(We) can do better

Here is a brief update on the activities of the US Peace Council delegation in Syria. We went to Ma'alula today [29 July 2016] and tomorrow most of us will fly home. I could spend many words and hours debunking every lie you have been told about Syria and Syrians in the last 5 years, a Sisyphean task in today’s environment. Instead I will share some of my perceptions of recent events based on my experiences in Damascus this week.

Yesterday [28 July] was quite an interesting day. We met with President Assad in the morning and talked at some length. We began by exchanging introductions and then we asked him some very serious questions. We were not allowed to record the session but many of us took at least some notes. He told us that his strongest focus is on representing the Syrian people and holding the state together on their behalf. He described numerous programs the Syrian state has enacted to protect the people during this very difficult time. The government has converted schools and other buildings into refugee centers. They continue to provide, to the best of their ability, free education and medical care to everyone in the government held areas; they supply power, clean water and food even to areas that are occupied by militants where it is possible.

And he proudly told us that the Syrian Arab Army, an army of the people which is defending the country against a brutal attack, have finally closed the road from Aleppo to Turkey. This is very important because the militants in East Aleppo, and especially Al Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, have been receiving money and weapons from Turkey. He then told us that he had just issued the order to implement the humanitarian corridors and amnesty for Syrian nationals. He said that there are two ways to deplete the violence. The first is to fight to the bitter end. The other is to provide an incentive for people to stop fighting and give them a safe passage back to the lives they have left.

These are the first steps in the reconciliation plan which the Reconciliation Minister had talked about extensively, and which was cited by many others we spoke to as the best thinking to restore peace to Syria. We had already had two extended meetings with the Minister of Reconciliation, one in his office and the other over dinner at our hotel where he explained the methodology for reconciliation which they have been developing for some time. Amnesty and humanitarian aid are just the beginning. Evacuating as many civilians as possible is a temporary step to secure their welfare while negotiations are ongoing.

They used this process quite successfully in Homs last winter when they evacuated thousands of fighters and their families from neighborhoods they have long held hostage. Many were bused to Idlib where they may well resume fighting, but a densely populated areas of Homs is now secure and the civilians are able to live their lives in peace. The tens of thousands of citizens who remained were provided humanitarian relief and basic needs with reconstruction assistance on the horizon. You can see the video I posted on my blog at the time when they joyously welcomed the Syrian Arab Army. Minister Haidar admitted that Reconciliation plans are a work in progress and problems do occur. He also explained a complex process involving contact with and empowerment of the local people in the occupied areas that I can explain at some other time.

Each case is unique. East Aleppo has been very closely tied to a stream of foreign fighters who came in through Turkey. They are unlikely to walk away. Al Nusra/Al Qaeda is the primary organization there. And there may be a larger civilian population than in some of the other areas where the plan has succeeded. While the world is watching, it must be stated that the deep plan of working with local fighters and civilian councils will not unfold immediately. Ali Haidar, the Minister of Reconciliation and the long time leader of a dissident party prior to the current crisis in Syria (the war), is on his way to Aleppo to assess conditions and work on making the contacts necessary to begin the real process of reconciliation.

Of course, the first steps of this plan for reconciliation have been all over the news with varying judgements. The New York Times refers to reconciliation and restoration of the fighters’ citizenship as ‘surrender’, but that is not the way those vested in ‘reconciliation’ see it. People we spoke to told us that Syrians are tired of the war. Many initially joined the fight because they were being paid. They say that others joined out of confusion during the initial attacks on their villages and neighborhoods and that many men in occupied areas are given the choice to fight for the militants or be killed immediately. The president told us that he would prefer to heal the country rather than unleash a sea of rage and revenge. The only context in which this does not make sense is one where the sovereign Syrian State is not acknowledged.

Starvation might be less an issue in Aleppo than the fact that the fighters and their families will no longer have income. Last week it was reported, even by Western sources that the current situation was imminent and so an effort was made by the militants in East Aleppo to bring in several months worth of food and other necessities. In the last 24 hours, the Russians have air dropped more food and supplies into East Aleppo. And there are resources at the humanitarian corridors. The NY Times is reporting that people don’t want to leave East Aleppo. However, RT, however, is reporting that militants are firing on civilians who try to leave the area. Clearly there are problems that need to be addressed.

However, there are significant differences between the perspective presented by the Western press and that of the Syrians we met with this week. There is one I would like to point out, that was made very clear by everyone I met with during my stay here in Damascus. Syria is a sovereign country. It has a government which is doing its best to provide the services that governments provide including the provision of necessary resources and services to civilians including personal security which includes ethnic and religious tolerance and equality under the law. None of the forces at war with the government of Syria have demonstrated the capacity, or more importantly, the desire to provide these basic human and civil rights to the people of Syria.

President Bashar Assad, who was elected two years ago by the majority of Syrian citizens with a clear majority of votes, comes across as a well educated, progressive individual who is taking responsibility for providing for the people of his country who elected him by a significant majority, and leading a government which is attempting to respond to the issues that have caused civil unrest and discontent within that society while at the same time facing a vicious attack, funded, armed and manned by wealthy countries that have no civil rights and provide few social resources to their population. Not only is the government of Syria with their President doing their best to support the people of that country, but were he to leave, there would be no leadership in the fight against forces that oppose the values of the vast majority of Syrian people and are determined to tear the state apart.

Syrian is home to several ethnic groups and numerous sects of Christianity and Islam. They have lived together in peace for centuries if not longer. This week, the Grand Muftii and the Bishop of the Orthodox Church told us they are ‘cousins’. People tell me it is shameful to ask another person their religion or ethnic background as it is socially irrelevant. There is an awareness of the economic issues that are a source of suffering but the war has taken precedence. There is no doubt that the Syrian government has made mistakes and no one in Syria denies it. However, the US demand that Assad abandon his office and his responsibilities is unrealistic and out of sync with American values as well as with Syrian values. The US insistence on continuing to fuel this vicious war with money and weapons, through proxies and direct strikes, through propaganda and political manipulation, until he abdicates is criminal. It is a violation of international law, us law, and common morality.

US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has been found to have taken dangerous and illegal risks with her emails whilst Secretary of State. Tens of thousands have gone missing. It is suspected that these emails would reveal compromising exchanges with Middle Eastern dictatorships, among other things. (The brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, currently conducting genocidal war on Yemen, is a major arms customer for the US and has contributed between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, from which Clinton draws financial support for her campaign.) Instead of targeting Clinton's extreme negligence, incompetence and corruption, leading media outlets have suggested, without any evidence, that Russia hacked her emails and - ridiculously - that Russia is trying to steal the US election. It is now official, Hilary Clinton is trying to divert from her criminal negligence by a campaign against Russia and major media organisations are helping to push that narrative. Clinton's defensive actions are yet more evidence that severe narcissism so clouds her judgement that her election would be a global catastrophe. As Julian Assange has said, Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk with bad judgment” who gets an “emotional rush out of killing people.” “A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war.” Noting his years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and having read thousands of her cables, he stated that, “Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless wars which spread terrorism.” He also highlighted Clinton's “poor policy decisions,” which he said have “directly contributed” to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).” Stating that Clinton went above the heads of Pentagon generals when it came to Libya, he wrote: “Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria.” He went on to state that Clinton did not learn from her mistakes, and set out to repeat history in Syria. “Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years,” he wrote. Numerous statements in her autobiography, which I reviewed here, indicate that she seems to operate with an unreal view of the world, to enjoy violence and to be unaware of its consequences.

Article initially published on RT on August 1, 2016. While US media and politicians keep crying ‘wolf’ – or Russia – over the DNC email hack without providing any proof, Moscow called the accusations ‘absurd’. WikiLeaks refused to reveal its sources and promised new leaks before the November vote.

We are keeping this article up at the top of the page so that people will realise that although we are now publishing articles again and invite comments, candobetter.net is still having work done on it. We have been the target of at least two severe hacking attacks in past two weeks or so, with trouble during the month before that. Our return to full function has been delayed by special precautions to prevent further attacks, plus an upgrade in process. We are very grateful to our hosts at LVPS Hosting for their excellent work on this. You will notice the green padlock in the top left corner, which signifies that the site is safe.

In the process of protecting the site, nearly all accounts have been disabled, including those of the editors (temporarily), in order to screen out any attacks from that quarter. Please write to Sheila or James or contact on candobetter.net and ask for your account to be reenabled and we will send you new passwords. There may be some hiccups over the next few days as our webhosts install new functions. We thank our readers and contributors for their patience and loyalty.

It has been a frustrating time as so much has been happening in Syria, in population and development policy and wildlife policy in Australia. We look forward to articles!

President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc., research veterinarian and animal research ethics expert, Dr Ian Gunn, has called upon the Queensland Environment Minister, the Hon. Dr Steven Miles, to initiate and independent inquiry into cruelty and mismanagement of the dingo population on Fraser Island as a matter of urgency.

Collaring causing animals distress

Dr Gunn stated that the recent inappropriate collaring of a juvenile dingo, which had obviously put the animal in distress was the latest in a sequence of events which raise serious questions about animal welfare aspects of current dingo management practices on Fraser Island.

This incident involved the use of a cumbersome radio tracking collar on a juvenile dingo, which was purportedly being tracked for public safety reasons. Photographs taken by a tourist clearly show that the edges of the collar had worn away the fur on the dingo’s neck and would have unnecessarily interfered with the young dingo’s mobility and well-being. After pictures of the dingo were made public, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service decided to remove the collar. However the young dingo was killed by a vehicle strike, incurring massive internal injuries, before the collar could be removed. “These events raise serious animal welfare questions” Dr Gunn said.

Ethics and duplicate tracking devices

Dr Gunn stated: “Why was a radio tracking collar used when ear tag identification was already attached to the dingo? What animal ethics approval had been obtained by the QPWS to use the collar for non-research purposes? If ethics approval was acquired, questions need to be raised about thoroughness of the approval process. Why was a collar also applied to this juvenile dingo’s litter sister, when no radio tracking was intended for that animal? There appears to be no consistent rationale for the use of the collars and serious questions about animal welfare are left without adequate answers”.

Unanswered animal welfare questions

These events follow an incident, in 2015, when another juvenile dingo was ‘humanely’ euthanased after allegedly becoming aggressive. Necropsy photographs obtained through Queensland Right to Information legislation point to severe physical trauma prior to death. Dr Gunn, who conferred with senior veterinary colleagues over the photographic evidence, concluded that the dingo had suffered massive internal bleeding in the abdominal cavity consistent with a heavy blow or impact prior to being put down through lethal injection to the heart. Yet, there is no discussion of this evidence in the inadequate official necropsy report. Dr Gunn stated that: “Again, we have evidence of unacknowledged animal trauma and unanswered animal welfare questions.”

Necropsy report , October 2015

Internal bleeding within abdominal cavity – severe pre-death trauma

Possibly the most serious dingo cruelty incident at the hands of Queensland wildlife authorities occurred on Fraser Island in May 2011, as part of dingo trapping for radio collaring research. The necropsy report for this juvenile male dingo reads like a horror story. Upon examination of the report at the time, Dr Ian Gunn stated:

In all my years as a veterinary surgeon, I have never witnessed anything like this. This animal died in agony while trapped and restrained as part of ‘research’ being conducted by Queensland government authorities charged with its protection. The necropsy report stated that the otherwise healthy dingo had been restrained for ‘some period of time’. It had been pinned down by a pole noose and pinning device. It had chipped and fractured teeth, extensive internal bleeding, including widespread bruising and haemorrhaging to the thorax, limbs, neck and lumbar spine region, bleeding from the eye, tearing of the muscles between the ribs and the chest wall, and congested and collapsed lungs. In its final moments of life, the dingo vomited its stomach contents into its airways.

Necropsy report 2011

The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program subsequently sent a solicitors letter to the relevant Queensland government departments and Ministers alleging serious breaches of the law and inadequate animal ethics practices relating to this incident. No acknowledgement was received, let alone action taken. Not one person was held to account.

“It is time for the buck to stop and it has to stop with either the Queensland Environment Minister, or the Federal Minister for the Environment who, because of Fraser Island’s World Heritage Listing, has compliance responsibilities under the EPBC Act”, Dr Gunn said. “The Queensland government’s claim that the Fraser Island dingo population is being managed ‘humanely’ is now in serious doubt. The only way to get to the bottom of this mess and possible cover up is to conduct a genuinely independent animal welfare inquiry into dingo management on Fraser Island.”

Dear Readers and Contributors,

There has been a problem over the weekend with uploading files. This has been a month of a variety of problems for this website. We thank you for your patience and apologise for the drab visuals on the front page. Hopefully LVPS Hosting will fix these problems soon.

Editor, Candobetter.net

Animal Protectors Alliance (APA) spokesperson, Robyn Soxsmith is delighted at the outcome of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision which overturned a magistrate’s guilty verdict against a angaroo slaughter protestor. Two charges of hindering government officials at last year’s annual kangaroo slaughter were heard in the Magistrate’s court earlier this year. The Magistrate found Dr Chris Klootwijk, guilty on only one of the two charges. Magistrate Walker dismissed the charge in relation to one of the officials purported to have been hindered after she found that the ACT licence to shoot kangaroos was invalid, therefore the killing was illegal, therefore it was not illegal to hinder it.

However, she found Dr Klootwijk guilty on the charge relating to the other official, the ranger who had acted as ‘Incident Controller’ on the night of Klootwijk’s arrest. She found that this official did not need a valid killing licence for his role as Incident Controller.

Justice Elkaim ruled that Magistrate Walker was in error on this point because the Incident Controller was there as part of an unlawful activity.

Meanwhile, Ms Soxsmith claims that this year’s kangaroo slaughter, which has been going on mid May, and which is scheduled to continue until the end of July, has been conducted
entirely under this invalid licence.

“The government seems to think it can get away with anything. Just this week they were shooting so close to Mugga Lane in Isaacs Ridge Reserve, no more than 30 metres away, a
passing motorist could easily have been killed by a ricochet.

“Last year they were shooting, with exactly the same arrogance and impunity, very close to the Centenary Trail which is used by cyclists all hours of the night.

“And this risk to human life is on top of the many ways they are breaching to Code of Practice for shooting kangaroos. The Code, which is supposed to minimise the cruelty of the
slaughter, is very nearly useless as water in a sieve. But at least it says animals should not be wounded and left in agony for hours before being euthanased, by a heart or head shot. And at least it says that orphaned dependent joeys should not be left to starve. Yet eye witness statements attest to both these horrors happening during the ACT slaughter as a matter of
routine.”

Ms Soxsmith assures the people of the ACT that protestors will continue to protest the kangaroo killing every night until it ends this year and will be out in force to do the same next year and every year until the ACT public put an end to “this insanity”.

Source: APA_Media_Release_Outcome_of_Court_Case

Recently I became very distressed to hear of a looming dispersal of hundreds of thousands of flying foxes at Bateman's Bay. I read the ecologist's report and Plan of Management, which strongly recommended against dispersal, then wrote a submission (on behalf of the Threatened Species Conservation Society) to Minister Greg Hunt and Eurobodalla Shire council. Since then I discovered that there are similar situations of smaller magnitude occurring here in Tweed shire, along with wherever they occur. So I wrote letters to the local papers. Following is my submission and letter to the editor. [Editor: This article, first published on 2016-06-09 was overlooked and has just now been put on front page, with a new date and thanks.]

Importance of this Flying Fox Population

We are living in the 6th Mass Extinction of species. Australia has the world’s worst record for mammal extinctions. Here is one more example of why the list of extinct species is growing – governments are failing to adequately protect the environment.

In their nightly foraging, flying foxes fly from tree to tree, dusted with flower pollen or eject the seeds of fruit eaten, inadvertently regenerating woodlands and forests by dispersing up to 60,000 seeds each every night. Many eucalypts produce most of their nectar at night to attract these exceptional pollinators. Flying about 20-50 km a night between food trees and their camp, this keystone species maintain the genetic diversity of native trees and reforest gaps. This ecosystem service will become increasingly important to facilitate the flow of adaptive genes between trees, assist plant movement and assist the survival of many other species.

As a keystone species already in decline and vulnerable to extinction, the protection of flying foxes is tantamount. If flying foxes become extinct we are doomed. Without flying foxes we would have no more forests including World Heritage forests and hardwood forests, melaleucas, banksias, eucalypts and about 1/3rd of all fruit that relies on flying foxes to pollinate them (bananas, cashews, avocados, dates, mangoes, peaches, paw paw, durian). Scientists regard the loss of pollinators as the most serious issue facing mankind.1.

The Bateman’s Bay population of grey-headed flying foxes (GHFF) is a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) i.e. there has been a population of at least 10,000 every year for 10 consecutive years. But now there are over 100,000 flying foxes at Bateman’s Bay. There are estimated to be 680,000 GHFF total.

In the 2009 Recovery Plan it was noted that shooting flying foxes had diminished due to subsidies by NSW government for netting. However habitat loss is increasing and there is lack of food. For example extensive clearing on the coast for agriculture results in flying foxes losing weight, having higher mortality and lower reproduction levels. Their populations are not bouncing back. They are suffering ongoing deterioration in condition as they explore new areas e.g. inland Adelaide and Wagga Wagga. Due to food shortages they are forced to eat marginal food such as privet and green figs and are establishing satellite sites a distance from their camp.

Legal Protection

Grey-headed Flying Foxes are protected by the National Parks & Wildlife Act, 1974, Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature – Red List of Threatened Species.

Already flying fox populations are impacted by heatstress from very hot weather (>38 degrees C), droughts, cyclones, bushfire. They don’t need the additional threat of dispersal at a time when they are starving from lack of food sources.

Why create an exception just because local residents are unwilling to live in harmony with them? If dispersal is approved, it is likely to set a dangerous precedent for people in other locations to demand dispersal of flying foxes in their area too.

Why Dispersal Should Not be Approved

There is an overwhelming number of reasons why dispersal, especially of such a large camp, should not go ahead. As you may know from the review by Roberts and Eby of 17 Flying Fox Camp dispersals4:-

* In all cases, dispersed animals did not abandon the local area
• In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying foxes in a local area
• Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved <600m from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation). In 85% of cases, new camps were established nearby
• In all cases, it was not possible to predict where replacement camps would form
• Conflict was often not resolved. In 71% of cases conflict was still being reported either at the original site or within the local area years after the initial dispersal actions
• Repeat dispersal actions were generally required (all cases except extensive vegetation removal)
• The financial costs of all dispersal attempts were high ranging from tens of thousands of dollars for vegetation removal to hundreds of thousands for active dispersals (e.g. using noise, smoke etc)

We understand that previous attempts at Batemans Bay also were not successful, success being defined as no more conflicts, no flying fox mortalities and permanent relocation elsewhere. The following are more reasons not to disperse:-

• Dispersal is highly stressful for bats and often leads to injuries or fatalities
• Very expensive (for Batemans Bay $57,800 pd for dispersal team, $1500 pd for ecologist, $5000 for management team = $6.2 million + $1 million contingency plan for the 3 stages (first year only). More for subsequent years and must cover up to 3 years
• Dispersal is planned for July-August. Approvals and preparations may take 2 months in the months of May/June. However September-October is when the bats are in late stages of pregnancy or have dependent young so very high risk of mortalities/injuries then
• 70 personnel will be required over 8 weeks, 50% of whom need to be vaccinated (most will not be locals)
• Wildlife caring groups have to struggle to help injured and orphaned bats, pay for veterinary care all without adequate financial assistance from council or government when they are already stretched thin and short of volunteers
• In the week after dispersal begins, teams need to locate injured, orphaned and dead flying foxes (p.18 of Ecological Australia’s Camp Dispersal Plan recommends that ‘no deaths or injuries’ be permitted). Trigger to stop dispersal is visibly pregnant females or with young
• More power outages will occur as bats fly around longer each morning during dispersal, becoming electrocuted on power lines
• Animal cruelty issues
• Risk of dispersed bats dying of starvation or further losing condition since they are already hungry
• Only 5% chance of success
• Dispersal disturbs residents during pre-dawn (smoke, flashing lights and noise) for the first 8 weeks initially then thereafter each time there is a dispersal. The most distressed the bats are, the noisier which in turn disturbs residents
• Bats must relocate 20km minimum during which time there is increased risk of fecal drop and disease due to stress
• Bats could relocate to unsuitable locations during dispersal for which council would be financially responsible to manage. Council could end up bankrupt if there are too many unsuitable relocations and ongoing dispersals
• As a species vulnerable to extinction in the next 25-100 years, dispersal risks their long-term survival. In fact 30% of the species died between 1989 – 1998 due to dispersals and since then their decline has been accelerated precisely due to dispersals and relocations.
• As a keystone species whose survival is required by many other species of plants and animals, their extinction would have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the entire Eurobodalla area, not just Bateman’s Bay.

FLYING FOXES COULD BECOME PERMANENT FUGITIVES AS THEY GO FROM PLACE TO PLACE, EXHAUSTED, STARVING, STRESSED, MOVED ON BY HUMANS WHOSE NEEDS ARE JUDGED MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NEEDS OF A SPECIES ON THE TIPPING POINT OF EXTINCTION. THIS SITUATION WILL WORSTEN AS TIME GOES ON WITH INCREASING HABITAT LOSS DUE TO HUMAN OVERPOPULATION AND ENCROACHMENT INTO THEIR HABITAT.

Efforts to date

We understand that Eurobodalla council has already done the following in an attempt to deal with the situation, i.e.:-

• Cleared buffers between camp and properties
• Offered subsidised services (guerneys, car and washing line covers)
• Removed 12 cocos trees,
• Slashed, mowed, pruned
• Given out informational brochures on flying foxes

Solutions

1) Education - It is critically important that residents, whether they are affected or not, clearly understand:-

a) The irreplaceable ecosystem services of flying foxes i.e. pollination of native trees (including World Heritage forests, hardwood forests, banksias, melaleucas, eucalypts etc) in the area. Flying foxes are the #1 pollinator of forests, who on their nightly foraging increase the genetic strength of plants, preventing inbreeding. Without flying foxes we would have no avocadoes, bananas, durian, cashews, dates, mangoes, peaches or paw paw. And without forests we would have less oxygen in our atmosphere.

b) Fears of disease from GHFFs must also be allayed since bats have no more diseases than any other wild animal and diseases like Lyssavirus and rabies cannot be contracted except via body fluids. It is not possible for humans to contract Hendra virus directly from flying foxes, only via infected horses.

c) A comprehensive education/advertising program must be undertaken to eradicate the common perception of bats as ‘pests’ to be culled or relocated. This should ideally include TV advertisements, articles and radio interviews so that Australians across the country become educated. Wildlife carers could be paid to take orphaned bats to schools so children can see how adorable they are and the reasons why they need our protection. I cannot overemphasise the importance of education as Australians commonly have an attitude that native animals (not just flying foxes) are ‘pests’. The prevailing public hysteria around bats needs to be defused urgently and that includes dealing with residents’ irrational fear of disease and the importance of wildlife-friendly netting for fruit trees.

2) Big Picture Explanation - Secondly, residents need to understand the reason why there are so many bats at Bateman’s Bay ie. we humans have taken away their habitat and therefore are now paying the price.

3) Tolerance - Help people learn to live in peace with flying foxes, such as:-

* Try to become quieter. Bats stress out and become noisier if people are mowing etc
* Double-glaze windows to cut down on noise.
* Park cars under cover.
* Place washing lines in the open away from trees and night-time flight paths.
* Use ear muffs at night to sleep and air purifiers for those who dislike the smell

It’s by far easier to adapt human behaviour to bats, than the other way around.

4) Repercussions - People need to seriously consider the adverse effects of no forests or native trees. What kind of future will there be for our children and grandchildren? How will they cope with less availability of certain fruits, less oxygen and more Co2 in the atmosphere from no forests?

5) Tourism Opportunities - Eco-tourism needs to be promoted so local businesses can flourish and benefit from the amazing spectacle of thousands of bats leaving their camp at sunset. This would help locals to appreciate bats for the increased tourism to their shire. Flying foxes have so many gifts to offer us if only we could get beyond the mental fixation that they are a nuisance.

6) Business Opportunities - Perhaps some enterprising person can start a business selling organic bat manure which is bound to be highly beneficial to gardens.

7) Improved gardens - Local residents can benefit from free fertiliser per compliments of the flying foxes. Some residents say gardening is impossible but bats aren’t flying around in the day. Perhaps those residents should try gardening in the daytime and not after sunset and pre-dawn when the bats are most active.

8) Deal-Breaking - Instead of spending $6-$7+ million on dispersal, council could:-

i) offer to buy back worst affected properties
ii) waive council rates for at least the period that flying foxes are present
iii) employ council officers to guerney residents’ driveways, cars etc regularly
iv) offer free air purifiers for house interiors
v) supply industrial grade ear muffs to help people sleep
vi) supply under-cover parking for those without a carport. Temporary carports can be as cheap as $150 from supercheapauto and quite durable
vii) offer the community the chance to spend this money any way they wish in lieu of dispersal e.g. new sports stadium

While all these ideas cost council money, the bottom line is they cost a lot less than dispersal without the disastrous impacts on threatened keystone species.

9) Getting to the Cause - The big-picture/long-term solution is to:-

• plant more flowering natives in bat-friendly areas (near water, in a gully) where people will never live nearby
• stop the deforestation of flowering eucalypts that flying foxes should be feeding on in winter which drive hungry flying foxes to the coast to ravage orchards
• create alternative flying fox roosting locations that include native food trees so that flying foxes don’t rely on orchards and therefore impinge upon humans. Non-residential urban areas such as parklands, golf courses and even cemeteries can be planted with a range of native trees that provide fruit (small-leaved figs) and nectar (eucalypts and melaleucas). This would provide feeding sites away from residential areas and corridors for them to travel between remnant forests. If these natural food sources are available when commercial fruit trees are bearing fruit, flying foxes are less likely to become a problem.
• a camp may be encouraged to move (which is not the same as forced relocation) and can be done by planting roost trees further away from houses. Surveys of flying-fox camps in New South Wales have shown that a distance of as little as 100 metres from neighbouring houses can be enough to reduce the noise level of a flying-fox camp to an acceptable level.
• Remove the lower branches of trees and clearing the understorey, to create a buffer between roosting animals and surrounding residents. Such actions would need to be undertaken carefully, preferably in conjunction with the creation of suitable habitat elsewhere, and subject to a monitoring program. Further research needs to be done into the factors influencing the establishment and persistence of flying fox camps.2.
• Low, dense trees and shrubs planted around fence lines also form a barrier that flying-foxes are unlikely to roost in3.
• Incorporate a buffer zone between the building and roost trees that ideally should not be paved or made of concrete in order to reduce mess problems. Plant low growing fragrant shrubs in this zone to minimise future encroachment by the animals into the site and reduce odour problems. Planting tall trees will only eventually bring the animals closer in to the development.
• Worst case scenario if everything else fails, dangle electric wire from the trees which the bats touch and it gives them a small electric shock, and then they go away. While it's only a small shock, still it's better than being killed.

10) All About Timing - The camp will reduce in size in the next few weeks or months so people could wait patiently, most of the flying foxes will leave when the flowering season of spotted gum, red bloodwood, and blackbutt begins to decline. Or at the very least wait till early February when juveniles will be independent, recommended by Ecologic Australia. Success is more likely if dispersal takes place when the camp is smaller and outside bats’ sensitive life cycles.

Conclusion

All affected residents at Batemans Bay moved into their houses knowing full-well that flying foxes lived nearby since they have had at least 10,000 flying foxes per year for the last ten years. It is reasonable to expect that the flying foxes would breed and expand their population (as with human populations).

For governments to bend over backwards and break important rules and regulations that are in place to protect our environment and especially threatened species to appease people who lack the tolerance, compassion and understanding of bats is a grave error, one that we will pay for long into the future should the bats become extinct.

The Threatened Species Conservation Society Inc. sincerely hopes that the Eurobodalla council and the Federal Government will at least try a bit harder to solve this problem instead of going down the route of dispersal which is guaranteed to fail and be hugely expensive, for the sake of our little forest-makers.

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsXc_aefKI
2. www.jcu.edu.au/rainforest/issues/ITFL_flyingfox.pdf
3. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/wildlife/living_with_wildlife/flyingfoxes/
4. http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/inside-council/council/meetings/2016/may/ordinary-council-meeting-10-may-2016/Batemans-Bay-Flying-fox-Camp-Dispersal-Plan.pdf

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor

Conflict between flying foxes and humans in our shire is so disconcerting. Humans have destroyed 75% of pre-colonial forests for logging, mining, livestock grazing, industries, cities and housing. We continue to take from the land whatever resources we need to make ourselves comfortable (computers, TVs, cars, refrigerators, mobile phones, iPads etc).

But when the flying foxes are too close to our schools and homes, screeching and squabbling all day with a smell we dislike, we scream ‘they have to go’! But where? We have taken away their habitat, their food sources and now they are becoming permanent fugitives as they go from place to place, exhausted, starving, stressed, moved on by humans whose needs are judged more important than the needs of a species on the tipping point of extinction. This situation will worsten as time goes on with increasing habitat loss due to human overpopulation and encroachment onto their land.

Flying fox populations have declined 95% in the last century and 30% since 1988 and are vulnerable to extinction. Their ecosystem services of night-time pollination is without compare. Every night they fly up to 50km dispersing approximately 60,000 seeds each. What does it mean if they become extinct? Simply this – no more World Heritage forests, hardwood forests, melaleucas, banksias, eucalypts and about a third of all fruit (including bananas, avocadoes, mangoes, peaches, pawpaw, cashews). And fewer trees mean less oxygen to breathe.

Our preoccupation with creature comforts is trivial in comparison. Shouldn’t we be incredibly grateful to this keystone species whose existence is critically important for so many other species including ourselves? Shouldn’t we be a bit more tolerant? From a bat’s perspective we are the ones who are stinky, filthy, noisy pests!

They are not the one with outrageously loud ‘music’ festivals and doof music blaring from their noisy cars and radios! They are not the one brushcutting, mowing on tractors, bulldozers and earthmoving equipment tearing up our habitat! Nor are they the ones stinking up the environment with their cigarettes, chemical sprays, chimney smoke and hazard reduction burns! Flying foxes are not pouring their feces and cow sewage into the ocean. No, it is us who are the pests. Additionally they are native whereas we are ferals having just arrived in this land 230 years ago.

Humans have had it good for too long. If we can’t live in harmony with other species in an ecocentric vs anthropocentric way, we too will head for extinction.

If aliens were watching us they would probably think we were the stupidest creature on the planet. Either that or that psychopaths were running the country.

Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.

Yet another report about homelessness in Australia

Melbourne University Faculty of Business and Economics this week released a report entitled,"The Household, Income and Labour dynamics in Australia survey," (HILDA for short).

The main disturbing and most publicized finding on the day it was released was that home ownership in Australia is in steady decline and the steepest decline is in the state of Victoria. In Victoria I see the extreme manifestation of this trend, homelessness in the streets of Melbourne, every time I venture to the city or inner Melbourne areas such as Carlton. I actually know personally two people, one older and one young, who have experienced homelessness in Melbourne.

It seems obvious that for home ownership levels to recover, growth in house prices urgently needs to slow and stop. For the good of our society, prices even need to fall. Author of the HILDA Report, Professor Roger Wilkins, offered as a solution to the catastrophic decline in home ownership, the very meagre suggestion of an abolition of the capital gain tax discount, presumably as a disincentive to investment in housing. I would however maintain that people will still want to invest if a certain capital gain is to be had, even if they do pay tax! They would still be ahead!

Would a decline in Australian house prices be a concern?

For home owners with only one property and who are mortgage-free, a drop in the $ value of their houses really wouldn’t matter as long as it were part of a general, overall decline in property values. For those who are servicing a mortgage, a significant drop in property prices could be a problem, as their equity becomes less as a proportion of the amount owing.

So, can we escape a populating growth fueled housing Ponzi nightmare without collateral damage?

Initially, stabilising the $value of houses would not be as painful as a sudden decline.

I will take it as read that house price increases are due to a greater demand than there is supply. Demand has increased as net overseas migration has increased. A dramatic increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) dates back to John Howard’s time in power and has hardly let up. This number needs to come down.

One can also base the potential housing demand on the number of young adults in the population. In the 'best of all possible worlds, local young adults will want to establish their own households, whether singly or as couples, or with friends or siblings, as a first step. Immigrants, young or old, all need accommodation immediately on arrival.

If, for young Australians, buying a house is manageable and they enter the housing market (for many it is not affordable now) then that will actually increase demand from that age group. So reducing immigration dramatically would not be the only factor affecting prices. Lower immigration would have a downward effect and local young adults entering the market would tend to keep prices buoyant. The two effects would not necessarily at all be equal to one another and this balance would depend largely on the amount by which net overseas migration decreased.

In 2015 there were 1,054,565 people in Australia in the age group 24-26 (inclusive). At this age let’s assume young people have finished their post school education and are ready for the work force. They really need to leave home and either buy a house or rent. In 2011 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552283) 29% of young people 18-34 were still living at home. All the young adults still living at home with their parents are potential home-grown consumers of housing.

Are vacancies as a result of deaths an adequate source of housing supply?

In Australia there are about 150,000 deaths per year. Not all these deaths release accommodation, as not all deaths are of people living alone. Some may leave a family behind! But even if 50% of them did result in a house coming for sale or rental, i.e. 70,000 houses or apartments, then there is still that potential demand from 1,054,565 people in the 24-26 age group alone (2015 ABS) and, if the cost of housing stabilized, maybe all young people would be seeking accommodation away from the family home. Even without immigration, there is still, from these figures, a much higher potential demand for housing than there is existing housing which may become vacant. This is because the present age group needing to establish themselves in their adult lives is much larger than the older group. For example, in the Baby Boomer age group in 2015, arbitrarily aged 60-63, there were 775,971 people (2015 ABS) . This is a much smaller number than the potential house hunters in the 24-26 age bracket. Even then, people in their early 60s can expect another 20 years of life and will need their homes in the interim. Even if they left their houses there would still not be enough houses for the more numerous early 20s group. If one were to expect an imminent bonanza from the group 20 years older than the Baby Boomers, one would be disappointed because there are only 223,430 in a three year age bracket in their early 80s!

Where does demand for housing come from?

1. Emerging young adults needing housing away from the family home either as newly formed couples or other arrangements. The actual number depends on which age group is selected but it is a larger number than in the age brackets where downsizing or death are likely

2. Net overseas immigration – about 200,000 every year 3. Investment – local or overseas. 4. Holiday houses or units.

Of the investment properties, many of them will be available for rental. Although this does not help home ownership, at least it means, if rents are affordable, that people may be housed.

If foreign investment in Australian real estate were prohibited and net overseas migration reduced to levels say of the 1990s - 70,000 to 90,000 or lower, it would take extreme pressure off house prices. Then local young people might have a fighting chance of getting into the housing market. Young Australians who are now living at home with a parent or parents would get an opportunity to enter the market which would keep prices buoyant but not in the extreme.

Further demand for housing in Australia is surely waiting in the wings from people now sharing dwellings who would prefer less crowded arrangements. They would, in fact, become a new market for house sellers. The housing market would become more stable and gradually Australians could get used to a climate where a house was somewhere to live and not a speculative investment. The housing sector does not need to worry. If houses are on the cusp of affordable, I maintain there are local customers who will want to buy them or rent them. People would start to be able to exercise choices with respect to housing.

We are now in a dangerous cycle of price rises and of buyers, possibly in a defensive move, taking on enormous debt (relative to income) because they expect prices to go ever higher. A crash in prices would be wonderful for some and catastrophic for others, but I believe this situation can be avoided in Australia even with a significant cut to demand from overseas because of the age distribution of the population and the 'pent up' demand from young adults in the population.

Victoria Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

Dear Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. members and friends

Here is a message from the Friends of the Queen Victoria Market. (PPL VIC is a great supporter) "You are invited to a meeting which is about building a community campaign with market traders, its customers, the wider community and the NUW (National Union of Workers) to protect the Vic Market, its people and its history. See https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket. where you will find the flier and good background on the issues. The Friends of QVM Facebook page is a community page and everyone who is interested is welcome."

Meeting details are:

Date & time: Wednesday 20 July at 10.30am
Venue: Victorian Trades Hall Council Chambers, Cnr Lygon and Victoria Streets, Carlton
Location: Melways ref: Map 2B F12, Trams along Victoria and Swanston Sts, Buses along Lygon & Swanston Streets
Contact: Mary-Lou Howie M 0401 811 893
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/FriendsofQueenVictoriaMarket

The message from Friends of QVM continues: Just in case you don’t follow the Friends of Queen Victoria Market Facebook page which I co- author and now has a huge following, the Vic Market traders and supporters are having a big meeting at Trades Hall this Wednesday at 10:30 am.

As you must be aware, the Vic Market, as we know it, is under threat. The City of Melbourne, along with the top end of town, has plans to reduce and gentrify our historic market, paying lip service only to its valued heritage and the important service it provides to the wider Melbourne community, in particular, its role in keeping food quality standards high, food prices down, while providing astounding diversity.

The Council’s intention is to:

sell off part of the market’s land for commercial development, road extension and other purposes
to build high-rise buildings at its immediate doorstep,creating tall walls and corridors around its perimeter
to shrink the market from 12 sheds to 5
to gentrify this historical market by cherry picking which traders will stay or go,
jeopardise &/or close small, family-run businesses by not renewing or extending leases beyond one year,
to create a gourmet food precinct and entertainment space.

In short the Council proposes to micro-manage a cultural change of the market, to change its size and shape and give itself free rein to make physical changes to its layout without further public consultation.

The Lord Mayor has said this is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Melbourne and an implementation strategy is now in place, yet no comprehensive plans detailing what is to be implemented has ever been revealed to the public.

Friends of Queen Victoria Market have a healthy readership of around 2,000 - 5,000+ people who want the market to continue as a sustainable, functioning shopping space for all people in Melbourne. We support revitalisation of the market and believe in proper independent consultation that leads to appropriate change, always mindful of QVM’s history, heritage and importance to our community.

If you are available, I would love to see you at Trades Hall on Wednesday. Cheers, Mary-Lou Howie M: 0401 811 893

Circulated by Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408

In this 43 minute interview, previously published on 15 July 2016 on Syria News as most important points Dr. Assad cleared in latest NBC interview, the elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confronts and demolishes the lies peddled to public of Australia, the United States, Britain and their allies about the Syrian conflict.

This is the man that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition leader Bill Shorten have labeled a murderous tyrant. It would be interesting to see how they would stand up to a similar degree of scrutiny. If they were ever similarly interviewed about their own actions towards Syria, including Australia's economic sanctions, which have doubtless cost many of the 350,000+ Syrian lives lost since March 2011, they would surely be torn to shreds.

Excerpt: President Assad explains that only Syrians can decide whether or not he will remain President

 

Full 43:05 minute interview

 

Well, Erdogan is still in situ. No-one is sure whether this was a real attempted coup or a false flag. Erdogan is already infamous for imprisoning journalists who do not toe his line and now it is feared that Erdogan is now going to use this incident to ramp up his power in new terrorism laws which will be used to further repress the Turkish people. There are also fears that attempts to bring in a new non-secular constitution might gain somehow from the shoring up of Erdogan's power post-coup attempt. Erdogan is known as a covert supporter of the extreme aims of the Muslim Brotherhood. Inside we have republished a statement from the Turkish Communist Party, which insists that neither the government nor the parties to the coup were operating for the good of Turkey. Indeed, most citizens of Turkey, looking at their neighbours - Syria, Libya, Irak, Afghanistan - would probably prefer any kind of stability to violent change of government. And, by the way, the United States has a nuclear-armed airbase in Turkey.

Turkish Communist Party of Turkey Statement on attempted coup

We do not have all the details of what happened during the coup attempt that took place in Turkey in the hours between July 15 and July 16. However, we know very well that plans that are supported by foreign forces, that do not take its power from the working class cannot defeat AKP [Edrogan's Party] [1] darkness and solve Turkey's problems. The events of today reminded us the following reality once again: Either the people of Turkey will organize and get rid of AKP or AKP's reactionary policies will intensify, repression will increase, massacres, the plunder and theft will continue.

The only power that can overthrow AKP is the people's power, there is no alternative to it.

AKP is responsible for all that took place tonight. All the factors that led to the current situation and the conditions are the product of AKP's rule and the domestic and foreign bosses that support AKP.

However, the fact that the main responsible party is AKP does not mean that the coup attempt was one that was orchestrated by Erdogan himself in order to achieve his objectives such as paving the path to an executive presidency or clearing the obstacles facing the new constitution.

The tension and the rivalries between different groups within the state and the armed forces that have been known to exist for a while have turned into armed conflict. While the tension between these forces is real, it is a lie that any of the sides in this conflict represent the interests of the people. Following this, searching for the solution against AKP's rule in a military coup is as wrong as lending any support to AKP under the guise of taking a position against military coups for whatever reason. The last thing that should be done in the name of supporting freedom and human rights in Turkey is to lend support to AKP which has proven over and over that it is an enemy of humanity.

While they have not orchestrated this coup, Erdoğan and the AKP will make an effort to use the resulting conditions and the support they received as means to increase their legitimacy. Our people should be on the alert against steps that AKP will be certain to take in the days to come. Raising the struggle against AKP and its darkness is the only way to stop this failed coup attempt resulting in AKP's solidifying its rule and turning into a tool for transforming AKP's unstable Turkey into stability. The fact that all mosques in Turkey have broadcasted continuous Erdoğan propaganda the whole night is a concrete indication of the urgency of our task at hand.

The Communist Party is calling on our people to organize in the Party's ranks to wage the struggle against the people and humanity.
The liberation is in our own hands.

Communist Party, Turkey

[1] AKP: The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), abbreviated JDP or AKP in English and AKP or AK Parti in Turkish, is a social conservative political party in Turkey. This is President Erdogan's party.

07.58am from a source in Turkey: "We heard the news about two hours ago. I am just outside the city centre in Ankara. First
the airforce and then the jandarma and when we heard the Army had joined, it was clear it was all over. Erdogan is reported to be out of the country or on his way back Ankara.
AKP has called on supporters to take to the streets.
I think it is all over for the AKP.
Chief of staff arrested.
A very big explosion at Army HQ.
Army taking over police HQ - police are iwth the AKP.
Shooting in the diplomatic/parliamentary district of Ankara.
Helicopters overhead ... martial law imposed.
I think it is all over for Erdogan.
I don't think AKP can resist. No-one is on the street... AKP call not being answered... My guess is that the Turkish people will defer to power and authority and Erdogan has lost it.

Mayor of Ankara also calling for people to come to the streets but he is AKP and up to his neck in dirt.
No, it is clear the coup has worked and was well-planned."

8.20 am from Ex- Aleppo resident: "I just heard from relatives in Aleppo and Tartous that everyone is celebrating like crazy because of the coup in Turkey!"

The latter remark is of course a reflection on how Erdogan, who is said to be strongly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has secretly supported the rise of ISIS in Syria and has benefited from cheap oil which they have stolen.

Yesterday July 14th from Turkey:

Yesterday I heard that the news from Halab (the Arab name for Aleppo, Syria) is positive. And that on July 14, the Turkish Prime Minister had again said that Turkey has to develop good relations with Syria. It was hoped by the person making the communication that this spelled the end of Turkish intervention in Syria and that and it probably signaed some kind of revolt against Erdogan, who is very unpopular.

Apparently, the other day Erdogan - personally, as if he had the right - offered citizenship to well educated Syrian refugees, but not to all of them.

This pragmatic triage of refugees itself was uncharitable but there was already a backlash against the intake of refugees from Syria anyway from opposition political parties.

In a southwest province the other day a young Syrian who killed a young Turk was himself killed in a fight over a dog - the Syrian had kicked it. The whole town is now demanding that all Syrians go. Erdogan's whole policy was collapsing around him. He himself had not mentioned Syria or Assad negatively for ages.

World population Day was established by the UN in 1989 to highlight concerns as the planet’s population went past 5 billion. It is now at 7.4 billion and rising by about 80 million every year, so the problems are even more intractable (despite the rate of growth declining). Medium scenarios produced by the UN estimate the world population could be between 9 and 10 billion by 2050.

It may surprise some that Australia has one of the highest population growth rates in the developed world. We are adding about 325,000 people a year, with about 55 per cent from net overseas migration and 45 per cent from natural increase at the present time, although it has stood at a 60/40 ratio for a number of years.

Population is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss in public forums, partly due to the complexity of the subject and partly due to the political and emotional nature of the issues. These issues can go to the core of people’s philosophies and values and include notions of freedom and human rights, compassion, religion, progress, ecology, and economic imperatives.

In Australia, people often get confused between sometimes competing issues like refugees and asylum seekers, racism, border protection, defence, economic migration, colonial guilt, and sustainability. These tensions are not unique to Australia, as we can see from debates in Europe and the US in recent times.

What the European, American and indeed Australian problems show is that sovereign states should not consider themselves immune from population pressures in other parts of the world as desperate people will have little regard for borders or dangerous sea crossings.

To that extent, not-for-profits like Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) are continually lobbying governments to increase foreign aid to the developing world to help it gain control over unwanted and harmful population increase. Unwanted population growth can largely be curtailed through a mixture of education, the provision of modern contraception, safe emergency abortion, and the alleviation of poverty – although some people like to argue about which is more important.
Regardless, the empowerment of women is vital.

So purely from a selfish point of view it is in Australia’s interests to maintain a reasonable level of foreign aid, in concert with the rest of the developed world, and targeted to voluntary family planning programs that we know can be successful. Unfortunately Australia’s foreign-aid budget has been shrinking lately in a retrograde and myopic fashion.

But leaving the more obvious global problem to one side, Australia is long overdue for an open debate on the benefits and burdens of domestic population growth and where these benefits and burdens fall.

A recent survey commissioned by SPA found that most Australians did not think we needed more people; and a survey by SBS in May found that 59% of people thought that the level of immigration over the last 10 years had been too high*.

Proponents of a ‘big Australia’ are mostly business barons and their hirelings: the wealthy gain the most from population growth and can largely insulate themselves from its negative effects like sky-rocketing real-estate prices, long commutes to work and infrastructure shortfalls.

Meanwhile, the average person, but especially the young and the poor, suffers the most – from unaffordable housing, general congestion, and competition for access to education and health services.

More unseen problems tend to harm everybody: these include biodiversity loss, increased greenhouse gases and climate change, the reduction in fresh-water availability, and the steady increase in all kinds of pollution.

While unpopular among elites, especially economists, there needs to be a conversation about the direction our society is going. The privileging and mindless pursuit of GDP growth might not be the best option on a finite planet where limits to growth seem obvious to all those not blinded by dogma. Rather, the pursuit and monitoring of such things as general wellbeing and happiness might be a more rational strategy, especially if that means a more equal sharing of what wealth can be generated in an ecologically sustainable fashion.

If we adopt the latter planned approach, we might well find that a stable rather than an ever-growing population is more sensible. The alternative may well be an unplanned population correction that no one would find enjoyable.

*[http://tapri.org.au/?page_id=2 ]

"Isn't it great. Isn't it grand. After years of getting our "Hate Abbot" caffeine shot every morning from Age Letters. Now we can look forward to a new superior blend of "Hate Hanson" every morning. (No need to explain)," writes David (ZPG) Hughes in a letter to the Age editor, which he cc'd to candobetter.net. Mr Hughes, who once manned the website 'Crowded Planet," which aimed to supply contraceptives in response to global need, is a keen observer of mass media hypocrisy. But there is a lot more to be said about the relationship between Abbott and Hanson and the Liberal Party and One Nation.

When you consider that the Age's promotion of 'hate Hanson' militancy was preceded by 'hate Abbott' militancy, it is ironic that it was Mr Abbott who established a Liberal-backed fund that supported the false imprisonment of Hanson for political reasons. Yet that false imprisonment (she was let out, cleared of all charges of electoral fraud) probably lent new sympathy to her cause because there is nothing so inspiring to the underdog as a politician who is imprisoned because of the threat that the popularity of their views poses to the political establishment. Similarly, Derryn Hinch, another new senator, probably gained support because he also went to prison for actions related to his political views,[1] but his imprisonment was actually upheld. In my eyes, there is no contest between a person falsely imprisoned and the agent of their jailing. Tony Abbott led a despicable action. That he was then elected as leader of the Liberal Party and became a Prime Minister is far more shocking than anything that Hanson has been accused of.

Below is a rundown, using other sources, of what happened to Hanson:

Abbott's confession

'Abbott says sorry in Hanson fund row,' By Annabel Crabb, The Age, August 27, 2003:
"Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott last night apologised for not fully disclosing his involvement in a $100,000 "slush fund" devised in 1998 to bring down One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

Mr Abbott strongly denied, in an ABC Four Corners interview on August 10, 1998, that he or any Liberal Party figures had been involved in funding the legal campaign by disaffected One Nation members to have the minor party declared invalid under electoral laws.

But last night's statement confirms that only two weeks after making that denial, he established a formal trust, Australians for Honest Politics, which collected $100,000 to funnel into anti-One Nation legal actions.

Mr Abbott confirmed that at the time of making the statements to Four Corners, he had already promised to underwrite the legal costs of disaffected One Nation litigant Terry Sharples.

"Strictly speaking, no money at all had been offered," Mr Abbott said last night.

"The lawyers I organised were acting without charge and the support for costs which I had promised would only become an issue in the event of a costs order being made against Sharples."

Hanson's release

In 2003, a Brisbane District Court jury found Hanson guilty of electoral fraud. The convictions were later overturned by three judges on the Queensland Court of Appeal. As a result of the convictions, Hanson spent 11 weeks in jail prior to the appeal being heard.

NOTES

[1] Hinch was imprisoned for contempt charges related to his political conviction of the need to publicly name pedophiles.

Video, transcript. This is a virtually complete rundown on the history of US aggression against Syria from 2001. “We have never done anything more loathsome or despicable than what we’re doing in Syria” -Virginia State Senator Richard Black. In this article, Virginia State Senator Richard Black and Janice Kortkamp discuss the shameful situation in Syria, where the US government is actively arming and funding Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and “conduits” (“moderates”), blending them together, and then using this model to exterminate the Syrian population. It should be noted that the mass media machine is seemingly losing its effect, as more and more prominent and senior figures (e.g Robert Fisk) are calling a spade a spade, or a “moderate” a terrorist. It just goes to show that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." (Free Syrian Press introduction to the video and transcript interview below.)

Originally posted on the Syrian Free Press by syrianpatriots

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Senator Black it’s a pleasure to be here. And you’ve just returned from a trip to the Middle East, to Syria and Lebanon, and why don’t you just start by telling us what you saw and your assessments of the situation there?

VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR RICHARD BLACK: What we did, we spent the better part of a week; we spent our time in Lebanon initially; we met with General [michel] Aoun, who is sort of the presumptive next President of Lebanon. We met with Foreign Minister [gebran] Bassil who is the head of the Christian bloc of the parliament there. And also with the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon; which is a new thing. You know the Syrians have not had an ambassador there until just recently.

From there we flew to Damascus and were then taken out and we visited Palmyra, where the Syrian army conducted an enormously heroic fight to drive out ISIS and assisted by the Russians who did a very good job there. And then we drove from Palmyra to Homs. Homs is the largest province, it’s the size of an American state, but it’s also a very large city.

It was an incredible visit, because, like you, I have studied the Syrian war, the origins of the war for years, since 2011. I know you go back before that, but this is when I got so focused on it. And the best way to explain it, is that through intensive study and what we would call “open source intelligence,” you begin to get a very clear concept of what the war is all about, and the origins of the war. But when you go there and you actually walk the grounds and you shake hands with the soldiers and meet with the refugees and people like that, it turns black and white into Technicolor. And I’m going to tell you: Syria is one of the most incredibly wonderful nations on Earth. And the fact that America set out to topple the government and destroy it, long before there was the faintest hint of civil unrest, it’s really one of the great stains on American honor.

So when I went there, one the one thing that stands out so vividly is this incredible religious tapestry of religious harmony, between the Christians, the Alawites, the Sunnis, the Shi’ites, everyone; and there is such freedom of religion in Syria, and it’s stunning. You know, as an American, here we have the Federal courts being partially repressive to Christianity in particular, and you go over there and I went to the Syrian broadcast system SANA, did an interview. And I came out and in the press room here is the plywood cutout of the Christmas tree and the ornaments are journalists who were martyred covering the war. And you think, “My gosh, if you did this in the United States, the ACLU would be all over you! You’d be in Federal court, and they’d rip down the tree.”

And we went to the theater in Homs province, in Homs city; it’s a large, modern theater, probably seated a thousand people. And they introduced me and they were very polite and receptive. And I sat next to the governor and his wife, and they’re Muslim, and so I’m watching: Here’s this choral presentation, very beautiful, everyone in tuxedos and the orchestra and a very lovely woman, and naturally, the woman very charismatic, you’re focused on her; and then gradually your eyes start to shift gaze. And then, suddenly, I look and I realize that behind them is a theater screen with a projection of Jesus Christ, bloodied, crown of thorns, staggering under the weight of the cross. And I looked at it — and I didn’t even know what they were singing, because they were singing in Arabic, right? And I realized later that they were singing Christian religious songs. And I turned to the wife of the governor, and I said, “Is this a religious theater, a Christian theater?” She said, “No, no, no, this is just a regular theater for entertainment. We put on shows, we put on concerts, everything.” But it happened that on the Julian calendar, we were there for Palm Sunday and we left just prior to Easter. 

And so, she said, many of the people here for the presentation are Muslim. She said, the choral group, many of them are Muslim also. And here, they’re participating in the praise of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ! Not that they are not serious Muslims, but it’s also indescribable without seeing it in person. I had heard about it, and from hundreds of Syrians, but to see it and just to encounter it at random, you suddenly were able to “breathe” religious freedom there!

---

STEINBERG: I think I told you, when I was in Damascus in March of 2010, some of the things that were completely stunning to me, were the Grand Mosque right off of this great market area. You walk in there; it’s a gigantic, beautiful mosque, and right in the middle of it is the tomb of John the Baptist.

BLACK: Yes.

---

STEINBERG: And we went to parts of the old city, and we visited one of the earliest, the very first of the Christian churches anywhere in the world, and it’s just really stunning. The first event that we went to, was an ecumenical conference. It was at a Sunni religious school; there were Shi’ite, Alawite, Sunni; there were Christians, there were Franciscan monks attending; people from Scandinavian churches. And that night there was a celebration in the old city, and they had these Sunni dervishes.

 So it’s what you’re describing: If you’re not there and you don’t see it, it’s almost hard to concede that this is such a natural phenomenon in this country, and you see what the Saudis and the Turks and others are trying to establish, which this hard, sectarian fight within Islam , that has no bearing on the traditional culture of Syria as a country! 

BLACK: Yes, and you know, I spoke with Lebanon very senior officials, and of course, discussed this with President Assad and with the top leadership of the Syrian parliament. And one of my questions, is why is there war in Syria? We know, this was not a popular uprising. This was a calculated decision by the CIA, MI6, French intelligence, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turks, Saudis — an organized plan to topple the government. And of course we were familiar that there competing plans for oil and gas pipelines. And I come up a divided mind on exactly what’s going on: It is true that the oil and gas pipelines are a major, major incentive for this war.

But the other thing, that both Lebanese and the Syrians were quite insistent on, is that it is Saudi Arabia’s desire to impose Wahhabism. They’re not content that the vast majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims; now, if you listen to the press, they say, “oh, you know, we need a Sunni government.” Well, there are umpteen million Sunnis who are in the government and in high positions, and in the army and everywhere else. What they really mean is that we want Wahhabism, the type of Wahhabism that says that you impose severe, brutal Sharia law, and you begin beheading people, you force conversions and you take the wives of the Christians that you’ve murdered and you sell them at slave markets, which is happening right now in Iraq, perhaps in some parts of Syria also; but their feeling is that the true zeal behind this is this desire to impose the harshest, most extreme and violent, brutal form of Islamic rule.

---

STEINBERG: What you’re describing is the ISIS and the al-Nusra Front which is simply al-Qaeda, and the Saudis carry out beheadings, cutting off limbs, as their brand of Sharia law justice, exactly as ISIS and Nusra do in the areas they control.

BLACK: That’s exactly correct. And this has gone on through history. When I visited the Church of the Patriarch of Syria and the East, we went to a little adjacent, Christian school, and they had paintings of martyrs, and just as a reminder, that the history of Turkey, the Turks and the Saudis share the same history of violence towards those who do not share this most extreme view. And there was a painting that just stood out in my mind of a martyr, a woman during the Armenian genocide, a Christian, and the extremists had come in and they had amputated her feet and her hands. And she had an infant, and she cradled the infant and breast-fed the infant for the next couple days until she finally died of the torture they’d imposed on her. 

So you know, they had suppressed this in Turkey under Ataturk, starting 1925. I read the Turkish Constitution; it’s admirable, it’s a very fine Constitution. But now you have President Erdogan who has said…

---

STEINBERG: He’s ripping it up.

BLACK: He’s tearing it to shreds, and he says “I want the powers of Adolf Hitler.”

---

STEINBERG: That’s right.

BLACK: Our ally. Our ally says, “I want the powers of Adolf Hitler!” Imagine that!

---

STEINBERG: Mm-hmm. And it was brushed off and explained away in the American media as a misquote or something like that, as if he hadn’t said it, and didn’t mean it.

BLACK: And he never retracted a word of it! But a spokesman said, “well, you know, it’s sort of out of context.” Well — gimme a break. How do you put “the powers of Adolf Hitler” out of context! You know?

---

STEINBERG: Right, exactly.

I wanted to ask you, because I think you made a very important point about the Saudis and what they want, the Turks and what they want, but if the United States and Western European were not in on this for their own reasons, from the very outset, I doubt that the Saudis or the Turks would have been able to create the mess. And I’m reminded that way back in 1991, right at the point that the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were disintegrating, according to Gen. Wesley Clark, he met with Paul Wolfowitz in Dick Cheney’s office — Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush Sr.—and Wolfowitz went through a list of governments targeted for regime change because they had at various points, allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And Syria was right near the top of that list; Syria, Iraq, Libya, others. 

And so, I wanted to get your assessment, given the way the situation has played out, the tragedy of the last five years, do you think that this could have actually occurred were it not for the full, witting complicity of the United States, both under President George W. Bush and now, for the last seven years, under President Barack Obama? 

BLACK: That’s an excellent question. If one of our assistants could hand me the black and white poster over there, I think this could help to explain it somewhat. [Placard reading “Syrian War Countdown” 16:10] 

Let me just run you through this, because the timeline is extremely important: In 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe has told us, that the Pentagon was ordered by the Secretary of Defense to make plans to topple seven different countries, neutral, non-belligerent countries, in what was an act of aggression under the law of war, which is a war crime. And so, the Pentagon began war-planning 2001. 

Now, President Bashar al-Assad did not take office until I think it was 2000; so he was brand new. He’d come in as a reformer. But reform, good or bad, didn’t matter; we were going to topple seven countries, all of them also enemies of the Saudi Arabians. The United States is pulled around by the nose by Saudi Arabia, and for our senior leaders in this country, they all have a meeting with Mr. Green. And Mr. Green persuades them to do whatever the Saudis tell them. 

So, OK, you start with 2001, the Pentagon starts planning. In 2006, WikiLeaks has released a document that came from the Chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy; at the time, we didn’t not have an ambassador, so the Chargé d’affaires was the senior person. That document outlined, in detail, plans to overthrow the government of Syria. And the two things that stand out in my mind is, we have a problem because President Assad came in as a reformer, he’s doing a lot of positive things, and so it is drawing an enormous amount of foreign direct investment and we’ve got to smear the image of Syria so that it will begin cutting off this flow of funds, and will adversely impact the Syrian economy. This is the United States, your country and my country, saying “we’re going to destroy another country by smearing their reputation. 

The other thing which I think was equally sinister, is in this country that has this beautiful religious harmony, we said have got to create religious division, religious frictions and hatred among religions, so that we can disassemble this country. 

But there were six very specific things outlined. And keep in mind, in 2006, there were no demonstrations, there was no political opposition, there were no uprisings, people were prosperous, they were happy. 

So here you go from 2005, we start planning the war; 2006, we come up with explicit plans. You go to 2011 and the CIA works to gain the release of the most deadly al-Qaeda operatives in Libyan prisons and uses those people to spark an uprising in Benghazi, the purpose of which — and I wish, you know, Congress, while they’re always talking about Benghazi, they never talk about before Benghazi. What was the reason we were there in the first place! Why did we attack our

ally, Colonel Qaddafi — now we have had problems with Qaddafi but we had resolved them …

---

STEINBERG: In 2003, he dismantled his WMD program and became — even John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, in early 2009, were in Tripoli and said “this guy’s our best friend in our war against — ” it wasn’t ISIS yet, but “the war against al-Qaeda and the other jihadists.” 

BLACK: Yes, yes. So, absolutely, he was our best ally. And however, his big mistake was he had a huge arsenal of modern weapons, that we needed, to overthrow Syria. The reason that we went into Libya was, to capture their weapons to feed and fuel the war against Syria. Because we knew, Syria was a powerfully united, cohesive nation of people who — you know, every country has people who are unhappy or who are dissidents; we have ‘em in this country — but we knew that we had a tough nut to crack here, because this was a very cohesive country. So we needed a huge amount of armaments. The reason we went into Libya was to capture these. And this is all laid out by Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” something that was censored; almost everything he’s done has been widely printed by major media, and they censored it. But the London Review of Books has it published, and he explains why we went in, how we captured the weapons, and how we started the rat line, flying arms in. 

Because the CIA could not go before Congress and say, “Look, we intend to attack a neutral, non-belligerent country, where the people are happy, prosperous, and enjoy greater women’s rights and religious freedom than any other Arab nation; we’re going to rip it to shreds, we’re going to open up a torrent of bloodshed: Please give us an appropriation so we can purchase weapons to do it.”

---

STEINBERG: Right. 

BLACK: That would not have gone over well. So, we went around it, and we captured the weapons in Libya, sent ‘em to Syria. Three months after the war in Libya, even before Colonel Qaddafi had fallen, we started the war in Syria. And the technique that we used, — now just watch the timeline: We go from 2001, we decided to bring ‘em down then, it was 10 years! An entire decade of planning and plotting and preparing.

---

STEINBERG: Exactly, exactly. 

BLACK: So, you look at this timeline, and then, of course, we’ve employed massive, unrelenting propaganda against President Assad and his government. We call him a “regime,” the “Assad regime.”

---

STEINBERG: Right, as opposed to “an elected, sovereign government.” 

BLACK: Yes. Now, of course, we always ignore the fact that he was popularly elected, in fair and open elections in 2014. Now, on the other hand, we sit at Geneva III at the peace talks, and on one side we have Saudi Arabia, where if you were to suggest the election of the King or dictator of Saudi Arabia, your head would be a spike the next day; and then, on the other hand, you have President Erdogan, the man who would be Adolf Hitler! [laughter]

---

STEINBERG: Right! 

BLACK: It is so bizarre. And the method that we use, the specific method when we triggered this is interesting. The Arab Spring started with a single suicide, and it is very difficult to conceive that it did not spread without very active covert action. Nothing ever happens in politics, nothing just happens without a push. 

So there actually began to be legitimate demonstrations in Syria as well as across the Middle East. What I found interesting, I talked to several people — I just bumped into them on my trip, and they said, “Oh, I was anti-Assad then.” Well, one of them turns out to be my interpreter; he’d been with me for the better part of a week! And one day we’re talking, and he said, “You know,” he said, “I was a demonstrator against President Assad.” And I said, “Oh, that’s interesting. Tell me about it?” 

He said, “Well, we just started. It was during the Arab Spring, and we started holding demonstrations.” Much like, you and I have both probably been involved in demonstrations! But he said, “first, people started showing up with al-Qaeda flags.”

---

STEINBERG: Yeah. The black flags. 

BLACK: “Then,” he said, “people started showing up with military weapons.” Now, there is no Second Amendment in Syria, so you don’t just grab a Kalashnikov at the corner drug store.

---

STEINBERG: Right. You don’t go to a gun show on Sunday afternoon. 

BLACK: That’s right, you don’t do that. And he said, “The third thing, is they began to preach religious hatred!” And all along the demonstrators would say, “You guys, get out of here, get out of here! This is not what we’re about. We’re just here asking the government for some changes.” And the friction became tougher and tougher, and he said, “My uncle was the head of all the demonstrators” in this large city, and he said, in the seventh month of back and forth with the al-Qaeda people, they murdered him; they killed him. 

And so I asked the same question of the several people I encountered, who had been anti-Assad. Well, they weren’t anti-Assad, they were demonstrators; they weren’t demonstrating against him.

---

STEINBERG: Sure. They wanted reforms. 

BLACK: They wanted reforms. You know, I’ve been in demonstrations; I wasn’t demonstrating to bring down the government, I was there for reform. 

And this was news to me, because I knew about this transition, but what was stunning that consistently, — two out of the three said that this transition took place over the span of a single month; the second one said it took place over the span of two months. So within one to two months, what started as demonstrations became an al-Qaeda-led violent, jihadist uprising. And of course, you still had demonstrators struggling to make it a demonstration. But that was how it developed.

---

STEINBERG: You know, it coincided with the period in 2010 going into 2011, when back here in Washington, there was a study ordered by President Obama, of how to relate to the anticipated insurgencies that were going to sweep across the Muslim world, particularly North Africa and the Middle East. The conclusion that was arrived at by people like Dennis Ross, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, was that the horse the United States should ride in on was the Muslim Brotherhood. 

BLACK: Yeah.

---

STEINBERG: And these are still classified, National Security Study and Decision Directives, that are the cornerstone of the U.S. strategy, which was to basically play into the jihadist insurgencies. 

BLACK: Yes, and you know, that brings us to a good point: You then come to the point of the uprising itself, how was this carried out? Just prior to the uprisings, Ambassador Ford was sent to Damascus; we had not had an ambassador there for some time. He was put in place by Hillary Clinton. Around that time, of course, you have all of these covert agencies; Western agencies, plus the Saudis and the Turks. And their mechanism was the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood had created a violent uprising under the father, Hafez Assad, and it’s often portrayed some put-down of these poor people. It was not at all that: It was a violent uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The Brotherhood copied, almost with precision, the approach that the Nazis took during Kristallnacht, which triggered the anti-Jewish backlash by the Nazi Party. The Nazis during Kristallnacht and they painted the Jewish star on all Jewish buildings and residences, and then on signal they surged through and they smashed and they beat, they killed 92 people. With identical procedures, the Muslim Brotherhood, first they hired people to stand on the street corners with placards that said, “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave.” Which meant, we’re going to kick out 10% of our population, another 10% we’re going to murder them. In short order, it changed to “Christians to the grave, Alawites to the grave,” which meant, we’re going to kill 1 out of every 5 Syrians. 

So they had these people carrying these placards, and then, at a certain point, the Muslim Brotherhood sent people out at night; they marked the residences, and the businesses, with the Nazarene symbol; and then right after mosque, with the most extremist mosques, they surged out and began beating and roughing up and murdering Christians. Within three days from the city of Hama, 70,000 Christians streamed into Damascus; why Damascus? Because they knew that President Assad would protect the Christians. He would protect anyone who was under attack by the Muslim Brotherhood. 

And interestingly, then, Ambassador Ford and the French ambassador, get in a car; and the city of Hama had been ringed with security forces so that they could restore order to the town. And violating diplomatic protocol, they bypassed security, they met with the demonstrators, and they promised total American support. And by that action, they converted demonstrations into an armed revolution. And this was done intentionally.

---

STEINBERG: Right. I was at an event in Washington, in June of 2011, and there was still a Syrian ambassador in Washington at the time. It was Dr. Imad Mustafa. And this was really even before the major eruptions of violence that came a bit later in the year. And he presented a series of videos of sermons that were given by these Wahhabi and other radicalized clerics in these small, rural areas; and it was an absolute call to arms! And this was early on in the process. He said, “this is what we’re dealing with. This is a problem that has existed for a long time, but now, suddenly this problem has mushroomed tremendously, because there’s all of this outside support and encouragement coming from Washington and coming from all of these other places.” 

This is what has been described as “regime change.” Using quote “civil society,” as a kind of a human shield, for organized, well-armed, violent elements, that make the claim that they’re part of a public outcry, upsurge; but in fact, it’s an organized, financed, and armed operation. 

You mentioned the Sy Hersh article: the United Nations as part of the enforcement of the arms embargo had been monitoring all of those weapons going from Libya into Syria, into the hands of the jihadists. And there were a series of UN reports that tracked out, from Benghazi ships and planes from Qatar and from Turkey, that were overseen by American and British officials on the ground, loading the weapons up; and this is all in official United Nations reports, indicating exactly what you described: the flow of weapons through these channels into the rebels in Syria. Yet, you won’t read a word about that in the American and European media, which is completely on board with this regime change strategy. 

BLACK: Well, you know, I’ll tell you what is amazing, Jeff, is that when we started the war on terror, after 9/11, it was essentially a war against al-Qaeda and similar organizations. We have gone full circle from opposing al-Qaeda, which sent 3,000 Americans to a flaming death on 9/11, complete circle to where we now supply them; we arm them; we finance them; and it’s all coming with the approval of the highest authorities in the United States government. 

And you know, if you want to consider whether the people of Syria are for or against their government and their President, just consider this: Syria has a population of 23 million people. It is in the sixth year of a war in which it has been opposed by the United States, Great Britain, France, NATO, the European Union,…

---

STEINBERG: Right. The GCC. 

BLACK: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the GCC — this massive force! I mean, basically, all of the great nations of the world, — almost all, not China and Russia, of course — but almost all of the great nations have descended on little Syria, and it’s like “The Little Train That Could,” they just keep chuggin’ and chuggin’ and chuggin’. 

And I spoke with the First Lady, who is just utterly charming. She is not — unlike the First Ladies we’re accustomed to who are ostentatious, and pompous and arrogant — she is very down to earth, a very nice person; and she said, “One of the things I’ve done,” she said, unlike worrying about hamburgers and billboards and things like that, she goes out and she meets the families that have lost sons in battle, and she says, “I’ve now met with over 1,000 personally.” She said, “when I first did it, I was naturally apprehensive, and I knew that I would go to some homes and the people would be just so distraught that they’d burst out in anger at anybody who came, and was like me.” But she said, “I was so surprised. I had never encountered that. Every home I go to, they tell me, we are so deeply sad for the loss of our son, but we cannot think of anything for which we would rather have sacrificed our son than for the defense of Syria, for the unity of this nation.”

And I saw that over and over: I went to a hospital for amputees, and I discovered, — just to my personal disgrace as an American — that the sanctions we have imposed on Syria prevent them from receiving prosthetic devices, amputees. They said, not long ago, they had 600 cancer patients, and they said, “look can you make an exception to the exchange provisions,” where we’d blocked all foreign exchange, “so we can get medication for these cancer patients?” And the Treasury Department said, “No. You don’t get prosthetic devices for people who are missing legs and arms; you don’t medication for cancer patients…” There’s such utter cruelty in our government! I mean — our Federal government! 

When I was a young Marine, we used to — at the end of the day we’d stand there, the drill instructor would march back and forth, and we’d scream the Marine Corps hymn, and we’d say the words, “we will fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean, we’re proud to claim the title of United States Marine.” If ever our honor has been disgraced, here we are cutting off access to prosthetic limbs for people! Where have we come?! What has come of this country?!

---

STEINBERG: Exactly. And these are really violations of the Geneva Conventions. There are rules of war, and rules for the kind of medical care that all parties deserve in wartime. And it’s violated. 

I wanted to ask you before we finish up: Within the bounds of what you’re comfortable discussing, your impressions and things that came from both your discussion with President Assad and maybe some of the other officials; and similarly, when you were Lebanon, I’m wondering what General Aoun might of shared with you, in terms of his view of what has happened in the region; because is one of the countries that has been greatly affected, and badly, badly damaged by this phenomenon. The Saudis have basically vetoed a President being selected by the parliament because they don’t want anything that would stand in the way of their — as you say — their drive to spread Wahhabism everywhere. 

BLACK: Yes. Well, you know, Lebanon has a unique structure, where the President is always a Christian, the Prime Minister is always Sunni, and the Speaker of the Parliament is Shi’a. It’s their way. They don’t quite achieve religious harmony quite as smoothly as Syria does. But interestingly, General Aoun spent a good part of his life fighting against Syria, because Syria occupied a portion of Lebanon; and Syria withdrew under President Assad. When he took over he began the withdrawal and completed the withdrawal of Syrian troops. General Aoun always took the position, he said, “when you’re in my country you are my enemy,” he said, “when you’re out, you are my friend.” And he has been true to that. He’s a delightful man. 

And he clearly is supportive of the government of Syria, and I think is very respectful of the President of Syria. And I think he realizes something that I was quoted by ISIS as saying. You know, there were three Americans chosen as enemies as ISIS, but they quoted me, in a way that said, “this man is telling the truth, and listen,” because they said, “in the words of the enemy.” They called me the “American Crusader” — “in the words of the enemy,” and they quoted me accurately and I had said something to the effect that, if Assad falls, then the dread black and white flag of al-Qaeda will fly over Damascus; and within months, Lebanon will fall, and Jordan will fall. And with the consolidation of this very large area under the control of al-Qaeda, we will then face this tremendous extremism that will percolate over into Turkey where it already is taking hold, very rapidly. And that that will begin a drive on Europe, and I believe that this time, Europe will fall.” 

And I think that from General Aoun’s perspective, from President Assad’s perspective, from the various officials that I spoke with, I think they share this belief; I think they believe that this is the objective of al-Qaeda. 

And you know, the Joint Chiefs of Staff became so distraught, so very concerned about the eventual outcome of events in Syria, that they tasked the Defense Intelligence Agency in the summer of 2013 to do complete study and to render findings of fact. The Defense Intelligence Agency, which is not political like the CIA, came up with three findings: They said 1) President Assad must not leave office because if he does, Syria will fall into chaos, just as Libya has done. 2) Turkey is a major problem, because they are the supplier of ISIS, they give them arms, ammunition, everything that ISIS gets comes out of Turkey. And 3) which is the very thing that President Assad has said from the beginning, they said, there are no moderate rebels. The notion is a fantasy, they do not exist! And yet, I think yesterday, Secretary Kerry was out there saying, we’ve got to help the moderate rebels. The “moderate rebels” are al-Qaeda, who flew the jets into the Twin Towers and today these are the “moderates”! 

So this is where we have come….

---

STEINBERG: Right, right. And “Saudi Arabia is our greatest ally in the region.” 

BLACK: Yeah. Saudi Arabia, there is increasing evidence pointing to Saudi Arabia as the prime actor in the attacks on 9/11; more and more people are beginning to conclude that as evidence starts emerging. 

And so here we are: We are allied with the country most complicit in the 9/11 attacks on us, and we have gone full circle and we are now supplying al-Qaeda with TOW antitank missiles and we’re preparing to give them even more advanced weapons such as antiaircraft missiles; they can be used to shoot down Boeing 747 jets at Dulles Airport, and Heathrow and LaGuardia and across the world. 

Extremely reckless, nearly an insane American policy, driven by Saudi wealth that lines the pockets of top people in this country. It’s sad.

---

STEINBERG: I want to thank you very much. This was really an important visit that you made, a courageous visit. And I think sharing these insights and getting them out as widely as possible is one of the critical steps in getting the United States back on its traditional track which we have veered off of so dangerously that we might not make it as a nation, if we don’t make the corrections in time. 

BLACK: We are on a suicidal course, and I really appreciate you, helping to get the word out. We’ve got to change course, or it’s coming here, and it’s coming fast.

---

STEINBERG: That’s right. Thank you again.

BLACK: Thank you very much.

Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad blamed some Western leaders for the terrorism and refugee problems facing Europe.

During a meeting on Sunday with the visiting delegation of the European Parliament headed by Vice-President of the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs Javier Couso, the President discussed the situation in Syria, the terrorist war waged on it and the growing destructive impacts of the spread of terror to world regions.

President al-Assad said it is normal that what is happening in Syria and the Arab region would greatly affect Europe given the geographical vicinity of the two regions and the cross-cultural communication.

[Article first published at Syrian Arab News Agency on 10 July 2016, as "President al-Assad: European parliamentarians should work to correct their governments’ policies that caused problems"..]

He held the leaders of some Western states responsible for the problems of terrorism and extremism and the refugee flows currently facing Europe for having adopted policies that are against the interests of the peoples of these states.

The President slammed those Western leaders for providing the political cover and support to the terrorist organizations in Syria.

Striking a relevant note, President al-Assad said the European parliamentarians could play a significant role to correct the wrong policies of their governments that have caused terrorism to spread and led to worsening the living conditions of the Syrian people due to the economic blockade they imposed on them, forcing many Syrians to leave their country and seek refuge in other states.

For their part, the European delegation members said their visit to Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people they have seen firsthand would make them put effort to the effect of correcting the policies of the European governments and pressuring them into lifting the sanctions.

The European parliamentarians affirmed the need to keep Syria’s sovereignty intact, stressing that the Syrians alone should decide their country’s future without any foreign interference.

On March 27th, President al-Assad received a French delegation that included parliamentarians, intellectuals, researchers and journalists and said during the meeting that such visits by parliamentary delegations and having these figures inspect firsthand the situation in the Syrian cities could be useful for them to efficiently work to correct the wrong policies adopted by some governments, including that of France, towards what is happening in Syria.

In a statement to SANA, Javier Couso said that the meeting with President al-Assad was an opportunity to discuss several issues and ask questions about the situation in Syria, and that at the end of the meeting it was affirmed that dialogue is the only way to resolve the crisis in Syria without any foreign interference in its affairs.

He also talked about the delegation’s visit to Damascus, lauding the coexistence he witnessed in the Syrian society.

For her part, delegation member and Member of the European Parliament Tatjana Zdanoka stated that President al-Assad presented during the meeting “precise formulas” about what is happening in Syria, and that the meeting was very friendly and open.

On a relevant note, the delegation met with Grand Mufti of the Republic Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, who called upon European parliamentarians to stand up to US arrogance and hegemony.

H. Said / Hazem Sabbagh

In the article the writer questions the whole idea of governments making top-down decisions about the size of a country's population.

A question that often comes up when discussion population related matter is, "What should the population be?" or "What level of immigration/growth do you think is suitable?". I don't have an answer to that question, and I don't intend to provide one.

At issue: Is population size really a matter for the state?

In "What a Population Policy means to a People" we discussed the dangers of having a population policy. A government which imposes a population policy is doing more than simply deciding how many people exist within the geographic areas that it governs, its also making a determination on the composition of the population, which becomes unavoidable when any other population target than that which would have been arrived at naturally must involve. As we are subject to population policies which seek to increase the population, this means that the immigration program must unavoidably act to the detriment of the original populations, diminishing their representation and power in order to achieve an abstract target. The issue isn't whether a government decides to increase the population, decrease it, or keep it constant, the issue is the belief that the government has a right to decide this matter in the first place. The issue is the belief that population size is a matter for the state, and like interest rates, tax rates, tariffs and the number of taxi licences issues, is a matter for a bureaucracy to decide.

Also flawed is the idea that a government can set population targets democratically, if it puts forward its policies before the electorate and allows the population to vote for one which they prefer. This assumes that there are sufficient options put before the public, that the parties are given equal treatment in the media, and that the population vote according to their own interests and reason, instead of how the establishment pushes them with scaremongering and propaganda. This isn't what we observe, so if our democracy is anything less than perfect in offering a full spectrum of choices, each of which stand a change, we can't rely on a vote. But even if we were to vote, we still have a population policy in the first place. We still legitimise the right of the state to set a policy, which can very quickly and easily turn pathological. Even a sensible population policy doesn't solve this problem, as we are still ceding to the state the right to manipulate us, to displace and diminish us, or otherwise make judgements on the suitability of us as the population of the nation.

People vote democratically with their wombs

The alternative is to allow the population size to be set by the people by the most democratic means available, the individual reproductive choices that we all make. With cheap and readily available birth control, we more or less are capable of choosing or ourselves how many children we have. The birthrate of the nation is therefore nothing more than the accumulative decision making of all people manifesting itself. If people think the population is too low, they will choose to have more children, and the population will increase. If they think the population is large enough, and we don't need growth, they'll have fewer children and the population will stabilise or even reduce. Below replacement birth rates in the Western world are an indication that the people have voted with their ova and sperm, and don't perceive the need for a 'populate or perish' mindset. [This idea of below replacement is abused a lot by our masters. I suggest removing the 'The' which makes it sound like a widely established phenomenon, and just having 'Below replacement' which doesn't suggest such statistical dominance.]

So what should be the role of the state?

So where does the state fit in? It is the role of political and economic leaders not to force a population outcome that they desire or which suits their own objectives, but adapt that that chosen by the people. The low birthrate is only an issue because our political and economic ruling class cannot handle or adapt to this new reality. We have growth forced upon us because the dominant political class refuses to adapt, refuses to implement new solutions, refuses to reform and instead asks us to adapt and even to destroy ourselves, for their own security and posterity. In short, if a stable or falling population is a problem for the political and economic ruling class, then it is the ruling class which is deficient, which has the problem, not the people.

Immigration rate should be in line with birth rate

Immigration therefore has to fit in with this. As population policy is largely implemented through the immigration floodgates, and immigration is used to override the peoples' wishes, immigration policy therefore has to be synchronised with birthrate. Therefore, a sensible immigration policy would be in-line with the birthrate, and not seek to counteract it. Ideally, it the net population intake through immigration would be a function of the total birthrate. If the birthrate rises, then the immigration rate increases and conversely, if the birthrate lowers, then the immigration rate lowers. Immigration could be set at a fixed percentage of total births, where it represents at most, a small percentage. In Australia at the moment, immigration account for more than half of all additions, which is way to high. A better figure would be about 10%, allowing some people to enter Australia if they need to, but not being significant enough to override Australias chosen birthrate.

For those concerned about future population growth, such a stance should be acceptable, because birthrates being just below replacement in Australia (1.93 births per woman as of July 2016),[1] this should act as a limiting factor for future growth. Further measures can be taken to lower the birthrate by removing government incentives.

For Australia's pattern up to 2013 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/3301.0Main%20Features42013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3301.0&issue=2013&num=&view=

[Candobetter.net Ed: This article foreshadows the imminent release of the new war-faction novel, Beyond all recognition by Kenneth Eade, some of whose other strong political and legal novels we have already featured.]

One of our most distinguished and highest ranking military men, Major General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

Since the protests of the Vietnam War, it has been “business as usual” under every government since the Reagan administration. Besides the war in Iraq, which was based on one of the most massive deceptions in recent history for which nobody has been held accountable, and which can be said to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (we now have ISIS in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Iraq thriving where it did not exist before) we are seeing this business rear its ugly head in the conflicts in Syria and the buildup of NATO in Eastern Europe and military advice to the Ukraine, to fight the non-existent threat and fantasy of Russian aggression.

“Perception Management” was pioneered in the 1980’s under the Reagan administration in order to avoid the public opposition to future wars that was seen during the Vietnam War.[1] The United States Department of Defense defines perception management as: “Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations, security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.”
At the onset of the Iraq war in 2003, journalists were embedded with US troops as combat cameramen. The reason for this was not to show what was happening in the war, but to present the American view of it. Perception management was used to promote the belief that weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured in Iraq to promote its military invention, even though the real purpose behind the war was regime change. [2]

Alvin and Heidi Toffler cite the following as tools for perception management in their book, War and Anti-War:1) accusations of atrocities, 2) hyperbolic inflations, 3) demonization and dehumanization, 4) polarization, 5) claim of divine sanction, and 5) Meta-propaganda.

In 2001, the Rendon Group, headed by John Rendon, was secretly granted a $16 million contract to target Iraq with propaganda. [3] Rendon, who had been hired by the CIA to help create conditions to removal Sadaam Hussein from power, is a leader in “perception management”. Two months later, in December 2001, a clandestine operation performed by the CIA and the Pentagon produced false polygraph testimony of an alleged Iraqi civil engineer, who testified that he had helped Sadaam Hussein and his men hide tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. [4] Of course, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.

A study by Professor Phil Taylor reveals the differences between the US and global media over the coverage of the war to be: 1) Pro-war coverage in the US made US media “cheerleaders” in the eyes of a watchful, more scrutinous global media; 2) Issues about the war were debated more in countries not directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; 3) The non-US media could not see the link between the “war on terror” and the “axis of evil”, and 4) The US media became part of the information operations campaign, which weakened their credibility in the eyes of global media.

President Bush himself admitted in a televised interview with Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News that, “One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” Vice President Dick Cheney stated on Meet the Press, “If we’re successful in Iraq…we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

Prior to 2002, the CIA was the Bush Administration’s main provider of intelligence on Iraq. In order to establish the connection between Iraq and terrorists, in 2002, the Pentagon established the “Office of Special Plans” which was, in reality, in charge of war planning against Iraq, and designated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be the provider of intelligence on Iraq to the Bush Administration. Its head, the Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas J. Feith, appointed a small team to review the existing intelligence on terrorist networks, in order to reveal their sponsorship states, among other things. In 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wrote a memo to Feith entitled, “Iraq Connections to Al-Qaida”, which stated that they were “not making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al-Qaida.” Peter W. Rodman, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, established a “Policy counter Terror Evaluation Group” (PCTEG) which produced an analysis of the links between Al-Qaida and Iraq, with suggestions on “how to exploit the connections.” [5]

“In February 2003, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N., he described “a sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda network,” stating that “Iraq today harbors a deadly network headed by Zarqawi’s forces, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden,” and that Zarqawi had set up his operations, including bioweapons training, with the approval of the Sadaam Hussein regime. This has since been discredited as false. However, in October 2004, due to the fact that the Iraqi insurgency was catching on as a cause in jihadist circles, Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda. This was after his group had exploded a massive bomb outside a Shiite mosque in August 2003, killing one of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics and sparking warfare between the Shiite and Sunni communities. The tipping point toward a full-blown civil war was the February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which is credited to Haythem Sabah al-Badri, a former member of Sadaam Hussein’s Republican Guard, who joined Al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion. This gave birth to the AQI, Al-Qaeda in Iraq [6]

General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Allied Commander and Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Strategy and Policy, stated in his book, Winning Modern Wars, “As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”
In 2004, John Negroponte, who had served as ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, was appointed as ambassador to Iraq with the specific mandate of implementing the “Salvador Option”, a terrorist model of mass killings by US sponsored death squads. [7]

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld sent Colonel James Steele to serve as a civilian advisor to Iraqi Paramilitary special police commandos known as the “Wolf Brigade”. Steele was a counter-insurgency specialist who was a member of a group of US Special Forces advisors to the Salvadorian Army and trained counter-insurgency commandos in south America, who carried out extreme abuses of human rights. [8] The Wolf Brigade was created and established by the United States and enabled the re-deployment of Sadaam Hussein’s Republican Guard. The Brigade was later accused by a UN official of torture, murder and the implementation of death squads. [9] The techniques used by these counter-insurgency squads were described as “fighting terror with terror”, which was previously done in other theaters, such as Vietnam and El Salvador. [10]

The use of death squads began in 2004 and continued until the winding down of combat operations in 2008. In addition to the death squads, regular military units were often ordered to “kill all military age males” during certain operations; “dead-checking” or killing wounded resistance fighters; to call in air strikes on civilian areas; and 360 degree rotational fire on busy streets. These extreme measures were justified to troops in Iraq by propaganda linking the people to terrorism. [11]

Colonel Steele, with the help of Col. James Hoffman, set up torture centers, dispatching Shia militias to torture Sunni soldiers to learn the details of the insurgency[12] This has been attributed as a major cause of the civil war which led to the formation of ISIS. [13]

The operation of death squads as counter-insurgency measures was also common knowledge at the time. [14]

Private contractors, such as Steele, were often subject to different rules than the military forces they served and, in some cases, served with. As of 2008, an estimated 155,286 private contractors were employed by the US on the ground in Iraq, compared to 152,275 troops. The estimated annual cost for such contractors ballooned to $5 billion per year by 2010. [15]

In August 2006, four American soldiers from a combat unit in Iraq testified in an Article 32 hearing that they had been given orders by their commanding officer, Colonel Michael C. Steele, to “kill all military age males”. [16]

The “targeted killing” program that has been developed under President Obama’s watch is being hailed as the most effective tool against fighting terrorism. [17] Unfortunately, no mention is made in the mainstream media of the innocent victims (collateral damage) caused by this assassination program, nor its lack of authority under international law. [18] According to the journalist Glen Greenwald, all military age males in strike zones of the latest drone aircraft strike programs are considered militants unless it can be proved otherwise. Some say that this has resulted in more civilian casualties than has been reported by the government.[19] [20]

Kenneth Eade is a political novelist and author of “A Patriot’s Act” and “Beyond All Recognition”, both of which are available in bookstores and Amazon.com.

NOTES

[1] Parry, Robert (December 28, 2014) “The Victory of Perception Management” Consortium News
[2] Brigadier BM Kappor (2016) The Art of Perception Management in Information Warfare Today, USI of India
[3] Bamford, James (November 18, 2004) The Man Who Sold the War, Rolling Stone
[4] Brigadier BM Kappor (2016) The Art of Perception Management in Information Warfare Today, USI of India 2016
[5] Richelson, Jeffrey (February 20, 2014) U.S. Special Plans: A History of Deception and Perception Management, Global Research
[6] Cruickshank, Peter and Paul (October 31, 2007) Al-Qaeda in Iraq: A Self-fulfilling Prophecy, Mother Jones
[7] Chossudovsky, Michel (November 17, 2013) “The Salvador Option for Syria: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate ‘Opposition Forces’” Global Research
[8] Mass, Peter (May 1, 2004) “The Way of the Commandos” New York Times
[9] Buncombe, Andrew (February 26, 2006) “Iraq’s Death Squads: On the Brink of Civil War” The Independent. Spencer, Richard (October 25, 2010) “WikiLeaks War Logs: Who are the Wolf Brigade?” The Daily Telegraph. Leigh, David (October 24, 2010) “The War Logs: Americans handed over captives to Iraq torture squads” The Guardian.

[10] Snodgrass Godoy, Angelina (2006) Popular Injustice: Violence, Community and Law in Latin America, Stanford University Press, pp. 175-180.
[11] Davies, Nicolas J. (November 20, 2014) Why Iraqis may see ISIL as Lesser Evil Compared to U.S. Backed Death Squads, AlterNet
[12] Freeman, Colin (June 29, 2014) “Death Squads, ISIS and a new generation of fighters – Why Iraq is facing break-up”
[13] Cerny, Jakub (June 2006) “Death Squad Operations in Iraq, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom
[14] Dunigan, Molly (March 19, 2013) “A Lesson From Iraq War: how to outsource war to private contractors”, The Guardian
[15] Von Zielbauer, Paul (August 3, 2006) GI’s Say Officers Ordered Killing of Young Iraqi Men, New York Times
[16] Jaffe, Greg, “How Obama went from reluctant warrior to drone champion”, Washington Post, July 1, 2016
[17] ACLU, U.S. Releases Casualty Numbers and New Executive Order on Targeted Killing, ACLU Press Release July 1, 2016
[18] Greenwald, Glenn (May 29, 2012) Militants: Media Propaganda, Salon.com
[19] Obama’s Kill List –All males near strike zone are terrorists (May 30, 2012) RT America.

The Municipal Association of Victoria has, unsurprisingly, issued a press release to undermine Rate Capping. Ratepayers Victoria has countered this with the following arguments: When the rate capping policy was developed and adopted, all official communique and documentation, were very clear upfront in stating that rates capping only apply to general rate and municipal charges. Other council service charges, fees, fines and differentiated rates, together with prevailing state levies (e.g. the fire Levy councils advocated for and changed to CIV rating system a few years back.) The Fair Go Rates policy is a real present and future threat to some councils, as it has taken away councils’ free reign of rates increases and require them to be more transparent any) are excluded. The Minister also specifically said that in some cases, ratepayers will find their rates bills would increase more than 2.5% (the capped level) because of the changes in their properties’ capital improvement value and other increases in municipal charge-outs that are not subjected to the rates cap. [The Fair Go Rates policy] is most accountable in supporting and sustaining a fairer rating system that would deliver more visible value for money services and maintain rates affordability in the longer term. Because of this threat, most councils have come together with their peak bodies, even during the development of the rates capping policy, to defend their turf. Their lobbying campaign is still continuing and growing strong despite the policy is now legislated and operating. What Municipal Association Victoria didn’t come clean about in its 30 June media release is that rates capping can work if councils are committed to make it work. It is most inappropriate and lacks good governance behavior to continue influencing the public to think and eventually lead them to believe that the rates capping policy does not work. The last two years of media stories clearly showed the anti-Fair Go Rates policy lobby resolve to campaign against and discredit the Fair Go Rates policy. These stories, together with local ratepayer-advocates’ reports, revealed the use of: - media and community communication strategies, to create a series of related news and messages to socially engineer people into believing that rates capping has caused more harm than good to councils and their communities, e.g. like cutting out the school crossing services, - diverting council funds to support collaborative projects with peak bodies, which duplicate state services e.g. the Alliance For Gambling Reform - many internal cost shifting tactics, to ensure the parts of council-budgets constrained by rates capping are reduced or kept unchanged, in order to minimize rates reduction. For the next financial year, some councils have already and blatantly introduced new or increased existing charges, fees and differentiated rates that are not affected by rate capping. Many people do not understand how their council rates, rates capping levels and fire levy are structured and calculated. It is easy to leverage this low community literacy and convince people that the State Government has mislead them, because their total rates payable for the next financial year is above the capped level of 2.5%. Now, in a time of political flux, just after the election, is strategically timely to leverage political pressure in any public communication broadcast. Ratepayers are disappointed that some of their councils and their peak bodies are not willing to make rates capping policy work, eroding the opportunity of achieving longer term community and organizational improvement benefits for every stakeholder in Local Government. Let’s cut to the chase, ratepayers would like councils and their peak bodies to stop winching up charges and resisting the rates capping policy. They should be more focused to commit to the Fair Go Rates policy and make it work to increase efficacy in council operations and bring more visible best value outcomes in municipal service. Change is incremental and to expect full delivery of long term benefits in the first year of the Fair Go Rates policy is most misleading and laden with manipulative intents. Adapted from a press release from Rate Payers Victoria, 'The Truth is Out There' (30 June 2016).

Particularly gratuitous seemed the opinion of a former Australian ambassador to Egypt, Bob Bowker, who, whilst acknowledging that Syria had been very stable (but not mentioning that it was the last of the stable governments in the Middle East apart from Iran) characterised Assad as a once 'progressive' president, who had then [unexplained] stopped being progressive; there had been protests and he had so brutally put them down that five years later, the country was still being torn apart because of that dissatisfaction. Bowker pretended that Assad had no reason to blame the disintegration of Syria on foreign-backed armies. This seemed quite incredible since the presence of multiple anti-government armies funded by the United States and various NATO entities, but especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is well known. Bowker is also an adjunct professor at the Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, ANU College of Arts & Social Sciences.

Who funds such ahistorical bias? The almost blanket anti-Syrian Government media coverage which includes 'expert academic comment' in Australia and the West is probably largely funded by Saudi dollars.[1] One cannot forget that Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund study centers and other organisations and governments all over the world. In fact they are said to be responsible for 20 per cent of Hilary Clinton's campaign fund. Yet Saudi Arabia and Qatar receive little criticism from Australia or NATO although they are among the greatest human rights abusers and the most repressive governments in the world and Saudi Arabia is currently conducting a genocidal war in Yemen.

Transcript of Interview

(This interview transcript if from the Lebanese Communication Group Al-Manar and the video was published on the Syrian President's youtube channel. This transcript and video has also been published (1/78/16) on the Syrian Free Press.)

The following is the full text of the interview:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you for speaking with SBS Australia.

President Assad: You’re most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: It’s now more than five years since the Syrian crisis began. It’s estimated somewhere around a quarter of a million people have been killed, many of them civilians. There’s an undeniable humanitarian disaster. How far into the crisis do you think you are, and is there an end in sight?

President Assad: Of course, there is an end in sight, and the solution is very clear. It’s simple yet impossible. It’s simple because the solution is very clear, how to make dialogue between the Syrians about the political process, but at the same time fighting the terrorism and the terrorists in Syria. Without fighting terrorists, you cannot have any real solution. It’s impossible because the countries that supported those terrorists, whether Western or regional like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, don’t want to stop sending all kinds of support to those terrorists. So, if we start with stopping this logistical support, and as Syrians go to dialogue, talk about the constitution, about the future of Syria, about the future of the political system, the solution is very near, not far from reach.

Question 2: Much of the reporting in the West at the moment suggests that the demise of the Islamic State is imminent. Do you believe that’s true, and how far away from seizing Raqqa, this very important city of Raqqa, do you believe you are?

President Assad: It’s not a race. Raqqa is as important as Aleppo, as Damascus, as any other city. The danger of those terrorist groups is not about what land do they occupy, because it’s not a traditional war. It’s about how much of their ideology can they instill in the mind of the people in the area that they sit or live in. Indoctrination, this is the most dangerous thing. So, reaching Raqqa is not that difficult militarily, let’s say. It’s a matter of time. We are going in that direction. But the question when you talk about war is about what the other side, let’s say the enemy, could do, and that’s directly related to the effort of Turkey, especially Erdogan, in supporting those groups, because that’s what’s happening since the beginning. If you talk about Syria as an isolated military field, you can reach that area within a few months or a few weeks, let’s say, but without taking into consideration the Turkish effort in supporting the terrorists, any answer would be a far cry from the reality, an un-factual answer.

Question 3: Mr. President, how concerned are you about recent fatal clashes which have been reported between your longtime ally Hezbollah and your own forces?

There is good Syrian-Russian-Iranian coordination on fighting terrorism

President Assad: Fighting between us and Hezbollah? They are not fighting. They support the Syrian Army. They don’t fight against the Syrian Army, they fight with the Syrian Army. The Syrian Army and Hezbollah, with the support of the Russian Air Forces, we are fighting all kinds of terrorist groups, whether ISIS or al-Nusra or other affiliated groups with Al Qaeda that’s affiliated automatically to al-Nusra and ISIS.

Question 4: So, there have been some recent reports of clashes between… are those reports incorrect.

President Assad: No, they are talking not about clashes; about, let’s say, differences and different opinions. That’s not true, and if you look at the meeting that happened recently between the Ministers of Defense in Iran, in Tehran; Syrian, Russian, and Iranian, this means there’s good coordination regarding fighting terrorism.

Question 5: To be clear, do you categorize all opposition groups as terrorists?

President Assad: Definitely not, no. When you talk about an opposition group that adopts the political means, they’re not terrorists. Whenever you hold machineguns or any other armaments and you terrorize people and you attack civilians and you attack public and private properties, you are a terrorist. But if you talk about opposition, when you talk about opposition it must be Syrian opposition. It cannot be a surrogate opposition that works as a proxy to other countries like Saudi Arabia or any other country. It must be a Syrian opposition that’s related to its Syrian grassroots, like in your country. It’s the same, I think.

Question 6: You said recently that the ceasefire offered Syrian people at least a glimmer of hope. How, five months on, do you think that hope is going?

President Assad: Yeah, it is. It’s still working, the ceasefire, but we don’t have to forget that terrorist groups violate this agreement, on a daily basis. But at the same time, we have the right, according to that agreement, to retaliate whenever the terrorists attack our government forces. So, actually you can say it’s still working in most of the areas, but in some areas it’s not.

Question 7: There are various accounts of how the Syrian crisis began. Some say it was children graffiting anti-government slogans and they were dealt with brutally by the government. I understand you don’t accept that narrative. How, in your view, did the crisis begin?

President Assad: It’s a mixture of many things. Some people demonstrated because they needed reform. We cannot deny this, we cannot say “no everybody was a terrorist” or “everyone was a mercenary.” But the majority of those demonstrators – I’m not talking about the genuine demonstrators – were paid by Qatar in order to demonstrate, then later they were paid by Qatar in order to revolt with armaments, and that’s how it started, actually. The story of children being attacked, this is an illusive story. It didn’t happen. Of course, you always have, let’s say, mistakes happening in the practice on the ground, like what happened in the United States recently, during the last year, but this is not a reason for people to hold machineguns and kill policemen and soldiers and so on.

Question 8: You do say that some of these people legitimately needed reform. Was that as a result of any heavy-handedness from your government at all?

President Assad: No, we had reform in Syria. It started mainly after 2000, in the year 2000. Some people think it was slow, some people think it was too fast, this is subjective, not objective, but we were moving in that regard. But the proof that it wasn’t about the reform, because we made all the requested reforms after the crisis started five years ago, and nothing has changed. So, it wasn’t about reform. We changed the constitution, we changed the laws that the opposition asked for, we changed many things, but nothing happened. So, it wasn’t about the reform; it was about money coming from Qatar, and most of the people that genuinely asked for reform at the beginning of the crisis, they don’t demonstrate now, they don’t go against the government, they cooperate with the government. They don’t believe, let’s say, in the political line of this government, and this is their right and that’s natural, but they don’t work against the government or against the state institutions. So, they distinguish themselves from the people who supported the terrorists.

Question 9: How do you respond to the fact that some of your ministers defected and cited brutality as reason?

President Assad: Actually, they defected because they’ve been asked to do so by, some of them, Saudi Arabia, some of them by France, it depends on the country they belong to. And now, they are belonging to that so-called opposition that belongs to those countries, not to the Syrians. They have no values in Syria, so we wouldn’t worry about that. It didn’t change anything. I mean it didn’t affect the fact or the reality in Syria.

Question 10: One of your main backers, Russia, has called for a return to the peace talks. Do you think that’s a good idea?

President Assad: You mean in Geneva?

Journalist: Yes.

Geneva negotiations need to have the basic principles in order to be fruitful

President Assad: Yeah, of course, we support every talk with every Syrian party, but in reality those talks haven’t been started yet, and there’s no Syrian-Syrian talks till this moment, because we only made negotiations with the facilitator, which is Mr. de Mistura. Actually, it hasn’t started. So, we support the principle, but in practice you need to have a certain methodology that didn’t exist so far. So, we need to start, but we need to have the basic principles for those negotiations to be fruitful.

Question 11: One thing that intrigues a lot of people about the Syrian crisis is why your close allies Iran and Russia stay so loyal?

By defending Syria, allies are defending their stability and interests

President Assad: Because it wasn’t about the President, it’s not about the person. This is the misinterpretation, or let’s say the misconception in the West, and maybe part of the propaganda, that Russia and Iran supported Assad, or supported the President. It’s not like this. It’s about the whole situation. The chaos in Syria is going to provoke a domino effect in our region, that’s going to affect the neighboring countries, it’s going to affect Iran, it’s going to affect Russia, it’s going to affect Europe, actually. So, when they defend Syria, they defend the stability and they defend their stability, they defend their interest. And at the same time, it’s about the principle. They defend the Syrian people and their right to protect themselves. Because if they defend the President and the Syrian people are not with him and don’t support him, I cannot withstand five years just because Russia and Iran support me. So, it’s not about the President, it’s about the whole situation, the bigger picture, let’s say.

Question 12: Do you have any dialogue either direct or indirectly with the United States?

Western countries are dealing with Syria through back channels

President Assad: At all, nothing at all. Indirect, yes, indirect, through different channels. But if you ask them they will deny it, and we’re going to deny it. But in reality, it exists; the back channels.

Question 13: What are some of those channels?

President Assad: I mean, let’s say, businessmen going and traveling around the world and meeting with the officials in the United States and in Europe, they meet in Europe, and they try to convey certain messages, but there’s nothing serious, because we don’t think the administration, the American administration, is serious about solving the problem in Syria.

Question 14: Well, quite recently, there were reports more than 50 diplomats have called for what they described as “real and effective military strikes” against you, against Syria. Does this in any way concern you, and do you think it signals a more aggressive policy from the United States towards Syria moving forward?

American administrations are famous of creating problems, but they never solve any

President Assad: No, warmongers in every American administration always exist. It’s not something new. But we wouldn’t give a fig, let’s say, about this communique, but it’s not about this communique; it’s about the policy, it’s about the actions. The difference between this administration and the previous one, Bush’s one, is that Bush sent his troops. This one is sending mercenaries, and turned a blind eye to what Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Qatar did, since the beginning of the crisis. So, it’s the same policy. It’s a militaristic policy, but in different ways. So, this communique is not different from the reality on the ground. This is asking for war, and the reality is a war.

Question 15: You referred to the previous government, the Bush government. There are some who say one of the reasons you’ve survived as long as a government has been America’s reluctance to get on the ground in another war in the Middle East. Do you not accept that, based on what you’re saying?

President Assad: Yeah, the American administrations since the 50s are very famous of creating problems but they never solve any problems, and that’s what happened in Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq, in a few weeks he could occupy Iraq, but then what’s next? It’s not about occupying. This is a great power. We’re not a great power. So, it’s not about America occupying Syria. What’s next? What do they want to achieve? They haven’t achieved anything. They failed in Libya, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Syria, everywhere. They only created chaos. So, if the United States wants to create more chaos it can, it can create chaos, but can they solve the problem? No.

Question 16: Do you have a preference who wins the upcoming US election?

President Assad: Actually no, we never bet on any American president, because usually what they say in the campaign is different from their practice after they become president, and Obama is an example, so we don’t have to wait. We have to wait and see what policy they’re going to adopt, whoever wins the elections.

Question 17: So, you can see a circumstance where Syria would work collaboratively with the United States and the West?

We are not against cooperation with the US based on mutual interest

President Assad: We don’t have a problem with the United States, they’re not our enemy, they don’t occupy our land. We have differences, and those differences go back to the 70s and maybe before that, but in many different times, let’s say, and events and circumstances, we had cooperation with the United States. So, we’re not against this cooperation. But, this cooperation means talking about and discussing and working for the mutual interest, not for their interest at the expense of our interest. So, we don’t have a problem.

Question 18: Mr. President, you’ve spent a lot of time yourself, as you’ve just said, in the United Kingdom. Can you see there being any repercussions for Britain’s decision to exit the European Union for Syria and for the Syrian crisis?

British people are revolting against their “second-tier” and “disconnected” politicians

President Assad: I don’t think I can elaborate about that, as it’s a British issue, and I’m not British neither European. But at the same time I can say that this surprising result, maybe, has many different components, whether internal as economic and external as the worry from the terrorism, security issues, refugees, and so on. But this is an indication for us, as those officials who used to give me the advice about how to deal with the crisis in Syria, and say “Assad must go” and “he’s disconnected” proven to be disconnected from reality, otherwise they wouldn’t have asked for this referendum, but I think this is a revolt of the people there against, I would call them sometimes second-tier politicians. They needed special, let’s say, statecraft officials, to deal their country. If another administration came and understands that the issue of refugees and security is related to the problem in our region, this is where you’re going to have a different policy that will affect us positively. But I don’t have now a lot of hope about this. Let’s say we have a slim hope, because we don’t know who’s going to come after Cameron in the UK.

Question 19: Can I ask; Australia is part of the international coalition to defeat the Islamic State. Obviously, that’s one of your goals, so in that instance there’s a shared goal. Do you welcome international intervention when there’s a shared goal like that.

President Assad: Actually, we welcome any effort to fight terrorism in Syria, any effort, but this effort first of all should be genuine, not window-dressing like what’s happening now in northern Syria where 60 countries couldn’t prevent ISIS from expanding. Actually, when the Russian air support started, only at that time when ISIS stopped expanding. So, it needs to be genuine. Second, it needs to be through the Syrian legitimate government, not just because they want to fight terrorism and they can go anywhere in the world. We are a legitimate government and we are a sovereign country. So, only on these two circumstances we welcome any foreign support to fight terrorism.

Question 20: A number of Australians have died fighting for either the Kurdish militia or the Islamic State. Do you have a message for these young people who feel so enraged by what’s taking place in Syria that they travel over here to fight?

President Assad: Again, the same, let’s say, answer. If there are foreigners coming without the permission of the government, they are illegal, whether they want to fight terrorists or want to fight any other one. It is the same. It’s illegal, we can call it.

Question 21: Mr. President, Australian politicians have used very strong language about your role in the crisis, as have other leaders, internationally. Australia’s Prime Minister has referred to you as a “murderous tyrant,” saying that you’re responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians. Australia’s opposition leader has called you a “butcher.” Yet Australia’s official position is still to work with you toward a peace agreement. How do you reconcile those two very different positions?

Western nations attack Syrian government and yet deal with it under the table

President Assad: Actually, this is the double standard of the West in general. They attack us politically and they send us their officials to deal with us under the table, especially the security, including your government. They all do the same. They don’t want to upset the United States. Actually, most of the Western officials only repeat what the United States wants them to say. This is the reality. So, I think these statements, I just can say they are disconnected from our reality, because I’m fighting terrorists, our army is fighting terrorists, our government is against terrorists, the whole institutions are against terrorists. If you call fighting terrorism butchery, that’s another issue.

Question 22: Australia has agreed to take an additional twelve thousand Syrian refugees; some have already arrived. Do you have a message for these Syrians, many of whom still say they love Syria and they want to return. Do you have a message for those people, as I said, who are in Australia, and other countries around the world?

A more humanitarian and less costly European solution to refugee crisis is stopping support to terrorists

President Assad: Actually, you mentioned a very important point. Most of the refugees that left Syria, they want to come back to Syria. So, any country that helped them enter their new country, let’s say, their new homeland, is welcome as a humanitarian action, but again there is something more humanitarian and less costly: is to help them staying in their country, help them going back by helping the stability in Syria, not to give any umbrella or support to the terrorists. That’s what they want. They want the Western governments to take decisive decisions against what Saudi Arabia and other Western countries, like France and UK, are doing in order to support the terrorists in Syria just to topple the government. Otherwise, those Syrians wouldn’t have left Syria. Most of them, they didn’t leave because they are against the government or with the government; they left because it’s very difficult to live in Syria these days.
 

Question 23: Do you hope that these people will return and would you facilitate for them to return?
President Assad: Definitely, I mean losing people as refugees is like losing human resources. How can you build a country without human resources? Most of those people are educated, well trained, they have their own businesses in Syria in different domains. You lose all this, of course, we need.

Question 24: The Commission for International Justice and Accountability says there are thousands of government documents which say has proved your government sanctioned mass torture and killings. In the face of that evidence, how do you say that no crimes have taken place, and I point also to other independent organizations, which are critical of deliberate targeting hospitals. Do you concede that some mistakes have been made as you’ve targeted some rebel-held areas?

President Assad: You are talking about two different things. One of them, the first one is the reports. The most important report that’s been financed by Qatar, just to defame the Syrian government, and they have no proof, who took the pictures, who are the victims in those pictures, and so on. Like you can forge anything if you want now on the computer. So, it is not credible at all. Second, talking about attacking hospitals or attacking civilians, the question, the very simple question is: why do we attack hospitals and civilians? I mean the whole issue, the whole problem in Syria started when those terrorists wanted to win the hearts of the Syrians. So, attacking hospitals or attacking civilians is playing into the hands of the terrorists. So, if we put the values aside now for a while, let’s talk about the interests. No government in this situation has any interest in killing civilians or attacking hospitals. Anyway, if you attack hospitals, you can use any building to be a hospital. No, these are an anecdotal claims, mendacious statements I can say; they are not credible at all. We’re still sending vaccines to those areas under the control of the terrorists. So, how can I send vaccines and attack the hospitals? This is a contradiction.

Question 25: Mr. President, as a father and as a man, has there been one anecdote, one story, one image from the crisis, which has affected you personally more than others?

President Assad: Definitely, we are humans, and I am Syrian like the other Syrians. I will be more sympathetic with any Syrian tragedy affecting any person or family, and in this region, we are very emotional people, generally. But as an official, I am not only a person, I am an official. As an official, the first question you ask when you have that feeling is what are you going to do, what are you going to do to protect other Syrians from the same suffering? That’s the most important thing. So, I mean, this feeling, this sad feeling, this painful feeling, is an incentive for me to do more. It’s not only a feeling.

Question 26: What’s your vision for Syria? How do you see things in two to three years?

President Assad: After the crisis or…? Because, the first thing we would like to see is to have Syria stable as it used to be before, because it was one of the most stable countries and secure countries around the world, not only in our region. So, this the first thing. If you have this, you can have other ambitions. Without it you cannot. I mean, if you have this, the other question: how to deal with the new generation that lived the life of killing, that saw the extremism or learned the extremism or indoctrinated by Al Qaeda-affiliated groups, and so on. This is another challenge. The third one is bringing back those human resources that left as refugees in order to rebuild Syria. Rebuilding the country as buildings or infrastructure is very easy; we are capable of doing this as Syrians. The challenge is about the new generation.

Question 27: How do you think history will reflect on your presidency?

President Assad: What I wish is to say that this is the one who saved his country from the terrorists and from the external intervention. That is what I wish about it. Anything else would be left to the judgment of the Syrian people, but this is my only wish.

Journalist: Mr. President, Thank you very much for speaking with SBS Australia.

President Assad: Thank you very much.

NOTES

Funding of universities with Saudi dollars has been abundantly flagged as unwise because of Saudi promotion of the doctrine of Wahhabism which is the basis of many Islamic terrorist groups. However, what has not been discussed in Australia is the way such funds can then influence commentary on foreign affairs and the wars that the Saudis back. The almost blanket anti-Syrian Government media coverage which includes 'expert academic comment' in the West is probably largely funded by Saudi dollars. In 2006 it was reported that "Prince Al-Waleed has recently bought 5.46% of the voting shares of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s diversified international media and entertainment empire that includes Fox News Channel (FNC). Fox had been reporting on the Saudi role in the promotion of Islamist terror, and it is thought that the prince may hope to dampen any potential criticism by his investment." (Implications of Saudi Funding to Western Academic Institutions)

Mervyn Bendle, "Secret Saudi funding of Australian institutions," News Weekly, February 21, 2009
"Many Australian universities, now driven entirely by financial priorities, have uncritically welcomed Saudi sources of funding, even though this creates a major national security problem, writes Mervyn F. Bendle. Massive funding is presently being provided by Saudi Arabia to promote Wahhabism, the fundamentalist, exclusivist, punitive, and sectarian form of Islam that is both the Saudi state religion, and the chief theological component of Sunni versions of Islamism, the totalitarian ideology guiding jihadism and most of the active terrorist groups in the world. Globally, this money is flowing to terrorist groups, political parties and religious and community groups, as well as to universities and schools. In Australia, there is concern that such funding could damage and even corrupt the Australian university system, especially given the existing ideological bias, political naivety, opportunism, managerialism, and the pseudo-entrepreneurial attitudes of many university academics and administrators. The question of how foreign powers and agents are able to influence, direct or even control tertiary education in Australia and other Western countries is vitally important. This is because the rise of Islamism, jihadism and the present terrorism crisis increasingly involve fourth-generation warfare (4GW)." [...] "An excellent case study of how Saudi funding can impact on Australian universities is the recent fiasco at Queensland's Griffith University. In April 2008, it was revealed that Griffith University "practically begged the Saudi Arabian embassy to bankroll its Islamic campus for $1.3 million", assuring the Saudis that arrangements could be kept secret if required. (The Australian, April 22, 2008)."

"Given the vast sums of petrodollars and the availability of useful idiots and agents of influence in strategic positions, it is unlikely that Australian universities will resist the allure of Saudi funding, nor will they resist pressure to guide their teaching and research in an Islamist direction, especially in connection with the war on terror, the history of Islam, the Middle East conflict, Islam and the West, and the role of women. Consequently, it will only be continuing public and academic vigilance and political pressure that will protect Australia's tertiary education system, moderate Muslim communities and liberal democratic traditions." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-13/32626

Rising sea temperatures in the Mediterranean are encouraging alien lionfish species to invade and colonise new territories with potentially serious ecological and socioeconomic impacts.

Evidence collated from divers and fishermen reveals that in the space of a year, the venomous predators have colonised Cyprus – and these may be at the vanguard of a pan-Atlantic Ocean invasion following the widening and deepening of the Suez Canal.

The report, published in Marine Biodiversity Records, was written by Mr Demetris Kletou, of the Marine & Environmental Research Lab, in Limassol, Cyprus; and Professor Jason Hall-Spencer, of the School of Marine Science and Engineering at Plymouth University.

“Until now, few sightings of the alien lionfish Pterois miles have been reported in the Mediterranean and it was questionable whether the species could invade this region like it has in the western Atlantic,” says Mr Kletou. “But we’ve found that lionfish have recently increased in abundance, and within a year have colonised almost the entire south eastern coast of Cyprus, assisted by sea surface warming.”

Lionfish are generalist carnivores and can feed on a variety of fish and crustaceans, with large individuals preying almost exclusively on fish. They spawn every four days, year-round, producing around two million buoyant gelatinous eggs per year, which can ride the ocean currents and cover large distances for about a month before they settle.

Their success at invading new territories stems from a combination of factors such as early maturation and reproduction, and venomous spines that deter predators, and they can quickly colonise reefs and reduce biodiversity in the area.

The research team collated information on reported encounters in coastal waters from divers, spearfishers and fishermen, and conducted interviews, gathering photographic and video evidence, and recording the date of the sighting, and the location. In addition, governmental officers of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Research (DFMR) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, in Cyprus, shared information and specimens captured in nets by local coastal fishermen.

The results show that the lionfish P. miles has colonised almost the entire south eastern coast of Cyprus, from Limassol to Protaras in just one year.

At least 23 new and confirmed sightings of 19 individuals were recorded, such as three pairs sighted from the south-eastern side of Cyprus, one off Larnaca, one at Zinovia wreck and one at Ptotaras. One of the pairs has since become a group of five, all living together at Cyclops Caves. 

Professor Hall-Spencer said:

“Groups of lionfish exhibiting mating behaviour have been noted for the first time in the Mediterranean. By publishing this information, we can help stakeholders plan mitigating action, such as offering incentives for divers and fishermen to run lionfish removal programmes, which have worked well at shallow depths in the Caribbean, and restoring populations of potential predators, such as the dusky grouper. Given that the Suez Canal has recently been widened and deepened, measures will need to be put in place to help prevent further invasion.”

The research paper, A lionfish (Pterois miles) invasion has begun in the Mediterranean Sea, will be published on 28 June in Marine Biodiversity Records.

This article is based on studies from Plymouth University in Britain.

People who have complained to me of poor coverage by the Australian media of the underlying reasons for Britain's exit from the EU will enjoy these shows. They report on various aspects, including the possibility of preventing the privatisation of British hospitals and mining, the ability to try to end Britain's live transport of domestic animals for thousands of kms, the ability to stop fracking, the desirability of a decrease in house prices, the reasons why people outside the big cities voted against the EU, and mass immigration in an economy where unemployment is already high and numbers are an issue.

English language programs

"It's panic stations amongst the ruling elites." On Sputnik's Referendum Special, George Galloway, interviews journalist Selina Scott, who sums up the EU as undemocratic, noting that the British have no ability to affect decisions on fracking, live transport or anything else of note. He also interviews a very traditional Alex Graham, former president of the RMT union, who believes that trade unions have lost confidence in their ability to defend members’ rights and an exit from the EU could bring back control. Either way, both our guests agree the Brexit vote was in part a rejection by the working class of the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy and they came to the studio to explain why.

In "Brexit Special: Are we living in a Disunited Kingdom?", Afshin Rattansi of Going Underground, does not shy from putting the positives of Britain's referendum outcome, including more affordable housing. He interviews Alex Salmond, former First Minister of the Scottish National Party about the implications of Brexit for another Scottish referendum, asks Conservative MP, David Davies if Brexit could be the end of the UK and hears from a former Labour home secretary, Yvette Cooper, who thinks a break-up of Britain could spell the end of her party, and from former coalition business secretary Sir Vince Cable, on the day his former boss resigned.

Crosstalk's debate on Brexit covers quite a field as usual..

In The Big Picture, journalist Thom Hartman, usually very defensive on the goods of immigration, gets out of that groove on this occasion and gives good time to the valid negatives, also citing some erudite sources on the matter.

The Keiser Report does its own wild but substantial analysis of Brexit, coming down hard on the high house prices and the arcane self-justifications of the elites and mainstream press. "Max and Stacy are joined from New York City by Mitch Feierstein of PlanetPonzi.com to dissect the economic, monetary and financial consequences of the ‘shocking’ Brexit vote - Britain votes to leave the European Union. The Keiser Report team look closer at the market sell off and ask if it’s part of a wider market weakness set in motion months ago, then examine the role of the media, much as in the rise of Donald Trump, in simply failing to understand the ‘disposable’ voters left behind by globalization. Mitch shows a chart proving that the biggest pound sterling sell-off was actually in 2008 and the currency has never really recovered since then. Finally, they look at the opportunities presented by panic selling."

In Sophie and Co Sophie Shevardnadze interviews Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London and Labor Party veteran, who pushes a globalist agenda on immigration and economics, but she keeps at him, revealing the inconsistencies.

Interviews in French:

A young pro-Brexit Franco-German speaks up. On France2's Friday 24 June 8pm program, Marie Drucker interviews Charlotte Kude, 25 years old of GermanFrench nationality and a parliamentary employee with the EU. Supposedly the young were among the pro-EU majority, but Charlotte became a spokesperson for the "Vote Leave" side. She is very happy about the Brexit win. "The British are not rejecting Europeans, they are rejecting the obsolete system (...). They were hoping to send a message to the political project and also in the hope that the EU would wake up to the welfare of all those that still remain members.

A chasm between bureaucrats and citizens: This young woman became a eurosckeptic through her experience in the European Parlement. "I was struck by the chasm beween the lifestyle of the bureaucrats in Brussels and that of European citizens. (...) More than 10,000 [among the Brussels bureaucrats] are paid more than the British Primeminister, for example. They don't pay taxes; they can drink, eat, travel with all expenses paid. And, in my opinion, that's what's contributing to the bubble they are living in which must eventually explode." [1]

Notes

[1] Original french summary of the interview: Charlotte Kude, 25 ans, est une assistante parlementaire franco-allemande. Surtout, elle est pour la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l'UE et est ainsi devenue porte-parole du mouvement "Vote Leave". Elle se réjouit donc du succès du Brexit. "Ce ne sont pas les Européens que les Britanniques rejettent, c'est bien le système politique obsolète qu'ils rejettent.(...) C'est le projet politique auxquels ils ont souhaité envoyé un message, et dans l'espoir aussi que l'Union européenne se réveille pour le bien-être de tous ceux qui y sont encore".

Un fossé entre bureaucrates et citoyens

La jeune femme est devenue eurosceptique par son expérience au Parlement européen. "J'ai été vraiment interpellée par le fossé entre le train de vie des bureaucrates à Bruxelles et celui des citoyens européens. (...) Il y en a plus de 10 000 qui sont payés plus que le Premier ministre britannique par exemple, ils ne payent pas d'impôts, ils peuvent boire, manger, voyager tous frais payés. Et ça, à mon sens, ça entretient cette bulle qui va finir par imploser"."

On 23 June, just prior to the vote on whether Britain should leave the European Union (referred to as 'Brexit'), Paul Craig Roberts (pictured right) put the case for Brexit in a 30 minute interview with Richie Allen (pictured left).

The interview is embedded below as a YouTube video. This 30 minute interview, provides clear, compelling arguments as to why it is urgently necessary for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not only to preserve its national sovereignty, but to prevent the war against Russia planned by the rulers of the United States. In the interview Paul Craig Roberts also confronts, and thoroughly demolishes, claims by those arguing for Britain to remain in the European Union, that those advocating Brexit are racist and xenophobic.

He puts clearly and succinctly the arguments that everybody has the right to control the numbers of people entering their community. It is not unreasonable for a community to object to large numbers of people from a different culture suddenly moving into their midst.

Paul Craig Roberts argues that while the British and other Europeans are right to object to as sudden high influx of refugees and immigrants, they should remember that these people are fleeing their own countries because of wars that the rulers of Europe and Britain have inflicted upon their countries.

Paul Craig Roberts "NATO Wants Britain In the European Union For War with Russia. Vote LEAVE Today!"

 

This article is about the real reason why the medicare rebates don't cover the cost of doctors' services and therefore why the practice of general medicine is increasingly unsatisfactory for doctors and patients.

I was inspired to attempt this article by a letter just published in the Age because it articulated my own concerns. The only thing it lacks is that it fails to give the principle reason for the very high costs of running a medical practice.

The truth is Medicare needs to be reformed

It is particularly galling that Labor has adopted the catchcry "Save Medicare". Apparently Medicare is sacred and untouchable. This attitude prevents any possibility of the reform that it desperately needs. It is also galling that Labor is spruiking that the removal of the freeze on rebates will allow GPs to keep bulk billing and this will "save Medicare". The current rebate for a standard GP consultation lasting up to 20minutes is $37.05. Without the freeze, the rebate would be around $39 and by mid-2018 around $40. If GPs had to depend on such paltry amounts for their incomes, Medicare would have died a long time ago.

The truth is that GPs who do not see a patient every six minutes can continue to bulk bill by supplementing their incomes with various care plans, health assessments, home medicine reviews, case conferences, practice incentive payments etc. These processes allow GPs to generate a reasonable income, but there has never been proof that they improve health outcomes. The lowly consultation rebate, frozen or not, encourages GPs to manufacture incomes from these dubious methods. Some, dare I say it, "dodgy" doctors do more than their fair share of "dodgy"' care plans.

The most important 15 minutes in the health system is the consultation with GPs. It must be valued appropriately so that GPs can take a patient's history, examine them and think about a treatment plan that avoids the current blowout of follow-on costs in investigations and referrals. Medicare must be reformed. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have the honesty and courage to do this. It is more complicated than Labor's puerile and disingenuous sloganeering suggests.

Dr Philip Barraclough, Highett

Why do medical practices cost too much to run?

I'll give you a hint. It's not the insurance costs.

A couple of years ago I went for an interview at a GP clinic in an inner suburb of Melbourne, in the region of Armadale or Toorak. It was explained to me that the practice tried to limit the amount of time spent with patients and to make up costs by running various electronic, self-evaluating programs, to diagnose various mental health issues, such as depression. The hard-faced GP interviewing me was keen to tease out any tendency I might have to spend time on supportive or other psychotherapy and it didn't take him long to detect these.

"That might be alright for a GP practising in the outer suburbs," he sniffed, "But there is no way we are going to cover costs here and make a profit by spending time with patients. Our mental health nurses here have got it down to a fine art. They use self-evaluation forms as a way of interacting therapeutically with the patients and then they use the same forms for their reports. Personally I think you may be a little too one-to-oneish for this practice."

I needed the job, so tried to sound very flexible on these issues, but he wasn't fooled. He asked me whether I had any political philosophy and, before I could answer, he told me that I really should get familiar with Ayn Rand. He was the first person I have ever met, outside a novel, with the exception of some 'counter-culture' heroine addicts in the 1980s, who had ever expressed any open approval of this writer. I had heard that Rand's 'objectivist' philosophy had enjoyed a resurgence with US and other neocons, but I admit that I was shocked to find her lurking in a Melbourne GP clinic. I guess that made me naive, however, if I knew my GP was an avid fan of Ayn Rand, I would run a mile!

But, anyway, the thing that most interested me about this job interview was the acknowledgement that the cost of rental and real-estate in Australia, particularly within the inner suburbs, was so prohibitive that a doctor wishing to succeed simply could not afford to spend time with patients and, furthermore, artfully deployed gimmicks and electronic questionnaires to take the place of proper physical and mental examinations and treatment.

Because the major cost of doing business in Australia is the cost of land and rents. A business-owner must pay for two premises: the one he or she sleeps in and the one they do business at. Furthermore, they must pay their staff high enough wages for their staff to be able to afford Melbourne's high rentals and house prices. Australia has some of the highest land prices in the world and that goes a long way to explain why small and medium business enterprises so frequently fail. It also explains why Australian manufacturing is in decline and unable to compete with overseas products which do not have nearly as high costs. And high land prices drive up the cost of everything else, including power and water. Even insurance goes up because it must meet this inflation.

And it explains why medicare rebates are no longer adequate to cover patient visits and why GPs practically give you the bum's rush out of their offices almost as soon as you enter, why they won't let you tell them more than one thing that is wrong with you, and why they won't take time to discuss their diagnosis, and why their diagnosis is so often wrong!

Service quality probably increases with distance from the city as the land and rent costs diminish. Maybe some city GPs tak refuge in Ayn Rand in order to rationalise their increasing exploitation and degrading of social capital in an effort to make ends meet.

Whose fault is it?

And whose fault is this? It is the fault of the growth lobby, which has succeeded in raising immigration rates so high in Australia that there is permanently rising inflation of land-prices. Both major political parties and the Greens are responsible parts of this lobby. The first two have massive investments in land-speculation and financing. The Greens utterly refuse to say anything against the engineering of massive population growth in Australia.

A new front has opened in the student-migration scam, whereby the Turnbull Government has opened the door to international primary school students and their guardians to access Australian schools and purchase Australian property ahead of achieving permanent residency. From SBS News:

[Republished here with permission. Originally published at http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/category/featured-article/. Published by the Unconventional Economist at http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/06/turnbull-opens-new-student-migration-scam-floodgate/#comment-2636816]

From July 1, students aged six and above would be able to apply for student visas regardless of their country of citizenship – and their guardians can also apply for Guardian visas (subclass 580)…

These visa-rule changes, which were announced during Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to China in April, also mean non-residents can buy several new properties or one existing property…

Dave Platter, from the leading Chinese international-property portal Juwai.com said there has been a nearly 20 per cent jump in inquiries for properties in Australia since Mr Turnbull’s announcement…

Estate agents Vera and Geoffrey Wong have hosted an open home in Sydney’s Eastwood.

Most of their clients are either Chinese or South Korean investors, and Mr Wong says when they were choosing a property, there is no doubt their children’s education is considered most important.

He said buyers are planning purchases that cater for their children’s entire education.

“Schooling … that is – I can’t emphasise it enough – is one of the main factors,” he said.

“Our clients, I would say over 70 per cent, (are looking,) at schooling and the university afterwards.”

Unbelievable. Primary schools in “good” catchment areas are already bursting at the seams. Meanwhile, Australia’s biggest cities, which is where most migrants arrive, are already struggling to digest a decade of rampant population growth (immigration), which has clogged their roads, trains, and reduced residents’ overall amenity.

And yet the government wants to add more immigrant fuel to the fire, just so that it keeps a floor under Australia’s already ridiculously expensive house values.

Where is the additional federal investment in schools and infrastructure to keep up with the migrant influx? And where is the consideration of impacts on Australia’s existing residents – especially young families struggling to buy a home and put their children through schooling?

Is this what Australia has been reduced to: flogging land, houses and visas to wealthy Chinese? Is this what Turnbull really means by his “innovation agenda”? Surely we can do better.

unconventionaleconomist AT hotmail.com

Do you remember coming to previous elections and going to vote above the line, then suddenly realising that you hadn't thought to find out about every senate candidate? So, there you were, obliged to fill out every box, trying to guess from the names the least evil of the fifty or seventy candidates you had never heard of. This election there has been a profound and potentially very empowering change. We will have the opportunity to vote for six only or more senate candidates. So we will be able to vote for the people and parties we really want this time and not vote at all for the ones we don't want or do not know. The article below is republished from the Australian Electoral Commission website. It gives the names of the candidates and links to their websites where known. At the bottom there is a collection of little-known independent candidates. In most cases you can use search engines to find these candidates. We will put up the candidates for other states if and when we have time, but you can get their names and affiliations and download an excel file with their websites and contact details here: http://aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm.

2016 Victorian Senate Ballot Paper (116 Candidates)

Candidate Name Party

[Candobetter.net Editor: The letters on the left represent the ballot positions, but if you want to be sure, go to the AEC at http://aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm]

A DERRYN HINCH'S JUSTICE PARTY

HINCH Derryn Derryn Hinch's Justice Party
GRIMLEY Stuart Derryn Hinch's Justice Party

B AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS (Note, the name of this party seems to have been left off the AEC on line voting list - see http://www.aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm and we have just inserted it. )

COLLYER David -
MITCHELL-COOK Wanda -

C ANIMAL JUSTICE PARTY

POON Bruce Animal Justice Party
EDGECOMBE Jacqueline Animal Justice Party

D AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

CARR Kim Australian Labor Party
CONROY Stephen Michael Australian Labor Party
COLLINS Jacinta Australian Labor Party
MARSHALL Gavin Australian Labor Party
YANG Chien-Hui Australian Labor Party
PERSSE Louise Australian Labor Party
KENT Steve Australian Labor Party
TARCZON Les Australian Labor Party

E SCIENCE PARTY / CYCLISTS PARTY

JAMES Luke Science Party
DOW Nik Australian Cyclists Party

F PALMER UNITED PARTY

THOOLEN Catriona Cecilia Palmer United Party
HICKEY Cameron Palmer United Party

G JACQUI LAMBIE NETWORK

DOLAN Hugh Jacqui Lambie Network
TIMSON Matt Jacqui Lambie Network

H AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIANS

JANSON Vickie Australian Christians
ARAPOGLOU Eleni Australian Christians
OKUMU Anne Australian Christians

I SUSTAINABLE AUSTRALIA

NICHOLLS Georgia Sustainable Australia
ARMSTRONG Steven Sustainable Australia

J PIRATE PARTY

SIMPSON Lachlan Pirate Party
BURLEIGH Richard Pirate Party

K SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY

SINNEMA Chris Socialist Equality Party
BYRNE Peter Socialist Equality Party

L HEALTH AUSTRALIA PARTY

GOLDEN Isaac Health Australia Party
BREAKWELL Kathryn Health Australia Party

M RENEWABLE ENERGY PARTY

ASKEY Graham Renewable Energy Party
WILSON Gray Renewable Energy Party

N VOTEFLUX.ORG | UPGRADE DEMOCRACY!

LEHRER Danielle VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!
MILNE Stuart James VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!

O FAMILY FIRST PARTY

BAIN Peter Timothy Family First Party
GREEN Randell Family First Party
MANNERS Craig Family First Party

P CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (FRED NILE GROUP)

HANNA May Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
BOTROS Stephanie Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Q THE ARTS PARTY

GODDE Rose The Arts Party
HENSON Jamie Christopher The Arts Party
ANDREW Maureen J The Arts Party

R DLP DEMOCRATIC LABOUR

VEREKER Stephen DLP Democratic Labour
FREEMAN Michael DLP Democratic Labour

S CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL

ISHERWOOD Craig Citizens Electoral Council
PEUT Gabrielle Citizens Electoral Council

T SECULAR PARTY OF AUSTRALIA

PERKINS John Secular Party of Australia
CARR Alice Secular Party of Australia

U AUSTRALIAN LIBERTY ALLIANCE

JONES Daniel Australian Liberty Alliance
NICHOLLS Kenneth Australian Liberty Alliance

V NICK XENOPHON TEAM

HALPERN Naomi Nick Xenophon Team
LEE Justin Nick Xenophon Team

W AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY

MUIR Ricky Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
MACKLEY Aaron Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party

X MARRIAGE EQUALITY

TUAZON-McCHEYNE Jason Marriage Equality
TOMLINS Jacqueline Marriage Equality

Y PAULINE HANSON'S ONE NATION

ROYLANCE Simon Peter Pauline Hanson's One Nation
CAMERON Ian John Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Z SOCIALIST ALLIANCE

CHELLIAH Lalitha Socialist Alliance
GOODEN Tim Socialist Alliance

AA AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY PARTY

KERR Garry Australian Country Party
LARKIN Phil Australian Country Party
AB MFP
MADIGAN John MFP
GEORGE Mark MFP

AC DRUG LAW REFORM

CHIPP Greg Drug Law Reform
SHERMAN John Drug Law Reform

AD VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA PARTY

SCANLON David James Voluntary Euthanasia Party
JONES Miranda Voluntary Euthanasia Party

AE MATURE AUSTRALIA

McCARTHY Graham Mature Australia
RIDGE Roy Mature Australia

AF LIBERAL/THE NATIONALS

FIFIELD Mitch Liberal
McKENZIE Bridget The Nationals
RYAN Scott Liberal
PATERSON James Liberal
HUME Jane Liberal
OKOTEL Karina Liberal
TRELOAR Rebecca The Nationals

AG SHOOTERS, FISHERS AND FARMERS

WILSON Jake "Shooters, Fishers and Farmers"
CONSTANTINOU Ethan "Shooters, Fishers and Farmers"

AH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

SPENDER Duncan Liberal Democrats
LIMBRICK David Liberal Democrats

AI RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY

NALLIAH Daniel Rise Up Australia Party
CRESTANI Rosalie Rise Up Australia Party

AJ AUSTRALIAN PROGRESSIVES

KNIGHT David Australian Progressives
GILMORE Josh Australian Progressives

AK THE GREENS

DI NATALE Richard The Greens
RICE Janet The Greens
COLEMAN Misha The Greens
KLEIN Elise The Greens
CRABB Anna The Greens
SEARLE James The Greens
MINIFIE Tasma The Greens
ALDEN Jennifer The Greens
CAMERON Judy The Greens
SEKHON Gurm The Greens
MAGUIRE-ROSIER Josephine The Greens
READ Rose The Greens

AL
AUSTRALIAN SEX PARTY

DOIG Meredith Australian Sex Party
MULCAHY Amy Australian Sex Party

UNG
UNGROUPED

JUHASZ Stephen Independent
ARASU Karthik Independent
HALL Dennis Independent
SPASOJEVIC Dana Independent
KARAGIANNIDIS John Independent
LUTZ Geoff Independent
MULL Allan Independent
RYAN Chris Independent
VADARLIS Eric Independent
DICKENSON Mark Francis Independent
SHMUEL Immanuel Independent
FLOYD Glenn Independent
URIE Meredith Independent
NYE Trevor William Independent
HAWKS Peter John Independent
BESLIS Christopher Independent

For the past ten years Australians have been subjected to an exceptionally high level of population growth and now they are losing patience. (Article first published on June 13, 2016 at the Australian Population Research Institute. Republished here for the second time owing to recent data loss from site.)

The graph shows the steep increase in numbers since 2006 (data from here). If this continues the population will grow from 24 million today to around 41 million in 2061 (see the 2013 ABS projection series 29 and 41).

In November 2015 a survey commissioned by Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) found that 51% of voters thought Australia did not need more people. Then in May this year a survey done for SBS TV found that 59% of people thought that the level of immigration over the last 10 years had been too high.

The SPA survey asked respondents to give reasons for their opinion. Many of those who thought we did not need more people said our cites were overcrowded (with too much traffic)—consequences of rapid growth all too apparent to urbanites. Others spoke of job competition. And many worried about the effects of growth on Australia’s fragile environment. Concern about too much cultural diversity and migrant enclaves was also high on the list.

The SBS survey focused on immigration and found that dissatisfaction with immigration was even higher than with growth in general. It asked about multiculturalism and 46% of respondents said that this had failed. It had brought social division and religious extremism to Australia (43% of those who were immigrants themselves agreed).

It was reasonable for SBS to focus on immigration because this accounts for the major part of the current population boom — around 58%.

Immigration is a product of government policy. It’s the outcome of decisions made by political elites, prompted by lobbyists for property developers, employers, and other businesses that profit from population growth. The two surveys show that the electorate is fed up with the unwanted growth that this power elite has wished upon them.

The record numbers of migrants in the 2000s were partly justified by the push to keep affordable skills coming during the investment phase of the resources boom. But since 2012 that justification has evaporated and economic growth has slowed. Despite this, Governments, both Labor and Coalition, have kept immigration high. Now the motivation is to keep the housing and development interests happy. They continue to profit from a stream of new customers, a stream which also keeps the construction industry going and creates the appearance of a busy economy. But this strategy has not increased per capita income. Quite the reverse.

It’s not just that forced population growth leads to clogged infrastructure, cultural disruption and environmental deterioration, it is also comes with financial stress.

Leith Van Onselen writes that:

While headline GDP growth across Australia has held-up reasonably well over the past decade, thanks to high immigration, per capita real GDP is trending down so sharply that it has fallen to levels not seen since the early-1980s recession. …

While real GDP has been rising since December 2011, net disposable income (NDI) per capita has been falling. See graph below. (NDI is explained here.)

Urban voters are also angry about the level of densification forced on them by undemocratic planning authorities determined to accommodate developers. Groups such as Planning Backlash, BRAG (Boroondara Residents Action Group), Save our Suburbs, RAGE (Residents against Greedy Enterprise) and the Carlton Residents Association all express deep frustration about over-development, loss of heritage and declining quality of life.

So far the growth lobby has been able to keep on profiting from ballooning numbers, partly because few voters fully understand what is being done to them. They know that conditions are getting worse but they don’t fully understand the key role played by population growth.

The SPA survey tested respondents’ knowledge of demographic change. The minority (16%) who had a good understanding were the most likely to say that Australia does not need more people. But 82% knew very little. Though they were unhappy about time-devouring traffic jams and ugly new high-rise apartments, they didn’t always know why these miseries were being wished upon them, or why they felt so powerless.

But their unhappiness has political effects, effects which can explain why governments have been toppling so fast. Kelvin Thomson calls this the witches hat theory of why governments fail. Mark O’Connor summarises it thus:

[S]taying in power, and keeping the electorate happy is a little like an advanced driving course, one in which a government is required to thread a kind of slalom course between a series of witches’ hats — meaning the orange inverted cones that mark out the course. These hats, which the government, like the driver, needs to avoid knocking over, include such things as keeping electricity and water costs down, reducing hospital queues, keeping housing affordable, preserving the environment, providing full employment, restricting inflation, etc.
And the faster a country’s population is rising, the harder it is to do this… It’s like trying to negotiate the course at double speed.

As Thomson himself puts it:
[W]hen politicians … look in the mirror and ask ‘Why don’t they like me?’, the answer might well be that they are driving the car too fast and knocking over those witches’ hats. They should slow the car down and focus on solving people’s real-life problems.

It is not surprising that Dick Smith, outspoken critic of mindless population growth, is now the most trusted public figure in Australia. Or that mainstream politicians are among the least trusted.

 

The OpenAustralia Foundation, the charity that runs a more accessible Hansard, has made an announcement about the progress of its Planning Alerts service. This is a free and community commons service. It gives citizens some ability to keep up with what the developers and mum and dad subdividers are up to. This, in turn, will give ordinary citizens and residents more insight into the impact of population growth, more information to make political decisions, and more control over its rapid creep.

PlanningAlerts makes it easy to impact what happens to your local buildings, parks, streets, and infrastructure. Over the last 7 years almost 40,000 people have signed up for alerts and thousands of you have made official comments on development applications for everyone to see.

But there are more ways to impact what gets built and knocked down. There are people at the council whose job is to understand their community and advocate for people like you who care about it. These people are your local councillors and they work for you.

If you want to help shape how your community changes then these are great people to talk to. They can make sure you’re heard at council meetings, find and request information for you, help you organise locals around the issues that matter, and much more. These are powerful ways to have a direct impact—but working with your councillors hasn’t been part of PlanningAlerts … until now.

Start a conversation

You can now easily ask your local councillors about a development application you care about in PlanningAlerts. This is a new feature that we’ve worked hard to make as simple as possible for you.

People living in over 70 council areas around Australia will now see an option to write to their local councillors in PlanningAlerts. Since we switched this feature on, dozens of people have used it and councillors from across Australia have responded.

Lots of people do currently write to local councillors about planning, but these conversations all happen in private.

In PlanningAlerts the full exchange is public. You can share and discuss what is (or isn’t) said, and hold the people you’ve elected responsible for their action. Everyone can benefit from your questions and the work councillors do to respond. People who’ve never taken the step to make contact themselves can see how easy it is and how helpful councillors can be.

A handful of brilliant volunteers have collected councillors’ contact details for 70 of the 150 councils in PlanningAlerts (thank you Pip, Daniel and Katska!). Let us know if your council is missing and we’ll prioritise making this new feature available to you. If you’d like to help collect local councillor information, please contact us—we’d love your help to make this available to everyone.

Now it’s time to put your councillors to work for you through PlanningAlerts.

Thanks for your support

The PlanningAlerts Team,
OpenAustralia Foundation

–

OpenAustralia Foundation

Right now the UK is politically divided on whether or not to leave the European Union and the mood in many quarters is ugly. It seems that there is a very strong chance that the forthcoming Brexit referendum could swing in favour of the Leave vote, something that seemed unimaginable a few years ago. The main reason for most people wanting to leave is because they are concerned with the UK’s rapid rate of population growth. This article is by Michael Bayliss (President of Sustainable Population Australia Victoria and Tasmania Branch) and Mark Allen (Population, Permaculture and Planning)

A proportion of the blame can be placed on those who have a narrow vision of what it is to be British in the 21st century and who are often misled by those parts of the media that take a more sensationalist approach.

However, the left also need to bear some of the responsibility because they have for far too long placed the topic of population in the politically incorrect basket. With net migration last year coming in at 300,000, people have a right to be concerned, especially when there is no end point to this rate of growth in sight. What is all the more concerning is that the refusal by many on the left to engage on this important issue has allowed the right to exploit this to their advantage by peddling all kinds of fear and untruths. Sadly it appears to be working.

So what lessons are there to be learned here in Australia? There is a parallel because we too are experiencing rapid population growth with net immigration in 2015 at 168 000, so the impact here is larger on a per capita basis.

While it may appear that this would be tempered somewhat by the sheer size of the Australian landmass, this population growth is centered mainly around the Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane conurbations. Until there are jobs, infrastructure and the political will, our boundless plains will continue to be just that. Considering that these plains are mostly desert and rangeland, there is an argument that they are mostly not suitable for new urban settlement anyway, so the focus is very much on our narrow strip of green along the Eastern seaboard. To put this in perspective, the populations of Sydney and Melbourne are growing by 1600 and 1760 a week respectively and people are beginning to feel it.

Meanwhile the government (and just about everyone else) are currently doing a good job of keeping our high rate of immigration away from the public radar. Instead we keep reinforcing the association in the minds of many people of migration with refugees. As John Howard famously promoted this very misunderstanding when he said on the radio 2014:

“One of the reasons why it’s so important to maintain that policy is that the more people think our borders are being controlled, the more supportive they are in the long term of high levels of immigration...And one of the ways that you maintain public support for that is to communicate to the Australian people a capacity to control our borders and to decide who and what people and when come to this country.”

However, the wool cannot be pulled over our eyes forever as the negative consequences of population growth only keep intensifying. Eventually more and more people will join the dots and it is then that we face the threat of the fear- mongering far right taking a foothold.

Do we really have to wait until then? If we engage in sensible rational discourse now about what constitutes a sustainable rate of growth we can avoid all of this. This means that the left have to come to the table. If the issue continues to be ignored we could end up with a situation similar to what is going on in the United Kingdom and it will leave the topic in the hands of those who feed off fear and hate.

This issue is only going to get bigger as Australia's population continues to grow by a new Adelaide approximately every three years. People of compassion need to be the ones who set the tone for the conversations that will ultimately come. If the compassionate fail in this responsibility, they will create a void where people with bigoted views will take centre stage.

Australia is a multicultural country with a proud tradition of supporting refugees and this needs to be the central message on the left. We do not need to be an apologist for the rapid population growth that is being used to justify an economic ponzi scheme.

It is time to put left and right ideologies aside and focus thoughtfully on delivering the most equitable and compassionate outcomes for all people and the earth as a whole. How rapidly we grow our population and how we distribute that population should be part of that discussion.

The views in this article do not necessarily correspond with the views of Sustainable Population Australia