Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Did you hear it? The ping, ping, ping sound of copper on concrete. It was accompanied by a spike in electricity use and it occurred at much the same time. About 11:30am on Thursday. It was the moment that the penny dropped and the lights started going on for the members of the Canberra Press Gallery.

Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens, stood before a group of journalists and in avoiding some questions about his stance on some key carbon policy issues, launched an attack on the Murdoch press. “I think it's very essential to take that on at the moment because I think the Murdoch media is doing a great disservice to this nation in perhaps the most important debate of the century so far, which is how we tackle climate change,” he said. “And its negativity and its scepticism does need to be tackled because, you know, we need news in our papers but we're getting opinion far too much.”

In an extraordinary exchange, three journalists from other news organisations took him to task. Fairfax radio reporter Michael Pachi challenged Senator Brown, saying: “You just come out here every day and you just bag out the Murdoch press or any media you don't like and you call them the hate press.” To which Senator Brown replied: “Don't get too upset, this is just part of the democratic discourse.” Pachi responded by saying “Most polls would suggest that people don't want the carbon tax and you are on the wrong foot on this issue, and (that's) across the media, not just the Murdoch press”. Brown retorted that the Greens vote was growing faster than the circulation of News Limited newspapers.

Bob Brown explained his rant in response to Ten’s Hugh Riminton. “Yes, I'm being very much on the front foot here because I think the media, with some very good exceptions, can at times lose track of the fact that it's part of the process of moving Australia into a much more secure future with a more secure lifestyle, economy and job creation prospects.” Senator Brown described newspapers' front pages as unbalanced, opinionated and “not news in terms of having both sides”.

To some degree, Senator Brown does have a point. Certain news organisations have been noted to pursue particular agendas or lean favourably to one side of a debate. The climate change debate is a prime example where for so long the media pushed the claims as fact to the extent that dissenters were ridiculed and portrayed as a lunatic fringe. Tony Abbott certainly felt the effects of this prevailing media mindset at the time of his “Climate change is crap” comment, and for a long time afterward.

The irony though, is that in this environment, Bob Brown and the Greens got a free pass to express themselves on this and many other issues without challenge. They were able to stand up in front of a camera or microphone and call to account any political opponent for their position with the presumption that the Green position was understood and accepted without question. As recently as Tuesday, Brown called on Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet to explain why the carbon price should start well south of $40 a tonne, but at the same time sidestepped questions about the level he thought the carbon price should be. Providing the media is there to aid the Green machine, there is no issue. When the hard the questions start coming, the organisation asking them is attacked and labelled as haters.

The Greens are no longer on the fringes of politics in Australia. They are in the thick of it as a powerful part of a centre-left and left wing coalition government. The government hinges on their one lower house vote and as such have a lot of clout when it comes to advancing their own agenda. We are also just weeks away from the Greens assuming the balance of power in the Senate. Consequently, their policies are now under the microscope. The questions that should have been asked a decade ago are now being asked and the good Senator is finding the blowtorch a bit hot.

The ABC’s Chris Uhlman is credited with starting the ball rolling on Tuesday night during an interview with Bob Brown on the 7:30 program:

BROWN: We are going to compensate households but Tony Abbott will not. He's going to put all the money in from households into the big polluters, estimate $720 per household by the end of this decade and - either that or reduce 100,000 jobs in the country or start closing hospital wards and schools to fund the big polluters. We will not do that.

UHLMAN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?

BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...

UHLMAN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

UHLMAN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BROWN: Treasury...

UHLMAN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BROWN: I'm sorry...

UHLMAN: ..available to you.

BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...

UHLMAN: No, but you do.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

UHLMAN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?

BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.

UHLMAN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?

BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.

UHLMAN: But the question-

BROWN: No, let me...

UHLMAN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?

BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...

But the more insightful journalists and ex-politicians have been onto him well before this. In the days following the installation of the Gillard government by Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, former Democrats leader Natasha Stott-Despoja predicted that the Greens would implode when their policies and positions were scrutinised. Former ALP Senator Graham Richardson on his Sky News program ridiculed Bob Brown’s response to his question on what he would do for mining companies affected by the carbon tax.

The Murdoch press have been onto him for some time. In September last year, the Australian responded to a previous Brown criticism in an editorial: “We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.” In some ways, this quote justifies Senator Brown’s latest outburst, but by the same token it is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from any research of Green policy.

I for one am looking forward to seeing the blowtorch applied with greater frequency and higher temperatures. Popcorn anyone?

When The Wicked Perish

“”I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure. ”
– Mark Twain

As expected, Osama bin Laden hasn’t exactly gone quietly. The reaction to his death can been measured all across the spectrum from vows of bloody revenge to apathy and cynicism to hysterical celebration. The debate has certainly been interesting. Was the actions of the US Navy Seals a swift execution of justice? Was it extrajudicial killing? Premeditated murder even? Is the United States no better than the terrorists they are eliminating? So many questions, no single or correct answer. Some are able to meaningfully argue a position one way or the other, and others are so out of the ball park wrong that their assertions are laughable. I’ll put my position up, right or wrong, for the entire world to see, and you can pass your judgement accordingly.

Osama bin Laden was without doubt a bloodthirsty, murdering scumbag who needed to face justice for his crimes against humanity. Since 1988 when he founded al-Qaeda, bin Laden’s rap sheet has far exceeded the length of his arms. Of course, we all know about the attack on the Twin Towers back in 2001 in which over 3000 innocent people died. Perhaps you might like to know about his other activities. A bomb intended for US servicemen in Yemen in 1992 killed two Austrian tourists. The next year he authorized the first World Trade Centre attack that killed six and injured thousands. In 1998, the simultaneous bombings of US embassies across Africa killed 223 and injured over 4000. Two years later, the USS Cole was attacked while refuelling in port in Yemen. Seventeen US sailors died and 39 were injured. If that wasn’t enough, he was also directly funding the mujahideen in Chechnya, who conducted a dozen terror attacks against Russian citizens between 1995 and 2009. The total body count is upwards of 1200 people, including the 150 children at school in Beslan. It is said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This has certainly played out in the case of bin Laden. Regrettably for all those families who lost relatives and friends to his blood crazed agenda, US forces could only kill him once.

But what about forgiveness I read one commentator write. Forgiveness is noble and necessary, but it does not exonerate him from his deeds. Justice must still be served. The notion that forgiveness equates to acquittal is unjust. There must be restitution. When a sinner comes to Jesus and repents, what happens? Jesus forgives the sinner and forgets the sin thereafter, but justice still has to be served. The wages of sin is death, and by the grace of God, He asked Jesus to willingly die on the cross for the sin of the world. It is here that justice is served. Jesus takes the penalty of death on behalf of the sinner. For those who don’t sort it out with God, the penalty is on you. Osama bin Laden was certainly not repentant of his crimes, as evidenced by his remaining in hiding, his continual participation in terrorism, and regular video and audio releases threatening the nations of the world.

Another commentator writes how the United States murdered bin Laden and that he should have been taken alive and put on trial. I am certain the US government would much rather have been able to parade bin Laden before the cameras and show him off to the world in exactly the way they did with Saddam Hussein. But the world is not an ideal place and criminals have a habit of resisting arrest. Osama bin Laden died in the firefight that took place inside his hideaway mansion. Seemingly, bin Laden himself may not have been armed at the time if his teenage daughter is to be believed, but others in the house were. It is not outside the realms of possibility that he was shot by one of his henchmen to prevent his capture.

Was it murder? I say no. The Legal Dictionary applies this definition to the word “murder”:

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially: such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape).

The US government had declared war on al-Qaeda in 2001, so the operation that saw bin Laden’s demise was a military one, subject to the rules of warfare, not domestic statute. Being the commander of an enemy force, Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant and a legitimate military target. As such his elimination during the course of a military operation was neither unlawful nor unjustified. He remained a threat to western interests and ordinary citizens all over the world. His death was not reckless with regard to human life. Indeed, preventing this man killing and injuring thousands more innocent people has shown the dignity and value for human life that is part and parcel of a civilised society.

The announcement by US President Barack Obama that Osama bin Laden was dead saw a spontaneous gathering of a crowd at the gates of the White House to celebrate that the world was now a better place. Critics responded by saying that people should not be celebrating anybody’s death in such a fashion, and that these made them look no different to the Arabs who celebrate a successful terror strike. Apparently, we should be saddened by his untimely passing and acknowledge the occasion more solemnly. Really? Have a look at the demise of any tyrant at any time in history and note what happens among those who were subject to their iron fist. Europe celebrated the end of Hitler. Afghanistan took to the streets in jubilation when Mullah Omar and his mates took off with their tails between their legs. Yugoslavia partied when Slobodan Milosevic fled the country. And we’ve seen it several times in recent months in North Africa with the regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt. Ordinary people need not fear Osama bin Laden any longer as he can no longer harm us. When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy!

Of course, terror alerts have gone up a notch or three since Osama bit the dust. There is no doubting that others will be willing to step into the void. Those who do will do so with the knowledge that we have long memories and that we will leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of you. If it takes ten years, then so be it, as long as we get you one way or the other in the end.