John Howard is anything but what the name of his party suggests; liberal. With his uncritical and absolute faith in Bush, and relentless imposition of conservatism, he earned Australia an honourable title of the 51st state of the US. He is a zealous supporter of the Bush's "War on Terror" in the Middle East. However, it seems that he has something to do at his home; I mean, his real home, home electorate of Bennelong, in North Sydney.
Howard has held Bennelong for 33 years, however, due to the demographic and boundary change of the division, it has now become a marginal seat. For this year's election, Maxine McKew, a nation's foremost and eminent journalist from ABC (a public service broadcaster), is standing for Labor in Bennelong to defeat the Prime Minister. With McKew's serious and realistic chance to oust Howard from the Parliament, the Bennelong race is going to embody the change that progressive Australians have long hoped for.
However, terrorism, against which Howard has been passionately fighting, clouded the fair political contest; McKew has been threatened to death. Men were found holding torches underneath her car at home. And it was revealed that a Green candidate who ran against Howard in Bennelong three years ago also received numerous death threats. It is a threat against democracy, and especially when candidates running against the most powerful politician in the country are repeatedly threatened, the matter is even more serious.
So, titles of newspaper articles like 'McKew refuses to back down' aren't really appropriate. Refuses to back down? Does the Herald Sun expect McKew to 'back down', giving in to violence? Would the Herald Sun write 'Bush refuses to introduce Sharia law' or something like that after 9/11? McKew should be praised for her determination and courage, so 'Labor's McKew stands firm' (ABC) is better.
Why the Prime Minister doesn't condemn this violence? It's about democracy, the very thing that Howard claims to be fighting for; it's violence against democracy, the very thing Howard claims to fighting to eliminate, in the War on Terror. Doesn't he care because who is threatened is his opponent, or War on Terror is just an excuse for him to support Bush? And why all the press, except ABC, a public service broadcaster, don't report that the Green leader Bob Brown urged Howard to condemn the death threat? I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but "When people stand against John Howard there are some people in the community who react in a threatening and unsettling way", I wonder who's behind all the attacks.
Then, the Sydney Morning Herald published a bizarre article that says it was not a politically-motivated attack. SMH starts the article titled 'McKew car theft theory' by stating "Police investigating reports of men shining torches into the car of Maxine McKew... are considering whether they might have been simply trying to steal it". Police are expected to consider every possibility so this fact is meaningless; consideration doesn't mean it is true, or even it is likely. However, SMH twists it and goes on to claim that 'The Herald understands the incident is not believed to be politically motivated'. What? Based on what? I can't see why SMH can get away with it without providing basis for that. Furthermore, later in the article, it refers to the very evidences that indicate the crime was politically motivated; 'The former ABC TV journalist also received two unsigned hate letters last week but their contents have not been revealed. Police are also investigating an anonymous call about Ms McKew to the national security hotline, but have not revealed what the caller said.' How reasonable is it to say that when McKew is continuously receiving hate letters and death threats, suspicious men sneaking under her car were 'simply trying to steal it'? This article doesn't make sense at all, but many people who skimmed through the article would have simply thought 'oh, it wasn't a political violence to disrupt democratic process or anything, it was just a car theft. It must be true because a credible broadsheet like SMH says so'. And then, Wikipedia, one of the most influencial media in the Internet, said 'police believe this was an attempted car theft', based on the SMH article (I deleted it).
War on Terror? Bob Brown seems to be the best leader for the sacred war to defend liberty and democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
' "He reported to me that he'd observed a car parked in the laneway that's close to where I live and another couple of gentlemen who were shining torches under my car and inside my car," she said.
She says the bomb squad attended and the incident is being investigated.
"Clearly it was unsettling..." '
Talk about understatement. That's one brave woman
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes I should have emphasised the bravery of Maxine McKew a bit more, though I briefly mentioned that 'McKew should be praised for her determination and courage' the understatement has been the case across all the media sources.
Post a Comment