Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Why the Greens did not discipline “unGreen” councillor in Auburn!!!

First of all let us assume that the Greens has indeed any clear “green” ideological agenda, that they will stick to it to get directions in taking any decision or when conducting any campaign. This assumption is very important to compare it with the reality of this “opportunist” party.

If this assumption is true, even for less extent, we would have expected that the Greens party would have taken major disciplinary steps against Greens councillor in Auburn, Ms Malikeh Michaels. So far during this term of the council she committed the followings:
1- She supported proposal to approve high-rise building in Queen St, Auburn (against her election campaign promises, and the Greens clear policy in opposing such buildings).
2- She supported the demolition of heritage-listed building in Harrow Rd, Auburn (again against the Greens clear policy on this issue)
3- She did not initiate any initiative to promote environmentally sustainable proposals to be implemented in Auburn development proposals.
4- She campaigned against the Greens candidate in First Ward during Auburn council election, September 08.
5- She attacked the party and encouraged members to defect to rival parties (including myself since 2005), as she labelled the Greens as “White Anglo middle class people’s club with no place for multiculturalism).
6- She built very close relationship with the highly regressive Liberal party and voted in block with them on EVERY proposal since last September.

Let me tell you the truth: I was not surprised on this as I did not expect the Greens to take any step against her for many reasons:
1- The Greens has no clear political agenda based on ideology. The Greens is punch of opportunist people who failed to secure any position in any different political parties. All what they are after is to increase votes and get themselves elected to parliament or any public office (or to secure staffer position) with some power and money, to secure comfortable retirement. Please read what another Greens councillor, Irene Doutney, on 31 Oct 07, had to say on this issue: “I think there are a couple of things about the greens that need to be explained. The Greens unlike other parties are more a group of individuals that work collectively. For better or worse there is no overarching ideology that informs policy decisions ….”
2- The Greens infact wants to get rid of the wrong label of being “Left” they were given because of the lack of real left.
3- The Greens are happy for Malikeh to break the ice with the far right Liberal party (enforced on them because of the label mentioned above). By doing this they can achieve many goals in one shot:
- They can wait until Malikeh establish good relationship with the Liberals to use the excuse of “not to be monarchist more than the king” to publicly announce deals with the Liberals. This would happen by saying: here is Muslim representative who have good relationship with Liberals, despite all Anti-Muslim sentiments mounted by that far right party. So why we should not enter any deal?
- The relationship will allow the secret negotiations between the Greens and the far-right Liberals to see the light just in time for the next Federal and State elections.

But how can any political party trust lady that attacks her own party, stab its candidate in the back and make secret deals with rivals?
But the more important question here would be: how would the community and progressive people of Australia support and trust such party that is waiting at the doors of the most regressive far right party to make “preferential deals” with?

The answer is not easy. And we would not know the answer right now. We should wait to see how the community (not only Muslims, but the progressive mainstream community too) will react to these dirty deals and assumptions. And clearly this is the main reason why the Greens hierarchy is very patient with Malikeh, if not supporting her. They clearly did not learn from the huge backlash when the community discovered similar deals during Victoria state election, 2006, and then NSW state election, 2007. Or maybe they are gambling that the community had forgotten all what the Liberals had done and stand for. Again they are clearly did not analyse closely the results of the recent Queensland state election (I will post our analysis very soon, as it gives good indication about what to expect in the next Federal and NSW state elections)

The Greens wants her to make all these mistakes, dirty deals and wrong assumptions, until the next election. Then if the community would show strong dissent and threaten to send strong protest message, the Greens would act at that time by putting all the blames on her (Malikeh). At that time and if the community’s reaction will be so loud, the Greens will easy say: we did not agree with her on this. Then they will blame her for all the dirty deals and tricks, and they may take strong disciplinary actions then.

But this step is very big gamble. Firstly, the community’s backlash could be so huge that it will not accept any justification. At the end of the day, Ms Malikeh is not new Greens councillor. She was on council for more than 5 years.

Secondly, the Greens hierarchy cannot guarantee Malikeh. She can cross the “floor” at anytime she will get “better deal” and better conditions of employment.

I think that the time ahead would be very interesting. But for now I should mention one thing at the end of this piece. When I urged Malikeh to run for council, I did not ask her to become “representative” of the community. I indeed urged her to run to become good example for Muslims’ participation in this society to demystify all ugly Liberals campaigns to stereotype our community. It is very clear that I made the wrong choice. And for this I do apologise deeply, to every Australian.


Thursday, March 26, 2009

Ms Michaels: this time it is very dangerous.

This time we should all stand together and say: enough is enough and not in our name. I am talking here about the decision taken by 6 councilors to investigate possibility of allowing demolition of heritage listed former fire station in Auburn.

We should send a clear message that the trio Michele Michaels – Izzet Anmack – Ronney Oueik does not represent us as a community.

Firstly we should mention things as they are. Both Ms Michaels and Mr Ronney ran in the last election not as Muslim candidates, but on behalf of their parties. And both their parties are very far from representing the interests of the Muslim community, if not representing the opposite. I will give details on this later in this opinion piece.

We noticed that after Ms Michele Michaels missed out on becoming Mayor of Auburn and missed out on the $50,000 allowance, her attitude changed significantly. The latest change is very dangerous to the harmony in the community and could badly backlash against us as a community of religious and cultural minorities.

This time this trio is sending a message to all Australians that the Muslims are banditos, arrogant and do not recognize or respect any law or rule. The trio is in fact finishing the job started by John Howard of stereotyping our community and branding us as “unAustralians”, supporting illegal activities.

The Auburn Council motion and subsequent media comments by Malikeh Michaels had the potential to achieve more than what John Howard tried to achieve in a decade of Anti-Muslim propaganda, if she is not stopped immediately. This dangerous trend here is the fact that this trio is claiming that they are representing Muslims in all their actions. Ms Michaels has even gone further when she was shedding tears at the Anti-Muslim behaviour of the councilors in opposing her motion. This resulted in threats of violence against those councilors by mislead community members after they heard the tears from this “representative of Muslims in Australia”.

Yes. As Muslims we are disadvantaged and treated as second class citizens. But we are fighting to be treated equally and only equally. We are not seeking to be treated as super citizens: citizens above laws. Citizens that can destroy, demolish and re-structure without following any rules or laws.

On the claims by this trio of “representing the Muslim community”, let us mention some facts.

Let us start with Mr Ronney Ouiek. He is member of the Liberal party. For the Australians who do not remember what the Liberal party has done, let me mention a few facts:
1- The Liberal party detained tens of thousands of asylum seekers (90% of them are Muslims) and then destroyed their lives by several inhumane pieces of legislation.
2- The Liberal party destroyed civil liberties and introduced Anti- Terrorism laws, which were introduced to mainly discriminate against and target Muslims.
3- The Liberal party refuted Multiculturalism and considered this word to be shameful.
4- The Liberal party sent our troops to participate in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and supported blindly Israeli massacres in Lebanon and Palestine.
5- The Liberal party promoted all lies about the Muslim community to label the community as terrorist and out of control.

Not only this. Ronney Ouiek was quoted at the pooling booths during the last council election supporting Israeli massacres against Palestinians and against his own Lebanese people.

Would such person represent Muslims?

And then let us ask where Ms Michaels was when the attack on Muslims was at its height? Where was she when the detentions were full of Muslims? Where was she when the Howard government legislated all these discriminatory laws against Muslims and labeled them as terrorist by birth? And where was she when Israel invaded Lebanon (2006), and then invaded Gaza (2008 -2009)? And where is she now where tens young Muslims are still behind bars for no reason, allegedly for “terrorism-related” activities?

For this lack of track history of any “commitment” to major issues of concern to Muslims, where did Ms Michaels get this claims that she represent Muslims? Has she not noticed that Zalmay Khalil Zadeh, the criminal member of George Bush administration, was in fact Muslim. Could he claim that he represented American Muslims?
If we add to this the fact that Ms Michaels claimed after the last council election that she got elected to the council on the votes from white middle class voters in the new suburbs of Auburn, then we should wonder how come she is claiming now that she is representing the Muslim community (who did not vote for her, as per her claim)?
The tight bond between Ms Michaels and the Liberal councilors is answering it all. It could be that she is still planning for her mayorship next term with the support of Liberals-Unity- Izzet councilors. And I do not think that it is anything to do with the Muslim rights.

And why did I say at the beginning that this time she is playing a very dangerous game?
1- She is playing dirty tactics to raise the feelings of Muslims against a few councilors, which could result in violence. This violence could result in media hysteria that would bring back the memories of the Howard dark ages of high racist attacks on Muslims. Then we, as a community, will start again from scratch to rebuild our shattered reputation.
2- Her hysterical campaign to apparently secure the mayorship position, even if will not resulted in physical violence, could be used to justify portraying our community with all ugly labels.
3- This hysterical campaign could also result in dividing the community itself and then could spark factional and sectarian violence or at least tension, between supporters of this development application and the ones who do not.
4- Her hysterical opportunist campaign (if not stopped) could clean the dark pages of Howard-Ruddock crimes and introduce the xenophobic Liberals as the Muslim friendly party.

What amazes me too is that she circulated an email earlier last week stating that she is a proud “Greens” party member. I checked the official policy of the Greens on the heritage issue. I will quote a few points:

Under Principles:
5- We should support appropriate development that is sympathetic to its environment, heritage considerations ….
Heritage is viewed by developers and, in some instances, by planners as an obstacle to the planning process, rather than an asset, as it should be.
Then under Goals:
30 - Establish a requirement that developers conserve and adaptively re-use heritage structures …
And there is special section for protecting heritage in the same policy (you can access the policy on http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/building-and-development)
So in reading this policy and then reading the decision by this Greens councilor to support potential demolition of a heritage building, we should come to either one of the following 3 conclusions:
1- It is either the Greens policy is published on the web just to mislead public and get more votes only (which is true in most cases)
2- Or that the Greens councilor did throw the Greens official policy into rubbish bin, for own benefit and agenda.
3- Or maybe it’s a combination of both, for combined interests and agendas.
Now let us ask what are these agendas of both the Greens and Ms Michaels:
1- It is possible that Ms Michaels is just planning for the next Mayorship election, only.
2- Or maybe she is planning to move parties to the Liberals.
3- Or maybe it is a bigger agenda of the Greens to enter coalition with the extreme right Liberal Party in the next election.
4- Or it could be combination of all the above.
As this is a very dangerous move that could backlash against the whole community, we should not be silent. And we should not be intimidated by emotional abuse tactics of Ms Michaels by abusing us as Anti-Muslims.
We opposed and condemned the move not to approve Mosques in Camden, Baulkham Hills and before that in Sefton, Dee Why and Earlwood, where development applications were done according to laws and regulations. We also (not like the Greens MLC) opposed denying Muslims to build schools, if they would be built according to rules and regulations. But we cannot support breaking the law in such a way.
I will seek a meeting with Br Shafiq Khan to explore any solution without any violent backlash against our community. But at the same time I want everyone to know that not in my name. Definetley Ms Michaels does not represent me as Muslim Australian. And I know that hundreds (if not thousands) do agree with me.
Accordingly, the trio of Michaels-Anmak-Oueik should not pursue their own agenda regardless if it will be built on more suffering of hundreds of thousands of our community members.
We should do all in our hands to let everyone know about this. And definitely we will be present at the next council meeting to let them know that: Not in our name.
And I should mention here that I wrote this piece regardless of my views on heritage preservation. I could have a different opinion, that is irrelevant. The most important thing for us is the interests of the community and to maintain and strengthen the harmony in the society. It would be very shameful if we were to go a few steps backwards because of the personal interests of a few community members, who have no mandate to speak in our name.

We should mention here that we expected something different from Independent Muslim councilor Izzet. But at the moment he proved to be naïve (at least) by following Ms Michaels’ misleading directions. He should remember that Ms Michaels has bigger agendas, he is definitely not part of them.

Monday, March 23, 2009

The day Marat Aminov tried to end his life: the whole story!

I am writing this piece because I am appalld at the Australian treatment of this poor family. The treatment of this family could not be accepted by any nation with minimum of human rights respect. It especially appalld all of us the lack of compassion on all levels in dealing with this family.

The lack of media interest:
I will come to some of the reasons why Marat tried to end his life. One of the major reasons was the complete silence of the media outlets about reporting on this issue. It shocked Marat and his family the low level of interest on reporting on their case, even after many attempts by us to attract the attention of the media outlets which are constantly present in the Parliament House. It shocked us how the media would talk for days about torturing a cat at train station by irresponsible teenager, but are negligent about reporting on torturing whole family for years by adult ministers and department’s bureaucrats.

The eviction from Parliament:
The story started when we traveled to Canberra determined to attract the attention of the PM and his minister for immigration by all means. I will not talk now in details about the plans that were put to do so. All what I need to say that we could attract the attention of media, MP, his ministers and MPs of all different parties. The attempt resulted in evicting me and Marat from the Parliament and banned us from there for 24 hours. When we were escorted by Federal police to the area designated for us to protest, we were still making media comments and demanding that the minister spare few minutes to meet us and discuss a way out. After the end of media interviews, I noticed that there is blood coming from Marat’s chin. He was also in deep pain. We discovered later that he was beaten by security officers by kicking his face with their shoes. I called 000 asking for medical check.

Early signs of politicizing health services:
Upon ambulance arrival, a federal police agent blocked its way and talked for about 5 – 7 minutes to the ambulance officer. When she approached us, she immediately asked Marat to jump into the ambulance. After few seconds, she emerged alone from inside of the ambulance and told us that they need to take him to hospital for checks. I asked her to open the door to pass mobile phone to him, but she refused. She jumped to the ambulance, told us that they are taking him to Canberra hospital. Then the ambulance took off.

All this happened on Monday, 1 December. The parliament sitting for the year would end on Thursday, 4 December 08. The government needed to keep us away for another 3 days, until the parliament will close for Christmas period.

We collected all our chairs and table and went to hospital. After arriving to hospital and asking for him at reception, reception asked me to go immediately inside to help in calming Marat down. He was refusing to allow doctors to do anything to him. They wanted him to lie down on the bed and allow them to put collar around his neck, as they suspected that he hurt his neck when he jumped to the Parliament floor.

After his family’s long-time ordeal with the governmental departments, he had developed Schizophrenic disorder with deep anti-authorities feelings. He had suspicions about the doctors’ motives, so he would not lower his head. He needed to see always what the doctors and nurses are doing. I calmed him down and told him that we are there now and the doctors and nursed would not be able to hurt him. He then agreed to cooperate.

The doctor told me that they will keep him at hospital for several hours only to do some analysis and scans for his neck and vertebral column. We trusted the health officials, as we should in normal situation.

His parents told me to go back to Sydney and they will stay at hospital until he will be released. I asked them to contact me if anything would happen. I warned them to be very cautious as the government could try to do anything to make them look like violent or uncivilized people to justify the deeply inhumane treatment.

Around midnight, I received phone call from Alija, Marat’s mother. She was very distressed and crying. She told me that the police had arrested Samil, her husband, as he tried to take Marat home from hospital. I asked her not to do anything and ask Samil to go with them to police station and not resisting arrest.

Then politicizing judicial system:
On the next day Aliija called me again. She told me that Samil was taken to court without any interpreter or legal representative. The Legal Aid representative intervened, but with no success, as there was no interpreter to get Samil’s instruction to apply for bail. We learned too that Canberra hospital officials executed order to keep Marat in psychiatric unit for 3 days to “prevent suicidal attempts”.

The game was very clear. The government had politicized all services: medical, police, judicial,… in a bid to keep the family away from the Federal Parliament until the session ends.

Samil attempted to commit suicide:
While I started to talk about all these to media outlets, the family started to get very angry and frustrated. Then we knew that the sort of things that we warned off had happened: Samil tried to commit suicide inside his cell by slashing his wrist with metal object. The whole situation was headed to be out of control. The authorities were enforced to release Marat immediately from psychiatric unit. Marat and Alija called me to discuss the next move. We decided that they should go back to Parliament and continue their protest.

The day Marat tried to commit suicide:
Next day (Wednesday 3 December 08) I traveled to Canberra to be with the family and see what we can do. I traveled with my wife there.

On arrival, I heard what had happened. We then had extensive discussion about what we should do. We decided that we should do all what we can today, as the Parliament will go into rest for at least 50 days. The main issue for the family was the release of Samil from jail.

We noticed that next to our protest table, there were people preparing to celebrate in a big tent. We approached them and asked. It is the official celebration of the Day of people with disabilities. A very big irony. The government wanted to celebrate the resilience of people with disabilities, but was insisting to punish others and causes them deep disabilities. Very strange logic.

The journalists and cameramen started to flood the place. I approached Marat and told him that it is good time to do something to embarrass the government and to attract media attention. Marat did not say anything. He shock his head. Suddenly he disappeared. His mother asked about his whereabouts. We did not know, he simply did not say anything.

And suddenly he re-appeared. And suddenly many officials form the department of immigration appeared. They approached Marat and his mum asking how they are doing. Marat avoided them and moved to other place. They asked about her health and the health of Marat. The ministers started to arrive and the celebration started. Suddenly Marat stood up, started to pour petrol on himself and automatic lighter in his left hand and started shouting “Hey, listen to me why I will kill myself”.

Suddenly a huge Federal policeman jumped to the area, started approaching Marat trying to strip him from the lighter. I jumped and shouted warning the policeman that there is big chance that he will set himself alight if the policeman did not stop approaching him. I told the policeman that this man had tired to commit suicide at least three times in the last year. The policeman stopped and started negotiating with him. I kept warning the Federal policemen from making any stupid moves, as the situation is very dangerous and we could lose this young life. “Shut up and let me finish and tell them why I want to kill myself” Marat started to shout on me.

The real reason why Marat tried to commit suicide:
“I want to kill myself as the government not only treated my parents very badly, but they put my father in jail for no reason”. The main issue for Marat was his father and his unlawful arrest and the subsequent mistreatment. “How can government not provide him with Russian interpreter, just to keep him behind bars? What kind of democracy?”

The feelings were very high. The mother collapsed in front of us. My wife was trying to calm her down, but she was shouting “my son, I am losing my son, please help me” then she crawled, as she could not stand on her feet anymore. By that time, the policeman convinced Marat to through away the lighter and stop his attempt.

What amazed me that one cameraman was persistently abusing Alija in very bad way. My wife told me that he even told her to “shut your mouth and go to help your son away from minister’s speech”. I confronted him and asked for his name to complain against him for both assault and unprofessionalism. He ran away while the area turned into media theatre.

The scene was if there was a major war battle. Many fire brigades, tens of federal police cars and officers and few ambulances. One ambulance took Alija, against her well, to hospital.

Unprofessional moves by politicized health services:
As we understood by then that the unprofessional politicized acts taken by Canberra hospital health workers was the main reasons behind the attempt by Marat to end his life, we expected that he and his mother would be taken to the other government hospital. But they were taken to the same Canberra hospital. Another unprofessional and unethical act by health authorities.

When I arrived to the hospital with my wife, there was security alert. My wife was shocked. I started to joke with my wife to calm her down. “They are thinking that Bin Laden had arrived to hospital. My beard would not help us in these moments”.

Many huge security officers were everywhere in hospital. Immediately after our arrival, 2 female journalist from The Australian (Nicole Berkovic) and The Daily Telegraph (Alison Rehn) followed us to follow up on the family’s situation. Suddenly, officials form hospital approached us and asked the journalists to leave immediately. “They are ordinary citizens. Would you prevent ordinary citizens from coming to visit patients?” I asked these hospital officials. “No, they are journalists. We know this and they had admitted” they replied to my comments. “But even journalists are ordinary citizens” I argued. “If you want to argue, they can lodge complaint to the hospital management”. We were enforced to go out to the street outside the hospital to talk about the family’s case.

Health services became as corrective services:
After talking to journalists in the street outside the hospital, I went and asked to see Marat and his mother. The reception denied that Marat is there. They also told me that Alija is in bad situation and she preferred not to see anyone. They asked me to wait for few minutes until she calms down. I was suspicious about this. I then tried to call her mobile. She answered and asked me where I am. I said that they told me that she does not want to see anyone. She then started to cry. Suddenly few nurses approached me and asked me to follow them. When Alija knew that I was outside, she stood up and asked them to release her. When they refused, she stood up and started to shout and cry in the middle of the emergency department. They were enforced to let me see her. It was very clear that the minister of immigration gave them orders not to let me see her or her son.

In front of me, they were treating her as if she is criminal. I started to talk to them in very sharp language. I also started to make phone calls to journalists. After that they changed their language with her. Then the responsible nurse came to see us and told us that they will keep her in hospital for few hours, as her sugar level was very high. I asked about Marat, she told me that she cannot tell us.

We started to feel that we are back to Soviet era, where everything is done behind “iron curtain”.

After talking to doctor, who assured me that she will be released after sugar checks finished and stabilized. Alija at that time asked me to go back to Sydney, and she will let me know what will happen.

After arriving to Sydney around 9 pm, I tried to contact her, but her phone was switched off. I thought that she was released and she went to sleep.

Early at morning, I tried to call her again, but no answer. I started to feel that something is wrong. I called Canberra hospital, where they told me that they executed order to keep her in psychiatric unit for 3 days. The same is with Marat. At this end, I became very angry and frustrated.

Ultimatum to the minister to release everyone, or face the consequences:
I immediately called few network’s members and we decided to go straight to Federal Parliament. We did not have any plans. I just sent media release giving ultimatum to the government that if they will not release all Aminov’s family, we will take steps that will make Australian government a symbol of international shame. We also talked to people in Canberra in case we will need some help.

Before arriving to Canberra, I received phone call that Marat and his mum were released from psychiatric unit, before the 3 days ended. Then I received call form Marat that his father was released on bail.

Long way before restoring humanity to this nation’s politics:
We thought that by getting rid of John Howard’s xenophobic government we would automatically get rid of all its inhumane undemocratic practices. But we discovered that the new Labor government is enjoying abusing the same methods and practices. So far in the case of this family, the Labor government had mobilized all departments and services to keep the inhumane status quo. The politicizing of especially the health services is very appalling.

Where are the so-called “progressive politicians”?
There are few other questions will come to our mind, but the most important is the role of “progressive” political parties and independents in exposing these shameful practices.

While the Parliament of Australia is empty from any real progressive forces, we will continue fighting until Aminovs get final solution for their ordeal. And we will do this before any human lives lost.

And please do not think that this is unique case. The government is sitting on piles of similar cases. The issue is not about asylum seekers’ treatment. It is about racism related to feeling of need to maintain the grip of power by one ethnicity who does not want to share this power with people from other cultures.

We will write in details about this, and we will take all steps to expose the real face and agenda of all these so-called “regressive” forces that want to convince us of their progressiveness.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Never ending greed in the name of “helping the community”!

Before we wake up from the news about the greedy Green hubby who eats all the food at council meeting, we discover more “Green” greed. This time it happens in Auburn council.

We noted earlier the sacred alliance formed behind closed doors between the highly regressive Liberal – Unity parties and the “progressive” Greens party. During the election campaign the main slogan of the Greens candidates was “community needs, not developers greed”. After the ballot papers count was over, the “community needs defender” put her hands with the “greedy developers”. The full details of the deal are still unknown to all of us.

The “community needs” defender is ignoring the fact that Auburn council is going through very difficult financial times with an expected $5 millions deficit. The Greens councilor in Auburn is also disregarding the “community needs” of spending on infrastructure to both create local jobs and raise the life-style of mainly marginalised new-migrants, refugees and poor people of Auburn.

The Greens councilor this time is demanding a pay-rise to herself and her Liberal-Unity alliance, to around double the allowance they are getting from the council at the moment.

We did not expect less from the Liberals-Unity mainly developers councilors. But when it comes to the Greens councilor, we should ask 5 million questions:
1- How many community projects would this rise in councilors allowance cancel?
2- How many local jobs will it cost the community?
3- How could this help with “defending the community needs”?
4- Who are the real “greedies” that we need a representative to protect the community from?
5- Why has the Greens councilor, who believes in public “accountability” and “transparency” not made this pay-rise an election promise or called for a referendum on it?
6- What is the difference between the Liberals and the Greens, after all these deals? Would they consider merging very soon?

It is very clear that the Greens councilor is planning well for her retirement. And she wants a very comfortable retirement.

But what happened to the “alternative voice” which the Greens were deafening our ears with in the last 2 decades? Maybe the right question would be: alternative of what and who?

It is very clear that it is an alternative in the kind of Greed, only. Or maybe it is an alternative in the rhetoric and the type of lies and deception.

What kind of Australia are we dreaming of, when the “alternative” is planning a comfortable retirement, while the debt on citizens is at its highest.

And what kind of “alternative” is demanding a pay-rise, while there is a freeze on any pay-rise for all workers and battlers?

The other question here is: if the Greens councilor thinks that running for council is not to help the community for better planning and governing and it should be just to secure people’s retirement, why did she run again last September. If she thinks that the pay is no good, why did she choose to run for “exploitation”?

All these questions are for the ordinary Australians to think about to enable them to make a very “informed” choice next time we go to polls. And at that time, the Greens should know that we had enough “greedy” people in the government and what is lacking in Australian politics is a real alternative: an alternative that feels with embattled marginalised people.

If the Greens want to help me by increasing my debt and reducing public services and projects, I would rather stick to the ordinary “greedies”. I prefer “Greedies that I know” over “greedies I need to know”.

What makes me feel bad this time is the fact that the same Greens councilor in Auburn was crying foul when she failed to be elected as Mayor earlier this year. She accused her opponents of being “racists” and “anti-Muslims” and distributed foul accusations to everyone who did not vote for her. She wanted to convince us that she is running to represent Muslim “needs” and “issues”. But this week we discovered that she was indeed after pay-rise from $20,000 (Councilor’s allowance) to $50,000 (Mayor’s allowance).

As Muslim Auburn citizen, I say that she does not represent me and my needs.
And for this and for everything else I say: we are sorry to Auburn residents.

هل الكل انتصر في موضوع المرسوم السوري رقم 16؟

حسب عضو مجلس الشعب السوري نبيل صالح فالكل انتصر , بالرغم من انه ادعى انه كان اكبر الابطال والمنتصرين في الضجة التي اثارها حول المرسوم ...