Friday, August 08, 2008

"The world looks on with mixed emotions"

It is 08.08.08 – the eighth day, on the eighth month, of the eight year of this century. The Beijing Olympic Games open at eight minutes past eight Beijing time (just after 10 pm local/Australian Eastern Standard Time). This came in an email this afternoon from online campaign mob Avaaz.org:
As the Beijing Olympics begin, the world looks on with mixed emotions. It's a moment which should bring us closer together, and Chinese citizens deserve their excitement - but the Chinese government still hasn't opened meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama, or changed its stance on Burma, Darfur and other pressing issues.
That is pretty much how I feel about the impending opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing tonight.

I am torn about whether I can keep my distance from the hoopla of the Olympics and resist wanting to immerse myself in the muck. Can I watch the proceedings from a distance as a bystander to the spectacle?

Can I avoid get dragged into the slipstream of nationalist zeal, jingoism, medal tallies, crass commercialism and the most grotesque types of hero worship, even if it is a constant jeremiad at how disgusting it is? If not, surely by day two or three of such criticism, everyone will be sick of it.

Can I retain a healthy critical objectivity about the Chinese government's Olympic celebrations without descending to shouting at the TV over China's orchestrated PR monstrosities to whitewash their terrible human rights record? And the Australian media's failure to notice? Is it possible to remain critical without spoiling everyone else's enjoyment of this spectacle? I have a seven-year-old at home who is innocent to such things but is in awe at the impending celebration of all things sport. "It's the Olympics, Dad!"

Ask me in about a week.

Either way, today is an auspicious day for the Chinese, for whom symbolism and numerology means a lot, and it is worth celebrating.

I am glad that the sense of ambivalence is shared around the world. Following the Dalai Lama's example of extending a handshake towards China and the Chinese authorities, Avaaz.org wants us all to support their campaign to send a virtual handshake across the world to show solidarity with the people of Tibet, Dafur, Burma and China, and with all other peoples of the world, as "one last chance to reclaim the spirit of the Olympics, with the message of friendship and dialogue we share with the Dalai Lama."

Shake hands across the world with Avaaz.org and send a message to everyone that we haven't forgotten Tibet, Dafur, Burma, or the people of China.

[Image 'Chinese Red Lanterns' (cc) by Abllo™]

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 6:00 pm   0 comments

Thursday, May 29, 2008

On how to dump a king

Strangely, the South-Asian continent comes into my view today, as the news breaks that Nepal has abolished its monarchy. After a long period of internecine fighting between the Maoist rebels and government forces, the now Maoist dominated elected assembly has democratically abolished the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy in favour of a secular parliamentary democracy. They have asked the latest, unpopular manifestation of the Hindu dynasty, King Gyanendra, to pack his bags and leave his palace within a week.

They plan to turn the palace into a museum.

And ten years ago today, Pakistan tested a nuclear device – in effect, a bomb – in an underground explosion. It's hard to believe that the two South-Asian continent nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, have nearly come to war at various times, particularly over Kashmir, and are now in a somewhat less than troubled détente.

Perhaps its is because Pakistan has been too busy chewing through its democratic opposition to try picking fights with its neighbour.

It is worth remembering that the previous Australian government wanted to sell uranium to India, despite the fact they have a nuclear weapons program and have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I wonder if the Rudd government is game to try that as well.

[Image: photo of the Royal palace in Kathmandu is by germeister (cc) ]

Labels: , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 4:05 pm   0 comments

Friday, May 23, 2008

Art and censorship – not a good mix

Early this morning, I was going to join in the chorus of those decrying the censorship of photographic artist Bill Henson, some of whose work has been seized today by New South Wales police from an exhibition about to open in Sydney. (Hey, I just did.)

I think Henson's persecution by politicians, the media and various self-appointed guardians of our propriety and moral rectitude is appalling. This instance of censorship in art has the stink of moral panic about it. I was even going to link to this image to make a point about nudity in art and context. But I've been watching this debate brew online, and the response in the 'art community', as it has been so billed, and I think others, especially the crew at Sarsaparilla, are doing a sterling job of highlighting this case.

Instead, I've decided it is as important to highlight the case of political censorship of an artist here in Melbourne, revealed in this morning's Age.

Van Thanh Rudd's painting has been pulled by the Melbourne City Council from its intended inclusion in an art/artist exchange with Vietnam. Due to be exhibited in Ho Chih Minh City next month, the painting depicts Ronald McDonald bearing the Beijing Olympics torch running past a self-immolating monk from that infamous incident in the nascent period of revolutionary upheaval in Vietnam.

Not that the case of Van Thanh Rudd's artwork being censored has not received attention – perhaps being the nephew of the Prime Minister can get you the front page of The Age. However, there hasn't been much reaction in the online arts community about this case, from what I can see. (Perhaps because Henson has a greater arts-profile, and the severity of the issue in Sydney has caught everyone's attention and earned Henson more online coverage.)

The City of Melbourne claims they pulled the artwork because it does not "fit in with the purpose of the arts grant program, which was to show the lives of young artists in Ho Chi Minh City", and that "legal assessment had also indicated it might infringe trademark and copyright provisions". The main criticism of the Council's interference and censorship in art was that the Council, under Mayor John So, is very sensitive of criticisms of China and actively stifles criticism of China's human rights record, and is sensitive to highly political art in the first place. There is some merit to this argument, based on the Council's track record, and this is cause enough to criticise the Council's political censorship of art.

What I can't help but wonder, though, is how on earth the Council assumed that Van Thanh Rudd's work would not be political, when his whole reputation as an 'activist artist' and his previous works speak for itself.

However, what really galls me is the assumptions the Council seems to have made about what an artist of Asian descent – Van Thanh's mother is Vietnamese – will or won't make art about. Reading between the lines, I think the council expected some insipid 'Joy Luck Club' inspired story of growing up Vietnamese in Australia, or 'returning to the mother country and seeing how my contemporaries live - culture clash' type experience being recorded in paint, and that just gets my goat.

It makes me sick that arts administrators, grant bodies, publishers and others still expect artists and writers of Asian descent to churn out such material for their own cultural expectations and market demands.

Artists and writers of Asian descent have just as much chance of creating highly political art works – or not – as any other culture workers from whatever backgrounds. Just as they are likely to continue memoirising their cross-cultural experiences, and tapping the rich political veins in Australia's migrant experience.

The City of Melbourne stands condemned for its political censorship of art, as well as its other recent censorship of art – whether because of public nudity or because the artist criticised one side or another in Middle-East conflicts.

If you wish to show Van Thanh your support, you can write to him, as i did this morning, via his website. You could also criticise the Council for its decision. And don't let this issue go away just because Henson's predicament as grabbed all the attention for now.


Labels: , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:48 pm   2 comments

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Bread and Roses – Happy May Day!

If you have a minute to down tools and look up from your work – whether paid or unpaid – for a minute, I urge you to perform at least one subtle act of resistance, or defiance, against that great yoke of human life – work – in celebration of today's international workers' holiday and moment for remembering labour struggles.

Of course, it isn't a holiday here in Victoria, Australia, because this state celebrates 'Labour Day' on another day that commemorates the start of the eight-hour day campaign in the 19th century. All the same, it is still important to pause and reflect on how workers across the world have traditionally celebrated our struggles for justice and our rights as workers. So I'm using this moment to have a cup of tea and quickly write this post – my small act of resistance against the sometimes overwhelming expectation to 'get the job done' before the end of the day.

Of course, May Day is still tied so intrinsically to the celebrations of various socialist, communist, anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist and various other democratic (or otherwise) versions of movements for revolutionary change. However differently they envisaged what they were changing, how they were to achieve the change, and what they wanted instead, they usually fiercely clung to the ideal of people across the world uniting in celebration of their struggles on this one day. Tonight, if things go as they predictably do on this day across the world, you will probably see footage of rallies turning into riots by anarchists in France or Socialists somewhere in South America, but before you go 'tut-tut, bloody commies' and write them off, do spare a thought for the fact that over 100 years since the early socialists started campaigning around food, land, freedom and dignity and liberty in labour, including around the slogans of bread and land, or my old favourite, 'bread and roses', the United Nations is warning us that we are entering one of the worst global food crises – putting the health, security and lives of millions of people at risk.

So no, capitalism hasn't solved world hunger after all.

Labels: , , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 4:41 pm   0 comments

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Fanning the fire

It is enlightening to see where the ACT government's priorities truly lie. Compare this quote (in The Age):
"The most important thing is the flame was never in danger, from start to finish, and that's an enormous credit to our federal police," [ACT government spokesman] Mr Lasek told Sky News.
With this (from the same news report):

"This gang of thugs rolled right through us and we had kids with us. My daughter was still shaking an hour later and is very quiet even now.

"I don't normally get angry but I am so angry right now."

I don't normally subscribe to the tendency to call protesters 'thugs' or like the media beat-up of any protest where altercations or scuffles occur, let alone where young children get harassed, but I can clearly understand where this father is coming from.

As the commotion grows over the behaviour of pro-China supporters rallying in support of the Olympic torch relay, and the inevitable comparisons are made with Tibetan and pro-Tibet rights protesters, I just want to point out that the ACT government and the Federal and ACT police apparently made their priority the safety of the Olympic flame, rather than the people who attended the relay, or who protested against China's human rights record in Tibet and in the Peoples Republic, or who came to rally in support of China's prestige and honour.

Apparently, as reported in that same news item,
A "relieved but elated" ACT government spokesman Jeremy Lasek said despite the arrests, the relay had been a "raging success".
I cannot accept a law-an-order approach that puts a higher priority on a bloody flame – however imbued with symbolism and spun with a web of political propaganda as it is – over people.

As far as I'm concerned, no fire is more sacred than the fire in children. I'd like to think that some of those in our state, territory and federal governments would appreciate that.

Oh, by the way, another observation. Just as not all Chinese protesters behaved like this, and not all people in China are like this, not all Tibetans are the Dalai Lama (just as not all Catholics are the Pope, surprisingly). Some Tibetans (and their supporters) want to take action, including direct action, to highlight and protest the injustices in their homeland, such as stand in the path of an Olympic torch bearer, heckle, protest loudly, or stand silently carrying a protest banner.

The father in the incident said that he just wanted to show his daughter 'the meaning of peaceful demonstration'.
"We were just a small group of people basically exercising our right, our responsibility to say 'We don't think this is correct'," he said.

Labels: , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:45 pm   0 comments

Friday, April 18, 2008

Have you been paying attention to this 2020 thing?

I have been trying to pay attention to Rudd's 2020 Summit, but the flood of media coverage is hard to keep up with it. I've had to keep abreast of some – small – part of the issues for work, but even that is hard.

From what I can gauge, it appears that there are at least a couple of camps on it (probably many more). One camp seems to think it is a waste of time because it is either a spin-fest by Rudd's Labor government and lacks substance, or because it is just a talk-fest and nothing concrete will emerge from it.

Another camp thinks it is a great opportunity for people with good ideas, ranging from specialists to generalists, to openly discuss what could work best to put Australia on a good track for the next 20 years and beyond – whether that's in tackling global warming, social inequality, Indigenous disadvantage, or making machines that go ping more efficiently.

A significant number of commentators are straddled somewhere between the two responses - and I haven't made up my mind over whether this is fence sitting, or just the nature of critical thinking in an time and ethos suspicious of political spin. Or maybe because I'm somewhere in the middle on this too.

What about you?

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:09 pm   3 comments

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Should we boycott the Beijng Olympics?

I think it is time to revisit the call to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

Various groups and campaigns have called for public boycotts of the Beijing Olympics, because attending the Olympics would be seen as turning a blind eye to the Chinese Government's domestic human rights abuses, and its role in the human rights abuses of other regimes. Foremost amongst these have been those campaigning for human rights and freedom in Tibet.

Reporters Without borders has information on the campaign to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

Not long ago, I supported the boycott call as a way to highlight how the Burmese military dictatorship is supported by China – in terms of political support, international legitimacy and trade dollars – and to pressure the Chinese to drop their endorsement of the Burmese regime, thus allowing the Burmese democracy movement room to breath.

More recently came the news that Steven Spielberg, following the example of other Hollywood celebrities, had pulled out of his involvement in the Beijing Olympics because many argued that such involvement was seen as an endorsement of the Chinese government – which was unacceptable in light of the Chinese's continuing arms sales to the Sudanese government, and how those arms are used to oppress the people of Dafur, and other minorities in Southern Sudan.

Now, according to ABC Radio 774 AM this morning, Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett has called for an Australian boycott of the Beijing Olympics because of China's brutal crackdown of protesters in Tibet who are highlighting China's brutal treatment of Tibetans in their homeland.

Now, you can consider how realistic a boycott of the Olympic Games would be – considering Rudd's attitude towards China, it is not surprising that Australia has rejected the call for an official boycott of the Games. Nor can we expect enough pressure to mount in this short time for other countries to formally boycott the games. In these changed geo-politics, we won't see the tit-for-tat Cold War tactics that led to the official Moscow and Los Angeles Games boycotts.

Howevever, in light of the brutal crackdown on Tibetan rights protesters, we must not allow China to once again brush off insipid international criticism and the UN's glacial, byzantium manouverings of registering its 'concerns'.

The fact is, China will put on a multi-billion dollar pageant for the world in only a few months – in the guise of an international sporting competition – that will be a huge propaganda exercise to show a modern, stable, prosperous, peaceful – and unified – China. And we should not buy it. Literally.

In an age of consumer awareness and growing public consciousness, and the tools available to us, the possibilities of a consumer boycott of the Games are stronger. Don't go to Beijing for the Olympics, and if you, like me, can't afford to travel to China anyway to watch the Games, don't buy Olympics merchandise associated with the Beijing Olympics.

You can write lots of letters, emails and faxes to your Chinese embassy telling them this is how you feel and what you are doing, and write similar letters to your local papers, mention it on talk-back radio, and leave such comments on blogs and online forums (as long as they are relevant to the topic, of course – I wouldn't endorse off-topic comment spam!).

You can tell your friends and family – especially if you know of people who are inclined to buy the inevitable sports clothes, tracksuit pants, predictable panda bear mascot and other paraphernalia emblazoned with the Beijing Olympics branding that we know will be made cheaply in Chinese factories with poor working conditions – that you don't want any of this stuff for either yourself or your kids (if you are parents), and why you think they should join you in boycotting it.

It worked with delegitimising South Africa's Apartheid regime, and it can work with China.

Let's not let China's regime off the hook for its deplorable human rights record.

[The image is of Tibetan monks who were beaten by Chinese security forces during the recent brutal crackdown on protests, from the ABC]

Labels: , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 1:03 pm   5 comments

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Small joys in life

Coalition crumbles, leaderless and lamenting
It is this title of Michelle Grattan's article in today's Age that sums up why I'm feeling so pleased today, despite suffering a cold that won't let go its giant-squid tentacle grip on me, really bad hay-fever over the weekend away, and various other physical vestiges from the wedding.

And being able to read blogs, and write, again.

Makes up for the knife-edge wait to see if Victoria gets its first Greens senator, and whether the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 11:52 am   1 comments

Thanks, Bennelong!

As I'd previously said, we were away for a wedding on the weekend (Congratulations Andrea and Liam!), and so I wasn't able to blog the election results as they became evident. That has not stopped me from being incredibly pleased with the result!

I did a naughty thing at the wedding celebration, held in the garden of A & L's new home: I brought a little portable radio along, and from about 5.30 pm on, after the polling booths had closed in the Eastern states (with daylight savings!), I would occasionally duck off to a quiet spot and check ABC Radio 774 AM to see what the news was.

It was not so much excruciating, as a test in patience. As the evening progressed, I would dampen my enthusiasm by reminding myself that exit polls "have a checkered history" as the ABC reported, that with only 20-odd per cent of the vote counted it was too early to see a swing, that the WA polling booths were still open, that while Howard could possibly lose his seat, the count could change when they started counting from booths from more conservative suburbs etc etc.

It was only after over 50% of the vote had been counted did I dare believe that Labor had truly won the election. And even then, it I felt a bit numb.

But I couldn't dare believe that Howard lost Bennelong - even after one of the wedding guests returned in the evening to announce that news, to everyone's joy, I went to double-check with the ABC on radio, and they wouldn't call it, as it was so very close!

Three days later, they still won't call it. However close the result, I am very thankful to the people of Bennelong (well, 51.7% of them), who voted against John Howard in favour of Labor's Maxine McKew. If Howard really loses Bennelong, this will be only the second time in Australia's history that a serving Prime Minister has lost his seat in an election!

I'm disappointed that by the time we left the party, got back to our rented cottage, got the sleeping kids out of the car and into bed, and turned the TV on, I had missed Howard's concession speech (saw the tail end of him making his exit through the crowd). At least I caught Rudd's 'victory' speech – probably the only upside to Queensland not having daylight savings. But I agree with Barista - it was a rather pedestrian speech. Nothing to write home about, really. And Barista's right about the fact that election night belonged to the Labor women.

What made up for it all is that we came home on Sunday afternoon to the front page of the Sunday Age with this headline:
Rudd romps to historic win as Howard is humiliated
I think I'll frame that.

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 11:42 am   3 comments

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Election 102 – or 'Don't hold your breath'

Okay. It's two days to go and I've laid my cards on the table and shown how I want a change in government – mainly because I believe we need a change in the country.

But don't get me wrong. I am under no illusions over what an ALP government can or will achieve in these issues. For all Kevin Rudd's talk of 'New Leadership', the ALP still supports mandatory detention of undocumented asylum seekers, and sees itself as a party that can wage war against terrorists, whether in Afghanistan or Southeast Asia, rather than make peace with the poor. Kevin Rudd supported the government's NT Intervention in Aboriginal communities, and their treatment of Dr Haneef, and while Rudd's policy on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is far better than Howard's, it falls short of what is urgently required now.

I am also under no illusions because I remember how much I hated the Keating ALP government when it was in power. Admittedly, I was younger, more radical in my politics, and heavily involved in the education campaigns of the day – against Keating's HECS increases, moves to replace Austudy with a loan scheme, and the bottom-line driven underfunding of universities. I also opposed the Keating ALP government's collaboration with the Suharto regime over Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, the ALP's support for the PNG government's war in Bourganville, and Hawke's support for the first Gulf War.

It is amazing what my memory can dredge up when I bring my mind to it.

I vividly remember how much my friends – especially fellow activists – and I hated the way the 'lawyer-dominated', right-wing of the ALP so profoundly controlled the party and federal government, and how we detested the economic-rationalist zealotry of the '80s-'90s that changed this country in a mean-spirited, money-grubbing, bean-counting way. Does that sound familiar to you? Deregulation and free trade meant thousands of manufacturing workers losing their jobs, and why you can barely find a wool jumper made in Australia in the shops these days. Or anything else made in Australia that isn't designer-, boutique-, or hand-made, for that matter. We also saw the deregulated finance sector squeezing low-income people where it hurt – with account keeping fees and increasing transaction fees.

It was 'economic rationalism' in the early 90s. How different will it be from Rudd's 'economic conservatism' of today?

We witnessed (with mockery, mind you) how lefty and union ALP members and supporters shook their head in disbelief and waited for the day when the their beloved party would forsake its right-wing capitalist turn and return to its roots. Hah. Do you see that happening under Rudd's economic conservativism?

Why am I saying any of this is now? After all, there is an almost palpable fear amongst those who want to see Howard defeated that if we were to speak the truth about what we fear of Rudd's ALP, that the spell will break and Howard will not be defeated. There is a belief that Rudd is only saying what he needs to to get into power – hence his 'Me Too'-ism – and then everything will change and come out all right after the election. And there will be a return to the ALP long hoped for by the True Believers. And milk and honey will flow down the Yarra.

You could say that the nation waits with baited breath, for the massive change to come under Rudd. But I don't. We will probably let out a collective sigh of relief. But then the hard work of rebuilding will come. And, for all his talk of education and infrastructure revolutions, I think Rudd is an incrementalist, rather than a revolutionary.

That is why I've come to the opinion that who holds the balance of power in the Senate will be more crucial that we think. Whoever does so will have the power to push through stronger responses to climate change than the government is prepared for, to temper cost cutting so that it doesn't hurt the disadvantaged, to to insist on more far-reaching changes to the industrial relations regime, and to ensure we don't turn to nuclear power at the expense of renewable energies. And of course on the range of other matters I raised when I expressed why and how I believe this country needs to change.

When I've raised this with friends and colleagues, I'm greeted with 'The House of Reps is what matters', or 'Oh, no, it's not a shoe-in, the ALP is not guaranteed government,' and 'Now's not the time to be voting Greens!'.

But I think many people do get it - perhaps far more deeply than I do, and more realistically. It would explain, for one, the financial and moral support some trade unions are offering the Greens for this election.

I admit that a return to power for the Howard government, or a Costello government if Howard loses his seat or retires, will be devastating for Australia – and the world, if Australia fails to support the development of a credible, viable international agreement to stop global warming.

And, while I'm not convinced that a Rudd government will bring us the groundswell of social, political and economic change and renewal that this country needs, I do believe that a growing majority of people sincerely do want that change – that they're not just toying with a change of government because they're bored with Howard. This is something that the media commentators have not given voters credit for.

But it is a question of when people will start being disheartened with a Rudd labor government not fulfilling the hopes of people (rather than the promises they've made, which are pretty slim so far…) for the change we seek.

And then we will see the first disagreements with the new government – over how far they're prepared to dismantle WorkChoices, how far they are prepared to cut greenhouse gas emissions, how soon they will bring the troops home from Iraq, and whether they will support more asylum seekers to settle (without trauma) in Australia. And that's also when we see the Senate, and those who will hold the balance of power, come into play.

I'm not sure which will be the first major, defining fight that will end the (hypothetically future) Rudd honeymoon – the split between the unions and (hypothetically future) Rudd government over Workchoices, or the split with the green movement over greenhouse gas emissions and the Bali negotiations. But it will come.

And then hopefully, we'll more and more come to realise that we – each of us, individually and together – will have to make the change we want, and not just proxy it to our government.

Labels: , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 4:58 pm   0 comments

Election 101 - or why we need a change

Regular readers would have no doubt about how I feel about John Howard and the Coalition government. You would think though that with this election bearing down on us, I would have written a lot more about it than I have. Perhaps it's just exhaustion – by the time the 'real' election campaign took over from the 'fake' campaigning, I was pretty much sick of it all.

That hasn't stopped me from following what I can in the news, especially ABC radio most mornings, some online reporting and the weekend papers. In all I've been digesting what this election means to me. Not deliberating who should win government – I know full well who I don't want to form government. But more reflecting on what this election means for me, my family, and the kind of community and country I want to raise my sons in. What has spurred me to now write on the election so late in the piece is actually what John Howard has been saying of late.

In trying to scare people over the dangers of changing the government when, as he believes, his government has been running the country well all this time, Howard has been warning us that changing the government will change the country – as if that were such a terrible thing!

I do what this country to change! In a fundamental, profound way.

I believe that the decade of Howard government has changed this country, and as I struggled to express how and why I think so, I find that Pavlov's Cat has already done a fine job of expressing it:
But we've now had eleven straight years of a government that has stayed in power by shamelessly playing to our weaknesses and our worse natures: self-interest, literal-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, fear and greed. And after eleven years of fear and greed being indulged, reinforced and rewarded by policies (and their accompanying rhetoric) in, especially, economics and immigration, you have to worry about what it's done to us as a people: positive reinforcement is a powerful thing, for better or worse. We all take it for granted that it is we who create the government, but that relation is actually a complex two-way street, involving the re-calibration of personal assumptions and the re-setting of social norms.

I believe that Australia is at a tipping point – after over a decade of 'head-in-the-sand' denial and inaction overy global warming by Howard, we cannot afford for Australia's government to drag its feet on real action on global warming. The next three years – not decade as I've previously thought – is when we must make the necessary changes to our economic, consumption, and social practices to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

We must stop the Howard government from prevaricating over our need to wheen ourselves from carbon-dependency and hamstringing renewable energy in order to shore up their mates in the coal and fossil fuel industry. We must also stop global warming being the excuse to unleash the nuclear power genie.

After a decade of the Howard government, Indigenous life expectancy is 17 years lower than the rest of Australia. Life expectancy (and other well-being markers) amongst indigenous peoples in Canada, USA and New Zealand has improved – why not Australia? This government has derailed Reconciliation and Indigenous self-determination, and allowed this situation to worsen.

On top of that, it has undermined the Racial Discrimination Act and the Northern Territory Land Rights Act to pursue its pig-headed, machismo Northern Territory Intervention – which is simply another attack on Aboriginal self-determination, something it has been chipping away at since it came to power.

When the news that the Navy had rescued some people from a leaky boat of the Western Australian coast, I was concerned for a moment that we would witness another Tampa – that the government would finally have its dog-whistling moment to finally wedge the Rudd Labor Opposition and win back voters through a fear of the Asian invasion, the Muslim menace or terrible terrorist. Thankfully, that hasn't quite happened.

For all the talk of economic conservatives, interest rates and budget surpluses, I still believe that this election will be an accounting of how the Howard government has treated asylum seekers, especially their mandatory detention in god-forsaken desert concentration camps, curtailed our rights and freedoms in the name of the war on terrorism, and marginalised the Muslim, African and Asian communities. And let's not forget the fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction and the war in Iraq.

Despite the Howard government's much lauded economic credentials and the celebrated economic 'prosperity', Australia has become more unequal in significant ways. More young people, low income earners and first home buyers are locked out of home ownership. Australians owe far more today on credit cards and personal debt, which suggests to me that people are struggling financially. Despite lower than historical interest rates, households are paying more of their incomes in interest weekly repayments. And this on top of the increased insecurity, disadvantage, inequality and tension in workplaces since WorkChoices came in! Let's make economy work for us, not the other way around!

This election not just about making government accountable and answerable to the people of Australia. It is not just about who can reign-in the increasing cost of living, or who can help making housing more affordable for those of us locked out of buying our own homes one – although these are really important to many of us right now.

It is about ensuring there we tackle the urgent crisis of globbal warming, that our future is not of a parched, burned land with dwindling biodiversity, and neighbouring nations who have the seas lashing at their doorsteps.

This election is about the change we need. It is about the kind of future we want for our children.

[Image is one of mine (cc) used earlier this year]

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 3:05 pm   0 comments

Monday, October 08, 2007

Science will not set us free – or why approving the Tasmanian pulp mill is wrong

The federal government's decision to back the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania's Tamar Valley is wrong.

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull's justification to support the pulp mill based on the 'science' of the Chief Scientist's report and recommendation is just hiding political expediency behind the 'black and white' of science. By claiming that the 'science' has 'spoken' is just hiding a wrong decision behind a flimsy excuse. Opposition Environment spokesperson Peter Garret's and the ALP's similar justification for their support for the Minister's decision is no better!

For one, the Chief Scientist's analysis was lopsided and narrow! How can he on the one hand advise the government that Australia needs to plant more trees to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop global warming, and on the other hand support the development of a pulp mill that will directly result in logging more trees than is sustainable? This kind of 'single-issue' science is blinkered and not only fails to consider the big picture, but is highly politic!

Further, the Chief Scientist did not consider the impact of the pulp mill on air quality or on the forests. How can his advice be taken at face value as providing a whole picture on the environmental impact of the mill?

More importantly, we cannot rely on science alone to justify or inform our actions. Especially as science does not actually work on certainties, but on levels of risk. Rather than being able to categorically state that the conditions placed on the mill shall make it 'safe', scientists rely instead on what are acceptable levels of of pollution, toxin, or danger to the environment and people – ie what are 'acceptable' levels of risk. Why offer us the false certainty of 'science' without being honest to us about the levels of risk scientists are prepared to accept – on our behalf?

In all, science should only help to guide our decisions, not dictate them. In the final analysis, the basis of the decision should be 'is this the right thing?'

Is this pulp mill the right thing for protecting forests, or reducing greenhouse gases? Is this pulp mill the right thing for the marine environment in the Bass Strait, or fisheries that rely on it? Is this pulp mill the right thing for ensuring the the viability of local sustainable fisheries against imported cheap fish and prawns from unsustainable fisheries and aquaculture elsewhere?

Is this pulp mill the right thing for protecting the health and safety of the residents in the Tamar Valley, or the growing food, wine, tourism and related industries there? Is this pulp mill the right thing for protecting Aboriginal heritage and supporting Aboriginal people's continued connection to the land, including their food collecting and cultural practices in that area?

On these and many more factors, the pulp mill is NOT the right thing. The federal government's decision to support the mill, and the ALP's support for it, is WRONG, and the claim of 'world's best practice' for the mill is a flimsy veil of deception. We should not let short-sighted political gain win over our capacity to think and do what is the right thing.

In this case, the right thing is to stop the pulp mill.

If you want to help do this, you can sign the petition against the mill at Get Up Australia, who say it is not too late to change this because "Nationwide opposition has forced the Federal Environment Minister to allow ten days of public comment before making his final decision."

Of course, the other thing people can do is put this issue on the agenda for the federal election: this has the chance to shift some of the polls-driven obsession with the lower house to some much needed attention on the Senate, and who will hold the balance of power there!

Labels: , , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 2:36 pm   0 comments

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Free Burma!


Free Burma!


Also, Avaaz.org's online petition for Burma has passed half a million, but they still want the full million ASAP! Things are getting worse in Burma, and the Burmese democracy movement needs all the help we can give them. You can sign the petition and see the advertisements they will publish in print press internationally here.

Labels: , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 10:05 am   1 comments

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

So, should we now boycott the BBC?

It's one of those freaks of timing: the day I raised the possibility of including Lonely Planet guides in a boycott of companies profiting from the Burmese military dictatorship, the sale of the publishing house to BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm of the BBC) has increased the spotlight on Lonely Planet for their support of tourism in Burma.

The publishers of the world-famous travel guides have defended their support of tourism in Burma by insisting that they make their feelings about the Burmese military junta quite clear to their readers, and encourage them (as potential tourists to Burma) to think through their decision to visit the country.

It is clear, however, that their guide encourages tourism in Burma, in contravention of an international boycott of such tourism and commercial dealings in Burma – called for by democracy and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (amongst others).

While such tourism has been defended as allowing people to discover for their selves what's going on in Burma and help the people, others such as Britain's Burma Campaign have argued strongly that tourism directly benefits the junta, and is intimately tied to their repression of the population:
Burma's military regime has identified tourism as a vital source of income and it is working hard to develop the industry. According to the Ministry of Tourism, its top two objectives in developing tourism are to generate foreign exchange earnings and attract foreign investment. Compared to its neighbours, Burma's tourism industry may be small but it is still earning a cash strapped regime millions of dollars every year.
…
in Burma many human rights abuses are directly connected to the regime's drive to develop the country for tourists. Throughout Burma men, women and children have been forced to labour on roads, railways and tourism projects; more than one million people have been forced out of their homes in order to 'beautify' cities, suppress dissent, and make way for tourism developments, such as hotels, airports and golf courses.
So, I'm wondering now if a boycott of companies profiting from Burmese dictatorship should be extended to the BBC's commercial activities? Does that mean that I should refrain from buying the previous season of Dr Who on DVD? Darn. What would The Doctor do?

Well, if principles and ethical buying didn't make our choices challenging – even difficult – it wouldn't be so interesting, would it?

On another note, thanks to a commenter here this morning, we've learned that bloggers who support democracy in Burma are encouraged to join in the International day of Blogger action to free Burma on 4 October. You can do this by posting a banner from the Free Burma blog campaign on your blog.

Labels: , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 11:58 am   0 comments

Monday, October 01, 2007

1 million signatures needed to help stop things getting worse in Burma

The Burmese generals have used terrible violence to stop the democracy protesters in Burma, but reports indicate that the democracy movement's resolve is holding – and so must ours in supporting them.

Avaaz.org is calling calling on supporters to tell all their friends about their online campaign so that they can reach their target of 1 million signing their petition!
Burma's generals have brought their brutal iron hand down on peaceful monks and protesters -- but in response, a massive global outcry is gathering pace. The roar of global public opinion is being heard in hundreds of protests outside Chinese and Burmese embassies, people round the world wearing the monks' color red, and on the internet-- where our petition has exploded to over 200,000 signers in just 72 hours.

People power can win this. Burma's powerful sponsor China can halt the crackdown, if it believes that its international reputation and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing depend on it. To convince the Chinese government and other key countries, Avaaz is launching a major global and Asian ad campaign on Wednesday, including full page ads in the Financial Times and other newspapers, that will deliver our message and the number of signers. We need 1 million voices to be the global roar that will get China's attention.

If you're wondering what else – direct and ongoing – you can do besides signing the online petition, there is a range of things. More solidarity protests are coming up across the world, with the international campaign for democracy in Burma (based in the UK) calling for an international day of action for Burma for 6 October. Details of these and Australian protests (4 October in Sydney, Melbourne details TBC) are on Avaaz.org's Burma campaign page (scroll down). If you, like me, missed the protests around Australian capitals last Thursday, please make an effort to go along to the next lot.

The UK based Campaign for Human Rights and Democracy in Burma also has excellent coverage of the issues and events – both of the protests in Burma and actions in the EU and UN to support the protesters.

Should we boycott?
Also, Phil at Veni Vidi Blogi has suggested a boycott of the Beijing Olympics to increase pressure on China – Burma's main supporter, and seen as a sure avenue to pressure the junta to back off from increased violence. While I agree with a boycott that pressures the Chinese, I do wonder if a Beijing Olympics boycott is too far off to garner the necessary attention and immediacy needed now. But perhaps the effectiveness of such a boycott lies in people talking about and threatening it now.

That's why I think any boycott should also target the Burmese regime and other companies that profit from operating in Burma.

For many years in the 90s, tertiary Student Unions in Australia boycotted a certain soft-drink company because it had bottling operations in Burma. Now, we're not just talking about student activists not buying the drinks. This was a highly organised ban of the affected brand's vending machines, sponsorship of events and cross-promotional activities on campuses. Also, the relatively recent widespread boycott and ILO campaign against Triumph bras for their operations in Burma were also very successful – Triumph pulled out of Burma as a result.

Perhaps this will re-open that nasty old wound of Lonely Planet guides publishing their travel guide to Burma in defiance of a long standing boycott of tourism in the country. The UK's Burma campaign has more on that boycott here.

If you want to think more about boycotting or writing in protest against companies doing business with the military junta in Burma, there is a list of such companies here, but it's unclear how current the info is.

There a whole range of photos of protesters in Burma at this site, including of those shot and injured (I'm posting a link instead of posting a photo for copyright reasons) – take a look, but I'm cautioning that some of the photos are quite disturbing.

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 12:40 pm   0 comments

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Support the democracy movement in Burma

Burmese Buddhist monks and students are once again at the forefront of democracy protests against the military junta in Burma, and they need our help.

What started out as a protest march by monks and nuns calling for controls on rising fuel prices snowballed over the week into an open protest march against the junta, with thousands of protesters reported to be marching through Rangoon.

Avaaz.org is running an international online petition to garner UN support for the Burmese democracy protests. They were concerned that the Burmese military would start cracking down on the monks' protest march, and wanted urgent international support and action:
After decades of military dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising – and they need our help. Marches begun by monks and nuns have snowballed, bringing hundreds of thousands to the streets. Now crackdown threatens.
…
But last Tuesday Buddhist monks and nuns, overwhelmingly respected in Burma, began marching and chanting prayers. The protests spread--now they're growing by tens of thousands every day, as ordinary people, even celebrities and comedians join in. They've broken the chains of fear and given hope to 52 million Burmese.

However, this hope is hanging by a thread. While hesitating to attack the respected monks, the regime is reported to be organising violence. Demonstrators have already been beaten, shots have been fired.
Now it appears the crackdown has started, with news breaking that 80 monks and protesters have been arrested as the military used teargas and beat protesters to break up the march.

Now, an online petition may be little succor to protesters being hit on the head with batons and tear-gassed, but I believe that international pressure against the Burmese military junta could stop the beatings from turning into an all-out massacre, but only if we also force our own governments to take a strong stance – rather than one of appeasement – against the junta.

You can sign Avaaz.org's petition and spread the word here.

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:12 pm   2 comments

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Labor and Coalition pass citizenship test bill through Senate

"The federal Senate has approved the federal government's new Australian citizenship test, requiring applicants to correctly answer questions on the country's history, geography, government and traditions.

On the first day of the last sitting period before the election is called, the upper house yesterday approved the citizenship exams with some minor government amendments."
The National Indigenous Times has the AAP's story online today.

The Democrats and Greens opposed the test, with Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett calling it a throwback to the "cultural cringe". I'm inclined to agree with Bartlett's assessment that "a large waste of money and a bit of light entertainment every now and then for the media to run some of the test questions ... against your so-called average Australian in shopping malls." Or blogs, for that matter.

But I believe the real danger of the citizenship test is how it attempts to codify Australian culture, heritage, values and history and etch them into stone – to be rote learned, tested and passed like a boy Scout being tested for his knowledge of the Scout Law. This undermines our capacity as people living in this country to treat, contribute to, relate with and even contest how we understand the cultures in this land, and the values we aspire to, and what our history tells us about our past and ourselves.

And, of course, the greater danger of the citizenship test – what it was designed to do – is its capacity to exclude people who've lived in this country from participating in all the rights of citizenship – something Bartlett also warns about. It is apparent though that the ALP just don't get it.

Any yardstick for social, cultural and political inclusion – and thus exclusion – in Australia will always be necessarily fraught with contention and dangerous, and should be opposed. In light of this news, Barista's recent post on the citizenship test is worth revisiting.

[Image of Newspaper Rock from www.davejenkins.com via Wikipedia under a GFD License.]

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 1:45 pm   0 comments

Monday, September 03, 2007

The Wall

I've just heard the news that some German tourists were ordered by New South Wales police to delete their tourists photos of the security fence erected in Sydney as part of the security measures around the APEC leaders' summit there.

I can't believe how ridiculous the police are getting over this! Their explanation for this measure – one they plan to enforce more widely – was that they didn't want protesters to be taking photos of the security fence, or 'The Wall' as Sydneysiders are calling it, for 'reconnaissance' purposes. Police claim that protesters are carrying out this 'recco' to find weaknesses in the fence that they can target in order to break through and disrupt the APEC meeting.

While I have no idea whether the protesters would want to carry out such scouting or even want to break through the cordon, I think the police ban on photos of The Wall is ridiculous and futile because, in this time of quick and easy communication via the internet and mobile phone, the photos are already out there and there's no way the police can stop them!

When I first read the news, I immediately wondered how many photos of The Wall and other security measures have already been posted on flickr or other websites, sharing tools and blogs. A quick search shows that there's a flickr group for photos relating to APEC's Sydney meeting, including shots of the fence and security measures around the summit. Although it only had 30 photos as of time of posting, I'm sure it will grow. There are heaps more photos on flickr, as a search of the combination of the tags APEC, Sydney, security and protests will reveal.

But I'm also angry that police should be stopping people from taking photos of what is so clearly visible to the public, and in the public domain. It is such an overreaction by the police, but more importantly a dangerous limitation on our freedoms – to observe, document, report and broadcast on the actions of the state. I think it is important to kick-up a fuss on such things, otherwise the next thing we'll find is police trying to stop – on similarly baseless arguments – legal observers and other witnesses to police actions against protesters from taking photos, documenting police actions and compiling evidence for possible future complaints of police assault or misconduct.

That is why I'm publishing the photo of The Wall here – an act of defiance and protest. Let's see the police trying to ask blogger, flickr, and a host of others to remove this photos from the internet! It's the least I can do all these miles away here in Melbourne.

[Image of the security fence by mpesce (cc) of flickr]

Labels: , , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 6:08 pm   4 comments

Monday, April 30, 2007

He's not a rock star anymore

Did you see it coming when he announced his preselction for Labor? After twenty-odd years of opposing uranium mining, including supporting the nuclear disarmament party before it imploded, Peter Garret now promises to tow the Australian Labor Party's new line supporting the expansion of uranium mining.

All in aid of party unity behind Kevin Rudd.

The Labor Party's cheer squad, also known as the ALP National Conference, was taking great pains to paint Kevin Rudd as 'their glorious leader', and fell over themselves to display their support for him - something they hadn't been very good at the last five years. After knifing their last three parliamentary leaders, it was necessarily for the ALP to show they could unit unite behind Rudd as leader and alternate prime minister, and thus are fit to govern Australia.

Beside the industrial relations policy, central to this nascent expression of unity was Rudd's move to reverse the ALP's 25-year-old three mines policy, which restricted uranium mining in Australia to the three existing mines. Determined to win the vote, the ALP fixers reportedly heavied anti-uranium delegates to proxy their votes to those sympathetic to Rudd's stance.

Realising the extent of unease the vote was creating and that, however, Rudd's cheer squad singled out those who may have expressed reservations or adverse opinions, but chose to tow the party line.

Peter Garret was one of those touted as being a 'team player', and obligingly rolled over and played dead with Rudd over uranium. Julian Gillard took great pains to talk up both his environmental credentials and his party loyalty to the press today, saying that while he 'forcefully' expressed his views opposing uranium at the conference, he accepts the decision:
"But Peter has also said, as a Labor member, that he understands that it's about decision making across the team."
On the other hand, Anthony Albanese, formerly Labor's Environment spokesperson and Left faction stalwart, and one of the few to publicly reject expanding uranium mining in Australia and openly oppose Rudd's changes, was vilified at the Conference for doing so.

Rudd won his vote – narrowly.

While it disgusts me that mining companies will be rubbing their hands with glee, what troubles me more is that this great exercise of party unity is leaving me cold. How far will this go? Will there still be room for mavericks (crazy and otherwise) in the ALP, or those with more than a drop of conscience for environmental, human rights and refugee issues?

I expect Howard's Liberal Party to be highly centralised around him calling all the shots, and struggling to deal with dissidents such as Petro Giorgiou over issues such as refugee rights and citizenship.

I'd hate to think that Rudd's ALP will go the same way. But, if last weekend's conference is anything to go by, it just may. Anything to win an election, eh?

[Image by rakkar (cc) ]

Labels: , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:13 pm   3 comments

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Global warming online action in Australia

The local twist on Avaaz.org's campaign for government action on global warming is from Australian online campaigning group GetUp! Australia. They've also been running an online campaign to get global warming action on the Australian government's agenda.

Their latest tack is to get people to write to their federal Australian Labor Party MPs and Senators to pressure the ALP to take adopt policies that seriously tackle global warming. This is timely, as Kevin Rudd is convening a National Climate Change Summit in Canberra this Saturday. GetUp says:
The next government of Australia can and must take immediate, practical steps to reverse global warming. That's why GetUp's Five Point Action Agenda calls on the next Federal Parliament of Australia to:

1) Ratify Kyoto and commit to 30 % reduction of greenhouse gases emissions by 2020
2) Introduce an emissions trading scheme with significant caps on carbon emissions
3) Lead a green energy revolution to slash our vast amounts of energy waste
4) Make renewable energy law, with a 12% legislated electricity target from renewable energy by 2012
5) Invest in a public transport system fit for the 21st century
The ALP is also gearing up for its National Conference – its main internal policy forum – in the lead up to the federal election this year.

Also good timing because Nicholas Sterne, is in Australia, and will meet Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and PM John Howard. Sterne, author of the report, The Sterne Review, on the impact of global warming on the world economy, warned there would be a massive bill unless urgent action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions. According to ABC News Online,
He will be urging the Federal Government and the Opposition to take the lead in setting targets to cut emissions and put a price on carbon.

His report … also recommends countries like Australia convert to solar and wind energy now and push ahead with new technologies to tackle global warming.
You can write your ALP representative via the GetUp campaign website.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Read more!

posted by Mark Lawrence @ 5:07 pm   1 comments