For the record, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. Not only am I not convinced that it works as a deterrent, but I view it as barbaric, an echo from a less civilised time when raw emotion dictated punishment rather than cool, calm consideration. Some view it as a just punishment for killers considering that they themselves have killed, in short, an eye for an eye. But not only is this view too close to Biblical or Koranic dictations for me (therefore stuck in the past), it doesn't actually make sense when considering where it take us, an assault for an assault? A rape for a rape maybe? Clearly this position isn't well thought through for not only does state sanctioned murder stand alone as a punishment inspired by the crime, but it makes the punisher a killer also. So death creates more death and death alone.
So when one is against the death penalty one should stand by it as a principle and voice their opposition to it whenever the subject is raised as you would in regards to any fundamental principle, and this is all Robert McClelland said. For some to take issue with the timing of his comments is fair enough, but some of the criticism directed at Labor by the usual suspects has bordered on the ridiculous. Take the predictable Labor loather Iain Hall for example:
'The Labor party are without doubt far too soft when it comes to justice for terrorists'
This is quite simply an absurd comment often repeated by other conservative parrots. Because Labor wish to speak their opinions on the death penalty whenever the subject arises they are "soft on terror". Hall's eagerness to see more death in the name of "justice" and his hate for Labor have blinded him to the silliness of his comment.
'...they are far to soft when it comes to the idiots who have been caught trying to smuggle drugs from Asia.'
Here he appears to be suggesting that death is an appropriate sentence for drug trafficking even, and that Labor are now soft on drug trafficking because they similarly oppose capital punishment for the Bali nine!? This may not be what he meant by his comment but it at least shows tacit approval for their deaths. He goes on in this vein but I'll spare you the pitiless rationale. Hall's firmly of the opinion that death is an appropriate punishment at times, indeed sometimes he even relishes in a slow death:
'The revelation that there have been further arrests in relation to this latest bombing campaign certainly is good news. As is the news that one of Glasgow’s would be bombers has burns to 90% of his body. People with such extensive burns seldom survive their injuries and usually have a slow and very painful death, usually succumbing to shock and infection. It could not happen to a nicer bloke now could it?'
How can Hall distinguish himself as the opposite of these criminals when he makes comments like this?
Today in The Australian on another brilliantly balanced opinion page edited by culture warrior Tom Switzer, James Allan has a go at Labor even though, strangely enough, he opposes the death penalty:
'The same holds if, for most Australians, capital punishment is in all circumstances considered to be unarguably the most obnoxious of the many practices on offer in neighbouring countries: worse than female genital mutilation, say, or chopping off hands for theft, or shooting monks who want democracy, or building nuclear weapons, or whatever your pick is from the fairly extensive list on offer.'
Here he's playing that old conservative card where you point out a bunch of other horrible crimes and say "why aren't you campaigning against these also" with the intention of belittling the campaign against crime one. Firstly, some of them aren't state sanctioned activities and are outlawed already. Secondly, Labor do speak out against many of them consistently eg: shooting monks, nuclear weapons. Thirdly, chopping off hands for theft is comparable to capital punishment in that the crime dictates the punishment. So if Allan thinks this is beyond the pale then why isn't the death penalty on his list also?
'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." '
What a confused position!! Allan is clearly having trouble defending Howard's stance here as to oppose capital punishment is to OPPOSE IT!!!! We don't say "well we don't like it but if you guys want to kill people then we'll support you". Coming from a Howard fan such relativism should strike all other conservatives as worrying.
And finally The Australian's pathetic editorial:
'Kevin Rudd was quick to criticise Mr McClelland's speech yesterday as insensitive on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombing. Yet the fact is that Mr McClelland was articulating Labor policy. Mr Rudd did not support the death penalty for Saddam or for the Bali bombers, and on October 10 last year shadow health minister Nicola Roxon said that "Australia needs to continue to strongly and clearly state its opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises", and not just when Australians are involved.'
And so what!? Labor OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY. This is what you do when you oppose capital punishment.'While there is bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in Australia, Labor's notion that the Government should state its opposition every time someone, somewhere in the world, is executed is absurd. With more than 1500 executions last, year that would amount to four or five representations every day.'
What a ridiculous comment! Labor don't propose to state it's opposition every time someone is executed, merely every time the subject arises. A consistent position is what they proposed not the rag tag flexible ground we currently occupy. This editorial is a perfect example of the weak conservative stance on capital punishment. In order to look "tough" it's required of them to not mention too sternly that they don't support capital punishment, rather they add it as a side comment before they rail on about the justifications for it.
Just let us know guys, death or no death? Don't duck and weave with your pussy footed anti-Labor moaning.
|