Whose side is Tony Abbott on?

The biggest manufacturing industry in Australia at the moment, is the LNP manufacturing crisis after fear-fuelled crisis. 

Prime Minister Abbott and his cronies have renewed their attacks on the ABC following a young Muslim man named Zaky Mallah being given airtime (live of all things) during ABC's Q&A program on Monday 22 June 2015.

The self-righteous naying and braying from the conservative government and many of their followers was in relation to Mr Mallah being a 'suspected' terrorist and having been jailed for threatening to kill two ASIO officers.

Criminal? Yes. But he's served his time. Should he be banned from exercising the same freedom of speech rights as everyone else? No.

On the live broadcast, Mallah stated, rather poorly, that the government's actions isolating and targeting Muslims will feed the anger that motivates and possibly radicalises some. For the record, Mallah wasn't justifying radicalisation but trying to explain how some justify to themselves reasons for becoming 'radicalised'. Certainly this is a valid point and worth further discussion if we are going to address and prevent radicalisation.

Abbott labelled the ABC a 'lefty lynch mob' and claimed that 'heads should roll' at the ABC for this 'grave error of judgement' ⁽¹⁾. Yet where was the dog-whistling from Abbott et al when The Australian newspaper wrote an entire article about Mallah and his views in 2012 ⁽²⁾. Mallah has received publicity for years in the mainstream media. In a recent tweet, he claimed that he was paid $500 for such an interview in 2003.

The federal LNP government has been attacking the ABC since it won government.

In 2013, the ABC, in conjunction with the Guardian, reported that Australia had been tapping the mobile phones of Indonesia's President, his wife and inner circle ⁽³⁾. In January 2014, the ABC wrote an article that dared to air accusations that Royal Australian Navy personnel had physically abused asylum seekers. The allegations were never proven ... or disproven. The ABC later apologised for the story ⁽⁴⁾.

At the time, Abbott suggested that the ABC was on everyone else's side except Australia's. He even stated that the media should be 'cheer-leaders for Australia' ⁽⁵⁾. I wonder how that factors into the negativity that was the hallmark of his leadership of the Opposition which included him publicly and internationally belittling Australia's economy, asylum seeker policies and pretty much everything that the ALP put their hands to when in government. In Opposition, Abbott was no cheerleader for Australia.

Interestingly, Abbott also claimed that the Naval personnel should be given the 'benefit of the doubt' over the abuse allegations. If this is the case, why hasn't the government extend this 'benefit of the doubt' to Zaky Mallah who was acquitted of terrorism charges in a court of law. Suspicion is enough for the government to maintain its self-righteous rage, which is why the proposal to allow the government to revoke citizenship of 'suspected' terrorists is particularly concerning.

The rule of law and the presumption of innocence clearly isn't valued by this government.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

Apparently it is unpatriotic and bordering on treason, to suggest that Australian officials could be committing crimes.

ABC's managing director, Mark Scott, stated that the ABC is not a state broadcaster, it is 'not the communications arm of the government' ⁽⁶⁾. Given the government's inability to handle criticism, perhaps the Prime Minister would rather that the ABC be renamed TASS, after the state-run news outlet and mouthpiece of the Soviet Union. That way he could be assured of the ABC cheer-leading for Australia Abbott-style.

This inability to handle criticism may explain the LNP's unprecedented attack on Gillian Triggs, the President of the Human Rights Commission. Like the ABC, the HRC is an independent body. It is meant to be independent of government interference. Triggs was accused of playing partisan politics over the timing of her revelation of child abuse in Australian run immigration detention centres. The government's response was to call for her resignation. There was no effort to actually stop the abuse of children in the centres. In fact, the government went even further and made it a crime for workers in the detention centres to blow the whistle on abuse. It would seem that playing politics is more important to the government than stopping the abuse of children. When discussing asylum seekers in general, whether it be boat arrivals or alleged government payments to people smugglers, the government clams up and claims these are 'national security matters'.

The government clearly has issues with independent bodies. It clearly has issues with secrets. And it clearly has issues with the truth being revealed ... or exposed.

Remember the data retention legislation and the government's ludicrous claim that if people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.

Plenty to hide and plenty to fear.

It would appear that the government itself has plenty to fear given their efforts to hide so much from the public and its vilification of those who bring the government's dirty secrets to light.

The LNP thrives on fear. It's popularity is built on fear and lies. Whenever there is a dip in the polls, the LNP rolls out a scapegoat to scare the population into believing that only the government can ride in like a knight in shining armour to protect us all. John Howard did it regularly and spectacularly starting with the 2001 Tampa crisis which was manufactured to recover significant ground lost to the Labor party in the lead up to the federal election. From there, Howard never looked back.

Abbott uses the same methodology: dog-whistling, fear-mongering, scape-goating.

The biggest manufacturing industry in Australia at the moment, is the LNP manufacturing crisis after fear-fuelled crisis. 

It's not the loyalty of the ABC, Gillian Triggs or whistle-blowers that should be called into question. It's the loyalty of a government that deliberately undermines the values that Australia is built on. Values of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law and the notion of the fair go.

The essence of democracy is that government must be scrutinised and be answerable to the population. Questioning, critiquing and demanding transparency of government is not an act of sedition, it is not a lack of loyalty, it is not unpatriotic.

Voicing contrary opinions is not treason. Silencing those voices in a democracy is. Silencing and directly attacking dissent is a betrayal of the very foundation of democracy and free society.

Archibald MacLeish, American poet, stated:

Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered.

We must not surrender the citadel of free speech, human rights and transparent bureaucracy to any government irrespective of whatever fear and hate campaigns they mount.

Regardless of how many flags the Prime Minister stands in front of to deliver the government's haughty hyperbole, it is his loyalty that needs to be questioned. Any government must be held to account when it consistently and vehemently attacks and demonises members of a specific religion, attacks and demonises workers and unions, attacks and demonises the independence of independent organisations, attacks and demonises the most vulnerable in society and uses fear-mongering to undermine and disregard freedoms that Australians enjoy and value.

Tony Abbott, whose side are you on?


References

1. ABC, Emma Griffiths, 'Q&A: PM Tony Abbott labels program a 'lefty lynch mob' as ABC admits error in judgement over former terrorism suspect Zaky Mallah's appearance', 23 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/abc-to-review-acquitted-former-terror-suspect-qa-appearance/6565886. Accessed 28 June 2015.

2. The Australian, Adam Shand, 'Rebel urges Muslims to wage a jihad of peace', 20 September 2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/rebel-urges-muslims-to-wage-a-jihad-of-peace/story-fn9hm1gu-1226477622326. Accessed 28 June 2015.

3. The Guardian, Daniel Hurst, 'Tony Abbott criticises ABC for working with Guardian Australia on spying story', 1 December 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/01/abbott-criticises-abc-guardian-australia-spying. Accessed 28 June 2015.

4. Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Knott, 'ABC head Mark Scott admits mistakes over report claiming navy inflicted asylum seeker burns', 4 February 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abc-head-mark-scott-admits-mistakes-over-report-claiming-navy-inflicted-asylum-seeker-burns-20140204-31z31.html. Accessed 28 June 2015.

5. Sydney Morning Herald, Judith Ireland, 'Tony Abbott blasts national broadcaster: ABC takes 'everyone's side but Australia's', 29 January 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-blasts-national-broadcaster-abc-takes-everyones-side-but-australias-20140129-31lt8.html. Accessed 28 June 2015.

6. The Guardian, Amanda Meade and Daniel Hurst, 'Mark Scott fires back: 'I hope no one wants the ABC to be a state broadcaster' ', 25 June 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/25/mark-scott-fires-back-i-hope-no-one-wants-the-abc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster. Accessed 28 June 2015.

Updated 4 July 2015.

Nothing smashes people smuggling like paying people smugglers.

Nothing smashes a people smuggling model like paying people smugglers.

Remember when the LNP claimed they would stop the boats by smashing the people smuggling model? Since then there have been boat turn-backs and it appears as though very few boats have reached Australia. However, when quizzed about anything to do with turn-backs, arrivals or tactics being used, the LNP pull up the shutters and state that they can't discuss operational matters.

When they were in opposition, the LNP published these 'operational matters' on bill-boards ⁽¹⁾ and even told the so-called people smugglers that under Labor, Australia had rolled out the 'Rudd-carpet' for asylum seekers to make the perilous journey by boat from Indonesia^{(2) (3)}. Come one, come all.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott keeping 'operational matters' a national secret.
Courtesy SBS ⁽⁴⁾

This week, Prime Minister Abbott refused to rule out whether Australia has paid people smugglers $5,000 each to return asylum seekers to Indonesia ⁽⁵⁾. Surely a simple 'No' would not breach operational secrecy, particularly considering that Indonesia is now a little miffed and has demanded answers of the Australian ambassador ⁽⁶⁾.

If true, Australia is possibly breaching international law (yet again) by employing people smugglers. I wonder if the people smugglers enjoy a Comsuper scheme. But I digress.

Courtesy of: FridayMash.com

Australia has breached numerous international laws in their effort to secure votes through the demonisation of asylum seekers. Australia has refouled asylum seekers to countries where they face torture and persecution. The treatment of asylum seekers breaches our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and also breaches the UN Convention on Torture ⁽⁷⁾. And while we're at it, why not give a couple of Naval vessels to Sri Lanka to round up any Tamils who may try to flee the human rights abuses and war crimes of the Sri Lankan government ⁽⁸⁾.

The rule of law and human rights obligations mean nothing to this government, so with this level of moral turpitude, why not chuck people smuggling in there.

While the government is benefiting from the votes gained from xenophobia, who cares how many lives are destroyed.

But at least asylum seekers are not drowning at sea, so the LNP ministers and hacks repeat ad nauseum. Well ... at least their not drowning in OUR sea. But as we've seen recently with hundreds of stateless Rohingya fleeing Burma, there are people risking their lives to flee persecution. There have been hundreds of refugees drowned trying to reach Europe from Africa. Perhaps some of these had opted for Europe instead of Australia because of the stop the boats policy.

The Abbott-led LNP government has shown that it has no interest in helping the world's most vulnerable. Instead it has shown itself to be a morally bankrupt government that is only interested in popularity which is an easy win when feeding fear, racism and xenophobia to the general population.

The LNP's economic achievements are sadly lacking, so they compensate through turning the population on itself. Spreading dissent and fear. They failed to pass many of their unfair policies in the 2014/15 budget which were attacks on the low-paid and poor while protecting the rich. They continue attacking workers rights, attacking unions such as through their royal commission into union corruption while ignoring the corrupt 'phoenix' companies who screw workers out of their hard-earned by declaring bankruptcy and then restarting without paying workers what they're owed. Demonising the poor, demonising unions, attacking workers.

The LNP's scare-mongering is aimed at distracting from these attacks on workers and the poor. It's aimed to create fears based on falsehoods about asylum seekers, terrorism and Islam. It's a narrative that is full of hyperbole, hypocrisy and lies.

Rather than persecuting the persecuted by using asylum seekers as pawns for political popularity, why not attack the source. If the LNP is truly concerned about the 'evil' trade of people smugglers, then why not increase penalties for people smuggling and give significant jail time to those who sail the boats into Australia. Most of these so-called people smugglers are Indonesian fisherman trying to make a living. It wouldn't take long for them to refuse to engage in 'people smuggling' if they faced several years in an Australian jail, unable to make a living for their families. This way any asylum seeker arriving by boat could be processed humanely and in accordance with the UN Refugee Convention and not used as a scapegoat for political posturing, while those sailing the boats are jailed. While demand for 'people smugglers' may not be reduced, the supply of people smugglers certainly would be.

Yet, instead of actually addressing the problem, the LNP has taken a sledge-hammer approach the punishes the innocent, destroys their lives, all in the name of politics. The LNP waxes lyrical on the evil of people smuggling, yet by Abbott's own admission, he is willing to engage in any activity, 'by hook or by crook' to stop the boats ... and win the votes.



References

1. The Hoopla, Tracey Spicer, 'They. Are. Not. Illegal', 25 April 2013, http://thehoopla.com.au/illegal. Accessed 13 June 2015.

2. Commonwealth of Australia, 2013, 'Parliamentary Debates: The Senate: Questions Without Notice, Asylum Seekers, Question 27 June 2013, page 4281, Questioner: Senator Michaela Cash, Responder: Senator Penny Wong', http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/81320ab7-05a7-4deb-b6c9-aeba0e6b51bf/0158/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

3. The Australian, Scott Morrison, 'PM is the people-smugglers' best friend', 2 July 2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/pm-is-the-people-smugglers-best-friend/story-e6frgd0x-1226672793802. Accessed 13 June 2015.

4. SBS, Helen Davidson, 'Analysis: 'Illegals' and the erosion of empathy', 26 August 2013, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/04/30/analysis-illegals-and-erosion-empathy. Accessed 15 June 2015.

5. Jakarta Globe, Matt Siegel, 'Pressure mounting Over People-smuggling Payment Reports', 12 June 2015, http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/pressure-mounting-australian-people-smuggler-payment-reports. Accessed 13 June 2015.

6. Sydney Morning Herald, 'Indonesia seeks answers from ambassador over people smuggler cash claims', 13 June 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indonesia-seeks-answers-from-ambassador-over-people-smuggler-cash-claims-20150613-ghn9rk.html. Accessed 13 June 2015.

7. The Age, Lisa Cox, 'Tony Abbott: Australians 'sick of being lectured to' by the United Nations, after report finds anti-torture breach', 9 March 2015, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html. Accessed 9 March 2015.

8. Sydney Morning Herald, Ben Doherty, 'Tony Abbott's boats gift to Sri Lanka comes under fire', 18 November 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-boats-gift-to-sri-lanka-comes-under-fire-20131117-2xp5z.html. Accessed 13 June 2015.

Note: updated 20 June 2015

Divorce, dog-whistling and marriage equality

In the wake of Ireland's historic referendum that gave the green light for marriage equality legislation, the spotlight is shining even brighter on similar legislation in Australia.

There are many who support the idea of allowing everyone the opportunity to marry the person of their dreams regardless of gender similarities. Not surprisingly, there are those who oppose marriage between people of the same gender. The reasons for this are usually centred in religion or just straight out abhorrence at the thought of gay sex. Funnily enough, marriage is more than sex.

Religion? Well, that's kind of a personal issue. If your religion of choice ... or more likely, your INTERPRETATION of your religion of choice opposes homosexuality then don't engage in homosexuality. However, don't force your religious views on others who are comfortable with their own religion, or lack thereof, and are even more comfortable reconciling their homosexuality with their religion. This may come as a shock, but there are Gay People who are also Christian People.

Some pastors have complained that they will be forced to officiate same-sex marriages if marriage equality legislation is passed. But the legislation can be written so that religious institutions are not forced to conduct services that conflict with their beliefs. Meanwhile, there are a number of Christian churches that are willing to host same-sex weddings.

And then there is the Cory Bernardi school of thought. The ultra-conservative Christian Senator from South Australia sincerely believes that marriage equality will lead to the legalisation of bestiality. It's a hell of a stretch to go from marrying two men or women in love to joining man and poodle in holy matrimony. Just because Dino the Doberman humps someone's leg doesn't mean he wants that someone to slip a ring on his paw or to even have a committed, monogamous relationship with that leg.

Preventing same-sex marriage doesn't stop people being gay. It just means they can have the same rights that heterosexuals have. Same-sex marriage won't destroy society, the institution of marriage or the family unit. So why the protests against it?

Now, I'm always bang up for a good protest. Hell, I've marched against the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam, the Falklands War, the Iraq War, the treatment of Australia's indigenous population and the persecution of asylum seekers and numerous other causes. I love a good protest. And they sometimes have the desired effect of either changing government policy, changing the minds of some in the community, drawing attention to an issue or sending a message.

So colour me pink when I read the protest against marriage equality that one couple in Canberra have proposed.

Nick Jensen, Director of the Lachlan Macquarie Internship and former Director of Leadership Development with the Australian Christian Lobby, and his wife Sarah, have declared that if same-sex marriage is legalised then they will divorce each other. One of their reasons is that they believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman ⁽¹⁾, not between two men or two women.

I may have missed something in their logic, but surely divorce is a greater threat to marriage than ... well, more marriage. Just sayin'.

One of the things with protests as I mentioned earlier is the message being sent. The message being sent by the Jensens is that divorce is good, marriage is bad. Well, bad if the married couple bear the same basic genitalia as each other. Marriage is about love and commitment between two people and is not constrained to couples with disparate genitals.

Mr Jensen goes on to state that he and his wife will still live together after their divorce. Apart from the fact that for divorce to be legal the couple is required to NOT live together (hence: divorce), it also means that they are condoning living together outside of marriage. Some within Christian circles affectionately (or sometimes not so affectionately) refer to this as 'living in sin'.

When Mr Jensen found out that divorce laws may stymie his plans to divorce and continue living with his dearly beloved, he criticised the irony of the restrictions on divorce when the government is considering lifting restrictions on marriage ⁽²⁾. Hmmm ... is he saying that it should be easier to divorce when divorce is a bigger threat to marriage and to a stable home life for children?

So ... divorce is ok, living in sin is ok (if you're heterosexual).

I'm really not getting their message and I'm pretty certain most churches wouldn't preach it as gospel.

Mr Jensen feels that to change the legislation is a breach of contract because the law at the time of his wedding declared marriage to be between Man and Woman. Newsflash, but legislation gets amended or even revoked. Even laws that govern contracts get changed. Suck it up. That's how government works.

Mr Jensen headed his Op-Ed in the City News as 'Gay law change may force us to divorce'. No, no, no. Allowing marriage equality will not force anyone to divorce. That is a choice purely being made by Mr and Mrs Jensen as a stunt to draw attention to their antiquated beliefs.

He claims there are many Christians willing to divorce if same-sex marriages are legalised. I call 'bullshit'! No self-respecting Christian would divorce their partner to make such a pathetic political statement.

Nothing shows how much marriage is valued than getting a divorce.

This stunt cheapens the sanctity of marriage and uses it as a political tool of intolerance.

This stunt is just one in a long line of dog-whistling (sorry Cory) antics that extremist Christians use to shore up their intolerant and ignorant opinions. If you're opposed to same-sex marriage then say so, but don't drag divorce and dogs into the mix and expect to be taken seriously.

Marriage (gay or straight) is not a threat to marriage, the family unit or raising children. Divorce is.


References

1. City News, Nick Jensen, 'Gay law change may force us to divorce', 10 June 2015, http://citynews.com.au/2015/gay-law-change-may-force-us-to-divorce. Accessed 12 June 2015.

2. ABC, Jordan Hayne and Elise Pianegonda, 'Christian couple who vowed to divorce in face of same-sex marriage may face legal hurdle', 11 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/christian-couple-vow-to-get-divorced-in-face-of-gay-marriage/6539412. Accessed 11 June 2015.

Creating a State of terrorists and exiles

The Australian federal government wants to look tough on terrorism. This has been fuelled by around 100 or so Australians who've travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight with the self-declared caliphate, ISIS (Islamic State in Syria and Iraq) ... or ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and Levant) ... or Daesh ... or the 'death cult' ... depending on who you speak to.

The latest brain-wave by the LNP-led government is to revoke the citizenship of Aussies who fight with ISIL or other terrorist organisations. Presumably this doesn't extend to Australians lending physical, material, financial or moral support to Israel's illegal actions and war-crimes in Palestine. But hey, I'm happy to be corrected.

After initially proposing to cancel citizenship of any Aussie who allegedly embarked on a mission to fight with ISIL, it was pointed out that it is a breach of international law to leave a person stateless. So the bill was amended to only apply to persons with dual citizenship. Apparently, it's ok to make them someone else's problem. The LNP is doing that anyway with their 'stop the boats' mantra that has stopped most boats coming to Australia but hasn't stopped the flow of refugees throughout the world. It's just made them someone else's problem. Good one, 'Straya!

So let's make alleged terrorists someone else's problem too. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's turn to contemporary literature ... or Hollywood - whatever takes your fancy ... and a book series (or movies series, if you're more of a visual person) called Divergent, written by Veronica Roth. In the series, Roth has created a futuristic world in which people are divided into five factions. However, there are those who just don't fit in and are rejected by the factions. These people become the Factionless. Spoiler alert: not surprisingly, the Factionless rise up and destroy the establishment. One of the reasons for their success is that the factions have under-estimated the power of them; ignoring them because they (apparently) don't have the technology, governance, infrastructure that makes the civilisation that the factions know and love. Ok, it's fiction, but seriously? Allowing a terrorist to return to a terrorist state is going to feed the problem, not solve it.

There are some in the LNP who feel that the bill doesn't go far enough. They want to strip these alleged terrorists of citizenship even if that will leave them stateless. However, the bill at this stage is designed to ensure that people still have a country to call home, but what happens if the other country they're a citizen of also strips their citizenship. They will be stateless. So we could end up with an army of Stateless roaming around the globe causing havoc.

Even if they're not stateless, the LNP is happy for them to not be prosecuted for these alleged crimes, but instead to become someone else's problem and congregate with other like-minded souls, unleashing terror anywhere but here.

Wouldn't it be much better to deal with any alleged terrorist by unleashing The Law on them. Isn't it better to know where your terrorist is sleeping at night than sticking your head in the sand thinking that you're safe because they were last seen galloping across the sands of Syria, AK-47 in one hand and a falafel in the other.

To think that stripping people of citizenship will somehow keep Australia safe, kind of ignores a few things. One of those is technology. See, exiling people to a deserted island in the Pacific or the Meditarranean (Patmos I'm looking at you), may have worked 1000 years ago, but today we have the interwebs.

The interwebs, or internet (whatever you takes your fancy), gives people - even alleged terrorists - access to social media. Hell, it gives them access to all sorts of media. They can use this media to recruit people by appealing to their sense of justice, sense of adventure, religion, any number of things that motivate people. ISIS is known to promise young men and women the opportunity to marry and have a phat time before going onto commit horrendous crimes in the name of the self-declared Caliphate.

So ... yeah ... what could go wrong by exiling impressionable people to a brutal, debaucherous organisation. Apart from swelling the ranks of said organisation, making things worse for the innocent victims in Syria and Iraq, the exiled disappear from the radar and potentially become an even bigger problem.

The proposed legislation, if passed, will give the Minister for Immigration the power to revoke citizenship based on suspicion of participation in terrorism. Under the proposed legislation, a person can lose citizenship simply for being an alleged terrorist. The Minister will have wide, sweeping powers that can destroy a person's life based on an unfounded, unproven allegation. What if the allegation is false? What if it was made maliciously by someone else?

Where does 'innocent until proven guilty' factor into this? Unless a person has been charged, tried and convicted in a court of law, then they are subject to the right of law which is that they have a right to defend themselves against the allegations in front of a jury of their peers.

Remember the Magna Carta? It was signed 800 years ago this month and set the tone for legal and civil rights, by removing the absolute power of the monarch and providing, among other things, the right to trial by jury. But it's not like the government cares for the rule of law.

The federal LNP has form for blaming victims and covering up torture and abuse (check the situation with asylum seekers, particularly in the gulags such as Nauru and Manus Island). It's against the law to blow the whistle on treatment of asylum seekers and the LNP has unleashed an unprecedented attack on the Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, accusing her of partisanship in an effort to distract from the very real abuse that she has uncovered in detention centres and for which the government of the day (whether Labor or Liberal) is responsible.

Former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison canceled the visa of a convicted paedophile who'd served a two year prison sentence that was suspended after six months. The 60 year old man was not an Australian citizen even though he'd lived in Australia for 48 years at the time of the offences being committed. He's parents had moved to Australia from England when he was only six years old. He held a visa that let him live here indefinitely. A psychologist had assessed him as showing remorse and posing a low risk.

Scott Morrison claims that he considered the substantial hardship and fragmentation that revoking the visa would have on the man's family, the difficulty he would have as a 60 year old settling into a country he hadn't lived in since six years old, as well as the positive contributions he'd made 'to the community through lengthy period of employment, sporting and community activities'. So Morrison revoked the visa in October 2014 and the man was held in Villawood Detention Centre.

A federal court judge ordered the man's release in June 2015, accepting his appeal that he'd been denied natural justice. The Commonwealth was ordered to pay the man's legal fees.

Most telling though was the judge stated the Immigration Minister had taken 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut'. He went on to state that 'His exercise of the discretion conferred on him, was, in the circumstances, in excess of what, on any view, was necessary for the purpose it served'.

Now the government wants the discretion to arbitrarily revoke citizenship without trial. While Immigration Minister Dutton claims that this will be reserved for exceptional circumstances, one has to wonder at how exceptional was it for the visa to be revoked of a man who had served his sentence and was deemed a low risk of offending.

While Dutton claims that citizenship would only be revoked in the most exceptional cases, governments do have a habit of politicising issues for their own benefit. Fabricated situations that come to mind are the Tampa affair, Children Overboard, the demonisation of asylum seekers and stereotyping of Muslims.

Over the last 12 months or so, we've seen massive numbers of police involved in raids on 'suspected' terrorists. In some cases up to 700 police swooping on these alleged terrorists, yet with only one or two people charged with minor crimes. The raids were a show of political strength. The outcome was immaterial. Use of revocation on 'suspected' terrorists, without due process, will be used similarly as a show of strength. What happens to the person exiled will be immaterial to the government.

So what should we do with the alleged terrorists returning to Australia? How about ... and this is a novel idea ... we charge them with offences under the various pieces of legislation that prohibit the wanton killing of innocent people or supporting acts of terror or the expansion of terrorist organisations. I'm pretty sure we have a bucketload of Acts that can be invoked. Particularly considering how excited the LNP got after 9/11 and passed all sorts of things. This means then, that the ALLEGED terrorists are subject to the rule of law and due process. It may not be surprising to learn that terrorist masterminds often use people through manipulation, coercion, threats or even unwittingly. It is imperative that before punishing someone for terrorism or any other offence, their culpability be confirmed.

Unfortunately, the LNP's suggestion is that the Immigration Minister will be judge, jury and executioner. The Minister will be the one responsible for overseeing the case and making the call on whether to revoke citizenship. They are justifying this by having judicial review, yet it is only the process under review, not the decision. The Minister is being given absolute power over a person's life when this should be a matter for the courts.

Australia's government is comprised of three branches, the Executive, Legislature and Judicial. The Legislature (House of Representatives and Senate) make the law. The Judicial, or Courts, interpret and apply the law. The Westminster system on which Australia's government is based requires a separation of these powers. The bill under discussion hasn't been seen yet, but at the moment the government has stated its intention to give judicial power to the Minister, a member of the Legislature. This would be a clear breach of the separation of power. To make it worse, the decision is being made without following due process of establishing the guilt of the accused or of giving the accused the ability to defend themselves against the charges.

The law is there to be enforced against crime. What is the point of having laws if we're just going to ignore the rule of law and exile those who've become a political play-thing for the LNP's popularity machine.

This proposed legislation is a further step along the road to a fascist state. The LNP started the population turning on itself (rather than turning on the government) by demonising asylum seekers, the world's most vulnerable. They used them as scape-goats and through convoluted logic turned the victims of terrorism  into potential perpetrators of terrorism in order to feed government-created fear in the community. And this was for one reason: votes.

A fearful population is willing to give up rights and rule of law to protect themselves. Give them a scape-goat to blame and they will crucify them.

Citizens have rights. Citizens who commit crimes, no matter how heinous, have rights to a fair trial.

Worried about radicalisation? Exiling an innocent person is a great way to radicalise them. And if the accused is involved in terrorism, then exiling rather than jailing them will only feed a State of terrorists and radicals.

---0---

Note: updated 18 June 2015

Post-script to the state-sanctioned murder of Chan & Sukumaran

Post-script to the state-sanctioned murder of Chan & Sukumaran

Around 12.35am on 29 April 2015, an Indonesian firing squad executed Andrew Chan, Myuran Sukumaran, Rodrigo Gularte, Martin Anderson, Raheem Agbaje Salami, Sylvester Obiekwe Nwolise, Okwudili Oyatanze, and Zainal Abidin bin Mgs Mahmud Badarudin.

The eight men refused blindfolds and sang Amazing Grace as they were tied to posts and shot dead⁽¹⁾.

It was a terrible postscript to each of their lives.

President Widodo and the members of the firing squad have blood on their hands. They have murdered eight men.

Myuran Sukumaran's last painting: the Indonesian flag dripping with blood

The only good news to come from that terrible evening was the last minute reprieve given to Mary Jane Veloso, the Filipina maid who was to be executed with the eight men. Her reprieve came in the form of two human traffickers who handed themselves into Philippines police stating that they were the ones who'd planted the drugs in Veloso's suitcase five years earlier⁽²⁾.

Indonesia came dangerously close to executing an innocent woman. How many other innocent people have been executed?

The two human traffickers showed greater integrity than President Widodo, who could have granted clemency at any time but failed to.

For Chan and Sukumaran, the executions ended 10 years of a nightmare that began on 17 April 2005, when they were arrested in Bali. They were part of a group of nine people, the Bali Nine, who were convicted of attempting to smuggle 8.3kg of heroin from Indonesia to Australia. Found guilty of being the ringleaders of the group, Chan and Sukumaran were sentenced to death. The others received life sentences, although three of them were successful in having their sentences reduced to 20 years.

During the 10 years they spent in prison, Chan and Sukumaran were rehabilitated and helped other prisoners. Chan converted to Christianity and became an ordained Minister, leading church services and bible studies in prison. Sukumaran also converted to Christianity and studied art by correspondence through Australia's Curtin University. In February 2015 was awarded an Associate Degree in Fine Arts from Curtin University.

There are a number of questions around the executions of Chan and Sukumaran. At the time of their killings, both had a constitutional appeal to be heard on 12 May 2015 regarding the lack of individual consideration given to their clemency pleas by President Widodo.

In addition to this, there's the allegation that judges in their trial had threatened to sentence them to death unless they paid $130,000 in bribes⁽³⁾. Although this has been investigated, the findings haven't been released to date. If true, it would have revealed judicial corruption and surely would have been grounds for an appeal against the death sentence⁽⁴⁾. Two of the judges who ruled on Chan and Sukumaran's death penalty were sacked for corruption. One month after sentencing the duo to death, the panel of judges commuted a death sentence to 15 years because it breached the constitutional right to life for a man found with nearly four times the amount of drugs that Chan and Sukumaran were⁽⁵⁾.

And then there are the questions over the Australian Federal Police involvement. They were tipped off by the concerned father of Scott Rush, who hoped they'd stop his son leaving Australia. Instead, the illustrious AFP tipped off Indonesia⁽⁶⁾. The AFP could have arrested the Bali 9 in Australia and possibly been led to the king pin who organised it. Instead, they are complicit in the executions of Chan and Sukumaran.

The Brazilian prisoner, Rodrigo Gularte, was mentally ill. Under Indonesian law, a mentally ill prisoner should not be executed. According to Father Charlie Burrows, Gularte didn't realise he was being executed until the chains were put on him shortly before being taken out and shot⁽⁷⁾.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop both made representations and pleas to Widodo and other government ministers, to no avail. However, given Australia's contempt for Indonesia over turn backs of asylum seekers and bugging of presidential telephones, it's no wonder Widodo ignored Australia's pleas.

Bishop received advice that the executions were illegal under international law⁽⁸⁾. However, given that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers breaches international law on torture⁽⁹⁾ and the refugee convention⁽¹⁰⁾, Abbott and Bishop had no moral vantage on which to play.

Widodo's insistence on the executions was political. Motivated by wanting to look tough. on drugs. Not unlike his Australian contemporary, Tony Abbott, who wants to look tough on asylum seekers. The timing of the executions has a question mark over it as well. It just so happens that former President Susilo Bambang Yudyhono (SBY) was to speak in Perth four days later. SBY cancelled the speaking engagement because the 'political, social and security situation was "not conducive" for his visit'⁽¹¹⁾.

Widodo claims that Indonesia has sent a strong message to drug smugglers⁽¹²⁾. Shooting them is certainly a strong message, but has it made a difference? Indonesia's drug crisis has not relented even with the threat of capital punishment. Clearly the crisis isn't being driven by drug smugglers. Widodo regularly quotes that 50 people a day die because of drugs. These figures have been challenged⁽¹³⁾, which suggest that a tough on drugs policy is being used purely for political popularity rather than a genuine commitment to combating drug use. Lex Lasry, a Victorian Supreme Court judge states that the death penalty does not deter crime. A number of studies have been unable to find evidence that the death penalty either deters or fails to deter crime⁽¹⁴⁾.

A number of critics of Chan and Sukumaran said it was time to stop defending drug smugglers because the drugs could have killed Australians; that Chan and Sukumaran got what they deserved. Maybe it's time to stop defending drug users. No-one forces people to use drugs. If there was no demand there would be no supply. No-one deserves to die for supplying drugs; a custodial sentence is more than adequate.

Supporters aren't defending Chan and Sukumaran's crime, but who the men became.

Supporters aren't defending drug smuggling, but opposing execution.

Many critics have argued that Chan and Sukumaran knew the laws and that Indonesia has a right to uphold it's own laws. When sovereign laws breach international law, surely they can't be upheld. Surely, it is the duty of the world to seek these inhumane laws be overthrown.

Others have argued focus on these executions diverts attention from bigger issues such as the Nepal earthquake, Indonesia's genocide in West Papua, Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine and of course, the ISIS crisis, among others. However, we can't sit on our hands waiting for one issue to be fixed before addressing another. The death penalty is a worldwide problem with dozens of countries still using it.

On the day before Indonesia executed the eight drug smugglers, Pakistan hanged its 100th prisoner since a moratorium on executions was lifted in December 2014⁽¹⁵⁾.

The death penalty will only be abolished by public pressure and awareness campaigns. The focus on Chan and Sukumaran as well as the other six prisoners, received global coverage. International media reported on the sentences for years and gave extensive coverage to the executions. While these killings were only a small number compared to the number of those executed globally, the attention they received helped to elevate the issue of capital punishment. Hopefully, this attention can be used to increase the pressure on all countries to abolish the death penalty.

On the day of their executions, the Australian Catholic University announced two scholarships open to Indonesian students⁽¹⁶⁾. Applicants are required to submit an essay on the sanctity of human life. In a small way, ACU is hoping this will help further the cause to abolish the death penalty in Indonesia.

The death penalty must go. It is ineffective. It is barbaric. It is state-sanctioned murder.

References

1. SBS, 'They were singing: Priest describes dignified death of Chan, Sukumaran', 30 April 2015, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/04/30/they-were-singing-priest-describes-dignified-death-chan-sukumaran. Accessed 2 May 2015.

2. Washington Post, Lindsay Bever, 'How a Filipino maid skirted death moments before facing an Indonesian firing squad', 29 April 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/29/how-a-filipino-maid-skirted-death-moments-before-facing-indonesian-firing-squad. Accessed 2 May 2015.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Tom Allard, ''They wanted $130,000 ... and then more': explosive Bali nine bribe allegations', 27 April 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/world/they-wanted-130000--and-then-more-explosive-bali-nine-bribe-allegations-20150426-1mtwc1.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

4. Sydney Morning Herald, Tom Allard, 'Bali nine executions: investigation into bribery allegations completed by judicial commission', 28 April 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/world/bali-nine-executions-investigation-into-bribery-allegations-completed-by-judicial-commission-20150428-1mv3sq.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

5. Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Bachelard, Nick McKenzie, 'Two Bali nine judges sacked for corruption, manipulation', 12 February, 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/world/two-bali-nine-judges-sacked-for-corruption-manipulation-20150212-13btyd.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

6. The Guardian, Daniel Hurst, 'Bali Nine: fresh calls for review of federal police actions that led to executions', 29 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/29/bali-nine-fresh-calls-for-review-of-federal-police-actions-that-led-to-executions. Accessed 2 May 2015.

7. Daily Mail, Sarah Michael and Candace Sutton, ''Am I being executed? That's not right': Confused last words of schizophrenic Brazilian drug trafficker shot alongside Bali Nine duo... who 'heard voices' and had no idea he was being killed until the last moment, 30 April 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3061878/Am-executed-heartbreaking-final-question-Brazilian-drug-trafficker-shot-alongside-Bali-Nine-duo-paranoid-schizophrenic-didn-t-realise-killed-moments.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

8. Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Bachelard, 'Chan and Sukumaran execution 'illegal', but Indonesia ignores Australia again', 2 May 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chan-and-sukumaran-execution-illegal-but-indonesia-ignores-australia-again-20150501-1my3z4.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

9. Human Rights Law Centre, 'UN finds Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violates the Convention Against Torture', 9 March 2015, http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture/. Accessed 2 May 2015.

10. ABC, FactCheck - 'Children in detention: Is Australia breaching international law?', 8 April 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/children-in-detention-is-australia-breaching-international-law/5344022. Accessed 2 May 2015.

11. ABC Radion National, AM, Michael Brissenden, 'Calls for coordinated approach to end death penalty in Indonesia', 30 April 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4226427.htm. Accessed 2 May 2015.

12. Al Jazeera, 'Joko Widodo: 'A strong message to drug smugglers'', 7 March 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2015/03/joko-widodo-strong-message-drug-smugglers-150305131413414.html. Accessed 2 May 2015.

13. The Conversation, Claudia Stoicescu, Indonesia uses faulty stats on ‘drug crisis’ to justify death penalty, 5 February 2015, http://theconversation.com/indonesia-uses-faulty-stats-on-drug-crisis-to-justify-death-penalty-36512. Accessed 2 May 2015.

14. ABC, FactCheck - 'No proof the death penalty prevents crime', 2 March 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030. Accessed 2 May 2015.

15. Dawn, 'Pakistan hangs 100th convict, Amnesty slams 'shameful milestone'', 28 April 2015, http://www.dawn.com/news/1178715/pakistan-hangs-100th-convict-amnesty-slams-shameful-milestone. Accessed 2 May 2015.

16. Australian Catholic University, 'New international scholarships', 29 April 2015, https://www.acu.edu.au/connect_with_acu/newsroom/news/media_releases/repository/chan_and_sukumaran_commemorated. Accessed 2 May 2015.

Linked article by Ranting Panda

• State-sanctioned murder of Chan & Sukumaran - published 12 February 2015

Flags, Fascism & Facts - the Reclaim Australia rallies

Flags, Fascism & Facts - the Reclaim Australia rallies

On 4 April 2015, a series of right-wing 'Reclaim Australia' rallies were held across Australia with the aim of 'reclaiming Australia from Islam'. They were based on the premise that Islam is taking over Australia. Something that couldn't be further from the truth.

The rally organisers have neo-Nazi links ⁽¹⁾ and issued requests to their followers not to display swastikas or other Nazi paraphernalia at the marches ⁽²⁾. They're message encourages hate through misrepresentation and stereotyping of Islam. It isn't hard to do this. After all, few non-Muslims understand Islam. It is easy to equate all Muslims with terrorism that is committed by someone claiming to be a Muslim. Yet, most Australians are unaware that far more people have been killed by the West than have been killed by terrorists. More than 1.3 million have been killed by Western military action since the year 2001 and more than 5 million displaced ⁽³⁾. Contrast this with 118,943 killed by terrorists between 2006 and 2013 ⁽⁴⁾. Not all of these attacks were by Muslims. In Europe, during the last five years less than two per cent of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims. In the United States, since 1980, no more than six per cent of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims. That leaves 94% of terrorist attacks being perpetrated by non-Muslims ⁽⁵⁾.

Of course, there are also Christian terrorist groups, such as the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony. The LRA is responsible for the kidnapping, rape and murder of thousands of people. In the name of the Lord, they also engage in child sex slavery and child soldiers. In America, the Army of God has bombed abortion clinics and kidnapped or killed dozens of people ⁽⁶⁾.

By blaming all of Islam for the behaviour of a few is blatant bigotry. We may as well call all Christians pedophiles given the extent of pedophilia in Christian churches and institutions. Funnily enough, not all terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.

People forget, or don't know, the role that the West played in the rise of modern terrorism. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are direct results of the USA funding the Mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s ⁽⁷⁾. The issues with Iraq were a direct result of the USA funding Saddam Hussein during this time. Not to mention the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on the lies around weapons of mass destruction and out of this, we saw significant sectarian violence, terrorism ⁽⁸⁾ and ultimately, the formation of ISIL. The issues with Palestine are a direct result of the USA and other Western nations funding and supporting Israel's war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention.

When was the last time a Muslim nation invaded a western one? Yet, for centuries the West has been invading Muslim nations, subjugating their populations and stealing their resources.

Most recently a documentary, Dirty Wars, has been released detailing American aggression against civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Indonesia, Somalia and a stack of other countries, with the USA even outsourcing its kills to local war-lords such as General Indha Adde and Mohamed Qanyare in Somalia.

Many of the people marching wrapped themselves in Australian flags and claimed that their forefathers fought for our freedoms, not Islam.

Sinclair Lewis published a novel in 1935 entitled 'It can't happen here', in which he depicted the rise of a Fascist president in the USA on the back of a 'populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness', playing the patriotism and 'traditional values' card.

In commenting on this book, journalist Harrison Salisbury wrote: 'Sinclair Lewis aptly predicted in It Can't Happen Here that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in the flag and whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner' ⁽⁹⁾.

Sound familiar? Many of the people marching with Reclaim Australia claim they're patriots rescuing their country. They have the Aussie flags flying, the Southern Cross tattoos and sing 'Advance Australia Fair'. Their agenda is racist, bigoted and hateful.

Racist? Yes, I know they'll argue that Islam is not a race therefore you can't be racist by hating on Islam. This is a foolish argument.  Racism stereotypes all members of a race. By stereotyping all Muslims is a form of racism. It has the same characteristics as racism. If you don't want to be called a racist, then don't act like one.

Albert Einstein summed up patriotism being used to justify violence and hate: 'Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!'.

Reclaim Australia claims that they are campaigning for nine major issues. Below are the nine points with a response to each:

---

1. To stop any enforcing of Sharia law throughout the whole of Australia. To make Sharia Law illegal in every State and Territory.

One of the lies being spread about Islam is that Muslims want to establish Sharia law in Australia. Most bigots don't even know what Sharia law is. They only know of the punishments under the most extreme elements of Sharia, such as amputating hands. This extreme version of Sharia doesn't exist in most of the world. There are only a few countries that practice it. So why would Muslims be intent on replacing Australia's legal system with an extreme version of Sharia, when it isn't even in place in most Muslim countries. There are very few Muslim countries which employ Sharia law to its fullest. Most have secular legal systems which engage elements of Sharia for personal relationship issues, such as marriage and divorce ⁽¹⁰⁾.

Besides, it would be unconstitutional to force Sharia law on all of Australia as Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from making any law for 'imposing any religious observance ...'.

2. Keep our traditional values ie. Christmas, Easter, Australia Day, Anzac Day and other beliefs a large number of Australians have grown up with. 

No-one is campaigning to end these. Muslims in Islamic countries are happy for Christians to celebrate Christmas and Easter. Here in Australia, Muslims participate in Australia Day and Anzac Day. We're seeing some of the largest turn-outs for Anzac Day and Australia Day events across the nation.

Many Muslims have fought and died for Australia, yet a lot of the bigots seem to think that it is unAustralian to be Muslim or that Muslims are not Australian. Our forefathers fought AGAINST Fascism, so it is somewhat disturbing that Fascists have hijacked the memory of the Anzacs and all who've served in the military in order to further their racist agenda.

If people want to maintain traditional values such as Christmas and Easter, then campaign against the commercialisation of them. Maintain the true message of Christmas and Easter, rather than the capitalist exploitation of them. What is the true message of Christmas and Easter? Love. Christ came to us out of love. He was crucified out of love.

The date of the rallies is ironic. It falls on Easter Saturday. The time when Christians across the globe are celebrating Jesus Christ sacrificing himself out of love for his enemies. It's ironic because a number of Christian extremists are marching in these rallies. Maybe they missed the bits in the bible about 'love your neighbour', 'love your enemies', 'turn the other cheek', 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. They obviously missed the bit in the bible about 'preach the gospel', because instead they preach hate. Christians are called to love unconditionally, not to be selective in their love.

Failing all that, couldn't Reclaim Australia just have a traditional Easter Egg hunt instead of flying the flag of hate and bigotry?

3. Keep our rights and freedom of speech. 

Oh, the irony. Reclaim Australia is trying to shut down the rights and freedoms of Muslim Australians. They protest against Mosques and anything to do with Islam. While they're campaigning to ban mosques, where do they think 500,000 Muslims, most born in Australia, will worship? They aren't just going to disappear.

While they march to 'keep our rights', then it is prudent to remind them of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution which provides a constitutional right to freedom of religion; any religion:

'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

Our ancestors fought for our Constitution and Section 116 of the Australian Constitution protects these very freedoms that they fought for, including the freedom of religion.

4. Halal certification should be banned and made illegal. (if not banned, then control should be handed over to the government so it isn't a moneymaking scheme for Islam).

They campaign against Halal because they claim it increases prices and funds terrorism. Based on this logic, why don't they campaign against Kosher for increasing prices. Or for that matter, suggesting it finds its ways to the Israeli military to commit war crimes in Palestine. Which interestingly enough, is one of the sources of anger against the West. Apparently it's okay for the West to unleash pre-emptive strikes against innocent people, but not okay for the people of Palestine to defend themselves against the violent theft of their land and attacks on their people.

If people are so concerned about their money funding terrorism, then perhaps they should stop buying oil.

Additionally, by investing in Halal certification, businesses are more likely to generate international trade, increasing their sales and enabling them to offer lower prices. It's a fallacy that Halal increases prices or funds terrorism.

Peter Broelman (broelman.com.au)

5. Introduce pride in the Australian flag and Anthem at all levels of schooling. 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see a lot of adults and school kids flying the Aussie flag on Australia Day and Anzac Day in particular, and often throughout the year. No-one is trying to undermine the Australian flag or the national anthem.

6. Ban the teaching of Islam in government schools. 

If this is the case, then ban the teaching of all religions in government schools. Religion is part of society. Some people believe in a god of one sort of another, whether it be in the form of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or something else. Teaching the basics of each religion will help in breaking down ignorance and stereotypes.

7. Ban the Burqa or any variant thereof.

Why? Is this because of genuine concern for Muslim women? Of course not. In Australia, people can chose what they wear. This is just another attack on freedoms being waged in the name of freedom. The anti-burqa mob may argue that crimes could be committed by people wearing burqas to hide their identity. If that's the case, ban fancy dress. Anyone could dress up as Humphrey B. Bear and stage a hold up.

In terms of identity, all people have to show their face for passports and licences. Go into any post office and look at the passport photo guide.

The attack on the burqa is purely out of hate and fear. We've seen this manifested by cowards attacking women wearing burqas. Attacking an innocent person because of their choice of dress is the sort of thing that extremist groups such as the Taliban and neo-Nazis do. These behaviours are not acceptable in a free and fair country. How can anyone support violence against others, whether it is being done in the name of misrepresented Islam or in the name of misrepresented patriotism. It is unacceptable.

Another argument is that the Qu'ran doesn't require women to wear burqas. Interesting that suddenly everybody's an expert on the Qu'ran. If people are so hung up on holy scripture then why aren't Christian women wearing head coverings as required in the bible? 1 Corinthians 11:5 says 'But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

8. Ban FGM and introduce mandatory 10 year jail terms for perpetrators and organisers. This includes those who send girls overseas to have FGM carried out outside Australia. Once their jail term has been completed, their citizenship should be cancelled and they be immediately deported back to the country they originated from. 

Female Genital Mutilation is already illegal. It also isn't just done by Muslims.  FGM predates Islam and is predominantly practiced in parts of Central and Northern Africa, where even Christian women are subject to it ⁽¹¹⁾.

Yes, it's a grotesque practice which people should stand up against, however it isn't wide-spread and those who blame Islam for it, may as well also blame Christianity.

9. Stop Centrelink recognising polygamy and only recognise the first marriage for benefits.

Polygamy is illegal in Australia. However, Centrelink has stated that there are instances of welfare being paid to people in polygamous relationships. President of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keyser Trad says that there are only about 50 Islamic families in polygamous relationships in Australia. Not all of those are on welfare.  Centrelink stated that they'd only investigated around 20 cases involving polygamy. Trad also states that Islam only allows polygamy if the husband can afford it, so going on welfare for a polygamous relationship is unIslamic ⁽¹²⁾. Most Muslim husbands only have one wife.

There are very few Muslims in polygamous relationships. There are likely far more non-Muslims who are exploiting Centrelink by claiming one or more partners in defacto relationships or other rorts. Targeting Muslims, who in the vast majority are not rorting the system is simply bigotry.

---

Bigotry and Fascism are not the answer to hate and fear. Social unity, love and understanding are far more effective. Driving further disunity and hate against Islam will only serve to alienate the half a million Muslims in Australia. If people are genuinely concerned about stopping the radicalisation of Muslims, then they should be working on inclusion not exclusion. It is the alienated who are at most risk of radicalisation. We should be embracing our Muslim brothers and sisters, not vilifying them, not trying to exile them.

Pauline Hanson claimed in the Brisbane rally that 'criticism is not racism' ⁽¹³⁾. Well, funnily enough it is when that criticism is stereotyping people of a particular race or religion as mentioned earlier. Sadly, a number of Australians feel empowered by these 'criticisms' of Islam and have taken it upon themselves to attack mosques and Muslims, thinking this is the Australian way. Attacking innocent people is not Australian, it's criminal.

Former soldier and military strategist, David Kilcullen has stated that the answer to domestic radicalisation (of Muslims) is more freedom, not less. He states, 'We need to treat Australian Muslims like Australian Catholics, Australian Hindus or any other Australian - with all the rights, freedoms, expectations and responsibilities that come from free membership in a free society'. Kilcullen goes on to state, 'We can't afford to be tolerant of intolerance, or to allow the implied threat of terrorism to let a minority (any minority) hold the rest of us to ransom' ⁽¹⁴⁾.

The anti-Islamic rallies, the anti-Mosque and anti-Halal protests serve to restrict the freedom of Muslims and potentially encourage a siege mentality among them which will only result in greater possibility of increased radicalisation.

Interestingly, the rallies were held on 4 April, which is the anniversary of the assassination of civil rights activist, Martin Luther King, and the birth date of Maya Angelou, American author, poet and civil rights activist, who once said:

'Hate. It has caused a lot of problems in this world, but it has not solved one yet'.


Note: updated on 11 April 2015 to add reference (3) in relation to the 1.3 million killed and millions displaced by Western military action since 2001.

References:

1. Reclaim What, 'Neo-Nazism in the ADL/PDLA/The Gap/Reclaim Australia',  http://www.reclaimwhat.net/neo-nazism-in-the-adl-pdla-the-gap-.html. Accessed 30 March 2015.

2. The Guardian, Michael Safi, 'Anti-Islamic group Reclaim Australia plans 16 rallies across the country', 3 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/03/anti-islamic-group-reclaim-australia-plans-16-rallies-across-the-country. Accessed 4 April 2015.

3. Al Jazeera, America, Lauren Carasik, 'Americans have yet to grasp the horrific magnitude of the ‘war on terror’', 10 April 2015, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/americans-have-yet-to-grasp-the-horrific-magnitude-of-the-war-on-terror.html. Accessed 11 April 2015.

4. Statista, 'Number of fatalities due to terrorist attacks worldwide between 2006 and 2013', http://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide. Accessed 30 March 2015.

5. The Daily Beast, Dean Obeidallah, Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close, 14 January 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html. Accessed 30 March 2015.

6. AlterNet, Alex Henderson, 'Army of God? 6 Modern-Day Christian Terrorist Groups You Never Hear About', 1 April 2015, http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/army-god-6-modern-day-christian-terrorist-groups-you-never-hear-about. Accessed 3 April 2015.

7. Cooley John K, 'Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism', 3rd edition, Pluto Press.

8. John Pilger, Breaking the Silence, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30086435. Accessed 30 March 2015.

9. Stephen Wylder, Sinclair Lewis never said it; the rules of misquotation, accessed 9 November 2013, http://www.examiner.com/article/sinclair-lewis-never-said-it-the-rules-of-misquotation. Accessed 30 March 2015.

10. Council on Foreign Relations, Toni Johnson and Mohammed Aly Sergei, 25 July 2014, 'Islam: Governing Under Sharia', http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034. Accessed 30 March 2015.

11. Science Direct, I. El-Damanhoury, 'The Jewish and Christian view on female genital mutilation', 27 June 2013, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110570413000258. Accessed 30 March 2015.

12. Herald Sun, Mark Dunn, 'Growing number of Muslim men and multiple wives exploiting loophoole for taxpayer handouts, 5 March 2010, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560. Accessed 30 March 2015.

13. The Guardian, Michael Safi, Reclaim Australia rallies: protesters clash in Melbourne and Sydney, 4 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/04/pauline-hanson-tells-reclaim-australia-groups-rally-criticism-is-not-racism. Accessed 4 April 2015.

14. Defence Today, David Kilcullen, 'ISIS and the threat worldwide', December 2014.

Four legs good, two legs better - Abbott's Orwellian shift on debt

Four legs good, two legs better - Abbott's Orwellian shift on debt

This positional change on debt is an Orwellian shift on the grandest scale. 'Four legs good, two legs bad' while in Opposition. When in power: 'Four legs good, two legs better'.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been renowned for playing populist politics. In fact, since the Howard years, fear-mongering for popularity has been the hallmark of the federal LNP whenever the polls head south for them. Usually, the fear-mongering revolves around the world's persecuted by trying to claim that victims of war, brutality and terrorism are terrorists. If it's not fear of refugees and Muslims, it's the 'D' words. Debt and Deficit.

While in opposition, Abbott acted more as a pugilist than a politician by constantly attacking Labor's economic policies. He successfully managed to convince the majority of Australians that Labor didn't have to stimulate the economy during the GFC. Considering that Australia dodged recession by less than half a percentage point, just what would have happened had Rudd not dropped billions into the economy to protect jobs and businesses? The Abbott approach of economic austerity would have seen Australia go the way of other western nations. There would have been recession and a blowout in the deficit with increased unemployment and business collapse impacting significantly on government expenses and revenue.

Abbott and his band of ultra-conservative warriors would screw the economy with austerity and trickle-down economic policies that failed in America and throughout Europe.

Austerity increases poverty. Poverty puts a greater burden on the economy through increased government expenditure on support programs for the unemployed and homeless, reduced government revenue through less tax paid by a smaller workforce and less revenue from business as the consumers have less disposable income.

When Abbott took power from Labor in September 2013, debt was travelling at an enviable level of around 13% of GDP. Britain's debt to GDP was 111%, USA was 106% and Greece exceeded 170% ⁽¹⁾.

Yet, Abbott had Australians believing the economy was on the brink of collapse. He rolled out the mantra that we're paying a billion dollars a day in interest. Yet within six months of taking office he doubled the deficit through his so-called 'responsible' economic policies that saw an increase in expenditure to the big-end of town and a decrease in revenue by removing some taxes ⁽²⁾.

Abbott declared a budget emergency when he took office. Yet within days of claiming that under Labor the Australian economy faced a 'Greek-style' disaster, Abbott miraculously healed the economy and claimed that the budget emergency was no longer an emergency. Debt to GDP at 13% under Labor was sending Australia over the precipice, if the Chicken Little 'sky is falling' politics of the LNP in Opposition was to be believed. Now at 15%, Abbott claims Australia can handle debt to GDP at 60% ⁽³⁾.

This positional change is an Orwellian shift on the grandest scale. 'Four legs good, two legs bad' while in Opposition. When in power: 'Four legs good, two legs better'.

To quote Orwell's 'Animal Farm':

All the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of, 'four legs good, two legs BETTER. Four legs good, two legs BETTER. Four legs good, two legs BETTER'. ⁽⁴⁾

All Labor debt bad, all LNP debt good.

With such a massive disparity in messages from this government, do Australians really believe anything Abbott says?

Australia's economy was the strongest in the western world following the GFC thanks to the Rudd/Swan stimulus packages.

Debt needs to be managed through structural reform, such as reducing concessions to the wealthy and improving standards for the less wealthy. However, to effectively manage debt the economy needs stimulus. Saul Eslake of Bank of America Merrill Lynch has stated the economy needs 'short-term fiscal stimulus that's well targeted' ⁽⁵⁾. It doesn't need austerity. It needs responsibility.

The Abbott government is on track for an $80 billion increase in debt over the four years to 2017-18 ⁽⁶⁾. Much of this is because their socially irresponsible budget in 2014 which slashed funding to education, health and welfare, resulting in many of its big 'savings' (read austerity) measures being blocked in the Senate. His first budget attacked the largest consumer group, namely those at the lower end of the wage spectrum. At the same time, the government gave billions to large multinational companies through subsidies and tax offsets.

Abbott tried to use the recently-released inter-generational report to further his economic scare-mongering, yet it predicted the deficit to average less than 1% of GDP for the next decade ⁽⁷⁾.

What does Abbott stand for? What keeps him awake at night? What means most to him?

On 20 March 2015, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser died. Fraser's great passion, the thing that kept him awake at night, was human rights. He campaigned for the rights of asylum seekers and was heavily critical of the abusive and harmful policies of Labor and Liberal that played on the fears of bigots. Accolades flowed from both sides, praising the old statesman. Tellingly, Abbott's comment was 'He had correctly read the mood of the public' ⁽⁸⁾. Only a politician who is kept awake at night worrying about the polls and his own power would say something like that.

Abbott has no concept of economic management. The economic policies of Abbott and his 'Team Australia' are destroying the living standards of those most vulnerable. He is robbing the poor and giving to the rich, driving up debt and deficit with it.

Abbott governs by popularity polls which he attempts to manipulate by coercion and fear. He is not a statesman and will never be held in the same regard as Fraser.


References:

1. The Conversation, Raja Junankar, 'The state of Australia - the economy', 8 May 2014. http://theconversation.com/the-state-of-australia-the-economy-26230. Accessed 20 March 2015.

2. ABC News, 'Fact check: Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?', 10 June 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392. Accessed 14 February 2015.

3. The Australian Financial Review, Phillip Coorey and Jacob Greber, 'Abbott loses the plot on debt', 19 March 2015. Accessed 19 March 2015.

4. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Great Britain: Penguin, 1987. Print.

5. ABC 7.30, Leigh Sales, 'Budget on the mend' says PM, facing headlines claiming he's 'lost the plot', 19 March 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4201187.htm. Accessed 20 March 2015.

6. The Australian Financial Review, Laura Tingle and Phillip Coorey, 'Budget gets $80b worse under Libs', 20 March 2015. Accessed 20 March 2015.

7. The Guardian, Stephen Koukalis, 'Ignore the intergenerational report scaremongering - the news is good', 19 March 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/19/ignore-the-intergenerational-report-scaremongering-the-news-is-good. Accessed 19 March 2015.

8. The Guardian, Katherine Murphy, 'Malcolm Fraser, former Australian Prime Minister, dies aged 84', 20 March 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/20/malcolm-fraser-dies-aged-84. Accessed 21 March 2015.

Also refer to: Ranting Panda, 'Australia's manufactured debt crisis', 14 February 2015, http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/australias-manufactured-debt-crisis.html.