(We) can do better

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year. The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing. Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls.

Letter

The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP

Minister for the Environment and Energy

Dear Minister

End the senseless destruction of our wildlife - stop the carnage and destruction in NSW

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year.
The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing.

Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls. These changes will:

-add extinction pressures to our state's 1000 threatened species;
-threaten our clean, reliable water supplies;
-turn our fertile land into wasteland through erosion and salinity;
-put landmark trees and bushland at risk; and
-add further to Australia's carbon pollution.

In 2015, a study by NSW Parks and Wildlife found that 60,000 hectares was being cleared per year in the state — a four-fold increase on previous State Government figures.

Professor Hugh Possingham warned that rather than protecting biodiversity, the laws would allow a doubling of broad-scale clearing that would put some native animals at risk of extinction.

The primary objections of Professor Possingham are that the government is proposing self-assessable codes that will result in broad-scale land clearing, thus degrading soil, water and biodiversity, and that the ‘no net loss’ standard against which clearing should be measured has not made the draft legislation. Despite the weight of scientific expertise opposed to the legislation the Baird Government has pressed on regardless. How are those with short-term, vested interests in monetary gain, allowed to determine their own rate of land clearing? Environmental protection is in everybody's interests, and that of future generations. Eradicating habitat is a silver-bullet for more threatened species, and native flora and fauns extinctions - already we have one of the highest rates in the modern world! Tourist come to see, and rightly expect to see, our wonderful mega-diverse range of iconic native species - vegetation, marsupials, birds, and other native wildlife. They don't want to see barren, cleared landscapes, urban sprawl and industries!

The current laws are supposed to prevent that kind of clearing without permits. The changes, which the government says were developed through a "rigorous, transparent, scientific and evidence-based process," allow farmers more freedom to clear their land without having to find equivalent areas of offsets. This is vandalism, and not only will we lose precious biodiversity functions, and native animals/birds, but we will see more desertification in the future - hardly the route to more production and more food!

The Sydney Basin, for instance, has some 1900 koalas under limited protection, with about 300 of the marsupials resident near Campbelltown one of the areas with rapid housing growth. This is because our rate of immigration is set on full-throttle levels - and not inevitable.

Last year 47,000 native animals and birds were killed in NSW by property owners using a "s121 licence". Each licence strictly controls the number of animals permitted to killed, and requires data to be lodged with the Office of Environment and Heritage. The office issued permits for 34 species, or a total of 145,550 animals and birds to be killed in 2015-16. This included more than 100,000 eastern grey kangaroos, almost 9000 corellas, 6500 sulphur crested cockatoos, 5500 galahs, 655 emus, 175 swamp wallabies, 113 wombats and 83 magpies. What sort of department of "Environment and Heritage" actually gives out so many permits to kill off native species? Some Orwellian oxymoron? They are killing off the ENVIRONMENT, habitat, biodiversity and vandalizing NSW's natural HERITAGE. How can this horrendous carnage be permitted, or justified?

Almost 1000 species of plants and animals are currently endangered in NSW, mainly due to land clearing. Over 40% of the state has already been cleared for agriculture, mining and development purposes and of what’s left, just 9% is in good condition. This leaves very little room for our native animals to maintain their homes. Since the "bad old days" of colonisation, and ignorance, biodiversity has been in steady decline in NSW. For the last 10 years, previous Governments have been working hard to halt and improve this decimation of our local plants and animals, armed with two environment protection acts – the 1995 Threatened Species Conservation Act and the 2003 Native Vegetation Act. They aren’t perfect but the World Wildlife Fund reckons these laws have saved the lives of around 250 000 of our furry amigos to date, including koalas and other native animals.

So why the new Colonial land-clearing permits, a return to the dark ages of ignorance, and law-less-ness? What about the national laws and policies that protect our native species?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined in the Act as matters of national environmental significance.

Specifically, the EPBC Act aims to:

-conserve Australia? biodiversity
-protect biodiversity internationally by controlling the international movement of wildlife
-provide a streamlined environmental assessment and
-approvals process where matters of national environmental significance are involved
-protect our world and national heritage
-promote ecologically sustainable development.

So, why isn't this Act being implemented against the rogue Baird government? What are our Environment ministers doing to stop the Baird governments vandalism, and destruction?

Vivienne Ortega

Secretary, Australian Wildlife Protection Council

http://www.awpc.org.au

[email protected]

The two videos inside this article are Parts 1 and 2 of a seminar on "The Right of Blasphemy - No to Medieval Trials" which took place in Rome, Italy, on Sunday, October 30, 2016. The seminar aimed at raising awareness of the fierce campaign against the enlightening intellectuals in the Arab world. From assassinating the writer and intellectual; Nahed Hattar in Jordan, imprisoning the Islamic researcher; Islam Behery In Egypt, and the liberal blogger; Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, to sentencing the journalist; Mohamed Sheikh Walad Amkheter to death, to other, endless examples. “Blasphemy”is always a prefabricated accusation of anyone who tries to discuss or think differently. Of additional interest is the fact that the president of the secularist ADHOC organisation that held this very open-minded seminar was Syrian-born Randa Kassis, who recently met with Donald Trump Jr at the French 'think tank' the Center of Political and Foreign Affairs, headed by her husband, Fabien Baussart, to discuss US-Russian cooperation. (See "Hope for Syria! Trump's son at Randa Kassis pro-Syrian French think tank in October."

DR NADIA OWEIDAT: "I have felt personally in my entire ten years of being an analyst in Washington [...] that I am constantly accused of being not authentic enough because I'm not an Islamist.

So there's somebody has decided that if you from the region and it doesn't matter like I come from the biggest tribe in Jordan - my tribe goes back to the time of the Pharaohs - [...] but that doesn't make me authentic because I'm not religious. I'm not Islamist. Not just not really, just I'm not Islamist.

So I've had this accusation and its really irritating who has decided that unless an Islamist I'm not an authentic voice from the Middle East. [...]

We have to fight this because this sympathy is really costing the entire world, because it's a huge imbalance in siding with Islamist as authentic. [...]

Political Islamist parties have proven over and over that they are very authoritarian and there's enough of us in the Middle East that are really sick and tired of authoritarianism. We would like to see real human rights, would like to see real engagement. We want to play a role in building our countries and were excluded from from that engagement. [...] Islam is like returning regimes exclude everybody [...] who doesn't carry their vision. It's not even vision their narrow-minded ideology. So this really needs to be tackled [...]" (Dr. Nadia Oweidat: Modern Islamic thought professor.)

It has been very difficult to discover the list of participants and all their names. Below is a list advertised on the International Humanist and Ethical Union, IHEU site in England.

Speaker list:
1. Dr. Hamed Abdel-Samad: German-Egyptian writer and critic of Islamism.
2. Dr. Nadia Oweidat: Modern Islamic thought professor.
3. Dr. Saaed Nashed: Moroccan writer and intellectual, concerned with the issues of modernism and enlightenment.
4. Dr. Olfa Youssef: Tunisian writer, author, professor.
5. Dr. Elizabeth O’Casey: Advocacy Director of IHEU and representative at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
6. Mr. Majed Hatar brother of the assassinated Jordanian writer Nahed Hatar

Whilst one can obtain an automated transcript of the speeches via you tube's transcript function, the accuracy is poor. I have tried to transcribe parts of the first and the second speeches and may put these up later.

During the recent United States' presidential election campaign almost the entire mainstream was heavily biased against Donald Trump, and in favour of Hillary Clinton. Surprisingly, given Hillary Clinton's repeated claim that Donald Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin, the Russian news service RT America was also strongly biased against Donald Trump. Whilst it would be wrong to conclude from this that Clinton was actually Putin's puppet, rather than Trump, how was it possible for a Russian taxpayer-funded news service to act against Russia's own interests by promoting the russophobic Clinton?

Presenters Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace and their guest, Ed Schultz, presenter of RT America's news service, were savagely critical of Donald Trump in their show Now on to election night: 3rd and final debate with Ed Schultz (21/10/16). Guest, Ed Schultz, predicted that Donald Trump would lose. Whilst I thought, as did many American voters, that Donald Trump clearly won the third Presidential election debate, as well as the second, all three in that discussion on Watching the hawks agreed that he had lost that debate. (There was a small facade of criticism of Clinton from Schultz and Ventura, possibly because they may well have understood that failure to see some fault in Clinton could have caused their credibility to suffer too much.)

Also mirroring the mainstream media's 'reporting' and commentary, the rest of RT America spent nearly all of its coverage of the election attacking the alleged bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and temperamentalism of Donald Trump, whilst omitting discussion of the substantial policies, both domestic and international, that were at stake, and ignoring the mountain of evidence that should have damned Hillary Clinton years ago.

That evidence includes Hillary Clinton's complicity, since 1990, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Central Asia, the Middle East and the former republics of Yugoslavia, plus the cover-up of sexual misconduct and rape allegations against her husband, the former United States' President, Bill Clinton.

RT America programs, which, in this way, also sided with Clinton, include News with Ed Schultz, Lee Camp's 'comedy' show Redacted Tonight and Watching the Hawks.

In an example of Redacted Tonight,"Trump cabinet is horrifying, get rid of Electoral College, and TPP is dead," (19/11/16), the promotional summary states:

In this week's episode of Redacted Tonight, Lee Camp covers the latest news on Trump’s cabinet, which already has people panicking. What should we fear most about Trump's cabinet picks? Is he really draining the swamp?

In what seems like an attempt to cover their tracks following Donald Trump's victory, Ed Schultz and the producers of Watching the Hawks now appear to be backing away from the pro-Clinton bias they displayed during the election campaign. However, Redacted Tonight and The Big Picture continue their savage attacks on Donald Trump. Post-election examples of this in The Big Picture include: Why Trump's cabinet is a basket of deplorables (21/10/16) and Will Tulsi Gabbard go from Bernie to Trump?.

Comments after the second show listed above include:

"Is Thom channeling George Soros now? Honestly, he used to have quite an amusing program due to allowing some intelligent and witty right wingers on his panel. Now it is all straight propaganda for the faux left."

"Yep. The show is embarrassing."

"comic-relief?"

"RT should bin 'The Big Picture'. The episode with Lawson and Badawi was truly awful. If we wanted to listen to all this rabid globalist propaganda we could tune in to any of the mainstream media news channels. RT should be presenting the benefits of a MULTI-POLAR globe, not pushing the narratives of the American globalisers. What next? Is RT planning on promoting the Democrats view that the US should punish Russia for existing?"

Quite possibly Thom Hartmann and Lee Camp are banking that the various moves now underway in America to overturn Donald Trump's victory and declare Hillary Clinton President will succeed and restore some of their credibility.

The Russian government set up RT back in 2005. It recognised that it had failed to challenge the Western mainstream media's narrative about the former Yugoslav republic of Serbia. The lack of any strong media to challenge those western media lies then had permitted the United States and its European allies to bomb that country and overthrow its government in 1999.

Since then, RT and other national news services such as Iran's PressTV have helped to counter the Western mainstream media's lying narrative on Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen. Perhaps in part, consequently, the United States' and its allies' regime-change plans for Syria and Yemen have yet to succeed. These plans have also to contend with the support of the Russian air force, the Lebanese Hezbollah movement and Iran for Syria, along with the resilience of the Syrian people themselves.

RT should not rest on its laurels, however. Its success invites subversion. The apparent (failed) attempt by RT America to make Hillary Clinton President of the United States illustrates that RT America should be thoroughly overhauled with new journalists and a charter that requires RT America to give both sides of the story wherever that story is seriously disputed.

The same comment applies, of course, to the mainstream western media.

NOTES

The above article was adapted from a comment posted by 'Don't Get Fooled Again' beneath an article worth reading, Trump's Media Summit Was a 'F−−−ing Firing Squad' (22/11/16) by Emily Smith and Daniel Happer | Information Clearing House.

Thirty people, including Donald Trump Jr., attended an event on October 11, 2016 at the Paris Ritz. The event was hosted by a French think tank, founded by Fabien Baussart,and his wife, Randa Kassis. Ms Kassis is Syrian born and the organisation has been trying, with Russia, to end the war in Syria. Baussart has described as "absurd" the political stance on Syria of the US and some countries in Europe.This meeting occurred prior to Donald Trump Sr.'s election to President of the United States. It gives support to many hopes that President Elect Trump meant business when he talked of cooperating with the Syrian Government and Russia to end the war in Syria over which he rightly accused the Hillary Clinton and Obama regime of incompetence. Unfortunately, Australia has assiduously followed the Clinton-Obama regime line, with the shameful support of most Australian mainstream media.

Kassis wrote on her facebook page, "Syria's opposition got hope that political process will move forward and Russia and the United States will reach accord on the issue of the Syrian crisis, because of Trump's victory. Such hope and belief is the result of my personal meeting with Donald Trump junior in Paris in October… I succeeded to pass Trump, through the talks with his son, the idea of how we can cooperate together to reach the agreement between Russia and the United States on Syria."

She was also quoted by Sputnik, saying, "I think Donald Trump’s vision of the Syrian settlement will be close to Russia’s approach. I think the conflict will stop. I hope that in practice this will happen as soon as Syrian radical Islamist groups are cut off from their financing sources."

She wrote on her facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/search/str/randa%2Bkassis/keywords_search?filters_rp_author=198576333514358

As the next US president, Donald Trump could show support for Moscow's approach to the Syrian settlement. His team includes people who are ready for dialogue with Russia, French analyst Fabien Baussart told Sputnik.

Sputnik also reports that Baussart said, "State Secretary John Kerry permanently told lies to his Russia colleagues, which created obstacles for a constructive dialogue." Sputnik says that Bausart noted that Trump’s team consists of "people who can launch constructive cooperation with Russia." It adds that "Baussart underscored that the "fight against radical Islamism serves the interests not only of Russia and the US, but also of Europe and Muslims peacefully practicing their religion." "However, Britain, France and even Germany embrace an absurd closed stance on any proposals on the Syrian crisis." Read more: https://sputniknews.com/world/201611141047422760-trump-russia-syria/

The Andrews Labor government has just failed a crucial test of its integrity in relation to threatened species listings and biodiversity governance. Immediately prior to losing office in December 2010, the Brumby Labor government had finalized listing the dingo as a threatened native taxon under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

The current Labor government’s virtual trashing of that listing, through the reinstatement of a ‘wild-dog’ bounty, which directly panders to the Victorian Upper House Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party members, who were voted in on a relative handful of first preference votes, now casts a shadow over the Victorian Government’s commitment to biodiversity conservation.

The broader significance of the dingo listing relates to the dingo’s pivotal ecological role as apex predator. Ecologists around the world are increasingly pointing to the importance of top predators for ecosystem stability at a time of environmental dislocation and accelerating species loss.

The bounty is nothing more than a publicly subsidized membership recruitment drive for recreational hunting organizations because membership of such organizations is a precondition for permission to kill 'wild-dogs'/dingoes and receipt of the bounty payment.

While Jaala Pulford, the Agriculture Minister, against strong advice from peak environmental organizations and environmental experts, has obstinately persisted in reintroducing the bounty, the Environment Minister, Lily D'Ambrosio has remained invisible. No environmental defence of the bounty has been forthcoming, nor could there be.
This reflects a disturbing, environmentally destructive imbalance of ministerial responsibilities established under the previous Coalition government, whereby the Minister for Agriculture has shared responsibilities for key sections of the Wildlife and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Acts.

Labor is now demonstrating its willingness to continue the environmental dirty work of the Coalition government with little acknowledgement of the environmentally progressive legacy of the Brumby government's dingo listing and the arrangements then put in place to ensure a balanced approach to dingo protection and farm stock protection.

By reinstating the bounty, Victorian Labor has displayed serious environmental incompetence and party leaders seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Victorians deserve better.

Attached are two media releases, one by the Humane Society International (HIS) and the other by the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP). The HSI emphasises that there is no sound pest animal control justification for the bounty and that it will be environmentally harmful. The bounty of $120 per scalp will make no significant contribution to protecting farm stock from wild-dog predation.

The NDPRP Inc. highlights how the Andrews Labor Government has been captured by extreme elements of the farming lobby and recreational shooters organizations in the misguided belief that the ALP can win over a greater share of the rural vote to compensate for the likely electoral gains of the Greens at the next Victorian election.

Victorians need to ask where such extreme anti-environmentalism by Victorian Labor is heading. There is now a concerted push by the gun lobby for increased access to public lands and the advocacy of ‘community involvement’ in ‘pest animal’ management is providing the rhetorical basis for greater access. Victorians can expect that their national parks will become a focus of this push. At the moment, it is illegal to carry a firearm into national parks. However, given its present reactionary policy trajectory, Labor will likely continue to dump environmental principle in favour of political expediency.

Val Morgan

........................................................

Victorian Labor destroys legacy with backflip on dingo bounty
26th October 2016

Humane Society International (HSI) is incensed by the announcement that the Victorian Labor Government has destroyed its dingo conservation legacy with “a bigger, better bounty” than the Coalition program they scrapped just a year ago. A far cry from the previous Labor Government’s landmark listing of the dingo as a threatened species in 2008, the move signals a new era where Labor is beholden to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party with the state’s wildlife considered nothing more than collateral.

An abundance of reasons this regressive and misguided bounty program is bound to fail at the expense of Victoria’s environmental health were outlined by HSI and echoed by experts last week. They include: leaving the Government exposed to fraud; an inability to determine genetic purity in the field; and ‘wild dog’-dingo hybrids playing the same ecological role as genetically pure dingoes, including suppressing feral cat and fox populations to the benefit of countless native species.

"The Victorian Government is using taxpayer money to incentivise the killing of a threatened species with the ecological fallout to impact dozens more, it’s inexcusable and the public should be outraged. An opportunity to reform management to the mutual benefit of farmers and the environment has been ignored for purely political purposes, and we’re left with short-sighted investment in outdated methods that have repeatedly been tried and failed," said HSI Senior Program Manager Evan Quartermain.

Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford’s justification that a bounty of $120 per ‘wild dog’ scalp will be introduced “In recognition of the role hunting can play in supporting the management of wild dogs” is in stark conflict with expert organisations such as the Invasive Species Council, who have determined that shooting is a highly ineffective control measure for canid species. Similarly, Minister Pulford’s claim that “One less dog roaming on people's farms is a good outcome” demonstrates an alarming lack of ecological understanding. The latest research suggests that such control programs in fact increase stock predation due to pack disturbance altering behaviours.

“Alternative stock protection methods such as guardian animals have proven to be effective and are ripe for Government investment. Yet against all evidence the Labor Government has turned their back on the iconic and threatened dingo, bowing to shooters groups and trashing their conservation legacy by mimicking Coalition policy. They should instead be focused on strengthening the dingo’s threatened listing, with the voice of Minister for the Environment Lily D’Ambrosio conspicuous in its absence,” Mr Quartermain concluded.

HSI is currently seeking legal advice on the legality of the Victorian ‘wild dog’ bounty announced today.

Media Contact:
Evan Quartermain, Senior Program Manager: 0404 306 993 or (02) 9973 1728

HSI concentrates on the preservation of endangered animals and ecosystems and works to ensure quality of life for all animals, both domestic and wild. HSI is the largest animal protection not-for-profit organisation in the world and has been established in Australia since 1994.

https://www.hsi.org.au/go/to/2866/26th-october-victorian-labor-destroys-legacy-with-backflip-on-di.html#.WBF_ofS8-So

.............................................................

Media Release

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (Inc. A0051763G )
Date: Monday November 7 , 2016

Does Victoria have an Environment Minister? –
Agriculture Minister continues to trash threatened species listing

The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP) today expressed dismay that, as the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford, appears to have run amok with environmentally damaging ‘pest animal’ policy, the Victorian Environment Minister seems to have resigned herself to a junior minister role over crucial biodiversity decision making.

It is extraordinary that at the very same time as the Minister for Agriculture has announced a ’wild dog’ bounty, she has announced a review of the same policy in 12 month’s time by a newly established ‘Wild Dog Management Advisory Group’. The NDPRP urges the public to ask why a policy that has so little to recommend it was adopted in the first place.

Having been strongly advised by peak environmental organisations, environmental experts and progressive elements within the Victorian ALP itself that bounties are an ineffectual means of pest animal control, would undermine Victoria’s listing of the dingo as a threatened species and would be environmentally harmful, the Agriculture Minister has persisted in imposing the bounty, for which recreational hunters will receive $120 dollars for each dingo scalp. President of the NDPRP, Dr Ian Gunn, today stated:

“The announcement of a review of the bounty decision in one year’s time is clearly a concession that the Agriculture Minister has been forced into by more environmentally responsible elements within the Victorian Labor Party. However, if the justification for the bounty policy is so spurious, why was it reinstated at all? Why would the Victorian Labor government allow the Agriculture Minister to dictate poor policy that is known to have no environmental or pest management validity?”

Part of the answer is the presence of two Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party members in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, with whom political horse trading has become a priority – in this instance at the expense of good environmental management.

Dr Gunn added:

“Unfortunately, the Victorian Government is endorsing what amounts to a publically-funded membership recruitment drive for recreational hunting organisations, as membership of these organisations is an eligibility requirement collection of the bounty.”

“At present the Victorian Labor government is in a race to the bottom with the Liberal-Nationals Opposition to show that Labor can implement the toughest wild-dog policy, regardless of the environmental consequences.”

This is evident in the second stated purpose of the ‘Wild Dog Management Advisory Group’, which is to review the central pillar of the dingo threatened species listing – that lethal control for dingoes/wild dogs not be permitted beyond a 3 kilometer buffer at the interface of public and private land (on public land). This buffer was put in place by the Brumby Labor government to ensure equitable protection for both farm livestock and the threatened dingo population.

Dr Gunn stated:

“The NDPRP considers that, on being forced into a review of the flawed bounty policy before it has even begun, the Minister for Agriculture has countered by including a review of the key protective element at the heart of the dingo threatened species listing, which had been put in place by the Brumby government in 2010 – the 3 kilometer limitation on lethal control.

It appears that the Minister is effectively using her privilege of having shared responsibilities for wildlife and biodiversity conservation legislation to undermine measures previously put in place to protect Victorian biodiversity. ”

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the Victorian Labor Government’s treatment of the ‘wild-dog’ bounty issue is the invisibility of the Victorian Environment Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio.

Dr Gunn stressed:

“Any review of the terms of the dingo threatened species listing should be led by the Victorian Environment Minister and state biodiversity officers, not the Department of Agriculture. It is extraordinary that a review of key aspects of the dingo threatened species listing, arrived at through extensive stakeholder consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment in 2009, should now be subject to review by the Department of Agriculture. The public might be forgiven for asking whether Victoria has an Environment Minister at this point in time. ”

The NDPRP calls upon the Premier, Daniel Andrews, to ensure that any review of the terms of the dingo threatened species listing be conducted by the Department for the Environment and led by the Minister for the Environment. The primary focus of any such review must be biodiversity conservation, not pest animal management. The Department of Agriculture has shown itself to be incapable of responsible, balanced decision making on this issue. The current approach is quite perverse and is damaging the Victorian Labor government’s environmental credibility.

Dr Ian Gunn BVSc. FACVSc. President NDPRP, 0427 387778 (mob.) [email protected]

Canadians for a Sustainable Society is a research and activist NGO focused on changing our society’s pursuit of endless growth and ever higher levels of consumption. Simple growth is neither sustainable nor conducive to reducing inequality, debt, fiscal imbalance or achieving environmental sustainability.

Aging is a Transition, Not a Crisis

Aging is a natural trend towards an increase in the proportion of older people in our population and will continue until the Canadian population stabilizes. 

The aging trend is merely part of the much larger demographic transition which has accompanied the development of our modern societies.  In this transition, life expectancy has increased from under 40 years in the 1700s to nearly 80 and the number of children per woman has decreased from 6 to near 2.

This demographic transition features:
•    lower fertility rates
•    longer life spans and
•    higher proportions of seniors

Growth Doesn't Pay For It

Aging is inevitable and simply cannot be reversed except by catastrophic population collapse or exponential population growth continuing forever.  Aging cannot be supported  endlessly by fiscal deficits with the expectation that “growth will pay for it”.  Growth does not pay for past deficits as a larger version of a debt producing fiscal structure adds on even larger debts going forward.

Immigration Can't Fix It

Very high levels of immigration has been touted as a “fix” for an aging population.  The objective of this fix seems to be to maintain forever the age structure and the rate of growth of the baby boom period.  Ie make it the 1950s forever.  Attempting to boost immigration to levels which will run ahead of the aging trend will see extreme and ever-increasing levels of immigration with little effect on the age structure.

Why? 

• The age structure of our immigration stream is not different enough to "youthenize" our population
• Aging is a global phenomenon

We Need a Better Strategy

Understanding the nature of the changes and modifying our expectations of endless growth are the challenges which all countries will have to meet. Canada is fortunate in that many advanced societies are decades ahead in this transition and are providing an excellent reference for the development of policies which will allow us to deal successfully with the transition to demographic stability.

The best means of dealing with a shift to a higher proportion of seniors is to boost job quality and flexibility along with wage rates.  People must be encouraged to be healthy and the concept of working well past the age previously thought of as “retirement age” must be embraced.  

Neither Business-as-Usual nor Business-as-it-Once-Was is sustainable.  Make sure your media sources and your political representatives are clear on the need for well-informed progressive change in Canadian public policy.  “More of the same” is not a viable strategy.

For more in-depth discussion on aging see our page:   http://sustainablesociety.com/population/aging#.WCuUW8kUht
 

Who are Canadians for a Sustainable Society: 

Canadians for a Sustainable Society is a research and activist NGO focused on changing our society’s pursuit of endless growth and ever higher levels of consumption.   Simple growth is neither sustainable nor conducive to reducing inequality, debt, fiscal imbalance or achieving environmental sustainability.

Our group believes that only a comprehensive strategy with relevant national metrics and clear goals can deliver long term social stability and environmental balance.

Learn More about CSS

Canadians for a Sustainable Society
PO Box 77, Port McNicoll
Ontario, Canada  L0K 1R0
[email protected]

The suffering of the civilians of Madaya is terrible but it is the armed men who have infiltrated their town who bear the first responsibility for their plight. No government in the world could allow a situation to continue in which a terrorist group is holding a civilian population hostage. This is the reality of Madaya. Knowing the essential facts there is surely no Australian watching your ‘Australian Story’ who could regard a group like Ahrar al Sham with anything other than abhorrence yet in your report on Madaya this group is not even mentioned. Neither is there any attempt to question Mr Nanaa about his dealings with this group and possibly his affinity with its ideology. It is certain that he could not have operated in Madaya without its support and without at least appearing to support its aims, The outcome is a report that is superficially heart-warming but is by no means the true story of what lies behind the ‘siege’ of Madaya."

Letter to the ABC

Dear Sir/Ms,

I am writing with reference to the ‘Australian Story’ program, entitled ‘The Road from Damascus’, screened on November 21, 2016. The program dealt with the situation in the ‘rebel-held’ Syrian town of Madaya, not far from Damascus. The program succeeded in conveying the message of the suffering of civilians but even insofar as it went it lacked context and balance. The outside sources quoted included the Syrian American Medical Society and the Syria Campaign, both of which groups are aligned/embedded with ‘rebel’ forces in Syria. A third source was the US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a person whose extreme views on Syria are too well known to need recounting here.

The frequent references in the program to the ‘regime’ are consistent with mainstream media mis/representation since the beginning of this conflict. Syria does not have a ‘regime’. It has a government with voter support in presidential and parliamentary elections in recent years surpassing the percentage of voters who turned out for the recent American elections. Outside monitors from many countries confirm that these elections have been held fairly and without government intervention. The anti-government demonstrations to which your program refers were vastly outnumbered in 2012/2013 by the masses of people turning out in support of the government. Far from anti-government protests only turning violent because of the violence of the ‘regime’, as your program suggests, they were violent from their beginning in the southern city of Dara'a. Many police and soldiers were killed in the first weeks of this ‘uprising’ and while I have no firm evidence, it is my belief that the snipers firing into demonstrators, as mentioned by James Sadri, of the Syria Campaign, by implication government security forces, were in fact agents-provocateurs.

Sophie McNeill admits developing a close personal relationship with the main character in this Australian ‘story’, Khalid Nanaa. This clearly affected her ability to tell this story as it should have been told according to the standards of objective journalism. Mr Nanaa is presented as a well-meaning naif driven by good intentions and ending up providing medical assistance in the 'rebel-held' town of Madaya. The viewers were informed that ‘only now’ is he telling his story of ‘everything that happened in Syria’, which clearly he could not do, seeing that he was living either in Damascus or Madaya. This was sheer hyperbole. At one stage Mr Nanaa (a nurse and not a doctor) says he decided to treat any patient who came to see him in Madaya. His patients clearly included many children, but what we needed to know is whether he also treated wounded ‘rebels.’ My guess would be that he did, given that the ‘rebels’ control Madaya and would frequently be in need of medical services, but this question was not even asked. There is immediate sympathy for suffering children but what would have been the effect on viewers of seeing heavily bearded jihadists being treated by Mr Nanaa? The propaganda effect would certainly have been spoiled.

Your viewers were entitled to know who these loosely defined ‘rebels’ actually are, but Sophie McNeill did not take up this issue any more than she asked Mr Nanaa about his relationship with them. The answer to the question she did not ask about the ‘rebels’ holding Madaya is that they are members of one of the most violent takfiri/jihadist groups in Syria, Ahrar al Sham.

There is no shortage of detail about the background, the intentions and methods of this group. Your researchers could have turned to Nafeez Ahmed’s article in Middle East Eye (October 16, 2015), ‘Ahrar al Sham’s Apocalyptic Vision for Syria and Beyond’. Ahrar al Sham maintains a close working relationship with the recently rebranded Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaida in Syria) and the Islamic State and is a central pillar of the extreme jihadist fighting coalition known as Jaish al Islam (Army of Islam). It has a long record of shocking atrocities to its name including, in May 2016, the massacre of Alawis, including women, children and old men, in the Homs governorate village of Al Zara; including, in March, 2015, the massacre of Christians in Idlib; including, in August, 2013, participation in genocidal attacks on Alawi villagers in Latakia province, with an assortment of takfiri groups massacring upwards of 200 villagers and abducting dozens more.

While an estimated 20 groups took part in this slaughter, the US organisation, Human Rights Watch, named Ahrar al Sham as one of five groups, including Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State, that were the key fundraisers, organisers, planners and executors of the attack (see the HRW report, October 10, 2013, ‘You Can Still See Their Blood’. Executions, indiscriminate shootings and hostage-taking by opposition forces in Latakia’). On May 13, 2016, Amnesty International included Ahrar al Sham among takfiri/jihadist groups responsible for ‘repeated indiscriminate attacks’ that may amount to war crimes in northern Syria, along with allegations that it has used chemical weapons. Yet the head of Ahrar al Sham in Madaya believes that it is ‘the best group to bring justice to Syria.’

Ahrar al Sham has been accused of hoarding food and profiteering in Madaya. Whether or not these accusations are true, it is certainly not true, but in fact a slander, that the civilian population is being intentionally starved to death by the Syrian government, as one speaker in your program claims. The provision of supplies to Madaya has depended on the outcome of negotiations between the government, UN mediators and Ahrar al Sham and does not depend solely on decisions taken by the government in Damascus. It is the difficulty of getting all parties to agree on the opening of a humanitarian corridor that has repeatedly stalled the supply of food to the civilian population of Madaya.

Like eastern Aleppo, Madaya is held by a thoroughly murderous sectarian group armed and financed by outside governments, including the government of Saudi Arabia, one of the most reactionary regimes - a true regime - in the world, which is concurrently running another war, against the Shia population of Yemen. Ahrar al Sham’s enemy is not just the Syrian government or the Shia and Alawi it has massacred but Christians and Sunni Muslims who do not conform to its murderous ideology, which differs from the Islamic State’s only on minor points of theological detail.

The suffering of the civilians of Madaya is terrible but it is the armed men who have infiltrated their town who bear the first responsibility for their plight. No government in the world could allow a situation to continue in which a terrorist group is holding a civilian population hostage. This is the reality of Madaya. Knowing the essential facts there is surely no Australian watching your ‘Australian Story’ who could regard a group like Ahrar al Sham with anything other than abhorrence yet in your report on Madaya this group is not even mentioned. Neither is there any attempt to question Mr Nanaa about his dealings with this group and possibly his affinity with its ideology. It is certain that he could not have operated in Madaya without its support and without at least appearing to support its aims, The outcome is a report that is superficially heart-warming but is by no means the true story of what lies behind the ‘siege’ of Madaya.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Salt

[Candobetter.net Editor: Click here for more on Jeremy Salt.]

It is commonly accepted that the dingo arrived in Australia approximately 4,000 years ago, and that the current population of dingoes across Australia grew from just one pregnant female. However, this was just an hypothesis posited by geneticist Dr Alan Wilton (deceased), and was never meant to be taken as fact. In the last paper he wrote before he died, Dr Wilton suggested that dingoes were more likely to have been introduced some 11,000 – 18,000 years ago [1]. In a recent genetics study, Dr Wilton’s partner, Dr Kylie Cairns found that there were most likely two introductions of dingoes to Australia, not just one .[2] One introduction was to the North-west of the country, and the other was to the South-east.

Candobetter.net editor: The remarkable photographs of dingos in this document were taken by the author, Jennifer Parkhurst. As well as being a naturalist with years of dingo-dedicated fieldwork behind her, Jennifer Parkhurst is a great photographer. She is the author of two illustrated books about Dingos, Vanishing Icon and the most recent, The Butchulla First Nations People of Fraser Island (K’Gari) and their dingoes.

It is also commonly thought that dingoes were brought to Australia by Asian seafarers, but another hypothesis is that dingoes spread into what is now Australia via the land bridge between Papua New Guinea and Australia, some 8,000 years ago. Dingoes were declared indigenous to Australia in 1992 and are protected under legislation. However, they are also classified as a pest animal due to their predation on livestock, and with varying legislation in each state, the complexities of protecting them as a native taxon can be very frustrating.

Current taxonomy classifies the dingo as a subspecies of Canis lupus (wolf) that is, Canis lupus dingo . However, the classification Canis dingo was proposed in a 2014 study that established a reference description of the dingo based on pre-20th century specimens that are unlikely to have been influenced by hybridisation. [3] Dingoes are now, therefore, increasingly considered a species in their own right. However, current methods of identifying dingoes are inadequate because natural variation within dingo populations is poorly understood. Skull morphology and DNA testing techniques are not reliable. Geneticist, Dr Alan Wilton, who developed the current dingo purity test, stipulated that dingoes which test between 75 and 100 per cent pure should be treated as ‘pure’ for the purposes of conservation in the wild. In addition, there is considerable differentiation in the colour of dingoes including numerous combinations of white, ginger, black, and black and tan. Most people expect dingoes to be ginger and deem anything of a different colour to be hybrid.

Hybridisation of dingoes is said to be the biggest threat to their survival. However there is little evidence that moderately hibridised dingoes are dangerous to the environment. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Most all modern dingoes will have some genetic dog markers, but they behave and act like dingoes. Dingoes howl instead of barking, reproduce only once a year, and live in stable packs. It is only when these packs are fractured due to lethal control that hybridisation becomes more likely. A stable pack contains an alpha male and female, and offspring from the previous year plus pups. The alpha male and female suppress breeding by subordinate pack members, naturally keeping the population in balance. Dingoes can suppress breeding altogether in times of drought, fire, or when food is low for any other reason. A domestic dog would have a great deal of trouble infiltrating a stable dingo pack. However, if, due to lethal control, the pack is fractured, then the subordinate members would be more likely to mate with domestic dogs, thus creating a situation where there are more dingoes, not less. With no stable pack to teach the new parents and pups how to behave and what to hunt, they become like unruly teenagers and run amok, hunting anything and everything indiscriminately. Subsequently, the use of lethal control causes more problems than it solves.

Dingoes are territorial and are formidable in protecting their territories from intruders. Dingoes will only take farm stock if there is a shortage of natural food, and studies have shown that despite the fact that dingoes are regarded as predators of sheep and cattle, domestic livestock do not comprise a significant part of foods eaten. [4]

Stable dingo packs, therefore, offer a level of protection to farms from intruders such as free-ranging domestic dogs which are known to attack stock at will, not with the intention of eating what they kill, but killing without purpose. When a pack is fractured, these domestic dogs, which form into packs at night, predate on stock animals. Pastoralists who do not use lethal control on their properties find that they have less stock predation than those who do. [5]

Even so, there is little chance that severely hybridised offspring would survive in the wild. Without the characteristics of the dingo which are tailored to Australia’s harsh environment, hybrids would die out quickly. If they manage to survive and reproduce, eventually, after several generations, the genetics revert back to the ancestral dingo form.

Herein lies a conservation dilemma: some dingo conservationists want to preserve only pure dingoes, while others want to conserve dingo hybrids as well. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that protecting dingo hybrids is beneficial for the environment as long as they are performing their role as top-order predator, protecting our native animals from introduced species like feral cats, foxes, pigs, goats and deer. They also keep native animals such as kangaroos at bay, which left unchecked, can cause just as many if not more problems for farmers as the dingoes themselves, by eating pasture grass and drinking stock water.

Dingoes are protected in national parks; however the same national parks are baited with sodium monofluoroacetate(1080 poison) to control foxes, paradoxically making national parks extremely hostile places for our top-order predator to live. This bait is indiscriminate and cruel, and not only kills foxes, but of course, dingoes, as well as other non-target animals like the endangered quoll, birds of prey, goannas and any carrion-eating animal. 1080 is said to be harmless to the environment because it is derived from native plants, but the bait is a synthetic substance which our native animals have no tolerance for. There is no antidote. 1080 can stay active in the environment, polluting waterways and flora, for 12 months or more. Again, baiting has the capacity to destroy dingo pack structure and cause social dysfunction within dingo populations, in turn undermining their ecosystem function. Despite unrelenting baiting, farmers are finding that they still have problems with dingoes. Efforts to eradicate dingoes are not working. Predator-friendly farming should be the way of the future.

Australia is the only country where its top-order predator is not safe anywhere.

Some states of Australia have a ‘wild dog’ bounty system in place, paying up to $120 per dingo scalp. Bounties have been found to be ineffective at reducing dingo numbers (or foxes or whatever else is targeted).

In a recent media release (17 Nov 2016) The Wilderness Society stated:

Previously, dingoes and wild dogs were targeted strategically, in areas where farmers were experiencing stock loss problems.

In contrast, the bounty system applies to very large areas – over half of the relevant public land in eastern Victoria is subject to the bounty – regardless of whether livestock protection is required.

The key issues are poorly informed members of the public unnecessarily killing dingoes and dingo hybrids, and the subsequent disruption of pack structures - believed to result in changes to territorial boundaries, and the increased risk of hybridisation and stock loss.

Lost in all of this is the importance the dingo holds for the Aboriginal First Nations People. Irrespective of when and how the dingo came to Australia, it was immediately adopted by the Aboriginal people and took on an important role in their lives. It is speculated that dingoes helped with hunting, but this sometimes questioned. We do know that the Aboriginal people were very fond of their dingoes; women nursed them from their own breasts as puppies, or expressed milk for them; when the adults went hunting, dingoes were left behind at camp to look after the children, keeping them safe from both evil spirits, and more corporeal dangers, like snakes and other intruders. Dingoes were often carried on walkabout, and were objects of great affection. In some tribes, dingoes were a totem animal; sacred. If a dingo was harmed in any way, punishment was often death. When a person died, often times his dingo companion was buried with him. [6]

The Aboriginal people have practically no voice in the ‘dingo: friend or foe’ debate, except perhaps on Fraser Island where they have stated that the white people first tried to eradicate them, and now they are trying to eradicate their dog.

‘They had us leave this Country, removed us, and it looks like they want to remove the dingoes. It is history repeating itself, only [now] it is the dingoes, which is part of our life. When the dingo is endangered, we feel like part of our culture is endangered.’ [7]

The dingo has always been an ancient semi-domesticate animal, living symbiotically with the Aboriginal people and up until recently, in places on Fraser Island, with white Australians. For the most part today the dingo is elusive, but historically dingoes often befriended wandering swaggies or cattlemen on their journeys across the country or around their properties.

So how do we save the dingoes? The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc (NDPRP) is currently focusing its energies on two places: Victoria, in the hope we can set precedents there, which we can then lobby other states with; and Fraser Island in Queensland because of the impending extinction of the iconic Fraser Island dingo which has its own unique characteristics.

The members of the NDPRP were instrumental in having the dingo listed as a threatened species in Victoria, under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. Although protections are in place for ‘pure’ dingoes under this Act, those protections are currently being undermined by the influence of two fishers and hunters members in the Victorian Legislative Council, who exercise disproportionate influence over the Victorian government. It is this influence which explains the recent reintroduction of a ‘wild dog’ bounty in Victoria despite Victoria having been the first state to list the dingo as threatened.

Over the past two decades or so, a body of research evidence has grown, which shows that stable, healthy dingo populations have a net beneficial effect upon ecosystem stability. This research coincided with a growing international focus on the importance of apex predators for ecosystem maintenance and presented a direct challenge to entrenched anti-dingo prejudice in Australia. More recently, there has been a concerted counter-reaction from extreme elements within the pastoral lobby in an attempt to discredit earlier apex predator research findings and to reassert anti-dingo dogma.

In collaboration with the Humane Society International, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, Save Fraser Island Dingoes, Eagle’s Nest Wildlife Sanctuary, scientists, and other groups, we are constantly lobbying for legislative change on a number of issues, the main two being 1/ to broaden the definition of the dingo, and 2/ to cease lethal control, or limit areas where it is deployed.

Other measures to protect livestock have been shown to be very effective, including the use of Maremma guard dogs. Financial compensation for stock loss might also be tried. The cost of lethal control would far outweigh the cost of reimbursing farmers for stock loss.

The most effective form of dingo control however, would be to leave dingoes alone, stop lethal control altogether, and let the ecosystem recover.

18 November 2016

Jennifer Parkhurst
Vice President – National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc (A0051763G )
Consultant – Save Fraser Island Dingoes
Email the author http://www.fraserislandfootprints.com/

[1]Mattias C. R. Oskarsson1, Cornelya F. C. Klu¨ tsch, Ukadej Boonyaprakob, Alan Wilton, Yuichi Tanabe and Peter Savolainen. 2011. Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs. Proc. R. Soc. B doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1395
[2] Cairns, Kylie M. Wilton, Alan N. New insights on the history of canids in Oceania based on mitochondrial and nuclear data
Genetica DOI 10.1007/s10709-016-9924-z
[3] Crowther, M. S.; M. Fillios; N. Colman; M. Letnic (27 Mar 2014). "An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793)". Journal of Zoology. 293 (3): 192. doi:10.1111/jzo.12134.
[4] SJO Whitehouse. 1977. The Diet of the Dingo in Western Australia. Aust Wildlife Res, 1977, 4, 145-50
[5] ABC Rural. 2013.Lee Allen: Surprise finding: dog baiting increases stock loss.
[6] Australian Dingo Conservation Foundation. http://www.dingoconservation.org.au/aboriginal.html
[7]Jennifer Parkhurst. 2015. The Butchulla First Nations People of Fraser Island (K’Gari) and their dingoes. Australian Wildlife Protection Council, Ross House, Melbourne Victoria.

Emails and the web are full of messages from the faux-left about how they underestimated how much of the West's population had sympathy for racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic ideas espoused by Trump and his ilk. That's what they pretend is behind what is actually the rejection of loss of sovereignty, loss of citizens' rights, through globalism and open borders. Here are two examples, both from organisations influenced by Soros money: The Australian Greens and GetUp. And what is their message? Send us more money! That's really what they are about.

From Adam Bandt of the Greens, "Shellshocked":

"Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.

It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.

Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:

Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]

Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.

Adam" [2]

From GetUp: "Fear and uncertainty"

Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. [...] Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]
[...]
Paul, for the GetUp Team [3]

GetUp and the Greens' expressed concern about refugees and about global warming is belied by their striking lack of concern about the wars that the neocons styling themselves as liberals in the outgoing US Government have increasingly engaged in burning and polluting the planet with. Without taking war into consideration, their pleas for intervention are like a kind of Greek chorus on climate change and refugees in a fatalistic tragedy.

Why would you give these organisations more to keep on doing what they have been doing?

Trump and Roe vs Wade

Regarding pro- choice matters, I am glad that any Roe vs Wade decision will fall back to the individual states,[1] as Trump attempted unsuccessfully to emphasise in the second debate.

Draining the swamp

Will Trump actually be able to carry out his intentions such as 'draining the swamp' and pulling back from military interventions in the face of the remaining bulwark of neocons in various institutions including Congress on both Democrat and Republican side? If he is sincere, then the ability he has shown by winning the election to speak directly to people and motivate them, which his enemies are not able to do, may help him achieve more than most in his position.

Although the mainstream press totally failed to predict Trump's win, people still take their opinions from it

A friend received an email from a colleague reiterating how terrible Trump is but expressing surprise that the speech he gave on winning the presidency seemed out of character, because it wasn't as crazy as most of his pronouncments as reported in the mainstream press. This woman had never actually listened to a Trump speech. Although there are many only a keystroke away from her fingertips, she preferred to make her judgement by what she had read in the mainstream press and seen on TV. It's the same story with Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Asma al-Assad. And before that, Gaddafi. The critics of the governments that Hillary Clinton and Obama antagonised don't actually inform themselves by listening to the many interviews directly available on you tube; they just act on a take-home message of hate from the western press, which supports those nice-sounding warmongers.

Why did people vote for Trump? Because the left has become too divisive, too corporatised and wasn't fighting globalisation. Because the Greens, GetUp, Moveon.org (which is behind the organised riots in the US post Trumps election) are financed by Soros, who is a globalist. They don't stand for what they say they stand for.

NOTES

[1]
"First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.#fn2" id="r2">[2] Roe short-circuited this development#fn3" id="r3">[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society." (Source: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm)

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[3] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[4]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[5][6] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[2] "Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.

It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.

Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:

Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]

Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.

Adam"

[3]

From GetUp:

Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. Brexit, Trump, and on our own shores, the resurgence of One Nation. There's a growing nexus between economic disadvantage and racially motivated resentment that is overwhelming all political expectations. People see great wealth amassed around them in big corporations and billionaire's pockets, while they're increasingly locked out of education, opportunity and meaningful work. Many of them are demonised for their own disadvantage. Many families struggle with two jobs, only to fall short of making ends meet. Many are angry, resentful and ready to lash out at a political system they feel has deserted them. There has been an abject failure of progressives both here and abroad to understand this, let alone counter it. And when right-wing demagogues tap this pulsing vein of resentment, we've mocked it as an ignorant fringe or dismissed it as isolated extremism. We can't make that mistake any longer. Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]

But that's not the only thing to take away from today. There will be Americans, including progressives, waking up in the morning who didn't step up, who didn't make that call or knock on that door -- or who didn't even vote. Just as there were British people who left it to others to decide the fate of their union with Europe, and their own lives. There's a lesson in that: Decisions are made by those who show up.

Over the years, GetUp members have shown up together, hoped together and fought together to turn those shared hopes into a lived reality for our families and communities. This is a moment for us to recommit to each other -- to keep the surging tide of right-wing extremism from taking over our politics, our culture and our country. Everything from signing a petition, to calling your MP, is an act of hope and daring. And today, you can step up to do even more, whether it's volunteering your time or joining a local action group. It's an act of faith that there will be hundreds of thousands more standing with you. And that acting together, we'll be the ones to overwhelm all political expectations.

Together we need to do all we can do,
Paul, for the GetUp Team

This week Craig Thomson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, is working on a submission to oppose the rezoning of Melbourne Water land in Rosebud South. Unfortunately he has run into problems getting appropriate ecological information about the site. He wonders if the State Government and Melbourne water have deliberately made the ecological report unavailable. The fauna report relies solely on a habitat assessment and a desktop study for threatened species.

AWPC President, Mr Thomson, says that the absence of on ground fauna surveys is very alarming that there was no on ground fauna surveys. He asks,

"Is this now what happens when the state government tries to fast track rezoning crown land for commercial profit. Or, worse, has it become common practice? It seems like a little of both. Either way this lack of survey will miss the Eastern grey kangaroos, koalas, swamp wallabies and echidnas that survive on this urban fringe. It also misses the potential for threatened species to be present on site. Any potential development on this site could be the difference between extinction or survival of local biodiversity."

"That is is not good enough."

See the information provided below. For more about the site go to http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/about-planning/planning-services-directory/fast-track-government-land-service/181-jetty-road,-rosebud.

How to make a submission

All submissions must be directed to the Advisory Committee and will be treated as public documents.  If you would like to make a presentation at the Public Hearing, you must make a written submission and complete the relevant section of the online form.

                 Make your submission and comments here before 9 December 2016                  

ABZECO Biodiversity Assessment Report 16048 South East Outfall Pipeline: Jetty Road to Rosebud Avenue, Rosebud V1.0-August2016 pg22

5 Fauna

A fauna assessment of the study area consisted of an on-foot field survey of habitat quality and a desktop assessment of the likelihood of fauna species of conservation significance occurring within the study area. A detailed zoological survey comprising a range of techniques over different seasons was not undertaken for this study as it was beyond the scope of works.

5.1 Pre-existing information search

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) was queried for threatened fauna species recorded within a 5 km radius of the study area (DSE 2013a). Appendix 4 provides the results of this query.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) on the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE), website was queried to determine if any protected fauna related matters not reported in the VBA query are considered likely to occur within the study area. Species identified in the EPBC query are presented in Appendix 5.

5.2 Fauna Habitat

Vegetation in the study area is likely to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a range of common fauna species such as common woodland birds and arboreal mammals such as Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus. However, based on habitat requirements for a range of threatened fauna species that are known to occur locally and the poor site condition and fragmented landscape, it is considered unlikely that the vegetation on the site would serve as critical or limiting habitat for significant fauna species.

The majority of threatened fauna species previously recorded within the 5km search area or predicted to occur are considered unlikely to utilise the study area. The low likelihood rating is based on various factors including, lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent database records or the predicted location being outside of the known habitat range of current species populations. One listed species, Powerful Owl Ninox strenua occupies a large home range and as such may utilise sections of the study area for occasional foraging. However vegetation throughout the site is considered unlikely to provide limiting or critical habitat for this species as the site supports few large or hollow bearing trees.

See also: Can Trump Recruit Tulsi Gabbard? (21/11/16) | PowerLine, Tulsi Gabbard: 5 Things To Know About Politician Considered For Trump’s Cabinet (21/11/16) | Hollywood Life, Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'Under Serious Consideration' for Trump Cabinet (22/11/16) | ABC News, voteTulsi.com.

"President-elect Trump and I had a frank and positive conversation in which we discussed a variety of foreign policy issues in depth. I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world. It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al-Qaeda, and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia which could result in a nuclear war. We discussed my bill to end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government, and the need to focus our precious resources on rebuilding our own country, and on defeating al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who pose a threat to the American people. For years, the issue of ending interventionist, regime change warfare has been one of my top priorities. This was the major reason I ran for Congress—I saw firsthand the cost of war, and the lives lost due to the interventionist warmongering policies our country has pursued for far too long."

Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu, a veteran of the Iraq war, an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who has been the United States Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013.

November 21, 2016

New York, NY—U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today released the following statement on her meeting with President-elect Donald Trump regarding Syria:

"President-elect Trump asked me to meet with him about our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as other foreign policy challenges we face. I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government—a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families.

"While the rules of political expediency would say I should have refused to meet with President-elect Trump, I never have and never will play politics with American and Syrian lives.

"Serving the people of Hawaiʻi and our nation is an honor and responsibility that I do not take lightly. Representing the aloha spirit and diversity of the people of Hawaiʻi, I will continue to seek common ground to deliver results that best serve all Americans, as I have tried to do during my time in Congress.

"Where I disagree with President-elect Trump on issues, I will not hesitate to express that disagreement. However, I believe we can disagree, even strongly, but still come together on issues that matter to the American people and affect their daily lives. We cannot allow continued divisiveness to destroy our country.

"President-elect Trump and I had a frank and positive conversation in which we discussed a variety of foreign policy issues in depth. I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world. It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al-Qaeda, and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia which could result in a nuclear war. We discussed my bill to end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government, and the need to focus our precious resources on rebuilding our own country, and on defeating al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who pose a threat to the American people.

"For years, the issue of ending interventionist, regime change warfare has been one of my top priorities. This was the major reason I ran for Congress—I saw firsthand the cost of war, and the lives lost due to the interventionist warmongering policies our country has pursued for far too long.

"Let me be clear, I will never allow partisanship to undermine our national security when the lives of countless people lay in the balance."

Kiel mutiny the soldiers' council of the Prinzregent Luitpold.

In 2016, much of the credit for the prevention of war can rightly be claimed by people labeled 'right-wing', 'far right' or 'extreme right'. Examples include Marine Le Pen of France, Nigel Farage of Britain and United States' President-elect Donald Trump.

Paradoxically, one hundred years ago, during the first inter-imperialist slaughter of 1914-1918, it was the Communist 'far left' that opposed war.

Whilst Australian histories tend to give credit to Australian soldiers led by General John Monash for defeating Germany on the Western Front in November 1918, the capitulation of Germany may, in fact, have been the result of the uprisings of 9 November 1918 in Germany led by the anti-war Spartakusbund of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. The Spartakusbund was later to become the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD) or Communist Party of Germany.

The uprising was preceded on 3 November by a mutiny of German sailors, who refused to sail to fight a suicidal last battle against the British Royal Navy.

Sadly, the uprising in Berlin was crushed by right-wing Freikorps mercenaries and Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were executed by them on 1 June 1919.

A number of times in subsequent years, the German Communists came close to success. The last occasion was in September 1923 when German Reichswehr troops invaded Saxony and Thuringia to crush the strong communist movements in those states and to overthrow the elected left Social Democrat governments.

Had the German Communists succeeded in 1923, Adolf Hitler would have become a small footnote in history and the subsequent war in which 60 million were to die would have been prevented.

This document was forwarded to candobetter.net by the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (A0051763G). On October 17, the Victorian Wilderness Society, in its Wild Chat bulletin wrote: "Hunting Dingoes, Logging Koalas, Pounding Plovers, and Heeding Dr Seuss Bounty brings uncontrolled threat to Victoria’s dingoes." The bulletin concluded, "It now appears the Andrews Government has lost its way, and is taking a regressive step towards failure for both dingo conservation and a balanced resolution of conservation and farming interests." We republish here the contents of that bulletin.

Hunting Dingoes, Logging Koalas, Pounding Plovers, and Heeding Dr Seuss Bounty brings uncontrolled threat to Victoria’s dingoes.

On 26 October, the Andrews Government announced a 'bounty' system—members of the public will now be offered a reward of $120 for every dingo or wild dog killed.
There is deep concern over the impact of a bounty on Victoria’s threatened dingo populations, as well as potentially counterproductive impacts on livestock protection.
Dingoes and wild dogs were previously targeted strategically—in areas where farmers were experiencing stock loss problems. In contrast, the bounty system applies to very large areas—over half of the relevant public land in eastern Victoria is subject to the bounty—regardless of whether livestock protection is required.

The potential impacts of a bounty program are acknowledged, with departmental terms and conditions recognising:

"Dingoes often occur in areas inhabited by wild dogs, appear morphologically similar to wild dogs and are extremely difficult to differentiate from wild dogs. This means that wild dog control programs have the potential to directly impact on dingoes"[i].

The key issue is poorly informed members of the public unnecessarily killing dingoes and dingo hybrids and subsequent disruption of pack structures—believed to result in changes to territorial boundaries and increased risk of hybridisation and stock loss.

The bounty system is fundamentally out-of-step with our changing understanding of the place of the dingo in the Australian landscape. [Candobetter.net Editor emphasis]

Historically, farmers viewed the dingo simply as a pest responsible for stock loss and associated financial and emotional stress. This perception was reflected in government regulations, where the dingo was classified as a pest to be killed or controlled across both public and private land.

More recently, understanding and evidence has grown to recognise the dingo as a top order predator in the Australian environment, providing an overall benefit to biodiversity and ecosystem function [ii]. Research indicates that dingoes can reduce fox and cat numbers, resulting in stronger, healthier populations of small native mammals, as well as regulating kangaroo numbers and their impact on native vegetation.

In 2008, the Victorian Labor Government listed the dingo as threatened. In consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the government catalysed a re-framing of the dingo’s place in Victorian ecosystems and set out a path to balance dingo conservation requirements and stock protection. This decision reflected a growing appreciation around the globe of the role of top predators in the environment, such as the reintroduction of the grey wolf to Yellowstone National Park in the United States [iii].

Then, in a damaging policy development, the subsequent Coalition Government introduced a bounty scheme on dingoes and wild dogs. The bounty was in place from 2011 to 2015, when a re-elected Labor Government abolished the bounty.

And now, in October 2016, we find the Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford, reintroducing a dingo and wild dog bounty scheme. It is highly concerning the Environment Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, who has responsibilities towards the conservation of Victoria’s dingoes, has not yet been seen on this issue.

Resolving this issue will require the engagement of both ministers and a balanced approach between dingo conservation and livestock protection, where education and information is provided across both management objectives. Allowing, or indeed encouraging, the public to kill wild dogs and dingoes on public land driven by livestock protection objectives is really only providing half the picture and is setting the dual dingo conservation/stock protection program on a path to failure.

It now appears the Andrews Government has lost its way, and is taking a regressive step towards failure for both dingo conservation and a balanced resolution of conservation and farming interests.

More information
https://theconversation.com/why-victorias-dingo-and-wild-dog-bounty-is-doomed-to-miss-its-target-66980

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-advisory-group-on-wild-dogs-bigger-bounty/

The DEFCON Warning System is a private organisation that evaluate world events and whether they pose a nuclear threat against America. This threat was reduced to its lowest level of 5 by the election of Donald Trump to the Whitehouse. As others have said, Trump was the 'Peace Candidate'. We republish the DEFCON statement dated the day of Trump's election.

This is the DEFCON Warning System. Alert status for 8 P.M., Thursday, November 10th, 2016. Condition code is Green. DEFCON 5.
https://defconwarningsystem.com/2016/11/11/defcon-warning-system-update-111016/
There are currently no imminent nuclear threats against the United States at this time.

The United States took a tentative step toward a more isolationist policy with its recent presidential election. While it will take several months to see how the U.S. reforms its foreign policy, already some world leaders have expressed hope that relations could improve, including Russia and Syria. China and North Korea, however, continue to either cast a wary eye or are outright belligerent.

If the new U.S. President keeps to his previous statements, look for the United States to withdraw somewhat from military confrontations in the Middle East and possibly European theater, though it is highly unlikely it will abandon NATO commitments, and the Ukraine will likely pop up again in the near future. Russia, however, will probably wait to see what the new President does, as well as now being hampered by the coming winter. Israel, on the other hand, will become more of a focal point again.

U.S. intelligence claims to have penetrated Russian computer systems including the electrical grid and command structures. Meanwhile, more troops are to be sent to Europe in 2017 to bolster defenses against Russian movements and NATO continues building up forces in Poland and surrounding areas to protect against a potential Russian assault. Additionally, it is said to be preparing a force of three hundred thousand ready to be deployed in the event of escalating tensions. Russia has recently revealed new RS-28 Sarmat nuclear weapons which are claimed to be able to avoid radar defenses as well as testing new hyper-sonic missiles. A new hyper-sonic weapon is expected to be fitted on to the Sarmat missile.

The Pentagon has issued a warning against the use of Chinese computers by the U.S. military which may be infected with spyware, while China continues to develop its capabilities among its growing carrier fleet. The latest appears to be a catapult launch bar on its nose wheel, allowing heavier aircraft to be serviced. China has also debuted its J-20 stealth fighter as it continues to close the tech gap with the United States.

The DEFCON Warning System is a private enterprise which monitors world events and assesses nuclear threats against the United States by national entities. It is not affiliated with any government agency and does not represent the alert status of any military branch. The public should make their own evaluations and not rely on the DEFCON Warning System for any strategic planning. At all times, citizens are urged to learn what steps to take in the event of a nuclear attack.

If this had been an actual attack, the DEFCON Warning System will give radiation readings for areas that are reported to it. Your readings will vary. Official news sources will have radiation readings for your area.

For immediate updates, go to http://www.defconwarningsystem.com. Breaking news and important information can be found on the DEFCON Warning System message board and on the DEFCON Twitter feed DEFCONWSALERTS. You may also subscribe to the YouTube channel DefconWarningSystem and the DEFCON Warning System mailing list. Note that Twitter and YouTube updates may be subject to delays. The next scheduled update is 8 P.M. Pacific Time, December 1st, 2016. Additional updates will be made as the situation warrants, with more frequent updates at higher alert levels.

This concludes this broadcast of the DEFCON Warning System.

After fruitless and protracted negotiations between the Human Social Justice Union and Mother Nature, U.N. mediator Hoo R.U. Kiddun has booked off. His decision came after the HSJU reps and Mother Nature failed to hammer out a deal in the latest of enumerable all-night bargaining sessions. “The parties are just too far apart”, Kiddun remarked, “To come to an agreement, there has to be some give and take on both sides, but it seems that for 250 years Union members have been doing all the taking and Management refuses to continue giving.”

Social Justice Negotiators Fail to Gain Concessions from Mother Nature

CBCnews.ca November 16, 2016

After fruitless and protracted negotiations between the Human Social Justice Union and Mother Nature, U.N. mediator Hoo R.U. Kiddun has booked off. His decision came after the HSJU reps and Mother Nature failed to hammer out a deal in the latest of enumerable all-night bargaining sessions. “The parties are just too far apart”, Kiddun remarked, “To come to an agreement, there has to be some give and take on both sides, but it seems that for 250 years Union members have been doing all the taking and Management refuses to continue giving.”

After humanity had reduced the global wildlife population by 40% since the first Earth Day in 1970, and raised global temperatures by 1.03 C since 1750 when the industrial revolution began, Mother Nature has threatened to lay off 7.5 billion people unless the Union agrees to major reductions in wages and benefits, including medical, dental, and vision care, and carbon emissions. In fact, it appears that human civilization itself is on the chopping block, but apparently the Union is cool with that as long as the social safety net remains intact.

The Union in fact, for its part, refuses to believe Nature’s claim that there are no more cookies in the cookie jar, or at least, not enough to satisfy the growing appetites of a rapidly growing union membership. “Let her show us the books---what is she hiding?”, asked chief negotiator J. Simon. “She is sitting on a cornucopia of natural capital while crying poor. If indeed there isn’t enough to go around, she should call on us for help before wielding the axe. There is a lot of intellectual capital on our side of the table---all she has to do is plug into it. We are ideas people and there are no limits to our ingenuity.” When questioned about whether boundless human ingenuity will be able to resurrect the millions of species that his members have extinguished, Mr. Simon refused comment---or place a bet.

But Kiddun reported that Mother Nature is intransigent, and refuses to move on any of its demands for voluntary cutbacks, or modify its biophysical laws. Her chief negotiator, I. Asimov, said that the Union could demand anything it wanted. “It can demand that every human being has a right to have his or her basic needs satisfied. It can demand that everyone has a right to access the bathroom in their apartment at any time day they want to—free of charge. They even can put it in the Union Constitution. But our problem is that we can only provide one bathroom and there are 7.5 billion tenants in the apartment. “

One Union negotiator, Bernie Sandpaper, rejected Asimov’s contention as absurd. “As a socialist”, Sandpaper said, “ I have to believe that if resources are fairly and equally distributed, there is enough to go around. All tenants in our national apartment can have free and universal access to quality bathroom care if we tax the rich and double our national debt to $38 trillion. Moreover, we can accommodate any and all the tenants from other apartments in the building who aspire to move to ours.”

Green HSJU negotiator Jill Stoner concurred. “All we need to do is reduce our footprint, move over and squeeze tighter for more and more incoming migrants ad infinitum. Migrants have rights too, and their rights and needs trump ours--no pun intended.” Another outgoing member of the team, Billary Winer, added, “We need to build bridges, not walls. Instead turning people away, we need to extend the table…ours is a vision of inclusivity, not exclusivity.” Ms. Winer is even rumored to have told a banker she wants to allow uninhibited traffic between all apartment suites, even to the point of tearing down bearing walls. “I want man-servants who will cook and clean for substandard wages,” a leaked email had her saying, “and if deplorables lose their jobs I am going to call them racists.”

Upon receipt of her comment, Asimov was reported to have said that Winer could extend the table all she wants, but there is not enough food in the kitchen to feed all the diners she wants to invite, nor enough energy to run the ovens or the stoves. “And we anticipate that energy costs will skyrocket to the point that customers are going to go home hungry……I expect fights to break out”, he added.
“Some may even burn down the restaurant.”

Kiddun, reflecting upon the impasse, sadly concluded that the fundamental problem was that the Social Justice negotiators just can ‘t rap their heads around the reality of scarcity. “And they don’t acknowledge that there are limits to growth….

“Once more”, Kiddun continued, “their Green wing doesn’t understand that it doesn’t make any sense for their union members to cut their consumption in half, only to turn around and double the number of members.” “They can argue until they are blue in the face, but Mother Nature won’t give. She doesn’t care about per capitas. Per capita energy consumption, per capita waste, or per capita carbon emissions. She only cares about TOTAL energy consumption, waste and C02 emissions. In other words, the number of members times their average consumption ….

“What we have here is a failure to communicate…. Mother Nature’s books are open, but the Union just doesn’t seem willing to read them …..

“I suspect that their brains just don’t do reality. They can’t cope with it. Reality is so ugly that denial is an essential coping mechanism. It is a part of their nature. They can deal with the short term, but aren’t interested in the long term”, Kiddun remarked, “They are neurologically f***ed.”

The consensus among seasoned observers is that massive layoffs are now inevitable.

Tim Murray
CBC Bullschiesse News
November 17, 2016.

Dr Greg Moore will speak on “The Importance of Preserving Trees in Urban Landscapes” at Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc's 2016 AGM at Flemington Community Centre, Debneys Park, Mt Alexander Road Flemington. If arriving early you can relax in the foyer of the Centre. in 2 pm for 2:15 pm start on Saturday 19 November 2016.

Venue: Flemington Community Centre, Debneys Park, Mt Alexander Road Flemington. If arriving early you can relax in the foyer of the Centre.
PPL VIC is holding our 2016 AGM as follows:

Free Public Event. Guest Panel, Q&A... 'An Economically Sustainable Australia' - Economist Leith van Onselen and the Hon Kelvin Thomson. WHEN Saturday 19th November, 2016. 2:45 for 3pm - 4:30pm, WHERE Upstairs at The Sporting Globe hotel, 288 Bridge Rd, Richmond VIC. Opposite the Richmond Town Hall. Hosted by Sustainable Australia.

Free Public Event.  Guest Panel, Q&A...

An Economically Sustainable Australia

Economist Leith van Onselen and the Hon Kelvin Thomson

WHEN   Saturday 19th November, 2016.  2:45 for 3pm - 4:30pm

WHERE Upstairs at The Sporting Globe hotel,  288 Bridge Rd, Richmond VIC.                    Opposite the Richmond Town Hall. Hosted by Sustainable Australia.

In this video, Trump repeatedly denounces and denies KKK endorsement, as he is asked again and again, day after day, in a demonstration of truly absurd press behaviour. The KKK leader, David Duke, also states here that he never endorsed Trump. Despite the slurs, Donald Trump has denounced KKK hate groups and not said anything racist or bigoted. Yet Whoopi Goldberg, political opponents and main stream media types continue to perpetuate the lie.

"Strong population growth is boosting aggregate demand and therefore the growth rate of the economy. But measures of per capita outcomes are more sobering and suggest that not enough emphasis is being placed on them in the policy debate. A brief look at income per capita, dwelling prices to income, infrastructure spend per capita and traffic congestion points to the need for a comprehensive and open discussion around the policy direction Australia is taking. ... The pressures of very high immigration are contributing to social, environmental and economic stress in Australia. There appears to be a tri-party (coalition, Labor and Greens) agreement to keep this off the agenda, despite high levels of public concern."

[The following is based on a letter sent to Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Senator Penny Wong]

Why is Labor still pushing the ‘Big Australia’ barrow – as evidenced by recent speeches by Chris Bowen at the Crescent Institute in September 2016 and Senator Penny Wong at the National Press Club on 8 November?

For most of this century, Australia has had the second highest population growth rate in the OECD and 2.5 times the OECD average. Since 2003, our population has grown by a massive 22 percent. Official forecasts show Sydney with a population of 6.4 million in 2036 (growth of 87,000 per year), and Melbourne with 8 million in 2036 (growth of 97,000 per year). (for data source, see Leith van Onselen, Who will rise up to become Australia’s Trump? (paywall))

This overheated population growth is putting massive pressures on infrastructure and housing affordability. The continuing urban sprawl is trashing wildlife habitat and scarce agricultural land.

Permanent immigration, as well as an unprecedented amount of 457 and student visas, is having a detrimental effect on wage rates, particularly for lower skilled and lower income workers. Why is Labor endorsing this?

The real national disposable income per capita of Australians is in decline, thanks in large part to this population growth. May I draw your attention to the conclusion in the recent research note by Gareth Aird of the Commonwealth Bank:

Strong population growth is boosting aggregate demand and therefore the growth rate of the economy. But measures of per capita outcomes are more sobering and suggest that not enough emphasis is being placed on them in the policy debate. A brief look at income per capita, dwelling prices to income, infrastructure spend per capita and traffic congestion points to the need for a comprehensive and open discussion around the policy direction Australia is taking.

May I also draw your attention to the conclusion of the recent research note by Leith van Onselen of Macrobusiness:

In short, the broad macroeconomic data – both domestic and international – does not support the assertion that Australia needs to run a high immigration program in order to drive the economy and increase living standards. In fact, given the significant qualitative costs – for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources and decline in individuals’ quality of life – there is significant cause to dial Australia’s immigration program right back.

Recently Senator Wong cited the recent Productivity Commission report on Migrant Intake Into Australia, and its modelling which showed a $7000 increment to per capita GDP in 2060, when comparing a business-as-usual immigration scenario to a zero net overseas migration (NOM) scenario. In actuality, the Commission bends over backwards to explain in its report that the $7000 figure is not a net benefit. One must also look at the costs of immigration and assess the overall net benefits for the community as a whole. For example the Commission says:

GDP per person is a weak measure of the overall wellbeing of the Australian community and does not capture how gains would be distributed among the community. Whether a particular rate of immigration will deliver an overall benefit to the existing Australian community will crucially depend on the distribution of the gains and the interrelated social and environmental impacts.

I am not sure whether Senator Wong simply misunderstands the Commission’s findings, or whether this is wilful misuse of data for a particular agenda. May I suggest that Senator Wong carefully read pages 15 to 17 of the Overview, to appreciate the nuance of the Commission’s findings.

The pressures of very high immigration are contributing to social, environmental and economic stress in Australia. There appears to be a tri-party (coalition, Labor and Greens) agreement to keep this off the agenda, despite high levels of public concern. According the Productivity Commission report:

Despite majority support for immigration, almost two thirds of survey respondents expressed strong preferences for keeping the population below 30 million over the next 40 years, which with current rates of immigration could be reached by around 2030. While the reasons given by survey respondents for preferring a lower population size differ between sub-groups, congestion and environmental impacts featured for all sub-groups. (p. 362)

Actually, the Commission may be correct that there is majority support for immigration in principle, but there is definitely not majority public support for the very high levels of immigration we have seen this century. A recent survey for SBS found that 59% of Australians surveyed believed that “the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high”. This is backed up by a recent (5 October 2016) Essential poll that found that 50% think that the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high, 28% think it has been about right and 12% think it has been too low. And for Labor voters, it was 43% think that the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high, 30% think it has been about right and 16% think it has been too low.

As the Productivity Commission has acknowledged, Australia’s immigration policy is our de facto population policy. Recent events elsewhere (eg Brexit, Trump) suggest there is rising public concern about the pressures caused by growing population and high levels of immigration. If the major parties in Australia maintain their consensus for a Big Australia, contrary to the clear wishes of the majority, where will voters go? One Nation?

I ask again, why is Labor pushing for a Big Australia?

This article was first published on Peter Cook's personal blog at http://www.peakdecisions.org/2016/11/labor-pushing-big-australia

"Mark, I am fully aware that your job must be challenging and frustrating at times, but ignoring the elephant in the room – the increasingly obvious negative impacts of population growth - is putting EV and all who care for our environment on a never ending hamster wheel of frustration, disappointment, and ultimately hard earned campaign money down the gurgler. Unchecked population growth is having a ratchet effect, steadily increasing the pressure on the environment and reversing previous efforts to protect it. " (Jenny Warfe)

To: 'Mark Wakeham'
Subject: Population impacts

Hi Mark

Thanks for your recent response to my concerns about Victoria’s population growth being the biggest threat to Victoria’s natural environment, and apologies for my slow reply. Congratulations too on EV’s campaign on moving away from coal.

You made two main points

1.      Population policies are largely set at the national and international level and it is a global issue

2.      Solutions cover numerous issues on which you (EV) are not the experts

My response is:

1.      Population policies are largely set at the national and international level and it is a global issue.

Climate change and renewable energy are National and International issues too, but EV has no problem running effective campaigns on these issues. Of course everything about climate change, energy and water use has numerous variables, but it is disingenuous to ignore absolute numbers of people as one of the most impactful variables. Melbourne’s population is currently increasing by around 2,000 people per week – over 100,000 per annum - (~ 60% of which is migration), so it is ridiculous to ignore this ever increasing, compounding, input and its effect on energy and water consumption and other ecological services.  

I recently gave a talk on sustainability to the Mornington Peninsula Shire and made these points:

·         With the current 2% annual growth, Victoria’s population will double by 2050 – mostly in Melbourne.

·         Victoria has the highest population growth rate of any state.

·         Costs of population growth are largely hidden, and fall disproportionately on local and State governments: roads, drainage, waste management, public facilities, schools, hospitals, etc. etc....

·         This leaves less $$ to protect local biodiversity – an issue which Councils and environment groups keep saying they are concerned about.  

·         Academic research shows that costs far exceed the increased revenue generated by additional people¹

·         Australia’s growth doubled from 1% to 2% per annum in the last decade, so we must now spend an extra 7% of government revenue on  infrastructure just to avoid infrastructure deficit² – let alone what we should be spending to protect the environment and prepare for climate change.

·         Expanding capacity merely to maintain level of service already provided per person provides no net gain in utility

·         All this means that, contrary to the Growth lobby’s rhetoric, population growth is not an investment, it’s a recurrent cost – a drain on local and state government budgets

State and local governments, NGOs and community organisations are left to mop up the excesses of the population Ponzi scheme currently driving our economy. Funding for our task is hopelessly inadequate. I suggested to MP Shire that they should lobby the Victorian government with these facts, and request the Victorian government to lobby the Federal government via COAG and relevant Ministers. State and local governments should also include population facts in locally produced information on biodiversity and the environment. I make that same suggestion to EV.

In our favour, I think the tide is beginning to turn on the until now unquestioned benefits of population growth. The mainstream media has run dead on the issue for a long time, no doubt to placate vested interests, but perhaps they can no longer ignore the failing infrastructure, falling living standards, housing unaffordability and appalling growth in homelessness, etc. etc.  Here are just a few examples of former Growthists changing their tune:

·         Professor Judith Sloan – Economist and contributing Economics Editor at The Australian (!) is starting to talk about the downside of population growth, See: Judith Sloan  

·         Josh Gordon state political Editor, The Age 25^th October 2016 See: Josh Gordon

·         John Masanauskas John Masanauskas City Editor Herald Sun October 28, 2016

·          Productivity Commission  Annual Report 2010-11, and its 2016 report found no economic benefit of high immigration for existing Australians and warned of many down-sides at: Productivity Commission   This quote from the PC Report is relevant:

The broader impacts from any increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) also need to be taken into account. Increasing numbers of immigrants can adversely affect the quality of Australia’s natural and built environment unless governments take action to mitigate congestion and other pressures. Even with such action, there are additional costs for the community as environmental services have to be replaced with technological solutions. While there are various estimates of the cost of these solutions, the actual cost can be lower due to economies of scale, or higher if environmental services are currently ‘free’. Moreover, some environmental impacts, such as the recreational value of near empty beaches and the value of biodiversity, are hard to measure, let alone monetise. Yet, such considerations should be part of the broad cost-benefit assessment underpinning decisions on the long-term migrant intake. To inform this debate, the Australian Government should publish projections of the impact of varying rates of migration and population growth on the natural and built environment. This would also help to address community perceptions (as expressed by participants) that debate about the impacts of immigration is lacking

·         The Grattan Institute in 2014 found that the extra money State governments are forking out for infrastructure fully accounted for their burgeoning deficits - You know, those deficits that cause them to cut social and environmental programs. See: Grattan Institute

·         Commonwealth Bank. In its recent paper "How does Australia look on a per capita basis?", quoted at: Business Insider

Note the graphs of GDP per capita, per capita income, labour force participation rates, travel time index, dwelling prices etc.

·         International media is also starting to question population ponzis. Eg: The Globalist  

So, if former “economic rationalists” have even started talking about the financial downsides of population growth without the usual mutterings about racism being slung at them, surely it’s time for us to talk about the ecological downsides? NGOs and community groups who care about our environment are being handed an opportunity to add ecological degradation to the growing list of down sides from population growth. The real issue is about bums on seats, not the colour of them.

Colleagues have suggested a campaign along the lines of “Canberra is the problem”. As we agree it is federal immigration policies out of Canberra driving most of the growth and we are growing by about a Canberra-worth (or maybe Canberra-worthless) of people every year, an advertising campaign could be run showing Canberra’s popping up all over a map of Australia next to already big cities, or swamping our natural attractions, habitat for other species etc. (Just this week, C7 reported on distressed kangaroos becoming common in Melbourne’s suburbs, stating that spreading suburbs are wiping  out their habitat).

Indeed, the Victorian government itself has produced evidence of the negative impacts of population growth in its State of the Environment Reports 2008 and 2013 showing that population pressures were adversely affecting Victoria’s environment. So, it’s hardly fringe opinion that I am propounding. It’s time to remind government of their own findings.  

2.      Solutions cover numerous issues on which you (EV) are not the experts. My response is:  

Non experts influence public debate all the time on a vast range of issues. Politicians aren’t experts in all issues, but they happily pontificate on anything that appeals to their particular world view or party dogma. Indeed their cultural/religious beliefs, which should have no role in good government, are influencing some policies which have a negative impact on the environment. Environmentalists should be naming that problem.  

It is a cop out for environmentalists to pronounce that because we are not say, demographers, we cannot have a reasoned and informed position on human population impacts on the environment – which we purport to care deeply about and may have spent years studying and working in. As long as we are well informed and use facts what is there to be scared of? At least we should have a go in my view.

It’s interesting too,isn’t it, that Bernard Salt is not a qualified demographer but he calls himself one, is considered an expert, and his opinions are widely publicised on a wide range of issues. Conversely, the mainstream media rarely consults Sociologists/Demographers such as Dr. Katharine Betts and Dr. Bob Birrell from The Australian Population Research Institute.

Mark, I am fully aware that your job must be challenging and frustrating at times, but ignoring the elephant in the room – the increasingly obvious negative impacts of population growth - is  putting EV and all who care for our environment on a never ending hamster wheel of frustration, disappointment, and ultimately hard earned campaign money down the gurgler. Unchecked population growth is having a ratchet effect, steadily increasing the pressure on the environment and reversing previous efforts to protect it.

There is no logical end point to infinite growth with finite resources. Unless we address the (irrefutable mathematical) problem of compounding population numbers, we are sitting ducks for exhaustion, disappointment and job dissatisfaction – and of course environmental degradation.

Perhaps a coalition of well regarded community, planning and environment groups could support one another to really get stuck into the issue?

As Paul Ehrlich has said, "Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause if we don't stop population growth". Obviously that applies just as much in our local area as globally.

Cheers,

Jenny Warfe

1.      For example: O’Sullivan JN (2012) The burden of durable asset acquisition in growing populations. Economic Affairs 32 (1): 31–37)

2.      Pers comm. Dr. J O’Sullivan Senior Research Fellow UQ. http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/4920

Previously published as Don't hope for Obama or fear of Trump - Snowden chimes in on US elections and surveillance (11/11/16) | RT.

The world's most famous whistleblower, Edward Snowden, has addressed the public on the US election result urging people to think beyond a single person or a single election and take their future into their own hands.

"We can not hope for an Obama and we can not fear a Donald Trump rather we should build it ourselves," Snowden said about creating positive social change.

Snowden, an NSA contractor fled the US in 2013 after he leaked classified documents from the National Security Agency (NSA), revealing details about its global surveillance programmes. He has been granted temporary residency in Russia.

... (I was not able reproduce much of the original article, including Twitter boxes, from the original. - Ed)

See also: George Soros linked to the anti-Trump street riots perpetrated by Hillary’s Democrats thugs (12/11/16) | Syrian Free Press

As the title suggests, this article argues, using six examples, that the left treated Hillary Clinton's war plans against Russia as a non-issue. The article begins with six numbered headings and follows with the correspondingly numbered reasons, using arguments from emails, interviews and other documents. The article also discusses the influence of the Trotskyists in riots against Trump.

(1) Left treated Hillary's war plan against Russia as a non-issue
(2) Trots no mention of Assange Pilger interview
(3) Trots run the Demonstrations against Trump
(4) ISO Trots call for Overthrow of Assad
(5) Socialist Alternative Trots reject White Working Class
(6) Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful - Paul Craig Roberts

(1) Left treated Hillary's war plan against Russia as a non-issue

This is argued in an email I received from 'S -' on Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:21:19 -0500. The subject was: Re: On election eve, NATO announces military buildup against Russia. But Trump will tear up Brzezinski's Chessboard.

Responding to a post I wrote, entitled, 'Trump wins, war with Russia averted, ends reign of Clinton crime family', S- writes,

I was estranged from most of the left this time. Although I voted for Jill Stein, I felt palpable relief in hearing of Clinton's defeat by Trump. This whole election ought to have been a referendum on: "Should we go to war with Putin?" The idea that Clinton, determined to force a showdown with Russia, was "the lesser evil" was insane. Trump, however odious, was the peace candidate. Those who continued to support Clinton after she announced her support for a no-fly zone in Syria--an act of war against Russia---should be ashamed of themselves.

That is an act of collective suicide. The radical Left --Noam Chomsky,Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, the later Tom Hayden etc etc,--was supporting Dr Strangelove, all the while talking about how dangerous Trump is. The left treated Clinton's war plan as a non-issue, or at worst as unimportant. This is a left that is crippled by its emotional attachments to the Democratic Party, by its collective fantasies as shaped by corporate press. True Trump is a wild card, but Hillary Clinton Strangelove was eager to attack Russia and she had the support of both parties' establishments. To call her "the lesser evil" shows a profound confusion of the left in America, if not a collective death wish. S-- , Ph.D.

2) Trots no mention of Assange Pilger interview by Peter Myers, November 11, 2016

As soon as they learned of Trump's win, the Trots organized street demonstrations in cities across the US. These are the same people behind Black Lives Matter - that's just a spinoff, a franchise. After the murder of several policemen, they pulled the demonstrations, lest disorder on the streets boost Trump. Now they're back. These demonstrations are mainly run by two militant Trotskyist organizations:

- the International Socialist Organization (ISO): https://socialistworker.org/

- Socialist Alternative: http://www.socialistalternative.org/

They have some factional differences, but work together. The ISO oppose all the "dictators" - Castro, Chavez, Assad, Gaddafi & Mugabe - whereas Socialist Alternative support Castro & Chavez but oppose Assad, Gaddafi, & Mugabe (calling for their downfall).

The ISO is strong among Left academics at leading universities. News reports show demonstrators carrying signs such as 'Socialist
Alternative'. Yet the reports never call them 'Communist' or 'Trotskyist'; they are just presented as normal Americans.

At yesterday's demonstrations, a reporter noted the Trump had "some work to do" to re-unify the country. But these Trots will never change their spots - they are revolutionaries.

There are major differences between 'Stalinist' and the militant 'Trotskyist' camps. I classify as 'Stalinist' all the Left but anti-Trotskyist websites. The 'Stalinists', such as Global Research, oppose the overthrow of Gaddafi and Assad, whereas the militant Trotskyists support the overthrow.

There is one Trotskyist organization which stands out from the others - ICFI: https://www.wsws.org/. It does not command demonstrators on the streets - it is not 'militant' (but it was a major backer of the Tamil Tigers). WSWS opposes the overthrow of Gaddafi and Assad.

Even so, none of the Trotskyist sites carried the pre-election interview of Julian Assange by John Pilger. The 'Stalinist' sites, such as Global Research, did carry it.

This is amazing, because John Pilger is quintessentially Left. I heard him speak at a Trotskyist conference in Canberra 20 years ago. Yet this most pertinant interview, exposing Hillary's accepting donations from the Qatar and Saudi governments even though she knew they were funding ISIS, was censored by the Trots. They were so anti-Trump that they turned a blind eye to Hillary's war agenda.

Check yourself. These are the searches:

http://www.socialistalternative.org/?s=assange+pilger

https://socialistworker.org/search/node/assange%20pilger

http://www.wsws.org/en/search.html?maxResults=100&text=assange+pilger&title=&description=&keywords=&author=&year=2016&month=11&search=search

WSWS did cover the NATO military buildup against Russia, announced just before the election, but the ISO and Socialist Alternative did not mention it. They think that Gay Marriage matters more than World War III.That is why it is fitting to classify them in the War camp.They may well be accepting funds from George Soros, as certain Trotskyist organizations (such as Partisan review) were accepting payments from the CIA during the Cold War. Russians threw a party for Trump, in Moscow, after the election.

(3) Trots run the Demonstrations against Trump

https://socialistworker.org/2016/11/10/protesting-trump-from-day-one

Protesting Trump from day one. Sumaya Awad and Dorian Bon report from New York City as thousands show their anger with the president-elect on the first day after the presidential election. November 10, 2016.

EVEN AS rain began to pour down in the evening after Election Night, thousands of people in New York City turned up to protest Donald Trump and his rise to the presidency. Various marches snaked through lower and midtown Manhattan. Every half hour or so, two marches would collide and erupt in joyous shouts of solidarity before continuing on together. While some marches began on the sidewalks, by the end of the night, they had taken over the streets. When protesters waded into Broadway, they met support from car drivers honking their horns, bus drivers raising their fists and people shouting from upper floors of office buildings and apartments. Hundreds of vehicles were deserted in the streets as drivers joined the march.

As the march went down Sixth Avenue, people came out from retail stores to watch and film protesters chanting, "We demand impeachment!" and "Racist, sexist anti-gay! Donald Trump, go away!" Other onlookers chanted along, at first hesitantly, then confidently, as the demonstration marched in defiance of the racist, Islamophobic bigot who will soon become president.

New Yorkers were not alone in rejecting Trump. While Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren were calling on supporters to unite behind Donald Trump, protests were erupting across the country.

Thousands took over the downtown streets in Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles, and there were big protests at universities from California to Massachusetts. There were high school walkouts in Arizona and Iowa--two states where Trump won a majority--as well as Berkeley High School in California, where 1,500 students -- half the student body -- participated.

In Washington, D.C., chants of "No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!" rang out as an impromptu march of several hundred people met another large group of people at Trump's new luxury Pennsylvania Avenue hotel. After such a devastating Election Night, people were inspired to chant, talk and speak out about what they think happened and what we need to do next.

The anger was directed not just at Trump and everything he stands for, but the Democratic Party machine whose response to Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America great again" was "America has always been great." As one speaker put it, "Donald Trump's white nationalist economy should have been on the ballot against a social economy. We weren't able to have that vote because the Democratic Party didn't allow us to have that choice."

"The GOP was able to split white workers from having any solidarity with workers of color so here we are," said Melanie from Capitol Heights. "It's not about Hillary Clinton. It's about the Democratic machine and the way they ran their candidate of choice through the system. So we see that the liberal elites were out of touch as we have known." [...]

AT THE New York protests, one of which was called by a coalition of activists and the other by Socialist Alternative, the atmosphere was joyful and defiant. People seemed excited to be on the streets again, unified.

The many dozens of movements that marchers came from were reflected in the chants: "Black lives matter" led to "Muslim lives matter," then "Disabled, trans and immigrant lives matter," each one louder than the last.

Often times several chants could be heard at once from different places in the crowd: "Not my president," "Her body, her choice," "We won't let Trump spread his hate, We won't let him legislate," "Whose streets? Our streets!" "From Palestine to Mexico, border walls have got to go!" "We reject the President-elect!' [...]

(4) ISO Trots call for Overthrow of Assad

https://socialistworker.org/2016/11/01/the-western-left-and-the-syrian-war

The Western left and the Syrian war

Australian socialist Corey Oakley takes up the debates among anti-imperialist forces over what the left should say about Syria, in an article for the newspaper Red Flag.

November 1, 2016

THE SYRIAN war is not just a tragedy. It is a crime of immense proportions. And it is clear as day who is culpable.

First, the Assad regime, which in 2011 met the demands of a protest movement for social justice and democratization with bullets and torture cells, and when that failed, and protesters began to call for Bashar al-Assad's overthrow, decided there was no price in blood it would not pay to stay in power.

Second, the Iranian regime, which, as the rebellion grew and the resources of the regime were exhausted in the face of a nationwide uprising, deployed its own military forces and proxy militias to keep the government in power and prolong the war.

Third, Russia. While Putin backed Assad from the outset, it was only in September last year that Russia, fearful the regime was on the brink of collapse, intervened decisively, unleashing the terrible power of its air force on rebel-held cities such as Aleppo. John Kerry's assertion that the Russian plan for Aleppo is modeled on its campaign in Grozny in 1999, when Russian forces laid waste to the entire city in order to wrest it from rebel hands, is likely to be a correct, if hypocritical.

THEN THERE is the West. It deserves its share of the blame too, but not for the reasons many claim. The predominant narrative on the left is that the U.S. and its allies have pursued a strategy of "regime change" in Syria, and are responsible for fuelling the resistance to Assad.

In fact, the opposite is true. Despite expressing, at various times, sympathy for rebels and hostility to Assad, the U.S. has at almost every stage hindered efforts to overthrow the regime. [...]

(5) Socialist Alternative Trots reject White Working Class

http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016/11/09/resistance-trump-party-99/

We Need Mass Resistance to Trump and a New Party of the 99% November 9, 2016.

People in the US and around the world awoke today to one of the most shocking political upsets in living memory with the election of Donald Trump as president. It was the culmination of an election cycle when ordinary Americans rose up against the political establishment and against the destructive effects of globalization and neo-liberalism. This was expressed both on the left, with the campaign of Bernie Sanders which galvanized millions for a "political revolution against the billionaire class," and, in a distorted way, on the right with Trump’s campaign.

But Trump did not just run as the alleged defender of the "forgotten men and women" in working class communities. He also ran the most overtly bigoted and chauvinist campaign of a major party candidate in modern times. He created a space for white nationalists and open white supremacists to come out of their holes and try to reach disaffected white workers and youth. This is a very dangerous development.

However, we completely reject the notion – relentlessly pushed by liberal commentators, trying to deflect from the staggering failure of the Democratic Party – that the outcome demonstrates that the bulk of the white working class shares Trump’s racism and xenophobia. [...]

It needs to be underlined that the outcome of this election was not just a shock to tens of millions of progressive workers, women, immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ people but also – for quite different reasons – to the ruling elite of the United States. [...]

(6) Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful - Paul Craig Roberts

10 November 2016. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/09/the-working-class-won-the-election-paul-craig-roberts/

The Working Class Won The Election

Paul Craig Roberts

November 9, 2016 @ 12:29 pm.

The US presidential election is historic, because the American people were able to defeat the oligarchs. Hillary Clinton, an agent for the Oligarchy, was defeated despite the vicious media campaign against Donald Trump.  This shows that the media and the political establishments of the political parties no longer have credibility with the American people.

It remains to be seen whether Trump can select and appoint a government that will serve him and his goals to restore American jobs and to establish friendly and respectful relations with Russia, China, Syria, and Iran.

It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump’s victory.  Wall Street and the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations with Russia.  Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.

With Trump there is at least hope.  Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington’s orchestrated conflict with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia’s border with Poland and Romania, the end of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington’s effort to overthrow the Syrian government.  However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy.  Although Trump defeated Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.

Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse.  If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington’s EU vassals.  The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed. Read the rest of this article here.

Article below has been republished, 15 Nov 2016, on the (real) Syrian Free Press.

Francis A. Boyle, Gadaffi's international lawyer and author of Destroying Libya and World Order, today (11 November 2016) said, on Pravda TV, that Obama can be existentially dangerous between now and inauguration day. He reminded people that Bush Sr invaded Somalia right after he lost to Bill Clinton. And the US/NATO announced on Monday that they were putting 300,000 troops on high alert. Boyle urges people to move forward with an impeachment campaign against Obama during the lame duck session of Congress because we do not want a war with Russia over Ukraine or Syria."

This morning, hardly taking breath over the US election, again there is much talk in the MSM about the situation in Aleppo, while the situation in Mosul has been quite ignored, although the fight by various forces including US-NATO against ISIS there and refugee diaspora all continue.

There were multiple takes from Mr. Jan Egeland, Special Advisor to the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria's statement about the urgency of getting aid into East Aleppo, all incorporating various aspects of the whole false narrative, about who is there, and about the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian efforts to liberate the whole city.

Aspects of the false narrative were also presented by the Australian ABC’s M/E correspondent Matt Brown, who seems to be a single-minded supporter of the opposition forces and a purveyor of misinformation on their behalf. In this report his source was ‘Abu Laith’ – ‘Aleppo resident and member of the White Helmets’. Brown discussed the presence of the Russian aircraft carrier with Abu Laith, who threw off the threat and vowed to continue to support the people. See http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4572965.htm

Egeland, who is also completely partial, claimed in his report that ‘some families had not received food rations for three weeks, and prices had risen sharply', and that ‘neither side wants to see a quarter of a million people starve’. Brown said the UN had done a survey of people in East Aleppo and found that 40% of them wanted to leave, but in portraying the recent efforts of the Syrian and Russian governments to get civilians out of the terrorist-occupied East, said that these had been unsuccessful because the ‘rebels oppose people leaving the city’. However he fails to say that the 'rebels' shoot people who try to leave.

The fact is that the UN should have cooperated with the Russian and Syrian government when there was the ceasefire to get people out. They should have put pressure on the rebel leaders, and the US-NATO by telling the media the real situation, which is that East Aleppo is being held under seige, not by the Syrian Gov, but by the 'rebels' who are using the East Aleppan citizens as human shields.

In another short news bulletin this morning, with different extracts from Egeland, it was suggested that the people could starve or bleed to death, [if we don’t act].

Emphasising the pervasive misinformation and disinformation coming from our corrupted media, the ABC also interviewed Australia’s defence minister, Maurice Payne, this morning. This might seem unsurprising if one didn’t know that neither the ABC nor the Australian government has shown the slightest interest in discussing Australia’s involvement, either in Iraq or Syria, for the last few months since the ‘Aleppo crisis’ has been dominating the narrative.

Even when Australian forces were allegedly involved in the US coalition attack on the SAA in Deir al Zour that ended the ‘ceasefire’, there was minimal discussion following the shockingly cursory apology.

That Australia was ‘involved’ in that strike, that supported IS terrorists directly, (though it has been suggested the fighter jets were only US ones, and that we were asked to share the responsibility), indicates that Australia’s strategic role as a primary partner in the US’ war on Syria is highly significant, as it is also highly significant in our region in the defence, not of Australian interests, but of US imperial interests against China.

This is what Australia’s defence minister, Marise Payne had to say this morning about our role in the ‘fight against ISIS’:

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: "In the Middle East in particular, Trump's been positive about Russia's role in Syria. We certainly haven't been positive in that way. He's talked also about a more robust military response to ISIS. Do you expect a change?"

MARISE PAYNE: "Well, we will always deal with those discussions as they're presented to us. Overwhelmingly, our response in Iraq and in Syria is dictated by conditions on the ground: by the operational environment in which we find ourselves.

As you know, we've trained almost 14,000 soldiers who are engaging in the fight against Daesh in the Iraqi defence force. We have a special operations task group which is working side-by-side, not just with the Iraqis but members of the international coalition, which is led by the United States. We have changed, even in the last year, our contribution to both of those activities. We have worked as the operational environment has changed as well..."

Most significant here is that the ‘Iraqis’ – meaning Baghdad – are not on the same side as the US coalition if it includes Turkey. That is something that needs clarifying right now. Whether the ABC has any idea about the importance of this issue remains unknown. They don’t ask, and they aren’t told.

Australian Wildlife Protection Council asks Mornington Peninsula Council to investigate potential breaches at 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd and also to ensure that important remnant vegetation and heritage listed trees are better protected from property development. At the very least Council should ensure planning applications that are granted to remove indigenous vegetation are required to have wildlife spotters on site and flora professionals the opportunity to collect seed and plant material for environmental revegetation projects.

To Antonella Celi,
[Councillor for the Seawinds Ward, Mornington Peninsula Shire]
During the council election campaign, you advocated for protecting neighbourhood character from over development. Which rightly is a concerning issue many locals feel strongly about. One such development application which has been approved and works which have started is 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd, VCAT REFERENCE NO. P566/2016, PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P15/1026. I know this application has been raised in a number of council meetings and one you yourself have spoken out against.

While I do not have the arborist report to confirm my suspicions, I do strongly believe that works that have commenced have breached the permit. That the Mornington Peninsula council is responsible for enforcing. The breaches I believe to have occurred are listed at the bottom of the page.

I am really frustrated and angry that a manna gum that was estimated to be between 300-500yrs old could be cut down. Especially considering there was a vegetation protection overlay on the property, the tree in question was recommended to be heritage listed and I was in the process of making a heritage listing request. With the assistance of Peninsula Speaks. It is very disappointing to know council staff do not take their job seriously and defer their employment duties to community members. I really do believe if the planning department took the enquiries seriously from the public and did the job expected of them, that historical indigenous tree would have been saved. It does not surprise me with the attitude of staff, that developers are advertising the sale of houses. Before the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council approve planning applications.

I now ask that the council investigate the potential breaches at 461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd and also ensure that important remnant vegetation and heritage listed trees are better protected from property development. At the very least ensure planning applications that are granted to remove indigenous vegetation are required to have wildlife spotters on site and flora professionals the opportunity to collect seed and plant material for environmental revegetation projects.

Regards
Craig Thomson
President Australian Wildlife Protection Council
Secretary Animalia Wildlife Shelter
Treasurer Save Tootgarook Swamp Inc.

More information

[...]

461-469 Waterfall Gully Rd
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P566/2016
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P15/1026

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1).
Design and Development Overlay (DDO1).
I believe that the above overlays should have been enough to protect the manna gum.

I believe that the following conditions have been breached,

Amended Plans

1. (b) A vegetation removal plan which utilises the numbering in the Arborist report submitted and which shows vegetation proposed to be removed and vegetation proposed to be retained, with the vegetation to be retained being Trees 46, 62, 67, 76, 88, 93, 97, 111, 112 and 113
There are now less Eucalypt trees remaining than were meant to be protected.

And

12. Prior to the commencement of any building or works, appropriate tree protection fencing must be erected in accordance with Australian Standard AD4970 – 2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites). The tree protection fencing must remain in place until the completion of any works hereby approved.
This did not happen.

I believe The following probably has not been under taken,

13. The construction methods contained within the Arborist report endorsed under this permit must be undertaken.

Native Vegetation Offsets

15. In order to offset the removal of 0.024 hectares of remnant patches and 13 scattered trees approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that meets the following requirements, and is in accordance with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual. The general offset must:

* (a) Contribute gain of 0.063 general biodiversity equivalence units.
* (b) Have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.181.
* (c) Be located within the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority boundary.

16. Before any native vegetation is removed from the site, evidence in the form of a credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual.

I’m not a vegan or even a vegetarian. I guess you could call me a reasonably discerning but practical omnivore but I’m becoming rather desperate to find something I can eat without feeling guilty about the harm I am doing to someone, something or to the environment.

Farmed fish

The other night I had salmon for dinner but my pleasure in eating it was destroyed by knowing that it is farmed in Tasmania where salmon farming is so intensive it is badly polluting the local environment and that salmon raised in crowded conditions suffer stress as do all animals forced to live in such an unnatural manner. I felt turned off by the current media about how the salmon we buy is artificially coloured pink as the fish do not eat the normal diet they would have in the wild to give them their colour but instead are expected to form their flesh from dried up wastage from the chicken industry! How can I enjoy salmon again unless I know it was caught in the wild rather than corralled and extracted from a paddock in the sea. Where do I find wild salmon? Is there enough to go around and do I need to set aside a day’s pay for one serve?

Free range eggs

The next day for lunch I opted for an omelette made from free range eggs. But my conscience was not clear. I know the eggs labelled as such are not necessarily genuine free range. Even if they are “ free range”, I know is not free in the sense that the birds have an enjoyable life scratching around and eating a varied diet straight from the earth as do the happy hens on a friend’s tiny farmlet in a town an hour or so from Melbourne. Instead, hens producing “free range” eggs for the masses have a couple of hours per day outside and otherwise they are crowded into barns. So I could not feel 100% happy about my omelette.

Vegetables

What about vegetables? Well apart from the fact that the growing of vegetables for humans displaces nature on the land required I suppose I can consume with reasonable impunity. I could grow them myself but on the tiny amount of land I own and the small amount of sunshine available after the house next door and its tall hedge have stolen most of it except in summer, my supply would be extremely erratic. No, I cannot rely on that except the occasional garnish of parsley..

Biscuits, bread and pastry

Aside from vegetables a vegetarian diet may include biscuits, bread and pastry all of which can transform a vegetable selection into a satisfying meal. But hold on a moment! I see from the packet that the biscuits I am about to eat contain palm oil the production of which has driven land clearing in the places it grows best. This land clearing has destroyed the habitat of one of our close relatives, the orangutan and as species , they are in peril! I can’t eat those biscuits. I’ll opt for those not containing palm oil. But all biscuits are made from grains. The production of grains for an ever growing population of humans drives land clearing and habitat loss! This is undeniable! All land taken over for agriculture must be taken from other species, be they orangutans, elephants , kangaroos, all kinds of birds reptiles, insects (including bees).

I can avoid palm oil but can I avoid grains if I am a vegetarian?

Dairy

The other large category (before I get onto meat!) that is morally problematic is “dairy”. Milk, yoghurt, cheese, cream, butter all of which I love. But they are produced by animals (usually cows) that are forced to calve annually, to be separated from their babies before those babies even have the brief pleasure of suckling from their mothers. The babies (“poddy” calves) are hand fed up to the day they go market . Forlorn and abandoned they await their fate to become another delicacy that I decided long ago not indulge in – veal. I cannot eat any dairy products without thinking of the poor exploited animals who provide it to me.

Chicken

What about meat from land based animals? Firstly let’s take chicken. I love it! I also love chickens. They are delightful creatures. The chickens bred for meat now look nothing like the chickens we may have known personally as children. I knew them from my grandparents' place where they happily scratched round all day after producing an egg each in the nests in their coop. My grandmother would select one to eat maybe 3 times per year so they had a dual role! Meat chickens now are lethargic and inelegant sedentary creatures displaying little curiosity. Such a creature can garner a lot of flesh on its bones quite quickly unlike the active, exploring, scratching sort of chicken we think of when we think of a chicken. I find that off-putting. For me it is a step too far into genetically engineered dinner.

Bacon

The first favorite food in my life was bacon. I loved it, especially the way my mother cooked it – crisp, hot and a few ribbons of fat bordering the very tasty lean meat. I still love bacon but I have hardly eaten it at all for 20 years because of what I know about the conditions that pigs live in before they are harvested for us. It makes me very sad to see a sow’s body pressed up against a metal frame supposedly for her own good and pigs living in concrete enclosures. I would feel happy eating bacon if I knew the pig had run around and wallowed in mud during its life.

Beef

Beef- well maybe the cattle involved get the best deal. I know people who produce beef and I know they care about their animals. Perhaps their lives are acceptable til it is time to meet their maker. I would be happy to eat a porterhouse steak if I knew that the animal’s life had allowed him to express his nature, that he had felt the sun on his back and enjoyed the shade of a gum tree whilst looking at the sunset and later met a swift, unconscious end, knowing nothing about it. But when I see the way our beef cattle from the north are treated overseas, it puts me off beef full stop. I stop trusting anything about its production.

Wild fish

Where does this leave me ? Sushi has lost its shine, Orange Roughy is a no- no ; its life cycle is too long for a regular harvest to be sustainable. What about tuna? Well it might be Ok except that it is caught with large nets that take in other marine animals. There are also some doubts about the sustainability of this "resource", anyway.

Where do I go from here? There are problems with everything as I try to compose my menu.

Hunting and gathering

The problem is that everything needs to be produced on such a large scale to fulfil the needs to humans who have spread all over the globe and increased their population from 1 billion around 1800, to now over 7 billion and rising! About 2 billion people globally are hungry or undernourished. Many in first world countries are malnourished on a diet of addictive junk foods such as fries and hamburgers and these same people may well be obese from the excessive but empty calories of their diet. As for me, I just suffer from “moral starvation”. This is not an inability to access food, but an inability to find anything I can eat with a clear conscience that is not part of a harmful industry. I suppose I could hunt for and gather my own food but there is little game or produce in the suburbs.

It is Mrs Hillary Clinton who should be in prison, not Julian Assange. For anyone who is still confused about what on earth Wikileaks has demonstrated about Hilary Clinton, watch this very clear interview by Australia's most famous independent Australian journalist, John Pilger and check the transcript below the video. Assange makes perfectly clear the association between Saudi Arabia and ISIS and Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation. It shows that Hillary Clinton, whilst Secretary of State (!), knew and knows that the Saudi Arabian and Qatar governments were and are funding ISIS. This relationship with terrorism has been going on for years. The Australian Government and opposition must also know this. And, the Australian government, by not getting Assange safely back home is spectacularly failing its obligations to protect its own citizens from persecution. Our government is a cowardly lackey to the United States and the opposition and the Greens are just as bad because they say nothing about this. Our press protects this collusive silence. Assange is without doubt a courageous world figure and an Australian hero, but without Australia's intervention, Assange risks being thrown into a dungeon, like Chelsea Manning - with a mockery trial in the United States, should he step outside the Ecuadorian Embassy. Transcript inside, first published on RT at http://on.rt.com/7ty5 as "Assange: Clinton is a cog for Goldman Sachs & the Saudis (John Pilger exclusive video & transcript)"with multiple pictures and links which we have not published here.

Transcript from RT:

Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.

"The door to Australia is closing" says Nick McKim of the Australian Greens. Many people reading this might be alarmed, wondering how their relatives overseas can visit them in future. But no, this heading is misleading. It is only the little door at which asylum seekers arriving by boat appear. The big door to Australia is still wide open for others.

"The Door to Australia is closing. Breaking: Early yesterday Malcolm Turnbull stood in front of the press and announced new policy that would impose a lifetime ban for asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat. Senator Hanson immediately stated her full support. We have less than a week to prevent this heinous policy from being implemented by convincing Labor and the cross-bench to oppose it – but we need you to stand with us."

Thus Nick McKim of The Greens communicated with his friends and members of the Greens Party in Australia.

McKim refers to the latest draconian proposed policy from the Federal Government. I suspect this announcement is in advance of a further increase in Australia's very large economic migration numbers of which the Australian public appear to be unaware. This was John Howard’s ploy when he virtually doubled the NON- refugee immigration program during his term as Prime Minister. Paraphrasing Howard's own words, he figured that the Australian public would accept high immigration if they believed that the borders of the country were secure. A hard line on asylum seekers, and intense interest and reporting by the media sent Howard's message unmediated straight to the Australian people. Measured debate on immigration and population, even by environmentalists for whom population is critical, was well and truly highjacked by the asylum seeker issue.

This highjacked debate has been an ongoing thorn in the side of environmental scientists and other concerned people. It has captured the energies of activists for well over over a decade. Those involved in refugee activism are on the whole socially aware and politically engaged people who might have otherwise concerned themselves with the effects of population pressures on democracy and their own environments.

Asylum seekers used as wedge politics

Australia has reached the stage now where those who put the asylum seeker issue as first priority will hardly engage with those who are environment and population focused. Successive governments have made rational discussion about Australia’s population all but impossible by driving this cruel wedge right through the rest of us. Educated discourse both in the private and public domains has been strangled. The Australian public has been manipulated by government and the press. The victims of these narrowly defined polemics are the asylum seekers and the Australian public whose freedom of speech and determination of their future have been stolen.

The major parties sustain this confusion to their audiences whilst maintaining the hard line on asylum seekers arriving by boat. The Australian Greens who do take up the asylum seeker issue, in opposition to the other two major parties, have done nothing to help educate the Australian people. They should have told the Australian public how it is being duped and that, far from the door to Australia closing, only a small door is being slammed shut, whilst huge gates have been thrust wide open, admitting completely unprecedented numbers into the country.

The population is growing so fast that net overseas migration (the total numbers arriving minus the total numbers leaving) is now making up more than half of Australia’s population growth! (See graph, "Components of population growth Australia 1990-2015").

Do you know what the economic migration numbers are?

On ABC’s Q and A 17th October 2016, One of the panelists, lawyer and asylum seeker advocate Shen Narayanasamy “exposed” the deception that our politicians and media perpetuate, a clever blurring of the issues of immigration in total and the virtually insignificant numbers of unfortunate people who arrive by boat, seeking asylum but who make up 90% of the national discourse on immigration. She revealed that 800,000 overseas visa holders enter Australia every year, a figure (including visas issued under categories such as family reunion, skilled workers, a special eligibility category, student visas, 457 temporary workers visas and 417 working holiday visas) that totally dwarfs the figures for Australia's humanitarian intake and the numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat . Ms. Narayanasamy said “.... I think there is an alternative because when you understand that we take 800,000 people a year and we have done so since Prime Minister John Howard, the highest intake in history, it’s because we know it turbo-charges our economy and contributes to our society.” 1 Of course the number was not news to those who take an interest and research the facts, but it was important that this person revealed this stark fact to the poorly informed general public on a popular television program .

While 1,469 once 'boat people', now mostly meeting the criteria of refugees, have awaited their fate on Manus Island and and Nauru , approximately 800,000 other kinds of immigrants arrive in Australia each year in the form of hairdressing, business, and other students, investors, families, 457 workers, bakers, cooks, labourers, mines workers, backpackers, foreign doctors, nurses, accountants, town planners, sundry religious leaders, millionaires, billionaires, with few questions asked. Most would pay far less for their passage than any asylum seekers arriving clandestinely by boat, with or without real or fake passports. Around 12,000 humanitarian applicants are admitted each year.

Eight hundred thousand (800,000) is almost one fifth (1/5th) of fast growing Melbourne's current population, whilst the total number of asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru equates more to the population of a couple of small villages villages https://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-statistics

That is how totally out of proportion the narrative is Australia.

It makes you wonder why the Greens don't simply encourage asylum-seekers to obtain false passports and apply to become foreign students in Australia and buy air tickets. It would be so much cheaper and far less life-threatening. No-one would probably notice since we already have many people who have overstayed their visas in Australia. We also encourage many who have obtained a qualification in this country to convert to permanent immigrant whilst onshore. Australia has so many overseas immigrants now that they contribute around sixty per cent of our total population growth.

Why aren't the Greens talking about these logistical problems?

The Australian Greens' exclusive focus on asylum seekers is just too convenient for the Liberal and Labor parties, because it keeps the public eye away from the explosion of immigration that is negatively affecting every aspect of our quality of life and cost of living, with the possible exception of variety in restaurants, for those who can afford them. Around 200,000 permanent immigrants and an uncapped number of temporary entrants (in the realm of 600,000 per annum) are overwhelming Australia's capacity to provide infrastructure, to protect our urban environment and it is devastating our natural environment. Dwindling numbers and extinctions of Australian native animals are the collateral damage of habitat lost to ever advancing additional freeways, tollways, and new suburbs. One cannot help but notice that the similarity between the approximate number of temporary migrants in Australia at any one time and the numbers for fluctuating local unemployment.

Desensitisation of the Australian public

For years professional population growth marketers and governments have worked to desensitise the Australian public to large numbers. For instance, I used to tell people that Melbourne would be 6 million by mid- century and people would tell me that I was exaggerating . Now they tell me it will be 7 million as though that is just normal. And the other day I read in the Financial Review that we are heading for 8 million!

Ms. Narayanasamy was of the opinion that we are coping so well with all these immigrants, whom she believes are 'turbo-charging' our economy, that we should take in even more. The reality is that the discipline of economics is so narrow that it is completely inadequate to frame the actual problem.

Erosion of democracy

How is it that someone living in Melbourne cannot be aware of the problems this high immigration is causing us? Democracy is being overturned simply to accommodate this influx and the rest of us badly. In Melbourne, an important example of how destructive this is for democracy is the greatly protested (but little reported and little investigated) changes to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT's) planning appeals rules. See articles re public dismay about VCAT changes. VCAT was created to provide the Victorian public with free access to appeal decisions on planning. It was intended that no-one would need a barrister to represent them at VCAT and that any resident might raise a planning objection. The rules have now changed, whereby it costs a fortune just to lodge a planning objection and community groups don't dare to attend the tribunal without a barrister. Even so, the rights of appeal have been constricted to superficialities. Local government no longer has the power to decide the size of its population by restricting subdivisions and refusing building permits. The state has taken over and the state is in the business of population growth and property development, encouraging people to migrate to Victoria, collecting the stamp duty from continuous housing construction to accommodate them, and passing laws to stop Victorians from protecting their quality of life by resisting over-development.

Other states seem to operate similarly.

What about the natural environment and natural resources and amenity?

Many believe that a population of 24 million is quite small for a continent as large but Australia is a very infertile, dry continent with erratic rainfall, unique, fragile ecosystems and a low human “carrying capacity”. We are pushing our environment beyond its limits, expecting it behave like places many times more fertile, such as Europe. It will never be Europe. We should love it for what it is. This worked for the original human custodians who lived here sustainably for a proven nearly 50 thousand years.

The Victorian State of the Environment Reports 2008 and 2013 showed that Victoria’s fragile environment, especially around our coasts and waterways is deteriorating through population pressure and it is clear from this that continued high population growth is environmentally irresponsible. Ultimately we humans depend on that environment. It does not look as though the next report due in 2018 is likely to show any improvements with an anticipated half a million added to Australia's population.

Victoria has an expensive desalination plant which will for the first time be put to use this summer even after very good winter rain as, according the Premier Daniel Andrews, the dams are not at a level to sustain the current population in Melbourne. The desal plant, estimated to cost taxpayers $20 billion was constructed over multiple objections. In another blow to democracy, the community group,Your Water Your Say, was bankrupted by court-costs and had to abandon its fight.

With such rapid and continuing population growth, ever more land is taken up by housing for the additional population. Established houses and gardens are being destroyed to accommodate more people and precious farm land on Melbourne's fringes is given over to housing development.

City traffic in Melbourne is now so bad that one always re considers a trip across town by car even outside peak times.

The demand for housing is so fierce that un-affordable housing is constantly featured in our media with the blame shifted to peripheral issues such as negative gearing or "empty nesters" preferring to remain in the family home rather than downsizing. (Negative gearing in property is really only a consequence of the level of population growth feeding demand. If the prices of houses were not constantly rising it would be pointless to purchase and negatively gear! See "Are the Greens on the right track with respect to negative gearing?")

Local politics and media are saturated with arguments over new roads and railway crossings, building projects to densify our suburbs, loss of trees, and pressure on both private and public land.

No end point

The prospect of ever more disruptive projects to cater for socially engineered rapid population growth is economically motivated. It benefits the few, dis-advantages the many and has absolutely no existential purpose or end point.

Footnote
1. https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912

These problems particularly concern viewing RT New and Press.tv.ir. For several days we have only been able to view those shows that have been republished on you tube. :-[ Our last problems with Telstra seemed to be fixed when we rewired around the 7th of Octobe. But now they are back again. Is anyone else having problems accessing RT or Iranian Press TV? End of article, don't bother to click on link.