remember Scott Parkin?

Media attention to the pathological posturings of Mark Latham has inevitably pushed a few more serious issues aside, and what could be more serious to our national identity than the deportation of peace activist Scott Parkin? Barista has some pungent commentary here, and well done Natasha for pursuing the issue vigorously in the senate, but of course the wall of national security is easy to put up and excellent for hiding behind. The claim is that the opposition, on being briefed, went along with the decision. So just who was the opposition in this instance. Was it Mister Big, or the shadow cabinet, or every card-carrying ALP member? Hey, I’m in the opposition, and I’ve never voted labor in my life.

Did this opposition also accept that Parkin be billed $20,000? More importantly, what allegations could they have sensibly made against him? That a person who has built his reputation on non-violent methods of protest was suddenly planning something violent? Rubbish. That he was planning to reveal some secrets of Haliburton that would compromise national security (i.e. national commercial interests)? Now there’s a political minefield. Hard not to head in that direction though. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if ASIO was pressured by ‘outside forces’, and considering Beazley’s consistent pro-American positioning, I’m afraid I wouldn’t trust his judgment any more than I’d trust ASIO’s.

Meanwhile, the lie that the public needn’t be informed about the details of this case must be exposed. The onus should be on the government to prove rather than assure that this extraordinary deportation isn’t political.