There’s nothing in Robert McClelland’s speech about the death penalty in Asia that I would disagree with. Surely a country like Australia which has outlawed the death penalty at home cannot in good conscience support it elsewhere – that looks suspiciously like a two-tier system of ethics, which could come very close to racism in some instances.
Yet the speech was being framed as a “blunder” and a “gaffe” in the media yesterday, a blunder which Howard and co. jumped on. Obnoxious as always, Alexander Downer talked about “Labor’s longstanding policy of support for the Bali Bombers”.
Today Downer has moved on to disingenuously supporting McClelland against that disgraceful Kevin.
Kevin’s stance on all this has verged on disgraceful – that’s if I could work out what his stance actually is.
Of course, John Howard manages to come up trumps in the disgrace department, with his proud declaration that he finds it impossible “as an Australian, as prime minister, as an individual, to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women.”
As an Australian: But Australia opposes the death penalty, John. Does this mean that you in fact support the death penalty for any murder of Australians (your “fellow countrymen and women”), whether in or out of Australia? Or do you only support the death penalty for foreigners who have murdered Australians in foreign lands?
As prime minister: But the country you are prime minister of opposes the death penalty, John. As a citizen of that country, I expect the prime minister to represent that policy clearly abroad.
As an individual: You either do or you don’t support the death penalty, John. It’s called a principled decision. The idea that there should be a death penalty for some people (eg terrorists) or for killing some special sorts of people (eg police) makes no ethical sense.
Bah. Suz, the media is not interested in these sophisticated, intelligent arguments.
It ‘Labor wants to let Muslim terrorists who murdered innocent Australians free’.
I actually hope Kev squirms over this a bit.
It’s a bit of a worry that the anti-wedge position has become so reflexive.
First, spell the man’s surname properly. Second, Rudd sidestepped this one but the guy may have a tin ear to the wider culture.
This takes me back to the Children Overboard fiasco, where I was left wondering if any mainstream voices reflected my view, as Labor toed the Government line. Kevin’s clearly more interested in avoiding wedges than making principled stands.
Meanwhile, in a lengthy interview on the 7:30 Report last night in which this topic dominated discussion, Rudd announced a move to fixed, 4 year terms should he win the election. There appears to be no interest in this. I expected it to be front page news today, but it was ‘McLelland’s Gaffe’ on the headlines.
I really think Rudd totally cocked this one up. He took a small somewhat reasonable point that politically McClelland’s timing might have been off and blew it something of ridiculous size, allowing attacks from just about whatever angle you wanted. Sometimes, I think Kevin tries so hard to do Howard’s head in he ends up doing his own head in.
The ALP have Wedged themselves on this. Howard didn’t have to do a thing.
The Filthy Liberal has stuck to his “me too!” mantra. He shows his true colours – craven pursuit of power with no regards for principles. He has been shown as a hypocrit by changing ALP policy in order to seek pure political gain. He has shown crap leadership skills by publicly humilitating a subordinate.
And why has he done this? Because he knows the majority of voters support the death penalty, especially for terrorists, and in particular the Bali Bombers.
Exactly why is the Australian Voters expected to trust this octopus with the Prime ministership?
Well at least one good thing has come of it – the public knows that if the ALP gets into Government it won’t do anything to stop the mongrels getting what’s coming to them.
i can see now why the Filthy Liberal doesn’t want another session in Parliament – he doesn’t want another week of Question Times to highlight his hypicrisy, poor leadership and policy deficiencies.
I think Rudd’s handing of the affair has become more of an issue than anything else – if he’d left the issue alone, it would have blown over quite quickly. A statement to the effect that ‘the terrorists want to be martyrs, the Labor party is opposed to fulfilling this wish’ would have been much better than the panic stations.
As it is, the mediafication of the event will cause a lot of talk, but it will have blown over well before the election. What sort of subconcious stain remains attached to Rudd in the public mind afterwards really depends on his profile between now and then, I think. More events such as these will obviously have a cumulative effect of destabilising faith in him, if he keeps his head down, it should be forgotten rather quickly I’d imagine.
Rudd was just desperately saying whatever it took to avoid an incoming wedge. Very inelegant, and beating up on the unfortunate and evidently principled (but unthinking) McClelland looks bad, from whichever direction.
Kevin should have told them in advance to shut the hell up on the Death Penalty. And he should certainly have shut himself and all the rest of them up in public sharpish, after McClelland said his bit.
Encouraging judicial murder by nods and winks is pretty disgusting, but there are probably a few votes in not scaring the yahoos before the election, after all.
Best put this one down to experience for now, and wait till he’s in the Lodge before we seek a serious position from Kev. And if it is not a civilised one, keep flogging him until it is. But not till then.
Andrew E, thanks for pointing out my mispelling, I’ve corrected it.
Agonising Wedgie? “The ALP have wedged themselves” – another instance of the verb ‘to wedge’ becoming almost meaningless; I have a small but rapidly growing collection.
On the Brendan Nelson/Iran thread, a mention of a journalist’s Press Conference question to Brendan Nelson: I was waiting for someone to say “Journalist Wedges Politician”. Journalists ask provocative questions; politicians manoeuvre and dispute. It’s just what they do. Same now, same for 200 years at least. No big deal.
Choc Wedge anyone?
Rudd’s position is disgusting and venomous.
Howard’s is venal and grotesque.
McLelland’s is naive and borderline amateur.
Downer deserves no comment.
Why didn’t McLelland merely use it as a discussion point instead of policy – why not use the anniversary to ask of the people where they stand on the issue, which is a far more sensitive and politically interesting dynamic with better follow-on for his party, as Howard would have to be put on the spot and reinforcing his authoritarian image, which would be more nails in the coffin. I think a staffer should actually be taken out and shown the taxi rank.
Instead, Rudd burps up the kind of malignant convinience we all thought he was capable of, McLelland (who up until now was a bright spark) will never be allowed to go to the bathroom with the door closed, Howard comes off as a defender of national values and Downer even gets to finish off the volley with a one-two:
- Seperating himself from Howard, which creates political credibility for him post-Howard, by having a more humane approach than Dear Leader
- Seperating Rudd from a prospective minister and isolating him (Rudd) in a morally incoherent double-bind.
The worst part is, Downer isn’t even lying this time. It is official Labor policy. Rudd has agreed with it in the past. Why not just say, look obviously the timing is wrong, but lets have a national debate about it, right now?
Meanwhile, in the background, Rudd has said nothing now that Indonesia have actually agreed with Robert, and might move to vote on abolition. Why not? Silence is the worst thing Labor can do on this issue. Moral certainty or its back to Beazley in the public’s eye.
Print it above your door, Kevin:
“DO NOT FUCK THIS UP”
McClelland says sorry. Note that he didn’t actually mention the Bali Bombers in his delivery of the speech.
10th October 2007
Amnesty International Australia are asking people to sign an online petition against the death penalty, worldwide.
You’ll find it. The link I saw took me to a French language site. So I was Foucaulted!
A great step forward on the issue of capital punishment in the region, that the Indonesian Attorney-General says he may implement its aboiltion (depending on a Court ruling, and suggests the previous A-G was a bit gung-ho. All of this in today’s GG.
Go, Republik Indonesia! Selamat datang.
I don’t know what the hell Rudd was thinking.
He should have apologised for the timing, asserted the policy and supported his comrade on on this and let the Libs bray about how Labor supports terrorists because I think that shrillness no longer has resonance and the Libs would look like a pack of asshats for such a silly claim.
You know if Rudd continues on like this he won’t have any deep support from his front bench, loyalty cuts both ways, no matter how much someone might want to be in power.
But what do I know, I’m just a terror lovin’ Amrozi supportin” elitist.
As a general principle, we should neither be condemning nor campaigning against the laws of other democratic countries so long as the laws are legitimately arrived at and do not adversely affect the rest of the world. Kevin Rudd did over-react and in the process humiliated his shadow minister. But he achieved one good thing. He walked away from the idea of active diplomacy against countries with the death penalty. So he now has a consistent and reasonable position: Labor will not approve of the death penalty anywhere in the world and will fight to save our guys from the noose but won’t meddle in the domestic politics of other countries.
It is Mr. Howard who has been left with an extraordinary inconsistency. He was asked today on Southern Cross Radio how he would react if the Bali bombers were not executed as a result of a challenge in Indonesia’s Constitutional Court. His response was that “that would be very, very bad” – although adding that whenever an Australian is sentenced to death overseas he would argue for remission of the sentence.
Mr. Howard is effectively pleading to the Indonesians to execute the Bali Bombers but keep their hands off our boys. This could be seen as blatantly inconsistent and ethnically discriminatory. It is not a good look for Australia, coming so soon after the comments by Mr. Andrews about African refugees.
I suspect this issue won’t go away quickly because Howard and Downer will make sure of that. .
How it will impact is unclear. Many Australians will forgive Rudd his clumsiness in this affair but will wonder again what sort of Prime Minister they have. A few Liberals could swing against Howard while a few rednecks in the suburbs could desert Labor.
“he won’t have any deep support from his front bench”
You’re kidding. The front bench probably all want to strangle McClelland with their bare hands.
Ambigulous – wrt “the wedge/ wege politics etc” I use the five year old defence – you lefties are the ones who stasrted using the term first. I must say I put it in the same basic as when someone accuses a politician of “playing politics” with an issue – wtf????? They are politicians – that is what they do!!!
So? Has there ever been an online petitio that has ever done any good whatsoever?
Give the guy a break, his goal is getting over 50% of the vote from a very diverse range of people his goal is not to make a small percentage feel really really good.
Howard’s response makes no sense.
Downer even less so. Is the ALP disgusting for supporting the death penalty or for not supporting it?
Downer has it both ways here.
Sad thing is, this is it. Game over. As I posted over at Club Troppo
Those who don’t have the time to look at the issue deeper will come to the conclusion that the ALP are apologists for terrorists who willfully went out of the way to spit in the faces of the relatives of the Bali dead.
Those who will look at the issue closer will be turned off by Rudd’s pragmatism whether it was required or not.
A double wedge in other words.
Howard can call the election now.
He has this one in the bag.
The Howard position on this issue is thus:
If terrorists murder Australians abroad he is quite happy for them to be executed.
But if terrorists come to Australia and murder Australians here he would not want them to be executed, because he opposes the death penalty.
And if Australians are sentenced to death abroad – including, presumably, for terrorist crimes – he will fight to save their lives.
Fortunately for Labor, this hypocritical fudge is wide open for every one to see.
Unfortunately principled stands do not win votes in Australia – the opposite is true. That’s why the Howard has been going for broke on the wedges lately. The Sudanese thing for example – if Labor had taken a principled anti-racism stand, they might as well concede the election already. There are millions of stupid voters out there – LP is not a representative cross-section. You can’t win on the wedge issues and Rudd (who is ‘opportunitistic’ enough not to commit electoral suicide like the Liberals want him to) has done a good job of sidestepping them lately – much to their irritation (Razor’s post, for example). the ‘Suicide Left’ aren’t too happy with this, but there are no votes in pandering to their views – quite the contrary. You have to win with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
The majority support the death penalty. This is one instance where the elites have it right and the majority have it wrong. One of the few good things about Howard is that he opposes the death penalty. Of course, there is no logical reason to oppose it in one country and not in another, but the electorate isn’t logical, especially when it comes to the Bali bombers.
McLelland is a bloody idiot – I agree with everything he said, but he should have known the consequences. It doesn’t take much imagination to predict the Liberals absurd campaign advertisements now – pictures of the Bali bombing victims, floral memorials and their grieving families with moving background music, voice-over saying ‘A vote for Labor is a vote for the Bali bombers’. Maybe a digital morphing of McLelland’s face into Abu Bakar Bashir’s. Don’t think they won’t do it – the Libs are stuffed in the polls, backed into a corner and desperate, and totally shameless.
Evidence for how this issue will affect the election comes from the betting markets.
In the past 24 hours … they have not moved one jot.
“digital morphing of McLelland’s face into Abu Bakar Bashir’s.”
Not a chance. If the Liberals did this, they would get the mother of all backlashes.
Keen Amnesty member Laughing Phil Ruddock has signed with the condition ‘except for people who do bad things’.
LOL … like anyone would know who TF either of them were.
Andrew Bartlett has a good post on this topic here. Yes, it’s a double wedge, and Kevin07 has walked straight into it. Perhaps this will be all the PM needs to drag himself back into office for his victory lap, but I suspect not. Polling over the past 10 months doesn’t lie. People are tired of Howard and nearly 50 percent of the primary vote is a long way in front. Hopefully Australians will forgive him for being a nong, and oscillating, which he has learnt from The Lying Rodent himself.
Well, an asian-looking fellow with a little muslim hat on his head and a goatee – frightening enough! The deep, dramatic voiceover would explain the rest.
From the 7 Perth newsmail re Indonesia’s plan to abolish the Death Penalty.
The Indonesian government throws a life line to the Bali bombers. A Perth mother of two victims speaks out.
And we all know what she will say.
Fred, I imagine if you took an opinion poll in China most Chinese approve of oppressing the Tibetans just fine.
While I have all the sympathy in the world for the families of those who have been murdered (by terrorists or otherwise), it troubles me that the typical approach of the traditional media to this issue is to focus on the feelings of those who have been affected. I appreciate that the consequences of a crime can be a legitimate consideration in the justice system (e.g., through victim impact statements), but the whole narrative here has nothing to do with whether (and under what conditions) capital punishment is just, or is a violation of human rights, etc. It’s all about the need for retribution.
This seems to be Howard’s position as well – “We oppose the death penalty, except when Australians must be avenged.”
Rudd calls a prospective minister for ill timed comments because ‘it will not help the cause of getting elected’. Looked to me like a significant failing on McLellands part and he has apologised.
Howard is never publicly critical of any minister for comments of any kind. It does not matter what they do , either. Might we be about to see a new blooming of “ministerial accountability”, under Rudd?
I see the net keeps getting more and more democratic while trad politics keeps heading in the other direction.
A fork in the road ahead?
All a distraction from runaway greenhouse?
Another lapse into Candace Bushnell style inanity?
I better stop now.
Tomorrow I’ll fail again.
Fail better.
That’s a rather optimistic interpretation of Rudd’s actions, joe2! Alternatively, you could characterise them as a control freak lashing out because someone goes “off message”.
It’s got own goal written all over it. Then we’ve got Rudd abrogating the right to say what Labor policy is and refusing to confirm that McClelland would hold his portfolio – add that to the “I determine who enters the front bench” statement and you’ve got a recipe for a very authoritarian PM.
As to the “principle”, Rudd frankly is a disgrace.
I’ve never believed anyway that “avoid the wedge at all costs” is necessary. This could either have been swotted away, or Rudd could have (*gasp*!) actually taken a principled stand. Sure, you might want to choose the ground you fight on, but occasionally actually fighting for something is what constitutes leadership.
I understand Rudd’s need to avoid the wedge, even to the extent of denying progressive principles. But I still have faith that he will live up to progressive principles after he is elected. For now, I forgive him. The amusing part is that by avoiding the wedge, he’s driving Howard mad. That’s the part I like about Labor’s reactionary politics.
I’m more than confused by all the statements and having nothing useful to say could I just point out that Australians in other countries are foreigners and foreigners in their own countries are not foreigners at all.
Just a minute.Whilst the victims of Bali bombings should never of happened,to acast a series of over simplifications about these matters involving Rudd,Howard and Mc C., is also disingenous.A consistent attitude as policy and principle is real and acceptable, but, shit, lets not forget we are human beings with regrettable, at times, extremes of emotion and reason that simply are difficult to express,let alone understand as a standing phenomena in themselves… let alone in the background of circumstances.I heard the dad this morning on the radio going on about the so called bad timing gaffe, but, whilst I can feel for him, I didnt recognise much that was a recovered reasonable person, even if I accept that maybe impossible with the emotion being somewhat like a tap out in the centre of the MCG. at an in a Grand Final,of the sixties. To me Australia ,as people isnt one large tribe or family,and these calls by Howard that we are in unity is a dismal call.So I can Feel for the victims and their families friends and bystanders, but, dont tell me, because I havent accepted it as a fact, that the Bali bombings and all that has past since represents a significant and real watershed in my life.It wasnt it will never be.That doesnt mean I am not concerned, it just means it is not a fixture of a date and time where the episode is played over and over again.I cannot apportion footballers as more worthy victims as such than the fact they were victims.If you cannot accept Aussie Rules as a great game.it is likely that seeing the victims as was and are, is more important and sobering than their potential of already existing in ones life as known about humans. This is where this is all coming unstuck, victims being noted and concerned citizenry doesnt imply at all the necessity to allow victims and associates more cramping in ones mind the whole grisly business and what as Australians as individuals and a nation we should think. Plainly,although long windedly I exercise my right to think on this matter without devaluing my own thoughts for a national thought that somehow isnt what I think or could think anyway. To be balanced on this matter, really means to forget the instant groans of the elected ,for the sake of self and any victims who are bloody-minded, about death penalties.If they play the loss of loved ones like a football game around certain dates,some of us understand its a real thing that needs being played out, but we play by different coaching,and not with a serious superiority and or weakness of nation sense. We feel the losses after the siren.
Is it too much to ask Rudd to actually stand for something? Month upon month of planned-on-the-run, “don’t scare the horses”-style tip-toeing is not helping his cause. Since when does a Senior frontbencher discussing already-released policy positions become controversial?
“It’s time”, alright – time for Kevin to assert that, while the government may be dying, he can do a lot better than to stand back and grab the crown when it becomes available. Whatever happened to the concept of leadership as being something a little more than acting on what you think people are thinking?
If you want to lead us, Kevin, then LEAD US. Tell us what you think and why. Explain to us why your ideas are better. At the moment Rudd is hiding behind the diseased government,and running the risk of catching something.
Silkworm how on earth has this incident ‘driven Howard mad’? I’d say it’s the best news Howard’s had for weeks. McClelland made a straightforward speech expounding Labor principles. Like many of us, he probably didn’t buy the War on Terror Calendar last year that has Significant Anniversaries circled in red, with a cautionary note warning us not to say or do anything that might possibly upset somebody somewhere around those dates (and by the bye, does anyone seriously believe that if McClelland had made his speech in, say, June, the response from Howard’s mob and Rudd would have been any different?)
The thingOne of the things about Rudd that really makes me doubt his competence is his apparent inability to articulate a simple case. All he had to do here was say something like ‘opposition to capital punishment has been bipartisan policy for ages, Howard’s contradicted himself by saying he opposes it but then again he doesn’t, this makes it hard for us to protect our own citizens, sorry if a few relos of the Bali victims got upset but we’re talking about general principles here not about some scumbag rotting in an Indo gaol’. Why would that have been so hard?Instead he manages to make it look like McClelland’s lost his confidence plus he rabbits on about counselling staff. It’s consistent with his mania for referring everything to inquiries and committees – he can’t seem to put forward a clear position coupled with a reasoned justification. If he wants to be more than a one-term wonder he’s got to be able to communicate with people. If he can’t put together a coherent message about capital punishment, what hope does he have of explaining something like carbon trading?
It’s much easier to be principled when you are in power than when you are an opposition party trying to win an election campaign against a totally unscrupulous rightwing government with a dog-whistling mass media machine on its side. Howard’s only advantage is the wedge, there’s nothing wrong with denying him that (and it infuriates the Rightwingers when their wedges fall flat). I’m holding out hope that Rudd isn’t going to be as Rightwing once he’s in power as he’s being at the moment – but even if he is, I’ll take that over a fifth Howard win. Taking a principled stand against executing terrorists a few weeks out of an election is a surefire vote-loser and frankly this principle isn’t worth another election loss. You got to choose your battles.
There are millions of intelligent voters out there who might beg to differ.
Yeah, I tend to the think Rudd made a meal of it – but Im also mindful that he’s also stomped it hard.
If anyone thinks Rodent and Dolly wouldnt have made woopie with a ‘principled defence’ till poll day … well, lets just say I dont want to see you criticising the Greens here later for naive moralising.
Let’s face facts: The Howard era has reduced public debate to sub-moronic levels. Witness the otherwise intelligent Costello 10 minutes later “This equals the ALP supports the Bali Bombers”.
Inane and illogical populist rubbish, yes, but welcome to ‘07.
Dumb nonsense rules the land. Lets change that when these obscene coalition turdstains have been flushed down the toilet of history.
Meanwhile, I salute Colonel Rudd. Lockstep. Break ranks and the NKVD does ya. This aint a party you know.
This is f*cking Stalingrad.
Who’s to say it is? What we have never had from Labor leaders in recent years is taking a stand on principle. It might be surprising to some how popular that might be. Beazley lost the argument over the Tampa because he didn’t make one – and bungled that.
Well, I think he probably will be. But so will I.
The other point worth making here is one made by the British author David Coates with reference to Tony Blair. 1997 was an election win of such dimensions that Blair could have become the hegemonic politician Thatcher was – with the ability to radically change the terms of what is politically possible. Blair didn’t because Labour had not taken a forward position of any strength and courage. Having said that, Blair was positively radical compared to Rudd – he was happy to own that word and happy to talk about decentralising power and remaking the nation, and he argued against social exclusion and poverty. We haven’t heard any of the first from Rudd and nothing on the latter since last year.
There just won’t have been the climate created – big win or otherwise – for a Rudd government to do anything terribly exciting. The Goss record is pretty depressing in this respect and Rudd and Swan are following the Goss game plan to victory against a long term incumbent Tory government.
Mark wrote:
What a depressing thought. However, let’s see what happens before we pass judgment.
Rudd denies ‘gagging’ Labor candidates (this story isn’t going his way at all).
No it’s not Lefty E. On the current polling figures this is Berlin April 1945. So don’t fuck it up for the Marshal Zhukov of the hour. Soon enough you’ll have the Red Flag waving over the Reichstag.
“A double wedge in other words.
Howard can call the election now.
He has this one in the bag.”
A double wedge about what????? This is just a social issue. I thought people are more concerned with their hip pockets and that WorkChoices is just the issue that has got them all enraged. Ratty can wear his little wedgie undies all he likes re social issues, if he doesn’t have the zeitgeist behind him there’s no fanning the fire.
Anyway, why be so concerned about a little bit of Macchiavellian pragmatism from Rudd? We have seen so bloody much of that from Ratty in the last ten years, that a little bit of whatever-it-takes from the opposite side should hardly excite cries of outrage. Also, if Rudd does get in there’s always the tried, tested and true path of the Non-Core Promise…
Mind you, I have decided to keep on voting Greens for the Senate.
Good on McClelland. He did the right thing, I think. What he said was absolutely correct and I’m disgusted that he was bullied into apologising for it. I’m disgusted with Kruddy for taking the weasel position that CP is unacceptable for true-blue aussies but OK for filthy foreigners.
Greg M is right that there are millions of intelligent voters, and I’m right that there are millions of moronic voters. The latter outweight the former, just as the ratings for Australian Idol are way higher than the Prime Ministerial debates, and most people get their political information from Channel 9 News and the Daily Telegraph (puke). As Lefty E says, this is Australia 2007 and we just have to deal with it. I’d love to see Labor take some principled stances – particularly regarding IR, I think it’s outrageous how much of SerfChoices Rudd is planning to retain, his number one priority is clearly appeasing big-business (unsurprising considering his family background). Taking principled IR stand would piss off business but I doubt it would lose votes. But if you think that taking a principled stance on executing the Bali bombers is anything except political suicide then you are confusing 2007 Australia for a place much more enlightened than it unfortunately is.
‘Blair was positively radical compared to Rudd – he was happy to own that word and happy to talk about decentralising power and remaking the nation, and he argued against social exclusion and poverty. We haven’t heard any of the first from Rudd and nothing on the latter since last year.’
But Mark, this is Ostraya. There is a world of difference between the intellectually sophisticated, cosmopolitan society of the UK and their corresponding politics and the apathy, anti-intellectualism and rank unimaginative colonialist materialism that still constitutes Australian society I’m afraid. I think a game-plan for a Goss style Labor government is the best you can hope for these days even from someone as supposedly intelligent as Rudd. We had a glimmer of vision from Whitlam and also from Keating, but people didn’t want it did they?
Yeti has just put the finger on why this site will never be representative of the views of the general population.
What a moronic comment. In a democracy people execise their vote as they see fit. If they vote differently than we would that is because they see the world, and their interest in it differently than we do. It is on that basis and not on some disgraceful categorisation of intelligent and moronic voters that we accept their decision.
In a democracy we accept that people will decide their vote in any way they please , as is their right. If we are democrats we respect their freedom of choice. If we are democrats we do not call them morons because they differ in their opinions from ours. There are other, vile, ideologies that see it differently and would do so. If we are democtats we don’t associate ourselves with their opinions.
Mark, before you criticise me for this post please consult the democratic values that I am articulating and which you profess to espouse. If it is fashionable and acceptable on LP to trash democracy and the democratic process and it offends the values of LP to defend them tell me and I will desist.
Well, GregM, I don’t find it helpful to characterise voters as “moronic” and I’ve always argued people are better off persuading their fellow citizens rather than dismissing them and the choices they make.
A fair comment Mark and what I hoped and expected from you.
“Rudd denies ‘gagging’ Labor candidates (this story isn’t going his way at all).”
Suz, I have been listening/watching ‘Aunty’, as usual, and according to them absolutely nothing is going Rudds’ way. Same according to Newscorp. He makes “gaffes” and The Howard Team are ‘beyond question’. Everybody seems to be hating the bloke. I am happy to give Rudd a chance and will remain optimistic.
And frankly, three more years of Howard is not something I would wish to contemplate.
Well, the polls suggest to me the punters arent morons at all. But frankly, the level of political debate sure is. This government cut its teeth in the Hanson era, and never really left it in terms of its belief in populist dog whistles.
Meanwhile, had to laugh at Rodent claiming the Mclelland speech was cleared by Rudd’s office.
How many times has the PM claimed that didnt mean he’d seen it? At least a dozen.
After 11 years of BS, its petard city out there.
No probs, GregM.
I should point out that I don’t resile from my previous comments that many voters don’t make “rational” decisions or well informed ones (which isn’t in my view necessarily to invalidate them) and I’d also point out that such votes are cast for Labor as well as the Coalition.
Jeez this thread is depressing in its predictability. By now, no-one should be surprised that Rudd will move to counter issues raised by the Government by attempting to neutralise their position by appearing to adopt it. To use a Ruddism, everyone should take a cold shower.
In reality the story isn’t the policy (which I believe remains unchanged) but Rudd’s handling of the issue as some have said.
Rudd was right to not support McClelland’s automatic right to the foreign minister’s job if the ALP win the election. Why should he allow himself to be hamstrung in choosing his front bench? Howard isn’t. And Red Kezza’s pressing of the issue was frankly ludicrous.
In my opinion the worst flaw in the handling I thought was the failure to turn the wedge back to the Government. After Dolly and Johnny’s comments on the matter I would have thought the easiest way out for Rudd was to ask them if they now support the death penalty in Australia for whatever crimes they’d like to name. Because philosophically that’s the end point of their remarks it seems to me (and they are not game to say it out loud, so let’s call them on it).
Really, in all reality I think it’s perfectly OK to let Dolly bang on as much as he likes about the matter (or practically any matter) because every time he opens his mouth I reckon the Liberals can kiss half-a-percent of their support away. And Costello just sounded like a complete dill.
The problem is that we cannot discuss this incident without its context.
That context has been set by the media that informs the public of that which is considered important and frames the nature of any discussion within the parameters of the media controlled agenda.
McClelland’s speech did not occur in a vaccuum.
It occurred in a context that includes elements that have been imbued with enormous emotion, to the point of hysteria, over a long period of time.
Some recent elements that are directly relevant are the Nguyen case, the Corby case, the Bali 9 and the general paranoia, hatred and even xenophobia of that overused word ‘terrorism’.
Blimey you could probably extend it back to the “Yellow Peril/ the red arrows from China darting into our heartland, the White Australia policy, the black blotches of indigenous land claims on our maps..
We should remember the media role in all these cases.
Considered /rational /logical /intelligent /ethical debate has not been the modus operanda of the media.
Simplistic /emotional /jingoistic /sensationalism are the general context for reporting of these cases.
So when someone, McClelland in this case, tries to calmly discuss an issue the public has been pre-directed to treat it in a manner that is easily exploited by the rantings of one such as Howard.
He can plug into a ready made sensationalist paradigm that excludes proper discussion.
And, just as importantly, he will be allowed to get away with his rantings as if they are of value and importance.
A day or so ago a senior Liberal minister told a reporter that Howard ‘has lost touch with reality’ and that Costello ‘has no fresh ideas ‘.
OK the context [dismal polls] is different to the capital punishment thingy.
But if the media, hive-think wise, had decided to run with that as their headlines then, to state the bleeding obvious, the shoe would be on the other foot, Rudd would not have had to retreat rapidly out of fear, and the Coalition would be facing the issues of disunity, lack of discipline etc..
The media oligopoly in this country sets the agenda and frames the manner in which items on that agenda are discussed.
Its a disgrace and a blot on our so-called democracy.
For the first time I actually feel some sympathy for the difficulties faced by the ALP.
Almost any issue can be twisted to unrecognisable degree by the Coalition and the media will happily run with that version, fitting it into the standard patter.
We don’t have political debate in this country.
Even the blogs, this one included, are operating withing the framework set by the MSM.
How on earth can we as some have, condemn McClelland for ‘naively’ and ‘insensitively’ and ‘unwisely’ discussing a social issue.
Why can’t we have such debate without the fear of it being hijacked in the way we have seen?
How restricting, censorious and anti-democratic is the view that our pollies can’t talk about….or the media and the shock jock pollies will crucify them.
Something must be done about the media oligopoly in this coyuntry.
joe2 it doesn’t matter. People are jack of Howard. All they want is confidence that a decent, thinking government will replace him. Rudd doesn’t have to provide every detail. The broad consensus that sustains Australian society means that (Mark Latham aside- what madness possessed Labor to put him up) either of the two major parties will throw up a sound government. We may not like the government we have and clearly you don’t , but see my comment of the people being jack of Howard and see the great democratic equilibrium move to replace his sound, though ordinary (I use thi sajective in a pejorative sense), government with another.
Agreed Mark (even though Im cutting in on your convo with Greg) which is why its dangerous to appear to mess with the recognition of victims, which is about emotions, impressions.
Thats why I think Mclelland really was a bit of a klutz over the whole deal.
I loathe Howard’s opportunism on the issue, but frankly, I can well understand some punters taking a dim view, and not necessarily a kneejerk one either, but a considered – “yeah, fair enough, I dont actually want the state to kill people either, but shut up. Sensitive issue for some. Keep a lid on it. You’re putting me off my chips.”
Of course, then there’s the 1-2% of drongos who just heard “ALP supports terrorists”. Not much hope for them, but they propbably werent onboard TEH ‘O7 express anyhoo.
Suz and Everyone:
Hands up all those who can remember the discomfort of the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, when the Pakistanis hanged their former P.M., Zulfikir Ali Bhutto, back in 1979.
Haven’t times changed!!
Now, where can we buy some rope for an innovative little post-election retirement scheme ….?
Well expressed there Lefty. For a lot of people that will be their train of thought with all the balancing it involves. And, all in all, they’ll add it up over all the issues and from that their sound judgement will emerge.
Then we’ll have the election and they (and we are part of they) will decide.
You support capital punishment in principle then, do you, Graham?
I must remember this every time you mouth off on issues of principle in the future.
Then again I recall that only a few weeks ago you were solemnly assuring us that there would not be a federal election as Howard would invoke a national emergency and declare martial law.
Now the debate over capital punishment we weren’t really having until now has morphed into a debate over how to spin a party political approach to discussing the issue.
It’s all so very 21st century.
Personally I’m dead set against capital punishment, especially as I once set fire to one of Her Majesty’s Ships of War – (badly stubbed out cigarette ignited crumpled paper napkins in bin during pissup on RN frigate hosting cocktail party in port. Doused with the token bottle of warm ginger ale.)
Of course if anyone with malice aforethought killed a loved one, I’d have my hand up to be the bloke with the pistol administering the coup de grâce after the firing squad did their work.
Interesting thought though isn’t it? If capital punishment was still the go in Australia, what method would you prefer? Hanging’s alway struck me as rather antiseptic yet kinky English procedural sadism, the electric chair and gas chamber are not instaneous and frequently subject to technical bungling (as is hanging and lethal injection is a bad faith attempt by the State to use the vibe of our medical systems to present sanctioned termination as free of any moral consequences.
I guess it’s the guillotine or firing squad then. No bullshitting around. We’re here with these machines to kill you quickly and efficiently because that’s your society has decided should be done with you. Won’t take long. Blindfold? Cigarette? Last twitter post?
It’s the vacuum effect created by the perceived deferral of the election that allows these non-issues to be blown out of all proportion. John Howard knows what he’s doing. If he waits long enough, he’ll eventually hit the bulls-eye and the game’s back on. Fortunately there is a time limit to these shenanigans.
Bring on four year fixed terms. Not a panacea but still an improvement.
As for any discussion of principles in this climate – pure delusion. The battle for power is naked and brutal. Just because we no longer (for the moment) use guns to decide, does not mean our tribal dynamic has changed.
Who do I sue for false pretenses?
did my post just get blocked by spam filter?
OK – I don’t mean that Australians in general are morons – or even that there are millions of morons. What I mean is that there is a huge number of people (millions may be an exaggeration) who are extremely uninformed politically and whose vote is not determined on the basis of any sort of informed, rational consdieration. It’s not a character flaw on their part but a consequence of a political and media culture that reduces the level of public participation to what is basically a triennial personality contest between two ‘teams’ of career-hacks, all managed by public-relations and advertising firms. I am not “trashing democracy” by trashing the system that we have in Australia, on the contrary, I am trashing the system because it is not a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
GregM reckons it is ‘disgraceful’ to categorize voters into moronic and intelligent. Maybe ‘moronic’ is an impolite word to use, but if you think that every voter makes their choice on the basis of equally informed consideration you are deluding yourself. I was a phone pollster during the 2004 election campaign and a huge number of people that picked up the phone don’t know the first thing about politics and just aren’t interested in it. Given that the modern parties and the media exclude ordinary people from any meaningful involvement and have reduced the level of political discourse that most people are exposed to to 10 second dog-whistle soundbites on the six o’clock news, I am not surprised that people in this culture are politically apathetic. The alienation of people from the modern political process means that many people do not vote according to the merits of the various parties’ policies (which they quite often don’t have a clue about), but rather according to the effectiveness of the parties’ media (especially television) campaigns, superficial things like the personality characterisitcs of the leaders, or according to family voting tradition.
Especially with the decline of organized labor and religion in recent decades, along with the monopolization and dumbing-down of the mass media and the general commoditization of culture and society, there has been an evaporation of public interest in social issues and grassroots political organization in the wider community. This has been exacerbated by the anti-intellectualism of the Howard years, which has seen those people who roundly ridiculed as ‘elites’, ‘latte Leftists’, ‘chardonnay socialists’, ‘the chattering classes’ etc. etc. This phony anti-elitism has debased political discourse in the 00s to a level that can safely be characterized as moronic. It has become easier for conservative and reactionary forces to ‘wedge’ their way into power by stoking widely held prejudices, such as an irrational fear of ‘illegal immigrants’ in 2001, or to take advantage of heavily indebted people’s ignorance of how Central Banking works in 2004. Personally, I think it would have been ‘moronic’ for anyone to switch their vote to the Liberals because of the Tampa incident, or because they thought L-plate Latham would raise interest rates. Let’s call a spade a spade here. That doesn’t mean that I think they don’t deserve to vote, or that the answer to their ignorance is calling them ‘morons’ instead of trying to persuade them. But from a purely tactical point of view, with just a few weeks to go, recent history should have taught us that there are enough people out there who would vote for Howard on the basis of an emotive wedge campaign. Howard knows this (it’s the only hope he’s got left) and Rudd knows this. If Rudd came out saying to the effect that Australia must try to spare the lives of the Bali terrorists then he would be effectively handing these voters to Howard on a silver platter. Would it be worth it?
I will say this though – there is one difference this time that sets 2007 apart from the last two elections. WorkChoices (a consequence of winning the Senate) has exposed the Liberals true face to the people that count, and their old tricks probably won’t work anymore. In all, I doubt the McLelland thing will be of much consequence – although it would have been if Rudd had come out in support of him. He didn’t, and Downer is very upset about this for obvious reasons.
SATP: The people that read and post at LP are definitely not representative of the wider population, who are not by and large news and politics junkies. At the risk of GregM calling me ‘disgraceful’, I would say that the people here are vastly better informed, and if I may be so blunt, more ‘intelligent’ when it comes to politics, then those whom the government targets with its TV campaigns.
Umm.. Greg, Graham’s theory cannot yet be ruled out.
Not until there is an election anyway, (or there is a machine-gun attack on the Opera House by SAS troopers wearing white bedsheets and with towels draped accross their heads.)
yeti, please note this page “what to do if your comment disappears”:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/what-not-to-do-if-your-comment-doesnt-appear/
You make it more likely for the spam filter to capture you by posting the same comment repeatedly.
Fairfax-Murdoch is nice for the Commonwealth in much the same sense that easy-to-read skies are nice for Mike Larkin.
If you had eight major dailies instead of two (forget the economics for a sec), you’d have eight varying bankrollers with even more varying interests, four times the journos creating Operational Externalities (asking tough questions), four times the newsprint you’d need to have read before QT in order that the Oppo can’t cast you as imcompetent or a dickhead.
There’d be four times the High Profilers’ angles to wonder about. Can you imagine not only Michelle Grattan and Paul Kelly, but another two (possibly several!) in between, politically speaking and agendawise, clawing and persuading every single day? Even Brown would condone a parliamentary payrise.
Hannah’s dad is spot-on in this case: you can only break out of the rut by having the blogosphere become its own news source.
As I understand it:
On the general question of the death penalty in Australia…
Howard is against it
Rudd is against it
McClelland is against it
On the question of Australians facing the death penalty overseas…
Howard would request clemency
Rudd would request clemency
McClelland would request clemency
On the general question of the death penalty overseas…
Howard will campaign against it
Rudd will campaign against it
McClelland will campaign against it
On the question of the Bali bombers facing the death penalty…
Howard actively supports it despite his expressed opposition to the death penalty
Rudd would not campaign against it but would prefer a lfe sentence
McClelland would not campaign against it but would prefer a lfe sentence
My position…
I’m passionately anti death penalty
I do believe we should lobby internationally against the death penalty
I see no reason to get involved in non-Australians facing the death penalty overseas
So I’m vey happy with the positions of Rudd, Howard, McClelland on all aspects other than Howard’s hypocritical support for the execution of the Bali bombers. And even that case is arguable since even in jail, these three scumbags represent a continuing threat to innocent people.
And by the way, Rudd was quite right to haul McClelland over the coals. If McClelland doesn’t understand the Rudd strategy of limiting debate to the areas where the ALP has an advantage, then he’s not ready for the front bench.
sorry Mark, thanks for fixing that.
No probs, yeti.
‘zactly Jenny. Policy debate is now how about you debate policy rather than debating policy itself.
Jenny, Does this mean that Amnesty International is now redundant and members can now hand their badges back in?
Greg M:
Wakey, wakey.
1. I have never supported the death penalty. The death penalty and incredibly long jailings never deterred any criminal act whereas the certainty of detection and arrest is very effective in deterring crime. It all comes down to workable laws and good policing, not ritual killing.
Still, if you yourself want to line up with the noose-and-lash ratbags, that’s your problem, not mine.
2. Election? Election? Anyone seen any elections happening around here? Who won? July 2007 has gone, August and September 2007 have gone, October 2007 is half-way over ….
L-O-L.
Me: “I see no reason to get involved in non-Australians facing the death penalty overseas”
Steve: “Jenny, Does this mean that Amnesty International is now redundant and members can now hand their badges back in?”
I didn’t express my thought clearly enough. General opposition to the death penalty … YES. Specicic opposition in each of the thousands of cases round the world.each year … NO.That isn’t practical. And I certainly wouldn’t be singling out the Bali bombers for a special effort.
Yeah, this whole thing pretty much confirms some of my preformed ideas of how Rudd will run his government. I hold out hope that Julia Gillard gets a bit of space to do her thing, but it’s not looking promising. I might give McClelland a first preference now, just to let him know that it hasn’t cost him anything at the local level.
The only people talking about this are the political eggheads like us. Noone else cares.
Not entirely true. It’s ignited a fair amount of debate over the death penalty (an issue that never seems to go away), albeit a lot of the debate seems to be expressed in simplistic tones (”Hangin’s too good for ‘em” … “Killing is murder”, etc.)
But I honestly can’t see this being an election decider; comments like — ”Howard can call the election now. He has this one in the bag.” — are well off the mark.
Bring on four year fixed terms. Not a panacea but still an improvement.
Ask and ye shall (partisan political winds being favourable) recieve
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/vote-on-fixed-term-pledged/2007/10/10/1191695991663.html
ahem….that was me riffing of a quote from wbb…and screwing it
From who? I haven’t heard anyone talking about it. Noone at work, none of my friends, family etc. They just sigh and switch the channel when it comes on the tv.
The whole matter is even more irrelevant than the stripper thing. At least people talked about that.
Everyone I talk to has discussed it – so it could be a sampling error (either way). But the issue is at the very least being played out in the mainstream media as well as all the blogs. It’s had a run on Sunrise, for example.
“Rudd denies ‘gagging’ Labor candidates (this story isn’t going his way at all).�
Suz, I have been listening/watching ‘Aunty’, as usual, and according to them absolutely nothing is going Rudds’ way. Same according to Newscorp. He makes “gaffes� and The Howard Team are ‘beyond question’. Everybody seems to be hating the bloke. I am happy to give Rudd a chance and will remain optimistic.
And frankly, three more years of Howard is not something I would wish to contemplate.
Me neither, Joe2. My comment on the story not going Rudd’s way was made because I think he has generally been good at setting the agenda or closing issues off so that the media moves on from them. [That's an observation purely about media appearances, not a comment on policy or principle.] This time the media haven’t given him that leeway. Though it looks like it’s moving his way a bit today.
I don’t agree with this. If McClelland’s not ready for the front bench by this measure, so be it, but this is an instance where he should have been publicly supported (if perhaps privately hauled up). Everything he said was in line with official ALP policy. Rudd’s response was over the top and caused far more damage than McClelland’s inopportune timing with his speech, overturning established ALP policy in the process, and if you ask me demonstrated that it’s Rudd who might not be ready for the front bench.
This may be an inane comment – but how many of you living in rural areas have noticed support for capital punishment generally is stronger in the bush than it is in the cities. And how many rural marginals does Rudd need to attain Government.
“It has become easier for conservative and reactionary forces to ‘wedge’ their way into power by stoking widely held prejudices, such as an irrational fear of ‘illegal immigrants’ in 2001.”
Yes yeti, and notice the globalisation of issue wedging as an electoral tactic. After the successful refugee scare we were treated to at the 2001 election, Lynton Crosby of Crosby Textor flew to England to advise the Tories to ramp up the immigration wedge, which they did, but to no avail at their last election.
Then sometime earlier this year, probably coinciding with a little transnational tactical advice, the Republicans decided to make an issue out of mexican illegals, and ramped up the hatred all through the southern states. But now, all those californian farmers cannot get their crops picked and they are pretty cranky about how they have had to wear the damage.
Pity the MSM is intellectually incapable of tracking these political wedges internationally. It might tell a very interesting story about how reactionary and conservative political parties are feeding off each other tactically, and we are all being sold the same old same old.
While the United States continues to use capital punishment, any Australian politician who starts megaphoning to other nations (especially democracies) about the death penalty, when no Australian citizens are involved, deserves all the negative political feedback they get and then some.
How much chance is there of the Bali bombers actually “rotting in prison”? (assuming that their death sentences – as yet unenforced – are commuted)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22567830-2,00.html
“Rotting” and “Prison” are expected to be just that.
Not supporting the death penalty for the Bali bombers may in fact BE the same as “letting them off”.
“A day or so ago a senior Liberal minister told a reporter that Howard ‘has lost touch with reality’ and that Costello ‘has no fresh ideas ‘.
OK the context [dismal polls] is different to the capital punishment thingy.
But if the media, hive-think wise, had decided to run with that as their headlines then, to state the bleeding obvious, the shoe would be on the other foot,….”
Spot on hannah’s dad . The other story that went below the media radar frenzy was this one….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/09/2055161.htm
Ill considered and creepy comments of government ministers seem to go nowhere while every Kev action is minutely scrutinised. Suz, I hear you, but think we see things differently apart from wishing the end of ‘Howards way’. Rudd is on the media roller coaster and has little power over the latest aggenda. I think that most of material is set up by Newscorp, sieved by Aunty and Fairfax and played out with a flat bat by Tin-Tin.
“Something must be done about the media oligopoly in this coyuntry.” sic and absolutely correct from HD , in my opinion.
Democracy is being stuffed up by the forth estate and I suspect that the debate about that will be pretty much, only available, ‘on line’.
Yesterday was World Day Against the Death Penalty. Proponents of the death penalty often cite the victims’ families, as if killing the killer will somehow bring a sense of closure or justice to the families. It may make some families feel better, but that’s not about justice; it’s about revenge.
To mark this World Day Against the Death Penalty, the organization Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights has issued the following statement calling for the member states of the United Nations to adopt a resolution supporting a global moratorium on executions.
Statement of Renny Cushing, Executive Director of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights on World Day Against the Death Penalty in Support of a Global Moratorium on Executions:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10371
Robert McClelland is the member for Barton (since 1996) and my local MHR. The SMH has carried a couple of letters to the editor from people in this seat who are very appreciative of McClelland’s speech.
The local newspaper for this district “The Leader” (released each Tuesday and Thursday) will be delivered to homes this evening, and presumably will have its own coverage on the matter.
As far as his electoral seat is concerned McClelland has little to worry about. He has been appreciated for making the effort to be accessible to voters by doing the rounds, allowing small groups of individuals to visit his office and without deluging the electorate with nauseating junk mail. Barton used to be a swinging seat in the years spanning from Gorton to Fraser (indeed in the 1983 election it was one of the litmus test seats for a federal victory).
McClelland is fairly well known in the district and enough locals can even remember him as a High School Captain. His father Douglas was a NSW senator and served in the Whitlam ministry (minister for media). The seat includes suburbs such as Kogarah and Hurstville that are noted for their ethnic diversity (especially East Asian and Lebanese).
The political dispute is unlikely to yield any wrath from his constituency.
The reaction of Rudd does suffer from appalling pragmatism but he must be feeling very wary lest a new wave of xenophobia sweeps the election campaign as per 2001. Yet, Rudd’s gambit is also ironic in light of the ALP’s history. In the 1960s the ALP took up the issue of capital punishment inside Australia (Ronald Ryan executed in 1967), and Barry Jones spoke of this as something that galvanised some into joining the ALP.
On Oct 26 2005 Jones addressed the National Press Club where he pushed for his 10 commandments to overcome factional division to ensure a 2007 victory, and he criticised Labor for being a photocopy conservative party (why offer Labor as conservative when the incumbent Government is the real McCoy, he asked).
He harkened back to the 1960s as showing that apparently unpopular causes (Vietnam, capital punishment) in large parts of the community nonetheless helped to define the party and attracted new members. These things did not hurt but helped its cause. In that speech Jones indicated that Labor needed to once again find similar issues even if unpopular in parts of the electorate and he recommended that opposing capital punishment in Asia would be an appropriate cause amongst others.
It would be interesting to hear Jones’ observations on this week’s episode.
Paul Burns,
out here in the bush, we don’t talk about the death penalty much. I won’t list the topics we do discuss, but rainfall & the state of the roads and hospitals & closing bank branches, etc rate highly. We in the bush were not surprised that rural votes had a hand in tipping Master Kennett out of office, for example. Some cruel country folk gloated over his demise. We can be heartless like that.
Many felt Master Kennett overspent in Melb & underspent in rural Victoria. That feeling was not lost on Master Bracks; but Bracks Govt late in 2006 lost two seats in my area: Latrobe Valley, West Gippsland (roughly); many factors at play.
The people I talk to aren’t “yer classic redkneck” but then they’re not representative of all the voters either.
Sample of 4: 3 thought Saddam shouldn’t have been hung, 1 thought his crimes-against-humanity meant he had crossed that line and should be executed. It wasn’t a topic much dicussed in our town.
hmmm… 1 divided by the square root of 4, sampling error 50 percent,…. piffle!
The severest of penalties should be reserved for the severest of crimes, and these are war crimes.
Indeed silkworm. Like being an accessory to starting and joining in the prosecution of an aggressive war without the legal imprimateur of the UNSC.
Iraq.
And guess who are the accessories?
But I don’t agree with capital punishment, ever. As Bob Hawke said, it’s barbaric.
Jail is humiliating enough as it is. ( My objective experience of inmate clients on remand leaves me personally in no doubt of that.)
” Like being an accessory to starting and joining in the prosecution of an aggressive war without the legal imprimateur of the UNSC.”
http://laweekly.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/10/hillarypracticing.jpg
Under Australian law, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not subject to capital punishment. Even if extra-territorial jurisdiction is exercised by Australia (ie we capture a war criminal overseas then prosecute them ourselves under Australian law), we don’t have the option of capital punishment. If someone carried out a terrorist act similar to Bali in Sydney, we wouldn’t have the option of capital punishment. We got rid of it because it is barbaric (and because innocent people wrongly convicted can’t be brought back to life and released). And we should be fighting it wherever it is still an option. Sad to see a principled position undermined by Rudd’s reflexive anti-wedgism.
Just Alarmed: Rudd wants to be PM.
Anyone who panders to the prejudices of the surrey hills/new farm set, is NEVER going to be PM. He knows this.
Steve at the pub: Although I’ve lived in Brisbane (Ashgrove), I now live in Adelaide. I’m not sure what it is the Surrey Hills/New Farm set have prejudices against. My point is that Howard is hypocritical on this, and the ALP policy that McClelland spoke of is not. In reference to the Bali bombers, there is no reason why Rudd could not have said we want them to rot in jail and not be given the opportunity to become martyrs.
Everyone;
It looks to me that both Liberal Light and Liberal Stale are hell-bent on biparisan support for [or should that be simply "deigned"?] the reintroduction of the death penalty — no matter what coy words of denial they might use. The high priests of bunkum in what is jokingly called the “news”[wtf??] media have commanded that the death penalty be reintroduced and it shall be so. The viewers, suffering from chronic F.I.T.H. Syndrome, want it because they just know that once we get the death penalty and 600-year prison sentences all murders and rapes will stop, no terrorist acts can possibly happen …. and besides, if they dob in the people next door for looking like they might be evil, they won’t be arrested themselves. ((All non-sequitors here are supplied gratis; please help youself to as many as you like …. after all, this is mob politics, not democracy)).
It does not matter that reintroducing the death penalty or other vicious punishments will not prevent a single terrorist outrage; not one! On the contrary, reintroducing the death penalty will be a Godsend to the terrorists. It will get them recruits they otherwise would not get. It will get them financial, material and moral support they otherwise would be denied. Anyone with practical experience of revolutions and of terrorism, either in the security forces or as a “freedom fighter” knows this, it’s just plain simple C.D.F., but such people are not politicians and apparatchiks nor are they media celebrities so we don’t get to hear from them, …. all we hear are the counter-productive fantasies from the noose-&-lash ratbags and from their pet politicians and commentators.
Hanging is back. You can’t stop it now. Just get used to it.
{See, not even once did I mention any moral arguements about the death penalty].
It is not about moral arguments, it is about votes. Since when has principle been a requirement of politics?
Golly, on every second thread on this site someone says “say whatever it takes to get Rudd accross the line, THEN reveal our true colours” If that ain’t a 100% unprincipled stand, it’ll certainly do until something even more unprincipled is found.
Just Alarmed: Of course Howard is hypocritical about the death penalty, as is Rudd, and McClelland was not.
However McClelland’s stance was going to cost lots of votes.
The surrey hills/new farm set don’t have to be prejudiced against anything, they can also be prejudiced in favour of things. What I meant was that the ideals of those Mark Latham termed “tourists” will never be acceptable to those whom he termed “residents”.
Not only do the “residents” outnumber the “tourists”, it is the vote of the “residents” which will be required for an electoral win. The tourists will vote for the ALP/Greens/Democrats/whoever and their vote will essentially filter back to the ALP or a fellow traveller party. The residents are the ones who must be courted.
Whatever it takes, you might say.
SATP’s right – campaigning for the lives of Bali bombers lives would be a vote loser.
I was shocked when I read of the speech.
I can’t imagine how Rudd could have bungled this anymore… so he took a political loss for “principle” only to do an unprincipled backflip? He just succeeded in pissing everybody off!
It amazes me that Rudd approved the speech in the first place. And I am a passionate opponent of capital punishment.
Contrary to what some have said in this thread, it’s not clear that a majority of Australians are genuinely pro-capital punishment. It’s also true that a majority of Australians are not genuinely anti-capital punishment. Response varies heavily depending on how you present the issue to them. If you want to get a pro-death response, ask them when they are thinking of Bali bombers!
The last thing we need is a populist outcry in favour of capital punishment – and that’s exactly what McClelland’s comments risk inciting.
The speech should never been approved in the first place. Not just to win the election, but out of principled opposition to capital punishment.
Ambigulous,
Here in New England we have a Federal Independent local member, who as a State member for Tamworth, advocated the re-introduction of capital punishment. He usually takes a position on issues from the results of surveys he’s conducted in the electorate. If the majority of the electorate are in favour of a policy, say, the re-introduction of capital punishment, he’ll support it. All this happened some years ago. I don’t know what our Federal local member’s position on capital punishment is at the moment.
SATP, David et al:
Slightly off-topic: I have rather powerful personal reasons for disliking terrorists …. and I was not happy to learn that some of the Bali bombers had enjoyed a treat.
But …. I am really annoyed at the reaction by the news-prevention media, the politicans and the noose-&-lash extremists to Indonesian security officers shouting a meal for a few of the Bali bombers to celebrate the end of the Ramadan month of prayer and fasting. These whingers and screamers can’t seem to make up their minds about whether they want to see terrorism defeated, or, whether they just want to get their own way, like spoilt kiddies.
At the time of those bombing atrocities, these same yarpers here were yelling and carrying on like pork chops but not once did I hear any of these same big-mouths offer a word of care and sympathy of the Indonesian victims; on the contrary, ordinary Australians did and they included the Indonesian victims in their prayers and they donated money for the Indonesian victims — but the Australian news media didn’t give that aspect much publicity.
Supporters of capital punishment should be prepared to self-immolate as a demonstration of the power of terminating a life for a very good cause.
Otherwise their sincerity is open to question.
Graham I can’t see how that post related to mine…
I find the dancing-in-the-street-cause-someone’s-gonna-die thing sickening and immoral. The Australian reaction to the sentences of the Bali bombers saddened me a lot.
Umm yeah ok.
source
Revealing choice of language there.