Attack of the $100K Degree
Sustainable Australia Party says they will fight to cut degree fees in half and make degrees in science, maths, engineering and medicine free.
Sustainable Australia Party says they will fight to cut degree fees in half and make degrees in science, maths, engineering and medicine free.
This news was sent by Marinella Correggia, of the No War Network. The Italian Committee to end the EU sanctions against Syria https://bastasanzioniallasiria.wordpress.com/ was created 15 days ago by a group of Italian activists. See also the video in English (and in other languages) embedded below. Shamefully, European Union sanctions against Syria were renewed for one year, yesterday. People who want Syria to survive should not take this lying down.
A huge group of Syrian religious people launched a vibrant call to European Parliamentarians, mayors and people, in English see here: https://bastasanzioniallasiria.wordpress.com/english/. (see also the other languages on the web page)
On the basis of this call, the Committee launched the Campaign to end the sanctions. Part of that is a petition on Change, which everybody in the world can sign here (the petitionis in Italian but the text is the same than the call of the religious people which you can find in English): https://www.change.org/p/parlamentari-sindaci-basta-sanzioni-alla-siria-e-ai-siriani
The Nobel Peace Laureate Maired Maguire signed the petition and supported the end of EU/USS sanctions it with a communiqué https://bastasanzioniallasiria.wordpress.com/il-premio-nobel-per-la-pace-aderisce-alla-
Also Italian MPs of differents groups issued a resolution towards the Italian government.
We are trying to get the European governments aware of this mobilization. It is enough that one country opposes the renewal and the EU sanctions will be dropped! If anyone of you is close to some politicians/governments, please contact them.
Previously published as Debate: Greece debt deal (26/5/16) on PressTV.
In this 23 minute debate with Jack Rasmus, Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the United States' Treasury, shows that the so-called IMF bailout of Greece's debt to the IMF is not a bailout at all. A bailout is supposed to reduce the debt to a level where the loan can be paid off. The conditions attached to the bailout will force the Greeks to sell off to foreign corporations much of Greece's publicly owned wealth-generating assets. Without those assets, the Greek economy can only be made less able to pay off debt in future. The supposed bailout is no more than an attempt to use the indebtedness from money, which should never, in the first place, have been lent by the IMF to previous corrupt Greek governments, as a pretext to allow corporations to loot Greece's wealth in 2016.
The following article publishes an email sent by Tony Recsei, President of Save our Suburbs NSW, to SOS members and friends. Dated Thursday, 26 May 2016, it is a report on his attendance at a luncheon organised by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) in Paramatta. The GSC is a growth lobby tool. Here Recsei points out that the 30 minute city does not exist as planners describe it and suggests that the Commission should investigate low density cities where the cost of housing is also low and find out what they are doing right, instead of continuing to visit high density cities. See the SOS NSW blogspot here.
Yesterday I attended a luncheon organized by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) at their offices in Parramatta. The GSC was formed to lead metropolitan planning for the Greater Sydney Region. Twelve people attended the luncheon, half of them being members of the GSC including chairperson Lucy Turnbull and chief executive officer Sarah Hill. The rest were from various government and non-government organisations.
A pleasant atmosphere prevailed and people talked freely. GSC Social Commissioner Heather Nesbitt introduced the discussion, emphasizing the need for livability and collaboration and trust. Sarah Hill said priorities include preparing district plans, getting out of the office and talking to people. There needs to be plans for a greater Parramatta, the Western Sydney Airport, linking infrastructure with planning, providing advice to the Minister and making awards and grants. Lucy Turnbull said they will try to get a whole of government approach.
In turn we were each invited to say what we felt.
I said:
· Save Our Suburbs focusses on the underlying rationale behind planning in the state. That rationale relates to increasing density. A fundamental tension results as the community does not want increased density. This dichotomy bedevils all attempts at consultation.
· Neither high-profile high-density advocate Professor Peter Newman nor anyone else can give me an example of a high-density city that does not suffer from the ills they claim high-density will alleviate.
· A previous planning minister, Brad Hazard had led a delegation to investigate planning in North America but only visited jurisdictions with high-density policies. They did not visit the more successful cities which happen to have low density policies.
· No advantages claimed for high-density policies stand up to any scrutiny. These policies cause increased congestion, unaffordable housing and adverse health impacts (such as a 70% increase in psychosis). Forcing in high-density when most people want single-residential reduces housing choice. High-density results in excessive greenhouse gas emissions. In high-rise per person energy consumption and embodied energy is double that of single-residential. Such emissions represent 30% of people’s annual emissions while transport represents only 10%.
Lucy Turnbull referred to the “30 minute city” - that is a city divided into sections where people in 30 minutes or less can easily get to work, shops, schools etc. and walk to many destinations. I asked where is such a place. People might initially find a dwelling near their place of work but subsequently change their job without moving house; other members of the household may work or study somewhere else. I pointed such reduction in travel times does not happen in high-density cities. For example Hong Kong has average travel times to work of 47 minutes compared to 35 minutes in Sydney. Also, in Hong Kong only about 20% of people work in the area where they live. This proportion is about the same as in low density Los Angeles. A city with “30 minute” sections is a figment of the imagination.
They asked what North American cities should Brad Hazard have visited. I suggested Houston as an example where houses cost about ¼ of their equivalents in Sydney and suggested the GSC should send a delegation there to see what Houston does right and what it does wrong.
My discussion took about 30 minutes of the 2 hour luncheon time.
As we left one of the GSC members said to me “Keep on keeping us honest”!
Some time back, a friend of mine won a weekend at Allsop's Paddock Retreat in Gobur, Victoria, Australia. She invited me and another person to go there with her. I had to look up Gobur, which I discovered was about 90km from Mt Buller and 260 from Mt Hotham. There was no town there, and the closest towns were to the south, with Yark 10km away and Alexander 22km. Looking at Google Earth I underestimated the size, beauty and number of the trees. It was impossible to guess at the lay of the land. In fact, we spent two nights there in October 2015. It was a new gig and the owners were hoping for a review. It has taken me a long time to write this review because I preferred to finish the paintings I started when I was there. This review is really an artist's review of a good place to paint. Privacy, safety, comfort and unusual and stunning views.
Allsop's Retreat is 37 ha (approx 85 acres) in a shield shape with a plane at the pointy southern end and rolling hills and valleys in the north. The sun crosses sthe property from east to west, creating a splendid play of light and shadows across the heavily wooded paddocks. Guests stay in a two bedroom, verandahed house, specially built to purpose with a potbelly fire and enough sleeping for eight. (One double bed, two bunks, and a large couch.) Pets are welcome and we brought two dogs. The grounds of the guest house are well-fenced to keep pets in and casually patrolled by three retired cows with fetching hairdos.
On the aerial view I have roughed in the disused fences in dotted lines, two dams as blue spots, and pale white contour lines to show the main hills. The thickest trees are the forest which covers the largest hill, providing shelter for birds and kangaroos and a variety of walks amongst quite dramatic scenery. There are three enclosed building areas, with the guesthouse or 'shed' at the base.
Kangaroos travel regularly down from neighboring hills and up into the forest at the top end of the property. A long paddock follows the plane around the hill between the 'shed' and the forest. Along the way there is a picturesque dam amid gum trees. This large paddock is the main domain of the three retired cows.
The retreat is an hour or two from ski resorts. You can contact the owners here: http://www.travelvictoria.com.au/alexandra/allsops/
I have included three paintings I did from the property which give some idea of the variety of settings there and the amazing light, as well as some of the beautiful round-leafed red box trees.
Previously published 20/5/16 on PravdaReport.
A serious political crisis has paralyzed Brazil. Argentina has changed its president. Venezuela is standing on the brink of violent clashes and a military coup. In Peru, Alberto Fujimori's heiress is coming to power. Why do progressive left-wing parties lose ground in Latin America rapidly?
Of course, Nicolas Maduro's remarks about the external factor - the support of the opposition for the United States - are partially true. No external factor can shake up an economically stable and prosperous country. You may say, dear reader, that there is no such country in the world at the moment, as we all still feel the effects of the global financial crisis. This is true, too. However, there are countries in Latin America that have been developing steadily, even if they change governments. It goes about such countries as Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Uruguay. What is the matter then? The matter is about the very basis of everything - economy.
In Brazil, Dilma Rousseff (Workers' Party, PT) has not done anything that her predecessors have not done. She has manipulated the budget, borrowed money from private banks to pay social benefits, etc. Yet, the economy of Brazil has been experiencing an unprecedented economic downturn. The opposition of Brazil used the discontent of the middle classes, whose real salaries have been declining from year to year. Therefore, a major corruption scandal that has been raging since 2014 has led to the impeachment procedure and temporary removal of President Rousseff from power. As we all know, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is hard to believe that Dilma Rousseff will return to her office.
In Argentina, it was a strong economic crisis that contributed to the defeat of Kirchnerism (Peronism). In November 2015, pro-American liberal politician Mauricio Macri took office as Argentina's new president. Macri has conducted radical economic reforms, agreed with vulture funds and started borrowing on the international market. At the same time, though, he canceled social benefits, export duties and cut the education system.
In Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro is still clinging to power. He became the leader of Venezuela in 2013, after the death of his predecessor Hugo Chavez. His party lost last year's parliamentary elections, and it is his opponents, the liberals, who hold power in their hands now. Nicolas Maduro also remains under the pressure of the economic factor - low oil prices.
A few weeks ago, the first round of the presidential election in Peru ended with the victory of the right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori, a daughter of dictator Alberto Fujimori. The neoliberal politician may thus replace left-wing forces in Peru as well.
The state of affairs was absolutely different ten years ago. Leftist forces were on the rise after Hugo Chavez won the 1998 presidential vote in Venezuela, Lula da Silva - in Brazil in 2002, Nestor Kirchner - in Argentina in 2003, Tabaré Vázquez - in Uruguay in 2004 and Evo Morales - in Bolivia in 2005. During the period from 2006 to 2011, the left won the elections in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru. Those victories became possible because of catastrophic consequences of the neoliberal economy in the late 1990s: the deregulation of the economy and the opening of the privatized market to foreign companies. The events resulted in considerable wealth disparity that the local elites paid no attention to at first.
The left took advantage of social movements of landless peasants in Brazil, Indians in Bolivia, the urban poor in Argentina, etc. PT or the Bolivian Movement to Socialism (MAS) arose directly from those protests. In 2003, those progressive governments saw high demands for natural resources. Bolivia increased its budget six times from 2005 to 2013. Investments from the dynamically developing Chinese economy flowed to Latin America. Those revenues allowed to establish a system of social support for the poorest layers of the population.
The results were overwhelming: the eradication of poverty, the rise of education and the formation of the middle class everywhere. However, after the crisis of 2008-2009, global economy has not recovered. In developed countries, including the USA, real wages have not increased over the past eight years. China, the main driving force, stopped buying raw materials from Latin America. GDP in Latin America dropped by 0.1 percent in 2015 for the first time since 2009. Noteworthy, China is the second largest trading partner in the region after the United States, but the main partner for Brazil, Chile and Peru and the second one for Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina. To crown it all, prices on raw materials, especially oil, have declined everywhere.
It was then revealed that during the well-to-do years, the left-wing governments have not created a base to switch to nationally-oriented economy. They have turned into the countries of one export culture. For example, 2/3 of 33 million hectares of arable land in the Argentine pampas that have been cultivated over the past 15 years, were attributed for sowing Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans.#fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1"> 1 This soy goes to China as fodder for beef cattle. In Brazil, GM crops produced modified mosquitoes that carry Zika virus. Venezuela became a hostage to oil supplies. The changes were accompanied with the aging of the population, rapid urbanization and the growth of street crime. Corruption has skyrocketed everywhere as a consequence of both local mentality and oligarchic structure of the state.
Against this background, the personal enrichment of politicians (the Kirchners have increased their assets seven times) started annoying people. The result of the story is sad. State coffers are empty, the society is divided: the middle classes are dissatisfied and the poor threaten to take to the streets for protests should austerity measures are enacted.
Mauricio Macri's first six months in the office show that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Steel production and construction sector collapsed by 16-20 percent, the public debt associated with the release of short government bonds grows, inflation is rising. Retail prices and the growth of utility bills have tripped the inflation rate from January to April of the current year.
In addition, the questionable legitimacy of the change of power in Brazil has politically split the continent. Argentina has recognized the new government of Michel Temer, but Uruguay, Venezuela and El Salvador have not. Who benefits from the turn to liberalism? Transnational companies will improve their businesses with the help of new privatizations of de-privatized assets. The neoliberal offensive may bring fascist regimes to power, such as in Ukraine. In Latin America, this is a tradition. Wolfgang Schäuble, German Finance Minister and Chief Treasurer of the EU, said once: "Elections change nothing. There are rules." This phrase was the motto for the operation conducted by the European Commission to sober up the Greek SYRIZA government in the first half of 2015.
Many in Brazil pin hopes to the reaction from BRICS for the non-recognition of the new government of Michel Temer, especially on the part of Russia and China. However, where was Dilma Rousseff during the UN vote on the legitimacy of the Russian reunification with Crimea? #dilmaRoussefAbstained" id="dilmaRoussefAbstained">She abstained.
Lyuba Lulko
Pravda.Ru
Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru
#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">⇑ One of a number of articles about GMO, and the fight against GMO, is: The March Against Monsanto is On: The Non-GMO Revolution and the Battle against the "Big 6" GMO Corporations (20/5/16) by Timothy Alexander Guzman | Global Research.
This video is of an interview by RT with Marine Le Pen, leader of the French Front National, on the problems of the European Union for itself and for Europe. As usual she goes directly to the point, displaying her characteristic piercing wit. We have included much of RT's article below the video, in the absence of a transcript. The original article and video were published here: https://www.rt.com/news/343715-eu-collapsing-france-lepen/
RT ARTICLE: The EU is on the brink of collapse, as two of its main “pillars” are “crumbling” despite the billions of euros spent on keeping the structure from falling, far-right French leader Marine Le Pen told RT, adding that the union would fail if France left it.
“I believe that the European Union is in the process of collapsing on itself for one simple reason. The two pillars on which it’s founded – Schengen and the euro – are in the process of crumbling,” Le Pen told Marie De Douhet of RT France in an exclusive interview. “So they’re in a sort of mad downward spiral in which they’re capable of anything today to try and keep this building standing.”
The leader of France’s hard-right Front National party believes the collapse is not a matter of “if” but “when,” saying the EU “shines from the light of a dead star” while its leaders are struggling to play for time “at the cost of billions trying to hold this structure up.”
As a “revealing” piece of evidence supporting her opinion, Le Pen cited one of Brussels’ recent punitive measures.
“The threat of condemnation of countries which do not accept migrants – a €250,000 fine for each migrant not taken in – is in itself revealing,” Le Pen said.
The European Commission unveiled plans earlier in May to impose a penalty of around €250,000 per rejected refugee on countries that refuse to share the burden of Europe’s migrant crisis.
For countries such as Poland, which is adamantly opposed to taking in refugees, the new compulsory measure would result in a fine of over €1 billion ($1.1 billion), given its existing quota of 6,500 people.
“The threats, the blackmail, now used systematically by the European Union is, above all, a gigantic problem of weakness,” Le Pen said.
Commenting on the migrant crisis, Le Pen said the EU is using immigrants as a tool to drive down labor costs across the 28-country bloc.
READ MORE: Human traffickers exploit EU migrant crisis to increase child smuggling – EU report
“That’s why the European Union supports tens of millions of immigrants in the coming years which will come onto the European Union labor market to push down wages,” she said. “So, in fact they have betrayed, if you like, the working class.”
Marine Le Pen has been a vocal supporter of the UK leaving the European Union, a move that the National Front hopes would inspire a similar “Frexit” campaign.
According to a March poll, 53 percent of French citizens surveyed would like to hold a Brexit-like referendum on France’s membership in the EU.
When asked if she feared any consequences for a “Frexit,” or Brussels’ retribution if it should go through, Le Pen said, “If France leaves the European Union, the European Union no longer exists.”
The leader of France’s hard-right Front National party believes the collapse is not a matter of “if” but “when,” saying the EU “shines from the light of a dead star” while its leaders are struggling to play for time “at the cost of billions trying to hold this structure up.”
As a “revealing” piece of evidence supporting her opinion, Le Pen cited one of Brussels’ recent punitive measures.
“The threat of condemnation of countries which do not accept migrants – a €250,000 fine for each migrant not taken in – is in itself revealing,” Le Pen said.
The European Commission unveiled plans earlier in May to impose a penalty of around €250,000 per rejected refugee on countries that refuse to share the burden of Europe’s migrant crisis.
For countries such as Poland, which is adamantly opposed to taking in refugees, the new compulsory measure would result in a fine of over €1 billion ($1.1 billion), given its existing quota of 6,500 people.
“The threats, the blackmail, now used systematically by the European Union is, above all, a gigantic problem of weakness,” Le Pen said.
Commenting on the migrant crisis, Le Pen said the EU is using immigrants as a tool to drive down labor costs across the 28-country bloc.
READ MORE: Human traffickers exploit EU migrant crisis to increase child smuggling – EU report
“That’s why the European Union supports tens of millions of immigrants in the coming years which will come onto the European Union labor market to push down wages,” she said. “So, in fact they have betrayed, if you like, the working class.”
Marine Le Pen has been a vocal supporter of the UK leaving the European Union, a move that the National Front hopes would inspire a similar “Frexit” campaign.
According to a March poll, 53 percent of French citizens surveyed would like to hold a Brexit-like referendum on France’s membership in the EU.
When asked if she feared any consequences for a “Frexit,” or Brussels’ retribution if it should go through, Le Pen said, “If France leaves the European Union, the European Union no longer exists.”
In this riveting Press TV video-debate, Gearóid Ó Colmáin, a political analyst and journalist from Paris, and Sean O'Grady, a finance editor with The Independent from London, discuss France's nationwide demonstrations against the government's controversial changes to labor laws. These 'reforms' are really an attempt by the EU to disorganise democracy in France and impose the savage capitalism of the Anglophone countries, Britain, the United States, and Australia. Gearóid Ó Colmáin is amazingly on the ball and candid on the disorganising purpose of mass immigration. O'Grady typifies the globaliser rhetoric. One thing not mentioned by Gearóid here is that the very high land and housing prices in the Anglophone system (a) drive wages up because people have to pay rent (b) drive up the cost of everything else (c) increase base-costs for business (d) erode profit margin. It isn't the workers who use up the profits; it is the property speculators who rely on continuous increase in demand through mass immigration. Listening to O'Grady's 'case' one has to wonder whether he actually believes what he is saying, in which case, does he go round with his eyes shut? This Video first published on PressTV, Iran, http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/20/466608/Massive-antireform-labor-protests-France
"France’s labour regulations have famously been symbolised by the labour code, a weighty 4 thousand page treatise. But the government now wants to loosen a number of rules. By proposing controversial reforms, the French government aims to curb the country's unemployment rate. But at what cost? These reforms will give employers more scope to lay off workers and cut costs and make it easier to fire workers on economic grounds when companies run into difficulties. Protests against the controversial labor reforms have exploded all over France. With just over a year to go until France’s 2017 presidential election, President Hollande is making a final attempt to cement his place in French history, be it of notoriety with these controversial reforms." (Press TV, Iran). This Video first published on PressTV, Iran, http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/20/466608/Massive-antireform-labor-protests-France
The following article, together with an embedded 1:36 minute video, was previously published on the English language edition of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on 14 May. See also: Australian boxers fighting for peace in Syria (26/5/16) | SBS and other republished SANA articles: Australian sport delegation concludes visit to Lattakia (19/5/16) and Australian boxing team conducts friendly matches with Syrian national team (14/15/16).
The Australian Boxing Team visiting Syria in solidarity with its fight against terrorism conducted yesterday a series of exercises preparing for a set of matches today in Fayhaa Sports City.
Rev. David Smith, head of the Australian delegation, a boxer and a cleric, said in a statement to SANA:" We want to draw the attention of the world to the fact that Syria is alive, and there are still life and joy and sports here, not just death and destruction; which is always the message broadcasted on television. We are doing that through sport because we want to play with our friends here and build more relations with Australian and Syrian people, and we want to show the whole world the real Syria and the real Syrian people"
Smith pointed out that this is his fifth visit to Syria in the last four years, and that he is working on building relations between the Syrian and Australian people.
"We would love to see more cooperation between Syria and Australia in every level but certainly in sports, and the Syrian players are very good and strong, and can win any team in the world." Smith added.
For his part, the honorary consul of Syria in Australia Maher Dabbagh said that the Australian team includes distinguished boxers who have a heroic history in Australia, indicating that the team's visit has a significant impact on reflecting the reality of what is happening in Syria in its fight against terrorism.
Head of Syrian Boxing Federation Issa Nassar, highlighted that the Australian team's visit to Syria includes an array of games with the national team in Damascus as well as in Latakia.
The Australian Boxing Team is visiting Syria for the second time under the slogan "Boxers for Peace", joined by a media team to document the visit and sports activities, and other tourist activities to show the real image of Syria in the Australian media.
The above video, of length 1:36, is in Arabic. It is from the SANA article of the same title of 14 May.
The otherwise informative#fnYemen1" id="txtYemen1"> 1 Russian English language web-site Sputnik International has published on 18/5/16 a 'news' report Houthi Rebels Carry Out Wave of Arrests in Yemen, Use Torture. (A copy of the article is included below as an #amnestySmearsHouthis">appendix.) As the title suggests, it claims that the same Houthi rebels, who have been fighting an invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia since March 2015, "have carried out a brutal campaign against their political opponents, arbitrary arresting people, using tortures and kidnappings."
The article cites a report Yemen: Spree of arbitrary arrests, disappearances and torture by Huthi forces (18/5/16) by the supposed human rights organisation Amnesty International. The Amnesty report has also been cited in Amnesty accuses Yemen rebels of 'brutal' campaign against foes (18/5/16) | Yahoo.
Amnesty International is the same organisation which claimed less than a week ago that "the scale of war crimes by [Syrian] government forces is far greater [than that of the terrorists invaders](my emphasis) ".#fnYemen2" id="txtYemen2"> 2
The cited Amnesty International article fails to mention the extensive war crimes by the invading Saudi Arabian armed forces against civilians, including the use of cluster bombs – a weapon banned by international law. (However, the Sputnik article itself briefly stated, "A coalition led by Saudi Arabia has been carrying out airstrikes on Houthi positions at Hadi's request since March 2015, causing hundreds of victims among civilian population.")
Given Amnesty's smear of the Syrian government and given Amnesty's past history of having provided pretexts for Western government invasions of Iraq and Libya, the publication of this article shows extremely poor judgement on the part of Sputnik's editors.
For factual information about Yemen, visit the Iranian PressTV's section Saudi Aggression Against Yemen and most other alternative news sources.
Yemen's Houthi rebels have waged an anti-opposition campaign: they are against the usage tortures and kidnappings, a human rights watchdog said in a new report on Wednesday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Yemen's Houthi rebels, the country's main opposition force, have carried out a brutal campaign against their political opponents, arbitrary arresting people, using tortures and kidnappings, a human rights watchdog said in a new report on Wednesday.
People stand around damages made by a Saudi-led airstrike on a bridge in Sanaa, Yemen, Wednesday, March 23, 2016. Yemen has been left fragmented by war pitting Shiite Houthi rebels and military units loyal to a former president against a US-backed, Saudi-led coalition supporting the internationally recognized government.
Houthi Rebels Advocate Disarmament, Formation of Unity Gov't in Yemen
The report by Amnesty International is based on 60 cases of arbitrary detention in several Yemeni cities under Houthi control, including the capital of Sanaa, conducted between December 2014 and March 2016.
"Huthi forces have presided over a brutal and deliberate campaign targeting their political opponents and other critics since December 2014. Hundreds of people have been rounded up and held without charge or trial, and in some cases they have been forcibly disappeared in flagrant violation of international law," James Lynch, the deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Amnesty International, was quoted as saying in the report.
Enforced disappearance is an abhorrent crime that cannot be justified under any circumstances, Lynch stressed.
Shiite rebel fighters, known as Houthis, hold their weapons during a tribal gathering to show support for the Houthi movement in Sanaa, Yemen.
Yemen has been engulfed in an 18-month military conflict between the government, headed by President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, and the Houthi rebels, which have been supported by army units loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
A coalition led by Saudi Arabia has been carrying out airstrikes on Houthi positions at Hadi's request since March 2015, causing hundreds of victims among civilian population.
The latest round of the UN-mediated talks in Kuwait, attempting to reconcile the Houthi rebels with Yemeni government Hadi, started on April 21.
#fnYemen1" id="fnYemen1">1. #txtYemen1">⇑ As of 20 May 2015, all other stories about Yemen on Sputnik News are, unlike the story discussed above, sympathetic to the Houthi rebels. However, some of these stories, whilst not hostile to the Houthi rebels, unfortunately, seem to uncritically accept pronouncements of the United States' government of its intentions and its subsequent actions. Two such stories are US Military Team Heads to Yemen to Help in the Fight Against al-Qaeda (7/5/16) and Pentagon: US Kills 10 Al-Qaeda Affiliates in Yemen (7/5/16). Another earlier Sputnik story, which reveals the criminality of the United States' actions towards Yemen is US Blasted for Providing Saudis Cluster Bombs Used Against Yemeni Civilians (7/5/16). However, two days after it was published, the above story remains the most Sputnik's most recently published story about Yemen. We trust that Sputnik will soon resume balanced and truthful reporting of the Yemen conflict.
#fnYemen2" id="fnYemen2">2. #txtYemen2">⇑ This claim, was hidden inside the article Syria: Armed opposition groups committing war crimes in Aleppo city (14/5/16). As the title implies, the article was ostensibly to denounce the war crimes of the terrorist insurgents around Aleppo. Given that the depravity of the insurgents is now too well understood, thanks to evidence provided by Syria, Russia, various impartial observers and the alternate newsmedia, Amnesty could hardly allow itself to be seen to be concealing the evidence of their crimes. So, instead, Amnesty, as have governments hostile to Syria, adopted the ploy of seeming to be outraged by the crimes of those fighting for the overthrow of the Syrian government, whilst claiming that the Syrian government is even worse than the insurgents. For more information see our article Amnesty smear: "Russian and Syrian government forces ... have deliberately and systematically bombed hospitals ..."
![]() |
The article, Amnesty International: Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing War Crimes in Aleppo City, originally published here on 14 May 2016, has been made an appendix. At face value, the article appeared to confirm what candobetter and other news sources (as opposed to the msm) have been writing about the terrorist invaders. However, concealed within the article is the claim that "the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater" i.e. precisely the same narrative that is clearly intended by the Western msm to justify the expansion of the current war, ostensibly against Islamic State, into a war to remove the allegedly even more brutal 'regime' of President Bashar al-Assad. |
On 3 March 2016, more than two months ago now, the supposed human rights organisation Amnesty International 'reported':
Russian and Syrian government forces appear to have deliberately and systematically targeted hospitals and other medical facilities over the last three months to pave the way for ground forces to advance on northern Aleppo, an examination of airstrikes by Amnesty International has found.
Even as Syria's fragile ceasefire deal was being hammered out, Syrian government forces and their allies intensified their attacks on medical facilities.
"Syrian and Russian forces have been deliberately attacking health facilities in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. But what is truly egregious is that wiping out hospitals appears to have become part of their military strategy," said Tirana Hassan, Crisis Response Director at Amnesty International.
"The latest string of attacks on health facilities north of Aleppo appears to be part of a pattern of attacks on medics and hospitals, a strategy that has destroyed scores of medical facilities and killed hundreds of doctors and nurses since the start of the conflict."
The organization has gathered compelling evidence of at least six deliberate attacks on hospitals, medical centres and clinics in the northern part of the Aleppo Countryside governorate in the past 12 weeks. The attacks, which killed at least three civilians including a medical worker, and injured 44 more, continue a pattern of targeting health facilities in various parts of Syria which amounts to war crimes.
...
The press release also made more claims against the Syrian government, Syrian Army and Russian military forces including:
The Syrian government was attempting "to empty an entire town or village of residents by targeting hospitals and infrastructure to facilitate the ground invasion";
A doctor from Anadan said: "Hospitals, water and electricity are always the first to be attacked. Once that happens people no longer have services to survive ...";
"Hospitals in opposition-controlled areas around Aleppo became a primary target for the Russian and Syrian government forces. This eliminated a vital lifeline for the civilians living in those embattled areas, leaving them no choice but to flee," said Tirana Hassan.
There were no military vehicles, checkpoints, fighters or front lines near the hospitals that were attacked and that the hospitals were exclusively serving their humanitarian function;
At least 27 hospitals, including eight in Aleppo governorate, have been targeted by Russian and Syrian government forces since September 2015. A total of four medical staff workers and 45 civilians were killed in these 14 attacks;
The above story is now difficult to find on the Amnesty International web-site as they no doubt fear that people who read it are likely to learn that it has no more factual basis than Amnesty's previous claims that invading Iraqis cast prematurely born babies out of incubators onto the floors of Kuwaiti hospitals in 1990 or their claims against the Libyan government in 2011.
The other report by Shamnesty, sorry, Amnesty International, republished in the #shamnestyAppendix">Appendix below, repeats the same lie peddled by the mainstream and phony alternate media since the armed conflict began in March 2011: "the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater".
This begs the question, if both the regime and the rebels are slaughtering the same Syrian civilians, then why can't they just stop shooting each other and just work together?
Anyone who has properly informed herself/himself about the Syrian conflict from our Syria pages and other alternate newsmedia linked to from those pages, would know that the Syrian Arab Army has, in fact, been defending the people of Syria and itself from precisely the same forces that Amnesty International claims, in this press release, to oppose, that is tens of thousands of invaders, from all corners of the globe paid for and armed by the United States, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and their allies.
So far 80,000 soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army have lost their lives fighting this invasion.#fnSubj_1" id="txtSubj_1"> 1
If Amnesty International truly cared about the welfare of the civilians of which it writes in the above press release, it would not have smeared the government of Syria and its heroic army. Instead it would be pointing its finger firmly at all those countries who have been arming, paying and giving passage and sanctuary the terrorists, including the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and France.
This media release includes the claim that "the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater."
"Amnesty International is calling on the Gulf states, Turkey and others believed to be providing support to armed groups in Syria to immediately block the transfer of arms to armed groups, including logistical and financial support for such transfers ...." This article comes from a press release from Amnesty International, which usually takes the 'rebel' side, but which here seems unable to close its eyes to the brutality of the so-called 'rebels', although Amnesty continues to hedge its bets and toe the US/NATO line by implying that the Gulf States, Turkey and others supporting armed groups might continue to supply, "those groups that meet stringent reliability tests which demonstrate that they can act consistently with full respect for international human rights and humanitarian law should be considered for future supply." What groups might they be? we ask. We are publishing this press release here because it is unlikely to be prominently reported in any NATO sympathising mainstream press, despite the importance of this awful news. The theory (not voiced here) is that the ceasefire in Syria and the withdrawal of Russia has been exploited by the rebels against the Syrian Arab Army (government army) maintenance of ceasefire, to the disadvantage of Syrians.
[Amnesty International: Friday, May 13, 2016 - 11:00am:WASHINGTON] Armed groups surrounding the Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo city have repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks that have struck civilian homes, streets, markets and mosques, killing and injuring civilians and displaying a shameful disregard for human life, said Amnesty International.
The organization has gathered strong evidence of serious violations from eyewitnesses, and obtained the names of at least 83 civilians, including 30 children, who were killed by attacks in Sheikh Maqsoud between February and April 2016. More than 700 civilians were also injured, according to the local field hospital. Video evidence seen by Amnesty International shows artillery shelling, rocket and mortar attacks carried out by the Fatah Halab (Aleppo Conquest) coalition of armed groups in the area, targeting the Kurdish People's Protection Unit (YPG) controlling the area.
"The relentless pummelling of Sheikh Maqsoud has devastated the lives of civilians in the area. A wide array of armed groups from the Fatah Halab coalition has launched what appear to be repeated indiscriminate attacks that may amount to war crimes," said Magdalena Mughrabi, interim Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.
There are around 30,000 civilians living in Sheikh Maqsoud which is a predominately Kurdish part of Aleppo city. The area is controlled by YPG forces and surrounded from the northern, eastern and western fronts by opposition armed groups who have targeted it from all three sides. Syrian government forces control areas south of Sheikh Maqsoud. In 2014, YPG forces started fighting against the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS). In recent months however tensions have increased with opposition armed groups, particularly in the Aleppo area. Attacks by armed groups have killed at least 62 YPG fighters, according to the Families of the Martyrs Association.
In recent days the very fragile cessation of hostilities across Syria agreed to in Geneva in February was extended to areas around Sheikh Maqsoud in the Aleppo Countryside governorate. However, attacks on Sheikh Maqsoud have continued unabated over the past few months.
Satellite imagery, obtained by Amnesty International and corroborated by testimony from residents, shows destroyed and badly damaged houses in a residential street in the western part of Sheikh Maqsoud, more than 800 metres away from the frontline.
Mohamad lost seven members of his family when his home in Sheikh Maqsoud was struck by an improvised ‘Hamim' rocket launched by an armed group on 5 April 2016. Those killed included his 18-month-old daughter, his two sons, aged 15 and 10, and an eight-year-old nephew. He and two of his other young nephews sustained shrapnel wounds and were critically injured. His home is 800 metres away from the frontline.
"There are no [military] checkpoints near my house. It is a residential street and there are even people displaced by fighting or who fled airstrikes in Aleppo city living on the same street," he told Amnesty International.
Two days earlier Mohamad's neighbour's house was hit by a mortar which killed two children.
Another resident of Sheikh Maqsoud told Amnesty International that the shelling intensified in February and that people spent days in their homes unable to leave. She described how her home was attacked in April by what she believed was a weapon fitted with a gas canister.
"All I remember was the walls collapsing and hearing an explosion. We got injured – I had shrapnel in my hands and legs […] We live […] very far away from the frontline. There are no checkpoints close by or any other military points," she said.
Saad, a local pharmacist living in Sheikh Maqsoud, described 5 April 2016 as "the bloodiest day the neighbourhood had witnessed". Shelling from armed groups continued for nine hours straight, he said.
"We counted at least 15 Hamim rockets and more than 100 mortars. The shells were falling everywhere, it was indiscriminate," he said.
Among the weapons used by the armed groups are unguided projectiles which cannot be accurately aimed at specific targets such as mortars and home-made ‘Hamim' rockets, as well as other projectiles fitted with gas canisters which are known as "hell cannons". These weapons are inherently indiscriminate and should not be used in the vicinity of civilian areas.
"By firing imprecise explosive weapons into civilian neighbourhoods the armed groups attacking Sheikh Maqsoud are flagrantly flouting the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, a cardinal rule of international humanitarian law," said Magdalena Mughrabi.
There are also allegations that members of armed groups attacking Sheikh Maqsoud may have used chemical weapons. A local doctor told Amnesty International that on 7 and 8 April he treated six civilians and two YPG fighters for symptoms including shortness of breath, numbness, red eyes and severe coughing fits. Several of the victims, he said, reported seeing yellow smoke as missiles impacted. A toxicologist consulted by Amnesty International, who viewed video-clips of the apparent attack and reviewed the doctor's testimony, said the patients' symptoms could be the effects of a chlorine attack. A subsequent statement purportedly issued by the leader of the Army of Islam armed group said that a field commander had deployed an "unauthorised weapon" on Sheikh Maqsoud and that he would be held to account.
Two of the armed groups attacking YPG forces in Sheikh Maqsoud - Ahrar al Sham and Army of Islam - have sent their own representatives to the UN-brokered negotiations over the Syria conflict in Geneva. The other armed groups have approved other delegates to represent them at the talks.
"The international community must not turn a blind eye to the mounting evidence of war crimes by armed opposition groups in Syria.The fact that the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater is no excuse for tolerating serious violations by the opposition," said Magdalena Mughrabi.
The terrifying accounts from civilians in Sheikh Maqsoud shed light on the horror of daily life in pockets of the city under constant attack by armed groups that are violating the laws of war with impunity.
"International backers of armed groups operating in Syria must ensure they are not fuelling abuses by transferring weapons that are being used or might be used by armed groups to commit or facilitate serious human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law," said Magdalena Mughrabi.
Amnesty International is calling on the Gulf states, Turkey and others believed to be providing support to armed groups in Syria to immediately block the transfer of arms to armed groups, including logistical and financial support for such transfers, where there is credible evidence that they have committed serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. Only those groups that meet stringent reliability tests which demonstrate that they can act consistently with full respect for international human rights and humanitarian law should be considered for future supply.
As well as being subjected to indiscriminate shelling, civilians in Sheikh Maqsoud are effectively trapped in the area amid a deteriorating humanitarian situation. Continuing clashes have prevented aid from entering Sheikh Maqsoud and people from leaving. Government forces have only allowed civilians requiring medical attention out of the area on the side that they control and have also restricted the entry of medical supplies and food – with only vegetables and bread allowed in. According to residents, the pharmacies in Sheikh Maqsoud are empty, many have shut down.
"We barely have any food left in the neighbourhood," one resident said adding that aid supplies were running out rapidly.
"Sheikh Maqsoud is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis. It is critical that the Syrian government and armed groups urgently allow unfettered access for humanitarian aid and allow civilians who wish to leave the area to do so," said Magdalena Mughrabi.
The armed groups carrying out indiscriminate attacks on the Sheikh Maqsoud area are part of the Fatah Halab military coalition which includes: Islamic Movement of Ahrar ash-Sham, Army of Islam, al-Shamia Front, Brigade of Sultan Murad, Sultan Fatih Battalions, Fa Istaqim Kama Omirt Battalions, Nour al-Deen Zinki Battalions, 13 Brigade, 16 Brigade, 1st Regiment (al-Foj al-Awal) and Abu Omara Battalions.
According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights at least 23 civilians were killed by YPG shelling and sniper attacks in opposition-held areas in Aleppo city between February and April 2016.
#fnSubj_1" id="fnSubj_1">1. #txtSubj_1">↑ Another estimate of of the number of Syria's military dead since 2011 is 60,000, which is somewhat less terrible than 80,000. This lower figure, which does not include the larger number of civilian dead, is still roughly the same as the number of Australians who died in that terrible inter-imperialist slaughter of the early twentieth century, otherwise known as the 'First World War'.
See inside for a fascinating video account of the history of the law on church land grants in Victoria. A North West Melbourne group is asking for support in their battle to reclaim land for a public park land given by the crown to a Baptist church which no longer wants if for a church. The land now has a value of about $15m and the Baptist organisation wants to sell it off for a dense appartment block. The residents feel that if there is no longer need for a church, the land should revert back to the Crown and citizens and the law seems to clearly support this (see the video). People in North Melbourne are desperately short of open space and need a public park. The church never paid for the land and broke the law many times since the 19th century grant in changing its use. The group fighting for the land to be made public again suggest several ways that you could help them. Editorial comment: There is a long history of churches acquiring land then speculating on it in western history, making them rich and powerful institutions, travelling under cloaks of charity with different tax status. Churches tend to encourage mass immigration and benefit from this situation like other growth lobby members with landbanks.
This is about a fight against the Eight Day church apartment redevelopment in our local neighbourhood.
We really need help urgently please.
Video clips have been produced outlining the Crown grant law and Transfer of Land Act law in the state of Victoria and how the Eighth Day church sect have broken those TRUST laws.
Our hope of stopping the apartment development now rests on getting our message out to social media and to the Attorney General of Victoria, to encourage the State Government to resume the land from the Eighth Day church sect and return it back to the community as an open park for the residents and visitors to North and West Melbourne.
There are 3 ways you can help us.
1) Posting the link for our video clips below and write something along with your post. To make it easy for you please feel free to copy any of the text options below to your social media page, also ask others you know on social media to assist us in our fight please.
Link to video clip: https://youtu.be/
a) Attorney General the Crown grant on the Eighth Day land in West Melbourne is no longer being used for religious purposes it states “it shall be lawful for persons duly authorised by the Governor or other officer administering the Government to re enter upon the land and to hold possess it as if this grant had not been made.” North and West Melbourne really needs a park.
b) Attorney General if the pastor and congregation of the Eighth Day church sect in West Melbourne do not continue to use the church land solely given to them for religious purposes, the State Government of Victoria has the legal right to step in and take back full control of the land and resume ownership as per the wording of the 1866 Crown grant. North and West Melbourne really needs more open space and a park.
c) Attorney General in relation to the Eighth Day church in West Melbourne, The Transfer of Land Act of 1958 clearly states in section 42, 2: the land which is included in any folio of the Register or registered instrument shall be subject to the reservations, exceptions, conditions and powers contained in the original Crown grant of land. It’s time the State Government resume the land for a community for a park in North & West Melbourne.
d) Attorney General regarding the Eighth Day church sect in West Melbourne, Act 391 of 1871 clearly states title to the land was issued to the denomination on the basis that the land remained subject to the limitations and conditions of
d)the original 1866 Crown grant and the land can only be used for a church and nothing else. It’s time the State Government take back the land for the community to be used as a park.
2) Post a link of the video clip/s and any of the text options above of your choosing onto our Facebook page or onto Martin Pakula’s Facebook page, and ask all your friends to please do the same please. However if his page blocks you please feel free to join our facebook page to keep up to date with our fight against the Eighth Day church sect and other happenings. https://www.facebook.com/
Privatisation on the backfoot as new book shows that the growing wave of cities putting water back under public control has now spread to 37 countries impacting 100 million people.
Our Public Water Future(pdf, 1.67 MB)
Privatisation on the backfoot as new book shows that the growing wave of cities putting water back under public control has now spread to 37 countries impacting 100 million people.
Our public water future: The global experience with remunicipalisation details the growing wave of cities and communities worldwide that are bringing water services back under public control.
The book was launched in the run-up to the World Water Forum in South Korea (12-17 April) and comes in the wake of Jakarta’s decision in March 2015 to annul its privatised water contracts citing the violation of the 9.9 million residents’ human right to water.
This is the largest remunicipalisation in the world, suggesting that water privatisation is running out of steam and the pendulum is swinging back in favour of a reinvigorated, accountable and sustainable public control of water.
The TNI book is co-published jointly by the Transnationalinstiture with Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), Multinationals Observatory, European Public Services Union (EPSU) and the Municipal Services Project (MSP).
Key findings of the book
Water remunicipalisation refers to the return of previously privatised water supply and sanitation services to municipal authorities, and is also broadly used to refer to regional and national-level services in some cases.
Between March 2000 and March 2015, researchers have found:
From Jakarta to Paris, from Germany to the United States, this book draws lessons from this growing movement to reclaim water services. The authors show how remunicipalisation offers opportunities for developing socially desirable, environmentally sustainable and quality water services benefiting present and future generations. The book engages citizens, workers and policy makers in the experiences, lessons and good practices for returning water to the public sector.
Pages: 132
News: new articles are added to Eau publique, eau d’avenir in June 2015 (French edition of Our Public Water Future).
Find English translation.
News: new article is added to Un futur per l’aigua pública in September 2015 (Calatan edition of Our Public Water Future).
Find English Translation
The Sustainable Australia Party's slogan is "Better not bigger" and presents a welcome relief to big business's, Turnbulls and Shorten's "Jobson Growth".[1] Inside find candidate Georgia Nicholls' stump speech.
[1] A popular play on words in Victoria parodying the repetitive mantra of "Jobs and Growth".
Inside this article is a seven-minute video summarising what has happened in Syria. For those of you confused about this part of the world and what is happening, this clever video covers a lot in a simple way.
Some things this video does not cover: It does not go into the colonial history of similar interventions which have disorganised local power and built up to the current horrors. It does not talk about how many soldiers have died, nor of how the bulk of Syria's remaining population have fled to the government-controlled areas for safety. It does not talk about Russia's role in the area to support the government forces. Linking the creation of refugees to foreign-backed war in the region, it criticises the United States for not taking many refugees. However, for people outside Syria, the message needs to be that the west should stop creating refugees through war. This is a message that is entirely omitted by refugee activists in Australia, for instance, who seem to be quite uninterested in what is causing these floods of refugees. Australia effectively has almost no anti-war groups left. The video also does not mention the problem of growing water scarcity in Syria with Turkish diversion of the Euphrates, drought since 2006 and aquifer depletion in the context of a growing population. But drought and population growth are also matters seriously affecting other countries, such as California in the United States and most Australian states. The important difference is that California and Australia are not over-run by armed foreign-backed militia - as yet.
The proposed solution for bandicoots (SBB) in the Botanic Ridge and Devon Meadows urban development area has a number of problems. Bandicoots are expected to cross extremely busy roads via inadequate corridors. I ask, "Would it not just be so much more cost effective to simply exchange SBB’s from the RBGC to the Pines and from the Pines to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne? (RBGC)"
The Department of Environment, Land,Water and Planning (DELWP) believes that 30m wide corridors for SBB’s to other areas will compensate for the loss of habitat and lack of contact with other bandicoots . This is my response.
The corridor from the RBGC to the Pines is about 8 km long and has to cross Pearsdale Rd, Cranbourne-Frankston Rd, the extremely wide Western Port HWY (double road), Potts Rd and McClellend Drive in order to lead into the Pines and this reserve needs to be fenced in with a predator-proof fence and no dog walking allowed in the reserve.
Road crossings are not only costly but also create bottle necks and it is every ones guess how SBB’s can cope with the extremely wide Western Port HWY underpass alone.
Four to six times a year of fox baiting on both sides of the corridor on an ongoing basis is not only extremely expensive but there is no guarantee that it will be successful.
There is also the need for a fence on both sides of the corridors in order to guide the SBB’s to where they are expected to go.
A further question is whether the whole length of this corridor can be properly provided with suitable vegetation.
If one walked the whole length of it there would be surely some more difficulties encountered. A Population Viability Assessment would surely cause laughter at all of this.
And what about the yet unspecified and prohibitive costs involved?
Would it not just be so much more cost effective to simply exchange SBB’s from the RBGC to the Pines and from the Pines to the RBGC?
Further more, such an extremely narrow and long corridor is still untested and there is definitely no proof that it will work. SBB’s deserve much better than this and need to be treated with dignity in large reserves.
The corridor from the RBGC to the Western Port Bay is also an extremely narrow corridor and is about 10 km long and has to cross Browns Rd, North RD, Smith Lane, Baxter-Tyabb Rd and many more smaller roads and finishes up at nowhere in particular near Western Port Bay. It encounters the same extreme difficulties as the corridor above.
The rest of the proposed corridors will surely encounter very similar problems.
This nationally endangered species needs to be properly protected within large reserves and protected within a predator proof fence, rather than to try to condemn them into these corridors.
I have now attended three workshops on how to compensate for the loss of southern brown bandicoot (SBB) habitat because of urban expansion adjacent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne.
At the first meeting I went with a totally open mind in order to see what was on offer for the loss of SBB habitat adjacent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne. I was willing to see how corridors would work, where they would be located and how wide they were to be. I also wanted to know what other alternatives there were on offer. To my disappointment, there were nothing else but corridors recommended as compensation for habitat loss and b pop loss. Large reserves did not get a mention. There were also no considerations about the effects of climate change.
At the second meeting, things somewhat improved. While corridors were still the main subject, some reserves and trans-location of SBB’s was also suggested. After examining the viability of the proposed corridors I found that at least two of them, one to the Pines and one to Western Port Bay were, in my view, a ridiculous idea in too many ways which I have already detailed in an earlier report. For the rest of the corridors I decided to wait until I could see the area where they were to be placed and to examine the presence of remnants of SBB’s in the Koo Wee Rup area.
At the third meeting and bus trip I became clearly aware that corridors in this region were subject to the same limitations as the previous two corridors. I had to conclude that all of the recommended corridors were not only ridiculous but also extremely so. On the last stop we were shown a drainage lane with good vegetation and flowing water. In spite of this, SBB’s were still trying to move to each side of this corridor and into totally unsuitable habitat. My question is, how much longer can they survive there while exposed to further urban development and the presence of foxes and cats and floods?
Collectively, a Population Viability Assessment (PVA) applied to all of these corridors to estimate whether they will work for SBB’s would fail totally. (A standard PVA estimates the species population survival potential for the next 100 years.) My own assessment is that these untested corridors will be a total waste of money. They will not work and SBB’s deserve better than just a piecemeal solution.
Lets think about the SBB’s. What would they prefer? If one honestly wanted to provide the best for them, they would have to be properly protected as they are at the RGBC and should be so, in some other, similar reserves as well. We have a moral obligation to properly protect this species by keeping them in reserves such as the RBGC and some other similar reserves. I have no objection to maintain existing pockets of SBB’s in the wild by intensive fox and cat control for as long as they can survive there. However, for them to be able to exist in new, untested corridors is, in my opinion, nothing but a costly gamble and is guaranteed to fail. Have we not learned as yet from the untold failures that occurred with the Eastern Barred Bandicoots where they became nearly extinct before they were eventually protected in large reserves only or on islands. I therefore beg the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) to think clearly and honestly about the many problems with those far too narrow corridors for bandicoots and respond properly to the outcome of a realistic PVA study on them.
Wildlife corridors appear to be the ideal solution in most people’s mind when it comes to the protection and enhancement of wildlife. There seems to be a deeply embedded corridor mentality that makes people believe that wildlife corridors will cater for everything. However, there needs to be a closer examination as to what type of wildlife will use corridors? And what type of corridors can be of a positive benefit to wildlife.
In the case of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (SBB) , to promote ONLY corridors in the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne region for their survival is totally unacceptable and unproven. SBB’s should not be simply used as a bargaining point in order to create wildlife corridors. SBB’s are not a corridor living species by nature and therefore I can not see how, especially in brand new corridors, and with so many obstacles, that these corridors could be successfully used by bandicoots. They would also be severely isolated in corridors for long periods which will result in in-breeding and incest, problems which could be easy overcome if they lived in large reserves.
I therefore totally disagree with the proposal in TRYING for SBB’s to live within corridors ONLY and especially where they are exposed to foxes, cats, dogs and cars as well as the disturbance from adjoining urban housing estates.. They cannot, and will not, survive in these conditions! The unfortunate bandicoots would be condemned to a network of narrow corridors where they have to try to survive in what is left for them.
Even while some old, isolated remnant bandicoot populations still just survive in some linear fragments, such as road sides or drainage lines, it should not be expected that they will survive in newly created corridors and all will be OK for the future of this species.
These are cruel expectations and there is no real future for the SBB. They will not survive A proper scientific evaluation needs to be carried out, know as Population Viability Assessment. Bandicoots living under the above proposed conditions would never pass this test! Another situation, which has not been fully considered, is what if the corridors are considered a fire hazard, passing between housing estates? Vacant building blocks in these estates have to be cleared and slashed before each summer. In addition, the corridors will be most likely be used by people to walk their dogs, making predator control virtually impossible.
In respect of new corridors, I have never heard of a case where a long and narrow, brand new corridor was able to connect two substantial colonies of bandicoots. I have no objection to a short and wide corridor linking with two substantial colonies of bandicoots with appropriate protection such as predator proof fencing. However, such a possibility does not exists in these regions, due to the fact that SBB’s living outside the Royal Botantical Gardens Cranbourne and in the Koo Wee Rup swamp area can now only be found in some linear fragments. Fox and cat control will not be able to protect them there for ever.
Strangely, when a corridor for bandicoots is still seriously considered to link the RBGC with bandicoots on Quail Island; with Koo Wee Rup, and into the Frankston area it becomes obvious to me that no proper thought was given to the implication encountered .
The distance to Quail Island alone is 10 km and to Koo Wee Rup much further.Disastrously, the latest news is that there are at present fewer than 100 bandicoots remaining on Quail Island due to feral pig disturbance. Bandicoots will have to swim from the island at exactly the right spot to find the entrance of the open-ended corridor on the mainland visa versa. The corridor needs to be at least 200 m wide but Malcolm Legg, the local ecologist, suggests they should be 1 km wide. In addition, to provide any form of protection, the corridors need to have a predator proof fence on both sides (therefore 20 km of fencing is required for the Quail Island corridor alone) and all of these corridors have to be re-vegetated to suit bandicoots. This type of scenario applies also to the proposed corridors to Frankston and the Pines.
Another problem is that the majority, if not all, of these corridors have to cross several roads and many will have serious bottle necks. These corridors were recently approved by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Simon Birmingham, after “serious consideration” , and were recommended in the most recent strategy AS THE ONLT SOLUTION. There is no costing for them or for the cost to obtain some private land. This and other such proposed corridors, will do absolutely nothing for the long-term protection and well-being of the SBB. This deeply inbred corridor mentality is the reason why all of the Government’s strategies to protect the SBB’s have so far failed. A PHD student, Sarah Maclagan, currently caring out research into SBB’s in this region, agrees that corridors are only a small part of a solution for the ultimate protection of them.
I further question why the SBB’s are expected to mostly survive in corridors within this region when for a closely related species, the Eastern Barred Bandicoot in western Victoria, no corridors have been considered for them, and for good reasons.
To my dismay, I am absolutely amazed that in all of those failed strategies there was never a mention of keeping bandicoots within large reserves surrounded by a predator proof fence. In the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve at Frankston North, there were at one time at least 400 bandicoots. The $ 1.6 million allocated for predator proof fencing was taken away, in spite of the $ 20 millions spent in the reserve on underpasses for this bandicoot as well as for the re-vegetation of large areas to suit them. To allow dog walking in this nature conservation reserve seems to be more important to Parks Victoria then the protection of this nationally endangered bandicoot,.
I note that, beside the Pines, there are several other reserves on the Mornington Peninsula which have suitable habitat for bandicoots and should be considered such as the Briars Park at Mt. Martha which already has a predator proof fence around their nature reserve as well as many other reserves where bandicoots used to be in their hundreds.
In order to prevent the extinction of this species, some ‘insurance’ colonies within large reserves should be a priority.. Bandicoots will be so much happier and safer in a much more natural environment where they can retreat in the hot summer into cool gullies and freely spread out in all directions in winter . It will be more natural or akin to ‘wild’ conditions, than being crammed into narrow corridors and exposed to all the threats that are created by corridors. As to the health of the gene pool, bandicoots can be easily exchanged between reserves by trans location.
Anyone really and sincerely concerned with the survival of this species must first and foremost make recommendations for SBB’s to be re-located within reserves such as the Pines, the Briars and possibly two other reserves, surrounded by a predator proof fence.
Why not copy the proven success experienced in the RBGC and follow this example rather the risk trying to condemn bandicoots into corridors?
To invest millions of dollars as a long-shot in unproven corridors for bandicoots is an expensive way to achieve even more failures. There is, at present, already $20 million wasted on under passes in the Pines and this could be exacerbated by loosing yet more money in the construction of unproven corridors especially created for SBB’s.
There are at present far too many pseudo experts who seem to know better than people involved with bandicoots for over 40 years. Their recommendations are based on emotions only rather than on clearly evaluated and scientific evidence which, unfortunately, unfortunately resulted in a long history of failures for this species.
While I strongly support the creation of corridors between housing estates for other wildlife and in order to prevent wall to wall urban development, we should not use the endangered bandicoot as bargaining chips for the establishment of corridors, and in this way, restrict the ways they should be properly protected.
Therefore, the creation of corridors and the protection of bandicoots must remain two distinctly separated issues! For the prevention of regional extinction of this species, they must not be provided with just corridors only.
People often ask me why I campaign on population and the reason that I give is that it is an issue that is often overlooked by the environment movement and by the wider world at large. I feel that by ignoring this topic, so much of the other great work done by environmentalists and campaigners is in danger of being severely compromised. Rapid population growth is a worldwide issue and it is also an issue here in Australia. One reason for this is because Australia has one of the highest migration rates in the ‘developed’ world. Due to the way our infrastructure is distributed this is a major reason why an average of 1760 people are added to the population of Melbourne every week and 1600 are added to Sydney. (More by Mark Allen at http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/7484)
As a town planner I cannot ignore the impact that this growth is having in terms of how we can create long-term sustainable communities. This is why I run workshops on suburban sprawl and inappropriate high density and the impact that it has on our changing climate.
With my work I am asked a lot of questions, many on a reoccurring basis, so I thought that I would give my best shot at providing written responses to a number of written questions and comments that I have received over the past twelve months.
Where better to start than the issue of reducing population growth and xenophobia?
Population is not the right factor to focus on. It's a slippery slope to xenophobia and not directly linked to sustainability. It is also very dubious on ethical grounds, no real policy levers, and divisive all around. My suggestion would be to focus on sustainability if that's your objective.
I do understand why people are put off by the topic of population because there are so many people who have hijacked the issue with xenophobic intentions. This is all the more reason why we should embrace the topic with a critical, thinking mindset so that those with narrow minded views can be quickly called out. It is reasoned and rational discussion that will prevent a descent into xenophobia, not ignoring the topic and leaving it in the hands of those who feed off irrational soundbites.
In the meantime, if we continue to ignore the issue here in Australia, we will have to accept that suburban sprawl and unsustainable rates of high density development will continue until the current system breaks. By then we will have greatly reduced our ability to adapt to a low carbon society and we will be left with an environmental and social legacy that may take generations to reverse.
Eventually migrants will want to stop coming here due to the increased commutes and expense as well as services becoming increasingly inaccessible. This is already starting to happen (see The root of Sydney and Melbourne’s housing crisis: we’re building the wrong thing – Bob Birrell The Conversation).
If we wait until migrants stop wanting to come, we will make it so much harder for those migrants who need to come. In short we have to get our planning back into the hands of people who want to build communities.
Population growth has not been sustainable since the Howard era when it was massively increased to increase GDP with deliberately little fanfare. This kind of growth fuels the worst types of development; the type that forces generations of people to live lesser lives, all to justify short term profits. We need to shift our population policy away from growth for the sake of growth model towards one that does what is the most sustainable and the most equitable from a global perspective.
This means using some of the money that would otherwise be spent in trying to reduce the massive infrastructure debt that accompanies rapid population growth to help other countries stabilise their population in a non-coercive way. This money could also be channelled into partnering with them to create permaculture based communities as a way of adapting to and helping to combat climate change.
Secondly, by slowing population growth we can better utilise land that would otherwise be developed to house a rapidly growing population to sequester carbon through regenerative farming practices.
Thirdly, most of our population growth is directed towards the fringes of our cities or in ribbon developments along the coast. As well as being some of our greatest areas of biodiversity, these areas are also have some of our most fertile soils. Therefore slowing population growth in Australia may help us to increase global food security or at the very least reduce our reliance upon importing food from areas of the world who will likely have food security issues of their own.
Lastly, slowing our current rate of population growth will allow us to engage in the slower more considered method of planning that is required to create resilient and meaningful communities that will benefit everyone including incoming refugees and other migrants.
High immigration to Australia doesn't add to net world population so it seems right that Australia should take some of the load.
When you consider that the population of the world is increasing by 80 million a year, the effectiveness of Australia in helping to more evenly distribute global population growth is negligible and it does nothing to stabilise the rate of growth in those regions that are struggling to adapt. It is a reactive approach rather than a proactive one. The fact that Australia’s population centres are situated in some of the most ecologically rich and fertile areas of the continent coupled with the fact that we have a planning system that puts profit before resilience, means that this is having a massive environmental and social impact.
Most of us agree that we need to be reducing our emissions rapidly. Therefore the last thing we need to be doing is compromising our capacity to reduce our food miles by pouring huge amounts of carbon intensive concrete over our inner suburbs and urban fringes. It makes much more sense to reallocate the money that would otherwise be required for all the additional infrastructure into helping people in their own countries adapt to the climate crisis and importantly to partner with them to reduce that crisis. Otherwise we only help a small number of people at a massive environmental and long-term social cost.
We want to be in the best position to provide sustainable resilient communities for those people who cannot stay in their own country for one reason or another. Otherwise incoming refugees will be blown like feathers in the wind into the social isolation of an ever increasing suburban sprawl.
Why not just change the planning system?
We need to work hard to change the planning system and work towards reducing GDP driven population growth. If we do one without the other we will fail because deliberate high population growth is the driver of fast paced suburban sprawl style development as well as prefab concrete apartment developments that are quick to build and quick to age. It is a never ending vicious circle. I saw this with my own eyes when I worked as a planner. Sustainable planning takes time as it is about regenerating wasteland, increasing medium density in the post-war middle suburbs and building new village communities complete with recreation, services and capacity for permaculture. This requires a slower rate of population growth for a slower more considered rate of development.
You seem to be advocating for more development in the middle suburbs. This is where much of our food security could lie and we could end up losing this if we are not careful.
Many of the houses in the middle suburbs are being demolished because they do not meet the perceived needs of 21st century living. Also, because most of them lack heritage appeal, very few people feel the inclination to retrofit them. The middle suburbs (unlike the outer suburbs) are much more connected to public transport and much of the housing stock is within walking distance of public open space. Many of these houses have large backyards. Some of these are well utilised while many are not. So the question is, should we see this 'outdated stock' as an opportunity to encourage increasing the density of these areas (as much of it is likely to be demolished over time) in order to reduce the pressure on the urban fringe? Or should we instead regard these backyards as an underutilised resource which will become all the more relevant as we move towards a low carbon, steady state economy?
Could it be that the larger backyards of the middle suburbs will one day provide the food security that other medium density settlements cannot provide? If so, how much of a willingness is there for the occupants of these areas to become urban farmers? In reality most people see their garden as something that simply needs mowing but resilience is all about the ability of communities to adapt to new social and economic circumstances. In which case those backyards could be seen with a new perspective. I really don't have any firm answers. I believe that we can potentially increase housing diversity in the middle suburbs without threatening their potential as permaculture communities but I know that with the current planning system in place, this will not happen. In reality it will be ad-hoc and many good gardens will be lost and much more besides. Increasing housing diversity in the middle suburbs does make a lot of sense but the potential of these areas to grow food and contribute to local self sustaining economies could be critical in the future. We need to tread very carefully (for more on this issue check out the co-founder of Permaculture, David Holmgren's youtube videos and forthcoming book on retrofitting the suburbs)
Are you not just some privileged white guy trying to protect his way of life?
Anyone who thinks that we should be protecting our way of life is in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later as we are currently living well beyond the planet's capacity to absorb our lifestyle. The only thing that we should be trying to protect is our potential to create sustainable resilient communities that are adaptable to energy descent and that can absorb population growth sustainably. The demographic of the inner suburbs of Melbourne has changed a lot in the past few decades as more and more Greek and Italian migrants are displaced by a white middle class demographic. The irony is that it is this very same demographic that is rejecting a suburban model of living that originated and is still championed by white culture. This will continue under the current paradigm as multicultural areas such as Footscray and Richmond become increasingly gentrified through modern apartment living, all of course under the greenwash banner of urban consolidation*. This forces more communities to be dispersed into the social isolation of the urban fringe. We need to prevent the further gentrification of our existing suburbs while ensuring that new communities are built around a village model, as this is the most socially, ecologically and economically sustainable method of creating communities.
*Urban consolidation (the act of increasing densities within the existing built form as a means of reducing urban sprawl) does not have to be greenwash if:
a) It is not perpetual and ongoing. In other words if the high density is not being constructed to house the endlessly growing population that is needed in order to prop up an over inflated housing market.
b)If a substantial proportion is affordable and within financial reach of those people who would otherwise live on the urban fringe where land is cheaper.
c) A substantial proportion of the units are large enough to be viable for families. This includes being within close proximity to services that are within walking distance, including childcare (most inner suburb areas currently have waiting lists of over a year for childcare services).
d)The apartments are resilient and will last for generations.This includes high quality finishes that will not require constant maintenance and trips to landfill.
e)Apartment developments are incorporated into the fabric of existing neighbourhoods in a way that they do not become the dominant built form and that that their presence is subtle and not detrimental to the overall streetscape. Maintaining the village like feel of our suburbs, including the green spaces within them is essential for long term social and environmental resilience.
Much of the urban consolidation currently taking place in Melbourne fails on all of these points and as result does nothing to reduce urban sprawl whist also compromising much of the existing urban landscape.
You support the Greens policy of increasing our refugee intake but in the future there could be many more refugees as climate change worsens. Where do you draw the line?
Assuming that we do not end up becoming refugees ourselves due to climate change (especially as most Australian cities lie on the coast while the interior is becoming increasingly dry) we could theoretically house an increased number of refugees without increasing sprawl or over developing our existing neighbourhoods. We won't have the economic or environmental justification to build many new towns so the focus will be on retrofitting what we already have and part of this would be retrofitting existing housing stock. In Maroondah alone, at the time of writing there are 3000 empty homes. These are artificial “housing shortages” created by speculators and developers to inflate the value of their investments. Therefore we can provide asylum for people without compromising the ability of our cities to adapt to a low carbon world but of course we have to change the paradigm.
Preserving our capacity to provide food close to and within our cities will however be critical. This is why we need to be focussed on retrofitting what we already have as opposed to creating new development on our precious soils.
New research shows that Melbourne's "food-bowl" supplies 41 per cent of all fresh fruit and vegetables to the city but that is set to plummet to just 18 per cent by 2050 thanks to urban sprawl. It is a similar situation in Sydney.
A major component of reducing our environmental footprint lies in sustainable town planning and that just cannot happen at the current rate of population growth because it is quicker and cheaper to build new estates on the fringe or the unsustainable prefab concrete apartment blocks that we are increasingly seeing in the existing suburbs.
Surely population growth is good because it stimulates change and innovation?
There are some areas of Melbourne that in combination with sound planning and urban design principles could be enriched by a modest increase in population. This however is an issue of poorly distributed growth as opposed to it being an issue of there not being enough growth. Many areas within the wider Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane conurbations are growing much too fast while there are some areas that could benefit from the modest amount of growth that is needed to generate commercial activity (helping to decentralise jobs) while making public transport more economically viable. Therefore we need a slower rate of growth coupled with an improvement on the way that growth is distributed.
We have an ageing population so we must increase our population to compensate.
The drain that older people have on services is over emphasised. Many older people contribute to society well past retirement and if we need to create more jobs to support them, then no problem. It might mean fewer jobs running and maintaining poker machines, a few less real estate agents perhaps, a few less loggers and a few less property developers. And how would we pay for it? The last time I looked there was 452 billion dollars from big corporations and millionaires in Australia that are not being taxed (source: Getup). It is also worth considering that:
1)The average age of a person migrating to Australia is 30. That means they are 30 years older than a newborn baby, which has the affect that in 30 years time the ageing population problem will be even worse than it is now.
2)It is worker-to-dependency ratio that matters, not youth-to-elderly. Australia's un/underemployment is probably over three million people.
3)Demographer Dr Jane O'Sullivan has estimated that it may be costing thirty times more in growing our population to offset ageing than our ageing population is costing.
Migration policy is not the only way of achieving a sustainable population.
Very true. For the answer to this question I will quote Michael Bayliss who is the president of the Victorian/Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.
“I envision a future where families with no children are respected as being the societal norm just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couples of all sexual and gender identities. The key as always, is through education, empowerment, and allowing people to make their own choices. High schools for example should educate young people into the pros and cons of having children, and with due consideration given to the environmental impacts of having children. I do not advocate fiscal policies that reward large family size, instead this money should be spent on children’s services, such as schools and medical subsidies.”
The questions and answers written above form part of a booklet that is available in electronic format by emailing [email protected]. It is also available as a hard copy from the New International Bookshop in Carlton, Melbourne.
Feel free to contact me at that same email address with your feedback.
Mark Allen is an ex-town planner and environmental activist with a particular interest in population. He runs workshops on Population, Permaculture and Planning across Australia and runs a Facebook group of the same name.
The Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership is about to take on an ecological angle with Moscow's suggestion of piping Altai mountain river water to the drought-stricken deserts of Xinjiang. Aside from obviously being used to unburden the Chinese from dealing with the catastrophic effects of climate change, the proposed fresh water pipeline will also have a premier strategic purpose as well. The research begins by examining the strategic vision at play with this initiative and then explaining how it relates to Color Revolutions. Finally, the insight that's revealed from investigating the prior two topics will be linked to the forthcoming global struggle for reliable freshwater supplies in forecasting how the US will try to disrupt Russian-Chinese water cooperation in the coming decades.
Article by Andrew Korybko. Republished with permission. First published at Katehon, Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00 UTC
Xinjiang is the global intersection point for most of China's Eurasian Silk Road projects, and it's thus of the highest importance that the frontier region remains stable and prosperous in order to function as the ultimate juncture of the 21st century's transcontinental infrastructure projects. While foreign-supported terrorism and the proselytization of violent ideologies are certainly a challenge in the area, what most directly affects the population's sympathies towards the central government are more immediate concerns such as their standard of living. The countless material products that are expected to pass through the region and tangentially enrich it can only do so much in improving one's livelihood if there are potentially pressing problems with water availability to the local citizens.
At this moment in time, the Chinese government has been doing a phenomenal job ensuring that the people of Xinjiang are taken care of by providing for all of their needs, but Beijing is also keen enough to plan ahead several decades in advance in order to preempt as many forthcoming challenges as possible. Considering the recent drought and unpredictable global climactic changes, China has legitimate fears that the current environmental difficulties could be exacerbated in the future. Needing to keep Xinjiang as stable and prosperous as possible in order to facilitate its grander goals of pan-Eurasian integration through the New Silk Road, China and Russia came up with the idea of using Kazakhstan to geographically facilitate the transfer of mountain river water from Altai Krai to Xinjiang's deserts.
If successfully completed, then the ambitious project would guarantee Xinjiang a stable supply of freshwater and counteract the physical-political effects of any future droughts, thus depriving the US of one of the potential avenues through which it could one day try to stir up anti-government unrest. For example, the authorities would not have to worry about their citizens being manipulated into protesting against a shortfall in domestic water availability (sewage and in-house running water complications), a dearth of drinking water, and/or the disastrous agricultural and livestock impact of drought because each of these scenarios would be rendered increasingly unlikely after Xinjiang reliably connects its water infrastructure to Altai's.
From another angle, however, the establishment of the Altai-Xinjiang water pipeline would increase the chance that the US would try to stage a Color Revolution scenario in Altai in order to interfere with the vital source of western China's water supplies. Even prior to the project's completion, the US and its army of NGOs will expectedly stage disturbances aimed at highlighting the "environmental consequences" of the initiative, potentially even encouraging its local "activists" to enter into clashes with the police. Should the pipeline get up and running, then the authorities need to be on the lookout for potential signs of growing identity separateness between the local Altai population and Moscow.
While it's always a positive development when indigenous cultures embrace their uniqueness and are proud of their heritage, there's a distinct line between peaceful celebration and hostile antagonism. If the locals organize around some distinct facet of their identity -- perhaps a revival of the Shamanistic religion of "Burkhanism" or a violent interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism -- then they could more easily be herded into nationalist groups that might thenceforth be directed to stage aggressive anti-government protests. The fusion of identity separateness and a US-promoted awareness of the Altai's newfound geostrategic importance to multipolar affairs could be enough to encourage increasingly radicalized individuals to agitate for substantially enhanced autonomy or outright independence, being misled by Washington and its NGO minions into thinking that they could indefinitely sustain their 'sovereignty' solely through profitable water exports to China.
The proposal to connect Russia's freshwater resources with the growing Chinese consumer base is emblematic of Moscow's rising role as the world's premier water superpower. No other country has as much freshwater reserves as Russia does, which thus increases is global profile and will soon allow it to reap enormous strategic advantages as the rest of the world literally thirsts for this resource. Russia's other advantage -- though regularly spun by the West as a disadvantage -- is that the Siberian and Far East regions where the freshwater originates are largely underpopulated and accordingly more than capable of diverting their own supplies abroad without any consequences at home. In the future, Russia might not only come to be China's main energy partner, but also its vital lifeline to clean freshwater reserves as well, thereby making itself forever irreplaceable as Beijing's most important grand strategic ally.
Because of the pivotal role that Russia is expected to play in providing clean drinking water to some of China's over one billion citizens, the US will undoubtedly conspire to find a way to interfere with the reliable shipment of this life-sustaining resource and thus gain leverage over both of these Great Powers. In a sense, this is merely an adapted application of what it's already trying to do vis-a-vis global energy flows, albeit much more directly connected to life-or-death ends. Using the techniques of Hybrid War that it's been perfecting over the past decade and especially in the most recent years, it's foreseeable that the US will try to instigate identity tension inside the freshwater-originating regions or transit areas.
Looking at the map, a fair share of Russia's major Siberian and Far Eastern rivers either start or pass through autonomous republics (Sakha/Yakutia, Buryatia, Tuva, Khassia, Altai) or areas with a distinct identity separateness such as Altai Krai. Conclusively, it's reasonable to suggest that the US might try to capitalize off of the indigenous population's Turkic Buddhist-Shamanist identity in fomenting identity tension, with this scenario spiking in probability if Washington ever succeeds in swaying the Mongolian government over to the New Cold War side of unipolarity.
The idea of linking Siberia's freshwater supplies with China's deserts, and presumably later on even to its major population centers, is an ambitious proposal that carries with it profound global significance. The world's dwindling freshwater reserves are being pushed beyond their limit in providing nourishment to an ever-increasing population, to say nothing of their use in agriculture, hydroelectricity, and animal husbandry. In the coming decades, the countries that control freshwater resources either in whole or in part (whether through their source, transit, or mouth) will be in a superb position to influence all of those around them.
Even though China is unquestionably the freshwater king of East, Southeast, and South Asia through the sources that it controls in Tibet (which explains the US and India's unceasing struggle to destabilize and dislodge the region from Beijing), its unchecked industrialization of the past couple of decades has led to unprecedented pollution that has made some of these supplies dangerous and unfit to use. Moreover, not all of the country is served by the Tibetan rivers, with the geostrategic trans-continental juncture point of Xinjiang being absolutely arid and deprived of any significant water resources. This part of China is also the scene of foreign-supported terrorist aggression, and it's in the best interests of Beijing to do everything that it can to secure the locals' contentment with the central government in order to avoid losing "hearts and minds" amidst this partially ideological conflict.
What Russia's planning to do isn't just to provide Xinjiang with Altai freshwater supplies, but possibly even to expand this cooperation further in connecting northeastern and eastern China to similarly reliable and clean resources. This would greatly relieve the Chinese authorities of future contingency planning in the face of an ever-unpredictable climate and could also free up its own domestic resources for further export and strategic utilization as regards the downstream countries. By remedying China's freshwater shortage amidst its never-ending population growth, Russia would fulfill an irreplaceable role in Beijing's grand strategic calculus and thereby maximize its importance to its critical multipolar partner.
However, it's due to this very same vision of pragmatic win-win cooperation between the two Eurasian Great Powers that the US has a vested interest in sabotaging their prospective freshwater trading network, which is why it might seek to capitalize off of identity separateness in Russia's Turkic Buddhist-Shamanistic regions in one day stoking a series of meticulously preplanned Hybrid Wars designed to offset this eventuality. Though there presently aren't any overt signs that the US has made any progress in actualizing this objective, it must still be astutely monitored by the Russian authorities in order to ensure that NGOs and other disruptive proxy actors don't succeed in fanning the flames of conflict and disturbing the peace in this historically stable corner of the world.
For the record, the below is a partial record of correspondence between Susan Dirgham, National Coordinator of 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria', and Q&A, the Australian television program. Like most Australian media outlets, the ABC almost invariably presents Syria in a squewed, ahistoric manner that supports the continued and disastrous interference by the US, NATO and its allies in the region, maintaining war.
Questions to Q&A Panel; Monday 16 May 2016
How does it help Australia to ignore the voices of millions of 'ordinary' Syrians (Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Orthodox, atheist etc) who share our truest values, and instead promote the claims of those who support a violent form of radical Islam?How does it help our security and social harmony to be a member of the unholy alliance that has formed between radical Islamist groups in Syria and US neo-cons and their friends? Such an alliance could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people and the destruction of countries.
The basic question is,
What will become of us as a nation if we hide from the truth and play dirty?
RE: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I go way back/ MSF supports Takfiris, including al-Qaeda in Syria, ignores concerns of general population, but Jean-Christophe Rufin seems to support diplomacy / Syrians don't need Emma Sky to tell them what is good for themDear Peter and Ainslee,
In February, you kindly arranged for me to ask David Kilcullen a question on Skype, but there was a last minute technical hitch at your end which led to Mr Kilcullen not being challenged on Q&A - despite his support for the US military machine and covert action in Iraq and Syria.Next Monday I would value the opportunity to be in your audience to challenge three of the panelists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Emma Sky and Jean-Christophe Rufin. (Note: you have listed Jean-Christophe Rufin as a 'co-founder' of MSF. I believe he was an 'early member', rather than a 'co-founder'. )In the past, I have been publicly critical of Ms Ali's views (see my comments on pages here and here) and in 2007, The AGE published a letter I wrote in response to an article by Julie Szego's praising Ms Ali. (I transcribed that letter in one of the comments I referenced above.) Ten years ago, Hilary McPhee seemed to be the only prominent Australian who dared write critically about Ms Ali. I hope that is not the case this year.In regard to MSF, I have been critical of their partisan support for 'rebels' in Syria and the credibility their support gives the claims of Takfiris. In an article published online (April 2015) I wrote the following about MSF and referred to Dr Bernard Kouchner, who was one of the co-founders:There is also reason to question the objectivity and intentions of MFS and Avaaz, two prominent NGOs disseminating the allegations about chlorine or gas attacks. Both NGOs have much closer links with insurgents and their supporters than with Syrian people who support the Syrian army.
For example, in August 2013, MFS worked with doctors in rebel-held Ghouta, Damascus, and it was those doctors through MFS that provided details about hundreds of alleged victims of a sarin attack, allegedly by the Syrian army. MFS presentation of the allegations gave the claims some credence, yet later investigations and reports by highly regarded professionals in the west raise serious doubts about the Syrian army being responsible.
By working with doctors and medical personnel who operate only in rebel-held territory in Syria, MFS presents a blinkered and partisan view of the war. It should be noted that a co-founder of MFS, Dr Bernard Kouchner, was French Minister for Foreign and European Affairs Minister (2007 – 2010) under President Sarkozy, a president who was to give strong backing for foreign intervention in Syria. (In 2010, Kouchner was listed by The Jerusalem Post as number 15 in their list of the 50 most influential Jewish people in the world.) And interestingly, Dr Kouchner and MFS were involved in controversy in October 2008 when MFS protested comments made by Kouchner in Jerusalem. Kouchner said at a press conference, “Officially, we have no contact with Hamas, but unofficially, international organization working in the Gaza Strip – in particular, French NGOs – provide us information.”However, Jean-Christophe Rufin may not back MSF's partisan stand on Syria. In April 2015, he reportedly said,In my view, the French parliamentarians who went to discuss with Bashar al-Assad are right.Americans are beginning to realize that we can not do without him now. It is not at all pleasant, it is not reassuring nor moral, but I think they are right. "
Ms Emma Sky, on the other hand, is more clearly supportive of military action than diplomacy. I note that in a Nov 2015 article in The Guardian she expresses confidence in UK and US interference in Syrian affairs and their choices for the Syrian people.We need to show the Syrian people that the choices facing them are not simply Isis or Assad.
I have written on the interference of foreign countries in Syrian affairs in the 20th century.(Ref: Anzacs and war: Considering a Syrian perspective) Few realise that the CIA orchestrated its first successful military coup in Syria. That was in 1949, and it ushered in years of instability. In the 1950s, MI6 and the CIA worked on plans to stage border incidents, mobilise guerrillas, and assassinate Syrian leaders etc. (Ref: Washington's Long History in Syria; and Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot)Why would Syrians welcome Emma Sky's advice, or trust countries that have worked hard to undermine different Syrian governments in the past? From an historic point of view and considering their geographic position, Syrians have cause to view UK and US government intentions with suspicion. The US and the UK have been belligerent, disingenuous players in Syria's history.I trust you will give me an opportunity to be an audience member to question next week's panel.I look forward to hearing from you.Kind regards,SusanNational coordinator of 'Australians for (Mussalaha) Reconciliation in Syria'Mobile: 0406 500 711
On 22 February 2016 at 00:56, Susan Dirgham <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Peter,
Thank you very much for getting back to me in regard to my request to be in the Q&A audience to challenge David Kilcullen.It is a great pity you cannot welcome me to the ABC studio. I can only hope that others who support the secular Syrian state and reconciliation are permitted to ask Mr Kilcullen a question from the live audience. The support he provides US covert action in the Middle East would outrage most Australians.Thank you for your suggestion that I submit a video question to Q&A for consideration. Today I attempted to put together a question in a Youtube video.Except for an image of me at the beginning, the video is made up of a slide show of photographs I took in Syria before the so-called 'Arab Spring'. I thought it appropriate that the Q&A audience take note of the general public in Syria who do not, on the whole, support the militarised opposition or foreign mercenaries and 'jihadis', the majority of them being Takfiris.Unfortunately, I wasn't able to upload into the video the audio recording I made with the question, so I have attached it with this email. ( I did attempt to submit it in the regular way to Q&A, but I had a technical problem with that, too.)Here is the Youtube video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd-okAfyvao The transcript of my question is below.Syrian women have the same basic freedoms and equalities as Australian women. Christmas and Easter are public holidays in Syria just as the Eid festivals are. Education is free in Syria. The Syrian government and army are dominated by Sunni Muslims which reflects the demographic make up of Syria.
But the United States, Saudi Arabia, Australia and others support insurgents fighting the secular Syrian Army and the US is involved in covert action in Syria.
What can justify this?
I would greatly appreciate it if you could
1. review your decision to not give me the opportunity to ask a question from the audience to David Kilcullen tonight :)or2. present the Youtube video I have created together with the audio file.I know there are many in Australia as concerned about the war in Syria and our involvement in it as I am Therefore, I hope we hear some truly challenging questions on Q&A tonight. Inevitably one day, the war and the reporting of it will be challenged in the mainstream media. That day seems to have dawned with this February 18th article in the Boston Globe:The media are misleading the public on Syria
Again, thank you for your message. I hope I do not strain your patience.Kind regards,Susan
National Coordinator of 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria'
Mobile: 0406500711
On 19 February 2016 at 14:43, Peter McEvoy <[email protected].
au > wrote:
Hi Susan,
The questions you’ve submitted in your emails are long arguments in favour of your point of view. On Q&A, the audience is invited to ask questions which are concise and relevant.
Perhaps you would like to submit a video question to next week’s Q&A? Your question should be only 30 seconds long.
You can do so through our website http://www.abc.net.au/
tv/qanda/video-question- upload.htm
We consider all the questions considered to Q&A and choose those judge most appropriate. There is no guarantee that any person’s question will be selected.
Regards,
Peter McEvoy
Executive Producer, Q&A
From: Susan Dirgham [mailto:susan.dirgham51@gmail.
com ]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Peter McEvoy
Cc: Tony Jones; Paul Barry; Media Watch; Gay Alcorn; Geraldine Doogue; Late Night Live RN; Lateline; Jamie Cummins; Muditha Dias; Annabelle Quince; Keri Phillips; News Caff; Barbara Heggen; David Rutledge; Claudia Taranto; Andrew West; Kim Landers; Margaret Throsby; Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au ; Brendan Trembath; Parke, Melissa (MP); Barney Porter; brissenden.mark@abc.net.au ; Mark Scott
Subject: QandA: Free speech and a chance for an anti-war activist to question David Kilcullen
Dear Peter,
This is the second request I have put to you in regard to being given the opportunity to ask a question on QandA. As the national coordinator of 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria', I would be grateful for the opportunity to question David Kilcullen on next week's program.
Last night, I attended the launch of David Kilcullen's most recent book. Gay Alcorn interviewed Mr Kilcullen, and after the interview, I asked a couple of questions. They were fairly straight-forward; however, I prepared them for an article to place on the 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria' webpage. Please see below.
I last wrote to you when QandA was broadcast from Melbourne and I had a question for Neill Mitchell. Though I am based in Melbourne, I am happy to fly to Sydney for next Monday's program.
I understand I am not a favourite person of some at the ABC. However, I trust that I (and other anti-war activists) will be provided the same freedom to pose questions on QandA as those who support 'jihadists' in Syria have been.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Susan
National Coordinator of 'Australians for (Mussalaha) Reconciliation in Syria'
Mobile: 0406 500 711
1. Who would you align with if you were Syrian?
Australian soldiers in Syria in WW1 had sworn allegiance to the King of England.
After the war, Greater Syria was divided up between France and Britain. The aspirations of the local people were ignored. When Syria finally achieved independence, the CIA orchestrated its first successful coup there, which ushered in years of instability. For the past 100 years, many heroes in Syria have died fighting for Syria’s independence from foreign interference.
Syria is a secular society that guarantees equality among people of the many different faith groups. The Muslim Eid festivals as well as Christmas and Easter are national holidays. Women gained the vote in 1949. There are no religious police in secular Syria, so women have the same basic freedoms and equalities as men. Education is free so children can study toward a better future for themselves and their country. Before the war, Syria was a country going places.
A responsibility of Australian citizens is to defend Australia should the need arise. Presumably, Syrian citizens have the same responsibility.
So today, Syrians have two basic choices:
1. Like Australians, they can support their army, which is composed of men and women from every faith background, with a majority of soldiers being Sunni Muslims, reflecting the demographic makeup of the country. (The Syrian Minister of Defence is Sunni Muslim, as are most government ministers.)
OR
2. They can support armed groups fighting the Syrian Army. Insurgents are backed by some of Syria’s traditional enemies, eg France, Britain, Israel and the US. At different times these armed groups cooperate. For example, 20 different armed groups (including the Islamic State and Free Syrian Army groups) were involved in a massacre of villagers in Latakia in August 2013. Around 200 civilians were killed and just as many were reportedly abducted, mostly women and children.
Question: If you could take off your cultural blinkers and put yourself in the shoes of a Syrian man or woman, who would you support and why?
2. What do you propose should guide us in the 21st century?
On 21 August 2013, there was an alleged chemical weapons attack on an area controlled by insurgents in Damascus. According to the US State Department, nearly 1,500 people were killed, many of them children. The attack almost triggered US-led military strikes against Syria.
However, various experts have challenged the official US government claim. They include MIT Professor Ted Postol; former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd; investigative journalists Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry; Turkish opposition MPs; and former US intelligence officers and soldiers, including Ann Wright, an anti-war activist.
According to their research,
· anti-government armed groups were more than likely responsible for the attack;
· it was a false flag meant to trigger US-led military action against Syria;
· the sarin used in the ‘attack’ came via Turkey;
· children who were presented as victims were most likely children abducted from villagers in Latakia just a couple of weeks before.
The fact that the above is not discussed in our media illustrates that there is little room for in-depth investigation, honesty or courage in the public arena when it comes to discussing Syria. The tragedy of Syria illustrates the conflict between the information masters and the information victims.
Question: In WW1, Anzacs swore allegiance to the King of England. 100 years later, a queen or king of England couldn’t unite Australians because we come from such diverse backgrounds. However, honesty, courage and common values of decency could. Your allegiance appears to be with forces within the US and their project for ‘a New Middle East’. It’s a project dependent on ‘constructive chaos’; in other words, the bringing of more death, terror and destruction to people in the Middle East. If love and common human values that have been expressed in all the great religions and philosophies over millennia do not guide and unite us, what do you propose should?
On 3 February 2016 at 19:39, Susan Dirgham <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr McEvoy,
I would value the opportunity to ask a question on QandA. I have been registered on your system for some time.
I believe I could contribute positively to an in-depth discussion on the war in Syria and how our response to it can challenge the values and freedoms we hold dear.
For example, on your program next week, I would appreciate the opportunity to ask Neil Mitchell the following:
Former 3AW radio host Derryn Hinch has equated President Assad with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killing fields in Cambodia. However, the Khmer Rouge espoused a crude ideology which led so-called revolutionaries to murder millions who didn't go along with that ideology. President Assad, on the other hand, is the leader of a secular country which in many ways is a Middle East version of Australia. For example, Syrian women have the same basic freedoms as Australian women and Christmas and Easter are national holidays in Syria. Those who are attacking Syrian suburbs and towns with mortars and rockets do have an ideology, however, which is linked to the Wahhabi school of Islam, coming from Saudi Arabia, while the vast majority of Syrian Muslims follow an Islam of compassion and inclusion. Do you think radio hosts have a responsibility to their listeners to research such critical matters before they write or speak on them, especially when today in Australia our society is so diverse and we can't afford to encourage violent extremism?
I have recently submitted a formal complaint to the ABC in response to a program on Radio National that uncritically presented a former money-runner for insurgents as a 'hero'. In the letter, I included criticism of the ABC's unofficial editorial stance on Syria.
It is a lengthy, well-researched document. Signatories to the complaint letter include recently arrived Syrians. Please find the letter on the 'Australians for (Mussalaha) Reconciliation' webpage.
I hope you have a chance to look at the letter. You will better understand the seriousness of my concerns for Australia, not just for Syria.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Susan Dirgham
Mobile: 0406 500 711
-
In early April, Monash University ran a television advertisement, promoting itself as an institution that challenges the ‘status quo’. The advertisement sarcastically ‘thanks’ and therein belittles ‘contented and settled’ conventional people in different walks of life; they are accused of ‘closing down ideas’ and ‘accepting things the way they are’. It is inferred that the pathology of social conformity, which presumably blights the great majority of us, is the antithesis of life at Monash, where students are admitted to an enlightened elite that is supposedly unconstrained by social norms and conventions. Implicitly, being unfettered by the mental torpor of the majority, this elite becomes the rightful moral guardian of the unenlightened crowd.
At first glance, this may not seem altogether unsurprising from an institution of higher learning where, most people would expect, there should be robust social and cultural critique, a contest of ideas and the creation of new knowledge.
On reflection, however, the Monash advertisement requires closer examination. Aside from its crude and arguably un-Australian appeal to snobbery and pretence, the advertisement reflects a deeper intellectual and cultural malaise that has come to characterise Australian society over recent decades. The advertisement says much about the way in which Australian universities and the intellectual class more broadly have, in effect, seceded from Australian society and are now hostile to notions of the national interest that remain meaningful to mainstream Australia.
An ironic outcome of this secession from the nation is that, rather than being a powerhouse of unconventional intellectual enterprise and free-thinking, as the Monash advertisement piously would have us (the cultural sleep walkers) believe, Monash now represents a straightjacketed orthodoxy of a new kind.
Over several decades, the university-trained intelligentsia has increasingly identified with a set of attitudes which has set it apart from the values and expectations of a large part of the general populace. Central to this political and cultural divide is an inflexible and increasingly authoritarian commitment to a borderless, cosmopolitan world view, expressed through support for high immigration, support for elements of the free-market right deregulatory economic agenda, and an ideological fixation with cultural pluralism or ‘social inclusion’.
Underpinning the cosmopolitan orthodoxy of the intellectual class is a barely disguised contempt for the general populace, whose political instincts are stigmatised as basely parochial, inward looking and un-inclusive. Any hint of national interest in public discussion or government policy is immediately condemned as a form of resurgent xenophobia.
This estrangement of the intellectual class from the values and aspirations of those who still believe in a social mainstream has been a long time coming. Former advisor to Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, observed in the early 1990s the emergence of a class of workers involved in the intangible and abstract processes of problem identification and non-routine information management. In context of the disruptive impact of global economic integration – manufacturing decline, enterprise off-shoring, precarious employment and ascendant neo-liberalism, the class of ‘symbolic analysts’, as Reich called them, prospered as the national economy declined. Reich correctly identified the risks for US society: growing social disparities and weakening social cohesion combined with an ascendant class with an ever more tenuous commitment to the social mainstream. Reich correctly concluded that the “laissez cosmopolitanism” of the new class was socially dangerous.
There have been similar developments in Australia. “Laissez cosmopolitanism” now thrives within the Australian university system. A self-proclaimed global university, Monash is a foremost example. Monash has been increasingly dominated by a corporate, business management logic and a cosmopolitan commitment to the inculcation of global citizens who engage with an unbounded world and exhibit cross-cultural competence. Monash effectively functions as a transnational corporation for which the Australian national interest is largely a troublesome anachronism. John Monash’s creed that people should not only equip themselves for life, but for the benefit of the “whole community”, now seems strangely incongruous – what community?
Of course, the cosmopolitan high morality which is the raison d’etre of Monash as an institution, and of the intellectual class which occupies it, reflects a great deal of crude material self interest. As the umbilical cord of gold to the public purse weakens, Monash has invested heavily in attracting an overseas student clientele. Any pretence to serve a ‘national’ interest has become ever more tenuous. At the same time, its intellectuals’ careers and status hinge upon the institution’s global market strategy. ‘Social inclusion’ has material benefits. One consequence of this is that, we are reaching the point where the ideal of universities like Monash being ‘public’ institutions is losing its factual basis.
In one sense the main message of the Monash University television advertisement is quite honest. As an institution, it has become host to an ascendant intellectual class who have largely divorced themselves from the aspirations and values of the broader community, which they view with mistrust. In another respect, however, the advertisement is dishonest. The groupthink of the elite which now dominates Monash University is not intellectually unconstrained and open, but straight jacketed by a cosmopolitan dogma; an ideological immune system which rapidly identifies and purges from within its ranks any non-conforming interpretation of society. Anyone who thinks that cosmopolitan idealism and intellectual tolerance go hand in hand may be in for a rude surprise at Monash University.
Sustainable Australia says the Turnbull Government has no chance of making good on the Prime Minister’s announcement that he wants to build so called “30 minute cities”, where everything people need is within a 30 minute commute. Sustainable Australia’s Senate candidate in NSW, William Bourke, says that the Prime Minister’s vision of a congestion free future is delusional, while immigration continues to run at record levels.
Mr Bourke says, “The Prime Mister’s plan has three parts, each as preposterous as the next.
“First, he wants to pay a group of bankers $50 million to tell him what to build, and where.
“Then, he wants to borrow another $5 billion for new road and rail projects. That’s on top of the almost $500 billion of government debt racked up over the last 8 years.
“And thirdly, he wants to make the grandchildren pay off that additional debt, by raising the $5 billion by selling 30 year bonds, which will be honoured by a future generation of taxpayers, long after the PM is gone.
Mr Bourke says it is absurd for the Prime Minister to suggest that the government could build its way out of a congestion trap, and borrow its way out of a debt crisis.
“Sustainable Australia says there is only one way to fix congestion. It is decent public transport and a lower immigration intake of 70,000 per year, back from the current high of 200,000 per year.
“The truth is our high population growth is the real reason for our daily traffic jams, and overcrowded trains, buses and trams.
“If we want an Australia that is better, not bigger, then we need to lower immigration”.
View Sustainable Australia’s “30 minute cities” Video Here:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VoteSustainable
Protectors of Public Lands say that notice has been received that the “Greens” Mayor Samantha Ratnam will, tomorrow at 4:30 pm, preside over a “Sod-Turning Ceremony” to mark the start of construction of a monster Moreland Council-funded community/medical centre on Rogers Memorial Reserve in Pascoe Vale. If you can come to the "sod turning ceremony" we will be having a silent vigil of protest. Bring a sign. Come to the Rogers Memorial Reserve on Prospect Street (off Cumberland Road) in the parking area near the Pascoe Vale Swimming Pool. Melways Page 17 A8.
In the eyes of residents and community groups this represents gross vandalism of public parkland and destruction of a heritage War Memorial and commemorative trees, including a “Lone Pine” of Gallipoli fame.
Moreland Greens’ Councillors apparently see Rogers Memorial Reserve as terra nullius, yet they were told by an independent consultant, engaged by Council, that the Reserve was of local heritage value in its entirety. (There was a viable alternative building site nearby.)
It was just ten days ago on 1 May 2016 that the Mayor of Moreland laid a wreath on the War Memorial at the RSL Commemoration Service in remembrance of the ANZACS and the fallen in World War I. PPL VIC regards this as hypocrisy on her part and insulting to those who served Australia in world wars and overseas missions.
Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC comments that:
“This rubs salt into our wounds and those of local residents who have long fought to preserve the Rogers Memorial Reserve parkland and the War Memorial; it is extraordinarily insensitive of the Mayor. We consider that it represents a conflict of interest for the Greens Mayor, who is now campaigning as the preselected Greens’ Party candidate for the seat of Wills. PPL VIC understands that there has been no tender yet accepted for the construction of this planned community/medical centre on the Rogers Memorial Reserve, so any “turning of the sod” is premature. Our organisation suggests that the Mayor resign immediately in view of the fact the PM has now declared an election will be held on 2 July 2016” Over the past 2 years PPL VIC has called on a succession of Ministers under the past Liberal/Coalition Government and now the State Labor Government plus RSL Headquarters and Heritage Victoria to review War Memorials and their Memorial Parks to guarantee future protection and proper maintenance.A deafening silence has resulted. Lip service only appears to be given to the memories of ANZACS and so we cannot expect any real action from government.
Sod-Turning Ceremony for the Pascoe Vale Community Centre
WHEN Tuesday 10 May 2016
TIME 4.30 – 5.30 pm
WHERE Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility
7 Prospect Street, Pascoe Vale"
Since 2002 when Melbourne 2030 was quietly introduced by the Bracks’ government (which was intended to be a 30 year plan for Melbourne to make it a more compact city) there have been another 1 million people in Melbourne and 16 new plans introduced in 14 years. The latest is “Plan Melbourne Refresh,” very quickly followed by “Managing Residential Development,” which is a review of the Reformed Residential Zones. You would think that our planners could come up with a long term plan but obviously they are responding to different agendas set by developers. Planning Backlash invites you and your members to a public forum to voice your concerns about the way development is happening in Melbourne. To be held in the Parkview Room, Camberwell Civic Centre, 340 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Sunday 29th May 2016, 2.30 PM.
Dear Friends all,
This is an invitation to a Forum that is long overdue and this time it will be in the Camberwell Civic Centre on Sunday 29th May at 2.30 pm. Please pass this around to the members of your group, we must pack the hall to show the government we are seriously fed up. And it will be free. We will not be asking you for money as Boroondara Residents Action Group offered to finance it for us – thanks BRAG. Come and have your say. Oh by the way I did invite the Minister but he declined. - I look forward to seeing you then.
Mary Drost.
It seems that every time there is a change of government there is a change of planning strategies, and rarely are these changes for the benefit of residents.
Mostly they are for the benefit of developers, the construction industry and investors but our concerns are virtually ignored, Frustrating isn’t it?
Since 2002 when Melbourne 2030 was quietly introduced by the Bracks’ government (which was intended to be a 30 year plan for Melbourne to make it a more compact city) there have been another 1 million people in Melbourne and 16 new plans introduced in 14 years. The latest is “Plan Melbourne Refresh,” very quickly followed by “Managing Residential Development,” which is a review of the Reformed Residential Zones. You would think that our planners could come up with a long term plan but obviously they are responding to different agendas set by developers.
The time has come for all of us residents to take a stand and loudly shout out, “We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take this any more.”*
We need to respond to the pressures applied by the development industry, aided of course by 'political donations' made to gain favoured treatment.
Do you want to have some real input into development in your neighbourhood? Well here’s your chance.
Venue: To be held in the Parkview Room, Camberwell Civic Centre, 340 Camberwell Road, Camberwell. Car park at the rear in Inglesby Road.
Date: Sunday 29th May 2016, 2.30 PM.
This event is an initiative of Planning Backlash and is sponsored by the Boroondara Residents’ Action Group (BRAG).
*The quote “we’re are as mad as hell” comes from the film Network in which actor Peter Finch lets out his frustrations and urges his viewers to open their windows and shout out, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore”.
Feminists may say that the prevailing attitude of men has always been that women’s place is in the home. Well the truth is that until the industrial revolution, everyone’s place was in the home. Home was where families worked – together. Men did not go off to work in offices and factories until there were factories and offices to go to. For most of western history they worked on the farm or in the shop with their wives and children. It was only the industrial revolution that rendered families and communities asunder, culminating in the stereo-typical 1950’s housewife – at home, isolated and alone – in a way, and on a scale, never seen before in human history. This article asserts that neo-liberal values may rule more men but that they are not natural male values and that Christianity, for instance, although dominated by male figures, endorsed values opposite to liberalism. Comments welcome. Editor, Candobetter.net.
What if the values often associated with ‘patriarchal systems’ are not really male values at all? I hypothesise that understanding the negative aspects of our society - associated by some people with patriarchy - may require looking at the problem from quite a different angle. Firstly, let us identify what traits are associated with patriarchy. For this I have drawn upon 'The Heroine's Journey' by Maureen Murdoch. In examining this text I have noticed that the attributes Murdoch associates with patriarchal society are strikingly similar to what many may associate with 'materialism'. The sorts of terms in Murdoch's book associated with patriarchal values include: 'compete', 'jockey for power', 'workaholic', 'control by the stronger', 'power', 'quantifiable', 'success' (in a career sense). Now I doubt that this is a definitive list, but I believe it captures many of the elements of so-called patriarchy as raised in feminist and other literature. I argue that these are not innately male traits at all, but rather, if anything, a more generic human tendency. However, I suspect that like materialism these values were in the past kept in check – although very imperfectly – by various alternative value systems.
Formal religions often offered such alternative value systems. Christianity, for example, promoted a value set which included: humility rather than pride; service to others rather than selfishness; and generosity to the poor and disadvantaged. Such a value set required the strong to defend the weak (rather than seeking to exploit them) and even though the churches themselves may have acted with the worst Machiavellian tendencies, they did at least espouse these Christian values and as such kept them alive as respectable to aspire to. Buddhism is another example of religion offering alternative values against, for example, feudal values.
In fact, these ancient religions also had a name for the types of behaviours described as ‘patriarchal’ in Murdoch’s book (by the way, this is no criticism of Murdoch’s book, I am just drawing on it as a basis for this analysis). The Christian religion identified many of these behaviours (and some others as well) as: egotism, selfishness, ruthlessness, worldly success and prominence and, perhaps uniquely, it warned against the lust for power (as well as sensual lusts). These behaviours were collectively called ‘worldliness’ and everyone – male and female – was warned against them.
In fact, perhaps an emerging word that encompasses many, but not all, of the behaviours of Christian worldliness is 'neo-liberalism'. George Monbiot in his article 'The Zombie Doctrine' describes the neo-liberal ideology as follows:
'Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations'
'a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency'
'What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Others use similar terms for the ‘nameless’ forces at work, Halffman and Radder in a 2015 Minerva article refer to processes of neo-liberalism in universities as ‘The Wolf’.
Jesus once said, ‘by their fruits will you know them’. Jesus’ words suggest we should not take priests based on their own descriptions of themselves, or their teachings, but rather judge them by their actions and outcomes. The modern priests are the economists and ‘big business’ advocates (i.e the system’s sycophants). Regardless of their promises and claims, we should, as Monbiot does, judge them by their deeds and outcomes, which are loneliness, misery, ill-health and environmental destruction. By its fruits it seems we can clearly identify the true nature of neo-liberalism.
But do you really think that all men fit the classic paternalistic mould? Are there are no men out there who are unselfish? No men who seek the same intrinsic rewards that are now typically associated with women and women’s work? Are there no men who do not aspire to be leaders of companies, famous, powerful and/or wealthy? Because if there are no such men, then who are those men who drive our buses, teach our children, work our ambulances, put out our fires (at risk of their lives)? Surely these vast numbers of everyday men outnumber the relatively few CEO’s and Silicon Valley sociopaths? Just because there are more men than women in our power structures does not mean that these mostly negative and destructive traits are intrinsically male.
So how did the traits of seeking worldly success, power, status and money come to be associated with men and ‘male rule’ in the form of paternalism? I think that it is just that due to history and circumstance large numbers of men were amongst its first victims. But in our modern age it seems that increasingly more women are being drawn into its web. Feminists may retort that the prevailing attitude of men has always been that women’s place is in the home. Well the truth is that until the industrial revolution, everyone’s place was in the home. Home was where families worked – together. Men did not go off to work in offices and factories until there were factories and offices to go to. For most of western history they worked on the farm or in the shop with their wives and children. It was only the industrial revolution that rendered families and communities asunder, culminating in the stereo-typical 1950’s housewife – at home, isolated and alone – in a way, and on a scale, never seen before in human history. And what about Indigenous cultures where home was nature – could anyone say Indigenous women were any more confined than men? What about the objectification of women? Abhorrent I agree, and perhaps always present in the world, thus the Christian warnings about these issues. But not on the scale of what we see today. But this is the nature of the spirit of worldliness; neo-liberalism; The Wolf – whatever you want to call it – everything on the earth is to be exploited: people, nature, planet. It is all for sale. Every vice or weakness is to be exploited to its maximum potential. Until the whole of humanity is debased in an orgy of consumerism, of seeking sensual satisfaction where-ever it can be found, and other humans are only valued as far as they are able to be used to produce these satisfactions. That is where neo-liberalism is taking us. And in the process one of its effects is to make us desperately unhappy. Another is to create conflict where-ever conflict is possible: between young and old, between male and female, between the powerful and the powerless. It will keep us blaming one group or another, while it as the true cause remains hidden and un-named. That is the nature of this particular beast, and as Monbiot points out, like a zombie it lives through us.
American boots on the ground. We hear this all too often throughout the world and now the war ravaged country of Yemen is the latest victim of US military troops. But why Yemen and why now and what are these troops trying to accomplish in a country that is facing a brutal war against it by Saudi Arabia, a war that Washington has given the green light to.
Above 23:30 minute video is from the PressTV YouTube Channel.
See also: Ansarullah Furious at US Military Build-up in Yemen (8/5/16) | FARS News Agency
An article in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture entitled "Monstrous Arrogance: Husbands who Choose Murder Over Divorce," by Cynthia Lewis, PhD, examines a dozen convictions in murders where husbands have murdered their wives to save themselves from some consequences of divorce that they perceive as “too costly.” How murder could become a viable alternative to divorce is either an indicator of the collapse of moral compass in our society, or an indication of the need for divorce reform, or perhaps both. The article points out that, instead of the emotional crimes that you expect to see in spousal murders, it was a “practical matter;” so much so that most of the women never had a sense of how much danger they were in. Article also mentions Australian divorce-related murder.
I usually pick an important subject to wrap a story around. This time, I thought that the subject would be a little lighter, but I was very surprised when I did a little Internet research to find just how common spousal murder was.
According to a 2014 article in the Huffington Post, at least 1/3 of all women murdered in the United States are killed by their male partners.
Now, with the baby boomer generation approaching retirement, according to an article in Saultstar.com, divorces in the after-55 crowd often involve fat retirement funds and paid-off houses, making alternative solutions (albeit insane ones like murder) attractive. Hiring a hitman (or woman) becomes an irresistible and economic alternative for some amoral people who feel that they are trapped in long marriages.
The article cites that 3.2% of murders are done on a commercial basis. Citing straightdope.com, the article states that “most contract killings are carried out by small-time freelancers hired by ‘schlubs.’ The perpetrators in these arrangements are often caught by undercover policemen and FBI agents posing as hired killers. The article reports that an Australian Institute of Criminology study estimates the average costs of a hit to be $12,700; which is significantly less than the cost of an attorney in a contested divorce.
According to a 1995 study by the U.S. Department of Justice, husbands are convicted more often than wives of spousal murder, and the convicted men are more likely to receive a prison term than convicted women. In 44% of the cases of husband killing, the husband had assaulted the wife at the time of the killing. Assaulted wives were convicted 56% of the time, compared to 86% in the case of unprovoked wives and 88% in the case of unprovoked husbands.
Another article in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture entitled Monstrous Arrogance: Husbands who Choose Murder Over Divorce, by Cynthia Lewis, PhD, examines a dozen convictions in murders where husbands have murdered their wives to save themselves from some consequences of divorce that they perceive as “too costly.” How murder could become a viable alternative to divorce is either an indicator of the collapse of moral compass in our society, or an indication of the need for divorce reform, or perhaps both. The article points out that, instead of the emotional crimes that you expect to see in spousal murders, it was a “practical matter;” so much so that most of the women never had a sense of how much danger they were in.
According to the article, this type of murderer often projects confidence and an ability to win the trust of others, yet is “atypically devoid of feeling,” “icy and calculating,” and self-centered to the point of narcissism.
Statistics from the Department of Justice claim women are the perpetrators in 41% of all spousal murders. The most common method used by the females is cited as poisoning, with hiring a professional killer as second. The third is persuading a boyfriend to do the killing. These last two methods are classified not as a woman killing a man, but as “other killings,” but the fact that there are four times as many husband victims as wives probably indicates that the statistic should be much higher.
Kenneth Eade (http://kennetheade.com) author of the Brent Marks Legal Thriller Series and Involuntary Spy Espionage Thriller Series, has been hailed by critics as “one of the strongest thriller writers on our scene.” His latest novel is “Decree of Finality.”
Newly-discovered images of alleged BBC "napalm victim": In June 2014 a Netherlands resident contacted me, expressing anxiety about being recognised in a frame from 'Saving Syria's Children' which I had posted on Facebook. Although the woman was not among the group of alleged napalm/thermite victims in the frame in question, I subsequently recognised her in a You Tube video shot at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013, apparently in the guise of a victim of the same alleged events portrayed in Ian Pannell and Darren Conway's BBC reports. This is the latest report in Robert Stuart's extraordinary investigation into BBC war propaganda.
1. In June 2014 a Netherlands resident contacted me, expressing anxiety about being recognised in a frame from 'Saving Syria's Children' which I had posted on Facebook. Although the woman was not among the group of alleged napalm/thermite victims in the frame in question, I subsequently recognised her in a You Tube video shot at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013, apparently in the guise of a victim of the same alleged events portrayed in Ian Pannell and Darren Conway's BBC reports. I have written about this here and here.
A number of images currently viewable on the Facebook account of one of the woman's relatives would appear to make it plainer still that the person who contacted me is indeed the same person who appears in the You Tube footage of the aftermath of the alleged Aleppo incendiary bomb attack. Details here.
2) My attempts to secure documents relating to Saving Syria's Children from the BBC through a Freedom of Information request appear, somewhat inevitably, to have run aground.
Following a decision notice from the Information Commissioner's Office upholding the BBC 's rejection of my request, I had argued in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) that the evidence set out in my blog:
...clearly demonstrates that the BBC has committed the greatest betrayal of audience trust imaginable by a news broadcaster – the fabrication of an atrocity for the purposes of war propaganda. Such an egregious transgression is quite possibly unique in the history of broadcasting.
I further argued that Saving Syria’s Children and related BBC News reports had breached Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law”.
In response the Tribunal has issued a Case Management Note (3 May) observing that:
"Mr Stuart’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be capable of being litigated and remedy given to him if a Court finds there was a breach of those rights. The question of whether reports are genuine or fabricated may also be capable of being independently investigated."
However the Tribunal "is unable to grant Mr Stuart a remedy for what he says is a contravention of his rights under that Covenant" and directs that I must provide it with reasons why the information I have requested from the BBC was or is “not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature”.
The deadline for submitting a response is 24 May.
3) A high quality copy of Saving Syria's Children is currently available on Vimeo. The section which forms the focus of my blog commences at 30:38. As BBC Worldwide has long since blocked all You Tube postings of the documentary, please consider downloading the Vimeo copy while it is available. This version is the highest quality I have seen to date and has already yielded a number of interesting new details, such as an apparent glimpse of the Dutch woman pictured above (see update here).
4) Further to my submission of shocking images of a staff member of UK registered charity Hand in Hand for Syria's "flagship medical facility", Atareb Hospital, Aleppo, posing with an array of weapons and munitions, an officer of the Charity Commission's Investigations Monitoring and Enforcement department has responded (12 April):
"I am currently considering the information that you have provided in order to determine what regulatory action, if any, is required. I confirm that I will provide a more detailed response once I have completed my assessment."
5) A reminder of the two sets of graphics highlighting some very startling inconsistencies in accounts of the alleged events of 26 August 2013 by BBC International Correspondent Ian Pannell and BBC 'Trust Me I'm A Doctor' presenter Dr Saleyha Ahsan and my recent presentation on Saving Syria's Children for From Stop War.
Robert Stuart
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com
Migration is part of our collective history, but Europe’s political leaders are still failing completely to address widespread public concern over the flood of migrants now storming Europe’s borders. The consequences of these pressures will have profound impacts.
Unable to reach rational solutions beyond discussing how many each member state should be obliged to take, bribing African countries to take back their own citizens who don’t qualify as refugees and now paying Turkey to take back illegals bound for Greece, while taking a similar quota of Syrians from Turkey, are inadequate responses. Our leaders are moving into systemic chaos, where the Human Rights Act, has spawned a people-trafficking industry that is endangering our security and running rings around governments at taxpayers’ expense. It is not fit for purpose and needs reform. Without leaving the EU, the UK could suspend and redraw the act with our European partners, who all have much to gain from a more sensible approach.
In Britain, the Government, under Labour, first lost control of immigration and then tried to spin the idea that a large influx of people is vital to our interests. Despite attempts at reforms, the system is still failing. Legal migration in to the UK has hit record levels - up 40 per cent on 2014, according to the Office for National Statistics. Nearly 100,000 illegals were detected trying to enter the UK in 2015, while the EU is receiving thousands of illegal migrants a day – triple the rate last year.
The situation has been escalating for years, but after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand moral gesture to take in 800,000 ‘refugees’ a year in response to the photo of a drowned boy on a Turkish beach and then demand other EU states take their share, it has ignited the hopes of millions more to settle in Europe. Now barbed wire borders are being erected in the heart of Europe, destroying the ideal of free movement.
Described as refugees or just ‘migrants’, as though there has merely been some bureaucratic error in their status, the asylum lobby and much of the media are cheerleading the appeal for public sympathy as a tragic human interest story. But this terrorist infiltrated people-smuggling led invasion, facilitated by EU governments, presents a huge challenge from failing states with exploding populations and self-inflicted turf wars.
Generous policies in Sweden and Germany are enabling thousands of non-EU migrants and illegals to settle legally there and then move to other member states as internal EU migrants. Over 1.2 million have claimed asylum in 2015. Our politicians consistently ignore this back door impact.
Sweden has been receiving up to 2000 unaccompanied minors a week in late 2015, nearly a third of its migrant influx, who can then have their families flown in to join them. Most were males giving their age as 16 or 17 but receiving groups say many appear much older. According to Statistics Sweden, 50 per cent of refugees are not in work seven years after arriving in the country. Even after 15 years, 40 per cent are still on welfare without a job – a major drain on the country’s welfare system.
Refugee lobbyists say it is the moral duty of Western countries to absorb these migrants. Do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond? When will the line be drawn? All UK parties are well aware of the mounting pressures on housing, schools and health services, but don’t like to talk about it. Or the 25-50 per cent of young people in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece who don’t have a job. So too, they should be aware of the Parliamentary report in 2008 that the large rise in legal immigration to the UK had virtually no net economic gain for the country. Nor do we need high immigration to counter a temporary rise in ageing populations. Ever more migrants also get old and then need support.
The Government talks about skilled immigrants Britain needs, but skilled immigrants account for only 20% of total non-EU immigrants in Britain and many actually do unskilled work when they get here.
Proposals to cap numbers will barely touch the scale of the true problem - a permanent population swelling so quickly by other immigration pathways, including a generous interpretation of family reunion from outside the EU that is adding to the pressures on our environment and food security.
Australia is often cited by UK politicians as a model immigration system, but its population just hit 24 million– 17 years earlier than expected. With net overseas migration contributing 53 per cent to total population growth, the population is now set to double every 50 years. This in an arid continent with only six per cent of the land able to grow crops.
Europe’s growing immigration crisis
In 1950, the countries that later constituted the EU-27 had a population of 370 million. By 2010 it topped 500 million - equivalent to absorbing the inhabitants of another present-day France and Britain combined. By January 2015 Eurostat figures show the population was 508.2 million - up 1.3 million from the previous year, with the majority of 1.1m a result of net legal immigration into the EU.
Add to this the rapidly growing number of illegals – with over 1.2 million detected in 2015 and many more entering undetected, according to the EU borders agency, Frontex.
Today, only Syria currently has an acute refugee crisis, but to avert mounting chaos and retain the fabric of the EU, we have to stop the lure of a gateway to permanent citizenship to millions. People in Europe might be more reassured if irregular migrants eligible for asylum were offered temporary support and then returned to their countries when the crisis resolved. Many of those who claimed asylum from countries like Somalia and Iraq go back for extended holidays, but the claims for asylum continue. Iraqi Airways now operates four flights a week from the UK to facilitate demand for vacations back home. Yet Iraqis are in the top ten asylum applications to the UK in 2015,
Also in the list are Nigeria – touted as Africa’s fasted growing economy and other democratic countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Albania – now 25 years since it became a European democracy. Eritrea is top of the list, supposedly linked to harsh national service. What is going on? International pressure should sort this out, not expect resettlement.
Part of the problem is that EU countries don’t have repatriation agreements with many countries involved, but this could be remedied quite simply, as just about all the sender countries in Africa and many in Asia are recipients of generous Western aid. We need to use this leverage. Several countries, like Senegal, condone exporting people in the hope they will reach Europe, find work and send back remittances.
Global leaders need to be focused on real solutions and more effective regional aid in all these fragile states as well as engaging more constructively with Russia, Iran and countries in the region to bring about positive outcomes. You can help far more people cost effectively in nearby protected areas than import millions into high-cost West European countries. Sweden is now having to spend its foreign aid budget on trying to deal with new migrant arrivals.
The current level of UK immigration and increasing birth rates will require building the equivalent of a new Manchester every year. It is little wonder we have a housing crisis. How can we possibly accommodate this and claim it is sustainable?
In 1998, the Office for National Statistics predicted that the UK population would rise to 65m by 2051. We’re already there! Now they say it could reach 80 million by 2040, mostly as a result of immigration.
David Cameron promises a review of welfare benefits for EU migrants but equally, we need to look at the pull factors for illegals – many openly piling up in Calais attempting to cross to the UK. The EU Commission says it is the responsibility of each Member State to set the rules for welfare support.
We need urgent action to address these issues and clear shared rules that would be strict enough to discourage ineligible people from attempting dangerous journeys. The growing cost to communities of accommodating large-scale inflows of people, in a now crowded world, raises many challenging questions. This is not a left or right issue or racist. It is about global social and environmental sustainability.
Comment: Further reading: