Here, the party in power gets to decide when to hold the election (within a certain range, I think). Howard has recently called the election, so all three rings of the circus have been let loose, and I have front row seats. Political blogging back home is turning into something of an industry, but I doubt I'll find many takers back home for this particular election. So instead of boring you with the pundits latest takes on federalism or feral management, I'd like to make a few comments on what I've seen about politics here.
The first thing to say is that the Australian system is different from the American system. (I'll bet you could've guessed that.) There are ministers and MPs instead of secretaries and senators. The Liberal Party is conservative. The Labor Party is liberal. A third party, The National Party, exists in more than a nominal sense. Overall, the system seems close to the English system.
Speaking of the English, the Queen of England is Australia's head of state. Apparently, it's mainly a ceremonial kind of position, but she still appears on all Australian coins and the five dollar note. This nation faces more trade barriers with England than Germany or France or any other EU nation does, but the Queen is still their head of state. I think that's screwed up.
Another quirk of the Australian system that others might consider screwed up is that the Australians do not have any formal protection for freedom of speech. There is no Bill of Rights or statute to defend it. Common law precedent is the only protection that free speech gets here.
This seems to have caused some confusion on the nature of free speech. One writer, reviewing a documentary on the Dixie Chicks, seemed particularly lacking in understanding. After chronicling the response the band received from the country music community after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that George W. Bush was from her home state, this writer indignantly wrote, "What about that First Amendment right to freedom of speech, that revered bastion of the U.S. constitution? you might ask. Not in the Republican strongholds, apparently."
Maybe it's unfair to call such a comment painfully and obviously contradictory, seeing as this reviewer has never lived with a formal protection of the right to speech. Nonetheless, that particular view seems to afford freedom of speech to the Dixie Chicks, but not the people who disagree them. Call me crazy, but that's not freedom of speech at all.
Moreover, the point the writer obviously missed was this: Freedom of speech is the right to say something controversial, not the right to have everyone agree with it. Maybe this analysis is unfair because the Dixie Chicks received death threats and it's possible that this is what the writer was talking about. Even then, the question would be a non sequiter, as receiving death threats for saying something controversial is only related to the First Amendment insofar as the person making the threats might receive protection.
But I digress. The quirks of the Australian - not the American - system are my subject.
One practice that seems more common in Australia than in the States is government advertising. I'm not talking about political advertising that says "Vote for me" or "My opponent is quite possibly Satan," I'm talking about genuine, honest-to-God advertising by the Government. These ads can promote a national security tip hot line or the government's new environmental awareness program or any of a dozen other issues. Some of the ads seem to be quite clearly advocating government policy.
I have been assured that the volume of advertising is higher because of the impending election, but I still find it startling that the Aussies are so comfortable with the practice. Aside from Ad Council spots asking me not to become a drug addict, I can't think of any other government advertising stateside. I think the word "propaganda" would be unleashed within seconds of even the most (seemingly) innocuous spots here hitting the air in the States.
The ads do seem similar to political ads back home in one respect: They always end with the line "Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra." Canberra, by the way, is not a place that one should visit if he is hooked on phonics. Aussies pronounce it Canbura or Canbra, not Can-bear-uh. One editorial writer ripped President Bush for pronouncing the city's name as it's spelled during his APEC visit. I take issue with this criticism on two counts:
1. It is no secret that George W. Bush's mastery of the English language is not comparable to that of Winston Churchill. I am bored with this criticism, just as I am bored with jokes about Paris Hilton's promiscuity.
2. Do not get upset at people for pronouncing a word the way it is spelled. I have the same qualm with women who spell their name Andrea but want me to call them On-dray-uh.
Of course, President Bush also managed to slip and say that he was attending an OPEC conference, so maybe he's just asking for it.
Much ado was made about the president's visit to Sydney. Depending upon who you asked, Sydney was either becoming a Brave New World in which the police have extraordinary new powers or was going to be turned into a playground for anarchists with Molotov cocktails. Certainly some of the anger was directed toward Bush. An editorial in the West Australian noted that many of the protesters expected to show up view him as a war criminal. (It also noted the irony that so many would show up to protest Bush without also protesting the Chinese president, whose human rights record is spotty, at best.)
Ultimately, the most interesting story to come out of the preparations and protests came from a prankster. After dressing like Osama bin Laden, he hopped into a convoy of black SUVs and promptly drove straight past all of the security preparations, including a 10 ft. fence around the area of the conference, without being stopped. I hope he didn't act surprised that the cops were upset with him.
That was a ridiculous moment. It was one of many I've seen here, and I wanted to share a few more of them with you. As in the States, these stories are ridiculous, silly, and totally unrepresentative of the system as a whole.
-One Australian state recently banned discriminating against women who breastfeed in public. I didn't realize they were a marginalized group.
-One man has actually seceded from Australia, creating his own kingdom. Apparently, this was a bid to get out of paying his local government fees.
-Someone in the Australian government is called the "shadow minister of sport." This is the greatest title a bureaucrat could ever hold.
-The opposition candidate for Prime Minister faced some serious questions about a trip to a New York strip club. This is so far from oval office antics that it almost seems quaint.
-Better yet, part of what he told reporters was that he was too drunk to remember his visit to the club in question. It's a sad statement that no American politician could pull off that excuse, but we will allow "that depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is." (It's also a statement on how much of a role beer plays in Australian culture.)
The first thing to say is that the Australian system is different from the American system. (I'll bet you could've guessed that.) There are ministers and MPs instead of secretaries and senators. The Liberal Party is conservative. The Labor Party is liberal. A third party, The National Party, exists in more than a nominal sense. Overall, the system seems close to the English system.
Speaking of the English, the Queen of England is Australia's head of state. Apparently, it's mainly a ceremonial kind of position, but she still appears on all Australian coins and the five dollar note. This nation faces more trade barriers with England than Germany or France or any other EU nation does, but the Queen is still their head of state. I think that's screwed up.
Another quirk of the Australian system that others might consider screwed up is that the Australians do not have any formal protection for freedom of speech. There is no Bill of Rights or statute to defend it. Common law precedent is the only protection that free speech gets here.
This seems to have caused some confusion on the nature of free speech. One writer, reviewing a documentary on the Dixie Chicks, seemed particularly lacking in understanding. After chronicling the response the band received from the country music community after lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that George W. Bush was from her home state, this writer indignantly wrote, "What about that First Amendment right to freedom of speech, that revered bastion of the U.S. constitution? you might ask. Not in the Republican strongholds, apparently."
Maybe it's unfair to call such a comment painfully and obviously contradictory, seeing as this reviewer has never lived with a formal protection of the right to speech. Nonetheless, that particular view seems to afford freedom of speech to the Dixie Chicks, but not the people who disagree them. Call me crazy, but that's not freedom of speech at all.
Moreover, the point the writer obviously missed was this: Freedom of speech is the right to say something controversial, not the right to have everyone agree with it. Maybe this analysis is unfair because the Dixie Chicks received death threats and it's possible that this is what the writer was talking about. Even then, the question would be a non sequiter, as receiving death threats for saying something controversial is only related to the First Amendment insofar as the person making the threats might receive protection.
But I digress. The quirks of the Australian - not the American - system are my subject.
One practice that seems more common in Australia than in the States is government advertising. I'm not talking about political advertising that says "Vote for me" or "My opponent is quite possibly Satan," I'm talking about genuine, honest-to-God advertising by the Government. These ads can promote a national security tip hot line or the government's new environmental awareness program or any of a dozen other issues. Some of the ads seem to be quite clearly advocating government policy.
I have been assured that the volume of advertising is higher because of the impending election, but I still find it startling that the Aussies are so comfortable with the practice. Aside from Ad Council spots asking me not to become a drug addict, I can't think of any other government advertising stateside. I think the word "propaganda" would be unleashed within seconds of even the most (seemingly) innocuous spots here hitting the air in the States.
The ads do seem similar to political ads back home in one respect: They always end with the line "Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra." Canberra, by the way, is not a place that one should visit if he is hooked on phonics. Aussies pronounce it Canbura or Canbra, not Can-bear-uh. One editorial writer ripped President Bush for pronouncing the city's name as it's spelled during his APEC visit. I take issue with this criticism on two counts:
1. It is no secret that George W. Bush's mastery of the English language is not comparable to that of Winston Churchill. I am bored with this criticism, just as I am bored with jokes about Paris Hilton's promiscuity.
2. Do not get upset at people for pronouncing a word the way it is spelled. I have the same qualm with women who spell their name Andrea but want me to call them On-dray-uh.
Of course, President Bush also managed to slip and say that he was attending an OPEC conference, so maybe he's just asking for it.
Much ado was made about the president's visit to Sydney. Depending upon who you asked, Sydney was either becoming a Brave New World in which the police have extraordinary new powers or was going to be turned into a playground for anarchists with Molotov cocktails. Certainly some of the anger was directed toward Bush. An editorial in the West Australian noted that many of the protesters expected to show up view him as a war criminal. (It also noted the irony that so many would show up to protest Bush without also protesting the Chinese president, whose human rights record is spotty, at best.)
Ultimately, the most interesting story to come out of the preparations and protests came from a prankster. After dressing like Osama bin Laden, he hopped into a convoy of black SUVs and promptly drove straight past all of the security preparations, including a 10 ft. fence around the area of the conference, without being stopped. I hope he didn't act surprised that the cops were upset with him.
That was a ridiculous moment. It was one of many I've seen here, and I wanted to share a few more of them with you. As in the States, these stories are ridiculous, silly, and totally unrepresentative of the system as a whole.
-One Australian state recently banned discriminating against women who breastfeed in public. I didn't realize they were a marginalized group.
-One man has actually seceded from Australia, creating his own kingdom. Apparently, this was a bid to get out of paying his local government fees.
-Someone in the Australian government is called the "shadow minister of sport." This is the greatest title a bureaucrat could ever hold.
-The opposition candidate for Prime Minister faced some serious questions about a trip to a New York strip club. This is so far from oval office antics that it almost seems quaint.
-Better yet, part of what he told reporters was that he was too drunk to remember his visit to the club in question. It's a sad statement that no American politician could pull off that excuse, but we will allow "that depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is." (It's also a statement on how much of a role beer plays in Australian culture.)
1 comment:
Interesting that you compare Bush with the Chinese President, as if apologizing - or defending - Bush for his policies and decisions. As in, "Bush is no worse than . . . . " The Chinese are making a lot more friends in the world than Americans these days. Now, it's true Bush needs a lot of defending, and you're welcome to take on that role if you wish, even though the Republican presidential candidates are generally not mentioning or defending Bush, even with a 10 meter pole.
Post a Comment