Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
It’s
- Burmese Bloggers Without Borders is an independent voice reaching out to the rest of the world. In March they highlighted the case of two Rangoon journalists who were imprisoned. Amnesty International has also taken up the case of Thet Zin and Sein Win Maung.
- Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer has been in prison for over a year now, for writing about political repression, religious extremism and discrimination against women. Amnesty is also working for his release.
… Maybe Kevin08 is one of those tricky housemates who tries to keep a low profile while attempting to snatch the big prize by doing nefarious work out of the gaze of the cameras.
I probably can’t stretch the Big Brother analogy too far, but one of the big concerns I had about the election of the Rudd government was that the momentum for campaigning around a whole range of vital issues would stall. That’s partly I think because elections provide a convenient end point - if you were horrified by what Howard was doing on refugees (for instance), the most immediate and pressing issue was to vote him out of the House. But it would be a fatal error to assume that’s the ball game.
Margaret Simons has a story in Crikey today reporting on the deep concerns the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has about the exercise of Senator Chris Evans’ ministerial discretion on asylum seeker claims since the election. 42 claims have been processed, and 41 rejected, a 97.6% rejection rate which is the highest it’s been since 2001 (the year of the Tampa.) According to Pamela Curr of the ASRC, one of the claims rejected has been that of a woman who escaped captivity while her “owners” were in Australia on holiday - she was being held against her will as a sex slave. She was originally from Africa, and had been trafficked to the Middle East.
This may not be the intent of the Government. Continue reading ‘Under the radar’
As a follow up to the discussion of the 2020 Creative Australia stream here, I’m reproducing (with permission) below the fold an article by Nicholas Pickard in today’s Crikey. Pickard writes about a group of delegates who are apparently so “incensed” that the recommendations didn’t reflect the ideas suggested or discussed that they’re now forming an advocacy group to hold Peter Garrett accountable. It’s intriguing that the invitees the government copped so much grief for having there in the first place seem to be the most dissatisfied of all the streams (it’s not as though a lot of the rest are shrinking violets when it comes to soliciting media coverage, unless they’re hiding their lights beneath a bushel while simultaneously gritting their teeth). It’s also interesting to see that Garrett has been unable to capitalise on the goodwill including the arts and culture crew inside the tent should have generated, suggesting that he might be a flop in both his portfolios (that’s if you accept, as I do, the argument that the signs are he’s not flash in Environment). Certainly the article seems to indicate that delegates blamed Garrett for putting in the fix rather than his two co-chairs.
Of course, we don’t know (yet?) who the dissenters are or how many delegates are unhappy. It could be that the anonymity approach might be a way of running a campaign to have the final report more accurately represent the discussions, and those concerned aren’t yet ready to go fully public with their criticisms.
Discussion starter - Bernard Keane in Crikey:
China’s Foreign Ministry have warned against protests in Canberra because the torch “belongs to the whole world”. That the corrupt thugs who run China (latest effort – dispatching a boatload of weapons to fellow despot Bob Mugabe) object to expressions of dissent even in other countries is no surprise. But let’s get over this fetishisation of the Olympics.
Year after year the same faces, the Kevin Gospers and John Coateses who are apparently on the Olympics gravy train for life, stand up to declare that it’s all about the sport, or world peace, or the youth of the world. In fact it’s a giant media event designed to generate massive revenue which, this time around, is being employed to promote one of the world’s most brutal regimes.
And you can see where these sports administrators come from. Just about every athlete or sports person parrots the same lines about sport having nothing to do with politics or, for that matter, morality, as if sports – professional, international sport, in all its cash-generating glory – is somehow a priori disconnected from basic ethics and standards of civilized behaviour.
For those planning to have a crack at disrupting the relay, or who just want to marvel at some wonderful security overkill, the event kicks off at 8.30am tomorrow morning.
The location? Reconciliation Place. That’s Olympian-level irony.
Elsewhere: John Quiggin.
As mentioned in a previous post, I’m speaking on Sunday at a forum organised by the Search Foundation in Brisbane. The idea is to discuss how we in the left might formulate some objectives that transcend both particular campaigns and electoral politics - in short, an exercise in re-envisioning goals. I’m circulating my paper in advance of the meeting, and I’ll be talking to it rather than reading it, but since there was some interest on the previous thread, I’m also posting a link here. [pdf]
I’m looking at a subsequent magazine publication, so any feedback and discussion is greatly appreciated, and as I’ll be extemporising around the text on Sunday, I’d also be delighted to incorporate any constructive comment in the talk itself.
While we (or most of us at any rate) were asleep, the Guardian’s Eleanor Schor was liveblogging the progress of the Olympic torch relay/rally through San Francisco. Or rather, on a boat circumnavigating San Francisco.
Watching from Kiwiland, No Right Turn asks a pertinent question:
Is it a relay if no-one can see it?
According to the Guardian’s liveblog, the torch has since returned to land, a significant distance from its original route, and it may not even finish at the original location. So, they have no protestors - but no spectators either. So much for taking the torch to the people…
Update: According to the Students for a free Tibet liveblog, one of the torchbearers pulled a Tibetan flag, and had the torch taken away.
Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd has got up the goat of the leader of the Tibet Autonomous Region, Qiangba Puncog:
Asked about previous criticisms by Mr Rudd, Mr Qiangba, a Tibetan Chinese, said: “Australia and other countries should have a better appreciation and understanding that people in Tibet are now enjoying democracy and wonderful human rights protection and those remarks are totally unfounded.”
Whatever. They can’t expect anyone outside China to take that seriously. Obviously it’s part of their typical Maoist-era information control tactics, and to warn Rudd not to press them too hard on human rights. It’s to his credit that he’s undaunted.
Image from The Age.
The Liberal Party is demanding that Kevin Rudd and federal ministers boycott the Olympics opening ceremony.
However, federal Small Business Minister Craig Emerson said a political boycott would damage the spirit of the Olympics.
Why?
What’s interesting about the current conjuncture, according to Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber is the shift from inter-state politics to the politics of protest:
The current debacle though seems to mark an important change in the politics of the Olympics. As best I understand it (I am open to corrections if wrong), in the past, Olympics politics have concerned inter-state rivalry, and have been driven by decisions on the part of traditional political elites. The US boycott of the Soviet games in protest against the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 resulted from a decision by Jimmy Carter, and the tit-for-tat boycott by the Soviets and their allies of the LA games in 1984 resulted from a top level decision too. The dynamic driving the Beijing Olympics seems to me to be rather different; what we are seeing is that the politics of boycott is being driven by mass-publics, and most recently by protestors, rather than by political leaders. In the absence of the public unrest that has culminated in the recent protests in Paris, I doubt very much that Western political leaders would be muttering about not showing at the opening ceremonies – the geopolitical stakes of market access etc are likely more important to them than the fate of Tibetans. But given the widespread public reaction in the West, even leaders like Gordon Brown, who obviously want very much to attend, are having to insulate themselves from public pressures by taking other actions liable to annoy China (such as meeting with the Dalai Lama). In short, I think we are seeing how public opinion and organized cross-national opposition can create significant constraints on the ability of leaders to respond to what they see as the geostrategic necessity of keeping China happy. This is, as best as I am aware, a new phase in the development of the Olympics.
Continue reading ‘What exactly is the spirit of the Olympics?’
Who came up with the bright idea that holding the Olympics in China would improve its human rights performance? Worked a treat in 1936 and 1980, didn’t it?
It’s doubtful what the protests against the torch relay will achieve, but props to the protesters. The only way these things ever get sorted is through the courage and will never to give up, and to make your point at the point of maximum impact and leverage. Meanwhile, the “sport separate from politics” narrative is fracturing before our eyes. And it seems to be dogging the steps of our Dear Leader as he travels across the world (next stop - China…)
[Via Feministing.]
I was really moved by the acceptance speech Iranian feminist activist Parvin Ardalan recorded on YouTube for her acceptance of the Olaf Palme prize. Ardalan was prevented by Iranian authorities from travelling to Sweden to accept the award. The text of her remarks can be found here, though I’d recommend watching the video itself. Like Samhita at Feministing, I’m struck by the similarity of the issues she and other Iranian women confront with those confronted by women across the world. I’m also very struck by her tribute to feminists of other nations.
In the list of unasked questions - has PETA’s prominent use of naked women in its campaigns ever actually converted anyone to animal rights? Or just drawn attention to them as an organisation?
There’s quite the focus on this in the blogosphere in the US, with a New York Times article on a “Vegans Gone Wild” message - a Vegan strip club in Portland.
Aside from dissing feminism, the shorter response from animal rights activists gone wild appears to be:
“Sexuality is what society will turn its head for more than anything else,” said Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, who added that the recent advertisements were just one of the group’s strategies. “We try to reach everybody in different ways.” She noted that the group has also shown naked men in ads.
Well, that’s ok then.
The Search Foundation is holding a series of roundtables in capital cities leading up to a national conference in 2009. The idea is to stimulate discussion in order to contribute to a reimagination of the objectives of the left in Australia. I’m speaking at the Brisbane event on April 20. Prelimary details available at this link:
flyer-and-program-for-brisbane-roundtable-april-20.pdf
I think this sort of thing is fabulous - it’s very easy to lose sight of longer term goals and the necessity of developing both a realistic critique of Australian society and aims which go beyond the necessary every day struggles for various causes or for electoral victory. So I hope and trust it will be very worthwhile.
The event is invitation only, but if you’d like to be put on the invite list, please email Rachael Jacobs at this address.
QUT Creative Industries Faculty researcher Axel Bruns has presented a paper on citizen journalism and blogging in the federal election campaign to an AMIC conference organised by UQ’s School of Journalism and Communication on “Convergence, Citizen Journalism and Social Change”.
I’m yet to read the whole paper, which along with his slides, Bruns has helpfully posted on his blog Snurb, but on noticing that LP was one of the four case studies, I narcissistically devoured that bit and decided to leave the rest til later. I think Bruns gets what we get up to about right, but (and he’s examining the degree to which blogs might have a broader influence, something Mark has argued isn’t all that likely and not necessarily desirable) I thought this excerpt might be worth discussing:
Continue reading ‘Citizen journalism, blogging and politics’
Yesterday, the House of Reps passed the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 without a division and the Senate committee released its report into the legislation. Although from my point of view, it’s fantastic that WorkChoices is being buried, the way it’s being done raises important questions about the government’s commitment to consultation and the integrity of the legislative process as well as important questions about the relationship between the labour movement and the Labor party. I look at all this in my column in today’s New Matilda.
I’ve mentioned this before, but the renovations to the blog and something that’s on tomorrow night have got me thinking about it again. From time to time, I’ve been inviting people to events I think LP folks would find interesting via the blog’s Facebook group - most recently, the Anna Haebich book launch and this week, a forum tomorrow night featuring John Quiggin on the way forward for the labour movement. Just because of where I live, these events have had a tendency to be in Brisbane! I’d be really keen to see people use LP and the Facebook interface to promote things on all over the shop that would appeal to people this blog appeals to. So I’d encourage people to let me know of anything that might fall into that category.
I also think that it might be a spiffy idea to run some of our own - I’m thinking more forums with speakers and discussion than grogblogs - not everyone’s into the latter, but those who are could of course combine the socialising with a bit of politicising. What do folks think? I’d be very keen to have some feedback, ideas, suggestions.
Incidentally, if you’re on Facebook, please consider joining the blog’s group. And feel free to add me as a friend!
As the glittering office and apartment towers pile ever higher on the narrow peninsula that hosts Brisbane’s CBD, news came last week about a true atrocity from a developer - the demolition of part of the Regent Theatre, and its replacement by… an office tower. The irony here is that much of Brisbane’s built heritage was destroyed in the late 70s and 80s, and this is the second “Save the Regent” campaign. Developers, the Bjelke-Petersen state government and interchangeable Labor and Liberal Council administrations marched in lockstep to knock down much of old Brisbane, and the Regent was a pioneer for the policy of partial preservation which reached its apogee under Liberal Lord Mayor Sallyanne Atkinson - where many buildings were “saved” by the retention of their facades. In the case of the Regent, in 1980, the 1929 foyer and entrance hall were preserved and some of the fittings re-used in the “Showcase cinema”. You can read about the history of the building here.
The current proposal would preserve what is there, but fundamentally change the character of the building by alienating its purpose as public space - and as a cinema - and giving us yet another 38 story office block. The developers defend their project with the unoriginal claim that “the redevelopment of the Regent would see it given a new purpose.” Well, to be sure. But the lavish entrance hall will no doubt be protected by security guards and the only people who’ll enjoy its charm will be the suits who work there. It’s a nonsense to suggest that this sort of vandalism is in any way protecting the heritage of the cinema. Just as with the demolition of Festival Hall on Albert Street a while back, what will also be demolished is the material embodiment of many memories. To treat the Regent like this is to eviscerate its history and present design - as a theatre.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Recent comments
joe2, David, Chris (a different one), wbb, huggybunny, joe2 [...]
Nick Caldwell, Lefty E, Tony D, Graham Bell, Mercurius, Tyro Rex
Lefty E, Eye, Kim, Fine, Laura, Adrien [...]
spog, Richard Bruce Cheney, Spiros, derrida derider, spog, David [...]
Kim, Andrew E, steve at the pub, Mark, steve at the pub, steve at the pub [...]
Kim, marlin, Andrew E, Adrien, Fine, Adrien [...]
Kim, BearCave, Alan, wilful, Kim, Alan [...]
Adrien, Leinad, Graham Bell, Adrien, Tony D, Graham Bell [...]
weez, Brian, Robert Merkel, Brian, murph the surf, Brian [...]
Katz, Katz, Li Kao, Katz, Li Kao, Katz [...]
MH, Graham Bell, wilful, Kim, Zarquon
Chris (a different one), Mercurius, Chris (a different one), SJ, Chris (a different one), SJ [...]