When Atheists Attack

Sam Harris has articulated my concerns about the current VP candidate for the Republican Party, Sarah Palin and he certainly makes a case it is well worth reading at Newsweek.

Note the concerns are not just with him but many who feel the anti-elitist view of the Republican Bloggers is unsatisfactory and illogical. To me it does not matter who is running, merely whether they are really qualified to do that and Governor Palin is the least of the candidates to meet any qualifications and the least able to meet any requirements of the Vice President. There are other critics and I will comment on some of them as they come to my attention.

Unfortunately the US Constitution does not qualify any candidates for a General Election, thus the inept, including GWB can be elected to office, and like the current incumbent we only find out what he has done wrong towards the end of his second term. We learn about the lies the misrepresentations and corruption, because people now feel safe talking about it as the main protagonist in a lame duck.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Atheists Attack

A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Sam Harris

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Sep 29, 2008

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." His Web site is samharris.org.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080

© 2008

Inserted from <http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/output/print>

Fascism Shows It’s Face in Federal Police

In todays Australian is the front page article above the fold AFP admits there was no evidence against Haneef. After beinf deported in disgrace by the Howard Government under alledged secret evidence from the AFP it has finally turned out that Mr. Keelty (Chief Cocky at the AFP) posted an announcement during Obama’s acceptance speech, that the case had no evidence. I just wander if they will ever apologise to him and his family now in India. Dr. Haneef is a Medical man and a very tenuous guilt by association case was launched aginst him which the former HowardGovernment swallowed hook line and sinker. This only demonstrates that during the post 911 Australia under Deputy Sherrif Johnny Howard there was no checks and balances on the National Security apparatice and responsible Ministers of State. Have any changes been made by the new Kevin Rudd Federal Government I don’t know, I would like to think that a Labor Government with a more soially responsible outlook on affairs would consider such Fascist behaviour by the security forces as unacceptable. It is almost as if John Howard had successfully conducted a campaign to convince anyone whowishes to come here that they risk being harrassed and arrested for no good reason. Hopefully that will change as the off shore detention centers are closing and reason is prevailling we can move on to a more responsible and democratic Australia.

Bush and The War on Science

The current Republican Party Government of the US now faces a Senate and House it does not control. Science will now get a chance to progress with stem cell research so the genetic diseases heretofore untreatable may be treated if we work hard and don't let greed and religion get in the way. Unfortunately Science is still playing second to Faith Based initiatives and other Unconstitutional activities conducted by the Bush Presidency. With Mitt Romney running we can add another Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian invective towards his Campaign and his Mormon background. All the problems are related to these Fundies and not the candidates or science programs, Nasa and others. Stifling respected researchers in the NOAA so that the idea of Global Warning is not associated with George W Bush or his corporate backers. I think a lot of problems will be reviewed by the Democratic congress, but Bush will still be attempting to bypass legislation with vetoes and other means.

Irrational Politics?

The Australian reports today about a comment by John Howard MP,PM. The comment was about Barak Obama, whose policies in John Howards opinion:

If I was running al-Qa'ida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats

This is not only irrational for an Australian Prime Minister to comment on a potetial US Presidential Candidat and his policies it is bad International Relations. All that we know is George W Bush will not intervene on the matter, simply for two reasons:

1. He himself has been quilty of making comments about a potential Australian Prime Minister over much the same issue, bringing the troops home.
2. George W Bush is a lame-duck incumbant, who has no inclination to minimise flak heading the Democrats way as the US gears up to elect a new and hopefully smarter President.

Following Barak Obama's comments or reply to Howards diatribe:

I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Senator Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa, according to Agence France-Presse."

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

I suspect that John Howard is guilty of bringing the office of Prime Minister and Parliament into disrepute. Maybe we will have that opportunity at our next General Election sometime after the US has it's new President, whoever that maybe.

The Democrats have too strong candidates, what of the Republicans, is there any among them to challenge the Bushes?

Howard is wrong again!!!!!

The past few weeks, the Australian Government has made some, what I consider, embarrassing decisions in relation to undocumented aliens arriving on our shore.

No sooner had West Papuans arrived then worries about them being interned were found to be baseless and they were all given "temporary protection visas". Then Indonesia complained and withdrew it's ambassador.

Much discussion must have gone on in Canberra because a policy change was made to incarcerate anyone that arrives "illegally" by boat. Indonesia has not had to answer for it's treatment of West Papuan, who are native to the area and Melanesian, with no realtionship with the Javanese who are being transmigrated to the area, in order to maintain hegemoney and Indonesian Interests in the Area, particularly a large Gold and Copper Mine.

So now the West Papuans will have to fend for themselves, we have washed our hands in order to placate Indonesia. Do we fear this large Islamic Nation to our North? It certainly looks like it.

We need to remember one of the submissions on behalf of the original Papuan refugees recently stated:

"One of those submissions argues: "We submit the available country information indicates the applicant will face serious harm in the form of arbitrary arrest and detention, beating, torture or execution at the hands of the TNI [the Indonesian military] and related security forces ..." This was because she had a high profile as an independence activist, has suffered past persecution and had participated in raising the Papuan independence flag in the boat in which she had come to Australia with the other asylum-seekers, a crime in Indonesia for which some of them already had been jailed. The submission referred to a report in Kompas newspaper in January quoting Indonesian Human Rights Commission deputy chairman in Papua, Albert Rumbekwan, saying the families of the asylum-seekers had been "terrorised"."

More about West Papua, Solomon Islands, and the corrupt Immigration Policy of the Howard Government in Canberra

Some references: 1. Papua stance not helping Indonesian democrats; Kenneth Davidson see ONLINE NEWS, Thursday, April 20, 2006. 6:08am (AEST)

2. Villawood detainee attempts self-harm, ABC

3. Mike Steketee: Howard is wrong on refugees, The Australian, April 20, 2006,

4.Mark Forbes, Jakarta attacks Uniting Church over West Papua, The Age, April 20, 2006,

5. New Matilda Editorial, 19 April, 2006,

6. ABC Online Wednesday, April 19, 2006. 4:01pm (AEST)

7. UN issues refugee warning to Australia, The Age April 19, 2006 -11:34AM 8. Ruddock 'disappointed' by UNHCR criticism, ABC ONLINE NEWS, Wednesday, April 19, 2006. 7:38pm (AEST) 9. DIMA'S New Culture: Politics as Usual, Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Parliamentary Leader and Democrats Senator for Queensland, Australian Democrats spokesperson for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Dated: 11 April 2006,

10.Death report blames Immigration errors, The Age, By Jewel Topsfield, April 20, 2006

March Branch Meeting

I have just returned from an ALP (Australian Labor Party) branch meeting in Frankston. With such anti-labor legisaltion recently past by federal parliament the main topic of discussion was a local town planning and development issue. Isn't it always the case, in any campaign, local issues can trump federal issues. People are more concerned about some residential area being rezoned light commercial so some white goods shops and such can be built near a major intersection.

So troubled is the issue that a local councillor was maligned even though he wasn't present to answer.

Here's me, concerned about some of the major issues affecting our nation and all my fellow members are hot under the collar about something that is to my eyes at least, a fate accomplie. We have the AWB (Australian Wheat Board) having severe memory problems about the redirection of UN money to Saddam Hussein and our elustrious 10 years now PM no longer saying that the evil refugee/asylum seekers threw their children overboard, but rather, they deliberately sank the boat! Military sources even contradicted him on that as well. What is it about this man that makes him believe such things when eye witnesses say the contrary?

WE are fighting in two foreign wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) when we used to do humanitarian work with our military. Australian are targets in Bali and elsewhere, and the Federal Government seeks to curtail centuries old rights we have in order to catch terrorists, when all the evidence points to old fashioned good police work turns up the evidence, not the detention without trial, arrests without warrant etc.

Let's say I am very dissapointed and I can't wait for the Federal Election to begin in earnest.

Australians Deported from Australia!!!!!

This story has legs. It appears the Minister is hedging badly trying to avoid an admission of responsibility for the deportation of Vivian Alvarez almost 4 years ago, and thus pushing her into having to take the matter to court for just compensation, after all they put her in a Hospice for the Dying, for goodness sake! The Sisters of Charity are hardly set up to deal with a psychotic patient, they think poverty is a good thing.

"I think this is a very, very, very regrettable situation,"(1) Senator Vanstone said. Yes, regrettable indeed!

"Specialist immigration solicitor Christopher Livingstone predicted Ms Alvarez would be eligible for millions of dollars in compensation given the standard compensation rate for unlawful detention was $1,500 a day."(1). We'll see what happens, I think she will be just put on a pension, again, we will have to wait and see if the immigration solicitor will succeed in representing her against the Minister and the Government.

Zev Ozdowski, Australian human Rights Commissioner has stepped into the debate as of yesterday, he said:

""When there is no provision for an independent individual assessment of each and every person and no requirement for judicial oversight, the risk of serious mistakes becomes unacceptably high,""

"And mistakes like those revealed from immigration department officers over the past weeks and months become unsurprising."

(4)

Now we will see a proper enquiry, maybe to replace the Palmer ones which was set up by the Ministry, it needs to be set up by parliament, that can lead to a Royal Commission if there is too much obfuscation by the government before the hand over to the new Senate, or will we see the new Senate steam roller through ignoring the main issues, because the government can not make mistakes, everything they do is true. We shall see, or maybe another alternative that relies on the good will of our politicians towards the truth of mandatory detention for anyone without their papers. It all sound like we are on the path to a fascist government with populist policies to cover a controlling interest in our lives.

If the ID card comes in, although opposed by a majority of Australians fro many years, after all this is the government that introduced the GST after promising not to, indeed accusing the Labor Government of the time that they would do it. Then anyone without an ID (Show me your papers!) will be the first thing a policeman is required to say.

The local Filipino community is anxious that compensation for the 4 years incarceration in a hospice for the dying, illegal detention, false arrest, etc., etc., so she will get appropriate compensation and care when she gets home to Queensland. We all need to support this to send an unmistakable signal to John Howard MP, PM.

Given that Amanda Vanstone is on the back foot, the facts seem to be moving too fast. She denies there was poor management in the late search for Vivian Solon. It appears like the enquiry is seeking out someone in the Overseas Women's Association,, are they trying to push the responsibility off shore to someone in the Phillipines? There is either no official record or it is terminated in Manila. What an unsatisfactory record, Father Mullins himself says that he saw an Australian hand Mrs Solono over to the nuns. So which is it Amanda Vanstone. Hopefully it is poor record keeping and it won't repeat itself.

To put this in perspective I have copied Arnold Zable's commentary at number 17 below, the only person in the debate I have met at Chisholm Institute's Frankston TAFE at what is called Industry Overview, part of the Professional Writing Course. A good man, and an advocate for immigration and minorities, being one himself.

1. The federal government has admitted the wrongful deportation of a sick Australian woman is regretful and tragic, but it has stopped short of saying sorry amid the threat of a multi-million dollar law suit. continued at : http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Govt-admits-deportation-is-regretfuls/2005/05/12/1115843308867.html

2. Prime Minister John Howard has offered another qualified apology for the wrongful deportation of an Australian citizen to the Philippines four years ago. cont. at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1367192.htm

3. Brother eager to see deportee http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15262589-29277,00.html

4. Human rights boss seeks detention review http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Human-rights-boss-seeks-detention-review/2005/05/12/1115843294219.html

5. Alvarez could be home now, Vanstone says http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Alvarez-could-be-home-now-Vanstone-says/2005/05/12/1115843285280.html

6. Vivian Solon Young http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1366960.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1366545.htm

7. Vivian Solon found in hospice for the dying http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1366934.htm

8. Vanstone denies poor management of search for Vivian Solon http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1366936.htm

9. What would it take to make a Liberal member sick?

10. No record of deportee's convent stay, Vanstone says http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1366848.htm

11. Royal commission call renewed after deportee found http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1366960.htm

12. Government should offer compensation to Vivian Solon

13. Greens Media: Govt can not ignore plea for public inquiry

14. Labor wants royal commission http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15261468-29277,00.html

15. Greens, Dems slam Alvarez handling http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15261314-29277,00.html

16. Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s1362869.htm

17.The Age By Arnold Zable May 13, 2005

It's time to end the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and give an amnesty to all detainees.

When Iranian asylum seeker Ardeshir Gholipour stepped out of Baxter detention centre last Friday week after five years of incarceration, his first thoughts were of how so many years of life could have been taken away from him and his fellow detainees.

Gholipour had not committed a crime. Indeed, he had fled in fear for his life after years as a pro-democracy activist in Iran. This included 27 months in a tiny cell in Tehran's Evin prison for distributing pamphlets on behalf of the Iranian Freedom movement.

As he tasted his first minutes of freedom, Gholipour thought of the long-term detainees he had left behind. He says he cannot rest until they too have been set free. He knows that each passing day of incarceration is an agony.

The evidence is overwhelming. Indefinite detention creates a progressive deterioration in mental and physical health.

This was most recently acknowledged last Thursday in a historic judgement by Justice Paul Finn of the Federal Court who found the Department of Immigration had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate treatment for two severely disturbed Baxter detainees.

Finn quotes psychiatrist Dr Jon Jureidini who, in reference to one of the detainees, asserts: "The Baxter environment, along with the hopelessness about his future, are the primary causes of his mental illness."

This has also been obvious to those who have visited detention centres in recent years. The first asylum seeker I met in Maribyrnong detention centre, in January 2001, said that detained asylum seekers are worse off than criminals.

At least the criminal knows the length of his sentence, he pointed out. "We do not know when, if ever, we will get out." I have heard this repeated many times since.

Indefinite detention is a gross breach of human rights and almost impossible to bear. In mid-January this year, when his final plea for a visa on humanitarian grounds was rejected, Gholipour took an overdose of tablets.

He knew that he could be deported at any time. Two Iranians had been bundled out of Baxter in previous months, and summarily returned to their country of origin.

Gholipour knows of more than 20 suicide attempts by detainees. Fortunately, due to information supplied by International PEN's London office, Gholipour's case was re-opened and he was finally released, but it was a close call.

Gholipour's plight also highlights the malaise within the Department of Immigration, and the development of a culture of suspicion towards asylum seekers.

There are exceptions. Asylum seekers have acknowledged those immigration officials who have treated them with respect and empathy.

There are still some who reflect the attitude of postwar officials who were sympathetic to the plight of millions of displaced peoples in Europe, seeking refuge far from the horrors of their recent past.

The events of World War II inspired the creation of 1951 UN conventions that asserted the rights of refugees to seek asylum due to a fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

It was an era when people chose to work for the Immigration Department because of a desire to help traumatised people find new homes.

This no longer appears to be the case. Too often the department has treated asylum seekers with a presumption of guilt.

This culture of suspicion bordering on contempt is the underlying reason for the wrongful detention of at least 33 Australians that have recently come to light, and for the deportation of Australian citizen, Vivian Alvarez Solon, to the Philippines.

The brief for the Palmer inquiry into the Cornelia Rau affair may have been expanded because of these cases, but if it does not examine the system as a whole, it will not achieve anything of substance.

What is needed is a royal commission on aspects of immigration detention, the department, its contractors and the fate of deportees. Meanwhile, long-term detainees should be granted an immediate amnesty.

Some advocates have called it an act of grace, others an act of humanity, or an act of compassion. Whatever the name, the time has come to end the nightmare for about 90 long-term asylum seekers still left in Baxter, the 54 incarcerated on Nauru, those still imprisoned in Villawood, Perth and Maribyrnong detention centres, and 35 Vietnamese asylum seekers who remain on Christmas Island. These include children, some of whom have been born in detention.

In recent days, the Spanish Government has declared an amnesty for 700,000 unauthorised immigrants.

In Australia there are just several hundred in detention, and about 7000 on temporary protection or bridging visas. They have lived in limbo long enough.

There are humane alternatives, variations of the Swedish system, for example, where, after initial checks, all asylum seekers, except those considered to be a threat to national security, are released into the community pending a decision on their cases.

Advocates such as Grant Mitchell of the Hotham Mission, who worked with refugees in Sweden, have provided detailed alternatives to long-term detention.

The scars of incarceration will remain with Ardeshir Gholipour. We cannot return his years of despair and wrongful detention.

But we can honour his wish to help the men, women and children who are still imprisoned. Their only crime was to seek a new life for themselves and their families free of oppression. They have only done what our own immigrant forebears did, give or take a few generations.

Arnold Zable is an author and refugee spokesman for the writers' association International PEN.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Our-cruelty-to-detainees-must-stop/2005/05/12/1115843309323.html

Racism in Australian Immigration Detention

It has become clear tonight that the Australian Federal Government is in serious damage control over the treatment of an Australian citizen with psychological problems.

Last night Lateline an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Authority) Currant Affairs program made a report called Deported Australian found in Manilatelling us about the discovery of Vivian Alverez in a Phillipino Catholic Facility of the Sisters of Charity, where, it transpires the Australian authorities had put her. She had never gone missing. How lax are the bureaucrats to fail to tell the minister of the time (Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock), and are we to believe they didn't tell the currant Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone when she released a statement on the 11th May, 2005, 10:15 pm.

The Australian Priest at the location tells us of her arrival, and later we learn the Sisters of Charity report the arrival of the media well ahead of the Australian Consul to the hospice where he gave an official apology from the Prime Minister John Howard MP to Mrs Alvarez. It turns out it was an expression of regret, not an apology, the government, in managing the spin on this issue is careful not to admit liability.

In this evenings edition of The 7:30 Report had an interview with her step-brother in Queensland, where he was asked whther or not there were any issues that concerned him. He told us about the obvious ignorance of the officials, and how it was that an asian woman with a psychosis is deported after just six months when a caucasian woman with a psychosis is still in detention, both couldn't identify themselves, or made a claim without any evidence. Coming from a rational person one could accept their testimony with reasonable confidence, but a psychotic person must be treated with reservations when it comes to their testimony. He was asked if that bothered him and he said yes, and stated he felt it looked like racism. It looks like that from here as well.

I am embarrassed to be associated with a government that:

• Incarcerates undocumented aliens, refugees, etc whilst processing them.
• Deliberately erects legal road blocks to the possibility of getting a visa granted,when we as a nation managed in past boat people periods without that sort of thing, yet we share this draconian behaviour with some of the worlds dictatorships.
• Lies or misrepresents the truth to gain a populist approach in elections, thus encouraging the worst of the Australian culture.
• Locks these people up as if they are suspect terrorists behind razor wire. These are families and professionals, workers and farmers trying to find a better life for their children. We then lock them up, in remote locations. Australia, by its very nature has plenty of remote places, but to add insult to injury they sent some of these people to Nauru, that had to be economically enhanced to take them, not having the infrastructure to deal with them.

What happens next is anyones guess, will the government be able to spin a better picture than we have? Since The Australian national newspaper broke the story, (the Murdoch press is behind this as well). I wonder where Packer stands? I'll have to check ninemsn

Toni Blair calls Election

Now that Toni Blair has called an election, the whole box and dice of policy and promises is going to occur. I will be keeping an eye on the news from my logegian in Australia via TV News, Newspapers and teh Internet.

West spends more on killing than saving - Opinion - www.theage.com.au

West spends more on killing than saving - Opinion - www.theage.com.au: "The US Government has so far pledged $US350 million ($A460 million) to the victims of the tsunamis, and the British Government $US96 million. The US has spent $US148 billion on the Iraq war and Britain $US11.5 billion. The war has been running for 656 days. This means that the money pledged for the tsunami disaster by the United States is the equivalent of one-and-a-half days' spending in Iraq. The money Britain has given equates to five-and-a-half days of the British involvement in the war." I find the comparison a bit early, Australia has just bumped up it's aid to a $1 billion dollars, and I suspect the US will similarly increase it's contibution. One thing we need to remember, those Australian, US and other foreign troops and hardware are not included in the overall donation calculations. I can only guess at how much the USN Abraham Lincoln and it's Battle Groups costs to provide air support and medical support and engineering support to the pollution affected in Aceh Province in Indonesia. The Yanks are there , and along with the Australian and Indonesian units, are doing a marvelous job, even when a cow gets in the way. It is inappropriate for the Left or the Right to be trying to gain political leverage out of this massive natural disaster, they should stop now. Concentrate on Iraq or The Tsunami and make some constructive criticisms if they must. I have no intention of just knocking the left, just in this post, I though George Monbiot was over the top.

"Yes we, were wrong", says Blair

Recently, British PM has been reported admitting that the primary reason for going to war with the US and Australia in Iraq, to achieve Regime Change, was a lie. It was false intelligence information and gave a false impression of the nature of the threat, but gave an optimum reason to go to war. It seems to me that an apology is in order to all those people, like myself who were certain, before the War Started that Saddam Hussein and his Government had no weapons of mass destruction. Yes, they certainly wanted to build such things, but no, they did not have the opportunity or capability due to the sanctions imposed by the US and UK. These sanctions were extremely tight, knocking anything out that "might" be a threat, along with such military things as anti-aircraft radars, and fuel dumps at air bases, not to mention the aircraft themselves. How the political establishment was able to accept the Iraqi oppositions claims od WMD's without verification is beyond understanding, considering the main protagonists are huge governments with major military and security establishments. What were they thinking? There are two possibilities: 1. There was a false claim from the IRaqi opposition at the time. 2. The US neo-cons were determined to remoce Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Fascists before 911, and used that tragic event as the impetus for the uS Government under GWB to move resolutely in that direction without consideration for the consequences. Britain, my birth nation, just followed along with them as an ally of the first order and Australia as the deputy dog. The consequeces are clear, terrorism has increased with the fundamentalist islamists gaining converts through out the Islamic World, thanks to the US and its Allies invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Transcript: Simon Crean's Welcome to President Hu at the Joint Sitting of Federal Parliament

Welcome to President Hu Jintao Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition Speech Transcript - Joint sitting of Parliament House, Canberra - 24 October 2003 Mr President. I've already had the opportunity to welcome you to Australia. I now welcome you to our national Parliament. Your historic presence in this Parliament – so soon after your inauguration as President of the People's Republic of China – testifies to the importance and continuity of the China-Australia relationship. This occasion is, indeed, a celebration of continuity. On his visit to Australia four years ago, your predecessor, President Jiang Zemin, paid tribute to the pioneers of the relationship between our two great peoples. President Jiang said then: There is an old Chinese saying: when you go to the well to draw water, remember who dug the well. So it is with great pride that I note the distinguished presence in this chamber of one of those well-diggers – former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. Australians remember: His groundbreaking trip to Beijing as Leader of the Opposition in July 1971. The establishment of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic in December 1972. And the first visit to China by an Australian Prime Minister thirty years ago this month. In this context, we look forward to the further development of the new Trade Framework Agreement signed today. We were delighted with the $25 billion liquid natural gas deal signed last year, and the prospect of more cooperation on energy security between Australia and China. These achievements are further examples of thirty years of hard work developing relations between our two countries begun by Prime Minister Whitlam and sustained by his successors. Continuing that legacy is a priority for Australia and for me. On this historic occasion, we also remember the indispensable condition on which we established this relationship – our commitment to One China. My father – another of the well-diggers – accompanied Gough Whitlam as his Treasurer on that famous first Prime Ministerial visit to China in 1973. He had the opportunity to meet with Premier Chou En-Lai – the man who brought about the historic détente in China's foreign policy with the West. My father described Premier Chou as "a man of natural dignity and obvious strength of character…..a man of reason and cultivation". Mr President, those are the qualities of leadership that we must emulate as we work together to make our region economically stronger, free from the threat of terrorism, and committed to the principles of international law and human rights. Together we face some critical security issues. Among them is the threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We see a crucial role for China in progressing initiatives to ensure that North Korea turns away from this destructive path. Mr President, on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people let me also congratulate China for its recent success in manned space flight. The world has marvelled at China's recent economic development, but this stunning achievement shows your nation's technological advance as well. It symbolises the sense of purpose driving China and its leadership today, the greatness of your people, and their contribution to world civilisation. As China seeks to fulfil its destiny as a Leader in regional and international cooperation, no country is better placed to assist it and encourage it than Australia. This is something on which there is bi-partisan agreement. That is why my first overseas visit as Opposition Leader was to your country. I'm delighted that our relationship is gaining new strength and I want to turn it to our mutual advantage. Mr President, we are old friends, but there are unlimited opportunities for new partnerships. It is in the spirit of goodwill, the purpose of peace and friendship and the determination to be partners in the development of our region, that I join the Prime Minister in the warmest of welcomes to this Parliament of the people of Australia.

Bush and Hu in Canberra Part 1

Presidents Bush and Hu in Australia

Presidents Hu Jin Tao and George W Bush are in Australia today, with President Bush giving an address to a Joint Sitting of Federal Parliament this day and the Chinese President Hu tomorrow. A major event in Australias diplomatic history, to have the leaders of the two most powerful nations on Earth here to address our democratically elected representatives in Canberra (Our Bush Capital). President Hu spoke to businessmesn in Sydney NSW today and a secure President Bush thanked Australia for its assistance with Afghanistan and Iraq with an intervention by the Greens Seanators Bob Brown and a Senator Kerry Nettle.

"I want to thank the people of Australia for a gracious welcome. Five months ago your Prime Minister was a distinguished visitor of ours in Crawford, Texas at our ranch. You might remember that I called him a 'man of steel' - that is Texan for 'fair dinkum'." See a video of Bush's address to Parliament complete with the interjections and the gentlemanly response from Dubya. A robust democracy like Australia does have to put up with rude comments by some members from time to time and, as President Bush commented "I love free speech.".

Free Speech does require tollerance of opposition of oneself or organisation within wide bounds. I personally am opposed to some foreign policy of the US and such, have been accused of being un-American and anti-American, however such bold rhetoric is just not true. Those that support the Republicans in the US 100% are some of those who do not allow any criticism of their Presidents Foreign Policy, and such characterisations are used to marginalise opposition, sometimes to good effect, even if it is untrue.

President Hu is here on trade matters and I expect his speech to Parliament to cover those topics relevant to his objectives here. I'll have more to say after I've had time to read the newspapers tomorrow morning.

Free Trade: Good News and Bad New

First: The Good News

Today we have been advised by the national newspaper in Australia, The Australian: "PM's China Trade Deal Coup" on the front page. Finally progress in the field of trade with Australia's potential largest trader, we will no more details on Friday when they sign the document that formalises the "agreement to talk on trade". To think, a neo-conservative government in Australia has achieved such a relationship with a now progressive government in China. Makes me think of that old Vulcan saying, "Only Nixon could have gone to China." Referring to a previous generation during the dark period of the Cold War.

The idea of Free and Fare Trade between nations has been floating around for centuries and used by the powerful traders to enslave and disadvantage other nations. Now two former colonies of the former British Empire are negotiating in good faith towards a mutual beneficial trade agreement. Australia has a wealth of natural resources and China a huge market with skills and cheap labour. Each nation is seeking development of the hi-tech industries which include genetic-biology now, it will therefore be interesting how the two years or so of negotiations will pan out. Australia would like it all rapped up before the 2008 Peking Olympics.

"One well-placed source said last night that it put Australia "higher up the pecking order" in terms of negotiating specific deals with China". This all make the criticism from Asia, particularly the comments from Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Australia wasn't Asian enough look less seious a criticism. Also, with the currant trade negotiations going on between Australia and the US, it should give a bolster to our side. I've have maintained for sometime now that the development of a large middle-class in China and India will change the Power Structure of the world despite a dominant US position at this time. Unless the US scuttles these negotiations, the future is looking bright for "The Land Downunder".

Second: The Bad News

This morning on ABC NewsRadio I heard a report on the effect of trade tarrifs on employment, some study indicates that more workers lose their jobs from the automobile industry and othet users of steel when steel prices go up due to tarrifs on steel imports than are saved by the tarrifs in the Steel Industry. Again and again the evidence that trade tarrifs makes for an inefficient market comes forward, time and time again the evidence points to job losses in associated industries and the export of jobs overseas. It is about time the US President took a leadership position against the special interests and for the interests of the workers and cut the tarrifs and retrain those steel workers who ose their jobs in that industry. Done staright after an election it will be forgotten about by the time the 4 year cycle comes around. The same criticism applies to other of the Industrial Nations, including Europe and Japan. Australia has gone through these changes and has come up good, surely they can do it too!!!

More on this later

Comments to me at clifford.dubery@optushome.com.au

The History Wars

An Examination of the publicity and commentary surrounding "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume 1, Van Diemans Land", by Keith Widshuttle, 2002.

An extraordinary look into Academia and the battle for ideas has occured over the last 10 months or so in the Australian media, with commentary, discussions, lectures and books published all over the place taking up positions relevant to the two major political parties here in Australia.

Habeus Corpus and Terror Suspects

A Commentary on the "Monitor's View: Terror and the Constitution", Cristian Science Monitor, 4 August, 2003.

This is the first time I've come across a major US National Newspaper detailing problems with the "unlawful enemy combatant" status denying basic legal rights to US citizens captured under the War on Terrorism.

The basic rights are, "habeus corpus" and the right to an attorney, both mentioned in the US Constitution. According to Encyclopaedia Brittanica "The US Constitution guarantees that the privilage "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Artcle 1, Section 9. Par 2

The specific case of US citizens mentioned in this article is the case in point, does declaring them unlawful enemy combatants deny them access to that right and further more, the right to representation by an attorney? I would say it doesn't, and the establishment of the Cuban base at Guatanamo needs to be wound up, it is an imperial base without the permission of the current government and represents the imprial behaviour of the US in the Americas. The US has its own islands to set up such a facility, just like Australia.

Australia Land of Freedom and Democracy

As a British Subject and Australian resident, I am waiting patiently for this nation to become a Republic. It is now old enough to behave in not only a rational and independant way, but a total, top down, bottom up national independant system with no recourse to the Privy Council or the Crown, no Governors, or Governors-General, but an elected President with a bicameral parliament that needs to be not much different than it is now (The Parliament that is)!!

In 1999 a plebisite was held here in (Australia) to (alegedly) ask the Australian Electorate whether they wanted a Republic, or not. For a discussion on this referendum see Michael Lavarch's essay.

I was one of the Republicans who voted no. My reason was fairly straight forward, the minimalist solution presented by the Australian republican Movement as the YES answer was inadequate and represented in my suspicious mind, a sell out to entrenched authority within Australia, and would have resulted in no substantial change in the "British" power structure that exists in this Great Country. The Question on the Referendum for the Repblican. side was so vague and small and minimalist that I couldn't in any good conscience vote yes, as I percieved no actual change, and a backdoor way of maintaining the establishment.

The aftermath of the referendum had the anchronistic Monarchists were claiming victory, even though they failed to put their argiment. The result was definitely a failure by the Republicans to put their argumnet, and this failure stems back to the Constitutional Conference conviened on the subject, and the rise of Richard Margavie's Model as the preferd model

Justification for War in Tatters

The aftermath of the War in Iraq is becoming clear as the US and UK as well as the Coalition of the Willing have now the task of rebuilding this nation. Australia played it's part with honour, however the idea of fighting a foreign war on behalf of an Imperial Power (US and UK) has me concerned, because the idea this bears any resemblance to self defence or "in the national interest" has confused me no end. The intervention in East Timor and the proposed Solomon Island intervention I can understand, but Iraq? The problem in Iraq was a severely disobediant Saddam Hussein. Disobedient to whom? To the United States of course, the US has assisted him in maintaining control of his nation since before Iran went native (When the US supported Shah was deposed by a popular, if fanatical, revolution. Hussein was funded and supplied in what was the Iran Iraq war in the 80's where he used his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" without any complaints from the US or UK at the time. So much for WMD concerns.

Now we are being entertained by the spectacle of false statements emanating from Whitehall for which no one is responsible, least of all the PM.

The claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Nigeria has been proven to be false and that the leaders of Australia and US and UK used information on this subject even though the intelligence community and the US Department of State were aware that the documents were false, only so many months after the event. Today the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard MP, claimed he was unaware of the caveat and that he would be investigating why such an error occured. The only problem is that such errors did not occur in isolation, and in the Australian environment, another national event called the Children Overboard Enquiry also found that false information was handed to the PM and his Minster Phillip Ruddock MP.

It appears that a pattern is emerging (see an article today on the front page of The Australian), pointing to a situation within the Public Service of these great democracies where the public servants fear contradicting the Minister or President as the case may be. In other words, the public service, at least in Westminster Systems has been severely compromised by appearing to be politicised. The appearance of independance of the Public Service is now established as a fiction in the mind of the voting public.

Unfortunately, this makes for a US situation for those same systems when a change of government occurs after an election. Not only will Ministers of the Crown have to be appointed from the Front Bench of the Government but major changes will be required over and above past standards of changes within the Public Service. All this has occured under right wing, economic rationalist, interventionist governments in teh UK/US and Australia. In the UK, you may say that they have a Labour Government, but I say that it is demonstrating a policy one would expect from the Tories. The backbench of the Government at Westminster is the default opposition today, the Tories have nothing much to say as the government is doing everything they want!!!