In 2004, Howard ran an election campaign based on the question: “Who do you trust?� The majority, it seems, trusted Howard more than they did Latham, although I think most people agree that this was a trust in their economic, rather than moral, qualities.
But in the wake of the National Emergency plan, I think it’s worth considering the importance of trusting our leaders to be truthful and honest, to always consider the well-being of the community foremost, and to base their decisions on rational, informed assessment; in other words, to trust them to not to base decisions of national importance on things like polling, cynicism or favours for mates.
In some of the initial debate, there’s a sense that some people’s views are dismissed because “you always hated Howard�. And yes, it’s true that this is not usually the best basis on which to make a judgement. However, on some level, there is way too much evidence, research, inside knowledge and personal experience for every single one of us to make a completely rational and informed assessment. That’s why we vote for governments, as opposed to having plebiscites on every single issue. We vote for people whose judgement we trust.
I don’t trust Howard. I don’t trust a man who lied about children being thrown overboard to make truthful claims about the extent, and causes, of a very serious problem.
I don’t trust a government that has in it a Health Minister who wants to enforce his ideology on my health decisions to properly enact a systematic, mandatory search for signs of abuse and STIs in young girls and boys.
I don’t trust a government that has allowed some of its members to express ambivalence about the role of faith in science education to claim that banning pornography and alcohol that is legal elsewhere will do anything to fix the problem.
That doesn’t mean I’m writing off the entire plan because of my distrust of the Howard Government. But I demand evidence and justification, and I am more insistent on it than I might be if I had a prior trust in their goodness and judgement. It is times like this that show why it’s important to not let cynicism about the character of politicians prevent us from still holding them to a higher standard. We should continue to demand that our leaders show decency and honesty, regardless of how often they let us down.
In genuine “national emergencies�, this trust is essential.
I don’t want this thread to be about the plan per se – I’d appreciate if discussion of that remained here. I am interested in a more generic debate about the role of trust and honesty in government.
This kind of relates to the discussion about motives in government.
At some level, I reckon trust still is important to voters; John Howard’s genius has been to convince a bunch of outer-suburban voters that he’s looking after their interests in a big bad scary world, even if he’s had to tell the odd little white lie to do it. Then came WorkChoices from out of nowhere, and his polls have been in the pooh ever since (and still are).
Anna, I think the thing is we all look at everything through the spectacles of our ideology and attitudes. I trust Howard for the most part because we share the same ideology. How else can we watch the same interview on 730 Report or read the same articles in the paper and come away with totally different viewpoints.
I don’t trust Howard not to cherrypick what he likes out of the report and out of what Noel Perason says and leave some of the other bits behind. Sure he’d ignore some of the things in the report that I’d be inclined to ignore as well.
Pearson says the whole thing of welfare reform etc in the communities should be linked with land rights. I’ve always had an objection to the idea of land rights but I trust Noel Pearson and maybe I need to let go on this issue rather than just listen to the bits I like to hear. The mess is really unbearable.
If this intervention leads to some improvement, Noel Pearson won’t end up Australian of the Year, he’ll be Australian of the century.
What I find distressing is the lack of moral fibre in the people who support a Government that they know, and may not admit to themselves, is discreditable, abase, covert, devious and etc; and won’t look past their own goodwill to bring such a Government to account.
Given that it is currently more likely that Rudd willbe the next Prime Minister than Howard, I wonder what sort of response will be seen on this site when Rudd’s Goverment starts doing similar political things to the current mob?
If you expect them to be different then you are wilfully ignoring human nature and the performance of the current State ALP Goverments.
Bollocks. Juvenile bollocks.
“I wonder what sort of response will be seen on this site when Rudd’s Goverment starts doing similar political things to the current mob?”
I once asked a Labor Party activist why he was so keen on seeing his party in power, given that the practical differences between the two sides, when in office, was slight.
“Because”, he said, “it’s easier to send letters of condemnation to your own party”.
I remember being quite shocked when Howard chose to run on trust at the last election. Shocked because that’s where I thought he was most vulnerable. Shows how much I know.
He doesn’t want ‘us’ to trust him and doesn’t care much what ‘we’ think about that. Anyone who is interested in debating the issue and whether it is the right approach, certainly isn’t the target group for the headlines created by stuff like this.
I don’t trust any of them. Except Andrew Bartlett.
Razor, “then you are wilfully ignoring human nature” I thought I stated the opposite, that ethics and morals for some take a lesser importance than self interest. . And, all these perfidious State Governments have dragged this country into peril?…That it?
Laura - you should qualify that with “only when he is sober”. When drunk he appears to be prone to theft and personal abuse. Although it doesn’t really matter as he has no power, has no decision making authority and won’t be there once his current term expires.
Razor, you annoy me, I guess it’s because not only are you not capable of forgiveness, it’s a Holier than Though attitude . Wonder what I’d find if I opened you cupboard door, any white bones in there?
Whom do you trust.
Thank-you.
Neither of the 2 main parties whomever currently fronts for them.
So far Bob Brown has been trustworthy.
And since reading Andrew Bartlett’s stuff he has earned at least a modicum of respect.
When you look over the sequence of events (see Son of Tampa - The Transcripts) from Martin Ferguson’s statement at 9.42am yesterday through to question time, it’s pretty obvious that the announcement was put together purely as a political and parliamentary tactic. That’s a new low.
As for trusting the Howard government to actually care about Indigenous Affairs and indigenous kids - does the phrase “Cubillo & Gantner v Commonwealth” ring any bells?
Would I trust this government? Only if I was a Liberal Party contributor in the ethanol for petrol business. Or someone of like kidney.
I don’t trust Howard. I haven’t for as long as I can remember and the other day I was asked by someone why I don’t trust him and I actually floundered to find a single coherent reason. There are so many little reasons that it took a while before my thoughts solidified on something.
In the end I realized that the reason that I don’t trust John Howard is that he is too fast to strip away people’s rights in order to solve the problem of the day. We’ve seen this in the last few days with the National Emergency Plan, we also saw it with the mandatory detention of refugees, WorkChoices, and the willingness to go along with all of the draconian anti-terror measures that the Bush administration rolled out.
I hope that Kevin Rudd won’t act in the same way. I’m not totally convinced that he wouldn’t, but I think the people around him will be less willing to put up with it than Howard’s gang.
Not to derail this thread, but I’m with Gummo and it feeds into what I was trying to say above. The National Emergency Plan smacks of policy on the fly and Howard’s reaction is always to restrict people’s rights and to act in an authoritarian fashion. People out there are calling it paternalist, it isn’t, it’s authoritarian.
I cannot trust someone who always thinks that the best approach to issues is to restrict liberties of anyone.
Anna Winter
What leads you to “think” this? I can assure you, I voted for Labor in 2004 (and Andrew Ridgeway in the Senate), but “moral qualities” had nothing to do with my decision. What “moral qualities” did Mark LAtham hold that would influence your decision to vote Labor?
Both Lib and Lab candidates in my electorate were impressive people - morally and policy wise.
What do you vote for? If it is “moral qualities” how do you assess such a thing? Do you look only at your local candidates? Or do you give each candidate a score out of 10 and average them?
Sorry, Zarquon. Torn between correct grammar and stealing Howard’s election slogan, I chose theft
I suspect that if ‘trust’ is wheeled out by Howard again this year then more people will judge this against the WorkChoices legislation; I suspect most punters weren’t expecting THAT when they were ‘trusting’ Howard to keep interest rates at record lows.
This latest “national emergency” looks like another Trojan horse, though we’ll have to wait and whether the Coalition’s typical slipshod attention to detail brings it all juddering to a halt. As a grateful nation looks to Howard to protect the children (while subjecting them to compulsory swabs), I wonder if it will notice the authoritarian precedents the proposed legislation sets.
It’s difficult to nail Howard as a liar - he’s too shrewd for that. But it’s like dealing with a dodgy second-hand car dealer: your trust is manipulated, and you somehow never quite end up with what you thought you had originally purchased.
Trust?
Howard’s have-hammer-see-nails solution to all problems is to confer more power on Howard. It was true for gun control, it was true for Tampa, it was true for the Murray-Darling, and it’s true for this.
The wedge is obvious.
To avoid the policy being racist and being thrown out of the courts as a breach of discrimination legislation, Howard now has to apply the policy to all families, not just Aboriginal families.
This means Rudd, who has already thrown his support behind the policy, must support its inevitable application to all families, or else he is espousing a racist policy.
Wedge 101.
And anybody who feels more comfortable at the idea of applying this policy to Aboriginal townships than they do about applying the same policy to all families should think very hard indeed about why they feel that way.
But he’s 100% behind Howard on this. I’m with Laura- I trust Prof Atkinson and others who have vested 40 years into issues of abuse in indigenous communities but I have zero faith in either major party doing anything other than what they think will get them (re-)elected.
Anna Winter on 22 June 2007 at 3:02 pm
But you trust Rudd as he did not lie about children overboard etc. Yet he agrees with Howard’s cultural policies. As does any one with half-a-brain and an ounce of moral concern.
I conclude that your “trust” epistemological principle is flawed as it stands.
Anna Winter says
That isounds fair and reasonable.
Howard has a good record on cultural policy: more institutional authority and less individual autonomy to moderate the behaviour of unruly minorities. A judicious dose of authoritarian nationalism is popular with the majority and is in the best interests of troubled minorities in the long run.
Gummo Trotsky on 22 June 2007 at 6:19 pm
“New low”? As opposed to the “old highs” of pig-ignorantly pursuing failed cultural policies and political structures for 30 years or so? Weber insisted that intelligence was the primary moral value in politics. By that standard the Left-liberal approach to indigenous affairs has been immoral for a generation.
Gummo Trotsky says:
Gunner not “Gantner”. The courts agreed with Howard on that one. Are they in on the kitchen cabinets political scheming too? Obviously this example of paternalism was not a total failure as Cubillo is 66 years of age, a ripe old age by the standards of his peers.
Gummo Trotsky says:
Like we should trust the Wets with their blizzard of political correct lies, socio-biological denialism, corrupt bureaucratic rackets, free-for-all cultural arrangements and perversely incentived welfare policies.
What a joke coming from a political push which apparently confuses hating Howard with caring for the downtrodden.
“But he’s 100% behind Howard on this.”
Su
No he is not. Go and read what he said. He said he is prepared to cooperate with the government, AFTER being given a full briefing on the details of Howard’s plan.
Have little more faith in Rudd’s intelligence and political skills, and a little less in Howard’s. Rudd has actually positioned himself nicely. If the plan fails (as it almost certainly will) then Rudd can blame the government. If it works, then he can claim he supported it.
Let us just wait and see what happens over the next few weeks and months, before we condemn Rudd out of hand, shall we?
No he doesn’t. The 1967 Referendum gave the Commonwealth the power to legislate in respect of the aboriginal race (prior to that the Commonweallth had the power to legislate in respect of races excluding aborigines). He just has to invoke the power granted to the Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum and the courts will uphold that legislation (maybe through gritted teeth).
However he should apply the policy to all families irrespective of race. If circumstances exist where childen are neglected or maltreated then the race/ethnicity/heritage/background/whatever of their parents is irrelevant to the responsibility of the community/society/government to afford them protection.
In fairness, Anna, this is a subject that has been so long a part of Australian concern, discussion and discourse that your opinion on what Howard proposes should not be informed by whether you trust him but whether in your judgement, informed by your knowledge of the issues at stake, the course he proposes is necessary and likely to be beneficial/effective. Yes, he has to make out his case but that’s what he has to do in all circumstances, and in this one there are a lot of people about who can provide informed comment to help us judge whether he has done so- unlike in the children overboard case.
“Howard’s have-hammer-see-nails solution to all problems…”
The old saying “When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” has its truths, to be sure (and seems rather popular on this site). But it might be also worth considering how often the reverse is true: When you’re a nail, maybe everything else starts to look like a hammer.
Just speculatin’.
Meantime, I don’t trust those damn CRUSADES.
Fortunately it’s not quite that simple. Australia signed up to the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination so that has a counter-effect to inhibit racially discriminatory legislation.
But I’m with you, GregM on the equal treatment thing. Let’s close all the pubs in Australia for 6 months.
There is some section of the Constitution that says that international conventions over-ride its express terms. Pray tell, which one? The High Court hasn’t seemed to notice it. Not even Justice Kirby, and God knows he has looked for it. Happily, however, having searched for such a term but not having found it, he has concluded that Australia’s obligations under international law are subsidiary to its rights and obligations under its own constitution.
If that turned out to be the government’s simplistic approach then I would agree with you.
As a drinker and Labor supporter I will make the sacrifice, close all the pubs.
Interesting to see what my mates say though…
Angharad
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Australia. The Australian government can do what it likes. Thankfully.
The “babies overboard” affair seems to dominate peoples impressions of Coalition dishonesty. To me, though, the most blatant act of dishonesty by the Howard team in the 2004 election was the claim that the coalition would match Latham’s free health care for the elderly. This was a pivotal claim in the election and consolidated the strong swing back to the government. Early 2005 Tony Abbott was interviewed on radio making the claim that the health care programme was not affordable because of cost “blowouts” that the government was not aware of when they made that claim, and therefore the scheme would not be honoured. Two sentences later in the same interview, when pressed, Abbott said that the government did, actually, know about the cost blowouts before the election and before making the promise, but were not going to honour the scheme anyway because it was unaffordable at 1.5 billion dollars. Then just a few months later Costello announced a record budget surplus of 15 billion dollars and quietly pocketed the money, along with the credit of being a good a economic manager.
If that is not dishonest then I do not know what dishonesty is. There is nothing that Howard can say that can be assumed to be true.
Huh? It’s not a principle, Jack. It’s just my personal feeling of trust towards someone.
GregM:
I think you’re slightly missing my point. What I was trying to do is point out the dangers of cynicism in politics - people giving in and saying “Oh well, we can’t trust any of them”. Usually that doesn’t matter too much, because, as you say, evidence, debate etc all get considered.
But it does matter a lot when the government tries to declare a state of emergency, or when there is a genuine emergency, where swift action is needed. In times like this it matters a lot that we can trust our leaders to, if not be always right, then at least act in the best way they know how, with the best intentions.
Anna writes:
“I am interested in a more generic debate about the role of trust and honesty in government.”
Given the complexity of the indigenous child abuse issue and both its political and policy implications, concern about the Howard Government’s motives should certainly “switch between” the elements and the system or aggregate, as strategic thinker Stuart Wells would say. It’s good that Anna has identified the need for synthesis, not just analysis, to be applied to this issue.
Other strategic thinkers, Adam Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff in their book ‘Co-Opetition’ (published 1996 by Doubleday), further add to the case for applying synthesis on Page 234:
“No game is an Island. Even so, people draw boundaries and divide the world up into many separate games. It’s easy to fall into the trap of analysing these separate games in isolation - imagining that there’s no larger game.”
Perhaps Matt Price sums up “the big game” when he describes John Howard’s actions this week as “belated and political, for sure, but nonetheless brave, sincere and proactive. For the first time in months, the PM is driving an issue rather than tailgating Rudd”.
In other words, there are implications caused by this indigenous child abuse issue that are ultimately not just about indigenous child abuse itself.
Anna also writes:
“There is way too much evidence, research, inside knowledge and personal experience for every single one of us to make a completely rational and informed assessment. That’s why we vote for governments, as opposed to having plebiscites on every single issue. We vote for people whose judgement we trust.”
Indeed, I developed an understanding from an International Marketing class last year that we do need to “trust power” to others, namely a central government, to make some decisions for us. So long as that concentration of power is “kept democratic”, we all potentially benefit by being connected with “the bigger game”…or bigger picture. Rather than be left to make decisions and judgments informed only by own experience.
However, democracy isn’t fool-proof and I do believe the issue of “strategic thinking” makes sense of this claim. In summary, without appropriate strategic thinking, a fool with a tool (like democracy) is still a fool.
It’s precisely because so much evidence, research, inside knowledge and personal experience exists “outside of our own” that we need to “take a risk” in trusting the judgment of others, the risk being that your trust will be manipulated, as ChrisGS suggested:
“It’s difficult to nail Howard as a liar - he’s too shrewd for that. But it’s like dealing with a dodgy second-hand car dealer: your trust is manipulated, and you somehow never quite end up with what you thought you had originally purchased.”
Indeed, by “trusting others to make sense of the big game”, you risk allowing them to break up the big game with the big picture into separate games with separate pictures, in a way that polarises issues and can disadvantage one’s self interest.
As Angharad suggests:
“He (John Howard) doesn’t want ‘us’ to trust him and doesn’t care much what ‘we’ think about that. Anyone who is interested in debating the issue and whether it is the right approach, certainly isn’t the target group for the headlines created by stuff like this.
This perspective begins to make sense of Brandenburger and Nalebuff’s theory that “the scope of context” each game has (the evidence, research, inside knowledge and personal experience), relative to one big game of life, will be “established or adjusted” according to attempts by “those trusted with power” to understand, play-off or change links between games.
This is why, “taking a position” on an issue, without necessarily seeing the links between games, can mean you trip over the links instead, as Brandenburger and Nalebuff say.
This provides me with reason not to be fooled by Jack Stroochi’s comment:
“What a joke coming from a political push which apparently confuses hating Howard with caring for the downtrodden”, an attempt by Jack to link two different games (dissent against John Howard and concern for social justice) which I am cynical about.
The conservatives are spending much of this election year painting the other side of politics as “aggressive application of power”, which has the ironic potential to “pacify” a person’s ability to “assert a position” that’s alternative to the Howard Government’s viewpoint (in other words, they play wedge politics).
Shaun Carney writes in The Age today about Mr. Howard’s skill of “asserting the power of incumbency”. I emphasise the word “asserting”. It is Mr. Howard’s strategic thinking discipline, not the conviction of any ideology, that helps him survive.
In order for “The Left” to adequately question Mr. Howard’s decision-making (to “assert a position”, not merely take a position), it needs to apply “nothing less” than the disciplined strategic thinking the Right-wingers have adopted.
Which returns me to my original point. The need to switch concern between the elements of an issue (analysis) and the system or aggregate that envelopes an issue (synthesis).
…From Justin
The Labor Government here in Victoria has told more lies than I’ve had hot breakfasts. I have no reason to believe Rudd will be any more honest than his state Labor counterparts, or the Hawke and Keating Governments.
What we need is a groundswell of public support for legislation that punishes lying pollies.
Nice nitpick Jack. The error was due to a peculiar little mental glitch where “Cubillo Gunner” gets mixed up with “Carillo Gantner”. Gawd knows why.
It’s her peers Jack, not his. A little more attention to detail, and you might have avoided giving the impression that your comment was little more than a venomous little piece of ineffectual payback for previous points lost.
Not your week really, is it?
Gummo Trotsky on 23 June 2007 at 3:15 pm
Get your hand off it. I am having a political ball right now, seeing sensible right wing cultural populism turned into state policy. With the “professional” bonus that it confirms my prediction of major party convergence (to the right) on cultural policy for minorities.
And, I am ashamed to admit, some malicious personal pleasure at seeing so many Cultural Lefties squirm as Howard steals a march on their territory.
I see Howard is extending his right wing cultural policy to clamp down on white dead-beats and rock-spiders. A good thing to, the more national statism for at risk kids, the merrier. Although it makes a nonsense of Larva-Prodder claims that Howard’s plan is race card, dog whistle, wedge etc.
Howard has made gob-smacking progress in the Culture War during this term of office, hurting his political enemies by helping their “clients”. Educated women have gotten over the ratbaggier forms of feminism and are in the midst of a mini baby boom. Ethnics are fitting in and getting on, now that multiculturalism is on the way out. Now he is dealing with the indigenous issue, by caring for neglected indigenous children.
He must feel politically ambivalent about all this. Like Col. Kilgore, simultaneously gloating over a smashing victory and yet somehow rueful over the diminishing number of targets. The irony is worthy of a mocumentary:
How very “scientific” to be crowing over the Government screwing welfare recipients out of their rights and autonomy, Jack.
…Dick flops around in ear.
jack strocchi,
Howard has had the look that the Ceausescus had in their last days for most of this year because the opinion polls consistently say he is unpopular.Everthing he does be it throwing dirt or belatedly deciding to take a proactive interest in Aboriginal welfare is a desperate act to try to claw back his position in the polls.Your “sensible right wing populism” should have happened to the Aborigines eleven years ago if were really a sincere and popular right wing belief.
Mark being obviously more concern about a policies impact on a number of vacuous abstractions and ones own ego (”it confirms my prediction of major party convergence”)than its practical effects may not be very scientific but it is very Strocchi.
[Dolly back to reveal floor length mirror in right of frame]
CPT STROCCHI (to his reflection): Is that a gun in my pocket or am I just pleased to see me?
Dany le Roux
Any relation to Dick Emery? Polls schmolls. The election hasn’t even been bloody well called yet. My people tell me that the Herald Sun is about to get real medieval on Rudd and the unions.
Personally, I’d prefer to see Kevin Rudd behind the counter at my local Bing Lee store than in the Lodge.
Oh that’s right Chris. It’s always all about you, isn’t it.
Here are a couple of Paulkelly thoughts (from John Quiggen) which throw some light on the issue:-
“Paulkelly Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
John Howard has long shown an interest in the welfare of Aboriginal children. I believe his maiden speech dealt with it. He believes all humans, irrespective of race or background -certainly irrespective of race (it is only progressives who accuse Howard of racism) are equally deserving of security and safety.
(I know for a fact it pained him to tell lies about boatpeople 6 years ago, but he had no choice.)
I know he has sleepness nights about it and I wish people would stop being so cynical about this. The reasons he has waited until five minutes before an election, and why he has eschewed any hint of softly softly in the PR sphere are purely legitimate.
I don’t know what they are but will get back to you when I have been informed.
Vote 1 Mr Howard. He’ll keep our country clean and white.”
This is good, we can see here how government works. If something is mentioned in a speech then that is “handled”. Government is getting much easier. And lies are ok as long as one is remorseful. There. What are you all going on about.
Back to paul:-
“Paulkelly Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Bilb. I expect politicians to tell lies, especially in campaigns. Sadly, that’s what they do - Australian ones at least as much as most. This government is probably only a bit worse than its predecessors in that regard.
But I loathe rodents (and others) who take the easy, shameful racist/religionist/otherist route.”
There. Lies are a natural part of government, even to be expected, as long as one has a higher purpose. I feel much better after that explanation. Thankyou Paulkelly.
That is a wrap.
There is nothing to see here folks, you can all go about your regular business.
John Greenfield,
Mate,
Federal elections happen every three years and this one is supposed to happen before Jan/08 . It is not as if this place is Zimbabwe and Ratty can cancel them and this is why he panics when opinion polls indicate he is doing badly.
A lot of opinion makers in ordinary community life are internet people who do not take much notice of the paper news or even TV news but the considered information they find on reasonable blogs.
First the SMH will get dirty with Rudd come election announcement day according to Crikey sources and now you say the Herald Sun according to you will get “medieval”with Rudd.If you (or “your people” ) have any dirt they would like to dish perhaps they could put here where the bullsh*t detectors are pretty good.
Look, moving forward, as we must, why don’t we just get with the program and save some money, not to mention all those acres of newsprint, and dispense with the idea of elections altogether. It might put all the government propagandists in the media out of a job, but I’m sure they’ll be offered alternative employment in a government enterprise of some sort.
After all we all know that whoever leads Labor will be unfit to govern, controlled by union bosses, unable to manage the economy, and basically a danger to the Australian way of life and all it stands for. As exemplified by King Howard and his annointed successors.
This may assist some here who don’t already have ‘The Template™’.
THE ANTI-HOWARD ARGUMENT TEMPLATEâ„¢
In the event that Mr John Howard (Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia) should make a public statement that is subsequently reported in the mainstream news-media (particularly if that statement may be seen in a positive light by the uneducated majority of the Australian public—otherwise known as voters) the following template
maymust be used:1. First make the statement “John Howard is a liar�. (If challenged at this early stage the usual response is “Well he lied about ‘children overboard’ didn’t he?�.)
2. Once you have established the veracity of Statement 1, it then follows that nothing Mr Howard ever says is true.
3. Therefore everything is said to further another secret agenda—a sinister ulterior motive if you will.
4. Establish that motive using phrases like “it’s just an excuse to�, “the real agenda is�, “only months out from an election�, “playing the wedge� and so on.
5. Now go on to attack the motive, thus avoiding the actual issue, or the substance of his statement. This will avoid the possibility of having to concede that Mr Howard may believe what he is saying, and is in fact sincere on this or any other issues.
Simple.
The Template™ © devised by Tony of South Yarra. All rights reserved.
THE PRO-HOWARD ARGUMENT TEMPLATE
(a) out of touch with mainstream Australian values;
(b) repeating themselves yet again.
Published under the terms of the GNU Public Licence.
Gummo, you forgot another subset of one:
1 (c) Any criticism is therefore implicitly supporting the evil that Dear Leader is seeking to eradicate, as in (for slow learners like Tony) a certain ex-leader of Iraq, and now surely any criticism of control order No.1 on Aboriginal communities in the NT is implicitly supporting child abuse, which probably is all connected with Islamic radicalism anyway.
Simple really.
adrian,
I’ll add it to the to-do list for version 0.0.0.2.