Same Sex Marriage Fake Plebiscite

The marriage equality plebiscite isn’t actually actually about same-sex marriage at all. Instead, what it’s “really” about is political correctness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gender fluidity, boys in dresses and potential marriage to national monuments. It’s the No campaign’s central strategy: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Below is a flyer for the "No" case that I received in my letter box today. Unsigned, anonymous, certainly not authorised by anyone. Instead of arguing the merits of their case, which is, as I understand it that marriage is a special union between a man and a woman, ordained by God as they believe for the rearing of children and the benefit of the couple, they set out to distract, spread disinformation and generally cultivate fear, uncertainty and doubt. 

Why do they do this? Because it works. If they are able to persuade enough waverers and 'don't cares' that it's all too risky, they win. Supporters of Marriage Equality really need to be ready to counter these types of arguments.

I'll set out my counter arguments here when I get time.

Political Correctness

"Political Correctness" is a term used by the Right to shut down debate and dissent.

There is a right wing version of political correctness that gets much less attention. Paul Krugman in 2012 wrote that “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it". http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/the-new-political-correctness/?_r=0

 “Thus, even talking about “the wealthy” brings angry denunciations; we’re supposed to call them “job creators”. Even talking about inequality is “class warfare”.”

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness

The right wing version of political correctness includes the following:

• The language of faith, invoking the Deity at every opportunity, regardless the depth of the speaker’s faith. This is especially so in the USA.
• Climate change 'scepticism', regardless of the science
• The language of 'self-reliance', although it's weird how corporations and wealthy institutions and individuals scream blue murder whenever there's talk of subsidies or concessions being would back
• The language of 'Family values', although the wealthy always had access to divorce, abortion, contraception and gay sex if the wanted them, regardless of prevailing social mores or even the law.
• The language of patriotism, accusing those who disagree with their position of being unpatriotic or even treasonous
• Loud and frequent condemnation of the real, exaggerated and imagined hobgoblins of the day, be they communists, 'union thugs' or jihadis, regardless of actual level of threat posed.
• Insisting that everyone else condemn said hobgoblins or be accused of being their fellow travellers. The reaction of right wing politicians and commentators to '#Illridewithyou' following Sydney’s Lindt Café siege was a classic.
• References to 'Judeo-Christian' heritage, as if talking about the rights or merits of other cultures somehow disparages it
• Disparaging the language of inclusion
• Unconditional support for Israel
• ... no doubt the list can be greatly expanded.

• 
  

New Flag for Australia?

This is my preferred version.

Simply remove the Union Flag from the top left hand corner and move the Federal Star to visually balance the Southern Cross. A white Federal Star and a white Southern Cross on a dark blue background – beautiful. Simple, distinctive and retains continuity with the current flag.

Here's a green and gold version:

It works, although my personal preference is for the blue version. Actually, various combinations of blue and gold work quite well:

Here's a variation which includes elements of the Aboriginal Flag. I don't think it quite works. In any case, we would need to be sure that the Aboriginal people were happy with this:

Arguing with Pigeons

Regarding the science of Climate Change

• That CO2 and certain gases trap heat in the atmosphere is established science which has been known since the late 19th century.
• That the concentration of CO2 has increased by about one third since pre-industrial times is also well established. It has been possible to measure the comncentration directly since the 19th century and the science to determine concentrations in the remote past (e.g. from ice cores) is well-established.
• An analysis of the prevalence of different isotopes of carbon in atmospheric CO2 indicates that the increase has come from burning fossil fuels, not volcanoes or any alternative source. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Now if a Climate Scientist were able to come up with rigorous research, testable theories, models /mechanisms and calculations that indicated that in spite of the anthropogenic changes to concentrations of CO2, the global temperature will not rise significantly and the climate will not be adversely affetced, and had this published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, there might be a debate. In fact, such a scientist and the institution that they worked for would be on the receiving end of rivers of gold from the fossil fuel industry.

So why are the deniers relying on clowns like ‘Lord’ Monckton, bloggers and writers with little or no scientific training, plus a few with scientific qualifications that are only peripherally or not at all related to climate science (e.g. Bob Carter – Marine Geology; Frederick Seitz – Physics)? Why are they reduced to hacking emails? Or poring through 8,000 page IPCC reports looking for typos? Can’t they find credible climate scientists to support them?

They are like creationists – they know the answer, they just need retrofit the evidence or ignore any that contradicts their faith. And arguing with a creationist is, as they say, like arguing with pigeons: 

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4722822/Pretty+accurate+description/

Anyway, the pigeons will claim victory regardless.

Australia's Asylum Seeker Policy

We hear a lot from various Australian Coalition Government Ministers, MPs and supporters about how the purpose of the tough asylum seeker policy is to 'stop people from drowning'. The latest was Malcolm Turnbull (Communications Minister) on the ABC panel show 'Q & A' tonight (10/2/2014). They also talk about the integrity of our immigration program (some validity there) and the 'security of our borders'.

Rubbish. The Coalition has always tried to whip up moral panic over the issues. Our now Immigration Minister in Opposition issued press releases informing us about the supposed threat posed by asylum seekers - supposedly carriers of dread diseases, possible terrorists and would-be criminals who needed to be kept under police surveillance.

The purpose of the Coalition’s Asylum Seeker policy is to get racist bogans, and others who aren’t
racist but who have a blind spot about immigration and multiculturalism, to vote for policies they would not normally support. After all, few of them are free market ideologues who believe in:

1. Privatisation (so increased cost and reduced service levels from services now provided by the Federal Government -  privatise profits and socialise the losses);
2. Dismantling Medicare;
3. Putting downwards pressure wages and conditions for workers;
4. Transferring wealth up the socioeconomic scale;
5. Transferring more of the taxation burden to the GST and to PAYE employees;
6. Trashing the environment where ‘necessary’ to increase corporate profits;
7. Withdrawing from action on climate change;
8. Winding back public health care and public education to third rate safety nets for the very poor (numbers of whom will increase the longer the Coalition stays in office.);
9. Nobbling and eventually dismantling the ABC and SBS (the Coalition doesn’t like them and they compete too effectively with Rupert Murdoch and their other media mates);
10. In foreign relations and trade, unconditional support for the policies and positions of the USA. So many Liberal voters will get a shock when the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) starts to bite. Maybe a reduced Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for a start.
11. Nobbling the National Broadband Network (NBN) so that it doesn’t detract from the profitability of Rupert Murdoch’s investment in Pay TV and Online media.

History of Asylum Boat Arrivals in Australia

Asylum seeker boat arrivals have been a fraught topic in Australia over the years. It’s always been my view that living in a country which large numbers of people are willing risk all to get into is not such a bad problem to have. It is certainly nothing that a grown-up country can’t deal with, given a modicum of goodwill, humanity and common sense. As it is, the debate has generated far more heat than light.

A few months ago I put together what I consider to be a short, unbiased review of the topic to collect my thoughts and try to establish the facts in my mind. I’ve brought it up to date based upon reports in the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.

Background

The following chart shows numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat from 1989 to 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevevii77/9351383816/). Numbers are shown on a logarithmic scale to bring out the ups and downs prior to 2010. Anyone interested can get the numbers from the following source (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/BoatArrivals#_Toc347230719 – scroll down to Appendix B) and put it into a linear scale if they wish.

The following links cover irregular asylum seeker arrivals by boat since mid-2013:

• Figures show PNG solution's impact on asylum seeker numbers: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/figures-show-png-solutions-impact-on-asylum-seeker-numbers-20131115-2xmjp.html#ixzz2oXGDM2sm
•  Operation Sovereign Borders: log of boat arrivals and other asylum seeker incidents: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/log-of-boat-arrivals-and-other-asylum-seeker-incidents/5014496

Potted History

1976 – 2001: End of Vietnam War to 9/11

There appears to have been minimal irregular arrivals of asylum seekers by boat prior to 1976:

·        1976 to 1979: about 2000 asylum seeker arrivals in total following the end of the Vietnam War. They were dealt with by the Fraser Government with bipartisan support, regional involvement and no moral panic.

·        1980 to 1988: 26 arrivals in 1981, none in other years, in spite of there being no mandatory detention and no offshore processing. The Iran-Iraq war and Soviets in Afghanistan apparently did not result in asylum seekers heading by boat to Australia.

·        1989: asylum boat arrivals start again, reaching about 200 per annum in 1990.

o   Asylum seekers become a concern to many Australians, but not the hot-button issue it was going to become later.

o   Mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating Government in 1992, which may have led to a dip in arrivals in 1993.

·        Arrivals surge from 1994 and average nearly 500 per annum from 1994 to 1998. This increase seems to be unconnected with any changes in Australian policies and probably reflects the international situation.

·        1996 – Howard Government elected in 1996. Asylum Seekers were not a major election issue.

·        Arrivals greatly increase from 1999, with over 12,000 asylum seekers arriving by boat from 1999 to 2001. Again, this seems to reflect the international situation and not to be connected to anything that Australia has done. Community concern about the issue heightens.

·        1999 – Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) were introduced on 20/10/1999. This may have led to a dip in the numbers of arrivals in the following year, but arrivals escalate to unprecedented levels in 2001.

2001 – 2012: Controversy

During this period irregular arrivals of asylum seekers by boat was a hot-button topic in Australia. The issue became conflated with terrorism and Australia’s involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

·        August 2001: the Tampa Affair

·        September 2001: September 11 attacks

·        Late 2001 - Pacific Solution introduced, which apparently stops the boats. A temporary improvement in the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq during 2002/3 following the downfall of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein probably also contributed. Numbers increase slowly to about 150 per annum by the end of the Howard era.

·        Early 2008 - Pacific Solution ended. This seemed to have had little immediate impact in 2008 but numbers of asylum boat arrivals bounce back to pre-Pacific Solution numbers from 2009. The end of the Sri Lanka Civil War (May 2009) probably contributed.

·        May 2011 - the Malaysia Solution mooted, which seems to have lead to a temporary dip in arrivals.

·        Late 2011 onwards - numbers surge to over triple previous records. This might be a combination of:

o   The collapse of the Malaysia Solution

o   Greater experience, sophistication and ruthlessness on the part of people-smugglers (the development of their 'business model')

o   A view that the Australia will not be 'open' much longer ('going out of business sale')

o   Plans for withdrawals of Western troops from Afghanistan

o   The rise of extreme fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan and elsewhere.

·        2012: The Pacific Solution reintroduced, which seems to have had no impact.

Since July 2013 – PNG Solution and Operation Sovereign Borders

·        July 2013: ‘PNG Solution’ was announced on 19/7/2013. After a lag of about a week, this led to a sharp drop in the rate of asylum boat arrivals, with what seems to be a steady decline since that time.

·        September 2013: Abbott Government elected September 7 and takes power September 18, with ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ commencing on that date.

o   Asylum seeker arrivals by boat have continued, averaging about 90 a week, down from 500 to 1,000 in the first half of 2013.

o   As a result of the Australia Indonesia Spying Scandal, the Abbott Government has been unable to implement key planks of its Asylum Seeker Boat Arrival policy, including returning asylum seekers to Indonesia, while Indonesia has suspended its cooperation with Australia on asylum seekers.

o   The new Immigration Minister Scott Morrison credits the reduced levels to Operation Sovereign borders. The Opposition and many commentators believe that the continued low levels or irregular boat arrivals are entirely or almost entirely owing to the effectiveness of policies put in place by the former Labor Government, especially the PNG Solution.