RSS Feed

Category Archives: Take a Stance On

Take A Stance On: CIVIL LIBERTY

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Meg Bignell

395274-v-graphics-13-beforeandafer-boston-bombings-bomb1b-jpg

Are we so afraid of terrorists that we will terrify the innocent among us? Are we building a vast fortress to imprison ourselves?

                                                                                                      – Brian Doyle, The Oregonian

A terribly injured Jeff Bauman being taken for medical help.

A terribly injured Jeff Bauman being taken for medical help.

On the 15th April, two pressure cooker bombs were detonated near the finish line of the famous Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring 264. The two suspects (one dead, one awaiting trial) were evidently motivated by extreme Islamist beliefs. They were identified and captured quickly, in part due to the CCTV footage and in part to an amazing 27 year old named Jeff Bauman who watched a man drop a bag at his feet, look him in the eye and walk away. Two and a half minutes later the bag exploded, tearing his legs apart. When he awoke in hospital, Jeff took a pen and paper and wrote, “Bag, saw the guy, looked right at me.”

I feel compelled to note that on the same day, a string of terrorist attacks across Iraq killed 75 and injured about 350, but it was the Boston bombings – the random spread of terrorist activity – that brought the issue of security V civil liberty back to the fore.

Civil Liberties  are freedoms protecting the individual from government interference. They set limitations to safeguard against a government’s abuse of power. Common civil liberties include freedom of association (I can fraternize with any Arthur, Martha or Mustafa I want), freedom of speech (I could say that the PM deserves a Vegemite sandwich missile if I thought so – which I don’t), freedom of assembly (hang it, let’s get the Rastafarian club together), freedom of religion, due process, fair trial and privacy (I have 3 secrets I will never tell a soul and never have to).

Constitutions and bills of rights are designed to uphold civil liberties. Since September 11, the line between national security and civil liberties has become a bit blurry.

Liberty looks on

Liberty looks on

September 11 2001 was when 2996 people died as a result of 4 hijacked plane crashes – 2 into the World Trade centre in New York, 1 into the Pentagon and 1 which was bound for the US Capitol Building crashed in Pennsylvania as a result of a counter attack on the hijackers by the planes passengers. I know you know this.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation was adopted by Australia after the 2005 London Bombings (Richard and I were at Waterloo station when those ones happened by the way, it wasn’t dramatic where we were – just eerily quiet). The 54 laws making up the Anti Terrorism Act, 2005 affords unprecedented power to law enforcement – things like detention (with interrogation) for suspects for up to 2 weeks without charge or evidence, imposition of control orders (restrictions) on suspects for up to a year, electronically tracking suspects for up to a year, random stop and search powers, and the ‘shoot to kill’ clause which allows police to treat terrorism suspects the same way they would treat wanted criminals.

THE CIVIL LIBERTARIAN VIEW 

  • National Security will erode civil liberties and the world is over reacting to threats of terrorism.civil-liberties_copy-300x200
  • The war on terror must be waged only within the framework of existing civil liberties.
  • History tells us that governments and officials routinely exaggerate threats to national security.
  • The anti-terror legislation has a negative impact on Australia’s Muslim community, especially given the amendment from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to a ‘balance of probabilities’ – there is potential for racial profiling and stereotyping.
  • Counter-terrorism policy may generate widespread fear and paranoia – both within law enforcement agencies and the public. This could lead to further abuse of civil rights and an unwillingness to engage in political activism, thereby reducing the function of democracy.
  • ‘Reactionary’ counter-terrorism laws were formed all too easily and without thorough review. Australia formed new laws without reviewing the existing ones; the US passed a federal surveillance amendment with under an hour’s discussion.
  • It is possible that media coverage will be manipulated to suggest that non-violent, citizen-lead activist groups are potential terrorists.
  • Newly considered security tools such as wire taps, internet tracking, biometric (DNA) profiling and national ID cards are too easily abused and threaten public privacy.
  • Australia’s knee-jerk anti terror laws post 9/11 are widely (internationally) viewed as ‘hyper-legislative’ – Australia was unusual in its restrictive response and increased power to states.
  • The decision to go to war in Iraq is coming under fire and criticism – what other mistakes will be made in the interests of security?
  • All this extra security is bloody expensive and many of the laws have rarely been used.

THE PUBLIC SAFETY VIEW 

  • The benefits of greater security outweigh the costs of reduced liberty. Both factors are important, but their relative importance cctv changes according to time and situation.
  • Officials have in the past underestimated security dangers and as a result we are living in an increasingly violent world – the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, for instance, was a disastrous malfunction of intelligence and communication.
  • We are nations under law, but first we are nations. The law is a human creation that should evolve with our changing needs; it is not divine Gospel nor should it be set in stone.
  • It is a gross irony that the very laws we set in place to secure our welfare are inflexible enough to undermine that welfare.
  • The events of September 11 have made a decrease in civil liberties inevitable – it marked the beginning of contemporary terrorism in the Western World and what could follow? London, Bali, Mumbai  Boston… what next? It is common sense to take more secure measures.
  • Civil Libertarians claim that counter-terrorism measures are alarmist but they themselves are being alarmist by frequently crying Big Brother and claiming that the world is becoming a society of surveillance.
  • There is increasing evidence that terrorists are living ordinary lives, which means that law enforcement has no choice by to watch closely and treat every potential threat as suspicious.
  • It is reasonable to believe that a balance between public safety and liberty can be achieved so long as there is proof that new security laws are effective against terrorism and as long as they carry a sunset clause which enables the laws to be reconsidered in a few years should the crisis pass.

So are counter terrorism measures proving successful?

Well in Australia – at least domestically – it seems that not so many of the new laws have been used. And some have been used in a rather over-zealous fashion…In 2007, Muhamed Haneef, an Indian doctor living in Queensland, was arrested and detained without charge, suspected of terrorist involvement (mainly because he had a one way ticket and because his cousins were involved in the Glasgow Airport attack a few weeks prior to the arrest). In the end it seems he was heading back to India to see his wife and brand new baby daughter. He was substantially compensated for his troubles. Oopsie daisy.

In August last year, Julia Gillard announced that COAG would undertake a review of counter terrorism legislation (it seems that other countries have already done this and chucked out a few OTT unnecessary laws) to ”evaluate the operation, effectiveness and implications of key Commonwealth, state and territory counter-terrorism laws”. The review report was to be completed in 6 months – that was August last year, 9 months ago. The COAG website reports diddly squat. Come on dudes, pull your expert fingers out.

Meantime, the Law Council of Australia has been slogging away at trying to reform some of the more paranoidy bits of the legislation, without a great deal of success.

THE MEGORACLE VIEW 

Well we at Megoracle (OK, me, just that being a group or megoracle researchers seems so much more impressive and credible) me at Megoracle will be once again taking the idealist stance – a bit of everything please.

What concerns me most is the fear-mongery of all this surveillance and the impact on innocent Muslim communities just going about their business with no Jihaddy motivations or associations. It’s disturbing that random bags minding their own business while their owner is in the loo have the power to clear a whole concourse; and more disturbing  that innocent people could have a dodgy cousin and find themselves locked up and interrogated. We all have dodgy cousins. The lack of rubbish bins in public places is just a pain (but this is a mere trifle – if I had had my legs blown off by a bomb in a rubbish bin I wouldn’t complain that they are all gone. I don’t like trifle much though).

I somehow cannot believe (and maybe I’m young and naive, ok just naive) that our government could lead us into a stasi-like society where our smells are bottled and our houses wired if we are seen chatting to a friend from Bahrain. And all the CCTV cameras everywhere actually make me feel safe – if it hadn’t been for one of them, the lowlife scum who murdered Jill Meagher wouldn’t have been caught.

But to reach beyond the civil liberty debate, I have a nasty uncomfortable feeling that counter terrorism is in itself somehow rewarding acts of terror. By declaring war and fostering the inevitable panic that goes with war, are we not granting terrorists a hero status within their circles? Younger Muslim people (for instance) will want to follow in the footsteps of their ‘brave soldiers’ and forget the do-good and think-good lessons of Islam. They might decide that extreme Islamic beliefs like Jihad are very cool.

Maybe we’ve had enough time to be able to sort out which of these laws is relevant and which can go, and can get on with devaluing and belittling acts of terrorism using the (no doubt complex, ancient and inherent) ideologies that elevated terrorism to pop-combat in the first place.

Can’t someone get a group together to stage a wondrous conspiracy involving the discovery of a long lost chapter of the Koran, one that says Allah will not condone or forgive acts of violence?  Happy to help. I’m ok at calligraphy and don’t mind a bit of stirring oration – “It says SILENCE, you silly billies, acts of SILENCE”. Or is that all written in there already and needs to be unearthed and shouted from the rooftops?

Please note that I am not equating terrorism with Islam alone, just that Jihad has a lot to answer for. It should be as daggy as scrunchies. Maybe it should be called Jihasbeen.

cartoon

2 Comments

Posted in Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Take a Stance on: An Australian Republic

Posted on December 5, 2012 by Meg Bignell

glamourAh so the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting. I love a bit of good news. Sorry to hear that Kate is laid up with severe morning sickness (otherwise known as hyperemesis gravidarum otherwise known as spewing your guts up until you’re totally dehydrated). Morning sickness, for those who have not encountered it first hand, sucks large hairy balls. And what’s with the morning title? Mine would wake me up at night. If you’re reading this Kate – which you won’t be because all you can do is stare at the ceiling and possibly also because Megoracle is a little off your radar – here’s what helped me: sniffing lemons, cheese doritos, French onion philly dip with saladas, pineapple juice and getting those babies the hell out of me.

It’s nice to know that if this little poppet is a girl, she will still be 3rd in line for the throne (after Charles and Wills), just as she would be if she were a boy.

But perhaps this little bit of royal progression won’t affect us anyway – no doubt the republicans of this country (Australia) will take this good news and run with it – sneerily toward the monarchists. Over a decade ago I voted in a referendum that asked whether we should lose the Royal Family as head honchos without really knowing what it all meant. I voted Aye because my mum is a republican and I was a good girl and always listened to my mum. The Nays had it though and it all turned out to be a bit of a waste of money really. So will we revisit it? And if so, when? And if we do, should I really vote yes? Let’s see…

How/When did the whole Republic Idea Start?

Well, republican sentiments have apparently been bandied about even before Federation (when the self governing states joined to form a nation in 1901), going back as far as the Eureka Stockade (when Victorian gold miners rebelled against British colonists in 1854). In fact some republican reps still use the stockade flag as their symbol. At the Federation ceremony itself, republicanism was acknowledged by some to be the next progression.

Gough Whitlam made a few republican-ish changes to the constitution when he was in power in the early 70′s (before he got ousted by the Queen’s representative, Governor General John Kerr – for reasons that are another story entirely).

In 1986, the Australia Act further separated us from a British administration by eliminating any leftover ability for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, or for an Australian court to appeal to a British court.

Then in 1993, the Keating Labour government laid the foundations for really significant constitutional change – to become a republic and to elect an Australian head of state to replace dear old Lizzie. Keating’s  goal was to conduct a referendum (which you have to do when changing the constitution) and have it all in place by 2001 – the centenary of Federation thank you very much. But he was voted out of office in 1996.

John Howard replaced him and carried the issue forward using a more conservative Constitutional Convention approach, in order to develop a suitable republican model which could go to referendum in 1999. At the 1998 convention, 152 delegates spent 2 weeks discussing the whole can or worms and coming up with a bipartisan election model – whereby a head of state or president would be elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.   The convention also made proposals to add a preamble to the constitution to better reflect the spirit of Australia (the existing preamble is very dry and talks about God and the British Empire). The republic idea won majority support 89 to 52 with 11 abstentions and a referendum was called.

The referendum, held in 1999 after a massive advertising campaign and the distribution of over 12 million pamphlets, resulted in 55% of voters giving the republic the old don’t-come-Monday. The preamble question only got a 39% yes vote.

What did the referendum ask us to vote on?

1) Should Australia become a republic with a head of state elected by Parliament – as opposed to the Queen and a Governor General?

2)Should the constitution be altered to include a preamble? (note, I don’t remember reading the new preamble, nor can I find it anywhere – if anyone can shed light on this I would be very grateful).

Why didn’t it get through? 

To alter the constitution, a referendum is required to be approved by a majority overall as well as a majority of voters in a majority of states (jeepers does that even make sense?). Neither question achieved this. Why? Some say that Aussie’s were happy with the status quo, others say that the bipartisan voting of a head of state was too problematic. Others say that it was the wording of the questions, not the actual issue at hand, that put people off voting yes. But there are lots of opinions. Maybe not everyone’s mum is as smart as mine.

It is interesting to note (well I think it is), that metro areas were mostly in favour of a republic while rural and regional areas were strongly opposed. Also, areas of higher socio-economic status were more in favour of a republic that lower socio-economic areas. Make of that what you will…

What’s going on with the debate these days?

Well PM Julia Gillard says she thinks that Australia would benefit from being a republic, but that Australians have a deep seated affection for Queen Elizabeth, meaning that we should revisit the whole thing once Liz drops from her perch. Opposition leader Tony Abbott was once an Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and doesn’t see any good reason for the change.

Both the republican and monarchist movements are still active, but some commentators have remarked that republican rhetoric  seems to have weakened. Paul Keating popped up a month of so ago to reinforce the idea, but he seemed to be drowned out by the hype of the Charles and Camilla visit. And the feverish exuberance over the Kate and Wills wedding – even if it was slightly overshadowed by Pippa’s bottom, there is no denying a renewed enthusiasm and fascination for the Royal family.

What are the key arguments for each side?

Monarchists:  the-crown-jewels

  • If it aint broke…our system of Government works so why change it (ahem – if only they’d stop trying to govern in minority whilst slinging mud across the floor of Parliament but that’s a megoracle opinion)
  • Republicanism denies Australia’s historical link to the Mother Country. Our British links are a fundamental part of our identity and heritage. The Government represents this heritage.
  • Electing an Australian Head of State to replace the existing role of Queen and her Governor General (GG) will change very little for the average Australian – and only a little more for those not so average. The largely ceremonial role will remain much the same and an Australian president will still act mostly on advice of the PM. The change would be more symbolic than functional.
  • There is huge (taxpayer) expense involved with red tape, changing of currency, stationery etc, not to mention another referendum.
  • We are already an independent nation, regardless of labels such as constitutional monarchy, commonwealth, Queen’s council etc.
  • Change can induce anxiety and anger among those who are happy with the way things are travelling.
  • Some dislike the whole idea of more elections, referendums and the palaver that comes with them. Voting for president could be just another partisan (fervently opinionated) factor to add to an already firey political climate.
  • Red white and blue is far more tasteful than green and gold (again, my opinion).

Republicans: cork hat

  • Australia is a culturally diverse country with immigrants from all over the world. The average Australian has evolved from those plummy sounding people on old wireless broadcasts to people to whom the Queen means little more than a nice old lady in aqua. 
  • An Australian Head of State will be an Australian who lives among us, loves Australia and whose priorities and allegiances lie with Australia.
  • The particular GG to President change may have little impact on most Australians, but the act of changing the constitution itself could have lasting reverberations. For instance, indigenous groups are largely in favour of a Republic, mostly because it may pave the way to further constitutional reform and a newly defined relationship with a system that has largely failed them.
  • Similarly but in a more general vein, many view change – any change – as a good thing in itself and a symbol of hope and expectation for the future.
  • Some view a republic as an acknowledgement of the atrocities, pain and hardship faced by Indigenous Australians and a positive step toward reconciliation.
  • It will enhance democratic participation and increase accountability of those in power.
  • Business and commerce is becoming internationally competitive and the way Australia positions itself as a nation is increasingly important to our economy. The Queen is more interested in promoting British trade and business (although I haven’t noticed the Queen being a particularly powerful promotional tool).
  • There is really no extra cost involved as currency and stationery will be changed one day anyway when QE dies and Charles takes over. The Head of State will continue to use the same offices as the GG.
  • It is not a denial of our English heritage but the next step in the evolution of a nation. It is a recognition of our democracy and our diversity. Monarchists are clinging to the past and not looking to the future.
  • We can have a styley new flag (or hold a competition to design a new one and laugh at all the entries.

What do I think?

Well if becoming a republic simply means having an Aussie as a Head of State instead of the Queen – if it means having a local as chief ribbon cutter (which let’s face it is the cornerstone of the republican campaign), then it all seems like a lot of huff and puff (not to mention dollars) over very little to me. Isn’t this just about renaming GG to President? If we’re going to go to all the trouble of changing the constitution then I’d be looking for more bang for my buck thanks very much – like some constitutional acknowledgment (yes preamble but more than that – something practical as well as symbolic) of our traditional owners that is arrived at via consultation from them. And something that actually officiates and helps facilitate the multiculturalism that all the pollies bang on about while sending desperate people to live in grotty tents. Something more gutsy, you know…

And I wouldn’t mind seeing a little bit of compromise maybe – I mean I’m as fond of the Royals as the next person and this next lot coming through seem quite cool really. It’s be nice to keep a special place in their hearts, although I can’t substantiate this with any remotely credible or intelligent suggestions. Maybe we could be a sister country or something. I mean, Charles lived here for a few years and the Queen really likes it, and we have all that history it would seem rude to turn our backs on it entirely.

What do you think? 

You tell me!

10 Comments

Posted in Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Take a Stance On: TONY ABBOTT’s CHARACTER (By Request) and FEMINISM and POLITICS (By Compulsion)

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Meg Bignell

I have an automatic aversion to Tony Abbott. However I’m concerned that this is a product of successful political mud slinging spin. I would prefer to think that my opinion is immune to spin but I think that’s pretty unrealistic (actually I know it is – last week I bought wrinkle cream with Kakadu plum in it because it is a fair dinkum miracle cream never mind I have observed no change whatsoever except maybe deeper wrinkles where my annoyed expression happens). Anyway, when it comes down to brass tacks (whatever that means), I actually don’t know what to think of TA, even though the sisterhood keeps calling him an aggressive misogynist (more spin?) and hooray-ing Julia Gillard for her dressing down of him the other day.

I should know what to think though because one day everybody might stop flinging mud and start running the country a bit and there’s a (shrinking) chance it will be him, so maybe I should pay more attention and form my own opinion, spin-free.

In the staying attentive process, questions have arisen: What was Julia all shouty about the other day anyway and was her finger pointing and stuff just theatre? Is Tony Abbott really just an over-aggressive  misogynist with a prominent ball bag*? I don’t know, I need to work through this….

2) How did this misogyny thing all start?

First up, misogyny is a bugger of a word to spell, but I’ve found that if you break it up into miso (as in soup) and gyny (as in the fella who checks my jacksie every so often) then you’ll be set. Just don’t go calling anyone a misogynaecologist because that could be really nasty and is even harder to spell. Anyway, this whole misogyny thing started when House of Reps Speaker Peter Slipper sent text messages to 33 year old James Ashby, a member of staff who also happens to be gay. I can’t seem to be able to throw this bit of information in casually as if it doesn’t add anything but it sort of does.

Peter Slip-Up

What also seems to add to the story is that Peter Slipper is an ordained priest. Maybe that’s because it seems at odds with a strong Anglican faith to write such messages as, “funny how we say that a person is a cunt when many guys like cunts”. True enough I guess, but undoubtedly inappropriate, as is the one that describes vaginas as “mussles out of their shells…salty cunts in brine.” My instant reaction to this one, in all honesty, was to snigger, before I checked myself and put on a disapproving-how-dare-you expression. I am a wayward feminist I know, but I have sniggered with my friends about scrotums so I guess that balances things out.

In another text he called Sophie Mirabella (shadow minister for Industry and Innovation) a bitch (well actually it was ‘botch’ but I think we’re assuming that was an auto-correct thing). Anyway, you get the picture – there were evidently hundreds of these texts and Ashby (not without what looks to me like a bit of vigorous flirting) eventually accused Slipper of sexual harassment, which of course saw Tony Abbott clamour for his resignation, and later passed a vote of no confidence in him as speaker of the house, saying his texts were “vile” and “derogatory toward women”.

And this saw our esteemed PM rile right up and deliver a very articulate 15 minute speech (worth a look) powered by seemingly genuine anger, the crux of which is (I think, in my basic terms) “Yeah right you dickhead now you get all holier than though because you’re trying to knock bits off my majority and get rid of a man who has pissed you off because he was once your close friend and is now an embarrassing liability – you expect us to believe in your sudden noble condemnation of sexist behaviour when you’ve been a shameless sexist porcine all these years especially toward me? Well we see right through you, you HYPOCRITE KNOB.” Or something like that. And to quote her directly, she made this call, that will no doubt be repeated throughout history:

“The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper and he’s writing out his resignation because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives; he needs a mirror.”

Clever, very clever, but is it not going a bit far? It was, I think, a heartfelt dressing down of Tony Abbott but I do think it was partly fueled by excitable opportunism (you know that feeling adrenalin rush when you realise you have a window of golden opportunity) mixed with last straw syndrome (I’VE HAD ENOOOOUUUUGH!). And I don’t believe she is silly enough to be defending Peter Slipper (his texts are slightly humorous but also slightly indefensible), so surely it was more about keeping her majority than honest sentiment…(segue to)

2) Is Tony Abbott a misogynist? (Rant Alert – and not in the way you may expect)

Well in the traditional sense of the word (a pathological hater of women), no of course he isn’t. He has a wife and three daughters and it’s a safe bet he doesn’t hate them. His wife Margie was recently wheeled out by the Liberal PR machine to say (more spinny) stuff like, “just don’t ever try and tell me that my husband of 24 years and the father of three daughters is on some anti-women crusade. It’s simply not true.” And it was (presumably) a woman who pushed him into the world and I’m guessing he has a few positive feelings about her too. His chief of staff is a woman – Peta Credlin – who he describes as the de facto deputy leader of the opposition (I guess he thinks Julie Bishop is a dud).

But given that the Macquarie Dictionary has just broadened the definition, making misogyny an “entrenched prejudice against women”, then yes, I think he probably is. Here’s why:

I think most people are. To varying degrees anyway – it’s just the way of the world. Sexism is fading as the decades go by but it’s inherent in our society and in us. Many woman are misogynists if you stick with definition 2. Maybe I’m one of them – I’m just seeing a short film into production that portrays women in very traditional roles and even includes bottom pinching and sexy lingerie**. I don’t expect my husband to write thank you letters or sew up hems, I do expect myself to. This belief is entrenched because my father never sewed or wrote thank you letters and my mother – a full time working academic – did. So yep, I am a misogynist. I can feel some of you rolling your eyes here because it sounds like I’m taking this too far, but there are women all over the country pushing misogyny onto any bloke who dares to mention women (or parts thereof) in a sentence and I think they are taking it too far.

If you’re digging around in someone’s past searching for evidence of misogyny then surely you’ll come up with something. Tony Abbott’s something was the alleged groping of a female activist when he was a uni student – an accusation that was thrown out of court when seven witnesses testified that the grope was simply a touch on the back.

Then there was his standing beside signs saying “ditch the witch” during a no carbon tax rally. Well he had to be there and there is no evidence that he commissioned the signs, nor did he pose with them. He perhaps could have called for them to be pulled down, they were nasty, but I wasn’t struck by the their sexism (another example of sexism being inherent?). If they’d said, “Ditch the Witch, she’s got Tits”, then I would have uproared with the best of them.

On this note, I do tend to agree with Mrs Abbott when she said, “I believe a disservice is being done to women when the gender card is played to shut down debate about policy” and not just to shut down policy but just to be grasping at straws of evidence so flimsy you couldn’t pick your teeth with them. I mean Abbott was accused of being sexist because he said that Tasmanian premier Lara Giddings spoke to him in a ‘schoolmarm manner’. Oh come on, he didn’t call her a useless woman or stare at her boobies and if he did it would be rude and stupid but it doesn’t mean he hates women. Stop crying wolf for your own ends girls or we’ll start earning the complaining women status.

2) Do his anti-abortion views make him a misogynist? 

I don’t think so. I suspect his religious tainted views would apply to men as well if they happened to be the ones to have babies. BUT his stance on abortion does set off other alarm bells – ding dong extreme conservatism dong ding.

As a young activist he was fiercely anti-choice in the abortion debate. In 2006 he attempted to block legislation to pass the anti-abortion pill RU486, arguing that “every abortion is a tragedy” and the rate of abortion at the time was “this generations legacy of unutterable shame”. I know it’s a sensitive issue and a life changing, terrible decision but in many cases abortion is the sensible option. No not always the easy option as Abbott has stated, but a necessary one. And the hard truth is that kids are having sex younger and younger – in 2008, it was found that 25% of year 10 students were having sex (La Trobe Uni) – so this is not an issue we can throw blanket judgment over. Every case is different and should be assessed individually by people trained in the field of family planning – not by some big man up in the sky.

3) Does he have trouble dealing with women in positions of power?

Durr, yes. The Prime Minister is a woman, he is her prime opposition – they dislike each other immensely, of course he has trouble dealing with her. But she has trouble dealing with him too, clearly thinking he is a twat. Have you seen them try to be civil to each other at sober, we-are-you-are-austalian events like the funerals of statesmen or soldiers? Awkward.

Whether he has an actual problem problem (i.e a psychological wonk) with women in power, maybe he does. Maybe his doodle does a little in-his-head shrink when a woman asserts authority over him), maybe he had a bossy mother he spent his life trying to overcome and now he’s in a habit. I don’t know, who does. But if it’s a serious mental problem then surely we would have seen more compelling evidence of such.

4) Is Tony Abbott aggressive?

I think there’s an element of aggression in all politicians – especially the high profile ones. And evidence suggests Tony Abbott is an aggressive politician, which would make aggression a definite aspect of his character. But I don’t think stuff like bending road signs (he did this as a uni student shortly after the grope allegation), and kicking glass panels (after being defeated in University elections in 1976) illustrates harmful aggression. As for kicking or bending people, well there are a few slightly worrying examples and allegations:

  • allegedly punched the wall on either side of a woman’s head at uni after he’d lost the SRC election to her (he denies this)
  • walked in a threatening manner toward Labor’s Graham Edwards after he called out “You’re a disgrace”. Should this be made worse by the fact that Mr Edwards lost both legs in Vietnam? I don’t think so.
  • punched Jo Hockey while playing sport in the 80′s
  • made a thoughtless remark about the cruise ship Costa Concordia a la “That’s one boat that did get stopped”
  • said, “Shit happens” when being given details of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. I’ve watched this footage and I think he said it because he just didn’t know what else to say. It wasn’t a throwaway don’t-give-a-toss kind of line, just a very tactless remark. I think his response in the aftermath was truthful – that he would never make light of such a tragedy. What bothers me most about this matter is his reaction when questioned by a journalist on Sky News. He seemed utterly paralyzed – by what? Fear? Total loss of words? Some kind of medical condition (looks like a seizure to me)? Or is he about to punch the shit out of the journalist? After a 28 second silence accompanied by a steady dose of stink eye, he told the journalist that he’d given the response he deserved. Creepy.

Senator Barnaby Joyce apparently said that Tony Abbott’s aggression is evident in his gait.

The Australian newspaper’s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan was active in university politics with Tony Abbott, and his best mate. He said on a recent episode of Q&A that Abbott was never aggressive, especially toward women. His view is that the aggressive portrait has been painted in response to fear of a conservative catholic running the country.

At odd with this, Sydney barrister Irving Wallach, who was at the same uni at the same time but not a friend of Abbott’s, said (on the same episode) that Abbott was a pushy and physical person who loved his beer (nothing wrong with that) and that the reported aggressive behaviour is consistent with the Tony Abbott he knew.

Australian writer Robyn Davidson said that he exudes a kind of barely controlled temper and my gut feeling (pretty damn trusty) is that she is right. I think his levels of aggression could be a problem to him and could become a problem to Australia one day. But hey, I’m no psychoanalyst.

5) Is Tony Abbott a Liar?

Well Leigh Sales certainly proved he is a little ‘loose with the truth’ when she destroyed him in a recent 7:30 interview – watch the carnage here.  She and others over the years have highlighted his misrepresentations of the truth when it comes to all sorts of issues – climate change (it’s a little blurry as to whether he really believes in it or is just saying so to win votes), carbon tax, asylum seekers…but I don’t think his wonky truths are unusual or particularly scary. What is a bit of a worry is that he can’t seem to think on his feet well enough to even remember what he has said before, how he stands on important issues or even – as shown in the 7:30 interview – make any sense at all when put under the pump.

We don’t need a PM who goes to pieces and gets all weirdly starey and creeped out when under pressure. NOr, for that matter, do we need one who can’t seem to keep track of his beliefs. I am yet to be impressed by a public performance of his (this doesn’t carry much weight as I don’t go out of my way to follow his public appearances).

6) Would he make a good Prime Minister?

Nope. My opinion. Willing to hear others. I’m over him now and the sun’s just come out so I’m pushing off. See ya bitches.***

 

UPDATE: My friend, a brainy statesman type who read my post 1) agreed with what I said (and I love it when a brainy person agrees with me), 2) added to my sentiments and 3) improved greatly on my lazy answer to that last question. I quote…

“ I think he is an ultra conservative bully, a position which results in a certain degree of homophobia, sexism and God bothering.

Whilst those traits are concerning on a personal level, what concerns me more is that he doesn’t appear to be all that bright. Of course if history has taught us anything in politics it’s that a high intelligence quota is hardly a pre-requisite for taking office. All the same, I’d prefer someone in The Lodge who can remember the nuclear codes – if we ever get nuclear weapons (God forbid).

Coming back to the misogyny argument, whether he is one or not (under definition a) or b) I believe he’s brought the label on himself. Partly because of his actions, there’s no doubt he has issues with women in power, and partly because his election campaign seems entirely devoted to mud slinging and bullying tactics. “Julia’s a liar, Julia’s a liar. Julia’s a fraud blah blah blah”. You throw enough stones you gotta expect a few back.

And finally, if we are both wrong and he really is a woman loving, homophobic  moderate with an IQ somewhere between Einstein and Stephen Hawking, there is still one major problem – do you really want someone running the country who is that aligned with the views and politics of Alan Jones?”

Niiiiiice. Thankyou Matthew Annells.

~

*This is a good example of something that could be construed as misandry, or hatred of men and boys. But how silly, I mentioned his ball bag but I quite like some ball bags (well one anyway) and it doesn’t mean I hate men.

**To find out more about my film and maybe even get involved, click here.

***No misogynistic undertones intended.

8 Comments

Posted in By Request, Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Take a Stance on: Asylum Seekers (by request)

Posted on September 21, 2011 by Meg Bignell

October 2012 Update…

It’s now two months since the Manus Island / Nauru solution was reinvented (see August update at the bottom of this post) and 3421 people have floated on over in 56 boats, including a record 2295 people seeking asylum last month. A total of 10,528 have arrived in Australia since January.

It has been reported that numbers from Pakistan have decreased, while numbers of Iranians have remained steady. The Afghan Ambassador to Australia says that life in Nauru is depicted to Iranian asylum seekers as preferable to life on the Indonesian fringe. 

Also of note is that the Government’s decision to increase humanitarian migration from (approx) 14,000 to 20,000 (nice one Jules) has lead to a spike in Afghans inquiring about legal migration options.

Meantime in a tent city on Nauru, 120 people (Sri Lankans and Iranians) are awaiting some indication of how they will be processed. The Sri Lankans are mostly Tamils, the most persecuted group in their homeland.  None of them know how many days, months or years they will await decision on their fate. As a lawyer for the refugee and immigration centre, David Mann, said last month, “…the stark reality is this: that if a refugee is wrongly refused under a flawed process, they could well face the risk of being sent back to torture or execution.”

Oh lordy, there is one certainty in all this – it’s a tough one. 

Anyway, if like me you need a dum-dum’s guide to the ins and outs of the asylum seeker issue, here’s some context I prepared earlier….

As I write these words, federal Parliament is hearing Julia Gillard’s bill to change the current Migration Legislation in a bid to alleviate asylum seeker issues, particularly the boat people, who keep floating into everyone’s conscience and generally causing grievance.

The issue of asylum seekers is ongoing  and all over the planet – 39 countries in Europe, North America, Oceania (Pacific Islands) and Asia received 9.9 million applications for asylum between 1980 and 2004. According to Amnesty International (in 2001), 1 in every 115 people on Earth are refugees, and a new refugee is created every 21 seconds (I can’t find any more recent global stats of this kind sorry, but we get the picture).

It is particularly topical here in Tasmania as well because the first residents of the new Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (near Hobart) arrived and bunked down on September the 2nd. But before I get into all the current news, I need a few questions answered…

1st Asylum Seekers Arrive in Pontville, Tas

What is a refugee? Well according to the 1951 Status of Refugees Convention, a refugee is someone who, ”owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” And as a result, the Government of another country agrees to protect them as a legally recognised refugee under a Permanent Protection Visa (PPV).

What is an Asylum Seeker? They are the ones who have got the hell out of their countries – again due to violence or persecution and risky stuff – and are waiting for their refugee application to be processed and approved by another country’s Government. Asylum seekers may be authorised – arriving on a student or tourist visa, or unauthorised. Unauthorised asylum seekers (usually boat people) are detained and assessed for PPV eligibility. These are the ones making all the waves – in and out of their boats.

Imagine what they must have left behind

What about boat people? Boat people are most often still asylum seekers as opposed to illegal immigrants – around 95% in the years since the late 90′s have been granted asylum). So (most) “boat people” are – under the Refugee Convention – not breaking any Australian laws by turning up unannounced on our shores. Boat people usually find their way onto their miserable excuses for boats and to our shores (if they don’t sink or bash into reefs) thanks to people smugglers, who are small or large scale operations taking vast amounts of money in exchange for getting people across borders. Asylum seeking by boat first began in the 70s as desperate Vietnamese fled communist-led Vietnam after the war. There was an increase in boat arrivals in 2009-2010 – 2700 people arrived by boat in 2009. This is most likely because of increased violence in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka, as well as the changes in processing policy.

What rights do asylum seekers have? In 1951, Australia signed the UN’s “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”. This means that anyone who falls within the definition of refugee (above) cannot be sent back home to the wolves – or as the convention puts it so aptly, ‘refouled’. Authorised asylum seekers are often given a ‘bridging visa’ which allows them to live in the community. They can be granted refugee status and a PPV if they pass medical and security tests. Unauthorised asylum seekers (God I’m sick of writing that, I’ll abbreviate it to AS’s if that’s ok), are detained while they are assessed for refugee status.  Hence the use of those notorious Detention Centres. (I always picture them with huge blackboards and loads of chalk – “I will not board a rickety boat again, I will not…).

What rights do refugees have? Once through the process and assigned refugee status, those given a PPV are allowed access to a range of specific resettlement services and a full range of social security benefits. They can come and go as they please and bring family members over to join them.

How many people are granted asylum in Australia per year? In the early 1980′s (perhaps to the tunes of  Bros), Australia accepted 20,000 refugees per year. These days, we accept about 13,000 per year. In 2010, 6,879 AS’s arrived in Australia.

What is The Process? Ok so just say I’m Lilli, a Bosnian circa 1994 (pre Bosnian-Serb resettlement program)…

I need to get the hell out of here before I get chucked in a camp and raped by Serbian soldiers. I decide I want to get myself and my two small children to Australia because I’ve heard it’s friendly, free (as in liberty), with lots of space – and maybe I can find my children a bronzed, cheery lifeguard as a father figure. I manage to buy myself some forged documents that allow us to exit the country via air. Too easy? This is just the beginning. In Australia the customs officials are onto us and we are marched into immigration and fronted by two scary looking officials (neither are hot or remotely life-guardy, one turns out to be female). I need to convince them that we are under threat and do need their protection. I must also remember not to say the words “refugee” or “asylum” as I’m told this will see us sent packing back to the Serbs without so much as a sniff of official application papers. One of the officials took a few notes but no one offered to help me with legal advice or language issues (luckily I can speak a little English). Also luckily, I have a whopping great bruise on my left arm where I was grabbed by a fuckwit Serbian merchant. And the children are pretty skinny and scared. We all looked desperate (and are).

So we don’t get marched back to the Bosnia-Air office to buy return tickets. Instead I am given a wad of papers which I understand to be an application for a protection visa – yipee! Not so yipee when we are sent off to a place called Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, which they tell me is temporary housing while we wait for the wad of papers to be read and assessed. It’s about an hour out of Sydney and housing my arse. Looks more like a prison with all the barbed wire.

But Villawood is home for a while. The worst thing is being ‘detained’ without knowing when we might get out. But I don’t like to complain because there’s no-one banging on the door threatening rape and my children are safe. Because we are ‘women and children’ we get slightly better quarters, even a television. I watch a show called the seven thirty report every night because sometimes they talk about the status of refugees and I am so hungry to know just anything. We have a library where I take the children for schooling, and a playground.

Many people are unhappy here. Many are bitter that they know nothing of their progress toward permanent visas. One man hanged himself in his room and some others started a fire on their roof as a protest against their rejected applications. It was all over the news. Some have been here for years and some have appealed rejection at great expense. I can’t afford to appeal. I am frightened because no one has asked to speak to me. It seems our future hangs on what I wrote in the application and I’m not sure it was very eloquent. I keep as quiet as I can because I can’t bear them to threaten to send us back.

Eventually, finally, after twenty months, we are granted asylum and a PPV. Hooray! I have been assigned a project manager to help us ‘assimilate’ into our new community – which is a really nice suburb of Sydney called Marayong. I have met others who have had a similar experience to me, and made some friends. The children are at school and I have a job. I work very hard because I want to give back to the country that has saved us. I still have nightmares but not so many now.

So this is just one possible story – of on-shore processing. Some refugees are processed in their neighbouring countries. For instance, many Afghan refugees have spent years and years in camps in Pakistan while their applications to a variety of countries are processed. Other refugees arrive with legitimate visas and find the process easier.

There is also off-shore processing, which is precisely what is being bandied about in Parliament right now. You see, John Howard thought he had it all sorted with his Pacific Solution, Kevin Rudd threw it out and now, as the boat people increase, Gillard is looking again at something along the same lines. Let’s break that down a bit because it’s a bit over my head…

Where and what are the on-shore processing facilities? There are numerous types of facilities used to detain ASs on-shore under Australia’s mandatory detention laws:

1) Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s), which are mainly used to house over-stayers, people in breach of visa conditions, or those who are refused entry at airports. They are at Villawood in Sydney, Maribyrnong in Melbourne, Perth and Christmas Island (an Australian territory south of Indonesia).

2) Immigration Reception and Processing Centres (IRPC’s), which are mostly used for unauthorised boat arrivals. Most of them (Baxter, Port Hedland and Woomera) have closed, with one remaining at Curtin in the Kimberley

3) Residential Housing Projects (RHPs) in Port Augusta, Port Hedland and Woomera provided family style homes for women and children. Thse are no longer used.

4) Immigration Residential Housing Centres are now used in Perth and Sydney to house families within community settings whilst still in formal detention.

5) Immigration Transit Accommodation Centres in Brisbane and Melbourne are used to accommodate ‘low risk’, short term AS’s (I’m guessing that means they’re not Muslim blokes)

6) Temporary Facilities Given there was an influx of boat people in 2009 and 2010, the Christmas Island facility became crowded and Kevin Rudd saw to it that some AS’s were relocated to a disused mining camp in Leonora in remote WA. The Pontville facility in Tasmania is one of these temporary places; the Government says it will stay open for 6 months. It cost $14.4 million – for 6 Months???!!! Leave it open I say.

What is the Pacific Solution? This was John Howard and Philip Ruddock (2001 – 2007) flexing their border security muscles in response to a rise in boat arrivals around 1999 (97% of whom were Iraqis and Afghans). As a first deterrent, they officially excluded many islands targeted by boat people from the Australian migration zone, which meant that ASs who didn’t reach the mainland couldn’t apply for refugee status.  Then they recruited the defence forces to intercept boats and transport them to detention camps on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. These ‘third world’ islands agreed to the idea in exchange for increased aid. This solution was formed in response to the Tampa affair and was seen as Australia being seriously tough about border security. The pacific solution ended in 2008 when Kevin Rudd came into power and brought processing back on-shore (including Christmas Island).

What was the Tampa affair? Just over ten years ago, 369 men, 26 women and 43 children aboard a 20m wooden boat became stranded in international waters about 140 km north of Christmas Is. Coastwatch Australia called for all vessels in the area to respond the the boat’s distress. A Norwegian freighter on its way from Fremantle to Singapore, the Tampa, was closest and went to the rescue. When they arrived, around 12 of the boat people were unconscious and the boat was clearly falling apart. The Tampa – on advice from the Australian Government – took the boat people toward an Indonesian port about 12 hours away instead of Christmas Is, about half the distance. But deterred by an aggressive and distressed group of boat people, the Tampa then turned for Christmas Is. The government refused the Tampa’s entry into Australian waters and threatened the Norwegian skipper with prosecution as a people smuggler if he proceeded. The skipper declared a state of emergency and moved into Australian waters regardless. Eventually, Nauru agreed to take the refugees and they were transported to detention camps by the Royal Australian Navy. And presto! The Pacific Solution began.

What was the Children Overboard thing?  

Help, you dickheads pulled our boat apart.

This turned out to be one great big porky pie on John Howard’s part to get him over the line in the 2001 Federal election. He claimed that sea-faring asylum seekers just south of Christmas Is were chucking their children into the drink as a ploy to be rescued and taken into Australia. Photos of children overboard accompanied Howard’s public announcements and outrage. Turns out (after a senate inquiry) that the children were in the water because the HMAS Adelaide towed it and under the strain it broke apart and sank.

See!

So what’s this Malaysian Solution? It is Julia Gillard’s latest boat deterrent. The ‘boat people problem’ reared up again following the death of at least 30 people when an AS boat was shipwrecked on Christmas Is in 2010, and because more than 240 boats have arrived since Rudd’s changes. Under the plan, Australia would ‘trade’ 800 AS’s arriving by boat to Malaysia in exchange for 8000 UN certified refugees – a “people swap”. The deal was scuttled by the High Court – unsatisfied that AS human rights will be protected in Malaysia, as it is not a signatory to the 1951 convention for the treatment of refugees. This has lead the Gillard Government to bring to parliament a bill to change the human rights legislation in order to make the Malaysia solution legal and do-able. But it looks like the opposition (and probably the Labor lefties) will pretty much shit all over that idea anyway. So all in all it seems the Malaysia solution is altogether irrelevant - perhaps officially by the time you read these words.

What is the alternative? The Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, says there is no plan B. Watch this space. Tony Abbott has some ideas for processing – again off-shore, primarily using Nauru or other signatories to the 1951 convention.

What do I think? I’ve just gone head to head with my husband over this, and discovered I feel a bit passionate about it (I’ve been wondering how I can get into Pontville to make some new friends and show them how accepting Tasmanians really are – this could be a disastrous repeat of when I anxiously overemphasised my pro-gay beliefs by asking  my mate – in a horrifyingly giggly fashion – if he was the giver or receiver). Despite another bee in bonnet, I will try to be sensible.

I don’t at all think that Australia should opens its doors to anyone and everyone, but I do think we absolutely should open our doors and hearts to those fleeing war-torn places, persecution and fear – all those who truly fall into the definition of refugee. So I don’t agree in turning boats around, nor do I believe in deterring ASs by making it impossible to get here. Because, for fuck’s sake, these people  are people, many of them (and I’m not naive enough to believe that none of them are shysters) are in the sort of danger Australians could only vaguely imagine; some of them are unaccompanied children. I mean who would pay a seedy smuggler and risk life and family to get on board a rickety boat to leave their homeland and sail the high seas unless they were running from something pretty bloody awful? Ok maybe there’s the odd bad egg escaping a well deserved bad end, but that’s where the assessment process comes in – and yep, this means wading through the red tape of official processing, which will inevitably take time. Asylum seekers must accept that we must look closely at each case before PPVs are granted.

But do we really need to chuck them behind razor wire without regular progress reports while they wait? Australia is the only convention signatory to have such harsh detention conditions. I don’t advocate AS’s burning down detention centres, but I do think a huge effort needs to be made to accommodate these people into our communities while they wait, with a view to closing all the detention centres altogether. Educating everyone – AS’s and our communities – and working on acceptance will have to come into this.  And I think the turnaround time of applications should be looked at – or at least communication with the applicants on their progress. If we can’t bring them all into community settings, then reopen the detention centres within Australia and forget the off-shore processing business. Do we really need to increase suffering by suspending these people in Pacific limbo?

Aren’t we supposed to be multicultural and proud? There are horrid remnant wafts of the White Australia Policy / Pauline fuckwit Pantsdown codswallop in all this off-shore processing business. Off-shore processing may ‘stop the boats’, and yes, may avert some seaward disasters, but you can bet your arse it won’t stop (and many claim it will only increase) the suffering.

Thems my thoughts, I will shut up now.

August 2012 Update…

So it looks like we’re headed back to the days of John Howard’s Pacific Solution (it is explained below), because today the House of Reps passed a bill that will reinvent asylum seeker processing on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. Julia green lit the legislation and the coalition supported it. Andrew Wilkie voted against it. The bill, which will go to the Senate tomorrow, will among other things, take away an asylum seeker with a protection visa’s right to apply for sponsorship for their family to join them in Australia. It was based on an expert report commissioned by the Government. If it passes tomorrow, preparations on the islands will begin immediately and detainees could start arriving in the next few months. 

 My opinion? I need to do more homework but on the face of it I think I’m sticking with my Indonesia solution (see below). 

June 2012 Update…

I wrote the below post in September 2011. Today, the Australian Maritime Authority is searching for 90 people missing after their boat capsized in Indonesian waters en route from Indonesia to Australia. 

Julia Gillard’s bilateral agreement with Malaysia (the reason for my post below) was scuttled by the High Court, and negotiations with the opposition to amend the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing broke down in November last year.

Since then, an average of 733 asylum-seekers have arrived each month - 57 asylum seeker boats carrying a total of 4006 passengers and 82 crew have arrived in Australia. 

In December 2010, more than 50 asylum seekers died when a boat crashed against rocks off Christmas Island. Last December, as many as 200 people drowned when an overloaded boat sank off the coast of East Java on its way to Australia.

Of course, the political argy bargy continues. The Government blames the coalition  for voting against offshore processing last year. Abbott says (somewhat conveniently but correctly) that it is not a time for political point scoring but for human sympathy.  But once it’s all over and the casualties counted, isn’t it time to ACT?? 

I still don’t, despite the risk of rickety boats and the some 340 lives lost, think we should turn the boats around. I still think Tasmania’s Pontville Detention centre should remain open, for various reasons, but it closed in February this year. What do you think – I’d really like to know. If you need some background then please read on…

8 Comments

Posted in By Request, Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Take a Stance On: (AUSTRALIA’s) CARBON TAX

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Meg Bignell

So I know I’m a dumbo but what is carbon tax exactly, other than a tax on carbon? Rightio, well it’s a tax of $23 per tonne of carbon pollution that goes into the atmosphere, payable by Australia’s top 500 polluters (so no, farty old Gramps won’t have to cough up on his trouser coughs). It is designed to hurl in energy use, change attitudes and reward clean energy use such as solar, gas and wind (again, probably not Gramps). It should bring in about $8 billion a year once it comes into effect in July 2012 – as long as the Greens and Independents support the tax and the legislation is passed.

Who will pay? It’ll be 0.02% of the 3 million businesses in our country and no, there is no actual list, and it’s actually not likely to be the biggest polluters because fuel is exempt from the scheme. Power generators such as Delta Electricity and Macqarie Generators are by far the biggest emitters, with up to 23 million tonne of direct emissions. Erk. This will have a flow on effect, so that goods and services of the Big 500 will increase in price so that Gramps, his family and all the rest of us will in fact end up copping it to some extent in some way.

Where will the money go? The Government promises (!) that the money will be used to compensate families, with welfare payments and to assist companies convert to cleaner practices.

Is it forever? No, it is scheduled to last until July 1 2015, when it will converted into an emissions trading scheme (ETS). An ETS is where the Government caps the total amount of carbon that can be emitted each year, so that businesses compete for permits and can trade permits within the cap. The price of permits can vary but the cap is fixed and can be lowered each year so that pollution is reduced year by year.

SO what do you think – is this whole carbon tax thing toxic or is it a breath of fresh air?

SHOVE IT JULIA – NO TO CARBON TAX

What global warming? It’s a myth, it’s another trend in normal climatic variations, it’s a conspiracy, the measurements are unreliable…

Politics: Julia Gillard said just over a year ago, “(weird nasal strine) there will be no carbon tax under any Government I lead”. So now there are calls to ‘ditch the lying bitch’ (which had Tony Abbott smarmily tut-tutting phoney disapproval).

The little man will pay: Carbon tax is a ‘regressive tax’, which means that the effects will cascade through the economy. According to Tony Abbott, “..every time you turn on a light you will pay under Labor’s carbon tax…”  Households (earning over $110,000 per year) face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living, or a 0.7 per cent increase. Electricity will go up $3.30 a week and gas $1.50. Three million families could be worse off.

Another bloody tax? Sheesh, when will it end?

Big Business will be driven to cut jobs: Just today, Bluescope Steel announced huge job cuts across the board, citing national economic changes. Critics claim the move  is in preparation for the Carbon Tax.

The Coal Industry will be buggered: Jobs will be forced offshore and mines will have to close. Total cost to the industry is projected to be $18 billion in the first nine years of the tax( Institute of Public Affairs).

If people are better off (as the Government claims), then what’s the point? Isn’t this supposed to be a penalty thing, not a freeway to upgraded facilities and get further access to welfare?

Domestic airfares will rise: While fuel is exempt from the scheme, aviation fuel will be hit with an excise tax as part of the scheme.

Australia isn’t even a big emitter: Australia represents just 1.5% of global greenhouse emissions so why isn’t carbon action just for the big ol’ acid rain, everyone wears breathing masks countries?

Tony Abbot has a better plan, a ‘Direct Action Plan’ no less.  He promises to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020 by paying industry to pollute less via an Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). The opposition states that, “It is envisaged that the Fund will invest an annual average of around $1.2 billion in direct CO2 emissions reduction activities through to 2020.” They also plan to invest in other, smaller scale green policies such as a solar panel and tree planting scheme.

BRING IT ON JULIA – YES TO CARBON TAX 

Pollution: Under the scheme, about 159 million tonnes of pollution will be cut from our atmosphere by 2020 – the equivalent of getting 45 million cars off the road.

Global Warming: It is real, it is happening, humans and their energy-consuming ways are the cause and something needs to be done NOW.

Politics: Julia Gillard admits to saying no to carbon tax a year ago but says that circumstances have changed given that she has had to negotiate with the Greens (with whom she shares power in this minority Government). She says there must be a price tag on pollution, that business and industry should not be allowed to pollute for free, and that Tony Abbott is scaremongering with his ‘cost of living-pressure on families’ line.

The Little Man will Benefit: The carbon tax derived tax cuts and increases in welfare and family benefits will deliver average compensation of $10.10 a week. The PM claims that, “single mums on $45,000 could be up to $1174 a year better off, and families earning $80,000 a year and with two children will be $9.83 a week better off.”

The tax-free income threshold will rise under the system overhaul, from $6,000 to $18,200

Big Business will be compensated and assisted with greening up: Including $9.2 billion worth of carbon permits to companies facing disadvantage when trading and competing with foreign, non-taxed business, as well as grants for and assistance with low-pollution technology and research and development.

The Coal industry will continue to grow over the next decade, after which the Government’s $1.3 billion package to protect and clean up the coal industry will kick in.

Australia has the highest emissions per capita, and the Government says Australia has much to lose from global warming so it should start to cut emissions early.

Tony Abbott is a climate change sceptic and full of crap: Tony Abbott has repeatedly hinted at his disbelief in climate change theories so why would he take seriously any measure to reduce carbon emissions? Expert analysis have found that his alternative Direct Action Plan will actually result in higher emissions – 7% higher than 2000 by 2020, and that his fuzzy figures don’t add up. And why has been so cagey with the finer details – is it because his plan will come at a coast to taxpayers and/or it is essentially ineffective in tackling pollution?

If it is scrapped now, uncertainty will ensue for (according to experts) at least another five years. This will result in more farting around doing nothing to reduce emissions, not to mention the cost of rolling back the tax scheme and coming up with something else.

I could go on, but those are the basic arguments. At the moment, the polls are showing that the majority of Australians fear a carbon tax, that they expect to be worse off and aren’t happy. Julia is losing her foothold.

MY OPINION? Glad you asked. To me it’s a no brainer. Do whatever it is that the current people in power are proposing to amend our shamelessly dirty ways. I mean God we need to do something so that our children and their children can have something left to play with other than a great big fucked up world. And it needs to be more than talking the arse out of it, turning off lights and washing out baked bean tins. So maybe a carbon tax isn’t the best way, but if it makes a difference and can be implemented ASAP then let’s just do it. Holy shit, I’d go back to horse and cart if it meant my childrens’ future was bright. And if I were to get wind of T.A. raising his smarmy eyebrows at global warming I’d take some Direct Action in the direction of that goolie package he likes showing off so much. Irresponsible idiot.

UPDATE, NEWS FLASH!! (Wed 12/10/11): 

An hour or so ago, Federal Parliament passed the Carbon Tax bills. Judging by the level of noise in the House of Reps, and the number of times the speaker had to shout “Order” in that annoying manner, it was not a landslide, but they did their division, bell ringing palavers and the Aye’s definitely had it. It has yet to go to the Senate but is surely a shoe in given the Green tinge up there. Tony Abbott is huffing about rolling the “Bad Tax” back if he gains power in the next election, but I reckon that’s a load of  ”vote for me vote for me” gobshite. Shut up Tones, this is a win for the goodies.

2 Comments

Posted in Take a Stance On and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers