American Scott Parkin, a 36 year old history teacher and peace activist, is about to be deported from Australia because he has been deemed a 'security risk'. Isn't the real question, though, why we should take him back? What if Israel had done the right thing and deported Rachel Corrie? A lot fewer headaches, I'm sure. I was just thinking maybe we ought to start a few deportation hearings of our own........

BBC:

A US peace activist branded a threat to national security by Australia will not fight deportation, his lawyer has said. Scott Parkin will take legal action against officials to find out why they decided he was a security risk, his lawyer Julian Burnside added.

Mr Parkin was arrested following a Sydney protest against US military contractor Halliburton, a firm with close ties to the Bush administration...

Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock told national television that the decision "was based upon a security assessment and security assessments are not matters about which I can comment in any detail".

While they ostensibly are a corporate watchdog group, Halliburton being their main cause, they are actually a radical Leftist organization. Their goals?

1. Halliburton out of Iraq-not the real target. The real target is the war in Iraq. Halliburton's absence, they believe, would force the U.S. out.

2. End the US wars for empire--they include Afghanistan in this definition as well as ALL wars.

3. De-Centralized community-based mobilization: Here's how they explain it. I swear, this could be an episode of South Park

We will help catalyze racially just, non-patriarchal, mass movements to challenge corporate and government power and create socially just, directly democratic, ecological, equitable, and peaceful alternatives

4. Normalize the use of Direct Action and Popular Education-No idea. Maybe they can teach each other the fourth and fifth stanzas of kumbaya. Just watch out. If you let a hippie drum circle get to big, pretty soon you'll have a full-blown music festival, and after that, well, chaos. If you think that is bad, check out their manifesto:

We are DANDELIONS breaking through cracks in the pavement. Our roots will side-step middlemen and crumble pyramid schemes of every stripe. We are activists against passive complicity. We conjure open dialogues that inspire ears to listen and voices to sing. We reject all saviors and their offers of pie in the sky-we will have our pie NOW (and eat it, too)-and we will always keep extra pies on hand to serve to any self-proclaimed savior. We will rupture a schism in -isms and tear down the fences that rend our psychic landscapes to embrace a sensual politrix of joy and generosity. We labor for a truly FREE market where love, life and laughter bear no price tags and money's only value lies in its potential as paper airplanes and tiddlywinks.

And what individuals either belong to or endorse the organization? According to this website:

Professor Noam Chomsky
Professor Edward S. Herman
Professor Gabriel Kolko

In other words, all the usual Leftist academic suspects. The everything is America's fault crowd.

To their credit, the organization espouses non-violence as a matter of principle. So then how could Scott Parkin possibly be a 'securty threat' if his group is explicitly non-violent? It is possible that Parkin is not a security threat at all. It is also possible that there is more to the story than we are being told. This article, for instance, indicates that the Aussies know more about Parkin than is publicly available.

The real problem with the Leftist paradigm is that if one is to take it seriously, then it would be immoral not to openly fight the U.S.--violently. If the U.S. is as bad as they believe, why not fight? Since many on the Left actually believe the U.S. is as bad as Nazi Germany, then what other option does a moral individual have other than to fight? If the terrorists in Iraq are really freedom fighters then what other option does a moral individual have other than to support them? If Haliburton is assisting in genocide than what other option does a moral individual have other than to sabatoge that corporation's abilities to carry out their evil agenda?

When two moral principles collide, one must be chosen over another. Show me a man that chooses 'non-violence' over fighting genocide and I will show you a moral idiot.

There are consequences to our worldviews. We cannot avoid those consequences simply by putting a 'non-violence' diclaimer on each and every statement about genocide, war for corporate empire, and freedom fighters.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:29 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 806 words, total size 6 kb.