Bob Brown's speech -how do Greenies view it?

To paraphrase Douglas Adams re:Bob Brown and the greens

"a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes." Fortunately, a copy of the Encyclopædia Galactica from a thousand years in the future fell through a time warp in which it describes
. . . . .
as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first up against the wall when the revolution came".
 
Bob's temperament is that of a visionary, he has spoken of this before btw, and chatter of Global Parliament has been around a long time Shimri Zameret's (researcher in the London School of Economics and Political Science) piece via The Drum last year was an interesting read (I put his link just above).

Excerpts only:

Brown has not just stated his support for a world parliament, he also actively advocates it.

The debate in Australia that followed his speech at the National Press Club conveniently ignores that Brown and the Australian Greens aren't alone in doing so. In fact they are part of a growing global movement that is supported by a truly cross-partisan alliance. In October 2010 Brown joined over 700 members of parliament in signing an international appeal. The appeal calls for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

This appeal is endorsed by many distinguished individuals such as Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former UN Secretary-General; Mike Moore, a former head of the WTO and former New Zealand prime minister; Vaclav Havel, former Czech president and over 200 university professors.

A UN Parliamentary Assembly is envisaged as a first pragmatic step towards the vision of a parliament of the world. The European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and the Latin American Parliament, the Swiss National Council and the Argentinean Congress, amongst others, have called for this new body during the last six years.
Click to expand...

So...

The idea of a Global Parliament is not new. In 1947, Albert Einstein wrote that "selection [of UN delegates] by governments cannot give the peoples of the world the feeling of being fairly and proportionately represented. The moral authority of the UN would be considerably enhanced if the delegates were elected directly by the people".

Albert Camus, wrote that "The only way out [of international dictatorship] is to place international law above governments, which means... that there must be a parliament for making it, and that parliament must be constituted by means of worldwide elections in which all nations will take part".
Click to expand...

Bob Brown's public support for a global parliament came under immediate attack in Australia. Chris Berg (July 13, 2011, The Drum, "Brown's global parliament: scary proposition") wrote that Brown's idea of a world parliament was "scary", "undesirable", and probably unrealistic.

Unfortunately, like others, Berg's article confuses world parliament with world government. In the same way that the European parliament does not mean a European state, a UN parliament does not mean a world government. Indeed, most of those who advocate a UN Parliamentary Assembly believe in the principle of subsidiary, which means that decisions should be taken at the lowest level of governance possible. However, they also believe in the basic principle of democracy: that decisions should be made by those that are affected by them. In the case of issues with genuine global impact, this means that everyone should have a say in the shaping of global policy.

Indeed the UN Parliamentary Assembly is envisaged, in the first phase, as a consultative institution, with no legislative or executive powers.
Click to expand...

I find it all interesting. I don't have enough information about the Parliament to give an opinion. The way, style of Bob's speech is of no concern to me. Tis just the person. Valclav Havel, Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Kyi come to mind as fellow Idealist temperaments that can be rather poetic, idealistic, visionary in their communication too.
 
It's probably best another thread gets started on Climate Change rather than derailing this one, so I will refrain.

My point was BB's ideas on government are along the lines of the C treaty.

The 3 methods raised are for control of the masses, propaganda being in the form of approval to print/voice/express publicly what suits Bob.

If they didn't come across as raving lunatics to most people and were less overt in their intentions, the Greens could be dangerous, instead they're a bit of a joke, hence why a big deal isn't made of half the stuff they say - no one even bothers to ask how they plan to implement any of their wacky policies either, because they don't need to :rolleyes:.

That says alot imo.
 
I think most conscientious citizens are Green to a degree. But you have to be sensible about it, and this is where a good amount of the greens thinking and actions falls down; they often venture in the zealot and fanatic level, and therefore look ridiculous in my opinion.

The "Green" movement lost me many years ago when I witnessed some of their actions at a golf club I once worked at.

The history of this golf club (the area where it is is in very heavily populated with greenies) is that it used to be owned by a wealthy surgeon who owned the land where the golf club now is.

In those days, it was primarily an acreage with horses being bred on it, and in all the photos of the property I have seen; it was practically devoid of trees...some 90 acres of basically grass paddocks.

So, the good doctor - who was a golf nut and a Member of a prestigious club in Melb, decided to build a 9 hole golf course on his property for his fellow Members to come and play at on weekends etc. And that is what he did.

Over the next 70 or so years, many thousands of trees were planted, and when I arrived back in 1985 to run the proshop there was a lovely golf course, full of nature and massive trees everywhere. It is still like it today. It is a glorious place.

However, trees have a habit of growing up, and outwards, which means they encroach on the golf holes sometimes. Every now and then a few limbs need to be pruned to keep the fairways wide enough.

So this was/is a practice at this golf club.

Every time it is done, almost without exception; the next day when we all arrived for work, one or more putting greens will have been severely vandalised with shovels, oil etc, and often with the word "trees" written on the grass in oil.

It's crazy; the trees wouldn't even be there if it weren't for the doctor's dream, and now these silly people think cutting one branch or maybe three is a blight on the future of the planet?
 
BayView said:
Every time it is done, almost without exception; the next day when we all arrived for work, one or more putting greens will have been severely vandalised with shovels, oil etc, and often with the word "trees" written on the grass in oil.
Click to expand...

Because nothing says 'environmentally conscious' like dumping oil in the environment... :confused:
 
Still haven't had a chance to read it, sorry.

I read somewhere very recently (I thought it was in this thread actually but can't find it now) that only about 8% of the whole population voted for the Greens. I don't know the exact % but the % of greenies who'd vote for the Greens would be no more than the % of the whole population in my experience.

I did read the Greens manifesto once and it did not appeal to me. They are another political party. Most of the greenies I know are more practical down-to-earth people but I sometimes wonder if this has more to do with capital city vs regional towns/country split. I read stuff on the Net eg about Catholic schools being incredibly well funded and my experience in a country town Catholic school was totally different, so I think a lot of these differences have more to do with the fact there are more wealthy people in cities than in country towns and that skews the impression. Most of the stereotypes about greenies seem to reflect wealthy city people out of touch with reality (eg Bayview's story about a golf course.) Get out into country towns and the greenies are very different.

I came at being a greenie through science training. Not from parents who were hippies or ferals or such. I wonder what process BB came to being Green through. I wonder if that process or base that led to him becoming green also led him to this one world govt view. I think the 2 are correlated but not necessarily causal.

Probably haven't answered your question, sorry.
 
pennyk said:
Were you surprised by his interstellar focus? How do you feel about global government? Being called an "Earthian"?
Click to expand...

I will start by saying I have no fixed views, however my current views would be considered pretty extreme to most here.

It was surprising, however a growing number of scientists are starting to accept this possibility. Even the Vatican - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

There is more evidence of extra terrestrial life than most of the other stuff the masses believe in. This series is very interesting - http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens
 
Roosterman said:
According to smh.com.au he has just resigned from the party and the senate....
Click to expand...

... and Christine Milne is the new leader. She represents the worst they have to offer. Looks like another minor party in terminal decline a la Meg Lees after Don Chipp.

Then we'll probably get a Larissa Waters or equivalent a la Natasha Stott Despoja just to top it all off!
 
I thought he seemed to be less "with it" of late and I do wonder if he is sick.

I also agree that it is highly likely to cause the party to implode, they lost ground in the QLD election and I think they may well be wiped at the next federal election.

They have just enough time before the next federal election to allow various factions within the party to disagree and descend into a cat fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Aussie Banks Financed by the US Fed
Replies
18
Views
3K
kotim
K
Ruby
The Player Interview
Replies
0
Views
11K
Ruby
Ruby
Back
Top