My Nemesis

Everybody needs a nemesis. This is especially true if you’re supposed to be something of a crusader. Batman had the Joker, He-man had Skeletor and even Maggie Simpson had the baby with the mono-brow. A nemesis gives you focus, somewhere to direct your fury and an obstacle to triumph over. Aspiring to a leadership position that doesn’t yet exist, has made the search for the bane of my existence proportionately difficult – but at last I have found him: the pre-selected member for the Federal Seat of Mitchell, Alex Hawke.

Alex is the former head of the Young Liberals and is being touted as the poster child of the Christian Right faction of the Liberal Party. It’s a mantle he’s obviously comfortable with, quoted in a number of newspaper articles as saying: "Nobody joins the Liberal Party to be left-wing. If you stand for compulsory student unionism, drug-injecting rooms and lowering the [homosexual] age of consent, you can choose the Greens, Labor or the Democrats". Clearly, he’s a charming fellow. Alex was also implicated in the ousting of former NSW opposition leader John Brogden (by Brogden) – following a campaign of press leaks and other friendly fire. Most recently, Mr. Hawke is alleged to have been involved in branch stacking and other graft during his successful overthrow of long time Liberal stalwart Alan Cadman. 70 year old Cadman served in the House of Representatives since 1974.

As you can see, Alex is my polar opposite on a range of issues and accordingly, an ideal nemesis. Alex had frequently pushed an anti-gay agenda; I have a heart. He ambushed an experienced and highly regarded elder statesman for his personal gain; I have courage. Alex is also the protégé of State MP David Clarke (leader of the hard right) and a Hillsong aficionado; I have a brain. The stage then is set and the gauntlet has been thrown down. Unless you’re off to see the Wizard anytime soon Alex, you’ve been unanimously pre-selected to be my arch-enemy.

Civil Liberties

Beware this evil little Elf-man

Do me a favour. Get out your diary or novelty calendar and mark down this month - July, 2007. Make it in red pen. It’s the month that some of our most fundamental liberties were eroded. You’ll be able to look back on this time in a few years and realise that this was the start of the decline – you might even be called upon to recall for your children what it was like before the war with the terrorists began.

Since the War on Terror™ was heralded in 2001, American citizens have seen their individual freedoms chipped away (most notably by the Patriot Act) and the rights of detainees (both US citizens and foreign combatants) all but removed - all in the name of greater public safety and combating the terrorist threat. The story goes a little like this: your safety cannot be guaranteed unless you consent to giving up rights you once held dear, like the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to basic privacy… and so forth.

So, while this has been happening abroad for five years or so now, I thought for some reason that we would be immune to it here. We’re a tolerant nation, right? Even dare I say an enlightened one? Well, not so much anymore. The case of ‘suspected terrorist accomplice’ Mohamed Haneef, together with expanded police powers to obtain DNA samples from anyone suspected of a crime have called into question the very notion of civil liberties here in Australia. I’ve got two problems in particular; 1. Anyone of us can be detained with very little actual evidence under the Terrorism Act and 2. The media are perpetuating the idea that this imposition is necessary for our safety.

It makes me so angry; I don’t even know where to start. Let me summarise the case against Haneef. His second cousin (or uncle, or brother depending on your media outlet of choice) was allegedly involved in the bombing of Glasgow Airport earlier this month. As Haneef tried to leave Brisbane Airport he was Tazered by AFP members and detained. He is accused of giving his cousin a mobile SIM card found at the bomb site (false), of buying a one-way ticket home (true, but irrelevant), of living with accused terrorists in London (false) and most recently of plotting to blow up a 77-storey gold coast high-rise (genuinely made-up). The AFP has also recently admitted writing the names of terrorist suspects in his diary…presumably to shore up their paper thin case. Given the clear lack of evidence against Haneef, the AFP were forced to let him go on $10,000 bail – until of course the government (via Kevin Andrews, the evil pixie) intervened and cancelled his visa, for associating with criminals. [A federal justice reviewing the decision has already noted that he would fail these criteria, having represented a number of murders during his time a defender…] Haneef is now in detention (in solitary confinement 23 hours a day) awaiting trial, or a review of his visa situation.

Let me summarise further. An Indian migrant has ‘an association’ with someone who turns out to be a suspected terrorist. He goes on holidays and takes some photos of a popular landmark. He tries to fly home to see his new wife and baby. Frankly, it makes me afraid. I hate to think how many people I have ‘an association with’ – and if someone blows up the Eiffel Tower anytime soon, my photo album (containing many up close shots of the structure of the tower) could get me in some hot water. It seems in that instance I could easily find my good self detained by the AFP – an organisation who seem to be revelling in their new found ability to keep alleged evidence a secret, and to invent it when all else fails.

My plea then, is not a new one. We must protect the rules and laws that have kept us safe up to this point. You are innocent until proven guilty. That proof needs to contain actual evidence. The government have no place meddling in this process. The media have even less place – stop running pictures of exploding vehicles and buildings when they have little or no relevance to the story. Get out of the fear business.

The reality is, you realistically have much more to fear from an over zealous government taking away your rights than a lone bomber and an explosive vest.

War Anthems 2

Given that my first war anthem (Dashboard Confessional’s “Slow Decay”) was sabotaged by the youtube video vanishing from the face of the earth, let me give it another try. If anyone hasn’t heard Pink’s “Dear Mr President” yet, it’s high time you did.

Early in her career, I think it’s fair to say that Pink was a pretty standard R& B/ Pop kind of performer. Her 2001 album though (M!ssundaztood) marked a change to a more rock oriented style – and I’m guessing there wouldn’t be anyone out there that didn’t bust the occasional move to “Get this Party Started”. Aside from her support of animal rights group PETA (she’s a strict Vegan), and her criticism of Australia’s care of our exported sheep – I didn’t know all that much about Pink. She occasionally pops up with a no-fur, anti-KFC message, but admittedly I (ignorantly) thought she was pretty one dimensional.

Her latest album (I’m Not Dead) has changed my mind. It contains two songs in particular which defy the pop princess stereotype and have an important message to share. She sings “I Have Seen the Rain” – a Vietnam War protest song written by (and sung with) her father, and the previously mentioned “Dear Mr. President”. I recommend listening to both, but today “Dr Mr. President” in particular. It’s not exclusively a war anthem – more of an anti-Bush anthem – but it’s his war, so I’m allowing it. The song covers the mistreatment of Hurricane Katrina Victims, the war in Iraq and the Bush Administrations homophobia. I particularly like:

“What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine”

What kind of father indeed. This President applauds the sentiment and vows to take a walk with Pink anytime she wants to check in on my policy decisions. If you’re going to take a stand as a leader, you should be taking defensible positions that you can publicly defend. Pink may have her critics – but she’s using her popularity to send an important message and as far as I’m concerned that’s all we can ask.

30 Days

It’s good to be back, time has gotten away from me lately, as my employer has decided that running for President needs to come second to my real job sometimes. Hopefully we can keep that to a minimum, going forward. A lot’s happened since last post: Bush commuted the sentence of his crony Scooter Libby, the Pope said that all other forms of Christianity were flawed and Kevin Andrews revoked the visa of a suspected home-grown terrorist accomplice – despite precious little evidence. I’ll try and get to all that if time allows this week, because my most pressing concern right now is tell you all about 30 Days.

Remember Super Size Me from back in 2004? It was a documentary created by (and starring) Morgan Spurlock. Essentially, he ate exclusively McDonalds for 30 days – until his doctor made him stop. He gained 11kg during that time and it took him 14 months to fully recover from the experiment. The movie single handedly cured me of a growing ‘medium quarter pounder meal’ addiction, and for that I will be forever grateful. To his credit though, Morgan has not rested on his fast-food fighting laurels, continuing to push back at big corporations and consumerism – most notably in his upcoming movie What Would Jesus Buy? In the meantime though, he has churned out two (6 episode) seasons of a reality TV show called 30 days.

The concept is simple but powerful: force two people with opposing views on a controversial issue, and make them live together for 30 days. It’s an exercise in seeing another’s point of view; in walking a mile in someone else’s shoes – to borrow a cliché. It might sound a bit thin – until you watch an episode; they are compelling. Season 1 includes episodes on Muslims in America, a devout Christian living with a gay man, some power guzzling new Yorkers living on an hippy eco-friendly community and most jarringly Spurlock and his fiancé living on minimum wage for a month. Suffice to say, they struggle.

Season 2 is even better, tackling some of the most often talked about questions of our age. A pro-choice woman lives with a pro-life minister who runs a refuge home for mothers. The behaviour of some of the pro-lifers is truly amazing (and not in a good way). There’s also an episode about immigration, new age therapies and outsourcing. An atheist lives with a Christian family but as in season 1, the most confronting episode stars Spurlock himself. He goes to jail for 30 days, including 72 hours in solitary confinement. The conditions were atrocious, even in a medium security facility – and it made me realise that prisoners are a forgotten and silent population.

In short, go rent it, download it, or leave a comment and I’ll post you a copy. The show encapsulates a basic premise of our society that is so often overlooked: empathy. If you can see an issue from both sides you are far more likely to take a moderate position and to be less adversarial. It an idea that is enjoying a mini-resurgence in American politics, after 6 years of Bush led divisiveness – and one that we need more of here at home. Empathy for refugee seekers, for terror suspects held without evidence, for our poorest citizens and even for us oppressed atheists. Season 3 is due later in the year, so get onboard.

Equal Rights

A close friend of the Administration sent me a link this morning to a petition urging the government to amend the law to give same sex couples the same legal rights as de facto heterosexual couples. It’s at times like these that I’m glad I have access to such an expansive readership. I urge you all to give your support to this cause by clicking on the link above and registering.

For the record, I think that gaining the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is a fantastic start – but that much more needs to be done. The view of this President is that the discrimination we see in Australia and throughout the world against homosexuals is akin to the treatment of black people in decades past. We need to strive for a day where the question of sexuality is not even asked. The happy marriage of a gay or lesbian couple, poses no risk to your own straight happy marriage – I promise.

Take this opportunity to record your opposition to this discrimination and cross off the days until my Administration comes to power and ends this tyranny once and for all.