Dear Banjo,

Peter Costello's eighteen years in parliament
- in Opposition and in Government confirmed
him in the conviction formed in his youth that
politics for all its rough edges is a civilised
and civilising calling. Despite all the obloquy
shovelled on the head of politicians - they are
men and women who work the machinery of our
Liberal democracy way of life.

They reflect public opinion - and at their best
lead public opinion - and transmute it into laws
that shape our society and our country. He has devoted
himself in Parliament to liberalising our economy to
laying a basis for the prosperity of future generations,
and to heightening the respect the world pays to, and
owes, our country.

Peter Costello has discussed some of the unresolved
problems that face us, especially addressing asylum
seekers and indigenous disadvantage and dealing with
the structure of our federalism. He stressed the fact
that we must deal with these to move forward as a free,
fair and vibrant society. Peter Costello has no doubt
we can find the solutions that suit us, provided we
do not succumb to the siren calls of demagogues,
charlatans, and ideologues.

Costello tells us that the achievements of the past
decade have laid an extraordinary foundation.
Properly preserved and built on,
we now have opportunities we never had
before in Australia's history. He states that the best
years for our country are still in front of us.

I believe him. As does Mr Turnbull - when he tells us
that this is a very exciting period for us and
our country to be in.

I would rather look at the future through rose-coloured
glasses than bleakness. As the old adage states -
Two men looked through the jail house bars.
One saw mud, the other stars.

You know what I would rather see.

Fox,

You need to be aware that the stunning that was previously mandated and is vastly preferred by producers and processors leaves no possibility whatsoever of any recovery from immediate deep unconsciousness that ends in death.

Ritual slaughter is less than that as I intimated earlier and I outlined why.

Toni Lavis, "Because if you banned it for Muslims you'd have to ban it for Jews as well"

Stuff them and the horse they rode up on as well!

Some may not realise that the Standard mandated certain conditions, no 'ifs' or 'buts' for humane slaughter. Federal and State DPIs had been informing their ministers for years of the problem and were routinely ignored. The DPIs supported the Standard of course.

It wasn't that ritual slaughter was banned but that it did NOT meet the Standard and hence not only could not be performed, but a works could lose its licence to operate.

All stakeholders were strongly motivated towards the best treatment of animals during transport and handling and in final slaughter.

While humane considerations would have ruled anyhow, all have a vested interest in kind handling because to do otherwise results in meat losses and poor prices through bruising, tough meat from stress and so on, including the risk to the operator (slaughterman).

For slaughter, NOTHING less than stunning to irreversible unconsciousness absolutely guaranteed and progressing to death was acceptable and nor should it be now in Australia.

If any of the political parties ever want to test the Australian electorate for a mandate for ritual slaughter they can go right ahead and find themselves out on the street. It is not going to happen, because like immigration the major parties have a behind the doors agreement to not allow the electorate a say on it. The media plays the same game and self-censors without any need for direction. Democracy? BS!

Dear Foxy,

<<Peter Costello -
gave a speech at the Sydney Institute in which he argued
that freedom and tolerance can be protected only within
a legal framework that is accepted by all.>>

That's laziness on his part. Off the top of my head I can think of several different possible methods to protect freedom and tolerance.
Now if what he said was true, the implication would be that there is no way to protect freedom and tolerance, because no legal framework was ever accepted by all.

<<To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first to Australia.>>

The vast majority of Australian citizens pledged nothing - they were simply born here or to an Australian parent.

Myself, the only loyalty I pledged on becoming an Australian citizen was to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors.

<<One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the rights and liberty of others, and to respect the rule of law.>>

I have no problem whatsoever with the rights and liberty of others, but as for such beliefs which I do not hold and the respect which I do not have, indeed today I could not have become an Australian citizen, yet at the time I did, citizenship was not conditioned on any beliefs nor respect.

<<Unless we have a consensus of support...>>

Well there is no consensus, never was, nor is it statistically ever probable, so what are you going to do?
May I remind you that 'consensus' means 100% agreement, not 99.99%!

<<We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.>>

That's a fairy-tale: show me where that compact is, if you can.

<<In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.>>

Fact is, that our rights and liberties are only partially protected.
In practice, individuals, companies and government routinely violate our liberties and nobody can truly assure us protection.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<There is one law we are all expected to abide by>>

So expects Costello, so expect Muslims too - and both wave a big stick.

Both Costello and Muslims may have great ideas, but to the extent they use violence to enforce them, it is wrong and makes them no different from each other.

<<If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.>>

Oh please don't take it so personally because my claims are not specific to Australia: I do not accept the fundamentals of any body of people which enforces itself on others by violence - this includes every state presently on earth.

<<Our state is a secular state.>>

But that's not the issue - the issue is that it is violent, something it shares in common even with states that enforce Sharia law.

<<As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship>>

If and when it likes. I don't find this sufficiently assuring.

Foxy,
Your last post appears to be your interpretation of Costello's words from his book. This is where I disagree with Costello.

Firstly politicians do not reflect public opinion. In fact they seem to go out of their way to do the opposite. For example, if there was a vote on muslim immigration/refugees at present there would be an overwhelming NO vote. So we will not get a vote.

What achievements of the past decade? The only good thing has been that Abbott/Morison stopped the boats, after the previous government allowed an invasion of some 50000 illegals. The best years in Aus were from 1950 to 1970, where we saw massive expansion of our electricity grid, many labour saving machines and infrastructure built and high living standards with home ownership within reach. Since then we have gone down hill, both socially and industrially.

There is nothing happening either here or worldwide that indicates there are looming "opportunities like which we have never had before", as you claim.
Pray tell what gives you or Costello reason to be opptomistic about the future. I see a bleak future for our GGGrandkids, especially in social cohesion and living standards. The European problems will arrive here with continued immigration.

Australia desperately needs politicians that will put the long term interests of our citizens before their own.

Foxy, the 1200 allowed in (against my better judgment) are invitees. Those in detention entered, or at least tried to enter illegally. Game, Set, Match!
There is no credible argument for letting them in because the risks far outweigh the benefits. The risk of reopening the Rud debacle. The risk of allowing people in with no real way of proving who they are, or even where they came from. The risk of not knowing their past history as far as their involvement in terrorism.
Sorry Foxy but you have backed yourself into a corner on this one so you should save face and get the hell out as you will never win this argument.