(We) can do better

Thursday 28 April 2016 is the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre. On 28 April 1996, 35 people were killed and 23 others were injured by a single gunman. Later that day, Martin Bryant, a 26 year old man was arrested at the Seascape cottage, some distance away from the site of the massacre, and charged with the murders. He was never tried before a jury for the crime. Martin Bryant initially pleaded not guilty. Allegedly, six weeks after he was arrested and interrogated intensively, isolated from friends and family, he confessed to the crime. As shown in the article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? (3/4/2010), this 'confession' flew in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony which pointed to his innocence.

As the 20th anniversary of the massacre approaches, the same 'news' media, that fed us the 'incubator babies' story of 1990, Iraqi WMDs, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Warren Commission cover-up of the JFK assassination, claims that the Syrian government had been using chemical weapons against its own people, etc., etc., is trying desperately prevent the broader Australian public from critically examining the Port Arthur Massacre.

On 7 News (linked to from here - second embedded video - Melissa Doyle and Peter Fleck 'report':

Melissa Doyle:Chilling public interviews, with the man responsible for the worst mass shooting, have been shown for the first time by 7 Sunday Night. Martin Bryant laughed and bragged after killing 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania. For more, we're joined by Peter Fegan.

Pete, Bryant's lawyer says he's still haunted by this case.

Peter Fegan: John Avery, the man who defended Martin Bryant all those years ago, spoke last night on our Sunday Night program and says he is still haunted by Bryant 20 years on.

Now he ... recalls how Bryant pleaded not guilty to murdering 35 innocent people that day at Port Arthur.

Now, you only had to watch those chilling tapes to understand why he is still haunted. Bryant can often be seen laughing with police. Now here is some of those chilling interviews from that Sunday night program last night.

In fact, only parts of the tapes shown on the Sunday Night program were shown in the 7 news bulletin the next day. On one occasion Martin Bryant is shown smiling, but when asked why by the interviewing officer, Martin responded that he was happy to have been taken out of his prison cell.

Those tapes showed to me a young person who appeared to truly not be aware that 35 people had died and that he had been accused by the police of having killed them.

Whilst Martin demonstrated at length how he practised with his automatic weapons, at not one point in the interview did Martin Bryant admit to having used any of his weapons to harm other people.

The more 'complete' version of those interviews, which total all of 65 seconds, by my measurement, can be found in the embedded Video of Sunday Night at the bottom of the page linked to above.

More misreporting of the Port Arthur massacre: Port Arthur changed how we respond to crises | SMH, Port Arthur massacre: commemoration will balance the fascination with a killer (28/4/16) by Carolyn Strange | The Age, Port Arthur: Critical responders recall the day that changed their lives forever (28/4/16) | ABC, John Howard on Port Arthur (19/4/16) | SMH.

See also: 15 Facts About The Port Arthur Massacre You NEED To Know (16/2/08) | Prison Planet.

Australian Politics Professor Tim Anderson recently wrote a book entitled, The Dirty war on Syria. In the embedded video, he describes the alarming ignorance of Australians generally about why the West is so down on Syria. This is a fascinating, humane and intelligent interview with Syrian TV. Among the many subjects covered are how the Australian media treats Anderson, how he became interested in the war in Syria, interpreting the propaganda war against Syria, and the future of Syria.

Tuesday's Syrian election was a vote of confidence by the Syrian people in their government. 5,085,444 voters cast their ballots out of a possible 8,834,994 eligible voters. The overall participation rate of 58% (virtually identical to Canada's last federal election) exceeded the government's expectations in most places but was low in others. For example, it was over 80% in Homs but only 52% in Tartous. What might explain the uneven results is the history of the war. People who suffered the most from the war, for example in Homs, were probably more grateful for their liberation and more motivated to exercise their political rights than people in Tartous who saw no fighting at all (though they lost thousands upon thousands of sons and grandsons in the war).

Ken Stone was an observer at the Syrian elections. He has an M.A. in political science from McMaster University.

Also significant was the fact that over 140,000 refugees returned across the Lebanese border in just one day in order to vote. And the polling hours in Damascus, which suffered a lot from the fighting, had to be extended until 11 pm to accommodate all the voters. There were even polling stations set up by the government in recently liberated Palmyra and Al-Qaryaten, though those polls were largely symbolic because the inhabitants of those towns have not yet been able to return to their homes due to widespread destruction, following liberation by the Syrian Arab Army.

The voter participation rate is key to this election, more important than the individual candidates who were elected. Here's why: you need to understand elections in a constitutionally-created state, in which one party dominates, in terms of a strike vote in a trade union. It demonstrates continuing confidence in the leadership at a turning point in the struggle. A union would not be satisfied with a strike vote of 58%, going into a strike. And probably the Syrian government would have wished for a higher rate going into the negotiations at Geneva. But it knew from the start that holding the elections under the conditions of war and occupation was a gamble, because there are a lot of eligible voters living outside of Syria right now, living in places besieged by the terrorists, and who have died but not yet been accounted for. Taking into account these factors, the participation rate would probably have been much higher.

Among our solidarity delegation, we have been pleased that the Syrian authorities did not try to inflate the figures to make the election results appear better than they actually were: it reinforces our contention that the Syrian government is a credible force in the serious negotiations ahead.

As mentioned, the turning point for Syria is the current round of negotiations taking place right now in Geneva to find a lasting political solution to the crisis. Today, the Syrian delegation took their seats with a mandate from the Syrian people, whereas the opposition delegation of head-choppers cobbled together at the last minute by the USA and Saudi Arabia have no mandate at all from the unfortunate Syrians who suffer under military occupation in “rebel-held” areas. No elections were held there. Western governments, such as the USA, have dismissed the Syrian election out of hand, though the participation rate in the last US election was only 48%.

But that's not to say there weren't any interesting candidates elected. The sister of a Syrian soldier, Noor Al-Shogri, stood for election as an independent in parliament. Her brother, Yahya Al-Shoghri, was filmed as he was being executed by ISIS terrorists in 2014 in Raqa. (If you can stomach the summary execution in cold blood of a prisoner of war, you will find the video brazenly posted by the terrorists on Youtube.) The barbarians demanded that he say, as his dying words, “Long live the caliphate!” He famously refused and declared instead that “It will be erased!” His last words then became a rallying cry in the national resistance against the foreign aggression. Noor Al-Shogri easily won her seat.

I met an independent candidate in the Old City of Damascus, Nora Arissian, a small Armenian woman with flaming red hair. She came up to me in the Greek Melkite Patriarch's procession to the polling station and thanked me for Canada taking in 25000 Syrian refugees and then she pointedly added, “We want them all eventually to come home!” She too won her seat.

The election results were delayed by a couple of days because the Syrian election commission was unsatisfied with the preparedness of eight polling stations in partially-occupied Aleppo. As I understand it, the elections in Aleppo had to be continued on the day following election day.

Some people have asked what is the role of Palestinian refugees in this election. The answer is that Palestinians, ethnically-cleansed in 1948 and after, do not vote in Syrian elections. The political and social status of Palestinians in Syria is the highest of any Arab country but the Syrian government doesn't grant them citizenship or let them vote because it doesn't want to dilute their right under international law, reaffirmed by numerous resolutions of the United Nations, to return to their homes and farms in Palestine. The fact that the Syrian government has been so adamant about this principle, it is one of the main causes of the foreign aggression against the country (and in support of the State of Israel.) So the Syrian government pays a heavy price for its strong support of the Palestinian people. In turn, the vast majority of Palestinian refugees in Syria strongly support their government, even though many have been made refugees a second time by the invasion into their neighbourhoods of the terrorist mercenaries from over 80 countries. For example, a fierce struggle is taking place in Yarmouk right now just a few kilometres from where I write, among Isis, AlNusra, and other terrorist gangs, over control of this former Palestinian neighbourhood/camp, which used to hold a quarter of a million people but is now a devastated ghost town with only a few thousand souls.

It bears repeating that these parliamentary elections were defiantly called by the Syrian government as “an exercise in national sovereignty.” The point was to show the world, especially those western and Gulf states, who have waged the five-year long war of aggression against Syria, that Syrians are united in the belief that Syrians, and only Syrians, will decide the fate of Syria.

It appears that the gamble paid off.

ps. For photos of the last few days of activities of the Second International Tour of Peace to Syria and to find out how to join the third or fourth tour, please go to:

https://www.facebook.com/International-Tours-of-Peace-to-Syria-454873351281581/?ref=ts&fref=tsheck

A Patriot's Act is a legal novel by lawyer Kenneth Eades, exploring the impact of Bush's terror laws, based on case histories. In a legal investigation and then a trial, we see how US administrations redefined torture in the light of 'terrorism' and we learn what that could mean to an individual. This clear but sophisticated story dramatises what has been sacrificed for 'safety' and how much less safe it really makes us. This article by the author of the book, gives a history of how we got from there to here. Although the author writes about the United States, Australia has aped that country with its own terror laws.

After the release of the CIA Torture Report, we are reminded once again of the abuses that our own government committed in the so-called “War on Terror.”

Amnesty international has called the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp the “gulag of our time.” Since President Obama’s order to close the camp within one year on January 23, 2009, it has remained open because the president decided to amass political capital to use for his domestic agenda, which included “Obamacare.” On January 7, 2011, Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which placed restrictions on transferring prisoners to the United States. As of May 2014, there were 149 detainees being held, at a cost to the government of roughly $1.9 million per detainee. Some of them have been held, without trial and without charge, since 2003. 46 of them have been declared by the government to be too dangerous to release, but they cannot be tried for any crime because there is insufficient evidence to try them. Approximately half of the detainees held today have been cleared for release, but may never regain their freedom. Many of their native countries have refused to repatriate them, and, because of the new legislation, they cannot be transferred to prisons in the United States.

Courts have upheld detentions at Guantanamo under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress three days after the September 11th attacks. The reasoning behind this is to keep prisoners from returning to the battlefield until the conflict is over. But the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan show no sign of being over, especially with the rise in power of ISIS, which is a direct result of U.S. intervention and destruction of infrastructure.

When the United States military arrested the detainees and threw them into Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp indefinitely, they denied them the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. They also denied them the right to a speedy trial, to confront the witnesses against them, to a trial by jury, and the right to be informed of what they were was charged with. They denied them the his right to trial by jury, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, his right to due process of the law by holding them indefinitely with no charge, and his coerced confession violated his privilege against self-incrimination.

Finally, and most importantly, by beating them, torturing them and treating them as less than human, depriving them of sensory input, overloading their senses, force feeding and torturing them, the Government denied them the Eighth Amendment guarantee to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Not only were detainees denied the constitutionally guaranteed rights that any person imprisoned in the United States would be entitled to, no matter the heinous crime they may be accused of, they were also denied the rights that any enemy soldier captured fighting against the United States would get pursuant to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits detention practices that are “cruel, degrading, or humiliating.”

The Government’s position that the Constitution had no effect at Guantanamo Bay has caused enormous separation-of-powers concerns in that the president was not allowed to simply “turn the Constitution off” simply because Guantanamo, which had been under U.S. possession and control for over 100 years, was located in a foreign country.
After September 11, 2001, torture was official U.S. policy under George Bush – authorized at the highest levels of government. Evidence of its continued and systematic practice continues to surface to this day.

On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering the CIA to capture, kill, or interrogate al-Qaeda Leaders.” It also authorized establishing a secret global network of facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. Around the same time, Bush approved a secret “high-value target list” of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists not on the list.

On November 13, 2001, the White House issued a Military Order regarding the “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War on Terror.” It determined that “an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.” It defined targeted individuals as al Qaeda and others for aiding or abetting acts of international terrorism or harboring them. These individuals were to be denied access to U.S. or other courts and instead tried by military commission with the power to convict by the concurrence of two-thirds of its members.

On December 28, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philbin and John Yoo, sent a Memorandum to General Counsel, Department of Defense, and William Haynes II entitled: “Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” It said that federal courts have no jurisdiction over and cannot review Guantanamo detainee mistreatment or mistaken arrest cases. It further stated that international laws don’t apply in the “War on Terror.” This laid the groundwork for abuses in all U.S. military prisons.

On January 18, 2002, Bush issued a “finding” stating that prisoners suspected of being al Qaeda or Taliban members are “enemy combatants” and unprotected by the Third Geneva Convention. They were to be denied all rights and treated “to the extent….consistent with military necessity.” Torture was thus authorized. The 2006 Military Commissions Act (also known as the “torture authorization act”) later created the Geneva-superseded category of “unlawful enemy combatant” to deny them any chance for judicial fairness.

On January 19, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled: “Status of Taliban and al Qaeda.” It stated that these detainees “are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.” It gave commanders enormous latitude to treat prisoners “to the extent appropriate with military necessity” as they saw fit.

On January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales issued a memo to George Bush, which called the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete” and said the administration could ignore them in interrogating prisoners. He also outlined plans to try prisoners in military commissions and to deny them all protections under international law, including due process, habeas corpus rights, and the right to appeal. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld concurred by approving a menu of interrogation practices allowing anything short of what would cause organ failure.

On February 7, 2002, the White House issued an Order “outlining treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees.” It stated that “none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to our conflict with al-Qaida or the Taliban in Afghanistan “or elsewhere throughout the world.”

A plethora of similar memos followed covering much the same ground, allowing all measures that had been banned under international and U.S. law, including the 1994 Torture Statute and the Torture Act of 2000, and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which imposes a penalty of up to life in prison or death for persons convicted of committing war crimes within or outside the US. Torture is a high war crime, the highest after genocide.

Two other memos were written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee (now a federal court of appeals justice in the Ninth Circuit) and David Addington, Dick Cheney’s former legal counsel. One was for the CIA on August 2, 2002. It argued that interrogators should be free to use harsh measures amounting to torture. It said federal laws prohibiting these practices don’t apply when dealing with al-Qaeda because of the presidential authorization to use force during wartime. It also denied that U.S. or international law applies in overseas interrogations. It essentially “legalized” anything in the “War on Terror” and authorized lawlessness and supreme presidential power.

On March 14, 2003, the group issued another memo entitled, “Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States.” This became known as “the Torture Memo” because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also gave the President as Commander-in-Chief “the fullest range of power….to protect the nation.” It stated he “enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces.” In 2004, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, rescinded the Memorandum, saying it showed an “unusual lack of care and sobriety in legal analysis and seemed more an exercise of sheer power than reasoned analysis.”

Nevertheless, other administration documents authorized continued use of practices generally reflecting Yoo’s and Bybee’s views. They authorized the infliction of “intense pain or suffering” short of what would cause “serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage” may result. The President’s July 20, 2006 Executive Order was one such document, entitled “Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.” It pertained to “a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations who may have information that could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks….within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror….”

It authorized the Director of CIA to determine appropriate interrogation practices. Based on what is now known, they included sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, stress positions (including painfully extreme ones), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation and/or overload, beatings, electric shocks, induced hypothermia, and other measures that can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm, including psychoses.

In a secret 2007 report, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that CIA interrogators had tortured high-level al Qaeda prisoners. Abu Zubaydah was one, a reputed close associate of Osama bin Laden and a Guantanamo detainee. He was confined in a box “so small he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position” and stay that way. He and others were also “slammed against the walls,” waterboarded to simulate drowning, and given other harsh and abusive treatment.
The report also said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged chief 9/11 planner, was kept naked for over a month – “alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room.” Most excruciating was a practice of shackling prisoners to the ceiling and forcing them to stand for as long as eight hours. Other techniques included prolonged sleep deprivation, “bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day.”

ICRC’s Bernard Barrett declined to comment but confirmed that Red Cross personnel regularly visit Guantanamo detainees, including high-level ones. They also “have an ongoing confidential dialogue with members of the US intelligence community, and we would share any observations or recommendations with them.”
The executive continued to deny all basic rights to detainees, including the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus, and the Congress went along with it, in passing a series of Acts of Congress attempting to limit this constitutional guarantee. However, in 2004, the United States Supreme Court held, in Rasul v. Bush, that the habeas corpus jurisdiction of United States federal courts extended to Guantanamo Bay. In 2004, the Court also held, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that due process mandated that an alleged enemy combatant held on U.S. soil be entitled to a due process challenge of his enemy combatant status.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld threw out section 1005a of the Detainee Treatment Act denying the right of an alien detainee to habeas corpus, and ruled that the structure and procedures of the military commissions established to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions had been violated. Congress passed and Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act in October 2006, overriding the Supreme Court’s decision.

In 2008, the Supreme Court threw out the Act’s prohibition of the federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear detainees’ habeas corpus petitions as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus in Boumedine v. Bush.

District Court Judge Aiken threw out two sections of the Patriot Act that modified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in Mayfield v. United States, but her decision was rendered moot on appeal when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decided that Mayfield could not pursue his declaratory relief claim after he had settled with the government.

The “War on Terror” is still on, and is still being used as an excuse to broaden or extend the broad brush of governmental power. The USA Patriot Act was designed to be temporary, but has been reauthorized in 2005 and 2006. On February 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law legislation reauthorizing three controversial sections of the Act relating to roving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and seizure of property and records. On May 26, 2011, he signed into law the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act to extend key provisions of the Act. On June 1, 2015, the Patriot Act expired, but the next day, Obama signed into law the USA Freedom Act, which restored, in modified form, the most controversial provisions of The Patriot Act.

James Madison said, “The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
When he said this, he knew that he and Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and all the other statesmen who formed this country made the government to answer to the people, not the other way around. When they set up three branches of government with checks and balances, they did this so that no one branch would get any more powerful than the other. What we are seeing now is an abuse of power by an over-zealous president, and that abuse of power must be stopped. It is making the United States of America, once a beacon for liberty and freedom, and an example for every other democracy to follow, into an aggressive country that does not respect its own laws and does not play by its own principles. This is unacceptable, and we, as citizens of this country, need to send a clear message to your government with this verdict that the United States is a good and humane nation, who does not torture prisoners of war. We are a nation of laws, a nation who respects our fellow humans and the rights of our own citizens, as well as the rights of citizens of other countries.

Kenneth Eade is an attorney and the best-selling author of A Patriot’s Act, the fictional story of a naturalized U.S. citizen, captured in Iraq and held indefinitely at Guantanamo.

First published on 21st Century Wire.

“We declare our right on this earth…to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” ~ Malcolm X

Yesterday Parliamentary elections were held in Syria. 7000 polling booths were opened across the country. 11, 341 candidates were proposed from across Syria with 250 to be elected to Parliament, including a number of female candidates.

Candidates were spread out as follows: 988 in Damascus, 817 in Damascus countryside, Aleppo 1437, in Aleppo regions 1048, In Idleb 386, in Homs 1800, Hama 700, Lattakia 1653, Tartous 634, Deir Ezzor 311, Hasaka 546, Raqqa 197, Daraa 321, Sweida 263 and in Quneitra 240

Voting centres opened at 7.30 am and were obliged to extend their sessions by five hours to accommodate the high turn out of voters.

Some of the women candidates in Syrian Parliamentary elections.

“The voting centers include over 2,000 centers in Damascus, 17 in Deir Ezzor, 1,047 in Lattakia, 661 in Homs, 347 in Sweida, 741 in Hama, 368 in Hasaka, 816 in Tartous, and 347 in Sweida are receiving voters.

It should be noted that voting centers were opened in Damascus, Damascus Countryside, Hama, Lattakia, Aleppo, Tartous, Hasaka, and Deir Ezzor to receive voters staying in these provinces who are originally from other areas, namely the provinces of Idleb, Raqqa, Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, and Daraa.” ~ SANA

Students from Damascus University queueing to vote: SANA

So contrary to spurious claims from western governments and media, efforts were made to open the voting to all Syrian civilians including those who have fled terrorists held areas. We must also bear in mind that over 90% of IDPs [Internally displaced persons] have fled to Government controlled areas, thus further discrediting claims that these elections are non representative.

For a full photo report on the Syrian elections: Peoples Assembly Elections 2016

On an equally positive note, of course ignored in the western and gulf media, 1.7 million of these internally displaced refugees have been able to return home thanks not only to the SAA [Syrian Arab Army] liberation of whole swathes of Syrian villages and towns from US NATO terrorist occupation but also due to the Syrian Governments laudable efforts to rebuild and restore infrastructure in these areas.

Small government loans are being given to impoverished families to enable them to re-establish their lives torn apart by the illegal war of aggression that has been waged against Syria by the US, NATO, GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and Israel for the last five years.

It is guaranteed that none of these initiatives will be reported in the mainstream media, including the Syrian Higher Committee for Relief’s efforts to facilitate the delivery of Humanitarian aid to the remaining terrorist held civilian areas in Syria.

As Professor Tim Anderson [who is in Syria to observe the elections as indeed he was in 2014] said:

“Syrian democracy needs no outside approval. Repeated outside demands that ‘Assad must go’, or that a Washington-approved executive ‘transition government’ be formed, have become meaningless, since the military tide turned in the embattled country’s favour.”

The Syrian elections proceeded according to the Syrian constitution and law. We see this being enforced in Aleppo for example where it was decided that violations of the voting process had taken place and a re-election was called for.

UNSC [Security Council] resolution 2254 stated clearly that Syria’s future is in the hands of the Syrians and the Syrians are proving that they are doing just that with little fuss but a lot of enthusiasm and determination to deny foreign intervention in their sovereign affairs.

The Syrian “Dictator” goes to Vote

Now lets have a look at the President that western governments and their media minions would have us believe to be a bloodthirsty, butchering dictator as he and his wife Asma head for the polling booths with no security in sight.

Compare this if you will, to the protests being held across Britain demanding that David Cameron aka “Dodgy Dave” resign over the Panama papers scandal, the subsequent police clamp down and the manhandling of protestors.

Perhaps even more laughable in the face of the UK Government’s own deteriorating human rights record at home and abroad, is their statement on the Syrian elections:

Britain said Damascus’ decision to go ahead with the elections in the war-torn nation, where hundreds of thousands cannot take part, shows “how divorced (the government) is from reality.” 

With homelessness and child poverty reaching Victorian levels in Britain, legal cases pending for criminal arms sales to the genocidal Saudi coalition conducting wholesale slaughter of Yemeni civilians, and recent reports on the British government clandestine assassination programmes, one would be justified in saying the British government has not only divorced itself from reality but from Humanity in every feasible way.

“Reprieve highlights the fact that Britain conspired in a US-inspired Kill List soon after 9/11. It says quite categorically that “Starting in 2002, working closely with the Americans, Britain had played a leading role in the euphemistic Joint Prioritized Effective List. As with Yemen, the JPEL Kill List was not even limited to a war zone – it spanned over into Pakistan, which was an ally, not an enemy at war.”

What this effectively means is that not only has Britain brought back the death penalty it has done so without public or parliamentary consultation, and carried out these deadly deeds regularly without even a basic trial.” ~ Britain’s Secret Assassination Programme

France takes the hippocritic oath.

France has also hit the deck with cries of illegitimacy regarding the Syrian elections.

“The idea that there could be elections is not just provocative but totally unrealistic. It would be proof that there are no negotiations or discussions [in Geneva].”~ Francois Hollande

This statement comes from the man who crossed an executioners palm with silver to secure a multi billion dollar arms deal with Qatar.

In this photo Hollande is presenting France’s most prestigious award, the Legion D’Honneur to Saudi interior minister, Muhammed Bin Nayef.  Bin Nayef is personally responsible for choosing who of the many prisoners in Saudi jails is eligible for execution or crucifixion without trial and usually on trumped up charges.

So one is once more justified to ask, which leg is Hollande standing on when he denigrates Syrian elections while commending one of the world’s most renowned terrorists on his efforts to combat…terrorism.

The award for hypocrisy goes to..

US State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said that the US “would view those elections as not legitimate in the sense that they don’t represent… the will of the Syrian people.

“So, to hold parliamentary elections now, given the current circumstances, given the current conditions in the country, we believe is at best premature and not representative of the Syrian people,” Toner said.

Early last week Toner said that “a political process that reflects the desires and will of the Syrian people is what should ultimately decide the future leadership and the future government of Syria.” ~ RT

Here is the response of the Syrian people to Mr Toner’s comments:

Mohammed Ali of Press TV reports from Damascus

Conclusions

As I said in yesterday’s exchange of messages with ex Ambassador to Syria and alleged death squad creator, Robert Ford:

“History is repeating itself a little too often Mr Ford, be very careful that you don’t bring your own house of cards down around your ears..Syria is denying your agenda time and time again and I can appreciate your Governments frustration but mistakes are being made and your propaganda apparatus is coming apart at the seams due largely to the integrity and unity of the Syrian people.

The day the US or any NATO member can say it had to extend the voting because such huge numbers turned out, is the day you can lecture me about “regimes”. The day your own Government is finally sanctioned and prosecuted as a war criminal for its policy of overtly or covertly butchering the peoples of sovereign nations is the day you can criticise any other duly elected world government.”

The US, NATO, GCC and Israeli agenda has careered into the brick wall of Syrian resistance, integrity and unity.  The will of the Syrian people is being listened to by the Syrian government.

Ideologically and spiritually the Syrian people believe in their political and military victory.  The Syrian people have said “no” time and time again to foreign intervention. They have endured crippling economic sanctions, invasions by proxy terrorist armies, occupation by mass murderers funded and armed by the US and NATO alliance but their resilience will ensure their self determination against all odds.

To achieve their objectives in Syria, the US and NATO are reliant upon mercenaries, terrorists, rapists and felons who have no vested interest in victory other than lining their own pockets with drugs and oil revenue.

The US and NATO agenda in Syria has no basis in law or even sound ideology, it is based upon pure greed and power sustained by corruption and inhumanity.  It shall fail and Syria will emerge unbowed, stronger and ultimately victorious.  The Syrian people have redrawn the geopolitical road map with strength of will alone.  This is the will you should be respecting Mr Toner, no other.

“The Syrian people are engaged in a war that has been going on for five years, through which terrorism managed to shed innocent blood and destroy much infrastructure, but it failed in achieving the primary goal it was assigned, which is destroying the principle structure in Syria, meaning the social structure of the national identity.” ~ President Bashar al Assad.

***

Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall.

READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files

Previously published on the Syrian Free Press. Story includes #syrianVote">embedded video (10:00 min). See also: Syria's Press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see (20/6/14) | canDoBetter, Syria Elections 2016: US-NATO's Failed Attempt to Deny the Will of the Syrian People (14/4/16) by Vanessa Beeley | Global Research, Polling Stations Closed in All of Syria's Provinces – Elections Committee (14/4/16) | Sputnik News.

The voting takes place in areas under the government’s control. More than 7,000 polling stations have been set up. More than 3,500 candidates are competing for 250 seats. President Bashar al-Assad speaks of high voter turnout and says the candidates cover all sectors of the syrian society. Speaking after voting in Damascus, Assad noted that terrorism has been able to destroy much of Syria’s infrastructure, but not its social structure and the national identity. Parliamentary elections are held in Syria every four years. The last vote was held in May 20-12, four months after constitutional reforms were approved by President Assad.

Video and text of Sheila Newman's speech at the Animal Justice Party's event, "Policy basis for Kangaroo treatment in the ACT," 5 April 2016: Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier - which speeds up fertility turnover. Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes. Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT roo counts unreliable and invalid. The ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider various genetically based algorithms that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in kangaroos.

Examples include separate gender pathways, with 'sexual segregation' where male and female populations live apart. It is likely that the stable presence of mature dominant males and females in family and mob organisation inhibits sexual maturity and activity as has been shown in studies of other species, such as macaques and superb fairy wrens (the latter cooperative breeders). In humans, girls brought up with step-fathers who came late to the family were more likely to mature sexually earlier due to absence of Westermarck Effect.)

Planned wildlife corridors need to be made safe and long-term viable to cope with people, car and kangaroo population movements.

Canberra is pursuing a policy of rapid population growth, mostly through invited economic immigration.

Canberra's population problem

In June 2016 ACT - South West Australian Capital Territory was the fastest growing area in Australia and grew by 127.3%. (ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3218.0)
 
Canberra’s population could increase to 904,000 by 2061 according to new projections released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It's not inevitable, but the government would like you to believe it is.
 
Predicting a population growth of at least 98 per cent within 50 years, ACT population projections for 2061 suggest that the Australian Capital Territory population could exceed Tasmania's population by 2038.

But some think that the ACT's biggest problem is its kangaroo population

It's not the new suburbs, the new roads, the new airport, the additional schools, hospitals, houses, and all the new cars that threaten Canberra's grasslands: it's the eastern grey kangaroos.

It seems that it is better to have cattle in Canberra's nature parks than kangaroos.

Ecological cattle grazing is now being trialed. Cattle can be more easily moved than kangaroos. (Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, communication to P. Machin.)

Although, Fletcher had previously described the devastation cattle made to grass cover in no uncertain terms: "Fletcher Phd: p.37. “70 pregnant cows and four bulls grazed for ten weeks at Tidbinbilla after a bushfire in January 2003 (Section 3.5.1). Prior to their arrival, there had been an atypical abundance of pasture due to the death of almost half of the Tidbinbilla kangaroos in the bushfire, but by the time the cattle were removed, the Tidbinbilla pasture had been reduced to the lowest herbage mass recorded on any site during the study.”
"

ACT Kangaroo Management Policy works on a model that all creatures maximize their population growth and that Canberra's roos are riding an expansive curve which can only be capped by massive frequent culls. A stated fear is that they will otherwise graze and drastically modify biodiversity of Canberra's grasslands. Another is that roos need periodically to be shot so as to save them from starving to death.

Why culling is better than harvesting (ACT Senior Ecologist, Don Fletcher)

"[…] the model indicates that commercial harvesting (currently under trial in the region, at the maximum level allowed, results in a sustainable harvest of kangaroos, but does not increase the herbage mass, and only slightly reduces the frequency of crashes when herbage mass falls to low levels. (To demonstrate this with an ecological experiment would require an extremely large investment of research effort.)

However, an alternative 'national park damage mitigation' formula, which holds kangaroo density to about 1 ha -1 , is predicted to increase herbage mass considerably and to reduce the frequency of crashes in herbage mass, but these effects would be achieved at the cost of having to shoot large numbers of kangaroos." (Fletcher Phd: Population dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands, 2006, p. vi.)

The model and the reality

The ACT Roo Management model is one of high fertility sedentary populations that rarely migrate, grazing grasslands down to the subsoil. But, in his 2006 thesis, p. 237, Senior ACT Kangaroo management ecologist, Donald Fletcher, tested this model and found, to his surprise, that,

"The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate.

Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover."

"The results from the study as a whole indicate that unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in unacceptably low levels of ground cover." (Fletcher Phd: p.231.

The Kangaroo Migration factor

Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes. 

Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT kangaroo counts unreliable and probably invalid.

DNA studies 2003 show migration a strong factor

Zenger et al (2003)[1] found that mitrochondrial DNA samples indicated about 22.61 individuals per generation migrated with a range of 8.17-59.30. In female immigrants the range was 2.73 with a range of 0.60-12.16. Although females demonstrate smaller migration rates compared to the sexes combined, the values are still comparatively high. Analysis across NSW showed populations separated by up to about 230km had equivalent numbers of close relatives when compared to populations only about 20km apart.

This contradicted field study opinion that migration was low in eastern grey kangaroos, and especially low in females in the ACT. Tidbinbilla (a Canberra nature park studied by Fletcher) featured in the Zenger et al study.

Zenger MtDNA findings contrary to Migration views in Fletcher thesis

"Throughout their lives eastern grey kangaroos are relatively sedentary (Johnson 1989) compared to red kangaroos (Priddel 1987). A partly concurrent study of eastern grey kangaroo habitat use and movements on the Googong and Tidbinbilla sites found the eastern grey kangaroos on these sites were sedentary in all seasons (minimum convex polygon mean size 0.43 km 2 ± 0.06 SE and 0.61 km 2 ± 0.08 respectively; Viggers and Hearn 2005). Kangaroos were not radio tracked at Gudgenby but my observations suggest there is no more movement of eastern grey kangaroos on and off the site there than at Tidbinbilla. Thus it is likely there was little net movement of kangaroos on and off the study sites." (Fletcher, page v.)

Paradoxical impact of Culls, kills and Harvests

Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier - which speeds up fertility turnover.

Harvested stock grow smaller, breed earlier, faster

"Smaller, earlier breeding genetic stock tend to escape harvesting". See, e.g. J.J. Poosa, A. Brannstrom, U. Dieckmann, “Harvest-induced maturation evolution under different life-history trade-offs and harvesting regimes.” (See note for more literature on this.)[2]

Fletcher, on estimates of biomass consumption per roo allows for large variations in harvested populations vs wild populations.

"How big are eastern grey kangaroos?
The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos taken from the unshot population at Tidbinbilla was 29 kg – smaller than the 35 kg mean live weight assumed in the Kinchega kangaroo study (Caughley et al. 1987). Based on the size relationship between shot and unshot populations of kangaroos in South Australia and Queensland (Grigg 2000), the mean size of eastern grey kangaroos in equivalent shot populations was predicted to be 17 kg live weight. The minimum dressed size accepted by operators of commercial chillers is 17 kg, implying that many of the kangaroos in shot populations (on rural properties) in the ACT region are too small to attract commercial shooters."(Fletcher, p.242.)

Culling has a similar effect.

Earlier maturation would contribute to higher population growth rates. What role does harvesting, culling and farm mitigation killing play in accelerating breeding rates?

“Smaller, eat less, more numerous, more fecund", reproduce earlier

“The management implications arising from this study are numerous and a full account would require a separate report. As one example, kangaroos in these temperate grasslands are on average smaller, eat less, are more numerous, and are more fecund, than would be predicted
from other studies (e.g. Caughley et al. 1987). Thus the benefit of shooting each kangaroo, in terms of grass production, is less, or, in other words, more kangaroos have to be shot to achieve a certain level of impact reduction, and the population will recover more quickly, than would have been predicted prior to this study.” (Fletcher, p245.)

Kangaroos shot in Tidbinbilla and low weight in shot populations

“The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos in high density populations can be estimated from the weights of a sample of 332 kangaroos shot at Tidbinbilla in June 1997 (Graeme Coulson, personal communication, 2003) to be 29 kg. (That is an adjustment of the actual mean liveweight of the shot sample, 26.4 kg, to allow for seasonal effects, as explained in Discussion. Kangaroos in shot populations, such as on grazing properties, are likely to be smaller due to selective harvesting, also explained in Discussion).”(Fletcher p.242.)

Wider Research Base needed

In my view, the ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider encouraging various genetically based behaviours that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in roos.

Known examples include

incest avoidance, which limits breeding unless animals can disperse to their own territory. [3]
Sexual segregation and gender pathways, where male and female populations live apart. 

Incest avoidance as a spatial limiter of breeding opportunity

Many examples of suppressed maturity or breeding in both males and females close by related adults in many species. (Sheila Newman, Demography Territory Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, chapter 3.) (Paperback edition and Kindle edition.)

In kangaroos male sexual dominance and monopolisation of females is a very obvious trait. (The effect of dominant close females on female maturation is less known and should be investigated as it has been in other species).

Where large males and females are removed from mobs, these limiting population effects are also removed. What happens then?

Kinship rules and incest avoidance

The following diagram is of human kinship rules, however similar patterns of incest avoidance occur in other species, and in kangaroos. The diagram for humans is split into family and in-laws and sets out some typical rules for incest avoidance in low fertility environments - central Australia and mountainous South Korea. The rules for inlaws are reproduced back to front to demonstrate a mirror-like effect. The person in the top left corner, 'You" may not conceive/marry any of the people in the black squares. That leaves only eight possible mates - as long as they are not already married. Imagine how hard it would be to find a wife or husband under these circumstances in a sparsely populated society of small clans that only travelled on foot, without cars, planes or boats. In a more fertile environment, the rules of incest avoidance are usually much less strict, as in Leviticus, where people may marry their first cousins - giving much greater fertility opportunities, even without the benefit of modern transport. For more about this and how it affects human economies see: "Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory"

The following two diagrams are from Zenger et al (2003).
They show the regions from which their eastern grey kangaroo DNA samples were taken, and they give a 'family tree' of roo DNA diversity, which shows greatly decreased diversity in north NSW and in Queensland. The authors could find no explanation for this.

Possible explanation for decreased Mt DNA in Queensland & Northern NSW

Harvesting has gone on for a long time in these regions. We know it is associated with marked size decrease. It seems likely that it is also associated with earlier sexual maturity. Consider the possibility that, as well as size decrease and earlier sexual maturation in harvested populations, the decrease in genetic diversity present in those populations may be due to inbreeding resulting from loss of family structure and associated incest avoidance, with decreased migration as small early maturing roos settle for their siblings. There seems little will to investigate this. Although there is some literature, it is very limited. (See note [2].)

Sexual Segregation/Gender pathways

Review of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/110641Kangaroolitreview.pdf

“Sexual segregation is a phenomenon seen in many species, with segregation occurring along behavioural or ecological dimensions. Sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos in semi - arid Victoria has been the subject of intensive investigations since the last review.

[…] MacFarlane and Coulson (2005) investigated the effects of mating activity, group […] composition, spatial distribution and habitat selection on sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos. The synchrony and timing of mating activity was seen to influence the magnitude and timing of social segregation in these species, with mixed sex groups predominating during the breeding season. …

… Spatial segregation and habitat segregation were also seen. Although the magnitude of these types of segregation were weaker, they were both still significantly influenced by synchrony and timing of breeding.

Coulson et al. (2006) discussed sexual segregation at three levels (habitat, social and dietary) and confirmed that both size and sex influence segregation.

MacFarlane and Coulson (2009) showed that the need for males to maintain contact with other males (perhaps to develop important fighting skills, evaluate rivals and establish a dominance hierarchy) might also promote sexual segregation.

Similarly Nave (2002) reported evidence of sexual segregation in eastern grey kangaroos in Victoria.”

What are the consequences of loss of sex-specific territory?

Years ago a man who had worked in PNG told me that fertility shot up when churches convinced men and women to cohabit, where previously they had separate land and houses.

What effect could reduction of habitat, forced cohabitation, forcibly changed migration routes and wiped out populations have on male/female kangaroo territory and consequently on fertility opportunities?

How do we know that the female bias (recorded by Fletcher) at Tinbinburra, for instance, is not due to that area being female territory?

Female elder kangaroos

Daughters seem to learn from their mothers to look after joeys. Where female kangaroos are early orphaned their parenting skill may increase risks in joey upbringing. The extraordinary rates of joey mortality may have something to do with this. (See Faces in the Mob for a study of success and failure in raising joeys in one mob.)

In conclusion, regarding ACT Kangaroo management:

It seems that ACT Roo Management Policy and Science:

- Fails to monitor family structure (spatial population monitoring)
- Fails to deal with size reduction, fertility increases probably related to culls etc
- Fails to look at behaviour; notably breeding limitations exerted through incest avoidance/dominance and separate male/female territory
- Underestimates immigration (See Zenger et al)
- Fails to use DNA monitoring to help in the above
- Seems excessively presumptive and mechanistic

NOTES

[1] Zenger et al DNA study 2003: (Heredity (2003) 91, 153–162. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800293, K R Zenger, M D B Eldridge and D W Cooper, "Intraspecific variation, sex-biased dispersal and phylogeography of the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)."
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v91/n2/full/6800293a.html)

[2] Harvesting impact literature: Many of these studies arise from fish stocks. Articles quoting studies for kangaroos tend to quote from the same very small amount of literature and to draw equivocal conclusions, frequently paraphrasing each other. Peter T. Hale, "Genetic effects of kangaroo harvesting", Australian Mammalogy 26:75-86 (2004)http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.7936&rep=rep1&type=pdf seems to be the main work cited, but relies on studies which Fletcher's Phd calls into question, has little to say about eastern grey kangaroos but seems to infer that they have similar rates of starvation attributed to red kangaroos.

In Review of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos (2011) http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/110641Kangaroolitreview.pdf  , pp.27-28, after flagging the potential impact of harvesting on kangaroos, the study concludes with a mere opinion that the impact of size and other harvesting selection on kangaroos probably would not be great, on the assumption that the harvested populations are not isolated. This is pretty much as Hale's study (above) concludes. However we know that the harvested populations in northern NSW and Queensland are genetically isolated and impoverished according to Zenger et all (2003) cited above. Furthermore, the review showed it was aware of Zenger et al.

"The last two reviews concluded that there was no evidence, or potential, that commercial harvesting could alter the genetic structure of kangaroo populations at current harvesting levels (Olsen and
Braysher 2000, Olsen and Low 2006). It was perceived that kangaroo populations would have to be
reduced to very low levels for genetic impacts to become significant (Olsen and Braysher 2000).
Moreover, at the time of the last review, it was concluded that there was an absence of theoretical,
empirical and modelled evidence of genetic impacts at current levels of harvesting” (Olsen and Low
2006, p50) and there were few, if any,examples of harvest‐induced body size selection in terrestrial
vertebrates. While there have not been any studies specifically investigating the potential genetic
impacts of harvesting kangaroos since the last review, there have been a large number of original
research and review papers addressing this question in a range of other vertebrate species,
highlighting the perception that the potential genetic consequences of harvesting may be significant

The human harvest of wild animals is generally not a random process, with harvesters often
selecting phenotypically desirable animals, e.g. those with a large body size or elaborate weaponry,
such as antlers. This therefore has the potential to impose selective pressure on wild populations,
which may result in an alteration to population structure by reducing the frequency of these
desirable phenotypes and/or an overall loss of genetic variation (Allendorf et al. 2008). 
Allendorf and Hard (2009) have termed this process “unnatural selection”, which is defined as undesirable changes in an exploited population due to selection against desirable phenotypes. Cited examples of the
effects of selective harvesting on desirable phenotypes include an increase in the number of tuskless elephants (Loxodonta africana) in South Luanga National Park, Zambia, and a decrease in horn size
of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) because of trophy hunting (reviewed in Allendrof and Hard
2009). In the case of bighorn sheep, the observed genotypic and phenotypic effects resulted from
selective harvesting of young males with rapidly growing horns a trait linked with high reproductive
success) before they reached an age where they could achieve high reproductive success (Coltman
et al. 2003).  This study highlights the importance of understanding age-specific trait size, rather
than trait size per se. 

A recent review by Mysterud (2011) discusses the relative importance of various biotic and abiotic
factors that determine the potential for selective pressure from harvesting. In particular, Mysterud
highlights the importance of assessing selective harvesting within the context of management
regulations, hunting methods, animal trait variance, behaviour and abundance. Mysterud argues that in many cultures large mammal harvesting is not expected to produce strong directional
selection in trait size.

 Although many of the factors discussed are of greater relevance to traditional
sport hunting, this review highlights the importance of a number of factors relevant to the
commercial harvesting of kangaroos in Australia. 

There is certainly evidence for selective harvesting of larger/older animals within kangaroo
populations, primarily because the economic performance of kangaroo harvesting enterprises is
highly sensitive to variations in average carcase weight (Stayner 2007). Between 1997 and 2009 the
total harvest in NSW comprised between 70 and 89% males. In the case of wallaroos, the
commercial take is even more strongly biased towards males (almost 90%), because females rarely
reach the minimum size dictated by licence and market conditions (Payne 2011). Despite the
preference for larger males, it was reported that harvesters target a range of sizes above the
minimum, especially when densities are reduced and there are fewer target animals (Payne 2011).
There average weight of harvested animals supports this assertion [(Table 2)]. 

As reported in the last review (Olsen and Low 2006), studies on the potential effects of size-selective harvesting in kangaroos concluded that although there was potential for genetic consequences of
harvesting within a closed population (Tenhumberg et al. 2004), the degree of mobility and
geographic range of genetic populations of kangaroos would be sufficient to ensure that any
localised effects could be countered by immigration (Hale 2004). So, the question remains: does the
recent literature on this topic provide any basis for changing the previous conclusions?

Probably not.

In the big horn sheep example referred to above, the extent of selective harvesting pressure was
probably much stronger than occurs in kangaroo populations. In addition, the population was small,
isolated and had restricted potential for immigration (Coltman et al. 2003), thereby exhibiting
characteristics akin to a closed population. As such, this probably represents a more extreme
example, where prevailing management and biological factors combined to create strong selective
pressure."

Penny Olsen and Tim Low, "Situation Analysis Report, Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling," School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT and 6 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006

Proceedings of the 2010 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar: Convergence or conflict: animal welfare in wildlife management and conservation, Tuesday 23 February 2010, CSIRO Discovery Centre, Canberra https://www.rspca.org.au/files/website/The-facts/Science/Scientific-Seminar/2010/SciSem2010-Proceedings.pdf
[3] Family structure/westermarck/incest avoidance/endogamy/exogamy: Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, Chapter 3, “CHAPTER 3: The urge to disperse: Why children don’t usually marry their parents.” (Available amazon.com) Examples of incest avoidance citations within:

"Several studies have shown that maternal relatives avoid mating with one another (rhesus macaques: Smith, 1995; red colobus, Procolobus badius temminckii: Starin, 2001; Japanese macaques: Takahata et al., 2002; and see for review: Moore, 1993; van Noordwijk and van Schaik, 2004), 88 but less is known concerning patterns of inbreeding avoidance between paternal relatives (but see Alberts, 1999). In this study, we showed that the probability of paternity by a dominant male decreased when he was related to the dam at R = .5 (the highest possible relatedness coefficient in our study). Smith (1995) showed in rhesus macaques that the intensity of inbreeding avoidance was directly correlated with the closeness of kinship, as in the mandrills studied here. ”

Marie Charpentier, Patricia Peignot, Martine Hossaert-McKey, Olivier Gimenez, Joanna M. Setchell, and E. Jean Wickings., 2005. “Constraints on control: factors influencing reproductive success in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx).” Behavioral Ecology 16:614–623]

More reference examples on incest avoidance in multiple species:

Hoier, S., 2003. “Father absence and the age of menarch, A test of four evolutionary models,” Human Nature, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 209–233, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York.
Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Douvle MC, 2003. Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 185 72:189–202;
Griffin AS, Pemberton JM, Brotherton PNM, McIlrath G, Gaynor D, Kansky R, O'Riain J, Clutton-Brock TH, 2003. A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav Ecol 14:472–480;
Mateo JM, 2003. Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181;
Pusey A, Wolf M, 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206;
Stow AJ, Sunnucks P, 2004. Inbreeding avoidance in Cunningham's skinks (Egernia cunninghami) in natural and fragmented habitat. Mol Ecol 13:443–447;
Yu XD, Sun RY, Fang JM, 2004. Effect of kinship on social behaviors in Brandt's voles (Microtus brandti). J Ethol 22:17–22.

Director of Alphadog AnimalArmy, Marcus Fillinger speaks about his research looking at multiphase kangaroo fertility control, undertaken in collaboration with the University of Technology Sydney. Marcus discusses remote delivery (darting) of contraceptives to kangaroos and the kinds of problems which have arisen where people with little training in marksmanship have targeted kangaroos. he also shows photos of clinical consequences of shooting that has failed to make a clear headshot. Marcus shows a number of rescues via tranquillizer dart and challenges as a myth the idea that you cannot relocate kangaroos because they die of stress etc. This talk was given at an event held by the Animal Justice Party on 5 April 2016 in Canberra. The purpose of the event was to look at government policy towards kangaroos.

This paper is about the ACT government’s behaviour in relation to killing kangaroos, not just its treatment of the kangaroos themselves, but the way it has recently been trampling the rights of its own citizens in its zeal to kill kangaroos. This talk was one of three given on 5 April 2016 in Canberra in an event held by the Animal Justice Party, called, "Policy basis for kangaroo treatment in the A.C.T."

The truth about kangaroos in the A.C.T.: Abusing animals and dismantling democracy

1. The First Code of Practice

Very soon after the passage of the ACT Animal Welfare Act in 1992, an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee was formed under the Act, mainly to develop codes of practice for animal welfare.

One of the earliest codes AWAC developed was a Code of Practice for the Humane Killing of kangaroos. This was mainly for local farmers, but it also became clear that it might at some time be wanted by the government itself - if kangaroos ever needed ‘culling’ on public land..

While the Code was not itself mandatory, the legislation was written so that, where there was a code of practice in place, anyone causing pain or distress to an animal in a way that was consistent with the code had a complete defence from prosecution.

On the other hand, anyone causing pain or distress to an animal in a way that was not consistent with the code could be prosecuted.

The Code itself was pretty awful. It recommended bashing to death and decapitation of joeys whose mothers had been killed. But it did at least identify driving and trapping kangaroos as causing pain and distress.

That is the legislative context in which all the ACT kangaroo slaughters before 2014 took place.

2. Googong and BNTS

Not the first slaughter, but the first in which the government’s lack of science came to the attention of the ACT public was at Googong in 2004. FOI material obtained after the event showed that the slaughter was conducted without any scientific studies, or analysis.

Even Don Fletcher, at that time not working for the ACT government, recommended against that slaughter, partly because there had been no ecological studies to determine if it was necessary, partly because (on the government’s own figures) the numbers of kangaroos on the Googong Reserve had already crashed, and partly because of the risk of bush fires if so many of the remaining kangaroos were removed.

The next public slaughter of hundreds of kangaroos was at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station in 2008.

This was the time first time the power the Animal Welfare Act, combined with the Code of Practice, to protect kangaroos from cruelty was tested in earnest - and failed utterly.

Despite the Code’s identification of driving and trapping as cruel to kangaroos, kangaroos inhabiting the grassland surrounding the decommissioned Naval Transmission Station, were driven into pens by vehicles, trapped there to be darted and killed by lethal injection.

Members of the public watching the whole procedure (except the actual killing which was shielded from the public by a kind of tent) from outside the surrounding fence. They watched mothers separated from their babies, as the mothers were driven into the enclosure. They watched kangaroos bashing themselves against the walls of the enclosure and colliding mid-air, falling to the ground in a tangle of limbs.

The Code which identified this treatment of kangaroos as cruel and therefore unlawful under the Animal Welfare Act was completely ignored, not just by the ACT government but also by the RSPCA, despite numerous calls from members of the public to remind them of the Code.

3. The Current Code of Practice

Perhaps the government realised it had broken its own law with the slaughter at BNTS - as footage of the herding and trapping went to air all over the world. First chance the government got (in 2014), it repealed the Code of Practice which identified driving and trapping kangaroos as cruel, and replaced it with a code (this one not developed by the ACT AWAC) which does not mention driving or trapping. Because it does not mention driving or trapping, the code now ensures that this particular act of cruelty is now entirely lawful.

Meanwhile all the other cruelties that the Code had always permitted continue unabated. Pouch joeys are bludgeoned or decapitated. An entire generation of young at foot every year is orphaned to starve, get mown down by cars, or get taken by predators. No doubt more than one of these young animals has suffered a similar fate to the young male found in one of the government’s burial pits. He was shot, stabbed and bludgeoned before dying either of blood loss or suffocation due to being buried alive.

During a shooting session, whole mobs of kangaroos are panicked into terrified flight, and so we find them crucified on barbed wire fences they could normally clear with ease, drowned in dams they could easily swim out of, or colliding with cars they would normally at least try to avoid.

All this is completely legal under the Animal Welfare Act because the Code of Practice does not identify any of these outcomes as unacceptable.

4. The KMP Bible and the Treatment of Heretics

Another way the ACT government has barricaded itself against criticisms of its kangaroo extermination campaign has been to develop the policy document known as the ACT Kangaroo Management Plan. This has become the unchallengeable authority for all the government’s ongoing kangaroo atrocities.

It has also become the basis for the government to ignore every representation it receives criticising the kangaroo slaughter, even where the criticism relates to breaking Territory law; even when it relates to endangering public safety; and even, believe it or not, when it relates to the government’s failure to adhere to that very same Kangaroo Management Plan.

In an effort to make its position even more unassailable, the government has raised penalties for the trivial offence of trespass on public land to a level high enough to force a low-income person into bankruptcy. It has closed its eyes to reports of shooting taking place when protestors were within spitting distance of the shooters. It ignored the autopsy report on the young kangaroo found in the burial pit.

It has hurled also around wild allegations that kangaroo protestors have committed acts of vandalism, in particular vandalism that hurts other animals, as though they were matters of fact, in spite of the fact the there has never been any evidence to support any of these allegations, nor any charges ever laid.

5. The ACAT Hearings

There have now been three hearings brought to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the ACT’s kangaroo slaughter:
- by Animal Liberation NSW in 2009;
- by the Australian Society for Kangaroos in 2013; and
- by Animal Liberation ACT in 2014.

To demonstrate the sacrosanct nature that the government’s policy document, the Kangaroo Management Plan has attained over recent years, the kangaroos and their advocates have lost the case at all three of these hearings.

In all three hearings the case for opposing the slaughter has shown overwhelming
evidence:
- that the slaughter is cruel;
- that the slaughter is ineffective in terms of reducing kangaroo grazing pressure on reserve because kangaroos are pretty mobile within their ranges, and quickly move in from nearby farms to make use of the empty reserves;
- that the slaughter is unnecessary because eastern grey kangaroos are so slow breeding, have such a high infant mortality rate and manage their own populations effectively;
- that the slaughter is actively harmful to ecosystems because kangaroo grazing ensures diversity of habitat for a great diversity of others specie,s many of which cannot thrive in either ungrazed land or livestock grazed land.

The Tribunals also heard clear evidence that the government’s kangaroo counts are inherently inaccurate, that the KMP’s notion of an ideal number of kangaroos per hectare has no basis in science, and that that eastern grey kangaroos across their entire range seem to be in steep and alarming decline.

6.Why These Outcomes?

So why with all this evidence before them, did the three Tribunals rule in favour of the government?

All three Tribunals made this decision on one very simple and astonishing basis. They chose to accept the scientific evidence of Don Fletcher, over that of the independent expert witnesses who gave evidence.

In 2013, the Tribunal even recognised that Fletcher was not there as an independent scientific expert. On that basis, he was allowed to consult with his colleagues during the breaks, and seek further information and advice from his Department. The independent expert witness was not permitted to talk to anyone during the breaks. And yet the Tribunal ruled in favour of the evidence of a person it had already admitted was a government mouthpiece.

Having won three times at ACAT, the government is now supremely confident that all it has to do is mention the Kangaroo Management Plan and it can - perhaps literally - get away with murder.

7. Endangering Humans and Breaking its Own Laws

In 2015, the police allowed shooting with guns to go ahead in an open public place,
the Rose Cottage Horse Paddocks (RCHP), a place that is frequented by members of the public at all hours of the night and day: cyclists on the Centenary Trail; dog walkers; horse riders; teenagers chilling out; young lovers strolling by moonlight; not to mention kangaroos slaughter protestors quite lawfully out on watch for shooters entering the nearby reserve.

The ACT government did not even bother to warn the public that shooting was going on in the RCHP. The Minister, Rattenbury and the FOI Officer both sanctimoniously claimed that the RCHP paddocks because the licence was issued to a private company. This private company is the contractor engaged by the government to manage the RCHP on behalf of the public. Because it is a private company, the government has to protect that company’s privacy.

So much more important than the lives of its citizens.

It even turned out that the shooting on the RCHP on the night it was reported to the police was not even legal. It was made legal the following day by inclusion of the RCHP in an existing licence for shooting on other nearby blocks.

8. The Arrest of a Protestor and Ensuing Court Case

A week later, the same man who reported the dangerous and illegal shooting on the RCHP was arrested on those very same horse paddocks where he had every right to be - for blowing a whistle.

On the first day of the resulting court case (24 February 2016), most of the observers in the courtroom were there to support the defendant, and everyone in the court knew it. Someone (presumably someone outside the courtroom) alleged three times during the course of the morning that one of the observers in the courtroom was taking photographs. It was a small courtroom, and everyone could see anyone else, so it was unlikely the allegation was true, although obviously not impossible.

The third time the assertion was made, the phones of every observer were confiscated for several hours. This was immediately before the court was adjourned for lunch, so the phones were kept out of their owners’ view for a period quite long enough for their entire contents to be downloaded.

As if that was not outrageous enough, a police officer (although out of uniform and with no ID visible) tried to take all the observers’ names as they left the courtroom.

This police officer was none other than the same officer:
• who had falsely assured the defendant (and another member of the public) on 4 June that no shooting would take place on the Rose Cottage Horse Paddocks;
• to whom the illegal shooting on the RCHP had been reported on 24 June 2015;
• who had, on 24 June 2015, falsely assured the defendant the shooting on the RCHP was (after all) legal; and
• who had arrested him on the RCHP a week later.

It was, even at the time, hard not to assume that the allegation that someone had taken photographs was made for one or more of three purposes: to disrupt the coherence of the court case; to prejudice the magistrate against the defendant’s supporters; or simply to get hold of some protestors phones for sinister surveillance purposes.

On the second day of the hearing (8 April 2016), a fourth and even more likely reason came to light. The government prosecutor asked the magistrate to have the case continue as a closed court (ie observers excluded). She gave as her reason the allegation from the previous day of the hearing that someone had taken photographs, along wild assertions about ‘aggressive activists’ (ie this with a room full of women observers of age, intelligence and education similar to that of the magistrate). Thankfully, the magistrate refused the request.

9. Contemptuous Dismissal of Public Representations

Every success the ACT government has had from trampling on its own laws and its citizens’ rights seems to have bolstered its confidence to do it a bit more and a bit worse next time

A detailed submission to the Chief Minister by the Coalition of Animal Protectors (CAP), about the illegal shooting and risk to the lives of citizens went unanswered for three months. When a reminder was sent, someone in the Chief Minister’s Office sent a short, bizarre response was had nothing to do with the submission.

CAP followed this up with equally detailed submissions to the Ombudsman and Police Operations Standards Monitoring Centre (PSOMC). As yet received no response has been received from PSOMC, but very recently a response was received from the Ombudsman’s Office, claiming that matters of environmental administration are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Apparently it does not matter if a public servant who administers environment policy authorises illegal actions, or actions that put human lives at risk, or actions that are contrary to the government’s environmental management policy itself (as represented by the KMP). That public servant is apparently completely exempt from any responsibility to the public.

10. Summation

We have a government which, in its zeal to massacre kangaroos, is willing to:
- put people’s lives at risk
- break its own laws
- trample on the democratic rights of its citizens.

We seem to have no avenue of protest
- through the executive government
- their bureaucrats
- or even their appointed watchdogs, the Ombudsman and the ACAT

We seem to have no redress through the electoral system because the three parties who share the power, the Liberals, Labor and the Greens, appear to have made an unspoken and unholy alliance to keep the policy of massacring kangaroos unassailable.

The mainstream media has declined to undertake any serious investigative journalism into this issue, has refused to even publish the kangaroo defenders’ side of the story without dumbing it down to incomprehensibility.

The government and the media have also played a dirty tricks campaign, and successfully turned the general public against the kangaroo defenders by hurling about rubbish allegations of vandalism.

Even the power of the tactic of people putting themselves on the reserves to force the shooters to stop shooting has been seriously eroded, partly because people are quite understandably afraid of incurring $8000 fines, and partly because the shooters do not seem to stop shooting even when they are there.

11. So What Can We Do?

The short answer is not give up.

One thing we do have that we didn’t have when all this started is an Animal Justice Party to challenge the three-headed political monster we seem to be facing in the ACT: the Liberals, Labour and the Greens. (Please remember, though, that it is only the ACT Greens who seem to have done this deal with the devil.) Social media has also exploded since 2004, and we need to find imaginative, new ways of breaking through the electronic information overload to use it effectively.

However, we also have to keep using some of the old tools: the submissions, the attempts to engage the mainstream media, and getting out to the reserves during the slaughter. When these actions fail, as they now have repeatedly, we must not just throw up our hands and abandon them. These mechanisms are the very essence of democracy. Without them we have nothing.

We must win this campaign, not just for the kangaroos but also for our entire way of life, our entire political system: our right, as responsible citizens, to demand that government officials are answerable for their actions. Governments and their servants must not be permitted to endlessly lie and evade and dismiss, sure of re-election no matter what they do, who or what they kill.

So we must dossiers, as I am doing, on the government’s ever-increasing abuses of its own laws and its own citizens. We must keep believing that one day, we will be in a position to call this government to account for its crimes.

Most of all, of course, we have to win back the ordinary people of the ACT and indeed the rest of Australia to the side of the kangaroos – and all the other animals.

We are not going to save anything if we just dismiss the general public as apathetic and selfish. Most of them are essentially good people. They are just too busy with their own lives, and it is just so much easier to believe the government when it tells them all is well than to bother questioning anything.

We have to be always on our mettle to show ourselves to be people who are unfailingly rational, who know what we’re talking about, who are undiscriminating in our compassion for both humans and animals, and who are absolutely convinced we will win in the end.

The significance of yesterday's event in The Netherlands was that this time the people spoke, not their elected or appointed officials.

By Gilbert Doctorow. Previously published (7/4/16) on Russia Insider. Includes embedded RT CrossTalkvideo CrossTalk: Ukraine's Destinies On this overcast Thursday morning in Brussels, the Capital of Europe, rays of bright sunshine are breaking through from the East as the latest results of vote counting in neighboring Netherlands suggest that yesterday's referendum on the EU's Association Agreement with Ukraine passed the 30% quorum requirement of all eligible voters, while those who cast their ballots came out nearly two to one against the Ukraine deal.

On this overcast Thursday morning in Brussels, the Capital of Europe, rays of bright sunshine are breaking through from the East as the latest results of vote counting in neighboring Netherlands suggest that yesterday's referendum on the EU's Association Agreement with Ukraine passed the 30% quorum requirement of all eligible voters, while those who cast their ballots came out nearly two to one against the Ukraine deal.

If validated when the official results are released on 12 April, this marks a resounding defeat for the Brussels-led conspiracy to pursue Russia-bashing policies of sanctions and information war without consulting public opinion at home. To change metaphors and speak in terms of Dutch folklore, it is the crack in the dam many of us have been waiting for, the opportunity for common sense to prevail over the illogic, hubris and plain pig-headedness of those who control the EU institutions in Brussels, and afar from Berlin and Washington.

While the referendum was formally just 'advisory,' both the public statements of parliamentarians and the acknowledgements of the Dutch government ahead of the voting indicated that it will force a new vote in parliament on ratification and likely send Prime Minister Rutte to Brussels hat in hand, requesting a renegotiation of the Association Agreement. As such, it may bring the EU foreign policy machinery to a shuddering halt and open the illogic of all the Union's policies towards its eastern borderlands these past several years to public scrutiny and, hopefully, to revision.

However, whether this was the decisive moment when the EU is brought to its senses or just the first of a series of knock-out blows directed at the political correctness and group think that has been driving policy ever since the coup d'etat in Ukraine on 22 February 2014, its importance cannot be overstated.

We have been hearing for more than a year that the Russia-bashing policies, the sanctions in particular, were opposed by a growing minority of EU member states. Among the dissenters named at one point or another have been Italy, Hungary, Slovakia. Then came Bavaria, within Germany, whose minister-president Seehofer just months ago flaunted the policies of Chancellor Merkel and paid court to Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Just yesterday the president of Austria did the same. And yet, despite all the fine words to reporters about how the sanctions violate the basic economic interests of their countries and of Europe as a whole, none of these statesmen broke ranks when the sanctions repeatedly came up for renewal. The significance of yesterday's event in The Netherlands was that this time the people spoke, not their elected or appointed officials. This was a consultation to remember.

In effect, the referendum played out at two levels. At the domestic level, it was a power struggle between the mainstream centrist parties in The Netherlands who stand for ‘go with the flow' on EU decisions and decision-making, versus the Euroskeptic extremes on the left and especially on the right (Geerd Wilders and his Freedom Party) who want to put a stick in the EU machinery and halt the slow-motion, seemingly unstoppable move towards greater union, indeed towards federalism that have gained momentum ever since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. In that sense it foreshadows the campaign fight of the parliamentary elections that will take place in The Netherlands in 2017.

At the same time, the referendum had a geopolitical dimension going way beyond the spoils of office, as a proxy battle between pro-US, pro-NATO versus pro-Moscow ideas within The Netherlands.

In both dimensions, the particulars of the EU's Association Agreement with Ukraine that runs several hundred pages long were not the real issue on the ballot. All of which begs the question of what exactly Prime Minister Rutte will eventually be asking the EU Commission to renegotiate.

The signs are multiplying that the EU consensus on foreign policy driven by Angela Merkel is nearing collapse. Within Germany itself, her detractors are becoming ever bolder. Earlier this week the German papers were carrying on their front pages news of former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's invitation to Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban to visit him at his home next week. This is seen as a direct rebuke to Merkel and her policy of open-arms to refugees from Syria and the Middle East, a policy which Orban led a number of new Member States in opposing.

The next big test for the European Union, and the next opportunity to deal a severe blow to its complacent leadership in Brussels will be the Brexit referendum in the U.K. at the end of June. Watch this space.

#crossTalkOnDutchReferendum" id="crossTalkOnDutchReferendum">Watch Gilbert Doctorow discuss the Dutch referendum on RT's CrossTalk:

Saturday April 23 rd at 1.00pm to 4.00 pm. Venue: Hawthorn Arts Centre, 360 Burwood Rd. Hawthorn Vic 3122. Members and non-members are welcome to attend. Speakers are: Mark Allen, Founder, Population, Permaculture and Planning; Dr Katharine Betts, Population Sociologist, Swinburne University; Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, Environmentalist and high profile sustainable population advocate; Rod Quantock, Environmental activist, Much loved comedian. M.C. SPAVicTas President Michael Bayliss. Audience Q&A and discussion will follow (Free parking behind venue or at nearby Glenferrie Station).

All Welcome

All welcome to come and join in this free public afternoon seminar and discussion!

Speakers

Mark Allen, Founder, Population, Permaculture and Planning
Dr Katharine Betts, Population Sociologist, Swinburne University
Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, Environmentalist and high profile sustainable population advocate
Rod Quantock, Environmental activist, Much loved comedian
M.C. SPAVicTas President Michael Bayliss.

Audience Q&A and discussion will follow

Attitudes and communication in population and the environment
Venue: Hawthorn Arts Centre, 360 Burwood Rd. Hawthorn Vic 3122
Members and non-members are welcome to attend (free parking behind venue or at nearby Glenferrie Station)
www.population.org.au

Further details: Jill Quirk jillq[AT]optusnet.com.au 0409742927

Previously published (30/3/16) by Paul Craig Roberts as The Case of Ivan Teleguz.

UPDATE: Faced with the Governor of Virginia's apparent indifference to the execution of apparently an innocent person, the federal 4th Appeals Court has issued an order of stay of execution until 13 April.

Hapless Americans have little idea how broken the criminal justice system is in America. "Freedom and Democracy" America not only has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated than any other country, America also has the largest absolute number. American has more of its citizens in prison than does China, allegedly an authoritarian one party state with four times the American population!!!

Americans are helpless against false prosecutions because so many Americans are gullible and cannot believe that prosecutors and police would be corrupt. They do not give thought to the character of prosecutors. Have you ever asked yourself what type of persons become prosecutors? Most Americans think a prosecutor is a person dedicated to serving justice and punishing criminals for their crimes. There are such people, but there are also ambitious prosecutors who pursue high conviction rates and high profile cases as a path to higher office. For these prosecutors, justice is a subsidiary concern. The worst kind of prosecutors are those who simply enjoy ruining people, whether innocent or guilty.

Prosecutors formerly were restrained by enculturation and a moral environment. Today the only restraint is their own character.

Miscarriages of justice have always occurred, but as Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, miscarriages of justice are becoming the norm, not the exception. The Boston Marathon Bombing case is an example of a corrupt prosecution. See: Update on the Boston Marathon Bomb Case – Paul Craig Roberts (29/3/16)

Once a miscarriage of justice occurs, it is almost impossible to reverse it. Public authorities do not readily admit to mistakes or corrupt motives. For example, Ivan Teleguz is set to be executed in a few days despite the fact that two of the three witnesses against him have publicly stated that they lied for prosecutors at Teleguz's trial as their part of deals prosecutors made with them. In other words, the false evidence against Ivan Telguz was created by the prosecutors for the purpose of executing him.

There is a petition sponsored by change.org to Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe that is trying to stop the execution of a wrongly convicted person who appears to be innocent. Here is the petition:

Petitioning Terry McAuliffe

Please Stop the Imminent Execution of Ivan Teleguz, an Innocent Man

The Commonwealth of Virginia plans to execute an innocent man, Ivan Teleguz. We need to make sure Governor McAuliffe knows that there is too much evidence of Ivan's innocence to allow this execution to go ahead. Please join the call for the Governor to intervene.

The government's case against Ivan was based on false evidence. Three men said that Ivan hired Stephanie's killer. But two of those men have since admitted that they lied in court – and sworn under oath that Ivan was not involved. The third, Michael Hetrick, confessed to killing Stephanie. He was offered a deal that spared his own life in return for saying that Ivan hired him to commit the murder.

The prosecutor coerced the witnesses. The witnesses have sworn under oath that they gave false testimony at trial because of threats from the prosecutor and promises she made to improve their sentences.

The prosecution tried to influence the jury by saying Ivan was involved in a made-up murder. At trial, the prosecutor argued that Ivan should be sentenced to death because he was involved in another murder in Pennsylvania, and was highly dangerous. It was later revealed that the testimony about the murder and the prosecutor's argument were completely made up—the murder never even happened.

There is evidence that calls into question every part of the Commonwealth's case against Ivan. There is too much doubt for Governor McAuliffe to allow this execution to go ahead. Please help make sure he knows that The Commonwealth is about to execute an innocent man.

Please help save an innocent man. Join the call for Governor McAuliffe to intervene.

Visit http://ivansprayerforjustice.org to learn more about Ivan's case.

Visit Facebook and Twitter for case updates.

Previously published (1/4/16) with video on PressTV.

Bahraini people have held an anti-regime demonstration in the Persian Gulf kingdom ahead of the upcoming Formula One Grand Prix.

The demonstrators carried anti-Formula One banners reading, "Racing on Persecution" and chanted slogans against the race during their march in the village of Diraz, west of the capital, Manama, after Friday prayers.

The second round of the Formula 1 season is scheduled to take place in Bahrain this weekend.

Such protests have been held annually in recent years ahead of the major sport event.

Bahrainis slam the hosting of the Formula One race as a failed attempt to restore Manama’s international image.

Manama hopes the event will highlight progress and improvements in the country’s human rights situation.

The 2011 race was canceled amid a heavy crackdown on pro-democracy protests in the kingdom which left many people dead.

On the same occasion, Amnesty International condemned the Bahraini regime on Friday.

"Behind the fast cars and the victory laps lies a government that is tightening its chokehold on any remnant of dissent in the country by stepping up arrests, intimidation and harassment of political opposition, critics and activists," said James Lynch, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

"The alarming erosion of human rights in Bahrain in recent years means that anyone who dares to criticize the authorities or call for reform risks severe punishment," he said.

The UK-based rights group also denounced the Bahraini authorities for revoking the nationalities of many Bahrainis, describing it as an "unlawful measure to silence dissent."

It also called on Bahrain to "to mark the Grand Prix by immediately and unconditionally releasing all prisoners of conscience held solely for peacefully expressing their views."

"The modest reforms introduced after the 2011 uprising have demonstrably failed to live up to the hopes and promises they raised to protect and promote human rights," Amnesty said.

Since mid-February 2011, thousands of anti-regime protesters have held numerous demonstrations on the streets of Bahrain, calling for the Al Khalifa family to relinquish power.

Scores of Bahrainis have been killed and hundreds of others injured and arrested in the ongoing crackdown on peaceful demonstrations.

Recent mainstream media articles raise serious questions as to the policy base behind the ACT government policy to kill Kangaroos. Join us and hear about the research base purportedly in support of killing Kangaroos in the ACT. 6.00-7.30pm, Tuesday April 5th 2016, Urambi Village Community Hall, Gateway B, Crozier Circuit Kambah. Speakers: Sheila Newman, Marcus Fillinger, Frankie Seymour.

Keynote speakers:

Sheila Newman –Independent researcher, evolutionary Sociologist and policy advisor for the Australian Wildlife Protection Council. Sheila will speak about kangaroo population numbers, including reference to the ACT Chief Ecologist, Dr Don Fletcher's PhD study of kangaroo populations at densities of 5 or 6 per hectare and their effect on ground cover. She will talk about what is lacking in the way kangaroo populations are described in the ACT and how agendas for the expansion of human population and development in the ACT affect the way the government presents kangaroos and their numbers to the public

Mr Marcus Fillinger - Director of Alphadog AnimalArmy, Marcus will speak about his research looking at multiphase kangaroo fertility control and which is undertaken in collaboration with the University of Technology Sydney and will engage experts in remote delivery, ballistics, neuroscience, zoology, pharmacology, veterinary science, ecology, and reconnaissance drone engineers.

Frankie Seymour – activist, writer and researcher. Frankie brings a powerful background to the debate around Kangaroo Management. From 1996-2013, she served on the ACT government’s Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), collectively developing over about 20 codes of practice.

Light refreshments provided
It helps for catering if you can let us know you are attending;
RSVP Animal Justice part ACT: [email protected]
GOLD COIN DONATION APPRECIATED.

The Senate Education and Employment References Committee has released a scathing report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders, which documents the abuses of Australia’s temporary visa system for
foreign workers.

By Leith van
Onselen

The Senate Education and Employment References Committee has
released a scathing report entitled A
National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders,
which documents the abuses of Australia’s temporary visa system for
foreign workers.

According to the report, there are over 1.8 million temporary visa
holders in Australia (see Table 2.5 below), with approximately 1.4
million of them having work rights. This means that temporary visa
holders comprise around 10% of Australia’s labour force.

Below is a summary of the Committee’s view of the 457 visa system
for so-called “skilled” foreign workers:

The committee received evidence that a key indicator of the
effectiveness of the 457 visa program in addressing genuine skills
shortages is the responsiveness of the demand for 457 visa workers to
changes in the general rate of unemployment, and to changes in the
supply of skilled labour in particular occupations.

Evidence to the committee indicated that the responsiveness of
the 457 visa program to the upturn in the unemployment rate lagged by
two to three years. Furthermore, the committee received evidence that
the 457 visa program was having a detrimental impact on the employment
opportunities for Australian graduates in specific occupations such as
engineering and nursing.

The committee acknowledges that it received conflicting evidence
regarding the balance between permanent and temporary migration. In
theory, the value of temporary migration is that it allows business to
meet short-term skills shortages. In this respect, there is an
advantage in having some element of temporary migration because
addressing skills shortages solely through the permanent migration
scheme could result in a skills surplus, particularly if a sector that
was booming experienced a sudden down-turn (the resources sector for
example). Addressing short-term skill shortages with the 457 visa
scheme should be a way of moderating these types of rapid
transformations in discrete segments of the skilled job market.

However, the committee is concerned that the broader temporary
visa program, and specifically the 457 visa program, is not
sufficiently responsive either to higher levels of unemployment, or to
labour market changes in specific skilled occupations…

Given the concerns raised in this inquiry, it is therefore
appropriate to review the policy settings of the 457 visa program and
labour agreements at this juncture to ensure they are set correctly…

The Committee recommends that the minimum income threshold for 457
visa holders be indexed to ordinary weekly earnings, so that it is not
eroded over time, along with the implementation of more rigorous,
independent, evidence-based, and transparent processes for determining
the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List (CSOL), which it sees as ad
hoc and ineffective:

Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that
the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) be indexed to
average fulltime weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) as at 1 July
2015 and that indexation occur each financial year.

Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that
the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration (MACSM) be
re-constituted as a genuinely tripartite, independent, and transparent
body with responsibility and commensurate funding to provide objective
evidence-based advice to government on matters pertaining to skills
shortages, training needs, workforce capacity and planning, and labour
migration (including Designated Area Migration Agreements and the full
range of temporary visa programs with associated work rights). The
committee further recommends that the reports produced by MACSM be made
publicly available.

The Committee also wants stringent labour market testing of all
457 visa nominations to ensure that employers employ locals first
wherever possible:

The committee notes that the vast majority of all occupations
available for sponsorship under the 457 visa program are exempt from
labour market testing…  although the extent to which it is occurring is
difficult to quantify, the committee is deeply disturbed by evidence of
workers losing their jobs only to be replaced by 457 visa workers. In
this regard, the committee is of the view that there should be a
prohibition against replacing local workers with 457 visa workers…

Given the current high levels of unemployment and
under-employment amongst Australian professionals, however, the
committee is of the view that the labour market testing should be
further strengthened. In particular, the current exemptions on labour
market testing for ANZSCO skill levels 1 and 2 should be removed, and
labour market testing should be required prior to all 457 visa
nominations.

Further, the committee is of the view that labour market testing
should apply to all positions for which a 457 visa holder is nominated
under labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements.

Recommendation 7: The committee recommends that
the replacement of local workers by 457 visa workers be specifically
prohibited.

Recommendation 8: The committee recommends that
the current exemptions on labour market testing for ANZSCO skill levels
1 and 2 be removed.

Recommendation 9: The committee recommends
that the Migration Regulations be amended to specify that labour market
testing applies to all positions nominated by approved sponsors under
labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements.

Importantly, the Committee also recommends that employers using
457 visas make explicit efforts to employ and train locals:

Recommendation 13: The committee recommends
that employer sponsors of a 457 visa worker (professional) be required
to also employ an Australian tertiary graduate in the same enterprise
on a one-for-one basis.

Recommendation 14: The committee recommends
that employer sponsors of a 457 visa worker (trade) be required to
demonstrate that apprentices represent 25 per cent of the sponsor’s
total trade workforce (with the threshold for this requirement being
the employment of four or more tradespersons).

Recommendation 15: The committee recommends
that the current training benchmarks be replaced with a training levy
paid per 457 visa holder employed in the business. The committee
recommends that the levy be set at up to $4000 per 457 visa worker and
that the levy be paid into existing government programs that
specifically support sectors experiencing labour shortages as well as
apprenticeships and training programs…

The most damning assessments from the Committee were regarding
Australia’s Working Holiday Maker (WHM) and student visa holders, who
were “consistently reported to suffer widespread exploitation in
the Australian workforce”.

The Committee also noted that undocumented foreign workers were
eroding labour standards for Australian employees:

The committee received evidence that undocumented work by
migrant labour has resulted not only in the severe exploitation of
highly vulnerable workers, but also impacted Australia’s labour
markets, including placing downward pressure on the wages and
conditions of Australian workers and undercutting the majority of
legitimate employers that abide by Australian workplace laws.

Looking at the WHM (417 and 462) visa program first, the Committee
noted the following:

A substantial body of evidence to this inquiry demonstrated
blatant and pervasive abuse of the WHM visa program by a network of
labour hire companies supplying 417 visa workers to businesses in the
horticulture sector and the meat processing industry.

It was clear from the evidence that these labour hire companies
have a particular business model. There are a number of labour hire
companies in Australia with close links to labour hire agencies in
certain south-east Asian countries… The scale of the abuse is
extraordinary, both in terms of the numbers of young temporary visa
workers involved, and also in terms of the exploitative conditions that
they endure…

On completion of their ‘training’, the 417 visa workers were
given a job where they were required to work regular 12 to 18 hour
shifts 6 days a week. They were frequently denied proper breaks and
often had to keep working or return to work early after suffering
workplace injuries. The pay rates were appalling. Most received around
a flat $11 or $12 an hour irrespective of whether this was the night
shift, the weekend, or overtime hours. These wage rates are illegal and
clearly breach award minimums…

Poor or non-existent record-keeping was endemic across the
labour hire companies mentioned in this inquiry. This has serious
implications for ensuring compliance with legal minimum conditions of
employment. The 417 visa workers never met the head labour hire
contractor and only had a mobile number to receive texts about the
start time for their next shift. The committee received many documents
including fake timesheets and envelopes with a figure scrawled on it
instead of a proper timesheet. The workers were paid in cash with no
deductions for tax.

When the shift was over, these workers returned to squalid and
overcrowded accommodation with no proper facilities, for which they
were charged exorbitant levels of rent by the labour hire contractor.
The rent payments were deducted straight from the workers’ pay packets,
most of the time in clear contravention of the law…

And regarding the student visa system, the Committee noted:

The hearings into 7-Eleven revealed that undocumented work
performed in breach of a visa condition (as opposed to visa overstayers
and persons in Australia without a visa) is a huge problem in
Australia. International students who were legally allowed to work in
Australia were required to work hours in excess of their visa
conditions precisely so their employers could then exploit the
technical breach of their visa conditions in order to underpay them and
rob them of their wages and other workplace entitlements…

Working (or being required to work) in breach of a visa
condition renders an international student liable to visa cancellation
and deportation and effectively excludes such workers from the
protections of employment law under the FW Act. This further reinforces
the power of unscrupulous employers over their workers and provides a
perverse incentive for employers to breach the law by coercing their
employees to breach the law…

The committee is particularly concerned about the pressure that
certain employers have exerted on temporary visa workers to breach a
condition of their visa in order to gain additional leverage over the
employee. The committee recognises the reality that unscrupulous
employers have exercised their power in the employment relationship and
the employee has been rendered vulnerable to exploitation…

The committee particularly thanks the former employees of
7-Eleven who appeared at the public hearing in Melbourne. Their
accounts of appalling exploitation and intimidation by their franchisee
employers painted a bleak picture of working life in Australia for
substantial numbers of temporary visa workers. Their stories were not
isolated occurrences to be brushed off as one-off incidents caused by a
few rogue employers. Rather, the overwhelming body of evidence
indicated that the problem of underpayment at 7-Eleven was, and may
remain, widespread and systemic.

The Committee makes a bunch of other recommendations around the
rights of temporary visa holders, compliance and enforcement issues,
franchising issues, etc. There are 33 Recommendations in total.

Check
the report out for yourself here.

If you have lost faith in western explanations of what is going on in Syria, maybe you have begun to question what you believed about the break-up of Yugoslavia which began in the 1990s and was accomplished with NATO's involvement in 1999. NATO waged war against the Serbian and other governments opposed to Yugoslavia's division into several states - its 'balkanisation'. The way these conflicts were reported in the west was terribly confusing. In the first part of this article, Ken stone suggests why outside forces were so keen to disorganise post-Tito Yugoslavia. In the second part, 'Victors' justice', he criticises the way the the victors rewrote history as they dominated the international justice system and notes how they got away with dismembering Yugoslavia.

Author Ken Stone is an executive member at Syria Solidarity Movement and his website is www.hamiltoncoalitiontostopthewar.ca

The West sought to destroy Yugoslavia for several reasons:

1) Germany has always regarded the Balkans as within its natural sphere of influence. For that reason, its policy has always been to keep the Balkan people balkanized, the better to manipulate, dominate, and exploit them. For this reason, Nazi Germany attacked Yugoslavia during WW2, redivided the country along ethnic and confessional lines and punished the Serbs especially because they led the effort to form a federal republic. Germany played a large role in the 1990’s to split up the former Yugoslavia.

2) The USA sought to dismember Yugoslavia because it was outside of its control until the end of the Cold War and did not have sufficiently compliant economic or political system. In short, US multinational corporations could not just walk into Yugoslavia and set up shop. There were rules and regulations against foreign takeovers that had to be removed. There was also a lot of public control and ownership of the Yugoslavian economy.

3) The USSR had always stood as the protector of the South Slavs. The demise of the Soviet Union gave the USA the opportunity to divide up Yugoslavia, pit one nation against another, sell arms to all sides, dominate the region, privatize the many state industries, and seize the fabulous Trepka mines of Kosovo which were under state control.

4) Although there were no important supplies of oil and gas in Yugoslavia, the US had a plan to bring Qatari gas pipelines into South Europe through Kosovo to undercut the Russian pipelines through Ukraine and into Eastern Europe. The Qatari pipeline was to go through a defeated Syria, which didn’t happen. The US built its super-base, Bondsteel, in Kosovo as the anchor of the new Qatari gas line.

Victors' justice

The problem with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) was that it was victors’ justice, set up by the NATO countries that launched the illegal war of aggression against the former Yugoslavia, and targeted the victims of that aggression, mainly Serbs. The military intervention was NOT authorized by the United Nations Security Council. It was a successful attempt to destroy and dismember a country which described itself as a secular, socialist, federalist, pluralistic, and democratic state. After the war, all the claims made by NATO to justify the attack on Yugoslavia – namely that Yugoslavia was conducting a genocide in Kosovo – proved to be false.

The real criminals, who started the war, were never put on trial. I refer specifically to US President Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but also to all the leaders of NATO countries at the time, including Canada’s Jean Chretien. The NDP originally supported the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, which lasted 78 days, but, under pressure from its own members, reversed its position after three weeks.

NATO countries were content to use the help of terrorist mercenaries from the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was supported by Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as their foot soldiers, against the Yugoslavian army. (Does this sound familiar in the context of Syria today?) The KLA was a bunch of drug and human smugglers, which until then, had been on the USA’s own terrorist list. After the defeat and dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, the KLA conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo and destroyed many historic Serbian orthodox churches and monasteries. The fabulous Trepka mines in Kosovo were privatized. The USA then proceeded to build Bondsteel, its largest military base in the world, nearby.

So Milosevic, the democratically-elected president of the republic, died in custody at the Hague and now Karadzic will spend the rest of his life behind bars while the war-makers/pillagers walk free.

The destruction of the former Yugoslavia was only the first of the post-Cold War western military interventions. After they got away with that crime (because the Soviet Union had collapsed), the US and its allies attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and Syria. (Did I miss any?)

I am not impressed with the miscarriage of justice known as the ICTY.

Last month, US secretary of State John Kerry called for Syria to be partitioned saying it was "Plan B" if negotiations fail. But in reality this was always plan A. Plans to balkanize Syria, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states were laid out by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a 2006 trip to Tel Aviv. It was part of the so called "Project For a New Middle East". This was a carbon copy of the Odid Yinon plan drawn up by Israel in 1982. The plan outlined the way in which Middle Eastern countries could be balkanized along sectarian lines. This would result in the creation of several weak landlocked micro-states that would be in perpetual war with each other and never united enough to resist Israeli expansionism.

"Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan… " Oded Yinon, "A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties",

The leaked emails of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveal advocates of the Oded Yinon plan were behind the US push for regime change in Syria. An Israeli intelligence adviser writes in an email to Hillary,

"The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies,".

Kerry's plan B comment came right before UN's special envoy de Mistura said federalism would be discussed at the Geneva talks due to a push from major powers. Both side's of the Geneva talks, the Syrian Government and the Syrian National Coalition flat out rejected Federalism. Highlighting the fact that the idea did not come from the Syrian's themselves. The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Al Jaafari, said that the Idea of federalization would not be up for discussion. "Take the idea of separating Syrian land out of your mind," he would say.

But some may not completely understand the full implications of federalism and how it is intrinsically tied to balkanization. Some cite the fact that Russia and the United States are successful federations as evidence that federation is nothing to fear. However the point that makes these federalism statements so dangerous is that in accordance with the Yinon plan the borders of a federalized Syria would be drawn along sectarian lines not on whether any particular state can sustain its population. This means that a small amount of people will get all the resources, and the rest of Syria's population will be left to starve. Furthermore, Russia and the US are by land mass some of the largest nations in the world, so federalism may make sense for them. In contrast Syria is a very small state with limited resources. Unlike the US and Russia, Syria is located in the Middle East which means water is limited. In spite of the fact Syria is in the so-called fertile crescent, Syria has suffered massive droughts since Turkey dammed the rivers flowing into Syria and Iraq. Syria's water resources must be rationed amongst its 23 million people. In the Middle East, wars are also fought over water.The areas that the Yinon plan intends to carve out of Syria, are the coastal areas of Latakia and the region of Al Hasake. These are areas where a substantial amount of Syria's water, agriculture and oil are located. The intention is to leave the majority of the Syrian population in a landlocked starving rump state, and create a situation where perpetual war between divided Syrians is inevitable. Ironically promoters of the Yinon plan try and paint federalism as a road to peace. However, Iraq which was pushed into federalism in 2005 by the US occupation is far from peaceful now.

Quite simply, divide and conquer is the plan. This was even explicitly suggested in the headline of Foreign Policy magazine, "Divide and conquer Iraq and Syria" with the subheading "Why the West Should Plan for a Partition". The CEO of Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf is a member of to the Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank Hillary Clinton has admits she bases her policies on. Another article by Foreign Policy written by an ex-NATO commander James Stavridis, claims "It's time to talk about partitioning Syria".

The US hoped to achieve this by empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups, and introducing Al Qaeda and ISIS into Syria. The Syrian army was supposed to collapse with soldiers returning to their respective demographic enclaves. Evidence of this could be seen in the headlines of NATO's media arm in 2012, which spread false rumours that Assad had run to Latakia, abandoning his post in Damascus. The extremists were then supposed to attack Alawite, Christian and Druze villages. The US hoped that enough Alawites, Christians and Druze would be slaughtered that Syria's minorities would become receptive to the idea of partitioning.

Then NATO planned on shifting narratives from, "evil dictator must be stopped" to "we must protect the minorities". Turning on the very terrorists they created and backing secessionist movements. There is evidence that this narrative shift had already started to happened by 2014 when it was used to convince the US public to accept US intervention in Syria against ISIS. The US designation of Jabhat Al Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December of 2012 was in preparation for this narrative shift. But this was premature as none of these plans seemed to unfold according to schedule. Assad did not leave Damascus, the Syrian army held together, and Syrian society held onto its national identity.

It could be said that the Yinon plan had some success with the Kurdish PYD declaration of federalization. However, the Kurdish faction of the Syrian national coalition condemned PYD's declaration. Regardless, the declaration has no legal legitimacy. The region of Al Hasakah where a substantial portion of Syria's oil and agriculture lies, has a population of only 1.5 million people, 6% of Syria's total population. Of that, 1.5 million, only 40% are Kurdish, many of which do not carry Syrian passports. PYD's demand that the oil and water resources of 23 million people be given to a tiny part of its population is unlikely to garner much support amongst the bulk of Syria's population.

Former US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger understood that the key to dismembering a nation was attacking its national identity. This entails attacking the history from which this identity is based upon. In an event at Michigan University Kissinger stated that he would like to see Syria balkanized, asserting that Syria is not a historic state and is nothing but an invention of the Sykes-Picot agreement in the 1920's. Interestingly, Kissinger is using the same narrative as ISIS, who also claims that Syria is a colonial construct. In fact, ISIS has been a key tool for Kissinger and the promoters of the project of a New Middle East, as ISIS has waged a campaign of destruction against both Syrian and Iraqi historical sites.

In spite of efforts to convince the world of the contrary, the region that now encompasses modern day Syria has been called Syria since 605 BC . Sykes-Picot didn't draw the borders of Syria too large, but instead, too small. Historical Syria also included Lebanon and Iskandaron. Syria and Lebanon were moving towards reunification until 2005, an attempt at correcting what was a sectarian partition caused by the French mandate. Syria has a long history of opposing attempts of divide and conquer, initially the French mandate aimed to divide Syria into 6 separate states based on sectarian lines, but such plans were foiled by Syrian patriots. The architects of the Yinon plan need only have read Syria's long history of resistance against colonial divisions to know their plans in Syria were doomed to failure.

See also Assembly of Syrian Tribes and Clans in Hasaka reject so-called “federal region in Northern Syria”, previously published (19/3/16) on SANA. This article by Maram Susli was previously published on New Eastern Outlook. Maram Susli, also known as "Syrian Girl," is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."

by Dr. Vladimir Prav. First published (23/3/16) on South Front. Also published (24/3/16) on Global Research

Nowadays, a variety of means are being used in order to implement and extend the “controlled chaos” in the national economies and societies in the geopolitical struggle. The actor, who is using the tool, is maintaining the “controlled chaos” within the opposing country.

Steven Mann, the US foreign policy expert, who took part in the developing of many of the current “controlled chaos” hotspots in various parts of the world, speaks openly of the need to use “increased level strongly-worded criticism”, and causing “controlled chaos” to secure and promote the US national interests.

Steven Mann is a key figure behind the development of the “controlled chaos” theory as a means of furthering US national interests. Mann was born in 1951 and graduated from Oberlin College in 1973 with a B.A. in German. In 1974 he obtained an M.A. in German Literature from the Cornell University and has been a member of the Foreign Service since 1976. He received a Harriman Institute for Advanced Soviet Studies scholarship to obtain an M.A. in Political Science from the Columbia University in 1985-1986. He graduated from the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

He began his career as a US embassy staffer in Jamaica. Later he worked in Moscow, at the USSR desk in the State Department, and at the State Department Operations Center (a 24-hour crisis center). He served as the acting chief of mission in Micronesia (1986-1988, Mongolia (1988), and Armenia (1992). Between 1991 and 1992 he worked at the US Department of Defense dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe, and in 1992-1994 he was assigned to Sri Lanka as deputy ambassador. Between 1995 and 1998, he was employed as the head of the India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka desk at the State Department. Since 2001, Mann has been a presidential special representative to the Caspian Sea countries acting as the main spokesman for US energy interests in that region and a lobbyist for the Aktau-Baku-Tbilisi-Jeikhan oil pipeline.

Upon graduating from the NDU in 1992, Mann wrote an article titled Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought // Parameters (US Army War College Quarterly, Vol. XXII, Autumn 1992, pp. 54-68). In this article, he lays out the following theses: “We can learn a lot if we view chaos and reorganization as opportunities, and not pursue stability as an illusory goal…” “The international environment is an excellent example of a chaotic system, with “self-organizing criticality” being a useful analytical tool. The world is doomed to be chaotic, because the many human actors in politics have different objectives and values.” “Each actor in politically critical systems creates conflict energy, …which provokes a change in status quo thus participating in creating a critical situation…and any course of action brings the state of affairs into an unavoidable cataclysmic reorganization.”

The main thought which flows from Manns thoughts is to bring the system into a state of “political criticality.” Then the system, given certain conditions, will unavoidably enter chaos and “transformation.” Mann also writes that “Give the US advantage in communications and growing global mobility capabilities, the virus (in the sense of an ideological infection) will be self-replicating and will expand chaotically. Therefore our national security will be preserved.” And further: “This is the only way to establish a long-term world order. If we cannot accomplish such an ideological change in the whole world, we will have only sporadic periods of calm between catastrophic transformations.” Manns words about “world order” are there for the sake of political correctness. Because his article speaks only of chaos which, judging by Manns words, will be the “best guarantee of US national security,” with only the US able to preserve itself as an “island of order” in an ocean of “controlled criticality” or global chaos.

According to the “theory”, dismantling of the already existing nation-states, traditional cultures, and civilizations can be accomplished by:

• De-ideologizing the population
• Dumping the “ballast” of the already existing values, and replacing them with ones own set
• Increasing material expectations, especially among the elite
• Loss of control over the economy and its ultimate destruction
• Unlawful actions by supposedly spontaneous movements which often have ethnic or religious character

Once implemented, these key policies lead to “color revolutions.”

“Controlled chaos” theory is based on reforming the mass consciousness, worldviews, and the spiritual sphere by subjecting individuals to modern means of manipulation. It amounts to a global psychological operation that is part of globalization and which destroys the culture of solidarity and replaces it with a cult of money and of Social-Darwinist stereotypes concerning the role of an individual in society. The masses ability to offer resistance through self-organization is thus diminished.

Given the effects of such technologies, the “controlled chaos” actors are pursuing two objectives:

1. Reducing the size of the population by eliminating those who are not of use to the architects of the new world order. Neoliberal reforms bring about a demographic catastrophe by reducing birth rates and increasing death rates. The sexual revolution, propaganda of hedonism, individualism, and consumerism reduce birth rates. Social-Darwinism and indifference to the suffering of close ones deprive people of their will to live and increase death rates. The large number of poor and homeless people amounts to a de-facto euthanasia mechanism, as people in these categories die quickly. Though more people are pulled down to replace them.
2. The objective of destroying a nation states that imposing control over them is intercepted by transnational corporations, crime syndicates, supranational organizations and institutions, which answer to those who employ controlled chaos technologies. This task combines “soft power” with barbaric military aggression (Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya). This process facilitates the aggressors control over the global financial, military, and information resources.

We should note that the US and the EU economies grow not by increasing their output but by reapportioning wealth between the strong and weak states. This is accomplished by weakening the nation-state (usually by drawing it into a debt trap), privatization, and buying up all manner of national assets, including natural ones.

Under the pressure of the financial institutions, the nation-state becomes a tool of this type of globalization by privatizing and reducing expenditures on social needs or on maintaining science and culture. States also organize mass illegal labor migrations which render individual workers much cheaper which deprives them of rights. In combination, the two tasks deprive the target state of its ability to function as an international actor. It is a covert way of eliminating economic competitors. The main symptoms of the loss of ones sovereignty include the inability to perceive and interpret the situation, rise above it, assert ones identity, and the ability to implement bold, breakthrough ideas.

As a result:

1. The state is no longer self-governing, it does not have a development strategy, and it cannot ensure decent living conditions for its citizens and guarantee constitutional rights.
2. Corrupt officials play a key role in controlling the economy and society.
3. The middle class is disappearing, it is being disorganized, and alienated.
4. Political parties and movements are mere facades.
5. Societal movements have no actual effect on politics.
6. Citizens are passive and have major identity problems (state, ethnic, family).

Lets look at a few examples of controlled chaos implementation aimed at depriving foundations of national independence.

1. Neutralizing the drive to develop.

– Destruction of state policy apparatus by seeding it with agents of influence.

– Infection through corruption, promoting a cult of money.

– Government bureaucratization.

– Removing the scientific community from influencing the countrys policies.

– Mythmaking: “the market will fix everything.”

2. Blocking the reaction reflex

– Mass export of cult organizations.

– Use of political technologies in election campaigns.

– Transforming the media into market actors.

– Promoting a primitive mass culture.

3. Destroying communications links

– Individualization through neoliberalism, the atomization of society.

– Destroying community ties.

– Destroying transport networks.

– Promoting ethnic and religious conflicts.

– Class fragmentation into rich and poor class.

– Generational conflict.

4. Reducing the ability to influence events

– Use of manipulative techniques in election campaigns.

– Promoting neoliberal ideologies, such as individualism and atomization.

– Promoting the cult of money and a system of primitive values.

– Shutting down independent media.

– Promoting corruption and criminalization.

5. Reducing the ability to pursue development:

– Destroying domestic science and educational progress.

– Promoting deindustrialization through privatization, bankruptcy, and destruction of professional training system.

– Elimination of capital controls.

– Credit dependence on international financial systems.

– Inability to resist import dependence.

– Preventing the societys active participation in the countrys development.

In conclusion:

1. The US is currently the main actor using “controlled chaos” tools with the aim of seizing control over a country or region and preventing it from pursuing its own development. Controlled chaos is de-facto neo-colonialism which transforms countries into resource suppliers to the First World. It entails predatory relations in trade and property acquisition.
2. Using controlled chaos technologies runs against international norms of non-interference in domestic affairs. It means there is a basis for banning and international monitoring over controlled chaos technologies. Over the last several decades, several countries were in favor of ensuring international information security through legal agreements, now they could also initiate similar actions in regard to controlled chaos technologies.

The original source of this article is South Front

Copyright © Dr. Vladimir Prav, South Front, 2016

Dr Bashar al-Jaafari is the Syrian UN ambassador. In this interview he refutes the ABC-US-NATO line that Tony Jones runs on Syria. Among other things, he says, "Number one, we are not regime. In Syria, there is no regime. There is a government. We are the legitimate government." Bashar al-Jaafari was present when independent international witnesses delivered their (positive) reports on the conduct of the Syrian elections of June 2014 (video included).

ABC Lateline’s Tony Jones speaks with Dr Bashar Jaafari, Syrian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, as he attends the UN-brokered Syrian peace talks as the lead negotiator for the Syrian government.

TRANSCRIPT:

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: This story is about the conflict in Syria. After five years and more than 250,000 lives lost, a new round of peace talks is under way in Geneva to try to bring an end to the conflict. As the new talks enter their third day, we’ll cross in a moment to the Swiss capital to speak to Syria’s lead negotiator. The talks were made possible by the UN-backed ceasefire which came into effect on 27th February, the first major truce in the five-year war. The peace talks aim to establish a transitional government in Syria leading up to fresh presidential elections. One key stumbling block is the future of Syria’s President Assad. The chief negotiator for the Syrian opposition says the transitional period can only begin with the fall of Assad or his death. Well the Syrian delegation is sticking by their President and refuses to discuss his future, so how will that fundamental difference be resolved?

Dr Bashar Jaafari is the Syrian Government’s representative at the United Nations. He’s also a central figure at the peace talks and he joins us live from Geneva.

Thanks for being there, Ambassador Jaafari.

BASHAR JAAFARI, SYRIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: Thank you so much for having me with you.

TONY JONES: Now with Vladimir Putin withdrawing most of his forces, can President Assad hope to remain in power without Russian military support?

BASHAR JAAFARI: Of course, definitely. We have been fighting the terrorists all over Syria for five years, as you know. The participation and contribution of our allies and friends, the Russians, started just a couple of months ago, as you know. But before that, we were doing the – the Syrian Army was doing the most important part of the mission of combating terrorism on the Syrian territory. But however, just to answer your question, the Russian decision has not been a unilateral decision taken by Moscow at the detrimental of Damascus, as some media anchors try to say. This decision was taken jointly by both President Putin and President Assad and it has, of course, definitely a political motivation, a political reason. The main reason for that is to encourage the process of the national reconciliation process, to give a chance to the talks, indirect talks amongst Syrians in Geneva, but also to give a signal that the biggest part of the mission of combating terrorism has been fulfilled successfully. So what we have here is not a Russian withdrawal. You may call it a partial withdrawal, but you may call it definitely a redeployment of the Russian forces deployed in Syria.

TONY JONES: OK. Well, ambassador, you are there in Geneva to talk peace with your delegation. President Assad in a recent interview said he would one day take back all of the territory that he lost during the conflict. Does your president still believe there is a military solution in Syria?

BASHAR JAAFARI: No, President Assad didn’t say that, actually. He didn’t mean that there is only a political – a military solution to the crisis. He said that there is only a military solution to the issue of combating terrorism. But definitely, President Assad and the Syrian Government are engaged in this – in the political process and this is – this is why we are here in Geneva. So there are two tracks parallel – the military track and the political track. The military track aims at destroying the terrorist and combating the terrorism, the international terrorism, whether you call it jihadist or, you know, mercenaries or pure international terrorist networks. But definitely there is another track which is called the political track and this is why we are here in Geneva.

TONY JONES: OK, I’ll come to that in a moment, but the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, quite clearly understood what President Assad was saying as being that there will be more fighting in the future, that he would fight to take back all that land and he said quite clearly a message to your President that this was something that Russia would not accept.

BASHAR JAAFARI: No, no, no. I’m sorry to tell you that I think that you are misleading this kind of statements. The point is the following, my friend: the Syrian Government has the constitutional duty to liberate all the Syrian territory from all kind of terrorist – all forms of terrorist active on the Syrian soil. So we are not – we don’t feel ashamed of what we are doing. It is our constitutional duty.

TONY JONES: But ambassador, …

BASHAR JAAFARI: … to get rid of the international terrorism active on the Syrian soil.

TONY JONES: … can I just – can I – sorry, ambassador – ambassador, can I just interrupt you there just for a moment because on this program just last month President Assad’s advisor Dr Bouthaina Shaaban told us that liberating the people of Aleppo was the most important thing, that Aleppo would have to be liberated and brought back under Syrian regime control in order for there to be any peace. Is that still true?

BASHAR JAAFARI: Again, again, allow me to clarify this kind of statements. Number one, we are not regime. In Syria, there is no regime. There is a government. We are the legitimate government and I am representing this legitimate government at the United Nations. So nobody has the right to monopolise or to deform our representativity. We are a legitimate government and everybody should call us a government. We are not regime. Number one. Number two, we have in fact priorities. Yes, Aleppo is more important than other less than important than Aleppo. So we may start with freeing and liberating Aleppo and then Palmyra and then Raqqa. We have the duty to liberate all these important historical cities in Syria. So, whether it is Aleppo or Raqqa or Deir ez-Zor …

TONY JONES: But ambassador, the point about Aleppo – the point about Aleppo is that you regard the opposition forces in Aleppo as terrorists and therefore reserve the right to continue military engagement against them, by the sound of it. Won’t that defeat the whole idea of a peace process with those opposition forces who are occupying half of Aleppo?

BASHAR JAAFARI: My friend, in Aleppo, most of the armed groups are not opposition. They are either mercenaries hired by the Gulf state’s money. They call them jihadist – you know that very well. They call them rebels, they call them revolutionaries, they call them even Syrian moderate opposition while they are foreigners and mercenaries. So most of those armed groups deployed in Aleppo and fighting the Government are nothing but terrorists. There is a slight margin of those people, of those fighters in Aleppo that you may consider opposition and I’m not talking about these people. I’m talking about the big part of those who are fighting the Government in Aleppo and its surroundings and they are nothing but international terrorists coming into Syria through our border with Turkey. So Turkey should be held accountable for facilitating the access of these terrorists to inside Syria.

TONY JONES: OK. The peace plan that’s been signed up to by Russia, Iran, the US and many others puts it forward that there should be an establishment of a transitional government, that after 18 months of that transitional government there should be elections, including for the President. Will President Assad stand aside from the transitional government as the opposition is demanding or will he insist on being a part of it and possibly even leading it as President?

BASHAR JAAFARI: No, I think you are anticipating on the results and outcomes of the Syrian-Syrian talks. We don’t anticipate, number one. Number two, the Resolution 2254 does not say anything about President Assad to be removed or to step down. Number three, the – what you have called Syrian national transitional body, we are not dealing with this kind of terminology anymore because in the 2254 we have the terminology of governance. We are not speaking anymore about what you – about the terminology that you used a few minutes ago. So we are ready to engage into the Syrian-Syrian talks without any foreign interference, without any preconditions or prerequisites to find out or to reach a Syrian-Syrian solution to this – to the Syrian part, Syrian side of the Syrian crisis, because in Syria, you have a huge international war by proxies. The CIA has its proxies, the Pentagon has its proxies, the Israelis have their proxies, the Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris have their proxies, the French have their proxies and all kinds of these international mafia is fighting in Syria, killing the Syrian people for – in favour of foreign agendas. So it is not a Syrian-Syrian war. It is Syria fighting an international war by proxies on the Syrian soil.

TONY JONES: Alright. Well let’s talk about what some Syrians in the opposition are saying and particularly we can point to the head of the High Negotiations Committee, Mohammed Alloush. He says the transitional period can only start after the fall of Bashar al-Assad or his death – or his death. Is the future – is the future – is the future of these peace talks going to depend on whether Assad stays or goes?

BASHAR JAAFARI: Well number one, we – we haven’t yet – we don’t have yet in Geneva all the Syrian oppositions, meaning that the special envoy did not yet fulfil the provisions of Security Council Resolution 2254, which stipulates that the special envoy should gather the broadest spectrum of Syrian oppositions. This, we don’t have it yet in Geneva. This is number one. Number two, this guy you have just named – pronounce his name, is nothing but a terrorist. He’s shelling Damascus, he’s killing students at the university and he’s – he belongs to a terrorist faction called Jaysh al-Islam. And this is why we objected to his participation at the talks in the first round. Now he is, through his statement, through this kind of irresponsible statement, he is inciting to terrorism in violation of Security Council resolution relevant to the issue of combating terrorism. Here I mean 1924, 1989, 2178 and 2199. So he is violating the Security Council resolutions en bloc, en bloc, and nobody is holding him responsible for what he is saying. By calling for the assassination …

TONY JONES: Ambassador, it’s – it isn’t – it isn’t only him, of course.

BASHAR JAAFARI: Give me one minute, please. Give me one minute. Give me one minute.

TONY JONES: Yes, OK. Alright.

BASHAR JAAFARI: Let me finish. Let me finish, please. By calling for the assassination of a head of state, that means he is a terrorist and he is calling – he is presenting himself as a terrorist. You may not be part of political talks aiming at bringing a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis and at the same time act as a thug and mobs.

TONY JONES: OK. So are you proposing – I mean, you’ve put forward a document entitled Basic Elements for a Political Solution. That is your document, your negotiating team’s document.

BASHAR JAAFARI: Indeed. Indeed.

TONY JONES: Are you proposing in that document that President Assad remain in charge of a transitional government for this transitional period that we’re talking about?

BASHAR JAAFARI: If you jump to this conclusion easily then why we are at Geneva? Why are we here? You are anticipating on everything. We are here to engage into a political process between the Syrians themselves. We don’t need to hear from anybody from outside how to proceed and how to form our national unity government, how to reconcile ourselves with the oppositions in plural. Here we are not talking about one faction. We are talking about all the oppositions in plural. So the future of Syria should be decided by the Syrians themselves. This is what the resolution says: Syrian-led political process without any foreign interference and without any preconditions. Everybody should understand the meaning of this magic sentence in the Resolution 2254.

TONY JONES: So without any preconditions, does that mean that you – your own delegation would, at some point, contemplate the possibility of President Assad stepping aside from the presidency to help create an atmosphere of peace?

BASHAR JAAFARI: Nobody has any right to anticipate on the final outcomes of the Syrian-Syrian talks. Any precondition is in itself a violation of the references of the Resolution 2254. So, nobody has the right to interfere into our domestic affairs and say who should govern Syria and who should be the president.

TONY JONES: So, does that mean you are open to the possibility of President Assad stepping aside?

BASHAR JAAFARI: I am not misinterpreting anything of what I have just said. I am saying that the future, our own future should be decided by the Syrians themselves. President Assad is not part of the resolution – the destiny President Assad is not part of the – of Resolution 2254. There is nothing in this literature and rhetorics and references adopted by the Security Council or the Vienna Declaration or the Munich Declaration that indicates anything about changing the President or changing the Government. Nobody has the right to change anything in Syria but the Syrians by themselves. We are not Somalia, we are not Libya, we are not Iraq, we are not Sudan. We are Syria.

TONY JONES: So does that include – does that include Russia, which of course is probably the most significant player outside of the Syrian delegations at these talks and it appears that there are serious reports now in fact that Russia is unhappy with the Syrian Government’s intransigence over the future of President Assad. They are prepared, so it is said, to offer him safe haven in Russia if he chooses to leave.

BASHAR JAAFARI: Sir, this is a wrong question. With all due respect, you cannot pose any kind of such, you know, question. You are yourself now misleading the public opinion by even providing such a scenario. Any – any scenario aiming at tailoring the future of Syria by foreigners is not acceptable by the Syrians. Number one. Number two, when you say that the Syrian people is – are asking this or that, did you consult the Syrian people? Did you organise a referendum? Did you seek the opinion of the Syrian people? How could you say that you are saying this on behalf of the Syrian people while you are not Syrian and you were not in Syria and you did not consult the Syrian people? Please, let us be responsible while using the terminology. The Syrian people is – is not a foreign – foreign matter. The Syrian people is a domestic matter for the Syrians themselves. Thank you so much.

TONY JONES: As we’ve seen – ambassador, as we’ve seen, the Syrian people are terribly divided. The country itself is split into a number of sections which may never be reconciled. Is one possibility that Syria must inevitably become three separate, possibly more than three separate, nations?

BASHAR JAAFARI: That will never happen, Sir. Take it from me, that will never happen. Once the Europeans and the Americans will leave their sanctions – economic sanctions imposed on the Syrian people, the Syrian people will not leave Syria. Once the so-called international community will take responsible steps to combating terrorism and make – exert pressure on the Turkish Government to stop these flows of terrorists crossing the border from Turkey inside Syria, Syria will be much better. Once the Syrian – the so-called international community will help Syria to overcome the burdens of combating terrorism, Syria will be much, much better. So there are important conditions that we need to fulfil if we really want to help the Syrians and to help Syria not being divided or separated into three or four or five, whatever, mini-states. That will never happen because we are a responsible government and we are implementing the Constitution. We have the duty to protect our country from all these hyenas and thugs and mobs. Thank you.

TONY JONES: Ambassador, you wouldn’t have a civil war in Syria if there wasn’t a significant proportion of your population that believed that President Assad is a dictator who has been repressing them for many years. So I’m asking you simply because I know that you know him: does President Assad personally believe that he can re-establish himself in power after five years of bitter conflict?

BASHAR JAAFARI: My friend, there is no civil war in Syria. I would strongly advise you and refer you to the WikiLeaks documents. The WikiLeaks documents prove that Washington instructed its ambassador in Damascus since 2004 to topple the Syrian Government by force. So please go back to the American documents called WikiLeaks and you will see that what we are suffering from nowadays was concocted since 2004, after the occupation of Iraq. Thank you so much.

TONY JONES: And very briefly – I know you’ve got to go, ambassador. Very briefly, this question about President Assad, does he personally believe that he can maintain himself in power after all this conflict?

BASHAR JAAFARI: The Syrian people will maintain him in power if the Syrian people wish to do so. It is not the business of foreigners to decide for the future of our president. It is a matter that is relevant to the – the will of the Syrian people. Of course it is a Syrian matter that will be decided by the Syrian people. So just give us a chance. Lift the sanctions, stop the terrorists from crossing the border from Turkey and Jordan and Israel, stop this support to the so-called moderate Syrian opposition while they are all foreigners and mercenaries, stop arming these terrorists and you will see that Syria will be much better and we will get back to you in a much better and fresh shape. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

TONY JONES: Ambassador Jaafari, we know that you need to race off to these talks and to other events.

BASHAR JAAFARI: I need – I need to leave, indeed. I need to leave.

TONY JONES: We thank you very much for taking the time to give us your perspective. Thank you.

BASHAR JAAFARI: Thank you.

It has been an enigma for me and others that Noam Chomsky seems to be blind to the covert war against Syria. One would normally assume that any Chomsky follower could see the US (and allies) hand behind the 'Arab Spring'. Chomsky had described the basic blue print. After investigating, for me, the only possible explanation for Chomsky not joining the dots in regard to Syria relates to his close friendship with Robert Fisk: Is Chomsky deferring to Fisk on matters related to Syria?

My political activism began in the late 1960s when my brother became a draft resister and a founding member of SDS in Melbourne. I also joined SDS.  One critical aspect of the anti-war efforts carried out by SDS was the printing and distribution of well-researched articles  For example, my brother once wrote a paper on the secret US bombing of Laos, and I remember its long reference list.  Noam Chomsky was always referenced. 

The hangman of Iraq was not content to kill tens of thousands of his own people. He came to Syria to carry out his favourite hobbies of killing, assassination and sabotage. That man has been sending arms for the criminals in Syria since he took power. 

The Syrian dissidents modus operandi will continue to be terrorism, particularly bombings and assassination. .. The covert war is unlikely to stop.. though there may be periodic lulls in the struggle. 

Although one must read a CIA report with a critical eye, it is interesting to note that according to the report the total casualties for the "Hama incident numbered about 2,000" (page 7 of the report).  This figure contradicts dramatically with that usually given by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The following is some of the transcript from the latest episode of 20 March of RT's In The Now entitled "Trump Card". In the first part program host Host Annissa Naouai interviews Doctor Theodore Karasik a senior advisor of Gulf State Anaytics to discuss how the Syrian conlict may develop now that Russia has decided to withdraw most of its forces from Syria.

Much of the interview consists of a long ostensible explanation by Dr. Karasik of Saudi Arabia's actions in the conflict. The transcript of the end of the interview concludes in the paragraphs immediately below. Below, at the end of the article, is a #criticalResponse">critical response to that interview posted to that In the Now page.

#criticalResponse">Transcript of the conclusion of Annissa Naouai's interview with Dr. Theodore Karasik

04:18 Annissa Naouai (AN): Critics in the West were just pointing out how this was all just an attempt to bolster Assad. Putin's gotten in and out. How is Bashar al-Assad really feeling about Russia leaving Syria? You know, I mean, Syria doesn't really have many friends out there world at the moment.

04:32 Dr. Theodore Karasik (TK): I think that the Assad government is very interested in what happens next clearly. Russia is telling Assad that there must be movement on the political front in order to rectify the problems within Syria today and to come to a new state entity, if you will, that will govern the Syrian state.

This point is something that Moscow has driven home since the entry of Russia into Syria six months ago – that the political solution must come first and dealing with Islamic State in total, particularly in Raqqa, comes second. You can't have it the other way around.

Therefore, you see Russia pushing Assad to go along with this settlement discussion that's ongoing in Geneva. The big question, of course, is what about Assad's other friends, particularly in Tehran – and the Iranian reaction is this one that seems very positive, so far, but we need to be very careful about the dynamics within Iran and how various schools of thought will look at Russia's latest move and what that means for the settlement of Syria in the coming months and throughout the rest of the year.

06:07 AN: What about other key players like Saudi Arabia? Are they going to use this as an opportunity to make some moves? I assume in Tehren that could possibly be one of the options that is being discussed.

06:21 TK: I think what the Saudis are interested in the most is the protection of their interests in the Levant. I think that it's clear that Riyadh and other allies of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were taken by surprise with the Russian announcement of quote unquote 'withdrawal'. I think Riyadh also recognises that this gives an opportunity for a diplomatic solution. I don't think Riyadh wants to use the Islamic military alliance completely in full operation within the Levant, but, if push comes to shove, they will.

So I think that this is a moment for Saudi Arabia to decide how best to proceed diplomatically on trying to find a solution to Syria where Assad does leave and I think that all parties are beginning to agree that President Assad's days are numbered in his current position.

07:23 AN: Doctor Theodore Karasik, a senior advisor at Gulf State Analytics, thanks so much for being In The Now.

Response to the above Interview posted to "In the Now"

I thought that Russia's stance on President Bashar al-Assad is that only the Syrian people were entitled to decide on whether or not he was to be their President and for how long he would remain President. All the evidence, of which I am aware, shows that, even with all the killing, destruction and other hardships faced by Syrians since March 2011, the Syrian President remains immensely popular. In fact, he enjoys far more popularity than the leaders of purported democracies of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and others that have criminally conspired against him. Probably the only national leader who can claim to be more popular than Bashar al-Assad is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Syrians can count themselves lucky to have been led since March 2011 by such a capable and well-intentioned man as Bashar al-Assad.

I found outrageous the suggestion by your guest, Dr. Theodore Karasik, that a settlement of the Syrian crisis required that the Syrian President step down. By saying so, Dr. Karaz demonstrated ignorance at best, or contempt for the wishes of the Syrian people at worst.

Your failure to challenge Dr. Karasik's views is what I have come to expect of corporate mainstream 'journalists' in the West and not from RT.

Could I suggest that you look at the many interviews that the Syrian President has given to the newsmedia in recent years, including CBS's 60 Minutes of 2014, and compare his forthright and honest answers, to the most probing questions, to what was mouthed by Dr. Karasaik?

Were President Bashar al-Assad ever to find the time to appear on "In the Now" together with Dr. Karasik, he would easily be able to show him up for what he is and cut his arguments to ribbons. I wish more journalists were as capable as the Syrian President.

The Assembly pointed out that the timing of this declaration came as a reaction to the exclusion of Kurds from dialogue in Geneva, stressing that the Kurds constitute an important component of the Syrian society that cannot be excluded from the process of shaping the country’s future.

The statement noted that no party has the right to tamper with the form of state and its political system in a unilateral way and in an uncalculated, reaction manner, since such behavior constitutes a flagrant threat to the unity of the Syrian people and geography.

The Assembly said that the self-administration experience, even if it hides behind claims of democracy, is a reflection of the will of a singular component and constitutes an attempt to force others to comply with this will in order to impose a fait accompli.

The statement affirmed that declaration of the so-called “federal region in northern Syria” doesn’t express the will of millions of Syrians who stand by the Syrian Arab Army in its fight against terrorism to restore security and stability to the country.

The Assembly stressed that Syria’s future, form of state, and system of government cannot be subject to whims and short-sighted calculations, rather they are decided by the Syrian people, defined according to constitution, and protected by the will of the people and international laws.

The participants reiterated their rejection of any plot which undermines Syria’s unity, stressing that the residents of Hasaka province are united and will not permit any foreign schemes to pass.

They also called for enhancing national unity, adhering to Syria’s territorial integrity, rejecting federation, and intensifying efforts to combat terrorism and foil the conspiracy targeting Syria.

For people who follow French politics, France's entry into NATO was a frank change of politics. France had previously maintained an independent interest in the Middle East and tended to align away from Israel. France's involvement in recent NATO 'interventions' in Syria seemed uncharacteristically naive. In this stand-out interview, Yvan Blot, a former Gaullist parliamentarian, and closely associated with Sarkosy, when President, says that he did not agree with joining NATO. He says that French conservatives tend to be friends with Russia, in part because of business interests, and that socialist governments tend to have strained relations with Russia, since Mitterand. This interview is one of those where the person interviewed has a lot of experience and an unusually wide and historical perspective. This video transcript was first published on Sophie & Co on RT on 8 Mar, 2016 .

The West planned to create rift between Russia & Ukraine long ago - French ex-MEP

Russia's military pullout out of Syria came as a surprise to most Western nations. That, and a successful though fragile ceasefire inside Syria between Assad and the rebels, have shifted the balance on the global chessboard. Europe is struggling with the refugee flow, desperate enough to negotiate a blackmail-style deal with Turkey. As people are growing tired of the unpopular measures taken by Brussels, the upcoming elections in France, the EU's major player, may change the stakes in diplomacy as well. In this rapidly changing situation will the attitude towards Russia change? Does the West even need to carry out such a policy? And what role is NATO playing in the rift between Russia and the nations of Europe? We ask a prominent French politician, close friend of ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy. Yvan Blot is on Sophie&Co today.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevarnadze:  Yvan Blot, French scholar and politician, close to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, author of “Putin’s Russia”, welcome to the show, it’s great to have you with us, sir.

Yvan Blot: Thank you for inviting me.

SS: So, from the latest, Russian troops are being pulled out of Syria, so we have the peace talks that are somewhat in progress right now. Truce is setting on the battlefield - do you think that Russian withdrawal, this move to pull out troops, will actually help the peace process, help de-escalate the situation, or will those who don’t want to find a compromise be emboldened by this move?

YB: It was a surprize in France to hear that Russian troops are leaving Syria, but I think it’s a good thing for the peace process, naturally.

SS: Why?

YB: It shows clearly that big powers want to seize the war and because Russia attacked the Islamist movement in Syria, some people would think that Russia wants to be in the East, and would invade, like America invaded Iraq.

SS: Make it it’s sphere of influence, basically.

YB: So we have a proof it’s not the case.

SS: How do you think the West will react to Russia’s move? Will West’s attitude towards Russia change after the withdrawal of the troops.

YB: I think, probably, Mr. Obama was informed about this decision, President Putin’s decision, so I think, normally, the West would have a good reaction, because if Washington agrees, the rest of the Western countries will agree, because America is the leader of the Western coalition in Syria.

SS: French economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, proclaimed that France is actually supporting the end of anti-Russian sanctions, but all of the EU members have to be OK with that. Except France we have Hungary, we have Greece, we have Italy who do not want to extend, to renew the sanctions. What do you think will happen? Will their voices be heard? Is it possible to actually go against the EU will and not renew the sanctions individually?

YB: It’s difficult to say. I know that business circles in France are against the sanctions, they want to get rid of the sanctions, and there’s a big discussion, private discussion, between the government and the business circles. I think, Mr. Hollande is not really in favor of sanctions, but he has to take into account the American position, naturally, and for that reason, it’s difficult to say what he will do, because if for him the American pressure is too strong, he will say: “We continue the sanctions”.

SS: So it’s really more the American pressure than the fact that all EU members have to be OK with not renewing the sanctions?

YB: It’s another reason, I would say. Nothing forbids France to get rid of the sanctions if France wanted to. I think, with somebody with character, as was General De Gaulle, we would stop the sanctions, whatever the consequences. Our President is an intelligent man, but I’m not sure he wants to have these difficult relations with Washington, so I’m not sure France will be very independent in that…

SS: You often talk about America’s influence over Europe, and you have mentioned that these are American sanctions more than European sanctions… I mean, you really believe that America’s influence over Europe is so big that it can actually pressure Europe into imposing sanctions on Russia?

YB: Yes, I have examples. For instance, we have a big bank, BNP Paribas,  who had to pay enormous sums to the American Treasury because they made business with Iran, for instance. I know it was the same for Mistral, for instance. The American government told the French government, in private, naturally, that if we give Mistrals, these warships, to Russia, the sum that bank,  BNP Paribas, must pay will be much higher and, at the same time, they say that American judges are completely independent. I don’t think this is the case. There are contacts between the judges and the American government. I have some experience with this. Western countries always say that their judges are completely independent, but it’s not the case if it is a question which touches national interests. For little private conflicts the judges are independent, but it’s linked with politics, the government says “I hope you will give good sanctions against this bank”, for instance.

SS: So you think if Europe, on a larger scale, was to reset relations with Russia, then America will actually torpedo it or sabotage it?

YB: The strategy of America was clearly explained in the book by Mr.Brzezinski, “The Big Chessboard”. In this book, Mr.Brzezinski says: “The problem of America is the competition with Eurasia.” Eurasia - that is to say Europe, Russia and China and India, perhaps - and he says: “If all these countries are against us, it’s going to be terrible for us, we are not the first power in the world, so we have to divide Eurasia, to colonize Western Europe, to survey China and Russia. For us it makes really a problem, and the best thing would be to have weaker Russia and to organize conflict with Ukraine”. It was written 10 years ago, and now you see the implementation of this strategy. I think it is an American strategy.

SS: But I want to talk about Europe’s position - why do you think it’s stuck in this choice between partnership with Russia and partnership with NATO. It seems like it’s one or the other - why? Why is it stuck in this position?

YB: First, NATO has no reason to survive, because NATO was created, in the beginning, to fight against communism and against Soviet Union. There’s no longer a Soviet Union. It would have been logical to destroy NATO and to create a new order for defence and security issues, new organisation, probably, and probably without the U.S.. It was not the case, naturally, and major part of our political leaders have strong personal links with American government, it’s a fact.

SS: You think there’s no reason for NATO to survive, you’ve also said that America’s influence on Europe is in large done through NATO - now, former French PM Dominique de Villepin.

has proposed, once again, pulling France out of the NATO military command structure. Do you think it’s a good idea, do you think France should pull out? Is it even possible?

YB: I think he’s right. I know him very personally, I think he’s right. It is technically completely possible, because we have a  big industry of armaments, we have nuclear forces, so France can be independent.

SS: So why are you with NATO then? Is it just, like, symbolic, is it a question of French pride and prestige?

YB: It was a discussion between me and President Sarkozy about this, because I didn’t agree with him. It was Sarkozy who…

SS: Returned France to NATO.

YB: And he said: “We are in the same family”, his argument was “the same family, we have the same values”. Perhaps we have the same values, but since, perhaps, 10 years, all French presidents ask Americans to have one commander-in-chief of NATO. There are three staffs in NATO: for North of Europe, for Center of Europe and for South. France wanted to have the general-in-chief of the South, and the American said “No, no, no”. They said “No” to Mitterrand, they said “No” to Chirac, and they said “No” to Sarkozy. But, in spite of this Sarkozy said that it doesn’t matter, “we will integrate into it”, but I’m not sure it was a good idea.

SS: So, if France is part of the same family, as the NATO members, then why did the president Francois Hollande, after the horrible terrorist attacks, actually called on its fellow EU allies to help fight terrorism, help France, and not the NATO members?

YB: Politically, the EU is more important in France than the NATO. We don’t speak very much about NATO. But EU, yes, because it’s the same currency, it’s same economic policy, and so on. For that reason Mr. Hollande wants always to have good relations with the members of the EU, but in the future, I don’t know what we will have because it’s possible - it’s not sure, but it’s possible - that the UK leaves the EU.

SS:  So, you have studied Russian for many years, you’ve wrote a book that’s called “Putin’s Russia”. It decries a lot of myths about Putin, it also argues against looking at Russia as if it was still a Soviet Union. Are there are lot of people in the French establishment who share your view on Russia?

YB: There are part of the establishment.

SS: What’s the ratio?

YB: Partly, it’s a question of generation. Older people in France very often think that Russia is always a Soviet Union, older people. But with younger people, it’s not the case at all. So, younger people in general are much more in favor of cooperation with Russia, even within the government, or within the Parliament, and this situation, I think, it’s improving for the future cooperation between France and Russia.

SS: But, French government mostly consists of young people, so you would think that they don’t really remember the Soviet Union, yet they are for the sanctions and they still decry Putin as a dictator…

YB: Yes, the French government is socialist, you know. It is a socialist tradition in France to have bad relations with Russia, I must say, because after the WWII, the Americans gave a lot of money to socialist party to fight against the Communist Party in France. For that reason, Socialist party had always very good links with America. Especially now, they have very good links with ms. Clinton, for instance. Ms. Clinton said once, I think she didn’t want to say this, but she said it to Juppe, “Mr. President Juppe” - but a journalist told her: “But he’s not President!” - he was PM, but he wasn’t a President - “Oh yes, I am sorry, I made a mistake” - but in fact, she would like to have Mr. Juppe as partner for future.

SS: We’ll talk about the Presidential elections that are coming up. So you have part of French establishment that is very anti-Russian, and you have part of it that’s very pro-Russian.

YB: Especially, business circles.

SS: So which side will prevail?

YB: In the short run, it’s, perhaps, the anti-Russians who are rather mainstream, especially in the media, but I think in the longer run, it would be completely different. You have only to look at the geography - it’s very difficult for Western Europe not to have a special links with Russia, because it’s the same continent, in fact. So, I think it’s artificial - this fight against Russia. In fact, the majority of people who come from France to Russia can see it’s not a dictatorship. I was, in the past, in the Soviet Union, and in my hotel, I could read some Russian papers in English - there was no criticism against Mr. Brezhnev, for instance, or of the Soviet government. But now you can read articles against Mr. Putin - so it’s very clear, there’s more freedom than before.

SS: So you have Presidential election coming up, right around the corner. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Russia, you’re close to him, I believe you’re his friend. If his party wins the vote, do you think there will be a rapprochement between Russia and France?

YB: I’m sure.

SS: Really?

YB: Sarkozy always told me he wanted to have good relations with Mr. Putin. He has, I think personal good relations, and he thinks it’s very necessary, because Sarkozy is linked with business circles very much, much more than the socialists, and he wants to have better relations with Russia because they want to expand trade with Russia in every sectors of the economy. I think with Sarkozy the relations would be better, I’m sure, and even if we would have some tensions with the U.S.. We had tensions already in the past, with Sarkozy, when he went to mingle with Georgian war, for instance, Washington was not very happy about this. But he did it.

SS: Do you think he will run for Presidency again? What do you think? In your personal opinion?

YB: I think so, except, if he has such bad polls, he could perhaps say: “It’s over, it’s not possible”, but except in that extreme situation - we cannot know exactly the future so much early - I think he will be a candidate. He wants to be a candidate.

SS: But do you think the French are ready to choose again between Hollande and Sarkozy?

YB: Frankly, I’m not sure, because part of the French people would prefer to have new personalities, probably.

SS: It’s been 2 years since the Crimean referendum, pro-Russian referendum, and you have said that it’s impossible to reverse the Crimean situation. The EU however, is saying that the control over the peninsula needs to be given back to Ukraine. President Poroshenko is ordering Ukraine’s military to focus on Crimea, you have Kiev that is getting military aid from the U.S. - I mean, it does seem like the West cannot come to terms with that. Do you think that'll ever happen? When?

YB: I think Crimea will be Russian in the future. It’s not possible to change that. In France, we are not in a good place to think against it, because we made exactly the same with Mayotte in Africa, you know it’s some islands which form a Comorrean state and when they got their independence, one island said “We want to be French”, and this island is French. For that reason, France was condemned by the UNGA, we were condemned by the African Assembly of Nations, and it doesn’t change anything. We had no sanctions, because we are friends with the U.S.

SS: But we have sanctions, so if the Crimean situation is irreversible, and the sanctions are linked to the Crimean situation, does that mean that the sanctions against Russia are here to stay forever?

YB: It is a U.S. position now, with President Obama, but you cannot see future. I’m not sure, for instance, Mr. Trump, I think, perhaps, he would lift the sanctions, I’m not sure that he’s in favor of the sanctions. He’s like everybody, in general, in business circles - they don’t like sanctions. They think politicians mingling with economics is not a good thing, it’s better to be separated. With ms. Clinton, perhaps, we would have the same sanctions. So we have to wait for the American elections.

SS: Maybe, even harsher sanctions with ms. Clinton. So, let’s talk about the EU situation. The EU isn’t aligned in its relations with Russia, it has the migrant crisis, there’s the financial problem in the Eurozone, there’s  terrorism problem - a serious problem. So, if countries weren’t obliged to follow one common EU policy, do you think they would be able to deal with these issues better, individually?

YB: I’m not sure. For instance a lot of people say because we are in the EU we could have more opportunity for economic growth, but it’s not in fact the case. Switzerland or Norway are not in the EU, and their economy is much better. I’m not sure the Euro, for instance, is a good thing for French economy. Probably, it’s a good thing for German economy, but we have not the same competitiveness to have the same money - I’m not sure it’s a good idea. A lot of economists, professors of economics - I am the professor of economics -  we think the Euro is not a good idea, probably, a symbolic or a political idea, but from an economic point of view, it’s probably a mistake.

SS: So Britain is planning to have a referendum this summer on the EU exit, and according to the survey that’s been conducted by the university of Edinburgh, majority of France wants to have the same referendum. What do you think? Could the British experience set an example to follow for other members?

YB: Probably. It’s a reason for why a Commission in Brussels is a bit frightened of this situation, because if the UK leaves European Union, other countries could do the same and could be encouraged to make the same move. Perhaps, the Scandinavian countries who are very linked with the UK, perhaps, Czech Republic…

SS: Well, you have France, you have Sweden, Spain, Germany - they all want EU membership referendum. I’m not saying that they want to leave the EU, but they want to have the right to vote for it. Do you think they should be able?

YB: The people want to be consulted on this sort of issue, and one of the big problems with the EU is that it is not democratic at all. It was built not to be democratic. The power in Brussels is not in the hands of the Council of ministers and is not in the Parliament. I was for 10 years in the EU Parliament, I can tell you  that all the power, in fact, is in the Commission. It’s a government of civil servants, who have no responsibility towards different countries, and they do what they want, and for that reason, more and more people are against this sort of technician government, which is not a democratic government. I think it was a mistake at the beginning of the European Union, to create this super-Comission above all. So, it doesn’t mean we have to get rid completely with the EU, but perhaps it is necessary to re-write the treaty to suppress this Commission in Brussels, it was a bad idea. It would be Europe, naturally, if we did that. Why not?

SS: So, you have said that you are worried about the massive flow of refugees into Europe, but do you feel like, maybe, Europe has a moral obligation or responsibility to accommodate these refugees from the Middle East. I mean, are European policies partly to blame for wars that are causing this mass exodus? I mean, intervention in Libya produced a failed state right on border of Europe, you know.

YB:  You are right. I think there are some governments that have a responsibility because of the disorder they created in the MidEast, and it was one of the causes of the movement of refugees towards Europe. But the public opinion is really against it, and so, if you are in democracy, you have to take into account the opinion of the people. I think it’s necessary to have more peace, naturally, in the Middle East - that’s one of the questions, but otherwise, it’s necessary, really, to control our borders which is not the case, because we have created this Schengen area, and the Schengen area is not very well protected against illegal immigrants, and that’s really a problem. You must add to this problem the fact that among the refugees, it’s possible that you have some terrorists. Our Secret Service is persuaded it is the case, I must say.

SS: Yvan Blot, thank you very much for this interesting interview. We were talking to Yvan Blot, French politician, who used to sit in the French and the European Parliament's, past terrorism advisor to the French government, author of “Putin’s Russia”, talking about seemingly dead end of West’s relations with Russia and the future of Europe. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

Tonight I attended a debate between Brisbane Lord Mayoral candidates: Graham Quirk (incumbent, LNP), Ben Pennings (Greens) and Rod Harding (Labor). The debate was held on 17 March 2016 in the ABC South Bank building, hosted, ironically, during 5-6pm "Drive," by Emma Griffiths. Questions from staff and guests were almost entirely about congestion due to population growth. An air of farce built up as the candidates' delivery was interrupted by frequent traffic bulletins describing appalling road congestion and accidents from seemingly every major artery in Brisbane.

The thing that stood out about the candidates was that no-one stood out with any clarity. They all seemed to be saying that they would encourage more public transport, then putting down each other's detail sound-bites. Graham Quirk, as the current Lord Mayor, seemed a little more relaxed than the other candidates. Mr Harding came across as quite bitchy and caused me to nearly laugh out loud, when he claimed that he would fix the planning the way they did in Vancouver, which he cited as 'the most liveable city in the world'. See more on the 'livability index'. Tim Murray has written a lot about how unlivable Vancouver is and aerial photographs show a coastline bristling with pointy skyscrapers.

Ben Pennings told the audience that the other two candidates were recipients of donations from property developers. Indeed, Brisbane is run by property developers.

Graham Quirk justified continuous growth in roads and public transport by the State's requirement that Brisbane accomodate 160,000 more people in some short period of time. If you don't accommodate them in high rises then you have to cut down more trees. "We are not going to be able to stem the growth," he cried.

Ben Pennings claimed that his plan for more public transport and raised bicycle paths would solve the congestion problem and, unlike his competition, without creating debt.

Rod Harding said that he would solve the congestion problem by creating a bus-culture, which would reduce cars.

One woman in the audience complained that relatives of hers and she herself had been severely stressed by houses being purchased by the city in preparation for road construction that never happened. Mr Quirk said that there were now a process for such people to engage representatives on their behalf, paid for by the city. The woman nodded in agreement at Penning's response about more public transport and bicycles. She obviously hadn't noticed that Penning, like Harding and Quirk, expects more and more people to come and live in Brisbane.

No candidate had an exit plan for overpopulation. Apparently Brisbane will just keep on getting bigger.

It seemed extraordinary that grown men could pretend they could control the consequences far into the future when the evening continued to be punctuated by worse and worse traffic reports and news of terrible accidents - all obviously connected to congestion caused by Brisbane's overpopulation.

Under our current system where private industry benefits from population growth, the diversion of tax-payers' money into road-building, already manifest in an absurd conglomeration of loop the loop freeways and tollways, strangling this once green city, will continue. In the light of the profits to be made from roads for a few powerful lobbies, the public transport component can only be token and could not take care of population growth either. It's all just about a few making more money out of the suffering of the rest.

My question, written and accepted in advance, was never asked. It was, "How is it possible to preserve South East Queensland's native wildlife if their bushland habitats are continually being destroyed in order to house the new arrivals that Graham Quirk, Ben Pennings and Rod Harding want to move to Brisbane?"

Rhetorical question.

It was a hot night and twelve of us approached an impressive spread of endangered sea-creatures at a large table under cover outside. It was Don's birthday party. We had met him a few months ago at the local squash courts, and we only recognised four of the other guests, also squash players. I looked around me carefully. Would we all get on and have a laugh, reach furious agreement on something important, or would my friend and I be silenced in the face of others’ opinions in our effort not to make waves? Worse, would my friend open his big mouth? Unlike the 'old days' when it was so exciting to meet new people, on this particular evening I was plagued with doubt because of the strong political divides that are appearing in Australian society.

You may be wondering why I would approach this seemingly ordinary and benign situation with what appeared to be almost dread, or you may, to the contrary, have experienced a similar dinner.

I have thought about why I was so uncharacteristically shy about talking to new people and here is my explanation.

Winners and losers

Some of you may remember the 1990s. This was when I noticed that the concept of “winners and “losers” came into the vernacular. I remember at the time, a teen-aged friend of a friend declaring with great assurance that the world was divided into “winners" and “losers" and nothing in between. I remembered thinking with unease that this was a very unattractive, inhumane ideology.

Twenty years later, this young lady seems to have been right in practice! Australia is no longer a country where we earn our respective livings by being useful to other people and to the society in exchange for a fair reward. Now everything is so polarised with some making a killing in the 'right' industries with others just getting the crumbs and struggling with unfriendly working hours in low paid pointless jobs which did not exist thirty years ago.

It did not take long into the dinner conversaton before I had a feeling that I was sitting down to dine with some of the 'winners' that the intervening years had produced and that I might not like how they had come to win.

The first disturbing declaration, quite early in the evening was from 'Travis'. His shaved head and bling-cufflinks reflecting the light from the charcoal patio-heater, Travis told all assembled that he made his pile by helping with websites to assist overseas buyers to purchase property in Australia. "How lovely” most murmured in appreciation of his entrepreneurship. He also added that he assisted business /entrepreneur migrants to get their visas to enter Australia. Once more there was a generally appreciative and admiring response from those present. I remained silent as I was overcome with the certainty that I was dining with the enemy. This person was helping people from overseas to exploit Australia and to make housing unaffordable for locals, I thought! To me this is a disservice to the community. This braggart was making himself a “winner" at the expense of all the poor “losers” especially young first home buyers.

Travis then got onto the subject of possums and how none of us would want to know what he had "done with some of them”. His cruel remark revolted me and I felt almost panic stricken! This opportunist was not only cheerfully assisting the overpopulation and densification which displaces urban possums, he was further (and illegally) punishing the hapless marsupials.

How did I end up at the same dinner table as this monster?

When social capital still punched above greed

I guess, thirty years ago, unimaginative and insensitive creatures like Travis would have found their own level in ordinary jobs on modest salaries. Today's system, however, is geared to making winners out of those for whom the money ingredient is everything.

A drink or two later, pleasant looking Bernice offered her opinion on the negligence of the current state Labor government in not building a particular controversial toll road. Yes, she declared , Melbourne would need this toll road as we will soon be a city of 7 million. There was not a hint of regret at all that Melbourne would lose in this transition even from the overgrown chaotic, under- serviced, dysfunctional metropolis of 4.5 million that it is now. My throat was now so constricted that I failed to chime in that if we keep going at the current rate of growth we will be 20 million in a few decades. Actually that wouldn’t have fazed others present as one of them was from London, an already a bloated megalopolis.

I prudently remained silent but was inwardly seething as I was thinking of all that would be lost with new road following new road road to accommodate ever increasing traffic in a vicious circle but never managing to do so.

This same woman further warmed to her topic. “I think Melbourne should be more like Dubai.” she declared. “In Dubai they just go ahead and build things! They get on with it and don’t get bogged down in red tape, do they Roger?” Roger joined his wife in commending the way things are done in Dubai and asking rhetorically why Melbourne could not be more like it.

Why did they care so much? I wondered, but I knew if I started an actual discussion, that we would come to blows.

Red tape

I am grateful for any red tape that remains in Melbourne that gives those affected some slight chance to fight back against the destruction of their surroundings, especially from multi-storey developments and other infrastructure to cater for never-ending population growth.

I checked my phone to see the time and nudged my friend under the table. “Can we go home now!” I wailed inwardly!

These people would have been OK (apart from the possum sadist) had I met them in a different era, but now, in this era of winners and losers, I actually identify more with the losers and am out of place at a dinner party where people have done well out of the prevailing system.

We said good night and left the party, emotions churning at this near perfect demonstration of the increasing and undesirable divisions of wealth in our society. It reminded me of visiting a banking friend in Indonesia years ago, when we dined with friends of the then government. At the time it was like visiting some laughably unselfconcious members of an exotic corrupt power-elite, but the same kind of corrupt values are now reaching further and further down into Australian society and it isn't amusing close-up.

SBS continues to misrepresent conflicts in Syria. Here is the latest account of how it makes a pro-government rally look as if it is a protest against the government and of how Russia's role so far in bringing conflict towards an end is utterly unacknowledged. When does misreporting become a war-crime?

March 15, 2016 SBS’s 6.30pm news report, which began with the surprise announcement of Russia’s withdrawal, contained a ‘brief history’ of the Syrian conflict.

After saying that the ‘Arab Spring’ had brought upheavals around the region, the presenter put it like this:

"[protests in Syria began in March 2011] with a day of rage by activists, with hundreds protesting in Damascus and Aleppo.”

The attached shot ‘SBS world news’, showing a small protest rally about to pull down a poster of Hafez and Bashar al Assad could have been in Dara’a, or more likely a suburb of Damascus, so fits with the first part of the description. But as the presenter said ‘and Aleppo’, the screen changed to the second photo, which shows one of the big rallies in support of the government in Damascus, that took place perhaps in May or June?
Photo of small protest rally about to pull down poster of Hafez and al-Assad.

I would contend that almost no-one would see that other than as a photo of a massive anti-government protest, remembering that the SBS audience is not familiar with that picture from watching their news, because those rallies were never shown at the time – to my knowledge.

Continuing the propaganda theme, SBS's presentation of the ‘history’ then suggested that the fighting began between defecting soldiers and the army, – and not much before October.

As I remember there had already been some major atrocities and attacks committed in Homs, which was visited by the UN observers around then.

The SBS 'report' continued, describing Kofi Annan’s efforts, ‘which failed following the Houla massacre.’ Needless to say, although this was simply described as 100 people ‘killed’ and 49 children, the failure to attribute blame, or identify the people, framed it as a government atrocity.

Then we see photos of ruined apartment blocks from the air, and hear that ‘the UN declared it a civil war, and the country split along sectarian lines’ – ‘June 2012’.

And that was it.

So why did SBS steer clear of reminding us about the Ghouta CW ‘attack’? Is that because we might begin to think, and remember that Russia also got us out of that war, just as it is doing now?

It’s hard to know where to go with this, because there is no-one in the government saying or thinking remotely the right thing. Tanya Plibersek was interviewed this morning by Fran Kelly, talking all about Iran’s HR abuses and ‘how you get killed for being gay’, and then talking about Assad having to go and so on.

Direct from the Kremilin: Russia's President, Vladimir Putin and Syria's President Bashar al-Assad had a phone converstaion on March 14 about scheduling a withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. They agreed that much progress has been made against terrorism in Syria, with Russia's invited help. The ceasefire seems to be working. Russia will maintain an aviation support centre in Syria to monitor compliance with the ceasefire. President Assad said he is ready to help organise a political settlement in Syria as soon as possible. The two presidents expressed the hope that the full-format talks between Syrian Government officials and opposition representatives under UN aegis in Geneva will produce concrete results.

Telephone conversation with President of Syria Bashar al-Assad

At Russia’s initiative, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of Syria Bashar al-Assad.
March 14, 2016, 20:40 Press release from the Kremlin at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51512.

The two presidents discussed the implementation of the joint statement by Russia and the United States, in their capacity as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group, on cessation of hostilities in Syria. They share the view that the ceasefire has made possible a dramatic reduction in the bloodshed in the country and improved the humanitarian situation. It has also made it possible to put in place conditions for starting a peace process under UN aegis.

The two leaders noted that the operations conducted by Russia’s Aerospace Forces have brought about a real turnabout in the fight against the terrorists in Syria, throwing their infrastructure into disarray and causing them substantial damage.

In this context, Mr Putin said that Russia’s Armed Forces have fulfilled their main mission in Syria and a timetable for the withdrawal of the Aerospace Forces’ main air grouping has been agreed. Russia will maintain an aviation support centre in Syria in order to monitor compliance with the ceasefire.

The President of Syria noted the professionalism, courage and heroism of the Russian service personnel who took part in the military operations, and expressed his profound gratitude to Russia for providing such substantial help in fighting terrorism and providing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population.

Mr al-Assad said that he is ready to help organise a political settlement in the country as soon as possible. The two presidents expressed the hope that the full-format talks between Syrian Government officials and opposition representatives under UN aegis in Geneva will produce concrete results.

Entirely predictably, the Murray Darling river system is toxic with effluent again, host to masses of poisonous cyanobacteria. As the Weekly Times reports, "WATER will be switched off to hundreds of farmers and town residents in the Mallee this week as the Murray River blue-green algae emergency worsens. The toxic outbreak now involves almost 500km of the Murray River and has claimed reservoirs, rivers, wetlands and parts of Victoria’s two biggest irrigation districts. Taps were turned off to towns and farms in parts of the southern Mallee late Friday when the algal bloom reached key Wimmera Mallee pipeline pumps near Swan Hill, catching most residents unaware. Experts said a record autumn heatwave, with temperatures soaring above 40C in northwest Victoria this week, was expected to grow the algal bloom until it choked almost all of the Murray River along the NSW-­Victoria border within weeks."[1] But these problems have been known for so long now, it seems foolish to believe that we can hope for any resolution that would keep the vast Australian desert from claiming on our only major inland river system. Certainly we should not meddle with the northern river systems, but unfortunately our psychopathic leaders have already started.

People have asked me to republish a letter written in 1937 about this very problem. I have done so below, but if you really want to understand the horror of this phenomenon, get hold of a copy of Rodney Barker's tale of a scientist trying to blow the whistle on the pfisteria infestation on the Mississipi in the mid 1990s and probably still today. There and here it is the product of too much fertiliser and effluent going into too little water. This is among the best pieces of science writing I have ever read. The life-forms that toxic algae take and their ability to affect the nervous systems of animals large and small - notably humans and baby humans - outdoes the monster from the Black Lagoon and is very very real and very little recognised.

Russell Grimwade urges National Awakening in 1937 - but we are sleeping even more deeply today

Letter to the editor of the Argus Newspaper, 6 February 1937: Sir. - Your leading article "Nature Takes Revenge" in the Issue of Saturday is a valuable history of man's expansion to the outer continents from Europe. It states the basic laws under which man is allowed by Nature to add to his wealth and comfort. It also states the inevitable disaster that follows the contravention of these laws. The final sentence leaves the way open for constructive action in a manner which impels me to contribute a suggestion for the urgent consideration of my fellow Australians.

This isolated continent is the most recent of the earth's land masses to suffer the occupancy of civilised man. It is undeniable that in the century and a half that we and our antecedents have been here we have made a success of it - if success be measured by material and social progress. It is also undeniable that we have a duty to leave our
successors as good or a better land than we have enjoyed. If we do not learn by the mistakes that time is now revealing in other countries we are falling in our trust. The repeated stories of floods and disaster that come to us from .America are clear evidence of the errors of the systems of occupation of a few centuries ago. Are we yet taking action
to avoid those mistakes?

There is ample evidence that we are not.

Erosion, flood, and soil drift are three terrors alone that we are beginning to experience in the same way as other countries of comparatively recent settlement. To avoid these disasters, are we taking all the action possible that trained men recommend?

It is a sad fact that we are not.

There has been a remarkable growth this century in the universal education of our people in regard to the value and functions of trees and forests. But it is incomplete, and has not yet led to the necessary political action to safeguard the future.

Do Australians realise what uncontrolled settlement has done to their great river, the Murray?

Ninety years ago 51 per cent of its annual flow came down in winter months and 49 per cent in summer. Today 76 per cent is winter flow and 24 per cent, summer.

This is a unique illustration of the regulating value of forest-clad watersheds. Do Australians know that, since the Burrinjuck dam was finished, 12,000,000 cubic feet of silt has accumulated in it? Do the taxpayers who have built the Hume weir realise that only half its watershed is under control, and that the other half, in private ownership, may be cleared and burnt as cleanly as its owners wish, and that such operations must inevitably hasten the silting up of the huge lake, so that perhaps in 100 years it will not exist and cannot be remade? Do Australians realise that settlement in all States has taken place, and is still taking place, under Lands departments which dominate the trained officers of the Forests departments?

Do Australians realise that the chief product of their forests is not the lovely timber that they yield, but water and its regulation, which is the factor limiting the immediate population and future prosperity of their continent? ? Is it known that each year trained forest officers make an analysis of the causes of the fires that occur in our forests, and
that each year they report that more than half of them are caused deliberately? It is known by every interested party that for a few thousand pounds collected each year by Lands departments, holders of grazing licences or their agents, or their delayed-action candles, cause fires that burn out mountain sides of perfect watershed in return for precarious grazing for a few head of cattle.

Do Australians mind? Do they wish to save these appalling yearly losses and attain a balance that will prolong the future indefinitely in progress, prosperity, and peace from flood, fire, and denudation? If they do wish these things, much can be done to that end, but it must be done in the next few years. In a few more years it will be too late.

The first thing to be done is political. Let each State that wishes to ensure its future place all its Crown lands under the absolute control of its Forests Department. Let the forest officers of the State-men who are trained in the great fundamental science of forestry be the only authority who shall say what is to go on in those areas, and who shall enter them.

If tourists, graziers, settlers, or even Lands Department officers want access to those areas, let it be only with the approval of the Minister for Forests on the recommendation of
his experts.

This is the obvious first step to avoid the appalling mistakes that other countries have made and this country is still making. Such a step is above the factions of party politics, and far above the feelings and jealousies of departmental officers. It is no censure on Lands departments that the administration of Crown lands should be removed from their control. It is an archaism that they should so remain.

When Lands departments were given control of Crown lands the great science of forestry had not formulated the laws that govern the fundamental requirements of modern national life. For example, the urban consumption of water has Increased tenfold a head in the last 100 years, and cities are larger, and likely to become larger and even more extravagant. It is only by the application of the principles of sound forestry that supplies of the necessary volume will be available to the population this country may be called upon to sustain. It is no shame upon Lands Department officers that they have not the expert knowledge to provide these requirements. It is not their job.

It is shame upon us that we allow, by an inverted system of administration, the experts to be subservient to the layman. Should this change be wrought by public clamour or far-seeing governmental action, I believe that within 10 years the fire-loss alone would be so reduced that the people of our country would be encouraged to feel that the awful damage of the past was being reclaimed, and that Australia was doing something to reclaim the unrelenting desert creep that threatens us today.

Russell Grimwade, 6 February 1937.

NOTES

The introduction to this article cited from Chris McLennan, "Water crisis worsens as Murray River blue-green algae spreads," Weekly Times
March 8, 2016

According to recent scientific research, more than 450 different kinds of animals engage in homosexual activity. St Thomas Productions has taken this research, and combined it with never-before- seen film footage, to produce this compelling and groundbreaking documentary. Animal Homosexuality explores the various ways homosexuality is expressed in the animal kingdom through courtships, affection, sex, pair-bonding and parenting. A covert revolution has been taking place in nature, and has gone unnoticed until now. With the help of scientific research, international stock footage and location shoots all over the world, Saint Thomas re-examines and revises the fundamental paradigms of nature.

This ground-breaking video on homosexuality interests me personally most for the light it sheds on sexual division of territory and herds and the role of marriage in land-tenure. From dolphins through sheep through impala and bears, many other species live separate lives except for mating time. Thoughtful people will ask themselves when bonobos, gorillas and chimpanzees began to live in mixed-sex territory. Orangutans still don't. And when did we humans?

This multi-species homosexuality documentary was published on Jan 8, 2016 on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8 Authors : Bertrand Loyer, Jessica Menendez, Stéphane Alexandresco [1]

The documentary also sheds much needed light on the nature of marriage and land-tenure

This ground-breaking video on homosexuality interests me personally most for the light it sheds on sexual division of territory and herds and the role of marriage in land-tenure. From dolphins through sheep through impala and bears, many other species live separate lives except for mating time. Thoughtful people will ask themselves when bonobos, gorillas and chimpanzees began to live in mixed-sex territory. Orangutans still don't. And when did we humans?

Indeed, societies currently exist where women have separate villages from men and have done so as far back as anyone can remember. Cohabitation in such cases is ephemeral and women generally rear children very young children, with sons going to the father's village after the age of around six years old. It seems likely that this was the human norm in places where loss of territory for one reason or another did not cause competition for territory between the sexes. In such societies it is difficult to imagine the kind of co-dependency we see between males and females, and indeed, same sex, in our own society.

In Roman law on the European continent, male and female lineage continues, with the male and female sex inheriting from their parents equally, thus bringing separate assets to marriage. In Anglophone countries the rules hark back to the Viking nobles of the 9th through 11th century, with only males allowed to inherit land, and most women utterly dependent on men for shelter. These rules have been visited upon India and parts of Africa and Pacific Islands, with predictably disastrous results.

Only recently did the practice of wives inheriting from husbands come in as a kind of compensation, although not nearly as good as having one's own land to start with, and possibly more beneficial to banks and lawyers in the long run. Marriage then carried the bonus of property rights for the 'other woman' and made 'adultery' that much more of a serious transgression than it is under Roman law in modern Europe, because it also implied dispossession of the first family's children. Women still own far less land than men, and far less wealth, but this could not always have been so and history generally reveals different early practices. (See Sheila Newman's Demography Territory Law series for more on this.)

Sexual division of land, different gender pathways, and kinship restrictions on marriage to beget children, also combined flexibly to limit numbers. This is the subject of The Rules of animal and human populations.

Same-sex marriage

Of course, the subject of same-sex marriage is currently very prominent, so the film is most interesting for the background it gives to this in natural history. I would like to see land-tenure brought back into discussions of marriage, where it used to take the forefront. The ideal of marriage for love is only a recent political innovation, according to my learning. L'amour courtois (romance) which was popularised in Europe in the late Middle Ages was expected to take place outside of marriage. Marriage was reserved for the legal purposes of defining and allocating land-tenure and inheritance.

In the 1970s there were feminists who talked about women and men having separate land, which also implied separate female and male inheritance. We rarely hear about this very important alternative anymore. Such ideas, mostly based on anthropology made anthropology unpopular. It has been replaced with an unscientific kind of development-aid studies. The acceptance of male-female marriage, cohabitation and co-endebtment, with a male-female couple working to pay off a house that one person could have payed for a couple of generations ago, probably prefers that we forget about this simpler, more independent way. Indeed, a cursory search of the internet has failed to yield any examples of 20th century feminism calling for a return to female and male land-rights. Please comment on this story if you find such a reference.

NOTES

[1] Producer(s) : Saint Thomas Productions, France 5, France 3, Canal+, National Geographic Channels
Running time : 11x52 mn
Format : Digital Beta, Super 16mm
Distributor(s) : Saint Thomas Productions