legacy to haunt a nationAs an aging Australian Prime Minister John Howard approaches retirement the priorities of government have changed to secure his legacy.First and foremost is a guarantee of freedom after a controversial encumbency including forays into dubious border protection, commitment to an alleged unlawful war in Iraq conducted on fabricated evidence and diabolical industrial relations reform.
To this purpose, terrorist activity provoked by Australia's involvement in the destabalisation of the Middle East comes as a gift with proposals for legislation reviving the lapsed offence of sedition ostensibly to counter terrorism but effectively to silence criticism of his years at the helm, a matter of urgency with massive corruption emerging as the heartland of the Howard administration as with the funding of the Iraqi insurgency with $300 million in secret kickbacks paid by the wheat exporter AWB to Saddam Hussein.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock claims "[t]he sedition laws are designed to capture activity which goes beyond criticising, but encourages the use of force or violence or other unlawful means to achieve a particular outcome."
"It is designed to protect the community from those who would abuse our democratic values and threaten our harmonious and tolerant society. The measures deal with those who seek to urge the naive and impressionable to carry out violence against their fellow citizens."
It will therefore become an act of sedition to propose to 'naive and impressionable' citizens that both Howard and Ruddock be arrested with the implied use of violence and dragged before the courts as paedophiles over the torture of thousands of children behind razor wire in immigration prisons.
A 'naive and impressionable' magistrate refusing bail due to the heinous nature of the alleged crimes will become liable to seven years to life imprisonment for sedition.
Any attempt to weed out offenders from the cesspool of corruption into which Howard has steered the nation may also be considered a call to imprisonment and implied violence.
A proposal for the nation to become a republic as an alternative to the Police State into which Howard's Australia has descended, including a non-violent call for constitutional reform as with the formulation of a republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by an executive of elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction, may be considered a call to violence as nations have in the past deposed despots violently to become republics.
Moreover, the panel of 'naive and impressionable' international judges who try Howard and his parliamentary colleagues over their support for the mass murder of women and children in Iraq will be liable to seven years to life imprisonment for sedition.
Having conned millions of Australians into supporting the most despicable acts any human could perpetrate against another, Howard is desperate to ensure he will never be caught and brought to account.
How will millions of Australians explain to children and grandchildren their unconditional support for a Prime Minister who got his jollies from torturing thousands of children behind razor wire, from supporting the massacre of tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq including the use of chemical weapons in Falluja, from compromising and killing Australians by provoking terrorist attacks, and from dividing the nation sharply between privilege and poverty with a return to nineteenth century industrial relations?
The legacy Howard is leaving Australia will haunt the nation for the next century just as Germany was inflicted with the Third Reich.
November 17, 2005
