(We) can do better

Video & translation: "Today your announcements show that your project is not humanitarian, but strictly political, since you no longer even hide the fact that your more or less single intention is to overturn the Syrian government. You are taking us back to dark days, where one of your predecssors, arguing humanitarian reasons, announced that he wanted to overturn Gaddaffi's government. We know where that took us. The nations of the world did not give us a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in order for us to follow servilely the way and the law of the strongest."

Translation (by Sheila Newman)

Marie Le Pen addresses Emmanuel Macron:

Mr President of the Republic,

If I have decided to address you directly here, this is because, on the pretext of chemical weapons use, (denied by the Syrian Government), the American president, Donald Trump, decided to attack Syria immediately.

This situation is all the more distressing because you yourself seem to want to associate our country with this new warlike adventure, before any independent investigation, without any consideration of international law, of our national interests, of our soldiers' lives, and of France's historic mission.

Yet, as France's attack on Iraq under President Chirac was vigorously condemned in the United Nations by his minister for foreign affairs, our country itself is called upon to make the voice of justice heard for world peace.

Already at that time, in 2003, do you remember, Mr President, some had already tried to get us to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction.

Today we know that unjustifyable gunboat policy of former times was based on a State's lie. A lie promoted in the theatre of mass media and all the way to the security council seats. That intervention, which France was unable to prevent, threw the whole Middle East into chaos and encouraged and armed Islamism.

The attacks we have experienced on our soil are almost the direct consequence, with the development of Daech, [...unintelligible] . The same scenario was repeated with the calamitous destabilisation of Syria and Libya, to which we owe today the immigration submerging Europe and the extension of jihadism in the Sahel and West Africa.

You are not ignorant of the fact that such political errors are never without consequence for us. Today your announcements show that your project is not humanitarian, but strictly political, since you no longer even hide the fact that your more or less single intention is to overturn the Syrian government.

You are taking us back to dark days, where one of your predecssors, arguing humanitarian reasons, announced that he wanted to overturn Gaddaffi's government. We know where that took us. The nations of the world did not give us a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in order for us to follow servilely the way and the law of the strongest.

Who could believe that in these circumstances of exceptional gravity, France, which is an old country, a country that knows better than most the cost of war, should let itself be dragged into such war madness and lightly accept the roles of political pig [unknown metaphore] and military support.

Over and above this business in Syrian, we can only worry about the temptation of the western leaders to rebuild a new Berlin Wall, as if they were unable to see the world as it is today. Since 1989 the world has changed. The threats don't come from a secular state in the Middle East [Le Pen is referring to Syria, which is secular, as was Libya], nor from European powers which are potential allies in the battle against terrorism, but from groups or states that aspire to impose on the world, in the middle east, in Africa, or even in Europe, the theocratic dictatorship of a political Islam.

Our battle does not oppose western nations against Muslims, but Islamic totalitarianism against free countries, whether they are Muslim or not. The free world will come to the end of this criminal ideology and its hegemonic projects. All our efforts must be directed to eradicate Daech and jihadist groups, even when they call themselves 'freedom fighters' in order to spread Islamist ideology.

We are the inheritors of a nation which can only be herself in a state of dignity, to quote De Gaulle. The situation demands that France be herself worthy of her history, her rank, worthy of the role that free nations have conferred on her through her glorious history.

Mr President, if you

Bombing not the answer for peace in Syria, rather a dangerous mistake - Independent and Peaceful Australia Network. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s reckless support for a military strike by the US in Syria demonstrates Australia’s lack of independence in its foreign policy.

IPAN spokesperson Mr Stephen Darley said, “Surely it is clear that any military exchange between Russian and US forces threatens a dangerous widening of the conflict and the lives of millions.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has accepted an invitation from the Syrian government to inspect the region where an alleged chemical weapon attack occurred demonstrating a willingness to support its claim they had not conducted such an attack.

The video showing children being hosed down allegedly from a chemical weapons attack needs to be investigated. Any chemical attack is an inhumane and illegal act, requiring the strongest condemnation.

If there is proof that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, regardless of who was behind it, then there needs to be serious consequences in the international court of justice where crimes against humanity are legitimately dealt with.

What is clear is that a bombing assault on sites in Syria is neither legal, effective nor acceptable. The risks of even more innocent people suffering death, injury and destruction of homes and the risk that a major powers war could ensue is being recognised internationally.

Mr Darley is calling on the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister to clearly reject the proposed missile attack and instead be a voice of reason in calling for all non-military means possible to be adopted to resolve the conflict.

This press release was issued two days before Mr Trumps attack of today.

This is deliberate bombing of civilians. Damascus is the place in Syria where almost all refugees are and the bulk of the population. This is such a dreadful thing to do to the people of Syria. The leaders of the countries involved need to be captured and brought to trial by their peoples! We are all threatened by their actions. The whole world is unsafe with such people in power.

Grotesque and blatant lie: Trump has just announced in quite sickeningly misleading tones, his plan to strike Syria, a country that has courageously resisted to date all attempts to pull it apart. The United States is engaging in criminal war activities and is now bringing the world to the point of nuclear war. We all need to stand up against this monster US government. It is sickening to hear the utter confabulation about a this being a humanitarian or godly mission. The United States and its cohorts in NATO are outdoing Hitler. I will try to post updates under this heading.
At the moment RT in English is having its transmission interrupted or blocked in some way. I am getting Spanish Rt however and here is my translation of what it says at https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/268383-reportan-fuertes-explosiones-damasco-orden?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications:

Strong explosions being reported in Damascus now

"Strong explosions are being reported in Damascus following the order Trump gave to bombard Syria! 14 April 2018 01:19 GMT "

"https://es.rt.com/5r33 Portada Actualidad
Se reportan fuertes explosiones en Damasco tras la orden de Trump de bombardear Siria
Publicado: 14 abr 2018 01:19 GMT | Última actualización: 14 abr 2018 01:24 GMT
Las detonaciones y humo se reportaron muy cerca de la capital siria."

French and British have joined this war crime but alternative medias are being blocked

Please pass this on as widely as you can in case we lose the ability to communicate. There has been an attempt to hack my computer as I was writing this article.

Vanessa Beeley reports from Syria that Syria and Russia retaliating

11:34 AM Melbourne time:
"40 minutes of cruise missiles across Syria.
Syria and Russia responding."

First images of US-led strikes on Damascus emerge (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

We have also heard that Syria just shot down 13 missiles over Damascus. (Press TV Iran.)

Damascus is the place in Syria where almost all refugees are and the bulk of the population. This is such a dreadful thing to do to the people of Syria. The leaders of the countries involved need to be captured and brought to trial by their peoples!

BREAKING!Medical witness and remarkable documentation of how a false-flag chemical attack was filmed in Douma, and has almost brought about WW3. The Russian Defense Ministry has presented what it says is proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.” Originally published at https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/. [Two photos derived from video and slight change to introduction this https://candobetter.net version.]

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has serious concerns about the protection of seals on Mornington Peninsula beaches. Seals are a fascinating visitor to our beaches all year round, whether a regular inhabitant or the occasional day-tripper, they come to rest during the day after a night of feeding in the bay. But they are increasingly at threat of human interference when they rest on our busy beaches during the holiday season. Our pleas for help have fallen on deaf ears and our state government department the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), authorised to protect wildlife, is failing miserably when it comes to wildlife welfare and seal protection. They refuse to meet with ALL relevant stakeholders and fail to support wildlife volunteers to establish any kind of system to actively manage the situation.

Threats to Seals

Over the past two years seals resting on Mornington Peninsula beaches have endured crowds of thousands of onlookers, dog attacks, jet ski harassment, drunken people riding on them, objects thrown at them, kicked, yelled at, poked and chased back into the water. The Mornington Peninsula community and local wildlife groups are very concerned that if the seals are not protected and a seal acts to protect itself, it may be seen as a risk to ‘public safety’ and DELWP may see fit to destroy the animal.

What the Seals Need

In order to ensure seals are protected into the future we need an urgent response from the authorities. We envisage an improvement to the current situation in a short space of time if several easy measures are undertaken:

1. We need an urgent meeting with ALL stakeholders, including volunteers, to establish a consensus as to who manages seals on particular stretches of beach.
2. Standard protocols for an action plan to be initiated when a seal arrives.
3. Communication systems, contact numbers of foreshore rangers (from foreshore Committees of Management (COMs), shire rangers and volunteers to be accessed when a seal arrives.
4. Several seal ‘kits’ to be stored along the coast for easy access when a seal needs protection. These kits should include, signage, tape barriers, stakes or bollards, brochures and a volunteer sign in sheet for insurance coverage etc. These ‘kits’ should be regularly replenished and kept in good order.
5. Permanent signage to educate the public seals and the regulations.

The AWPC is urging immediate action from the government on this matter.

Some Background

Who Manages the Protection of Seals?
DELWP do not attend to supervise resting seals, nor do shire council rangers or Parks Victoria rangers. Whilst the AGL Marine Response Unit (MRU) work to assess injured and entangled seals and travel far and wide to do this important work, they ordinarily do not attend to supervise uninjured, resting seals on public beaches. There are no current protocols, systems, reliable equipment or appropriate storage for equipment currently in place on the Mornington Peninsula.

For many years wildlife volunteers have been tirelessly responding to calls from the public when a seal arrives on a beach, they erect signage (to keep dogs away, listing the regulations and information about seals) and tape barriers around the seal to alert people of it’s presence and to make sure it is not approached or harassed. Volunteers also provide useful information about seals and act as the eyes and ears supervising the safety of the seal and the public.

At the moment, apart from a few signs (without stakes) provided by DELWP and brochures, volunteers are purchasing equipment, stakes, tape etc. themselves and supervising seals on an ad hoc basis without any support from authorities.

Current Situation
DELWP and Foreshore Committee of Management Managed Beaches
When a seal rests on a beach on the Mornington Peninsula managed by a Committee of Management (under DELWP) rangers usually don’t have equipment or manpower to supervise the seal. Rather than be supported, volunteers have been actively discouraged by DELWP from helping to supervise seals. DELWP have expressed concerns about e.g. lack of insurance coverage (a problem the AWPC found a solution for), lack of volunteer knowledge and ‘non-regulation’ stakes for signage.

According to Wildlife Victoria data there have been 171 volunteer call outs for seals from Edithvale to Portsea from December 2016- March 2018. With Wildlife Victoria being just one of the rescue services and receiving this many calls for seal help, it is very apparent that the need for seal protection is a regular occurrence.

So, whilst DELWP are very clearly the authority overseeing seals, they refuse to put systems in place, contract wildlife officers on the scene to ensure regulations are being adhered to and at the same time don’t want volunteers to help either. If they won’t or can’t do their job, why are they not supporting volunteers to do this important work?

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Managed Beaches
Similarly, if a seal is resting on a beach managed by the Shire, shire rangers have no equipment or signage nor any current protocols as to who manages the protection of the seal.
The shire’s phone system currently redirects calls about resting seals onto local volunteers, who then have no equipment or support. Volunteers have no authority to enforce breaches of seal exclusion zones or uncontrolled dogs harassing seals, unlike DELWP or shire rangers.

Recent Cases

Wildlife groups are regularly called out to assess and supervise seals; here are accounts of just two recent cases to help illustrate the current issues we are faced with.

On Sunday the 11th of March 2018, a seal came to rest within a dog off-leash area of a Rosebud beach, a beach managed by the Mornington Shire Council. On the day there was a Kite Festival so there were hundreds of people on the beach. A member of the public who was worried about the number of dogs and people approaching the seal had called around some wildlife groups for help.

The AWPC had a volunteer attend the seal and we then immediately contacted the shire for assistance to erect signage and to help to keep dogs and people away.

Being a Sunday, we called the shire‘s after hours emergency phone line. The operator told us to contact volunteers (who we are); we had also reached out to other volunteer wildlife groups but no one else could attend. When we finally spoke to a shire ranger on duty we were told that rangers weren’t authorised to help with seals and that it was in fact Parks Victoria that managed the beach up to the ‘high tide mark’ (where the seal was resting).

So we contacted Parks Victoria, who told us that they didn’t deal with seals either and that seals were managed by DELWP, and so we went around in circles, as is the usual case. In the end we managed to rustle up some tape barriers and stakes and had volunteers supervise the seal until 10pm that night, the beach was still packed with tourists and dogs throughout the evening. The Shire failed to act and did not offer supervision for the seal, nor did they attempt to close off the beach to off-leash dogs or fine dog owners approaching the seal etc.

We sent a detailed account of this case to DELWP and the Shire but have had no response from either department about this particular case.

This press release giving rise to this article was made on 4/4/18. DELWP have still not responded.

"US President Trump, French President Macron, and British Prime Minister May accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in Douma on the basis of evidence and staged videos of the so-called “White Helmets”, who are the medical wing of the fascist Al-Nusra terrorists in Syria. The countries mentioned above have called meetings of the UN Security Council in order to propose resolutions to strike at the legitimate government of Syria, which is heavily engaged in the fight against terrorism, and despite the assertion of a member state in the Security Council, Russia, that the (Douma) location was free of any chemical traces after the Russian experts entered Damascus, refuting their claims. The Syrian government has asked the experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to enter and verify the incident, but Trump and his lackies from European and Gulf Arab countries blocked their ears and decided to proceed with their lies and threats." (General Confederation of Trade Unions of Syria.)

First published by the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War·Friday, April 13, 2018 at https://www.facebook.com/notes/hamilton-coalition-to-stop-the-war/statement-by-general-confederation-of-trade-unions-of-syria-regarding-us-and-eur/2408602269165730/.

Dear comrades, brothers, and sisters,

The United States and its followers in European countries, such as France and Britain, and their proxies in the region such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, have been provoking Syria since they began their terrorist war against Syria eight years ago, in order to carry out their agendas on Syrian territory. We are witnessing these days the manufacture of alleged evidence, the latest of which is the fabricated story of Eastern Ghouta hit by chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army.

These colonial powers have always used the UN Security Council and its instruments to strike sovereign states by using illusory and fake pretexts to achieve their goals, such as the infamous presentation of Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN Security Council to strike Iraq.

The chemical incident was staged in Douma because the terrorists suffered defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army that liberated Eastern Ghouta, which defeat contributed to the safety and tranquility of the people of Damascus after they suffered a lot because of the terrorists who were raining down hundreds of missiles and rockets upon the capital. The more the Syrian Arab Army achieves victories on the ground, the more the terrorists urge their employers to save them, as happened when they concocted the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun (in April 2017).

This time, US President Trump, French President Macron, and British Prime Minister May accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in Douma on the basis of evidence and staged videos of the so-called “White Helmets”, who are the medical wing of the fascist Al-Nusra terrorists in Syria. The countries mentioned above have called meetings of the UN Security Council in order to propose resolutions to strike at the legitimate government of Syria, which is heavily engaged in the fight against terrorism, and despite the assertion of a member state in the Security Council, Russia, that the (Douma) location was free of any chemical traces after the Russian experts entered Damascus, refuting their claims. The Syrian government has asked the experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to enter and verify the incident, but Trump and his lackies from European and Gulf Arab countries blocked their ears and decided to proceed with their lies and threats.

We, at the General Union of Trade Unions in Syria, declare our stand with our Syrian government and army under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, with whom we have faced terrorism and its sponsors for eight years. We affirm that we are confident of victory and that these US and European threats constitute a flagrant violation of the UN Charter.

We call upon all honourable people from the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, and all Arab and international organizations to expedite the campaign of defending Syria by sending messages of solidarity and support to Syria and by organizing marches and sit-ins in front of US embassies and consulates everywhere in the world, condemning this blatant US aggression and to save the world from Trump's ruthlessness. We ask you also to send letters to officials of the United Nations and of the United States of America, stressing that the threatened actions of the US president against Syria will lead to a global war that will drag the whole world into further chaos, destruction, and poverty and will increase the number of refugees generated by the wars already being waged by the United States against sovereign states in the world.

Long live the Syrian people in their war against terrorism! Long live international solidarity with Syria!

Executive Bureau
General Union of Trade Unions
Syrian Arab Republic

Video inside: Tom Duggan lives in Damascus, Syria. This week he covered the Jaishal Islam (Saudi supported) terrorist group leaving Douma, Syria. He reports, "We were expecting between 3000 and 8000 hostages to be released. We got less than 100. Where did they all go? They had been held for between four and six years. Jaishal Islam submitted the names of these people, their ID numbers, and the Syrian Government, in good faith, accepted the release of the terrorists in exchange for the hostages they claimed to have. This is a huge example of genocide, but the UN has not even acknowledged it." Up to 8000 Syrians slaughtered or starved by Jaishal Islam, which the Syrian Government has been fighting, and, meanwhile the United states posing as an 'exceptional' state, is threatening to attack Syria, which will draw Russia and probably China into war, on the basis of a completely unproven allegation that the Syrian Government used 'chemical weapons' against its own people. Duggan knows there is a high risk of Damascus being attacked by the rogue 'exceptional' US state, but he has decided to remain there.

"It all looks like a pretext for the United States and its allies to return to the scene and involve themselves in an armed conflict which, until now, they have lost to the Russians and the current Syrian government. So, there, I'm warning everyone, it's extremely dangerous. " (Jean-Luc Mélenchon)

French politician, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, condemns on warlike response to unverified chemical attack in Syria

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhfPrrz5rO0 (April 10, 2018)
(Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a left-wing veteran French politician who was placed 4th in first round of 2017 French presidential elections .)
"Everyone knows that in war the first casualty is truth. What actually happened on the ground is more or less unknown. And, the 'chemical attack', if there was one, is obviously abominable and should be condemned. But we still don't know who did it. It all looks like a pretext for the United States and its allies to return to the scene and involve themselves in an armed conflict which, until now, they have lost to the Russians and the current Syrian government. So, there, I'm warning everyone, it's extremely dangerous. I don't like at all the reception that Macron gave yesterday to three Baltic presidents who met for I don't know what reason, in Paris, and who came and played wargames to Mr Macron's applause. No, no and no. Russia is not our enemy; it is our partner. [Translated from the French [1] by Sheila Newman.]"

Macron and Gurria's Baltic politics

The Baltic presidents referred to by Mélenchon included Dalia Grybanskaite of Lithuania. There was also someone from Estonia. In a press announcement here https://www.lrp.lt/fr/centre-de-presse/communiqus-de-presse/la-chef-de-ltat-se-rend-en-visite-de-travail-en-france/29752, it says that Emmanel Macron, with OECD Secretary General, Angela Gurria, was looking at including Lithuania in the EU. This sounds like more attempts to disorganise current trading blocs, along the lines of US-NATO interference in Ukraine, in a manner which would negatively affect Russia.
As well as the arms trade and energy resources, other commercial trade and market blocs are motivating the current war rhetoric and threats. These can be seen as a continuation of the European trade wars that began in the 13th century, but carried out on a greater resource and production scale and with devastating weapons in reserve.
The links between Macron and the United States, and Soros funding to influence his election,[1] are an indication to me, along with his pro-US anti-Russia attitude and the variation of the traditional independent French approach to the Middle East, that France is in the grip of a globalist-financed economic ideologue from an elite internationalist class with little conscience or empathy. Macron came from 'nowhere' in political terms but was promoted by the French and international corporate press, which created such an unjustified anxiety about Le Pen, the other major Presidential candidate, as a nationalist threat akin to Hitler, that in an unprecedented move, the main traditional French political parties simply closed up shop, never to reopen. A number of the politicians exiting these defunct parties then joined Macron's staff, such was the mysterious promise of his candidacy.

French Politician, Marine Le Pen, says the conflict is pointless and France should not let the US boss it around.

"I think that currently France is contribution to the creation or the recreation of a certain form of the cold war with Russia. It's pointless, because it doesn't benefit France, or its economy, or international relations, to let the US, seeking to stir up a conflict with Russia, boss us around." (English voice-over, probably April 10, 2018, available at the 11.41 hrs point on the video of RT News at https://www.rt.com/shows/news/423839-rtnews-april-11-17msk/).
Le Pen has consistently called for peace instead of war and for Russia and Syria's sovereignty to be respected, which policy alone makes her unpopular with the globalists.

NOTES

[1][Original French transcribed by Sheila Newman from the video:]"Tout le monde sait que, dans les guerres, la première victime, c'est la vérité. Ce qui se passerait réellement sur le terrain, c'est à peu près inconnu. Et, 'l'attaque chimique' s'il y en a eu, est évidemment abominable, et doit être condamnée. Il reste à savoir qui aussi est livré. Ca ressemble beaucoup à un prétexte pour que les Etats Unis de l'Amérique et leurs alliés reviennent sur la scène et engagent un conflit armé que, jusqu'à présent, ils ont perdu en faveur des Russes et du gouvernement actuel de la Syrie. Bon, voila. Je mets en garde, c'est extrêmement dangereux. Je n'aime pas du tout la réception qu'a été faite hier des trois présidents baltes [?] réunis pour je ne sais pas pour quelle raison, à Paris, et qu'ils sont venus jouer les va-t-en guerre aux applaudissements de M. Macron. Non, non et non. La Russie n'est pas notre ennemi, c'est notre partenaire."

[2] http://freewestmedia.com/2017/02/15/soros-pouring-money-into-google-macron-to-stop-le-pen/
#10;</body></html>">

"All military personnel, from low ranking GI’s to the top generals and admirals, have an obligation to disobey illegal orders. Orders to carry out acts of war against a sovereign nation that is not threatening the U.S. are illegal orders." Jerry Condon, Veterans for Peace. This leading veterans’ organization is warning that a U.S. attack on Syria could lead to a nuclear war. Russian military forces in Syria will undoubtedly be among the targets of U.S. missiles. Russia has said it will shoot down U.S. missiles, and attack the “platforms from which they are fired,” i.e. U.S. ships.

US Veterans call for military personnel to disobey illegal orders to make war on sovereign powers.

“Why the rush to war?” asked Gerry Condon, president of Veterans For Peace. “Why is the mass media cheerleading for war instead of asking hard questions? Why are Democratic and Republican politicians trying to out-do one another with calls for ever more massive attacks on Syria?

“There is no proof yet of a Syrian government gas attack, only a video made by a fundamentalist rebel group that wants more U.S. intervention. Even if the reports are true, a military response will only lead to more death and destruction, and dangerous escalations.

“We are talking about a direct confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers,” said Gerry Condon. “Why would the U.S. risk nuclear war over dubious chemical weapons claims?

“Veterans have longer memories than the press and the politicians,” said Condon. “We remember how we were lied into the Iraq War with false reports of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ U.S. wars throughout the Middle East have caused millions of deaths and destroyed entire societies. Our soldiers and their families have also paid an extremely high price.”

“Veterans, GI’s and their families will not accept another war based on lies,” said Gerry Condon. “We will be protesting in the streets, in the suites, at media outlets and at military bases.

All military personnel, from low ranking GI’s to the top generals and admirals, have an obligation to disobey illegal orders. Orders to carry out acts of war against a sovereign nation that is not threatening the U.S. are illegal orders.

“We swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” said Gerry Condon, president of Veterans For Peace. “Right now those enemies are those who would rush our country recklessly into another devastating war.”

Video inside: Jimmy Dore, the comedian from the very intelligent and acid Jimmy Dore Show does a superbly simple analysis of US form for lying to start wars, plus the fact that the corporate media go along with this. And us on the brink of World War Three - "for nothing," as Dore sums up.

Video inside: This video records a really shameful action on behalf of the US regime, on a par with Hitler's arrogant exceptionalism and dishonesty. We have begun the video where the benighted Syrian ambassador begins to respond to a series of utterly unfounded accusations by Niki Haley, the US Ambassador. That she walks out with her following, without listening to him, shows the contempt in which the United States regime holds the people of Syria and its government. Many lives are at stake and the welfare of many generations, but the United States military-industrial complex do not even give them a hearing. Although we have begun the video at the point of the Syrian ambassador's speech, you can roll it back to hear Haley, and then the Russian Ambassador.

"The Russian federation demanded for this meeting to be held on the agenda items, threats to international peace and security, insofar as we are deeply alarmed at the fact that in a number of capitals, above all Washington and those blindly following it, London and Paris, a deliberate policy was undertaken to stoke international tensions. The leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, without any justification and without considering the consequences, have engaged in a confrontational policy against Russia and Syria and they are prompting others to follow suit. A broad arsenal of methods is being leveraged to slander and insult: hawkish rhetoric, blackmail, sanctions and threats to use force against a sovereign state." (Russian ambassador to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia addressing the Security Council on April 9, 2018, in regard to an alleged chemical attack in the suburban Damascus city of Douma.) See the whole address transcribed below, or listen to the English translator video.

Thank you. If you believe it is a great pleasure for me to speak about the issue we will talk about now, and to make a statement, then you are mistaken. Unfortunately, the situation is such that I will have to say a great deal today, and it will be incumbent upon you to listen to what I have to say. We are grateful to Mr. De Mistura [Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Syria] for his briefing as well as to Mr. [Thomas] Markran [Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs].

The Russian federation demanded for this meeting to be held on the agenda items, threats to international peace and security, insofar as we are deeply alarmed at the fact that in a number of capitals, above all Washington and those blindly following it, London and Paris, a deliberate policy was undertaken to stoke international tensions. The leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, without any justification and without considering the consequences, have engaged in a confrontational policy against Russia and Syria and they are prompting others to follow suit. A broad arsenal of methods is being leveraged to slander and insult: hawkish rhetoric, blackmail, sanctions and threats to use force against a sovereign state.

Russia is being unpardonably threatened. The tone with which this is being done has gone beyond the threshold of what is acceptable, even during the Cold war. Such boorishness against my country is something your predecessors did not take the liberty to undertake. What is next? We remind a rhetorical question which our President put forward in 2015 from the UN General Assembly to our Western partners, above all the United States, concerning the reckless of their geopolitical experiments in the Middle East. “Do you understand now what you have done?” And the response at that time hung in the air.

But there is a response: no, you do not understand. Just as you fail to understand what you are doing now. The lack of a clear strategy on any issue is appalling not just to us, it confounds not only us, but it confounds the majority of those sitting here. But they have decided not to openly put this forward to you, following you everywhere you go, regardless of the fact that with everything you touch, chaos is left behind in the brackish waters from which you try to take out fish, something, but only mutant fish are being taken out. I will put forward another rhetorical question. Do you understand the dangerous threshold towards which you are bringing the world?

One of the areas where the hostility is most stark is Syria. The terrorists and extremists supported by external sponsors are enduring a defeat there. Let us recall that we are talking about those terrorists and extremists whom you supplied, financed, and deployed in a country to oust a legitimate government. Now it is clear why this is causing hysteria among those who invested political capital in these dark forces.

Recently, thanks to the efforts undertaken by Russia in line with the Security Council resolutions, a large-scale operation has been undertaken to lift the siege of Eastern Ghouta. Its residents, for a number of years, were forced to endure the mockery and torture of fighters. More than 150,000 civilians were evacuated from that Damascus suburb, completely voluntarily, with the requisite security conditions being provided. Tens of thousands of them have already been able to return to the liberated areas and many met with their relatives. There has been no change [or replacement of population]: this composition being shouted about by supporters of the Syrian opposition has not occurred. These are lies.

With the leaders of these armed groups, difficult negotiations took place. As a result, many of them left the areas they had occupied, with full respect for guarantees for their safety. Incidentally, during the transportation operations, several attempts were undertaken to stage terrorist attacks when the militants attempted to reach the buses with suicide belts. Others preferred to settle their status with the Syrian authorities. Thanks to Presidential amnesties, they will be able to return to civilian life, and subsequently, they may even enter the Syrian security forces. We are talking about implementation of a UN principle: demobilization, disarmament and reintegration.

However, this positive dynamic is not to the liking of some foreign sponsors through Western countries who are willing to take up any straw just to maintain a hotbed of terrorist resistance at a striking distance from the Syrian capital, so that the fighters can continue to terrorize ordinary civilians, to seize their food and to request from the international community that humanitarian assistance be delivered. Incidentally, they were not prepared to share medicine with ordinary civilians – as was shown in the inspection of the stronghold left behind by the fighters. It was already the case in the past in Eastern Aleppo: improvised hospital facilities in basements were full of medicine which, as a result of sanctions – Western sanctions –, were not provided to Damascus and other government-controlled areas.

Also, large storage of [indistinct] were found as were the bodies and corpses of people who had been subjected to torture. We are stunned at the scale of the tunnels that were used by Jihadis. In some of them, small trucks were able to freely move about. These surprising underground facilities brought together the positions of groups who are viewed by some as moderate, and they were linked to the stronghold of the Al-Nosra Front.

On April 6, the new head of Jaysh al-Islam, following instructions of sponsors, derailed the evacuation of a party of fighters from Douma and resumed the rocket and mortar fire against residential areas in Damascus. The firing targeted [indistinct name of four areas]. According to official information, eight people died. 37 civilians were wounded. Unfortunately, we failed to see statements from Western capitals condemning the shelling of a historical district of Damascus. The following day, April 7, fighters accused the Syrian authorities of dropping barrel bombs with toxic substances. At the same time, diversions were being mixed up. It was either called sarin, chlorine, or a mix of toxic gases. Based on a well-known scheme, these rumors were immediately taken out by those who are financed by western capitalists; I am referring to NGOs and the White Helmets who are mendaciously acting under the cloak of health professionals. And these reports were also taken up and transferred to media outlets.

It behooves us once again to state that many of these dubious structures have a clear list of the email addresses of representatives of Security Council members, which shows that some of our colleagues, with a reckless approach towards their status, are leaking sensitive information to their protégés. Incidentally, all should recall the way that accidentally, the White Helmets put on the internet a video which showed preparations for staging a so-called victim of an alleged attack perpetrated by the Syrian army.

In 2011, the chemical serial began, and it continues to be shown to us with the calculation for each new episode to be more resonant than the one prior to it. In Washington, London, and Paris, immediate conclusions were drawn, pinning blame on the Syrian authorities, or as they call it, the Syrian regime. Has nobody wondered why would Damascus need this? There were insults against the Syrian leadership. However, the main burden of responsibility was pinned on Russia and Iran. And I think this is hardly surprising to anybody at this point, but this was done immediately based on current trends, without any investigation being conducted.

On April 8, the Syrian troops sweeping through {Al-Shimona} near Douma found a homemade Jaysh al-Islam manufacturing area to manufacture chemical substances artisanally. Chlorine agents of German manufacture and special equipment were also discovered. In Istanbul, an opposition journalist, [indistinct name], put on his Twitter page a video allegedly from the area of the incident, probably from the White Helmets. An unknown individual is next to a handmade bomb with a chemical that allegedly struck the bedroom of a building in Douma. All of this was accompanied by comments about another attack by the regime against civilians. The staged nature of this action is something of which there is no doubt. The trajectory of the alleged bomb is unnatural. This bomb supposedly entered, piercing through a roof, and naturally, calmly, fell into a bed, without even damaging this bed. Can a bomb fall on a wooden bed without even damaging the wooden bed?! Clearly, it was placed there prior to preparation for the staging.

There’s an interesting sequence of events. The chemical provocation in Douma on Saturday, April 7, occurred immediately after the US delegation at the Security Council received instructions to convene for today, Monday, April 9, to convene expert level consultations on their draft resolution on the mechanism to investigate incidents with chemical weapons. The initial text today has far-reaching changes and revisions.

Under these obscure circumstances, we need of course to get to the bottom of what is taking place. However, we need to do so in an honest, objective, impartial way, without disregarding the principle of presumption of innocence, and by no means prejudging the outcome of the investigation. Despite provocations, Russian specialists continue their efforts to resolve the situation in Eastern Ghouta.

On the afternoon of Sunday, April 8, following a new agreement that was reached, the evacuation of Jaysh al-Islam fighters resumed. Following the liberation of Douma from fighters, Russian specialists on radiological, chemical and biological protection were sent there to collect evidence and information. They took soil samples which show the lack of any nerve agent or chlorine substances.

Locals were interviewed about the cessation of resistance to the fighters. Not a single local resident confirmed the chemical attack having taken place. In local hospitals, there were no reports about symptoms from a toxic substance such as chlorine. Other medical facilities are not located in Douma. The bodies of the dead as a result of contamination were not found. Medical personnel and residents have no information about their potential burial areas. Thereby, the use of sarin and chlorine is not confirmed. Incidentally, the representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent refuted the statement allegedly made on their behalf about a delivery of assistance to victims of toxic gas. I call upon those who will speak against me and slander the regime to proceed from the premise that there was no chemical weapons attack.

Sweden prepared a draft resolution to investigate the incident. In principle, in order to conduct an investigation, the OPCW needs no resolution. However, we are willing to consider this resolution. Today, we propose that what you envisage in your draft be done. Let the OPCW, who through the Director-general of the Technical Secretariat Mr. Üzümcü stated a willingness to get to the bottom of what took place, let it immediately tomorrow fly to Damascus. There, the Syrian authorities and Russian troops will provide conditions to travel to the area of the alleged incident for them to familiarize themselves with the situation. Incidentally, this is what President Trump and other Western leaders called on us to undertake.

As for the possibility of a chemical attack, this was repeatedly warned about by the Syrians at the Russian Center for the reconciliation of opposing sides. It was stated that in order to record on film a chemical attack, and I put this in quotes, “the necessary equipment has already been brought in.” We too made the relevant statements at the Security Council. You heard these warnings. You have heard them but deliberately ignore them insofar as they do not align with the doctrinal views of those who seek the elimination of a legitimate government in another Arabic country.

Still, what is not being looked into is the fact that a significant number of chemical weapons were discovered on November-December 2017 in Syrian territory that had been liberated from terrorists. On the storage sites in al-Zakhariya and al-Afafir in Hama province, twenty 1-ton containers were discovered. More than 50 munitions were found which contain toxic chemicals. In Tal-Adli, Idleb province, 24 tons of toxic chemicals were discovered and this is believed to be chlorine. At the storage site Adhamiya, 30 kilometers northeast of Damascus, 240 and 160 millimeter caliber munitions were found. Plastic canisters were found with phosphorus substances and compounds. In the area of Al-Servita, Idlib province, an industrial complex was found for the synthesis of various toxic substances. 54 chemical munitions were found with a 44 chemical containers and these could be used for the manufacture of toxic substances.

From the beginning of this year alone, four instances were reported of fighters using toxic chemicals against positions where government troops are located in Shuja and Al-Mesharif. More than 100 Syrian troops were hospitalized. On March 3rd, when Hazrama and Al-Tars were liberated in Eastern Goutha, fighters from government troops discovered in a tunnel an underground artisanal manufacturing site to produce chemical munitions of a handmade nature. And this is far from a full list. It points to the wrongdoings and abuses by the irreconcilable opposition. However, the OPCW’s experts being sent there to identify evidence is not something which we see people eager to do. We demand that OPCW verify all of those areas. Access can be provided.

Also, information is surfacing that at the Al-Tanf camp, American instructors have trained a number of groups of fighters to stage provocations with chemical weapons used to create a pretext for a strike. It was clear to us that attempts to shelter terrorists and at the same time punish the regime so hated by some Western capitals would sooner or later be undertaken. Speaking heads on television screens sought to repeat last year's strike against Syria. This morning, there were strikes against the T4 Air Field in Homs province.

We are deeply troubled by such actions. Provocations in Douma echo last year's incident in Khan Sheikhoun. The unifying aspect is the fact that there's a planned nature of these attacks. An analysis of the USS operations prior to and after the incident in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2007 shows that Washington, ahead of time, prepared for its operation. The USS Porter naval destroyer, from 4 to 7 April last year – that is when the toxic substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, before the strike against the Shayrat airbase –, were already present in the Mediterranean waters where they were engaged in planned operations. They did not enter the ports where an exchange of munitions could have happened in order to increase the number of cruise missiles.

Incidentally, 4 to 5 April, the USS Porter destroyer was located southeast of Sicily, and the USS Ross naval destroyer was in a passage from the Rota naval base in the area south of Sardinia. Later, 6 April, an expedited movement of both naval destroyers was reported towards the firing positions more southwest of Cyprus. From there, on April 7, they conducted a mass strike against the Shayrat airfield. At the same time, the number of Tomahawk missiles that were launched (59) surpassed the overall munitions on both naval destroyers if they had actually been engaged in the anti-missile defense operations that had been assigned to them. For that purpose, only 48 units were necessary. Thereby, US naval vessels, even prior to the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun, entered military service with extra strike equipment that is an increase of cruise missiles that were not necessary for the anti-missile defense. And this could attest to prior planning by Washington of an act of strike against Damascus.

The fake news on Saturday from Douma are geared entirely towards drawing attention of society away from the Skripal case which was muddled up by London, and throwing on Russia completely unconfirmed accusations with the aim of pulling solidarity to build an anti-Russian alliance. Now the British are stepping away from a transparent investigation and putting forward specific responses for the questions and at the same time they are sweeping up their tracks. During the Security Council meeting on April 5 on the Skripal case, we cautioned that an attempt to unjustifiably blame us of having had a hand in the Salisbury incident was linked to the Syrian chemical dossier. Yesterday, this issue saw new interesting developments. For the moment, Foreign minister Boris Johnson continues to disclose things against Russia and attempt to be witty, and here's the following pearl: experts of an RAF listening post south of Cyprus intercepted on the day of Skripal’s poisoning reports sent from Damascus suburbs to Moscow. And this is what Times is reporting. It contains the following sentence, the phrase “The package has been delivered” and “ the two individuals made a successful egress.” This turns out to be part of the intelligence information provided by London two hours prior to the expulsion of Russian diplomats. However is it not clear that there's an irrefutable link here? Is that not clear to all? Syria-Russia-Salisbury?

I will give a hint to the British intelligence services and I will do so free of charge. Here is another great idea to cover-up their tracks: they could suggest that 'Novichok', which is so liked now, reached Salisbury directly from Syria by package. This is a complete mockery here.

Ambassador Haley has recently said that Russia will never be a friend of the United States. And I wish to respond to that. Friendship is something which is both reciprocal and voluntary. One cannot force a friendship. And we are not particularly keen to be friends with you. Nor are we begging to be friends with you. What we want from you is really nothing. It's something that is normal civilized relations which you arrogantly refuse, disregarding basic courtesies.

And you are misguided if you think that you have friends. So-called friends of yours are only those who cannot say no to you. And this is the sole criterion for friendship in your understanding. Russia has friends and unlike yourselves, we do not have adversaries. We do not view the world through that prism. And yes, international terrorism, that is our enemy. However, we continue to propose cooperation. This needs to be respectful and mutual cooperation, it needs to go towards resolving real and not imagined problems. And you should be just as interested as we are in such a cooperation.

Ultimately, as permanent members of the Security Council, we bear the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Through the relevant channels, we already conveyed to the US that armed force under mendacious pretexts against Syria, where, at the request of the legitimate government of the country, Russian troops have been deployed, could lead to grave repercussions.

We call upon Western politicians to scale down their hawkish rhetoric, to meaningfully consider possible repercussions and to cease the reckless spill over of threats to global security. What military misadventures of the West brought about is well known to us if we consider the examples of Yougoslavia, Iraq and Libya. And nobody has vested you with the power to act as policemen of the world and as investigators, procurators, judges and executioners all at the same time.

We call for your return to the legal fold to comply with the UN Charter and to jointly tackle problems that arise, rather than attempting at each step to advance your egotistical geopolitical game. All of the energy needs to be focused on support for the political process in Syria, to which it is necessary to constructively pull the efforts of all influential players. Russia always stands ready to engage in such cooperation.

To conclude, Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to request an open briefing of the Security Council on the outcomes of the UN assessment mission in Raqqa and the situation in the Rahman camp. We see the way of members of the Commission attempting to create a smoke screen around this issue, which is a result of their actions in Syria, including the operation to raze Raqqa to the ground through bombings. No chemical provocations will divert attention from this, from what you've done. Thank you.

Russian and Iranian English television broadcasters need to issue invitations to Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Niki Haley, Macron, Donald Trump et al, to defend their aggressive stances against Russia, Syria, and Iran,” says candobetter.net’s James Sinnamon. Unbelievable accusations against sovereign states are issuing from the governments of the United States, Australia, the UK and Europe. We are talking about the lines run by US-NATO on the Scripal spy poisonings and the so-called chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, which they have refused in the UN to investigate on the ground. Despite the total implausibility of these stories, the western corporate press, which includes ABC Australia and SBS, promote them uncritically. Yet the purpose of these stories is to provide excuses for war. The only beneficiary of the promotion of war is the military-industrial-media complex. The only thing working against this complex is the alternative media, which happens also to include English programs run by Iran’s Press TV Iran and Russia RT. Why are these programs so popular, especially RT? It is because they appeal to intellectuals because they are so much more complex and nuanced than the frustratingly illogical confabulations that pass for mainstream news in the Anglosphere. Press TV Iran’s The Debate is an especially robust forum.

World leaders like jealous giant children

In a stunning abuse of power, one of the main theatres of initial promotion is the United Nations. The US ambassador, Niki Haley, continues to make outlandish claims in the bullying style of her predecessor, Samantha Power. It is like watching gangster molls with airs, who do not realise that they are being live-broadcast as they threaten plans to assassinate or otherwise remove presidents, invade countries, and bomb cities, all based on totally fabricated enemy ‘profiles’ of popular elected leaders as bad guys. In fact, if war-profits were not a consideration, you would be reminded of jealous children in a playground bullying their more popular colleagues.

Major threats

The major threats to modern civilisation: war, overpopulation, overconsumption, and energy resources scarcity. For a few years ago after the fall of the Soviet Union, war seemed a remote pastime, carried out between small tribal states, but then it began to metastacize from former Yugoslavia, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, then to Libya. Next was Syria and, at the same time, Ukraine. It is like watching the events leading up to the First World War. If you didn’t look at the regional oil and gas interests and rival hegemonies for countries that would afford access to them, then the whole thing seemed inexplicable. Even so, many people whose lives and lifestyles are not yet threatened, just cannot believe that people who have power would do such harm, apparently just out of ego and a desire for even more money.

Alternative press should invite accusing western powers to defend their arguments

James Sinnamon (the man who built Candobetter.net) suggests that PressTV Iran and RT could be still more effective, if they issued invitations to the leaders making accusations, to defend these on PressTV Iran and RT.

“I think that Russia, Iran and other nations, who are defending countries like Syria from military aggression, as a matter of urgency, could use their newsmedia - Russia's RT and Sputnik and Iran's PressTV even more effectively.
Perhaps those who conduct debates and interviews on Press TV Iran - Marcia Hashemi and Waqar Rizvi - and Russia's Oksana Boyko, Afshin Rattansi, [1] Sophie Shevardnadze and others - could, prominently and repeatedly, issue standing invitations to the likes of Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Nikki Haley et al., or their delegated spokespersons, to put their views on their programs and have those views discussed and debated.
Surely, if Theresa May et al. are so confident that they are speaking the truth, they would jump at the opportunity to show, to the audiences of RT and PressTV, how the views presented by those stations are wrong?

Of course, I don't expect that Theresa May et al. will acccept. If they don't RT and PressTV should include their names in lists, displayed prominently on their sites, of all Western political leaders who have declined to appear on RT and PressTV.

Given that hundreds of thousands have already been killed by military aggression, just since the Gulf War of 1991, and that the stakes for humanity are so high if this pattern is not stopped, I see know of no reason for the managers of RT and PressTV to pull any punches from now on.”

Sinnamon adds that, Afshin Rattansi, of Going Underground, leads the way to some extent because he is always issuing invitations to his detractors to appear on "Going Underground". If those who declined to be interviewed by Mr Rattansi were prominently listed, his impact would be even greater.

No sooner has the idea of a US withdrawal from Syria been floated than Assad launched a chemical weapons attack on the suburbs of Damascus...or so we are being asked to believe. But this is not the first time we have been lied to about chemical weapons claims. What is the evidence about this situation, and what are the latest developments with regard to the international response? Corbett Report members are asked to contribute to this open source investigation by posting information and links about this breaking news event. [Editor Candobetter.net: Thank God for the alternative press. We here at candobetter.net are so tired of listening to the uncritical warmongering on the ABC, SBS, CBN, and in parliament. Are they all suicidal? Please write in if you hear anyone on the MSN or in politics in Australia question this warlust.]

Carlson is a real performer, but he also asks real questions. About the so-called chemical weapons purportedly used in Syria. He seems to be alone in the United States mass media - and the Australian mass media - to ask crucial questions about the gung-ho attitudes of US-NATO members, who treat war like a video game and believe they have the right to assassinate and murder whom they wish. In this video Carlson interviews Roger Wicker, Mississipi senator, on the subject, affording us an intriguing view of a psychopathic politician sleepwalking it through the questions, believing that everyone in the audience is too stupid and brainwashed to care. After that interview he talks to Theo Padnos, a journalist who was held hostage for two years by takfiri terrorists in Syria. And after that, he interviews Douglas MacGregor, retired army colonel and author. Each interview affords a different perspective and I didn't agree entirely with any of them, but I sure admire Tucker for asking those questions. Right at the end he also interviews a lawyer who is running for political office in San Francisco, on the issue of illegal immigrants and the flight of the middle classes from California.

[Article by Sally Pepper.] The Communications Ombudsman, Judi Jones, said today that nearly one in two Australians have problems with their phone or internet service and that one in four issues were not resolved after four months. For small business, the situation is even worse. I can relate to this, and I bet you can too.

The electronic matrix

The other day I was talking on the phone with a friend and as usual we were in the middle of changing the world, when suddenly, in mid sentence the phone dropped out. I then spent the next two minutes trying to relocate him in a series of false starts as we were each either engaged trying to contact one another or each sitting patiently waiting for the other to ring. I know what the reader is thinking: "Why did they not use their mobile phones?" Well believe it or not, one of us does not have one and mine was nowhere near where I had been on the land line engaged n conversation.

Of course we are now entangled in a web of communication with our mobile phones such that we rarely make firm arrangements. They are always in a state of adjustment according to traffic, weather and other contingencies. "Nearly there. Just parking the car" ... "I'll get the tickets" ... "I'm in front of the cafe with an apricot beach towel," etc. So there is huge quantity of telephonic communications happening all the time all over the place, but somehow I don't think the quality and reliability is keeping pace.

Problem 1. I have both a land line and a mobile phone and I use the Internet. I used to see the land line as an alternative communication which is independent from the mobile and the Internet. However, a change was made to my land line a couple of years ago which means that it operates via the Internet modem. I am not the first person to make this observation but it means that if the electricity were cut off my land line would also be cut off. No electricity = no phone. When a technician was making the change, I asked him about this, to which he answered that in the case of electricity failure I could use my mobile phone. That is true as long as my mobile phone is charged, I know where it is, or it is day time and I can look for it.

You may ask, "Why do you need to be on the phone just because the electricity has gone off?" Well I don't necessarily, however it is an option that I always had until those changes were made and now I don't have it. In any system - and we will call this a communication system - redundancy is a safety feature. That piece of redundancy has now been taken away. I don't recall being asked.

Digital decay

Problem 2. Phone dropping out as per first paragraph.

Problem 3. This problem is encountered on the radio. I hear presenters, increasingly often having to re-start an interview because of a 'bad line'. I also hear them putting up with bad lines (almost unintelligible) and remarking that this often happens with mobiles.

Problem 4. Are we living in a post radio era and I haven't been told? I have two digital radios, one of which tells me 'no service available' for several local stations, including Radio National. The other digital radio can receive all AM and FM stations, but reception comes in waves of audibility and silence, so that I only hear a few seconds followed by a few seconds gap, then returning sound - making the program unintelligible.

Problem 5 hasn't happened yet !! It's the NBN. I've been told mine has been delayed and I'm so pleased because the new era of constant frustration, poor service, and time wasting phone calls, has been postponed. I can still enjoy my internet, hopefully for a bit more as trouble-free as it has been for the last decade.

Nowhere to hide

I have a friend who has never owned a mobile phone due to the expense and being so trackable. She has always used her partner's phone instead. We pointed out the usefulness of mobile phones in getting you found if you get lost. "But what if you don't want to be found?" she riposted.

Recently her partner purchased a new kind of phone that unlocks with his fingerprint. My friend was aghast, pointing out that he had now given his fingerprint up to the Deep State via some transient private phone company who probably make a tidy income selling such information to the police. And they paid him nothing for the privilege! She said his fingerprint pattern could be used to pin a crime on him, and she wasn't going to give them hers because she might still want to commit a crime and, who knows what they are likely to call a crime tomorrow?

The pre-mobile phone era

If you were living in Australia after the dinosaurs, but before the privatisation of Telstra, you might remember Telecom Australia. It was a no-frills, stern kind of government organisation and it owned all the telephone lines and all the telephones in Australia - even the phone booths. You had to rent the telephone hardware (to use a modern term for equipment) that you used from Telecom or you could not telephone anyone. What is more, if you disconnected your service, or it disconnected you, you had to give your telephone back to Telecom. People would hang on to Telecom phones for years, with a sense of deep rebellion against the state, then discover that they could not open a new account until they gave the old phone back. Now you might see this as somewhat Australian Soviet era from the perspective of the 21st century, but what I remember is:

The Rules

- All telephones were black. They all looked the same. Nobody's was better than anybody else's.
- You could always find the phone because it was always in the same place, attached by a cord to a socket embedded in a wall. Even demented people could find the phone. (In exceptional cases you might have one or two more sockets and phones.)
- When you hung up the phone, there was absolutely no way that the receiver would slide off. It was too deeply set.
- Phones always worked and, if they didn't, Telecom would fix them. Exceptionately, they would replace your old Telecom phone if it happened to be destroyed in a natural disaster.
- No-one ever rang you from the other side of the world at dinner time - or any other time - to try to sell you phones or anything else.
- Everyone in Australia used the same telephone service and if it didn't give you good service, you could complain to the government.
- All the phone numbers in your state fitted into one good-sized but liftable telephone directory. There was a white one for residential numbers and a yellow one for business numbers. We knew we were overpopulated when they started to issue two volumes for Melbourne and Sydney. I think this also happened only after they privatised Telecom and then Telstra. (Candobetter.net inventor,James Sinnamon, used to be the owner of Citizens Against Selling Telstra.) Soon after that you could no longer rely on your parents' Melways to find your way around either. Melbourne was transforming on a daily basis.

It was the beginning of the end. That's when the matrix started up and most of you turned into cell-phone directed robots. A few of us remain, always using cash, never using mobiles - untraceable, cogitating the revolution. We are the resistance.

What the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has said

Nearly 10 million Australians have experienced a problem with their phone or internet service, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Judi Jones, will announce at the Comms Day Summit today (16.00 pm, 9 April 2018).

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman introduced a comprehensive survey for the first time in 2018 and surveyed almost 3000 people from across Australia’s residential consumers and small businesses.

In her speech to the conference, Jones will also note 20 per cent of residential consumers had more than one phone or internet issue over the last year, and one in four issues were not resolved after four months. For small businesses the picture is more problematic, with almost 60 per cent identifying a phone or internet issue affecting their business.

Ombudsman Judi Jones said: "Today's results show us that everyone with responsibility for planning and delivering telecommunications service has to make things better. Phone and the internet services are essential services, making a vital difference to families, within communities and to business.

"We all have to be proactive and accessible in managing the issues. We have to listen to residential consumers and small businesses, understand the impact of problems, and offer quick, supportive solutions.”

A Six Month Update complaints snapshot will be released Tue 17 April, 2018. This six month update provides key data on complaints from residential consumers and small businesses to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for the period 1 July -31 December 2017.

About the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is a free and independent dispute resolution and complaint handling service for residential consumers and small businesses who have an unresolved complaint about their phone or internet service. www.tio.com.au or 1800 062 058.

About the telecommunications sector

Government and the regulators set policy and regulations for the telecommunications sector. The Telecommunications industry regulators are the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) www.acma.gov.au

Communications Alliance is the peak body for Australian communications industry. The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) is Australia’s peak communications consumer organisation.

Access to the Internet to be informed, to inform others, and to express one's own opinion, is considered by most to be a basic human right in the 21st Century. Yet, this basic human right has now been taken away from Julian Assange by the Ecuadorian government. Wikileaks Publisher, Julian Assange, could be compared with Martin Luther, who used the printing press to challenge a corrupt Roman Catholic empire. In Assange's case, he used of the internet to challenge the corrupt, oppressive, warmongering global regime headed by the United States. We all live under this regime, but we have almost no media through which to question its dark sway. Assange provided that media through Wikileaks. The Ecuadorian Government must be recognised for having given Assange asylum as a political refugee for many years, when his own country, Australia, so shamefully turned its back on him, and on the international crimes he exposed. This granting of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government was the only thing that prevented the Swedish Government and the British Government from handing Assange over to the United States Government. The US has threatened to try Assange for espionage even though he is (a) not a US citizen and (b) has performed an heroic service to the world in exposing the US government's illegal actions against prisoners of war, as well as its multiple illegal surveillance of ordinary citizens. In fact, such a trial would present the rogue US government with much embarrassment because it would throw more light on the secrets that Wikileaks exposed. It is thus correct to fear that Assange would not be tried, but simply imprisoned without a public trial. Assange has also exposed many similar crimes to the US's that have been carried out by other governments. Recently he tweeted an opinion on the independence movement in Catalonia. The Ecuadorian Government, his long-term asylum hosts, who have recently also become his country of citizenship, have claimed that this tweet caused them embarrassment. The upshot has been that his internet access has been removed by his new country and asylum-giver. Assange's only contact with the world and with witnesses to his frightening imprisonment by global conspiracy is via the internet. Without internet contact, he may as well be in a dungeon in Ecuador's London embassy. This seems like a terrible punishment for a solitary tweet. Some might question his judgement for tweeting something politically compromising for Ecuador in the light of his dependence on its goodwill. Many others would defend the world's need to open access to information about the Catalan problems. The situation is intolerably difficult, morally, politically and humanly. However, what we most hope for is that Julian Assange, a once-citizen of Australia who we are so sorry to have lost to this country, will be granted access to the internet and also that he will saved from the imprisonment that the United Nations has deemed to be illegal and unjust.

A Reuter's press release published in the Australian ABC in an article entitled, "Julian Assange has internet access cut off by Ecuador's Government," summarises, "Relations between Mr Assange and his host nation have often grown prickly. Ecuador suspended his internet access in 2016 after a WikiLeaks dump targeting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." However, it adds, "Former president Rafael Correa hailed Mr Assange's work but the nation's current head of state has called him a hacker and warned him not to meddle in politics," which context makes Assange's situation sound as if it has overall worsened.

History of Assange's wrongful imprisonment by the United Kingdom

On 12 June 2012, Julian Assange, threatened with extradition to Sweden for questioning over allegations - not even formal charges - that he had raped two Swedish women, sought and received political asylum in the London embassy of the Republic of Ecuador.

Assange feared that once inside Sweden, he would be extradited to the United States, to face the same imprisonment and torture that Chelsea Manning, another whistleblower, was enduring at the time. The US has considered trying him for espionage under the circa World War 1 Espionage Act.

Had the Swedish government given Assange a guarantee to deny any request for extradition by the United States, there can be little doubt that Assange would have gone to Sweden and the whole issue whould have been expedited and finalised very quickly.

As the Swedish government refused for years to even come to London to conduct interviews with Assange, there can be little doubt that the allegations of rape were no more than a cynical ploy by the supposedly neutral Swedish government in complicity with the United States' government, to arrest Assange, make an example of him and reduce the ability of Wikileaks to inform the world of the nefarious actions of the United States and its allies.

Since then the British government concocted another excuse to arrest Assange on behalf the United States.

Assange is charged with skipping bail for seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, even though the original fabricated rape charges upon which the extradition of Assange was sought have been dropped by the Swedish government.

Why the United Nations classifies Assange's situation as a case of illegal imprisonment

Years ago Australian journalist Julian Assange was found, by the United Nations, to have been illegally imprisoned by the British Government in the Ecuadorian embassy. See https://www.justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html We have reproduced most of the text of this UN page below:

UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

On Friday 5 February 2016, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) announced its decision finding that the detention of Julian Assange is unlawful. The United Nations Working Group has ordered that he be released immediately and compensated by Sweden and the United Kingdom. Julian Assange’s petition was filed in September 2014.

• #READ">Read the decision
• #WGAD">What is the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD)?
• #MADS">Interview with former WGAD Chair Mads Andenas on the Assange decision
• #DECISION">What is the decision about?
• #RESULT">What happens next?
• #LAW">What treaties and international law direct WGAD investigations?
• #CASES">Which other important cases has the WGAD decided?
• #WHO">Who are the members of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention?
• #LAWYERS">Who submitted the complaint on Julian Assange’s behalf?
• #PR">Press Contacts

Read the Working Group on Arbitrary Decision in Assange vs Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Interview with former UNWGAD Chair and Norwegian international Law Prof. Mads Andenæs

The Norwegian lawyer, Professor Mads Andenæs, is a legal academic and the UN Special Rapporteur on arbitrary detention was, since 2009 a chair of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, an expert panel which called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.

Professor Andenæs, who presents in this interview his opinion about the mainstream media coverage regarding to Assange case, too, is a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo, the former Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London and the former Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London. He is also a Research Fellow of the Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

He has been the General Editor of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Cambridge University Press), the General Editor of European Business Law Review (Kluwer Law International) and on the editorial boards of ten other law journals and book series, including the Nijhoff Series on International Trade Law.

He is an Honorary Fellow of the Society of Legal Studies (UK), a Fellow of the International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law (where he is a member of the board), an Honorary Fellow of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and a Fellow of the The Royal Society of the Arts.

He was the Secretary General of the Fédération Internationale de Droit Européen 2000-2002, the Hon Secretary of the UK Association of European Law 1997-2008 and the Hon Secretary of the UK Committee of Comparative Law 1999-2005. He was the Chair, Association of Human Rights Institutes in 2008.

Please tell us about your job at Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), during the initial part of Julian Assange case before the United Nations (UN)?

I was chair of the UN Working Group when the complaint was received, and the exchanges between the UN and the parties took place. I did not take part in the discussions of the Working Group leading up to the opinion in the Assange case. My term ran out in July 2015, and the decision was published in February 2016.

Why do you advocate for Mr. Assange?

I have spoken out in support of the opinion of the UN Working Group. Mr. Assange is in arbitrary detention and the UK and Sweden should abide by the UN ruling against them and take the steps that are necessary to bring his detention to an end.

Please specify the accusations against Julian Assange, and who accuses him.

The current case about the extradition to Sweden concerns allegations of sexual misconduct. Of course, the allegations relating to Wikileaks involves a strong interest of the security apparatus in many countries.

The fear is that the latter is allowed to influence the process and outcomes in the first case.

How do you see Washington’s allegation that Assange has threatened US security?

That are allegations that usually are fielded against use of the right to provide information and the freedom of speech. There is every reason to be sceptical to such assertions.

How do you see the UN’ decision to free Mr. Assange?

It is very clear. The UN WGAD had to decide two questions. First, whether there was a ’deprivation of liberty’ as opposed to a ’restriction of liberty’. Secondly, whether that deprivation of liberty was ’arbitrary’.

The UN WGAD clearly accepted the argument that Assange’s conditions are not ’self-imposed’, that is, if he stepped into the street, he would be arrested. There was also a ’substantial failure’ of the authorities ’to exercise due diligence’ in the ’performance of criminal administration’ (par. 98).

The line between a ’restriction of liberty’ and ’deprivation of liberty’ is finely drawn in European human rights jurisprudence. Liberty deprivation doesn’t consist only in the easily recognizable conditions of state detention. You must consider the length of time that Assange has remained in the Ecuadorian embassy, and his ongoing circumstances.

Liberty must be capable of being realized in actuality. Where the exercise of such liberty would have significantly coercive results, such as further deprivations of liberty or putting other rights at risk, this cannot be described as liberty in practice. The fact that Assange is resisting arrest doesn’t resolve this issue, as this would be to argue that liberty is a right contingent on his co-operation.

Assange is not free to leave he Ecuadorian Embassy of his own will. He fears extradition to the US and prosecution for his involvement in Wikileaks. The Swedish authorities have refused to provide assurances of non-refoulment which respond to this fear. Assange’s deprivation is ’arbitrary’. One ground is that it is disproportionate.

There are other, less restrictive ways of proceeding. Before issuing a EAW, the Swedish authorities could have followed the normal practice of interviewing Assange in a British police interview room.

After Assange took residence in the Ecuadorian embassy they could have relied on ’mutual assistance’ protocols, questioned Assange by video link, and given him the chance to respond to the allegations against him.

Please clarify ’deprivation of liberty’.

The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights prohibit arbitrary deprivations of liberty in Articles 9. That is something more than a "restriction on liberty". It includes house arrest.

How do you evaluate the United Kingdom (UK) and Sweden’s decision of not respecting UN’ decision?

Rulings by the UN WGAD are not always followed by states, but rarely do they result in such personal attacks as made by UK politicians after the Assange opinion.

I know that the words used by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were not the ones provided by the the civil servants advising on human rights and international law. The UK politicians aimed at weakening the authority of the UN body for short term opportunistic gain.

I fear that these politicians have weakened the international community’s possibility to protect some of the most vulnerable victims of human rights violations.

Their words have circulated among the states responsible for the worst human rights violations. The words of these UK politicians will cost life and human suffering.

The UK may lobby for some support when the matter is reported to the UN Human Rights Council, but the UK will certainly be criticised by other states for its response, and clearly deserve that.

The damage done to the UK in the UN and its moral authority in human rights issues is another matter, but there is no doubt about the damage done to the authority of the UK.

Professor Andenæs, comment the current status of the ’preliminary’ investigation in Sweden, and US ’pending prosecution’ against WikiLeaks.

Also those who are convinced that Mr. Assange is guilty of rape, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest (and I do not), the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden.

It is timely to remind ourselves that Assange has not been found guilty of rape: at this stage the prosecutor and courts in Sweden has held that there are probable grounds. Professor Andrew Ashworth, Oxford, stated in an Expert Opinion from 2011 that Assange’s team has made reference to, that "I do not consider that any of the incidents alleged in box of the EAW (that are the allegations cited in the arrest warrant) is sufficient of itself to constitute any offence under English law".

The Swedish Supreme Court Vice President has reminded us that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty (video below), and that when there are contradictory statements, it is for the courts to decide whether there the requirements for a conviction are satisfied. (See video)

The Swedish courts, also the majority in the Swedish Supreme Court, the Vice President was not on that panel, expressed that the arrest warrant even if it could not be executed against Assange, limited his liberty in a way that was relevant to question whether it remains proportional. The majority noted with approval that steps were now taken to interview Assange in London.

Over time, the Swedish Supreme Court may well grow sympathetic to the dissenting judgment of Justice Svante Johansson, that the conditions of the investigation are now disproportionate (a view presented by Anne Ramberg, head of Sweden’s Bar Association and Judge Charlotte Edvardsson, the reporting staff judge in the Supreme Court, in her (public) proposal to the court in the case).

Certainly, Former Legal Counsel to the United Nations and Legal Adviser to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hans Corell, has stated that he ’does not understand why the prosecutor had not questioned Julian Assange during all the years he has been at the Ecuadorian Embassy’.

Reasonable and judicial minds have differed on many of these issues. No doubt they have been coloured by views on the integrity of Assange himself. But human rights are not meant to favour the popular amongst us; they are meant to favour us all.

Why do you think the UK is acting so strongly according to US interests in this case?

Wikileaks has made very important contributions to our knowledge about the diplomatic and political process. It has changed my perception of major events and institutions. Wikileaks makes it much more difficult to manipulate us.

The so-called intelligence community base itself on working methods that are cloaked in secrecy. There are strong institutional forces that want to put an end to Mr. Assange’s activities. That go for very many countries.

How do you see Ecuador government regarding Mr. Assange, and the importance of world solidarity with him not only by other governments, but also by activists and civilians in general, Professor Andenæs?

Ecuador’s government has made a very important contribution to the protection of an international public sphere, and to the protection of freedom of information, freedom of expression and accountability for human rights violations. The expressions of solidarity for him not only by other governments, but also by activists and others around the world arre very important.

How do evaluate the mainstream media approach regarding to WikiLeaks revelations, especially involving Assange judgement?

I had expected a more muscular defence of the right to provide information and the freedom of speech. But media in all countries operate in a complex interaction with governments and take account of the state interest in different ways. In my view, in this case with too much respect for the perceived state interest.

How do you evaluate recent WikiLeaks revelations of US spying on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a private climate change strategy meeting in Berlim, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)?

They reveal wholly unacceptable practices. They also justify the work of Wikileaks.

Interview by Edu Montesanti

WHAT IS THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION (WGAD)?

Under the authority of the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the WGAD was established in 1991 to investigate and adjudicate whether states are in compliance with their international human rights obligations. It receives submissions from the individual complainant and the respondents (the states), and decides whether the case amounts to arbitrary (that is to say unlawful, or prohibited) detention. The European Court of Human Rights draws on judgments of the WGAD in cases concerning deprivation of liberty (violations against Article 5).

WHAT IS THE DECISION ABOUT?

The WGAD decides, according to pre-defined criteria:

• Whether a person is ’detained’
• Whether that detention is ’arbitrary’ (unlawful)

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained. The UK and Sweden must immediately release and compensate him. The decision is binding, as the UN Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights has explained.

WHAT TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW DIRECT WGAD INVESTIGATIONS?

The international laws looked to by the WGAD include:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the most universally-ratified human rights treaty;
• The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;
• The UN Declaration on Human Rights;
• The European Convention on Human Rights.

WHICH OTHER IMPORTANT CASES HAS THE UN WGAD DECIDED?

Against Myanmar: WGAD found that Aung San Suu Kyi (2007) had been arbitrarily detained while under house arrest. The regime released her in 2010. Last year her party won 86% of the vote in democratic elections.

Iran: (December 2015) for arbitrarily imprisoning Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian. Iran released him on 16 January 2016.

Maldives (October 2015) for illegally imprisoning former pro-democracy president Mohamed Nasheed, who was promptly released. On 23 January 2016 Nasheed visited 10 Downing Street with his lawyers Amal Clooney and Ben Emerson QC.

Malaysia: for the arbitrary imprisonment of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in a politically motivated sodomy case.

Egypt (April 2014) for arbitrarily imprisoning former president Mohamed Morsi, deposed by current President al-Sisi. He has not been released.

WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION?

Sètondji Adjovi (Benin, Second Vice-Chair)
Adjovi, an academic and practitioner specialising in international criminal procedure and judicial reform, worked at the International Criminal Court and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda before his appointment to the UN WGAD.

Mads Andenas (Norway, Chair and member until mid-2015)
Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention until mid-2015. Has previously held positions as Director of the Centre of European Law at King’s College, University of London and Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London. Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo.

Mr. José Guevara (Mexico, First Vice-Chair)
Guevara is a legal academic and practitioner who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law. Prior to joining the WGAD, worked in the NGO sector, Mexico City’s Ombudsman’s office and in government in the area of human rights. Guevara is the recipient of the Open Society Foundation’s New Executives Fund leading the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights.

Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur, Republic of Korea)
An expert member of the Asian Council of Jurists of the Asia Pacific Forum and legal academic, Seong-Phil Hong has specialised in the case for reparations regarding Japan’s Enforced Sex Slavery during the Second World War and accountability for human rights violations by the North Korean regime.

Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine)
A legal academic and practitioner whose expertise lies in international criminal justice and procedure. Tochilovsky was part of the Preparatory Committee and Commission that drafted the guidelines on criminal procedure for the International Criminal Court.

Leigh Toomey (Australia)
An expert in the UN Human Rights system, Toomey has taught at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and has served as a UN human rights expert both in the capacity as an NGO representative and as a representative for Australia at the UN General Assembly and Commission for Human Rights.

WHO SUBMITTED THE COMPLAINT ON JULIAN ASSANGE’S BEHALF?

On behalf of Julian Assange’s international legal team:

• Baltasar Garzon (ILOCAD SL, Spain)
• John Jones, QC (Doughty Street Chambers, UK)
• Melinda Taylor (External Defence Counsel, ICC, The Hague

PRESS CONTACTS

Julian Assange submitted a complaint against Sweden and the United Kingdom to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 12 September 2014. For press inquiries, contact Julian Assange’s legal team:

English:
Melinda Taylor (The Hague) - +31 611566009 (mobile) [email protected]

John Jones QC, Doughty St. Chambers +44 20 7404 1313 [email protected]

Jennifer Robinson (UK) - [email protected]

Carey Shenkman (US) - [email protected]

Spanish: Baltasar Garzon, ILOCAD (Spain)
Contact (ILOCAD):
+34 645209998
+34 616039340
+34 914343445

French: Christophe Marchand, Jus Cogens (Belgium)
+32486322288 (mobile)
[email protected]

Lee Camp, of Redacted Tonight, speaks with Eva Bartlett, who explains everything about the so-called Syrian war that the US war machine and the Australian Government doesn’t want you to know. Camp is a comedian with his own show, but he has made a special video of this interview. (Video inside article)

Australia's population growth has exceeded every other major developed nation over the last decade. Political & economic elites are flooding our country with immigrants for the purpose of lowering wages and increasing demand for real estate and headline GDP growth. Disgraceful. In Dick Smith’s words: We are conducting a risky experiment that has no parallel among developed nations, with a population growth rate that exceeds most developing countries. https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-risky-experiment-that-has-no-parallel-among-developed-nations-20180327-p4z6h7.html

Although extinctions are accelerating, our green spaces are disappearing, our housing is unaffordable, our traffic is choked, state governments continue to advertise for more and more immigrants. It is false advertising and it is subversive to democracy. The screenshot below is of the Victorian State Government's immigration portal, "LiveinMelbourne," where it advertises as if Victoria had no problems, as if Victorians had given it permission, for more and more people to come and live here. Do you think our government is fit to govern a democracy?

This is a truly outstanding analysis, by James Corbett of the Corbett Report, of an unusual case of internet bullying. It is an unusual case because it involves adults bullying adults. Furthermore, it involves journalists bullying journalists. Additionally, the first journalist, Sibel Edmonds, who is being mean to another journalist, Vanessa Beeley, is an ex-FBI employee. It seems that the objective is for Budnews, which Sibel Edmonds owns, to undermine real alternative news. All the stranger since Sibel Edmonds has appeared on many sites she now implies are fake news and has endorsed their points of view on Syria. It is not as if she is coming out and saying that she has changed her mind; she appears to be in some form of denial. Her apparent confidence in carrying out a campaign of evident defamation, lacking logic, truth or moderation, is hard to understand, unless she has major financial backing. It is hard to see any other beneficiaries of her political campaign, which I would call severe disinformation, except the US-NATO military industrial and media complex. This complex already has the backing of the entire corporate media, but it seems that it has a program of encouraging fake alternative news-sites, because its ability to dominate middle-class and influential 'memes' is severely threatened by real alternative news reporting. By the way, candobetter.net has published articles by Vanessa Beeley, based on their logic, her reporting from the field, and our knowledge of the situation in Syria, which is based on geopolitical experience, history and geography, plus multiple sources and logic, unlike reports emanating from the corporate media.

This video begins with an overview of what the corporate media are feeding us this week, but quickly goes onto the real news about continuing global conflict, Trump's behaviour and Israel's preparations for war. They discuss a poll that claims to reveal that over 70% of Americans now believe that a 'deep state' runs the country, partly because of the reversal of Trump's pre-election policies on everything. In this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange [not to be confused with the exploitative change.org] is joined by Western Australia's wonderfully intelligent Syrian Partisan Girl. This is an enlightening discussion of how politicians are pirouetting around the threshhold of WW3, notably via politics around Syria.

This is the first time, to our knowledge, that the ABC has departed from its growthist mantra, allowing its reporters to describe the problem and really let the public know how bad it is. "We need to focus on corruption, population to halt biodiversity loss." Researchers say targets for biodiversity loss ignore key drivers such as human population and corruption." Article by ABC Science, environment reporter Nick Kilvert. First published here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556

Both Dr Ritchie and Professor Bekessy cited the death of the last male northern white rhino earlier this month as a reminder that we need to be doing more to halt the loss of species worldwide.

Professor Bekessy said she believes people may not realise how much their day-to-day decisions can impact on species loss.

"Whether we choose to have beef or vegetable for dinner, or what sort of coffee we choose to have in the morning, all of these things lead to the survival or extinction of species," she said.

"Extinction is something that people understand. All the media attention around the last white rhino — it was heartbreaking because it was really personal.

"I think, [we need to make our goal] no more extinctions."

Have you noticed the sudden unexpected coverage about population on the ABC?  On the 12^th of March, 4 Corners ran an episode called ‘Big Australia - Are We Ready.’, Directly following this was a panel discussion QandA on ‘A Big Australia’. Since then, population has continued to be one of ‘the’ major topics of discussion in the mainstream media, including ABC radio and the mainstream press such as Fairfax and News Ltd.

It is evident that much of the main focus from the media has been to manage the symptoms of a rapidly growing population rather than the cause. However, this has also been a time of great opportunity for SPA as we been very busy over the last couple of weeks getting ourselves out there and taking part in the greater discussion.

Now is a time to reflect and celebrate some of our successes.

Firstly, the panel on QandA included two SPA patrons, Bob Carr and Tim Flannery. Both provided strong arguments on the need for a population policy. Both provided great foil up against speakers from the Property Council and the Grattan Institute. Bob Carr in particular was a very strong voice for our cause and Tim Flannerry provided an environmental rationale.

Secondly, SPA was contacted by the ABC in the lead up to the QandA broadcast. The ABC specifically invited SPA members to join the Q&A studio audience.  SPA facilitated a call-out to members via social media, a national membership email-out, and through the state branches.  This resulted in a success for SPA in that one supporter, Matthew Bryan, ended up providing the first question to the QandA panel.  The question was both articulate and emotive - well done Matt!  SPA members also submitted many video questions to the QandA panel, which did not make the final broadcast.  Presenter Tony Jones said on air that the population issue was receiving unprecedented interest from the public and warranted further attention. Candobetter published a critique of the program which provides a transcript of Matthew’s question and the panel responses.

 

Image: John Standish

SPA’s Communications Manager Michael Bayliss was then contacted by ABC Melbourne to take part in Jon Faine Conversation Hour the following Friday. The episode discussed ‘A big Melbourne’ as it reaches 8 million and on the issue as to whether we need a population policy. Michael strongly advocated for SPA’s position under some very tough questions from Faine and it encouraging that so many people who called or texted in were on side, including several members of SPA’s Victoria and Tasmania branch.

Finally, Michael has recently had an article published in Independent Australia. The article has been an effective way for SPA to articulate our position in the press on population policy, both nationally and globally.  So far the article has received much positive attention, including international exposure via Population Matters. This has been important considering that there has been a lot attention on population from the mainstream press in recent weeks. Some of it has been positive but much more has been against our position. SPA member Mark Allen wrote a response article to journalist Joe Hildebrand for CandoBetter, who has recently posted some incorrect assertions on people who advocate for population sustainability in Australia.

SPA is proud of our achievements over the past month in this very important national debate, and we are cautiously optimistic that these recent events could be a turning point for a better national dialogue on population policy.

Eve Kelly, who is the very hard working Secretary for the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC), is also a wonderful singer and songwriter. She composed and performed this song with Josh Geoghegan. She then uploaded pictures of rescued baby wildlife from friends and contacts all over the place. So the song is illustrated with many wonderful pictures - in fact, they get better as it goes on. It will probably make you sniffle a bit but you will feel better to know that Eve is working for AWPC. Please consider donating to AWPC here and here online. The money will be very well spent. AWPC is engaged at a level I have not seen before for wildlife or wildlife carers. Such is the predicament of our wildlife in the face of 'planning' and population growth and the most unsympathetic government departments you could imagine.

The Electrical Trades Union has slammed a recent report by the Grattan Institute as little more than an opportunistic call to sell-off Australia’s essential electricity assets to its corporate mates. ETU National Secretary Allen Hicks described the report as lacking integrity and avoiding the real cost drivers in Australia’s energy system. He also drew attention to the numerous fires started by electrical infrastructure faults. This is a matter that preoccupies us at candobetter.net as we see more and more bush cleared, wildlife lose habitat, and all the while most fires are started by humans and electrical faults. The Victorian Bushfire Commission has institutionalised this cruel absurdity.

“When it comes to issues with price and reliability, Australia’s broken energy laws coupled with decades of privatisation are the real culprits,” Mr Hicks said. “This cherry-picked report fails to critically assess the role these two issues have played in driving up Australians’ power bills.”

The Grattan Institute’s assessment that states should dramatically write-down the value of their electrical networks or privatise the remaining state-owned assets is riddled with inaccuracies, Mr Hicks added.

“The Grattan Institute is living in an academic dystopia, claiming our poles and wires are rolled in solid gold while consumers live through the reality of maintenance cuts, meaning more frequent and longer power outages,” he said.

“A lack of federal leadership has meant we are constantly seeing our broader energy network fail under immense strain. Victorians watch nervously, hoping there won’t be repeat of Black Saturday. In NSW farmers see rotten poles collapsing and sparking blazes. And the people of Darwin suffer as staffing cuts see their restoration times grow ever longer.

“Barely 12 months ago, the Grattan Institute released a report condemning the privatised energy retailers’ role in driving prices up. Now they can’t decide if privatisation is the failure or the saviour.”

In the wake of another devastating bushfire on the NSW South Coast town of Tathra last week – that appears to have been sparked by an electrical fault – suggesting that networks are overvalued is complete nonsense.

“The Grattan report suggests Victoria set the standard for network privatisation but the dangerous degradation of poles and wires in that state proves otherwise,” Mr Hicks said.

“We’re now nine years on from Victoria’s devastating Black Saturday bushfire that claimed 173 lives, left more than 400 people injured and destroyed 2029 homes. That fire came 13 years after privatisation. But nearly a decade on from Black Saturday, a recent report from Energy Safe Victoria shows many of the royal commission’s recommendations to prevent a repeat of the blaze are yet to be addressed.

“The poles and wires across the state of Victoria are plagued with dangerous problems. In a period from October 2015 to July 2017 faults in poles and wires were found to be the cause of 252 fires. That’s about 11 blazes sparked each month by ailing infrastructure that is supposed to be maintained by private operators.

“The Electrical Trades Union firmly believes power can and should be cheaper. History has proven it won’t come through privatisation and it cannot come from cutting costs on network investment and maintenance.”

Research: Electrically caused wildfires in Victoria, Australia are over-represented when fire danger is elevated

In Claire Miller et al, "Electrically caused wildfires in Victoria, Australia are over-represented when fire danger is elevated, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 167, November 2017, Pages 267-274, " the research:

• Compares occurrence of fires in elevated fire danger conditions from different causes across the state of Victoria, Australia.
• Fires caused by faults in electricity distribution infrastructure are more prevalent at elevated fire dangers.
• Fires caused by electricity infrastructure burn larger areas, on average, than those from all other causes, except lightning.

Abstract
Electricity distribution infrastructure causes fewer wildfires than most other sources of ignition. However, these fires have been associated with more severe consequences than those from other causes. This paper examines whether fires caused by faults in electricity distribution infrastructure occur more often during periods of elevated fire danger, thereby increasing their consequence. The occurrence of wildfires caused by electricity distribution infrastructure were compared to those attributed to other causes during periods of elevated fire danger across the State of Victoria, Australia, where historically such fires have had significant impact on lives and assets of value. The results provided strong evidence that fires caused by electrical faults are more prevalent during elevated fire danger conditions and that they burn larger areas than fires ignited by most other causes. As a result the consequences of fires caused by electricity infrastructure are worse than fires from other causes. This knowledge highlights the importance of mitigating ignition-causing faults in the electricity network, particularly on days of elevated fire danger.

This article or essay is a response to some typical growthist responses to the question posed by Mikhael Bornstein on a Quora forum here: "How long before our species realizes that overpopulation is the root cause to almost all of our global problems?. I describe how growthists narrow the range of their argument, what they leave out, and I analyse how they mistaken the hypothetical for the actual, acting as if the solutions they propose for obvious overpopulation problems, were already happening, when most probably never will.

The arguments I explore came from a US computer science professor, who wrote that he did not worry about population growth because he believed that the world is not overpopulated. His reasons for this were that human population is predicted to 'top out around 10 to 11 billion later this century', that there is plenty of food, energy and natural resources for 9-11 billion people, because these natural resources do not leave the earth and with advanced technology and inexpensive energy, we will be able to recycle them - except for fossil fuels, which he believes won't be needed beyond this century. He thinks that some 'under-developed' countries have an over-population problem because many of their governments are corrupt or anarchistic, impacting on food distribution and education. And, if women are not educated, they do not know about birth control or affordable birth control is not available. He thinks, however, that, in a few decades, most underdeveloped countries will be developed. [This is a belief that people have held since the 1950s or before,that it will all be fixed in a decade or two.] The professor thinks that the developing countries risk population decline and need immigration to maintain them. Those that are not growing, like Japan, need more adult diapers than baby diapers, he adds. He expresses concern that a bigger problem will be maintaining the world population in developed countries, without it decreasing too rapidly.

My responses

With all due respect, I find that Prof Farrages’s answer survives on the narrow range of values it canvasses. It is the values it leaves out that bring it down, along with the theoretical perspective that ignores how things are actually organised.

Other species and the natural world

A major value it fails to take into account is the natural world and other species. This part of the world is suffering terribly because of human expansion and it cannot cope. Our species had close relationships with other species and the natural world for almost all of its existence. Now we are being deprived of that due to human population growth and expansion, along with the constant growth in consumerism that our modern economies rely on. This is my number one complaint about population growth.

Inhuman mechanised farm production

There is also the terrible inhumanity of feedlots and battery farming, which are 'justified' economically because of the scale required to feed vast human populations. The effluent from this intensified farming wrecks rivers and the animals are often kept permanently on antibiotics because intensive farming raises infection risks.

High rise myopia and other health problems

Humans living in high-rises in dense cities are similar to battery hens in a number of ways. Their lack of outside activity causes myopia in children. High density means exposure to more infections, especially gastric, cold and flu. When these are treated with antibiotics they give rise to secondary problems, including antibiotic resistance and clostridium difficil, which can kill people, is becoming common, but often overlooked, especially in the elderly.

Food distribution and the profit motive

In theory there might be plenty of food, energy and natural resources for 9-11 billion people, but theory is not actuality. Food is not distributed according to need, but to income in our modern systems. Man does not live by bread alone, either.

Materials and energy resources, war and occupation

There are many resources that are scarce, for instance rare earth elements. Cobalt is a major driver of criminal international exploitation and environmental destruction in the Congo. New ways of producing cobalt won't stop that because people can still make money by using slave labour and violence to get the cobalt cheaply. Except in a command economy, new technologies are only taken up when the old are exhausted if the old can be exploited cheaply.

Petroleum is not as plentiful as it was; much of what is now classed as petroleum is actually lease condensate, coal-oil, vegetable oil, and the last two have major consequences, one with pollution and the other by wrecking wildlife habitat and landscapes. We are destroying orangutan habitat for palm oil, just to name one horrendous consequence. If petroleum were plentiful in relation to our population growth and consumption, then we would not have petroleum wars in the Middle East, but we do, with US-NATO the main cause, because it does not want Russia, China or Middle Eastern Countries to have any control over fossil fuels, even those on their doorsteps. The US does the same thing to South American oil-producing states and US-NATO sponsors wars and warlords in places like Somalia because US-NATO presence there means they are close by the petroleum producing states.

Coal is being exploited at a rate and scale never seen before - because it is there, because it is cheaper. Cheap is what drives most economic activity, using slavery, stealing land, and creating wars. (By the way, my quals on this is that I am Sheila Newman Ed. The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, UK, 1st and 2nd edition (co-edited), which were collections of different scientists writing about future prospects for energy.)

Non-fossil fuel energy resources

Yes, there are non-fossil fuel technologies, but they are not 'cheap'. Also they carry a lot of embodied energy in the materials that must be mined to create them. The reality is that they (a) require organisation that the desire for cheapness in the Anglosphere makes impossible (b) they can produce for smaller, lower consumption populations, but the savage capitalism that characterises the Anglosphere demands more and more people to consume more and more stuff - and that needs fossil fuel - so that brings us back to the lowest common denominator again.

Population and democracy

Population growth costs in all kinds of ways. A bigger population means a smaller you. The discouragement of nationalism in favour of open borders by globalists means that nations cannot organise properly to take charge of their population numbers so that they live the lives they want, with the values they want, rather than suffering the consequences of theoretical arguments for more population growth.

The writer characterises third world overpopulation as partly caused by corrupt governments, but the governments in the first world are increasingly corrupt as well, hell-bent on inflating the cost of resources by driving up population growth. Democracy is disappearing in the Anglosphere, as I have implied already.

The Aging population

The writer repeats an old furphy of the 'aging population'. The aging population argument completely ignores the fact that the world's population, including that of almost all 'developed' countries, is bigger than it has ever been, by an order of magnitude. These huge numbers reflect the availability of cheap fossil fuels, which is now in question.

Once again there is a theoretical perspective that pretends that it is reasonable, cost-free, democratic and desirable to engineer population growth to not only maintain this unprecedented population behemoth, but to try and increase it! At some stage the number of children has to go down in proportion to the number of aged: other wise we grow forever and life will become more and more unaffordable.

Population pressure on land and housing prices pushes up the cost of living so high that it becomes too expensive for anyone who does not have high wages - which includes elderly people. This problem resolves itself if you stop importing economic immigrants and allow populations to adjust themselves downwards naturally. Then the prices of all vital resources, including housing and land, come down, and the cost of living with it. This is what has happened in Japan. People are actually returning to Japan because it is becoming such a nice place to live and the cost of living is going down.

One more thing: comparing children from 0-15yrs old with say, people over 65 is an unreal comparison, because it generalises between two cohorts of unequal size. Furthermore, as many young people would know, especially in 'developed' countries, young people may spend much longer as 'dependents' either on their parents or on the state, because they cannot get enough work and because education is increasingly expensive.

Educating girls and immigration

In my country girls are relatively well educated, but our population keeps growing due to mass economic immigration, invited by government and growth lobby.

This is also happening in the 'third world', for instance, Africa. African tribal borders and an associated orderly Africa have been destroyed and there are constantly immigrating and emigrating populations, many of them going in and out of cities, adding both to marriage and fertility opportunities (previously limited by need to find partners within your tribe) in much the same way as is happening in the countries of the first world that are receiving mass immigration.

Immigration is a fundamental driver of population growth. Natural populations in most species, including our own, are small and endogamous. That is, tribe members marry other tribe members. This endogamy is a fertility opportunity limiter. Mass immigration is a fertility accelerator because it stimulates exogamy - which means marrying outside your tribe, which means increasing the proportion of people in a society who reproduce, which was usually limited before our era of globalisation. (See Sheila Newman, Demography Territory Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations).

The problem with the theoretical perspective

This theoretical perspective is common to the growth lobby, which tries to minimise problems by talking about how they might be fixed one day as if that were actually happening. Where I live, population growth in Australia is causing massive problems and 74 % of Australians want government to stop artificially engineering population growth (60+ % fueled by mass economic immigration and 80% of New South Wales' last year). See Betts & Birrell: Australian voters’ views on immigration policy: Full Report. One of the main reasons people want population growth to stop is due to exponentially rising traffic congestion, housing prices, homelessness, and changes to laws to remove peoples' right to object to draconian unbelievably expensive infrastructure 'solutions' that don't even solve the problems, but make engineering firms rich and cause engineering technofix ideology to dominate. The growth lobbyists (property developers and financiers - plus upstream and downstream industries) now dominate the mass media and the government and constantly pretend that all this can go on if we 'provide infrastructure'. Part of what is wrong with that is that property development is carried out on bushland and green spaces because they can be bought more cheaply and then rezoned. It also competes with things communities created for themselves. For instance there has been a rash of closing down 50m community swimming pools because population growth has forced up the ‘value’ of the land and developers think that they can make more money by building for more intensive occupaton, using what was public land.

The reality is land-speculation, although the theory is 'smart growth'. And we don't want more infrastructure or more population, because infrastructure is closing in on us even though inadequate to cope with the growth. There are actually systems that deal with planning better, such as France's, but those systems also discourage population growth, which is rightly seen as a cost to the state, which develops the land and subsidises the housing. (On France see Sheila Newman, The Growth Lobby in Australia and its Absence in France:

The new film by Andrei Kondrashev, Putin dives into depth about the man the press gossips about, the object of jealousy for other politicians, but about whom we know very little. The film starts with the collapsed Russian economy in Putin's early days of presidency, how he dealt with terrorism, and how he helped Russia recover economically and socially. It was a year in the making and contains personal stories that have never been told on camera before, some of which are described as shocking and stunning: Attempts on the president’s life and the toll of the presidency on Vladimir Putin himself – all combine in what is the most most complete portrait of Vladimir Putin to date. The film runs for two hours and ten minutes.

This is a very interesting question. Although not familiar with the exact trajectory of India’s demographics over the period, I know of several things that started its population growing beyond what it would have been pre-British colonisation. You can see my books on the subject here: About Sheila Newman, social researcher I would also really like to have some more details and discussion on Indian demographic history, so anyone with ideas, please contact me. [This article is based on a question and my answer posted on Quora at https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-reasons-for-the-rapid-growth-of-population-after-Indian-independence]

Here is my explanation:

HENRY JAMES SUMNER AND LAND-TENURE AND INHERITANCE LAWS

For starters, the British rewrote Indian land tenure and inheritance laws to ressemble their own, which promote high population growth. I do not know whether these rewrites left any part of India alone.

Henry James Sumner Maine was the British lawyer who rewrote the laws. As I recall, he believed, correctly, that male primogeniture, increases the chances of capitalism.

HOW DOES PRIMOGENITURE INCREASE POPULATION GROWTH?

The way it does this is to favour the aggregation of land in private hands: only one person inherits the land, and the rest become landless labour, for factories, agriculture, army, religious orders. Land aggregation was also favoured by the fact that women could not inherit land, but their husbands could, so Lord X might marry Miss Y, who had no brothers, then he would get her family fortune. In the 17th century land began to be commodified and land-titles, instead of entailing responsibilities and rights to various members of the local community, were redrafted under a single title holder. Now that title holder could buy and sell land that had previously been kept together by the entailments and rights of others. The excuse, under pareto-sufficiency economics was that, as long as the winner of a dispute put more money into the economy through selling land, then it didn’t matter who lost out in the meantime, even if they died of cold because they had lost their entitlement to cut wood on the property, for instance. That’s how British law works and how it works in all the countries that Britain carried that law to. (In continental Europe, under the Roman law system with Napoleonic civil codes, population growth is largely democratically controlled and the societies remain relatively endogamous and sedentary - especially compared to Britain.)

Male primogeniture also increases the rate of population growth, unless it happens within a sedentery endogamous society where people live on the land and most do not marry. When people cannot for some reason survive on the land, they are forced to wander in search of a living. This breaks up endogamous clans and tribes and causes new marriage opportunities by exposing the wanderers to a larger pool of people, when they might previously have remained in ‘house’ families, where only one couple bred and the rest were aunties and uncles helping, in exchange for home and food.

Before British rule, it is probable that India was composed of many endogamous tribes (or peoples), subdivided into smaller kinship groups of skins or moities. (Note that I use the term ‘tribe’ to indicate a people made up of related clans, not to indicate a non-agricultural society or something.) (Let us leave aside the castes for a moment.) The populations of these tribes and the skins or moities within them would have been much smaller. The tribes would be in part defined by their territory, which would generally remain fixed as the tribes were ‘sedentary’ - meaning did not move around much.

Tribes have rules about marriage that keep their numbers within the limits of their territory and its ability to support people, based on a tension between endogamy (marrying within your clan, skin, tribe) and exogamy (marrying outsiders). (Animals and plants also do this.) [I have a theory as to how they do it and I wrote about it in Sheila Newman: Demography Territory Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations and the next book in the series, called Sheila Newman: Demography Territory Law: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain, in case you are interested.] I have also published diagrams of how these rules work, if you are interested, at this URL: Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory

The tension between endogamy and exogamy limits the number of people who actually marry and therefore the fertility rate. Exogamy enlarges your marriage pool and therefore raises growth rate potential.

GENDER SEPARATION AND MALE AND FEMALE LAND

Tribes also have rules and traditions that keep the genders more or less separate and this also reduces marriage opportunity. For instance, men and women of Australian Aborigines often lived in separate quarters, engaged in different activities in different sections of the tribal land. In the Pacific Islands and Africa, and probably everywhere once, men and women had separate land, and even villages. A couple might live together for a while after marriage, but generally the woman went back to her female kin and raised the children, with the boys going to live with the men when they were around six years old.

TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES

Different transport technologies mean that you can go further in search of a mate than you could just on foot. So elephants, horses, boats, cars, trains, aeroplanes all contribute to increasing fertility opportunities. The most exogamous systems are cities and the global economy.

BRITISH SYSTEM IMPACT

The British system dispossessed and dispersed endogamous and sedentary tribes, completely breaking their endogamous systems and distancing them from local biofeedback that helped set the algorithms for endogamy/exogamy. The British then imposed inheritance laws that further interrupted the usual way that people inherited the territory they were born on. They probably also changed the land-title system and accelerated land-commodification, developing a financial system that had little relationship to the biophysical qualities of the actual land.

CASTES

Castes seem to be a relic of past invasions and takeovers and the British imperialists were another cast, but fueled by coal and iron.

Pre-British castes existed and intermarried within their own. A ruling caste is probably always smaller in number than the caste they rule over. That is because the ruling caste acts like a dynasty to consolidate their land-holding and power, by intermarrying with close relatives. This means that they have very limited marriage opportunities, but a lot of land and power per person, living in a kind of House system (called cooperative breeding in non-human species) in palaces etc. The people they rule over - the lower caste - is characteristically squeezed into smaller land areas, with less power. It may have once consisted of a large tribe with various skin groups and gender pathways. As the dominated caste is squeezed in together, these pathways and skin divisions get mixed up and broken. Usually there are battles and the deaths of the overtaken tribe cause marriage vacancies. Too many changes to write about here. If the lower caste remains endogamous and sedentary, then its population will be limited. If, however, as under the British system, if finishes up without land and having to work for low wages in cities, it will (a) have increased marriage and fertility opportunities and (b) if there are no laws enforced against child labour, may have a lot of children because their small wages will enhance the household income.

HOW DID ENGLAND GET THIS WAY?

I’ll just add that the British land-tenure and inheritance system of primogeniture, which only changed in the 1920s, was imposed on the British by William the Conqueror, who came from areas of France settled by Vikings in the 19th and 10th century. Under Viking inspired law, Britain was a colonial frontier that had to be defended by knights. The knights received parcels of land from the king in exchange for defending it. Women were not considered to be fighters, so the land and the buildings on it, could only be owned and passed on by men.

After the primogeniture rule changed in the 1920s, the system still tended to dispossess and cause landless labour because there were no rules requiring parents to pass on their estate to their children. (This was the subject of my book, Demography Territory Law 2: Land-tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014.) Under Roman law, however, the law compels parents to pass on their estate to children equally to both sexes. This is how land remains relatively proportionately within families and you have male and female inheritance lines. (The French system is the subject of the book I am currently writing which will be called, Demography Territory Law 3: Land-tenure and the Origins of Democracy in France.

'Immigration debate is just left wing racism', according to the headline of Joe Hildebrand's latest article at news.com.au http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/immigration-debate-is-just-leftwing-racism/news-story/ee5a958fe3447e9cc247f59fdae8d344. He then goes on to assert that questioning our rate of immigration is an ideology confined only to the far right and the far left. Really? I would like to take this opportunity to re-assure readers that it is in fact a concern for Australians from all political backgrounds and walks of life and we ignore this at our peril.

This is why it was actually the duty of every media outlet from the Herald Sun to the 'quintessential progressive media double act of Fairfax and the ABC' to bring this conversation into the public realm. Bearing in mind that our cities will need to have a further 1.5 trillion dollars of infrastructure investment by 2045 just to keep up, this sudden interest from the ABC was, in fairness, a bit late in coming. Even Tony Jones acknowledged the sheer amount of concern that there is on this issue during a Q&A special on whether or not we are ready for a Big Australia.

So comparing all lefties who question our current rate of immigration with the kind of mindset that sparked the Cronulla riots is very problematic. The truth is that unless you are an advocate of open borders, there comes a point whereby everyone has a limit to what they think our annual rate of migration should be. In other words, according to Hildebrand, there comes a point whereby everyone becomes a racist.

Then there are those who do want to see a policy of open borders but that would do absolutely nothing to resolve the very issues that are pushing people to leave their homeland in the first place. In other words it does nothing to help the vast majority of people who, for one reason or another, would be left behind.

This is why a proactive measure such as foreign aid as opposed to a reactive measure such as unlimited migration can help communities on the ground to better manage their environment while providing increased access to education and family planning. That, in combination with much improved urban and regional planning at home, is the ONLY way that we can collectively reduce habitat loss and stabilise populations across the world.

So although Hildebrand is correct in saying that 'cutting the immigration rate to Australia does little to reduce the global population' it is nevertheless a massive oversimplification of a much more complex issue. When you consider that the world's population is growing by 80 million a year, immigration really is the least effective way of dealing with global population pressures.

Of course this is not to say that we shouldn't have immigration. Australia has a proud history of people moving to our shores from overseas and it really is something that we should be proud of. The good news is that we can continue to have a sizeable rate of migration because as Joe sort of points out, if we had no migration at all, our population would eventually start to decrease.

So at the very least we can have an annual migration intake of around 70,000 a year (which happened to be our long term average before John Howard came to power) and this would allow our population to start to level off over time. This means that we can continue to not only maintain our current rate of refugee intake but also be in a position to increase it if we ever decide to go down that path.

It would also buy us the time to play catch-up in terms of getting decent public transport infrastructure in place and crucially it would buy us the time to achieve the slower rate of development that comes with an increased focus on urban regeneration as opposed to mostly relying upon land releases on the urban fringes of our cities.

We are more than capable of innovating new ways to grow the economy without relying on population growth and it is simply untrue to assume that reducing migration will leave us with a skills shortage. As recently as March 18, Caroline Winter reported on the ABC that 'there are calls from the multicultural community for an internship program to be adopted to help skilled migrants get local experience, and a chance at work in their chosen field'. So it is clear that many migrants are not simply walking straight into jobs.

Make no mistake, the main reason why we have a high rate of immigration is not because we have a massive skills shortage, it is not because we are rescuing people from poverty, and it is not because we have an ageing population (we can easily innovate our way through that). It is because it boosts GDP and in the words of Joe Hockey, it is a lazy way of doing it. So it really is crucial that we keep this conversation going and resist the urge to label those who disagree with us with sweeping statements. Instead we all need to work collectively to find solutions that benefit Australia and the world as a whole.

The author, Mark Allen, is an environmental activist who has worked as a town planner. He is a member of Sustainable Population Australia.