Global Voices » Kevin Rennie

Australia Day: Fury Follows Aboriginal Tent Embassy Protest

Kevin Rennie — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:18:19 +0000

Australia Day ceremonies are usually the dullest of events. But not when Australia’s political leaders are together just walking distance from a gathering at the contentious Aboriginal Tent Embassy. When the crowd there heard a report that earlier in the day Opposition leader Tony Abbott had suggested its removal, a spontaneous protest took place at the Lobby restaurant where Prime Minister Julia Gillard was awarding emergency medals.

The fracas quickly turned to farce. Developments have included: that Mr Abbott’s remarks were misreported; the original tip-off came via Tony Hodges, one of the PM's media advisors (who has since resigned); accusations of a media beat-up of violence; a shoe lost by Ms Gillard was returned after suggestions of an ebay auction; a go-between was named followed by strong denials. At least that’s the best guess at the moment.

Preston Institute knew who to blame in Silly Advisers, Silly Media – This is Canberra, Today:

Yesterday’s “outrage” involving the PM and Tony Abbott has been one of the more diverting stories doing the rounds of our media. It appears to tell us more about the media and contemporary politics more than it does about Australia’s protesting spirit.

The story itself, of an escape from a Canberra restaurant besieged by unarmed protestors, provided some great footage for the TV print media to run around the world and back.

…The reality seems to be more prosaic, with Gillard and Abbott under little substantial threat.

In a very detailed analysis at the The Conscience Vote Marian Dalton argued that:

If no one remembers anything else from Australia Day, they’ll remember the footage of Prime Minister Julia Gillard being dragged to safety…

It was an ugly display, and it did nothing good for the cause of the Tent Embassy.

What remains, then, is a shameful display of behaviour that did nothing but harm the cause of indigenous rights, and the Tent Embassy in particular.

Skepticlawyer couldn’t resist the imagery of the abandoned shoe in her post When one’s IQ is less than one’s shoe size, and we’re only talking one shoe…

Tony Abbott gives me the screaming heaves, he really does. He’s the worst sort of godbothering big government conservative. But he did not call for the tent embassy to be ‘torn down’ and he did not ‘incite a riot’. Any rioting – as is usually the case – was the responsibility of the rioters.

There is speculation in the media that Tony Hodges misquoted Abbott, making his comments more aggressive. In a perverse way, I hope that’s true, because to respond to the above with violence suggests that at least some people in Australia have made their way into political cloud-cuckoo-land.

In the post, Australia Day 2012: Evil prevails, when good men say nothing, Gladly the cross-eyed bear defends the need for the tent embassy but not the manner of protest:

Indigenous Australians have every reason to be angry. They have every reason to defend their embassy. But this is Australia and, whatever our history, whatever the mistakes of the past, here, today, we do not fight political battles with physical violence.

…I am sickened and appalled at what appears to have been an attempt by some Aboriginal activists and their cohorts to bully and frighten Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday.

In the latest twist, johnboy revealed on RiotAct’s open forum that:

In the Canberra Times the Secretary of Unions ACT, Kim Sattler, is denying she was the one who riled up the Tent Embassy with news from the Prime Minister’s Office that Tony Abbott was in the nearby lobby restaurant.
When contacted by the Sunday Canberra Times this morning, Ms Sattler said she had been at the tent embassy but she was not the go between.
“I heard it from the crowd,’’ she said.
This is a bit tricky as The Age reports that Prime Minister Gillard is saying it was Ms Sattler.

Who knows the truth at this stage.

Mike Stuchbery captured the spirit of things on his self-titled blog:

There’s the soundbite, the outrage, the money shot and what’s left is for the carrion-eaters to blog and crow about.

Nobody comes away from today’s events in Canberra looking good.

Least of all, the protesters

He even has an eyewitness in his “little brother”, if you’re interested in an alleged firsthand account.

Perhaps modern politics is more about image than about reality. And a contest amongst both media and commentariat to be the most outraged. Ironically too many were ready to chastise the tent embassy crowd for reacting hastily to incorrect information, only to do the same thing themselves to media reports.

Australia: Politician Sprayed over Migrant Deodorant “Dog-Whistle”

Kevin Rennie — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:34:36 +0000

There has been a contest for the worst pun following remarks by Teresa Gambaro, a Federal Member of the Australian Parliament. She called for immigrants on work visas to be taught ‘social norms’ such as the use of deodorants and waiting in orderly queues. (My post title is a poor contender.)

Teresa Gambaro

At Independent Australia, Tess Lawrence's post ‘Gambaro goes the raw prawn‘, is biting in its satire:

I am calling on Teresa to organise a Senate Select Committee so we can really thrash out this serious issue in the first session of Parliament. In fact, I want to see the wearing of deodorant become mandatory and written into our Constitution.

And shameless in its play on words:

You are clearly Prime Ministerial material by any measure, Dear Teresa. From henceforth, let the armpits be the electoral litmus test. You bring a whole new meaning to the hair of the dog.

Before any politician should covet the Upper House, we the People, should examine their Upper Lip.

Unless politicians pass the sniff test, they should remain on the nose of the Australian people.

The Castlemaine Independent’s satirist suggests that Politicians must wear deodorant:

Politicians should be taught about the importance of wearing deodorant…

Ms Gambaro said …she was concerned about politicians not integrating into the community because they were behind the eight-ball on health, hygiene and lifestyle, as well as on climate change, industrial relations, refugees and a host of other issues.

Marion Elizabeth Diamond of Historians are Past Caring doesn’t use deodorants and wonders during her musings on the “great unwashed”:

But I never knew before that my personal habits made me un-Australian.

Gambaro has her defenders. Dom looks at the broader issue of “cultural awareness training“:

… We can provide these people with assistance that they need in a way that respects them as people, and is flexible enough to see them as individuals and people capable of independent thought.
We're all so sensitive of difference, and its denial, that we're not willing to assist people with basic cultural training that could help them. Gambaro's right, she just needs some media training.

Speaking ‘In Support of Integration‘, Suzer, “an American expat living in Australia with her Aussie husband”, also supports her:

Taken out of context, one might easily judge Ms Gambaro. I'm dissappointed to see migrant advocacy groups take immediate offense, rather than seeing that Ms Gambaro might actually be an advocate herself for new migrants. Diversity training in Australian workplaces is not only a good idea, but a necessity, for both current and new Australians, so that we can learn about each other.

Your Democracy was less than kind to either Gambaro or cabbies when it reposted from Crikey:

Teresa Gambaro clearly encountered a smelly taxi driver or two over the festive period. It sparked a thought-bubble (to be generous) in the opposition citizenship spokesperson's mind…

Meanwhile, amid accusations of dog-whistling, Teresa Gambaro backs off migrant remarks after a rebuke from a senior Conservative parliamentary colleague. She claims to have been “misconstrued”. She can join the end of a very long, orderly queue of pollies claiming that!

(Dog-whistling “employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience”.)

Even the cartoonists are commenting, though it is probably not that kind of dog that Jon Kudelka has in mind:

Image courtesy of Jon Kudelka Cartoons

Finally, Opposition spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro has cracked the age-old question of why we all can’t just get along, and the answer turns out to be deodorant. Seriously. You can’t make this stuff up.

The Twitter hashtag #gambaro has more dreadful jokes and some serious comment. Check it out while the poop is still fresh.

Australia: Comment on the Palestine Boycott, Divestment & Sanction Campaign

Kevin Rennie — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:10:19 +0000

Crikey's NAJ Taylor gathers five of Australia's Middle East diaspora to write about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction of Israel campaign. How effective is it at “balancing the competing harms”? How “useful is [it] for members of the Israeli and Palestinian, as well as Jewish and Muslim, diaspora”?

Australia: Obama Charm Offensive Not Everyone's Cup Of Tea

Kevin Rennie — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:37:40 +0000

Even before Airforce One had landed in Australia on Wednesday 16 November 2011, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard were online targets.

In his post John Passant threw a left hook at both Obama and the local Greens Party:

The Greens support war criminal Barack Obama

Instead of welcoming mass murderer Obama, the Greens, as the biggest non-mainstream party, should be organising demonstrations against the war criminal.

On the right side of the political stage, the little known Australian TEA Party announced a rally of their own:

This is our big chance to impact the extreme left elites that are crippling our country and indeed the world.

…Julia Gillard and Barak Obama. These two deeply cynical Politicians are seeking to deflect disastrous domestic policies and unpopularity in their respective countries with a carefully choreographed - ‘photo op ‘ – propaganda event.

At Twitter Erin Riley warned against anti-US criticism:

@erinrileyau
And now for two days of reflexive, ill-informed anti-Americanism #obama #ObamaOz 16 Nov

Seamus’ message seemed to fit this category:

@deweyite
Good to see #obama taking the time to visit his constituents in the 51st state #auspol 16 Nov

Meanwhile the Northern Territory Insurance Office issued the President a free crocodile $A 50,000 insurance policy for his visit to Darwin on Thursday.

Obama Crocodile Insurance. Image courtesy TIO.

PR Warrior saw some merit in this gimmicky self-promotion:

In this age of digitised communications and ‘authentic conversations with your community of followers', it's refreshing to see there is still room for a good old-fashioned media publicity stunt.

A different, far more serious and potentially more deadly policy was the centrepiece of the visit. Your Democracy reposted an Op-Ed by Strategic Studies heavyweight Hugh White questioning plans to beef up America’s military presence in Australia. He concluded that:

Australia should tell Obama we take a different view on China.

A new Asia could evolve in which China exercises more power and influence than it has before, but does not dominate, and in which America no longer exercises primacy, but still plays a large and vital role. In short, an Asia in which the US and China share power.

This should be Australia's vision of Asia's future. We do not want to live under Chinse domination, but nor do we want to be squeezed by US-China rivalry. That is why, having given Obama a respectful hearing, we should explain why we take a different view. That is what good allies do.

Perhaps speech analyst and coach Dean Frenkel had in mind the Australian connection to the film The King’s Speech. Public speaking 101: A lesson in leadership from Obama was vocal advice for Oz politicians:

This is an opportunity for our elected representatives to listen to the outstanding professional communicator of our generation, the finest American political speaker since Martin Luther King. First and foremost, Mr Obama should trigger awakenings about the importance of communication skills to politicians. After listening to him, Australian politicians should clear their eyes, look into mirror, appraise their own abilities, commit to raising their standards and taking away some of Obama's qualities by osmosis.

Oz news aggregator, The Wall, had the top 100 tweets that it updated during the 27 hour charm offensive, plus a number of stories.

Twitter hashtags went viral, with #Aubama topping the trends and #POTUSinOz competing for the most obscure tag.

Fawning would be a fair description of many of the tweets, mixed with the usual fixation on his plane and his car. Barack certainly charmed much of the local audience. For the other view see the Aus TEA Party’s OBAMA /GILLARD … Makes Me Sick! or Gillard is worse than Obama ???

Barb is also not a fan, tweeting this link to Rupert Murdoch’s online new.com.au. The newspaper version has the less tacky title ‘Touching times for Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama’:

@BabsNation
The Audacity of Grope: news.com.au/national/touch… Sums up this fawning, #Obama lovefest perfectly #Aubama #tcot #Auspol 17 Nov

On her blog Everyone is a Moon, Bron had her own ideas on this piece of ‘satire’ in THE AUDACITY OF TRIPE :

On a Presidential visit, there’s always plenty of news to, y’know, report. The US-Australia alliance. Security in the Pacific-Asia region. The expansion of US military presence in Australia. The implications of all this for China and India. Instead, we get this tedious, demeaning shit that I probably should come to accept from News Ltd by now, anyway.

Nick Condon was taken with the President’s speech to the Federal Parliament:

@nickcondon
Not gonna lie…. Obama is an incredible speaker. Amazing speech and only good things for Australia. #aubama 17 Nov

Two other hot topics fired some netizens: Julia Gillard’s intention to sell uranium to India and climate change action but there isn't room to cover those here.

As Airforce One left Darwin, the US was leading the rest of the world at the end of the first day of the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne golf course. We might wonder how long America will be the unrivalled world leader. (Incidentally, neither Obama, nor this year’s Honorary Chair, Julia Gillard, was scheduled to visit the Cup.)

P.S. President Obama didn't need his free croc insurance this time but it could come in handy when he retires or is retired.

Australia: Historic New Carbon Price Law Divides Nation

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:26:34 +0000

The Australian Federal Parliament finally passed the contentious Clean Energy Bill on 8 November 2011. The legislation introduces a carbon price of $A 23 per tonne from July 2012, leading to an emissions trading scheme (cap and trade) after 3 years.

Peter Campbell's blog on the state of the planet congratulated those involved in passing the legislation:

This is wonderful news. It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Some opponents were quick to make negative comparisons. @marksharma saw parallels with the far right:

Australia is NOT a democracy anymore.We are now under the ‘occupation' of Nazis led by Julia Gillard & Hitler Bob Brown! #auspol #CarbonTAX 8 Nov

The No Carbon Tax post Injecting Carbon Tax preferred to use parallels with drug addiction in their attack:

In 2011 Australia started injecting carbon tax into our industry to make some of us feel good about ‘doing something’ against Climate Change. Like crack cocaine, it makes some of us feel good, like crack it it is an addictive source of income to the government, like crack it achieves absolutely nothing and like crack, you don’t feel the harm until some years down the track.

The rest of the world sensibly said NO to the hard drug of Carbon Taxing the whole economy. So Australia, enjoy…

The controversial pressure group @GalileoMovement rounded off the standard attacks with an appeal against the left bogey:

Waste, waste, waste bit.ly/vSLduV A trademark of socialism's central control 12 Nov

@ki_sekiya wondered about the possible contradictions in these ideological attacks, contrasting the Opposition leader’s support of direct funding with the government’s market-based emissions trading scheme:

Funny how the Self-proclaimed “Capitalists”, are supporting Abbott's “Direct Action” Plan and calling a Market-mechanism, Communist. #auspol 8 Nov

In supporting the legislation, Mark Banhisch used a non-emotive style to explore the political aspects at Larvatus Prodeo:

Finally, on the politics: much ink has been spilled, and will no doubt continue to be, over the implications for partisan politics. We need to think less about this, and more about what the ‘debate’ says about the power of unreason in public life, and sheer self-interest on the part of powerful actors. But I derive considerable hope from the fact that it’s been shown that amidst an unprecedented volume of noise, big things can still be done, and from the fact that it’s more than possible that reality may now prevail over irrationalism.

Well known climate skeptic Jennifer Marohasy tried to link the carbon price to the Global Financial Crisis in her post Australia to Become Involved in ‘Subprime’ Carbon Market? :

In addition to buying carbon units in the auction process, secondary markets and derivative markets will likely also develop in Australia also linked in to the international greenhouse-gas trading system.

So does this in effect mean Australia will soon be linked in to a type of ‘subprime’ UN compliant carbon trading scheme?

On ‘My blog for my rants, raves and thoughts!’ carbon tax advocate Alex Schlotzer hoped that vocal opposition is in decline:

There’s already evidence of this with the fervour that existed on the Conservative Action Network’s climate change group easing, and not nearly as rabid as it was during the height of the anti-carbon price ‘movement’.

Judge for yourself. The twitter hash tags #nocarbontax and #carbontax seem to have been less active during the last week than may have had been expected.

However, strong opponents of climate action at Catallaxy Files have not lowered their voices. One of several posts questioned the sources of funding for the new website yourcarbonprice.com.au an online calculator of the carbon price’s impact on individuals:

But an important question is who is paying for the collaboration of CHOICE, ACOSS (who alarmingly seems to be arguing for this package knowing full well that most of the green schemes are extraordinarily regressive – eg. solar feed-in tariffs) and the Climate Institute to produce yourcarbonprice.com.au?

Scientist Alan Marshall of SkepticalScience took A Moment to Savor! before reminding readers about what he believes needs to be done next:

While the Clean Energy Future legislation, and the actions by other nations listed above, are all commendable, international efforts will need to be ramped up if we are to have a chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. At Copenhagen, scientists were seeking a 25% to 40% reduction in emissions from the developed nations, and commitments to date fall well short of that target. In the upcoming COP 17 conference in Durban and beyond, the science needs to set the agenda.

The issue should be a central part of the 2013 Federal election, as Opposition leader Tony Abbott has sworn ‘a pledge in blood' to overturn the carbon tax.

Australia: Malaysia No Solution to ‘Boat People' Politics

Kevin Rennie — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:54:28 +0000

The Australian government’s attempt to take a hard line on people smugglers and asylum seekers arriving by boat has hit a major snag. In December 2010, approximately 50 asylum seekers were drowned at Christmas Island when their boat was smashed on the rocks. A legal challenge has postponed a swap of the surviving refugees with Malaysia.

Amber Jamieson’s Malaysia deal in disarray summarises the latest situation for online media site Crikey:

The challenge, led by QC David Manne on behalf of 42 recently arrived asylum seekers (including six unaccompanied minors), focuses on human rights surrounding the policy and questions what protection Malaysia will offer to asylum seekers sent by Australia.

…Sixteen of the men were due to fly out to Malaysia yesterday, the first of the government’s new refugee swap deal with Malaysia, which will see 800 “boat people” swapped with 4000 refugees from Malaysia.

The plan has had some limited support in the blogosphere but has been criticised by both those wanting a stop to the so-called ‘boat people’ arrivals and those with concerns about human rights.

Laberal who claims to be ‘bored with trying to find the differences between the two parties, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party’ (the two major parties) presents his view in cartoon form:

Image from Laberal blog

Ian's cartoon harks back to the former Howard government’s Pacific solution of sending boat arrivals to Nauru, a policy that the current Gillard government has rejected.

In Border fantasies out of control, Kim of group blog Lavartus Prodeo looks at some disturbing poll figures that may help to explain the government’s tough stance:

Still, if the poll is right and fact would lower the number of “very concerned” Australians from 43% to 33%, it’s still a rather stunning figure. The beast seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Charitably, one might assume that at least some of this concern might be around a desire to avoid such horrors as happened near Christmas Island around Christmas last year.

Legal Eagle at Skeptic Lawyer is no fan of the latest solution:

I must confess to being sceptical from the beginning about the Malaysian “solution”. Deporting people to far flung islands or other countries does not provide much of a “solution”. There needs to be a total paradigm shift. The real problem, as I’ve said before, is about the perverse incentives our law sets up for asylum seekers — it’s easier for a person to get a visa once they are here on our soil than it is when they are off our soil, even though the asylum seeker’s circumstances have not changed one iota.

In Christians cannot accept Malaysia solution Rob Benson of iDigress ‘Musings of an antipodean contrarian’ looks at the issue from a moral standpoint:

The federal government’s so-called “Malaysia solution” looks like decisive action, but it’s abhorrent from a human rights perspective, and at odds with a balanced Christian view of justice and compassion.

The policy will send a message to prospective asylum seekers and people traffickers, but it is simply the wrong thing to do.

Peter’s Aussie Views News is primarily concerned with the children, especially those not accompanied by adults:

I do not know under what degree of anguish and suffering a mother might send her child in a small boat to a foreign land. But I do know what degree of callousness is required to send an unaccompanied child in a plane to Malaysia. It remains to be seen whether Australia will abandon its international responsibilities and any claim to the concept of “fair go” and send the recently arrived unaccompanied children to Malaysia.

John George has Had Enough at Had Enough. He neither supports the government or people who he calls ‘illegals’.

So the Malaysian Solution looks doomed; another Gillard debacle. We are now going to open the doors to 4000 so-called refugees regardless of whether any of our illegals are transferred to Malaysia. I mean the deal was lop-sided in the first place but now it is worse. I mean does this lot have a licence on stupidity or what?

Why on earth Gillard & Co have to be so darned stubborn as to turn their backs on the Naru Solution just because they might be seen as supporting a Howard Initiative is beyond me.

Prominent lawyer and human rights advocate Julian Burnside implores Australians to reflect on our national character:

So here we are: Australia in 2011. For convenience we have forgotten our origins, our good fortune, our blindness and our selfishness. In place of memory we have constructed a national myth of a generous, welcoming country, a land of new arrivals where everyone gets a fair go; a myth in which vanity fills the emptiness where the truth was forgotten.

Or perhaps it's not a myth after all. Perhaps our national image is true, but our politicians have forgotten what it is. If we value who we are, we should remind them. Because our true character as a nation is being reshaped each day by what our politicians do in our name. Tell Canberra we are better than that, lest we forget.

Whatever the result of the legal action, the issue of asylum seekers is not going away in a hurry, especially while there is no consensus between the political parties on how to deal with it.

Thumbnail image used by Flickr user Takver (CC BY-NC 2.0).

Australia: Regime Change Rupert Murdoch Style

Kevin Rennie — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:05:15 +0000

It is a sign of the times when John Hartigan, News Limited’s head in Australia, has to defend his newspapers’ aggressive approach to the Gillard government. Murdoch’s Oz media have been accused of abusing their power with a campaign for regime change. The announcement of the carbon pricing and emissions trading scheme is the latest battleground.

The aptly named Loon Pond tracks the former Australian with vigour. The last two posts by ‘Dorothy Parker’ are typical of the criticisms. In ‘News Corp, Jack the insider and blood on the wattle redux …‘ he started by comparing the way their online blogsite The Punch has treated the News of the World hacking scandal with their coverage of the carbon tax:

It's carbon tax all the way at The Punch, like a robo bunny with a heavy duty battery, plus the usual mindless frivolities and nary a bleat about the Murdoch follies which have entranced every other website around the world.

This was followed by a detailed analysis of other Murdoch media. His post on Friday 15 July, ‘John Hartigan, and time for some bold as brass strident coverage of all that strident coverage …‘ continued this theme:

The comedy stylings at News Corp get better and more entertaining by the day, and none more so than that adept humorist John Hartigan.

…Leading the way, naturally, is the anonymous editorialist, who explains how A medieval world view does not help the planet in Black, white and green all over. And who holds this medieval world view? Why greenies of course, as the anon edit flings around such finely balanced words as zealots, preconceived ideas, dogmatism, blinkered world view, monochromatic world, and so on and so forth…

Matt de Silva at Happy Antipodean ponders their aggressive editorial policy in an untitled post:

Watching John Hartigan perform on the ABC's 730 program… There's an exceptionalism at play here in Hartigan's words that probably serves a lot of the troops in the organisation well at different times, especially when they feel besieged as a result of run-ins with external entities. When the time comes to making a stand it's therefore easy for journalists to say “We're different and, yes, this will be unpleasant but we're performing a public duty here”.

He anticipates a backlash:

This attitude can only inflame the situation because a wild animal when cornered will always turn and fight. So every headline and every editorial, every story placement on the corporate website and every picture selection - designed to depict, say, the prime minister as domineering or cowed - is animated by a preemptive supposition that thousands of people out there in the Australian public sphere hate what you are doing.

In confession time at News Ltd Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion bemoans the level of public debate about climate change that results from the relentless pursuit of their own agenda:

News Ltd's newspapers are well known for them providing a platform for the denial of climate change, opposition to a carbon tax, hostility to making the polluters pay for the greenhouse emissions that heat up the planet, and their antagonism to using renewal energy. They are also partly responsible for the low standard of public debate on the need for Australia to shift to a low carbon economy. News Ltd basically want the taxpayer to pay the polluters big money to keep on polluting.

Open and Shut’s Peter Timmins links current scrutiny of News td in Australia with its UK implosion In ‘Murdoch's UK woes bring Australian debate centre stage‘:

The debate about ethics, responsibilities and journalism standards and broader issues concerning the media that seemed a long way off a week ago is now well under way, and unlikely to stop anytime soon.

…We have Greens leader Senator Bob Brown calling for a Senate inquiry into Australia's media ownership laws and into the ethical standards of journalists.

The Greens position is no surprise given the open attitude of The Australian, Murdoch’s flagship down-under. Jeremy Sears at Crikey, quoting their editorial argued last year that it wants to destroy the Greens (and hence the minority government):

You can take pretty much everything The Australian says about the Greens in that context: they are not interested in giving them a fair hearing, or listening to what they have to say, or presenting their arguments for public assessment: they want them “destroyed”.

At The Drum former Democrats and Labor parliamentarian Cheryl Kernot criticises:

…politicians in Australia who have been, and currently are, in thrall to the power of media proprietors and shock jocks; seeking to court support, in the belief that a newspaper's endorsement is one of the powerful keys to election success. The trade-off is timidity in the face of a newspaper's “policy line.”

She hopes for a change from past practice:

Many former and current Australian prime ministers and opposition leaders have publicly courted Rupert Murdoch with their ritual pilgrimage to worship at the Murdoch shrine on visits to the US. Media commentators have used this as a (perverted) measure of “success”.

Stephen Mayne, former publisher of Crikey, doesn’t pull any punches on their platform:

At some point, the creeping and insidious influence of the Murdochs over Australian media needs to be wound back and there is no better time to start than now. If the Pommy politicians can belatedly develop some spine with some US Democrats following suit, why not their jelly-backed equivalents in Australia?

There didn’t appear to be any posts on the Oz blogosphere defending Murdoch’s local media from these accusations. It’s hardly surprising given the kind of week Murdoch is having in Britain. However, Columnist Joe Hildebrand from News Limited's Sydney tabloid the Daily Telegraph has struck back on The Punch with ‘Gillard and Brown are shootin’ the messenger‘:

The argument … is that a Government which has driven itself into uncharted depths of antipathy in the public’s view, should still be treated generously by the newspapers, even though their readers and the electorate are overwhelmingly opposed to it.

…Governments can usually get by on good policy or good spin; the best have both, this one has neither. Using the appalling behaviour of UK tabloids as an excuse to pursue a political agenda against the Australian press is just more proof of that.

The last word goes to media specialist Margaret Simons in a short video for the InDaily predicting “the end of the big media empires”:

Thumbnail image shows News Limited's The Courier Mail. Image by Flickr user Leonard John Matthews (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

Australia Unveils Carbon Pricing Package

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:55:47 +0000

Australians remain divided after Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s announcement of a Clean Energy package with a carbon price of $A 23 per tonne and an emissions trading scheme from 2015. Crikey had an early summary, and the rest of the local blogosphere was also quick off the mark.

Jeremy Sear of An Onymous Lefty laid on his customary sarcasm in ‘THE CARBON TAX THAT WILL DOOM US ALL‘. His target was Tony Abbott, the leader of the Opposition Coalition parties that strongly oppose the plan:

Worst of all, how unfair is it for the government to finally release the details of the carbon price package and undermine Tony Abbott’s ability to completely make stuff up about it?

PM Gillard launches the Clean Energy Future website. Photo: Clean Energy Future

In the post ‘Australia will tax its carbon emissions‘ on his self-titled blog, Harry Clarke was bubbly:

Of course I knew the announcement was coming but to find out the details of the proposal –in the link - and to hear such a clear and eloquent defence of the proposal from both was exciting. It is a political statement as well as an important application of the principle that markets are the best way of addressing carbon pollution problems. After a series of meandering twists Labor has finally got to the point it should have been at a year ago. Congratulations to all those who contributed to this outcome.

Open Your Eyes found lots to rail against in its ‘Editorial‘:

Bureaucracy will flourish as reams of pencil pushers calculate a web of tax and rebates.

That Goldman Sachs and their friends in the banking work will ultimately profit massively as the scheme moves into carbon trading, which is due to commence within 3 years, and if ultimately brought in worldwide will lead to the creation of a market, according to the Wall Street Journal to be worth $US 3 trillion per year.

And that despite all the tax, the impoverishment for most, and profit for a few, the world’s climate will not be affected a jot.

Chris White from Blogging from a life-long unionist is an advocate of a carbon tax, but wanted more action from his own political party:

It is a historic step forward for Australia to be finally taking action to price carbon. The time for talking is over as the damaging impacts of global warming become ever more apparent. By acting to reduce emissions, the politics of delay and denial will become a historic relic.

However the long delay in acting makes our challenge today bigger and more urgent than ever. The aspirations of the carbon pricing scheme are low in comparison with what the science community tells us we need to do to avoid great damage to Australia’s economy, our environment, and the way we live.

Clean Energy Future website

Climate Change Denier pounced on the real culprit in Australia the only country in the world with an economy-wide carbon tax:

And the rest of the world does not care.

…So how does our 160 million tonnes reduction compare to China’s annual production of CO2? China produces 7,031 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. Thats 2.2 per cent of Chinas output. So if China increases it output by the same amount it did in 2010, by ten percent, the 160 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide saved by Australia will be replaced by China in 3 months.

Billions of dollars in extra burdens on Australian workers, industry and consumers to be replaced by China in three months.

The hashtag #CP topped the Australian Twitter trending topics. There was lots of retweeting including this one by @dannolan who was busy during and after the media conference with quite a turn of phrase:

You can't spell ‘carbon tax' without SOCIALIST EUGENICS-LADEN MALTHUSIAN DEATH-PACT #cp

@GeordieGuy added a personal touch:

My son is due in November. There's still an outside chance I'll get to dive the Great Barrier Reef with him. #cp #cef

The cynics were out after Gillard’s hour long media event. @therevmountain was typical:

“PM, can you tell me your message again, but in a soundbite?” #cp

Former Davis Cup tennis player @JohnAlexanderMP, turned conservative parliamentarian, stuck to the party script:

So Aust companies can now move offshore, pay less to locals, avoid paying #carbontax and sell credits back into our market. Great reform #cp

@zinders echoed Gillard’s mention of a former British Conservative PM:

“The danger of global warming is… real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices” Thatcher, 1990 http://bit.ly/bDBNzG #cp #auspol

@SimonCopland seemed surprised at the Prime Minister’s performance:

Wow, Gillard is actually selling this quite well. #cp

More analysis and reactions will follow when the dust settles, although that could be years away.

Australia’s Swear-In: Fine is a Four-Letter Word

Kevin Rennie — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:52:29 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage SlutWalks 2011.

Warning: If you’re easily shocked or object to so-called indecent or profane language, then please do not open any of the links or watch the video in this post.

Melbourne has just had a swear-in outside Victoria’s State Parliament to protest against new laws for on-the-spot fines for swearing. A YouTube video of the event captured by chllptr at the event was quickly posted on Melbourne Protests Weblog:

According to their report:

Media were present in force, whether hoping for police intervention or simply drawn by the novelty of the occasion, but there was no trouble. Reports can be found on The Age website and ABC online.

This issue has caused a lot of web chatter in places other than the usual suspects: mostly outrage or disbelief, mixed with a lot of humour.

At the Glitch Hop Forum, ‘a bunch of like minded techy geeks’ with an interest in music, kayhat posted the topic ‘You're not allowed to f**cking swear in Melbourne, Australia‘:

This is horrible, our human rights are being taken away from us blatently. Didn't we already have a perfectly functional verbal abuse law? This is ridiculous.

angryranchor responded:

This is possibly the dumbest thing I have heard. Really? Do police officers not have real criminals to find in Australia? Are there not real laws to enforce there against things like rape and murder? Do we really want them to be some sort of morality police?

No swearing sign. Image by Flickr user Alice Chaos (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

At The Roar, Art Sapphire, aka Athas Zafiris, tackled the issue with humour in ‘how going to the football could cost an extra $240’. It is ‘an Australian sports opinion website which blends expert analysis with fan written articles’.

“Sergeant Brown?”

“Yes, Constable White?”

“There are 250 Sydney supporters chanting ‘F*** off Melbourne.’ What do I do?”

“Issue them fines, Constable White.”

“What? All of them?’”

“Yes. All of them!”

“What about the 1000 Victory supporters who have just started chanting “F*** off Sydney?”

“Fine them as well, Constable White. Well? What are you waiting for!”

… Let’s hope the Victorian Police apply this ass of a law with some common sense.

At off-roaders website 4WD Action the thread ran: ‘Fines for swearing in public !?‘

Angry6 who started this discussion lived up to his nickname:

Let me start by saying what the hell is this country coming to? Saw on the news a night or two ago that they will start giving $245 (dont quote me) on the spot fines to bad language in public.

If all the speed camera rage wasnt clear enough, then this will certainly open your eyes that all they are interested in is revenue any which way they can!

In reply Shaker4X4 took the side of the law:

I think cops are fed up with being sworn at in an abusive tone and they need something to book them for. How hard is it to kerb your tongue? Don't you think others are offended? I swear sometimes, but never out loud in public or among strangers. I've some respect.

Michael Vaughan at A single's survival guide likes a pun as well in ‘Obscene … and not heard‘:

Swear v.i. Use profane oaths to express anger or as expletives.

Well bugger me, move over speed-camera revenue, the Spring Street Mafia is introducing a new cash cow on the revenue-raising block – a potentially giant government swear box (oops, can I still say box?) at about 240 bucks a throw. Yeah, I said bucks with a B.

Freelance writer James Schloeffel continued the lighthearted approach with ‘Why Victoria’s swearing ban should be extended to politicians‘. He has a list of distasteful phrases that should cop a fine such as:

“Moving forward”…“Feeling the pinch”…“Un-Australian” …“Not ruling anything in or out”.

At J Man Talkback’s post ‘On The Spot Fines for Swearing‘, he sees some advantages:

…firstly it will help to free up our already overburdened courts so they can spend more time dealing with more serious matters and secondly it will speed the process up immeasurably for those charged with offensive language which is a good thing especially if the offender is a young person.

But he has concerns that:

…with every power comes the potential for the abuse of that power.

@Wil_Anderson is a popular TV and stand-up comedian. He tweeted about future Melbourne International Comedy Festival gigs:

@Wil_Anderson: Victoria announced on-the-spot fines of $240 for indecent language. Suddenly my MICF show is going to cost me a lot more next year…

So is this just a laughing matter? Not according to A f#@%ing stupid law from Aidan Wilson of Crikey's language blog Fully (sic). He checked on the old law that is being given new life by the instant fines:

I personally find it unbelievable that Victoria still has legislation against offensive behaviour and ‘obscene’ language. Being curious, I went to the legislation and found the relevant section (17):

17. Obscene, indecent, threatening language and behaviour etc. in public
Any person who in or near a public place or within the view or hearing of any person being or passing therein or thereon-
1. sings an obscene song or ballad;
2. writes or draws exhibits or displays an indecent or obscene word figure or representation;
3. uses profane indecent or obscene language or threatening abusive or insulting words; or
4. behaves in a riotous indecent offensive or insulting manner-
shall be guilty of an offence.

Image from Crikey's Fully (sic) blog

The highlighting has been added. Many fans of Scotland's famous bard Rabbie Burns will be grateful for this warning and forgive Aidan's lingusitic redundancy, ‘I personally' (sic).

The swear-in rally drew a smaller crowd than had indicated their intention to attend on Facebook. Perhaps the f**kwalk on 25 June, 2011, based on the recent slutwalk, will have more success.

This post is part of our special coverage SlutWalks 2011.

Australia: SlutWalks Spread the Word

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 30 May 2011 23:12:41 +0000

This post is part of our special coverage Global Development 2011 and SlutWalks 2011.

Following Toronto’s lead, Australians have started a series of SlutWalks with Melbourne’s first march on Saturday 28 May, 2011. The catchphrase: Make it known that those who experience sexual assault are never the ones at fault.

Image courtesy: Slutwalk Melbourne

Their website has a video coverage of the rally posted on YouTube by IndolentDandy:

The message has strong support but some bloggers find the word slut and the 'slutty' dress problematic.

Leslie Cannold, one of the speakers, was clear about the reasons for her support of the march at her self-titled blog:

Today what we are doing is TAKING BACK the word slut. By RECLAIMING the word slut we DISEMPOWER IT. Gays have reclaimed the word Queer, and good on them. Today the women and men of Melbourne are reclaiming the word SLUT.

Melinda Tankard Reist, author of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls, has other ideas at The Punch:

Using slut as the flagship word for this new movement puts women in danger through giving men even more license to think about women in a way that suits them, and not as targets of violence and terrible social discrimination.

Jimbo blogs at In My Father’s Footsteps. A chance encounter with the march brought these thoughts about whether it is ‘feminist folly':

Point is, while I fully support the notion that women (or the way they choose to dress) should not be blamed for the lustful crimes committed by men (or other women!), I’d wish they would pick a better banner to express themselves.

Somehow calling themselves ‘sluts’ and trying to ‘reclaim the word’ for themselves in protest just seems not right.

Karen Pickering, one of the organisers of SlutWalk Melbourne, explained her involvement at Crikey:

But if criticism has come from every direction, so has a kind of intuitive, organic support. We’ve welcomed a diverse cross-section of people into the SlutWalk community. We’ve got grandmothers marching with their whole families, women marching in hijab, young people, old people, gay, straight, trans, bi, black, white, male, female, sluts and their allies all coming together for one moment to stand together against victim-blaming.

And if you don’t like it, don’t come.

Melissa from Brisbane has a wide ranging response. She is concerned about the use of the word 'slut':

I'm not sure that the word 'slut' can (or even should) be ‘reappropriated'. I think that there are some pejorative terms that ought to be simply retired. Not accepted, not changed. Banished forever.

But her concerns go far deeper than terminology:

March for your right to safety from sexual violence. Blog about the prevailing derision rape victims receive from those who snigger and whisper that they ‘had it coming' or shouldn't have ‘dressed like a slut'.

But please. Open your eyes. Look at the world around you and how horrific it is to be a woman in Africa or the Middle East or the Sub Continent.

Don't march for me. Don't dress in costume and turn this issue into a mockery, declaring it a march for human rights if you can't see the big picture.

March for them.

Michelle is also from Brisbane and attended the walk. Her The Red Pill Survival Guide has video and photos including these two images:

Image: The Red Pill Survival Guide blog

Her earlier rant explained her views:

We are marching because despite people making the right noises, the message isn't getting through.

It may also come as a surprise to some of you, but these marches aren't full of women dressed in revealing clothing. Sure, some will do that and I say go for it; but it's not a prerequisite.

This post is part of our special coverage Global Development 2011 and SlutWalks 2011.

Australia: Journalist Arrest Over Facebook Photo

Kevin Rennie — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:58:25 +0000

Australian journalist arrested and iPad seized! No it’s not Julian Assange.

But Ben Grubb’s brief encounter with Queensland authorities raised several serious cyber issues including social media privacy and security, police powers of arrest and confiscation of digital devices, plus journalists’ rights.

As Tigtog explained at Larvatus Prodeo:

Fairfax journalist Ben Grubb was briefly arrested by Queensland Police yesterday after writing an article about an internet security expert who gave a conference slideshow presentation on the ease of bypassing Facebook’s privacy controls to obtain a user’s photographs without a username or password. The security expert had allegedly sent Grubb copies of some of the “private” Facebook images that he had accessed.

Charis Palmer of Technology Spectator was not only appalled by the police actions:

The transcript of Grubb’s conversation with the Queensland Police officers gives real insight into why journalists should be concerned about the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, and should as a matter of practice encrypt any source data on the devices they use for work.

But also lamented how tech un-savvy our community guardians can be:

It also shows the real lack of technology knowledge within the police force. At one point during the questioning one of the officers asked Grubb to pardon his “lack of technology” and after being asked a range of technical questions about how Facebook works, Grubb was then left to essentially tell the officer it was not up to him to make his case for him.

Adam Garner works in IT consulting and blogs at TGF. He was at the conference where the photos were displayed and later pondered the legal and ethical questions:

Was what Christian did ethical? In my mind, no.
Was it legal? Probably not.
Did QPS intimidate Ben Grubb? It would seem so to me.
Should Ben Grubb have a case to answer to police? To me, it seems like QPS are shooting the messenger.
Can police just sieze someones iPad like that? They seem to think so.

Not all members of the police force are cyber dunces, as Adam's link to a Queensland Police Service media unit tweet shows:

@QPSmedia: Police can legally seize material which may be evidence of a crime. It will be returned as soon as we can do so.

Geordie Guy's personal blog I'm Not a Ninja, I'm Not Your Ninja echoed Adam’s concerns about police lack of tech knowledge:

Queensland police need to learn how technology works before it becomes police policy to arrest everyone on the Internet when something goes wrong.

The story quickly received international attention on the blogosphere. Paul Sawers posted at UK based TNW (The Next Web):

This case may set a precedent in terms of what constitutes illegal activity online. Althought Grubb isn’t likely to face any further reprimands for receiving the photos, this case does raise some big questions on how the police will handle such activity in the future. Many people have been prosecuted for downloading music illegally, and it seems that procuring images without permission from Facebook is very much in the same ballpark.

Peter Black, senior lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology's Law School, specialises in Internet law. His post on the ABC’s Drum took a deeper look at the legal implications of this incident:

This incident raises questions relating to the scope of Australia’s cybercrime legislation, the questionable judgment of the Queensland Police in deciding to pursue the journalist who reported the story (and not as yet the researcher who managed to obtain access to the private photos), and whether Australia’s laws provide proper safeguards for journalists.

Somehow the original target, Facebook, has escaped close scrutiny so far. However, Nano at JailbreakGuides Guides ‘news, tweaks and hacks about jailbreaking’ reminded us that:

Heinrich supposedly pulled this stunt, to demonstrate that even with the highest security settings, Facebook can still be infiltrated by those who know how.

In their own words:

Ben Grubb’s print media response and audio of the seizure of his iPad is available here: Grubb's story: privacy, news and the strong arm of the law

A video of the police justification is here: Facebook ‘break-ins': police say receiving photos like taking stolen TVs

Australia: Asylum Seekers Inflame Detention Debate

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 02 May 2011 09:26:02 +0000

Debate about asylum seekers policies in Australia was ignited yet again by recent events in detention centres:

A rooftop protest at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney's west has ended after lasting for 11 days.

…The protest started when 100 detainees set fire to furniture and confronted guards.

Nine buildings destroyed by fire, with 22 people now in Silverwater jail awaiting questioning over their part in the disturbance.
Villawood rooftop protest ends after 11 days (ABC Online 30 April 2011)

The Refugee Action Collective organise a march and protest on Saturday 2 April, 2011, against children in immigration detention outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation at Camp Road, Broadmeadows. Image by Flickr user Takver (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Jack the Insider who blogs for The Australian daily newspaper sees the Gillard Labor government caught between those who want to see a get tough policy on so-called ‘boat people’ refugees and those who would like to see a more compassionate approach. The Liberal National Party opposition coalition wants a return to the Howard government’s Pacific solution on Nauru. Labor is sticking to mandatory detention while it clings to its fading idea of a regional processing centre in East Timor:

What we’re left with is a form of political stasis, a debate that cannot move on; mired as it is in some of the uglier elements of the Australian character. But it’s the government who has it all to lose.
Government fights for a no-win on asylum-seekers

One Nation Riverina is a regional blog ‘of Australia's only true nationalist political party’. Craig Hesketh puts the minority party’s view, which has often been attacked as part of the ‘uglier’ side:

The Australian people have had enough. We need strong government not gross political correctness and weak kneed policy aimed to appease imported terrorists and delusional refugee advocates.
Villawood Riots

Dave Bath at Balneus appeals to rationality, a quality often in short supply with regard to immigration issues:

Checking out the latest UNHCR statistics on applications for asylum, I’m having a problem understanding hairy-chested pronouncements from Canberra, the failure of the mainstream media to inform the public, and the majority opinion.

The problem with asylum seekers

At group blog Larvatus Prodeo, Kim bemoans the get-tough, knee-jerk reaction of the government:

‘Doing something’ is supposed to break the cycle of what is thought to be negative publicity for the government. Yet every time they ‘do something’, all they do is reinforce the framing of the story, and set the scene for escalating demands for further policy shifts on the run. The end point is Howard era policy, but even then, that would be unlikely to satisfy the hungry wolves.

So, we have something that is wrong, politically futile, and bad policy.
The endless cycle of asylum seeker politics

The 120+ comments on this post indicate the depth of feeling surrounding the asylum seeker controversy. These comments capture some of this:

Greg Clancy, at the Australian Conservative, has his own solution that he believes targets the real culprits – people smugglers:

…any unauthorised boat arrival …will be treated precisely as others have in the past – with two exceptions. Should passengers claim refugee status, this process will be undertaken, not by Australian immigration officials, but by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In the event of a successful claim, the country of destination for that refugee will be determined by consultation between Australian and UNHCR officials – but it will not be Australia. The cost of removing both successful and unsuccessful refugee claimants will be supported by the Australian government.
How to stop the boats

Clancy and the Green Left Weekly’s Jay Fletcher are poles apart:

It’s not a crime to resist injustice — the refugees who have taken it on themselves to revolt inside Australia’s mandatory detention system must be defended and supported for their stand.

It’s not a crime to seek asylum. Every single person with a well-founded fear for their safety that comes to Australia and requests asylum, even if they have the wrong identity papers or no papers at all, has a legal right to do so.

On the other hand, detaining people without charge, trial or sentence is criminal.

It is an outrageous crime to carry out large-scale state violence against people who, under international law, are entitled to government protection.
Mandatory detention is the real crime

It is a very messy and complex issue. Mandatory detention, offshore processing, temporary protection visas, and character tests are just some of the contentious aspects.

The government seem to be caught in the middle - a very uncomfortable position that their supporters would like them to vacate.

Thumbnail used is from the Flickr page of Takver used under CC License Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Australia: Crusading Christian Lanced by Own Tweets

Kevin Rennie — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:46:20 +0000

It’s not easy being an ‘expert’ commentator about both Christianity and all things military. Former commander of Australia’s SAS (Special Air Services) and the current managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby discovered the pitfalls this week. His tweet during the 25 April national ANZAC Day commemoration is certainly causing a storm:

(Thanks to @MariekeHardy for the screen shot.)

The original tweet, ‘Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!‘, has been deleted.

At North Coast Voices Peter Time posted the contentious tweet and a Seven Sunrise video of Jim defending his remarks.

John Richardson at Your Democracy, ‘democracy is not a spectator sport’, couldn’t resist the religious pun in his post title when attacking Wallace for using his father in his explanation:

What kind of low-life, mealy-mouthed hypocrite would seek to justify his behaviour by dragging his 96 year-old father into the situation …. Wallace may be a former member of the SAS but my Uncles, both of whom fought in Tobruk & on the Kokoda Trail, would view his actions as an act of cowardice.

One thing that Wallace senior would be familiar with, that has never gone away, is our propensity for racism & bigotry. That people like his ‘christian son' think that this is what they fought for simply demonstrates what a senseless waste war really is.
christian soldiers …..

Ross's Right Angle sees no need for the backdown:

Aussies should be grateful for that guy who’s getting abused by all the worst elements in Australia. Just a pity he didn’t stick to his guns. He has nothing to say sorry for.

… He should never have apologised. He told the truth about how those who sacrificed so much would feel.
ANZAC Day, NOT ANZAC ‘GAY!’ Keep Australia Worth Fighting For!

Senthorun Raj, Senior Policy Advisor for the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW) and NSW Vice-President of Amnesty International Australia, posted at The Punch. He takes issue with Wallace’s reference to gay marriage:

As we commemorate ANZAC Day, we not only reflect upon the events of World War I, we also remember what it means to be Australian. An Australia built on mateship, equality and fairness should not allow for any one group of people to be discriminated or marginalised on the basis of their identity.

So why does equality for all, regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity still cause great anxiety for some?
Christian lobby chief violates the true Anzac spirit

A common defence to twitter indiscretions is that the writer is new to the medium. Wallace claims that he has only a week’s real experience with twitter. However, many tweeters claim otherwise:

GrogsGamut Greg Jericho

Jim Wallace says he's been on Twitter “seriously” for “one week”. When was his first tweet? 2 Feb 2010… http://bit.ly/eWuxsv

Sophist In Training, ‘Thoughts of a Melbourne law student’, ponders where conservatives stand on the issue of gay marriage:

Sparked by @JimWallaceACL ‘s little Twitter fail today and the inevitable cyber-lynching by the ‘gaystapo’ (cheers to Bill Muehlenberg for that gem ) which followed, I started to wonder whether the divide between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ gay marriage has been wrongly perceived as a left/right issue.

… I’m struggling to think why a self-declared ‘right-winger’ would (in light of modern politics) would necessarily have an opinion on gay marriage in Australia.
Are Australia’s Right Against Gay Marriage?

At Culture Watch, Bill Muehlenberg is not afraid of what he sees as PC:

Jim Wallace, who now heads up the Australian Christian Lobby, was 100 per cent correct in making his remarks.

Instead of living in a democracy where various points of view can be freely heard, we are instead living in a PC state where it is becoming increasingly risky to dare say anything that will rock the PC agendas. The homosexual lobby is clearly the most Stalinist in this regard. They will tolerate absolutely no dissent from their radical agenda.
Anzacs and Political Correctness

The Conscience Vote, ‘Politics for the Human’, is unimpressed by Wallace’s apology:

Notice that Wallace is not apologising for the sentiment, only the timing. So, on any other day, Wallace thinks it would be perfectly fine for him to link Australian deaths in war to his organisation’s ongoing campaign against same-sex marriage (and queer people in general) – not to mention his preoccupation with some imagined creeping ‘Arab menace’. Just not today.
Lest we forget – Anzac Day’s not for politics

The blogosphere and twitterati have been exceptionally active with their comments. Please click any of the above links or search twitter at JimWallace for strong comments from both sides.

This seems to have been another example of that viral cyber disease: not thinking before you tweet.

(Personal note: I have been known to take issue with Jim Wallace about similar issues through my blogs and on twitter.)

Australian blogger disappears in China

Kevin Rennie — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:37:48 +0000

An Australian blogger and spy novelist, Yang Hengjun, is missing in China. He may have been arrested by Chinese authorities.

Australia: Mixed Reactions to Libya Intervention

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:13 +0000

Thought it was worth capturing some of the early reactions in the Australian blogosphere to the Libya No-Fly Zone and intervention. The Australian government has been a strong supporter of the UN resolution.

Hoyden About Town’s tigtog has an open thread:

The Libyan people deserve support in overthrowing their tyrant and protection against his threats of retaliation and further repression, absolutely. But why do the people of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen apparently deserve less from the governments of the West? Is it just that their despots are perceived to wear a slightly less alarming face? Will the intervention in Libya do all that humanitarians wish for it to do? How full hearted is the West’s support for this unprecedented ‘Arab Spring’?
Libya NFZ and selective support for Arab uprisings

Public Opinion's Gary Sauer-Thompson questions the goals of the intervention:

What is political endgame here? What is the role the U.S. or the Europeans might be expected to play should Qaddafi fall? What steps will follow should the No Fly Zone and indirect intervention not succeed in driving Qaddafi from power? The best answer is regime change — displacing the Gaddafi government of Libya and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels.
Liberal interventionism + Libya

At his self-titled blog, Middle East commentator Anthony Loewenstein has been a strong voice against the no-fly zone and accompanying air assault:

Hillary Clinton is pushing for a war with absolutely no clue what may happen.

Shame on all the Western journalists and commentators cheering on the no-fly zone with an understanding that goes no further than “we must do something“. If you want to be in the military, get in uniform and fight a war. If not, settle down.
Any thoughts about what our new war against Libya is really supposed to achieve?

Duckpond was faster off the mark than the NFZ coalition. His concerns stop short of opposing the intervention:

The purpose of the attack was to stop Gaddafi using aerial bombing, artillery and tank fire against civilian targets. What happens when the aerial attacks are called off? Is this precedent going to be followed from now on when civilians are subject to military attacks? My sense is that the scale and intensity of the aerial attacks are disproportionate to the intended objectives.
ATTACK ON LIBYA

And they are just some of the progressive bloggers.

Peter at Qohel self-styled as ‘Australia's Leading Independent Conservative Blog’ questions this apparent hypocrisy by the left:

But how is using force to bring about regime change in Libya OK, when using force to bring about regime change in Iraq was not OK, was about oil, meant that George Bush was Satan, or acting for the bushitlerchimphalliburton global industrial machine?

… No matter what the outcome, no matter how good the West’s intentions, no matter how free of commercial imperatives, no matter how driven by humanitarian concern, 1500 years of history tell us we will come out looking like the villains.
Libya vs Iraq

Even right wing Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt seems equivocal:

l’m all in favor of preventing a massacre of civilians, but what is the end game here?

… Are the allies happy if Gaddafi staying in control of Libya, apart from the rebel’s enclave around Benghazi? How long will this no fly zone be imposed?

There seems to have been little of the debate about effectively declaring war on Gaddafi as there was about declaring war on Saddam. And there are much fewer Western security interests at stake, too - no WMD programs, no funding of terrorists, no history of invading neighbors.
Libya: but what next?

At News Corporation’s blog site The Punch, Thom Woodroofe is having the pragmatist’s bet each way:

Military options should always be a last resort. But realistically what else was there that we could do?

We should remember that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing and hold our breath that Gaddafi will back down soon before any escalation occurs.
A necessary attack, now for the really tricky bit

Yesterday a friend asked me if an anti-intervention rally was planned for Melbourne this week. I could not find any mention of one on the web. Perhaps he should contact Indymedia where an anonymous writer gives reason for opposing the intervention:

As a leftist who supports the inspiring democracy uprising in Libya I was very disturbed to see the start of military action by France, Britain and the U.S. Let me be crystal clear from the start, I believe Gaddaffi to be an odious ruthless dictator who has no legitimacy and violently oppresses his own people. However I do not believe the intervention is a good thing for the following reasons…

Why military action in Libya is wrong.