At the top let's be clear: for every injured or traumatized person [ the victims of child abuse, in this case ], there is the relayed damage to parents, siblings, extended family, friends, acquaintances and all those in that child's future relationships. So, this could amount to hundreds, even more than a thousand people per victim meaning many many millions of affected people around the world. Child abuse in the Catholic Church in the modern era is far worse than the Spanish Inquisition's victims, and further, the scandal has seen many more millions to leave the Church.
That said, it is not a systemic problem in the Church any more than it is in Red Cross, Scouts, U.N. Peacekeepers, Protestant churches or the myriad of State-run institutions where abuse has been even more rife. But the institution where one would least expect such evil is the RC Church. It is not systemic, no, it is due to weak individuals, nearly all men, who gave in to licentious temptation for their own perverted sexual gratification. Being a priest offers no protection and, one could say, is more a target of Devilish opportunism than others. On the other hand, a priest supposedly has greater resistance to such temptation, but in the end too many men are simply weak self-aggrandizing beings.
Then worse: the protection and continuation of evil deeds, thanks largely to the Bishops and the Church culture who concealed it all. Why did they? A non-Catholic would not appreciate the workings at play here. At ordination a priest divorces his natural family [somewhat figuratively], to become a child of the Church with his Bishop in loco parentis. Who wouldn't protect his son from punishment? It may seem that the guilty Bishops were protecting the institutional reputation, but there is more to it than that. But, this cult-like dynamic is one that has been found out as totally deficient and collaborative with evil itself. This culture must change. Mandatory reporting must be applied. The corporal Body of Christ must change for the Spirtiual Body of Christ demands it - and so does the laity.
And Pell himself? My unit of psych 101 means nothing, but I do know that a person who's conscience is not whole or exhibits a lack of empathy is likely a sociopath, and that is my personal opinion of Pell. I don't know if he is guilty, but suspect he did fail to stop abuse as did so many others. while he has been pilloried with trite memes and a Minchin song is just a way that some will express their views, but it's not mine. I stand apart from several commentators, whom I admire, who support Pell.
The problem? The culture of protection must change. Secondly, the entrance criteria to seminaries needs review. The vetting process has waxed and wained over the years. Is it too lax in the admission of apparent homosexually-inclined applicants to the priesthood? Sites like 'Gates of Vienna" or 'Lepanto Institute' outline the genesis of the policy.
In conclusion, be assured that there are many lay organizations within the faith which are determined not to let this happen again - organizations that are often at odds with the establishment and the Magesterium itself. The Pope and Bishops be on notice: NEVER AGAIN!
Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Thursday, 3 March 2016
THE MISNOMER OF MULTICULTURALISM [MC].
PART 1: Preamble
PART 2: Analysis
PART 3: Summary
Preamble.
MC is the great sacred cow of our times in Australia and in much of the West and any prominent person who slanders the notion that cultural diversity is the holy grail of a society's benificence is quickly marched to the figurative stocks of PC to be pilloried by the righteous liberal left-progressives with epithets of "racist, white-supremacist, bigot, fascist," etc. Yet, Merkel and Sarkozy,doyens of the Euro-socialists, declared that MC was dead - and that was before the great invasion - but Europe is too distant for we antipodeans to care, except that is, for the cultural relativists like Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz of Uni Tech, Sydney who, along with alumni and many other of his ilk, were insisting that government grant legislative legitimacy to MC.
Here's the problem: What the heck is Multiculturalism? In fact, a priori, what constitutes culture itself. Here is the challenge: define Culture! For starters, "culture and race have nothing to do with each other." {Roger Scruton, The American Spectator, Jan 2011}. Second fly in the ointment: "Not all cultures are equally admirable." { ex PM Abbott }. Toss any number of flies into the ointment e.g. "All men are equal" and so on, and we have the makings of a good old ideological stoush, and one that will never be decided by knockout because 'culture', undefined, is a term thrown about by all and sundry without any consensus as to its meaning.
Enough already with the waffle! Allow me to get down to the tintacks with my own opening salvo, aimed at defining culture and, as I go down in a hail of academian bullets, let's hope such bullets begin to hit the target of defining this wretched term 'culture'. Moreover, finding its meaning for Australia.
Analysis.
I believe that there are so many elements which constitute culture that a few must be singled out as pre-requisite, undeniable, and must take precedence over others; for example, I would classify 'tradition' as more integral than national cuisine.
And, there is one, single element which is the foundation of, not only Australian culture, but all countrys' cultures. That element is LAW, encompassing both Common Law and Statutory Law as well as the CONSTITUTION. Just these elements rule out Sharia Law as we do not accept the elements, for example, of child marriage, polygamy, FMG, jizra tax, gender subjugation and so on. {Halal certification is technically illegal since it is not voluntary, not opt-out, and is hidden}.
Second, JURISPRUDENCE is law in action but applies in various levels, is often subjective according to various criteria and contains its own customs and controls. {Sharia Courts are integral to the practice of Islam but are illegal unless legislated by the Australian Parliament }.
Third is our system of POLITIQUE. Our own is Democratic as opposed to other systems, e.g. Totalitarian, Oligarchic, Dictatorial, Monarchial etc. Australia's system is classified as equal first for political freedom [Wikipedia].
Fourth are the various political tenets and systems under the principle of the separation of Church and State where no one religion is favoured or granted legislative advantage.
Next are those elements, both philosophical and legal, gleaned from Law and Politic, which become most valued by society, having too devolved over the country's history. Such elements as: Sovereignty, Equality, Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Free Enterprise, Non-Unjust-Discrimination, Private Ownership, Free Market Economic System.
Then, I suggest, come those elements which are not necessarily determined by legislature but are developed over time and have come to pervade our collective value system: Values, Ethos, Ethics, Morality, Traditions, Language, Education, Conventions.
I won't be so brash as to elucidate on these elements, but some thoughts on one aspect are given to exemplify the multiplicity of features in each - as the example, let's consider 'Ethos'. Under just this single element, I suggest that aspects of Ethos are as follows. Willingness to defend one's country; friendship towards other particular nations [e.g. New Zealand, U.S. and U.K.]; a willingness to do voluntary and charitable works; mateship; a 'fair go'; assist the less fortunate; openness; outspokenness; national pride; unique sacred cows [e.g. Anzac traditions]; mild irreverence; egalitarianism; affinity to the 'bush'; apathy [she'll be right] and so on.
Next may I suggest: the Arts [all forms]; the vernacular [axioms, idioms, accent]; sporting sub-culture; history; habits; stories and legends; knowledge.
Last, and perhaps least but nevertheless integral to culture is: LIFESTYLE. This includes Dress, cuisine, affinity to outdoor life, travel customs, habitat.
That's almost it.
Note that I have not included religious belief. This may seem a contradictory omission but, while our culture is clearly based on Judeo-Christian principles, Christian religious practice is declining and, anyway, an element of our culture is the acceptance of multi-faiths. Although, where adherents to a particular faith become overtly non-inclusive, we tend to get our backs up - our line in the sand is generous, but it's there.
Note too, 'Race' is not mentioned in my definition, simply because we largely accept that we are a multi-racial [except for the few].
So, are we, or should we be a multicultural society? The short answer is a resounding "NO", because this country has but one Law, one Constitution, one Politic, one Justice System, and no favoured religion or race. {The issue of 'race' is contentious since our immigration policy favours Anglo, Caucasian, European, but this will be taken up on another occasion ]. That said, we do have legislation specific to Aborigines, which is why it is my personal contention that Australia is a bi-cultural society. This too is for another day.
Australia is, in my view, multi-racial, diverse and inclusive: it is not multicultural - which is a term misused off-handedly by most and intentionally by certain idealogues for political purposes.
Summary.
CULTURAL DETERMINATES: Non-Diverse:
Law. Constitution. Politic. Jurisprudence.
Fashioned by:
Values. Ethos. Ethics. Morality. Tradition.
With Standardized:
Language. Conventions. Economic System. History.
Reflected in:
Arts. Vernacular. Habits. Stories. Sport. Knowledge.
Diverse in:
Lifestyle. Ethnicity. Religion.
Implication for ISLAM: If these conditions are reasonably accurate, there is no room for Sharia Law.
Muslims, as indeed migrants from any culture other than Australian, are
acceptable only on the condition that they are prepared to assimilate in
accordance with these cultural norms. Integration too is only acceptable
where migrants' customs do not clash with the norm to the point of causing
friction or interfere or disrupt those following the established cultural
practices.
John Namnik [ johnnamnik@gmail.com }
3.3.16
Further reading: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-84/legal-recognition-sharia-law
: http://www.ironbarkresources.com/mc/mcsummary.htm
PART 2: Analysis
PART 3: Summary
Preamble.
MC is the great sacred cow of our times in Australia and in much of the West and any prominent person who slanders the notion that cultural diversity is the holy grail of a society's benificence is quickly marched to the figurative stocks of PC to be pilloried by the righteous liberal left-progressives with epithets of "racist, white-supremacist, bigot, fascist," etc. Yet, Merkel and Sarkozy,doyens of the Euro-socialists, declared that MC was dead - and that was before the great invasion - but Europe is too distant for we antipodeans to care, except that is, for the cultural relativists like Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz of Uni Tech, Sydney who, along with alumni and many other of his ilk, were insisting that government grant legislative legitimacy to MC.
Here's the problem: What the heck is Multiculturalism? In fact, a priori, what constitutes culture itself. Here is the challenge: define Culture! For starters, "culture and race have nothing to do with each other." {Roger Scruton, The American Spectator, Jan 2011}. Second fly in the ointment: "Not all cultures are equally admirable." { ex PM Abbott }. Toss any number of flies into the ointment e.g. "All men are equal" and so on, and we have the makings of a good old ideological stoush, and one that will never be decided by knockout because 'culture', undefined, is a term thrown about by all and sundry without any consensus as to its meaning.
Enough already with the waffle! Allow me to get down to the tintacks with my own opening salvo, aimed at defining culture and, as I go down in a hail of academian bullets, let's hope such bullets begin to hit the target of defining this wretched term 'culture'. Moreover, finding its meaning for Australia.
Analysis.
I believe that there are so many elements which constitute culture that a few must be singled out as pre-requisite, undeniable, and must take precedence over others; for example, I would classify 'tradition' as more integral than national cuisine.
And, there is one, single element which is the foundation of, not only Australian culture, but all countrys' cultures. That element is LAW, encompassing both Common Law and Statutory Law as well as the CONSTITUTION. Just these elements rule out Sharia Law as we do not accept the elements, for example, of child marriage, polygamy, FMG, jizra tax, gender subjugation and so on. {Halal certification is technically illegal since it is not voluntary, not opt-out, and is hidden}.
Second, JURISPRUDENCE is law in action but applies in various levels, is often subjective according to various criteria and contains its own customs and controls. {Sharia Courts are integral to the practice of Islam but are illegal unless legislated by the Australian Parliament }.
Third is our system of POLITIQUE. Our own is Democratic as opposed to other systems, e.g. Totalitarian, Oligarchic, Dictatorial, Monarchial etc. Australia's system is classified as equal first for political freedom [Wikipedia].
Fourth are the various political tenets and systems under the principle of the separation of Church and State where no one religion is favoured or granted legislative advantage.
Next are those elements, both philosophical and legal, gleaned from Law and Politic, which become most valued by society, having too devolved over the country's history. Such elements as: Sovereignty, Equality, Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Free Enterprise, Non-Unjust-Discrimination, Private Ownership, Free Market Economic System.
Then, I suggest, come those elements which are not necessarily determined by legislature but are developed over time and have come to pervade our collective value system: Values, Ethos, Ethics, Morality, Traditions, Language, Education, Conventions.
I won't be so brash as to elucidate on these elements, but some thoughts on one aspect are given to exemplify the multiplicity of features in each - as the example, let's consider 'Ethos'. Under just this single element, I suggest that aspects of Ethos are as follows. Willingness to defend one's country; friendship towards other particular nations [e.g. New Zealand, U.S. and U.K.]; a willingness to do voluntary and charitable works; mateship; a 'fair go'; assist the less fortunate; openness; outspokenness; national pride; unique sacred cows [e.g. Anzac traditions]; mild irreverence; egalitarianism; affinity to the 'bush'; apathy [she'll be right] and so on.
Next may I suggest: the Arts [all forms]; the vernacular [axioms, idioms, accent]; sporting sub-culture; history; habits; stories and legends; knowledge.
Last, and perhaps least but nevertheless integral to culture is: LIFESTYLE. This includes Dress, cuisine, affinity to outdoor life, travel customs, habitat.
That's almost it.
Note that I have not included religious belief. This may seem a contradictory omission but, while our culture is clearly based on Judeo-Christian principles, Christian religious practice is declining and, anyway, an element of our culture is the acceptance of multi-faiths. Although, where adherents to a particular faith become overtly non-inclusive, we tend to get our backs up - our line in the sand is generous, but it's there.
Note too, 'Race' is not mentioned in my definition, simply because we largely accept that we are a multi-racial [except for the few].
So, are we, or should we be a multicultural society? The short answer is a resounding "NO", because this country has but one Law, one Constitution, one Politic, one Justice System, and no favoured religion or race. {The issue of 'race' is contentious since our immigration policy favours Anglo, Caucasian, European, but this will be taken up on another occasion ]. That said, we do have legislation specific to Aborigines, which is why it is my personal contention that Australia is a bi-cultural society. This too is for another day.
Australia is, in my view, multi-racial, diverse and inclusive: it is not multicultural - which is a term misused off-handedly by most and intentionally by certain idealogues for political purposes.
Summary.
CULTURAL DETERMINATES: Non-Diverse:
Law. Constitution. Politic. Jurisprudence.
Fashioned by:
Values. Ethos. Ethics. Morality. Tradition.
With Standardized:
Language. Conventions. Economic System. History.
Reflected in:
Arts. Vernacular. Habits. Stories. Sport. Knowledge.
Diverse in:
Lifestyle. Ethnicity. Religion.
Implication for ISLAM: If these conditions are reasonably accurate, there is no room for Sharia Law.
Muslims, as indeed migrants from any culture other than Australian, are
acceptable only on the condition that they are prepared to assimilate in
accordance with these cultural norms. Integration too is only acceptable
where migrants' customs do not clash with the norm to the point of causing
friction or interfere or disrupt those following the established cultural
practices.
John Namnik [ johnnamnik@gmail.com }
3.3.16
Further reading: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-84/legal-recognition-sharia-law
: http://www.ironbarkresources.com/mc/mcsummary.htm
Monday, 29 February 2016
Sunday, 6 December 2015
The IPA on the Referendum.
The post below came up on my timeline today. Next year we will all vote on the issue of changing the Constitution to recognize the Indigenous Peoples. While its a fair way off, you can click to 'save' this info for later consideration. You can also click the post to download the IPA pamphlet [and file it if you have a 'file' that you use]. I personally haven't decided on this issue so I am not promoting either side. However, the issue of multiculturalism is a hot topic right now and I will be blogging/posting about this soon because there is a general misunderstanding of what constitutes 'culture', and the issue has become divisive, and is used by some to promote harmful agendas. i will present the case that Australia is bi-cultural, [Aboriginal and Euro-Anglo], that it is multi-ethnic and diverse, but that it is NOT multicultural in the proper and strict sense even though 27% of us were born overseas. As usual, I try to inform everyone about issues so that, ultimately, our vote at the ballot box is an informed one rather than an emotive one; which is the reasoning behind all my contentious posts on politics, climate change, social justice, human rights, Mid-East war, Islamism etc.
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2449/ipa-welcomes-indigenous-recognition-council-announcement
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2449/ipa-welcomes-indigenous-recognition-council-announcement
Tuesday, 3 November 2015
The U.N.: Guest Post by AFT
Big lies as the UN suppresses truth with ideology
In his first month as Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull’s most decisive actions have been in cultural and international relations. His government has signed Australia up to the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, announced a bid for membership of the Security Council and declared candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council.
The multilateral moves have taken a nation accustomed to Tony Abbott’s more hawkish foreign policy by surprise. While the renewal of soft power relations with the UN may be viewed favourably, Australia’s new era of cosmopolitanism should be tempered by political realism.
Even ardent advocates of the classical liberal ideals that inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are beginning to recognise there is something rotten in the heart of the UN. Since the turn of the century, it has been beset by corruption and a culture of profligacy which would likely elicit strong criticism were the organisation a private enterprise. But it is the emerging culture of dishonesty at the UN which poses the greatest threat to its legitimacy as an independent and trustworthy arbiter of human rights and justice worldwide.
Dishonesty and double standards mark the rise of the UN in the realm of 21st-century human rights. In Australia, Europe, Canada and the US, human rights commissions have undermined evidentiary standards by supplanting empirical truth with emotionalism, campaigned against border integrity, criticised national security policy, engaged in judicial activism and sought to censor freethinkers. They have been unrelenting in the pursuit of a neo-Marxist social agenda that respects neither parliamentary process nor the views of citizens who pay their wages.
The most pressing problem with UN human rights advocates, however, is their use of dishonesty to achieve political ends. When attorney-general George Brandis rightly criticised Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs for fibbing about the presence of armed guards at immigrant processing centres, he was accused of violating her human rights.
Rather than correcting Triggs’s misrepresentation of the truth, the UN defended it.
Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, asked the government to explain its actions while condemning its alleged violation of Triggs’s rights. The violation of truth was not raised as a matter of vital interest. While that may offend our moral sensibilities, it is consistent with UN values.
The UN has created a new value system where the truth is subordinated to human rights activism. For example, in the report Human Rights Defenders, it states that the “critical test” of a human rights defender is not to be correct — to base their case on objective and validated truth — but to pursue rights. Human rights have been transformed into a master ideology that transcends truth.
As history has shown, the supersession of objective truth with political ideology produces big lies. The big lie of the modern age is that secure-border policy produces more harm to humankind than it prevents. The UN is a powerful purveyor of the lie that effectively protects people-smugglers and frequently proves lethal to their human cargo.
In the organisation’s latest attack on Australia’s highly successful secure-border policy, UN migrant rights rapporteur Francois Crepeau whipped up a media storm on the false claim he was denied adequate access to immigration centres.
The leftist media reported Crepeau’s hysterical claims as though they constituted fact. Nowhere was his history of criticising conservative government policy reported. His recent attack describing defence of the continuous historical tradition of British culture as “bullshit” went unremarked. No one questioned his ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Australia’s immigration processing centres given he is one of only eight council members of the Global Detention Project, an activist group highly critical of such centres.
The Turnbull government passed its first test on border security by refusing to submit to Crepeau’s fantastical claims. But it faces an uphill battle to convince the electorate that deeper engagement with the UN is in the national interest and will produce return on investment.
The Syrian crisis has exposed the UN’s radical impotence in dealing with the major security threat of our age, Islamist terrorism. Its bloated bureaucracy is too dilatory to respond to the multi-ethnic civil wars that have emerged as the greatest global threat to human rights. Rather than realise the liberal universalist order out of such chaos, the UN appears beholden to its greatest detractors, communist and Islamist states.
Russia has emerged as the strongman of the UN in responding to the Syrian crisis and Islamist states now comprise the largest voting bloc at the UN General Assembly. The world’s worst human rights violators populate the Human Rights Council. The minority of UN members that constitute the liberal democratic world order which inspired its inception cannot compete with the sheer size and determination of authoritarian states to overwhelm it.
Turnbull has initiated a marathon of diplomacy by committing Australia to the UN until at least 2030, if our bid for Security Council membership is successful. We will undoubtedly hear more about how deeper engagement with the UN will form a part of Turnbull’s recast foreign policy strategy.
The easy route for the government would be to stage a UN love-in with the leftist media and ignore the warning signs about declining public trust in the liberal institutional order. But there is little point in denying that the free world’s relationship with the UN is rapidly approaching a tipping point where we must decide whether to dig in and deepen engagement, or declare it a lost cause and start anew.
The UN remains a vital part of the liberal international order, but it has abused public trust by elevating ideology over truth and defending the indefensible in a desperate bid to remain relevant. In its recasting of foreign affairs, the Turnbull government should embrace a critical and transformative approach to international relations, acknowledging the UN requires serious structural reform if it is to become a force for good in the 21st century.
Jennifer Oriel is a political scientist and commentator.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/big-lies-as-the-un-suppresses-truth-with-ideology/story-e6frg6zo-1227556738266
In his first month as Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull’s most decisive actions have been in cultural and international relations. His government has signed Australia up to the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, announced a bid for membership of the Security Council and declared candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council.
The multilateral moves have taken a nation accustomed to Tony Abbott’s more hawkish foreign policy by surprise. While the renewal of soft power relations with the UN may be viewed favourably, Australia’s new era of cosmopolitanism should be tempered by political realism.
Even ardent advocates of the classical liberal ideals that inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are beginning to recognise there is something rotten in the heart of the UN. Since the turn of the century, it has been beset by corruption and a culture of profligacy which would likely elicit strong criticism were the organisation a private enterprise. But it is the emerging culture of dishonesty at the UN which poses the greatest threat to its legitimacy as an independent and trustworthy arbiter of human rights and justice worldwide.
Dishonesty and double standards mark the rise of the UN in the realm of 21st-century human rights. In Australia, Europe, Canada and the US, human rights commissions have undermined evidentiary standards by supplanting empirical truth with emotionalism, campaigned against border integrity, criticised national security policy, engaged in judicial activism and sought to censor freethinkers. They have been unrelenting in the pursuit of a neo-Marxist social agenda that respects neither parliamentary process nor the views of citizens who pay their wages.
The most pressing problem with UN human rights advocates, however, is their use of dishonesty to achieve political ends. When attorney-general George Brandis rightly criticised Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs for fibbing about the presence of armed guards at immigrant processing centres, he was accused of violating her human rights.
Rather than correcting Triggs’s misrepresentation of the truth, the UN defended it.
Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, asked the government to explain its actions while condemning its alleged violation of Triggs’s rights. The violation of truth was not raised as a matter of vital interest. While that may offend our moral sensibilities, it is consistent with UN values.
The UN has created a new value system where the truth is subordinated to human rights activism. For example, in the report Human Rights Defenders, it states that the “critical test” of a human rights defender is not to be correct — to base their case on objective and validated truth — but to pursue rights. Human rights have been transformed into a master ideology that transcends truth.
As history has shown, the supersession of objective truth with political ideology produces big lies. The big lie of the modern age is that secure-border policy produces more harm to humankind than it prevents. The UN is a powerful purveyor of the lie that effectively protects people-smugglers and frequently proves lethal to their human cargo.
In the organisation’s latest attack on Australia’s highly successful secure-border policy, UN migrant rights rapporteur Francois Crepeau whipped up a media storm on the false claim he was denied adequate access to immigration centres.
The leftist media reported Crepeau’s hysterical claims as though they constituted fact. Nowhere was his history of criticising conservative government policy reported. His recent attack describing defence of the continuous historical tradition of British culture as “bullshit” went unremarked. No one questioned his ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Australia’s immigration processing centres given he is one of only eight council members of the Global Detention Project, an activist group highly critical of such centres.
The Turnbull government passed its first test on border security by refusing to submit to Crepeau’s fantastical claims. But it faces an uphill battle to convince the electorate that deeper engagement with the UN is in the national interest and will produce return on investment.
The Syrian crisis has exposed the UN’s radical impotence in dealing with the major security threat of our age, Islamist terrorism. Its bloated bureaucracy is too dilatory to respond to the multi-ethnic civil wars that have emerged as the greatest global threat to human rights. Rather than realise the liberal universalist order out of such chaos, the UN appears beholden to its greatest detractors, communist and Islamist states.
Russia has emerged as the strongman of the UN in responding to the Syrian crisis and Islamist states now comprise the largest voting bloc at the UN General Assembly. The world’s worst human rights violators populate the Human Rights Council. The minority of UN members that constitute the liberal democratic world order which inspired its inception cannot compete with the sheer size and determination of authoritarian states to overwhelm it.
Turnbull has initiated a marathon of diplomacy by committing Australia to the UN until at least 2030, if our bid for Security Council membership is successful. We will undoubtedly hear more about how deeper engagement with the UN will form a part of Turnbull’s recast foreign policy strategy.
The easy route for the government would be to stage a UN love-in with the leftist media and ignore the warning signs about declining public trust in the liberal institutional order. But there is little point in denying that the free world’s relationship with the UN is rapidly approaching a tipping point where we must decide whether to dig in and deepen engagement, or declare it a lost cause and start anew.
The UN remains a vital part of the liberal international order, but it has abused public trust by elevating ideology over truth and defending the indefensible in a desperate bid to remain relevant. In its recasting of foreign affairs, the Turnbull government should embrace a critical and transformative approach to international relations, acknowledging the UN requires serious structural reform if it is to become a force for good in the 21st century.
Jennifer Oriel is a political scientist and commentator.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/big-lies-as-the-un-suppresses-truth-with-ideology/story-e6frg6zo-1227556738266
Saturday, 10 October 2015
Sunday, 4 October 2015
A.J.KINMAN: BOOKS: REDBACK
A.J.KINMAN: BOOKS: REDBACK: NEW Nick Riley's life is turned upside down when he is framed for murder, not once but twice. He is on the run from both the poli...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)