I suppose today signaled the start of the election year race, what with Parliament sitting for the first time in ‘07. And as usual things got off to a roaring start. Wasn’t it beautiful to see The Man Of Steel groveling in a last-minute correction to Hansard, claiming that he never meant to deny a link between emissions and climate change. “Your Honour, my government is the best friend that the climate has (as long as Australian industry doesn’t need to give up a single dollar of profit.)”

And come on, just admit that watching the David Hicks issue slowly explode in John Howard’s face like a box of illegal Fyshwick firecrackers brings joy to your soul.

The Ghoul was on the 7:30 Report tonight getting slaughtered by Kerry O’Brien while wearing his bloody Amnesty International badge again. I’ve written about this grotesque hypocrisy before. And Phil said something curious when Kerry asked him about evidence gained under coercion: “coercion — whatever that is…”

It’s torture, Philip. Your lapel sponsor Amnesty International says so.

So on the day when polls suggest that Labor has an actual advantage coming into the election year, as opposed to an imagined advantage (refer to Latham, M), it’s time for GrodsReaders to lay their cards on the table. Leave a comment predicting the election result by party and margin. Come November(ish) the winner will receive a custom-made jpeg image declaring them the GrodsElectionPredictionChampion to delete from their inbox display proudly on their blog sidebar.

The Editor tips Labor by three seats.

Curious about the apparent inconsistency between Amnesty International’s views on torture and those of its proud member Philip Ruddock, I fired off an email to Amnesty asking if they were as troubled as I was. The reply is quite interesting:

I am replying to your email concerning Commonwealth Attorney General, Philip Ruddock’s membership and public association with Amnesty International. This issue has been one of deep concern for many Amnesty International Australia members and supporters. There is no doubt that numerous statements made by Mr Ruddock as a member of the Australian Government and policy positions taken by the Australian government, particularly with respect to refugees and human rights and security, are in direct opposition to Amnesty International policies.

For a number of years, the Board of Amnesty International Australia has made formal and informal representations to Mr Ruddock. We have requested him to refrain from wearing the Amnesty International badge or identifying himself as an Amnesty International member while engaged in his official duties. Our requests in this regard have not been successful.

The issue was debated at quite some length at the 2002 National Annual General Meeting and it was decided that:

“Amnesty International Australia should direct its energies towards campaigning on human rights issues rather than on the Amnesty International Australia membership of Philip Ruddock.”

Accordingly, since that decision, our focus has been on our human rights work. In those areas where there is a difference in the policy being espoused by Mr Ruddock on behalf of the Australian government and the policy held by Amnesty International Australia, we have been fearless in our criticism of Australia’s human rights policy and practices. Our strict financial independence from government has enabled us to strenuously fight for human rights protection.

Earlier this year, the Board of Amnesty International Australia reviewed Amnesty’s position concerning Mr Ruddock’s membership and reaffirmed the decision of the 2002 National Annual General Meeting. Accordingly, we will continue to direct our energies and resources to campaigning on human rights issues rather than on Mr Ruddock’s membership of Amnesty International.

We hope that this will not lessen your support of Amnesty International, which has a critical role to play in Australia and the world at large, and which needs your support. Working together, we can continue to make a difference – we can save lives and protect the rights and needs of people suffering or in danger of suffering abuses – irrespective of the policies which Mr Ruddock espouses.

Mr Ruddock is fully aware of Amnesty International’s principled approach to human rights issues. His membership of Amnesty International and his wearing of the badge are ultimately matters for his own conscience. Quite simply, it is up to him to live up to the values which are enshrined in the Amnesty lapel badge which he wears.

So it’s clear that Ruddock is a member of Amnesty International for nothing more than political purposes. Amnesty have made it clear that they’d rather he disassociate himself with their organisation while espousing policy which is counter to their ideals, yet he keeps wearing the badge in order to leach off their good name.

All power to Amnesty International. They keep accepting Philip Ruddock’s $55 annual membership fee, putting his money to good use fighting the filth he espouses.

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.

If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose one Liberal politician with which to have a boozy session at the pub I would choose Amanda Vanstone.

Let me explain.

Like many Liberal politicians I strongly dislike much of her personal politics and the policies she supports, but there’s something about her personality that I respect.

Let’s look at it this way: even if Philip Ruddock, Kevin Andrews, Tony Abbott, John Howard and Peter Costello had identical political opinions to my own I wouldn’t go out of my way to have a beer with them because I think they’re soulless, slimy bastards. I’ve never fallen asleep in a pub before (well, maybe just once but it was 4.30am — long story) but I reckon John Howard would have me snoring before I finished my first pot of draught.

However, the glimpses of Amanda’s non-political persona over the years have revealed that she’s got a wicked sense of humour, doesn’t mind a good session over a few bottles of wine (eg. one extraordinarily boozy lunch/ dinner with a Bulletin journalist, if memory serves me correctly), and she’s not afraid to speak her mind, often coming out with some absolutely brilliant one-liners. Who can forget the “sandwich and a milkshake” jibe at her own government’s tax cuts, or the “let me put my dancing shoes on” remarks after Christopher Skase’s death.

I get upset at how callous and heartless she is when defending current Australian immigration policy, and think she showed a frightening lack of remorse over cases such as Cornelia Rau, but on the flip side she continues to support an Australian republic and this week has been arguing that Australia should legalise voluntary euthanasia. You gotta respect that.

Which Liberal politician would you have a piss-up with and why?