bl1nk

Today in Amnesty International Australia’s online day of protest against internet repression in China. A wonderfully long name for a silly little gag. Whoop de doo!

Except this is important.

Given that people are imprisoned, tortured or murdered for political activity on an almost daily basis in China is the freedom to do what I am currently doing all that important? Well, how do we know when other (more important?) rights are expunged, violated, swept away etc? Do we rely on Xinhua to tell us?

I was in a cab recently. The taxi driver was interested in what I do for a living and was instantly skeptical about ‘rights’ (mix rights with charity and I am immediately labelled a rabid lefty by most people I meet). My point was simple: how often do you complain about the Government? Daily? Weekly? Never - all politicians are wonderful altruistic models of humanity who do a brilliant job?

The point is, if you don’t like what pollies do you can complain. At worst maybe occasionally you will find yourself being ridiculed on today tonight. You won’t (in Australia) usually find yourself in prison or getting a bullet to the back of the head (we are discussing politicians here - police officers are a different matter).

So express yourself and make all the noise you can. Because you can. Which is a right worth fighting whining for!

Hooray for Joe Hockey giving us something to giggle about on an otherwise slow few campaigning days. “Our fear campaign is based on fact”, he told reporters.

Good on ya Joe!

Well a federal election campaign is happening and once again we see a leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) deciding that the current PM has all the best ideas and is playing ‘me too - but not as much’. Now I am not a political pundit by any means but didn’t FatBoy Kim and the crazy one both lose previous elections by being weak-tea johns?

The response to the Liberal (that is the conservative or right of centre party for those in parts of the world who know what liberal means) bribe was predictable and stupid. What really got up my nose though was Mr Rudd’s position on the death penalty and the imminent execution of the Bali Bombers.

The ALP has a principalled and solid position: it is against the death penalty. End of. So why does their leader go around making exceptions (apart from the fact that it works with the Murdoch press)? Shame Kev, shame!

Just for that you deserve to lose. Though that would mean another 3 years of Howard and that would be worse.

Don’t forget (if you are able to vote in the Australian election) - vote below the line in the Senate.

Maybe we do get the politicians we deserve after all. Lazy, unprincipalled, conniving, greedy and not terribly bright, just like the rest of the population.

Another little known fact (I seem to be full of them of late) is that the Australian constitutional model is not based on the Westminster system, although some claim it is. However, there are still a few conventions which were upheld until the last decade or so.

The last of these to go by the board is the separation of powers. Indeed constitutionally this is far more obvious in Australia than in the UK [Attorney General]. However, it appears that current politicians have been to the Bjelke-Petersen school of political science. It seems that the executive now feel that they should overrule the judiciary whenever they disagree, even when those involved may be “more innocent than innocent”.

So I have asked Mr Andrews to explain to me the concept of the rule of law and the doctrine of the separation of powers; as I appear to be confused. I will keep you updated.