Clive Hamilton is Charles Sturt Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. Until 2008 he was the Executive Director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s foremost progressive (leftist) think tank. Hamilton is a Economist. Hamilton complains: “The Right has jettisoned science in favour of deeper beliefs.”
But this same Hamilton preaches:
“So I think where we’re going is to begin to see a Gaian earth in its ecological, cybernetic way, infused with some notion of mind or soul or chi, which will transform our attitudes to it away from an instrumentalist one, towards an attitude of greater reverence.”
Again. Hamilton complains: “Climate change is the most important arena for the long-running culture war of the neo-conservatives. In pursuit of their goals they have tapped into primitive fears.”
But this same Hamilton preaches: “I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.”
This week he showed what he meant, claiming if “climate deniers” won, then “hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people … would die”.
This made these “deniers” – he named me – not just “more dangerous” than Holocaust deniers, but over time “more iniquitous” and “morally worse”.
If fact, he threatens a “suspension of democratic processes” to deal with such opposition.
Hamilton is a Professor of Public Ethics the principles of Public Ethics as stated by
The Public Service Ethics Act are:
- * integrity and impartiality
- * promoting the public good
- * commitment to the system of government
- * accountability and transparency.
6 Integrity and impartiality
In recognition that public office involves a public trust, public service agencies, public sector entities and public officials seek to promote public confidence in the integrity of the public sector and
(a) are committed to the highest ethical standards; and
(b) accept and value their duty to provide advice which is objective, independent, apolitical and impartial; and
(c) show respect towards all persons, including employees, clients and the general public; and
(d) acknowledge the primacy of the public interest and undertake that any conflict of interest issue will be resolved or appropriately managed in favour of the public interest; and
(e) are committed to honest, fair and respectful engagement with the community.
He is willing to suspend democratic process to ensure the alarmists win???
He has started the talk calling us ‘deniers’ , more dangerous than ‘holocaust deniers’ and claiming 100,000’s of people will die if the ‘deniers’ win.
Of course Clive Hamilton is yet another ANU product that seems to be confused about the facts.
Even his book is aimed at changing the democratic process in Australia
‘Hamilton’s deconstruction of climate denial and its consequences is devastating. Listen to this Requiem and weep, if it helps. False hope is as dangerous as despair, Hamilton reminds us. But don’t get mired in helplessness. Above all, Requiem is a call to arms; to the urgent task of overhauling democracy in pursuit of survival. At stake, the biggest prize of all: our own humanity.’
Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth
His book Silencing Dissent was well regarded in the left circuit and an interesting review was:
“The health of a democracy relies on many different things: limited government; strong civil society; the independence of autonomous institutions; the encouragement of dissident opinion, wide-ranging debate. All these values are presently under threat. The Howard Government has become more intolerant of criticism and greedy for control the longer it has been in power.
The evidence presented in this volume offers the most compelling case yet about the increasingly authoritarian trajectory of the political culture during the Howard years. In addition, it offers vital clues about why opposition to the government’s counter-revolutionary transformation of the country, in so many different spheres of public life, has thus far proven to be so weak.
For both these reasons Silencing Dissent is a timely, disturbing and unnerving book.”
Robert Manne, 5 November 2006
Of course SMH needs a mention as an advocate of his work, or at least was.
I am afraid what I see is the hypocrisy of his suspension of Democratic process argument, the complete disregard for Public Ethics from a man who held himself up as a expert on the subject. I guess we must remember a thief is often a expert in security as they know the ways around it..
Last year he wrote a piece on
Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denialhttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32912.html
I thought he had turned on his beloved comrades, but he actually tried to tell us these leftist tactics were from the right wing ‘deniers’.
This man is dangerous, as dangerous if not more so than Bob Brown, he is well educated and tries to confuse people with his intellect. The trouble is he is actually a man with an avid imagination who like all politician try to turn the arguments on their opponents. His problem is, there is a glimpse of red in his speech and he has been advocating for a number of years for the Democratic process to be destroyed.
This is not because, like many left-wingers, he doubts that parliament will respond to what working people actually need and want, but precisely because he does not trust ordinary working people to support the measures he deems necessary. Hamilton clearly is looking for the man on horseback who can save the environment, something that all genuine left-wingers distrust.
Hamilton is also proud of being the architect of the Rudd government’s plan to censor the internet.
Once again this is showing a deep distrust of ordinary people. By whipping up a moral panic about pornography available on the internet, and by denying people have the ability to make their own moral judgments and decisions about what they look at, he is obviously a true supporter of the NBN whose primary purpose would appear to be internet censorship. Hamilton rejects the self-responsibility that leftists normally demand for themselves and others, and instead insists that the government do that job for us.
He is once again trying for the Victorian seat of Higgins vacated by former Treasurer Peter Costello, and we must ensure this dangerous man does not go under the radar as to what his true values and ideas are. And he is yet another economist who is claiming himself to be an expert when it comes to Climate Change.