Much ado about equality

Marriage Equality is about providing same-sex couples with the same rights, the equal rights, that heterosexual couples have in entering into a committed, legal marriage. It will not lead to bestiality, it will not destroy the family unit or the church or even plushy love. Yet the fear-mongering continues unabated.

Opposing same-sex marriage is an attack on freedom and equal rights!

Today the Lower House in Australia's federal parliament voted against the Marriage Equality bill by 98 votes to 42. Also today, Senator Cory Bernardi, the Parliamentary Speaker for the Leader of the Opposition, resigned because of a statement he made in the Upper House which concluded that legalising same-sex marriage could lead to legalising bestiality. His exact statement was 'these creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sex between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?' ⁽¹⁾ So how does an animal give consent?

The debate around same-sex marriage has become quite heated at times from numerous groups who are either for or against it.

The argument is over equality. Yet, there are a lot of people who are vehemently opposed to affording other citizens the same rights that they enjoy.

Same-sex marriage is not an attack on society, the church or marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage is an attack on liberty.

Religious groups seem to be the most vocal opponents of marriage equality and the ones with the most exaggerated conclusions, such as:

• legalising same-sex marriage will lead to legalising polygamy, bestiality, incest and a host of other activities that most people would be appalled by;
• same-sex marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage;
• same-sex marriage undermines the family unit; and
• same-sex marriage is a threat to freedom of religion.

The drawing of illogical conclusions, such as polygamy and bestiality, is blatant scare-mongering. Homosexuality is a naturally, occurring sexual urge whereas polygamy and so on, are purely giving into sexual gratification and can be undertaken by either homosexuals or heterosexuals. In fact, the majority of people indulging in polygamy and incest for example, are heterosexuals. Should we ban heterosexual marriage?

The sexual urge that forms the basis of heterosexuality and homosexuality is different to the sexual gratification that drives people to indulge in activities such as polygamy, bestiality or incest. Linking these for the purposes of making an argument against same-sex marriage is illogical and playing on fear and disgust rather than making a logical, coherent argument. 

And then there is the argument that same-sex marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage, which seems to ignore the fact that no-one is opposing, or trying to end, heterosexual marriage. The only people arguing against marriage are those who are opposing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage will not undermine heterosexual marriage.

Same-sex marriage is not an attack on the family unit. If anything, the harm that we have seen inflicted on many homosexuals has often been because of rejection within their family unit when they have either come out or been outed. If the family unit is valued so strongly, then no parent should disown their offspring for being gay. Supporting same-sex marriage is one way to strengthen the family unit, rather than weaken it. Additionally, there are many people in same-sex relationships who have had children to previous partners. Denying them the ability to formalise their commitment to a partner of the same gender is an attack on the family structure and is denying the provision of a stable, family unit for them and their children.

There is an argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage is protecting children from being bullied over having gay parents. Children bully each other regardless of same-sex parents. It is the role of parents to ensure that their children do not bully, that they learn to appreciate diversity and to deal with disagreements in an appropriate manner.

Religious groups in particular, feel that whenever someone disagrees with them, that it is an attack on religion.

Yet they often are the ones with the vitriolic attacks. People cannot be forced into believing in your religion or views. The beauty of living in a democracy is that we can speak our minds and stand up for what we believe in. We can criticise others. This is not an attack on religion. Certainly, vitriol should be kept out of any argument, whether arguing for or against marriage equality.

Those in favour of same-sex marriage are not advocating the systematic destruction of the church. If same-sex marriage is more powerful than God, then the church really needs to reevaluate itself.

The fear regarding marriage equality often reverts to allegations of sinister motives such as the 'gay agenda', as if there is a concerted effort to convert the entire world to homosexuality. The issue is marriage equality. That is, enabling gay couples to have the same rights, the equal rights, that heterosexuals do, in being able to marry if they chose.

Legalisation of same-sex marriage will not lead to bestiality or polygamy and it will not destroy families, the church or freedom of religion.

The opposition to same-sex marriage is an attack on:

• equal rights;
• the family unit; and
• marriage.

While the Marriage Equality Bill was defeated in the federal Lower House today, there are a number of bills in various states such as Tasmania and South Australia. For instance, marriage equality passed the lower house of the Tasmanian parliament and is soon to be presented to the senate.

It is just a matter of time before marriage equality is legalised and people can move on with their lives, after which we will be wondering what all the brouhaha was about.

Reference:

1. Hansard, Australian Senate, 18 September 2012, Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, Senator Cory Bernardi (South Australia)

Related articles on RantingPanda.com:

1. Adam & Eve meet Adam & Steve

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/adam-eve-meet-adam-steve.html

2. The War Against Christianity's Fundamentals

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/war-against-christianity-holy-war.html

3. Sinister Crusaders

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/sinister-crusaders.html

Remembering Sabra and Shatila

It has been 30 years today (16 September 2012), since Christian militia massacred up to 3,500 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Israeli Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon was found personally responsible by an Israeli Commission of Inquiry, but was never punished.

The camps housed refugees who had fled Palestine during the 1948 war, and later those who were driven from Jordan in 1970 by King Hussein, in which thousands of Palestinians were massacred in what became known as 'Black September'. Hussein, with pressure from Israel, had decided to drive Palestinians from Jordan following a number of attacks and aircraft hijackings by Palestinian militants. These attacks and hijackings were in retaliation for attacks on Palestinians by Israel and Jordan.

For years, Israel had been fighting with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). Israel claims that they were seeking peace and that the PLO had been instigating acts of terror. The opposite was true. For years, the Israelis had been provoking the Palestinians while rejecting every offer of peace put forward.

Additionally, Christian Phalangists had a history of attacking the Palestinians. In April 1975, a bus carrying Palestinian refugees from the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps was attacked by Phalangists, killing 27. On 6 December 1975 (now known as 'Black Saturday'), 200 muslims were taken hostage and murdered by Christian Phalangists, supposedly in response to the murder of four Phalangist militiamen by Muslims. On 18 January 1976, Christians massacred up to 1,500 Palestinian, Kurd and Syrian Muslims in the Karantina slum. Later that year, Phalangists blockaded the refugee camps preventing supplies reaching the inhabitants. ⁽¹⁾ 

Israel makes much of attacks by the PLO and other militants, but does not mention the attacks on innocent Palestinians. It does not mention its sustained oppression and bombings of Palestinians in Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon.

In June 1982, the Israeli army bombed refugee camps in Beirut, reducing many to rubble. The Sabra, Shatila and Bourj el-Brajneh refugee camps sustained heavy bombardment. There were deliberate attacks on two hospitals, killing hundreds of people, including children. Eight of the nine Homes for Orphans were targetted and destroyed. Phosphorous bombs were used in the attacks by Israel, causing severe burns to the victims. Survivors were left in severe pain and were permanently scarred. Many did not survive.

Israel had declared that the refugee camps not only harboured terrorists, but that all Palestinians were terrorists: men, women and children. Therefore instead of attempting to capture one or two who may have committed crimes and taking them to trial, the Israelis felt justified in holding all guilty and issuing an excessive collective punishment which violated international law.

The Israeli bombardment lasted weeks and drove at least half of the 125,000 refugees from the settlements. Israel bull-dozed what was still standing in some of the refugee camps. During this time, Israel deliberately prevented medical supplies and food from being sent into the refugees. ⁽²⁾ 

During 1982, Lebanon was being ripped apart by an ongoing civil war and was occupied by both Israel and Syria. On 23  August 1982, Bachir Gemayel, a Christian Phalangist, was elected President of Lebanon. On 14 September 1982, he was assassinated and 26 others killed, when the Phalangist headquarters was bombed. The Lebanese wrongly blamed the Palestinians.

The Israel Army, in their pursuit of the PLO, had surrounded the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. The Israelis controlled access to the camps. They checked everyone who entered and exited. They had the camps under constant surveillance. When the Phalangists came looking for revenge for the assassination of Gemayel, it was the Israeli Army who let them in. For three days, the Israelis watched as the Phalangists brutally murdered innocent men, women and children. Witnesses tell of mothers nursing their babies as the militia stormed their dwellings, and shot the babies dead. Of children being murdered in front of their parents, or parents being murdered in front of their children. This was no military operation attempting to find suspects in a crime, this was a cold-blooded, calculated war crime. Bulldozers were used to scoop up bodies and dump them in mass graves. ⁽³⁾

It was later found that the assassination had been carried out by Habib Tanious Shartouni, a Lebanese Maronite (Christian) who was affiliated with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

On 28 September 1982, the Israeli government established the Kahan 'Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut'. On 8 February 1983, the Inquiry handed down its findings, which held that the Phalangists were directly responsible. The Inquiry found that Israeli Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, 'bore personal responsibility' for 'ignoring the danger of blood-shed and revenge', by allowing the Phalangists into the camps and then ignoring the massacre as the Israelis stood by and watched without taking any steps to stop it. The inquiry recommended that Sharon be dismissed as Minister of Defense. Sharon refused to leave the post. ⁽⁴⁾

The massacre at Sabra and Shatila is just one of many attrocities committed directly or indirectly by Israel against Palestinians. These massacres form part of Israel's coordinated and long-term plan to completely take over the Palestinian territories and drive Arabs from the area, or annihilate those who remain. It is nothing short of genocide.

We can't just say that it happened 30 years ago and people need to move on. It is still happening today. ⁽⁵⁾ In 2002, hundreds of Israeli soldiers attacked the Jenin and Nablus refugee camps using tanks and helicopter-launched missiles, killing an unknown number of people. Israel refused to allow the UN to investigate allegations of a massacre, so the subsequent report was based on advice from Israelis, Palestinians and various aid agencies. ⁽⁶⁾ In 2006, Israel attacked Gaza with phospherous bombs, depleted uranium and Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), killing more than 1400 Palestinians, injuring more than 5,000, destroying 4,000 homes and leaving 400,000 without water. ⁽⁷⁾

Were these atrocities committed by Muslims, the world would be horrified and the entire religion would be vilified. Instead, the atrocities have been committed by Israelis and Lebanese Christian militia. No-one blames the entire Jewish or Christian religions for these atrocities. The United States continues to fund and arm the Israeli government even though numerous inquiries and UN resolutions have been issued against Israel for breaches of the Geneva Convention. Many Christians throughout the world support Israel based on an interpretation of biblical prophecy, without holding Israel to account.

The genocide has to stop. Western governments and conservative religious and political groups need to stop their blind support of Israel and their blind and naive hatred of Palestinians, if peace is to have a chance in the Middle East.

Recognising and understanding the terrible atrocities committed against the Palestinians is just the first step towards peace, respect and human rights.

References

1. Noam Chomsky, 'Fateful Triangle', pp 184-185, Pluto Press, 1991.
2. ibid, p197, pp223-226
3. ibid, pp362-375.
4. Karz-Cohl, 'The Beirut Massacre: The Complete Kahan Commission Report'.
5. Ilan Pappé, 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine', Oneworld, 2006
6. 'UN report on Jenin massacre flawed', ABC Radio National, 4 August 2002, reporter Peter Cave. http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s639418.htm (accessed 16 September 2012)
7. 'RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead - 27 December 2008', http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Palestine

Further reading

Further comment on the invasion of Palestine, the legitimacy of Palestinians, the human rights violations of Israel and the misinterpretation of biblical scripture, refer to these articles at the Ranting Panda blog:

• Road to Nakba - http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/road-to-nakba.html 
• Israel - Superstition, Prophecy and Human Rights -  http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/israel-superstition-prophecy-and-human.html
•  Palestine's Right to Exist - http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/palestines-right-to-exist.html 
• RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead - http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/rip-victims-of-operation-cast-lead-27.html

Animal Farm - an allegory of greed, power and exploitation

Today marks the anniversary of the first publishing of George Orwell's revolutionary novel, Animal Farm, which was an allegory of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union under Stalin. It was also an allegory of the insidious evil of capitalism that exploits the greed and selfishness lurking in the heart of humans.

Capitalists often refer to Animal Farm when criticising socialism and communism as though the book was written in defence of capitalism.

George Orwell was in fact, a democratic socialist. He supported socialism. He did not support Stalin or any other government that abused the principles of socialism. He did not support capitalism.

As background, the book is set on a farm owned by Mr Jones. The animals, including the pigs, cows, dogs, chickens, all feel that they are enslaved and are being used to make farmer Jones wealthy while they live outside and do not receive the full benefit of their labours. This is an allegory of the greed, power, exploitation and inequality that underpins capitalism.

Eventually the animals revolt and drive Mr Jones from the farm. They chant, 'four legs good, two legs bad'.
An allegory of the mindless mantras and slogans that politicians use to manipulate the populace.

Following the revolution, the animals believe that they can be responsible for their own lives, that their labours will benefit all animals on the farm equally. No longer will one person or creature be made wealthy at the expense of others. They even agree on the '7 Commandments of Animalism'. An allegory of the principles of socialism and Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

The original 7 Commandments of Animalism are:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill another animal.
7. All animals are equal.

Because the pigs are smarter, some of them decide that they will determine how the produce will be shared. Eventually, the aspirational 7 Commandments become a bit cumbersome for the greedy and power-hungry pigs who realise that they can make themselves prosperous by exploiting the efforts of the other farm animals. An allegory of capitalism.

They move into the farm-house, sleep in the beds and drink alcohol. They employ the dogs to keep the other animals under control and outside, to ensure that they work hard without dissent. An allegory of Stalin and the KGB.

The original 7 Commandments are modified by the pigs:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
6. No animal shall kill another animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.

Eventually, the 7 Commandments are replaced by one phrase:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE

EQUAL THAN OTHERS

An allegory of the abuse of democracy by capitalism and the abuse of socialism by capitalist's masquerading as socialists.

The other animals are fed propaganda that explains why things are so much better under the new regime, while history and their memories of the Jones era is rewritten for them. An allegory of every government in the world.

The failure of Animalism becomes apparent when there is no longer any difference between the ruling pigs, who are now wearing clothes and walking on two legs, and the humans, as shown in the following paragraph from Chapter 10:

'No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which'.

Animal Farm is less an allegory of the failure of socialism and more an allegory of the failure of Stalinism. The book provides no defence for capitalism, expounding the woes of those workers who were exploited by capitalists. It shows the reason for socialism and for the revolution. It also shows that the biggest threat to socialism is greed.

Socialism is about ensuring that all are looked after. Capitalism, at its most ideological, claims that the wealth of the few will trickle down to the rest of society, thus ensuring that all are looked after. In reality, those with wealth accumulate more from the efforts of workers, while allowing as little as possible to trickle down. Workers are essentially working to make the rich richer.

The difference between the economics of Stalin and the extreme capitalism of the western world is minimal:  the labours of the workers are exploited for the few. Both are driven by greed, power and exploitation. Both are based on selfishness and individual gain at the expense of all others.

True socialism attempts to temper greed and the abuse of power, however, it requires a dedication by all to all. It requires that we respect each other and care for each other. Perhaps this is too much to expect when the lies of capitalism pander to the greed within each of us.

--0--

Related articles on RantingPanda.com:

1.  The Fruits of Capitalism - rotten to the core

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-fruit-of-capitalism-rotten-to-core.html

2. Name one successful socialist country

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/name-successful-socialist-country.html

3. Biblical socialism - "to each as anyone has need" 

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/biblical-socialism-to-each-as-anyone.html

Sinister crusaders

The religious persecution of homosexuality is tantamount to the medieval demonisation of left-handedness.

'Twas a time, not so long ago, that true believers, pious Christians, would force left-handed people to become right-handed. You see, being left-handed was considered to be a sin. It was believed that those unfortunates who favoured their left-hands did so because of an evil spirit - not because they were 'born that way'.

These days Christians of similar piety believe they can 'pray away the gay'. In other words, that homosexuality is not natural, that people are not 'born gay', so therefore all homosexuals can 'become straight'.

The bible no doubt favours the right hand.  After all, Jesus sits at the 'right-hand of the Father'. When imparting a blessing on someone, it was the right hand that would be laid upon them. The left hand was seen as a sign of deceit, foolishness and sin. Take Ecclesiastes 10:2 for example, 'a wise man's heart is at his right hand, but a fool's heart at his left.' The Judgement Day parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, has Jesus separate them by placing the sheep on the right and the goats on the left. The parable ends with the sheep being welcomed in and blessed of God, while the goats are cursed and ordered to depart into everlasting fire.

Even the word 'sinister' reveals the dark nature of being left-handed. One definition of sinister is 'bad, evil, base or wicked'. Another is, 'of or on the left side; left'. So there you have it, being left-handed is out of favour with God and is evil.

Too bad that people are naturally born left-handed ... regardless of what the pious witch-burners of yester-year claimed with their twisted scriptures and scientific ignorance.

Some might quite cleverly argue that the bible does not actually say 'thou shalt not be left-handed', nor that we actually force the left-handed out of anyone these days, so comparing attitudes to left-handedness with attitudes to homosexuality is fallacious. Most of the right-wing religious folk have grave issue accepting that anyone can be 'born gay', because to do so kind of makes it a little difficult to call it a sin. Some pious folks will accept that maybe some people are born gay, however, they believe that it is a condition that can be healed. Interesting points of view, however, if people are naturally homosexual, are 'born that way', then how can they be accused of sinning. No other congenital condition is considered a sin.

The way that some pious folks carry on, anyone would think that homosexuality is the new black (or in this case, the new left) when it comes to demonising people, that it is the worst sin in the world.

Romans 3:23 says 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'. 'All have sinned'! The scripture goes on to state in verse 24, 'being justified freely by His Grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Because all have sinned and we have all been justified by the grace of God, none of us can boast of being more righteous than anyone else. Just a few scriptures after these, in verse 27, 'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith'.

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then keep in mind that in God's view it is no worse than any other sin. Yet the pious folk want it outlawed and those who are homosexual to be banned from marrying. There is more campaigning against homosexuality then there is against poverty, yet there are literally thousands of scriptures that quite clearly state that we are to care for the poor. In fact, the same pious folk who campaign against homosexuality, also campaign against any activity of the government that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor because they fear it is 'socialism'.

Where are these people's priorities? To ban love and ban charity. In spite of their precious bible being based on love and charity. Instead of banning gay love, instead of rejecting gay people, we should love them, treat them as we would anyone else.

The pious are happy to trot out statistics that indicate that homosexuality leads to a life of abuse, homelessness and living on welfare. What they fail to understand is that those who do end up in these situations have often been rejected and abused by their own families and peers - rejected by the heterosexual community. The abuse, bullying and the gay-hate crimes of the staunchly heterosexual or pious Christian, are often the cause of gay children running away from, or being kicked out of, home. To the pious, Matthew 7:5 says 'you hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye'.

If it is so important that the pious ban gay love, then perhaps they should ban left-handedness. After all, homosexuals have a greater propensity to be left-handed than their heterosexual counter-parts, as claimed in this extract from a scientific study: 'male homosexuals are about one third (31%) more likely than heterosexuals to be left-handed, while lesbians are almost twice as likely (91%) to be left-handed as heterosexual women' - Lalumire, M.L.; Blanchard, R.; Zucker, K.L. (2000): "Sexual orientation and handedness in Men and Women: a meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin 126, 575-592.

If almost defies belief, that in the 21st century there are still people who have similar ignorant, superstitious and hateful attitudes as those that dominated the Dark Ages - a time when left-handedness was a sign of witch-craft and devil possession. Future generations may well look back on us with the same disbelief and horror as we view the Dark Ages or the violent and intolerant Crusades.

Whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin or not is irrelevant. We do not have a right to tell consensual adults that they cannot have a committed relationship with each other, enjoying the same benefits as those in a heterosexual marriage.

If you believe homosexuality is a sin you still do not have a right to legislate against it. You can't legislate homosexuality into non-existence. Laws won't change the fact that people are gay, whether they are born that way or not. In terms of spirituality, there are gay Christians and their relationship with God is between them and God.

There is no room or excuse for persecution in the name of religion.

Instead of hateful and superstitious crusades against nature, Christians would do better to apply the scripture as it is written in terms of love for all, extending grace, mercy and charity to everyone, whether they meet your standards of morality or agree with your political or religious persuasion.

Instead of banning love, we should be the embodiment of love.

We are not commanded by God to wage crusades of fear, hate and ignorance.

We are commanded by God to love our neighbours, to love everyone - unconditionally!

--0--

Related article on RantingPanda.com:

'Adam & Eve meet Adam & Steve'

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/adam-eve-meet-adam-steve.html

Australia's Gulag Archipelago

The first bi-partisan 'solution' to the stopping the arrival of asylum seekers by boat appears to have been reached through Labor agreeing to re-open the detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island: Australia's Gulag Archipelago. It is a victory for fear and hatred.

Tony Abbott must be feeling quite chuffed right about now with Labor's capitulation over off-shore processing at Nauru and Manus Island. And last night Julie Bishop's crowing stooped further by using the deaths of 1,000 people at sea for political points scoring. Yet, since Rudd swept to power in 2007, the Liberals have been playing politics with the lives of asylum seekers by refusing to negotiate or compromise with the ALP in order to actually find a solution.

Just a side issue: note the grandiose claims of 'solutions' with the naming of the inhumane policies for processing of asylum seekers. Policies such as the 'Malaysia Solution' and the 'Pacific Solution' were rolled out with great hubris by both major parties. What were they solutions to? Certainly not the humane treatment of asylum seekers, more likely a solution to poor electoral polls.

Anyway, back to the issue of the day. As Howard was unceremoniously evicted as Prime Minister, his chair in the House of Reps had barely had time to cool before the Libs announced to the world that Australia was now soft on refugees and that the Labor Party would welcome the boats into the country. And the boats came. Awesome stuff, Libs! Great.

Both sides have played politics over an issue that has cost a lot of lives. The issue was exacerbated under former Prime Minister Howard who ran campaigns based on fear, hatred and lies. Remember the rubbish he told about the 'children overboard' affair, Tampa and Siev-X? And then there was the edict reminscent of the 'White Australia' policy, when Howard proudly and loudly announced, 'we'll decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come'. The 'patriotic' flag wavers leapt to their feet cheering the arrival of the Messiah who would protect us from the flood of boat people (all 10,000 or so per year ... if that). The Australian Gulags (or detention centres for the politically sensitive) were suddenly filled with people who had lost everything, risked their lives for security and had not committed a crime.

So as boat arrivals increased following the election of Rudd, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party became deadlocked on how best to deal with the issue. Nay! It wasn't a deadlock over how best to deal with the issue. It was a deadlock over how best to shore up political popularity while appearing tough on 'border security', the Orwellian euphemism used with the dexterity of a sledge hammer by John Howard to pound fear and hatred into the hearts of every red-blooded, dinki-di Aussie whenever a victim of a despotic regime dared to attempt to find security in Australia, the land of the 'fair-go'.

Sadly, the Labor Party has not had the guts to tackle these fears head on and actually try to put some truth and compassion into the processing of asylum seekers. Well, that's not quite true. Labor has introduced community detention and is sponsoring the accommodation of asylum seeker families in the community, which is a great alternative to the Gulags. However, the ALP is walking with a foot in each camp; at once trying to appear compassionate AND tough on 'border security'. This attempt to appear tough has shown their unwillingness to address the fears and hatred dominating community attitudes.

Now, following a review by an expert panel led by Angus Houston, the Labor Party is set to re-open the off-shore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island, Australia's Gulag Archipelago, which had been set up as part of Howard's Pacific Solution. Under Howard, many asylum seekers suffered psychological trauma because of indefinite detention, the separation of family and lack of activities. Apparently, the operation of the Gulags under Labor will differ to that under Howard because the asylum seekers will be given meaningful activities and opportunity for greater participation.

The priority for the both major parties is to 'slow' or 'stop' the boats, whether it be the ridiculous Malaysia Solution or the callous Pacific Solution. The drownings are not the priority of the government or the opposition, other than the negative publicity they generate for the Labor Party and the political points that Abbott and his team aim to score from them. Neither party is interested in the welfare of the asylum seekers for fear of being seen as soft on border security.

Both parties are acting like petulant brats while lacking the mettle to challenge the fear and hatred behind the attitudes of many people. Australia should be taking care of the issue in our own country, not pushing these issues on to our neighbours.

Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party should show humility and compassion to truly achieve a humane, bipartisan solution that does not use people as pawns in a pathetic game of political point-scoring.

The 'emerging and evolving' threat to privacy and civil liberties in Australia

The 'emerging and evolving' threat to privacy and civil liberties in Australia

I have never been a fan of invasion of privacy, so I have been concerned greatly with the Australian government's current review of intelligence gathering laws.

I recently received an email from GetUp! which has summarised the threat posed by the proposed changes to these laws, essentially that the Australian government is considering significant changes to surveillance and intelligence gathering laws, which represent a major threat to the privacy and civil liberties of every Australian citizen. These changes include:

• forcing companies such as ISPs and social networking sites to store our online movements, which includes every message sent, every website visited and every product bought, 
• increasing the power of ASIO while reducing its accountability. For instance, ASIO will have the power to remotely access your computer without your knowledge, even if you have not committed a crime and they will have be allowed to modify, delete or add files on your computer.

A Parliamentary Review Committee will be considering a discussion paper entitled 'Equipping Australia against emerging and evolving threats'. Whilst we want the country to be as safe as possible, it should not come at the expense of our civil liberties. Some of the changes being considered are themselves an 'emerging and evolving threat' to the privacy and civil liberties of all Australians.

If you wish to read the government's discussion paper regarding these changes, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/discussion-paper

We need to speak up and tell the government that these changes are unacceptable in an open democracy such as Australia's.

GetUp! is running a petition which you can sign to oppose these changes. The petition will be delivered to Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.

To sign the petition, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/your-privacy-at-risk?t=dXNlcmlkPTY1NzI2NCxlbWFpbGlkPTkxNA==

GetUp! has also prepared the following video which explains the effect these changes will have:

I urge you to sign the petition and to encourage everyone you know to also sign it.

The fruit of capitalism - rotten to the core.

Capitalism redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.

Many people believe that if they are earning a living then they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and should therefore support right-wing organisations and political parties. They continue their support for capitalism even as workers rights are eroded by these same capitalists. Workers rights that were fought for by left-wing organisations to end exploitation and ensure the needs of society were met. What workers should realise is that they are being thrown the crumbs of capitalism by the rich who build their personal wealth through exploiting workers. 

Wealth is unevenly distributed in capitalist nations, not because some people have a better education or more drive than others, but because of greed and an unwillingness by many to contribute to society in order to meet the basic needs of us all, such as health, shelter, education and security.

Capitalists promote the idea that the richer they become, the more people they can afford to employ and the better wages and conditions they can afford to provide. This is a falsehood. The idea of 'trickle down economics' is misleading. The mega-rich are always looking for ways to increase their profits, which means lowering their costs and increasing prices. Reduced costs can be achieved through a smaller work force with fewer entitlements and lower real wages.

Capitalists will often refer to the Soviet Union or other despotic and repressive regimes as being the hallmark of socialism. Yet, they fail to mention right-wing despots who were often sponsored by capitalists and right-wing governments, particularly the USA, UK, France and Germany. This support was based on nothing more than greed for power and wealth with no concern for the human rights abuses being committed. It resulted in economic and military support for tyrants such as Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy's Benito Mussolini, Indonesia's Suharto, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Uganda's Idi Amin, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel, to name a few.

True socialism does not require repression, it does not require censorship, it does not require pogroms against dissenters or racial and religious groups. Those regimes claiming to be socialist or communist, but which relied on repression, did so in order to protect the power and wealth of the leadership, not to protect or provide for the needs of the community. Protection of power and wealth for the individual is the domain of capitalism. 

True socialism ensures that the needs of the community are met before the wants of the individual are. True socialism tempers the greedy, individualistic exploitation of capitalism, in order to ensure that all people in society are looked after and benefit from the national wealth. 

American author, Fran Lebowitz said, 'In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country (USA), capitalism triumphed over democracy'.
Capitalism triumphed over communism in the Soviet Union, long before perestroika and glasnost brought an end to it. Even under Stalin, extortion masqueraded as 'wealth redistribution' to shore up the power and wealth of the Politburo. Money extorted from workers under pain of imprisonment, torture and death, was spent on military technology and conquest, rather than on the people of the Soviet Union and their basic needs. 

Capitalism usurped democracy long ago. This is particularly evident in the United States where only the wealthiest can afford to conduct an election campaign. Throughout the world, big business and the richest few have more say over government policy than the voters, ensuring the interests of the wealthy are protected while the ordinary citizen struggles to meet the growing cost of living. A cost that redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.

The failure of capitalism is that we are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor. There is more money spent on the military in order to defend capitalist interests than on the poor. Money that could save lives by being spent on health, housing and education is directed to fund wars against the poor.

Capitalistic greed only benefits a few individuals while exploiting, and even killing, the poor. This is the fruit of capitalism and it is rotten to the core. It doesn't nourish, it doesn't fulfil. Instead it feeds greed and an insatiable hunger for more, while lessening the appreciation of what we already have. It focuses on wants, not needs.

We should stand up against it. 

We should defend the interests of all over the interests of a few. 


Don't be deceived by the greed.