Darkness at Noon

We’re finally secured the Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice’s third forum and it’s shaping up to be a ripper!

Here’s what the web page says:

The Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice’s third Monthly Forum Anne O’Rourke (Liberty Victoria) and Greg Barns (Rights Australia) discuss the possibility of an ID card, the deportation of Scott Parkin, the new terrorism related laws and much more.

How do these things impact on a democracy and what can we do about it?

You can download a flyer for the event here

When: Tue 18th October, 7 pm
Where: Evatt Room, Trades Hall
How much: $5 (ACDJ members free)
Who:

Anne O’Rourke
Anne is the Vice president of Liberty Victoria.

Greg Barns
Greg is a barrister and author. He lives in Hobart.

Greg was a senior adviser to a number of federal and state Liberal leaders and ministers from 1989-99 and ran the Australian Republican Movement’s Referendum campaign in 1999. He was National Chair of the ARM from 2000-02. Greg left the Liberal Party in 2002 after he was disendorsed for publicly criticising the Howard government’s policies towards asylum seekers. He joined the Australian Democrats.

Greg is a director of human rights group, Rights Australia and was formerly a Director of A Just Australia. He has a weekly column in the Hobart Mercury and a fortnightly column in the South China Morning Post. He writes regularly for The Age, the Herald-Sun, Courier-Mail, Australian and the Adelaide Advertiser. Greg is the author of What’s Wrong with the Liberal Party? (2003) and Selling the Australian Government (2005).

Put it in your diary as it looks like a ripper!!

Latham is at it again. This time in a lecture where he has, it would seem unconvincingly, told an audience of “young idealists” not to get involved in party politics but to engage at a local, community level if you want to make a difference.

He has copped a lot of flack for this. Anonymous Lefty asks the question

If what our democracy needs is to fix the flaws in the party system, wouldn’t the person in the best position do that be the LEADER OF ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES? If so, then why the hell didn’t you use the precious opportunity YOU had? One that WE (as young “idealists”) DO NOT YET have (and if we follow your advice, WILL NEVER HAVE)?

While Mr Corr says:

All up, Latham’s really given (at most) six reasons — but his conclusion that people should stay out of organised politics doesn’t follow. I’ve argued before that everyone who cares about Australian society should join a political party (Labor, Liberal, Greens, whatever) because that’s the only way to improve our democracy.

(Notably Robert Corr is an ALPer and I’m pretty sure Lefty is too – not that there’s anything wrong with that. Besides’ they’re both good lefties anyway.)

When Bracks came into power in Victoria I joined the ALP. I then resigned (as best as one can from the ALP) when he labeled the behavior of those protesting the WEF in Melbourne (the original S11) as “fascist” only a few months later. I left as I obviously sided with the protesters much more than the ALP on far too many issues.

Currently I am a member of the Greens because I do think it is important to be a member of a political party and the Greens reflect my views closer than the others. I’m not active and have no intention of being active in the immediate future. I’m not active for two reasons. Even the Greens have a ‘party machine’ that is not suited to the way I work (which is much better in smaller groups) and I tend to put my energies into other areas such as the Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice and the Melbourne Social Forum.

In a sense I agree with Latham that energies are best spent on local actions. However we live in a representative democracy and I don’t think there is much point abstaining from the political process. I believe it is Whitlam that is always saying that you’re better off joining the party and changing it from the inside. These two things are far from irreconcilable.

The ALP is toxic. There is no question and I’ve banged on before about my feelings of betrayal by the ALP. Surely the answer to this toxicity is to work within the party to make it more grass roots and localised.

It’s a tough decision to make. In my mind the ALP is probably too toxic to be saved and my hope is that the Greens can one day over take the ALP as a party capable of governing (actually, better still would be a move away from the two party system to a three or four party system). The main point is that we do operate in a representative democracy and the only way we are going to change the way the country is run is to engage that in some sense. Let’s not forget that small, localised actions can affect government policy though. Georgio’s refugee bill only came about through years of on-the-ground lobbying by some remarkable activists.

Elsewhere, over at Margo Kingston’s Web Diary, Margo has interviewed Latham on this topic.

I finally got round to seeing Avi Lewis and Naomi Klien’s movie, The Take.

As a documentary it is quite good and the scenario it presented was amazing. In short, the scenario that is presented is the story of Argentina which suffered a complete economic collapse after IFM policies were implemented a little too enthusiastically. Argentina defaulted on it’s IFM loan, the banks closed their doors and the country, which was in a similar position to Australia and Canada at the time plunged into third world despair as factories closed and unemployment skyrocketed followed by massive protests and general civil unrest.

So workers started to take back the factories and run them as worker owned collectives. The productivity was higher under worker control, democratic decision making processes were taken up, wages were collectively decided and, perhaps most importantly, the workers were empowered and happy again – able to live comfortable lives.

So the question is of course, what are the limits of this model? Admittedly the film doesn’t cover this and it is the most obvious question you’re left with. Why can’t this work?

For a start, it can work. Argentina has proved this. However, to my mind, it has only done so on a sort of industrialised subsistence level. These people are making tiles and tractors, not the additional ‘luxuries’ or high tech stuff and it strikes me that it would be hard to develop this model to that level – but not impossible.

Next is the question of innovation. These workers would surely improve the efficiency of their production and so on. I’ve little doubt that the tractors they were making in the worker-run tractor factory are better than the original specification, however would they have ever developed it much further? Would a car factory under workers control be able to develop a hybrid car? I think it is unlikely but it is conceivable that you could have a worker-run R and D department. However even if you did have that would you ever have the financial backing necessary to undertake this sort of research? I think it is unlikely and this is ultimately the benefit of economies of scale – it facilitates this level of innovation.

However, that said, the ‘Open Source’ model does work and facilitates a very high level of innovation but also does this within the context of commercial businesses. I’m not sure how this would translate but I’m certain that it could.

Finally, I was talking to a fellow MSFer yesterday who met Avi Lewis when he was in Melbourne last. Lewis was asked what the limit of this model was. He said that it’s basically at its limit. The market cannot sustain any more. However I think what is important to note here is that this is one of many alternatives to corporate globalisation. There are other models and these need to be explored.

It is also a reminder that a bit of radicalism can go a long way.

It seems that as soon as Monbiot’s publishes an article on his web site (probably not quite a blog) it seems that someone mentions it on a blog somewhere. Personally, I quite a fan of Monbiot. His critiques are scathing, he a bit of a dreamer and his analysis is always as sharp as you can get.

So on the rare occasion that I disagree with him I feel the need to point it out. Of course this should be viewed as flattery of the highest order.

In his latest piece, A World Turned Upside Down he argues:

I don’t believe it is yet too late to minimise climate change… But it has now become clear to me that the obstacle is not the market but the government, waving a dog-eared treatise which proves some point in a debate the rest of the world has forgotten.

I agree whole heartedly that government desperately need to increase environmental regulation of the market and corporations. However Monbiot seems to absolve corporations. He is arguing that, based on a few comments by the heads of only a handful of corporations, big business actually wants to be environmentally sound but can’t because the big bad government won’t put regulations in place.

Corporations MUST start to take responsibility for their own actions and arguments like the one used here by Monbiot simply reinforce a blame mentality. Moreover, which groups heavily lobby government to avoid environmental regulation?

Unfortunately you have failed to convince me on this particular occasion.

It’s always interesting to read the way people overseas see Australia.

This post by Bob Burton over at The Center for Media and Democracy’s blog provides a detailed account of the deportation of Scott Parkin.

What is the role of public relations in a democracy? How is it used for good and how is it used to mislead? In this hour long forum we will explore these issues with the help of two experts in the field, Jeannie Rea (VU) and Graeme Domm (RMIT) and moderated by Kathy Richardson.

In many ways the work of public relations and spin doctors shape the way we see the world. Public relations are used to inform as well as shape public opinion. Access to information is a highly important aspect of a democracy and PR is central to this access. It enables the public to make informed decisions about any number of issues, be it consumer choice, who to vote for and so on.

When: 6: 30 Tuesday 20th September 2005

Where: Evatt Room @ Trades Hall (cnr Lygon St and Victoria St Carlton)

Cost: $5 (Free for members)

Who:

• Jeannie Rea

  Jeannie teaches in Public Relations and the postgraduate program in Public Advocacy and Action at Victoria University. She a long time political activist across several social movements and is also state president of the National Tertiary Education Union. She has a particular interest in understanding how social change discourse moves people from concern to action.

• Graeme Domm
  Graeme is Discipline Coordinator for the undergraduate programs in public relations at RMIT. He has been a sessional lecturer and tutor in Public Relations. He was also Principal Consultant with Fenton Communications, a leading locally owned professional communication consultancy based in Melbourne.

  Graeme worked as a journalist with The Age and as an editor of specialist publications, before moving into research and policy work, Ministerial speechwriting and other communication-related duties in government. He spent a period as Ministerial adviser to a Federal Minister. In the past 15 years he has worked in three public relations consultancies, including one of the world’s major multinationals, developing and implementing strategic communication programs for a wide variety of corporate, government and non-profit clients. He is a member of the Public Relations Institute of Australia, the International Public Relations Association, the Australian Institute of Management, and the International Association of Business Communicators, of which he is president of the Victorian chapter.

• Kathy Richardson
  Kathy has spent most of her career working for rural and suburban community newspapers. She also recently spent two years in Bangkok as part of the Australian Volunteers International program, working as a Publications Officer for the Thai Government’s Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation (DTEC). Kathy has a degree in journalism from RMIT and is currently working as a journalist for OurCommunity.com.au

The following eBulletin went out today. If you want to be on the mailing list then please email us at centre@democracyandjustice.org

Dear Friends,

Hello and welcome to the Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice’s 3rd eBulletin.

We’ll keep these brief and only send them out when we’ve something to tell you. If you don’t want to be on this email list please simply reply with “unsubscribe” in the subject. Feel free to circulate this eBulletin as widely as you see fit and if you’re not on the mailing but would like to be please simply email centre@democracyandjustice.org and let us know.

1. REMINDER – Forum: The Role of Public Relations in a Democracy

When/Where: Trades Hall (cnr Victoria St and Lygon St, Carlton) from 6:30 on Tuesday 20th September.

In our second installment of our monthly forums, Jeannie Rea (Victoria University) and Graeme Domm (RMIT) discuss the role of Public Relations in a Democracy. Is it all bad or can it be used for good? Moderated by Kathy Richardson.

For the full details go to: http://democracyandjustice.org/content/view/38/52/

Entry $5 (Members free)

2. Calling all dancers

The Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice is pulling together a dance troupe to perform in a variety of contexts. All are welcome, you certainly don’t have to be a trained dancer and the dance moves required will not stretch your abilities (we promise). So if you want to get involved and have a bit of fun while helping out the Centre, email centre@democracyandjustice.org

3. Membership and Donations

We now have online facilities for both donations and membership. We desperately need your support in order to maintain our independence and to be as effective as we possibly can be.

Our Membership scheme is three tiered, with students/concessions being $20, full price/waged $40, solidarity/household/organisation $100.

OurCommunity.com.au kindly processes our memberships for us and you can sign up at their site at: http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/membership/membership_details.form?membershipId=715

Alternatively you can print out a membership form at: http://www.democracyandjustice.org/images/Membership%20form.pdf and send it back to us.

Donations can also be made through the OurCommunity.com.au site at: http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/acdj.

4. Other events

If you’d like your event included in this list please email us at centre@democracyandjustice.org with “eBulletin” in the subject.

Scott Parkin is still to be deported without explanation in a move that makes me sick (I emailed Ruddock a few nights ago – I know it won’t do anything but it’s important to do something).

I thought it was important to draw your attention to the ALP on this one. The last paragraph of the article linked to above reads:

A spokesman for Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said he had been briefed on the Government’s reasons for Mr Parkin’s detention and was satisfied with the action taken.

This was a great opportunity for Bomber to step up to the plate and point out the absurdity of these laws and the criminal nature of the actions of the Federal Government. As usual he just goes along with what little Johnny has said.

Democracy requires a strong opposition, not a small target with a void on so many policy issues.

It would be remiss of me to not draw your attention to this post over at the Road to Surfdom. Spot on Tim.

So the IMF “has given Australia 10 out of 10 in its annual economic report card and praised the Coalition’s controversial industrial relations changes.”

I must say that I hardly consider this to be something for the CV. Joseph Steglitz’s book, Globalization and its Discontents, makes a pretty clear case regarding the incompetence of the IMF. They have been known to include the wrong country’s name in a report showing clear evidence of just cutting and pasting from other reports. Moreover, it is probably the worlds number one echo chamber of the dogma that is the Washington Consensus.

It is easy to see why the IMF has given us this 10 out of 10. Industrial Relations aside, Australia has announced it will increased it’s aid efforts considerably. Welcome news you would thing. The problem is of course the ‘but’. Attached to this aid will be dogmatic Washington Consensus (it’s fair to assume) conditions that ensure massive market deregulation, leaving majority world countries who are already struggling to compete in a global market even more vulnerable. Even the slightest deviation from this dogma would suggest that majority world countries need protections in order to develop their industries to competitive levels. Unfortunately the equation will be simple as usual: no liberalisation equals no aid equals starving population.

I was catching up with a friend on the weekend and telling her about my trip to Sydney, including the Forbes protest. She commented that she noticed that the huge anti-Iraq War rally didn’t have too many police there, at least relative to the number of protesters. To which I replied that I don’t think anyone expected to get as many people there as they did, but more over, it was a “peace” demonstration where there is never any violence so no nead for the presense of too many police..

That said, I was hardly surprised to hear that a US peace activist had been arrested under the new anti-terrorism laws, despite obviously not being a threat. Moreover, if confirms my suspicion that this new bout of “anti-terrorism” laws will hardly be used on actual terrorists but will be frequently used against activists.

The Victorian Peace Network sent out this press release early this morning (I believe it was a VPN event he was going to be speaking at):

ACTION: It is important that this does not happen without strong protest. People are requested to contact the Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock on:
Phone 02 6277 7300
Fax: 02 6273 4102 or
Email; Ag@Ag.gov.au

and ask why a peace activist has been detained because of his political activities, prevented from speaking publicly and deported from Australia.

Please also contact you local member of Parliament and Federal Senator to express your concerns about this action as soon as possible. Any organisational, union and high-level protests is particularly important.

The violation of the civil liberties of this activist it is hard to comprehend. How can we call this a democracy? Someone with a clearly non-violent, peaceful agenda, who happens to disagree with the government is being locked up and deported. Even if he was any sort of threat this is obviously excessive. The message is clear once again: “This is what happens when you oppose us.”

More on this here, here and here.