Today on The Insiders Phillip Ruddock gave us a pretty weak analogy in his defence of additional legislation to be tabled relating to the so called War on Terror.
………People understand it in relation to road rules where they understand that your right to choose on which side of the road you’ll drive is limited so that people can drive safely on roads………
The minister consistently makes light work of this draconian legislation and frequently adopts a policy of ‘trust us’, of course this is nothing like road rules or even traffic violations, history shows that federal governments with these kinds of powers are nothing like your friendly neighborhood flatfoot.
The proposed legislation is clearly a further curtailment of our civil liberties, particularly the inciting violence against the community provisions, which replaces the existing offence of sedition. Or as quoted, “to address problems with those who communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including against Australia’s forces overseas, and in support of Australia’s enemies”.
Incitement: Provokes; a means of arousing or stirring to action.
So just what is it to provoke? And what kind of person might come under suspicion for driving on the wrong side of the road? The recent arrest and future deportation of a US activist Scott Parkin is a pointer to what provocation may cover after this legislation passes.
An American peace activist may be deported because he is allegedly a threat to national security. Liz Thompson from the Anti-Deportation Alliance says Scott Parkin, who is a teacher by profession, was arrested in Melbourne yesterday. Ms Thompson says Mr Parkin was told his visa was being revoked on the grounds of character, after he allegedly received an adverse security assessment.
The amazing thing is that he’s been on the loose and getting up to all kinds of mischief for a while now because two weeks ago Scott Parkin addressed the Sydney Social Forum in a workshop titled, Halliburton, War Profiteering and People Power.
This session will discuss war profiteering as a pillar of Bush’s war in Iraq, our campaign in Houston, Texas against Halliburton. We will look at our “people powered” strategy to get them out of Iraq.
Apparently he was doing much the same in Melbourne when finally arrested by our ever vigilant authorities. But it’s not really funny, because reading between the lines of the ministers stonewalling attitude and DIMIA’s recent actions, it appears that much of what Scott Parkin discussed would come under this vague definition of incitement, and it’s hard to see how this new legislation would not be misused in a way that chills legitimate dissent and activism.
So daring to criticise Halliburton is grounds for deportation? Christ!
So daring to criticise Halliburton is grounds for deportation?
If that was the case, then everyone who criticised Halliburton would be deported.
I suspect the real reason runs deeper, and has to do with Parkin’s espousal of “direct action” — which is protester-speak for the use of force against their targets.
I hope that procedural fairness was accorded to Mr Parkin. If he wasn’t served with proper notice of the intention to cancel his visa, then he may have good grounds to appeal. But he’d need some legal help before he’s bundled onto the 747. Seems DIMIA may have favored the direct action approach here.
Anyway, I will watch what I say about this case.
How about using the ‘incitement’ provision to arrest the Today-Tonight producers for putting that racist crap about Mulsims that angered so many bigots… surely we can use this proposed legislation against the government…?
Muslims are not a race. Good luck in court.
EP, got a link for your “direct action” assertion/characterisation?
CL, what IS a race?
This does sound dodgie. If he has advocated violence, that needs to be demonstrated to the public in some open forum. If he hasn’t advocated violence but is simply being targeted because of old protest-related convictions, then his deportation is a serious concern. I wish Mick Keelty would stop seeing himself as a player in the legislative and public arenas but he got in before me with his suggestion that these laws should be periodically reviewed – for their ongoing necessity, their efficacy and their responsiveness to real situations.
Mark
I have to report quickly that I’ve just come back from the seminar organised in Sydney today by some Muslim community groups to discuss Terrorism and National Security.
In the lead up to this seminar some media reported that it was the “shunned Muslims” who Howard had not invited who would be attending. And the implications were that they were ‘extremists’.
A Courier Mail report on September 3 reported that the Prime Minister’s office described the timing of this seminar as “unfortunate”.
And Beazley is quoted as saying as saying it was ‘unwise’ and ‘confronting’ for Muslims to organise such a seminar on September 11.
There were ofcourse a tonne of media outlets there…so it will be interesting to see how they report it.
Nevertheless it was stunning to see that the American Consulate in Sydney sent a long a speaker. His name was Michael Belgrade – and he was an Orthodox Jew wearing a kippa.
Here’s some “direct action” involving Scott Parkin:
So this “peace activist” was the organiser of a violent protest which involved vandalism, the forceful blockade of legitimate buinesses, and 10 arrests.
Looks like he wasn’t just in Australia to talk about “peace”.
The part about the 10 arrests came [url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16445874%255E31037,00.html]from this story[/url]:
So this bloke was in Australia to help organise violent protests that attempted to prevent other people lawfully going about their business.
Why shouldn’t he be deported?
I was at an exhibition opening on Friday night that featured many of those same protesters and the story was far from clear and not exactly as presented by the media. There were 400 of them, and double the number of police on foot, horseback etc. Quite a force to contain a protest that many regarded as underfed, ragtag and ferally.
If the police had done this beforehand instead of their heavy handed tactics at the beginning all would have went well and everyone could have gone home happy.
Incidentally Peter Garrett popped for a sticky beak at the opening.
EP: I wouldn’t mind at all if deportation were so easy.
I would quite have liked it if Spain had been so obliging when our Government asked ‘can we have Christopher Skase back please’? I’m sure the German and Israeli governments would have loved the Argentinians to have been a bit more obliging in the 50s and 60s when it came to retired Nazis. I’m sure the governments of places like Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and the Phillipines would love to be able to ask for rich Westerners with records of kiddie sex to face trial. Deportation and extradition are notoriously difficult.
That’s the point though. Deportation should be the domain of justice and the law, not sticks used by the Government to kick people out who they don’t like, and protect people they do.
The exhibition is sponsored and curated by the Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics at the University of New South Wales.
Disobedience. Don’t you love it, when it’s funded and sponsored by the government?
(Sorry, Phil. I’m sure it was a lot of fun.)
You’re confusing extradition and deportation, Liam.
They are not the same thing at all.
In fact, the purpose of deportation is to allow the government to kick out people they don’t like. It’s particularly useful when a foreigner enters the country and then commits a crime (such as vandalising and blockading a place of business).
Since we don’t like criminals, we can kick them out if they don’t have residency.
However, I’m not sure this case is quite so simple. The invocation of “national security” would seem to involve something more serious than some minor vandalism and violence. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Sightly tangental – but still on the topic of Sept 11.
News Lts papers reported on Sept 2 and Sept 3 about a “scary” muslim conference planned for Sept 11.
On Sept 3 the journalist Nick Butterly told us:
” MUSLIMS not invited to a prime ministerial terrorism summit last month will hold their own gathering — on September 11.
Prime Minister John Howard’s office yesterday described the timing as “unfortunate”.
And he also reported that Kim Beazley thought the seminar date was ” confronting” and ” unwise”.
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16472947%255E953,00.html
Oops – maybe someone forgot to warn the US embassy about the seminar which was held today at Sydney Uni’s Seymour Centre.
One of the first speakers was a guy called Michael Belgrade – from the US embassy’s Sydney consulate. He is some type of political and economic attache.
More interesting was that Mr Belgrade it seems is a modern Orthodox jew speaking at this muslim seminar with his black kippa firmly stuck on his head.
I asked him afterwards about these reported Oz concerns. He certainly didn’t think there was anything to be concernd about this seminar organised in the main by the Turkish muslim community.
Certainly he made it clear that he didn’s see Muslims as one big monolith – but as a range of different communities, with different traditions and values.
In my humble opinion the worst speaker there was Keysar Trad – the sometime mate of the controversial Imam of the Lakemba Mosque.
But then Kayser Trad is also quoted in the News Ltd papers as saying the September 11 seminar was “quite corny and in bad taste”.
Oh and none of the extremist muslim groups – such as Wassim Doureihi, head of controversial Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir – which News Ltd warned the day before would attend actually turned up.
See this slightly different News Ltd story on the same topic:
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16472926%255E421,00.html
The truth is the guy from the US consulate was spot on.
This wasn’t actually a meeting of ” a range of Australian Islamic community and ethnic groups” as reported but a meeting – largely – of one specific community — just one part of the variegated and different communities within Islamic Australia.
Hadn’t looked at that way Rob, point taken, you’ve brought a smile to my dial. Wry though it is.
Oh, and one last one before I settle in to watch the commercial TV armageddon that is the Oil Storm.
There is lots on this today, here is our esteemed minister on the use of the provisions on charities.
Charities as terrorist groups?
Brian Toohey alluded to the uselessness of these laws today on the insiders, he rightly noted that we already had laws in place to deal with murderers and criminals, and that is how we should treat them. We do not need any of this.
Simply fund the agencies properly and let them get on with the job.
If that were true EP, I’d be cluster-fucked. Lucky I’ve got the legal protection of my Australian citizenship. This fella hasn’t even been told, apparently, why he constitutes a threat to national security—that’s not right.
Oh, and Mr Parkin while detained is paying $130/day for his trouble.
Charities as terrorist groups?
Are you being purposely obtuse?
Some charities are used to channel funds to terrorist groups. It’s even mentioned in the article to which you link.
Wry is good, Phil. Wry is wisdom.
Jason Soon at catallaxy seems to be taking more of a libertarian line than you, EP.
I know where I stand on this: I think the Government of a nation-state should be able to give the arse to anyone, or deny them entry, subject to the law, to judicial review and to international humanitarian obligations—but then I’m a socialist.
How far does your libertarianism extend, commie cat?
Report: one comment eaten. Let’s try again.
…
Jason Soon at catallaxy is taking a more libertarian line than the Evil Pundit.
I’m not, but then I’m a socialist and I believe that the nation-state should be able, subject to the law, judicial review and international obligation, to deny entry or kick out anyone they feel is dangerous— David Irving, for instance.
What side of the libertarian fence are you on, commie cat?
Jason Soon at catallaxy is taking a more libertarian line than the Evil Pundit.
I’m not, but then I’m a socialist and I believe that the nation-state should be able, subject to the law, judicial review and international obligation, to deny entry or kick out anyone they feel is dangerous— David Irving, for instance.
What side of the libertarian fence are you on, commie cat?
EP, Scott Parkin was NOT one of the organisers of the protests you refer to. Nor was he, as far as I’ve been able to glean, one the FEW demostrators who resorted to violence. The majority of the demonstrators were engaged in peaceful protest. Get your facts right before you sling your unfounded allegations all over the place. Scott is a Nonviolence Trainer. Also “direct action” is NOT “protester speak” for the use of force. It’s clear to me that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Wry are people so unkind?
I thought that it was a very poor performance from Ruddock on the Insiders this morning. The quote that struck me was:
He sounded so wistful as he said it – imagining a world where governments had the right to randomly whisk people away for a couple of weeks whenever they felt like it. Such pesky things, courts and evidence.
The question I have is why is it against the constituion for the federal government to detain people without charge for long period, but not the states?
I’ve produced evidence in the form of two links naming Scott Parkin as an organiser of violent protests. If you want to deny that, you should provide some evidence.
Furthermore, I know what “direct action” means because I’ve seen it myself in my old left-wing days. “Direct” means “applied to the object” and “action” means physical force.
The specific example of direct action in this case is the physical blockading of city offices, preventing people from entering or leaving, as well as the physical splashing of paint on the doorstep.
If you want people to think you know what you’re talking about, you should produce some evidence.
This was the situation in Mexico under the PRI. There was nominal freedom of speech, right to demonstrate for Mexicans. Anyone from outside was liable to arrest and deportation. It was designed to deter international scrutiny of domestic politics; and to prevent internationals witnessing the funny things that would sometimes happen to local protestors.
Now thankfully, we arent there yet, but this sort of thing is, as I said in an earlier post, a necessary – but insufficient – condition of a police state. Rights retract first to nationals, before they are taken from citizens too. In our case, the latest detention without charge provsions are already mooted- these are the sine qua non of a police state.
You can stick yout head in the sand about this, but a peace activist is threatened with deportation – as a threat to national security? How precisely is he a threat?
Answer: he isnt. We just made visa rights contingent on political persuasion.
Dont ask why, or you’re next.
Already – if ASIO harrasses and detains you wrongly, and you’re released, you cannot report this to the media for a prescribed time, or you face jail time. it thus becomes a perfect means of harrassment by the state.
Wake up so called liberals! So called libertarians! This has nothing to offer in terms of fighting terrorism. It just an attack on your hard won individual liberties – struggles that early liberals fought against the crown in the 1600s. Given away, overnight, as these miserable cowards and traitors we call our government bow down and surrender liberal democracy and indivudal liberties at the first sign of threat. It hands in the air from Howard and Ruddock.
Pathetic Traitors and Cowards.
EP, Scott Parkin is innocent till proven guilty. Your scurrilous quotes from the corporate media are not evidence of his guilt. Since my assertion is that he is innocent, I don’t need to provide any evidence or proof (but I thank you for your little stunt of trying to suck me into proving his innocence.) Last time I looked, one did not need to prove innocnece, one needed to prove guilt.
I quite believe that you might have at one time aligned yourself with those on the left who use violence as their chosen mode of “dirct action”, but do not assume for one minute that therefore “direct action” always justifies and employs violence.
Try this link >>>
If you want to have a bit of a bunfight about this, come over to my blog, I could use the ratings.
Wrong link, Diogenes. But slipping “nonviolence” into your search terms is misleading.
This is the real one.
I’d like to keep the bunfight to one place, though.
As for Parkin, we have two different eyewitness reports that he was present at a violent protest, and a claim that he was an organiser of said protest.
Now the mainstream media may be scurrilous, but they rarely collaborate to falsify an event totally. So on the balance of probabilities I’d accept these reports unless they were plausibly denied.
So, as far as I can see, we have a political activist who comes to Australia and proceeds to break the law.
An open and shut case for deportation I would say.
Free speech is one thing, but violence and vandalism are not “free speech”.
Not quite. An open-and-shut case for appearance before a court charged with whatever crime he was supposed to have committed.
You get some sense (?) of Parkin’s agenda here. Sad people. But should you be deported just for being sad?
Loved this bit:
Feel sorry for the trams.
Did I hear Howard on the TV this evening saying that “atypical” views were uncalled for and shouldn’t be expressed? “Atypical”? WTF? God forbid anyone who strays from the “typical” opinion in the future!
Here come the typical police.
Oh dear, arrested and deported for fare evasion and partying, being present at a demonstration that turned nasty and one claim that he was AN organiser of a protest. The evidence is damning.
Now you’re making me laugh out loud.
Actually we don’t yet know why Parkin was arrested and threatened with deportation. All of this is speculation.
At a minimum, from publicly available sources, we can see that it’s likely he participated in “direct action” which involved illegal acts.
But that’s not normally grounds for deporting someone for “national security” reasons. Such petty activities are hardly worth the notice of the Federal Government.
I suspect there may be more to this story that hasn’t come out yet.
I suspect there isnt EP. This is just the shape of things to come – the suppression of political dissent will become a more common feature of the landscape from here on in.
I think you’re being paranoid, LE.
Phil, thats not just a strawman youve constructed, its a bloody scarecrow. This incident is far from conclusive, and hence far from a good piece of ammunition against laws that aren’t even related to it, and their details not even properly formulated. It’s alarmist.
Draconian is a big word to be thrown around, and at this stage it is clearly hyperbole. The discussion of these laws must be kept pragmatic, not based on ideology. If the laws are necessary and/or could be of use, then they should be implemented, if not then they should not. Making blanket brandings and generalisations about the laws, such as saying they are draconian and curtail civil liberties, and blowing a minor and arguably unrelated case out proportion is not constructive in the slightest.
Yes EP, deporting a street peace protestor on the grounds of national security is just common sense after all; all sensible mainstream people would agree; only criminals have anything to fear; the UK are doing the same …. yada yada.
I urge all those concerned with individual rights and liberties to get a little bit ‘paranoid’ with me at this point. Before it becomes seditious to do so.
Jason Soon at catallaxy is taking a more libertarian line than the Evil Pundit.
I’m not, but then I’m a socialist and I believe that the nation-state should be able, subject to the law, judicial review and international obligation, to deny entry or kick out anyone they feel is dangerous—
David Irving, for instance.
What side of the libertarian fence are you on, commie cat?
Dont be silly, its not going to become “seditious” to do so at any point.
We’re already heading towards detention without charge Nic. This has been made abundantly clear by the Government.
If you think this isnt draconian, and a matter of the greatest concern in a liberal democracy, you’re being naive.
It never hurts to be suspicious of the gubament, Nic.
to clarify – I have no problems whatsoever with government deporting non-citizens who have committed crimes (after due process and all that of course) -ex post. and of course it goes without saying that nation states have every right to exclude criminals *at large* . I would even be willing to contemplate ex-ante exclusion of people who have been convicted of serious offences on some test like balance of probabilities that they would in all likelihood pose a threat. however I don’t believe that the likes of Antonio Negri, David Irving, some mad imam who is all bluster and no bomb and of course our harmless peace activist who simply has the habit of organising demonstrations but doesn’t actually conspire to throw shit at police could be excluded on such grounds.
“You get some sense (?) of Parkin‚Äôs agenda here. Sad people. But should you be deported just for being sad?”
We’ll miss you, EvilPundit
I’m generally in agreement with Jason on this one. The fact that EP can’t see the danger in deporting people for allegedly being somewhere where allegedly something bad happened is worrying.
When EP is deported to America, I’m sure we can look forward to yet another US blog praising Bush and saying “those black people should have walked to higher ground”. Just sayin…
“If you think this isnt draconian, and a matter of the greatest concern in a liberal democracy, you‚Äôre being naive.”
On the contrary, I think it is naive to call something draconian that clearly is not. For something to be draconian it must be both harsh and significantly excessive and unnecessary. These laws do not approach that.
Come on, pragmatism, not absolutist ideology.
Generally, Nic thinks that shooting and executing folks is a good use of govermnent power. So I’m not sure that your wise advice will be heeded, Kate.
Kim, thats also a strawman, and I dont appreciate it.
Apologies, Nic, but I’m thinking of your comments on a variety of threads about New Orleans and capital punishment.
I do wonder what restrictions on liberty you would consider draconian.
And please explain to us how these laws would prevent terrorist bombings. Just askin…
Kim, in reference to New Orleans I was advocating the use of force against those were using it against others – which is general police work anyway. If someone is going to kill/rape/shoot/injure someone, whether they be a civillian or a national guard/marine/policeman, there is total justification for shooting them first if necessary.
And no, I dont advocate shooting people solely for looting, and I dont think that is what was happening. If that was indeed the case then I certainly dont condone it.
Thanks for those reassuring assertions Nic. Howard’s been doing a neat line in them recently – see my 12.10 am comment for the general repertoire.
Alright, fair enough, Nic, and thanks for the clarification. But the question I asked remains to be answered. It does seem to me that you seem quite untroubled by a number of excessive applications of state power in a variety of arenas.
The question is if he actually was a security threat. Also this is hardly the norm and in no way relates to the new anti-terror laws. Its a storm in a teacup, and being blow out of proportion for use as aummunition.
Well, I’m beginning to think the stories coming out of N.O. about the ‘collapse’ of society and looting etc were a tad overblown… (and I’m not alone) but that’s a topic for another thread.
I’m yet to be convinced the new terror laws as sort of proposed will have much of an effect on national security. They’re just vote-buying populism as far as I can tell.
Well, Kate, if they allow imprisonment without charge then they’re very dangerous to those who will be targetted, and by extension to “all of us”.
Yeah, I agree.
Where are all the small-government libertarians (aside from Jason, of course) coming out to decry these new possible maybe laws?
The concern is that the new laws means the executive has to resort to reassurance (we wouldnt do that sort of thing to you nice mainstream folk, only for bad crims, terrorists etc).
Early liberals, who actually knew what unaccountable executive power was like, were most pragmatic on this score. You inscribe civil rights into the core of the common law so that any government’s attitude/ trustworthiness is quite irrelevant. The Crown just doesnt have the power to detain without charge. They have to show they have the body, and if they arent charging it with something, they cant continue to hold it. Simple. They wouldnt dont care if Howard was a authoritarian prick or a nice guy looking after us. Its not the point. Enforceable individual legal rights are the best protection against present, or future authoritarianism.
Could this new legislation be used to suppress legitimate dissent – yes. And thats a problem that should concern all.
One would hope, Kate, that there might be some murmurings of dissent within the so-called “liberal” party when they become more than a press release and a diversion from Telstra woes.
Precisely, Lefty E. The restraint and the checks should be placed on the state no matter what the motivations or intent of the decision makers are.
Kim: These laws all have the ability to be used in draconian ways, but they are not on their own draconian or even excessive (with the exception of the tracking device which I think is unnecessary and just a crap idea in general). Some examples of draconian legislation or use of legitimate legislation would be to, say, use trackers, phone taps, etc on anyone whos written an article for Green Left Weekly or similar, planned or even participated in a demonstration or rally; detaining people to prevent them speaking at a legitimate event, or for any other purpose that is clearly not national security rated; blacklisting the same kind of people from various positions, occupations or travel, etc.
As per my posts, these laws could be used in a very useful way to combat terrorism. They could also be abused. Right now we dont even know the extent or details of the laws, just the gist of them, which on principle are good ones (except the stupid tracker thing). So long as safeguards are placed on them to prevent abuse, excessive use or just stupid situations from occuring, then they will be good.
Look, the reality is we need to beef up these laws to deal with terrorism. They might not stop an attack, but they could work – there is no proof that they wont work. Pragmatism, not ideology, has to be the argument here. If its necessary and not excessive then it should be done. If its not necessary, it should not be done. Lets wait for the details, a lot of this is dependant on media spin and pollie-speak anyway.
Shorter Nic White: I trust the government to do whatever’s necessary to whomever’s unnecessary.
What Jason said. Particularly that last bit.
But why Nic? What’s so bad about our current laws that we need to erode our civil liberties by introducing new ones? If someone can point out the need for the new laws maybe I’d be less worried.
And why now? The events in London really haven’t changed anything for Australia as far as I can see. Our terrorist alert is still on ‘medium’ and the previous powers givemn to ASIO have been used a handful of times. (Which is a good thing IMHO and I’m glad those powers haven’t been abused).
“Look, the reality is we need to beef up these laws to deal with terrorism. They might not stop an attack, but they could work – there is no proof that they wont work.”
You already tried this “end justifies the means” arguement before re: torturing suspects.
It didn’t wash.
You call me paranoid. I call you naive. Paranoia is something you learn whereas naivety comes naturally.
“These laws all have the ability to be used in draconian ways,”
Then they are BADLY WRITTEN LAWS!! Laws should be clear and objective. Wiggle room is anathema to true justice. viz the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
Nic,
If the current furore over Telstra isn’t sufficient proof that you can’t trust this government then you have a big problem.
Government is intrinsically untrustworthy: as soon as they start talking about society as if it isn’t made of the people in it then they need to be slapped down. Are deportees a threat to Australia or to the Government? Come on: use those journalism skillz.
What Liam said.
Howard is dealing with national security threats, both within and adjacent to, Australia following a two track political policy.
The political aspect is to frame the policy in such a way as to tacitly target higher risk groups. Specifically, this would be fundamentalist Islamists who may be either harboured by rogue officials of nearby states or nestled in loosely organized extremist cells within these borders. The idea is to fire a warning shot accross their bows, so to speak, o keep their heads down.
This will probably have beneficial electoral consequences for the Coalition as no one ever lost votes by playing to the nationalist grand stand.
The policy aspect is simply to raise the general level of national paraonia to foreign threats. The idea is to enlist the citizenry into the service of the state to dob in suspect types. This is not necessarily a bad thing as a series of false positives on small fry may be less costly than allowing one false negative on the big fish.
Scott Parkin appears to be a harmless little fish and I think the security apparat should toss him back in.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: targeting Muslims, pandering to xenophobia and exaggerating the threat of terrorism are all acceptable government policy. The end (catching big fish) justifies the means (frying small fish).
Another GTMO apologist crawls out of the woodwork. Predictable and consistent, Auntie Jack.
ooh! another Fyodor-Strocchi stoush, please Santa!
Innocent person sent to gaol or deported = ‘false postive on small fry’
Sheesh, it’s like newspeak.
“Xenophobia” is newspeak.
It is reasonable to expect the Authorities to give us some facts to justify this.
on the surface this yank is not part of the middleclass sunni male suicide set!
Yes, Homer, I too would like to see what they’ve got on him.
Deporting someone whose only known crime is organising a minor demonstration only feeds the paranoia of the Left, and gives undeserved airtime to the rantings of Bob Brown and his ilk.
There are probably many people in that category who don’t get deported. What’s special about Parkin?
Any ancient historians or Greek speakers on the thread care to enlighten EP?
Nah, EP, xenophobia is Greek. “Newspeak” is newspeak.
Have you been naughty or nice, Jason?
Just because we’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get us.
Newspeak concerns the usage of words, not their origins. “Xenophobia” is doubleplus scarespeak.
Personally, Ive been jumpy ever since the Prong 2 warnings of early August.
Fyodor says: September 12th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
I did not say that the government should engage in “targetting Muslims”. I nominated “fundamentalist Islamists” as “higher risk groups”. They are fairly small, but signficant, sub-class of “Muslims”. Only a fool would, after 7/7, would insist that Islamic extremists should not be a focus for extra security surveillance. No prizes for guessing who wins the boobie prize in that competition.
I did not say that “pandering to xenophobia” is acceptable government policy. Merely that it happened and would benefit the Coalition, which is true. This is because of the community reaction against the excesses of multiculturalism and the failure of Asian
EngagementAppeasement. And for this we have the idiot Wets to thank.I did not say that “exaggerating the threat of terrorism” is acceptable government policy. The threat of terrorism is real and possibly very serious. I said that it was better for the state to err on the side of caution because the costs of a missing a mass-casualty terrorist strike (eg suitcase nuke) were higher than the costs of hitting some harmless misfits.
In some matters of national security, the end does justify the means. Machiavelli was not, contra Fyodor, a fool or a knave. He was a concerned citizen with an especially acute insight. War is, after all, an organized mass murder in which some innocent civilians do invariably suffer. This is certainly a relaxation on civilized modes of interaction. Yet even Fyodor would concede that war is a legitimate tool in the state’s national security box of tricks, despite the incidental hardships.
It cant be easy being Fyodor nowadays, seeing his frivolous intellectual doodles being erased by the moving finger of History. First the 7/7 bombings vindicate the critique of his beloved multiculturaliism, even amongs the Wets. And now researchers are vindicating the Decline of the Wets thesis that he so much despises.
Still, we must control our grief. Fyodor has been the most vigorous digger of his own intellectual grave and hasnt wanted for persons suggesting that he get out of the hole. He has no one but himself to blame.
But was it ever?
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
Of course, so when I use the word xenophobia it actually means “fear of foreigners”, but when EP uses it we should take it to mean “Evil Pundit is a postmodernist reactionary commiecat”. It’s all doubleplus clear now.
Do you keep a straight face when you type that rubbish, EP?
It’s effortless, Mark.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: what I said before, but with more words. Also, Fyodor really pisses me off.
/digs
As I would have imagined, Fyodor. Was just checkin…
Shorter Fyodor: I can’t counter my opponent’s points, so I’ll make up a faux-witty strawman and pretend I’ve won.
Can you please translate that into Newspeak for us, EP. Just askin…
Longer EP: a broken LP.
is that like BP or BHP but they are out of gas!
Shorter Jack Strocchi: Someone might bomb us. Therefore, the existence of minority group rights, existing parallel to individual and majority group rights within the nation-state do not exist.
BTW, in addition to the series of lies and distortions that Fyodor published above, I stress my opposition to violent torture – in any shape or form – whether it be GTMO, AG or “extraordinary rendition”.
But security agencies shuld have the power to impose martial law in certain circumstances. That is, genuine terrorist susps/perps should not have the same civil rights as ordinary citizens, either outside or inside gaol. They are not parking offenders who have defaulted on fine paying. They are mass murderers bent on establishing theocratic despotism.
Any terrorist susps/perps should be subject to profiling to economise on security resources, processed by military police and courts and subjected to a rigorous detention regime of the kind endured by our own soldiers on the more testing courses. This should permit psychological pressure but pevent physiological aggression. All these procedures should be transparent and accountable, subject to review by independent agencies and branches of government.
Law abiding citizens have had it up to here letting the Wets pander to their “clients”. The populus deserve a fair go too.
Waiting for Fyodor and Liam to lie about Jack Strocchi’s points again …
I’ve become convinced that the single most common tactic of left-wing argument is the deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent’s claims. It happens too often to be the result of mere carelessness.
There’s no need to explain, Auntie Jack. You’re an illiberal statist from way back, and we have yet to see a civil right you wouldn’t trade to Uncle Johnny, sure in the knowledge that he’ll protect you from those baddies he keeps warning us about.
Your support for the GTMO detention is on record. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time you’ve admitted to idiocy and changed your mind.
Sorry EP, was that in newspeak? Or were you just whinging to the ref?
All this argument makes my ears ring!
Now, what does the government mean by “national security”? This seems to me to be ill-defined.
Much the same as they mean by “national interest” Sach. And I quote Rattius here, election campaign 04:
“…and it is in the national interest that the Coalition be re-elected!”
I haven’t lied about Jack Strocchi’s points, Evil. He said that the London terrorist bombings vindicated a critique of multiculturalism: a system of state-recognised group minority rights held parallel to individual rights within the law.
In short, again:
Where have I lied?
Haiku,
Being a typical Lefty, you’ve misunderstood EP. It’s newspeak. If EP says you were telling lies, you were obviously telling…truths!
See? With a little assistance anyone can now understand EP. The spell is broken.
Liam, you said
Accepting for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as “minority group rights” separete from human rights in general — please point out where, exactly, Jack Strocchi denied the existence of such rights?
Strocchi (I):
Strocchi (II):
I’d have thought it was a pretty fair human right not to be profiled for being a terrorist “susp/perp”.
Which brings me to the other point which should be painfully obvious. Between multiculturalism in Australia and the threat of terrorism in Australia there is (and I wait for your paranoid rejoinder EP) precisely no relationship.
Terrorism is an illegal methodology used in settling or continuing political grievances. Multiculturalism is a diverse and sometimes contradictory set of ideas about dealing with difference within a nation-state.
Just sticking them in the same sentence and waiting for us all to make the links doesn’t wash.
I dare you to say that in a Hayeku, Liam.
I could branch out into other forms, you know, Fedya.
This afternoon’s stoushing ’round here
Shows definite lashings of fear.
The aim of the fight:
Multicultural rights
Replaced by a strict Anglosphere.
Don’t squib on me now, Haiku Hogan. You’re the man to get “multiculturalism” into a Haiku or my name’s Jacqueline Stroppy.
Xenophobia,
Multiculturalism:
Two sworn enemies.
I think you all need to take a deep breath, then actually look into what constitutes a visitor’s visa- people are detained and deported on them every day- the only reason this has come to notice is because the media was made it an issue, with assorted usual suspects throwing in their own two roubles worth. Any breach of the terms of the visa renders you a prohibited non-citizen, and you can be summarily deported- do not pass go, but 130 clams a day to DIMEA until you leave; you have no automatic right to review, let alone a court appearance. Working for a half hour for some beer vouchers is enough to breach the terms, and it’s bye-bye time, don’t bother applying for another for five years. An arrest is an automatic flag for a breach of character conditions, and I’d say that’s the case here. The left is trying to make it a political issue when it is in fact a behaviour issue.
Personally, I wish we could deport all our surplus perpetually outraged activists, but who would have the buggers? There’s the quarantine risk to consider, after all..
So you’ve waffled on a bit about multiculturalism and profiling, Liam — but nowhere have you managed to demonstrate that Jack Strocchi claimed that
So you did, in fact, make up that claim regarding Jack Strocchi.
It would be better if you could respond to his actual arguments, instead of to imaginary arguments you have produced yourself — though admittedly less effective from your point of view.
Close, Haiku, damn close. Multiculturalism has six silly bulls. You need an “and” or summit in there.
EP, it would be better if you could respond to Liam’s actual arguments, instead of to imaginary arguments you have produced yourself ‚Äî though admittedly less effective from your point of view.
1. Mul
2. Ti
3. Cul
4. Tu
5. Ral
6. Lis
7. M
And of course I refer you to my previous argument.
I think you and EP deserve each other. You’re like the Statler and Waldorf of blogging postmodernism.
hehe. Ill pay that one Herr Fyodrich.
Danke sehr, Effetist.
I’m heading off now for a post work drinkie or two but rest assured I will be returning to this thread later, all likkered up and looking for trouble.
Mark, you may wish to hide the breakables and put the cricket bat next to the till.
So this is what happens when the 100 monkeys run out of ideas, eh?
No, they’re still pumping it out barrel boy – but just moved on from Elizabethan tragedy to Mack Sennett scenerios.
Because this post is tangentially related to issues of terrorism and not wanting to appear as one of Gerry’s monkeys I have to ask. Did anyone see the video of the American nutter who issued threats against LA and Melbourne?
It was very pythonesque. I just couldn’t take it seriously, it appears the authorities didn’t either, preferring to mouth bland and general statements about terrorism on the whole.
I’m sorry but I just had to laugh when he drew his finger across his throat as he issued a threat. Was that bad of me?
And another thing, has anyone stopped to think that because he was American the threat was levelled at Melbourne Florida? Now that would be truly funny.
I think the VO was a dubbed translation. But none the less, it was very Pythonesque. I suspect an emarassed Chaser/CNNNN crew will come forward to admit it was a promo stunt that is now backfiring.
But assumin’ it’s for real, why pick on Melbourne? Look bastardguys, hit Sydney instead. More icons = more media coverage. Plus they need a federally funded excuse to overhaul their transport infrastructure. And Snarl Cully can organise all the blasting licenses you need to pick up bang juice like that.
Unlike Melbourne. The paperwork you have to go through just to pick up 400gms of black gunpowder for the weekend from Paynes Wessex is unbelievable.
Fyodor says: September 12th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
No. I really dont have hard and fast loyalties to ideologies of any kind. That kind of thinking – absolute committment to a particular social technology – is a category mistake, given the pervasive and perpetual mutability of social relations under evolutionary conditions. Sort of like an engineer being committed to the eternaly sanctity of curved arches as a way of spanning the space between pillars. In social ideology, as in physical technology, one should be a “shameless opportunist” (Einstein).
I am, during the current period and in this jurisdiction, inclined to a form of liberal statism. That is, I favour maintenance and extension of the Open Society as the best way of encouraging human progress.
Like all nice and sensible people I want to strike the right balance between the rights of the citizen to preseve his individuality and the needs of the civitas to protect our communality. But a strong state is often the best way of securing a liberal polity. So this may mean, temporarily and localy as the occasion demands, shifting the balance of power away from citizen autonomy and towards civil authority.
It is bizarre of Fyodor to point to a comment of mine as evidence of my supposed support for abuses of state power in the GWOT. The passage he points to clearly and repeatedly indicates my reservations about abuses of power alleged in the course of GWOT:
Fyodor seems to be implying that any person who supports general establishments of the GITMO kind – administered by martial authorities and subject to a more draconian penal regime – has, ipso facto, given proof positive that the supporter is in favour of Big Brother. This implication would be proof of idiocy alright, given the reality of the baddies (anyone remember the Sack of Dili, Bombing of Bali?)
In fact, all the passage proves is that I am serious about waging a successful war on Islamist terrorism. More extensive laws, martial legal authorities and harsher prison regimes are part of that seriousness.
Of course Fyodor, being a ritualistic libertarian, is not serious about politics at all, let alone defeating terrorists. His frivolous philosophy – which always and everwhere quibbles over any economy of force – is simply a status marker that he highlights now and again in his endless quest to validate his own moral superiority.
I’m waiting for Mr Al Qaeda Threat to give the heavy metal horns sign in his next video.
Nah Nabs, we don’t want that here, terrorism is just for cities on the make. You have it, it’ll put Melbourne on the map.
Apparently EP, it’s a standard gesture of obesiance if yer gonna sit on the oval throne.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145062,00.html
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1216&IssueNum=66
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
Yeah, well Bush is the Antichrist after all.
But that doesn’t excuse threat-boy from the obligation of honouring his roots. I have to agree with a commenter on Tim’s site: bring back Crazy-Eyes.
It’s certainly surreal, that’s for sure. As an erstwhile Californian, I can’t say I’m surprised.
And how precisely does shifting the balance away from citizen autonomy secure a liberal polity? It seems to me that “securing” trumps “liberty” in this dialectic!
Strocchi:
Perhaps Fyodor just wants an Open Society, as you claim to support, just without the military tribunals for religious undesirables? I’m quite sure he’d prefer an economy of capital to an economy of force. As to this, as pointed out my Mark:
A strong state which shifts power away from its citizens implicitly works against liberalism in all of its forms. Or do I have the liberal tradition quite wrong?
Which post-Marxist said that it was the most urgent task the Left had in this conjuncture to defend liberalism against ostensible liberals?
And thus, Hobbes trumps Locke.
Locke saw all this kinda guff in the 1600s.
“those who want protection from polecats, but do not fear – nay – think it safety – to be devoured by lions”
Well, this sure did degenerate quickly.
Serious stoush over political theory and civil liberties, Nic!
Harry: You seem rather adept at missing the point.
Firstly, if laws are necessary, they are necessary, I dont see how that is so hard to understand. The only argument here is what people think is necessary, not some ideological standpoint they happen to have – its a solely pragmatic discussion. People who cant see that, well…
Secondly: The laws have not actually been written yet, just some airy-fairy ideas from politicians. They are very vauge because details dont actulaly exist yet. Thats why I say they could be abused (and even when written they can be. come on, ALL laws can be abused). If the necessary laws are written and regulated to hell with appropriate safeguards are installed, then abuse is unlikely to happen. If it happens anyway, we jump on them.
Thirdly: I never said I completely trusted the government and that suspicion was a crap idea, youre making a strawman. But I think paranoia is counter-productive.
See World War II for a number of practical examples.
Liberties such as the right to discuss military secrets and the right to be a Nazi supporter were temporarily removed for the duration of the conflict, and then restored afterwards.
If and when the current war escalates, these rights will probably be suspended again.
Certainly the “opposition” have done themselves no favours in their enthusiasm to attack our own society, and this will rebound on them when things get serious.
And Kim, did last nights answer from me answer your question?
No, not really, I’m afraid Nic. I don’t accept that “let’s wait for the details” is much of an answer – the intent is clear.
EP, WW2 was terminable. The GWOT is interminable.
Even the Patriot Act had some sunset clauses. Doesn’t sound like Ruddock is planning any.
Hey- how come no mention of Hitler?
Whenever the State starts telling us – us the people who hire it and pay its salary – that there are some things it can’t tell us about, our first response should be WHY THE FUCK NOT!
And ’tis fascinating to watch certain of those here that call themselves small gov champions now reluctantly arguing for increased Government powers just because they think who their ideological foes are here could disagree with the point in question.
Hmmm. I could have made that clearer. “More government interference must be good ‘cos you are arguing against it.”
Fyodor says: September 12th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
I generally shy away from any kind of literary deconstruction like the plague. But one occasionally finds that this technique is useful, especially when dealing with the “rubbish typed” by commenters who travel with those fellows, politically speaking. Any statement by Fyodor, for instance.
So EP, when Fyodor uses the word “xenophobia” he is not attempting anything so straightforward as the transmission of information about public attitudes. In fact he is transmitting a public signal that he can out-intellectualise Pauline Hanson in order to out-moralise the median Wet. Unfortunately for Fyodor, Maxine McKew got there first.
In any case the querulous assumption behind Fyodor’s pose is false. Any competent student of public opinion knows that Australians over the past decade have become, generally speaking, less xenophobic towards racially diverse foreigners. Anyone spending a lunchtime in an urban campus can’t help but notice the proliferation of Asian/Caucasians couples. This is, pretty much, all good.
What sensible Australians, including the realistic liberals dont like is the Wet brand of multiculturalism that licences ethnic lobbying on behalf of reactionary tribalisms. We have simply become less tolerant of extending political privileges to law breakers (queue jumpers, rabble rousers, bomb chuckers), whether native- (Hicks) or alien-born (Habib). This is not “xenophobic”, it is just plain common sense.
And this is because, not in spite, of Howard’s cultural conservatism. His tough stance on Wet cultural constructivism – both professional and political – and its bogus clientele has reassured the populus that New Australians will integrate properly with the rest of the population. So we are now more “relaxed and comfortable” about letting in law-abiding NESB persons.
But the unreconstructed Wets (“ritualistic libertarians” like Fyodor and liam hogan) are too silly and short-sighted to realise this obvious fact.
Comment eaten again! Let me try again with a shorter extract
“Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule.”
~ Hayek, ‘Why I am not a conservative’
Alright, I’ll lead- Hitler didn’t deport Marinus van der Lubbe.
“Hey- how come no mention of Hitler?”
Well if you think mentioning that person will enhance whatever point you wanna make next, then knock yerself out, you bloody tax collector you.
“I generally shy away from any kind of literary deconstruction like the plague.”
Let’s pause here for a good belly laugh.
WW2 was terminable. The GWOT is interminable.
Good point.
However, “War on Terror” is a misnomer. you can’t fight a tactic.
It’s really a war on Islamic fundamentalism — a political/religious ideology — and as such, is terminable. Just as the war on Nazism and the war on Communism were terminable, and were terminated for all practical intents and purposes.
Woo Hoo! I’ve never instituted Godwins before. The cricket’s getting interesting again.
The difference, EP, even allowing what you say to be true, is that both these ideologies had institutional embodiments in states which could be defeated in war.
I’ll ask the same question as put on a poster at the s11 commemorations in New York:
The Russians defeated Germany by attacking the centre of the state apparatus. The Soviet apparatus collapsed from within.
Since everyone’s comments are now tripping over eachother here, perhaps now is a good time raise the question of what kind of music do you blog too?
For me, right now it’s Goldfrapp’s Supernature – female pomo 70s glam with super satin attitude.
I’ll whack on On Wenlock Edge in a minute to refocus my boozy energy levels.
It’s close to midnight so it’s Frank Sinatra, The Capitol Years, 3 CD set
Tax collector? Wash your mouth out- I unwillingly collect revenue for the fiscal fiend (as does every other business registered for GST, the userers are too cheese-dicked to do their own dirty work), while advising my clients on every possible way to avoid coughing up.
Dining out at the moment on retrieving a half-mill for a client from the thieving sods, at a 10% premium. I recommend tempura soft-shell crab, they’re in season (at least in civilised parts of the world), and delicious- you eat the buggers whole, and they go rather well with very cold Kirin, or Asahi.
At the moment, Nabs, the sound of constant appeals by the Australian bowlers. Earlier in the day, Springsteen’s Devils and Dust.
Tom Waits – Blue Valentine.
I like the Glitter Band 1st album, loud on a Monday night, to give the neighbours the shits, then some Tom Waits, maybe Bone Machine- goes well with cricket. (And beer).
BTW Bahnisch, you still owe me a $20 scratchie. Welsher.
Yeah, Im so frightened of a couple of hundred loopy pissants hiding out in caves I’m pissing my pants as we speak. Hell, they’re so powerful they’re almost mounting one attack a year.
Excuse me while I run around like a headless chook yelling the sky is falling and abolishing rights n shit. Its my pragmatic side.
Nabakov says: September 12th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
As a realistic liberal I sympathise with the ethical assumptions behind this political p.o.v. Only individuals posess moral potential. States are arbitrary constructions that exist to serve individual interests. Therefore individuals, as citizens, posess presumptive civilian autonomy which civil authority violates at risk.
Unfortunately the haphazard and virulent natue of modern war and violent conflict makes it difficult to make unambiguous moral distinctions on this matter. So political thinkers have to start shading in grey areas in between their black and white sides of the board. And the blurry boundaries between these fields will tend to move back and forth as the conflict waxes and wanes. Sometimes the grey area seeps right into the soul of the conflicted individual.
In wartime we have to carefully reassess the notion of a citizen. And we also have to rationalise some appropriate economy of force.
Machiavelli was the first modern moralist to appreciate the tragedy inherent in this state of affairs. Artists such as Graham Greene were also keenly aware of this dilemma.
I am impatient with New Left and New Right ideologists (such as Fyodor and liam hogan) who take a tendentious and superficial approach to this problem. They remain blissfully ignorant of the impact that some ethnic mixes can have when poured straight onto the parchment of a liberal constitution. They insist on taking the most dogmatic Miltonian line towards all expressions of civil and social authority. They ignore the hard lessons about the “paradoxes of tolerance” taught by the modern philosophers of the Open Society.
In short, they come off sounding like spoiled brats.
“Unfortunately the haphazard and virulent natue of modern war and violent conflict makes it difficult to make unambiguous moral distinctions on this matter”
Again with the ‘war’ Strocchers. That is the presumption that underlies the volumes you’ve written on this issue. What ‘war’? Refer to lefty elitist’s comments.
New Goldfrapp’s been pushing me through the academic adventures of late. And old Kings of Convenience. Also, I look forward to seeing Spoon this Friday.
EP, get with the times sistahh – The War on Terror was sooo last year
“maybe Bone Machine”
OK. I take back my earlier comment. Anyone into Tom Waits can’t be called “bloody” something or naything.
However PB, I am interested to hear how you rationalise making a living out of a part of the system you despise. I’m not being (that much) snarky here. I’m in a not dissimular position m’self.
Wot? You’ve all fucked off to put on yer jimmy-jams?
OK, I’m off too – to flirt online with SanFran tattoo artists, NZ CGI folks, the Mayor of Moscow’s public transport adviser and that twisted gang on the evening shift at ESRF’s Grenoble hub who have worked out how to cheat at Go.
Send me your address, PB, and it’s yours.
“I don‚Äôt accept that “let‚Äôs wait for the details” is much of an answer – the intent is clear.”
Oh come on, I said far more than that. Youre blowing the supposed intent out of proportion with this “oh no theyre taking all our right away” freak-out.
What can the supposed intent be of measures such as detention without charge be other than to deprive citizens of rights, Nic?
You’d be more consistent if you lined up with Jack Strocchi:
The intent is to do as much as possible to prevent terrorist attacks, by doing whatever is necessary while still allowing society to function in a normal fashion, not to remove people’s rights because the government thinks its fun or will give them more power.
Out of the realm of freedom, into the realm of necessity. But who gets to say what’s necessary, Nic, and the government’s power is increased both de jure and de facto.
Lets debate whats necessary on a pragmatic level then. Thats the only discussion, in my mind, thats relevant.
Nic, the point we’ve been making is that a liberal society that has detention without charge is no longer functioning in a “normal fashion”.
I dont think your oft-repeated distinction between ideology and pragma helps us much with these concerns. These are very radical changes to some very real, very long standing liberal fundamentals – not imaginary freedoms, or utopian ideals or somesuch.
As per Mark’s earlier comment: Sheesh! Live long enough in Howard’s OZ and you’ll be explaining protective democracy, individual liberties and the rule of law to the right…
“Nic, the point we‚Äôve been making is that a liberal society that has detention without charge is no longer functioning in a “normal fashion”.”
I dont agree with that blanket statement. Its not going to rip the fabric of the country apart and it might just save us from a terrorist attack which could affect many people. If applied conservatively and prudently, it could be very useful. Having a dogmatic ideological stand on something like dentention without charge (which is hardly radical) really does ignore all practical reasons for its use and shut down any rational discussion because you absolutely wont hear that “leftist” values are less important than necessity. At least thats the way it seems. I think its sad tbh.
That said, I dont think life will change very much under these new laws anyway, especially if they are used prudently.
Jason Soon says: September 13th, 2005 at 12:06 am
What war indeed? To ask a question like that is to diagnose the problem. The war I refer to is not really something new, although it has flared up recently in the most awful way. It is nothing less than the perennial struggle between those who favour the Closed Society against those who favour the Open Society, as human society makes the agonizing transition from pre-modern to modern (and post-modern?) society.
For a century or more this war was usually fought between states, led by either reformatory or revolutionary movements, to decide the ideological question: “what kind of state is best”. It appears that successful states have more or less reached a “Washington Consensus” answer to this question.
Nowadays this war is more commonly fought within states, split by both secular and sectarian movements, to decide the ethnological question: “who should rule the state”. There can be no consensus answer to this question since identity political conflicts (ala ethnic cleansing) is a zero-sum game.
The greater part of the world is now moving from the pre-modern into the modernist stage of civic development. Inevitably there will be painful birthpangs as a globalised world emerges out somewhere down the track. The current spate of terrorist attacks is a sign that some folk are irritated by this process.
The “torn state” character of this war has thrown up many genuinely knotty civic problems that facile New Left and New Right ideologies can barely come to grips with. These include developing a strong notion of citizenship for multi-ethnic states and construing the rule of law to take into account the murky status of terrorist combatants.
I have seen very little in this comments thread which indicates that disputants have given serious thought to this matter. Many commenters remain obstinately ignorant of the ethnological character of this conflict, which affects marginal societies in failing states and marginal demographics in successful states.
There is also a general ignorance of the state progress in hi-tech, cheap and portable WMDs. Most experts feel that there is a significant chance that some terrorist is going to launch a mass-casualty attack against some vital city, sometime in the not to distant future. It will be interesting to see how our finely balanced global political economy will handle this kind of shock.
Instead our ideologists prefer to indulge in the rhetoric of moral vanity, preening and priding themselves on their special worthiness. To paraphrase Dr Knopfelmacher, with apologies to Sydney Hook, the slogan of the ritualistic libertarians is: “Moral Rhetoric, Yes! Social Analysis, No!”.
“pragmatic level”
Who defines it? And how are they accountable?
Nic, I’m part of Australia’s ruling political-industrial-defence-technology establishment. I’m also a promiscious and drugging and boozing agnostic. In short, I’m everything Al- Queda are supposed to hate. Plus I live in Melbourne and commute to the CBD every weekday. I’m also a fat and slow moving coward.
So I’d support any measure that I think would keep my skin from becoming a knotted flesh rug. But these new “anti-terror” measures, as far as I can see, will do bugger all practically to actually lessen the possibility of me being killed. However they do allow our current Fed Gov to vogue a bit in the hope you’ll look at this mock issue instead of over there.
These new laws will do nothing to stop some pyschotic loser in a white windowless vane (Hey, there’s Ca ream remix in htere) from yanking the handbrake halfway across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and then clicking on something full of fertilizer and various oxidants, and with an isotope cylinder or two (empty or not – it doesn’t matter. Once they identify out of the debris what it could contain, then it’s the thought that counts.)
And who ever could do this would well be a seriously deep undercover committed Islamic terrorist, a home grown psycho like Timothy McVeigh or someone or something just fucking with our heads fo pleasure and/or profit.
Anyone wanna point me to one bit of Howard’s new law package which makes any of the murderous fools and scenerios above less likely.
OK,I was pissed during this para. It should read
…in a white van without windows (Hey, there‚Äôs a Cream remix in there) ..
Now that, Nabs, is the stuff I want to discuss, rather than the ideological hackery. Just not at alomst 3am.
This one’s for the Evil Pundit. Pure evil >>>
.
Nabakov says: September 13th, 2005 at 3:55 am
Nabakov persists in seeing any serious attempt by the government to constrain terroristic tendencies in the community as an updated version of “kicking the commie can”. Excepting that the can is now prominently labelled with “person of Middle Eastern/Islamic appearance”.
He appears to have not got his head aroung the revelations contained in the Verona files, which prove that nests of communist spies did in fact exist and were in fact plotting to undermine the state. His kind of anti-anti argument, in any case, has a rather naive and threadbare appearance after the WTC attacks, Bali Bombings and Tube Bombings etc.
I dont see much risk of these laws empowering the tyranny of Big Brother. Orwell, it turns out, was not so prescient about these things. If anything society is heading in the opposite direction, with cheap mobile technology unleashing the anarchy of Little Cousins.
Still, Nabakov has a point. Terrorism is, to a great extent, an undetectable and undeterrable security threat. So many detective and deterrent actions have a desperate, hammer-seeking-nails look about them. We should of course follow one maxim, which is to do no further harm ie invade Arabic states in the vain attempt to make them over in our image.
As I said above, the new anti-terror laws have both a political and policy aspect. They certainly make it look like the government is “doing something about the problem”. Which is what counts politically when the inevitable attack occurs and the inevitable bout of hindsighting and recriminations begins.
More seriously, I think that the laws have been put on the books as a signal to certain members of certain ethnic communities to “pull your heads in”, “we are watching you”, “take one too many steps out of line and we will come down on you and your mates like a ton of bricks” etc. I expect they hope this will be a crude, but probably effective, prophylactic to constrain sensible members of these communities from offering any support to ratbags and extremists within their midst.
The Wets and their “clientele” need a wake up call to rouse them from the dogmatic slumbers that have enveloped them this past generation. These laws send a signal to the self-indulgent that the community regards citizenship as a right that is not to be taken lightly. Having the state turn its cold eye of supervision on certain kinds of activity may be just the thing to cool off some of the hot heads and their enablers.
Most members of ethnic communities would prefer to stay in this worlds Surfers Paradise rather than risk it all to help one of their kin take a short-cut to that other-worldly Paradise.
Nic, you havent raised a single substative point yet. You just assert that everything will be ok, and that people with objections must be “ideological”.
Id suggest that you’ve got it all arse-about. These proposed laws are the symbolic, ideological acts to garner votes, which will do zero to make use more secure. Where you want to head, as a ‘pragmatist’, is where Id like to see Howard priorities going: into more resources for intelligence gathering. Nothing else will make us more secure against a determined local terrorist. Nothing.
Detention without charge will simply erode public confidence in the very instituions we are allegedly determined to protect, for no positive security gain. Whats the point of it? If ASIO or the cops have enough evidence to want to detain someone, then charge them; or, if they dont, surveill them 24/7 till they do. This is where resources are important.
If you detain them without enough evidence – you’ll eventually just have to release them. Any charges will be thrown out for lack of evidence. If you hadn’t changed the laws – they could have been charged and jailed. This is daft rubbish at every level. The whole things adds no value, makes the legal process harder, not easier – AND heads us in the direction of a authoriatarianism which IMHO, represents a abject surrender to a few hundred terrorists.
A Zero value proposal.
Hang on – not quite true – Howard thinks it may just distract us all from the Telstra debacle, and may yet be useful in the 07 election as a wedge.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: dog-whistling protects us from terrorism.
OK, quit joshing. You’re really “MarkL, Canberra” aren’t you? Your writing has all the worldly sophistication of a high school politics essay.
Strocchi:
As do I, Jack, on the quite reasonable grounds that that’s exactly what the Government is doing.
The Government isn’t trying to constrain terroristic tendencies. If they were, they’d be further restricting the sale of nitrogen fertilizers, industrial bleaches, strong acids, glycerines, and the rest of the bomb-makers’ chemistry kit. They’d be increasing funding to intelligence services’ foreign language and translation arms. They’d be refusing to release known neo-Nazis who’ve actually tried to burn synagogues.
Are they? No. They’re deporting pot-smoking lefty Americans and instituting detainment without charge.
It’s not just kicking the can, it’s drop-punting it.
Which of us is the New Left and which is the New Right?
I prefer to think of myself as the New Idea, or possibly the New New Thing.
Jackerstrocchi is, of course, the New Statesman.
don’t forget liam – you’re also a ‘ritualistic libertarian’
do you know our secret handshake?
Yeah, Jase, I’m quite proud of that one. Haiku Hogan, you’re ONE OF US! It’s like the good ol’ days when Jack used to call me “Sir Fyodor”, or “Count Fyodor”. The humourless varlet knew his place back then.
Anybody want to run a book on “Jackerstrocchi Bingo”? The pot pays out when Jack refers to himself in the third person.
Fyodor says: September 13th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Close, but no cigar. “Dog whistling” may get the more effective anti-terrorist government re-elected. But this is the, less-important, political side of the equation. In any case the ALP appears to have got the message from the community and occasionally attempts to outflank the L/NP to the Right on this issue.
But “dog whistling” is only required because the more foolish and self-righteous Wets – Fyodor being a classic specimen – have made straight talking about ethnic politics unmentionable in polite company. So analysts must resort to code words and euphemisms just to get the topic mentioned. This can only end in tears.
The, more-important, policy side of the equation is to encourage ethnics to integrate into the national community, rather than segregate into tribal ghettos. This should be done by whatever combination of sticks and carrots is most effective, inclusing anti-terror laws.
But our foolish and vainglorious Wets have been forcing the polity in the opposite direction this past generation – towards multicultural seperatism. The terminus for which arrives at places like “Londonistan”. Of course most commenters accross the ideological divide – foolish and frivolous Fyodor types aside – have wised up and are getting onto the program. Better late than never.
If I were as accomplished as Conquest I might, as he did in a similar context, add a post-script to that episode: “I told you so you fu*king fools”. But that would be, in any case, uncivilised, unproductive and vindictive.
Instead I will simply observe that for Fyodor – a person who thinks it is side splittingly funny to repeat the same puerile jokes (“Shorter…”, “Aunty…”) ad infinitum – to accuse me of making adolescent and unworldly comments is a bit rich. Me thinks he project-eth too much.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: Fyodor’s right, but sooo immature.
Are you really calling yourself an analyst, Auntie Jack? You think you’re living out a Tom Clancy novel, don’t you? Unfortunately, the reality is more Tom Holt.
/splits sides
Jack, the London bombers were English-speaking, British-born and as ‘integrated’ as anyone could hope for them to be.
“”Dog whistling” may get the more effective anti-terrorist government re-elected.”
I very much doubt it Jack. The problem with politicising these security issues, as we’ve just seen with George Bush, is that you take your eye of the ball in terms of hard, competent, resources policy outcomes and planning – in favour of spin, dig-whistling, flag-salutin, empty symbolic rubbish.
Then when there’s a problem, its pants-down, whoops-Im -on-holiday, but its ok, ive put incompetent mates in charge of a fat govt contract and they’re permanently out to lunch.
Its all about photo ops and electoral wedging for this lot. No wonder the right got booted out of office whenever the only time a real war threatened our shores. Basically, people want a independent Curtin, not a Menzies imperial sycophant in that circumstance.
Fyodor says: September 13th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Half-right. Fyodor is wrong about the toxic nexus between cultural identity and national security – and I told him so. Many times, in fact. And now the London bombings have vindicated my critique, chapter and verse. It doesn’t come any better than that.
But Fyodor’s head is so thick – bloated with self-inflating ego? – that apparently the message takes quite a while to get through. He reminds me of one of those annoying little dogs that aspiring models take on the Bondi-to-Bronte walk. When the muts are not wasting your time by snapping at your heels they are wasting their time in the futile pursuit of auto-fellatio.
No. I of all people, could hardly be accused of not being inclined to “straight talking about ethnic politics” and “resort[ing] to code words and euphemisms just to get the topic [of alien ethnicity and national integrity] mentioned”. Therefore I could not be one of those “analysts” to whom I refer. Really, Fyodor’s logical comprehension skills are abysmal.
Fyodor knows quite well that I usually refer to myself, and others, as a “commenter” because…thats what we are. Duh!
The “analysts” are those who are paid by the state to do this sort of thing full-time. But they have been too intimidated by the mounds of pee-cee bs churned out by their status-anxious Wet cohorts to speak frankly and fully about real problems. So the Wets give ethnic lobbies a free pass and their misfit progeny are free to go about their atrocious business unmolested.
And those that do go through the ball-busting, and career-degrading, business of setting things straight get demonised for their troubles. Or are greeted by idiotic repetition of phrases like “dog whistle”, “wedge politics” etc.
But those days are over. Most competent members of the liberal cultural elite – commenters and analysts alike – have tumbled to that fact. The populus is sure onside. I wonder if Fyodor will be the last to hear the penny drop?
liam hogan says: September 13th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
This kind of clueless comment shows just how far cultural elites have to go to grasp basic civic concepts, not to mention complicated policy issues. How can anyone who proclaims a superior loyalty to an extremist sect, or a foreign state, be called “integrated”? This is a contradiction in terms.
That they were “English-speaking” and “British-born” speaks only of their geographical origin, not their ideological destiny. That hardly implies civil integration.
Integration is as integration does. If one obeys the law, mixes without ones clan and performs civic duties then one is integrated. The London bombers were conspicuously delinquent in those activities. Therefore they were not integrated. They were, in fact, segregated and encouraged to do so by Wet multiculturalists.
Why should we be surprised when they take the ideology seriously and go the whole way?
When did Liam join the cultural elite? Is it the beret that gives it away?
“They were, in fact, segregated and encouraged to do so by Wet multiculturalists.
Why should we be surprised when they take the ideology seriously and go the whole way? ”
The shorter Jack Strocchi: It’s all society’s fault! They weren’t personally responsible
Thank goodness, Jack, that the London bombings have vindicated your critique of multiculturalism. It seems that people really just can’t get along at all. Difference is irreconcilable and the only solution is State enforcement.
/sarcasm
I jst heard on the radio that Rudoock is implying this yank is involved in violent protests.
If this is the case then present the evidence.
If it is true good riddance however if it isn’t then ?
Shorter Jack Strocchi: Multiculturalism is bad. I’m right because everybody [i.e. a couple of op ed journos] agrees with me. Fyodor is a stupid big-head.
Yes, Auntie Jack, that’s hardly not straight talking indeed. Actually, as has been demonstrated oh so many times, you couldn’t talk straight in geometry and you actually make up your own euphemisms. You similarly can’t talk about politics without ranting hysterically over this straw man called multiculturalism. So, as it happens, the dunce cap fits you too well, Auntie.
As for logical comprehension skills, you may recall that a question mark usually follows a question, not a statement.
Welcome to the cultural elite, Liam. Pass the towel.
/spends penny
What’s happened to Evil Pundit?
I’ve got some recent evidence of nonviolent direct action for him:
Hi All.
Well we had a lot of fun in Brisbane this morning.
Act 1:
About 40 of us went up to visit the Australian Federal Police. We wore gags over our mouths, and lined up in neat single file down the hill from their entrance door, intending to go inside one by one and surrender ourselves as potential security threats.
There was no life to be seen in the AFP building. The glass doors were locked shut. We knocked on the door. We rang the intercom and offered to surrender ourselves as potential threats to national security, but noone was interested. We rang several AFP phone numbers, without getting any response. Qld police watched from a distance. Channel 10 TV, Triple J and some indy media turned up. We shared a few activist stories about current struggles and past victories, then decided that as nothing much was happening we needed a Plan B.
Act 2:
Since the AFP didn’t seem interested we decided to pop down to the department of immigration to ask them why Scott was in custody.
About 30 of us went up to the DIMIA customer service area on the 13th floor and tried to make appointments to talk to someone about Scott’s case. Other DIMIA business kept on going around us. We sat down in the waiting area, explained to the other customers why we were there, and then started telling stories again. Meanwhile we communicated a demand that a manager come and explain to us why Scott has been detained.
The Deputy State Director – Hamish Lindsay – agreed to talk to us if we left their customer area and went outside, which we did. When we were outside he told us he couldn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know! So we asked him to ring the Minister and get more info for us. We went back into the foyer of the building, but Police prevented us from going back up to the 13th floor.
While Hamish was making enquiries we held a campaign strategy meeting.
An hour later Hamish came down and made a statement to the effect that:
* DIMIA was acting on instructions from a security agency;
* When a security agency tells DIMIA to cancel someone’s visa then DIMIA has to do it;
* We need to ask the Attorney General’s office why Scott is deemed a secutiy risk.
We then left DIMIA.
A few comments:
* We were succesful in holding the most senior immigration official in Brisbane accountable.
* We maintained good group process throughout – made solid consense decisions as we went along.
* Qld Police acted well.
* We got very little media (TV). Presumably they are only interested in argy bargy.
Any comments from others who were there?
Michael Martin
Are you there EP? Are you getting it yet about what is meant by nonviolent direct action? Hmmm?
(I don’t have Martin’s permission to crosspost this, but I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.)
Nic,
“Firstly, if laws are necessary, they are necessary, I dont see how that is so hard to understand.”
# Um, Mostly because it’s a meaningless statement.
By what metric do you make this claim of neccessity?
Who says they are neccessary?
If they are neccesary, why has it taken FOUR YEARS since 9/11 to implement?
“The only argument here is what people think is necessary, not some ideological standpoint they happen to have – its a solely pragmatic discussion. People who cant see that, well…”
# BWAHHAHAHAHAHAH! And, yeah right, Governments never make decisions based on the ideaology but on their pragmatic and realistic relationship to truth! Come on, Nic!
“Secondly: The laws have not actually been written yet, just some airy-fairy ideas from politicians. They are very vauge because details dont actulaly exist yet.”
# ..or they’re vague because they were trotted out to divert attention from the Telstra insider trading thingo.
“Thats why I say they could be abused (and even when written they can be. come on, ALL laws can be abused). If the necessary laws are written and regulated to hell with appropriate safeguards are installed, then abuse is unlikely to happen. If it happens anyway, we jump on them.”
# Err, what about a stitch in time saving nine?
You can’t seriously be advocating that non-thought through laws should be released, surely?
“Thirdly: I never said I completely trusted the government and that suspicion was a crap idea, youre making a strawman.”
# It was implicit in your posting. You said that it wasn’t a draconian law but it could be used in a draconian fashion ergo you were trusting the government to not be draconian.
“But I think paranoia is counter-productive.”
# Well, you have consistently proven yourself to be The Voice of Reason.
Can I borrow your wallet, by the way?
Hi Nic,
Here’s an essay topic for you:
Part 1: How much of a threat is terrorism in Australia?
Part 2: And how do the laws passed since 2001 counter the threat?
Part 3: Since the first intention of terrorism is to disrupt the target society and turn it against itself, have these laws served the target country or terrorism more?
Feel free to use both sides of the paper.
I’m serious: I want to know your position.
big hugs,
harry
Second essay topic for Nic White.
“Since ‘The ends justifies the means’ is the justification for Eugenics, Communism and the action of cults, should this line of argument be used if you want to be taken seriously?”
Discuss.
“I dont agree with that blanket statement.”
# That would be because you don’t understand it.
“Its not going to rip the fabric of the country apart and it might just save us from a terrorist attack which could affect many people.”
# So will electronically tagging everyone in Australia, Nic. Pragmatic? Yes. Acceptable? No.
“If applied conservatively and prudently, it could be very useful.”
# Exibit B in Nic naively trusting the government.
“Having a dogmatic ideological stand on something like dentention without charge (which is hardly radical) really does ignore all practical reasons for its use and shut down any rational discussion because you absolutely wont hear that “leftist” values are less important than necessity.
# This ‘dogmatic idealogical stand’ is what societies are based on. If anyone is ‘missing the point’ it is you Nic.
“At least thats the way it seems.”
# It seems that way because you haven’t thought about it.
“I think its sad tbh.”
# I think you’re a patronising know-nothing. Nice of you to editorialise in a discussion about pragmatism when you are also a champion of journalistic integrity.
“That said, I dont think life will change very much under these new laws anyway, especially if they are used prudently.”
# Exhibit C in Nic naively trusting the government.
“Lets debate whats necessary on a pragmatic level then. Thats the only discussion, in my mind, thats relevant.”
“Now that, Nabs, is the stuff I want to discuss, rather than the ideological hackery. Just not at alomst 3am.”
# Please start your pragmatic discussion. I trust that your “If laws are necessary, then they are neccesary” was not the start of it. I have seen nothing so far that is anything more than an unsupported assertion. I wait with bated breath.
Hands up all who are for detention without charge. C’mon, be open and honest about it.
Harry, that was a pretty silly exercise in exageration from you.
Im arguing that ideology is irrelevant to the discussion, because this is and should be a purely pragmatic decision. If the laws are necessary then they should be implemented, if they arent, then they should not be. I think portions of this legislation are necessary because they could concievebly prevent or help to prevent terrorist attacks and/or the arrest of terrorists after the fact.
Ive made a couple of posts pointing out the flaws and silliness of some of the proposals to date, though until the details are drawn up its hard to accurately say much. I dont think quite a few aspects of the legislation are necessary, but they are far from excessive or “draconian”, which is just hyperbole. Why have they taken 4 years? Well we did get a lot of new terror laws before, but the government is upgrading them now because it has a senate majority.
“You can‚Äôt seriously be advocating that non-thought through laws should be released, surely?”
Whatever gave you that idea? Im asking for the opposite – very well thought through laws that still achieve the necessary goals without being unworkable or excessive. Its the same with any law, obviously.
“You said that it wasn‚Äôt a draconian law but it could be used in a draconian fashion ergo you were trusting the government to not be draconian.”
Unless you think ALP Premiers are just as bad, then surely they would be a moderating influence? I also doubt the government is doing this for sport. They genuinely think these are needed, and some of them are.
“Can I borrow your wallet, by the way?”
No.
LE: Im with you on the greater need for increased funding for intelligence, but it doesnt have to be an either-or situation.
I suggest you read and consider Tim Dunlop’s post on this, Nic.
What’s ideology got to do with it? Well such things as the presumption of innocence and due process which are at the heart of liberalism are worth fighting for.
If EP is correct that terrorism is a tactic and not an enemy (and he is), and therefore if the struggle is ideological, how ever do we “win” if we fold our hand immediately and accept some sort of authoritarian statist regime?
Please explain.
These laws are bullshit pragmatically. As was argued in the Fin today, putting the fear of ASIO into people is likely to lead to less rather than more intelligence gathering. And making it illegal to leave your bag on the train? Hello?
The sedition/inciting terrorism provisions are likely just to be cover for harrassing particular individuals and groups.
Anyway, I’m yet to hear your offer any pragmatic defence of the proposals.
Mark: Thats because I haven’t, really. Quite a few of them are unnecessary and pretty stupid. All Ive been arguing this entire thread is that it needs to be based on pragmatism rather than ideology. As I said in a couple of posts at my blog, all but the CCTV idea are either flawed or downright useless and unnecessary.
And saying that presumption of innocence and due process are worth fighting for because they are “at the heart of liberalism” instead of actually just being good ideas, I think is a misplaced priority.
I’m presuming that liberal democracy is a good idea, Nic.
It just seemed like one of those “my ideology is more important than anything else” statements.
Nic, I don’t know what you think ideology is. If you can’t see that principles underpin the sort of society we have or wish to have – that is to say a liberal society – I don’t know what criteria you have for judging.
I just think said principles sometimes need to be reassesed and even compromised where necessary if there is a great enough need. In this case there probably isnt, but Im uncomfortable with the idea that these principles override everything else all the time.
Nic, either you want to live in a liberal society or you don’t. You can’t just say – well maybe these principles aren’t sacrosanct without any thought given to why – because in effect you are accepting an authoritarian model of government (the government can be trusted to make the pragmatic call for our security) without articulating the principles on which that acceptance too is based.
Oh and I agree with the main points of Tim’s post.
Mark I dont think the distinction between the two models is as black and white as that. I think you can still have a liberal democracy and still allow the elected government to make pragmatic decisions that might rub against some of its principles when absolutely necessary, without suddenly switching to authoritarianism. Like I said, they need a good case to do that, but I think making it out of the question might do more harm than good.
Detention without charge – and criminalising speech – is not a small thing, Nic.
I take it then that you dont support the religious/racial vilification laws?
I’ve always said I was ambivalent about them, and we had to be very cautious about them, Nic. See a Troppo post in November/December for more.
I do observe that it’s very interesting that those who decried the end of free speech on that issue are utterly silent when it comes to the question of criminalising “terrorist” speech. Telling.
Oh I think we need to be cautious about anything like that. Very, very cautious. Im more of the opinion that we cant allow either vilification or inciting violence to be allowed, but how to do this is very problematic. Howard’s proposal, at this stage, looks totally unworkable and open to abuse.
So where would you draw the line, Nic?
?
??
comment disabled owing to a blog allegy to some URL
Email it to me and I’ll post it for you, Jack, if you like.
mbahnisch at gmail dot com
Fyodor says: September 13th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Actually a large and diverse group of people are having a serious rethink about the idea of turning a united nation into a confederation of squabbling tribes. Fyodor can add, to his few, the many liberal-left journos, leading figures in both major political parties and a growing minority of the populus (not a majority due to Wets mendaciously conflating the bad idea of multiculturalism with the good idea of multiracialism) to the swelling chorus of naysayers. But readers must recall that Fyodor lives in a solipsistic universe where other peoples brute facts count for naught against Fyodors precious feelings.
Nice try at a bait and switch. First, fallaciously allege that I am a, self-described, euphemistic “analyst”. Then when the fallacy is exposed switch to a spurious criticism based on a bad pun about grammar. Use of subjunctive clauses and parentheses is not crooked thinking, merely complex usage. [Note to self: go easy on Fyodor's overtaxed synapses.]
No, the record shows that it is Fyodor, not Jack, who is the chronic abuser of logic. A check of google brings up, perhaps, 24 occasions where Jack has had to clean up one of Fyodor’s little illogical messes. It looks like Fyodor has fallen into the trap of believing his own press releases.
I have always made a point of talking straight about the realities of multicultural policies and ethnic politics. This has certainly drawn fire from the more dissembling and posturing sections of the cyber grandstand, a fact of which I am proud. The Wets can be relied onto either ignore the subject altogether or tell a pack of lies based on ideological fantasies before mounting the pulpit to continue the bully sermon.
And if Fyodor was not such a semi-literate fool he would know that one coins neologisms, not “euphemisms”. It is folly squared to make this blunder in the course of a supposed comprehension correction.
It would help if Fyodor would specify literal context. In any case, question marks are not absolutely necessary when making rhetorical questions. One can disable irony alerts as a tribute to the savvy reader, although this is a reckless thing to do with a bonehead like Fyodor.
On which issue specifically, Kim.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: here are some dud links to a couple of other people who I think think like me. Plus some survey data which doesn’t mean what I think it means. I google Fyodor a lot. I’m a bit obsessed with him.
Auntie Jack, coupla points: a question can’t be a fallacy; your use of grammar isn’t complex, it’s bizarre; every single one of your google-fu “fallacies” only highlights your incompetence in logic and the English language; yes, you’re a nutter fixated on this “multiculturalism” strawman; you’re the one who used the term euphemism – there were no Stroppy neologisms involved [mercifully] that time; and just to repeat for your benefit, ‘cos you’re a slow learner: a question mark signifies a question, not a statement or a “fallacy”. Next?
/wets
Jack & Fyodor I love you both so stop acting like kiddies.
leave that to me!
Well, Im now completely reassured by the government actions in this case.
Turns out the seppo bastard was encouraging “spirited actions”. That’s it mate, you’re out!
All above board then. Goodo. Sorry I raised concerns.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/protest-advice-led-to-us-activists-detention/2005/09/13/1126377315072.html
Ooh, ICKY! That takes the cake for bizarre love triangle. Don’t get your knickers in a bunch, Homey. Any post now Auntie Jack will declare himself far above such tomfoolery. He has a reputation to defend, you understand. It just won’t do to have people thinking he’s an obsessive buffoon. For me, OTOH, it’s expected.
If they’re worried about spirited actions, they might like to check out the bright young things in Darling Harbour of a Friday night. There’s a lot of spirits action—mostly starting as a noisy protest in the stomach, rising quickly and exploding in a disgraceful public display.
Deport ‘em all I say.
Nic, the line between security and liberty.
I do observe that it‚Äôs very interesting that those who decried the end of free speech on that issue are utterly silent when it comes to the question of criminalising “terrorist” speech.
The difference is that terrorist speech directly incites violence.
Laws which ban mere “vilification” or “ridicule”(!) suppress the expression of opinion, and this is not acceptable in a democracy.
Laws which ban the direct incitement of violence are qualitatively different, since their object is to prevent an actual harm, as opposed to a vague feeling.
EP, the Pastors you so vociferously defended suggested burning down mosques, as I recall. That’s inciting violence.
Anyway, you have no understanding of that the new laws will do. It’s always been a crime for A to incite B to commit violence against C. These laws will make it illegal for A to create a climate where B goes off independently and commits violence against C.
That’s a very different kettle of fish.
The other obvious problem is that this will drive discussion of issues in the Islamic Community underground, making it less likely that moderate voices will prevail, and hampering intelligence efforts.
If they have any effect at all, beyond dog-whistling and inciting fear, it’s most likely to be increasing the risk of terrorism.
What Mark just said.
Except to note that I suspect the laws have no other intended purpose beyond dog-whistling and inciting fear.
Nic,
“Oh I think we need to be cautious about anything like that. Very, very cautious.”
# But I thought you said paranoia was useless.
Why won’t you let me borrow your wallet? Not paranoia of what I’ll do with it, I hope.
harry 1: Nic 0
You didn’t mention my examples of you naively trusting the government, so I assume you aren’t contesting them.
harry 2: Nic 0
“It just seemed like one of those “my ideology is more important than anything else” statements.”
followed by:
“I just think said principles sometimes need to be reassesed and even compromised where necessary if there is a great enough need.”
# Nic, you have no idea what ideaology is! Your take on ‘pragmatism’ is ideaological. Pragmatism is a tool. How that tool is used and what answers it will produce are ENTIRELY dependant on your ideaology. The way you refer to ‘pragmatism’ is ideaological.
The fact that you can’t see thia is why I’m taking you to task. You still haven’t answered Nabakov’s question: Who defines it [“”pragmatic level”}?
“In this case there probably isnt, but Im uncomfortable with the idea that these principles override everything else all the time.”
# Why? Would it be because your ideaological positon of ‘pragmatism’is in conflict with the ideaology of our society? Err, yes it would.
harry 3: Nic 0
“Harry, that was a pretty silly exercise in exageration from you.”
# No it’s not. It’s the sort of exercise you do to test your ideas before posting them. It’s how you find out if your position is (a) defendable and (b) complete.
Tracking the entire population is a pragmatic answer to finding out where anyone is at anyone time. Is it an acceptable response? Well, that will depend on your ideaology. Your ideaological stance on ‘pragmatism’ would say “YES”.
“Im arguing that ideology is irrelevant to the discussion, because this is and should be a purely pragmatic decision.”
# Yes I know that this is what you are arguing. It is fallacious because there is no such thing as pure pragmatism.
“If the laws are necessary then they should be implemented, if they arent, then they should not be.”
# You still think that a statement like this is not an ideaological position. Unbelievable.
“I think portions of this legislation are necessary because they could concievebly prevent or help to prevent terrorist attacks and/or the arrest of terrorists after the fact.”
# So would fitting everyone with a tracking device. Are you opposed to this or not?
“Whatever gave you that idea? Im asking for the opposite – very well thought through laws that still achieve the necessary goals without being unworkable or excessive.”
# Define ‘excessive’? I thought you said that issues of pragmatism override those of ideaology?!?! So there should be no proviso of ‘excess’, should there?
“Its the same with any law, obviously.”
# Laws reflect the ideaology of the society. You don’t seem to think this is the case. This is worrying.
In case you were wondering, Nic. I have set out to trip you up on your own words and make you look a fool. I have done this pragmatically.
I suggest you read (a) a dictionary, (b) history, (c) workings of government, (d) philosophy starting with the Greeks.
Ruminate for a while.
Then think before presenting yourself as a Voice of Reason in a forum where it is effortlessly easy to show otherwise.
One final note. You have previously articulated your ideaological stance on ‘pragmatism’ by the phrase “The end justifies the means”. My housemate pointed out that the ultimate exponents of this phrase are terrorists. And that crashing planes into buildings is the product of pragmatic thinking.
You might want to reconsider the use of this phrase and your slavish advocacy of ‘pragmatism’.
I am finished with you. You may go.
No Mark,
They didn’t at all.
Sorry, Homer, I had them confused with a Family First leaflet from last year.
I’ve never given those laws my endorsement by the way.
[quaking in my boots]
Is it safe to come out yet?
Actually, I wonder if this thread shouldn’t reach its end. I’ll leave it up til tomorrow in case anyone has anything further new to say, then close it if it’s still meandering along the same grooves.
burn it Mark
Mind you, it was worth churning through all that for Nabakov’s Cream aside… has kept me chuckling for the last hour.
Harry, that was pretty juvenile, so Im not going to respond to most of it. Youve missquoted me and misrepresented what I have been trying to say fairly severely. Its almost Boltish. You also like to insult my intelligence for no reason other than disagreement.
One thing, though, I am arguing against ideological principles always overriding practical considerations – as if they were sacred cows which could not be compromised to feed starving people. If the new terror laws are necessary, they should be implemented. If they are not, they should not be. Being excessive may solve the problem, but you dont hit a nail with a sledgehammer – which is what an authoritarian police state does. You do what is necessary and effective and nothing more. This is based on common sense, Harry, not ideology.
There, Ive pretty much addressed all of you points that werent downright silly.
Kim:
The ideal would be to make laws that are tightly regulated enough that the number of innocent people significantly adversely affected is very low, but are still able to be effective counter terrorism measures.
Sticking tracking devices on everyone, or holding them for longer than the federal constitution states, is (as above) like hitting a nail with a sledgehammer. The nail is not big enough to warrant these measures.
If you can write laws for, say, the inciting violence part that are detailed and regulated enough to have precise instructions to deal with every concieveable situation (there will be some missed, of course, so the laws also have to be flexible to deal with these, without leaving it open to abuse) so that only those who say things that are strongly aimed at inciting violence are affected. Obviously this would be a reasonably lengthy and careful process.
The CCTV idea adversely affects no one and is definately useful, even if just after the fact. Its a good one.
The line is basically the minimum damage to liberty by laws that deal with the problem as conservatively as possible – nothing more than is absolutely necessary.
as if they were sacred cows which could not be compromised to feed starving people
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Nic White – iconoclast extraordinaire! Turns sacred cow in yummy beef patty in no time at all!
… what that, Nic, you wonder why the pariahs run in horror?
“Harry, that was pretty juvenile, so Im not going to respond to most of it.”
# Oh, no it’s not. I can do juevenile if you want. If it was juvenile it would be easy to smack me down. QED.
“Youve missquoted me and misrepresented what I have been trying to say fairly severely. Its almost Boltish.”
# and the evidence is….?
“You also like to insult my intelligence for no reason other than disagreement.”
# Did the bad man make you cwy?
You’ve consistently insulted mine. eg calling my examples ’silly’ ‘juevenile’, saying ‘I’m adept at missing the point’ etc without actually putting up a refutation. Sure, say I’m silly but explain why. I explain mine.
“One thing, though, I am arguing against ideological principles always overriding practical considerations”
# ARARGH! Principles aren’t principles if they don’t hold firm. This is definition. Stop redefining established terms!
“as if they were sacred cows which could not be compromised to feed starving people.”
# Good example. Let’s say (and it’s easy to support) that obese kids are being nutritionally-abused by their parents and punish the parents accordingly…
Do you see the problem?
“If the new terror laws are necessary, they should be implemented. If they are not, they should not be.”
# WOW! What a stand. You are saying nothing here. What we (Mark, Kim, Nabakov and I) have been asking you is how we assess ‘neccesity’. That is one of the points you keep missing. There is no point saying “Things should be better!” without providing a plan for it to do so. Any guy with a keyboard can type “Things should be better!”, it simply begs the question “How?”
“Being excessive may solve the problem, but you dont hit a nail with a sledgehammer – which is what an authoritarian police state does.”
# Arrgh! And the only way you have posited to stop said sledgehammer is to trust the government to do the right thing.
“You do what is necessary and effective and nothing more. This is based on common sense, Harry, not ideology.”
# ARRGH! “Common sense” is ideaology! What I term ‘common sense’ is different to what Jason Soon terms ‘common sense’. ‘Common sense’ is TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON YOUR IDEAOLOGY.
“There, Ive pretty much addressed all of you points that werent downright silly.”
# (a) All of my points are relevant, none were silly.
(b) You haven’t addressed diddly-squat. All you have said is “No it’s not!”
Okay, Nic. Ignore everything else I have every written in the whole world if you want but answer me these two questions. Please.
1) Is walking in front of a bus common-sensical or logical?
2) A brilliant trail-blazing doctor commits rape. Do we let him get away with it because he will save the lives of hundreds of people if we don’t put him in gaol; or do we sling him in gaol for fifteen years because rape is an horrendous crime?
“Sticking tracking devices on everyone, or holding them for longer than the federal constitution states, is (as above) like hitting a nail with a sledgehammer. The nail is not big enough to warrant these measures.”
Errr. You are a master of cart before the horse thinking.
a) How do you know how big the terrorist problem is?
b) How do you judge the law’s success?
c) Why does it matter if it’s a sledgehammer if it works?
If it moves, float it on the stock exchange. If it doesn’t move, stick it in the CD player and listen to it. If it’s not Dylan, Phillip Glass, experimental jazz or early 20s blues, throw it away.
Nic, you might be interested in News from Nowhere’s writeup of Greg Sheridan:
Goodness me Liam, next you’ll be complaining that the Americans have abused prisoners at Gitmo. I mean come on, they’ve let the ones they can’t press charges against go, it only took two years. David Hicks must have done something. If they wait long enough they might even be able to come up with something to charge him with.
Fyodor says: September 14th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Yes, but Fyodor stupidly misconstrued my usage. I proved that I used the phrase “analysts…euphemism” in the second person. So Fyodor has made a pretty blatant solecism, confusing my valid observation about other peoples elliptical usages with my own novel usages. This blunder, and his transparent attempts to cover it up with bluster, mocks his pretensions to linguistic facility. All this tedious grammar flaming is wearying and one can be forgiven for sympathizing with Goethe:
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens.
I don’t google Fyodor a lot. Believe me I have better things to do with my time. I had the unenviable job of sorting through some of his intellectual garbage the other night, looking for the source of the bad smell. I approached the task with some trepidation, holding my search results out gingerly at arms-length, as if they were something the cat had brought in. I am not surprised that he doesn’t like having his nose rubbed in it.
I am some what less obsessed with Fyodor than vice-versa, proven by the fact that he is the one who tends to get personal, fastest and nastiest. I usually let him have the last word in deference to his catty sensibilities.
The BBC survey data I quoted means exactly what I said it means. Public opposition to the, mendaciously advertised and tendentiously construed, policy of multiculturalism is large and growing in the UK. It is no secret that multicultural industrialists have used the term in an ambivalent way, in order to gull well-meaning people.
If I am a nutter then I share a cell in a pretty massive and impressive asylum. Focusing on the politics of the Culture War is not some weird eccentricity on the part of the present commenter, it is the main focus of most competent political sociologists. Birrell et al have shown that it goes to the heart of the current shape of partisan alignment in AUS federal politics. Keating’s championship of these issues led the Labor party to a historic defeat. The Hanson phenomenon shows the explosive political power cultural identity issues.
Birrell’s research shows that public reaction to Wet cultural policies, including multiculturalism, is one of the key factors driving the Howard governments success. The publics aversion to ethnic interest group politics is based on real sociological experience, not some mere ideological whim:
Thus elitist ethnic identity politics is bring forth a nativist backlash.
The ALP’s reliance on ethnic identity politics is strengthening the position of machine apparatchiks but is weakening the party as a whole. It is leading it to the ALP’s electoral stagnation, at least at the federal level. Birell explains how bad cultural policy is leading to sad electoral politics.
Howard’s cultural populist politics have put the spotlight on the ALP’s corrupt factional structure and made the party of the working masses look like the party of the cultural elites and ethnic interests:
And the Culture War is hardly limited to Australia. The Red State v Blue State political divide is largely fought over issues of cultural identity. And the RoW has only called a cease fire to the Culture War whilst the Cold War was waged. Some fairly heavy duty thinkers – Kaplan, Huntington, Barber – have been putting out some pretty weighty tomes addressing the politics of the global Culture War. They have generally concluded, that since the petering out of the Cold War (~c 1985), there has been a profound shift in the focus of political conflict, which has moved from the politics of economic interest to ethnic identity.
The multicultural issue is bound to become more important with the advance of globalization. This means that national security concerns will increasingly intersects with cultural identity conflicts, as the Clash between Civilizations becomes the Clash within Civilizations. The London Bombings are a foretaste of this phase of conflict. This article by Joel Kotkin (another nutter?) highlights the perils that multicultural politics pose in an era of globalizing mega cities:
They will also need to institute measures that encourage immigrants to assimilate, such as fostering greater economic opportunity for newcomers or enforcing immersion in the national language and political institutions. Militant anti-Western Islamist agitation — actively supportive of al Qaeda, for example — also must be rooted out; it can be no more tolerated in Western cities today than overt support for Nazism should have been during World War II.
The common denominator in the politics of cultural conflict is irritated nationalism. I make no apologies for focusing on this issue. Ethnic based conflict has been far more lethal than economic based conflict, as the history of 20th C genocides indicates. And multicultural polities are right now the focus of the most lethal brands of political conflict. It would repay commenters and analysts to take this phenomenon more seriously. As Orwell said,
All this should be obvious to those who managed to notice the fundamental shift over the past decade. But certain commenters, Fyodor for example, have managed to blind themselves by absorbing their heads into a murkier fundament.
Well we’ll probably never know the reasons for it, but Mr Parkin is now on his way back to the US, having been deported this morning.
Huntingdon is a heavy thinker in about the same way the sausages I had for dinner last night emerged pretty heavily. ‘Clash of civilisations’? It’s just Cold War paranoia warmed up in the microwave.
Jack Strocchi, just because you’ve read Huntingdon and Orwell doesn’t make you an expert on multiculturalism, and it certainly doesn’t make you an expert on Labor Party factions. Multicultural policy and nationalism are two quite different things. Labor’s factions have nothing to do with either of them.
Except, I suppose, if you lie awake at night having nightmares about the ‘ethnic and cultural elite interests’.
Jack ,
let me be the first to say using solecism is absurd!!
Shorter Jack Strocchi: rambling incoherently is really persuasive. Just to prove I’m not obsessed with Fyodor I’m going to talk about him a lot.
What was the 13th bit again, Auntie Jack? It was something like “blah blah wets blah elites blah blah multiculturalism blah ethnic blah”.
P.S. Es war Schiller, unbeholfener Kasper. Mußt du immer der Dumme sein?
I think Jack was actually thinking of Goethe’s “A clever man commits no minor blunders” quote.
Or as Schopenhauer would say: “Yz pwned Jack!”
Jeez, Strop gets 97 theses posted, and I cant get 4 lines through today.
Fydrich, Ich denke daß Sie sein Gehirn gebrochen haben.
Lefty E, if you’re having trouble posting comments, email Rob Corr – robert at corr dot net dot au
Naturlich, Herr Linkshänder, obwohl ich muß es sagen, daß es ohne seine Hilfe unmoglich war.
Just ones longer than two lines Mark. Probably a good thing …..
That’s odd, Lefty E, can you please email Rob and let him know what happens when you try to post comments?
Ja, niemals in der geschichte von Blogheit, hat so wenig in so lang gesagt sein.
Ich haue mich ab von hier, sofort…
Jack Strocchi:
“They will also need to institute measures that encourage immigrants to assimilate, such as …enforcing immersion in the national language and political institutions”
Kill two birds with one stone – just prescribe the Paul Keating Insults Page as compulsory reading to all new immigrants
OK Mark… but could be a prob at my end.
Might I add to Jason’s Keating kitsch, suggest also compulsory ottering classes for those applying for permanent residency?
A national institution if ever there was one.
sounds like sauerkraut!
All I am saying is that ethnicity is clearly important in both biological endowments, societal arrangements, political alignments and fiscal disbursements. This is supported by the best science of the day, on the national (Birell) and global (Huntington) scales of investigation.
Properly managed, by national integrators, ethnic settlers can make a valuable contribution to a modern nation state. Improperly mangaged, by multicultural segregators, ethnic settlers can form ghettos, sects and possible centres of civil strife. This is the the terminus of the London Bombings.
It would seem to be a fair and reasonable to take precautions on both selecting and settling new citizens, to make sure they are diverse enought to provide the necessary variety, and uniform enough to fit in.
That, after all, is what evolution is about.
Ni-ic?
Jack understands neither multicultural policy, which is not at all about segregation, nor evolution science, which is not at all about human society.
This thread will never die! Bring on the triple-tonne!
No…
sleep…
’till Brooklyn!
Does anyone know if Missy Higgins is lesbian?
Shorter Fyodor: what Haiku Hoges said.
Is Scott Parkin a lipsniger?
Sociology
Always takes a back seat to
Smut and lipsnigers.
liam hogan says: September 19th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
liam hogan should be wary of lecturing people on subjects he knows nothing about. He must think that other people are as silly as the world view that he has willing suckered himself with. Most of what he has written so far has not risen much above the “not even wrong” level. Still, he has been blowing smoke at Fyodorian levels of silliness. So it will do no harm to make an example of him.
Multicultural policy is as multicultural policy does. The post war generation of West European ethnic migrants were not part of some multicultural experiment. Many were selected from the metropolitian, rather than provincial, parts of the Caucasian and Christian heartland – similar to where most Anglo-Celtic Australian nationals hailed from. And the Euro ethnics were settled as New Australians, on the understanding that integration, rather than segregation, was the right way to go.
Similarly, most of the more recent batch of East Asian have practiced a fairly vigorous form of informal integration, with the gals marrying into Australian households and the guys becoming corporate uber-nerds in Australian companies. No multiculturalism here, more like the Platonic ideal of mutual integration into a rational and moral community.
The “actual and existing” multicultural program is a racket run by the more moribund ethnic lobbies within the ALP and LP, in order to bolster flagging union and party memberships. As per the prescription of the ideology, there are migrant groups that have arrived in this country in the past generation that do, to a certain extent, continue practice their traditional ethnic cultural ways and attitudes.
This would, of course, include sectarianism, clannism and sexism. Hence the social results of some of these settlements are hardly inspiring. (A ghetto is an informal form of segregation, a kind of half way house to apartheid and the formal establishment of castes.) So these people and places are not frequently held up as poster polities for the multiculturalist program.
Liam Hodges’s knowledge of evolution science is equal to his knowledge of multicultural policy (0=0). The general theory of evolution is a meta-theory that seeks more or less abstract explanation of the process of selective change in organized systems over time.
The aim is to explain how a given ontology may diversify into several phylogenies. Or vice-versa. Some of the more ambitious scientists are developing applications of this theory accross a range of disciplines.
Society is an organized system alright. It follows that the shape of social variation and direction of changes can be explained, in principle, by reference to more specific evolutionary sub-theories. It seems that social evolution is driven by a combination of (Lamarckian) imprinting and (Darwinian) inheriting on various human sub-strates. The discipline of socio-biology has developed to account for this.
Only dogmatic Blank Slaters (eg Lysenko, Watson) insist that social evolution is only driven by culturally constructed attitudes. And only dogmatic Old Adamists (eg Mengele, Sumner) insist that social evolution is driven only by biologically conserved attributes.
It seems that the may of the commenters that frequent this blog are inclined to a soft-core form of cultural constructivism. Which ignorance explains the much difficulty they have in getting their heads around the fact that the evolution of human social systems necessarily depends, in part, on the heritability of natural attributes.
In short, human nature is real and has significant effects on human culture. It is time for smart-arse cultural professionals who pretend to educate us on science need to wise up. Just as the holier-than-thou cultural politicals in charge of settlement policy need a reality-check. Or else the lot of them will wind up being the laughing stock of the reality-based community. As some of the more extreme ones already are.
Jeez Strop, you do carry on.
IMHO, blog posts should have a three paragraph maximum. More leniency for the initial prompter post.
I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of multiculturalism Jack, and will willingly give away my chances at submitting a PhD dealing with the topic.
That’s the founding belief of all forms of racism, Jack. Just sayin’.
Pithed Strocchi:
“….should be wary of lecturing people….he has willing suckered himself… smoke…make an example of him…hardly inspiring…(0=0)…dogmatic…soft-core form…ignorance…difficulty they have in getting their heads around the fact… smart-arse cultural professionals…reality-check…laughing stock…as some of the more extreme ones already are.”
Although you make some points that are valid (and some that aren’t) Jack, less and less people feel like engaging with you about them because of the singularly long winded and sneering way in which you assemble and drop W. Heath Robinson-like neologisms from a great “my shit doesn’t stink up here” height online.
Why? I know that in the flesh, you’re a personable enough chap.
No wonder that “to do a strocchi” or “laying a strocchi” is now entering the blogosphere vernacular in some quarters. And not in a flattering way either.
C’mon Jack. Lighten up. Wit, grace and good humour are not enemies of good argument.
OK, now I’m back from a nice big meal and I’m ready to be really offended by you, Jack Strocchi.
The idea that multiculturalism produces ‘ghettoes’ is one of the oldest, bluntest and nastiest arguments in the monoculturist kitchen drawer. C’mon, bring out another one, it’s pretty full and I’m sure there’s a better one there.
Multiculturalism as a policy was developed in the 1960s and 1970s to get around the problem of alienation of new immigrants. Put Jean Martin’s The Migrant Presence and James Jupp’s Arrivals and Departures on your reading list. Assimilationist societies waste the talents of their immigrants, who quite reasonable decide they’re wanted elsewhere.
Human society has always been characterised by people drawing into their own groups. It’s called class, baby. I’m pretty sure if I turned up and applied for membership of the Melbourne Club or Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron they’d tell me I wasn’t eligible.
The idea that decent society requires assimilation to any norm totally violates any idea of individual liberty—even socialists like me feel a bit queasy at the ‘State says you must behave thus’ argument implicit in assimilationism. More importantly, it doesn’t work. If you base a society on the requirement that citizens behave in a certain way, the citizens who don’t are just going to get excluded. You can’t impose culture from above.
And that is the basic principle of multiculturalism Jack. Governments and States have to deal with the societies they have, not the ones they’d like.
Lefty, sorry for violating the three-paragraph rule. Mark, sorry for educating out of school.
Shorter Jack Strocchi: multiculturalism is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna git. Some are dark, some white. Some are soft on the inside, some fruity. Me, I’m definitely nutty.
Auntie Jack, if your genetic theories had any validity, you’d be a superficial, albeit charming, coward…
OK, two out of three ain’t bad, but you’re talking rubbish again.
Nabakov says: September 19th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Nabokov has made a number of points. One of them is valid. I will concede that many of my comments are far too long. This is poor style for the media, bad manners and can lead to unnecessary aggravation. I shall try to exercise a more economical editorial policy, starting from my next comment.
In mitigation I would like to draw Nabokov’s attention to certain aspects of commnentary on the explosive subject of ethnicity and politics, and related topics, which really annoy me. What moves me to copious commentary is not the intellectual issues raised in this thread, which have been more or less known and sorted out by competent scientists for a generation. It is the unbelievable frequency of silly and nasty commentary that, otherwise smart and nice, people come up with when they come accross this issue which mystifies and aggravates me.
There is a silly slap-dash ignorance of facts, and incompetence with logic on the part of cultural theorists and fellow travellers. Commenters in this area take the view that they can say what they feel, not what is the case. This usually results in a very high fact/fallacy ratio per adverese comment.
And there is a nasty automatic tendency on the part of one side of the debate – the pee-cee, multi-culti side obviously – to use the accusation of racism or bigotry as an argumentative tactic of first resort towards any person holding a view critical of their fashionable theories. This goes to the absurd extent of demonising a person who just defends, in principle, the validity of making group generalisations.
I am annoyed by these deformations. So I roll out the big guns of natural and social science in order to wipe out the last pockets of resistance. This, I realise, is taking a wheel to break a butterfly. I apologise for any unintentional offence caused.
Otherwise Nabokov’s points, which were made with his usual “wit, grace and good humour”, are a load of rubbish. I will put them out now.
Please specify. Wishy-washy, OTOH-OTO, generalisations leave me cold. And taking pot-shots from the undergrowth is not the way to fight like a man. These are attributes of Nabokov’s style that can be “the enemies of good argument”.
This thread is now 260~ odd comments long. Apparently, in part, because more and more people felt like having my “long winded and sneering…W. Heath Robinson-like neologisms” dropped “from a great…height” on them. I note, with reckless hubris, that wikipedia records the fact that the worlds best boffins had a soft spot for WHR’s novel constructions.
So perhaps Nabokov’s brick is an unintentional boquet.
Now and again I occasionally drop in a neologism, here and there. Notoriously the phrase cultural constructivism, because the opposite of a conservative is not a liberal. The term constructivism was actually first used, in the sense that I intend, by Hayek. Not exactly a dill when it came to the history of social thought.
I am only partially apologetic for this self-indulgence. It is obvious that, in some regards, the language of political thought in these areas is not quite right. The people defending the cultural theoretic (“multiculturalism” “deconstruction”) glass house are, in any case, the last people to be chucking stones at fellow neologisers.
As for my propensity for sneering, snide remarks, smart-arse comments, ahem…Hllo? Pot meet kettle. One gathers that this takes it as given that Nabokov, Fyodor, Condell, liam et al would never resort to such underhand tactics? Thats rich.
Fyodor says: September 19th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Fyodor cannot even get his cheap shots on target. As regards geneology, I am part Italian, part Scots-Irish. These are not “superficial” peoples. Has Fyodor forgotten the Rinascimento? the Scottish Enlightenment? He seems to set the bar on profound rather high, which is grotesquely at odds with his own practice.
The Scots-Irish are second to none in fighting prowess, at least where the formation of the British Empire was concerned. And I believe that persons of Italian extraction had ancestors who were once famous for their martial abilities.
I am not a genetic or biological determinist. This is a straw man construction, knocked together by intellectually incompetent, or morally iniquitous, Wets who are keen to blow smoke whilst making a dirty getaway.
I am a critic of cultural voluntarism or constructivism. A persons socio-biological embodiment depends on both their geneological endowment and their sociological environment. As regards the latter, as they say in the Mafia, “things change”.
This shows in national geneology: the nation that was notorious for its non-quests in North Africa also was glorious for its conquests at Vitorio-Veneto. In any case, Italy’s WWII record was mixed, owing to their ambivalent position about the whole thing. For one thing, the Italian Army at least showed up to the main game at the Russian Front. The Anglo armies did not. Nor did they cover themselves in glory in the fall of Singapore. So much in war depends on the luck of the game, fall of the dice.
In any case, my father (partisan), grand-father (Alpini) and maternal grand-uncle (Gallipoli, Flanders) were decorated war-heroes. I wonder – what did Nabokov’s father do during the war?
liam hogan says: September 19th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
No. It implies that Darwin was a racist or some doddery old fool. I dont think liam hogan is any position to make that kind of case against one of the nicest and smartest men of all time.
In any case, liam hogan was not “just sayin’” that. He was playing the racist card, which is standard practice of cultural constructivists to intimidate any form of socio-biological reasoning. Is it any wonder that I fail to be “lighten up” when confronted with this disgraceful tactic?
One could just as easily flip the ideo-logic behind that comment to argue that cultural constructivists are really retro-Lysenkoists or behaviourist brainwashers. Maybe they should all head off to their cultural homeland in North Korea. However most students of the socio-biological disciplines do not stoop to that level to conquer.
As a matter of scientific fact, the partial hereditarian position is mainstream in the psychology profession. So is liam hogan going to have the APA up on racial vilification charges?
But mainstream scholars dare not mention this too frequently in public. I wonder why. Not.
Go on Jack, call me a Stalinist. It’s half past nine in the morning. Make my fuckin’ day.
It is the foundational belief of all racism to believe that people have inherent societies into which they fit—and whining about ‘intimidation’ doesn’t change that. I’m yet to be convinced on the heritability of social attributes like IQ, but that’s neither here nor there.
You’re not arguing that IQ is inheritable, are you? You argued that social systems were partly inherited. Now if you want to keep arguing that, go ahead son, I won’t stop you. Just don’t whinge if people point out that that’s the foundation basis of ‘them’ and ‘us’ thinking.
Meanwhile, back in Pyongyang, Haiku Hoges sings plaintively over his kimchi:
I’m so ronery. So ronery.
So ronery and sadry arone.
Dere’s no one, just me onry,
sitting on my rittle throne.
I wook rearry hard and make up
great plans. But nobody listens,
no one understands…
Seems that no one takes me
SER-RI-ROUS-REEEEEEEEE…
And so… I’m rone-ry… A rittle
rone-ry… Poor rittle me.
========
Just kidding, sounds a bit more like “JackS, Pyongyang”, dunnit?