Since being elected leader of the Labor party Kevin Rudd has said he offers a new style of leadership and an alternative policy platform rather than an echo of the Government. Really?

On the issue of legislation which will implement the recommendations of the Lockhart review into stem cell research, including a new process of allowing embryonic cloning, Kevin certainly has an alternative policy platform, but it’s alternative to former leader Kim Beazley. What I’m really looking for is an alternative to HoWARd.

Kevin Rudd: “I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life”

John HoWARd: “I don’t think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view (since the 2002 vote to ban therapeutic cloning).”

My concern is that Kevin has articulated his belief that human life begins at conception. What may be the implications on choice this may have for Australian women in the future.

The Lockhart review suggests that,

A fundamental judgement needs to be made about when a fertilised egg becomes a potential life form deserving of special ethical respect and treatment. A key recommendation of the Committee was for a clearer definition of what a human embryo is. The current statutory definition catches embryos from about the age of 22 hours to about 8 weeks. This is in stark contrast to the definition which many in the scientific community would prefer.
The UK’s Warnock Committee were of the view that until the fourteenth day of development most cells of the embryo had the potential to develop into tissue which would not even form part of the ultimate foetus (such as placenta or the amniotic sac), and that cells which were identifiable as dedicated to the development of the foetus itself would not be determined until at least day 14 after conception. Defining an embryo before this stage as a ‘potential life’ therefore, according to the Warnock Committee was ‘inaccurate and misleading.’

Image from here

In politics, truth is often a pesky intruder. Combine this truth with the need for justice and what may be best described as the ‘right thing to do’ and the truth becomes potent.

The Coalition of the willing and two of its high profile supporters are facing the truth and it will not be pleasant. As the result of two former members of the military speaking out, we see former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our own PM John HoWARd steadily loosing credibility, and one (I would push for both) may even be charged with war crimes.
Former US Army Brigadier General- Janis Karpinski is ready to testify against former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, if a suit filed by civil rights groups in Germany over Abu Ghraib, and to a lesser degree Guantanamo Bay, led to a full investigation.

The former Brigadier General alleges that Rumsfeld was responsible for authorising specific techniques of torture. These included making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation, playing music at full volume and having to sit in uncomfortable positions. Given Janice’s testimony, Rumsfeld may face charges of breaking the Geneva Convention.The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer

“no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion” to secure information. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

Wolfgang Kaleck in a translation says:

“Janice Karpinski is practically our star witness because she’s the highest military officer ready to provide her insights to us and to the prosecuting office which will be ready to hear from her. Janice Karpinski was ready to provide testimony in the US and the court martial process against her soldiers but nobody wanted to question her.”

Former SAS Major Peter Tinley has spoken out against the Australian government and its role in the war in Iraq. He maintains that,

“The notion that pre-emption is a legitimate strategy in the face of such unconvincing intelligence [the existence of WMD’s] is a betrayal of the Australian way.”

The former SAS Major has said he was now speaking out having expected people ‘far more capable and more senior than me’ to have expressed serious reservations about Australia’s involvement in Iraq.

It seems that Professor Robert O’Neill is one such ‘capable and senior person.’ He says:

“The United States Army is not good at counter-insurgency. Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s not capable of learning on the job, it’s learnt a lot in the past three years, and I’ve taught some of the people who have made big advances there. They were my graduate students at Oxford early in the 90s. But, the culture of the United States Army as a whole is not about moving very delicately, understanding the cultures of the country that you’re in. It’s about firepower and controlling the situation. Destruction is a very big part of it. It was in Vietnam. And for a counter-insurgency operation, that’s terribly counter-productive.”

Image from here

The people of South Dakota have rejected the “Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act.”

The act, if enacted, would have banned abortions for all reasons, including a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest.

This is what was proposed and rejected:

“The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother’s fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited. Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.” – Source

Image from here

What does a man of god sell? Not much it seems.

I would think the minimum standard might be honesty and integrity. It is one of the reasons that a thinking, pluralistic public, such as Australia, is uneasy about allowing religion, and those that peddle it, to have much of a hold on the laws governing our society. This is evidenced in the resounding community response to banning abortion, banning stem cell research and placing chaplains in schools.

All too often religious types end up being discredited, much like the latest discredited preacher Rev. Ted Haggard. Ted, it seems has been preachin’ one thing and doin’ another. He was saying “drugs are bad” as he was buying speed. He was saying, “gays are evil” as he was having sex with a man. There you have it. Evidence versus belief.
In the US, Reverend Ted Haggard has resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals representing more than 45,000 churches with 30 million members.

Reverend Haggard admitted he had received a massage from a Denver man- Mike Jones, who claimed the pastor had paid him for sex over three years. Haggard also admitted he had bought methamphetamine. However, Haggard denied having sex with Mike Jones and said he did not use the drug and threw it away.

“Please continue to pray for Pastor Ted and his family, and let’s all continue to stand strong together for the kingdom of God. We will get through this together. Remember, New Life Church has never been a man, a building or anything else – we are a family.” – Rev. Ross Parsley, Haggard’s temporary replacement.

Is anyone else outraged at the complete lack of understanding that John HoWARd has for formally qualified counsellors and the need for evidence, rather than belief-based intervention? Currently, a school counsellor must have formal qualifications. They are drawn mainly from Social Work or Psychology.

This government is planning to fund chaplains in schools. In the announcement that I listened to on the ABC, Kevin Andrews was particularly tricky when he interchanged ‘counsellors’ with ‘chaplain.’

“I think there is a broad concern in the community, amongst parents and indeed amongst a lot of young people, that having someone like a counsellor – like a chaplain – that they can go to and talk to is very important. We’ve seen tragedies in recent days in schools, in New South Wales for example, and a lot of people want someone they can just talk to outside the normal (my emphasis) teachers in a school.”

Counsellors are informed by evidence-based practice, whilst chaplains are belief-based practitioners.

Perhaps I’m missing the point completely and the government is rolling out more of what in 2004 was referred to as HoWARd’s response to Latham’s “crisis of masculinity.”

Women have long made up the bulk of the numbers of graduates from the social sciences, whereas chaplains continue to be predominantly men.

This from then Minister for Education, Science and training- Dr. Brendan Nelson. Making Schools Better. A speech spoken by Dr Brendan Nelson at the Making Schools Better conference at The University of Melbourne. 26 August 2004.

“Finally, we are also taking steps to ensure that men are attracted to the teaching profession, particularly to primary teaching by offering 500 teacher scholarships for men. Last year, the proportion of male primary teachers was only 20.9%. This is a decrease of five percentage points over only a decade and the decrease will continue: there are currently only 18.8% of trainees who are male. This is a particular concern to the Government in light of the evidence that shows that boys are underachieving relative to girls and relative to their own performance from 25 years ago. Many boys have no positive male role models in their lives.”

I’d rather have school children talk to abnormal teachers at school than any sort of chaplain.

nostalgic image from here