I will bring yesterday's posts up at the right date. For the moment, I am distracted by the continuing fall-out from the Sydney hostage crisis. This post is a follow up to Palme' d’Ors for silliness in Sydney’s hostage crisis. I have, following advice from kvd, corrected the heading.
My first new Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to Senator David Leyonhjelm for his views on guns. It’s not that I agree with Stephanie Peatling nor necessarily disagree with all aspects of what Senator Leyonhjelm says (I opposed Mr Howard’s views on gun control), but the timing was remarkably stupid. As, I might add, were the reactions of US Tea Party supporters.
My second Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to change.org for their email encouraging me to support a petition on tighter bail laws. Now as an organisation they need to run with popular issues to get cash, and I understand the position of those suddenly reacting who change.org is responding to. But at a time when Australia has been rife with proposals and actions to restrict bail, many of which have very adverse effects on particular individuals or groups with little social gain, we need another anti-bail campaign like a hole in the head. Let’s just wait until we know the facts.
My third Palme d'Or for supreme silliness goes to the neo-conservative commentators for their comments on the #illridewithyou campaign. The term neo-liberals is sometimes applied to them, but that has an economics connotation that I don’t always disagree with. I like neo-conservative better because they wish to freeze Australian society into that particular past model stuck in their mind. To attach neo-liberal to those views is an insult to liberalism.
This is not, I might add, an attack on my regular commenter Rod who has been engaged in a conversation with me on the issue. Rather, the neo-cons attack the very goodness of the human spirit.
18 comments:
I concur with your Palme D'Ors. I concur with them utterly. That is all.
Good heavens, Jim! I agree with all those! Though I am rather more positive about John Howard's gun laws.
Anyone offering to ride with Jewish kids who have been prey to antisemitic violence on school buses?
DG
It is possible surely DG to embrace the idea of #illridewithyou -- I do -- AND to abhor what happened to those Jewish kids in the Eastern Suburbs. Basically it is the same principle as far as I am concerned. As one who once taught at Masada College... Though not Jewish, or Muslim.
I am not sure about the timing issue. Our political leaders praise the police even though they have no idea whether their tactics were successful in minimising the number of fatalities. In that context it seems to me to be appropriate to introduce the idea that a better outcome might have been possible if one of the hostages had been permitted to carry a hand gun.
Leyonhjelm is an idiot who gives small-l liberals (in the Aus sense of that label) a bad name. He needs better advice, or maybe needs to just shut up and take his taxpayer funded pay packet, hopefully with some modest sense of irony while he rails against government excess.
It is a frustration that, while I disagree completely with Ms Peatling's obvious views, I am disgusted that the best on offer by way of rebuttal is her quoted:
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun ... and when seconds count, police are minutes away," he said.
Really? Who writes (i.e. cut and pastes from the internet) that sort of crap for him? I think he urgently needs some adult advice.
kvd
ps DG is right. I also don't remember the #equivalentlevelof angst being expressed.
Personally I didn't participate in the illridewithyou meme. Not really my kind of thing - conspicuous angst. But I would equally well do it for Jewish people as for Muslims as for Hindus as for...well, anyone.
I should say that I was maid of honour at two different weddings, a Jewish wedding and a Muslim wedding in the same month (the latter held in the foyer of the mosque so I could attend). I take people as they come, not as a particular religion or race. I don't really care what religion or race people are as long as they treat me with decency and respect.
I really did not like the timing of Leyonhjelm's gun announcement. I found it tacky. I'm not alone.
KVD, you do realise who Leyonhjelm's advisor is? My former blogging partner. I have had a difficult time holding my tongue all day because I disagree so fundamentally. One of those topics SL and I never discuss after a very, very unpleasant conversation one day on the blog where I got very emotional.
P.S. My interest in the whole thing has of course been intensified by my interest in the numerous cases involving Monis. See this post by my colleague Jeremy Gans.
Is there evidence of hapless victims of gun attacks in the US ameliorating their desperate plight with retaliatory fire? ..or the slightest evidence even that the right to bear arms may be protecting the US public from such events? This is not a straightforward libertarian issue, Mr Leyonhjelm.
DG
Totally agree DG. I personally believe that where something may potentially cause harm to others, the government may and should regulate the use and ownership of that thing. Particularly where it can be used to kill people, and in the case of semi automatic weapons, is unnecessary for hunting. I vastly prefer the English way of doing things. The problem is that it's too late already in the US. But it's not just the shooting sprees which one has to worry about. It's the accidental deaths and the suicides etc which rise when you have a society which is saturated by guns.
My view is one of many and I even accept I might be wrong! Perish that thought!
That said, I totally agree on your comment about Leyonhjelm's gun control comments.
Hi LE - yes, was aware of your erstwhile blogging partner's role; simply assumed she was out to lunch when the talking head spoke.
The waters are far too muddy at present to have any sort of sensible discussion about guns per se, but I gently do not agree with your position, and would gently suggest there is a discussion yet to be had about increasing reliance upon government to solve all problems by ever increasing restriction upon the people who are not actually part of the problem, while leaving the very small percentage of nutters and criminals to go about their business as usual - because they just don't seem to ever play by any such idealised set of rules.
We will always have criminals and nutters among us; I simply object to being considered one of them by my government. Leyonhjelm is correct to point to this; I thought him foolish to do so now, and in such hackneyed terms.
kvd
I personally believe that where something may potentially cause harm to others, the government may and should regulate the use and ownership of that thing. Particularly where it can be used to kill people
So I guess, tragically, it will now be knives. Then maybe cars?
There is just no logic; it is all just (understandable) emotion of the moment.
kvd
KVD, the thing is that a gun (especially an automatic weapon) can transform a weakling into a powerful person. A knife cannot.
As for cars - well they *are* highly regulated already. Anyone who wants to operate one has to get a licence and prove that they can use them responsibly. It doesn't always work...but...at least it's better than nothing.
On second thoughts, probably better that I keep it for private discussion why I believe as I do. Just flagging that it's based on personal experience.
I think this has been an inevitable end to the hyper exagerated crap put forth by the government. Throw in the "T" word and anything can be justified in the name of security. What a joke one man, one rifle, a huge showing off of new toys and tactics by the Police. So what happens when we get a real terrorist attack. A curfew? Abolition of presumption of innocence (oh that's right we already have that). I used to think that Bjelke Petersen was the ultimate right wing nazi. He had nothing on this mob.
And for the all giving up of liberties what did we get in return George? We got exactly what we deserved.
Post a Comment