Fathers know best
Gerard Henderson today took former Labor heavyweight and international diplomat Garth Evans to task over Evans' recent remarks to the effect that "He warned about the tendency to see a potential terrorist on every street corner in some of our suburbs, maintained that we have to be careful about getting overexcited, and concluded that we should not abandon every basic precept of democratic limited government because of excessive fears." (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/underplaying-the-threat-of-terrorism-could-be-a-fatal-mistake/2005/10/03/1128191653991.html)
Henderson particularly lashed him for saying, " that Jemaah Islamiah's regional division that covered Australia had been smashed, and that Jemaah Islamiah as such no longer constituted the serious threat to Australia and Australian interests that it previously did. That was Tuesday evening. On Saturday three suicide/homicide bombers, thought to be associated with what is best termed a Jemaah Islamiah franchise...."
Henderson's critique is that it was awfully damned loose of Evans to say the JI elements that cover Australia had been smashed because only a few days later the JI elements in Indonesia committed suicide murders. I'd have thought it might have been intellectually rigorous to criticise Evans if he had said the Indonesian elements had been smashed, but he didn't. And to criticise him for something he didn't say seems pretty silly to me, not to mention intellectually disingenuous. (I told you not to mention it.)
But Henderson really got into his nana-nana-nanas when he chastised Evans for having a say when he was no longer a politician. You see, only politicians can know the terror of having to make a decision, particularly one which could affect his career. Here was silly old Evans going on about the harm to society that might befall a jettisoning of ancient democratic principles, and all the while the unquestioned justification for such action was blindingly obvious and beyond reproach: these new laws were not about society at all; rather they were entirely about saving the skins of the pollies.
This is how he put it: "Agree with them or not, John Howard, premiers Morris Iemma, Steve Bracks, Peter Beattie, Geoff Gallop, Mike Rann and Paul Lennon and chief ministers Jon Stanhope and Clare Martin seem considered politicians who are most unlikely to believe that terrorists hide under falafels on suburban street corners. They decided to support a toughening of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation on the basis of advice tendered by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments.
"When Evans was a member of the previous federal Labor government, he was required to make decisions and expected to be responsible for the consequences of his actions or inactions.... democratic leaders are responsible for the consequences of their decisions and have to anticipate worst possible outcomes.... if an Australian political leader had made a similar remark, at the same time, his or her career would have been tarnished."
This isn't the first time Hendo has been more concerned about the lives of the pollies than the lives of the citizenry: http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/but-what-is-question.html
Henderson particularly lashed him for saying, " that Jemaah Islamiah's regional division that covered Australia had been smashed, and that Jemaah Islamiah as such no longer constituted the serious threat to Australia and Australian interests that it previously did. That was Tuesday evening. On Saturday three suicide/homicide bombers, thought to be associated with what is best termed a Jemaah Islamiah franchise...."
Henderson's critique is that it was awfully damned loose of Evans to say the JI elements that cover Australia had been smashed because only a few days later the JI elements in Indonesia committed suicide murders. I'd have thought it might have been intellectually rigorous to criticise Evans if he had said the Indonesian elements had been smashed, but he didn't. And to criticise him for something he didn't say seems pretty silly to me, not to mention intellectually disingenuous. (I told you not to mention it.)
But Henderson really got into his nana-nana-nanas when he chastised Evans for having a say when he was no longer a politician. You see, only politicians can know the terror of having to make a decision, particularly one which could affect his career. Here was silly old Evans going on about the harm to society that might befall a jettisoning of ancient democratic principles, and all the while the unquestioned justification for such action was blindingly obvious and beyond reproach: these new laws were not about society at all; rather they were entirely about saving the skins of the pollies.
This is how he put it: "Agree with them or not, John Howard, premiers Morris Iemma, Steve Bracks, Peter Beattie, Geoff Gallop, Mike Rann and Paul Lennon and chief ministers Jon Stanhope and Clare Martin seem considered politicians who are most unlikely to believe that terrorists hide under falafels on suburban street corners. They decided to support a toughening of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation on the basis of advice tendered by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments.
"When Evans was a member of the previous federal Labor government, he was required to make decisions and expected to be responsible for the consequences of his actions or inactions.... democratic leaders are responsible for the consequences of their decisions and have to anticipate worst possible outcomes.... if an Australian political leader had made a similar remark, at the same time, his or her career would have been tarnished."
This isn't the first time Hendo has been more concerned about the lives of the pollies than the lives of the citizenry: http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/but-what-is-question.html
Labels: Politics of fear
posted by Guambat Stew at Tuesday, October 04, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home