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

9 May 2014 Thought for the Week:
The Creation of Credit - Professor Copland's criticism appears to narrow down to a complaint that I have said that the cash in the banks is constant even though the amount of credit money varies. I find it difficult to reconcile this criticism with the assumption that Professor Copland has understood the simple mathematical reasoning which is used, and I think it is beyond question that he is confusing two mutually irrelevant matters. I have, of course, never said that the cash (by which in Great Britain is meant not merely "till" money, but deposits of the Joint Stock Banks with the Bank of England) is constant in amount no matter what may be the amount of deposits which the banks acquire as the result of creating loans. The ratio of cash to loans, which is generally assumed to be about 1-10, but has at times dropped to 1-15, is simply a result of an actuarial estimate of the percentage of "till" money in a given country which is required to meet the ordinary habits of the population. On August 4th, 1914, as a result of a panic, the population of Great Britain suddenly demanded cash for an unusual proportion of its deposits, with the result that, in the ordinary meaning of the word, all the banks became bankrupt simultaneously. When the depositors had drawn out all the cash, about eight hundred millions of deposits remained, which were only satisfied by printing Treasury notes. That situation was a proof, if any proof was needed, of the proposition with which the mathematical proof criticised by Professor Copland is concerned. This merely demonstrates that every bank loan creates a deposit… What Professor Copland is saying is that, while every bank loan creates a deposit, the banks do not exercise this power beyond a certain point because they may become short of cash, which is perfectly true, but they do not normally become short of cash until they have created, say, nine new pounds for each original pound deposited by the public, although they might, as in 1914, become short of cash at any time…

The second method, and probably the method by which most modern financing is done, under cover of a smoke screen provided by comparatively small subscriptions from the public, is that some financial institution actually creates the money, taking debentures on the new factories as security. Ethically, there is every difference between money created by a stroke of the pen and money acquired as the result of years of effort…

The new money or credit is claimed by the financial institution as its property, and therefore when it is lent creates a debt against the public. At the same time, being distributed in advance of consumable goods, it tends towards true inflation. The debt differs in nature from the debt created by private finance in exactly the same way that a debt to foreigners differs from an internal debt - its repayment actually takes money out of the country. If a rise of prices has occurred, it is repaid twice over, once in increased prices and again on redemption. Secondly, there is no provision in this method of financing for the money required to pay the interest on the debentures, which, in fact, can only be paid, if it is paid, by the issue of fresh money to pay it, which, under existing circumstances, comes from the same source, that is to say, the financial system. From this point of view, it is the difference between usury and profit - a difference clearly drawn in the Middle Ages. (emphasis added)
Taken from “The New and The Old Economics” by C.H. Douglas (first published 1932)


THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF MONEY

by James Reed
Social Crediters and all take note – the Bank of England’s Quarterly Bulletin has an article telling us that banks create money/credit out of nothing. For the purposes of 'the record' let us preserve this. The article is by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate and the reference is : “Money in the Modern Economy : An Introduction,” (Quarterly Bulletin, Q1, 2014).

Now for the important passages : “The vast majority of money held by the public takes the form of bank deposits. But where the stock of bank deposits comes from is often misunderstood. One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households…Savings does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money.” Thus it is the act of lending itself which creates deposits, the reverse, the authors note, of that typically portrayed in text books.

The article goes on to explain in detail how lending creates deposits. Commercial banks create deposits by making new loans. Loans are not usually in the form of masses of banknotes, but rather the commercial bank credits its borrower’s bank account with a bank deposit the size of the loan.

This creates new money which has been called “fountain pen money,” but today “key board money” would be more appropriate. “This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money… Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that can be lent out.”

There are limits on banks about the amount of credit that can be created from regulatory policy (capital adequacy ratios) to steps banks may take to offset the risks associated with making additional loans. Nevertheless, this article clearly confirms the tenet of Social Credit, that commercial banks create money ex nihilo. This is worth noting because some of the media critics believe that banks lend out deposits only and criticise us as those “funny money” people.

Anzac March 2014
Anzac Day march in Sydney 25 April 2014: ABC News


THE THREEFOLD COMMONWEALTH of RUDOLF STEINER, SOCIAL CREDIT & Philippe Mairet’s Guild Organisations

by James Reed
Rudolf Steiner published “The Threefold Commonwealth” in German in 1919 and the book was translated into English and published by George Allen and Unwin in 1920 as “The Threefold State: The True Aspect of the Social Question”. This book, at the time, was influential on social crediters and C.H. Douglas favourably referred to the book in his 1922 book, “The Control and Distribution of Production”. Steiner’s idea of the Threefold Commonwealth was given a detailed discussion by a leading social crediter of the time, Philippe Mairet in three articles published in The New Age in 1925. Along with this Steiner influenced artists such as Joseph Beuys (1921-1986), who has been viewed as a “Pioneer of a Radical Ecology,” as a recent article published in The Social Artist (Spring 2014, originally published in 1992) by David Adams. Beuys saw the modern corporate capitalist economy as destructive of life forces, and in particular he saw a complicity between money-power and government.

He drew inspiration from Steiner’s “three fold social order”, separating the economy, legislative politic/government and culture. At present, these three spheres emerge into one oppressive Steamroller, crushing all opposition in its relentless pursuit of profit. Steiner’s brilliant insight was that the cultural/spiritual, political and economic spheres of the State, need to be separate. Thus in education, learned faculties should control it, not the State that manipulates it for political agendas. Today this is clearly seen in the nature of Australian universities which are essentially, through student marketing, agents of Asianisation and migration. Likewise with the separation of the economic and political spheres where interest groups with vast economic power dictate our laws.

The good society aims to keep the cultural/spiritual, political and economic spheres distinct, and thus further decentralise power. Steiner has much more to say about economic organisation than I can summarise here, or even know, but this basic insight itself is of great power. Beuys realised this and in his later work expressed the idea that the self-determination of people was the well of all substantial social change. This is something that Eric Butler also taught us and serves as the basis of League actionism : grass roots – or no roots!


THE BITTER AFTER-TASTE OF THAT BOTTLE OF WINE

by James Reed
Reading the media comments about former premier of NSW, Barry O’Farrell, over the wine ‘incident’, one should surely conclude that telling the truth to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption does not rank highly. The media argument is that it is only a bottle of wine, and there was no suggestion of corrupt conduct. Yes, but O’Farrell had not only vehemently denied receiving the expensive wine, but he said that he had checked with his wife about this which confirmed his “no”.

However, a note was tendered in evidence that he had received the wine, worth $2,978:99. The note was fairly conclusive evidence being in his handwriting. It thanked the Australian Water Holding’s chief executive for the wine. This group had been lobbying for government business.

Perhaps those in the media are too used to receiving such gifts. The fact is that anyone not suffering from Alzheimer’s disease would surely remember such a gift. O’Farrell, even if he did have a memory lapse could at least have expressed this. Thus he was right to resign. I hope many more pollies will also be weeded out.


THE GREAT ISRAEL LOBBY DEBATE

by Peter Ewer
The Israel lobby in Australia have strongly responded to Bob Carr’s claim that there is, well, an Israel Lobby in Australia, which influenced Julia Gillard so much that Middle East policy for Australia was essentially sub-contracted out to them. Shockingly, Carr went on to say that a number of Australian parliamentarians, some Jewish, did not have Australia’s interests at heart, but put Israel first. (e.g., The Weekend Australian 19-20 April 2014 p.20)

This has led to “debates” that Carr may be a “bigot” (The Weekend Australian 19-20 April, p.14) – whatever that now means. Carr’s position on Israel has been said to be “somewhat unhinged”. Carr’s position has also been said to have unintentionally encouraged extremists, who as we all know are not entitled to have a political view or rights because their beliefs make them political nothings. And whilst Carr criticises Israel where is his critique of say, North Korea? Point taken. And, for that matter, Carr is silent on the question of the Asia lobby and the China lobby. Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Howard, Keating, Fraser, Whitlam and maybe beyond, seem to have been unduly influenced by it. Speak up on this one, Bob!

Now the “debate” may heat up further as former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans, who launched Bob Carr’s book, agreed with Carr on the issue of Julia Gillard’s Middle East policy. Gillard’s “no” vote proposal on Palestinian observer status would have been the worst Australian foreign policy for a generation Evans has said. (The Australian 15 April, 2014 p.4) It will be interesting to see where this leads, or whether the steam has already gone out of the issue. Could the Race Vilification laws be used against Carr?


DEFINING THE ‘ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ OF SOCIAL CREDIT

by Wallace Klinck, Canada
The term “Economic Democracy”, can be confused with the distorted socialist conception of labour ownership and administration of the means of production. Social Credit uses the term in a very different manner insofar as it places the control of production policy in the hands of the consumer, i.e., on the consumption side rather than on the production side of the economic equation. Social Credit discusses the “social credit” which arises from the association of persons within society as an informal functioning or operational aggregate of individuals interacting freely in a manner that generates “increments of association” which enhance the ability, or “real credit” of society (meaning all humans in association) to provide goods and services “as, when and where required (or desired)” by the individuals comprising society. Economic democracy, from a Social Credit perspective, involves the ability of consumers to direct production policy through expression of their preferences through their “money vote” and not through administration.

Douglas claimed, with ultimate realism, that actual administration of production must be, in final analysis, essentially pyramidal, which form does not necessarily preclude consultative engagement. The democratic control of production itself, by majority vote, would be chaotic and ineffective.

The true and realistic democratic sanction lies in the ability of the consumer to determine the fate of the production unit by his or her acceptance or rejection of its product. Failure to recognize this reality is the rock upon which socialism and all “work-oriented” policies founder in the very nature of things. Thus the term “Social Credit” is the entirely precise and appropriate term to describe C. H. Douglas’s ideas, and from the “social credit”, properly conceived and utilized, society would increasingly, through growing economic independence, realize genuine “economic democracy” realistically defined. Essential to this concept of democracy is the right of the individual to “choose or refuse, without penalty, one thing at a time.”

Unfortunately “our American brethren” and “others" are misled by their own misconceptions (externally imposed and insinuated in their psyches by the puritanical Powers which would control them), and it is the task of Social Credit to assist them in overcoming their philosophical errors.


WHEN WHITES ARE A MINORITY

by Brian Simpson
M.A. Craig and J.A. Richeson in their academic paper published in Psychological Science Online have a depressing (for us) title: “On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat from the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology.” The paper begins by noting that the US Census Bureau has projected that racial minority groups will constitute the majority in the US by 2042, not 2050 as previously thought. These social scientists investigated whether information about being not even “a dispossessed majority” but a majority-now-minority leads to a greater endorsement of conservative political ideology. Surprise, surprise, they found that it did.

Further they found that white people were only concerned about whites becoming a minority when multiracialism was all round them. So whites in more remote rural settlements were not as concerned. The sociologists themselves are concerned about making these fears of white Americans disappear, so, well, so white Americans can disappear into the multiracial wonderland. The idea is to convince whites that their social status will not change. As the social status clearly does change in white minority societies (e.g., South Africa), the Establishment, for as long as it exists, will have a difficult time with that one.

The take-home lesson for us, of such research, is that the racial demographic issue is of importance for winning people over to understand just what is happening. Most people don’t even know what is happening. When did you last write to your parliamentary representative expressing your great concerns on this matter?


FREE TRADE AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

by James Reed
Long-term youth unemployment in Australia has tripled since 2008. In 2008 there were 19,500 long-term unemployed people in Australia, reaching 56,800 in 2014. The Australian governments respond to this problem by continuing a massive influx of permanent and temporary migrant workers as well as migrants from the international marketing system. Thus, in 2014 net overseas migration was a disgraceful 240,000 people. Each of these people cost Australia at least $200,000 in infrastructure costs giving us a bill of $48 billion, about equal to the cost of the old age pension.

Then there are over one million foreigners here on temporary visas which permits them to take Aussie jobs. Very few of them will go home; they will almost all be permitted to stay. Free trade agreements will make a terrible situation for our youth even worse because these agreements will see an expansion in the temporary migrant programme. Just around the corner will be open Asian migration to Australia – that is as in the EU, no restriction on migration if you are from Asia.

In the long term we will all be displaced and dispossessed in the name of transnational profits, unless people organise to fight these forces of globalism and darkness. (This article has used figures to be found at Kelvin Thomson’s blog here. . . , the only decent federal polly I can think of.)


OH LORD… HOW LONG MUST THE PEOPLE SUFFER THEM?

The following excerpts are from a letter published on Larry Pickering’s Post
To me, the clear message is - politicians do not serve their people – they ultimately ensure the People serve their interests – and for some privileged ones, for life! The People need to know about Social Credit – and how to keep a tight rein on politicians.

Subject: Our Former Prime Ministers Are Living the Highlife
The sad reality is that Australia is made up of three types of people. Workers. Bludgers. Pensioners… We expect the pensioners to be looked after in this country. We don't want to see elderly people homeless and destitute in Australia. And unlike Italy and Japan - we don't have a culture of always looking after our senior citizens.

I have an immediate idea that could claw back quite a few millions. Means test the politicians for a start! Let's take a few luminaries who really don't deserve the largesse we give them. The wastage in this area alone is horrendous and is a massive burden on the taxpayer. Moreover, is it justified? Do we get any value for money? The latest revelation that both Rudd and Gillard get a $200,000 salary for the rest of their natural lives plus enormous travel allowances, office accommodation and staffing costs is an insult given that neither was poor to start with and both now have 'jobs'. They are young enough to work. Younger than me! If I have to keep working until I am 70 plus, why don't they?

A study in 2010 by the Daily Telegraph revealed that Mr Rudd, at 52, a young ex-prime minister, will receive well in excess of $20 million worth of allowances if he lives to 85. This is despite the fact he had served just 2 1/2 years as P.M. at that point. This of course has altered even more dramatically with his additional tenure.

Then there are a host of other benefits - the airline gold pass, which entitles ex-PMs up to 40 business class flights a year. That's almost 1 a week! If Mr Rudd takes 30 flights annually it will cost the taxpayer more than $60,000 a year. And trust me, nobody loves flying more than Kevin Rudd! Not even bloody Sea Gulls!

Once retired, he is entitled to his own office, worth about $120,000 a year in Brisbane for the rest of his life and four staff, which political insiders say will cost $240,000 a year. What? The Rudd's new multi-million home doesn't have room for a home office?

Mr Rudd would also be entitled to the lease of a car worth up to $55,000 for the rest of his life. Leasing experts say this would be worth $1000 to 1500 a month. And Mr Rudd will receive all of these benefits on top of his wife's estimated $210 million fortune!

Surely this good luck is the result of considerable 'Government' work being put her way and rules them out of any more wanton generosity from the Australian people.

Add to this, Gillard. This former communist who has now embraced the capitalist ideal with both arms and not a whimper of complaint I notice. She has already ditched the brick veneer in Altona for a swanky pool-side ponderosa in leafy Adelaide no doubt made possible by a $500,000 salary and ongoing perks.

My point is this. I have had to make cuts to my life because things change. The expensive office I used to lease in Melbourne is gone because, with the internet I can now work from home. I now use consultants rather than employ up to 10 people which today would send me broke. I now drive a ute because it is cheaper to register and insure. Cost cutting measures made to ensure I can continue to work in a country that is very much prejudiced against senior aged workers.

Why is it then that we continue to provide multiple millions to give these buggers swanky offices to run their now quite irrelevant lives from? I mean what has Hawke's or Keating's offices churned out in the past few years that justifies these silly extravagances? Books about them? Utterances from them? Both could be made from their kitchen tables surely! Does an Ex-PM really need an office that costs up to $14,000 a month? They have large homes with room for an office. None lives in a 'bed-sit'. None even knows what a 'bed-sit' is! Maybe they should become pensioners and find out.

Just so I am being even handed here - according to the 2010 figures Keating was in fact the most frugal as he keeps staffing costs low by engaging people on a part-time and ad hoc basis. Each former PM is entitled to at least two staff, including a senior private secretary, and the annual wages bill of each is nearly $300,000. Mr Keating saves about $70,000 a year by using staff as he needs them instead of full time appointees. However, new figures have come to light revealing that in the seven months after leaving office, Mr Howard spent $109,892 on limousine services, evenly split between the government Comcar service and private hire cars. Mr Howard's office rental was the highest at $13,853 a month, closely followed by former PM Malcolm Fraser, whose 101 Collins St office in Melbourne costs taxpayers $12,122 a month.

Former Labor PMs Whitlam and Hawke have offices on adjacent floors in Sydney's Potts Point at 100 William St. The monthly cost for each is $7464 and $7898 respectively. Mr Keating's office is also in Potts Point, in Manning St, and costs slightly less at $7434 a month. The former PMs also have their home and mobile phone bills paid by taxpayers, as well as unlimited allowances for publications, a private self-drive car, and air fares for them and their spouse. (Which really irks in the case of Therese Rein who has $210 million in the bank …!) These are in addition to their pensions under the generous former Parliamentary superannuation scheme, which gives them a pension INDEXED TO CURRENT MPs’ SALARIES FOR LIFE! The payout they receive depends on their length of service in Parliament, which is accelerated in the case of prime ministers and their final salary. Each PM can usually expect to receive about 70 per cent of the incumbent's salary, unless they chose to take a lump sum on retirement. (I thank the Daily Telegraph for doing the hard yards here with the figures and info.)

I have nothing against paying our PM a wage that reflects the importance of their job, but I have lots against them making millions from us when they a) don't really need it and b) don't really deserve it anymore. But now, the ones facing the fiscal axe, are the poor bloody pensioners who have worked and paid tax all their bloody lives! As for the bludgers... well that's a whole separate issue. Source here . .


WHAT IS ‘A JUST TAX’?

by James Reed
What is a sound Christian view on taxation? I was puzzled by this question but received considerable enlightenment from reading Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs article “The Just Tax” originally published in 1952 in the British journal Theology. States regard taxation as their right. Taxation itself does not fund much of their day-to-day expenditure, which is done by incurring debt to the financiers, with taxation being the security upon which the loans are based. Compulsion is thus needed for governments to ensure that their liabilities to the Dark Lords of Finance are met.

From a Christian perspective, the practice of the English Church Councils from 1226 onwards had been based on representation and consent. Representation though is not fundamental, consent is. In this regard there are three aspects of taxation: the purpose, the constitution (the stuff it is made of) and the amount. Of these, the tax must be such that taxpayers either approve or disapprove of it. In general a just tax has as its purpose the task of maintaining a just government under the rule of law and God. There is a balanced constitution with checks on absolute power and a separation of powers.

The Christian position is based on natural law whereas the modern “democratic” State allegedly derives its authority “from the right of a secret, anonymous, and therefore completely irresponsible statistical majority to override the will of individuals or minorities.” Further, there can be no justice under the present financial system when taxation is obtained as a debt “bearing an inverted relationship to the real potentialities of the world.” Dobbs went on to say that the Church needs to become aware of the financial weapon being used against her and take steps to produce a Christian, debt-redeeming financial system. That was Dobbs’ statement in 1952. In the 1994 postscript Dobbs says that things have degenerated beyond the worst expectations of the time and will continue to do so.

Money today rules everything; values have been commercialised and commodified, and the value of money in even conventional terms has declined. Worse, the Church itself has regarded vital elements of the Faith as expendable, bowing to degenerate money-values. Society has fallen “from one based upon laws, customs, social mores and Constitution derived from our long Christian tradition” to a “multiracial, multi creedal and largely pagan or atheistic society with no common basis of belief (except in money).”

To fight this there needs to be a supreme effort to render up maximal spiritual courage to stand up to the Money-and-Media-dominated world. Perhaps the coming of desperate times, will, like the 1930s, cause people to start looking for answers outside the system, which Social Credit has provided and will continue to provide.


ASSES IN CLOVER

Perhaps one of the best ways of getting the message out, is not through the theoretical treatise or technical essay, but literature. Literature has the capacity to add a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. For example, Eimar O’Duffy (1893-1935) published “Asses in Clover” during the hard times of the 1930s, in an attempt to understand financial realities. Two characters Cuanduine/Cú an Duione, the Hound of Man and Mac ui Rudai, the Man-in-the-Street, both undertake quests of financial understanding. The Hound of Man has a metaphysical quest to combat the corporate capitalists, while the Man-in-the-Street just struggles to survive.

The books in the “Goshawk Trilogy,” King Goshhawk and the Birds (1925), The Spacious Adventures of the Man in the Street (1928) contrasts corporate materialism with Celtic traditions and pursues the line that only the man in the street can halt corporate power by refusing to play ball with their system. “Asses in Clover” was written after O’Duffy had discovered Social Credit and he had written “Life and Money” (1932).

Cutting to the chase, the quest begun ends with civilisation ending on earth and humanity ceasing to exist. But a utopian society thrives on the moon. The higher beings there are immuned to the market economy and they have a simple political system where each year they elect 25 rulers. If anything goes wrong, they are all executed. Maybe we should try that!


THE RISE OF THE NEW AUTHORITARIANS 22 April 22, 2014 Taken from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Miranda Devine
Here was Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University no less, writing in the Fairfax letters pages: “Free speech for racist bigots, free speech for climate denialists. Where will it end? There is a value in free speech to promote reasoned discussion and deliberation. And then there is obdurate and at times wilful ignorance ... “Denial is not driven by some otherwise ignored piece of scientific insight but by the massive vested interests of the fossil fuel industry (which pursues) its own short-term benefit, even if it means destroying the planet in the process.” So you are free to say whatever you like — but only if you agree with the professor’s doomsday eco-nonsense. Yep, just the spirit of open inquiry you want to see at a university.

And on 23 April, 2014
Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University, demands an end to free speech: Free speech for racist bigots, free speech for climate denialists. Where will it end?… There is a value in free speech to promote reasoned discussion and deliberation. And then there is obdurate and at times wilful ignorance ... Fine, Professor. Then let’s also end the free speech of those who peddle obdurate and wilfully ignorant claims that the first woman was created from the rib of the first man. Professor, do you understand how many people would deny your own right to speak under the standards you set for others? (Via Miranda Devine.)

24 April 2014
Andrew Bolt Free speech Would Ormerod have defended Christ’s right to preach? Reader TBear writes to the Australian Catholic University’s Professor Neil Ormerod wondering if he really is as hostile to free speech as he seems.

The disturbing answer is yes. Ormerod writes
I do in fact support free speech. However, like many political rights free speech is a relative right, relative to the common good to which it contributes. People may have a right to their opinions, but not necessarily a right to express those (sic) opinion in a way which does damage to the common good. If in fact climate change is real (and all the scientific evidence supports this) then those who muddy the waters with uninformed opinion with the intention of delaying action which would limit or reverse its affects, are damaging the common good.

As TBear correctly notes, Ormerod’s arguments have been used by totalitarians throughout history
So, we find that Professor Ormerod is only in favour of free speech which “supports the common good”. This is, of course, the basis for censorship in all authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and (according to Ormerod) is consistent with “Catholic social teaching”.

I note Ormerod is particularly keen to restrict the right to speak of those who oppose the carbon tax and defy the so-called consensus of authorities. But I remember another body that shared Ormerod’s “common good” qualification of the right to free speech and have a question for this Catholic Professor of Theology.

Does Ormerod agree with the decision of the Sanhedrin to permanently silence someone else they also accused of speaking against the public good? Someone they damned for opposing another tax and for saying he knew better than the consensus of authorities? And they began to accuse Him, saying, ”We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”

Where would Ormerod have stood on that fateful day? On the side of the censors or of the right to preach freely?


“JUSTICE” FOR RULING ELITE WOMEN, NOW!

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Have a guess what the big social justice issue is in Adelaide? (“Justice for Women,” The Advertiser 12 April, 2014 p.1) No it is not “justice for women” but a “chronic under-representation of women in senior legal circles,” which is a “matter of serious concern” and a “strong case” for affirmative action, according to SA Chief Justice Chris Kourakis. The Advertiser devoted page 1, page 8, page 56 and page 74 to this issue. Page 56 states that the first year wage rate for women lawyers is almost $5,000 less than men; that the wage gap continues throughout life and there are only a small number of women as judges in the Supreme Courts of our country.

There is some truth here, but it is not based on any sort of discrimination. Law precludes men getting higher salaries than women. The figures quoted are statistical averages and men get overall higher pay by working more and because women often start families. There is no “discrimination” here – and if there was, do you really think that female lawyers wouldn’t have legally addressed it?

An Affirmative action policy for senior female lawyers is absurd: this is an area where only merit should decide things, otherwise the quality of law will fall. Further, the former SA Chief Justice John Doyle published a paper in the Australian Law Journal (2012), “Imagining the Past, Remembering the Future: The Demise of Civil Litigation,” which basically showed that the cost of civil litigation will lead to its demise. People can’t afford legal justice. I would have thought that this was a more important issue than getting already well paid female lawyers into even better paying positions.


LETTER TO THE PRESS

The Editor of The Age, 25th April 2014.
Despite Gay Alcorn's diffidence ('Maybe we shouldn't have racial vilification laws at all', 25/4), there should be no doubt that Holocaust revisionism ('Holocaust denial' is an inaccurate and misleading term) is a part of public discussion. The claim that it is vilification because it incites hatred towards Jewish people is a simple non sequitur. It would be equally illogical to claim that Henry Reynolds hates white people because he publishes the results of his revisionist research into past mistreatment of Aboriginals.

Senator Brandis could have mentioned the cases of Fredrick Toben and Olga Scully as other examples (than that of Andrew Bolt) in which section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was used to try to stifle free speech. He was no doubt fearful of breaking the current social taboo against expressing any support for dissident views about the nature of and extent of Nazi injustice to Jews. That taboo, like section 18C, is an enemy of free speech.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave Victoria

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