Some acts in public life, however, are beyond regret. Some are so unforgivably cynical as to be beyond all limits of accepted political bastardry. Some are so demonstrably evil in their effects as to be unacceptable in any decent society. Mandatory detention of children was both. The Howard Government ruthlessly exploited mandatory detention as a critical component in its campaign to secure political advantage by exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment. Its efforts to exploit and demonise asylum seekers (legitimate and otherwise) were unremitting. In doing so, it locked up children, who suffered serious psychological injury from the process of incarceration.
Retirement and hindsight are all well and good. But it is what politicians do in the heat of battle that is the basis on which they must be judged. What decisions did they make when political advantage beckoned – when they were asked to balance basic morality and a chance to win votes? Ruddock and the Howard Government chose the latter and there is no regretting that decision later. Their character was revealed at that moment and there is no gainsaying that.
The gall of it. How can you defend the indefensible? Not very surprising for a man with a smile like an executioner and the personality of a beached angry wet fish.
Thanks Crikey.
No comments:
Post a Comment