan McAlister so ludicrously expressed so many years ago:
“… as long as they behave like white people, well, off the field, everyone will admire and respect them.”
Yes, people have a right to free speech but when there is an absence of truth, a distortion calculated to inflame or just common bigotry I unleash my right to question their motives. When there is a racist element in what they are saying I feel duty bound to question their moral authority to opine. Often it simply displays their hypocrisy so this is where I shall start.
Shane Warne in my view is the greatest bowler to ever roll his arm over. As an individual, throughout his career he has been involved in scandal after scandal displaying pathetic social behaviour. What sort of role model has he been? He even started a charity as a PR exercise at the height of his misconduct. You be the judge. Mine is that his comments show the intellectual depth of a flea. And that’s being kind.
“If the public don’t like a sportsman because of the way they play the game, they boo, if they like them they cheer, nothing to do re racism”.
Last September after a Swans game against Richmond, Warne said he was:
“shocked” Goodes had been named Australian of the Year.
Alan Jones, the sanctimonious self-righteous biased shock jock habitual liar from Sydney accused Goodes of ‘playing the victim’. Jones was once arrested in a London toilet and faced two charges of outrageous public indecency while behaving in an indecent manner, said he was affronted that Goodes would challenge a 13 year old girl. Jones completely ignored the facts of the events that unfolded, overlooked Goodes’ efforts to meet with and counsel the girl, and portrayed the girl as the victim. As for the girl’s obviously inherited morality from the mother, what can one say other than feel pity. I have two grandsons aged 9 and 11 who think the treatment of Goodes is terrible and fully understand that racism is inherently a bad thing. They have needed little instruction on the subject. Should I go on about Jones incitement of the Cronulla riots or his proven history of prostituting his ‘opinions’ and repeatedly disseminating falsehoods as well as having publicly endorsed the idea of murdering our then PM by drowning at sea?
You be the judge.
Andrew Bolt, convicted ‘racist’ and all round appalling paid for controversial opinion journalist – individual who demanded the PM give him more free speech to vilify without constraint also expressed his horror at Goodes confronting the girl:
“Singling out a girl for public humiliation, like that, I thought was wrong and if Adam Goodes said it was wrong, I think he’d be a superstar; all people from either sides would rush to embrace him.”
In doing so he too gave a completely false account of the events that took place. You be the judge. If it were my daughter I would embrace Goodes and say “thank you”. As for the mother’s contribution I can only say she needs a lesson or two in parenthood.
Tony Abbot, a leader with little capacity for it offers lukewarm “we should show more respect” support but when it suits his political needs displays racist overtones against Muslims.
Ross Greenwood, economics commentator, said about his booing of Goodes: “There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s got nothing to do with his race, it’s got nothing to do with me being racist”. He didn’t stop to consider that by contributing to the booing himself, he was legitimizing the real racists.
Sam Newman, the resident ageing buffoon and perpetual aficionado of crassness on the Footy Show; the man who bared his genitals on television and who has affronted many with his sexism and disgusting behavior. The man who painted his face black after Nicky Winmar didn’t appear on the show in 1999 opined that “People aren’t booing you [Goodes] because you’re Aboriginal, they’re booing you because you’re acting like a jerk”. (Only he would know).
He went on to state that Goodes’ celebration only served to provoke fans and should have been reprimanded by the AFL. Newman further said:
“As Australian of the year, you should know that- you should be trying to unite people instead of trying to divide them”. (Isn’t that what he has been doing by speaking about the problems facing Indigenous people?)
You be the judge but for me Newman and other white men like him who have made fortunes out of thoughtlessness have not the remotest capacity to understand the emotional torment that racial abuse might incur. He is one of those many men who have never really grown up and his antics prove it.
Jason Ackermanis, former champion and perennial bad boy of the Brisbane Lions parroted the remarks of Alan Jones and in doing so showed little empathy or understanding of the broader picture. He said that Goodes was “playing the victim”. Something that Akermanis made a career of doing. In 2010 he said that gay footy players should “stay in the closet”. In 2005 Akermanis sparked racial controversy when he used his radio program (the Aker and Macca Show) on Brisbane’s 98.9 FM to describe his employers as “monkeys”. It was an Aboriginal community owned station run by the legendary Tiga.
You be thejudge but have any of these people made the slightest attempt to comprehend emotionally what it must be like to be being booed by thousands of people every time you go near the ball and not comprehend why they are doing it or conversely believe they are doing it because of the colour of your skin? I can feel it as I write but I bet my feelings are unworthy of his. Does he hear in the raised hiss of intolerance the eco of the wounds from the racism he experienced as a child? Or does he hear in the booing crescendo a symphony of humiliation from the white bastards he seeks to befriend.
The problem here is that the people aforementioned have a common thread. They all are paid huge amounts to be controversial. They are all media tarts with dubious moral standards that brings into question their moral authority to make judgement on their fellow humans. Rather they are insisting on the right to tell them how to behave. And do so while theirs goes unquestioned. What two-faced hypocrisy it is.
These people aside the media generally speaking have made some worthwhile contributions to the issue of race in Australia.
As much as it offends my pride of country I have to admit that the tide of racism flows down the streets of our cities, and through the veins of our culture. And it waters the fields of our play.
As a citizen of the state of Queensland said:
“Let me get this straight … If Adam Goodes stands up against racism that makes him a racist? And if someone makes racial slurs towards him and he doesn’t just “cop it” like all the rednecks want him to, then he’s a sook and a troublemaker?”
These are my thoughts. You be the judge.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Nick Bryant Is a BBC correspondent and author who often appears on Q&A and The Drum.
I made the dreadful mistake of reading some reviews of this book (that conflicted with my own analysis) before I sat down to write this. Now I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but in this case, I must say, they all had a clear misunderstanding of exactly what the author was on about.
That being an inability by some social commentators and critics to acknowledge that we have, to a large degree, thrown off our cultural cringe, our adolescence, and taken our place in the world.
We have come to realise the profound truth that we have gone through a period of becoming mature, knowing who we are, and feeling deeply about it. We have earned a national consciousness.
It seemed to me that the reviews I read resented the fact that we were being dissected by an outsider, and a bloody Pommy one at that.
But this is exactly what makes it such an enthralling read. He dares to go where our own self-consciousness about ourselves won’t, unrestrained by our provincial restrictions of self-analysis.
The directness and astuteness of his writing is impressive. His research impeccable and for a person of my vintage his writing gave understanding to my life’s Australian experience. From what we were to what we are. He exhaustively covers every cultural aspect of our society from sport, art, music, dance, theatre, science, medicine, government and our financial structures. He describes a full compilation of our assets and eccentricities.
In some chapters I felt positively enthused about how far we have come as a nation. How much we had achieved, often in spite of ourselves. He states that today the characteristic that most defines modern Australia is “diversity”. In all its forms, together with multiculturalism it defines us as a nation. That is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
But the contradiction, as he points out is:
The great paradox of modern-day Australian life: of how the country has got richer at a time when its politics have become more impoverished.
It is in the chapters that deal with politics and our democracy that Bryant rightly portrays the sagacious ugliness of our system.
He abhors the fierce partisanship of our politics and the Abbott government’s currentattempts to take us back to an older Australia, a place that we no longer inhabit.
A place languid in the institutionalised comforts of post colonialism.
And this is the paradox the author speaks of. How is it that our politics has gone so backwards while at the same time we have progressed, in other areas, so much?
Might it be as the Prime Minister so sarcastically remarked when asked about the state of our democracy:
There is nothing wrong with it. It’s just the people who inhabit it from time to time.
Or might it be when he describes his cricketing skills.
I couldn’t bowl, field or bat, but I was a good sledger.
This is a refreshing look at this country with new eyes. Eyes that have taken, with simple exhaustive elegance and skill, the time to see us for what we truly are.
The most agreeable thing about, about this book, is the author’s confirmation of my own view. That being that we are being led by a moron.
Although I do concede that he doesn’t say it exactly in those terms. He in fact gives both sides of politics a decent serve. As Australians are so apt to say.
More booing from the mob as Abbott leaves. There is a tendency among all collectives to not be satisfied with love. They also need to hate. Thus do trash boo at funerals.
Disgraceful
I suppose the fact that he decided to attack Whitlam within minutes of his passing was nothing like booing – it was his way of his showing love. You see, Bolt loves the current government because you only have to put two of their statements together and you get some wonderful contradictions.
For starters, let’s look at their attitude to red tape slowing things down and place that against the “rushed” insulation scheme which led to the death of workers. There should have been more oversight, which is, in some way that I don’t understand, different from red tape.
And the Medicare Co-payment, which is going to a medical research fund. Somewhere. The details are probably commercial in confidence. BUT WE NEED THIS CO-PAYMENT TO MAKE MEDICARE AFFORDABLE. Even though it’s not supposed to discourage people from going to the doctor. Neither is it going into general revenue. But we need it because of Labor’s mismanagement of the economy, even though it has nothing to do with the past but is – supposedly – about the future.
I could talk about their change in attitudes from Opposition to Government with such things as the unemployed, the car industry, SPC or even Government Debt. $283 billion in debt is a disaster, but let’s not mention what the debt level is expected to reach in the next few weeks…
Then, of course, the Carbon Tax was a GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING. Even though it was only the biggest companies that were paying it. “But they’ll pass it on, you idiot”. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme (remember that) won’t cost us a cent because it’ll be paid for by a levy on Big Business. “Why would they try and pass it on to consumers?” And it won’t cost them anything because – in spite of the Budget Emergency – we’re giving companies a tax break of 1.5% which is the same as the levy.
But I guess the greatest contradiction of them all is their Direct Action Policy because it’s a subsidy and they don’t believe in subsidies. Oh, unless it’s to things like coal. But wind, well, what if the wind isn’t blowing and one day, we’ll run out of sunshine because the Labor Party used too much of it when they were in government and we’re determined to ration the sunshine to the people who really deserve it. And, if those companies who take the money don’t meet their target, well, we don’t punish people for making mistakes. Or promising to do things which they don’t. Unless they’re Labor politicians.
Of course, I could point out to Andrew Bolt that it was a memorial service, not a funeral. Alternatively, I could promise him that I certainly wouldn’t be booing at his or Abbott’s funeral. But that would be tacky.
Instead, I’ll merely quote from the Bolt man himself:
Pearson then speaks in the biblical tones and cadences he’s now adopted for his oratory.
He savages Joh Bjelke-Peterson, and waves aside Whitlam’s chaotic mismanagement as simply the price to pay for inspiring reform. The crowd loves that.
He then says Whitlam had “not a bone of ethnic or gender prejudice in his body” and Pearson can “scarely point” to any leader since of whom that could be said. In front of him sit Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, who are all entitled to feel grossly insulted. Indeed, Abbott may well feel betrayed, having devoted so much time to working with and for Pearson and his Cape York initiative, and having adopted Aboriginal advancement as his most passionate social cause.
I guess booing can take many forms. There are plenty of other subtle attacks in Bolt’s little article.
Still, as everybody knows, bolts are worthless without nuts to support them.
P.S. While on the subject, whatever happened to Christopher Pyne?
If ever a week in politics supported a headline it was the week that Gough Whitlam died. In the main the death of this undeniably charismatic, but gifted man was met with sadness by both supporter and foe alike.
The exceptions who didn’t were Bolt and Jones. Yes, the two who write and comment outrageously on the basis of payment for controversy didn’t but eventually they will pass on as Gough did.
They will be quickly forgotten but he will go down in the annals of Australian history as a decent, sanguine, passionate and sagacious Prime Minister who made an enormous contribution to Australian society.
Something they could never aspire to do.
Yes the week was filled with controversy that only a government devoid of any semblance of leadership could muster.
In Parliament the Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce (the probable deputy PM if Abbott wins the next election) got the details of how many Australians have received drought assistance completely and utterly wrong.
Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon called him out but as you would guess, Bronny Bishop ruled he didn’t have to answer. It wasn’t until early evening he skulked back into the chamber and quietly corrected his answer. It’s hard to explain what Barnaby said. If you can decipher it you deserve a medal.
“…you actually get the money until the department decides that you are not allowed to get the money, and at this point in time. So you keep on getting the money, you keep on getting the money, until such time as, on the application being assessed, they decide you are not eligible for it. But it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved, you actually get the money straight away.”
Anyway, on Tuesday of this week he got a whiff of his own ineptitude and tried to change the official Hansard record.
Then the Government for a Royal Commission into anything Labor did refused to hold one into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia as part of its response to a landmark Senate inquiry. This is one of the worst scandals in Australian corporate history. It has ruined the lives of thousands of people but the government’s approach seems to be to let financial planners proceed as if nothing has happened.
During all this the boss of the corporate regulator, ASIC said.
‘’Australia is too soft on corporate criminals and increased civil penalties including more jail terms are needed.’’
“Australia is a paradise for white-collar crime.” He said.
On Royal Commissions that are politically motivated John Howard had this to say.
“I’m uneasy about the idea of having royal commissions or inquiries into essentially a political decision…” “I don’t think you should ever begin to go down the American path of using the law for narrow targeted political purposes.”
Abbott obviously believes in the total obliteration of one’s opposition and will even provide cabinet papers if he has too.
In senate estimates we heard from treasury officials that the Prime Ministers Paid Parental Leave Scheme has ground to a halt. According to senior insiders, it is in serious trouble and loathed by virtually every minister in cabinet.
Our Prime Minister once again showing that he is incapable of governance for the common good.
In the midst of all this we had talk of Malcolm Turnbull replacing Hockey as treasurer. “It’d be a game changer,” one minister summarised. No one disagreed with the soundness of the idea. True, he would bring competence and authority to the Treasury portfolio. He has the ability to articulate a message clearly and forcefully.
But the mere suggestion that this might happen is a reflection of the total incompetency of this Abbott led bunch of out of touch morons.
We were greeted with another headline that the whistle-blower Freya Newman had had her sentence deferred until November. Did she break the law? She did, but in so doing revealed yet another instance of the Prime Minister’s use of his office for personal gain further defining his personal lack of integrity. As if it could degenerate any further.
The curriculum taught in our schools never seems to go away when conservatives are in power.
For its review the coalition appointed its usual array of religious zealots and those of indigenous indifference, all sympathetic to the government’s point of view. But this time one of the appointees, Professor Barry Spurr, further advanced his expertise in all things conservative with some emails that could only be describes as indecent. He said they were part of a ‘linguistic game’. Ah the games people play.
Perhaps the PM might consider some people of independent mind for future inquiries instead of the usual hacks.
But there’s more. It was a long week.
It seemed that Scott Morrison wanted to be the minister for everything. When interviewed on AM he denied that other ministers were resentful of him trying to take over part of their portfolios. But members of the press gallery confirmed it.
When asked in question time how his portfolio crossed over with Foreign Affairs, Defense, Agriculture, Health, Defense, Attorney-Generals and Prime Minister and Cabinet it wasn’t only the Labor side of the chamber laughing at him.
But Bronny Bishop ruled he didn’t have to answer.
And to add to the weeks worries the Government still cannot get its budget passed. To quote Lenore Taylor in the Guardian.
The Abbott government’s “Operation Budget Repair” appears to have morphed into “Operation Let’s Salvage What The Hell We Can”.
Kevin Andrews said he would consider “any reasonable offer” from crossbench senators in a last-ditch bid to get at least some of his $10bn in stalled welfare changes through the Senate. On top of that there is the fuel excise, that Medicare co-payment and the dramatic changes to higher education. What a bloody nightmare. It’s a pity Abbott doesn’t have the negotiating skills of Gillard.
He and Joe have never been able to admit why the electorate so comprehensively rejected the budget? We all know that the savings fell heaviest on those least able to pay. Now they are saying they will reveal more in the mid-year budget update. This can only mean more unpopular cuts. Or a mini budget.
The Essential Poll during the week found 72% felt the cost of living had become worse in the past 12 months and 48% believe that over the past two years their income has fallen behind their cost of living. That figure rises to 57% for those earning less than $1,000 a week.
It was the worst received budget in many decades. Spending cuts have to be fair, and be seen to be fair, but people also need to understand the overall plan, the purpose, dare we call it the program.
Later in the week when talking about Federal and state responsibilities Abbott said.
“It is in this great country of ours possible to have a better form of government”
I would have thought a good place to start would be to stop telling lies.
Having appointed a group of climate deniers to report on the Renewable Energy Target and Tony Abbott wanting it removed altogether the government, in the face of public opinion, now finds itself in a dilemma. It wants to compromise on the 20% target saying electricity usage has already declined. Shorten should not fall for that nonsense. Add in their ridiculous Direct Action policy and you can see we have, in spite of their various university degrees, a bunch of dunderheads governing us. Perhaps I should have said dickheads.
To be honest I could go on for another couple of thousand words but I’m exhausted. I haven’t mentioned Bishops aspirations for leadership, the credit card negotiations with the banks on welfare payments and fact that his sisters have joined the chorus of condemnation for a privately owned aged-care facility on public parklands at Middle Head.
Then there’s the criticism of the proposed Medibank float that has been described as laughable. Oh, then of course reports that Chrissy Pyne was backing down on his university policy. He said he wasn’t but then I’m not that sure he would know himself. Goodness I have left out the most serious issue of Ebola. The government’s response has been abysmal to say the least. Just another example of their ineffectiveness. The AMA was right to give Abbott a serve.
In an effort to sound amusing and to allay the fears of those who think I am being overly negative I will close with this.
“I promise this is true”, said Tony Burke: “Greg Hunt, is the man who some people refer to as the Environment Minister.
In Opposition he advocated for the protection of the Tasmania Tiger, extinct since 1936. In Government he’s turned his attention to the Antarctic Walrus – population: zero. Walruses live in the Northern Hemisphere”.
Oh wait, bugger I almost forgot. Were you also aware that Catherine King exposed how it would soon cost up to $2,207 for someone to have their liver metastasis diagnosed? Tony Abbott refused to say how many people will miss out on being diagnosed as a result of the hit to imaging and diagnostic services.
But the week did began with the Speaker announcing she would not continue with the policy of segregation which had been announced as Parliament rose a fortnight earlier.
Hopefully we can now go back to segregation being something kids learn about in the courtroom scenes of To Kill a Mockingbird not during their excursion to Canberra.
The final word for “A week is a Long Time in Politics” must go to Newspoll which had the Opposition six points up on the Government without so much as them striking a blow.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
“A Man For All Seasons” Robert Bolt
* * *
Robert Bolt. Mm, I suspect no relation to Andrew, who does a neat little backflip, with a half-pike just so we don’t notice. When commenting on the recent Q&A, he wrote this:
And that goes to the wider issue: how and why did the ABC get together such a collection of Muslim firebrands savaging Australia? How grossly irresponsible to give viewers the impression that every Muslim in our country was like every Muslim on Q&A – militant, damning of Australia and full of excuses for extremists. How dangerous to give any extremists the idea that their rage against this wicked country was justified.
But it was his neat bit of “framing” his audience to see a conspiracy that most impressed me:
Naturally, host Tony Jones has stacked the panel: two Muslim activists (who do most of the talking), plus one MP each from Labor, the Liberals and Greens.
Stacked the panel. Mm, is he suggesting that they were all lefties apart from the one Liberal? Or is he suggesting that because you have two Muslims to three “Aussies”? (yes, I know there’s no need to comment) Or is it the fact that it’s three men to two women? (Four, if you count Jones). Exactly how was the panel stacked? Because there was nobody from the IPA? Or the Australian Defence League? No Christians?
As for the Muslim activists this is from the bio for one:
Anne-Azza Aly
Dr Anne Aly is a research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, with a focus on radicalisation, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism.
Anne leads the Countering Online Violent Extremism Research (COVER) Program at the university’s Centre for Culture and Technology. Her research focuses on the use of social media by violent extremists and strategies to interrupt online activities, including understanding of the audience and the role of victims and formers in counter narratives to extremism. She has written over 50 publications on topics ranging from Islamic identity to counter narratives and the policy response to violent extremism. Anne is the author of four books including Terrorism and Global Security: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives– Australia’s first text book on terrorism and security.
The other
Randa Abdel-Fattah
Randa Abdel-Fattah was born in Sydney in 1979. She is a Muslim of Palestinian and Egyptian heritage. She grew up in Melbourne and attended a Catholic primary school and Islamic secondary college where she obtained an International Baccalaureate…
During university and her role at the ICV, Randa was a passionate human rights advocate and stood in the 1996 federal election as a member of the Unity Party – Say No To Hanson. Randa has also been deeply interested in inter-faith dialogue and has been a member of various inter-faith networks. She also volunteered with different human rights and migrant resource organisations including the Australian Arabic Council, the Victorian Migrant Resource Centre, the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council, the Palestine human rights campaign and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
Say No To Hanson? We can do without activists like that, thank you very much. Send her back where she came from… Sydney, wherever that is!
* * *
Last night a man was shot by police. A policeman is in hospital with serious wounds. These events are tragic and I’m not making light of them. The man is alleged to have made threats against the Prime Minister (who is currently out of the country). Whether these threats involved a knife or a chaff bag is unclear at this stage.
My “chaff bag” comment is not meant to be flippant. It just strikes me as inconsistent that we can dismiss a threat to one prime minister as just being “a figure of speech”, but another will be used by many people as justification for a range of measures. And yes, it’s true that this has resulted in a violent altercation.
Of course, I have sufficient respect for the law not to speculate too much about something that is still being investigated. It’s just the inconsistency that troubles me.
But then there’s a lot of inconsistencies that trouble me. A few days ago, the terrorist threat was raised to high, but we were told that there was no particular threat.
Then we had the raids. Which we were told had been part of an investigation which had been going on for months. And that an attack would have been carried out within days. No imminent threat?
We’re told that the PM and Parliament are a potential target for threats. (Hasn’t this always been the case? If you say no, look up the meaning of “potential” or ask yourself why John Howard wore the bullet proof vest when speaking to good, old responsible Aussie gun owners.)
Tony Abbott tells us a few days later that all that’s needed for an attack is “a knife, an iPhone and a victim”, but he adds:
“Terrorists want to scare us out of being ourselves and our best response is to insouciantly be fully Australian, to defy the terrorists by going about our normal business,” he told reporters in Sydney.
Abbott went on to tell us that orders to carry out demonstration executions had been sent to the the “small networks” of followers in Australia and other countries.
So, let’s make sure that those “small networks” didn’t miss the orders by broadcasting them on the nightly news. Let’s tell everyone that how easy it is to become a terrorist – all you need is “a knife, an iPhone and a victim” (an iPhone? Did he get paid for product placement? Can’t you be a terrorist with a Samsung?)
Then say that you need to be “fully Australian” (this is code for trust me, I really have renounced my British citizenship) and just say “She’ll be right, mate” and go off to work.
When I added music to a slide show which I posted on the internet a couple of years ago, it was down within minutes. Yet video posted by ISIL stays there and nobody takes it down. Some sort of perverse respect for freedom of speech?
And it concerns me that the Murdoch media can completely ignore hundreds of thousands (world-wide) marching on climate change, but find it worth writing stories about less than a hundred protesting the building of a mosque.
Ha, ha, We won and now we’re the new Student Representative Council.
Yes, congratulations.
You know why we won? Because we’re awesome and we’re more mature than you. You’re just babies and you were taking orders from a girl.
Yes, well, it’d be more convincing if Christopher wasn’t sticking out his tongue then hiding behind your back. Besides there’s nothing wrong with taking orders from a girl.
We won because we had someone stronger to be captain and because we’re awesome and you shouldn’t even be allowed to be in the school because you don’t know as much we do.
Shouldn’t we get on with the meeting? What’s the first item of business?
The first item is telling everyone that you lost because you’re not as awesome as we are. And then we’re going to ask our friends to go round the school and tell everyone what a shit job did.
Ok, but you know the things you promised – you know, the free lollies from the canteen, getting rid of the rules about calling people names, and not interfering with the school radio.
The school radio sucks because they said nasty things about us.
Yes, they said nasty things about us too.
Our friend, Rupert, wants everyone to listen to him at lunchtime because he’s got a real radio show.
But Rupert isn’t even a student here anymore. And there’s nothing to stop people listening to him if they want to.
Yeah, but some people listen to the school radio and the nasty things they said like when they said that we were lying.
But you were lying.
We never lie. We’re just awesome. You’re the liars.
All right, let’s just get on with the meeting…
We’re going to tell everyone that we can’t give free lollies because you gave away too many when you were in charge.
So you’re going back on your promise to give extra lollies to girls who bring in a younger sibling?
No, that was an important promise. Not like the free lollies one or the not getting rid of the school radio.
I see.
No you’d don’t. You don’t see anything. You’re just stupid. And I can call you that because we’re going to get rid of the ridiculous rules against name-calling so our friend Andrew doesn’t get into trouble for lying about the aboriginal children.
Yeah, but you haven’t got rid of them yet, so I don’t think Christopher can say what he just said.
He said “grub” and you can’t prove he didn’t.
What are you going to do first?
We’re gong to do everything first! We’re going to charge students $7 every time they go to class, and we’re going to take that money and build something really good with it.
What?
Don’t you worry about that. And we’re going to stop new students if they come by bicycle. And we’re stop the system where we recycle the paper and cans so everything can go in the one bin. And we’re going to introduce a better system than putting people on yard duty if they drop rubbish…. We’re going to give the kids who used to drop rubbish lots of lollies not to do it anymore…And we’re going to tell our friends, Gina and Andrew that they don’t even have use the bins – they can just drop their rubbish anywhere. Coz’ we won and you lost and we’re in charge.
Yes, but we have to have a meeting and vote on all these things.
No, we can just do them. Joe said. He’ll find a way of just doing them, because some of you think that you can vote against them. Well, you can’t because we’re the adults and we get to make ALL the rules now.
No, you don’t. The teachers still have the right of veto.
The teachers? They should respect our authority and just let us do what we want.
But didn’t you keep running to the teachers every time you didn’t like a decision?
Shut up! Shut up, or I’ll get Bronwyn to give you a detention.
I don’t care. Anything would be better than being here.
Have you ever had a Chinese burn? They hurt. And Tony gives really good ones, because he’s a grown-up.
So Christopher Pyne says that uni students should get some perspective because they’re only being asked to contribute fifty percent of the cost of their education. I suspect that he’d be widely laughed at for this, were it not for the fact that the Rufus Youngblood for the Liberal Party – Andrew Bolt – throws himself in the path of any bullets by suggesting the aborigines weren’t here first.
Apparently – according to Bolt – history doesn’t matter. He got here fifty four years ago – that’s when he was born here, so any aboriginal person born after that wasn’t “here first”. (Mm, strange he still has an accent.) To quote Bolt directly:
‘But to say Aborigines today were here “first” is to treat each other as representatives of a “race” rather than an individual. No one of any “race” – Aboriginal or other – who is younger than 54 was here before me. They have no greater right to this country. It is racist to say a group of Australians living today were here “first” on the basis of who some of their ancestors were.’
Now, that seems to me that he’s implying all those older than 54 have a greater right to this country than he does, but perhaps, I’m not reading him correctly. And it does seem to contradict his constant assertion that new migrants should adapt to our values because that’s what was here when they arrived.
“You need to adopt the values that I tell you to.”
“Why?”
“We were here first!”
“When did you get here?”
“Fifty four years ago.”
“But my great grandfather was here before that.”
“That doesn’t count. That’s being racist! You can’t argue that a group of people has a greater right to this country than another group. We are all part of Team Australia. Apart from the Muslims, the Labor Party, the Greens, the ABC, protesters, Clive Palmer, and anyone who arrived in the past 54 years. In fact, only Rupert, Tony and I are Team Australia. And lately, I have had some doubts about Tony…”
But enough about Mr Bolt and his strange ideas. After all, it’s a free country and he has a right…
What? Or sorry, I forgot that nothing’s free. Which brings me back to the Honourable Mr Pyne…
As he said, students need to get some perspective, they’re only being asked to contribute 50% of the cost of their education. I mean, it’s not like the carbon tax where everyone had to give a kidney plus their their left testicle. This, of course, was like HECS repayments, lucky for women, where – according to Mr Pyne, it really wasn’t unfair because women generally do nursing and teaching so their courses don’t cost as much. (I’m surprised he didn’t suggest that most of them become stay at home mothers and never have to repay their HECS debt.)
So university students – who are being asked to pay thousands extra – need to get some perspective. Sort of like the way that the Liberals just encouraged people to accept the $500 (Abbott’s figure) that the carbon tax would cost.
Let’s have a look at a demonstration of perspective from various people when Labor introduced this GREAT BIG TAX on EVERYTHING!
“Whyalla will be wiped off the map by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland if this carbon tax goes ahead”
Tony Abbott.
“So it was the carbon tax, the carbon tax and the carbon tax. And so these are the issues – because the ladies like yourself in the western suburbs of Brisbane who want the right to have that $20 left in their wallet and not stolen off them because of some insane idea that somebody can change the temperature of the globe voiced that opinion” Barnaby Joyce
“Consumers would not be happy when they’re paying over $100 for a roast” Barnaby Joyce
“If this carbon tax goes through then it’s bye bye Australia, it’s been nice to know you.
“You will become just another third world banana monarchy without even any bananas with the prices they’ve been charging for those at your supermarkets recently.”
“Asked about his threat on Wednesday to look for other savings measures that by-passed the senate, Mr Hockey said the government was working hard to get what it laid on the table through the parliament.
He agreed some of his budget measures meant Australians would have to make sacrifices.”
news.com.au 17th July, 2014
“Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.”
Sydney Morning Herald, August 14th 2014
My rich friend picked me up today. We were going for lattes in spite of his obvious wealth. I mean it goes without saying that he’s very well off. He was driving a car and he was talking me over a kilometre to the coffee shop. When you factor in the return journey, that was well over a mile in the old scale – just in case Abbott has returned us to imperial measurements by the time you’re reading this.
Of course, I asked him to pay for the coffee – anyone who can drive that far must clearly be able to spring for a cup of coffee for a poor writer like myself, but he seemed to have heard that the age of entitlement was over and suggested that as he’d already driven there then perhaps I should be the one paying for the coffees as people like him – the ones that own cars – had already contributed enough to the likes of me.
I had to admit that he had a point, so while I ordered the coffees he picked up the newspaper.
“Jihad Bludgers” screamed the headline.
“Mm,” I speculated, “surely The Herald-Sun isn’t suggesting that the jihadists aren’t working hard enough to make it happen.”
“No,” he explained, “apparently when they go overseas, the Government’s been cutting them off the welfare payments.”
“That seems a bit unfair. Why isn’t everyone on the dole stripped of their entitlements whenever they go on one of their overseas jaunts?”
“I think they would be, but I don’t actually think that people on the dole travel overseas all that often.”
“Right – so they’re not treating these people any differently. I guess they need to be careful how they report this, given the government’s broken promise on 18C, which we shouldn’t really consider a broken promise because he really meant it at the time and it’s only because of those bludging jihadists that he’s had to change his mind.”
“Yes, Andrew Bolt’s been writing about stopping Islamic migration for week’s now and because we haven’t removed 18C he can only vilify them on the grounds of religion, not which country they come from.”
“He hasn’t just been writing about that. Last week he was concerned about all the people writing anti-Semitic things about Israel.”
“Doesn’t he support the right to free speech?”
“No, it’s ok to be a bigot. But only if you’re bigoted against people he doesn’t like.”
“At least he’s consistent then.”
“Yeah, I can respect someone who has a different view, as long as they’re consistent.”
“Like Maurice Newman.”
“What’s he consistent on?”
“The only thing that matters is making money. That – and climate change being a myth.”
“No, I think you’ll find that’s not what he believes.”
“Really?”
“Yeah, he has an opinion piece in today’s Australian saying that we weren’t prepared for global cooling which is what one person is predicting, so I guess that means if the planet’s cooling then he must believe in climate change. Then he compared climate change measures to primitive societies making sacrifices to appease the gods.”
“Oh, I thought the Business Council wanted Australians to make sacrifices to get the Budget back in order.”
“Yes, but that’s completely different.”
“How?”
“In the same way that the ABC is biased and how when they have people from the IPA on, they never give them a chance to speak on climate change.”
“You think the ABC is biased? Don’t they have to ensure balance?”
“They’re meant to. But I was talking to a man the other day who said that he tried to get on after a scientist had described Mars as a lifeless planet. This guy – Bruce, I think his name was – said he was writing a book about how Mars is populated by tiny bugs and this is why the Martians had to move to earth and infiltrate our political ranks. And when he asked the ABC to stick to their charter of balance, they told him to come back when the book was published. Which, of course, will never happen.”
“Because the Martians will stop its publication?”
“No, of course not. It won’t get published because the man’s a raving lunatic who refuses to send it to publishers for fear that they’ll change the words.”
“So why do you think the ABC should have given him time?”
“For balance. I mean, people who are raving lunatics have a right to be heard too.”
“But don’t they get heard in the letters section of The Herald-Sun?”
“I just think if it’s good enough for the ABC to interview Eric Abetz, then why should they draw the line at a man who thinks we’re being invaded by Martians?”
“Surely, they have to draw the line somewhere. Why on earth would you interview a man who had no qualifications on the subject, no evidence and no idea what he was talking about just to achieve balance?”
“Now just a sec, it wasn’t the ABC who did the George Brandis interview on metadata…”
Our lattes arrived. At this point we always stop talking, because I have it on good authority that all latte saucers are bugged so that the government can listen to the likes of me as we plot its downfall.
There could be no starker signal of this government’s intentions than the appointment of Tim Wilson as the Human Rights Commissioner for ‘Freedom’ at the expense of disability commissioner Graeme Innes.
In opposition, Senator Brandis was prepared to publicly criticise Mr Innes for advocating on behalf of Australians with a disability, blaming the ‘ideological culture’ within the Human Rights Commission.
The following biographies come from the Australian Human Rights Commission website. I will leave it to you to judge who you feel is better qualified and able to make an important contribution to our society.
“Graeme Inneshas been Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner since December 2005. During that time he has also served as Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner for three and a half years and as Race Discrimination Commissioner for two years.
Graeme is a Lawyer, Mediator and Company Director. He has been a Human Rights Practitioner for 30 years in NSW, WA and nationally.
As Commissioner, Graeme has led or contributed to the success of a number of initiatives. These have included the Same Sex: Same Entitlements inquiry, which resulted in removal of discrimination across federal law; the drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and its ratification by Australia.
Graeme was also crucial to the development of the National Disability Strategy and the Disability (Access to Premises – buildings) Standards 2010; as well as the establishment of Livable Housing Australia.
Graeme has also been an active high profile advocate for the implementation of cinema captioning and audio descriptions and, as Human Rights Commissioner, undertook three annual inspections of Australia’s Immigration Detention facilities.
Graeme has been a Member of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal; the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal; and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. He has also been a Hearing Commissioner with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Graeme was Chair of the Disability Advisory Council of Australia, and the first Chair of Australia’s national blindness agency, Vision Australia.
In 1995 Graeme was made a Member of the Order of Australia (AM). In 2003, he was a finalist for Australian of the Year.
Graeme is married with an adult son and a daughter in high school. He enjoys cricket (as a spectator) and sailing (as a participant), and relaxes by drinking fine Australian white wine.”
“Tim Wilsonwas appointed Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner in February 2014.
Dubbed the “Freedom Commissioner”, Tim is a proud and passionate defender of universal, individual human rights. As Commissioner he is focused on promoting and advancing traditional human rights and freedoms, including free speech, freedom of association, worship and movement and property rights.
Prior to his appointment Tim was a public policy analyst and a policy director at the world’s oldest free market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. He has also worked in trade and communication consulting, international aid and development, as well politics. He has served as a Board member of Monash University’s Council and on the Victorian Board of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Tim is a Director of Alfred Health.
He has extensive experience in public debate and has had many regular radio and television commitments, with both commercial and public broadcasters. The Australian newspaper recognised Tim as one of the ten emerging leaders of Australian society. He has written extensively for newspapers, journals and books. He recently co-edited the book Turning Left or Right: Values in Modern Politics.
Tim graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (Policy) and a Masters of Diplomacy and Trade (International Trade) from Monash University. He has also completed executive education at Geneva’s Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales et du Développement and the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s Worldwide Academy.
Tim lives with his partner, Ryan.”
Graeme has vast experience and many practical accomplishments to point to in his years of active service as an advocate for the disabled and a defender against discrimination. Tim Wilson is an aging Young Liberal from the IPA who goes on TV a lot.
Wilson did not have to go through any application or interview process to land this job. George Brandis must have been impressed with the cut of his jib when they spent an enjoyable evening together at the IPA’s 70th Anniversary bash in April last year because, as soon as he had the power, George rang Tim to tell him he had created a new job for him that would pay well over $300,000 a year and he still got to do his tv gigs.
Unfortunately, George did not offer any new money to the HRC to take Tim on. Instead, he abolished Graeme’s position.
Andrew Bolt, who was MC for the IPA’s birthday party, in an article titled “In praise of George Brandis”, gives some insight into the reasons behind this decision when he quotes a Brendan O’Neill interview with Brandis:
“He describes the climate-change debate as one of the ‘great catalysing moments’ in his views about the importance of free speech. He describes how Penny Wong … would ‘stand up in the Senate and say “The science is settled”. In other words, “I am not even going to engage in a debate with you”. It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change.’ … And to Brandis, this speaks to a new and illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism, to the emergence of ‘a habit of mind and mode of discourse which would deny the legitimacy of an alternative point of view, where rather than winning the argument [they] exclude their antagonists from the argument’…”
You have to be kidding, George. The highly-funded denial campaign has not only had a very loud voice in the media, but it has also successfully dictated policy. The opinion that “the science is settled” is shared by all those not in thrall to the fossil fuel industry.
Your government has systematically gone about removing any voice of dissent and silencing all argument in every arena. Increasingly you are hiding what you are doing, not only from the public, but from other elected representatives. Turning refugees into a military problem to escape all accountability and oversight is beyond your legitimate powers. You have no right to act alone, refusing to answer questions from the Senate.
The O’Neill interview continues…
“The second thing that made him sharpen his pen and open his gob about the importance of freedom of speech was the case of Andrew Bolt… In 2010, he wrote some blog posts for the Herald Sun website criticising the fashion among ‘fair-skinned people’ to claim Aboriginal heritage, under the headlines: ‘It’s so hip to be black’, ‘White is the New Black’ and ‘White Fellas in the Black’… They were removed from the Herald Sun’s website. Anyone who republishes them risks being arrested and potentially jailed.
Brandis is stinging about this case. The judge ‘engaged in an act of political censorship’, he says, with a journalist ‘prohibited from expressing a point of view’. The reason Brandis is so keen to ditch the bit of the Racial Discrimination Act that allowed such a flagrant act of ideological censorship to take place in twenty-first-century Australia is because while it is justified as a guard against outbursts of dangerous racism, actually it allows the state to police and punish legitimate public speech and debate. ‘And the moment you establish the state as the arbiter of what might be said, you establish the state as the arbiter of what might be thought, and you are right in the territory that George Orwell foreshadowed’, he says …
Brandis says … he’s bent on overhauling Section 18C … because it expands the authority of state into the realm of thought, where it should never tread, he says. ‘…In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom.’
How does this gel with your direction to public servants that they may not post opinionscriticalof government policy on social media and that they should dob in any colleagues who do?
How does it fit in with the fact that Liberal Party MPs ban anyone who posts links to documents (eg fiscal statements) or makes comments disproving the rhetoric on their Facebook pages?
How does it fit in with new laws outlawing the right to protest?
And could I suggest that Operation Sovereign Borders is as Orwellian as you can get.
I am assuming the 5,500 submissions received about your proposed repeal of Section 18C is the kind of debate you welcome and that you and your Freedom Commissioner may learn a few things. One can only hope that you pay attention.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
SNAFU – Situation Normal, All Fouled Up! (That’s the polite version anyway.) “…I just have to say to Mr. Bolt, he proclaims loudly that he is a friend of the government, well with friends like Bolt we don’t need any enemies.” Malcolm Turnbull, earlier this week.
“Alan is a friend of mine, Andrew Bolt is a friend of mine, I think that they are both very significant commentators and they’ve got a lot to say as you know.” Tony Abbott, yesterday.
“You said I wanted to diminish you. The truth is I don’t. You said I wanted to challenge you in 2016. The truth is I don’t. You said I wanted the presidency for myself. The truth is… I do. What politician hasn’t dreamed of about what it would be like to take the oath of the highest office of our land? I’ve stared at your desk in the Oval and coveted it. The power. The prestige. Those things have a strong pull on someone like me, who came from a small South Carolina town with nothing. But since you assumed office, my only aim has been to fight, for you and alongside you.” Frank Underwood, “House of Cards”
“I’ve coached Australia in rugby, if one of my players was seen on the eve of the rugby test was seen … having dinner, privately inviting to dinner one of the All Blacks, the player would be sent home Malcolm.” Alan Jones.
When the choice is between a conspiracy and stuff-up, always choose the stuff-up and you’ll be right more often, according to conventional wisdom.
All right, must of us heard the loooong pause from Turnbull when asked if this was part of a co-ordinated campaign. The question, of course, is what is the campaign and what does it hope to achieve?
Ok, let’s examine the conspiracy theories for why Bolt and Jones would want to give the story about Turnbull’s leadership ambition so much publicity. The first is that it’s a way to distract from the Budget. The second is that they hate Turnbull and are just using this as a chance to whack him, while boosting their ratings. The third is that they’re part of a conspiracy to help remove Turnbull from the front bench.
Of these, the idea that it’s the Liberals way of taking the focus of the Budget is the only one I’d consider if we were dealing with your average government. However, any government that can appoint Christopher Pyne to anything more than working out the seating plan for meetings with the Premiers, clearly lacks a grip on reality and we can’t just look at the logical.
The second is partly plausible. Bolt and Jones are, after all, first and foremost, reliant on their capacity to generate controversy. But would they really want to hurt the Liberal Party by helping create a re-make of the Rudd/Gillard soap opera? I mean, aren’t they “Friends of Tony Abbott”. (Mm, and it’s the ABC that are supposedly biased.)
Are the Liberals really so stupid as to think removing Turnbull would help them politically? In spite of his dinner with Clive, Malcolm has been a good little boy towing the line on all sorts of things from Direct Action to the NBN. While he may have the odd word about gay marriage or the Republic, he’s basically supported party policy. If he’s quietly biding his time, trying to boost the numbers for a crack at the leadership, this only becomes an issue when it hits the media. Which it does when people like say Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones bring it to public attention. Even the big “Dinner With Clive” event would have run out of legs by now.
But no, thanks to Bolt – Abbott’s “friend” – Turnbull’s alleged disloyalty is a hot topic. Which gives Turnbull the opportunity to deny it, thus keeping the story alive.
So, Abbott, the leader is part of a conspiracy to help put stories about his rivals leadership ambition in the media? Isn’t it usually the other way round? I mean, isn’t it usually the challenger who wants the speculation and the incumbent who wants to pretend that nothing’s happening? Perhaps, Abbott really hasn’t noticed that he’s Leader of the Opposition, let alone PM.*
Which brings us to SNAFU…
According to the polls, the Government is unpopular with the electorate. Turnbull, on the other hand, is preferred leader by a long way. While this may not be a good enough reason for the Liberals to dump Abbott and install Turnbull as PM, it hardly suggests that dumping Turnbull from the Ministry would be something that would boost their standing with the electorate. Could they really be so out of touch with political reality that they don’t see how Turnbull’s sacking would play out?
Let’s ignore the media reaction about the removal of a moderate because he’s a threat and letters to the editor complaining about how far to the Right this government has gone. Let’s just ask ourselves, how would Turnbull react?
Yes, it’s a nice fantasy to think that he’s had enough. That he goes rogue. He tells people exactly what he thinks of the Liberals and – with no hope of ever being PM – spills as many beans as he can. Or maybe he joins PUP. Or the Labor Party.
Or perhaps he, channelling Peter Costello, just gives up his dream of being PM, resigns from Parliament causing a by-election in his seat of Wentworth. Can’t see the Liberal strategists cheering for that one.
But wouldn’t the most likely scenario be for Malcolm to quietly see out his time on the backbench, occasionally having dinner with the odd friend – as Tony pointed out, journalists are sometimes friends of politicians – reminiscing and providing “off the record” comments? And, Keating-like, quietly reminding people that he’s there. While it’s true that many in the Liberal Party don’t like Turnbull, they like losing even less.
Nope, no sane, rational leader would even consider a re-shuffle where Turnbull was removed. Mm, with that in mind, he’ll be gone within the month.
But just because I’m likely to get that wrong, here are some other predictions that I’m more confident about:
The head of a retail change will suggest that the poor are just being selfish by spending their money on rent and food instead of electrical goods.
An advisor to Tony Abbott will say that owing to the fact that unemployment is so high, perhaps people could job share. That is, a group of people all work full time for the same company but share one wage.
If the Medicare co-payment gets through, there’ll be an immediate call to increase it, as it’s not covering its administration costs.
One Liberal Politician will suggest that people suggesting that the rich could pay more tax are indulging in class warfare on the same day that another suggests that people should be happy to contribute to Australia’s future by making sacrifices. A clarification will follow where the Liberals explain that paying tax is not making a sacrifice, and that sacrifices are when one throws a peasant into a volcano to appease the gods.
*In a previous blog, I pointed out the Rafael Epstein suggested to Graham Morris that the weeks after the Budget had been Abbott’s most difficult as Leader of the Opposition.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Why is there a sense of foreboding whenever Tony Abbott travels overseas? Probably because one’s immediate reaction is, “Oh God, in what way will he embarrass us this time.” I can’t help thinking that as they watched John Oliver’sparody of Abbotton his weekly satirical, “Last Week Tonight” show, members of the American press were of a similar mind about his planned visit there next week. Tony Abbott’s poor media presence, his stilted speech, his fake laugh are grist for the mill to a press corp. aware of his tendency to say something incredibly stupid. My fervent wish would be that they ignore him and give us all a break from the cringing and squirming we will have to endure as we sit on our sofas, in front of our TV sets and follow his movements across the Northern Hemisphere. The planned meeting with US President Barack Obama will, no doubt, be particularly painful to watch. One can only hope that Obama will take pity and shield him from the US press or at least spring to his aid when Abbott inevitably sticks his foot in his mouth.
In the meantime, the Coalition government and particularly the Liberal side of it appear to be imploding. Bolt on Turnbull, Bernadi on Turnbull, all stirred up over a meal Turnbull had with Clive Palmer. And the winner was … Clive Palmer. Even West Australian Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, a former research scientist and defence analyst, was moved to criticise the government for cutting funding to the CSIRO? It’s not hard to see that the Liberals are running scared right now. Bad polling numbers, internal criticisms of Hockey’s budget and the press popularity of Clive Palmer who is clearly enjoying the road show and keeping everyone guessing as to what he’ll do next, is taking its toll. Queensland Coalition MPs in particular are already starting to panic. Palmer’s popularity in Queensland and the rising dissatisfaction with the Newman state government is a genuine concern for them. As most MP’s know only too well, when Queensland voters are upset they can be particularly savage come election time.
One wonders why Andrew Bolt raised the question of Turnbull’s activities on his programme. Was he prompted to do so by the Abbott camp or was he trying to gain some publicity for his show? Does he genuinely fear Turnbull? Has he forgotten the devastating impact leadership speculation had on the previous government? For all the commentary that has appeared on this issue, it was Bolt who started it. He is the one making the case for Turnbull’s so-called disloyalty. Interestingly, several Coalition MP’s came out this week criticising Turnbull and favouring Bolt, when the PM made it clear in parliament that he favoured Turnbull over Bolt. That is hardly what you would call a co-ordinated united front.
In the meantime, Hockey has gone strangely quiet and Scott Morrison is in damage control. Two self immolations and one murder so far on Scott Morrison’s watch. And that’s what we actually know. There are claims of asylum seekers being lost at sea while being forcibly repatriated to remote Indonesian Islands by the Royal Australian Navy. But the Minister is warning his critics against making “assumptions” about what led Sri Lankan man Leorsin Seemanpillai to take his life. Does he not realise by saying that, he is drawing attention to the obvious?
Now, a new problem has surfaced and it has gone viral. John Oliver’s ‘Last Week Tonight’ skit made Abbott look like the village idiot. Anyone familiar with the Comedy Channel who knows the threesome that is Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver, would also know their popularity worldwide via YouTube. And the Liberal party brains trust would have noticed too that Oliver was careful not to alienate his friends in Australia. He emphasised that only 30% supported Abbott. Australian politics is hardly ever presented in satirical form overseas. We are mostly ignored, criticised or praised depending on the circumstances, but rarely satirised. And for an Australian Prime Minister to be the subject of that satire, to be so jeered and made to look so inept and just plain stupid must be a first, particularly on the eve of an official visit. Will we be hearing accusations that this also was planned by Turnbull?
Everything about this farcical situation has been of the conservative’s side of politics own making. It might have been planned but the more likely explanation is that they are all just so rattled and dysfunctional these days, that it all came naturally. Did you see Barnaby Joyce’s sexist gaffe on The Project during the week? On Peta Credlin, he commented, “I’m on good information from her husband that she’s a woman.” He explained the gaffe as a poor attempt at humour. Yes it was, but it also validates the dysfunctional element infecting the government. What a circus!
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Most Prime Ministers when they achieve Government with a sizable majority set out to put in place policy initiatives that might define a legacy they will be remembered for. John Howard’s GST, Paul Keating’s Native Title and Bob Hawke’s sweeping changes to our monetary system come to mind. They all burnt up their political capital in the knowledge that it doesn’t last for ever. They all focused on big things. Large programmes that remain indelible in Australia’s historical political discourse.
Tony Abbott on the other hand seems more intent on burning up his political capital on issues of ideology: on his hatred of all things associated with Labor. With him it’s personal. This can be seen in his undoing of Labor polices regardless of merit or common good worthiness. His politically based Royal Commissions that will trash long held conventions for the sake of a personal vendetta. Commissions that may well come back to bite him on the tail.
On top of that there is the deliberate attempt to downgrade Question Time, inflict his own moral compass on the community and redefine free speech in order to give greater licence to those with the power to influence public opinion. All this in the absence of any serious policies of his own. All we have is a Government of undoing, unable to present a coherent narrative. One that seems immersed in some sort of cultural battle that it must win before it can focus on real issues. Things that might enhance our society.
For all its criticism, the Whitlam Government came to power with a sense of direction, of purpose and for its short time in office achieved some good reforms. Among them were:
• End conscription • Withdraw troops from Vietnam • Begin to work towards equal pay for women • Establish a single department of Defence • Grant independence to Papua New Guinea • Abolish tertiary education fees • Raise the age pension to 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings • Establish Medibank • Introduce no-fault divorce • Pass a series of laws banning racial and sexual discrimination • Extend maternity leave and benefits to single mothers • Establish the Legal Aid Office • Establish the National Film and Television School • Launch construction of the National Gallery of Australia • Reopen diplomatic ties with China • Establish the Trades Practices Commission • Establish the National Parks and Wildlife Service • Establish the Law Reform Commission • Establish the Australian Film Commission, the Australia Council and the Australian Heritage Commission • Create Telecom and Australia Post from the Postmaster-Generals Department • Devise the Order of Australia to replace the British Honours system • Abolish appeals to the Privy Council in the UK • Change the national anthem to Advance Australia Fair • Institute Aboriginal land rights
For its part the Abbott Government’s plan appears to be to diminish government’s role in society and replace it with free market business principles based on a Thatcher/Reagan philosophy from a distant past. They have decided that a war on ideology matters more. The Most Biased Speaker Ever
Take for example this week’s move (the first since 1949) by Labor to move a motion of no confidence in the speaker. Public opinion regarding Question Time has always been one of derision. Without a care the government has shown a complete disregard for the democratic process and has sought to downgrade it even further. Bronwyn Bishop has been universally condemned as the most biased speaker the Nation has ever had.
“The Speaker of the Lower House of the Australian Parliament can only be described as a nasty bitch. Unnecessarily so” (John Lord).
This week we had the ludicrous situation of a shadow minister being thrown out of the house for saying ‘Madam Speaker’. The first since federation. Had she wanted, she could have, with her self-professed knowledge of the standing orders become an acceptable speaker or even a fine one. Instead she has put party before independence and set out to crucify Labor at every sitting. To the point of exasperation.
She acts like some sort of medieval evil schoolteacher intent on provocation with intent to alienate rather than mediate. Constantly with a look of contempt that would kill. Her manner of speaking is disingenuous and full of nasty implication. She seems to have little interest in adjudication wanting to be a player in the process. Any Speaker who attends her own parties Parliamentary meetings (or takes part in) to listen to tactics cannot be unbiased and is unworthy of the position.
The question this all raises of course is; What is the point of Question Time? Ministers are now not even remotely required to answer questions with any relevance. Labor would be better to just boycott Question Time until they get some form of guarantee that some semblance of the Westminster system would be adhered to. It surely cannot go on this way for another two and a half years.
Anyway I will leave the last word to conservative commentator Peter Van Onselen:
“Bronwyn Bishop has been a disgraceful Speaker, plain and simple. A shocking selection”.
Titles. On my Selection
Further, the Prime Minister has sought to impose his own cultural interpretation of Australian society with the reintroduction of titles, even though he ruled them out in December. The shock, ridicule and disbelief has reverberated across the nation, even from perpetual sycophantic anglophiles like John Howard who in effect Abbott has demoted in title recognition. Social media was inundated with self-titled Sirs. I refrained because I am already a Lord.
The cringe from both sides of politics has simply reinforced the belief that Abbott has a cultural and moral view of Australia that is supported by few Australians regardless of the political divide. One that we have long since moved on from. All he is doing is highlighting the negative view people have of him.
On The Drum Friday night when the subject was raised all the panelists started laughing such was their incredulity at Abbott’s stupidity. This is reinforced by opinion polls that show him and his government to be the least popular newly elected government in forty years. In fact it is the only newly elected Government in forty years not to enjoy a honeymoon period.
In announcing his new titles he further empathised his deep seated Catholicism by using the term ‘Grace Notes’. A term I recognised in musical expression but deeper searching revealed the church connection. He has now placed future recipients in an awkward position. If they accept will they face public ridicule? My guess is that the individual calibre of person he selects will speak volumes for his judgement. But then this is a Prime Minister born in England and only taking out citizenship at the age of 24 to ensure an Oxford education. Not only has he downgraded Australia’s current tiles but his Knights and Dames of the future will be tarnished with the fact that is was Abbott that selected them.
“The return of imperial honours defies the spirit of the nation we have become” (Michael Smith).
Free Speech
Then we were subjected to the idiotic ramblings of the blunt and confronting Senator (John Howard is a lying Rodent) Brandis who suggested that anyone was perfectly entitled to be a bigot if they wanted to be and that outright free speech, as he proposed would give them that right. The general response has been one of condemnation.
“Something drastically wrong with the moral compass of a nation when it legislates to make bigotry a right” (John Lord).
I have written much on this subject with an open mind and appreciation of both sides of the argument. I don’t propose to express any more except to say that in all the discourse there is a point that seems to be overlooked. It is this: Who are the proposed changes supposed to benefit? Do I need more free speech than I already have? On this blog I have repeatedly called the Prime Minister a pathetic liar. And I think, with justification. I could probably say worse but I have no desire to do so. Many writers on this blog express their views aggressively but never overstep the line of decency like Andrew Bolt does. If we did I doubt that any of us could stand up to the might of a Murdoch for example.
So who would benefit from the proposed changes? Not the average citizen or writers of my ilk. People with a voice who had a vested interest in influencing the intellectual poor would. And those who are like minded. All the conveyers of subtle hidden persuaders would. In essence the likes of Murdoch and his hate press.
All of this preoccupation and philosophical hatred of the left is not serving the country well. Abbott should stop and reflect on his culture war. He is shooting bullets at those who don’t deserve it.
These are but a few examples of what the March in March rallies were about.
