?

Log in

No account? Create an account

anatomy · of · distance


Un-Australian activities

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
US anti-war activist arrested in Melbourne, to be deported on "character grounds"; it appears that his crime was questioning US foreign policy (i.e., being "prejudicial to relations between Australia and a foreign country") and/or talking about non-violent protest.

Now can anyone still say that Australia is a liberal pluralist democracy, rather than an authoritarian paternalist regime?
Current Mood:
angry angry
Current Music:
My Favorite - Badge (Grace Under Pressure)
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On September 12th, 2005 11:11 am (UTC), gths commented:
No, no, you've got it wrong! We're a feudalist vassal state!
Replies Frozen · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 12th, 2005 11:37 am (UTC), kineticfactory replied:
"We all live in a fascist regime, a fascist regime, a fascist regime..."
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
* * *
[User Picture]
On September 12th, 2005 08:40 pm (UTC), fact244 commented:
sounds like a storm in a teacup to me.
Replies Frozen · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 04:18 am (UTC), kineticfactory replied:
So in your opinion, the right to peaceful protest is unimportant?
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 05:48 am (UTC), fact244 replied:
so his intentions were peaceful? and how would anyone know...

as far as being an "authoritarian paternalist regime", are you being serious or pulling our legs there?
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 05:57 am (UTC), kineticfactory replied:
He was a nonviolent peace activist due to give a talk on street theatre in the US antiwar movement (or so The Age and the 3RRR news tell me; I haven't seen any refutation of this). The provision on which his visa was cancelled had to do with his presence being "prejudicial to Australia's relationship with the US", i.e., just on the off-chance that the Whitehouse forgets that we're meant to be a pluralist democracy and is offended that we allow criticism of their foreign policy.

As for authoritarian paternalist regime, this is the sort of government action that is more in place in somewhere like Singapore or Malaysia, a society where public order is paramount and dissent is by definition an offense, than in any sort of pluralistic society which tolerates peaceful dissent.
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 07:17 am (UTC), datakid23 replied:
He was hanging out with known anti capitalists. While not in the same league as terrorists, I used to hang with that crowd (in particular red liz quoted in the age and on the abc newswire). That is not a crime and I don't hang with them anymore cos I'm in Tasmania. I still identify as an anti capitalist, and obviously I absolutely do not support any type of fascism - including islamic or christian or jewish (not that all religions are fascistic, but I'm broadly looking at al quaeda, usa and israel)and while I do not support terrorism, I have no problem with the end of the state, democracy and mainstream political parties.

Also, anti capitalists are very, very good at PR, branding if you will. While other people were drooling over Naomi Klein and Adbusters, we were doing it, better.

All this leads to the self paranoia I used to experience while in this mileu (and smoking lots of ganga) that I'm sure is matched from within the bureaucracy (at least I was getting bent, they get high on fear, yech - give me chai any day ;).

So I presume they think he's sufficiently 'bad for business' to get rid of.

Yes we do live in an authoritarian paternalistic regime - the political and intellectual vapidity at every election I can remember - the last 4 federal for instance - is ample proof of that.

I saw part of a god aweful new show on abc last night - some sort of hypothetical with geoffrey robertson (someone whose writings I previously enjoyed) that included Beazley, Abbott, deSpoja and Mahathir. Mahathir and deSpoja wiped the floor with the rest. None of them could think of anything more interesting than agreeing with each other, nor could they think of any new reactions to old problems - just the proven vote winners...bored now...

Yes, we are under control. No I don't wanna play ball. I do think this whole thing is a storm in a teacup though - while abhorrent, they did a similar thing to David Irving, so it's not like it's a new concept in australia - Scott Parkin just has better PR, and more agreeable liberal views.
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 07:34 am (UTC), kineticfactory replied:
It could be argued that Irving was inciting hatred; Parkin was doing nothing of the sort. If he was advocating the violent overthrow of the government, I could understand the government expelling him, but, AFAIK, this goes beyond keeping the peace and into silencing dissent and enforcing conformity to an official state line.

Btw, in the list of "fascisms" you oppose, would you include totalitarian socialist states like Cuba?
Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
[User Picture]
On September 13th, 2005 07:57 am (UTC), datakid23 replied:
lol interesting question - once again, it could be argued that cuba is not a fascist state - but a communist/anarchist utopia it is not - I can't speak for cuba, I've not been there, and those I know that have talk of visible poverty and other political problematics. Having said that, it was interesting to read on the boing about cuba's response to hurricanes.

Hey, the beauty of being anti-state is that no one can pull the "it didn't work in russia" trick on you - obviously the anti state movement has never had a success, however questionable that success may be in retrospect...the other point is that I know there are movements in Israel and the USA that I would agree with, or at least find more palatable (don't know much about Al Q, sorry) - it was a broad brush I painted them with...

I don't disagree with you at all - I think it disgusting and embarrassing - I guess my problem is, or the question I ask is, is it more embarrassing than Tampa or SIEV X? Is it more disgusting than the labor party's attempts at policy and reaction to Howard's Australia? Is it any worse than seeing Howard say "Cricket was the winner" in reference to the Ashes?

At the end of the day, while it does stink of silencing dissent and enforicing conformity, it's like reading those articles you see in the paper now and again: "Studies show, the poor more likely to have less money" or "Studies show, low income families more likely to get sick". You know what I mean?

Replies Frozen · Parent · Thread
* * *

Previous Entry · Share · Next Entry