Charlie Hebdo - Many speak, few listen

The massacre in the offices of French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was a tragedy. Twelve people were murdered and eleven injured when three masked gunman burst into the office and fired on them. Two days later the perpetrators were killed by police, following another siege. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the attack on Charlie Hebdo. ⁽¹⁾

Charlie Hebdo has courted controversy because it often publishes offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. For a number of years, the offices and some of its employees have been guarded by police because the depictions of Muhammad have infuriated many Muslims, with some threatening violent retaliation. On 7 January 2015 that retaliation came in the most tragic of ways. The surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo have sworn to keep the magazine open and to continue publishing its acerbic satire regardless of who it offends.

Interestingly, Charlie Hebdo was happy to offend Muslims but not to offend Jews so much. Charlie Hebdo is taking the 'freedom of speech' high ground over this attack ... but in 2008 the magazine sacked cartoonist Maurice Sinet for anti-Semitism after he made a jibe at French President Sarkozy's son ⁽²⁾. There are two things with this. Firstly, attacking Islam and Muslims is apparently fair game while criticising a politician marrying into a Jewish family isn't. Secondly, it's ok to offend those who have no political power, those who are the fodder in the West's war on terror or the victims of Israel's genocidal policies, but it's not ok to criticise someone with influence. Politicians are constantly the victims of satire and criticism, including Mr Sarkozy. The only reason Sinet was sacked was because his satire dared to ridicule Jews based on a common stereotype. How is that different to the magazine's depictions of Islam? The only difference is that it is probably less offensive, in that it didn't use sexual or perverted imagery. Yet Sinet was sacked.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is being labelled an attack on freedom of speech. Without doubt, there are less violent ways to resolve issues with those who cause offense. Freedom of speech means that there will always be someone who is willing to push the boundaries of decency and respect. That doesn't mean they deserve to die.

Voltaire once stated 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.

The attack was followed by an outpouring of anger, sympathy and solidarity for freedom of expression. Twitter was rife with #JeSuisCharlie (I Am Charlie) as people expressed solidarity with the victims. Not all who condemned the attack agreed with Charlie Hebdo's satire, but they were willing to defend its right to freedom of expression.

A free and just society should defend freedom of speech, however, this freedom is a two-edged sword. One person's opinion may offend another. But the other may also say things considered offensive. If we ban speech, where is the line drawn. It is a two-edged sword but one that must exist.

In Australia, freedom of speech came to a head in 2014 when the government considered repealing Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful for a person to act in a way that is likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group' based on 'race, colour or national or ethnic origin'. ⁽³⁾ Many on the right-wing saw this as left-wing, do-gooder, political correctness. The Attorney General, George Brandis, supported repealing 18C and stated that 'people have the right to be bigots'. I agree with him. People do have a right to voice their opinions and this includes the opinions of bigots who, sadly, walk among us still ... even in the more enlightened 21st century. This doesn't mean that offensive comments and behaviour isn't illegal under a host of other laws, such as defamation or incitement to violence.

While Brandis is happy to defend bigots, the conservative government he belongs to wages war on the publicly owned ABC and SBS networks because they don't always give favourable scrutiny to the government, it's policies or even of Australia's actions. Abbott even claimed the ABC took everyone else's side except Australia's when it was covering a story of allegations of abuse of asylum seekers by the Royal Australian Navy ⁽⁴⁾. Why should it take Australia's side? It's there to report news and make comment (remember, freedom of speech). There should be no 'sides' when it comes to revealing abuse, corruption and criminal behaviour.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre played into the hands of Islamophobes the world over. They predictably blamed all Muslims, blamed the Koran, blamed Islam. Some of these comments came from Christian pastors as if their own religions, creeds, politics or nations aren't guilty of encouraging racism, xenophobia and violence. Grenades were thrown at a mosque in France, a Muslim prayer hall was fired upon and a kebab shop was firebombed.⁽⁵⁾

The Islamophobes seem to have not realised that one of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was a Muslim. In fact, this particular Muslim, Ahmed Merabet, was a police officer tasked with guarding the offices of Charlie Hebdo; the magazine that regularly attacked his Prophet with some of the most vile imagery and suggestion. Ahmed died protecting the free speech of a magazine that regularly ridiculed and deliberately offended his religion. ⁽⁶⁾ News of Ahmed's sacrifice was followed by many tweeting #JeSuisAhmed, in support of his selfless actions.

To argue that Islam is opposed to freedom of speech ignores the fact that in his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, was subject to abuse and torment. He didn't respond violently. He called his followers to show love and compassion. When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a Western one? Centuries ago. For at least the last 200 years, almost all invasions and incursions have been perpetrated by Western nations, and often into Muslim lands. But its easy for the West to pick on its victims when it fails to show empathy.

One of the problems with racist satire is that it reinforces stereotypes in the mind of the easily led and it erodes empathy for others. This lack of empathy means that most Islamophobes have no understanding of the terror that their nations have inflicted on Muslim countries and people, nor do they care.

The media doesn't help with unbalanced reporting.  Some media reported the Charlie Hebdo attack as the first terrorist attack in Europe since 2005. Apparently, they forgot about Christian terrorist, Anders Breivik going on a bombing and shooting spree that killed 77 people in Norway. Breivik wrote a manifesto in which he demanded the deportation of Muslims from Europe and annihilation of Marxists and multicultralism. His was a terrorist attack. He was a Christian. Where was the outrage from those who rise up every time a Muslim kills an innocent? When terrorists kill in the name Islam, Muslims quickly condemn them, Imams speak out against them. Where was the outrage in the church after Anders Breivik killed in the name of God and an ideology embraced by many Christians?

The day before the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a bombing occurred in the United States at the office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It received very little coverage. ⁽⁷⁾ Those who were offended by the lack of coverage hit Twitter with #NAACPbombing to bring attention to it. Had Muslims been responsible it would have been international news and no doubt followed by a Twitterstorm of Islamophobic hashtags.

It seems that people have either forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the West's attacks on the media. Before Muslims were attacking Charlie Hebdo, NATO bombed Tanjung, a state-run Serbian television station, killing 10 people and injuring 18. NATO justified it by claiming it ran propaganda from Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic who would later be charged with crimes against humanity. Whatever the justification, the building contained 150 civilians, a number of whom were killed in the attack. ⁽⁸⁾

In 2001, the United States bombed the offices of Middle Eastern journalism giant, Al Jazeera in Kabul, killing one employee and injuring another. The USA claimed it was accidental, however Al Jazeera claims that US forces were well aware of its location. ⁽⁹⁾

In 2003, the US again attacked Al Jazeera. This time in Baghdad, killing one and injuring another. ⁽¹⁰⁾

In 2005, reports emerged of a leaked memo between then US President George W. Bush and then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, which indicated Bush's intention to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. ⁽¹¹⁾ Blair thankfully talked Bush out of it.

The attacks on Al Jazeera were because America felt that their's was the only version of events that should be published. Al Jazeera on the other hand, felt that they shouldn't bend to western propaganda and instead published views and facts that were devoid of undue influence from the USA.

In 2008, Israel deliberately killed a Palestinian journalist in Gaza ⁽¹²⁾. In the 2012, Israel bombed the Russian TV office of Rusiya Al-Yaum in Gaza during its horrendous bombing campaign⁽¹³⁾. In 2014 Israel waged a genocidal attack on Gaza in which more 2,000 people were killed, most of whom were civilians⁽¹⁴⁾. During that war, Israel killed 17 journalists ⁽¹⁵⁾, yet hypocritically bemoans the Charlie Hebdo murders.

In 2014, a number of US networks sacked journalists who failed to support Israel and dared to show empathy for the Palestinians who were at that time being bombed incessantly by Israel. ⁽¹⁶⁾ The US and its media giants only like freedom of speech when it favours them, their policies or their allies.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, as does condemnation. Quite rightly, the Charlie Hebdo attack was condemned across the globe. Contrary to what some have said, Muslims across the globe have also condemned the attack ^{(17) (18)}.

Muslims are in the middle, attacked by extremists abusing their religion, while bearing the brunt of the world's derision.

Muslims in the Middle ⁽¹⁶⁾

If we're going to claim that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on freedom of speech, then we must condemn all other attacks on freedom of speech. Including the attacks on Al Jazeera and other media by NATO, US and Israel.

The only 'side' we should take is against terrorism, against attacks on innocent people. We should not emulate Prime Minister Tony Abbott's belief that the media should side with Australia regardless of what laws or atrocities have been committed. G.K. Chesteron once stated, "My country right or wrong" is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "my mother, drunk or sober".

Freedom of speech includes freedom to criticise or roundly condemn what is said. That is not an attack on freedom, if anything it is an exercise in freedom. Being able to speak freely, to write freely, should help each of us be more circumspect in our beliefs and in our actions if we can truly listen to what is being sad, if we can challenge ourselves and what is written to help identify the truth whether it be through satire or biting political commentary. Shakespeare wrote 'Jesters oft prove prophets' otherwise meaning 'the truth is often spoken in jest'. The world has much to learn about itself, to learn why people resort to terrorism, why people are angry, why war in the name of anything is wrong, whether it be religion, democracy, drugs or whatever else. Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.

Is anyone listening to the voice of the people, of the victims?

While many are willing to express their freedom of speech they aren't so willing to express their freedom to listen and to learn.

Many speak, Few listen.


References

1. Al Jazeera, 'Deadly end to sieges', 10 January 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/hostages-dead-as-french-police-end-two-sieges-20151917917890998.html, accessed 10 January 2015.

2. New York Times, Basil Katz, 'A scooter, a Sarkozy and Rancor collide', 5 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/europe/05france.html. Accessed 10 January 2015.

3. Australian Government, Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 - Sect 18C, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html. Accessed 10 January 2105.

4. ABC News, Latika Bourke, 'Prime Minister Tony Abbott says ABC not on Australia's side in interview with 2GB', 4 February 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/tony-abbott-steps-up-criticism-of-abc/5224676. Accessed 10 January 2015.

5. The Telegraph, 'Paris shootings lead to firebomb attacks on French mosques', 8 January 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332467/Paris-shootings-lead-to-firebomb-attacks-on-French-mosques.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

6. World.Mic, Sophie Kleeman, '#JeSuisAhmed Reveals the Hero of the Paris Shooting Everyone Needs to Know', 8 January 2015, http://mic.com/articles/107988/the-hero-of-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-we-re-overlooking. Accessed 9 January 2015.

7. Daily Kos, Shaun King, 'Frustrated by lack of mainstream media coverage, #NAACPBombing hashtag goes viral', 7 January 2015, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/07/1356085/-Frustrated-by-lack-of-mainstream-media-coverage-NAACPBombing-hashtag-goes-viral. Accessed 9 January 2015.

8. The Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Serb TV station was legitimate target, says Blair', 24 April 1999, http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3. Accessed 8 January 2015.

9. The Guardian, Matt Wells, 'Al-Jazeera accuses US of bombing its Kabul office', 17 November 2001, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/nov/17/warinafghanistan2001.afghanistan, Accessed 8 January 2015.

10. BBC News, 'Al-Jazeera hit by missile', 8 April 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2927527.stm. Accessed 8 January 2015.

11. The Guardian, Dominic Timms, 'Al-Jazeera seeks answers over 'bombing' memo', 23 November 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/23/iraq.iraqandthemedia. Accessed 8 January 2015.

12. The Electronic Intifida, Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 'Israel forces in Gaza "willfully kill" journalist', 17 April 2008, http://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-forces-gaza-willfully-kill-journalist/3347. Accessed 10 January 2015.

13. Sputnik International, 'Israel Airstrike Destroys Russia Today TV Channel's Gaza Office', 16 September 2012, http://sputniknews.com/world/20121118/177566787.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

14. Amnesty International, 'Families Under the Rubble - Israeli attacks on inhabited homes', November 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/032/2014/en/613926df-68c4-47bb-b587-00975f014e4b/mde150322014en.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2014.

15. Counter Current News, M.B. David, 'These 17 Journalists Were Killed by Israel', 29 August 2014, http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/these-17-journalists-were-killed-by-israel-in-gaza/. Accessed 10 January 2014.

16. World Socialist Web Site, Barry Grey, 'US networks remove reporters critical of Israeli attack on Gaza', http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/19/medi-j19.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

17. On Islam, by Shari 'ah staff, 'How Muslim Scholars View Paris attack (in-depth)', 8 January 2015, http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/481653-paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-cartoon.html. Accessed 8 January 2015.

18. Huffington Post, Jaweed Kaleem, 'Why Muslims Are Talking About Islam And Blasphemy After Charlie Hebdo', 7 January 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-muslims-blasphemy_n_6433104.html. Accessed 9 January 2015.

19. Khalid Albaih, (@khalidalbaih), Al Jazeera, 'Cartoonists react to Charlie Hebdo Attack', 7 January 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/cartoonists-react-charlie-hebdo-attack-201517171624156381.html. Accessed 10 January 2015.

Bob Marley & the Matrix.

In the 1999 movie, The Matrix, Morpheus explains to Neo that the world he knows is really just the construct of a computer program:

Morpheus: "The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes; it is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth"

Neo: "what truth is that?"

Morpheus: "That you are a slave, Neo.  Like everyone else, you were born into bondage; born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch; a prison for your mind."

Whilst the real world may not be a computer simulation, we are still imprisoned by our minds and the influences of propaganda spread by government, corporations and other people, often using fear to control our behaviours, our voting patterns, our shopping habits.

Our fear is driven by our thoughts and perceptions, but very often, NOT from reality.  We have been the pawns of government and corporate fear campaigns, whether it was the fear of migrants, the fear of indigenous populations, the fear of communism, the fear of drugs, the fear of Islam, the fear of terrorism, the fear of not having the latest gadget.

Fear is a construct.

Fear may not be a computer simulation, but it is the next best thing.  It is a simulation of the real world which plays out in our minds, in our thoughts and then manifests in our behaviours, actions and reactions.

Our thoughts are powerful weapons that we turn first on ourselves and then on others.

Our thoughts are so powerful, that others want to manipulate them.  For when you control a person's  thoughts, you control the person.

Joseph Goebbels stated "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will believe it.  The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State'. 

We need to question everything that we see and hear.  How many people were killed in the name of democracy to prevent the evil scourge of Communism? How many people were killed in the name of Communism to prevent the evil scourge of Capitalism?  Whether a person lived in Socialist Moscow or democratic Washington, they were subject to similar propaganda campaigns from their leaders.

Another Nazi, Hermann Goering, stated "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany.  That is understood. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Thought control, propaganda, is all around us.  We see it in current affairs shows designed to make us terrified of our neighbours, of migrants, refugees, killer diseases, rebel teenagers, crime! We see it in news articles and even in advertising.  We hear it preached from the pulpit that Christianity is being attacked and by politicians declaring our freedoms are under attack.

Yet, it is all nonsense.  It is influential leaders manipulating you.

To continue the Matrix analogy you have two choices, you can take the blue pill and stay in your current life without changing your beliefs, or take the red pill and see the truth for yourself. As Morpheus said "you take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill ... and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

You can choose to continue living in the world that you know, which is the carefully constructed manipulation of modern propaganda, or you can choose the reality that exists when you control your own mind and see through the falsehoods.

Bob Marley understood this with words that we should all heed: "emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds".

Liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood!

Armchair politicians often pass an overarching assessment of politics in the Middle East, declaring that there will never be peace because "they are always fighting".

Always fighting?

It is true that there have been a number of wars in the Middle East.  However, if such judgement is to be passed then it may be prudent to remember that the most violent continent for centuries has been Europe, which has suffered more wars and more casualties as the result of war than any other continent as the following charts show.

Between 1500 and 1800AD there were 66 wars or battles of significance fought on European soil, while only 3 wars or battles of significance were fought in the Middle East.  That is 22 times the number of battles in Europe than in the Middle East.

 In the 19th century, Europe experienced almost 3 times the number of wars and deaths than the Middle East experienced.

In the 20th century, deaths from war in the Middle East paled in comparison to the violence in Europe.  Whilst Europe had almost twice the number of wars than the Middle East, the death toll from those wars was 25 times worse than the death toll from wars in the Middle East during that period.

World War II was the worst war that the world has seen and was the result of European nationalism.  

Following this, the European dominated United Nations, with heavy influence from Britain, enabled the creation of Israel.  A conflict borne of violence and which continues to this day in violence as a direct result of European interference in the region. 

Prior to that, there was the attack on the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, not because of its threat to Europe, but because of British interest in middle eastern oil.  This lust for oil drove British and US corporate and military activities throughout the Middle East for most of the 20^th century.

Throughout the western world, racist rhetoric argues that multiculturalism doesn't work, that Asians and Arabs don't know how to integrate and that Western nations are peaceful. This rhetoric expects that people from other countries will just give up their culture, rather than retain their culture and embrace the new one.  The rhetoric often includes allegations that these "foreigners" come from violent cultures while ignoring our own violent history.

At some stage, each Middle Eastern despot has been encouraged and supported by the West for strategic political interests while the local population suffers.  The last century has been punctuated with global conflict exported by western nations in the name of "liberty". A liberty that we believe should be thrust on other nations regardless of their wishes or needs.  A liberty delivered by hands dabbled in blood!

Additionally, during the Cold War, both the USA and the USSR used the world as their own violent playgrounds, waging wars and massacres in the name of their own political ideologies, whether it was dressed up as Socialism, Democracy or Liberty.  The war between Iran and Iraq would most likely not have occurred had it not been for the influence of Moscow and Washington.  The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR in the 1980s would not have occurred had it not been for the agitation by the USA in encouraging Afghan insurgents to wage terrorist attacks on USSR territories.  This war resulted in the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; both of which received impetus through the USA funding of the Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

If we are to see a reduction in war, we should not be waging more war.  A war on terror will only beget more war and more terrorism.  We judge the Middle East as being a violent place and use that to justify invasions, attacks and wars. Yet looking at the above charts, it is the war-faring nations of Europe which are the most violent.

George W. Bush once stated that "They hate our freedoms" when referring to Islamic terrorists. It isn't our freedom they hate, but the violence and injustices that have been manifested in countries across the globe as powerful European and American nations forcibly deliver blood-soaked Democracy and Liberty to the world.  Yet as Oscar Wilde once said "When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood, it is difficult to shake hands with her".

Acknowledging our history and choosing not to relive it will ensure that we can have a future free from war, a future of peace.  Rather than passing asinine and ill-informed judgement on people from the Middle East or other areas, we should understand their history, the impact that western nations have on them and then work together to build a better world.

The following statement is reportedly from a German Muslim scholar when asked about terrorism and Islam, "Who started the First World War? Muslims? Who started the Second World War? Muslims? Who killed about 20 millions of aborigines in Australia? Muslims? Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Muslims? Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Muslims? Who killed nearly 50 millions of Indians in South America? Muslims? Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?? No, they weren't Muslims!!! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly ... if a non-Muslim do something bad, it is crime.  If a Muslim commit same, he is a terrorist. So first remove this double standard ... then come to the point!!!"

This comment and the message you should take from this blog is:

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye."

America is not a Democracy

The United States is believed by many to be the world's greatest example of democracy. Yet, it was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic on principles of liberty and fairness for the individual which is very different from a democracy where the will of the majority rules.

Politicians may be elected freely, but the implementation of legislation and policies is not undertaken by election.  A Constitutional Republic is constitutional because the government's powers are limited by the laws in the Constitution and it is a republic because the Head of State is appointed by election rather than inheritance (as in a monarchy) or by force (as in a dictatorship).

John Adams, second President of the United States, described the constitutional republic as being a "government of laws, not of men" and enshrined this in the Constitution of Massachussets in 1780.

Unlike democracy, a Constitutional Republic is designed to control the excesses of mobocracy or the "tryanny of majority".  The founding fathers of the United States warned against the "excesses of democracy" in the Framing Convention.  The debate surrounding the Constitution was detailed in the Federalist Papers.  In Federalist No. 10, James Madison noted:

"Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals."

Democracy literally translates from the Greek as "rule of the people". It generally means that the majority rule. The will of the majority of people in a society is appeased and has its way.  The problem with democracy is that it is great for the majority, but means that minority groups and individuals can be marginalised, forgotten, down trodden, victimised or persecuted. 

The founding fathers of the United States realised this when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". 

America certainly has an appearance of democracy in that people vote in free and fair elections, but that is as far as democracy goes for the USA.  In his book entitled "The American Legal System", John Scheb states that "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not simply a representative democracy but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered".

The Constitution puts the power of legislation and regulation firmly in the hands of Congress. Whilst representatives are elected by the people, the bicameral system of government ensures that legislation and policies are not driven by opinion polls, public emotion or the will of the majority. 

The problem with democracies is that people will always want what is in their own best interests, such as lower taxes and they will vote for politicians who give them what they want, not what is in the best interests of the economy or of society. Government needs to ensure that the best interests of everyone in society are looked after, not just those of the majority. The United State Constitution enshrined liberty, not democracy as the corner stone of government.

Liberty means that people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, it does not mean that they are given everything on a silver platter.  If a person aspires to buy a house, then they have the liberty to do so and can work towards ensuring they can afford one.  If they can't afford it, then it is not in their best interest to load them up with a mortgage that will ultimately cripple them.  If a person aspires to be a doctor, then they have the liberty to do so and can study and work towards that, they are not just given a medical degree because they want one.  Liberty ensure that everyone, from every walk of life, has the opportunity to study medicine, to buy a house, to achieve their desires without being unfairly restrained.

There are many legitimate forms of government.  Democracy is but one.  Certainly democracy has its benefits, but as we have seen with the United States, so does a Constitutional Republic. 

Republican Congressman, Ron Paul succinctly stated "Our country's fathers cherished liberty, not democracy". 

HL Menckin bluntly stated "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".  

Democracy has been labelled as "mobocracy" as it responds to the wishes of the mob sometimes to the detriment of the good of the country and the neglect of the individual. The US Constitution counters this by truly valuing all individuals.

If we are to encourage nations to embrace any US value, it is liberty which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.  Over the years, this value has been forgotten and trampled on by various governments using fear to justify wars, to justify invading other nations, to justify locking up their own citizens.  One only has to review the "reds under the bed" fiasco or the so called "War on Terror" which gave rise to the secretive and fascist "Patriot Act" which limits liberty in the name of combatting an ill-defined terrorism. 

Liberty is the greatest virtue of the United States Constitution.  It should not be forgotten or misunderstood.  Liberty should be valued and appreciated.  Regardless of the system of government, liberty is what matters most to all people and makes life worthwhile and fulfilling. It is liberty that has made America more appealing than the USSR, China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan under the Taliban.  Those countries had no liberty. Had their citizens had liberty: liberty to leave or return, liberty to criticise and question, liberty to worship (or not worship), liberty to pursue their dreams; then those countries may have been more appealing and achieved the levels of greatness and respect that the United States has.

Liberty is more precious than democracy.

Legislating freedom?

From Nazi Germany to the War on Terror - the use of fear & racism to implement Fascism with the approval of the deceived populace.

One month after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, there was a suspicious fire in the Reichstag (German Parliament).  Hitler and the Nazi party used this event to spread fear of communist terrorism plots and take-overs within the Germany population, resulting in the enabling of the Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State otherwise known as the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act 1933.  This Act severely limited the rights of German citizens, paved the way for the one party state, increased the power of the military and law enforcement bodies and the apprehension of citizens and non-citizens, in particular those who were Jewish, communist, members of trade unions or other areas nominated as being a threat to the state.  The decree stated 'It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom , freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed'.

Within 10 minutes of Soviet Union President Joseph Stalin being advised of the assassination of Leningrad chief Sergei Kirov, he ordered the enactment of an emergency law which decreed that the judicial process must be hastened when dealing with terrorism.  Stalin's new law stated that accused terrorists must be brought to trial within 10 days of being charged and that they must be executed immediately after judgement without right of appeal.  This law was used to as the basis for the purges of the late 1930's which resulted in the deaths and imprisonment of millions of his own citizens.

Interestingly, eight months after George W Bush was appointed the President of the USA, the terrible attacks of 11 September 2001 occurred.  Following this, much of the world and certainly the population of the USA was frightened of further terrorism being perpetrated by Islamic militants.  Within a month, George W Bush had passed the USA Patriot Act, otherwise known as the 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.  This Act greatly increased the power of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, border security, apprehension and long term detention of both citizens and non-citizens without charge, limited freedom of expression and the freedom of the media.

In Australia, the Liberal Party government under Prime Minister John Howard strengthened Australia's laws for dealing with suspected terrorists following the introduction of three bills by Attorney General Phil Ruddock, namely the Anti-terrorism bill, 2004, the Anti-terrorism bill (No 2), 2004 and the Anti-terrorism bill (No 3), 2004 and the passing of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.  Opposition parties criticised the lack of time allowed for consultation and the severity of the legislation which included 'shoot to kill' provisions, as well as severely limiting discussion around the application of the Act in specific circumstances.  For instance, the Criminal Code Act describes that it is a criminal offence to reveal that the person was detained under the Act, this applies to the person being detained, their lawyer, interpreter, parents or anyone else who becomes aware of the detention.  The Act has almost unlimited power to severely restrict freedoms of a suspect.  The issue with this Act is not that it is combating terrorism but that anyone who is merely a suspect can be detained involuntarily for ongoing periods, can be placed under house arrest, can be barred from speaking about their detention - all without charge.  This legislation limits freedom of expression in that people expressing dissenting opinions can be charged with sedition and imprisoned.

Is there a correlation between the Reichstag Act, Stalin's emergency law, the Patriot Act and Australia's anti-terrorism laws?  The governments of George W Bush and John Howard are far removed from that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.  My reason for making the comparison however, is to warn that we need to learn from lessons of the past.  Terrorists certainly need to be dealt with and police need powers to address terrorism, but isn't it a victory for terrorists if the freedoms that countries such as the USA and Australia cherish are removed by their own governments in knee-jerk responses to a fear of terrorism?

The citizens of Hitler's Germany blamed certain people groups for the threats facing their economy and security as a result of Nazi propaganda and subsequently embraced the removal of their freedoms.  Stalin, fearing the peasants and others who may or may not have been opposed to him, forced the emergency laws on his citizenry in the name of security and defence of the Soviet Union.

Many Australians and Americans embraced the removal of their freedoms because of fear of terrorism by supporting the introduction of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Patriot Act respectively.

The introduction of these laws justified in the minds of many people the link between terrorism and asylum seekers.  The Acts also provided justification to many people that all Muslims needed to be treated with suspicion.  The Acts sadly increased the level of hostility between different racial and religious groups which we have seen expressed through increased acts of violence from some segments of the community.  It must be borne in mind that the actions of a few rarely reflect the attitudes, opinions and behaviours of the majority of people in that national, racial or religious group.

Yes, terrorism needs to be fought, but it is important to segregate the crime from the community in order to promote tolerance, respect and dignity of all persons.  Without these basic human rights, acts of terrorism and violence will flourish as we have seen in Hitler's Germany and in countries where people are persecuted because of their race, religion or beliefs.