SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
bias of the media made us go with the wrong decisions.....Everyone has the odd “if only” thought from time to time. If only you had made a different career choice, if only you had not said the things you have said, or if only you had not done some of the things you have done. All those done and not done moments – those decisions and those things you did which, when you wake up at night, have you squirming with anguish and/or embarrassment. If only… 22 reasons to regret Australia’s missed opportunities By Noel Turnbull
It’s much the same for the recent history of the Australian nation — a litany of missed opportunities and stupid and short-sighted decisions — which should prompt us to think how our history would have unfolded if we and our governments had made different decisions. Perhaps we need some J’accuse moments to polemically bring it all to our attention. But it’s doubtful if our supine mainstream media would publish anything like Emile Zola’s passionate denunciation. Instead, we get the relentless propaganda of the Murdoch media. The biggest and most obvious is our failure to properly tax the huge revenues generated by our mining and resource booms. If only we had followed the Norwegian path and established a sovereign wealth fund which would provide future generations with new levels of security. If only if we had not made housing policy dependent on tax rorts like negative gearing and capital gains tax relief and reduced housing price pressures while funding adequate social housing. If only our government had not challenged car manufacturers to close down their plants. Thank you, Joe Hockey. If only we had not enthusiastically followed the US into Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, helping turn the Middle East into a violent basket case. If only we had not, in rushing to war, incurred a $13 billion cost for veteran care and the devastating impacts of PTSD and veteran suicides If only we had not privatised, and then destroyed, our vocational training schools and programs when we have an acute shortage of skilled labour and well-paying rewarding jobs for young people. If only we had not treated universities as corporations, paying vice-chancellors million dollar salaries while students are increasingly taught by casual staff. If only education ministers had not decided to make political points by interfering in research grant decisions. If only we had not poured billions into private schools so they could build swimming pools and luxurious facilities while government schools are neglected and their buildings can’t compare with private schools luxury. If only we had introduced a carbon price way back when so we could have already made significant progress towards achieving realistic climate goals. If only our Greens party had focused on achievable goals and not pursued a policy of always insisting on an imagined perfect rather than the realistic. If only our major party politicians were not increasingly drawn from narrow groups of party apparatchiks and instead major parties encouraged people such as the Teals and independents now on the crossbenches. What would be the opportunities for a Tom Uren, Barry Jones, John Hewson and the many other mavericks and profound thinkers in Australian political parties today? If only Andrew Leigh was given a major role in economic policy to ensure the government had realistic and effective policies rather than shoddily prepared talking points. If only we had profound debates about issues and challenges rather than superficial talking points. If only we had not encouraged aged care services to be profit centres and defined residents as customers and, in some cases, exploited inmates. If only we had prized the arts with the same passion we have for sport. If only we had regulated betting and wagering advertising and forced the many companies to have realistic know your customer rules. If only we had cracked down on the endemic rorts which are too common in professions, industries and other areas. If only we could have a realistic debate and discussion on policy thought farts like Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy. If only we could believe — as Australians once did — that life would be better for future generations than it has been for the baby boomer generation. The father of a friend, a wise Hungarian who had experienced far more than anyone should have to experience, once said that Australians born just after the war were the luckiest generation anywhere in the world at any time in history. Could we say the same for today’s young Australians? If only we had embraced the Voice proposal as a transformational moment instead of seeing it as a divisive wedge to exploit for purely political purposes. If only our Liberal and National Parties were not aiming to emulate Trumpist tactics in elections. If only we had a viable independent media industry carefully scrutinising governments and business, rather than peddling propaganda or trivialities. Australia was once an innovator in so many areas. Certainly, we were far from perfect – the great silence on our treatment of the original inhabitants of the country continues with the Australian War Memorial’s refusal, at the urging of some reactionary Council members, to commemorate the Australian Frontier Wars. Rampant open racism such as riots against Chinese gold mine workers and contempt or suspicion of new migrants were once commonplace. We have come far, but, if only, we had not started to regress. https://johnmenadue.com/if-only-22-reasons-to-regret-australias-missed-opportunities/
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS. HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.
SEE ALSO: the unlucky country — great place but the politics have sucked, are sucking and will sux...
|
User login |
dreadful...
The role of the attorney-general in Australia, even in these partisan times, is to uphold the rule of law,” as the former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason said. So how can it be in any way compatible with that duty for Mark Dreyfus, the current holder of the office, to head to Israel and meet with a government that is committing genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?
This is a regime headed by a Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who, along with his erstwhile Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is under threat of arrest via the mechanism of International Criminal Court warrants issued against them last year. A government that has murdered men, women, and children in Gaza in a grossly disproportionate response to the horror perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023. A government that is starving a population, and destroying healthcare, including critical life-saving facilities.
If Dreyfus was going to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government, there would be an outburst of hysteria among members of the political class, the media and community groups.
But Putin’s conduct in the Ukraine is mild when viewed in the context of the evil of the Netanyahu regime.
For Dreyfus to sup at the table of alleged war criminals is unconscionable. He is meeting the Netanyahu Government despite the existence of the ICC warrants. And inspite of his knowing of the activities of the Israel Defence Force’s thoroughly documented, hideous and inexcusable slaughter in Gaza.
And Dreyfus heads to Israel with the knowledge the International Court of Justice is being asked by countries such as South Africa and Ireland to rule on whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide under international law.
Dreyfus also knows the court has already, last year, issued several measures which have been completely ignored by Israel. The court ruled that the IDF must improve access for the people of Gaza to additional means of life such as food and medical assistance. It also said Israel must increase points of access to Gaza. Israel simply thumbs its nose at the orders and requests.
Put it this way, Dreyfus is, in effect, rewarding Netanyahu and Gallant who are on the record as indicating they will refuse to comply with the ICC warrants. And Dreyfus is prepared to meet, as an Australian Government representative, a nation that flouts the ICJ.
To distill what is happening is simple. What Dreyfus is doing is making a mockery of the purported policy of the government of which he is a member, that it is fully compliant with the international rule of law.
This is illustrated by the fact that only seven weeks ago, on 15 November, Dreyfus addressed a colloquium run by his department on international law.
He told the colloquium that the department’s “Office of International Law… is part of the Australian community of international law practitioners, which, despite being physically distant from the traditional centres of international law and practice, is respected internationally for consistently influencing the practice and development of international law”.
Feel like your boss is undermining your good work by shaking hands and breaking bread with a government that has zero regard for international law?
And then there was this — obviously made for rhetorical purposes only — statement by the AG to the troops that, “it remains critical that we use international law to counter the injustices of everyday life and to influence those trends which, obscured and challenging as they may be, underpin the good of all”.
You couldn’t make this stuff up. Dreyfus’ comments on 15 November should have included this warning: “Be aware that none of my statements about the importance of international law apply to Israel.”
So how does one make sense of an Australian attorney-general doing what, in the case of, say, apartheid South Africa, would have been unthinkable. That is, meeting with a government hell-bent on breaching international law and, therefore, the rule of law.
It can only be explained by one thing – politics. The spinelessness of successive Australian Governments when it comes to the cajoling, threats and bullying of the Zionist lobby and its friends such as The Australian, which should really be called the “Netanyahu Times” so absurdly partisan its stance on the Gaza issue.
Australia’s purported commitment to the rule of law and a rules-based international order comes a distant second to garnering votes and caving in to a powerful lobby. That’s right, isn’t it, Mr Dreyfus?
https://johnmenadue.com/dreyfus-trip-to-israel-makes-a-mockery-of-labors-foreign-policy/
[MAYBE, DREYFUS IS VISITING ISRAHELL FOR A HOLIDAY, UNLESS HE WANTS TO CONVINCE BIBIYAHOO TO TONE DOWN HIS GENOCIDALITY... WHO KNOWS DREYFUS MIGHT SAVE THE LIVES OF ELEVEN ISRAELI WARRIORS AND ONE PALESTINIAN CHILD DURING HIS LITTLE TRIP... *GUSNOTE: LABOR'S POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO GET A BROWN NOSE IN REGARD TO ISRAHELL... THE LIBERALS (AUSTRALIAN conSERVATIVES) ARE ON THE SAME PAGE...]
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.
HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.