TITHONUS' DIARY!!
New - Archives - Profile - Notes - Email - Design - Diaryland |
|
and again Ok, I promise this diary isn't going to turn into one of those link-collection things, but the point I wanted to make with that last entry has really been made much more effectively by Robert Manne, and so I present his article on the subject here. - Sometimes when thinking about political issues, I think to myself, well, I'm on the left, "they" are on the right, we have our arguments and they have theirs, and while I obviously think that "our" arguments are better, anyone can be wrong, it doesn't pay to be too self-righteous... it's like it's a game, or a debate at university, you know? I try to be polite, reasonable, to make my points directly and clearly but without allowing myself to get washed up in those warm-to-hot feelings of solidarity based on a hatred of "them", because... where does that lead? You know, how many people have their mind changed by some spittle-flecked rant about the evils of industrial capitalism? So... I try to be restrained. But this, this just makes me so fucking angry. The privatisation of public utilities or the idiotic notion that government is always too "big" are things I can talk about calmly, clinically... but this makes me angry because it's just fucking evil. My government, my country... with the support, sad to say, of the majority of my "fellow" Australians, are subjecting little children to conditions that anyone with any human sympathy at all would immediately perceive are utterly humane, and why? What reason do they give? - "The HREOC report argues that all children who remain in detention should be released within four weeks and that the legislation permitting long-term detention of children should be repealed. In response, the minister claims that this would send a "message" to the people smugglers that Australia is once again open to their pernicious trade." - This argument is a) thoroughly stupid and b) profoundly immoral and c) GAAAARGHHH!!!! - Look, there's no point in me arguing the case here, but I can't help myself. Consider this: suppose I were to take a random child off the street, let us say it is a beautiful, angelic-faced little girl of six, with golden curly hair and big blues eyes and a sweet smile that's so cute you just melt when you see it, and I were to make a film of myself hacking her arms off with an axe. Next, suppose that this film were to be displayed in every refugee camp everywhere in the world, with the subtitle "This is what the government does to children who seek asylum in Australia." Right. Now, suppose that this resulted in the rate of asylum seekers coming to Australia to drop to zero, forever. No refugee ever comes here ever again, because of what they've seen in this video. Ok, now, here's my question: would this result justify the mutilation of an innocent child? - Well, Ms Vanstone, would it? Or, could it be that actions which are manifestly immoral remain immoral regardless of the "message" that they send to whoever it is one wishes to send messages to? - No, I still feel just as angry. It didn't help at all. - "Grey's the colour of the pious" - Richard Thompson |
Previous / Next |