CP (Capital Punishment) and PC (Political Correctness)
The death penalty is a punishment for crimes that has been shown, in the modern era, to be archaic and valueless in the deterrence of criminal acts. Australia had abolished (in state and commonwealth law) the death penalty in 1985, and the last execution in Australia was in 1967. Generally the question of reintroducing the death penalty as a political debate is done affair, although there is still some community sentiment for it in light of some of the more heinous crimes that have recently been committed (such as sexual assault, serial killers, mass murders etc.). Generally, the sentiment is that capital punishment is not going to be reintroduced any time soon.
Ironic then, that the capital punishment debate has suddenly appeared and become a hot topic again with a looming federal election. Far from it being as important as the drought or economic management, this sudden interest is not even about the capital punishment debate, but it is about a policy stance regarding capital punishment in other countries and the campaign against it. Neither is it about the correctness of having such a policy or even the discussion, as it could be reasonably assumed that such a regional or international campaign would have some support for both sides of the argument. What is vexatious about the reason for this discussion is the timing and the political reaction.
When Robert McClelland, the ALP Foreign Spokesperson, made a speech to the Wentworth Human Rights Forum stating what the ALP would do on capital punishment (in that he would establish a regional coalition to abolish capital punishment in Asia). At face value, this announcement has very little wrong with it. In fact, it would be a very welcome piece of proactive foreign policy from some corners of the political sphere. The problem came when both sides of politics (first the Liberals, then the ALP) attacked him for saying the speech was insensitive to the victims of terrorism, highlighting the fact that the Bali bombing anniversary was fast approaching, and the perpetrators of this act were sitting in an Indonesian jail cell awaiting execution. What was more disturbing, however, was the backflip that the ALP leader, Kevin Rudd, took in regarding his colleagues’ speech. His subsequent political rebuke of his colleague had another element of “me-tooism” that many political commentators have been harping on about for months. But the damage had been done.
While it has been a very recent ALP policy for the ALP to adopt what I have called the agreeance model of political campaigning (agree with what they cannot engage on), one must be beginning to wonder when the ALP will decide to make a genuine stand against the Liberals when it comes to certain issues. Cherrypicking issues is fine, but it will become more problematic as the election date looms large, and electoral voters see a dearth of areas where there is a significant difference between the two parties. At this point, the question is whether Rudd is relying too heavily on himself to carry his political party to a victory? It definitely appears that he is trying to control the message, and these slip-ups are infuriating his team. What is more insidious though is the perceived change in Rudd’s stance purely because of political correctness. Deep down, he is very against capital punishment, but this attack on his foreign spokesperson is politics at its very worst.
On the other hand, some (albeit little) blame should be laid at the Liberal Party’s feet. It would’ve been easier for them to dismiss the comment and move on, there was political hay to be made for such a politically incorrect slip-up, especially for a starved mass of supporters looking down a 12 point margin in the polls. In essence, the real stance of both parties would be the same, and rather than talking about capital punishment (CP) we’re talking about political correctness (PC).
While I do agree that the speech made my Robert McClelland was probably ill timed, two questions still remain: Is such a policy bad on its merits alone? It probably is not. I think that, while there is a divided opinion amongst the electorate, it doesn’t make it bad policy. Neither does modern understandings of the more ancient respects for life and the sanctity of it make it bad moral policy either. Of course, there are some people that are so reprehensible that we think twice about letting them live, but in general, it is part of the complicated system that is democracy that this debate continues.
The second question is this: When is a good time to bring this up? Maybe there is a better time, but if the issue is raised then it should be discussed on its merits, and not bandied around as a political football to score cheap points. If politics treated all issues such as these, that are divisive and contentious, with the merits and respects as it deserves, society would be a better place for it. All we have now are leaders that take a swipe on the basis of timing, or ones that fear a voter backlash and back away from their own position when they could see an impeding storm. Both sides are losers in this debate, but Rudd has more to lose here, especially when the core issues and actions to address this problem have been lost to hubris.
(Written on way to work)
Ironic then, that the capital punishment debate has suddenly appeared and become a hot topic again with a looming federal election. Far from it being as important as the drought or economic management, this sudden interest is not even about the capital punishment debate, but it is about a policy stance regarding capital punishment in other countries and the campaign against it. Neither is it about the correctness of having such a policy or even the discussion, as it could be reasonably assumed that such a regional or international campaign would have some support for both sides of the argument. What is vexatious about the reason for this discussion is the timing and the political reaction.
When Robert McClelland, the ALP Foreign Spokesperson, made a speech to the Wentworth Human Rights Forum stating what the ALP would do on capital punishment (in that he would establish a regional coalition to abolish capital punishment in Asia). At face value, this announcement has very little wrong with it. In fact, it would be a very welcome piece of proactive foreign policy from some corners of the political sphere. The problem came when both sides of politics (first the Liberals, then the ALP) attacked him for saying the speech was insensitive to the victims of terrorism, highlighting the fact that the Bali bombing anniversary was fast approaching, and the perpetrators of this act were sitting in an Indonesian jail cell awaiting execution. What was more disturbing, however, was the backflip that the ALP leader, Kevin Rudd, took in regarding his colleagues’ speech. His subsequent political rebuke of his colleague had another element of “me-tooism” that many political commentators have been harping on about for months. But the damage had been done.
While it has been a very recent ALP policy for the ALP to adopt what I have called the agreeance model of political campaigning (agree with what they cannot engage on), one must be beginning to wonder when the ALP will decide to make a genuine stand against the Liberals when it comes to certain issues. Cherrypicking issues is fine, but it will become more problematic as the election date looms large, and electoral voters see a dearth of areas where there is a significant difference between the two parties. At this point, the question is whether Rudd is relying too heavily on himself to carry his political party to a victory? It definitely appears that he is trying to control the message, and these slip-ups are infuriating his team. What is more insidious though is the perceived change in Rudd’s stance purely because of political correctness. Deep down, he is very against capital punishment, but this attack on his foreign spokesperson is politics at its very worst.
On the other hand, some (albeit little) blame should be laid at the Liberal Party’s feet. It would’ve been easier for them to dismiss the comment and move on, there was political hay to be made for such a politically incorrect slip-up, especially for a starved mass of supporters looking down a 12 point margin in the polls. In essence, the real stance of both parties would be the same, and rather than talking about capital punishment (CP) we’re talking about political correctness (PC).
While I do agree that the speech made my Robert McClelland was probably ill timed, two questions still remain: Is such a policy bad on its merits alone? It probably is not. I think that, while there is a divided opinion amongst the electorate, it doesn’t make it bad policy. Neither does modern understandings of the more ancient respects for life and the sanctity of it make it bad moral policy either. Of course, there are some people that are so reprehensible that we think twice about letting them live, but in general, it is part of the complicated system that is democracy that this debate continues.
The second question is this: When is a good time to bring this up? Maybe there is a better time, but if the issue is raised then it should be discussed on its merits, and not bandied around as a political football to score cheap points. If politics treated all issues such as these, that are divisive and contentious, with the merits and respects as it deserves, society would be a better place for it. All we have now are leaders that take a swipe on the basis of timing, or ones that fear a voter backlash and back away from their own position when they could see an impeding storm. Both sides are losers in this debate, but Rudd has more to lose here, especially when the core issues and actions to address this problem have been lost to hubris.
(Written on way to work)
posted by pandafalcon at 22:32
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home