An excellent report in The Australian this week raises the spectre of the ethical implications of relaity television programs.
James Bone reports on the tragic demise of some participants of relity TV experiments and questions whether the producers are living up to their moral and legal obligations by ensuring that the mental and physical wellbeing of the "stars" is of foremost importance.
Of particular interest to viewers and the industry alike is the significant and tragic effect that being in a "goldfish bowl" has on some people. While it could be argued that the examples listed were people who may have been suffering from low self-esteem, depression or a more serious mental illness, the fact remains that had it not been for the sudden and extreme public nature of their lives, many, if not all of them may have continued coping with a relatively normal and fulfilled life, with or without the issues and burdens they carried with them.
In essence it was, arguably, the media spotlight that stripped them bare, leaving them naked amongst the world. Embarrassment and shame are emotions that we find extremely difficult to overcome. Anger and joy pass us by on a daily basis and we give very little thought the last moment we expressed those feelings. But shame etches its memory in our mind and body and gnaws away at our self-esteem like a parasitic disease.
We have all had that moment when we goofed up or a self-truth was revealed unceremoniously to the world. At that moment our face blushed, our senses were heightened and we wanted to crawl under a rock away from the peircing stare or laughter of those around us. We may even have thought, or later jested to others, that "I wished I was dead".
For some, those feelings have presented themselves so strongly that they have been able to act and their fatal wish came true. For others it meant lashing out at others with equally tragic consequences.
Reality TV may simply be a fad of the times, but if it is set to haunt us over coming years, then producers of such shows need to take responsibility for the people they select and the selection process. But more importantly proactive care needs to be available from appropriate health professionals before, during and after each new media experiment.
[+/-] show/hide this post
What the ... ?
Some interesting news items hit me today as I was scanning blogs, google news and mainstream sources. The following three news items are clear examples of how one-sided journalism has become. It is so bad that items requiring further investigation are glossed over or given a positive spin to alleviate any awkward public questions.
I refuse to ever be part of that whitewash.
The first was North Korea's agreement to cease nuclear armament in exchange for a watered down USA non-aggression pact and ample supply of oil and electricity. Yet, as I write this new reports suggest that the North will not agree unless it is given nuclear reactors to generate power.
It concerns me that all this tension could be alleviated with some horse-trading of energy issues. It seems a little too easy and unrealistic. My bet is that something more substantial is hidden in the detail of the negotiations, and that the latest development seems to point to a continuation of nuclear development.
In another development, NASA has revealed plans to launch expeditions to Mars from the Moon. The strategy involves a number of manned missions to establish a lunar launch facility. Again it's the detail that bothers me, with plans to explore whether "resources, such as oxygen, hydrogen and metals, are available for use in NASA's long-term lunar exploration objectives". That seems to be a careful way of saying that the Moon has been targetted for mining operations! Under whose authority, I ask?
And in a bizarre situation in Iraq, two British soldiers were working "undercover", (dressed as Iraqis) and were arrested by Iraqi police after shooting at a traffic policeman. They were later "rescued" by British forces, who "used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them".
It begs the question why army personnel were "undercover" in the first place, and how is it that they are somehow above the laws that they should be trying to enforce.
Iraq is in total chaos, on the verge of civil war, and every day that allied forces are asked to remain in that country perpetuates an unnecessary living hell for both the military and the civillians.
[+/-] show/hide this post
I refuse to ever be part of that whitewash.
The first was North Korea's agreement to cease nuclear armament in exchange for a watered down USA non-aggression pact and ample supply of oil and electricity. Yet, as I write this new reports suggest that the North will not agree unless it is given nuclear reactors to generate power.
It concerns me that all this tension could be alleviated with some horse-trading of energy issues. It seems a little too easy and unrealistic. My bet is that something more substantial is hidden in the detail of the negotiations, and that the latest development seems to point to a continuation of nuclear development.
In another development, NASA has revealed plans to launch expeditions to Mars from the Moon. The strategy involves a number of manned missions to establish a lunar launch facility. Again it's the detail that bothers me, with plans to explore whether "resources, such as oxygen, hydrogen and metals, are available for use in NASA's long-term lunar exploration objectives". That seems to be a careful way of saying that the Moon has been targetted for mining operations! Under whose authority, I ask?
And in a bizarre situation in Iraq, two British soldiers were working "undercover", (dressed as Iraqis) and were arrested by Iraqi police after shooting at a traffic policeman. They were later "rescued" by British forces, who "used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them".
It begs the question why army personnel were "undercover" in the first place, and how is it that they are somehow above the laws that they should be trying to enforce.
Iraq is in total chaos, on the verge of civil war, and every day that allied forces are asked to remain in that country perpetuates an unnecessary living hell for both the military and the civillians.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Iraq's missing billions
The question on everyone's lips over the last few months has been "can things get any worse in Iraq?". Apparently they just did.
A report via The Independent claims that at least one billion dollars (US$ value, I'm guessing, though the article doesn't stipulate the currency), but possibly double that amount, has gone missing from the nation's ministries.
The funds disappeared over an eight-month period in the previous financial year. Comparisons are being made about the fraud and the oil-for-food scandal during Saddam's leadership, which lost $1.8 billion dollars.
While the United Nations has felt the scathing pressure of world opinion for its lack of policing and accountability of the oil-for-food program, USA forces and diplomats were in a much better position to prevent this significant episode of theft, fraud and corruption. The fallout is expected to be severely damaging to the US.
According to the report, the money was siphoned away through a series of unscrupulous deals to purchase arms from Poland and Pakistan. The deals were peculiar because they were:
Instead of receiving quality weaponry and machinery, Iraq was left with inferior equipment with some of it past its useful life, such as 28 year old soviet-built helicopters that the manufacturers claim should have been scrapped after 25 years.
No doubt these revelations will add to the woes of the Iraqi and US administrations and any hopes of an early pull-out by allied forces are all but dashed as Iraq is now clearly incapable of adequately training its military or providing the necessary infrastructure to protect itself from insurgency.
The USA is now here for the long haul, its feet stuck in a quagmire of corruption, mismanagement and insurgency that seems futile to try and stop. Nothing short of a miracle could stop the country travelling further down the path of chaos and soon the USA will be beyond its own capability to protect its own interests.
[+/-] show/hide this post
A report via The Independent claims that at least one billion dollars (US$ value, I'm guessing, though the article doesn't stipulate the currency), but possibly double that amount, has gone missing from the nation's ministries.
The funds disappeared over an eight-month period in the previous financial year. Comparisons are being made about the fraud and the oil-for-food scandal during Saddam's leadership, which lost $1.8 billion dollars.
While the United Nations has felt the scathing pressure of world opinion for its lack of policing and accountability of the oil-for-food program, USA forces and diplomats were in a much better position to prevent this significant episode of theft, fraud and corruption. The fallout is expected to be severely damaging to the US.
According to the report, the money was siphoned away through a series of unscrupulous deals to purchase arms from Poland and Pakistan. The deals were peculiar because they were:
"awarded without bidding ... signed with a Baghdad-based company, and not directly with the foreign supplier ... the money was paid up front and ... paid at great speed out of the ministry's account."
Instead of receiving quality weaponry and machinery, Iraq was left with inferior equipment with some of it past its useful life, such as 28 year old soviet-built helicopters that the manufacturers claim should have been scrapped after 25 years.
No doubt these revelations will add to the woes of the Iraqi and US administrations and any hopes of an early pull-out by allied forces are all but dashed as Iraq is now clearly incapable of adequately training its military or providing the necessary infrastructure to protect itself from insurgency.
The USA is now here for the long haul, its feet stuck in a quagmire of corruption, mismanagement and insurgency that seems futile to try and stop. Nothing short of a miracle could stop the country travelling further down the path of chaos and soon the USA will be beyond its own capability to protect its own interests.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Baghdad's Burden
It was the worst single day of civillian deaths in Baghdad since the invasion over two years ago.
According to a report in the Independent more than a dozen coordinated attacks took place killing about 150 people and injuring nearly 4 times as many. The worst occurred when a suicide bomber enticed hundreds of labourers to his van with promises of work before detonating explosives inside the vehicle, killing 114 and injuring 156 others.
The deaths mark a new point in the war, with some reporters going so far as to foresee the escalation in attacks as the beginning of a civil war. However, Robert Fisk takes a refreshingly honest look at the spin here.
I've reintroduced the Iraq Body Count banner above to highlight the continued suffering of this nation at the hands of insurgents and fuelled by the presence of the USA and its allies. It is a reminder that the invasion was wrongful and continues to be a great injustice to the Iraqi people.
The current reported death toll lies between 24,712 and 27,963 civilians.
According to a report in the Independent more than a dozen coordinated attacks took place killing about 150 people and injuring nearly 4 times as many. The worst occurred when a suicide bomber enticed hundreds of labourers to his van with promises of work before detonating explosives inside the vehicle, killing 114 and injuring 156 others.
The deaths mark a new point in the war, with some reporters going so far as to foresee the escalation in attacks as the beginning of a civil war. However, Robert Fisk takes a refreshingly honest look at the spin here.
I've reintroduced the Iraq Body Count banner above to highlight the continued suffering of this nation at the hands of insurgents and fuelled by the presence of the USA and its allies. It is a reminder that the invasion was wrongful and continues to be a great injustice to the Iraqi people.
The current reported death toll lies between 24,712 and 27,963 civilians.
Clarke won't be stoppedr
Anyone willing to take an award from Fred Nile and his cronies can't expect anything but to be labelled as an extremist. Clarke is either very naive or he believes the public are stupid. Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both explanations.
Conservative MP vows not to be silenced
NineMSN/AAP, 15 Sep 2005
Conservative NSW powerbroker David Clarke has hit back at media criticism of his views on abortion and homosexuality, saying he is not going to be silenced by his critics.
Mr Clarke has also been accused in recent times by some members of his own party of being an extremist and a religious zealot.
On Wednesday night, he received an award for "Parliamentary Service" from Christian Democrat MP and morals crusader Fred Nile's Festival of Light Organisation.
Mr Clarke, a Liberal member of the NSW upper house, played a key role in Peter Debnam's rise to the NSW Liberal leadership following the resignation and subsequent apparent suicide bid by former leader John Brogden.
Mr Clarke, a supporter of the Catholic Opus Dei movement, attacked the media for reporting what he said were anonymous and false claims about him, including that he had said women who have abortions should be charged with murder and that homosexuality should be outlawed.
He said he would continue to argue for the values he believed in.
"I want to tell you good people that I'm not going to be cowed by these types," he told about 100 Festival of Light Members at Parliament House in Sydney.
"I came into parliament to speak out on issues and that's what I'm going to continue to do.
"I'm not going to be stopped, I'm not going to be slowed down, I'm just going to continue to keep going on."
Some members of the audience, which included Nationals leader Andrew Stoner and Liberal MP Malcolm Kerr, responded with comments such as "That's right," and "Amen".
Mr Clarke praised the Festival of Light, which has staged protests against the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in recent years.
"I'm going to try and live up to the good values for which the Festival of Light stands," he said.
Mr Clarke outlined his political philosophy, saying he was a conservative, pro-life and supports the Christian constitutional monarchy and Australia's current flag, but rejected claims he was an extremist.
"I find myself in the mainstream," he said.
"There's nothing extreme about that."
He also supported the rights of non-Christians and people who did not believe in God.
Conservative MP vows not to be silenced
NineMSN/AAP, 15 Sep 2005
Conservative NSW powerbroker David Clarke has hit back at media criticism of his views on abortion and homosexuality, saying he is not going to be silenced by his critics.
Mr Clarke has also been accused in recent times by some members of his own party of being an extremist and a religious zealot.
On Wednesday night, he received an award for "Parliamentary Service" from Christian Democrat MP and morals crusader Fred Nile's Festival of Light Organisation.
Mr Clarke, a Liberal member of the NSW upper house, played a key role in Peter Debnam's rise to the NSW Liberal leadership following the resignation and subsequent apparent suicide bid by former leader John Brogden.
Mr Clarke, a supporter of the Catholic Opus Dei movement, attacked the media for reporting what he said were anonymous and false claims about him, including that he had said women who have abortions should be charged with murder and that homosexuality should be outlawed.
He said he would continue to argue for the values he believed in.
"I want to tell you good people that I'm not going to be cowed by these types," he told about 100 Festival of Light Members at Parliament House in Sydney.
"I came into parliament to speak out on issues and that's what I'm going to continue to do.
"I'm not going to be stopped, I'm not going to be slowed down, I'm just going to continue to keep going on."
Some members of the audience, which included Nationals leader Andrew Stoner and Liberal MP Malcolm Kerr, responded with comments such as "That's right," and "Amen".
Mr Clarke praised the Festival of Light, which has staged protests against the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in recent years.
"I'm going to try and live up to the good values for which the Festival of Light stands," he said.
Mr Clarke outlined his political philosophy, saying he was a conservative, pro-life and supports the Christian constitutional monarchy and Australia's current flag, but rejected claims he was an extremist.
"I find myself in the mainstream," he said.
"There's nothing extreme about that."
He also supported the rights of non-Christians and people who did not believe in God.
Brethren influencing politics
The following article highlights the increasing challenge we face in upholding the separation of church and state. There is a fine line between ideological-based politics and campaigning for a theocracy. We must be ever-watchful that the line is never crossed.
It is also important to note that the Exclusive Brethren mentioned in this article is NOT the same as other Brethren churches. In fact the New Zealand Open Brethren Church has been quick to distance itself from their more extreme colleagues. More information can be found at SourceWatch
Step to the right as the Brethren gather force
Sydney Morning Herald - September 14, 2005
A scandal in New Zealand over election money from a fringe group reflects a trend, writes Marion Maddox.
The women wear headscarves in public. Their religion opposes assimilation, and they educate children at home or in their own schools. Fearing the taint of the godless, they refuse to eat with unbelievers. They reject democracy, and work towards God's rule.
Yes, it is the Exclusive Brethren, a conservative Christian fringe group whose more than $NZ500,000 ($457,300) in electoral help was denied initially the by the New Zealand Opposition Leader, Don Brash. Brash's embarrassment has brought a frisson of scandal to an election campaign otherwise strictly about tax cuts.
The Brethren's glossy, professionally produced anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets look familiar. In the weeks before John Howard's re-election in October last year, half- and full-page advertisements appeared in local and metropolitan newspapers endorsing his Government and attacking the Greens. The advertisements echoed the content and style of Liberal Party advertising, but none of the endorsers' names and addresses belonged to the party.
In the US elections, the Exclusive Brethren spent more than $US500,000 ($649,900) on newspaper advertisements supporting George Bush and the Florida Republican Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and linked to the Republican strategy for turning Terri Schiavo's 15-year coma into a "great political issue".
The Exclusive Brethren is a branch of a British movement formed in the 1820s. Its founder, John Darby, was a developer of "premillennial dispensationalism", a set of beliefs about the end of the world made famous by the bestselling Left Behind novels. Followers expect an imminent "Rapture" of believers to heaven, heralding the return of Jesus.
Exclusive Brethren take a dim view of government by the people, traditionally eschewing politics. Since government properly belongs to God, they do not vote. But in recent years they have moved closer to the political activism of other fundamentalists and pentecostalists, including enthusiastic lobbying. According to them, God's law rules out homosexuality, single parenthood, hate speech legislation and "big government".
The restoration of Israel is crucial to Christ's return, so they endorse pro-Israel policies. Holders of such views welcome authoritarian Christian government as setting the stage for the final showdown between God and Satan. They also incline to a "prosperity gospel" in which wealth is a sign of God's favour, and the poor have only themselves to blame, so taxes and welfare subvert the divine order.
The Exclusive Brethren irruption into the New Zealand election points to a broader coalition of right-wing business, political parties and religion.
Bush relies on the votes of evangelical, pentecostalist and fundamentalist Christians, who want conservative government in the Last Days to oppose evil abroad (Iraq) and at home (by cutting taxes and welfare).
Howard's support base for his 1995 return to the Liberal leadership included the conservative Christian Lyons Forum. The religious right has become increasingly outspoken within the party, with the Treasurer, Peter Costello, arguing that Australia's problems will be solved not by legislation but a return to the Ten Commandments, and John Anderson declaring while deputy prime minister that without Jesus, "we're a mob of dirty rotten sinners and we're on the path to hell".
In New Zealand, a loose coalition is now pushing New Zealand down a right-wing path, as seen not just by the emergence of the Exclusive Brethren, but by the rise of the pentecostal church-based Destiny Party, the "family"-focused United Future (formed from a 2002 merger of the centrist United party with Future NZ, an explicitly Christian party), the largely evangelical-funded conservative Maxim Institute think-tank, and even a branch of the Christian supremacist Parliamentary Prayer Network.
With conservative politicians, business and Christian leaders finding common ground, and heartened by electoral success in the US and elsewhere, no wonder even moderately religious politicians such as Howard and avowed agnostics such as Brash, the New Zealand National Party leader, are hitching their stars to the conservative Christian comet.
Dr Marion Maddox is senior lecturer in religious studies at the Victoria University of Wellington and author of God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2005).
It is also important to note that the Exclusive Brethren mentioned in this article is NOT the same as other Brethren churches. In fact the New Zealand Open Brethren Church has been quick to distance itself from their more extreme colleagues. More information can be found at SourceWatch
Step to the right as the Brethren gather force
Sydney Morning Herald - September 14, 2005
A scandal in New Zealand over election money from a fringe group reflects a trend, writes Marion Maddox.
The women wear headscarves in public. Their religion opposes assimilation, and they educate children at home or in their own schools. Fearing the taint of the godless, they refuse to eat with unbelievers. They reject democracy, and work towards God's rule.
Yes, it is the Exclusive Brethren, a conservative Christian fringe group whose more than $NZ500,000 ($457,300) in electoral help was denied initially the by the New Zealand Opposition Leader, Don Brash. Brash's embarrassment has brought a frisson of scandal to an election campaign otherwise strictly about tax cuts.
The Brethren's glossy, professionally produced anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets look familiar. In the weeks before John Howard's re-election in October last year, half- and full-page advertisements appeared in local and metropolitan newspapers endorsing his Government and attacking the Greens. The advertisements echoed the content and style of Liberal Party advertising, but none of the endorsers' names and addresses belonged to the party.
In the US elections, the Exclusive Brethren spent more than $US500,000 ($649,900) on newspaper advertisements supporting George Bush and the Florida Republican Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and linked to the Republican strategy for turning Terri Schiavo's 15-year coma into a "great political issue".
The Exclusive Brethren is a branch of a British movement formed in the 1820s. Its founder, John Darby, was a developer of "premillennial dispensationalism", a set of beliefs about the end of the world made famous by the bestselling Left Behind novels. Followers expect an imminent "Rapture" of believers to heaven, heralding the return of Jesus.
Exclusive Brethren take a dim view of government by the people, traditionally eschewing politics. Since government properly belongs to God, they do not vote. But in recent years they have moved closer to the political activism of other fundamentalists and pentecostalists, including enthusiastic lobbying. According to them, God's law rules out homosexuality, single parenthood, hate speech legislation and "big government".
The restoration of Israel is crucial to Christ's return, so they endorse pro-Israel policies. Holders of such views welcome authoritarian Christian government as setting the stage for the final showdown between God and Satan. They also incline to a "prosperity gospel" in which wealth is a sign of God's favour, and the poor have only themselves to blame, so taxes and welfare subvert the divine order.
The Exclusive Brethren irruption into the New Zealand election points to a broader coalition of right-wing business, political parties and religion.
Bush relies on the votes of evangelical, pentecostalist and fundamentalist Christians, who want conservative government in the Last Days to oppose evil abroad (Iraq) and at home (by cutting taxes and welfare).
Howard's support base for his 1995 return to the Liberal leadership included the conservative Christian Lyons Forum. The religious right has become increasingly outspoken within the party, with the Treasurer, Peter Costello, arguing that Australia's problems will be solved not by legislation but a return to the Ten Commandments, and John Anderson declaring while deputy prime minister that without Jesus, "we're a mob of dirty rotten sinners and we're on the path to hell".
In New Zealand, a loose coalition is now pushing New Zealand down a right-wing path, as seen not just by the emergence of the Exclusive Brethren, but by the rise of the pentecostal church-based Destiny Party, the "family"-focused United Future (formed from a 2002 merger of the centrist United party with Future NZ, an explicitly Christian party), the largely evangelical-funded conservative Maxim Institute think-tank, and even a branch of the Christian supremacist Parliamentary Prayer Network.
With conservative politicians, business and Christian leaders finding common ground, and heartened by electoral success in the US and elsewhere, no wonder even moderately religious politicians such as Howard and avowed agnostics such as Brash, the New Zealand National Party leader, are hitching their stars to the conservative Christian comet.
Dr Marion Maddox is senior lecturer in religious studies at the Victoria University of Wellington and author of God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2005).
Compulsory Bicycle Helmets
What is all this continued fuss about compulsory bicycle helmets? There doesn't seem to be a month go by without a letter to the editor complaining about the legislation as a breach of civil liberties, at least here in WA - the state that fears change.
The helmet-phobes want these important safety devices to be optional, and many of them I suspect would also prefer seat belts to be voluntary too, despite their proven ability to save lives. Well, I have just the solution for them.
I propose that cyclists over the age of 18 could apply at their local licensing centre for a Thanatos Card (like the Proof of Age card), which would allow them to waive their rights to free medical treatment if they sustain head trauma whilst cycling without a helmet.
The card could also offer options to excuse citizens from wearing motorcycle helmets or seat belts and extended to legitimise activities that often require taxpayer-funded emergency services e.g. diving off bridges or into shallow waterways.
Members of the exclusive Thanatos community may also be able to get discounts on their health or life insurance by waiving their right to compensation for any accidents whilst undertaking these activities. Alternatively they may be required to pay a premium if they want to be covered for the additional risk.
It may even reduce the level of litigation in our society as well as ensuring the evolutionary process through survival of the fittest.
It seems that everyone benefits! So, when can we start legislating?
[+/-] show/hide this post
The helmet-phobes want these important safety devices to be optional, and many of them I suspect would also prefer seat belts to be voluntary too, despite their proven ability to save lives. Well, I have just the solution for them.
I propose that cyclists over the age of 18 could apply at their local licensing centre for a Thanatos Card (like the Proof of Age card), which would allow them to waive their rights to free medical treatment if they sustain head trauma whilst cycling without a helmet.
The card could also offer options to excuse citizens from wearing motorcycle helmets or seat belts and extended to legitimise activities that often require taxpayer-funded emergency services e.g. diving off bridges or into shallow waterways.
Members of the exclusive Thanatos community may also be able to get discounts on their health or life insurance by waiving their right to compensation for any accidents whilst undertaking these activities. Alternatively they may be required to pay a premium if they want to be covered for the additional risk.
It may even reduce the level of litigation in our society as well as ensuring the evolutionary process through survival of the fittest.
It seems that everyone benefits! So, when can we start legislating?
[+/-] show/hide this post
Abbott and Beazley will let Aussies die
Last night nine repeated Geoffrey Robertson's latest Hypothetical, The Pope, The PM and the Assassin.
In Robertson's wonderfully enigmatic style he took us on a whirlwind journey through issue upon intertwined issue: cricket; Australians charged with drug and sex offences in an islamic nation; bribery of foreign officials; human rights; death penalty; terrorism; religion; Taiwan independence; national security; protecting journalistic sources; etc
For me the highlight was about one third of the way through when the hypothetical "Narelle Corby", convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death by firing squad, escaped from gaol and presented herself to the Australian Embassy for asylum.
Former police Commissioner, Warren Reed, was happy to grant asylum, but both the new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, were adamant that the embassy would be instructed to hand her back to the authorities to be executed the next day.
Fortunately Natasha Stott-Despoja was able to ignore the diplomacy and see the intrinsic value of saving an Australian life when the opportunity arises. After a small amount of further discussion Judge Felicity Hampel suggested that the PM should be seeking to negotiate a prisoner exchange program to save Corby from execution.
Tony Abbott responded meekly with "If that was possible, sure." to which the Judge aptly quipped "But why not think creatively and use the opportunity, Mr Abbott? You're our PM, you're supposed to have vision!".
Which just goes to prove how poorly some of our politicians are able to think on the spot without their advisors whispering in their ears.
Certainly one of Robertson's more intriguing presentations. I look forward to many more to come.
[+/-] show/hide this post
In Robertson's wonderfully enigmatic style he took us on a whirlwind journey through issue upon intertwined issue: cricket; Australians charged with drug and sex offences in an islamic nation; bribery of foreign officials; human rights; death penalty; terrorism; religion; Taiwan independence; national security; protecting journalistic sources; etc
For me the highlight was about one third of the way through when the hypothetical "Narelle Corby", convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death by firing squad, escaped from gaol and presented herself to the Australian Embassy for asylum.
Former police Commissioner, Warren Reed, was happy to grant asylum, but both the new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, were adamant that the embassy would be instructed to hand her back to the authorities to be executed the next day.
Fortunately Natasha Stott-Despoja was able to ignore the diplomacy and see the intrinsic value of saving an Australian life when the opportunity arises. After a small amount of further discussion Judge Felicity Hampel suggested that the PM should be seeking to negotiate a prisoner exchange program to save Corby from execution.
Tony Abbott responded meekly with "If that was possible, sure." to which the Judge aptly quipped "But why not think creatively and use the opportunity, Mr Abbott? You're our PM, you're supposed to have vision!".
Which just goes to prove how poorly some of our politicians are able to think on the spot without their advisors whispering in their ears.
Certainly one of Robertson's more intriguing presentations. I look forward to many more to come.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Catholicism from the inside
Disciples eager to call the shots behind the scenes
Sydney Morning Herald - September 13, 2005
Uncompromising religious convictions inspire members of the Catholic organisation Opus Dei, writes Kate Mannix.
Miranda Devine last week claimed Opus Dei is a "mainstream" Catholic movement. So why is it so secretive? David Clarke, MLC, admits he is a member of Opus Dei. He says it "informs" his views and decisions in the NSW Parliament.
The deputy director of public prosecutions, Greg Smith, SC, is also a member of Opus Dei. He's a former president of the NSW Right to Life Association. His son, Nat Smith, is now on the association's board.
I don't know whether John McCarthy, QC, is a member of Opus Dei, but his son, Anthony, is. McCarthy snr is a close friend of Cardinal George Pell and an equally close friend of the former NSW premier Bob Carr. He is also a mentor to Malcolm Turnbull, MP, a Catholic convert who regularly speaks at Opus Dei's Warrane College at the University of NSW.
John McCarthy is also a member of the senate at Sydney University. Anthony McCarthy is a chaplain there, and also an organiser for the Opus Dei event called Carnivale Christi.
It is not unreasonable that the Smiths and McCarthys will, like Clarke, be "informed" by their religious associations.
What is unreasonable is the lack of candour shown by those with such associations. This crosses denominational boundaries in "holy alliances". Their memberships, connections and intentions are rarely discussed. Their "values" are repackaged and stamped "PG" for family consumption.
They will talk mildly about "values" and "the traditional family". They will point away from themselves and make judicious references to being "mainstream" and reflecting a wider societal "return to values". But there is little evidence of broad-based support, and little awareness of their real values.
This band of brothers has the same goal as the late B.A. Santamaria: to impose a conservative, Christian-influenced set of principles into the legal system and into government policy.
They will not talk about branch stacking in the Liberal Party nor the funnelling of tax dollars into the myriad "pregnancy counselling services" that are essentially fronts for right-wing proselytising.
Take health.
Catholics are pretty good at running hospitals. But in an Opus Deified world, what would a more strictly "Catholic" hospital look like? It could not offer abortions, sterilisations, in-vitro fertilisation or certain plastic surgery, or look the other way when someone, desperately, just wants to die.
Rape victims would not be offered emergency contraception. None of this is allowable under Catholic ethical guidelines. Just ask Dr Amin Abboud, doctor and assistant lecturer in medical ethics and health law at the University of NSW and director of Australasian Bioethics Information. He is also a former information officer for Opus Dei Australia.
In education, Opus Dei is aiming for the "high end". The private Catholic (publicly funded) University of Notre Dame is interested in training doctors and lawyers who will move into public life and apply the values they have been taught.
So here are some values to watch out for: that the church alone is the repository of absolute truth; conscience must be subordinate to the teachings of the church; the "traditional family" should enjoy legal and financial privileges over other families; abortion is always wrong (though killing in war is sometimes right); men are almost always the disadvantaged party in family disputes due to "extreme feminism" rampant in today's society; IVF is a capitalist plot; there is no obligation for the church to be transparent and accountable; labour is best hired on the basis of correct religious convictions; foreign aid is a misuse of public money; Catholic social teaching embraces market forces; economic prosperity and morality go hand in hand; homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"; global warming is exaggerated; social welfare is best undertaken by the church.
Those who hold these values have a mission to correct all those who are "in error". They do not believe in your right to conscientiously hold an opinion they do not share. They have little sympathy for your pluralism. They have no commitment to your rights, or democracy. Pell said last year: "Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves."
The irony in all this is that according to church teaching from as early as the fifth century, direct action which seeks to interfere with the rightful autonomy of the state is wrong (the Gelasian Doctrine).
Less than 50 years ago, Vatican II confirmed that all have the freedom to exercise their conscientiously held beliefs - even if, from a rigidly Catholic point of view, such beliefs are "wrong".
Hang on to those two thoughts: because that's Catholic.
Kate Mannix was the founding editor of the independent e-zine Online Catholics.
Sydney Morning Herald - September 13, 2005
Uncompromising religious convictions inspire members of the Catholic organisation Opus Dei, writes Kate Mannix.
Miranda Devine last week claimed Opus Dei is a "mainstream" Catholic movement. So why is it so secretive? David Clarke, MLC, admits he is a member of Opus Dei. He says it "informs" his views and decisions in the NSW Parliament.
The deputy director of public prosecutions, Greg Smith, SC, is also a member of Opus Dei. He's a former president of the NSW Right to Life Association. His son, Nat Smith, is now on the association's board.
I don't know whether John McCarthy, QC, is a member of Opus Dei, but his son, Anthony, is. McCarthy snr is a close friend of Cardinal George Pell and an equally close friend of the former NSW premier Bob Carr. He is also a mentor to Malcolm Turnbull, MP, a Catholic convert who regularly speaks at Opus Dei's Warrane College at the University of NSW.
John McCarthy is also a member of the senate at Sydney University. Anthony McCarthy is a chaplain there, and also an organiser for the Opus Dei event called Carnivale Christi.
It is not unreasonable that the Smiths and McCarthys will, like Clarke, be "informed" by their religious associations.
What is unreasonable is the lack of candour shown by those with such associations. This crosses denominational boundaries in "holy alliances". Their memberships, connections and intentions are rarely discussed. Their "values" are repackaged and stamped "PG" for family consumption.
They will talk mildly about "values" and "the traditional family". They will point away from themselves and make judicious references to being "mainstream" and reflecting a wider societal "return to values". But there is little evidence of broad-based support, and little awareness of their real values.
This band of brothers has the same goal as the late B.A. Santamaria: to impose a conservative, Christian-influenced set of principles into the legal system and into government policy.
They will not talk about branch stacking in the Liberal Party nor the funnelling of tax dollars into the myriad "pregnancy counselling services" that are essentially fronts for right-wing proselytising.
Take health.
Catholics are pretty good at running hospitals. But in an Opus Deified world, what would a more strictly "Catholic" hospital look like? It could not offer abortions, sterilisations, in-vitro fertilisation or certain plastic surgery, or look the other way when someone, desperately, just wants to die.
Rape victims would not be offered emergency contraception. None of this is allowable under Catholic ethical guidelines. Just ask Dr Amin Abboud, doctor and assistant lecturer in medical ethics and health law at the University of NSW and director of Australasian Bioethics Information. He is also a former information officer for Opus Dei Australia.
In education, Opus Dei is aiming for the "high end". The private Catholic (publicly funded) University of Notre Dame is interested in training doctors and lawyers who will move into public life and apply the values they have been taught.
So here are some values to watch out for: that the church alone is the repository of absolute truth; conscience must be subordinate to the teachings of the church; the "traditional family" should enjoy legal and financial privileges over other families; abortion is always wrong (though killing in war is sometimes right); men are almost always the disadvantaged party in family disputes due to "extreme feminism" rampant in today's society; IVF is a capitalist plot; there is no obligation for the church to be transparent and accountable; labour is best hired on the basis of correct religious convictions; foreign aid is a misuse of public money; Catholic social teaching embraces market forces; economic prosperity and morality go hand in hand; homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"; global warming is exaggerated; social welfare is best undertaken by the church.
Those who hold these values have a mission to correct all those who are "in error". They do not believe in your right to conscientiously hold an opinion they do not share. They have little sympathy for your pluralism. They have no commitment to your rights, or democracy. Pell said last year: "Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves."
The irony in all this is that according to church teaching from as early as the fifth century, direct action which seeks to interfere with the rightful autonomy of the state is wrong (the Gelasian Doctrine).
Less than 50 years ago, Vatican II confirmed that all have the freedom to exercise their conscientiously held beliefs - even if, from a rigidly Catholic point of view, such beliefs are "wrong".
Hang on to those two thoughts: because that's Catholic.
Kate Mannix was the founding editor of the independent e-zine Online Catholics.
Racism in reporting
The following picture came to me via email today.
I can't verify the accuracy of the report, but it is more than just plausible that this is indicative of reporting styles in the USA as well as here in Australia.
Remember - Black people LOOT, white people FIND stuff !!!
I can't verify the accuracy of the report, but it is more than just plausible that this is indicative of reporting styles in the USA as well as here in Australia.
Remember - Black people LOOT, white people FIND stuff !!!
Answer my question Mr Birney
Perth talkback radio station, 6PR, has been running with the story (Google cached version) of a WA gay couple who have been given the green light to adopt a child.
Not unexpectedly, the switchboard remained quite negative as the religious, the bigots, the ill-informed and the ignorant made all sorts of claims and accusations about the gay lobby and the best interests of the child.
I posed the following question to Matt Birney during his interview with harvey Deegan:
Mr Birney failed to directly answer the question, instead choosing to reiterate the argument that a child should have both a mother and a father. A tired argument that raises the question of whether it is better to be orphaned than to be raised without complementary gendered parents.
The crux of my question was that; in the hypothetical situation my daughter would logically be taken under my full time care. Why then, is it perfectly ok to have my partner in a co-parenting role but not be officially acknowledged as her legal guardian by way of adoption?
The fact is that current laws allow any person or two people, regardless of their relationship (eg: brother and sister, two friends, two grandmothers) or sexuality, the right to be considered for adoption. Even before the major law reforms of 2002 and before the ALP won government it was perfectly legal for single people (regardless of their sexuality) to adopt.
If it is SO important that a child has both a mother and a father then why won't the Liberals and their fellow moralisers campaign to remove the right of single people to adopt.
And while they are at it, why don't they try to legislate that widows and widowers must remarry if they are raising children.
It's not a perfect world, but in my absence I'd rather have my child loved by one good person, than remain alone as an orphan.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Not unexpectedly, the switchboard remained quite negative as the religious, the bigots, the ill-informed and the ignorant made all sorts of claims and accusations about the gay lobby and the best interests of the child.
I posed the following question to Matt Birney during his interview with harvey Deegan:
I am a divorced father of one child. I am also in a same-sex relationship with my partner of 7 years. In the event of some tragedy taking away the mother of my daughter, would Mr Birney and the Liberals object to my partner adopting my daughter or are they only objecting to my partner and I co-adopting a non-related child?
Mr Birney failed to directly answer the question, instead choosing to reiterate the argument that a child should have both a mother and a father. A tired argument that raises the question of whether it is better to be orphaned than to be raised without complementary gendered parents.
The crux of my question was that; in the hypothetical situation my daughter would logically be taken under my full time care. Why then, is it perfectly ok to have my partner in a co-parenting role but not be officially acknowledged as her legal guardian by way of adoption?
The fact is that current laws allow any person or two people, regardless of their relationship (eg: brother and sister, two friends, two grandmothers) or sexuality, the right to be considered for adoption. Even before the major law reforms of 2002 and before the ALP won government it was perfectly legal for single people (regardless of their sexuality) to adopt.
If it is SO important that a child has both a mother and a father then why won't the Liberals and their fellow moralisers campaign to remove the right of single people to adopt.
And while they are at it, why don't they try to legislate that widows and widowers must remarry if they are raising children.
It's not a perfect world, but in my absence I'd rather have my child loved by one good person, than remain alone as an orphan.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Extremism ... win or lose?
Extreme path will leave voters by the wayside
By Adele Horin, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005
In the days when the NSW Liberal Party was a run-of-the-mill conservative party, John Ryan got flak for being too Christian. The opposition spokesman for disability services, commerce and western Sydney once told Parliament that "Jesus is my friend". And last year he told Radio National's Religion Report that "being a Christian is an important part of who I am as a politician". But he added that some of his Liberal colleagues criticised him for being religious.
That was then. Now Ryan, a highly regarded, hard-working and effective member of the Liberal front bench, is in danger of losing his preselection. In the eyes of the new
powerbrokers, he is not their sort of Christian.
The treatment of Ryan, it turns out, was a factor in spurring the Liberal MLC Patricia Forsythe's remarkable candour on the ABC's Stateline last week when she exposed the grip of "zealots" and "extremists" on the Liberal Party.
At a time of hysteria about Islamic extremism in Australia, it is of great concern that the NSW Liberal Party has been hijacked by Christian extremists. Democracy is in peril if the opposition party is rendered unelectable.
Let's be clear about this term, extremists. Social conservatism, encompassing opposition to abortion, to equality for homosexuals, to stem cell research, and to the King Cross heroin injecting room trial, reflects legitimate views held in sections of the community and in sections of the Labor Party. The Liberals' social conservatives have a right to these views - providing the electorate understands
this is what drives them. Holding such views openly and passionately does not of itself make them zealots.
It is when these issues - usually matters of conscience within the party - become the touchstone of being a good Liberal that red lights should flash. It is when a moral agenda, rather than efficient, compassionate government, is the overriding obsession of politicians that alarm bells should ring. It is when people who don't fit into a prescribed box are seen as having no place in the Liberal Party that terms such as zealot and extremist are appropriate.
If even moderate Christians such as Ryan - let alone atheists - are to have no future in the Liberal Party, then that is an alarming development.
At the federal level, John Howard marginalised the economic wets, and enforced rigid unity on issues such as detention centres. But despite the efforts of Tony Abbott and his evangelical colleagues, Howard has not demanded fidelity to a conservative morals agenda. Reading the electorate well, he has allowed a diversity of views on abortion and stem cell research to co-exist within the party.
But the story is different in NSW. The MLC David Clarke, leader of a powerful group of Liberal arch-conservatives, is associated with Opus Dei, a controversial evangelical movement of the Catholic Church - "a co-operator of Opus Dei", he called himself in an interview with Radio National's Stephen Crittendon last year. Crittendon noted a crucifix on Clarke's parliamentary office desk, and a picture of the Virgin and Child on the wall, along with a photo of St Josemaria de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, and a commendation from the Croatian community.
In his maiden speech Clarke vowed to advocate Christian-based truths and values with "missionary zeal". Later he urged anti-abortionists to get themselves on the
party's preselection panels.
The Liberal Party has been a broad church, drawing the line at admitting avowed racists. But it has seen its primary business as running the country - or state - not as imposing a moral agenda. For all the inroads of the religious right into politics, they have not triumphed as have their US counterparts in inflicting their program on everything from sex education to foreign aid.
But now NSW Liberals who don't ascribe to the program are being forced out of the party. Those whose main concerns are taxes, the state economy, trains, hospitals, the usual business of government, are being sidelined, no matter how competent.
Alex Hawke, the right-wing national president of the Young Liberals who is on Clarke's staff, has said, "If people want to legalise drug injecting rooms, lower the age of consent, go with all these trendy things, this is not the party that believes in those things. We're not that broad." They could, Hawke said, "choose the Greens, Labor or Democrats".
Ryan voted in favour of the heroin injecting room trial, and, after consulting the Bible, in favour of lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. He said last year he did not believe the Liberal Party should be a vehicle for "propagating the gospel". Nor did he think that "simply because you're a Christian, therefore you have to have a conservative view about society".
Now he is being punished. He is under threat of being dumped altogether in coming preselections for the Legislative Council. At best, he is to be moved into a new
province where preselection rules are more difficult. His old area will be handed over to the moral conservative Charlie Lynn, Clarke's right-hand man, an MP who has
achieved little in a decade.
These are sad days indeed for NSW Liberals, and NSW citizens generally. The state badly needs an electable opposition.
By Adele Horin, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005
In the days when the NSW Liberal Party was a run-of-the-mill conservative party, John Ryan got flak for being too Christian. The opposition spokesman for disability services, commerce and western Sydney once told Parliament that "Jesus is my friend". And last year he told Radio National's Religion Report that "being a Christian is an important part of who I am as a politician". But he added that some of his Liberal colleagues criticised him for being religious.
That was then. Now Ryan, a highly regarded, hard-working and effective member of the Liberal front bench, is in danger of losing his preselection. In the eyes of the new
powerbrokers, he is not their sort of Christian.
The treatment of Ryan, it turns out, was a factor in spurring the Liberal MLC Patricia Forsythe's remarkable candour on the ABC's Stateline last week when she exposed the grip of "zealots" and "extremists" on the Liberal Party.
At a time of hysteria about Islamic extremism in Australia, it is of great concern that the NSW Liberal Party has been hijacked by Christian extremists. Democracy is in peril if the opposition party is rendered unelectable.
Let's be clear about this term, extremists. Social conservatism, encompassing opposition to abortion, to equality for homosexuals, to stem cell research, and to the King Cross heroin injecting room trial, reflects legitimate views held in sections of the community and in sections of the Labor Party. The Liberals' social conservatives have a right to these views - providing the electorate understands
this is what drives them. Holding such views openly and passionately does not of itself make them zealots.
It is when these issues - usually matters of conscience within the party - become the touchstone of being a good Liberal that red lights should flash. It is when a moral agenda, rather than efficient, compassionate government, is the overriding obsession of politicians that alarm bells should ring. It is when people who don't fit into a prescribed box are seen as having no place in the Liberal Party that terms such as zealot and extremist are appropriate.
If even moderate Christians such as Ryan - let alone atheists - are to have no future in the Liberal Party, then that is an alarming development.
At the federal level, John Howard marginalised the economic wets, and enforced rigid unity on issues such as detention centres. But despite the efforts of Tony Abbott and his evangelical colleagues, Howard has not demanded fidelity to a conservative morals agenda. Reading the electorate well, he has allowed a diversity of views on abortion and stem cell research to co-exist within the party.
But the story is different in NSW. The MLC David Clarke, leader of a powerful group of Liberal arch-conservatives, is associated with Opus Dei, a controversial evangelical movement of the Catholic Church - "a co-operator of Opus Dei", he called himself in an interview with Radio National's Stephen Crittendon last year. Crittendon noted a crucifix on Clarke's parliamentary office desk, and a picture of the Virgin and Child on the wall, along with a photo of St Josemaria de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, and a commendation from the Croatian community.
In his maiden speech Clarke vowed to advocate Christian-based truths and values with "missionary zeal". Later he urged anti-abortionists to get themselves on the
party's preselection panels.
The Liberal Party has been a broad church, drawing the line at admitting avowed racists. But it has seen its primary business as running the country - or state - not as imposing a moral agenda. For all the inroads of the religious right into politics, they have not triumphed as have their US counterparts in inflicting their program on everything from sex education to foreign aid.
But now NSW Liberals who don't ascribe to the program are being forced out of the party. Those whose main concerns are taxes, the state economy, trains, hospitals, the usual business of government, are being sidelined, no matter how competent.
Alex Hawke, the right-wing national president of the Young Liberals who is on Clarke's staff, has said, "If people want to legalise drug injecting rooms, lower the age of consent, go with all these trendy things, this is not the party that believes in those things. We're not that broad." They could, Hawke said, "choose the Greens, Labor or Democrats".
Ryan voted in favour of the heroin injecting room trial, and, after consulting the Bible, in favour of lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. He said last year he did not believe the Liberal Party should be a vehicle for "propagating the gospel". Nor did he think that "simply because you're a Christian, therefore you have to have a conservative view about society".
Now he is being punished. He is under threat of being dumped altogether in coming preselections for the Legislative Council. At best, he is to be moved into a new
province where preselection rules are more difficult. His old area will be handed over to the moral conservative Charlie Lynn, Clarke's right-hand man, an MP who has
achieved little in a decade.
These are sad days indeed for NSW Liberals, and NSW citizens generally. The state badly needs an electable opposition.
Clarke aims to legislate morality
Clarke told me abortion is murder
By Paola Totaro and Robert Wainwright, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005
The upper house MP and Liberal Party powerbroker David Clarke has argued that women who undergo abortions should be punished under the criminal law as if they had committed murder, according to a former senior Liberal Party official.
Mr Clarke also suggested that given the Bible regards homosexuality as a sin, the law should reflect this, according to a statutory declaration signed by the official, who has also been a member of the Liberal Party for three decades.
According to the statement, the party member - who has been a candidate for a federal seat - had a lengthy telephone conversation with Mr Clarke in late February 2001.
"During this conversation David Clarke asked me several questions regarding my views on issues including homosexuality, abortion and assisted suicide," the
declaration states. "David Clarke in response to my answers, proffered his views on these topics."
"In relation to the issue of abortion David Clarke said words to the effect: 'As the foetus is a human being, isn't abortion the same as murder; murder is a criminal offence which deserves punishment by imprisonment. Surely women who have an abortion are committing murder and should also be punished accordingly.'
"In relation to the discussion on homosexuality, David Clarke said words to the effect: 'The Bible has made it very clear this is a sin, shouldn't our laws reflect this; it is a crime and should be treated as such.'
"My response to this was words to the effect ... 'We can't legislate morality."'
This week, Mr Clarke has insisted that he does not want homosexuality recriminalised. He has restated that he is pro-life and does not apologise for this.
The statutory declaration's author would have been happy to be identified but did not want their employer politicised.
The existence of the declaration has emerged at the same time as a 30-year-old secret list, published originally in the Herald in 1978, which detailed the political sympathies of more than 120 Liberal Party members of the time,
including the new kingmaker of NSW party politics, David Clarke.
The papers revealed the tactics used by far-right Liberal Party members to identify opponents and recruit supporters during a bitter internal factional war. A hand-written copy of the papers was archived in the State Library.
According to the article, the lists represented a system of reporting in code, known internally as UMI 4277, which detailed the political leanings of each party member. These were used by the far-right in the battle for control of party branches and the executive.
The lists provided a key to six symbols, placed beside names, which labelled members with words ranging from "inimicus" - hostile or harmful - to "IS", meaning inner
sanctum. The papers assessed that the far right group controlled "wholly or almost wholly" 25 branches and federal electorate conferences and had major influence in a
further 21, and "penetrated" another 21.
Yesterday, Mr Clarke remembered an "anonymous smear list which was put out, and was not authorised".
By Paola Totaro and Robert Wainwright, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005
The upper house MP and Liberal Party powerbroker David Clarke has argued that women who undergo abortions should be punished under the criminal law as if they had committed murder, according to a former senior Liberal Party official.
Mr Clarke also suggested that given the Bible regards homosexuality as a sin, the law should reflect this, according to a statutory declaration signed by the official, who has also been a member of the Liberal Party for three decades.
According to the statement, the party member - who has been a candidate for a federal seat - had a lengthy telephone conversation with Mr Clarke in late February 2001.
"During this conversation David Clarke asked me several questions regarding my views on issues including homosexuality, abortion and assisted suicide," the
declaration states. "David Clarke in response to my answers, proffered his views on these topics."
"In relation to the issue of abortion David Clarke said words to the effect: 'As the foetus is a human being, isn't abortion the same as murder; murder is a criminal offence which deserves punishment by imprisonment. Surely women who have an abortion are committing murder and should also be punished accordingly.'
"In relation to the discussion on homosexuality, David Clarke said words to the effect: 'The Bible has made it very clear this is a sin, shouldn't our laws reflect this; it is a crime and should be treated as such.'
"My response to this was words to the effect ... 'We can't legislate morality."'
This week, Mr Clarke has insisted that he does not want homosexuality recriminalised. He has restated that he is pro-life and does not apologise for this.
The statutory declaration's author would have been happy to be identified but did not want their employer politicised.
The existence of the declaration has emerged at the same time as a 30-year-old secret list, published originally in the Herald in 1978, which detailed the political sympathies of more than 120 Liberal Party members of the time,
including the new kingmaker of NSW party politics, David Clarke.
The papers revealed the tactics used by far-right Liberal Party members to identify opponents and recruit supporters during a bitter internal factional war. A hand-written copy of the papers was archived in the State Library.
According to the article, the lists represented a system of reporting in code, known internally as UMI 4277, which detailed the political leanings of each party member. These were used by the far-right in the battle for control of party branches and the executive.
The lists provided a key to six symbols, placed beside names, which labelled members with words ranging from "inimicus" - hostile or harmful - to "IS", meaning inner
sanctum. The papers assessed that the far right group controlled "wholly or almost wholly" 25 branches and federal electorate conferences and had major influence in a
further 21, and "penetrated" another 21.
Yesterday, Mr Clarke remembered an "anonymous smear list which was put out, and was not authorised".
Bullying
This week's Insight (SBS) program had me fighting back a lot of emotion and at one stage I had tears in my eyes. The topic: bullying, and the increasing use of technology as the bully's weapon of choice.
Several important points stuck in my mind from this episode, not only because I was subjected to bullying for many years, but also because I am mindful of the risk that my own child may be bullied or that she could bully others. I don't say that lightly, after all no parent would expect their child to be a bully, but I remind myself that most bullies will go home after school and those hurtful characteristics may never be seen until the beginning of the next school day.
What incensed me most during this episode of Insight, was the presence of some teenagers (two boys in particular) who admitted, sometimes jovially, to bullying other kids.
TIM PAPANICOLAOU and RHYS PUCHAR (corrected spelling 16 Jan 2014) just didn't seem to get "it" - that bullying, no matter in the form, timeframe, context or intention, is just plain and simple bullying .. and it is WRONG! These kids (they have a long way to go before they are mature enough to be called adults) made comments like:
As if that defence hasn't been used a thousand times in rape and assault cases! This is a neanderthal mentality and I expect it came from neanderthal parents.
These two morons also attempt to justify their perverse behaviour by claiming that it is only words and someone would have to be pretty thin-skinned for it to affect them badly.
The most shocking point of the forum (and when I cried) was an interview with a 10yo boy who had attempted suicide after months of torment. Prior to showing this clip the boys had made comments suggesting that it isn't as serious as people are claiming, and that no-one really gets to the stage of taking their own life:
Blaming the victim again! It is their own fault if they react badly to taunts and abuse! Hello??? Anyone home?
Perhaps the crux of the matter was highlighted when a member of the audience asked the boys .. "but why should you bully in the first place?". Rhys answered with "I don't know. I think just for entertainment. I don't know, I think it's just a male thing, I just think it's a human thing actually."
What sad little beings these boys are, getting kicks from beating their chest and filling the air with their testosterone! And what do their parents think of this? I would have liked their parents interviewed to see whether the acts of bullying were promoted or supported by the family environment or just their peers at school.
Unfortunately the Insight program always runs out of time just as the participants are getting into the meaty heart of the matter. This episode was no different and there should have been more emphasis on dientifying the root causes of bullying.
The producers could have easily ignored the attendance of Akmal Saleh (Comedian) who admitted he had no idea of why he was there, having had no personal experience of bullying and simply suggested that victims could overcome bullying by "finding humour and not showing that you're upset".
If he intended to make a joke of the topic he almost succeeded, if not for the serious approach of other participants. Poor form Saleh .. and shame on the producers for inviting him. What on earth were they thinking?
Several important points stuck in my mind from this episode, not only because I was subjected to bullying for many years, but also because I am mindful of the risk that my own child may be bullied or that she could bully others. I don't say that lightly, after all no parent would expect their child to be a bully, but I remind myself that most bullies will go home after school and those hurtful characteristics may never be seen until the beginning of the next school day.
What incensed me most during this episode of Insight, was the presence of some teenagers (two boys in particular) who admitted, sometimes jovially, to bullying other kids.
TIM PAPANICOLAOU and RHYS PUCHAR (corrected spelling 16 Jan 2014) just didn't seem to get "it" - that bullying, no matter in the form, timeframe, context or intention, is just plain and simple bullying .. and it is WRONG! These kids (they have a long way to go before they are mature enough to be called adults) made comments like:
"Is not how they dress and act provoking the bullying? Because I see that a lot. Lots of...how girls dress, it can provoke bullying from her peers."
"Yeah, that sort of attention, they bring it on themselves sometimes. And you might not see it that way but like when they're walking around the way they do, it's pretty obvious to like everyone else at school."
As if that defence hasn't been used a thousand times in rape and assault cases! This is a neanderthal mentality and I expect it came from neanderthal parents.
These two morons also attempt to justify their perverse behaviour by claiming that it is only words and someone would have to be pretty thin-skinned for it to affect them badly.
"If they mean like nothing to you why would you take offence to what they say to you?"
"We went to one of the biggest schools in WA, and you get what you take and you give a bit out as well, you know."
The most shocking point of the forum (and when I cried) was an interview with a 10yo boy who had attempted suicide after months of torment. Prior to showing this clip the boys had made comments suggesting that it isn't as serious as people are claiming, and that no-one really gets to the stage of taking their own life:
"I've never seen a case of a kid actually going over the top to be like really depressed about it."
"Yeah, but then they've got to have emotional problems on another level as well. How can you be bullied to the extent..."
Blaming the victim again! It is their own fault if they react badly to taunts and abuse! Hello??? Anyone home?
Perhaps the crux of the matter was highlighted when a member of the audience asked the boys .. "but why should you bully in the first place?". Rhys answered with "I don't know. I think just for entertainment. I don't know, I think it's just a male thing, I just think it's a human thing actually."
What sad little beings these boys are, getting kicks from beating their chest and filling the air with their testosterone! And what do their parents think of this? I would have liked their parents interviewed to see whether the acts of bullying were promoted or supported by the family environment or just their peers at school.
Unfortunately the Insight program always runs out of time just as the participants are getting into the meaty heart of the matter. This episode was no different and there should have been more emphasis on dientifying the root causes of bullying.
The producers could have easily ignored the attendance of Akmal Saleh (Comedian) who admitted he had no idea of why he was there, having had no personal experience of bullying and simply suggested that victims could overcome bullying by "finding humour and not showing that you're upset".
If he intended to make a joke of the topic he almost succeeded, if not for the serious approach of other participants. Poor form Saleh .. and shame on the producers for inviting him. What on earth were they thinking?
Aussie demagogue
Word of the Day ...
demagogue \DEM-uh-gog\, noun:
1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.
John Howard may not have gained the Prime Ministership by being a demagogue in the 1996 election, but he has certainly acquired and eloquently used such a status to win successive elections. He continues to use emotions and prejudices to erode the civil liberties of Australian citizens; reinforce his position of leadership by lying to the populace; and otherwise manipulate world events to support his cause.
Has Australia ever witnessed a greater demagogue than John Winston Howard?
demagogue \DEM-uh-gog\, noun:
1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.
A consummate demagogue, McCarthy played upon cold war emotions and made charges so fantastic that frightened people believed the worst.
--Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy
Even when he showed his true colors as a demagogue and trickster, Stalin did so in such a crisp and weighty, confidence-inspiring manner that he bewitched not only his conversational partner but himself as well.
--Milovan Djilas, Fall of the New Class
John Howard may not have gained the Prime Ministership by being a demagogue in the 1996 election, but he has certainly acquired and eloquently used such a status to win successive elections. He continues to use emotions and prejudices to erode the civil liberties of Australian citizens; reinforce his position of leadership by lying to the populace; and otherwise manipulate world events to support his cause.
Has Australia ever witnessed a greater demagogue than John Winston Howard?
AOG talks GAY
Assemblies of God in gay talks
By Lyndon Barnett
Sydney Star Observer, Issue 781, Published 9/08/2005
IN A LANDMARK MOVE, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE PENTACOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD.
The National Executive of the Assemblies of God (AOG) has agreed to discuss homosexuality with Anthony Venn-Brown, the first openly gay member of the Australian Pentecostal church.
This unprecedented meeting could be a positive step forward for church relations with the gay and lesbian community. The AOG is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia containing a number of mega churches, including the high-profile Hillsong in Sydney.
The current belief within the AOG is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is impossible to be both homosexual and a Christian. Homosexuality is considered a lifestyle choice or the result of a dysfunctional childhood.
"It is my aim through intelligent and respectful dialogue to change the misconceptions within the AOG regarding homosexuality. Whilst it's rare to hear gays or lesbians castigated from the pulpit, I am challenging the traditional church doctrines," Venn-Brown said.
Venn-Brown is a former leader with the Assemblies of God who resigned very publicly in 1992. He has subsequently written his autobiography, A Life of Unlearning, detailing his 22 years living a closeted life within the Pentecostal church.
Brian Houston, National President of the AOG and senior pastor of Hillsong, commented to Venn-Brown upon accepting the invitation: "I'm sure you are aware that we are still a long way apart philosophically, but we will give you a fair hearing."
Venn-Brown believes this dialogue demonstrates that views are slowly changing.
"Such an invitation would not have happened 10 years ago," he said.
He hopes the meeting will lead to the establishment of a committee consisting of some executive members of the AOG, a psychologist, a theologian and himself.
"I believe it will be important for the committee to look at sexual orientation from a scientific, psychological as well as a theological basis. I hope to discuss the six verses from Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians which are most commonly used to justify an anti-homosexual stance," Venn-Brown said.
"These verses have an historical and cultural context that needs to be explored. Also the translation from the original ancient languages can lead to misinterpretation.
"I believe understanding and acceptance of homosexuality within the AOG will take some time. We'll know the journey is over when an openly gay man or lesbian is ordained," he said.
"But Mr Houston and the AOG should be commended for accepting my invitation to meet when other denominations such as the Catholic Church have completely closed the door to any discussion," Venn-Brown said.
Other local religious groups are also involved in dialogue with gay and lesbian members.
Rabbis from Reform synagogues meet twice a year to discuss Jewish policy. These rabbis have been discussing gay and lesbian issues throughout the past decade.
The Sydney Jewish gay and lesbian support group, Dayenu made a presentation to the rabbis in 2000 to open a debate on same-sex marriage. Judy Kell, one of the presenters, said the rabbis felt the members needed further education before the Jewish community would accept same-sex ceremonies.
Members of Dayenu believe the rabbis may soon agree to same-sex unions. The next meeting is scheduled for November this year.
Rabbi Fred Morgan of Melbourne's Temple Beth Israel told the Star he was committed to the dialogue.
"We are committed to further study and learning in this area [same-sex marriage], and we regularly revisit the issue at our biannual meetings," he said.
Although the Roman Catholic Church is known for its outspoken views on homosexuality, the United Ecumenical Catholic Church (ECC) is a contemporary Catholic church supporting the gay and lesbian community.
"We worship in the same fashion as Rome, without the restrictions that come from Rome," EEC Archbishop Ron Langham said.
There is, however, no dialogue between the ECC and traditional Catholic leaders.
"We are not interested in getting into a bun fight with other churches over their beliefs. We respect other's rights to believe," Bishop Langham said.
By Lyndon Barnett
Sydney Star Observer, Issue 781, Published 9/08/2005
IN A LANDMARK MOVE, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE PENTACOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD.
The National Executive of the Assemblies of God (AOG) has agreed to discuss homosexuality with Anthony Venn-Brown, the first openly gay member of the Australian Pentecostal church.
This unprecedented meeting could be a positive step forward for church relations with the gay and lesbian community. The AOG is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia containing a number of mega churches, including the high-profile Hillsong in Sydney.
The current belief within the AOG is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is impossible to be both homosexual and a Christian. Homosexuality is considered a lifestyle choice or the result of a dysfunctional childhood.
"It is my aim through intelligent and respectful dialogue to change the misconceptions within the AOG regarding homosexuality. Whilst it's rare to hear gays or lesbians castigated from the pulpit, I am challenging the traditional church doctrines," Venn-Brown said.
Venn-Brown is a former leader with the Assemblies of God who resigned very publicly in 1992. He has subsequently written his autobiography, A Life of Unlearning, detailing his 22 years living a closeted life within the Pentecostal church.
Brian Houston, National President of the AOG and senior pastor of Hillsong, commented to Venn-Brown upon accepting the invitation: "I'm sure you are aware that we are still a long way apart philosophically, but we will give you a fair hearing."
Venn-Brown believes this dialogue demonstrates that views are slowly changing.
"Such an invitation would not have happened 10 years ago," he said.
He hopes the meeting will lead to the establishment of a committee consisting of some executive members of the AOG, a psychologist, a theologian and himself.
"I believe it will be important for the committee to look at sexual orientation from a scientific, psychological as well as a theological basis. I hope to discuss the six verses from Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians which are most commonly used to justify an anti-homosexual stance," Venn-Brown said.
"These verses have an historical and cultural context that needs to be explored. Also the translation from the original ancient languages can lead to misinterpretation.
"I believe understanding and acceptance of homosexuality within the AOG will take some time. We'll know the journey is over when an openly gay man or lesbian is ordained," he said.
"But Mr Houston and the AOG should be commended for accepting my invitation to meet when other denominations such as the Catholic Church have completely closed the door to any discussion," Venn-Brown said.
Other local religious groups are also involved in dialogue with gay and lesbian members.
Rabbis from Reform synagogues meet twice a year to discuss Jewish policy. These rabbis have been discussing gay and lesbian issues throughout the past decade.
The Sydney Jewish gay and lesbian support group, Dayenu made a presentation to the rabbis in 2000 to open a debate on same-sex marriage. Judy Kell, one of the presenters, said the rabbis felt the members needed further education before the Jewish community would accept same-sex ceremonies.
Members of Dayenu believe the rabbis may soon agree to same-sex unions. The next meeting is scheduled for November this year.
Rabbi Fred Morgan of Melbourne's Temple Beth Israel told the Star he was committed to the dialogue.
"We are committed to further study and learning in this area [same-sex marriage], and we regularly revisit the issue at our biannual meetings," he said.
Although the Roman Catholic Church is known for its outspoken views on homosexuality, the United Ecumenical Catholic Church (ECC) is a contemporary Catholic church supporting the gay and lesbian community.
"We worship in the same fashion as Rome, without the restrictions that come from Rome," EEC Archbishop Ron Langham said.
There is, however, no dialogue between the ECC and traditional Catholic leaders.
"We are not interested in getting into a bun fight with other churches over their beliefs. We respect other's rights to believe," Bishop Langham said.
Gympie backlash
City’s image damaged
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie
COOLOOLA Shire Councillors are not the only ones to take offence at Cr Owen’s claims that homosexuals are less than human and have only the right to die.
Yesterday’s weekly council meeting formally received two protest letters on what their authors called Cr Owen’s “disturbing and hateful comments” and “grubby views not welcome in this day and age”.
Meagan Probert wrote from Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley to urge Mayor Mick Venardos to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commission “on behalf of all the lesbian, gay and bisexual people within your local council area”.
Rosalie Morgan, of The Palms, said Cr Owen’s expressed opinions were “a disgrace, absolutely ignorant, dark and vile”.
Also unimpressed with the “no comment” attitude of some other councillors, Ms Morgan asked: “What right has this yokel to air his regressed views on anyone?
“Can you imagine the impression this tirade has done for Gympie’s image?
“How dare this person ignite such hate?
“We as ratepayers pay your wages and expect council to get on with the business of taking care of this region – not casting themselves as Moral Avengers, barging behind closed bedroom doors.
“Get over yourself councillor,” she wrote.
Ms Probert said Cr Owen’s comments “would be considered an act of vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 2003.
“His comments are very hurtful and would cause great distress to any gay person, their friends or family members.
“As the Mayor, I believe you have responsibility to take leadership to stamp out homophobia within your community.
“Another step would be to write to The Gympie Times condemning the words and actions of Ron Owen and assuring the gay people of the Cooloola Shire that they are valued and equal members of the community and that it is not acceptable that an elected representative on the council holds these views and expresses them publicly.
“I also call on you to ask for the resignation of Ron Owen in response to his unlawful vilification of gay and lesbian people and ask for him to stand down from his position as there is no room in this society for such hateful people.”
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie
COOLOOLA Shire Councillors are not the only ones to take offence at Cr Owen’s claims that homosexuals are less than human and have only the right to die.
Yesterday’s weekly council meeting formally received two protest letters on what their authors called Cr Owen’s “disturbing and hateful comments” and “grubby views not welcome in this day and age”.
Meagan Probert wrote from Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley to urge Mayor Mick Venardos to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commission “on behalf of all the lesbian, gay and bisexual people within your local council area”.
Rosalie Morgan, of The Palms, said Cr Owen’s expressed opinions were “a disgrace, absolutely ignorant, dark and vile”.
Also unimpressed with the “no comment” attitude of some other councillors, Ms Morgan asked: “What right has this yokel to air his regressed views on anyone?
“Can you imagine the impression this tirade has done for Gympie’s image?
“How dare this person ignite such hate?
“We as ratepayers pay your wages and expect council to get on with the business of taking care of this region – not casting themselves as Moral Avengers, barging behind closed bedroom doors.
“Get over yourself councillor,” she wrote.
Ms Probert said Cr Owen’s comments “would be considered an act of vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 2003.
“His comments are very hurtful and would cause great distress to any gay person, their friends or family members.
“As the Mayor, I believe you have responsibility to take leadership to stamp out homophobia within your community.
“Another step would be to write to The Gympie Times condemning the words and actions of Ron Owen and assuring the gay people of the Cooloola Shire that they are valued and equal members of the community and that it is not acceptable that an elected representative on the council holds these views and expresses them publicly.
“I also call on you to ask for the resignation of Ron Owen in response to his unlawful vilification of gay and lesbian people and ask for him to stand down from his position as there is no room in this society for such hateful people.”
Anti-gay Gympie Goon
Owen ‘on his own’ on gays
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie
RON Owen was on his own at yesterday’s weekly council meeting, quoting ancient scripture to condemn homosexuality.
He referred to Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which rails against male homosexuality, commands the faithful to wash their hands before eating, instructs on how to make a proper sacrifice (including preparation of the burnt offering), bans all statues and recommends death by stoning for anyone who swears.
Silenced several times as he tried to expand on his views, Cr Owen also was blocked from reading a prayer in which it was claimed that legislators had “ridiculed the word of God and called it pluralism”.
Councillors backed away from a motion by Mayor Mick Venardos to refer Cr Owen’s remarks to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission, but adopted one to disassociate council from the comments.
Cr Owen made headlines last month with his claims that gays are not human and have only the right to die.
Unrepentent yesterday, he said he had been telling the truth about his views and stood by them.
He claimed the support of ancient texts underlying Christianity, saying the same
religious laws had supported Judaism for 3500 years and applied within Islam.
Supported by Cr Bill McIntyre, Mayor Mick Venardos told the meeting that Cr Owen’s remarks were so offensive they should be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
Cr Owen responded: “If you don’t stand for something, you fall for everything.
“I presume I am at liberty to complain also,” he said.
“Do we throw away the Christian philosophy that has enlightened continents from tribalism to modern civilisation?
“Do we condemn the Torah, which has sustained the Jewish religion for 3500 years?
“Do we denounce the Koran which informs the Muslim faith? “If I am to be condemned for the crime of telling the truth then I am guilty,” he said.
Accusing Cr Owen of selective quoting, Cr Ian Petersen referred to an anonymous scholar who said: “The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his advantage.”
Calling Cr Owen’s opinions “jaundiced and intolerant,” he said: “This raving brings council into disrepute.
“I’m not about to sit here and be smote about the head by scripture,” he said.
Cr Wayne Sachs short-circuited the complaint motion, persuading several councillors that this was not a necessary part of council disassociating itself from Cr Owen’s views.
“We should move on. This does not have to go anywhere,” he said.
Cr Petersen said he took that point but thought the authors of two protest letters to the council probably would make complaints.
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie
RON Owen was on his own at yesterday’s weekly council meeting, quoting ancient scripture to condemn homosexuality.
He referred to Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which rails against male homosexuality, commands the faithful to wash their hands before eating, instructs on how to make a proper sacrifice (including preparation of the burnt offering), bans all statues and recommends death by stoning for anyone who swears.
Silenced several times as he tried to expand on his views, Cr Owen also was blocked from reading a prayer in which it was claimed that legislators had “ridiculed the word of God and called it pluralism”.
Councillors backed away from a motion by Mayor Mick Venardos to refer Cr Owen’s remarks to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission, but adopted one to disassociate council from the comments.
Cr Owen made headlines last month with his claims that gays are not human and have only the right to die.
Unrepentent yesterday, he said he had been telling the truth about his views and stood by them.
He claimed the support of ancient texts underlying Christianity, saying the same
religious laws had supported Judaism for 3500 years and applied within Islam.
Supported by Cr Bill McIntyre, Mayor Mick Venardos told the meeting that Cr Owen’s remarks were so offensive they should be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
Cr Owen responded: “If you don’t stand for something, you fall for everything.
“I presume I am at liberty to complain also,” he said.
“Do we throw away the Christian philosophy that has enlightened continents from tribalism to modern civilisation?
“Do we condemn the Torah, which has sustained the Jewish religion for 3500 years?
“Do we denounce the Koran which informs the Muslim faith? “If I am to be condemned for the crime of telling the truth then I am guilty,” he said.
Accusing Cr Owen of selective quoting, Cr Ian Petersen referred to an anonymous scholar who said: “The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his advantage.”
Calling Cr Owen’s opinions “jaundiced and intolerant,” he said: “This raving brings council into disrepute.
“I’m not about to sit here and be smote about the head by scripture,” he said.
Cr Wayne Sachs short-circuited the complaint motion, persuading several councillors that this was not a necessary part of council disassociating itself from Cr Owen’s views.
“We should move on. This does not have to go anywhere,” he said.
Cr Petersen said he took that point but thought the authors of two protest letters to the council probably would make complaints.
David Clarke on the backfoot
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
LATELINE TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast: 05/09/2005
Clarke denies denigrating Jews, homosexuals
Reporter: Tom Iggulden
TONY JONES: Tony Abbott's comments and subsequent apology are just the latest events in a row which has engulfed the NSW Liberal Party. John Brogden's political demise revealed divisions and disunity and claims that a far-right wing, religious faction was engaged in a bitter battle for control. The man said to be at the centre of that conservative push is David Clarke. Tom Iggulden reports.
TOM IGGULDEN: This was David Clarke, the suburban solicitor, in the late 1970s, posing at a function for the Liberal Party's ethnic council with this man, Ljenko Urbancic. And this is Mr Urbancic in 1986, admitting to the ABC's 'Four Corners' of his involvement with Leon Rupnik, the World War II Slovenian Nazi General.
LJENKO URBANCIC: I did follow Rupnik and I thought it was correct thing to do at that particular time.
TOM IGGULDEN: These pictures are from last year's inaugural meeting of the Bankstown branch of the Liberal Party, attended by David Clarke after his election to the NSW parliament. Police were called when the meeting decended into fisticuffs after conservative Liberal followers of Mr Clarke clashed with moderate party members, who had accused them of branch stacking. And when moderate Liberal John Brogden quit as leader, he made no secret that he held a senior staff member in David Clarke's office responsible.
JOHN BROGDEN, FORMER NSW LIBERAL PARTY LEADER: The federal president of the Young Liberal movement, Alex Hawke, has been named as pushing it. He needs to take a long, hard look at himself.
TOM IGGULDEN: Now there's new claims by a former Liberal Party colleague who's told Lateline that Mr Clarke proposed exploiting Muslim sentiments about Jewish people and homosexuals to recruit Labor-voting Muslims to the Liberal Party.
IRFAN YUSUF, FORMER LIBERAL PARTY MEMBER: I guess in my case, or in the cases that he could side with Islamics, he sort of presumed that, "Oh, well. If you want to get the Arabs in or the Muslims in, then you just tell them that the Howard Government -" or that he in particular, or the people that he is associated with, perhaps -
"weren't all that fond of people of Jewish background."
TOM IGGULDEN: Tonight, Mr Clarke released a statement to Lateline declaring: "I first met Mr Irfan Yusuf a number of years ago when he was a member of the Liberal Party. He has sinced parted company with the Liberal Party and for some years has been running an escalating campaign of denigration against the party and in particular against myself. I categorically deny making derogatory remarks to him about Jews and homosexuals, or encouraging him to sign up Labor Party members as member of the Liberal Party. His allegations are outrageous lies.
TOM IGGULDEN: Mr Clarke's activities have made enemies among current colleagues.
PATRICIA FORSYTH, NSW MLA: When I talk of extremism and I talk of zealots, I'm talking about a group of people who in my view seem to lack a focus on normal, human decency.
TOM IGGULDEN: But Mr Clarke, a member of the catholic sect Opus Dei, has some high-profile supporters.
TONY ABBOTT, HEALTH MINISTER: There is nothing wrong with the NSW Upper House member David Clarke simply because he goes to church on Sunday and simply because he shares some views not uncommon among some decent members of the political party sitting opposite me now.
TOM IGGULDEN: But former federal Liberal leader John Hewson says that claim by Tony Abbott has a dangerous precedent.
JOHN HEWSON, FORMER LIBERAL LEADER: No, they said the same thing about Pauline Hanson.
TOM IGGULDEN: And Dr Hewson says the religious right is a growing influence in the NSW Liberal party. Tom Iggulden, Lateline.
LATELINE TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast: 05/09/2005
Clarke denies denigrating Jews, homosexuals
Reporter: Tom Iggulden
TONY JONES: Tony Abbott's comments and subsequent apology are just the latest events in a row which has engulfed the NSW Liberal Party. John Brogden's political demise revealed divisions and disunity and claims that a far-right wing, religious faction was engaged in a bitter battle for control. The man said to be at the centre of that conservative push is David Clarke. Tom Iggulden reports.
TOM IGGULDEN: This was David Clarke, the suburban solicitor, in the late 1970s, posing at a function for the Liberal Party's ethnic council with this man, Ljenko Urbancic. And this is Mr Urbancic in 1986, admitting to the ABC's 'Four Corners' of his involvement with Leon Rupnik, the World War II Slovenian Nazi General.
LJENKO URBANCIC: I did follow Rupnik and I thought it was correct thing to do at that particular time.
TOM IGGULDEN: These pictures are from last year's inaugural meeting of the Bankstown branch of the Liberal Party, attended by David Clarke after his election to the NSW parliament. Police were called when the meeting decended into fisticuffs after conservative Liberal followers of Mr Clarke clashed with moderate party members, who had accused them of branch stacking. And when moderate Liberal John Brogden quit as leader, he made no secret that he held a senior staff member in David Clarke's office responsible.
JOHN BROGDEN, FORMER NSW LIBERAL PARTY LEADER: The federal president of the Young Liberal movement, Alex Hawke, has been named as pushing it. He needs to take a long, hard look at himself.
TOM IGGULDEN: Now there's new claims by a former Liberal Party colleague who's told Lateline that Mr Clarke proposed exploiting Muslim sentiments about Jewish people and homosexuals to recruit Labor-voting Muslims to the Liberal Party.
IRFAN YUSUF, FORMER LIBERAL PARTY MEMBER: I guess in my case, or in the cases that he could side with Islamics, he sort of presumed that, "Oh, well. If you want to get the Arabs in or the Muslims in, then you just tell them that the Howard Government -" or that he in particular, or the people that he is associated with, perhaps -
"weren't all that fond of people of Jewish background."
TOM IGGULDEN: Tonight, Mr Clarke released a statement to Lateline declaring: "I first met Mr Irfan Yusuf a number of years ago when he was a member of the Liberal Party. He has sinced parted company with the Liberal Party and for some years has been running an escalating campaign of denigration against the party and in particular against myself. I categorically deny making derogatory remarks to him about Jews and homosexuals, or encouraging him to sign up Labor Party members as member of the Liberal Party. His allegations are outrageous lies.
TOM IGGULDEN: Mr Clarke's activities have made enemies among current colleagues.
PATRICIA FORSYTH, NSW MLA: When I talk of extremism and I talk of zealots, I'm talking about a group of people who in my view seem to lack a focus on normal, human decency.
TOM IGGULDEN: But Mr Clarke, a member of the catholic sect Opus Dei, has some high-profile supporters.
TONY ABBOTT, HEALTH MINISTER: There is nothing wrong with the NSW Upper House member David Clarke simply because he goes to church on Sunday and simply because he shares some views not uncommon among some decent members of the political party sitting opposite me now.
TOM IGGULDEN: But former federal Liberal leader John Hewson says that claim by Tony Abbott has a dangerous precedent.
JOHN HEWSON, FORMER LIBERAL LEADER: No, they said the same thing about Pauline Hanson.
TOM IGGULDEN: And Dr Hewson says the religious right is a growing influence in the NSW Liberal party. Tom Iggulden, Lateline.
Connecting the dots
Be prepared for some serious digging around the NSW Liberal Party as further rumour and evidence comes to light. It seems the media have a whiff of something big and they are salivating at the smell.
In their sights are David Clarke MLC, headkicker in the religious right and member of the uber-conservative Opus Dei Catholic sect, and his staffer Alex Hawke, who is also President of the Federal Young Liberals as well as an insider among the rising power of the evangelical Hillsong Church enterprise.
The ABC revealed some details on Stateline last week and its Religion Report has repeated an interview with David Clarke from 2004. Another enlightened view comes from opponents in Western Sydney.
In their sights are David Clarke MLC, headkicker in the religious right and member of the uber-conservative Opus Dei Catholic sect, and his staffer Alex Hawke, who is also President of the Federal Young Liberals as well as an insider among the rising power of the evangelical Hillsong Church enterprise.
The ABC revealed some details on Stateline last week and its Religion Report has repeated an interview with David Clarke from 2004. Another enlightened view comes from opponents in Western Sydney.
caveat civis
Further to my recent focus on Fred Phelps, the NSW Liberal Party and other Christian terrorists, I now draw your attention to the formation of Australia's first Islamic political party, The Best Party of Allah in Australia.
According to The Australian the party founder, Kurt Kennedy, believes that "all Australians should be living under Islamic law dictated by the Koran" and that we have nothing to fear because "The positive part of sharia law is (about) treating everybody fairly".
All well and good ... IF equality is the foundation stone. Unfortunately it may not be that simple - nor is it right and just!
Despite the spin, Islamic values are NOT exactly the same as those of any other religion, though they are more similar to Jewish or Christian beliefs than either of those religions would care to admit. As such, it is incomprehensible that a nation, especially Australia, should have to base its laws upon any one religion, even Christianity.
Islam, like any other religion (including Christianity) or political ideology, is subject to interpretation as well as the external forces that are invoked when trying to apply theory to a practical world. Communism is a great theory (true equality), but in practice it is unworkable and unjust. Capitalism is equally problematic.
Orwell's masterpiece, Animal Farm, suitably depicts how the forces of power, greed, discrimination and social politicisation of a community evolves from a genuine intent to provide equality, be it from a progressive or conservative perspective.
Evolutionary theory (the survival of the fittest) dictates that it is against our nature to believe anything other than that "some are more equal than others". If we add to these murky waters the widespread indoctrination that must naturally follow any implementation of a state-endorsed religion, then we will encounter a firestorm of fear and bigotry not unlike that seen in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, and the Crusades era in the Middle East.
Religion and politics are a chaotic mix, just as the suppression of religion in particular nations also breeds unnecessary suffering and malcontent. The separation of state and church is not only a cornerstone of democracy, it is the most fundamental of all human rights - the right to exist as an individual, with thoughts, actions and values of one's own choosing.
I don't deny the right of Kennedy and his supporters to establish an Islamic-based political party, and I have said as much previously on this blog here and here, but I cannot support the intent to establish any form of theocracy, whether it be Christian, Moslem or otherwise. I will also be the first one to stand up to oppose the possible election of any representative from such a group.
The Theocracy Alert - Early warning System is suitably on Orange status, the second highest rating.
[+/-] show/hide this post
According to The Australian the party founder, Kurt Kennedy, believes that "all Australians should be living under Islamic law dictated by the Koran" and that we have nothing to fear because "The positive part of sharia law is (about) treating everybody fairly".
All well and good ... IF equality is the foundation stone. Unfortunately it may not be that simple - nor is it right and just!
Despite the spin, Islamic values are NOT exactly the same as those of any other religion, though they are more similar to Jewish or Christian beliefs than either of those religions would care to admit. As such, it is incomprehensible that a nation, especially Australia, should have to base its laws upon any one religion, even Christianity.
Islam, like any other religion (including Christianity) or political ideology, is subject to interpretation as well as the external forces that are invoked when trying to apply theory to a practical world. Communism is a great theory (true equality), but in practice it is unworkable and unjust. Capitalism is equally problematic.
Orwell's masterpiece, Animal Farm, suitably depicts how the forces of power, greed, discrimination and social politicisation of a community evolves from a genuine intent to provide equality, be it from a progressive or conservative perspective.
Evolutionary theory (the survival of the fittest) dictates that it is against our nature to believe anything other than that "some are more equal than others". If we add to these murky waters the widespread indoctrination that must naturally follow any implementation of a state-endorsed religion, then we will encounter a firestorm of fear and bigotry not unlike that seen in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, and the Crusades era in the Middle East.
Religion and politics are a chaotic mix, just as the suppression of religion in particular nations also breeds unnecessary suffering and malcontent. The separation of state and church is not only a cornerstone of democracy, it is the most fundamental of all human rights - the right to exist as an individual, with thoughts, actions and values of one's own choosing.
I don't deny the right of Kennedy and his supporters to establish an Islamic-based political party, and I have said as much previously on this blog here and here, but I cannot support the intent to establish any form of theocracy, whether it be Christian, Moslem or otherwise. I will also be the first one to stand up to oppose the possible election of any representative from such a group.
The Theocracy Alert - Early warning System is suitably on Orange status, the second highest rating.
[+/-] show/hide this post
The Fred Phelps Conspiracy
I shouldn't have let last week go by without some reference to the antics of Fred Phelps.
If you missed it in the news the "loving" pastor who launched literary creations like www.godhatesfags.com and www.godhatesamerica.com has protested at the funerals of US servicemen killed in Iraq, claiming that it is God's punishment for the nation's hedonistic support of homosexuality.
And if that wasn't enough, Phelps is off to Sweden (his land of birth) to track down the monarch, King Carl Gustaf, and give him a piece of his mind over that country's servitude to the homosexual lifestyle, even claiming that the King is gay! And .. yes! There is now a www.godhatessweden.com website too.
Spot the recurring theme? I sure wish he'd take a one way ticket to Baghdad!
Well, not to be outdone by Phelps, a slightly less certifiable Christian antagonist is now claiming that Pope Fred may actually be a gay plant whose aim is to unfairly stereotype opponents of gay rights as hateful people.
O.K. ... ummm ... right!!! ... and the Ku Klux Klan is headed by Rev Jesse Jackson in order to highlight the issues of racism in the USA. haha.
If you missed it in the news the "loving" pastor who launched literary creations like www.godhatesfags.com and www.godhatesamerica.com has protested at the funerals of US servicemen killed in Iraq, claiming that it is God's punishment for the nation's hedonistic support of homosexuality.
And if that wasn't enough, Phelps is off to Sweden (his land of birth) to track down the monarch, King Carl Gustaf, and give him a piece of his mind over that country's servitude to the homosexual lifestyle, even claiming that the King is gay! And .. yes! There is now a www.godhatessweden.com website too.
Spot the recurring theme? I sure wish he'd take a one way ticket to Baghdad!
Well, not to be outdone by Phelps, a slightly less certifiable Christian antagonist is now claiming that Pope Fred may actually be a gay plant whose aim is to unfairly stereotype opponents of gay rights as hateful people.
O.K. ... ummm ... right!!! ... and the Ku Klux Klan is headed by Rev Jesse Jackson in order to highlight the issues of racism in the USA. haha.
The Brogden Code
The deeper one digs, the more it seems that the Brogden affair is a carefully planned strategic manouvre by the lowest life-forms in Australian politics. The story is slowly unravelling as a bizarre tale of sex, religion and power worthy of a Dan Brown novel.
The secretive Catholic sect Opus Dei, a favourite scapegoat of Brown's, is now part of the twisted plot leading up to the resignation and self-harm of former NSW Liberal leader, John Brogden. According to Alex Mitchell in the Sun-Herald:
And while it seemed that O'Farrell was counting his chickens before they hatched, it was the religious right that swooped in to make a meal of the deal.
Peter Debnam's succession will, no doubt, come at a cost to the NSW Liberal Party, whose members must now be in a state of fervent back-watching. Add to this climate a growing desire to ruthlessly gather intel on colleagues and opponents and it could fuel a messy backlash against the religious fundy-cons.
The NSW Liberals could be headed for nuclear meltdown if Debnam's leadership is not allowed to cool party divisions and temper the fundy-cons bolemic-like hunger for power.
Not that I'm supporting anyone in the Liberal Party, but there's no sense in hiding the fact that I would enjoy seeing the religious right be the cause of their own downfall. And Victoria seems to be heading in a similar direction.
The champagne is on ice ... the popcorn is on the shopping list ... and the Theocracy Alert is raised to orange once again :-)
[+/-] show/hide this post
The secretive Catholic sect Opus Dei, a favourite scapegoat of Brown's, is now part of the twisted plot leading up to the resignation and self-harm of former NSW Liberal leader, John Brogden. According to Alex Mitchell in the Sun-Herald:
"[Brogden's] public execution was conducted by a coalition of powerful interests from the hard right of the Liberal Party and Catholic right-wingers aligned to the Opus Dei network to sections of the media."
And while it seemed that O'Farrell was counting his chickens before they hatched, it was the religious right that swooped in to make a meal of the deal.
Peter Debnam's succession will, no doubt, come at a cost to the NSW Liberal Party, whose members must now be in a state of fervent back-watching. Add to this climate a growing desire to ruthlessly gather intel on colleagues and opponents and it could fuel a messy backlash against the religious fundy-cons.
The NSW Liberals could be headed for nuclear meltdown if Debnam's leadership is not allowed to cool party divisions and temper the fundy-cons bolemic-like hunger for power.
Not that I'm supporting anyone in the Liberal Party, but there's no sense in hiding the fact that I would enjoy seeing the religious right be the cause of their own downfall. And Victoria seems to be heading in a similar direction.
The champagne is on ice ... the popcorn is on the shopping list ... and the Theocracy Alert is raised to orange once again :-)
[+/-] show/hide this post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)