Equal justice?

Victoria’s Attorney General Robert Clarke has expressed the rather peculiar opinion that the state’s Legal Aid agency for indigent defendants is capable of adequately representing clients, in spite of a funding crisis that has postponed a number of trials. One of the fundamentals of a democracy should be equality before the law, and adequate legal representation is a significant part of this. The wilful ignorance of the Victorian government on this issue is concerning. With pay for Legal Aid solicitors dwarfed by that of most of those in the profession, combined with an underfunded service, the equitable access to justice that is so important is under threat.

Cowardice in Congress

It seems not even a massacre of primary school children is enough to convince US lawmakers to pass meaningful gun law reform. The powerful NRA and its gun nut supporters seems incapable of shame, no matter how much blood they have on their hands. Had the organisation not constantly and vociferously lobbied against even modest gun reforms, many more Americans would be alive today. They bleat on about civil liberties, but here in Australia we acknowledge the simple truth that no-one needs a semi automatic weapon. Full stop. Yet, shock, horror, we are just as free as our American counterparts. Anyone who feels the need for such a weapon, to be blunt, must be compensating for something; it is sad that millions of Americans seem to believe that having the ability to blow someones head off is somehow an important part of being free. And let’s not forget how, just like most of the world’s other woes, this is really just about greed. If greedy gun manufacturers didn’t pour millions into the NRA, solely to protect their own profits, it would be far less powerful. Barack Obama, speaking to the media yesterday was clearly angry. He had every right to be.

Before we jump to conclusions…

Just who could be responsible for the Boston attacks?

As the dust settles in the aftermath of the Boston bombings, the search for answers, and culprits is already well underway. Naturally, the first suspicion of many will be Islamic extremists, either from or sympathetic to al Qaeda. But when one stops to consider the facts, this seems less likely. For one, the reportedly unsophisticated nature of the devices, and the fact that they appear not to have been suicide explosions seems unusual for an attack by Islamic terrorist groups. Furthermore the apparent lack of any prior intelligence indicates either a failure on the part of the relevant agencies, or more likely a so called ‘lone wolf’; a single individual acting alone, hence leaving much less of a trail. This individual could well be an Islamic fundamentalist. Or, if past attacks of this nature are anything to go by, the attacks are just as likely the work of a domestic extremist, likely of a right wing persuasion. Indeed, the attack is reminiscent of the 1996 bombing which occurred during the Atlanta Olympics, which was carried out by right wing extremist Eric Rudolph. Given the current political climate, a similar individual being responsible is in my view the most sensible conclusion.

Once again, more questions than answers on Iraq

The renewed attention given to former Australian PM John Howard’s decision to join the US in invading Iraq again raises questions about why exactly our nation became involved, and what we hoped to gain from doing so. Without the presence of weapons of mass destruction, there was very little reason to become involved. If fighting terrorism was the aim, if anything the invasion was a boon for recruitment, radicalising many. Protecting the humanitarian rights of Iraqis could be a justification, but given the lack of intervention elsewhere (such as Sudan), this is merely evident of an obvious double standard. Australia aspires to being regarded as a sensible middle power in global affairs, but such actions, seemingly to curry favour with the Bush government, were in nobodies interests.
Ten years on , it is time once again to ask why we became involved, and if it was really worthwhile. Given our ongoing role in Afghanistan, these questions remain as pertinent as ever.

15 years on, what can we learn from the Good Friday agreement?

Yesterday marked the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which largely brough an end to three decades of discord and violence in Northern Ireland. It was a historic agreement, with historic consequences, in that it gave all parties a stake in the new Northern Ireland, and brought former foes, who had once been bitter enemies together, with a former IRA member (Martin McGuinness) serving as deputy First Minister to a Unionist figure who once would have been his mortal enemy. The fact that such a solution could be negotiated in spite of such violence and bitter hatred ought to be seen as a beacon of hope for those seeking to resolve even the most bitter and long running conflicts. It also demonstrates that when both sides are willing to give a little, agreement is possible.

You betcha- How gambling is pervading Australian culture and society

I must say that I took with a grain of a salt the anecdote of ubiquitous bookmaker Tom Waterhouse apparently being sought out for autographs by youngsters. Had gambling really become so omnipresent in Australian society? And so, I was a little shocked to overhear several lads, of 10 at the oldest on the train, evidently off on a school holiday excursion yesterday discussing how a wager had been proposed amongst them as to whether or not they would make the train. The amount in question, $3.50 to be precise. I note this because whilst people making small wagers, often with not intent of payment being relatively normal, such a specific amount can only be a product of the constant flaunting of odds during sports by a motley crew of immoral (or perhaps amoral) bookies. These unscrupulous individuals, and the various media outlets happy to take their money, are clearly having a detrimental role in society. Just as twenty or thirty years ago advertising hoardings at sporting grounds encouraged us to “have a Winfield” or some other tobacco product, we now have the equally pervasive, seemingly constant cacophony of those encouraging us to bet. In my view, this is just as damaging to society. The impact of problem gambling should be viewed in the same way as tobacco smoking, a cost to society so that a small few can make a profit.

It is time, then, for our leaders to say enough is enough. Self regulation has clearly failed, the lure of the almighty dollar too great. Regulating pokies is one thing; at least in that case there is an element of choice in going to a venue. But it is simply unacceptable for such as potentially harmful practice to become a cultural norm by being rammed down our throats every time we wish to enjoy a game of football or cricket. The time for government to act is now.

Poll tax shall forever be Thatcher’s legacy

Inevitably the death of a political figure prompts much retrospective analysis, especially as to their legacy. The most succinct analysis that seems to be heard of the Thatcher years is that she implemented necessary reforms, and then some, causing much pain to those less well off. The infamous poll tax, a tax imposed per resident to replace council rates, was the worst of these. Like the Goods and Service Tax here, it was the very worst kind of tax- a regressive one, which highlights one of my fundamental issues with conservatism- measures implemented under the banner of ‘equality’ which really harm those worst off the most. By shifting from a much fairer progressive tax to a flat tax, she clearly demonstrated the nasty contempt that certain sections of conservatism seem to have for those less well off.

Drones- more harm than good?

An article in today’s Saturday Age newspaper outlines how American drone strikes in tribal areas of Pakistan seem to be doing more harm than good. I do not intend this post as a diatribe about the morals of their use. One must question their efficacy, not when it comes to killing, but in a wider sense, when winning hearts and minds is just as important as the conflict itself. When one Taliban leader notes that one drone attack increased recruiting ten fold, serious questions have to asked as to their overall efficacy.

The end of 1984

Fortunate news has come out today that refugees indefinitely detained on the basis of adverse security assessments will now be informed by ASIO of the reasons behind the assessment. Whatever one’s opinion on this vexed issue, ceasing the Orwellian practice of not informing individuals of the reasons for their detention can only be viewed as a positive.

Sound and fury signifying nothing

Whilst the present situation in North Korea may seem alarming, it is unlikely to come to anything more than sabre rattling. Kim Jong-Un as a new leader is clearly eager to assert his authority domestically to prevent any potential instability, by presenting a strong facade to the world. By antagonising South Korea and the US, he demonstrates his ideological commitment to those inside the nation. Internationally, ironically the moves are intended to foster negotiation rather than conflict by forcing nations such as the US and China back to the negotiating table. Even attempts to acquire further nuclear technology and weaponry ought to be viewed as a defensive rather than aggressive posture, given the effect nuclear weapons had in keeping the Cold War cold. Hence, whilst certainly cause for concern, the bluster of North Korea ought to be taken with a grain of salt.