|
And the Mob Sang Waltzing Matilda
Thursday, 19 January 2006, Opinion: Yasmine Ryan In a quiet West Australian suburban town that I visited shortly before Christmas, residents were appalled by a particularly vicious and shocking incident. A local woman had returned to her home to find her Christmas lights savagely vandalised. Most had been stolen, and in a particularly callous act, her blow-up Santa had been brutally punctured. What kind of monster could do such a thing?, they asked. Conversation was also dominated by anger at the growing 'politically-correct' aversion to Christmas. Fear of litigation, allegedly, meant that Santas can no longer give children lollies or have them on their laps without express permission from parents. Santas now can’t be photographed with children without their hands being fully visible. Even saying “Ho, ho, ho” has been forbidden. The locals shook their heads at those who would replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays”, and purge Christmas of its overtly Christian elements. The drive for inclusiveness and a neurotic fear of offending minorities was viewed by these Aussie battlers as an onslaught on the “Australian way”. Now even Christmas was at stake. The PC brigade was out of control! Meanwhile… On 11 December 2005, on the other side of the country, 5,000 angry Australians converged on the Sydney suburb of Cronulla to “reclaim the beach”. |
|
The gathering was triggered by an attack by Lebanese youths on a surf lifesaver the previous week.
Many came in response to a text message which called on every “Aussie” to “support Leb and wog bashing day.
Bring your mates and let's show them that this is our beach and they are never welcome ... let's kill these boys.”
Booze-fuelled violence ensued.
Inhabitants of West Australia were less appalled by these antics than they were by the — admittedly ridiculous — antics surrounding vandalised Christmas lights and repressed Santas.
It became increasingly clear that this has something to do with their particular world view. While the locals couldn’t understand the overly zealous “inclusive” rhetoric behind attacks on the institution of Christmas, they could comprehend what had led to the violence on Cronulla beach. More than that, they tended to identify with the perpetrators of the latter violence.
One man I spoke to took the view that the events in NSW, while regrettable, were a long time coming. He admitted that, yes, things had got out of control, what with the violence and all. But he attributed that largely to the alcohol and the sun, rather than malice or worse.
This subdued reaction to the Cronulla race riots was consistent with the racist comments that I heard from the mouths of many West Australians. Although racism is a global phenomenon, I was struck by the naivety of this particular branch of it. There appears to be a complete lack of self-awareness within, to use Don Brash’s term, “mainstream” Australian culture. They just do not seem to realise that what they are saying is racist. (I’m not racist, but…)
Thus an otherwise charming elderly woman could tell me matter-of-factly that she had to plant a tree in her garden to block the neighbour’s front door “because Aboriginals moved in”. And a government official at a dinner I attended announced in the presence of several of his Aboriginal employees, that currently Aborigines “are being bred out.”
Foreigners, I was told by another woman, just couldn’t understand what Australians are subjected to by their indigenous population. “I was so surprised when I went to New Zealand to see Maoris were driving buses and actually working”, she said.
Surfing the Wave
This xenophobic world view is not limited to small and isolated Australian towns, however. In the face of the disgraceful events of the previous day, Prime Minister John Howard said on 12 December that “I do not accept there is underlying racism in this country, I have always taken a more optimistic view of the character of the Australian people.”
Contrary to what many others feel, Howard argued that Australian society “remains tolerant”. In addition to this blind denial, Howard condemned “tribalism”, saying “Any emergence of so-called ethnic gangs is a manifestation of tribalism and something ... we should try to discourage.”
Yet when Howard referred to the bane of tribalism, he was not talking about those who had flaunted slogans such as “We Grew Here, You Flew Here”, “Wog Free Zone” and “Ethnic Cleansing Unit”. Those who rallied fascist-style around the Australian flag singing Waltzing Mathilda in an outburst of feverish nationalism did not, according to Howard, adhere to this “culture of tribalism”. He used Cronulla to condemn the very ethnic minorities that were its victims.
For while Howard did not wish to associate himself too closely with the skin-heads and their entourage, they represent his core constituency.
And so it was not anything as sinister as racism, but rather “the always explosive combination of a large number of people at the weekend and a large amount of alcohol” that fuelled the chaos.
Even more, he somewhat coyly suggested, there also was “an accumulated sense of grievance — the full extent of which I don't pretend to know.”
Having, in the very same statement, denied that there was racism involved, Howard therefore views this “sense of grievance” in the same way that many average Australians do — as legitimate.
Last Tuesday, Australia’s Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock placed further responsibility on the Muslim community for the pre-Christmas events. Speaking by invitation at Sydney’s Lakemba Mosque, Ruddock managed to offend the 10,000-strong crowd of Muslims, who were gathered to celebrate the first day of the Eid al-Adha. He chose one of the holiest days in the Islamic calendar to lecture that community that “when you are Australian, as all Australians, you have a responsibility to uphold the laws of this country”.
|
|
“Mainstream” Australians agreed with Howard when he refused to see racism in the mob violence of Cronulla Beach. Likewise, they empathise with his party’s emphasis on the need for Muslim minorities to integrate into Australian society. And he has been rewarded with a surge in the polls this week, thus recovering the losses incurred by the drastic industrial relations reforms of late last year.
Howard is an expert at exploiting Australians’ xenophobia for political gains. Aboriginals, asylum seekers and numerous other groups have fallen victim to his populist tendencies, the most infamous example being the Tampa refugees.
In the context of the “War On Terror”, Muslims living in Australia can expect an ongoing campaign of demonisation from the Howard Government — a campaign that was already in full flight pre-Cronulla.
The Cronulla race riots did not happen in a vacuum, and with a government like this in power, are unlikely to be the last such out break of communal violence.
Hyped-up paranoia over terrorist threats has created the impression for many Australians that they are at risk from Australian Muslims. An “anti-terror alert” in June 2005 was followed by a totalitarian-style armed police raid on several Muslim households, manufacturing fodder for the media which it obligingly sensationalised.
Ethnic minorities in Australia haven’t heard the last from PM Howard. The confirmation that Howard will be delivering an important speech on “national identity” to the National Press Club on 25 January suggests that he is planning on surfing this particular nationalist wave for a while yet.
Many other politicians have used wedge politics throughout history. It is worth noting the fine tradition that Howard is following. Hitler blamed the Jews for not conforming to the German national ideal. More recently, Slobodan Milosovic cynically exploited his fellow Serbs’ distrust of the Croatians, Bosnian Muslims, and ethnic Albanians.
Some leaders unify their nation and represent all diverse groups. Others choose a particular religious or ethnic group as their constituency, while demonising others for political gain. Opportunist politicians almost invariably play a causal role in ethnic conflict.
The Australian Liberal-Country Government is not running a campaign of terror and violence on the same scale as some other regimes in modern history. But the difference is in shades of grey. |
Terror laws to quell Aboriginal protests: Mansell
Issue 93
NATIONAL, Issue 93, Nov 10, 2005: Aboriginal lawyer and activist Michael Mansell believes Indigenous protestors will be targeted by the proposed anti-terror laws as a new way to discredit Aboriginal leaders.
"The specific reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in section 23CA (4) (a) of the Criminal Code (Anti-terrorism Act) makes it clear that the Indigenous peoples will be targeted by the new anti-terror laws. Otherwise, why refer to us at all?"
Mr Mansell said in a statement released on Tuesday that the new federal laws would override existing State and Territory laws, rules and protocols that evolved from the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission.
These require police to initiate contact either with an Aboriginal legal service or a friend whenever an Aboriginal person is taken into custody.
"Now no-one will be contacted unless the Aboriginal detainee requests it, absolving police responsibility to have a representative present to ensure fairness," he said.
In the case of Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders, police must take that person before a judicial officer within two hours [s.23CA (4)(a)].
"However the clock does not start running until the person is in a place where there are 'facilities' [s.23CA 8 (a)]. In the case of the Torres Strait or a remote Aboriginal community, police can legitimately harass or use oppressive and overbearing tactics to extract a confession in however many hours it takes to get a detainee to 'facilities'.
"The judicial officer can be a JP chosen by the prosecution. Most lawyers' experience is that JPs are putty in the hands of prosecutors when it comes to ordinary bail applications. If police oppose bail, JPs rarely grant bail."
Mr Mansell said the expansion of the definitions of sedition and terrorist organisations went as close as possible to outlawing thoughts of dissent.
"One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will be more difficult for citizens to oppose American (and likewise Australian) foreign policy under these laws."
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Sedition in Australia
Friday, 21 October 2005 Opinion: No Right Turn In the wake of terrorist threats against Melbourne and more bombings in Bali, the Australian government is attempting to pass draconian new anti-terrorism laws. The draft of the legislation had originally been kept secret, but last week it was leaked by ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope, who while approving it, believed that legislation with such an impact on civil liberties should be open to public scrutiny and debate. John Howard seems to regard this as practically treason. But fortunately he'll soon have the tools to combat this sort of betrayal of Australian values, because the legislation would modernise the law relating to sedition. As with Ne w Zealand, Australia has long had anti-sedition legislation on the books (see sections 24A - 24F of the Australian Crimes Act 1914), but it had fallen into disuse (though somewhat later than it had in New Zealand). The last prosecution was in 1960, when Department of Native Affairs office Brian Cooper was prosecuted for urging "the natives" of Papua New Guinea to demand independence from Australia. He was convicted, and committed suicide after losing his appeal. The draft legislation [PDF] would repeal the old offence of "uttering seditious words", but replace it with five new ones. It would also double the penalties for sedition, from three years imprisonment to seven, and allow convictions on the basis of "recklessness" rather than requiring specific intent. But most importantly, it would signify an intention on behalf of the government to actually use the legislation and prosecute people for saying things deemed disloyal to Australia or to indirectly incite terrorism. And there's no doubt about who the targets would be... Fortunately, this is producing something of a backlash in the press and public opinion. There's a particularly good piece by Ben Saul in The Australian which lays out why sedition laws are incompatible with democracy:
There is a danger that criminalising the expression of support for terrorism will drive such beliefs underground.
Rather than exposing them to public debate, which allows erroneous or misconceived ideas to be corrected and ventilates their poison, criminalisation risks aggravating the grievances underlying terrorism.
Although some extreme speech may never be rationally countered by other speech, the cut and thrust of public debate remains the best option for combating odious or ignorant ideas.
The criminal law is ill-suited to reforming expressions of poor judgment or bad taste.
Every society has the highest public interest in protecting itself and its institutions from violence, but no society should criminalise speech that it finds distasteful when such speech is remote from the practice of terrorist violence by others.
A robust and mature democracy should be expected to absorb unpalatable ideas without prosecuting them.
Unfortunately, unlike other western democracies, Australia has only weak protections for freedom of speech.
Which is precisely why they need a formal bill of rights...
Finally, there is one curious aspect of the proposed law which ought to concern even those of us in New Zealand. The section on sedition includes this clause:
80.4 Extended geographical jurisdiction for offences
Section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdiction - category D) applies to an offence against this Division
According to the Australian Criminal Code, this means that the offence applies
(a) whether or not the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs in Australia; and
(b) whether or not a result of the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs in Australia.
This is quite deliberate; the Australian Criminal Code provides for other forms of extended geographical jurisdiction of lesser reach, providing defences where neither the person nor the victim is an Australian or the crime does not impact on Australian territory.
But this is the true "universal jurisdiction" clause, used for war crimes.
And it's being used here not just to cover sedition, but also treason.
This is utterly unprecedented.
To the extent that either sedition or treason are crimes, they are crimes of disloyalty, predicated on some obligation to be loyal to the Australian government.
What Howard is saying is that everyone in the world has a duty to be loyal to and not criticise Australia, on pain of imprisonment.
As a non-Australian, I'm not too impressed by this.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com |
| |||||||||
|
Who wants to live in a racist Australia?
Delmae Barton, 62, an Aboriginal elder-in-residence at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was on her way to work when she suffered a suspected stroke or diabetes attack next to a bus stop. For five and a half hours she was left lying in a pool of her own vomit while dozens of commuters ignored her. Eventually, two passing Japanese men came to her aid. “The other people were treating me like a freak. Not the Japanese, the Japanese boys were very good. I feel if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t be alive today”, Barton told an ABC Radio reporter from her hospital ward the next day.
“One fella was that close that he had his briefcase on the side I was vomiting, face down, and all he did was remove his briefcase. And there were girls and young men who sat on their seat next to me and other seats around and they never come forward to help.”
It’s Australia 2006 and the whole world is watching as the Commonwealth “Stolenwealth” Games begin in Melbourne. According to a Newspoll released on March 6, two-thirds of Australians believe there is underlying racism in the country and four in 10 people believe Australia can be described as a racist nation and we don’t like it that way.
Less than three months ago, in beach-side Cronulla in Sydney’s south, white mobs chased and beat up youth because of their Middle Eastern appearance. The racist riot was openly built by Alan Jones, a powerful radio shock-jock who is a good friend of Prime Minister John Howard.
“I’m the person that’s led this charge here. Nobody wanted to know about north Cronulla, now it’s gathered to this”, Jones boasted on his program on Radio 2GB.
Jones had been campaigning for weeks for a “community show of force” against Middle-Eastern youths who had allegedly assaulted a white surf lifesaver.
He read out a text message that had been flying from mobile phone to mobile phone: “Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day …”
Any ''wog’‘ was a potential target. Jones made it plain that he “understood” this incitement to racist violence.
How stereotypically Australian
“Kristallnacht” by the beach? How stereotypically Australian. But it is not funny. The Cronulla riot left massive fear and anger in its wake in Australia’s Muslim communities. Last weekend, Ali (54) who runs a small grocery shop around the corner from where I write this article, took his family to the beach for the first time since the December 11 Cronulla riots.
“We didn’t dare go to a city beach. We went to Bulli, two hours drive out of Sydney”, he said.
Joking about his fear of racist violence, he added: “While I was standing on the rocks a big wave pushed me over and I cut myself. It frightened my wife when I came back to the beach covered in blood. I told her that I didn’t know if it was a Christian wave or a Muslim wave that hit me.”
Is Australia becoming more racist? Is this the same country where hundreds of thousands of people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a powerful statement of solidarity with Aboriginal Australians less than six years ago?
Cultural superiority
Racist attitudes were being rolled back over the last three-and-a-half decades, but recently there seems to be a turn in the opposite direction. Politicians, Coalition and Labor, have been quick to start playing the race card again.
Old racist prejudices are being revived with theories of cultural superiority. Treasurer Peter Costello’s call for migrants to accept “Australian values” was supported by 79% of people in the Newspoll. But few could agree on what these values were!
The arguments for racial superiority have always been superficial. Tomes of “scientific” studies were published in the early 1800s to justify the racial oppression of slaves captured in Africa and taken to the United States in large numbers by the capitalist plantation owners. All of it was nonsense, as are the theories of cultural superiority used to justify racism today.
Justified dispossession and genocide of Indigenous peoples
But the ideology of racism has gone on to legitimise oppression and exploitation ever since. It has justified the dispossession and genocide of Indigenous peoples and numerous colonial wars and occupations.
Its persistence in a country like Australia rests on more than racist propaganda by politicians and ideologists. It rests on an apparent white Australian “superiority” that is proved by gross inequalities in the Third World within and outside Australia.
The gross divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is summed up in these shocking statistics:
|
|
|
Published on Monday, July 4, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
by Sheldon Drobny Justice O'Connor's decision in Bush v. Gore led to the current Bush administration's execution of war crimes and atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places in the Middle East that are as egregious as those committed by the Third Reich and other evil governments in human history.
The lesson is clear.
Those people who may be honorable and distinguished in their chosen profession should always make decisions based upon good rather than evil no matter where their nominal allegiances may rest.
Justice O'Connor was quoted to have said something to the affect that she abhorred the thought of Bush losing the 2000 election to Gore.
She was known to have wanted to retire after the 2000 election for same reason she is now retiring.
She wanted to spend more time with her sick husband.
Unfortunately, she tarnished her distinguished career with the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore by going along with the partisan majority of the Court to interfere with a democratic election that she and the majority feared would be lost in an honest recount.
She dishonored herself and the Supreme Court by succumbing to party allegiances and not The Constitution to which she swore to uphold.
And the constitutional argument she and the majority used to justify their decision was the Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection Clause was the ultimate basis for the decision, but the majority essentially admitted (what was obvious in any event) that it was not basing its conclusion on any general view of what equal protection requires.
The decision in Bush v Gore was not dictated by the law in any sense—either the law found through research, or the law as reflected in the kind of intuitive sense that comes from immersion in the legal culture.
The Equal Protection clause is generally used in matters concerning civil rights.
The majority ignored their basic conservative views supporting federalism and states' rights in order to justify their decision.
History will haunt these justices down for their utter lack of justice and the hypocrisy associated with this decision.
Sheldon Drobny is Co-founder of Air America Radio.
|
Bush v. Gore Appointment of U.S. President by the U.S. Supreme Court — Raw political clout exercised by US Supreme Court |
Unspeakable grief and horror
...and the circus of deception killing continues... |
Nanci Pelosi — U.S. House Democratic leader — Congresswoman California, 8th District
Speaking at the AIPAC agenda May 26, 2005
There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense.
In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.
The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran.
For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology....
In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
|
The United States will stand with Israel now and forever.
Now and forever.
|
Ahmed and Asma, story of two children dying — Lest we forget |
Atrocities committed by Israel — graphic pictures What CNN never shows you |
Israel, chemical weapons and phosphorous bombs New and unknown deadly weapons used by Israeli forces Undetectable poison-needle gun for 'clean' assassinations |
|
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.biz website.The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. |