Select Page

 

 

 

Everything is political

 

 

 

 

Luke Hilakari posted a Tweet making a valid point about the hypocritical responses to the gaoling of climate activist Violet Coco compared to protestors marching against mandatory vaccinations and other restrictions in the construction sector.

 

 

I was surprised to see a reply from someone representing the Australia Defence Association as generally the military stay out of political debate.

 

 

So I jumped into the fray as is my wont.

 

This was essentially the ADA’s counter-argument to my accusations of political bias. Used repeatedly and contorted and peppered with ad hominen as they sunk deeper into the morass of political opinion.

It’s apparently default behaviour for the ADA.

Here we see the ADA having a go at a disability advocate who questioned their partisanship. Again, with the tortured logic and hostility they seem to reserve for anyone challenging their political ideology.

I’m not aware of any public policy issues that aren’t ideological. Perhaps the ADA can enlighten me?

At this early stage the ADA had already described both protests as “wrong” and the protestors actions as “structural violence” and “morally indefensible”. They even (ironically) threw in “arrogant” as a descriptor.

It was clear they didn’t have a handle on just what non-partisanship entails.

I could see an article emerging, so was willing to keep the interaction going.

You can see the “debate” in its entirety if you click on the first two tweet images above.

 

Political opinion

 

“Political opinion refers to a broad category of attitudes that people might have on matters that concern their state, their government, or their society.”

Criticising protesters is most certainly political opinion. As is the assertion that protest should essentially inconvenience no-one.

The Suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement in the USA, anti-apartheid protesters

…there’s a long list of protests described as “civil disturbances” and criticised for inconveniencing other citizens by the State and oppositional voices.

The ADA would describe these movements and many of their means of protest as “morally indefensible” because they inherently deny common use of public amenities to the rest of the community. Which they describe as “structural violence against the wider community.”

I doubt they consider the vast tracts of land our military occupy to the exclusion of the public in the same way.

Claiming “political neutrality” because the two groups of protesters you’re criticising have differing views and causes is ludicrous.

The ADA’s problem with protest

While the ADA’s interference in political issues deserves censure, one does expect them to have opinions about military matters.

Interestingly, the ADA also claim to be non-partisan in their commentary about defence issues.

This is patently untrue, because they merely regurgitate the economic and unipolar fantasies of the USA’s military industrial complex via ASPI and other like-minded warmongers.

Massive expenditure on American death machines is at the forefront of the ADA’s minds. Which they couple with the media-promulgated China threat paradigm for best effect.

It’s obvious protest and protesters are anathema to these people. The ADA fear a rise of awareness and opposition to our dangerous subservience to the USA and potential cutbacks to their lucrative Australian/American military boondoggle.

“Billy Snedden [who was the Federal Minister for National Service in charge of conscription at the time] described the protesters as ‘political bikies pack-raping democracy’” – a statement the ADA would agree with and consider politically neutral.

 

The ADA are far from “politically neutral”

 

 

Welfare payments for the Aged, unemployed, disabled, veterans, the mentally impaired?

Hospital care and education for the entire populace?

The ADA along with other right-leaning groups believe this prioritising of the populace’s social needs is why they can’t have nice things.

It is a clearly a matter of major concern to the ADA.

 

 

The ADA have even developed the political view that payments to veterans (and their families) in the welfare budget are something separate to those paid to civilians – more worthy one assumes and deserving of distinction.

 

 

“Gave you an out – Don’t fuck it up” (they did)

 

We ‘to and froed’ for a while and despite some unnecessary ad hominen directed at my good self…

ADA: “Yr ends-justify-the-means apologia for a protest method that so ignores the civil rights of others is the anti-democratic stance of the wld-be totalitarian thru the ages”

ADA: “Perhaps it’s the concept of acting on principle that is so foreign to you.”

…I thought I’d give them an out.

Despite the ‘unprincipled fascist’ jibes emitting from this apolitical mind.

 

That’s the problem with being a left-leaning moderate sometimes, that empathy and unwillingness to hurt people.

Reservations that were quickly overcome by the ADA’s response asserting their delusional intellectual and moral superiority by using the insulting, garbled syntax of a concussed private school boy.

Writing an article necessarily involves further investigation. So in hindsight I’m pleased the ADA provoked me to write about the absurdity of their claim to having a “neutral viewpoint.”

This article demonstrates conclusively that the ADA inserted their biased opinions into a politically contentious arena in contradiction to their absurd denials and the ideal of military neutrality.

“The first part of this constitutional convention is that, no matter what their personal political beliefs might be, our defence force is required to be institutionally and professionally non-partisan in absolute terms.” – Partisan misuse of our non-partisan defence force during elections, contentious campaigning, politically expedient government announcements and partisan stunts is always wrongAustralia Defence Association


 

Appendix

Seems the ADA are less willing to respond than previously.

 

References

Australia Defence Association – web site

Solving Afghanistan – Australia needs to stay in Afghanistan for the long haul, writes Neil James – 17 Jun 2008

Noise around Afghanistan inquiry risks distracting from need to prevent future war crimes – Neil James – The Strategist – ASPI

Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James wants SAS moved east – The West Australian

Neil James – a military man to the core – SMH

Neil James is executive director of the Australia Defence Association ABC articles

Melbourne descends into chaos as police arrest 62 and fire rubber pellets at anti-lockdown protestersBen Doherty and Caitlin Cassidy

Research Shows Impact of Fearmongering: Australians more Frightened of China than Taiwanese

Stopping work to stop the war—the Vietnam Moratorium fifty years on – James Supple – Solidarity

Labor back option to create new military base on east coast

Climate protester’s sentence is half that of Grace Tame’s abuser’s. Is this justice? Michael Bradley – Crikey

America is dangerous. It’s time for Australia to distance itself

AUKUS deal guided by Americans with conflict of interest: WaPO

Kim Beazley calls for massive defence spending increase to prevent Australia being ‘lost’

Climate crisis is greatest threat to Australia’s future and security, former defence leaders warn

Climate protester’s sentence is half that of Grace Tame’s abuser’s. Is this justice?