|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
8 August 2014 Thought
for the Week:
AT LAST! VICTORIAN FARMER’S FEDERATION STANDING UP FOR RIGHTS
Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said the Campaspe Shire was treading on dangerous ground, by demanding the Watsons obtain a permit, when the real issue was the council’s failure to deal with urban encroachment. “It looks to me like the Shire is trying to exploit a loophole in the planning laws to curb the Watsons’ Right to Farm and push them out,” Mr Tuohey said. “The Watsons have a pre-existing right. They were there long before the Shire allowed Echuca households to build within 100 metres of the farm.”
“If Campaspe can exploit this loophole, then what’s it mean for other farmers who import the majority of their livestock’s feed? The Shire of Campaspe’s interpretation of ‘Intensive Animal husbandry’ would capture a huge number of dairy farms and others, who import most of their feed. The real danger is that we end up seeing this planning law used to stifle the growth of Victorian agriculture.”
Mr Watson said the shire shouldn’t be allowed to get away with demanding he get a planning permit. “If they’re (the Shire) allowed to get away with this we’ll see anyone who imports most of their stock’s tucker forced to apply for a planning permit. It’s only because we’re on the outskirts of town that they’re trying to do this.”
The VFF is examining the Victorian Planning Provision definition of Intensive Animal Husbandry and will be seeking clarification from the Victorian Government on whether the definition needs to be tightened or amended. The irony is the Shire of Campaspe’s own Municipal Strategic Statement says: ‘Agricultural production, based on intensive irrigated areas and large tracts of dry land farming, combine to form the largest industry in the Shire’,” Mr Tuohey said. “Yet here’s the Shire’s officers trying to stifle agriculture’s growth.
The VFF is calling on the Shire of Campaspe to see reason and find a solution that recognises the Watsons’ and all farmers’ rights.”
TIME FOR MAGNA CARTA 2.0
by Chris Knight
In September 1215 Pope Innocent II annulled the Magna Carta and civil war erupted, lasting until October 1216 when King John died. The new young king, Henry III, reissued the Magna Carta in 1217, but this version lacked some provisions of the earliest version, such as the enforcement council. The final version was the 1225 issue, which fixed the document. Copies were made and sent throughout the counties.
The English jurist Edward Coke, in the early part of the 17th century, gave an interpretation of the Magna Carta which was particularly influential among American colonists. The king was not beyond the common law. The American colonists incorporated the Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights into their statutes, giving them the rights of free and natural subjects. It was this spirit of freedom which led to the colonists rebelling against the British government imposing a stamp tax on Americans which was seen as “taxation without representation”. In particular, they objected to trials of those who disobeyed being tried in admiralty courts and not by a jury of peers. The Stamp Tax was thus seen as against the spirit of the Magna Carta and thus, not a law at all. The bill was rescinded but the mood was set for revolution. The rest is history.
The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “all Men are created equal”, but the writers were referring to British men and never thought in their wildest nightmares that America would become the multiracial rainbow state where whites will soon be in the minority. Nevertheless, while America exists, the Magna Carta will be admired for serving as the inspiration for the Constitution and for common law principles such as the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. And who can do better in affirming freedom than : “No man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice”. That is still law in the common law world.
Indeed, in his paper “The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law,” a paper by Lord Irvine of Lairg delivered at the inaugural Magna Carta Lecture, presented in the Great Hall of Parliament House, Canberra, 14 October 2002. It is stated: “Jurisdictions with Imperial Acts (the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria) all chose to enact chapter 29” of Magna Carta. But the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia received the Magna Carta by Imperial law reception statutes, and these jurisdictions “find themselves in the surprising position of having almost all the provisions of Magna Carta theoretically still in force”. This, of course is very interesting and some of the legal implications of this will be explored by Ian Wilson LL.B. in a future article in this series.
In a light hearted article David Thomas (“Your Majesty, Please Grant Us a New Magna Carta”, The Telegraph 23 March 2014) points out that today our freedoms, such as freedom of speech are being eroded as never before – well, maybe as it was before the Magna Carta. What is needed is another movement to fight for our basic freedoms again, and to enshrine them in a new Magna Carta 2.0. Today we don’t need Aboriginal recognition: we need recognition of basic freedoms for all Australians such as freedom of speech in the Constitution. This will be a most difficult task because the entire political class is as tyrannical as old King John was.
THERE IS BALANCE IN GENUINE SOCIAL CREDIT
by Betty Luks
The heads of the Catholic Church did not always hold the view that is held today. Hewlett Edwards in “The Cultivation of History” set the historical constitutional scene for me when he explained that for a thousand years arguments continued by legalists and canonists as to whom should have domination - the Church or the State.
He wrote: “The controversy was the thread along which the rival disputants groped towards ideas and institutions which could satisfy both spiritual and temporal requirements…”
Conjunction of Authority & Power Made Apparent Third Member of Political Triad
The formative period was in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when English law was administered by the ablest and best men of the Kingdom; it was then that the emerging principles of Common Law were being shaped, Canon Law performing the function of a bridge connecting legal process with ethical and theological discussion.
During that period, the argument between the Papacy and the Empire was mainly dualistic (it was certainly not trinitarian) and yet in England at that time the conjunction of Authority and Power made apparent the third member of the Political Triad - the Common Law with all that followed it. Directional inspiration plus executive action only exist by virtue of their issue, or content. The Three are One. In use they can and must be distinguished, but they can never be separated.
King John failed in this. He did not distinguish but tried to combine Authority, Power and Law in his own person; and, in this violation of well-understood but largely unformulated principles, he brought the constitutional issue to a head.
The Barons at Runnymede may not have realised fully the part they played: but they played it. They stood as an embodiment of the people of England, all England; the outcome and incarnation of the inter-locking activities of Church, King, and People; and their purpose was to bring the King to recognise his limitations in this threefold structure by the implementation of the rights of the other parties. Magna Carta was the sign and confirmation of this.
M. Oliver Heydorn explained for us: “The Church does not possess the required authoritative competence (by her own admission) to render a binding judgement on the more technical aspects of an economic or political system. Her social teaching is more or less confined to the level of broad principles…” and it is those broad principles that Social Crediters will find of great interest.
“As far as the social doctrine of the Catholic Church is concerned, the core of her infallible and unchanging teaching in this particular sphere can be reduced to four basic principles” of human associations:
Heydorn then noted: “The practical purpose of pointing out the extraordinary and comprehensive affinity which exists between the economics of Social Credit and the Church’s social teachings is to help Catholics to recognize the kairos and to respond accordingly…”
Geoffrey Dobbs (an Anglican) wrote in “The Social Crediter” 11 April 1953:
It is this balance and sanity which is the main object of the most damaging attacks upon social credit. Probably the most successful weapon which has been used against us is the suggestion, invariably conveyed by the sort of language chosen when social credit is referred to by its opponents, that we are ‘cranks’, i.e., unbalanced people holding an unbalanced view; and the existence of a number of groups of people detached from Douglas, publicizing an unbalanced fragment of his teaching as if it were the whole, or indeed the essential, under the name of social credit, and even claiming each to be his ‘true’ followers, lends the power of verisimilitude to this weapon.
One of the last things which Douglas left us was what we know as The Chart, a diagram setting out certain relationships in the real world. At its focus is the word ‘Policy’ which more than any other single word, summarises what he had to teach us. This is implicit in everything he said and wrote on Social Credit, and especially in his first book, “Economic Democracy” but in June, 1937, it became explicit in his address to Social Crediters in London, in which he defined Social Credit as “the policy of a philosophy” and further defined his use of the word “philosophy” as meaning a “conception of reality”.
The Chart, first published in February1951, specifically to counteract the tendency to disproportion in the Social Credit Movement, is an immensely massive and condensed statement. It is not permissible to alter it, but it will often be necessary to abstract from it and to consider special cases in its application to current situations. For the special purposes of this article, the consideration of balance in the conception of Social Credit at the present time, I want to draw attention to the balanced, triple structure of the centre of The Chart”, the three words surrounding the central word Policy.
They are as follows:
Now Social Credit has also been defined as “applied Christianity”, and it has been made clear that if the Policy is correctly called Social Credit, the Philosophy is the conception of reality which we find in the New Testament. The word ‘Administration' is of wider application than the word ‘Politics’, but it is convenient here to consider this aspect of it, in relation to ‘Economics’. These basic relationships of Social Credit may therefore be considered in the following form:
In contrast to the Policy which at present dominates the World, viz:
A tripod is the first structure which will stand, and it is not possible to ignore, or to mix and change the nature of any one, or more of these three components of policy without either overthrowing, or changing the nature of the policy. At the present time, a great many people are quite improperly applying the name Social Credit to a policy which has this sort of structure:
There is a law, called Gresham’s Law, which applies to money and credit; it applies also to policies. When they are mixed the bad drives out the good. This is very obviously happening with Compromised Social Credit; the Old Politics have completely neutralized the New Economics.
The Economic Disproportion
Social Credit is his ‘star-ypointing pyramid’. It is tri-podal; it stands firmly upon the earth; and it points to Heaven. Si monumentum requiiis, circumspice!...
Christian philosophy is at variance to present politics
AN OPEN LETTER FOR THE PEOPLE OF GAZA in 'The Lancet'
'The Lancet' is the Prestigious 200 year-old UK Medical Journal - “We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years. On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.
We ask our colleagues, old and young professionals, to denounce this Israeli aggression. We challenge the perversity of a propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre, a so-called “defensive aggression”. In reality it is a ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity. We wish to report the facts as we see them and their implications on the lives of the people.
We are appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists. This is the third large scale military assault on Gaza since 2008. Each time the death toll is borne mainly by innocent people in Gaza, especially women and children under the unacceptable pretext of Israel eradicating political parties and resistance to the occupation and siege they impose.
This action also terrifies those who are not directly hit, and wounds the soul, mind, and resilience of the young generation. Our condemnation and disgust are further compounded by the denial and prohibition for Gaza to receive external help and supplies to alleviate the dire circumstances.
The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza's population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.1
People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”2
Gaza has been blockaded by sea and land since 2006. Any individual of Gaza, including fishermen venturing beyond 3 nautical miles of the coast of Gaza, face being shot by the Israeli Navy. No one from Gaza can leave from the only two checkpoints, Erez or Rafah, without special permission from the Israelis and the Egyptians, which is hard to come by for many, if not impossible. People in Gaza are unable to go abroad to study, work, visit families, or do business. Wounded and sick people cannot leave easily to get specialised treatment outside Gaza. Entries of food and medicines into Gaza have been restricted and many essential items for survival are prohibited.3 Before the present assault, medical stock items in Gaza were already at an all time low because of the blockade.3 They have run out now. Likewise, Gaza is unable to export its produce. Agriculture has been severely impaired by the imposition of a buffer zone, and agricultural products cannot be exported due to the blockade. 80% of Gaza's population is dependent on food rations from the UN.
Much of Gaza's buildings and infrastructure had been destroyed during Operation Cast Lead, 2008—09, and building materials have been blockaded so that schools, homes, and institutions cannot be properly rebuilt. Factories destroyed by bombardment have rarely been rebuilt adding unemployment to destitution.
Despite the difficult conditions, the people of Gaza and their political leaders have recently moved to resolve their conflicts “without arms and harm” through the process of reconciliation between factions, their leadership renouncing titles and positions, so that a unity government can be formed abolishing the divisive factional politics operating since 2007. This reconciliation, although accepted by many in the international community, was rejected by Israel. The present Israeli attacks stop this chance of political unity between Gaza and the West Bank and single out a part of the Palestinian society by destroying the lives of people of Gaza. Under the pretext of eliminating terrorism, Israel is trying to destroy the growing Palestinian unity. Among other lies, it is stated that civilians in Gaza are hostages of Hamas whereas the truth is that the Gaza Strip is sealed by the Israelis and Egyptians. Gaza has been bombed continuously for the past 14 days followed now by invasion on land by tanks and thousands of Israeli troops. More than 60 000 civilians from Northern Gaza were ordered to leave their homes. These internally displaced people have nowhere to go since Central and Southern Gaza are also subjected to heavy artillery bombardment. The whole of Gaza is under attack. The only shelters in Gaza are the schools of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), uncertain shelters already targeted during Cast Lead, killing many.
According to Gaza Ministry of Health and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),1 as of July 21, 149 of the 558 killed in Gaza and 1100 of the 3504 wounded are children. Those buried under the rubble are not counted yet. As we write, the BBC reports of the bombing of another hospital, hitting the intensive care unit and operating theatres, with deaths of patients and staff. There are now fears for the main hospital Al Shifa. Moreover, most people are psychologically traumatised in Gaza. Anyone older than 6 years has already lived through their third military assault by Israel.
The massacre in Gaza spares no one, and includes the disabled and sick in hospitals, children playing on the beach or on the roof top, with a large majority of non-combatants. Hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques, schools, and press buildings have all been attacked, with thousands of private homes bombed, clearly directing fire to target whole families killing them within their homes, depriving families of their homes by chasing them out a few minutes before destruction. An entire area was destroyed on July 20, leaving thousands of displaced people homeless, beside wounding hundreds and killing at least 70—this is way beyond the purpose of finding tunnels. None of these are military objectives. These attacks aim to terrorise, wound the soul and the body of the people, and make their life impossible in the future, as well as also demolishing their homes and prohibiting the means to rebuild. Weaponry known to cause long-term damages on health of the whole population are used; particularly non fragmentation weaponry and hard-head bombs.4, 5 We witnessed targeted weaponry used indiscriminately and on children and we constantly see that so-called intelligent weapons fail to be precise, unless they are deliberately used to destroy innocent lives.
We denounce the myth propagated by Israel that the aggression is done caring about saving civilian lives and children's wellbeing. Israel's behaviour has insulted our humanity, intelligence, and dignity as well as our professional ethics and efforts. Even those of us who want to go and help are unable to reach Gaza due to the blockade.
This “defensive aggression” of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity must be stopped. Additionally, should the use of gas be further confirmed, this is unequivocally a war crime for which, before anything else, high sanctions will have to be taken immediately on Israel with cessation of any trade and collaborative agreements with Europe.
As we write, other massacres and threats to the medical personnel in emergency services and denial of entry for international humanitarian convoys are reported.6 We as scientists and doctors cannot keep silent while this crime against humanity continues. We urge readers not to be silent too. Gaza trapped under siege, is being killed by one of the world's largest and most sophisticated modern military machines. The land is poisoned by weapon debris, with consequences for future generations. If those of us capable of speaking up fail to do so and take a stand against this war crime, we are also complicit in the destruction of the lives and homes of 1.8 million people in Gaza.
We register with dismay that only 5% of our Israeli academic colleagues signed an appeal to their government to stop the military operation against Gaza. We are tempted to conclude that with the exception of this 5%, the rest of the Israeli academics ar e complicit in the massacre and destruction of Gaza. We also see the complicity of our countries in Europe and North America in this massacre and the impotence once again of the international institutions and organisations to stop this massacre.
TRULY, SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
from Paul Eisen Blogspot
And there’s something very odd, isn’t there, about our reactions to these two outrageous death tolls. In Gaza, we plead for a ceasefire but let them bury their dead in the sweltering slums of Gaza and cannot even open a humanitarian route for the wounded. For the passengers on MH17, we demand – immediately – proper burial and care for the relatives of the dead. We curse those who left bodies lying in the fields of eastern Ukraine – as many bodies have been lying, for a shorter time, perhaps, but under an equally oven-like sky, in Gaza.
Because – and this has been creeping up on me for years – we don’t care so much about the Palestinians, do we? We care neither about Israeli culpability, which is far greater because of the larger number of civilians the Israeli army have killed. Nor, for that matter, Hamas’s capability. Of course, God forbid that the figures should have been the other way round. If 800 Israelis had died and only 35 Palestinians, I think I know our reaction.
We would call it – rightly – a slaughter, an atrocity, a crime for which the killers must be made accountable. Yes, Hamas should be made accountable, too. But why is it that the only criminals we are searching for today are the men who fired one – perhaps two – missiles at an airliner over Ukraine? If Israel’s dead equalled those of the Palestinians – and let me repeat, thank heavens this is not the case – I suspect that the Americans would be offering all military support to an Israel endangered by “Iranian-backed terrorists”. We would be demanding that Hamas hand over the monsters who fired rockets at Israel and who are, by the way, trying to hit aircraft at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport. But we are not doing this. Because those who have died are mostly Palestinians.
More questions. What’s the limit for Palestinian deaths before we have a ceasefire? Eight hundred? Or 8,000? Could we have a scorecard? The exchange rate for dead? Or would we just wait until our gorge rises at the blood and say enough – even for Israel’s war, enough is enough. It’s not as if we have not been through all this before.
From the massacre of Arab villagers by Israel’s new army in 1948, as it is set down by Israeli historians, to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, when Lebanese Christian allies of Israel murdered up to 1,700 people in 1982 while Israeli troops watched; from the Qana massacre of Lebanese Arabs at the UN base – yes, the UN again – in 1996, to another, smaller terrible killing at Qana (again) 10 years later. And so to the mass killing of civilians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. And after Sabra and Shatila, there were inquiries, and after Qana there was an inquiry and after Gaza in 2008-9, there was an inquiry and don’t we remember the weight of it, somewhat lightened of course when Judge Goldstone did his best to disown it, when – according to my Israeli friends – he came under intense personal pressure.
Comment: The Neocons are not all in America. Readers would do well to reread “It’s Official – John Howard a “Neo-Con” https://alor.org/Volume40/Vol40No21.htm
Let’s Imagine: In a simplistic attempt to justify Israel's Old Testament style slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli apologists always seem to ask the question ''how would the United States respond if a militant group fired thousands of missiles at its population centres from Canada or Mexico?'' These yammering Zionists seemed to think they score heavily in the arena of public opinion with this childish argument.
So let me try my own hypothetical question. How would Americans react if, with the blessings of the great powers, a huge number of heavily armed aliens from Eastern Europe arrived on our shores and claimed our country as their own by insisting that their god had bequeathed it to them via their mythical patriarch somewhere back in the Bronze Age? And after defeating an inept American military, they succeeded in driving most of the American people into either Canada or Mexico or west of the Mississippi. And then not being satisfied with the lands east of the Mississippi, two decades later, they initiate another war that results in their successful conquest of all the territory west of the Mississippi to the Pacific. And while promising the Americans west of the Mississippi an eventual state of their own, they nevertheless begin a program of massive colonization of these territories and also erect an apartheid barrier around all of their settlements.
Furthermore, imagine a small enclave in the southwest near the Mexican border where millions of Americans took refuge on some worthless land. Originally the aliens hoped to colonize it, but reluctantly they turn it over to the Americans to run for themselves as a sort of city state/refugee camp/ open air prison with no powers generally associated with a sovereign state and also reserving the right to move in at any time to protect their interests. Further imagine that after the election of an America government deemed hostile to alien interests they proclaim a crippling blockade which reduces the population to abject poverty and near starvation. Not satisfied with the blockade, the aliens then unleash the full force of their modern military on the helpless inhabitants whose only way of striking back is with crude rockets made from sewer pipe that carry a low yield explosive made from sugar and fertilizer. And finally imagine an alien dominated media that continues to label the Americans as terrorists.
LETTER TO THE PRESS
25 July 2014:
“Apprehension about proposals to change the Constitution to enable within it 'recognition' of 'indigenous Australians' is not groundless but justified ('"No need to fear" Recognise plan', 25/7). Any campaign that has the potential to be nationally divisive can, in the middle and long term, do great damage to the inhabitants of this continent. Think of the current tragedy of Ukraine (and its recent cruel result): in that nation there is a people unhappily divided between those who wish for political alliance with Russia and those preferring to join the EU. National unity, with its resultant social stability and personal security, is a priceless possession and should not be jeopardised.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|