Loyal Citizenry

I was interested to catch a story on the ABC's Landline yesterday (coming here soon)about helping Zimbabwean farmers to come to Australia. It was a good story about positive immigration, and did not pretend to be easy.
At the conclusion of the story one of the English, (I think) commentators made the observation about receiving Australian citizenship that "An Australian born here will never understand how wonderful it is to have a piece of paper that says "Australian Citizenship". I know this feeling well, and have sometimes voiced similar sentiments to all the members of my family who (unlike me) happen to have had the good fortune to have been born here. Mrs C being a fourth generation Australian, and the little Cs therefore being fifth.
We take so much for granted. Our recent jaunt overseas, as enjoyable and wonderful as it was , did not diminish our delight at coming back to Australia. And I have no doubt that I am an Australian, and I am pleased to be able to say it is not just an accident of my birth.
It was interesting to read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Ackland (here) about the Haniff affair. Interesting because, in a way, everything has quieted down.
But he notes (amongst other things) how protagonists of tighter immigration laws, indeed the present Minister, wear the paraphernalia of citizenship...lapel badges and the like, almost in inverse proportion to their proclivity to breach values like the rule of law, freedom, and the right to a fair go. He has a point. Even if it is a little far-fetched to blame the lowly lapel badge for so much.
But at a time when we are talking about what sort of statements new citizens will have to sign up to...we should perhaps be prepared to seriously address the issues of what words and expressions like "the rule of law", "fair go", and "mateship" mean.
Personally if I was a Digger of the First War I would laugh every time the PM declares mateship to be one key value. While one can see how the filth of the trenches and the camraderie of war may indeed breed something so powerful called "mateship" that it can almost not be defined, but what suffering have Howard and Andrews endured that is anything like that supreme bonding experience.
From the comfort of the Parliament, and the bastion of power it is easy to call everyone your mate; and bear none of the consequences.
My piece of paper is worth more to me than that!

Don't expect me just to roll over!

If we had thought that Howard was just going to fatalistically accept polls and roll over and over and then acquiesce to the will of a disgruntled electorate, resign and force Costello to become a leader of the Opposition (surely he would resign rather than do this?) then signs are that this is not going to happen.
Let us not forget that this man, whether we agree with his policies or not, is one of the finest political animals that we have ever seen. He will play his cards like the champion he is and not go out without a fight.
As I watched crowds in Devonport yesterday enthusiastically cheer him (here) there could be little doubt that they appreciated the fact that he was going to intervene to ensure that they would not lose medical facilities. In a marginal seat it will make a difference.
Prediction: We will see the most strategically placed 'cherry picking ' (as Rudd so aptly named it) of projects in marginal electorates that we have ever seen. Will it work?...well we shall see. The voice of opposition in the Cabinet, Costello, to this sort of pre-election-spending has been effectively silenced in the last fortnight.
You can just hear his protestations. This is inflationary. And little Johnny's response...I know we can't afford it but if we don't buy it then we will be out of government, and if we are out of government then we won't be buying anything.

More sinister I fear is the fact that we actually may be about to witness something far more exploitative and cynical than the Tampa with regard to Dr Haniff. The trickle of dubious information that Andrews blessed us with yesterday, may just be the beginning of the political round to end all rounds.
Already (if talk radio is anything to go by) the public voices are changing...Well we have to err on the side of caution, so the PM was right. A News Poll yesterday firmly agreed with the way the Government had dealt with the issue...Yikes!!
There is now a slow flow of information from India which is, I suggest, exactly where the Government wants him to be...Haniff must have known about Terrorist Organizations...and of course he does have a beard and dark skin. And being on the subcontinent he is far away and unable to effectively access any real media presence. But then it's not really about him.

Amidst all this, I suspect Rudd has just to keep his cool; which will be easier said than done.
But let's not just expect fatalistic acquiescence from the PM

Not quite convinced - but open

I hear what Minister Andrews offered us last night by way of explanation, and I am not quite convinced but am open to see what transpires today.
What might be of concern is just how fairly innocuous conversation which may be overheard or monitored might be open to multiple interpretation. The Minister argues that he should act on the side of conservatism in regard to the safety of the general populace, and no one should have any truck with that.
When I cast my mind back to recent conversations that I have had with my siblings I am sure that they are unguarded and that I have shared things with them which would be capable of gross misinterpretation outside the parameters of that relationship. After all we go back a long way and we play games both negative and positive with each other. A bland reading of our conversations would no doubt be open to misinterpretation by those who don't know us, and let's face it when others are around sisters and brothers probably don't carry on in the same way as they might when they are alone. So I am guarded about what Andrews is offering us.
I am, today, content to wait for another 24 hours and see what else might happen.

With bated breath

We are all waiting with anxious anticipation to see what information Immigration Supremo, Kevin Andrews, is going to reveal about Mohammad Haniff that justifies the continuing revocation of his work visa.
Haniff appeared on 60 Minutes last night some what at pains to protest his innocence ( a little too 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' for my liking but perhaps I am as tinged with xenophobia as my fellow compatriots (here)).
One thing we can be sure of, if there is nothing forthcoming from Andrews, who can hide behind the excuse of confidential information.....then we can be pretty sure there will be no apology.
In fact this feels like the same sort of 'no-apology' land that we have visited before.
The protestations that no apology is necessary because he has acted within the law only stands up if evidence is presented that shows that there was indeed niggling doubt about Haniff's soundness. We wait in vain.
It begs the question about what the right way to act is. Ethics 101 tells you in tutorial one that there is huge difference between what is legal and what is right. Holy Writ tells us recourse to the legal system is the last resort and things should be settled before that stage....Andrews should know this since he is one of the klatsch of Christian politicians (instrumental you may remember in overturning the Territory's euthanasia legislation) who seek to have their faith-voice heard. I find his recent action strangely lacking in Christian character.
So I wait with baited breath for the information....and will not hold the same breath for the apology that Haniff deserves if he is, as he claims, a coincidental player.

Scary Stuff-the terrorists have won

I have tried not to blog endlessly about the stuff-up and injustice that is was the arrest of Mohammed Haniff. But we cannot keep silent now.
There is much that could be said, but one thing that has gone untouched is our national blindspot, xenophobia (please explain!) It's not racism per se, but fear of foreigners. It is the position to which we have always retreated when we feel threatened.
It is that which changed Hahndorf to Ambleside, and interned people of German descent in World War 1. It is that which has fuelled our mistrust of the Japanese. It is that which countless immigrants have had to weather for two centuries. It is that which was crudely employed to scare the populace when Vietnamese and Cambodian boat people started arriving in the 70s. It was xenophobia which enabled Pauline Hanson to reach the apogee of her political life, and it was the blunt instrument which is partly responsible for the election of the present government.
It is a sign of an immature society.
A society which attributes to the foreigner all sorts of hideous crimes and actions, usually without proper evidence and without due process. Not because there are facts, but because the accused is a foreigner.
It is an instrument of fear and manipulation.
We might say that when we act out of fear, when we do not pay attention to the truth, or when we allow due process to go by the board then we have jettisoned our freedom.
Is this where the terrorists wants us to be? Of course.
As long as we are irrational, unfair and unkind they will have no difficulty manipulating their adherents into believing that we are irrational, unfair and unkind!
I don't want or need to point the finger at who is to blame.
We will all have different versions of that.
But I do think it is about time we took seriously the need and the responsibility to grow up. As people and as a nation.
In this ever-shrinking world we can no longer afford the indulgence of being xenophobic.
If we don't then the terrorists have won.

What we pay you for?

I suppose politicians have a tricky and responsible job. Which is why we pay them a lot of money. So I am always a little disappointed when they fail to deliver. There is, sadly, not much to pick between both sides. Maybe that is because in the search for truth, justice and....well let's not get carried away....but maybe there are only a few limited answers.
We could at least expect that opposing parties might actually offer us some choice of policy, but they don't seem to.
So I am disappointed when:

• Both sides seem to be remarkably silent about the injustices in Immigration law
• Both sides capitulate to logging interests because there are critical votes at stake
• Neither side seems concerned about the obvious injustices done to Mohammad Haniff as they were about David Hicks
  
• Both sides accept the heresy of the 'free market' which dictates everything about economy

When will one side or other actually offer something that looks not just like pragmatism, but like hope and vision. If we can't have vision couldn't we have a little imagination instead of this wretched cynicism that you seem inten to dish up.
Isn't THAT what we actually are paying you for?

We do not presume

The presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing, if not a little risky. It really undergirds the whole of our legal system.
It is indeed a risky thing, because our presumption may sometimes be mistaken. It is the price we pay for not having a system which presumes guilt, which is also a risky thing, because the consequences of presuming an innocent person is guilty can be devastating (if not fatal) for ...well...an innocent person. In our civilised way we think this is worse thing to risk than occasionally letting a guilty person go free.
Now, I don't know whether Mohammad Haniff (here)is innocent or guilty. I am therefore disturbed by the immigration processes used to detain him yesterday, after the presumption of innocence had been effected by a legitimate court.
This indeed is one of the fatal weaknesses of the whole framing of immigration law (not just this case) we presume guilt. Now no doubt a Minister, in this case Kevin Andrew, may claim knowledge of special circumstances (and may indeed have such); but we have courts to test the veracity of this sort of 'special knowledge'. We are on a slippery slope indeed when authorities, however august, outside the legal system presume to effect the processes of the law.
I hold no hope that any of this will be heard by those in power (on either side) or that forthcoming elections will change their stance. Ever fearful of the electorates' anxiety they will not risk being thought 'weak'.
But it seems to me that the true 'weakness' here is not being prepared to stand up for the fundamental principles of our way of life. Presumption of innocence is one such.