The Latest on Civil Rights in Australia

I suppose that anyone with access to a radio, television, a newspaper, or a vocal next door neighbour, has been hearing about what's happening in the Northern Territory of Australia.

An "emergency response" to a report on the levels of child sexual abuse (among other things) that is happening within indigenous communities.

The army, the police, and a horde of public servants have been dispatched to Central and northern Australia to deal with this 'emergency'.

The levels of child sexual abuse, petrol sniffing, alcohol abuse, ill health, violence, lack of education, inadequate housing etc. etc. have been known about for at least the last decade.

So what's new? Why is it an emergency today that requires a level of intervention that appears to be virtually unprecedented?

Some cynical observers have noted that it is an election year and that the Howard government has a history of creating media "beat ups" when it wishes to focus attention away from those areas where it is vulnerable and shift attention to "crises" - whether they are real or unreal.

Take the "children overboard" example from a few years ago.

Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Regardless of what past history has suggested about the motivation of the current government, every citizen of this country needs to ask whether we are heading towards a form of fascism.

What's to stop the government in future deciding that some other group in society that it singles out is not acting 'responsibly'?

In Hitler's Germany there were certain groups who were singled our for "special treatment" and we know how that little experiment in social engineering ended up.

Is this the thin edge of the wedge for Australia? Are indigenous people just the first group selected who are likely to "require government intervention" so that they can "manage their lives responsibly"?

There are some realistic questions that need to be asked - for example:

1. is the government seriously trying to deal with internal domestic issues by sending in the armed forces?
   
   If so, this does NOT augur well for the way in which this democracy has progressed over the years. The army should be available to deal with security issues or when an external force invades or threatens to invade our country. At a pinch, it could be sent in to rescue people who have been devastated by the impact of a catastrophic natural or man made disaster.
   
   To use the armed forces in this context simply sets a precedent which I believe is unfortunate and dangerous.
   
   I have no quarrel with the reality that the armed forces represent a resource that is "available" in the remote regions in which this intervention is planned.
   
   I have no quarrel with the fact that the army actually has the resources in place to provide a whole range of services that may be needed.
   
   The message that is sent to those of us who are not involved however, is as follows - if we accept that it's OK to use the armed forces in this context then we also tacitly accept that it is OK to use the armed forces in other domestic contexts.
   
   This is NOT something I am prepared to accept.
   
   
2. Is the government entitled to simply step in and hold back people's entitlements to social security payments, because it considers that they are unable or unwilling to manage their money responsibly?
   
   I don't think so!
   
   What this type of action indicates is that there is a risk that any one of us, at some future time, is at the mercy of some decision making that could strip us of our entitlements to a pension or an allowance.
   
   Let's not get cute about this - if we permit this to happen for indigenous persons, whatever the pretext and however well intentioned it may seem in this instance, it opens the flood gates to the opportunity to abuse our rights.
   

It sets a precedent and - at least in my view - is paternalistic and racist in the extreme!

It's not for me to comment on the legality of what the Federal government is doing - that's for people who are interested in civil rights and the law.

My concern is that both sides of politics support this unprecedented intervention AND that if it goes unchallenged, it threatens our civil rights by setting a precedent that can be exploited by any future government when it declares an emergency!

Civil rights are obviously suspended for indigenous people, a locally elected government is bypassed and an all knowing and all powerful central bureaucracy takes over and anyone who protests is labelled as hysterical, a supporter of child abuse, a pedophile or worse.

I have no issue with the government taking swift action to ensure that children are protected from harm.

I do have concerns about how this is being done.

I do NOT want to be one of the silent majority who permitted what I think of as fascism, to arise in this country. I know from my reading of history that this is irresponsible.

Something needs to be done to ensure that the children are protected, but that something is NOT what the Howard government is doing.