|
|
| Combating the Rise of Fascism and Erosion of Democracy in Australia |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
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.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Cam
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
