A few more pieces to follow on from yesterday’s death penalty debacle.
Ken Lovell has written a post about it, pointing out the flaws it showed in both of our potential next Prime Ministers:
Well done Kevin, you’ve managed to turn a minor incident into a major story while simultaneously demonstrating yet again that in the shiny new ALP, expediency trumps principle every time.
And what of the subprime minister, how has he responded? With the idiotic hyperbole and misrepresentation that unfortunately seems to have become his trademark lately; it’s as if the childish histrionics of parliament have become so engrained in his behaviour that he can’t shake them off, Mr Speaker, even when he’s outside the bunker.
The GG has run an opinion piece by James Allan from UQ, arguing that McClelland’s proposal is not legally or diplomatically plausible, and that the Government’s position is not incoherent or contradictory at all:
What we can say with perfect confidence is that McClelland is straight-out wrong to think there is something manifestly inconsistent in the Howard Government’s position on capital punishment.
For one thing, there is nothing inconsistent in saying you support capital punishment for murder (and even more so for terrorists who detonate bombs in bars, thus murdering hundreds), but not for drug smuggling or indeed anything short of murder. On that basis there is all the difference in the world between the Bali bombers and the Australian drug smugglers.
Second, it is not inconsistent to say, “We don’t support capital punishment even for murder here in Australia, but at the same time we do not condemn it elsewhere where it is used against murderers who were given a fair and open trial.”
The problem with this reasoning is that these are not the positions the Government has taken. As Kevin Rudd quoted Dolly last night:
But in terms of Mr Downer’s double statements, let me read you this, what Mr Downer has said: “The Australian Government is universally and consistently opposed to the use of capital punishment in any circumstances.” This is Mr Alexander Downer, the Foreign Minister of Australia. “The death penalty is an inhumane form of punishment which fundamentals the most fundamental right, the right to life.” This is Mr Downer’s own words, he goes on to say: “Australia consistently raises its opposition to the use of the death penalty with countries employing capital punishment.”
Downer has stated a universal opposition to the death penalty, not an acceptance of it for murderers but not drug smugglers. And it’s a stretch to argue that the arguments Allan considers valid were made by Howard yesterday:
Mr Howard condemned as “extraordinary” Labor’s view that the Bali bombers’ lives should be spared. “The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community,” Mr Howard said.
“I find it impossible myself, as an Australian, as Prime Minister, as an individual, to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women,” he said.
At best, Howard’s position can be characterised as supporting the death penalty for murder of Australians, but being opposed to it otherwise.
Allan’s position is that, unless one regards the death penalty as a fundamental breach of human rights that should be abolished on those grounds (which I do), it is possible to articulate a position that reconciles support for some executions and opposition to others. While this is true, that does not mean that the Government, nor Labor, have done so. Both are now trapped in a mess of incoherent stances based on what is the most politically expedient rhetoric in a given case.
Finally, the ABC is continuing to push the notion that Rudd must clarify who his Ministers will be if Labor is elected. I say again: ask the Libs to have Costello name his Ministry, given it is supposed to be a done deal that he will take the helm during the next term. If Australians have a right to know the composition of their Government for the next term, it needs to apply to both sides.
UPDATE: Andrew Bartlett comments on the hypocrisy of Howard and the timidity (or stupidity?) of Rudd.
