|
News Report Issue
43
Index
1. Thought for the day - Neil
2. Opinion: Governments Communication woes -
Antonia.
3. Opinion: Australia: The stupid country - Antonia
4. Opinion: Gloomy figures - Antonia
5. Opinion: Sorry!! - Antonia
6. Opinion: Homosexual comic heroes - Antonia
7. Newswire: Bellicose China Rattles Nuclear Sabre at US -
Forwarded by Philip
8. Article: Hypocrisy over Haider: The Brouhaha over Austria -
Forwarded by Terry
8. Life Sciences: US Cover-up of GM food fears - Forwarded
by Veronica
9. Update: Regional Forest Agreements - Glen
10. Feedback: Gun Laws and Fools - Peter C
11. Feedback: A little challenge - Forwarded by Peter C
12. Feedback: The Justice System? - Peter G
13. Dinner Meeting: Thurs 2/3/00 - Clr. Abrahams at
Rockdale.
14. Feedback Contacts:
15. Editorial Policy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thought for the day:
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that
faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it".
(Abraham Lincoln, Address, Feb 1860)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thought for the day:
"I proclaim that might is right, justice the interest of the
stronger". (Plato, The Republic,1)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion:
Government's communications woes
The National Farmers Association has said no way will it support the sell-off of another bit of Telstra. Until they've see the colour of the government's money they won't even consider it, because the government still hasn't delivered on the proceeds of the sale of Telstra 2. And to add to the government's communication woes, the ALP and the Democrats have stymied the government's attempts to further deregulate postal services. Communications Minister Richard Alston said their position was a "union protection racket". Seeing as post offices are private businesses now that was a pretty silly statement. Given the track record of deregulation - reduced services for everybody but particularly people in the bush - why would anybody be in favour of deregulating the postal service? All the government's assurances count for nothing in the face of their record. Though competition might reduce the cost of a stamp, is that acceptable if people lose their jobs? Or if lots of people lose access to post offices? No, it's not. That's what Hugh Stretton was on about. Economic efficiency is NOT the be-all end-all of life. There are higher values, and most of us are perfectly willing to pay for them. Antonia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Opinion:
Australia. The stupid
country
The Malaysian government has recently been criticised for investing in an IT park. Singapore has done the same. They are positioning themselves for the future. In Australia, a special taskforce set up by the federal Government has advised it to establish an Australian Institute of IT & T Skills to plan for the growing shortage of IT professionals. And the response? The government plans to spend a miserly $5 million, instead of the $100 million required to kick-start it. And the reason why? Undoubtedly it's because the government thinks migration will fill the shortage. The government is not interested in educating Australians for the good jobs. They are perfectly happy that Australians who aren't in the new knowledge economy will compete for low paid clerical, retail and labouring jobs. That's their PLAN. Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Opinion: Gloomy figures
Our booming economy keeps on booming - backwards:
I wonder what spin they'll put on those latest
figures?
Antonia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry!!
Howard's decision not to ram through a formal document of reconciliation by a December 2000 deadline is causing angst among the proponents. The next Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Watson has called upon him to say 'sorry'. Beazley called for an immediate apology. Lowitja O'Donoghue is considering wiping her hands of document, and old Charlie Perkins says it's "disgusting". Oddly enough, the current chair of ATSIC has described it as "an honest admission of failure." And that's precisely the point. There is no great public demand for reconciliation however unpalatable that fact is for some people. Not only that, there is actually considerable hostility to a document which apologises for the "stolen generation", and for colonising Australia "without the consent of its original inhabitants". Many people strongly disagree that they or the nation have anything to apologise for. History happens and only fools or masochists judge their ancestors by the standards of later generations. The recent 180 degree philosophical shift in the NSW Department of Community Services views on adoption shows just how ideologically-based much of what passes for contemporary best practice is. Antonia +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Opinion: Homosexual comic heroes
Yep, they're out to get 'em young now. Superheroes Apollo and Midnighter, just two of a team of good guys, who live in a giant spaceship and watch over planet Earth, sorting out any problems, are about to come out of the closet. Apollo must be some sort of human solar panel, because his superstrength derives from the sun, and like boring old Superman, he can fly. Midnighter can't fly but wears black leather and is equally ahem, 'virile' with a bulging physique "that would put Superman to shame". The comic series has been running for a year now, but shortly these cool dudes, targeted at teenage boys, are about to come out in a comic called The Investigator. They'll be shown kissing and cuddling after their deeds of valour. Writer Mark Miller said, "A gay superhero has never been done before. It's seen as one of the last taboos. The whole idea of a superhero is that he or she fights for the underdog, so I don't see why we shouldn't have heroes who are gay." Incidentally, the publisher responsible for Superman and Batman - a division of DC comics, one of the leading publishers - is publishing this stuff. Make of it what you will. (Australian, 28/2/00) Antonia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Newswire: Bellicose China Rattles its Nuclear Sabre at
USA
The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com China threatens U.S. with missile strike by Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 2 / 29 / 00 China stepped up its war of words over Taiwan yesterday, bluntly threatening to fire long-range nuclear missiles at the United States if it defends the island. The warning, published in the official People's Liberation Army newspaper, comes as a U.S. aircraft carrier and two cruise-missile destroyers recently began exercises off Japan. Defence officials said the warships could be sent to the Taiwan Strait in a crisis. The official military newspaper, Liberation Army Daily,
stated in a commentary made public in Beijing that U.S. intervention in a
conflict between China and Taiwan would result in "serious damage" to U.S.
security interests in Asia. The military then warned that China could resort to
long-range missile attacks on the United States during a regional conflict.
"China is neither Iraq nor Yugoslavia, but a very special
country," the newspaper stated.
While China is a permanent member of the Security Council of
the United Nations, "on the other hand, it is a country that has certain
abilities of launching strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a
long-distance strike," the article said. "It is not a wise move to be at war
with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policy-makers know fairly
well also," the newspaper said.
"The U.S. military will even be forced to [make] a complete
withdrawal from the East Asian region, as they were forced to withdraw from
southern Vietnam in those days," the paper said. The article was unusually
harsh, according to Pentagon officials familiar with the translation, and echoed
a private warning made in 1995 by Chinese Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai.
Gen. Xiong, the PLA's top intelligence and foreign
policy official, told a former Pentagon official at that time that
Washington would not help defend Taiwan because it cared more about Los
Angeles than Taiwan. The remark was reported to the White House as a
threat to use nuclear weapons.
China's nuclear arsenal currently includes about 24 CSS-4
long-range missiles that are capable of hitting most of the United States with
warheads of up to 5 megatons — the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT. It is
building two other road-mobile ICBMs and a new class of strategic missile
submarines.
One U.S. official said PLA threats appeared to be a response
to statements made last week by Walter Slocombe, under-secretary of
defence for policy. Mr. Slocombe told reporters China would suffer
"incalculable consequences" if it attacked the island. Mr.
Slocombe's statement also brought a complaint from some pro-China officials at
the White House and State Department who objected to the Pentagon's tough
stance.
Meanwhile, several ships from the carrier battle group led by
the USS Kitty Hawk began conducting exercises in the Pacific on Wednesday — two
days after Beijing issued an ominous written warning that it will use force
against Taiwan if the island continues to delay reunification with the
mainland.
Pentagon officials said privately the carrier deployment is
part of U.S. diplomatic efforts to discourage China from conducting threatening
war games, as occurred in 1996 around the time of Taiwan's first presidential
elections.
A senior military official said the carrier exercises were
scheduled weeks ago. However, the official noted that carriers in the past have
been used to send diplomatic signals. "Timing is everything in these things,"
the official said. The ships are deployed in waters east of central Japan. The
ship will be at sea for 12 days before returning to its home port of Yokosuka,
Japan.
Officially, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Comdr.. Terry Sutherland
said the Kitty Hawk is engaged in "general quarters" training after spending
months in port in Japan. The deployment is not related to the release of China's
white paper or the upcoming Taiwanese presidential elections, he said.
However, asked if the battle group could be called into
action in a Taiwan crisis, Comdr.. Sutherland said: "Sure. That's the
purpose of forward-deployed carriers." The Chinese government on Feb.
21 released a "white paper" threatening, again, to use force against Taiwan if
it seeks formal independence. The paper stated that Beijing will use
"all drastic measures possible, including the use of
force." "Any attempt to separate Taiwan from China through the
so-called referendum would only lead the Taiwan people to disaster,"
the report said.
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Prueher sought to play down the threat
contained in the white paper. "The white paper has a lot of good things, from
our point of view, to say, like stressing peaceful unification and the like, and
only one sentence adding a condition under which force would be used,"
Ambassador Prueher said in a speech here. Asked if the white paper is tied to
the recent unsuccessful high-level visit to Beijing by Deputy Secretary of State
Strobe Talbott and other senior U.S. officials, Ambassador Prueher said: "I was
in that room during the talks and China never mentioned anything about a white
paper. Did the visit trigger the white paper, I don't know. It might have, it
might not have."
Adm. Dennis Blair, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, is
now in Beijing and, according to unnamed U.S. officials, discussed Taiwan in
meetings today with senior Chinese military leaders. On Monday, the admiral met
Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai for "a wide exchange of views on international and
regional security and bilateral relations," China's state-run Xinhua News Agency
said.
Lt. Gen. Xiong is a deputy chief of the general staff of the
Chinese People's Liberation Army and a key voice in making Taiwan policy. Adm.
Blair also met Shi Yunsheng, commander in chief of China's naval forces, Xinhua
said. "It was a chance for everyone to get to know each other,"
A U.S. official told the Associated Press on condition of
anonymity. "The atmosphere was very cordial. I think the Chinese want to
succeed in re-establishing a military-to-military relationship." Taiwan
was discussed, along with other Asian security concerns, the official said. The
U.S. side also repeated "its concern about the white paper" in which China last
week threatened Taiwan, he said.
The Pentagon spokesman's comment about making the Kitty Hawk
available in a crisis in the Taiwan Strait is further than a senior State
Department official would go. Susan Shirk, deputy assistant secretary of
state for East Asia, wrote an unofficial electronic message to a group of
California academics recently saying the carrier will not be sent to the
region. "Want to let everyone know that one carrier, the Kitty Hawk, is
engaged in routine training off the coast of Japan, no intention to move near
the Strait, nothing to do with Taiwan, white paper, etc.," Miss Shirk
wrote.
The statement angered some in the Pentagon because it
undermined efforts by Adm. Blair and others to discourage China from conducting
war games in the next few weeks. One official said the e-mail was
"potentially dangerous" because it was an official statement by a senior
official. "It could be viewed [by the Chinese] as a green light to
attack Taiwan," the official said.
In March 1996, Chinese military forces conducted large-scale
exercises near Taiwan that included short-range M-9 missile launches north and
south of Taiwan. U.S. officials said the exercises were a bid to intimidate
voters on the island.
China's latest threats against Taiwan also come
against the backdrop of a presidential campaign that includes discussions about
declaring formal independence. The Taiwanese are set for their second
presidential election March 18.
Gus Constantine contributed to this report,
which is based in part on wire-service reports.
Copyright � 2000 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. Forwarded by
Philip Madsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deja Vu
For those who have forgotten, it was in remarkably similar
circumstances where a Senior female foreign office diplomat (US Ambassador to
Iraq or Kuwait!!) is reported to have misled the Iraqis that the US would
not retaliate against an Iraq invasion of Kuwait, which is what supposedly
gave Saddam Hussein the green light to his plans to
annex Kuwait.
This annexation was to form the basis of his dreams of a
greater Iraq (Kuwait only being the first of the foreign
territories to be reclaimed. Remember prior to the British Protectorate, Kuwait
was part of Iraq, under the control of the Ottoman Turks).
Yet again if hostilities break out with China, while they
pursue their plans for a greater China (HK, Macao, Taiwan,
Mongolia, Vietnam, etc), the USA have their plausible deniability as well as a
female for a scapegoat, just like with Iraq. History does so like
repeating itself.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Articles:
Analysis. Hypocrisy Over Haider: The Brouhaha Over
Austria
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz, February 7, 2000 The cries of outrage fill the air. From European dispatches, we read about the possibility of sanctions and the breaking of diplomatic relations. Warnings have been sent regarding the suspension of European Union membership. What threat to civilisation, as we know it, has caused talk of such drastic action? The new government in Austria will contain members of Joerg Haider's Freedom Party, which won 27 percent of the vote in a democratic election, the fairness and integrity of which no one has challenged. The Austrian People's Party and the Freedom Party hold 104 of the 183 seats in the Austrian Parliament. Before we join the merry mob in hurling broken beer bottles at the Austrians, perhaps we should ask some questions. First, do we respect the results of free elections? After all, in Israel both Communists and semi-seditious Arabs have been seated in the Knesset because the vote totals entitled them to their seats. Second, how many Brown Shirt goons has Herr Haider enlisted to prance down the streets and terrorise the populace? From all the evidence available, none. Similarly, he has not threatened Jewish people, nor has he described Jews in pejorative terms. Some ten years ago, Herr Haider praised Hitler's orderly employment policies; he also praised veterans of the Waffen SS, whose membership consisted of Nazi Party members. Stupid and provocative things to do? Most certainly, but by no means hanging offences. It is equally true Herr Haider signed a declaration in front of the President of Austria renouncing Austria's Nazi past. Part of the statement signed by Herr Haider reads: "Austria accepts her responsibility arising out of the tragic history of the 20th century and the horrendous crimes of the national socialist regime. . . ." We cannot read Herr Haider's mind, but this hardly sounds like the action of an individual eager to resurrect the Third Reich. Herr Haider's program is for free markets, a strong national defence, and an immigration and cultural policy to keep Austria Austrian. This sounds remarkably similar to policies espoused by conservatives in other Western nations. But the radical left - and most European nations are controlled by Socialists - have defined moderate conservative ideas as "far right." The far left also has little regard for democracy. Austria is today a democratic country. The sensitive nations so upset with Austria seem unable to offer any response to, say, Communist China in which students are slaughtered for seeking democracy and people are imprisoned for attempting to offer prayers and religious service to God. These same sensitive nations have little to say about other states such as Cuba. Of course, Castro has only imported nuclear weapons into his communist isle, executed dissidents, summarily arrested journalists, abetted the narcotics trade and spread revolution throughout Latin America. Herr Haider is far more dangerous, the sensitive nations say, while Castro is someone we need to make nicey nice with. Indeed, truth to tell, these are the same sensitive nations that did nothing - absolutely nothing - when the real Nazis of history prepared to overrun Europe and totally destroy Jews everywhere. Even the valiant British preferred Neville Chamberlain, the appeaser, to the "war-monger" Winston Churchill - until circumstances gave them no choice. Most amazing of all is the response of the Israelis. They have banned Herr Haider from entering their country. If he should be given a cabinet post, they have announced that they will withdraw their ambassador from Vienna. Now there are, to be sure, those who truly desire the destruction of the Jewish state, to wit Israel's Arab enemies. To this day, in their schools they teach their children not only that Israel as a country has no right to exist, but that Jews are vile and vicious people who should be slaughtered. These Arabs have fought the Israelis regularly in wars through the years. Worse, they have employed terrorists and terrorist action against civilians, wounding and killing Israelis. Attacks on school buses to kill Israeli children are an Arab speciality. Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization to this day operate under a charter calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, a charter that they refuse to change or alter despite numerous and frequent agreements to do so. Yasser Arafat is probably responsible for killing more Jewish civilians than anyone in this century except Adolf Hitler. He has praised the terrorists who murder Jews and also gentiles who are found in Israel. Meanwhile, Syria sends only underlings to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and even these underlings refuse to speak face to face with the prime minister. Nonetheless, the Israelis, for reasons not apparent to rational people, are attempting to cede land to the Palestine Liberation Organization and to give away the Golan Heights to the Syrians. Aside from the suicidal nature of these attempts, one wonders whether the Israelis have no sense of simple outrage. Indeed they have; they are outraged by Herr Joerg Haider in Vienna. So much for the stereotype of Jewish intellectual brilliance. It is not Herr Haider who threatens freedom. It is the elites of the radical left who, by demonising Austria, are attempting to subvert the electoral desire of a free people. As for the nations of the European Union, who were such cowards in the face of the real Nazis, who are tongue-tied in addressing Communist dictatorships today and who have tolerated Communist members in the various parliaments of their countries, and to all of their liberal friends in the media and elsewhere, let me offer a friendly word of caution: You are in grave danger of giving hypocrisy a bad name. Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is member of the Reform Movement of Judaism, chaplain for the State of New York and former national chaplain of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States. Forwarded by
Terry Winship Wilson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life Sciences: US covered up GM food fears
Sunday Herald (Scotland) By Joanna Blythman, Rob Edwards and Pennie Taylor Feb 27 2000 http://www.sundayherald.com http://www.scotsman.com GENETICALLY modified foods should be withdrawn until rigorous safety testing is conducted, an American lawyer will tell a meeting in Edinburgh tomorrow as the world's richest nations gather to discuss the safety of GM foods. Steven Druker, an attorney from Iowa, has begun a law suit that could lead to the recall of all GM foods on the market. He has accused the US Food and Drug Administration of ignoring the advice of its own scientists and covering up their concerns before approving GM products for consumption. Two years ago he successfully sued the FDA to force the release of its internal scientific papers which prove that FDA scientists had serious concerns about the safety of GMs. One of the FDA's papers describes a 1993 study of rats fed
with the first GM product, Flavr Savr tomatoes. It showed problems with gastric
erosion, an effect similar to that found by Dr Arpad Pusztai, the
Aberdeen-based scientist who was sacked from his research post at the Rowett
Research Institute when he went public with his concerns about the safety of GM
foods.
Druker's allegations come as the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) meet to discuss issues surrounding GM food
and agree recommendations for international regulation. The �400,000 bill for
the three-day event is being met by the British government. ...
Although Druker is appearing at an unofficial fringe event to the OECD conference, what he has to say should attract the attention of the world leaders. He claims the US FDA was acting illegally by approving GM foods as safe and decreeing that they were "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods, a ruling that has eased their introduction across the world. Pusztai will be attending the OECD conference, where he hopes to have the opportunity to call for a proper research programme into the effects of eating GM foods. His stance is backed by the findings of the research survey, which was conducted last year by the Centre for Food Policy at Thames Valley University in London for the environmental group, Greenpeace. All the GM research projects funded by the government's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council were divided into those which looked at commercial development and those that examined safety. Of the 179 projects, only 10% (17) were studying health or environmental implications. The remaining 90% (162) were all investigating aspects of food and crop development, enhancement and protection. Out of the total of �52 million spent on agricultural biotechnology in 1998-99, only about �3m (6%) went on safety research. The revelation has shocked environmental campaigners ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How US put pressure on Blair over GM food GUARDIAN (London) Monday February 28, 2000, by David Hencke and Rob Evans President Clinton was briefed to put intensive pressure on
Tony Blair to open up Britain and Europe to US genetically modified food and
crops during private talks at the Downing Street summit in 1998, papers released
to the Guardian revealed yesterday.
And within 24 hours of US protests, Britain had acted to modify proposals to try to open the way for more GM food being sold in Britain and the rest of the European Union. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Zealand Salmon Research Halted By The Associated Press, February 26, 2000 BLENHEIM, New Zealand (AP) -- A controversy involving leaked secret documents, deformed fish heads and gargantuan salmon has ended with a New Zealand company agreeing to kill all its genetically engineered fish. More than a year after New Zealand King Salmon Co. Ltd. was first accused of breeding mutant chinook salmon in the so-called "Franken-fish" experiment, the company announced Friday it would bury the remains of the specially grown fish and suspend its research. King Salmon's chief executive Paul Steere said the company made the decision after it had successfully introduced an additional growth hormone gene into chinook salmon and passed the trait down three generations. He denied the decision to suspend the project was influenced by political, ethical or scientific resistance. Opponents of the project have fought for more than a year to stop it after leaked secret papers showed deformed heads and other abnormalities had occurred during the breeding program. After receiving the new growth hormone gene, the salmon grew three times faster than the normal rate. According to the company, the genetically modified salmon could grow up to 550 pounds. Chinook, or Pacific king, the largest species of salmon, grow to 110 pounds in the wild. King Salmon has admitted some of the first-generation fish had developed lumps on their heads due to apparent genetic deformities. "All modified salmon have been killed and disposed of, in accordance with (scientific) containment protocols," Steere said in a statement. The company said it would retain frozen sperm from genetically engineered salmon "at a secure location" so it was available to continue the program in the future. The company's experimental work was halted as the government prepared to establish an inquiry into the project and its controls to prevent live salmon or fertile eggs escaping into the wild. Articles Forwarded by Veronica Griffin Ph.D..
Kerawa Qld.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Update:
Regional Forest Agreements
20 Th. February 2000
Resources and Conservation Division
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
GPO Box 3927
Sydney 2001
Subject : Southern Regional Forest Agreement
I received the floppy disk containing the base data used to derive the target achievement numbers during the afternoon on the 28th February. (Three days after the closing date for comments and eleven days after first asking for it). As requested in my submission faxed on 25 February, please include these comments in your deliberations leading to a final decisions on reserve areas in the southern region. Attachment 1 gives the results of my analysis of the forest ecosystems in the coastal sub-region. It shows that the forest ecosystem targets can be achieved fully, or to the greatest extent possible, by the reservation of approximately 30,000 ha of state forest and some additional small areas of other available crown lands. The reservation of yet more public lands will not achieve any better comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve forest system as defined by the adopted target criteria. There is clearly no justification (based on forest target achievement) for the reservation of between 196,000 ha and 262,000 ha (the additional reserves for the 32,000 and 65,000 saw log production scenarios). Production rates in excess of 65,000 should be possible if the minimum reserves are created and such scenarios should be examined. The analysis calls into question the target achievements presented in the discussion papers. Would you please forward the base data for the fauna and flora conservation targets as requested in my faxes dated 21 & 22 February. The data used to derive the published tables must be available. Any proper review of a reservation system should also review existing reserve areas which are reserved greatly in excess of the targets required to achieve a CAR system. As shown in table 3 of the attachment, many ecosystems in the existing parks are represented greatly in excess of the target areas. The existing park boundaries should have been reviewed with a view to an exchange of appropriate lands between parks and forestry so as to achieve the best possible result between the competing land uses and for the local community. I will forward later a similar analysis of the old growth data received on 28 February. Yours faithfully Glen Druery
Forwarded by
Glen Druery
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
Guns Laws and Fools
Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris - Nth Michigan
USA 29 Feb 2000. A 7 year old child took parents handgun to school and
shot a young girl in the throat - considered to be an "accident". How did the
child access the firearm? It is utterly the parents responsibility - they are
culpable - it was no "accident".
The anti's no doubt will blame the firearm and
overreact to call for total bans and the usual
response - and they have a valid point. Obviously some people cannot accept
responsibility for ownership of life saving, but also potentially dangerous
tools. No different It is indeed sad that the majority of responsible
firearm owners will bear the brunt of efforts to control fools and the
irresponsible - who being what they are - will not heed such efforts
anyway.
In my eyes, firearms for self protection should be
encouraged, but also be a social privilege. Ownership of same
to have regular demonstrated proficiency in use and of lawful
use. No different to endorsement in industry for certification / endorsement for
operation of plant and machinery.
For those who are found circumventing such processes -
full weight of law to be imposed. Sadly - as with
criminals - fools will always find a way and a means, but by developing
a process where fools can be restricted - where the responsible can be
encouraged to assist community policing - the only losers will the be the
criminals.
But NO - the gun will be demonized and
unwittingly the na�ve, and fools will be drawn into the mire of people
control - best practised by governments, and all done for honourable
and unquestionable justifications. It is how things have been, and sadly - will
be.
Peter Cunningham
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A little challenge:
By Rev. Andrew Sandlin I haven't discharged a firearm in twenty years. I have never, if memory serves, shot a handgun. Friends of mine who can best be described euphemistically as gun aficionados (Brian Abshire comes immediately to mind!) classify me as significantly less experienced than tender-foot in my "firearms skills." Aside from Biblically justified killing (for instance, capital punishment and the immediate defense of life), I abhor violence. I am not a member of the National Rifle Association, or even Larry Pratt's Gun Owners of America, though I would be quite proud to be a member of the latter. My views on gun ownership do not, therefore, spring from any obsession with guns themselves, with their use, or with the damage they can easily produce. I have always found the pen and pulpit more effective weapons than guns. Nonetheless, I suggest that the 1999 shootings at Columbine, Atlanta, and Ft. Worth reveal a glaring problem in the United States: an insufficient number of citizens carry guns. Crime, of course, is decreasing overall in this country. However, violent shooting sprees on unarmed citizens seem to be on the rise-at least they are getting much greater publicity by a ubiquitous media, hungry for a story of any kind, or perhaps even interested implicitly in championing the gun control banner. Ironically, however, these murders should lead us to think in quite the opposite direction: armed citizens are exponentially less likely to be shot than unarmed citizens; therefore, more law-abiding citizens need guns. This is so simple that only the "deep thinkers" in the secular universities and media could miss it. The Rationale of Gun-Toting When you and the other guy are both carrying a firearm, and when you have no particular desire to get shot, it's quite prudent to avoid assaulting the other guy, whether physically or verbally. This is not, of course, an ironclad rule: Today, Mafia and gang members are not deterred from shooting others of their own kind merely because the latter are carrying firearms. Civilian war is an aspect of their modus operandi, and guns are simply a part of that equation. The problem with these murderous men (and all other murderers, for that matter) is their hearts, not their guns. As long as there are guns, wicked men will find and obtain them. If every last gun on the earth were confiscated and destroyed, wicked men would create them. If wicked men could not create them, they would create other lethal weapons (like bombs) from household items. Murder by firearm is a hamartiological (sin) problem, not a firearm problem. ( 1 ) Unless gun-toting murderers are on a simple kamikaze mission, they are not interested in forfeiting their own life simply to take someone else's. In other words, they do not consider it desirable or inevitable that they be killed in the process of killing somebody else. If they know that the other guy is surely carrying a firearm that can end their life after they pull the trigger - or as they are preparing to pull the trigger - they might have second thoughts about their murderous intent. Responsible Gun-Toters Save Lives Take Columbine, Atlanta, and Ft. Worth as examples. If in each of these cases, the adults who were targets or victims of the murderous assault had been carrying firearms, it is almost certain that many lives could have been saved. Responsible citizens trained in the legitimate use of firearms could have wounded or killed the murderers long before each wreaked as much damage as he did. Would this plan have prevented all these murders entirely? Probably not. But a number of individuals would be alive today had responsible adult citizens been carrying guns and been willing to use them in a crisis. (In the case of the Ft. Worth church murders, I already hear the plaint, "What? Carrying guns into church, the sanctuary of worship?" I am reminded of the Early American Puritan settlers, ambling to church with a Bible under one arm and a musket under the other. "But those were different and much more dangerous times. Why, the settlers could have been attacked by savages at any time!" Hmm . . . .) After the Atlanta shootings, Thomas Sowell perceptively wrote: "When people ask emotionally, "How can we stop these things?" the most straightforward answer is to ask: How was it [sic] in fact stopped? It was stopped, like most shooting sprees, by the arrival on the scene of other people with guns." It is the monopoly of guns by people with evil intentions that is dangerous. Some of the most dangerous places in America are places where strict gun-control laws provide assurance to violent criminals that their victims will not be able to defend themselves. What if every third or fourth person in that building in Atlanta had a gun available at the time? Under such conditions, it is very unlikely that Matt Barton could have shot 22 people before he was stopped.... The one thing that so-called "gun control" laws do not do is control guns -- They disarm potential victims. People who do not care about the law can always get guns in a country with 200 million guns and more coming in, both legally and illegally. We can't even stop millions of human beings from coming into this country illegally-and a handgun is a lot smaller than a person. That basic reality is not changed by politicians and media loudmouths who appeal to emotions and symbolism by crying out for more gun laws. You can always pass feel-good laws and ignore their actual consequences. In fact, we have already done too much of that on too many other issues. The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards - and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. Affluent homeowners pay to have private armed security patrols cruising their neighbourhoods. Many of them are also for gun control. Of course you don't have to have a gun yourself, when you are paying other people to carry guns for you. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighbourhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can "make a statement" by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books? ( 2 ) If anybody should be allowed guns, those in low-income neighbourhoods should. This is, not coincidentally, the very location about whose "proliferation of guns" liberals howl. We need to get more guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens-wherever they live. This is not a "solution" to firearm murders. As long as men are not fully sanctified, there are no "solutions," only trade-offs. ( 3 ) Since limiting or forbidding gun ownership to law-abiding citizens would only assure their vulnerability to law-breaking citizens (and a law-breaking state, for that matter), the best way to diminish firearm murders is to put guns in the hands of the potential victims and teach them how to use those guns responsibly. The Legitimate Use of Power Protects Life. Simply put, in civil society power is a deterrent to evil. (This is one of John Calvin's "uses" of the law: it restrains evil men.) Many of the people today calling for the confiscation of guns on the grounds of a proliferation of gun-related violence were the same ones twenty years ago calling for the United States to disarm itself in the face of "nuclear proliferation" with the Soviet Union. They envisioned all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios by which the nuclear weapons of both nations could destroy every individual on earth "seven times over," or some other such idiocy. The fact is, however, for nearly four decades not a single American was harmed by a Soviet nuclear weapon and not a single Russian citizen was harmed by an American nuclear weapon. If, alternatively, the United States had disarmed itself, it would have been vulnerable to blackmail in the face of a regime bent on worldwide communistic domination. By contrast, I will take "nuclear proliferation" any day. And I will take "firearm proliferation" any day. And so should you. Deter firearm murder; buy more firearms. 1. Andrew Sandlin, "Hamartiology and Gun Control," Christian Statesman, Vol. 140, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1997), 5-6. 2. Thomas Sowell, "Gunning for Guns," Jewish World Review, August 5, 1999, http://www.jewishworldreview.com. 3. idem., A Conflict of Visions (New York, 1987), 25-27 and passim. Rev. Andrew Sandlin is Executive Director of Chalcedon and Editor-in-Chief of the Chalcedon Report and The Journal of Christian Reconstruction. Forwarded by
Peter Cunningham
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
Justice System
In 1976 a Corporate court was established and called the
Federal Court of Australia. In 1979 the High Court was corporatised. Since then
all Federal courts have taken it upon themselves to be equal to parliament, and
do not answer to anyone. They refuse to sit with a jury, and as such are the
Corporate Arm of executive government. Both major political
parties approve of this.
In Queensland in 1991 the Goss government
Corporatised the Police Force. It is now the
Queensland Police Service, and is expected to fund itself from
fines. The Goss government then corporatised the Supreme Court
in 1991, and the District Courts in 1995. When this
was done, the Government of the day fully controls both the Police and the
Courts.
Where is the separation of powers in Queensland in
the year 2000?
Dead.
Peter
Gargan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dinner
Meeting: One Nation,
Bexley Office
WHEN:
This Thursday 2nd March
2000
WHERE: Rockdale Tennis Club, 79 Illawarra St., Rockdale CONTACT: n_baird@netset.net.au Ph 02 9599 5126 (wk) GUEST SPEAKER: Clr: Lindsay Abrahams, Bankstown Councillor COST:
$20 per head, incl. 3 course dinner.
TIME:
7.00 p.m. for 7.30 p.m..
If you want tickets please call me and make your booking.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let us know what you think. Feedback is important. Comments
on articles read would be of value. Do you agree / disagree? Can you add more or
a different perspective. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
Send this email on to as many as you can.
The more that read it the merrier. In time email communication will make
government censorship impractical and the newspapers will have to start
reporting it as it really is, rather than the smoke and mirrors tricks they
currently indulge in, or loose readership, and therefore advertising monies.
While we have a long way to go before that happens, each epic journey
must start with a single step.
Antonia Feitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editorial Policy
If you wish to raise an issue without being
identified as such, please make it clear that this is your wish, either by
marking the correspondence Private & Confidential, in which case nothing
will get printed, or by just stating that while the issue can be raised, your
name is not to appear with it. Failing which all items received relating to the
News Report are considered publishable (subject to a common sense
test).
Disclaimer.
Opinions posted on the News Report are those of
the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the News
Report or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted
works. |
