DREAD? OR ANTICIPATION?

by Jeremy Lee
Whatever else, Australia is going to be on the map over the next few weeks. The Olympics, once an assembly of amateur sportsmen and women, has become one of the biggest business events in the world, in which sporting contests are mere adjuncts to corporate profit-taking. With its 'big-money' ethos, the Olympics has become, inevitably, a security operation involving all the military and police deployment of a "Desert Storm" or a Kosovo. Many Australians may thrill with pride at the achievements of an Ian Thorpe or a Cathy Freeman; but at the end of the day it will be the corporate 'bottom-line' that will measure the success or failure of the games.

The World Economic Forum in Melbourne will only be slightly different. There'll be no races and no medals. But it will be the same corporate faces in the best seats, surrounded by the gad-fly politicians and beat-up journalists. Only the briefest debate has surrounded the proposed 'gifts' to politicians of up to $10,000 packages to the Olympics. Neither Howard nor Beazley have really declared themselves on the issue. Both say they personally won't take the packages. But members of their respective parties can make up their own minds! If there is nothing improper about what many see as bribes, why won't the party leaders accept? Surely, because they implicitly know that the exercise is another example of corruption.

POLLIE-FREE

ROCK-LIKE PRIME MINISTER

There is increasing publicity about the approaching World Economic Forum at Melbourne's Crown Casino, some heralding violent protests. Like Hercules of old, Prime Minister Howard has stated that the Australian Government would not tolerate any violent behaviour. And quite right too. But the fact that those corporate leaders who will be inside the Casino have, between them, done considerable violence to harmless people round the world does not seem to have occurred to the Prime Minister. Nor the fact that there is considerable justification for the many in Australia opposed to the global corporate elite.

Alan Kohler, writing in The Australian Financial Review (29/8/2000), said: " ..... the corporate and political establishment is making the mistake of not taking it very seriously, either at a practical, organisational level (although the Seattle riots perhaps changed that to an extent) or more importantly at a philosophical level.
The modern anti-globalisation, anti-corporate protest movement not only uses the internet better than any corporation has yet managed to do, in a way the movement actually mimics the structure of the internet as well ..... there is a firm thread of thought running through the movement that needs to be taken seriously, and understood, by its enemies (i.e., those who read this newspaper). ...."

Kohler seems to have a few misconceptions himself! But he's closer to the mark than Howard.

USING THE ARMY

To its shame the ALP seems to have 'gone along' with the new Bill to use the Defence Forces in domestic matters. A strong and condemnatory full-page article by Tony Harris in The Australian Financial Review (25/8/2000) pointed out
".....The Bill allows the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Attorney-General to authorise this use of the ADF. But none of these Cabinet ministers debated the legislation. In fact, no minister spoke to the Bill in the two hours it took to secure its passage through the House of Representatives. It was left to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment and Heritage, Dr. Sharman Stone, to convince members that they could trust the Government. We also are to trust the Government that, while federal troops are protecting 'Commonwealth interests', under the direction of political ministers, they would not be infringing the liberties of Australians ......"

Although this legislation ostensibly concerns the rights and duties of the States, there was no consultation with State governments until after the Bill had passed through the House of Representatives. Furthermore, it was supposed to have been the subject of hearings by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which was given the undertaking on June 28th. This Committee has six members and 22 participating members. It took submissions for only one day, in Canberra, where 12 witnesses gave evidence. Of these, eight were from the Commonwealth or were retired Defence Force personnel. It considered 16 submissions, most of which opposed important parts of the law. However, it recommended that the law be passed with slight changes.
Four States - NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania - all criticised the way the Bill was introduced without their advice.
(Condensed from Tony Harris's article).

Among powers given to the ADF in this Bill are, in Harris's words: ".... the power to search vehicles and buildings without a search warrant, to search people, to direct the movement of people and vehicles, to exclude persons from property and areas, to take property considered to be dangerous and to detain people suspected of acting dangerously in order to surrender them to the police 'as soon as practicable'. They are wider powers than those ordinarily enjoyed by the police ...."

The Howard Government would obviously protest that these measures were necessary to "protect the people". It is the argument always used by authoritarian powers to remove the freedoms and liberties of the populace.

LET THE PEOPLE KNOW

ANOTHER CLEAR VIEW OF OUR EMASCULATED STATE

by Alfred King
It was as a young man, trying to manage the costs of his first motor car, that I was introduced to the real impact of World Government in our everyday life. I had a strong interest in buying my petrol inexpensively, and enthusiastically searched for the stations with the lowest prices. I was studying economics at the time, and we were taught that the oil companies were operating in a competitive environment in which the price of petrol was set by the free market law of supply and demand. This free market principle is held up by the chattering classes as the best (and only) way to get the product that the consumer wants to him (or her) at the cheapest possible price.

With this in mind, I knew that one station would only have to reduce the price of its petrol by a couple of cents to be able to sell all of its stocks. Yet I did not find this competitive culture in operation.
As I searched, what I found was the same high price being charged by all companies, and when the price changed, they all changed in perfect synchronicity. Quite an achievement. The lofty theories of our highly educated economists are one thing, the realty of human nature is quite different.

"All monopoly is anti-social", as the great man once said. The oil industry was one of the first of a number of industries targeted for complete control by the proponents of World Government. The evidence from a number of unrelated sources overwhelming shows that the oil companies act as a cartel, which is a fancy name for a monopoly. Total control. What we have seen in recent weeks through the petrol price issue is proof that these MNCs operate as a power above nations to extort from the individual whatever tribute they see fit. If you want the privilege of running a motor car, you must pay the danegeld.

Where is 'our' government in all this - the Prime Minister who was recently honoured in Israel for his services to Zionism, and the Treasurer who is on the IMF Board? The usual rouse in this situation is call an inquiry, which is known at the outset not to come to any conclusions which could restrict the oil companies in the way they set petrol prices. There have been many such inquiries, all with the same non-result. However, John Howard is touchy even about this minor step. He has angrily rejected calls from Queensland Premier Beattie for an inquiry into petrol prices and tax changes. The Prime Minister admits that neither he nor the US President has any control over the price of petrol in their respective countries.
(This, in spite of the Treasurer recently admitting on TV that he does not fully understand how the price of petrol is set.)

The question which this immediately raises, and which the media is remarkably silent on, is that if the people of Australia, which is a major oil producer, do not have control over the price of their own petrol through their elected representatives, then who does? Is this a desirable state of affairs or should we do something about it - perhaps look after our own interests for a change?

ONE MORE STEP CLOSER TO UTOPIA

by Alfred King
Is there anybody left who still thinks our present government is a conservative one? In Brave New World, the establishment handed out a sweet treat to people to help them accept something that it wanted to happen. Here in Australia, first we witnessed the disarming of the population on the pretext of the actions of a single mad man, sweetened by a cash handout to 'all good children'. The same government has now quietly passed legislation which allows it to use the Army against our own civilians. This is change indeed, but is it progress?

The establishment of a totalitarian regime is always preceded by a disarming of the population. Would anyone care to predict what will be the next link in this chain of events?

THE FIVE DOLLAR (QUEEN'S) NOTE

from Phillip Benwell, National Chairman, Monarchist League of Australia.
"You will no doubt be pleased to learn that following months of lobbying, the Reserve Bank of Australia has now advised that the five dollar note bearing the Head of The Queen will continue to circulate during the one year period of the Note produced to honour Sir Henry Parkes and furthermore will continue to be reprinted according to demand. This means that every protest we have launched this year has met with success, albeit of varying levels."

VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE EXCOMMUNICATED BY RABBI

from David Irving Website
"H-NET History of Antisemitism List"

According to an article in the Forward, published on August 4th, before Sen. Joseph Lieberman was tapped as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, a curse is to be put on him by a prominent New York rabbi, Mordechai Friedman, host and producer of a TV program, "Judaism, The Series". The excommunication is to be pronounced today (August 20th). Moreover, Rabbi Friedman has denounced Lieberman as a "moser" (informer to the Gentiles); according to Rabbi Friedman, citing Maimonides, "it is both a commandment and a mitzvah to kill an informer. In fact, the person who does so is meritorious."

This has a chilling resemblance to the charges against Rabin by ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel before his assassination. I am a little surprised that in the endless discussions of Lieberman's candidacy, no other newspaper (at least none that I have seen) has even mentioned Rabbi Friedman. Were a Christian minister, producing a TV program entitled "Christianity, The Series", to have made comparable statements, I think it is a fair assumption that he would be getting quite a bit of coverage, even if it were recognized that he was a sectarian without a large following.
And if Farrakhan (again, a man with a small following) had made them, we would be seeing bold headlines.

I agree with Milton Goldin that this apparent double standard could turn in antisemitic directions. The issue of how much of a following Friedman actually has is uncertain; a spokesperson for him, Rabbi Yerachmiel Ha Levy, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, who directs activities in the South for followers of Friedman, reported to Forward reporters that Friedman speaks for all of us, and I believe that most Orthodox rabbis agree with Rabbi Freedman but they're afraid to voice them on their own. Not only are commentators chary of saying anything negative about Judaism (or what a given rabbi claims to be Judaism), polls are suggesting that more voters consider Lieberman's Jewishness to be actually a positive rather than a negative matter (though most simply say it makes no difference).

In a Newsweek article by Jonathan Alter, entitled "Post Seinfeld America" (August 31st, pp.32) the point is made that a Jew in a prominent position of national politics is no longer "a big deal". Alter also notes the irony, the historical reversal, in the extent to which a Jew is now considered a "purifying" factor - cleansing the Democratic Party of its association with Clintonite moral depravity - whereas in the past the charge has been that Jews were themselves the polluters, that Jews undermined a nation. Alter does not much pursue the implications of the title of his article. He notes that Seinfeld has sensitized non-Jewish Americans to Jewish issues, but I think he misses a much larger point, for in fact Americans have long been sensitized to Jewish issues; what the Seinfeld series came to epitomize is the extent to which Jews are no longer "other" in the consciousness of non-Jewish Americans. Jerry, Elaine, Kramer - they all are "like us" (and, by the way, in a very ordinary, comfortable, and not particularly heroic or high moral sense).

And indeed there is more that Alter neglected
The Seinfeld series regularly mocked Jewish oversensitivity - Uncle Leo who suspected antisemitism when his hamburger was overcooked, or Jerry who was charged with being an "anti-dentite" when he made disparaging comments about dentists (his dentist informed him "you don't know how we have suffered"). What Rabbi Friedman's curse brings up is the possibility that Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, might be considered "other" after all (or perhaps, to use the omnipresent word by the under-30 crowd, "weird"). His curse, by the way, had to do with the fact that Lieberman (a "traitor" to the Jewish people) had signed a petition last year urging Clinton not to include a pardon for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard in any peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Pollard case, which Norman Podhoretz in an OpEd piece after Pollard's arrest and conviction (nearly 15 years ago), described as a "Zionist's nightmare" is more broadly a Jewish American's nightmare - a revival of the Rosenberg case, with no doubt about Pollard's guilt. Will this case be coming up again for extensive discussion? And can those Jews agitating for his release really be "like us"? (Lieberman of course is not vulnerable on this issue - except with other Jews - but the issues surrounding the Pollard case almost inevitably will haunt any Jewish candidate, as will the Israeli connection, one that divides Americans, Jews and non-Jews, much more bitterly than in the past.)

Presidential campaigns have a way of getting dirty and ruthless, especially in their last weeks. Can we expect that Lieberman's Judaism will permanently shield him from harsh criticism, fair or unfair - especially if the Republicans fear they may lose? Are there any messy details to Lieberman's divorce? And what about the large sums of money that he has allegedly accepted from the Cuban exile community (and his votes in their favor)?

It can only be expected that a man who has been presented as a moral paragon will be held to very high (if not impossible) standards. And can we really be confident that Americans, now being massively instructed, as one rabbi put it, in "Judaism 101", will not recoil at certain aspects of Orthodox belief and practice? Such a recoil seems even more likely when presented by those who seek to embarrass Lieberman and undermine his candidacy - preferably toward the end of the campaign, when adequate rebuttal or clarification will not be feasible. And just how many Friedman types - to say nothing of Pollard types - are there finally in America?

Will that question now be asked more often and urgently? And has Lieberman dealt adequately with the myriad of problems that promise to arise from his observance of the Sabbath? Will the Secret Service approve his plans to the inauguration - especially when a rabbi has said that killing him will be a mitzvah? And what would be the impact if Jewish assassins not only succeed in killing the prime minister of Israel but the United States vice-presidential candidate?

I am personally optimistic in most of these regards; Lieberman has after all been a senator for some time, and he has already faced many of these questions - with very great success, it seems. More than that, he projects warmth and has a good sense of humor. That he does not wear a kippa in public (or his wife cover her hair) is in many ways symbolic of an Orthodoxy that is not particularly "visible" (except of course to those other Orthodox Jews who complain that modern Orthodoxy as practised by the Liebermans is no Orthodoxy at all).

And it seems that he has found in the doctrine of pikuakh nefesh a potentially open door, in that as a national leader, he can argue that protection of human life comes into play, at least potentially, in nearly everything he might do, any day of the week. And he shakes hands with women. How far any of this kind of questioning will reach a national audience is impossible to say, but one does wonder how much of "Judaism 101" can be suitably digested by the guys down at the local tavern - what will they make of it all, especially as it filters down through the national media? This could be a very interesting campaign (though I hope not in the sense of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times").
Albert S. Lindemann Sunday, August 20th, 2000.

OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE

from Phillip Benwell, National Chairman, Australian Monarchist League
"The Referendum campaign highlighted the casual attitude that many people, and in particular politicians, have to their Oath of Allegiance to The Crown. There was a time, not so many years ago, when takers of an Oath of Allegiance were sufficiently honourable and upstanding to consider it to be inviolate. Today we hear of such incredible incidents as politicians swearing fealty to The Queen with fingers crossed behind their backs, as though this makes any difference to the reality of the Oath they falsely swear.

Under the Australian Constitution, Federal Members of Parliament must swear Allegiance to The Queen. However when this practice is not constitutionally enshrined, such as in the Defence Forces and in Citizenship ceremonies, most have been dropped. There are varying Oaths of Allegiance to The Queen taken as a person assumes a particular Office under The Crown. Few are so stringent as the Oath taken by persons appointed as Privy Councillors: "bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty and shall assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions, pre-eminence and authorities granted to Her Majesty .... against all foreign princes, prelates, states or potentates."

The Sovereign in Council was the chief source of Executive power until the 18th Century when the system of Cabinet Government was developed. Today the chief function of the (Privy) Council is to advise the Sovereign to approve Orders in Council and to advise on the issue of Royal Proclamations. The Council also has independent functions such as being a final Court of Appeal. Australia no longer has any connection with the Privy Council and the last Australian recommended by the Government to the Council was Sir Zelman Cowen in 1981.

There are just eight Australian Privy Councillors remaining. These are: Doug Anthony (1971); Sir Zelman Cowen (1981); Malcolm Fraser (1976); Sir Harry Gibbes (1972); Sir John Gorton (1968); Ian Sinclair (1977); Sir Ninian Stephen (1979); Reginald Withers (1977) It will be forever to Australia's shame that four of these eight 'Right Honourable' persons actively campaigned to remove The Queen as Queen of Australia and one other (Sir Ninian Stephen) was listed as supporting a Republic.
The four republican crusaders are: Doug Anthony (1971); Sir Zelman Cowen (1981); Malcolm Fraser (1976); Ian Sinclair (1977)

I have petitioned the Privy Council's Judiciary Committee to dismiss these Privy Counsellors. A copy of my Petition is provided below. May I ask your readers to write to the Clerk to the Council, making reference to my letter dated August 23rd, 2000, and indicating support of my petition."

Write to: The Clerk of the Council, Privy Council Office, 2 Carlton Gardens, London SW1Y 5AA, ENGLAND
Dear Sir, The Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen sworn by all Privy Counsellors is a life long oath from which Privy Counsellors can only be released should they resign or should they be struck off.
The following Privy Counsellors living in Australia swore in their oath of Allegiance to: "bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty and shall assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions, pre-eminence and authorities granted to Her Majesty .... against all foreign princes, prelates, states or potentates." Ø Rt. Hon. Douglas Anthony Ø Rt. Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen Ø Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser Ø Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair

However in the Referendum on the retention of the Monarchy in Australia held on the November 6th, 1999, all the above campaigned to have Her Majesty removed as Sovereign of Australia. All subjects of Her Majesty and therefore all citizens of Australia can of course campaign and vote as the individuals concerned might wish - that is their right. However to remain a Privy Counsellor and to accept all the honour and privileges which pertain to that position while simultaneously attacking and undermining Her Majesty's position as Sovereign of Australia is clearly a misfeasance in public office.

Each of these Privy Counsellors could honourably have declared their political position and announced they could no longer hold to their oath and petitioned to be struck off. They would then have been free to campaign, without hypocrisy, against the Monarchy. By not doing so they have behaved reprehensively and made a mockery of their Oath and of their Allegiance to The Queen.

We accordingly petition the Council to cause a special reference to the Privy Council's Judiciary Committee per the Judicial Committee Act 1833 on the dismissal of the above named Privy Counsellors. Oaths which can be so easily ignored demean all allegiance, undermine the very being of our constitution and democracy and would demoralise Her Majesty's loyal subjects wherever they may be. Yours sincerely, etc.

NATIONAL WEEKEND

WEST AUSTRALIAN SUPPORTERS TAKE NOTE

NEW BOOK - "WATER'S FALL"