The Scientology inquisition

The Senate, Scientology and Steve:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Sport yes, taxpayer subsidy of abuse no — the logic of Senate inquiries” (yesterday, item 1). Bernard Keane’s analysis of the Scientology debate is wrong-headed.

Firstly, he endorses Keating’s condemnation of the Senate as “unrepresentative swill”, which is quite inapposite.  Keating’s real complaint was that the upper house, with its proportional voting system, was too representative of the broad spectrum of public opinion, giving voice to minor parties and independents. It makes no sense to use this slur to criticise the major parties for voting down independent Senator Nick Xenophon.  Major party domination is what Keating wanted.

Secondly, allegations against Scientology have been comprehensively aired in the media and in the parliament.  There is no sense in which they are being suppressed.  Cases of abuse should be dealt by the courts, not politicians.  A Senate inquiry, on the other hand, with its power to compel witnesses, has the potential to degenerate into a witch-hunt, which would be a serious attack on freedom of religion.  It raises the spectre of Scientologists being jailed indefinitely for refusing to answer questions.

Thirdly, the issue of Scientology’s tax status is at best a red herring and at worst religious persecution. Clearly higher taxation is not an appropriate response to abuse.  And the prospect of politicians punishing religions by withdrawal of tax concessions is highly undesirable. Undoubtedly minority religions would be targeted.  As would politically inconvenient charities.  In Scientology’s case, it is often said that it is really a profit-making business and should be taxed as such.  However, these allegations co-exist with equal and opposite allegations that it is a zany, dogmatic cult.  The critics can’t have it both ways.

Lastly, a common complaint against Scientology is that it campaigns against psychiatry.  This would undoubtedly be canvassed in a Senate inquiry.  At this point it would stop being an attack on freedom of religion and become an attack on freedom of speech.  These issues should be dealt with by public debate, not inquisition.

Terry J Mills writes: In recent times I have been listening to the Senate on ABC News Radio and for one who has previously taken little interest in the mechanics of our parliamentary system I have been quite shocked and dismayed at the quality of debate and the shift from a House of Review to a House of Dissent .

Listening to the ramblings of Steve Fielding I was reminded of the BBC Radio show, Just a Minute where a panel member was given a subject to speak on for a minute without repetition, deviation or hesitation. If he or she were caught out by any of their fellow panel members, they were buzzed and the task passed to the successful challenger.

I found myself, in the car, calling out DEVIATION and REPETITION but the senate president obviously couldn’t hear me as he let Steve rabbit on for his allotted time (ten minutes I think).

Perhaps a double dissolution is not such a bad idea.

Michael Atkinson’s trousers:

Michael Atkinson, Attorney-General for South Australia, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (11 March, item 8). Last Thursday’s “Tips and rumours” in Crikey claimed that my driver each day ironed or pressed my garments.  This is untrue.

In the eight years my ministerial driver and I have been together, he has not pressed or ironed a single garment for me.  I do not own a press and do not have access to one.

Climate change:

Chris Hunter writes: Tamas Calderwood’s remarks (Friday, comments) about humanity’s “puny production of CO2 being a pathetic 4% of the total” don’t quite gel. 4% could actually mean quite a lot. When your body temperature rises by 4% then you are conceivably ill. So why not the planet — is it not an organism?

What I am talking about is the tipping point and the symptoms that ensue when it is reached. By marginally lowering our CO2 contribution we may just be saving the planet — raped and pillaged that it is.

Unhappy subscriber Peter Wilson-Jones writes: Four well-espoused responses on the climate change issue in the comments section on Friday. But of course Crikey feels compelled, as always, to publish that lone country voice (pop. 12,000) with an internet connection and a hot-link to Watts Up, Tamas Calderwood — strangely too — the closing/rounding comment.

Could Crikey subscribers like myself, have a couple of graphs please — showing the Top 10 people whose letters are published by order of volume and subject? You could no doubt just cut and paste the one showing the ABC’s bias to Monckton — for your bias towards Tamas. Big call, eh? Bet you won’t have it in you.

Look, those recent calls to ban this type of sh-t in Crikey should be heeded. Send all climate change comments to the cage-match. It does you no favours allowing this stuff into the comments section.

Ian Campbell:

John Kotsopoulos writes: Re. “Play it again, Kev: the monotonous drone of Question Time” (Friday, item 11). Bernard Keane wonders “how Ian Campbell feels about Peter Garrett’s survival as Minister?”

It was the gormless wonder aka Peter Costello who loaded the gun that spun around and took out Campbell.  His over the top attacks on Rudd for meeting with Burke gave Howard no option but to sack the unfortunate Campbell.

Trainspotting:

John Dowden writes: Re. “Rundle’s UK: Adonis in name only, as the Labour train leaves the station” (Friday, item 4). Guy Rundle reports from England that the government of Scotsman Gordon Brown has announced that there might be a new railway built sometime in the future. (The New South Wales approach?)

Meanwhile in Scotland, following devolution, several major rail projects have been completed, including the reopening of lines closed by previous UK governments.

Airports:

Michael R. James writes: Re. “Airport competition benefits — everyone for seconds!” (Friday, item 12). Ben Sandilands wrote:

Orly or Charles de Gaulle in Paris, or even JFK would be Tullamarine’s worst nightmare, where each uses automated mini-trains to shuttle travellers between terminals and to the nearest rail/metro station, a future scenario that Lindsay Fox must cherish as the owner of Avalon.

Indeed, but of course all Paris’ airports are under the control of one government entity, Aeroports de Paris.  Ditto, JFK and all the airports in  the greater NY area, including Newark and LaGuardia, are run by the quasi-governmental Port Authority of NY & NJ.

Airports are natural monopolies and it does not serve citizens to be held to ransom by commercial entities.  Even the centre of the universe of the free market, New York, doesn’t engage in the nonsense we have inflicted on ourselves.  No doubt the Port Authority likes to turn a profit too but that hasn’t impeded fulfilling its public interest role in building excellent public transport links as you said.

Using the free shuttle to the A-train subway, last time I took it — all the way to Columbia University Medical Centre above 168th street (i.e. a long, long ride) it cost all of $1.75, and got you there with no drama or sweat.  They are now planning extending the AirTrain (currently shuttles to the Subway at edge of the airport) all the way to lower Manhattan.

Whereas Melbourne Airport is obstructing a train line purely to protect its parking rip-off monopoly (and taxi levy income). In Brisbane the much shorter train trip — by private operator — to the airport costs $14.50 (from CBD) and stops at 8pm!  Merde!

And of course the real competition for the existing airport monopolies would be TGV train lines connecting Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne.  Unless our governments contracted with Macquarie to never compete in that way too?

In the first year of operation of the TGV linking Paris and Lyon (25 years ago!), planes stopped flying the route.  Ditto for the recently opened TGV linking Barcelona-Madrid.  All trains and city Metros in France are still run by the state while everything in the UK is pretty much privatized (though some RailTrack had to be rescued by the state when the privatized entity failed).  Which is the successful model — from the point of view of citizens?

(Those who really don’t know or cannot guess, should read Guy Rundle’s piece of last Friday).

The HMAS Adelaide:

Chris Hill writes: Re. “Central Coast in a spin over rumours Obama will sink their battleship” (Friday, item 3). Jason Whittaker wrote: “The ship will also be sunk about 1.7 kilometres offshore from North Avoca Beach — the closest scuttled naval ship to the Australian shore.”

Ah … no. That honour goes to HMVS Cerberus, located at Half Moon Bay (within Melbourne’s Port Phillip bay), which is less than 100 metres from shore. Perhaps a little checking of sites other than noship.com.au would have revealed that?

From Burma, Lonely Planet founder Tony Wheeler writes: I expect they’re just going to scuttle it rather than dramatically “blow it up”, but I’m surprised your HMAS Adelaide story didn’t mention HMAS Canberra — sunk off the Great Ocean Road in Victoria on October 4 last year. Or HMAS Swan sunk off the Western Australia coast some years back.

Neither with much negative effect apart from making scuba divers happy.

Meanwhile in Burma, all the talk is about the election…

Balanced reporting:

Tom Richman writes: To paraphrase Goring, every time I hear the words  “balanced reporting” I want to reach for my Luger. (yes, I know it was a Browning in the original and that Goring was a mis-attributed source … but you get the point).

Separated at birth:

Simon Ferns writes:

Tony Abbott:

Doctor Who monster, Silurian: