Read more »

Late last week, Christian Youth Camps was ordered by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to pay $5,000 to gay youth support group WayOut – for refusing to accommodate them at its Phillip Island Adventure Resort, which the Christian Brethren church owns and runs.

It’s no doubt a landmark case. It came up because the board of the campsite decided in June 2007 that, because the Christian Brethren disagree with homosexuality, it wasn’t comfortable hosting a homosexual group.

WayOut subsequently lodged a complaint on the grounds of discrimination – a complaint which has been upheld, netting the group that $5k compensation payout.

Broadly, the Christian response to this could take two angles. One of surprise and perhaps anger, considering this an unfortunate win by the gay lobby and one which we need to fight to prevent in the future. This view has been outlined by other writers, such as in a post by Bill Muehlenberg. Or, we could take it – perhaps more humbly – as a wakeup call and a chance to seek change in the Christian treatment of the homosexual community.

I’m of the latter view, and I want to outline why.

Firstly though, I need to address one thing: there are claims that WayOut specifically targeted the Phillip Island Adventure Resort, knowing it was a Christian-run business, in order to provoke a homophobic response. I don’t know whether these claims are true or not, and I don’t seek here to make a judgement either way, other than to say that the Phillip Island Adventure Resort appears to be a pretty popular campsite, targeted not just to churches but also schools, business and sporting groups. WayOut has said that they “unknowingly and innocently, attempted to book a conference facility which [they] understood was just open to the public at large” (as reported by the ABC). On the flipside, WayOut’s website states that the aims of the initial project which formed WayOut were to “redress the isolation … and raise awareness about the nature and effects of homophobia”.

One could argue that it would be in WayOut’s interests to specifically target the Christian campsite to make a point. But whether they did or not, I don’t particularly mind. The Christian response shouldn’t be based on motive, but on what we believe the Bible leads us to do. If WayOut was targeting to make a point, responding by putting up a fight would be counter-productive to working with the homosexual community on anything (and isn’t necessarily what I believe we’re called to do). It would inflame a war which is already happening beneath the surface. On the other hand, if WayOut weren’t targeting to make a point (and taking them at their word would suggest this), then accusations and anger are going to start a war anyway.

The core issue at the centre of all of this – looking at it from a secular point of view – is whether a campsite, run as a business by a Christian denomination, has the legal right to reject access of its services to those engaging in or promoting a lifestyle which it disagrees with.

And the core issue at the centre of all of this – looking at it from a Christian point of view – is whether a Christian group should reject its services to those engaging in or promoting a lifestyle which it disagrees with. Should it?

My answer to both questions – is no. And although it’s unfortunate to see a reasonable sum of money leave a Christian organisation which no doubt does good things for people, I think the decision of VCAT in this circumstance was pretty much justified.

Looking at it from a Christian point of view, we know that Christians and the homosexual community aren’t really getting along at the moment. That’s very unfortunate – because despite the differences, we’re all still human beings who were made to be in communion with one another. We know that Jesus didn’t reject people different to him – he welcomed them. That didn’t mean he agreed with or endorsed every thing they did, said or believed, but it meant he validated them as human beings made in God’s image, and sought to get to know them and for them to get to know him. If Phillip Island Adventure Resort welcomed the WayOut group, it could have spoken volumes to the youth that would have visited the resort as part of the camp – spoken volumes by telling them that they are welcome on Christian property, and that their homosexuality doesn’t preclude them from interacting with and being supported by Christians.

Christians don’t have to agree with their homosexuality, but we also don’t need to treat them as less human because of it. And if Jesus is the epitome of a perfect Christian, then which response would he be more likely to take?

Now we come, three years later, to the consequences of the decision to reject a gay group’s booking at a Christian-owned campsite. The consequences are bigger than a $5,000 fine – the rest of the community sees that Christians are behind the 8-ball as far as acceptance of homosexual people is concerned. It inflames a war that is already happening beneath the surface – a war that, on occasion, gets ugly on both sides.

And it’s a war that shouldn’t even be happening. When were we called to pit ourselves against gay people?

What a day. “Momentous” is the word people are using to describe it, which is apt given it means ‘significant’ and ‘important’. The holder of the highest office in our land (at least, that with any real power) changed – seemingly overnight. It wasn’t until most of us got into bed last night that the news was becoming real, and it’s entirely probable that many returned home from work today knowing nothing, went to watch the 6pm news, and discovered we had already had a new prime minister for the last 6 hours.

The events of the momentous day were evident everywhere. One of my bosses, who gets a headache when he hears anything of politics, said today that not only would he ‘allow’ us to talk about the leadership change, but that we ‘must’ talk about it. I spent the first part of the morning watching Twitter – and Twitter only – on my iPhone in order to feed updated information to one of my other bosses – Clayton Bjelan – who anchors the weekday morning shift on LightFM. And when I got home and watched the news, my housemates joined in for the first half of the bulletin (which is unusual).

With each new person I saw today, the first thing said was something to do with the leadership spill – that is, after the first pause while both of us had to work out how to start the conversation without asking the painfully obvious “So, did you hear what happened to Rudd?”

The change of a prime minister is huge, so of course it has to be talked about by political tragics and phobics alike. But the way it happened was an even bigger event. Here’s some of my thoughts.

Today’s machinations have ultimately cheapened the office of Prime Minister

That’s a direct quote from a tweet posted by comedian Daniel Burt tonight. It echos my flabbergasted thoughts exactly, which is why I retweeted it and am quoting it again now. I used to look at the office of Prime Minister as one affording respect, and requiring some sort of longevity. But now, it’s just another political job that can be held by one person one day, and someone else the next (much like an opposition leader).

I don’t know if I could now ever see it the same as I saw it growing up, with the role filled – for a very long time – by John Howard.

Social media is a news breaker

I probably say this too much, but social media (especially Twitter) was amazing throughout this whole episode. Twitter broke last night’s news to me, and kept me updated throughout the day, particularly when I had to be in a meeting during all three of the leader’s press conferences (Rudd, Gillard, and Abbott).

Given that prominent journalists also tweet regularly (I mainly follow Latika Bourke & Malcolm Farnsworth), Twitter breaks news (and takes you right to the source) before any other media can (even with live TV, it’s only a couple of seconds behind AND provides live commentary too).

Oh, and today’s newspapers were out of date and useless by about 9:15am.

24 hours is a long time in politics

Forget ‘a week’. Like I said, if you didn’t watch the news after 6:30pm last night, 24 hours was a very long time for you today.

I find the political definition of loyalty chilling

That, was tweeted by Simon Thomsen tonight. And again, it echoes what I couldn’t have said any better myself. This morning, one news report said that Wayne Swan’s loyalty was with Kevin Rudd, but that he’d now moved his loyalty to Julia Gillard. Uh-huh. Some loyalty.

The time of adjustment and the stages of grief

Once I had a look at pm.gov.au and saw the maintenance page, that was when it home to me. We just changed prime ministers. Again. For just the 3rd time in my living memory (and 4th since I was born). And with that comes an adjustment time – of learning to associate the title ‘prime minister’ with the new person, and of learning to respect – and respond to the leadership of – the person in the role.

And today I found myself going through some of the stages of grief. Even though I really didn’t like Kevin Rudd at first, I did really warm to him as a person. Despite disagreeing with probably a majority of his policies, I still had a respect for him and especially for his leadership capability, and for his down-to-earth nature on the rare moments that he allowed it to show through the usual Ruddbott. I liked him. I looked up to him. Today, I was in disbelief, denial, and anger, and am now probably just edging closer to some sort of acceptance.

I had to stop and reflect quietly after glimpsing Kevin Rudd sitting on the backbench in Question Time this afternoon.

I like Julia Gillard even less than I first liked Kevin Rudd

Which, as I said, wasn’t much at all – at first. Seeing Julia Gillard on the 7:30 Report tonight just sickened me. She failed to answer most of Kerry O’Brien’s questions – granted, they were provocative, but they were what we all wanted to know the answer to – and she just turned on the new Gillard robot.

I wasn’t impressed. At a time like this, we want to know the new woman-in-charge is going to be honest with us. She’s our Prime Minister, after all.

And I don’t think I trust her. I find it hard to believe she’s in the job to help people, as she likes to quote.

But I do believe that Rudd’s first concern was for the country, and the stable governance of it, rather than for himself.

I think I’m in the bargaining stage of grief now – bargaining on Rudd’s behalf. If only he had said one or two things differently a few days ago – if only.

Yesterday I went up Mt Ainslie to see the result of Danny Nalliah’s call to an “offensive spiritual warfare attack” against the witches who are having an influence over federal parliament.

It was an interesting experience, and a confronting one also, with my emotions being dragged all over the place. I went up the mountain praying for protection, because I didn’t know what was going to happen there. Danny and his team were mounting a spiritual attack against witches’ covens, so to me it was a possibility that that could cause some spiritual retaliation. So I went up being aware of this, but knowing I had to discover more about what Danny is doing and what’s behind it. (As an aside, an interesting situation with Christians mounting the spiritual attack – where are we called to go looking for trouble?).

When I got up there I found a large group of people gathered together at the highest point of the mountain. There were flags waving, horns blowing, drums sounding, and people praising, yelling in tongues and shouting words from the Bible.

There were also many people who were there to spectate (like me) or protest. Protesters were flying gay pride flags and banners, and in some cases trying to speak back in tongues to Danny and his team. Later on there was almost nudity, and they were laughing, watching, wondering and talking, but most of all they were enjoying it – this was their Saturday afternoon entertainment, watching the Christians make a fool of themselves.

At this point I started to get angry. The cause that I have given my life for was being turned into a show – into a ritual, a laughing stock. What was going through the minds of the spectators and protesters? “If this is what God does to people, I don’t want a bar of it, but it’s certainly quite amusing!”

Is this our response to a loving and just God, who put his Son through hell just so he could be with us for eternity? Is he calling us to make Him look like a fool so that those who don’t know Him – those who he created in his image, loves deeply, and desperately wants to be in communion with – decide they don’t want a bar of Him?

As Francis Chan puts it, “it’s crazy if you think about it. The God of the universe – the creator of nitrogen and pine needles, galaxies and e-minor – loves us with a radical, unconditional, self-sacrificing love. And what is our typical response? We go to church, sing songs, and try not to cuss.”

Francis continues, this from the blurb of his book Crazy Love: “Whether we’ve verbalised it yet or not… we all know something’s wrong.”

As teachers and leaders we are called to higher account (James 3:1) and that is why I’m not simply going to avoid speaking out about Danny directly. Danny’s supporters have said to me that they don’t like it how so many church leaders are against him. But when misinformation is being spread, and when people like Danny (who should know better) are encouraging Christians (who are leaving their brains at the door and blindly following anyone who is available), there needs to be speaking out against him.

People have said to me “Yeah, I heard about the Mt Ainslie prayer – what do you think about it?”. That is why I write this post. To give a public view on the issue. The people who asked me that were probably looking for an opinion to latch on to. Don’t do that, please. Take what I’ve said, take what others are saying, and use your brain to figure out what the answer is.

I spoke to Jason Golden, Danny’s right-hand-man, to find out whether what they were doing up there was considered successful. After hearing him talk, I think his heart is true. He honestly wants to see salvation come to people who don’t realise it’s there for them. He honestly wants to tell the world about the joy he has found since being saved from his own background of drinking, parties, drugs and sex.

But the problem is, although his heart may be in the right place, his head isn’t. And it’s a problem that many Christians have. It’s the “leaving the brain at the door of the church” syndrome. We’re happy to separate the physical from the spiritual, and elevate spiritual things to a whole new level because we believe it will stand up for itself there. Thoughts like “it’s spiritual warfare”, “we’re doing God’s work”, “the Holy Spirit will save them”, etc. etc. make the “head” part of the outpouring of our hearts completely redundant. We leave our brains and expect God to do the work.

Jason yells words from the Bible through a micro-megaphone and prays loudly in tongues for the salvation of the people protesting around him. I think he does deeply love these people and long for them to see the truth he proclaims. What Jason is doing seems ok to him because he knows where his heart is.

But let’s switch the camera angle around to these other people for a moment – the people Jason is praying for. The people holding up signs saying ‘keep religion out of politics’ and ‘I love my gay sister’. Their view of Jason is slightly different to his view of himself. To them, he looks like a crazy religious lunatic, drunk on the power that he gets from being closely associated with Danny and being allowed to use Danny’s micro-megaphone. He yells words from an out-of-date book that simply don’t make sense here and now. He’s talking about Israel, about it being God’s chosen land, yet here we are in Australia – never haven being to Israel and knowing only about the modern day turmoil there through the media.

Jason yells out babble – “la la la, uh la la la, ooh la” – which doesn’t mean a thing to these people. He’s crazy, he’s deluded, he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing and they’re having an entertaining afternoon watching him. At the same time though, they’re saying to each other “what I just don’t get, is how he honestly believes he’s right – it just doesn’t make sense”. They’re still questioning. Not dismissing completely, but certainly not anywhere near thinking that these people are normal.

Unfortunately, there are still Christians who are blindly following Danny, Jason and their team. I saw five Christians who I know personally on top of the mountain yesterday, and they were loyal followers uninterested in considering any other options.

Although I haven’t been able to confirm this on the Internet, a source which I consider credible tells me that Danny Nalliah is no longer a pastor – he has been kicked out of the AOG church and is now simply a self proclaimed pastor and nothing else. There were other things about Danny that this source couldn’t tell me – apart from urging me to be very careful about him. Why are so many following him without asking questions?

I spoke to a pagan, some atheists and an agnostic on top of the mountain. They were especially friendly people – in fact all of them had approached me just to say hi or ask what I was doing with my camera and voice recorder. They weren’t trying to “convert” me, but simply wanted to enjoy a good chat. They said that they feel they know the Bible better than most Christians (and unfortunately, I agree with them). After introducing myself to Dave Garland, president of the Pagan Awareness Network and explaining that although I was a Christian, I don’t follow Danny Nalliah, he said “well, I’m from the other side, but you and I agree about Danny Nalliah!”. I felt more comfortable with the ‘other side’ up there than those who I am supposedly on the same side as!

Now, don’t get me wrong: I am a Christian, I love Jesus, I believe that I am a sinner and having accepted His sacrificial gift of salvation I know I am not going to be eternally punished for everything I have done wrong. I accept God’s grace and want desperately to love and live like Jesus lived. I want to see God’s Kingdom brought to Earth in all ways that it can and see people all over the world – including pagans, atheists and agnostics – explore the claims of Jesus, become aware of the presence of God, understand his story of the world, and ultimately have the courage to put their faith in Christ.

But I know that to achieve that, Christ followers have to actually be a bunch worth being a part of. We have to accept other people, and be willing to be their friend. Not to “convert” them, but because we genuinely want to be in community and friendship with those around us.

I’d encourage Christians to look into this more. Go to the next pagan full moon ritual. It’s on November 3. I’ll be there. These people are friendly and welcoming. They’re people, just like you and me, and I want to know more about them. Not because I want to believe what they believe, but because they’re people made in God’s image who God loves and in who I may well find great friends. Through relationship with them, and deep conversing over our views of the world, if they come to agree with who I say Jesus is – then fantastic.

Remember, don’t let your devotion to Christianity make you too different from the world [edit]unaware of what’s going on in the world around you[/edit]. Don’t let it blind you into being so weird that people don’t want to know you. Love others, and spend your time on things that are worthwhile – that bring change and good to the world, not that divide it.

What others are saying:

• Canberra Times journo Louis Andrews, who was walking around with his notepad throughout yesterday afternoon, describes the scene at the mountain as “stranger than fiction”: Culture Clash, Canberra Times, 18/10/2009
• Canberra pastor Brian Medway writes about why yesterday’s meeting was a waste of time: Witches Covens on Mt Ainslie, Grace Canberra, 06/09/2009
• Pagan Awareness Network president David Garland says that modern witchcraft doesn’t involve animal sacrifices: Danny Nalliah’s witch hunt is off the mark, Pagan Awareness Network, 15/10/2009
• Canberrans triumph in the battle for Mount Ainslie – RiotACT, 17/10/2009

This girl (Katie, presumably) is well aware that some Christians aren’t using their brains
Photo: Ella Wilkes – Source: Facebook

I’ve debated about whether or not to post this… but I lose my chance in just over 12 hours, and given that it’s the most important election of the year, I have to put some sort of comment into the blogosphere. So here goes.

Today, Americans go to vote for the person to fill the most powerful office in the world. Much has been said about the Christian vote, and how if Christians are concerned about the direction America is heading they should be voting for John McCain. I’ve been getting many, many e-mails on this topic – from right-wing religious organisations, from concerned Christians, and from other people who thought I might be interested (and I am, but I don’t agree).

If you’ve been reading this blog for a little while you’ll know that I voted here in Australia for the Liberal Party – in both houses – at last year’s federal election and at this year’s ACT Legislative Assembly election (the Liberal Party in Australia being the conservative party).

But for this election – if I was eligible to vote – I would be voting for Barack Obama. Yes, it’s a bit of a shift to the left.

My politics aren’t yet set in stone (I say yet, because as soon as they are, I plan to join an appropriate political party). I still need to do a lot of research on the differences between left and right politics. Many times I find myself in the centre. Sometimes I lean to the right, and sometimes I lean to the left. When I lean, I more often find myself leaning to the right – especially disagreeing with much of what the Labor Party does in Australia based on their industrial relations (unionism) and economic policies.

But to me – and my limited-compared-to-real-political-pundits’-understanding of politics – there is one big issue at the US election:

John McCain is too old, out of touch with where America (and much of the world) wants to head, and has shown very bad judgment in his short-term-political-interest-protecting choosing of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Barack Obama on the other hand is younger, has some experience, and exudes confidence when he talks. He has surrounded himself with people more experienced than him – such as Joe Biden – and has managed to capture the attention of many, many followers. His leadership begs following, and he is bringing about change which in part is exciting. He also knows how to use e-mail.

But there’s a bigger issue behind all this, which I want to focus on. The e-mails I referred to above have focussed solely on moral issues and the protection of the Christian religion. None of which, I believe, are what we have been Biblically mandated to do.

Let me explain.

One of the e-mails I received the other day started like this:

This is from an attorney in Cincinnati, Ohio. He has a very strong faith in the Lord. Please read this and pray!

Unfortunately this turned me off from the start. Because someone claims to have a strong faith in the Lord, I should trust everything he says? Of course I’m not questioning his faith, but if someone expects me to agree with whatever they say just because they are a Christian, I am probably not going to be agreeing with them.

The e-mail continued:

I have never been one to read things circulated on the Internet, much less write them, so it is with no small reluctance that I do so now. However, the Lord has laid it heavily upon my heart to call His people to a day of prayer and fasting for the upcoming November 4 elections, and this provides an excellent medium to get the word out quickly to a large number of believers.

America stands at a crossroads, not just politically but also spiritually. The current election cycle is nothing less than a battle for the very soul of our country. The discerning among you already know this to be true. The deepening political polarization we have witnessed in the past few elections is merely a symptom of an ever-intensifying spiritual polarization, as the battle lines between the righteous and the wicked are drawn with increasing clarity. The stakes are enormous, whether politically, economically, morally or in terms of our physical security. We are about to step off in a direction that could very well lead to our destruction as a nation — and so many millions are blind to this reality.

As I observe popular attitudes and watch the public opinion polls , my heart grieves for our nation. We have abandoned the principles upon which our nation was founded, principles which in turn were anchored in the person and principles of God. The wicked grow ever more powerful and influential. Once respectable journalistic organizations have degenerated to little more than propaganda organs for the political left. Godly leaders who can rise up in defense of righteousness and our God-given liberties seem nowhere to be found. As a nation, we have cast God out of our thinking. The murder of the unborn is championed in the streets and in the courts. Homosexual “marriage” is trumpeted as a constitutional right and as the sign of a so-called progressive culture. Sexual immorality, drug abuse, violence, idolatry, pornography, and a host of other sins have overtaken us. As a nation we either justify these things or, at a minimum, turn a blind eye to them. And God’s people have certainly not been immune from these things.

Now we stand ready to reap the fruits of our national godlessness. God sometimes judges sin by giving people over to the very things they desire and allowing the natural consequences to play out. Generalizations are often dangerous, but I think it is safe to say that generally the sins I mentioned are associated with the political left. It is my sincere conviction, and I have often said to those who will listen, that the leaders of the American left represent the force of evil in our political arena. Admittedly there are wicked and corrupt people on the right as well, but experience has shown that a conservative political ideology finds its roots, to large extent, in scriptural truth. Consequently, conservative politicians are generally (but certainly not always or completely) aligned with the Word of God. However, as the wicked gain the upper hand in the halls of power, all of us of whatever political leaning will experience the predictable consequences.

So where does that leave us? Current polls indicate that the left is in position to seize decisive control of our entire political system, including all three branches of government. They stand to take the White House , both houses of Congress and, by inevitable extension, the courts as well. If that happens, they will take the country hard to the left in a way from which I do not believe we will ever recover. Socialism, moral libertinism, contempt for the sanctity of life, and increasing efforts to stifle political dissent (and I would add, to silence biblically based “hate speech”) are sure to follow in short order. If God severely judged Israel for her wickedness, who are we to expect differently?

“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

What can we do to prevent the unmaking of America from happening right before ou r eyes?

We can call upon the name of the Lord, who is rich in mercy and mighty to deliver His people. We can pray along with the psalmist that the designs of the wicked and the oppressors would be thwarted by the hand of God . We can pray that God would lift the evident blindness that has gripped our nation, and that He would grant widespread repentance. We can pray that only the most godly men and women would be elected to lead this nation, and that they would lead in righteousness. We can pray that such righteousness would again exalt our nation as we return to the Lord in humility and repentance. We can pray that, regardless of what happens on November 4, the people of God will manifest “the swe et aroma of the knowledge of Christ” in ever increasing measure.

To that end, I am asking every believer in Jesus Christ to set aside Monday, November 3 as a day of fasting and prayer . I would urge you to review the prayer of Daniel on behalf of his people in Dan. 9:3-19, and to pray that way for our nation. And finally, I would ask you to distribute this call to prayer as widely as possible so that the greatest number of people would lay hold of the throne of grace all at once. It may be that God will show mercy to America, that He will shed His grace on her once again. Thank you for joining with me in this effort.

D. Johnson

That was the e-mail in its entirety. I have hundreds of problems with it, but I’ll highlight a few.

The first one is that this attorney – and alot of the religious right – seems to be missing the safe and comfortable Christianity that America was founded on (Australia also). Well, the world is going left, and by standing our ground as Christians way over on the right, we’re not exactly going to achieve much. Complaining that the wicked are too powerful doesn’t do a thing (evil triumphs when good men do nothing), apart from engendering an even greater dislike in the world for Christians – and through it, Jesus Christ.

The e-mail mentions that “godly leaders are nowhere to be found”. I probably don’t agree with his definition of “godly” in this sense, but in the sense he’s referring to, they’re probably nowhere to be found because they’re all writing e-mails like this and holding prayer vigils. I’ve mentioned before a great quote I saw somewhere: “Pray like it depends on God, but act like it depends on you.” What is this guy – and the others who are writing these e-mails – doing to actually bring about change? There’s no point standing up and saying “it should be this way instead”. You have to gain respect before you gain the right to influence.

By the way, in this e-mail, mention is made of the Democrats standing for drug abuse and violence – among other sins. Huh? No powerful political party in the western world is for the increase of either!

The e-mail also states that the right is generally more aligned with the Word of God. This is the only part of the e-mail that I agree with, but yet I only partly agree with it. Conservative politicians are generally better aligned with the moral side of the gospel, but liberal politicians are generally better aligned with the social side of the gospel (eg. feeding the hungry and looking after the sick). So that means Christians should really be trapped between left and right.

But – what is our Biblical mandate? See the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Or the great commission in Matthew 28:18-20. Remember also that Jesus gave wine to drunk people as his first miracle on Earth (John 2) – uh-oh, where were his morals? Also, consider Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 9.

Is our mandate to try to align the world with Christian morals (the agenda of the religious right)? Or is it to get to know the people around us, to meet their physical and spiritual needs, and show them who Jesus Christ really was and still is?

I was laughing all through this – even though I know the kid needs straightening out…

From a media point of view, it certainly wouldn’t be an easy interview!

On the morning of New Year’s Eve James Scott and I presented the Inaugural 1WAY FM Breakfast Show New Year’s Eve Spectacular Extravaganza 2007. It was a look back at the news, sport, movies, technology and deaths of 2007 – here are some of the highlights (apologies for the quality!).

[See post to listen to audio]
(download file – 16.1 MB, 17:40)

I was looking through my e-mails yesterday morning and saw a CNN news alert where Larry King was discussing former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination – and I thought, hmm, they missed the word ‘attempted’ there. But low and behold, after some digging below the Christmas and holiday news at the headlines of the Australian news outlets, she had indeed been assassinated.

I really don’t know all that much about Benazir Bhutto, but after seeing her recent return from self-imposed exile and hearing her talk, I developed an appreciation for her, her pro-democracy stance, and her determination. Although I guess it was almost inevitable, I’m rather disappointed, for lack of a better word, that an assassination attempt against her was successful. It can only mean bad news for Pakistan, and the war on terror.

Other news related to the war on terror today is David Hicks’ release from Yatala Prison in Adelaide (David pictured on right in green shirt; picture from News Limited). He has been taken in a black car to to a ‘secret location’, but with media cars and choppers tracking it I’m sure it won’t be long before that secret location becomes public.

There is a lot of controversy about whether he should now be afforded a private, normal life or whether he should continue to be monitored. Well, I think someone who was so immersed in what he was immersed in, and who believed so strongly in Islamic fundamentalism, doesn’t just suddenly change his mind and want to become a normal citizen. It’d be nice if he did, but honestly, why would he? He met Osama bin Laden at least 20 times and wrote a letter home to his parents saying that Osama was a “lovely brother”. He joined al-Qaeda of his own accord. He became a supporter of the enemy of Australia, the US, the Western world…. in fact, when you think about it, the rest of the world too. And now he’s suddenly decided that he wants to be an Aussie again.

None of us can claim to know what’s really going on inside his mind, but wouldn’t underground terrorist cells in Australia be already trying to get in contact with him? Maybe they won’t be yet because his phone calls are being monitored. But some are calling for this monitoring to be removed because “existing laws and surveillance techniques would suffice” – a view held by the Australian Democrats according to AAP. I’m sure existing laws allow for increased monitoring when it is warranted. I think it’s warranted.

The Democrats are obviously making this a political issue (see the above linked article) but I hope that the Labor government won’t. Just as the previous government made unpopular controversial decisions in order to protect the public (such as Kevin Andrews with Mohammed Haneef), I hope the current government will continue to put the safety of the Australian people above political popularity.

See also: differing opinions on NEWS.com.au with Lou Fortescue and Ray Chesterton – Does Hicks rate a break? – Update 11/01/2008 7:17PM: the article I linked to seems to no longer exist, and is now replaced by a one sided editorial from Natasha Stott Despoja – I can’t find the original anywhere. Pity, as it was a pretty good argument from both sides.

…(at least on NEWS.com.au):

Paris Hilton loses inheritance

Can you believe it? I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised!

I like NEWS.com.au’s interactivity with readers – especially the weekly ‘what you read this week’ round ups. And most of the time, the stories I read are right up the top. I guess that means I’m rather representative of their readership… (notice how I didn’t actually admit that I read Paris Hilton stories).

Other stories in their top 100 include the Federal Election 2007 vote-a-matic (which scored a mention from me too), a man levitating outside the White House, a mum booking a stripper for her son, and of course a few stories on Maddie McCann.

Oh, and NEWS.com.au have their stories planned out for next year too.