October 2006 Thought for the Week:
An American Armada: "As
I write, the U.S. Navy's Second Fleet has dispatched the aircraft carrier Eisenhower,
attended by a strike group of subordinate ships, from its Norfolk home to the
Persian Gulf, where it is due to arrive on Oct. 21. The strike group will link
up with other pre-positioned military assets, and could easily start a war with
Iran, making it part of the ultimate October Surprise.
Officers from the Eisenhower
have reached out to the government, military and media ever since the orders came,
protesting that they don't want to be used to initiate a war with Iran. They assert
that this is against their service oath to the Constitution, which clearly states
that only the Congress -- not the president -- can start a war. Their distress
signal has reached official circles, thanks to a September article by "The
Nation" magazine. It's a confirmation of a "New
Yorker" story in the spring, by Seymour Hersh, alleging that the Pentagon
was then putting the brakes on a Bush administration itching for a war with Iran."
Source: Captain Eric H. May, "Ghost Troop -- the Art of Info-War"
HOWARDISM AND TERROR LAWS
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The Victorian Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken,
has said that the US and Australian anti-terror laws, introduced in the wake of
9/11, were similar to Adolf Hitler's "civil controls" imposed in 1933. Hitler,
he said, burned the Reichstag then brought in the civil controls. Likewise the
Bush administration and the US military were involved in 9/11, presumably setting
"Today, people can be arrested without trial. You can disappear and
the authorities don't have to tell your relatives you have been arrested."
also said: "If our own security people were objective, they would have known that
there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All they do is just follow
what's led out to them, instead of doing the job they are supposed to do." (The
Australian 13/9/06, p.4)
been warned that their research into terrorism could contravene the anti-terrorist
laws. For example, Flinders University Sociologist Professor Riaz Hassan received
$829,000 from the Australian Research Council for interviewing the leadership
of various terrorist organisations.
Leaving aside why such research should
be funded to the tune of that amount and how there could be an objective scholarly
test and verification of the research results, the issue of concern here is that
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock warned Hassan that his research could violate
the anti-terrorist laws which preclude association with terrorist organisations.
Hassan is quoted as saying that he questioned the link between Islamic fundamentalism
and suicide bombing and terrorism.
Williams and Edwina MacDonald ("Fear of the Law on Terror," The Australian
20/9/06 p.30) express concern about the sedition laws which make it an offence
for a person to urge "another person to overthrow by force or violence" the Constitution,
a state, territory or commonwealth government or the authority of the commonwealth
government. A very limited defence is permitted, allowing someone to lawfully
advocate changing a law (hence allowing a republic debate) but the defence does
not cover general academic research. The government can also ban books on security
grounds even if they are not caught by the sedition laws by refusing classification.
Academics, even if they have not committed an offence can be taken into custody
by ASIO if there are reasonable grounds for believing their information will "substantially
assist the collection of intelligence in relation to a terrorism offence". If
the academic is believed to be likely to destroy information he/she may be detained
for up to a week.Williams and MacDonald rightly note
that all of this will have a "chilling effect" on the scholarly study of terrorism.
be a successful Constitutional challenge to this body of law? There is, after
all, no specific head of Constitutional power permitting the federal government
to deal with national security or even crime. But there are a number of powers
which in combination clearly yield such power, such as the power with respect
to the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth, and the control of these
forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Australian Commonwealth as well
as the vesting of the executive power of the Commonwealth in the Queen which permits
the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth
of Australia. The "implied nationhood power", plus external affairs, plus the
trade and commerce and postal power would seem to cover most situations. Just
to be sure the States transferred their own power on this matter to the Commonwealth.
The only way then a Constitutional challenge
could be mounted is if the anti-terrorist laws, or part of them, infringed the
Constitution in some other way, such as being inconsistent with the separation
of powers or against Chapter III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial
power of the Commonwealth in the High Court of Australia or in such federal courts
that the Parliament vests with federal jurisdiction. There is also the issue that
the restrictions an academic research may be in conflict with the implied freedom
of communication on political and governmental matters.
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR1, the High Court held
that there existed "a constitutional immunity from being imprisoned
to an order by a court". (at pp.28-29) Thus: "the involuntary detention of a citizen
in custody by the State is penal or punitive in character and, under our system
of government, exists only as an incident to the exclusively judicial function
of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt." (p.27) On this basis it can be argued
that the federal legislation allowing detention in the cases mentioned above would
violate this freedom from (non-judicially sanctioned) detention.
in later High Court cases testing the detention of illegal immigrants, such as
Al-Khateb v Goodwin (2004) 219 CLR S62, it was held that the Migration Act 1958
as amended, did not contravene Chapter III of the Constitution because the purpose
of the detention was not punitive but protective. It could be argued in reply
that the purpose of the anti-terrorist laws are purely protective and not punitive.
In reply to this argument it could be said
that recent High Court decisions only restrict the application of the principle
in Lim: detention by the Executive is not always penal or punitive in character.
The matter has to be decided in the context of the full circumstances of the case.
It will be a hard case to win, but there is a window of opportunity to challenge
the anti-terrorist laws on this ground.
One would have thought that the
very point of the implementation of anti-terrorist laws would be to protect traditional
God-given freedoms. That these laws directly undermine them and put us on the
road to a multiracial version of Germany in 1933, is a matter of key concern
SECTION 457 AND OTHER GOVERNMENT
by James Reed
As writers for
this movement predicted Section 457 visas, which have allowed Asian guest workers
to take jobs in Australia, is leading to the situation where there is "'No Check'
on Migrant Workers' Pay," (The Australian, 25/9/06 p.6).
Immigration Spokesman Tony Burke has said that visa holders were being paid below
minimum wages. Workers were also denied payment for public holidays. Migrant workers
are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because bosses can not only dismiss
them, but arrange for their deportation as well.
In 2005-2006 a total of 39,530
such visas were granted. The professional group getting the highest number of
Section 457 visas at present is doctors and nurses. Don't get sick!
RETURN TO SANITYby
Ian Wilson LL.B.
Here is an example of the mainstream media doing some good:
exposure of the high rates of convictions in the Northern Territory for lesser
charges than murder, by The Australian newspaper, looks like it will lead
to law reform.
"Reverse racism" had permitted drunkenness and reference to
Aboriginality to be partial defences for Aborigines, but not Whites, to murder
in the Northern Territory. Consequently only 12 Aborigines in the Territory have
been convicted of murder over the last 10 years but 62 have been convicted of
manslaughter, largely because of "reverse racism" rather than lack of evidence.
(The Australian, 3/10/06 p.1)
The Northern Territory has Australia's
highest murder rate per capita according to A Wilson in The Australian "with
the majority of homicides involving Aboriginal people, alcohol and domestic violence."
Amendments to the NT Criminal Code may lead to more murderers being convicted.
The move was criticised by an Aboriginal legal advocate who said that
the law was removing the need to prove intent from murder. Excuse me: as I see
the matter, the issue was not about intent, but permitting drunkenness and ethnicity/race
to be partial defences to murder. This is not so for Whites, and it shouldn't
be so, under the principle that "all are equal under the law" (the rule of law),
for Aborigines - or Chinese, Muslims, Eskimos or any other group in our society.
by Betty Luks
'Opinion Column' quoted Family First's Senator Steve Fielding as stating during
the Senate debate on media ownership 11 October, 2006, the "real concern ought
not be so much the concentration of ownership but the concentration of ideology:
the concentration of ideas. Where is the evidence that the key factor that determines
ideas is ownership? In other words, that owners dictate ideas? Out there in the
real world it's nothing like that."
"Consider the republic debate in 1999. With very few exceptions, every paper
and journalist across the country actively campaigned for a yes vote. What effect
did they have? Overwhelmingly Australians voted no."
I understand the Senator correctly? He dismisses the very idea that owners dictate
ideas and yet admits - "With very few exceptions, every paper and journalist across
the country actively campaigned for a yes vote!"
If the newspapers' owners
(and their employees) were as disinterested in ideas/policies as the good Senator
would have us believe, surely there would have been a more balanced presentation
of both sides of the monarchical/republic debate in those newspapers?
Senator, control of the media and control of the news (ideology and propaganda)
in this day and age are most certainly concentric. And
the Howard government has just passed legislation allowing the already 'elite
few' further centralisation and control.
for the defeat of the republican agenda at the Referendum, the good Senator doesn't
give credit where it is due. There were probably a number of reasons: first, Australians
have a healthy distrust of professional politicians 'who only wanted more power
to do us more good' and their 'gut instinct' warned them against the move to a
republic; second, there were many, many Australians who gave up their own time
and used their own money, to actively campaign for our traditional monarchical
system. Door knocking, leaflet letter boxing, Dr. David Mitchell's audio tape
and printed address went out in the thousands.
Family First Senator Fielding voted for the government's bill. Does his Christian
faith not have anything to say to him about the dangers of the concentration of
powers, the essential need for checks and balances and the division and separation
by James Reed
a one-time political adviser to Richard Nixon has recently published a book entitled
"Worse Than Watergate". Bush lied to Congress about issues of Iraq having weapons
of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's alleged al-Qaeda connections.
has said, according to Impact magazine (June/July 2006, p.15):
you lie about the need to go to war and commit the nation's blood and treasure
to victory, you are committing the highest crime against the nation. By rights
Bush should be impeached and disgraced."
Francis Fukuyama is about to release a book entitled "America at the Crossroads:
Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy". Fukuyama is but one of a number
of leading "neocon" intellectuals who are seeing the neoconservative "legacy"
as fatally flawed.
What kept them so long!
AIDE SAYS WHITE HOUSE MOCKED EVANGELICALS
Why is the following news not so surprising? When did politicians
not use the gullible for their own grubby ends?
In this case, it is the evangelicals'
belief that they can 'fast forward' the return of Christ by supporting Israel's
territorial ambitions - no matter how barbaric, ruthless or destructive are the
means used to achieve the objective.
The actions of the disciple Judas
come to mind. Judas' problem was he thought Jesus' way of introducing the new
world order - through changing man and his values from within, by insisting that
the individual person was more important than all the systems put together, etc
- was the wrong way to go about it. Why Jesus' way could take an eternity! Hence,
over two thousand years ago, Judas also plotted to 'fast forward' his conception
of a new world order.
"A former senior presidential aide has accused the Bush
administration of using evangelical Christians to win votes but then privately
ridiculing them once in office. The allegations by David Kuo, the former deputy
director of the White House office of faith- based initiatives, come at a devastating
time, when the administration is counting on 'born-again' Christians to vote in
sufficient numbers to save the Republicans' hold on Congress in the November elections.
In a book entitled "Tempting Faith: an Inside Story of Political Seduction,"
Mr Kuo portrays the Bush White House's commitment to evangelical causes as little
more than a cynical façade designed to win votes."
THE WATER ISSUE AND THOSE WHO ARE
by Betty Luks
We are constantly
being bombarded with the news of the drought Australia is experiencing and how
water should be more and more 'controlled'.
carefully to the 'news' bombarding you:
You will read and see how dry
is the land from lack of rain. The next instant you will hear such groups as the
'Greenies' call for more controls on the part of governments.
for the present, but pray tell me, when are we going to hear that those authorities
responsible for water supplies in this country are bringing other supplies on
Where has the money for the headworks
Toowoomba developer Clive Berghofer asked just such a question during
the campaign prior to the Referendum on Toowoomba accepting treated sewage as
their drinking water:
"What has happened to all the water headworks charges
I and other developers have been paying over the years? I was led to believe that
these costs, which are charged on every block I developed, were to be used by
Council to fund permanent water infrastructure such as dams." (Water Poll,
July 2006 p.8)
Mr. Berghofer has contributed
millions of dollars to the Toowoomba Council for water headworks and he is now
asking what happened to the money.
serious, Australians must start asking why there are billions of dollars for a
barbaric war in Iraq and for sticking our nose into other nations' affairs, to
the tune of billions of dollars annually, but no money to develop additional supplies
of water for Australians.
The people must make every effort to pin their
politicians down to accountability on this absolutely basic need. WE PAY THEM
and expect them to DO THEIR JOB! In a drought prone land water should be one of
their first priorities.
FIGURESMelbourne's Herald Sun 11/10/06,
has given us the news of the latest rise in bankruptcies in this country. Bankruptcies
in Australia jumped almost 10 per cent in the past year. There were 6076 bankruptcies
in the September quarter - up 9.9 per cent on last year.
The figures were
up 6.5 per cent on the previous quarter. Total insolvency, including new debt
and personal insolvency agreements, rose 13.9 per cent to 7642.
DRIVE FOR MULTI-FAITH BRITAIN DEEPENS
RIFT SAYS CHURCH
Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The
Sunday Telegraph, 8/10/06:
The Church of England has launched an astonishing
attack on the Government's drive to turn Britain into a multi-faith society. In
a wide-ranging condemnation of policy, it says that the attempt to make minority
"faith" communities more integrated has backfired, leaving society "more separated
than ever before". The criticisms are made in a confidential Church document,
leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, that challenges the "widespread description" of
Britain as a multi-faith society and even calls for the term "multi-faith" to
The Church says 'privileged attention' has been given
to the Islamic faith It claims that divisions between communities have been deepened
by the Government's "schizophrenic" approach to tackling multiculturalism. While
trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given "privileged attention"
to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities.
Written by Guy Wilkinson, the interfaith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Dr Rowan Williams, the paper says that the Church of England has been sidelined.
Instead, "preferential" treatment has been afforded to the Muslim community despite
the fact that it makes up only three per cent of the population. Britain remains
overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith
society suggest a hidden agenda, it says.
The leaked report follows a
week of tension in which a Muslim policeman was excused armed guard duty at the
Israeli embassy in London, Asian and white youths clashed in Windsor, and Jack
Straw suggested that Muslim women should not wear the full veil across the face
in public. The report lists a number of moves made by the Government since the
London bombings in July last year to win favour with Muslim communities. These
include "using public funds" to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation
on forced marriage and encouraging financial arrangements to comply with Islamic
requirements. These efforts have undermined its interfaith agenda and produced
no "noticeable positive impact on community cohesion", the Church document says.
one might argue that disaffection and separation is now greater than ever, with
Muslim communities withdrawing further into a sense of victimhood, and other faith
communities seriously concerned that the Government has given signals that appear
to encourage the notion of a privileged relationship with sections of the Muslim
Insiders at the House of Bishops meeting last week, where the
briefing paper was "well received", say it marks a radical departure from the
Church's usually diplomatic relations with the Government on the multi-faith issue.
One bishop said it was the first time the Church had launched such a defence of
the country's Christian heritage.
The paper, entitled "Cohesion and Integration
- A briefing note for the House [of Bishops]," argues that the effort invested
in trying to integrate Muslims since the London bombings has had no positive impact
on community relations and that Ruth Kelly's controversial Commission on Cohesion
and Integration seems doomed to fail.
It can also be revealed that the archbishop
met Miss Kelly, the Communities Secretary, last month to discuss how the Church
of England could contribute. Bishops are dismayed that no Christian denomination
is represented on the commission. The bishops' document questions how effective
it will be and says the focus for solving the problem should not be placed on
one particular minority but "with the 'majority' communities and in the core culture".
There is an agenda:
to faith, there has been a divided, almost schizophrenic approach," the briefing
paper says. The Government was misguided in "scapegoating the Muslim community
as the source of the problem at the same time as believing that they should be
uniquely responsible for solutions".
on: "The contribution of the Church of England in particular and of Christianity
in general to the underlying culture remains very substantial."
The 2001 census
showed that 72 per cent of Britons describe themselves as Christian. "It could
certainly be argued that there is an agenda behind a claim that a five per cent
adherence to 'other faiths' makes for a multi-faith society," says the document.
Mr Wilkinson, who was an archdeacon in Bradford during the riots of 2001, says
the Government is wrong to see faith as the cause of a divided society.
THE SOCIAL CREDIT (FAITH, TRUST) FAST DWINDLING
is no surprise to read ("Ethnic diversity 'breeds distrust'" The Australian,
10/10/06). Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has delayed releasing the
results of his research into the effects of 'ethnic diversity' within communities.
While the research was carried out in the US he believes that its findings are
likely to be mirrored in other countries.
Here is another academic in his
proverbial white tower who believes the problems are with the environment rather
than with trying to mix up the cultures and races.
His answer? Apparently
fearing that his research would be used to justify clamping down on immigration
and ethnic diversity, he stressed that trends "have been socially constructed,
and can be socially reconstructed". For him, all that is needed is a speed up
of the process! That is, push change along more rapidly.
highly recommend our readers purchase a set of the audio tapes from the National
Seminar - it is this very subject of the Social Credit and Discredit that
is dealt with by Donald Martin from the UK in his paper "The Christian Basis of
AUDIO TAPES: A full set
of the Papers and Toasts from the National Weekend on Audio Tape are available
for just $25.00 posted from Mayo Tapes, Box 6, Hahndorf, SA.5245 -- THEY ARE HIGHLY
Send for your full set today. But don't keep the good news
to yourself, please ensure you hand them around for others to hear the speakers.