(We) can do better

Editor: This is a comment about the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) Second reading Debate resumed from 15 September on a motion of Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Community Development) made in the Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 16 September and recorded in Hansard. [1] This Labor Government initiated bill is a source of enormous consternation for Victorians not completely roped in by the corporate media. The concerns are on democratic, planning and environment grounds. It was read for the second time and, after a very close call, its passing has again been delayed - this time until 13th October.

Moratorium on population increase 'totalitarian'?

Labor Government member, Ms Joanne Duncan, stated that she supported the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2)[DACs revisited] and the introduction of development assessment committees (DACs). She observed that people did not want to continue Melbourne’s sprawl, but conceded that "people generally do not like higher density housing." She then said that it was inconsistent to "have higher density housing and prevent urban sprawl," commenting, "We are either serious about increasing densities across metropolitan Melbourne or we continue urban sprawl." However she then made this bizarre statement: "Another option is to somehow put a moratorium on any population increase and have all manner of totalitarian measures to reach that end. All of those are completely unacceptable, so we will continue to have population growth."

What totalitarian measures?

What are the totalitarian measures that would be required to put a moratorium on any population increase?
The totalitarian measures are already present in the government purposefully ramping up immigration to create overpopulation and then trying to force through increasingly draconian legislation to facilitate this dictatorial regime. Democracy is decreasing with population increase, yet Ms Duncan pretends that to allow the population to grow or stabilise or shrink at its natural pace would somehow require totalitarianism.

What sophistry is this?

It makes the writer wonder just what the people advising the Labor government are saying to elected representatives to make them toe the line and endorse the real totalitarian measures in the government purposefully ramping up immigration to create overpopulation and then trying to force through increasingly draconian legislation to facilitate this dictatorial regime.

Anyway, here's the rest of the purportedly 'anti-totalitarian' Duncan's support a bill which was described elsewhere in this way:

List of terms used by Shadow Minister for Planning, Mr Guy, for the earlier but similar version of this bill [1]:
The terms were: ‘concerning’; ‘sneaky’; ‘pretty low’; that the bill showed ‘contempt’; ‘bizarre’; ‘bureaucratic’; ‘misleading’; ‘half-hearted’; ‘half-baked’; that it would ‘do nothing for industry’; that it would ‘gut’ community input; ‘shameless’; and ‘deceptive’. He concluded by saying the bill would ‘undermine the fundamental basic principles’ of planning.

Ms DUNCAN (Macedon) — Despite the opposition of the previous speaker to this bill, I would support many of the issues and points that he raised in his contribution. But I rise in support of the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2).

I have sat in this chamber and listened to a number of different members go through their positions on this bill, and I am again puzzled by the position of the opposition. We are hearing from most of the speakers that they will not be opposing the bill but basically they do not support it.

We have heard a range of criticisms of the bill, which does make you scratch your head and wonder: if that is their view, if they believe that this is such poor planning or poor legislation, why would they not just not oppose it but actually reject the bill? If they were true to themselves and that was what they truly believed and if this whole dispute resolution process were not just a relevance deprivation exercise on behalf of the opposition, they would oppose the bill. There is no way members opposite could support the bill with clear consciences having said some of the things that have been said in opposition to it.

One of the good things that has come out of the debate is that the member for Shepparton declared — and it might have been mentioned by the member for Box Hill but I missed that — that if ever again the opposition is in government, it will be repealing parts of this legislation so that, as I understand it, councils will be allowed to either opt in or opt out of being part of this partnership process between state government and local government. I will be bold enough to make a prediction and to suggest that some years down the track — hopefully many years down the track — if the opposition is back in government, when it makes this offer to local governments most local governments will choose to stay in the system. It was highlighted by the previous speaker that planning is incredibly difficult:
for as many people support a proposition there will be that many who oppose it with sound arguments for and sound arguments against, and it is always a balancing act.

One of the main reasons I think this is good legislation is that previously either local governments were making decisions or there were call-ins by the planning minister. One of the reasons the opposition may oppose this bill is, quite frankly, why would opposition members see the need for it? Under their government it was either a decision by local government or they made that decision by the planning minister calling in huge numbers of proposals. Under the previous government we saw how many times the planning minister unilaterally, without any explanation, without any guidelines about why or why not, would call-in a proposal and would make that decision unilaterally.

From memory, none of these call-ins were actually in support of local residents. My memory — and I stand to be corrected — is that his call-ins supported the proponent, the developer, in almost all of these cases.

Do not ever be misled by what the opposition would suggest, that it is there to support the underdog and this is big developers just trampling over the individual rights of residents. One has only to look at the track record to appreciate that that is absolute rhetoric and hypocrisy in its highest form.

We also heard the member for Box Hill talk about the threat that hangs over us if we do not support the bill — the unchecked and repeated call-ins that he said may result if this bill is not passed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It really is hypocrisy in its most extreme form for any member of the Liberal opposition to suggest that this government is doing anything like unchecked and repeated call-ins. I think he must have been talking about the planning minister under the Kennett government.

It seemed to me he also questioned the fact that there are still appeals to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He was saying that if the government was hoping this was going to speed up planning, then the fact that there are appeals to VCAT means that will not occur. That suggests to me that he thinks you either do it unilaterally, which we saw members opposite do they were in government, or you remove all those third-party appeal rights.

I can understand why the Liberal Party is confused. In listening to the contributions of members of the Liberal Party to the debate I can understand why the Liberal members would be confused, because while they say they support the bill, it is inconsistent with everything they have previously said and everything they did when they were in office. It is the case again that either they are very confused or, as I said before, they never let the facts stand in the way of a good piece of opposition rhetoric.

I support this bill. I support the introduction of development assessment committees (DACs). It is a good balance between the decision making of local councils, which will understand their local communities and have an appreciation of those local issues, and state representatives, who have an eye to a broader need for the potential of this sort of development. We know we do not want to continue Melbourne’s sprawl. We know we need to have higher density in housing and in all manner of developments. As much as people and the opposition will say, ‘Where has 2030 gone?’ and all of these things, the reality is that people generally do not like higher density housing. You cannot have higher density housing and prevent urban sprawl; the two are inconsistent. We are either serious about increasing densities across metropolitan Melbourne or we continue urban sprawl. Another option is to somehow put a moratorium on any population increase and have all manner of totalitarian measures to reach that end. All of those are completely unacceptable, so we will continue to have population growth.

These sorts of decisions must be made in a balanced way, where you are trying to bring together a partnership between two planning authorities — one with an eye to the local issues and one with a broader eye to the statewide issues and statewide development pressures — and I believe the DACs will achieve that result and we will get balanced and good planning outcomes as a result.

I commend the bill to the house. It is a further development of planning laws in this state that are designed to provide balance as well as the kinds of infrastructure, planning and development we need to ensure that Melbourne does not continue its sprawl.

[1] Listed by Mr Brooks in the debate recorded in Hansard, 16 September, 2009 (Assembly)

Media release

Sydney, Australia, September 14, 2009 -- Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com will host an International Conference called "The Hard Evidence" to critically examine the three building Collapses in New York on September 11, 2001. The official explanation of these building collapse 1, 2 and 7 of the World Trade Center Complex have been attributed primarily to fire damage causing a "global collapse", which independent scientific research has found an entirely insufficient explanation. A group of Architects and Engineers, approaching one thousand members, is demanding a new investigation of these building collapses based on hard physical evidence, witness testimony, video evidence and strict structural analysis using the original blueprints.

The one day event will be comprised of two presentations and an expert panel discussion, inviting members of the press and public to ask hard technical questions of the relevant experts. The morning lecture will be from experienced Architect Richard Gage AIA, representing "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", presenting "9/11: Blueprint for Truth -- The Architecture of Destruction". The afternoon presentation will be from Professor Steven Jones Ph.D presenting research based on his scientific team’s recent published findings asking "What is Nanothermite a High-tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from WTC Building Collapses on 9/11?" A late afternoon Panel discussion will follow comprised of highly qualified experts including Paul Mason Structural Engineer, Chemist Dr Frank Legge and Dr David Leifer a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at Sydney University.

Date: Saturday, November 14th 2009.

Venue:
Tom Mann Theatre
136 Chalmers St,
Surry Hills, Sydney NSW
(Walking distance from Central Railway station)

Seating Capacity: 292

Full Conference Details:

Website: www.TheHardEvidence.com
Email: johnbursill[AT]gmail.com
Ph: 1300 153 372 (Sydney option) or direct +61 414878499

Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com represent Australian 9/11 Truth Activists dedicated to the cause of getting a new, independent, international investigation of the events of September 11th 2001 which is supported by the family members of the 9/11 victims and the worldwide 911 Truth Movement.
Although this one day event in the heart of Sydney is the main event it is also the beginning of an Australian and New Zealand Tour as follows:

The Hard Evidence Tour Downunder 2009

Melbourne: Tuesday the 17th of November 2009
Brisbane: Thursday the 19th of November 2009

Wellington, NZ: Saturday the 21st of November 2009

The Sydney "Hard Evidence" Event will be followed on Sunday the 15th of November by a 9/11 Truth Activist Forum called "Truth in Action" and will have presentations from the lead 9/11 Truth Activist worldwide, including a key note address by the Executive Director of www.911Truth.org Janice Matthews. This forum will explore many aspects of 9/11 activism and will be arguing that we must be cautious and present only the best evidence and research to the public and focus on building credibility with the press and our academic institutions.

Note: Please see web site www.thehardevidence.com for more details.

Links and References

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: www.AE911Truth.org

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: www.STJ911.org

The Journal of 9/11 Studies: www.Journalof911Studies.com

Nanothermite: www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

The 9/11 Truth Movement: www.911Truth.org

The Australian 9/11 Truth Movement: www.911oz.com

Truth Action Australia: www.TruthAction.org.au

Contact Information

Media Contacts: for interviews with the conference organisers, please call
John Bursill: 0414878499 or +61 414878499
We will also assist you to arrange interviews with any of the conference presenters.

Mark O'Connor on Barry Maley in 'Population Fallacies'

Barry Maley, in "Birth Rate Bubble" on ABC radio's Unleashed wrote, "Any nation needs to have a birth rate of not less than 2.1 children per woman to maintain its population. The second Intergenerational Report in 2007 observed that five people of working age were supporting every person 65 or older, but by 2047 there would be only 2.4 workers per aged person."

"A nice example of the 'Replacement Rate Fallacy'," quipped Mark O'Connor, author of Overloading Australia, [1] and a number of snapshot demographic analyses known as 'fallacies' prior to that. Here is what he has to say about claims by other pro-natalists that Australians' reproductive rate is running down:

The Replacement Rate Fallacy[2]

The late pro-natalist B.A. Santamaria once informed his readers in The Australian that for Australia’s population not to fall rapidly the average woman must have 2 surviving children. Such views are quite common, and often lead to a false belief that population is either falling or about to fall. Thus in July 2008, when the Pope visited Sydney for World youth Day (just after World Population Day), Australia’s Cardinal Pell told the media that Western nations faced a population crisis fuelled by ‘ruthless’ commercial forces, and that ‘No country in the Western world is producing enough children to keep the population stable.’

If Pell was thinking about his native Australia he was right?but not in the way he imagined. Australian women are having far too many babies to keep the population stable. In fact almost twice as many as necessary. Births in Australia (about half a million a year) are twice deaths (about a quarter of a million) and have been so for the past twenty years?even though Australian women have been averaging significantly less than two children each for at least that long.

Clearly there is something cock-eyed about this “replacement rate” argument. It involves a common, but elementary, error in demography. Can you spot it?

Can you spot the elementary error?

In fact to keep stable and just replace itself, a relatively young population like Australia’s would currently need something even lower than Western Europe’s rate of around 1.3 children per completed family. More like 0.93. And that’s without immigration!

(Barry Maley also writes: "One of the symptoms of this problem recently confronted Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel and Science, when he drew attention to the demographic problem of a shrinking pool of young men available for recruitment to the defence forces." O'Connor puts this one in its place here but elsewhere as well.)

Misunderstandings like Pell’s often come from those who a decade earlier might have tried to argue that we need more people for defence, or for “respect” in the world. As those older props are discredited, more weight has fallen on the Replacement Rate Fallacy. Underlying all this is a natural bias of human beings towards pro-natalism.

The replacement rate was a useful, if theoretical, concept back when couples everywhere were having 4 and 5 children as a matter of course. Since couples often justified this by saying that the world must be populated, demographers would point out that all a couple need do to replace itself, was to have 2 children. More exactly, about 2.05 children, to allow for the odd child that dies before reaching reproductive age, and for the slight excess of male births. But basically, if women in their reproductive years average two surviving children, or one surviving daughter, a generation will simply replace itself, won’t it?

Humans are not fruitflies

Well, no! Humans are not fruitflies, where the generation of parents dies as their offspring are born. Children don’t replace parents, or even grandparents these days, but more often they replace great-grandparents. Hence if a generation of parents were to produce an equal-sized generation of children this would not mean the population had stabilized. In fact the population would not stabilize, at that rate, until the last generation to have more than 2.05 children had departed the scene. For instance, if India achieved so-called “replacement fertility” now, with all its couples in future averaging just 2.05 children, its population would still double, adding an extra 1 billion people!

Don't confuse the birth rate with the fertility rate!

Demographers need to clearly explain to journalists the difference between the Theoretical Long-Term Replacement Rate (TLTRR) and the Current Replacement Birth Rate (CRBR). The latter is the birth-rate that would currently (though not indefinitely) produce as many births as deaths. The only replacement rate that Australia could claim to be safely below is the Theoretical Long-Term Replacement Rate (TLTRR) of just over two children per completed family. But that is the replacement rate of an imaginary Australia, an already stabilized Australia, a society in which there would now be equal numbers in each generation.

By rights we should distinguish birthrate from fertility rate. The birthrate is the number of babies born per thousand people per year (and hence the replacement birthrate is that at which births per year would equal deaths); whereas ‘the fertility rate’ is the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime ? which is the demographers’ justification for speaking of 2.05 children per woman as ‘replacement fertility’. If only non-demographers could be got to observe this distinction, Santamaria’s error could be succinctly described as confusing the birthrate with the fertility rate. Since fertility rates are always below 10, and birthrates may be nearer to 100, the two terms ought not to be confused! However one must despair of getting the media to distinguish between birthrate and fertility rate.

[1] Overloading Australia by Mark O'Connor and William Lines, Published by Envirobook Sydney, 2008. The second edition is coming out soon in 2009. (The authors in Chapter 14, "Pyramid-selling Australia" kindly note that much of that chapter is 'endebted to' Candobetter's Sheila Newman's 'ground-breaking' research. Thank you Mark and William!)

[2] Source: http://www.australianpoet.com/overloading.html#rrf

By Paul Craig Roberts

Originally published on Information Clearing House on 15 Sep 09. ICH needs your support. Please donate.

*An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.*

The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: "In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves.

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant "USA, USA, USA" than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government.

The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government's line, they know what they are talking about.

Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience:

globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13242

The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists' findings and Hitler's observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don't believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi's and Libya's guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?

People don't even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers' destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.

Dr. Jones' experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.

As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK's ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was "Polanyi's old error." It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi's answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.

That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.

As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx's theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else's work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.

What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11.

What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government's 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.

Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered "blowbacks." Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government's propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.

The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don't feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called "terrorist sympathizers." Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered "blowbacks." Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government's propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.

Naive people think that if the US government's explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.

An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.

In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.

Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists?e

Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are
intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.

Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.

Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event.

Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.

As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government. This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.

Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case.

Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe. The notion that "we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead" is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.

The US government's response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America's financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country's prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.

The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.

It seems unlikely that Environment East Gippsland stands to wear enormous costs after all. Judge Jack Forrest seems to be taking the laws he is expected to hear the case in relation to very seriously. Those laws are all about preserving biodiversity.

Here is how he has worded a relevant part of the jugement:

"Third, VicForests correctly says that any undertaking as to damages which may be given by EEG is in effect close to meaningless. The estimate of EEG's assets vary between $10,000 and $45,000. If it is unsuccessful in the calim, presumably it will, at least, have out of pocket legal expenses, and I assume there will be no money available to satisfy the undertaking as to damages. However, this is a public interest piece of litigation against a State corporation and I bear in mind that the preservation of endangered native fauna is a paramount consideration in the statutory provisions and documents I have referred to.

The Judge seems to be saying that an injunction would be appropriate. He has, however, allowed VicForests until Thursday to prove what their loss might be if there is just a temporary injunction and not a permanent stop to logging. A final comment: Since there has been a seven month moratorium for that area up until recently, while government biologists carried out surveys to confirm EEG's findings, it would be hard for VicForests to claim sudden large losses if they were prevented from logging for another few months.

Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:00pm EDT

AUSTIN, Texas Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to debate him on CNN's Larry King Live.

'We're not hiding,' states Sheen as he calls out McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly

AUSTIN, Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to debate him on CNN's Larry King Live.

Following the publication of Sheen's "20 Minutes With The President," a fictionalized account of a meeting with Barack Obama in which Sheen implores the President to reopen the investigation of 9/11 in light of the majority of the 9/11 Commission members publicly denouncing the official story as a deception, McCain attacked Sheen on ABC's top rated show The View, comparing people who question 9/11 with holocaust deniers.

"I quoted Charlie Sheen yesterday about his experience with prostitutes, so really you're the one I should be listening to about 9/11? . . . I am not going to take my political advice from Charlie Sheen," stated McCain, daughter of the former Republican nominee John McCain.

McCain's sophomoric reliance on attacking Sheen on the foundation of decades old events in his personal life, while failing to address even one of the 20 pieces of evidence raised in his letter to Obama, is typical of the media response to Sheen's challenge thus far.

Amongst the scoffers and debunkers, not one corporate media outfit has managed to actually address a single point Sheen raised in his letter, resorting instead to childish quips and badly researched proclamations.

A familiar theme arising out of such hit pieces is an effort to imply that Sheen's questioning of the official 9/11 story is somehow an "outrage" and hurtful to the family members of the victims, despite the fact that the majority of victims' family members share the same questions.

Furthermore, claiming that people who doubt the government story are on par with holocaust deniers completely ignores the fact that six of the ten 9/11 Commission members, along with scores of other highly credible former and current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials, scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars have all publicly questioned the official version of events behind September 11.

Fox News talking heads Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, as well as popular radio host Rush Limbaugh, have also attempted to attack Sheen's credibility while failing to discuss any of the subjects he actually raised.

In response, Sheen told The Alex Jones Show that he is challenging any one or all of McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly to a debate about 9/11 on CNN's Larry King Live or any other television show in Los Angeles, adding that the show must be broadcast live to prevent bias editing.

Should the debate go ahead, Sheen will be accompanied by Bob Mcilvaine, a 9/11 families representative who lost his son Robert in the attacks. Sheen suggested that his adversary in the debate be accompanied by representatives from Popular Mechanics, who have routinely sought to debunk questions surrounding 9/11.

"Let's do it," Sheen told the Alex Jones Show Friday. "I issue the challenge to debate Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sen Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, bring them all, Bob Mcilvaine and I will join you on Larry King Live and you guys bring whatever you've got ... and we'll show up with the truth and we'll just see how it goes - we're not hiding," added Sheen.

Watch the clip from The View at www.youtube.com/watch?v=yENcu5_7Mdk .

For media requests on this subject email sheen [ AT ] infowars.com

The Alex Jones Show broadcasts live from Austin, TX from 11AM-3PM Central. Alex Jones' show and websites infowars.com and prisonplanet.com are a focal point and a forum where many prominent figures from academia, the political world and Hollywood have spoken out about what really happened on September 11th.

This release was issued on behalf of the above organization by Send2Press(R),
a unit of Neotrope(R). www.Send2Press.com

SOURCE The Alex Jones Show

Rob Dew, or Mike Nelson, both of The Alex Jones Show, +1-512-448-4252,
sheen [ AT ] infowars.com

Puublished at Reuters. Also published on 911blogger.com.
See also: "Sheen Blasts Cowardly Corporate Media Refusal to Debate 9/11 Facts" on Prison Planet of 15 Sep 09, "Twenty Minutes With The President" on Prison Planet, Charlie Sheen talks to Alex Jones - 9/11/09 on 911oz.com.

Brown Mountain - Historic win for Victorian forests hangs on funding indemnity

Monday 14th September

Ed: Shakespeare wrote that the quality of mercy is not strained but falls from heaven like the rain ...
Not much rain and not much justice in Victoria, if you don't have money...
BUT there is still hope and this case is too important to lose:

In an historic win for an environment group, the Victorian Supreme Court today decided it is appropriate to grant an injunction restraining government logging monopoly VicForests from logging two areas of forest on Brown Mountain in East Gippsland.

"This is the first time a court order has been made to prevent the destruction of old growth forests in Victoria until a trial about the lawfulness of the logging is completed", said Jill Redwood, coordinator of Environment East Gippsland, the group that took the extraordinary court action.

Money required to bring our own government to justice

"The only reason the injunction wasn't granted today is that VicForests has asked the Court to order EEG to provide a large amount of money to secure its undertaking to pay any damages which flow to VicForests from the granting of the injunction. This will be argued in court on Thursday," said Ms Redwood.

Click here to find how to send money to EEG to help

"After we discovered a rare Long-footed Potoroo in the area a few weeks ago, VicForests still insisted that it would log the area immediately. We had to rush this to court to stop them," said Ms Redwood.

In his judgment, Justice Forrest referred to photographs of logging, and said they "demonstrate the apparent total obliteration of the area of native forest as a result of logging and the subsequent burning off. To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term."

Of course, that does not mean that anyone would then be able to repair it, any more than we have repaired the forest where our cities now stand. Once that forest is gone, to all intents and purposes, it is gone forever - and the species within it never to regenerate.

“If an injunction is granted on Thursday, it will last until we go to trial to argue about whether logging this old growth forest and the effects on its wildlife is lawful."

“Brown Mountain's forests have been the litmus test for the state government's commitment to forest conservation since 1989, when they were first declared National Estate by the Commonwealth Government but clearfelled by the State Government", said Ms Redwood.

It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it

"When will the Brumby Government get the message? It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it."

The endangered wildlife identified around Brown Mountain Creek includes the Sooty Owl, Long-footed Potoroo and Orbost Spiny Crayfish as well as the sensitive Greater Glider and Yellow-bellied Gliders.

The matter returns to Court before Justice Forrest on Thursday 17 September 2009.

People with guts also an endangered species which needs protection

Please help Jill Redwood and the EEG group. People with guts in Victoria are almost as rare as the long-footed potoroo. Let's help to make brave people prepared to fight for justice flourish too!

CIR Australia is a not for profit, non-political organisation that is actively recruiting for members and supporters.

The following interview with the President of CIR, Mr Ron Evans, was conducted by David Astin and was originally published in Issue No. 17 (Summer 2008/09) of The Independent Australian magazine.

See also: "A New look at Citizens' Initiated Referenda in Australia and elsewhere" of 3 Sep 09. This article was originally posted as a comment to that article.

All About CIR Australia

Finally, some good news for supporters of democracy. A concerted effort has been launched Australia wide to educate, organise and promote Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR), with the formation of CIR (Inc.) Australia. CIR is a process whereby ordinary citizens can compel their governments to hold a referendum on any issue that THEY feel is sufficiently important.

David Astin interviewed the President of CIR, Mr Ron Evans, about their aims.

D.A: So CIR Australia has been formed. Why?
R.E.: For many years there have been attempts to institute Citizens Initiative and Referendum, sometimes with an added rider of Recall, but they have all failed as they have been attached to small 'independent' political parties standing at elections with no real prospect of gaining political power. CIR Australia is different.

D.A.: How so?
R.E.: CIR Australia was formed by a group of people, most with over 20 years of campaigning for CIR in various forms in both State and Federal spheres. Their combined experience has led to the founding of CIR Australia as a completely independent organisation, beholden to no political party, Left, Right, or Middle. We consider ourselves to be a purely educational organisation. By joining CIR Australia, a person commits themselves to learning about CIR and helping to spread the word about how CIR can improve, not take over, our political landscape.

D.A.: Can you briefly explain how CIR could work in Australia?
R.E.: While not totally set in concrete our proposal at State level is as follows: (Federally, it may need a slight variation but basically the concept is the same)

1) With free legal help an individual or organisation word a petition and gather 400 bona fide signatures from the last election and present to the Electoral Commissioner for registration. A minimum of 12 petitioners are then appointed as custodians and promoters of the petition.

2) The promoters with help, then gather signatures of at least 2% of bona fide voters who voted at the last election over a period of, say, 12 months to demonstrate support.

3) Having gained the required number of signatures the petition is then presented to the Electoral Commissioner who certifies its qualifications. The petition is then presented to the Speaker of the House, and it is then deemed to be a call for referendum on the issue. If the government fails to act within, say, 6 months, then the matter will proceed to a vote of all electors.

The referendum will then be put to the people either Federally, State wide or through Local Council depending on the need and the issue. For example, fencing controls would not be considered a Federal issue, nor would immigration be considered a State concern.

D.A.: When would the referendum be held?
R.E.: There are two obvious choices here and it will be up to the government that installs CIR to choose. One is to have the referendum held in conjunction with a State or Federal election. This would save on costs, but would confuse the voters as to whether the question put is a politically party motivated issue. The other option would be to have a certain day, say the 21st of July, and have that as referendum day. Be there one or 10 referendum questions that need answering they could all be sorted in a couple of minutes on the appointed day each year.

D.A.: You mentioned cost. Surely holding a referendum is expensive?
R.E.: You would be surprised how LITTLE it costs to hold a referendum. Approximately $6.00 per person of voting age would cover all the expenditure. Isn't that worth having your say in the running of the country?

D.A.: Historically referenda get voted down?
R.E.: It is true that in Australia, where only the government can call for a referendum, it has held 38, only 8 of which have passed. When the issue was clear and was not tied to some nefarious means of giving the government of the day more power, referenda are passed overwhelmingly.

D.A.: What about overseas?
R.E.: In 1974, Italy held a referendum on the issue of divorce laws. While the people might have disapproved of divorce as such on moral or religious grounds, they nevertheless approved of it on the grounds of legal necessity.

In the last 100 years or so, the Swiss have voted on about 300 issues, approving of approximately 50% of issues placed before them.

In the United States of America, CIR, often called proposals, are held in conjunction with elections in 23 States and the District of Colombia and over 20 States are campaigning for its introduction.

Many other countries, including Spain and Austria, have the advantage of CIR to increase their populations involvement in the decision making of their governments. We deserve this too.

D.A.: Won't this tie us up year after year with endless referendums?
R.E.: Not really. If international experience is anything to go by, once all the major or contentious issues have been voted on and resolved, there will most likely be very few referendums required. However, the facility is there if needed.

D.A.: So what's the next step?
R.E.: We intend to advertise extensively around Australia to increase our membership. This will hopefully give us the funds to expand our educational efforts to inform the public and warn against the inevitable scare tactics that will be run by those who are happy with the status quo. We are beholden to no other group and our only funding comes from membership fees and donations. We want to expand throughout Australia, and commeth the day when CIR is installed around Australia; we will simply fade into the background, knowing that Australia has become a more democratic country, with the people in control of their own government and destiny. People should visit our website www.CIR-Australia.net and find out for themselves how easy this improvement to our democratic system would be to initiate.

We need CIR now!

D.A.: Thank you Ronald. It looks like you might have some busy times ahead. I certainly wish you and the organisation all the best with your efforts. Let's hope that the people of Australia embrace CIR as a fitting addition to our system of government.

Postscript: How a CIR could end the criminalisation of abortion in Queenland

The Courier Mail story "Two thirds support abortion law change" of 15 Sep 09 caused me to write the following letter to that paper:

Dear Editor,

The solution to the lack of sufficient numbers in Parliament to have our abortion laws reformed is simple: Citizens' Initiated Referenda.

With CIR's the will of two thirds of Queenslanders, who support the legalisation of abortion ("Abortion support rising", 15 Sep), will quickly prevail.

When the referendum is held, Anna Bligh's asset fire sale legislation should also be voted upon.

James Sinnamon

Anyone who has been in awe at the beauty of nature, its perfection of form and the delights it brings to the heart, the soothing of 21st century stress and upliftment of the soul would most likely have had the same response that I had while observing outrageously loud and wrecklessly fast racing cars shatter the silence as they ripped through the most pristine rainforests of Australia ....

See also: "After six days of anti-Rally protestor vilification, rock throwing allegations admitted to be false" of 11 Sep 09

Originally published

9 Sep 09.

On Saturday September 5, 2009 I found myself sitting on damp rainforest soil on Urliup Drive, Dulguigan, a riot policeman stationed to guard me just 3 metres away, standing on the road itself as we waited for the first of 30 race cars in the World Rally Championship for this year. It had been a total of five arduous months campaigning to stop this damn rally - all to no avail since it was ushered through by the NSW Rees government, given special treatment, all environmental laws were overridden and no development application was required. Nor would there be any liability for Repco if any deaths of drivers/spectators occurred.

I had arrived early to help my friend who lives on the road put up banners as there were very few protesters on this stage. We had been putting up the posters for hours as every time we'd put one up, the riot squad would come along and tell us why that was not a good position so we'd keep looking. In the end they were not very visible as the police themselves stood in front of some of them.

My emotions were mixed - how would I react? Would a secret love of fast cars emerge even though in my heart I knew this was the wrong place? Or would I go into meltdown worrying about what the animals who lived in this pristine rainforest might be feeling?

I had hoped to be alone as I sensed this might be an emotional experience for me, but the police were certain that we five protestors (who incidentally were mainly all over 50 years of age, grey-haired, professionals, not dirty hippies from Nimbin, as we are constantly being accused of being) would be hurling ourselves in front of the vehicles travelling 160kph on this extremely narrow, winding, precipitous road with ravines falling away to one side.

Many hours had passed as various service vehicles had passed through, all going quite fast and stirring up the dusty road which had been specially graded for the event. There were 'sweeper' vehicles that made sure no branches or rocks had been placed there by protesters, police, security, the sirens to 'scare animals away', approximately eight riot police and highway patrol.

The last and most hilarious vehicle to come through were the 'koala spotters' which consisted of two individuals standing on the back of a ute with their heads looking skyward at the tall trees above, supposedly looking for koalas. Koalas are extremely difficult to detect especially in a moving vehicle, and impossible unless you are experienced, especially in this dense rainforest. How on earth they were supposed to have time to stand at the foot of the tree and guard them or erect fences around the tree to contain them, when the first cars were coming in about 10 minutes was a mystery to me. And what about koalas who were already on the ground?

Repco had promised that creeks would have barriers to protect the pristine waters should one of the cars end up in the creek but none were erected either on this stage or other stages that I could see. They were supposed to be erected (so we were told at a Residents Meeting by Repco several days prior). They also promised wildlife carers would assist in the case of injured animals, but that was another lie - none of the wildlife carers wanted to have anything to do with this rally, on principle. It was bad enough that this was a busy time of year for them without having more animals injured by an unnecessary, disrespectful car rally foisted on them, all without financial compensation of course.

As I sat there contemplating how the animals might be feeling at the radical increase in traffic on a normally rarely used road which would by now have 100-200 rally supporters staked at various sections by the road, I tried to engage the riot policeman in normal conversation but his only comment was 'My job is to make sure that you stay there and not come onto this road. I'm here to protect you, even though you say you won't come onto the road.'

"This is so boring" I said to him. "We could right now all be walking through this amazing rainforest, in awe of the trees and the animals. Instead we are sitting here waiting interminably for the racing cars which will be gone in a blink of an eye followed by a trail of dust that will obscure this idyllic view we have right now...." He continued to chew gum and ignore my comment. It seemed very hard to penetrate the exterior of this robot-like human. What was he thinking? Did he like his job?

The owner of this property and 3 fellow protesters were further down, similarly guarded by one riot policeman each. We were the only protesters on this stage and, with the exception of one young gardener in his late 20s, were all over 50 years of age and professionals - hardly the stereotyped Nimbin hippies who didn't have a job or a life and hardly the types to hurl ourselves in front of cars or hurl boulders at the race cars. Still the riot police had told me several days before that they were brought to this area to 'stop the protesters from destroying the road' and they still had it in their mind that this is what our intention was. Furthermore, the day before two stages had been stopped by protesters at Byrrill Creek and the police were very nervous that protesters might try something at the other stages, such as hurling our bodies in front of racing cars. That would make world headlines and draw negative attention to this rally - the last thing they wanted.

Suddenly I heard the most terrifyingly loud sound from around the mountain that filled my heart with terror. The car was only seconds away now and I steeled myself for what felt like World War III. By the time it was level with where we were I found myself involuntarily screaming at the top of my lungs "NO!!!!" but the driver ignored me and flew by leaving me with my mouth agape in horror and shock barely able to enunciate the words 'You're MAD!! Completely INSANE!" I was not enjoying this to put it mildly. In fact I began to sob uncontrollably in spite of the fact that the cop was there, protecting me. As I slowly regained control I once again tried to engage the cop:

"This is SO WRONG! To have an event like this in this beautiful rainforest. What about the animals? How do they feel? Doesn't anyone even care?" The clouds of dust blanketed every square centimeter of flora and fauna for some distance, obscuring what was previously paradise. Once again I asked him to please step off the road as it was dangerous for him to be there and invited him to come higher up onto the bank closer to where I was but he refused. "No I'm staying right here and if you move I will follow wherever you go to make sure you don't go on the road."

Minutes later the second car came, in much the same way, outrageously loud and fast. Once again I began screaming and sobbing "Please forgive them they don't know what they are doing" - I felt the etheric and energetic fields of this area being shattered, fractured and it distressed me profoundly. It felt like a total violation of everything that is sacred, pure, beautiful. To put it mildly, it was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was starting to sink into a bottomless pit of pain and despair when the third car came through. It was then I began to realise that I was suffering from a total emotional breakdown. I found myself barely able to move as I fell onto the nearest tree trunk and put my arms around it saying over and over "I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, so sorry" trying desperately to tell this beautiful Earth that I love so much the pain I was feeling.

The policeman had no idea how to deal with anyone in trauma but I could feel that I needed to get away from here as soon as possible but was unable to help myself. Luckily my friends came by (they were bored and angry) and helped me by picking me up and letting me lean on them as I staggered through the forest back to the house, riot cop in tow. Every time another car went by I would fall to the ground, prostate, overwhelmed with grief. Eventually I made it back to the house where I collapsed.

A bit later I picked up the phone and called Garry Connelly, the Manager of Repco Rally Australia and told him about the effect his rally was having on me. He said "I'm sorry you don't like rallying, most people do". I disputed that saying no public consultation had taken place which he tried to defend saying that 400 people living on the stages had been interviewed, even though we have never seen this social study. I asked him to please take this rally somewhere else away from World Heritage areas, national parks, koala colonies and endangered species to a desert or a racetrack. He replied that there was just as much biodiversity in a desert as here and that a racetrack would not be a rally anymore. Besides there was a rally here before in this area 40 years ago. I reminded him that times have changed and people are a bit more environmentally conscious these days. He pointed to a 700+ page ecological report (which was not worth the paper it was written on as it was surveyed in autumn not breeding season and was only for 1 year not 10-20 years) and said that Repco was environmentally friendly. I told him that rallying was NOT eco-tourism and in fact was an assault on our environment - even a 2 yr old can see that! But Connelly couldn't as he suffers from extreme myopia and talking to him is an exercise in futility.

After the stage ended, the riot policeman who was guarding me came to the house to see if I was OK and get my details. He said "Are you OK?" which I thought was pretty nice of him and I could tell by the look on his face that it was a sincere question. I looked into his eyes and said "No, I'm not all right! I'll never be all right until this rally goes somewhere else! I feel like I have been violated, raped. I love this forest, and all the creatures, even the insects and it hurts me to see man at war with nature." He said "I can see that". WOW! He meant it, he really could see it! His face had softened and behind the hard exterior was a real human being. Perhaps he was just very worried that I would jump onto the road and he would lose his job and now he saw that I didn't he could relax and be real. I hoped that I had somehow opened his mind to another way of perceiving this world and that he would remember me.

My friend drove me home where I again collapsed. Meanwhile the two residents who were protesting checked the condition of their road surface. A week earlier it had been beautifully graded by council who decided, serendipitously that after 8 years it was 'due' for an upgrade. And this is what they found - rubble and pitted and gravel strewn everywhere, car tyres were within 1 cm of the ravines falling steeply away to the side.

Never again could I look at a rally video and not remember this experience of intense connectedness with the web of life and feeling the pain all over again. How I wish everyone on the planet could love and respect this wondrous earth! If they don't they don't deserve to live here. Let them go live on the moon until such time as they realise just how lucky we are because this earth is dying and soon it will be too late to turn it around.

Rallies are NO solution to the planetary crises facing us now. They only solidify the perception that our world is here for us to use in any way we want for our own pleasure and to hell with everything else!

Anthropocentrism or Biocentrism - you choose.

See also: "After six days of anti-Rally protestor vilification, rock throwing allegations admitted to be false" of 11 Sep 09

For those in the Tweed/Kyogle area, please participate in the sociological survey found at http://www.tweedecho.com.au. Community feedback will be used to try and stop further rallies in this area so it is very important to take a few minutes to fill it out. Thank you.

In Queensland, after March 2010, many people, who provide lifts to children instead of leaving them to walk or catch a bus face fines of $300 points and three demerit points. Of course, that is not how it is being sold to the public. Rather, the public are being told, by State Transport Minister Rachel Nolan, that the Government has enacted new laws to protect our children in the event of a car accident. The laws require child passengers, aged between four and seven, to be restrained by special child-sized restraints instead of the standard adult-sized seatbelts.

Benefits of child-sized restraints seemingly overstated, trouble and cost understated

Rachel Nolan stated her justification for these laws: "There is clear evidence that a properly-fitted restraint can improve your child's chances of surviving a serious crash by up to 50 per cent."

However, the information provided by Rachel Nolan does not make it easy for ordinary members of the public to gain a meaningful understanding of to what extent the risks to children will be reduced. Firstly, note that "up to 50 percent" implies that a child's improved chances of surviving with a properly fitted restraint could well be less than 50 percent. However, no more specific information is provided nor are links to the actual study on the web page on which the claim is made.

Statistics not given are the absolute likelihood of a child surviving as opposed to the given comparative likelihoods and the statistical likelihood of a child passenger being involved in a road accident in the first place.

On top of that, it would appear that without proper training in the fitting and use of restraints the benefits will not be as great. As one member of the public commented on the Courier Mail article "Kids' seatbelt laws tightened":

As a father of 3 aged 2, 4 and 7. I have just completed a course in restraint fitting and found that there was a lot more to a safe restraint than just putting the seatbelts on. My question is how are the police going to enforce some thing they don't really understand?? We do need to have the child restraint issue addressed but it should be done by teaching the parents the correct procedure not fining them for not being able to do it correctly. I think the police may need to run the course too ...

If cars are to be fully fitted with both adult-sized restraints as well as child-sized restraints, it seems more than likely that, over time, the seatbelts could become a tangled mess inside many vehicles. The difficulty that passengers may then face untangling the seatbelts could well increase, rather of decrease their overall risk, not to mention their discomfort.

Thus, it would seem that the impost that these new laws will cause to drivers is considerably more than Rachel Nolan would have led them to believe and the actual benefits may not be as much as she claims.

How child seat-belt laws will compound the hardship faced by the poor

Not everyone, least of all those on low incomes or without jobs, have the unlimited resources that would allow them to reduce to the absolute minimum every possible risk they or their children may face in life.

For poor people, time and money spent on these additional seatbelts and the necessary training could well be money that they will not have to spend on food, clothing, health care or other necessities of life. Conceivably, money spent on fitting these special seatbelts could even be at the expense of vehicle maintenance, so these laws could even be the indirect cause of more accidents. Thus, requiring people to minimise one risk could well result in greater risks elsewhere.

Many, who don't have children of their own, but who are occasionally asked to drive children of relatives will be faced with the unpalatable choice: either go to the trouble and expense necessary to install the seat belts or be unable to offer lifts when the need arises.

More increases in penalties for infringement of other traffic rules

On 11 September a brief accompanying article in the Courier Mail "More fines for drivers" gave details of other increases in penalties to road traffic laws include:

• A $300 fine and the loss of 3 demerit if any passenger is found not wearing a seat-belt (previously a driver was only liable when the passenger was under 16 years of age);
• A $180 fine for attempting a U-turn over a continuous centre line;
• A $40 fine for leaving fog lights on in clear weather;

The second and third of the above just may possibly be justifiable, but to fine a driver $300 in addition to 3 out of the 12 demerit points that will result in the loss of a licence over any three year period is nothing short of vindictive.

Surely, penalties should only be applied to deter people from causing harm to others? Even if penalties must be applied for simply endangering one's own life or for someone else endangering his/her life, what possible justification could there be for putting such a person through the enormous inconvenience of taking away his/her license when they have not even put anyone else's safety at risk? The penalty is clearly both unnecessary and excessive.

Of course, what these laws will do, given that police can apply discretion in many circumstances, is greatly increase the capacity of some to either victimise some road users or use these laws for their own corrupt personal gain.

Given the Government's abysmal failure to care for the basic welfare of Queenslanders in almost innumerable ways in recent years, we are entitled to suspect its motives in introducing these laws.

How Queensland Government's encouragement of population growth and poor planning have made our roads dangerous

If our governments truly want to make our lives safer then it is about time that they seriously considered the many other ways that they have caused our lives to have become more dangerous in recent years.

In South East Queensland, the unacceptable road toll is largely the result of decisions taken on our behalf by the Queensland and Federal Governments without our having been consulted.

The most obvious decision was their encouragement of population growth which has resulted in our roads having become far more crowded -- and therefore far more dangerous -- than they otherwise need have been. If this had not been the case then the number of traffic accidents could not be nearly as great.

They have compounded this needless problem by failing to properly plan urban settlement in South East Queensland and instead leaving most of the key decisions to private developers and land speculators who so generously contribute to the coffers of the ruling Labor Party. As a consequence, far too many people find it necessary to regularly travel vast distances to get to work, entertainment, shops and other places. They have compounded this problem by spending far too much of our funds on roads to the detriment of public transport and other alternatives to the private car and, at that, have badly mismanaged the road building projects, according to a State Government Auditors General report released earlier this year.

So, unsurprisingly efforts to reduce the road toll in spite of escalating penalties and policing of traffic laws have met with only limited success.

If the Government was truly concerned with our safety on the roads they would acknowledge these past mistakes and immediately begin steps to rectify the problem.

In the meantime it is urgent that the Queensland Government not be allowed to scapegoat ordinary road users for problems that are largely of their own making. These unfair and draconian laws must be withdrawn.

See also: "Car restraints to be mandatory for child passengers" in the Brisbane Times of 10 Sep 09, "Kids' seatbelt laws tightened" in the Courier Mail of 11 Sep 09, "Evidence boosts case for restraining kids in cars" by Transport Minister Rachel Nolan in My Sunshine Coast of 10 Sep 09, www.transport.qld.gov.au/childrestraints.

What you can do:

• Contact the Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan on (07) 3237 1111, transport [AT] ministerial.qld.gov.au, Ipswich [AT] parliament.qld.gov.au and let her know of your objections to these laws. Please let us know of any communications
• Contact your local Queensland Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and let him/her know of your objections to these laws. Again, please let us know of any communications;
• Write letters to the paper, and send us a copy;
• Post comments to online forums and link to this article
• Post your thoughts as a comment on this article.

This is a very informative wrap up of the problems - political, economic, production and environmental - of the desalination plant that the Victorian Government is forcing on Victorians.

We hear the history of Labor Party promises about how they would deal with water scarcity and of how they have 'backflipped' on their promises.
We hear how the local protesters took the matter to court, lost, and how the government pursued them for costs.
We hear how the cost of water has already doubled and will keep rising.
We hear how the government has denied that the area where the desal plant is to go is a whale habitat, when it clearly is.
The government preference for poorly costed, big-scale corporate engineering 'solutions' versus multi-objective sustainable local or individual ways of getting water is discussed.

And so on.

Very educational, excellent program.

File Download (28:58 min / 13 MB)

Picture: area to be developed for heavy industry

Article written by RICHARD LAVERACK

Growth at any cost is malignant growth

The State Government finally released its support for the Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy this month, and the full picture revealed of a deceptive, deceitful and underhand growth machine completely self immunized from the responsibility of planetary considerations.

Growth is the paradigm, growth at any cost. Trash those mosquito filled mud flats, no-one likes them anyway, least of all Lindsey Fox and his fleet of double B’s waiting to cart 300,000 vehicles from Hastings to the car fixated population that’s eager to buy the latest air bagged GPS status symbol available.

Sustainable Shire going up in smoke and mirrors

That this could happen in the Sustainable Shire is remarkable only if you consider the lengths Mornpen will prostitute itself to stress the credentials of freeways and UN sustainable growth. Having lied through the Shires back teeth to stress how much the residents of Mornpen supported the Frankston Bypass, the truth is now apparent. The porky’s told in Frankston about how the Bypass would REDUCE traffic congestion emissions was also a complete furphy.

The Bypass was the last enabling link to start the Port redevelopment, the State has had its “Brimbank” regional offices in Mornington and Frankston fiddling whilst the planet is burning.

Greenwash pushing unnecessary and dangerous consumerism

The Buyersfear waits in the wings with an unelected chair, and 3 members lauding the “sustainability” of the proposal, with Greenies like this, who needs climate skeptics.

The completion of the Hastings development will see a massive surge in consumerism in a State that has one of the biggest Ecological Footprints in the world. Each one of us is now responsible for over 20 tonnes p.a. of carbon being emitted just for our electricity consumption.

2 million containers came into Melbourne in 2007/8, before the recession we never had that is. The State “estimate” is that by 2035 the number of containers will have increased from 2 to 10 million. How much carbon will each of us be responsible for when 5 times more “stuff” is being imported? If this figure is ever reached it will defy any agreement in Copenhagen for a sustainable future.

Who benefits from these crazy white elephant schemes?

Legal action now surrounds Eastlink, because the vehicle figures for the road are 100,000 short PER DAY. Who are these “bean counters” who keep putting this unsustainable carrot in front of gullible elected representatives, and an even more gullible society who just can’t do without new “stuff”..

Climate catastrophe is driving State and Local Government policy, it’s business as usual with a complete refusal to utter the blasphemous words, “make do with less”.

Everything is now determined through growth, everything that is, except a sustainable future. How many pennies must drop before WE realise that it is OUR LIFESTYLE that is the cause of environmental destruction, OUR DEMAND for growth that is the reason for species extinction, OUR EMISSIONS generation that is the reason for climate catastrophe and OUR GRANDCHILDREN who will be left to pick up the pieces.

Editorial comment: A lot of us don't want growth, but the growth merchants run the mainstream media and don't give any alternative politicians publicity.

There are three marine national parks in this area to be developed and it is listed as a Ramsar Wetlands.

From the Port of Hasting's Corporation own website:
"Western Port Environment
Western Port - an area of worldwide environmental value

Western Port is an area that offers significant environmental values that are recognised worldwide. The bay is a listed Ramsar site, part of a Biosphere Reserve, containing three Marine National Parks and five Special Management Areas.

Western Port covers an area of 680sq kms and includes two islands, French Island and Phillip Island, which lie at the centre and entrance of the bay respectively. Approximately 40% of Western Port total area is exposed as mud flats at low tide.

The net water flow in Western Port is primarily in a clockwise direction around French Island. The majority of water exchange with Bass Strait is through the western entrance. Water exchange through the eastern entrance is significantly less, mainly due to the great width of the western entrance.

Freshwater inflow comes via 17 waterways which drain the catchment. The Bunyip, Bass and Lang Lang rivers are the major inflow points which together contribute approximately 75% of the freshwater inflow.

The tidal range (up to three metres) within the bay provides a wide variety of marine habitats ranging from deep channels to very extensive sea grass flats, fringing mangroves and saltmarsh and wide tidal mudflats. This variety of marine habitats provides ideal homes for many different species of animals, birds, sponges and corals."

Media Release from Greens Tweed Shire Councillor Katie Milne

A lot of questions need to be answered in relation to cancellation of the Byrill Ck stage and the media reporting. People need to calm down about this until the truth is established and the police do their job.

The SMH now has a story entitled 'Car Rally Rock Attacks False' yet our local media are still carrying on with the story. Garry Connolly of Rally Australia has stated to the SMH that "no cars were struck by rocks on Friday". Why did Garry let the media frenzy escalate for nearly a week before he clarified this?

Why has he not deigned to apologise for withholding this information and letting the vilification of the protestors go unchecked?

Why was there no qualification by media or police that this was all only alleged, and that according to Mr Connolly "there was never any evidence that cars were hit by rocks on that day"?

With all that police presence, dogs, trail bikes and helicopters with infa red technology, why was no one caught and not even a glimpse of the protestor recorded?
Why was there not even a photo released of the supposed boulders? Surely these boulders did not elude the police also? It's all too weird.

Whilst 12 laws were nullified to force this race through, people are still innocent until proven guilty, unless we have become a totally fascist state.

I have been criticised for not condemning this incident. Of course I condemn any violent protest action but how could I do that when there was no evidence that this happened? I was at Byrill Creek protesting peacefully and the first story I heard was that there were cows on the road. Then about 8 other stories followed, including that one of the drivers said that Byrill Ck was too dusty and the closeness of the trees made it too dangerous to race. I tried to see Superintendent Michael Kenny on Sunday when the rock throwing stories persisted but until Thursday I have had no reply.

The community appreciate the police assistance over the weekend especially when rally supporters tried to attack protestors on the two incidents I witnessed. But why has this or the others incidents of which I personally witnessed of projectiles been thrown at protestors not been reported in the media?

Violent and abusive behaviour by rally supporters escalated after the inflammatory reporting of the Byrill Ck incident with the worst report I heard of a car swerving into protestors at Kyogle where children were very close. Photographic evidence of a multitude of crossing double white lines by rally drivers was presented to Councillors on Tuesday. This is extremely life threatening behaviour but there is no condemnation of this by our pro rally Councillors or Mayor.

The reporting has been very one sided, hypocrisy abounds and it has been inciting hatred.

This has to stop. I am calling on all parties involved stop adding fuel to the fire and damaging the reputation of the No Rally groups and myself.

See also "Car rally rock attack story false" in the SMH of 10 Sep 09, "Missile shatters Rally car" in the Northern Star of 7 Sep 09. "Rock throwers halt world rally event", in the Herald Sun of 4 Sep 09.

(Parts of cartoon based on one signed "V.D." which is all over the net, but no attributions available.)

Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC)

From Beveridge in the north, Werribee and Melton in the west, to Cranbourne in the south-east, thousands of Victorians have recently been notified of the Victorian Labor Government’s intention to introduce what they are calling a ‘Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC) for selected areas around Melbourne.

What kind of government just dreams up new taxes of $95,000?

In effect, this ‘contribution’ is a $95,000 per hectare tax on all vacant properties over one acre, and all properties over five acres with homes when you sell, regardless of the sale price.

Imagine the young couple who are struggling to pay the mortgage on a small property of six acres where they have built, or hope to build their dream home and raise a family. One of them loses their job due to the current economic climate and they decide they can no longer afford their dream. What chance would they have of raising enough from the sale of their land in a depressed market to cover what they owe the bank, plus over $230,000 for the Labor Government’s share?

Imagine the farmer who has put his blood, sweat and tears into life on the land and is coming to the end of his working life. His plans have always been, to sell his 100 acre farm. He’s struggled through years of drought to make ends meet and now, out of the blue, he has to pay the government over $3.8 million for the privilege of selling his property.

In the likely event that he doesn’t sell, Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden will simply pass the $3.8 million debt (indexed annually) on to his children or widow when he dies. Whatever you do, Mr. Farmer, don’t get divorced and sell your property as part of the settlement, as they’ll take it from you then!

Who will stop this dictatorship?

When Victorians elected the Labor Government did we give them a mandate to simply take a large portion of our great Australian dream - a home which we have worked hard to get? We need to tell them, NOW, that we will not stand for a government that believes it has a right to introduce legislation such as this. The theft of privately owned property by force is something that we expect to hear of happening in communist or fascist countries, not in the lucky country, our country, Australia!

If you believe that it is unfair for Mr. Brumby’s duly elected State Labor Government to take a large portion of our homes in this manner please let them know that it will be political suicide for them to proceed with this legislation. Remember there’s an election next year! Today, email them, fax them or even just mail this page to them with a note voicing your disapproval at them stealing our homes by stealth.

Your home could be in the next lot that they steal, so tell them now, that it’s not acceptable!

John Brumby - Premier
Level 1, 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne Vic., 3002.
Ph: 9651 5000 Fax: 9651 5054
[email protected]

Justin Madden - Minister for Planning
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, Melbourne Vic., 3000.
Ph: 9637 8087 Fax: 9637 8921
[email protected]

Source of article was Michael Hocking, Taxed Out Inc., PO Box 113 Beveridge, 3753. Backhouse & Thomas 3869TO

Recall defective Planning Bill

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc has called for the withdrawal of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Bill 2009.

Brian Walters SC, President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. said: “This Bill is an affront to democracy as well as to good planning. It will inevitably lead to damage to the environment and public assets. It is an irresponsible measure and suggests that its proponents are in league with developers instead of upholding the community’s interests.”

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Planning Minister (in consultation with the Premier) can recommend that a project be a “declared project”. Then the project is fast-tracked without any of the normal safeguards the community has a right to expect.

Community's rights removed

The community will have no right of objection, and comment by the public is only to be permitted at the whim of the Planning Minister – and then only in exceptional circumstances, and with only 15 days’ notice. To expect community organisations to provide proper comment on major projects with only 15 days to master the material and assess it – and if necessary obtain expert advice - is ludicrous. These provisions provide for a sham right of consultation which is effectively impossible to exercise. The real goal is to remove public comment altogether, but the Bill lacks the integrity to say so.

Without public comment, projects that do not serve the interests of the community will be rammed through without a full assessment of their impact.

Ministers will not have time to assess the projects

Even when comments are offered, the Minister has only 15 days to assess them, so only the most cursory examination of the merits of a project is anticipated. For most decisions under the Bill, appeals to VCAT or judicial review are expressly excluded. Where judicial review is allowed (only for the final decision to approve a project), the Bill allows just 21 days to commence proceedings once a decision is published in the Government Gazette.

Bill heavily biased in favour of developers and varies Constitution Act

In its haste to limit rights, the Bill goes so far as to vary the Constitution Act. All consideration is given to “project proponents” and none to the community.

Labour legislating for millionaire mates

Mr Walters said: “We hope the government sees sense and withdraws the Bill. If it does not, we hope the Parliament will reject it. The fast tracking of major projects for developers, at the expense of the community and good planning, appears to be legislation for millionaire mates rather than for the good government of the people of Victoria.”

Contact via this website:
Brian Walters SC President Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's Four Corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.

See also: The July 7 Truth Campaign. Urgent: Please attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM, In Sydney meet outside the ABC Centre at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).

What you can do: It is critical that the ABC's shameful collusion in the coverups over 7/7 and 9/11 and its general pro-corporate bias not go unchallenged.

Please make your objections known to both the ABC and 4 Corners and send us any copies of your complaints.

Attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM. In Sydney meet outside the ABC Center at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the documentary for myself. The usual "Video On Demand" facility has not been made available, almost certainly for arcane copyright reasons, even though both the BBC and the ABC are publicly funded. I am basing this article on the views of others whose opinions I trust and the content of 4 Corners feedback pages in which viewers overwhelmingly condemned the BBC's sham documentary. - JS

ABC 4 Corners peddles UK Government 7/7 Big Lie, censors 9/11 widows

On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's four corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.

The program, like so much other sham reporting ostensibly criticising Western government 'blunders' over 9/11, Afghanistan, etc. in recent years, the documentary purported to be a fearless indictment the UK government, specifically it promised to tell of "how a government blunder opened the door for conspiracy theorists to claim the London bombings of 2005 were an inside job".

Its real effect was to shore up the UK Government lies over 7/7 used to further its war aims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Official story of the London Tube Bombings is in contradiction with the physical evidence of the bombed trains and bus and eyewitness accounts, but the BBC and the UK media failed to demand proper explanations for those inconsistencies. Moreover, there has been no inquiry into 7/7, not even one like the rigged 9/11 Commission. The July 7 Truth Movement has consistently demanded a proper inquiry.

Having spoken to several people who viewed the program, it sounds as though that the program had the intended effect on a large number of viewers of convincing them that 7/7 Truthers, as well as 9/11 Truthers were fruit loops and that the Official accounts of 7/7 and 9/11 were right after all.

However, judging by the comments, even on 4 Corners' heavily censored and edited feedback pages, few properly informed viewers were fooled. Here are some

:

farcical (6 Sep): Another hysterical comedy, albeit for the innocent dead and maimed of course, from the bbc (and yes 'big brother corporation' is exactly right) - seconded by our so-called flagship current affairs program 4Cs...!! pathetic!!

Erik @ Sydney (4 Sep): Peter Powers told us on two seperate media outlets on the day that they

"were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"

Wow, how fortuitous! And what a co-incidence!

This is the KEY to the false flag operation on that day.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Ones who are awake and ones who are asleep. When you wake up you can start to see the bullshit as it happens. It's not that we are paranoid, it's just that we are alert and immune to the lies.

The ones who sleep, they can't help but not notice anything. They love to eat up every government line and official story that's regurgitated by the Main Stream Media like Four Corners. They also like to proclaim how right they are because the believe the government, that makes them Holy.

Four Corners you should really be ashamed of yourself for posting this BBC hit piece. I am disgusted in you and so are many others.

iracund (regarding 9/11) (3 Sep): In the week before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, why would the producer of Four Corners chose to present a B-grade tabloid program, whose very title implies that anyone who doubts any official conspiracy theory is as "loony" as the subject of that program?

As a "loony troofer", who is used to the deafening wall of silence emanating from the ABC and other MSM organs, I'm more than loony enough to present the following facts:

In New York on Sept 11 2001, three first world over-engineered skyscrapers completely collapsed suddenly, swiftly and symmetrically, through their own structure. There is and always has been only one possible explanation for that.

In a hundred+ years of steel frame high-rise construction, the only buildings to collapse in that manner, have all been the result of controlled demolitions.

Both Towers not only imploded through their paths of most resistance, they also exploded, expelling materials upward and outwards over a distance of 4 to 5 hundred feet. The material included virtually all the concrete, which was pulverised to the consistency of talcum powder: huge girders, which were expelled laterally with enough force to impale themselves in neighbouring buildings: and smithereens of human bone, which were found in rubble deposited on the roof of the Deutche Bank building, in April 06.

How is any of this possible from a gravity-only driven collapse?

When challenged by members of the US public on the "fall time" of WTC7, the National Institute of Standards in Technology (NIST) was forced to revise its belated report and admit that this building spent at least 2 seconds in free fall. For any building to achieve free fall, it has to have its supporting structures synchronously cut, through its entire cross section. This is only possible with the assistance of expertly placed explosives.

The recently discovered evidence that a heavily engineered form of military grade, "nano-ized"thermitic material was discovered in the dust from the 9/11 WTC catastrophe merely confirms what was already known: that all three skyscrapers were demolished. Not only is controlled demolition the Occam's Razor for those collapses, it is the only possible explanation.

To quote a fictional character to compliment the fiction of the official story: "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable is the "troof".

NB (3 Sep): WHEN YOU INSULT 9/11 TRUTH YOU INSULT THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES. 9/11 TRUTH IS THE FAMILY MEMBERS! They are the ones pressing for a proper investigation. Their valid questions deserve answers.

Shame on you ABC. Millions of people worldwide have examined the extensive and conclusive EVIDENCE concerning the truth of 9/11. How much longer can you continue your pathetic and desperate cover up?

I laughed out loud at the comment by "grizzlysmit" about not having found 9/11 Truth on the internet. Try putting "9/11 Truth" into Google - over 93 million hits. Can you work Youtube? Start by watching World Trade Centre 7 (47 storeys) fall to the ground in 7 seconds (not hit by a plane) and the comments by Larry Silverstein (who took over the leases of the 3 WTC buildings 6 weeks before 9/11) where he discusses giving the order to "pull" the building. You don't even need to go any further than the ABC website. Go to their "Unleashed" section and search for Hereward Fenton's excellent article. Once you have caught up, check out the peer-reviewed study on the nanothermite (explosive) found in the dust at the Twin Towers.

The number of politicians, eyewitnesses, architects, engineers, physicists, scientists etc standing up for 9/11 Truth is truly staggering. Check out Scholars for 9/11 Truth. You want celebrities? Start with Channel 9's star, Charlie Sheen.

The ABC's role in this shameful cover up is criminal. Those at the very top at the ABC will be held accountable. As for the ABC "journalists" who know the truth, stand up together. You are not only going to have to answer to the general public, but your families and children as well.

9/11 Truth is not going away. It is growing every day as more and more people find out.

Harry Tuttle (2 Sep): Nobody that was charged with terrorism on 7/7 has ever been convicted in a court of law, despite £100m being spent on an investigation. [Read Guardian article.]

However the Big Brother Corporation (BBC) claims they are guilty - so they must be!

In the future could the ABC should show BBC "documentaries" in a fiction time slot (along with Doctor Who etc), so as to not tarnish the Four Corners reputation.

PABULUM (2 Sep): What is interesting in the BBC article is that Binny Netanyahu has recanted of his previous statement that he received a warning to stay in his hotel room prior to the actual bombing. Netanyahu originally stated that the warning came from Scotland Yard, Scotland Yard has denied warning Netanyahu. The next statement from whom, I don't know, was that the warning from Scotland Yard went first to the Israeli Embassy. There was no more about the warnings made public after that statement, that I am aware of.

So now Netanyahu is still stating that he received a warning from Scotland Yard, but only after the first bombs went off. Oh dear!!!!!!!!

Apparently Binny had forgotten, and the journalist had ignored the fact because it had been stated earlier on in this BBC article that the first bombs, that is the bombs that went off on the trains simultaneously were initially reported as being 'power surges'. They were never reported as bombs until after the bus was blown up outside Tavistock House in Russell Square.

What we now have is corroborating statements from Binny that he was personally involved with the London Bombing.

The one major piece of evidence that was totally ignored was the article written by Efraim Halevi that was printed in 'The Jerusalem Post on 7/7/05 in regard to the London Bombing. Halevi's article tells us who the perpetrators were, and that the same people were responsible for 911.

(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): ON 7/7 THE SPOOKS were conducting a similar operation/exercise strangely at the very same location on the very same day.???

Also on 9/11 SPOOKS conducted some 5 military exercises on the very same day of America being attacked.???

Strangely also the yankee military carried out exercise ops.in 1932 and 1938 of Hawaii being attacked by carrier borne aircraft.

History sure repeats itself.

Wake up-- they who lead us lead us astray.

(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): FOUR CORNERS at the top says, "Investigative TV journalism at it's best." ? ...

May I issue a challenge forthwith to all these intrepid men and women to reveal the absolute truth about this claim.

Prove to me categorically that WTC 7 NYC 9/11 WAS NOT IMPLODED.

Go to it folks your time starts from now.

911oz (02 Sep): Subject Welcome to the War on Reason!

This message is directed not at the ABC editors who I believe are beyond help, but at those thoughtful readers who have posted here or who may be browsing this page.

We are faced with an epic struggle of science and reason Vs dogma and mass hysteria. This kind of struggle is not new in human history. The fight must be won again, as it was won in past ages.

And we WILL win folks.

[edited]

Hereward Fenton

wezthebikie (2 Sep): As an Australian taxpayer, I am quite concerned that the ABC, has now attached itself to the bottom of the barrel, along with the Commercial Television Stations. I would hope that after that disgraceful farce, that 4 Corners has described as, 'Investigative Journalism', the Government will now concede, that we should no longer have to pay for the running of the ABC. Please feel free to reimburse my taxes, that have been spent, running the ABC. I am also convinced that, A Current Affair and Today-Tonight, will be happy to have company at the bottom of the barrel, where ABC 'Journalism', has now placed itself. P.S. How about a new 'Investigative Journalism' effort, into the Nano-Thermite, that has been found in the dust of the World Trade Centre Buildings. Let's see if you can make as big a disgrace of yourselves, as what your 7/7 'Investigative Journalism, did.

bbc hit piece (2 Sep): I've noticed almost everyone who has commented on the BBC 7/7 program has been appalled not only by the journalism but by the obvious debunking of the conspiracy theory that British intelligence and the British Gov were behind the tube station bombings. What better way to debunk the conspiracy theorists than to pick a couple of crazies out of several million sane and intelligent "truthers" and let them dig their own graves. Is it possible the demolition van was planted at Tavistock Square [address of British MK Ultra mind control think tank!] to later debunk those who were not thorough enough on their research? To suggest governments have not or do not carry out terror on their own populations is to show a complete lack of historical knowledge. Please read up on Operation Northwoods and make up your own mind. Also, anyone who believes the official 9/11 tale is an idiot.....plain and simple.

iracund (02 Sep): It's a sad day for Australian TV journalism when the ABC's flagship, Four Corners is forced to run the trash like the "Conspiracy Files", a term which is bandied about to divert public attention away from asking legitimate questions about 9/11, 7/7, Bali et al.

At least the BBC's Third Tower, gave a voice to Professor Steven Jones and Richard Gage, two of the leading lights of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for the first time on Oz TV. This one seems to have simply picked on one (possibly mentally ill) person in order to taint anyone with legitimate questions or feasible alternative theories to the official ones.

In the case of 9/11 for example, (the Crime of the Century) there has been no investigation by Four Corners on the actual events and evidence of that day. Or the many serious questions remain ignored, unanswered or inadequately answered by the official conspiracy theories.

Could it be that the once great Four Corners have programed this twaddle a week before the anniversary of 9/11 to reinforce the official view that all so called "conspiracy theorists" are all loonies? Especially this year, when the producer of that program knows that highly qualified scientist have a published, vigorously peer-reviewed, and unchallenged paper, which provides conclusive evidence that all three buildings in NY on that day were demolished by cutting edge, military grade explosives. (Cf: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe).

Dare I suggest that your failure to report on this and many other suspicious events on that day, puts you in breach of your charter.

9/11 Truther Kim Bax attempted to post comments but said they seemed censored or were heavily edited (see Appendix 1 below). This led to phone calls and exchanges (mostly one-way) of e-mails between her and 4 Corners staff. In her e-mails, she asked why after all these years, no-one on the ABC had interviewed the "Jersey Girls". The "Jersey Girls" are widows who lost their husbands on that day and forced the Bush administration to finally hold an Inquiry into 9/11, as rigged that it turned out to be. Details of Kim Bax's correspondence can be found at www.kimspages.org/abc4corners.htm

Even Phillip Adams, an ostensible left-winger and opponent of US Foreign Policy, who on one occasion praised the "Jersey Girls" refuses to interview them and maintains that all the 9/11 Truth Movement (presumably including the "Jersey Girls") are "nutters". For the correspondences between Kim Bax and Phillip Adams, please go to www.kimspages.org/phillipadams.htm.

Appendix 1: Edited comment by 7/7 and 9/11 Truther Kim Bax

I am at a loss to understand why my comments (posted below), were so heavily edited, and I have emailed 4 Corners privately, asking for a written explanation (they have my full contact details). The information that was cut were links, freely available to anyone on the net who cares to use a google search engine , to check the truth of the facts in my "Letter to the Editor."

Further, I am also at a loss to understand why there is no response from ABC 4 Corners (on this message board), to the two very legitimate questions I have posed in that post...

The core of the matter seems to be that the British Government has (to this day), strenuously resisted all calls for a public inquiry into 7/7, and that the 9/11 Commission was only formed after a 14-month fight by bereaved family members - further still, these same family members (who ABC 4 Corners seems to have consistently ignored), are grossly dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission, and they have been calling for a new judicial review since 2004. What Planet does ABC 4 Corners live on for that not to be "News"?

Again, I very much hope this entirely legitimate post of mine is allowed on the ABC message board. I'll certainly be posting it on my own blog, and circulating the info.

wiccedwoman (02 Sep):
Subject An open question to 4 Corners

Yesterday, I circulated this 136-word "Letter to the Editor" to 100's of local papers all over Australia (I collated the email addresses ages ago, when I was involved in other community campaigns):

"As another anniversary of 9/11 comes round, the World should pay its respects to the widows and mothers of that day by a single voice demanding truth and justice. Without Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, nicknamed "The Jersey Girls," The 9/11 Commission would not have existed. They fought Bush for 14 months, before he caved to an inquiry. Even so, it cost over three times less than the investigation into Clinton’s sex life and finances, over 70% of the women’s questions remain ignored, and to this day, they are still fighting for an independent judicial review. Bizarrely, even "Respected" Australian journalists like Phillip Adams refuse to interview them. For a deeper look at this issue, I strongly recommend "9/11 Press for Truth," which was screened by The History Channel in 2007."

. . . and as a result, my questions to 4 Corners are, (as we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11), wouldn't it have been more appropriate to interview "The Jersey Girls" in depth about their continuing campaign for a new judicial review of 9/11, rather than screen this BBC piece (of doubtful quality in my opinion)? And secondly, has the ABC ever interviewed "The Jersey Girls" about their continuing campaign?

Further, here are the links I also sent out with that short letter to back up the points I make (and especially as regards the point I make about Phillip Adams, you are more than welcome to speak with him directly about the veracity of my correspondence with him). Lastly (before I publish those mentioned links), I'll also be posting this comment yourselves on numerous Australian email lists (and to my various other contacts), with a comment as to whether or not you allowed to be published on your board. I very much hope it is, and I very much hope I get some direct answers to these very reasonable questions.

Appedix 2: Comments in support of BBC 'documentary'

pixie 4 Sep): It's really great to hear what the conspiracy/no moon landings crowd think !

I hope 4Corners runs the same show next year.

Pythinia (3 Sep): Amazing what a little technology jargon will do for a conspirator theorist - what hate has been spilt on the pages by posters on the Four Corners airing of the 7th July 2005 bombing, plus dragging in other tragedies to up the anti.

We are unconvinced - try again.....

Now in Southern California, soon in place near you

The link http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/702.html provides two short videos that starkly illustrate the ultimate results of unsustainable growth, as it is unfolding right now in Southern California, and as it is likely to unravel anywhere that continues too far with an economy based predominantly upon land speculation, urban construction and retail.

Extensive areas riddled with debt and without productive function or options

This growth model produces extensive areas that are riddled with debt and have no genuinely productive function or options by which to repay that debt. The extremity of circumstance shown in these videos also presents a new, terribly real, but currently unreported wave of refugees - the repossessed homeless.

The same situation developing and compounding in Australia

It can happen anywhere in Australia, but I will talk about a situation near my area, Rainbow Beach in Queensland. A world heritage area, and the last small town on the coast, it has been subjected to waves of developer proposals and attempts to massage opinion now for several years.

Bringing the issue closer to home in Cooloola (an obsolete term since Council amalgamation but how else do you quickly describe the region around Gympie, Queensland, Australia), what will happen to the many local families whose debt makes up the rapidly escalating amount of unpaid Council rates? Just prior to the recent rate rise this figure was $3m, up after last year's rate rise from $1.8m only two years ago. The new rate rise of 15-25% plus levies, a 30% increase in electricity costs, fuel on the rise, etc. will all combine to make this situation even harder. Yet local jobs, and all plans to 'increase' them, are focussed on land development and the retail that spins off of it.

Councils have no business getting their constituents into debt

How is Council prepared to deal with these contingencies? It couldn't happen here? That's exactly what they thought in California only two years ago. Denying physical reality didn't help them avoid it. Fringe and regional suburban areas in Australia are structurally very similar to the depicted Californian situation.

The last thing Rainbow Beach (or any other small town) needs is to become a regional suburb. That is not development. In the light of current knowledge, it is socio-economic suicide.

The second last thing we need is for our Council to continue taking the region down this doomed urban development pathway to increasing debt, under-employment and overall infrastructure deficiency.

It's all a hard message to grapple with for some of us but we ignore it at our peril.

These are dark times for Australia and Victoria is one of the darkest places in the country for democracy. There are, however still some good people in parliament and we must support their efforts. The Greens and the Opposition need the electorate's help to have this bill stopped in the upper house. They have done it before, so they can do it again. See for example, "Coalition, Greens & DLP vote Tim Holding's North South Pipeline enabling regulations down!".

If passed, the new proposed Major Transport Projects Facilitiation Bill 2009, will create an Act of Law tol override existing planning and environmental approval processes under the 11 other Acts listed below. Like the Repco rally law in NSW it will overturn laws for the protection of democracy, the environment, and the public.

This Bill is bad because:

- It will exempt the State Government from its own laws and concentrate decision making power into one or two Ministers, raising the risk of corruption and 'influence peddling'.

- You will not be able to appeal to the Supreme court except to appeal the final decison by the Planning Minister, but the law will be biased against the appeal because they will have to favour "cost and efficiency" of the project rather than environment, heritage, or democratic agreement by the community.

This bill is bad for democracy and is not needed or wanted - except by big business and developers.

Greg Barber of the Greens has asked, "What public transport projects have ever been delayed by following proper processes?"

Labor is determined to ram this through.

He says, "Labor is determined to ram this through. Only the Liberal-National Coalition, by voting with the Greens, can stop this bill in the upper house. You are urged to email Liberal, National, DLP Upper House MPs and tell them that if they really care about stopping corruption they will vote to make state government decisions subject to the law."

Copy of the legislation and explanatory info
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/eb658cee32cafe23ca2576100014d381!OpenDocument

Coastal Management Act 1995
Consent under section 40(1)
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
Comment under section 66
Environment Protection Act 1970
Works approval under section 19B(7)
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Permit under section 40
Licence under section 53 to take and keep fish
Forests Act 1958
Licence or permit under section 52
Permit under section 59(1)
Authority under section 77
Heritage Act 1995
Permit under section 74
Permit under section 113
Consent under section 129
National Parks Act 1975
Permit under section 21(1)(a)
Approval under section 23
Consent under section 25
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Preparation, approval and adoption of a planning scheme or an amendment to
a planning scheme under sections 8, 29 and 35
Granting and issue of a planning permit under section 61
Road Management Act 2004
Consent under clause 1 of Schedule 2
Decision under clause 2 of Schedule 2
Consent under clause 16 of Schedule 7
Water Act 1989
Licence under section 51
Licence under section 67
Wildlife Act 1975
Authority under section 21(1), (2) or (3)
Licence under section 22(1)
Authorisation under section 28A

Partial source for this article was

(Grayling; Photo from Wikipedia commons)

Tim Holding, Minister for Water and Tourism, didn't learn much from his brush with death recently, or about the forces of Nature.

Tim Holding fantasised about pizza in freezing wilderness when he got lost recently.

The Thomson River is already stressed under the impact of drought but this plan will go ahead despite Mr Holding conceding that the extra extraction did pose a risk to the health of the river.

Mr Holding acknowledges the extraction could harm the river's Grayling fish population. He is happy to rob more water from the environment by taking from the already flow-stressed Thomson River, risk the viability of endangered native fish stocks and Gippsland's Lakes.

These grayling are listed as threatened species already and listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

The Thomson is a flow stressed river. Diversions for urban and irrigation use have
reduced flows by 50% (Victorian Stressed Rivers Program; CRC 1999) and sometimes
flows in the lower Thomson cease completely in summer (EPA, 2002).

Four of six reaches of the Thomson are rated by the Index of Stream Condition as poor or very poor.

Instead of robbing water from the environment, risking the loss of biodiversity, and the expensive and environmentally threatening desalination plant, we should be limiting our population growth.

The plan for a desalination plant at Williamsons Beach near Wonthaggi, together with water drawn from the Murray-Darling Basin via the Goulburn Valley pipeline, is intended to "drought-proof" Melbourne.

Thomson dam was finished in 1983 and, when full, stored more water for Melbourne than all of the other reservoirs combined. It was to "drought-proof" Melbourne. However, Melbourne's population has already exceeded the level its dams were intended to cater for. No extra catchment areas remain available to be plundered.

Victoria’s population increased by over 92,000 in 2008. According to the DSE,
Victoria’s population is projected to grow to 7.395 million by 2036, or 42 per cent from 2006. The number of Melbourne households is projected to increase by 51 per cent between 2006 and 2036.

Almost one quarter of migrants coming to Australia settle in Melbourne. It is not about the country they originate from, but the fact that they are coming here to live. This is clearly irresponsible and risky and the only people who benefit are big businesses and land developers! The costs of unsustainability are being passed onto the public with soaring costs for water, power, rates and climate change.

Water Minister Tim Holding refused to rule out introducing stage 4 water restrictions as early as Christmas. This would mean no watering of gardens! Melbourne used to be the "Garden City"!

How many times are schemes to "drought-proof" for Melbourne to be revised? We are being dictated to by corporations that want increasing numbers of customers.

For health and safety reasons, if a venue is full then ticket sales should cease!

Surely, if Tim Holding admits that our river systems are stressed, and that our water supplies have been low due to 12 years of drought, we should stabilise our population!

Tim Holding may endanger his own well-being with his private escapades, but surely his risk-taking should not include the public, or our life-supporting ecosystems.

Through incompetence and neglect 110 ha which was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve was mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people, whose hearts are nearly broken. See also related articles

The death of the DARA land.

110 ha of land once belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, known now as 'the DARA land" was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve. Through incompetence and neglect it has been mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now, in a crowning act of environmental vandalism,[1] this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve. This is to go ahead, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people who do not want it.

Here Hans Brunner describes the process by which the species became extinct and pleads for the area to be rehabilitated. It is the least that the State government and SEITA (now renamed the Linking Melbourne Authority) can do. This time there should be transparent aims to increase the fauna species representation to its optimum and reproducible methods to test the success of the operation, so that the public may monitor the effectiveness of it.

Hans Brunner sends a plea to Department of Sustainability and Environment and to Parks Victoria to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done.

The future of the DARA land can be so much brighter than its past

The Dara land is the 110 ha that has been added to the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. It borders on Ballarto Rd and McClelland Drive and joins on to the golf course, North-East of the original Pines. The proposed Bypass will separate the two parcels of land.

Some twenty years ago the Dara land, then occupied by the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, was teaming with wildlife. There were large colonies of Swamp Rats, lots of Bandicoot diggings everywhere, there were Wallabies, Ringtail- and Brush-tail Possums, Echidnas, an occasional Koala and Sugar Glider and only a very small number of Rabbits. This was the result of regular poisoning of foxes and rabbits and the total absence of dogs. Boundary fences were inspected weekly and repaired immediately.

After a large wildfire, it took about two to three years for these animals to recover to their original numbers, but they did so with the help of ongoing fox and rabbit control and the absence of dogs.

After Dept of Agriculture left, Parks Vic and DSE allowed ferals to run amuck

After the Dept, of Agriculture vacated the Dara land Parks Victoria was appointed to manage this land. Immediately fox and rabbit poisoning stopped, a number of gates were erected to allow people with their dogs to enter as well as foxes and cats. The bandicoots were the first to suffer. It took only about twelve months for them to totally disappear from the whole of the Dara land. Where there were once large colonies of Swamp Rats one could find only the mounds of soil where they used to be. Rabbit numbers increased and fox and dog foot prints became prevalent not only along the walking tracks but also throughout the bush land off the tracks.

20 yrs ago foxes' and domestic dogs' scats revealed diet of endangered fauna

During my many visits, I collected scats of foxes, cats and dogs containing hairs and identified them in order to determine the prey species.

Since we know already too well what foxes prey on I concentrated on dog scats with hairs of prey species. It is well known that some people encourage their dogs to hunt for rabbits in the Reserve and the dogs will than go for anything that moves including native animals. Bandicoots are especially vulnerable to predation as they have to dig deep holes to get to their food and then can easy be ambushed while doing so. They also have not got large ears like the rabbits have to hear predators approaching. Subsequently I established what the contents were of twenty four dog scats. Of these, 8 had Rabbit, 4 had Wallaby, 4 had Bandicoot, 3 had Brush-tail Possum, 3 had Ring-tail Possum and 2 had Swamp Rat. Fox scats had a higher proportion of Rabbits but preyed on all the other animals as well and included some Sugar Gliders and lots of lizards.

Now the same scats show diet of mostly rabbits

Fox and dog scats now contain manly rabbit and a few ring-tail possums as all the other small native animals have almost totally disappeared.

This was not helped when Parks Victoria control burnt a large area of prime bandicoot habitat and before this area could recover an adjacent area was also burnt. This resulted in the absence of all the animals that used to live there and consisted of about fifty percent of the whole Dara bush land.

Active fox dens are now distributed throughout the whole area and there is no hope for the native animals to become re-established again.

The ultimate blame lies with DSE and PV

The ultimate blame lies with DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment)[2] and PV (Parks Victoria)[3]. They both were unwilling to protect the nationally endangered bandicoots and with it all the other native mammals, birds, lizards and frogs. How can they completely neglect and mismanage this prime habitat for not only this rare bandicoot but also for Koalas, Sugar Gliders, Swamp Rats, Echidnas, Brush- and Ring-tail Possums and all the other native wildlife! We have to urgently go back to the way the Dara land was managed by the Agriculture Dept.

In the absence of dogs, the control of foxes, cats and rabbits could than be carried out completely un-restricted and efficiently.

I plead with the DSE and PV to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done. If I had time, exactly the same story could be told about the Western half of the Pines where beside the predators and rabbits motorbike riders cause havoc to Wallabies, birds and other wildlife.

Hans Brunner

[1] Works undertaken by the Linking Melbourne Authority (once called SEITA) with the support of the Brumby government and your taxes.

[2] The Department of Sustainability and Environment has almost no staff devoted to actively protecting and sustaining healthy biodiverse fauna populations. DSE seems to be far more interested in pushing human population growth by stimulating high immigration, providing land to developers and pushing through infrastructure programs to the detriment of our indigenous fauna and the loss of green spaces. DSE is dominated by agriculturalists and property development oriented planners and technicians.

[3] Parks Victoria is a public authority (akin to a government department), funded from three major sources; payments from the State Government Budget (your taxes), an annual charge based on a property rate levied on all metropolitan properties, and user fees.
It is managed by a board with the following members:
Rob Gerrand, BA, FAMI, FAICD
Lois Appleby
Clarice Ballenden, BA (Hons) M.Ed.
Damien Bell
Rod Gowans, PSM.
Ken King, Dip. For., B.Sc (Hons)
Noel Harvey, OAM, MAICD
Jennifer Labourne, B.Bus, FCPA
Jan Mahoney BA, PhD, FAICD

What are these people doing with our money?

ABC Australian news reported that someone somehow placed rocks on the road where rally cars would pass at some time prior to the Repco Rally event. Apparently stones or rocks were also thrown. See Rally rock-throwing 'could have killed', ABC news, September 5, 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/05/2677430.htm

First day of the rally

The picture of the car trailing dust has been included for educational purposes because it shows how much dust is being thrown up by a rally car on the unpaved roads that pass through national parks of World Heritage significance. One can imagine the noise and the speed from the picture. Unless you like noise, speed, metal and dust, this would be a very unpleasant experience. For wildlife it could be a fatal experience. Politically it could represent a fatal breech in the wall of law that has preserved Australia’s wild spaces to date.

Would Repco race cars through a cathedral?

The idea alone of racing cars through national parks is appalling to many. With the position of National Parks in Australia it is a bit like racing cars through cathedrals in Italy or France, except that the damage it is likely to do in the long term is that much more significant.

It may not result directly in the extinction of endangered species but, whether it does or not, it is like a big breech in the wall. If government can get away with doing this to our National natural cathedrals, they may soon be running the equivalent of brothels in cathedrals there. Indeed, the same NSW government which overturned local democracy (the most immediate form of democracy) to force this race on Australians, is also apparently prepared to allow the Shooters Party to shoot indigenous animals in National Parks.

The car is not exactly an endangered species

Many of us live on highways or have to drive to work and find this difficult enough. It is amazing to think that the NSW Parliament actually legislated away 12 environmental laws in order to import such a rally to this area, which, to date, was a sanctuary for animals, trees and humans. The local inhabitants have complained of the risk to life for humans and other animals in the area.

Today we received a letter to candobetter.org claiming that “Greenies” threw rocks at the rally drivers.

“Rally Australia"

On September 5th, 2009 Jack (not verified) wrote:

"You greenies who are responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks might get charged with attempted manslaughter or murder if you are not careful. It is not a joke to do these things, one could expect it in a third world country but one would have hoped that in a so called educated society things like this would not happen. If you want to protest then do it in a more effective way than risking the life of another human being!”

The writer assumes that ‘Greenies’ were responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks. In fact we do not know who was responsible. However, let us take his other assertions in this paragraph. He says that we could expect such activity in a third world country, but not in an educated society. However it has been the anti-rally protesters’ contention that an educated society would not put a rally through international heritage rainforest national parks including 16 km of koala habitat. To many people the notion that we are an ‘educated society’ does not hold up because of this. Regarding third world societies: what are the criteria that make this kind of protest likely in the third world? Perhaps the quality of not having any other means to protest?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally? This event has been enabled by the NSW Motor Sports (WRC) Bill 2009, which overrode 12 different planning, environmental protection and heritage laws and removed all right of appeal.[1] Or has his enthusiasm for the rally diminished the importance of this fact in his eyes? If that is the case, I suggest that he reconsider these inconvenient facts.

What more effective ways are open to people in the Green Cauldron? They have protested peacefully in the streets, written to politicians, and invoked the law. The response from the government was extreme: The government abrogated the very environmental laws that the people had invoked to stop the race. Then, when a councilor took the matter to the courts, she felt that it was given the bum’s rush. Behind the abrogation of the 12 environmental laws was pressure from Repco, a global corporation of retailers of car parts, which apparently had far more pull with the NSW Government than the democratic wishes of members of its electorate.

Even some of the competitors sound as if they understand.

"Some people don't like us in front of their house but I didn't ask to come here," French competitor, Loeb reportedly said.
"I can understand why some people don't like the rally, but I have to do my job."

Indeed he does. But the problems are not the fault of the people defending their rights and their environment. (Source: "Rock throwers halt Rally Australia", ABC News, 4 September.)

What would have been much better is if the FIA had adhered to its stated high principles of environmental standards and good governance, saying, “No, Premier Rees, we want to be good global citizens. You must find a venue for this event which is acceptable to your citizens. We cannot stand by and let you overturn your own peoples’ laws in order to run a mere race. It will not do our reputations or yours any good. People have a right to self-government. We cannot impose things they hate on them. The French Revolution taught us that.”

So much for an educated, first world society.

“And do not bother denying it had anything to do with your movement, you ARE tarred with the brush in the same way that you like to tar motorsport with the "hooning" brush.”

Why didn't the FIA or drivers stand up for democracy against Repco and the NSW Government?

It would be reassuring if people in the rally movement had stood up for democracy. Since they have not it is hard not to see them as hoons. And since their representatives have not spoken up, they look like representatives of hoons. Those perceptions will change when rally-people stand up for democracy and justice along with the environmentalists. As long as you do not you defend the wholesale destruction of laws by a dictatorial government. Candobetter.org cannot comment on allegations about people who used rocks as weapons since we have absolutely no idea who those people were. It is even conceivable that people wishing to give the environmentally concerned a bad name threw the rocks themselves. That would seem to me more likely since, from the point of view of an environmentalist – a person who defends wild spaces – throwing rocks is rather similar, although not as bad, as driving racing cars through world heritage landscapes and biodiverse hotspots.

False argument pretends area not worth protecting

"I watched the you tube video and I have never seen so much rubbish in all my life,
Mostly it looks like farming country, overgrown with weeds, so much for the environment."

I am not a resident of the area, but, to me this is what the videos have conveyed. We saw a koala crossing the road and we have been told elsewhere that the rally passes through 16km of koala habitat. We know that koalas are endangered. That, to me, is enough to tell me that the area cannot be totally degraded.

Secondly, it would not be surprising if the area is being degraded, given the kinds of forces it is subjected to. That is not the fault of environmentalists. The area was rural with forested parts. There is obviously a tension between rural, other commercial values and the environmental values of local constituents. Environmental has to win out, however, because the area is internationally recognized for its biodiverse and landscape qualities. Car races, shops and farms already take up substantial parts of this country and if we still cannot make a go of what we have already got economically, then destroying more wildlife habitat is not likely to help.

Impact of farming

"Farming does far more harm to the environment than Rally could ever do!

After having experienced Rally Australia in Western Australia for 18 years I can assure you that there will not be hundreds of wild animals killed, in any way!
If the people who live and run businesses in the towns involved have any clues they will see the prospects for adding value to what they do or in fact even starting up new ventures all because of the Rally."

Farming is certainly problematic because it converts wild-spaces for food. However the farms are already there. The rally was not. It was an additional stressor. As for the damage it might do. I have compared it to racing through cathedrals and I stand by that. This country is absolutely covered and ringbarked with roads, for Pete’s sake – how could racing car drivers possibly justify taking roadspace in National Parks? And, I do not see how you could argue to put a koala at risk just for some ephemeral potential ‘profits’ which will not sustain any human in the long term.

Little evidence for much touted 'economic advantages' and no amount of money could make this right

The Rally will bring economic benefit to the area and to the state in general, you lot rave on about eco tourism, I can assure you that if the area does indeed have something to offer then the Rally will bring thousands of international tourists.

The insistance that this rally will bring lots of money to Tweed has been knocked down over and over. Our definitions of what constitutes 'economic benefit' must differ.

"Same Rally cost WA tax-payers $6m+ p.a.

Previous speakers who praised the rally indicated that it will bring $100 million of value to the area. They do not understand what they are talking about. For example, $100 million over what period? It is certainly not for this one race that is coming up; nor for the one in two years time or the one in 10 years time. It is the accumulated value they think they might get if everything is done and all options are accepted between now and 2027. A more true picture comes from Western Australia. The Western Australian Government no longer wanted the rally, indicating that it was costing Western Australia $6 million a year and it was not getting economic value to make up for that $6 million." Source For more on the debate read here.

Our definitions of ‘eco-tourism’ must also differ. Who want’s tourists in national parks who come to watch noisy cars go round and round and tear up the earth and vegetation, kill wildlife, and pollute the atmosphere with petroleum fumes and dead soil organisms from the dust? How could anyone consider that desirable? For someone who likes quietly walking through a forest amid a community of other species, just like someone who might enjoy praying in a cathedral and looking up through the stained-glass windows and imagining they were in God’s house, your idea that racing cars through these quiet and otherly places might add to their ‘value’ seems really strange.

And the thing is, nature preservation does not cause the extinction of car-rallies, since there are roads for rallies everywhere, but roads and rallies do destroy nature. I mean, what environmentalists do and like does not stop rally fans from doing what they do and like somewhere else. For instance, the Goldcoast Super GP Rally will be staged next month, through city streets, just across the border from this one. However, if you want to do your thing in our quiet places, you destroy what we have. Look around you: the world is absolutely full of roads and noisy cars. Your kind of ‘paradise’ is proliferating daily. Ours isn’t. It is disappearing. Have a sense of proportion.

There is a huge contingent of International Rally people who follow the WRC around the world, just like the people who follow Tennis or Cricket or Footy, Yep just the same, and they will be coming to your part of the world, generally speaking they have a few bucks in their back pocket and have great fun unloading the stuff, so do not think there is no money to be made.

Obviously money is very important to you, much more important to you than beauty, wildlife, peace and quiet and democracy. Even if money were more important than place for environmentalists, it has already been shown many times that the rally has brought a net financial loss when costs are taken into account or no benefit to other communities where it has been held.

You need to try to see that environmentalists need to protect what they love and that rally values will harm what they treasure most. The rally is invading green environmental space and trying to change it. It has also destroyed democratic space, by forcing the overturning of laws. That alone should signal "Danger! Danger!" On the other side, environmentalists are not invading road-space. The huge contingent of International Rally people have lots of places made of concrete and tar and cement where they can go and they will possibly even be welcome there.

"If you think however that you should just need to stand in line with your hand out to get your share then you have your head in the sand (or somewhere else!)"

Honestly, this stuff about making lots of money out of these rallies just sounds like pie in the sky. After the rally has been run, however, I think that residents would be justified in demanding compensation for the trauma of having their democratic self-government annihilated and their environmental laws overturned, as well as their peace disturbed and their happiness destroyed by the need to go out of their way to try to protect what they love due to the failure of their governments to enforce protections which were available at law prior to the rally and were overturned because of the rally and for no other reason. Those environmentalists would be justified in demanding ongoing compensation since the intention is to continue to stage this rally for decades.

Democracy is the big question

"An event like this will always have those who are against having it, well we live in a democracy, so if it is taking place then there must be a higher number of people who want it than don't, bad luck!"

But that is the very problem. We DON'T live in a democracy in Australia anymore, and things have got particularly desperate in Tweed Shire due to the Repco Rally. By removing legal protections from the community's right to environmental protection and self-government the NSW Government has left the community in a situation of lawlessness and injustice. Did you not realise that 12 laws were put aside to run this rally? Why would the NSW government and Repco have had to go to such extraordinary lengths to impose the rally - and overturn democracy - if so many people, as you believe, wanted this rally? Why did they not just allow democracy to prevail, instead of removing it?

"I suggest that you greenies would be better off spending your time and money trying to fix up a couple of the countries biggest environmental disasters which are on your back doorstep, like the Murray Darling disaster for one!"

At candobetter we continue to represent problems with the Murray Darling and other threatened waters. If environmentalists were not busy defending multiple cherished places under attack by developers and now democracy under this rally, they would indeed have more time to dedicate to these ongoing other threats. If the rally were withdrawn from the Green Cauldron we could all get on with the other jobs.

[1] "" Source: http://www.norallygroup.org/

Article about Brown Mountain on the Anarchist media net says that the logging of Brown Mountain will be done by public servants who would be otherwise deployed in our poorly tended ecosystems if they were not sent off to log. However EEG disagrees on this point. See related important corrections to original article in comments below it inside. They also make interesting reading.

(This article was originally published at http://www.anarchistmedia.org/current.html)

Only 8% of Victoria’s old growth forests remain

Considering just 8% of Victoria’s old growth forests remain, you would think the Victorian State government would continue its seven month moratorium on logging at Brown mountain in far east Gippsland. You really have to wonder who the Environment Minister Gavin Jennings is kidding when he states “the old growth forest surrounding Brown Mountain is not top grade old growth forest and did not warrant protecting”.

It is hard to know who to believe about the real worth of the old growth forest surrounding Brown Mountain when a VicForests spokesperson says the area to be logged is “exceptional forest” and “seventy five percent will become high-grade saw logs”. If it is exceptional old growth forest, you would think the state government would be falling over itself to protect it.

Trying to appease some very angry environmentalists, the Victorian Environmental Minister has set aside 400 hectares of old growth forest around Brown Mountain to offset what will be logged. The only problem is century old trees will be logged while much of the 400 hectares set aside was logged in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Just in case you think hundreds of privately employed timber workers are going to lose their jobs; the logging will be carried out by the state’s timber arm VicForests.

Our taxes at work against us and the environment

Yep folks that’s right, no private contractors jobs are at stake and the employees who work for VicForests who will be doing the logging could be re-deployed into other jobs in the state’s commercial arm VicForests. It seems the decision to log the old growth forests at Brown Mountain has more to do with the state government protecting its tough pro-logging image than it has to do with the state making any money out of logging the old growth forests at Brown Mountain. If the Victorian Environment Minister didn’t believe the ALP wasn’t going to garner a few extra votes, the moratorium on logging at Brown Mountain would still be in place." [See inside; this statement has been contested.]

This article was originally published at http://www.anarchistmedia.org/current.html

Leadbeater’s Possum – Victoria’s endangered State Faunal Emblem.

The following article is based on an urgent communication from Friends of Leadbeater's Possum.

Leadbeater’s Possum (LBP) Quick Facts:

- Approx 43% of the Leadbeater's Possum Permanent Reserve System (30,000ha) was burnt in the 2009 fires.
- It is estimated remaining populations are around just 1,000 individuals in the wild.
- There are no Leadbeater's Possum in captivity in Australia, and there is no captive breeding program planned
to help increase their population.
- Massive scale salvage logging and new timber harvesting coupes in areas of un?burnt water catchments are compounding the effects of the bushfires by removing all LBP habitat elements for the next few hundred years!

What can you do to help LBPs this Threatened Species Day???
On September 7th please make the effort to contact Premier Brumby and let him know you are not happy with the way his government is treating our forests and that you want more to be done to protect these forests for threatened species like Leadbeater’s Possum.

- Demand a full scale review of our forest estate

- Demand a full scale review of our forest estate – before any more logging coupes or salvage logging coupes are approved.

We need to ensure our State Government is managing our forests for threatened species, biodiversity & ecological values,
carbon storage, water catchments and air quality – for all Australians, not just those benefiting from our destructive
timber harvesting industry.

- Demand an end to all logging in water catchments. Water scarcity is an increasingly alarming issue, and rather than building destructive pipelines and energy intensive desalination plants, Victoria should be protecting the water catchments
that have provided us with some of the best drinking water in the world!

- Demand more resources be spent on threatened species management, including broad scale monitoring programs, habitat enhancement measures & community engagement.

To Contact Premier John Brumby:
www.premier.vic.gov.au, Twitter: ‘vicpremier’
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JohnBrumbyMP

For more about saving the little Leadbeater's Possum contact
Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum
Email Friends of Leadbeater's Possum
PO Box 1175
Healesville VIC 3777
[email protected]
www.leadbeaters.org.au

Today is a dark day for native vegetation and the environment

Website - http://livingwiththebush.org/dp/
Today (Thursday 3rd Sept) Brumby bulldozed amendments to the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Valley Regional Strategy Plan.

This was pushed through both houses of parliament with less than one days notice so the Government can soon remove vegetation protection to allow:
- clearing of all trees and vegetation within 10m of a house
- clearing a 4m wide strip of all vegetation along each property boundary
- clearing any vegetation except trees between 10m and 30m from a house;

from all of Victoria except the 20 urban councils around Melbourne proper.

Devastating impact

This will have a devastating impact in many areas of Victoria where many communities live with in a bushland setting.

And the evidence is that doing this will not make us safe from bushfire.
There are examples from Black Saturday of houses without any nearby vegetation that burnt, of fires that raced through short grass fields to ignite buildings. Houses located more than 380 metres from continous bush were lost.

Vegetation can also act as an essential windbreak, reducing the wind that intensifies fires, and may provide protection from radiant heat as well as slowing down or stopping embers.

Yet the Brumby government intends to allow this clearing until the final recommendations of the Bushfire Commission are released next year.

This will encourage unneighbourly behaviour

By then everyone who has been endeavouring to clear their block for any reason, including gaining a better view will have done so. We will have lost forever even more of our biodiversity and dumped more green house gases into the atmosphere.

The Living With The Bush Coalition has been formed to campaign against this proposal. We believe that this unfettered clearing is fundamentally flawed in that it will not protect houses from bushfires, may in fact increase the danger by creating more intense fires and will destroy the reason so many of us live with the bush.

Read our charter, "Living with the Bush"

You can read our charter at as well as more information on this issue, why we have reached this position and what you can do.

If you support the views expressed in the charter please consider endorsing it, either individually or as on behalf of a group.

You can register your support at the website.

With a large community outcry I hope we can get these unilateral changes modified to something that will protect our lives instead of just removing trees.

Please forward this on to your networks to help build the Living with the Bush Coalition,

best regards
Louis Delacretaz
0407 300 188

Eureka Rebellion anarchist ceremony 2009

The 3 December Spirit of Eureka celebrations will be a 12 hour extravaganza. Congregate at 4 am at the corner of Eureka and Stawell Street at the Eastern End of Ballarat. Dawn ceremony goes to daybreak. Those present will form a large circle. And, whilst waiting for dawn to break, everyone present will have the opportunity to say why they are there. The celebration ends at 4pm.

Joe reminds us that Eureka was about direct democracy, with mass meetings of 10,000 people, delegates appointed with specific mandates, direct action and, that great thing, Solidarity.

Eureka 2004 - 150th anniversary. (More details and history here.)

Anarchist invitation to Eureka Rebellion anniversary ceremonies

"The Anarchist Media Institute is inviting everyone who is interested in reclaiming The Radical Spirit of the Eureka Rebellion, to join us on Wednesday 3rd of December at the Eureka Stockade site in Ballarat, in Victoria, to celebrate the 148th Anniversary of the Eureka Rebellion.

JOIN US

Friday 3RD DECEMBER 2004
EUREKA STOCKADE SITE
EUREKA HALL - (CORNER EUREKA & STAWELL STREET, BALLARAT)

4AM to 4PM

* 4AM ­ 6AM Gathering at Eureka Park to mark the 150th anniversary of the battle on the site and at the time it occurred
* 6.00am ­ 10.00am ­ Breakfast Eureka Hall (Bring own food & drinks)
* Further details to be announced

JOIN US - Celebrate the Past by Reclaiming the Present and creating a new future. Join us at Eureka Park /Eureka Hall (cnr Stawell and Eureka Streets, Ballarat)

It's time we reclaimed our history."

People for a Royal Commission into Corruption in Victoria

Email or snailmail for correspondence and petition:
E: [email protected]
A: P.O. Box 5035, Alphington 3078
M: 0439 395 489

Listen to the podcast for more or go to the Anarchist Media website

Many ordinary people and committed activists are despairing of parliamentary democracy in its current form but say “What else can we do?” So many things just happen without us feeling that we have had any say at all or that our concerns have been completely ignored. Many of our friends are deeply disheartened. We say the community can no longer rely on our elected representatives to make objective and reasonable decisions on our behalf and we have to do something different. At the moment it is democracy in name only. We really have no control over our elected representatives from one election to the next, and we no longer have the time to be patient with them for 4 years at a time.

Here are our major points:

* It is clear that politely attending EES hearings, submitting thoughtful and well researched responses, running peaceful rallies, letter writing campaigns and using the law to try to protect the environment has become a useless exercise. Indeed it’s only function has perhaps become to furnishing government with its “community consultation” obligations. Blue Wedges for example has tried all of the above for the last 5 years, including collecting around 60,000 signatures on two petitions, 10,000 letters to MPs, and demonstrating to a Parliamentary Inquiry that a project has no economic credibility, but still the development juggernaut rolls on and over us. Government has managed to turn what appears to be detailed “community consultation” into a box ticking exercise. So, rather than continue to merely engage in government’s paradigm, we need to start the conversation about a different paradigm for decision making on important issues.

* Politicians have made themselves increasingly inaccessible and impervious to their constituents’ views – they are now mostly irrelevant to most of us most of the time. They are only responding to the growth lobby and a few other noisy, demanding, irrational but powerfully connected minority groups. Our current parliamentary system, where for the 4 years of their incumbency, and where a politician has no obligation whatsoever to vote according to how she/he campaigned and was elected, or how the majority of their constituents might subsequently ask them to vote is no longer serving a useful purpose for most of us.

* Old growth logging, the Tamar Valley pulp mill, the channel deepening issue, De-Sal, North-South pipeline, and of course Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) have all had well run campaigns aimed at engaging our local MPs and government to at least consider alternatives. The unpopular and unnecessary policies and projects just roll on.

* Most recently Planning Minister Madden has even ignored the recommendations of two EES Panel Inquiries, which recommended against the development of Bastion Point Mallacoota and the Crib Point bitumen plant. It’s obvious that parliamentary democracy and its underpinning administrative processes no longer serve us on so many social and environmental issues. As Cr. Rosemary West said at the Planning Backlash Rally on 10th June, “Were any of us asked whether we wanted 5 million people in Melbourne by 2030 (now 2020)?” We weren't asked, and in the case of population growth we weren't even really told what was going to happen.

* All levels of government in Australia have powers to initiate referenda on any issue. With the host of unrepresentative decisions being made by people elected by us perhaps it is time to look at alternative decision making processes.

* Unfortunately under existing arrangements, in Australia a referendum will only be held if a government or local council determines that a poll should be held on an issue. In Victoria we have provision for referendums but unfortunately the decisions are not binding on government.

* Referenda are already in use in a number of countries around the world, including Switzerland and many states in the USA, and Australia, where in recent times referendums have been conducted in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. Some countries have Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (eg. California USA) and some, like Australia only conduct a referendum if initiated by a council or government.

* The state-wide issue of whether to adopt daylight savings was recently decided via referendum in WA, as well a local issue in the City of Box Hill regarding liquor licenses. It would be relatively simple to organise voting on federal, state and local issues, as most people now either have Internet access via a home computer or mobile phone, or can access a computer via a public library. Electronic voting could be managed by voters using of a unique ID number such as tax file or Medicare numbers (no sillier than in the 21st Century still queueing up at the local school to have your name manually ticked off an electoral role).

* Referendums would need to be properly constituted, conducted by the VEC or the affected LGA. A properly constituted poll would be required to equally fund the for and against arguments, so that people could be properly informed, not marketed to. Candobetter Editor comment: Would this over-ride the mainstream press, which distorts every electoral issue by producing political options that it wants by restricting scope of argument? I suppose that what is being suggested here would at least help to combat commercial press propaganda.

* An electronic system could also present the ‘for and against’ argument equitably. It need not be compulsory to vote on every issue, but perhaps it could be organised so that a statistically significant sample is required to decide any outcome. I am sure that it is not beyond our capacity to devise a suitable system.

* Citizen’s Initiated Referenda is an ideal alternative to the present system and is currently operating in various democracies worldwide. (This is not the rather odd “People’s Mandate” idea promoted by some, which aims to collect signatures from over 50% of eligible persons to then invoke powers which have purportedly existed since Magna Carta. Blue Wedges sought legal opinion on the People’s Mandate and were advised, by the now President of the Court of Appeal that the People’s Mandate has no legal standing)

* CIR on the other hand is legally robust and already operating around the world. A CIR is determined to be conducted if 10% of eligible voters petition government to conduct a poll on a specific issue.

* CIR would have the benefit of providing direct democracy for all citizens and could eventually enable the abolition of state governments, which largely duplicate federal government bureaucracy and cost billions of dollars.

* New Zealand has CIR and has recently conducted two polls. One on the issue of whether parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment on their children and one on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The result of the corporal punishment poll determined that parents should be allowed to smack their children, thus opposing the legislation that the government has just adopted, banning corporal punishment by parents. Unfortunately in NZ, CIR outcomes are not binding on government. To be effective of course CIR outcomes must be binding on government.

At the very least, perhaps our elected representatives should be required to conduct statistically robust polls in their electorate to guide their voting on issues currently before them in parliament. We understand Independent Victorian MP Craig Ingram did this on the recent abortion reform debate. His electorate overwhelmingly supported reform so that’s the way he voted. Other MPs of course proceeded with a “conscience” vote without any obligation whatsoever to consult or inform their electorate. As it stands, for most of the time that is precisely what most of them do – ignore almost everyone that voted for them!

The way things are at the moment, we will be fighting many unwanted policies and proposals in future and if nothing changes we will just keep on being ignored. From now on, when campaigning for the retention of something special, or against something dreadful, amongst all the points we make, why not take the opportunity to remind people that the conventional and proper methods for community input are being ignored by those “in control”, so we need to start thinking about a different way forward – otherwise it is a dead cert we will get what we DON”T want, the environment will be trashed, and those of us running the campaigns will get very depressed and worn out for no sum gain.

A component of all our current and future campaigns should be the message that “community consultation” is off the rails and heading for the cliff. We need somehow to take back control from those who purport to represent us, but are doing nothing of the sort. Otherwise we will just get steamrollered time and time again. We might not make a dent straight away, but sooner or later we just might if we keep giving it a go, and those who come after us will thank us!

We are still willing to believe that if given the facts, most people are capable of making a reasonable decision. If we think otherwise, and don’t trust our fellow citizens then we don’t believe in democracy either, and are just as bad as those we are currently criticising.

Written by Jenny and Len Warfe of the Blue Wedges organisation.

2 September, 2009

The announcement of a Federal Government review into immigration numbers has been cautiously welcomed by environment group, Sustainable Population Australia.

But the national president of SPA, Sandra Kanck, says, “SPA is very concerned that the government is responding to a short term business agenda rather than what will be best for the country in the long term.

“The skilled migration program now makes up 70% of Australia’s immigration, and this is way too high.

“If the government is serious about this review then it will need to look at a whole range of issues such as water and food supply for a growing population and the urban sprawl with all its social dislocation and crime.

“Population growth makes every environmental problem harder to solve” said Ms Kanck, “There is a very close correlation between population growth and growth in greenhouse gas emissions. And there is a very close correlation between climate change and damage to Australia’s food production.

“The Rudd Government must decide whether its priority lies with long-term protection of the Australian environment or with pandering to short-term and avaricious demands of a powerful business lobby.

“Contrary to popular claims, in industrialised countries like Australia, there is no statistically valid link between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. Population growth is of no benefit to the average Australian who suffers all the disadvantages. It only advantages the few and the political parties that receive substantial donations from these few.

“While Minister Evans has announced there is to be a review, it is unclear who is conducting it, what its terms of reference will be, and who will have input.

“If this review is to make any sense it should be conducted in a wider framework of a population policy that suits the driest inhabited continent. Without such a policy our immigration numbers are being established in a vacuum.

“SPA cautiously welcomes the review, but if it is just another dance to the tune played by the business lobby it will result only in further damage to our environment. Australia should be aiming to stabilise its population as quickly as possible.” said Ms Kanck.

In the letter included below on 2 Sep 09 to the Melbourne Age, Mark O'Connor, author of "Overloading Australia" noted. that contrary to his earlier claims that immigration had been "slashed", Immigration Minister Chris Evans has recently admitted we have "an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave". In 2008 he claimed net immigration was half what the Bureau of Statistics had said it was. Whether this is through design or incompetence, Evans is clearly serving vested interests at the expense of ordinary Australians and, accordingly, should resign. (Note: two other letters published in the Melbourne Age on the same day are also included)

It's no business for big business

SENATOR Chris Evans' claim that immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants, especially younger, skilled workers, is absurd ("Migration rules set for revamp", The Age, 31/8).

The Australian population should be our normal source of workforce. Decisions about who comes to Australia should not be left to employers. Big employers have a long history of making bizarre ambit claims about the numbers they propose to employ. Often the real aim is to create a surplus of job seekers and thus bully governments into giving the go-ahead for short-sighted projects to create jobs.

The liveability crisis should be a higher priority than importing "skilled and willing" (read "temporarily more docile") workers from elsewhere.

Senator Evans bizarrely claims that his "attempts to have a more sophisticated debate about the topic have totally failed". What efforts?

The book Overloading Australia documents him claiming in May 2008 that net immigration was less than half what the Bureau of Statistics says it was. Recently he claimed immigration had been "slashed", when it was soaring. Now he admits we have "an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave". He should resign and be replaced by a minister who serves the Australian electorate, not vested interests.

Mark O'Connor, co-author, Overloading Australia, Lyneham, ACT

It's time to debate, people

I AGREE that it is "time for a reality check on immigration policy" (Editorial, 1/9). I would go further and say it is time for a national population policy. Tim Flannery, in his Australia Day address in 2002, indicated that a population policy was vital for Australia to have an environmentally sustainable future.

He said the way to achieve such a policy was for the nation to engage in a truthful, vigorous debate, together with a government inquiry charged with setting an optimum population target. Once the target had been decided we should determine our immigration policy in light of it. This, Flannery believed, would take most of the hysteria out of the immigration debate.

In my view, the bipartisanship way the major parties have kept immigration policy debate out of the public arena is an affront to democracy. I believe an appropriate forum for debating a population policy would also act as a prophylactic in keeping irrational ideologies out of the debate.

Questions about the boom

THE boom in immigration, resulting from the wholesale granting of permanent residency to international students on the basis of skill credentials obtained here, is at last being reviewed.

The demographic distortion from this influx may have resulted in increased unemployment and disaffection among migrant and native young people.

Any net benefit from the ''education industry's ''export'' earnings might not withstand examination, with the money cycle involving repayment of loans from Australian earnings, plus huge long-term costs to Australia. Issues include the diversion of educational resources to service this trade and the downgrading of the perceived value of Australian qualifications.

Excerpts from Age article Migration rules set for revamp

"Australia's immigration policy is set for an overhaul amid concerns that it is failing to meet the nation's long-term needs, with a record influx of more than 600,000 temporary residents adding to the strain of a growing population.

"...

"New figures to be released today show that Australia's official migration program recorded an intake of 171,318 permanent migrants in 2008-09.

"When the 13,500 refugees and the 47,780 New Zealanders who settled permanently in Australia are included, the migration program saw 232,598 people arriving in the past year, a 12.8 per cent leap from the previous year's record high of 219,098 people.

"But according to figures obtained by The Age, a further 657,124 temporary migrants with the right to work arrived in Australia during the past year. The 11 per cent surge in temporary migrants was fuelled by big increases in foreign students (up 15 per cent to 320,368) and working holiday visas (up 22 per cent to 154,148).

"...

The surge in temporary migrants with a right to work has created an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave. Senator Evans said Australia needed a rational immigration debate, beyond the hysteria about the few hundred boat people who arrive each year.

"...

"Decisions about who came to Australia would be increasingly left to employers ..."

See also: Overloading Australia - new book about Australia's overpopulation problem of 23 Jul 09 by Sheila Newman, Review by sociologist, Katharine Betts of Overloading Australia of 8 Apr 09, "Migration rules set for revamp" in the Age of 31 Aug 09, Want job, will travel in the Age of 31 Aug 09, Workforce ripe for the picking by John Sutton, national secretary of the CFMEU in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 Aug 09.

Apologist for growthism and global capitalism

Linsay Tanner has long been an apologist for growthism and nothing has changed recently. "We have always taken the position that whatever is required to sustain jobs, to sustain economic growth, will be done." (Source:Mark Metherell, "Budget deficit could reach $100b: Tanner," April 6, 2009)

He is an advocate for globalised capitalism. “Lindsay Tanner has chosen instead to be an advocate for globalised capitalism, to persuade us that There Is No Alternative, and that what is good for business is good for government, good for unions and good for everyone.” (Source)

In Lindsay Tanner, "Climate change balancing act", The (Business) Age, 2 September 2009, he writes that

“to […]challege that the Government's in the pocket of big polluters is just juvenile name-calling. It's an easy sledge from someone who doesn't have to get legislation through the Senate, manage the impact on the economy, and ensure community opinion remains onside.”

He therefore seems to admit that the government is in the pocket of big polluters, but rejects criticism about this as juvenile. He then rolls on to justify being in the pockets of big business with:

“Big polluters employ hundreds of thousands of Australians. Their activities are woven throughout our entire economic framework.”

Top down government keeps us on the treadmill

I wouldn't agree with the remark about 'ensuring community opinion remains onside', because how would the government or the community know what its opinion was? It doesn't get any chance to voice it. All we hear is the corporate media's opinion of what community opinion is, and it never asks us either.

The fact is that the government is so dependent on taxes from wage-earners that it cannot allow those wage-earners any freedom to reduce carbon emissions by, for instance, supplementing their incomes through relocalised production of essentials (home gardens) and to reduce of their own volition working hours and consumption in favour of a more sociable lifestyles (local democracy and production minimises travel and fuel consumption). If people simply slowed down production, this would take away from the government’s income and power as well as that of big business. (Slowing down production slows down carbon emissions and gives us more time with less emissions.) And the government’s overspending to continuously pump up economic growth relies on the constant import of more and more paying immigrants, in order to add to the numbers of tax-payers.

Rome did the same thing to avoid its own fall. Eventually it was selling citizenship and land just like Australia in order to get more tax-payers. This did not stop it from falling apart though.

The government’s policies are driving all costs up, along with the price of land, water and electricity, and its own debt.

Lindsay accuses the other side of ‘cheap rhetorical flourish’ about big polluters, but then he subjects us to his own cheap rhetoric about how “in the difficult real world of politics you don't always get everything you want.”

Well, in Australia, it seems like big business does.

ACF and Climate Institute government friendly

Tanner follows up with,

“Key sections of the environment movement, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Institute, have accepted that the Government's proposals are reasonable.”

Well, thank you for fingering the culprits, Lindsay. In fact most of us in the Environment ‘movement’ gave up on the Australian Conservation Foundation years ago, and came to terms with the fact that it takes peoples’ money and represents the government position, forming a kind of road-block to any true engagement between the government and the environmentally concerned and informed public. As for the Climate Institute, so far, it just sounds like some kind of advertisement for itself. It’s not too obvious what it does besides issue press releases and solicit funds.

Greens make Lindsay and his mates uncomfortable

Towards his conclusion, Lindsay knocks the Greens for disagreeing with Labor and failing to “build coalitions with others who have different views”. Lindsay says this helps prevent any action occurring. But if you know Labor, ‘action’ means more of the same: more population growth, more debt and more deals with the big polluters – property development and infrastructure expansion. Lindsay should know: the ALP owns two big property investment companies of its own – Labor Holdings Propriety Limited and Labor Resources Propriety Limited. Wholly owned by the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Both were built up by Kenneth Rudd and Wayne Swann. In fact I can’t really tell the difference between the ALP, ALP governments and commercial property development companies. (Source: Expert discusses 'deliberately confusing' labor donations.)

Lindsay also says he believes that the only reason the Greens join other non-Labor representatives to vote down Labor’s policies on climate change is to take votes from Labor.

Short lesson in power of small parties and independents in parliament

In fact, another reason could just be that the Greens are only doing what they can to stop the ALP from expanding the problem of increasing pollution. Here is a good video about the Greens and the role that small parties play in politics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGD0VncZOFI&feature=related

The primitive Mexicans, before the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe, used to sacrifice people and take out their beating hearts as a “tradition” to honour an Aztec god! Aztec religion had lost its focus by 1531. The Aztecs offered annually at least 20,000 men, women and children in human sacrifice to their gods. In 1487, just in a single 4 days long ceremony for the dedication of a new temple in Tenochtitlan, some 80,000 captives were killed in human sacrifice. “Tradition” is no excuse for cruelty, sacrifice, barbarity and evil!

THESE PICTURES HAVE TO BE SEEN AROUND THE WORLD. THERE IS NO CRUELER BEAST THAN MAN!

Whaling in the Faeroe Islands has been practised since 1584. It is regulated by Faeroese authorities but not by the International Whaling Commission as there are disagreements about the Commission's competency for small cetaceans. Around 950 Long-finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala melaena) are killed annually, mainly during the summer.

(photos from Wikipedia Commons)

During the cut of a pilot whale's spine, their main arteries also get cut. Because of this the surrounding sea tends to turn a spectacular bloody red. Entire schools of whales are killed on the shore and in the shallows of bays with knives which are used to sever the major blood supply to the brain. This is the most “efficient” and “humane” means of killing these animals under the circumstances, but it naturally results in a lot of blood in the water.

Activists however argue that during the medieval times, Faeroe islanders had shortages of food compared to this time and that food is abundant already in the Island. Using "tradition" as an excuse for the slaughter of these gentle animals is truly unacceptable.

This brutality happens every year. This bloody slaughter is in the Faeroe Islands, which belongs to Denmark . A country supposedly 'civilised' and a EUROPEAN UNION country.

The Faeroese do not believe that the pilot whale meat on their plate represents more animal suffering caused by humans than a similar amount of imported meat and are therefore not prepared to accept the demands for a ban on a catch which makes a large contribution to the meat production of the islands.

Most Faeroese consider the hunt an important part of their culture and history. Animal-rights groups criticise the hunt as being cruel and unnecessary while the hunters claim in return that most journalists do not exhibit sufficient knowledge of the catch methods or its economic significance.

Royal Danish Embassy
15 Hunter Street
Yarralumla, ACT 2600

Tel.: +61 (2) 6270 5333
Fax: +61 (2) 6270 5324
www.canberra.um.dk
cbramb[AT]um.dk

Prime Minister of Denmark
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Christiansborg
Prins Jørgens Gård 11
1218 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel: +45 33 92 33 00
Fax +45 33 11 16 65
E-mail: stm[AT]stm.dk

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark
2, Asiatisk Plads
DK-1448 Copenhagen K
Tel. +45 33 92 00 00
Fax +45 32 54 05 33
E-mail um[AT]um.dk

High Commissioner of the Faeroe Islands
Dan Michael Knudsen
E-mail: riomfr[AT]fo.stm.dk

Faroese Government contact information:
Prime Minister's Office
E-mail: info[AT]tinganes.fo

Faroe Islands Tourist Board
E-mail: tourist[AT]tourist.fo

Paul Watson: I have fought Faeroese whalers and the Faeroese authorities for years. We have had dramatic confrontations in Faeroese waters in 1985 and 1986 and again in 2000 trying to stop the pilot whale drive where entire pods are driven into shore, knifed, speared, stoned and clubbed in a barbarous orgy of cruelty and waste.

I have seen the bays of the Faeroe Islands stained red with blood and I've heard the screams of mortally wounded whales pleading for their lives as insensitive brutes drunk on slaughter are showered in the hot blood of the whales, laughing and swearing as their vicious blades rape the whales repeatedly. It is a monstrous spectacle and it is an obscenity fully embraced by the Danish government and many of the Danish people.
Response from the Danish Embassy in Canberra:
Some of these facts include the following:

• The purpose of the catch is to produce food,
• The hunt is regulated by the authorities,
• The catch is biologically sustainable,
• The authorities take the animal welfare aspect of the hunt seriously.

Further information about the Faroese pilot whale drive.

It may also be useful to view this way of providing food in a broader context:
How does this whale hunt compare with other hunts of large mammals in the wild, with the treatment of farmed animals throughout their life cycle, and of animals which are regarded as a nuisance;

(my response) One crime against Nature, hunts of other large mammals in the wild, is not used as a measuring stick to justify further crimes! The means does not justify the ends, and there is nothing that makes animals a resource for massacres to support the economy or “tradition”!

Ethics of food production: Does a meal of pilot whale meat represent more or less cumulated man-made animal pain than dishes normally eaten in one’s own country?

Again, the abattoir is the benchmark! The reality we humans do not need to eat meat! Our nearest cousins on the evolutionary tree are primates, and their main diets consists of plants. They are mainly foraging vegetarians! Eating meat is about flavour and conditioning, and commercial interests.

Geographic and nutritional factors, availability of alternative food sources, notably in islands and remote coastal areas, not least in arctic or sub-arctic parts of the world.

There is not much nutritional value in whale meat that could not be found in a vegan diet. They could supplement their diets with local fish.

Cultural diversity, and tolerance/intolerance towards people with different food preferences and/or different attitudes towards different animals;

“Diversity” in crimes against sentient non-human creatures can be used just to justify different food preferences? Where is the limit to what we eat, just for the flavour? Humans have a moral and spiritual dimension and are capable of making ethical decisions. There are many flavours that could be experienced without the immense suffering caused to these intelligent animals.

Sense of proportions: How important is this particular issue compared to other environmental or animal welfare concerns facing the contemporary world?
Adding another crime against wildlife does not diminish the many crimes of humanity towards the environment and against other creatures. The magnitude of human cruelty and greed will continue to escalate if each issue, each atrocity, is just considered insignificant against the back-drop of the globe. Each life pales into insignificance. We lose the intrinsic value of peaceful creatures, and the same could be said of human lives.

Additionally, the Embassy states that: If you should wish to address the Faeroese authorities regarding pilot whaling, the relevant e-mail addresses of the Faeroese Government are mfa[AT]mfa.fo and fisk[AT]fisk.fo
More hand-washing!