John Laws famously describes himself as an entertainer and a salesman rather than a journalist. The distinction matters for a shock-jock, since it entirely decouples power from responsibility. You can still take the high moral ground but if there’s ever any consequences … hey, I’m just a guy who sells Valvoline.
It’s supposed to be different for politicians.
The traditional bipartisanship on capital punishment represented an oasis of principle in the arid wasteland of Australian politics. Responsible politicians opposed the noose not because that opposition was popular (it wasn’t) but because it was right.
Not so long ago, Kevin Rudd, still on his Dietrich Bonhoeffer kick, even spoke out against the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Now, though, the shock jocks rule.
“They deserve the justice that will be delivered to them,” explains the PM about the Bali bombers.
“They are murderers, they are mass murderers and they are also cowards.”
This was no gaffe, no slip of the tongue, but a rearticulation of the slapping Rudd gave Robert McClelland when the then Foreign Affairs spokesman stated Labor’s official policy.
It’s pure tabloid posturing, a recognition that the immediate audience obtainable by shouting ‘Hang them high!’ after a heinous crime outweighs Dietrich’s namby-pamby concerns about “the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the reviled“.
The same logic governs the latest Bill Henson beat-up. An internationally known artist visits a school, with the full knowledge, and in the presence of, the staff. He subsequently asks parents if their kids would have photos taken. Some agree; some decline. Big deal.
Yet we now have an inquiry underway — and Youth Minister Kate Ellis seems to have taken complete leave of her senses.
“Let’s let kids be kids,” she says.
“When was it decided that we wanted to step on in and snatch away that innocence before it happens naturally.”
What does that even mean? Does Ellis know? Does anyone?
If the concern were really about safety and s-xual abuse, Ellis and Rudd and Brumby and the rest of them would point out that, contrary to the tabloid script, most abuse actually takes place in ordinary suburban homes. Weird-bearded artists are not threatening to use your kids school as their s-xual smorgasbord.
But there’s no headlines in that.
The consequences flowing from Rudd’s statements on Amrozi are entirely predictable.
Leave aside the ethics of the death penalty. Ignore the long-time consequences of cheering on executions in a state like Indonesia, with its appalling human rights records. Let’s simply ask what happens when the next Schapelle Corby gets done for drugs in Singapore or Vietnam. The PM has called the death penalty “justice” because, you see, it’s “consistent with the Indonesian judicial system.” And that’s exactly the argument we’ll hear back when the next miserable heroin mule mounts the gallows in Changi gaol.
If that prisoner’s sufficiently young and pretty, the shock jocks will, without any embarrassment whatsoever, throw themselves into the campaign for clemency. What will Rudd say then: “Valvoline, you know what I mean”?
The death penalty reversal is truly appalling. Rudd has, in this instance, shown himself an absolute coward in the face of predictable headlines: HEARTLESS PM DEFENDS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, RUDD SUPPORTS AUSSIE KILLING TERRORISTS, that kind of thing. A true statesman is obligated to suck it up and keep a consistent stance, no matter what the Daily Ttelegraph says. If the death penalty is wrong, it’s always wrong. Rudd knows that and his stance is utterly hypocritical.
I am grateful to Rudd for ridding us of Howard and saying sorry. His comments on the execution of the bombers just confirms my fear that he has little more to offer – we’re still in Iraq, still believers in victory in Afghanistan, totally committed to the American alliance, IR that favours the bosses, no real changes in education and committed to making sure that banks can make squillions in their sheltered workshops.
Previous Labor leaders were consistent in their condemnation of apartheid. Rudd led parliament in congratulating that other apartheid state, Israel on its 60th anniversary..
It’s the Greens for me from now on – Rudd gives me little choice.
This confirms, on many levels the utter hypocrisy of the present Government, marching, if not exceeding that meted out by the hated and appalling Howard regime. This illustrates the complete subordination of principle to political expediency. As James points out, the Greens are the only parliamentary party who have consistently upheld their principles, be it on Iraq, Afghanistan, or the global warming.
.
“Yet we now have an inquiry underway — and Youth Minister Kate Ellis seems to have taken complete leave of her senses.
“Let’s let kids be kids,” she says.
“When was it decided that we wanted to step on in and snatch away that innocence before it happens naturally.”
What does that even mean? Does Ellis know? Does anyone?”
Great question. I’m envisaging a scene directly out of Yes Minister. Minister doesn’t know what to say, says something that means nothing but must be harmless because the PM said it a couple of months back, Department Secretary walks in and congratulates Minister for being so very, very courageous. Letting kids be kids would decimate our gold medal tally – as we saw recently, if it weren’t for teenage girls having to spend vast amounts of their childhoods training in swimming pools rather than ‘just being kids’, we don’t win much. Departmental Secretary knows how much this would damage his/her budget. Minister looks embarrassed and hopes it will all blow over soon…..