Geoffrey Blainey coined the term, "black armband history", which John Howard picked up in his 1996 election and used since as part of the longer campaign in the history wars. Blainey talks about democracy as being Australia's greatest and most difficult achievement, claiming that this majority based system is the defining component of our history. But Blainey is either ignorant, or rhetorically contemptuous in the understanding of minorities and rights in a political system. Modern Australians define themselves in the "Better Country"; failure to respect minorities, and to trample individual rights are directly the fault of our government and public institutions. Australians demand better.

Minorities

The greatest abuse of individual and political rights has been by the hands of government. Usually it is only the politically weak minorities that have copped it, but occasionally minorities do as well. Our politicians are sufficiently cowardly that they only pick on minorities. One area of our history that involved institutional failure to respect the individual, the family and the community was the stolen generations. This started in Western Australia in the 1890s, and ended in the 1950s after receiving sponsorship at the state and federal levels.

As Aboriginal children were kidnapped from their families by government officials and policeman based on the colour of their skin. If the skin colour was half-white and half-black, then the child was stolen from its mother and then fostered out to a white family. This was done for the reason of mono-culture - forcible assimilation of Aboriginal children into the then majority culture which was Anglo-Australian. This was known colloquially as the "fuck them white" policy.

In a 1993 speech, Geoffrey Blainey said;

The multi-cultural folk busily preached their message until they arrived much of Australian history was a disgrace. The past treatment of Aborigines, of Chinese, of Kanakas, of non-British migrants, of women, the very old, the very young and the poor was singled out, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not. These condemnations of Australia's past treatment of various categories of people were so sweeping, that at times close to 80 per cent of the population was on the hit list - a suspiciously high percentage, you must admit, when even this was really one of the world's most vigorous democracies.

This assumes that a minority is exclusive and cannot be a member of another minority at the same time. However and Aboriginal Australian can be elderly, female and poor - all at the same time. When America was founded as a Republic in 1787, the writers of the constitution were aware of the problems, not only of the tyranny of absolute rule, but also tyranny of the majority. Blainey is arguing that tyranny of the majority is a valid form of democracy. As long as tyranny against a majority, comes through a democratic system, it is excusable, and cannot be put in the bad ledger of history.

In the speech, Blainey mentions that he was raised on the "Three Cheers" view of history. Peter Botsman has called this the "Triumphalism of Federation" history. In that form of history, government wrote the narrative, excusing themselves of any past tyranny, inequity and failure. Yet we know that a Bill of Rights was excluded from the Australian Constitution as the "Bearded Men" wanted to be able to use the power of federal government to willfully discriminate against the Chinese in Australia.

The "Three Cheers" history is essentially bankrupt. Until Australian historians focus on the most destructive, and discriminate force in Australia - the federal and state governments, then Australian history will just be competing political agendas for government to write their own history. Howard's attack on the history and culture wars is to excuse the Australian government from past tyranny, so the government, does not have to face how destructive it has been to this country.

Australia must align itself with the principles of "The Better Country", where being better is a constant striving to improve; at the individual, family, community, social, economic and political levels. Obviously, the Better Country has no room for inferior politicians and government who would tyrannise their minorities in the name of majority rule.

Rights

Blainey also has a fundamental mis-undertanding of what constitutes political rights. The same speech in 1993 included;

In fact it [democracy] depends partly on a society which emphasises individual responsibility as much as individual rights. We became a rights-mad society in the 1970s and 1980s, forgetting that there will never be enough rights to go around. A firm right granted to one person or group is often a loss of right to another person or group.

The Australian system of responsible government is weak in protecting rights, often our judicial has jumped into this breach and made rulings that protect speech and other rights despite the constitution having no such mention. We get an activist judicial because the writers of the Australian Constitution were incompetent and myopic.

It is also often misunderstood that political rights are limitations on what government can do. The feel-good declarations that people have the right to dignity, or health care are not rights, they are opinions or positions of legislative or policy principle. A political right is a limitation on government, without which, a rational individual would not consent to be governed. Political rights are limitations on government's ability to act in an arbitrary manner. They are for the defeat of tyranny.

Prosperity Through The Better Country

Prosperity is impossible unless individuals are secure in their individual, social, economic and political rights. Otherwise individuals are forced to deal with the uncertainties of arbitrary an tyrannous government - whether democracy or not. Minorities need to be protected from government through a clear constitutional enunciation of rights which place restrictions on government - ensuring that minorities are treated under the law the same as the majority is. Multiculturalism is a natural outgrowth of liberty, where people can live how they choose to, and be who they want to. When government discriminates against minorities, often for political purposes, liberty and prosperity suffer to the detriment for all of us.

cam

The NSW government passed legislation amending the Law Enforcement Act during a special sitting. This is the Hansard for the Assembly special sitting. This is the legislative amendment. It looks like populist legislation to ward off criticism of the NSW Government, both Labor and Liberal backed it, fearing that they would lose their tough on crime credentials. The Hansard doesn't claim why existing laws are not sufficient.

From the Hansard, Morris Iemma speaks;

These powers are not intended to be used in respect of peaceful protests, union demonstrations and the like. One of the most central parts of this bill is the lockdown powers. These will enable police to declare an area on the basis that large-scale public disorder is occurring or threatens to occur and then employ roadblocks and stop and search powers in or around that area. The disorder need not be constituted by one big incident, but can be constituted by several smaller incidents in different locations. This gives police freedom to nip a developing situation in the bud.

Like the anti-terror legislation, this is giving pre-emptive powers. There were police in Cronulla on Sunday. They had legal powers to arrest anyone who was under a range of infringements, drunk and disorderly, violence, etc etc. This new legislation is unnecessary. While it has oversight powers with the Ombudsman, it creates the ability for the executive to use the police force to lockdown legitimate protests on the premise of large scale "public disorders". This is described as;

public disorder means a riot or other civil disturbance that gives

rise to a serious risk to public safety, whether at a single location

or resulting from a series of incidents in the same or different

locations.

These can be done at the discretion of the Commissioner of Police, his Deputy or the Assistant Commissioner for a maximum of 48 hours. Any lockdown that is longer than that, can only be done through the approval of the judicial. A lockdown of any kind will only serve it inflame passions and indignation, more likely involving others who see this as an infringement of public rights. Violence is already covered in law enforcement, there is no need for the police to have this capability.

Search and Seizure

In addition the expectation to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is turned on its head.

These tough new sentences send a clear message to would-be thugs and hooligans: If you tear up the fabric of our society, you will pay the price - a price that as of today just got a whole lot heavier.

Violence is violence and is already covered. This is escalation of the penalty is another Helmet vs Sanderz, same as the $700 for a speeding offence. The NSW Labor Government has successfully proved it is tougher than tougher than tough on crime by taking things to ludicrous speed. This will not stop mobs gathering and committing violence. Only a quick, and speedy police presence will do that. This solves none of the problems.

From the legislation;

The special powers include a power to cordon off a targeted area (so as to

prevent persons entering or leaving the area) or to set up a roadblock on

targeted roads (so as to prevent persons travelling by vehicle to participate in

a public disorder). In a targeted area or at a roadblock, police officers may

exercise powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, require persons to

disclose their identity and to seize and detain vehicles, mobile phones and

other communication devices for up to 7 days.

The NSW Government and Police own you.

Helmet says;

Ludicrous speed;

The final measure I want to address is changes to the Bail Act 1978. Twenty three rioters charged over Sunday's riots have been granted bail, one of whom had been granted bail days earlier for assault and destroying property. It is unacceptable that such thugs and morons are automatically granted bail, just to be given the chance to wreak further havoc. This bill will help shut that revolving door by creating a presumption against bail for riot and for any other offence that is punishable by imprisonment for two years or more, where that offence is committed in the course of the person participating in a large-scale public disorder, or in connection with the exercise of police powers to prevent or control such a disorder or the threat of such a disorder. That way the police can do their jobs knowing that they will be backed up.

This is populist legislation that will get stuck on the books for far longer than it is relevant. The populism it does nothing;

That is an important point- backing the police. The police can be assured that they have our full support to use these new laws to rid our streets of the violence, the thugs, the hooligans and the criminals who have been responsible for the actions we have seen. Front-line police should not need to look over their shoulder wondering if sound policing decisions will be second-guessed. They will not be. Police will be free to use these powers as intended by this Parliament. Good, firm, effective policing will be rewarded, not questioned.

More like appearing to do something. This is more over the top legislation by populist politicians, fearful of saying the truth, we have laws to cover these problems already. So what does the Liberal party in opposition think, over to Peter Debnam;

The Opposition supports rushing the bill through the House, but there are some difficulties about it. Opposition members do not oppose the passage of the bill but we wish to highlight a number of concerns with it. The bill simply is not strong enough in almost all its provisions.

The NSW legislative process is reduced to posturing over who can be tougher on crime, forget liberty; forget rights; such as due process, such as facing your accuser, such as protection from unreasonable search and seizures; forget property rights. Nope it is a classic Helmet vs Sanderz. Our parliament is conducting itself in the same manner as a scene from a Mel Brooks movie.