Australia: What the Rats in the silo have planned for us.

 

The Green Loons as exposed below now pull the strings on the recently elected minority Labor / Green / Independent Socialist Coalition Federal Government led by Madame Gillard.

“What is at stake in the Greens’ “revolution” is the heart and soul of Western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual—with obligations and responsibilities to others, but ultimately judged on his or her own conscience and actions—as the possessor of an inherent dignity and inalienable rights. What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.”

POLITICS

The Greens' Agenda, in Their Own Words

Kevin Andrews
Quadrant
For many years, the Greens have been treated as a political curiosity. They could win a spot or two in the Senate, but they were absent from the real place of political power, the House of Representatives. That has now changed. Not only will they have more senators from next July, they also have a seat in the House. More significantly, they are in formal alliance with minority Labor governments nationally and in Tasmania.
Despite the emphasis on the environment, “the Greens are not a single issue party”.[1] Their objective is clear: “to transform politics and bring about Green government.”[2] The Australian Greens are part of a worldwide movement that is actively engaged in the political process.[3] As their writings state, this objective involves a radical transformation of the culture that underpins Western civilisation. As a political party, they should be treated like any other political party and subjected to the same scrutiny.
In order to fully comprehend the Greens’ political ideology, it is necessary to understand the historical roots and foundations of both our own Western, liberal democratic culture—and that of the Greens. I propose to explain the Greens’ agenda, as set out in their own documents and writings.[4]

Leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown (l) and “partner” Paul Thomas (r)

Bob Brown wants to re-define Catholic beliefs

Western civilisation
While shared to some extent by all liberal democracies, Australia’s values have been adapted to our unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world. These values and principles reflect strong influences on Australia’s history and culture. They include our Judeo-Christian religious and ethical heritage, a British parliamentary democracy embracing an earlier Roman understanding of the importance of the law, and the spirit of the European Enlightenment, including a reliance on the empirical and the scientific.
It was Christianity in particular, building on both the Greek and Jewish traditions, that insisted on the dignity of all humans.[5] Humans should not be used as a means. Based on the belief that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, the idea of intrinsic human dignity gradually shaped European civilisation. The idea of human dignity was also propounded by one of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued:
Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity.[6]
Kant’s famous imperative upheld human dignity: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”[7] As Michael Novak observes, Kant’s formulation is “a repetition in non-biblical language of the humanistic half of the essential teaching of Judaism and Christianity: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’”[8]
The centrality of human dignity is reflected in many national and international proclamations. The primary truth, according to the American founders, and held to be self-evident, is the equality of all men and women, derived from biblical belief: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[9]
One hundred and seventy years later, in the wake of the massive assault on human dignity during two world wars, many in the international community voiced their demand for the protection of human rights. In her narrative history of the drafting of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Mary Ann Glendon describes how, under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, Charles Malik and Rene Cassin, the international instrument based on the rights of individuals and their inherent dignity was created.[10] Cassin, a French jurist, conceived the Universal Declaration as a portico—a gateway to a better world—built on the foundations of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood.[11] The first words in the preamble of the document reflect the primacy of human dignity: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”[12]
The more recent Declaration of the European Union, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome which brought the union into existence, is explicit: “For us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable.”[13] Other national and international proclamations of rights are also founded on the integrity and dignity of the individual.[14]
This emphasis on the inherent dignity of the individual reflects not only the Judeo-Christian foundation of the West, but also the classic liberal philosophy that underpinned its subsequent development. The notion was also reflected in the development of the common law.[15]
The inherent dignity of the individual, as opposed to a postmodern notion of moral egalitarianism, is at the foundation of human freedom. If individual liberty is not predicated on inherent human dignity, then what is its foundation? Anything else is ultimately arbitrary.[16] Once dignity is undermined, freedom is in danger. The consequence is George Orwell’s description in Animal Farm of the loss of freedom: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”[17]
In their 1996 manifesto, The Greens, Bob Brown and Peter Singer identify the origins of the Australian greens movement in two strands. The first, well-known strand has its origins in the United Tasmania Group,[18] later morphing into the Tasmanian Wilderness Society,[19] and the election of Norm Sanders, Gerry Bates and Bob Brown to the state parliament.[20] By 1989, the Greens had secured five seats in the Tasmanian parliament, and held the balance of power. In a forerunner to more recent events in Tasmania, both major political parties had said before the election that they would not deal with the Greens.[21] Subsequently, the Labor leader, Michael Field, did so, agreeing to “a raft of social, democratic and environmental reforms in return for the guarantee of office”.[22] Field later regretted the decision, but not before the Greens had set out on a radical agenda.[23] The subsequent advance of the Greens in state and national Parliaments is well-known.
The modern Greens party however had an earlier origin in the green bans applied by the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1970s in New South Wales.[24] Indeed the visit to Australia by the German activist Petra Kelly in 1977 was influential in the foundation of the German Greens.[25] The then leader of the BLF, Jack Mundey, was subsequently invited to conferences in Europe and North America. Mundey, a Communist Party official and candidate, who led the militant New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation, described himself as “an ecological Marxist”.[26] Speaking years after the Communist Party folded, and a New Left party failed to gain support beyond Trotskyist and anarchist groupings, Mundey prophesied that “in the future there is a possibility of … what I’d call a Green Red future of socialism”.[27] In addition to Marx and Engels, Mundey was influenced by the overpopulation jeremiad of Paul Ehrlich.[28]
These two strands of the Greens are evident today. What then is the Greens’ agenda?
The Greens are ideologically driven
The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.[29] While “environmentalism” lies at the core of the Greens’ ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically change the economic and social culture of Australia.
This has been true from the outset. In the 1970s, Jack Mundey’s BLF campaigned for a range of radical issues beyond the immediate industrial interests of the union. He appealed beyond the blue-collar construction workers to the New Left alliance of what has become known as “doctors’ wives” and tertiary students and academics.[30]
John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[31] First, those who vote Green as their primary vote:
This is the Don’s Party group that used to be in the ALP in the sixties and seventies: young university students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often US or Canadian refugees from capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.[32]
These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010:
They were led by arts, media or architectural graduate twenty-somethings, atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private schools.[33]
While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young, tertiary-educated students and professionals, the Party has increasingly been infiltrated at the parliamentary level by members of the hard Left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect Lee Rhiannon is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party. The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments— “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time”—that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.
Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34]
Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual in the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.
Let me expand. According to the Greens’ ideology, human dignity is neither inherent nor absolute, but relative.[35] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.”[36] Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals:
The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms ... I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or Rwandans, or even the nonhuman animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.[37]
What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals.
Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of “speciesism”, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent![38]
Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate.[39]
The Green movement projects the whole planet with a spiritual dimension. The British chemist James Lovelock described the Earth as a complex living organism, of which humans are merely parts. He named this planetary organism after the Greek goddess who personified the earth—Gaia—and described “Her” as “alive”.[40]
Singer and Brown are correct to describe this as revolutionary. It involves the creation of a new pagan belief system, concerned not with the relationship between humans and a creator, but based on a deification of the environment.
For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthly perfection. It underpins their “ecological wisdom”[41] and is at the core of the new ethic.[42] It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up;[43] logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned;[44] economic growth is opposed;[45] exclusive ownership of property is questioned;[46] there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration;[47] dam construction should be discouraged;[48] genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected;[49] world trade should be reduced;[50] and a barter economy encouraged.[51]
It explains why the Greens believe the world’s population is excessive and should be reduced,[52] and why human consumption should be cut.[53]
The Greens also call for “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be amended to include rights to a healthy natural environment and intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources”.[54] In turn, the Greens would be able to rely on international courts and fora to press their agenda. It also explains their concept of “intergenerational rights”:[55] a concept squarely aimed at the defence of their belief in “Gaia”, or the perfect pristine earthly environment.
It explains why the Greens support the “right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, land rights, and access to traditional hunting and fishing rights for their own subsistence”[56] and reject measures such as the Northern Territory intervention and income management against the efforts of both major political parties.
For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated that in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer-review processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional Western culture.
To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.
Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The Day after Tomorrow.[57]
Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors,[58] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true. For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. For such believers, “evidence” can be manufactured, and scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.
The Greens’ belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.
Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin Western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within Western civilisation itself.[59]
Greens policies
Let me turn to some of the Greens’ policies that flow from their worldview. In doing so, it should be noted that the Greens have substantially reduced the number of policies that they publish. In 2004, the Greens’ policy document was 180 pages long. In 2007, it was greatly reduced. Previous policies have been removed from their website without any clear explanation as to whether they remain policy or not. Much of the current policy material comprises anodyne motherhood statements.
The Greens’ “ecological wisdom” is the principle upon which all other policies are founded.[60] It shapes their views about every aspect of public policy. It is the foundation of their new ethic.[61]
The centrality of the environment is the foundation of the Greens’ economic policies: “Human societies exist within, and are dependent upon, natural systems; resource management is, therefore, central to good economic management.”[62]For the Greens, “economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability”.[63] Consistent with this principle, the Greens advocate high levels of state ownership in the economy and an expanded role for the bureaucracy, including an extensive international regulatory bureaucracy. They advocate government ownership of natural monopolies, and government investment in strategic assets.[64]
This is consistent with the directions set out by Brown and Singer, who questioned economic growth,[65] advocated higher taxes,[66] sought the introduction of death duties[67] and resource taxes.[68] Wealth is scorned: “Labor and Liberals share the same myopic vision of what they want to bring about for Australians: more and more individual wealth, measured in money alone.”[69] The fact that wealth generation has resulted in economic prosperity for both individuals and the nation, and lifted many people out of poverty, is of less significance than the deification of the environment.
In 2004, the Greens proposed to replace the GST with environmental taxes.[70]Although they softened this approach subsequently, their 2007 policies included a commitment to “implement a gradual and long-term shift in the tax system from work-based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution”.[71]
The Greens’ current policies include abolishing the rebate on private health insurance, taxing family trusts like companies, increasing top marginal tax rates, introducing death taxes and increasing the company tax rate.[72] The Greens are a high taxing party.
The Greens are deeply sceptical of international trade. Australia should remove itself from its bilateral trade agreements[73] and only enter any more if it favours the developing country. Brown and Singer advocated a new protectionism with “an across-the-board tax on all imports”.[74] The current policy encourages self-reliance and the prioritising of the sustainable production of goods and services from local sources.[75] This anti-trade stance is reinforced in the Greens Global Charter, which encourages “the reduction of the transport of goods around the world, in line with a preference for local production”.[76] The World Trade Organisation should be abolished unless reformed to make sustainability its central goal, and it should be subject to a newly created World Environment Organisation with power to impose sanctions,[77] presumably arising from actions under new “rights” inserted in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to include “rights to a healthy natural environment and intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources”.[78] In their Global Charter, the Greens commit to working “towards establishing an international court of justice specific for environmental destruction and the loss of biodiversity where cases can be heard against corporations, nation states and individuals”.[79]
Nowhere is the Greens’ totalitarian impulse to impose global governance more evident.
The Greens are advocates of an enlarged welfare state. Brown and Singer proposed “a guaranteed adequate income for all” with no requirements that people look for work,[80] and free childcare in the workplace.[81] The Greens would increase the age pension[82] and subsidies for public housing. They are opposed to income management. Their welfare measures would have to be paid for through higher taxes on a nation less reliant on international trade.
The rapid increase in the standard of living of humanity and the reduction of global poverty is largely due to the energy revolution of the past century. We only have to consider a world without the energy sources that fuel our transport, manufacturing, businesses, communications, agriculture and households, to appreciate how readily available energy has reshaped the world in one of the most significant ways in human history. The policies of the Greens would place much of this at risk.
The Greens support a moratorium on all new fossil fuel exploration and development.[83] They are opposed to building any more coal-fired power stations,[84] and would pressure existing ones by prohibiting any public funding of refurbishments.[85] They would also prohibit the opening of new mines or expansion of any existing mines,[86] hence phasing out coal exports, ending one of Australia’s largest export industries, and forcing other nations to use dirtier sources of coal.
The Greens are also opposed to “any expansion of nuclear power” and where it exists, “will work to phase it out rapidly”.[87] This means the ending of the exploration, mining and export of uranium from Australia.[88] They would also close Lucas Heights, and prevent the import or export of all nuclear products.[89]
The Greens would force up the price of electricity and other forms of energy significantly: “energy prices should reflect the environmental and social costs of production and use”.[90] Their reliance on new “green” energy would be much more expensive for individuals and businesses.
The Greens want farmers to practice sustainable agriculture, but their policy documents are vague and general as to what this actually means.[91] What is clear from the recent discussion of the Murray-Darling Basin however, is that greater central planning and less available water will be part of their outcome. Farmers will also face rising energy and fertiliser costs, and new and higher taxes.
The private ownership of property and resources, which have underpinned democratic capitalism, is questioned by the Greens. In their Global Charter, they propose to “review the relationship between the exclusive ownership of property and exclusive use of its resources, with a view to curbing environmental abuse and extending access for basic livelihood to all, especially indigenous communities”.[92] This smacks of collectivism under a different name.
The Greens would privilege unions, providing more extensive right-of-entry provisions, abolish secret ballots for union action, water down independent contractors’ legislation, abolish the Building and Construction Commission, and introduce a minimum of five weeks annual leave.[93] They would allow secondary boycotts and industry-wide strikes.[94] The Greens also support the privileged position of unions in New South Wales to be able to prosecute work and safety breaches and profit from the actions.
Despite the boast in 1996 that “we do not get money from big business or the big trade unions”,[95] the Greens have been recipients of substantial donations from left-wing unions in recent years.[96]
The Greens’ social policies are linked to their belief in the primacy of the environment. Hence Brown and Singer commence their Greens manifesto by reference to the alleged overpopulation of the world.[97] “Little is being done to discuss slowing population growth,” they later complain.[98]
The theme is taken up in the Global Charter, where they advocate “eliminating the causes of population growth”.[99] Elsewhere, they propose limiting the expansion of cities,[100] opposing freeways, and imposing eco-taxes.[101] In their policy documents, the Greens state that “population policy should not be driven by economic goals or to counter the effects of an ageing population”.[102] This informs what the Greens mean when they insist on “a population policy directed towards ecological sustainability in the context of global social justice”.[103]
Once again, Greens’ policy subjugates the individual to the environment. It repeats the Malthusian fear of global overpopulation, contrary to the latest demographic evidence.[104] Combined with a rejection of economic growth, the Greens’ ideal future is the civilisational death already under way in much of Europe.[105]
These policies are evidence once again that the Greens place no intrinsic value in human life. To them, human life is merely instrumental, because intrinsic value lies in the environment itself.
This ideology is manifest in the Greens’ approach to life-and-death issues—infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia—where a person has a right to commit suicide, and be assisted if necessary. The Greens’ policies support euthanasia; Peter Singer has been an advocate of euthanasia and infanticide; and the euthanasia practitioner Dr Philip Nitschke has stood as a Greens candidate in the Northern Territory.
Equally, the Greens believe that human (and non-human) relations are based simply on consensual activity. Hence marriage can be between any two persons, regardless of gender.
In their Greens manifesto, Brown and Singer quote Phillip Adams’s comments that “we must scrap our drug laws”.[106] “Eventually, Australia, like other countries, will have to make peace with illicit drugs,” they add.[107] Following widespread criticism in 2004 of their policies to provide addicts with a regulated supply of heroin and ecstasy,[108] the Greens now state that they “do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs”.[109] However, they have recently stated their continued support for supervised injection rooms.[110]
The Greens want to restrict non-government education. They argue for the reduction in “the total level of Commonwealth funding for private schools to 2003-04 levels”.[111] This would immediately cut funding by $427 million per year to Catholic schools alone.[112] They have also stated that they will place limits on the number of new private schools, and that anti-discrimination laws will be used to prevent Christian schools from giving priority to practising Christians when employing teachers. They would also move to stop private schools having control over their own enrolments,[113] and end the schools chaplaincy program.[114]
The Greens have many other social proposals including the decriminalisation of all prostitution.[115] They also propose to dump the national flag.[116]
Consistent with their belief that the world is overpopulated and the environment is in danger, the Greens want to reduce immigration. The reduction should be in the numbers of skilled immigrants, while numbers in the refugee and humanitarian categories should be increased.[117] The Greens propose an open-door policy for asylum-seekers. They would increase the number of places, remove mandatory detention laws, abolish the rule against refugees gaining permanent protection if they had spent time in a third country, restore the migration zone to include places like Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef, provide immediate legal assistance to all claimants, and allow free movement around the nation with access to services.[118]
In addition, the Greens propose that “Australia adopts a definition of environmental refugees in its assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention”.[119]
The Greens’ anti-Americanism is well known. They would end the ANZUS treaty unless Australia’s membership can be revised in a manner which is consistent with Australia’s international and human rights obligations; close all existing foreign bases in Australian territory and end foreign troop deployment, training and hosting on Australian territory; and reduce Australia’s military expenditure.[120]
The Greens’ documents speak of “participatory democracy” as one of their foundation principles,[121] but they favour global and central decision-making: Hence the creation and expansion of international bodies, including the United Nations and new world environmental courts.[122]
While the Greens leader, Bob Brown, is currently advocating “states’ rights” to repeal the Commonwealth legislation against euthanasia, and claiming that the decision of the Commonwealth Parliament pursuant to section 121 of the Constitution is undemocratic, he has been an active advocate of actions to override state laws on two occasions.[123] In 1996, Brown wrote: “There are other, virtually untried, powers that the federal government could use to protect the environment. Among them is the power granted under the Constitution to the Commonwealth to regulate trading entities, including logging, mining and energy corporations.”[124] Clearly the use of constitutional powers is good if it is to advance a Green cause, but bad if it leads to an outcome they reject.
Unlike the major parties, the Greens’ policies have not been subject to rigorous costing by Treasury or independent experts. The Victorian Treasury recently claimed that the Greens’ policies for the state election would cost $20 billion.[125]
In 2007, the minimum cost of implementing the Greens’ federal policies was likely to be over $100 billion.[126]
Conclusion
What is at stake in the Greens’ “revolution” is the heart and soul of Western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual—with obligations and responsibilities to others, but ultimately judged on his or her own conscience and actions—as the possessor of an inherent dignity and inalienable rights. What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.
The Hon. Kevin Andrews MHR is the shadow minister for Families, Housing and Human Services.

---

[1] Bob Brown and Peter Singer (1996) The Greens [Text, Melbourne], [hereinafterThe Greens] 192
[2] The Greens, Preface
[3] The Charter of the Global Greens, Canberra, 2001 [hereinafter Charter] 1
[4] I have used the documents that set out the Greens principles and beliefs, as well as their policy documents. There is other documentation that indicates the position of the Greens on a range of matters, such as their speeches and media releases.
[5] For example: “Insomuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me;” (Matthew 25:40) and the commandment to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10: 25. See also 1 Corinthians 13). Earlier Jewish tradition contained many similar ideas. (Leviticus 19:18)
[6] Immanuel Kant (1785) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Lewis White Beck [New York: Library of Liberal Arts, 1959], 53
[7] Ibid., 429
[8] Michael Novak, (2002) ‘Human dignity, personal liberty: Themes from Abraham Kuyper and Leo XIII’, Journal of Markets & Morality, 5 (1) 59—85, 67, quoting Leviticus 19:18
[9] United States Continental Congress (1776) Declaration of Independence.
[10] Mary Ann Glendon (2001) A world made new [Random House, New York]
[11] Ibid., 174
[12] United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble.
[13] European Union (2007) Declaration on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome [Declared at Berlin, 2007] Article 1.
[14] For example: UNESCO (2003) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights [New York] Article 28; Russia, Declaration on the Rights and Dignity of the Person (2006) [Russian People’s Council, Moscow] Article 2.
[15] See Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case (1608) 7 Coke Rep 12 (a); 77 Eng Rep 392; and Sir William Blackstone, “ Of the nature of laws in general” in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol 1 [Macmillan, London, 1979] 29-30
[16] See John Locke (1681) Second Treatise of Government, Ch 11, Sec 135.
[17] George Orwell (1945) Animal Farm
[18] The Greens, 69
[19] The Greens, 70
[20] The Greens, 71-72
[21] The Greens, 74
[22] The Greens, 74
[23] The Greens, 76
[24] Bob Brown and Peter Singer (1996) The Greens [Text, Melbourne], 64 [hereinafter The Greens] See also Sara Parkin “The origins and future of Green parties: The UK, Europe and beyond,” in Frank Zelko and Carolin Brinkmann (2006) Green Parties: Reflections on the first three decades [Heinrich Boll Foundation, Washington DC], 31. Note: Although Brown and Singer state that The Greens is “not a formal or official statement of Green policy”, they also say that it is “generally consistent with the policies of the Australian Greens.” (Page 2) As I am discussing the underlying philosophy and policies of the Greens, it is appropriate to refer to the writings of two of the founders and leaders of the Greens Party.
[25] The Greens, 65
[26] Interview with Jack Mundey (October 6, 2000) at:http://australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/mundey/interview [hereinafterMundey interview]
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid
[29] See for example The Charter of the Global Greens, Canberra, 2001 [hereinafterCharter] The Charter is a set of “the core beliefs and ideals” that Green parties hold in common: www.global.greens.org.au The Australian Greens are members of the Global Greens and were instrumental in the conference and charter. In 2008, the Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, announced that Australian would establish and host a Global Greens Secretariat and Information Centre.
[30] Mundey interview
[31] John Black, 2010 election profile and some relevant documents, [Australian Development Strategies Pty Ltd, 2010] See also: John Black “Wealthy Greens the new DLP” Online Opinion, June 11, 2010
[32] Ibid, 14
[33] Ibid., 16
[34] Charter, 3
[35] The Australian Greens do not refer to any inherent dignity of the human person. The Victorian Greens state that “every human being has inherent, inalienable human rights by virtue of birth” but it this is not the same ‘human dignity’ as understood in the western, Judeo-Christian tradition.
[36] The Greens, 44
[37] The Greens, 55
[38] Peter Singer (2001) “Heavy Petting”, Nerve
[39] The Greens, 87
[40] James E Lovelock, (1989) The ages of Gaia [Oxford University Press, Oxford] Many environmentalists subscribe to Lovelock’s theory, although many scientists question it.
[41] Charter, 3
[42] The Greens, 51 ff
[43] Greens website, Environmental principles
[44] The Greens, 49-51
[45] The Greens, 43
[46] Charter, 8
[47] Charter, 9
[48] Charter, 10
[49] Charter, 10
[50] Charter, 10—11
[51] The Greens, 149
[52] The Greens, 5, 42, 190; Charter, 1
[53] Charter, 5
[54] Charter, 12
[55] Charter, 12
[56] Charter, 12
[57] Noel Sheppard, “Gore uses fictional video to illustrate ‘inconvenient truth’ “Newsbusters, April 22, 2008, quoting script from the ABC TV (US) program20/20.
[58] Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2007] EWHC 2288
[59] On the idea of a clash within western civilization more generally, see James Kurth, (1994) ‘The real clash’, The National Interest, 3—15. See also Robert P George (2001) The clash of orthodoxies [ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware]
[60] Charter, 3
[61] The Greens, 51
[62] The Australian Greens: http//greens.org/policies hereinafter Greens website. (Accessed November 7, 2010)
[63] Greens website (emphasis added)
[64] Greens website
[65] The Greens, 43, 131
[66] The Greens, 150, 161
[67] The Greens, 150
[68] The Greens, 151
[69] The Greens, 49
[70] In 2004, the Greens proposed more than 40 new taxes. See Jim Hoggett (2004) The Australian Greens’ Election Policies [IPA, Melbourne, September 2004]
[71] Greens website (at August 2007)
[72] Greens website
[73] Greens website
[74] The Greens, 137-145
[75] Greens website
[76] Charter, 10
[77] Charter, 11
[78] Charter, 12
[79] Charter, 10
[80] The Greens, 169. See also Greens website
[81] The Greens, 174
[82] Greens website
[83] Charter, 9
[84] Greens website
[85] Greens website
[86] Greens website (emphasis added)
And this from Janet Albrechtsen
Extreme secret agenda aims to change our society
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian
November 17, 2010
THE Greens are anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.
WE have seen this before. A third party taps into voter discontent with both sides of politics, rises to become a force in Australian politics, then fades into electoral oblivion. Remember the DLP? Remember One Nation? Remember the Australian Democrats?
At the 1990 federal election, the Democrats won 11.3 per cent of lower house votes and 12.6 per cent of Senate votes, picking up five upper house seats. Then they fizzed. By July 2008, the Democrats were a spent force.
Picking up 11.7 per cent of lower house votes and 13.1 per cent of votes in the Senate at the August election, will the Greens go the same way? Consider some more parallels. Riding a green wave of environmentalism, the Democrats looked like a long-term political force. The fairies at the bottom of the garden picked up seats at every Senate election between 1977 and 2001 by appealing to middle-class, inner-city, educated voters, especially younger voters.
Democrat support was, as analysts remarked at the time, more a case of a negative protest vote against the main parties than a positive voter support for Democrats policies. Ditto for many who now mark the Greens box.
Strong leadership helped the Democrats rise to political strength. Think Bob Brown and the Greens. Last week even Labor man Graham Richardson declared that Brown was "arguably the best politician in the country".
Success breeds excitement, and hubris. The Greens' website boasts their 2010 vote was larger than any previous third party in modern Australian political history and the first time a third party elected a senator in every state.
Remember when then Democrats senator Cheryl Kernot declared in 1997 that "after 20 years, we are entitled to say with confidence that we are here to stay and, after [the 1996 election], we can say with equal confidence that our best is yet to come"? She was wrong. The Democrats' best had been and gone. No wonder Kernot switched sides to join Labor.
Perhaps the rise of the Greens is just another third-party firecracker, an explosion of colour and light, then nothing. Just another party that for a time splinters votes away from one side, just as the DLP did to Labor and One Nation did to the Coalition.
Don't count on it. Voter cynicism is here to stay. For so long as voters are looking for a way to protest against their alienation, the Greens may snatch votes from both sides of politics.
And the reason the Greens should be taken more seriously than other minor parties is simple enough.
Behind the moderate face of a politically astute Brown and the clever green camouflage is a political force that wants to transform Australian society in a way most Australians would find abhorrent if these voters understood the policies behind their protest vote.
As former Democrats senator Andrew Murray warned before the August federal election, "don't expect the Greens to put on the mantle of a centrist party, a small-l liberal party. The essence of the Greens is a determination to change society: the way goods and services are produced, the way you are taxed and governed, the way energy is delivered. The Greens will be true to themselves."
Both sides of politics are busy with the politics of dealing with the Greens.
The decision on the weekend by the Victorian Liberal Party to reject any preference deal with the Greens at the November 27 state election is sensible politics. Voters aren't stupid. You won't defend your Liberal Party brand by giving preferences to a party you believe is a danger to the country.
The Labor Party is having enough problems defining itself given its new relationship with the Greens. Richardson and Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes think the left-flank bleeding to the Greens will stop if the ALP would only reclaim its brand as the progressive party of compassion. Good luck with that political contortion.
Inadvertently Howes, the young, comfortably middle-class, inner-city dweller, sums up Labor's political wedge. His stated preference for putting out the "red carpet" for asylum-seekers is unlikely to find much support among blue-collar workers living in outer suburban seats where elections are decided. However, the Greens raise bigger problems than preference deals and branding.
Last week, Liberal frontbencher Kevin Andrews gave an address exposing the history and the philosophical roots behind the rise of the Greens.
Had someone such as Malcolm Turnbull given this speech, the media would have lauded it as a brilliant treatise demolishing the Greens as anything but a moderate force for good. Instead, the speech by a more conservative Liberal is buried. That's a shame.
Andrews traces the values that underpin our liberal democracy, ideas such as the intrinsic human dignity where the individual is paramount.
He juxtaposes our Judeo-Christian heritage and the ideas of the Enlightenment with the very different historical roots of the Greens, where the subordination of the individual has become the driving ideology to effect radical economic and social change.
"Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution . . . What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within Western civilisation itself," Andrews said. By looking closely at Greens policies, he has uncovered what he calls the new coercive utopianism.
It becomes clear that behind every stated purpose - and an increasing number of anodyne motherhood statements - set out in Greens policies through the years is a secret agenda that, at its core, is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.
The Greens' latest bill to stop banks raising interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank's official cash rate is just the latest example. It fits the Greens' agenda to reduce the flow of credit in an effort to reduce consumption. Drawing on the Greens de facto think tank, the Australia Institute, new Greens member Adam Bandt wants us to work less, too, presumably so we earn less money and consume less material goods.
For too long, Greens extremism has been hidden from the Australian public under a cuddly shroud of green goodwill.
As success brings more scrutiny, the Greens may well go the way of earlier "new forces" in Australian politics. But just as the Greens would be foolish to take their continuing success for granted, we would be unwise to treat their demise as a given.
janeta@bigpond.net.au
www.kevinandrews.com.au

Technorati Tags: Australian Greens,Bob Brown,Australian Labor Party,Dr Philip Nitschke,Peter Singer,International Socialism,Communism,Janet Albrechtsen,Kevin Andrews,Adam Bandt

Australia to host 2015 (Islamic ?) “World Game”, AFC Asian Cup aka. Soccer.

After Australian soccer officials embarrassing display of brown nosing and Dhimmitude  par excellence,and donating millions of dollars to many of our Nations self declared enemies to buy votes, Australia’s “one world game” groupies finally landed a gig from their Muslim masters, the 2015 Asian Cup.
Q:Why were they successful ?
A: No other nation nominated to host it.
Frank Lowy

…..and how about that flashy Logo, gee the “World Game” represented by the Islamic Crescent how about that  ay whoda thunk it?
Why not the Jewish Star of David or the Christian Cross?


Maybe they will have amputation and stoning demonstrations at half time and as pre match entertainment.

There was a video here,and  for some strange reason it is no longer available,the video was sourced from the "Big Brother" "Children's network" the "shrink wrapped ideology to go " "no brain cells can be harmed through thought network" the Ten Network ,Sydney Australia.
This network is infamous for it's hard hitting politically correct, "Multiculturaly Leftist sensitive" news service.

A consolation aka. BOO BOO  prize for Australian Soccer

Gushing Politicians falling over themselves to claim some affinity with the “World Game” a game when it is played in Australia there are more spectators cheering for Australia’s opponents than there are cheering FOR the Australian team.

Imagine there’s NO ISLAM

Technorati Tags: Frank Lowy,AFC,Soccer,2015 Asian Cup,Islam,Muslims,Islamic Crescent

No KFC for Mee,From Sydney’s Occupied Territories: The Usual Suspects at KFC Punchbowl, employee tells customer "I'm gonna f---in break your head bro,"

 

By Henri Paget

Ninemsn.com.au

A worker at a KFC restaurant in Sydney has been suspended after he was filmed screaming vicious insults and threatening to attack a customer.

The violent outburst happened at a Halal-friendly KFC in Punchbowl on December 26, allegedly after a customer became angry after being refused bacon on their burger.

The Punchbowl restaurant does not serve bacon or pork in accordance with Islamic law, (what about AUSTRALIAN LAW,what happened to that?) and one employee can be heard saying "we don't have bacon" before the other begins yelling.

"Don't record me bitch!" he screams as he approaches the counter. "Don't f---ing record me!"

The employee continues to yell and smacks the cash register display on its side, before other workers grab him and lead him outside.

"I'm gonna f---in break your head bro," he says to the person filming as he is led around the corner out of sight.

A spokesman for KFC Australia told ninemsn the employee had been suspended over the incident and offered counselling.

"KFC Australia strongly condemns the behaviour of the team member who appears in the clip and sincerely apologises for this very inappropriate reaction," the spokesman said.

But the spokesman also said the employee may have been harassed by the customer before his meltdown.

"As part of our continuing investigation, KFC has been offered statements from other customers who were in the store at the time," the spokesman said.

"These statements indicate a customer had directed offensive language and became abusive towards the team member when the customer's preferred selection was not available at that store."

The video was posted online by YouTube user "farkie", who wrote that the outburst stemmed from an argument over bacon.

"We asked for bacon on the burger, when we complained about there being no bacon," they wrote.

KFC said their investigation into the incident was ongoing.

What is it with this "Halah" shit ,and these brave sons of the Paedophile Pirate and Slave Trader Mohammed?

These Muslim savages are only able to eat meat that is killed in the most horrific manner so as to satiate their Godless blood lust,these Muslim arse clowns have more in common with Voodoo Zombies and Vampires than they do with humanity.

Why would a fast food organization like Kentucky Fried Chicken ( I used to work for them ) want to associate,indeed claim some ideological shared belief by virtue of their BOAST that they are HALAL Certified ie. execute their Chickens in a most horrific manner so as to saciate the blood lust of Muslim customers in Sydney's Occupied Territories ?

See the brave son of Mohammed for yourself as he struts his Mohammedan Machismo for the world to see,yes he is “Strong like the Bull but possessing only a fraction of the intelligence of the Bull.

Why would any Judeo Christian Western Democracy spawned Company, want to claim that it shares the same values as those espoused by Islam and it's befuddled followers?

Why would any company in Australia deliberately set out to side with less than two percent of Australia's population and give the finger to the remaining ninty eight percent?

Who IS funding these franchise's of  Dead Fried Chicken Shops in Australia, trading as Kentucky Fried Chicken ?

I will NEVER again purchase any product from a Kentucky Fried Chicken store any where in the world, I ask all Australians to do like wise.

Five Sixths (5/6ths) of the earths population have rejected outright, the belief system of ISLAM, I am sure all these Multi National Corporation Islam /

Halal GROUPIES will do just fine selling their products to their new best HALAL / Muslim friends, ie. in Australia less than two percent of the potential customer base , World Wide one sixth of the potential customer base.

Good Luck KFC, those who made you what you are, have simply had enough shove your HALAL were the sun dont shine... No KFC for MEE.

 

Technorati Tags: KFC,Kentucky Fried Chicken,Halal,Sydney,Punchbowl,Sydney’s Occupied Territories,Islam,Islamic Sociopaths Inc.,Muslims

Australia:Afghani immigrant threatens to kill daughter and himself …. hey how else do you regain “Honor”?

 

Another Golden Thread woven into the Australian Labor Party’s rich and diverse tapestry of Multiculturalism where ALL cultures and religions are equal.

Muslim teenage girl takes out AVO over clash of cultures

Katherine Danks
The Daily Telegraph

January 04, 2011

A MUSLIM girl caught between her religion, her parents and wanting to be a typical Aussie teenager is at the centre of an apprehended violence order against her father after he found she had a boyfriend.

Police were called to the family home after the man threatened to kill himself and the 14-year-old girl when he discovered the boy in a room of their home, Parramatta Bail Court heard yesterday.

The man, who cannot be named, allegedly told police the relationship was disrespectful to Muslim culture and brought shame on his family in the Afghan community.

The court heard he tried to detain the boy in the early hours of New Year's Day at the house in Blacktown.

The family called police because they were scared the father would kill the boy.

After police arrived, the man became enraged because they would not arrest the boy, who had been invited into the house by his daughter.

He said the boyfriend would be killed if the incident happened in Afghanistan, the country he and his wife had emigrated from in 1998.

"The accused then stated, as the boyfriend would not be going to jail, the only thing left to do was kill his daughter and himself," police said.

"The complainant is stuck between her religion, strict parents and wanting to be a typical Australian teenager."

Officers claimed that on October 27 the daughter ran away from home. Her father said he would kill himself if she did not return by sundown.

When she did not return, the father attempted to hang himself but was stopped by his wife and son.

"The daughter said she fears that her father will kill her because of her actions and that if he doesn't, she will be locked in the house unable to leave, unless he kills himself," police said.

Police took out an apprehended domestic violence order against the father on behalf of the girl. He was charged with stalking, intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm.

The father, who is a qualified surgeon in Afghanistan but employed as a taxi driver in Sydney, was refused bail because of his threats against the girl and self-harm history.

The matter will be mentioned in Blacktown Local Court on January 12.

 

More “Cultural Enrichment”

 

Son slit dad's throat with stolen knife, court hears

Katherine Danks
The Daily Telegraph

January 04, 2011

A 37-YEAR-OLD slit his dad's throat after stealing a knife from a local department store, a court has been told.

John ElTurk, of Lansvale, allegedly attacked Sohail ElTurk as the 65-year-old man sat with friends and family inside his home in Hoxton Park, in Sydney's

south west, on Monday.
Police allege ElTurk stole a $25 kitchen knife from a Big W store at Carnes Hill between 12.30 and 12.45pm, then travelled to his relative's home.

At about 1.30pm, John ElTurk snuck up behind in Sohail ElTurk in his Tyringham Close home.

He allegedly cut his father's throat before fleeing the home, getting into his vehicle that was parked in the street outside.

Sohail ElTurk managed to drive himself to Liverpool Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery.
He remains in a serious but stable condition.

John ElTurk also drove to Liverpool Hospital where he was arrested by police. He was taken to Liverpool Police Station where he was charged with

attempted murder and larceny.

ElTurk did not apply for bail in Parramatta Bail Court yesterday, where the magistrate was told the defendant suffered serious mental health issues.

He was formally refused bail and ordered to undergo a mental health assessment, and will re-appear in Parramatta Local Court on January 13.

 

Technorati Tags: Parramatta Bail Court,Blacktown,Afghanistan,Australia,Multiculturalism,Islamic Sociopaths Inc.,Islam,Muslims

Iran: The Religion of HATE Bans the celebration of Love

 

Iran shops banned from selling Valentine gifts

Daily Telegraph

January 02, 2011

SHOPS in Iran have been banned from selling Valentine cards and gifts as the traditional lovers' day gains increasing popularity in the Islamic republic, the ILNA news agency reported.

"In the run-up to Valentine's Day on February 14 the printing works owners' union issued a directive banning the printing and distribution of any goods promoting this day," ILNA news agency reported.

"Printing and producing any goods related to this day including posters, boxes and cards emblazoned with hearts or half-hearts, red roses and any activities promoting this day are banned," the union said in the directive.

"Outlets that violate this will be legally dealt with," it warned.

Over the past three decades Iran's conservative Islamic regime has sought to prevent the spread of Western culture among its overwhelmingly young population.

But Valentine's Day has become very popular in Iran over the past decade, with young men and women exchanging chocolate, flowers, perfume, teddy bears and other gifts on February 14.

Every year gift shops in large cities are festooned with Valentine's Day paraphernalia and restaurants in Tehran are packed with young men and women out on a date.

However, the trend has been harshly criticised by conservatives who see no room in Islamic culture for such celebrations.

Some nationalist Iranians have also suggested replacing Valentine's Day with Mehregan - a pre-Islamic but obsolete festival in early October - marking the autumn equinox and honouring the ancient Persian angel of love, Mithra.

Imagine there’s NO Islam

Technorati Tags: Iran,Islam,St Valentines Day,Religion of HATE,Islamic Sociopaths Inc.

New Years Eve FireworksSydney Australia 2010

Aussies wounded in Afghanistan

 

As Australians celebrate New Years Eve 2010, please prey for these most special Australians who like hundreds of thousands before them have put their lives on the line in the service of their nation.

God Bless these Australian Warriors and please Lord bring them back to good health, and comfort their Families in this time of ultimate distress for them.

Two diggers wounded in Afghanistan

Daily Telegraph

December 31, 2010

TWO Australian soldiers working to secure an improvised explosive device location in Afghanistan have been wounded by an unknown shooter.

The Australian Defence Force said the first digger was wounded by "a single shot fired from an unknown location and direction" on Thursday at about 5.12pm.

The second was hit by the shooter a short time later while securing a landing zone for an aero medical evacuation.

Defence said in a statement that both soldiers were evacuated to the ISAF medical facility at Multi National Base Tarin Kowt, with one subsequently moved to Kandahar for further treatment.

Both soldiers are in a satisfactory condition in separate hospitals.

Their families have been notified.

"Medical staff will continue to monitor the soldiers' condition," Acting Chief of Joint Operations, Rear Admiral Ray Griggs said.

Defence would not release any further details because operations were continuing.

In 2010, 164 Australian soldiers have been wounded in action in Afghanistan.

 

Technorati Tags: Australia,Diggers shot,Afghanistan,New Years Eve

Sydney prepares for New Years Eve Celebrations on Sydney Harbour

 

Technorati Tags: Sydney Harbour Bridge,New Years Eve,Australia

Muslim “outrage” following yet another Top Gear “Cunning Burqa Stunt”

Top Gear stars cause row after burqa-style stunt
SMH
Megan Levy
December 29, 2010
The stars of the hit motoring show Top Gear have sparked religious criticism after dressing in burqa-style clothing while filming an episode in the Middle East.
Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond disguised themselves as women by wearing Islamic face veils which only revealed their eyes in a Christmas show filmed in Syria.
In the episode, broadcast on the BBC on Boxing Day to six million viewers, the hosts drove across the Middle East to trace the path of the Three Wise Men to Bethlehem.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But their choice of attire backfired, prompting complaints from Muslims in Britain who said the show mocked their religion.
Controversial Islamic activist Anjem Choudary told the Daily Mail the burqa was a "symbol of our religion and people should not make jokes about it in any way".
"It would have been equally bad even if they'd not been in a country mainly populated by Muslims," he said.
Viewers also expressed their disgust at the wardrobe choice online, with one viewer writing "Death to America" on a Yahoo! forum.
Others turned to Twitter to denounce the episode.

"Why is Jeremy Clarkson wearing a Burqa? The Top Gear gang deserve to get hit by an IED [improvised explosive device]," tweeted a viewer.
Another wrote: "This is probably the worst top gear special. Y the f*** r they wearing burqas!!?"
The outfit was designed as a joke for co-presenter James May, who ended up in hospital after falling in the Syrian desert and hitting his head on rocks.

After May's recovery, Clarkson and Hammond greeted him at the hospital dressed in burqas, which they said was also a useful disguise on the road.

It is the second religious furore involving Clarkson this year.
In July he told Top Gear viewers that he had seen a Muslim woman wearing sexy lingerie beneath her gown.

Technorati Tags: Jeremy Clarkson,Richard Hammond,Top Gear,Burqa,Muslims,Islam,Usual Suspects,Anjem Choudary

Australia: Two Muslims found not guilty planning attack, still “persons of interest”

 

Holsworthy pair 'still of interest'

SMH

Natalie O'Brien
December 26, 2010

TERRORISM experts believe two men acquitted of planning an attack on the Holsworthy Army Barracks in Sydney are likely to be kept under covert surveillance.

Abdirahman Ahmed and Yacqub Khayre were found not guilty on Thursday of conspiring to plan a terrorist attack, while their co-accused Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Saney Edow Aweys and Nayef El Sayed were convicted.

Melbourne's Supreme Court was told the accused men's target was the military and their plan was to enter the barracks armed with military weapons and kill as many soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed. But despite Mr Ahmed and Mr Khayre, both of Melbourne, being cleared of involvement in the plot, which included unsuccessful attempts to get a fatwa permitting an attack on the Australian military, the pair are likely to be closely watched.

Terrorism expert Clive Williams, from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, said they would still be people of interest and that would attract a certain level of attention from authorities.

''I know the police are unhappy with the outcome,'' Professor Williams said.

Carl Ungerer, National Security Program director at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said authorities were likely to keep the men under surveillance.

''The difficulty is what to do with them,'' Dr Ungerer said. ''If the police felt they had evidence to prosecute they would still be persons of interest.

''That is a difficult thing in a democracy - it is a real ethical and moral question.''

Australia three Muslims guilty: “………religious decree to endorse the attack at the barracks and shoot as many people as possible until they were killed or overwhelmed, to advance Islam.”

 

Technorati Tags: Abdirahman Ahmed,Yacqub Khayre,Islamic Terrorism,Terrorism,Wissam Mahmoud Fattal,Saney Edow Aweys,Nayef El Sayed,Holswortyh Army Base

Who will stand up for Christians ? “Armed groups go into neighbourhoods where Christians live and kill indiscriminately everyone they find in their way,”….”“We are the target of a campaign of violence and liquidation with political goals.”

 

Time to stand up for Christians

Piers Akerman

Daily Telegraph
Saturday, December 25, 2010

AROUND much of the Western world, Christmas hymns are still echoing in the ears of happy holidaymakers, but elsewhere, Christians, for whom Christmas is one of the holiest days, are being persecuted.

While Australian troops are dying in Afghanistan in a war with Islamist forces, the Afghan Government which our forces are supporting seems incapable of implementing policies that respect fundamental principles guaranteeing real religious freedoms.

Afghanistan is not alone. Islamic nations which regularly issue calls for the West to respect Islam and show tolerance for its traditions, rarely practise what they preach.

A 200-page study of religious freedom reveals that Christianity is under siege in the Islamic world and that the dwindling number of Christians still living in Islamic nations remain among the most oppressed.

Pope Benedict, who released the study last month, called for all nations to guarantee freedom for all to practise their faith publicly, with authentic respect for each person.

Although this freedom is assumed in Australia, the US, the UK and other European nations, it is paid scant regard in the Islamic world and across China. India is rife with divisions between the many religions followed.

But it’s the fate of Christians under Islamic rule that is most concerning, particularly as Islamic nations play a greater role within the UN and are granted an unearned tolerance by the Left in the West.

In calling for religious freedom to be respected, the Pope appealed for reciprocity - full rights for Christians in Islamic states where laws ban them from practising their faith openly. Such a call does not sound unreasonable. No Christian state bans the practising of Islam, but the 3.5 million Christians of all denominations who live in the Gulf Arab region, the birthplace of Islam, are barely tolerated and any form of non-Muslim worship takes place in private.

In Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s holiest sites, the report notes, conversion of Muslims is punishable by death, though such sentences are rare.

The Vatican expressed particular concern about the fate of Christians in predominantly Muslim Iraq, where 52 hostages and police were killed last month when a church was seized by al Qaeda-linked gunmen.

“Armed groups go into neighbourhoods where Christians live and kill indiscriminately everyone they find in their way,” Monsignor Philip Najim, representative of the Chaldean Church to the Holy See, reported.

“These are cold-blooded murders in broad daylight, before dozens of witnesses, as if these groups wanted to show that they can act with impunity; that they are in control of the city.”

Monsignor Louis Sako, Archbishop of Kirkuk, Iraq, said: “We are the target of a campaign of violence and liquidation with political goals.”

The West’s tolerant approach to religion is mocked by Islamic governments, most of which claim to observe the Universal Charter of Human Rights’ Article 7, stating that religions are “free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law,” but also declare Islam as the state religion. This contradiction gives them a fig leaf whenever the issue of persecution of Christians arises.

In Afghanistan, courts apply Islamic Sharia law to the interpretation and judging of individual cases concerning, for example, blasphemy or apostasy - crimes which are not covered by the penal code.

Under Islamic law, the death penalty applies for these crimes.The same applies in Bangladesh, where Christians and Hindus suffer extreme violence and persecution.

Marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims is forbidden in Brunei and Iran, and any non-Muslim man who wishes to marry a Muslim woman must convert. The law of blasphemy is the worst instrument of religious repression in Pakistan, with the penalty of life imprisonment for all who offend the Koran, and the death penalty for those who insult the prophet Mohammed.

According to the report, accusations against alleged blasphemers are often false or motivated by petty interests, which result in scandals and encourage enraged crowds to inflict justice on their own.

Even if arrested on the basis of accusations from only one witness, the unfortunate person risks violence and torture inflicted by the police. Under pressure from crowds incited by local mullahs, a number of judges have imposed the death sentence even in the absence of any evidence against the accused.

The report says the penal law, based on the Koran, punishes with floggings and stoning all behaviour incompatible with Islamic law, such as adultery, gambling or drinking alcohol. This law on blasphemy provides an example of one of the most sectarian and extremist forms of legislation, in addition to paving the way for a radical Islam- isation of the country.

How is it possible for Christians, even nominal Christians who hum hymns and visit churches once or twice a year, to be so oblivious to the fate of those who stake so much more on their Christianity than many in Western countries today?

In large part it is due to the insistent demands for tolerance made by the political Left, a tolerance which embraces Islam, but denies Christianity the same comfort.

It’s obvious to the most casual observer that there are no refugees fleeing the West, but the same cannot be said for the Islamic nations, or the totalitarian Asian states.

The difference lies in the Judeo-Christian cultures which formed the core of Western culture, the source of rallying cries of freedom and liberty.

Standing up for those suffering persecution in oppressive nations because of their Christian belief is a small price to pay for the historic liberation this religion has bestowed on so many around the world today.

Jihadist' issues Christmas bombing threat

Christmas Eve bombings in Nigeria kill 31

Female bomber kills 43 at food center in Pakistan

Bombing wounds 11 at Christmas Mass in Philippines

Technorati Tags: Christians,Iraq,Islam,Muslim Terrorism,Muslim Assassins,Sharia Law,Afghanistan,Bangladesh,Hindus,Judeo-Christian,Monsignor Louis Sako,Archbishop of Kirkuk

Australia Christmas DAY 2010

Australia three Muslims guilty: “………religious decree to endorse the attack at the barracks and shoot as many people as possible until they were killed or overwhelmed, to advance Islam.”

Trio guilty of army base terror attack plan
Daily Telegraph
December 23, 2010 10:17AM
A VICTORIAN court has found three men guilty of planning a terrorist attack on an Australian army base in Sydney.
Another two men who also stood trial over the alleged planned attack have been found not guilty.
A Victorian Supreme Court trial, which has been running for three months, was told the five men planned a shootout at the Australian Army Barracks at Holsworthy in the belief Islam was under attack from the west.
 The jury heard the men took steps to obtain a religious decree to endorse the attack at the barracks and shoot as many people as possible until they were killed or overwhelmed, to advance Islam.
 Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 34, of Melbourne, Saney Edow Aweys, 27, of Carlton North and Nayef El Sayed, 26, of Glenroy were found guilty of conspiring to prepare for or plan a terrorist act between February 1, 2009 and August 4, 2009.

The usual cabal of Strutting Muslim “Rats with a Gold tooth” exit our Courts surrounded by THEIR “Community Leaders” dribbling the usual Koran inspired Bull Shit.

The Australian Labor / Greens / “Independents” Coalition Union Funded Socialist Federal Government seems hell bent on importing into Australia as many of these Muslim Terrorists as it can, Australians are entitled to ask WHY?

How many Australians are The Australian Labor / Greens / “Independents” Coalition Union Funded Socialist Federal Government prepared to sacrifice on their alter of “Multiculturalism /all cultures Religions are equal” in order to achieve the Balkanization of Australia.

Technorati Tags: Wissam Mahmoud Fattal,Saney Edow Aweys,Nayef El Sayed,Islam,Islamic Terrorism,Muslims,Australian Army Barracks Holsworthy,Victorian Supreme Court,Jihad,Islamic Sociopaths Inc.

Terrified Christians cancel Christmas….

 

Baghdad Christians cancel Christmas celebrations amid terror attack fears in Iraq

Daily Telegraph December 22, 2010

ONLY one Baghdad Christian church will have full Christmas celebrations this year amid fears of terrorist attacks from radical Muslims, The (London) Daily Telegraph reported today.

More than 1,000 Christian families fled Baghdad after five Islamist extremists burst into Our Lady of Salvation Church in October, murdering two priests, holding churchgoers hostage then eventually killing more than 50 people.

Amnesty International warned of an increase in violence in the lead-up to Christmas and urged the Iraqi government to do more to protect the minority group.

There were only 500,000 Christians left in Iraq, about half the number in the country seven years ago.

At Our Lady of Salvation Church, the bloodied hand prints of murdered members of the congregation remain on the walls, which are riddled with bullet holes.

The victims of the October violence included four-year-old Adam Eashoue and his father Uday, 33.

Adam's grandparents Zuher and Amal cannot bear to return to the church and are now considering leaving Baghdad. "I've lost my world," Amal said. "I don't want to leave Baghdad. I was born and married here. But I have to think of my children."

So why does the Australian Federal Government,led by Madame Julia Gillard,the Australian Labor Party / Greens / “Independents” Socialist Coalition, insist on importing into Australia people of the same ideology who are persecuting and killing Christians in Iraq?

People who are not only sworn to eliminate Christianity in Iraq but are on record as swearing to eliminating Christianity in any and all of the Judeo / Christian Nations they RUN AWAY to.

Why would the UN centric Australian Labor Party want to fill OUR country,Australia, with people sworn to destroy us ?

Technorati Tags: Iraq,Christmas,Christmas cancelled,Muslims,Islam,Islamic Terrorism

Australian High Court says no to Christmas Nativity scene in Australian Capital Canberra

 

ANV.22 12 2010 11 22 AM

The Australian High Court ruled today,in a land mark decision, that it would be “dishonest” “disrespectful “ and “deceptive” for the Australian Capital, Canberra, to display nativity scenes.

The full bench of the High Court agreed unanimously that the Capitals officials had failed in their search for three wise men and as such a significant part of the proposed nativity display would be missing.

Although the search for a virgin was continuing, the Court accepted the submissions of the prosecutors that it was highly unlikely that one could be found.

Technorati Tags: Christmas Island,nativity scene,virgins,three wise men,Australian High Court

Hussein Obama’s Loony World of Islamic Supremacism

 

This Judeo / Christian Western Democracy HATING Muslim Arse Clown, Hussein Obama, should be impeached and taken into “Care” before he and his Democrat Party do anymore damage to the civilized world.

 

Hag in Bag Celebrates 911

The Islamic Fox, Hag in Bag, is now in charge of the Hen House.

“The Man is an Abomination”

Technorati Tags: Hussein Obama,TSA,America,USA,Muslim Terrorists,Islamic Terrorism,Koran,Islam,US Airport Security,Muslims,Terror,Security,Airline Travel Safety,Fox Guarding the Hen House,United Nations

Australians defiantly Celebrate CHRISTmas in Sydney's Occupied Territories

Full marks to these Australians for flaunting their Christianity by Celebrating CHRISTMAS, so openly and boldly, in, of all places Sydney's Occupied Territories, the South Western  suburbs of Sydney controlled by Islamic Insurgents or as the Australian Labor Party claim is the jewel in their Putrid Lick Spittle United Nations Multicultural Crown.

Technorati Tags: Christmas,Australia,South Western Sydney,Islamic Insurgents,South Western Sydney's Occupied Territories

Oprah Winfrey Sydney Opera House show one round up

Oprah Winfrey audience members treated to a "Pearl Necklace" gee that must have been a sight to behold.

Oprah Winfrey goes sailing on Sydney Harbour with Master and Commander,Capt. Jack Aubrey aka. Russell Crowe

Mohamed the misunderstood Taxi driver

Is Mohamad Tohme the worst cab driver in Sydney?

 
EXCLUSIVE by Joe Hildebrand
The Daily Telegraph
December 13, 2010


                                    MEET Mohamad Tohme. Despite tough competition, he might just be Sydney's worst taxi driver.

In 12 years on the road for four major cab companies, he has been accused of slapping, abusing and swearing at customers, refusing short fares and deliberately taking the longest possible route.
He once took a passenger from the airport to Annandale via Oxford St - during Mardi Gras. Last year, he was accused of exposing his genitals after a lewd suggestion to a dissatisfied customer.
Mr Tohme says he's just misunderstood, adding "I've got maybe bad people skills."
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal last week found those bad people skills include convictions for domestic violence and assaulting police and a business associate.During the Mardi Gras incident in 1998, he allegedly also demanded $50 - instead of the $32 on the meter - "because the trip had taken over 15 minutes". This, five other complaints and a 1999 conviction for bashing his wife with a shoe led the Department of Transport to ask him to show cause why his licence should not be revoked.
He asked for another chance and got a final warning. Then in 2004, he allegedly slapped a female passenger.
Fortunately for Mr Tohme, the charge of assault was withdrawn. However, two charges of resisting police and assaulting an officer were not.
Mr Tohme's taxi licence was suspended while he was ordered to undergo an anger- management course. When this was completed, he resumed driving. Between 2006 and 2008 there were another five complaints. In 2008, Mr Tohme was convicted of punching and kicking a "business associate" during a dispute at a service station.
His authority was cancelled but again he pleaded for mercy and it was reinstated for six months. Five months and one week later, in February 2009, a customer asked to be taken to Surry Hills.
According to a subsequent complaint, Mr Tohme refused, got out and "slammed the door so hard, something broke. He opened the door and started screaming".
Inexplicably, he kept driving. In May last year a Westin Hotel doorman complained that, when asked to take a short fare to King St Wharf, Mr Tohme told a passenger to "f ... off". At Darling Harbour in July last year, he allegedly refused fares to Glebe and Leichhardt, telling a passenger to "suck my penis" while exposing himself. The next month the department cancelled his authority.
Mr Tohme denied abusing customers or exposing himself, but tribunal member Peter Molony was "satisfied that he is not a fit and proper person todrive a taxi cab".

Technorati Tags: Mohamad the Taxi Driver,Sydney Taxi's

Australian Diggers: "What did you miss most (about your Dad) "all the cuddles and stuff"

Oprah Winfrey climbs the Sydney Harbour Bridge on a picture perfect Sydney summers day

Stay with the momentary freeze I will fix it

Oprah Winfrey,Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Australia, USA, Bridge Climb,Bondi Icebergs,

Oprah Winfrey : Sydney turns it on for Oprah with a big “O”and fireworks after party.

 

Oprah Winfrey hosts lavish Sydney party

Jonathon Moran and Elle Halliwell

The Sunday Telegraph December 12, 2010

OPRAH Winfrey mania hit Sydney last night when the American TV queen hosted a lavish party for 450 guests, business leaders and politicians at the Botanic Gardens.

Welcome to Sydney Australia !!!!!!!

Winfrey held an official Welcome To Australia party for her 300 travelling American audience members in a harbourside marquee, against a backdrop of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which had been specially lit up with a giant orange-red "O".

Winfrey, dressed in a multi-coloured Camilla Franks kaftan, beige chinos and embellished sandals, said Sydney had exceeded all her expectations.

"Everyone was saying 'Wait till you get to Sydney, wait till you get to Sydney'.

"Today we were coming in on the plane from Melbourne, me and my little mini team, my hairdresser and my assistant and we started singing Helloooo Sydney (to the tune of Hello Dolly)," Winfrey said.

"I will have to say it measures up to everything everybody has ever said; everything Hugh Jackman has said; everything Nicole Kidman has said; everything Keith Urban told me about it. John Travolta went on and on and on.

"I think it is not just breathtaking, but it sort of takes you in a way that you feel instantly that you want to be a part of it: a part of the people, a part of the lifestyle, the scene; it's really fantastic and I really love it.

"I was just at home having a VB and I was like 'Hello?' I will be back without all these cameras. I'll be back and you won't know it."

Speaking about her whirlwind tour of Australia - she visited Hamilton Island, Uluru and Melbourne, spending less than 24 hours in each place - Winfrey said her highlight has been meeting ordinary Australian families.

She popped in to the homes of two fans in Melbourne and a Lebanese family in Earlwood, Sydney, yesterday afternoon.

Winfrey said she had marvelled with her best friend Gayle King about just how "friendly" the Australians are.

"My highlight has been the people actually. As you all know, we've been in different places where people are not very friendly," she said.

"(Here) I feel absolutely embraced by the people, so much so that I said to the Prime Minister: 'Do you have friendly school you go to?' And I really mean that. Gayle and I were talking about it earlier today and she goes: 'But it seems to be genuine friendly'.

"I said: 'It's like everyone went to Disney class,' but it's not false."

As the sun set and the party kicked off, Winfrey posed for photos in front of the Opera House with her entourage. VIP guests included NSW Premier Kristina Keneally, Federal Tourism Minister Martin Ferguson, NSW Tourism Minister Jodi McKay and US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich.

A fireworks display to rival New Year's Eve lit the sky at 9.15pm, with the Black Eyed Peas' I Gotta Feeling and Temper Trap's Sweet Disposition blaring from the speakers, before singer Guy Sebastian took to the stage to perform five of his hits at the event, which was hosted by Sandra Sully.

Winfrey's speech during the night drew emotional tears from her audience, who were moved by the generosity of their host.

"I always knew I needed to be treated like this," said one audience member, to which Winfrey replied: "You go girl."

Koomurri indigenous dancers welcomed Winfrey on arrival with a smoke ceremony.

Celebrity chefs Justin North and Pete Evans then cooked up a storm using local produce.

The event, styled by MasterChef judge Donna Hay, featured a menu of duck and snow pea pancakes, cutlets of Mirrool Creek suckling lamb, mini-hamburgers, lime and lemongrass prawns and gelato.

Sworn to secrecy, Hay worked on the party for several weeks until last night's unveiling. Her aim was to showcase the best that NSW has to offer, dividing the party into distinct areas - City Glamour, Country Retreat and Coastal Chic.

Outside the marquee, a fake beach was set up, with Bondi lifeguards, sand, deckchairs, towels and striped beach umbrellas. Inside, an Australian country retreat area was decorated with rustic furniture, hay bales and vintage R. M. Williams saddles and stirrups.

"It's very much an event about Welcome To Sydney," Hay told The Sunday Telegraph. "This party has to be amazing. Every detail has to be amazing.

We're showcasing what Sydney and Australia is about; it's beautiful." Although Winfrey didn't have any specific food requirements, Hay said she had studied Winfrey's popular O Magazine for hints.

"The bar is in Oprah green, a lovely sea-foam, fresh apple green," Hay said. With that in mind, a green-apple-and-thyme martini was on offer as guests arrived, to wash down Sydney rock oysters, tuna sashimi, poached bug tails and king prawns.

Local wines included Cockfighter's Ghost Orange Pinot Chardonnay, De Bortoli Hunter Valley Shiraz and Nugan Estate Manuka Grove Riverina Durif, while beer was brought in from Port Macquarie's Little Brewing Company.

And, as the night came to an end, guests walked away with products from R. M. Williams, Byron Bay Cookies and Napoleon Perdis, as well as a Donna Hay cookbook and a Guy Sebastian album.

Earlier in the day, Winfrey, clad in an Akubra hat, was greeted on the tarmac at Sydney Airport and ushered into a waiting car by VIPs.

The American talkshow queen saw Sydney at its best - a perfect 27C summer's day - as she took in the view of Sydney Harbour from the balcony of the InterContinental Sydney, where she is staying.

Even before her arrival in Australia, Tourism Australia estimated her visit would generate more than $17 million.

Tourism operators expect many millions more when Oprah's Australian shows are broadcast to more than 44 million viewers next month.

Ms Keneally said Winfrey's visit to Sydney would be worth millions.

"It's a bloody big honour for us," she said. "The reality is that we spend a lot of money on tourism and advertising, and yet the thing that has been most successful in terms of generating bang for our buck has been this visit."

Today, Winfrey will climb the Harbour Bridge with her 300 guests, before visiting Bondi.

 

Technorati Tags: Oprah Winfrey,Oprah,Sydney Harbour Bridge,O,USA,Sydney,Bondi

Oprah Winfrey touches down in Sydney Australia