On Ruddock and the UN
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Ruddock’s record on rights makes a joke of his retirement gig” (yesterday). In concluding his broadside against Philip Ruddock, Bernard Keane says, “if he ever goes near the UN Human Rights Council, he should be sitting with the Saudis, the Chinese and the Vietnamese, who currently degrade the body with their presence.” And this is after attacking Ruddock for offensive, dehumanising language.
Even if he expressed it better, it is hard to understand how Keane thinks the United Nations should be run. By excluding a whole range of countries? Or by placing them in a subordinate position?
A better solution?
Jock Webb writes: Re. “On asylum seekers” (yesterday). Peter Matters makes his argument well and it should be a no-brainer. I thought that was the idea behind the Malaysian solution. However, first Mr Matters must sort out the the thug who heads Immigration. It is also well know that Australian only wants cheap labour on 457s, overseas students to work in 711 or wealthy Chinese businessmen with no scruples. Racism is the underlying reason for this cruelty and it goes straight to Howard, with a major assist from Amnesty Ruddock and Overboard Reith (also COP Commander of the Order of the Phonecard).
Bring him home?
Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Turnbull should find his inner Gough and bring Assange home” (yesterday). Having had an interest in human rights for a long time, I see no reason that Assange’s Australian passport be issued to him, not that it will help him. Given that he faces potential sexual assault charges in Sweden, arguably the most victim-friendly jurisdiction in the world and he is most reluctant to face these charges his claimed arbitrary detention does not stand up. Even the minority view of the 3-1 UN panel sounded more logical than the majority.
Assange’s personality flaws have been exposed by those who have worked with him, and even previous supporters are alarmed by his cavalier attitude to the dangers he exposes people to in his zealous pursuits. For one he is no Daniel Ellsberg, who he claims to reflect in values. Ellsberg is far more decent, and was also willing to face his accusers in court. Assange’s legal record has been a complete failure and it is astonishing having Ecuadorian asylum, a county with a record of shooting strikers and imprisoning journalists and repression which sits completely at odd with Assange’s claimed positions.
The logic of twinning Assange with Wilfred Burchett, arguably Australia’s greatest traitor is perplexing. Burchett is lucky never to have faced charges for aiding the enemy, not unlike David Hicks was. Burchett aided the communist sides not only in Vietnam, but also Korea. He was a communist newspaper journalist and was present during the interrogations of Australian and other allied and UN prisoners of war. He broadcast the propaganda of the communist side when it was at war with the UN, let alone our nation. The leader of the Korean communist invaders Kim Ill Sung is the grandfather of the current North Korean (PDRK) dictator, who is the subject of UN action and alarm presently.
As for the gratuitous reference to Turnbull. Turnbull I am sure will follow a legally sound course in Australia’s interest, something Assange and many of his supporters are unfamiliar with as they pursue causes whose collateral damage is almost entirely to the worlds democratic states.