Syndicate
RSS/XML

Main

Articles

General

The Forum > Article Comments > Morality under imperialism > Comments

Morality under imperialism : Comments

By John Passant, published 14/7/2008

A new McCarthyism stalks Australia in an attempt to control dissent and free choice.

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
›
All

This article is a timely way of reminding the submissive little sheep who accept meekly the despotic posturings of governments, that it is THEY who have the ultimate power through the ballot box.

I believe that our memories are much better than politicians and some media commentators believe.
Certainly, we are overloaded by news information, but impressions and reactions are not stifled easily...our memories are long and will be expressed when we sack the transgressors.
Ballots beat bullets.

An example of our taking action against improper legislation was the recent attempt of NSW to use members of the Rural Fire Service and the State Emergeny Services as ex-officio policemen to take action against "annoying behaviour" during World Youth Day.
Quite rightly, the volunteer members of both these organisations told the NSW government to "get stuffed" and refused to become involved.
They were not going to be dragooned into enforcing moral law and it is a good example of applying our personal responsibility not to accept bad legislation.These regulations could be seen as another example of fundamentalists attempting to restrict our rights and freedom.

Why?
Because it is evidence of how religion pervades government.
Look at how the outrageous Christian fundamentalist George W. Bush writes the rules for going to war. Closer to home, the NSW Government over-reacts in support of a religious festival, and Kevin 07 has the temerity to make personal moral pronouncements on photographs, as though his opinion counts for something.
It doesn't!
He is elected to run the government, not our personal opinions.
Indeed, as John Passant says, "it's time for those of us who value freedom to fight back against the new Mc.Carthyism" (or Iemmaism).

Posted by Ponder, Monday, 14 July 2008 11:54:46 AM

I am amazed at the attempt to condone the heinous offences that Belinda Neal is alleged to have committed at the Iguana restaurant.

These are that she intimidated a member of the public (the employee of the restaurant), who was going about his lawful duties, by threatening to use her political position to have the restaurant's licence cancelled.

To compound that offence, she then allegedly conspired to alter statutory declarations made under the Oaths Act, 1900.

According to the media, charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice are being considered.

If convicted, Neal should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than twelve months, thus causing her to forfeit her parliamentary seat under section 44 of the Federal constitution.

These charges are about the worst of which a politician can be accused. The public, of course, expects politicians to be perfect, but at the very least they must obey the law. Just like Marcus Einfeld, who I gather is facing his trial in October, politicians and eminent persons will contravene the law at their peril.

None of this, of course, applies to myself. As I do not consider myself to be perfect, I do not consider myself qualified to nominate for any political position.

There seems to be a profound inability on the part of the political elite to appreciate what the public thinks of them (or, at least, to admit it publicly). When politicians were compared to used car salesmen in the NSW parliament some years ago, the salesmen complained at the invidious comparison, and they had to be compared to snake-oil salesmen. One of the main problems at elections is that all parties, instead of trying to demonstrate that their candidate is perfect, content themselves with merely asserting that he is better than the others. One reform that would improve this would be for a compulsory additional candidate to be added to the ballot paper at all elections. This candidate would be "vacant". If "vacant" topped the poll, the seat would not be filled.

Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 14 July 2008 3:36:08 PM

As a non-academically trained participant I am often left wondering if I am one of a very small elite that actually discusses politics at "The Blue Collar" level. The opinion of almost everybody who is actually "At the coalface" is reflected in this fine article. So many of my workmates and colleagues, peers and interested persons ask the question, "Who actually represents what WE want?". They do not need to be told about The New Morality, the concept of McCarthyism goes right over their heads but nevertheless the points made in this article are exactly what the "Real Voters" are asking.

Who and why do I have to pay so much more for MY alcohol when such a small minority are the target group?
Why are Doctors and unelected bureaucrats making and enforcing policies we had no chance to VOTE on?
Why are so many Christians in Parliament when so few of us even care about religion let alone attend church?
What has happened to real working people making their way into parliament, instead we seem to have a never ending supply of university trained supplicants and sycophants that seem to stand behind the current PM nodding their heads like those toy dogs we all had in our car rear windows so many years ago....?
Exactly HOW does Carbon Credits and it's trading work in easy to understand terms and WHO exactly is making the money?
Why am I denigrated and abused for even suggesting that we do not all slavishly believe everything that is written about Global Warming?
Why hasn't marijuana been legalised?

And the list could go on!!
John Passant, you are to be commended for asking the questions that MANY are asking who are feeling more and more disenfranchised, alienated from decision making and becoming very cynical about ANY politician and our system of "Democracy".

If something is not done soon, like a really alternative political movement that is not going to be suppressed and ridiculed by our monopolistic press barons, (fat chance), then I can see it "ending in tears".

Bravo Mr Passant, excellent article.

Posted by Buck, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:05:36 PM

I found it interesting that legitimate concerns about governments abusing power over ordinary people is used to defend a government member who has appeared to use real or perceived power to intimidate members of the public and then appears to have compounded the issue by attempts to intimidate others into supporting a coverup.

If Wilson has done similar please supply the details, my impression is that the nickname was for his debating style amongst collegues, not for bullying those with less access to power.

We should be vigilant against ongoing attempts to reduce our freedom as protection against an unlikely threat. We should also be vigilant against those who think it's no big deal when pollies threaten member of the public for personal gain or interest.

R0bert

Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:21:32 PM

Thankyou for the insightful article. If only our politicians understood the important difference between ethics and morals, it would help. Kevin Rudds disgust at the photos was putting his own hangups on public display. That kind of attitude is why parents can't photograph their own children at sports carnivals without feeling like suspects.

Less than 15% of Australians attend a church on a regular basis and yet parliament is over represented by christians. Most commonly those who wear religion as a badge and practise hypocrisy on a regular basis. If they prayed to the invisible pink unicorn in Parliament I would not feel any less confident in their intellectual capacity to hold their position.

We follow America into all of their mistakes, their imperialistic motives of silencing dissent and their moralistic pandering while avoiding the real issues of ethics and personal freedom. Why can't more commentators and journalists do their job. Currently most may as well be employed directly by the Catholic PR department. Are they lazy or just lost the ability to practise critical thinking?

Posted by Nicevolve, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:06:12 PM

Almost all the posts had me in agreement, but poor old plodding Plerdsus who feels the predations of the four horse-people of the apocalypse combined, pale into imsignificance against that Great Outrage of the Eons; Bel'n'Del arguing with restaurant staff trying to kick them out before they had had time to finish their meal.
Buck, am blue collar too. It's the best thing you can call yourself.
My understanding is that huge sections of the working classes in this country have always valued thought, discourse and literacy. They fought for access to education for their kids and supported organisation like WEA ( worker education at night schools ) as they had to fight for so many other things.
It's true that tabloid media have dumbed down our community through pandering to the basest instincts of humanity, in order that the civil society generations of people fought hard to build, becomes easier to control and plunder.
But every so often the shallow hypocrisy of those who run things; who say, "do as we say, not as we do" is shown up. It's when they get lazy, complacent,arrogant and finally make a mistake to show up the contradiction between what they are and what they say they are
( also true of Del and Bel, to be fair to Plerdsus! ).
This has just hapened at a more serious level with Cardinal Pell.
Because there was just enough instinct for the truth left in our half-brainwashed culture and a few journalists still interested in the truth, working for an organisation set up by democracy to ensure at least one bias-free source of news, we got a reprieve.
But the McCarthyism is there and the effort to stay free and informed continues as before, for the "price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Posted by paul walter, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 4:01:24 AM

Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:46:00 AM

John Passant makes out that we are on a clear path towards ‘McCarthyism’. But even a lot of the examples he quotes are not indicative of that at all.

For example: tighter restrictions when travelling, especially by air, due to the war on terror. Isn’t this reasonable? Would it be sensible to not have attempted to improve security? Of course some freedom is lost for ordinary people. But perhaps in the absence of these restrictions a lot of people would have lost a lot more than a bit of freedom – in a major terrorist attack or two. And if such an attack did happen in Australia, we’d all lose a whole lot more freedom than we have due to efforts to prevent it.

Of course there are aspects of this effort which irritate some people and which might seem unnecessary and ineffective. But this doesn’t mean that there is a deliberate surreptitious attempt to suppress our freedoms with disingenuous motives.

Example 2: The attempt to introduce ‘annoyance’ laws for World Youth Day was clumsy. But the desire to prevent conflict is understandable. Yes it was a pretty solid attempt to suppress one avenue of free expression, temporarily …against an institution (the Catholic Church) which deserves the expression of a great deal of outrage. But the prospect of major bouts of conflict between WYD events and protesters was rightly something that the authorities and planners desired to prevent.

I don’t like Rudd’s Christianity or his condemnation of artists over child nudity in art. But let’s face it, anyone in his position would have some undesirable traits.

I’m not willing to see any of these things as part of a “gradual strangulation of democratic rights” that John fears.

I believe in stronger governance, a stronger and better-defined rule of law and a more effective policing regime. Rather than this eroding our rights, it would help protect them. This is going to be very important in the near future as some very ominous pressures build upon us all, which will push a lot of people into desperate measures and dog-eat-dog tactics.

Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:17:15 PM

Creeping fascism is what we are talking about here. Our leaders are scared and think they know best for us, we voted 'em in after all.

War leads to all kinds of problems, lies and propaganda being the main diet fed us. In wars past our enemies infiltrated our government departments, attacked out communication lines and played merry hell with our food supplies.

Paranoia, is a symptom of war. Paranoia has two sides - heads fear, tails grandiosity. The grandiose tell us what to do and when we rebel they get violent believing they have the moral duty to cane us. We are being subjected to this insanity everyday now. Food and petrol are inflating like in a war... More people are drinking and drugging themselves into oblivion. The police are harvesting tons of drugs not kilos like in the past. Its like we are at war...
My internet connection frequently goes on the blink like the Internet itself is being infiltrated and attacked - could it be I wonder...

The Prime Minister who appeared nearly naked himself in the Bulletin when he was a child... didn't you know...is a very worried man - three wars going on at the same time and he hates children, well, he finds them revolting and disgusting, pity really when he has all this responsibility and doesn't know what to do about the situation. Carbon credits anyone?

Posted by Barfenzie, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:20:46 PM

Most informative statement since WW2 was the one by Henry Kissinger that to allow little new Israel to go militarily nuclear would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East for years to come, but cause much more anger from Arab nations.

And surely helped to cause the Western tragedy of 9/11.

Making the situation much much worse was Israel's treatment of Mordecai, which should go down in history as the only personage with courage enough to back statements as declared by Kissinger, as well as revealing the gutlessness of the time, not only shown by the UN but also by both the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Certainly the pride that an old soldier like myself felt following the rhetoric from the new UN during the Korean
War, is now buried in the shock and bitterness resulting from a world that has allowed America, just one nation to rule our globe and making such a mess of it by breaking laws that have also been proven from the trials and errors of both our religous and philosophical histories.

It is thus as Immanuel Kant declared:

From now on we cannot trust neither one nation nor even one man under God to rule this world, but most preferably a
Federation of Nations.

From which of course grew the League of Nations and our present United Nations, but failed mostly by a single strong nation letting single nation characters like Condoleeza Rice move in trying to preach the tone of global justice.

Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:38:21 PM

I always tend to agree with the thrust of what you present John, but a few points on this one.

The war-on-terror has led to questionable new legislation expanding the powers for law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies. It begs the question - what is it we are trying to protect if the legislation works against those freedoms and democratic rights we take for granted. In a perfect world, policies that reduce global inequity are the best deterrents(the Greens).

Current economic disparity, not to mention unprovoked invasions like that of Iraq, have inevitably increase the risk of terrorism.

Recent court cases here in Australia demonstrate that the risk of terrorism has increased both in Australia and overseas. This does not mean that we become paranoid as, let's face it, the risk of being killed in a terrorist incident is less than dying in a car accident.

Governments should neither be complacent about terrorism nor should they overreact by enacting dubious legislative powers. It is a balancing act between safety and civil liberties and in this respect our new powers have gone too far.

As for the 'morality under imperialism' argument I am not sure we are any worse than the McCarthy era. We are certainly more enlightened and accepting of divorce, homosexuality and sex outside of marriage.

Morality has always been used by politicians of all flavours as a media opportunity. I don't think we have become any more judgemental. In some ways, secular and multi-cultural societies, have led to a greater understanding of other people who might be different from outselves.

Of course there will always be fear and bigotry - but I don't think it is worse than the white supremacy fanatics of the past and I don't see any increase in 'moral panic'.

As for Henson etal, perhaps the increase in our growing intolerance of the sexual exploitation of children in pursuit of profit has highlighted these issues in the media. There is a growing awareness (not panic) of some of the failures to protect children within a society conflicted by gowing 'affluenza' (gratis Clive Hamilton).

Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:41:45 PM

Must say our OLO is changing its focus too much onto more localised problems, which newer OLO's are already handling.

Gives reminder so much of our Mandurah U3A, formerly begun by ex-journalists still in contact with Perth universities.

Now it has pretty well become a little friendly society even banning anything upsetting, especially news about today's Middle East.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 11:00:54 AM

Re Bushbred's problem with local info disseminators and Palestine. Amazing how even the most progressive media units in this country seem to quail before this particular issue.
Of course mass media you gave up on ages ago- only Disneyland stuff contrasting the kind zionists and naughty towel-heads.
Almost like 1984, trying to find out the truth on some issues.

Posted by paul walter, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 4:16:02 PM

Bushbred, I must admit I didn't understand your comment. How was it related to my article? I don't see the growing activity of the reactionaries in Australia in the sphere of morals (perhaps as a consequence of their loss of real power and paradoxically with the support their casues receive from the new PM) as unlinked to the way the Palestinian disposession is portrayed here.

Maybe you could explain what you were getting at.

Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 4:58:42 PM

Yep, Passy, but must say as a historian I've lost my zest for personal discussion.

Further, going on 88 and outlived my darling wife, spend much of my time walking her dog and wondering why our leaders have not learnt the lessons of history - so much so in the Middle East, and of course, in Australia, where also as an old cockie, reckon apart from sport, we are really now stuck in the proverbial quarry economy, with pitstock billionares our only heroes.

Just wondering when it will all run out?

Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 5:46:02 PM

Dear bushbred

I understand your thinking. I have been dealing with grief and am now getting better finally.

I think the failure to learn from history is one of the great mistakes of our generation and the generations we have raised.

That's why I even appreciate conservative hsitorians who are serious in their task. I just disagree with the lessons and conclusions they draw. but at least they think and rationalise rather than just rant and rave.

As to the idea of when will it all end, this is an openended question and the context in which you ask it is not completely clear.

If you are referring to resources, then maybe the idea that resources are limited reflects a particlar social structure. It is certainly arguable however that the present relations of production may well be a fetter on the development of, for example, alternative energy sources.

In any event I wish you well. Keep taking the dog for walks. I find that one of the most enjoyable parts of my day. I talk to my mutt and imagine his responses, trying to nut out particular issues or systemic problems in capitalism, for example. In fact it has prompted me to think about a book tentativley entitled the political animal about a dog who travels around the world with his famous political exile of a master. he reports the cvonversations he had with him during their walks in various cities against a personal background of battles with various substances, family issues, the temptations of the flesh etc.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings.

I appreciate your contributions.

Posted by Passy, Thursday, 17 July 2008 8:55:32 PM

I must admit, I cringe when I hear all this moralising, it's something I've taken particular note of since that whole Monica Lewinsky affair.

Clinton lied, which was ultimately his undoing, but damn I'd have loved to have instead seen him respond to questions about his personal life with "my personal affairs have nothing to do with the state. No comment, because it's my business."

To have him impeached, no less, when it was revealed the reasons for the Iraq war were exaggerated at the very least, but with no impeachment... honestly. How many stuff ups has GW made which actually affect other people, instead of a single stained dress?

It seems this moralising has only stepped up since then. Yeah, the alcopop tax is a fine example, but they're everywhere. During the election, you couldn't open a newspaper without being hit with some supposedly significant piece of information about some MP or other, when in the majority of instances it was scarcely relevant to their duties.

So where does this lead us?

The most competent people get crucified if there is some foible in their personal life, regardless of its relevance. So the field is left open for the competent and incompetent, provided they meet the important criteria of never having experienced things which might offend such delicate sensibilities.

I'd rather have some MPs who've lived a little and aren't so cossetted.

Recently I noted in the US that there's being a bit of a reaction to this, when asked about marijuana smoking, Obama admitted he'd tried it and yes, he had inhaled at the time. Somehow, I think that refreshing honesty gained him more points than it lost because people are so damn sick of this over-the-top conservatism.

Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:08:16 PM

An excellent piece of food for thought. I, too am a blue-collar man and I and my mates often discuss the constant erosion of our rights and liberties in the name of one or the other "good reasons" that our Fearful Leaders have chosen as their wedge today. From The War on Terror to The Plight of Women to The Scourge of Drugs to The Cash Economy to Protecting Our Children to...

There is a real effort being made by Governments of all stripes to implement more and more Draconian laws to give them control over a populace that is increasingly divorced from the process of Government. Tony Abbott, when Health Minister, made a telling slip during an interview I saw, when he clearly made a distinction between those who use medical services and "the taxpayer". As personal income tax in this country has a net shortfall of around $5 billion vs personal rebates, benefits and grants, it's clear to see why he made that distinction. Corporate entities are "the taxpayer" and hence worthy of protection at all turns, whilst we, the people, are merely "beneficiaries" of the taxpayer's contribution. The smoke and mirrors propaganda is used to justify the reductions in our capacity to self-determine, while the large Corporates have the freedom to transcend restrictions at will, with little fear of consequence.

A further factor is the aging of our populations, since older people are frequently more prone to jumping at shadows and to be fearful of change. All a politician has to do is invoke a bogeyman and s/he may be sure of a large support base for "being strong". Once, he also had to risk a rotten tomato from those who disagreed, now he can hide behind press releases and tame journalists who regurgitate his inanities uncritically.

Historians will not be kind to those in power through the 90s and 00s and nor should we be today.

Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 18 July 2008 5:49:30 AM

Just had good week of rain north of Dalwallinu, Passy. Hope now for the best season in four years.

Looked like the grandkids running the wheat properties coupled with multiple dry seasons would have to find jobs with mining companies.

As one who believes he's had a lucky life, just a bit worrried whether it'll be so lucky for my fifteen grandkids, what with too many dry seasons and when our Ausssie pitstocks run out.

Reckon there's still not enough discussion about such a future?

Posted by bushbred, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:19:47 PM

A strange article, passy. While I agree with your basic premise, I find it strange you should try to support it with the arrogant dictatorial actions of Neal/Bosca. These two appear to be precisely the type of elitist scum you (I thought) were ideologically opposed to.
Iron bar Tuckey gained his nickname from an incident incurred in the sixties, when he was a hotel manager. He beat up an aboriginal man with an iron bar (he claimed it was a 100 amp cable) while another man held him down.
Tuckey was fined $50.00.
Oh, for the good old days, when men could be men.
Yes we do have to protect our rights and freedoms. The only way us blue colalr types can possibly do this is through trial by jury; made up of 12 ordinary citizens, and able to try not only the case, but the law the case entails.
This would require courts of justice, rather than courts of law; where the only question the juror has to face is: what if it were me? (being held down while another man lays into me with an iron bar).

Posted by Grim, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:03:07 PM

Grim

I take the point about elitist scum. I just think the media overplayed it since the world is full of elitist scum. This includes those in elected positions who criticise Neal and Della Bosca for their actions when they are symptomatic of an unrepresentative system, not just two indivudals.

I still think the initial media attack on them was over the top and symptomatic of the new McCarthyism - pick on indiscretions to gain popular support fr ressetnailly reactionary positions while ignoring the major issues.

Take for example all this kerfuffle about two photos of young people. Yet a 15 year old Canadian boy is tortured in Guantanamo and no one finds this shocking, or a real example of child abuse?

And none of the so-called child protectors seem to worry too much when kids are locked up in our version of concentration camps, the refugee centres.

I guess I am saying that although Neal and/or Della Bosca may have been less than perfect, the reason this is being blown up is to satisfy the agenda of the new MCarthyists for greater control, especially of working people, to ensure the elites ability to extract more and more surplus value out of workers. After all if everybody began to behave like Neal and Della, regularly, profits would fall, and we couldn't have that could we?

Anyway let's see what comes out of the Neal/Della investigation (which itself will be political). I might have some comments on that after it sees daylight.)

Posted by Passy, Saturday, 19 July 2008 10:32:52 AM

bushbred

I agree with you that there is little thinking about the future. Planning is something that the short termism of profit extraction at best individualises by tying it to islands of capital or at worst ignores.

The debate about global warming is a great example.

And the short term party we are having around resources has made us drunk to the consequences. The hangover isn't till tomorrow, and tomorrow is a long long way off, isn't it?

I think we are about to coallapse into bed and in a few hours wake with a huge headache. Worse than that we may have partied too often and the results coud be terminal.

Posted by Passy, Sunday, 20 July 2008 1:49:30 PM

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
4
›
All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy