Mary Drost is the convenor of Planning Backlash, a group with a network of 250 residents' groups, which last year held the biggest ever population awareness function in Australia. Recently VCAT issued a very limited survey for users to fill out. Many of the 250 residents' groups in Planning Backlash were formed through bitter experience of appealing to the law via VCAT. Here is what Mary Drost has to say, in her frank and concise manner.
Statement to VCAT re their survey [1]
I think VCAT is doing a terrible job and not at all what it was intended to do. I refer to the things that most people are involved with and that is planning. For a start you have never before charged people to speak at a case. Now, suddenly, we have to pay, and you don't even put the amount on the form called 'Statement of grounds'. It is very badly done.
Then we residents believe that your Members are the developers' friend and usually give developers whatever awful development they want. In fact you should only be assessing if the council has followed its own rules but instead you set yourself up as the Responsible Authority and that is not your role.
Further it is obvious that the developer's barristers are buddy buddy with the Members, the way they speak to each other. Further VCAT staff have told me that developers ask for the Member they want and that is disgraceful, they get their friend.
Further VCAT should have its own expert witnesses as the ones developers use are only guns for hire who have been known to lie for money.
Then it would be much fairer if the ones bringing the case spoke first. [It is] not fair that they listen to the objectors and then try to knock them down. They [the objectors] like to be the last to speak.
As you can see, I am not happy with VCAT and I am in touch with many people across Melbourne. People are very disappointed by this survey. It has not allowed people to say what they think about planning, very poor survey. You should do a proper one and let people say what they really think. I am happy to discuss it with you anytime. I am Mary Drost Convenor of Planning Backlash, a network of 250 resident groups, all unhappy with VCAT and very disappointed that this survey is such a non event. [Email address left out by candobetter.net editor]
Notes
[1] Some editorial changes to punctuation, spacing and capitalisation have been made for easier reading, since this was originally an entry in an online form.
Video documentary of army training and interviews with former enemies of the Syrian Army who have sought amnesty and now train to fight for Syria: "On several occasions since 2011, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has offered amnesty to anti-government militants who lay down their arms. Amnesties are usually offered to former combatants after are conflict ends, in Syria though they’re being granted as the war rages on. Men who haven’t completed their mandatory military service, are returned to the Army and serve in special “Amnestied groups” where they will fight with the government forces they once opposed.
Each has his own story about how he came to be offered amnesty. Some joined the armed opposition voluntarily, others say they were kidnapped and forced to cooperate. Some used to serve in the army but went AWOL due to circumstances beyond their control and were classified as deserters. Several are concerned about relatives who are fighting with one of the many militant factions. With such diverse backgrounds, some of the soldiers find it hard to trust each other completely, not knowing what side their comrades-in-arms are really on or what they may have done in the past.
What they all have in common is that they have been deeply affected by the war: they have lost homes and family members; and each one has a tragic story to tell. They all insist they are either victims or witnesses of war crimes but never the perpetrators. They sing patriotic songs and swear allegiance to Assad. Enlisting the amnestied remains controversial in Syria but the soldiers themselves say they’re happy to be given a second chance even if it means continuing to risk their lives in action, this time on the government’s side." First published on Rt Published time: 14 Aug, 2016 06:30 at https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/354592-amnesty-syria-army-wartime/
Why has a Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group Member been vilified as racist and sexist and harassed with threats of expulsion for sticking up for our wildlife against needless rapid population growth? Read what Geoff Dowsett wrote and the response he got from candidate Tamara Ryan (included in the article).
This is what he wrote, asking Greens to circularise Greens candidates:
GEOFF:"As a candidate for John Kaye's Upper House seat how about a strong statement and policy improvement suggestion from you to address the desperate need to stabilise Australia`s population growth? The current "economic"---middle class so called skilled (non refugee) immigration rate of 500,000 per year including 457 Visa (a world record high intake) is not sustainable. Sydney's population is growing by 83,000 net pa under the Liberal Govt's Immigration scam. It is causing excessive impact on inadequate infrastructure-impact on natural eco-systems through urban growth and consumer demand. Increased traffic congestion in our major cities - sky rocketing housing prices. Of course the immigration rate is just what big business wants particularly the housing industry while our quality of life, natural environment and urban environment goes down the gurgler. The immigration rate is also closely linked with the insane growth economy which is addicted to continuing growth in consumption. It is HYPOCRISY of the Greens to have a policy of sustainable economy without a policy for a substantial reduction in immigration. Priority should be humanitarian i.e. for political and environmental refugees NOT wealthy middle class business migrants. When will the Greens members such as yourself bite the bullet on population ? I won't vote for you unless you make a statement indicating a clear commitment to reducing Turnbull's excessive Immigration and 457 Visa intake."(Geoff Dowsett. Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens. Population/Sustainability Working Group Member. Statement above does not represent the views of all of the working group.)
What do you think of this response?
TAMARA: "Geoff. I understand your membership is being collectively reconsidered for your frequent racist and sexist comments like these Jeff. Your views on climate action via controlling immigration have no place in this party.represent the Environment
I don't care about your vote, but I do care fiercely about advocating for women's autonomy over their bodies, rejecting racism and opening borders. Capitalist structures that promote continuous growth and waste by corporations and governments are responsible for stifling efforts on climate change, not people seeking a place and way to live.
The implied accusation of sexism seemed to be linked to some idea that Geoff was trying to interfere with women's rights to control their bodies. I cannot see anywhere where Geoff suggests this should happen. I also cannot see any reference to race in what Geoff wrote. Tamara makes gestures of support for the unemployed and working class, but for some reason, she doesn't seem to mind the super-rich being imported in hundreds of thousands to Australia as planned invited economic immigrants. Or does she have no idea of the actual numbers and how they are chosen? Does she think all immigrants are actually refugees? Tamara seems to be in favour of completely open borders, not just humane treatment of refugees: "Close the camps, open the borders, free all refugees." (https://www.facebook.com/RefugeesSurvivorsAndExdetainees/videos/1215228178517319/)
Is Open Borders official Greens policy now?
Ms Ryan's unpleasant response to Mr Dowsett seems sexist itself, with an unfounded slur of 'racism', and an implied threat about his membership of The Greens being 'collectively reconsidered'. This is not the only time I have heard of Greens members in population working groups being intimidated, for I have suffered by it personally.
Personal experience
As a committee member of Prosper Australia, around the time of the formation of its ‘green’ Earthsharing brand, I personally experienced, with another committee member, similar treatment from a cluster of new members, vocally hostile about our affiliation with Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). This hostility manifested as a very threatening warning from one of them following a small rally of oddly assorted pro- lifers and claimants to be refugee advocates outside a perfectly innocent but important public meeting on democracy in Australia which we as members of SPA were holding at the premises of Prosper with the blessing of the Prosper committee. As it transpired, our treatment was part of a hostile takeover by Socialist Alliance members of the comparatively wealthy NGO. We had to leave. Some of these people later have thrown their weight about in the Greens on population issues.
I later joined my local Greens, far away from Prosper, but at the mention of population, (myself and) another member (an immigrant from Cairo whom I had only met in that branch) and I were sent to Coventry by a then recent blow-in from the Labour Party, who took over the management of that branch of the Greens email list. No-one now would dare discuss the obvious problem of high immigration, with its huge contribution to high population growth, and the impact on wildlife and the green wedges of expanding suburbs.
Here is someone else’s experience
A few years ago I heard the following tale, which has now been written down for the record:
"This is my recollection of working with a team within the Greens on revising the Population Policy. At that time many of the Greens’ polices were being reviewed by working groups. About eight of us met several times in the city after work to focus on the policy and to improve it.
As I recall there was little or no friction or disagreement within the group on any of the points. We were all focused on sustainability and environment and did our best to reflect this in the alterations to the then policy. This work resulted in a document noting changes on which we all agreed. As I understand , this document was sent to Adelaide for a committee to consider it. As I understand, also, it was rejected completely as it had too many amendments from the original policy. That is what I was told.
Some time after this I was also told that at a large, possibly national Greens gathering or convention in Carlton, that when the issue of population came up, there were very loud intimidating aggressive voices raised to silence anyone who wanted to wade in on the topic. One of the people who had been part of the working group emailed the rest of us after attending this event, saying that he had no further wish to pursue this any further in view of the threatening tone of these people at the meeting. I never heard from this person again and the working group effectively dissolved at that point."
Greens Crucible
[New video version here since last one taken off-line.]
Such censorship and bullying control by people dominating in a group reminds me of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, a play about witch trials in 17th century America. It is a play which has often been studied by high school students with the glaring lesson that free speech can be snuffed out by irrational alliances within the dominant doctrine. It sometimes seems as though the Greens are increasingly defined by people who have taken the role of Puritans accusing anyone they disagree with of witchcraft, except they accuse them of sexism and racism, where none exists. But the implications are similarly terrible, in that they are designed to stigmatise, ostracise, and disempower those they target, thereby silencing their views. In Miller’s Crucible the accusers were themselves guilty of playing at sorcery. They became fearful of being denounced themselves as sinners, and defend themselves by accusing others of attempting to bewitch them.
If this is so then The Greens have gone down a blind alley and philosophically seem to have reached a dead end. What are they about if they cannot tackle the main threat to “green-ness”, environmental sustainability and conservation of nature and wildlife, which is human population numbers in situ?
What are the elders in the Greens doing about the stifling of discussion within the ranks of the party? What do they think of the association between their members, so-called socialist groups and the violent Antifa, who are paid to riot?[1] [No insult intended here to real socialists or anarchists.] They seem to be standing back or even approving while the intimidation grows. [2] Are they in fact also the product of unexamined ideology? Do they agree with its effects, which are to keep Australian political debate confused and unrepresentative, bogged down in imagined racism and sexism (while real racism and sexism continue) and overpopulation and overdevelopment turn our environment into concrete. Are they all globalists? Do they really agree with massive, developed, urbanized import-export economies which destroy the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this?
What can people who really are environmentalists do when the party that bears their flag provides cover for materialistic land-speculating nature-destroying neoliberalism for which population-dependent economic growth at all costs is God? What can they do about the growing violence and intimidation in the Greens?
Stone objects collected by prehistoric hunters were effective as throwing weapons to hunt animals, research at Leeds Beckett University reveals.
The research, published in the latest edition of Scientific Reports, shows that stone objects collected by prehistoric humans could inflict considerable damage to large animals over distances of up to 25 metres.
The researchers, led by Dr Andrew Wilson, an expert in perception, action and embodied cognition at Leeds Beckett, alongside Associate Professor Qin Zhu from the University of Wyoming, Professor Lawrence Barham and Professor Ian Stanistreet from the University of Liverpool, and Professor Geoffrey Bingham from Indiana University, analysed a sample of 55 spheroids (ball-shaped stone objects found in African archaeological sites) from the Cave of Hearths in the Makapan Valley in South Africa.
Using research on the perception of affordances (the possibility of an action on an object or environment) for maximum distance and therefore maximum speed and damage throwing, the researchers simulated the projectile motions the spheroids would undergo if thrown by an expert. These simulations were then used to estimate the probability of these projectiles causing damage to a medium-sized prey animal such as an impala. The researchers found that 81% of the stones analysed could have inflicted worthwhile damage over distances of up to 25 metres.
Previous research has suggested that the spheroids were used as percussive tools for shaping or grinding other materials; however most of the objects analysed by the team had weights that produce optimal levels of damage from throwing, rather than simply being as heavy as possible. This suggests that they could have been selected by Stone Age hunters to be used as projectile weapons.
Dr Andrew Wilson explained: “Whilst other animals have been known to throw objects on occasion, none can match the speed, accuracy and distances that a trained human can achieve. Humans are uniquely specialised for throwing, both anatomically and psychologically. Throwing has played a vital role in our evolutionary past, enabling us both to hunt prey and to compete with other carnivores to scavenge carcasses. The ability to damage or kill prey at a distance not only expands the range of foods available, but also reduces the risk of close confrontation with dangerous prey.
“Before the development of throwing spears, our ancestors were faced with the task of finding and using objects suitable for hunting and defence. Imagine a human, searching for an object to throw so as to cause the most damage possible to a prey animal or a competitor. Their job is to find an object of an optimum size and weight: large and heavy enough to fly far and cause damage, but not too large or heavy as to interfere with producing the high speed throw required for distance and damage. This is a perceptual task: the person needs to perceive throwing-relevant affordance properties of objects and be able to discriminate between objects that vary in those properties. Other research has shown modern humans to be exceptionally good at this task.
“This study applies research about how modern humans perceive the throwing affordances of objects, to provide a mathematical analysis of the stones found at the Cave of Hearths and evaluate the of these objects as projectiles for throwing.”
Professor Larry Barham, Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, added: “Archaeologists have long puzzled over what these round stones were used for – they’re about the size of a tennis ball but much heavier. This study shows that they are good hunting weapons when thrown overhand, and we know early humans could throw with power and accuracy. [Their upper body anatomy was much like ours.] The artefacts in this study were carried to the cave which suggests these people selected the stones for their size, shape and weight. Our modelling shows that these stones could have been used for hunting and that’s an important piece of information given these ancestors lived before the invention of spears or the bow and arrow.”
Professor Geoffrey Bingham added: “The ability to throw great distances was not a small thing: it was how we got lunch. We are the only animals — and even the only primates — with that talent. Our research suggests that the throwing of stones played a key role in the evolution of hunting before the development of spears. We don’t think that throwing is the sole or even primary function of spheroids, but these results show that this function is an option that warrants reconsidering as a potential use for this long-lived, multi-purpose tool.”
Scientific Reports is an online, open access journal from the publishers of Nature. To view the full paper visit - www.nature.com/articles/srep30614
Donald Trump has entered a political kill zone. And the American establishment is lining up to take him out. We are talking here in virtual terms - at least thus far.
Nowadays, political assassination by US powers-that-be does not necessarily involve physical liquidation of the individual deemed to be an enemy of the state. Who needs all that blood and controversy? Especially when character assassination achieves the same desired end result – that is, elimination of target from the public domain.
The fierce media crossfire that the Republican presidential contender is being subjected to leaves little doubt that this is a concerted effort to destroy this politician.
This article by Finian Cunningham was previously published on Sputnik News on 9/8/16. The republication of the full article here is awaiting permission from the editors. For more, read the Sputnik News article.
Mercurius Goldstein is a current candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection in New South Wales. Because overpopulation via mass planned invited economic immigration is a very big concern in Australia, and people wonder why the Greens downplay or even suppress this concern, we have published Goldstein's views on population numbers with an analysis by Jane O'Sullivan.
Mercurious Goldstein's views on population [1]
"Briefly I believe that:
1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.
The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.
I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question."
Jane O'Sullivan's analysis
This is a very interesting response, in a population-denialist psychology sense.
Before looking at the substance of what he is saying, the tone is aggressively condescending. It reads as a put-down to the people raising the population issue.
It uses the same rhetorical device that the Greens' population policy by-line uses: appearing to introduce balance between population and other factors, while actually deflecting and belittling any attention to population.
(That policy by-line says, “Environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.” It does not say, "Environmental impact is not determined by consumption patterns alone, but also by our population numbers." The wording the Greens have chosen might be argued to be saying the same thing, but actually it is falsely accusing those who raise the population issue of claiming it is the sole determinant of environmental impact, at the same time it completely dismisses population by failing to include the word "also" in the final clause.)
Mercurius' three points use the same trick of reversing the points. It makes it look at first glance as if he is "serious about population" - indeed, more so than all those shallow, naive people who raise the population issue, because they, by implication, don't put sufficient weight on equality, carbon emissions or sustainable agriculture. His logic seems to be that if you are not way too busy pursuing equality, renewable energy or sustainable agriculture to even think about population, then you're not "serious about population".
Of course, he's not serious about population at all. He doesn't seem to have any awareness of the issues, other than that the people raising it often want to reduce immigration and therefore they are evil and dangerous in his view. He does seem to be serious about silencing the population issue within the Greens agenda. That's what this statement is designed to do. He hopes "the above can serve as a general response to the question." It doesn't "serve" as anything, it just deflects the issue.
To illustrate, would it be acceptable to anyone, if the Greens said "Anyone who isn't serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy isn't serious about equality"? Would people really accept that these issues are linked to the extent that we shouldn't actually do or say anything about equality until we have achieved a carbon-neutral economy? Of course not. We can and must do both at once. But apparently not when it comes to "population".
However, it would be entirely valid to say:
1) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally. (The fact is, family planning programs, through both their direct impact on changing attitudes toward women and their role, and by reducing the burdens of childrearing and the crowding of schools through population growth, has enabled far greater empowerment and education for women than any non-family-planning agenda to help women in high-fertility countries.)
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world. (Do I need to explain this one?)
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture. (Regardless of whatever the Greens NSW policy in this area is, agriculture can't be indefinitely intensified to feed indefinitely more people - and its further intensification comes with greater environmental costs.)
Sheila [Newman] asks [2] "Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?" Certainly, there are quite a few Greens members who appear to support open borders. There are a great many more who wouldn't actually support open borders if they thought a lot of people would use them, but delude themselves into thinking that the refugee inflow will remain a mere trickle, and the economic migrants will continue to be only those we really need to fill skills shortages (as if they ever were), even if we let anyone come and stay for ever and access our welfare system if that's what they want to do. Such nonsensical beliefs are cultivated by ensuring that there can be no open and honest discussion about the implications of "open borders".
To emulate Mercurius,
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about democracy.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about protecting the environment.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about indigenous rights;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about housing affordability and homelessness;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about a welfare safety-net;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about decent pay and secure jobs.
Perhaps these statements could be taken as "hypotheses" which the Greens should either disprove, or openly distance themselves from advocating open borders. That means, they have to actually come up with workable policies on immigration, not just heap scorn on the government's position.
NOTES
[1] The context of statement from Mercurius Goldstein is explained in this email: On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Geoff at Eco Bushwalks Sydney wrote: I received this email below the dotted line today from the candidate. It was as you can see addressed to the group via me. [...]"
.................................................................................................
[...]
As you may be aware, I am currently a candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection that is being run.
For the information of members of the group, could I please ask for this opportunity to share my views on population?
I was asked about population recently in another forum, and this is the answer I gave then, and it remains my view.
I have also cc:'d a couple of other GNSW members for whom this matter may be of interest.
Briefly I believe that:
1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.
The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.
I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question.
---
With thanks for your consideration,
Yours sincerely,
MERCURIUS GOLDSTEIN
New England Greens (Glen Innes Region)
I live and work on Ngarrabul land and pay my respects to Elders past and present.
[2] Sheila Newman (Researcher and editor of candobetter.net in correspondence with Geoff Dowsett about Mercurius Goldstein's statement) wrote: "Is this guy a globalist? Does he agree with massive import export economies and with destroying the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this? What is his timeline for educating all women and how does he reconcile this with the problem of suburbs being built over our bushland and the rights of other species? Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?"
[a] Due to a garbled email, I erroneously gained the impression that Mercurius was the convenor of a population working party in the Greens, but he is not.
Greens Councillors Amanda Stone, Sam Gaylard and Misha Coleman voted together with Councillors Stephen Jolly and Jackie Fristacky to give the go ahead to run a cycle path through a natural reserve. Trees will be felled. This was not a foregone result, since the decision was carried only by one in a 5:4 vote. The Greens obviously had a choice, but seem to have chosen to put transport ahead of nature in a very overcrowded area with little access to natural surroundings. This lack of interest in protecting the natural world and our access to it from overdevelopment seems to be an increasing feature of the Greens, particularly to the North of the Yarra.
Julianne Bell reports on this matter in a letter to Protectors of Public Land and includes the submission made by PPLVic to the council, which has been published with small adaptations, below. The pictures of the trees that will go were also provided by Ms Bell. (Intro to this article by Editor: candobetter.net)
Greens Councillors Vote to Destroy Rushall Reserve - Unique Parkland in North Fitzroy - for Commuter Cycle Path
At a meeting on Tuesday last 2 August 2016 Yarra Council considered the cycle path project proposed to be constructed through Rushall Reserve and along the escarpment next to the railway line. Debate on this controversial project, opposed by many from the North Fitzroy community plus parks and community groups such as PPL VIC, was reported to have raged until around 1 am the next morning.
To their eternal shame Greens Councillors Amanda Stone, Sam Gaylard and Misha Coleman voted together with Councillors Stephen Jolly and Jackie Fristacky to give the go ahead to this project. The vote by Councillors was 5 in favour 4 against. (Councillors Roberto Colanzi, Simon Huggins, Geoff Barbour and Phillip Vlahogiannis voted against approval of the project.)
Construction of this project will spell destruction of the Reserve as it will alienate about half the parkland and necessitate clearfelling of trees - 38 have been identified not just the 12 cited by staff. These are said to be the habitat of the critically endangered Swift Parrot. (See attached photos of trees on the escarpment along the existing goat track including the large River Red Gum which Council staff consider "might be able to be saved".) Apart from Boroondara, Yarra has less parkland per capita of any municipality in Melbourne so can ill afford to lose more.
Batman-Woiwurrung Treaty Signing Site on the Merri Creek
Also of great concern is the impact of the cycle path of the Batman-Woiwurrung Treaty Signing Site on the Merri Creek.
Consultants report they cannot find aboriginal artifacts (surprise!surprise!). This was the only known treaty signed in Australia between white settlers and the Aboriginal population. It is extraordinary that the City of Yarra has never moved to establish the site as one of national significance.
See below the submission made by Fiona Bell for PPL VIC at the Council meeting. (Same surname as mine but not related.) Note our campaign opposing the commuter cycle path through Rushall Reserve continues as does our advocacy for heritage protection for the Batman-Woiwurrung Treaty Signing Site on the Merri Creek.
Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052
Mobile 0408022408
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.: Submission to City of Yarra Re Rushall Reserve Proposed Shared Bicycle Path
Council Meeting Item 11.1, Tuesday 2nd August 2016
I am making a submission on the "Shared Bike Path'' through Rushall Reserve (referred to as "the project") on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., a coalition of 80 groups dedicated to protecting and maintaining sites of environmental and heritage significance. I am qualified additionally to speak on the subject as I am a resident/ratepayer of the City of Yarra, a member of the City of Yarra Heritage Advisory Committee and a cyclist. Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC sends her apologies for this evening.
I wish to make the following points.
I believe that NO cycle path should go through the Rushall Reserve, which is presently a cul de sac reserve surrounded by cycle paths.
The Council officers' report has established that there is a significant recent addition to the project plan not revealed before to the community. I quote from the report under "Feedback of Path Design" section. "It is highlighted that further recent feedback from asset owners, in particular City West Water in May 2016, means that any path adjacent to the rail embankment in the reserve (at one particular point) need to be located a further 2.5 m to 3.0 m further east (i.e.into the reserve) than is shown on the plan in Table 3 below. This is further outlined in paragraphs 30 to 36 below.)”
In view of this significant change to the design to the plan for the project, and the fact that the cycle path will intrude further east into the Reserve taking over more precious parkland, PPL VIC is advocating council defer any decision concerning the project in order for the community to digest the changes.
We are of the view that the project should be deferred for hearing at a future Council meeting.
Should Council be so ill advised as to proceed to consider the project tonight and make a decision, here are our arguments opposing the project. These have been raised before in our submissions:
1. There has been no assessment of the value to the community in terms of a recreation facility, only the profit to cyclists.
2. There has been no assessment of the environmental impact with clearance of native vegetation and the heat island effect of asphalting over parkland (should this proceed).
3. No consideration has been given to the fact that the Reserve including the Heritage Zone on the escarpment is the habitat of the critically endangered Swift Parrot, Lathamus discolor. A major factor for the demise of this bird is reduction of vegetation, especially eucalypts, as it is primarily a nectar feeder.
4. The cycle path is billed as a recreational cycle path but there is a network of nearby cycle paths which serve North Fitzroy residents. It is clearly a commuter cycle path and will serve residents of municipalities across Melbourne not only locals. To quote Justin Hanrahan of Council staff at a recent meeting on 16 June 2016 with PPL VIC that that a major purpose of the project is "to shave off a little travel time for bike users on the trail." It seems clear, therefore, that the proposed cycle path should be categorised as a commuter cycle path. It is designed to save commuter cyclists time in transit, although this would be only a very few minutes.
5. There is no data collection of likely users and of users of existing trails to justify the extraordinary proposed expenditure of $600,000.
6. The Cultural Heritage Management Plan is unsatisfactory. There is no real acknowledgement that the Batman Woiwurrung Treaty Signing Site is the only site in Australia where white settlers signed a treaty with the native population. The whole of Rushall Reserve and Merri Creek within the Reserve should be declared a national heritage zone not a transit route.
Video and translation: This comment by Putin, about United States aggression and its abandonment of protocol to limit the risk of nuclear destruction, was made to representatives of various media outlets during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, in June 2016. It was filmed and has been translated by Inessa S and we have imbedded the video in the article with her translation. It seems particularly timely to publish this in the wake of the release of Hillary Clinton's lost emails. "Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security." (Vladimir Putin).
Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security.
If you are a journalist or a blogger, please do your part and share this message. Time is of the essence , especially in light of the recent NATO summit in Warsaw (July 2016) where the alliance stipulated that Russia is the main threat to international security (did you think that might be ISIS?) YouTube would not let me upload the video I did on the Summit, but it can be found on my Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/174777588
Back in 2007, Putin informed the Western world that Russia will develop its weaponry to counter US advances. This was said in response to the US missile defense system that was starting to be developed at the time (previously prohibited in international law.)
With the NATO missile defense system on Russia’s doorstep – the threat to international security is very real; not that you would know it via mainstream Murdoch media.
In 2002, the United States unilaterally and without consultation, withdrew from the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. President George W. Bush noted that the treaty is “now behind us,” describing the ABM Treaty as a Cold War relic.
Signed in 1972, the ABM Treaty barred both the US and the USSR from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense.
The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race, as each tried to balance its counterpart’s actions. Until Bush took office, the Treaty was referred to as a “cornerstone of strategic stability” because it facilitated later agreements, reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.
The US, assuming that a weakened Russia will never again be in a position to counter US hegemonic power, proceeded to encroach on Russia’s borders through its manipulation of NATO objectives.
Today, there is no instrument in international law that prevents the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Putin has been sending out warnings for over 10 years – all of which fell on deaf ears. Who will push the button first?
What are we to make of Hillary Clinton's emails, recently revealed by Wikileaks? Here we examine the first two that were released. "In my view Clinton is as mad as a cut snake. You will see through these documents that the emphasis is entirely on Israel's interests, not America's, and whatever she thinks they are not the same. Of course she is completely in the hands of the Zionist lobby, as was Australia's recent Prime Minister Gillard, who lent her services to the Clinton campaign. But then Clinton is in the hands of anyone with money and the power to swing votes. She talks of Israel's security dilemma. Well, that's a good one: a state with an estimated 200-400 nuclear weapons (yes, a couple would be enough) facing states without even one has a security dilemma? ..." (Earth to Earth, Turkey.)
Mad as a cut snake?
Earth to Earth, writes about Hillary's emails:
"In my view Clinton is as mad as a cut snake. You will see through these documents that the emphasis is entirely on Israel's interests, not America's, and whatever she thinks they are not the same. Of course she is completely in the hands of the Zionist lobby, as was Australia's recent Prime Minister Gillard, who lent her services to the Clinton campaign. But then Clinton is in the hands of anyone with money and the power to swing votes. She talks of Israel's security dilemma. Well, that's a good one: a state with an estimated 200-400 nuclear weapons (yes, a couple would be enough) facing states without even one has a security dilemma?
She talks of trading off Syria for Iran, i.e. if the United States removes Bashar al-Assad then Israel might not attack Iran. We know this is what both Israel and Saudi Arabia were encouraging in the time of the Bush administration. They wanted the U.S. to do it. Can anyone imagine what the consequences would be of military strikes on live nuclear reactors?
Yet here Clinton talks of such a war as if it's something on the supermarket shelf she can't decide whether to pick up. In the second email, she talks of U.S. reluctance to launch an air war on Syria. In fact that is exactly what it wanted, but was blocked by Russia. (Thank heavens!) Never mind, says Clinton, we can do it without the U.N. and Russia won't object.
This is total crap. From the word go, it was clear that Russia had far too much invested in Syria, in the preservation of a government chosen by the Syrian people and in the preservation of its own regional and global strategic concerns, to let Syria go. Clinton thinks the U.S. could just walk in and bomb the Syrian air force into submission. This was never going to happen and clearly someone with more sense than Clinton prevailed. She says that Syria is not like Libya, where the 'opposition' was unified (I think this is the word she uses.) Again, crap. There was never any Libyan opposition strong enough to fight any further than the municipal limits of Benghazi. The 'rebels' were the window dressing for the full scale air assault by the U.S., Britain and France. At no stage were they unified. These emails at least help us to understand why Clinton could be the/one of the most dangerous U.S. presidents ever elected. Don't forget her threat to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel (never likely - it would be the other way around but geared to look like an Iranian attack or a preemptive Israeli attack) and don't forget her threat of a few days ago, to renew the war on Syria and destroy Assad. Where we started we finish: this is exactly what Israel wants and there is absolutely nothing in it for the U.S. How shocking is it that the mainstream media has closed ranks behind this lying, corrupt and very dangerous person and has launched the most vicious campaign I have ever seen against a presidential candidate, Donald Trump." (Earth to Earth, Turkey)
WMDs all over again
Iran has been inspected and reinspected for nuclear weapons, revealing none, like the weapons of mass destructionn (WMDs) that did not exist in Iraq, but these two emails from Hillary Clinton (recently available by Wikileaks) reveal a focus on the idea that Iran may develop nuclear weapons capability. Israel is not officially supposed to have nuclear weapons, but Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician and peace activist revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986.[1] In Hillary Clinton's emails below, which were written in 2012, she operates on the premise that Israel has nuclear weapons and that the United States approves of this and wants Israel to maintain nuclear hegemony in the region. She sees solidarity between Iran and Syria as inimical to this state of affairs, reflecting the US claim that Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel bossing the region around. She says, "The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today." Of course its Arab enemies accuse Israel itself of provocation and Israel has a history of acts of terrorism.[2] Hillary Clinton also suggests that, if Iran got nuclear weapons then Saudi Arabia might expect nuclear weapons. But that hasn't stopped the United States supplying Saudi Arabia with every other kind of weapon, as its top world customer.[3]
Casual promotion of mayhem
In order to prevent the mooted scenario of an independent Arab state catching up with Israel, Clinton recommends destroying the relationship between Syria and Iran by destroying the Syrian government by promoting a civil war. Well we now know the result of Hillary's preferred policy has been mayhem in Syria and Iraq, spreading all the way to Europe in the largest wave of refugees since the second world war. Clinton gives her opinion that if Iran were to get nuclear weapons it could use them as a deterrent to Israel's military threats in the region, yet she also reveals that she believes that Israel is on the point of "launching an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war". [Ed. This email was written some time in May 2012 and Israel has not engaged in nuclear attacks on the region yet.]
Poor predictability of her policies and failure to see their consequences
She also claims that Russia would not "stand in the way" if the [United States] were to intervene in Syria (meaning stoke war there). But she is writing some time in May 2012 and Putin only became Russian president in May 2012. (Relatedly, Clinton also reveals that she knew the US had stirred the pot in Kosovo.) These emails are now about four years and a few months old. Since Hillary wrote them, we have seen that Russia finally did intervene in Syria, although it stayed out of that fight for as long as possible. It unwisely failed to veto US interference in Libya, but the consequences of US/NATO intervention in Libya were so horrible that it became unlikely that Putin would go along with such a thing again. US interference in Ukraine put Russia in a position where it had to draw a line as it became clear that the US was surrounding Russia with military bases and attempting, through NATO, to alienate Russia's allies and trade partners.
It seems that Hillary's United States wants to use Israel to promote its own interests in the Middle East but this would go against Russia's and Arab interests, with the exception of Arab states, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which have aligned with Israel and the United States/NATO. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are financing religious terrorism (ISIS and others) against Syria, Iraq and Libya. Turkey, led by a pro-Muslim Brotherhood president,[4] was seen as a US/NATO ally and was benefiting by buying cheap oil through ISIS but it relies a lot on trade with Russia and recently has apologised to Russia for shooting down a Russian plane.
Hillary advocates for the most brutal regimes, not against them
Hillary's reductionist descriptions[5] of the presidents of the only two secular states in the Middle East - Libya (now destroyed by US/NATO) and Syria - as brutal dictators - are being used to justify her recommendation of US intervention to create civil wars all over the Middle East and to destroy Syria and isolate Iran. Going into the future, towards this scenario, Saudi Arabia has been allowed to maintain among the most brutal regimes on the planet, with total subjugation of women as slaves; it has been allowed to engage in genocidal war in Yemen, not only with impunity, but Mr Trad, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador at the UN in Geneva, was elected as chair of a panel of independent experts on the UN Human Rights Council in June 2014. Meanwhile Ms Clinton is part of a U.S./NATO wolf-pack that pretends to be 'intervening' in the Middle East to rid it of 'brutal dictators'.
Where Trump seeks dialogue, Clinton wants war
What can we make of these emails, of the woman who wrote them, of the country that she represented as Secretary of State, of her candidacy for its president? For what reason should the world allow Israel to defend its position and call the shots in the region, on behalf of non-regional players who are interested in controlling the region's oil and challenging Russia and China's interests in the region? It seems obvious that Israel must share some of its territory with a new Arab state called Palestine, sooner or later, and disarm its nuclear stores. It seems obvious that the United States should establish good relations with Russia, which could help balance out expansionary ideas in China or for a caliphate in a damaged Middle East, instead of ramping up its military displays in Europe and pushing at Russia's borders.
And here are Hillary Clinton's emails:
Email from Hillary Clinton: UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.
Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.
Email from Hillary Clinton: UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.
Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region.
Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.
The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.
Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes.
Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from
murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).
With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
Wikileaks has launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State.
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary confinement. Released from prison in 2004, he became subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel. He says he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israeli authorities while imprisoned, and suggests that his treatment would have been different if he had not converted to Christianity from Judaism.#cite_note-7">[7]
In 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to six months in prison for violating terms of his parole. The sentence was considered unusual even by the prosecution who expected a suspended sentence. In response, Amnesty International issued a press release on 2 July 2007, stating that "The organisation considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release."#cite_note-8">[8] In May 2010, Vanunu was arrested and sentenced to three months in jail on a charge that he met foreigners in violation of conditions of his 2004 release from jail.
See also: Kennedy, the Lobby and the bomb, previously published (2/5/2013) on VoltaireNet. (As of 6/8/2016, images are missing from the candobetter.net republication, so, at least, until this fixed, we recommend that you read the original Voltaire Net version.)
[3] In 2015 Saudi Arabia was the world's biggest importer of weapons and the top recipient of American-made arms from 2011-2015, followed closely by the United Arab Emirates, according to research compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which has been analyzing international arms transfers since 1968. See http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/us-arms-sales-worldwide/
[4] The Syrian President, as Gaddafi did until recently, presides over a secular state. He does not want a caliphate. But the United States and Israel are promoting all the extreme groups and leaders in the Middle East who do want a caliphate to restore something akin to the Ottoman Empire, which relied on slavery for its administration and succession. Iran, although a Muslim state, presents a bulwark against Wahabism (Saudi Arabia's religion, which condones mass slavery). Iran did not have the same tradition of mass slavery as the rest of the Ottoman Empire. Farazmand, Ali (1998) “Persian/Iranian Administrative Tradition”, in Jay M. Shafritz (Editor), International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp 1640–1645 – Excerpt: "Persians never practiced mass slavery, and in many cases the situations and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were in fact better than the common citizens of Persia." (pg 1642). Cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran#cite_note-1 This article describes the aims of a caliphate. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261264/its-not-isis-we-need-beat-its-caliphate-daniel-greenfield
The cruise industry is just as shameless as the rest of the shipping industry.
The US EPA concludes one cruise ship can emit the same amount of SO2 as 13 million cars and as much soot as 1 million cars [1]. But, despite this, the cruise industry is delaying introduction of new health regulations, trotting out scare tactics such as maritime jobs will be lost, astronomical fare increases etc. The cruise industry even sued US EPA so it could keep burning dirty fuel [2] – and it won as far as I can ascertain.
You might also be interested that there have been no reported Australian studies on health impacts from shipping emissions. In 2012 the Australian Maritime College announced a preliminary study was to start [3] – but it seems to have been spiked as there has been no further reference to it on its website or in the media. The power of the faceless corporations.
Alarmingly, at least in Australia, cruise or container ships are not yet required to switch to cleaner fuel or shore power when in port. Most ports are right in the middle of our cities, so the data I’ve already provided means millions of Austrians are being exposed to this toxic filth every day. Port Phillip Bay has at least six ships per day, all sailing past my place and arriving in the port right under the Westgate bridge, belching fumes over the city as they mostly keep engines running to provide power. See attached image of bulk carrier, the ridiculously named High Courage in the Port of Melbourne.
When the cruise terminal recently moved from Barangaroo in Darling Harbour Sydney to White Bay right on the doorstep of Balmain, residents there soon started complaining of headaches, children in the nearby school falling ill, dirty washing etc [4]. Whilst there has been some indication that cruise liners would switch to shore power whilst tied up at Balmain, I’m yet to hear that it has actually happened. The shipping industry is very canny at avoiding its responsibilities.
However, regarding GHG emissions - a 2008 study of Fremantle and Brisbane ports found Brisbane Port [5] had total GHG emissions of 180,000 tonnes CO2 p.a. Equivalent to emissions from 40,000 cars.
Given the growth of the shipping sector that’s likely to be even higher now. No mention of the other pollutants.
Co-author of Climate Code Red and the author of the 2015 Breakthrough paper Striking Targets, seasoned Melbourne based environmental campaigner, Philip Sutton, is known for his comprehensive and well-researched presentations.
Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian branch)
Annual General Meeting
Saturday September 10th at 2.00pm
Hawthorn Library meeting rooms 3-4, 584 Glenferrie Rd, Hawthorn VIC 3122
*Please note change of venue from past years*
NOMINATIONS for COMMITTEE POSITIONS: If you wish to nominate yourself or others for any committee positions or have an agenda item you wish to add, please email before 28th August to [email protected] or write to RETURNING OFFICER, SUSTAINABLE POPULATION AUSTRALIA, Victorian and Tasmanian branch, PO BOX 556 Hawthorn 3122.
ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS: All financial members of SPA Vic/Tas can take part
Following the formal proceedings, we are delighted to present our guest speaker, Philip Sutton-The growth economy- is there another way?
Philip Sutton is co-author of Climate Code Red and the author of the 2015 Breakthrough paper StrikingTargets. He is Manager and Strategist for RSTI (Research and Strategy for Transition Initiation). Philip is one of the leaders of the current campaign for the declaration of a climate emergency and has just written the national Climate Emergency (Restructuring and Mobilisation) model Act. Philip is a past president of the Sustainable Living Foundation and of the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics. He was the architect of the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act passed in Victoria in 1988 and initiated the campaign that led to the banning of nuclear power in Victoria in 1983.
Philip’s talk will be followed by discussion and Q&A. Our meeting is public and all are welcome, so please invite friends and colleagues to hear his important address.
If you think aviation emissions are bad, the even bigger problem is the unregulated shipping industry.
In terms of GHG emissions, shipping is already responsible for1:
· 5% of global CO2 emissions
· double global aviation emissions
· double Britain’s total emissions.
And it is growing fast. Under business as usual scenarios GHG emissions from shipping will rise 72% in next 15 years1 which is obviously incompatible with the internationally agreed 2°C goal that worldwide emissions be at least halved from 1990 levels by 20502.
If global shipping was a country:
· It would be the sixth largest producer of GHG emissions
• Only the US, China, Russia, India and Japan emit more CO2 than the world’s shipping fleet3
All the current port expansion projects are underpinning the business as usual scenario. Port of Melbourne for example, is planning to quadruple its container throughput by mid century – which means Victorians would have to more than triple our current container consumption per person, from 0.4 per annum to 1.4 container per person per annum.
Shipping is often touted as being the most efficient mode of transport – which it may be in terms of unit cost- but it has a deadly legacy for our environment, climate and our health. The 90,000+ cargo ships worldwide are responsible for:
• 9% of global sulphur oxide pollution
• 30% of global nitrogen oxide pollution
In the air, SO2 and NOx convert into fine sulphate and nitrate aerosol particles, and once in the lungs, these particles are small enough to enter the blood
• Accounting for ~ 50,000 premature deaths p.a. in EUROPE, at an annual cost of €58 billion4
• These particles can cause emphysema, congestive heart failure, birth defects and premature deaths
Other research5 suggests the particulate pollution causes:
· 60,000 deaths p.a. worldwide
• Costs $330 billion p.a. treating lung and heart diseases
The shipping industry, with its flags of convenience, impenetrable registration and ownership, its transfer of thousands of marine and terrestrial pests (Fire ants in Queensland arrived by ship) and diseases such as cholera in ballast water, are a blight on the planet. And the industry avoids being held responsible for the mess.
The Prestige tanker disaster in Spain in 2002, spilled 84 million litres of oil on thousands of kms of coast of Spain, France and Portugal. It caused $12 billion in economic loss and clean up costs.
Finally, in 2013 the Spanish High court concluded it was impossible to establish criminal responsibility and the Captain & Chief Engineer were found not guilty of crimes against the environment.
Every year there are multiple such disasters around the world. The shipping industry is the James Hardie and tobacco industry of the sea.
Here is a brief update on the activities of the US Peace Council delegation in Syria. We went to Ma'alula today [29 July 2016] and tomorrow most of us will fly home. I could spend many words and hours debunking every lie you have been told about Syria and Syrians in the last 5 years, a Sisyphean task in today’s environment. Instead I will share some of my perceptions of recent events based on my experiences in Damascus this week.
Yesterday [28 July] was quite an interesting day. We met with President Assad in the morning and talked at some length. We began by exchanging introductions and then we asked him some very serious questions. We were not allowed to record the session but many of us took at least some notes. He told us that his strongest focus is on representing the Syrian people and holding the state together on their behalf. He described numerous programs the Syrian state has enacted to protect the people during this very difficult time. The government has converted schools and other buildings into refugee centers. They continue to provide, to the best of their ability, free education and medical care to everyone in the government held areas; they supply power, clean water and food even to areas that are occupied by militants where it is possible.
And he proudly told us that the Syrian Arab Army, an army of the people which is defending the country against a brutal attack, have finally closed the road from Aleppo to Turkey. This is very important because the militants in East Aleppo, and especially Al Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, have been receiving money and weapons from Turkey. He then told us that he had just issued the order to implement the humanitarian corridors and amnesty for Syrian nationals. He said that there are two ways to deplete the violence. The first is to fight to the bitter end. The other is to provide an incentive for people to stop fighting and give them a safe passage back to the lives they have left.
These are the first steps in the reconciliation plan which the Reconciliation Minister had talked about extensively, and which was cited by many others we spoke to as the best thinking to restore peace to Syria. We had already had two extended meetings with the Minister of Reconciliation, one in his office and the other over dinner at our hotel where he explained the methodology for reconciliation which they have been developing for some time. Amnesty and humanitarian aid are just the beginning. Evacuating as many civilians as possible is a temporary step to secure their welfare while negotiations are ongoing.
They used this process quite successfully in Homs last winter when they evacuated thousands of fighters and their families from neighborhoods they have long held hostage. Many were bused to Idlib where they may well resume fighting, but a densely populated areas of Homs is now secure and the civilians are able to live their lives in peace. The tens of thousands of citizens who remained were provided humanitarian relief and basic needs with reconstruction assistance on the horizon. You can see the video I posted on my blog at the time when they joyously welcomed the Syrian Arab Army. Minister Haidar admitted that Reconciliation plans are a work in progress and problems do occur. He also explained a complex process involving contact with and empowerment of the local people in the occupied areas that I can explain at some other time.
Each case is unique. East Aleppo has been very closely tied to a stream of foreign fighters who came in through Turkey. They are unlikely to walk away. Al Nusra/Al Qaeda is the primary organization there. And there may be a larger civilian population than in some of the other areas where the plan has succeeded. While the world is watching, it must be stated that the deep plan of working with local fighters and civilian councils will not unfold immediately. Ali Haidar, the Minister of Reconciliation and the long time leader of a dissident party prior to the current crisis in Syria (the war), is on his way to Aleppo to assess conditions and work on making the contacts necessary to begin the real process of reconciliation.
Of course, the first steps of this plan for reconciliation have been all over the news with varying judgements. The New York Times refers to reconciliation and restoration of the fighters’ citizenship as ‘surrender’, but that is not the way those vested in ‘reconciliation’ see it. People we spoke to told us that Syrians are tired of the war. Many initially joined the fight because they were being paid. They say that others joined out of confusion during the initial attacks on their villages and neighborhoods and that many men in occupied areas are given the choice to fight for the militants or be killed immediately. The president told us that he would prefer to heal the country rather than unleash a sea of rage and revenge. The only context in which this does not make sense is one where the sovereign Syrian State is not acknowledged.
Starvation might be less an issue in Aleppo than the fact that the fighters and their families will no longer have income. Last week it was reported, even by Western sources that the current situation was imminent and so an effort was made by the militants in East Aleppo to bring in several months worth of food and other necessities. In the last 24 hours, the Russians have air dropped more food and supplies into East Aleppo. And there are resources at the humanitarian corridors. The NY Times is reporting that people don’t want to leave East Aleppo. However, RT, however, is reporting that militants are firing on civilians who try to leave the area. Clearly there are problems that need to be addressed.
However, there are significant differences between the perspective presented by the Western press and that of the Syrians we met with this week. There is one I would like to point out, that was made very clear by everyone I met with during my stay here in Damascus. Syria is a sovereign country. It has a government which is doing its best to provide the services that governments provide including the provision of necessary resources and services to civilians including personal security which includes ethnic and religious tolerance and equality under the law. None of the forces at war with the government of Syria have demonstrated the capacity, or more importantly, the desire to provide these basic human and civil rights to the people of Syria.
President Bashar Assad, who was elected two years ago by the majority of Syrian citizens with a clear majority of votes, comes across as a well educated, progressive individual who is taking responsibility for providing for the people of his country who elected him by a significant majority, and leading a government which is attempting to respond to the issues that have caused civil unrest and discontent within that society while at the same time facing a vicious attack, funded, armed and manned by wealthy countries that have no civil rights and provide few social resources to their population. Not only is the government of Syria with their President doing their best to support the people of that country, but were he to leave, there would be no leadership in the fight against forces that oppose the values of the vast majority of Syrian people and are determined to tear the state apart.
Syrian is home to several ethnic groups and numerous sects of Christianity and Islam. They have lived together in peace for centuries if not longer. This week, the Grand Muftii and the Bishop of the Orthodox Church told us they are ‘cousins’. People tell me it is shameful to ask another person their religion or ethnic background as it is socially irrelevant. There is an awareness of the economic issues that are a source of suffering but the war has taken precedence. There is no doubt that the Syrian government has made mistakes and no one in Syria denies it. However, the US demand that Assad abandon his office and his responsibilities is unrealistic and out of sync with American values as well as with Syrian values. The US insistence on continuing to fuel this vicious war with money and weapons, through proxies and direct strikes, through propaganda and political manipulation, until he abdicates is criminal. It is a violation of international law, us law, and common morality.
US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has been found to have taken dangerous and illegal risks with her emails whilst Secretary of State. Tens of thousands have gone missing. It is suspected that these emails would reveal compromising exchanges with Middle Eastern dictatorships, among other things. (The brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, currently conducting genocidal war on Yemen, is a major arms customer for the US and has contributed between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, from which Clinton draws financial support for her campaign.) Instead of targeting Clinton's extreme negligence, incompetence and corruption, leading media outlets have suggested, without any evidence, that Russia hacked her emails and - ridiculously - that Russia is trying to steal the US election. It is now official, Hilary Clinton is trying to divert from her criminal negligence by a campaign against Russia and major media organisations are helping to push that narrative. Clinton's defensive actions are yet more evidence that severe narcissism so clouds her judgement that her election would be a global catastrophe. As Julian Assange has said, Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk with bad judgment” who gets an “emotional rush out of killing people.” “A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war.” Noting his years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and having read thousands of her cables, he stated that, “Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless wars which spread terrorism.” He also highlighted Clinton's “poor policy decisions,” which he said have “directly contributed” to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).” Stating that Clinton went above the heads of Pentagon generals when it came to Libya, he wrote: “Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria.” He went on to state that Clinton did not learn from her mistakes, and set out to repeat history in Syria. “Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years,” he wrote. Numerous statements in her autobiography, which I reviewed here, indicate that she seems to operate with an unreal view of the world, to enjoy violence and to be unaware of its consequences.
Article initially published on RT on August 1, 2016. While US media and politicians keep crying ‘wolf’ – or Russia – over the DNC email hack without providing any proof, Moscow called the accusations ‘absurd’. WikiLeaks refused to reveal its sources and promised new leaks before the November vote.
Some 20,000 DNC emails were made public by WikiLeaks on July 22, revealing a close working relationship between the party and some mainstream media figures, as well as collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign to sideline Bernie Sanders, her challenger for the presidential nomination.
The DNC replaced Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the party’s convention in Philadelphia – she immediately got a post with the Clinton campaign – and fired back with accusations that Russia was behind the hack and the leaks, accusing Moscow of backing Republican nominee Donald Trump.
US media picked up the accusations, reporting them under headlines such as “Russian Intelligence Hacked DNC Emails” (NBC), “Suspected Russian hack of DNC widens” (Yahoo News), “All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack,” (Motherboard), “Evidence mounts linking DNC email hacker to Russia” (The Hill) and “What we know about Russia’s role in the DNC hack” (Politifact).
Actual evidence, however, was nowhere to be found. Instead, reporters relied on insinuations such as, “there seems to be widespread agreement among cybersecurity experts and professionals” (Politifact) that Russia was somehow responsible.
Other experts cited as “evidence” of Russian involvement the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hosted a show on RT – but without noting that the 11-episode run aired in 2012.
“I’m somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation on this,” US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said last week.
Claims of Russian involvement actually go back to mid-June, when the first DNC documents appeared on the blog of Guccifer 2.0, a hacker who claimed responsibility for the breach. CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC to investigate the breach, pointed the finger at Moscow – again, without any proof. CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer Dmitri Alperovitch, who publicized the claims, is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative.
The Kremlin dismissed the charges that Russia was behind DNC hack as “quite absurd,” with presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov pointing out what he called the “American style” of casting blame first, then investigating afterwards.
“We in Russia are used to investigating first, before accusing anyone of anything. We believe it is more logical and more correct,” Peskov said.
“Such statements by Ms. Clinton are typical pre-election rhetoric,” Peskov told reporters Monday. “There is nothing tangible in her accusations, and we believe their character is more emotional.”
“The leaked information is very interesting, indicating specific actions to manipulate public opinion during the election campaign,” the Kremlin spokesman added. “In this case, there are attempts to cover up these manipulations by demonizing Russia again, which we feel is improper. Russia does not interfere, and never will interfere, in the internal affairs – especially the elections – of any other countries, including the US.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has also called DNC accusations an attempt to deflect attention from the contents of the leaked documents. Speaking to CNN from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought asylum in June 2012, Assange rejected speculation that Russia was behind the hack.
"Well, what sort of question is that? I am a journalist. We don't reveal our sources," Assange told CNN’s ‘New Day’ host Poppy Harlow. "The goal of WikiLeaks as a media organization is to educate the public, to turn a dark world into a lighter world through the process of education, and we're doing it.”
We are keeping this article up at the top of the page so that people will realise that although we are now publishing articles again and invite comments, candobetter.net is still having work done on it. We have been the target of at least two severe hacking attacks in past two weeks or so, with trouble during the month before that. Our return to full function has been delayed by special precautions to prevent further attacks, plus an upgrade in process. We are very grateful to our hosts at LVPS Hosting for their excellent work on this. You will notice the green padlock in the top left corner, which signifies that the site is safe.
In the process of protecting the site, nearly all accounts have been disabled, including those of the editors (temporarily), in order to screen out any attacks from that quarter. Please write to Sheila or James or contact on candobetter.net and ask for your account to be reenabled and we will send you new passwords. There may be some hiccups over the next few days as our webhosts install new functions. We thank our readers and contributors for their patience and loyalty.
It has been a frustrating time as so much has been happening in Syria, in population and development policy and wildlife policy in Australia. We look forward to articles!
President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc., research veterinarian and animal research ethics expert, Dr Ian Gunn, has called upon the Queensland Environment Minister, the Hon. Dr Steven Miles, to initiate and independent inquiry into cruelty and mismanagement of the dingo population on Fraser Island as a matter of urgency.
Collaring causing animals distress
Dr Gunn stated that the recent inappropriate collaring of a juvenile dingo, which had obviously put the animal in distress was the latest in a sequence of events which raise serious questions about animal welfare aspects of current dingo management practices on Fraser Island.
This incident involved the use of a cumbersome radio tracking collar on a juvenile dingo, which was purportedly being tracked for public safety reasons. Photographs taken by a tourist clearly show that the edges of the collar had worn away the fur on the dingo’s neck and would have unnecessarily interfered with the young dingo’s mobility and well-being. After pictures of the dingo were made public, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service decided to remove the collar. However the young dingo was killed by a vehicle strike, incurring massive internal injuries, before the collar could be removed. “These events raise serious animal welfare questions” Dr Gunn said.
Ethics and duplicate tracking devices
Dr Gunn stated: “Why was a radio tracking collar used when ear tag identification was already attached to the dingo? What animal ethics approval had been obtained by the QPWS to use the collar for non-research purposes? If ethics approval was acquired, questions need to be raised about thoroughness of the approval process. Why was a collar also applied to this juvenile dingo’s litter sister, when no radio tracking was intended for that animal? There appears to be no consistent rationale for the use of the collars and serious questions about animal welfare are left without adequate answers”.
Unanswered animal welfare questions
These events follow an incident, in 2015, when another juvenile dingo was ‘humanely’ euthanased after allegedly becoming aggressive. Necropsy photographs obtained through Queensland Right to Information legislation point to severe physical trauma prior to death. Dr Gunn, who conferred with senior veterinary colleagues over the photographic evidence, concluded that the dingo had suffered massive internal bleeding in the abdominal cavity consistent with a heavy blow or impact prior to being put down through lethal injection to the heart. Yet, there is no discussion of this evidence in the inadequate official necropsy report. Dr Gunn stated that: “Again, we have evidence of unacknowledged animal trauma and unanswered animal welfare questions.”
Necropsy report , October 2015
Internal bleeding within abdominal cavity – severe pre-death trauma
Possibly the most serious dingo cruelty incident at the hands of Queensland wildlife authorities occurred on Fraser Island in May 2011, as part of dingo trapping for radio collaring research. The necropsy report for this juvenile male dingo reads like a horror story. Upon examination of the report at the time, Dr Ian Gunn stated:
In all my years as a veterinary surgeon, I have never witnessed anything like this. This animal died in agony while trapped and restrained as part of ‘research’ being conducted by Queensland government authorities charged with its protection. The necropsy report stated that the otherwise healthy dingo had been restrained for ‘some period of time’. It had been pinned down by a pole noose and pinning device. It had chipped and fractured teeth, extensive internal bleeding, including widespread bruising and haemorrhaging to the thorax, limbs, neck and lumbar spine region, bleeding from the eye, tearing of the muscles between the ribs and the chest wall, and congested and collapsed lungs. In its final moments of life, the dingo vomited its stomach contents into its airways.
Necropsy report 2011
The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program subsequently sent a solicitors letter to the relevant Queensland government departments and Ministers alleging serious breaches of the law and inadequate animal ethics practices relating to this incident. No acknowledgement was received, let alone action taken. Not one person was held to account.
“It is time for the buck to stop and it has to stop with either the Queensland Environment Minister, or the Federal Minister for the Environment who, because of Fraser Island’s World Heritage Listing, has compliance responsibilities under the EPBC Act”, Dr Gunn said. “The Queensland government’s claim that the Fraser Island dingo population is being managed ‘humanely’ is now in serious doubt. The only way to get to the bottom of this mess and possible cover up is to conduct a genuinely independent animal welfare inquiry into dingo management on Fraser Island.”
There has been a problem over the weekend with uploading files. This has been a month of a variety of problems for this website. We thank you for your patience and apologise for the drab visuals on the front page. Hopefully LVPS Hosting will fix these problems soon.
Animal Protectors Alliance (APA) spokesperson, Robyn Soxsmith is delighted at the outcome of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision which overturned a magistrate’s guilty verdict against a angaroo slaughter protestor. Two charges of hindering government officials at last year’s annual kangaroo slaughter were heard in the Magistrate’s court earlier this year. The Magistrate found Dr Chris Klootwijk, guilty on only one of the two charges. Magistrate Walker dismissed the charge in relation to one of the officials purported to have been hindered after she found that the ACT licence to shoot kangaroos was invalid, therefore the killing was illegal, therefore it was not illegal to hinder it.
However, she found Dr Klootwijk guilty on the charge relating to the other official, the ranger who had acted as ‘Incident Controller’ on the night of Klootwijk’s arrest. She found that this official did not need a valid killing licence for his role as Incident Controller.
Justice Elkaim ruled that Magistrate Walker was in error on this point because the Incident Controller was there as part of an unlawful activity.
Meanwhile, Ms Soxsmith claims that this year’s kangaroo slaughter, which has been going on mid May, and which is scheduled to continue until the end of July, has been conducted
entirely under this invalid licence.
“The government seems to think it can get away with anything. Just this week they were shooting so close to Mugga Lane in Isaacs Ridge Reserve, no more than 30 metres away, a
passing motorist could easily have been killed by a ricochet.
“Last year they were shooting, with exactly the same arrogance and impunity, very close to the Centenary Trail which is used by cyclists all hours of the night.
“And this risk to human life is on top of the many ways they are breaching to Code of Practice for shooting kangaroos. The Code, which is supposed to minimise the cruelty of the
slaughter, is very nearly useless as water in a sieve. But at least it says animals should not be wounded and left in agony for hours before being euthanased, by a heart or head shot. And at least it says that orphaned dependent joeys should not be left to starve. Yet eye witness statements attest to both these horrors happening during the ACT slaughter as a matter of
routine.”
Ms Soxsmith assures the people of the ACT that protestors will continue to protest the kangaroo killing every night until it ends this year and will be out in force to do the same next year and every year until the ACT public put an end to “this insanity”.
Recently I became very distressed to hear of a looming dispersal of hundreds of thousands of flying foxes at Bateman's Bay. I read the ecologist's report and Plan of Management, which strongly recommended against dispersal, then wrote a submission (on behalf of the Threatened Species Conservation Society) to Minister Greg Hunt and Eurobodalla Shire council. Since then I discovered that there are similar situations of smaller magnitude occurring here in Tweed shire, along with wherever they occur. So I wrote letters to the local papers. Following is my submission and letter to the editor. [Editor: This article, first published on 2016-06-09 was overlooked and has just now been put on front page, with a new date and thanks.]
Importance of this Flying Fox Population
We are living in the 6th Mass Extinction of species. Australia has the world’s worst record for mammal extinctions. Here is one more example of why the list of extinct species is growing – governments are failing to adequately protect the environment.
In their nightly foraging, flying foxes fly from tree to tree, dusted with flower pollen or eject the seeds of fruit eaten, inadvertently regenerating woodlands and forests by dispersing up to 60,000 seeds each every night. Many eucalypts produce most of their nectar at night to attract these exceptional pollinators. Flying about 20-50 km a night between food trees and their camp, this keystone species maintain the genetic diversity of native trees and reforest gaps. This ecosystem service will become increasingly important to facilitate the flow of adaptive genes between trees, assist plant movement and assist the survival of many other species.
As a keystone species already in decline and vulnerable to extinction, the protection of flying foxes is tantamount. If flying foxes become extinct we are doomed. Without flying foxes we would have no more forests including World Heritage forests and hardwood forests, melaleucas, banksias, eucalypts and about 1/3rd of all fruit that relies on flying foxes to pollinate them (bananas, cashews, avocados, dates, mangoes, peaches, paw paw, durian). Scientists regard the loss of pollinators as the most serious issue facing mankind.1.
The Bateman’s Bay population of grey-headed flying foxes (GHFF) is a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) i.e. there has been a population of at least 10,000 every year for 10 consecutive years. But now there are over 100,000 flying foxes at Bateman’s Bay. There are estimated to be 680,000 GHFF total.
In the 2009 Recovery Plan it was noted that shooting flying foxes had diminished due to subsidies by NSW government for netting. However habitat loss is increasing and there is lack of food. For example extensive clearing on the coast for agriculture results in flying foxes losing weight, having higher mortality and lower reproduction levels. Their populations are not bouncing back. They are suffering ongoing deterioration in condition as they explore new areas e.g. inland Adelaide and Wagga Wagga. Due to food shortages they are forced to eat marginal food such as privet and green figs and are establishing satellite sites a distance from their camp.
Legal Protection
Grey-headed Flying Foxes are protected by the National Parks & Wildlife Act, 1974, Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature – Red List of Threatened Species.
Already flying fox populations are impacted by heatstress from very hot weather (>38 degrees C), droughts, cyclones, bushfire. They don’t need the additional threat of dispersal at a time when they are starving from lack of food sources.
Why create an exception just because local residents are unwilling to live in harmony with them? If dispersal is approved, it is likely to set a dangerous precedent for people in other locations to demand dispersal of flying foxes in their area too.
Why Dispersal Should Not be Approved
There is an overwhelming number of reasons why dispersal, especially of such a large camp, should not go ahead. As you may know from the review by Roberts and Eby of 17 Flying Fox Camp dispersals4:-
* In all cases, dispersed animals did not abandon the local area
• In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying foxes in a local area
• Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved
• In all cases, it was not possible to predict where replacement camps would form
• Conflict was often not resolved. In 71% of cases conflict was still being reported either at the original site or within the local area years after the initial dispersal actions
• Repeat dispersal actions were generally required (all cases except extensive vegetation removal)
• The financial costs of all dispersal attempts were high ranging from tens of thousands of dollars for vegetation removal to hundreds of thousands for active dispersals (e.g. using noise, smoke etc)
We understand that previous attempts at Batemans Bay also were not successful, success being defined as no more conflicts, no flying fox mortalities and permanent relocation elsewhere. The following are more reasons not to disperse:-
• Dispersal is highly stressful for bats and often leads to injuries or fatalities
• Very expensive (for Batemans Bay $57,800 pd for dispersal team, $1500 pd for ecologist, $5000 for management team = $6.2 million + $1 million contingency plan for the 3 stages (first year only). More for subsequent years and must cover up to 3 years
• Dispersal is planned for July-August. Approvals and preparations may take 2 months in the months of May/June. However September-October is when the bats are in late stages of pregnancy or have dependent young so very high risk of mortalities/injuries then
• 70 personnel will be required over 8 weeks, 50% of whom need to be vaccinated (most will not be locals)
• Wildlife caring groups have to struggle to help injured and orphaned bats, pay for veterinary care all without adequate financial assistance from council or government when they are already stretched thin and short of volunteers
• In the week after dispersal begins, teams need to locate injured, orphaned and dead flying foxes (p.18 of Ecological Australia’s Camp Dispersal Plan recommends that ‘no deaths or injuries’ be permitted). Trigger to stop dispersal is visibly pregnant females or with young
• More power outages will occur as bats fly around longer each morning during dispersal, becoming electrocuted on power lines
• Animal cruelty issues
• Risk of dispersed bats dying of starvation or further losing condition since they are already hungry
• Only 5% chance of success
• Dispersal disturbs residents during pre-dawn (smoke, flashing lights and noise) for the first 8 weeks initially then thereafter each time there is a dispersal. The most distressed the bats are, the noisier which in turn disturbs residents
• Bats must relocate 20km minimum during which time there is increased risk of fecal drop and disease due to stress
• Bats could relocate to unsuitable locations during dispersal for which council would be financially responsible to manage. Council could end up bankrupt if there are too many unsuitable relocations and ongoing dispersals
• As a species vulnerable to extinction in the next 25-100 years, dispersal risks their long-term survival. In fact 30% of the species died between 1989 – 1998 due to dispersals and since then their decline has been accelerated precisely due to dispersals and relocations.
• As a keystone species whose survival is required by many other species of plants and animals, their extinction would have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the entire Eurobodalla area, not just Bateman’s Bay.
FLYING FOXES COULD BECOME PERMANENT FUGITIVES AS THEY GO FROM PLACE TO PLACE, EXHAUSTED, STARVING, STRESSED, MOVED ON BY HUMANS WHOSE NEEDS ARE JUDGED MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NEEDS OF A SPECIES ON THE TIPPING POINT OF EXTINCTION. THIS SITUATION WILL WORSTEN AS TIME GOES ON WITH INCREASING HABITAT LOSS DUE TO HUMAN OVERPOPULATION AND ENCROACHMENT INTO THEIR HABITAT.
Efforts to date
We understand that Eurobodalla council has already done the following in an attempt to deal with the situation, i.e.:-
• Cleared buffers between camp and properties
• Offered subsidised services (guerneys, car and washing line covers)
• Removed 12 cocos trees,
• Slashed, mowed, pruned
• Given out informational brochures on flying foxes
Solutions
1) Education - It is critically important that residents, whether they are affected or not, clearly understand:-
a) The irreplaceable ecosystem services of flying foxes i.e. pollination of native trees (including World Heritage forests, hardwood forests, banksias, melaleucas, eucalypts etc) in the area. Flying foxes are the #1 pollinator of forests, who on their nightly foraging increase the genetic strength of plants, preventing inbreeding. Without flying foxes we would have no avocadoes, bananas, durian, cashews, dates, mangoes, peaches or paw paw. And without forests we would have less oxygen in our atmosphere.
b) Fears of disease from GHFFs must also be allayed since bats have no more diseases than any other wild animal and diseases like Lyssavirus and rabies cannot be contracted except via body fluids. It is not possible for humans to contract Hendra virus directly from flying foxes, only via infected horses.
c) A comprehensive education/advertising program must be undertaken to eradicate the common perception of bats as ‘pests’ to be culled or relocated. This should ideally include TV advertisements, articles and radio interviews so that Australians across the country become educated. Wildlife carers could be paid to take orphaned bats to schools so children can see how adorable they are and the reasons why they need our protection. I cannot overemphasise the importance of education as Australians commonly have an attitude that native animals (not just flying foxes) are ‘pests’. The prevailing public hysteria around bats needs to be defused urgently and that includes dealing with residents’ irrational fear of disease and the importance of wildlife-friendly netting for fruit trees.
2) Big Picture Explanation - Secondly, residents need to understand the reason why there are so many bats at Bateman’s Bay ie. we humans have taken away their habitat and therefore are now paying the price.
3) Tolerance - Help people learn to live in peace with flying foxes, such as:-
* Try to become quieter. Bats stress out and become noisier if people are mowing etc
* Double-glaze windows to cut down on noise.
* Park cars under cover.
* Place washing lines in the open away from trees and night-time flight paths.
* Use ear muffs at night to sleep and air purifiers for those who dislike the smell
It’s by far easier to adapt human behaviour to bats, than the other way around.
4) Repercussions - People need to seriously consider the adverse effects of no forests or native trees. What kind of future will there be for our children and grandchildren? How will they cope with less availability of certain fruits, less oxygen and more Co2 in the atmosphere from no forests?
5) Tourism Opportunities - Eco-tourism needs to be promoted so local businesses can flourish and benefit from the amazing spectacle of thousands of bats leaving their camp at sunset. This would help locals to appreciate bats for the increased tourism to their shire. Flying foxes have so many gifts to offer us if only we could get beyond the mental fixation that they are a nuisance.
6) Business Opportunities - Perhaps some enterprising person can start a business selling organic bat manure which is bound to be highly beneficial to gardens.
7) Improved gardens - Local residents can benefit from free fertiliser per compliments of the flying foxes. Some residents say gardening is impossible but bats aren’t flying around in the day. Perhaps those residents should try gardening in the daytime and not after sunset and pre-dawn when the bats are most active.
8) Deal-Breaking - Instead of spending $6-$7+ million on dispersal, council could:-
i) offer to buy back worst affected properties
ii) waive council rates for at least the period that flying foxes are present
iii) employ council officers to guerney residents’ driveways, cars etc regularly
iv) offer free air purifiers for house interiors
v) supply industrial grade ear muffs to help people sleep
vi) supply under-cover parking for those without a carport. Temporary carports can be as cheap as $150 from supercheapauto and quite durable
vii) offer the community the chance to spend this money any way they wish in lieu of dispersal e.g. new sports stadium
While all these ideas cost council money, the bottom line is they cost a lot less than dispersal without the disastrous impacts on threatened keystone species.
9) Getting to the Cause - The big-picture/long-term solution is to:-
• plant more flowering natives in bat-friendly areas (near water, in a gully) where people will never live nearby
• stop the deforestation of flowering eucalypts that flying foxes should be feeding on in winter which drive hungry flying foxes to the coast to ravage orchards
• create alternative flying fox roosting locations that include native food trees so that flying foxes don’t rely on orchards and therefore impinge upon humans. Non-residential urban areas such as parklands, golf courses and even cemeteries can be planted with a range of native trees that provide fruit (small-leaved figs) and nectar (eucalypts and melaleucas). This would provide feeding sites away from residential areas and corridors for them to travel between remnant forests. If these natural food sources are available when commercial fruit trees are bearing fruit, flying foxes are less likely to become a problem.
• a camp may be encouraged to move (which is not the same as forced relocation) and can be done by planting roost trees further away from houses. Surveys of flying-fox camps in New South Wales have shown that a distance of as little as 100 metres from neighbouring houses can be enough to reduce the noise level of a flying-fox camp to an acceptable level.
• Remove the lower branches of trees and clearing the understorey, to create a buffer between roosting animals and surrounding residents. Such actions would need to be undertaken carefully, preferably in conjunction with the creation of suitable habitat elsewhere, and subject to a monitoring program. Further research needs to be done into the factors influencing the establishment and persistence of flying fox camps.2.
• Low, dense trees and shrubs planted around fence lines also form a barrier that flying-foxes are unlikely to roost in3.
• Incorporate a buffer zone between the building and roost trees that ideally should not be paved or made of concrete in order to reduce mess problems. Plant low growing fragrant shrubs in this zone to minimise future encroachment by the animals into the site and reduce odour problems. Planting tall trees will only eventually bring the animals closer in to the development.
• Worst case scenario if everything else fails, dangle electric wire from the trees which the bats touch and it gives them a small electric shock, and then they go away. While it's only a small shock, still it's better than being killed.
10) All About Timing - The camp will reduce in size in the next few weeks or months so people could wait patiently, most of the flying foxes will leave when the flowering season of spotted gum, red bloodwood, and blackbutt begins to decline. Or at the very least wait till early February when juveniles will be independent, recommended by Ecologic Australia. Success is more likely if dispersal takes place when the camp is smaller and outside bats’ sensitive life cycles.
Conclusion
All affected residents at Batemans Bay moved into their houses knowing full-well that flying foxes lived nearby since they have had at least 10,000 flying foxes per year for the last ten years. It is reasonable to expect that the flying foxes would breed and expand their population (as with human populations).
For governments to bend over backwards and break important rules and regulations that are in place to protect our environment and especially threatened species to appease people who lack the tolerance, compassion and understanding of bats is a grave error, one that we will pay for long into the future should the bats become extinct.
The Threatened Species Conservation Society Inc. sincerely hopes that the Eurobodalla council and the Federal Government will at least try a bit harder to solve this problem instead of going down the route of dispersal which is guaranteed to fail and be hugely expensive, for the sake of our little forest-makers.
Conflict between flying foxes and humans in our shire is so disconcerting. Humans have destroyed 75% of pre-colonial forests for logging, mining, livestock grazing, industries, cities and housing. We continue to take from the land whatever resources we need to make ourselves comfortable (computers, TVs, cars, refrigerators, mobile phones, iPads etc).
But when the flying foxes are too close to our schools and homes, screeching and squabbling all day with a smell we dislike, we scream ‘they have to go’! But where? We have taken away their habitat, their food sources and now they are becoming permanent fugitives as they go from place to place, exhausted, starving, stressed, moved on by humans whose needs are judged more important than the needs of a species on the tipping point of extinction. This situation will worsten as time goes on with increasing habitat loss due to human overpopulation and encroachment onto their land.
Flying fox populations have declined 95% in the last century and 30% since 1988 and are vulnerable to extinction. Their ecosystem services of night-time pollination is without compare. Every night they fly up to 50km dispersing approximately 60,000 seeds each. What does it mean if they become extinct? Simply this – no more World Heritage forests, hardwood forests, melaleucas, banksias, eucalypts and about a third of all fruit (including bananas, avocadoes, mangoes, peaches, pawpaw, cashews). And fewer trees mean less oxygen to breathe.
Our preoccupation with creature comforts is trivial in comparison. Shouldn’t we be incredibly grateful to this keystone species whose existence is critically important for so many other species including ourselves? Shouldn’t we be a bit more tolerant? From a bat’s perspective we are the ones who are stinky, filthy, noisy pests!
They are not the one with outrageously loud ‘music’ festivals and doof music blaring from their noisy cars and radios! They are not the one brushcutting, mowing on tractors, bulldozers and earthmoving equipment tearing up our habitat! Nor are they the ones stinking up the environment with their cigarettes, chemical sprays, chimney smoke and hazard reduction burns! Flying foxes are not pouring their feces and cow sewage into the ocean. No, it is us who are the pests. Additionally they are native whereas we are ferals having just arrived in this land 230 years ago.
Humans have had it good for too long. If we can’t live in harmony with other species in an ecocentric vs anthropocentric way, we too will head for extinction.
If aliens were watching us they would probably think we were the stupidest creature on the planet. Either that or that psychopaths were running the country.
Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.
Yet another report about homelessness in Australia
The main disturbing and most publicized finding on the day it was released was that home ownership in Australia is in steady decline and the steepest decline is in the state of Victoria. In Victoria I see the extreme manifestation of this trend, homelessness in the streets of Melbourne, every time I venture to the city or inner Melbourne areas such as Carlton. I actually know personally two people, one older and one young, who have experienced homelessness in Melbourne.
It seems obvious that for home ownership levels to recover, growth in house prices urgently needs to slow and stop. For the good of our society, prices even need to fall. Author of the HILDA Report, Professor Roger Wilkins, offered as a solution to the catastrophic decline in home ownership, the very meagre suggestion of an abolition of the capital gain tax discount, presumably as a disincentive to investment in housing. I would however maintain that people will still want to invest if a certain capital gain is to be had, even if they do pay tax! They would still be ahead!
Would a decline in Australian house prices be a concern?
For home owners with only one property and who are mortgage-free, a drop in the $ value of their houses really wouldn’t matter as long as it were part of a general, overall decline in property values. For those who are servicing a mortgage, a significant drop in property prices could be a problem, as their equity becomes less as a proportion of the amount owing.
So, can we escape a populating growth fueled housing Ponzi nightmare without collateral damage?
Initially, stabilising the $value of houses would not be as painful as a sudden decline.
I will take it as read that house price increases are due to a greater demand than there is supply. Demand has increased as net overseas migration has increased. A dramatic increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) dates back to John Howard’s time in power and has hardly let up. This number needs to come down.
One can also base the potential housing demand on the number of young adults in the population. In the 'best of all possible worlds, local young adults will want to establish their own households, whether singly or as couples, or with friends or siblings, as a first step. Immigrants, young or old, all need accommodation immediately on arrival.
If, for young Australians, buying a house is manageable and they enter the housing market (for many it is not affordable now) then that will actually increase demand from that age group. So reducing immigration dramatically would not be the only factor affecting prices. Lower immigration would have a downward effect and local young adults entering the market would tend to keep prices buoyant. The two effects would not necessarily at all be equal to one another and this balance would depend largely on the amount by which net overseas migration decreased.
In 2015 there were 1,054,565 people in Australia in the age group 24-26 (inclusive). At this age let’s assume young people have finished their post school education and are ready for the work force. They really need to leave home and either buy a house or rent. In 2011 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552283) 29% of young people 18-34 were still living at home. All the young adults still living at home with their parents are potential home-grown consumers of housing.
Are vacancies as a result of deaths an adequate source of housing supply?
In Australia there are about 150,000 deaths per year. Not all these deaths release accommodation, as not all deaths are of people living alone. Some may leave a family behind! But even if 50% of them did result in a house coming for sale or rental, i.e. 70,000 houses or apartments, then there is still that potential demand from 1,054,565 people in the 24-26 age group alone (2015 ABS) and, if the cost of housing stabilized, maybe all young people would be seeking accommodation away from the family home. Even without immigration, there is still, from these figures, a much higher potential demand for housing than there is existing housing which may become vacant. This is because the present age group needing to establish themselves in their adult lives is much larger than the older group. For example, in the Baby Boomer age group in 2015, arbitrarily aged 60-63, there were 775,971 people (2015 ABS) . This is a much smaller number than the potential house hunters in the 24-26 age bracket. Even then, people in their early 60s can expect another 20 years of life and will need their homes in the interim. Even if they left their houses there would still not be enough houses for the more numerous early 20s group. If one were to expect an imminent bonanza from the group 20 years older than the Baby Boomers, one would be disappointed because there are only 223,430 in a three year age bracket in their early 80s!
Where does demand for housing come from?
1. Emerging young adults needing housing away from the family home either as newly formed couples or other arrangements. The actual number depends on which age group is selected but it is a larger number than in the age brackets where downsizing or death are likely
2. Net overseas immigration – about 200,000 every year 3. Investment – local or overseas. 4. Holiday houses or units.
Of the investment properties, many of them will be available for rental. Although this does not help home ownership, at least it means, if rents are affordable, that people may be housed.
If foreign investment in Australian real estate were prohibited and net overseas migration reduced to levels say of the 1990s - 70,000 to 90,000 or lower, it would take extreme pressure off house prices. Then local young people might have a fighting chance of getting into the housing market. Young Australians who are now living at home with a parent or parents would get an opportunity to enter the market which would keep prices buoyant but not in the extreme.
Further demand for housing in Australia is surely waiting in the wings from people now sharing dwellings who would prefer less crowded arrangements. They would, in fact, become a new market for house sellers. The housing market would become more stable and gradually Australians could get used to a climate where a house was somewhere to live and not a speculative investment. The housing sector does not need to worry. If houses are on the cusp of affordable, I maintain there are local customers who will want to buy them or rent them. People would start to be able to exercise choices with respect to housing.
We are now in a dangerous cycle of price rises and of buyers, possibly in a defensive move, taking on enormous debt (relative to income) because they expect prices to go ever higher. A crash in prices would be wonderful for some and catastrophic for others, but I believe this situation can be avoided in Australia even with a significant cut to demand from overseas because of the age distribution of the population and the 'pent up' demand from young adults in the population.
Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.
The Council’s intention is to:
sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.
In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.
Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends
Here is a message from the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market. (PPL VIC is a great supporter) "You are invited to a meeting which is about building a community campaign with market traders, its customers, the wider community and the NUW (National Union of Workers) to protect the Vic Market, its people and its history. See https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket. where you will find the flier and good background on the issues. The Friends of QVM Facebook page is a community page and everyone who is interested is welcome."
Meeting details are:
Date & time: Wednesday 20 July at 10.30am
Venue: Victorian Trades Hall Council Chambers, Cnr Lygon and Victoria Streets, Carlton
Location: Melways ref: Map 2B F12, Trams along Victoria and Swanston Sts, Buses along Lygon & Swanston Streets
Contact: Mary-Lou Howie M 0401 811 893
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket
The message from Friends of QVM continues: Just in case you don’t follow the Friends of Queen Victoria Market Facebook page which I co- author and now has a huge following, the Vic Market traders and supporters are having a big meeting at Trades Hall this Wednesday at 10:30 am.
As you must be aware, the Vic Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.
The Council’s intention is to:
sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.
In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.
The Lord Mayor has said this is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Melbourne and an implementation strategy is now in place, yet no comprehensive plans detailing what is to be implemented has ever been revealed to the public.
Friends of Queen Victoria Market have a healthy readership of around 2,000 - 5,000+ people who want the market to continue as a sustainable, functioning shopping space for all people in Melbourne. We support revitalisation of the market and believe in proper independent consultation that leads to appropriate change, always mindful of QVM’s history, heritage and importance to our community.
If you are available, I would love to see you at Trades Hall on Wednesday. Cheers, Mary-Lou Howie M: 0401 811 893
Circulated by Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408
In this 43 minute interview, previously published on 15 July 2016 on Syria News as most important points Dr. Assad cleared in latest NBC interview, the elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confronts and demolishes the lies peddled to public of Australia, the United States, Britain and their allies about the Syrian conflict.
This is the man that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition leader Bill Shorten have labeled a murderous tyrant. It would be interesting to see how they would stand up to a similar degree of scrutiny. If they were ever similarly interviewed about their own actions towards Syria, including Australia's economic sanctions, which have doubtless cost many of the 350,000+ Syrian lives lost since March 2011, they would surely be torn to shreds.
Excerpt: President Assad explains that only Syrians can decide whether or not he will remain President
Well, Erdogan is still in situ. No-one is sure whether this was a real attempted coup or a false flag. Erdogan is already infamous for imprisoning journalists who do not toe his line and now it is feared that Erdogan is now going to use this incident to ramp up his power in new terrorism laws which will be used to further repress the Turkish people. There are also fears that attempts to bring in a new non-secular constitution might gain somehow from the shoring up of Erdogan's power post-coup attempt. Erdogan is known as a covert supporter of the extreme aims of the Muslim Brotherhood. Inside we have republished a statement from the Turkish Communist Party, which insists that neither the government nor the parties to the coup were operating for the good of Turkey. Indeed, most citizens of Turkey, looking at their neighbours - Syria, Libya, Irak, Afghanistan - would probably prefer any kind of stability to violent change of government. And, by the way, the United States has a nuclear-armed airbase in Turkey.
Turkish Communist Party of Turkey Statement on attempted coup
We do not have all the details of what happened during the coup attempt that took place in Turkey in the hours between July 15 and July 16. However, we know very well that plans that are supported by foreign forces, that do not take its power from the working class cannot defeat AKP [Edrogan's Party] [1] darkness and solve Turkey's problems. The events of today reminded us the following reality once again: Either the people of Turkey will organize and get rid of AKP or AKP's reactionary policies will intensify, repression will increase, massacres, the plunder and theft will continue.
The only power that can overthrow AKP is the people's power, there is no alternative to it.
AKP is responsible for all that took place tonight. All the factors that led to the current situation and the conditions are the product of AKP's rule and the domestic and foreign bosses that support AKP.
However, the fact that the main responsible party is AKP does not mean that the coup attempt was one that was orchestrated by Erdogan himself in order to achieve his objectives such as paving the path to an executive presidency or clearing the obstacles facing the new constitution.
The tension and the rivalries between different groups within the state and the armed forces that have been known to exist for a while have turned into armed conflict. While the tension between these forces is real, it is a lie that any of the sides in this conflict represent the interests of the people. Following this, searching for the solution against AKP's rule in a military coup is as wrong as lending any support to AKP under the guise of taking a position against military coups for whatever reason. The last thing that should be done in the name of supporting freedom and human rights in Turkey is to lend support to AKP which has proven over and over that it is an enemy of humanity.
While they have not orchestrated this coup, Erdoğan and the AKP will make an effort to use the resulting conditions and the support they received as means to increase their legitimacy. Our people should be on the alert against steps that AKP will be certain to take in the days to come. Raising the struggle against AKP and its darkness is the only way to stop this failed coup attempt resulting in AKP's solidifying its rule and turning into a tool for transforming AKP's unstable Turkey into stability. The fact that all mosques in Turkey have broadcasted continuous Erdoğan propaganda the whole night is a concrete indication of the urgency of our task at hand.
The Communist Party is calling on our people to organize in the Party's ranks to wage the struggle against the people and humanity.
The liberation is in our own hands.
Communist Party, Turkey
[1] AKP: The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), abbreviated JDP or AKP in English and AKP or AK Parti in Turkish, is a social conservative political party in Turkey. This is President Erdogan's party.
07.58am from a source in Turkey: "We heard the news about two hours ago. I am just outside the city centre in Ankara. First
the airforce and then the jandarma and when we heard the Army had joined, it was clear it was all over. Erdogan is reported to be out of the country or on his way back Ankara.
AKP has called on supporters to take to the streets.
I think it is all over for the AKP.
Chief of staff arrested.
A very big explosion at Army HQ.
Army taking over police HQ - police are iwth the AKP.
Shooting in the diplomatic/parliamentary district of Ankara.
Helicopters overhead ... martial law imposed.
I think it is all over for Erdogan.
I don't think AKP can resist. No-one is on the street... AKP call not being answered... My guess is that the Turkish people will defer to power and authority and Erdogan has lost it.
Mayor of Ankara also calling for people to come to the streets but he is AKP and up to his neck in dirt.
No, it is clear the coup has worked and was well-planned."
8.20 am from Ex- Aleppo resident: "I just heard from relatives in Aleppo and Tartous that everyone is celebrating like crazy because of the coup in Turkey!"
The latter remark is of course a reflection on how Erdogan, who is said to be strongly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has secretly supported the rise of ISIS in Syria and has benefited from cheap oil which they have stolen.
Yesterday July 14th from Turkey:
Yesterday I heard that the news from Halab (the Arab name for Aleppo, Syria) is positive. And that on July 14, the Turkish Prime Minister had again said that Turkey has to develop good relations with Syria. It was hoped by the person making the communication that this spelled the end of Turkish intervention in Syria and that and it probably signaed some kind of revolt against Erdogan, who is very unpopular.
Apparently, the other day Erdogan - personally, as if he had the right - offered citizenship to well educated Syrian refugees, but not to all of them.
This pragmatic triage of refugees itself was uncharitable but there was already a backlash against the intake of refugees from Syria anyway from opposition political parties.
In a southwest province the other day a young Syrian who killed a young Turk was himself killed in a fight over a dog - the Syrian had kicked it. The whole town is now demanding that all Syrians go. Erdogan's whole policy was collapsing around him. He himself had not mentioned Syria or Assad negatively for ages.
World population Day was established by the UN in 1989 to highlight concerns as the planet’s population went past 5 billion. It is now at 7.4 billion and rising by about 80 million every year, so the problems are even more intractable (despite the rate of growth declining). Medium scenarios produced by the UN estimate the world population could be between 9 and 10 billion by 2050.
It may surprise some that Australia has one of the highest population growth rates in the developed world. We are adding about 325,000 people a year, with about 55 per cent from net overseas migration and 45 per cent from natural increase at the present time, although it has stood at a 60/40 ratio for a number of years.
Population is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss in public forums, partly due to the complexity of the subject and partly due to the political and emotional nature of the issues. These issues can go to the core of people’s philosophies and values and include notions of freedom and human rights, compassion, religion, progress, ecology, and economic imperatives.
In Australia, people often get confused between sometimes competing issues like refugees and asylum seekers, racism, border protection, defence, economic migration, colonial guilt, and sustainability. These tensions are not unique to Australia, as we can see from debates in Europe and the US in recent times.
What the European, American and indeed Australian problems show is that sovereign states should not consider themselves immune from population pressures in other parts of the world as desperate people will have little regard for borders or dangerous sea crossings.
To that extent, not-for-profits like Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) are continually lobbying governments to increase foreign aid to the developing world to help it gain control over unwanted and harmful population increase. Unwanted population growth can largely be curtailed through a mixture of education, the provision of modern contraception, safe emergency abortion, and the alleviation of poverty – although some people like to argue about which is more important.
Regardless, the empowerment of women is vital.
So purely from a selfish point of view it is in Australia’s interests to maintain a reasonable level of foreign aid, in concert with the rest of the developed world, and targeted to voluntary family planning programs that we know can be successful. Unfortunately Australia’s foreign-aid budget has been shrinking lately in a retrograde and myopic fashion.
But leaving the more obvious global problem to one side, Australia is long overdue for an open debate on the benefits and burdens of domestic population growth and where these benefits and burdens fall.
A recent survey commissioned by SPA found that most Australians did not think we needed more people; and a survey by SBS in May found that 59% of people thought that the level of immigration over the last 10 years had been too high*.
Proponents of a ‘big Australia’ are mostly business barons and their hirelings: the wealthy gain the most from population growth and can largely insulate themselves from its negative effects like sky-rocketing real-estate prices, long commutes to work and infrastructure shortfalls.
Meanwhile, the average person, but especially the young and the poor, suffers the most – from unaffordable housing, general congestion, and competition for access to education and health services.
More unseen problems tend to harm everybody: these include biodiversity loss, increased greenhouse gases and climate change, the reduction in fresh-water availability, and the steady increase in all kinds of pollution.
While unpopular among elites, especially economists, there needs to be a conversation about the direction our society is going. The privileging and mindless pursuit of GDP growth might not be the best option on a finite planet where limits to growth seem obvious to all those not blinded by dogma. Rather, the pursuit and monitoring of such things as general wellbeing and happiness might be a more rational strategy, especially if that means a more equal sharing of what wealth can be generated in an ecologically sustainable fashion.
If we adopt the latter planned approach, we might well find that a stable rather than an ever-growing population is more sensible. The alternative may well be an unplanned population correction that no one would find enjoyable.
"Isn't it great. Isn't it grand. After years of getting our "Hate Abbot" caffeine shot every morning from Age Letters. Now we can look forward to a new superior blend of "Hate Hanson" every morning. (No need to explain)," writes David (ZPG) Hughes in a letter to the Age editor, which he cc'd to candobetter.net. Mr Hughes, who once manned the website 'Crowded Planet," which aimed to supply contraceptives in response to global need, is a keen observer of mass media hypocrisy. But there is a lot more to be said about the relationship between Abbott and Hanson and the Liberal Party and One Nation.
When you consider that the Age's promotion of 'hate Hanson' militancy was preceded by 'hate Abbott' militancy, it is ironic that it was Mr Abbott who established a Liberal-backed fund that supported the false imprisonment of Hanson for political reasons. Yet that false imprisonment (she was let out, cleared of all charges of electoral fraud) probably lent new sympathy to her cause because there is nothing so inspiring to the underdog as a politician who is imprisoned because of the threat that the popularity of their views poses to the political establishment. Similarly, Derryn Hinch, another new senator, probably gained support because he also went to prison for actions related to his political views,[1] but his imprisonment was actually upheld. In my eyes, there is no contest between a person falsely imprisoned and the agent of their jailing. Tony Abbott led a despicable action. That he was then elected as leader of the Liberal Party and became a Prime Minister is far more shocking than anything that Hanson has been accused of.
Below is a rundown, using other sources, of what happened to Hanson:
Abbott's confession
'Abbott says sorry in Hanson fund row,' By Annabel Crabb, The Age, August 27, 2003:
"Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott last night apologised for not fully disclosing his involvement in a $100,000 "slush fund" devised in 1998 to bring down One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.
Mr Abbott strongly denied, in an ABC Four Corners interview on August 10, 1998, that he or any Liberal Party figures had been involved in funding the legal campaign by disaffected One Nation members to have the minor party declared invalid under electoral laws.
But last night's statement confirms that only two weeks after making that denial, he established a formal trust, Australians for Honest Politics, which collected $100,000 to funnel into anti-One Nation legal actions.
Mr Abbott confirmed that at the time of making the statements to Four Corners, he had already promised to underwrite the legal costs of disaffected One Nation litigant Terry Sharples.
"Strictly speaking, no money at all had been offered," Mr Abbott said last night.
"The lawyers I organised were acting without charge and the support for costs which I had promised would only become an issue in the event of a costs order being made against Sharples."
Hanson's release
In 2003, a Brisbane District Court jury found Hanson guilty of electoral fraud. The convictions were later overturned by three judges on the Queensland Court of Appeal. As a result of the convictions, Hanson spent 11 weeks in jail prior to the appeal being heard.
Pauline Hanson is enjoying her first night at her home since being released from jail by Queensland's Court of Appeal yesterday. Ms Hanson and fellow One Nation founder David Ettridge walked free after their convictions for electoral fraud were quashed. The decision has caused legal upheaval in Queensland while in Canberra, John Howard has rejected accusations by the appelate judges that he attempted to influence the case.
Compere: Maxine McKew
Reporter: Dea Clark
MAXINE MCKEW: Pauline Hanson is enjoying her first night at her home since being released from jail by Queensland's Court of Appeal yesterday.
Ms Hanson and fellow One Nation founder David Ettridge walked free after their convictions for electoral fraud were quashed.
The decision has caused legal upheaval in Queensland while in Canberra, John Howard has rejected accusations by the appelate judges that he attempted to influence the case.
Dea Clark reports.
DEA CLARK: After celebrating into the small hours, Pauline Hanson was back home on her property at Ipswich, enjoying her first day of freedom in 11 weeks.
Her priority, raising the flag and catching up on some chores around the farm.
PAULINE HANSON, ONE NATION FOUNDER: Yeah, the cobwebs, the pool needs cleaning, the mowing.
You can't leave it up to your sons, you really can't.
DEA CLARK: While it was business as usual today, last night was a time to catch up with family and friends, celebrating her freedom at an Italian restaurant on the Gold Coast.
While Pauline Hanson was out on the town, David Ettridge was boarding a plane home to Sydney, convinced yesterday's decision will spark a political resurgence for One Nation.
DAVID ETTRIDGE, ONE NATION FOUNDER: It will rise like a phoenix.
People who didn't vote for One Nation are going to say, "Well, we'll protest against what was done," and the attack on their democratic rights.
DEA CLARK: While it seemed she was enjoying being back in the media spotlight, Ms Hanson was tight-lipped about a possible return to the political stage.
PAULINE HANSON: I tell you what, I'd need rocks in my bloody head if I thought about that again.
MARK SIMKIN: In yesterday's Court of Appeal judgment, Justice Margaret McMurdo criticised several politicians, including the PM, for their public comments about the case.
She described them as: " -- An attempt to interfere with the independence of the judiciary for cynical, political motives."
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: My comments were not in any way calculated to influence the outcome.
I don't believe for a moment they did.
BRONWYN BISHOP, LIBERAL BACKBENCHER: Freedom of speech is our paramount right, and I will always speak out when there's a need to.
DEA CLARK: Back in Queensland, the political impact of yesterday's decision is already making waves.
In the wake of criticism over the handling of the case, the Queensland Government today announced an immediate review of the State's justice department, focusing on the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
But the Premier says compensation for wrongful imprisonment is out of the question.
PETER BEATTIE, QLD PREMIER: The Queensland Government, if it paid compensation here, would inevitably expose taxpayers to millions and millions and millions of dollars over a period of time, because appeals do succeed.
TERRY GORMAN, COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES: How unfair is it, whether it's Pauline Hanson or Mr and Mrs Anonymous from the suburbs, that they sit in jail for 4-6 months, they have their appeal overturned and they're supposed to grin and wear it.
DEA CLARK: But, for the moment, the political debate surrounding the former party leader is a world away.
Dea Clark, Lateline.
NOTES
[1] Hinch was imprisoned for contempt charges related to his political conviction of the need to publicly name pedophiles.
Video, transcript. This is a virtually complete rundown on the history of US aggression against Syria from 2001. “We have never done anything more loathsome or despicable than what we’re doing in Syria” -Virginia State Senator Richard Black. In this article, Virginia State Senator Richard Black and Janice Kortkamp discuss the shameful situation in Syria, where the US government is actively arming and funding Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and “conduits” (“moderates”), blending them together, and then using this model to exterminate the Syrian population. It should be noted that the mass media machine is seemingly losing its effect, as more and more prominent and senior figures (e.g Robert Fisk) are calling a spade a spade, or a “moderate” a terrorist. It just goes to show that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." (Free Syrian Press introduction to the video and transcript interview below.)
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Senator Black it’s a pleasure to be here. And you’ve just returned from a trip to the Middle East, to Syria and Lebanon, and why don’t you just start by telling us what you saw and your assessments of the situation there?
VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR RICHARD BLACK: What we did, we spent the better part of a week; we spent our time in Lebanon initially; we met with General [michel] Aoun, who is sort of the presumptive next President of Lebanon. We met with Foreign Minister [gebran] Bassil who is the head of the Christian bloc of the parliament there. And also with the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon; which is a new thing. You know the Syrians have not had an ambassador there until just recently.
From there we flew to Damascus and were then taken out and we visited Palmyra, where the Syrian army conducted an enormously heroic fight to drive out ISIS and assisted by the Russians who did a very good job there. And then we drove from Palmyra to Homs. Homs is the largest province, it’s the size of an American state, but it’s also a very large city.
It was an incredible visit, because, like you, I have studied the Syrian war, the origins of the war for years, since 2011. I know you go back before that, but this is when I got so focused on it. And the best way to explain it, is that through intensive study and what we would call “open source intelligence,” you begin to get a very clear concept of what the war is all about, and the origins of the war. But when you go there and you actually walk the grounds and you shake hands with the soldiers and meet with the refugees and people like that, it turns black and white into Technicolor. And I’m going to tell you: Syria is one of the most incredibly wonderful nations on Earth. And the fact that America set out to topple the government and destroy it, long before there was the faintest hint of civil unrest, it’s really one of the great stains on American honor.
So when I went there, one the one thing that stands out so vividly is this incredible religious tapestry of religious harmony, between the Christians, the Alawites, the Sunnis, the Shi’ites, everyone; and there is such freedom of religion in Syria, and it’s stunning. You know, as an American, here we have the Federal courts being partially repressive to Christianity in particular, and you go over there and I went to the Syrian broadcast system SANA, did an interview. And I came out and in the press room here is the plywood cutout of the Christmas tree and the ornaments are journalists who were martyred covering the war. And you think, “My gosh, if you did this in the United States, the ACLU would be all over you! You’d be in Federal court, and they’d rip down the tree.”
And we went to the theater in Homs province, in Homs city; it’s a large, modern theater, probably seated a thousand people. And they introduced me and they were very polite and receptive. And I sat next to the governor and his wife, and they’re Muslim, and so I’m watching: Here’s this choral presentation, very beautiful, everyone in tuxedos and the orchestra and a very lovely woman, and naturally, the woman very charismatic, you’re focused on her; and then gradually your eyes start to shift gaze. And then, suddenly, I look and I realize that behind them is a theater screen with a projection of Jesus Christ, bloodied, crown of thorns, staggering under the weight of the cross. And I looked at it — and I didn’t even know what they were singing, because they were singing in Arabic, right? And I realized later that they were singing Christian religious songs. And I turned to the wife of the governor, and I said, “Is this a religious theater, a Christian theater?” She said, “No, no, no, this is just a regular theater for entertainment. We put on shows, we put on concerts, everything.” But it happened that on the Julian calendar, we were there for Palm Sunday and we left just prior to Easter.
And so, she said, many of the people here for the presentation are Muslim. She said, the choral group, many of them are Muslim also. And here, they’re participating in the praise of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ! Not that they are not serious Muslims, but it’s also indescribable without seeing it in person. I had heard about it, and from hundreds of Syrians, but to see it and just to encounter it at random, you suddenly were able to “breathe” religious freedom there!
STEINBERG: I think I told you, when I was in Damascus in March of 2010, some of the things that were completely stunning to me, were the Grand Mosque right off of this great market area. You walk in there; it’s a gigantic, beautiful mosque, and right in the middle of it is the tomb of John the Baptist.
BLACK: Yes.
STEINBERG: And we went to parts of the old city, and we visited one of the earliest, the very first of the Christian churches anywhere in the world, and it’s just really stunning. The first event that we went to, was an ecumenical conference. It was at a Sunni religious school; there were Shi’ite, Alawite, Sunni; there were Christians, there were Franciscan monks attending; people from Scandinavian churches. And that night there was a celebration in the old city, and they had these Sunni dervishes.
So it’s what you’re describing: If you’re not there and you don’t see it, it’s almost hard to concede that this is such a natural phenomenon in this country, and you see what the Saudis and the Turks and others are trying to establish, which this hard, sectarian fight within Islam , that has no bearing on the traditional culture of Syria as a country!
BLACK: Yes, and you know, I spoke with Lebanon very senior officials, and of course, discussed this with President Assad and with the top leadership of the Syrian parliament. And one of my questions, is why is there war in Syria? We know, this was not a popular uprising. This was a calculated decision by the CIA, MI6, French intelligence, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turks, Saudis — an organized plan to topple the government. And of course we were familiar that there competing plans for oil and gas pipelines. And I come up a divided mind on exactly what’s going on: It is true that the oil and gas pipelines are a major, major incentive for this war.
But the other thing, that both Lebanese and the Syrians were quite insistent on, is that it is Saudi Arabia’s desire to impose Wahhabism. They’re not content that the vast majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims; now, if you listen to the press, they say, “oh, you know, we need a Sunni government.” Well, there are umpteen million Sunnis who are in the government and in high positions, and in the army and everywhere else. What they really mean is that we want Wahhabism, the type of Wahhabism that says that you impose severe, brutal Sharia law, and you begin beheading people, you force conversions and you take the wives of the Christians that you’ve murdered and you sell them at slave markets, which is happening right now in Iraq, perhaps in some parts of Syria also; but their feeling is that the true zeal behind this is this desire to impose the harshest, most extreme and violent, brutal form of Islamic rule.
STEINBERG: What you’re describing is the ISIS and the al-Nusra Front which is simply al-Qaeda, and the Saudis carry out beheadings, cutting off limbs, as their brand of Sharia law justice, exactly as ISIS and Nusra do in the areas they control.
BLACK: That’s exactly correct. And this has gone on through history. When I visited the Church of the Patriarch of Syria and the East, we went to a little adjacent, Christian school, and they had paintings of martyrs, and just as a reminder, that the history of Turkey, the Turks and the Saudis share the same history of violence towards those who do not share this most extreme view. And there was a painting that just stood out in my mind of a martyr, a woman during the Armenian genocide, a Christian, and the extremists had come in and they had amputated her feet and her hands. And she had an infant, and she cradled the infant and breast-fed the infant for the next couple days until she finally died of the torture they’d imposed on her.
So you know, they had suppressed this in Turkey under Ataturk, starting 1925. I read the Turkish Constitution; it’s admirable, it’s a very fine Constitution. But now you have President Erdogan who has said…
STEINBERG: He’s ripping it up.
BLACK: He’s tearing it to shreds, and he says “I want the powers of Adolf Hitler.”
STEINBERG: That’s right.
BLACK: Our ally. Our ally says, “I want the powers of Adolf Hitler!” Imagine that!
STEINBERG: Mm-hmm. And it was brushed off and explained away in the American media as a misquote or something like that, as if he hadn’t said it, and didn’t mean it.
BLACK: And he never retracted a word of it! But a spokesman said, “well, you know, it’s sort of out of context.” Well — gimme a break. How do you put “the powers of Adolf Hitler” out of context! You know?
STEINBERG: Right, exactly.
I wanted to ask you, because I think you made a very important point about the Saudis and what they want, the Turks and what they want, but if the United States and Western European were not in on this for their own reasons, from the very outset, I doubt that the Saudis or the Turks would have been able to create the mess. And I’m reminded that way back in 1991, right at the point that the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were disintegrating, according to Gen. Wesley Clark, he met with Paul Wolfowitz in Dick Cheney’s office — Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr.—and Wolfowitz went through a list of governments targeted for regime change because they had at various points, allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And Syria was right near the top of that list; Syria, Iraq, Libya, others.
And so, I wanted to get your assessment, given the way the situation has played out, the tragedy of the last five years, do you think that this could have actually occurred were it not for the full, witting complicity of the United States, both under President George W. Bush and now, for the last seven years, under President Barack Obama?
BLACK: That’s an excellent question. If one of our assistants could hand me the black and white poster over there, I think this could help to explain it somewhat. [Placard reading “Syrian War Countdown” 16:10]
Let me just run you through this, because the timeline is extremely important: In 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe has told us, that the Pentagon was ordered by the Secretary of Defense to make plans to topple seven different countries, neutral, non-belligerent countries, in what was an act of aggression under the law of war, which is a war crime. And so, the Pentagon began war-planning 2001.
Now, President Bashar al-Assad did not take office until I think it was 2000; so he was brand new. He’d come in as a reformer. But reform, good or bad, didn’t matter; we were going to topple seven countries, all of them also enemies of the Saudi Arabians. The United States is pulled around by the nose by Saudi Arabia, and for our senior leaders in this country, they all have a meeting with Mr. Green. And Mr. Green persuades them to do whatever the Saudis tell them.
So, OK, you start with 2001, the Pentagon starts planning. In 2006, WikiLeaks has released a document that came from the Chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy; at the time, we didn’t not have an ambassador, so the Chargé d’affaires was the senior person. That document outlined, in detail, plans to overthrow the government of Syria. And the two things that stand out in my mind is, we have a problem because President Assad came in as a reformer, he’s doing a lot of positive things, and so it is drawing an enormous amount of foreign direct investment and we’ve got to smear the image of Syria so that it will begin cutting off this flow of funds, and will adversely impact the Syrian economy. This is the United States, your country and my country, saying “we’re going to destroy another country by smearing their reputation.
The other thing which I think was equally sinister, is in this country that has this beautiful religious harmony, we said have got to create religious division, religious frictions and hatred among religions, so that we can disassemble this country.
But there were six very specific things outlined. And keep in mind, in 2006, there were no demonstrations, there was no political opposition, there were no uprisings, people were prosperous, they were happy.
So here you go from 2005, we start planning the war; 2006, we come up with explicit plans. You go to 2011 and the CIA works to gain the release of the most deadly al-Qaeda operatives in Libyan prisons and uses those people to spark an uprising in Benghazi, the purpose of which — and I wish, you know, Congress, while they’re always talking about Benghazi, they never talk about before Benghazi. What was the reason we were there in the first place! Why did we attack our
ally, Colonel Qaddafi — now we have had problems with Qaddafi but we had resolved them …
STEINBERG: In 2003, he dismantled his WMD program and became — even John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, in early 2009, were in Tripoli and said “this guy’s our best friend in our war against — ” it wasn’t ISIS yet, but “the war against al-Qaeda and the other jihadists.”
BLACK: Yes, yes. So, absolutely, he was our best ally. And however, his big mistake was he had a huge arsenal of modern weapons, that we needed, to overthrow Syria. The reason that we went into Libya was, to capture their weapons to feed and fuel the war against Syria. Because we knew, Syria was a powerfully united, cohesive nation of people who — you know, every country has people who are unhappy or who are dissidents; we have ‘em in this country — but we knew that we had a tough nut to crack here, because this was a very cohesive country. So we needed a huge amount of armaments. The reason we went into Libya was to capture these. And this is all laid out by Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” something that was censored; almost everything he’s done has been widely printed by major media, and they censored it. But the London Review of Books has it published, and he explains why we went in, how we captured the weapons, and how we started the rat line, flying arms in.
Because the CIA could not go before Congress and say, “Look, we intend to attack a neutral, non-belligerent country, where the people are happy, prosperous, and enjoy greater women’s rights and religious freedom than any other Arab nation; we’re going to rip it to shreds, we’re going to open up a torrent of bloodshed: Please give us an appropriation so we can purchase weapons to do it.”
STEINBERG: Right.
BLACK: That would not have gone over well. So, we went around it, and we captured the weapons in Libya, sent ‘em to Syria. Three months after the war in Libya, even before Colonel Qaddafi had fallen, we started the war in Syria. And the technique that we used, — now just watch the timeline: We go from 2001, we decided to bring ‘em down then, it was 10 years! An entire decade of planning and plotting and preparing.
STEINBERG: Exactly, exactly.
BLACK: So, you look at this timeline, and then, of course, we’ve employed massive, unrelenting propaganda against President Assad and his government. We call him a “regime,” the “Assad regime.”
STEINBERG: Right, as opposed to “an elected, sovereign government.”
BLACK: Yes. Now, of course, we always ignore the fact that he was popularly elected, in fair and open elections in 2014. Now, on the other hand, we sit at Geneva III at the peace talks, and on one side we have Saudi Arabia, where if you were to suggest the election of the King or dictator of Saudi Arabia, your head would be a spike the next day; and then, on the other hand, you have President Erdogan, the man who would be Adolf Hitler! [laughter]
STEINBERG: Right!
BLACK: It is so bizarre. And the method that we use, the specific method when we triggered this is interesting. The Arab Spring started with a single suicide, and it is very difficult to conceive that it did not spread without very active covert action. Nothing ever happens in politics, nothing just happens without a push.
So there actually began to be legitimate demonstrations in Syria as well as across the Middle East. What I found interesting, I talked to several people — I just bumped into them on my trip, and they said, “Oh, I was anti-Assad then.” Well, one of them turns out to be my interpreter; he’d been with me for the better part of a week! And one day we’re talking, and he said, “You know,” he said, “I was a demonstrator against President Assad.” And I said, “Oh, that’s interesting. Tell me about it?”
He said, “Well, we just started. It was during the Arab Spring, and we started holding demonstrations.” Much like, you and I have both probably been involved in demonstrations! But he said, “first, people started showing up with al-Qaeda flags.”
STEINBERG: Yeah. The black flags.
BLACK: “Then,” he said, “people started showing up with military weapons.” Now, there is no Second Amendment in Syria, so you don’t just grab a Kalashnikov at the corner drug store.
STEINBERG: Right. You don’t go to a gun show on Sunday afternoon.
BLACK: That’s right, you don’t do that. And he said, “The third thing, is they began to preach religious hatred!” And all along the demonstrators would say, “You guys, get out of here, get out of here! This is not what we’re about. We’re just here asking the government for some changes.” And the friction became tougher and tougher, and he said, “My uncle was the head of all the demonstrators” in this large city, and he said, in the seventh month of back and forth with the al-Qaeda people, they murdered him; they killed him.
And so I asked the same question of the several people I encountered, who had been anti-Assad. Well, they weren’t anti-Assad, they were demonstrators; they weren’t demonstrating against him.
STEINBERG: Sure. They wanted reforms.
BLACK: They wanted reforms. You know, I’ve been in demonstrations; I wasn’t demonstrating to bring down the government, I was there for reform.
And this was news to me, because I knew about this transition, but what was stunning that consistently, — two out of the three said that this transition took place over the span of a single month; the second one said it took place over the span of two months. So within one to two months, what started as demonstrations became an al-Qaeda-led violent, jihadist uprising. And of course, you still had demonstrators struggling to make it a demonstration. But that was how it developed.
STEINBERG: You know, it coincided with the period in 2010 going into 2011, when back here in Washington, there was a study ordered by President Obama, of how to relate to the anticipated insurgencies that were going to sweep across the Muslim world, particularly North Africa and the Middle East. The conclusion that was arrived at by people like Dennis Ross, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, was that the horse the United States should ride in on was the Muslim Brotherhood.
BLACK: Yeah.
STEINBERG: And these are still classified, National Security Study and Decision Directives, that are the cornerstone of the U.S. strategy, which was to basically play into the jihadist insurgencies.
BLACK: Yes, and you know, that brings us to a good point: You then come to the point of the uprising itself, how was this carried out? Just prior to the uprisings, Ambassador Ford was sent to Damascus; we had not had an ambassador there for some time. He was put in place by Hillary Clinton. Around that time, of course, you have all of these covert agencies; Western agencies, plus the Saudis and the Turks. And their mechanism was the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood had created a violent uprising under the father, Hafez Assad, and it’s often portrayed some put-down of these poor people. It was not at all that: It was a violent uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood copied, almost with precision, the approach that the Nazis took during Kristallnacht, which triggered the anti-Jewish backlash by the Nazi Party. The Nazis during Kristallnacht and they painted the Jewish star on all Jewish buildings and residences, and then on signal they surged through and they smashed and they beat, they killed 92 people. With identical procedures, the Muslim Brotherhood, first they hired people to stand on the street corners with placards that said, “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave.” Which meant, we’re going to kick out 10% of our population, another 10% we’re going to murder them. In short order, it changed to “Christians to the grave, Alawites to the grave,” which meant, we’re going to kill 1 out of every 5 Syrians.
So they had these people carrying these placards, and then, at a certain point, the Muslim Brotherhood sent people out at night; they marked the residences, and the businesses, with the Nazarene symbol; and then right after mosque, with the most extremist mosques, they surged out and began beating and roughing up and murdering Christians. Within three days from the city of Hama, 70,000 Christians streamed into Damascus; why Damascus? Because they knew that President Assad would protect the Christians. He would protect anyone who was under attack by the Muslim Brotherhood.
And interestingly, then, Ambassador Ford and the French ambassador, get in a car; and the city of Hama had been ringed with security forces so that they could restore order to the town. And violating diplomatic protocol, they bypassed security, they met with the demonstrators, and they promised total American support. And by that action, they converted demonstrations into an armed revolution. And this was done intentionally.
STEINBERG: Right. I was at an event in Washington, in June of 2011, and there was still a Syrian ambassador in Washington at the time. It was Dr. Imad Mustafa. And this was really even before the major eruptions of violence that came a bit later in the year. And he presented a series of videos of sermons that were given by these Wahhabi and other radicalized clerics in these small, rural areas; and it was an absolute call to arms! And this was early on in the process. He said, “this is what we’re dealing with. This is a problem that has existed for a long time, but now, suddenly this problem has mushroomed tremendously, because there’s all of this outside support and encouragement coming from Washington and coming from all of these other places.”
This is what has been described as “regime change.” Using quote “civil society,” as a kind of a human shield, for organized, well-armed, violent elements, that make the claim that they’re part of a public outcry, upsurge; but in fact, it’s an organized, financed, and armed operation.
You mentioned the Sy Hersh article: the United Nations as part of the enforcement of the arms embargo had been monitoring all of those weapons going from Libya into Syria, into the hands of the jihadists. And there were a series of UN reports that tracked out, from Benghazi ships and planes from Qatar and from Turkey, that were overseen by American and British officials on the ground, loading the weapons up; and this is all in official United Nations reports, indicating exactly what you described: the flow of weapons through these channels into the rebels in Syria. Yet, you won’t read a word about that in the American and European media, which is completely on board with this regime change strategy.
BLACK: Well, you know, I’ll tell you what is amazing, Jeff, is that when we started the war on terror, after 9/11, it was essentially a war against al-Qaeda and similar organizations. We have gone full circle from opposing al-Qaeda, which sent 3,000 Americans to a flaming death on 9/11, complete circle to where we now supply them; we arm them; we finance them; and it’s all coming with the approval of the highest authorities in the United States government.
And you know, if you want to consider whether the people of Syria are for or against their government and their President, just consider this: Syria has a population of 23 million people. It is in the sixth year of a war in which it has been opposed by the United States, Great Britain, France, NATO, the European Union,…
STEINBERG: Right. The GCC.
BLACK: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the GCC — this massive force! I mean, basically, all of the great nations of the world, — almost all, not China and Russia, of course — but almost all of the great nations have descended on little Syria, and it’s like “The Little Train That Could,” they just keep chuggin’ and chuggin’ and chuggin’.
And I spoke with the First Lady, who is just utterly charming. She is not — unlike the First Ladies we’re accustomed to who are ostentatious, and pompous and arrogant — she is very down to earth, a very nice person; and she said, “One of the things I’ve done,” she said, unlike worrying about hamburgers and billboards and things like that, she goes out and she meets the families that have lost sons in battle, and she says, “I’ve now met with over 1,000 personally.” She said, “when I first did it, I was naturally apprehensive, and I knew that I would go to some homes and the people would be just so distraught that they’d burst out in anger at anybody who came, and was like me.” But she said, “I was so surprised. I had never encountered that. Every home I go to, they tell me, we are so deeply sad for the loss of our son, but we cannot think of anything for which we would rather have sacrificed our son than for the defense of Syria, for the unity of this nation.”
And I saw that over and over: I went to a hospital for amputees, and I discovered, — just to my personal disgrace as an American — that the sanctions we have imposed on Syria prevent them from receiving prosthetic devices, amputees. They said, not long ago, they had 600 cancer patients, and they said, “look can you make an exception to the exchange provisions,” where we’d blocked all foreign exchange, “so we can get medication for these cancer patients?” And the Treasury Department said, “No. You don’t get prosthetic devices for people who are missing legs and arms; you don’t medication for cancer patients…” There’s such utter cruelty in our government! I mean — our Federal government!
When I was a young Marine, we used to — at the end of the day we’d stand there, the drill instructor would march back and forth, and we’d scream the Marine Corps hymn, and we’d say the words, “we will fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean, we’re proud to claim the title of United States Marine.” If ever our honor has been disgraced, here we are cutting off access to prosthetic limbs for people! Where have we come?! What has come of this country?!
STEINBERG: Exactly. And these are really violations of the Geneva Conventions. There are rules of war, and rules for the kind of medical care that all parties deserve in wartime. And it’s violated.
I wanted to ask you before we finish up: Within the bounds of what you’re comfortable discussing, your impressions and things that came from both your discussion with President Assad and maybe some of the other officials; and similarly, when you were Lebanon, I’m wondering what General Aoun might of shared with you, in terms of his view of what has happened in the region; because is one of the countries that has been greatly affected, and badly, badly damaged by this phenomenon. The Saudis have basically vetoed a President being selected by the parliament because they don’t want anything that would stand in the way of their — as you say — their drive to spread Wahhabism everywhere.
BLACK: Yes. Well, you know, Lebanon has a unique structure, where the President is always a Christian, the Prime Minister is always Sunni, and the Speaker of the Parliament is Shi’a. It’s their way. They don’t quite achieve religious harmony quite as smoothly as Syria does. But interestingly, General Aoun spent a good part of his life fighting against Syria, because Syria occupied a portion of Lebanon; and Syria withdrew under President Assad. When he took over he began the withdrawal and completed the withdrawal of Syrian troops. General Aoun always took the position, he said, “when you’re in my country you are my enemy,” he said, “when you’re out, you are my friend.” And he has been true to that. He’s a delightful man.
And he clearly is supportive of the government of Syria, and I think is very respectful of the President of Syria. And I think he realizes something that I was quoted by ISIS as saying. You know, there were three Americans chosen as enemies as ISIS, but they quoted me, in a way that said, “this man is telling the truth, and listen,” because they said, “in the words of the enemy.” They called me the “American Crusader” — “in the words of the enemy,” and they quoted me accurately and I had said something to the effect that, if Assad falls, then the dread black and white flag of al-Qaeda will fly over Damascus; and within months, Lebanon will fall, and Jordan will fall. And with the consolidation of this very large area under the control of al-Qaeda, we will then face this tremendous extremism that will percolate over into Turkey where it already is taking hold, very rapidly. And that that will begin a drive on Europe, and I believe that this time, Europe will fall.”
And I think that from General Aoun’s perspective, from President Assad’s perspective, from the various officials that I spoke with, I think they share this belief; I think they believe that this is the objective of al-Qaeda.
And you know, the Joint Chiefs of Staff became so distraught, so very concerned about the eventual outcome of events in Syria, that they tasked the Defense Intelligence Agency in the summer of 2013 to do complete study and to render findings of fact. The Defense Intelligence Agency, which is not political like the CIA, came up with three findings: They said 1) President Assad must not leave office because if he does, Syria will fall into chaos, just as Libya has done. 2) Turkey is a major problem, because they are the supplier of ISIS, they give them arms, ammunition, everything that ISIS gets comes out of Turkey. And 3) which is the very thing that President Assad has said from the beginning, they said, there are no moderate rebels. The notion is a fantasy, they do not exist! And yet, I think yesterday, Secretary Kerry was out there saying, we’ve got to help the moderate rebels. The “moderate rebels” are al-Qaeda, who flew the jets into the Twin Towers and today these are the “moderates”!
So this is where we have come….
STEINBERG: Right, right. And “Saudi Arabia is our greatest ally in the region.”
BLACK: Yeah. Saudi Arabia, there is increasing evidence pointing to Saudi Arabia as the prime actor in the attacks on 9/11; more and more people are beginning to conclude that as evidence starts emerging.
And so here we are: We are allied with the country most complicit in the 9/11 attacks on us, and we have gone full circle and we are now supplying al-Qaeda with TOW antitank missiles and we’re preparing to give them even more advanced weapons such as antiaircraft missiles; they can be used to shoot down Boeing 747 jets at Dulles Airport, and Heathrow and LaGuardia and across the world.
Extremely reckless, nearly an insane American policy, driven by Saudi wealth that lines the pockets of top people in this country. It’s sad.
STEINBERG: I want to thank you very much. This was really an important visit that you made, a courageous visit. And I think sharing these insights and getting them out as widely as possible is one of the critical steps in getting the United States back on its traditional track which we have veered off of so dangerously that we might not make it as a nation, if we don’t make the corrections in time.
BLACK: We are on a suicidal course, and I really appreciate you, helping to get the word out. We’ve got to change course, or it’s coming here, and it’s coming fast.
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad blamed some Western leaders for the terrorism and refugee problems facing Europe.
During a meeting on Sunday with the visiting delegation of the European Parliament headed by Vice-President of the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs Javier Couso, the President discussed the situation in Syria, the terrorist war waged on it and the growing destructive impacts of the spread of terror to world regions.
President al-Assad said it is normal that what is happening in Syria and the Arab region would greatly affect Europe given the geographical vicinity of the two regions and the cross-cultural communication.
He held the leaders of some Western states responsible for the problems of terrorism and extremism and the refugee flows currently facing Europe for having adopted policies that are against the interests of the peoples of these states.
The President slammed those Western leaders for providing the political cover and support to the terrorist organizations in Syria.
Striking a relevant note, President al-Assad said the European parliamentarians could play a significant role to correct the wrong policies of their governments that have caused terrorism to spread and led to worsening the living conditions of the Syrian people due to the economic blockade they imposed on them, forcing many Syrians to leave their country and seek refuge in other states.
For their part, the European delegation members said their visit to Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people they have seen firsthand would make them put effort to the effect of correcting the policies of the European governments and pressuring them into lifting the sanctions.
The European parliamentarians affirmed the need to keep Syria’s sovereignty intact, stressing that the Syrians alone should decide their country’s future without any foreign interference.
On March 27th, President al-Assad received a French delegation that included parliamentarians, intellectuals, researchers and journalists and said during the meeting that such visits by parliamentary delegations and having these figures inspect firsthand the situation in the Syrian cities could be useful for them to efficiently work to correct the wrong policies adopted by some governments, including that of France, towards what is happening in Syria.
In a statement to SANA, Javier Couso said that the meeting with President al-Assad was an opportunity to discuss several issues and ask questions about the situation in Syria, and that at the end of the meeting it was affirmed that dialogue is the only way to resolve the crisis in Syria without any foreign interference in its affairs.
He also talked about the delegation’s visit to Damascus, lauding the coexistence he witnessed in the Syrian society.
For her part, delegation member and Member of the European Parliament Tatjana Zdanoka stated that President al-Assad presented during the meeting “precise formulas” about what is happening in Syria, and that the meeting was very friendly and open.
On a relevant note, the delegation met with Grand Mufti of the Republic Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, who called upon European parliamentarians to stand up to US arrogance and hegemony.
In the article the writer questions the whole idea of governments making top-down decisions about the size of a country's population.
A question that often comes up when discussion population related matter is, "What should the population be?" or "What level of immigration/growth do you think is suitable?". I don't have an answer to that question, and I don't intend to provide one.
At issue: Is population size really a matter for the state?
In "What a Population Policy means to a People" we discussed the dangers of having a population policy. A government which imposes a population policy is doing more than simply deciding how many people exist within the geographic areas that it governs, its also making a determination on the composition of the population, which becomes unavoidable when any other population target than that which would have been arrived at naturally must involve. As we are subject to population policies which seek to increase the population, this means that the immigration program must unavoidably act to the detriment of the original populations, diminishing their representation and power in order to achieve an abstract target. The issue isn't whether a government decides to increase the population, decrease it, or keep it constant, the issue is the belief that the government has a right to decide this matter in the first place. The issue is the belief that population size is a matter for the state, and like interest rates, tax rates, tariffs and the number of taxi licences issues, is a matter for a bureaucracy to decide.
Also flawed is the idea that a government can set population targets democratically, if it puts forward its policies before the electorate and allows the population to vote for one which they prefer. This assumes that there are sufficient options put before the public, that the parties are given equal treatment in the media, and that the population vote according to their own interests and reason, instead of how the establishment pushes them with scaremongering and propaganda. This isn't what we observe, so if our democracy is anything less than perfect in offering a full spectrum of choices, each of which stand a change, we can't rely on a vote. But even if we were to vote, we still have a population policy in the first place. We still legitimise the right of the state to set a policy, which can very quickly and easily turn pathological. Even a sensible population policy doesn't solve this problem, as we are still ceding to the state the right to manipulate us, to displace and diminish us, or otherwise make judgements on the suitability of us as the population of the nation.
People vote democratically with their wombs
The alternative is to allow the population size to be set by the people by the most democratic means available, the individual reproductive choices that we all make. With cheap and readily available birth control, we more or less are capable of choosing or ourselves how many children we have. The birthrate of the nation is therefore nothing more than the accumulative decision making of all people manifesting itself. If people think the population is too low, they will choose to have more children, and the population will increase. If they think the population is large enough, and we don't need growth, they'll have fewer children and the population will stabilise or even reduce. Below replacement birth rates in the Western world are an indication that the people have voted with their ova and sperm, and don't perceive the need for a 'populate or perish' mindset. [This idea of below replacement is abused a lot by our masters. I suggest removing the 'The' which makes it sound like a widely established phenomenon, and just having 'Below replacement' which doesn't suggest such statistical dominance.]
So what should be the role of the state?
So where does the state fit in? It is the role of political and economic leaders not to force a population outcome that they desire or which suits their own objectives, but adapt that that chosen by the people. The low birthrate is only an issue because our political and economic ruling class cannot handle or adapt to this new reality. We have growth forced upon us because the dominant political class refuses to adapt, refuses to implement new solutions, refuses to reform and instead asks us to adapt and even to destroy ourselves, for their own security and posterity. In short, if a stable or falling population is a problem for the political and economic ruling class, then it is the ruling class which is deficient, which has the problem, not the people.
Immigration rate should be in line with birth rate
Immigration therefore has to fit in with this. As population policy is largely implemented through the immigration floodgates, and immigration is used to override the peoples' wishes, immigration policy therefore has to be synchronised with birthrate. Therefore, a sensible immigration policy would be in-line with the birthrate, and not seek to counteract it. Ideally, it the net population intake through immigration would be a function of the total birthrate. If the birthrate rises, then the immigration rate increases and conversely, if the birthrate lowers, then the immigration rate lowers. Immigration could be set at a fixed percentage of total births, where it represents at most, a small percentage. In Australia at the moment, immigration account for more than half of all additions, which is way to high. A better figure would be about 10%, allowing some people to enter Australia if they need to, but not being significant enough to override Australias chosen birthrate.
For those concerned about future population growth, such a stance should be acceptable, because birthrates being just below replacement in Australia (1.93 births per woman as of July 2016),[1] this should act as a limiting factor for future growth. Further measures can be taken to lower the birthrate by removing government incentives.
[Candobetter.net Ed: This article foreshadows the imminent release of the new war-faction novel, Beyond all recognition by Kenneth Eade, some of whose other strong political and legal novels we have already featured.]
One of our most distinguished and highest ranking military men, Major General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
Since the protests of the Vietnam War, it has been “business as usual” under every government since the Reagan administration. Besides the war in Iraq, which was based on one of the most massive deceptions in recent history for which nobody has been held accountable, and which can be said to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (we now have ISIS in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Iraq thriving where it did not exist before) we are seeing this business rear its ugly head in the conflicts in Syria and the buildup of NATO in Eastern Europe and military advice to the Ukraine, to fight the non-existent threat and fantasy of Russian aggression.
“Perception Management” was pioneered in the 1980’s under the Reagan administration in order to avoid the public opposition to future wars that was seen during the Vietnam War.[1] The United States Department of Defense defines perception management as: “Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations, security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.”
At the onset of the Iraq war in 2003, journalists were embedded with US troops as combat cameramen. The reason for this was not to show what was happening in the war, but to present the American view of it. Perception management was used to promote the belief that weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured in Iraq to promote its military invention, even though the real purpose behind the war was regime change. [2]
Alvin and Heidi Toffler cite the following as tools for perception management in their book, War and Anti-War:1) accusations of atrocities, 2) hyperbolic inflations, 3) demonization and dehumanization, 4) polarization, 5) claim of divine sanction, and 5) Meta-propaganda.
In 2001, the Rendon Group, headed by John Rendon, was secretly granted a $16 million contract to target Iraq with propaganda. [3] Rendon, who had been hired by the CIA to help create conditions to removal Sadaam Hussein from power, is a leader in “perception management”. Two months later, in December 2001, a clandestine operation performed by the CIA and the Pentagon produced false polygraph testimony of an alleged Iraqi civil engineer, who testified that he had helped Sadaam Hussein and his men hide tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. [4] Of course, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.
A study by Professor Phil Taylor reveals the differences between the US and global media over the coverage of the war to be: 1) Pro-war coverage in the US made US media “cheerleaders” in the eyes of a watchful, more scrutinous global media; 2) Issues about the war were debated more in countries not directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; 3) The non-US media could not see the link between the “war on terror” and the “axis of evil”, and 4) The US media became part of the information operations campaign, which weakened their credibility in the eyes of global media.
President Bush himself admitted in a televised interview with Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News that, “One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” Vice President Dick Cheney stated on Meet the Press, “If we’re successful in Iraq…we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
Prior to 2002, the CIA was the Bush Administration’s main provider of intelligence on Iraq. In order to establish the connection between Iraq and terrorists, in 2002, the Pentagon established the “Office of Special Plans” which was, in reality, in charge of war planning against Iraq, and designated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be the provider of intelligence on Iraq to the Bush Administration. Its head, the Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas J. Feith, appointed a small team to review the existing intelligence on terrorist networks, in order to reveal their sponsorship states, among other things. In 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wrote a memo to Feith entitled, “Iraq Connections to Al-Qaida”, which stated that they were “not making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al-Qaida.” Peter W. Rodman, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, established a “Policy counter Terror Evaluation Group” (PCTEG) which produced an analysis of the links between Al-Qaida and Iraq, with suggestions on “how to exploit the connections.” [5]
“In February 2003, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N., he described “a sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda network,” stating that “Iraq today harbors a deadly network headed by Zarqawi’s forces, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden,” and that Zarqawi had set up his operations, including bioweapons training, with the approval of the Sadaam Hussein regime. This has since been discredited as false. However, in October 2004, due to the fact that the Iraqi insurgency was catching on as a cause in jihadist circles, Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda. This was after his group had exploded a massive bomb outside a Shiite mosque in August 2003, killing one of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics and sparking warfare between the Shiite and Sunni communities. The tipping point toward a full-blown civil war was the February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which is credited to Haythem Sabah al-Badri, a former member of Sadaam Hussein’s Republican Guard, who joined Al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion. This gave birth to the AQI, Al-Qaeda in Iraq [6]
General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Allied Commander and Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Strategy and Policy, stated in his book, Winning Modern Wars, “As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”
In 2004, John Negroponte, who had served as ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, was appointed as ambassador to Iraq with the specific mandate of implementing the “Salvador Option”, a terrorist model of mass killings by US sponsored death squads. [7]
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld sent Colonel James Steele to serve as a civilian advisor to Iraqi Paramilitary special police commandos known as the “Wolf Brigade”. Steele was a counter-insurgency specialist who was a member of a group of US Special Forces advisors to the Salvadorian Army and trained counter-insurgency commandos in south America, who carried out extreme abuses of human rights. [8] The Wolf Brigade was created and established by the United States and enabled the re-deployment of Sadaam Hussein’s Republican Guard. The Brigade was later accused by a UN official of torture, murder and the implementation of death squads. [9] The techniques used by these counter-insurgency squads were described as “fighting terror with terror”, which was previously done in other theaters, such as Vietnam and El Salvador. [10]
The use of death squads began in 2004 and continued until the winding down of combat operations in 2008. In addition to the death squads, regular military units were often ordered to “kill all military age males” during certain operations; “dead-checking” or killing wounded resistance fighters; to call in air strikes on civilian areas; and 360 degree rotational fire on busy streets. These extreme measures were justified to troops in Iraq by propaganda linking the people to terrorism. [11]
Colonel Steele, with the help of Col. James Hoffman, set up torture centers, dispatching Shia militias to torture Sunni soldiers to learn the details of the insurgency[12] This has been attributed as a major cause of the civil war which led to the formation of ISIS. [13]
The operation of death squads as counter-insurgency measures was also common knowledge at the time. [14]
Private contractors, such as Steele, were often subject to different rules than the military forces they served and, in some cases, served with. As of 2008, an estimated 155,286 private contractors were employed by the US on the ground in Iraq, compared to 152,275 troops. The estimated annual cost for such contractors ballooned to $5 billion per year by 2010. [15]
In August 2006, four American soldiers from a combat unit in Iraq testified in an Article 32 hearing that they had been given orders by their commanding officer, Colonel Michael C. Steele, to “kill all military age males”. [16]
The “targeted killing” program that has been developed under President Obama’s watch is being hailed as the most effective tool against fighting terrorism. [17] Unfortunately, no mention is made in the mainstream media of the innocent victims (collateral damage) caused by this assassination program, nor its lack of authority under international law. [18] According to the journalist Glen Greenwald, all military age males in strike zones of the latest drone aircraft strike programs are considered militants unless it can be proved otherwise. Some say that this has resulted in more civilian casualties than has been reported by the government.[19] [20]
Kenneth Eade is a political novelist and author of “A Patriot’s Act” and “Beyond All Recognition”, both of which are available in bookstores and Amazon.com.
NOTES
[1] Parry, Robert (December 28, 2014) “The Victory of Perception Management” Consortium News
[2] Brigadier BM Kappor (2016) The Art of Perception Management in Information Warfare Today, USI of India
[3] Bamford, James (November 18, 2004) The Man Who Sold the War, Rolling Stone
[4] Brigadier BM Kappor (2016) The Art of Perception Management in Information Warfare Today, USI of India 2016
[5] Richelson, Jeffrey (February 20, 2014) U.S. Special Plans: A History of Deception and Perception Management, Global Research
[6] Cruickshank, Peter and Paul (October 31, 2007) Al-Qaeda in Iraq: A Self-fulfilling Prophecy, Mother Jones
[7] Chossudovsky, Michel (November 17, 2013) “The Salvador Option for Syria: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate ‘Opposition Forces’” Global Research
[8] Mass, Peter (May 1, 2004) “The Way of the Commandos” New York Times
[9] Buncombe, Andrew (February 26, 2006) “Iraq’s Death Squads: On the Brink of Civil War” The Independent. Spencer, Richard (October 25, 2010) “WikiLeaks War Logs: Who are the Wolf Brigade?” The Daily Telegraph. Leigh, David (October 24, 2010) “The War Logs: Americans handed over captives to Iraq torture squads” The Guardian.
[10] Snodgrass Godoy, Angelina (2006) Popular Injustice: Violence, Community and Law in Latin America, Stanford University Press, pp. 175-180.
[11] Davies, Nicolas J. (November 20, 2014) Why Iraqis may see ISIL as Lesser Evil Compared to U.S. Backed Death Squads, AlterNet
[12] Freeman, Colin (June 29, 2014) “Death Squads, ISIS and a new generation of fighters – Why Iraq is facing break-up”
[13] Cerny, Jakub (June 2006) “Death Squad Operations in Iraq, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom
[14] Dunigan, Molly (March 19, 2013) “A Lesson From Iraq War: how to outsource war to private contractors”, The Guardian
[15] Von Zielbauer, Paul (August 3, 2006) GI’s Say Officers Ordered Killing of Young Iraqi Men, New York Times
[16] Jaffe, Greg, “How Obama went from reluctant warrior to drone champion”, Washington Post, July 1, 2016
[17] ACLU, U.S. Releases Casualty Numbers and New Executive Order on Targeted Killing, ACLU Press Release July 1, 2016
[18] Greenwald, Glenn (May 29, 2012) Militants: Media Propaganda, Salon.com
[19] Obama’s Kill List –All males near strike zone are terrorists (May 30, 2012) RT America.
Mary Drost is the convenor of Planning Backlash, a group with a network of 250 residents' groups, which last year held the biggest ever population awareness function in Australia. Recently VCAT issued a very limited survey for users to fill out. Many of the 250 residents' groups in Planning Backlash were formed through bitter experience of appealing to the law via VCAT. Here is what Mary Drost has to say, in her frank and concise manner. 
Video documentary of army training and interviews with former enemies of the Syrian Army who have sought amnesty and now train to fight for Syria: "On several occasions since 2011, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has offered amnesty to anti-government militants who lay down their arms. Amnesties are usually offered to former combatants after are conflict ends, in Syria though they’re being granted as the war rages on. Men who haven’t completed their mandatory military service, are returned to the Army and serve in special “Amnestied groups” where they will fight with the government forces they once opposed.
Why has a Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group Member been vilified as racist and sexist and harassed with threats of expulsion for sticking up for our wildlife against needless rapid population growth? Read what Geoff Dowsett wrote and the response he got from candidate Tamara Ryan (included in the article).
Stone objects collected by prehistoric hunters were effective as throwing weapons to hunt animals, research at Leeds Beckett University reveals.
Greens Councillors Amanda Stone, Sam Gaylard and Misha Coleman voted together with Councillors Stephen Jolly and Jackie Fristacky to give the go ahead to run a cycle path through a natural reserve. Trees will be felled. This was not a foregone result, since the decision was carried only by one in a 5:4 vote. The Greens obviously had a choice, but seem to have chosen to put transport ahead of nature in a very overcrowded area with little access to natural surroundings. This lack of interest in protecting the natural world and our access to it from overdevelopment seems to be an increasing feature of the Greens, particularly to the North of the Yarra. 
Video and translation: This comment by Putin, about United States aggression and its abandonment of protocol to limit the risk of nuclear destruction, was made to representatives of various media outlets during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, in June 2016. It was filmed and has been translated by Inessa S and we have imbedded the video in the article with her translation. It seems particularly timely to publish this in the wake of the release of Hillary Clinton's lost emails. "Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security." (Vladimir Putin).
What are we to make of Hillary Clinton's emails, recently revealed by Wikileaks? Here we examine the first two that were released. "In my view Clinton is as mad as a cut snake. You will see through these documents that the emphasis is entirely on Israel's interests, not America's, and whatever she thinks they are not the same. Of course she is completely in the hands of the Zionist lobby, as was Australia's recent Prime Minister Gillard, who lent her services to the Clinton campaign. But then Clinton is in the hands of anyone with money and the power to swing votes. She talks of Israel's security dilemma. Well, that's a good one: a state with an estimated 200-400 nuclear weapons (yes, a couple would be enough) facing states without even one has a security dilemma? ..." (Earth to Earth, Turkey.)
The cruise industry is just as shameless as the rest of the shipping industry. 
Co-author of Climate Code Red and the author of the 2015 Breakthrough paper Striking Targets, seasoned Melbourne based environmental campaigner, Philip Sutton, is known for his comprehensive and well-researched presentations.
If you think aviation emissions are bad, the even bigger problem is the unregulated shipping industry. 
Here is a brief update on the activities of the US Peace Council delegation in Syria. We went to Ma'alula today [29 July 2016] and tomorrow most of us will fly home. I could spend many words and hours debunking every lie you have been told about Syria and Syrians in the last 5 years, a Sisyphean task in today’s environment. Instead I will share some of my perceptions of recent events based on my experiences in Damascus this week. 
US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has been found to have taken dangerous and illegal risks with her emails whilst Secretary of State. Tens of thousands have gone missing. It is suspected that these emails would reveal compromising exchanges with Middle Eastern dictatorships, among other things. (The brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, currently conducting genocidal war on Yemen, is a major arms customer for the US and has contributed between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, from which Clinton draws financial support for her campaign.) Instead of targeting Clinton's extreme negligence, incompetence and corruption, leading media outlets have suggested, without any evidence, that Russia hacked her emails and - ridiculously - that Russia is trying to steal the US election. It is now official, Hilary Clinton is 
We are keeping this article up at the top of the page so that people will realise that although we are now publishing articles again and invite comments, candobetter.net is still having work done on it. We have been the target of at least two severe hacking attacks in past two weeks or so, with trouble during the month before that. Our return to full function has been delayed by special precautions to prevent further attacks, plus an upgrade in process. We are very grateful to our hosts at LVPS Hosting for their excellent work on this. You will notice the green padlock in the top left corner, which signifies that the site is safe. 
President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc., research veterinarian and animal research ethics expert, Dr Ian Gunn, has called upon the Queensland Environment Minister, the Hon. Dr Steven Miles, to initiate and independent inquiry into cruelty and mismanagement of the dingo population on Fraser Island as a matter of urgency. 
Animal Protectors Alliance (APA) spokesperson, Robyn Soxsmith is delighted at the outcome of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision which overturned a magistrate’s guilty verdict against a angaroo slaughter protestor. Two charges of hindering government officials at last year’s annual kangaroo slaughter were heard in the Magistrate’s court earlier this year. The Magistrate found Dr Chris Klootwijk, guilty on only one of the two charges. Magistrate Walker dismissed the charge in relation to one of the officials purported to have been hindered after she found that the ACT licence to shoot kangaroos was invalid, therefore the killing was illegal, therefore it was not illegal to hinder it.
Recently I became very distressed to hear of a looming dispersal of hundreds of thousands of flying foxes at Bateman's Bay. I read the ecologist's report and Plan of Management, which strongly recommended against dispersal, then wrote a submission (on behalf of the Threatened Species Conservation Society) to Minister Greg Hunt and Eurobodalla Shire council. Since then I discovered that there are similar situations of smaller magnitude occurring here in Tweed shire, along with wherever they occur. So I wrote letters to the local papers. Following is my submission and letter to the editor. [Editor: This article, first published on 2016-06-09 was overlooked and has just now been put on front page, with a new date and thanks.] 
Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.
Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity. 
Well, Erdogan is still in situ. No-one is sure whether this was a real attempted coup or a false flag. Erdogan is already infamous for imprisoning journalists who do not toe his line and now it is feared that Erdogan is now going to use this incident to ramp up his power in new terrorism laws which will be used to further repress the Turkish people. There are also fears that attempts to bring in a new non-secular constitution might gain somehow from the shoring up of Erdogan's power post-coup attempt. Erdogan is known as a covert supporter of the extreme aims of the Muslim Brotherhood. Inside we have republished a statement from the Turkish Communist Party, which insists that neither the government nor the parties to the coup were operating for the good of Turkey. Indeed, most citizens of Turkey, looking at their neighbours - Syria, Libya, Irak, Afghanistan - would probably prefer any kind of stability to violent change of government. And, by the way, the United States has a nuclear-armed airbase in Turkey.
07.58am from a source in Turkey: "We heard the news about two hours ago. I am just outside the city centre in Ankara. First
World population Day was established by the UN in 1989 to highlight concerns as the planet’s population went past 5 billion. It is now at 7.4 billion and rising by about 80 million every year, so the problems are even more intractable (despite the rate of growth declining). Medium scenarios produced by the UN estimate the world population could be between 9 and 10 billion by 2050. 
Population is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss in public forums, partly due to the complexity of the subject and partly due to the political and emotional nature of the issues. These issues can go to the core of people’s philosophies and values and include notions of freedom and human rights, compassion, religion, progress, ecology, and economic imperatives.
"Isn't it great. Isn't it grand. After years of getting our "Hate Abbot" caffeine shot every morning from Age Letters. Now we can look forward to a new superior blend of "Hate Hanson" every morning. (No need to explain)," writes David (ZPG) Hughes in a letter to the Age editor, which he cc'd to candobetter.net. Mr Hughes, who once manned the website 'Crowded Planet," which aimed to supply contraceptives in response to global need, is a keen observer of mass media hypocrisy. But there is a lot more to be said about the relationship between Abbott and Hanson and the Liberal Party and One Nation.
Video, transcript. This is a virtually complete rundown on the history of US aggression against Syria from 2001. “We have never done anything more loathsome or despicable than what we’re doing in Syria” -Virginia State Senator Richard Black. In this article, Virginia State Senator Richard Black and Janice Kortkamp discuss the shameful situation in Syria, where the US government is actively arming and funding Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and “conduits” (“moderates”), blending them together, and then using this model to exterminate the Syrian population. It should be noted that the mass media machine is seemingly losing its effect, as more and more prominent and senior figures (e.g Robert Fisk) are calling a spade a spade, or a “moderate” a terrorist. It just goes to show that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." (Free Syrian Press introduction to the video and transcript interview below.)
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad blamed some Western leaders for the terrorism and refugee problems facing Europe.
In the article the writer questions the whole idea of governments making top-down decisions about the size of a country's population. 
[Candobetter.net Ed: This article foreshadows the imminent release of the new war-faction novel, 
Recent comments