Darkness at Noon

It truly is a remarkable defense, when you can simply reply with this:

Former AWB chairman Trevor Flugge… has denied he was told about kickbacks paid to Iraq, saying he does not recall the alleged conversations.

…He said he could not check his diary to see if the meetings took place because he had lost it.

…And he said he “does not recall” a dinner meeting in 1999 at which witnesses claim it was suggested that AWB used a British company, Ronly, to pay Iraqi “trucking fees”, because he is partly deaf in his left ear.

“In my experience, at a dinner for a group of people, unless someone directly speaks to me, I am unable to follow or keep track of a conversation,” he told the inquiry.

You’ve got to had it to him really. Because he’s partly deaf in one ear his just about infallible.

My brother had a bout of Labyrinthitis when he was in primary school (after a kid jumped on his head) leaving him COMPLETELY deaf in one ear. No wonder he was always the good son.

I’ve been meaning to mention a couple of great initiatives of late.

I’ve been attending semi-regular meetings of a group which now go by the name of “Community Collaborations”. We now have a web page too, hosted at the Melbourne Social Forum site: http://melbournesocialforum.org/community.

Amoungst those organisations that attend these meetings are Union Solidarity. I meet one of the guys involved before in a difference capacity and have always been impressed – Union Solidarity is no exception and will become a particularly important organisation as these new IR laws roll out.

Thanks to Kakariki for this heads up:

the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, said that he is developing new legislation aimed at protests involving his portfolio. With specific reference to the recent protests about live sheep exports, he said that the legislation would be framed around the ‘intent to cause economic loss’. Protests and protestors that are shown to cause an economic loss to an industry would be held ‘criminally and civilly liable’ for such losses. He expressed the hope that this model legislation would be incorporated into the laws of State jurisdictions, but did not mention the possibility of the proposal becoming Federal law.

Under laws like this, environmental and animal rights protestors could be held responsible for the ‘economic harm’ they cause to businesses such as logging, mining, fishing, and live sheep exports when they run protest actions. The current proceedings against the ‘Gunns20’ involve claims of economic harm by protestors.

A fucktard indeed.

The IR laws aren’t in full effect yet, but this is surely a sign of things to come:

Major car parts manufacturer Dana Australia has flagged a 5 per cent pay cut for more than 350 workers.

And the company wants to pay future employees 25 per cent less than current rates.

Dana also wants to axe 13 RDOs, cut redundancy entitlements in half and make workers wait longer before accessing long service leave.

The Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice is always looking for new an innovative ways to reclaim public space.

Once again Hactivist comes through with the goods with this protable projector to help spead the word.

…Now I wonder if I could get the ACDJ logo small enough?

In his recent book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff identifies abortion and gay rights as the two main issues most threatening to the US conservative agenda. Lakoff suggests conservatives use the question of abortion as a political wedge to increase support for a broader political and moral agenda.

Can the same be said of the Howard government?

How has the current debate over RU486 been framed by those involved? It would seem the questions regarding the morality of abortion has overshadowed the real issue of who should be responsible (the Therapeutic Drugs Administration or Minister Abbott) for determining if this drug is safe for use by Australian women.

It is interesting to reflect upon how closely aligned and where the differences lie between the moral-political worldview of the Bush government and the worldview of the Howard government.

Perhaps, such insights regarding this particularly divisive issue, may inform and guide activists working on a range of issues; illuminating the possibilities for political leverage on various other eco-social justice issues.

Get ready for two weeks to showing the nation that Australia is the new South Africa!

Genocide to end
Sovereignty to be acknowledged
Treaty to be made

I wonder if the military will be attending the protests?

Over at The Bartlett Diaries an interesting discussion has broken out about marijuana.

Now, firstly, I disagree with Yobbo that bans on smoking in public places is “a significant step forward for fascism.” I’m a non-smoker and I don’t like being in smokey bars. I also spend a lot of time in these bars as I do enjoy a drink and there are genuine health concerns here with regards to second hand smoke. However I don’t think smoking should be banned.

There are also genuine health concerns about marijuana, however I think it should be legal (but not allowed to be smoked in bars). This leaves me almost agreeing with some of Yobbo’s comments over an Andrew’s.

So why should dope be legal? The biggest concern seems to be about mental health. There is an overemphasis on this. Yes there are links, but the evidence in largely inconclusive as to what the impact actually is. It has certainly be suggested that if it wasn’t dope that triggered the mental health issue then it would be something else – in other words you have to be predisposed. Moreover, this is a small minority group of people. Yes, chronic use is problematic as well, but what isn’t?

So the health risks are overstated, but not insignificant. The health issues around alcohol are much greater but that’s a calculated risk (on behalf of the government) and I certainly don’t think alcohol should be banned either.

The evidence coming out of the Netherlands is that the legalisation of dope does not increase its usage. Rates, I believe, remain at about 40%. This is about the usage levels of young people in Australia. This is another thing that is also often overlooked. A significant number of people in Australia smoke it. Yet somehow we’re a well functioning society. Yes we have a mental health problem but out levels of mental health illness are not particularly high. It is easy to make it sound like every mental health issue is caused by someone having a toke.

So to legalise marijuana, in my opinion, is the best way to address the health issues associated with it. If levels of usage don’t change when the drug is legal (as we’ve seen in overseas examples) then you can better regulate it when it is legal. Moreover, assuming the state sells it (which I think should be the case), you undercut drug dealers by providing it at a much cheaper price which reduces crime. It also creates a funding base for harm minimisation activities, education and better research into marijuana’s links to mental health.

I’ve categorised this as a civil liberties post. I do think it’s a civil liberties issue as I don’t think it really impacts on others – its a victimless crime which I don’t think should be a crime. However it is much more a health issue. Harm minimisation is the only way to effectively manage the harm caused by drug use. There will always be harm, but there will also always be use, so let’s manage that use rather than marginalise users.

I mentioned a little while back that Hillsong had received a grant from the federal government for a crime prevention program.

As it turns out they should never have received the grant and the money has been returned because the “department failed to check whether an Aboriginal group, named by the Hillsong church in a grant application, supported the project.” As it turns out the group did not support the project.

Tuppence has had a shock revelation that I can sympathise with: she actually agreed with Vanstone on the topic of RU486.

Vanstone did indeed come across particularly well and I think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. However in her speech she also did a very interesting thing – she actively reframed the debate. As she said:

I would like the pro-life people to get another name because, frankly, that describes everybody in this place.

I do not know anybody who is against life. Equally, some people refer to those who would take the decision from the minister and put it where it belongs – where it is made on every other medical intervention – as being pro-abortion. Let me tell you that I do not know anybody who is pro-abortion. Nobody thinks it is a good idea. Nobody wants anybody to be in that position.

I’ve just finished reading Don’t Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff who discusses how the right frames debate to their advantage. “Pro-life” is a good example – it make all those who are pro-choice, anti-life.

Amongst activist circles Lakoff is the book of the moment – everyone is talking about it. If you haven’t read it do so. It is possibly the most enlightening thing I’ve read in some time and it has won the hearts of even the most skeptical post-modernists (it would seem).

It’s worth while checking out the group he works for – the Rockridge Institute – which is dedicated to reframing public debate.

In the book Lakoff argues that we (the left/progressives) can make our own wedge issues and the example he gives is that of the environment. If you’re anti-environment, you’re anti-health for your children and so on.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce this as and idea for this blog and it is one I want to return to as it is important for activists to discuss. So for now, if I may be so bold, consider this an open thread for you to discuss framing issues. I’d particularly like to hear how various issues could be reframed and what wedge issues the left could use.