A motherless child
Peter Hartcher looked at the panic of the pollies to introduce the new terrorism legislation and has seen it for what it is: a huge political posturing exercise with dubious justification and significant downside to our democratic heritage. Using a parental analogy, he says all the pollies want to be Daddy and none of them is willing to be Mummy. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/battle-to-be-the-daddy-of-them-all/2005/09/30/1127804659627.html.) As a loving and caring Daddy, I take a bit of umbrage at this depiction, but it does make for an interesting description of what is happening here.
He says, "A Mummy party is most interested in caring for people. It is empathetic, inclusive and concerned with fairness. In short, it wants to give you a cuddle. A Mummy party is seen to be best at providing services - especially health, education and welfare. A Daddy party, on the other hand, is strict. It is big on self-discipline and self-reliance. It is frugal and interested in obedience. In sum, it will stand you on your feet but keep you on your toes. A Daddy party is trusted to look after the fundamentals of keeping the family secure - with good economic management and competent national security."
Australia, according to this analogy is not red and blue; it is Mummy and Daddy. "Labor is our Mummy party. For as long as pollsters have been asking the question, Australian voters consistently say that Labor is the best party to handle health, education, welfare and social issues. The Coalition is the Daddy. It is the party that Australia believes is best to handle national security and the economy. And in Australia, there is a division of responsibilities between the state and federal levels that follows these lines of responsibility, these political gender roles. The states are responsible for delivering services - health and education, for instance - while the national government has unique responsibilities for national security and management of the economy. This helps explain why Labor has monopolised power at the state level across Australia, while the Coalition has entrenched itself at the federal...."
According to Hartcher and his analogy, the Labor leader Kim Beazely is now out to have a bit of a gender change. He wants to be seen as a compassionate Daddy. And so he will take a more aggressive role in national security matters.
Hartcher continues and shows his true grit:
He says, "A Mummy party is most interested in caring for people. It is empathetic, inclusive and concerned with fairness. In short, it wants to give you a cuddle. A Mummy party is seen to be best at providing services - especially health, education and welfare. A Daddy party, on the other hand, is strict. It is big on self-discipline and self-reliance. It is frugal and interested in obedience. In sum, it will stand you on your feet but keep you on your toes. A Daddy party is trusted to look after the fundamentals of keeping the family secure - with good economic management and competent national security."
Australia, according to this analogy is not red and blue; it is Mummy and Daddy. "Labor is our Mummy party. For as long as pollsters have been asking the question, Australian voters consistently say that Labor is the best party to handle health, education, welfare and social issues. The Coalition is the Daddy. It is the party that Australia believes is best to handle national security and the economy. And in Australia, there is a division of responsibilities between the state and federal levels that follows these lines of responsibility, these political gender roles. The states are responsible for delivering services - health and education, for instance - while the national government has unique responsibilities for national security and management of the economy. This helps explain why Labor has monopolised power at the state level across Australia, while the Coalition has entrenched itself at the federal...."
According to Hartcher and his analogy, the Labor leader Kim Beazely is now out to have a bit of a gender change. He wants to be seen as a compassionate Daddy. And so he will take a more aggressive role in national security matters.
Hartcher continues and shows his true grit:
"Knowing this, the extraordinary events of this week become immediately comprehensible.
The Howard Government proposed a set of sharp curtailments of Australians' rights in the cause of counter-terrorism. One of these curtailments is so extreme it is an affront to the Australian constitution, which, as interpreted by the High Court, forbids the Commonwealth conducting preventive detention for more than 48 hours. The Government sidestepped this by asking the states to do it, jailing people for up to 14 days without charge and based on nothing more than a suspicion.
The suite of measures is drastic; they begin to erode the presumption of innocence, the bedrock of our criminal justice system.
As Howard said on Tuesday: "We have agreed today on unusual laws for Australia. We've done that because we live in unusual circumstances. In other circumstances I would never have sought these additional powers, I would never have asked the premiers of the Australian states to support me in enacting these laws. But we do live in very dangerous and different and threatening circumstances and a strong and comprehensive response is needed. I think all of these powers are needed."
This is a reasonable proposition - extraordinary danger may require an extraordinary response. So, beyond the heightened state of terrorist hostility that has emerged so starkly and publicly since September 11, 2001, what has changed?
Howard again: "I think the chilling reality that home-grown terrorists exist - a lot of Australians, I guess all of us, found that a bit hard to accept [though, of course, there are plenty of other home-grown murderers and non-murderous killers]. We tended, because of the experience of [September 11], to see a possible terrorist threat being executed by people flying into the country covertly and attacking us in a devastating way and then trying to escape.
"As you all know, the London bombings were carried out by people who, in the main, grew up in the north of England, spoke English with a north-country accent and played cricket. And it was all quite atmospherically changing, it really was. And I think that … had quite an effect on me. And the reality is that we are worried there are people in our community who might just do this."
The states and territories hesitantly agreed, reluctant to take any blame for perceived weakness or for future acts of terrorism. Their only conditions were a five-year review and a sunset clause that would repeal the laws after 10 years.
But the striking fact is that the Federal and state governments provided no further justification for this revolution in Australian civil liberties. The briefings from the security agencies were given in secret. No further information or explanation was supplied to the Australian Parliament, media or public.
Our governments have taken extraordinary action to curtail our rights without, in any serious way, explaining the extraordinary danger. We are provided with no threat assessment other than the Prime Minister's expressed fears and hunches. Perhaps a rigorous and persuasive case exists - we cannot know.
In essence, the authorities are saying to the public: "Trust us." We have seen this movie before. It was called Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the absence of information, we can have no confidence that the gravity of the security threat has so deepened that it demands the surrender of fundamental rights. In the absence of information, we cannot be confident that our intelligence agencies are acting apolitically or that our governments are acting reasonably.
And what has the Federal Opposition done in response? Kim Beazley urged the Howard Government to give police the power to lock down entire suburbs."
The Howard Government proposed a set of sharp curtailments of Australians' rights in the cause of counter-terrorism. One of these curtailments is so extreme it is an affront to the Australian constitution, which, as interpreted by the High Court, forbids the Commonwealth conducting preventive detention for more than 48 hours. The Government sidestepped this by asking the states to do it, jailing people for up to 14 days without charge and based on nothing more than a suspicion.
The suite of measures is drastic; they begin to erode the presumption of innocence, the bedrock of our criminal justice system.
As Howard said on Tuesday: "We have agreed today on unusual laws for Australia. We've done that because we live in unusual circumstances. In other circumstances I would never have sought these additional powers, I would never have asked the premiers of the Australian states to support me in enacting these laws. But we do live in very dangerous and different and threatening circumstances and a strong and comprehensive response is needed. I think all of these powers are needed."
This is a reasonable proposition - extraordinary danger may require an extraordinary response. So, beyond the heightened state of terrorist hostility that has emerged so starkly and publicly since September 11, 2001, what has changed?
Howard again: "I think the chilling reality that home-grown terrorists exist - a lot of Australians, I guess all of us, found that a bit hard to accept [though, of course, there are plenty of other home-grown murderers and non-murderous killers]. We tended, because of the experience of [September 11], to see a possible terrorist threat being executed by people flying into the country covertly and attacking us in a devastating way and then trying to escape.
"As you all know, the London bombings were carried out by people who, in the main, grew up in the north of England, spoke English with a north-country accent and played cricket. And it was all quite atmospherically changing, it really was. And I think that … had quite an effect on me. And the reality is that we are worried there are people in our community who might just do this."
The states and territories hesitantly agreed, reluctant to take any blame for perceived weakness or for future acts of terrorism. Their only conditions were a five-year review and a sunset clause that would repeal the laws after 10 years.
But the striking fact is that the Federal and state governments provided no further justification for this revolution in Australian civil liberties. The briefings from the security agencies were given in secret. No further information or explanation was supplied to the Australian Parliament, media or public.
Our governments have taken extraordinary action to curtail our rights without, in any serious way, explaining the extraordinary danger. We are provided with no threat assessment other than the Prime Minister's expressed fears and hunches. Perhaps a rigorous and persuasive case exists - we cannot know.
In essence, the authorities are saying to the public: "Trust us." We have seen this movie before. It was called Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the absence of information, we can have no confidence that the gravity of the security threat has so deepened that it demands the surrender of fundamental rights. In the absence of information, we cannot be confident that our intelligence agencies are acting apolitically or that our governments are acting reasonably.
And what has the Federal Opposition done in response? Kim Beazley urged the Howard Government to give police the power to lock down entire suburbs."
Labels: Australia, Politics of fear
posted by Guambat Stew at Tuesday, October 04, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home