Cameron's Brain

UN says USA violates human rights

From the Report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention:

The executive branch of the United States Govenrment operates as judge,
prosecutor and defence counsel of the Guantánamo Bay detainees: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal as provided for by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

That's just one of many harsh criticisms that the UN has of the situation at Guantánamo Bay in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the report.

So... the US used Saddam's violations of human rights as justification for the invasion of Iraq (after they couldn't find any WMD). In fact, that's the usual justification the US uses to invade countries. That and "watch out! the've got the bomb!".

Now the UN has again accused the US of human rights violations. Meanwhile,

US State Department published a report on Wednesday on human rights practices in other countries, pointing its fingers at other countries for their so-called human rights abuses. It has done the same thing seven times now.

And you have to love this speech by US Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to the UN General Assembly on January 11, 2006:

Membership on the Commission by some of the world’s most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself. As President Bush noted in his remarks before the General Assembly in September, "When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the UN Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected – respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect."

We must resist the efforts of some to insert language on development not contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We believe that there should be a strong focus on the abuses of civil and political rights, as this body will alone be responsible for monitoring the adherence to the international standards in this area.

Of course, Australia's human rights track record isn't any better. According to this website from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties:

Since 1990 the UNHRC has heard almost fifty complaints against Australia.   In eleven (11) of those cases, the UNHRC found that Australia violated ICCPR   rights. While some Australians find it embarrassing or outrageous that a foreign   tribunal can sit in judgment of Australia, Australia   does not have a Bill of Rights so our own courts cannot hear complaints   about human rights violations.

Of course, Australia's violations tend not to involve torture or imprisoning people for 5 years without a fair trial, as do the UN's criticisms of the United States. Australia's most recent criticisms involve the treatment of people being held in immigration detention and having a federal law that discriminates against gays.

So the question I have is: what do we do about it?  I'm sure none of us wants to be party to the violation of human rights. We're the good guys.... right? All I can think of doing is making some noise. Trying to mobilise people to make more noise. Educate. Raise awareness. Vote. Start political parties. Create alternative media. Act. Do whatever we can think of. Maybe some of it will work.

Political blogging with Senator Bartlett

Senator Andrew Bartlett is living the blog life, getting some shite from some of his readers, and responding directly. Here's an example of one of his retorts:

If you think juvenile name calling and vilification is debate, good on you. If you think my refusal to allow my website to be used as a platform for it is petulant, go and start your own site and you are your pals can limitlessly indulge each others prejudices all you like.

I've said it many times before that I've been a big fan of Andrew's since I started reading his blog. He's put himself out there in a way few pollies do. He's making himself available and bringing a greater level of transparency to the political process. If you live in Australia, you should read his blog.

Hey, Let's Invade Iran!

I laughed my ass off when I heard this on the news today:

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

So in case you missed it, the U.S. are blaming Iran for their shitty situation in Iraq.

These are the same "U.S. military and intelligence officials" who

• didn't figure out ahead of time that a dozen guys were going to fly planes into NY buildings
• were convinced Saddam was hiding WMD and was an "immediate threat"
• have spent 5 years unsuccessfully trying to find bin Laden
• thought invading Iraq would be a walk in the park
• are getting their ass kicked by a bunch of disorganized, leaderless "insurgents"

So guys... we don't believe you. Credibility-wise, you rank right up there with the guys that ran Enron. So hey, if you want to invade Iran, let's just drop the pretense, okay? Just come out and say "hey, screw it, Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). And we want to invade it."

We'll understand. Truly. It's okay. We know your economy is frakked when the oil runs out. You've got ten years to remedy the situation or all your pension funds are in the toilet and your friends in China will be outsourcing their laundry to the US cuz of the cheap labour rates. So do whatever you have to do. Just don't insult our intelligence by making up stories to try to manufacture our consent. We'll close our eyes and pretend you don't work for us.

John Howard opposed to same-sex marriage

As reported today in the Adelaide Advertiser... 

Asked if he could support gay marriage in light of Sir Elton's civil union, Mr Howard said: "I would be opposed to it.

"I think marriage is for men and women.

"That's why we amended the Marriage Act (in August 2004)."

Mr Howard said he did not intend to show hostility or discrimination towards gay people.

"But I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others," he said.

"That's the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions."

And I thought The Liberal Party believed in:

"lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives and equal opportunity for all Australians"

Apparently those beliefs don't extend as far as to who homosexual people share their life with. I think Greg Barns put it well last year when he wrote:  

One key area of discrimination that remains in Australia is in relation to the institution of marriage. Some might argue that marriage is less relevant in 21st-century Australia. But the state does not think so. As University of Capetown philosopher David Benatar has noted, “A marriage recognised by the State provides an opportunity for those who make … commitments and investments to formalise them in a way that facilitates the protection of the parties to the marriage. Where no provision is made for same-sex marriages, homosexuals (both male and female) are denied such benefits.”

The liberals in John Howard’s Liberal Party have another chance to make a stand for the values for which their Party once stood – tolerance and equality. Australia’s gay community deserves their support because there is no legitimate reason to deny their right to be treated as equal citizens.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is just one of many that convinces me that Australia needs a brand new political party for the 21st century. A party that is modern, relevant, and that understands contemporary thinking about such issues and isn't wedded to inane and archaic Judeo-Christian principles.

 

Chomsky interview is up on G'DAY WORLD

The recent interview I did with American political activist and author Noam Chomsky is online. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed making it.

The Russian man who saved the world

In 2002, historians and diplomats from Russia, the USA and Cuba met to revisit the events surrounding the Cuban missle crisis in 1963.

Noam Chomsky tells this story from the meeting:

The nature of the threats was dramatically underscored last October at the summit meeting in Havana on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, attended by key participants from Russia, the U.S., and Cuba.  Planners knew at the time that they had the fate of the world in their hands, but new information released at the Havana summit was truly startling. We learned that the world was saved from nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who blocked an order to fire nuclear missiles when Russian submarines were attacked by U.S. destroyers near Kennedy’s “quarantine” line. Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch would have almost certainly set off an interchange that could have “destroyed the Northern hemisphere,” as Eisenhower had warned.

Where is the Nobel Peace Prize for Vassily Arkhipov?

You can read more about the summit meeting in this interview with Thomas S. Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

what will work next

Trevor, all good points and I know you know your political history. But I'm not interested in what hasn't worked before. I'm interested in what will work next. None of the political parties in this country speaks to me. None of them use technology to communicate with me. None of them seem to get my concerns. Maybe I’m alone, but I'm tired of waiting for them to get it.

You have a choice - make snide remarks or make history. Up to you.

aussie politics 101

Trevor Cook can take the piss all he likes. Apparently he doesn’t approve of an ignoramus like me taking an interest in the political process. And maybe he’s right. Maybe running the country should be left to the lawyers and PR hacks? Maybe we should leave it to the guys who are in the pockets of Big Media, Big Money and the unions? Perhaps there is no reason for a new party to represent the interest of those who are unhappy with the current options.

Apparently, all it takes to set up a political party is 500 members, $500, a name and a constitution. But Trevor wouldn’t approve.

Anyone know what it takes to set up a new political party in Australia?

Googled around the other day and couldn’t find an easy 1–2–3. Anyone know how these things work?

Tony Goodson picks up on my politics vibe

Do two people a party make?