Hi. Tonight first takes on an ASIO election from Hamish Tweedy, Sean Richardson, Damien Lawson, Robert Nicoll and Phil Clarke.
But first, how’s this for proof of David Makinson’s recent plea to Never give up your disbelief (webdiaryDec10). He scoured the net for some hot quotes and got, well, suckered. Reader Catherine M. Harding writes:
I must agree with David Makinson that “[q]uoting historical figures can be perilous” but not because this confronts “the convictions of the righteous” – whatever that might mean.
The real peril in “trawling the internet” for quotes from the “wise and not so wise” is the distinct possibility that the quotation or the attribution or both may be completely and utterly wrong. Such is the case with David’s Julius Caesar “quote”. As far as anyone with an interest in ancient Rome can determine, Caesar NEVER said it or anything like it. It does not appear in any of the ancient sources (e.g.Plutarch, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Cicero, Lucan, Appian, Caesar etc.) and we can’t even turn to Shakespeare’s semi-fictional treatment for assistance. (For those interested in the development of this urban legend may I refer you to an excellent discussion at one of the internet’s best ancient history sites: ancienthistory )
I don’t raise this issue with the intention of embarrassing David in particular. It’s more by way of a general warning to the amateur commentators among us who like to share our views and opinions with the world. Publication demands higher standards of us. This is particularly so when we use the statements of others to support or otherwise buttress our positions. In these circumstances it’s best to follow a few basic rules:-
1. “Wishing for a thing does not make it so” (Jean-Luc Picard ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’)
2. If you don’t know, find out
3. Even if you think you know, double check with a reputable source
4. If you still can’t confirm it, don’t say it
5. Don’t plagiarise (Margo: Unless you’re Janet Albrechtsen or Piers Akerman: Their employer seems to love it!)
6. Don’t lie
7. Don’t deliberately misquote or quote out of context
Following these rules won’t guarantee against making future silly mistakes but at least it should assist in minimising them. As it is I don’t know whether David’s other “quotes” from Hitler, Einstein, Goering, Zinn, Roy, Twain or Crowley are correct or not. However, the fact that at least one of the “independent support[s]” for his position is so wrong undermines my ability as a reader to follow the internal logic of the piece.
This is a serious flaw because the mistake unintentionally throws David’s argument back in his own face: “Remember – disbelieve. We are being lied to”.
***
Herald state political correspondent Paola Totaro emailed the premier’s press secretary Amanda Lampe this question at 1.19pm today:
Amanda, Formal question to the Premier please:
Does the Premier support Federal Labor’s stand on the ASIO Bill? Thanks, Paola”
Surprise surprise, no answer.
I emailed Amanda at 5.37pm:
Hi Amanda. I request the Premier’s response to the following statement by Mr Howard in the federal parliament today, when criticising Mr Crean’s refusal to back down on his amendments to the ASIO bill:
“Under the Labor bill, passed in NSW, the NSW police have the power to stripsearch children between the age of 10 and 18 years without a warrant … (but) with the authority of Michael Costa, the police minister. If the Labor Party were really serious and consistent, why didn’t it attack and disown the Carr government, that happened in NSW without a murmur.”
Margo
Surprise, surprise. No answer.
***
Hamish Tweedy
If the arguments are framed as you have put them in Our values: Crean -v- Howard and Carr (webdiaryDec13) then these laws are obscene – and that’s without being aware of what other compromises Labor has already agreed to.
If Howard goes for a double dissolution on this I pray that he’s toast. Either we are on the eve of a destruction that we’re totally unaware of, or Governments (at least NSW and Federal) of this country are considerably more insidious than I had any idea of.
You’re seriously telling me that the PM of this country wants to able to jail 14-year olds for 7-days and then subject them to interrogation without legal representation for 48-hours and then be able to choose the lawyer for the defendant? All we will have succeeded in doing is making the terrorists appear as moderates. I can’t recall a more disgusting proposal.
The best I can hope for is that you’re like Bob Carr (a vicious and malicious liar).
***
Sean Richardson in Sydney
“Under the Labor bill, passed in NSW, the NSW police have the power to stripsearch children between the age of 10 and 18 years without a warrant … (but) with the authority of Michael Costa” – John Howard.
Why did Honest John say this? To point out the obscenity of the NSW bill? No, because he was asking the ALP to let him make his legislation more like Carr’s.
Two words: quo vadis?
***
Damien Lawson, Western Suburbs Legal Service Inc, Melbourne
While I agree with much of your comment on the political situation regarding terrorism, ASIO and the NSW legislation, I have to take issue with a couple of crucial points.
Most importantly, the difference between Labor and the Government is far less than seven days versus 20 hours of detention.
Labor’s proposal allows for 20 hours of questioning, but detention could be for far longer. Travel from the time someone is taken into custody, breaks in questioning, medical treatment, consultation with lawyers and others are not included within the 20 hours.
Therefore someone can be held for well over a day and as Kim Beazley pointed out in the early hours of this morning even a possible two to three days. This is also reflected in Labor’s proposed procedures list which includes sleeping facilities. Mr Beazley told Parliament today: “Frankly, Minister, the public will not understand the differences between us. They will not. We stand here for a regime that will ensure that people can be questioned for 20 hours. In the way in which that is framed, that effectively means TWO TO THREE DAYS DETENTION while that questioning is done.”
I agree that Labor and Crean are in a difficult position on this issue and are risking much in holding to what are significant amendments, but so they should be. As you know, no other western democracy has gone down this route, Labor’s position is far beyond what is seen to be acceptable in the US and UK and should not be acceptable here. Just because the government’s position is so terrible, should we praise Labor for being less terrible?
It is great that children will not be subject to the bill, but what about everyone else.
A lawyer while important is of not much assistance to someone innocent of any offence who is required to answer questions or face five years in prison. All a lawyer can really do in that situation is advise their client to talk.
The Greens, Democrats and One Nation are the only parties that have adopted the right approach on this bill and that is to not accept any abrogation of the principle of “no detention without charge”. Which is the same way as saying no one should be detained unless reasonable suspected of committing a crime.
This principle by the way is what should and does underly much of people’s concern in relation to the detention of asylum seekers.
***
Robert Nicoll
If Howard is able to win another election based on a fear campaign, I will hold the media just as liable for his victory – a responsible media should be able to provide the public with fair and balanced analysis, no matter how misleading shock jocks and tabloid headlines might be; the media should be able to shout loud enough about misleading propaganda and shame any Australians tempted by an underlying/primal bigotry. Thanks for your work this last year.
Margo: Heh Robert, the shock jocks and the tabloids are part of the media. The most powerful part.
***
Phill Clarke
I think it is almost unbelievable that the Howard government is proposing the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 at the same time as they are roundly condemned for their record on Human Rights.
Earlier this week Human Rights Watch issued their first report focussing on Australia. The prognosis was not good. The treatment of boat people and the Pacific Solution were highlighted as particularly troubling.
More information can be found here: hrwreport, hrwpress, indymedia
In an aside, I also find it difficult to believe that I saw no coverage of this report in the “mainstream” media. (Margo: What chance Crean getting his message heard?)