Australia’s stance on the death penalty – Rudd shows familiar form.

I’m putting aside my prepared editorial about the growing epidemic of abortions by lesbian Sudanese gangs to tackle something even more controversial, protecting Aussie-murdering terrorists from the death penalty.

I caught this story early this morning and mulled it over as I was walking to work. Labor’s shadow minister for foreign affairs, Robert McClelland, had spoken out against the Howard Government’s support for the execution of the Bali Bombing perpetrators, calling it hypocritical in light of the pleas for clemency when Australians are on death row overseas. Here are a couple of McClelland's choice quotes that news.com.au posted last night.

“Labor believes that supporting executions - even by a nation state - gives justification to all kinds of fanatical lunatics to take the lives of others in pursuit of their own warped ideologies.”

“That is why, at the highest levels, Australia's public comments about the death penalty must be consistent with policy.”

Fantastic, I thought, only through a consistent voice of objection from countries like our own that oppose the death penalty can we hope to bring about change in our Asian neighbours. Our neighbours, incidentally, who are responsible for about 80% of the known executions carried out around the world.

Furthermore, my schizophrenic brain continued, it is noble that the Labor party would make a stand on this issue when the majority of Australians would probably support the death of Amrozi and his nutball comrades.

I even started speculating on the moral high ground defence that Rudd could employ against the inevitable accusations from Howard and crew that he was disrespecting the memories of those killed in Bali. A consistent approach is crucial to avoid hypocrisy; this will strengthen our defence of the Bali Nine, etc.

How wrong I was. When I check the news sites at work, after a solid three hours of productive value adding of course, I see Kevin Rudd distancing himself from McClelland’s comments and reaffirming that Labor does, in fact, support the death penalty in this case.

If this isn’t throwing away integrity in order to blow deadshit Australia then I don’t know what is. At least we know both sides of politics are on the same page now. The page, that is, of halfhearted, UN based, general opposition to the death penalty while reserving the right to whip up a posse every now and then to lynch an Aussie hating terrorist. Rudd puts this on the record:

“…when it comes to the question of the death penalty, no diplomatic intervention will ever be made by any government that I lead in support of any individual terrorist's life.”

Please tell me definitively what a terrorist is Mr Rudd. Bet you can’t. What about those saffron clothed troublemakers currently causing havoc in Burma? What possible recourse do you have when the Junta labels them the Big T and starts cleaning house?

You don’t have to be an unemployed philosophy graduate to realise that the same arguments against the death penalty for murders, rapists and kiddie fiddlers apply equally to nightclub bombers. Of course we would all go Judge Dredd on someone who has harmed someone we love in a terrible way, but that’s why we, as a civilised society, make rational laws on such matters when we are personally distanced and stick to them in times of distress.

Howard’s racial and situational based stance on human rights abuses around the world have weakened Australia’s capacity to fight overseas injustices, and it seems that with Rudd in charge there will be little change. The arrogant chastising of McClelland for speaking up on a human rights issue he feels strongly about seem a sad indication of the Government we are soon to have.