Bill Shorten - Australia's Trump with a Twist

I am passionate about many things. Open and responsible free speech being one of them. Equally, I abhor violence. However, my demeanour is rapidly changing when it comes to Bill Shorten. To use a good old Aussieism, I’m rapidly reaching the point where I could gladly smash him with the proverbial shovel. 

I am sick and tired of Shorten’s insults. His hysterical outburst over what were reasonably considered and sensible points raised by Peter Dutton with regards to the impact of immigration failures (that being the mix coupled with inadequate vetting) in the past. This outburst is the final straw. His manipulation of the truth is astounding. 

Amanda Vanstone put it succinctly in the Australian today when she said, “Shorten’s the one fanning racists fires over immigration.” She said “ Mr Shorten’s remarks reduced an important debate to the “lowest common denominator.” Spot on.

Of course the comments to Ms Vanstone’s column attracted the usual bag of support. Plus as expected when presented with the truth a fair smattering of vitriolic attack. This one in particular stood out, because it's typical of what we see expressed by so many today.  It was penned by a woman named Jane. 

“Seriously [Sic] Amanda Vandastone, you ought to be ashamed.

Mr Dutton you are a disgrace. 

Thank you Mr Shorten for calling him out.

We must call out racism wherever it occurs. It is not acceptable in a decent and peaceful  multicultural society.

What is devastating is that he must have such powerful influence in the [Sic] Turnull government because he should have been sacked on the spot.

This is highly unusual and should be examined.”

Firstly, Dutton is a Government Minister. You would expect him to have a powerful influence. If he doesn’t, he shouldn’t be there. By the mere fact, we have been relatively unscathed when it comes to on-shore terrorist violence (despite the threats) he’s obviously doing a good job. So, I contest that Jane is showing her blatant ignorance with her ‘highly unusual and should be examined’ nonsense. 

Facts appears to have escaped Jane. We stopped being a decent & peaceful multicultural society when people were murdered on the streets. When dozens of young men, many born in Australia left the country to fight with terrorist organisations in the Middle East. In turn,  to have those same people appear in ISIS propaganda video’s threatening us and inciting supporters on home soil to commit terrorist acts against us. Our security and Federal Police operatives along with the help of many from the Muslim community have thwarted those acts, thank our lucky stars.  

We lost our peaceful multicultural society when we looked on in horror, at an Australian child holding up the severed head of a man caught and murder by those very terrorists, people on our shores openly support. 

We lost our peaceful multicultural society when dozens and dozens of  youths (both Sudanese and Islanders, many recently arrived on our shores) formed gangs who terrorise, rob and bash people on the streets of Melbourne. 

So, I suggested Jane that she might like to actually LISTEN to what Peter Dutton said in response to a question/s asked by Andrew Bolt. For the record, it was Bolt, who first raised Fraser's well acknowledged (even by Fraser) lapses in immigration rigour, as that applied to some migrants during his reign. Then, I suggested she might like to read through Hansard (Monday 21st) to understand what Peter Dutton actually said in response to Bill Shorten's pathetic attempt to lampoon him.

We have a problem with both violence and the threat of terrorism in this country. Sadly, the percentage of law breakers and terrorist sympathisers within some sections of our immigrant community is too high. Sticking our heads in the sand, suppressing discussion and verbally attacking and slurring the messenger will not fix it. The problem needs to be discussed openly, maturely and with a commitment to do just that, fix it. The only people who should be sacked are those attacking the very people who are trying to do something about the problem. Peter Dutton should not be sacked. Bill Shorten most certainly should be.

Bill Shorten and Labor’s strategy on attacking Peter Dutton is hard to fathom. Are they arguing against Mr Dutton acknowledging the Fraser Government made some mistakes? It’s a fact. They did. Fraser eventually listened and changed the strategy. But, alas in many in cases it was too late. The foundation for problems in the future was also set. 

Is Labor’s  argument that this historical fact must be buried and that we can’t talk about the impacts today of the bad decisions of  ‘yesteryear’? In the context of what Mr Dutton said in the Bolt interview about taking time now to thoroughly assess the 12,000 who are coming from Syria, to ensure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, I contest that references to past mistakes is relevant. Or are Shorten  and Labor's motives more sinister? 

Bill Shorten is turning into the lefts version of Donald Trump. During Trump’s campaign, he said some pretty terrible things about certain groups. He stirred up a lot of hostility.  By the very nature of many of his comments he gave rise and legitimacy to the rise of the Alt-right and neo-Nazis. When questioned this week about seeing Neo-Nazis raise their hands in a “Seig Heil” salute chanting “Heil Trump, Heil our people, Heil Victory” Trump’s comments were, “It’s not a group I want to energise. And if they are energised I want to look into it and find out why.” All he has to do is turn the mirror on himself. There is his answer. 

Bill Shorten similarly, fuels the racist debate with his selective subtraction of pieces of conversations to score political points. Then, Shorten throws racist slurs based on those subtractions. Shorten tries to suppress the truth and close down open and mature debate. He fuels the fires of our Alt-Right but from a different perspective. It's not about personal adoration for Shorten, as it is for Trump. 

I believe Bill Shorten deliberately seeks to motivate and stir up racial divide. He knows others will go out and issue threats against his own supporters; against the people of the left. More alarmingly, we also end up with threats being made against our broader immigrant community.  Isn’t that exactly what Union bosses do? The load ‘the guns’ and others go out there and ‘fire the bullets’. 

Mr Dutton singled out the many thousands of wonderful law abiding immigrants we have in this country. As Mr Dutton stressed many of them are from the Lebanese community. Of course, that is one piece that has been selectively culled by Mr Shorten in his assault. Shorten also stirs up members of our immigrant community who may not be fully aware of what has been said or the context in which it was said,  Thus, by his actions, Shorten is driving even greater social divide. In other words, he is doing what he said he would do. Lead like a unionist. 

So putting on my cynical hat. Trump and Shorten are either so stupid they are oblivious to the impact they have on the behaviour of others. For the record, I don’t think either of them are stupid. Or, they are wilfully manipulating the populous for political gain; divide and conquer, stuff the consequences. Either way it's extremely dangerous. Both should be resoundingly condemned. 

Why Do We Justify Politicians Lying To Us

When are we going to say to our politicians enough of the lies we will not tolerate this any longer?

Political lying has reached endemic proportions and, it's getting worse. I want to make it clear that my gripe isn’t essentially a critique of the merits or not of Brexit or Trump winning in the US. I am using these merely as examples of lying to the public to gain power. We face similar in our own Australian political landscape. Mediscare being a very relevant example. 

There is a ground swell building in the UK against the Brexit leave vote. People voted to leave based on what people like Farage (now claiming he 'made' Trump the stupid man) told them. Within a few days the wiser ones started to realise they may just have been sold a pup. So, many are now saying that want a new referendum. This has led to interesting debate within social media circles.

More and more Brits are realising they voted based a pack of lies with absolutely no clue what Brexit would mean for them. They voted on nationalism (which definitely has a place) and immigration (which needs to be controlled).  Many voted on the money that would saved as a result of leaving the EU being reinvested in the NHS. Now of course Nige is saying he never promised that. It's BS, he did. Others said they were sick of the EU and their draconian rules and interference. I am with them on that. Then we have those who voted on the basis of racism and hate. Let's not pretend they didn’t. It's not helpful to shy away from reality. Now of course the truth is hitting home. Many of the promises made will not and can not be delivered. They never were going to be. They were lies. Personally, I struggled to understand why anyone would vote on something so important without the facts. It was one hell of a leap of faith. But people did. 

Whilst we are at it, why is Nigel Farage still a member of the European Parliament? Happy to take the perks whilst they last? Hypocrite that he is. 

We just seen similar in the US. Where the most outrageous lies in the form of promises were made to gain votes. Within a couple of days the back-flips started. They always were going to. This is a small but important example: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

What really floored me was when someone last night on twitter (a lawyer no less) stated, “People always vote on lies and half truths aka opinions.” When he was challenged on this point he reiterated, “Arguably all politicians lie.” Certainly a lot do. The lawyers final comment really sums it up. “Which is why votes aren’t invalidated by lying.” In others words, lying is OK that's how the system works. 

That prompts me to ask. Is there an acceptable level to this endemic lying that has become par for the course? What lies should be tolerated and what ones shouldn’t? The lies are becoming more and more outrageous. I consider them blatant in the extreme. Have we reached the level yet where we the people on mass say we've had enough? Or, will it take a monumental catastrophe to bring us to our senses? 

I understand perfectly why people don’t trust politicians. But hey, we've obviously confirmed it's OK for them to keep lying to us. We vote for them and in the case of Brexit, people think that lying is OK. The lawyer did and others supported him. It’s the old reap what you sow theory. We set the benchmark by what we are prepared to accept. We've accepted it so, we have no one to blame but ourselves. 

From what we see being played out on the world stage it seems ‘we’ are suckers. We simply fall for the salesmen’s pitch because they tell us what we want to hear. The collective ‘we’ doesn’t give a rats when someone points out what is being promised is a lie and it can’t be delivered. Far too many support their own side when they lie but attack the opposition for the same. With regards to Trump’s lies, I've had people say to me, “He was only saying that to get the vote. He didn’t mean it.” They seem to think that is acceptable. Well in my book it is not acceptable. 

I have a great admiration for those people who are standing up and saying we expect better. The Brexit new referendum people are an example. They are the ones saying we were lied to, we now we want the truth. Then, they want the opportunity to reassess based on facts and be given the opportunity to vote on those facts. We should be appalling that, not attacking them. 

People (globally) are saying enough of the lies. Yet, they willingly vote for people who are lying to them and just accept it. Worse, they defend it. I admit I am really struggling to understand the logic of that.

If we are serious about change, we must stand up and be counted. We have to say enough. No more lies. No more opinions. We deal with facts. If we don’t, then don’t be surprised when nothing changes for the better and we continue to be treated like mugs. 

It's down to us. Demand better. 

A Response To : Plight unmasks the injustice of 18C

Hedley Thomas's column in the Australian today highlighted the plight of Kyran Findlater one of those snared in the QUT net. For me, it was alarming in the extreme. If you haven't read Hedley Thomas's column please do. Because if ever there were justification for amending 18C and removing the AHRC I believe this is it. 

Hadley Thomas column

There was one comment to this story that I think is worthy of sharing. I have the permission of the writer to share it. 

Dear Kyran

I hope you get to read the comments. I have moved from being appalled to saddened with the way you have been treated. In the ordinary course of things, I think it is irrelevant for me to state my ethnicity in any debate because it doesn't inform the substance of my argument. I will make an exception on this occasion and tell you that I am black and of South African origin. I state this with the hope that someone in govt will read and see that the very people of my skin colour they are seeking to protect are unambiguously appalled. I have lived in Australia for 5 years and there's never been a day I have ever felt conscious of my ethnicity because ordinary Australians are the most welcoming people. I cannot stay silent when a fellow citizen like you has his reputation impugned for daring to speak his mind. I shed a tear when I read that you offered to pay $3500 in what can only be described as a ransom payment. This is wrong on many levels and I hope that in speaking out Australians see that we are all united in demanding an end to 18C. 

The law has encouraged a culture of victim hood in ways I presume it never intended. What I find offensive about 18C is that it is based on a racist presumption that people like me cannot handle robust debate and need to be protected from offence and insult. By default we are cast as a class of citizens to which the law is prepared to grant rights not accorded to the majority simply because of our ethnicity. My place in society is not strengthened by depriving you of your fundamental rights. You and I have never met and probably never will but the law as it stands pits us against each other simply because we look different. Yet, when I became a citizen I pledged to fight alongside with you should Australia be attacked militarily. By extension I believe I have to stand and fight with you when our shared Australian values are attacked in my name. It is contrary to good conscience for someone like me to whom Australia has given a lot to turn a blind eye whilst you are stripped of your dignity, reputation and adorned in a cloak of criminality. 

I will do what I can to fight the good fight so that you and I are reconciled by laws that treat us equally. The injustice you've suffered is an injustice to me as well and to be honest it has really hurt me emotionally. I will do everything I can to fight for changes to the law. I hope one day you and I can meet and share a beer (non-alcohol beverage for me).

Regards to you and your entire family.

Andrew M

I don't mind admitting I found this response extremely moving. Like Andrew, I shed a tear over what he wrote. How lucky we are to have people like Andrew call Australia home.

We Set The Benchmarks By The Standards We Accept

So the election is over and the unthinkable has happened. Donald Trump is now President-elect; the leader of the free world.

I don’t like Trump. I’ve made no secret about how I feel. But he has played a blinder in tapping into people's fears; their despair, their need to lash out at governments who they feel hasn’t listened to them. I do understand how people feel. I have felt the same. But what worries and disturbs me the most is three things. One, people have turned to a morally corrupt man like Trump because there were no alternatives. Two, and the most disturbing for me is the signal sent to the world that racism, sexism, lying and sexual assault is OK. I'll forgive you because you listen to me and my concerns. That it's acceptable to attack and assault those who don’t agree with you. That it's OK to demean prisoners of war and people with physical disabilities.

The willingness to sacrifice principles and overlook reprehensible behaviour because a person claims they will fix my problems astounds me. In my experience those who lack principles rarely achieve anything for others, other than more chaos and disappointment. You can’t address a lack of principles if you have none yourself.

Hillary Clinton carries a lot of baggage. She was a very poor alternate choice. She is far from blameless but she has also carried the burden of the man she married. She is not the only woman to ever stick by a cheating husband and she won't be the last. I suspect a reasonable percentage of those condemning her for it are possibly not blameless themselves. But I wonder if she were a man would she have been treated so harshly. After all millions were prepared to overlook Trump’s treatment of women. Then we have his failed businesses and the resulting disastrous impact that has had on so many people. His skiting about ripping off taxpayers, the very people who he claims he will now champion. But, let's face it, he’s made his money. He can afford to be sanctimonious. If he really was your champion, he’d give the money back on principle. Then, we have his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. A convicted pedophile known for having underage sex slaves and who Trump called ‘a great guy’. Does that sound like a person with good judgement?

The list of Trump’s questionable practices is very long indeed. In addition, he is still to front court over the operation of Trump University, facing claims that dozens of people who were ripped off. How ironic that we have referred two of our Aussie Senators to the high court to test their worthiness to hold representative office over business and criminal dealings. In both of these cases they are far less than anything Trump has done.

Within 12 hours after securing the position of President-elect Donald Trump’s statement on banning Muslims from US has disappeared from his website. In commenting on this one person wrote in response to a column, “Surely, this is a goo (sic) thing! Told ya he's not a bigot. Those were just buzzwords to get redneck votes.”

I thought these were brilliant replies.

“So when those rednecks you refer to realise his words were just buzzwords and they turn on him, I wonder how he will react. Will he boot them out? Attack them as he has so many others who disagreed with him? More importantly how they will react.”

“The most positive thing his supporters have been able to say about him is "Don't worry, he doesn't believe a word he says, he's just a lying political scumbag". I hope that's true.”

“I'm not sure it's any improvement at all.  If he was just a bigot, we could possibly call him misguided.  In this case, he's a liar and a hate-monger that intentionally stirred up hate and anger aimed at a minority religious group for his own benefit.  That seems a whole lot worse to me, so unless I start hearing an apology from Trump and assurances that he isn't going to single out Muslims or tolerate any discrimination against them, I'm not giving him a pass.”

An American friend sent me this recently. Sorry I didn’t share it before the election. It's strong but it made me think.  

http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-voters-read-this

The world desperately needs people of principle and of good character to lead us out of the predicament we find ourselves in. We need leaders who can engage us in the discussions without using the language of violence, fear and divide. We need leaders who can address concerns quickly without creating world war 3. Trump sadly (for me) isn’t that person. He lacks principle and there are far too many question-marks over his character. If I cannot respect the person, how could I support them speaking for me?

But where are the principled and honourable champions of the downtrodden, the unrepresented, the disenfranchised, those who feel they have no voice? That for me is a most vexing question. I simply don’t see them coming forward. So people turn to the Trump’s and the Farage’s of the world. That scares the hell out of me. Our relatives have been down these paths before. We need to listen to them.

We set the benchmark by the standards we accept. If we are willing to trade-off those standards in accepting leaders who have none, we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing changes for the better. In fact, there is a very real possibility it could probably end up a lot worse.

Unlike Brexit the impact has been largely on the United Kingdom and EU and to a lesser degree the rest of the world. The US decision however, has wider reaching impacts because so much is tied to the US dollar and US trade. Many of the things that Trump has said if enacted will have dire consequences. Whilst I suspect millions would like to live on their own little islands independent of the world around us that is not reality. Certainly not for small countries like Australia we simply don’t have the population or the resources to survive on our own.

As for Donald Trump, he hasn’t changed overnight. I suspect he can’t, but I pray I’m wrong.

Our Voice, Our Rights #DENIED

We are rarely given the opportunity to express our opinion about changes to specific laws that impact on us and our loved ones. Sure, we vote for political representatives and the policies they present. But even when our chosen party wins government, there is no guarantee the commitments they make will be delivered. Time and again we are let down when policies are reneged on. Sometimes the reasons are legitimate but more often than not it's because the minority ends up ruling the political process. Just block it. Or, the party we chose and put into government finds it can’t afford the promises they make. 

At the last election, we were presented with the proposal to allow a plebiscite on same sex marriage. The party that presented that proposal won. The assumption being a plebiscite is something the majority want; the opportunity to express an opinion. Of course the mud has been slung in both directions. As for too many of our elected representatives they do not question the raison d'être of the process they simply follow their party line blindly. BLOCK stuff you and me. Stuff what the public voted for. 

Those of us who support the plebiscite and who have the temerity to express our opinions have been treated extremely poorly by many on the opposing side. The nasty personal attacks accusing us of wanting to vilify and sledge are regularly thrown at us. Sure, there are those who will. But I’m of the opinion the vast majority simply want the choice to say what they think. Be it yes or no to gay marriage. That’s what I want. 

In reading through the no pitches during the senate debate last night, we see the usual counter-argument that John Howard didn’t go to the people when he amended the marriage act. Of course, those playing this card ignore two things. One, the circumstances that necessitated swift action at the time. Secondly, because he didn’t, doesn't mean we shouldn’t go to the people on the current proposed change. 

As for those who play the abuse card. Denying people the right to express their views won’t stop that. In fact, in my humble opinion it could make it worse. Most Australians, if they are sensible and reasonable do accept  the umpires decision. I’ve heard many express the opinion; let people say what they think and then let's put it to bed. Put up and then shut-up. That's exactly how I feel. 

I thought Senator Jacqui Lambie summed it up beautifully with her closing statement in the chamber last night when she said. 

“Just as we senators are able to put our points of view and test what we believe is true and sacred about marriage in this great chamber of debate, so too must we give all Australians the opportunity to put their points of view and test what they believe is true and sacred about marriage in an even greater chamber of debate: the Australia beyond this parliament and the local ballot boxes where people of this great democracy can have their say. I fully support this legislation.”

As I said in my opening. We aren’t given the opportunity to have a direct say very often. I am extremely disappointed it's been taken away on the rare occasion offered. As for those who denied us, they should be drop kicked from a very great height.