Kindly and patriotic Australian businessman, Dick Smith, has been very poorly treated by the ABC on episode 158 its The Drum program. This is a very serious problem because, in mistreating Dick Smith, the ABC misinforms Australians on a subject of vital and democratic importance. The ABC seems now undifferentiated from the commercial TV channels with regard to reporting on population. Apparently the ABC has actually banned Dick Smith from the program. The letter inside, from Dick Smith to Ms Julia Baird, the Presenter of The Drum, asks for right of reply. We have embedded Dick Smith's video ad at the beginning of the text so you can judge for yourself whether Ms Baird has a leg to stand on. To us it is obvious that what has caused the media to go after Dick Smith is the fact that he has linked growthist population policy to Australia's reigning politicians and they are going to try to destroy him.

Dick Smith Fair Go 'Grim Reaper' TV Ad - 1min from Dick Smith Fair Go on Vimeo.

7 September 2017

Julia Baird Presenter The Drum ABC

Dear Julia

RE: CONTINUING BIAS ON THE ABC

What an outrageous segment on The Drum last night misrepresenting my views on population growth and immigration. This segment did everything to confirm that Mark O’Connor’s chapter in his book Overloading Australia entitled ‘Media bias and ABC blues’ is correct.

Your researchers didn’t even make the most basic enquiries by lifting the phone and talking to me about the statements that were attributed to me.

I note you started the segment with a piece from another TV channel with the large text “Anti immigration ad.” In fact, I have never had an anti-immigration ad.

I spent $1 million on a “Grim Reaper” style advertising campaign explaining that when politicians say growth, they actually mean endless growth. This will either result in growing inequality, or possibly terrible consequences for our society.

Those views are not mine alone, but reflect the views of many educated people from around the world.

The reason I have never run and anti-immigration ad is that I am pro-immigration. I always have been. It is the reason Australia is such a fantastic country.

Yes, upon advice from experts, I believe we should return to the long-term average of about 70,000 per year – as I’m told this will mean there is a greater chance for a sustainable future, and proper full-time careers for our children and grandchildren.

70,000 per year is approximately the immigration number when Paul Keating was Prime Minister, and I’m told is high per capita by world standards.

I have consistently called for a substantial increase in the humanitarian intake. This would be clear if any of your researchers had even bothered to glance at the Fair Go manifesto, or if you had given the panelists the document to look at.

Your segment went downhill from there. The erroneous caption “anti-immigration ad” confirmed exactly what I had been told by politicians about the ABC. They have said to me:

“Dick, you are absolutely right. We need a population policy, but if I ever mentioned it I would be crucified by the ABC. They would immediately link my comment to being opposed to immigration…”

Not at any time during the whole segment did you actually discuss what I am on about. That is, it is not possible to have endless growth in a finite world.

Amazingly, your researchers or producers didn’t even bother to brief Alan Kirkland, the CEO of Choice, about my $1 million “Grim Reaper” television campaign. He actually said on your segment:

“I didn’t know about this campaign until the whole story broke about the ABC banning him.”

Once again, that proves exactly what Mark O’Connor is saying in Overloading Australia. That is, ABC television news and current affairs (and, I will add, The Drum), constantly show bias on the growth issue.

Every one of your panelists were clearly pro endless growth. I particularly loved the comment by Alan Kirkland:

“So we are getting a lot out of migration at the moment, geared predominantly towards delivering what employers need, and that is what fuels the economy, and it has been one of the most consistent forces driving economic growth in Australia, decade upon decade.”

Of course he doesn’t mention for an instant – nor do you, and I would have thought you would have as you are a mother of young children – that with automation and robotics there are real concerns that there will be enough jobs to give a decent full-time career to our young people in the future.

That is why, in my Fair Go manifesto, I have canvassed the idea of a living wage – not at all mentioned by any of your people.

Then of course there is the tired old point from Alan Kirkland:

“We absolutely need to have this debate because I guess the missing piece is saying that population has grown that that has fuelled economic growth but we have really dropped the ball on infrastructure and on housing in particular.”

Yes, that is the Harry Triguboff belief. You just need to spend more money on infrastructure and housing, and the endless growth will be solved.

Has Mr Kirkland forgotten that our high schools are now moving into high rise, and children are living like termites rather than free range with a back yard and a cubby house?

Georgina Downer from the Institute of Public Affairs, reckons, “It is quite rich for Dick Smith to say he is being ignored,” and then goes on saying that I pitched my whole argument about immigration “being incredibly damaging” when this is clearly not true.

Julia, why didn’t you bring up at any stage the issue that I am talking about? It is very simple. You can’t have endless growth in population and the use of resources and energy in a finite world. There is no discussion on this because the politicians have been totally intimidated because they may be branded “anti-immigration.”

It appears that the briefing note handed to panellists said that this was a “stunt.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Since producing my documentary on population, which was run on the ABC, I have worked constantly on this important issue that affects all Australians.

Of note, the documentary was commissioned not by television news and current affairs, but by a completely different ABC department, and the man who did the commissioning did not have his contract renewed.

Julia, you, like every mother, has a population plan – you didn’t have 20 kids. Australian families are sensible and have the number of children to whom they can give a good life. Why then shouldn’t we have a plan for the aggregate that says, “Let’s have the number of people in Australia that we can give a good life to.”

I would say that is pretty simple, but it is not discussed in any way – driven by the fear of politicians into being dishonestly distorted in their views, as your segment did to me last night.

Most importantly, I note the statement by marketing strategist Toby Ralph:

“I am very concerned that he is a guy who won’t vote for a Party that he is about to give $2 million to, and that seems to me a contradiction that you can’t fully move past. I think he needs a nice long lie down and a think about that.”

One simple phone call by your researchers to me would have informed them that I have never had any intention of making a donation to One Nation in relation to this issue. It is a complete fabrication.

I have attached a copy of the chapter in Overloading Australia entitled Media bias and ABC blues. I ask you to read it, and today at 4.30 pm I will be at the ABC Headquarters at Ultimo, waiting downstairs, and I expect to be given a chance to go on air to have the truth told.

I should point out that eight out of ten Australians agree with my views that we should have open discussion and a population plan – not endless growth, driven normally by endless greed.

Regards

Dick Smith

Appendix: Descriptiion of The Drum episode 158

Tonight on The Drum: Julia Baird is joined by marketing strategist Toby Ralph, CEO of CHOICE Alan Kirkland, Georgina Downer from the Institute of Public Affairs and Fairfax national affairs editor Mark Kenny. #TheDrum,

Unconventional Economist, Leith van Onselen again takes the ABC to task over its shocking bias in reporting and discussing the impacts of Australia's population growth. In this case he exposes the failure of political guests and the moderator on Q&A to respond to the core of an importance audience question about Australia's population ponzi and housing unaffordability. Article first published on Macrobusiness on April 13, 2017 at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/04/yet-abc-refuses-discuss-population-ponzi/.

I noted on Tuesday how the ABC has recently displayed shocking bias in the immigration debate.

In late March, ABC’s The Link aired a shockingly biased segment whereby presenter Stan Grant tried to bully Dick Smith on immigration, aggressively dismissing Smith’s arguments and replacing them with a whole bunch of myths and faulty logic in support of a ‘Big Australia’.

ABC Lateline then aired a half-hour segment on housing affordability, which failed to even mention mass immigration’s key role in driving up housing demand and prices in Sydney and Melbourne, despite me cutting a monologue on this exact issue for Lateline, which the ABC left on the cutting room flaw.

Earlier this month, ABC The Drum aired a shockingly biased segment spruiking benefits from immigration without acknowledging the various costs for the incumbent population, including for housing.

And over the weekend, the ABC badly misrepresented comments from former CBA CEO, Ralph Norris, who claimed that Australia’s housing woes were being caused by excessive demand from rapid population growth (immigration).

On Monday night, we got another dose of the ABC’s bias when Q&A refused to acknowledge or discuss the population ponzi following a reader’s question. Below is the transcript (video at 14.29):

Housing Ponzi:

QUESTION

A reversal of the two-speed economy now sees residential construction in the eastern states driving the nation’s prosperity. But some have likened the current housing boom in Sydney and Melbourne to a population Ponzi scheme, and housing affordability is a major problem. How long does the panel think that housing and population growth can continue to make up for mining and manufacturing? And is it time for a rethink of the generous tax concessions offered by negative gearing?

TONY JONES

I’ll start with Penny Wong, because that is a specific policy of the Labor Party.

PENNY WONG

Well, I mean, we have a view, and I think, you know, a fair few people have backed it in, frankly, that you don’t have a serious housing affordability policy unless you tackle negative gearing and capital gains tax. We have some of the most generous tax incentives in the world for investors. We have a very small proportion of new owners…of housing being bought by first-home buyers. We’ve got very large numbers of proportion of investors in the market. Something’s got to give, and if we don’t tackle the tax incentives, which really don’t level… which skew the playing field towards investors, then you really don’t have a housing affordability policy. And the extraordinary thing is that we saw the Treasurer today giving a speech on housing affordability where the single biggest area which he needs to address was off the table for political reasons, not for policy reasons.

TONY JONES

You mean negative gearing?

PENNY WONG

Negative gearing, yes. Because they want to be able to belt us about it rather than actually have a sensible discussion about the policy.

TONY JONES

Just a very brief one. The Australian ran up the flag pole the idea that Morrison, the Treasurer, would talk in that speech about the idea of super funds for first-home buyers being able to be raided to pay for housing, or at least to give a deposit.

PENNY WONG

Well, this is the idea that Malcolm Turnbull himself has described as a thoroughly bad idea, and I agree with him, because if you’re saying to people, “Raid your retirement savings,” which is what it is, to purchase a house, it seems to me pretty bad economic policy.

TONY JONES

OK. Mitch Fifield?

MITCH FIFIELD

Thanks, Tony. Thanks, David. Negative gearing, ultimately, is a way of getting a tax deduction for an expense incurred in earning income. That’s what negative gearing is.

TONY JONES

If you already own a house, to be precise.

MITCH FIFIELD

Yeah, but that is…that’s part of our system of taxation. What we have great difficulty with is Labor presenting negative gearing as though it somehow magically solves the housing shortage and housing affordability. It wouldn’t. It’s something that people have made investment decisions based upon, so you don’t want to go changing these things lightly. Overwhelmingly, the single greatest contributor to the housing affordability issue is land supply, is a lack of land in the right places, is zoning restrictions that make it difficult to develop, is red tape that makes it difficult for housing estates. And also, importantly, having infrastructure, like transport in the right places. That’s… Those things together probably make the greatest contribution.

TONY JONES

Mitch, I’ll come back to you. I will come back to you.

MITCH FIFIELD

One point….

TONY JONES

I will come back to you, but make your quick point.

MITCH FIFIELD

Just a quick point. Ultimately, this is a shared endeavour between federal, state and local governments, which is why the Treasurer has indicated that, in the Budget, we will have measures where the Commonwealth can make a contribution to doing something about this issue.

PENNY WONG

Two very quick points. One, Mitch talks about retrospectivity. Our policy was no retrospectivity, so existing assets would be continued to be treated the same. What we wanted to do was restrict negative gearing to new housing to try and pull on supply. But the second point, the Government never answers – why should somebody buying their seventh house have a better…have more tax incentives than someone buying their first?

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

I’ll let you respond to this question, you obviously want to, and then I’ll go to…

NIKKI GEMMELL

I just feel like this is one of the great political tragedies, housing affordability, of this generation. As a mother of four kids, I just despair that my children will ever be able to live in the same city as me. But then what I’m also noticing around me, in terms of my peers in their 40s, 50s, 60s, there a lot of people around me who are still renting, who have never been able to make that leap into the great Australian dream of owning their own plot or block, whatever it is. And I just think that’s so sad. We’re facing worlds of retrenchment, of jobs that aren’t secure anymore, of situations where pension funds… You know, we don’t have the super to pay into our pension funds. I just feel like this is a huge ticking time bomb and we don’t only need to talk about the younger generation, it’s the older generation as well, heading into their pension years and still renting.

TONY JONES

I’ll come to you, I will, I just want to… The Great Britain has had a similar experience.

NIKKI GEMMELL

The Great Britain.

BILLY BRAGG

Yeah. We do, we do have.

TONY JONES

The Great Britain, or Great Britain. I mean, the massive price inflation of housing in London has forced a huge number of people out of the city.

BILLY BRAGG

It’s right across the country, really. I think the average house price now is over eight times more than the median disposable income for the average family, average median income. And this has had a considerable knock-on effect. One of the reasons why is because people who no longer can make any money on savings, or rely on a pension, are buying houses to rent to people. I don’t know if they’re the second homes you’re talking about. Are they being bought to rent out or are they being bought to live in?

TONY JONES

Mostly by investors to rent.

BILLY BRAGG

Yeah. We call it buy-to-rent. It’s the same sort of thing. And obviously, as a renter, you do get certain tax breaks and the people that you’re…renting the houses out don’t have a great deal of protection. This has become a very big issue. And as you said, we also have the situation where many of our key workers – our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses – are having to live outside of the cities where they’re working. It’s a considerable problem. 50% of the land that gets permission to be built on isn’t built on. The amount of affordable housing that’s built on there is dwindling all the time because of the huge profits to be made in selling up-market houses. It’s a real situation. We should be building more houses. And at the moment, the local councils are not allowed to build houses. Now the Government wants housing associations – and they’re the people that replaced the councils for building affordable housing – they’re going to compel housing associations to sell their houses on the free market. It’s ridiculous.

TONY JONES

OK, Mitch Fifield, should this not be treated as a national emergency, and would you not get credit if you did that? A government often said to have little vision, a government going down in the polls, could actually make a huge…well, impact, by doing something like that, but it never happens.

MITCH FIFIELD

Well, to the contrary, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have indicated that housing affordability is high priority for the Government. That’s why we’re going to have a plan in the Budget. And we’ve got to look at all elements because housing availability isn’t just about home ownership, it’s about rental affordability, it’s about social housing, it’s about homelessness. You need to have a comprehensive package that addresses all of those elements, but you also need the cooperation of the state governments and local governments. As I said before, it’s a shared endeavour of all levels of government, and it’s something that we’re going to have a lot more to say about in the Budget.

TONY JONES

OK, it’s time to move along.

As you can see, not one panelist even mentioned the central part of the question pertaining to Melbourne and Sydney housing being a “population Ponzi scheme”, nor whether it is sustainable. Nor did Tony Jones do his usual thing and bring guests back onto the key point of the question.

Hopelessly biased ABC.

By Leith van Onselen

Days of incessant propaganda from the ABC, SBS and all other mainstream media toeing the Trump/US Establishment line on chemical weapons in Syria, without any overt logical basis, prompted the author to make a complaint. David Macilwain was in Syria in 2010, corresponds internationally with diverse people concerned about Syria's rights, and has visited Russia twice in the past three years, in a quest to discuss and share views on current events and to build up contacts who might be interviewed by the Australian press rather than the narrow sample usually referred to.

This morning the ABC’s RN breakfast presenter Fran Kelly interviewed a ‘former adviser to the Syrian government and Bashar al Assad’ – Dr Samir Altaqi - who now lives in Dubai. Ostensibly the purpose of the interview was to find out who might replace Assad once he has been ‘removed’. According to the ABC and other Western media, this removal will happen once Rex Tillerson has persuaded Vladimir Putin to stop supporting ‘the Syrian dictator’.

Unsurprisingly for a member of Syria’s government who has abandoned his own country and moved to one of the West’s local allies in the war on Syria, nothing Dr Altaqi said related to the reality of Syria, where the vast majority of citizens now support both their elected President and their defending Army.

You can judge for yourself here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/us-tells-russia-to-abandon-syrias-assad/8436004

One has to ask who is responsible for finding such NATO-friendly 'dissident' voices who will back up the accepted narrative, and one which is almost the only view to be heard on the ABC. I had assumed that long-time presenter Fran Kelly, who has pushed a pro-Syrian 'opposition' viewpoint since the start of the war, played some part in choosing her interviewees, but it appears not so simple.

This interview was almost the last straw, following days of incessant propaganda from the ABC, SBS and all other mainstream media, and pushed me to phone the ABC Australia Radio breakfast programme immediately.

I spoke to the executive producer, Cheryl Bagwell, who was impatient and busy and advised me to phone later when the program finished, while at the same time explaining that she ‘didn’t want to get into an argument over Syria’.

When I phoned back, I got the same impatient and petulant response, despite explaining I was a spokesperson for Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation)In Syria (AMRIS), and had a complaint over the interviewee’s viewpoint on Assad. She said something like ‘so you support Assad and dismiss his use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons’ – to which I said – “Of course I support him, along with at least 15 million Syrians!”

Then she said something like, 'We’ve had too many calls from your people recently and we’re tired of it'. I’m not ‘your people’ – by which presumably she meant those from Hands off Syria (HoS), who’ve been victimised by the Murdoch Press and the ABC’s Media Watch just recently.

She went off into what seemed to me a bit of a tirade about how the ABC was the best and most balanced coverage of the issue and ‘can you tell me of one that is better?’ – she demanded.

I said that there was nothing that was any better in Australia, as they were all bad and biased and failed to air the Russian or Syrian viewpoint, and I asked if she listened to RT or other non-Western media, mentioning how RT was no different from the ‘independent’ ABC since they are both State supported broadcasters.

She said that only just the other day they had interviewed a Russian analyst – as if any would do. I heard that interview, with the ‘leading Russian military analyst’, Pavel Felgenhauer. (Podcast at
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgMVjNAZQV?play=true.)

In this interview, the first question was, “At what point will Russia abandon Assad?” Pavel Felgenhauer's response was that Russia won’t abandon Assad - not because Assad isn’t responsible for a chemical weapons attack - but because Russia has invested so much in Syria, both militarily and politically. He said that some Russian advisers should have known that Assad was going to use chemical weapons, but may not have told the Kremlin.

Fran Kelly then asked, “But why would Russia stay so solid behind Assad? What’s the bigger picture?"

Pavel Felgenhauer said that, “Politically it would be too embarassing to abandon Assad, and lose face.” [...] “Russia right now is in a very isolated position, with even China supporting Trump’s actions... "

The ABC’s choice of interviewee in both cases, whether made by Fran Kelly or by Cheryl Bagwell, shows extreme confirmation bias. When I challenged the views espoused by the Russian guest, Bagwell said that he was from Moscow, and would know more than any of us about the situation.

In fact, knowing the views of many Russian analysts and commentators, I would assert that it would be hard to find any others who believed that Assad had actually used chemical weapons, leave alone ‘against his own people’. Just as you wouldn’t find someone from Syria, outside the ‘rebel-occupied’ zones, who would confirm the view that Bashar al Assad is head of an Alawite coterie oppressing the Syrian people.

Whoever is ultimately responsible for choosing the ‘analysts’ and ‘experts’ at the ABC, it is now clear that changing the thinking there is almost impossible. Any voice dissenting from the ABC narrative on Bashar al-Assad, or Vladimir Putin, would be accused of being one of ‘your people’, and their viewpoint dismissed out of hand.

How shallow the ABC’s Mediawatch (‘Media war over Syria’ [11 April 2017]) treats such an important issue, the 6 year long war against Syria. They have cobbled together a few tweets so as to defend the war story of the US and Australian Governments, and the state and corporate media (ABC, BBC and UK Guardian) which faithfully reflect that line.

They then randomly add a few tweets from me, a couple of other writers and the crazy right winger Alex Jones. I’m not sure what they wanted to achieve, but does this have anything do with Mediawatch’s supposed mission of holding the media to account? I think not.

Mediawatch seem to have learnt little from its 2014 defamation of Reme Sakr, a young Syrian-Australian woman who took them to court over their attack on her. She was not a journalist but a student of journalism, and a profile of her was published in the Good Weekend. Mediawatch went more for this young student than for the media. At issue was Mediawatch’s wish to debunk any criticism of the war on Syria, including by support of the August 2013 false flag chemical weapons incident in countryside Damascus.

They attacked Reme for supporting her government. The ABC eventually paid her a sum of money as compensation for their lies against her, also swearing her to secrecy so no one would know about their deceit. They also agreed to finally add Reme’s full reply to their website, which they had earlier truncated. She has since returned to Syria to help her country survive this terrible war.

They treat my tweets as though they were theories off the top of my head. If they had done their homework they would have seen that I published a well-researched book on the conflict, more than a year ago. I gave particular emphasis to collecting hundreds of sources of evidence on the massacres and various claims made by the al Qaeda groups and Washington. The Dirty War on Syria is now published in seven languages. A number of chapters are free online, here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tim-anderson

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

Letter to the ABC

Dear Sir/Ms,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Salt

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

For the record, the below is a partial record of correspondence between Susan Dirgham, National Coordinator of 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria', and Q&A, the Australian television program. Like most Australian media outlets, the ABC almost invariably presents Syria in a squewed, ahistoric manner that supports the continued and disastrous interference by the US, NATO and its allies in the region, maintaining war.

Questions to Q&A Panel; Monday 16 May 2016

How does it help Australia to ignore the voices of millions of 'ordinary' Syrians (Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Orthodox, atheist etc)  who share our truest values, and instead promote the claims of those who support a violent form of radical Islam?

How does it help our security and social harmony to be a member of the unholy alliance that has formed between radical Islamist groups in Syria and US neo-cons and their friends?   Such an alliance could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people and the destruction of countries.

The basic question is, 

What will become of us as a nation if we hide from the truth and play dirty? 

This is a letter written to the Second secretary at the Russian Embassy in Canberra, Alexander Odoevsky, subsequent to his interview on ABC Insiders, about the biased representation of the Syrian Government and related matters by Australia's ABC.

Dear Alexander Odevsky,

I recently contacted the embassy as the spokesperson for AMRIS – Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, which has been working for the last three years to try to spread correct information on the Syrian conflict and on the nature and intentions of Syria's allies, particularly Russia.

In June 2013 Mother Agnes Mariam visited Australia at the invitation of AMRIS ( for which she is ‘patron’ as we are linked to the reconciliation movement in Syria). During her visit she met with several government representatives, including Julie Bishop who was shadow FM at that time, and spoke to media including the ABC. She was interviewed by James Carleton at length, but the interview was not broadcast despite its importance and relevance for nearly two months. It was impossible [for me] not to conclude that Carleton’s personal friendships with members of the Australian Syrian community who supported the ‘Free Syrian Army’ didn’t play a role in this delay. Listening to Carleton this morning it is clear that he has learnt nothing about the true nature of the fight in Syria in two years, but rather had his prejudices confirmed by the weight of Western propaganda.

I have personally put the case to Carleton on the legitimacy of the Syrian government, before last year’s election, and I have also made a number of lengthy submissions to Julie Bishop both on this question and on the alleged Chemical Weapons attack on Ghouta. She has repeatedly denied the validity of my viewpoint – Syrians’ viewpoint – despite the weight of evidence I presented to support it.

Following the interview on the ABC’s Insiders programme last Sunday, I wrote an article for ‘Russia Insider’ which presents the situation; I hope you will appreciate reading it:

Australia FM Is Pushing Long-Refuted Syria Lies (6/10/15) | Russia Insider – also published on cabdobetter

My most recent letter to Julie Bishop, conveyed through my local MP Cathy McGowan, was a call for an enquiry into the presentation by both government and state media of the Syrian conflict, and particularly concerning the legitimacy of the Assad government. As Russia has repeatedly observed, the choice of who governs Syria is only for the Syrian people to make, and currently they overwhelmingly chose Bashar al Assad. It defies understanding that the Australian government continues to hold to its ridiculous stand on this – that the SNC somehow is Syrian’s legitimate representative – so we continue to try to make them see sense!

If there is any way I can be of further assistance please contact me,

with many thanks for your solid support for Syrians,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria 3695

Following Russia’s intervention to help the Syrian army on Wednesday 30 September, there was a report on the World Today by Barney Porter (who also produces the program). It left an awful lot to be desired, not all of which could be blamed on Porter and his choice of interviewees. He only allowed Kerry to describe his own delusion that ‘Assad only controls 25% of the country’ – ( so Russia is backing a loser..). But of course the whole tone of the report was anti-Russian and Anti-Putin.

Today October 2, 2015, there was another report from Barney on the World Today, which wasn’t a huge lot different. I have noticed in the past that he often speaks to half a dozen people – but of course they still all sit on the same side of the fence. There continues to be a stunning lack of different viewpoints in the Western media sphere, think-tanks and commentators.

Porter’s report was followed by an interview by ELizabeth Jackson, who is quite hopelessly biased against Assad. She was speaking to Peter Jennings from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (APSI). It is significant that this man (a) was from the dept of Defence, and (b) was appointed to APSI – an ‘independent’ government funded think-tank set up by Stephen Smith in 2012, with Hugh White as director.

So Peter Jennings effectively suggests or promotes government policy.

You can read the interview below, with the worst bits highlighted. You might also read what was an article in the Weekend Australian on September 12th, just after our ‘declaration of war on Syria’. See https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/opinion-pieces/destruction-of-islamic-state-is-the-first-step-on-the-road-to-middle-east-solution/Destruction-of-Islamic-State-is-the-first-step-on-the-road-to-Middle-East-solution.pdf
In this article, Jenning’s proposals, for cruise missile strikes on Syrian air force bases – ‘the Russians mightn’t like’.. and replacement of Assad with ‘another Alawite general’ in the meantime, followed by a ‘Sunni from the refugee camps’, are almost beyond belief.

I also noticed in the interview today that Jennings referred to ‘Bashir al Assad’, and to Tarsus, not Tartus ( both corrected in the transcript).

Clearly the man doesn’t have the slightest idea about Syria, or Russia, and what he advises seems based on bigotry and a fossilised idea about the region.

But it’s also an indication of the problem for the ABC for instance, if it thinks to present a reasonable alternative point of view.

Porter also interviewed the hawkish Kilcullen briefly today, who oddly allowed some truth to slip through the orchestrated propaganda. Kilcullen admitted something about Al Nusra and ISIS being around Homs in Syria. In this he contradicted the falsity of what the west has been maintaining. The West has been pretending that ISIS isn't prevalent in the area where Russia has dropped bombs, and, on the basis of this fiction, has accused Russia of actually dropping bombs on the spuriously designate 'moderate opposition'.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4323150.htm

ABC Australia World Today, Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:20:00

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Peter Jennings is the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

He says Russia's actions demonstrate that its loyalty to Bashar al-Assad is stronger than its desire to defeat IS.

PETER JENNINGS: I think everyone needs to be looked at pretty sceptically when it comes to Syria. I certainly don't believe the Russians because their only interest is really in propping up Bashar al-Assad, and the Americans I think are scrambling to cover for really three or four years of completely ignoring the crisis and they're coming to this rather late and in a weak position.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So you are of the view then that Russia has deliberately bombed rebels not IS fighters. Is that correct?

PETER JENNINGS: That seems to be the effect of the reporting. It's happening in the city of Homs where IS has not actually been present. This is all about shoring up their client’s position, but you know, one has to wonder if the Russians haven't in some ways made a really big strategic mistake.

Because I don't see Assad being able to claw himself back from what is a continually weakening position, and the Russians need to be careful that they don't find themselves actually becoming the brunt of the jihadist's campaign.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So the Russians now appear to be trying to justify their actions using very diplomatic language, saying we agree about the goal, we just have different ideas about the methods of achieving that goal. What do you make of all of that?

PETER JENNINGS: Well, we've seen what their methods are, which is frankly indiscriminate bombing, and then after the Russian strikes, in flew the Syrian helicopters to drop more barrel bombs. This is, as we've seen with Vladimir Putin's behaviour in Ukraine, it's deeply cynical.

It's covered in the language of principle, but it's clearly not that, and it is only about shoring up Russia's increasingly weak looking client in the form of Bashar al-Assad.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Is there any significance, do you think to the fact that the Russians only gave the Americans an hour's notice that they were going to start bombing?

PETER JENNINGS: Well, the Russians are in a position to do this, because they have the forces in the country and have had for decades, although they've recently reinforced them.

The Americans are really in no position to do anything other than watch what's going on, so you know, there is very clearly a sort of tactical advantage that the Russians have, and I guess the hour's notice to the Americans is just to make sure that when their aircraft are in the air, they're not going to be targeted by the Americans in any way, which neither side would have an interest in wanting to do.

So really, Washington can only sit back with some frustration, I imagine, at this moment to actually watch what the Russians are about.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you consider this to be a risky strategy on the part of Russia?

PETER JENNINGS: Highly risky, highly. I mean I think there are two elements to this: one is there are significant number of Chechens, several hundred possibly already fighting for IS, so by going in more actively and targeting Sunni extremist groups, the Russians risk terrorism coming back into their own country through enraging their own Chechen population.

And secondly, in the Middle East themselves, they're now going to be making themselves a principle target of IS and every other extremist group in Syria.

So this is, like a lot of the things we see from Vladimir Putin, it's highly risky, but he does have the advantage of being on the offensive and having some momentum, and I guess the challenge for Russia is not to let themselves get bogged down in the Syrian crisis in ways which make them the principle target.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: But why would he take a risk of that magnitude?

PETER JENNINGS: Well, they've backed the Syrian regime since the early 1970s, including Assad's father. They have a military naval port in Tartus in Syria, and I think Putin also sees that he's got a certain international political advantage to play be presenting himself as being a fighter against Islamic extremism in ways which might help him sort of bring him back from the outer after his invasion of Crimea.

So he's got a set of sort of political and strategic objectives at play, and I think we also see in Putin the instincts of a gambler who's prepared to take some risks, as against Obama who has really been only trying to avoid risk when it comes to dealing with Syria for the last three or four years.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: That's Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
If you want to know more about Jennings, appointed to head the ASPI by Stephen Smith in 2012, read what he wrote for the Weekend Australian on September 12th, ... and scream!

The Syrian Network for Human Rights and Irin both purport to be disinterested information sources on conflict in Syria and boast that the UN relies on them as its primary source. But they are not disinterested. There is abundant evidence that they promote the 'rebel' or terrorist side of the conflict and that their funding is from organisations and countries aligned with US-NATO support for aggression in the region. They are in fact promoting war propaganda against Syria and it is amazing that people one would expect to be more discerning, take this on face value. In this article I try to find out why Tim Costello, of World Vision, came to accuse the Syrian government of killing more people than ISIS without taking into account that these deeds were actions by a national army defending its people from multiple assaults by violent gangs, including ISIS, many of them supported by US-NATO funding and arms.

"Question for Tim Costello: Why does World Vision ignore analysis on the war in Syria (it seems to me) and instead repeat the claims of 'rebel' supporters and western politicians with no scrutiny, and in so doing World Vision ignores experts, for example MIT's Prof Ted Postol and former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html and more importantly it ignores millions of Syrians who take refuge in government controlled cities and towns, such as Damascus, Hama and Latakia? Australians should be aware of the terror and fear faced by those Syrians who don't support 'rebels', men with guns who depend on foreign money, clerics who incite the killings of civilians (leading to killing fields), foreign jihadis and the foreign policy of US neocons?" (Susan Dirgham on QandA facebook in response to Tim Costello's remarks on QandA of 14 September 2015.)

QandA, the very popular Australian TV program on public television, on 14 September 2015, dealt with the question of bombing ISIS in Syria without the Syrian government’s permission, supposedly at the invitation of Syria’s neighbour Iraq asking for help. (Program link here.)

World Vision's ambiguous message

Tim Costello, the CEO of the 'community development organisation World Vision', spoke generally against interventions and bombing in general, saying correctly that war survives on arms manufacture and that the US and Russia account for 60% of arms exports, and that the arms are funnelled by the US and Europe via Saudi Arabia and by Russia ‘with’ Iran. He stated that the war has now killed 250,000 people and that there are 16 m Syrians in need of humanitarian relief. Failing to note that Syrian Government is helping many millions itself, he said, “We are working there and in the camps.” He suggested that the war could only end if ‘Putin and Obama’ came to the decision not to send any more arms. He then repeated, apparently gratuitously, a new piece of war propaganda against the Syrian Government, with, “You’re right, Assad has killed, this year, seven times more people than ISIS has.”

Origin of war slogan circulated by mass media and 'trusted' 'authorities'

Now where did that ‘information’ come from and what did it mean? Although the same phrase was quoted as far and wide as the Washington Post[1] and the International Business Times, it seems to have come from two NGOs which profess to be neutral but which clearly support ‘rebel’ terrorism against the Syrian Government.

These organisations are the Syrian Network for Human Rights and Irin - a corporate subsidised branch of a UN publication.[2] They are 'responsible' for almost all 'fact and opinion' cited by the western mainstream and the UN on Syria.[3]

World Vision, by taking sides. could cause more deaths than it prevents

Tim Costello's remarks, arguing against war on the one hand, but demonising an elected government on the other hand, cancel each other out and pose no effective logical obstacle to Australia’s illegal entry into Syrian airspace. They show that the CEO of World Vision has taken sides in a war against a legally elected government which provides with the Syrian national army the only safe haven for 70 to 80 percent of the population against terrorists which ‘our side’ calls ‘rebels’, ‘moderates’ and Da’esh. World Vision should maintain impartiality in all wars because it expects to have access to people in need in territories at war and cannot be trusted if it takes sides. World Vision also solicits donations all over the world on the principle that it is a trustworthy force doing good in conflict zones and refugee camps. It was therefore alarming that Costello spoke against the elected Assad Government, whilst ostensibly talking down war.

Shadie Taled's logical and important challenge to war propaganda

On the same episode of QandA there was a video question from Shadie Taled, who said, under the heading, “Assad is fighting ISIS”, that, “Statistics suggest that most Syrians, my father included, support Dr Bashar Al Assad, even though he has been labelled by the West as a dictator, despite the lack of information and evidence to suggest so. If we genuinely cared about Syrian citizens and were serious about combating ISIS, why haven't we considered supporting Dr Assad who has been fighting ISIS for years? https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/posts/10152989388771831

Programmed message over-rides thinking; Taled's fair question ignored

After this impressive videoed question/statement, the members of the ‘expert’ panel, to a man or woman, including famed 'peace' activist, Joan Baez, completely ignored this Mr Taled's burning question. It was a remarkable televised demonstration of ‘selective perception’; how people simply choose not to see or hear things that contradict a particular bias. However the same panel agreed with lengthy remarks from two members of the audience, who called for the bombing and removal of the Syrian Government.[4]

Syrian point of view suppressed

There were several Syrians in the audience who, like Mr Taled, held the opposite view and wanted to express this. We must remember that they had come to that studio in an effort to stop further destruction of their country. Although they had been invited to the studio, they were not given the chance. They were extremely disappointed, with one describing their treatment as ‘appalling’.

Experts or war-mules?

Although I am used to seeing and hearing constant propaganda about Syria on Australian and US media, I was dumbfounded by the crassness of the propaganda that came out of Tim Costello and other panelists’ mouths because I realised that it would be used to help justify the Australian airforce invasion of Syria on the flimsiest of pretexts and would decrease the ability of the Syrian Army to defend the Syrian people. To me there is no excuse for educated people to market propaganda in a war because they have every opportunity to find out the other side. Were none of these irresponsibly arrogant 'experts' capable of looking at RT or Iranian Press TV or the numerous citizen reports on you-tube or studying the many detailed interviews given by President Bashar al-Assad? Were they completely ignorant of the June 2014 elections where he was resoundingly re-elected in elections that were monitored by international observers who reported to the UN? Could they possibly be unaware of the role of our criminal ally, the grotesquely brutal Saudi Arabia dictatorship, in financing the attempted destruction of Syria and the obliteration of Yemen?

Each member of the panel came out damning the Syrian government and thereby providing positive propaganda for the Australian Government’s invasion of Syria purportedly in defense of Iraq, but with a stated desire to see the ‘Assad regime’ removed. The consequences of such a role could not just mean many millions more refugees and economic migrants from a devastated territory, but a new world war over this region so bitterly contested by world powers. In the short term it could mean the survival or obscene destruction of one of the oldest civilisations in the world and its people. It therefore seems to me that to repeat allegations that justify illegal invasion or comfort aggression by the questionable painting of a leader of an elected government as evil is a war crime.

NOTES

[1] The Washington Post used the remark in a big article about a battle in Douma,[1] which quotes its source as, "Syrian Network for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain."

[2] Note that anyone including many business organisations or governments may become partners and supporters of the United Nations and advertise themselves as such. All kinds of businesses do, including disaster capitalists, awful government departments and propaganda units. The UN has “corporate, government, community and media partners as well as our supporters whose generous support ensures the ongoing success of our many programs and activities.” That is not to say that there are not good things about the UN; just that you need to be sure which bit of the UN you are dealing with who their donors are.

[3] Commentary on Syria has only a very few sources, all of them highly suspect, as these articles show: and http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syrian-observatory-for-human-rights-is-a-propaganda-front-funded-by-the-eu-its-objective-is-to-justify-pro-democracy-terrorism/5331072

Irin http://newirin.irinnews.org/our-team/, has 'partners' in major development organisations in Switzerland, Sweden, and indirectly via the Jynwel Foundation , which is a branch of ‘Jynwel Capital, an international investment and advisory firm’ that promotes an association with the United Nations. Irin's website carries frankly anti-Assad propaganda, such as this article, http://www.irinnews.org/report/101861/the-road-to-damascus-key-syrian-artery-under-threat

The Syrian network for Human Rights and Irin involved in promoting the Syrian Government as worse than ISIS describe themselves as impartial on their websites, but their statements elsewhere show them to be pro-‘rebel’; Prepared to accept US military strikes at any cost, including the destruction of Syria.

“But Fadel Abdul Ghani of the Syrian Network for Human Rights told me that he and his group feel that a likely post-attack surge in Syrian refugees and possible deaths resulting from U.S. strikes are still preferable to doing nothing.

"If Assad continues without any intervention, everyday we will keep loosing [sic]100 to120 people," Abdul Ghani said. "We have no choice. If we don't try to take out Assad's missiles and tanks, he will continue using them against civilians."” (Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-human-rights-groups-dont-agree-on-what-to-do-about-syria/279360/)

[4] BOURAN ALMIZIAB: "They are - they are brutal. They are - they are the worst kind of people. We acknowledge that. But before ISIS, tens of thousands of Syrians were killed. Why wasn't there any kind of intervention before? Why is it only ISIS that's the lights are spot on ISIS? We were killed before that. We were killed in tens of thousands, massacres, chemicals, bombs. Everything you call - everything that's in the book, we were there. Tens of thousands of Syrians were killed in jails. They were starved. They were tortured and then they died slowly. Why is it only ISIS being targeted? Why isn't it the Assad regime targeted as well? [...]"

This short article around a letter from Bob Couch, records how the ABC spontaneously contacted a candidate for an alternative political party to tell him that the ABC would not give him any time to talk about his policies. The candidate had not approached the ABC, they approached him. Candobetter.net has run a few articles about how the ABC excludes candidates outside the major parties and we are running this story because the issue is so important. The ABC should be informing Australians of all the political alternatives out there so that we can really choose people who will represent us on issues of concern. See also and http://candobetter.net/node/1159.

The decision by the ABC to allow Zaky Mallah to appear on Q and A has attracted much criticism (Advertiser 25/6 and 26/6)). This has been defended by the ABC on the grounds it needs to represent a diversity of views.

I ran as a candidate for the Stop Population Growth Now Party in the SA Legislative Council general election last year. Barely had nominations closed , and before I had approached any media, I received a letter from the ABC informing me that I would not be granted any time on the ABC to explain our party policies.

I am a law abiding, loyal citizen who has lived in Australia all my life.
I have no criminal record. I was nominated by a legally registered political party (with over 300 members) to contest the Fisher by election.
I paid the $8000 expenses (nomination fee $3000, corflutes , how to vote cards etc $5000) out of my own pocket, as our party was low on funds.
Surely I deserved some consideration.

Yet the ABC sees fit to give national exposure to Mallah, who served two and a half years in jail for buying a gun, and threatening to kill ASIO officers.

I am forced to conclude that the ABC is not even handed, and does not properly represent diverse opinions.

Bob Couch
Marino,SA

In Geraldine Doogue's interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that Ms Doogue accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region. Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

27 May 2015

Dear Geraldine,

In your interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that you accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region.

Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

Can he represent the aspirations of Iraqi and Syrian people who want their countries to be united, stable, peaceful, prosperous and free of foreign interference?

Or do their aspirations inevitably clash with powerful interests in the United States? Would Kilcullen’s work with the U.S. and Australian armies compromise him in the eyes of most Iraqis and Syrians?

The fact that David Kilcullen can put on his CV, “In 2003, I did not support the war in Iraq” would be irrelevant to most Iraqis since he has effectively supported the American war machine ever since.

In 1991, American war planes strafed or bombed one to two thousand Iraqi military vehicles on a 60-mile stretch of highway. They killed thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers returning from the disastrous war in Kuwait. It was dubbed the “Highway of Death” and memories of it would be etched in the brains of Iraqis. One U.S. pilot is quoted as saying, “It was like shooting fish in a barrel”.

The fact that the people of Iraq and the region have no reason to honour the United States is a no-brainer.
As a spokesperson for the ME war plans of the American Administration, David Kilcullen will not, cannot, present events through the eyes of the ordinary people of Iraq or Syria, the people who are traumatised, terrified, maimed and killed. In Australia, those who stand up with strong and eloquent voices against war, sectarianism and division are not given a chance to challenge his views.

But who will present their stories and hopes and dreams to the Australian public? Unless we seek them out, we are diminished.

One hundred years ago, the Anzacs swore allegiance to their ‘Lord the King’ and so it was the Imperial plans of Britain they fought for. Today, in Australia, particularly in the media, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken allegiance to the Imperial plans of the United States.

The Middle East was a world away in 1915. Today, there are many Australians who have an allegiance to one side or another in the wars there. The blood lost there is mourned here. The hatreds simmering there are simmering here, within our own communities.

It is not the time for allegiances to empires or caliphates. To be supreme, both must seek to divide, destroy and brutally kill. Instead, it is the time for pursuing our most precious of human values and for seeking the truth. Only by doing so can hatred, wars and terror be stopped.

How often must we be reminded that ‘No man is an island’?

The charm and sophistry of David Kilcullen, and his reliance on sectarian terms to describe the war in Iraq, are not a substitute for the voices of the people of Iraq and Syria who live in a hell the United States and its allies have engineered.

Iraqi and Syrian people who want to end the terror and war have spokespeople. Let’s not imagine they are unsophisticated natives. Let’s not ignore them. Let’s learn about their lives and hear their voices.

In a video interview in early 2014, Monsignor Jacques Behnan Hindo, Archbishop for Syriac Catholics stated,

There is always fear. There is always anxiety. We live with the same anxieties. We are waiting for salvation. Unfortunately Geneva (2 conference) has not yielded anything yet. And, even more unfortunately, the United States, France, yes, France – and England do nothing except add poison to things …by aiding these opposing … these factions, more than half of which have come from outside (Syria). And when one comes from outside (Syria), he/she does not want what is good for Syrians but rather massacring them. And then they want to declare an Islamic State. And we as Christians cannot accept that. I am not a masochist. I do not accept to get flogged. I cannot accept these people, purely and simply. And when I hear Kerry or Fabius, these people who take their fake humanitarian sentiment, I ask myself: “What are they doing?”…

(A political solution) is always possible. However, the first thing that must happen is for these terrorists to leave. This is an essential condition. And when they are out, we Syrians can come to an agreement. We had already several towns where the Army entered because residents had had enough, and they expelled the foreigners that were in their town. And now they live much more quietly. In our region, it is the same thing … in all the cities and villages of the north. Yes, there are people who oppose (the state). I myself am not that much for the government. However, when I compare what awaits me with these people to what I have today, I say to myself: “I am doing very well today.” And I wouldn’t want to put Fabius in my place... when these people come and occupy the country. I do not want to see Fabius, Kerry, or the others. But they are not supposed to understand that they will never be here. That is why they are screwing around. Excuse my expression. They are screwing all Syrians. I wrote a letter to Obama and I told him that, in his name Barack, there is the word Baraka (blessing). However, when he sent all his fleet, it was to declare war. It was a curse! Between a curse and a blessing, there is a huge difference.

(Question: Are you able to maintain hope?) I am, even physically, very optimistic. And then I always have the hope of Christ. I always believe that even Christ on the Cross had the light of resurrection behind him. Therefore it will come. The torment and the fear might extend for a while, but it will be over. And we shall live. I have a lot of hope. That’s why I tell my people not to immigrate, because we can turn our region, our country, into another Switzerland. There is absolutely everything to make it happen. There is intelligence, money, land… everything. Therefore nothing is missing in order to live a life much better than before, in 2 or 5 years from now.

Sami Ramadani, a political exile from Sadam Hussein’s regime wrote in The Guardian in June 2014,

The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics. Many senior officers in the newly formed Iraqi army came from these organisations and Saddam's army. This was exacerbated three years ago, when sectarian groups in Syria were backed by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Geraldine, I implore you to challenge your guests, challenge your listeners, and search for other points of view besides those that only serve to indirectly promote more war and more terror in the Middle East.

Saturday Extra no longer allows comments to be submitted to its online page. All old comments have been removed. It is unfortunate Saturday Extra does not welcome dissenting voices from the community. I have created a page online with all my emails and letters to you as well as comments I submitted to your webpage. I will include this message above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Susan
National Coordinator of "Australians for Musslaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

CC: some of your colleagues in the ABC

This is a letter to Malcolm Turnbull, Communications Minister, from Susan Dirgham of AMRIS. It draws his attention to the danger presented to Australia by biased reporting on Syria. Ms Dirgham points out that such biased reporting may have caused young Australians to join ISIS and other 'revolutionaries' in the mistaken impression that they were fighting for freedom. She also gives a link to where an Al-Jazeera reporter called for the genocide of Alawis in Syria and suggests that the tens of thousands of Alawis in Australia may not be immune from similar intimidation either. She asks Mr Turnbull to exercise some leadership in this matter. Candobetter.net Editor: We have updated this article (which initially contained the words of an email document sent yesterday) to reflect some changes in the wording of the hard copy which was sent today.

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull
MP, Minister for Communications
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT 2600

21 May 2015

Dear Minister,

As you are Australia's Communications Minister, I urge you to give attention to a program broadcast this month on Al-Jazeera: #10;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw&feature=youtu.be

The program targets an Arabic speaking audience, and it would have a significant number of viewers in Australia. The host of the Al-Jazeera program and one guest express support for the killing of Alawis in Syria. They do not exclude women and children.

Note, there is at least one petition being distributed protesting this incitement to genocide by the host of an Al-Jazeera program:

http://www.change.org/p/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-office-of-the-special-advisor-on-the-prevention-of-genocide-office-of-the-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-bring-al-jazeera-network-and-faisal-al-kasim-to-justice-for-inciting-genocide-on-tv

This call for genocide on Al-Jazeera may appear to be an aberration and as such dismissed by many. However, I contend that there is a tolerance for such vitriolic hatred within our own community and the groundwork for it has been partially laid by mainstream reporting of the Syrian conflict. (It is worth noting that prominent Al-Jazeera journalists have resigned in protest over that media outlet’s coverage of the conflict in Syria and Bahrain.)

In the last four years, I have contacted the ABC on numerous occasions to alert journalists to the distortion and bias in reports on Syria and to warn them that such reporting will encourage some in the community to support a violent jihad in Syria, something which can have repercussions in Australia. My last formal complaint was in regards to the bias in a report on AM. Despite the weight of my arguments and the implications of a mainstream broadcaster presenting militias intent on destroying the army of a secular society in a positive light, it was not upheld. http://susandirgham.wordpress.com

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, much of the reporting and official commentary on Syria has been framed in terms of 'a brutal Alawi regime oppressing the Sunni majority'. As the guest who stood up against the calls for genocide on the Al-Jazeera program explained, this does not reflect the reality of the Syrian government, the army or the conflict.

I was heartened this week to see an article in the alternative magazine "New Matilda" which analyses and challenges mainstream reports on Syria. https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/17/corporate-media-and-syria-study-propaganda-and-sloppy-standards

There must be some serious examination of the media presentation of the conflict in Syria and how that impacts Australians who support ISIS or al-Nusra in Syria. It would seem appropriate that you initiate it.

Like Syria, Australia is a diverse and secular society. It too can suffer from hatreds and divisions stirred up by malevolent forces.

For example, there are tens of thousands of people with Alawi Muslim backgrounds in Australia who have come from Syria, Lebanon or Turkey. Unbeknownst to most of us, they may already be facing intimidation from sections of the community who are influenced by calls to hate, both direct and indirect, from a range of sources.

Other key commentators have presented the conflict in the Middle East in sectarian terms. For example, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States has described the terrorist group ISIS as the 'lesser evil'; in his mind 'Shia' are the greater evil. No doubt such views expressed by a prominent person have an impact on communities and reporting. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/israels-former-ambassador-to-the-us-on-the-palestinian-question/373627/

On the other hand, retired U.S. General Wesley Clark has claimed that friends and allies of America created ISIS in order to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98

What is the truth? At times it seems the world is edging towards an abyss and we are being taken there with our minds, our eyes and our mouths closed.

An esteemed professor at M.I.T., Professor Theodore Postol, and a former U.N. weapons inspector, Mr Richard Lloyd, published a paper that contended that the Syrian army could not have fired the weapons that purportedly carried sarin and killed over 300 people in Damascus in August 2013. Unsubstantiated claims that the Syrian government was responsible for this 'massacre' and others have contributed to many people's bafflement regarding the war and to their disengagement in regards to supporting peace or the war's victims. On the other hand, the claims have led to the active engagement of others on the side of the terror. The implications of Postol and Lloyd's findings are extremely significant, yet our public or corporate media eschews them. Here is a link to the Theodore Postol and Richard Lloyd report: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html

To unite Australians and to fear the future less, it is vital that we espouse and live values that reflect our common humanity and which can inspire us all. Organizations cannot display courage; individuals must.

In the past four years, many brave people in Syria have been committed to the work of reconciliation. If Syria is not to become a failed state and its people destitute and brutalized for decades to come, these efforts must be acknowledged and supported. "The Babbila Reconciliation: a Light at the End of Syria’s Dark Tunnel" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSS-AhrqGps

As Communications Minister and as someone committed to reconciliation, you are in an excellent position to take a lead. I urge you to give attention to the call for genocide on the Al-Jazeera program and to respond appropriately. Also, with the increasing number of reports of Australians being lured to Syria to support designated terrorist organizations, there is an urgent need for an independent parliamentary enquiry into the coverage of the conflict in Syria by our Public Service Broadcasters.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Reconciliation in Syria" (AMRIS)

CC: Australian Communications and Media Authority

Order The Kapetanios (1772) by Dominique Eudes from Monthly Review Press for US$20.00 + postage.

I think the ABC Radio National program, Rear Vision, (see inside) owes to the Greek people and to its Australian audience to tell the truth about Greek history. The account of the Greek Civil War (see Appendix 1) is untrue. The Greek Communist Party led the resistance to the German occupation and had overwhelming support of the Greek people. In 1944, the British tricked the Communist partisans into disarming whilst they secretly re-armed those who had collaborated with the Germans against fellow citizens. They were able to do this because of the betrayal of the Greek Communist Party and the unquestioning support for Stalin by the Greek Communist Party. The Greek Communist Party abused its support from the Greek people to convince then to lay down their weapons. The result was a massacre of the most patriotic Greeks by former German collaborators whilst the British looked on. At this time, the heroic partisan leader Aris Velouchiotis was murdered by collaborators. He died in the knowledge that the Greek Communist Party leaders that he supported had denounced him as a traitor for refusing to lay down his arms.

This was originally posted to the ABC Radio National Rear Vision website on 17 July 2011 as a comment in response to a documentary "Greek Tragedy". This article was originally posted to candobetter, but not on the front page, on 14 Nov 2014. See also: IMF vs Greece: History of the Greek Civil War (part iii) and Episode 055 (6/12/14 - 25 min) of Sputnik by George Galloway on RT._{#fnGCW1" id="fnGCW1txt"> 2}

One of the placards at the mass Greek protests in October 1944 against the British read: "The Germans are back".

Patriotic Greeks could have so easily beaten the British and the former German collaborators in the war of 1944 and the subsequent civil war from 1946-1949 if they were not so appallingly misled by the Greek Communist Party (KKE).

For a truthful account of the Greek Civil War please read "The Kapetanios - Partisans and the Civil War in Greece, 1943-1949" written in 1973 by Frenchman Dominique Eudes. Copies can be order from The Monthly Review Press, "Alibris, or Amazon

Update, 31 dec 2014: The transcript of the program, copied from the ABC Radio National page, to which the above is a response, has been moved to this page. An excerpt is below in #appendix1">Appendix 1 - JS

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1: ABC Rear Vision's "Greek Tragedy" misleading account of the Greek Civil War

"Greece fought the Italians and then the Germans during World War II and when the war ended in 1945, a bitter civil war between communists and anti-communists, ultimately won by the right, created social tensions that would last in Greece for the next 30 years. Dr David Close is a historian in the School of International Studies at Flinders University."

David Close: "1945 was Year Zero in Greece, like in much of Europe, because under the German occupation everything had been destroyed: the whole economic system, the physical infrastructure, the political system. The Germans had encouraged a growing civil war, as well, which got worse in the few years after the war. The driving force was a pro-soviet communist party, which grew very powerful under the German occupation, because it dominated the Resistance. And the opposing forces were backed first by the British and then by the Americans, and American backing enabled them to triumph in the end, so they won a decisive victory in 1949."

James Sinnamon's comment: The principle 'driving force' of the Greek Civil war was not the Greek Communist Party (KKE). It was the British Army led by General Scobie and Greeks who had collaborated with the Nazi collaborators.

Josef Stalin had instructed the KKE to welcome his British allies as liberators and to follow their instructions. After they landed the British demanded that the partisans disarm. The Greek Communist Party leaders did their utmost to ensure that resistance fighters disarmed. For its part, the British army protected former collaborators from a vengeful Greek population, claiming to have put them in custody, whilst secretly re-arming them.

This made possible the bloody civil war which was won by the fascists. This defeat caused Greece to remain a dictatorship for more than three more decades. As Nana Mouskouri explained tonight on Q and A, parliamentary rule was not re-established until 1975.

Appendix 2: Other pages about the Greek Civil War

Episode 055 of George Galoway's Sputnik _{#fnGCW2" id="fnGCW2txt"> 2} program on RT referred to in #fnGCW1">footnote 1.

#GreekCivilWar Twitter pages.

Athens 1944: Britain’s dirty secret (30/11/14) on The Guardian - linked to from the Twitter page above. 1010 readers' comments are included.

Footnotes

#fnGCW1">1#fnGCW1txt"> ↑ The Greek Civil War is discussed in the first half of that episode of Sputnik. In that segment Galloway interviews Judy Cotter, a British woman, who as a student activist in 1973, courageously helped Greek students being imprisoned and tortured by the Greek military junta. That was the same junta which came to power in 1944 as a result of the betrayal of the resistance fighters in 1944 by Stalin and Churchill. The above article was also posted as a comment on Jan 2014 to Sputnik.

#fnGCW2">2#fnGCW2txt"> ↑ George Galloway's Sputnik program on RT should not be confused with the Russian Sputnik International web-site.

On April 4, 2015 the ABC and other new services reported on fierce 'clashes' as a newly formed organisation turned up in large numbers to oppose rallies in several states by a political group called Reclaim Australia.

"Organiser Mel Gregson [1] said No Room for Racism was formed with the express purpose of shutting down the 16 rallies across Australia planned by Reclaim Australia. The Reclaim Australia members, on their facebook page, describe their mission as "We as patriotic Australians need to stand together to stop halal tax, sharia law & islamisation.""

Gregson also campaigned against the Melbourne Tunnel Project.

Reclaim Australia.

So is Gregson, and all who support her, denying people the right to demonstrate peacefully about something they believe in, thereby displaying intolerance and bigotry? If she was at an anti-nuclear demonstration, would she cry "evil capitalism" if thugs hired by the nuclear power lobby turned up for a hostile confrontation against her?

Oxford Dictionary Definitions: (Additional observations in bold)

Racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Xenophobia:
Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. Does this mean the Aborigines who threw spears at the invaders of the First Fleet were xenophobic?

Does the banner "No Room for Racism" prejudge that Reclaim Australia is made up of racists without even understanding the meaning of the word? Is denying people the right to peacefully express a (non racist?) point of view in a public gathering analogous to autocratic imposition of martial law denying those people their rights?

This is not an argument about one side being right and the other side being wrong. This is an objective criticism of the motives and moral legitimacy of No Room for Racism.

No Room for Racism was chanting:
"The Reclaim members sang renditions of Advance Australia Fair, but the anti-racism protesters’ chants of “immigrants are welcome, racists are not” could also be heard throughout the CBD."

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places. SOURCES: Department of Immigration; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So is No Room for Racism not only confused about the meaning of the term racism but also confused about immigration and its impact on infrastructure expansion and the capacity to accept refugees in preference to relatively wealthy migrants? Isn't lack of population growth management driving the infrastructure expansion that Mel Gregson also opposes? Are Gregson and her supporters totally confused about the differences between refugees, mass migration and population growth management? Is this the kind of confusion that is endemic in Australian society as a direct result of the ABC (and other media) suppressing public policy debate of population growth management? Is this a form of confused "socialism" which is actually acting against global social equity by supporting exactly the same values as globalisation and right wing extremism?

Is a valid conclusion that Australia should have "No Room for Duplicitous, Self-Righteous, Incoherent Bigots" whose confused logic is carefully nurtured by dishonest taxpayer funded ABC broadcasters?

NOTES

[1] Mel Gregson is a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. See http://fightback.org.nz/category/general/events/page/3/ and http://links.org.au/node/3095

Ref: RN Breakfast interview with Joe Hockey on 26 February 2015

Traitor: "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." Substitute "a nation of people" for "friend".......

Fran Kelly's interview with Joe Hockey provides yet another example of the "don't mention the population growth" policy of Government, all the major political parties and the ABC. This betrays the principles set out in the ABC Code of Practice. This betrays a cause, which is impartial discussion of humane and sustainable solutions for Australia and its international conduct. This betrays a nation of people.

Is the ABC's conduct an attack on causes including:

• Objective assessment of what Australia can do to maximise it's humanitarian support for the world's most needy people using responsible economic management that incorporates detailed analysis of the economic impact of extreme population growth?
• Objective assessment of what Australia can do to optimise its strategy for reducing carbon emissions by considering the impact of extreme population growth on these emissions and on the means (economic and technical) available for their reduction?
• Objective assessment of the impacts of extreme population growth on the Federal Budget and what measures, if any, might be taken to address these impacts?

Australians are a "Weird Mob". In Australian schools in the 60s Australian history lessons made very little mention of the convict origins of Australian settlers and the dispossession of the Aboriginal peoples. Was this somehow due to shame and awkwardness?

Today we have Fran Kelly and her colleagues at the ABC using a far more destructive form of concealment and denial to bury the population growth issue. Are they ashamed and confused about the relationship between Pauline Hanson's perceived racism and xenophobic intolerance and the population growth management issue?

The interview with Joe Hockey displayed the contempt for logic we've come to expect from Kelly. She failed to ask Joe Hockey about a significant root cause of demand for real estate in the context of foreign buyers; which is extreme population growth.

The legacy of Pauline Hanson is a different issue to Population Growth Management for Goodness sake! Extreme Population Growth is like Convict Origins and Aboriginal Dispossession. It does exist!

There are three groups engaged in the population growth management debate:

• The inept, Pauline Hanson style, attacks on immigration which supported baser levels of resentment. This is analogous to an Aboriginal throwing a spear at someone from the First Fleet
• The ludicrous, ABC style, Government sanctioned, taxpayer funded, population growth denial
• The moderate, reasonable, scientific, humanitarian, intellectually competent group who may represent a majority of Australians who just want to see open, impartial, public policy debate of population growth management instead of an Intergenerational Report issued once every 5 years as a concocted justification for doing nothing to address the complex myriad of consequential issues

Without allowing the last group to have a voice on the ABC, Fran Kelly, and all who support her, are arguably traitors and criminals.

Politicians do not sign an oath of impartiality.

But the ABC is legally bound to act with impartiality and is therefore an unlawful organisation because it deliberately misrepresents or conceals (otherwise known as taxpayer funded fraud) what is arguably the most important humanitarian, social, environmental and economic issue facing modern Australia.

Australian mainstream media, including the public media, continue to report some critical world events in a dangerously one-sided manner, while the world increasingly risks a third world war. In this letter of complaint to the ABC, David Macilwain appeals to presenters Barbara Miller and Michael Brissenden to consider the multiple reports and perspective in all Russian media, and in many alternative internet fora, to better understand the nature of the powerplay in Ukraine, instead of uncritically reporting the slant on these matters given by western governments.

To Barbara Miller and Michael Brissenden, ABC

Re "The Debaltsevo 'cauldron'": "Battle rages for key Ukrainian town despite ceasefire agreement"

Dear Barbara and Michael,

As a well informed observer of current events in East Ukraine, and of the distorted picture of them presented in the Western media, I was very concerned about this morning’s report on the crisis in Debaltsevo, or what the Novorussians call the ‘Debaltsevo cauldron’.

They call it this, because a few weeks ago, some 8000 Ukrainian troops with heavy armour went deep into territory east of the current ceasefire line, with the intent to separate Luhansk and Donetsk and launch attacks against both centres of the ‘new republic’.

Not long before Angela Merkel’s rush visit to Moscow, the ‘separatist’ forces had succeeded in cutting off the access to this ‘cauldron’ by taking control of the main route in west of Debaltsevo.

The Ukrainian troops were surrounded and faced with a choice – fight to their deaths with no support from Kiev, or surrender to the Separatists. As we saw from news tonight, some small number of Ukrainian troops did surrender, but many thousands remain.

The leader of the Kiev Junta, President Poroshenko, refuses to admit that these troops are trapped, and refuses to let them surrender, while making wild and ridiculous assertions about Russian involvement. President Putin by contrast has asked Kiev to allow their surrender, so that the crisis can be solved peacefully, and the terms of the ceasefire respected.

As long as Western media organisations, including the ABC, continue to parrot the rubbish and lies being told by their governments, if merely by simply reporting them without ever revealing the truth, then we will see a further deterioration towards a major conflict over Ukraine.

I am appealing to you to consider the multiple reports and perspective in all Russian media, and in many alternative internet fora, to better understand the nature of the powerplay here, and start telling us what has really happened. A good place to start is with this blog by a ‘Russian’ living in the US, with many contacts in Russia and superb analysis:

http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.mx/ ["The Vineyard of the Saker"]

I would like to start hearing news on the ABC which presents even a moderate view of the Russian perspective, rather than none at all.

with regards,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria.

"7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation." (ABC Corporate Affairs). After David Macilwain, candobetter.net author and 7.30 Report viewer, complained, the ABC has made editorial changes to a report entitled, "Tony Abbott promises to ‘shirtfront’ Putin at G20 Summit." Mr MacIlwain's complaint appears under this ABC response. This is a positive response from the ABC since the kind of unfounded bellicose reporting that MacIlwain complained about is helping to move the world rapidly towards another world war. The ABC can help the world by reporting truthfully and respectfully. (Also published by AMRIS at https://susandirgham.wordpress.com/abc730-editorial-correction-mr-bill-shorten-president-putin-and-mh17/

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs5
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:30 PM
To: (Mr David MacIlwain)
Subject: 7.30

Dear Mr Macilwain

Thank you for your email regarding the 7.30 story Tony Abbott promises to “shirtfront” Putin at G20 Summit.

Your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. We have considered your concerns, reviewed the report and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy.

7.30 has acknowledged your concern and agrees it was inaccurate for the program to state as fact that flight MH17 was shot down by “Pro-Russian militia” and “Russian backed rebels”. The program understands the cause of that incident remains unresolved and is the subject of ongoing investigation.

The program has amended the online transcript of the report and posted an editor’s note alerting its audience to the error. The error has also been acknowledged on the Corporation’s online corrections and clarifications page.

The ABC Code of Practice is available online at the attached link;

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf

Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority http://www.acma.gov.au

Below is the original complaint as published on candobetter.net at http://candobetter.net/node/4119.

Complaint re ABC handling of Tony Abbott's insults and unsubstantiated allegations against Vladimir Putin

• View
• Edit
• Outline
• Track

UPDATE 24 Nov: We have just published an apology from the ABC regarding this complaint, here: http://candobetter.net/node/4197 where they have apologised for their misinformation.David Macilwain again complains to the ABC about their uncritical recycling of propaganda about the MH17 aircraft downing. He also expresses his disgust at the posturings of Tony Abbott with regard to the G20 and Vladimir Putin, based on this propaganda.

Dear 7.30 and ABC current affairs presenters,

I have sent the email below to ABC complaints, and copy it here for your information:

I am seriously disturbed by the handling of Tony Abbott's outrageous insults and allegations against Vladimir Putin today, by 7.30 reporter/presenters.

According to the transcript, Leigh Sales said:

...'since the shooting down of Malaysian flight MH17 over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia'....

Subsequently Sabra Lane repeated this in her own words:

...'after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by Russian-backed rebels over Ukraine'...

This allegation, presented as unchallenged fact by both presenters, is not merely only an allegation, but one which is entirely false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile, even one somehow fired mistakenly by separatists. At the same time there is ample evidence from multiple sources that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, with or without Western collusion.

Compounding Abbott's mendacity, and sheer idiot bravado in seeking to confront Putin, is the fact that all government leaders and intelligence agencies involved in the Ukraine conflict are aware of the truth - it is simply not possible that they could not be.

If the ABC is capable of asking itself a question and not taking the answer from other Western media sources or 'Coalition' governments, it should ask why we have not seen the US satellite data from Eastern Ukraine, that Russia has been demanding since July? We know it exists, and it would demonstrate conclusively the nature of the projectile that brought down MH17. What possible motive could the US have for not releasing it?

It is to be hoped that before Putin graces Australia with his presence, someone with more sense than our punch-drunk PM will have a little word in Abbott’s ear; the truth about the atrocity in Ukraine WILL come out, and he will need to be thinking about all the lies that he has told about our actions in Ukraine before they catch up with him.
The ABC would be as well to do the same.

(To shed some light on what actually happened on July 17th, a most comprehensive investigation and report was produced by a group of Russian engineers recently, covering both the technical details of all possible munitions responsible, and the wider implications and political context. Their conclusion is one now accepted by most impartial observers, and merely awaits confirmation pending release of US satellite data and information from the Kiev control tower seized by Ukrainian secret service on July 17th.)

While the possible involvement of Western agencies in downing MH17 is an atrocity of unbelievable proportion, the clear ‘innocence’ of separatist forces in this crime is what concerns us here - our behaviour and sanctions policy towards Russia being based on a presumption of their guilt.

http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MH17_Report_Russian_Union_of_Engineers_EN_Oceania_Saker.docx

Please download the 28 page report from this site.

with regards, David Macilwain,

Consider the simple example of a "good" man who has worked hard to provide for his family. He finds out his wife has had an affair and decides to murder her. His only defence in court is temporary insanity. The judge doesn't accept it and he is found guilty of premeditated murder.

This is analogous to the way the ABC has provided a quality public broadcasting service while plotting to misrepresent one of the most important public policy issues.

It seems that behind closed doors a bunch of ideologically driven nutters have hatched an elaborate, premeditated plot to suppress open public policy debate of extreme population growth, and instead focus on their pet carbon tax fetish. Their only excuse appears to be that the Government told them to do this, which is analogous to the temporary insanity defence; or perhaps the "I was only obeying orders" defence used at Nuremburg.

Walking a tightrope of feigned impartiality in a deliberate strategy to betray the people of Australia is a crime. There is no other way to define this. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Politicians are not bound by a Statutory Duty of impartiality and editorial integrity. The ABC is.

The plot has been unravelled by the ABC's track record and also by the exposure of the ABC's deconstruction of the carbon tax debate. That debate has omitted the fact that extreme growth in Australian emissions is directly correlated with extreme growth in Australian population.

What is even more embarrassing for the ABC is the bizarre way that the entire Carbon Tax strategy seemed like nothing more than redistribution of wealth via the tax system, assisted by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet. The absurdity of this would be comical if it was not so tragic.

I would welcome anyone who can provide a greater example of political farce in the history of Australia; and a more culpable example of ABC complicity in un-Australian denial of a "fair go" for all Australians who want to see open public policy debate as a first step towards development of a rational population growth management policy. That policy should be supported by a majority of Australians in the name of both global humanity and global sustainability.

The world has very dark days ahead of it. Denying that a root cause of this is overpopulation, as if it must be accepted without question, is absurd. You cannot address a problem by denying that it exists or by pretending it will go away. That is fatalistic contempt for the truth.

Is Australia governed by morons? Australia preaches about the Asian Century but behaves like the 18th Century British colonists who originally invaded Terra Australis. If Australia understood what it means to be Asian it would realize that most Asian countries have predominantly indigenous populations. For example, Indonesia, China, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines to name but a few.

None of these countries run mass migration programs like Australia’s. Australia leads the world in this category. Asian countries are not selling off their assets and housing to foreigners like Australia does; while crying crocodile tears about carbon emissions as they rapidly expand their fossil fuel exports to pay for population growth that the country cannot afford. With one of the highest costs of living of any country the annual growth of the Federal Budget combined with growing Government debt far exceeds the capacity of the growing economy to finance.

Asian populations grow at varying rates, depending on the level of development and the rates of natural births and deaths. None of these countries subject their people to mass migration as a tool to drive GDP growth in irrational contempt for the social, environmental and economic consequences.

If China used mass migration at the same rate as Australia's, it would be flooding the country with over 16 million migrants per year. China's reported population growth rate is 0.6% per annum. Australia's deliberately engineered population growth rate is 1.8% per annum.

Australia is a dishonest, hypocritical country built on a lie that government media fully supports while it preaches about humanity and the environment.

The death cult of Migration Assured Destruction is alive and well in Australia. Even the US example of how to screw up a country is not enough to educate Australia’s ruling class. This is a unique recipe for a cock up.

The argument that population growth is inevitable is as defeatist as the argument that the human race must destroy itself together with the environment that supports it.

The 20th century saw the developed world set the example of fossil fuel consumption for the developing world to follow. Now, in the 21st century, Australia insists on continuing to set the example of ridiculous and unsustainable, migration-based population growth as an example of how underdeveloped countries should behave once they have developed?

The premise of most demographic gurus is that population growth will slow as developing countries become wealthy. If that is true, then why does Australia deliberately drive population growth rates as high as those of some of the most underdeveloped areas of Africa and roughly 4 times the OECD country average? It certainly isn't about prioritising refugee intake.

Australia is an insult to the intelligence of most Australians. The primary responsibility for this reckless stupidity lies with both Government and its tool the ABC; both of whom are beyond the control of the Australian people.

There is no democracy in Australia when it comes to open public policy debate of population growth management and maximising Australia's potential to act humanely and sustainably both at home and abroad. It's just not up for discussion; and that is the essence of what Australia's autocratic "death cult" is all about. Cut philanthropic aid at home and abroad and destroy the environment; all in the name of profit - otherwise misdescribed as "economic growth".

Ed. Title, "Dangerous bias in terror wars" added by candobetter.net editor to help readers identify content. This article contains a complaint about ABC reporting bias which editors at candobetter.net believe has immediate grave consequences with respect to war crimes. Candobetter.net is publishing it in an attempt to increase the prospects for it to receive adequate and remedial attention from the ABC, which we believe could save many lives and contribute to descale events that threaten to escalate into a third world war. The complaint concerns a Radio National AM program presented by Chris Uhlmann with reporter Matt Brown, entitled, "Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS."

Program: ABC, Radio National, AM
Date: 18/9/2014
Title: Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS
Presenter: Chris Uhlmann Reporter: Matt Brown
***********************************************************************************************
24 September 2014
Dear Audience and Consumer Affairs,
The above-mentioned AM program breaches the ABC Code of Practice in regards to Accuracy, Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION

The United States with support from Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar, has begun airstrikes on Syria, ostensibly to target IS forces. To enter the airspace of Syria without the authorization of the Syrian government is an illegal act. Also, last week the American Congress voted to train and arm ‘moderate Syrian rebels’. These rebels are fighting both the Islamic State and the Syrian government, and there is reason to believe they see the Syrian government as their principal target. Under international law, it is illegal for countries to fund and supply weapons to insurgents intent on overthrowing the government of a sovereign state.

The Australian government will have enormous pressure on it from the U.S. Administration to support their military actions in Syria. It is, therefore, imperative that Australians are as well-informed as they can possibly be about the war in Syria and the so-called moderate rebels that America and its allies are arming. Decisions which will determine the history of the 21st century are being made.

What is more, the conflict in Syria impacts on communities in Australia and on people’s sense of security and well-being. We can all be disorientated by the mixed messages and the hatred stirred up in biased, imprudent reports and commentaries on the war. It should be the responsibility of the ABC, our national broadcaster, to inform us fully and impartially on Syria and the region. However, its Middle East correspondent, Matt Brown, is not doing this.

ACCURACY and IMPARTIALITY

In his report on AM (18 September 2014) Matt Brown presented a biased portrayal of ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. He described the rebels as ‘moderate’, as if their being moderate was a fact, not an opinion.

Furthermore, emotive expressions that could elicit sympathy for the rebels were used. These included, concern, hope, congratulated, thankful, and a welcome gesture.

There was no suggestion that these rebels might be opportunists, who happily wear the label ‘moderate’ today as it entitles them to receive military hardware from the U.S. and its allies, but who have aligned with terrorist groups, including ISIL, at times in the conflict when it suited them. Also, in coming days, months and years, there are already signs they will choose Al-Qaeda affiliated groups over the U.S. and their allies.

Unlike Brown, BBC’s Jeremy Bowen expresses serious reservations about ‘moderate’ rebels.

I have met many FSA fighters and they do have moderate views, certainly in comparison with jihadist groups. But the fighters are often religious and see no problem with building up alliances with the jihadists against a common enemy. Fighters also move from one group to another.

Also, it’s been reported that the family of Steven Sotloff, one of the American journalists beheaded by ISIL, accused ‘moderate rebels’ of selling Steven to the extremists.

Does a ‘moderate’ rebel kill differently to an ‘extremist’ rebel?

Ahmad Al-Rahal, a ‘moderate rebel’ introduced in the AM report, declared in an interview in March 2014,

There is no sectarianism in this revolution. Syria only has two sects: that of the regime and that of the revolution.

It is difficult to see how such a crude uncompromising approach to a ‘revolution’ differs from the Khmer Rouge’s, whose ideology was just as black and white and led to the killing fields in Cambodia. It is therefore shocking that Brown reports on Al-Rahal totally uncritically.

Given the lethal qualities of the ‘revolution’ in Syria and its attraction to young Muslim Australians, the ABC has a heavy responsibility to both the general public in Syria and in Australia to ensure ‘rebels’ in Syria, no matter what their name-tag today, are neither glamorized nor sanitized by ABC journalists.

The other ‘moderate’ rebel commander Brown introduces to the AM audience is Jamal Al Maa’arufe (also spelt ‘Ma’ruf’ and ‘Maruf). Currently, Maa’arufe is said to head a coalition of insurgent groups called the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front. Dr As'ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University has written the following about Jamal Maa’arufe on his blog, Angry Arab:
A Syrian leader of rebel thugs, Jamal Ma`ruf, having been groomed by Saudi intelligence, announces in the media that he is now ready and willing to fight ISIS. Let me translate: he has just received a large supply of weapons and cash from American and Saudi intelligence. Let the thuggery begin.

DIVERSITY of PERSPECTIVES

Although rebels control quite a large area in Syria, the majority of Syrians still choose to live in government controlled cities and towns. These people include up to two million Syrian Christians as well as Muslims of all sects who do not support a militarized opposition or an Islamised political system, similar to Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s. Yet, their voices are not heard in this AM report. It is as if they do not exist, yet they are people Australians would feel great empathy for if only we knew their stories and views.

Ironically perhaps, James Foley, the American journalist whose beheading became part of the pretext for U.S. military strikes on Syria, did diligently seek the views of civilians in Aleppo who were critical of the Free Syrian Army, supposedly moderate rebels. This may have cost him his life. In an October 2012 article titled Syria: Rebels losing support among civilians in Aleppo, Foley wrote,

The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
“The terrorism here in Syria is spreading, and the government has to do something about it,” said Mohamed Kabal, a 21-year-old university student.

Foley also presented the perspective of a disillusioned rebel.

He said he's seen civilians executed after rebels recklessly accuse them of being mercenaries for the regime.
“I saw one beaten to death,” he said. “The FSA didn’t check their facts, and now he’s dead. I know the man. He was 46. He has five children.”

Unlike some media outlets, such as the BBC, Channel 4, and the Telegraph, the ABC has not sent a reporter into government controlled cities to seek a diversity of perspectives in regards to the war. The ABC has maintained it hasn’t been able to get a visa for a reporter. But this is no excuse for the lack of balance in Matt Brown’s report. In June, tens of thousands of Syrians in Lebanon voted in the Syrian presidential election. Brown could travel to Beirut to seek out their views.

TRUTHS vs INACCURATE & BIASED REPORTING

In 2011, on an ABC community webpage, there was an account of the violence and terror then being committed by armed gangs across Syria. However, despite challenges, the mainstream narrative on the crisis in Syria has been consistent: a minority sect is oppressing the Sunni majority and a brutal dictator is killing his own people. Matt Brown promotes it in this AM report, as do print journalists, NGOs, human rights organizations, even UN bodies. When prominent Malaysian peace activist, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, writes on what might attract young Muslim men the rebel cause in Syria, we in Australia should pay heed. He is a ‘moderate’ Muslim exploring truths.
Unfortunately, through repetition, the narrative has become an embedded ‘truth’. Hence, although a well-regarded M.I.T. professor, a doctor in pharmacology, a US intelligence expert, a veteran investigative journalist; have all challenged the claim that Assad used chemical weapons against his people in August 2013, ABC presenter Waleed Aly can still insist Assad did, without thinking it necessary to substantiate the accusation.

So Matt Brown’s recent AM report continued the tradition of this narrative. It began with a discussion of the Sunni IS forces and ended with damnation of the ‘torture chambers’ of Bashar Al-Assad, who, as Brown says, is the ‘main target’ of ‘moderate’ rebels. (NB: Alternative sources question the ‘Caesar’ claims of ‘torture chambers’, but a mainstream journalist is highly unlikely to be instructed to probe deeply once a convenient ‘truth’ is embedded.)

On AM, rebel claims were presented without challenge by Brown; thus, they easily become ‘truths’. So Jamal Al Maa’arufe speaks about the fight against the “unjust Bashar’s illegitimate state”. Belief that the Syrian state is illegitimate may be what prompts rebels to brutally murder state employees, including bakers, post office workers, doctors and teachers. But how can a state that has been represented in the U.N. since its inception be ‘illegitimate’?

Brown says a government airstrike ‘reportedly’ killed Jamal Al Maa’arufe’s wife and daughter. Brown acknowledges it is a claim. However, apart from this AM report, a tweet and a Facebook entry, It is very hard to find support on the internet for it. An article in SYRIA: direct, reports on the airstrike, but it claims Maa’arufe’s deputy was killed; there is no mention of family members. Already Brown presents a sympathetic portrait of rebel leader Al Maa’arufe. Suggesting that he has lost his wife and daughter in a government airstrike further reinforces that portrayal. That may be the purpose of it. as to repeat what seems to be merely a little chatter on the internet seems irresponsible journalism, especially when the stakes are so high when there is misinformation presented on Syria, high for the people of Syria and the region, and high for Australians, as we are now learning.

CONCLUSION

Unchallenged rebel slogans, misinformation and distortions can only further entice young Muslim Australians to Syria to fight the ‘Alawi dictatorship of Bashar Al Assad’, as James Carleton described it on RN Breakfast (22/9/14) in clear contradiction of the true demographics, which are that the Syrian government, army, and business elite are dominated by Sunni Muslims. Young Australian Muslims who aspire to becoming martyrs in Syria or Australia can inadvertently become the victims of lies.

Syria is a conflict we all contribute to if we do not demand the highest standards of reporting. Not only do we risk being victims of our own naivety and gullibility, but by ignoring the voices and suffering of millions of Syrians - people like us - we compromise our basic beliefs and values, and we risk being complicit in heinous crimes.

Regards,

Ms Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

Image: Syrian TV interviewer with Dr Kinda Shammat, Minister in Syrian government (Screen shot taken from Syrian TV)

Image: Screen shot of image of a tweet showing ‘moderate’ rebel Jamal Ma’ruf, presented in Matt Brown’s report.

For example, the Ukraine is geopolitically important for many reasons; including its value as a food bowl and as an export route for oil and gas. The Ukrainian people are secondary to the interests of the foreign powers that seek to influence or control the territory and its resources.

The current turmoil in Syria and Iraq has been preceded by French and British military intervention respectively in the early 20th century, combined with imposition of new territorial borders. This was arguably an autocratic foreign assault on the region. People subject to somewhat arbitrarily defined borders have different histories and different vested interests little understood by the foreign autocrats. The same was true of the foreign assault on Australian Aborigines when their territory was first invaded in 1788. Have a look at any capital city in Australia. There are "Boundary Roads" everywhere.

#comments">Armchair experts #comments">sit around hypothesising about what should or should not be done, based on their subjective versions of humanitarian and strategic principles. Many know little of the history of the regions they discuss and use terms such as "democracy" and "territorial borders" to define right and wrong.

In Australia in particular, neither the Government nor the people have the ethical credentials to justify interference in geographically remote regional conflicts.

Australia is a country founded upon the principles of invasion and dispossession of "indigenous" peoples. That foundation remains the cornerstone of government policy to this day. It is an autocratically imposed policy that has nothing to do with democracy. This "invasion" does not prioritise humanitarian intake. In its current form it focuses on attempting to cherry pick healthy and relatively wealthy, educated people for their alleged "financial" value; at the expense of refugees.

Government media seeks to justify a government policy of invasion and dispossession in the interests of something it vaguely refers to as economic growth, although the economic impacts of extreme population growth are not investigated in the public interest. Politicians control decision-making on what lines of public inquiry deserve due diligence. Mass migration has always been the "robot-mode" status quo in Australia and politicians don't even question a policy that many other countries would regard as outlandish.

Between 1788 and 1900 Australia's population rose to 3.7 million. From 2002 to 2014 it rose another 3.8 million. This invasion is accelerating. This is extreme, unsustainable, Government imposed, amoral, financially motivated "developed world" population growth.

The ABC is not governed by any laws that can be enforced to hold it accountable for failing to comply with its Statutory Duties of impartiality and integrity. ABC agendas appear set by politicians rather than by analytical thinking.

The ABC's approach to the climate change debate has been the ABC–branded Carbon Tax debate, analogous to a doctor advising a patient that the only therapy for treatment of obesity is exercise (economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions), while encouraging the patient to eat fattening food (extreme population growth driving extreme emissions growth) from a company the doctor owns. The doctor also deliberately conceals the fact that eating is the primary cause of explosive weight gain.

So we have a lawless, government sanctioned, propaganda machine purporting to act as a humane and democratic voice of the people, while failing to address some of the most pressing moral and environmental issues in Australia. Population growth stands out as an issue of critical importance.

The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster occurred in similar circumstances. The Solid Booster Rocket seals failed causing a catastrophic explosion because NASA approved the launch at an unacceptably low ambient temperature in full knowledge of the risk. The 7 astronauts killed in the explosion were not informed of the risk.

NASA abused its position of dominance by prioritising a political desire for launch over competent risk management.

The ABC is a news and current affairs broadcaster. It has limited, if any, expertise in the sciences or in risk management. Yet it uses opinionated bias as a basis for concealing critically important information from public policy debate. Whether that bias is driven by Government or the ABC itself is immaterial. It is clearly contrary to the public interest and it is defined as unlawful, if not criminal, by the ABC Code of Practice.

The relationship between the adverse humanitarian, social, environmental and economic outcomes of population growth and the rate of that population growth is off the ABC agenda.

Dear Russian friends,

I am dismayed by the pretences and actions of the Australian government in relation to the shooting down of MH17 by Ukraine, as well as dumbfounded by the complete failure of any media organisation or public commentator to question or contradict this mendacity.

I have been trying to support the statements and actions of Russia and its various ministers by writing to the ABC as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs, since the start of the Syrian ‘campaign’. It must be said I have had little or no success, even in getting a response.

Last year I had the great fortune to accompany Mother Agnes Mariam on a visit to Malcolm Fraser, former PM. I can assure you that he at least is very well aware of just how criminal and dangerous the leaderships of NATO countries and Australia have become; as someone with ‘inside knowledge’, as well as experience in Serbia in the ‘90s he suffers no illusions about US intentions and global dominance, or Australia’s submission to it. Yet remarkably he is a lone voice.
With today’s news about the Dutch investigators’ preliminary report being quickly passed over, the situation has become intolerable. Remarkably this report actually supported evidence for Russian observations and elsewhere that MH17 was shot down by a hail of bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet – ‘a large number of high-energy objects’. No other conclusion is possible from the available physical evidence – photos of the cockpit damage. But so corrupt and stupified are our media organisations that they allow the lies of the leaders to go unchallenged.

I write to you just to show that there is a least one person in Australia who has no doubt about both Russia’s innocence and the Novorussians’ innocence of this terrorist act; there is little more I can do, beyond writing to my local newspaper ( national papers will not publish this viewpoint), but I nevertheless would like to offer my support in any way that you would consider useful. I believe that there must be processes by which such issues can be pursued with government, even though at all levels people do not accept the case we must make.

Lastly I should just note a comment in an article today in the Sydney morning herald. Talking of the MH17 report it quoted a Pravda editorial:

“Russia is unlikely to accept the report if it suggests they were involved in shooting down the plane.

A recent editorial in Pravda said

"Most likely the story of the downed plane will be hidden away carefully … it is clear that neither the [separatist] militia nor Russia were involved in the terrible disaster.

"The only question is whether Ukraine incidentally shot down the Boeing or it was a carefully planned but ineptly executed act of provocation."

The established narrative in Russian state-controlled media is that the plane was shot at by Ukrainian forces, either by a jet fighter or ground-based missile.”

This clearly articulates my own viewpoint – that the only thing we DON’T know is the degree of assistance from Western agencies to Kiev in committing this act – one which so favoured the plans of NATO and US aggressors who put the Kiev ‘government’ in place.

I hope that you will pass this message to the appropriate people.

kind regards,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria, Australia 3695

An article by Kathy Lord, "Wildlife group 'pushed to the limit', in ABC News, typifies many mainstream press reports on kangaroos as it reports the phenomenon of kangaroos turning up in suburban and urban areas. This article entirely omits to criticise the cause, which is human overpopulation and expansion due to Australian and State goverments' undemocratic policy of inviting mass immigration from interstate and overseas. This needs to be exposed. The article, as stands, makes it look as if kangaroos are for some bizarre reason invading the city. This is grossly unfair and quite callous. The casual references to darting and euthanasia gloss over a completely avoidable problem that breaks the hearts of many Australians who just want the suburban expansion and its destruction of nature to stop.

"Wildlife group 'pushed to the limit' by growing number of calls for help for kangaroos in residential areas," relates sympathetically how growing numbers of displaced and injured wildlife are overwhelming the capacity of wildlife rescuers and carers. But it fails to show sympathy for the kangaroos; treating them like some insensate mass of troublemakers. The 'problem' seems largely reduced to one of getting the government to help Wildlife Victoria 'dart' the kangaroos. It hints blandly at mass euthanasia. It does not say where 2000 and more kangaroos might be placed, once darted, in what is a chronic displacement problem caused by government policy.

"Wildlife Victoria chief executive officer Karen Masson said since December 2012, the number of calls for help has increased rapidly. A large mob of up to 2,000 kangaroos has been displaced from new suburbs in the Mernda, Doreen and Whittlesea areas north of Melbourne. The animals head into residential areas for lush green grass and that is when they get into trouble,"

Lord makes it sound as if the kangaroos have somewhere else to go and are choosing, through some kind of gourmet impulse, to invade suburban gardens.

"The problem has forced Wildlife Victoria into a corner. The group says it can no longer afford to dart kangaroos, leaving it up to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). Ms Masson said the department has agreed to take over, but its darters only work between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday.
The ABC asked to speak to a DEPI spokesman about the problem but the department only offered a brief statement.
"The Department of Environment and Primary Industries recognises the challenges of kangaroos in growth areas north of Melbourne and is working with Wildlife Victoria on the matter," the statement said.

Note: you may have to view the video below on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVxjHnSxP1k. When the start button of the embedded video below is pressed, the following message may be displayed: "Playback on other web-sites has been disabled by the owner" - Ed

This video was made in 2006 about a group of kangaroos marooned in Thomastown, which people tried to save. The situation has got even worse for kangaroos and that small clan is long paved over.

Journalists need to learn to present the situation more fairly

The author of "Wildlife pushed to the limit," and other journalists, need to learn to use more a balanced language and less biased terms when writing about kangaroos that are lost, isolated from their families and bewildered among crowds of humans and our noisy travel devices.

The kangaroo found near Sydney Road Coburg, (mentioned in the article) like the others who found themselves trapped in the airport carpark and one in the terminal, do not intentionally and deliberately cause chaos for humans.

To be fair, Kathy Lord did mention how wildlife groups are struggling with increased calls for help with distressed kangaroos, and how volunteers are overworked and understaffed, and wildlife groups are underfunded.

Many articles like this, however, make it appear as though kangaroos are somehow invading urban areas like some form of enemy aliens on the march to take over ‘our’ land, when in actual fact they were here long before humans.

We humans are the ones with ‘ballooning populations’ and ‘uncontrolled numbers’ (to use the words of the uninformed), who occupy their land.

Kangaroos and other wildlife have to contend with bushfires, ‘controlled burnoffs’, speeding vehicles, farmers & drunken shooters, sadistic morons in their utes, toxic sprays, polluted creeks from farm runoff, droughts and floods.

To add to that, human overpopulation and our urban and industrial sprawl are invading wildlife habitat and squeezing kangaroos out into the open making them vulnerable to further dangers.

Yet journalists continue to vilify these displaced roos with terms like ‘the kangaroo problem', ‘pests’ or ‘causing chaos’. These journalists neglect to inform the public of the real problems involved, especially the human problem.

Those who get to publish their own versions of kangaroo stories in major media outlets with wide coverage aren't getting the message out about what is really happening.

Articles like the above-mentioned often misrepresent the real situation, depriving the kangaroos of sympathy and understanding for their plight. They also deprive the community of a platform for necessary political action.

If you’re a journalist please take into consideration all of the above natural and human threats to kangaroos the next time you have an article to write on the topic.

Michael S brings to a persuasive conclusion his argument that Your ABC has been complicit in a brainwashing exercise that will damage the survival chances of its loyal listeners. As one who comes from a family of Friends of the ABC, with seniors who simply love the ABC for its programs and the window it provides on the world, I know how difficult it is for such people to bring themselves to believe that the ABC would mislead them. For them it is like a fundamental betrayal from an old friend. Nevertheless I think that Michael S is right: ABC policy is run by people whom the lay-person would judge to be outlaws. Yet they are not disciplined or taken to court. What does that say about our legal system? - Candobetter editorial.

A layman’s view of the legal landscape

If we accept that breach of the ABC’s Statutory Duty to avoid bias (Ref: ABC Code of Practice) has occurred, then we must also accept that the ABC is a law breaker.

One premise for accusing the ABC of law breaking is the following 5 minute video, which is the “tip of the iceberg” of ABC pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth bias:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97cmFCkb1KE

Here is a proof of party political advertising in the ABC Vote Compass, which is also unlawful according to the ABC Editorial Policy document:
http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3844

Pro-population growth and pro-Carbon Tax bias underlie each example. There are many more examples that can be exposed by scrutiny of ABC conduct between 2008 and the present.

It’s a bit like parking in a No Standing Zone. If you didn’t see the No Standing sign you still broke the law.

So I think we can comfortably move on knowing that the ABC has been, and remains, a law breaker in its coverage of these issues.

Both the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have refused to acknowledge this bias, despite the facts presented. So they have denied the ABC even parked in the wrong place, let alone did it with intent.

This interesting excerpt provides a description of Accessory after the fact:

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 6
Accessory after the fact

"Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years."

So if the bias is proven, and the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman argued that it did not exist, are they Accessories after the fact or are they incompetent and therefore innocent?

So is it possible for the ABC to be incompetent and guilty while the ACMA and Ombudsman are incompetent and innocent?

Hence nobody is accountable for a major betrayal of the Australian people? And because nobody is accountable, the betrayal can continue indefinitely?

Let’s move on to some incriminating facts that challenge the incompetence defence:

• I first raised the direct relationship between emissions growth and population growth in written communication with the ABC on 23 November 2009 and continued to do so many times before passing of the Carbon Tax legislation in November 2011
• Statistics quantifying the direct relationship between emissions growth and population growth, and relatively constant emissions per capita, had been recorded in National Inventory Reports by Government on an annual basis since 1990. They show emissions growth correlated with population growth far exceeding the Australian-based Carbon Tax reduction targets. The ABC has always had full access to this information.

Here’s something interesting about what a reasonable person should be able to do:

Ref: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=law_pubs
Ordinary and reasonable people: The design of objective tests of criminal responsibility

“This paper reviews the design of objective tests of criminal responsibility for serious offences. It will be argued that their design needs to be rationalised in light of two fundamental principles. First, there is ‘the fault principle’, that is, the principle that there should be no penal liability without fault. It follows from this principle that, whatever the seriousness of an offence, we should reject liability for failure to attain a standard that was beyond the capacities of the accused. Secondly, there is ‘the proportionality principle’, that is, the principle of proportionality between culpability and punishment or penal liability. Proportionality is both a sentencing principle and a principle of responsibility. As a principle of responsibility, it demands that the degree of culpability required for an offence should be commensurate with the level of penal liability. The more severe the sanctions that a person will face upon conviction, the worse should be the culpability required for conviction.”

Since we are not seeking to imprison anybody (but maybe we should?) the persons facing the severe sanctions are the people of Australia whose democratic rights are being abused due to:

• Misrepresentation of the Carbon Tax issue
• Omission of the Population Growth Management issue from public policy debate

Any reasonable person can see this truth, including all the ABC Operatives who perpetrated the bias. So why is it an unreasonably harsh penalty to expect them to apologise and correct all their misrepresentations. Or was it outright fraud?

"This article highlights how the ABC misled the Australian public, and Australian politicians, about the Carbon Tax in the lead up to passing of the legislation in November 2011. Tony Jones shows clear understanding that net emissions growth is the real issue (in China) but doesn't question Julia Gillard when she says a Carbon Tax will "cut carbon pollution" when facts prove a net increase will occur in Australia. QANDA bias is proven. Has the ABC done such a good job omitting the primary cause of emissions growth that nobody even understands it has happened?"

Suggested segments to watch (fast forward to the referenced time slots):

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3263582.htm Time Slot 9.17 Is this a naïve Believer who actually doesn't understand the facts because the ABC has concealed the truth from her and all other Australian citizens? This is a complex issue, yet the Carbon Tax is being defined as a simple Magic Wand. The misunderstanding of the broader issues by the audience appears to be endemic, as would be expected of a people subjected to pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth propaganda.

Tony selling a perfectly good used car ... No emissions. It has a Carbon Tax converter.

Time Slot 16.45

Julia Gillard was asked to give a straight answer on the benefits of a Carbon Tax. She said "This will cut carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes in 2020. Imagine the amount of pollution 45 million cars generate. That’s the amount of pollution we will prevent going into our atmosphere in 2020 by putting a price on carbon pollution." This was a vast misrepresentation.

• First, she didn't mention that 100 million tonnes of this would be achieved by sending billions of dollars of taxpayer's money overseas to buy carbon credits from foreign carbon brokers.
• Second, she didn't mention that over 90 million tonnes of additional emissions would occur in 2020 due to predicted trends and unofficial strategy to continue Australia's extreme and autocratically imposed population growth. (Roughly 32% emissions growth and 32% population growth occurred from 1991 to 2011.)
• Third, she didn't mention that the EU (post Kyoto Protocol) had banned use of carbon farming to generate carbon credits in its Emissions Trading Scheme because of measurement uncertainties, and that it doesn't provide an incentive for transition from fossil fuels to alternative technologies. This made up a significant proportion of the hypothetical 60 million tonnes and remains widely discredited to this day
• Fourth, she didn't mention that Australia's emissions per capita are the highest on earth and therefore population growth management must form an integral part of any plan to manage emissions in the short to medium term

The truth was that there would be a net increase of as much as 30 million tonnes, even if the hypothetical target for the Carbon Tax reduction measures was achieved. It was the ABC's responsibility, in the public interest, to ensure that this was understood by its audience. The ABC did nothing of the kind, despite having full access to the facts.

Gillard repeated:

"To have a debate based on the science, people have to show respect for the scientists and I think one of the worst features of what has been a long, divisive debate in our country is the lack of respect shown to the scientists....."

For Gillard the only science she was talking about was the evidence that more carbon in the atmosphere contributes to climate change. But all the other relevant, Australia-specific, science I have referred to above has been selectively ignored. "Cherry-picking" one part of the science and ignoring the rest is disrespectfully unscientific.

Just to remind us of what science is, consider these definitions:

• A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
• Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
• Any of the branches of natural or physical science.
• Systematized knowledge in general.
• Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

QANDA has never addressed any of the above-mentioned inextricably related scientific facts when broadcasting on Australia's climate change response options; and did not on this occasion. Why?

The choreographed omission of these issues from audience participation was evident.

"Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions."

"A commitment to accuracy includes a willingness to correct errors and clarify ambiguous or otherwise misleading information. Swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated. Corrections and clarifications can contribute to achieving fairness and impartiality."

For years the ABC has refused to formally apologise for its misconduct. This must occur, regardless of how long its takes for legitimate conduct to overcome past misconduct.

"The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity."

"Fair and honest dealing is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content."

Time Slot 28.20
Listen to this and you will hear Tony Jones explain that he understands exactly the issue he is omitting from the discussion with Julia Gillard. He says at Time Slot 30.17:

"That's the problem isn't it. There are not overall less or fewer emissions (in China due to alternative energy usage). Overall their emissions are growing rapidly."

He applies the logic to China, but then doesn't mention its relevance to Australia? He talks about overall emissions in China growing rapidly, but watches Gillard repeatedly talk of "cutting emissions by 160 million tonnes" and makes no comment about Australian emissions being expected to continue to rise rapidly due to ongoing extreme population growth and chaotic expansion of our carbon based economy?

Note also that the decline in economic Key Performance Indicators all point to extreme population growth as a culprit, yet the ABC never mentions these facts. The ABC has direct access to all these facts. ABS Statistics Government must address

The "Thank You For Saving Us" segments from young and old. Note how QANDA has placed the grateful child at the end of the show:
Time slot: 20.14
Time slot: 56.40

The youthful plea was followed by another iteration by Julia Gillard of the myth about "cutting 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution" in 2020.

QANDA has either been deliberately pro-Carbon Tax and pro-Population Growth biased in breach of its Statutory Duty, or cannot understand that it has been biased. It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Manslaughter or murder; what's the difference to "the issue that has been killed" in breach of the public interest?

This misconduct by the ABC can be traced back to before 2008 and has arguably been an attack on the Australian people with the following consequences:

• It contributed to the hung parliament in 2010 because the ABC never questioned the Greens on their extreme population growth + Carbon Tax agenda
• It contributed to passing of Carbon Tax legislation as described above
• It supports continuation of undemocratic extreme population growth by stealth and without consensus
• It may be contributing to adverse economic outcomes, which would directly impact all Australians and Australia's capacity to provide philanthropic aid, both at home and abroad

In summary, the outcomes of ABC misconduct arguably bear similarities to those of organised crime.

Petition for Public Apology by ABC MD for Misconduct of Carbon Tax Debate

Is ABC Political News analogous to the hegemony of the pigs of Animal Farm?

Here is an attempt at a satirical analogy.

Characters:

Napoleon: Will the real Napoleon please stand up? Is it the ABC CEO or the ABC Head of Editorial Policy?
Squealer 1: RN Breakfast
Squealer 2: QANDA
The dogs: ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs, AMCA (and Ombudsman?)

In the original Animal Farm the animals all dreamed of equality for all, and they set out to achieve it after the Revolution overthrew the humans. With humans removed the animals were finally free and equal.

The pigs knew they were the smartest animals. The other animals were dumb. So the pigs assumed the role of leading the animals to the Utopia of fairness, caring and equality.

Everyone should have everything, and all should be equal. The senior pigs were the products of an environment where their education was paid for by the state. They had always had everything they needed. Animal Farm was in a lucky country, after all, and with the humans now expelled true liberty was assured.

The pigs developed Commandments for all the animals to believe in. They called these the ABC Editorial Policy and the ABC Code of Practice. It was about fairness and impartiality. It was about preventing propaganda from being used as a tool to act against the public interest.

But some animals became more equal than others. The pigs enjoyed annual pay rises higher than the other animals. They also enjoyed defined benefit pensions and a life of comfort in an imaginary world that could sustain itself, based on mere belief; forever. The ABC pigs were Believers. Those who disagreed were Deniers.

Then it started becoming warmer. The pigs wanted a Carbon Tax to keep Animal Farm cool. They would take the money from the other animals and install an air conditioner in the Farmhouse. That would fix the problem.

They were making more and more money from the farm as the population of animals kept increasing. This was good. The pigs were earning more each year; even if the animals were working harder; for less.

The Commandments were slowly being changed over time. The ABC pigs did this so the animals wouldn’t notice. After all; the other animals were dumber than the pigs and it was for their own good. Two important Commandments with their amendments were as follows:

• All animals are equal, “but some animals are more equal than others”

• The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial, “except when at its absolute Editorial discretion the ABC decides otherwise”

These revisions allowed the pigs to do exactly as they pleased and their dogs were there to keep order if any of the dumb animals questioned the changes. The dogs simply “tore their throats out” to silence them.