I’m feeling pretty gutted this afternoon. Having woken up to the news that Labor foreign affairs spokesperson, Robert McClelland, had stood up for a principled position on abolishing the death penalty, I was filled with a sudden feeling that maybe a Rudd Government would actually stand for something. Maybe they would make a real change from the current mob.
What a disappointment, then, this afternoon, when McClelland was pulled into line by his fearless leader, afraid of a few shadows and a nasty headline in the Australian.
I’ve long felt that John Howard and his ministers’ public stance on the death penalty has been one of the most damaging things they’ve done in government. Along with tacit support for Hansonism, their explicit support for execution undermines a long-held and cherished principle in Australia, as in almost all democratic countries, not to mention one enshrined in international law, that the death penalty is wrong
When the death penalty was abolished in Australia, it was abolished because of sustained public opposition, because it was abhorrent that we should stoop to the level of criminals ourselves. Now, by giving it respectability again, John Howard and his ministers have undermined the opposition to the death penalty that Australians long held dear. This is the kind of impact of the Howard years that it will take many years to overcome.
No matter how awful a crime has been committed, and certainly the Bali bombers committed a horrendous crime, it can never be right for the state to step in and take away the life of a citizen. Just as the array of security laws passed as part of the “war on terror” are taking us down the path we claim to be fighting against, killing a human being in the name of justice is inherently contradictory.
I’m proud, once again, today to be part of a party that stands up for what is right, on this as on so many other issues I hold dear.
[Tim Dunlop has a great post at Blogocracy expressing a similar view, by the way.]
UPDATE: Even more disappointed to hear McClelland’s statement being described on the TV news as a “gaffe”. No, it was a principled stance. Rudd is the one who made the gaffe.
[...] #3: Tim Hollo has a good post about this on [...]
are you surprised? rudd is in “lock step” with howard on so many issues, why shouldn’t this be any different. once again the greens show themselves to be the main party of ethical behavior, and not just realpolitik.
Ben, I guess I’m not surprised, but really disappointed. I thought McLelland’s speech was excellent and was, if anything, surprised to hear such a strong principled stand being taken by a senior frontbencher on such an issue. Came crashing to earth not long after, though…
Tim , after the last election, the suggestion was that Labor would need two terms to be back in the race. There are a lot of seats to catch up. If McLelland has to take a little stick for unfortunate timing, then, so be it. Hardly a time to give the Howard ghouls any opportunity or oxygen. They are desparate and will ‘try on’, anything.
I disagree, Joe2. McLelland was stating Labor policy, in this case a good principled position, at a forum on human rights in a week of events on the death penalty. If Rudd had stood by him, they could have looked strong and principled and made Howard and co look shrill and ridiculous. It would have been a real point of difference.
Instead, they’ve allowed Howard to frame this as a Labor gaffe, and Rudd and McLelland both have egg on their faces.
The proof of the puddings is just how gutless so many alp members are. They seem to enjoy the endles huliliation Rudd is dishing out - all for the sake of winning the election. Methinks a defeat for the alp could wel spell the destruction of its membership base. Good or bad for greens?? given the alp are our first political enemy.
I don’t think the ALP are our first political enemy at all, peter. But then neither do I think labor will lose this election…
“afraid of a few shadows and a nasty headline in the Australian.”
Tim, you may misunderstand the role of large monopolised media in this election. It is not just the GG that would have run with this supposed story. Rupperts evil children papers would have had a field day with this one, as well, if it had not been nipped in the bud.
Even Aunty runs with every Newscorp beatup, as if it was breaking news. In an even fielded campaign a debate about capital punishment would be contructive and informative. As it is, it would be used as tool for perpetuating Howards one party state. Cheers.
Its interesting that Rudd is just as fanatical about avoiding a wedge as Howard is about creating one. This is a “cat and the rat game”. Unfortunately, modern politics does not accommodate principles, morals or even ‘issues’.
Media profile, polls and focus groups are the only items of interest to both major parties.
So how much different will a Labor government be than the Howard government. But with Rudd taking the soft “go with Howard” option on several substantive issues (Pulp mill, indigenous intervention, even Work Choices) one has to wonder.
Just as well the Greens are running or one would be faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Yeah, the media, even the ABC now, seem to have no idea about what ‘news’ is. I thought it was something along the lines of an unbiased presentation of fact. Nowadays it seems anything is made into news, for example: new product releases and new t.v. programs.
Marketing and spin have taken over from substance and quality. It is good to have the greens available, but sad that most people are too scared to vote for other than labor or liberal in the lower house. If more of us did then there would be a real change for a while (until big business found it’s way to get money into the greens). I particularly am incensed at Rudd’s support of Howard’s soft line toward price fixing and their apparent acceptance of white collar crime as not that bad, just good citizens who made a mistake (yeah, they got caught), while blue collar crime involving violence and direct theft is seen as unpardonable and people who commit it are seen as un-reformable. At least Peter Costello still said he supports price fixing being made a criminal offence - one of his few saving graces - the other one being his brother.
There is certainly little to distinguish the current ALP small target platform from that of the Libs, barring some Industrial Relations issues. At the moment, however, this policy is working for Rudd, and so is likely to continue, as is his obsessive urge to avoid being wedged on any issue. Whether Albanese, Gillard, Macklin, Plibersek, George, Combet, Cameron et al will continue to be fobbed off in the event of an ALP victory is another matter, however …
and Joe2, several of your points require clarification:
- “large monopolised media” - monopolised in what way? Monopolised in the sense that we’ve seen the entry of 2-3 new major media owners in the past 6 months? and the new owners are also very different to the old proprietors in that their first priority is fixing the companies, exiting, and turning a profit, not pushing any idealogical barrow, which is more than you can say for the Green Left Weekly
- “Howard’s one party state” - a one party state in the sense that Labor has been a an unelectable rabble for the past decade? Blame the ALP on this one, not the party that the majority of Australians have placed their trust in
Please play the issues, not the man, and please don’t write as if its fact that Johnnie and Rupert together are the pinnacle of a vast right-wing conspiracy designed to keep for little Kevin out of power
Peter and Greg, isn’t it interesting, though, that some of the morning after coverage is coming back to the issue and shunting blame home to Rudd, not McLelland! Check out the Age, http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/metoo-policy-mess/2007/10/09/1191695909938.html, for example.
I was really heartened to hear Michelle Grattan on fran Kelly’s b’fast this morning effectively saying that Rudd turned what might have been considered a small ungainly step by McLelland into a major campaign gaffe by his mishandling of it. And why did he mishandle it? Because he is so damn afraid of the wedge that he’s gone and wedged himself.
I can only hope that you’re wrong, Greg, and that this mistake will make Rudd more aware of the dangers of his anti-wedge obsession and see the benefits of holding true on some issues.
I had one of those ‘where am I?’ moments when I saw the headlines thismorning, similar to the mandatory detention issue not so long ago. Both major parties scrambling to appear ‘tougher on terrorism’, regardless of the damage done.
Principled stance? Not in an election year. Thanks go to the minor parties for providing a difference.
If this new ALP is anything like the South Australian Rann government, which I suspect it will be, then we can expect a fairly conservative, moralistic, “tough on crime” government that is run by spin merchants.
It is not inspiring.
I contacted my local member, Kate Ellis, to find out their stand on mandatory detention - a black mark on Australia’s name personally - only to find it only varies little from that of the Government’s. Hence I am very happy to read the Green’s policy on mandatory detention, which is to abolish it.
As a displaced Aussie living in the US, it is awful to see an American-style shutdown of the discussion. The last thing Australian politics needs is to start avoiding taking a real stance on issues of substance - issues that require open and rigorous debate. While the timing of the statements *was* poor, the substance of them was not.
K-Rudd’s small target strategy really has me scratching my head as what Labor stand for. Both major parties seem to be saying - “we oppose the death penalty….but.”
This unprincipled style of politicking leaves me feeling cold; though in an environment where political discourse takes the form of dog whistling sound bites, I’m not really surprised.
The last time the death penalty raised it’s ugly head in this country, it heralded death not only for Ronald Ryan but for the Victorian Government, the phrase “I doubt Ronald Ryan ever meant to kill but I’m certain Henry Bolte did” has a chilling truth to it that echoes down the decades.
In the wake of the Bali bombings, it may be politically in vogue to give tacit approval to the Indonesian government’s use of the death penalty, but we must never forget, capital punishment is a poisoned chalice for any government fool enough to press it to their lips.