Ban whaling vessels from using our ports

Peter Bright, whilst I strongly disagree with what you have written, I think it is good that you have brought out into the open one unstated reason why some sectors of Australian public are most likely convinced to excuse our Government's cowardice on such a clear straightforward question of justice, environmental protection, national sovereignty and law.

That unstated reason is the fear of economic and diplomatic reprisals from Japan.

However, I believe that if the choice were put to ordinary Australians: either back down in order to retain some perceived economic advantage granted to some Australians by Japan or stand up and face whatever consequences may ensue, in order to maintain our self-respect, I think most would choose the latter.

In any case the latter is what Australians implicitly voted for when they voted for the Labor party with its promises to take a strong stance against whaling in 2007. If Kevin Rudd wants to back away from that commitment, at least he should consult the Australian public first.

Other examples of our Government's equivalently cowardly responses to similar injustices against Australian citizens, include:

• The imprisonment of the clearly innocent Schapelle Corby in the hellish prison of Kerokoban for 20 years to cover the tracks of those who planted the cannabis as an obvious political stunt to justify more funding for Balinese police;
• The Australian Federal Police allowing the Bali 9 to be arrested in Indonesia with drugs, where they face the death penalty when they could have instead been arrested in Australia and dealth wit by our justice system, without having to face the death penalty;
• The deliberate cold-blooded murder by members of the Indonesian Coastguard in the 1980's of two Australians who had been intercepted on a yacht;
• The murder of the Balibo 5 and Roger East in 1975;

In at least one case New Zealand's own record of defending its own citizens is equally lamentable. This was, when in 1985, it allowed the apprehended French terrorists Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur who were guilty of the bombing and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the resultant drowning of Dutch citizen Fernando Pereira to flee New Zealand to France, where they were predictably treated leniently by French Courts.

Years after the bombing -- my best guess is the mid 1990's -- I heard in the news of how a diligent and, probably, courageous Interpol policemen arrested one of the terrorists, still wanted for the attack, on Swiss soil and advised the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Government expressed no interest in having the terrorist extradited to New Zealand and so Interpol was forced to release him.

Australia's own role was apparently equally shameful. According to Wikipedia:

Three other agents, Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty Officer Gérard Andries, who sailed to New Zealand on the yacht Ouvéa, were captured by Australian police on Norfolk Island, but released as Australian law did not allow them to be held until the results of forensic tests came back. Expecting the tests would show they had transported the bombs to New Zealand, the crew was picked up by the French submarine Rubis, which scuttled the Ouvéa. They were never punished.

Some years later I witnessed Fernando Pereira's daughter, Marelle, who was only 8 at the time confront former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, on 60 Minutes as I seem to recall, over his Government's cowardice before the French.

Lange's excuse proferred to Marelle Pereira, was that if they had put Mafart and Prieur face trial for murder in New Zealand then New Zealand would have faced economic reprisals from France.

I believe any self-respecting Kiwi would have hung their heads in shame and disgust at the words of their former Prime Minister.

At the very least this blackmail by France should have been brought out in the open and New Zealanders should have been given some say over whether to back down or stand up to France.

Had the French attempted to punish New Zealand simply for bringing murderers to trial, then it seems more than likely that France, in turn, would have suffered consequences in the eyes of international public opinion.

Were the Japanese to retailiate against Australia in 2010, whether openly or more covertly, we could also ensure that it would be far from cost-free to them even in narrow economic terms. Furthermore, Australia would be in a position, not altogether dissimilar to that of New Zealand in 1985, to fight Japan before international public opinion and possibly through legal avenues as well and Japan's reputation could certainly be made to suffer a lot more as a result.

This also brings to mind a few years ago when world public opinion rallied behind Canada, when ships from their Navy confronted Spanish fishing ships who were fishing in Canadian territorial waters in the Atlantic Ocean when Canada itself was not fishing in the area in the hope of allowing depleted fish stocks to rebuild.

Even if it were to turn out that we were not able to win and we were to suffer economic or diplomatic retaliation, then my view is that, as a society, we should be prepared to pay that price as the price necessary for being a sovereign self-respecting nation.

As a society we would do what we could to make sure that no-one pays a disproportionate cost as a consequence of Japanese economic reprisals.

If that were to be put openly to the Australian people, I think that most would be in support of standing up to Japan. We could could also find ways, as a society, to ensure that no-one amongst us were made to pay a disproportionate cost as a consequence.

Be fair? Okay. Here's what I perceive. The PM is forcing population growth on Australians and thereby depriving them of secure and affordable futures through driving resource scarcity. We have not been consulted. Not unrelated is the fact that he and Wayne Swann were also involved in the initial creation of Labor Holdings P/L and Labor Resources P/L see "Expert discusses 'deliberately confusing' Labor donations" in Queensland (when they were working for Wayne Goss in the opposition). These ALP-owned companies helped build up massive property holdings and insurance and development investments for the ALP. The ALP governments, state and Federal, now resemble huge corporations, far richer than the other parties in Australia and richer than many others in the world. Labor Holdings and Labor Resources are used by the ALP to hold donations and other payments so that those moneys will not have to be declared as ALP donations from their original sources; they are declared as donations or 'other receipts' from Labor Holdings or Labor Resources. You can, however, look up income tax declarations for Labor Holdings and Labor Resources here and see where their income comes from. Then, in the same site, you can look for the ALP's income tax declarations and see where the money goes to. One must suspect that the laws that the State Parliaments make to privilege property development (e.g. Major Transports Facilitation Bill; DACS) also privilege the ALP's investments or those of their friends. The ruthless pushing of laws to override democratic objections is an indication of where the state and Federal governments' loyalty really lies. The growing presence of property lobby professionals in government and as the major options in elections should raise alarm bells. See, for instance, the participation of candidates from or backed by the Property Council of Australia in elections here and here. The Federal Government's pushing of population growth through high immigration is a way of keeping property and infrastructure development going (at great cost to the rest of us) - and that seems to be a major business of Labor Party investments in Queensland where Labor Resources and Labor Holdings started, although they go way beyond that state now. The Federal Government's nearly successful attempts to finance private development through taxpayer funding in RuddBank is another indicator of the sick state of our parliaments. The relationship between the Labor Party's friends in private Lobby Groups, their people in government, and the staff in State investment companies (such as Queensland Investment Company) has been the subject of damning journalistic investigations. See, for instance: "In the murky world of lobbying ..." and It is now so blurry that I think you would have to be naive or not to have been aware of these vested interests to believe that our governments were in government rather than in business for themselves. But maybe it is hard for most people to figure out what this all means unless they already know the picture in the jigsaw. I must say that, when looking at our high profile politicians, my mind drifts to these proverbs: "Love of money is the root of all evil" and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven." There must be some other proverb to cover the coincidence of ostentatious church attendence and crookedness, but I cannot think of it. As far as I can see, Australia's state and Federal governments have become the kinds of governments that Australians tend to think of as more typically the corrupt kind found in Indonesia and Malaysia. Candobetter.org articles also have shown the role of the Australian media - commercial and ABC in advocating for, propping up and marketing this system. Sheila Newman, population sociologist