Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

21 October 1994. Thought for the Week: "…a comprehensive and imposed Utopia ignores the fundamental uniqueness of the individual - the constant increase of tastes and aptitude with cultural progress. It is most unfortunate that the Christian Churches pay far too little attention to the primary message of the New Testament, which stresses this uniqueness."


During his recent visit to Western Australia, Advisory National Director Eric Butler learned that the West Australian Government was surprised that the Victorian Kennett Government was apparently not taking the High Court Mabo decision and the Keating Government's Native Title legislation very seriously, in spite of the fact that they were "sitting on a time bomb". That time bomb has now exploded with a group describing themselves as the Yorta Yorta people making far-reaching demands over a large area of Northern Victoria and the Southern Riverina.

As we have previously observed, the Keating Government's Native Title legislation is going to prove most lucrative for the lawyers. The Yorta Yorta people are represented by the well-known Melbourne legal firm in which Mr. Mark Leibler is a member. As yet the Melbourne metropolitan media has paid little or no attention to developments, which are causing widespread concern throughout the area affected by the Yorta Yorta claims. But the major daily paper in the area, The News, Shepparton, has provided extensive coverage of the far-reaching implications of the issue. The News has reported that it was excluded from the initial hearings, but had managed to obtain a copy of the document dealing with the Yorta Yorta claims, the most important being control of water. It is not surprising that this claim is causing growing fears among people in one of Australia's biggest irrigation areas.

In its issue of September 29th The News reported that following the second day of mediation in the Shepparton Town Hall, "Fears concerning the Native Title mediation process deepened yesterday. A number of parties to the mediation expressed concern to The News about a 'huge imbalance' in legal representation at the mediation. Some parties claimed that the Yorta Yorta were represented with a battery of senior and junior lawyers and the State Government also had senior lawyers present, while many local landowners and other people with an interest in the claim were representing themselves. The Yorta Yorta and the State Government legal representatives were publicly funded.

Expressing disgust at the process, one grazier said, 'I thought the idea of mediation was that it would be informal and the parties equal. There's nothing equal about this.' The News reported that some people said they had been "alternatively seduced and badgered" by legal counsel for the Yorta Yorta, who have said that unless mediation is successful the case goes to the Federal Court and will cost landowners a lot of money.

One of the most disturbing features of the Keating Government's Native Title legislation is that it is already producing an anti-Aboriginal backlash. We deplore all manifestations of violence. Ironically, the very people who keep charging the League of Rights with promoting violence are guilty of promoting a policy, which is starting to fragment Australia.


by Eric D. Butler
There are few observers of the American political scene who give President Clinton any chance of avoiding a massive electoral defeat in the coming American elections. But, either by accident or design, two recent foreign policy initiatives may help to minimise electoral losses. While the American intervention in Haiti was not welcomed enthusiastically by the American people, the massive military moves to "send a message" to Saddam Hussein could prove more successful.

There was little evidence to suggest that the military dictators in Haiti presented any threat to American interests. And if the American policy makers are so keen to impose "democracy" in Haiti, there are numerous countries around the world, which have totalitarian regimes as ruthless as that, which operated in Haiti. And there are grave doubts that the imposition of "democracy" in Haiti is going to solve the basic problems afflicting that country. But what about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, a tyrant built up by propaganda to be far worse than even Hitler?

Prime Minister Paul Keating has demonstrated his appalling ignorance of Middle East realities by expressing the view that he could not understand why the Americans and their allies did not "finish Hussein off' when they had the opportunity to do so. As even Malcolm Fraser has pointed out, the complete destruction of Saddam Hussein would have had devastating effects right throughout the Middle East. The removal of Saddam Hussein would have removed a major barrier to the threatened expansion of the dreaded Islamic fundamentalism.

It must never be forgotten that Saddam Hussein was financed and armed by the West as he sought to destroy Iran. He was trapped into an invasion of Kuwait which allegedly was going to "restore democracy" in a part of the Middle East, which had never known even a semblance of democracy. And nothing much has changed since Saddam was defeated militarily.

Clinton's dramatic build up of American military power in the Middle East is allegedly in response to Saddam Hussein's new threat to Kuwait, in an attempt to force an end to the economic sanctions which have badly damaged the Iraq economy. But how much truth is there in these claims? Hysterical reports have charged that Saddam Hussein has moved massive military forces towards Kuwait. But The Age of October 11th carried a report, filed in Kuwait, which stated that a U.N. official who flew along the entire Iraq-Kuwait border could find no evidence of massed Iraqi troop movements. The U.N. official said that there were large numbers of tents housing stateless Arabs who had fled from Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion. Few have been allowed back into Kuwait.

Whatever the truth about Saddam Hussein's tactics, it is now clear that Clinton's "advisers" have exaggerated the alleged new threat to Kuwait to justify a massive American military build-up. Such a move may gain Clinton a few votes in November, but can only add to the instability throughout the whole Islamic world. That world is being increasingly established by the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism.


Such is the state of modern totalitarian party politics that it is automatically assumed that once a candidate is nominated for a "safe" electorate, he will be automatically elected to parliament by a docile electorate. And so the mass media seeks to persuade the electors of the Federal electorate of Kooyong that they have no alternative but to elect Liberal candidate Petro Georgiou. Liberal leader Alexander Downer naturally takes it for granted that Georgiou will be elected at the coming by-election, claiming that this will result in the injection of a greater "professionalism" in the Federal Liberal Party. Downer also claimed that the election of Petro Georgiou would bring "ethnic diversity" to Federal Parliament.

It has been left to West Australian backbench Labor Member, Mr. Graeme Campbell, to provide information concerning Georgiou, which is not generally known. In a statement, which appeared in The West Australian of October 10th, Campbell charges that Georgiou was the architect of multiculturalism in Australia. He said that Georgiou had laid the groundwork for the manipulation of ethnic minorities using public money.

Campbell said that while Georgiou may not be well known to the Australian public, he was well known in political back rooms. "He is one of the chief architects of multiculturalism as a tool of political patronage and manipulation in Australia. It was Mr. Georgiou who, as an adviser to Malcolm Fraser and first head of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, pioneered the approach of using public funds to buy the political support of selected ethnic groups."

Georgiou was not only a speechwriter for Malcolm Fraser, but also worked for former Liberal leaders Andrew Peacock and John Hewson. He was a political strategist for Dr. Hewson during the 1993 election campaign. With the Labor Party deciding not to contest the Kooyong by-election, the way is open for a good Independent candidate - if one can be found - to contest the multiculturalism of a Liberal Party increasingly divorced from its roots.


At a meeting of the Young National Party held in Melbourne on October 7th, a resolution was passed urging Federal National party Members and Senators who did not hold Ministerial Responsibilities to oppose the "gay" legislation concerning Tasmania. The Young Nationals warned that the Federal Coalition decision not to oppose the Government's legislation "appears to be an attempt to win support in some marginal Sydney and Melbourne seats, but could alienate voters in the predominantly National held rural seats. If the Coalition has to rely only on the 'gay vote' to get us across the line at the next election, then we don't deserve to win." It is encouraging to note such healthy sentiments.


Suburban Australians are only now beginning to understand the magnitude of a rural crisis that intensifies daily. Some townships are now without drinking water, and feed grain is now being imported from the U.S.A. and Canada for the first time since World War I. As the full magnitude of the crisis unfolds in the next year, food prices are certain to escalate, and the unthinkable may result: food shortages in Australia. Such problems, however, would be of a temporary nature, if policies were now developed to ensure that such disasters never recur. The first policy objective must be to ensure that a viable rural community does survive the present crisis. Unless realistic financial policies are adopted, even this appears doubtful. It is impossible to place enough stress on the necessity for a financial policy that matches the unique needs of rural Australia: long-term, low interest credit.

Other emergency measures are required, such as a moratorium on debt, at least while rural areas are declared drought afflicted. Perhaps the first tentative step in this direction has been taken, with the banks' consent to mediation between banks and farm mortgages. It is clearly useless praying for rain, and turning a blind eye to some of the most atrocious forms of usury that are now destroying rural Australia.


by David Thompson
There are three issues that surround the High Court decision last week, in which it found that the Constitution contains the right to publish information critical of politicians, political candidates and government, under certain conditions. The first issue is where that right is to be found in the written Constitution, to which the Court refers. As Michael Cooper, Professor of Law at the Australian National University, wrote: "The constitutional principles that produced these results are not easily visible to the naked eye…"

It is notable that the conservative Justice Dawson, a dissenter in the decision, produced a strong warning: that the extension of constitutional freedom to communication would be "a gigantic leap away" from established precedent, and would be based on "personal preconceptions of what the Constitution should, rather than does, contain. It would be wrong to make that leap".
As Mr. Hugh Morgan, of Western Mining, commented over the Court's Mabo ruling, if the Court is not content to stick to what the Constitution actually says and means, then there is no certainty in law in the future.

The history of High Court decisions over the last 20 years has been, in general, to give effect to the further centralisation of power against the spirit of the constitution, written or unwritten. The landmark Tasmanian Dams decision, for example, opened the way for gross abuse of the "external affairs" power that one former High Court judge, and later Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephen, now appears to regret.


from The Age, October 12th
It didn't take long! Only 10 years ago 'living off the earnings of prostitution' was a serious offence. Now shares in a legal multi-million-dollar Melbourne brothel are likely to be listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (The Age, 6/10) with a projected return on investment of 15%. "When the Victorian Government legalised prostitution in 1984 concerns were expressed about links between brothel operators and organised crime. "The Government promised a licensing scheme to prevent such links, but the scheme has never been put into operation. The Victorian Neave Inquiry into prostitution did not investigate whether large brothels had been funded by the proceeds of organised crime.

"Prostitution is not a victimless crime. As the Neave Inquiry concluded, prostitution is a form of sexual exploitation. Many prostitutes have been victims of previous sexual abuse. Australians are even encouraging the use of our foreign aid to assist the Thai Government to help Thai prostitutes leave the industry.

"If the listing committee of the Australian Stock Exchange decides that it has no moral obligation to consider any issues other than legality, and financial viability, and agrees to list the brothel, company directors may well consider that, in view of their legal obligation to obtain the best possible return on investors' funds, they should invest in it. If shares are purchased by institutions such as banks, life offices, and superannuation funds, we will have a situation where ordinary investors in these institutions may well be benefiting from the profits generated by prostitutes.

"The need for ethical investment policies has never been greater, if individual investors do not wish to find themselves unwillingly 'living off the earnings of prostitution'." (Geoffrey D. Francis, Doncaster East, Vic.)


from The Australian, October 12th
Oh dear, a high profile public figure comes out in support of the monarchy and is immediately under attack. "It seems that the only culture and heritage one is not allowed to be proud of in this country, in these enlightened days, is the British. While Mr. Keating is free to ridicule and denigrate anything British, his henchmen in the A.B.C. are quick to pounce on anyone who takes an opposing view: witness John Lombard's 'impartial' breaking of the story on The World at Noon, 7/10.
Oh for the days when news readers did just that, instead of promoting government policy at every opportunity.
"Sorry Dame Joan, you are not free to voice your opinion anymore, the Irish-Catholic lobby and a motley assortment of other minority groups have seen to that." (Cameron Plastow, Coconut Grove, N.T.)

"It looks as though Dame Joan will now add the 'Tunstall Cross' to her other honours, for daring to exert her right (politically incorrect) free speech." (C.L. Williams, Hornsby, N.S.W.)

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159