For the past few months some lefty Australian bloggers have been running this graphic on their sites, summing up the hopes of all anti-Liberal voters:

Kevin Rudd’s “me-too” politics have been causing us to roll our eyes for some time but you know it’s reached serious levels when you wake up to this headline splashed across the front of The Age: ‘ME-TOO POLICY MESS’. All because a shadow minister had the audacity to — wait for it — restate official ALP policy. Rudd, getting a sniff of differential between his Party and the government, jumped into damage control mode, slapping down the offending shadow minister, and hitting the airwaves to reassure voters that ‘Labor’ was still spelled L-I-B-E-R-A-L.

Facing criticism from survivors and families of Bali bombing victims, Mr Rudd tried to control the damage by portraying his stance — as on a host of other contentious issues — as being in line with that of the Howard Government.

“On the wider question of the death penalty, the Liberal Party’s policy, like Labor’s policy, is identical, and that is our global opposition to the death penalty.”

As a clearly unimpressed Michelle Gratten said, “The Labor leader’s plan was politically savvy, but leaves a sour moral taste.”

I’ve long banged on about the government’s moral flexibility and hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of the death penalty. They don’t support it in this country, they don’t support other countries executing Australian citizens, but they do support other countries executing their own citizens or deposed leaders.

So I have nothing but praise for the ALP’s announcement that it will be morally consistent in opposing the death penalty across our region, even if that means opposing the execution of the Bali bombers. A gutsy and principled move.

UPDATE (12:30pm): Oh, for fuck’s sake. No sooner had I posted this piece of praise for the ALP…

Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd has criticised his foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland over a speech which was critical of the Government’s approach to the death penalty.

Mr McClelland last night said Prime Minister John Howard supported capital punishment for an Indonesian terrorist, but he pushed for Singapore to spare the life of an Australian drug trafficker in 2005.

Kevin Rudd says terrorists should rot in jail and a Government led by him would only intervene diplomatically to try to save the lives of Australians sentenced to death overseas.

“I think as we approach the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombings I believe that the speech delivered last night was insensitive in terms of its timing,” he said.

“I’ve indicated that to Mr McClelland this morning and he concurs with that judgement.”

I’ve written before about the Government’s moral flexibility when it comes to matters such as the death penalty and today legal experts have warned that this flexibility will undermine Australia’s efforts to spare Australians such as the Bali Nine from the bullet:

AUSTRALIA’S inconsistent attitude to capital punishment could undermine its attempts to save members of the Bali nine from execution, legal experts warn.

[...]

Criminal barrister Robert Richter QC said pleas for clemency were weakened because the Government had failed to oppose capital punishment consistently.

“There’s a complete sort of hypocrisy about this. We’re saying, ‘Fantastic, let’s execute Saddam Hussein,’ which weakens our moral authority in arguing about the Bali nine.”

[...]

Melbourne University professor of Asian law Tim Lindsey said the Government had “lost its leverage” on the issue.

“You can’t have it both ways — if you support the death penalty for terrorists then you can’t complain when it’s applied to other offenders,” he said.

Aussie values are so superior to everyone else’s that we’re soon going to demand people sign up to them in order to get a tourist visa. There are the quintessential Aussie values like mateship, a fair go, low interest rates, relaxedness and comfortableness; but there are some other less obvious Aussie values like a respect for the sanctity of human life and for human rights. Or at least I’d hope that those would make it onto any self-respecting Aussie values checklist.

Some would argue that these represent our Way Of Life™.

You see, here in Australia we don’t sentence criminals to the death penalty no matter how terrible the crime. We don’t believe that the State has the right to take any life in retaliation for any crime. In Australia we don’t believe in torture, no matter how important the information potentially being held. We believe in fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom from State-sanctioned murder and inhuman interrogation.

But our leaders’ resolve crumbles in the face of that faceless threat: terrorism.

Our morally flexible Prime Minister calls for the death of Bali bombers yet appeals for clemency for Australian drug smugglers in Indonesia on the grounds that Australia is opposed to the death penalty.

Our morally flexible Prime Minister calls for the “coercive” use of sleep deprivation as long as it doesn’t cross the invisible and undefinable line into torture. This may or may not be related to the fact that this “coercion” has already been used on Australian citizens in American detention camps with Australia’s knowledge and implied consent.

Our fear of terrorism has created a social environment where our morally flexible Prime Minister (and others) can make statements like these with no discernible public backlash. The arguments of Howard and Amnesty International member Philip Ruddock recently seem to be: torture is okay if it’s used against terrorists, and then it’s “coercion”, not torture.

Oh, and speaking of Amnesty International, Phil:

Is sleep deprivation a form of torture?
Amnesty International calls on the USA and all governments to prohibit the use of sleep deprivation and any other forms of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as interrogation techniques.

It’s been noted many times before that if we let the terrorists (citizens of Terroristan, population: unknown) affect our Way Of Life™ they’ve won. If, in order to defend ourselves against the terrorists we begin to allow abuses of human rights that we formerly defended, we are fundamentally changing our Way Of Life™. Join the dots.

People like Andrew Bolt, upon reading this argument, would call me an “apologist” for the terrorists. They would say that my weakness in standing up to the forces of evil is what will let the terrorists win. But seriously, if in order to win we lower ourselves to the level of those we oppose, is our victory worth it?

From time-to-time during Howard’s reign there have been periods when my hatred of John Howard dulls. I mean, who can maintain the rage when the most prominent thing he’s said in two months is “I’ll donate $2000 to every motorist who converts to LPG”? But it’s times like these when the old feelings return. I’m ashamed of my country’s leadership.

People like Andrew Bolt, upon reading the above paragraph, would bemoan the “hate-riddled left and its politics of shame”. Andrew Bolt can fuck off.