Archive for the ‘Justice’ Category

Tattersalls and Tabcorp are playing a dangerous game – they could be up against retrospective legislation.
April 11, 2008

IF Tattersalls and Tabcorp think they’re going to win against the Brumby government so they can continue their greedy snuffling in the trough they’ll have to lobby very keenly.




China knows the governments of the world are lukewarm on Tibet protests
April 6, 2008

I love Kevin Rudd’s dedication to diplomatic style. Today we have him saying he may not go to the Olympic games but only because his schedule may preclude it. The spin here is that the Chinese will know that he may not go if their record on human rights is further blighted by more murderous oppression of civilians in Tibet. He didn’t antagonise them by saying Australia is not going because you’re a bunch of murderous tyrants with genocide on your mind, he just delivered them a slap on the wrist to give them some idea of the temperature on the issue. He didn’t follow Germany down the road to banning their team from participating. Germany has contemplated the effects of attempted genocide for quite sometime now, and emotion runs strongly in such circumstances.

So, giving China the temperature – which is that world governments are lukewarm on Tibet protest – he is really spying for them. “Hey, Kevin has given us the goods again we’ll do more trade with Australia.” Not quite so simple perhaps, and Kevin may indeed be letting them know that there is a more moderate way for them to go and to cool it on murdering people in Tibet. But this diplomatic instinct of Kevin’s does obliterate the strong abhorrence of such actions and so doesn’t have the desired effect of China discovering that they can’t go around killing innocent people without stimulating world condemnation.

President Kennedy was murdered by Aristotle Onassis and those authorities that wanted to be rid of him
February 20, 2008

It’s extraordinary that papers are reporting today that the Warren Commission, run by those who hated President Kennedy, found that there was no conspiracy, as if the House Select Committee on Assassinations of 1979 had not found  that there was “a probable conspiracy to murder Kennedy.”

Aristotle Onassis orchestrated a group that included security agencies who wanted America rid of Kennedy. The murder was motivated by Onassis who was sleeping with Jackie prior to Dallas ( documented by JFK’s secretary), WHO HATED JOE KENNEDY AND HIS SONS BECAUSE THEY KEPT HIM FROM DOING BUSINESS IN AMERICA.  See Cleaning Up (Sceptre 1993) for the details of the links between Onassis, Hoover ( both cross dressers – how satirical can you get?) and Iron Bob Maheu and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Onassis and Jackie were shadowed by the security agencies (to mention them means this story would be censored – see stories of previous censorship) in the Med on the Christina as JFK requested, and so the agencies knew of Onassis’s hatred of the Kennedys.

Onassis was also desperate to prevent Jackie going to Dallas with Jack. Onassis who was banned from entering America on the day of the assassination attended tJack’s wake at the White House. Imagine the red tape massacre to allow him in so quickly.

Who should you blame for the diseases that effect you? Dumping toxic waste into Port Phillip Bay is the work of political hooligans
January 22, 2008

Dumping the toxic waste from the dredging back into Port Phillip Bay is far the most irresponsible act a State government could sponsor.

Apart from the global warming gases released – often twenty times the strength of CO2 – the toxic subtstances will remain in the Bay forever as they climb through the food chain to reside with us. Their cancer causing capacities are legendary. So, who will you blame when your relatives, off-spring or yourself develop such symptoms?

Hardy paid out on asbestos because they knew at the time they were producing it that it was dangerous. The State government and individuals who are pushing this craziness know the properties of arsenic and cyanide and the many heavy metals that will be released from the river once dredging and dumping begins. They will be as responsible as any asbestos producer because they know the properties they are allowing to be released.

Loving Port Phillip Bay enough to use UN legislation for criminal negligence to the environment if dredging destroys the Bay
January 21, 2008

I am personally appalled that the dredging creates the slightest risk to Port Phillip Bay’s environment. From the late forties on I was on the sand at the edge of the sea during the summer months. I witnessed with delight the snapper boats hauling in their catch in the early morning. I saw dolphins up close, I was in clinker built rowing boats fishing for flathead and I was in yachts that skimmed the Bay waters. Later I spied on lovers in the sand dunes. My experience of life was moulded by the Bay.

It is a unique Bay and it has unique creatures, including the dolphins who evolved in the Bay. The Port Phillip Bay dolphins don’t occur anywhere else on the planet. And if you imagine that the pod of sixty couldn’t disappear when the toxic water becomes their habitat ask why researchers can no longer find the pod of sixty odd dolphins that once inhabited the Gippsland lakes before blue-green algae.

As the average person (yes, farmers, gardeners and all those who understand our climate is changing) is stricken by the possibility that life on earth is about to turn dangerous, our politicians and bureaucrats, who overule our wishes are oblivious to the amounts of CO2 created by the dredging. It has not even been calculated with due accuracy. It is no longer a metaphor that Brumby fiddles with his own deluded profit oriented mind set while Rome burns, the burning is happening. How can anyone have such a criminally negligent attitude to our Bay? Don’t they realise that they may be sued for criminal negligence under the proposed United Nations draft legislation currently being considered. The legislation provides a framework of laws by which those who have been hurt by those who have thwarted the correct processes for development and created global warming gases, may be gaoled for their trangressions. Brumby certainly can’t claim ignorance of what he is doing for that is not a defence in a criminal matter. He has done his best to circumvent impartial investigation by decreeing the dredging shall go ahead regardless of evidence.

Yes, and the CSIRO with its new charter, developed under a Liberal government but not addressed by the new Labor government, can be brought to account for their self-interested, bodgy business plan for the Bay.

I ‘ll be the first aboard such an action against Brumby and the others who have displayed no respect for their environment.

Why isn’t the dredging of Port Phillip Bay to be world’s best practice?
January 20, 2008

Why isn’t the toxic dredging muck from Port Phillip Bay to be disposed of according to  world’s best practice?

It’s simple. It’s dangerous and expensive.

One of the world’s best practice criteria is dumping it far out in the ocean. Aside from the fact that this is such a corrupt way to go as far as environmental degradation is concerned, taking the spoil out through the heads (RIP) is dangerous. The barges transporting the spoil are not capable of taking on the currents and tides experienced in the Rip (Yes, it was once called the Rip, right up until the Port of Mebourne began lobbying for the channel dredging), the currents occasionally running at 14 knots or more.

An alternative is removing it from the sea altogether. Unfortunately this is very expensive and there are many safety regulations governing inland dumping, not the least of which is the air based pollution. The Port of Melbourne has therefore chosen to hide such a problem under water.

They casually say they will cap the spoil underwater, but they don’t say in which year. Is that a year after the dredging has begun, or after it’s finished? That would make it a minumum of seven years. In fact the spoil would begin to dissolve throughout the bay the moment the big tides hit it. maintenance spoil dumped in the bay has spread rapidly throughout the whole area of the Bay. And what will they be capping it with, concrete? Sorry guys your whole story is bodgy, half-baked and and cynical.

Banal British bureaucrats will set companies “carbon prices” which we will pay – like we pay for the banks’ losses
January 12, 2008

The future of extreme climate change has been created in the most banal way. The British government have been instructed to factor in a “carbon price” when making policy for all development in energy, transport, housing etc (Guardian Weekly) Bureaucrats and politicians have no practical experience of how business works. If business cops a levy or tax on their raw materials or products they simply add it to the price. There is therefore very little incentive for corporations to act with any real initiative at all.

There is an exception. The nuclear industry. They will simply be merged with all the other figures on all the lists of possibilities, and at some time emerge triumphant because they have no carbon much at all. Gone will be the aspect that condemns the industry (apart from danger of leaks) and that is the waste will have to contained for half a million years, and the Americans (see Washington State website) know that is impossible to do.

The oldest man made structures on the planet are pyramids, so far lasting an estimated 10,000 years, and until British researchers with shovels began excavating and investigating the objects, everyone had forgotten what they were used for. Imagine if the waste is buried, as planned, in Australia’s vast spaces, how long will people remember what lies beneath the steel and concrete doors. Hey, steel is good. It doesn’t really rust through for a hundred years or so, and concrete catches concrete cancer in about the same time. And who pays for the maintenance, for radiation can decimate the planet and its species in even less time than that?

And again who pays? We do. Like the banks pass on their losses to us, so will carbon creating companies. It’s how business is run.

The merciful Americans of arrogant influence and attitudes
January 2, 2008

I thought David Hicks had it tough being jailed for five years without charge or a hearing. Turns out the American justice system is very flawed. Leonard Peltier, a Sioux (Native American) has been jailed for close to thirty years for aiding and abetting two native Americans who were found not guilty of murdering two FBI agents. Strange he can be found guilty of aiding and abetting two who walked free nearly thirty years ago because they didn’t do it.

Here’s what a judge of the tenth circut of the Appeal Court found:
“Much of the government’s behaviour at the Pine Ridge reservation and the prosecution of Mr Peltier is to be condemned. The government witheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”

After Peltier was found guilty his lawyers used Freedom of Information to discover that the FBI had fabricated the ballistics evidence to argue that Peltier had shot the agents in cold blood. The FBI has had to admit in court and to the parole commission that it had no evidence that he was involved in the shootings. The case has become a cause celebre for the Sioux nation and several documentaries (BBC) have been made to emphasise the injustice in Peltier’s case.

The FBI has used corrupt methods to keep Peltier in jail. It refuses to allow him to use the evidence that those who were acquitted were acting in self defence for the FBI agents were firing on a compund that held women and children. The agents were so far away that no one knew who was firing at the compound. It was also revealed that the acquitted were using .22 rifles and the agents were killed with large calibre weapons. Peltier denied he aided and abetted anyone and there is no evidence that he did. The FBI ignored the witness who said another individual had driven up to the FBI agents and shot them from behind (the agents must have known the man) and drove away. Also operating on the reservation were a marauding group of vigilantes supported by the American government. Often Sioux men who were arrested on bogus chargers never reached the police stations and were noted as having disappeared.

To research similar situations you would have to look at Australia’s treatment of aborigines, Indonesia’s treatment of East Timorese (with the support of Australia and America from 1975 to 2000 – that’s when the international  community turned against our attitude there) and the systems of government and oppression and suppression in Kenya, and Zimbabwe.

These things have to be remembered when dealing with the way our native people are treated by our justice system. Our current run of racial abuse (for incest) is obvious for there is no similar attack on incest in white communities. Well, not until the children are murdered and then we pretend it’s an isolated incident. Talk to the psychologists who are dealing with these children.

Let’s understand that although David Hicks was persecuted and tortured (he confessed to aiding terrorists to get out of jail where he had been incarcerated for over five years without charge or trial; I’m sure I’d do the same) there are a huge number of cases where the justice system goes along with bogus police evidence because the defendants don’t have proper defence.

In killing Benazir Bhutto Musharaff has proved himself a dog
December 28, 2007

Musharaff has proved himself the murdering dog that he is. Finally he has killed Benazir Bhutto and he’ll get away with it because he is being protected by Bush and the terrorists. America has paid him billions of dollars to maintain opposition to the terrorists who are bedded down in Pakistan’s mountains, so it behoves them to mouth support for him and his bogus democracy. Meanwhile the terrorists are unphased by the verbal campaign he has conducted against them. Al-Qaida has major bases in the rugged mountains and wants to stay there. They left Musharaf alone and he left them alone, besides assuring America he was on its side. Of course he was on his side and never had worthwhile results in tracking terrorists or ridding Pakistan of them.

Here’s a portion of an earlier post updated. Musharaff had more time than any leader supported for an alleged stand on terrorism. There has been no significant arrests or even discoveries during his time but his totalitarian attitude has prevailed against his people for the years he has been supported by America. When is American Security going to realise that to support the mealy-mouthed brutals will always be counter productive? Perhaps now. But how do average Americans change this? They don’t because they’re ruled, like Australia, by the wealthy of their country, and the wealthy want to have terrorists scaring the bejesus out of their people because that way they are easily ruled.

It’s very silly to imagine that they can rectify the Pakistan problem by attacking the mountains (that’s all it would be) with air power, because the country is even more rugged than Afghanistan and look how the West is faring there. Iraq would be a total pushover compared to Pakistan.

Australia never had a place in its culture for adventure, romance or experimenting with different ideas
December 21, 2007

The evidence in the Hicks case spells the end of Australian understanding of romance, adventure, and the thrill of experimenting with new ideas. We never really did understand, for our present hollow culture is more of the cruel, bureaucratic and vengeful genre. Let’s not kid ourselves. The fading culture that we glorified came from the David Hickses and Jack Thomases of the nation who took to the sniff of war in 1914 for comradeship and adventure. It didn’t come from our imitative, educated and ambitious classes who sacrificed fun for doubtful status. Doubtful because in the swim to the top of the horrible pile it means servility to those nations we wrongfully regarded as our superiors. Look at our subsequent distorted perceptions. Menzies imagined the Queen as a romantic, sexualised image. Keating thought Menzies correct and being opportunistic working class ( which used to have a strong culture) placed his hand on her waist and was splapped on the wrist by the media. How unbelievably banal and pathetic. If she had responded in a knowing way Keating would have rogered her without hesitation, later receiving the offer of a knighthood. Keating was a bit too real for our sick bureaucratic nation.

And are we going to pay for the nasty, obsequious drivel that our department heads foist on our lazy politicians.

The Hicks case shows just how far we have deprived ourselves of our democratic rights and the rule of law. It’s not just Hicks who has to prove himself innocent of terrorist sympathies, and being a future danger, it’s all of us. Don’t think so? Just remember the environmental protesters who were arrested in the UK under such laws a few weeks ago.

And who may have beenthe role models for Hicks and Thomas in the thirties? Why, George Orwell and Arthur Koestler. They took the communist side in the Spanish civil war. Each of them were condemned to death and each were subject to a mock execution. Read terrorist for communist in that conflict. However they each saw the error of the side they had chosen and wrote revealing texts on it. Texts we still turn to for enlightenment.