Several readers want to read what Hanson said on her release. She gave a doorstop when she walked out of jail, then an exclusive live cross to the news with Channel Seven. Today she’s done Alan Jones on 2GB and a quick doorstop at the gate of her property outside Ipswich around midday. I haven’t got a transcript of that last one yet, but will try to track it down.

Here are the first three transcripts, in chronological order.

The transcript of my debate with David Oldfield on Lateline last night is at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s984063.htm.

1. Immediately on her release, an all-in door stop at the jail. Transcript by SMH assistant Ebony Bennett, from a tape recording of Channel Seven and ABC videotapes. Thanks to Tim Hunt, Seven press gallery cameraman and Simon, ABC chief of staff.

Pauline: Can I catch my breath?

It’s very important in my period of time I’ve been here I’ve had thousands of letters from the public that have supported me, not only in Australia , but as far away as Poland, Russia, New Zealand, England, America and Canada. I’ve learnt from this experience and I do think I’m a little bit wiser for it.

Journalist: What do you think you’ll do tonight?

Pauline: With family and friends.I’m going to hug my kids because I chose not to give them the hugs because of the strip searches, but that was my choice. And it was hard for my father last Thursday – not being able to give him a hug and that’s where I’m off to now, to see my very special man in my life, my father.

The message that I’d like to say is – I got caught up in the system that I saw fail me and I just, I am so concerned now for the other women behind the bars here – and men – that have also seen the system fail them and that’s my biggest concern. And I – my love and wishes to the girls that I’ve shared the last eleven weeks with and I’d like to say a big thank you to the prison staff who’ve done an excellent job and I would like to send an extra special thank you to Alan Jones and to Bronwyn Bishop for their support and not giving up on me, especially the people of Australia.

Journalist: Did you get a hard time in jail?

…

Pauline: The system let me down like it’s let a lot of people down. And there are other girls in there that the system has let down. And it’s only because of money, power and position that stops them from getting their freedom.

Journalist: Does this change your views about jail?

Pauline: Yes.

Journalist: In what way?

Pauline: I’ll leave it at that. I just want to say I’ve learnt from it and I’ll never get over the support that I’ve received from the Australian people and it’s just astounded me. And I’m so happy. Now please – I just want to go and see my father.

(She gets in the car, then notices Ettridge is out too. She gets out of the car and they embrace)

Ettridge: How are you? How skinny are you?

Pauline: We knew it didn’t we?

Ettridge: Yep. Isn’t it unbelievable?

Pauline: The truth. I said the truth will set us free.

Ettridge: The truth did set us free. Good on you. Look how skinny you are.

Pauline: I am not –

Ettridge: Obviously, you ate less food than I did. Good on you. Now I want somebody if you can to give me a ride to the airport so I can escape from Queensland please. (A journo offers him a ride)

Journalist: What’s it like to see Pauline again?

Ettridge: Lovely, on the outside, it’s wonderful. (To Pauline) We’ll talk soon.

Journalist: How would you some up your last eleven weeks in jail?

Ettridge: It’s been an interesting experience. I think I’m enriched as a result of having been in prison. I’ve seen another part of life that people talk about, but never experience. People who now want to give opinions on putting people in prison and how severe their sentences must be, have no idea of the effect that it has on a prisoner, their family , their friends, their assets their whole life. I’ve met people in here who are doing fourteen years, twenty years, fifteen years, it is incomprehensible to think what effect that has on a person.

Journalist: Where are you flying out to tonight?

Ettridge: I’m heading back to Sydney.

Journalist: To be with your family?

Ettridge: To be with my dog and with my family.

Journalist: Will you be seeking compensation?

Ettridge: Apparently there is no compensation possible under this system. Other prisoners are entitled apparently to something like $1200 a day for incarceration. I’m not entitled to anything. At this stage I’m just happy to be out.

***

2. Exclusive interview at the jail after the all-in with Network Seven, live cross to the news. Replayed on this morning’s Sunrise program. Transcript by Rehame.

PROGRAM: Sunrise

DATE: 7 November 2003

TIME: 7.41am

PRODUCER: Phil Sylvester

SUMMARY: Discussion on Pauline Hanson’s release from prison. Interview with Pauline Hanson, Former One Nation Leader.

MELISSA DOYLE – PRESENTER: Well, when Pauline Hanson walked free from jail last night she was keen to thank her supporters, thousands of Australians who’d been campaigning for her release.

DAVID KOCH – PRESENTER: And before heading off to be reunited with her family she got that message out by choosing Seven’s Peter Doherty to talk to. Here’s that interview.

PAULINE HANSON – FORMER ONE NATION LEADER: The support that I’ve received from the Australian who never gave up believing in me and trusting in me and that’s really what kept me going. I’ve received nearly four thousand letters and I think also I must give a special thank you to Alan Jones and Bronwyn Bishop because they really put themselves on the line for me (indistinct) believing.

REPORTER: What’s (indistinct) or how (indistinct)?

HANSON: It was fine. I was just one of the girls in there and that’s the way I wanted it. I didn’t expect to be treated any differently and I still had my day on the dishes (laughs) once a week and so everything was fine.

REPORTER: [inaudible question]

HANSON: Yes they did and a great big thank you to the prison staff and I’ve made some friends in there, some mates, and I’ll be keeping in touch with them. Hi (laughs). So, anyway, that’s to a special mate that’s in there.

REPORTER: What’s this done to your confidence in the legal system?

HANSON: I’ve seen a system that has failed me and my concern is how many other innocent women and (indistinct) men that are actually behind bars that shouldn’t be there. And I’m thinking seriously about this that I’d like to put out a call to retired solicitors, judges, legal people to give up their time to work with me to speak to these people who have been wrongly imprisoned because it’s got to a stage, it’s either you’ve got the money to pay for your freedom – because there’s a lot of girls in there that don’t have the legal help and I’ve tried to help as many as I could.

REPORTER: They’ve obviously touched you deeply.

HANSON: The whole thing has. I’ve learnt a lot from it. I was a person that had my opinion and, yes, I thought I knew everything as a member of parliament to go and look through the prisons. You know nothing and these politicians and bureaucrats that make the legislation have no idea. And yes it’s been a very daunting distressing time. I could never explain what it’s done to me but in so many ways I’ve learnt so much from it and I need just to learn from it.

REPORTER: You’ve taken this one day at a time. Thinking ahead, I know you’re not going to (indistinct) question, are you going to run again? What are you going to do?

HANSON: (Laughs) Look, at the moment that’s the furtherest [sic] thing from my mind and I’m actually keen to get my dad, if you’re there, I’m coming and I love you. And I love my sons, my daughter and my sister Judy who’s been out there. And I used to tell you all that I was the quiet one of the family and I think after you’ve seen my sister out there and a couple of the others you’ll know what I’ve been talking about. But it’s because of their devotion and the love for me and just that bonding and family ties that we have that, you know, they’ve gone on fighting for me and I’ve been so fortunate.

And to all the people of Australia and just everyone, thank you. I know it just doesn’t seem much to say but thanks.

REPORTER: What a day, eh?

HANSON: Yeah.

REPORTER: Thank you Pauline.

DOYLE: What a day, certainly. Pauline Hanson there talking to Seven’s Peter Doherty. Now, drop us an email on your opinion, what you think about what she’s been saying, seven.com.au/sunrise.

***

3. Interview with Alan Jones on Sydney Radio 2GB this morning. Transcript by Rehame.

STATION: Sydney 2GB

PROGRAM: Alan Jones

DATE: 7 November 2003

TIME: 7.16am

PRODUCER: Justin Kelly

SUMMARY: Discussion on Pauline Hanson’s time in prison and her the Queensland Court of Appeal ruling overturning the electoral fraud charges. Interviews with Pauline Hanson, former One Nation Leader; David Ettridge, One Nation Party.

ALAN JONES – PRESENTER: Pauline Hanson is on the line. Pauline, good morning.

PAULINE HANSON – FORMER ONE NATION LEADER: Good morning Alan.

JONES: Have you had a good night’s sleep?

HANSON: (Laughs) Well, I got to bed about three thirty your time.

JONES: (Laughs) Yes.

HANSON: I’ve been up for nearly the past hour or so. I haven’t had a lot of sleep and –

JONES: How’s your dad?

HANSON: Oh, he was very emotional and he’s great. It was good to see him. He needed to see me and I needed to see him and so it was wonderful.

JONES: I’ve got to tell you, your family were absolutely fantastic. Those boys and your daughter they’re class people the way they handled themselves through it all. I guess we’ might just give you a bit of music to settle you down for the morning. You’ve heard Adam. This is I Can’t Believe. I mean, he’s a musician and a singer and he wrote this. This is Pauline’s son.

[musical interlude – I Can’t Believe, Adam Hanson.]

JONES: And, of course, he says justice will be seen. Now what to say, innocence will convey you’re not guilty. The omens here were very clear. What is it she’s done. Innocence is now. Waiting to be cleared. When will you be home again? Well, all of that, of course, was answered fairly swiftly yesterday afternoon in about three minutes, wasn’t it?

HANSON: (Laughs) Yeah. It’s just I haven’t seen Adam yet. Adam flew down to –

JONES: Yeah, to the fundraiser here.

HANSON: Yes, and I spoke to Adam on the phone. He was very emotional and he’s very close.

JONES: Yeah, they’re good boys.

HANSON: He’s very, very close to me.

JONES: Yeah, he and Tony, they’re good boys.

HANSON: It hit Adam very, very hard and he’s going through a very hard time and his school is going through a hard time and he didn’t have that contact with me just to give me a phone call and just get mum’s advice and just get mum’s hug and it’s been so hard. I think it was the hardest part, seeing my kids go through it.

JONES: Sure. Once that verdict you were having lunch and they said get back to court because they’re going to hand down the judgment. So you’ve gone into the court room on that day and you heard what that woman Patsy Wolfe had to say, what was going through your mind?

HANSON: I was absolutely stunned. We were having lunch and we were so confident that the case we just put across such a great case. The prosecution just had no evidence, I couldn’t understand the whole lot.

JONES: Well, just for the benefit of my listeners again, Pauline, I’ll just say again that Mr Justice de Jersey said what everybody who knew anything about it said. Mr Justice de Jersey said yesterday the preponderance of the available evidence points to the conclusion that the applicants for membership became members of the political party Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or more probably of both that political party and the support movement.

The Crown cannot on this evidence safely sustain the position upon which the convictions depend. That is that the list comprises the names of persons who are not members of the political party but were members of the support movement only. It would be unsafe to allow the convictions to stand in these sentences. He could see that they were one in the same thing. These people knew they were joining Pauline Hanson’s party.

HANSON: They did Alan and in 1997 from October 1997 we passed that no one would be able to join the support movement any more. We were winding it up, it was started in late 1996 by Bruce Whiteside on the Gold Coast, so we were just appointed as president. And I was appointed president, David as the vice president of the organisation just as basically figureheads but we had we didn’t even run it. We didn’t even process memberships –

JONES: Quite.

HANSON: – at the office.

JONES: Don’t worry about that. Everyone knows that. Don’t worry about it. What do you say though today, because that day when you were sentenced the judge Patsy Wolfe said to you the crimes you committed affect the confidence of people in the electoral process. Called you a criminal from the dock.

HANSON: That hurt because I’ve always [becomes emotional] I’m sorry.

JONES: No, no, not at all, of course, it hurts. Of course it hurts. So where do you think now the system of justice stands? What do you do? You met people in jail –

HANSON: Alan –

JONES: – who are victims like you were.

HANSON: Alan, there’s a lady in there, she’s fifty-two. Her name’s Anne. Anyway I got to meet her three weeks ago. She came in there and she’s been given a life sentence for murder and she wasn’t even she wasn’t there at the murder scene and it’s been proven. But they’ve tried to tie her in that she’s actually saying that she had something to do with the organising. This lady attempted to take her life because she couldn’t handle the fact of given this charge [sic]. Anyway I’ve helped her to get legal help because she’s going through Legal Aid and the day before her she was given her legal representative, another one, two days before her appeal, and the day before I sat down with her for hours going through her submission to give her QC as much information as we possibly could and so now she’s waiting for a decision from that.

This lady shouldn’t be there and another nineteen year old girl, because there’s no funding, there’s no money and I got her to see Chris yesterday and I’ve (indistinct) her just to speak to Chris to get her out on bail. Because she hasn’t even been to a committal till May next year and she won’t go to trial till the year after that. And this is what I’m saying, there’s so many people in there that need help that shouldn’t be there. And I was the fortunate one to have your support, to have the public’s support because I was known. But there’s so many people that once they’re in there the door slams. The legal system, the Legal Aid, it’s useless.

JONES: Now, what about the just coming back to your you’re dead right, and that’s a battle for another day. But they also then told you that the five hundred thousand dollars in electoral funding you had to pay back because you’d fraudulently registered a party. What’s going to happen to that five hundred thousand dollars now? Someone owes your political party five hundred thousand dollars.

HANSON: Well, it wasn’t the political party that paid it Alan. It’s through the –

JONES: No, but I’m just saying the political party itself is owed the five hundred thousand it was paid back.

HANSON: That’s right, yes.

JONES: Then, of course, what our listeners need to understand is that you were charged also with dishonesty and inappropriately using seventeen thousand dollars for a fighting fund. That occupied the headlines all the way up to your trial. They then find you guilty and slap you in jail and suddenly and coincidentally the DPP withdraw those charges because they didn’t have any evidence.

HANSON: That’s correct. They knew that all the time.

JONES: Knew that all the time.

HANSON: And we were actually trying to get them to drop those before the trial.

JONES: But they allowed the headlines to run.

HANSON: And they wouldn’t do it and then since I was convicted and sentenced to jail on Wednesday, the following Monday well, it was another day or two after that, they told us they were going to drop the charges the following Monday.

JONES: Yet it was highly prejudicial to everything you were trying to do in Queensland. The allegations were aired throughout Queensland. The headlines were in the media and running every other day.

JONES: Pauline, the other thing is you then heard this thing read out, no parole, handcuffed, strip searched. You chose not to see your children face to face because that would have involved you in the humiliation of being strip searched.

HANSON: I went through it a couple of times to see my kids and I had to go through the strip search and it just it was just me, Alan. You know, the other girls put themselves through it. I just couldn’t. And I did it a couple of times and I said to my family I said I can’t do it, I just can’t do it. And they said mum, we understand. You do what makes you feel happy.

JONES: That’s it.

HANSON: So then I went through the con non-contact visits which was through a glass panel, four glass walls, enclosed, and just a glass panel that you look at –

JONES: Yes, that’s right.

HANSON: – look through.

JONES: Yes.

HANSON: And –

JONES: What’s the prevailing sentiment today because it’s hard, it’ll take you a while to work things out, is it relief or is it anger? And what about people who constantly tried to foster the argument that you were some awful woman guilty of frauding [sic] the system? You must feel angry that those people were constructively seeking to put you behind bars. They got you there.

HANSON: It’s been going on for years and I’ve got you know, there’s a big question mark over all this, everyone’s part in all this.

JONES: It’s not over yet, is it?

HANSON: Yeah, the people of Australia need to ask the questions. It’s not on just my behalf but for themselves. Because if you get and you question the major political parties, if you get up to have a different voice in this country you’re slammed and you’re shut down. And that was the whole that’s what they attempted to do right from the very beginning, Tony Abbott with his slush fund. And that’s why the litigation, for years I’ve been faced with charges the party has one time we had I had thirteen different legal battles on my hands and it was just draining the party’s finances but it kept me out of –

JONES: Just before just because you threatened the major political parties.

HANSON: And it took me out of, you know, politics and I just couldn’t concentrate on anything. People say I was naive and I was and I –

JONES: Just hang on and have a breather and I’ll come back to you because David Ettridge has just come onto the line. Just hang on, Pauline, and we’ll come back to you. David, good morning.

DAVID ETTRIDGE – FORMER ONE NATION MEMBER: Good morning, Alan.

JONES: How – you’ve got the plane out of Queensland.

ETTRIDGE: Yes, I did, got the last flight out last night.

JONES: And you won’t be going back.

ETTRIDGE: (Laughs) Only for a holiday one day in the future, I’m sure.

JONES: Your wife has done it very, very tough, hasn’t she?

ETTRIDGE: She has. This is the tragedy of anybody who gets sentenced to prison that your family, your children, your or everybody who knows you, even your pets, all suffer.

JONES: Mmm. You have been found by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in particularly the Chief Justice of Queensland, to be comprehensively innocent, indeed to the extent it would be unsafe to allow these convictions to stand. Are there politicians out there today who should be concerned about your innocence?

ETTRIDGE: I think they should be and for the role that they played in bringing this situation about. They’re all hiding under beds around Australia, they know who they are and the roles they played.

JONES: And what will you be doing?

ETTRIDGE: What can we do, Alan? We rely on people like you to let the public know that this was an injustice and it was politically motivated. It was abuse of power.

JONES: Mr Justice de Jersey said that the DPP was so badly resourced and lacked appropriate legal expertise which if that hadn’t applied, this matter would never have even gone to trial.

ETTRIDGE: I don’t believe that. I think that the DPP relished in this conviction.

JONES: Yeah.

ETTRIDGE: They didn’t the day before the decision was handed down we knew that they believed they had lost as we believed they had lost. And they couldn’t believe their luck and neither could Patsy Wolfe believe her luck when they heard the jury say guilty and –

JONES: And yet Justice de Jersey suggested that Patsy Wolfe had misdirected the jury.

ETTRIDGE: Yes, that’s exactly what she did and I think she just couldn’t believe she’d been handed this guilty verdict. And between her and Brendan Campbell they just couldn’t wait, like sharks circling, to put us in prison for a term that was had no relationship whatsoever to the charges.

JONES: If you ran with Pauline politically, and I’ll come back to her and ask her the same question, Pauline’s listening, the public would want to speak in the only way that’s available to them, that’s in a political sense. They feel there’s nothing they can do other than to put their hands up and tick and vote. Would you consider re-entering the political environment to try to redress some of these wrongs?

ETTRIDGE: Well, I feel that there are a lot of wrongs taking place, and I wonder if there is any other way to bring them to account, except to let them know that the public of Australia aren’t stupid and they won’t fall for (indistinct)

JONES: They sure as hell aren’t. They sure as hell aren’t.

ETTRIDGE: And (indistinct)

JONES: Good luck to you and your wife.

ETTRIDGE: Good on you Pauline, too.

JONES: Yeah. She’s there somewhere.

ETTRIDGE: Yes.

HANSON: (Laughs)

JONES: Good on you, Pauline. So, he’s had a sleep, and you’ve had a sleep. Pauline, I’ve got you both there.

HANSON: Yeah?

JONES: Politically – I know it’s a silly question to ask a day later, but would you consider running for political office, giving the public perhaps the only opportunity that’s available to them to register their support for the fight against the kind of things you’re seeking to do battle against?

HANSON: It is a hard question, Alan. I just don’t know any more. It’s, like, I had another go at running for the seat in New South Wales, and every time I have run, I’ve just been pipped on the post with preferences. And when you had I had one woman that raised something to me in (indistinct) the shopping centre down in Miranda (indistinct), and she says, ‘Pauline, Pauline’ – she’s pushing a pram with a baby – twenty-eight. And she says, ‘Look, I didn’t vote for you, but I want to you know, hang in there’, she said, ‘and keep you know, doing a good job’, and I just looked at her, and I just shook my head.

JONES: Yeah.

HANSON: I didn’t vote for you, but keep going. And I thought –

JONES: Well, there are battlers. And you’re the principal (indistinct)

HANSON: – so what do I do?

JONES: Yeah. Well, you’ve handled yourself brilliantly. There’s a lot of battlers. Look, gather your breath and have a good rest and keep your chin up because the Court of Criminal Appeal have really done you proud.

HANSON: Alan, I just wanted to say personally to you to thank you very, very much –

JONES: Mmm.

HANSON: – for not giving up on myself or David.

JONES: Well, I believed you, Pauline.

HANSON: Yeah.

JONES: It’s as simple as that. You’re a good lady.

HANSON: And –

JONES: And you’ve got a good family, too, and so does David Ettridge.

HANSON: Mm hm.

JONES: You deserve better than this.

HANSON: Mm hm. And it’s so important to thank of thousands of kids that wrote to me.

JONES: Yeah.

HANSON: I never can thank their letters, their wishes, their love, their prayers –

JONES: No. They don’t want thanks.

HANSON: Kept me going.

JONES: They knew a wrong had been done, and it was the only way they could manifest their concern about it. You have a good weekend, and we’ll talk soon.

HANSON: Thanks, Alan. Bye.

JONES: And David, to you and your wife, all the best.

ETTRIDGE: Thank you Alan.

JONES: I hope the immediate future is better than the recent past.

ETTRIDGE: Thank you very much.

JONES: David Ettridge and Pauline Hanson.

 

Pauline Hanson after her release. Photo: Andy Zakeli

The legal system has fought back big time via the Hanson judgement, slamming Howard, Carr and others for cynicism and disregard for the rule of law. Before the extract from Justice McMurdo’s judgment, Pauline Hanson gave a short, emotional, and extremely interesting press conference just televised on the 7.30 Report.

“I’ve learnt from this experience and I’m a little bit wiser for it.”

The system had failed her, she said, and it had also failed “the women behind the bars there”.

Did she get a hard time in jail? “No.”

“The system’s let me down like it’s let a lot of people down… because of money, power and position.”

Had the experience changed her opinion about jails? “Yes.”

How? “I just want to say that I’ve learnt from it.”

***

EXTRACT FROM JUSTICE MARGARET McMURDO

The appellants were convicted and sentenced on 20 August this year. It is common knowledge that convictions and sentences are subject to a lawful appeal process. The appellant Hanson appealed against her conviction on 26 August 2003 and applied for leave to appeal against her sentence on 27 August 2003; the appellant Ettridge filed his notice of appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence on 1 September 2003. The appellants’ conviction and sentence attracted a deal of media attention and public interest. Senior members of the legislature, many of whom were trained lawyers, were reported in the media as making inappropriate comments about this case.

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying: “on the face of it, it does seem a very long, unconditional sentence for what she is alleged to have done” (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Age, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003).

Former Federal Minister and now senior backbencher, Ms Bronwyn Bishop, was reported as likening the prosecution of this matter to something one would expect in Zimbabwe under the regime of the tyrant, Robert Mugabe:

“It’s gone beyond just political argy-bargy of political opponents I’ve been very critical of her and her party, but this is something that is above and beyond that political argument – this is someone who has been sent to jail because she spoke her views and that is not acceptable in this country. Very simply, for the first time in Australia, we now have a political prisoner and I find that totally unacceptable in a country where freedom of speech and freedom to act as a political individual is sacrosanct.” (The Courier-Mail, 26 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003; The Australian, 26 August 2003.)

The New South Wales Premier was reported as saying that the sentence seemed excessive because it was “almost a crime without a victim” (The Australian, 22 August 2003).

Western Australian One Nation MP, Frank Hough, was reported as saying that Hanson had been “hounded into prison. All she’s guilty of is naivety and inexperience.” (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003.)

The Queensland One Nation leader, Bill Flynn, was reported as saying that he believed there had been “considerable political pressures” behind the case (The Courier-Mail, 21 August 2003).

As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no retraction of any of these comments. If these observations were accurately reported, they are concerning. They demonstrate, at the least, a lack of understanding of the Rule of Law, the principle that every person and organisation is subject to the same laws and punishment and not to the arbitrary wishes of individuals or the passing whim of the day. Such statements from legislators could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the judicial appellate process and to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical political motives.

Fortunately, many legislators asked to comment on the case responded with appropriate restraint. For example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, pointed out that Hanson’s sentence “was a legal decision, not politically driven” (The Courier-Mail, 22 August 2003, p 5; The Australian, 22 August 2003, p 2) and the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer noted that “the matter was one for the courts”. (The Age, 23 August 2003; Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August 2003.)

A failure by legislators to act with similar restraint in the future, whether out of carelessness or for cynical short-term political gain, will only undermine confidence in the judiciary and consequentially the democratic government of this State and nation.

Soon after I published the views of two Jewish Australians, Ian Cohen and Antony Loewenstein – Ian on the Brandis accusation that the Greens were Nazis, Antony on Hanan Ashrawi – a reader rang my editor to demand the Webdiary entry be taken down immediately. What’s going on here?

Tonight, varied reaction from Jewish and non-Jewish Australians to the Loewenstein piece, and more reaction to the Brandis smear. Dr Ashrawi’s speech last night is at Peace not a question of legitimacy, but of humanity.

Brandis told me over coffee last week that after the furore over his speech he called Colin Rubenstein, who agreed with it. Brandis suggested on Lateline last Friday night that Rubenstein called him:

I was contacted by a very large number of leaders of the Jewish community who told me that they fully supported what I had said, in particular the leader of the other peak Jewish community in this country, Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the Australia Israel Council told me not only was he not critical of the speech but he supported it and he was pleased that it had been given.

In my view, Colin Rubenstein does not represent the majority view of Jewish Australians on this matter. To Brandis, it did. And talk about vilification! To Rubenstein, it’s fine to call the Greens Nazis but intolerable for Jewish people to critique the activities of a powerful, minority Jewish lobby with lots of money and power. I informed George that my Jewish friends were appalled at his remarks. One friend requested me to stop referring to “Jews” when discussing the Ashrawi controversy and to distinguish between Zionist Jews who supported Sharon and the majority of Jews, who do not.

I have no problem with people strongly opposing the decision by the Sydney Peace Foundation to award the prize to Ashrawi. I take strong objection to attempts to force the withdrawal of the award and the putting of financial and political pressure on people to withdraw their support for the prize. This level of intimidation could lead to a surge in anti-Semitism, the very thing no-one sensible wants to happen.

Here’s an award you can have a say in. Peter and Mariann McNamara write:

The national trust is calling for nominations to be added to the 100 living Australian national treasures. (some 11 new nominations will be added to the list to replace those who are now deceased). We are keen to add Greg Mackie for his vision and leadership in the arts and society, support of the arts and ongoing civic contributions in South Australia and australia generally. There are many more deserving Australians who make a difference to our lives and our community. If you are interested to add your nomination(s) please email treasures@nsw.nationaltrust.org.au indicating the field they have excelled in.

I nominate refugee campaigner Julian Burnside QC and Senate Clerk Harry Evans.

***

ASHRAWI

Ron Grunstein

I am not sure what you meant about the Kerry O’Brien interview of Hanan Ashrawi as being “sensational”. Her avoidance of Kerry’s questions about her views on Hamas were telling. Why doesn’t she condemn Hamas and their ilk? There are other Palestinians trying to create a peaceful dialogue in the Middle East – often away from the microphones of CNN. They would have been more deserving recipients of a peace prize.

***

Sari Kassis, Palestine Human Rights Campaign

Antony actually earned his ticket to the Saturday forum with Ashrawi not because Fisk quoted him or because he wrote that great analysis piece. He earned it MONTHS ago (July 3, 2003) when he wrote Defiant Israel blind to what it has become. So he earned his stripes a while back. His VIP pass to the Ashrawi event was delivered because of his consistent high standards and integrity. A rare commodity when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

***

Alison Daams

I am not part of the “Jewish Lobby” being a Presbyterian Scot, but I am appalled by Margo Kingston’s inclusion of the Norman Finkelstein cartoon in her Webdiary. “Specious victimhood”? The holocaust as an indispensible idological weapon? (Margo: The link was in Antony’s piece – are you sugesting I censor him?)

***

Edward Baral

I am shocked and appalled and somewhat frightened by the Webdiary posted on SMH.com.au today. Ignoring factual inaccuracies and onesided viewpoints presented (which were copious) and looking only at the language of vilification I counted:

– 8 references to “The Jewish Lobby”

– 3 references the “The Zionist Lobby” (and 1 “Zionist ploy”)

– 3 references that compare Jews to Nazis (ie “jackboot” and “milaristic mindset”)

Not to mention numerous references that suggest Jewish skullduggery and a worldwide Jewish plot for “Jewish supremacy” whilst “cannily maintaining the victim tag”. And this is before we even review the links to a number of offensive and racist websites.

Frankly I am shocked at the Sydney Morning Herald for publishing this. This is not about Israeli/Palestinian balance but a direct attack on the Jewish people.

I ask that you withdraw this article, publish an apology and advise what steps you will take to ensure that vilifying material such as this is not published in the future.

I replied: Hi. The two pieces published were by Australian jews.

Edward replied:

Irrespective of who wrote this material, it is offensive and racist. If a black person were to write that all black people are ugly and stupid would this not be offensive to black people? Would the Sydney Morning Heraldpublish it?

Just because this offensive material was written by Jews does not make it right, does not make it any less offensive and does not abrogate the Sydney Morning Herald’s responsibilities. I await your considered response.

***

Duane Kelly

Excellent work publishing the Antony Lowenstein piece. It was the first time I had seen any media space given to the Palestinian point of view and it does not surprise me one bit that it had to have come from a member of the Jewish community. After all, if anyone else had said it, they would have immediately been labelled anti-semitic and dismissed.

***

Mike Lyvers in Queensland

Margo, I’m very disappointed that you endorse the “peace prize” awarded to PLO propagandist Ashrawi. (Perhaps before I continue I should add that I’M NOT JEWISH as a response to the standard knee-jerk characterization of all who rightly object to this “peace prize” as Jewish or Zionist – of which I’m most definitely neither.)

I’ve been watching interviews with Ashrawi for decades, as she has frequently appeared on the American Public Broadcasting Service Newshour (shown here weekdays on SBS). She is a classic propagandist who very smoothly avoids answering direct questions from an interviewer, as she did so very smoothly again last night with a fawning Kerry O’Brien.

Ashrawi’s record shows that she has consistently been an advocate of war, not peace. To award her a “peace prize” is as absurd as awarding the same prize to Ariel Sharon.

Margo, you’ve disappointed me greatly. (I might even switch sides and start following Tim Blair’s website because of this!)

I replied: It’s a divisive one, this one, isn’t it? Yes, I do endorse the prize, but I haven’t written about it. All I’ve done is publish the views of two Jews who support the prize. I can’t see anything wrong with that. Hope you enjoy Tim.

Mike replied:

With all due respect, Margo, I think you and many other well-meaning supporters of Ashrawi have been duped by a superficially charming, smooth-talking psychopath. She’s an absolutely classic case of that.

***

‘Zionism’ not a dirty word

by Josh Mehlman

Antony Lowenstein treads a fine line in his piece “Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent”. While I endorse his sentiment, I think he’s guilty of making excuses for unnecessarily vitriolic and racist hyperbole: his contemptuous use of the word “Zionist” as if it’s some sort of swear word, and his tacit – at best – support of a racist set of arguments against Israel.

Even if you trot out the tired accusation that “anyone who criticises Israel is called an anti-Semite by the Jewish community”, it does not automatically follow that criticism of Israel is never anti-Semitic. There are obvious anti-Jewish motives behind much of the anti-Israel invective currently in the debate. At the core is a troublesome issue: it is not a question of “Do we have the right to criticise the Israeli Government?” – of course we do – but does Israel as a country have a right to exist?

I realise in some lefty circles “Zionism” really is a dirty word, but it has been abused and over-generalised. When the left deplores “Zionism”, it refers to the ultra-right nationalist extreme of Israeli politics, which currently holds power in Israel, and with which a large proportion of Israelis and Jews worldwide do not agree. It paints all Zionists (and often all Jews) as extremist racists.

But “Zionism” – divorced from its reactionary right-wing usage – simply refers to the right of Jewish people to self-determination. I have yet to hear a rational explanation of why Jewish people should be denied the right to their own country.

Denying Israel’s right to exist is, simply and unquestionably, anti-Jewish, there’s just no way to get around it. It’s one thing to criticise nationalism as a concept, but it’s exceptionally hypocritical and racist to claim that Palestinian aspirations to nationhood are legitimate but Jewish ones are not.

While there are no reasonable grounds for denying Israel’s right to exist, there are plenty of unreasonable ones. There’s a line of thought – used by both extremes of politics – that tries to undermine Israel’s existence by claiming that Jews have exaggerated and manipulated the Holocaust for political gain – and that Israel continues to do so even today. The claim is that Israel was only created as a payback for world guilt over the Holocaust – brushing aside 3000-odd years of pre-WWII history – and has no other legitimate reasons for existence. Norman Finkelstein’s argument – which Lowenstein endorses – that Israel perpetually wears some sort of “victim: get out of moral obligations free” card clearly follows this reasoning.

No wonder the Jewish community is uncomfortable when “anti-Zionist” rhetoric of this kind enters mainstream Australian political discourse. It has has every appearance of being a racist denial of Jews’ right to a homeland. Is this simply a misunderstanding of terms? Is it overly generous to think that when people slag off Zionism this is merely a shortcut for “right-wing expansionist Zionism”, but that most people would support Israel’s right to exist? Or has the Australian left yet to come to grips with its own racist demons?

***

Jenny Green

Can you please pass on congratulations to Anthony Loewenstein – his article is fantastic, and must have cost him some pangs. I don’t know what it’s like for him, but I certainly feel under pressure to toe the community line on these issues. That ends in a really unhappy balance for me – to my father and other Jews I always argue the Palestinian side, but to non-Jews, even close friends, I feel protective, and don’t want to wash dirty laundry in public. Either way, I always feel guilty and dishonourable. My politics are usually left-of-left, and it sits really uneasily with me that my feelings are a nasty mix of hard left and hard right about Israel/Palestine.

I believe in and support the establishment of a Palestinian state, I believe that Israel must absolutely end the occupation of the territories, must disband the settlements, must pump resources into the that state, and believe in a unified Jerusalem under Jewish administration. I am very proud of my Jewish heritage. And I don’t support awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi. I was horrified also that the Nobel went to Rabin and Arafat.

I wholeheartedly support awarding this prize to a Palestinian, partly because it is forging new ties of support away from America’s baleful influence. I didn’t know much about Ashrawi before this bunfight blew up – except that she had been a PLO spokesperson during Oslo. I have since read the transcripts of as many of her speeches and interviews as I can find, and what she is NOT is a peacemaker. Seeking to lose as little as possible for your side in the process towards a peace is not the same as promoting peace for its own sake.

I note that Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson are associated with a certain neutrality of stance. There are many alternatives for leaders such as these, and keeping silent if there is no personal need to fight is one. Love for your people is not the same as trying to reconcile warring parties for the sake of humanity in general. Australians can’t seem to decide which makes them more uncomfortable – accepting that for some, ties of tribe matter more than anything else, and conversely, that prizing the absolute neutrality of peace means applying a rigid standard of values and sacrifice. Perhaps the only way a peace can come about is if people from opposing sides fight honourably for their party for as long as they can without sacrifice.

As an Australian, I know that I am under-informed about the Palestinian political process. From the little that I do know, I would have welcomed awarding the prize to Abu Mazen – he had a thankless, unglamorous task, one which saw him condemned by his own people, as well as by the other side, and he tried transparently with dignity to fulfil it. And when it was clear that he could no longer be of use, he retired to let a new person have a go. He did not have the glamour of the freedom fighter to sustain and support him, and did not increase the esteem in which he was held by taking the position, and gained nothing for it, especially in terms of being celebrated by the world and his people. He has my utmost respect.

One issue that has been coming more and more to the surface these past two months, and which has irritated and alarmed me more and more is the growing use of words and phrases such as Jew, Jewish lobby group and Zionist lobby, not to mention increasing mentions and comparisons with the Nazi party. The Jewish community is paranoid – understandably so in light of history, as well as things such as the recent comments of Dr Mahatir and the recent European poll showing ingrained anti-Semitism in the area (see Israel outraged as EU poll names it a threat to peace).

And not to mention the article in today’s SMH concerning the German general chastised for supporting an Anti-Semitic politician. No good will come of making paranoid people more paranoid. And please, the Jewish community is NOT the same thing as the Zionist lobby group.

***

Paul Walter in Adelaide

A couple of impressions on the Sydney Peace Prize and the refreshing and dignified response of more thinking elements within Jewish community to the antics of the neo-con types within and without.

Dr. Ashrawi. A STRONG woman. No buckling under pressure from this quarter. A glimpse of that cold, horrible, arrogant, later-day Obersturmbannfuhrer Turnbull and his despicable wife on the telly news. The strange thing is, the Jewish community is being scapegoated in high medieval style in the media for the detestable antics of North Shore High Tories.

It’s not the “Jewish community” issuing complaints about Ashrawi, so much as certain morally-bankrupt scum in the Liberal party, yet the Jewish community are the ones held as being the main bigots. It’s a real shame, especially when you see dignified Jewish people like the woman caught on TV attending Dr Ashrawi’s speech out of solidarity, while others who should have attended skulked in the shadows.

***

Antony Loewenstein

The debate surrounding the Sydney Peace Prize and Hanan Ashrawi strikes at the heart of the Australian Jewish community. Rational voices are drowned out and extremists are all too willing to hijack the debate. Reaction to Webdiary’s publication yesterday of my ZNet article Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent has similarly exposed the intolerance within the community.

Robert Fisk’s mentioning and quoting of my Znet piece in his November 4 column for The Independent triggered a worldwide response. I’ve been left slightly bewildered and humbled, yet passionately resolved to continue the fight for Palestinian rights and Israeli security in an Australian media environment that unquestionably favours the Zionist narrative. Indeed, Western lives are frequently given prominence against ‘non’ persons throughout most of the Western world. Pilger refers to them as ‘nonpeople’ and encourages us to demand responsibility behind power:

“It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers, without understanding the hidden agendas of the myths and messages that surround it.”

Since the publication of my ZNet article on Hanan Ashrawi in late October, I have received numerous emails from across the world, primarily positive in tone. The overall theme is relief that Palestinian voices are finally being heard, the ‘other’ perspective is respected and the Zionist lobby is being questioned. I was emailed today a letter that appeared in The Independent on November 5 after the publication of Robert Fisk’s November 4 column. It perfectly encapsulates the sentiments of many Jews and non-Jews alike whose voices are rarely heard and constantly vilified as anti-Semites:

“”They will destroy you…” “Rob Stuart in trouble …” “Danny Gilbert warned off…” “The business world will close ranks…” “They will say we are only supporting the Palestinians.” The COMMONWEALTH BANK?

It is not difficult to see how much of the international community distances itself, silently, from the Arab-Israeli question. What is inconvenient or difficult or controversial is cast aside. The 50-year-old conflict has not been resolved because “THEY” object.

We are in a sad time when someone who promotes peace is vilified because “THEY” don’t like her. The threat that “THEY will destroy you” is extortive, and we have seen this in the careers of US Congresspersons who opposed or criticized THEM. Who is the THEY and the THEM?

Aha! Doing a little research, we find that the powerful Jewish lobby of Australia that was very worried about the award has thanked Lucy Turnbull for her efforts in disassociating the City of Sydney from the prize.

There seems in the US and abroad an absolute “terror” by Zionist and Israeli supporters that any erudite Arab be recognized or applauded, or honoured. Is this, too, a security issue?

I was delighted to read Dr Ashrawi’s acceptance speech. It is a legitimate and honestly earned Peace Prize, and I respect those who held to their avowed principles – but not those who pander to political and economic forces whose objectivity must be called into question.

Bravo, Professor Stuart Rees. Shame, Sydney University, Lucy Turnbull, the Commonwealth Bank and the rest of those who have not the courage to support the Peace Prize Award to Dr Ashrawi or to speak of the Palestinian situation – and who would silence those who do.

Some resent my use of the term ‘Zionist lobby’. Some have suggested I believe a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Some have suggested that, because of my Jewishness, I must be a self-hating Jew. Some have even suggested that I must support Yasser Arafat and suicide bombing. Some have suggested the tag ‘Zionist lobby’ is discriminatory and should be avoided.

To all these people I would say the following: I believe in the state of Israel. I believe Israeli deserves security and secure borders. I believe much criticism of Israel throughout the world is indeed anti-Semitic, and is an unfortunate continuation of a thousand year old tradition. I believe that Israel must cease to be a religious, Zionist state if it is to continue for generations to come. I believe in post-Zionism. Claims of a democratic country are ludicrous when one is fully aware of the actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories and discriminatory laws against Israeli Arabs. A Jewish right of return is seemingly acceptable, but outrage occurs when Palestinians demand likewise.

A Jewish friend of mine wrote to me yesterday after reading the Fisk quote and the ZNet article:

“I have known of, and watched, Fisk for a number of years. He’s a bit of an extremist – congratulating the Islamic thugs that beat him up in Afghanistan. I heard Ed Said speak and he advocated a single state solution which, inherently (if not directly), calls for an end to a Jewish state. We get back to the final point, do the Jews have a right to their own state in the land of Israel? I must have heard Ashrawi interviewed 30+ times in the last 10 years…maybe twice that many, and she is always blaming Israel without recognising the pain being perpetrated on the Israeli people and the need to have sympathy on both sides.”

It made me think. Do Jews have the right to be in the land of Israel? The answer is mostly irrelevant in 2004. A two-state solution is the only answer. A shared Jerusalem is inevitable. A relinquishing of the West Bank and Gaza is inevitable. A real peace deal is needed, not the sham of Oslo, giving Palestinians numerous ‘Bantustans’, but little autonomy to natural resources or security.

Zionism is a dead-end ideology, a philosophy that lays biblical claims over a piece of land. An occupation that exacts collective punishment, continually expanding settlements, building of a Berlin Wall, constant confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land. Who wouldn’t resist this kind of dehumanising activity?

The vilification of Ashrawi has virtually nothing to do with her previous comments or actions. It has virtually nothing to do with her previous standing in the PLO. It has all to do with her status of a Palestinian. It is all to do with standing up and speaking her mind. It has all to do with giving public voice to the Palestinian story, history and struggle.

The outrage that has flowed from Webdiary’s publication of my Ashrawi piece shows a contemptible desire to shut down debate. Why can’t Jews from all persuasions have their say? Why can’t Jews like myself and Ian Cohen express their desire for peace in the Middle East without being labelled extremists or radicals? Must the Zionist narrative be centre-stage all the time?

In this incredibly uneven issue, both sides have caused incredible suffering. Blame can truly be spread around. Voices of reason exist, of which I have received numerous from around the world in the last weeks. I am a Jew, proud of my peoples’ history of dissent and fight. And I won’t be silenced by a bunch of hysterical, bigoted individuals.

***

Sol Salbe

Here is a contribution from an Israeli-born Jewish Australian journalist who has been on the case for the past fortnight. I find the attitude of Jewish officialdom positively offensive. I don’t think Hanan Ashrawi would have received the Israeli peace prize, but she would get that one well before any contribution from some of the community leadership in Australia. Above all I find their attitude so different than the mainstream thinking in Israel. It’s also very unlikely that the mudslinging would have been as extensive had the controversy erupted in Israel, because too many people there have access to the facts. No-one could have got away with suggesting that Dr Ashrawi supported the invasion of Kuwait when many copies of the statement she published on the subject are on file in various places. This is for Diaspora consumption only. This is also the reason why my challenges to produce the evidence have gone answered in the Jewish community.

*

Ashrawi – what if she were Irish?

An outspoken woman who has earned the ire of western governments, who has been critical of the war against terrorism, who has been accused of giving comfort to dictators, evildoers and ethnic cleansers was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. Guess what? It wasn’t a controversial choice at all. The decision was acclaimed throughout the country with no community or ethnic group protesting about the decision.

That was in 2002 and the woman was, of course, Mary Robinson. Like Hanan Ashrawi in 2003, Robinson – the former President of Ireland, and more recently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights – was awarded her prize for her human rights record. Like Ashrawi, her work had very little to do with actual participation or framing or carrying out agreements such as the Good Friday accords.

So why was Robinson’s nomination warmly received while Ashrawi is regarded as unsuitable and not a good candidate?

Robinson was better at picking her place of birth. By being born a Palestinian, Dr Ashrawi has placed herself in a position where she had to be much better than any other candidate in order to be considered an equal. For some of Israel’s supporters, no Palestinian who stands up for her (or his) people’s rights is acceptable. The fact that less than a century ago Jews suffered as a result of similar attitudes doesn’t seem to have registered with these people.

These supporters of Israel, especially the right-wing independent think tank the Australia Israeli Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) have been the driving force behind the campaign. Most of the accusations levelled against Ashrawi by sections of the Jewish community and non-Jewish commentators can be traced back to the AIJAC website and a couple of similar ones at the same end of the spectrum of the pro-Israeli forces.

Accusations

A lot of mud has been thrown at Dr Ashrawi. Amazingly, many of the accusations are not backed up by references. When a quote from Dr Ashrawi is provided, the interpretation is often tenuous.

Piers Ackerman, for example, says she supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. No evidence was provided. Having checked several hundred key listings in Hebrew and English on the subject, I can honestly say that I have not seen any evidence. On the contrary her biography ‘This side of Peace’ is quite explicit. At the start of chapter 4 she recounts a phone conversation with the head of Arafat’s office in Tunis, Sami Musallam:

Ashrawi: You must come up with a statement; we must take a public position against the occupation.

Musallam: The situation is too complex; there are many unknowns.

Ashrawi: What is there to know? Morally and politically, we as Palestinians must be the first to condemn occupation. Find Abu Ammar [Arafat] and ask him to issue an official release.

Musallam: There are political ramifications, and I’m sure he’ll study the situation carefully before taking any steps.

Ashrawi: Forget the political fine print and deal with principles. The whole moral foundation of our case, particularly of the Intifada, will be destroyed. We have to be consistent. We must take a position of integrity against occupation anywhere and whatever the reasons…

Ashrawi goes on to describe a number of statements which were issued independently by her and other Palestinians in Jerusalem, one of which they issued unchanged despite instructions from Tunis (with the late Faisal al-Husseini agreeing to take any flak that resulted).

Again without any corroborating evidence, Ackerman and AIJAC make the allegation that she also backed the attempted military coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. It appears that the original source is the ‘Washington Report on the Middle East’. The relevant quote:

The [Washington] Post reported that Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent West Bank spokeswoman, welcomed the coup in the hope it would lead to a more balanced Middle East peace conference.

Pity AIJAC and Ackerman didn’t read the next paragraph.

But the Washington Jewish Week had this to say about Ashrawi’s reaction: She expressed regret over the regression from democracy in the Soviet Union.

Yes, we have all heard that Ashrawi only criticises suicide bombing on pragmatic grounds. It doesn’t take much work to check her own website, MIFTAH, where she says:

Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as licence to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?

Does this sound pragmatic?

These are but three examples of the false charges against Ashrawi. My question is simple: where is your evidence?

Jewish and Israeli support

Reversing the process, here is a typical quote used by AIJAC:

The only language Sharon understands is the language of violence.” (Voice of Palestine, September 9, 2001).

Note: Her message to Palestinians is that they have to use violence against Israel led by Sharon. Yet Israeli journalists regularly make the same assessment of Sharon’s penchant for violence (it’s not without foundation) without any such slur being attached to them.

Israeli politicians have also made harsher criticisms of Israeli government policies than many of the quotes attributed to Dr Ashrawi. The former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni regularly refers to Israeli war crimes.

The similarity between Ashrawi’s commitment to a just peace and that of many in Israel and the Australian Jewish community is behind some of the support that Dr Ashrawi has received from Jews and Israelis. By the same token, Ashrawi’s detractors have only been able to gain support from the Israeli extreme right, such as Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University. Not a single member of the opposition Labour Party has lent his or her name to the campaign. (If they have, it certainly has not received any coverage.)

Hanan Ashrawi has been facing an unprecedented vilification campaign the like of which none of the previous prize laureates had to face. It doesn’t matter that Xanana Gusmao had blood on his hands. It does not matter that Mary Robinson has been far more strident in her criticism of the war against terrorism. Ashrawi has just been unacceptable for a section of the Jewish community.

Fortunately the campaign has been countered by comments from Israeli MK Yael Dayan, Israeli Professor Baruch Kimmerling, three separate Israeli peace organisations including the major womens group Bat Shalom, as well t as the Melbourne-based Australian Jewish Democratic Society and the Sydney-based Jews Against the Occupation.

But it’s not over yet.

Margo: Scott Burchill sent a copy of Professor Kimmerling’s note to Bob Carr:

To Premier Bob Carr, Sydney, Australia

Dear Sir,

I wish to congratulate your countrymen and women who decided to award the Palestinian leader and peace activist Dr. Hannan Michail Ashrawi the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. There are few international figures in the present who deserve a Peace prize more than the outstanding Palestinian leader, intellectual and peace activist – Dr. Hanan Ashrawi.

As an Israeli, as a Jew and as a academic I am deeply sorry and ashamed that Israelis and members of the Australian Jewish community are acting against this rightful nomination. While doing so they are using and abusing their Jewish identity and heritage. There is and there can be no association whatsoever between Dr. Ashrawi and her courageous and longstanding leadership in the best service of her people and of peace for both peoples in this troubled land – and between any racist or anti-peace activity that could deny her this or any other Peace award.

On the contrary – granting Dr. Ashrawi a peace award is an important symbolic act that can send a powerful message to strengthen people like myself in Palestine and Israel, who have been struggling and thriving for Just Peace in this region, and for whom Dr. Ashrawi and her relentless peace activism have always been an enormous source of inspiration and encouragement.

I wish to strengthen your decision to resist any undue pressure exerted on you to withdraw from granting the Peace award to Dr. Ashrawi.

With all due respect, Baruch Kimmerling, George S. Wise Professor of Sociology, The Hebrew University of Jeusalem, Israel.

***

Peter Funnell in Canberra

What on earth is going on in this country? The rabid vilification and denunciation of Dr Ashrawi’s award of the Sydney Peace Prize is the least peaceful act by citizens of this nation in a long time. Dr Ashrawi is an eminent Palestinian, a person of significance and yes, at her core a person of peace for her peoples.

She may not have been the choice of most of those that feel a deep and compelling support for Israel. That does not invalidate her selection for the peace award.

The desire for peace does not rest with Israelis alone. Nor does the killing. The one single thing Palestinians and Israelis have in common is a desire to live peacefully and prosper. The other is war. Both kill each other with a ferocity that is truly beyond our comprehension here in Australia.

Dr Ashrawi does not seem to take a backward step and frankly, why would anyone expect her to fold under the malicious carping that has preceded her visit? You would think she has seen a lot worse than this, but by her own admission, she has declared that she has only on one other occasion (in Colorado in September) met ill feeling and a willful disregard for the truth, as she has encountered here and now in Australia.

This is no badge of honour. It is petty, malicious, utterly pointless and misdirected venom that does not serve the cause for peace in the Middle East – criticism generated by people who, while they feel a deep commitment for the land occupied by both Israelis and Palestinians, do not live in that place. Our single obligation is to serve the cause of peace, not fan the horror people Dr Ashwari are attempting to bring to an end. We haven’t helped anyone one bit.

If the peace prize helps, we have done a good thing for all concerned. Better than mindless hate, rage, ignorance and bullying of each other here in Australia. This country is changing and not for the good.

***

BRANDIS – his speech and my analysis

Graeme Richardson: Not only is George Brandis a Benito Mussolini look-alike he is starting to sound like El Duce.

***

Peter Staudenmaier

I’ve enjoyed your coverage of the recent hullabaloo over the book on ecofascism that I co-authored and its misuse by Senator Brandis. If you’d like, you are welcome to use this email or portions of it on your Webdiary if you think that would interest readers. I have read through the Senate exchange and it looks to me like Brandis’s remarks are a clear misreading of my work, albeit a fairly common one. While it probably exceeds my competence as a historian to tell others what lessons they ought to draw from the events and movements I study, in this case I feel compelled to point out that my scholarship, as it stands, offers little support for the conclusions Brandis reached. Similar conclusions have been drawn before by other conservative readers of my work on ecofascism, who like to use my research as a cheap way to impugn virtually all varieties of political environmentalism. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to approach important historical questions – we still have a lot to learn from the history of political shortsightedness.

***

Llessur Yevod

On reflection, the amusingly stupid speech by Mr Brandis is not so worrying. If the Libs are so desperate to destroy the credibility of the Greens that they will resort to calling them Nazis they must be really scared. I would take this as a sign that the Greens are winning the battle for Australia’s hearts and minds, and that the Liberals are truly worried that their share of the vote will suffer as a result.

I also think this tactic will backfire strongly. How many Australians, when they hear that some Liberal has called Bob Brown a Nazi, won’t just start laughing?

Maybe they’re being cleverer than that, though. Before I learned better, I thought that the Greens were ridiculous and not worth my time – “fairies at the bottom of the garden”. Could Howard be carefully trying to steer people’s thoughts that way again? I wouldn’t be surprised.

***

John Crockett

A fascinating spray from Jane Duolman. I had not made the connection between the fascist’s love of beautiful bodies and Howard’s association with elite athletes and sporting events. I think this association is valid.

Howard is certainly playing the role of Father of the Nation – guiding, sympathising, consoling and re-assuring the nation in troubled times (and chastising the recalcitrants). It does suggest a very strange psycho-sexual compact with the Australian public though, particularly if you deny homosexual couples the same superannuation status as hetrosexual couples. Brandis should do some more reading.

As for political imagery, I think the the poster of Howard standing at the lectern, the head tilted and the fists clenched rivals Mussolini’s strutting jaw. Who needs a flag if you have Mussolini’s jaw or Howard at the lectern?

***

Peter Gellatly in Canada

I am about to get myself into hot water. Here goes. It seems to me there are three aspects to Senator Brandis’ speech.

(1) Brandis is a member of the present governing Coalition, a Coalition which – some individual competent policies aside – in its overall ethos and general approach evokes in me a visceral disgust. I am therefore not well disposed to accept its members’ stringent criticisms of others.

(2) Brandis’ lumping together of worldwide extreme Green-identified methods with the recent particular antics of Senators Brown and Nettle is entirely inappropriate. The Senators’ behaviour, though not much to my liking, was nevertheless entirely par for the course in Australian politics. By no means, with reference to our longstanding norms, could this behaviour be considered either extreme or antidemocratic. And its focus had nothing whatsoever to do with Green issues. No doubt more than a few Liberal, National, Labor and independent members secretly concurred with merits of the interjection.

(3) However, as to Brandis’ larger putdown of the worldwide Green movement, I am compelled to echo: “Fair comment!”. The point is, ALL intellectual movements harbour extremist cohorts: indeed it is commonly the extremists who actally get things done (for good or ill!). At the opposing fascist and communist ends of the political spectrum strategy and tactics meld, and oppression of dissent predominates.

To me the seeds of this authoritarianism are blatently evident within the Green movement. (I say this, even though I share many of the Greens’ environmental and globalisation concerns.) In particular, dissent is quashed, earnest objective analysts personally pilloried, proffered solutions subjected to exclusive and unyielding ideological merit tests.

Civil disobedience is stretched to include vandalism and potential personal injury (eg the deliberate spiking of trees in British Columbia, in the full knowledge that millworkers might consequently be killed). Democratic processes are subverted to achieve unstated personal-gain outcomes via high-profile touting of spurious “green” issues. These latter – personal injury and democratic subversion – tactics comprise the warning signal for incipient Green-authoritarianism. They also justify comparisons – of style, if not yet of degree – with fascism.

For, just like the fascists, Green extremists are dismissive of general community values. They believe Joe Public simply isn’t sufficiently educated or engaged, moreover the goal is pure and time is pressing, so strong measures are justified. In short, the end justifies the means. As with other virulent ideologies past, Green extremism bears all the hallmarks of a religion: wisdom comes from on high, medieval submission is demanded.

The world has myriad legitimate environmental problems crying out for resolution. Too many of these have been subverted as cover for a Green-extremism-sponsored ideological crusade. As a result, though I hold graduate qualifications in environment toxicology, I have – for nearly twenty years – generally avoided working in the environmental field. I simply couldn’t stomach what to me was oft-times religion dressed up as science, or outright fraudulent misrepresentation of an environmental concern in order to win an economic development dispute. To my mind, even legitimate cases won by such tactics contribute to a larger wrong.

Senator Brandis’ attempt to link wider Green extremism to his complaint about Senators Brown and Nettles is laughable, especially given his own party’s recent stellar record. Smacking of pot and kettle, Brandis’ disparagement list simply mirrors the many Webdiary submissions lucidly warning of fascist tendencies by our very own beloved Coalition! But dedicated Greens – and in the generic sense I consider myself one – should reflect on how and why so much anti-Green ammunition fell readily to Brandis’ hand.

*

Keir Dickson

My first reaction when I read George Brandis’ rant (and Andrew Bolt’s) was to simply shake my head. But the more I thought about it, the more I figured they might be onto something.

George and Andrew’s line is that Greens are Nazis simply because they share similar ideas on environmental matters, right? Well if we take their thinking to its logical conclusion, we make quite an amazing discovery: we are all Nazis!

There is strong evidence to prove Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic. He prayed daily and had the full support and friendship of the Vatican, right up to the Pope himself. They congratulated him on what he was doing persecuting Jews (before he really embarrassed them by killing Jews in huge numbers, but even then they didn’t condemn him outright). Clearly they shared many of the same religious and social ideals, in much the same way the Greens share Nazi environmental attitudes. Clearly, then, all Catholics are Nazis.

But then what about Joseph Stalin and his commie pals? They certainly weren’t Christian – but prior to Hitler invading the USSR, the two of them were great mates. They found they shared the same ideas on social and economic matters. That must mean that all communists (whatever their shade) are Nazis too.

And of course, we can’t forget that other insecure short bloke in a grey suit: Benito Mussolini. As a previous writer to your diary has noted, Benito once said: “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.” Well, fascism and nazism went hand in hand and there’s no denying fascists were Nazis. It’s pretty clear then that when our PM says competitive free enterprise is the foundation of our democracy, then our government is just a bunch of Nazis without the swastika. Not necessarily without the jackboots, though.

***

Simon Neldner in Kapunda, South Australia

I watched Senator George Brandis debate Bob Brown on Lateline, and if that’s the best that he can throw at The Greens then they have nothing to worry about. Did you notice how Brandis – by refusing to say who he’s been talking to – basically admitted that the Liberals have hatched a plan to attack The Greens? By saying he hadn’t talked to the PM – specifically – he then opened the door to the next question (who else have you been talking to) and the cat was out of the bag. It’s like Bush saying he hadn’t committed a felony before 1974, then finding himself cornered with the follow-up question. Good one George!

Back to the Liberal’s “get Bob” strategy. There are a number of reasons why this plan is not only ill-concieved, but has every chance of blowing-up in their faces. Bob Brown will welcome the opportunity to widen the debate, as by acknowledging them as a serious threat (perhaps some disturbing internal polling?) and therefore a contender or de-facto opposition, it can only strengthen Green support by giving the party both added credibility and free air-time on shows like Lateline. Howard’s attempts to demonise the Greens via his proxies won’t be nearly as successful as taking One Nation’s policies and squashing the Hanson insurgency. I think the Liberal strategy will fail for a number of reasons:

(1) The Greens are well organised, well established and are now a unified national party. It may be chaotic, but it’s organised chaos. Obviously, policy differences are going to emerge, and perhaps some hair brained schemes along the way, but the public can be very progressive (and shouldn’t be under-estimated) in thinking through the issues. In addition, the Greens aren’t actually trying to win Government, which means a coalition electoral strategy of blunting Green support cannot – by definition – be successful. If they get 8-10% of the primary vote, that’s enough of an electoral spanner in the works for John to choke on his weeties, even though by expending a lot of time and capital he might only shave a few percent off their overall support. Accomplishing what exactly? The flip-side, and this is the real killer, is that they might actually increase Green support.

(2) In the aftermath of the Brandis speech, attacking Bob Brown – the individual – gets them nowhere. In a past life, Brown was helping to save the Franklin River, but what the hell was Howard doing? Thinking-up a new tax? Planning-out his career as a professional politician? Please! In the integrity stakes, Howard should pick on someone his own size.

(3) Unlike Hansonism, The Greens aren’t a natural constituency for Howard’s brand of one-size fits all conservatism – far from it. Instead, any frontal assault on The Greens is going to both energise and motivate their base of support, who will be more determined to stick it to the Coalition at the ballot box. Second, they can’t be bought or placated by some sham environment policies or pork barreling (like the Democrats past indulgences in policy horse-trading, GST anyone?). The Greens are playing a different game, as what they are on about is an ideological/eco-structural shift as opposed to shuffling the fiscal deck chairs to make the current system more palatable.

As Brandis demonstrated on Lateline, the Coalition has no idea what the Greens actually stand for – this much is obvious. This is what happens when you turn you own party into an organisation that has little dissent and no real discussion on policy direction (Senator Brandis talking about having a “policy debate” was a real hoot, as I almost thought he was serious for a moment).

(4) With the Democrats imploding, the protest vote will be Green in 2004. Incumbency might have its benefits, but when you are going for election win number four, nothing is guaranteed.

(5) Howard might have gone to the well of political opportunism once too often, and wrapping yourself in the flag and pushing some patriotic buttons just doesn’t have the same electoral punch as in 2001. Given all that has happened – kids overboard, the war in iraq – Howard will need more than a credibility transplant by the time he decides to call an election (when even the economy might be heading south on a few interest rate rises and the aftershocks of a consumer debt binge come home to roost).

All of this underlines where the Coalition is at its most vulnerable – on its political flanks. On the progressive left, the Greens have the field to themselves and will undoubtedly exploit this advantage. On the regional right, we haven’t factored into the equation what might happen to the Nationals, particularly if Telstra is on the chopping block and there are no funds for stressed out rural communities or repairing a degraded infrastructure. Tony Windsor and Bob Katter are only the tip of the iceberg in rural discontent and disenchantment. Pauline Hanson proved that these votes can be secured, and it will only take a half decent, moderately organised and credible contender or independent voice to send the Nationals packing. Even if it’s death by a thousand cuts, the outcome is never in doubt. There is considerable rural unrest about changes to single-desk marketing arrangements, and a host of other policies and funding priorities where regional Australia feels they are being screwed, and a poorly negotiated US free trade deal could be enough to light the fuse. I would suggest a score of regional seats would be vulnerable to a grass-roots insurgency of this type, particularly if a double-dissolution election is called and a host of unpalatable legislation is your reward for voting the Coalition back for another term.

Finally, the real guest list for the Bush barbecue! You’ll recall that on the day, the press gallery had to drag a list out of the Prime Minister’s office, and that it was finally faxed to interested media as just a list of names – no titles, no positions. My report of the struggle and the consequences is at Howard’s elite – the official list. As it happened, only Webdiary has published the full list of guests, however flawed.

During hearings of the Senate’s finance and public administration committee yesterday, Labor Senate leader John Faulkner quizzed John Howard’s department, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), on the Bush and Hu visits. PM&C organised the Bush non-state visit on behalf of Howard. Faulkner managed – after the usual struggle – to get public release of the department’s actual official list of guests, grouped with titles and all.

I freaked out when I first read the list. When I was trying to work out who was who before I published the list last week, I rang Howard spin doctor David Luff, who said ‘Paul Ramsay’ was the head of Ramsay Health Care. On the basis of the titles of the guests I published in Webdiary, the Sydney Morning Herald’s political correspondent Mark Riley – a former New York correspondent for the SMH – checked Australian Electoral Commission records of political donations and found that the business guests Howard invited had between them donated $1 million to the Liberal Party. His story was published on page 13 of the SMH last Saturday, and is republished after the official guest list.

But on the official PM&C list, Paul Ramsay was listed under ‘Academics’ as Mr Paul Ramsay AO, Vice Chancellor University of Sydney.

As I informed Mark of the terrible error – and wondered aloud why Howard’s office had not corrected the public record – the Herald’s higher education reporter Aban Contractor interposed that to her knowledge there was no vice chancellor in Australia called Paul Ramsay. She looked up the official lists of such things and confirmed her understanding that Professor Gavin Brown was still vice chancellor of Sydney Uni. Inquiries by theHerald’s Mike Seccombe of the Prime Minster’s office confirmed that Paul Ramsay was indeed the Ramsay Health Care bloke, donor of $223,000 to the Liberal Party.

Crazy, huh, how hard it is to get an accurate public record of such a basic thing as a guest list? Please advise if you find any other mistakes in the list.

Thanks to the Herald Canberra Bureau’s journalist assistant Ebony Bennett for typing the list into the system. The Prime Minister’s office did not supply the list electronically.

Here it is, in all its glory, as printed. The list I last published I grouped myself – all Howard’s office sent was an alphabetical list. This one has many interesting aspects, including the headings, the order and the job descriptions.

***

Luncheon in honour of the Honourable George Bush

President of the United States of America

and Mrs Bush

Host

The Honourable John Howard MP, Prime Minister

Mrs Janette Howard

Guest of Honour

The Honourable George Bush, President of the United States of America

Mrs Bush

Official Party

Dr Condoleeza Rice, National Security Adviser

Mr Andrew Card, Chief of Staff

Mr James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State

Mr James Moriarty, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs

Ms Andrea Ball, Chief of Staff to the First Lady

Diplomatic Corps

His Excellency Mr J Thomas Schieffer Jr, Ambassador of the United States of America

Mrs Susanne Schieffer

Ministry

The Honourable John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Mrs Julia Anderson

The Honourable Peter Costello MP, Treasurer

Mrs Tanya Costello

The Honourable Mark Vaile MP, Minister for Trade

Mrs Wendy Vaile

Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Minister for Defence and Leader of Government in the Senate

Mrs Diana Hill

The Honourable Alexander Downer MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs

Mrs Nicky Downer

Defence Chiefs;

General Peter Cosgrove AC MC, Chief of the Defence Force, Department of Defence

Mrs Lynne Cosgrove

Departmental Secretaries

Dr Peter Shergold AM, Secretary Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Ms Carol Green

Australian Ambassador

Ambassador Michael Thawley, Ambassador Australian Embassy, Washington

Business

Mr Rob Gerard AO, Chairman and Managing Director Gerard Industries Ltd

Mrs Fay Gerard

Mr Mark Leibler AO, Senior Partner Arnold Bloch Leibler, Solicitors and Consultants

Mrs Rosanna Leibler

Mr Kerry Packer AC, Chairman Consolidated Press Holdings

Mrs Ros Packer

Mr Donald McDonald AO, Chairman Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Mrs Janet McDonald

Mr Harry Triguboff AO, Chairman and Managing Director Meriton Properties Pty Ltd

Mrs Rhonda Triguboff

Mr Terry Campbell, Chairman JB Were

Mrs Christine Campbell

Mr Leon Davis, Chairman Westpac Banking Corporation

Mrs Annette Davis

Mr Kerry Stokes AO, Executive Chairman Seven Network Limited

Ms Christine Simpson

Academics

Professor Susan Cory AC, Professor of Medical Research University of Melbourne

Professor Jerry Adams

Mr Paul Ramsay AO, Vice Chancellor University of Sydney (INCORRECT)

Professor Geoffrey Blainey AO, Author and Historian

Mrs Ann Blainey

Sporting Bodies

Mr John Eales AM, Former Captain of the Australian Rugby Union Team

Mrs Lara Eales

Mr Lleyton Hewitt, Australian Tennis Player

Mr Mark Taylor, Former Captain Australia Cricket Team

Mrs Judy Taylor

Former Ambassador

The Honourable Andrew Peacock AC, President Boeing Australia Limited

Prime Minster’s Office

Mr Arthur Sinodinos, Chief of Staff

Mr Tony Nutt, Principal Private Secretary

Mr Peter Varghese, Senior Adviser International

Mr Tony O’Leary, Press Secretary

Others

Mr Richard Howard, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mr Timothy Howard, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mr Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Man

Mrs Terri Irwin

Mr Rowan McDonald, Prime Minister’s relatives

Mrs Melanie McDonald

Brigadier Maurie McNarn AO, Director General Personnel, Army

Mrs Richenda McNarn

Professor Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year, Founding Director

TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research

Professor Geoff Shellam

Dr Jackie Huggins, Board member Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

Media

Mr Alan Jones AM, Radio Broadcaster Radio 2UE Sydney (INCORRECT – HE’S NOW AT 2GB)

Mr Malcolm Farr, President Parliamentary Press Gallery

Mr Neil Mitchell, Radio and Television Current Affairs Commentator

Security

President’s security

*

Ceremonial and Hospitality

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

23 October, 2003

***

Party donors gain a hot ticket

by Mark Riley, Political Correspondent

01/11/2003, Sydney Morning Herald, page 13

How do you swing an invitation to a barbecue at the Lodge with the leader of the free world? You could win the US Tennis Open and become young Australian of the Year, like Lleyton Hewitt. Or you could captain the Wallabies to a World Cup victory, like John Eales.

Failing that, you could always wrestle a crocodile while yelling “Crikey!” on your own top-rating US television show, like Steve Irwin.

Or you could cut out the middle man and simply buy yourself a television network, like Kerry Packer and Kerry Stokes.

Being an opposition leader is no way to get an invitation. Ask Simon Crean.

But it seems the most popular way of getting on last week’s prime ministerial guest list for the Lodge cook-out with George Bush was to be a major donor to the Liberal Party.

All six of the business leaders invited by Mr Howard to the small gathering represented companies that kicked in considerable sums to the Liberals’ 2001 re-election campaign.

A trawl through the Australian Electoral Commission’s official returns reveals that, between them, the six corporates represented about $1 million in party donations.

Heading the list was property king Harry Triguboff, whose Meriton group donated $275,000 to the Liberal Party in 2001.

Next came Reserve Bank board member Rob Gerard, whose Gerard Industries gave the party $244,806, and then Paul Ramsay, whose Ramsay Health Care donated $223,000.

The other invitees were Terry Campbell, chairman of JB Were, which donated $163,000 to the Liberal Party; Leon Davis, chairman of Westpac, which gave $142,000; and Mark Leibler, prominent member of the Jewish lobby and director of Coles Myer, which donated $132,000.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the people invited were a cross-section of the Australian community who had each made a contribution to Australia in different ways, and that the Prime Minister made no apology for inviting any of them.

Opposition Leader Simon Crean’s office declined to comment. Most corporate invitees also donated large, if lesser, amounts to Labor at the last election.

The presence of major party donors would not have been a surprise to George Bush. The US has a system of declaring the contributions of corporate leaders seeking “face time” with the President. A certain amount buys a plate at a White House dinner, a higher amount a sleep-over in the Lincoln Room. The system is less formal in Australia but money can still buy access 20 corporates paid $4000 a head for dinner with Mr Howard at a fund-raiser for Employment Services Minister Mal Brough at Brisbane’s Treasury Casino on October 2.

Another depressing day in Canberra watching public servants under questioning by Senate estimates Committees – the people’s chance to ask questions. A new boat and thousands of new islands excised from Australia, the Crocodile Man – ‘I love John Howard’ – paid $175,000 to do a government commercial, outsourced Prime Minister and Cabinet department’s information technology sees its entire email back up tape thrown in the rubbish bin and lost, the same department and the PM fail to send Kylie Russell a video or photos of the wreath laying ceremony for her husband they forgot to invite her to.

Horrible days. The good news? The West Australian’s political correspondent Karen Middleton got a tape of the ceremony from the ABC and gave it to Kylie’s MP Graham Edwards to give her.

So tonight, expats (and an Australian resident) talk back, sparked by the Anna Greenup piece Our destiny: an expat’s perspective and the Brandis attack on the Greens. To end, a detailed and informative piece fromRod Sewell in Munich on the truth behind the Brandis/Bolt claims. I asked Anna for a bio, and she replied:

Are you ready for a laugh? I caught up with my cousin’s husband who is in town and he told me that the article was on the front page of smh.com.au. He’d been sent a copy by my cousin (who emailed it to the whole family). I nearly died, as I thought it would be included in web diary but not so prominently.

I’m 36 and currently living and working in Singapore within the software industry as a marketing/communication specialist. I’m single, so I have time to worry about these things that person with a family sometimes doesn’t have the time too. I’ve lived overseas for the past 4 years – 2 in London in the Banking Industry and coming up for 2 in Singapore. I’m not a member of any political groups/associations. I aspire to continue educating myself on all fronts; business, social, cultural, current affairs and personal growth. I hope see a world were people accept differences, rejoice in those differences and see the opportunities these differences bring rather than seeing them as threatening. Yes, I’m an idealist, which is why I could never go into politics.

John Carson in Copacabana, NSW picked up an error in Anna’s piece:

Anna Greenup writes with regard to the Federal government overruling the Northern Territory on euthanasia laws:

“For those who are unaware, the Australian Constitution allows the states to create their own laws, but if a state and federal law are either the same or in contradiction of each other, the Constitution dictates that the federal law will preside [sic].”

In fact, there are basically three categories of legislative authority. 1) those that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the Commonwealth, 2) those that the Constitution grants to the Commonwealth as a shared power with the states, 3) the remainder, which are exclusively state powers (state powers are the “default”, if you will). It is only in category 2) that Commonwealth legislation overrules state legislation to the extent that the two are inconsistent.

The criminal law largely falls under category 3). Had NSW, say, passed the same euthanasia laws as the Northern Territory, then there is nothing that the Federal Government could have done about it (unless it could have argued that the legislation breached some international convention that the Federal Government had signed using its external affairs power). The reason it was able to override the Northern Territory laws is because the Northern Territory is not a state. It is, as the name implies, a Commonwealth territory. The government of the Northern Territory, like that of the ACT, has its authority courtesy of the good graces of the Federal government, and any law it makes can be overturned by the Federal government – indeed the Federal government could abolish the Northern Territory government entirely if it so chose.

Webdiary got the most visitors in October since the height of the Iraq war debate – readers came in a rush to read about Bush, Hu and the aftermath. The ten most read stories were:

1. Parliament greets Bush: A day in the life of our faltering democracy

2. Howard cancels democracy for Bush and beyond: Can we stop him?

3. Snub for war widow

4. Charge of the Lightfoot brigade doesn’t stop Green protest

5. Howard’s elite – the official list

6. Who we gunna turn to now we’re the sheriff, John?

7. Martin Davies gallery

8. The truth tramplers: Media war spin on trial

9. Dominance and its dilemmas

10. War widow’s long wait for PM’s apology

The top five referring websites were:

1. michaelmoore

2. worldnews

3. yahoomediawatch

4. spleenville

5. whatreallyhappened

***

Jackie Hartley in Canada

I thought I would join the brigade of people who “never thought they would write in to a newspaper” but have been compelled to do so because of where Australia is heading. I am a final year Australian law student and I’ve come to Canada for my final semester to study First Nations law. After only two months away I have started having similar thoughts to Anna Greenup. In my first time overseas I am receiving a completely different reaction to my nationality than my seasoned traveller friends told me to expect. When Canadians realise where I’m from, the first question is, “So why did Australia support GWB on Iraq?” The icing on the cake came yesterday when I was speaking to a First Nations woman who is considering studying overseas but has never travelled before. When I suggested Australia she replied: “I don’t want to go to Australia because it’s just like America.”

***

Bruce Blackshaw in Morden, Surrey

Like Anna Greenup, I too am an expatriate, having lived and worked in London for the last six years. I retain a keen interest in what is going on in Australia, and read the SMH online, including Webdiary, daily.

I must protest, however, at Anna’s personal attack on John Howard.

It is one thing to disagree with someone’s politics. I have disagreed strongly with some recent Howard government decisions, particularly those to do with immigration and the Iraq war. And it is my democratic right to do so, and to vote against the government if I wish (well, if expats were allowed to vote!). It is even my right to criticise the government in print.

It is another thing altogether to disparage someone’s character.

Anna starts with a ridiculous shifty eyes comment about John Howard, and goes on to call him a hypocrite. Apparently, he expounds virtues and morals yet he has little to none. This are serious personal accusations, and without a long personal knowledge of John Howard the human being, Anna is ill-equipped to levy them.

I don’t know John Howard personally. I do, however, have some small knowledge of one of his sons, having worked in the same area with him in an investment bank. As a worker and a person, I could not have a higher regard for him, and I believe that is at least partially a reflection of his parents. At least, let’s give John Howard the benefit of the doubt.

Can we lay off the personal attacks, and get back to the politics please?

***

Linda Moctezuma, an Aussie in Abu Dhabi

I like your idea of the diary, but everything I read in it seems to have the same tone – one of moaning about the government. Sure, it may need to be moaned about, but it gets a bit one-sided, and therefore not very credible. That last one from the Greenup lady….not very well written, long-winded, and why does being an ex-pat give her such a crystal-clear view of Australia? I found her, like a lot of your contributors, overly smug.

***

Leigh Bentley in Muswell Hill, London

I too live outside Australia, and I know exactly what your correspondent Anna Greenup is saying. She expresses a dismay for the politician Australians have chosen as their leader which I whole-heartedly share.

I am a great believer in democracy – the electorate gets the politicians that it deserves. We (Australians) went close to getting Pauline Hanson, and we would have deserved her had we voted in large enough numbers for her. Fortunately we’re not that bad – but Australians still deserve John Howard, and Labor voters deserve Simon Crean. Americans deserve George W Bush, even if they deserved Al Gore more.

I feel that until we abandon them completely, today’s ‘opposition’ will continue to believe that it’s time will eventually come as long as they don’t ‘rock the boat’ too much. If we vote for viable alternatives – maybe it’s the Greens, maybe the Democrats and maybe a new political force yet to emerge – sooner or later the opposition will realise that genuinely new ideas and policies are the only things that really turn an electoral tide.

Please thank Anna Greenup for writing her article. It gives me great hope that Australians like her are out there. Maybe she will inspire me to add to your diary.

***

Mark Payne in London

I love your Webdiary and as an Australian living overseas it is great to see such lively debate in our country.

I felt compelled to give a different perspective to Anna Greenup’s well written piece. I have been living in London for a few years now and appreciate the view from the outside.

My first comment is that you do not need to live abroad to understand that Australia is insignificant in terms of economy and politics. It is our lot in life. Further, I agree that despite our size that we have a lot to offer the world. I think Australia and our political system and freedoms are very rare in this world and need to be appreciated.

What annoys me though is the consistent theme that anyone who votes for Howard or the Liberals is deceived by “propaganda” or somehow “complacent”.

We are a liberal society and to suggest that we are approaching dictatorship is laughable not far fetched. If people are concerned about the direction of Australian politics than I think there is a need to moderate the language or else noone will listen!

What we have in Australia is fantastic and worth preserving and I welcome intelligent debate on the subject. But how can you take anyone seriously when they dislike a Prime Minister because he has “shifty” eyes!!!

My main complaint is the constant view that somehow anyone can have an idea of what 20 million odd people think (more like 11 million voting age), this notion of “popular opinion”. Popular opinion (or some unrepresentative poll) can never be a basis for decisions in a democracy. As long as the Government adheres to the constitution and the rule of law then the only way to clearly say whether people approve or disapprove of what they are doing is by voting for them or not at the next Federal election.

I like to bet and I would be more than happy to bet on Howard retaining office in the next election. What does that say about popular opinion about the Gulf War mark II, euthanasia, the children overboard revelations, or any other issue arising in this term of the Government? Either people don’t care anymore about these issues or popular opinion cannot be gauged by a Morgan Gallop poll or how many people turn up to a street march.

Could it be that people keep voting for Howard and his policies not because they are stupid or mislead or complacent but because they have made an intelligent choice based on the alternatives put before them? Am I the only person who gives credit to the Australian voter? Could it just be that people vote for Howard and the Liberals because they approve of what they are doing?

It may be too much for some people to accept but I think a democracy deserves to have the choice of the people recognised no matter how much some people may dislike it.

Finally, I too would like to thank you Margo for Webdiary, but I must say the view expressed is not balanced, as people who are happy with the current system/status quo are always less inclined to write in, that being human nature I suppose. I hope to address that imbalance. I enjoy reading everyone’s views all the same.

PS: Go the Wallabies, because if England win the World Cup there will be a lot of ex-pats coming home!!)

***

Ned Roche in Inverell NW Slopes and Plains NSW

I have come back to reading Webdiary of late because the paid journos are giving us a whole of boring crap on the opinion page of the Herald lately. My summary of Anna Greenup’s article:

* “Australia really is the arse end of the world, thanks Mr Keating.”

* “I’m writing from a high point of legitimacy, a successful Aussie who worked for one of the worlds biggest banks – IN LONDON, not some hideous Asian sub-branch.”

* “Australia is becoming a terrible place controlled by terrible mean-spirited pollies.”

* “I have hope that Australia will be saved when pollies wake up and take my advice.”

Frankly, I have found this obsession with democracy lately in Webdiary a tad amusing. Is Anna going to tell us as an expat what a rich and vibrant political dialogue is happening somewhere else in the world? No, she is happy to tell us how crap we have become, but not really willing to put some other model of nationhood up on a pedestal by comparison.

Why has Anna not been able to find that elusive democratic utopia which she recommends that Australia become? The answer was given by none other than Edina Monsoon: “We’re living in a global shopping mall and you’re the only one that still thinks there’s an exit darling.”

One of the core beliefs of Margaret Thatcher in her fight against the communist bloc in the Cold War was that the people behind the iron curtain should be made to realise that Westerners lived at a higher standard of living and had more and nicer things. It’s not about democracy, it’s about any system that will deliver greater economic benefits.

In 1996 less than half the people able to voted for the office of President in the “World’s greatest Democracy”, America. In 2000 with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaigning, no incumbent, and one of the closest races in history up to polling day, they lifted the turnout to 50%.

America is not a democracy, it is a well functioning oligarchy that allows a democratic check on the oligarchy’s power should they not provide benevolent government (benevolent = more and nicer things). Wait and see how many people turn up to vote when there is a bad recession or depression!

Recently the Oligarchy that controls America and the Oligarchy that controls China have leapt into co-operation on the central issue that will keep their populations happy, Trade. Does anyone seriously expect the West to make a song and dance about China being ruled by one political party if that political party can deliver a economic model to 1.3bn people modelled on our own?

More importantly, does anyone really want to deal with the potential chaos of transforming China into a “democracy”? Do we know what the Chinese people would then demand of their leaders, seeing they are the burgeoning power of the world? As long as the Chinese continue to supply fireworks for our New Years Eve Celebrations the vast majority of people (who don’t read this column) don’t care.

In conclusion I would like to explain to Anna why Australia is not a crap place and that in fact it is pretty wonderful.

I was born in 1976 and am therefore a member of Generation Y. I was born onto a farm where living was precarious and my parents could not afford many of the things that other people took for granted back then. Since then, through some wise moves and hard work, they have been able to deliver a good education and stability to our family.

I am a 27 year old gay man running a Pub in a town of 10,000 people West of the Great Dividing Range, I face next to no discrimination and have some really good mates. I have been able to afford to travel widely, meet people from all over the world, and spend my income how I choose. When I was stupid enough to go in a amateur Rodeo event in my small town the taxpayers spent a fortune sending me in air ambulances between hospitals and keeping me alive. I am now receiving a heavily subsidised education in Law at University which I hope will allow me to earn a good income for a long time.

So cheer up Anna. We might not be a great democracy, but future generations might look back on us and not deplore us for that, they might look back at us and jealously think to themselves: “Gee, they had more fun than us.”

***

Rodney Sewell in Munich

From a distance, it must be easy to slander people as Nazis. From a distance it may even make sense. But here in Munich when you pass the places where it began, the homes from which Jews were rounded up and taken to death or slavery, the street block where the Gestapo had its headquarters and its torture chambers, the square where boys and young men were choreographed into de-individualised but oh-so-impressive masses, the court house where those who were luckless, stupid or courageous enough to resist were harangued and insulted in a alegala trial before they were guillotined; when you start to look back into the origins of those who caused all that, of their motivations, of their careers, you begin to wonder if those in comfortable Melbourne or Canberra who sling their slanderous lies about the Greens have any inkling of what they are talking about.

I shall leave the big picture analyses of the “Green=Nazi” campaign to others. My interest is in the detail of some of Andrew Bolt’s and Senator Brandis’s statements.

Three of Mr Bolt’s arguments and two of Senator Brandis’s references are at the very least, misleading. I have limited my research to the specifically German (or German-sounding) references by the two men, assuming that SMH readers can research the English-language references themselves.

I quote from Andrew Bolt’s two articles in the Herald-Sun:

“And the green movement has been this way before. In pre-war Germany, nature-worship was as strong as it is now… Members of Germany’s main nature clubs thrilled to (Hitleras) message, more than 60 per cent of them joining the Nazis by 1939, against just 10 per cent of all men.”

In fact in 1933 independent, social democratic, Christian, trade union and communist-aligned nature clubs were banned. In 1936 the remaining underground nature clubs were mopped up, their leaders landing in prison or concentration camps. By 1939 only nature clubs aligned to the aims of the Nazi Party were allowed. A 60 percent membership crossover between the Nazi party and nature clubs would thus be expected. One could even argue that 60 percent is a bit low.

The Nazis also absorbed the German Youth Movement, the Wandervogel, which talked of our mystical relationship with the earth.

The Wandervogel were founded in 1901 by a group of Berlin high school kids looking for something to do on weekends. Like other German youth groups, it aimed to bring youth closer to nature through camping and hiking. In the 1920s it was brilliantly successful, organising trips to many different parts of the world. In 1933 the Nazis banned the group (some members did join the Hitler Youth (HJ), and from 1933 the HJ had a state monopoly on official campsites and hiking trails).

Other Wandervogel members like Robert Oelbermann objected to the dictatorship controlling all aspects of life and continued to organise and hike in secret. In 1936 he was arrested in the wide-ranging “Operation Destruction of Remaining Youth Groups” and died in 1941 in Dachau concentration camp.

The Wandervogel Group was refounded after the war and exists today. It is (and was) basically a scout group. Its ‘mystical relationship to the earth’ is about as sinister as the feeling most Sydneysiders get when they look at a beach.

One of the three key founders of the German Greens, Herbert Gruhl, said the environmental crisis was so acute the state needed perhaps ‘dictatorial powers’.

I couldn’t find that particular quote on the net, but I don’t doubt that Mr Gruhl was capable of it. Herbert Gruhl was a conservative member of the Bundestag from 1969 to 1980 and for several years the ecology expert of the CDU/CSU federal parliamentary party (the equivalent of the Liberal/National Parties).

Mr Gruhl was involved with the Greens in the late 70s but left the party in 1981, citing its “disturbing drift to the left”. Shortly after he founded the ‘Ecological-Democratic Party’ (OeDP). His extreme right-wing politics caused a showdown in the OeDP in 1990 and Mr Gruhl left that party (the OeDP still exists and has a number of members of local councils in Bavaria).

As well as his interest in ecology, Mr Gruhl was also a passionate opponent of a ‘multicultural’ society. His biography suggests that when there are authoritarian or nationalist tendencies in the modern German green movements, they are strongly and successfully opposed by the rank and file. The German Greens are proponents of Basisdemokratie (‘rank and file democracy’) and diametrically opposed to the Nazi Fuehrer-concept (the idea that one man can knows intuitively what is best for a nation).

In his attack on the Australian Greens, Senator Brandis quoted extensively from a ‘Professor Staudenmaier’:

“Even more illuminating is a work by a person who is known to be on the far left of green politics in Europe, Professor Peter Staudenmaier, who wrote a book four years ago called Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience.”

Peter Staudenmaier is not a professor and does not claim the title. But he is available as a public speaker, and his booking agents have posted the following biography:

“Peter Staudenmaier is a social ecologist and left green activist who has been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology since 1989 (Note, the ISE is not a university, it is a private institute ‘offering year-round, interdisciplinary studies to guide social change, including intensive summer programs in theory and practice, year-round B.A. degree in affiliation with Burlington College, fall, winter, and spring workshops and lectures and other educational resources.’)”

The booking agent continues:

“Currently a faculty member at ISE, Peter lives in Madison, Wisconsin, where he works at a collectively run bookstore co-op. He is also part of a network of housing cooperatives. Peter works with grassroots development organizations in Nicaragua as well as with the German radical green group Ecological Left. He devotes much of his time to independent scholarship and antifascist research. He is co-author, with Janet Biehl, of the book Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, and has published many articles on anarchism, ecological politics, and the history of right-wing thought.”

Not the sort of person with whom Senator Brandis would often come in intellectual contact, I expect.

And finally a revealing quote from Senator Brandis, part of a claim that the Australian Greens are willing to subvert democracy in order to pursue their agenda:

Let it never be forgotten that the Nazis came to power in 1932 when they won a majority in the Reichstag in free elections.

Senator Robert Ray: They didn’t win a majority.

When they won control of the Reichstag – thank you, Senator Robert Ray – in free elections.

Yes indeed, let it never be forgotten. The first Hitler government was a coalition of right wing and centre-right parties. The ‘Enabling Law’ which then suspended the Constitution and established the dictatorship was opposed only by the centre-left Social Democrats. By the time of the vote, the Communist members of parliament were on the run, dead or in ‘protective custody’ in police cells or labour camps. The Communist Party’s parliamentary seats were annulled. Thus had Hitler his two-thirds majority and could change the Constitution, a sort of Nazi variation on the concept of “joint sitting”.

Mr Bolt and Senator Brandis display a breathtaking ignorance of history and/or a wilful manipulation of the truth. If this is the basis of Senator Brandis’s planned major speech, I look forward to analysing it with a fine-tooth-comb.

Fans of blood sports may appreciate a debate between Brandis, Bolt and Joschka Fischer, Germany’s Green Foreign Minister and still the country’s most popular politician, the next time he visits Australia. Even with the slight handicap of having to speak in English, Mr Fischer would have these intellectual pygmies for breakfast.

 

Martin Davies image. www.daviesart.com

Ian Cohen is one of three Green members of the NSW Upper House. To my knowledge he is the only Jewish politician in the NSW Parliament. In this piece, Ian responds to the Brandis decree that the Greens are Nazis and opposition to the awarding of the Sydney peace prize to Palestinian Dr Hanan Ashwari from some powerful Jewish individuals and groups.

 

Following the outbreak of two particularly gross public examples of reckless political narrow-mindedness in the past week, I find myself in a paradoxical situation that highlights not just the absurdity of the comments involved, but their place in a well established pattern of derogatory racial commentary for political gain.

Apply Liberal Senator George Brandis’ comments and I am, as a Green, Nazi-like in my advocacy of social and economic justice for all, not to mention peace and non-violence. Add to this the argument that has erupted over the awarding of the Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi and, being Jewish as well, I am labelled anti-semitic for my advocacy of the same things.

Senator Brandis’ inflammatory and narrow-minded comments established a new low point for the Liberal Party. To make comparisons of anyone with the Nazi regime is invoking an image of genocide and of mass murder.

That Senator Brandis was able to speak out in this way at all speaks volumes for the attitudes of his party and his Liberal colleagues. The entire Liberal parliamentary party – which failed to critique Senator Brandis’s allegations – would do well to heed a fundamental tenet of being Jewish: we remember our past in order to be engaged with our present. A dose of reflection for the Liberals could also include that Jewish history, ritual and traditions compels us to tikkun olam – the healing and repair of the world.

The Liberal Party appears to have two distinct and separate policies. One is expressed officially as supporting “strength through diversity”. The other retreats to a position of intolerance expressed through a well-established pattern of attacks on previously recognised liberalisations. This includes:

* The dismantling by the federal government of several institutions, including the Office of Multicultural Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research.

* The extension and privatisation of the mandatory detention of undocumented asylum seekers.

* New policies towards asylum seekers, first culminating in the Tampa episode and the ‘Pacific solution’ and now through the Melville Island excision and the creation of the “Mackay line”.

* Continuous attacks by conservative politicians, journalists, broadcasters and think tanks on ‘politically correct’ policies relating to multiculturalism, refugees and Indigenous affairs.

Even Prime Minister John Howard has expressed a Rousseau-esque yearning for the past to return. “We are losing something,” he said in 1996, “which has been indelibly Australian for as long as we have thought of ourselves as Australians, and that is the sense of community and mateship and looking after each other in adversity, which you find in rural Australia”.

While he wooed the ethnic vote prior to the elections of 1996 with politically correct statements, the Prime Minister made it clear soon after being elected that the halcyon days of multiculturalism were over. “I’m a one nation man,” he declared.

Add Senator Brandis’ comments last week to the track record of the Howard government on ethnic affairs and multiculturalism and it is easy to see the pattern evolving – the retreat to a position of intolerance.

The “accepting and open society” the Liberal Party claims to seek now includes having more than 3000 people locked away in the Australian desert or on Pacific islands; the abolition of effective national advocacy; an immigration policy which makes family reunion very difficult; a volatile public opinion potentially susceptible to racist or xenophobic attitudes; and a national political leadership which has exploited all of this.

To improve community relations requires changed attitudes at the national level. It demands the recreation of viable institutions – preferably outside the province of the Immigration Department. A tolerant and accepting nation needs the constant official repetition that it is and will remain multicultural and that this is of benefit; curriculum and media content which also repeats and develops this theme; and a shift away from the temptation to play the race card in party politics.

Australia is not likely to go up in flames because of racial tensions. But human rights are individual rights. Among these is the ability to enjoy the benefits of Australian life with equity and free of prejudice.

***

Margo Kingston writes: Dr Ashrawi will deliver the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize lecture tonight at the Seymour Centre in Sydney. NSW Premier Bob Carr will award the peace prize to Dr Ashrawi at a dinner at Parliament House tomorrow evening. I’ve just seen her sensational performance in Kerry’ O’Brien interview – well worth reading the transcript tomorrow.

Robert Fisk wrote about the peace prize controversy in Counterpunch in a piece called When Did “Arab” Become a Dirty Word? Smearing Said and Hanan Ashrawi. He begins:

Is “Palestinian” now just a dirty word? Or is “Arab” the dirty word? Let’s start with the late Edward Said, the brilliant and passionate Palestinian-American academic who wrote – among many other books – Orientalism, the ground-breaking work which first explored our imperial Western fantasies about the Middle East. After he died of leukaemia last month, Zev Chafets sneered at him in the New York Daily News in the following words: “As an Episcopalian, he’s ineligible for the customary 72 virgins, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s honoured with a couple of female doctoral graduates.”

Fisk praised Webdiary’s very own F2 trainee Antony Loewenstein for his courage as a Jewish person in defending the award:

Professor Rees is standing firm – for now. So is Australian journalist Antony Loewenstein in Zmag magazine. Ashrawi, he says, “has endured campaigns of hate based on slander and lies for most of her life, from those who are intent on silencing the Palestinian narrative …” But how much longer must this go on? Ashrawi, I notice, is now being called an “aging (sic) bespoke terror apologist” by Mark Steyn in, of all places, The Irish Times.

Antony recently set up an Australia Watch section on Znet. He’s given me permission to republish his Znet article on Webdiary. Antony writes: “I cannot get tickets for the prize itself – sold out ages ago – but I’ll be going to the public forum with Dr Ashrawi in Petersham on Saturday. That’s sold out too, but I’m getting access now (post fisk piece!).” Antony will report the forum for Webdiary.

Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent

by Antony Loewenstein

First published in Znet on October 23, 2003

It’s not easy advocating Palestinian rights. Edward Said frequently commented upon the constant abuse he had received throughout his life. Upon his death, the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) in Australia (related to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America) renounced Said as ‘anti-American and anti-Semitic’. Supporting Palestinian self-determination, critiquing Israeli Government policy and questioning Zionist history was seemingly enough to incur the wrath of Jewish groups around the world.

Hanan Ashrawi is currently finding herself in similar straits in Australia. The Sydney Peace Foundation, associated with the University of Sydney, recently decided to award Dr Ashrawi its annual peace prize. Previous winners have included the East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao in 2000 and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1999.

What originally appeared to be an uncontroversial choice has developed into a full-blown battle between the Peace Foundation, elements of the Jewish lobby, the New South Wales premier, Bob Carr and the Jewish press. The issue in my opinion, however, is not simply the prize, but a more fundamental debate around Palestinian identity in Australia. I believe it is nothing less than an attempt by the Jewish community to delegitimize the Palestinian cause. This kind of behaviour is becoming a regrettably common Zionist ploy in the Western world for increasingly transparent reasons.

Since the announcement of the prize to Ashrawi, Jewish groups have begun a campaign to firstly discredit the high-profile winner, and then to convince Premier Carr that attending the ceremony on November 6 would be, in the words of Gerald Steinberg, an associate professor of political studies at Bar Ilan University, “honouring war, murder and hatred, while debasing the concept of peace and reconciliation”. Incidentally, Professor Steinberg launched a petition to stop Ashrawi receiving the prestigious award and received nearly 4000 signatures. The Australian Jewish News (AJN), the sole Jewish community newspaper in Australia, wrote in its editorial on October 17, that “an Australian premier [Bob Carr] is about to present a peace prize to an apologist for terrorism. The problem is not that Premier Carr is meeting Dr Ashrawi; on the contrary, the more engagement there is, the greater the chance of achieving a solution. The problem is that by presenting her with the prize, he is endorsing her track record.”

Her track record, according to the AJN, is thwarting the Oslo peace deals in the 1990s, not condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization and suggesting Jews living in the West Bank are legitimate targets for Palestinian aggression. All these comments are a misappropriation of the truth. Dr Ashrawi was clearly aware of virulent anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab feeling in the Australian Jewish community, as her comments to the Sydney Morning Herald on October 23 suggested: “I knew there would be mobilised voices trying to malign Palestinians, particularly ones like me who have been outspoken for peace.”

So who are the groups so determined to smear Dr Ashrawi? The Australian Jewish News has been the conduit through which numerous Jewish groups and individuals have been able to libel her. The paper, not known for its coverage outside the official Israeli/Palestinian paradigm, has chosen to repeat the lies against Ashrawi and in doing so, has become even more of an impediment to dialogues of understanding between the two sides. Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on October 23, Peter Wertheim, former president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, suggested:

“Ashrawi certainly presents well in the media. She is articulate and intelligent. But she is also dogmatic and ideologically driven. Her carefully cultivated media image as a moderate cannot disguise her consistent history as a rejectionist and a maximalist.

Awarding a peace prize to someone with Ashrawi’s track record is a de facto endorsement of her hardline views. It has everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with peace. That is why the Jewish community – not some lobby group – is opposed to any attempt to gloss over her uncompromising pronouncements and legitimise her views.

Hysterical references to “the power of the Jewish lobby” are merely crude attempts to deflect attention away from the cold hard facts of Ashrawi’s public record.”

Wertheim was gracious enough to argue that “there are, of course, legitimate criticisms that can be made about the peace process and the “road map”, from both the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives,” but then goes on to list the catalogue of deceptions supposedly perpetuated by one of the leading lights in the Palestinian movement.

Jeremy Jones, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, argued that the awarders of the prize were “blinded by celebrity” and the decision reflected badly on the judges (primarily University of Sydney members, while its advisory body consists of Kerry O’Brien, Pat O’Shane AM and Hugh Mackay, amongst others). This is despite the fact that two previous winners, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson, have endorsed the decision.

Indeed in August this year, after learning of Jones’ complaints regarding the Peace Prize to Ashrawi, NSW Labor member Leo McLeay said the following in the New South Wales parliament:

“Mr Jones’s comments on this issue are in line with his regular attacks on members of Parliament and others who give any support for the people of PalestineIt amazes me how intolerant Mr Jones and the pro-Israeli lobby can be. If you are not an enthusiastic supporter of the Sharon version of the Berlin Wall (in the West Bank occupied territory) you are considered anti-Jewish. When will the Jeremy Joneses of this world understand that criticism of the Israeli Government and its actions is not anti-Semitism?”

Other Jewish groups have also joined in placing pressure on Bob Carr to withdraw his support for Ashrawi. On October 22, the Sydney Lord Mayor, Lucy Turnbull, declared that the City of Sydney would not be supporting the prize to Ashrawi. Turnbull claimed to suddenly find her an unsuitable choice because she was allegedly opposed to a two-state solution.

The director of the Peace Prize, Stuart Rees, has said that Ashrawi was awarded the distinction due to her “lifelong advocacy of women’s rights [being] just one item of impressive evidence of her work for peace with justice.”

The debate brings up a number of uncomfortable realities regarding the influence and mentality of the Jewish lobby in Australia, though their modus operandi is far from limited to this country. I would argue that the central, yet unspoken, complaint of the Jewish community is awarding a prize to a woman who so well articulates the Palestinian cause. In the current battle for international legitimacy, there is no question that Israel is losing friends at an ever-increasing rate. For this reason alone, the legitimacy given to Ashrawi lessen the arguments of Zionist and Israeli supporters. She is being given credence after a lifetime of speaking out against Israeli aggression. Speaking on ABC newsradio in 2002 she best summed up the reasons why so many in the Jewish lobby can never understand the Palestinian cause: “Israel seems to think that it can initiate collective punitive measures, it can assassinate people, it can continue to imprison a whole nation and kill civilians at will and with impunity, and doesn’t expect that there are people on the other side who will adopt the same tactics. This is self-defeating either way.”

What infuriates the Zionist lobby is that Ashrawi has seen a succession of Israeli leaders unwilling to make peace and she’s be unafraid of saying so. While the likes of Barak, Shamir and Netanyahu has come and gone, and each of them with a proud history of talking peace while expanding settlements and clamping down on the Occupied Territories, Ashrawi has outlived them all.

One of the leading lights of the Israeli peace movement, Uri Avnery, founder of Gush Shalom, (gushshalom) has spent a lifetime fighting against the militaristic Israeli mindset and supporting a two-state solution. He recently reminded readers of Ehud Barak’s infamous words a few years ago regarding the Palestinians and the proposed peace deals: “There is no one to talk with!” This mentality lives on in the campaign against Hanan Ashrawi. The Jewish lobby doesn’t want people like her in the public sphere talking about Palestinian aspirations, hopes, fears, angers or dreams. It’s much easier to portray the Palestinians as violent, anarchic and hateful towards Jews, as the Zionist lobby frequently claims. Indeed, members of the Sharon Government or Jewish groups throughout the world echo the words of Barak almost daily.

Rawan Abdul-Nabi, writing on the Australian based Palestinian Human Rights Campaign website, said in a powerful editorial recently that the treatment dished out to Ashrawi in Australia fitted a pattern throughout the world.

“The Sydney campaign against Dr Ashrawi is part of an ongoing history of attacks against prominent Palestinian spokespeople. Most notably, last year Dr Ashrawi was targeted as a keynote speaker in the US at the Colorado College Symposium titled, ‘September 11 – One Year Later: Responding to Global Challenges’. For weeks prior, a national debate was waged in the media and amongst community groups in an attempt to destroy Ashrawi’s credibility and diminish her ongoing commitment to justice and peace. The Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens and the State’s two Senators succumbed to the pressure and were publicly opposed to Ashrawi’s visit. During her address in Colorado, Ashrawi spoke most eloquently and compellingly, passionately and honestly from a Palestinian and humanist viewpoint, despite the intrusive vocal opposition.

Amidst heckles and jeers Ashrawi testified to some of the brutal daily realities of living under an illegal military occupation. She spoke of her willingness to devote her life to peace and justice with Israelis and Jews:

“I’ve lived under military occupation most of my adult life. I have been repeatedly beaten up, shot at, interrogated, [and] even imprisoned. I have seen some of my best friends killed. My next-door neighbour’s kid shot in the back. I’ve seen my daughter’s childhood totally destroyed, living in fear, being tear-gassed, and living under curfew. I’ve seen houses demolished, crops destroyed, our infrastructure destroyed. And recently I’ve lived for weeks under curfew, a prisoner in my own home, without water, without electricity and often without a phone. I’ve lived under constant shelling — I’ve seen the windows and doors of my home (my ancestral home) being blown away. But I’m not saying this to tell you that I’m a victim — no –I’m saying this to tell you that despite all these things, despite my living under captivity and seeing the worst horrors of violence, being on the receiving end of the last remaining colonial situation in the world, an occupation, I have never succumbed to hate. I have never allowed hate to take over, and I have never accepted any kind of revenge as a motivation.”

Ashrawi herself is no stranger to these sorts of defamatory campaigns. She has endured campaigns of hate based on slander and lies for most of her life, from those who are intent on silencing the Palestinian narrative. Besides, she has lived a significant part of her life under the jackboot of Israeli occupation; do Australian Jewish leaders think that their attempts to intimidate and silence will succeed in the face of truth and integrity? As Dr Hanan Ashrawi herself said at Colorado College, in the midst of being booed, jeered and faced with “I disagree” placards every time she made a point, (ironically, even when she denounced violence against Israeli civilians):

“Not only won’t I be distracted — I wasn’t distracted by bullets, I will not be distracted by signs. I just appeal to you to listen. It’s important, you might have something to learn. While I’m talking to you here, I have invitations from students, from Israeli universities asking me to address them, and I’ve addressed many Israeli universities, and they want to listen, because by creating a common discourse, a common language, you overcome not just those stereotypes but precisely those forces that want to perpetuate the conflict. You’re sitting here wanting to keep us in conflict.”

In November 2000, renowned Middle East reporter for the UK’s Independent newspaper, Robert Fisk, interviewed Ashrawi at her home in Ramallah. In a far ranging piece, Ashwari rallied against journalistic bias towards Palestinian casualties, the fraud of the so-called peace process and the continued suffering of her people under constant occupation:

“The new “intifada” will continue – “in different shapes, different forms” – she believes. “We are not fond of mass suicide, but we want the right to resist occupation and injustice. Then the moment we say ‘resist’, the Israelis pull out the word ‘terrorist’ – so a child with a stone becomes the ‘legitimate’ target for Israeli sniper fire and a high-velocity bullet.”

The Jewish lobby would claim Ashrawi is justifying suicide bombing, when she is doing nothing of the sort. She is talking about the right of resistance to an illegal and brutal occupation. The same right eventually extended to other peoples throughout the world, not least of which the ANC and its brothers and sisters in South Africa during the apartheid years.

The heart of Ashrawi’s arguments are best summed up in this comment to Fisk:

“Now we are all being fed well-worn phrases: ‘peace process’, ‘back on track’, ‘ceasefire’, ‘time-out’, ‘put an end to violence’, ‘Arafat to restrain/control his people’, ‘do we have the right peace partner?’ This is a racist way of looking at the Palestinians and it obscures the fact that we’ve suffered an Israeli occupation all along. When newspapers ask if Palestinians deliberately sacrifice their children, it’s an incredibly racist thing to do. They are dehumanising the Palestinians. The press and the Israelis have rid us of the most elemental human feelings in a very cynical, racist discourse that blames the victims.”

The Jewish lobby in Australia are fully aware they are contributing to the dehumanisation through their campaign against Ashrawi. If Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon (laughably referred to by George W.Bush as “a man of peace”) were awarded the peace prize, the Jewish lobby would celebrate the fairness of the distinction. The very fact that a Palestinian is winning, galls Jewish leaders and leaves their bigotry, racism and intolerance clear for all to see. When will we realise that many of these people don’t want peace with the Palestinians and prefer spending their time labelling critics of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic? It’s a reality many are finally waking up to.

At a time when the Howard Government and the Crean Opposition makes shameless overtures to the Jewish lobby, the aggressive campaign against Ashrawi should come as no surprise. As Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey wrote on 6 September, when commenting on a speech given by Labor leader Simon Crean to the Jewish community:

Crean: “Beyond the human tragedy, further damage has been done. The Jerusalem bombing could destroy the peace process. For the sake of the people of Israel, and indeed the Palestinian people, I hope it doesn’t “

Ah yes, ‘”the Palestinian people”. At last, a mention. This extract is approximately a single page of an 11-page speech. Labor’s attitude to the Palestinians is similarly modest in the other 10 pages. As a depiction of Labor policy, it represents one of the more sniveling grovels in recent memory.

As this cartoon featured on Norman Finkelstein’s website displays (author of The Holocaust Industry and Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), the last quarter century has seen the Zionist lobby surreally shift from victim to oppressor, yet still cannily maintain the victim tag, in face of overwhelming Israeli military and political strength. There is no reason to believe that the current battle over Dr Ashrawi is not yet another attempt at legitimising Jewish supremacy in the Israeli/Palestinian debate.

***

Newly ordained high priestess Meg Lees zipped into the Senate on her Harley like a bat outta hell and zipped up the deal, ditching a convoy of dykes on bikes along the way. In doing a deal in the name of the sisterhood, Meg dumped the rest of the sisterhood in the process. But seriously, who would have thought Meg Lees would save her former party the Australian Democrats from an embarrassing split over same-sex amendments?

Webdiary columnist Polly Bush reports the denouement of the latest failed quest for equal superannuation rights for same sex couples. Her earlier reports are Same sex super: how we value love, Coalition heat melts Democrats on same sex super and Same sex super rundown.

 

It’s no real surprise the houses of parliament still begin proceedings with the Lord’s prayer, given the debates can spawn a chamber of unholy alliances battling it out for what sometimes seems the holy grail. Or the unholy one.

Last week was no exception in the Senate, as the parties drew swords to thrash out the Government’s superannuation reforms, slashing away equal rights for same sex couples in the process.

In one pew sat the holy ghost, the Democrats, dancing with a deal with the devil, but at the same time waving a piece of gospel from their bible – a tattered rainbow flag recently kissed by Judas Cherry Picker.

Also brandishing the multi-coloured sash and jesus sandals was Big Brother Bob Brown High, who delivered a sermon sanctifying his sisterhood and condemning the holy ghost to death by stoning.

In his black cape and glittery purple polish, Gothic Prince Bartlett cursed Big Brother Bob and demanded he release his sacrificial lamb to the alter.

Coonan the Contrarian crucified the Australian Lip-Service Party, who had recently split from her sanctimonious church. But new Missionary Nick Blood-of-Christ Sherry vowed to continue to don the technicolour dream coat.

On his mighty catholic crusade, a frocked up Cardinal Harradine sprayed holy water at the other life of Brian. But despite the mist surrounding the holy ghost, Disciple Greig helicoptered the incense straight back.

But it didn’t matter in the end. Newly ordained high priestess Meg Lees zipped into the Senate on her Harley like a bat outta hell and zipped up the deal, ditching a convoy of dykes on bikes along the way.

In doing a deal in the name of the sisterhood, Meg dumped the rest of the sisterhood in the process.

But seriously, who would have thought Meg Lees would save her former party the Australian Democrats from an embarrassing split over same-sex amendments?

If the question is worded, “Who would have thought Meg Lees would vote with the Coalition Government on an economics related package?” then it is not so surprising.

Last Monday night, Independent senators ushered through the Federal Government’s Superannuation package.

For those who earn under $27,500, the Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners Bill means the Government will match any voluntary contributions of up to $1,000 a year.

It’s no wonder the passage of this bill has received widespread support from the superannuation industry (which also upports same sex rights) – as many have said the Government’s package has produced the most significant reforms in 15 years.

But while many have praised the Co-Contribution bill, some experts doubt whether people on low incomes will be able to add extra into their super.

Industry Funds Services’ financial planner Lynne Wilkinson said that people on low incomes are flat out trying to cover the cost of living.

“The people who are going to use it will be the spouses of doctors and lawyers and the like who have part-time jobs, whose families can afford to because their partners are on higher incomes,” Wilkinson said (‘Battlers’ super doubt’, Sunday Mail, November 2, 2003).

For those who earn over $96,000, the Governments Surcharge Rate Reduction bill will reduce the surcharge tax from 15 per cent to 12.5 per cent over three years.

Ironically, one of the main superannuation issues for same sex couples is the tax rate.

Because of the gender specific terms in legislation, death benefits for same sex couples are taxed at either 20 or 30 per cent, as opposed to the tax-free status for heterosexual couples. (See overtherainbow.)

But the Government’s package passed the Senate last week without the amendments giving same sex and interdependency couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The support of senators Meg Lees, Brian Harradine and Shayne Murphy meant the Australian Democrats were able to stick with party policy by insisting on the amendments.

Senator Len Harris was absent from the proceedings, however his vote was registered as a “pair” (when the House pairs up opposite votes from absentee members so as to nullify the numbers). Rumour has it the organisation of the One Nation senator’s pair vote was orchestrated at the last minute by Liberal senators, desperate to ensure they could get the numbers.

The passage of the super reforms would have been a frustrating victory for Democrats superannuation spokesperson John Cherry, who negotiated much of the Government’s package with Revenue Senator Helen Coonan.

In the last few weeks, Senator Cherry said the party was planning on backing down on the party’s policy of insisting on same sex couple recognition to let the Superannuation Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners Bill pass.

While the Democrats held firm on party policy and insisted on the amendments, their commitment to the issue has been questionable due to these comments. Prior to the vote, if the Democrats had every intention of insisting on the amendments, why then was it not raised in negotiations with the Government, as alleged by Revenue Minister Senator Coonan last Monday night?

Following the vote, ABC PM’s Matt Brown queried Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett on how far they lobbied the Government on the issue of same sex amendments:

MATT BROWN: I’ve just been told it wasn’t put on the table by people on your own team, that it wasn’t substantially explored?

ANDREW BARTLETT: Well, look, it was put on the table. The reason why we couldn’t substantially explore it because it’s very hard to negotiate with the Government to agree to something we haven’t even been able to get the Labor Party to agree with in the Senate in the past. That’s why it was difficult for it to progress.

Another loitering question is – did the Democrats thoroughly lobby the Independents (particularly Lees and Murphy) on insisting on the same sex amendments? And if not, how serious are they in seeing the amendments eventually become law?

Overall, last Monday night’s debate just added to a cynical couple of weeks in politics for same sex couples. In the end, the bulk of the debate over same sex couple recognition was hijacked by party politics and was sadly not about human rights.

The Coalition held onto supporting the discriminatory definitions in superannuation legislation. The Labor Party’s sudden support of the same-sex amendments – while welcome – seemed to be more about a means in which to reject the Government’s legislation as well as throwing a wedge into the Australian Democrats.

The Independents, particularly Meg Lees and Shayne Murphy, were particularly disappointing as they both support same sex rights yet voted with the Government.

As disappointing as many players were on this issue, the real sticking point is the Howard Government’s refusal to change the gender specific terms enshrined in legislation.

However, the debate last Monday night provided a skerrick of hope in relation to future same sex couple recognition, with Revenue Minister Senator Helen Coonan indicating the Government may examine the issue:

“There will be opportunities to canvass the issues again in a more informed way. Interdependency is a very complex issue. Frankly, I would have ministerial colleagues (READ JOHN HOWARD) and many other issues to consider before I would be in a position at an appropriate point to participate in that debate and take issue with most of what has been said. The choice bill is very close to being introduced. It is always a bit difficult to give absolute commitments, but it is listed for the week commencing 24 November.”

While vague, this statement from Coonan is encouraging as well as surprising.

Indeed, last Monday night’s debate provided a few surprises, with some senators still of the view the Democrats were about to back down on the amendments prior to the vote.

“I recognise that the Democrats are going to vote down Labors same sex couple amendment, in all probability. We have not had the vote yet but I recognise that that is likely to happen,” Labor Senator Nick Sherry said in the Upper House when the debate began.

Greens leader Bob Brown and Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett traded insults over who was “selling out”. Senator Brown said:

“The fact is that the Democrats are giving away the leverage where they should have stood, eyeballed the government and said, ‘if you want to see this package through, do the decent thing and end discrimination on superannuation amongst Australians’.”

Senator Bartlett replied, “Senator Brown is not interested in extra gains for low income earners, because he would rather score political points using the gay and lesbian community as his sacrificial lamb.”

Senator Cherry queried the overall commitment to same sex couples from the Greens:

“[This] is the first time in seven years in this place that we have seen Senator Brown move an amendment in recognition of same sex couples in this area of superannuation. The Greens are so concerned about this issue that Michael Organ did not even vote in the other place to insist on this amendment.”

The Democrats superannuation spokesperson continued to play it both ways, talking up the benefits of the Government’s reforms as well as supporting the amendments:

“We need to get a message out not only that this package is worth supporting and worth going through but also that the amendments to remove discrimination against those in same-sex and interdependent relationships are worth doing and worth going through, which is why the Democrats will be insisting on our amendments,” Senator Cherry said.

But Senator Cherry’s commitment to persuading the Government to support recognition of same sex couples came under fire when Revenue Minister Senator Helen Coonan admitted the Democrats superannuation spokesperson had not raised the issue in their dealings.

“I have to say to the Senate that there was no mention at all in the negotiations of the Democrats insistence that there should be some amendments that relate to same sex couples and other relationships,” Senator Coonan said.

Coonan was cynical of the Labor Party’s motivation to support same-sex couple amendments, arguing, “They knew that their stance on same sex couples would embarrass the Democrats”.

Former Democrats leader and now independent Senator Meg Lees began her address congratulating Senator Cherry and his “very good arrangement with the government”.

She attacked the Labor Party for their sudden support of same sex couples:

“I think it is rather opportunistic of [the Labor Party] to start moving these amendments in the hope they can embarrass others, cause some disruption and, if not delay, fail in this very important measure for low-income Australians. I would say that Labor are at a bit of mischief making.”

Lees also made a last minute appeal to the Democrats to back down on the amendments.

“As Senator Cherry said this morning, the Democrats want this to go through. I say to Senator Cherry: if you are going to insist on these amendments it is simply not going to go anywhere.”

At the expense of lesbians, Lees said the main reason she was voting in support of the Bill was that women would benefit – as they make up a large proportion of low income earners.

“Women simply do not share the same access as men in terms of pay, employment, super benefits,” Senator Lees said.

Senator Shayne Murphy, who sided with the Government in rejecting the amendments, only made a brief address to the House. He appealed to the Federal Government to re-examine the same sex debate in future legislation, but backed the Government on this occasion:

“The issue of same sex couples is a very difficult issue and has not been resolved. These bills, whilst they are relevant to the issue to some degree, have a very significant impact on the broad community in terms of superannuants,” Senator Murphy said.

Fellow Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine also argued the benefits of the Bill to low income earners, before launching into an at-best ridiculous justification in rejecting the same sex amendments:

“Superannuation treats everyone in our society equally and has made the judgement that there should be positive discrimination in favour of married couples or persons living in a marriage like relationship. This decision is not against other groups but in favour of a particular type of relationship, which has been deemed to be important to the Australian community because of its ability to provide a safe and stable environment for children,” Senator Harradine said.

Democrats Senator Brian Greig was quick to reply to Harradine’s remarks, arguing:

“Senator Harradine is of course wrong on all counts. The fact is that superannuation was introduced in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with the institution, preservation or protection of marriage, but rather as a means for people to save for their retirement.”

Greig, who has been in a same-sex relationship for 18 years, directly asked Harradine, “How is it that denying my partner superannuation death benefits improves the marriage between Senator and Mrs Harradine?”

Later in the debate, Senator Greig referred to Harradine’s comments again:

“As far as I am concerned that is just heterosexist supremacy. That is just like saying the government of South Africa was not really discriminating against blacks; it was just upholding the rights and privileges of whites. It is not acceptable.”

Greig provided arguably the best point of the day on why the Bill assisting low-income earners was discriminatory. While Revenue Minister Helen Coonan continually pushed the line that this Bill couldn’t possibly discriminate against same sex couples as it only applied to individuals, Greig countered the argument by pointing out that same sex couples were also low-income earners.

“This is where I think you are wrong Minister: the discrimination kicks in when, at some point in the future, those people in same sex relationships who have taken advantage of this legislation, should it proceed, then try and bequeath their fund to their surviving partner.”

Greig also attacked Prime Minister John Howard’s 1996 election comments that he would be governing for “all of us”.

“If we are serious about governing for all then you cannot exclude some people in the community,” Senator Greig said.

It’s a great statement, because it also ties back into the Democrats policy of always (yes John Cherry) blocking Superannuation bills unless they remove the discriminatory definitions in the law.

If John Howard is really wanting to govern for “all of us”, by changing the gender specific terms in superannuation legislation he’ll be able to get a lot more super packages through the Senate, which, in the end, can finally benefit all of us.

***

Finally, one last thought. Prior to last week’s vote, speculation that some Democrats senators were about to back down on the amendments evolved around the so-called ‘gang of four’ (John Cherry, Lyn Allyson, Andrew Murray and Aden Ridgeway).

However before the showdown, Senator Aden Ridgeway told Queensland Pride he would be insisting on the amendments and gave admirable reasons why – the memory of a gay friend who had recently passed away, as well as supporting solidarity amongst minority groups.

Perhaps Ridgeway’s stance convinced the other wavering Democrats senators they needed to continue their support of same sex amendments. Here is Queensland Pride’s report:

Queensland Pride newspaper Issue #186

Story by Iain Clacher

DEMOCRAT Senator Aden Ridgeway will join rebel colleagues Brian Greig and Natasha Stott Despoja and vote against the Superannuation Co-contributions bill unless the Howard Government accepts an amendment to recognise same sex couples.

However the unamended legislation looks set to pass the Senate early next week with the support of independent Meg Lees, One Nation’s Len Harris, and at least two of the four remaining Democrats: Lyn Allison and the co-architect of the bill, John Cherry (Qld).

Yet to declare their intentions are Andrew Murray and party leader Andrew Bartlett (Qld).

“I’ll be voting according to my conscience on a matter of principle,” Ridgeway told Queensland Pride.

“The principle is that same sex couples need to be recognised. While I respect the measures John Cherry has been able to achieve for low income earners in his negotiations with the government on this bill, at the same time I feel I need to make a stand.

“A friend of mine who was gay passed away recently and I would be offending his memory if I didn’t support this,” he said.

Ridgeway also noted gay Senator Brian Greig had been ‘very supportive’ of his own stand on indigenous human rights issues.

LGBT rights advocate Rodney Croome welcomed Ridgeway’s decision.

“It sends out a very positive message about LGBT and aboriginal solidarity,” he said.

“That we have strong and vocal supporters in the aboriginal community reminds us in turn that we should be strong advocates of aboriginal rights.”

Croome said it was ‘unacceptable’ that despite the stance of Ridgeway, Greig and Despoja there was still a ‘great possibility’ the legislation would pass without the same sex amendments.

“[Ridgeway’s decision] will further embarrass those of his colleagues who aren’t supporting same sex couple rights.”

 

SAS Trooper Andrew Russell

John Howard today refused to explain to Parliament the “oversight” which saw the widow of Trooper Andrew Russell left off the guest list to hear George Bush speak, meet him at Howard’s barbecue or even watch him lay a wreath for fallen soldiers at the War Memorial.

He also refused to say whether or not he had investigated the cause of the failure.

Asked to explain how the oversight could occur, Mr Howard said that “whatever the circumstances of it” he took responsibility “as the head of the government … as inevitably in these things the head of government must”. Mr Howard thus avoided saying whether he was or was not personally responsible for the failure to invite Mrs Russell.

Kylie Russell’s MP, Western Australian Labor MP Graham Edwards, asked the first question of the week:

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to what he described as ‘an oversight’ in not inviting the widow of Sergeant Russell to the wreath-laying service at the War Memorial where a wreath was laid in Sergeant Russell’s honour. How does the Prime Minister respond to the statement made by Mrs Russell, in referring to his action, when she said:

“I hope he can live with himself after denying me and my daughter an opportunity to be a part of something we would have remembered forever.”

Has this oversight been investigated and can he advise the people of Australia how such an oversight could possibly occur?

Mr Howard

I say to the member for Cowan and to the House that I am indeed very upset that the oversight did occur. I want to renew to this House the apology that I have extended in writing to Mrs Russell. I want to take the opportunity of saying that, whatever the circumstances of it, as the head of government I accept responsibility as inevitably in these things the head of government must. I also take the opportunity of saying to the honourable gentleman that suggestions made in some newspaper articles – and, indeed, contained in a letter that he wrote to me – that the failure to invite her might have been in some way due to the fact that she had been critical of government policy in relation to benefits for the families of deceased Defence personnel have no substance of any kind – no substance at all. I can only say that I am profoundly sorry that it occurred. I apologise to the lady concerned. It was an inexcusable oversight, and I can assure the honourable member that, whatever the lead-up to it was, it was not malicious. It was a mistake and, as the head of government, I accept responsibility.

***

Mrs Russell has not released a copy of Howard’s letter of apology. Edwards has seen a copy, and told me it was in almost precisely similar terms as the PM’s letter to him, published in Howard’s letter to Kylie’s MP. In that letter, Mr Howard referred to “a most regrettable oversight”.

If that is correct, Mr Howard has apologised far more profusely to the Parliament than to Trooper Russell’s widow, to whom he said he wrote last Monday. He’s got something to hide, that’s for sure.

It was a shame Labor didn’t follow up Mr Howard’s non-answer to either of Edwards’ questions, but it was determined to quickly nail the government’s latest scare campaign on security. Most questions were taken up proving that Mr Ruddocks’s demand for even more power for ASIO to detain people not suspected of a crime without charge in the light of the Brigitte matter was bogus. It was important to Labor to try to nip the next Tampa play in the bud, and to do so Labor dared to state the facts to give the public a chance to assess the merits of Ruddock’s case. It’s rather unimaginative of Howard to cast the same leading man for both tricks, and this time Labor did not follow the scare but stood firm on its principles and challenged Ruddock’s insupportable spin.

The next step in trying to force Howard to be accountable to the Australian people on his failure to invite Kylie Russell to Canberra on Thursday, October 23, is the questioning of Howard’s department – which made the arrangements for the Bush visit – by the Senate Estimates committee. Questions could begin tomorrow, led by Labor Senator John Faulkner.

My Sun Herald column is at No invite, dismissed as an ‘oversight’ and today’s Moir’ cartoon is at cartoon.

Here is an essay on Trooper Russell’s legacy by Robert Sadleir.

***

Remembering Trooper Russell,

by Robert Sadleir

Robert Sadleir served with United Nations Agencies in Ethiopia, Nepal, Bosnia Herzegovina and Afghanistan. He was in the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance Representative in Tehran at the time of Sgt. Russell’s death. He currently works as a consultant in Canberra.

Andrew Russell died a year ago on February 16 2001. He was 33. He died in the most unforgiving spot on earth where the howling sands of Dasht-e-Margo (Desert of Death) engulf the Dasht-e-Jehanum (Desert of Hell): southern Afghanistan.

And if you can escape nature’s perils here then perverse man has engineered another vile fate. The southern region of Afghanistan is, as the Essential Field Guide to Humanitarian and Conflict Zones warns, “the most heavily mined in the country with numerous anti-tank minefields”. In this the heaviest of mined lands. SAS sergeant Andrew Russell died when his Land Rover struck an anti-tank mine.

Like warriors since time immemorial, his country mourned his death in fullness but paid his widow and daughter a pitiful sum for his sacrifice. As the lone Australian soldier killed in action during the Afghanistan phase of the ‘War on Terrorism’, secular institutions are likely to afford a sacred revalorization of Russell’s life, but the fullness of that legacy needs to be conveyed.”

Andrew Russell died prior to the United Nations launching the largest repatriation of refugees in over three decades – bringing the Afghans back home. Russell’s death, though unfortunate, occurred at a time to shape the voluntary repatriation program and ensured only a small number of returnees from Iran were exposed to a hazardous route home.

On March 1 2002, a United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) organised repatriation of Afghans began in Pakistan. The proximity of refugee camps to major roads and to Kabul meant the repatriation was expected to go relatively smoothly. It proved to be the case. By the end of 2002 over 1.5 million Afghan refugees living in Pakistan had returned home. However, returning Afghan refugees from Iran was far more problematic.

When the ‘War against Terrorism’ began in November2001, Iran closed its 950 km border with Afghanistan to prevent a refugee influx. Tehran claimed that with over a million Afghan refugees within its borders, the boat was full.

Unlike Pakistan, most refugees in Iran were not accommodated in camps. Twenty years had allowed Afghans to integrate relatively well into the Iranian economy, helped by the two nations sharing a similar tongue, Farsi and Dari, and cultural ties. The highly educated Afghans became lawyers and doctors and their children attended local schools. The uneducated found employment easily for their willingness to labour hard on building sites or do menial tasks beneath the dignity of Iranian urban dwellers.

But like refugees the world over, Afghans were scapegoats for modern social ills in Iran, from crime to unemployment. Moreover, both the reformists and theocrats – at loggerheads with one another over everything else in Iran – coalesced around this issue. The Afghans had to return home and the government appointed a hardliner, Ahmad Hosseini, director-general of the country’s Bureau of Aliens and Foreign Immigrants Affairs Office (BAFIA), to ensure repatriation occurred. The plan drawn up under a tripartite agreement signed between Tehran, Kabul and UNHCR was to voluntarily repatriate a target figure of 400,000 Afghans through two border crossing points into Afghanistan.

One border crossing was at Dogharoun in Iran’s northeastern Khorasan province, and the other at Milak in Iran’s impoverished southeastern Sistan-Baluchestan province. On the surface this made logistical sense, as both frontier provinces had large refugee populations. Moreover, Dogharoun was a major commercial artery linked by a secure highway to the western Afghanistan city of Herat. From there roads linked to other parts of the country including Kabul.

On the other hand, Milak was not an ideal. Zaranj, the nearest Afghan town, was just across the border, but had little infrastructure to cope with a transiting population. Nestled by a parched lakebed in the Dasht-e-Margo, Zaranj suffocated from howling sandstorms that rendered day into night and reduced visibility to nil. Zaranj was a treacherous 200-odd kilometer drive to nearest major highway. To the northwest in Farah province a former mujahideen commander was feuding with Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat Ismail Khan, over Pashtun rights. And to the east in Hellmand were minefields and bandits eager to prey on returnees carrying with them their life’s possessions.

Yet Milak was chosen for several reasons. Most pressingly, perhaps, refugees had sheltered in this isolated part of Afghanistan for protection and had to be moved to a healthier location.

Also, the UN wished to avoid overburdening the strained infrastructure of Herat which already housed some 300000 internally displaced people in living in appalling conditions in Maslakh camp. The international community had correctly surmised returnees who had lived the past twenty years in urban environment would no longer be attracted to rural life and thus would concentrate in the large urban centres like Kabul and Herat. By routing them halfway between the two cities there might be chance that the returnees would choose other locations.

This was the backdrop in which Andrew Russell died. The exact location of his death was never disclosed, but the international community knew Australian troops were operating in the broad swathes of southern Afghanistan desert. His airlift to Kandahar confirmed the southern location of the incident.

His death became a catalyst for reappraisal of the repatriation plan by international agencies. Why? Trooper Russell’s death was concrete proof – broadcast throughout the region on BBC – of the dangers of travelling in the region, even for the best informed. What fate would returnees face at the whim of truck and bus drivers tempted to spontaneously carve short cuts in the desert to save fuel? Little was known of the location of minefields in the region for the mujihadeen had little bothered to map them in the Soviet era.

The whole repatriation process was called into question. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) felt the voluntary repatriation program was too premature – returning people to a war ravaged economy with little means to earn a livelihood made no sense. Afterall, wasn’t UNHCR responsible for protecting refugees? Political pressure came to the fore. The bellicose Hosseini was calling for an increase in the target repatriation to 600000.

The repatriation commenced in April with Milak crossing point closed. It opened briefly and was closed for manifold reasons during the course of 2002: fighting between Ismail Khan and Amanullah Khan; the belligerent behaviour of Iranian border guards; weather, illness of staff;

But behind these reasons too was the face of a young South Australian who migrated to Perth seeking adventure. By the end of 2002, the number of Afghan returnees crossing at Doghroun was 248 890. The number returning via the Milak, was only 12 413.

The official statement by Minister of Defence Robert Hill upon Andrew Russell’s death included the words: “This soldier has given his life in the service of his country as part of the global effort to make the world a safer place from the threat of terrorism.”

They are heartfelt and true, but do not capture the extraordinary legacy of Andrew Russell’s death.

 

Martin Davies image. www.daviesart.com

“Historians rarely enjoy their fifteen minutes of fame, particularly when their work covers an obscure topic…my scholarship offers little support for the conclusions Senator Brandis reached.” Peter Staudenmaier

G�day. Here�s something special � a piece by historian Peter Staudenmaier, co-author of one of the books George Brandis used to claim the Greens were Nazis in disguise. Peter agreed to elaborate on the email he sent Webdiary which I published in Ashrawi and Brandis: the great debate. After Peter�s piece, the relevant extracts from George�s speech.

 

***

Greens and Nazis

by Peter Staudenmaier

Historians rarely enjoy their fifteen minutes of fame, particularly when their work covers an obscure topic. Even if somebody out there ends up reading what we write, as likely as not we’ll complain that they’ve missed the point. When you’re thoroughly immersed in a subject, it can be hard to convey the nuances and complexities involved in a way that makes sense to a broad audience.

So it’s probably not too surprising that I was less than thrilled to find my work at the center of a political controversy in faraway Australia, a place I have never visited and know little about. When Senator Brandis took the floor of the parliament and quoted at length from a book that I co-authored, he used my writing for purposes that are quite at odds with my own.

There is nothing wrong with that in principle; it isn’t my job to tell others what lessons they ought to draw from the events and movements I study. In this case, however, I think it important to point out that my scholarship offers little support for the conclusions Senator Brandis reached.

He is not the only reader of my work to draw such conclusions. I have heard from a number of conservative political figures in the United States, where I live, who are eager to use my historical work as a weapon in the struggle against what they see as the Green menace. These people refer to my research on ecofascism as a cheap tactic to impugn virtually all varieties of political environmentalism. In my opinion, this is not a serious way to approach important historical questions.

The book that caught Senator Brandis’s attention is titled Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience. Along with my co-author Janet Biehl, I explore there the little-known legacy of right-wing ecology and its appropriation by one faction of the Nazi party in the 1930’s. Our book says quite explicitly that there is no inherent connection between classical fascism and contemporary Green politics. What gave rise to the convergence of ecology and fascism seventy years ago was a specific set of historical circumstances and a specific version of ecological thinking, which our book examines in detail.

The excerpts which Senator Brandis presented to his colleagues ignored this crucial context, and thus failed to do justice both to the very grave history that the book recounts, as well as to the current relevance of these issues in today’s world.

Moreover, the concrete parallels that Brandis emphasized � an ostensible excess of radical zeal on the part of some Australian Greens, as well as their supposedly cynical attitude toward democratic institutions � are at best tangentially related to the ideological commonalities between environmentalism and fascism that my research reveals.

The Nazis certainly did not come to power because the predecessors of the Greens in Germany were too vocal in their opposition to the militarist and authoritarian tendencies of their day.

It is possible that the Australian Greens are indeed awash in mystical and antihumanist ideas, as Senator Brandis’s portrait would have it; to comment on that question exceeds my competence. If such is the case, however, it scarcely means that fascism is on its way.

Perhaps Brandis’s ill-considered invocation of the rise of Nazism will have a salutary effect after all, if it spurs his intended targets among the Greens to study this background further. For the present, however, it would seem that vociferous disagreement with the status quo � even if its tenor is too strident for some � represents a significant bulwark against political demagoguery, not a step toward dictatorship.

That Senator Brandis apparently confused this sort of vigorous dissent with the lack of dissent that allowed fascism to flourish in the first place indicates that we still have a lot to learn from the history of political shortsightedness.

***

Extract from the Brandis speech � full text at Nazi Greens an enemy of democracy, government decrees.

… even more illuminating is a work by a person who is known to be on the far left of green politics in Europe, Professor Peter Staudenmaier, who wrote a book four years ago called ‘Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience’. He, too, drew the comparison between the political technique of the Greens in contemporary Western societies and the political technique of the environmental movementor the naturalist movement, as it was then knownin Germany in the 1920s and the 1930s. The work of both of those scholars caused Patrick Moore, a former head of Greenpeace International, to say: “In the name of speaking for the trees and other species we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism.”

The commonalities between contemporary green politics and old-fashioned fascism and Nazism are chilling.

First of all – and this is the most obvious point of the lot – is the embrace of fanaticism, the embrace of a set of political values which will not brook the expression of legitimate difference. So, as we saw from Senator Brown’s and Senator Nettle’s behaviour in the House of Representatives chamber last Thursday, they are unable to listen to somebody whose political colour they dislike, whose political views they disagree with, without screaming at them. They will not even brook the legitimacy of alternative points of view. The zealotry – the fundamentalism – we saw from Senator Brown and Senator Nettle last Thursday identified them as true fanatics.

The second feature that we see is so much a common feature –

Senator Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I thought that standing order 193 had been made apparent to you. I ask that that comment be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot): Senator Brandis, perhaps I should invite you to withdraw the term ‘fanatic’ or ‘true fanatic’.

Senator BRANDIS: Mr Acting Deputy President, I am unaware that the word ‘fanatic’ has been ever considered to be in breach of standing order 193 and I invite you to rule that an allegation of fanaticism, which is merely an allegation that somebody holds a political opinion with unreasoning zeal, is not a reflection upon the person but merely a comment on the intensity of their view.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, that seems to be a discriminatory term and when applied to a senator it is unparliamentary. I would ask that you consider withdrawing it.

Senator BRANDIS: I abide by your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT :You should withdraw, Senator Brandis.

Senator BRANDIS: I withdraw.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

The second feature of contemporary green politics which bears chilling and striking comparison with the political techniques of the Nazis and the fascists is not merely their contempt for democratic institutions but a very cynical willingness to use those democratic parliamentary institutions to achieve antidemocratic ends. Let it never be forgotten that the Nazis came to power in 1932 when they won a majority in the Reichstag in free elections.

Senator Robert Ray: They didn’t win a majority.

When they won control of the Reichstag – thank you, Senator Robert Ray – in free elections. The mechanistic use of democratic institutions – the invocation of the good repute of democratic institutions by those who wish to destroy those institutions – is a hallmark of contemporary green politics, just as it was a hallmark of those who were their antecedents.

The third feature which we see in common between the Greens and the Nazis is a kind of ignorant nationalism, as reflected most obviously in their hatred of globalisation. Professor Staudenmaier, in his book about ecofascism, tracing those values back to their philosophical antecedents, their philosophical roots, writes: “At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.”

Yet again, another connection that we see between the values which Senator Brown represents and the values which were the antecedents of European fascism is commented on by Professor Staudenmaier and found in the writings of Ernst Arndt and Wilhelm Riehl. Wilhelm Riehl, in a 1853 essay ‘Field and Forest’, said –

Senator Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The imputation that my values are the same as precursors to Nazism is abhorrent and should be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot): Senator Brown, as far as I was able to ascertain, and I listened intently, Senator Brandis did not refer to you. He did refer to the Greens, but I do not recall him referring to you since the other point of order.

Senator Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite you to look at the Hansard, because he referred to me by name. You were not listening carefully enough, if that is the case. No member of this parliament – whether it be Senator Brandis or I or anybody else – should have that sort of reflection on them in this place. It is against standing orders and he should withdraw.

Senator Robert Ray: I rise on a point of order. Every time that Senator Brown interrupts Senator Brandis, he gets his second wind and he can read his notes again. He is running out of puff. Can we just hear him finish his speech?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would be delighted to so rule, Senator Ray, but I have a procedure to follow.

Senator BRANDIS: Mr Acting Deputy President, I was merely quoting from a learned text and I was making the point, which I would submit to you is not against standing orders, of identifying the common roots of different ideas.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the point is, Senator Brandis, that if you mentioned Senator Brown by name then you should withdraw. If you mentioned ‘the Greens’, I understand that term is not unparliamentary. It may be unsavoury to some people but it is not unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw if you mentioned Senator Brown by name.

Senator BRANDIS: To that extent, Mr Acting Deputy President, I withdraw.

Senator Faulkner: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. With your extensive knowledge of the standing orders, could you inform me if there is a standing order against pomposity?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Faulkner.

I want to quote to the Senate a fairly long extract from Professor Staudenmaier’s book Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience. He identifies the antecedents of those views in the writings of Arndt and Riehl. He says this:

“Riehl, a student of Arndt further developed this sinister tradition. In some respects his ‘green’ streak went significantly deeper than Arndt’s; presaging certain tendencies in recent environmental activism, his 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a call to fight for the rights of wilderness. But even here nationalist pathos set the tone: We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully … Riehl was an implacable opponent of the rise of industrialism and urbanization; his overtly antisemitic glorification of rural peasant values and undifferentiated condemnation of modernity established him as the founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism.”

These latter two fixations matured in the second half of the nineteenth century in the context of the volkisch movement; a powerful cultural disposition and social tendency which united ethnocentric populism with nature mysticism. At the heart of the volkisch temptation was a pathological response to modernity. In the face of the very real dislocations brought on by the triumph of industrial capitalism and national unification, volkisch thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature’s purity. The mystical effusiveness of this perverted utopianism was matched by its political vulgarity. While the Volkisch movement aspired to reconstruct the society that was sanctioned by history, rooted in nature, and in communion with the cosmic life spirit, it pointedly refused to locate the sources of alienation, rootlessness and environmental destruction in social structures, laying the blame instead to rationalism, cosmopolitanism, and urban civilization. The stand-in for all of these was the age-old object of peasant hatred and middle-class resentment: the Jews.

Reformulating traditional German antisemitism into nature-friendly terms, the volkisch movement carried a volatile amalgam of nineteenth century cultural prejudices, romantic obsessions with purity, and anti-Enlightenment sentiment into twentieth century political discourse. The emergence of modern ecology forged the final link in the fateful chain which bound together aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections.

That is the text to which the journalist Andrew Bolt referred in his article last weekend and in his earlier article in July. It is, as I said earlier in the speech, a chilling reminder of the common antecedents of late 20th/early 21st century Green politics and early 20th century German fascism. The antirationalism, the perverted mutated naturalism, the mysticism, the hostility to cosmopolitanism, capitalism, global structures and to the global economy are all there to see.

***

Webdiary entries on the Brandis debate:

1.Teeth bared, Howard’s team mauls our latest outbreak of democracy, October 29

2. Howl of the despondent historian, October 30

3. The battle for minds, November 5

4. Expats talk back on the state of the nation, November 5 � a detailed rebuttal of the Brandis claim by Rod Sewell in Munich

5. Ashrawi and Brandis: the great debate, November 6