(We) can do better

A permit has been issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection to cull 2,000 Agile Wallabies at Mission Beach along the North Queensland Coast in an area almost pristine not so long ago. Wildlife activists say that there may only be about 500 wallabies there now but a lot more humans.

Overreaction?

Some wildlife activists think that this very serious decision may be an overreaction to an opinion expressed by a Cr Alister Pike at a Cassowary Coast Council meeting on 28/03/13. In the minutes of the Council meeting of 28 March 2013, there is an item under general business, headed, “Problem Wallabies, South Mission Beach”. Under that heading it is recorded that,

“Cr Pike again raised concerns about Agile wallaby numbers at South Mission Beach. Cr Pike stated that there is now a risk of health issues with wallabies urinating and defecating in residents' yards where children play.

Cr Pike asked whether a provision to allow Councils to apply for damage mitigation permits to control Flying Foxes was extended to wallabies?

The CEO advised they did not and reinforced comments made at the Local Government Meeting on 22 November 2012 that the management/control of wallabies was not a Council responsibility, however Mr Brennan advised that the matter would be referred to the Coordinator Natural Environment Management with a request that he contact Queensland Parks & Wildlife Services to inform the Department of residents' concerns.”

No vote by the other councilors or any motion is recorded in response to this matter.

Forest clearing for development causes chaotic wallaby dispersal

Wildlife carers already express concern at a rise in wallaby mortality and orphans in the area, associated with forest clearing causing wallabies to be homeless, without shelter and exposed to traffic.

“Approximately thirty (30) Agile Wallabies are killed on Mission Beach roads and at least five (5) are killed by dogs per week. Isn’t this enough of a cull? More than 1,800 signatures (local and worldwide) on the petition against the cull demonstrates the public’s opposition to EHP’s (Parks & Wildlife) actions. Has every non-violent means been attempted to keep wallabies off the land (like improving and maintaining fences around the property) before the permit was issued? A Study by Simon Stirrat proved Agile Wallabies do not compete with cattle for food and that they prefer native fauna Are there other motives for the strong desire to eliminate the wallaby population in Mission Beach, such as extensive urban development?” (Nicole.)

How wallabies benefit Mission Beach

Nicole also asks us to think of the benefits that wallabies bring to mission beach.

By attracting tourists they stimulate the local economy through an increase in occupancy rates at hotels, B&Bs, holiday homes and backpacker accommodation. They increase spending at local businesses (restaurants, shops, outdoor activities, tours, etc.). They represent a free attraction for tourists that does not need to be maintained by anyone. That is, they pay for their own food, housing, health expenses. They diversify the ecosystem by dispersing grass and plant seeds to grow rainforest. They prune and trim native bushes. They provide free natural fertilizer. The are probably a unique, new species to Australia. This status is pending studies being completed to classify the South Mission Beach Agile Wallaby.

For people wanting to know more, here is the media coverage received by the Mission Beach wallabies so far: - ABC Far North radio interview , SBS News clip, Townsville Bulletin article, and a Northern Herald article.
Concern has spread to the rest of Australia at the apparently casual and capricious decision to remove natural fauna populations from recently settled human developments in rainforest areas.

Jan Held, Secretary of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, writes in a letter to the Minister of Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Mr Powell:

Brutally wiping out an Australian native animal just cause some guy whinges about them?
Much of their forest habitat has been recently allowed to be cleared so they are homeless, this is why they have ventured into suburban areas. Open areas are not at all their usual habitat, they are probably even seriously disoriented when moving about trying to find their usual food and shelter.

Jan Heald adds:

To not have any understanding of the repercussions of removing their habitat and to then complain of their visibility is completely disgusting and inhumane.

Apparently it is widely believed by inhabitants of Mission Beach that there are only approximately 500 wallabies there.

Gross mismanagement of wildlife at Mission Beach

Last year EHP approved culling 600 wallabies in South Mission Beach to address ‘overpopulation’. However, no scientific study or environmental impact evaluation was done to support this action. No study was done to support the current culling initiative. This exposes gross mismanagement of Mission Beach wildlife by your Department.

Infant wallabies despatched inhumanely and not counted in cull

During the cull, hunters are issued permits to eliminate a specific number of animals. Part of the hunter’s Code of Practice is to kill Joeys found alive in the pouch of a shot, female Wallaby. The most common methods for killing pouched young are crushing its skull under their boot or hitting and crushing the Joey’s skull against a tree.

Older baby wallabies at foot starve, also not counted in cull

Agile Wallaby Joeys feed from their mothers until they are about 18 months old. When a mother with pouched young is killed, she often has an older Joey at foot for which she still provides nourishment. By killing one mother wallaby, hunters sentence three Wallabies to death. The Joeys are not included in the “count” toward the culling permit.

SBS report on anonymous dumping of wallaby bodies at wildlife activist booth

The SBS report in the video linked here shows evidence of how human expansion has caused the kind of conflict that Australians used to think only occurred in Africa and India between wildlife activists and commerce due to overpopulation.

Who exactly is responsible?

Jan Heald says that,

Mayor Shannon has claimed that [the cull] was initiated by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, but it was the Cassowary Coast Regional Council that applied for the permit to cull the Agile Wallabies at Mission Beach!

She says that she received an email from Cr Mark Nolan of the Cassowary Coast Council, stating that he has expressed his strong view that the planned cull is inappropriate in such an environment. He believes that Cr. Pike instigated the drastic action by publicly calling for a reduction in wallaby numbers. He added that Cr Pike is an enthusiastic proponent for more tourism in the area. Cr Mark Nolan saw the cull as discouraging to tourism in “sending this disgraceful image of animal culling around the globe. He wrote,

”Mission Beach is internationally known for its biodiversity, world heritage rain forest's fronting the reef and now we send this horrible message to the tourist industry!”

Jan Heald has suggested that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection drop any plans to kill these Wallabies, as no scientific study or environmental impact evaluation was done to support this culling initiative.
In the opinion of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, the proposed culling is unethical, unnecessary and the need for any such action is totally unsubstantiated.

How population growth & development trap us all (We are all wallabies)

Among the reports we have linked to above, one interviewee states that the reason for culling was partly due to complaints from a local farm about wallabies competing with beef cattle for food. A wildlife activist has said that the farm in question had not had cattle on it for two years. Correspondence below the article claims that cattle were there as recently as 2012.

Whatever the truths are in the detail, what we are looking at is the tragic and inevitable outcome of continuing human expansion up the North Queensland coast. The responsibility for this tragedy lies with federal, state and local governments that encourage ongoing immigration, through federal growth policy, through state government websites advertising for overseas immigrants, and through local governments giving out permits to subdivide and build. More and more frequently though, the local governments have lost the power to object to state governments pushing private developments.

Any wildlife carer, farmer, or politician that does not take on board these top-down Australian policies as major drivers of conflict and ecological disaster has their head in the sand.

This overpopulation is not inevitable in Australia. It is imposed from the top down, because of the demands of commercial lobbyists whose businesses benefit from population growth, while the rest of us all pay for it. At the bottom of the pile are the creatures of the rainforest and coastal plains. They suffer the most and have no voice except for wildlife activists, who find themselves trying to argue within the growth paradigm that we are all currently trapped within.

Australia needs to stop growing!

The FBI. and CIA are supposed to protect US citizens from terrorism. They have, instead, been working with the two Chechens accused of the Boston Marathon bombing of 15 April. In this embedded Youtube Broadcast from the Corbett Report, James Corbett interviews FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds on the Boston bombing. She explains how past attempts by the US to ignite a sectarian terrorist war against Russsia in Chechnya has created people who have been willing to commit acts of terror against America, evidently with the collusion of the CIA and the FBI. See also The Boston Bombing Web of Lies of 26 April 2013 by Julie Lévesque, Syria in Boston of 25 April by Thierry Meyssan.

Mornington Peninsula[1] The writer of an article about ecosystem need for top predators claims that "Observations on trees and experience with possum guards by the author indicate that possums are the major cause of tree decline on the Mornington Peninsula ..."

Hans Brunner: I am somewhat alarmed that a highly respected ecologist, Dr. Jeff Yugovic, can declare that possums on the peninsula are in plague proportions (published in the journal Indigenous, “Do Ecosystems need top predators?”) and that this was supported by Carol Shelton on behalf of Mt Eliza Association for Environment in form of a press release. There are probably many other people who would agree with Yugovic and Shelton merely because they don’t like possums jumping about on their roofs during the night.

I myself believe in scientific evidence.

Where are the regular spotlight counts that establish the real numbers of possums compared to the number of trees available to them in a given area?

Where are the true numbers of trees that actually die from possum browsing compared with trees dying from the many other reasons?

I have inspected lots of sick-looking trees without finding possum droppings under them and no signs of browsing. I can find more possum droppings in built-up areas under power-lines used by possums than under trees and in those areas all the trees look healthy.

The assumption that there is a plague of possums on the Mornington Peninsula resulting in the destruction of the tree canopy is in my view only a hypothetical observation and is definitely not based on rigorous scientific and unbiased research.

Over the last three years Victoria has experienced each year one or two severe heat waves. As a result, thousands of possums died in those years from heat exhaustion. So, where now is this “plague” of them?

With more heat-waves predicted in the future they may even become endangered.

The suggestion that we overdo predator control and that, on the contrary, we need more foxes, cats and dogs to reduce possums is totally irresponsible.

Because of these predators - foxes, cats and dogs - on our Peninsula, nine (9) native mammalian species have already become extinct, five (5) species have become extremely rare and another two (2) are endangered. And this is just mammals!

This same ratio or worse applies to species of birds, reptiles and amphibians.

While I think, and hopefully all of us agree, that in large natural environmental ecosystems a balance between predator and prey species is essential, here on the Peninsula the situation is very, very different.

The expectation that an increase of predators may reduce a few possums would surely be badly out-weighed by the risk of losing proportionally even more of our rare, native wildlife species.

Putting flexible plastic sheets around the trunk of trees, to be effective, would require being done to every tree on the Peninsula, because if possums can’t go up one tree they would soon find another one. Even if this were possible, practical, or desirable, the risk is that it will also exclude koalas, sugar gliders, marsupial mice and reptiles accessing these trees in the same manner as possums.

So, please don’t make possums the scapegoat and declare war on them!

Hans Brunner

NOTES

[1] The Mornington Peninsula is in Victoria, Australia.
Comment by Candobetter.net editor: It was declared part of the UN Biosphere series a few years ago, in one of many attempts to save its biodiversity and considerable natural ammenity, but despite this, it is sadly being covered in roads and housing by successive troglodyte Victorian governments.

Originally published under another title on 2013-03-26 20:40:25 +1000.

Today the Australian Financial Review carried a surprising and uncharacteristic number of remarks about the high cost of privatisation and the benefits of public provision of vital services.

Energy

"The Energy Supply Association of Australia said falling demand for power meant the Coalition must review its energy and climate change policy if it gains power at the September 14 federal election." (The Financial Review, 24/4/2013, p1 & 4)

It seems that power companies want us all to buy more power, even though everyone talks about cutting down emissions and consumption. But, if your company depends on constantly increasing turnover because it has to make a profit (unlike a public power provider), it cannot afford to promote conservation of resources and significantly lower emissions.

On page 4 the Fin Review opines, "[The opposition] is also likely to consider cutting the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target if electricity demand remains weak."

In other words, to please the privateers, it sounds as if the opposition is willing to fry or freeze us all - depending on whether Greenhouse plays out before we actually run our reserves of fossil fuels right down.

Furthermore, amazingly, there are admissions that the effects of private 'competition' are RAISING prices:

"The main driver of gas price increases for 2013 was increased retail operating costs, including the costs of acquiring and retaining customers in an increasingly competitive market."

So, folks, not only are you driven crazy by telemarketers and doorknockers trying to talk you into changing your gas provider every three weeks for cheaper services, but all that sales-offensive is driving the prices up, not down. The profit motive raises costs. Privatisation costs us all.

Well, we already knew that, didn't we?

Competition policy in W.A. wound back

Already in 2011, West Australia's premier, Colin Barnett, found that increasing the number of private companies handling power had been counterproductive. He said that the break-up of Western Power five years prior had 'clearly failed'.

“There is absolutely no doubt that what the previous Labor government did in breaking up Western Power has not worked.

“When that was put in place, the promise from Eric Ripper at the time was that it would lower electricity prices.

“It’s had the exact opposite effect.”" (Source: Gareth Parker, "Premier plans electricity overhaul," The West Australian September 20, 2011

And Public medicine does keep costs down

In "Saving the budget and Medicare,"AFR, 24/4/2013, p.42, Alan Mitchell writes of the Australian medical benefits system:

"Medicare and the public hospital funding agreements with the states are designed to keep the lid on healthcare spending, and even its critics accept that it has been crudely effective."

and

"An unrestrained private market, the Medicare apologists warn, is an invitation for monopoly pricing and over-servicing. That's what America's private healthcare market has produced. In the US almost 18 per cent of nominal GDP is spent on healthcare, compared with just over 9 per cent in Australia."

And what about the Private Property Development and Housing Industry?

This lesson should be applied to the property development lobby. For many years France and most continental European countries have kept housing prices down by running public land development and housing as a major competitor with private property development and housing. It works very well.

Whitlam tried to bring in the same system with DURD. I've always wondered if that was the real reason that he was dismissed. (See Chapter 7 of The Growth Lobby and its Absence. )

Everyone gets a smaller slice of the national cake and pays more for it. The arrival of Australia’s 23 millionth person tomorrow is no cause for celebration, according to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

Academy of Science said best stop at 23 M

Ms Goldie says: “But we are not stabilising our numbers. We continue to grow at Third World rates, at 1.7% pa.”

Treasurer Ken Henry's concerns

In 2009, then Secretary of Treasury Ken Henry expressed concern about the addition of another 13 million people by mid-century. He said a ‘population expansion of this order has a host of implications for the Australian economy and society; and it raises a number of profound issues for economic policy’.

“Yet if 1.7% continues, there will be even more than Secretary Henry cited. There will be 43 million by mid-century and 100 million by 2100,” says Ms Goldie.

Ken Henry’s comments prompted the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to commission a study[ii] on the impact of different levels of Net Overseas Migration (NOM) on Australia’s physical natural and built environments out to 2050.

DIAC:Higher immigration causes adverse effects

The 2010 DIAC-commissioned study found, amongst many findings

· Higher levels of NOM impose greater adverse impacts on the quality of our natural and built environments (note: NOM to September 30, 2012 was 228,000 pa)

· Decreased urban water supply is a significant environmental constraint exacerbated by higher NOM

· Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are expected to grow to several times current levels by 2050 unless rapid mitigation activities are implemented, and will be significantly higher with higher NOM

· Urban expansion will cause the loss of horticultural production from peri-urban areas which will reduce access to high quality fresh food, especially vegetables, with Sydney being particularly vulnerable.

Today Australia reaches a population of 23 million. If we assess this against the status of our life-support systems, we should be alarmed. Neither Australia nor Earth is ecologically sustainable as shown by our national state of the environment reporting and the estimate that humans are consuming 150% of Earth’s renewable capacity. Population size is one of the underlying drivers of these trends. Should they continue, the implications for future generations are clear.

Way back in 1994, The Australian Academy of Science said “In our view, the quality of all aspects of our children’s lives will be maximised if the population of Australia by the mid 21st Century is kept to the low, stable end of the achievable range, i.e. to approximately 23 million” and “If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water, soil, energy and biological resources.”

Cui bono? Big business benefits from more people via increased demand and constraints on wages. The average Aussie does not benefit economically while suffering from increased traffic congestion and pressure on various services i.e., the costs are socialised. And our life-supporting ecological systems are degraded.

If we value our children’s future and nature in general, we must apply the brakes to our ever-growing ecological footprint and population size. This issue deserves priority attention but is mostly ignored. For example, on the day of reaching 23 million, the Sydney Morning Herald found editorial space for the farce concerning the governor-general but not for population growth and its consequences.

Alan Jones, PhD,
Senior Fellow
Australian Museum

What's wrong with the Canadian Environmental Movement? Why don't Canadian environmental organisations protest about the huge impact of successive government's policies to promote mass immigration to Canada? The six million more people imported to Canada since 1991 would account for four times as much GHG emissions as the Alberta tar sands project. Overpopulation is the number one issue that multiplies every other impact. Why is this message of the original promoter of Earth Day forgotten today?

Questions for the environmental movement on Earth Day: Do you think adding these many people (250,000+) to Canada every year has no impact on the environment? Is that why you remain silent about it? Or is the money you get from corporations like RBC, TD Bank and the Van City mortgage empire (the latter two, donors to the BC Sierra Club)? More people, more home building, more loans, more cheap labour!

And the real influx is much higher than this, including those here on "temporary" visas who forget to leave. Real figure: somewhere between 4-500,000 per year. That is one Mississauga worth of consumers added to our numbers each year, year after year after year. Mind-boggling.

1991 - Kyoto and the start of Mulroney/McDougal mass immigration push

1991 was the year that the Kyoto accord was signed. It was also the year that Brian Mulroney and his Immigration Minister, Barbara McDougall, began the era of hyper-immigration so that, according to McDougall's reasoning, the Conservatives could lure ethnic voters away from the Liberal Party (Hey, it finally worked!). Since then, Canada has gained more than 6 million extra people that otherwise would not be here. Those six million people have been responsible for FOUR times as much GHG emissions as the Alberta tar sands project and FOUR times as much land despoilation. Not boreal forest, but largely prime Class 1 farmland. Mass immigration has been the biggest ecological disaster of the last twenty years of Canadian history. More than any pipeline, more than any mining project, and certainly more than our nuclear industry, the most inflated of all boogeymen on the landscape. Mass immigration is definitely not, as Elizabeth May said, a 'trivial' issue.

About Immigration, not Immigrants ...

This is about immigration, not immigrants. "While immigrants did not invent our profligate lifestyle, they nevertheless aspire to it, as our parents, grandparents or great grandparents once did in coming here. Improving one’s lot is, after all, is the major and fully understandable motive for those who choose to settle here. The point is not to blame immigrants but to cite immigration as the major driver of population growth, which, contrary to green perceptions, has a demonstrably negative impact on our environment. " http://candobetter.net/node/2254 Each of us are part of the problem, but increasing our numbers cannot be a solution. In fact, radically reducing our existing population level is essential to our survival. Ask the scientists. Ask Canadian scientists like Dr. Michael Healey, or Dr. David Schindler, or Dr. David Hughes of Cortes Island. We should aim for a national population level of half, or less than half, of what we presently have. We must return immigration intakes to sane levels, stop rewarding people for having children, encourage adoption and discourage IVF treatments. Instead, we are growing leaps and bounds while the environmental movement stands mute.

What's got the Canadian Environmental Movement's tongue?

A second question therefore arises. Why hasn't the environmental movement demanded an environmental review panel process for the policy of mass immigration? Why are there not people lined up at the microphone in hearings across the country demanding that an environmental assessment be done for a policy that has made Canada the leader in population growth among G8 countries? Why? Why? Why?

Is it political correctness? Cowardice? Wilful blindness? Stupidity? Or a mercenary quest to keep corporate funding, funding which Big Green Inc. is careful to try to hide from its grassroots membership? Why do the members of these corrupt behemoths lack the diligence and the integrity to scrutinize the books of their beloved green champions and ask the appropriate questions? Question like "Why is my organization accepting money from big corporations and big banks? What do we have do in return for that money? What does RBC, the TD Bank and Encana Corp, for example, want from Big Green? Why is the grass roots membership content to rely upon the filtered information of their trusted Club representatives rather than do their own research? How can they remain ignorant of the foundational formula of the environmental movement, the IPAT equation?

Tim Murray
April 22, 2013

Earth Day Founder Advocated That U.S. Dramatically Cut Immigration and Stabilize Its Population

We make eight key points about Earth Day, 2013 :

(1) Earth Day was founded by the late Gaylord Nelson in 1970. Nelson was a U.S. Democratic Senator and Wisconsin Governor.

(2) A giant among environmentalists, Nelson advocated that in order for the U.S. to protect its environment, it had to dramatically cut legal immigration, enforce its laws to stop illegal immigration, and stabilize the U.S. population.

(3) He was the author of the U.S. Wilderness Act, numerous other environmental bills, and an inspiration for many more. He was a forceful leader in attempting to convince environmental organizations that they could never achieve their long-term goals unless the US achieved population stabilization through immigration reduction.

(4) On Earth Day’s 30th anniversary in 2000, Nelson said : “Population, global warming and sustainability would be my suggestions for the three most urgent environmental challenges…. Stabilizing U.S. population is a challenge that could be resolved in a relatively short period resulting in significant economic and environmental benefits. At the current rate of population growth, the population of the US will (rise)… to some 530 million within the next 65 to 70 years. If that happens, the negative consequences will be substantial if not, indeed, disastrous. To stabilize our population would require a dramatic reduction in our immigration rate….

(5) “The hard fact is that while the population is booming here and round the world, the resource base that sustains the economy is rapidly dwindling. It is not just a problem in faraway lands, it is an urgent, indeed, a critical problem here at home right now. We are talking about deforestation, aquifer depletion, air pollution, water pollution, and depletion of fisheries, urbanization of farmland, soil erosion and much more…

(6) “The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become…. We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the US supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it’s phony to say ‘I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.’ “

(7) To those economists whose only concern is maximizing GDP, thereby disregarding environmental concerns, Nelson would thunder that, “These people refuse to recognize that the economy is the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” If the environment collapses, so will the economy which depends on it.

(8) Gaylord Nelson's name is largely ignored and his message has been downplayed and betrayed by most environmental organizations, our media and our governments. To many of these people, environmentalism has been trivialized to recycling toilet paper rolls while the roof of the world falls on their heads.
Dan Murray
April 22, 2013

"The utterly biased and relentless Murdoch press in Melbourne, Sydney and nationally through The Australian has played a big role in destroying Julia Gillard's standing with the electorate, such that Tony Abbott is well placed to win control of both houses in the coming September 14 Federal election."

This article is an extract from Stephen Mayne's newsletter, The Mayne Report, Monday, April 22, 2013, 11:13am

Sure, there have been plenty of own goals and the government's anti-business, union-driven, big spending philosophy doesn't lend itself to long-term success.

And with Tony Abbott positively fawning over Rupert Murdoch at the recent IPA 70th birthday dinner, it is clear the Murdoch press will have substantial influence over an Abbott government, just like the way New York-based News Corp effectively forced John Howard to blindly back the folly of George W Bush's Iraq invasion.

This would be fine if News Corp used its unprecedented media reach in Australia to argue for good policy prescriptions, but too often they use this position of power to become partisan political players who turn a blind eye to bad policy.

For instance, News Corp has never really done anything to improve Australia's campaign finance disclosure laws which are still the weakest in the western world after John Howard's disgraceful changes.

Another classic example was Tony Abbott's refusal to get behind funding urban rail infrastructure when he recently declared that the Commonwealth has ''no history of funding urban rail and I think it's important that we stick to our knitting''.

The Age suitably demolished this position in a strong editorial but the Herald Sun has been silent, not even reporting the comments in a meaningful way.

State Liberal governments all over Australia are hanging out for federal funding of urban rail projects. Tony Abbott's road bias is utterly ridiculous and unsustainable and it should be consigned to the dust bin of history by a short sharp News Ltd campaign.

Bizarrely, the Herald Sun launched a page 1 campaign for infrastructure funding today but still haven't made the point that their man Tony Abbott is the biggest problem.

Without Federal funding for the all important Metro 1 rail tunnel between South Kensington and South Yarra, we won't get the network benefits that would allow subsequent rail additions to Doncaster, the airport and Rowville.

Both Infrastructure Australia and the Victorian Government have Metro 1 listed as their top project for Melbourne.

Abbott should untie his $1.5 billion promise for the East-West road tunnel and leave it up to the Victorian government to decide where to spend this Federal grant.

How the Herald Sun can run an advertising campaign saying "We're for Victoria" and not hold this Sydney-based politician to account on his rail funding ban is just extraordinary.

To Herald Sun editor Damon Johnston and his boss Peter Blunden, please stop this madness and get your man Tony Abbott on the Metro 1 train before it is too late.

More than 100 protesters rallied against live animal exports during a Federal community cabinet meeting in the marginal Melbourne Labor seat of Deakin.
Animals Australia organised the event with plans to greet Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her arrival at the Norwood Secondary College venue in Ringwood. There was a heavy police presence.

Ms Gillard managed to avoid the animal activists and instead he chose to face a "safe" audience of a mainly welcoming crowd of 300 who showered her with compliments. There were questions on the National Disability Insurance scheme, gay marriage, 457 visa workers, Gonski reforms and Labor's image problem.

The protesters held up signs saying "no ban no vote" and "say no to live exports" as a heavy police presence stood guard at the school in the marginal seat of Deakin.

The PM was greeted with cheers as she entered the school, accompanied by 10 ministers including Treasurer Wayne Swan, Employment Minister Bill Shorten and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. However, the animal activists were avoided - they must have gone through another entrance!

Animals Australia spokeswoman Lisa Chalk said the protesters wanted the federal government to ban all live animal exports.

To date, the live trade has sent over 160 million animals to be slaughtered in over a dozen countries where there are no laws to protect them from cruelty. Millions have died on ships. Every investigation and subsequent campaign has delivered results for animals — but the members of Animals Australia will not stop until this trade does.
A vote for animals has never been more important as animal welfare standards continue to drop to abysmal global levels. That's why the Animal Justice Party has formed.

The Animal Justice Party (AJP) opposes in the strongest possible terms the export of live animals, to any other country, of all species, for profit, for whatever purpose, particularly for slaughter, on welfare, humanitarian, economic and societal grounds. This is a grubby industry, lacking any real accountability, or transparency, supported by all Australian governments, in which a few private individuals and corporations make money from the misery of millions of sentient creatures.

Tens of thousands of emails hit the inboxes of the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture within days of Four Corners. However, the Julia Gillard continues to turn her cold, hard heart against ending the trade due to heavy government support for the livestock industries. It's easier to face supporters than the nitty-gritty uncomfortable topic of animal abuse and cruelty. Blood and pain inflicted onto animals is an uncomfortable topic, best avoided!

New Zealand has already stopped exporting live animals for slaughter on the basis of unacceptable cruelty.

New rules made exporting harder, more expensive, and fewer animals today endure this journey. But the cruelty continues. These rules still allow the fully conscious slaughter of millions of animals exported from our shores every year, condemning them to a painful and prolonged death.

#takeAction">
Tell Julia Gillard to end live export

"An amazing start to the supreme court case. It was a packed courtroom with standing room only, more than 100 of you came to show resident opposition to VCAT saying that our objections don't count. The outcome of this hearing will affect us all. Barrister Stuart Morris presented the case for the council. It has been suggested that if this case goes against the people that people should write to the Attorney General demanding that VCAT be abolished and they set up a proper simple appeal body for planning issues. The hearing continues tomorrow, Wednesday, and the barrister Chris Canavan will be speaking for the developer. If you have time do go to hear what he has to say for the developer. " (Mary Drost of Planning Backlash).

Stonnington City Council v Lend Lease Apartments (Armadale) Pty Ltd & Ors.

Well, an interesting day at the Supreme Court, conducted at the High Court building. This was the third venue given since the day before. Nonetheless the court room was packed, with standing room only for about 8 people, others sitting on a table at the back and another 8 or so allowed to sit in the jury box.

Another consequence of privatisation

You could say that all the trouble started with the privatising of public land, involving a building and site that used to belong to state water, which was later purchased by a corporation. Now, years down the track, Lend Lease and a partner want to build a series of massive towers on this site which seems to be located between two areas of parkland in an area largely without other green open space.

Stonington Council, represented by barrister Stuart Morris, was appealing a decision by VCAT which gave the green light to Lend Lease to build - if I heard correctly- at least 19 buildings ranging in size with 11 to be of 4-12 stories on or adjacent to parkland in a neighborhood where the highest residential buildings are around two or three stories.

Naturally the community objected. There were a total of around 618 or 627 objections and only 3 letters of support for the project. However, despite this manifest opposition to an obviously disruptive development:

"VCAT, in its determination of 10 July 2012 to grant, in full, Lend Lease’s Planning Permit Application, ruled that the extent of the community’s opposition to a planning application was irrelevant.

“We (VCAT) are exercising an administrative review power. It must be exercised in accordance with law. We
must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. The extent of the opposition per se in one of these” –
i.e. irrelevant.[Source: http://www.orronggroup.com/]

Whereupon:

"Stonnington Council, with support of the Orrong Group, recognised the implications that such a ruling would have on all planning applications for all Victorians. Council has succeeded with the first stage of the appeal – the Supreme Court [...] granted Council the right to appeal the matter to the full court on Tuesday16 April."

The Orrong group say, rightly:

The Council is commended for taking this brave step. Because of the widespread ramifications of the VCAT ruling this is a case that justifies the cost of the appeal. It has the possibility of being a “watershed case”. We must support the Council in its action."

The whites of their eyes

We are supposed to live in a democracy. A 'democracy' implies self-government and control over what happens in one's community. But reality in Victoria (and the rest of Australia) is that the corporate sector has far more influence over government than the people and usually wins over real communities. This is becoming more and more problematic in Australia, as open space becomes a civil battle field because of government- and corporate- engineered population growth that is driving unwanted development everywhere.

Economic theory behind our predicament

It takes being caught up in the undignified, expensive and painful reality of turbo development for people to begin to grasp just how mad our laws are and how weak our democracy. You can spend a lot of time trying to argue sensibly, writing submissions and getting nowhere. Meanwhile some corporation is making a lot of money out of your misery.

The economic theory behind this goes back to the 18th century in Britain, the time of the Restoration, where a particularly predacious kind of land-tenure law replaced an earlier kind that gave people more rights. Although enclosures had happened since the time of the Normans, the 18th century was particularly fierce.

“In the eighteenth century, when the British economy entered an unparalleled era of expansion, Britain’s Parliament began operating according to Coasian principles and reorganized property rights en masse. In the nineteenth century, when most common-law doctrines reached their modern form, doctrines of equity (enforced through the Chancery Court) dominated the conveyance of land. These doctrines were designed to protect beneficial interests, not to maximize productivity. Efficiency became a dominant doctrine in the English legal system only after Parliamentary intervention.”(Source: Bogart, Daniel E. and Richardson, Gary, 2008, June. "Making Property Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real and Equitable Estates in Britain, 1660 to 1830."NBER Working Paper No. W14107, p.7)

Coasian economic theory was originated by Ronald H. Coase in “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 144, 1960. The theory assigns value arbitrarily, according to the highest dollar profit probability. It takes no heed of non-monetary values and therefore is unresponsive to social cost or individual equity. [Extracts from book close to publication: Sheila Newman: Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press.]

And that is the key:

Coasian economics takes no heed of non-monetary values and therefore is unresponsive to social cost or individual equity

This works out to mean that big business can almost always claim to be benefiting the community because of large financial through-puts, and that residential or small business objectors are NIMBYs, with much lesser financial sums at stake. This method of appraisal of a situation almost completely ignores every non-monetary interest affected and lesser monetary interests of small businesses. Residents cannot claim financial costs that might be incurred, for instance through loss of sunlight rendering solar panels useless or vegetable gardens unproductive.

Importance and Elements of this case

So this case begs those conventions that dispossess us of our individual rights to enjoy our properties and our neighbourhoods and participate in local self-government - the very essence of democracy.

Below I list some of the issues I understood from Barrister Stuart Morris's arguments, which occupied most or possibly all of the first day. [Candobetter did not remain for the rest of the day and supposes that the Lend Lease barrister (Chris Canarvan) will present his case tomorrow.]

- Stonington Council had unanimously vetoed the Lend Lease project after receiving approximately 620 objections

- The parties to the proceeding should be taken to include people who made petitions, including those who were did not come in to the tribunal. The responsible authority must consider all objections not withdrawn.

-It must consider environmental impact and any significant social and economic effects. Environmental impact, particularly under the Planning and Environment Act could extend well beyond the immediate neighborhood.

- Participation is a key factor: The Tribunal must where appropriate take account of the extent of which persons owning land nearby participated in the decisions before granting the permit. It was suggested that this provision carries over from an older Act which actually goes back itself to the Planning Appeals Board Act 1980. It's all about participation. John Caine's (Victorian Premier from 1982-1990) ammendments in parliament form some of the history of this part of the law.

- In case the defendants seek to narrow the scope and leave no room for the actual operation of the principle, the scope has to be broad, the triggers to be generic in nature.

- The Tribunal is required to consider all objections.

- The substance of the objection can be important

- The number of objections can be important

- The number of objections plus the substance is relevant to the purpose of the Act to include embracing public participation and fairness

- There needs to be ability to participate in the objection procedures (noting the fact that it is commonplace for applicants to be exempt from third party rights and therefore not to advertise their projects)

- The fact of participation is crucial

- The extent to which persons participate makes relevant the number of persons who participate

- Evidence of social effects: suggestion that one is not lawfully considering a matter if one excludes the number feeling strongly enough to object

- There has been an error of law when a party who has made a written submission is ignored.

- A planning decision is informed by the degree of community response which may still be relevant if not determinant

The above points are a very sketchy rendition of some very detailed citations and arguments made over the course of several hours. The case continues on the 17th of April at the same venue. The counter arguments of the Lend lease barrister will then be heard.

Candobetter.net is interested in receiving opinions and notes on tomorrow's presentations.

Details of court and case

Supreme Court List for Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Hearing commences at 10:30 AM, but be there at 10:00AM. _#fn1">1
Court 2, Ground Floor
Old High Court
450 Little Bourke Street, Melb.

Justice Emerton
Valuation Compensation and Planning List
Stonnington City Council v Lend Lease Apartments (Armadale) Pty Ltd & Ors.

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1.#fn1txt">↑ Be there at 10:00AM to go through security screening.

University of Mobile's Cross Country Coach, who was near the finish line of the Boston Marathon when a series of explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines.

Published on Global Research on 16 April 2013 as UM Coach: Bomb Sniffing Dogs, Spotters on Roofs Before Boston Marathon Explosions. See also: FBI's History of Handing "Terror Suspects" Live Explosives by Tony Cartalucci, Boston Marathon Bombing happened on Same Day as “Controlled Explosion” Drill by Boston Bomb Squad, Official Story Unraveling for Boston Marathon Bombing; Clear Evidence Points to Bomb Squad’s Prior Knowledge and Interview with Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr[1] on the the Australian Ministry of Truth's 7.30 Report of 16 April.

Stevenson said he saw law enforcement spotters on the roofs at the start of the race. He's been in plenty of marathons in Chicago, D.C., Chicago, London and other major metropolitan areas but has never seen that level of security before.

"They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about," Coach Ali Stevenson told Local 15. "It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill." (See Sott report quoting Local Tv15)

View TV Video Report on Local 15 TV

"Evidently, I don't believe they were just having a training exercise," Stevenson said. "I think they must have had some sort of threat or suspicion called in."

Stevenson had just finished the marathon before the explosions. Stevenson said his wife had been sitting in one of the seating sections where an explosion went off, but thankfully she left her seat and was walking to meet up with him.

"We are just so thankful right now," Stevenson said.

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1. #fn1txt">↑ In this interview, Bob Carr, who cannot be ignorant of the true facts behind the broader issues that he purportedly addresses, paints a picture of the so-called "War on Terror", which has little bearing on the dynamics of the vast human tragedies inflicted on the Middle East and Central Asia by the US and its allies, including Australia, since 1990. The fraudulent pretexts for those wars include 9/11, which is upheld by Bob Carr in that interview.

Bill Gross, Nouriel Roubini, Laurence Kotlikoff, Steve Keen, Michel Chossudovsky, the Wall Street Journal and many others say that our entire economy is a Ponzi scheme.

Former Reagan budget director David Stockton just agreed:

So did a top Russian con artist and mathematician.

Even the New York Times' business page asked, "Was [the] whole economy a Ponzi scheme?"

In fact – as we've noted for 4 years (and here and here) – the banking system is entirely insolvent. And so are most countries. The whole notion of one country bailing out another country is a farce at this point. The whole system is insolvent.

As we noted last year:

Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz pointed out the Ponzi scheme nature of the whole bailout discussion:

Europe's plan to lend money to Spain to heal some of its banks may not work because the government and the country's lenders will in effect be propping each other up, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

"The system … is the Spanish government bails out Spanish banks, and Spanish banks bail out the Spanish government," Stiglitz said in an interview.

***

"It's voodoo economics," Stiglitz said in an interview on Friday, before the weekend deal to help Spain and its banks was sealed. "It is not going to work and it's not working."

[The same is true of every other nation.]

Credit Suisse's William Porter writes:

"Portugal cannot rescue Greece, Spain cannot rescue Portugal, Italy cannot rescue Spain (as is surely about to become all too abundantly clear), France cannot rescue Italy, but Germany can rescue France." Or, the credit of the EFSF/ESM, if called upon to provide funds in large size, either calls upon the credit of Germany, or fails; i.e, it seems to us that it probably cannot fund to the extent needed to save the credit of one (and probably imminently two) countries that had hitherto been considered "too big so save" without joint and several guarantees.***

As Nouriel Roubini wrote in February:

[For] problems of that magnitude, there simply are not enough resources—governmental or super-sovereign—to go around.

As Roubini wrote in February:

"We have decided to socialize the private losses of the banking system.

***

Roubini believes that further attempts at intervention have only increased the magnitude of the problems with sovereign debt. He says, "Now you have a bunch of super sovereigns— the IMF, the EU, the eurozone—bailing out these sovereigns."

Essentially, the super-sovereigns underwrite sovereign debt—increasing the scale and concentrating the problems.

Roubini characterizes super-sovereign intervention as merely kicking the can down the road.

He says wryly: "There's not going to be anyone coming from Mars or the moon to bail out the IMF or the Eurozone." [Others have made the same point.]

But, despite the paper shuffling of debt at the national level—and at the level of supranational entities—reality ultimately intervenes: "So at some point you need restructuring. At some point you need the creditors of the banks to take a hit —otherwise you put all this debt on the balance sheet of government. And then you break the back of government—and then government is insolvent."

Peak Demographics?

Indeed, population may be the biggest ponzi scheme of all. Specifically – as we've pointed out for years – rapidly-aging populations in the developed world will exert a big drag on the economy.

The Global Mail notes:

Half the world, including almost all the developed world, now is reproducing at below replacement level. A generation from now, according to United Nations Population Division projections, less than a quarter of the world's women – most of them in Africa and south Asia – will be reproducing at above replacement rate. And those UN forecasts are probably on the high side, for reasons we'll come to later.

And as the birth rate has plunged in developed nations, and the native-born population has begun to shrink and rapidly age, governments and business have sought to make up the numbers by importing people to prop up their economies. It's all they know how to do, for our economic system is, at its base, a giant Ponzi scheme, dependent on ever more people producing and consuming ever more stuff.

But what happens if that all stops? What happens when you get an ageing, shrinking population that consumes less?

"The answer to that question is that we don't know because it's never happened before," says Peter McDonald, professor of demography and director of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University.

***

"We're certainly operating a Ponzi scheme in Australia," says Dr Bob Birrell, an economist and migration expert from Monash University.

"Our growth is predicated on extra numbers… [and] more of our activity is going into city building and people servicing, which do not directly produce many goods that can be traded in overseas markets.

***

Half the world is facing the problem of low fertility, and Australia, with its massive program of importing people, is providing an extreme example of one approach to the conundrum.

In a nutshell, the problem is this: lower fertility rates mean older, less innovative and productive workforces. More importantly to the Ponzi economic order, older, stable or declining populations consume less. So growth requires either importing people, or exporting stuff, or a combination of the two. Orthodox economics simply can't cope otherwise.

Europe as a whole has been reproducing at well below replacement rate for close to 40 years. The last period for which UN data showed Europe's total fertility rate above the replacement rate was 1970-75.

Europe's contemporary demographics give new meaning to the descriptor `the old world'. The continent's average person is over 40 now. By 2050, if things continue on trend, the average European will be 45.7. If one takes the UN's "low variant" projection, he/she will be over 50 years of age.

And the low variant now looks closer to the mark. Fertility rates had actually rebounded a little over recent years, the result of a bit of "catch-up" after a shift over several previous decades in which women delayed child-bearing. But the European recession has set fertility rates plunging again.

Jamie Ferguson/The Global Mail

Jamie Ferguson/The Global Mail

The recession's effects will likely linger for decades, in lower rates of earnings and savings, and also in reduced fertility.

***

Last year, Forbes magazine, that most reliable voice of the economic orthodoxy, laid the blame for Europe's economic decline squarely on its citizens' failure to reproduce in adequate numbers, in an article headlined What's Really Behind Europe's Decline? It's The Birth Rates, Stupid.

The Forbes piece was unequivocal: the biggest threat to the European Union was its low fertility rate.

***

The piece ended with a dire warning that unless Club Med managed to induce people to have more babies, catastrophic economic consequences would flow for all of Europe and maybe the world.

***

As Thomas Sobotka, one of the authors of a 2011 study on population trends by the Vienna Institute of Demography, told the Guardian newspaper, massive cuts in social spending would only exacerbate the problem.

"This may prolong the fertility impact of the recent recession well beyond its end. It could lead to a double-dip fertility decline," he said.

But when it comes to fertility declines, Asia takes the cake.

Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, and most importantly China currently all have fertility rates lower than those of Europe.

***

China's and Korea's are about to start falling, if they haven't already.

"I'm pretty pessimistic about the east-Asian situation," says McDonald. "I think those countries find it very difficult move in the right direction of supporting work and family, in particular, reducing work hours.

"We are now talking about some 30 per cent of Japanese women not getting married."

"I saw a couple of people from the Japanese government give a paper recently, essentially accepting this as an inevitability – a low birth rate forever," he says.

It's the same all over Asia.

***

Hong Kong has a birth rate of 1.09, which is on track to see its population almost halve in a generation. Taiwan is at 1.10; China, 1.55; Thailand, 1.66; Vietnam, 1.89. Even Indonesia's fertility is just above replacement rate, at 2.23, and is falling fast. Malaysia and the Philippines are still growing pretty quickly, as are the south-Asian countries, which may give them a competitive edge for a few decades – and a growing export industry of people. But it is not projected to last more than a few decades.

Let's return to America. The United States also is reproducing at below replacement rate, and its birthrate has declined sharply in recent years.

***

The US birth rate not only fell to its lowest level ever in 2011, but the greatest decline was among immigrant women.

***

In the longer term, the world will have to adjust its economic system to cope with the novel concept of less. Fewer people, less consumption, lowered need for resources, energy, housing, roads, you name it.

Indeed, smart curmudgeons like Jeremy Granthan and Chris Martensen think that we have not only "peak" demographics, but also peak resources.
There's HOPE

The above is admittedly depressing. But the reality is that there's hope.

We can have a very bright future, indeed … if we switch from the status quo to something smarter. For example, see this and this.

For example, we can cut out the middlemen in the banking and political realms … and prosper.

Energy

And as we've previously noted about energy:

The current paradigm is that energy is produced expensively by governments or large corporations through gigantic projects using enormous amounts of money, materials and manpower. Because energy can only be produced by the big boys, we the people must bow our heads to the powers-that-be. We must pay a lot of our hard-earned money to buy electricity from them, and we can't question the methods or results of their energy production.

Our life will become much better when we begin to understand that energy is all around us – as an ocean of electromagnetic forces and as a byproduct of other processes in the form of heat, pressure, etc. – and all we need do is learn how to harvest it.

Original source of article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-entire-economy-is-a-ponzi-scheme-the-global-financial-system-is-insolvent/5331143

NOTE! Venue changed to Court 2, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street. LAST MINUTE REMINDER ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL - TUESDAY 16 AND 17 APRIL 2013. This is about your fundamental property and citizenship rights - the very basis of democracy. Come and sit in the gallery.This involves the Orrong Group. The fact that this case has arisen is a consequence of commercially driven population growth in Victoria and Australia. The Supreme Court has changed the venue for the Hearing tomorrow, commencing at 10.30am.

WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED?- VCAT'S DETERMINATION :-

THAT THE EXTENT OF RESIDENT OPPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Test Case!

If you could spare an hour or two the Orrong Group (of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) residents would greatly appreciate your presence in the gallery as this vital hearing proceeds.This may well prove to be a test case for many future community issues and we the community need to be seen to have a voice.

The hearing will begin at 10.30am in Court 2, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street.

The Listing Judge may then allocate the case to another courtroom.If you arrive late check with the Supreme Court Registry Level 2. Phone number 96036111 - The case number is SCI 2012 045 07.

As the Court has 'airport like' security in place for entry to the court we suggest you arrive around 10 am. We hope to have media coverage before the hearing. We will have an Orrong Group member at the Court entrance to assist with directions. We can meet at the court entrance.

Should you intend coming to the hearing on Wednesday 17th we recommend you check the supreme Court "Daily List" on the internet from 5pm on the 16th, to confirm that the hearing is continuing.

Margot Carroll of the Orrong Group says, "THIS IS CASE WHERE WE NEED THE COMMUNITY TO COME TOGETHER AND SHOW DETERMINATION AND STRENGTH.
PLEASE JOIN WITH US AT THE COURT.

Express your views if opportunities arise in any talkback programs.

www.orronggroup.com

mlcarroll[AT]netspace.net.au

0409 174 194 & 9 5104845

There will be a public forum a Kuringai Town Hall to discuss the problem of overdevelopment, overpopulation, and the crushing of democracy in its wake TODAY. Sunday 7 April 3:00 pm to 5:30 Where: ku-ring-Gai Town Hall, 1186 Pacific Hwy, Pymble.

If you care about the future of NSW, you are urged to come to the forum, understand the full impact of the proposed changes, and voice their concerns.

The proposed legislation will grossly favour developers over ordinary people and, significantly, over local councils. We are appalled that Barry O'Farrell is set break his promise to the people of NSW, because, when he was campaigning for government, he criticised Part 3A and promised that his government would "bring planning back to the people". The proposed legislation makes Part 3A look mild in comparison.

When: Sunday 7 April 3:00 pm to 5:30 Where: ku-ring-Gai Town Hall, 1186 Pacific Hwy, Pymble.

Speakers: David Shoebridge, Greens MLC; James Ryan, Nature Conservation Council; Corinne Fisher, Better Planning Network.

Please contact as many friends as you can - our voice needs to be loud and clear.

.

The residents of Wyndham are distressed as their council is building a mountain, literally a mountain of rubbish, from theirs and other councils and it smells. It is blocking their views and rising up on a flat horizon in a ghastly kind of monument to the folly of our consumer society and our overpopulation predicament. You are invited to show solidarity with Wyndham citizens at a meeting on Tuesday 9th April, at 7.30pm at Wyndham EcoLiving Centre, 28 Ridge Drive Wyndham Vale, (Mel.205, A5).

Growth economies grow garbage

Growth economies depend on growing populations and encouraging them to consume more, faster. Mechanical refrigerators, which used to last 30 or more years, have been replaced by electronic ones that use far more energy and last only a few years.[1] Clockwork watches, which lasted for years, have been replaced by throw-away digital watches. These facts demonstrate the fallacy of the idea that humans progress forward in time and that our societies are growing more intelligent and more able to solve the complex problems they are constantly compounding.

Mountain of garbage festers on horizon

Here is another example of the tragic and absurd consequences of our consumer and growth society.

The residents of Wyndham are distressed as their council is building a mountain, literally a mountain of rubbish, from theirs and other councils and it smells. So if you in that area they would love some support at their council meeting. This is not good planning and certainly not good development.

Many of you may have have heard about the massive “mountain of Waste” that Council proposes to create at the Wests Road tip (“Refuse Disposal Facility”). It is proposed to increase its height to 130m (110m above surrounding ground level) and its footprint ten-fold (see artists rough representation in the photo below).

Recalcitrant, undemocratic Wyndham council

There have been growing complaints about the first stage of this development which has already risen to approx 24 meters above ground level (see first photo.) Council refused to meet to discuss this issue with residents.

Below is the overall representation of the proposal (note that the existing 24m ‘mountain’ is already obscuring part of the You Yangs).

It looks ugly: makes us a dumping ground for Melbourne’s rubbish: encourages waste dumping instead of recycling: and it smells!

If you think this is a bad idea then come along to the meeting next Tuesday and help us tell our elected councillors that this is not the sort of image Wyndham wants.

Meeting

When: 7.30 pm, Tuesday 9th April

Where: Wyndham EcoLiving Centre, 28 Ridge Drive Wyndham Vale

(Mel. 205, A5)

[1] To understand this phenomena, try looking for a new refridgerator with more than one efficiency star lately. Very hard to find. There are some exceptions, such as Sunfrost refrigerators.

Here is a fairly good article about energy efficiency in refrigerators - http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/icebox2.htm.

On 22 February 2012 former Premier Ted Baillieu issued a change in the Administration of Acts under a General Order. He allocated sections of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and sections of the Wildlife Act 1975 to Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh. These sections ‘legally’ paved the way for a commercial kangaroo killing industry to be re-introduced into Victoria, after having been banned for many good reasons in 1982.

(Pictures adapted from Brett Clifton collection.)

More signs that agriculture is swamping legislation to protect native animals

Minister Walsh has close connections with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), (President from 1998 – 2000), Parliamentary Coalition positions including Agriculture, Water, Environment and Climate Change, Country Water Resources and is on Parliament’s Environment, Natural Resources Committee. Prior to Parliament, he ran an irrigated horticulture, grain growing business at Boort. This makes negotiations with farmers easy, when allowing kangaroo shooters to enter rural properties etc.

Peter Walsh is also Minister responsible for the Meat Industry Act 1993, which covers the standards for meat production for human consumption and pet food. It sets up a licensing & inspection system and a mechanism for adopting and implementing quality assurance programs to ensure that those standards are maintained. This includes the regulation of meat transport vehicles and Victorian Meat Authority.

Incredibly Walsh is also Minister for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

Why Victoria has continuously banned commercial slaughter of roos to date

Commercial slaughter of Kangaroos was banned in 1982 by the Cain Government.
Its' reintroduction was raised in 2002 by Premier Steve Bracks and was fully investigated by the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee of Parliament (ENRC). ENRC recommended that the development of an industry based on the harvest of wild Kangaroos should not be supported in Victoria. The Victorian Government declared no further assessment be made as the matter was previously the subject of a detailed study that had concluded the industry was economically unviable.

Government-push to overpopulate has dire consequences for wildlife

Since this Ban was introduced, there has been an unprecedented rate of unsustainable, exponential human population growth necessitating greater and greater urban and peri-urban development. It has been Victorian Government policy not to support a commercial harvest of Kangaroos based on:

* Low densities of Kangaroos in Victoria.
* The high cost of administrative checks and balances.
* Strong opposition from sectors of the community.
*Victoria's terrain and vegetation cover makes accurate counting of Kangaroos very difficult and consequently nobody knows how many Kangaroos there are in Victoria.
*Since this Ban was introduced, there has been an unprecedented rate of unsustainable population growth necessitating greater and greater urban and peri-urban development.
*All native wildlife which inhabited the claimed areas have been displaced, especially Kangaroos. This has lead to Kangaroo numbers being fragmented and trapped in concentrated areas of suburban sprawl.
* Landholders perceive this to be an increase to Kangaroo numbers, so they issue Authority To Control Wildlife (ATCW) kill permits which have increased exponentially and dramatically.
* Victoria has NO Fauna Management Framework

Victorian DSE an open sore that will not heal

DSE is now under considerable fire for failing to implement the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 under which they have mandatory obligations to protect native animals.

If the Victorian Government re-introduces a commercial industry to placate the wishes of landholders, kangaroos would be decimated; there simply are not enough kangaroos to sustain an industry.

There is no justification for a commercial Kangaroo industry in Victoria. NSW, Qld, WA and SA have commercial Kangaroo industries and are experiencing closure of processing plants and shooters leaving the industry in droves because the market for Kangaroo meat has fallen dramatically. The only money to be made is in the sale of skins which is a totally unacceptable base, to provide profits for a greedy few.

Inhumane policies to wildlife, especially kangaroos

The Victorian Government has a mandate to manage the affairs of this state on behalf of the residents and Victorian families and individuals. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council strenuously objects to the Napthine Government re-introducing a commercial Kangaroo industry into Victoria.

The fact that this is being undertaken by stealth compels the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) to advise the Victorian Premier of its intense disapproval:
* The inhumane treatment to kangaroos from misfired shots, orphaned young, stress on family mobs, cruel disposal of Joeys and loss of genetic integrity, variability of the gene pool are well known ..
* Not only is this industry unsustainable and un-Australian but it would bring danger into our bush land where international visitors should be safe.
* That costs of researching & feasibility of this industry is paid for by Victorian tax payers is shameful.
* The only people to gain will be landholders, kangaroo processors, shooters and chiller operators.
* Since Russia banned import of Kangaroo product in 2009, the industry in Australia has plummeted.
* Markets for Kangaroo meat are limited as 75% of the meat from a Kangaroo is used for pet food; a deplorable waste of a misunderstood, beloved, unique, iconic native animal, and tax payer’s money.

Wildlife corridors, not tollways!

Victorian government should establish interconnecting wildlife corridors to provide Bio-Links to save species . It should protect the gene pool, educate children to respect native animals, and (rather than destroy them) trans-locate kangaroos as Professor Steve Garlick and his wife Dr Rosemary Austen have successfully accomplished many times.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council strongly urges Victoria's current Premier, Denis Napthine, not to reintroduce a commercial Kangaroo industry into Victoria.

The author of this article, Maryland Wilson, is the President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

Syrian rebel fights
Assad 'tyranny' by
cutting off prisoner's
head with a knife.
See #FsaSadism">embedded video
- NOT suitable for
viewing by children.

In recent days, world public opinion and the global balance of power has shifted markedly in favour of the embattled nation of Syria and its allies. Nevertheless, it is imperative for every person opposed to mass murder to give whatever support they are able to the courageous Syrian people in their fight against the terrorist 'Free' 'Syrian' Army (FSA) proxies of the US and its allies.

The included article by Tony Cartalucci was originally published as World Must Unite Against US-Saudi-Israeli Proxy War in Syria on the Land Destroyer Report on 31 March. See also: Al-Jazeera anti-Syria propagandists expelled by Palestinians. Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran, BRICS Challenges Unipolar World and US Dollar Hegemony, Pan-Arab Popular Forum for Supporting Syria's Steadfastness Concludes Activities- SANA, Al-Jaafari..Arms' Treaty Draft Resolution didn't Include Ban on Supplying Weapons to Terrorist Groups - SANA, PA Speaker Calls on World Parliaments to Exert Pressure on Terror-Supporting Governments - SANA, Algerian Foreign Minister: Giving a Country's Seat to Non-State Entity Against AL Convention- SANA, Syria, Churkin: Russia Will Firmly Prevent Attempts to Grant Syria's UN Seat to Opposition- SANA.

Since early 2011, following the start of NATO's bloody war against Libya, the Syrian Government of President Bashar al-Assad has faced the start of a similar attempt at 'regime change' by terrorist 'Free' 'Syrian' Army (FSA) proxies of the United States and its allies. Unlike the tragic course of events which unfolded in Libya, the Syrian Arab Army (hereafter referred to as simply the "Syrian Army") has withstood the terrorists, contrary to repeated pronouncements by the lying mainstream media that Assad's downfall was imminent, although as many as 70,000_#fn1">1 Syrians may have already perished.

Since Tony Cartalucci wrote this article, world public opinion and the international balance of power has shifted markedly in Syria's favour. As an example the Summit of the BRICS coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which concluded on 27 March, opposed moves to escalate the war against Syria and threats to invade Iran. Russia has given a firm show of support for its Syrian ally by conducting large naval exercised off the Black Sea coast of NATO member Turkey, which has been supplying FSA terrorists and giving them sanctuary.

In spite of these developments, the survival of the Syrian nation, which traces its roots back to before the beginning of the Christian era, is not yet assured.

World Must Unite Against US-Saudi-Israeli Proxy War in Syria

By Tony Cartalucci, 31 March 2001

• US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have conspired to destroy Syria by way of arming sectarian extremists since 2007.
• The West now admits it, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have
  provided thousands of tons of weapons to militants in Syria - while also
  conceding that Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra is the best armed, most well equipped militant front in the conflict.
• US, Saudi, Israeli-backed terrorists are now committing a myriad of
  horrific atrocities against all of Syria's population, including Sunni
  Muslims - meaning neither "democracy" nor even "sectarianism" drives the
  conflict, but rather the destruction of Syria in its entirety. 
• US State Department acknowledges Syria faces threat from Al Qaeda,
  demands blockade of arms/aid from reaching government to fight
  terrorists the US State Department admits are present in every major
  Syrian city.

March 30, 2013 (LD) - Since 2007, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel documented as conspiring to overthrow the Syrian government by way of
sectarian extremists, including groups "sympathetic to Al Qaeda," and in
particular, the militant, sectarian Muslim Brotherhood. While the West
has attempted to portray the full-scale conflict beginning in Syria in
2011 as first, a "pro-democracy uprising," to now a "sectarian
conflict," recent atrocities carried out by US-Saudi-Israeli proxies
have shifted the assault to include Sunni Muslims unable or unwilling to
participate in the destruction of the Syrian state.

Such attacks included a mortar bombardment of Damascus University, killing 15 and injuring dozens more, as well as the brutal slaying of two prominent Sunni Muslim clerics - the latest of which was beheaded,
his body paraded through the streets of Aleppo, and his head hung from
the mosque he preached in. While the West attempts to mitigate these
events by labeling the victims as "pro-government," the reality is that
the forces fighting inside Syria are funded, armed, directed, and
politically supported from abroad - and therefore do not represent any
of the Syrian people's interests, including those Syrians who do not
support the government.

It is abundantly clear that the West's goal is neither to institute
"democracy," nor even take sides in a "sectarian conflict," but rather
carry out the complete and permanent destruction of Syria as a
nation-state, sparing no one, not even Sunnis.

Such a proxy war exists contra to any conceivable interpretation of
"international law." The world is left with a moral imperative to not
only denounce this insidious conflict brought upon the Syrian people,
compounded and perpetuated entirely by external interests, but demands
that concrete action is taken to ensure that this act of aggression is
brought to an end.

The US, UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have admitted to colluding together,
flooding Syria with thousands of tons of weapons via Jordan to Syria's
south, and NATO-member Turkey to Syria's north. And in an otherwise
inexplicable conundrum, while the likes of US Secretary of State John
Kerry insist this torrent of weapons is being directed to "moderates,"
neither the US nor its allies are able to explain why Al Qaeda terror
front Jabhat al-Nusra has emerged as the most heavily armed, best equipped militant organization in the conflict.

AP reported specifically in their article, "Officials: Arms shipments rise to Syrian rebels," that:

US Secretary of
State John Kerry said on the sidelines of a Syrian opposition meeting in Italy last month that the weapons are ending up in the hands of secular groups. "I will tell you this: There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is in fact getting to them, and the indication is
that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that," he said,
without elaborating.

But even AP admits that

Syrian opposition
activists estimate there are 15-20 different brigades fighting in and
around Damascus now, each with up to 150 fighters. Many of them have
Islamic tendencies and bear black-and-white Islamic flags or
al-Qaeda-style flags on their Facebook pages. There is also a presence
of Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the strongest Islamic terrorist groups
fighting alongside the rebels.

The US State Department's own statement regarding the designation of al-Nusra as a listed Al Qaeda terror organization states:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks --
ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised
explosive device operations -- in major city centers including Damascus,
Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr.

According to the US State Department, al-Nusra is carrying out hundreds
of attacks with a wide array of weaponry, across the entire nation of
Syria, indicating a massive front and implying an equally massive
network of logistical support, including foreign sponsorship. What's
more, is that the US State Department acknowledges al-Nusra's presence
even in cities close to Syria's borders where the CIA is admittedly
overseeing the distribution of weapons and cash. The New York Times, in
their June 2012 article, "C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition," reported that:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern
Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across
the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according
to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

And in New York Times' more recent March 2013 article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.," it is admitted that weapons are being funneled into Syria across both its borders with Turkey and Jordan:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply
increased their military aid to Syria's opposition fighters in recent
months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the
uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic
data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of
rebel commanders.

The article would also state:

Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi
Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition
since early and late 2012, respectively, a major hurdle was removed
late last fall after the Turkish government agreed to allow the pace of
air shipments to accelerate, officials said.

Simultaneously, arms and equipment were being purchased by Saudi Arabia in Croatia
and flown to Jordan on Jordanian cargo planes for rebels working in
southern Syria and for retransfer to Turkey for rebels groups operating
from there, several officials said.

The US State Department acknowledges that the well armed, prominent
terror front al-Nusra is operating in the very areas the CIA is feeding
weapons and cash into.

Image: (Above) West Point's Combating Terrorism Center's 2007 report,Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq"
indicated which areas in Syria Al Qaeda fighters filtering into
Iraq came from. The overwhelming majority of them came from Dayr Al-Zawr
in Syria's southeast, Idlib in the north near the Turkish-Syrian
border, and Dar'a in the south near the Jordanian-Syrian border. (Right)
A map indicating the epicenters of violence in Syria indicate that the
exact same hotbeds for Al Qaeda in 2007, now serve as the epicenters of
so-called "pro-democracy fighters" and also happen to be areas the US
CIA is admittedly distributing weapons and other aid in. 

Such a reality directly
contradicts the US State Department's official position, and no
explanation is given as to how "moderates" can be provided with such
extensive support, and still be eclipsed militarily and logistically by
terror-front al-Nusra. That is, unless of course, the US, British,
Saudi, and Qatari weapons aren't simply just handing the weapons
directly to terrorists, precisely as planned as early as 2007.

The Destruction of Syria Began in 2007, Not 2011

While the West has attempted to reclaim Syria as part of its sphere of
influence for decades, concrete plans for the latest proxy war were laid
at least as early as 2007. It was admitted in 2007 that the US, Saudi
Arabia, and Israel conspired together to fund, arm, and direct sectarian
extremists including militants "sympathetic" to Al Qaeda, particularly
the Muslim Brotherhood, against the governments of Iran and Syria. In
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's 2007 New Yorker
article,  "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" the conspiracy was described as follows:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co-operated with
Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh also cited US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials who indicated that,
"in the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new
strategic direction," and that, "the Saudi government, with Washingtons
approval, would provide funds
and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad,
of Syria. The report would also state:

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The
clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving
the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to
work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current
and former officials close to the Administration said.

Mention of the Muslim Brotherhood already receiving aid even in 2007 was also made:

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement
founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent
opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir's father. In 1982, the
Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city
for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people.
Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The
Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel.
Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, "We told Cheney that the basic link between
Iran and Lebanon is Syria--and to weaken Iran you need to open the door
to effective Syrian opposition."

There is evidence that the Administration's redirection strategy has
already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front
is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a
faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who
defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A.
officer told me, "The Americans have provided both political and
financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial
support, but there is American involvement."He said that Khaddam, who
now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the
knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front's
members met with officials from the National Security Council, according
to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the
Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

The Wall Street Journal in 2007 would also implicate the Muslim
Brotherhood and more specifically, the so-called "National Salvation
Front," in its article, "To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers."

It is clear that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel planned to use
sectarian extremists against the nation of Syria starting at least as
early as 2007, and it is clear that now these sectarian extremists are
carrying out the destruction of Syria with a massive torrent of weapons
and cash provided by the US and its regional allies, just as was
described by Hersh's report.

A Moral Imperative to Save Syria 

Syria is under attack by an insidious, premeditated foreign assault,
intentionally using terrorist proxies in direct and complete violation
of any conceivable interpretation of both national and international
law. The world has a moral imperative to support the Syrian people and
their government as they fight this assault - both politically and
logistically. While US Secretary John Kerry is unable to account for how
his nation's support for moderates has left Al Qaeda's al-Nusra front
the premier militant faction in Syria, he has demanded that Iraq help
stem the flow of alleged aid Iran is providing the Syrian government as
it fights these terrorists.

Does US Secretary of State John Kerry deny that Syria is fighting a
significant (and continuously growing) Al Qaeda presence within their
borders, which according to the US State Department's own statement, is
operating in every major city in the country? What conceivable
explanation or excuse could be made to justify the blockading of aid
sent to Syria to fight Al Qaeda terrorists? In fact, why isn't the US
aiding the Syrian government itself in its fight against Al Qaeda - a
terrorist organization the US has used as an excuse to wage unending
global war since 2001 when Al Qaeda allegedly killed some 3,000 American
civilians?

Does Secretary Kerry believe that further arming "moderates" is a
legitimate strategy to counter Al Qaeda's growing presence in Syria when
these "moderates" openly defend Al Qaeda's al-Nusra? The US' own
hand-picked "Syrian opposition leader,"  Mouaz al Khatib, demanded
the US reconsider its designation of al Nusra as a terrorist
organization. Retuers reported in their article, "Syrian opposition urges U.S. review of al-Nusra blacklisting," that:

The leader of
Syria's opposition coalition urged the United States on Wednesday to
review its decision to designate the militant Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra
as a terrorist group, saying religion was a legitimate motive for Syrian
rebels.

"The decision to consider a
party that is fighting the regime as a terrorist party needs to be
reviewed," Mouaz Alkhatib told a "Friends of Syria"
meeting in Morocco, where Western and Arab states granted full
recognition to the coalition seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

The US is directly responsible for the emergence and perpetuation of Al
Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria. The statements of Secretary
John Kerry are made merely to maintain an increasingly tenuous
"plausible deniability." The precedent being set by the US and its
allies is one of using full-scale proxy invasions, that if successful in
Syria, will be directed into Iran, up through the Caucasus Mountains in
Russia, and even onto China's doorstep via extremists the West is
cultivating amongst the Uighurs. It is also clear that
the West is directly responsible for the extremists within their own
borders, and that these extremists are being used as a political tool
against the people of the West, just as they are being used as a
mercenary force abroad.

A united front between nations against this wanton
state sponsorship of terrorism is needed - with nations pledging
political and logistical support to the Syrian people to defeat this
open conspiracy. Individually, we can identify, boycott, and permanently replace the corporate-financier interests
who conceived of and are driving this agenda. Failure to stop such wide
scale criminality against the Syrian people now, will only invite
greater criminality against us all in the near future.

#FsaSadism" id="FsaSadism">Appendix: Video of prisoner's head being removed with knife

The following video is not recommended for children. It is one of a number irrefutable examples of the sadism of those fighting against the Syrian Government.

Stills from the above video (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sajZmgNiU3w) shown below.

Footnotes

#fn1" id="fn1">1. The figure of 70,000 dead, has been provided by the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is opposed to the Government of President Bashar al-Assad, and so has an obvious motive to either fabricate death tolls or to inflate deaths resulting from actions by the Syrian Army (or the Syrian Arab Army to use its full name). However the toll in Syrian military and civilian dead cannot be light and, judging from the staggering death tolls of many hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq following the illegal 2003 invasion, the toll stands to become much higher, should the Syrian Army be defeated.

Update, 27 Sep 2013 : CNN's fake translation of Iran President Rouhani's statement regarding Holocaust (also added as an Appendix). (This article was originally published 31 March 2010.) From Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), 30 Mar 2013.

PRAGUE, (SANA)- Ex-CNN reporter Amber Lyon revealed that during her work for the channel she received orders to send false news and exclude some others which the US administration did not favor with the aim to create a public opinion in favor of launching an aggression on Iran and Syria.

See also: WARNING: "Final" Psy-Op Vs. Syria Begins of 29 March 2013 by Tony Cartalucci, Syrian Conflict: The Price of Defying the West and Obstructing a US-Israeli Attack on Iran of 28 Mar 2013 by Tony Cartalucci (also here), How Obama Chose War Over Peace in Syria of 28 March 2012 by Shamus Cooke. Follow Amber Lyon on Twitter

Lyon was quoted by the Slovak main news website as saying that the mainstream US media outlets intentionally work to create a propaganda against Iran to garner public opinion's support for a military invasion against it.

She revealed that the scenario used before launching the war on Iraq is being prepared to be repeated where Iran and Syria are now being subject to constant 'demonization'.

The former reporter clarified that the CNN channel manipulates and fabricates news and follows selectiveness when broadcasting news, stressing that the Channel receives money from the U.S. government and other countries' governments in exchange for news content.

H. Said

Editorial Comment: As only one of countless examples of how the Australian public have been similarly deceived about the Syrian conflict, see Fisk says the Arab states are no longer afraid of the US on ABC's Lateline of 28 March and read Socrates' response, The Truth According To Robert Fisk.

#FabricatedTranslation" id="FabricatedTranslation">Appendix: CNN's fake translation of Iran President Rouhani's statement regarding Holocaust

Originally published on Global Research on 27 Sep 2013

TEHRAN (FNA)- American news channel CNN fabricated the remarks made by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in response to the network’s question about the Holocaust.

The CNN aired its interview with Rouhani on Tuesday but the news channel added to or changed parts of his remarks when Christiane Amanpour asked him about the Holocaust.

Here is the exact transcript of the Farsi text according to the CNN broadcast:

(Text is omitted for now as this installation of Drupal cannot display Farsi characters. To view Farsi text, see the original story on Global Research.)

Here is the exact English translation of President Rouhani’s remarks:

Rouhani’s: “I have said before that I am not a historian and historians should specify, state and explain the aspects of historical events, but generally we fully condemn any kind of crime committed against humanity throughout the history, including the crime committed by the Nazis both against the Jews and non-Jews, the same way that if today any crime is committed against any nation or any religion or any people or any belief, we condemn that crime and genocide. Therefore, what the Nazis did is condemned, (but) the aspects that you talk about, clarification of these aspects is a duty of the historians and researchers, I am not a history scholar.”

And here is what the CNN translation says:

CNN Question:

“One of the things your predecessor (President Ahmadinejad) used to do from this very platform was deny(ing) the holocaust and pretend(ing) it was a myth, I want to know you, your position on the holocaust, do you accept what it was, and what was it?”

CNN’s Translation:

“I’ve said before that I am not a historian and then, when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust, it is the historians that should reflect on it. But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that Nazis committed towards the Jews as well as non-Jews is reprehensible and condemnable. Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn, the taking of human life is contemptible, it makes no difference whether that life is Jewish life, Christian or Muslim, for us it is the same, but taking the human life is something our religion rejects but this doesn’t mean that on the other hand you can say Nazis committed crime against a group now therefore, they must usurp the land of another group and occupy it. This too is an act that should be condemned. There should be an even-handed discussion“.

FNA NOTE: The Red parts have been added or completely altered. The Yellow parts are the product of conceptual, and not precise, translation.

Yet, the underlined parts are the worst parts of the fabrications which totally change what President Rouhani has said.

After the CNN released the interview, hundreds of news agencies, TV and news channels, websites and weblogs broadcast this title: “Iran’s President Rouhani Calls Holocaust ‘Reprehensible’ Crime Against Jews”, a title quoted from the CNN; Or “Rouhani Recognizes the Holocaust as Crime against Jews”.

The “Outcome principles” as set out in the discussion paper, are aspirations with which no-one would disagree but they do not encompass an overall vision for Melbourne. Furthermore, they are, in our view in reverse order of their actual importance! Confining this part of the submission to what is before us we will examine the importance and substance of each “principle.” Firstly it is necessary to look at the rate of growth which underpins the whole strategy and discussion paper. The present rate of population growth should not be “non negotiable.” [...] One must ask “How much harder does a high level of growth make the achievement of any of the aims underlying the principles?” [...] While the Minister invites the public to “talk” about Melbourne's future, its growth is considered inevitable and non-negotiable. That is, “Over the next 40 years, Melbourne will continue to grow, both geographically and in population.” This is not compatible with the overall aims and objectives of preserving and enhancing the 5 principles stated above.

Submission of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy for Melbourne

[Dated:] 28 3.13

By Vivienne Ortega Secretary and Jill Quirk, President SPAVICTAS

[The submission begins by referring to statements in the Government document:]

Melbourne, Let's talk about the Future:

"What we want to achieve

The discussion paper refers to five outcome principles:

Principle 1: A distinctive Melbourne

Principle 2: A globally connected and competitive city

Principle 3: Social and economic participation

Principle 4: Strong communities

Principle 5: Environmental resilience"

[The Government document asks the following questions, which SPAVICTAS responds to in ordinary font:]

Question 1. What do you think of these outcome principles?

The “Outcome principles” as set out in the discussion paper, are aspirations with which no-one would disagree but they do not encompass an overall vision for Melbourne. Furthermore, they are, in our view in reverse order of their actual importance! Confining this part of the submission to what is before us we will examine the importance and substance of each “principle.”

In reverse order: We take Principle 5, “Environmental resilience” to mean an aspiration to maintain a healthy environment and not to degrade it , this is essential to our long term survival and present health and well being. The environment in an urban context refers to plentiful fresh water, adequate vegetation to reduce urban heat island effect (especially in light of changing climate ) , open space and gardens- public and private, excellent air quality and biodiversity- especially in adjoining natural areas. Environment is a primary concern. Due to urban expansion and the stretching of the urban growth boundary, more people are being put at risk from bushfires, food bowls are being buried under housing, our green-wedge buffer zones are being invaded, and natural water production has been overshot, necessitating a desalination plant.

4 “Strong communities” should go second. A society will have problems maintaining its environment if it is not united in its efforts to do this. Factors that fragment communities, e.g. frequent need to move house, homelessness, unaffordable housing, factors that impede people from using local amenities and facilities – e.g. parking restrictions and traffic congestion will break down communities. A lack of common facilities for local sport and passive recreation as well as venues for community meetings mitigate against strong communities. Living in high rise apartments and housing estates increases social dis-connection, and stigma. There are many stairs, balconies, limited emergency escapes, limited space for gardening and outdoor exploring for children, stranger-dangers, and noise disturbances. High rise affords little opportunity for environmentally advantageous options such as water harvesting, recycling, outside clothes drying and solar panels. Inside living is inherently carbon-intensive and energy-consuming.

3. Social and economic participation is a subset of strong communities rather than a separate principle.

Each individual should firstly have somewhere to live (Melbourne does not even meet this basic requirement) and a place in the life of the city of Melbourne. There are many and varied ways that people can fit into a megalopolis such as Melbourne: as a worker, a parent, a volunteer, an elder, a neighbour, but the basic requirement of a place to live underpins participation. Rising house prices and declining affordability are undermining exactly what is essential to meet “principle 3” (which would remain principle 3 if the order were reversed.)

Our “ageing population” should be celebrated as the back bone of communities rather than considered a threat. Older people are living longer and healthier lives. Greater longevity is a sign of good health care and living standards. Older people’s contribution through paid and volunteer work needs to be facilitated, encouraged and appreciated especially given the necessity for 2 members of younger couples to be in paid work in order to service mortgages.

2 A globally connected and competitive city. Thanks to the Internet and other modern communications many of which have actually been around for about 100 years, Melbourne can't really help but be “globally connected”. In a resource constrained world which we are entering as we hit the wall of non renewable resources, especially oil it is more critical to our long term survival that Melbourne connect to its outskirts and agricultural regions than to remote sources of essentials.

1 A Distinctive Melbourne. This is a less important aspiration. Any place be it city, town or village is naturally distinctive due its geographical location and natural surroundings. Melbourne is distinguished by its bay setting, the Yarra River and the Dandenong Ranges. The more the underlying natural beauty of Melbourne’s setting is engulfed by housing, shops, roads, and concrete, the less distinctive it becomes with respect to its setting. Secondary to the natural endowments are our (remaining) heritage from the founders of Melbourne and those who came soon after. Examples are the Botanic Gardens, Carlton Gardens, Treasury Gardens, The Windsor Hotel, Victorian architecture through the older inner suburbs, modernist architecture in suburbs such as Eltham in their bush settings and the most humble and suburban, post war suburbs with their brick villas surrounded by gardens front and back. These last “ordinary” suburbs that allow space for children to play and habitat for suburban wild life are real treasures and an indication of what was once (but no longer) the expected standard of space, comfort and amenity for the working people of Melbourne.

What made Melbourne distinctive in the past was its seamless public transport but this is no longer coping with increased population. The people of Melbourne have enjoyed high standards of living, good quality public spaces, and heritage values. It is difficult to see how these can be preserved with a rising population with no limit envisaged into the future.

While the Minister invites the public to “talk” about Melbourne's future, its growth is considered inevitable and non-negotiable. That is, “Over the next 40 years, Melbourne will continue to grow, both geographically and in population.” This is not compatible with the overall aims and objectives of preserving and enhancing the 5 principles stated above.

Federal government policies mainly the baby bonus and the immigration program are the biggest levers on population growth but the Victorian government is remiss in its responsibility to fellow Victorians in reducing the ability of local authorities to determine the level of population they can accommodate and in its gung ho enthusiasm for population growth e.g. the website http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/

That which works well in making Melbourne distinctive is its livability which needs to be enhanced and shortcomings addressed . This means extending and improving public transport, protecting our city from endless expansion as well as the loss of amenity from intensification of development in residential/family suburbs and from towers blocking sunlight, and puncturing the horizon. Melbourne’s assets should be celebrated and protected especially, the natural setting and the heritage values bequeathed by planners of the past. Living standards, and affordability, can only erode with higher population.

The Ponzi-demographic model, relying on population growth as a source of revenue, means growing costs of infrastructure, pressure on land and open spaces, and loss of productivity due to congestion. These are counter-productive and contrary to the aims of keeping Melbourne distinctive in a positive sense.

Question 2. What do you think is needed to achieve these outcome principles?

Firstly it is necessary to look at the rate of growth which underpins the whole strategy and discussion paper. The present rate of population growth should not be “non negotiable” It is true we need to accept the present pattern of natural increase for a few more decades, but the over- all level of population growth should be curbed in the interests of people living here now. One must ask “How much harder does a high level of growth make the achievement of any of the aims underlying the principles?”

The current population of Melbourne is suffering because of traffic congestion, periodic water shortages and consequent construction of the desalination plant, cut-backs of public services, pressure to accommodate ever more people in existing suburbs, the threat of high rise in established suburbs, and the swallowing up of arable land on the fringes of the city for housing to accommodate extra population.

From the point of view of social and economic participation, jobs need to be brought back to Melbourne. They are being lost through the high Australian dollar, and the free-market economy. Business rents need to be affordable, local people need to be employed, training opportunities need to be increased (not quashed as they have been through privatization of State departments and utilities), and closure of TAFEs.

Already $10 billion is needed to bring the infrastructure of Melbourne's fringe suburbs up to standard, so we need to avoid more debt.

There needs to be a period of reduced growth, a stock-take of Melbourne's infrastructure assets and an assessment of essential road and public transport upgrades. Melbourne needs to have its transport bottle-necks fixed to achieve a fluid, flexible city. Melbourne once had a vibrant manufacturing base, and it needs to be restored.

Question 3. What are the key ingredients for success in achieving the vision of an expanded Central City?

The expansion of the Central City will only be the result of organic growth, and in response to economic demands and natural resources. Expanding the city, and then trying to create jobs and infrastructure in hindsight, does not work. Already Victoria is in recession, and our economy, and jobs growth, is failing to keep up with population growth. No more public assets should be sold, and the infrastructure in demand for many years - such as a rail link to Tullamarine and Doncaster link - should be priorities. Melbourne needs to be more accessible, not bigger.

We do not see any advantages in the expansion of Melbourne's CBD, and it would be detrimental and expensive to retro-fit our politically-imposed growth.

Question 4. What do you think of the idea of identifying and reinforcing employment and innovation clusters across Melbourne?

“The Central City is the core location of the ‘knowledge economy’. Building an expanded Central City can attract new jobs to Melbourne and reinforce Melbourne as a world city and tourism hub”. This won't happen while TAFE courses keep being slashed, teachers are retrenched, universities, starved of funds are forced rely on revenue from international students, and temporary visa holders instead of our own skilled workers. A 'knowledge economy' must rely on high standards of education, training, investment in R&D, and innovation – not housing!

Housing is not a consumable commodity, and maintaining Stamp Duty revenue means perpetuating ongoing population growth, and ignoring the downstream costs to the 5 above principles.

A jobs market heavily reliant on housing is fragile and market-dependent. It needs to be reassessed in the light of the massive infrastructure costs. Australia must invest in skills, education, innovation, knowledge and cutting edge 21st century technology, not in population growth and housing. It served us well in the past but can't be assumed to do the same in the future.

Question 5. What is needed to support growth and development in regional cities?

More investment in food production, and farming is needed. Land in our food bowls needs to be protected and preserved, not absorbed into a rubbery urban-growth-boundary. Regional growth should be in the understanding of food production, permaculture, alternative energy sources, organic farming and practices that mitigate against climate change, an anticipated energy crisis, loss of soils and shortages of oil-based fertilisers. Rail links to peri-urban food bowls should reinforce our food security. The “growth” of regional cities must be forged on growth in support of agriculture, natural resources, conservation, tourism and heritage.

Question 6. What do you think of the idea of a ‘20 minute city’?

A “20 minute city” can only be feasible by getting more traffic off the roads and increasing the efficiency and availability of public transport. Greater road, infrastructure and housing density is counter-productive to creating such an ideal. Private traffic needs to be kept to a minimum, in local areas, and the freeway mentality needs a good dose of reality. They only attract more dependence on private transport and on trucks and heavy road transport.

Question 7. How can established suburbs accommodate the needs of changing populations and maintain what people value about their area?

There needs to be a change in our immigration policy from one that is growth-based, to zero-net growth. This means that immigration should be equal to emigration, and much fewer categories of visas to reflect and reciprocate the immigration policies of our nearest neighbouring countries and the higher-per-capita wealthy nations.

While immigration in the past has benefited Australia, and created the diverse population we have now, our record-breaking levels of population growth can only erode our standards of living and entrench us further in debt. A Ponzi-economy based on perpetual growth is detrimental economically and environmentally especially in light of the planet's diminishing natural resources.

According to Australia's Energy White Paper 2012, 'Projected reductions in our crude oil production and refining capacity will mean that demand will increasingly be met by imports of crude oil and refined product.”Overseas sources of liquid fuel will mean Australia must rely more on international supply chains with increasing competition for dwindling supplies. The cheap fuel that drove our economic growth in the past will become more and more expensive and prohibitive. Stretching Melbourne's boundary any further will leave more people isolated in the outer fringes of urban sprawl, exacerbating the costs of infrastructure.

Question 8. How do we ensure a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations?

Good living spaces, backyards for families, community gardens, unencumbered and protected green wedges and buffer zones, sporting facilities, protection for our parks and gardens, bike paths, seamless and regular public transport, protection of neighbourhood values and character, and high standards of amenities are all important contributors to a sustainable environment . Cities should be built for people and families, not for a “bigger” economy that's not in the interests of ordinary people. We need to bequeath a city offering a positive experience and environment and social justice for future generations.

Question 9. What do you think about the possible ways of funding infrastructure?

Infrastructure to accommodate population growth is extremely expensive. It has been worked out at over $200,000 per additional person. If we are not to live in perpetual infrastructure deficit , infrastructure and services must be in place before the population is in place!

Ref . The downward spiral of hasty population growth

By Jane O'Sullivan - posted Monday, 8 March 2010

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10137&page=0

Melbourne’s present infrastructure needs a stock-take, audit and assessment. Priorities must be set. Good household and economic management means not overspending. Likewise, Melbourne needs a plan rather than ad hoc expansion. Without adequate infrastructure funding the public is condemned to live in deprivation. There needs to be a long period of consolidation, and improvement of infrastructure and services in Melbourne, not more stretching to accommodate growth.

Question 10. How can all levels of government, business and community work together to create the city you want?

What makes a pleasing and liveable city are comfortable living standards, heritage values, clean air, cultural venues, recreational facilities, accessibility, transport, and vegetation. One of Melbourne's greatest assets is the Yarra River, plus the accessibility of beaches, coasts, parklands, Mount Macedon and the Dandenongs for tourists and residents. Our near regional centres and coastline must be protected from generic urban sprawl. Rather, they need to be preserved to encourage tourism and day-trippers.

Melbourne must retain its position as a “liveable city” .We should be investing in 21st century technology, cutting-edge inventions, and be leaders in sustainability. A growth-basis served us well in the past, but must be replaced by sustainability - by building resilience into our communities, environment, and economy.

Unfortunately the “principles” as discussed describe qualities we are losing in Melbourne rather than qualities to which we are aspiring in an improving and developing situation. Unfortunately, all that makes Melbourne distinctive and livable is in jeopardy because of never ending population growth and increasing dominance of the built environment.

Planning is for the long term and as such it should not respond to short term pressures. Developers will act in their own interests. This means that government regulations are imperative and strategic plans are the role of government. Strategic plans should also be bipartisan since they are long term if not “forever”.

Planners, economists and politicians are generally well educated, with logical thinking skills and the ability to link cause and effect, but when it comes to population growth, logic often fails. The cornucopia myth is that when it comes to the human species, barriers and constraints to Nature don't exist and the Horn of Plenty will keep providing food, land, water, energy. This fallacious perspective is one where there are no limits to Nature's abundance, nor to how many people can be crammed into our finite urban areas.

Building cities and retro-fitting them is expensive, and standards can only be eroded. Sustainable growth is an oxymoron, and if the State's economy depends on profits from housing, then there's little to look forward to for the residents of Melbourne- and the city which future generations will inherit.

My first conscious half hour today, Good Friday 2013, was occupied by a radio program where people rang in to talk about what fish they planned to celebrate with today.

I thought that Good Friday, if one acknowledges it, was sober sort of day where one reflected on the death of Christ, maybe went to a church service and ate a simple vegetarian or fish meal in lieu of the meat one might normally eat.

This is apparently not so for today's Ozzie radio listeners. They were comparing notes as to how much they had paid for flathead fillets, oysters or marinara mix and detailing recipes for cooking fish fillets. They were going off to bar-b q' s and all sorts of what sounded like celebrations and fishy banquets. A discussion on the availability and sourcing of fish for Australians followed. A fisheries expert told 2 radio presenters to their surprise that Australia was surrounded by a marine desert which supported little in the way of fishy biomass.

What are we doing in Australia that we would seemingly celebrate the most mournful day on the Christian calendar with the over eating of a resource that is obviously scarce locally?

There were also descriptions of today's events with Easter eggs as prizes. I thought Easter eggs were for Easter Sunday, a happy day celebrating Christ’s resurrection.

It seems that in Australia, the cue to celebrate is nothing to do with religion but the fact that we have a few days holiday. The actual significance of Good Friday is now corrupted into a rather Bogan sounding, Sylvania Waters, Kath and Kim celebration. Maybe they do it complete with Baileys Irish crème.

Do the Jewish or Muslim celebrations become as confused? Does any of it matter?

Candobetter Editor's comment: That's not the half of it. Easter signifies the end of winter and the beginning of Spring - hence the eggs, as in things get born in Spring. It is mad to celebrate Spring, in Australia, as we do through Easter, in Autumn, heading for winter.

What Quark describes here sounds like an added conflation of crassly commercialised foodie swarming. This explains why I hardly ever listen to radio or turn on TV at these times.

We can only look forward to worse, at Christmas, when the European festival marked the middle of winter, when presumably people tried to pool their resources to survive - hence all those preserves: hams and fruitcakes. In Australia - and Costa Rica (another hot place with much threatened biodiversity) - we mark this event in mid-summer.

The disorientation that accompanies colonialism and globalism is very far reaching, especially when commercialised. Soon we will be compelled by law to consume festively 365 days a year as Christmas runs into Rammadan.

Write to the ABC and try to get population onto the election agenda. Here's how:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-26/what-election-issues-matter-to-you-abcmyvote/4583744

ABC News wants to know what issues will influence your vote in this year's federal election, and which policy areas you are interested in hearing about.

How can I get involved?

• Send
  a tweet using the #abcmyvote hashtag.
• Fill
  out the form below.

What will you use my submission for?

• Your submission will help inform ABC News' election coverage.
• It will provide data for the Vote
  Compass voter engagement tool.

Local democracy in action. Congratulations to Doreen Residents Action Group for conducting a democratic survey to really test responses to Mathew Guy's "Melbourne Let's talk about the future" request for submissions. The following report is a summary of answers provided by residents of Doreen in response to a 17 question survey conducted in relation to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy for the next 40 years.

23rd March, 2013

Doreen Residents Action Group Incorporated, on behalf of the community of Doreen residents is appreciative of the opportunity to have an input into future planning of Melbourne, and trust that our views will be seriously considered as promised by you at the November 2012 meeting. We refer to the document “Melbourne Let’s talk about the future”.

Report on Survey re “Metropolitan Planning Strategy 2050”

The following report is a summary of answers provided by residents of Doreen in response to a 17 question survey conducted in relation to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy for the next 40 years.

1a) People were asked what they liked most about living in Melbourne. The responses to this were quite varied and included the arts, diverse culture, beautiful city, parks and gardens, mild climate, great sporting events and cultural facilities, freedom, living in peace, the history, a good standard of living.

1b) The things people disliked most about living in Melbourne contained a more common theme. Some surveyed were upset regarding the demolition of Melbourne’s iconic buildings. Most residents surveyed conveyed their thoughts from the perspective of where they live, in Doreen, on the outer fringe of Melbourne where there is a huge lack of infrastructure, no train line, traffic, congested single lane roads, (i.e. Yan Yean Road and Plenty Road portion), the lack of Secondary Schools in the area, limited recreational facilities for youth, no police protection, were all very strong in the responses. Residents also worry that the character of Melbourne and the standard of living that we know today will change with the influx of immigration in the future being forecast. This includes future overdevelopment and overcrowding and a question of ‘will there be a guarantee of employment for all, existing and new residents?’

2. The features of Melbourne that people want protected and preserved are our current high standards of living, employment, no overcrowded suburbs or over developments, no inappropriate high rise buildings in residential areas, open spaces and parks and gardens, wetlands, green wedges, old historical buildings and landmarks.

3. People’s views on heritage buildings and homes were almost unanimous in that these should be protected and preserved for future generations. Comments included “we need to know the past to best know where we want to go” and “these buildings are a part of our history and identity”

4. One of Melbourne’s highly valued characteristics is its leafy green suburbs and open spaces/gardens and is coming under increasing threat. People were asked should we accept densification and build more on less or should we do something about the rate of growth. Most people responded that planned smaller allotments and houses were inevitable, but only in appropriate areas and provided they do not interfere with, or detract from existing neighbourhood character.

5. In regards to the rate of growth, there was a resounding ‘yes’ to reduce the rate of growth to be slow and controlled and to have more emphasis on skilled migrant intake. Other comments in answer to this question were “expand regional centres” and “we are so busy embracing diversity that we are in danger of neglecting our own core values” Surveys suggested residents were worried for their children and grand children if immigration is not slowed. Will their children and grand children have jobs in the future?

6. With the continuing growth of our outer suburbs, people were asked their thoughts on whether parts of Melbourne’s inner suburbs (with established infrastructure) could play a greater economic and housing role by replacing existing homes with apartment developments. There was a definitive response to this in that people replied that apartment building should be built on the older industrial areas and “not scattered among houses” because it destroys neighbourhood character and takes away established residents’ privacy and well being. The survey showed that residents worry about Developers building cheap apartments (they make money and don’t live there) “Don’t let the Developers build cheap concrete slab slums for homes.” “Housing Density in the inner suburbs should not increase because of Immigration.” “Melbourne already has a huge population in the inner suburbs.” Other comments indicate that if the inner suburbs became ‘densified’, current established infrastructure would not cope with huge increases in population. If apartments were built, they needed to be grouped not scattered. If replacing existing homes is a realistic approach, Planners must be aware of the possible increase in crime. “High rise/high density, tomorrow’s ghettos.”

7. The next question asked residents how they would feel if a multi storey apartment development was proposed or built in their street, opposite or next door.

Once again, there was a resounding answer in that nobody wants high rise buildings near them. Comments like “hate it”, “would definitely sell up” and “devastated”, “angry” were typical of answers to this question. At present there is no certainty anywhere in Melbourne that density development will not be proposed, not even semi-rural areas.

(Multi storey development proposals have already affected residents in the Doreen area. We know first hand that no-one wants them here in Doreen on the outskirts of Melbourne due to the support of 2000 objections from residents recently in a case that went to VCAT. Most objectors had no money to relocate as the bulk of the population in Doreen are either first home buyers or retirees. Fortunately, 2000 residents won their case at VCAT and this inappropriate development did not go ahead)

8. People were asked how can we accommodate the needs of changing populations in established suburbs and maintain what people love about their neighbourhoods.

The answer is “not to allow high rise buildings or sub-division of titles (splitting up blocks) or building too many units, as this creates road congestion and too many people living in small areas. Rather, build a whole new city away from Melbourne with proper infrastructure put in place first.

9. Densification is reported to adversely affect the health and well-being of residents. The question posed was how can we ensure a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations?

If densification adversely affects the health and well-being of residents, then limit the number of homes built in areas. Have controlled ‘Population Growth’.

Again residents responded to this question in relation to the Doreen area.

“Do not allow a ‘Big Australia’ with dense housing in outer suburbs. Protect Green Wedges and keep a strict limit on heights of houses to 9 metres maximum but still appropriately zone the 8 metre zone to the areas that require it, for example, Doreen– Laurimar. Over write the existing design guidelines for Doreen-Laurimar.”

Residents surveyed said there must be open spaces, parklands, playground areas and community facilities provided eg swimming centres, football ovals, tennis courts etc. It was also said that programs should be started to encourage young people to be pro-active in their communities.

Buildings could also be better designed, built and located. Expand the Regional areas before overdeveloping Melbourne. Another concern, was that densification breeds crime and drug activity.

10. Infrastructure upgrades – Residents filling out the survey were asked if they would be prepared to pay higher taxes or levies or go into deficit budgeting to finance these upgrades.

Most respondents would accept paying additional taxes or levies (not deficit budgeting) for these upgrades. However, the government must accept their responsibility in this area, by becoming more efficient and reducing their own wastage before taxing the population.

Another suggestion was that Government bonds be used to pay for infrastructure projects. Others said that infrastructure costs must go hand in hand with land sales.

11. Over recent years Melbourne’s Boundaries have been extended into the green wedge. Should there be a clearly defined and permanent outer boundary, marking where Melbourne stops and the urban areas begin?

There was an overwhelming ‘yes’ to this question.

Most residents of Doreen were shocked, angry, stressed and upset recently with the proposal of High Rise Buildings in the area. Many thought that we were protected from such things, living on the outer fringe of Melbourne an area we chose to live in and sold to us as “Country” living. If either the Council or Developer had told us, at the time of purchase, we agree that we would not have purchased blocks near the proposal and would have considered buying elsewhere.

12. Thinking about the next 30 to 40 years, what do you see as the most important issue/s for you, your children and grandchildren?

The most important issues that people see are:

The putting in place of appropriate infrastructure,

Safe areas for communities to live in,

Affordability of housing

Job availability,

Maintaining high standards of living,

Freedom and peace in the community.

The Government, Councils and Developers also have a responsibility to the community to be more transparent about changes to future housing and development projects. Reasonable notification must be given to communities facing housing changes, so people have a ‘choice’ about where they live and if they want to continue living there.

13. The new Advisory Committee has suggested Melbourne for the future be a city where residents can live and work locally. (A 20 minute City)

Most respondents said we should try and make Melbourne a 20 minute city, where people can live and work locally. In theory it sounds good, but a few said it would be impossible to achieve. It may be too costly at present to achieve this. Many residents suggested the money would be better spent fixing infrastructure problems in the outer suburbs first.

14. The new Advisory Committee has suggested a polycentric city (a city with many centres) linked to a network of regional cities throughout Victoria.

Most people thought the idea of a polycentric city linked to a network of regional cities in Victoria was a good one and should be explored further.

Some were worried that Melbourne Central as we know it today would lose its identity.

15. Employment and Innovation Clusters – most people thought this suggestion was a good one, however, a few thought it was already in place, e.g. Ringwood and Craigieburn. Others thought this should be considered when developing new areas. Some residents responded and said “The movement of people will be the problem.”

Others said “We must consider environmental and safety aspects of Industries, etc, away from residential.” Another comment was “Note that for Trades people, they can be asked to work anywhere in Melbourne, not just locally.”

Another said “Every new Development Cluster must have Private/Government Sectors working together to deliver the infrastructure simultaneously.”

16. It has been suggested that a new major city in Victoria be developed over time to cater for a population of over 1 million residents (or several million).

Some respondents thought this would be a great idea, but many emphasised that it must be planned correctly, and with proper infrastructure, including a new major Airport near the NSW border.

Others said we should further expand our current regional cities of Dandenong, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo with a ‘state of the art’ connecting transport system.

17. The overriding theme emerging from “Any Further Comments?” was that there must be a “catch up” on lack of infrastructure, which has occurred over the last 20 years and that this must not be allowed to re-occur in the future.

i.e. Proper infrastructure must accompany all new future developments.

This can only be achieved by the responsible Government Ministries (i.e. Planning, Transport and Education) working and consulting together in a timely manner.

It was also suggested that councils have the final say on what developments occur in their municipalities, as they know their own areas best. Developers should not have any recourse to VCAT if their permit application is rejected by council.

Residents must be given the opportunity to be involved earlier in the application and the planning process for developments in their neighbourhoods – not just be given

a 14 day window for objection at the end of the whole process.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Gloury

President

Doreen Residents Action Group

We urge you to write a submission to Planning Minister, Matthew Guy’s, “Melbourne, let’s talk about the future”. Submissions close: 28th March. Go to: http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/getinvolved/submissions Or email to: [email protected]. Inside this article there are suggestions about doing your own submission rather than using the government format submission.

Use the following points to inform your submission. Or consult the attached MPSM guidelines and/or resolution adopted by the protectors of Public Lands AGM.

Candobetter will publish your submissions since the Minister won't

Please copy your submission to: james.sinnamon[at]gmail.com and [email protected]; so at least there is a record of it as Mr Guy is not publishing other subs. Let us know if you wish them to be publically available, unless you want them kept confidential in which case please say so.

The source of the rest of this article is Rosemary West, of the Green Wedges Coalition. Candobetter.net has made some minor presentation changes, notably in formatting.

Speaking about the new Melbourne metropolitan strategy process and discussion paper, the respected strategic planner Professor Michael Buxton said, “(Both) are deeply flawed”, (the process) “is neither properly participatory nor informative”, and, “nothing so inadequate has ever been seen in the history of Melbourne strategic planning”. The text of Professor Buxton's speech is at http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3205 and a video of his speech is available here: http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3204

So, how should we respond to the discussion paper: “….let’s talk about the future”?

Some GWC members are concerned the paper might be a PR exercise to persuade the public to support the decisions the Government is making to deregulate Victoria’s planning schemes and produce a strategy which will please developers and “the big end of town”.

This will result in a seriously unbalanced strategy leaving the community without an effective voice.

In your submission, instead of responding to the pre-set questions 1-10 in chapter 6, it would be more effective for the government to know your thoughts on the following:

1. The following contribute to Melbourne’s livability and/or sustainability. Which do you feel are under threat and which need better protection? - residential streets and suburbs; public open space, parks and gardens; green wedges; heritage; natural environment; recreation facilities; shopping centres.

2. Higher density development: Would you accept higher density around shopping centres and railway stations if it meant better protection for most of the above?

Do you support more diverse, affordable housing? How and where?

3. Over recent years Melbourne’s boundaries have been extended into green wedge areas. Should we have a clearly defined and permanent urban growth boundary (UGB) making it obvious where Melbourne stops and where the rural areas begin?

Should we keep the green wedges for non-urban uses (eg. environmental conservation, agriculture, recreation, and landscape values)

What about the urban zones proposed to be allowed (or freed from existing restrictions)in Green Wedges by the Government’s Planning Zones review? (eg: Backpackers Lodge, Boarding House, Conference Centre, Display Home, Exhibition Centre, Function Centre, Group Accommodation, Hostel, Medical Centre, Motel, Nurses’ Home, Reception Centre, Residential Aged Care Facility, Residential Building, Residential College, Residential Hotel, Restaurant and Service Station.)

4. The Ministerial Advisory Committee for the new strategy suggested we should, “move away from regulation as the primary means of achieving planning outcomes”. Do you want more or less regulation of developers?

5. What are your thoughts about decentralization, as a response to Melbourne’s rapidly increasing population? Is slower growth desirable?

6. What do you think about population: do we need limits?

7. Do we need a city where residents can live and work locally? Is it realistic and how would it be achieved?

8. Infrastructure. Should developers pay for it, or taxpayers? In the choice between an extended railway network or more freeways, what would be your priority and why?

9. How should we make a better Melbourne strategy work in the best interests of the community? Leave development decisions to local council; have a new central planning authority for Melbourne, or keep the Minister’s right to have the final say? Any other ideas?

10. Thinking about the next 30 to 40 years, what do you see as the most important Melbourne planning issue/s for you, your children and grandchildren?

Following the questions section, the electronic format allows you to upload your own submission document. or you can email it.

You may care to offer comments about any of the following Green Wedge specific matters:

On page 18 of the paper under “Tourism innovations” it is suggested that planning zone reforms are needed to support tourism uses in the region. Despite its recommendations, the report, “Unlocking Victorian Tourism” admits it could not verify that planning schemes inhibited tourism investment. (see Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission summary report, June 2011, p14) So why the need for “planning zone reforms”?

On pages 40, 42, 44, 58 and 60 there are some worrying inconsistencies about the future of our Urban Growth Boundary and our Green Wedge i.e.

-“It is expected that (“the city’s longstanding ‘green wedges’ policy”) will continue.”(p40)

-“Melbourne should consider strengthening its ‘green wedge planning approach with a ‘green belt’…” In many places, the UGB follows natural boundaries or physical barriers such as the Outer Metro Ring transport corridor in the south-west. These boundaries or barriers could be appropriate locations to ‘lock in’ the Urban Growth Boundary.” (p58

-“There is a need to move beyond a ‘protective’ or ‘defensive’ approach to managing natural resources and seek opportunities to increase their value for the city and enhance their natural role.” (p60)

“Current planning controls in rural areas around Melbourne unduly limit opportunities for tourism and other developments that ……would broaden the range of choices these areas offer.” (p60)

-“The Metropolitan Planning Strategy must move away from regulation as the primary means of achieving planning outcomes.” (p72)

There is much double-speak here. The discussion paper wants fewer protections and less regulation in our rural areas, to make room for developments and “opportunities”, yet they say they want to “strengthen green wedge planning”!

The UGB can be shifted to more “natural” boundaries – a “green belt” rather than a “green wedge.” With Minister Guy’s already announced intention to make the Rural Conservation Zone less protective to allow more developments, it’s easy to see the drift.

The combination of weakened rural zone controls, development opportunities in our green wedge, and a shifted Urban Growth Boundary adds up to cause for serious concern.

Please tell them we want our Green Wedges to stay within current boundaries and with current non-urban uses.

In 2011, barely eight years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shown conclusively to to have been illegal and a monstrous crime against humanity, the same criminals were able to deceive a sizable component of public opinion into accepting the truth of their claims against Libya whilst sowing confusion in the minds of much of the remainder. That would not have been possible without the complicity of many supposed 'left-liberal' and 'far-left' organisations. The imperialists were thus able to complete their invasion and destruction of Libya and enable the plunder of its natural resources by oil corporations.

This article is a response to the #comment-197736">censorship of discussion about the current Syrian conflict on johnquiggin.com, a site for discussion from a supposedly "social-democratic perspective". See also: Syrian Foreign Ministry: UNHRC Resolution rejected as it ignores support for terrorism in Syria of 25 Mar 2013.

Phoney 'left' cover-up of 2011 Libya invasion, attempted proxy invasion of Syria

For the past two years, at least, much of the supposed 'alternate' Internet has been an essential component of the government and corporate media machine to deceive public opinion about critical world-changing events. Two of the most notorious of a number of terrible examples include: (1) NATO's illegal invasion of Libya in 2011; and (2) the current terrorist war against Syria by the jihadist and mercenary proxies of the U.S. and its allies.

The same is now happening to Syria. Fortunately, a more sizeable proportion of public opinion has seen through the deceit, whilst the Syrian people, their government and their armed forces have demonstrated much bravery, skill and resourcefulness in fighting the terrorist invasion. However, no country the size of Syria can hope to hold out indefinitely against such large, powerful and determined enemies. Unless public opinion in countries which are waging war against Syria (or imposing sanctions in the case of Australia) can learn the truth, the prospects for the Syrians are not good.

Public wisdom about Syria possible with open Internet discussion

A good start to spreading the truth would be proper discussion and debate on Internet forums and the whistle must be blown on phony progressives on the Internet who #comment-197736">refuse to allow free and open discussion.

I wrote a post, entitled #copyof-31491">Online forum: How to stop the Syrian 'civil' war?.

I wrote that post after two contributors to a discussion on johnquiggin.com posted questions to me on that site.

The article that the post was in response to is #comments">Sceptics and suckers: A look back at Iraq of 21 March.

Censorship of views contrary to war popaganda

After I had put myself to all that trouble, the post was promptly deleted by the site owner, Professor John Quiggin.

I consider the action taken by Professor Quiggin to have been grossly inconsiderate to me and to his other site visitors, in particular to the two to whom I was responding. I also consider such censorship of the expression of views, which are clearly relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, unacceptable on a web-site that ostensibly exists to promote discussion and thought about current events.

The supposed justification for this censorship given by Professor John Quiggin #comment-197736">was:

As previously advised, I don't propose to entertain this kind of thing on my blog. All comments should be directed to the candobetter site -- JQ

Exactly what he meant by "this kind of stuff," and how it differs from the material in his article and subsequent discussion, was not explained.

I can only presume that Professor Quiggin, and many who visit and contribute to his site, prefer to academically discuss events of the distant past, the outcome of which we cannot hope to change, rather than acting to help stop the wars and killing that are going on right now.

What you can do

If you agree that such censorship, on the supposedly free Internet, supposedly outside of the control of the corporate newsmedia, is unjustified and harmful to free speech, democracy and, ultimately, world peace, please make your views known #comment-197736">on that site and post a copy here also. Should those posts also be censored, I expect Project Censored would be most interested to hear from you.

#appendix" id="appendix">Appendix: Copy of "Online forum: How to stop the Syrian 'civil' war?"

The following is a response to #comment-197676">questions put to me in a debate on the Iraq War of 2003 on johnquiggin.com. This post was deleted on 25 March 2013.

J-D (@ #comment-197676">#41), Ken_L (@ #comment-197705">#42)

Thank you both for your interest. My apologies, on my part, for my slow response. I was intending to write a sizeable article to publish on my web-site (candobetter -dot- net -slash- syria) in response to your questions. Please consider the response below to be only interim:

Whilst it could seem hyperbolic to liken the crimes, committed the New World Order against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and now Syria, with those of the Third Reich, given that the death toll of 3.3 million, so far killed since 1990 in Iraq alone, is barely an order of magnitude less than that caused by Nazi Germany and its allies in the Second World War, this likening is not unreasonable.

Given that the rulers of the New World Order have, in their hands, vastly more terrible and sophisticated weapons of war than those possessed by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, it is not hard to envision the death toll greatly surpassing the terrible toll of 60 million deaths in the Second World War should they triumph against Syria.

So, the whole civilised[1] world has a vital stake in the Syrian Army defeating the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its New World Order controllers in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, the Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Israel, etc.

Given the effective abolition of the rights guaranteed in the US constitution by President Barack Obama, it will only be a matter of time before democratic rights, free speech, parliamentary democracy are abolished in Western Nations, should the Syrian people be defeated.

J-D #comment-197676">wrote:

I am confused by your questions and wonder whether you could clarify.

J-D, I was simply pointing out that the history of which Professor Quiggin has written has been repeated in Libya and now threatens to be repeated in Syria and Iran. Surely, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, we need to consider whether that illegal invasion was a once-only occurrence or whether it was only one in a pattern of events which is now being repeated. If the latter, in the case of Syria, is true, then we should surely be interested in applying the terrible lessons of the Iraq war so as to prevent their repetition in Syria.

Ken_L #comment-197705">wrote:

@malthusista, I would also appreciate clarification of exactly how you believe 'we' could stop the Syrian civil war? A little elaboration of who 'we' are would also be helpful.

Ken_L, The civil war in Syria could be ended simply if the U.S., Israel, etc., accepted the principle that any people have a right to national self-determination. It is obvious that President Bashar al-Assad and his government enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of Syrians. Those, who have waged the terrorist war against the Syrian government, comprise, at most, a small minority of Syrians. The vast majority of the FSA is comprised of sectarian Islamist extremists from countries like Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, mercenaries, the U.S. SAS, the U.K. SAS, the French Special Forces, the C.I.A., Mossad, etc.

Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel should cease giving these killers sanctuary and passage into and out of Syria.

An unprovoked attack on the armed forces of Syria or on the armed forces of any sovereign country is a crime and, even more so, the murder of unarmed civilians. Supplying weapons to those killers by the U.S. and its allies is complicity in that crime and should cease. Were that to happen, the war in Syria would be finished in days.

Early last year, the Syrian government received overwhelming support (and, I might add, far more than U.S. politicians typically get in national elections with barely 50% of the population in participating in most) from its people in a referendum proposing constitutional reform. Part of the reform was to remove from the Syrian constitution, any privilege give to the Ba'ath Socialist Party. President Assad and every member of the Syrian Parliament must now stand for re-election. Any one of them will be voted out were they not to enjoy popular support.

Were there ever to be free elections in Syria, which cannot possibly be held in the middle of the war now raging, there can be little doubt that President Assad would win overwhelmingly and that the FSA would get a miniscule vote.

The war and killing in Syria only continue because the rulers of the U.S. and their allies wish it to continue.

Footnote to #appendix" appendix="">

[1] I don't mean 'civilised' in the sense of the European colonialists claims of bringing 'civilisation' to the 'backward' people of the Third World in previous centuries.

This coming Thursday, March 28, 2013 there promises to be an edge of the seat Court Hearing about the future of a development known as "Rainbow Shores 2" that residents of Rainbow Beach have been battling against for a number of years. The State Government issued a planning refusal in 2009. Yet the proposal keeps coming back, like a bogeyman.

The development targets the edge of world heritage coastal land, walking distance from Fraser Island. We are talking about the need to protect public land. Inskip Peninsula is part of the Cooloola Coast - the last island of biodiversity of its kind in Australia.

Crucial Cross-Examination of Council Director of Planning

The court hearing is likely to be dramatic and informative, as well as interesting. The role of the Queensland Environment Department has been crucial in the battle to defend the World Heritage area and on March 28th the barrister for Queensland Environment Department will be cross-examining Michael Hartley, the Gympie Regional Council Director of Planning.

Questioning should attempt to reveal if and how Gympie Regional Council has justified support for a recent amendment to permit some urban development on the heritage area, despite the fact that its publicly notified Draft Planning Scheme supports NO urban development on Inskip.

Ordinarily councils are known for their superficial and even inscrutable responses on questions of development eroding protected areas. In court, however, Councilors and council employees cannot take take the same refuge in officialdom, buck passing and obscurantism.

People are urged to attend this case in order to show their support for a legal system that supports the law and protects public land.

Where and When

The hearing will be at the new District Court buildings located on George St. between Roma and Turbot Streets.

It will begin at about 9am-10am. The barrister's cross examination will take place soon after the hearing begins, so the concerned public will not have to wait for long. The cross examination will probably be over before lunchtime at 1pm, although there may be some questions emanating from other parties. Submissions to the court from the parties involved will follow.

Citizens are urged to show their interest and involvement in their own government, land-use planning and administration and the exercise of their legal system in order to keep and improve their rights in Queensland and Australia.

About the area in question

The Cooloola Coast is the only remaining expanse of natural open space and intact environment left within coastal mainland S.E. Queensland.

The social and ecological value of this increasingly rare coastal resource is immense.

Numerous species, once prolific along the S.E. Qld coastline, now depend upon the size and integrity of this remaining natural area for their ongoing survival. Many of the natural forms and processes within the locality are globally unique and significant in their own right.

A lot of people value the respite the Cooloola Coast offers from the hectic pace and clamour that is growing across SE Qld. For many good reasons they do not want its tranquility ruined by urban expansion.

Consequently there is also enormous economic value in the genuine preservation of these remnant qualities.

Rainbow Shores Stage 2 subdivision works would directly damage 200 hectares of this coastal resource. Ongoing operation of the subdivision would generate a wide range of serious edge effects such as weeds, pets, urban effluent, fire management, etc. More significantly its growth would generate unsustainable demand upon the surrounding landscape as new arrivals sought expanded business and recreational opportunities.

A rare and valuable intact coastal landscape would be lost.

The existing urban area of Rainbow Beach has ample capacity for development of increased visitor numbers, local business and community facilities. Why repeat the pattern of coastal overdevelopment in this remaining special place?

To read more, and offer support, go to http://www.saveinskip.org.au/

Environmentalist, Greg Wood, has been running the defence of Inskip on a shoestring. Please consider helping him financially. http://www.saveinskip.org.au/docs/Donation_form.pdf

Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

"Conspiracy theory" is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

By James F. Tracy. Originally published on Global Research on 21 January 2013. Please also refer to the Editorial Comment following this artcle,

Conspiracy theory's acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter's well-known fusillades against the "New Right." Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively "weaponizing" the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report," the dispatch played a definitive role in making the "conspiracy theory" term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government's increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

"CIA Document 1035-960" was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA's concern regarding "the whole reputation of the American government" vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it "contributed information to the [Warren] investigation."

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for "countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries." For example, approaching "friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" to remind them of the Warren Commission's integrity and soundness should be prioritized. "[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation," the document reads, and "further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition."

The agency also directed its members "[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering "conspiratorial" arguments centering on the Warren Commission's findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

• No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
• Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
• Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
• Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
• Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator.
• Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" [during the Warren Commission's inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

#EdComment" id="EdComment">Editorial comment: James F. Tracy's article is no less vital to Australians than it is to Americans. As many politically conscious Australians, including myself, began to see through the fraud of 9/11 in the latter part of the last decade, many on the supposed anti-war 'left' were quick to label such people "conspiracy theorists" and to use that rhetorical trick to prevent serious consideration of the gaping flaws in the official narrative of the 9/11 terror attacks. Recorded examples of such supposed progressives, on the World Wide Web, include:

• Larvatus Prodeo (http://larvatusprodeo.net/) - was discontinued in 2012, but has been revived for the 2013 Federal elections
• Web Diary (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/) - discontinued in 2012
• John Quiggin (http://johnquiggin.com/)

All of these web-sites' publishers have claimed to be opposed to war. This included Margot Kingston.

Margot Kingston's book Not Happy, John[1] of 2004 contains a compelling case against Australia's participation in the Iraq war from pages 34 to 63.

Not Happy, John also includes impassioned arguments against the War in Afghanistan[2] (pages 34-35, 68-69 and 214-30).

After I became a "9/11 Truth" activist, I tried to argue my case on the web, including on the three sites mentioned above. On all three, my posts were censored on the grounds that they claimed I was promoting a "conspiracy theory".

Curiously, all of those sites have since transformed into sites which are no longer opposed to war. None even raised the invasion of Libya in 2011 and none have questioned the mass media lies against Syria. Their claimed oppostion to the war in Afghanistan has become increasingly muted, principally because of their refusal to question the pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan, namely the false-flag terrorist attack of 9/11. A recent attempt by a contributor to post a comment about the Syrian conflict to johnquiggin.com resulted in his post being censored. He justified his censorship as as follows:

As previously advised, I don't propose to entertain this kind of thing on my blog. All comments should be directed to the candobetter site -- JQ

What John Quiggin meant by "this kind of thing" was not explained. Presumably, it refers to discussion of wars currently going on that we still stand a chance of being able to end, rather than an academic retrospective discussion about a war that has already been fought and the terrible outcome of which we cannot hope to change by our actions.

Footnote[s]

[1] 'John' refers to the right-wing neo-liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who (mis)ruled Australia from 1996 until 2007.

[2] In fact, contrary to Margot Kingston's views, many people, who were normally opposed to war, including myself and a good many others who marched against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, believing the official account of 9/11, actually supported the "good war" in Afghanistan against those they believed had perpetrated the atrocity of 9/11. It was only in 2007, after I realised the impossibility of the official account of 9/11 that I came to oppose the so-called "War on Terror".

Following Coca Cola's victory in court ruling the Northern Territory container recycling scheme invalid, the drinks company continues to trash a popular and proven 10 cent recycling refund scheme and is the main blocker standing in the way of a national roll out.

‘Cash for Containers’ has run successfully for 30 years in South Australia, where recycling rates are almost double those across the rest of the country.

Coca Cola has for years sought to undermine this proven system, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on misleading advertising and reportedly threatening to campaign against MPs who support the policy.

Clean Up Australia estimates that 48% of all rubbish picked up on Clean Up Australia Day are drink containers. Scientists estimate that up to a third of all marine debris globally comes from the beverage industry alone.

The Flesh-footed Shearwater (pictured above) from pristine Lord Howe Island is one victim of this plastic pollution. The one pictured had 274 pieces of plastic in its stomach, 15% of its body weight - equivalent to a human carrying 12kg of plastic in their stomach.

This bird, like many other thousands, starved to death on a stomach full of plastic.

On Thursday April 11, Environment Ministers will meet at COAG to determine a national roll out of a 'Cash for Containers' scheme and it is vital that State Premiers, especially Barry O’Farrell and Denis Napthine, side with the environment and make their support for a national scheme known.

Source: Press Release from Greenpeace, 25 March 2013

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Syria strongly rejects the selectiveness adopted while drafting the resolution which was endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Friday, saying such resolutions are continuation of attempts to sabotage efforts seeking political settlement for the crisis, said an official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry on Saturday.

"Once again the UNHRC gets carried along by a wide misleading campaign led by countries supporting terrorism in Syria to provide a political cover for the crimes committed by the armed terrorist groups," the source added.

See also: Syrian People's Assembly Speaker: Time for international community to listen to the truth, not mainstream media lies of 24 Mar 2013, Murder of 42 in mosque bombing a continuation of the war against the Syrian people of 22 Mar 2013, Censorship Alert of 26 Mar 2013.

It lashed out at those countries for submitting "unilateral and politicized resolutions that seek to place responsibility on the Syrian government for the ongoing events based on fallacies and false claims."

The source also slammed those countries' ignoring of the crimes perpetrated by the armed terrorist groups on which the Syrian government has presented tens of proofs to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

"This kind of resolutions, which became a tool used to target countries and interfere in their internal affairs, are continuation of the attempts of the countries involved in backing terrorism in Syria, prolonging violence and bringing foreign military intervention and sabotaging the efforts seeking a political settlement for the crisis through a Syrian-led national dialogue among the Syrians," said the official source.

"Syria completely rejects this resolution as it ignores the immoral role played by the countries supporting terrorism in Syria," the source stressed, noting that terrorists are being funded, trained, armed and dispatched from over 28 countries to carry out terrorist crimes in Syria, the latest was the bombing in al-Iman Mosque in Damascus on March 21.

The source highlighted that these crimes are being perpetrated by al-Qaeda-linked groups that are guided by fatwas that approve the shedding of the blood of innocents and obscurantist thinking seeking Syria's destruction and sabotaging co-existence among its people.

The source stressed that "such biased, non-objective and unbalanced resolutions" consolidate the double standards policy practiced by some countries that claim to defend human rights while at the same time they ignore the outrageous record of human rights in the countries sponsoring this resolution.

H. Said

#CensorshipAlert" id="CensorshipAlert">Censorship Alert

Editorial comment: The appendix originally posted here has been adapted to become the article Censorship Alert of 26 March 2013.

News Limited is the main perpetrator of media abuses in Australia, writes Alan Austin, and hence the strongest proof the current self-regulation system is useless. (Article originally published on Independent Australia, from which we republish it with thanks. See end article for details.)

Twitter response to Daily Telegraph’s comparison of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to various brutal despots, along with a depiction of him as Joseph Stalin.

AFTER Rupert Murdoch’s chickens came home to roost spectacularly in the UK, his emus are scuttling about in Australia.

The entire Australian organisation is attacking the Federal Government over proposed legislation to strengthen media self-regulation.

Absolutely predictable. News Limited is the main perpetrator of media abuses in Australia.  And hence the strongest proof the current self-regulation system is useless. Naturally, it will squeal when called to account.

Intriguingly, we are seeing precisely the same tactics deployed against the Minister for Communications Senator Stephen Conroy and his proposed rule changes as gave rise to the need for them in the first place.

News Corporation in the UK now admits to having hacked the phones of a murdered schoolgirl, and of countless public figures, and of deceased servicemen and their families. All this they denied for years with point blank lies.

They have been found to have fabricated damaging stories about their enemies and suppressed stories damaging to their friends. They have been caught using criminal means to obtain information, including pay-offs to police. These they also lied about for years.

Several British editors and executives have now been sacked, others jailed or charged, and a newspaper shut down in shame.

In the USA, Murdoch’s Fox News is notorious for distortions, omissions and fabrications in political reporting.

Outlets there bow to the whims of Rupert Murdoch regarding content. But the man himself is unaccountable.

Downunder, Justice Bromberg found Australia’s most widely read columnist Andrew Bolt guilty of multiple fabrications in Melbourne’s Herald Sun. The Federal Court judge found Bolt had no evidence for more than 19 damaging lies in his racially-motivated attacks against vulnerable Aboriginal people.

This was not a first for Bolt. For years, he has waged campaigns against Aborigines and others based on falsehoods. He has been admonished by academics regarding his persistent refusal to write accurately about climate. He was found guilty of “very, very serious libel” in 2002.

No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ Bolt as a journalist.

Just a year earlier, Justice Stephen Kaye in the Victorian Supreme Court slammed Murdoch executives for lying to the court. In the matter of Bruce Guthrie’s wrongful dismissal, the judge said he “had reservations about a number of features” of the evidence of News Limited’s then chief executive John Hartigan.

“In my view Hartigan was an unreliable witness …”

Kaye was even more scathing of Herald and Weekly Times chief Peter Blunden. “The explanations given by Mr Blunden in evidence,” the judge said, “do not survive scrutiny”.

In the matter of Eatock v Bolt, Justice Bromberg also rejected the testimony of Murdoch executives.

The conclusion is inescapable: News Corporation is an organisation run by liars who employ lying editors to supervise lying reporters.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has a 12-point code of ethics. All twelve are now routinely violated by Murdoch employees.

In 2010, Herald Sun reporters lied about their identity to ensnare politicians in a British tabloid-like sting. They had the support of editors and executives — despite explicit condemnation in the code.

Most Murdoch publications are now merely spruikers for conservative political causes which they advance with distortion and lies. The frequency and viciousness of these crusades increased markedly after Labor came to power in late 2007.

In 2008, Glenn Milne in The Australian attacked PM Kevin Rudd over a risqué play in Gippsland which the local Labor candidate had promoted in his newsletter. Milne failed to disclose, however, that the tawdry theatrical event was actually approved and funded by the previous Howard Coalition Government.

Glaring examples since then are the relentless campaigns against the economic stimulus packages during the GFC, against climate change, against the mining tax, against the carbon tax, against internet security, against changes to discrimination laws and against the National Broadband Network (NBN).

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph was found by the Australian Press Council to have used false customer figures in a news story on the NBN. Other Telegraph articles were found misleading by serious omission. The Council expressed concern that

‘within a short period of time three articles on the same theme contained inaccurate or misleading assertions.’

The Daily Telegraph ran a front-page story headed: “Thousands of boat people to invade NSW”.

The Australian Press Council found elements of the story to be “gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive”.  The Council condemned the newspaper for “an especially serious breach of its principles.”

Murdoch outlets have attacked the PM ruthlessly over her alleged involvement with a union two decades ago. They have produced no evidence whatsoever of anything amiss and were forced to retract and apologise at least twice.

They have constantly attacked the Treasurer Wayne Swan who, according to external assessment, has done a better than average job.

The last four years “have been disastrous for Australians,” claimed The Daily Telegraph in 2011. “There have been broken promises, billions lost in wasteful spending and economic mismanagement and sheer incompetence.”

This was the month Australia gained its AAA credit rating with all agencies for the first time ever. And shortly after The New York Times reported “Australia’s economy has been booming”.

In February last year, The Australian ran a cover story headed “Mutiny kills PM’s Bob Carr plan”. It contained at least six “revelations” relating to the appointment of Bob Carr as Foreign Minister. All six were soon proven to be fabricated.

Murdoch publications have campaigned against all Labor state governments. News reporters at Brisbane’s Courier-Mail were instructed to use the news pages to drive a campaign targeting then Premier Anna Bligh.

The campaign against the Greens, and former leader Bob Brown in particular, has been particularly vicious.

An editorial in The Australian declared:

‘We believe he (Brown) and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.’

These are not just vigorous campaigns confined to the opinion pages — something that would be not so objectionable. But rather these are crusades fought with distortion and lies in the news content.

Can anything be done? Former employee Bruce Guthrie – who defeated News Limited in court in 2010 – believes ‘you can bite back against Murdoch’.

Senator Conroy seems to be attempting exactly that. Will he succeed? We shall see.

(This story was first published by the Australian Independent Media Network and was offered to IA by the author.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

The Syrian people have barely been able to come to terms with with their grief at the murder of 35 in an attack with chemical weapons, when the war against them, sponsored by the U.S., it's European NATO allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel, resumed with a terrorist suicide bombing

Almost two dozen more Syrians including top Sunni cleric Mohammed Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti were killed in a terrorist blast at the al-Eman Mosque in Damascus.

The report has been adapted from the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

See also: Suicide bomber kills pro-regime cleric in Syria: TV in PressTV of 21 Mar 2013,
18 Killed Including Top Cleric as Suicidal Blast Rips Apart a Mosque in Damascus of 22 Mar 2013,
Senior cleric, others killed in Syria mosque bombing of 21 Mar 2013,
Syria: Top Sunni preacher among 42 killed in suicide bombing inside mosque of 21 Mar 2013,
Damascus mosque attack kills top cleric: Syria TV of 21 Mar 2013,
Suicide bomber kills pro-regime cleric in Syria: TV of 2 Mar 2013

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-Great Scholar, Dr. Mohammad Said Ramadan a-Bouti was martyred on Thursday after a suicide terrorist blew himself up in al-Eman Mosque in Damascus while the late martyr was giving a religious lesson.

The terrorist act claimed the lives of scores of prayers, while tens others were injured.

An official source told SANA that the suicide terrorist intended to blow himself up among the students who were listening to a religious lesson, leading to the martyrdom and injuries of scores of people and causing big material losses.

A source at the Health Ministry stated that the death toll of the terrorist act rose to 42, while 84 others were injured.

The wounded prayers were admitted to a number of Damascus hospitals.

See original report in SANA for more grim images.

Biography

Martyr scholar al-Bouti was born in 1929. He accomplished his Sharia Baccalaureate certificate at the Islamic Tawjih Institute in Damascus.

In 1953, he joined al-Sharea Academy at al-Azhar University and acquired the global certificate in 1955, then he got a diploma in education in the same year.

He was appointed as a teacher in Al-Sharea Academy at Damascus university in 1960, then he was delegated to al-Azhar university to get the doctorate in the Islamic Sharea Originals and got it in 1965.

In 1965, he was nominated as a professor in al-Sharea Academy at Damascus University in 1965, then a dean and chairman of the religions sector at the University.

In 2012 he was nominated as President of the Levant Scholars' Union.

Member of the Higher Council of Oxford Academy.

He wrote more than 40 books in the sciences of Sharea, literature, philosophy, society and civilization.

Ministry of Awkaf announces the death of Scholar al-Bouti

Ministry of Awkaf ( Religious Endowments ), Syria scholars, intellectuals, teachers and the Levant Scholars' Union announced the death of scholar al-Bouti who was martyred while giving a religious lesson in al-Eman mosque.

"The malicious hands of traitors killed the great Scholar because he was the voice of Syria, the right of Syria and the image of Syria. They targeted his body, but they didn't target his mentality or spirit," Minister of Awkaf Mohammad Abdul-Satar al-Sayyed said in a statement.

Al-Baath Party Condemns the heinous Crime

Regional leadership of al-Baath Arab Socialist Party condemned the brutal crime in al-Eman mosque in Damascus which claimed the lives of the great scholar and the prayers.

"This massacre adds to the crimes perpetrated by the mercenary terrorists against the Syrians. They target everything including the mosques and houses of worship," the leadership said in statement.

Archbishop al-Khouri: al-Bouti will remain the word of right

Archbishop Luka al-Khouri, the general vicar of the patriarchate of Antioch and all the East said that the late scholar al-Bouti will remain the word of right that we have learned from. His teachings will remain remembered in the brains of all Syrians.

"We all pray for the rest of our martyr whom we respect..," Archbishop Khouri said in a speech to the Syrian TV.