(We) can do better

• If you knew that a government routinely covered up soldiers massacring civilians as if they were shooting them in a video game, would you stay silent?

• If you knew that 66,081 of the 109,000 recorded deaths in the illegal war on Iraq from US military were civilians, would you stay silent?

• If you found out that a government was spying on the citizens of every nation in the world and passing the information onto corporations and the military, would you stay silent?

Julian Assange did not stay silent. Courageously, he published the documents exposing murder and illegal surveillance, passed on to him by US. soldier, Private Manning.

These documents were also accessed and published in whole or in part by many other reporting outlets, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, The New York Times, El País, Al-Akhbar, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet, Verdens Gang, Aftenposten, Politiken, NRC, RTL Nieuws, Die Welt,and Fairfax Media. But those media are not being punished.

The United States Government was the government involved in these war crimes and illegal global surveillance. It controlled the mainstream and corporate press and was incensed that Wikileaks, an alternative press, had the moral conviction to out it for its crimes. Its revenge was to engineer Julian Assange's illegal detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy from August 2012.

Using trumped up charges, the UK and Swedish Governments colluded with the United States so that Assange was likely to be extradited to the United States on unknown and probably illegal grounds if he left his place of asylum. The United States has the highest rates of imprisonment in the world and its private and military prisons are known to be brutal and unaccountable.

Assange did not committed any crime by publishing material from a foreign state, any more than have the newspapers who also published this. His arbitrary detention has been denounced by the United Nations. His access to internet, telephone and visitors have all been withdrawn recently and a change of government in Ecuador threatens his continued asylum in its embassy. The Australian Government needs to act to bring Assange home to safety, in accordance with UN rulings.

Will you speak up for Julian Assange, as he did for you?

Rallies planned for Australia include: on Sunday 17 June: Sydney - 1-3 PM at the Town Hall Square. Speakers include John Pilger and James Cogan Socialist Equity Party (SEP) National Secretary. on Tuesday 19 June: Melbourne - outside the British Consulate 12-2PM. (17th Floor, 90 Collins St, Melbourne VIC) Will be attended by Julian's father, John Shipton and another young member of Julian's family and Shirley Shackleton. Brisbane - Vigil 4-6PM at the Ann Street Shrine of Remembrance opposite Central Station; Perth - 12PM-2PM at Forrest Chase.

Further Information:
The most controversial leaks were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010),^[3][4] the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), and CableGate (November 2010). .

In case you haven’t heard, Canada has a border crisis on its hands. To all but the wilfully blind, the deceitful deniers and the dangerously delusional, it is blatantly evident that growing numbers of migrants are deliberately and flagrantly in contravention of Canadian border law and international treaties.

It is clear that where Roxham Road in Champlain, NY meets Quebec, our laws are not being enforced, our generosity is being abused and our border is wide open to anyone who wants to walk in and avail themselves of the friendly assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Bellhop Police. It is also obvious that the offending migrants knew the drill coming in.. They knew that if they crossed the border in defiance of explicit do-not-enter signs, they would be arrested and detained, but by mere virtue of declaring refugee status on Canadian soil, they would also be given a hearing, something that under the terms of the Safe Third Country agreement, they wouldn’t get had they chosen an official port of entry. Last year, most Roxham Road refugee claimants were Haitian residents who feared deportation after the protected status they enjoyed in the United States following the 2010 earthquake expired. But this year, most were Nigerians who had been granted a visa to enter the United States with the dishonest intention of using it to travel to an unguarded section of the Canadian border. For them, the United States was just a transit point, a stepping stone to the hospitable welfare state to the north.

Numbers and facts can tell the story concisely. Consider this:

• More asylum claims were made last year than at any time in modern Canadian history. The total number of RCMP-intercepted asylum claimants (i.e., “irregulars”) in 2017 was 20,593, and the total number through air, land, and marine ports of entry and inland offices was 22,185, so that total of irregular and “regular” entries was 42,778. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html
• The RCMP intercepted 1,890 illegal border crossers in the first three months of 2017. In the same period this year (2018), that number soared to 5,052, compared to the 4,475 people who filed claims at legal ports of entry.
• Since the beginning of 2017, more asylum-seekers have crossed the border than the 25,000 Syrian refugees who were accepted in 2016. There were 18,644 refugee claimants in the queue at the start of 2017, but as of the end of March this year, there some 48,974---more than a doubling in 15 months.
• Understandably, this has placed an unsustainable strain on the refugee system. When Canada rejects an immigrant, the decision is final. For refugee claimants in Canada, however, rejections are subject to lengthy appeals, removal orders, and in some cases, Canada-wide-arrest warrants. Since the Immigration and Refugee Board can only process 1,000 to 2,000 claims per month, they can’t keep pace with the flood. In March, the board was able to complete a record 2,587 claims, but 4,078 new refugee claims came through in the same month. The backlog is out of control.
• As the backlog grows, it is taking longer and longer to process claims. Last October the wait time was 16 months. If border crossings continue at the current rate, the wait time could be 11 years by 2021. Thus, a 19 year old illegal border crosser could be a 30 year old father with three kids in Canada by the time his case was heard. Time enough to put down roots that would be very hard to pull up. These delays will amount to de-facto amnesty, and serve as incentive for more potential claimants to make an illegal crossing. Not to worry. The Trudeau government has injected an extra $173 million on processing illegal immigration. But speeding up “processing” does not add up to border security.
• 96% of asylum-seekers have come via Quebec, which operates only four shelters for asylum-seekers, 1,850 spots in total. In Toronto in 2016, asylum-seekers accounted for 11.2% of the people using shelters. Today that number stands at 37%. The Mayor estimates that at current arrival rates the city will be housing 4,485 asylum seekers by November, occupying 53% of shelter beds when the system is already in an emergency state. Quebec and the City of Toronto are crying “uncle”. Quebec is demanding that federal government fork over $146 million, while Toronto is calling for $64.5 million.
• Each asylum seeker costs federal taxpayers between $10,000 and 20,000 per year in entitlements. In addition to the housing, social welfare, education and health care which they gain access to, under the Interim Federal Health Program asylum seekers are covered by dental and pharmaceutical care that provincial health care plans do not provide for Canadians. This in a country where “hallway medicine” and long surgery wait times are a fact of life in all jurisdictions.
• Both RCMP and Canadian Border Security Agency officials have been muzzled by the Trudeau government, and explicitly told not to speak to the media about the shocking surge in illegal migration. Oddly, Trudeau supporters who reacted with righteous rage against Conservative Prime Minister Harper’s muzzling of scientists are strangely silent about this gag order.

These facts and stats are by no means exhaustive, but I think you get the picture. We have a massive problem, and the Trudeau government shows no signs of solving it. Some cynics would argue that they have no intention of doing so. But that is not the case. Liberals are getting nervous, and even Trudeau has been moved to back pedal. There is now an understanding that the government risks alienating Liberal voters who couple their naivety about welcoming migrants with a sincere belief that there have to be rules and these rules must be preserved and respected. It’s all about optics and partisan positioning. Liberal strategists are playing catch-up, as they try to shift to the right to adjust to the changing public mood and thwart the Conservative surge registered by recent polls.

The outrageous spectacle of brazen law-breaking at the border is highly combustible fuel for a popular rebellion, which so far only manifests itself in relatively modest demonstrations at Roxham Road and the angry, bitter comments that follow pro-immigration online newspaper articles. One senses that there is a subterranean rage out there in search of a leader. Therein lies the danger for nationalists. So desperate is our need for a parliamentary voice that we are prone to vest unwarranted hope in the proven liars and opportunists of establishment parties, determined to ignore their past betrayals and globalist inclinations.

We don't seem to understand that astute conservative politicians like Australia's Malcolm Turnbull or John Howard before him, or our very own (Immigration critic) Michelle Rempel--- take a hard line position against lax border control precisely because they are rabidly pro-immigration. They rightly fear that the violation of borders undermines public support for their sky high immigration agenda. They realize that angry people often conflate refugees with immigrants. They notice that for some reason, voters are more exercised by a few hundred migrants who arrive by boat than the tens of thousands who arrive from camps. They observe that voters develop an intense hostility to "queue jumpers" (and “border jumpers”) and that this hostility often boils over to include animus toward migrant applicants who jump through all the proper hoops. That is exactly what they want to prevent. They want to appear "tough" on asylum seekers and illegal border crosses to appease public anger and lead it. By manipulating and exploiting popular anti-refugee sentiments, they can not only win elections, but out-flank opponents in their own parties. As noted in the Sydney Morning Herald (April 24/2018)

"Turnbull understands the necessity of tough border protection…. a firm and controlled process of entry selection acts as a declaration that the nation state is in charge of its destiny. Tough border protection boosts public confidence in a non-discriminatory migration program, which includes an orderly, humanitarian refugee intake. It benefits immigrants and asylum seekers who go to a nation fairly and legally. It helps avoid the kind of chaos that lax border controls deliver. And it helps dampen down anti-immigrant prejudice."

Smart Conservatives like Howard, Turnbull and Rempel make a clever calculation. If they fan the flames of public outrage against asylum-seekers---whose numbers are but a fraction of our total migrant intake---they can turn the illegal border crossings into a lightening rod, and thereby decoy the angry mob away from what is most important: continual hyper immigration. Refugee-bashing is a small price to pay to ensure that the real invasion continues on an epic scale. Burka bans and references to “barbaric practices” and unwillingness to “integrate” serve the same purpose: Make mass immigration palatable by pretending that everything will be hunky-dory if only migrants check their tribal values at the door and embrace ours. Population overshoot is fine if everyone is “assimilated” and English signage can co-exist with Chinese.

As is the case with Australia, the number of refugee claimants who enter Canada is peanuts compared to our annual immigration intake. So far, in 2018, the number of asylum-seekers who walk across our southern borders each day is but 10% of the number who stream through our airports. If, as informed sources fear, 400 illegals will be coming across the border every day during the summer, this would still constitute less than half the number of migrants than come through legally at official ports of entry. If reporter Faith Goldy’s worst case scenario of 219,000 illegal border crossers came to pass, it would still constitute only half of the roughly 400,000 immigrants and ‘temporary’ visa holders who arrive here legally. Perspective people. Put things into perspective.

We are running out of time. Our window of opportunity is closing. Changing demographics promise to erode our cultural and natural heritage beyond recovery if we don’t soon mount strong political opposition. Unabated mass immigration will bury us.

If we are to see an abrupt uprising against the government's bipartisan immigration agenda, we should hope that Canadians see the images of not 400 but 4000 Nigerians and Somalis streaming through Roxham Road each day. We should hope that TV viewers will be seized by panic, not by relative complacency--- as is the case now---- notwithstanding the still token number of brave, patriotic demonstrators that make their way to the border.

The very worst thing that could happen, at this point, would be for the Liberal government to yield to Rempel's crusade and do as she demands. Declare the entire border as an official port of entry. We shouldn't want the Liberal government to get a handle on things. We should pray that they completely loose the handle, as they show signs of doing.

According to Rempel, our refugee/immigration system is "broken", and that she wants to "fix it." We don't want to "fix" it, we want to demolish it. Notice as well that Rempel is positioning herself as a "Compassionate Conservative", so as to undercut the Trudeau Liberals self-depiction as 'caring', 'welcoming' governors. As she has clearly stated, it is not about volume but "processing". She does not want to cut back in-migration. On the contrary. She just wants to properly “manage” it. Managed national suicide. That pretty well sums up the Conservative project. A project fully embraced by Rempel, as evidenced by this bold confession:

“Most Canadians are like me. We want immigration. I want high levels of immigration. Our previous Conservative government had high levels of immigration. What we are seeing today is just a complete breakdown of immigration such that legal immigration is…. 7 ½ years to come to Canada as a privately sponsored refugee from Djiboute. That’s unconscionable. I want to go back to having a debate about how we process people. How we support them when they come to Canada. Plans for that. We shouldn’t be talking about whether we have a border along the Quebec-US side.” Michelle Rempel CTV News clip May 24/2018

In our desperation to look for champions, I fear that many of us are following her banner with the same enthusiasm that we rallied behind Conservative Party leadership candidate Kellie Leitch. We don't want to face the fact that these people have a different end game than ours. They want to re-capture office. That's it. And to do that, they will even throw some of their own under the bus just to get the liberal media hounds off their tail. Lynn Belak a case in point.
To Canadian nationalists I say this. Beware of the Pied Pipers of Fake Populism. Beware of tough talking Conservatives who mask their globalist goals with the rhetoric of patriotism. Take in the big picture. And make them understand that we don’t really have a border crisis as much as we have an immigration crisis. Tell them that ‘fixing’ illegal immigration doesn’t cut it. Tell them that if they won’t commit to substantial immigration reduction, we will not commit to them.
Don’t be played.
Tim Murray
June 7, 2018

How dare the Urban Development Institute of Australia tell the State Government that it should set housing targets for each council to cope with Melbourne's rapid population growth and then if we don't meet the targets they set we will be victimised. [1] They even specifically mentioned Boroondara and Stonnington as not pulling their weight and referred to NIMBYs. As a resident of Boroondara I can assure the Development Institute that Boroondara is being flooded with buildings to such an extent that the whole neighbourhood character is being ruined, what on earth do they want. High rise on every suburban street?

The real problem is that Melbourne is getting too many people coming to the city. Even Planning Minister Wynne is quoted as saying that Melbourne has the highest growth rate of any city in the developed world. We have been saying this for years as we see it's livability being wrecked. People all across Melbourne are complaining as they see their areas being overcrowded and over developed. The Federal Government must reduce immigration - tell them we are full to bursting. Do they want to turn us into a dense third world city with polluted gridlocked streets?

Many of us are saying, having watched the Royal Commission into the Banking World, that it is time for a Royal Commission to examine the Developers World.

NOTES

Below is the article that caused the suggestion that we need a Royal Commission into how development is conducted in this country.

[1]

"Develop or be punished," by John Masanauskas. (Herald Sun, 2 June 2018.

A DEVELOPER lobby has called for suburbs which don’t pull their weight on housing supply to be punished with less investment in infrastructure.

Urban Development Institute of Australia state CEO Danni Addison said the state government should set housing targets for each council area to cope with Melbourne’s rapid population growth.

“That new housing stock, if delivered, should be accompanied by infrastructure investment from government,” she told a UDIA event yesterday.

“And if it’s not delivered where it should be, then investment in infrastructure in those areas should be restricted.”

Developers told the event councils like Boroondara and Stonnington were not providing their share of new housing.

Ms Addison said there were “politically unpalatable areas of Melbourne where growth is uncomfortable ideologically or from a position of NIMBYism (not in my backyard)”.

“But if that growth were to be followed and serviced by infrastructure, then I think the community would definitely be more at ease,” she said.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne said Melbourne had the highest growth rate of any city in the developed world."

Towards 2000 people rallied on the morning of June 9, 2018 at 11.00 a.m to protest against live animal exports. The rally, organised by The Animal Justice Party and Animals Australia, attracted a very united crowd of men women and children horrified by the inevitable and intense pain and suffering inflicted on the hapless cargo of these ships no matter where they are headed.

My feeling was that this industry represents a standard of treatment of other creatures that is so low that even though they are not physically hurt by it themselves , people will just not put up with it.

If it were not for the "whistle blowers" recording the awful suffering of sheep and cattle on the ships and at their destination we would be unaware. They have brought it into our living rooms where it cannot be ignored or denied.

Another person who attended this protest summed it up as "Live Export is like mass immigration - it is another thing that Australians do not want, but which is foisted upon us by our governments."

Another sign that we are not really a democracy.

Apologies: This article previously erroneously stated or implied that all rallies were to occur on the same day. In fact, on Sunday 17 June there will be one rally in Sydney, whilst on Tuesday 19 June, there will be other rallies in Melbourne Brisbane, Perth and, hopefully elsewhere.

The following has been adapted from Global protests to demand freedom for Julian Assange (2/6/18) | Class Consciousness.

In the coming weeks, including on 19 June, rallies have be organised for Julian Assange have been organised across Australia and across the world.

Demand that the Australian government act to abide by its duty of care to any Australian citizen and send to London a contingent of Federal Police to escort Julian Assange back to Australia.

Upcoming Rallies and protests in Australia

Sydney

Sunday, June 17th 1-3 PM, Socialist Equality Party Rally, Sydney Town Hall Square : Speakers include John Pilger and James Cogan SEP National Secretary. Endorsed by Julian Burnside QC and Terry Hicks (Father of David Hicks), Chris Hedges (Pullitzer Prizing winner Journalist), Professor Stuart Rees Facebook event and website

Tuesday June 19th 9AM – 1PM British Consulate Gateway Building, 1 Macquarie Place, Sydney

Melbourne

Vigil outside British Consulate, – Tuesday 19th .: Vigil will be attended by Julian's father, John Shipton and other young member of Julian's family will be in attendance. Julian is totally isolated from his friends and family whilst trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

Speakers include :

Shirley Shackleton:whose journalist husband Greg was murdered by Indonesian force in Balibo on the eve of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Shirley fought for decades for the East Timorese and against the Australian government's cover up of her (and four other journalists).

James Cogan: National Secretary of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP):The Socialist Equality are playing a leading role in the campaign to defend Julian Assange and fight internet censorship. They have also called protests in Sydney, Tamil Nadu and Columbo and are publishing many articles on the campaign on the World Socialist Website.

Class-conscious website and Facebook event

Solidarity Light Vigil, Melbourne CBD – Tuesday 19th 6-8 PM Bring candles and loved ones to show support. Disarm Facebook Event

Brisbane

Vigil 4-6PM – June 19th, Ann Street Shrine of Remembrance, Ann Street, Brisbane City Centre (opposite Central Station) Facebook event

Perth

June 19th 12PM-2PM Forrest Chase : Facebook Event Page

Other Cities

If you are planning to host or know of any other cities who wish to participate in the June 19th actions for Julian, they are being coordinated through the Free Julian Assange at U.K and U.S. Embassies Worldwide Facebook page or send a message direct to the Class-conscious website via our Contact page. Like wise if you have additional details of speakers etc about already listed events, please pass that on too.

See also: Pamela Anderson Says Trump Should Pardon Julian Assange Next (6/6/18) by Jasmine Sanders |the Cut.More news about Julian Assange on the World Socialist Web Site about Julian Assange: Australia has a legal obligation to protect Julian Assange (11/6/18) by Richard Hoffman, Press conference to be held in Sydney ahead of rallies in defence of Assange (11/6/18), The pseudo-left stabs Assange in the back (11/6/18) by Andre Damon, Sheila Coombes, Professor Tim Hayward and journalist Vanessa Beeley demand freedom for Julian Assange (11/6/18), Free Julian Assange! Support the June 19 vigil in London (11/6/18).

At 1:00pm on Sunday 17 June, there will be a demonstration at the Town Hall Square in Sydney to demand freedom for the heroic and visionary Australian journalist, Julian Assange. Julian Assange has been illegally imprisoned [1] in the London Ecuadorian Embassy for almost six years now The alternative to his ongoing imprisonment is extradition to the United States, show trial, and long imprisonment, should he be made to leave the embassy. Should Assange remain, he faces grave threats to his health due to a lack of exercise within the embassy walls and lack of direct sunlight, so far, for six years.

The demonstration has been called by the Socialist Equity Party (SEP). The excerpt below, from the SEP's article advertising the protest, explains Julian Assange's plight:

Assange's situation stems directly from the Australian government's refusal to protect one of its citizens from persecution by other governments. Canberra has instead trampled on Assange's rights in the most reprehensible manner.

The American state accuses WikiLeaks and its personnel of "espionage" for publishing leaked data in 2010 that exposed the extent of its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and its sinister intrigues around the world. Last year, WikiLeaks published further material that exposed CIA operations to hack and spy on Internet and other communications.

If Assange were put on a show trial in the US, he could face decades of imprisonment, or even the death penalty (my emphasis), for doing what a journalist should do: provide the world with the truth.

In late 2010, the Australian Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard took no action when a Swedish prosecutor initiated a politically-motivated investigation into allegations that Assange “may” have been involved in sexual assault. Under conditions of a furious campaign against WikiLeaks for the damning information it was publishing about US war crimes, the aim of the slander was to both discredit Assange and justify a warrant for his extradition to Sweden for “questioning.” If he were detained in Sweden, Assange and his lawyers rightly feared he could have faced rendition on to the US.

Instead of defending Assange, Gillard and her Labor ministers denounced WikiLeaks for "illegal" actions and declared they would assist the US to prosecute him.

Denied any protection by Australia, Assange was forced to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London on June 19, 2012, after a British court rejected his last legal appeal against extradition to Sweden. For six years, he has been effectively imprisoned in the embassy by the insistence of the British government that if he leaves the building it will arrest him on a charge of absconding on bail. The British government, moreover, has refused to give any guarantee that it would not facilitate his extradition to the US (my emphasis).

This was despite the finding of a United Nations working group in February 2016 that Assange had been arbitrarily detained in contravention of his human rights, and should be allowed his freedom.

In May 2017, Swedish authorities, after finally agreeing to question Assange in Britain, dropped their investigation. No charges were ever laid against the WikiLeaks editor.

The Australian government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, however, refused to intervene and demand that Britain drop its pursuit of Assange over bail-related issues and allow him to leave the London embassy.

...

After six years of confinement inside a small building, with no direct sunlight and deprived of necessary medical treatment, Assange's health was already severely compromised before the immense pressure of almost total isolation was inflicted on him. Reports indicate that Assange is being pressured by Ecuador to leave the embassy, or that the Ecuadorian government may even renege on its grant of asylum and hand him over to waiting British police.

Under conditions in which the British government will not relent on its determination to charge Assange, or guarantee he will not be extradited to the US, the full culpability of the Australian government and the broader political and media establishment is evident.

The Australian state has undeniable means at its disposal to extricate an Australian citizen and journalist from persecution. It can act to return him to Australian territory and provide him with an unconditional guarantee that he will not be extradited.

There are obvious recent precedents.

Australian journalist Peter Greste was arrested by Egyptian authorities in December 2013, along with other Al Jazeera employees, on framed-up charges of “damaging national security.” He was subjected to a show trial and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

In response to immense public outrage in Australia, the government, backed by Washington and the United Nations, called for Greste’s release. Intense diplomatic pressure was applied on Egypt. On February 1, 2015, Greste was released and deported back to Australia.

Earlier, in 2007, under the pressure of widespread anger over the imprisonment of Australian citizen David Hicks in the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the government entreated the Bush administration to release him.

If the British government continues to insist on railroading an Australian citizen into an American prison or worse, then there are a wide range of actions that the Australian government can take to secure his return to Australian jurisdiction.

It would only do so, however, under conditions of the greatest pressure produced by the mobilisation of the working class. Under both Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition governments, the Australian state has demonstrated its hostility to Assange and WikiLeaks.

Author's comment

The article cited above is spot on when it says:

The Australian state has undeniable means at its disposal to extricate an Australian citizen and journalist from persecution. It can act to return him to Australian territory and provide him with an unconditional guarantee that he will not be extradited.

Had the Australian government carried out its basic duty of care as suggested in the above quote and as it had towards Peter Greste, also cited in the article, this whole shameful episode could have been ended years ago.

Every Australian voter, who shares our concerns about Julian Assange, should ask of his local member of Parliament, what he/she has done to help Julian Assange during his last six years of imprisinment. He/she should also ask of every candidate, seeking his/her vote in the next federal election, how he/she intends to help Julian Assange once elected.

Other rallies for Julian Assange in Sri Lanka and India - Why not Melbourne also?

Rallies for Julian Assange are also to be held on 19 June in India and Sri Lanka.

The Socialist Equity Party must be applauded for publicising Julian Assange on the pages of the World Socialist Web Site and for taking the intiative to organise this rally in Sydney. However, I am sure that a good many others in other parts of Australia - Brisbane, Townsville, where Julian Assange was born, Melbourne, where he spent more than 15 years of his life before leaving Australia, Canberra, etc. - would also like to show their support.

Unless another rally is officially called in the meantime, those, in Melbourne, who want to show their support for Julian Assange could, perhaps, at 1pm on Sunday 17 June, the same time as the Sydney rally, assemble, with placards and leafleats, on the steps of the Victorian State Library as supporters of Syria did on Monday 30 April.

Appendix: Video from RT article

In the video embedded above, Bob Beckel, a former presidential strategist calls for the U.S. to "illegally shoot the son-of-a-bitch". Also, in that video, another spokesman for the U.S. government said of Julian Assange "that if we catch you, we're going to hang you."

Footnote[s]

[1] Two rulings by the United Nations have found the detention of Juian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy to have been illegal. So, figures in the the Swedish government, the British government, including Prime Minister Theresa May, and others complicit in the detention of Julian Assange since 19 June 2012, almost 12 years ago, have broken international law and should face trial before the International Criminal Court for their actions.

The issues facing kangaroos on the Peninsula, state and countrywide are serious and it is vital we get the word out to the public. We can offer a few ways for concerned citizens to get involved and express their opinions to be a voice for wildlife.

Firstly, the Authority to Control Wildlife (cull) permit system is currently under review. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) have opened up submissions to the public, submissions close on June 29th 2018. The review discussion paper (https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/8625/1422 and https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/8315/2481/0498/ATCW_Review_Discussion_Paper-FINAL.pdf) is over 30 pages and may be overwhelming to some, especially if people feel they don't have sufficient background knowledge. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) and other wildlife interest groups have been working on 'cheat sheets', background information and a media release to help members of the public with their individual submissions and getting the word out about the review and other worrying proposals. The AWPC will have a finalised information document by Monday 11th June 2018, please contact the AWPC for a copy, it will help with your submissions.

1. We encourage everyone who cares about the plight of wildlife to make an individual submission. Submissions are made online here: https://engage.vic.gov.au/atcwreview

DELWP's 'Idea' to ban the rescue and rehab of 'over abundant species'
On page 31 of the ATCW review discussion paper it states the following regarding an idea 'someone in the community' had about banning the rescue and rehabilitation of 'over abundant' species:

'Not allowing the rehabilitation of Eastern Grey Kangaroos or other overabundant species.
Wildlife shelters and foster carers invest significant time and resources rehabilitating sick, injured and orphaned Eastern Grey Kangaroos. Given that the species is overabundant in many areas and is the species that the majority of ATCWs are issued for, some members of the community have suggested that the species should not be able to be rehabilitated under the wildlife shelter system. A restriction on rehabilitating Eastern Grey Kangaroos has been in place in the ACT for many years, as the species is overabundant in the territory and is subject to significant control activities to protect property and biodiversity values. While this is outside the scope of the ATCW review, it may be considered in future reviews of the wildlife shelter system, as it may save significant shelter resources and reduce the impact of the species on landholders. In this context, it may also be appropriate to consider whether the rehabilitation of unprotected wildlife, such as wombats, cockatoos or possums, should be disallowed or restricted to areas where such wildlife is not over-abundant (e.g. wombats found outside the parishes where the unprotection order applies)'

Whilst DELWP have distanced themselves from admitting they are seriously considering such a ban, they did publish the 'idea' on the discussion paper, they have mentioned such plans to wildlife shelters in the past and so it is very important that we express our strong outrage at such a prospect.

2. Wildlife groups have put together a press release to get the word out about the 'ban idea' in the media (attached), please feel free to use it and write letters to the editors, contact your local MPs, papers and make posts on social media.

The Truth about Funding
Not only is it untrue to say the money could be better spent elsewhere, it is misleading and suggests that wildlife rescue and rehab is funded by the state government. Wildlife shelters across the state share a measly $170,000 in grant funding in 2018. If wildlife shelter applicants are successful the grant is capped at $2000 per shelter per year, including a maximum of $1000 on food. So that is just $2000 per year to rescue, rehab and raise sick, injured and orphaned wildlife. The state government gives NO other funding to wildlife or wildlife volunteers. This includes looking after burnt animals from prescribed burns!

The grant program closed in Feb 2018 and we only heard back today (June 2018) whether we were successful or not. Not all shelters are given a yearly grant. Those who miss out continue to fully self fund or fundraise for their wildlife shelters.

This woefully inadequate amount of funding is further put into perspective when you consider the recent CSIRO research paper (attached) which estimates the true cost of rescue and rehab of wildlife to be $6 billion nationally. Also considering the Daniel Andrew's government is set to give the AFL $225 million to upgrade a football stadium, it is ridiculous to suggest that $170k shared to a lucky few statewide be better spent elsewhere!

Numbers of Kangaroos and 'Over abundant' Species
DELWP state that some species are 'over abundant' but have no real data on numbers. For e.g the yearly kangaroo count contracted out by DELWP ran for only 2 weeks and didn't count in all regions e.g. some areas of East Gippsland were not counted. They counted mainly from the air. We have attached an interesting article written by Peter Hylands (Creative Cowboy) that tells the truth about the government numbers.

It is also worth noting that the number of animals culled every year is published by DELWP (attached) the list of species and numbers are quite shocking. DELWP admit that they don't require ATCW (cull) permit holders to submit returns of the numbers of animals that are culled. We know that this means the actual numbers of wildlife being culled is probably many more than they are permitted to kill. So it begs the question of how accurate DELWP's 'data' is on numbers culled and whether this department is at all concerned about the accuracy of the data they publish. Why should be trust the kangaroo numbers from a 2 week aerial survey are correct when we know they publish incorrect cull numbers for the public to see?

3. Please share this information far and wide and feel free to contact the AWPC or other wildlife groups for more information. Contact the minister (lily.d’[email protected]) and the secretary of DELWP ([email protected]) and express your concerns, tell your friends and family, get it out to the media, discuss it with your local vet and get them on board.

Please have a voice on these important issues. If we don't protect habitat and wildlife we will damage the environment for the generations to come.

Kind regards,

Eve Kelly, Secretary

Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc.

Hi, we are Michael Bayliss and Rod Quantock from Sustainable Population Australia & our mission is to create a web series called 'Tough Crowd'.  This ‘first of its kind’ project will be made for Australians from all walks of life, especially those who are keen in participating in an open dialogue around one of the most interesting, complex and often controversial of issues: POPULATION.

Rod Quantock is a comedian of 50 years standing as well as a tireless front line environmental warrior.  Off the heels of the East West Link, campaign he has just finished his sold out stand up comedy show 'Happy Birthday To Me' for the Melbourne Comedy Festival. His many contributions to society have earned him a Medal of the Order of Australia.

Michael Bayliss is an environmental and social justice campaigner with a background in post growth economics and sustainable town planning.  He is also Communications Manager for Sustainable Population Australia  (SPA), a member driven environmental organization which works on many fronts to encourage informed public debate about how Australia and the world can achieve an ecologically, socially and economically sustainable population.

Population is an issue that affects each and every one of us, but it can be a thorny subject to talk about over the dinner table!  Many people have different opinions on the issue.  For example, should we be having small or large families?  How many people can Australia and our capital cities support?  Could we solve the problem by moving to the country or building more high rises in our cities?  Should we have open borders or should we review our migration policies?

'Tough Crowd' wants to explore all these tough questions and more.  Rod Quantock will host a series of four 10 minutes episodes as he interviews a range of Australian comedians and entertainers to discuss their own experiences and challenges around discussing the issue among their friends, family and the wider community.

'Tough Crowd' will also interview key members of the public who will offer unique viewpoints to this conversation.  Examples include people who have chosen not to have children and the reasons why they came to their decisions. This may also include overseas born people on their ideas on what Australia's migration policy should look like.  If the project expands, we would also be keen to interview politicians, refugees, and indigenous activists who have strong views on the issue. Further possibilities could include open discussions between child free people and those with large families and the reasons why they reached their decisions.

'Tough Crowd' will have a public screening in Melbourne followed by a publically available web series.  It is our mission that it is possible to have a conversation around population that is entertaining, laid back, insightful - and even funny! 

'Tough Crowd' is seeking funding to supplement the cost of video, sound and editing equipment, for the production of the video shoot, to financially compensate people being interviewed, venue hire for the series including the public screening and for advertising costs to promote the series.

We think this is a new and exciting project with much potential and possibility. We hope you think so too! We can't make this happen without the help the help of our supporters and kindly strangers alike, so we’d love to have you on board.

Most people lack the basic education in arithmetic, geography and logistics to judge whether they are overpopulated, to compare population densities between regions, to factor in import and export, and, most importantly, to understand how waste-disposal requires natural 'services' or to understand that they are themselves, microbiologically, a part of nature, but that each one of us now is extended into a kind of per capita earth moving and processing factory for creating dead stuff. This article evolved from a response to a quora question and appears in its original form here: [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cause-of-illiteracy-on-overpopulation/answer/Astrid-Nova]

The importance of different land-tenure systems which do or do not promote growth lobbies

My research tells me that illiteracy on overpopulation is mainly due to the fact that the financial beneficiaries of overpopulation also control the mainstream/corporate press, which constantly tells people that population growth causes economic growth and that the problem is not ‘overpopulation’ but ‘lack of infrastructure’. This cause of illiteracy is most prevalent in the Anglosphere where the system does not penalise land-speculation and does not see population growth as a cost to the state, but as a way of profiting in the private sector - notably in the property development and upstream and downstream industries, including land-sales, mining for materials, construction materials sales, development and construction finance, real-estate, housing construction and sales, furnishing etc.

Non-Anglosphere systems (typically Roman Law ones with Napoleonic Civil Codes in continental Europe) tend to penalise this kind of ‘growth’ (really wealth transfer) because it represents a cost to the state, because there the state subsidises finance for and carries out most land development and construction, keeping prices relatively low in a smaller private sector. Therefore, in those Roman Law systems, you don’t have much of a ‘growth lobby’ because there is a lack of focused beneficiaries. In the 2008 financial crash, for instance, France suddenly got a big debt because its banks invested in the US subprime system, which did not exist in France itself due to the nature of France’s property development and housing system.

In the Anglosphere settler states with strong property development growth lobbies and mass immigration, the government members, public servants and the opposition members and political parties, tend themselves to have accumulated huge land-banks and property finance interests. Usually these are concealed in shell companies that donate to an intermediary company that donates to the political party. These beneficiaries of the growth lobby make laws to promote their investment interests. Corporations also invest in the property development and population growth lobby. The corporate press has property dot coms, so they promote these private interests and constantly tell the public that population growth is a great thing for the economy. Public broadcasting also promotes this. Although observant people can tell that the cost of living is going up all the time and that mortgages are out of reach for many wage earners and nature is being paved over, it is hard for those of us who pay for this population growth, rather than profiting from it, to organise. That is because the propaganda is so effective that people simply look away from the obvious, having been told that that is not the problem.

Education and information fail to provide necessary skills for charity or politicians to judge what is happening

Most people have come to accept the idea that population grows out of control everywhere because this has been taught to them at school, in the media, by churches, and by demographers, who are not really population theory experts, but just accept the numbers and calculate on trends. The growth lobby beneficiaries are so wealthy and organised that they are able to place people on charity and welfare boards and on public broadcasting boards and behave as if they are doing a charitable act by offering advice to invest in property and not to criticise high immigration.

My references are Sheila Newman: The Growth Lobby in Australia and its Absence in France, Swinburne University, Australia or academia.edu. Also Demography Territory Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations Countershock Press, and, Demography Territory Law 2: Land-Tenure and the Rise of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press.

Doubling times

Another reason that people cannot make sense of what is happening is that they cannot understand population sizes or population doublings arithmetically. See Albert Bartlett videos or find online a doubling rate calculator. This is a deficiency of the education and information system.

Population density and environment

People also tend to fall for questionable comparisons between population densities in places with radically different environments, such as comparing the low population density per sq km of Australia with the high density per sq km of Holland. This kind of comparison ignores differences in land fertility, climate and terrain, such as the fact that Australia is quite densely settled in the fertile parts but that 35% is hot, sandy, salty desert and another 30% is arid range land.

Food production logistics

People also are not taught to look at the logistics of food production: They would otherwise factor in the role of importation of food and materials from colonies or poor countries, which can make a big population viable in a small tertiary economy with little land. This problem is well-modeled in the Ecological Footprint diagram which you could find by search-engining the term.

Dangerous ignorance: Waste processing logistics and addiction

The logistics of waste remain inaccessible to governments, business and citizens, to our peril: A large proportion of the world has to be left for food and materials production; you cannot cover this with cities. There are two very important arguments for preserving a very large part of the world for biodiverse nature, both quality and quantity.

The first reason is that nature is our heritage and wonderful and valuable in its own right.

The second reason is thermodynamic. Life is the only thing that reorganises diffuse energy into systems. It does this when it consumes food and then reorganises it to fuel and replace living cells and to create new organisms, via reproduction. Although waste is created in this process, according to the laws of thermodynamics, it is biological waste.

Unlike other life-forms, human life, unfortunately, creates more dead and disorganised (non-living) stuff per person than its own total biomass. So, we need a large, functioning natural world to process our disorganised material and toxic waste.

This excellent slide-show analyses medical waste, but the components of medical waste are the same as for most waste.

We should not forget that we are a part of nature; we are composed of systematised cells and viruses that function as our cells and organs. No wonder that when we think about losing nature, we feel terrible. Except where we have become obsessed with the idea of power and wealth, which are forms of addiction. And all creatures can become addicted to substances and rewards that feed the sensation that they are increasing their power or territory to a magical degree that will make them capable of overcoming reality. Currently our global economic systems reward this kind of delusion.

On Tuesday May 29 at 10:00am AEST, Boomerang Alliance and a small delegation of supporters in costumes with a 3 metre long Coke bottle will present the Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews at his electorate office in Noble Park with 12 large bags filled with beverage containers collected on tour as a token of the resounding message received from the people of Victoria - "We demand a container deposit scheme now!"

Travelling over 2500kms in April 2018, the Big Bottle visited 10 towns across the state asking Victorians their views on a container deposit scheme (CDS). Not only were people and local councils overwhelmingly in support, they readily expressed their frustration at the inactivity from successive governments.

Victoria will soon be the only mainland state without a 10 cents container deposit scheme. Victorians are calling on the state government to implement a container deposit legislation without further delay. A container deposit scheme will reduce litter, increase recycling rates, decrease the contamination rate and provide great fundraising opportunities for charity and community groups, especially in regional areas.

*Containers delivered will include plastic and aluminium containers only. All glass containers collected were recycled locally.

The Public Housing Defence Network is calling for the Opposition parties to support the Greens motion in Parliament on Wednesday 6 June 2018 to block the Andrews Governments Public Housing Renewal Programme (PHRP). The PHRP reduces Public Housing, displaces tenants, sells off public land to private developers and reduces open space and amenity, and will drive up homelessness. If you would like to stop the Andrews Government PHRP, please contact the Opposition MPs from Monday 28 May, by email, phone, or text. (See suggested letter and addresses inside.) Every action counts!

Here is a suggested text:

“Dear Parliamentarian,
I oppose the Andrews Government`s Public Housing Renewal Programme, and call on Parliamentarians to vote to block it in the Legislative Council of Parliament by disallowing the Planning Minister`s assumption of planning powers.”

Add your name, suburb. Preferably full address and phone, too.

Please phone or text these 4 Liberal politicians: Matthew Guy: 9651 6702; David Davis: 9827 6655; John Pesutto: 9882 4088; Georgie Crozier 9555 4101;
Plus one bulk email to all these Parliamentarians:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; edward.o'[email protected]; [email protected]; Luke.O'[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];

There may be a rally outside the office of Liberal MP David Davis or at Parliament in the lead up to the likely vote on Wednesday 6th June. See Public Housing Defense Network facebook page for details.

https://www.facebook.com/publichousingdefencenetwork/

Signed:
Public Housing Defence Network (PHDN)
Defend and Extend Public Housing (Australia)
Friends of Public Housing (Victoria)

My first memories are of when I was a tiny sapling amongst my contemporaries bordering the fence line of a sprawling four bedroom house, a house which was the height of fashion in architecture back then in 1912. It was a lovely environment for me to grow up in as it was for the children who lived in the house. They used to spend a lot of time with us outside, especially in the warmer months. They had a swing suspended with ropes from a branch of one of the larger trees. Mostly they took it in turns, but occasionally they would quarrel over whose turn it was next. One of the children built a tree house in that same tree and used to sit up on high, higher than I was, reading his favourite books and eating biscuits.

Eventually the children grew up and moved away but not before many happy social occasions in that garden which became more complex and beautiful as we smaller trees grew, spreading and intertwining our branches, casting a filigree shade on the lawn.

End of the first era

The day the house was sold, we all looked on with trepidation. The first couple who had bought it moved to another city after being there for nearly thirty years We had enjoyed this family who didn't make a lot of demands on us and included us in their alfresco entertainment, rarely causing any cuts or abrasions of our roots with the lawn mower.

The house was auctioned and we trees were an important part part of the marketing campaign! I was thrilled and proud. The older trees had acquired an absolute grandeur of scale with their straight trunks. Although I say it myself, I was a very attractive … with delicate blossoms in summer. I was developing a character of my own.

The house sold at auction for more than twice what "my family" had paid all those years ago. The new family had three children, already teenagers. We didn't see the same games played in the garden, but the children did spend a lot of time with us. The boys used to kick a football to one another, often bumping me in the same place on my trunk each time. It didn't really hurt, but was a little annoying. Despite this minor irritation, we were all good friends and co-existed happily. By this time I could see out into the street. I could not see over the house but, as I was near the fence, I had been looking out into the street for some time. It was interesting watching the passing trams, the cars, all in different colours, and the horse drawn vehicles. I came to know when the grey horse would pass by with ice for the ice chest inside our house and the brown horse hauling the bakers cart. They were happy days and I was never bored. I saw things slowly change over the next couple of decades. I no longer saw the horses, I saw more cars. The trams still rumbled along the track on the road.

Loss

One day I got a terrible shock! I had been very friendly with a eucalypt over our fence. He was about my age but quite a bit taller. He used to enjoy watching what went on in our garden and we would chat over the fence. On this terrible day there was an ear splitting noise. I saw a man aloft in the next door tree. He was cutting off the branches some of which fell on top of me and into our garden. The next door tree looked terrified and was moaning with pain. I didn't know what to do and felt paralysed with grief. My friend was being decimated before my eyes. It was my first loss.

I was sad when our first family left but I am a tree and I felt far more about losing a fellow tree than about people. Furthermore, I knew that our family was happy to be leaving, and were looking forward to new adventures. This loss of one of my kind, so sudden and unexpected, touched me at my very roots. Within an hour my friend was gone. I watched as, branch by branch, he disappeared and, finally, with a loud crack, he was felled to the ground. I was devastated, as were my contemporaries and the older trees. A silence fell in our garden for the next week. Gradually we started to talk and expressed our fears to one another. If this could happen to our neighbour what was to stop it happening to any of us?

Apart from this fear things did not feel the same without our friend and neighbour. We were in shock, in fact, especially me. For the next few months I looked over the fence to see what was happening, why my friend had been removed. Small green sprouts started to appear and by summer there were a number of red fruits, tomatoes The man next door pulled on some of the leaves sprouting out of the ground - carrots , things he seemed to value highly and collect in a wicker basket. I could see that this produce could not have been grown with a large tree over shadowing and taking up space but was it worth the sacrifice?

Acceptance

As years went by I got used to the new climate since our neighbour had been felled. I accepted the afternoon heat on my western side which had previously been shielded.

Decades went by. The view into the street was far busier but less varied and interesting . The cars became large and square, more like buses. The trams still rumbled by, but sported a different more streamlined look. My job of absorbing carbon dioxide became harder and I felt tired more often.

Under attack

Fast forward to 2018. The house was sold again. We trees were not at all a marketing feature this time. The board at the front showed an ominous red outline around all of us seen from above and in context with other neighbouring properties. We were in the firing line. I could see that. The red outline meant that all land within it could be utilised, built on, and be a rental earner. Auction day came. The property sold for $2.16 million. The house did not count at all. People hardly looked inside. This was land value only, and the value was 300 times that of the land and the brand new house back in 1912!

A feeling of doom come over me. I knew nobody would ever live in the house again. No children would ever again swing from our branches. There would be no more footballs kicked into my trunk, no more lazy summer afternoon parties in the shade of our branches.

The bulldozers arrived. I trembled to my deepest roots. One by one members of my family were cut down as had been my friend from next door all those years ago. This time it was devastation. By the end of the day, nothing was left but me standing right on the edge near the fence, alone. I was just a specimen, a reminder, a nod to what had been before.

As night fell, the cries of displaced possums reached me. Distress was in the air. My loneliness and fear were overwhelming. What was my future? What was going to surround me from now on?
The next day all was quiet. No work was done and rain fell on scars of what had been a haven in suburbia, a quiet place of contemplation. All was awash with gritty tears from a heavy sky.
A few days later the excavations began. Different coloured layers of clay were exposed as the earth that had supported my family of trees was discarded as a waste product of what was about to be constructed.

My fate

Now my roots are surrounded by concrete. I stand alone in an expanse of paving and concrete. I am dwarfed by a six storey block of apartments. Most of my view to the street is blocked by the width of this characterless edifice. It doesn't matter. I have lost interest as I have no company apart from two displaced magpies who now have nowhere to search for food.
It makes me think of an old song that I used to hear through the windows of the sprawling four bedroom house

"……nothing but acres of tar and cement…..where are the lilacs?…all of it's gone….."

We publish here correspondence with Frankston Council over residents' objections to unilateral replacement for bluestone toilet blocks with inferior and costly new ones. The bluestone bricks were not recycled within the council and it is not yet known where they have gone or who may have finished up with them. This toilet inquiry by locals has shown its use in focusing on a small but important unit and asking simple questions, which may yet educate a public more or less overwhelmed by the scale of the ongoing dismantling of Melbourne. The photographs show how well the toilet unit fits into the natural environment, because of the use of natural, almost unprocessed, materials.

Questions sent to the Councilors about reasons for replacement of these toilet blocks

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Mitchell wrote:

Dear Councillors,

Can you please provide a justification for replacing the blue stone toilet blocks on Seaford foreshore and advise what action is being taken to review this decision ASAP - as I have raised this issue now several times with you and your officers, and not one Councillor has responded.

Following are the reasons why this decision needs review - in short the official justification does not make sense, the new toilet so far suffers the following deficiencies:

1. There is no space to get changed. I use the current toilet blocks so my kids and I can get changed and wash up. The new blocks only allow one person to fit at a time.

2. They are a shared facility - i.e no urinals for the men, the floor and seat etc in such toilets end up covered in urine. The old toilets have proven in this and other ways to be cleaner than the new ones. I have NEVER seen the old ones dirty or full or rubbish like the new one are (over 18 years).

3. The new toilets are frequently locked. People have been checking this. The existing toilets are never locked. Is this a new model for Frankston? Toilets that are locked and therefore cannot be relied on, and thus not really of much use?

4. The argument about graffiti does not stack up to evidence - the bluestone toilet block at the end of Armstrongs has hardly any graffiti, so clearly they are not being graffitied or it can be cleaned off.

5. The new toilet blocks detract from the natural environment of the foreshore, they are overly high, garish in colour and design and not appropriate for this location.

6. The blue stone toilet blocks have historical value.

7. The argument that there should be a 'universal design language' suggest a standard design regardless of appropriateness to environment and context. When was the decision make to 'standardise' all the buildings in Frankston along these lines? Can you provide evidence and records of community consultation on the need for a 'universal design language' or was that not a democratic decision, but rather one made by Council officers?

8. I suggest that there are now sufficient facilities for disabled access in terms of toilets. In any case, the disabled toilet has been to my experience - and that of others - constantly locked, so is of little use in that respect.

9. We are in a period of global warming - replacing perfectly good and durable infrastructure unnecessarily is an irresponsible use of resources, and one the features of our unsustainable society that needs to change.

10. Frankston has many poor residents for which purposes money can be better spent than replacing perfectly good infrastructure rather than maintaining what is there.

This issue is clearly of interest to the community, as since I published an article on this the middle of last month, well over 3000 people have read it, and there has also been much discussion on facebook around this issue.

In short, can you please advise on what processes you are following to have this decision reviewed?

Looking forward to your prompt reply,

Regards,

Matthew Mitchell

Councilor Response

Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018, 11:38:36 pm AEST
Subject: Re: Answer on decisions to replace bluestone Toilet blocks

As for the other comments - I find the bluestone toilets to be, frankly, repugnant. For many reasons, many people associate the outdated bluestone model with substandard design. I personally have no interest in retaining the bluestone toilets; and I will not be pushing internally for a reversal on this approach.

I will get back to you on hours of operation re: toilets

Kris

The House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy will hold a public hearing tomorrow for its inquiry into the management and use of Commonwealth environmental water.

The Committee will hear from the National Farmers’ Federation and the National Irrigators’ Council.

The inquiry is focused on the role of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, including how environmental water is being used, the outcomes achieved and options for improving community engagement.

Further information about the inquiry can be found on the inquiry website at www.aph.gov.au/environmentalwater.

Public hearing details:
Time: 9.50am – 11.10am
Date: Wednesday 23 May 2018
Location: Committee Room 1R1, Parliament House, Canberra

Interested members of the public may wish to track the committee via the website, www.aph.gov.au/environment. Click on the blue ‘Track Committee’ button in the bottom right hand corner and use the forms to login to My Parliament or to register for a My Parliament account.

Well not really praise as such but, bear with me, while I justify wandering into this absurdity. I know it's difficult to say nice things about MP Craig Kelly, who claimed that people would die because renewables were raising electricity prices. He was perhaps unaware that the World Health Organisation in 2008 calculated that coal particulate pollution caused one million deaths across the world. And Tony Abbott who, between mouthfuls of onion, told us that coal was good for humanity - which was in opposition to both the Pope and the British Royal family's position - the two institutes he holds dear to his heart. Those are just two of 34 confirmed deniers in the LNP, although the Institute of Public Affairs claims half of the LNP members are supporters of their position.

Money and truth

That sounds like a lot of politicians on the wrong track (the US has 180 deniers in Congress!) and its certainly one of the reasons that action on climate change has stalled. But there are a total of 226 federal politicians in both houses, so what were the rest doing? Can 34 deniers be so powerful as to dominate an issue, or are these the nice guys who are actually honest enough to nail their colours to the mast and challenge their electorate to vote for them on the policies and their natural charm and charisma? And, as such, are they not more commendable than the other 192 so called “believers”, including Malcolm Turnbull, who promote or knowingly participate in the processes that are destroying the planets climate?

Which then prompts the question as to why on earth would we have a higher percentage of deniers in parliament than in the general public, and why are so many advocating or just accepting policies that harm the planet? Well, there is money, and lots of it, that comes from those who would like the government to continue with policies that benefit the donor at the expense of the environment. These donations are so important, and so potentially embarrassing, that the major parties have only been transparent with 10 to 20% of their disclosures. What we do know is that Fossil Fuel companies have declared donations of $968,343 to the ALP, Liberal and National parties in 2016-17, which was slightly down from the $1.03m donated in 2015-16 and $1.94m in 2014-15 (which was also a Federal election year).

https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-political-donations-there-is-so-much-we-dont-know-91003

The usefulness of economics in political ideology

However even the most cynical politician, one who depends on this source of money for re election, would baulk at supporting some of the improprieties we have had thrust upon us by successive governments, unless there was some way to quell his/her distaste for their parties' actions. One way this can occur is via embracing a particular ideology - which by definition is a system of beliefs and ideals which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. As such, it's not all that different to its equivalent in religion – faith – as both tend to smother reasoning lest it lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Ideology plays a big part in how political parties and governments function, largely because aspiring politicians can't get endorsement without supporting the parties' theories and must then ‘tow the party line’ or risk dis-endorsement. But it does mean that a minority group can usurp control of a party, something that has occurred in all parties: The modern Liberal is nothing like the Menzies model which was high tax, (by today's standard) protectionist on trade, big on regulation, and ran with a budget surplus and low unemployment (2.2%). The Labor party was instinctively socialist until Paul Keating embraced Milton Frieberg's fantasies with the result that we have two mainstream parties of the right with the Liberal party pushed into the hard right effectively destroying the moderates (wets) and handing power to the ultra conservatives. Barry Jones the former ALP science minister described this as "political compaction," giving voters a choice between McDonald's and KFC.

And when it comes to ideology economics is a star performer. No matter what political camp, be it neo conservative, (hard right) neo liberal, (center right to center left), socialism or communism, economics rules, and does so without a soul, because its criteria for assessment is reduced down to a single figure called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Governments of the world assume that this one statistic can show whether things are getting better or worse despite the occasional hic-up like the Global Financial Crises. Yet as a measurement it was only adopted in the war years when production (of war material) was the key to winning the war. It did not measure human health, education, poverty, unemployment or environmental damage because the war took precedence over all the things that make up human well being. As a result today's governments will still prioritize policies or projects that will add to GDP, especially if it does so in the governments term of office. They can also virtually ignore those things that are not measured in financial terms and this includes damage to human health or the environment which are dismissed as being “externalities” of lesser importance than its contribution to “the economy” .

Nobel family rejected economics for inclusion in Nobel Prize

Economists (and to a lesser extent politicians) are so obsessed with this they have described GDP as one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century - and they have a point. Because now there is something definitive to give them credibility as policy makers and guardians of wisdom even though there is no correlation between GDP and wellbeing. To enhance this self appointed credibility and to justify all the absurdities they inflict upon us, economists usurped the prestige associated with the Nobel prize which as you may know was an initiative of Alfred Nobel back in 1901. The awards were issued for Chemistry, Physics, Literature, Medicine and Peace, there was no prize for economics mentioned in Alfred Nobel’s will. This didn’t materialise until 1968, when the Swedish Central Bank wanted to do something special for its 300th birthday. It made a donation to the Nobel Foundation to sponsor a prize and to make it more acceptable they called it a prize for ‘economic sciences’. Since the economics prize is announced at the same ceremony it is virtually indistinguishable from the others but the Nobel family estate didn’t approve so at the family’s insistence, the prize was given the name it has – the Sveriges Riksbank Prize given ‘in memory of’ Alfred Nobel, and not a true Nobel prize. Which is just as well since Nobel specified that his prizes should go to people who’s work has “conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”. That’s relatively easy to decide a winner in the traditional sciences, but the economic prize has often gone to people with completely opposing views. One recipient, Myron Scholes the 1997 winner, will forever be remembered by the failure of his hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) which collapsed in 1998 losing $US4.6 billion of investment.

Like any Nobel, the prize gives economists a stamp of approval in the mind of the general public, legitimising their entire philosophy. Of the 74 laureates so far, 28 are affiliated with the University of Chicago, the home of neoliberalism including Milton Friedman and Friedrick Hayek (architects of what become known as Reaganomics - deregulation, and the trickle down effect which double the US national debt) but even Hayek expressed doubt about the award saying:

“If I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it. The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”

Economic absurdities and political policies

This does not matter in science where the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly on his fellow experts - and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But economist have influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public, which gives them undeserved authority that is often used to override warnings from almost all other avenues, including scientific bodies. John Howard once remarked that “we could grow forever,” later admitting that we would need to rely on imported food to do so. Larry Summers, a former adviser to President Obama, stated, "The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error, and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs." It is a comment often repeated, despite being contrary to even basic mathematics, and was justified by referring to growth as being “sustainable”. When this was seen to be an oxymoron the wordsmiths produced an alternative, environmental problems can be “decoupled” - that is isolated - from growth, and even from population growth. There is no doubt that this form of economics, with its obsession with an ever expanding economy and dubious accounting, has been a great benefit for corporations like the fossil fuel industry. But it is also partially or wholly responsible for most of problems that now beset the world, including plastic pollution in oceans, air pollution in cities, the obesity pandemic, the collapse of coral reefs, and all the threats associated with catastrophic climate change. All so much different from a previous age, when President Kennedy was said to have had a plaque on his desk with the message, “The Buck Stops Here,” meaning that responsibility lies with those in power. Oddly enough the last time Australia had a prime minister who took responsibility for his mistakes was when Kevin Rudd admitted we could not meet his GHG reduction targets because of the population growth he had championed. And his Big Australia dream is still alive and well in the major political parties as well as the Greens.

Don Owers

"In an irresponsible and callous move and buried in the discussion paper of the Authority To Control Wildlife Review, the Daniel Andrews’ Government has signalled interest in adopting a policy that will see ALL sick, injured and orphaned kangaroos, wombats, possums and cockatoos KILLED instead of rescued and rehabilitated. This short-sighted and catastrophic policy may act to drive wildlife carers underground and will see members of the public refusing to hand over animals to vets and shelters in the fear that joeys and saveable animals will be automatically killed, resulting in horrendous and widespread animal suffering." (Helen Round, Wildlife carer, Macedon Ranges, Victoria.)

Text of letter to media

As one of the wildlife carers in Victoria, who shoulders much of the cost and responsibility of caring for sick, orphaned and injured wildlife in Victoria, I am writing to you because of a recent horrific proposal coming from the Andrews' State Government that could force Victorian wildlife carers to kill all healthy, saveable and viable kangaroos, wombats, possums and cockatoos that come in to care.

It’s a tough life being a volunteer. Apart from the exhausting, relentlessly routine physical work involved in wildlife rehabilitation, (cleaning pens & feed bins, round the clock feeding schedules), there’s the financial outlay on items like feeding equipment, cloth pouches, towels, fencing materials, veterinary medications, petrol and electricity bills.

Wildlife carers – who are mostly overtired, under resourced and overstretched women – are currently fighting a state government proposal that will result in mass animal deaths and horrific and widespread animal suffering. But, we need to be visible to be effective and that is why I am writing to you.

Authority to control wildlife - culling abuses

In an irresponsible and callous move and buried in the discussion paper of the Authority To Control Wildlife Review, the Daniel Andrews’ Government has signalled interest in adopting a policy that will see ALL sick, injured and orphaned kangaroos, wombats, possums and cockatoos KILLED instead of rescued and rehabilitated. This short-sighted and catastrophic policy may act to drive wildlife carers underground and will see members of the public refusing to hand over animals to vets and shelters in the fear that joeys and saveable animals will be automatically killed, resulting in horrendous and widespread animal suffering.

As they rescue and rehabilitate injured and orphaned wildlife, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, hundreds, if not thousands, of trained, experienced and self-funded volunteer wildlife carers and rescuers provide a service to the community that the public expect and the government fails to and cannot hope to provide.

Shockingly, volunteers fund all wildlife rescue and rehabilitation from their own pockets with no funding from the state government apart from a tokenistic and inadequate annual wildlife shelter grant system. Yet the Andrews’ Government is planning to deprive the community of this invaluable service, declaring that it is too costly to raise these animals and that they want to free up shelter resources. This is a cynical and disingenuous ploy and an insulting falsehood from a government who does not fund wildlife rescue and rehabilitation and support a raft of policies that are detrimental to wildlife across all sectors.

No one else can give the same level of service with the commitment, dedication and efficiency that existing volunteer wildlife carers and rescuers provide. No Government budget would be big enough and no department would be competent enough to achieve the same outcomes.

As carers and rescuers, we are committed to rescuing injured animals and we will continue to rescue and euthanise when necessary but, we will not become Daniel Andrew’s ‘killing machines’ to slaughter viable and healthy animals. We will not facilitate a policy that is morally corrupt and that has no scientific merit.

It is incomprehensible that politicians and bureaucrats have not considered the psychological impact these cruel policies will have on wildlife rescuers, carers and veterinarians who will be expected to kill viable animals, let alone the impact on members of the community who also encounter wildlife in need.

The fate of Victoria’s native wildlife is in the hands of a mega-department with interests that conflict with flora and fauna conservation and that is actively working to harm and exploit wildlife for political and economic gain.

I want to ask everyone to contact Victorian parliamentarians and remind them that wildlife and wildlife volunteers are valued, that Australia has the highest rate of mammalian extinction on the planet and that all ‘threatened’ and ‘extinct species’ were once considered ‘common and secure’.

A plan to build a massive hydropower dam in Sumatra as part of China’s immense Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) threatens the habitat of the rarest ape in the world, which has only 800 remaining members. It is time for a clarion call for greater caution. While led by China, the BRI will also involve large financial commitments from more than 60 nations that are parties to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, including Australia and many other Western nations. (Article republished from https://theconversation.com/china-backed-sumatran-dam-threatens-the-rarest-ape-in-the-world-95874 at The Conversation.)

The plan to build a massive hydropower dam in Sumatra as part of China’s immense Belt and Road Initiative threatens the habitat of the rarest ape in the world, which has only 800 remaining members.

This is merely the beginning of an avalanche of environmental crises and broader social and economic risks that will be provoked by the BRI scheme.

Read more:
How we discovered a new species of orangutan in northern Sumatra

The orangutan’s story began in November 2017, when scientists made a stunning announcement: they had discovered a seventh species of Great Ape, called the Tapanuli Orangutan, in a remote corner of Sumatra, Indonesia.

In an article published in Current Biology today, my colleagues and I show that this ape is perilously close to extinction – and that a Chinese-sponsored megaproject could be the final nail in its coffin.

Ambitious but ‘nightmarishly complicated’

The BRI is an ambitious but nightmarishly complicated venture, and far less organised than many believe. The hundreds of road, port, rail, and energy projects will ultimately span some 70 nations across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific region. It will link those nations economically and often geopolitically to China, while catalysing sweeping expansion of land-use and extractive industries, and will have myriad knock-on effects.

Up to 2015, the hundreds of BRI projects were reviewed by the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, which is directly under China’s State Council. Many observers have assumed that the NDRC will help coordinate the projects, but the only real leverage they have is over projects funded by the big Chinese policy banks – the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China – which they directly control.

Most big projects – many of which are cross-national – will have a mix of funding from various sources and nations, meaning that no single entity will be in charge or ultimately responsible. An informed colleague in China describes this model as “anarchy”.

Tapanuli Orangutan

The dangerous potential of the BRI becomes apparent when one examines the Tapanuli Orangutan. With fewer than 800 individuals, it is one of the rarest animals on Earth. It survives in just a speck of rainforest, less than a tenth the size of Sydney, that is being eroded by illegal deforestation, logging, and poaching.

All of these threats propagate around roads. When a new road appears, the ape usually disappears, along with many other rare species sharing its habitat, such as Hornbills and the endangered Sumatran Tiger.

The most imminent threat to the ape is a US$1.6 billion hydropower project that Sinohydro (China’s state-owned hydroelectric corporation) intends to build with funding from the Bank of China and other Chinese financiers. If the project proceeds as planned, it will flood the heart of the ape’s habitat and crisscross the remainder with many new roads and powerline clearings.

It’s a recipe for ecological Armageddon for one of our closest living relatives. Other major lenders such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank aren’t touching the project, but that isn’t slowing down China’s developers.

What environmental safeguards?

China has produced a small flood of documents describing sustainable lending principles for its banks and broad environmental and social safeguards for the BRI, but I believe many of these documents are mere paper tigers or “greenwashing” designed to quell anxieties.

According to insiders, a heated debate in Beijing right now revolves around eco-safeguards for the BRI. Big corporations (with international ambitions and assets that overseas courts can confiscate) want clear guidelines to minimise their liability. Smaller companies, of which there are many, want the weakest standards possible.

The argument isn’t settled yet, but it’s clear that the Chinese government doesn’t want to exclude its thousands of smaller companies from the potential BRI riches. Most likely, it will do what it has in the past: issue lofty guidelines that a few Chinese companies will attempt to abide by, but that most will ignore.

Stacked deck

There are three alarming realities about China, of special relevance to the BRI.

First, China’s explosive economic growth has arisen from giving its overseas corporations and financiers enormous freedom. Opportunism, graft and corruption are embedded, and they are unlikely to yield economically, socially or environmentally equitable development for their host nations. I detailed many of these specifics in an article published by Yale University last year.

Second, China is experiencing a perfect storm of trends that ensures the harsher realities of the BRI are not publicly aired or even understood in China. China has a notoriously closed domestic media – ranked near the bottom in press freedom globally – that is intolerant of government criticism.

Beyond this, the BRI is the signature enterprise of President Xi Jinping, who has become the de-facto ruler of China for life. Thanks to President Xi, the BRI is now formally enshrined in the constitution of China’s Communist Party, making it a crime for any Chinese national to criticise the program. This has had an obvious chilling effect on public discourse. Indeed, I have had Chinese colleagues withdraw as coauthors of scientific papers that were even mildly critical of the BRI.

Third, China is becoming increasingly heavy-handed internationally, willing to overtly bully or covertly pull strings to achieve its objectives. Professor Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University has warned that Australia has become a target for Chinese attempts to stifle criticism.

Remember the ape

It is time for a clarion call for greater caution. While led by China, the BRI will also involve large financial commitments from more than 60 nations that are parties to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, including Australia and many other Western nations.

Read more:
China’s growing footprint on the globe threatens to trample the natural world

We all have a giant stake in the Belt and Road Initiative. It will bring sizeable economic gains for some, but in nearly 40 years of working internationally, I have never seen a program that raises more red flags.

Greensbush Association is screening the new international film about Kangaroos in Australia at 5.30pm May 25th at Main Ridge Community Hall, Main Creek Road, Main Ridge, (Mornington Peninsular) Victoria. This film has been screened and reviewed widely around the world to stunned reviews and I have not found any negative ones. It is not so well known in Australia, of course, because it challenges what governments and corporate press have to say about kangaroos. The Association screening this film is named after Greensbush Mornington Peninsular National Park, which is one of few places where kangaroos might now dwell in comparative safety, were it not for people on neighboring properties who treat them like pests and the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning which encourages this redneck approach to wildlife. Victorians will be concerned to hear that this film tells how the West Australian Commercial Kangaroo Meat industry is running out of kangaroos and planning to open up in Victoria. Of course the grubby Victorian Government is looking for any excuse to get rid of our wildlife. Turn up to this film-screening and maybe you can network with fellow wildlife warriors. The kangaroos need all the help they can get. If you doubt this, check the film out. Donations to cover the cost of the film and venue hire. All welcome! Map to venue at end of article. You can hire this film, host a screening, from kangaroothemovie.com.

"Essentially, the film examines how the roo industry - both for meat and skin - has stealthily and very profitably capitalised on two words - “pest” and “plague” - to run itself in a chaotic, slipshod, unhygienic, inhumane and seriously under-regulated fashion. We are introduced to whistle-blowers, activists and politicians who are advocating not so much for revolution as transparency, while farmers and industry reps are also given their say.

The film does have a point of view, though, and a strong one, and will doubtless cause some consternation among those who don’t want their ways challenged. The thing that shines through, however, is the integrity of the McIntyres: they didn’t set out to challenge an industry, they simply learned about it, and what they learned, we all, as Australians who love Skippy, need to know." ("Nightlife," http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/nightlife/cj/9546930)

"To avoid a nonstop focus on bloodshed, “Kangaroo” occasionally offers up images of the outback and drone footage of wild animals in their habitats. Those can be breathtaking. Yet the filmmakers, to their credit, don’t flinch from stomach-turning sights. This film isn’t always pretty, but its message is necessary." (New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/movies/kangaroo-a-love-hate-story-review.html)

Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities. On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from. [Article first Published May 13, 2018 at "Information Clearing House"]

Ecuador Hints it May Hand Over Julian Assange to Britain and the US

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange.

If Assange falls into the hands of the British state, he faces being turned over to the US. Last year, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that putting Assange on trial for espionage was a “priority.” CIA director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, asserted that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

In 2010, WikiLeaks courageously published information leaked by then Private Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning that exposed war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks also published, in partnership with some of the world’s major newspapers, tens of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, exposing the daily anti-democratic intrigues of US imperialism and numerous other governments.

For that, Assange was relentlessly persecuted by the Obama administration. By November 2010, it had convened a secret grand jury and had a warrant issued for his arrest on charges of espionage—charges that can carry the death sentence. The then Labor Party government in Australia headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard threw Assange, an Australian citizen, to the wolves. It refused to provide him any defence and declared it would work with the US to have him detained and put on trial.

On June 19, 2012, under conditions in which he faced extradition to Sweden to answer questions over fabricated allegations of sexual assault, and the prospect of rendition to the United States, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Since that time, for nearly six years, he has been largely confined to a small room with no direct sunlight. He has been prevented from leaving, even to obtain medical treatment, by the British government’s insistence it will arrest him for breaching bail as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy.

Now, for six weeks and three days, he has been denied even the right to communicate.

Jennifer Robinson, the British-based Australian lawyer who has represented Assange since 2010, told the London Times in an interview this month: “His health situation is terrible. He’s had a problem with his shoulder for a very long time. It requires an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging scan], which cannot be done within the embassy. He’s got dental issues. And then there’s the long-term impact of not being outside, his visual impairment. He wouldn’t be able to see further than from here to the end of this hallway.”

The effort to haul Assange before a US court is inseparable from the broader campaign underway by the American state and allied governments to impose sweeping censorship on the Internet. Lurid allegations of “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US election and denunciations of “fake news” have been used to demand that Google, Facebook and other conglomerates block users from accessing websites that publish critical commentary and exposures of the ruling class and its agencies—including WikiLeaks and the World Socialist Web Site.

WikiLeaks has been absurdly denounced as “pro-Russia” because it published leaks from the US Democratic Party National Committee that revealed the anti-democratic intrigues the party’s leaders carried out to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary elections. It also published leaked speeches of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that further exposed her intimate relations with Wall Street banks and companies.

As part of the justification for Internet censorship, US intelligence agencies allege, without any evidence, that the information was hacked by Russian operatives and supplied to WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton and assist Trump—whom Moscow purportedly considered the “lesser evil.”

In response to the hysterical allegations, WikiLeaks broke its own tradition of not commenting on its sources. It publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks. That has not prevented the campaign from continuing, with Assange even being labelled “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” in pro-Democratic Party circles. WikiLeaks is blamed for Clinton’s defeat, not the reality, that tens of millions of American workers were repulsed by her right-wing, pro-war campaign and refused to vote for her.

Under conditions in which the Ecuadorian government has capitulated to great power pressure and is collaborating with British and US agencies to break Julian Assange, there is an almost universal and reprehensible silence on the part of dozens of organisations and hundreds of individuals who once claimed to defend him and WikiLeaks.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in February 2016 condemned Assange’s persecution as “a form of arbitrary detention” and called for his release, has issued no statement on his current situation.

In Britain, the Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn have said nothing on the actions by Ecuador. Nor have they opposed the determination of the Conservative government to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy.

In Australia, the current Liberal-National government and Labor leadership are just as complicit. The Greens, which claimed to oppose the persecution of Assange, have not made any statement in parliament or issued a press release, let alone called for public protests. Hundreds of editors, journalists, academics, artists and lawyers across the country who publicly defended WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 are now mute.

A parallel situation prevails across Europe and in the US. The so-called parties of the “left” and the trade unions are all tacitly endorsing the vicious drive against Assange.

Around the world, the Stalinist and Pabloite pseudo-left organisations, anxious not to disrupt their sordid relations with the parties of the political establishment and the trade union apparatuses, are likewise silent.

The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International unconditionally defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If the ruling elite can haul him before a court, it will hold him up as an example of what happens to those who speak out against social inequality, militarism, war and police-state measures. His prosecution would be used to try to intimidate and silence all dissent.

If Assange is imprisoned or worse, and WikiLeaks shut down, it will be a serious blow to the democratic rights of the entire international working class.

Workers and young people should join with the WSWS and ICFI in demanding and fighting for the immediate freedom of Julian Assange.

There is in fact a Middle Eastern nation that is in fact in control of a vast, undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. This nation does have the capability of deploying those weapons anywhere in the region. It is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its arsenal has never been inspected by any international agency. But this nation is not Iran. It's Israel. (James Corbett)

The Transcript below has been republished from https://www.corbettreport.com/israelinukes/
TRANSCRIPT

DONALD TRUMP: I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. In a few moments I will sign a presidential memorandum to begin reinstating US nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime. We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction.

SOURCE: President Trump Gives Remarks on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

When President Trump announced that the US was going to de-certify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, and reinstitute sanctions on that country, one of the reasons he cited for that move was the presentation of “new” evidence from Israeli intelligence showing that the Iranians had lied about its nuclear program during the negotiation of that deal.

TRUMP: Last week Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran conclusively showing the Iranians regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: A few weeks ago, in a great intelligence achievement, Israel obtained half a ton of the material inside these vaults. And here’s what we got; 55,000 pages. Another 55,000 files on 183 CDs. Everything you’re about to see is an exact copy of the original Iranian material

SOURCE: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives statement on Iran Nuclear Deal

Theatrical props and dramatic rhetoric aside, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent presentation on the “Iranian nuclear deal” in fact contained no new information.

That Iran had explored a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003 has been known and admitted for years. That they have an archive of this information is not a violation of the Iranian nuclear deal completed in 2015. In fact, if anything, Netanyahu’s presentation actually proved the exact opposite of what was intended: Namely, that Iran is abiding by the terms of that treaty and is not covertly pursuing any nuclear weapons activity. That’s why they had to go back to 15 year old information and present it as if it was something new and revelatory.

But here’s the real head-scratcher in this new round of propaganda over the Iranian nuclear non-threat: There is in fact a Middle Eastern nation that is in fact in control of a vast, undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. This nation does have the capability of deploying those weapons anywhere in the region. It is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its arsenal has never been inspected by any international agency. But this nation is not Iran. It’s Israel.

This is the story of the real Middle East Nuclear Threat. You’re watching The Corbett Report.

Hand-wringing over Iran’s nuclear program is nothing new. It became a mainstay of western political discourse after an Iranian dissident revealed the Iranian government’s plans for a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in August 2002. But the surprising fact for Americans and others around the world who get their information from the corporate mainstream media, is that Iran’s pre-2003 nuclear weapons program has long been known and admitted. Since 2003, when the program was scrapped, not a single piece of evidence has been presented (not even by Netanyahu or the Israeli government) that the Iranian government ever pursued anything other than what it said it was pursuing: a nuclear energy program.

Not that that fact has ever stopped Netanyahu from using any opportunity to use cartoon-level propaganda tactics to convince the world otherwise:

NETANYAHU: In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium. The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium. And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Where’s Iran? Iran’s completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they’re 70% of the way there.

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Ladies and gentlemen, what I told you now is not based on secret information. It’s not based on military intelligence. It’s based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They’re online.

So if these are the facts, and they are, where should the red line be drawn?

The red line should be drawn right here. Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb. Before Iran gets to a point where it’s a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

Each day, that point is getting closer. That’s why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that’s why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

SOURCE: Israel PM Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu Address to United Nations Sept 27, 2012

Of course, Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and Netanyahu’s Wile E. Coyote bomb and red line warnings bore no greater semblance to reality than the cartoon propaganda surrounding Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction.” Not only did the IAEA repeatedly confirm that Iran never diverted any nuclear material into any military program, but even the US intelligence community itself conceded that Iran was not trying to build a nuclear bomb. Most remarkable of all was Mossad’s own assessment that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.”

As I detailed earlier this year in “We Need to Talk About the Iran Protests,” fearmongering over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program was the basis for an extraordinary series of measures against the country in recent decades. These measures included “NITRO ZEUS,” a full-scale military cyberattack against Iran the best-known element of which was Stuxnet, the military-grade cyberweapon co-developed by the United States and Israel that specifically targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.

Iran’s non-existent nuclear program also provided the pretext for sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s economy, including the de-listing of Iranian banks from the Swift Network connecting the world’s financial institutions.

The fearmongers even went so far as to plant evidence of nuclear weapons involvement on Iran to further justify these attacks.

But the great irony is that there really is a nuclear armed nation in the Middle East. It is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It does not allow inspections of its arsenal. It does not even officially acknowledge its stockpile of nuclear weapons. It has even resisted the push for an international treaty recognizing a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. And that country is Israel.

Sometimes ranked as the world’s sixth largest nuclear superpower, Israel actively pursued a nuclear program from the time of its inception as a state in 1948. By the late 1950s, they had begun building a reactor and reprocessing plant at Dimona with British and French aid. And by 1967, a classified CIA report estimated that Israel would be capable of producing a nuclear warhead in “six to eight weeks.” Shortly thereafter, it is believed, Israel began producing and stockpiling a nuclear arsenal.

OLENKA FRENKIEL: It was the young Shimon Peres, back in the fifties who negotiated a secret deal with the French to buy a nuclear weapons reactor like theirs. But while Dimona was going up, intelligence reports reached Washington that Israel was building an atom bomb.

Despite claims that Dimona was for peaceful purposes only, Israel’s leader Ben Gurion was summoned to Washington. President Kennedy feared an arms race in the Middle East and demanded inspections. But when inspectors finally entered the plant in May 1961 they were tricked. They were shown a fake control room on the ground floor. They were unaware of the six floors below where the plutonium was made.

PETER HOUNAM, Freelance journalist: Well this was something of great pride and almost a legendary story in Dimona, according to Vanunu. When the Americans came they were completely hoodwinked. All the entrances including the lift shafts were bricked up and plastered over so it was impossible for anyone to find their way down to the lower floors.

FRENKIEL: After Kennedy’s assassination the pressure on Israel was off. His successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye. Then In 1969 Israel’s Golda Meir and President Richard Nixon struck a deal, renewed by every President to this day. Israel’s nuclear programme could continue as long as it was never made public. It’s called “nuclear ambiguity.”

The term “nuclear ambiguity,” in some ways it sounds very grand. But isn’t just a euphemism for deception?

SHIMON PERES, Former Prime Minister of Israel: If somebody wants to kill you, and you use a deception to save your life it is not immoral. If we wouldn’t have enemies we wouldn’t need deceptions. We wouldn’t need deterrent.

FRENKIEL: Was this the justification for concealing the floors of the plutonium reprocessing areas from the Americans, the inspectors, when they came?

PERES: You are having a dialogue with yourself, not with me.

FRENKIEL: But that’s been documented in a number of books.

PERES: Ask the question to yourself, not to me.

FRENKIEL: I mean, is it not true?

PERES: I don’t have to answer your questions, even. I don’t see any reason why.

FRENKIEL: Ambiguity is a luxury unique to Israel. Today the country’s an inspection-free zone, protected from scrutiny by America and her allies.

SOURCE: Israel’s Secret Weapon

Although estimates vary, it is now believed that Israel has somewhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads, and that it possesses the capability to deliver these warheads to Iran.

The existence of this stockpile, while known to governments around the world for decades, was only revealed to the public in 1986, when The Sunday Times published photographic proof and a detailed account of Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program. That story was provided by Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Dimona facility, who spent decades behind bars for his part in revealing this truth to the world.

NARRATOR: On October 5th, 1986, The Sunday Times announced they had evidence to prove that Israel had become the world’s sixth biggest nuclear power, having developed their arsenal beneath the Negev desert at Dimona. Photographs like this were given to the Sunday Times by a former technician at Dimona, Mordechai Vanunu.

[…]

Mordechai Vanunu’s family, Moroccan Jews, settled in the Negev in the early 60s, inspired by the idea of being a part of Israel. Vanunu did national service in the army. Then, while he worked at Dimona he began studying philosophy. He became active in student politics. He opposed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Vanunu came to believe that Israel’s nuclear development program was immoral. He left Damona and, eventually, Israel itself.

Vanunu arrived in Sydney armed with photographs he’d taken inside Dimona. Here, he turned his back on Judaism and became a Christian. He met Oscar Guerrero, a Colombian journalist who urged him to sell his secrets to The Sunday Times. His evidence was processed at a local photo shop. Vanunu talked openly about what he’d done.

It’s said that by the time Vanunu arrived in London on September the 12th, 1986, Australian intelligence had already alerted MI6 and the CIA, and Mossad—Israeli intelligence—had already begun questioning his family in Israel. The Sunday Times disguised their informant and moved him from place to place for protection. But in Leicester Square one day, Vanunu met a blonde who called herself “Cindy,” a beautician from Florida. Meanwhile, Oscar Guerrero, eager to profit from what he knew, turned to The Sunday Mirror. Vanunu’s photograph appeared on page one. Vanunu began to despair. At this point, Cindy was able to lure him to Rome to sp end the weekend with her at her sister’s apartment. Not once did Vanunu suspect that Cindy was a Mossad agent and that this was the beginning of a plot to kidnap him.

In Rome, the tactics of the Mossad agents changed dramatically.

MEIR VANUNU: In the apartment, two Israeli agents attacked him and bit him and strangled him really hard. And then chained him, injected drugs [in]to his body. And later on he woke up in a small cell on a boat. The boat went to Israel for a few days and he arrived to Israel on the 7th of October, 1986.

Vanunu was assumed dead until he turned up weeks later in Tel Aviv. Vanunu himself, on his way to court, gave the first clue of what had happened to him. Scrawled on his hand was the message “Vanunu was hijacked from Rome, Italy. 30.9.86. BA 504.”

SOURCE: Vanunu’s exposure of Israels nuclear program

But a key element of the story is missing from the handful of documentaries that acknowledge Israel’s nuclear stockpile. Namely, that these weapons were not merely developed by Israeli scientists working in isolation, but with the aid of a nuclear smuggling ring that helped develop and advance Israel’s arsenal by stealing important nuclear technologies from their “ally,” the United States. These rings and their activities have been known about and even investigated by the FBI for decades, but largely kept secret from the public.

It has fallen to researchers like Grant F. Smith of IRMEP.org, author of Divert!: NUMEC, Zalman Shapiro and the diversion of US weapons grade uranium into the Israeli nuclear weapons program, to piece together the story from the documents that have been released. On The Corbett Report in 2012, Smith revealed the name of one of the high-powered Israeli officials who was at the heart of a plot in the 1970s to smuggle 800 nuclear triggers from the United States.

GRANT F. SMITH: In terms of the FBI uncovering a multi-node network, this one happened to be centered in California. MILCO was a company that was incorporated in 1972 by a man named Richard Kelly Smyth. He was discovered sending 800 krytrons, which are dual-use items that could be used to trigger nuclear weapons. When he was discovered doing that, he skipped bail in the mid-1980s and disappeared until he was picked up by Interpol in the early part of 2000.

And so the story is interesting and explosive, because after multiple attempts and denials we had a document release in which the key contact, or one of the key contacts that Smyth was meeting with to set up sales in Israel was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. And so the document—which I’m kind of holding up right here for the people who are on video—actually names Benjamin Netanyahu as being an employee of Heli Trading Company, which was the node in Israel that would receive Ministry of Defense requisitions that they would pass on to MILCO.

And so the interesting thing about this, of course, is the high-profile nature of Benjamin Netanyahu, [and] the fact that the smuggling ring ring leader has been identified as Arnon Milchan, a person any American knows for his movie productions such as Pretty Woman and other favorites, who is running this and who a recent book has named as being a top economic espionage fly a spy for LAKAM, who worked under Benjamin Bloomberg and Rafi Eitan. But the FBI documents that we published on July 4th related to an antiwar.com story which was really short and direct. And its core focus was on the fact that in a period when Netanyahu was building himself up as a leader in the terrorism industry—hosting major conferences, having just returned from his studies in the United States, hosting major conferences in the Jonathan Netanyahu Terrorism Institute, named after his brother who was killed on the Raid on Entebbe.

Here’s a person who was supposed to be working as a furniture company executive, and yet these documents which are very credible because of what they were—which is testimony from Richard Kelly Smith after he was returned his exile overseas and finally forced serve a prison sentence. These were the statements he made to an FBI agent in a district attorney office when they debriefed and wanted to know what the extent of the nuclear technology smuggling network was and—boom!—there’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

SOURCE: Corbett Report Radio 214 – Israel’s Nuclear Smuggling with Grant F. Smith

Benjamin Netanyahu. And now this unindicted nuclear smuggler is lecturing Iran about a 15 year old, long-acknowledged nuclear weapons program that never produced a single nuclear weapon.

Even more worryingly, Israel’s nuclear knowledge has not only helped to arm its own nation, but actually helped to proliferate nuclear weapons to Pakistan through the so-called Khan network. One of the men who helped to transfer the nuclear triggers used in the construction of the Pakistani bomb was Asher Karni, an orthodox Jew living in South Africa who had been a major in the Israeli army prior to emigrating to Cape Town. Upon his arrival there in 1985, he began teaching Torah at the local synagogue and educating Jewish youth, encouraging them to relocate to Israel.

In 2004, U.S. authorities arrested Karni for his role in supplying the nuclear triggers and in 2005 he was sentenced to three years in prison. It has never been officially explained why this Israeli citizen and former Israeli military officer was interested in helping proliferate nuclear technologies to Pakistan.

But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that it is Iran who has been arguing for decades that the Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone. The idea was first floated by the Shah in 1969, and was first formally proposed by Iran in a joint UN General Assembly resolution, but the idea failed to garner any support. The idea was again raised by then-Iranian President Ahmedinejad in 2006 and yet again by then-Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki in 2008, but these calls to banish nuclear weapons from the Middle East have not even been acknowledged by the west, let alone seriously considered.

Now more than ever, the prospect of a nuclear-free Middle East seems the only way to prevent a nuclear conflagration that threatens to draw in the world’s superpowers, and yet the idea is being ignored by Israel and its staunchest ally, the United States.

Why does Israel refuse to declare its nuclear weapons stockpile? Why do they refuse to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

Why do they refuse IAEA inspections of their nuclear facility?

Why did they kidnap and imprison Mordechai Vanunu for 18 years for providing the proof of this nuclear program?

And perhaps most importantly, why does the United States, the only country who could single-handedly force NPT compliance from Israel, still refuse to even admit the openly-acknowledged status of Israel as a nuclear power?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for these questions to be answered by the teleprompter readers on the nightly news.

Still, as even many in the mainstream are now admitting, Netanyahu’s presentation on Iran’s nuclear non-secrets are a cheap display of political theatrics. The only thing he ended up doing is underlining the point that Iran, unlike Israel, fully cooperated with the IAEA, lived up to its obligations as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and pointedly has not violated the 2015 nuclear deal.

And now that the United States has allowed the Israeli tail to wag the American dog once again by de-certifying that Iranian deal without valid cause, negotiators in North Korea and elsewhere will be watching, reminded yet again that a promise from the American empire isn’t worth the signed agreement it’s written on.

The left has been hijacked by unwitting servants of the neo-liberal agenda.

I was talking to a friend the other day explaining how I always considered myself left wing, but now apparently I wasn’t. I explained why and she declared that the left has been hijacked.

And it struck me: she is right, it totally has. Remember when the left was about worker’s rights? It was about preventing the rich giving themselves privileges whilst denying ordinary people both rights and access to resources. It was, in large part, about protecting people and the environment from the rapacious appetites of the elite rich. In short, the left was about ensuring that everyone had a level of human dignity and the ability to raise a healthy, happy and educated family.

So what is the left now? – I tell you it is no longer about these things. I know this because I am being told that am I no longer left wing, but alt right wing. I tell you why I find this strange, for many years I have written, spoken publicly and protested against: TPP trade agreements; GMO’s; Fracking; homelessness; and the destruction of the environment. I am, and have been involved in environmental groups for over a decade. I have been a union branch committee member for nearly 10 years, I have gone on strike while colleagues kept working. I have gone on union marches. But I am informed, by other supposedly left wing people, that I am now right wing. Even though I continue to do all these things. It gets worse, not only am I being told I am right wing, but I have also recently been categorised with Incels. Why? To be honest, I don’t fully understand the logic, but it seems it has lot to do with not agreeing that there is a “Patriarchy”, and accepting the whole gamit of complaints and grievances based around this concept.

It seems now that you are not left wing if you fight for worker’s rights, you must largely forget that and fight now for trans-rights, for same-sex marriage rights, you must denounce the Patriarchy and acknowledge it as the source of all humanity's problems. This is NOT what the left wing used to be about.

Thus the left wing has been highjacked. And I argue that it has been highjacked by – perhaps unwitting – servants of everything the left wing used to stand against. The left has been highjacked by agents of the neo-liberal system.

We do not see in our papers headlines decrying the excesses of the rich, we do see headlines about global warming – but only because it can no longer be ignored. But where is people’s energy going? It is going into false battles about same-sex marriage, about supposed Patriarchy – which sets women against men - causing much damage and pain. Meanwhile – hidden behind this smoke screen - the rich get richer, the earth dies, common people bicker and argue about Patriarchy and marriage rights while everything burns around us. And all the while the press declares this as progress, and trumpets changes in laws about marriage, and discriminating for women (and against men) as signs of progress. The world is being destroyed, families are being destroyed, debt is growing, congestion is growing, the environment is being destroyed, and men are being pushed out of work, becoming more and more sidelined in society. Families are falling apart and people becoming more frustrated, more angry and more violent. Yet amongst all this discord it is declared that there are signs of social progress. What a bloody mess! And who can we turn to now? The union movement has almost been crushed by neo-liberal forces, or sold out to growth, and it too has been directing resources into the new ‘left’ agenda.

Where do we turn? It seems the neo-liberals have finally won at last. I guess we will all go down fighting and bickering about the various ways men have oppressed women though-out history, and still do today, as the rich appropriate the remaining resources on the planet then party as they watch it, and all us, die.

We had an A grade example of the type of parallel universe Australia’s mainstream media has descended into late last week.  A completely false story given prominence in the national media by The Australian, which was then picked up by various other Rupert Murdoch papers, but which sadly even made it beyond that – all without a single shred of fact, and all without anybody thinking to check, or even think about, the main line of the story being reported.

(This article was first published at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/05/immigration-compact-nothing-propaganda/ on 7 May 2018. Republished with author permission.)

Better still it shows just how easy it may be to get a view into the public domain and have it picked up, with a mobile number, and a basic website splashing about a few logos, to create a Potemkin public ‘movement’.  And from there we can get a sighter into the sort of desperado vested interests who’d go there to try and stoke public opinion.

The story began with the following piece which was plastered front-and-centre of The Australian on Thursday night:

Business and unions in rare alliance for Big Australia

The Australian

12:00AM May 4, 2018

SIMON BENSON

 

NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

Sydney

@simonbenson

Let’s start with the headline and the glossy of Sally McManus underneath.  Any half-baked sentient thinker looking at that would assume that there has been some sort of major agreement signed by the Unions and Business on the subject of immigration.

Anybody remotely familiar with Simon Benson and his work can tell you he is a long term lackey for Rupert Murdoch’s Australian operations and has bounced around the Sydney Telegraph as a political codpiece, honing his act, before shifting to mission control last year.

The article is, in fact, highlighted as an ‘exclusive’ by the The Australian. So you would ordinarily think that for something being touted as such they would want to really nail their facts.  Presumably Benson had some sort of information basis on which to write the story, and you would have thought that someone somewhere would have checked out something going into the The Australian proclaimed as ‘exclusive’.

Even more, if it is an ‘exclusive’ – did absolutely nobody at the Murdoch press think for a moment, ‘This is a major public announcement, and the idea of public announcements is to ensure the public knows, and if any organisation is making public announcements then it is in their interest to get it out as many media channels as they can.  Why are we running this piece as an ‘exclusive’? Why isnt Fairfax, the broadcast channels and the ABC getting this as well? ‘

Alas, it appears we have two strikes from the ‘journalists’, ‘opinion leaders’, and ‘editorial processes’ at The Australian…….. (but it gets a whole heap better):

Big business has joined forces with the ACTU in an unprecedented compact to back a Big Australia, calling on the federal government to maintain current levels of permanent migration amid calls for the rate to be cut.

A stark statement to open the onslaught.  A one sentence paragraph which is simply and utterly false – so false it is almost refreshing to see it as stark as it is for the plain and unadorned rubbish it represents.

There is no evidence anywhere to support it apart from an advertisement placed into The Australian on Friday (which we will get to).

There is not the faintest skerrick of evidence anywhere that the ACTU and its President Sally McManus have joined forces with big business on anything to do with immigration.  There is no indication anywhere in their public pronouncements that the ACTU and its President Sally McManus have proclaimed, signed agreement to, funded or done anything to promote, a ‘compact’ promoting permanent immigration at its current levels, or any expansion or reduction of permanent migration levels.

The historic coalition of peak unions, employer groups and the ethnic lobby will release a united policy document today warning of the economic and social consequences of dropping the annual migration rate.

Well Friday came and went, and now the weekend too – and not a sign of any policy document uniting the ethnic lobby, big business and the unions came from anywhere.

The ACTU’s involvement comes as it embarks on a high-profile campaign to rein in employers’ access to temporary foreign workers.

Now for sure the ACTU has run a high profile campaign against temporary employees.  And for sure the ACTU did on Thursday release, ‘Five-point plan to address unemployment and end exploitation of temporary visa workers’. But absolutely nowhere in that presser does the ACTU mention anything about any ‘compact’ with anyone on immigration numbers, and the need to maintain a high permanent level of immigration.

The first migration document of its kind in the nation’s history calls for the current goal of an ­annual intake of 190,000 to be ­retained, with long-term levels set proportionally to the population.

Now the bullshit quotient goes up a notch right here.  Think about that paragraph for a second.  No caveats on why we need an additional 190k per annum, no relating it to how the economy is going, no historical reference – and certainly no mention that the 190k figure itself is a massive historical ramp up on a long term average of about 75k per annum.  And then, before you get past that there is a fine sliver of the choicest grade 24 carat bullshit right at the back half of that sentence – ‘with long-term levels set proportionately to the population’.

Think about that for a moment.  Our 190k isnt an ideal, it is a starting point and it keeps going up every year “proportionately to the population”.  If 0.76% of 25 million brings us to 190k in the first year, in ten years time that same 0.76% will bring us more than 204k.

And no mention of employment outcomes, wages, land usage and degradation therein, consumption, whether or not that makes any form of economic sense, and no mention of who we bring in, or what skills they bring, or what they are expected to provide.  Just 190k plus in – every year as far as the eye can see.  And we are expected to believe the ACTU has signed up to this with business and the ethnic lobby – without discussing it with Unions under its aegis, with their members, without a debate in the public domain.

The accord will see the ACTU and United Voice, one of the most influential unions in the country, sign a National Compact on Permanent Migration with the peak employer body, the Australian Industry Group.

But on the day of the announcement neither the ACTU or United Voice have any mention of signing a compact with the Australian Industry Group on the subject of immigration numbers.  The AIG has a reference to it on Saturday – on the front of its web site.

If you click on that link we end up at a very strange website headed National Compact on Permanent Migration with a number of logos splashed about to make it look well supported.  These include

• Migration Council Australia
• Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)
• Australian Industry Group (AIG)
• Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS)
• Welcome to Australia
• Settlement Council of Australia
• Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA)
• United Voice (better known once as the LHMU or the Liquor Hospitality Miscellaneous Union)

Now at this point aspiring journalists would once have been asking themselves ‘What do these organisations have to say about the compact they have signed?’ and maybe even ‘What are they telling their stakeholders about why signing the compact is a good thing or not?’  I say ‘once’ because it often isn’t the case anymore, and the focus these days is being able to copy and paste a media announcement, or parts therein, into a piece being written, and just assuming that because there are logos and because there are links then it is all legit.

As a hat tip to the old timers I thought I would check out these organisations and what they have to say about the ‘compact’.

The Migration Council Australia – has no mention of any ‘compact’ or any tie in with the AIG or the ACTU or ACOSS on the subject of permanent immigration numbers.  Their policy area makes no mention of it either.

The ACTU  – has no mention of any ‘compact’ or any tie in with the AIG or ACOSS or migrant organisations on the subject of permanent immigration numbers.  Their media section makes no mention of it either,  apart from the Thursday press release on the subject of temporary visa employees.

The Australian Industry Group – has a direct link to the ‘compact’ website, but has no mention of, discussion of or consultation with members about any compact, and no press release or media promotion of the compact.

ACOSS – has no mention of any ‘compact’ or any tie in with the AIG or ACTU or migrant organisations on the subject of permanent immigration numbers. Their news section makes no mention of any compact on immigration numbers.

Welcome to Australia – has no mention of any ‘compact’ or any tie in with the AIG, ACOSS or ACTU or migrant organisations on the subject of permanent immigration numbers.  They have no news or press release or policy section referring to immigration numbers in any way.

The Settlement Council of Australia – has no mention of any ‘compact’ or any tie in with the AIG, ACOSS or ACTU or migrant organisations on the subject of permanent immigration numbers.  They have no news or press release or policy section referring to immigration numbers in any way.

The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia – has issued a statement about the compact on May 4, 2018.  That statement refers to  ‘maintenance of Australia’s permanent migration intake’ without specifying a number or linking that to any criteria or parameters.

United Voice  – has no mention of any compact or tie in with ACOSS, AIG, the ACTU or migrant organisations on the need to maintain a permanent immigration volume.  Their news and media section makes no reference to any compact, or any consultation with members on immigration numbers.

So that currently leaves us with a website linked to by the Australian Industry Group, and referred to in a presser by FECCA as the substance of the compact which provided the basis for the ‘exclusive’ story being touted by The Australian on Friday.  At the bottom of the page is a mobile phone number – 0499 991 098 – which if you ring gets to a voice message saying in a female voice to leave a message and someone will get back to you.

If you type that number into google however, you soon end up with this result – http://fni.org.au/author/fniadmin/ – for whatever the Friendly Nation Initiative involves.  The only thing we need concern ourselves with here is that the contact number – 0499 991 098 – is the same one in play for the ‘Compact’ web page and refers to a media contact by the name of Alexander…..*drumroll*…….Willox.  And he happens to be a Policy Officer at the Migration Council of Australia according to the Australian Institute of International Affairs.

Next, if we pop along to Whois.net to take a look at who has registered the domain name https://www.nationalmigrationcompact.org.au we come up with the below snippets of information.

So this tells us that our compact domain has been registered by some gent by the name of Scott Mills on behalf of the Migration Council of Australia.  Scott could easily be a cleric or IT guy of some low level sort, and all he has done is the registering of the domain name, with the costs incurred not necessarily borne by him.  As anybody with a domain name can tell you they aren’t hard or expensive to establish, and even that someone could establish a website on behalf of someone, without being connected to it whatsoever.  For example  I could go to a domain provider and register the domain www.utterbullshit.com on behalf of the Australian Prime Minister, and nobody at the domain provider will check to see if I actually do have anything to do with him.

But before we go there lets take a look at the Migration Council of Australia.  In particular lets go to the Board, where amidst a sea of corporate players the very first name to greet the eye is Innes Willox.

Now at this point the lay reader thinking about contemporary Australia, as opposed to the journalist hurriedly trying to cut and paste an ‘exclusive’ together, may think to themselves our Innes is a man about town, for yea verily he is also the main honcho of the AIG, isnt he:

And in his spare time Innes writes for The Australian, and has recently tossed off a piece about immigration which was comprehensively dismantled at Macrobusiness for the rubbish that it is.

So from all this we can assume that Innes has his hands all over whatever is unfolding with any ‘compact’ and he likes his immigration numbers up, and he doesn’t mind a lot of bullshit, and he will have contacts in just the right places to be able to create a weird population ponzi website, is the father of the boy with the phone number listed – who just happens to be a Policy officer with the Migration Council of Australia, then link to such a website, and be able to get someone to whip up an article giving it just a whiff of public airing.

That stench you can smell, isn’t something on your shoes.

From there, it is worth going back to take a look at the ‘compact’ because you could reasonably assume that if the ‘journalists’ in Murdoch Press overlooked the above, then the actual compact may not have withstood much examination either.

And so it is.  The National Compact on Permanent Migration is an ineptly written a document.  From Australia’s immigration taking place as a program in the first half of the first sentence to being a scheme at the end.  To a rushed set of exhortations unadorned by any logical or rationale that might easily have been thrown together in a liquid lunch (or thrown up afterward) to a weird collection of principles of which the only remotely measurable one is a need to keep permanent immigration numbers up – presumably where they are at around 190k per annum, though it doesn’t actually say that.

Our permanent migration program has been central to Australia’s economic and social development and will be critical to Australia’s future as a productive and globally integrated economy and society.

Australia is a country based on multicultural values where migrants enjoy the equality of opportunity to participate and benefit from Australia’s social, economic and political life. As our economic opportunities in the Asia Pacific continue to advance and our population ages, Australia will need migrants to bring skills and youth to complement and develop our domestic workforce and to help to grow the national income needed to support our high standard of living.

We support the current planning levels for the permanent migration program and encourage future programs to maintain a level proportional to the population.

Migrants bring relationships, knowledge, skills and social capital that ensure Australia’s economy is well placed to trade and invest with the countries of our region and beyond. Many Australians in turn live and work in other countries during their lives. In this century, our people to people ties will drive our competitive edge and spread the benefits of our multicultural values.

The successful settlement of millions of people ranks among Australia’s greatest achievements as a nation. As a result, approximately one in four of Australia’s population today was born overseas and half of all Australians have at least one parent born overseas.

Migration is a two-way street that has helped Australia forge ties to every continent, country and culture. It has made our society more cosmopolitan and our thinking more open and dynamic.

Migration nourishes our cultural and linguistic diversity and is one of our greatest strengths in the contemporary globalised world. Our humanitarian program is an important reflection of our values and adds strength to the character of our nation.

We must plan for our success as a nation by supporting settlement services and programs that foster a sense of belonging, encourage social cohesion and enable economic participation.

We must ensure that all those who come are provided with the same rights and opportunities so that our values of equality and a fair go are maintained.

We agree that the following principles should form the foundation of Australia’s migration policy:

1. We affirm that Australia’s permanent migration program is essential to Australian society and economy and do not support any reduction to the scheme.
2. The permanent migration program should be set within a national strategy for well managed population growth that provides the community with the education and training, infrastructure, housing and other services needed to support growth and social cohesion.
3. Australia’s permanent migration program must be evidence-based and calibrated to meet Australia’s national interests taking account of the role migration plays across all our economic levers. Migration, along with education, training, retraining and a strong system of social supports is part of our long-term economic strategy.
4. Australia’s migration program must be selective but non-discriminatory in terms of ethnicity, national origin, class, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
5. All migrants have a right to live and pursue economic opportunities in an Australia free of racism, discrimination and exploitation.
6. Migrants must be given every opportunity to contribute and fully participate in all aspects of Australian life, supported by access to services that assist their capacity to build the skills and knowledge needed to chart their own future.
7. English language is recognised as critical to participation, both in the workplace and in the broader Australian community, and migrants should have access to free services to develop their English language skills where needed.
8. The temporary skilled migration program should be limited to instances of genuine skill shortages which are based on evidence–based assessments of the need for specific occupations in the labour market. Where temporary visa workers are necessary we must ensure a robust regime to monitor and enforce compliance with protections incorporated in the program for preventing exploitation of overseas workers and guarding against the undercutting of local wages and conditions as well as holding those who abuse the labour rights of workers accountable.
9. Encouraging and facilitating permanent settlement has been a key part of Australia’s migration framework and migrants should have a pathway available to seek permanent residency and citizenship.
10. The confidence of the Australian community in an effective migration program, with appropriate safeguards, is paramount to its success and is contingent on strong and bi-partisan political leadership.

We agree that the following principles should form the foundation of Australia’s migration policy:

1. Continuing to promote the importance of permanent migration to Australia’s sustainable economic and social development to the wider community.
2. Supporting efforts to make the migration experience positive for migrants and for the Australian community, free of discrimination and exploitation.
3. Promoting migration as a stand-alone portfolio function.

Around this utter tripe, Simon Benson crafted his exclusive.  Imagine the scene if you will.  Innes pops over to Simon’s desk and asks if he could write something on some utter bullshit he is conjuring up and Simon does not miss a beat.

Meanwhile Simon is not a man to question bullshit, Simon is a man to spread it around…….

But the unified stance is designed as a ­circuit-breaker to the increasingly heated immigration debate, which the signatories believe has become toxic, xenophobic and at risk of ignoring the economic benefits that underpin skilled migration.

The document, spearheaded by the Migration Council, signals the first time unions and employer groups have reached general agreement on temporary skilled migration but based on stricter policing of the program.

We can assume the unified stance has in no way pared the marginal propensity to bullshit, with the document signaling nothing more than the desperate straits the population ponzi lobby is now descending into to get traction in a world where everyone can now see Australian immigration has been run too hard for far too long.  Of course, that is before we get to the not insignificant matter of there being no indication at all that any unions have signed up to the compact.

Simon (and Innes?) obviously decided a chart would help things along about here and threw up this one which did at least identify the ramp up in immigration numbers post 2006.

But even there it doesn’t really do justice to the insane level at which Australia has been running immigration numbers over the last last 12 years.  Here is an accurate depiction of that:

Simon then works the Union angle some more……

ACTU secretary Sally McManus told The Australian the ­country had a history of permanent migration for “most of the 20th century”.

“That system was predicated on civic inclusion as an Australian ideal; the idea that if you lived and worked in Australia, paid taxes and abided by the law, you should also get a say in the content of those laws, as well as the chance at full participation in our social, economic and political life,” she said.

There isn’t anything to doubt about Sally McManus having said anything there.  But there’s a lot to ask about how it relates to the ACTU signing up for a ‘compact’ upholding a level of 190k per annum immigration.

The issue has divided government ranks, with cabinet ministers publicly at odds with each other over whether the annual intake should be reduced as first proposed by former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Simon is obviously a master craftsman who knows well to weave some factuality into your bullshit narrative so that the reader can feel that something rings true. If we assume that the Prime Minister and Treasurer bullshitted the public about whether Home Minister Peter Dutton took any form of proposal to reduce immigration numbers by even a small volume, then we can assume that there has been some tension on the subject.

The business-unions compact follows the release of a report by Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs that backed a Big Australia and revealed that permanent annual migration was forecast to add 1 per cent to GDP growth each year for the next 30 years.

Well, we still haven’t seen any trace of the union side of the compact apart from a photo of Sally McManus so we could easily start that sentence with the ‘business-tooth fairy compact…..’ but our craftsman has some more fact in the narrative.  Treasury has recently put out a report backing a big Australia which has been comprehensively debunked, dismantled, chewed, laughed at, snorted on  and facesat at Macrobusiness.

Signatories to the compact — announced today in an advertisement in The Australian — include the Migration Council of Australia, the Australian Council of ­Social Service, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia and migration lobby group Welcome to Australia.

Simon has at least got the names right (he is obviously a senior Murdoch ‘journalist’) but he missed the small fact that there is no sign of anyone signing anything.  There arent any signatures on the compact site, and not a scintilla of evidence anybody on the union side of of the compact is even aware of it.

It will also involve the Business Council of Australia in what the compact’s signatories claim is a “historic” agreement between business and the trade ­unions for the economic good of the country.

One wonders if the BCA actually knows of it yet.  There is nothing on their website to suggest they do, and they certainly haven’t put out any pressers on the subject.

The 10-point policy document sets out critical elements of the migration program including ­English language skills, evidence-based skill needs, national interest and selectivity at the same time as being non-discriminatory.

“This historic national compact brings together civil society, business and our union movement in shared tripartite commitment to migration as part of Australia’s future,” the document says. “We affirm that Australia’s permanent migration program is essential to Australian society and our economy and do not support any reduction to the scheme.”

The compact, as can be seen above, is nothing more than a collection of motherhood statements in abysmal English.

The government has argued that the 190,000 intake was a rigid target set by the former Labor government that was based on the “quantity rather than quality” of migrants.

The Coalition reset the target to a “goal” that has been allowed to reduce to an expected 160,000 this year.

This is the blame apportionment line, but seemingly takes us towards a reduced number of immigrants arriving this year anyway, despite the compact ostensibly calling for no reduction.  Did Simon or Innes read what they were writing, or were they a tad under the weather by this stage?

Former Business Council of Australia head and current Migration Council of Australia board member Tony Shepherd said the compact was without precedent.

“I welcome this compact and congratulate the signatories,” Mr Shepherd said. “Immigration is the cornerstone of our incredible post-war development. It remains vital to our prosperity and security given our ageing and small population.”

All of a sudden we are back with the BCA and another business gargoyle who is gracing the board luncheons of the Migration Council.  He too is talking about signatories despite nobody having seen any sign of anybody signing anything , but he does lay in with two other oft exhorted placebo rationales for higher immigration which have been debunked more times than anyone would care to think about with ageing and small populations.

The AiGroup, representing 60,000 businesses, said it was critical that the migration program retained the confidence of the public. “The benefits of migration are felt across every sector of the Australian economy and the skills migrants bring are vital to the development of future industries,” AiGroup chief executive Innes Willox said.

“Migration has helped Australia maintain our long record of uninterrupted growth and has assisted us in building our national infrastructure and skills base. It is important that we come to a consensus that migration is a key part of Australia’s future prosperity.”

Innes works himself into the story with a few comments. Innes is probably part of the world which has seen Australia shed economic diversity and sell out Australian employers with Free Trade Agreements.  Could he tell us why we need more immigrants if all we do is spread around the wealth from mining operations?

Carla Wilshire, the chief executive of the Migration Council who drove the agreement, said migration was one of Australia’s greatest strengths.

“Migration has been central to our nation-building story and the national compact creates a platform to build consensus around the importance of migration to Australia’s future,” she said.

All of a sudden we slip a new character in at the end – another Innes flunky from the Migration Council.  She is described as ‘driving’ the agreement, rather than a compact, which leads us to wonder if she was taking dictation at lunch with Simon and Innes.

The peak union body recognised the need for a temporary skilled migration program on the condition that it was based on a robust compliance regime, restricted to genuine shortages and used “evidence-based” assessment of specific occupations.

Yesterday the union issued its own briefing paper demanding more stringent labour market testing for temporary workers claiming there was an over-­reliance in some regions.

Surreally the piece concludes with reference to the one thing the ACTU has clearly stated this week – to the effect that temporary employment visas have been abused.

So there it is.

It’s a compact, it’s an agreement, it’s been signed and it involves business, unions, immigration bodies and ethnic councils and social service providers, and it argues for maintaining a high level of permanent immigration – just that it consists of nothing but a web page with some logos, and three quarters of the organisations behind the logos have not even mentioned any agreement or compact.

Maybe The Australian would like to verify whoever paid for the advertisement which appeared in The Australian on Friday and their connection with the Migration Council of Australia? And maybe the Migration Council of Australia may want to clarify with a statement that whoever has paid for that advertisement has been duly authorised to expend monies on its behalf, and that it considers the advertising of the ‘compact’ an efficient use if its resources?

That of course is before we look at Rupert Murdoch’s world and ask ourselves if his minions write ‘exclusive’ pieces based on advertising connected with its own opinion writers, touting websites which are closely connected with that writer.

It has Innes Willox’s fingers all over it.  And it stinks.

Kevork Almassian shows us on a coloured map with symbols who is occupying what in Syria at the moment, and discusses the Syrian Government's policy.

The cover photo is of one of the 13 ringtail possums brought into care at stage 1 of VicRoads' clearing. (See "VicRoads mulch wildlife on Mornington Peninsula -AWPC intervention".) She had a deep facial injury which eventually recovered; she has since been released back into the wild. She was one of the lucky ones, many animals were mulched alive or run over by the heavy machinery that VicRoads used. Autumn has arrived and re-planting of the cleared median strip has not commenced, I would assume that it’s because they haven’t yet finished installing the safety barriers. This begs the question why did they go ahead and clear in spring, if they were going to take this long to complete the barriers? They could have left nesting birds to fledge.

Eve Kelly, Secretary

Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc.

An article appeared in the Irish Times in 2007 about the danger that the wire safety barriers cause to motorcyclists. Back then, some countries were considering removing these types of barriers from their roads. VicRoads, in the meantime, has razed vegetation and mulched wildlife recently in order to install these barriers with their dubious safety record. (See "VicRoads mulch wildlife on the Mornington Peninsula.") No doubt someone is making a lot of money out of selling them to VicRoads. But that's no justification for clearing vegetation and injuring, killing and orphaning protected wildlife. All the less so if they may need to remove the barriers in the future because they are unsafe. The illustration in the article is taken from the Times Record News reporting a 2017 incident in Vernon Texas where a motorcyclist received near-fatal injuries on this kind of barrier. This article is based on part of one called "AWPC call for VicRoads to cease clearing plans on the Mornington Peninsula", by Eve Kelly of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

It is likely to be just as nasty as the one on same sex marriage with all sorts of accusations that target people rather than immigration policies. There will be a rash of claims made against Asians, Muslim, Middle East, and African migrants matched in venom by attacks on the WASP (White, Anglo Saxon Protestant) Rednecks who dared to question their suitability to be citizens. Just like the SSM debate very few people will be persuaded by the opposing claims and instead will only be entrenched further in their own beliefs.

Some of the opening salvos from politicians have already been fired - Scott Morrison has said cutting immigration will cost the economy more than a billion a year which seems like small beer alongside his proposed $64b in tax breaks. Tony Abbott, perhaps sniffing the wind, has called for a cut of 80,000 per year which would bring the rate down to that set by John Howard. Bob Carr wants the present immigration number halved, the Greens want it increased by 50,000, the Sustainable Population Party wants it cut back to the pre-Howard level of 70,000 and the Scientific community say we have already overshot our sustainable numbers - but then nobody listens to the science. However, perhaps the most insidious pro-immigration argument – one that has been aired many times – is the claim that Australia is the best in the world when it comes to accepting different cultures. It’s the sort of feel good statement that appeals to our vanity, a bit like being told we are the best sporting nation, so consequently very few people bothered to challenge Chris Bowen MP the former minister for immigration when he said were indeed the world’s most successful multicultural nation. So while we all sat back and marvelled at how wonderful we are, no one remembered that the other major culture in our society is our indigenous population who, given the level of disadvantage they experience, have good grounds for disagreeing with the statement.

And they would not be alone. Bowen's appeal to our good nature was probably an attempt to detract from the negative comments made earlier by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said Germany's attempt to create a multicultural society had failed completely, while Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented a bill in parliament that read:

“The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model.... A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore.”

It was a sentiment echoed by Britain's former Prime Minister David Cameron, France's former President Nicolas Sarkozy, Spain's former leader, Jose Maria Aznar, and Belgium's former PM Yves Leterme. Indeed most of Europe is of the same mind with many seeing the rise of extreme right wing political parties as a direct result.

In fact MC has had a dismal record almost everywhere around the globe. Czechoslovakia fell apart and it’s not going well in Ireland. Scotland is not happy in GB, and the US, once the poster boy for immigration, seems to be on a race-related downward spiral. China spends an estimated 1.24 trillion yuan ($193 billion) on its domestic security system mainly in areas with major populations of religious and ethnic minorities; an amount that is more than its spending on external security.

However, while there are many MC problems in Europe, they pale in comparison to those countries that have fallen into internal conflict, the result often descending into ethnic cleansing. This is a relatively new term that originated in 1992 when, in the former country of Yugoslavia, the Serbians tried to drive out the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The process is, however, as old as human history and the number of victims as large as human diversity. Even if you don't believe the biblical account of the Passover the Jews have been persecuted at least since the Roman era, a process that continued intermittently in most nations, culminating in the holocaust, an event in which most of the Nazi-occupied nations participated. More recent atrocities such as those in Myanmar, Rwanda, Tibet and Sri Lanka have received much media attention but the murder of about one million Armenians, Assyrian’s and Greeks during the chaotic collapse of the Ottoman empire was largely ignored by a world lost in its own troubles. Unfortunately other such crimes, like the actions of Indonesia in east Timor and Papua, which are ongoing in the latter, are ignored for political reasons.

One list of the 10 bloodiest civil wars of the twentieth century (Sarkees 2000), half of the cases were ethnic conflicts and these all involved minority groups that were identifiable by religion, color, language or culture. The outbreaks of violence were usually triggered by factors such as unemployment, food prices, exploitation or repression, problems that are increasing in Australia. Over the last decade or so, Australian governments have considered it necessary to respond to a perceived terror threat by increasing ASIO's budget 471 per cent over 9 years.[1] Athol Yates, executive director of think tank the Australian Security Research Centre, has calculated that Canberra has spent about $10.5 billion on homeland security, while state and local governments plus private industry have forked out another $5.5 billion, taking the total domestic security bill to about $16 billion. Oddly enough this expenditure increases our GDP allowing politicians to boast about the economic benefits of Multiculturalism but in reality the real success for governments has been the division it has created in the population, enough apparently to divert attention away from our absurdly high immigration rate.

NOTES

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-bill-27b-and-counting-20110910-1k32c.htm and

Railway workers, protesting against changes to the French National Railways [Société nationale des chemins de fer - SNCF], forced their way into the Paris offices of Macron's political party, the Republic on the Move (la Republique en Marche (LREM)) on Friday 4th of May in the afternoon. The economic rationalist French government has used the Orwellian term 'reforms' to describe these changes, which roll back hard won twentieth century gains to workers in France, whilst supporting tax reductions for the super rich.

A Republic on the Move employee told franceinfo that about 100 railway workers broke into Emmanuel Macron's political party offices. "They broke the door and stayed half an hour in the courtyard before being removed by the police." They chanted their slogan, 'We are angry railway workers and we won't let you push us around."

A political party spokesperson said that the party valued to the right to demonstrate, but would not support any form of violence and intended to make a formal complaint.

"This is a symbolic act," explained Fabien Villedieur, a delegate of South-Rail (Sud-Rail) to franceinfo . Since the government has "refused to talk with us, refused to negotiate, we have gone to the seat of Emmanuel Macron's party." According to him, there were "400 activists from South and from the General Confederation of Labour." [Confédération Générale du Travail - CGT.] Their banner carried the slogan, "We won't let you break the French National Railway."

The union member admitted that the door of the offices of the Republic on the Move party had been broken. After that lightening action, the railway workers went on foot to the Opera Place in Paris for a brief meeting before dispersing.

The offices of the Republic on the Move opened at 63 re Sainte Anne, in the heart of Paris, in September 2017.

The term, "Republic on the Move" has been compared to the Soros financed American organisation called "moveon.org", which is similar to GetUp in Australia. The Party was remarkable in causing the disintegration of all established French political parties, including the French socialist party, with the exception of the Front National. See https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/whos-behind-the-mysterious-rise-of-emmanuel-macron/

During the week commencing 12 March 2018 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation aired a number of programs on a Big Australia — the phrase used to encapsulate debates about the desirability of Australia’s rapid immigration-fuelled population growth. The specific programs included episodes of 4 Corners and QandA. Subsequently I submitted an official editorial complaint as per the ABC’s complaint-handling process. In the complaint I took care to refer in detail to the ABC’s own documented editorial standards. The ABC has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and will respond in writing in due course. As this response may take some time to provide, in the meantime I am publishing the text of my complaint here (PDF), for the interest of those who follow the population and immigration debate. I will also publish the text of the ABC’s response when received. The summary of the complaint is as follows (extracted from the conclusion of the document). [Article first published at http://www.peakdecisions.org/the-abc-population-growth-and-a-big-australia-official-complaint/]

Based on the arguments and evidence presented in this complaint, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Programs do not meet Editorial Policy 4. Highly relevant principal perspectives were omitted or given very limited time. The Programs overwhelmingly favoured one perspective: that a Big Australia is inevitable and there is no room for debate about alternative scenarios. The Programs ignored opportunities to present alternative perspectives even when they were offered as low-hanging fruit (for example, the video questions on QandA). There was repeated reliance on the same narrow range of expert opinion, while other expert opinion was omitted, in defiance of the weight of evidence on these matters. Given that these same one-sided viewpoints and imbalances were repeated over several programs, it is very hard to argue that excesses in one particular program were re-balanced by the views expressed in other programs during the week that the Programs were aired or published. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that in this instance, these outcomes expressed an implied editorial stance of the ABC towards the desirability of a Big Australia.

Let's avoid World War Three and bring justice, light and humanity to reporting on Syria and stop the lying deeds of US-NATO.

Time: 6:30pm
Place: State Library of Victoria
Date: 30th April 2018
Organisers: Hands Off Syria (Sydney) is coordinating with a group of activists and Syrians to organise a rally in Melbourne.