Sadly, for me this was the story of the week:
- On 23 August, 2014, Kehazaei presented to the Manus Island medical clinic with flu-like symptoms and a small lesion on his leg. The clinic did not have the basic antibiotic to treat his common tropical infection, and, despite treatment, Kehazaei’s condition deteriorated rapidly.
Doctors on the island urged his immediate transfer to Australia but this was first ignored – including by department of immigration bureaucrats who didn’t read their emails for up to 13 hours – and then rejected by the department.
After further pleading from doctors trying to treat him, approval was finally granted – two days after the initial request – to move Kehazaei, by now semi-conscious and septic. But the department ordered he be moved not to Australia but to Port Moresby’s Pacific International hospital.
At the PIH, Kehazaei was misdiagnosed, treated with broken equipment and left unattended as he grew critically ill.
He suffered a series of cardiac arrests and, by the time he was transported to Brisbane’s Mater hospital, was profoundly brain-damaged.
Queensland coroner Terry Ryan found in a 140-page finding:
that Australia held sole responsibility for Kehazaei’s care and for the failures that led to his death.
Ryan said Kehazaei could have been saved by basic interventions at several points during his worsening illness but that “the compounding effect of multiple errors” and “systemic failures” in the offshore healthcare system had led to his death.
He was scathing about the standard of healthcare delivered to Kehazaei, and pointed out numerous failures which, combined, caused his death from a preventable infection.
Clearly doctors should make critical health decisions, not bureaucrats.
When all this happened back in 2014, then immigration minister, Scott Morrison, told The Guardian that asylum seeker Hamid Kehazaei received “outstanding” medical treatment on Manus Island.
Someone should go to jail.
Sometimes the surname is given as Khazaei.
2. Harry M Miller checks out
Hair, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Rocky Horror Show, Marcia Hines, Jon English, Kate Ceberano and before that Louis Armstrong, Judy Garland, the Rolling Stones, the conductor Arthur Rubinstein, Herman’s Hermits, the Beach Boys and Sonny and Cher.
The people represented by the Harry M Miller Group included Lindy Chamberlain, the racing trainer Gai Waterhouse, the fashion entrepreneur Maggie Tabberer, Big Brother contestants, and Judy Moran, the wife of Melbourne underworld figure Lewis Moran. Miller would take up to 25% of earnings.
Miller also negotiated the “cash for comment” deals for the broadcaster Alan Jones.
He attracted criticism for making money from tragedy and sensation. He represented Stuart Diver, who survived the 1997 Thredbo disaster. Miller also handled the funeral of the INXS singer Michael Hutchence.
Got banged up in jail for the Computicket fraud affair. Said he cried every day in jail, but continued to run his clients’ careers from his cell.
Born a Kiwi, I heard someone say Hair changed Australia. I saw it when I was attending a meeting in Sydney, in 1971, I think. One of the other blokes said he needed some fresh air, so I went out with him and missed the bit where they got their gear off. Saw it all in Brissie a few years later.
It ran for two years in Sydney, then moved to other capitals.
Scott Stevens and Waleed Aly addressed the question:
- Can we still learn from, use, enjoy or legitimately benefit from the work — be it artistic, philosophical, or even scientific — of people who have committed egregious moral wrongs or who themselves hold morally repugnant beliefs?
At what point do we regard, not only them, but also their intellectual or artistic labour, as morally monstrous?
They used a lot of big words and tied themselves up in knots:
In many respects, this comes down to a question of the relationship between virtue and knowledge. Does character so restrain, constrain, inhibit, limit the world that one can ‘see’ — in fuller sense conceived by Iris Murdoch — that the intellectual or artistic labour that one produces is itself necessarily limited or tainted, and as such, untrustworthy?
I think a work of art is at one level an act of communication. In another dimension it seeks reconciliation between inner and outer worlds. In another it says something about what it is to be human.
There is no one answer, and it depends to some extent on your own sensibilities. In some cases the author doesn’t matter, sometimes they do, more so in the performative arts.
It doesn’t bother me that Wagner was anti-Semitic. I don’t see the man in the work.
To use another of their examples, in the case of Rolf Harris, his personality is part of the show, and no, I couldn’t watch him. Also what he does is not art, it’s just entertainment.
Geoffrey Rush? Even if found guilty I could watch his acting in films again. The actor is not the artist, but is essential to the realisation of the work. I’d feel deprived if I couldn’t watch his films.
Kevin Spacey? Depends. We are told that in some films he plays bad characters where he doesn’t have to act.
Roman Polanski and Woody Allen? I don’t have a problem with anything I’ve seen so far.
In 1970 Yarrow was convicted of, and served three months in prison for taking “improper liberties” with a 14-year-old girl who went with her 17-year-old sister to Yarrow’s hotel room seeking an autograph. He has since apologized for the incident: “It was an era of real indiscretion and mistakes by categorically male performers. I was one of them. I got nailed. I was wrong. I’m sorry for it.”
- The group was inducted into the Vocal Group Hall of Fame in 1999. Peter, Paul and Mary received the Sammy Cahn Lifetime Achievement Award from Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2006.
In 1981 Jimmy Carter granted Yarrow a presidential pardon for the crime. Nonetheless, it has occasionally become a campaign issue for politicians he supports. In 2004, Representative Martin Frost of Texas, a Democrat, canceled a fundraising appearance with the singer after his opponent ran a radio advertisement about Yarrow’s offense; in 2013 Republican politicians called on Democratic Congressional candidate Martha Robertson to cancel a scheduled fundraiser with Yarrow.
Sometimes the subject matter becomes difficult. My wife tried to watch Killing Eve (see also here) and couldn’t last the distance. It’s about hunting a female assassin who enjoys watching her victims die.
The Villanelle novellas by Luke Jennings on which the series is based would be a different matter.
Newspoll and Essential had polls out last week, I think not post the Super-Saturday by-elections.Not much changed. Peter Lewis, who runs the Essential Report, has an interesting article (linked above). He believes:
What the weekend results show, as I have argued previously, is that there is little evidence of any form of statistical correlation between approval for an opposition leader and support for the opposition he leads.
Essential asked people what was important in determining their vote. 55% said they voted for party policies, 28% voted for party leaders, and 27% voted for local candidates.
They would say that, whether they do it is another matter. However, Lewis says:
As the custodian of Labor’s policies, Shorten’s opposition to the government’s economic agenda, particularly its tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, has been sustained and effective.
Under Shorten, Labor has also embraced a suite of policies that take on vested interests like the banks and private insurance industry, while ending tax loopholes in negative gearing, family trusts, capital gains and dividend imputations that tend to favour the well-off.
While it hasn’t necessarily made Shorten popular, it has entrenched Labor values at the centre of the political debate.
Essential then did a party attributes survey, which tended to shows that people thought the Liberal Party was too close to big corporate and financial interests and out of touch with ordinary people.
On the other hand, Labor scored better on understanding the problems facing Australia and looking after the needs of working people.
Unsurprisingly, when asked, most people said both parties will do anything to win votes.
Lewis’s bottom line:
So here’s my positive take on Shorten for what it’s worth. The first Gen X leader of his generation, he will win government on traditional Labor values and govern as a progressive centrist with the interpersonal skills to manage a united and ambitious team with a long-term plan for a fairer Australia.
Maybe at this point Shorten will win the personal approval of Australian voters. Or maybe not. Because, as results on the weekend proved yet again, it really doesn’t matter.
Remember, It’s all John Howard’s fault.
There is much to be done, but now, just maybe, the sunlit uplands are within reach!