The Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership is about to take on an ecological angle with Moscow's suggestion of piping Altai mountain river water to the drought-stricken deserts of Xinjiang. Aside from obviously being used to unburden the Chinese from dealing with the catastrophic effects of climate change, the proposed fresh water pipeline will also have a premier strategic purpose as well. The research begins by examining the strategic vision at play with this initiative and then explaining how it relates to Color Revolutions. Finally, the insight that's revealed from investigating the prior two topics will be linked to the forthcoming global struggle for reliable freshwater supplies in forecasting how the US will try to disrupt Russian-Chinese water cooperation in the coming decades.

Article by Andrew Korybko. Republished with permission. First published at Katehon, Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00 UTC

Strategic Vision

Xinjiang is the global intersection point for most of China's Eurasian Silk Road projects, and it's thus of the highest importance that the frontier region remains stable and prosperous in order to function as the ultimate juncture of the 21st century's transcontinental infrastructure projects. While foreign-supported terrorism and the proselytization of violent ideologies are certainly a challenge in the area, what most directly affects the population's sympathies towards the central government are more immediate concerns such as their standard of living. The countless material products that are expected to pass through the region and tangentially enrich it can only do so much in improving one's livelihood if there are potentially pressing problems with water availability to the local citizens.

At this moment in time, the Chinese government has been doing a phenomenal job ensuring that the people of Xinjiang are taken care of by providing for all of their needs, but Beijing is also keen enough to plan ahead several decades in advance in order to preempt as many forthcoming challenges as possible. Considering the recent drought and unpredictable global climactic changes, China has legitimate fears that the current environmental difficulties could be exacerbated in the future. Needing to keep Xinjiang as stable and prosperous as possible in order to facilitate its grander goals of pan-Eurasian integration through the New Silk Road, China and Russia came up with the idea of using Kazakhstan to geographically facilitate the transfer of mountain river water from Altai Krai to Xinjiang's deserts.

The Color Revolution Connection

If successfully completed, then the ambitious project would guarantee Xinjiang a stable supply of freshwater and counteract the physical-political effects of any future droughts, thus depriving the US of one of the potential avenues through which it could one day try to stir up anti-government unrest. For example, the authorities would not have to worry about their citizens being manipulated into protesting against a shortfall in domestic water availability (sewage and in-house running water complications), a dearth of drinking water, and/or the disastrous agricultural and livestock impact of drought because each of these scenarios would be rendered increasingly unlikely after Xinjiang reliably connects its water infrastructure to Altai's.

From another angle, however, the establishment of the Altai-Xinjiang water pipeline would increase the chance that the US would try to stage a Color Revolution scenario in Altai in order to interfere with the vital source of western China's water supplies. Even prior to the project's completion, the US and its army of NGOs will expectedly stage disturbances aimed at highlighting the "environmental consequences" of the initiative, potentially even encouraging its local "activists" to enter into clashes with the police. Should the pipeline get up and running, then the authorities need to be on the lookout for potential signs of growing identity separateness between the local Altai population and Moscow.

While it's always a positive development when indigenous cultures embrace their uniqueness and are proud of their heritage, there's a distinct line between peaceful celebration and hostile antagonism. If the locals organize around some distinct facet of their identity -- perhaps a revival of the Shamanistic religion of "Burkhanism" or a violent interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism -- then they could more easily be herded into nationalist groups that might thenceforth be directed to stage aggressive anti-government protests. The fusion of identity separateness and a US-promoted awareness of the Altai's newfound geostrategic importance to multipolar affairs could be enough to encourage increasingly radicalized individuals to agitate for substantially enhanced autonomy or outright independence, being misled by Washington and its NGO minions into thinking that they could indefinitely sustain their 'sovereignty' solely through profitable water exports to China.

Water Wars

The proposal to connect Russia's freshwater resources with the growing Chinese consumer base is emblematic of Moscow's rising role as the world's premier water superpower. No other country has as much freshwater reserves as Russia does, which thus increases is global profile and will soon allow it to reap enormous strategic advantages as the rest of the world literally thirsts for this resource. Russia's other advantage -- though regularly spun by the West as a disadvantage -- is that the Siberian and Far East regions where the freshwater originates are largely underpopulated and accordingly more than capable of diverting their own supplies abroad without any consequences at home. In the future, Russia might not only come to be China's main energy partner, but also its vital lifeline to clean freshwater reserves as well, thereby making itself forever irreplaceable as Beijing's most important grand strategic ally.

Because of the pivotal role that Russia is expected to play in providing clean drinking water to some of China's over one billion citizens, the US will undoubtedly conspire to find a way to interfere with the reliable shipment of this life-sustaining resource and thus gain leverage over both of these Great Powers. In a sense, this is merely an adapted application of what it's already trying to do vis-a-vis global energy flows, albeit much more directly connected to life-or-death ends. Using the techniques of Hybrid War that it's been perfecting over the past decade and especially in the most recent years, it's foreseeable that the US will try to instigate identity tension inside the freshwater-originating regions or transit areas.

Looking at the map, a fair share of Russia's major Siberian and Far Eastern rivers either start or pass through autonomous republics (Sakha/Yakutia, Buryatia, Tuva, Khassia, Altai) or areas with a distinct identity separateness such as Altai Krai. Conclusively, it's reasonable to suggest that the US might try to capitalize off of the indigenous population's Turkic Buddhist-Shamanist identity in fomenting identity tension, with this scenario spiking in probability if Washington ever succeeds in swaying the Mongolian government over to the New Cold War side of unipolarity.

Concluding Thoughts

The idea of linking Siberia's freshwater supplies with China's deserts, and presumably later on even to its major population centers, is an ambitious proposal that carries with it profound global significance. The world's dwindling freshwater reserves are being pushed beyond their limit in providing nourishment to an ever-increasing population, to say nothing of their use in agriculture, hydroelectricity, and animal husbandry. In the coming decades, the countries that control freshwater resources either in whole or in part (whether through their source, transit, or mouth) will be in a superb position to influence all of those around them.

Even though China is unquestionably the freshwater king of East, Southeast, and South Asia through the sources that it controls in Tibet (which explains the US and India's unceasing struggle to destabilize and dislodge the region from Beijing), its unchecked industrialization of the past couple of decades has led to unprecedented pollution that has made some of these supplies dangerous and unfit to use. Moreover, not all of the country is served by the Tibetan rivers, with the geostrategic trans-continental juncture point of Xinjiang being absolutely arid and deprived of any significant water resources. This part of China is also the scene of foreign-supported terrorist aggression, and it's in the best interests of Beijing to do everything that it can to secure the locals' contentment with the central government in order to avoid losing "hearts and minds" amidst this partially ideological conflict.

What Russia's planning to do isn't just to provide Xinjiang with Altai freshwater supplies, but possibly even to expand this cooperation further in connecting northeastern and eastern China to similarly reliable and clean resources. This would greatly relieve the Chinese authorities of future contingency planning in the face of an ever-unpredictable climate and could also free up its own domestic resources for further export and strategic utilization as regards the downstream countries. By remedying China's freshwater shortage amidst its never-ending population growth, Russia would fulfill an irreplaceable role in Beijing's grand strategic calculus and thereby maximize its importance to its critical multipolar partner.

However, it's due to this very same vision of pragmatic win-win cooperation between the two Eurasian Great Powers that the US has a vested interest in sabotaging their prospective freshwater trading network, which is why it might seek to capitalize off of identity separateness in Russia's Turkic Buddhist-Shamanistic regions in one day stoking a series of meticulously preplanned Hybrid Wars designed to offset this eventuality. Though there presently aren't any overt signs that the US has made any progress in actualizing this objective, it must still be astutely monitored by the Russian authorities in order to ensure that NGOs and other disruptive proxy actors don't succeed in fanning the flames of conflict and disturbing the peace in this historically stable corner of the world.

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

Questions to Q&A Panel; Monday 16 May 2016

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

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

The basic question is, 

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

In early April, Monash University ran a television advertisement, promoting itself as an institution that challenges the ‘status quo’. The advertisement sarcastically ‘thanks’ and therein belittles ‘contented and settled’ conventional people in different walks of life; they are accused of ‘closing down ideas’ and ‘accepting things the way they are’. It is inferred that the pathology of social conformity, which presumably blights the great majority of us, is the antithesis of life at Monash, where students are admitted to an enlightened elite that is supposedly unconstrained by social norms and conventions. Implicitly, being unfettered by the mental torpor of the majority, this elite becomes the rightful moral guardian of the unenlightened crowd.

At first glance, this may not seem altogether unsurprising from an institution of higher learning where, most people would expect, there should be robust social and cultural critique, a contest of ideas and the creation of new knowledge.
On reflection, however, the Monash advertisement requires closer examination. Aside from its crude and arguably un-Australian appeal to snobbery and pretence, the advertisement reflects a deeper intellectual and cultural malaise that has come to characterise Australian society over recent decades. The advertisement says much about the way in which Australian universities and the intellectual class more broadly have, in effect, seceded from Australian society and are now hostile to notions of the national interest that remain meaningful to mainstream Australia.

An ironic outcome of this secession from the nation is that, rather than being a powerhouse of unconventional intellectual enterprise and free-thinking, as the Monash advertisement piously would have us (the cultural sleep walkers) believe, Monash now represents a straightjacketed orthodoxy of a new kind.

Over several decades, the university-trained intelligentsia has increasingly identified with a set of attitudes which has set it apart from the values and expectations of a large part of the general populace. Central to this political and cultural divide is an inflexible and increasingly authoritarian commitment to a borderless, cosmopolitan world view, expressed through support for high immigration, support for elements of the free-market right deregulatory economic agenda, and an ideological fixation with cultural pluralism or ‘social inclusion’.

Underpinning the cosmopolitan orthodoxy of the intellectual class is a barely disguised contempt for the general populace, whose political instincts are stigmatised as basely parochial, inward looking and un-inclusive. Any hint of national interest in public discussion or government policy is immediately condemned as a form of resurgent xenophobia.

This estrangement of the intellectual class from the values and aspirations of those who still believe in a social mainstream has been a long time coming. Former advisor to Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, observed in the early 1990s the emergence of a class of workers involved in the intangible and abstract processes of problem identification and non-routine information management. In context of the disruptive impact of global economic integration – manufacturing decline, enterprise off-shoring, precarious employment and ascendant neo-liberalism, the class of ‘symbolic analysts’, as Reich called them, prospered as the national economy declined. Reich correctly identified the risks for US society: growing social disparities and weakening social cohesion combined with an ascendant class with an ever more tenuous commitment to the social mainstream. Reich correctly concluded that the “laissez cosmopolitanism” of the new class was socially dangerous.

There have been similar developments in Australia. “Laissez cosmopolitanism” now thrives within the Australian university system. A self-proclaimed global university, Monash is a foremost example. Monash has been increasingly dominated by a corporate, business management logic and a cosmopolitan commitment to the inculcation of global citizens who engage with an unbounded world and exhibit cross-cultural competence. Monash effectively functions as a transnational corporation for which the Australian national interest is largely a troublesome anachronism. John Monash’s creed that people should not only equip themselves for life, but for the benefit of the “whole community”, now seems strangely incongruous – what community?

Of course, the cosmopolitan high morality which is the raison d’etre of Monash as an institution, and of the intellectual class which occupies it, reflects a great deal of crude material self interest. As the umbilical cord of gold to the public purse weakens, Monash has invested heavily in attracting an overseas student clientele. Any pretence to serve a ‘national’ interest has become ever more tenuous. At the same time, its intellectuals’ careers and status hinge upon the institution’s global market strategy. ‘Social inclusion’ has material benefits. One consequence of this is that, we are reaching the point where the ideal of universities like Monash being ‘public’ institutions is losing its factual basis.

In one sense the main message of the Monash University television advertisement is quite honest. As an institution, it has become host to an ascendant intellectual class who have largely divorced themselves from the aspirations and values of the broader community, which they view with mistrust. In another respect, however, the advertisement is dishonest. The groupthink of the elite which now dominates Monash University is not intellectually unconstrained and open, but straight jacketed by a cosmopolitan dogma; an ideological immune system which rapidly identifies and purges from within its ranks any non-conforming interpretation of society. Anyone who thinks that cosmopolitan idealism and intellectual tolerance go hand in hand may be in for a rude surprise at Monash University.

Sustainable Australia says the Turnbull Government has no chance of making good on the Prime Minister’s announcement that he wants to build so called “30 minute cities”, where everything people need is within a 30 minute commute. Sustainable Australia’s Senate candidate in NSW, William Bourke, says that the Prime Minister’s vision of a congestion free future is delusional, while immigration continues to run at record levels.

Mr Bourke says, “The Prime Mister’s plan has three parts, each as preposterous as the next.

“First, he wants to pay a group of bankers $50 million to tell him what to build, and where.

“Then, he wants to borrow another $5 billion for new road and rail projects. That’s on top of the almost $500 billion of government debt racked up over the last 8 years.

“And thirdly, he wants to make the grandchildren pay off that additional debt, by raising the $5 billion by selling 30 year bonds, which will be honoured by a future generation of taxpayers, long after the PM is gone.

Mr Bourke says it is absurd for the Prime Minister to suggest that the government could build its way out of a congestion trap, and borrow its way out of a debt crisis.

“Sustainable Australia says there is only one way to fix congestion. It is decent public transport and a lower immigration intake of 70,000 per year, back from the current high of 200,000 per year.

“The truth is our high population growth is the real reason for our daily traffic jams, and overcrowded trains, buses and trams.

“If we want an Australia that is better, not bigger, then we need to lower immigration”.

View Sustainable Australia’s “30 minute cities” Video Here:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VoteSustainable

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VoteSustainable

Protectors of Public Lands say that notice has been received that the “Greens” Mayor Samantha Ratnam will, tomorrow at 4:30 pm, preside over a “Sod-Turning Ceremony” to mark the start of construction of a monster Moreland Council-funded community/medical centre on Rogers Memorial Reserve in Pascoe Vale. If you can come to the "sod turning ceremony" we will be having a silent vigil of protest. Bring a sign. Come to the Rogers Memorial Reserve on Prospect Street (off Cumberland Road) in the parking area near the Pascoe Vale Swimming Pool. Melways Page 17 A8.

In the eyes of residents and community groups this represents gross vandalism of public parkland and destruction of a heritage War Memorial and commemorative trees, including a “Lone Pine” of Gallipoli fame.

Moreland Greens’ Councillors apparently see Rogers Memorial Reserve as terra nullius, yet they were told by an independent consultant, engaged by Council, that the Reserve was of local heritage value in its entirety. (There was a viable alternative building site nearby.)

It was just ten days ago on 1 May 2016 that the Mayor of Moreland laid a wreath on the War Memorial at the RSL Commemoration Service in remembrance of the ANZACS and the fallen in World War I. PPL VIC regards this as hypocrisy on her part and insulting to those who served Australia in world wars and overseas missions.

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC comments that:

“This rubs salt into our wounds and those of local residents who have long fought to preserve the Rogers Memorial Reserve parkland and the War Memorial; it is extraordinarily insensitive of the Mayor. We consider that it represents a conflict of interest for the Greens Mayor, who is now campaigning as the preselected Greens’ Party candidate for the seat of Wills. PPL VIC understands that there has been no tender yet accepted for the construction of this planned community/medical centre on the Rogers Memorial Reserve, so any “turning of the sod” is premature. Our organisation suggests that the Mayor resign immediately in view of the fact the PM has now declared an election will be held on 2 July 2016” Over the past 2 years PPL VIC has called on a succession of Ministers under the past Liberal/Coalition Government and now the State Labor Government plus RSL Headquarters and Heritage Victoria to review War Memorials and their Memorial Parks to guarantee future protection and proper maintenance.

A deafening silence has resulted. Lip service only appears to be given to the memories of ANZACS and so we cannot expect any real action from government.

Sod-Turning Ceremony for the Pascoe Vale Community Centre

WHEN Tuesday 10 May 2016

TIME 4.30 – 5.30 pm

WHERE Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility

7 Prospect Street, Pascoe Vale"

Since 2002 when Melbourne 2030 was quietly introduced by the Bracks’ government (which was intended to be a 30 year plan for Melbourne to make it a more compact city) there have been another 1 million people in Melbourne and 16 new plans introduced in 14 years. The latest is “Plan Melbourne Refresh,” very quickly followed by “Managing Residential Development,” which is a review of the Reformed Residential Zones. You would think that our planners could come up with a long term plan but obviously they are responding to different agendas set by developers. Planning Backlash invites you and your members to a public forum to voice your concerns about the way development is happening in Melbourne. To be held in the Parkview Room, Camberwell Civic Centre, 340 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Sunday 29th May 2016, 2.30 PM.

Dear Friends all,

This is an invitation to a Forum that is long overdue and this time it will be in the Camberwell Civic Centre on Sunday 29th May at 2.30 pm. Please pass this around to the members of your group, we must pack the hall to show the government we are seriously fed up. And it will be free. We will not be asking you for money as Boroondara Residents Action Group offered to finance it for us – thanks BRAG. Come and have your say. Oh by the way I did invite the Minister but he declined. - I look forward to seeing you then.

Mary Drost.

Are you and your members 'mad as hell' about development in your area?

It seems that every time there is a change of government there is a change of planning strategies, and rarely are these changes for the benefit of residents.

Mostly they are for the benefit of developers, the construction industry and investors but our concerns are virtually ignored, Frustrating isn’t it?

Since 2002 when Melbourne 2030 was quietly introduced by the Bracks’ government (which was intended to be a 30 year plan for Melbourne to make it a more compact city) there have been another 1 million people in Melbourne and 16 new plans introduced in 14 years. The latest is “Plan Melbourne Refresh,” very quickly followed by “Managing Residential Development,” which is a review of the Reformed Residential Zones. You would think that our planners could come up with a long term plan but obviously they are responding to different agendas set by developers.

The time has come for all of us residents to take a stand and loudly shout out, “We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take this any more.”*

We need to respond to the pressures applied by the development industry, aided of course by 'political donations' made to gain favoured treatment.

Do you want to have some real input into development in your neighbourhood? Well here’s your chance.

Venue: To be held in the Parkview Room, Camberwell Civic Centre, 340 Camberwell Road, Camberwell. Car park at the rear in Inglesby Road.
Date: Sunday 29th May 2016, 2.30 PM.

Planning Backlash and B.R.A.G.

This event is an initiative of Planning Backlash and is sponsored by the Boroondara Residents’ Action Group (BRAG).

*The quote “we’re are as mad as hell” comes from the film Network in which actor Peter Finch lets out his frustrations and urges his viewers to open their windows and shout out, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore”.

Feminists may say that the prevailing attitude of men has always been that women’s place is in the home. Well the truth is that until the industrial revolution, everyone’s place was in the home. Home was where families worked – together. Men did not go off to work in offices and factories until there were factories and offices to go to. For most of western history they worked on the farm or in the shop with their wives and children. It was only the industrial revolution that rendered families and communities asunder, culminating in the stereo-typical 1950’s housewife – at home, isolated and alone – in a way, and on a scale, never seen before in human history. This article asserts that neo-liberal values may rule more men but that they are not natural male values and that Christianity, for instance, although dominated by male figures, endorsed values opposite to liberalism. Comments welcome. Editor, Candobetter.net.

What if the values often associated with ‘patriarchal systems’ are not really male values at all? I hypothesise that understanding the negative aspects of our society - associated by some people with patriarchy - may require looking at the problem from quite a different angle. Firstly, let us identify what traits are associated with patriarchy. For this I have drawn upon 'The Heroine's Journey' by Maureen Murdoch. In examining this text I have noticed that the attributes Murdoch associates with patriarchal society are strikingly similar to what many may associate with 'materialism'. The sorts of terms in Murdoch's book associated with patriarchal values include: 'compete', 'jockey for power', 'workaholic', 'control by the stronger', 'power', 'quantifiable', 'success' (in a career sense). Now I doubt that this is a definitive list, but I believe it captures many of the elements of so-called patriarchy as raised in feminist and other literature. I argue that these are not innately male traits at all, but rather, if anything, a more generic human tendency. However, I suspect that like materialism these values were in the past kept in check – although very imperfectly – by various alternative value systems.

Formal religions often offered such alternative value systems. Christianity, for example, promoted a value set which included: humility rather than pride; service to others rather than selfishness; and generosity to the poor and disadvantaged. Such a value set required the strong to defend the weak (rather than seeking to exploit them) and even though the churches themselves may have acted with the worst Machiavellian tendencies, they did at least espouse these Christian values and as such kept them alive as respectable to aspire to. Buddhism is another example of religion offering alternative values against, for example, feudal values.
In fact, these ancient religions also had a name for the types of behaviours described as ‘patriarchal’ in Murdoch’s book (by the way, this is no criticism of Murdoch’s book, I am just drawing on it as a basis for this analysis). The Christian religion identified many of these behaviours (and some others as well) as: egotism, selfishness, ruthlessness, worldly success and prominence and, perhaps uniquely, it warned against the lust for power (as well as sensual lusts). These behaviours were collectively called ‘worldliness’ and everyone – male and female – was warned against them.

In fact, perhaps an emerging word that encompasses many, but not all, of the behaviours of Christian worldliness is 'neo-liberalism'. George Monbiot in his article 'The Zombie Doctrine' describes the neo-liberal ideology as follows:

'Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations'

'a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency'

'What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

Others use similar terms for the ‘nameless’ forces at work, Halffman and Radder in a 2015 Minerva article refer to processes of neo-liberalism in universities as ‘The Wolf’.

Jesus once said, ‘by their fruits will you know them’. Jesus’ words suggest we should not take priests based on their own descriptions of themselves, or their teachings, but rather judge them by their actions and outcomes. The modern priests are the economists and ‘big business’ advocates (i.e the system’s sycophants). Regardless of their promises and claims, we should, as Monbiot does, judge them by their deeds and outcomes, which are loneliness, misery, ill-health and environmental destruction. By its fruits it seems we can clearly identify the true nature of neo-liberalism.

But do you really think that all men fit the classic paternalistic mould? Are there are no men out there who are unselfish? No men who seek the same intrinsic rewards that are now typically associated with women and women’s work? Are there no men who do not aspire to be leaders of companies, famous, powerful and/or wealthy? Because if there are no such men, then who are those men who drive our buses, teach our children, work our ambulances, put out our fires (at risk of their lives)? Surely these vast numbers of everyday men outnumber the relatively few CEO’s and Silicon Valley sociopaths? Just because there are more men than women in our power structures does not mean that these mostly negative and destructive traits are intrinsically male.

So how did the traits of seeking worldly success, power, status and money come to be associated with men and ‘male rule’ in the form of paternalism? I think that it is just that due to history and circumstance large numbers of men were amongst its first victims. But in our modern age it seems that increasingly more women are being drawn into its web. Feminists may retort that the prevailing attitude of men has always been that women’s place is in the home. Well the truth is that until the industrial revolution, everyone’s place was in the home. Home was where families worked – together. Men did not go off to work in offices and factories until there were factories and offices to go to. For most of western history they worked on the farm or in the shop with their wives and children. It was only the industrial revolution that rendered families and communities asunder, culminating in the stereo-typical 1950’s housewife – at home, isolated and alone – in a way, and on a scale, never seen before in human history. And what about Indigenous cultures where home was nature – could anyone say Indigenous women were any more confined than men? What about the objectification of women? Abhorrent I agree, and perhaps always present in the world, thus the Christian warnings about these issues. But not on the scale of what we see today. But this is the nature of the spirit of worldliness; neo-liberalism; The Wolf – whatever you want to call it – everything on the earth is to be exploited: people, nature, planet. It is all for sale. Every vice or weakness is to be exploited to its maximum potential. Until the whole of humanity is debased in an orgy of consumerism, of seeking sensual satisfaction where-ever it can be found, and other humans are only valued as far as they are able to be used to produce these satisfactions. That is where neo-liberalism is taking us. And in the process one of its effects is to make us desperately unhappy. Another is to create conflict where-ever conflict is possible: between young and old, between male and female, between the powerful and the powerless. It will keep us blaming one group or another, while it as the true cause remains hidden and un-named. That is the nature of this particular beast, and as Monbiot points out, like a zombie it lives through us.

American boots on the ground. We hear this all too often throughout the world and now the war ravaged country of Yemen is the latest victim of US military troops. But why Yemen and why now and what are these troops trying to accomplish in a country that is facing a brutal war against it by Saudi Arabia, a war that Washington has given the green light to.

Above 23:30 minute video is from the PressTV YouTube Channel.

See also: Ansarullah Furious at US Military Build-up in Yemen (8/5/16) | FARS News Agency

An article in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture entitled "Monstrous Arrogance: Husbands who Choose Murder Over Divorce," by Cynthia Lewis, PhD, examines a dozen convictions in murders where husbands have murdered their wives to save themselves from some consequences of divorce that they perceive as “too costly.” How murder could become a viable alternative to divorce is either an indicator of the collapse of moral compass in our society, or an indication of the need for divorce reform, or perhaps both. The article points out that, instead of the emotional crimes that you expect to see in spousal murders, it was a “practical matter;” so much so that most of the women never had a sense of how much danger they were in. Article also mentions Australian divorce-related murder.

I usually pick an important subject to wrap a story around. This time, I thought that the subject would be a little lighter, but I was very surprised when I did a little Internet research to find just how common spousal murder was.

According to a 2014 article in the Huffington Post, at least 1/3 of all women murdered in the United States are killed by their male partners.

Now, with the baby boomer generation approaching retirement, according to an article in Saultstar.com, divorces in the after-55 crowd often involve fat retirement funds and paid-off houses, making alternative solutions (albeit insane ones like murder) attractive. Hiring a hitman (or woman) becomes an irresistible and economic alternative for some amoral people who feel that they are trapped in long marriages.

The article cites that 3.2% of murders are done on a commercial basis. Citing straightdope.com, the article states that “most contract killings are carried out by small-time freelancers hired by ‘schlubs.’ The perpetrators in these arrangements are often caught by undercover policemen and FBI agents posing as hired killers. The article reports that an Australian Institute of Criminology study estimates the average costs of a hit to be $12,700; which is significantly less than the cost of an attorney in a contested divorce.

According to a 1995 study by the U.S. Department of Justice, husbands are convicted more often than wives of spousal murder, and the convicted men are more likely to receive a prison term than convicted women. In 44% of the cases of husband killing, the husband had assaulted the wife at the time of the killing. Assaulted wives were convicted 56% of the time, compared to 86% in the case of unprovoked wives and 88% in the case of unprovoked husbands.

Another article in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture entitled Monstrous Arrogance: Husbands who Choose Murder Over Divorce, by Cynthia Lewis, PhD, examines a dozen convictions in murders where husbands have murdered their wives to save themselves from some consequences of divorce that they perceive as “too costly.” How murder could become a viable alternative to divorce is either an indicator of the collapse of moral compass in our society, or an indication of the need for divorce reform, or perhaps both. The article points out that, instead of the emotional crimes that you expect to see in spousal murders, it was a “practical matter;” so much so that most of the women never had a sense of how much danger they were in.

According to the article, this type of murderer often projects confidence and an ability to win the trust of others, yet is “atypically devoid of feeling,” “icy and calculating,” and self-centered to the point of narcissism.

Statistics from the Department of Justice claim women are the perpetrators in 41% of all spousal murders. The most common method used by the females is cited as poisoning, with hiring a professional killer as second. The third is persuading a boyfriend to do the killing. These last two methods are classified not as a woman killing a man, but as “other killings,” but the fact that there are four times as many husband victims as wives probably indicates that the statistic should be much higher.

Kenneth Eade (http://kennetheade.com) author of the Brent Marks Legal Thriller Series and Involuntary Spy Espionage Thriller Series, has been hailed by critics as “one of the strongest thriller writers on our scene.” His latest novel is “Decree of Finality.”

Newly-discovered images of alleged BBC "napalm victim": In June 2014 a Netherlands resident contacted me, expressing anxiety about being recognised in a frame from 'Saving Syria's Children' which I had posted on Facebook. Although the woman was not among the group of alleged napalm/thermite victims in the frame in question, I subsequently recognised her in a You Tube video shot at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013, apparently in the guise of a victim of the same alleged events portrayed in Ian Pannell and Darren Conway's BBC reports. This is the latest report in Robert Stuart's extraordinary investigation into BBC war propaganda.

1. In June 2014 a Netherlands resident contacted me, expressing anxiety about being recognised in a frame from 'Saving Syria's Children' which I had posted on Facebook. Although the woman was not among the group of alleged napalm/thermite victims in the frame in question, I subsequently recognised her in a You Tube video shot at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013, apparently in the guise of a victim of the same alleged events portrayed in Ian Pannell and Darren Conway's BBC reports. I have written about this here and here.

A number of images currently viewable on the Facebook account of one of the woman's relatives would appear to make it plainer still that the person who contacted me is indeed the same person who appears in the You Tube footage of the aftermath of the alleged Aleppo incendiary bomb attack. Details here.

2) My attempts to secure documents relating to Saving Syria's Children from the BBC through a Freedom of Information request appear, somewhat inevitably, to have run aground.

Following a decision notice from the Information Commissioner's Office upholding the BBC 's rejection of my request, I had argued in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) that the evidence set out in my blog:

...clearly demonstrates that the BBC has committed the greatest betrayal of audience trust imaginable by a news broadcaster – the fabrication of an atrocity for the purposes of war propaganda. Such an egregious transgression is quite possibly unique in the history of broadcasting.

I further argued that Saving Syria’s Children and related BBC News reports had breached Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law”.

In response the Tribunal has issued a Case Management Note (3 May) observing that:

"Mr Stuart’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be capable of being litigated and remedy given to him if a Court finds there was a breach of those rights. The question of whether reports are genuine or fabricated may also be capable of being independently investigated."

However the Tribunal "is unable to grant Mr Stuart a remedy for what he says is a contravention of his rights under that Covenant" and directs that I must provide it with reasons why the information I have requested from the BBC was or is “not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature”.

The deadline for submitting a response is 24 May.

3) A high quality copy of Saving Syria's Children is currently available on Vimeo. The section which forms the focus of my blog commences at 30:38. As BBC Worldwide has long since blocked all You Tube postings of the documentary, please consider downloading the Vimeo copy while it is available. This version is the highest quality I have seen to date and has already yielded a number of interesting new details, such as an apparent glimpse of the Dutch woman pictured above (see update here).

4) Further to my submission of shocking images of a staff member of UK registered charity Hand in Hand for Syria's "flagship medical facility", Atareb Hospital, Aleppo, posing with an array of weapons and munitions, an officer of the Charity Commission's Investigations Monitoring and Enforcement department has responded (12 April):

"I am currently considering the information that you have provided in order to determine what regulatory action, if any, is required. I confirm that I will provide a more detailed response once I have completed my assessment."

5) A reminder of the two sets of graphics highlighting some very startling inconsistencies in accounts of the alleged events of 26 August 2013 by BBC International Correspondent Ian Pannell and BBC 'Trust Me I'm A Doctor' presenter Dr Saleyha Ahsan and my recent presentation on Saving Syria's Children for From Stop War.

Robert Stuart
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com

Migration is part of our collective history, but Europe’s political leaders are still failing completely to address widespread public concern over the flood of migrants now storming Europe’s borders. The consequences of these pressures will have profound impacts.

Unable to reach rational solutions beyond discussing how many each member state should be obliged to take, bribing African countries to take back their own citizens who don’t qualify as refugees and now paying Turkey to take back illegals bound for Greece, while taking a similar quota of Syrians from Turkey, are inadequate responses. Our leaders are moving into systemic chaos, where the Human Rights Act, has spawned a people-trafficking industry that is endangering our security and running rings around governments at taxpayers’ expense. It is not fit for purpose and needs reform. Without leaving the EU, the UK could suspend and redraw the act with our European partners, who all have much to gain from a more sensible approach.

In Britain, the Government, under Labour, first lost control of immigration and then tried to spin the idea that a large influx of people is vital to our interests. Despite attempts at reforms, the system is still failing. Legal migration in to the UK has hit record levels - up 40 per cent on 2014, according to the Office for National Statistics. Nearly 100,000 illegals were detected trying to enter the UK in 2015, while the EU is receiving thousands of illegal migrants a day – triple the rate last year.

The situation has been escalating for years, but after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand moral gesture to take in 800,000 ‘refugees’ a year in response to the photo of a drowned boy on a Turkish beach and then demand other EU states take their share, it has ignited the hopes of millions more to settle in Europe. Now barbed wire borders are being erected in the heart of Europe, destroying the ideal of free movement.

Described as refugees or just ‘migrants’, as though there has merely been some bureaucratic error in their status, the asylum lobby and much of the media are cheerleading the appeal for public sympathy as a tragic human interest story. But this terrorist infiltrated people-smuggling led invasion, facilitated by EU governments, presents a huge challenge from failing states with exploding populations and self-inflicted turf wars.

Generous policies in Sweden and Germany are enabling thousands of non-EU migrants and illegals to settle legally there and then move to other member states as internal EU migrants. Over 1.2 million have claimed asylum in 2015. Our politicians consistently ignore this back door impact.

Sweden has been receiving up to 2000 unaccompanied minors a week in late 2015, nearly a third of its migrant influx, who can then have their families flown in to join them. Most were males giving their age as 16 or 17 but receiving groups say many appear much older. According to Statistics Sweden, 50 per cent of refugees are not in work seven years after arriving in the country. Even after 15 years, 40 per cent are still on welfare without a job – a major drain on the country’s welfare system.

Refugee lobbyists say it is the moral duty of Western countries to absorb these migrants. Do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond? When will the line be drawn? All UK parties are well aware of the mounting pressures on housing, schools and health services, but don’t like to talk about it. Or the 25-50 per cent of young people in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece who don’t have a job. So too, they should be aware of the Parliamentary report in 2008 that the large rise in legal immigration to the UK had virtually no net economic gain for the country. Nor do we need high immigration to counter a temporary rise in ageing populations. Ever more migrants also get old and then need support.

The Government talks about skilled immigrants Britain needs, but skilled immigrants account for only 20% of total non-EU immigrants in Britain and many actually do unskilled work when they get here.

Proposals to cap numbers will barely touch the scale of the true problem - a permanent population swelling so quickly by other immigration pathways, including a generous interpretation of family reunion from outside the EU that is adding to the pressures on our environment and food security.

Australia is often cited by UK politicians as a model immigration system, but its population just hit 24 million– 17 years earlier than expected. With net overseas migration contributing 53 per cent to total population growth, the population is now set to double every 50 years. This in an arid continent with only six per cent of the land able to grow crops.

Europe’s growing immigration crisis
In 1950, the countries that later constituted the EU-27 had a population of 370 million. By 2010 it topped 500 million - equivalent to absorbing the inhabitants of another present-day France and Britain combined. By January 2015 Eurostat figures show the population was 508.2 million - up 1.3 million from the previous year, with the majority of 1.1m a result of net legal immigration into the EU.

Add to this the rapidly growing number of illegals – with over 1.2 million detected in 2015 and many more entering undetected, according to the EU borders agency, Frontex.

Today, only Syria currently has an acute refugee crisis, but to avert mounting chaos and retain the fabric of the EU, we have to stop the lure of a gateway to permanent citizenship to millions. People in Europe might be more reassured if irregular migrants eligible for asylum were offered temporary support and then returned to their countries when the crisis resolved. Many of those who claimed asylum from countries like Somalia and Iraq go back for extended holidays, but the claims for asylum continue. Iraqi Airways now operates four flights a week from the UK to facilitate demand for vacations back home. Yet Iraqis are in the top ten asylum applications to the UK in 2015,

Also in the list are Nigeria – touted as Africa’s fasted growing economy and other democratic countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Albania – now 25 years since it became a European democracy. Eritrea is top of the list, supposedly linked to harsh national service. What is going on? International pressure should sort this out, not expect resettlement.

Part of the problem is that EU countries don’t have repatriation agreements with many countries involved, but this could be remedied quite simply, as just about all the sender countries in Africa and many in Asia are recipients of generous Western aid. We need to use this leverage. Several countries, like Senegal, condone exporting people in the hope they will reach Europe, find work and send back remittances.

Global leaders need to be focused on real solutions and more effective regional aid in all these fragile states as well as engaging more constructively with Russia, Iran and countries in the region to bring about positive outcomes. You can help far more people cost effectively in nearby protected areas than import millions into high-cost West European countries. Sweden is now having to spend its foreign aid budget on trying to deal with new migrant arrivals.

The current level of UK immigration and increasing birth rates will require building the equivalent of a new Manchester every year. It is little wonder we have a housing crisis. How can we possibly accommodate this and claim it is sustainable?

In 1998, the Office for National Statistics predicted that the UK population would rise to 65m by 2051. We’re already there! Now they say it could reach 80 million by 2040, mostly as a result of immigration.

David Cameron promises a review of welfare benefits for EU migrants but equally, we need to look at the pull factors for illegals – many openly piling up in Calais attempting to cross to the UK. The EU Commission says it is the responsibility of each Member State to set the rules for welfare support.

We need urgent action to address these issues and clear shared rules that would be strict enough to discourage ineligible people from attempting dangerous journeys. The growing cost to communities of accommodating large-scale inflows of people, in a now crowded world, raises many challenging questions. This is not a left or right issue or racist. It is about global social and environmental sustainability.

Doctors without Borders is well regarded and influential. It is appreciated that many good people work for and support MSF/Doctors Without Borders. The need has arisen, however, to inquire about Doctors without Borders' independence and the consequences of its work in Syria. An objective look is likely to reveal that while Doctors without Borders is helping in some areas, it is causing harm in others.

Open Letter to MSF/Doctors without Borders

by Rick Sterling / May 4th, 2016

Dear MSF International President Dr. Joanne Liu,

Your organization is well regarded and influential.  I appreciate that many good people work for and support MSF/Doctors Without Borders.  However, I need to inquire about your independence and the consequences of your work in Syria. I believe an objective look will reveal that while you are helping in some areas, you are causing harm in others.

Following are questions on this important issue:

(1) As you know, Aleppo is a large city with the government forces holding western Aleppo while other parts of the city are dominated by armed opposition groups, primarily Nusra/Al Qaeda.  About 1.5 to 2 million people live in the government areas with about 200 to 250 thousand in the areas controlled by armed opposition. So 80-90 % of the population is in government-controlled areas. This is rarely mentioned but seems important.  Given this fact, is it true that you provide aid and support only to the opposition held areas?

(2) On April 21 the Western and Gulf backed “High Negotiations Committee” announced they were quitting the Geneva negotiations. The next day, hundreds of mortars and bombs started being launched into western Aleppo from the zones controlled by Nusra and other terrorist groups.  These bombs are powerful, wounding and killing indiscriminately. Syrian journalist Edward Dark noted that western media and groups such as MSF were silent on this even though hospitals were being hit, dozens of children and civilians killed. On twitter he reported day by day …..

— West Aleppo is simply being obliterated by rebel shelling. A city of 2 million people is being butchered.

— Carnage and devastation as ‘moderate rebel’ bombs fall on west Aleppo like rain.

— Terrorist rebel bombs are still falling like rain on west Aleppo. 15 people murdered at a mosque in Bab Faraj after Friday prayers.

— This is the hospital where my son was born. Dabeet Hospital in W.Aleppo completely destroyed by rebel shelling.

Has MSF denounced these killings and attacks on hospitals in western Aleppo?

(3) The unconcern about indiscriminate attacks and killing in government-held areas of Aleppo has also been denounced by Syrian-Canadian physician Dr. Nabil Antaki. He has recently written:

With regards to recent events in Aleppo, I state very clearly that the mainstream media are lying by omission… All of us here in Aleppo are disgusted by their lack of impartiality and objectivity. They only talk about the loss of life in east of Aleppo which is entirely controlled by Al Nusra…. These are their ‘moderate rebels’ …This same media remains silent on the daily losses and suffering endured in the Western areas of Aleppo living under the rain of mortar fire from these terrorist factions. This media never mentions the continuous bombardment and the carnage we have witnessed in western Aleppo where every single sector has been targeted. On a daily basis we see dozens of people murdered….. For three days now, these media outlets have been accusing the “Assad regime” of bombing an MSF hospital to the east of Aleppo and of killing the last pediatrician in the city. This demonstrates that, for these media, the only priority is this pocket of the city where terrorists are embedded. The three quarters of Aleppo under Syrian government control, where numerous pediatricians are practicing, is of no consequence.

Dr. Liu, will you meet with Dr. Antaki?  Perhaps he could give you a tour and confirm to you what he says. He is a well known and respected doctor in Aleppo and fellow Canadian citizen.

(4) There are many discrepancies in reports about the April 27 attack on Al Quds Hospital. MSF Middle East Operations Manager Pablo Marco, interviewed the next day on CNN and PBS Newshour, said “there were two barrel bombs that fell close to the hospital …. then the third barrel bomb fell in the entrance of the hospital”. Barrel bombs are only delivered by helicopters. In contrast, your press release the same day says “the hospital was destroyed by at least one airstrike which directly hit the building, reducing it to rubble.” A CBC report continued this version, claiming “An MSF-supported hospital in the northern Syria city of Aleppo is now a pile of rubble. Airstrikes brought down the building on Wednesday.” The hospital photograph indicates it is not a “pile of rubble” and it’s unclear where the damage is. The sandbag reinforcement and damaged car in front indicate it might have been a battle scene but the rest is unclear.  Which story is correct and accurate?

The number of fatalities has varied from initial death counts of 14 to later reports of over 50. How are these numbers verified?

(5) MSF representatives Pablo Marco and Muskilda Zancada suggest this was a deliberate and intentional attack on the hospital.  In an interview Ms. Zancada says “Al Quds Hospital has been functional for more than 4 years so it was basically impossible that this information was not known… The facts are pointing to this being a deliberate attack.” In contrast with Ms. Zancada’s assertions, most Aleppans have never heard of “Al Quds Hospital”. The “hospital” did not exist before the conflict and the photo shows an unidentified apartment building.  Is it accurate to call this facility a “hospital”?  Mr. Marco claimed that MSF supported personnel visited the hospital every other week so there must be many reports, documents and photos confirming whether it was a 34 bed hospital. Otherwise, it seems fair to say this was actually a medical clinic in the ground floor of an unmarked and largely abandoned apartment building.

(6) Can Mr. Marco or Ms. Zancada please identify the damage inflicted by the airstrike (or barrel bomb) at Al Quds Hospital on April 27?  The Russian Ministry of Defense has released a photograph indicating the building had similar damage in October 2015.

(7) As you know, Nusra/Al Qaeda is considered ‘terrorist’ by all parties including the US, French, and Canadian governments.  Does the Al Quds Hospital primarily or significantly serve Al Qaeda and/or other terrorist fighters? If so, are your supporters aware they are assisting fighters who launched bombs attacking western Aleppo as shown here and previously destroyed the once prized Al Kindi Hospital with a huge truck bomb as shown here? I appreciate you have a commitment to the hippocratic oath but given the widespread medical needs, why are you prioritizing assistance to Nusra/Al Qaeda?

(8) Many videos from Al Quds Hospital feature members of the “White Helmets”.  Are you aware the White Helmets was established by the US and UK with initial training in Turkey by a UK military contractor?  Are you aware the organization is not independent or neutral and has explicitly called for western intervention in Syria? The origins of the “White Helmets” is documented here . There is an online petition denouncing this clever but cynical marketing campaign here.

(9) Can you you please compare and contrast the videos showing attacks at MSF- supported Al Quds Hospital with videos showing attacks in western Aleppo? The videos from Al Quds Hospital are here and here with an animated one here. The attacks in western Aleppo including an attack on Al Dabeet Hospital are here, here and here. Do you see the difference between videos from armed opposition area vs. those from western Aleppo? Some look authentic and some look possibly staged.

(10) We know that many Western and Gulf countries are providing funds to help the armed opposition in Syria.  For example in 2012 the Canadian government said: “The reason the $2 million was being channeled through Canadian Relief for Syria instead of the UN or International Committee of the Red Cross was because it was intended for Syrian opposition groups and was not humanitarian aid.” Is MSF directly or indirectly receiving grants or funds from the Canadian, French or US governments to serve Syrian opposition groups?

(11) There has been a wave of media coverage of Al Quds Hospital and the death of Dr. Moaz (sometimes spelled Maaz). Some of the reports are clearly intended to tug at the heart and natural sympathy of people. Unfortunately propagandists can be effective in this area as they seek to manipulate public opinion. There are many examples with the Kuwaiti babies and incubators being one of the most famous frauds as it successfully won public support for Gulf War 1. Both Amnesty International and the International Red Crescent were (unwittingly) part of the fraud. My point is this: Some of the Al Quds Hospital stories are questionable and may be fraudulent.

For example, the letter from a fellow physician acclaiming Dr Moaz was published by “The Syria Campaign” which is the marketing creator of the “White Helmets”. The letter is supposedly from a fellow doctor who might or might not be real. They use a false name yet claim he “manages the Children’s Hospital in Aleppo”. Another questionable piece of ‘evidence’ of the death of Dr. Moaz is the video supposedly taken just before the building was hit by missile or bomb. It’s curious that the building would be destroyed and the CCTV cameras (several of them) survive and be ready for editing. Is this real or is it just another example of the “moderate rebel’ social media propaganda?

(12) Biased media coverage on Syria serves to demonize the Assad government and prolong the conflict. It has made it easier for foreign aggressors to continue funding the proxy armies such as Nusra/Al Qaeda.  There is danger of vastly increased conflict and bloodshed if foreign governments or NATO intervene directly. In fact, calls for greater aggression are increasing in the wake of publicity around the attack at Al Quds Hospital.  Are you aware that the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia seemed to threaten an escalation of the conflict as he said “The world is not going to allow them to get away with this.”?

Dr. Liu, we agree with your insistence that medical personnel and facilities should not be attacked. That is in keeping with the Geneva Conventions on War.  There are other international laws, including laws against aggression and the right of self-defense.  It is clear that the Syrian government is being attacked by proxy armies funded by a coalition of foreign governments in violation of international law and the UN Charter.

Will you investigate whether the criticisms expressed in this letter are accurate and take appropriate action? It seems that current MSF actions and statements on Syria are biased and effectively serving the coalition of governments waging war on Syria in violation of international law.  The bias and propaganda sustain the conflict and threaten to make it even worse.

Best regards,

Rick Sterling

Rick Sterling is a retired engineer and co-founder of Syria Solidarity Movement. He can be emailed at: [email protected]. Read other articles by Rick.

This article was posted on Wednesday, May 4th, 2016 at 7:40pm and is filed under Media, Propaganda, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorism (state and retail).

The occupation of the American mind (4/5/16) is a documentary on shown on the Russian live video streaming channel RT - On air. This documentary is evidently produced by someone other than RT. Due to 'copyright restrictions', this show cannot be found and watched like other RT shows and documentaries. It can only be watched live at times scheduled by RT – 3:29pm, 1:30pm, and 10:28pm GMT on 4 May 2016 and at 3:29pm and 10:29pm on 5 May 2016.

This documentary shows the history of the Palestine/Israel conflict and how the American mass media has been unfairly biased against the original inhabitants of Palestine and in favour of the Israeli settlers in its coverage of some of the critical episodes in that conflict.

However, this program revealed to me little that was not already known to me and, I expect, most people already familiar with that conflict:

After the establishment of Israel on stolen Palestinian land in 1947, more Palestinian land was conquered in the war of 1948 and and again in 1967. Subsequently the Israeli conquerors have attempted to deny Palestinian inhabitants basic democratic rights, stealing their land and allowing imported Jewish settlers to build housing on that land.

This documentary fails to propose a solution to the Palestine/Israel that would bring about peace.

If peace is to ever again to come to that region of the Middle East, a solution is needed. In part, at least, such a solution needs to accommodate the needs of all the inhabitants of that region: Palestinians and the surrounding nations - Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt - as well as the Israeli settlers. Unless the producers of that documentary believe that all 6,199,000 Israeli Jews should be sent back to where they came from or driven into the sea, it does not propose any solution.

Israel's past and ongoing treatment of Palestinians is clearly a travesty of justice.

However, no less unjust was the conquest of North America by Europeans from the 16th century onwards or the conquest of Australia by English settlers after 1788.

If it were somehow possible for the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America or Australia to take back their unjustly stolen land, it would be a catastrophe for tens of millions of the current inhabitants of those lands. So too would the return to Palestinians of all land stolen from them since 1947 be for the 6,199,000 Israeli Jews now in that land.

This documentary also fails to provide its viewers with any appreciation of the broader context of Israel's wars against its neighbours and its ongoing, subversion of, and military threats against nations in the region. Examples include:

• Israel's collusion in the illegal 1956 war by France and Britain against the Egyptian government of President Nasser;
• Israel's building of an illegal nuclear arsenal as revealed by former Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu;
• The Six Day war of 1967 against Egypt, Syria and Jordan; and
• Israel's support for the invasion of Syria by terrorists since March 2011;

During the Six Day War, Israeli war planes sank the USS Liberty and attempted to kill all survivors. Only the presence of witnesses aboard a nearby Soviet warship prevented the Israeli war-planes from machine-gunning all the survivors in the water.

The only plausible explanation that I can come up with for Israel's attack on the ship and crew of a nation supposedly allied with it and the subsequent attempt by United States' President Johnson to cover it up, is that President Johnson planned to blame Egypt for the sinking of the USS Liberty and use that as a pretext to join Israel's war against Egypt.

Solely through an understanding of this ruthless act by Israel, can its treatment of Palestinians and other countries in the region, including Syria, Iraq and Iran be properly appreciated.

Given that Syria has been the most steadfast supporter of the rights of Palestinians, whom the documentarypurports to support, and given that the current Syrian conflict is close to the centre of current global geopolitics, the failure of this program to mention that conflict is a startling omission.

This article also published (4/5/16) on the Free Syrian Press. See also: The shameful traitors of Hamas show once again to be a bullhorn on the payroll of Erdogan-Saudis (2/5/16) | Syrian Free Press, Syrian Army, Palestinian resistance forces launch operations to recapture al-Yarmouk camp (17/4/16) | Syrian Free Press - previously published by the FARS News Agency.

[...]The evidence presented here is only the tip of the iceberg. No doubt that some Palestinians, like some traitorous Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese, joined the destabilization scheme, but when we get down to the nitty gritty, like most Syrians, most of Syria’s Palestinian citizens back the Syrian Arab Republic, the only Arab nation that has given them a home, supported their righteous cause and treated them as equals. It is shameful beyond shameful that these truths and more were not only ignored but deceptively covered up by “Palestine Solidarity Movement” activists to push a cookie-cutter propaganda line that meshed with the increasingly toothless nature of “solidarity” speak and praxis, not to mention the worldview of their Jewish and Khaleeji “colleagues”. [...] This publication is an extract only from the original article by Jonahtan Azaziah, published 18 April, 2016 at "Meet The Pro-Syria Palestinians That Electronic “Intifada” Will Never Tell You About."

Notable Palestinian supporters of the Syrian Government [Candobetter editorial heading]

[...]
~ Anwar Hadi, the spokesman of the PLO, who said from day one of the ungodly crisis in Yarmouk that the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Takfiri rebels, who entered the once-vibrant Syrian-Palestinian camp in massive numbers and committed massacres, chased out civilians and looted homes along with businesses. Electronic “Intifada” and company wrote numerous articles attacking the Syrian government for the humanitarian disaster, like Jabhat al-Nusra, the FSA and ISIS were/are mere daydream-constructs “the regime” and its “Shabiha” brought forth from thin air.

~ The Palestine Liberation Army (PLA), the Syrian Arab Army’s Palestinian branch, which has fought on numerous fronts throughout Syria and offered countless martyrs in the struggle against Daesh and its ideological counterparts.

~ Fatah al-Intifada, a Palestinian Resistance group which has been ultra-active in the ongoing fight to liberate Yarmouk. Many volunteers, like Tayseer Mousa and Waleed Suleiman, left their homes in the Damascus countryside city of Jaramana to defend their brethren. Portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah can be found all over their offices.

~ Liwa Al-Quds, the third most powerful Syrian military force after the Syrian Arab Army and the Hizbullah-trained NDF according to Al-Masdar News. Liwa Al-Quds has been a tremendously key part of the battle for the liberation of Aleppo, particularly the camps of Handarat and Nayrab.

~ The PFLP-GC, led by the indefatigable Ahmad Jibril and known for their strong support of the democratically elected government in Damascus, these warriors have also been fighting in multiple arenas, from the capital to Aleppo to Latakia and elsewhere. They played an important role in the historic liberation of the besieged Shi’a towns Nubl and Al-Zahra, showing that there is a united Syrian-Palestinian-Lebanese-Iraqi-Iranian, Sunni-Shi’a, Muslim-Christian front against the usurping Zionist regime’s Wahhabi vassals.

~ Hizbullah moujahid Ali Fawzi Taha ( Haydar al-Hajj Jawad) from Bourj el-Barajneh. Born to a Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother, Ali was martyred during the liberation of the strategic, ancient city of Al-Quryatayn. He participated in many victories across Syria, including game-changers like Al-Qusayr and Al-Qalamoun. Considering he was a member of the Lebanese Islamic Resistance, the only Arab force to ever drive ‘Israel’ out from sovereign Arab lands, is it not significantly newsworthy that this hero had a Palestinian background?! If only he had been a BDS activist or an Amnesty International “researcher”, then Electronic “Intifada” would’ve assuredly profiled him.

~ Muhammad Rafeh, a beloved Palestinian-Syrian actor from the popular TV show Bab al-Hara and outspoken supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Muhammad had lost family members a year before in the Zionist entity’s massacre of protesters in the occupied Golan Heights on Naksa Day and was also known for his strong stance against the ‘Israeli’ enemy. The FSA kidnapped Muhammad and slaughtered him for standing with the Syrian government; very “revolutionary”, wouldn’t you say?

~ Archbishop Atallah Hanna, Palestine’s highest-ranking Orthodox Christian authority and a fiery, BLISTERING vocal backer of the Syrian Arab Republic. Not only has Theodosios of Sebastia spoken in no uncertain terms about the aggression against Syria being a Zionist plot, but he’s also defended Islam and the importance of Muslim-Christian unity in the face of Takfirism at length. The Archbishop is a true Arab hero and is undoubtedly on the path to sainthood.

~ Samer al-Issawi, Palestine’s most epic hunger striker (277 days) and a living legend in every sense of the phrase; the man’s will is of such an unbreakable nature that it will forever echo in history and forever haunt the Zionist enemy. Samer, whose fam goes way back with both the PFLP and the DFLP, supports the Syrian Arab Republic and stands firmly against the war on this sovereign nation. His steadfast anti-Imperialism only adds to his larger-than-life character. Yet, apart from PFLP and DFLP affiliated media, this fact remains largely unknown.

~ Palestinians across occupied Falasteen, not to mention Syrians throughout the Golan Heights, have protested in full support of the Syrian Arab Republic and Hizbullah on too many occasions to make mention of here. And we’re not talking about minuscule rallies but bright, rowdy, militant, BIG demonstrations with seas of Syrian Arab Republic flags waving and portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad standing tall. Not even one of these events was covered by “Palestine Solidarity Movement” mainstreamers.[...]

[...] Simply put, to defend Palestine today is to defend Syria and vice versa, for as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah declared years ago, the Syrian Arab Republic is the backbone of the Mouqawamah and only a fool or a traitor would sit idly by as his backbone is being broken. So what category do the “activists” of the “Palestine Solidarity Movement” fall under? Fools? Traitors? Or a lil’ bit of both?

An updated version of this article has been published here on 5 June 2016.

Policies that should be put to you at the Australian Federal elections of 2 July

In the Australian Federal elections to be held on 2 July 2015, voters, who support each of the policies listed below, are entitled to know whether each candidate asking for his/her vote will, if elected, support or oppose that policy. We intend to ask each candidate, including the sitting member, his/her intentions should he/she be successful. Each response, or lack of response, will be posted here, to candobetter.net.

More government participation in the economy to create full employment

1. Give every Australian a useful job and a living wage by implementing "Creating effective local labour markets: a new framework for regional employment policy" (2008 - download 3.1 Mb pdf file from the University of Newcastle Center of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) Publications page);

2. Withdraw Australia from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement;

3. Re-build a large Australian manufacturing sector through (1) government enterprise and (2) tariff walls against countries which have unfair advantages;

4. Encourage the local production and consumption of all food and artifacts;

5. Expand the government housing sector to provide secure, affordable housing to all Australians who need it;

6. Acquire or build suitable premises for use by small businesses, retailers and food producers at affordable rents;

7. Re-establish the Commonwealth Employment Service, which was dismantled by the Howard Government in 1998;

8. Hold a public inquiry into banking, including an investigation of the feasibility of establishing a public bank;

9. Commence proper accounting of budget surpluses and deficits. Recognise the worth of government services which cannot be quantified monetarily. Properly account for all losses caused by budget decisions, for example, enforced idleness by the unemployed, their poverty, and the loss to the community caused by the removal of a service and unutilised skill and experience;

10. Reverse privatisations, corporatisations and deregulation which have been imposed since 1983 as far as is possible. Privatisations include those of Telstra (formerly Telecom), the Commonwealth bank and state banks, public transport, insurance, electricity, water, public land,  … ;

11. Outlaw the sale of Australian land to non-citizens;

12. Public liability insurance to be established - no-one who has organised a public event and has taken all reasonable precautions, should fear financial ruin as a result of any mishap;

13. Establish a free social network on the Internet as an alternative to Facebook, Google and Twitter. That social network is to respect the privacy of its users and be free, transparently run and without commercial advertising;

14. Require that all government and statutory authorities, wherever feasible, use free open-source software, such as the Linux operating system and the Libre Office word processor in preference to expensive proprietary software. School children and university students should be taught to use this open-source software;

15. Establish a public fund to transparently remunerate producers of open-source intellectual property, including software, literature and music; Producers to be paid according to a formula based on how much their products are used, instead of having to seek remuneration from advertising or subscriptions;

Full employment in secure and fulfilling occupations

16. Reduction of working week to 35 hours as a start; outlaw compulsory overtime; require employers to offer workers, who don't need a full wage, to work reduced and flexible hours;

17. Re-establish on-the-job training and career progression in all government departments and statutory authorities as an alternative to training at TAFE colleges and tertiary institutions; Encourage private enterprises to do the same;

18. Abolish sweat-shops. Governments must proactively act to close down factories, which use low-paid workers working for long hours; re-introduce the state award system;

Democracy

19. Open government, except where national security may be compromised; No 'commercial in-confidence' contracts to be signed with members of the private sector at the initiative of the government. Discriminate in favour of contractors who do not require 'commercial in-confidence' contracts;

20. Public newsmedia including the ABC and SBS be required to give all sides of any story where the facts are disputed. All parties to such disputes, whether domestic or foreign, must be given the opprtunity to put their case to the viewing public;

21. Each parliamentarian be require to attend meetings of his/her constituents during election campaigns, including this election and at regular specified intervals;

22. In the next term of parliament, put to voters a referendum to adopt Direct Democracy as practised in Switzerland;

Education

23. Reverse the funding cuts to tertiary institutions and TAFE colleges;

24. More funding for university arts faculties;

25. Abolish university fees;

26. Re-establish the Whitlam Government's Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) so that University students don't have to work part-time to support themselves;

Foreign policy

27. Act to have the full facts of the destruction of flight MH17, in which 28 Australians died, on 17 July 2014 revealed. Demand the Dutch government make the MH17 black box available to investigators. Demand that the United States' government release its satellite surveillance recordings of the flight of MH17 as the Russian government has done;

28. Recognise the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which enjoys far more popular support than any of the Western governments opposed to it, as verified in the June 1914 Presidential election and the recently concluded Parliamentary elections, as the legitimate government of Syria;

29. End the sanctions imposed against Syria on the fabricated pretext that the Syrian government had massacred its own citizens at Houla in 2013;

30. Oppose the illegal proxy terrorist war against the people of Syria which began in March 2011 that war has so far cost the lives of 250,000 Syrians, including 80,000 members of the Syrian Armed forces;

31. Prosecute any Australian citizen known to have participated in that illegal war. Seek collaboration from the Syrian authorities in bringing those people to justice;

32. Remunerate the Syrian government for the trouble and expense it was put to for having to care for 1,300,000 refugees who fled to Syria as a result of the illegal wars of 1991 and 2003 and sanctions against Iraq in which Australia participated;

33. Oppose Israel's illegal seizure of land in the occupied West Bank and the Golan Heights;

34. Demand that Israel free former Australian resident Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed to the world Israel's illegal possession of nuclear weapons. Demand that the United Nations act to remove the threat to other countries in that region from those nuclear weapons ;

35. Repudiate the revision of history by which the Ukrainian government installed in the CIA-orchestrated coup of January 2014, justifies collaboration with the Nazi invaders by some Ukrainians;

36. Recognise the secession of Crimea to Russia from Ukraine in February 2014, after that coup, as a legitimate act of self-determination and self-defence, overwhelmingly supported by the inhabitants of Crimea in a referendum;

37. Oppose the war by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against Yemen. Ask that the United Nations take action by against Saudi Arabia to end the war;

38. Expel the Turkish ambassador until such time as the Turkish government restores free speech and democratic rights to all of its citizens, ceases its war against the Kurds, and ceases its purchase of stolen Syrian petroleum from ISIS;

Protection of civil liberties, freedom of speech

39. Offer political asylum to Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers;

40. Act to force the UK government to end the arbitrary detention of Australian citizen Julian Assange and allow him to return to Australia;

41. Act to prevent intelligence agencies, including the United States' CIA and NSA, Britain's GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 and Australia's ASIO and ASIS from dragnet surveillance of Australian citizens. Only allow surveillance where there is reason to fear terrorism or other illegal acts;

42. As required by law, conduct a coronial inquest into the murder of 35 Australians at Port Arthur in Tasmania on 28 April 1996 - the largest mass murder in Australia's history. The only evidence of the guilt of Martin Bryant for the murders, for which he has never been tried, consists of a supposed confession made after he had been interrogated in solitary confinement for 5 months. This 'confession' is contrary to all other forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony;

Protection of our environment and life support system

43. Reduce Australia's net migration to zero at least until such time as we can know that no other native Australian animal is threatened with extinction because of the loss of its habitat to accommodate newcomers;

44. Outlaw the clearing of native forests. Whether for throw-away paper products or building products, the logging of native forests must end;

45. End the clearing of bushland and agricultral land for housing estates;

46. Outlaw the killing of any native Australian wildlife. Re-build destroyed forests and repopulate them with the native species which previously lived in those regions or else similar species if those species are extinct;

What you can do

If you agree with most, or all, of these policies, please consider standing as a candidate yourself. If you know of any candidates who supports the policies listed above, please let us know so that we can promote him/her and lift his/her profile.

Please feel encouraged to also promote these policies and candidates who support these policies on Twitter, FaceBook, other discussion forums or your own web-site. If you can think of any other policies we should promote, or even if you oppose or don't altogether agree with some of these policies, please also let us know by posting a comment below.

Here is an update on current overdevelopment trends in Melbourne, by Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash, with references to height and density, the Property Council of Australia, safety and a new activist group, Victorian Building Action Group.

Well finally the government say they are going to limit building heights in the city.   Bit too late as far as I  can see.  Imagine  that  we have higher density in our city than New York or Hong Kong!!!!!.   And they also say they are going to consult with developers and residents. Can you imagine what the developers will be saying? Let us see if the government has the courage to do it against the wishes of developers. But it seems they are not setting height limits, only density.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-height-limits-to-hit-new-ceiling-20160425-goec15

The Property Council at it again. They are now demanding that Councils hand over land for development.    What a cheek.   Peoples rates buy the land that is used for car parking and the land is needed.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/councils-sitting-on-550m-worth-of-development-sites-suitable-for-housing-20160426-gof9yv.html

Well, banks are stopping lending to foreign buyers  - that is good news and in another item, the government are increasing the tax on foreign buyers. Still not high enough tax to be a deterrent. Not like smart Singapore who put on a 20% tax, and that stopped it.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/westpac-stops-lending-to-foreign-property-investors-20160427-gofza6.html

There was recently news of the wall collapse. Now there's another one. Here is the link.You might also like to look at the Facebook of the Victorian Building Action Group, whose issue is the shonky building going on in Victoria and what it is doing to people.

Here is some information on the wall collapse:

These ‘accidents’ are a daily occurrence – here are two on one day!

Re the wall collapse – here are two links: (1.) The Age 20 April 2016: ‘Wall collapse: How the system failed’: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wall-collapses-at-north-melbourne-construction-site-20160420-goakg3.html

This has a short video attached.

(2.) 20 April 2016 Wall collapses at North Melbourne building site: WorkSafe on the scene’: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/worksafe-investigates-wall-collapse-in-north-melbourne/7341110

Our record on safety, just like our record on building, is worse every day!

To keep up-to-date, Victorian Building Action Group Facebook
at:https://www.facebook.com/vicbuildingactiongroup/

“When discussing population, let your starting point be about finding the issues that you have in common. It could be about congestion, climate change, loss of heritage, the list goes on. It is not about us pushing our view of the world onto people. Instead it is about helping them to see population in a new light by showing how it connects to the issues that are important to them.” This article is based on Mark Allen's speech to the Victorian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Seminar: Attitudes and communication in population and the environment on 23 April 2016. Videos of the event will be available soon. Mark Allen started Population Permaculture and Planning. He has a background in town planning.

It is nice to be reminded about how well the past year has gone and what a great journey it has been and it wouldn't have happened without a lot of support. I would like to give special mention to Sheila Newman, Jill Quirk, the candobetter.net website and all the folk at the permaculture village at Confest (which is where I held my first workshop during Easter last year). I would also like to thank Michael Bayliss for his unwavering support.

Connecting with these people and others has been invaluable in terms of helping to build the Population Permaculture and Planning movement that began with that first workshop. One of the reasons why I have managed to engage with so many people since then is because I have tried to take a more collaborative approach with no fixed outcome and with no expectations other than a passion to make real change....so far it seems to be working and I will discuss more about that as we go on.

Working in collaboration with people can take you to places where you never expect to go and I mean this in a good way. It can be very constructive if you get it right. You can help to bring the best out in people and they can help to bring the best out in you but if you get it wrong it can have the opposite effect.

I have been involved in activism to a greater or lesser degree for quite a number of years and I have seen a lot of activists come and go along the way. Many have burnt out, many became disillusioned and overall, despite our best efforts and some great wins along the way, the trajectory in terms of making the world a more ecologically and socially sustainable place has generally been downwards......which is quite depressing.

Part of the reason for this is because people have a tendency to bring their agendas and egos into movements. After a while it becomes all about protecting identities and valuable energy that should have been used to create systemic change is wasted in internal fighting. I am sure that you can all relate to this to a greater or lesser degree. For example I have seen animosity between vegans and non-vegans in the animal welfare movement to the point where I sometimes wonder whether the animals would have been better off had we all just gone home and watched TV.

So over time I have learnt that creating real proper decent long-term change requires more than going out and fighting the good fight so to speak. There is also a need to create underlying whole-scale cultural change from within. A great philosopher once said that you cannot overcome an addiction with the same mindset that allowed that addiction to manifest in the first place.

If we want to lift ourselves out of the very real climate emergency that we are currently facing and achieve so much more, we have to change the record; we have to re-examine our approach so that we can achieve real progress with our activism as well as ensuring that what we achieve is effective and durable.

This was my intent when I started Population Permaculture and Planning or PPP as I shall refer to it from now on. For a start...... the fact that I was taking on the issue of population knowing very well how divisive and emotionally fraught this topic can be, I realised that I had to approach it in a way that could make it as accessible to as many people as possible.

I started PPP in part because I could no longer ignore the population issue, especially knowing the impact that it has in terms of how we plan our cities (or not plan as the case may be). I had entered into the town planning profession because I thought that was the best that I could do in terms of contributing towards making the world a better place. Basically I thought that I could change things from within.

Obviously I was a bit naïve but it was worth studying planning because while my education didn't turn out to be of much use to me in a professional context, it did teach me to think critically and to understand that many issues are often more complex than they first appear. Ignoring this complexity can lead us into all kinds of problems.

For example so many planners are caught up in the high density is the solution to suburban sprawl dichotomy that they ignore the fact that high density can actually help to increase sprawl by pricing people out of the inner suburbs. One distinguished professor in WA even went on to say that the answer to this problem is to lower the quality of high density development in order to make it more affordable to people on lower incomes. I think that if we lowered the standard anymore here in Melbourne many new developments would actually start to become uninhabitable but that’s another story........

So because my drive as a planner was to try and create sustainable communities, it became increasingly apparent that we cannot ignore the topic of population growth. With Melbourne increasing in size by more than a thousand people every week, it is becomes impossible to engage in the slower more considered planning that is needed to create long term viable neighbourhoods.

The vicious circle of planning for engineered population growth

It is a case of more hastily built prefab concrete apartments and continuous sprawl beyond the urban fringe. This rapid rate of population growth of course is used to justify this type of development and this type of development is in turn perpetuated by politically engineered population growth. It is a vicious circle spinning perpetually downwards as our potential to create socially and ecologically sustainable communities continues to decrease.

What makes this fact all the more poignant is that there is an urgent need to rapidly reduce our carbon emissions and it is imperative that this starts with town planning. If we get this wrong everything is so much harder, no amount of divestment from fossil fuels will be of help if we continue to build on our food bowls and green spaces and increasingly have to rely upon sourcing our food from further and further away... and that is just the start.

Creating resilient communities is about being flexible and adaptable to changes in society that we cannot even perceive at this point in time and we are living in extremely uncertain times.

It may just be that we will come to value the larger middle suburbs that are currently targeted for subdivision and that we will look towards retrofitting them as permaculture communities. There is good soil out there that has been lovingly enriched over the decades by generations of Greek and Italian migrants and we have the infrastructure already in place to produce a good proportion of our fresh fruit and vegetables from this under-tapped resource. The cofounder of Permaculture, David Holmgren, has a new book coming out later this year that is about all of that....... but I am digressing.

So I came to realise the important interconnection of permaculture and town planning and population in terms of creating long term viable sustainable communities and that by discussing the three in context I could make the issue of population so much more approachable to so many more people.

This inspired me to start running workshops and by doing so I began to draw people in who otherwise may not have been interested in discussing population as a subject in its own right. Importantly this had to be a collaborative effort. When we engage with people about population or indeed any other subject for that matter we must try to connect with their world view, to see it from the prism of their perspective and use that as a starting point.

I always begin by brainstorming ideas with the participants at the beginning of each workshop and that way they are better able to feel as though they are part of the creative process and to share some of the ownership of the outcome. It is not a case of me lecturing to people how they should view a particular topic. Instead it is a step by step process and this always leads to an understanding that our current rate of population growth is something that has to be questioned. I am not saying that everyone comes out of the workshop agreeing that there is an urgent need to reduce population growth but almost all come out knowing that population is an important consideration and that it is ok to discuss it, especially when looking at its importance in a wider context. This means that the next time they hear the population issue brought up in discussion, they will be more open minded.

This is why I believe it is important that we help people to think about population without challenging their values or their political identity. Some people come into a workshop believing in the principle of open borders for example and they come out continuing to believe in that principle. However they also come out agreeing that in the mean time we need to slow our rate of non-refugee migration so that the communities we do create are socially and environmentally viable over the longer term.

They no longer see population as a fixed black and white issue, that it is in fact fluid depending upon the circumstances. A belief in the free movement of people is strong among many young people on the left and if we want to connect with them we must acknowledge these ideals and by doing so they will more likely acknowledge that there are many steps that need to be undertaken before that kind of thinking can be put into practice.

There may come a day when the world is so balanced politically, socially and environmentally that we could have open borders across the world without it leading to sudden influxes of population from one country to another. It doesn't look very feasible at the moment but who is to say that we shouldn't work towards that ideal. It is an ideal that I would like to work towards no matter how out of reach it may feel. We don't have to smash people's dreams in order to persuade them to consider reversing a migration policy that was put in place by John Howard in order to boost gross domestic product.

We need to slow the rate of population growth as it is right now and, for want of a better word, start an intelligent and ongoing national conversation about the rate in which our population should grow (or shrink) and how we should plan for that to happen. Right now that is all we need to be trying to achieve. As population activists, we ourselves need to acknowledge that we all have differing values and that we should be comfortable with the fact that we do not all need to share the same values in order to bring about change.

The important aim of the workshops that I hold is that they do not run to a particular agenda other than to help people connect to the three issues of population, permaculture and planning. This attitude I think needs to form a wider approach in terms of how we work with other activists, that we work towards finding those areas where we can connect and that in turn allows us to feel comfortable with different values and perspectives.

We need to see our work as being part of an ongoing conversation that will always be greater than the sum of one person's perspective. That way we don't get bogged down in internal politics and because our agenda is fluid, our values do not become threatened. In turn, by taking this approach we can have a profound influence on the people with whom we interact. They pick up on this sentiment and they themselves become more open-minded and become more open to challenging assumptions as well as seeing things from other perspectives.

We need to work together to find areas where we can connect rather than focussing on the games of ego that occur through issues that divide us. That is what got us into this mess. We need a different kind of thinking to let us get out of the mess and to stay out of it.

So when discussing population, let your starting point be about finding the issues that you have in common. It could be about congestion, climate change, loss of heritage, the list goes on. It is not about us pushing our view of the world onto people. Instead it is about helping them to see population in a new light by showing how it connects to the issues that are important to them.

This is the kind of thinking we need in order to create a truly sustainable and resilient world. We need to think outside the matrix and to help others do the same.

Academy Award© - winning director Oliver Stone, who brought Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street and JFK to the big screen, tackles the most important and fascinating true story of the 21st century. Snowden, the politically-charged, pulse-pounding thriller starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene. Woodley, reveals the incredible untold personal story of Edward Snowden, the polarizing figure who exposed shocking illegal surveillance activities by the NSA and became one of the most wanted men in the world. He is considered a hero by some, and a traitor by others. No matter which you believe, the epic story of why he did it, who he left behind, and how he pulled it off makes for one of the most compelling films of the year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that the gamble paid off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First published on 21st Century Wire.

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

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

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

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

Some of the women candidates in Syrian Parliamentary elections.

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

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

Students from Damascus University queueing to vote: SANA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Syrian “Dictator” goes to Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

France takes the hippocritic oath.

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

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

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

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

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

The award for hypocrisy goes to..

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

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

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

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

Mohammed Ali of Press TV reports from Damascus

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canberra's population problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The model and the reality

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

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

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

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

The Kangaroo Migration factor

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

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

DNA studies 2003 show migration a strong factor

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

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

Zenger MtDNA findings contrary to Migration views in Fletcher thesis

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

Paradoxical impact of Culls, kills and Harvests

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

Harvested stock grow smaller, breed earlier, faster

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

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

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

Culling has a similar effect.

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

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

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

Kangaroos shot in Tidbinbilla and low weight in shot populations

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

Wider Research Base needed

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

Known examples include

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

Incest avoidance as a spatial limiter of breeding opportunity

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

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

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

Kinship rules and incest avoidance

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

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

Possible explanation for decreased Mt DNA in Queensland & Northern NSW

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

Sexual Segregation/Gender pathways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female elder kangaroos

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

In conclusion, regarding ACT Kangaroo management:

It seems that ACT Roo Management Policy and Science:

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

NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not.

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

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

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

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

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

More reference examples on incest avoidance in multiple species:

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

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

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

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

1. The First Code of Practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Googong and BNTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Current Code of Practice

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

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

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

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

4. The KMP Bible and the Treatment of Heretics

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

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

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

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

5. The ACAT Hearings

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

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

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

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

6.Why These Outcomes?

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

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

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

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

7. Endangering Humans and Breaking its Own Laws

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

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

So much more important than the lives of its citizens.

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

8. The Arrest of a Protestor and Ensuing Court Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Contemptuous Dismissal of Public Representations

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

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

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

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

10. Summation

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. So What Can We Do?

The short answer is not give up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch Gilbert Doctorow discuss the Dutch referendum on RT's CrossTalk:

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

All Welcome

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

Speakers

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

Audience Q&A and discussion will follow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioning Terry McAuliffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit Facebook and Twitter for case updates.