Moral conscience of the nation

The Australian Greens are well known for their opposition to war. A cursory reading of their website makes it very clear to any observer that they are vehemently opposed to the United States and Israel's military action against the Iranian regime. Diplomacy and peaceful resolutions are the solution, not war. 

Perhaps they envisage negotiations, brokered by an impartial third party. Moreover, the aggrieved Iranian regime isn't evil, but amenable to reason, if only they were given a chance to calmly talk about their legitimate grievances, all sides in this conflict would see the errors of their ways. 

Foreign policy analysts who are actually across their brief on the subject of Iran think otherwise. As Times of Israel contributor Samuel Koltov argues, Iran cannot be treated as a rational, and logical state actor. Too many analysts fail to grasp Iran's religious-ideological worldview. Its leaders believe themselves to be preparing the world for the coming of the Mahdi, an Islamic Messianic figure. Their hostility to the United States and Israel is regarded as a religious obligation. They are engaged in an eschatological battle with religious enemies. 

Nobody likes war. The immense death and destruction is tragic. The Greens fail to grasp that whoever negotiates a ceasefire with Iran will be negotiating with fanatics. 

https://greens.org.au/campaigns/no-us-forever-wars

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/stop-treating-iran-as-a-rational-actor/

We will make you be generous

The Australian Greens want to scrap all student loan debts if they hold the balance of power after the next federal election. The plan is to pay for this by increasing corporate taxation, and making wealthy Australians pay more income tax. Presumably this sounds very appealing to their target voter base, which includes a good number of young people living in inner city areas, as analysis by Roy Morgan Research shows. 

One also assumes that the Greens have thought this through properly, and they're not shooting themselves in the foot. If corporations have to pay higher taxes, it may mean that they have less money to invest in employing people, including investing in graduate employment programmes, or drive those companies offshore into countries with lower taxation. In other words, there will be less jobs for these university students when they graduate, and less tax revenue for the government to implement this policy. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10645903/Greens-promise-SCRAP-student-loan-debt-Australians-party-holds-balance-power.html

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7974-who-are-the-greens-2010-cf-2018-201905100753

Well deserved pile on

Irresponsible Twitter comments to high school graduates in the state of Victoria from Adam Bandt, MP, leader of the Australian Greens, and member for Melbourne in the Australian Parliament. They might play well to his inner city, partially Bohemian constituency, or to young voters who typically vote for his party. He should know better than to offer such advice to young people. Peer reviewed research, such as a 2020 article by Robin Williams, published in the Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, shows that among adolescents, cannabis can lead to misuse of other drugs, such as opioids. Furthermore, according to American Addiction Centers, the still maturing adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to the effects of marijuana, with its use adversely affecting cognitive function and development. 

What a waste of potential. A senior politician, let alone a party leader, should know better than to say such things. 

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/marijuana-rehab/effects-of-marijuana-on-teenage-brain

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359408/

 

Group hugs, everyone

This is posted here not to endorse a political party message, but to point out the breathtaking naivety of the Greens defence and foreign policies. It looks like a student activist poster on a campus billboard. What is their alternative? Defusing international tensions with a crack team of deradicalization program facilitators? The Greens' policies play to their left leaning base, being hostile to the United States, a well worn leftist article of faith, and their absolute belief in non-violence, even in the current world situation in which there is a real possibility of war with China. That is the whole point of the recently announced AUKUS alliance, and the submarine deal; to counter belligerent world powers. Nobody likes war. As just war theory holds, it should only be used as a last resort, but it should be an option. 

If the Greens had been around in the 1930s, perhaps their strategy to avoid war with Nazi Germany would have been to offer Hitler counselling to help him address unresolved childhood trauma. Surely he wasn't irredeemably evil, they'd reason. He liked art, nature, his pet Alsatian dogs, and claimed to be a vegetarian. 

In the words of Kim Seong-kon, professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and distinguished visiting professor at George Washington University:

 "Peace is given only to those who are strong and prepared for war."

https://aijac.org.au/featured/greens-foreign-policy-would-make-australia-less-safe/

https://www.nationthailand.com/perspective/30340951

https://www.smh.com.au/world/war-is-the-last-resort-but-it-must-remain-an-option-20120211-1syc7.html

How Green is my country?

The Australian Greens have come up with a policy platform to give young Australians free university or vocational education, a guaranteed job working on nation building projects, such as transitioning the Australian economy to 100 per cent renewable energy, building thousands of units of social housing, and giving every citizen a guaranteed basic income. Instead of bagging out the Greens for what I see as their hypocritical grandstanding as the conscience of the nation, I want to be more gracious this time, and briefly ask some open questions about these policies. 

While these measures may appeal to some voters, the question is, is any of this feasible? Beyond the motherhood statements in these policies, how do we find the money to pay for them all, especially when the economic situation is already uncertain? How much will it cost to provide free university or vocational education, without requiring the student to pay anything towards their education? As much as it would be great to look after every citizen, because alleviating poverty and housing insecurity are both laudable goals, shouldn't such government assistance be means tested? I am not across the science and economics of renewable energy compared to fossil fuels, but has the technology matured to the point where it can completely replace baseload power?

I invite the reader of this blog to answer my questions, if they feel so inclined. 

https://player.fm/series/drive-with-tom-elliott-2343161/greens-leader-adam-bandt-speaks-with-tom-elliott-june-23

Hard heads and hard hearts

For a bit of relief from listening to Christian podcasts, I decided to listen to the radio broadcast of the Australian Senate. Senators were debating the federal government's controversial repeal of the Medevac legislation. Speaking against the repeal was Senator Catryna Bilyk (ALP, Tasmania). The substance of her speech was good, not that I am an expert on this issue, but for a senior politician, her presentation was unpolished. She spoke with an upward inflection at the end of every sentence. This irritating habit, usually common in younger Australians, make the speaker sound insecure.

She was followed by Mehreen Faruqi (Greens, New South Wales). In speaking against the Medevac bill, she accused the government of being devoid of compassion for human life. Such as accusation sounds highly hypocritical coming from a Green, considering the Greens' pro-abortion stance. It is a pity that their concern for human life doesn't extend to the unborn.

Compliance

In a newly announced policy, the Australian Greens want to make catcalling and harassment of women in public places illegal. Violence and intimidation of women in public places is a serious problem, but I am not convinced that heavy handed legislation to regulate and micromanage the behaviour of citizens is the solution.

It should start in the home. Parents, especially fathers, are supposed to set an example to their sons of how to respect women. The average Australian male is more switched on than what the Greens give them credit for. We are more than capable of self examination and self assessment. It starts with asking yourself the question, "would I want my mother, partner, or sister to be treated like that?"

If boys don't have their fathers, then other relatives such as a grandfather or uncle should be setting them an example. Outside of the family unit, I would also rather see male school teachers, community leaders, sports coaches, or peer networks be more proactive in this area, and acting on their own initiative, without government intervention.

https://10daily.com.au/news/politics/a190429trebc/greens-want-to-outlaw-catcalling-of-women-on-australian-streets-20190429

Looking like a dill

From the Adelaide Advertiser: 

Sarah Hanson-Young has made an embarrassing blunder claiming Australia Day is celebrated in memory of Captain Cook’s landing at Botany Bay rather than commemorating arrival of the First Fleet.

To make matters worse, the error was contained in a statement to the press lashing Communications Minister Mitch Fifield and his department for not knowing the name of the indigenous nation where the Government was erecting a memorial to Captain James Cook.

“Despite an important national debate about changing the date of Australia Day away from Captain Cook’s landing at Botany Bay, the Government has decided to spend taxpayer money it is stripping from the ABC on yet another monument to Captain Cook on the land of the Dharawal people,” Senator Hanson-Young was quoted as saying in the press release.

“This Government is out of touch with the Australian people — taking money from our most trusted news service which will no doubt lead to further job cuts, and ignoring why our First Australians find the celebration of the arrival of Captain Cook so painful in one fell swoop.”

The Advertiser understands the error was made by a staff member. A press release correcting the mistake was issued about an hour later.

She later said that the error was made by a member of her staff. If this is true, I wonder who was responsible. Is it someone who has gone straight from a cloistered, rarefied private school environment, onto a cloistered, rarefied university, and then to a position as a political staffer?

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/greens-senator-sarah-hansonyoung-makes-bad-australia-day-mistake-in-press-release/news-story/1b3ab9e0bd945dcdf1d20f9ece79f98a





By from the National Maritime Museum, United Kingdom, Public Domain, Link

Head in the clouds

Sky News Australia has ambitions of rivaling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as Australia's largest media organisation. I occasionally notice spelling errors in its news ticker. Their website is no better. Perhaps the same people are responsible for both. Consider if you will this report from today. Attorney General George Brandis said that he had "no sympathy" for former Senator Scott Ludlam. Ludlam was forced to resign from the Senate because his dual Australian and New Zealand citizenship makes him ineligible to be a senator. What on earth is "duedilagence?"

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/07/16/brandis-unsympathetic-towards-scott-ludlam.html

Secret ballot: Episode II

The ABC is once again running its Vote Compass website, which allows voters to complete a survey to see which political party best reflects their own political values, and help them make an informed voting decision on election day in July. 

It seems that I most closely fit the Coalition parties on the political landscape, most strongly agree with the Coalition parties at 68 per cent, and was slightly surprised to see that I rate Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at 65 per cent. 

Seeing the world through green-coloured glasses

The Greens are an international movement that has established political parties in most Western democracies. They're consistently anti-war, with an idealistic belief in non-violent methods of conflict resolution. Their policy platform is consistent worldwide.

Just like the UK, Australia has passed legislation to make it illegal for citizens to join Islamic State. The British Greens leader, Natalie Bennett, believes that it should not be a crime to join it. Never mind that there is a very real risk that Western citizens may return from fighting with Islamic State, and then carry out terrorist attacks in their home countries. The very real security risk these people pose makes this legislation necessary.

Perhaps Bennett and her fellow Greens envisage sitting down with these terrorists over stuffed vine leaves, hummus, and hookah, civilly talking through their grievances. Never mind that they're dealing with zealots who are not the least bit interested in negotiating. To them, the West is an enemy. They are infidels. They offer them three choices. Convert to their form of Islam, accept dhimmitude, or death.

Bennett made her statement on the very same day that another media report appeared about the genocide that Islamic State is carrying against Christians in its conquered territories.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2925596/It-NOT-crime-join-ISIS-says-Green-party-leader-does-not-want-punish-people-think.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/608224/christian-martyrs-George-Weidenfeld-Patrick-Sookhdeo-Syria-Barnabus-Fund-relocate-charity

In denial?

I groan inwardly whenever a member of the Australian Greens make a pronouncement on any issue. In her latest press release, Australian Greens leader Christine Milne expresses her disagreement with the Abbott government's strategy for dealing with Islamic radicalism in Australia. It has announced $630 million for counter-terrorism efforts, $13 million of which will be used to fund deradicalisation programs in Australia.

The Greens propose establishing a Centre for Social Cohesion, which will work with young people to combat social exclusion, so that they're less at risk of joining Islamic radical groups. So far this proposal has been ignored.

They strongly oppose the Abbott government's decision to send Australian troops to Iraq to act as advisers to Iraqi troops who are fighting Islamic State. Supposedly this action is "pressing the fear button...pressing the terror button," but not actually dealing with the problem.

Actually, Islamic radicals are doing a fine job of pressing the terror and fear buttons on their own. They don't need any help from the Abbott government. Groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Research and Educational Institution (IREA) are on public record as being extremist.

Also, this press release offers no solution on how Islamic State should be dealt with. The Greens think that Australian troops are being sent into a quagmire in the Middle East. They also raise the spectre of "mission creep." They think that Australian troops will eventually be dragged into combat, just as they were in the Vietnam War.

The situation in Iraq is hardly comparable to that in Vietnam before the war escalated. The difference here is that the Viet Cong could be negotiated with. Islamic State are not interested in negotiating with any of their enemies. They want them either subjugated or dead. Are the Greens aware of that?

The Greens believe that any military action must be mandated by the United Nations, and "can only be justified if it is necessary either to avert a major violation of human rights or attempted genocide." Try telling that to the victims of Islamic State. For them, that point was passed a long time ago.

We are going to be in a lot of trouble if the Greens are ever in a position to put their naive idealism into practice and have influence over Australia's defence policy.

http://greens.org.au/policies/peace-non-violence

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/hate-preachers-in-australia-uncovered-after-fiery-lateline-interview/story-fnh81ifq-1227086138502

Browned off with the Greens

Last Monday Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon introduced a private member's bill to ban all animal-tested cosmetics in Australia, including those imported from countries that test on animals.

This bill is consistent with their goal of establishing an Office of Animal Welfare to protect animals rights. Their own website states that "How we treat animals is an indicator of a caring society."

The Australian Greens are idealists. Their policies call for sustainable forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, and no new coal mines. In other words, both animal and plant life as well as our mineral wealth, are to be used carefully and not ruthlessly exploited.

Surely in this day and age there is no scientific justification for cosmetics to be tested on animals, and this bill will raise public awareness of this issue. Most reasonable people would be appalled if they knew this was happening.

It is a pity, then, that given the Greens support for abortion on demand, that this concern for the sanctity of life does not extend to unborn human beings. Is an ant or a sapling worth more than a human foetus?

In my mind the Greens shoot themselves in the foot when they claim to be the party of compassion, fairness, and justice, with pretensions of being the conscience of the nation, yet they seem to think that plant or animal life is worth more than human life. Having a consistent and holistic concern for all forms of life wouldn't go astray.

http://greens.org.au/animal-welfare

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/greens-to-push-for-ban-on--cosmetics-tested-on-animals-20140315-34uhk.html

Watermelon thinking

Unlike the so called old political parties, namely Labor, the Liberals, and the Nationals, the Australian
Greens like to claim the moral high ground and make themselves out to be above politics. They claim to give a voice for the common man or woman, to stand up for rightness and principle, the common good over the powerful special interests that they claim exert undue influence over politics and government, and that their parliamentarians never resort to sloganeering or talking in heavily parsed, media friendly sound bites. They have taken it upon themselves to be the conscience of the nation.

As the Abbott government prepares to introduce legislation to repeal the carbon tax, Greens MP Adam Bandt has weighed into the debate by attempting to link the Philippines Typhoon Haiyan disaster with global warming. Putting aside the science of the climate change debate, he deserves to be condemned for transparently attempting to exploit a tragic event for political advantage.

That sort of thing might play well with Bandt's constituency, but not in the real world.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/everything_the_greens_claim_about_this_typhoon_is_wrong

http://www.samaritanspurse.com.au/story/responding-to-catastrophic-super-typhoon/

Crazy times

The above screen grab is from the ABC's vote compass website. Filling out a short questionnaire about different policies will purportedly show you where you fit on the Australian political landscape. Apparently I'm a social conservative as opposed to socially liberal, and rather than having blind faith in the free market, on the left wing economically.

The grid shows that I am markedly different from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, or the Australian Greens. Then again, I have 61 per cent agreement with Labor, even though I have never voted for them and never will, 55 per cent with the Greens, and 53 per cent with the Liberals.

Looking at the party leaders, I rate Liberal leader Tony Abbott and Greens leader Christine Milne as being more competent than Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Tony Abbott has yet to be tested in government. As the leader of a small party, despite reports of internal tensions, Christine Milne appears able to run a tight ship. I see Kevin Rudd as the most mediocre Prime Minister Australia has ever had, at least in my lifetime, which is why I rate him so poorly here.

http://www.abc.net.au/votecompass/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_exactly_is_new_about_six_year_old_labor/

Greens tell Christians to butt out of euthanasia debate

Talk about mixed messages. This comes from an email I received from the Australian Prayer Network. Former Greens leader Bob Brown once asserted in an interview that the Greens are a Christian party, and some Christians are sympathetic to the Greens' ideals. It's hard to reconcile his assertion with this news report from New South Wales, where a Greens MP in the New South Wales state Parliament insinuates that people with religious views are a hindrance to the Greens agenda:

"The New South Wales Greens have again highlighted their anti-Christian worldview by claiming that people with religious views are blocking voluntary euthanasia laws and making the lives of vulnerable people even more wretched and should butt out. "It's time they recognised they are in the minority and got out of the way," Greens MP Cate Faehrmann said. Her comments came as she launched a photo book and an online video promoting voluntary euthanasia as part of her campaign for a Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill, expected to come before parliament later this year.

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell will allow a conscience vote if the laws are debated. "I've indicated that if it should come up, members of the Liberal Party will have a conscience vote," he told reporters. Mr O'Farrell declined to outline his own views, saying it would come down to the laws introduced. "These are complex matters. You wait to see the legislation, you wait to see what's being proposed, and then you make a decision," he said. The latest Greens campaign features a video of Loredana Alessio-Mulhall, who is in the advanced stages of multiple sclerosis and wants law reform so she can die at a time of her choosing.

Ms Faehrmann said in a statement. "Loredana is given every assistance to live an increasingly undignified life, yet society is turning its back on her when all she is asking for is the right to die with dignity." Ms Faehrmann said Ms Alessio-Mulhall could not take her own life because she had lost the use of her limbs. And if a loved one assists her to die they could be tried for manslaughter or murder. State and federal parliaments (made up of a majority of members with non-religious views) have refused at least four attempts to legalise euthanasia in recent years."

Since then, Victorian Beverley Broadbent has reignited the euthanasia debate by taking her own life, and in response to this, the Council on the Ageing and Cate Faehrmann's federal Greens colleague, Senator Richard di Natale, have also called for federal euthanasia laws to be enacted.

Of course all political parties actively court the support of the Christian constituency, and try to get them onside. However, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a Greens politician has pushed them away. The lesson here is to take any overtures from the Greens with a pinch of salt, or from any political party, for that matter.

The crazy world of Bob Brown

Another belated post. In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the world's first Greens party, last weekend saw Senator Bob Brown give the third annual Greens oration in Hobart. The reader of this blog is invited to read Senator Brown's speech in full, if you feel so inclined, and in so doing gain a deeper insight into the man and his worldview.

Senator Brown's address makes two valid points. I agree with him that it's unjust that millions of people live in poverty when billions are spent on armaments every year. Secondly, perhaps he is right in saying that some multinational corporations appear to exert undue influence over governments when the voice of the ordinary citizen is often ignored.

After that Senator Brown and I depart company. This first came to my attention in a 2011 address to the National Press Club in Canberra, but for a long time he has advocated the establishment of a global Parliament. It seems to be one of his most cherished goals. He envisions it working along similar lines to the United Nations General Assembly, with one difference being that it would be an elected body.

Every nation in the world would have one delegate in this global Parliament, regardless of their population. Would China's 1.5 billion people accept being treated in the same way as the 70 citizens of the Pitcairn Islands? He is distrustful of the power and influence of non-state actors such as multinational corporations in international affairs, but he sees no problem with nation-states ceding their sovereignty to a supranational body.

He envisions the nations of the world working harmoniously alongside each other to address ecological and political challenges. I do not share Brown's optimistic appraisal of human nature. Apart from some vague references to "Eternity" there is no room for God. Instead, humanity will harness its potential towards collectively striving for an ecologically sustainable and just world through strength of will. Others have tried to unify the world before, but whether they have used conquest or cooperation, they have failed.

The doctrine of total depravity holds that the default setting of the human heart is towards evil and not good, and the record of history bears this out. To the extent that human beings are capable of being or doing good, it is only because the grace of God enables them to do so. We do not have unlimited capacity to better ourselves by own efforts. Christians believe that only Jesus has the power to change the human heart.. Ultimately, the only hope for humanity is God's promise of a new heaven and new earth, in which suffering and evil will be completely vanquished.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/07/the-greens

Greens show their true colours

The extent of an aggressive attack by the Tasmanian Greens on supporters of marriage can now be revealed following the release of the Hansard records showing how Tasmanian Liberal Leader Will Hodgman was vilified for supporting the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. In response to Greens MP Nick McKim's motion calling on the Tasmanian Parliament to support a change in the federal Marriage Act, Mr Hodgman restated the Liberal Party's support for the current definition of marriage: "We strongly support the institution of marriage and its value in our community, and the benefits it brings in social cohesion as a foundation of the family" he said.

In reply Mr Hodgman was attacked for his view. Greens MP Cally O'Connor said "I felt sick listening to him. because what he espoused was actually bigotry" and that what he said "came from a hollow place inside him". Greens MP Kim Booth also claimed that Mr Hodgman's speech was "shameful, divisive, reactionary, and unpleasant and made me feel ill to even hear him utter the words that he spoke". Ms O'Connor later expressed contrition for her "unnecessary" language, but Mr Booth was unapologetic, telling his opponents "you are wrong, you are patently wrong. Your views are offensive, oppressive and unacceptable."

Mr Hodgman was careful to say he did not tolerate discrimination against homosexual people: Clearly no-one in our community should be subject to vilification or abuse on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, but to argue strongly in support of the institution of marriage as is defined in no way suggests that anyone will necessarily be tolerant of such a thing occurring. He stressed that "the Liberal Party totally rejects discrimination and vilification in our community". Despite this, Mr Booth accused him of using "divisive, hideous language", and claimed that his views on marriage, shared by most of the Australian community, "fester and engender hatred."

In a statement on the issue the Australian Christian Lobby said that it is concerning that expressing the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is enough to attract such aggression. The Australian Christian Lobby believes a civil debate requires respect on both sides, for those who support change as well as for those who hold marriage to have sacred cultural and religious significance. The dismissal of traditional views as "hatred" or "bigotry" is an attempt to stifle one whole side of the debate, as well as the views of the majority of Australians. Mr Hodgman is to be commended on standing up for the definition of marriage as most Australians understand it.


Source: Australian Prayer Network and Australian Christian Lobby

Ecosocial utopia?

One of the few positive things to come out of the recent federal election was the election of the Democratic Labor Party's John Madigan to the Senate. Family First's Steve Fielding was not re-elected, but for the next six years there will be another Christian voice in the Senate. In my view this is sorely needed. I am deeply concerned about the implications of the Labor/Greens alliance. In a worst case scenario, it's possible that during this term of Parliament, we will see the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, the liberalization of drug laws, same sex couples given marriage rights, and perhaps other as yet unrevealed radical policies. As I've written elsewhere on this blog, I feel particularly strongly about the euthanasia issue.

As a Christian commenting on politics, I should point out that I'm not a theocrat; if I was I'd move to Utah. My comments are informed by my understanding that whether they like it or not, our political leaders have an enormous responsibility both to God and the people they serve to legislate and govern justly. I find it hard to write these words, but I pray for every politician, regardless of their political affiliation or ideology, that they would recognize and accept this responsibility. Since it is because of the sovereignty of God that they even hold office, in a similar way, it is my responsibility as a Christian to pray for our political leaders, even if some of them are openly hostile towards God and His standards.

The difference between ignorance and apathy: I don't know and I don't care

This is from the final episode of The Chaser's Yes We Canberra!, which went to air last night. Crudity and drug references aside, they've hit the nail on the head here. Apart from the record number of votes the Greens received, the other disappointing result to come out of last Saturday's federal election was that the number of informal votes was the highest ever recorded at a federal election. When the result as close as it's turned out to be, every vote counts. Perhaps voting informally is the only way some Australians feel that they can express their disillusionment and sense of being disengaged from the political process.

I can partially understand this, but as a conscientious voter, on the other hand I wonder if this disillusionment and disengagement might better be described as apathy. Even though I'm glad the federal election campaign is over, I also spare a thought for those in other parts of the world who either don't have the right to vote, or have suffered and died to earn this right. When you think of things this way, it changes your perspective on things.