Comments
Due to apathy, people are accepting greenwashing as science
Yes, borrowed Shock Doctrine
Could the Tamil Tigers have saved their people from catastrophe?
Some other discussion on the demise of the Tamil Tigers (aka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE) can be found at The end of the LTTE on John Quiggin's blog and Learning from the LTTE from the Indian Express of 20 May 09, which is linked to from the former. The following from within that article seems to confirm my own understanding of the conflict:
"The rise and fall of the Tigers, in fact, is a lesson for insurgent groups across the world. From a gang of 40 boys in 1975, the group rose to achieve a military prowess unknown for any insurgent group in the world. The discipline and determination of its cadre to lay down their lives for the Eelam cause was unprecedented. After 25 years of single-minded devotion and readiness to kill and die for the Tamil homeland, Tiger leader Prabhakaran seemed invincible. But the Tigers failed to understand that war alone is never enough. And at the height of their military success when they forced Colombo to enter into a peace process, Prabhakaran and his group didn’t understand the necessity of the transition from terror tactics to pure politics. History had given the Tigers a rare chance even in a post-9/11 world to sit at a negotiating table and ensure that the Tamil minority gets genuine political and constitutional rights in Sri Lanka. But like several other insurgencies, the Tigers too were blinded by their military success and a false sense of invincibility. Today, the Tamil minority, in whose name the Tigers killed and died, are at the mercy of a ruling alliance in Colombo which is dominated by a Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist discourse. In the process of the Tigers’ humiliating defeat, they took away any semblance of credibility from the moderate political forces from the Sinhalese majority too. The military success of Rajapakasha regime has effectively eclipsed Ranil Wickramasinghe and other political parties who had supported a historic truce with Tigers in 2002.
"Like the Tigers, the Kashmir insurgency also had several opportunities to understand the world’s changing political realities, halt violence and take a moral high ground on a negotiating table. But each time, the opportunity provided by a military success was lost with a complete underestimation of the power of the state."
It would interesting to contemplate whether the ransacking of Sri Lanka by disaster capitalists which followed the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami as described in "The Shock Doctrine" could have been resisted if the peace negotiations had been allowed to continue.
Many, but not all, Tamils in Sri Lanka before colonisation
Many of the Tamils of Sri Lanka were there before the British came as Steven's article states. There were two groups, according to Wikipedia, the Sri Lankan Tamil people and the Sri Lankan Moors or Muslims
Certainly, the importation of other Tamils, known as the Hill Country Tamils or Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, in the 19th century by the British to work on tea plantations on land stolen from native Sinhalese, would not have helped.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about the Sri Lankan Moors confirms what I said about the Tamil Tigers own past ethnic cleansing practices:
"In recent times, the Sri Lankan Civil War has produced large population movements in the northern region of the country, resulting in significant demographic changes. Hence the once-flourishing Muslim (mostly Moor) community is now non-existent in the Northern Province of the country as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out by Tamil Tiger rebels in 1991. "
Another ghastly colonial hangover
My understanding of the situation is that the Tamils were 19th and 20th C immigrant labour imported by British colonials to work colonial tea plantations. Some Tamil business immigrants also came. The local Sri Lankans resented the occupation by the British and the British stealing of their land for tea plantations. They certainly didn't appreciate the Tamil immigrants, many of whom were eventually repatriated in their thousands. The situation bears similarities to the problems caused by Colonial engineered mass immigration, with citizenship rights in question. I would like to know more about land-rights and citizenship there. My recent reference source is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Country_Tamils#Disenfranchisement
British imperialism sure has a lot to answer for, especially where mass immigration is concerned: Israel-Palestine; Sri-Lanka; Fiji; Australia; Canada; Africa; India.... Stuffing up land-rights and imposing new laws. And still it goes on, in the form of the economic shock doctrine and the Growth Lobby - right here. And it will get worse and worse.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Titanic
RSPCA excuses Kangaroo massacres, yet expects us to donate?
Others in region threatened by Nightcap also fix the land
Nightcap Village - better than what was there......
Patchy, inconsistent record of Third World liberation movements
Thanks, Tigerquoll, for an helpful, informative and timely article on this conflict.
For my own part, I have not kept myself sufficiently informed as to be able to be able to offer useful comments on conflicts such as this.
I remember back in the early 1980's, when the Tamil insurgency was launched. I viewed the Tamil struggle through the prism of the world view of a far left wing socialist organisation to which I belonged a the time. The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) were considered to be one of a large number of armed progressive movements that would help liberate the people of the Third World from the shackles of colonialism and neo-colonialism and bring about justice, harmony and prosperity.
Other movements were the South African African National Congress (ANC), the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), The Tigrean People's Liberation Front (TPLF), various Latin American movements, etc.
However, few of these movements have lived up to the hopes that we had held in them (with the possible exception of SWAPO, which appears to have very capably governed the nation now named Namibia after it gained independence from South Africa).
The EPLF and the TPLF became the respective governments of the newly independent Eritrea and the part of Ethiopia that remained after Eritrea had broken away and have since engaged in pointless border wars with each other. I remember that at least one of those conflicts was deliberately started by the EPLF, flying flat in the face of assurances, made by EPLF political representatives in Australia at a public meeting in support of the EPLF in the early 1980's, that an independent Eritrea would do its utmost to get along with its former coloniser. In fact, even before the TPLF overthrew the former Ethiopian dictatorship, there were clashes between the two movements, even though both were supposedly fighting the same common enemy.
Naomi Klein has shown in the chapter on South Africa in "The Shock Doctrine" how the ANC negotiators betrayed nearly all of the principles for which the ANC supposedly stood making circumstances for many blacks (as well as whites) in the supposedly liberated South Africa even worse than they were under the Apartheid system.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers were themselves accused on at least one occasion of engaging in their own Zionist style ethnic cleansing in order to drive non-Tamils including Muslims from the areas of Sri Lanka that they laid claim to. In 2002 they were reported as having unilaterally broken the peace negotiations that were underway and launched military attacks. If this is true, then the Tamil Tiger leadership would themselves have to be held partly responsible for the calamity that has befallen their people. (However, I would hesitate to make an absolute pronouncement on this until I can be more certain that the version of events that depicts the LTTE as having caused the breakdown in peace negotiations was not simply yet another example of misreporting of these conflicts by the Western newmedia.)
A Chapter in "The Shock Doctrine" tells how the Sri Lankan government cynically exploited the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami to steal coastal land from fishing villagers in order to give it to resort developers. They also exploited the crisis engaged in an extensive program of neo-liberal economic prescriptions including privatisation, completely contrary to the platform upon which that government was elected. No doubt this would have had some bearing on the Tamil/Sinahalese conflict.
RMS Titanic is still taking passengers, and will sink faster
The electorate are being silenced by "political correctness". It is not "nice" to criticise population growth as people must reproduce, and it is "racist" to suggest that we stop immigration that is boosting our numbers! We hear little about environmental or biodiversity concerns from the growth lobby. On one hand, we are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gases, but on the other hand the growth lobby want to continually "grow" our economy through population growth and continual building and land developments. We can't swim against the tide! More people means more natural resource plundering, more jobs needed, more energy needed, more logging and more mining and wildlife threats. The RMS Titanic, our mother-Earth ship, is still taking on passengers but will sink faster when it hits the iceburg of ecological collapse!
Greatly respect and admire Alex Jones, however ...
I certainly agree with #comment-1671">Menkit that this is an excellent article.
In regard to Alex Jones, I find him a courageous and likeable figure who is highly credible in most regards and certainly far more credible than almost any high profile corporate or government journalist that anyone can name. However, my mind remains undecided about some aspects of the global conspiracies of which he talks.
I take strong exception to his dismissal of concerns about population growth. Part of the conspiracy by the world's elites, according to Alex Jones is a plan to wipe out most of the world's current population. Whilst I wouldn't rule that out altogether, I need to see the evidence.
Unfortunately, those of us who argue, on the basis of the best available evidence, that the earth's human population has most likely badly overshot the earth's carrying capacity and therefore we stand a serious risk of having the world's population decline catastrophically unless we act very quickly and decisively to stabilise the world's population, are at risk of being tarred with the same brush by Alex Jones and likeminded people such as those who operate Truth News Radio Australia. This unfortunately happened to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) President as a consequence of her statement that Australia's natural capacity was likely to be 7 million, rather than the current 21 million as Tim Flannery has also argued. The podcast dated 30 Apr 09 can be downloaded from here.
After the broadcast, I posted some comments in defence of Sandra Kanck on that page and a brief discussion ensued.
Excellent article,
Excellent article, Sheila.
Fits right in with Alex Jones' video at here or on YouTube where he talks about how the Treaty of Rome set up the EU in 1957 as a vehicle for world domination through banks and the elite.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangaroos (linked to from www.stopkangarookilling.org).
Ya can't splurge $26 Billion on a warchest and cry poor!
Expenditure on Australian armed forces
I feel ambivalent on the issue of Australian military spending. On the one hand many wars in which Australia has participated have been clearly immoral. These include: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. The latter two have been justified largely by the Big Lie of 9/11 of which I have written elsewhere on this site.
Nevertheless, there has been at least occasion in our history when a large expenditure on our armed forces was clearly essential, that being during the Second World War. Given the massive size of Australia's potential enemies in the region, it is hard to know for sure what amount of spending on our armed forces would be necessary to hope to dissuade or, if necessary, defeat, any military aggressor as it did in 1942.
Of course, our first line of defence should be a Foreign Policy which seeks to establish justice and harmony in the world. This is clearly not what the purpose of our Afghan military adventure is or what our Iraqi military adventure was.
Nevertheless, even if (for a change) Australia behaved like a model world citizen, I don't see that as being an absolute safeguard against military aggression from China, Indonesia or India.
Today some, including Bernard Salt spuriously justify the ever greater encroachments upon Australia's sovereignty by China, in particular, as necessary price to pay in order to prevent outright occupation.
However, if we don't have an adequate defence force as our forefathers did in 1942, that choice will be taken away from us altogether.
However, the difficult question posed in 2009 is to what extent that military expenditure will be abused to threaten world peace rather than safeguard our own borders.
For a contrary view, see Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO of 6 may 09 on Global Research.
Why does roeoz ban discussion of 9/11?
Mike wrote, "In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, ..."
It is my own experience that those who attempt to defend the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up.
If you don't believe me, check out these discussions: Tactics in a cosmic war", "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil","What do we do about George W Bush?", "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy", "Australia has no business in Afghanistan" and "War: not in my name" on Online Opinion and #comment-234274">Weekend reflections of 17 Apr 09 and #comment-226942">It’s over of 21 Jan 09 (which was extended into the #comment-226972">Monday message board of 19 Jan 09).
Quite possibly I have not swayed the other 'camp' (as often happens in discussions in which participants on at least one side of the debate is determined to cling to its pre-conceived opinion regardless of the evidence presented). Nevertheless, important and useful resources have been created and the fact that defenders of the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up shows that this issue can be quickly resolved, contrary to what you have implied.
Only one discussion tat I have been involved with was prolonged. That was the 9/11 Truth forum on Online Opinion which I initiated in September last year. After January this year, no serious challenge to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement endued. The one contributor, who attempted to address any of my arguments at all gave up and hasn't been heard from since on OLO.
As a consequence, use of 9/11 as a catch-all justification for each and every crime of President George Bush has become far less common on Online Opinion and other forums in which I participate these days. So, it would seem to me that there is good reason to discuss this issue.
Mike continued, "... you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't ..."
This is anti-scientific hogwash. I don't "fervently believe" the "conspiracies". I have become convinced of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence. I might add that I did so extremely belatedly, that is over six years later than I should have. I know of people who saw 9/11 for what it was on the day, and that is because they were capable of observing with their own eyes what had happened rather than allowing the newsmedia to tell them what had happened.
So, why won't you do the same as what I did, at least, at this very late stage? Or, if you insist that you have, have, why won't you enlighten the rest of us as to why you apparently uncritically accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11?
What's so special about the events of 9/11 that would prevent a proper investigation from establishing the truth of what occurred? As with any crime, evidence has been left in the form of eyewitness testimony, audio, video, photographic records, seismographic, thermal and other recordings as well as physical evidence. (If you want a succinct presentation of some this evidence, then please view the You Tube Broadcasts, "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" part 1 and part 2, each of which is less than 10 minutes in length.)
For what reason do you suggest that it is any less possible to learn the truth of 9/11 than it would, as examples, to have established the truth about the death of Azaria Chamberlain, the existence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or whether Howard Government ministers knew that AU$296million was paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein by the Australian Wheat Board?
Mike continued, "... which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz (the Running on Empty Oz (roeoz) mailing list)."
That's most disturbing.
How can any avowedly open-minded critical-thinking person ban discussion on what is the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror' and the removal of civil liberties and human rights of ordinary Australians?
Mike, could you tell us how you would respond to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's words spoken to Jim Lehrer on the US Public Broadcasting network's NewsHour program in the US and cited by ABC Radio's The World Today:
"... the bottom line is this: It's the right place to be.
"When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.
"We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again."
Given that you evidently accept Kevin Rudd's premise that terrorists based in Afghanistan launched the 9/11 attacks, would you:
(A) Agree wholeheartedly with Kevin Rudd;
(B) Nevertheless, dispute America's and Australia's right to attack the terrorists' safe haven inside Afghanistan; or
(C) Have no opinion?
Mike wrote, "There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it."
Hadn't it occurred to you that quite a few people out there are "sick to the back teeth" of the way 9/11 has been used as the pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and to justify torture, murder, imprisonment, and the removal of basic civil liberties and human rights of people all over the world including in Australia?
Hadn't it occurred to you that because so many people, who should have know better, including you and me, accepted the Big Lie of 9/11 that this country had to endure at least six more awful years of misrule by the Howard Government that it should have, together with the awful environmental, economic and social calamity that it entailed?
Why do you apparently consider those momentous issues less important than the personal inconvenience that having to think seriously about 9/11 would entail?
Repco Rally Australia website
The address for the RRA website, where you can access their reports, is
Swine Flu Symptoms
First by studying and
Agrees that 9/11 should not be discussed
The only problem with the
A 'stay of execution' should not apply to Maxine Cooper
twisting numbers into lies
ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal has suspended the "cull"
earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control
zero growth economy
Logging is not sustainable.
National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)
NAFI (or perhaps 'Not Another Freakin Import' provides a chainsaw scream for Australia's scarce and depleting forests. Japanese woodchippers rape Aussie forests only to import A4 paper back to us at a profit. Aren't we NAFI suckers?
NAFI is committed to ensuring clear fell logging and woodchipping of old growth has strong representation in political and public engagement to ensure this desperate slaughtering is supported in order to achieve the best possible outcome for NAFI and short contract loggers with no future prospects.
Australia's forest industries, made up of remnant old growth habitat, plantations and any outlying unoccupied timber houses on the edge of towns, offer significant benefits for NAFI and no-neck loggers with no future prospects. By the year 2020 forest industries are projected to contribute:
* 16,000 short term forestry contracts and base pay with no security, no annual leave and no sick leave
* 81 million tonnes of Australian native forests sold out to Mitsui (the Japanese)
* $19 billion of Australia's native farm sold out to the Japanese woodchippers - who have the hide profit from selling back to Australia white shiny A4 photocopy paper.
And so how is the multinational raper of Gippsland forests, Japanese Sumitomo Mitsui fairing these days? Well as at 10th April 2009, Sumitomo Mitsui reported its largest loss in six years and has desperately proposed to raise 800 billion yen in public offering.
Gippsland loggers have become losers in every sense. Contract logging to feed Jap woodchippers may pay the rent for a few months, but forget supporting a family or paying a mortgage! How many forestry workers called into the CES since the start of 2009?
Proud logger with job recycles but is realistic
China has done more to tackle overpopulation
Every living being " takes up space... "
Why we need to see the evidence of 9/11 ourselves
David C,
Firstly, I greatly appreciate your interest and your reply.
You wrote:
"... I decided not to make any comments myself because JQ has made it known that he doesn't want discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories on his site."
Did you read the #comment-234274">post> original post in which I challenged John Quiggin's objection to the discussion of 9/11 on his forum?
He never responded to that, so I think I can fairly say that the case I put stands. In any case, I raised it in a general forum, which he said he would allow.
I think it would have been better if you had joined in that discussion, because, frankly,it would make it easier for those of us who believe 9/11 to be a legitimate discussion topic.
When people are trying to discover where the truth lies in these controversies, they will inevitably come across seemingly credible people who will effectively tell you, "Trust me. I have looked at the evidence and it supports the official explanation."
That is what Baer appears to have done. Another seemingly credible (to some) person who backs the official 9/11 fiction is ostensible US dissident Noam Chomsky. No doubt his influence has caused many people, otherwise opposed to US Government policies, accept the official US Government 9/11 myth.
However, I think one should take with a grain of salt anyone who pronounces that they accept the official account of 9/11 without acknowledging the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If Baer has ever directly challenged the evidence put by the 9/11 Truth movement, I would like to know where.
BTW have you checked the two Youtube broadcasts that I referred people to on John Quiggin's blog?
BTW, not everyone considers Seymour Hersh to be a journalist of complete integrity. Yes, he appears to be critical of what he says are the brutal excesses of the US 'war on terror', but he won't challenge the underlying rationale for the claimed necessity of covert US special forces assassinations or the renditions program, that is, that the people they are killing or torturing are held to be either responsible for 9/11 or are planning similar acts of terror. For useful information about Seymour Hersh, please read "Screwed Again: Seymour Hersh Puts Pro-War Spin On What We Would Normally Call Acts Of Terrorism" on the Winter Patriot web site.
Logging subsidised by tax-payer
Rally Australia
Proud logger with a job attacks guinea pigs
Links to 'social' blogs
Hi!
Dear moderators, these blogs are social in nature, so please do not delete these references. Thank you for your understanding, thanks in advance.
(JS: Could you tell me through the contact form why you think why the links you have posted would be of interest to people visiting this site? It doesn't seem to me that they will be of much interest.)
Great to hear another compassionate voice
Thanks for your comment. No need to apologise for your 'ramblings'. It is great to hear from someone else who also feels the anger that we feel about the wanton ecological vandalism committed against Mornignton Peninsula.
That said, I will address a few points in this post.
I dispute that wrecking the environment can be good economics. It can only be considered good economics if we accept as valid the badly deficient ways that many economists measure prosperity and fail to measure the loss of natural capital including biodiversity which is necessary for a healthy environment and, ultimately, an economy.
You wrote:
"... until Environmental Groups somehow Unite, all individual groups who have their causes to fight - which are all very valid, unfortunately will achieve nothing against Governments."
Unfortunately many supposed environment groups have been co-opted into the system.
Nevertheless, it is necessary that genuine environmental groups, and the rest of us who share their goals, begin to pull in the same direction.
That's why it is in our best interests to get behind those fighting against the destruction of Old Growth Frest in Gippsland and why they and the rest of us should give what support we can, for example, to those fighting the ecologically criminally World Rally car race on the far north coast. of NSW.
Witness to 40 years of degradation of the Mornington Peninsula
Another review of Overloading Australia
Green goose killed for golden egg
My 2 cents.
VicForests no different to Indonesian Timber Mafia
Better that Tweed Shire agreed to Nightcap with conditions
Society is heading towards mass suicide!
State Government does not listen to decent protests!
Wildlife slaughter...
Not to mention the thousands of animals that are poisoned each year by the logging industry, who obliterate the native forests and then kill the wildlife to prevent browsing on forest re-growth! This is particularly prevalant in Tasmania... disgusting!
If only the loss of a single iconic species - the Tassie Tiger - would have been enough to make people realise that re-establishing a viable population of an extinct species is impossible! Instead, copious amounts of money is used to try and bring it back using genetic material - instead of using the money to try and stop other species from falling victim to the same fate. For the most part, we really are not an intelligent species!
Our native animals and plants are not considered as important until their numbers are so low that they need to be listed as rare or threatened. Basically the point of no return! Great strategy isn't it!
So where to go from here? Who knows? The majority of the population are so caught up in their own little worlds that they couldn't care less about issues like this. Money is always more important, as the Government has just proven (once again) with its backflip on climate change. The human race is basically doomed to wipe itself out. Bring it on I say!
Logging contracter attacks Bungywarr protesters
Salt's sprinkle
Debating population policy in the mainstream
Immigration Tide Tables
Tweed mayor MARRIED to Developer Peter van Lieshout
Open letter to Tweed Shire yes Councillors
Salinisation of population policy in Australia
Rudd's Flood
Re:
Our governments have a conflict of Interest!
Higher population means more taxes, revenue and Stamp Duty for the States. Our leaders are quite prepared to use the lazy and short-sighted route to boost our economy and our country's coffers. They are not interested in "sustainable" anything, and people have become not citizens but economic units and consumers for their own ends! The stress on infrastructures, housing, transport, power, and climate change all fade into insignificance as our present politicians will have retired by the time the worst of our over-populated States fully impact! They would be happy to families living in high-rise apartments, fueled by nuclear power, and see our living standards similar to that of Russia and Europe. The massive unemployment in Europe should be a warning that this is where we are heading.
Rampant materialism and environmental destruction!
About 90% of what comes out of our old-growth forests ends up as woodchips to make paper, the majority of which is sent overseas. The "management plan" for Tasmania's Upper Florentine Valley means a growing logging industry for wood chips, with a current price a mere $2.50 per tonne!
Despite the area being surrounded by mountains of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, the Colonial ignorance of slash and conquer the bush has changed little since the last Tasmanian Tiger was captured there in the 1933.
All this so-called "sustainable forest management" is just thinly disguised eco-destruction by Tasmania's logging industry.
We are bombarded with ecologically "friendly", "sustainable" and "green" language, but the euphemisms are totally contrary to everything they claim!
We are encouraged to avoid plastic bags, turn off power when it is not needed, use energy-friendly light bulbs, save water, use public transport, but the benefits of these actions belie the fact that our governments continue to support the large polluters and industries that are adding to climate change and conservation threats!
Our leaders must be held accountable the rampant materialism and environmental destruction that our nation is succumbing to.
Sell the loggers not the logs
Why do we have to pay for extra infrastructure?
What's happening with the development?
attenborough
One year later...
Response to ambit challenge
Ambit claims
Bernard Salt: acquiesce to colonisation to 'prevent' invasion
Would love to see populations decline
Food bowl
Redistribution of land
So how does a country effect the giving back of land?
I am always keen to explore recommendations based on sound analysis as Sheila has offered.
So how does a country effect the giving back of land to its indigenous?
The idea would seem to offer a genuine reason for refugees not to flee, assuming all their other threats are removed. Take the Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka currently forced to retreat down to a beach refuge; not dissimilar to the plight of a third of a million Allied troops at Dunquerke in May 1940 early in WWII, cut off by a German armored advance.
While indigenous citizens will demand indigenous rights to land, birth citizens will demand birth rights, legal immigrants will demand immigration status rights. An attractive and popular country like Australia will, indeed long has, become crowded and busy with all these versions of land rights claims. If truejustice says that indigenous have higher moral jurisdiction, how does a country compensate the rest morally? For the indigenous saying to the rest: 'bugger off home' would be the most simplistic option. But human culture rejects such simplicity and one must bare in mind that human culture (especally the religious tainted) has been the spark of nearly all wars.
The hurdle for colonists morally honouring land sovereignty rights to indigenous people lies in the token framework of international justice that is the United Nations. Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and almost every war-affected (impoverished) country since WWII (when the UN was formed) has experienced gross moral and legal neglect at the hands of the UN. The UN has a reputation as a toothless, politically correct and grossly underfunded watchdog of international justice.
If only the UN had a similar sense of urgency that Thatcher committed to in 'national' defence the Falklands; irrespective I might add, of glaring immoral justification by the British Tory Government to preserve a distant outpost of an Victorian empire for nothing but political ego and voter distraction.
For indigenous to reclaim just sovereign rights, the UN as a colonist power base is an anathema - the wolves minding the chickens, so the UN must be wound up. A new international organisation of justice should replace the UN with indigenous only members - perhaps the 'IN' (Indigenous Nations) with the English included as indigenous inhabitants of just...England!
Open borders propagates overpopulation!
Droplet infection in flu
Of muggers and mass migration
Wonderful article, Marisa. I wish I had more time to criticise the position that Attenborough takes, but I will do it quickly just here.
I have also read William Rees (who invented the 'Ecological footprint') making similar unjustifiable assertions. It's like saying, "Give a mugger your wallet and he won't beat you up." We can guess that it comes from the highest colonialist and big business echelons. They are the expert muggers of the world and they also own the press which manufactures 'consent'. Tim Murray has long criticised David Suzuki on a similar attitude. Perhaps Attenborough and Rees simply have flown too high, like Icarus, and now their wings have been politically clipped; they have lost their independence. In a world of steady states immigration was always a given, but never the problem it is in our time of massive overuse and overstocking of the world by humans. Mass immigration is now a huge problem for democracy and human rights. It cannot happen without destroying local democracies and denying people the right to settled self-government and control over their environment. For this reason free borders are championed by big business, which is anti-democracy.
Mass immigration is now so close to invasion and a constant source of international friction, exploitation and downright wars and massacres. Think of the overflow from Britain - the first hugely overpopulated country - from which the fossil-fuel-fed diaspora led to the total takeover and massive land-stealing and destruction of biodiversity and democracy, of so many steady-state polities - India, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands etc.
Think of the overflow from Rwanda (a victim of colonisation and big business and the servants in the pulpits) to neighboring countries, or of El Salvadorian immigration to Honduras, or of the problems created in the Costa Rican social welfare system by the overflow from neighbours and the impact on land-prices from North American immigration. And David Attenborough's words simply promote more of the same chaos. There are peace-keeping solutions, both commercial and humanitarian, that are effective and stem the push for immigration. One of the most effective ways to stop overpopulation and exoduses is to give back land which has been taken by commercial and colonial interests - but you will hardly ever read of this in Aid literature.]
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
Only 7 swine flu deaths, not 152, says WHO
European Union says avoid travel avoid flu
Google map of swine flu cases
Swine 'flu - possible pandemic - useful resources
We ultimately reap what we sow!
Pollution in Lake Titacaca a legacy of colonial conquest
Update of protest march against Repco Rally
The Council have changed their meeting date from Tuesday 19th May to Thursday 28th May 2009.
How convenient for them!
The process for this rally was already in place before the new Councilors were elected and I suspect that they have been told that the rally will go ahead with or without them voting in favor of it. Rayner at the 2nd council meeting told the new councilors when he was asked about a conflict of interest, that he had had legal advise and told them he was told there was no conflict.
We must remember four of them were new to the job and a bit green behind the ears and of course the GM was suppose to be there to guide them in policy matters and how could they know if he was misleading them or not.
I am REALLY surprised that Dot Holdom who I thought was an honorable smart cookie was taken in by all this or was she? Funny how she has closed up shop now, as she kept the business going when she was in council before. If she had retained the business she would have had to excuse herself from voting on the rally proposal but now she is free to vote on it (how will she vote I wonder) will it be worth giving up the job she loved. What will she gain from it? Maybe now she will have time to devote herself to a takeover bid to be mayor it could be a race between her and Polglaze to see who gets to the post first. I wonder would they take turns year about. Maybe they can try and bring in a vote of no confidence to try and take the reigning mayor down, who knows we will just have to wait and see. Where is the GM in all this could he possibly be the puppet master?
Really all politics aside however, if the councilors had any gumption they would take notice of the people and the promises they themselves made before the election and do what is right, firstly for the environment and wildlife (once our native environment and wildlife are gone that's it they won't come back) and then the people, as we are supposed to be masters of our own destiny it's the rest of the planet that needs to worry as it is at the mercy of us humans. But then I guess prospective councilors will say anything to get in and then do exactly as they like or else kowtow to the powers that be because they are afraid and have no courage to do what they know is right. God help Australia and the rest of the world because Tweed Council sure as hell doesn't.
GENERATIONS to come will condemn this council if they let the rally go ahead without a fight. They will be known as the Environmentally Irresponsible Council.
WHY? Answer= Because they knew better!
My response to Brumby's "sustainable" greenwashing
Redo video within Copyright restrictions
You Tube
State-owned bank = solvent North Dakoa
Impressions
Lies, damn lies, and bushphobic myths
Wrestling with 2009 invasion rights
Why not manage weeds, over-grazing and rabbits?
Video of French Caterpillar workers' fight for jobs (in French)
Forrest equals rain.
Wrestling with 1788 Invasion Rights
Overpopulation destroys democracy
The kangaroos are the easy targets!
Naive question
RE: Prescribed Burning
I don't doubt your commitment to the environment, but you've got it exactly backwards. Increased burning is exactly what we need. Not just for human safety, but because the Australian ecology depends on fire at the very least as a means of recycling dead matter (The Australian ecology is different from many others in that our lack of water tends to inhibit microbial decomposition - as a result fire takes on that role).
There are many other reasons, as well. The natural adaptation of Australian plants to fire means that fire suppression actually helps drive native species to extinction, as they are outcompeted by faster growing, more prolific seed spreading imported weeds. This is often accompanied by native animals being pushed out in the same fashion.
But the weeds, by putting their effort into spreading widely, have few resources left to recover from periodic annihilation events (like bushfires), meaning that where the bush burns periodically, native plants and wildlife have a natural advantage. Strange as it may sound, continual fire protects native species.
So long as the fires are not the huge events that just happened, of course. Continual small fires (such as aboriginals lit - look up "firestick farming") has proven to be best. This is not to say that exactly the same areas should be burned each time, of course.
An early paper of Tim Flannery's on the subject would be a good introduction to the historical importance of fire, and how it relates to the rest of the Australian environment - please don't be put off by the windy title: "The Timing, Nature, and Aftershock of Pleistocene Extinctions in Australia" (www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day2/bytes/FlanneryPres.html)
Carrot, as well as stick, necessary in dealing with barking dogs
Thanks, Quiet Tasmania for a useful article about an important topic.
I have also had my quality of life ruined in a number of past periods in my life by barking dogs and agree that this problem and the wider problem of noise pollution should be more widely acknowledged and dealt with. Even now, my peace is often destroyed by one pair of barking dogs in my area. (The fact that there are two together to keep each other company shows that dogs having company may not always be the whole solution.)
The problem is exacerbated by Government policies of deliberately growing our population and crowding ever more of us together in order to line the pockets of developers and land speculators at the expense of the rest of us.
The fact that it is necessary often for both partners to work to pay off the mortgage on massively hyper-inflated houses mean that many have no choice but to leave their dogs alone for long periods of time. This is not to entirely absolve such people in such circumstances to train their dogs so that they behave in their absence, but, nevertheless the situation does not make it easy for those trying to do the right thing.
Whilst I think that laws against barking should be enforced, carrots need to also provided to help those owners who try to do the right thing. Perhaps traininig of dogs could be subsidised, or some services to care for dogs left alone could be provided.
I am not particularly in favour of revenue raising as a justification for councils enforcing laws against barking dogs. I think the principle purose of fines should be as a deterrent. Any money raised above what is necessary to meet the costs of enforcement should go into programs to help dog owners to the right thing.