“But” – such a seemingly simple, nonabrasive word, hardly ever recognised for its severe hypocrisy enamoured intentions and the scantily clad evilness it embodies. Often, I hate the word “but” because it provides us with the ability to shift the blame onto some invisible imaginary wickedness outside of ourselves no one else can quite seem to see.
“I don’t hate you but …”, “I’m really quite an open minded person but …”, “That country doesn’t deserve being bombed the way it has but…” The list is never ending, in a painful sort of way. A general rule of thumb that I try to live with every time I hear the word “but” is to disregard every single syllable that unfortunately preceded it, which believe me, is extremely difficult because it is often times someone’s best material. Everything tends to go downhill once that foreboding word “but” is included.
As some of you may know, Australia is going through a very democratic BUT questionable rule at the moment that basically puts a muzzle on everyone else who isn’t a politician. It’s a shame I know (not to mention enormously embarrassing) for a country that prides itself on being a crusader for democracy BUT it is a question of national security after all. Well naturally, that should be explanation enough if not for that one measly detail – all those advocates for truth? You know the ones I’m speaking of – the Julian Assange’s and Eric Snowden’s of the World.
If you were truly off your rockers and decided to believe what’s coming out of our current politicians mouths, regardless of the party they belong to (isn’t it creepy when opposing political members get together?) this innovative rule that basically involves everything we say being censored by the government is actually to keep us safe. Come on, when the words “national security” are mentioned, obviously that should be enough for us to take their word for it. Isn’t that what it’s all about, them verses us?
While watching Q & A on Monday night (a program that encourages free thinking) on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation free to air television channel, a politician actually had the gall, (can you believe it), the ludicrous audacity to promote her vicious, down right undemocratic stance against free speech by telling a journalist (of all people) that an anti-freedom of speech law was required because, wait for it, not all journalists are socially responsible. Aha, that makes sense because I can count on one hand the amount of “socially responsible honest” politicians out there. Hang on – can I call a friend for this question please?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t exactly feel very secure with the idea of global politicians being the gatekeepers of truth, not with the human rights records a lot of countries have, the (often leaked) dismal, inhumane and downright “slave inspired” conditions of our detention centres, and well, some of the nincompoops we have (obviously in a drunken stupor) elected to represent us.
I thought evolution meant we were supposed to get better, not the other way round. Am I on a different page, or better yet, book? Aren’t we supposed to be getting more open minded and better at sharing knowledge rather than keeping the dirty (and often not so little) secrets of corrupt politicians under wraps? Hang on, aren’t you, Australian Government supposed to be representing me? I don’t recall ticking the “please silence me unless I agree with you” check box on the ballot paper the last time I voted.
This is not about who gets whose vote, there are more important issues on hand at the moment. This is not about being on anyone’s side, it’s about standing up for what’s right. The journalist on Q&A said it right, the government can try and lock truth seekers up as much as they want BUT for every Assange or Snowden they attempt to get rid of, a hundred more who are willing to stand up for what’s right no matter what the consequences will mushroom towards the surface. Muzzle that.
MP Sharma 