Friday, 14 June 2013

If there wasn't a vote in hate, fear and prejudice then there would be no gain in pandering to any of them. The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had here, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won.

Australia's political heartland: hate, fear, prejudice

Posted Thu Jun 6, 2013 7:59am AEST

Photo: The ugly reality of Australian democracy is that there are votes in a subtle dog whistle to racist sentiment. (Thinkstock)

The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had in hate, fear and prejudice, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won, writes Jonathan Green.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard: "(The Government has a plan) to stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue with Australian workers at the back".

Media/football identity Eddie McGuire: "Get Adam Goodes down for it do you reckon?"

So where does it come from, this simultaneous sense of shame and licence over racism in this country?
Our twin capacity to tolerate a political discussion that fixes on stopping the boats and Aussie jobs while generating storms of righteous indignation over high-profile instances of racial abuse and denigration?
In all the suddenly inward looking wonder since a single hurled syllable from an irate 13-year-old set off this latest pricking of the national racial conscience, the role of our leaders has been all but ignored, the critical mood set by those who would guide, inform and govern us.
How can we be so detached from what is one of the ugly realities of Australian democracy: that there are votes in a subtle dog whistle to racist sentiment, that an appeal to xenophobia or worse is at the very core of some our most significant and constant national discussions.
What else is at the heart of the bipartisan embrace of our cold-hearted policy aimed at resisting the arrival of refugees from war, hunger, poverty, oppression and simple fear? Policy that masks an appeal to a suburban distaste for an imagined invading mass of 'others' with pious mouthings over the safety of lives at sea and noble distaste for the 'evil trade' of people smugglers.
We value the assumed order, dignity and righteous process of 'the queue'.
We honour the now timeworn maxim: "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". But surely we also sense the darker truth at the heart of this discussion: that there are votes in pandering to xenophobia and outright racist loathing and fear.
It's the sentiment that lies in the populist pit Kevin Rudd feared when he warned of a "race to the bottom" in refugee policy. This issue in our politics is a comprehensive failure of vision, execution and communication … and has been prosecuted with an eye not to the realities of global human movement, but against the prejudices of a populist rump, voters whose preconceptions of asylum seekers as disease-laden, terror-tainted, queue jumpers have been pandered to by successive administrations.
Why? Because it has been a political convenience to do so.
Watch the recent parliamentary rhetoric, from Coalition spokesman Scott Morrison who railed against the ASIO "light touch" that has allowed the ready egress of boat-borne 'jihadists', to Werriwa MP Laurie Ferguson who challenged the PM on Tuesday to make plainer the ALP strategy for arresting the flow of refugees.
Without more sound and fury waged against the tide of boats and their fearsome cargo, the ALP would be 'dead' in western Sydney, clearly the heartland of national concern over questions of orderly migration.
And all of this dark heat around an issue that is essentially a fabrication created for purely political purpose. The trickle of boat-borne arrivals does not by any objective international measure constitute a crisis. What it does constitute is an opportunity to rake fear in a sometimes xenophobic and insular public.
And it's not just in migration that exploiting a sense of racial disquiet can be a political positive.
What else other than a subtle racist underlay could have enabled the quickly imposed apartheid of the NT intervention, policy at first carried out by our armed forces under the cover of a suspended race discrimination act and that years later still leaves citizens innocent of any offence other than their race with limited control over their own income and the most mundane details of their daily life.
We should think on this when we wonder how it is that somehow, weirdly, inexplicably, racism seems so ever present, such a purulent constant under a thin scab of well-cultivated, sometimes cynical, civility.
And it is of course too quick and easy to blame our politicians for the populism that uses the community’s darker instincts as an easy path to votes.
Politics is nothing if not a mirror of the society it serves … that it, in every sense, represents. We provide the clay they work with.
If there wasn't a vote in hate, fear and prejudice then there would be no gain in pandering to any of them. The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had here, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won.
The likes of Eddie McGuire aren't even a pimple on its backside … and in many ways the star chambers that assemble around these public transgressions just blind us to the greater reality of a public whose blind-peeping anxieties breed an agenda that turns that suburban fear to populist political profit.
Jonathan Green is the presenter of Sunday Extra on Radio National and a former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Bradley manning/Shhhhh

Manning trial shines light on a culture of secrecy

The Drum

By ABC's Jane Cowan

Posted Thu Jun 6, 2013 9:19am AEST

Bradley Manning is escorted from his hearing.

Photo: Private Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks have shown up the dilemma of managing sensitive material. (AFP: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The low-key coverage the US media seems to have given to the Bradley Manning case suggests the country that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy is struggling to come to terms with what the trial reveals about America itself, writes Jane Cowan.

For a case centred on the biggest leak of secrets in American history, a massive data dump that sent the US government into a tailspin, the Manning court martial has a remarkably anticlimactic sense of going through the motions. As far as courtroom drama goes, the first week saw hardly a flourish.
There's no shortage, though, of dramatic characterisations of how damaging Bradley Manning's leaks were. Hillary Clinton has described a kind of diplomatic Armageddon, saying "disclosures like these tear at the fabric of responsible government."
Barack Obama's highest ranking military commander, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen suggested Bradley Manning might have "blood on his hands".
But by some calculations what Private Manning leaked was less than 1 per cent of what the US government classifies every year.
"If you have a government like our government that is radically over-classifying secrets then occasionally you're going to have a radical counterforce - which is a massive leak of those secrets."
That quote comes from Alex Gibney. The Academy award-winning director created the new documentary We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks which casts Bradley Manning as the moral centre of the tale.
Gibney recalls being at Guantanamo Bay filming some establishing shots when a minder stopped them, saying, "You can't shoot that mountain, that mountain is classified."
Says Gibney: "When we start classifying Mother Earth you know we've got a problem."
Private Manning and WikiLeaks have shown up the dilemma of managing sensitive material: classify too much and you run the risk that those who work day in day out with this information see so many innocuous documents stamped secret that they lose respect for the system.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks there was a move to improve information sharing and get rid of the "silos" that had meant one hand of the vast American intelligence network didn't always know what the other was up to.
These days some 4 million Americans have a security clearance that lets them access classified material. As a lowly Private First Class Bradley Manning had apparent free rein to roam around inside confidential databases from his work station in dusty Fort Hammer, Iraq, download hundreds of thousands of files and copy them onto discs labelled as Lady Gaga songs. Private Manning's abuse of his security clearance could well bias the system against further information sharing.
Then there's the question of where leaks fit in the workings of a democracy. Journalism arguably relies on people who know something the public doesn't speaking out of turn to reporters - often about things the powers that be would prefer people didn't know. As documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney puts it, "There are times when leaking secrets are important as a kind of pressure valve so we can hold the government to account."
At worst the Manning case threatens to criminalise public criticism of the government. At the same time a grand jury has been examining whether the US government can go after the big fish in this equation, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the publisher of the leaked material.
All this unfolds under a president who campaigned as the whistleblower's best friend and promised to usher in a "new era of open government". In reality, the Obama administration has gone after leakers with a vengeance. His attorney-general Eric Holder has pursued six government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act - more than all his predecessors put together.
There have been six prosecutions of leakers but this is the first of the cases to reach trial. In tandem, unprecedented scrutiny of reporters has provoked outcry across the political spectrum. Obama's Justice Department secretly obtained two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a probe investigating who told AP about a plot by an Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen to bomb an airliner.
In a separate case, investigators seized two days worth of Fox reporter James Rosen's personal emails and electronically tracked his movements at the State Department to see who his source was. Most troublesome to journalists - an FBI agent reportedly claimed there was evidence Rosen broke the law as an aider and abettor or a co-conspirator over his discussions with the alleged leaker.
The Obama White House defends the prosecutions on national security grounds but has been accused of brandishing the spy law "like a club" to silence the squeaky wheels inside government.
"What's astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that newsgathering... asking a source to provide sensitive information, is itself illegal," legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Gabe Rottman told Fox News.com.
Diplomacy is surely difficult without the ability to operate with a degree of secrecy, but there is still such a thing as the public interest.
As for the aiding the enemy charge - even Manning's critics have begun to say it's a bridge too far, especially when Private Manning has already offered to plead guilty to charges that would keep him behind bars for two decades. The prosecution argues the 25-year-old put intelligence into the hands of Al Qaeda; that material he leaked was found inside Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. It's unclear so far whether prosecutors are saying he intended to help America's enemies. They do say he was driven by arrogance, that he was seeking personal notoriety.
The judge has ruled Bradley Manning only had to have reason to believe the leaks would hurt national security. She's indicated his motivations will only be considered in the sentencing phase not in finding innocence or guilt. But it has to be said that the evidence heard in the space of a few days has shown a distinct lack of any hatred of America or sympathy for its adversaries. The defence argues PFC Manning knew the material he leaked was embarrassing but deliberately selected things he didn't believe the enemy could use.
Think of the Abu Ghraib revelations - you could argue the release of the photos of detainee abuse aided the enemy at least in the propaganda sense. But does that justify keeping the citizenry in the dark? Private Manning's critics say he broke the law - and he acknowledges that. But his supporters, and his lawyers, say he was answering to a higher cause - the public good.
Ironically - or perhaps not - for a case about leaking, the Manning court martial has been shrouded in secrecy to the point where some reporters are writing about a "cloak and dagger" feel. On the first day, Manning supporters in the courtroom were forced to turn their t-shirts inside out so the word 'truth' emblazoned in white letters couldn't be seen. The next day a military spokesman briefing reporters at Fort Meade conceded that may have been overly zealous.
As many as one third of the government's 141 witnesses are expected to give testimony in secret, meaning journalists and the public won't hear it. Many court filings are impossible to view and there has been no access to court orders and motions filed. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has resorted to crowd funding to pay for a transcriber so records of the proceedings can be available in something like real time.
Lawyer Michael Ratner from the Centre for Constitutional Rights has said "I sit in that courtroom and it seems like a completely secret proceeding to me". His organisation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a collection of reporters are challenging the lack of public access. The military did release more than 500 documents as the trial began this week - including a photo of a noose Private Manning made from a bed sheet while he was being detained in Kuwait, something that was presented in evidence six months ago.
The Army says there's "no specific trigger" for the release of documents and the military has been working to process as many records as possible. In February the military began releasing Judge Denise Lind's older rulings amid numerous Freedom of Information Act requests. Eugene Fidell, a military law teacher Yale has described the Manning trial as "a train that's run badly off the tracks". It plays out at what he says could be a tipping point for the military justice system, with dismay over its handling of sexual assaults.
Perhaps this muddy terrain accounts for the once-over-lightly treatment the Manning case has so often received from much of the US media. Even on the first day of the long-awaited trial it was hard to find meaningful coverage of it on network TV and it didn't make the front page of either the New York Times or the Washington Post. There's every sign a country that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy around the world is struggling to come to terms with Bradley Manning and what he's shown America about itself.
Jane Cowan is an ABC correspondent based in Washington. View her full profile here.

FBI in pursuit of Snowden/SBS news

The FBI says it has started taking steps to prosecute Edward Snowden for exposing secret US surveillance programs.

The United States has launched a criminal investigation and is taking "all necessary steps" to prosecute Edward Snowden for exposing secret US surveillance programs, the FBI director says.
"As to the individual who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
"These disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety. We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures," he said.
The FBI chief's comments offered the first explicit confirmation that the US government was pursuing Snowden, the 29-year-old American IT specialist who has admitted to leaking information about far-reaching surveillance programs.
Snowden, who worked as a subcontractor handling computer networks for the National Security Agency, is now in Hong Kong, where he has vowed to contest any US attempt to extradite him.
Mueller defended the collection of American phone records and internet traffic as legal programs that were approved by a judge and were in accordance with the Constitution.

shock horror murdoch divorce photo etc

Rupert Murdoch files for divorce from third wife Wendi Deng

By North America correspondent Lisa Millar, wires

Updated 1 hour 1 minute ago

Rupert Murdoch and his wife Wendi Deng arrive for the wedding of Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman.

Photo: A spokesman for Rupert Murdoch says the media mogul's marriage to Wendi Deng has "broken down irretrievably". (Paul McConnell: Getty Images)

Map: United States

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has filed for divorce from his third wife, Wendi Deng, after 14 years of marriage.

The 82-year-old billionaire chairman of News Corporation filed for divorce from his 44-year-old wife in the New York Supreme Court.
"I can confirm for the record that Rupert filed in New York State Supreme Court this morning for divorce," his spokesman Steven Rubenstein said.
"The line from the filing says 'the relationship between Mr Murdoch and Wendi has broken down irretrievably'."
The couple, who have been married since 1999, met in China and have two daughters.
Mr Murdoch's spokesman would not confirm any further details, including arrangements on the custody of the couple's two children.
The divorce proceedings come just days before major changes to the structure of News Corporation.
Mr Murdoch's last divorce reportedly cost him $1.7 billion.