Letters editor, The Australian
Paul Kelly's call to arms ('PM must think like a war leader or quit field', 22/7) is a cogent statement of facts. He presents the case for a righteous mission that is at risk of losing popular support. But the other half of the narrative stems from the position of Western liberalism, as we are flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text.
In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its plurality of expressions of Islam.
But, as Kelly alludes, the endurance of our rule of law is in its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
--
Letters editor, The Australian Financial Review
The situation of Mr Hu Stern is part of the kaleidoscope that is Australia's future. It should not be restricted to a case that can be considered on its own merits (Paul Kerin, 'China says it has evidence against Hu', 23/7). It is part of a broad narrative that takes in the reasons behind our military presence in Afghanistan.
Western liberalism is flanked by two emergent tyrannies. Extreme Islam is a form of theocratic totalitarianism, in that it brooks no redaction of its sacred foundational text. In that context, one of the West's strengths resides in religious pluralism. In terms of local relationships, it is good to hear of increasing cooperation at many levels between secular Australia and Indonesia with its many expressions of Islam.
Our rule of law endures by its' ability continually to adapt and refine, with fulsome input from public debate. It is our system of law that upholds, refines and codifies our military endeavours. This estate seems to be in stark contrast with the state system in China. Some may look to China for the manner in which it deals with the threat of disturbance by minority groups. In that direction, however, is as profound a mistake as bending to Sharia.
We are looking into a dark and forbidding place when we face the dilemma of the detention in China of Mr Hu Stern. It seems every step of that process is in contrast to what we expect and demand from our own laws. So, it's not too much of a stretch to observe that our approaches to situations arising in the Central Asian republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be warped by the lens of China's laws.
We could hope that Australia and China engage in a permanent and friendly dialogue over our disparate legal systems. It is important to have that forum, not just for Mr Hu Stern and those that will follow him, but for the sake of Afghanistan's future.
