|
News Report Issue
59
Index
1. Thought for the day - Neil
2. Request:
3. Opinion: Australia's taxpayer funded destruction -
Antonia.
4. Opinion: Banks are bastards - Antonia
5. Opinion: Internet hype - Antonia
6. Opinion: The Government's job? - Antonia
7. Sand in the Wheel No. 24 - The Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety - Neil
8. a) Life Sciences: Submission to the Gene technology
regulator - Forwarded by Veronica
8. b) Life Sciences: Quotation - Dr Erwin Charnoff - father of
molecular biology
9. Humour: The Irish egg - Ian
10. Feedback: Australia's lost green-ness - John
11. Feedback: Mandatory Sentencing - Debbie
12. Feedback: Spreading the word - Joe
13. Feedback: Petrol Protest - Army response - Antonia
14. Feedback: The emperors new clothes - John
15. Feedback: Australia Post & Labor - Richard
16. Feedback Contacts:
17. Editorial Policy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Thought for the day:
"The future is not in the hands of fate, but in ours".
(Jules Jusserano)
Forwarded by Jack Manasserian
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Request:
For this online news report to be ultimately effective it
must grow to such a size that it and the ideas it espouses can't be ignored. So
do your bit and help circulate it far and wide. If we are to challenge the
elites (the Packers and the Murdochs) view of history, politics, economics, the
environment, the structure of society etc., then we are going to have to do more
than wait. We are going to have to be very active and vigilant. We have given
you one of the tools (information & a medium for comment) you will need.
Help us to help you. Lets fan the flames of knowledge. Spread the word.
Editor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Opinion:
Australia's taxpayer-funded destruction
continues
It might seem paradoxical, but the big multi-million dollar projects underway in Australia are resulting in fewer jobs, the destruction of the local manufacturing industry and the de-skilling of the workforce. The blue collar youth of Australia and their parents salute you, Mr Howard. Well done. For example, despite Visipulp and Paper's receiving over $40 million of federal government assistance, the company recently let contracts for steel fabrication to China, by-passing the Australian steel industry. Other projects such as Pelican Point in South Australia are using imported fabricated steel. Whatever happened to the level playing field? Why is big business getting Australian taxpayers' money? Consequently, Australian manufacturing is being destroyed with the competition from cheap labour Asian countries. A survey released on 14th March showed that employers in Queensland's manufacturing sector expect to axe 400 jobs before July. One Australian company sacked 230 workers and closed two of its engineering plants purely because major projects have announced they intend to use foreign parts and labour. (The World Today, 14/3/00). This is a national scandal. Ron Austin, Managing Director of Austin Engineering at Ipswich said it doesn't make sense that taxpayer funded incentives and subsidies are going towards major projects that don't use local content. He's talking about big money: one Comalco Alumina project is receiving $100 million of federal government assistance, and up to $150 million of Queensland government assistance. Comalco? Why is Comalco getting taxpayer's money? It should be PAYING tax, not receiving the fruits of our labour. With that sort of money, Mr Austin is right to say there must be involvement of Australian industry which has a second-to-none track record. Once our manufacturing industry is gone, it will be difficult to make a come-back. He said, "Kids that are not going to be doctors or lawyers, but kids that need blue collar workers, they are just not going to have the opportunity. They are disappearing." And the government doesn't care. Such kids are just regarded as losers by this disgraceful government. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Opinion:
Banks are bastards It seems that all over the world banks are bastards. In Germany, Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank are merging shedding 16,000 jobs at 800 branches in the process. People are expected to use online banking, and if they don't or can't, well that's just too bad. The Deutsche-Dresdner bank plans to do away with ALL its 'unprofitable' retail operations. An insurance company might take them over, but they will be too expensive for ordinary people. One observer said there's no upper limit on the extent to which financial services will combine. The banks are looking forward to pan-European mergers and towards cross-Atlantic and even cross-Asian mergers. And to think the Australian [sic] bankers claim with a straight face that they have to merge to get big enough to compete with the overseas competition. And to think the Hilmer Report, the bible of economic rationalism, promised "lower prices, and improved choice for customers and greater efficiency, higher economic growth and increased employment opportunities for the economy as a whole." (Hilmer Report, p,1). All lies. Performance appraisal is all the rage these days. Based on their performances, Hilmer and all his academic stooges, dopey politicians, media groupies and bureaucratic subversives should be sent to the salt mines. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5. Opinion
Internet hype The internet is indeed a wonderful thing, but it does have limits. All this talk about the new and the old economies shows it. Your computer can't make you a cup of coffee and a sandwich. You can't wear it, or sleep in it, shower in it, or use it as a toilet. In short, human beings are just as dependent on the physical world as they ever were for food, clothing, shelter and much more. This was sheeted home last Christmas when internet retailers couldn't physically deliver the toys customers had ordered. Stating the bleeding obvious, Robert Gottliebsen said, "The Internet companies had invested in their marketing and systems but not in the physical fulfilment of the orders they generated. ... While many products and services can be delivered entirely electronically, a large number require a physical infrastructure to produce and deliver them" (Australian, 17/3/00) Quite so. So the old economy is not going to go away until such times as men become angels who, as we all know, are pure spirits. Antonia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antonia
You missed a real downer. The basic universal human needs
worldwide are for food, clothing, shelter, water etc. None of which, as you
noted, the internet seems able to provide. It also as far as I can tell can't
provide sex, notwithstanding the proliferation of pornographic sites on
the net. If anyone knows where it can then that really will
revolutionise the net, but I must be daydreaming.
On this basis what is it good for other than
communication.
Neil
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6. Opinion
Government's job On ABC Radio, a reporter interviewing Human Rights Commissioner Chris Sidoti about mandatory sentencing asked, "Isn't it the Australian government's job to protect Australia's international reputation?" No, it's not actually. The Australian government's job is to govern for the good of all Australians, something that hasn't happened for two decades. All this talk about Australia's international reputation is so much clap-trap. Talk about a cultural cringe. The fact is that Australia used to be a best practice society, unsurpassed in prosperity, good government, peace and harmony. Australia was a model of what the rest of the world could aspire to. As if we should give two hoots what UN bureaucrats - many of whom come from countries with appalling reputations - think of us. Antonia ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. SAND IN THE WHEELS (n�24)
ATTAC Weekly newsletter - Wednesday 03/15/00 Please circulate and distribute. This weekly newsletter was put together by the � Sand in the Wheels � team of volunteers. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://attac.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe: <http://attac.org/listen.htm> The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ____________________________________________________________ Delegates from over 140 countries, meeting in Montreal, Canada, in February, drew up rules which will allow countries to ban the import of GM products (seeds, microbes, animals and crops) which they believe to be harmful to their environment. The pact stipulates that all GM food must bear the label 'may contain' before they are shipped to other countries. This is the first time ever that an international framework has been created to regulate trade in genetically modified products. Called the 'Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety', after the Colombian city where talks began a year ago but were suspended, it will take effect when it has been ratified by at least 50 countries. During a week of intense negotiations, the road to agreement was a rough one. Many delegates from Europe and developing countries felt that the pact had been diluted to suit US trade interests. The US position on GM food throughout the negotiations was governed by its trade policies rather than by environmental considerations. In February 1999, it was the US that blocked the initial talks in Cartagena, fearing that the agreement would damage trade in commodities such as corn and soybean, a large amount of which is GM. Ironically, the US is not a signatory to the pact : the US Congress has yet to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity drawn up in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which is a precursor to the current agreement. In Montreal, therefore, the US had mere 'observer' status, and could not vote or officially participate. So although the US was able somewhat to influence the talks through its agricultural allies, Canada and Australia, it will have to abide by the new rules when exporting to countries that are parties to the protocol. Strengths and Limitations of the Protocol - Genetically modified (GM) products will henceforth bear the label "may contain". However, labelling will not give specific details about the GM products, and once processed, foodstuffs will not bear the label. For example, Cornflakes made from GM corn will not be labelled when they appear on store shelves, nor will flour or cooking oil. - The protocol also establishes a biosafety 'clearing house' for countries to share information about GM organisms. Countries must inform the 'clearing house' within 15 days of approval of any crop varieties which could be used in food, animal feed and processing. - The exporting country will henceforth require approval from the importing country for shipment of GM organisms intended for release into the environment. -The good news for developing countries is the agreement on the 'Precautionary Principle'.This means that a country can ban a GM product without having to produce scientific evidence as to its harmful effects - an agreement which runs counter to the WTO ruling that an import can be banned only on the basis of scientific evidence. The 'Catch 22' of the Precautionary Principle ? The agreement contains a 'savings clause,' wherein the new pact will not override rights and obligations under other international agreements, including the WTO. The US insisted that science-based WTO rules would still apply to import decisions. "If a dispute arises over a country's decision to close its market to a food product, the WTO will review the protocol before making a ruling," said Margot Wallstrom, European Commission environment minister. Indian comments on what the pact could mean for developing countries R.H. Khwaja, joint secretary of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, who headed the Indian delegation at Montreal, expressed confidence that "India has legislation covering biotechnology which came into effect in 1989", and would not be affected by the protocol. But Suman Sahai, convenor of Gene Campaign, a Delhi-based non-governmental organisation, was more cautious with regard to the limitations of the pact. She felt that in the absence of adequate labelling, developing countries like India could become a dumping ground for tonnes of GM food waiting to be exported from Canada, Australia and the US. In a press statement she said that there are reasons to be concerned because a shipment of GM maize was mixed with the maize imported from the US to India last year. Developing countries, that are rich in diversity, should be careful of genetic pollution: foreign genes from GM crops could get mixed with wild relatives of crop plants. In a worst-case scenario, if these contain sterile seed technologies, production of major crops will shift into the hands of foreign biotech companies that possess 'terminator' technologies. Sahai goes on to say that developing countries must now focus their attention on formulating domestic rules and guidelines to check any move to import GM food. The controversy over GM food, its environment implications and health effects has not ended. Indeed, as Juan Mayr, Columbia's Minister of Environment, commented at the end of the negotiations: "This is just a beginning. We have still a great challenge ahead of us". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Life Sciences:
8. a) Gene Technology Regulator
Thanks to George P. Kailis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for posting
this submission to the Australian government, re their proposed Gene Technology
Bill 11 March
00
------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBMISSION TO: Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Commonwealth Dept of Health and Aged
Care
Dear Sir / Madam
Please find below my response to the proposed Gene Technology Bill. 1. In view of the potential risks which genetical manipulation of our food sources pose, it is imperative that before there is any consideration of a new Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Australian government call a moratorium on gene technology in food production until such time that its safety has been determined for human health and the environment. In regard to health risks please note: a) Such a moratorium has been called for by both the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia and recently endorsed by the Blair government of the UK "(This) is an entirely new method of producing food. We can't possibly predict the outcome on human health", states Dr John Coveney, lecturer in public health, Flinders University (SMH 12/6/99). According to Professor Stewart Truswell, emeritus professor of human nutrition at Sydney University, "The safety of GE foods could not be known for some time" (SMH 12/6/99). b) "Absence of evidence" does not necessarily mean "evidence of absence" of harm. According to Britain's biggest ever social science research programme - the 10-year, 15 million pounds Global Environmental Change Programme (GECP), funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council, which has drawn in some 355 researchers in 150 projects since 1991, science is "ill-equipped to tackle the diffuse effects of existing technologies" and "that definitive answers do not and cannot exist in the face of uncertainty and 'ignorance' about new technologies". c) It took 5 years to show
that milk produced from cows treated with the genetically engineered
growth hormone, bovine somatotropin (rBST, also called BGH) has
substantially higher levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1)
than which occurs naturally in milk and that there is a possible
"association between circulating IGF-1 levels and an increased relative
risk of breast and prostate cancer".(Scientific Committee on Veterinary
Measures relating to Public Health (SCVM) Report on Public Health Aspects of
rBST is available on the European Commission website at
d) There is now also evidence of a
link between exposure to the weedkiller, glyphosate, (for which the
Roundup Ready soya, corn and other crops have been genetically engineered to
tolerate more of) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (cancer or the lymph glands)
according to a recent population-based study conducted in Sweden
(Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. (1999). A Case-Control Study of
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer 5, No
6).
e) According to Professor
Terje Traavik, scientific advisor to the Norwegian government
and one of the world's leading experts in viruses and horizontal gene
transfer, the recombinant DNA technologies used to develop all of
the GMOs on the market today are so imprecise and unpredictable that they do not
even deserve to be called a technology. He said that recent research
indicates that artificial genetic material released into the environment through
agricultural, medical and industrial applications can be incorporated into the
genetic material of the cells of all species, including our own. This
process, called horizontal gene transfer, is already known to
create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases and to lead to harmful
mutations, cancers, and acute toxic shock and autoimmune responses. (
"Field of Genes", Kleiner K, New Scientist, 16th August '98)
f) In view of these and other
potentially more serious unforeseen consequences, the Australian
government would be well advised to acknowledge the "precautionary
principle" adopted in the Montreal UN Bio-Safety Protocol. This
means that a GMO must first be proven safe, not simply assume it is safe until
proven harmful. According to Dr Byron Rigby, Psychiatrist and Federal
Spokesman on Health and Science for the Natural Law Party, "It is as if
we are introducing potent and untested pharmaceuticals into our children's diet,
without even a trace of the testing that goes into the manufacture of
drugs. We are doing this with our food even when we know that the most
rigorous testing still often results in issue of drugs with serious and
sometimes fatal toxic side-effects" (Like Thalidomide -
Editor)
2. A report from the CSIRO last year revealed that our agricultural practices up to date have resulted in so much environmental destruction including soil loss, salinity, water pollution and desertification, that cost the nation far more than its farm exports earnt. Because of the potential harm which genetically engineered crops, chemical use and current agricultural practices pose to the future viability of our soil, water and ecology, it is imperative that the Australian government be committed to fully supporting research and development of sustainable agricultural practices, including Vedic Agriculture, as well as supporting farmers wishing to switch over to these methods of food production. An article in the prestigious journal Nature (1998, Drinkwater et al, Vol 396, pages 226-64) showed that yields with organic agriculture are comparable to those with conventional farming. On the other hand university based field trials in the US have shown no increase in yields from GE crops. In the case of Roundup Ready soyabeans in fact the yields were down by 6.5% compared to conventional soya and weed killer use was increased 2 - 5 times. (This report by Dr Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US National Academy of Sciences, is accessible on the AgBioTech InfoNet website at <http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf> 3. The Australian government should
employ proven Natural Law-based technologies to raise the national consciousness
so that concerns for short-term profit be balanced with our
responsibility to nurture and not harm human health, our soil and our ecology
both now and for all future generations
4. While the above processes are in
motion, an Office for the Gene Technology should be set up to simplify the
administration and regulation of all matters relating to genetically
manipulation of organisms. In view of the fact that "scientists are
often under real pressures to reach conclusions that can inform
commercial and political decisions when no such conclusions can be reached" (see
above report form the Global Environmental Change Programme (GECP) ), it
is imperative that independence of the administration and its scientific
advisory bodies be clear and transparent, ensuring no conflict of
interest. A fully independent expert international advisory committee
should be set up to ensure that decisions made re the use of this food
technology are primarily serving the interest of public health, the future
viability of our agriculture and the preservation of our ecology. Such a
committee should consist of scientists listed below who have openly expressed
there concerns about this technology.
Yours faithfully Dr Tim Carr MBBS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. b) Quotations:
Dr Erwin Chargoff, eminent biochemist who is
often referred to as the father of molecular biology, warned
that all innovation does not result in "progress." He once
referred to genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz" and
warned that the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat
to the world than the advent of nuclear technology.
"I have the feeling that
science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained
inviolate," he wrote in his autobiography, Heraclitean
Fire. "Noting the 'awesome irreversibility' of
genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that,
"...you cannot recall a new form of life...It will
survive you and your children and your children's children.
An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so
unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not
been guilty of it." Articles Forwarded by Veronica Griffin Ph.D..
Kerawa Qld.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9. Humour
The Irish Egg
There was once an Irishman and an Englishman who lived next
door to each other. The Irishman owned a hen and each morning would look in his
garden and pick up one of his hen's eggs for breakfast. One day he looked
into his garden and saw that the hen had laid an egg in the Englishman's
garden. He was about to go next door when he saw the Englishman pick up the egg.
The Irishman ran up to the Englishman and told him that the egg belonged to
him, because he owned the hen.
The Englishman disagreed because the egg was laid on his
property. They argued for a while until finally the Irishman said, "In my family
we normally solve disputes by the following actions: I kick you in the balls and
time how long it takes you to get back up, then you kick me in
the balls and time how long it takes for me to get up, whomever gets
up quicker wins the egg."
The Englishman agreed to this and so the Irishman found his heaviest pair of boots and put them on, he took a few steps back, then ran toward the Englishman and kicked as hard as he could in the balls. The Englishman fell to the floor clutching his nuts howling in agony for 30 minutes. Eventually the Englishman stood up and said, "Now it's my
turn to kick you."
The Irishman said, "Keep the damn egg."
Ian J Nelson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10. Feedback:
Australia's Lost Green-ness.
I have recently returned from a trip
around the world. Universally, Australia was perceived as remote and
perhaps the last place where "clean and green" freshness could still be
achieved. It is, I believe, our principal and greatest national
asset. The saddening news from the ABC's 7:30 report transcripted below, reveals that the most pristine environment in Australia, that of isolated Tasmania, has been threatened by the clandestine introduction of GM crop trials in "secret" locations. This outrage by none other than the gene tech giant, Monsanto, is tantamount to industrial espionage on a massive scale. The North American conglomerate has effectively neutralised Australia from the clamouring of countries happy to supply the world GMO free produce, for universally, the world finds Frankenfood abhorrent. Our scientists and regulators have stood meekly by, and allowed the rape of our natural resources, scurrying to pick up the crumbs! Poor fellow, my country, you've blown it! John Massey Biohazard Action Alliance Transcript 16/03/00 Frankenstein food being developed in
Tasmania
KERRY O'BRIEN: It's been called 'Frankenstein food' --
genetically modified plants touted as the super crops of the
future. Here in Australia, legislation is still being formulated to set
formal guidelines for genetically modified crops.
But hundreds of trials are already under way, many of them in secret locations. In Tasmania, where primary producers have long traded on the State's clean, green image, there are growing concerns that their crops may inadvertently be cross-pollinated with genetically modified test crops. Judy Tierney reports. ALAN RIGNEY, CANOLA FARMER: This is lovely stuff -- canola oil. JUDY TIERNEY: In northern Tasmania, Alan Rigney is part of a consortium which aims to produce Australia's, and possibly the world's, first chemically-free canola oil. Farmers are contracted to grow crops of canola to produce the oil and a by-product of meal for cattle. But there's a problem. Genetically manipulated crops of canola are being planted at dozens of secret sites around Tasmania. LUKE ANDERSON, AUTHOR: Canola produces millions and billions of pollen grains. Every time it pollinates, those pollen grains can cross with conventional varieties of canola. JUDY TIERNEY: The GMC crops are modified to be resistant to chemicals and the plots are sprayed to kill off weeds. It's an issue that's been researched by Luke Anderson for his book 'Genetic Engineering, Food, and our Environment.' LUKE ANDERSON: We've
got farmers complaining already in Canada that their varieties
are being cross-pollinated and so they're getting herbicide-resistant
weeds in amongst their own crops.
JUDY TIERNEY: It's a warning repeated by geneticist and environmentalist David Suzuki. DAVID SUZUKI, GENETICIST AND ENVIRONMENTALIST: Right now, there's already enough evidence to say that these organisms, once grown out in fields, are changing, exchanging genes in ways we hadn't predicted -- corn plants exchanging DNA with milkweed plants, canola exchanging DNA with weeds, making superweeds. JUDY TIERNEY: But like most of the GM debate, there are radically opposing views. Multinational company Monsanto has planted trial crops of genetically modified canola in Tasmania. BRIAN ARNST, MONSANTO AUSTRALIA LTD: It's known that canola pollen can travel, can travel some distance. However, trials in Australia have shown that the canola pollen is very heavy and, if you go beyond 50m of a canola field, it's been measured that less than 1 per cent of the pollen is viable. SCOTT KINNEAR, ORGANIC INDUSTRY AUSTRALIA: They picked the wrong crop to start off with. Canola, it transfers, the bees love it. They take it 3 km or 4 km. The wind takes the pollen up to 10 km. It's by far the wrong crop to start with and we should stop it immediately. JUDY TIERNEY: Well, that's what the State Government is thinking about, but it can't do anything just yet. DAVID LLEWELLYN, TASMANIAN PRIMARY INDUSTRIES MINISTER: We're looking at, you know, trying to come to terms with this whole issue and having the public debate that's needed with regard to this issue. And I'd prefer that, you know, things didn't move along quite so quickly as far as private industry is concerned -- an area that I don't, at this stage, have any control over. JUDY TIERNEY: But any suggestion the State Government move to shut out GM crops brings an angry response. BUZZ GREEN, AGRICULTURAL ADVISER: The Government would want to be very sure that it can milk significant advantage from that position, because it will certainly isolate us from significant growth potential in this technology and it does have the danger of leaving us behind. JUDY TIERNEY: The State Government wants full disclosure of the crops' whereabouts, but those involved in the growing of them say that wouldn't be right. BRIAN ARNST: When we do any sort of trial, whether it be with genetically modified crop or even with some of our pesticides, the data that we're gathering is confidential and of competitive value to our company up until time of commercialisation. So, therefore, we have always kept these sites out of the public mind. SCOTT KINNEAR: We were shocked, absolutely shocked, that we had not been consulted in any way by the Government or by the industry. It's OUR approaches to Monsanto and to Agrevo talking about contamination, talking about controls, trying to urge them to give us the locations so that we can put risk analysis. JUDY TIERNEY: At the moment, regulation of these crops in secret locations comes from the Federal Government-convened Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, or GMAC. But GMAC doesn't oversee the crops or the personnel involved. That's the duty of institutional biosafety committees, which are appointed by the very companies growing the crops. BRIAN ARNST: The IBC committee is -- yes, it's set up by Monsanto, but it contains a group of people who are all independent. We've got scientists from Monash University, from Melbourne University, and we've also got lay people from the community. JUDY TIERNEY: But right now that doesn't appease many of Tasmania's producers, including the apple industry. They've fought long and hard to establish the reputation for clean, green products. As an island State, its isolation has afforded it a kind of mystique. Now many farmers feel consumer confidence will not be heightened, but severely shaken. STEVEN SHIELD, APPLE INDUSTRY SPOKESMAN: And it's more than an image, it's a reality. We're using very minimal amounts of chemicals now because of good orcharding practices, so we have a lot of concerns over genetically engineered food products being grown around ours as well. JUDY TIERNEY: For Alan Rigney if the perception of Tasmania's clean, green image is tarnished, his sale of pure oil could face an uphill battle. ALAN RIGNEY: If it jeopardises that image, well, we have lost a marketing tool. BUZZ GREEN: Science can demonstrate there's a high margin of safety with this technology and I think that as consumers become more aware of the facts, their confidence in it will increase. John
Massey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11. Feedback
Mandatory Sentencing
This is the first part of Alan Jones comments on TV this morning, and adds important light on the mandatory sentencing and the boy that killed himself debate........ this kid appears to have deserved the mandatory sentence he got......... Mandatory Sentencing Debate 16th March
2000 Shouldn’t the public have been told that by age fifteen, Johnno had been charged with twenty-eight offences? That he’d broken into his principal’s house and stolen clothes and a nine hundred dollar stereo. He vandalised cars and stole petrol. Four times he burgled his school but he wasn’t sent to jail. He was let go without formal convictions. Last year, Johnno and his friends robbed the local store of food, cigarettes and seven thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars in cash. He didn’t go to jail. He spent twenty-days at Don Dale, a humane juvenile detention centre lauded by Amnesty International. But Johnno was soon out again and broke into council offices looking for keys to the safe. He and his two friends couldn’t find them so they took some pens and textas worth fifty dollars. Days later, he again raided the school. He was caught and once more sent to Don Dale. It’s not a jail. While there, he argued with staff over cleaning. He was sent to his room where he was later found hanging................. The public needs protecting against kids like Johnno and his mates. Debbie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie
Unfortunately, the general media won't let the truth
get in the way of a good story, especially if there is some social
control legislation that someone is trying to pass, and the careful running of
such a story will help get the climate of public opinion to the
stage where they will accept such legislation.
I am sure in this case that we are not being
given the whole facts or anything like close to that ideal, an
ideal I am fully aware may not in any case be achievable in all but the most
unique circumstances. Nevertheless we should insist on full information. It
gives a totally different perspective to the story compared to how it was first
promoted.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12. Feedback
Spreading the World
ALL WHO RECEIVE NEWS REPORT ON THE NET ARE TO ARRANGE FOR TWO
NEW
" OTHERS " TO RECEIVE IT ON THE NET. JUST FOR STARTERS. JOE LOPEZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Joe for your help.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
13. Feedback
Petrol Protest
Neil,
With that warning to defence staff it seems we've already reaped a far bigger crop than we thought we'd sown! Yiiiiii- hah! Talk about people power! They ain't seen nothin' yet, have they. High fives all round for the faithful News Report team and their scoops? Antonia ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: .Administrator DRNExchange >Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2000 11:02 >To: All DRNExchange Users >Subject: SPAM petrol price message. Any members identified as onforwarding any message relating to a petrol price protest may find themselves being charged for inappropriate use of Defence resources and for directly contravening DI(G) ADMIN 10-4, annex A paragraphs 3 to 6 inclusive. A copy of which can be found at: http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/home/documents/definst/dig/administrative.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
14. Feedback:
Subject: Re the Emperors new
clothes?
I never thought that I would stand up before the Australian public and declare that our Emperor Has No Clothes. That is, our Governments are bereft of any semblance of constitutional authority. Len Clampett recently announced that all of "Her Majesty`s" Letters Patents were signed by Australian politicians, so I decided to see for myself. I asked my local Members to send me a copy of such instruments which authorise Federal Governor Generals and State (Qld) Governors to act on behalf of the Queen and signed by the Queen of England. This is the recognised procedure according to the ninth clause of our colonial constitution, which is held up by those who rule as their authority to act on Her and our behalf. Strangely the other eight clauses are ignored. I have received copies of these Letters Patents and guess what, The Queen has not signed them. On examination of them I have concluded that they were not even prepared by the Queens staff, because of statements that the Queen of England of today would not be a party to. These are; 1.. It is stated that " We (the royal we) revoke the Letters Patent dated 29 October 1900". Now the real Queen and Her staff would know that the Letters Patent of Queen Victoria were no longer valid at Her death, so why revoke something that had no legal authority? 2.. It states that all concerned should make the Oath or Affirmation according to that which is in the "constitution". That is made to a Monarch "under the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland". The Crown of Great Britain and Ireland became extinct when Ireland was granted her independence in 1922. Thus, again, The Queen of England would have known this and would not have requested the Oath or Affirmation to be taken under those circumstances. 3.. There is reference to The Queen of Australia and a Great Seal. What a lot of nonsense. This dream exists only in the minds of our politicians. When did we have Her Coronation? When did we accept this by way of referendum as it should have changed that "funny" constitution. The Queen of England, under the terms and conditions of the "Act of Settlement 1701" serves as an integral part of the British Government. She has no authority to become the queen of as many foreign nations as she should choose. To do so would be an act of treason. Remember we were declared aliens in 1971. She represents the British Government as the Chairman of CHOGM. CHOGM is a loose gathering of free and independent nations who were once colonies of Great Britain. So that when she refers to us as "Her People" many of us are tied to Great Britain by bloodlines and custom, but our nation is internationally recognised as free and independent. She has no authority here in Australia, but she is an honoured guest, representing the British Commonwealth of Nations. To give credence to this recognition, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain was asked, prior to that farcical referendum on a republic, for his opinion, he replied " Oh? I thought that you already were a republic." Oh? So when did this come about? If you depend on a straight and correct answer from our government you will wait a long time and indeed maybe get lost in the mists of time. Political memory as you all know can be very selective. The same can be said of our Judiciary, Academics and Media all of whom have profited by hiding the truth. I ask that all service persons, ex service persons, veterans, and all RSLs read this page and understand what has happened to the legacy of our "60,000 dead'. I served twenty years in the RAAF, so that I include myself in the next statement. Since 1919 when ever a serviceman or woman has taken an oath or affirmation to serve the Monarch of England, unwittingly in the vast majority of cases, we have desecrated the memory of and the legacy that the "60,000 Dead" won us with their lives. There is no doubt that during WW1 we were a colony. At the Imperial War Conference of 1917 we were promised independence after the war. All of Great Britain's allies witnessed that. Early in 1918 our Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, went to England. The war was not going our way. But action by our troops in the Middle East and on the Western Front reversed the flow and eventually won that war. After the war Hughes stayed on and played a big part in the making of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which contained the Covenant of the League of Nations. He asked that Australia be able to sign the Treaty as a belligerent nation. The thirty two nations present, including Great Britain, agreed to making Australia a free, independent and sovereign nation, allowing her to sign the Treaty and Covenant as such. Upon his return Hughes reported to the Parliament on 10 September 1919, as recorded in Hansard. He proposed that the Parliament "approve" the Treaty. These are some of the phrases he used when making the report. "It is a document of monumental importance, the like of which the world has never before seen"--"It is a charter of a new world"--"I have a right to speak proudly of what Australia has done, through her soldiers, her sailors, and all those who have striven, each in their own way, to serve their country in its hour of peril" --"Only we ourselves, by being recreant to
the cause for which they fought and died, can now destroy this temple of
our liberties, the keys of which they handed to us stained with their heart's
blood." --"This new world into which we have entered by the blood and
sacrifice of our soldiers, has been given freely to us by those valiant men,
nearly 60,000 of whom will come back to us no more"
--"It was abundantly evident _ that Australia must have
separate representation at the Peace Conference"--"Great Britain could
not speak for us"--"Separate and direct representation was at
length conceded to Australia"--"Australia became a nation, and entered
into a family of nations on a footing of equality. _ Our soldiers had
earned it for us".
At the Imperial war conference 1917, it was stated that we should wait until after the war as many constitutional changes would need to be made. In 1919 the Australian citizens had a right to be fully informed so that they could make educated choices of a new constitution and type of government which they wanted. Sadly this has never happened. The two party system has manipulated us ever since. They have lied to us for over eighty years. They have desecrated the memory of the 60,000 Dead. We have never received their legacy. Shame on those responsible. 1922 King George V, visited the war graves in France. Rudyard Kipling made his observations of this event in a poem "The Kings Pilgrimage". He told of service men from many lands across the seas that died in service of their King, love of country and the ideals of liberty that Englishmen have struggled for over the centuries. But the last verse is a poignant reminder that he could see what was happening to the memory of those that had willingly laid down their lives for King and Country. All that they had they gave--- they gave--- In sure and single faith. There can no knowledge reach the grave To make them grudge their death. Save only if they understood That, after all was done, We, they redeemed, denied their blood And mocked the gains it won. Yours very sincerely John Richard Hugo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 15. Feedback:
Australia Post
18 March 2000
The Editor, Toowoomba Chronicle PO Box 40, Toowomba Qld 4350. Dear Sir Labor's "policy announcement" on postal services is a sad case of putting the interests of Kim Beazley's union bosses before those of Australian small businesses and consumers. Labor's "policy" is nothing more than maintenance of the status quo. The bottom line is that the ALP has vowed to oppose reforms which will deliver lower postal prices and improved postal services to some 900,000 small businesses and millions of consumers. But Labor says it will now oppose all of this package – again putting the interests of its trade union bosses before those of the wider community. Many Australian communities were personally affected by the fact that Labor closed 277 postal outlets between 1989-90 and 1994-95. Between 1996-97 and 1998-99, the number of postal outlets has increased by 51. Mr Beazley claims that he will use Australia Post outlets to deliver online government services in the bush, but he seems totally ignorant of the fact that this is happening now, often with the assistance of Post. At every turn, Labor has opposed the Networking the Nation program, the Rural Transaction Centres and the TIGERS program, which are providing faster and more accessible services in regional Australia. Last week we had Kim Beazley's unfunded roll-back of the GST, today we have Kim Beazley embarrassingly rolling-over for the CEPU. After the last election, Mr Beazley proclaimed at the CEPU conference that "I was proud to campaign with you then" and now we know that nothing has changed in this master-servant relationship. Yours sincerely.
Richard J. Wood +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
|
