|
|
www.tonykevin.com |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Page
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
A RECENT EXCHANGE
OF CORRESPONDENCE, TONY KEVIN – GERARD HENDERSON 1. EMAIL FROM
TONY KEVIN TO GERARD HENDERSON, SENT 2.24 pm, 7 DECEMBER 2005 Dear Gerard,
I'd like to offer to speak at the Sydney Institute, either
alone or in debate as you prefer, on the topic "That I
have not capitalised the word "fascism"
because there are many varieties of it, each defined by
time and place. As someone said - I'll get the quote right if
this proposal proceeds - fascism does not always arrive on the doorstep
with a toothbrush moustache and dressed in a Gestapo uniform.
It creeps in unawares. It can be quite country-and culture-specific. The
other important point to make about fascism is that most of the
time and for most of the people, life can be pretty normal, even
good, under fascism The TV series "Heimat"
illustrated this beautifully. I have my own first-hand memories
- useful now - of how "normal" life was for millions
of Soviet citizens under late Communism (I worked in Moscow
1969-71), a time which was a variant of fascism as I define
it below, when I was Third/Second Secretary at the Australian
Embassy, responsible for all domestic political reporting. The
Muscovites were as sports-mad as we are. They loved their picnics
and BBQs as we do. Many had rich and fulfilling family lives.
They hated dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov
for rocking the boat. Party apparatchiks were a despised and mistrusted
subculture But people were
patriotic and loved their armed forces. They just wanted
to have good lives and keep out of politics. Most of them succeeded
most of the time. Fascism is a concentration of state power, often with powerful corporate and corporate media support, and the erosion or absence of strong checks and balances - i.e. it is the failure of pluralism or civil society. It does not require an exceptionally strong or charismatic Fuhrer or Duce - fascist states can have leaders as grey as Howard.
That is the kind of state I would argue we are drifting
into now in
I would not have comfortably used the phrase 'fascism" in an Australian political context a couple of years ago. Now I do. I think it is useful. "McCarthyism" is becoming a euphemism for it, I notice lately.
Last year you declined my offer to speak on SIEV X at the Sydney Institute. You said the Institute discusses issues, not cases of alleged abuse of governance. Well, fascism in an Australian context is an issue. You wrote about it this week. John Howard may not like it, but the word is coming into our national political lexicon.
As to my credentials, you might look at recent files on my
website www.tonykevin.com
and see what is going up there over the past few months.
I take active part in Australian public life as a small-l
liberal humanitarian - rallies, submissions, articles, etc. Some
good news is coming my way tomorrow, and I will speak to a large
public meeting in Bega on Friday. You have now twice in 15 months referred to my work by name in your column. I know that does not of itself give me entree - please don't bother to count up how many times you have mentioned Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein - but like you I am a legitimate part of Australia's political commentariat or intelligentsia.
Your claim to welcome all points of view at the Institute, as long as expressed in civilised and interesting ways, will be tested by this proposal. I hope you will agree.
Please note that this is a potentially publishable letter, and please frame your response (or decision not to respond) accordingly. Of course if we do proceed it becomes working correspondence and will not be published by me without your agreement.
I am copying this letter to two mutual friends whose opinion, on this suggestion and on me as a public person and speaker, you might value.
Regards Tony Kevin
2. EMAIL
FROM GERARD HENDERSON TO TONY KEVIN, 12.37 pm
, 8 DECEMBER 2005: Dear Tony
I refer to your email of 7 December 2005 requesting that you address The Sydney Institute on the topic “That Australia may now be drifitng into fascism” or a similarly worded subject.
The Sydney Institute has become an important forum for debate and discussion – and The Sydney Papers (which publishes addresses delivered at the Institute) has become an important historical record. This has come about primarily as a result of the quality of the talks given at The Institute and the discussion which follows.
As you will be aware, a wide variety of views are heard at The Sydney Institute. At the level of Australian politics – this includes the Liberal, National, Labor, Democrats and Greens parties.
However, I
have had a consistent policy of not inviting individuals who might
be classified as having views consistent with what I term the
Lunar Right and/or the Lunar Left. I do not believe that the proposition
that
In conclusion I should clarify two points
“The essential criteria for addressing the Institute are that the speaker has something to say which will draw an audience and which is worth publishing in The Sydney Papers. There are, however, some additional criteria. Speakers at the Institute are expected to avoid both defamation and/or conspiracy theories. That’s why, for example, Pauline Hanson was not invited to address the Institute.
I do not rule out your addressing the Institute some time in the future. However, I am concerned that a thesis of A Certain Maritime Incident turns on the assertion that the Australian Defence Force was complicit in, or indifferent to, the deaths of passengers on the Siev X. This is a highly serious allegation – which, as far as I can determine, is not supported by any conclusive evidence. In A Certain Maritime Incident (at Page 240) you go so far as to suggest that Labor conspired with the Howard Government to hush up the Siev X tragedy. I do not believe that so vast a conspiracy warrants publication in The Sydney Papers.”
Your assertion that I claimed The Sydney Institute does not discuss governance issues is simply an invention on your part.
Best wishes Yours sincerely
Gerard Henderson [* Bold- TK]
EMAIL FROM TONY KEVIN TO GERARD HENDERSON, 3.57 pm, 8 DECEMBER
2005 Dear Gerard
Thank you for your letter, abusive as it was.
I thought I could perhaps have approached you at this key moment in Australian hIstory, with the passage of this dangerous anti-terrorism law, on a basis of decency and our previous cultural associations, and as a fellow member of Australian civil society who might have some understanding of the path down which our government is now taking our country.
That was obviously a mistaken expectation I had of you - for you have here fallen back obediently into your self-chosen role as Howard propagandist.
So be it. I won't offer to speak at the Sydney Institute again.
I will publish this correspondence, as I indicated.
Regards
Tony Kevin
|
|||||||||||||||||||
