Not a Civil Society Just Yet

Not a Civil Society Just Yet

 

 

We have a new hero at Values Australia (no, not Manning Clark).
His name is Julian Burnside QC. Not that we didn’t respect him before and agree with him and all like that. But, well…see it’s like this:

We got an mp3 player, for the train or whatever, and to fill it up we scoured ABC Radio National for podcasts.

Science Show, All in the Mind, Philosopher’s Zone, By Design, Ockham’s Razor.

You know the stuff. And of course there’s Big Ideas.

So we downloaded a likely lump about a Manning Clark Lecture:

“Citizens’ rights and the rule of law in a civil society: not just yet”.

It was by Julian Burnside, on the 10th of March this year.

Thought it might be a bit dry but we were so wrong about that!.

We were astonished.

He covers everything we had been trying to say but with such authority and knowledge. So we recommend you have a listen, too.

In his lecture he covered the Sorry statement and the appalling case of an aboriginal man called Bruce Trevorrow.

In the end we were far more inclined to agree with Burnside that some sort of compensation for the stolen generations is appropriate, rather than just the more nebulous idea of an improvement of aborigines’ lot, generally, over time.

“ In the first sitting of the new parliament, the Government said ‘sorry’ to the stolen generations. It seemed almost too good to be true: the apology so many had waited so long to hear. And it was astonishing and uplifting to hear some of the noblest and most dignified sentiments ever uttered in that place on the hill.
[ … ]
The apology was significant not only for marking a significant step in the process of reconciling ourselves with our past: it cast a new light on the former government. It set a new tone. And I think it reminded us of something we had lost: a sense of decency.

 

Most of the worst aspects of the Howard years can be explained by the lack of decency which infected their approach to government:

 

they could not acknowledge the wrong that was done to the stolen generations;

 

they failed to help David Hicks when it was a moral imperative – they waited until his rescue became a political imperative;

they never quite understood the wickedness of imprisoning children who were fleeing persecution;

they abandoned ministerial responsibility;

they attacked the courts scandalously but unblushing;

they argued for the right to detain innocent people for life;

they introduced laws which prevent fair trials;

they bribed the impoverished Republic of Nauru to warehouse refugees for us.

It seemed that they did not understand just how badly they were behaving, or perhaps they just did not care.

He also spoke about the rule of law, incommunicado detention, control orders and preventative detention, the right of the State (and its secret agencies) to withhold evidence, civil rights, erosion of rights, a Bill of Rights and more.

His lecture went further than the ABC podcast includes. Nevertheless the podcast is excellent.

Here’s a transcript of part of his speech which is on the podcast:

“ In 2005 further anti-terror legislation was introduced. The Commonwealth Criminal Code was amended to provide that a member of the Federal Police may apply for a preventative detention order in relation to a person. A preventative detention order will result in a person being jailed for up to 14 days in circumstances where they have not been charged with, much less convicted of, any offence. The order is obtained in the absence of the person concerned, and authorises that the person be taken into custody. When the person is taken into custody, they must not be told the evidence on which the order was obtained.

Thus, a preventative detention order can be made not only without a trial of any sort, but in circumstances where the subject of the order will not be allowed to know the evidence which was used to secure the order, even after the event.

We believe that few Australians are aware of just how far John Howard and his morally-neutered hired guns like Ruddock, Andrews, Vanstone and Mick Keelty went, in the name of “security” to tear down their legal rights and liberties.

Australians generally, we think, are unclear how little of what they believe they have they really have left. Perhaps, as Burnside suggests, they don’t want to know, as long as they’re doing all right and it’s not affecting them. But of course it does affect them and it will.

Habeas corpus is dead and stinking not only in the US but now here in Australia as well. Dwight D. Eisenhower must be rolling in his grave over what John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez, with Dick Cheney and George Bush and the supine American Senate, did to habeas corpus in the US:

Here are Ike’s Remarks Upon Receiving the America’s Democratic Legacy Award at B’nai B’rith:

“ Why are we proud?

We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend – or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus Act, and we respect it.”

With this lecture Julian Burnside — for standing up and saying what is so — has for us moved from “respected” to “hero”.

Here is the recording  of Burnside’s Manning Clark Lecture from ABC’s Big Ideas:

The Devil Rides Again

The Devil Rides Again

 

Yes, Dick (“Dick”) Cheney has thrown off the coffin-lid; with a sulphurous emanation he has emerged from the flames of his hell; and he has spoken to a human – Martha Raddatz of American ABC News – about the War in Iraq and of his deathly dominion over all men (and women).

 

RADDATZ: Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: [with a smirk] So?

RADDATZ: So — you don’t care what the American people think?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

So let’s take a look at Lord Vader’s “fluctuations”. Surely, from what he said, opinions fluctuate pretty evenly between “for” and “against”.

Is the Iraq War worth the cost?

Um … gosh … It’s pretty obvious that however you look at it, the fluctuations are insignificant compared to the clearly increasingly negative opinion of Americans. In fact there has not been stable majority support for the war since about 2004/5.

But hey, let’s not get sidetracked by the facts. While we’re at it, why not claim, again, that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks and that he had WMDs, and that he had links to Al Qaeda.

Knowing it was a lie never stopped Dick (Dick) before.

Elsewhere:

In interviews to celebrate the fifth anniversary of peace and democracy in Iraq Bush answered “please may I suck your cock” questions from government employees from the Pentagon Channel, Voice of America and US-government-funded Radio Farda.

Bush expressed his view that it is very hard to trust governments if

“ they haven’t told the full truth…Once a nation hasn’t told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they’ll be telling the truth in the future.”

In your case, sir, to try would be a waste of time.

Froomkin reports,

“ Asked about his meeting with family members of those killed in battle, Bush responded: “I try to get them to talk about their loved one. I want to learn about each individual person who sacrificed, what they were like, what their interests were, and a lot of times the families love sharing their stories with the Commander-in-Chief.

Exactly! Once they have spoken to a man of god like myself, all the anguish and grief of losing a son, daughter, husband, wife, father or mother, disappear and are replaced by sunshine and butterflies and laughter.

We were just wondering…why did you not interest yourself in the people you have been sending to their deaths in the first place, you know, like, “what they were like, what their interests were”?

And what is this:

“the individual person who sacrificed”.

Sacrificed?

Got shot in the head.

Blown up.

Torn apart.

Murdered.

They didn’t sacrifice. They were sacrificed. By you. You sacrificed them to your ego. They didn’t willingly throw themselves in front of a bullet, or lay their bodies down over a roadside IED. They got killed. By your madness.

Yes, we know it sounds better. It sounds holy and good. Even saintly. And the holy glow of their “sacrifice” makes you look beatific for giving them the opportunity.

Fuck you, George W. Bush 

In a videoconference with U.S. personnel in Afghanistan last week, Bush said:

“I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

It must be exciting for you . . . in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks.”

Bush, of course, has always been keen to enjoy the romance of frontline warfare and he has always regretted being unable to share the fantastic, romantic excitement of Vietnam .

That was because of his need to be absent from the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards for extended periods – including those periods when he was required to pass an annual physical examination. At other times he was sadly required to make no effort to participate as a guardsman, and annoyingly at yet other times when he needed to show civilians in Alabama that he was a “Texas soufflé: all puffed up and full of hot air”.

We are sure that he is keen, though, to complete the 6 year military service commitment that he made in 1968 but never completed – and which in an amazing coincidence exactly covered the period of the Vietnam War – as soon as he is no longer “employed here”, say in January 2009.

Then he’ll be available to suit up and enjoy the romance of Afghanistan or Iraq.

And perhaps he will “sacrifice” there.

The Ancient Marinara

The Ancient Marinara

 

He’s a Legend, and our friend

 

We wish he wouldn’t describe himself as “ancient”. That tends to put us at the edge of a category we fiercely resist.

Richard Neville, one of the founders of homepagedaily.com, was the infamous, notorious publisher and editor of Oz Magazine.and author of Hippie Hippie ShakePlay Power, amongst many others. Unrehabilitated 60s icon, iconoclast and futurist. And our friend, or at least our supporter and adviser, in the earlier and more threatened days of the Ministry of Mateship and Fair Dinkum Values, aka ‘ValuesAustralia’.

Here he is with chilling news on the grim future for the globally-heated rich:

The Old Tart Vanishes

The Old Tart Vanishes

 

Levers and pulleys of a flimsy fantasy machine

 

It’s all about perception, as they say, and in politics perception is truth.
But, as MacDonalds say, for a limited time only.

We were struck over the last few days by the sudden disappearance of what most were convinced was a terrifying, gargantuan, impenetrable, impervious monstrosity.

The heavier than lead, harder than granite monument of Speer-like dimensions to power, greed and fear, that was the Howard government has evaporated without leaving any trace but the faint and fading echoes of a few squeaking, frightened rodents as they scuttle away from the light of responsibility.

And now we are left, as if suddenly woken from a spell, blinking in the sunlight of possibilities we had forgotten how to dream of.

It began with the Apology, the Sorry that could “never” be said, when Brendan Nelson began the capitulation with his appalling speech which was, nevertheless, a capitulation. In fact he capitulated both to his party and to Kevin Rudd, and that was his problem.

Of all the living ex-Prime Ministers, only Howard was absent from Parliament House. And when we then saw him on his morning walk all we saw was a little, pathetic, weak and broken old man.

In the last week at least two of the once great and powerful who so arrogantly and righteously controlled our lives intimated that they would be leaving the ignominy of the backbenches.

On Monday night on 4 Corners we saw the remnants of the old liberal leadership ram the daggers into the back their ex-leader, who was already politically dead.

We were allowed to see the levers and pulleys of the flimsy fantasy machine they had used to hoodwink us all. And we could see clearly what weak fools they are, what fools they had been, how they had fooled us, and how they had been so comprehensively and easily intimidated and fooled by Howard.

And now on Tuesday:  WorkChoices – Howard’s ‘great legacy to the nation’, the legislation which, if it were rolled back by Labor, we were assured, would undo twelve years of ground-breaking and masterful industrial relations reforms leading to disaster, calamity and the end of the world – has been, as they report, unanimously, swiftly, quietly and ruthlessly killed off. It is as if it had never been. It has evaporated into nothingness along with every other thing the Howard government claimed it stood for.

And now, of course, there is nothing they do stand for. There is nothing left for them to stand for.

The complete repudiation of the Howard experiment by not only the people of Australia and the Labor Party but also unanimously by Howard’s own party is probably the most justified and satisfyingly comprehensive retribution in Australian political history against an unbelievably awful and corrosive man and his equally horrible fags¹. Howard’s legacy is nothing but a bitter, fading after-taste.

But for those straw-chewers from Deliverance country who revelled in hatred towards their fellow humans, in racism, in their piggy-squeals for the death penalty, because Howard gave them permission, what is left for them, now they no longer have permission? Onto whom can they now encrust themselves? Wilson Tuckey?

For an excellent analysis of the collision between narcissism and entitlement and the “death, decay and a not insubstantial stench” that the 4 Corners story stirred up, read Possum‘s insights here.

¹ which we mean, of course, in the Tom Brown’s School Days sense.

A Man’s a Man

A Man’s a Man

Robert Burns statue in Writers Museum Edinburgh

Within the first five seconds we were hooked

 

We were on the way to work, tuned in to Radio National’s Book Show, a replay of the opening address by Andrew O’Hagan from last year’s Sydney Writers’ Festival .

Sudden fauvist swathes and splashes of bright primary colours, seduced by the promise of intrigue and adventure and of amazing stories.

Andrew O’Hagan: Sydney Writers’ Festival Opening (Excerpt):

“ In our house we didn’t have many books, but there was a large yellow kitchen table where my mother sat at the centre of all her evidence.

 

I grant you she wasn’t the Norton Anthology of Literature, but she knew every song that was ever sung in Glasgow. And my father, when he was there, would appear from his adventures with a crimson face and stories you wouldn’t believe. Except of course I would believe all of them, being sick in the head and the youngest of four.

 

Between them my parents barely read a book in their lives, but I’ve come to feel there was literature in everything they said. “I had a book once,” my father once told me in a moment of pride. “It was green. Do you remember that book, Nancy? It was up on top of the fridge. Green it was. Stood there for ages. Greeny-coloured.”

 

“Away ye go ya daft pig,” my mother said. “That was the telephone book, that manky battered old thing.”

 

She turned to me.

 

“He only uses it to get the numbers of people he can go and buy dogs off. Bringing them in here: as if I don’t have enough to clean.”

 

“The book was definitely green,” said my da. “Green as a pound note. And don’t listen to her: it wasn’t a phone book or anything like it. It had a story in it and everybody died, I remember that sure enough.”

 

…a large yellow kitchen table where his mother sat at the centre of all her evidence…

We were intrigued. What evidence? Evidence of what? What an opening line!

So we knew this was a writer worth listening to. And then he said the other things. The inspiring things; the dark things.

He talked of the old world and of new worlds – new worlds known only in imagination and exotic stories, in dreams. Dreams that can come true through the power of literature to pave new paths to possibility. 

“ But who were we? For me, it was the less legendary granda, the one who sailed to Sydney and came back, I heard, with packets of dates and chocolates and large foreign dolls for my mother. The memory of him was the one that described us better, for the journey to Australia was an excursion into the blue heaven of our imagination.

 

I have to tell you, I grew up to believe there is no other nation but the one you can build and honour in your head, and for kids growing up that way, in a Scotland filled with faded songs about the grandness of our destiny, the thought of new beginnings in virgin lands became a beautiful dream.

 

To travel over the sea to a place free from the torpor of national attributes – not one without its own historical controversies, and one with its own deep traditions – but nevertheless a country that seemed built to be filled with high hopes.

 

In the cold winter nights outside Glasgow, I often lay and imagined my grandfather Charlie having a hot Christmas somewhere near the Great Barrier Reef, eating strange fruits, surrounded by coloured fish, and hearing talk we’d never known. Australia was the dream state of our working class childhoods, the Xanadu of the wee small hours, and that dead old sailor was to my unquiet mind a great engineer of imagined worlds, a crown prince of enchantment, the ultimate wizard of Oz.

 

It didn’t matter what reality had to say on the matter. Australia was the place to start again. I remember families going off from Scotland never to return. They were … emigrating. And to my mind those small friends of mine are kind of legendary because of their early engagement with open possibility. It never occurred to me that they Australia would stop them from growing, but I see now that they were infantilized in the minds of those they left behind. They grew Down Under, but not for us, who would always remember those emigrating heroes as boys we waved off in the knowledge we would probably never see them again. They were the high-flying flamingoes, those boys and girls who had followed my grandfather past the Cape of Good Hope, to a place that appeared, despite its own dark shadows, to make a virtue of BECOMING rather than a prison of BELONGING.

 

I remember watching a programme with my father in the 1970s about people in Adelaide who were trying to build a community of whitewashed houses. They were drinking pink wine and smiling. I’ll never forget it. The pink wine. The smiles on them. “In this part of the world,” said the presenter, “the idea is to be all you can be.”

 

The line seemed to me at the time like a thing out of Shakespeare. I’d never heard such a concept before &mdash Be All You Can Be. The white houses. The pink wine. The smiles on them. It was like Keats, I tell you. Like Tolstoy or Virginia Woolf or F. Scott Fitgerald — all those people in their beautiful clothes at Jay Gatsby’s party, drinking this stuff — what was it called? — WINE.

 

Be All you Can Be. It was like an ancient Chinese proverb. A kind of haiku. A word from the lips of the great and bottomless pool of belief across the world.

 

“What did he say?” asked my father.

 

“Be All You Can Be,” I said.

 

He crushed a can of McEwan’s Export and threw it down by our two-bar fire.

 

“What?”

 

“Be All You Can Be.”

 

“What a load of shite,” he said.

 

Of course, it wasn’t really Australia. It was the thought of it. It was the imagining of it. And the great vehicle of such powerful imagining, says O’Hagan, is literature.

“ If we are truly alive, we have a duty to connect with the planet we inherited and that others will inherit in their turn. If we are truly alive, we have a role to play — every one of us — in the realization of peace and tolerance in our time.

 

If we are truly alive, and if we know what the imagination can do, it will not be in us to sit dormant whilst the planet is ruined by unfettered commerce or whilst thousands are killed by the pre-emptive and ruinous urges of Christian or Islamic fundamentalisms.

 

If we are civilized, we imagine our way past political coercion or selfish pride.

 

We speak truth to power.

We question our media.

We spring to the defense of liberty.

We take care of the world’s resources.

We interrogate corporations and we upbraid ourselves and our hungers and our needs.

We listen to the past.

We question our feelings of superiority.

We teach our children the truth of our culture and what it has done and what it has failed to do.

We keep a close watch on this heart of mine – yours and yours and yours.

And we never forget that we are moral beings and not machines.

This is what we do if we are truly alive. This is what we do if we live close to our imaginations.

[ … ]

I believe it is a failure of the imagination that allows famine or terror to reign in the world.

A man who throws half the contents of his fridge into the trash on a Monday morning fails to imagine, next time he visits the supermarket, that whole villages in Eritrea have children gasping for a droplet of milk. The politician or the general who orders a soldier to release cruise missiles from 5000 feet does not imagine the innocent men playing cards in the teashop below. He does not imagine their loss or the grief of their loved ones. The terrorist[/tag] at the controls of a plane cannot imagine the dreams of the secretary on the 102nd floor, planning her wedding and making a bid for life.

 

Failures of the imagination are behind the conduct of our woes — and so we as we gather here to salute literature and the imagination we also come to denounce those failures of the imagination that harm and betray and destroy life.

O’Hagan finished his speech by quoting his countryman, Robbie Burns.

“ Burns was a poor man who came at last to enrich the world — and I finish with these words I seem to have known since birth, his “Marsellaise” to the human spirit. 

A Man’s A Man For A’ That

Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an’ a’ that;
The coward slave – we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that.
Our toils obscure an’ a’ that,
The rank is but the guinea’s stamp,
The Man’s the gowd for a’ that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an’ a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man’s a Man for a’ that:
For a’ that, and a’ that,
Their tinsel show, an’ a’ that;
The honest man, tho’ e’er sae poor,
Is king o’ men for a’ that. 

Ye see yon birkie, ca’d a lord,
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that:
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His ribband, star, an’ a’ that:
The man o’ independent mind
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that. 

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that;
But an honest man’s abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Their dignities an’ a’ that;
The pith o’ sense, an’ pride o’ worth,
Are higher rank than a’ that. 

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s coming yet for a’ that,
That Man to Man, the world o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.

 

So Burns was part of the struggle for equality and rights and democracy, the Scottish Enlightenment. “A piece of defiant uppityness such as ‘A Man’s A Man’ could get a man hanged, or transported to a life of hard labour in Australia. Burns had seen this happen to free thinkers like Thomas Muir,” says the BBC.

A-hah! Had “A Man’s A Man” (or more correctly, “Is there for honest Poverty”) not been as overwhelmingly successful as it was, Burns himself could have been transported to Botany Bay, as fellow Scots Thomas Muir, Thomas Palmer and William Skirving were in 1794. Muir escaped in 1796 on an American ship which had been sent to rescue him. He fled to France, still in the midst of its Revolution.

America had only recently won its own independence from Britain. In France Muir worked with the famous Thomas Paine who agitated for American Independence. Paine famously wrote Common Sense and The Rights of Man – a guide to the ideas of the Enlightenment. (Muir had been a student of John Millar, Scottish philosopher and historian and author of The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks; or, An Inquiry into the Circumstances which give rise to Influence and Authority in the Different Members of Society [1771]).

It is extraordinary to realise with what sacrifice, and courage, and how recently, people fought – and often died – for ideals which now seem so obvious and which we take for granted, and the ferocity with which the establishment opposed those ideals.

It is also salutary to note the patience with which corporations, religious zealots and governments are winding back these obvious rights and freedoms.

And it is important to understand the central role that writers played in gaining those rights and will continue to play in protecting them.

PS: If you would like to see what Andrew O’Hagan’s writing space looks like, you can visit the amazing Writers’ Rooms section at the Guardian. Other authors include Raymond Briggs (The Elephant and the Bad Baby), Caryl Phillips, Andrew Motion, Martin Amis, Alan Sillitoe, Margaret Drabble, John Mortimer, Will Self, Antonia Fraser, David Hare, Michael Frayn, and on and on — the list is much longer than this.

Bhutto

Bhutto

It wasn’t such a surprise, we suppose, but Benazir Bhutto’s reported assassination, while it saddens us as another display of humanity’s inability to grow up, confirms our contempt for religion in general and that one in particular.

Let those who constantly proselytise for their imaginary friends in the sky now loudly proclaim again how religion is the only source of morality and ethical living and how preferable it is to the evil godlessness of thoughtful, rational choices made on the basis of the verifiably real world, human needs and human relationships.

We haven’t had any particular opinion about Bhutto. We have read and heard both that she was charismatic and Pakistan’s only hope and that she was completely corrupt and as Prime Minister would be the worst possible thing to happen to Pakistan.

We simply don’t know.

We don’t think it matters.

Pakistan is a toilet, a disaster. It always has been. It is not just corrupt. It is, irretrievably, Corruption itself. And yes, we’ve been there.

It has no foreseeable hope of redemption and advancement until it gets rid of its religious madmen and its military loonies.

And that’s not going to happen.

No half-rational, half-intelligent politician, let alone an honest one, is now going to take the country on.

Sane people prefer to live.