http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/20/1019233283575.html

Standing against Howard's
immoral majority

By Terry Lane
April 21 2002

Stand by for some "self-indulgent reflection" on the subject of
politics, the Liberal Party and the media, prompted by party
president Shane Stone's blistering attack on the "essentially
un-Australian" press gallery.

Mr Stone's big complaint is that the media do not acknowledge and
respect the legitimacy of the Howard Government, in spite of its
decisive win in November, smiting the pathetic ALP hip and thigh,
electorally speaking.

You can understand his chagrin. His party wipes the floor with an
opposition and fills up the House with its nominees and still the
media grizzle about its programs, and at the very time when, as the
Prime Minister himself boasts, we are the toast of the globe from
Tierra del Fuego to the northernmost tip of Greenland.

He has a point. Except that there are two kinds of legitimacy. On
the strictly legal, electoral definition, John Howard is the king for
the next three years, no doubt about it. He won the votes. In a
two-horse race, the people backed him all the way. There is no
suggestion of vote rigging or excluding "felons" from the polls (as
his mate George the Smaller managed in Florida) or getting his
brother to fix the count (George again). No one in the media argues
with this.

But moral legitimacy is a different kettle of really stinky fish.
Morally, the Howard Government is a bastard, the illegitimate
offspring of the mother of political opportunism and mendacity and
the father of popular xenophobia. What are we supposed to do when
we look in the pram and see such a pig-ugly kid, morally speaking?
Pretend it is beautiful? Talented? Clever?

Of course, the mother and father love the little bastard. They see
themselves looking up at them from the pram and say, "Isn't he
gorgeous?"

Is it treasonable - I take that to be the meaning of the silly word
un-Australian - to dissent from the general satisfaction with the
outcome of an election? When the media beg to differ from Labor
governments I do not hear Mr Stone complaining about them being
treasonable "fellow travellers" of the defeated Tories.

The facts of the Howard election victory are these. Mr Howard
represented himself as the man to save us from invading hordes.
Hordes, mind you, who would not scruple at throwing their own
children into the sea. Do you want to live next door to them? I
should think not.

But we knew one day after Howard, Reith and Ruddock floated the
children-into-the-sea furphy that no such thing had happened.
Sailors on the Adelaide said it was not true.

Never mind, it struck a deep, fearful nerve in the collective Ocker
breast. Her majesty's loyal opposition chose to play an unconvincing
me-too role in the election, promising to be just as resolute in
throwing boat people into concentration camps. We looked into their
eyes and discerned a lack of ticker. Mr Howard and his
henchpersons had the runs on the board, best stick with them.

Here's a novel idea for Mr Stone to chew on. The majority can
sometimes be wrong. There have been times when the majority, in
some jurisdictions, have supported slavery, capital punishment,
racial segregation, child labour, wars (like the adventure in Vietnam,
which went down really well with the electorate in 1966, but by
1972 the electorate had changed its mind) and so on. Civilisation
has been built slowly and painfully over the millennia of human
society by a minority of dissenters daring to stand against the
majority and not be cowed by it because they can see a better way
of doing things.

Given that 73 per cent of us are besotted with our bastard regime,
it is presumptuous of the other 27 per cent to draw attention to its
illegitimacy. But there we are, from Alabama to Bavaria and Natal
there have always been a few party-poopers who have looked in the
pram and said, "My god, that is one misbegotten mongrel!"


-------------------

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/22/1019441224405.html

Hanson fraud trial starts

April 23 2002

Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson emerged from self-imposed
exile yesterday to face allegations she deliberately lied to
supporters to keep a stranglehold on power.

The former federal MP, who quit as leader in January, refused to
comment as she arrived at Brisbane's Magistrates Court for a
month-long committal hearing on fraud charges.

Ms Hanson is facing three charges with party co-founder David
Ettridge under Queensland's Electoral Act over the fraudulent
registration of One Nation in the state in December, 1997.

Mr Ettridge has pleaded not guilty to registering One Nation
fraudulently while Ms Hanson has pleaded not guilty to inducement and
dishonestly obtaining $498,637 in electoral funding, which she has
already paid back. More than 50 placard-waving supporters gathered
outside the courthouse. A thinner Ms Hanson smiled as the group
cheered her arrival.

Mr Ettridge, who is representing himself while awaiting the outcome
of a lawsuit against Ms Hanson to pay his court costs, arrived
separately.