The Monty Python song lyrics came to me this morning, reading the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) over some pancakes and a latte at a local cafe.
The more I read, the more came back to me about all I have read, debated and honestly, shunted to somewhere near the back of my action priorities ... Australia - like many 'Western democracies' - is slipping in to fascism and there is barely a whimper. The Rise of Fascism in Australia
There were three key triggers for my 'worries' in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The first was the regular opinion piece by Mike Carlton, commenting on the new 'anti-terrorism laws'.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/you-have-the-right-to-be-locked-up/2005/09/30/1127804659621.html
The second was Wendy Frew writing on the Gunns case, and expressing the perils of protest in contemporary Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/perils-of-protest-in-the-new-age/2005/09/30/1127804662763.html
The third was Leunig's cartoon - I've reposted it here:
http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/30321
I've read pieces and observed examples and patterns with regard to the erosion of civil liberties, the quelling and discouragement of dissent - and arguably worse political participation!, and the encroaching specter of 'fascism' over the last five years. Truth be told, I've probably paid attention to this in some form or other since reading 1984 back in Year twelve.
And I have, particularly more recently, upped my level of political engagement, awareness, conversation and activities. I'm thinking that it might be a difficult proposition not to when you live in Canberra. Yet these triggers had me asking "Am I doing enough?", or anything really. Is what I'm doing helping to avoid history repeating, stopping fascism? Do I deserve freedom? How much vigilance - in terms of "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - is enough?
My days, and too many of my nights, are pretty much spent 'working for good'. I am paid to work in fair trade (http://www.fta.org.au). I run an international not-for-profit organization engaging young professionals in sustainability and social change (http://www.iypf.org) in my spare time. My office is located in the Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development (http://cgkd.anu.edu.au) where our team is primarily concerned with changing 'the rules of the game' for the benefit of humanity, particularly those who are currently poor and powerless.
Is this enough? I have the luxury of working in these areas and earning a livelihood from it. Most don't. How do they feel?
I feel like I've done little to oppose - or constructively critique - changes to laws, values, etc. that threaten the values, beliefs and world I love and cherish.
Hmmmm.
Anyway, here are some more thoughts on these triggers, and some additional references.
Anti-Terrorism Laws
Mike Carlton's piece opens with the following quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/you-have-the-right-to-be-locked-up/2005/09/30/1127804659621.html
Mike says "Australia's heads of government joined in a shameless conspiracy to pervert the constitution by depriving us, the people, of our ancient legal protection from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial."
Given recent performances - locking up and deporting Scott Parkin, intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, children overboard, the ongoing detention debacles, institutional abuses of children in care of the state and the mentally ill, indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody - I see absolutely no reason to believe that Federal or State governments should be trusted with such powers, or that they are even capable of doing a good job.
History too doesn't provide a glowing record, not for government's ability to use these powers wisely and effectively, nor for the rights of citizens.
Fascism creeps up slowly. It's helped along when traditional voices of dissent or critique are weakened - NGOs, the media, parliamentary structures for review.
A piece in the SMH by David Humphries explores this a little:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/scrutiny-like-nostalgia-has-become-a-thing-of-the-past/2005/09/30/1127804659633.html
So does Wendy Frew's piece on the perils of protest (see later).
We have all seen the rise of spin and the clever manipulation of the public through the media - on issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, Tampa - and now these methods have been applied to the new anti-terror laws.
Marian Wilkinson and David Marr, in their piece today, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-know-where-you-live/2005/09/30/1127804662748.html, demonstrate how insidiously released, but subsequently denied, 'facts' can sway public opinion.
I quote directly: "Twenty-four hours after the country's leaders agreed to draconian counter-terrorism laws this week, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, was playing down media claims that ASIO believed there were 800 would-be suicide bombers living in Australia."
As minister responsible for ASIO, Ruddock described the figure as "highly speculative". So did Mick Keelty, chief of the federal police. But the story helped create an atmosphere of looming danger to bolster government claims that these laws are necessary in the wake of the London bombings." End quote.
They also include quote from various legal sources on the new laws. For example: "I am not prepared to believe without good evidence that this country is in such danger that it has to contemplate interning its own citizens," says a leading Sydney QC, Ian Barker. "Why are we expected to accept that everything an intelligence agency says is true, when we know it's not true? On past experience, it's a very doubtful proposition."
Another interesting article that caught my eye was this one by Tom Allard, which raises some interesting questions about how the new laws might be interpreted. In the article, they quote the president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ameer Ali: "If you speak in support of the resistance in Iraq that must not be seen as promoting terrorism in this country."
I am concerned about how this one might play out.
Gunns, Dissent & The Law
The second trigger that got my attention was Wendy Frew's article on the perils of protest and dissent.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/perils-of-protest-in-the-new-age/2005/09/30/1127804662763.html
Gunns’ case has not been given enough of a run I don't think. It's a scary case. It demonstrates to me that, like a majority of seemingly 'neutral' institutions and regulations, the legal system does tend to favour the powerful and wealthy over the ordinary citizen. Increasingly the law is used as a tool for consolidating, expanding and protecting the interests of the government and big business. Because its 'the law', its decision are seemingly unquestionable. This is not to deny the litany of counter examples. In my opinion, these are the exceptions rather than the rule, and do not discount a bias in favour of those who can afford access and to buy the knowledge and expertise to work the system.
In her article, Wendy talks about various mechanisms that together further stifle dissent in Australia.
To quote: "There is no evidence of a conspiracy between state and federal governments or between government and business to crack down on dissent, says Clive Hamilton, the executive director of the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute. "But there is no doubt that there is a strong push aimed at closing down or restricting civil society in engaging in the political process," he says. "If you talk to the NGOs and not just the environment ones, they are clearly afraid to speak their mind," he says. "People are afraid they will have their reputations trashed, money taken away from their organizations or legal action taken against them." End quote.
To avoid fascism, we need dissent. We need disobedience. We need a strong civil society. We need a critical media. We need NGOs with voices and access to the halls and means of power, such as the legal system. This includes freedom of speech and tolerating views that we on the progressive side don't like. The process is more important than the content here. That is hard to take sometimes.
Civil Disobedience
I quoted before "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". I've always been a fan of many of the early writers in the US, including Thoreau, Whitman, Emerson - and of course Ben Franklin who Mike Carlton quoted. These men were suspicious and cautious about governments and their power. They preached a gospel of personal responsibility, and a responsibility to oppose power when it was being misused.
Of course the world was simpler then. The complexity of our world now probably demands that we abdicate SOME responsibility to the state. I don't think we have the balance right though. For all the dogma of neo-liberalism, states who espouse this doctrine are heavy on regulation and control, including in the economic domain.
I saw the new Joss Whedon creation (of Buffy and Angel fame), Serenity, on Thursday night. A bit like Star Wars, you have a rebellion fighting an empire. Although in Serenity, the 'independents' have been defeated. It is the the Alliance who rules and the Parliament controls almost everything, including using major force to quell insurrection and any threat to the 'better and peaceful universe'. Themes of the abuse of power, the responsibility to do mischief and disobey, what it means to be a human, control vs. autonomy - they are all there. They speak loudly to the world we find ourselves in. Science fiction has always dealt with such themes, exploring contemporary issues in a 'future scenario'.
Unlike our heroes in Serenity though, it is very difficult for would-be-heroes (such as myself) to identify the enemy, to fight them in a practical, physical way, to get a beacon on the right levers to pull, the right foundations to dismantle.
In our information and knowledge age, the battleground is ideas, institutions, regulation and governance. There are very few dragons for us to attack with our swords and axes.
Why Are We Going Quietly In To The Night?
Another piece in today’s Sydney Morning Herald - by Hugh Mackay - seeks to explain why we are just going with the flow on these challenges to our liberties and our quality of life.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-the-threat-that-serves-well-to-explain-our-fear/2005/09/30/1127804659630.html
Hugh sees the new laws in the context of 25 years of social turmoil and dysfunction.
He puts it like this: "The gender revolution has transformed our patterns of marriage and divorce. The birthrate has plummeted and our households have shrunk. The combined impact of globalization and the Internet Technology revolution has exerted increased pressure on our working lives and the restructure of the economy has created a culture of job insecurity. We have begun to see ourselves as a different kind of society from the one we used to be - more media-driven, more drug-saturated, more commercialized, more competitive, less egalitarian, more closely engaged with Asia, more multicultural. Is it any wonder so many Australians talk about their yearning for "balance", or describe their lives as being "out of control"? These are people to whom the world seems a tougher, more unpredictable place than it used to be and they complain that our distinctive "values" are becoming harder to define."
So how do the anti-terror laws, protest and civil disobedience fit with that?
Hugh argues that: "Our uneasiness in the face of these upheavals is reflected in our skyrocketing consumption of tranquillizers and antidepressants, our escape into relentless materialism, our backyard mentality, and our obsession with the renovation of everything from teeth to terraces. It is also reflected in our disengagement from politics and a tendency merely to shrug when we're confronted by things like the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the management of refugee detention centres, the Government's collusion in the scandal of Guantanamo Bay and, now, the passage of anti-terrorist legislation: "There's a problem? Let the Government fix it."
Mark Latham's mid week lecture at the University of Melbourne - along with the opinions of many others over time - also talked about this 'hollowing out of our democracy'. We have become disengaged, disillusioned and distrustful of our politicians and governments. Elections are a pain in the butt. We don't believe anything politicians say anyway, so what's the problem with breaking election promises. We expect it.
Political Re-engagement & 2024
The challenge of re-engaging people in Australian (and many Western) democracy and politics, and the dissatisfaction with party politics is something a new group I am part of is thinking about.
The network, called the 2024 network (http://www.2024network.org), seeks to advance progressive politics over the 20 years from 2004 - when the Howard government was re-elected.
The first of its papers is on political re-engagement. See http://www.2024network.org/paper1
I'm not clear on the answers but I think this might be one of the clear 'battles' to be fought in terms of fighting fascism and achieving a more healthy society and culture.
Why The State and Federal Collusion?
In another explanation as to how these anti-terror laws came in to being, Peter Hartcher's piece explores how Labor is striving to be the Daddy that we all crave.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/battle-to-be-the-daddy-of-them-all/2005/09/30/1127804659627.html
Peter discusses US party distinctions in terms of Mummy and Daddy parties.
To quote: "A Mummy party is most interested in caring for people. It is empathetic, inclusive and concerned with fairness. In short, it wants to give you a cuddle. A Mummy party is seen to be best at providing services - especially health, education and welfare.
A Daddy party, on the other hand, is strict. It is big on self-discipline and self-reliance. It is frugal and interested in obedience. In sum, it will stand you on your feet but keep you on your toes. A Daddy party is trusted to look after the fundamentals of keeping the family secure - with good economic management and competent national security." End quote.
In Australia, the coalition is the Daddy, and Daddy is running things federally. State & Territory governments who have responsibilities more related to 'caring' (health, education) are all Labor.
As part of attempts to become more of a Daddy, e.g. establishing its economic credentials and getting tough (tougher than the coalition in some respects) on national security, Peter argues, Labor has sold our freedoms. No-one wants to look soft on terrorism. If they do, when the attack that many think is inevitable (I am one of them), they will be hung out to dry politically by the media and the opposing parties/government.
For me, it's a complex state of affairs. The challenge is big but not insurmountable. I believe we can avoid fascism and secure a better Australia, I am hopeful.
My hope and concern though, needs to transfer to more informed action. I'm not clear on what that is. I know what I am doing matters and I should not stop those things. Political re-engagement is something I can see and work on. It needs to be more than that though. The road is long. I will find something. I will stand on the side of good. I will disobey and dissent and engage and participate.
« return.