Again and again. We were hit with Greens cheap moves designed for political score pointing with no practical commitments or record of achievements.
The Greens has successfully put motion to the Marrickville council to “support the principles of the BDS global campaign”. And as expected, the move attracted huge media attention. And the community took notice too.
Before we go further into the issue, let us ask few questions:
1- Why now: 3 months before state election?
2- Why Marrickville: we know that the Greens are hoping to win Marrickville state seat?
3- What are the practical implications of this motion?
4- Why the Greens councillors, despite the total support from ALL Labor councillors, are attacking the Labor state and federal members of the area?
And before we go further into exploring the issue, let us hear the opinion of the motion initiator, Greens councillor Cathy Peters. In early interview with 2SER radio station (you can hear the interview on http://2ser.podomatic.com/entry/index/2010-12-17T21_34_06-08_00), Ms Peters admitted that:
1- The council does not urge residents to boycott Israeli products.
2- The practical implications of this motion are still unknown, and possibly nil on local government level.
3- The conflict in the Middle East because of Israeli occupation was going for long time.
4- It would be more practical for Federal and State governments to act on this issue.
Now let us start from the points we extract from Ms Peters interview:
1- While the issue of Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine was going for more than 6 decades, the Greens did not discover this issue but in recent years. The Greens never talked about this issue or had any idea about this issue until after 2002.
2- Even after the Greens discovered that there is Israeli brutal occupation, the Greens history on taking practical steps to oppose Israeli brutality is nil (you can read on this issue my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2009/01/rallies-business-enough-trading-with.html)
3- If the council is not advocating residents to boycott Israel and there is no known relationships between the council and Israeli companies and companies trade with Israel, it is very clear that he Marrickville Greens put this motion just for political score pointing for the coming state election.
4- Marrickville Greens should first write to their federal politicians to lobby them to start talking about the Israeli brutal occupation, before asking Labor state and Federal politicians to do so. We understand that Mr Tony Albanese has good track record on this issue, more than Bob Brown or any Greens federal politicians. Mr Albanese paid solidarity visit to Palestinian territories at the beginning of 90s of the last century, while the Greens politicians are still refusing to make such visit until now.
Then let us ask few other questions in this regard:
1- While the BDS campaign started long time ago, why the Greens put this motion just now. We should remember that the NSW election is on 26 March 2011 (3 months from now).
2- Why Marrickville: The Greens have councillors in other local government areas that are more suitable to introduce similar motion. For example, there is Greens councillor in Auburn, where the support for such motion is overwhelming as Muslims account for more than 50% of the residents. On the council, there are at least 4 Muslim councillors on the council. The answer is very simple: the Greens did not get more than 4% in the last state election (2007) in Auburn seat. While in Marrickville there is real chance for the Greens to win the seat from Labor (while I do not think that this will happen). So the story of the motion is not more than an item part of early election campaign in Marrickville area.
We know that the Greens will accuse us of attacking Palestine friends here. But as usual, the Greens gave themselves the right to attack everyone, but block such right from rivals to attack them (read my piece on this on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/11/greens-unique-attitude-we-can-dig-dirt.html). The Greens are attacking the Labor Federal members who has strong record of supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli brutality (Tony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek, for example), but would lead vicious attack against our criticism of them on this issue.
We are now very aware that the Greens is a party about nothing. They are just power hungry for the sake of accumulating power. The Greens Federal senate-elect in NSW, Ms Lee Rhiannon, has no credibility on any issue (read my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/story-of-greens-mp-lee-rhiannon-lies.html). So we, as strong advocate of Palestinian rights, do not take the latest motion as serious step to achieve anything. The motion, along with the NSW Greens motion on the issue earlier, will have one fate: the rubbish bin. The Greens has long track of passing motion after motion, adopt policy after policy, but practically they honoured none. (example of this could be read on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/bob-browns-press-club-address-what.html, http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2008/12/greens-blocking-of-action-on-climate.html and http://sjpmediacentre.blogspot.com/2009/09/submission-in-regard-to-discussion.html)
The Greens think that they achieved a lot by attracting media attention. They think that they are closer now to win Marrickville seat in the next state election, March 2011.
We think that this is not accurate. The community will hear from others, before they will cast their votes.
As before the Greens seek community vote, they should convince us why the NSW (and Australian) Greens were absent from all solidarity aid missions to Gaza and West Bank.
We deeply believe that actions are louder than talks (and motions). But the Greens insist to be the mountain that always gets into labour, but always give birth to mouse. (From Arabic proverb)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Victorian Election results: The winners and the losers!
We can claim safely and comfortably that the Victorian election came with unexpected results that have significant importance. The Victorian election, while saw the Labor lose heavily and unexpectedly, could benefit progressive forces and voters if results analysed carefully and courageous steps taken promptly to avoid future similar results.
The immediate impact of possible repeat of Victorian results in other elections, if serious steps not taken, could see similar scenarios happened in NSW March next year.
In this election there were some big winners and some big losers.
In our opinion, the biggest winner of the election was the Liberal party, as:
1- The Liberals won unwinnable election according to all opinion polls and strategists’ predictions.
2- The Liberals did not only win the votes, but won morally too. It is the first time since the rise of the Greens that Liberals took principled stance to put the Greens last on its preference voting. The Liberals gambled with its chances of winning the election by preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens, instead of trying to maximise Labor seats’ loss. The Liberals logic was simple and straightforward: if we do not agree with the Greens on many issues especially moral values in the heart of Liberal claimed agendas (like gay marriage, euthanasia, decriminalisation of illicit drug abuse,..), we should not preference them even for pure pragmatic reasons of costing Labor more seats. That is in opposition of the Greens logic of Machiavellian principles of “the End justifies the means”. While the most important thing for the Greens is to win more seats, even if this comes on Liberals or even One Nation preference votes. The Liberals proved that they are more principled than the Greens, hence they won more vote. This explains the core issue missing in Australian politics these days: the need for progressive political force that stays principled to achieve deep socio-economic changes, and not Machiavellian force to use the need of change to accumulate power by any means.
For the above mentioned reason and for other reasons, we believe that the biggest loser in the election was the Greens, as:
1- The Greens voting scrambled from 14.6% just 3 months ago (in Federal election) to 10.6%. Usually the small parties do better in state elections than in Federal ones (unlike major parties). The Greens were expected to get at least 16% of the votes. We believe that the Greens disappointing performance of achieving virtually nothing and acting on no major important issue for the last 3 months within the undeclared coalition government with Labor played major role in this.
2- The Greens deafening uproar that they will win at least 4-5 lower house seats and at least 4-5 Upper House seats, resulted in no Lower house seats won and the same Upper House seats won in the last election (3 seats) (or even may be less than 3).
3- The Greens lost moral basis as they were prostituting the Liberals to give them preferences ahead of Labor, despite their claim of having totally contradictious agendas and ideologies. Not only this. The Greens machine and leadership could not depart its addiction on vending lies and deceptions by claiming that the next time they will adopt open preference cards (leaving the voters to decide how to send their preferences). This suggestion from Bob Brown aimed to enforce the Liberals to consider sealing preference deal with the Greens next time. So far, the Liberals were the ones (in all states) who are refusing to even negotiate with the Greens any preference deals. In contradiction of our expectation that the Greens would be the side that will refuse to consider any deals with the Liberals, who were described by the Greens consistently as regressive, fascist and party from dark ages.
4- The Greens failed to keep its voting level similar to voting they got during last Federal election, despite the media hysterical campaign to groom Greens and advocate voters to vote for them. The media published repeated articles and interviews in the last days of the campaign, portraying the Greens to be the future of Australian politics. I was shocked to read articles like “Inside green zero” (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/inside-green-zero-20101122-18469.html) and see cartoonist, Ron Tandberg (http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/no-excuse-for-this-abuse-of-trust-20101123-185kb.html) gave some fantasies that the Greens could get more votes than Labor or Liberals and the future is for “Greens ideology”. Then we read many articles conducting hysterical campaign against Labor (on no real ground). After all this free and extensive propaganda by mainstream media (who are claimed by the Greens to be regressive), the Greens in fact lost grounds and its voting decreased.
The other loser in this election is, of course, the Labor party. The reasons for this are typical among all Labor parties in other states and on Federal level. The reason of the loss could be because:
1- Labor consistent creep towards the centre and right-centre, thinking that the voters will always want to have incompetent Labor government than conservative anti-public services and racist Liberal government.
2- The deterioration of Victorian life-style and the Labor governments inability to find solution for important crises (Housing, employment, health, public transport, energy …)
3- The long incumbency (least important among reasons)
4- The negative impact of other Labor parties (Federal Labor and Labor in other states)
5- The voters’ constant tendency not to keep powers in all states and Federal level in the hands of one party. The clearest example here is the voters’ tendency that gave Labor party power in all states during the Howard Federal Liberal government.
We believe that the Victorian election results should encourage Labor to rethink on its priorities in other states and on Federal level. If they wish to keep power in NSW, Queensland and then on Federal level, they should start to take courageous decisions. And we mean here not courageous decisions on issues that do not concern more than few Australians (same sex marriage or euthanasia), but decisions about finding solutions to crises in: housing, health, multiculturalism, energy supplies and conservative economic vandalism.
Not only this. The other left groups (apart from the Greens who we consider not to be on the left of politics) should start to discuss forming united front to fight for better life style, where resources should be more fairly used to benefit all classes of society. It is alarming that left groups are only talking about the necessity of same-sex marriage and euthanasia, while the society is deeply socio-economically unfair. More efforts and resources should be put into fighting against racism, for human rights, for better public services and for better Australian foreign policy independent from Western super power (currently USA).
We believe that if these results will be repeated on the same scale in NSW, the picture could be:
1- Heavy loss for Labor (we need to remember that all opinion polls in Victoria predicted narrow win for Brumby Labor government, while all opinion polls in NSW predicts big loss of Keneally Labor government).
2- The Greens will get less than 9%, which means that they will not win any lower house seats (Marrickville or Balmain) and no more than 2 Legislative Council seats (in the best scenario with good preference from other minor parties of Socialists, Communists and pro-drugs parties).
3- The Liberals will win comfortably.
Of course in politics time is very precious and things could change dramatically and quickly. The Labor party and other political forces still have time to change direction and take credible steps to restore confidence in politics among voters. But we doubt. Apart from expelling bad names in the Labor, the Labor is not ready to take courageous steps to address the deteriorating life style of NSW residents. We also believe that the Greens is not in better position to change its Machiavellian opportunist approach into more principled stance on issues matter to the majority of NSW residents.
The immediate impact of possible repeat of Victorian results in other elections, if serious steps not taken, could see similar scenarios happened in NSW March next year.
In this election there were some big winners and some big losers.
In our opinion, the biggest winner of the election was the Liberal party, as:
1- The Liberals won unwinnable election according to all opinion polls and strategists’ predictions.
2- The Liberals did not only win the votes, but won morally too. It is the first time since the rise of the Greens that Liberals took principled stance to put the Greens last on its preference voting. The Liberals gambled with its chances of winning the election by preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens, instead of trying to maximise Labor seats’ loss. The Liberals logic was simple and straightforward: if we do not agree with the Greens on many issues especially moral values in the heart of Liberal claimed agendas (like gay marriage, euthanasia, decriminalisation of illicit drug abuse,..), we should not preference them even for pure pragmatic reasons of costing Labor more seats. That is in opposition of the Greens logic of Machiavellian principles of “the End justifies the means”. While the most important thing for the Greens is to win more seats, even if this comes on Liberals or even One Nation preference votes. The Liberals proved that they are more principled than the Greens, hence they won more vote. This explains the core issue missing in Australian politics these days: the need for progressive political force that stays principled to achieve deep socio-economic changes, and not Machiavellian force to use the need of change to accumulate power by any means.
For the above mentioned reason and for other reasons, we believe that the biggest loser in the election was the Greens, as:
1- The Greens voting scrambled from 14.6% just 3 months ago (in Federal election) to 10.6%. Usually the small parties do better in state elections than in Federal ones (unlike major parties). The Greens were expected to get at least 16% of the votes. We believe that the Greens disappointing performance of achieving virtually nothing and acting on no major important issue for the last 3 months within the undeclared coalition government with Labor played major role in this.
2- The Greens deafening uproar that they will win at least 4-5 lower house seats and at least 4-5 Upper House seats, resulted in no Lower house seats won and the same Upper House seats won in the last election (3 seats) (or even may be less than 3).
3- The Greens lost moral basis as they were prostituting the Liberals to give them preferences ahead of Labor, despite their claim of having totally contradictious agendas and ideologies. Not only this. The Greens machine and leadership could not depart its addiction on vending lies and deceptions by claiming that the next time they will adopt open preference cards (leaving the voters to decide how to send their preferences). This suggestion from Bob Brown aimed to enforce the Liberals to consider sealing preference deal with the Greens next time. So far, the Liberals were the ones (in all states) who are refusing to even negotiate with the Greens any preference deals. In contradiction of our expectation that the Greens would be the side that will refuse to consider any deals with the Liberals, who were described by the Greens consistently as regressive, fascist and party from dark ages.
4- The Greens failed to keep its voting level similar to voting they got during last Federal election, despite the media hysterical campaign to groom Greens and advocate voters to vote for them. The media published repeated articles and interviews in the last days of the campaign, portraying the Greens to be the future of Australian politics. I was shocked to read articles like “Inside green zero” (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/inside-green-zero-20101122-18469.html) and see cartoonist, Ron Tandberg (http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/no-excuse-for-this-abuse-of-trust-20101123-185kb.html) gave some fantasies that the Greens could get more votes than Labor or Liberals and the future is for “Greens ideology”. Then we read many articles conducting hysterical campaign against Labor (on no real ground). After all this free and extensive propaganda by mainstream media (who are claimed by the Greens to be regressive), the Greens in fact lost grounds and its voting decreased.
The other loser in this election is, of course, the Labor party. The reasons for this are typical among all Labor parties in other states and on Federal level. The reason of the loss could be because:
1- Labor consistent creep towards the centre and right-centre, thinking that the voters will always want to have incompetent Labor government than conservative anti-public services and racist Liberal government.
2- The deterioration of Victorian life-style and the Labor governments inability to find solution for important crises (Housing, employment, health, public transport, energy …)
3- The long incumbency (least important among reasons)
4- The negative impact of other Labor parties (Federal Labor and Labor in other states)
5- The voters’ constant tendency not to keep powers in all states and Federal level in the hands of one party. The clearest example here is the voters’ tendency that gave Labor party power in all states during the Howard Federal Liberal government.
We believe that the Victorian election results should encourage Labor to rethink on its priorities in other states and on Federal level. If they wish to keep power in NSW, Queensland and then on Federal level, they should start to take courageous decisions. And we mean here not courageous decisions on issues that do not concern more than few Australians (same sex marriage or euthanasia), but decisions about finding solutions to crises in: housing, health, multiculturalism, energy supplies and conservative economic vandalism.
Not only this. The other left groups (apart from the Greens who we consider not to be on the left of politics) should start to discuss forming united front to fight for better life style, where resources should be more fairly used to benefit all classes of society. It is alarming that left groups are only talking about the necessity of same-sex marriage and euthanasia, while the society is deeply socio-economically unfair. More efforts and resources should be put into fighting against racism, for human rights, for better public services and for better Australian foreign policy independent from Western super power (currently USA).
We believe that if these results will be repeated on the same scale in NSW, the picture could be:
1- Heavy loss for Labor (we need to remember that all opinion polls in Victoria predicted narrow win for Brumby Labor government, while all opinion polls in NSW predicts big loss of Keneally Labor government).
2- The Greens will get less than 9%, which means that they will not win any lower house seats (Marrickville or Balmain) and no more than 2 Legislative Council seats (in the best scenario with good preference from other minor parties of Socialists, Communists and pro-drugs parties).
3- The Liberals will win comfortably.
Of course in politics time is very precious and things could change dramatically and quickly. The Labor party and other political forces still have time to change direction and take credible steps to restore confidence in politics among voters. But we doubt. Apart from expelling bad names in the Labor, the Labor is not ready to take courageous steps to address the deteriorating life style of NSW residents. We also believe that the Greens is not in better position to change its Machiavellian opportunist approach into more principled stance on issues matter to the majority of NSW residents.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Greens effectiveness on gay marriage and euthanasia: why not on boat people!
While the Iraqi asylum seeker, Ahmad Al Akabi, was swimming in his blood inside Villawood detention centre after giving up on humanity of department’s officials and the total lack of courage inside the federal parliament to end his and his fellow detainees ordeal.
And while Ahmad’s fellow detainees were protesting inside Villawood detention and in other detention centres around the country over the gross negligence that led to his death, by declaring hunger strike or burning some furniture.
And while we were busy trying to mobilise public opinion, inside Australia and around the globe against the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers inside Australian detention centres that led to death of 2 detainees in the last 2 months only.
While we were all busy in doing all this, the Greens MPs were busy fighting for gay marriage.
As if the Greens MPs are living in another country or on other planet.
During these extremely sad moments, The Greens MPs were jumping up and down inside and outside the federal parliament demanding approval of same-sex marriage.
The blood of detainees could not move any feeling with the Greens MPs.
The lips sewing of many and the hunger strike of hundreds protesting the inhumane treatment inside detention centres, did not win them any sympathy among the Greens MPs.
The dead body ready to be sent to homeland did not convince the Greens MPs that solving the impasse should be the absolute priority to prevent catastrophe from happening within the detention system.
During the last week we only hear the Greens MPs talk about one issue: same sex marriage.
As if the homosexuals will be extinct if the marriage will not legalised.
Or as if the homosexuals will face detrimental fate or total psychological collapse or jail for long time if the marriage will not be legalised in this week.
All this despite the reality that if all facts are taken into account, the Greens MPs should have camped outside detention centre day and night, with deep threats to the minister if he does not change current regulations to prevent deterioration of situation inside detention centres.
We should all remember that the issue of boat people and the Greens empty rhetoric of promising of supporting their rights and working on relieving their suffering was the single issue that increased the popularity of this party and brought it out of wilderness inside Tasmanian forests to the point of controlling the balance of power after this year’s election.
And the issue of boat people was the issue that gave the Greens some credibility as serious political party and diminished the perception of being one-coloured party that supports only environment and anti moral and anti family agendas.
To the opposite of this, the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia did not win the Greens any federal seat since the foundation of the party in the mid of seventies of last century to the first year of this century.
The issue of gay marriage (even if it has a support from large sections in the society) is not concerning many Australians and not many would change their pattern of voting merely on parties’ stance on it.
Political pragmatism should have seen the Greens uprise and demand immediate action to release detainees immediately after they were successful in increasing their representation in the parliament.
We expected that the Greens should have respected its voters who voted for this party after they swallowed its deceptive promises to take action against mandatory detention system. Even if it would threaten of withdrawing from the government which could lead to government collapse and going to very early election.
We have expected that the Greens will treat the highly humanitarian issue of indefinite detention of boat people as important issues, on the same level of importance as the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia. And we have witnessed how the Greens were successful in changing the Labor stance on these issues and now considering allowing continuous vote to pass these legislations.
We have expected that all Greens MPs and members will go the streets to show the Labor party the Greens deep commitments of this issue, to enforce immediate fundamental changes.
But if we take into account the shy response of the Greens party to the many deaths in detention, we can realise that the Greens has no real commitments towards this highly humanitarian issue. On the contrary. We would realise that the Greens is indeed enjoying these sad events to torture and exhaust the Labor party and extract more voters from it. It is very clear that Greens know very well that closing the chapter of boat people suffering would deprive the party from high-profile platform that could win it more seats in the next election.
We do not know how the Greens would face its voters from highly progressive people who support multiculturalism and human rights in society if it could not enforce changes to the harsh treatment of asylum seekers inside detention centres. While it could knee the government on issues of gay marriage and euthanasia.
May be the Greens will resort to its usual of climbing our back and the back of highly progressive people who campaigned very hard and will enforce the government to change its harsh treatment of boat people.
And the Greens have strong record of doing this on this issue and other human rights issues.
Related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqDjE6BmXI&feature=related
And while Ahmad’s fellow detainees were protesting inside Villawood detention and in other detention centres around the country over the gross negligence that led to his death, by declaring hunger strike or burning some furniture.
And while we were busy trying to mobilise public opinion, inside Australia and around the globe against the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers inside Australian detention centres that led to death of 2 detainees in the last 2 months only.
While we were all busy in doing all this, the Greens MPs were busy fighting for gay marriage.
As if the Greens MPs are living in another country or on other planet.
During these extremely sad moments, The Greens MPs were jumping up and down inside and outside the federal parliament demanding approval of same-sex marriage.
The blood of detainees could not move any feeling with the Greens MPs.
The lips sewing of many and the hunger strike of hundreds protesting the inhumane treatment inside detention centres, did not win them any sympathy among the Greens MPs.
The dead body ready to be sent to homeland did not convince the Greens MPs that solving the impasse should be the absolute priority to prevent catastrophe from happening within the detention system.
During the last week we only hear the Greens MPs talk about one issue: same sex marriage.
As if the homosexuals will be extinct if the marriage will not legalised.
Or as if the homosexuals will face detrimental fate or total psychological collapse or jail for long time if the marriage will not be legalised in this week.
All this despite the reality that if all facts are taken into account, the Greens MPs should have camped outside detention centre day and night, with deep threats to the minister if he does not change current regulations to prevent deterioration of situation inside detention centres.
We should all remember that the issue of boat people and the Greens empty rhetoric of promising of supporting their rights and working on relieving their suffering was the single issue that increased the popularity of this party and brought it out of wilderness inside Tasmanian forests to the point of controlling the balance of power after this year’s election.
And the issue of boat people was the issue that gave the Greens some credibility as serious political party and diminished the perception of being one-coloured party that supports only environment and anti moral and anti family agendas.
To the opposite of this, the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia did not win the Greens any federal seat since the foundation of the party in the mid of seventies of last century to the first year of this century.
The issue of gay marriage (even if it has a support from large sections in the society) is not concerning many Australians and not many would change their pattern of voting merely on parties’ stance on it.
Political pragmatism should have seen the Greens uprise and demand immediate action to release detainees immediately after they were successful in increasing their representation in the parliament.
We expected that the Greens should have respected its voters who voted for this party after they swallowed its deceptive promises to take action against mandatory detention system. Even if it would threaten of withdrawing from the government which could lead to government collapse and going to very early election.
We have expected that the Greens will treat the highly humanitarian issue of indefinite detention of boat people as important issues, on the same level of importance as the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia. And we have witnessed how the Greens were successful in changing the Labor stance on these issues and now considering allowing continuous vote to pass these legislations.
We have expected that all Greens MPs and members will go the streets to show the Labor party the Greens deep commitments of this issue, to enforce immediate fundamental changes.
But if we take into account the shy response of the Greens party to the many deaths in detention, we can realise that the Greens has no real commitments towards this highly humanitarian issue. On the contrary. We would realise that the Greens is indeed enjoying these sad events to torture and exhaust the Labor party and extract more voters from it. It is very clear that Greens know very well that closing the chapter of boat people suffering would deprive the party from high-profile platform that could win it more seats in the next election.
We do not know how the Greens would face its voters from highly progressive people who support multiculturalism and human rights in society if it could not enforce changes to the harsh treatment of asylum seekers inside detention centres. While it could knee the government on issues of gay marriage and euthanasia.
May be the Greens will resort to its usual of climbing our back and the back of highly progressive people who campaigned very hard and will enforce the government to change its harsh treatment of boat people.
And the Greens have strong record of doing this on this issue and other human rights issues.
Related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqDjE6BmXI&feature=related
Monday, November 15, 2010
Why was the Greens leader, Bob Brown, happy yesterday?!!!
The Greens leader was very happy yesterday. He was jumping up and down the whole day. And he was smiling in front of the media cameras. So why he was so happy?
He was very happy that Burmese opposition leader, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi was released from home arrest.
We also are happy for this result. And we do not agree on any political arrest.
But immediately after Greens leader sudden happiness, it came to our mind few questions.
Why the Greens leader was not vending support for more than 45 Palestinian MPs arrested by Israeli occupation forces for the last 4 years? Why the Greens leader, and all his Greens colleagues, did not jump up and down from happiness when the Palestinian parliament speaker, Mr Aziz Duweik, was released from Israeli prison last year? Why the Greens leader do not care about arbitrary arrest of more than 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners, most of them in jail (not home arrest) without charges.
Mr Brown happiness did not stop on just jumping up and down. He also vowed to travel to Burma to visit Mr Suu Kyi and pay tribute to her.
If we compare this with the Greens stance on Israeli brutal treatment of Palestinians, we note shameful comparison. Mr Brown and all his Greens colleagues refused on several occasions to join solidarity delegations to Palestinian occupied territories. On 2002, for example, the Greens leader and his colleague, Ms Kerry Nettle, refused utterly to join solidarity and fact-finding delegation to West Bank in the aftermath of Israeli massacres in Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. The Greens leader and his colleagues were not concerned about the home arrest of Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for more than 3 years.
We note that the Greens leader is only vocal and active on criticising socialist regimes:
- He is very vocal on criticising Maoist rebels in Nepal. But he was not critical of brutality of the Nepalese monarchy.
- He is very critical of FARC, the Colombian Marxist rebels, but was never quoted criticising American-puppet regime of Colombia, which conducted worse crimes than the Marxists.
- He is very critical of Chinese socialist government.
Bob Brown is very interesting creature.
On the night of NSW state election, 2003, I approached him and asked him why he never criticised Israeli illegal and inhumane occupation of Palestine. He replied: “I do not know anything about this issue, can you provide me with more information, and then we will discuss taking action”. On earlier occasion, Ms Nettle, made similar admission and asked me to provide her with any literature about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. And I did.
Imagine that the representative of the left in Australia do not know anything about the issue that is widely considered as the major threat of global security!!!
I remember when the Greens leader, Bob Brown, led noisy demonstration against Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, visit to Australia. Such noisy demonstration that was nearly resulted in his arrest.
But when a war criminal Israeli president, Moshe Katsav, visited Australia, 2005, Bob Brown and all his Greens MPs refused even to participate in protests against this visit. The Greens officials refused even to endorse such protest.
Few thoughts come to my mind when I saw Bob Brown very happy to see political prisoner released.
But it is very interesting to understand what the Greens classification of “political prisoners” is.
Last question for Bob Brown and his Greens party: would not the Australian Muslims arrested and jailed after mock trial based on medieval “Anti-Terrorism” laws, qualify to be classified as “political prisoners”?
He was very happy that Burmese opposition leader, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi was released from home arrest.
We also are happy for this result. And we do not agree on any political arrest.
But immediately after Greens leader sudden happiness, it came to our mind few questions.
Why the Greens leader was not vending support for more than 45 Palestinian MPs arrested by Israeli occupation forces for the last 4 years? Why the Greens leader, and all his Greens colleagues, did not jump up and down from happiness when the Palestinian parliament speaker, Mr Aziz Duweik, was released from Israeli prison last year? Why the Greens leader do not care about arbitrary arrest of more than 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners, most of them in jail (not home arrest) without charges.
Mr Brown happiness did not stop on just jumping up and down. He also vowed to travel to Burma to visit Mr Suu Kyi and pay tribute to her.
If we compare this with the Greens stance on Israeli brutal treatment of Palestinians, we note shameful comparison. Mr Brown and all his Greens colleagues refused on several occasions to join solidarity delegations to Palestinian occupied territories. On 2002, for example, the Greens leader and his colleague, Ms Kerry Nettle, refused utterly to join solidarity and fact-finding delegation to West Bank in the aftermath of Israeli massacres in Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. The Greens leader and his colleagues were not concerned about the home arrest of Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for more than 3 years.
We note that the Greens leader is only vocal and active on criticising socialist regimes:
- He is very vocal on criticising Maoist rebels in Nepal. But he was not critical of brutality of the Nepalese monarchy.
- He is very critical of FARC, the Colombian Marxist rebels, but was never quoted criticising American-puppet regime of Colombia, which conducted worse crimes than the Marxists.
- He is very critical of Chinese socialist government.
Bob Brown is very interesting creature.
On the night of NSW state election, 2003, I approached him and asked him why he never criticised Israeli illegal and inhumane occupation of Palestine. He replied: “I do not know anything about this issue, can you provide me with more information, and then we will discuss taking action”. On earlier occasion, Ms Nettle, made similar admission and asked me to provide her with any literature about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. And I did.
Imagine that the representative of the left in Australia do not know anything about the issue that is widely considered as the major threat of global security!!!
I remember when the Greens leader, Bob Brown, led noisy demonstration against Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, visit to Australia. Such noisy demonstration that was nearly resulted in his arrest.
But when a war criminal Israeli president, Moshe Katsav, visited Australia, 2005, Bob Brown and all his Greens MPs refused even to participate in protests against this visit. The Greens officials refused even to endorse such protest.
Few thoughts come to my mind when I saw Bob Brown very happy to see political prisoner released.
But it is very interesting to understand what the Greens classification of “political prisoners” is.
Last question for Bob Brown and his Greens party: would not the Australian Muslims arrested and jailed after mock trial based on medieval “Anti-Terrorism” laws, qualify to be classified as “political prisoners”?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Open letter to Julia Gillard, PM: Time to wake up before you lose next election!
Dear Hon Julia Gillard, our PM
We have watched you for the past few months. And we were disappointed by your government’s performance. We are not few. At the last election, millions of us have expressed such disappointment at your government’s performance.
In this letter, we would like to express to you why we are disappointed and will try to give you some ideas about what we expect from your government.
We have noticed that many in your party are talking now, rightly, how to stop the rise of the Greens vote. Your government’s inaction on many vital issues has left many voters with no option but to vote for the Greens. Such move that is not based on any concrete achievements of the Greens. They just believed that they do not have any other options. But in doing assessments of the reasons behind the mass voters’ change of voting pattern, your party’s strategists and MPs are reaching wrong conclusions
Let me tell you with high confidence that the voters, especially in the high multicultural suburbs like suburbs of Melbourne seat, did not change their vote from Labor to the Greens because of:
1- Carbon Tax
2- Gay marriage
3- Euthanasia.
4- Legalising drugs and promoting prostitution.
We, and any neutral political analyst, deeply believe that even if Labor changes its position on these above mentioned issues, it (Labor) will not win back many of its traditional voters departing it to either the Greens or informal voting.
On the contrary. By changing Labor stance on the above mentioned issues, you risk losing more voters.
As someone who is from marginalised community and lives in marginalised suburbs, I want to mention to you some issues that we need your government to act on:
1- Attacks on Multiculturalism, growing racism and all kinds of discrimination, including Islamophobia.
2- Housing crisis
3- Crisis in health system.
4- Crisis in welfare system.
5- Deteriorating life style.
Let me assure you that most of us in the poor high multicultural suburbs did not form yet an opinion on Carbon Tax (and we believe that the majority of Australians did not form any concrete opinion on this issue).
We also in the suburbs have too many problems and we are occupying with too many daily crises that gay marriage does not concern us. It does not come on the priority list, even for homosexuals living in these suburbs.
The same with euthanasia.
So, if you think that you can compete with the Greens on these issues by following their suites to win back the hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied voters, we can safely tell you that you will lose more.
Your party problems are coming from your bid to compete with other parties, to stop bleeding of your voting pools. And you are miserably failing.
Australians need a government that lead, not being led. What makes things worse is that your government is trying to follow (or even compete with) morons that have no ideology or concrete agendas.
While the Liberals have concrete destructive agendas and ideologies, the Greens have no such things, except for destructive agendas to destroy family and moral values. But they were successful in extracting many of your traditional voters, because you seemed to lose your path.
So far, your strategists’ assessment and soul searching resulted in wrong conclusions.
By their bid to avoid taking actions to quell racism and Islamophobia, and instead engage in debate over gay marriage, you send more disappointing signals to your traditional voters.
By ignoring taking actions to generate affordable housing, and instead talk about Carbon Tax, you again send wrong message and risk losing more votes.
By caving in to racists and ignore the suffering of poor and marginalised people at the hands of your departments (Centrelink, Immigration and Citizenship….) and instead talk about allowing conscious vote on euthanasia, you only send wrong signal about your lack of commitments to marginalised people.
Your bid to compete with the Greens on only these issues is something both naïve and hopeless.
Remember that the Greens have campaigned on these issues (promoting drugs and prostitution, gay marriage, euthanasia,…) for more than 4 decades, but won no more than 3% of Australians heart. It was only when they started to vend their lies and empty rhetoric about the issues your party was strong on (public services, workers rights, human rights, etc…) that they started to attract votes.
Hon Julia Gillard.
We expect you to take actions to end the racist debate about boat people. Such debate that aims to spread fear, racism and Islamophobia. And with the recent High Court ruling and increased community support for more humanitarian approach, you have golden opportunity to reform the policy on this issue.
We also expect that your government takes actions to stop deteriorating life style. This includes taking action to build more public houses and improve public health and education.
We also expect that your government (in cooperation with state government) would take actions to curb skyrocketing power bills.
And we can safely send you warning that if you do not take actions on these vital issues, you risk losing the government. And if you lose the government in such way with no legacy, you can expect staying in opposition for long time.
When we decided not to vote in the last election, we took this decision when we started to feel that there is no big difference between Labor and Liberals. While we understand that the Greens is no more than a machine to manufacture lies, deception and empty rhetoric, we notice that many in the society was fooled by the Greens empty rhetoric.
If we do not regain any confidence that your party is better than the opposition, you should expect that you will not get our vote in the next election. And our definition of “better” is different than the Greens definition. We more care about correcting injustices in the society, than taking action about dismantling family and moral values and vending lies and empty rhetoric on vital issues.
I am writing to you this letter because I cannot imagine Tony Abbot to be our next PM. But if Julia will be exact copy of Tony, who will care who will govern this country.
We hope that we will write to you next time praising your government for progressive steps to improve Australians life style. But if you insist on current policies and approaches, we assure you that you will fail to keep your job.
We have watched you for the past few months. And we were disappointed by your government’s performance. We are not few. At the last election, millions of us have expressed such disappointment at your government’s performance.
In this letter, we would like to express to you why we are disappointed and will try to give you some ideas about what we expect from your government.
We have noticed that many in your party are talking now, rightly, how to stop the rise of the Greens vote. Your government’s inaction on many vital issues has left many voters with no option but to vote for the Greens. Such move that is not based on any concrete achievements of the Greens. They just believed that they do not have any other options. But in doing assessments of the reasons behind the mass voters’ change of voting pattern, your party’s strategists and MPs are reaching wrong conclusions
Let me tell you with high confidence that the voters, especially in the high multicultural suburbs like suburbs of Melbourne seat, did not change their vote from Labor to the Greens because of:
1- Carbon Tax
2- Gay marriage
3- Euthanasia.
4- Legalising drugs and promoting prostitution.
We, and any neutral political analyst, deeply believe that even if Labor changes its position on these above mentioned issues, it (Labor) will not win back many of its traditional voters departing it to either the Greens or informal voting.
On the contrary. By changing Labor stance on the above mentioned issues, you risk losing more voters.
As someone who is from marginalised community and lives in marginalised suburbs, I want to mention to you some issues that we need your government to act on:
1- Attacks on Multiculturalism, growing racism and all kinds of discrimination, including Islamophobia.
2- Housing crisis
3- Crisis in health system.
4- Crisis in welfare system.
5- Deteriorating life style.
Let me assure you that most of us in the poor high multicultural suburbs did not form yet an opinion on Carbon Tax (and we believe that the majority of Australians did not form any concrete opinion on this issue).
We also in the suburbs have too many problems and we are occupying with too many daily crises that gay marriage does not concern us. It does not come on the priority list, even for homosexuals living in these suburbs.
The same with euthanasia.
So, if you think that you can compete with the Greens on these issues by following their suites to win back the hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied voters, we can safely tell you that you will lose more.
Your party problems are coming from your bid to compete with other parties, to stop bleeding of your voting pools. And you are miserably failing.
Australians need a government that lead, not being led. What makes things worse is that your government is trying to follow (or even compete with) morons that have no ideology or concrete agendas.
While the Liberals have concrete destructive agendas and ideologies, the Greens have no such things, except for destructive agendas to destroy family and moral values. But they were successful in extracting many of your traditional voters, because you seemed to lose your path.
So far, your strategists’ assessment and soul searching resulted in wrong conclusions.
By their bid to avoid taking actions to quell racism and Islamophobia, and instead engage in debate over gay marriage, you send more disappointing signals to your traditional voters.
By ignoring taking actions to generate affordable housing, and instead talk about Carbon Tax, you again send wrong message and risk losing more votes.
By caving in to racists and ignore the suffering of poor and marginalised people at the hands of your departments (Centrelink, Immigration and Citizenship….) and instead talk about allowing conscious vote on euthanasia, you only send wrong signal about your lack of commitments to marginalised people.
Your bid to compete with the Greens on only these issues is something both naïve and hopeless.
Remember that the Greens have campaigned on these issues (promoting drugs and prostitution, gay marriage, euthanasia,…) for more than 4 decades, but won no more than 3% of Australians heart. It was only when they started to vend their lies and empty rhetoric about the issues your party was strong on (public services, workers rights, human rights, etc…) that they started to attract votes.
Hon Julia Gillard.
We expect you to take actions to end the racist debate about boat people. Such debate that aims to spread fear, racism and Islamophobia. And with the recent High Court ruling and increased community support for more humanitarian approach, you have golden opportunity to reform the policy on this issue.
We also expect that your government takes actions to stop deteriorating life style. This includes taking action to build more public houses and improve public health and education.
We also expect that your government (in cooperation with state government) would take actions to curb skyrocketing power bills.
And we can safely send you warning that if you do not take actions on these vital issues, you risk losing the government. And if you lose the government in such way with no legacy, you can expect staying in opposition for long time.
When we decided not to vote in the last election, we took this decision when we started to feel that there is no big difference between Labor and Liberals. While we understand that the Greens is no more than a machine to manufacture lies, deception and empty rhetoric, we notice that many in the society was fooled by the Greens empty rhetoric.
If we do not regain any confidence that your party is better than the opposition, you should expect that you will not get our vote in the next election. And our definition of “better” is different than the Greens definition. We more care about correcting injustices in the society, than taking action about dismantling family and moral values and vending lies and empty rhetoric on vital issues.
I am writing to you this letter because I cannot imagine Tony Abbot to be our next PM. But if Julia will be exact copy of Tony, who will care who will govern this country.
We hope that we will write to you next time praising your government for progressive steps to improve Australians life style. But if you insist on current policies and approaches, we assure you that you will fail to keep your job.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
The Greens unique attitude: “We can dig dirt on rivals but rivals cannot do the same”!
I decided to write this piece after I had enough of the Greens unacceptable hostility against anyone who dares to criticise them. And anyone dares to do so will open himself for all kinds of abuses, attacks (both verbal and physical) under many headings, especially being Labor member or paid by Labor to do so.
From my own experience, I should mention here that during the last decade I managed to criticise many politicians by writing letters, opinion pieces (in English and Arabic), petitions, and letters to editors and many other forms. These criticisms were directed to many politicians from wide range of political parties. None of these politicians faced our campaigns of criticism by such hostility like the Greens politicians, members and supporters did.
We campaigned, for example, very hard against previous PM Howard and his ministers. We even tried several times to block their way to functions, meet them with high hostility and accusing them with all kind of accusations (most were right anyway). We never received email, letter or phone call asking us to stop these campaigns. The Greens hierarchies and politicians encouraged us to keep this campaign, and even sometimes participated with us. And that is their right anyway.
We also directed all kinds of criticism to Labor opposition during Howard for not standing against government’s harsh policies. We protested outside Labor conferences, protested outside Labor election campaigns launches, wrote letters and opinion pieces and wrote letters to editors. Also none of Labor politicians or supporters asked us to shut up and stop criticising them. We did the same when they won 2008 election and formed government. We never stopped our criticism, and they never asked us to stop doing this.
The same happened to the Democrats, before its disappearance.
But the Greens is different story.
When they became real player in Australian politics after 2004 election, we started criticising some aspects of Greens politics and behaviour.
So what happened then?
First we were accused of being paid by Labor to discredit the Greens.
When we refused to budge, we were subjected to verbal attacks and threats of physical attacks.
Suddenly our cars were vandalised, abusive letters received and things got nastier.
Suddenly we started to receive threats of persecution for supporting terrorist groups (namely Hamas and Hezbollah), complaints to authorities for alleged violation to Australian constitution …
And recently our website was hacked twice in the last few weeks.
Since we started criticising the Greens, we became “enemy of the progressiveness”, “enemy of masses” and even “servants of imperialism”.
When the Green criticised the Liberals and described Howard and his minister as Nazis, Fascists, xenophobic and racist, this was freedom of speech.
And when the Green viciously attacked Labor and branded them as racists, regressive, force form 20 Century, all this was legitimate as freedom of speech, again.
But when we started to criticise the Greens politics, a criticism that is based on facts and aims to open debates on vital issues, the Greens started to scream up and down and described such criticism as “hate” “ranting” slanders” and lately as “sectarian” attacks on the Greens.
We can note clearly here that the Greens is the only non-metaphysical idea that forbids people from discussing, debating and criticising its experience. The Greens, who consists largely from atheists who refuse to acknowledge the ideas of metaphysical forces, are appointing themselves as divine forces that do not make mistakes. Hence they demand shutting up any criticism.
And anyone who dares to criticise them deserves to be condemned and expelled from the Greens paradise
If we take into account that the Greens idea is not metaphysical, but at the same time is insisting on shutting up any debate and criticism, would not this remind us of Stalinism dark era? That was the only non-metaphysical ideology that practiced the Greens-like claim of monopoly on truth and progressiveness.
The Greens who brand themselves as the only progressive force of the 21 century because they promote anti-moral and anti-family values, on the basis that family idea is very old idea stemming from pre-civilisation era that needs to get revolutionarised and civilised, had actually added nothing progressive so far to the Australian politics.
The Greens did not, for example:
1- Introduce any politicians from ethnic and religious minorities (to promote real Multiculturalism).
2- Condemn Israel and regard Zionism as a form of racism. This include never issuing even one clear media release blaming Israel for the cycle of violence in the middle east for the last century.
3- Take practical steps to prove their verbal commitments to issues, including support public education, public health, public housing,... On the contrary. During the last few years, they opposed strengthening public services and even offered to support selling public assets.
So for the Greens, progressiveness means only promoting prostitution, drug abuse, abortion, assisted suicide …etc. The Greens regurgitate (without any practical evidence) claims of fighting to improve marginalised people’s lives. We do not understand how promoting drug abuse among new migrants, unemployed or very poor will reduce their marginalisation or feeling of social isolation. We don’t understand how promoting prostitution will restore the dignity of needy women and men who were enforced to sell their dignity to the point of selling their bodies.
While we cannot understand (nor accept) the Greens logic and definition of progressiveness, but we deeply believe that we are living in democracy. And in democracy, everyone has the right to participate in political process, including participating in debate and criticism of political parties. While we highly condemns the Greens Stalinist-like bids to shut up debate in this country by claiming monopoly on truth and progressiveness, we will insist on exercising our rights. We will harshly criticise the Greens if they continue their political prostitution of turning the suffering of innocent marginalised sections of the society into political football for cheap electoral gains. We will not hesitate to continue our campaign to expose the empty rhetoric the Greens is spreading before each election in the last decade, which is a clear evidence of “ideologless” Greens party.
And the Greens should respect the democratic environment in the country.
We fought before against Stalinism, until it was disintegrated to the history rubbish bin. We will continue fighting against the destructive agendas of the Greens party, until it will disintegrate to the history rubbish bin, too. Unless the Greens become party of democratic nature.
From my own experience, I should mention here that during the last decade I managed to criticise many politicians by writing letters, opinion pieces (in English and Arabic), petitions, and letters to editors and many other forms. These criticisms were directed to many politicians from wide range of political parties. None of these politicians faced our campaigns of criticism by such hostility like the Greens politicians, members and supporters did.
We campaigned, for example, very hard against previous PM Howard and his ministers. We even tried several times to block their way to functions, meet them with high hostility and accusing them with all kind of accusations (most were right anyway). We never received email, letter or phone call asking us to stop these campaigns. The Greens hierarchies and politicians encouraged us to keep this campaign, and even sometimes participated with us. And that is their right anyway.
We also directed all kinds of criticism to Labor opposition during Howard for not standing against government’s harsh policies. We protested outside Labor conferences, protested outside Labor election campaigns launches, wrote letters and opinion pieces and wrote letters to editors. Also none of Labor politicians or supporters asked us to shut up and stop criticising them. We did the same when they won 2008 election and formed government. We never stopped our criticism, and they never asked us to stop doing this.
The same happened to the Democrats, before its disappearance.
But the Greens is different story.
When they became real player in Australian politics after 2004 election, we started criticising some aspects of Greens politics and behaviour.
So what happened then?
First we were accused of being paid by Labor to discredit the Greens.
When we refused to budge, we were subjected to verbal attacks and threats of physical attacks.
Suddenly our cars were vandalised, abusive letters received and things got nastier.
Suddenly we started to receive threats of persecution for supporting terrorist groups (namely Hamas and Hezbollah), complaints to authorities for alleged violation to Australian constitution …
And recently our website was hacked twice in the last few weeks.
Since we started criticising the Greens, we became “enemy of the progressiveness”, “enemy of masses” and even “servants of imperialism”.
When the Green criticised the Liberals and described Howard and his minister as Nazis, Fascists, xenophobic and racist, this was freedom of speech.
And when the Green viciously attacked Labor and branded them as racists, regressive, force form 20 Century, all this was legitimate as freedom of speech, again.
But when we started to criticise the Greens politics, a criticism that is based on facts and aims to open debates on vital issues, the Greens started to scream up and down and described such criticism as “hate” “ranting” slanders” and lately as “sectarian” attacks on the Greens.
We can note clearly here that the Greens is the only non-metaphysical idea that forbids people from discussing, debating and criticising its experience. The Greens, who consists largely from atheists who refuse to acknowledge the ideas of metaphysical forces, are appointing themselves as divine forces that do not make mistakes. Hence they demand shutting up any criticism.
And anyone who dares to criticise them deserves to be condemned and expelled from the Greens paradise
If we take into account that the Greens idea is not metaphysical, but at the same time is insisting on shutting up any debate and criticism, would not this remind us of Stalinism dark era? That was the only non-metaphysical ideology that practiced the Greens-like claim of monopoly on truth and progressiveness.
The Greens who brand themselves as the only progressive force of the 21 century because they promote anti-moral and anti-family values, on the basis that family idea is very old idea stemming from pre-civilisation era that needs to get revolutionarised and civilised, had actually added nothing progressive so far to the Australian politics.
The Greens did not, for example:
1- Introduce any politicians from ethnic and religious minorities (to promote real Multiculturalism).
2- Condemn Israel and regard Zionism as a form of racism. This include never issuing even one clear media release blaming Israel for the cycle of violence in the middle east for the last century.
3- Take practical steps to prove their verbal commitments to issues, including support public education, public health, public housing,... On the contrary. During the last few years, they opposed strengthening public services and even offered to support selling public assets.
So for the Greens, progressiveness means only promoting prostitution, drug abuse, abortion, assisted suicide …etc. The Greens regurgitate (without any practical evidence) claims of fighting to improve marginalised people’s lives. We do not understand how promoting drug abuse among new migrants, unemployed or very poor will reduce their marginalisation or feeling of social isolation. We don’t understand how promoting prostitution will restore the dignity of needy women and men who were enforced to sell their dignity to the point of selling their bodies.
While we cannot understand (nor accept) the Greens logic and definition of progressiveness, but we deeply believe that we are living in democracy. And in democracy, everyone has the right to participate in political process, including participating in debate and criticism of political parties. While we highly condemns the Greens Stalinist-like bids to shut up debate in this country by claiming monopoly on truth and progressiveness, we will insist on exercising our rights. We will harshly criticise the Greens if they continue their political prostitution of turning the suffering of innocent marginalised sections of the society into political football for cheap electoral gains. We will not hesitate to continue our campaign to expose the empty rhetoric the Greens is spreading before each election in the last decade, which is a clear evidence of “ideologless” Greens party.
And the Greens should respect the democratic environment in the country.
We fought before against Stalinism, until it was disintegrated to the history rubbish bin. We will continue fighting against the destructive agendas of the Greens party, until it will disintegrate to the history rubbish bin, too. Unless the Greens become party of democratic nature.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
ماذا حصل لاستراليا الجميلة: تعليقا علی قانون اعتقال الاطفال
هل فوجئنا باللغة المائعة التي صيغت بها لغة قانون اخراج الاطفال من معتقلات العار الاسترالية؟ وهل كنا نتوقع كثيرا من حزب الخضر الذي لا يملك أي رصيد من نتائج متحققةسابقا؟
دعونا في البداية ان نذكر مآخذنا علی مشروع القانون المقدم الی مجلس الشيوخ بالامس فالمشروع يدعو الی اطلاق الاطفال والقاصرين من معسكرات الاعتقال في مدة لا تزيد عن ١٢ يوما. وينص ايضا علی ان يتم تحديد ان كان يجب ان يتم اطلاق الوالدين خلال ٣٠ يوما.
ولكن مشروع القانون لا يحدد معنی "الاعتقال". كما ان القانون لا يتحدث عن نوع التاشيرة التي يجب ان يحصل عليها القاصر واهله او يضع مددا زمنية للبت في طلباتهم.
كما يجب ان نذكر ان اكبر ماخذ لنا علی القانون هو ان حزب الخضر تراجع كليا عن شعاراته المطالبة بالغاء نظام الاحتجاز الاجباري كليا (للاطفال والكبار). هذه الشعارات التي دابنا علی سماعها كلما دق كوز الانتخابات في جرة السياسة الاسترالية.
وهنا يجب ان نذكر ان حزب الخضر يعتبر حالة فريدة في السياسة الاسترالية و مثالا حيا للانتهازية السياسية بادنی مستوياتها. فكل الاحزاب الاسترالية (حتی الرجعية منها) لها سياسات واضحة لا تحيد عنها تعتبر في قلب التزاماتها منذ انشائها او تطورا عن فكرها، الا حزب الخضر. فهو حزب الموقف الشعبوي الذي يستقطب اصواتا اكثر.
عود علی قضيه قانون اخراج الاطفال من معتقلات العار، فان قراءة شبه متانية في القانون تجعلنا نسال من طرحه الاسئلة التالية:
١-هل يعتبر اسكان العائلات في مساكن خارج المعتقلات التقليدية (في شقق سكنية تحت حراسة مشددة لا تسمح بالحرية الكاملة) هل يعتبر ذلك انهاءا لحالة الاعتقال؟
٢-ما هي المدد الزمنية التي يمكن ان يقضيها الاطفال واهاليهم في هكذا منازل (تعتبر خارج المعتقل) قبل البت في طلباتهم؟
ان هذين السؤالين يجيبان علی الكثير من التساؤلات التي يمكن ان نطرحها لنحدد الفرق بين القانون المطروح من قبل حزب الخضر والمارسات التي طبقها حزب الاحرار الحاكم، الذي سلم السلطة لحزب العمال عام ٢٠٠٨ دون أي طفل في "المعتقلات التقليدية".
ان العار السياسي الذي ارتكبه حزب الخضر ونوابه في التراجع التام عن السياسة المعلنة لهذا الحزب بالعمل علی انهاء سياسة الاعتقال الاجباري، لا يجاريه أي عار سياسي لحزب آخر.
فحزب الخضر والذي داب علی كيل الشتائم والانتقادات والاتهامات للحزبين الكبيرين بعدم تنفيذ وعودهما الانتخابية، عليه ان يبدا بشتم نوابه وسياسييه والكف عن الكيل بمكيالين وعلی قاعدة "من بيته من زجاج لا يجب ان يرمي الاخرين بالحجارة".
المثير للقلق والحنق هو ان تلجا وسائل الاعلام للتطبيل والتزمير لهذا القانون وكانه ثورة انقلابية علی الوضع القائم، بالرغم من انه لا يزيد ولو حرفا واحدا عن السياسة التي اعلن عنها حزب العمال الاسبوع الماضي. وتفاجئنا بمواقف وسائل الاعلام ناتج عن احدی مفارقتين:
١- فوسائل الاعلام الخاصة (والذي معظمها رجعي داب علی تصوير انه يقدح في حزب الخضر ويصوره علی انه حزب ثوري يسعی لقلب نظام الحكم الراسمالي) تطبل وتزمر لحزب الخضر وكانه سيحدث نقلة نوعية في حياة الاستراليين ويحل معضلة كبيرة في حياتهم.
٢- وسائل الاعلام الممولة حكوميا والتي عادة ما تتخذ مواقف اما تقدمية او محايدة، ايضا طبلت وزمرت وكان القانون اختراق تقدمي يقلب نظام الهجرة راسا علی عقب.
٣-اما وسائل الاعلام الاثنية، فهي ناقل حرفي عن احدی الوسيلتين اعلاه.
ما يقلقنا هو وسائل الاعلام الممولة حكوميا، وخصوصا التي تبث باللغات الاثنية ومنها العربية. فهذه الوسائل تتلقف ما يقوله نواب حزب الخضر وكانه احاديث منزلة من السماء لا يمكن الطعن فيها او مجادلتها. ولذلك فهذه الوسائل لا تحلل ولا تسال معارضين او ناشطين متخصصين في الموضوع ولا تسمح براي آخر. وهي بذلك تكون قد بثت اخبارا كاذبة للعمل علی غسل دماغ جماعي للناطقين بهذه اللغات.
وبالرغم من اننا قد اتصلنا بالقائمين علی هذه الوسائل وبينا ان نواب حزب الخضر هم بشر، يخطئوا ويصيبوا، ولذلك فان اقوالهم قابلة للتاويل والتكذيب. بل ان الاغلب من اقوالهم وادعاءاتهم هي اكاذيب وتخرصات لا تمت للحقيقة بصلة. كما اننا زودناهم بحقيقة ما يحدث داخل معسكرات الاعتقال والمواقف الحقيقية الرجعية لنواب الخضر.
ولكن ويبدو ان الحمية العربية وحب التسلط واثبات القوة وعدم التعود علی التراجع عن الخطا، قد صور للقائمين علی هذه الوسائل الاعلامية ان بامكانهم التمادي في غيهم، دون محاسبة من احد. بل اننا لاحظنا انه وامعانا في المناكدة والتحدي، فان بعض هذه الوسائل قد اصبح يبث كل صغيرة او كبيرة صادرة عن حزب الخضر، حتی خلنا ان حزب الخضر اصبح المالك الكامل لهذه الوسائل الاعلامية. فاصبحت تبث الصالح والطالح، حتی خلنا انهم سيخبروننا متی يذهب نواب حزب الخضر الی دورات المياه للتخلص من اسهال طارئ او امساك مزمن.
اما بالنسبة لقانون اخراج الاطفال من المعتقلات، فهو قانون لا يقدم ولا يؤخر علی وضع اللاجئين المزري في معتقلات العار الاسترالية. بل ان القانون سيتلقفه حزبي العمال والاحرار ليقولوا ها هو حزب الخضر يوافق علی ابقاء اعتقال البالغين في معتقلات فيلاوود وكريسماس ايلاند وكيرتين وباكستر. كما ان حزب الخضر الآن يوافق علی الترتيبات الجديدة بحق العائلات والقاضية باسكانهم في مساكن تحت حراسة مشددة في مناطق نائية بعيدة عن اعين المجتمع.
ان تراجع حزب الخضر عن التزاماته اتجاه اللاجئين وطالبي اللجوء ليس هو التراجع الاول لحزب الخضر عن وعود انتخابية سابقة. فالحزب والذي وعد في اكثر من مناسبة بالعمل علی الغاء الدعم الحكومي للتامين الصحي الخاص، تراجع عن هذا الوعد وصوت ضد مقترح حكومة راد العمالية الغاء هذا الدعم وتوجيه الاموال الموفرة لدعم المستشفيات الحكومية الآيلة للتهاوي. كما ان حزب الخضر تراجع عن معارضه بعض بنود قوانين مكافحة ما يسمی بالارهاب فوافق علی معظم ما جاء في القوانين، والتي كان وعد بمعارضتها والعمل علی الغائها.
ان زيادة دعم الجماهير المهمشة والتقدمية لحزب الخضر والذي ترجم بزيادة نواب الحزب لاكثر من الضعف، اتی بنتائج عكسية مدمرة علی هذه الجماهير.
فبدلا من ان يقوم الحزب بالعمل علی المطالبة من الحكومة العمالية (الضعيفة والمئتلفة معه) بتعديل القوانين والاجراءات لتحقيق مجتمع اكثر عدلا، قام حزب الخضر باقتراح قوانين واجراءات تجعل المجتمع اقل عدالة واكثر غبنا، خصوصا للمهمشين من سكان اصليين ومهاجرين جدد ولاجئين ومعاقين.
ان المواطنين الشرفاء الذين صوتوا لحزب الخضر كاحتجاج ضد تراجع حزب العمال عن التزاماته اتجاه المهمشين، لديه الف سبب ليطالبوا حزب الخضر بتوضيحات عن سبب تراجعهم عن وعودهم الانتخابية. كما ان هؤلاء الناخبين يجب ان يضعوا الف علامة استفهام علی قدرة هكذا حزب لا يلتزم بتحقيق وعود انتخابية بسيطة، كيف له ان يحمل علی عاتقه مسؤولية تحقيق اجندات تغييرية بمواضيع هامة مثل الادارة الاقتصادية والسياسات الخارجية ونظام الرفاه الاجتماعي الآيل للانهيار والخدمات الحكومية المتازمة.
المفارقات المحزنة في الوضع الاسترالي الذي يعاني من غياب قيادة حقيقية تقود التغيير الاجتماعي والاقتصادي والسياسي تتجلی في ابهی صورها عندما نقارن وضع استراليا بوضع الدول المتقدمة المماثلة.
ففرنسا تغرق في اضرابات مليونية مفتوحة بسبب محاولة زيادة الحكومة لسن التقاعد من ٦٠ الی ٦٢ عاما. بينما ان المجتمع الاسترالي لم يحرك ساكنا عندما رفعت الحكومة سن التقاعد من ٦٠ الی ٦٥ ثم اخيرا الی ٦٧.
ومحاولة المجرم طوني بلير اطلاق مذكراته تواجه بمظاهرات صاخبة منعته من مواصلة الاطلاق وادت الی الغاء جميع حملاته للتوريج لها. بينما يجول المجرم الاسترالي جون هاورد ويصول في قاعات اطلاق مذكراته، دون معارضة تذكر، سوی من متظاهر او اثنين.
ووسائل الاعلام العالمية تصبح فعالة اكثر واكثر في فضح الحقائق، بينما وسائل اعلامنا تقف مرددة ما يصلها من سياسيين، دون تحليل او تدقيق بصحتها.
يبدو ان الاسترالي قد فقد الامل باي تغيير يمكن ان يحصل بواسطة اللجوء الی الشارع او النشاط السياسي، ولذلك فقد ارتضی ان يرسل رسائل قوية في صناديق الاقتراع. ولكن يبدو ان السياسيين يصرون علی اهمال هذه الرسائل لاكثر من سبب. قد يكون احد هذه الاسباب هو ايمانهم انه لا يوجد امام الناخب أي بديل عنهم. او ان السبب قد يكون محاولة لاستغفالنا والانتقاص من ذكائنا وقدراتنا العقلية.
مما لا شك فيه فان تراجع قدرة المجتمع الاسترالي علی التصدي لهذا الهجوم علی حقوق ابنائه، وخصوصا المهمشين منهم، يرجع في السبب الاكبر لعدم وجود قيادة ملترمة بشكل حقيقي بهذه الحقوق. وهنا يكون ان عرف السبب بطل العجب، واصبح واجبا تحقيق ايجاد هكذا قيادة.
دعونا في البداية ان نذكر مآخذنا علی مشروع القانون المقدم الی مجلس الشيوخ بالامس فالمشروع يدعو الی اطلاق الاطفال والقاصرين من معسكرات الاعتقال في مدة لا تزيد عن ١٢ يوما. وينص ايضا علی ان يتم تحديد ان كان يجب ان يتم اطلاق الوالدين خلال ٣٠ يوما.
ولكن مشروع القانون لا يحدد معنی "الاعتقال". كما ان القانون لا يتحدث عن نوع التاشيرة التي يجب ان يحصل عليها القاصر واهله او يضع مددا زمنية للبت في طلباتهم.
كما يجب ان نذكر ان اكبر ماخذ لنا علی القانون هو ان حزب الخضر تراجع كليا عن شعاراته المطالبة بالغاء نظام الاحتجاز الاجباري كليا (للاطفال والكبار). هذه الشعارات التي دابنا علی سماعها كلما دق كوز الانتخابات في جرة السياسة الاسترالية.
وهنا يجب ان نذكر ان حزب الخضر يعتبر حالة فريدة في السياسة الاسترالية و مثالا حيا للانتهازية السياسية بادنی مستوياتها. فكل الاحزاب الاسترالية (حتی الرجعية منها) لها سياسات واضحة لا تحيد عنها تعتبر في قلب التزاماتها منذ انشائها او تطورا عن فكرها، الا حزب الخضر. فهو حزب الموقف الشعبوي الذي يستقطب اصواتا اكثر.
عود علی قضيه قانون اخراج الاطفال من معتقلات العار، فان قراءة شبه متانية في القانون تجعلنا نسال من طرحه الاسئلة التالية:
١-هل يعتبر اسكان العائلات في مساكن خارج المعتقلات التقليدية (في شقق سكنية تحت حراسة مشددة لا تسمح بالحرية الكاملة) هل يعتبر ذلك انهاءا لحالة الاعتقال؟
٢-ما هي المدد الزمنية التي يمكن ان يقضيها الاطفال واهاليهم في هكذا منازل (تعتبر خارج المعتقل) قبل البت في طلباتهم؟
ان هذين السؤالين يجيبان علی الكثير من التساؤلات التي يمكن ان نطرحها لنحدد الفرق بين القانون المطروح من قبل حزب الخضر والمارسات التي طبقها حزب الاحرار الحاكم، الذي سلم السلطة لحزب العمال عام ٢٠٠٨ دون أي طفل في "المعتقلات التقليدية".
ان العار السياسي الذي ارتكبه حزب الخضر ونوابه في التراجع التام عن السياسة المعلنة لهذا الحزب بالعمل علی انهاء سياسة الاعتقال الاجباري، لا يجاريه أي عار سياسي لحزب آخر.
فحزب الخضر والذي داب علی كيل الشتائم والانتقادات والاتهامات للحزبين الكبيرين بعدم تنفيذ وعودهما الانتخابية، عليه ان يبدا بشتم نوابه وسياسييه والكف عن الكيل بمكيالين وعلی قاعدة "من بيته من زجاج لا يجب ان يرمي الاخرين بالحجارة".
المثير للقلق والحنق هو ان تلجا وسائل الاعلام للتطبيل والتزمير لهذا القانون وكانه ثورة انقلابية علی الوضع القائم، بالرغم من انه لا يزيد ولو حرفا واحدا عن السياسة التي اعلن عنها حزب العمال الاسبوع الماضي. وتفاجئنا بمواقف وسائل الاعلام ناتج عن احدی مفارقتين:
١- فوسائل الاعلام الخاصة (والذي معظمها رجعي داب علی تصوير انه يقدح في حزب الخضر ويصوره علی انه حزب ثوري يسعی لقلب نظام الحكم الراسمالي) تطبل وتزمر لحزب الخضر وكانه سيحدث نقلة نوعية في حياة الاستراليين ويحل معضلة كبيرة في حياتهم.
٢- وسائل الاعلام الممولة حكوميا والتي عادة ما تتخذ مواقف اما تقدمية او محايدة، ايضا طبلت وزمرت وكان القانون اختراق تقدمي يقلب نظام الهجرة راسا علی عقب.
٣-اما وسائل الاعلام الاثنية، فهي ناقل حرفي عن احدی الوسيلتين اعلاه.
ما يقلقنا هو وسائل الاعلام الممولة حكوميا، وخصوصا التي تبث باللغات الاثنية ومنها العربية. فهذه الوسائل تتلقف ما يقوله نواب حزب الخضر وكانه احاديث منزلة من السماء لا يمكن الطعن فيها او مجادلتها. ولذلك فهذه الوسائل لا تحلل ولا تسال معارضين او ناشطين متخصصين في الموضوع ولا تسمح براي آخر. وهي بذلك تكون قد بثت اخبارا كاذبة للعمل علی غسل دماغ جماعي للناطقين بهذه اللغات.
وبالرغم من اننا قد اتصلنا بالقائمين علی هذه الوسائل وبينا ان نواب حزب الخضر هم بشر، يخطئوا ويصيبوا، ولذلك فان اقوالهم قابلة للتاويل والتكذيب. بل ان الاغلب من اقوالهم وادعاءاتهم هي اكاذيب وتخرصات لا تمت للحقيقة بصلة. كما اننا زودناهم بحقيقة ما يحدث داخل معسكرات الاعتقال والمواقف الحقيقية الرجعية لنواب الخضر.
ولكن ويبدو ان الحمية العربية وحب التسلط واثبات القوة وعدم التعود علی التراجع عن الخطا، قد صور للقائمين علی هذه الوسائل الاعلامية ان بامكانهم التمادي في غيهم، دون محاسبة من احد. بل اننا لاحظنا انه وامعانا في المناكدة والتحدي، فان بعض هذه الوسائل قد اصبح يبث كل صغيرة او كبيرة صادرة عن حزب الخضر، حتی خلنا ان حزب الخضر اصبح المالك الكامل لهذه الوسائل الاعلامية. فاصبحت تبث الصالح والطالح، حتی خلنا انهم سيخبروننا متی يذهب نواب حزب الخضر الی دورات المياه للتخلص من اسهال طارئ او امساك مزمن.
اما بالنسبة لقانون اخراج الاطفال من المعتقلات، فهو قانون لا يقدم ولا يؤخر علی وضع اللاجئين المزري في معتقلات العار الاسترالية. بل ان القانون سيتلقفه حزبي العمال والاحرار ليقولوا ها هو حزب الخضر يوافق علی ابقاء اعتقال البالغين في معتقلات فيلاوود وكريسماس ايلاند وكيرتين وباكستر. كما ان حزب الخضر الآن يوافق علی الترتيبات الجديدة بحق العائلات والقاضية باسكانهم في مساكن تحت حراسة مشددة في مناطق نائية بعيدة عن اعين المجتمع.
ان تراجع حزب الخضر عن التزاماته اتجاه اللاجئين وطالبي اللجوء ليس هو التراجع الاول لحزب الخضر عن وعود انتخابية سابقة. فالحزب والذي وعد في اكثر من مناسبة بالعمل علی الغاء الدعم الحكومي للتامين الصحي الخاص، تراجع عن هذا الوعد وصوت ضد مقترح حكومة راد العمالية الغاء هذا الدعم وتوجيه الاموال الموفرة لدعم المستشفيات الحكومية الآيلة للتهاوي. كما ان حزب الخضر تراجع عن معارضه بعض بنود قوانين مكافحة ما يسمی بالارهاب فوافق علی معظم ما جاء في القوانين، والتي كان وعد بمعارضتها والعمل علی الغائها.
ان زيادة دعم الجماهير المهمشة والتقدمية لحزب الخضر والذي ترجم بزيادة نواب الحزب لاكثر من الضعف، اتی بنتائج عكسية مدمرة علی هذه الجماهير.
فبدلا من ان يقوم الحزب بالعمل علی المطالبة من الحكومة العمالية (الضعيفة والمئتلفة معه) بتعديل القوانين والاجراءات لتحقيق مجتمع اكثر عدلا، قام حزب الخضر باقتراح قوانين واجراءات تجعل المجتمع اقل عدالة واكثر غبنا، خصوصا للمهمشين من سكان اصليين ومهاجرين جدد ولاجئين ومعاقين.
ان المواطنين الشرفاء الذين صوتوا لحزب الخضر كاحتجاج ضد تراجع حزب العمال عن التزاماته اتجاه المهمشين، لديه الف سبب ليطالبوا حزب الخضر بتوضيحات عن سبب تراجعهم عن وعودهم الانتخابية. كما ان هؤلاء الناخبين يجب ان يضعوا الف علامة استفهام علی قدرة هكذا حزب لا يلتزم بتحقيق وعود انتخابية بسيطة، كيف له ان يحمل علی عاتقه مسؤولية تحقيق اجندات تغييرية بمواضيع هامة مثل الادارة الاقتصادية والسياسات الخارجية ونظام الرفاه الاجتماعي الآيل للانهيار والخدمات الحكومية المتازمة.
المفارقات المحزنة في الوضع الاسترالي الذي يعاني من غياب قيادة حقيقية تقود التغيير الاجتماعي والاقتصادي والسياسي تتجلی في ابهی صورها عندما نقارن وضع استراليا بوضع الدول المتقدمة المماثلة.
ففرنسا تغرق في اضرابات مليونية مفتوحة بسبب محاولة زيادة الحكومة لسن التقاعد من ٦٠ الی ٦٢ عاما. بينما ان المجتمع الاسترالي لم يحرك ساكنا عندما رفعت الحكومة سن التقاعد من ٦٠ الی ٦٥ ثم اخيرا الی ٦٧.
ومحاولة المجرم طوني بلير اطلاق مذكراته تواجه بمظاهرات صاخبة منعته من مواصلة الاطلاق وادت الی الغاء جميع حملاته للتوريج لها. بينما يجول المجرم الاسترالي جون هاورد ويصول في قاعات اطلاق مذكراته، دون معارضة تذكر، سوی من متظاهر او اثنين.
ووسائل الاعلام العالمية تصبح فعالة اكثر واكثر في فضح الحقائق، بينما وسائل اعلامنا تقف مرددة ما يصلها من سياسيين، دون تحليل او تدقيق بصحتها.
يبدو ان الاسترالي قد فقد الامل باي تغيير يمكن ان يحصل بواسطة اللجوء الی الشارع او النشاط السياسي، ولذلك فقد ارتضی ان يرسل رسائل قوية في صناديق الاقتراع. ولكن يبدو ان السياسيين يصرون علی اهمال هذه الرسائل لاكثر من سبب. قد يكون احد هذه الاسباب هو ايمانهم انه لا يوجد امام الناخب أي بديل عنهم. او ان السبب قد يكون محاولة لاستغفالنا والانتقاص من ذكائنا وقدراتنا العقلية.
مما لا شك فيه فان تراجع قدرة المجتمع الاسترالي علی التصدي لهذا الهجوم علی حقوق ابنائه، وخصوصا المهمشين منهم، يرجع في السبب الاكبر لعدم وجود قيادة ملترمة بشكل حقيقي بهذه الحقوق. وهنا يكون ان عرف السبب بطل العجب، واصبح واجبا تحقيق ايجاد هكذا قيادة.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Afghanistan war debate in the parliament: the rhetoric vs real commitments
At last, we had parliamentary debate over the Australian participation in war on Afghanistan. Two days of intense debate. Then it was ended with no result, so far. In Arabic we say: The mountain got into labour, but gave birth to a mouse.
We had the opportunity to hear all empty rhetoric of all sides: The Labor and Liberals competing to show support for Americans. The Greens empty rhetoric on necessity to leave Afghanistan after causalities increased. Independents argue that we will not win the war.
Then the show finished. All parties went to their air-conditioned offices happy that they scored political points.
But the Australian participation in the war is still reality. The Afghani people are still under brutal occupation. And Australian soldiers are still killing innocent Afghanis and become sometimes casualties.
Well done Andrew Willkie and the Greens. They could change the atmosphere inside the parliament and get some debate on issues with different “flavour”.
I envy these politicians’ ability to change their skins regularly and sometimes on weekly basis.
Was not this the same Andrew Willkie that demanded 2 years ago that the Australian troops need to stay in Afghanistan to “finish the job” and not leaving it to extreme Taliban?
Was not this the same Bob Brown who earlier blamed John Howard and George Bush administrations for not sending enough troops to kill as many Afghanis as possible to crush the resistance?
What a shame!!!
Did we forget this? Do Brown and Willkie count on the short memory of nations?
But we notice that their change of skin was not complete.
Both Bob Brown and Andrew Willkie are demanding the troops withdrawal because we cannot crush resistance. And because Australian troops cannot crush resistance, some of them get killed or wounded. This is the main argument they made in the last few days.
They did not demand the troops withdrawal because any occupation is illegal. They did not show any empathy for Afghani causalities, which mount to thousands every year. They do not care about the devastation of Afghani society and the collapse of all infrastructures.
Both were crying because we lost 21 soldiers in Afghanistan. But I did not hear them cry because this illegal and brutal war killed thousands of Afghani, made millions refugees in neighbouring countries and deprived Afghani from basic rights and basic life needs.
We know very well that both Willkie and Brown were very silent on this vital issue since the invasion in 2001 until this year. We know very well that these politicians are populist ones that are after some media attention, only. Hence they were deadly silent when Taliban was weak, and woke up when Taliban became very sophisticated and killed in this year 600 foreign occupying soldiers, so far.
But we know that in politics and in life the most important is the result. So what is the result of this big loud media circus initiated by those politicians (The Greens and Willkie)?
Absolutely nothing. No changes whatsoever.
So Mr Willkie and Brown: please give us break.
We know very well that you are after some votes, even if they will be mixed with a lot of blood: Blood of Afghanis, not only of Australians.
And we know very well that you do not give a damn about the brutality of this war. We know very well that you do not care of how bad the Afghanis live in their country. We know very well that your debate and your words are merely empty rhetoric to fool us to give you our vote in the coming-very-soon election. We know all this, so please go to hell.
We notice that you never issued media release when innocent Afghanis were killed by foreign troops (including Australians). We never saw your tears shed when Afghani villages were erased from the map by foreign troops. We did not hear you mentioning the numbers of children killed by occupying forces. We never, to date, hear your position on Australians tried for crimes against Afghanis.
So please stop playing politics with blood of innocent people. If you are serious, take actions.
The agreement with Labor demanded only to open a debate. No demands of specific outcomes. No demands of committee to follow on implementing the debate outcomes (if there will be outcomes ever).
Again, please stop treating Afghani dead bodies as votes on polling booths. We are sick from your cheap politics, so please stop.
Please respect our intelligence, and to lesser extent our feelings.
We had the opportunity to hear all empty rhetoric of all sides: The Labor and Liberals competing to show support for Americans. The Greens empty rhetoric on necessity to leave Afghanistan after causalities increased. Independents argue that we will not win the war.
Then the show finished. All parties went to their air-conditioned offices happy that they scored political points.
But the Australian participation in the war is still reality. The Afghani people are still under brutal occupation. And Australian soldiers are still killing innocent Afghanis and become sometimes casualties.
Well done Andrew Willkie and the Greens. They could change the atmosphere inside the parliament and get some debate on issues with different “flavour”.
I envy these politicians’ ability to change their skins regularly and sometimes on weekly basis.
Was not this the same Andrew Willkie that demanded 2 years ago that the Australian troops need to stay in Afghanistan to “finish the job” and not leaving it to extreme Taliban?
Was not this the same Bob Brown who earlier blamed John Howard and George Bush administrations for not sending enough troops to kill as many Afghanis as possible to crush the resistance?
What a shame!!!
Did we forget this? Do Brown and Willkie count on the short memory of nations?
But we notice that their change of skin was not complete.
Both Bob Brown and Andrew Willkie are demanding the troops withdrawal because we cannot crush resistance. And because Australian troops cannot crush resistance, some of them get killed or wounded. This is the main argument they made in the last few days.
They did not demand the troops withdrawal because any occupation is illegal. They did not show any empathy for Afghani causalities, which mount to thousands every year. They do not care about the devastation of Afghani society and the collapse of all infrastructures.
Both were crying because we lost 21 soldiers in Afghanistan. But I did not hear them cry because this illegal and brutal war killed thousands of Afghani, made millions refugees in neighbouring countries and deprived Afghani from basic rights and basic life needs.
We know very well that both Willkie and Brown were very silent on this vital issue since the invasion in 2001 until this year. We know very well that these politicians are populist ones that are after some media attention, only. Hence they were deadly silent when Taliban was weak, and woke up when Taliban became very sophisticated and killed in this year 600 foreign occupying soldiers, so far.
But we know that in politics and in life the most important is the result. So what is the result of this big loud media circus initiated by those politicians (The Greens and Willkie)?
Absolutely nothing. No changes whatsoever.
So Mr Willkie and Brown: please give us break.
We know very well that you are after some votes, even if they will be mixed with a lot of blood: Blood of Afghanis, not only of Australians.
And we know very well that you do not give a damn about the brutality of this war. We know very well that you do not care of how bad the Afghanis live in their country. We know very well that your debate and your words are merely empty rhetoric to fool us to give you our vote in the coming-very-soon election. We know all this, so please go to hell.
We notice that you never issued media release when innocent Afghanis were killed by foreign troops (including Australians). We never saw your tears shed when Afghani villages were erased from the map by foreign troops. We did not hear you mentioning the numbers of children killed by occupying forces. We never, to date, hear your position on Australians tried for crimes against Afghanis.
So please stop playing politics with blood of innocent people. If you are serious, take actions.
The agreement with Labor demanded only to open a debate. No demands of specific outcomes. No demands of committee to follow on implementing the debate outcomes (if there will be outcomes ever).
Again, please stop treating Afghani dead bodies as votes on polling booths. We are sick from your cheap politics, so please stop.
Please respect our intelligence, and to lesser extent our feelings.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
مقال كتب عام ٢٠٠٨ واعيد نشره لتشابه الامس باليوم
ما اشبه اليوم بالبارحة!
جمال داود – سدني
"من كان يعبد محمدا، فان محمدا قد مات. ومن كان يعبد الله، فالله حي لا يموت" ابو بكر الصديق (رضي الله عنه)
ذكرت هذا القول بعد ان شاهدت التهويل والمبالغة (الى حد القرف الاخلاقي) في استذكار الفقيد رفيق الحريري، وخصوصا في هذه الايام. فقبره اصبح محجا اهم من قبر الرسول (صلعم). وزوار هذا القبر يمتدحون الفقيد وكانه قديس او نبي.
وكلمات اهل الفقيد ومحبيه (الذين اكتشفوا محبته بعد اغتياله فقط) تثير الغثيان الى حد القيئ.
وما اشبه اليوم بالبارحة. وكأننا لم نتعلم من دروس التاريخ القاسية اي شيئ
فمعاوية واصدقاءه من التجار والمتاجرين يعودون اليوم ليلوحوا بقميص عثمان الملطخ بالدماء، ليبرروا عشقهم للسلطة والمال واستعدادهم للمتاجرة بكل شيئ في سبيلهما
تجار بني امية يعودون مجددا للمطالبة بتسليم قتلة عثمان، والا فالى صفين والجمل
تجار السلطة مشغولون بحياكة المؤامرات، متلطين بقميص عثمان، ملوحين به كلما سائلهم احد عن جرائمهم في الجامعة العربية وعين علق وقبلها في كفار متى وصبرا وشاتيلا والمتحف
وكأن دم عثمان اغلى من دماء الالاف الذين سيسقطون مجددا في الجمل و صفين وساحة الشهداء
كأن دم عثمان اطهر من دماء اطفال صبرا وشاتيلا، الذين ضحى بهم معاوية الحريري وتحالف مع قاتلهم الكتائبي - القواتي
كأن دم عثمان اهم من شرف الامة وكرامتها واستقلالها
كأن دم عثمان اهم من الاف السنين من العيش المشترك والمصير المشترك والهدف المشترك
كأن دم عثمان اهم من شرف الاقصى الذي تستباح حرمته كل يوم، وقداسة المهد وبرائة اطفال بيت حانون، وطهارة نساء الجنوب
معاوية يطل براسه مرة اخرى، ليقول: تجارتي واموالي وسلطتي، والا فعلى لبنان السلام
معاوية المتدثر بحرير عائلته ومعه يزيده السنيوري، اتقنا دراسة التاريخ واعادة تقمص شخصيات التجار الامويين والتلطي بقميص عثمان
معاوية اعاد تحالفاته مع اعداء الامة من خوارج ومارقين واجانب
وكله من اجل عثمان!
ويا لهذا العثمان
عثمان المشاريع المليارية، في بلد اصغر من ان تحتمل سوق عكاظ
عثمان الانفتاح والسوق الحرة وديون نوادي باريس ولندن وصندوق النقد الدولي، بعد ان استلم بلدا خرج من حرب اهلية ضروس بلا قرش واحد للدائنين
عثمان الارتهان لارادة عائلات مالكة لكل شيئ الا للحد الادنى من الاخلاق والقيم والشرف
الم يكف تاريخنا معاوية واحد، يزيد واحد، عمرو واحد، وصفين واحدة
الم يكف تاريخنا قميص واحد، مرغ به معاوية ويزيده التاريخ دما وحقدا وكذبا
معاوية هذه المرة ليس مؤزرا بجيوش المماليك، مماليك السلطة والدنانير فحسب، بل مؤزرا بقوات اليونيفيل والمتعددة الجنسيات
معاوية هذه المرة تحالف مع الشيطان الصهيوني ليحقق مطامحه بالبقاء في السلطة
وارثي لكم يا ابناء عثمان
اضحكني من شدة حزني تباكيكم المحموم على دم عثمان، زيارتكم لضريحه العالي كلما "دق الكوز بالجرة" وكلما اراد سيدكم الامريكي-المتصهين خدمة دنيئة وكلما فقدتم القدرة على الاقناع بالحجة، فلجأتم للابتزاز العاطفي اللا-أخلاقي
معاوية ويزيد القابع في السراي
ابشركم انه لن تكون هناك لا صفين ولا جمل جديدة
لن تكون هناك كربلاء ولا اغتيال للحسين مرة اخرى
تراهنون على الجهل المجبول بالخوف من المجهول، ونراهن على ان المرحلة قد صقلت ابناء بلاد الشام وعلمتهم الدرس جيدا
تراهنون على الابتزاز العاطفي المجبول باحترامنا للاموات، ونراهن على ان قضية لبنان اصبحت قضية عالمية مفصلية هامة على طريق هزيمة الشر المطلق ومشروعه للشرق الاوسط الجديد، على طريق تحرير فلسطين والعراق و و و
تراهنون على حصان خاسر، خسر في عقر داره في واشنطن و تل أبيب، والرؤوس ما تزال تتدحرج
لكنكم لا تريدون، كاي مقامر خاسر، ان تصدقوا ان حصانكم قد خرج من الحلبة مهزوما
بؤسا لكم ولغبائكم
كل ما اعرفه ان سواعد من هزم "الجيش الذي لا يقهر" قادر على هزيمة مجموعة من المقامرين الذين خسروا انفسهم منذ مدة طويلة ، قبل ان يخسروا رهانهم
وهذا ليس خطابا طائفيا، فكاتبه سني يؤمن بالمساواة بين البشر. فدم عثمان، ورفيق وبيار ليس اهم من دم اي طفل يقتل يوميا في غزة او عين علق او كولومبيا او الكونغو.
فمن كان يعبد رفيق الحريري، فان الحريري قد مات. وقاتله سيحاكمه التاريخ ثم رب العالمين، وليس ميليس او براميرتس.
فكفاكم بهرجة وكذبا، وعودوا الى رشدكم ثم عودوا الى تجارتكم وادفنوا قميص عثمان مع عثمان، فقمصان شهداء بيت حانون ومارون الراس والفلوجة وكربلاء وعين علق ليست اقل قدرا وطهرا وشرفا
جمال داود – سدني
"من كان يعبد محمدا، فان محمدا قد مات. ومن كان يعبد الله، فالله حي لا يموت" ابو بكر الصديق (رضي الله عنه)
ذكرت هذا القول بعد ان شاهدت التهويل والمبالغة (الى حد القرف الاخلاقي) في استذكار الفقيد رفيق الحريري، وخصوصا في هذه الايام. فقبره اصبح محجا اهم من قبر الرسول (صلعم). وزوار هذا القبر يمتدحون الفقيد وكانه قديس او نبي.
وكلمات اهل الفقيد ومحبيه (الذين اكتشفوا محبته بعد اغتياله فقط) تثير الغثيان الى حد القيئ.
وما اشبه اليوم بالبارحة. وكأننا لم نتعلم من دروس التاريخ القاسية اي شيئ
فمعاوية واصدقاءه من التجار والمتاجرين يعودون اليوم ليلوحوا بقميص عثمان الملطخ بالدماء، ليبرروا عشقهم للسلطة والمال واستعدادهم للمتاجرة بكل شيئ في سبيلهما
تجار بني امية يعودون مجددا للمطالبة بتسليم قتلة عثمان، والا فالى صفين والجمل
تجار السلطة مشغولون بحياكة المؤامرات، متلطين بقميص عثمان، ملوحين به كلما سائلهم احد عن جرائمهم في الجامعة العربية وعين علق وقبلها في كفار متى وصبرا وشاتيلا والمتحف
وكأن دم عثمان اغلى من دماء الالاف الذين سيسقطون مجددا في الجمل و صفين وساحة الشهداء
كأن دم عثمان اطهر من دماء اطفال صبرا وشاتيلا، الذين ضحى بهم معاوية الحريري وتحالف مع قاتلهم الكتائبي - القواتي
كأن دم عثمان اهم من شرف الامة وكرامتها واستقلالها
كأن دم عثمان اهم من الاف السنين من العيش المشترك والمصير المشترك والهدف المشترك
كأن دم عثمان اهم من شرف الاقصى الذي تستباح حرمته كل يوم، وقداسة المهد وبرائة اطفال بيت حانون، وطهارة نساء الجنوب
معاوية يطل براسه مرة اخرى، ليقول: تجارتي واموالي وسلطتي، والا فعلى لبنان السلام
معاوية المتدثر بحرير عائلته ومعه يزيده السنيوري، اتقنا دراسة التاريخ واعادة تقمص شخصيات التجار الامويين والتلطي بقميص عثمان
معاوية اعاد تحالفاته مع اعداء الامة من خوارج ومارقين واجانب
وكله من اجل عثمان!
ويا لهذا العثمان
عثمان المشاريع المليارية، في بلد اصغر من ان تحتمل سوق عكاظ
عثمان الانفتاح والسوق الحرة وديون نوادي باريس ولندن وصندوق النقد الدولي، بعد ان استلم بلدا خرج من حرب اهلية ضروس بلا قرش واحد للدائنين
عثمان الارتهان لارادة عائلات مالكة لكل شيئ الا للحد الادنى من الاخلاق والقيم والشرف
الم يكف تاريخنا معاوية واحد، يزيد واحد، عمرو واحد، وصفين واحدة
الم يكف تاريخنا قميص واحد، مرغ به معاوية ويزيده التاريخ دما وحقدا وكذبا
معاوية هذه المرة ليس مؤزرا بجيوش المماليك، مماليك السلطة والدنانير فحسب، بل مؤزرا بقوات اليونيفيل والمتعددة الجنسيات
معاوية هذه المرة تحالف مع الشيطان الصهيوني ليحقق مطامحه بالبقاء في السلطة
وارثي لكم يا ابناء عثمان
اضحكني من شدة حزني تباكيكم المحموم على دم عثمان، زيارتكم لضريحه العالي كلما "دق الكوز بالجرة" وكلما اراد سيدكم الامريكي-المتصهين خدمة دنيئة وكلما فقدتم القدرة على الاقناع بالحجة، فلجأتم للابتزاز العاطفي اللا-أخلاقي
معاوية ويزيد القابع في السراي
ابشركم انه لن تكون هناك لا صفين ولا جمل جديدة
لن تكون هناك كربلاء ولا اغتيال للحسين مرة اخرى
تراهنون على الجهل المجبول بالخوف من المجهول، ونراهن على ان المرحلة قد صقلت ابناء بلاد الشام وعلمتهم الدرس جيدا
تراهنون على الابتزاز العاطفي المجبول باحترامنا للاموات، ونراهن على ان قضية لبنان اصبحت قضية عالمية مفصلية هامة على طريق هزيمة الشر المطلق ومشروعه للشرق الاوسط الجديد، على طريق تحرير فلسطين والعراق و و و
تراهنون على حصان خاسر، خسر في عقر داره في واشنطن و تل أبيب، والرؤوس ما تزال تتدحرج
لكنكم لا تريدون، كاي مقامر خاسر، ان تصدقوا ان حصانكم قد خرج من الحلبة مهزوما
بؤسا لكم ولغبائكم
كل ما اعرفه ان سواعد من هزم "الجيش الذي لا يقهر" قادر على هزيمة مجموعة من المقامرين الذين خسروا انفسهم منذ مدة طويلة ، قبل ان يخسروا رهانهم
وهذا ليس خطابا طائفيا، فكاتبه سني يؤمن بالمساواة بين البشر. فدم عثمان، ورفيق وبيار ليس اهم من دم اي طفل يقتل يوميا في غزة او عين علق او كولومبيا او الكونغو.
فمن كان يعبد رفيق الحريري، فان الحريري قد مات. وقاتله سيحاكمه التاريخ ثم رب العالمين، وليس ميليس او براميرتس.
فكفاكم بهرجة وكذبا، وعودوا الى رشدكم ثم عودوا الى تجارتكم وادفنوا قميص عثمان مع عثمان، فقمصان شهداء بيت حانون ومارون الراس والفلوجة وكربلاء وعين علق ليست اقل قدرا وطهرا وشرفا
Friday, September 17, 2010
عندما يصبح يوم القدس العالمي مناسبة للاكل: اعدوا لهم ما استطعتم من حمص وفتوش
لا بد ان اسرائيل ومن وراءها من قوی الظلم والاستكبار قد اصبحت ترتجف الآن بعد الرسالة القوية التي ارسلتها "قيادات" الجالية العربية من سدني وفي اليوم العالمي للقدس. ولا بد ان اسرائيل وادواتها اصبحوا يحسبون الف حساب لجالية في استراليا تقوم قيادتها "الوطنية" بارسال هكذا رسالة قوية للقاصي والداني تضع النقاط علی الحروف. ولا بد ان اسرائيل وحلفائها في واشنطن ولندن وباريس وبرلين وكانبيرا وروما وووو يدرسون الآن كيفية الرد علی الضربة القاصمة التي وجهتها لها "قيادة" الجالية "الوطنية" في سيدني.
و"يا هم لالي" (عذرا من ابي عواد
فلا بد ان حكومة اسرائيل "عملتها في لباسها" بمجرد سماعها ان صحون الفتوش والسلطة كانت تتطاير في سماء سيدني "احتفالا بيوم القدس العالمي"، بينما كانت الجرافات الاسرائيلية تمعن في هدم بيوت القدس. ولا بد ان جيش الدفاع الاسرائيلي قد اخذ مواقع دفاعية متقدمة علی الجبهة، بعد ان وصلته اخبار "احتفالات قيادات الجالية الوطنية" في سيدني وتهديد اركان هذه القيادات بالويل والثبور لكل معتد اثيم.
ولا بد ان "اللي استحو ماتوا".
فبينما كانت شوارع العالم ترتج من اعداد المتظاهرين الملبين لنداء الامام الخميني رحمه الله للتظاهر تضامنا مع نضال الشعب الفلسطيني، كان اركان قيادة الجاليه "الوطنية" منهمكين بتناول ما لذ وطاب من لحوم وسلطات وفتوش. وبينما كانت منظمات المجتمع المدني في العالم تعد قضايا قانونية لادانة اسرائيل وتجريمها امام المجتمع الدولي، كنا في سيدني نعد شطائر البروغر والشاورما واسياخ المشويات. وبينما كان شرفاء العالم يحشدون امكانياتهم وجهودهم لتسيير اكبر قافلة برية لكسر الحصار الجائر علی غزة، اجتمعوا في سدني لحشد اكبر مجموعة من شهود الزور ليحتفلوا جمعا وقصرا وسرا بيوم القدس العالمي بطريقة "فنية" لم تخطر علی بال احد من قبل.
ندرك تمام الادراك ان هذا المجلس لا يعدو كونه فقاعة صوتية شكلت نكاية بمجالس اخری، بدعم سفارات وقنصليات اجنبية لاهداف في نفس يعقوب.
وندرك ان قياداته "الوطنية" لا تحمل فكرا او فعلا، ولا تعدو كونها افعال جامدة لا تتحرك الا بالضم او الرفع او التقسيم.
وندرك ان من يعرف عن هذا المجلس من ابناء الجالية الذي يدعي بتمثيلهم لا يمكن ان يزيد عن عدد اصابع اليد، في احسن الاحوال. ومن يعرف عن هذا المجلس، ان سالته عن حال مجلسه هذا، يضرب كفا بكف ويقول: "علی الدنيا السلام".
فمجلس لم يتعد دوره عن اجتماع شهري لبعض المتسلقين علی ظهر ابناء جاليتهم لشرب الشاي والقهوه والخروج ببيان ركيك يخالف قواعد الافعال والاسماء ولا يلتزم الا بادوات الجر.
ومجلس لم يتعد دوره مسح الجوخ لسفراء دول اجنبية وقناصل فخريين ونواب عنصريين، لا تجيد قيادته "الوطنية" سوی التطبيل والتراقص في الاحتفالات والمهرجانات والمظاهرات "الوطنية" وقنص الميكروفونات من اجل رفع عقيرتهم بكل باطل وتدليس.
ومجلس يراسه جاهل امي لا يجيد القراءة الا لتزوير دكتوراه لا يفصح في أي مجال حصل عليها ومن أي جامعة تمنحه دكتوراه قبل ان يحصل علی الاعدادية.
ومجلس يفشل في جمع "شلة" من اعضائه واصدقائه ليدافع عن السفارة التي انشئته عندما تعرضت للتظاهر من مجموعات فقدت عقلها ومنطقها وبوصلة اعداء امتها.
ومجلس يضم عشرات التنظيمات الوهمية، التي لا يمكن ان تجمعها الا مائدة مسح جوخ او حبك مؤامرات ولا تفرقها عن هذه الموائد الا "الشديد القوي" او المرض العضال او الموت الزؤام.
هكذا مجلس لا يمكن ان يخجل قادته بالاحتفال بيوم القدس العالمي علی مائدة افطار عامرة، لا تخدم هدفا نبيلا سوی مسح جوخ والتقاط صور مع سفراء ونواب وقناصل فخريين ومرتزقة انتهازيين.
وهكذا مجلس لا يمكن ان يقدم في مسيرة عطاء الجالية، سوی بعض صحون الحمص والفتوش، بلا فكر او موقف او انجاز.
وهكذا مجلس لا يمكن له ان يدعي قيادة جالية بحجم جاليتنا وحجم عطاءها وتضحياتها ومعاناتها.
طوبی لمجلس من قوی لا نعرف كم تمثل ومن تمثل ولمن تمثل وعلی من تمثل.
وطوبی لمجلس جل اهتماماته الظهور في صور مع السفير الفلاني والنائب العلاني، دون انجاز يذكر وعلی قاعدة "شوفيني يا جارة".
وطوبی لمجلس قياداته منتخبة بدون انتخابات ودستوره جاهز من قبل انشائه وبياناته الصحفية معدة سلفا قبل عقد اجتماعاته وانجازاته واضحة بدون ان يراها احد، حتی لو استخدم هذا الاحد ميكروسكوب فلكي او استعان بكل قارئي الفناجين في العالم.
وطوبی لمن لم يعد يستحي او يخجل من ابناء الجاليه المطالبين بنزول هذه القيادات من علی الظهور المتعبة.
طوبی لهذا المجلس، ولكن لا تسموه "وطنيا" ولاتقحموا اسم القدس بمسابقة للاكل او لالتقاط صور مع مسؤولين، اجانب او محليين.
وكل عام وصحون فتوش "يوم القدس العالمي" علی مائده القيادة "الوطنية".
و"يا هم لالي" (عذرا من ابي عواد
فلا بد ان حكومة اسرائيل "عملتها في لباسها" بمجرد سماعها ان صحون الفتوش والسلطة كانت تتطاير في سماء سيدني "احتفالا بيوم القدس العالمي"، بينما كانت الجرافات الاسرائيلية تمعن في هدم بيوت القدس. ولا بد ان جيش الدفاع الاسرائيلي قد اخذ مواقع دفاعية متقدمة علی الجبهة، بعد ان وصلته اخبار "احتفالات قيادات الجالية الوطنية" في سيدني وتهديد اركان هذه القيادات بالويل والثبور لكل معتد اثيم.
ولا بد ان "اللي استحو ماتوا".
فبينما كانت شوارع العالم ترتج من اعداد المتظاهرين الملبين لنداء الامام الخميني رحمه الله للتظاهر تضامنا مع نضال الشعب الفلسطيني، كان اركان قيادة الجاليه "الوطنية" منهمكين بتناول ما لذ وطاب من لحوم وسلطات وفتوش. وبينما كانت منظمات المجتمع المدني في العالم تعد قضايا قانونية لادانة اسرائيل وتجريمها امام المجتمع الدولي، كنا في سيدني نعد شطائر البروغر والشاورما واسياخ المشويات. وبينما كان شرفاء العالم يحشدون امكانياتهم وجهودهم لتسيير اكبر قافلة برية لكسر الحصار الجائر علی غزة، اجتمعوا في سدني لحشد اكبر مجموعة من شهود الزور ليحتفلوا جمعا وقصرا وسرا بيوم القدس العالمي بطريقة "فنية" لم تخطر علی بال احد من قبل.
ندرك تمام الادراك ان هذا المجلس لا يعدو كونه فقاعة صوتية شكلت نكاية بمجالس اخری، بدعم سفارات وقنصليات اجنبية لاهداف في نفس يعقوب.
وندرك ان قياداته "الوطنية" لا تحمل فكرا او فعلا، ولا تعدو كونها افعال جامدة لا تتحرك الا بالضم او الرفع او التقسيم.
وندرك ان من يعرف عن هذا المجلس من ابناء الجالية الذي يدعي بتمثيلهم لا يمكن ان يزيد عن عدد اصابع اليد، في احسن الاحوال. ومن يعرف عن هذا المجلس، ان سالته عن حال مجلسه هذا، يضرب كفا بكف ويقول: "علی الدنيا السلام".
فمجلس لم يتعد دوره عن اجتماع شهري لبعض المتسلقين علی ظهر ابناء جاليتهم لشرب الشاي والقهوه والخروج ببيان ركيك يخالف قواعد الافعال والاسماء ولا يلتزم الا بادوات الجر.
ومجلس لم يتعد دوره مسح الجوخ لسفراء دول اجنبية وقناصل فخريين ونواب عنصريين، لا تجيد قيادته "الوطنية" سوی التطبيل والتراقص في الاحتفالات والمهرجانات والمظاهرات "الوطنية" وقنص الميكروفونات من اجل رفع عقيرتهم بكل باطل وتدليس.
ومجلس يراسه جاهل امي لا يجيد القراءة الا لتزوير دكتوراه لا يفصح في أي مجال حصل عليها ومن أي جامعة تمنحه دكتوراه قبل ان يحصل علی الاعدادية.
ومجلس يفشل في جمع "شلة" من اعضائه واصدقائه ليدافع عن السفارة التي انشئته عندما تعرضت للتظاهر من مجموعات فقدت عقلها ومنطقها وبوصلة اعداء امتها.
ومجلس يضم عشرات التنظيمات الوهمية، التي لا يمكن ان تجمعها الا مائدة مسح جوخ او حبك مؤامرات ولا تفرقها عن هذه الموائد الا "الشديد القوي" او المرض العضال او الموت الزؤام.
هكذا مجلس لا يمكن ان يخجل قادته بالاحتفال بيوم القدس العالمي علی مائدة افطار عامرة، لا تخدم هدفا نبيلا سوی مسح جوخ والتقاط صور مع سفراء ونواب وقناصل فخريين ومرتزقة انتهازيين.
وهكذا مجلس لا يمكن ان يقدم في مسيرة عطاء الجالية، سوی بعض صحون الحمص والفتوش، بلا فكر او موقف او انجاز.
وهكذا مجلس لا يمكن له ان يدعي قيادة جالية بحجم جاليتنا وحجم عطاءها وتضحياتها ومعاناتها.
طوبی لمجلس من قوی لا نعرف كم تمثل ومن تمثل ولمن تمثل وعلی من تمثل.
وطوبی لمجلس جل اهتماماته الظهور في صور مع السفير الفلاني والنائب العلاني، دون انجاز يذكر وعلی قاعدة "شوفيني يا جارة".
وطوبی لمجلس قياداته منتخبة بدون انتخابات ودستوره جاهز من قبل انشائه وبياناته الصحفية معدة سلفا قبل عقد اجتماعاته وانجازاته واضحة بدون ان يراها احد، حتی لو استخدم هذا الاحد ميكروسكوب فلكي او استعان بكل قارئي الفناجين في العالم.
وطوبی لمن لم يعد يستحي او يخجل من ابناء الجاليه المطالبين بنزول هذه القيادات من علی الظهور المتعبة.
طوبی لهذا المجلس، ولكن لا تسموه "وطنيا" ولاتقحموا اسم القدس بمسابقة للاكل او لالتقاط صور مع مسؤولين، اجانب او محليين.
وكل عام وصحون فتوش "يوم القدس العالمي" علی مائده القيادة "الوطنية".
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The reasons behind Australian absence from Gaza free campaigns:Please donate to send strong contingent to Gaza
It is very strange that Australia is absent from international efforts to lift Gaza blockade for the last 4 years. Despite the many big mouths among politicians who remember just before elections that Gaza is under siege (especially in the Greens party), their representation in international efforts is nearly nil. All this despite the big resources they have in form of tax-payers money they get because of the increasing Muslims and pro-Palestinians voting for them.
On the other hand, the efforts by Muslim community and its “leadership” was not more than collecting some money and send them to other organisations who has presence in Gaza. Even the one Muslim organisation that has office and workers in Gaza, they are very “shy” to participate in international efforts to lift the siege.
In this instance we should differentiate between aid efforts and efforts to break the siege.
The first is not more than shy efforts to temporarily relieve the suffering of some Gazans by colleting aid and send it there to be distributed to needy people.
While the second is aiming to highlight the crime conducted against Gazans in form of the illegal and inhumane blockade. The organisations participating in these efforts are not aiming mainly to deliver aids. They aim to break the siege by creating momentum against the blockade.
So the difference is very big.
The Muslim and community organisations were engaged only in aid efforts. The reasons why they did not participate in breaking siege efforts are complex. Some of these reasons could be because the Muslim community is having such weak and increasingly corrupt “leadership”.
Other reasons are related to the above mentioned one that made the community feel very scared and targeted by the government and media, with no true leadership to defend them. They became happy only to donate some money to be sent through Australian organisations, as safe way to not be blamed of supporting Hamas and so supporting “terrorism”.
This is why we in the Social Justice network decided to break this cycle of fear and ghetto mentality by coming forward and declaring that we will this time support the break – the – siege efforts.
We need your help. Your donations will help us send strong message. At the moment, we have registered to send one activist and half van full of supplies to go to Gaza with Viva Palestina 5. We need your help to send another one or two activists and more supplies to Gazans.
To follow the progress of our efforts, money collected and the main donors so far, please go to our website www.socialjustice.net.au
Please participate in making history. And if you need more information, please give us call on 0404 47 272 and discuss with us any idea or enquiry that you may have.
Thanks and jazakum Allah khairan. Remember that Gaza people are not only defending their rights and land. They are defending humanity against the barbarity of the contemporary history. They deserve your small contribution to help them in this noble mission.
On the other hand, the efforts by Muslim community and its “leadership” was not more than collecting some money and send them to other organisations who has presence in Gaza. Even the one Muslim organisation that has office and workers in Gaza, they are very “shy” to participate in international efforts to lift the siege.
In this instance we should differentiate between aid efforts and efforts to break the siege.
The first is not more than shy efforts to temporarily relieve the suffering of some Gazans by colleting aid and send it there to be distributed to needy people.
While the second is aiming to highlight the crime conducted against Gazans in form of the illegal and inhumane blockade. The organisations participating in these efforts are not aiming mainly to deliver aids. They aim to break the siege by creating momentum against the blockade.
So the difference is very big.
The Muslim and community organisations were engaged only in aid efforts. The reasons why they did not participate in breaking siege efforts are complex. Some of these reasons could be because the Muslim community is having such weak and increasingly corrupt “leadership”.
Other reasons are related to the above mentioned one that made the community feel very scared and targeted by the government and media, with no true leadership to defend them. They became happy only to donate some money to be sent through Australian organisations, as safe way to not be blamed of supporting Hamas and so supporting “terrorism”.
This is why we in the Social Justice network decided to break this cycle of fear and ghetto mentality by coming forward and declaring that we will this time support the break – the – siege efforts.
We need your help. Your donations will help us send strong message. At the moment, we have registered to send one activist and half van full of supplies to go to Gaza with Viva Palestina 5. We need your help to send another one or two activists and more supplies to Gazans.
To follow the progress of our efforts, money collected and the main donors so far, please go to our website www.socialjustice.net.au
Please participate in making history. And if you need more information, please give us call on 0404 47 272 and discuss with us any idea or enquiry that you may have.
Thanks and jazakum Allah khairan. Remember that Gaza people are not only defending their rights and land. They are defending humanity against the barbarity of the contemporary history. They deserve your small contribution to help them in this noble mission.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
2010 Election: boring campaign with no real choices!
I never saw such boring election campaign for the last decade. Even the candidates are not putting the posters with their pictures in streets or on shop fronts. As if they are ashamed from themselves. And they should be, anyway.
There are few common features between the mainstream political parties:
1- There is no political party that runs on concrete achievements in parliament. All parties are making big promises, as if they are not in parliament for decades.
2- There are no actions, stunts or big announcements. There are only boring media conferences and releases.
3- The Multiculturalism and all related issues are not mentioned by any party, regardless of its own classification of its degree of progressiveness. As if racism and Islamophobia has not reached high degree to the point that a candidate had questioned the right of fellow citizen to run as candidate only because he is a Muslim.
4- The high degree of lying and deception coming from leaders of all three mainstream media-made parties. The last deceptive “promise” came from the Greens leader who promised to spend 4 billion dollars on dental care if he will be elected. He had the courage to insult our intelligence thinking that we do not know that senators like him can block or pass legislations, but cannot produce and implement one.
It can be claimed comfortably that this election is really about nothing: no real choices, no real alternatives and no real solutions. So the voters will choose between the bad and the worst.
The leaders of these media-made parties are talking about their “vision” to find solutions for issues, as if we are living on mars.
The Labor, who has three years in government, could not fix any inherited trouble. The health system is on brink of collapse, the rental crises had reached unbelievable level with accommodation shortages of more than 200,000, the racism and Islamophobia became so endemic and the public transport is in big chaos.
But the voters cannot forget the black era of Liberals in government, which inherited Australia with all these troubles in funding public services, attacks on multiculturalism and all other troubles in the society.
And the Greens leader runs on no one concrete achievement except blocking progressive legislations, promoting anti-family values and leading a pure white racist party. He still has the courage to smile and make claims that his party is the only progressive party in parliament.
Now, let us examine why a Muslim or new migrant Non English speaking would vote/not vote for this party or that.
- The Liberals are extremely racist with deep xenophobic agenda. Their leader does not hide his racist and Islamophobic ideas and commitments.
- The Labor, while less racist, but has no courage to enforce real change in society to reverse the devastating policies of their Liberal predecessor. While they stopped the official attack on multiculturalism, but they did not take any real steps to counteract existing racism and Islamophobia. No changes were introduced to fix the inhumane welfare system. And no real big investment in public education, public health and public transport.
- The Greens has nil achievement on any front, and we need any shred of evidence to prove the opposite. Not only this. The Greens has very poor track of achievement on any issues important for Non English speaking and Muslims. Enough to mention that the party lacks any colour in hierarchy and parliamentary teams except the White.
The most amazing feature of this election is the fact that the media is only talking about 3 political parties. As if there is no other political parties or prominent independents run for election anywhere in Australia. And this would explain why there are no real campaigns or even media stunts. It seems that the media, especially the regressive Murdoch and other corporate media, have their own agenda of promoting only these parties. And one wonders why voter is in deep trouble to decide who to vote for.
Despite the insistence of media to shape the election result according to their well-known hidden agendas, other political forces are existing. And they are growing steadily, even without media focus.
With all these media attempts to brain wash us, I think that the result will be different of what they are promoting. My expectations are:
- The Labor will win with comfortable majority.
- The Greens will not increase its primary vote comparing to the last election, if will not lose some. Depending on luck, they may keep their current representation. But definitely they will not increase their representation significantly to the point of winning senate seat in every state.
- The Greens most likely will not win Melbourne seat, despite the retirement of Labor sitting minister.
We think that Australian politics is in standstill at the moment with three mainstream parties that have no big or real differences. And we think that while the changes in Australia is very slow for many reasons, but deep changes to the system will emerge within the next decade.
But for now we should stress that any pro-multiculturalism element in society will put the Liberals and the Greens last on ballot papers in this election. While the Liberals were vocal racists, the Greens were practically racists.
The only bright side in this election will be the fact that we will most likely see the first Muslim federal politician elected to the parliament. The Labor party should be proud of this achievement.
Maybe this would be the only achievement Labor can be proud of.
There are few common features between the mainstream political parties:
1- There is no political party that runs on concrete achievements in parliament. All parties are making big promises, as if they are not in parliament for decades.
2- There are no actions, stunts or big announcements. There are only boring media conferences and releases.
3- The Multiculturalism and all related issues are not mentioned by any party, regardless of its own classification of its degree of progressiveness. As if racism and Islamophobia has not reached high degree to the point that a candidate had questioned the right of fellow citizen to run as candidate only because he is a Muslim.
4- The high degree of lying and deception coming from leaders of all three mainstream media-made parties. The last deceptive “promise” came from the Greens leader who promised to spend 4 billion dollars on dental care if he will be elected. He had the courage to insult our intelligence thinking that we do not know that senators like him can block or pass legislations, but cannot produce and implement one.
It can be claimed comfortably that this election is really about nothing: no real choices, no real alternatives and no real solutions. So the voters will choose between the bad and the worst.
The leaders of these media-made parties are talking about their “vision” to find solutions for issues, as if we are living on mars.
The Labor, who has three years in government, could not fix any inherited trouble. The health system is on brink of collapse, the rental crises had reached unbelievable level with accommodation shortages of more than 200,000, the racism and Islamophobia became so endemic and the public transport is in big chaos.
But the voters cannot forget the black era of Liberals in government, which inherited Australia with all these troubles in funding public services, attacks on multiculturalism and all other troubles in the society.
And the Greens leader runs on no one concrete achievement except blocking progressive legislations, promoting anti-family values and leading a pure white racist party. He still has the courage to smile and make claims that his party is the only progressive party in parliament.
Now, let us examine why a Muslim or new migrant Non English speaking would vote/not vote for this party or that.
- The Liberals are extremely racist with deep xenophobic agenda. Their leader does not hide his racist and Islamophobic ideas and commitments.
- The Labor, while less racist, but has no courage to enforce real change in society to reverse the devastating policies of their Liberal predecessor. While they stopped the official attack on multiculturalism, but they did not take any real steps to counteract existing racism and Islamophobia. No changes were introduced to fix the inhumane welfare system. And no real big investment in public education, public health and public transport.
- The Greens has nil achievement on any front, and we need any shred of evidence to prove the opposite. Not only this. The Greens has very poor track of achievement on any issues important for Non English speaking and Muslims. Enough to mention that the party lacks any colour in hierarchy and parliamentary teams except the White.
The most amazing feature of this election is the fact that the media is only talking about 3 political parties. As if there is no other political parties or prominent independents run for election anywhere in Australia. And this would explain why there are no real campaigns or even media stunts. It seems that the media, especially the regressive Murdoch and other corporate media, have their own agenda of promoting only these parties. And one wonders why voter is in deep trouble to decide who to vote for.
Despite the insistence of media to shape the election result according to their well-known hidden agendas, other political forces are existing. And they are growing steadily, even without media focus.
With all these media attempts to brain wash us, I think that the result will be different of what they are promoting. My expectations are:
- The Labor will win with comfortable majority.
- The Greens will not increase its primary vote comparing to the last election, if will not lose some. Depending on luck, they may keep their current representation. But definitely they will not increase their representation significantly to the point of winning senate seat in every state.
- The Greens most likely will not win Melbourne seat, despite the retirement of Labor sitting minister.
We think that Australian politics is in standstill at the moment with three mainstream parties that have no big or real differences. And we think that while the changes in Australia is very slow for many reasons, but deep changes to the system will emerge within the next decade.
But for now we should stress that any pro-multiculturalism element in society will put the Liberals and the Greens last on ballot papers in this election. While the Liberals were vocal racists, the Greens were practically racists.
The only bright side in this election will be the fact that we will most likely see the first Muslim federal politician elected to the parliament. The Labor party should be proud of this achievement.
Maybe this would be the only achievement Labor can be proud of.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Greens and the “Balance of Power”: when will Greens endless lies end?!
The media love it: the Greens will win the balance of power by the end of this election.
No detailed analysis. No detailed information. And no tracking of origin of this cheap unfounded rumor.
Let me do now some detailed analysis on this issue. By the end of this analysis, I will claim safely that without extraordinary luck, the Greens will not increase their current representation, if they will not lose one.
The origin of this cheap rumor is the same old “guy”: Sen. Bob Brown.
I heard this cheap unfounded rumor back in 2001, just before the election. At press club address then, he claimed that the Greens will win 5 senate seats. He was lying. And he was enjoying making this lie. And we were enjoying believing this lie. At that time, the Greens was getting in the opinion poll less than 5%. The quota for the senate seat is 14.5%. At that time, no indication that the Greens will win any senate seat, except in Tasmania. But he made the biggest lie. Ms Kerry Nettle was elected on 4.5% of primary vote. She won her seat after the Greens done a dirty secret deal with xenophobic One Nation party. Without such dirty deal, the Greens would not have won any more than Tasmanian seat.
Bob Brown felt no shame to manufacture such big lie. On the contrary. He immediately made similar lie just one year later. Before Victorian state election, 2002, he announced that the Greens will win at least 5 Upper House seats and at least 3 Lower House seats. Again, he was lying: the Greens won no one single seat at that election.
After that, the veteran liar became notorious to launch lie after lie. The last election, 2007, Sen. Brown expected that the Greens will win 7 senate seats and at least 3 seats in parliament. He even named: Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne. At that time, the Greens were getting 12.5 – 13% of the vote in all opinion polls conducted in the course of election. But on election day, the Greens got around 9% in senate and less than 8% in parliament.
By the end of the election, the Greens got only 3 senate seats: two of them were won with high luck on preferences with less than 9% of primary votes. So in reality, the Greens won only one senate seat with full quota (i.e. with no big luck).
So where Sen. Brown was getting all his confidence that his party will win 7 senate seats? He even predicted to win senate seat in ACT. After election night we knew that the Greens candidate was not even near winning seat there. But Sen. Brown predicted that they will win seat there. This is what we would call “plain lying”. If we want to be more diplomatic, we can call it “deception”.
Well, Sen. Brown, the veteran liar, is trying to deceive the voters again in this election.
The latest opinion poll put the Greens on 12%. So the popularity of the Greens is not higher than the last election (most definitely will get less than last election as according to newest opinion polls compared to opinion polls before last election).
The Greens call it “wrong prediction”.
Now the Greens is adamant they will win lower house seats: at least one. But they may get 3: Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne.
Can we mention here that Grayndler in the 2007 election was one of the safest Labor seats in Australia with Labor winning on 55.47% primary votes and 71.19% after preferences distributed (they did not need any preferences anyway). The same with Sydney seat. The Greens got then less primary votes than Liberals. So if there is any threat on Labor candidate (and there is no indication of such thing so far), it would come from Liberal candidate, not the Greens.
Well, with the current opinion polls results, we can make different prediction than the Greens leader. The Greens mirage of getting any lower house seat is far from any reality. On the senate front, no one can predict the numbers of seats the Greens will win. But the numbers will be less than what Sen. Brown is talking about.
Not only this. With Nick Xenophon on the senate. And with possibility that his team will get another one. We can easily predict that the balance of power will still be shared by more than the Greens. The same as what was happening before 1998 election: 9 Democrats senators were not enough to control the balance of power without independent senator Brian Harradine.
On the other hands, the Democrats with 12.5% of primary votes in 1990 election could not win more than 5 senators. With the Greens prediction to get less than 9% in senate, we can expect easily that the Greens need a miracle (not only good luck) to increase their representation.
When a party claim to be “alternative” and “progressive”, they should follow “clean politics” of not deceiving voters. Even if the Greens will increase their representation this election, they already lost their high moral grounds as clean politicians.
The question remains: why journalists are taking information from Greens without asking the difficult questions about its reliability. What happened to investigative journalism in this country?
No detailed analysis. No detailed information. And no tracking of origin of this cheap unfounded rumor.
Let me do now some detailed analysis on this issue. By the end of this analysis, I will claim safely that without extraordinary luck, the Greens will not increase their current representation, if they will not lose one.
The origin of this cheap rumor is the same old “guy”: Sen. Bob Brown.
I heard this cheap unfounded rumor back in 2001, just before the election. At press club address then, he claimed that the Greens will win 5 senate seats. He was lying. And he was enjoying making this lie. And we were enjoying believing this lie. At that time, the Greens was getting in the opinion poll less than 5%. The quota for the senate seat is 14.5%. At that time, no indication that the Greens will win any senate seat, except in Tasmania. But he made the biggest lie. Ms Kerry Nettle was elected on 4.5% of primary vote. She won her seat after the Greens done a dirty secret deal with xenophobic One Nation party. Without such dirty deal, the Greens would not have won any more than Tasmanian seat.
Bob Brown felt no shame to manufacture such big lie. On the contrary. He immediately made similar lie just one year later. Before Victorian state election, 2002, he announced that the Greens will win at least 5 Upper House seats and at least 3 Lower House seats. Again, he was lying: the Greens won no one single seat at that election.
After that, the veteran liar became notorious to launch lie after lie. The last election, 2007, Sen. Brown expected that the Greens will win 7 senate seats and at least 3 seats in parliament. He even named: Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne. At that time, the Greens were getting 12.5 – 13% of the vote in all opinion polls conducted in the course of election. But on election day, the Greens got around 9% in senate and less than 8% in parliament.
By the end of the election, the Greens got only 3 senate seats: two of them were won with high luck on preferences with less than 9% of primary votes. So in reality, the Greens won only one senate seat with full quota (i.e. with no big luck).
So where Sen. Brown was getting all his confidence that his party will win 7 senate seats? He even predicted to win senate seat in ACT. After election night we knew that the Greens candidate was not even near winning seat there. But Sen. Brown predicted that they will win seat there. This is what we would call “plain lying”. If we want to be more diplomatic, we can call it “deception”.
Well, Sen. Brown, the veteran liar, is trying to deceive the voters again in this election.
The latest opinion poll put the Greens on 12%. So the popularity of the Greens is not higher than the last election (most definitely will get less than last election as according to newest opinion polls compared to opinion polls before last election).
The Greens call it “wrong prediction”.
Now the Greens is adamant they will win lower house seats: at least one. But they may get 3: Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne.
Can we mention here that Grayndler in the 2007 election was one of the safest Labor seats in Australia with Labor winning on 55.47% primary votes and 71.19% after preferences distributed (they did not need any preferences anyway). The same with Sydney seat. The Greens got then less primary votes than Liberals. So if there is any threat on Labor candidate (and there is no indication of such thing so far), it would come from Liberal candidate, not the Greens.
Well, with the current opinion polls results, we can make different prediction than the Greens leader. The Greens mirage of getting any lower house seat is far from any reality. On the senate front, no one can predict the numbers of seats the Greens will win. But the numbers will be less than what Sen. Brown is talking about.
Not only this. With Nick Xenophon on the senate. And with possibility that his team will get another one. We can easily predict that the balance of power will still be shared by more than the Greens. The same as what was happening before 1998 election: 9 Democrats senators were not enough to control the balance of power without independent senator Brian Harradine.
On the other hands, the Democrats with 12.5% of primary votes in 1990 election could not win more than 5 senators. With the Greens prediction to get less than 9% in senate, we can expect easily that the Greens need a miracle (not only good luck) to increase their representation.
When a party claim to be “alternative” and “progressive”, they should follow “clean politics” of not deceiving voters. Even if the Greens will increase their representation this election, they already lost their high moral grounds as clean politicians.
The question remains: why journalists are taking information from Greens without asking the difficult questions about its reliability. What happened to investigative journalism in this country?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Our reply to Greens Islamophobic remarks attacking Mulsim community
We cannot believe that amid election campaign, any political party active member (and candidate for several times) can come up with the crap included in Marlene reply. I deeply believe that it is not her words, but were dictated to her by the Greens hierarchy.
In the reply, the most disgusting parts are the parts that refer to the Muslim community as the root of all problems of this nation. She described the Muslim community as naïve, uneducated, regressive and need to be taught how to live in this country.
Any reply to Marlene disgusting words would need several separate articles (and we will do), but here we would mention only few facts to “educate” Marlene and her “progressive” Greens party about the issues mentioned in her reply:
1- The Muslim community is very diverse community. Any generalisation is something not only naïve, but regressive and show islamophobic ideas and suggestions.
2- The Muslim community is one of the most progressive communities in this country. We need to mention here that very few Muslims are voting for the openly regressive political parties (Liberals, One Nation, Family First, Christian Democrats,…). This is even before the Liberals started the attack on the Muslim community after 11 September 2001.
3- The Muslim community played significant role in the rise of the Greens to play role in the Australian politics and to come out from the wilderness of Tasmanian forests.
In regard to the other misleading information disseminated by Marlene, we can mention:
1- As Marlene said, we need to judge politicians by their record, and not by the policy of their party on the official websites. On this regard we can safely assume that the Greens politicians have the worst record on achievements or on sticking to policies, worse than any other politician in this country.
2- The official policy of the regressive Liberals is the same as the Greens: to establish Palestinian viable state on the territories occupied 1967. The same policy they share with Australian Labor party. And we can go even further. It is the same policy of Kadima Zionist party. But what the Greens have achieved or how much their politicians sticked to these policy is the important issue.
3- The Greens record of opposing Zionist state of Israel is the worst in Australian politics. The Greens party is the only mainstream political party that:
- Failed to send any solidarity mission to Middle East, especially Palestine.
- Has the largest Zionist representation in its parliamentary teams and hierarchies.
- Failed even to properly condemn the aggressions committed by Israel in the last decade. Their media releases in this regard is the shortest that always equalise of responsibility of “acts of violence” between the aggressor and the victims (and we need to see if Marlene has some media releases that prove the opposite).
- Has no Muslim, Palestinian or Multicultural elements in the parliamentary teams or hierarchies.
In regard to preferences, Marlene is telling us that if the local group decided to preference One Nation (and the Greens did such deals before), so it would be acceptable? What a total crap. This would lead us to another more serious question: how can voters trust such party that can change its course from far left to far right to the centre, by decisions of few members? Would not these members and local groups be disciplined if they go stray and creep to the far right?
Let me tell Marlene and her hierarchy: before you ask the Muslim community to vote as whole community only the Greens (and this incident never happened in any society around the world), The Muslim community needs to ask few questions:
1- What did the community get from the Greens in return of its loyalty in the last decade?
2- How can the whole community trust such party that has no track history of supporting the issues important for the community? Not only this, but the party is not guaranteeing that it would honour its commitments and policies, because few local members have decided to take the party to the far right?
I would add another vital question: on which basis Marlene and the Greens are asking the Muslim community to vote only for them? What shared ideologies both have? On the opposite. The Muslim community, which is a very progressive community with deep conservative social values and ideologies, can be expected to share no one single values with the Greens which has “total liberal” social agendas. The total liberal values of promoting prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, drug abuse … are opposed by almost every Muslim community member, regardless of his/her commitment to the religion itself.
The Greens should have showed more respect to a community that showed high degree of political pragmatism to vote for ideological opponents. The Greens think that the Muslim community who was under constant attack for the last decade, has no other options but to vote for the Greens to punish Labor. The Greens is very short-sighted to realise that a big community like Muslims, have a lot of options. We tried to send the Greens such message in the last few years. But their blind approach to simple pragmatic dealings, is preventing them to see the whole picture.
And it is our job to show them again in this election that marginalised communities have a lot of options: not only either vote for Labor or the Greens.
In the reply, the most disgusting parts are the parts that refer to the Muslim community as the root of all problems of this nation. She described the Muslim community as naïve, uneducated, regressive and need to be taught how to live in this country.
Any reply to Marlene disgusting words would need several separate articles (and we will do), but here we would mention only few facts to “educate” Marlene and her “progressive” Greens party about the issues mentioned in her reply:
1- The Muslim community is very diverse community. Any generalisation is something not only naïve, but regressive and show islamophobic ideas and suggestions.
2- The Muslim community is one of the most progressive communities in this country. We need to mention here that very few Muslims are voting for the openly regressive political parties (Liberals, One Nation, Family First, Christian Democrats,…). This is even before the Liberals started the attack on the Muslim community after 11 September 2001.
3- The Muslim community played significant role in the rise of the Greens to play role in the Australian politics and to come out from the wilderness of Tasmanian forests.
In regard to the other misleading information disseminated by Marlene, we can mention:
1- As Marlene said, we need to judge politicians by their record, and not by the policy of their party on the official websites. On this regard we can safely assume that the Greens politicians have the worst record on achievements or on sticking to policies, worse than any other politician in this country.
2- The official policy of the regressive Liberals is the same as the Greens: to establish Palestinian viable state on the territories occupied 1967. The same policy they share with Australian Labor party. And we can go even further. It is the same policy of Kadima Zionist party. But what the Greens have achieved or how much their politicians sticked to these policy is the important issue.
3- The Greens record of opposing Zionist state of Israel is the worst in Australian politics. The Greens party is the only mainstream political party that:
- Failed to send any solidarity mission to Middle East, especially Palestine.
- Has the largest Zionist representation in its parliamentary teams and hierarchies.
- Failed even to properly condemn the aggressions committed by Israel in the last decade. Their media releases in this regard is the shortest that always equalise of responsibility of “acts of violence” between the aggressor and the victims (and we need to see if Marlene has some media releases that prove the opposite).
- Has no Muslim, Palestinian or Multicultural elements in the parliamentary teams or hierarchies.
In regard to preferences, Marlene is telling us that if the local group decided to preference One Nation (and the Greens did such deals before), so it would be acceptable? What a total crap. This would lead us to another more serious question: how can voters trust such party that can change its course from far left to far right to the centre, by decisions of few members? Would not these members and local groups be disciplined if they go stray and creep to the far right?
Let me tell Marlene and her hierarchy: before you ask the Muslim community to vote as whole community only the Greens (and this incident never happened in any society around the world), The Muslim community needs to ask few questions:
1- What did the community get from the Greens in return of its loyalty in the last decade?
2- How can the whole community trust such party that has no track history of supporting the issues important for the community? Not only this, but the party is not guaranteeing that it would honour its commitments and policies, because few local members have decided to take the party to the far right?
I would add another vital question: on which basis Marlene and the Greens are asking the Muslim community to vote only for them? What shared ideologies both have? On the opposite. The Muslim community, which is a very progressive community with deep conservative social values and ideologies, can be expected to share no one single values with the Greens which has “total liberal” social agendas. The total liberal values of promoting prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, drug abuse … are opposed by almost every Muslim community member, regardless of his/her commitment to the religion itself.
The Greens should have showed more respect to a community that showed high degree of political pragmatism to vote for ideological opponents. The Greens think that the Muslim community who was under constant attack for the last decade, has no other options but to vote for the Greens to punish Labor. The Greens is very short-sighted to realise that a big community like Muslims, have a lot of options. We tried to send the Greens such message in the last few years. But their blind approach to simple pragmatic dealings, is preventing them to see the whole picture.
And it is our job to show them again in this election that marginalised communities have a lot of options: not only either vote for Labor or the Greens.
The Greens started the campaing by attacks on Muslim community by spreading Islamophobic claims and accusations
The Greens has started their election campaing by viscious attack on Mulsim community. Here what Greens "many times" candidate and active member needed to say about how the Muslim community is "naive, uneducated and regressive". Full detail of our reply to her islamophobic accusations and remarks will follow.
Here is her words:
"States Greens & National Greens are always having debates on policies. Debates also depend on the make up of the Greens, the more the conservative members, who are more incline to champion the "environment & global warming" debate, the more reformist and conservative the party becomes.environment & global warming" debate, the more reformist and conservative the party becomes.
* In regards to preferences. Local Greens have a say on who to direct their preferences to, they can also leave the decision to the central office. However, not all the time the direct preferences. In the end is up to the Voter to make the decision, and the direction of the preference is only a recommendation. Many local groups leave it up to the voters.
The Labor party also have anti-zionist individuals, but the unfortunately the Caucus rules and this is very mu ch in the hands of right wing, pro-zionist elements. So called left Labor party members are wasting their time in the Labor party.
*By the way, the number of occasions I have handed "How to Vote" I have noted many Muslims holding a "How to Vote" from the Labor Party & rejecting any other. If in Blaxland we have a right wing Labor MP is thanks to the many votes received from the Muslim community.
*Grassroots Education & Information: The community in general, and the Muslim community in particular, needs to be informed & educated about the australian political system and politics, and how the Labor Party is a pro-Zionist, pro-War, pro-USA party and no matter what, they should never cast a vote for them."
Here is her words:
"States Greens & National Greens are always having debates on policies. Debates also depend on the make up of the Greens, the more the conservative members, who are more incline to champion the "environment & global warming" debate, the more reformist and conservative the party becomes.environment & global warming" debate, the more reformist and conservative the party becomes.
* In regards to preferences. Local Greens have a say on who to direct their preferences to, they can also leave the decision to the central office. However, not all the time the direct preferences. In the end is up to the Voter to make the decision, and the direction of the preference is only a recommendation. Many local groups leave it up to the voters.
The Labor party also have anti-zionist individuals, but the unfortunately the Caucus rules and this is very mu ch in the hands of right wing, pro-zionist elements. So called left Labor party members are wasting their time in the Labor party.
*By the way, the number of occasions I have handed "How to Vote" I have noted many Muslims holding a "How to Vote" from the Labor Party & rejecting any other. If in Blaxland we have a right wing Labor MP is thanks to the many votes received from the Muslim community.
*Grassroots Education & Information: The community in general, and the Muslim community in particular, needs to be informed & educated about the australian political system and politics, and how the Labor Party is a pro-Zionist, pro-War, pro-USA party and no matter what, they should never cast a vote for them."
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Burqa debate: Muslims should be alert and alarmed
While we were not bothered when Fred Nile proposed his private member bill about banning burqa, but things have changed dramatically now.
Now the debate became bigger, louder and uglier. And all failed politicians had agreed to debate the “issue”.
But we should ask vital questions here: would wearing burqa qualify to be considered an “issue”. Not only this.
An ordinary NSW resident should ask whether the NSW politicians are living in the same state as we do. Or perhaps they are so ignorant that they do not feel that the state is living in very depressing time.
I, as NSW resident and not as Muslim, would ask our politicians (including Fred Nile) few questions:
1- Do you think wearing burqa is the reason why we have critical shortage of electricity and banning it would stop the repeated blackouts of many suburbs?
2- Do you believe that burqa was behind the rental crisis and would banning it make accommodation more affordable?
3- Do you think that banning burqa would eliminate social problems that devastate families in the state? Would banning burqa solve drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, gambling addiction, …?
4- Would banning burqa create one job for the increasing numbers of residents who lost their job in the last few years or could not get one in the last few decades?
5- Would banning burqa makes public transport run more regular and safer, waiting list in emergency departments in public hospitals shorter and waiting list for public housing significantly shorter than the current 20 years?
And finally, would banning burqa makes Australia safer, more prosperous, less racist and more tolerant and have better international reputation to play greater role on international arena?
We, as human rights group, hesitated to put media release on this issue because we thought that common sense would prevail in our parliament. But we were wrong. And because of the growing feeling of insecurity, social isolation and distress among Muslims in the state, we needed to voice our great opposition and concerns.
We deeply believe that the politicians in the state parliament had failed miserably to find any solution to the great chaos they left us all in. And now they will be resorted to populist politics of fear, xenophobia and social division.
And for Rev Fred Nile, we would like him to spend more time advocating love and tolerance. Unless he did not read the Holy Bible yet.
Rev Nile need also to stop lying. There is no intelligence or security report that document that burqa is seriously threaten our safety and security. But there are thousands of documented reports about the threat of drug abuse, gambling, prostitution … etc constitute to our social and economic security.
He (and the other failed politicians) obviously chose to make this issue his/their main election platform. And we will counter match him.
Now the debate became bigger, louder and uglier. And all failed politicians had agreed to debate the “issue”.
But we should ask vital questions here: would wearing burqa qualify to be considered an “issue”. Not only this.
An ordinary NSW resident should ask whether the NSW politicians are living in the same state as we do. Or perhaps they are so ignorant that they do not feel that the state is living in very depressing time.
I, as NSW resident and not as Muslim, would ask our politicians (including Fred Nile) few questions:
1- Do you think wearing burqa is the reason why we have critical shortage of electricity and banning it would stop the repeated blackouts of many suburbs?
2- Do you believe that burqa was behind the rental crisis and would banning it make accommodation more affordable?
3- Do you think that banning burqa would eliminate social problems that devastate families in the state? Would banning burqa solve drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, gambling addiction, …?
4- Would banning burqa create one job for the increasing numbers of residents who lost their job in the last few years or could not get one in the last few decades?
5- Would banning burqa makes public transport run more regular and safer, waiting list in emergency departments in public hospitals shorter and waiting list for public housing significantly shorter than the current 20 years?
And finally, would banning burqa makes Australia safer, more prosperous, less racist and more tolerant and have better international reputation to play greater role on international arena?
We, as human rights group, hesitated to put media release on this issue because we thought that common sense would prevail in our parliament. But we were wrong. And because of the growing feeling of insecurity, social isolation and distress among Muslims in the state, we needed to voice our great opposition and concerns.
We deeply believe that the politicians in the state parliament had failed miserably to find any solution to the great chaos they left us all in. And now they will be resorted to populist politics of fear, xenophobia and social division.
And for Rev Fred Nile, we would like him to spend more time advocating love and tolerance. Unless he did not read the Holy Bible yet.
Rev Nile need also to stop lying. There is no intelligence or security report that document that burqa is seriously threaten our safety and security. But there are thousands of documented reports about the threat of drug abuse, gambling, prostitution … etc constitute to our social and economic security.
He (and the other failed politicians) obviously chose to make this issue his/their main election platform. And we will counter match him.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Bob Brown’s press club address: what about Multiculturalism?
It was not the first time I listen to the Greens leader, Sen. Bob Brown. And I am used to his empty rhetoric. I am used to his deceptive claims. And I will mention in details examples of many of these deceptive claims and lies. But today was different.
I thought that he, and his party, became more mature and inclusive. But they did not disappoint us. The Greens is still the same old Greens: one - issue and one - colored party. For I hour address, Sen. Brown failed to mention Multiculturalism even once. Not only this. The audience was very white, with no single non Anglo-Saxon present at the address.
And when Sen. Brown started to name his party achievements, these were all about: same sex marriage, euthanasia and forests clearing. Nothing about growing attack on Multiculturalism and growing racism in the society. And nothing about the very low representation of marginalized groups of migrants, non-English speaking, indigenous people and people with disabilities. Also there was nothing about progressive foreign policy, important for majority of new migrants and refugees.
For this we tell Sen. Brown and his white “Greens” party: shame on you!
In a decade where the attack on Multiculturalism is the biggest issue, Sen. Brown is demonstrating that he and his party is still living White Australia era. Or maybe they are living on other planet. As if:
- The attack on boat people is not an attack on Multiculturalism and a bid to spread racism in the society.
- The “population” debate is not an attack on Multiculturalism.
- The participation in “war on terrorism”, occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is not an attack on Multiculturalism and bid to spread Islamophobia.
- Attack on public services and welfare system is not an attack on new migrants and Multiculturalism.
- The northern territory intervention is not a racist attack on the historical and human rights of indigenous communities.
Despite the fact that Sen. Brown failed even to mention Multiculturalism, but could still claim arrogantly that he and his party is “progressive”. As we mentioned before, we believe that “actions are louder than talks”. We would not be so offended of Sen. Brown’s failure to mention Multiculturalism if the Greens did take steps to show their commitments to Multiculturalism. But the history track of the Greens is so shameful in this regard. And you need only to Google the names and pictures of Greens MPs around the country to discover they are from single ethnic background: White Anglo-Saxon.
Going back to the press club address, we can mention many observations on the conduct of Sen. Brown:
1- He was very proud of his party’s role in the biggest waste of common wealth, ie the so called “stimulus packages to waste billions of dollars on bogus projects. We are not against “wasting” common wealth, but on true nation building projects. These projects could include injecting billions of dollars into public housing to ease the critical rental crisis.
2- He was adamant that the Greens will control the “Balance of Power” in the coming senate. Well, if the latest opinion polls would be compared to the opinion polls conducted in the last Federal election, the Greens would need very good luck to maintain the current representation in the senate. There is good chance with the popularity of the first woman as PM combined with the obstructionist approach by Liberals – Greens alliance, that the voters could lean more away from the Greens.
3- Sen. Brown admitted that he made several deals with the previous regressive PM Howard, after short negotiation on cup of coffee. He is referring to the deal struck between him and Howard over full privatization of Telstra. The Greens retreated from the deal after the huge backfire against the Greens and the mounted huge public backlash. This is confirmation that vote for the Greens in this coming election could end up a vote for the extreme Tony Abbot. Sen. Brown was not shy in praising Tony Abbot and talked about him nicer than Liberal members do.
4- Sen. Brown and his party tuned down their rhetoric about asylum seekers debate. The official policy is that the Greens is opposing to mandatory detention system altogether. But the Greens leader and all other senators are talking about more humanly treatment of detainees, only. They are only against long detention, offshore detention and the high cost of this long detention. Nothing is mentioned for the last 2 years about the need to abolish this highly inhuman system.
5- While Sen. Brown described Labor and Liberals as “regressive right” forces, he stopped short from claiming the Greens to be “left”. And this is good indication that he does not want to upset the traditional historical figures inside the Greens who know very well that they are not lefties.
After this poor performance, I am not sure how new migrants and people from minor ethnic and religious groups would consider to continue voting for this one-coloured group who even fail to mention the word “Multiculturalism”. Let alone claim to have commitments toward it.
We are happy that Sen. Brown is not considering resigning soon. We want him to stay until the true face of the Greens fully exposed to voters. This needs continuous work from true progressive forces to join their force and present alternative real progressive politics to voters.
I thought that he, and his party, became more mature and inclusive. But they did not disappoint us. The Greens is still the same old Greens: one - issue and one - colored party. For I hour address, Sen. Brown failed to mention Multiculturalism even once. Not only this. The audience was very white, with no single non Anglo-Saxon present at the address.
And when Sen. Brown started to name his party achievements, these were all about: same sex marriage, euthanasia and forests clearing. Nothing about growing attack on Multiculturalism and growing racism in the society. And nothing about the very low representation of marginalized groups of migrants, non-English speaking, indigenous people and people with disabilities. Also there was nothing about progressive foreign policy, important for majority of new migrants and refugees.
For this we tell Sen. Brown and his white “Greens” party: shame on you!
In a decade where the attack on Multiculturalism is the biggest issue, Sen. Brown is demonstrating that he and his party is still living White Australia era. Or maybe they are living on other planet. As if:
- The attack on boat people is not an attack on Multiculturalism and a bid to spread racism in the society.
- The “population” debate is not an attack on Multiculturalism.
- The participation in “war on terrorism”, occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is not an attack on Multiculturalism and bid to spread Islamophobia.
- Attack on public services and welfare system is not an attack on new migrants and Multiculturalism.
- The northern territory intervention is not a racist attack on the historical and human rights of indigenous communities.
Despite the fact that Sen. Brown failed even to mention Multiculturalism, but could still claim arrogantly that he and his party is “progressive”. As we mentioned before, we believe that “actions are louder than talks”. We would not be so offended of Sen. Brown’s failure to mention Multiculturalism if the Greens did take steps to show their commitments to Multiculturalism. But the history track of the Greens is so shameful in this regard. And you need only to Google the names and pictures of Greens MPs around the country to discover they are from single ethnic background: White Anglo-Saxon.
Going back to the press club address, we can mention many observations on the conduct of Sen. Brown:
1- He was very proud of his party’s role in the biggest waste of common wealth, ie the so called “stimulus packages to waste billions of dollars on bogus projects. We are not against “wasting” common wealth, but on true nation building projects. These projects could include injecting billions of dollars into public housing to ease the critical rental crisis.
2- He was adamant that the Greens will control the “Balance of Power” in the coming senate. Well, if the latest opinion polls would be compared to the opinion polls conducted in the last Federal election, the Greens would need very good luck to maintain the current representation in the senate. There is good chance with the popularity of the first woman as PM combined with the obstructionist approach by Liberals – Greens alliance, that the voters could lean more away from the Greens.
3- Sen. Brown admitted that he made several deals with the previous regressive PM Howard, after short negotiation on cup of coffee. He is referring to the deal struck between him and Howard over full privatization of Telstra. The Greens retreated from the deal after the huge backfire against the Greens and the mounted huge public backlash. This is confirmation that vote for the Greens in this coming election could end up a vote for the extreme Tony Abbot. Sen. Brown was not shy in praising Tony Abbot and talked about him nicer than Liberal members do.
4- Sen. Brown and his party tuned down their rhetoric about asylum seekers debate. The official policy is that the Greens is opposing to mandatory detention system altogether. But the Greens leader and all other senators are talking about more humanly treatment of detainees, only. They are only against long detention, offshore detention and the high cost of this long detention. Nothing is mentioned for the last 2 years about the need to abolish this highly inhuman system.
5- While Sen. Brown described Labor and Liberals as “regressive right” forces, he stopped short from claiming the Greens to be “left”. And this is good indication that he does not want to upset the traditional historical figures inside the Greens who know very well that they are not lefties.
After this poor performance, I am not sure how new migrants and people from minor ethnic and religious groups would consider to continue voting for this one-coloured group who even fail to mention the word “Multiculturalism”. Let alone claim to have commitments toward it.
We are happy that Sen. Brown is not considering resigning soon. We want him to stay until the true face of the Greens fully exposed to voters. This needs continuous work from true progressive forces to join their force and present alternative real progressive politics to voters.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The story of Greens MP Lee Rhiannon: lies, deceptions and conspiracies against all rivals
While the story of the Greens politics in general is mixture of lies, back flips, ideological emptiness and opposition for the sake of getting more votes only. But the story of Lee Rhiannon is the worst case in that camp.
Ms Rhiannon had given very bad example about political career empty of any real achievements or any principled stances. It was all about power accumulating, with no agenda of socio-economic changes.
Ms Rhiannon started her political career as Stalinist. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of platform, she chose to join the Greens. Inside the Greens and after losing the ideological grounds, she decided to change her skin and run for animal rights. She started to camp outside slaughterhouses and butcheries against killing animals or keeping animals in cages. Nobody knows how for someone who was member of Stalinist group and did not bother about Stalin butchering millions of Russians and Soviets, would accept this dramatic change. That was the first back flip.
Then and because all her campaigns outside zoos and slaughterhouses could not attract her any serious attention, she decided to run desperate campaign on the rights of marginalised groups to be equally represented. But she chose to campaign for one marginalised group: White Anglo-Saxon women rights. Her desperate repeated campaigns succeeded in changing the Greens constitution to introduce articles about the necessity to take all steps needed to promote women to parliaments. These changes and desperate campaigns won her spot in the Greens tickets for the 1999 NSW election. And she won a seat as MLC on the agenda of increasing the representation of White Anglo-Saxon women in parliaments. But when many Greens members tried to broaden the understanding of the Greens of the needs of other marginalised groups who has no representation in parliaments (Indigenous, Non-English speaking, people with disabilities) she counteracted all these attempts by her teeth and claws. She was even caught saying that language is not a barrier for integration and so not a reason for marginalisation. The same was her views about indigenous marginalisation. And that was her second big back flip. Such back flip that saw departure of majority of Indigenous, non English speaking and Muslim members after they have realised that all the noise of the Greens empty rhetoric on the rights of marginalised, was only just slogans for electoral agendas.
Before that and in her desperate bid to get rid of her strong rival and historical figure in environmental movement, Ian Cohen, she led a campaign to stop him from being elected again in 2003. She ran ruthless and vicious campaigns to impose limited tenure for Greens parliamentarians of 8 years. She made desperate allegations that staying in politics for long time will corrupt politicians. But her ruthless campaigns failed and Mr Cohen was re-elected, 2003. After that everyone inside the Greens and outside it thought that she will honour her commitments for limited tenure of politicians and she will not seek preselection after her 8 years in politics expired on 2007. Again, she upset everyone and proved that she has no principles to stick to. She ran for 2007 election and continued her political career beyond the 8 years proposed by her earlier. Recently and after running for federal election, she claims in her leaflet that she has “decade of experience in parliament” (no more talks about power corrupting politicians!)
That was her biggest back flip, but she did not care.
Examples of smaller back flips are countless.
Ms Rhiannon run very big campaign about the politicians increased privileges and allowances. But at the same time and after government and Liberals opposition would pass legislations to increase privileges (which is not compulsory privliges, i.e. politician can still save tax-payers money and refuse to use these privileges). Instead, Ms Rhiannon would use all her privileges to the last cent available. Example of this is the free $40 lunch on tax-payers money. She ran mad campaign to portray such legislation as evil and huge waste of tax-payers money. Since the introduction of this legislation, Ms Rhiannon would have free $40 lunch everyday she is at parliament.
Then she ran very vicious campaign advocating transparency and “clean politics” away from politicians’ abuse of their privileges and available resource funded by public tax-payers money. Now we know that she abused these resources and privileges funded by tax-payers money (Brown calls on Greens state MP to resign: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2948755.htm).
My piece here mentioned just few big clear back flips committed by Ms Rhiannon. I would not go into her back flips on political promises that she never kept or honoured. May be this would be subject for another opinion piece.
Imagine that the Greens are seeking you to vote for such politicians as an alternative for the major two parties. Can you spot any difference? Or the question should be who do you think is worse?
I, definitely, would not vote for such politician that has such history of making all these lies and deceptions and back stabbing of even “comrades” in the same party.
Ms Rhiannon had given very bad example about political career empty of any real achievements or any principled stances. It was all about power accumulating, with no agenda of socio-economic changes.
Ms Rhiannon started her political career as Stalinist. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of platform, she chose to join the Greens. Inside the Greens and after losing the ideological grounds, she decided to change her skin and run for animal rights. She started to camp outside slaughterhouses and butcheries against killing animals or keeping animals in cages. Nobody knows how for someone who was member of Stalinist group and did not bother about Stalin butchering millions of Russians and Soviets, would accept this dramatic change. That was the first back flip.
Then and because all her campaigns outside zoos and slaughterhouses could not attract her any serious attention, she decided to run desperate campaign on the rights of marginalised groups to be equally represented. But she chose to campaign for one marginalised group: White Anglo-Saxon women rights. Her desperate repeated campaigns succeeded in changing the Greens constitution to introduce articles about the necessity to take all steps needed to promote women to parliaments. These changes and desperate campaigns won her spot in the Greens tickets for the 1999 NSW election. And she won a seat as MLC on the agenda of increasing the representation of White Anglo-Saxon women in parliaments. But when many Greens members tried to broaden the understanding of the Greens of the needs of other marginalised groups who has no representation in parliaments (Indigenous, Non-English speaking, people with disabilities) she counteracted all these attempts by her teeth and claws. She was even caught saying that language is not a barrier for integration and so not a reason for marginalisation. The same was her views about indigenous marginalisation. And that was her second big back flip. Such back flip that saw departure of majority of Indigenous, non English speaking and Muslim members after they have realised that all the noise of the Greens empty rhetoric on the rights of marginalised, was only just slogans for electoral agendas.
Before that and in her desperate bid to get rid of her strong rival and historical figure in environmental movement, Ian Cohen, she led a campaign to stop him from being elected again in 2003. She ran ruthless and vicious campaigns to impose limited tenure for Greens parliamentarians of 8 years. She made desperate allegations that staying in politics for long time will corrupt politicians. But her ruthless campaigns failed and Mr Cohen was re-elected, 2003. After that everyone inside the Greens and outside it thought that she will honour her commitments for limited tenure of politicians and she will not seek preselection after her 8 years in politics expired on 2007. Again, she upset everyone and proved that she has no principles to stick to. She ran for 2007 election and continued her political career beyond the 8 years proposed by her earlier. Recently and after running for federal election, she claims in her leaflet that she has “decade of experience in parliament” (no more talks about power corrupting politicians!)
That was her biggest back flip, but she did not care.
Examples of smaller back flips are countless.
Ms Rhiannon run very big campaign about the politicians increased privileges and allowances. But at the same time and after government and Liberals opposition would pass legislations to increase privileges (which is not compulsory privliges, i.e. politician can still save tax-payers money and refuse to use these privileges). Instead, Ms Rhiannon would use all her privileges to the last cent available. Example of this is the free $40 lunch on tax-payers money. She ran mad campaign to portray such legislation as evil and huge waste of tax-payers money. Since the introduction of this legislation, Ms Rhiannon would have free $40 lunch everyday she is at parliament.
Then she ran very vicious campaign advocating transparency and “clean politics” away from politicians’ abuse of their privileges and available resource funded by public tax-payers money. Now we know that she abused these resources and privileges funded by tax-payers money (Brown calls on Greens state MP to resign: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2948755.htm).
My piece here mentioned just few big clear back flips committed by Ms Rhiannon. I would not go into her back flips on political promises that she never kept or honoured. May be this would be subject for another opinion piece.
Imagine that the Greens are seeking you to vote for such politicians as an alternative for the major two parties. Can you spot any difference? Or the question should be who do you think is worse?
I, definitely, would not vote for such politician that has such history of making all these lies and deceptions and back stabbing of even “comrades” in the same party.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Australian political parties: where is our voice!
I would like today to shout very loud: enough is enough.
I would like to whisper in the ears of our politicians: no one of you is representing me.
And no one of you represents my fellow new migrants from non-English speaking countries. And no one of you represents our indigenous people.
And no one of you is representing our citizens with disabilities, with physical ones at least.
And shame on you and your parties.
You should be ashamed of yourselves very deeply, especially the ones amongst you who arrogantly claim to be “progressive”.
For us, progressive means to allow us to voice our concerns, our opinions on problems WE face and come up with solutions we think they suit us.
But instead, you have appointed yourselves as guardians on us.
We know that guardians usually appointed when person do not has capabilities to make sound judgment. And usually person cannot make sound judgment for one of the following reasons:
1- Person is not mature enough.
2- Person suffers from symptom not allowing normal development of brain.
3- Person suffers from deep mental problems.
We do not know where you classify us (all members of marginalized groups).
I have strong feeling (from previous close experience with many of you, especially the ones who claim to be progressive) that you think we are not mature enough. This immaturity is coming because we do not have blonde hair, blue eyes and clear Australian accent.
You think that we, as previous citizens of dictatorships, cannot understand your democracy. And because of this we cannot understand your political system.
And because of that, we do not deserve to even be heard, given chance to show our performance or even to give you some ideas about how do we feel.
You think that if we step into politics, we would be stepping into unknown to us territory (because of our retarded undemocratic mind).
You think that because we do not speak clear Australian language, we are immature and cannot understand democracy designed by you.
Our White Anglo Saxon politicians: did you ask yourself what do we think about your enforced-on-us guardianship?
Did you ask yourself how do we feel about your insistence that you understand OUR problems more than we do?
Did you ask yourself if we want you to teach us how to suffer, how to struggle, how to resist and how to overcome?
Did you ask yourself how do we feel about your solutions to our problems, or at least to problems that mainly concern us, our suffering and obstacles put by you to prevent us from getting our rights in full?
Well, our fellow “progressive” White Anglo-Saxon politicians: as you do not care about our feeling, we need to ignore your idea about how we should feel about you and your progressiveness (if it would be qualified to progressiveness).
You need to ask yourself: do we understand why you oppress us, abuse our feelings, disregard our outcries and insist to treat us as inferior species?
Yes, we deeply understand.
You are not only closed-minded racist politicians. But you are so concerned that you will lose your tight grip on power. Such grip that lasted for more than 2 centuries, since your ancestors invaded this country.
Yes, you are so vulnerable and insecure.
And I will add to your vulnerability and insecurity: we are coming. And we are growing in numbers. And we are shaking ground under your feet. And we are taking away, step by step, the power that you have accumulated.
And we are not worried. We will defeat your racism. We will defeat your discrimination. We will defeat your repeated vicious attacks on us and on our cultures. We will defeat your control on our lives. And we will win.
But:
We thought that you as “progressive” forces, you will make this transition more peaceful, less painful and have less devastating consequencies.
We thought that you as “progressive” politicians will join us hand in hand in our fight to get our voice in the decision making bodies heard.
We thought that your “progressiveness” would mean to step back and push us into front line to resume the fight for OUR rights.
But we are discovering that all talks about your “progressiveness” are no more than cheap deceptions and lies.
You claimed to be “progressive” only to deceive us so that we vote for you. Then you will find suitable-for-you solutions to our problems and suffering.
You claimed to be “progressive” just to enter the election auction with higher bets by claiming moral ground over your rival political parties.
And at the end, your solution for our suffering and problems was very easy: keep shutting your mouths, as we are talking on your behalf.
And you know very well that our sufferings are vital for you to continue abusing them and keep the power in your hands.
Well, our fellow White Anglo Saxon politicians (both progressive and regressive): you do not represent us. You do not speak for us. You do not understand us.
So, please climb down our backs.
And please try to learn: learn from us something different. Please try to learn to give us some space. Please try to learn to respect our difference. Difference in understanding. And differences in needs. And difference in thinking.
You need to understand one thing: our time is coming.
But please do not make it more painful. Move on and vacate space for us.
We need our voice, and we will get it: sooner or later.
I would like to whisper in the ears of our politicians: no one of you is representing me.
And no one of you represents my fellow new migrants from non-English speaking countries. And no one of you represents our indigenous people.
And no one of you is representing our citizens with disabilities, with physical ones at least.
And shame on you and your parties.
You should be ashamed of yourselves very deeply, especially the ones amongst you who arrogantly claim to be “progressive”.
For us, progressive means to allow us to voice our concerns, our opinions on problems WE face and come up with solutions we think they suit us.
But instead, you have appointed yourselves as guardians on us.
We know that guardians usually appointed when person do not has capabilities to make sound judgment. And usually person cannot make sound judgment for one of the following reasons:
1- Person is not mature enough.
2- Person suffers from symptom not allowing normal development of brain.
3- Person suffers from deep mental problems.
We do not know where you classify us (all members of marginalized groups).
I have strong feeling (from previous close experience with many of you, especially the ones who claim to be progressive) that you think we are not mature enough. This immaturity is coming because we do not have blonde hair, blue eyes and clear Australian accent.
You think that we, as previous citizens of dictatorships, cannot understand your democracy. And because of this we cannot understand your political system.
And because of that, we do not deserve to even be heard, given chance to show our performance or even to give you some ideas about how do we feel.
You think that if we step into politics, we would be stepping into unknown to us territory (because of our retarded undemocratic mind).
You think that because we do not speak clear Australian language, we are immature and cannot understand democracy designed by you.
Our White Anglo Saxon politicians: did you ask yourself what do we think about your enforced-on-us guardianship?
Did you ask yourself how do we feel about your insistence that you understand OUR problems more than we do?
Did you ask yourself if we want you to teach us how to suffer, how to struggle, how to resist and how to overcome?
Did you ask yourself how do we feel about your solutions to our problems, or at least to problems that mainly concern us, our suffering and obstacles put by you to prevent us from getting our rights in full?
Well, our fellow “progressive” White Anglo-Saxon politicians: as you do not care about our feeling, we need to ignore your idea about how we should feel about you and your progressiveness (if it would be qualified to progressiveness).
You need to ask yourself: do we understand why you oppress us, abuse our feelings, disregard our outcries and insist to treat us as inferior species?
Yes, we deeply understand.
You are not only closed-minded racist politicians. But you are so concerned that you will lose your tight grip on power. Such grip that lasted for more than 2 centuries, since your ancestors invaded this country.
Yes, you are so vulnerable and insecure.
And I will add to your vulnerability and insecurity: we are coming. And we are growing in numbers. And we are shaking ground under your feet. And we are taking away, step by step, the power that you have accumulated.
And we are not worried. We will defeat your racism. We will defeat your discrimination. We will defeat your repeated vicious attacks on us and on our cultures. We will defeat your control on our lives. And we will win.
But:
We thought that you as “progressive” forces, you will make this transition more peaceful, less painful and have less devastating consequencies.
We thought that you as “progressive” politicians will join us hand in hand in our fight to get our voice in the decision making bodies heard.
We thought that your “progressiveness” would mean to step back and push us into front line to resume the fight for OUR rights.
But we are discovering that all talks about your “progressiveness” are no more than cheap deceptions and lies.
You claimed to be “progressive” only to deceive us so that we vote for you. Then you will find suitable-for-you solutions to our problems and suffering.
You claimed to be “progressive” just to enter the election auction with higher bets by claiming moral ground over your rival political parties.
And at the end, your solution for our suffering and problems was very easy: keep shutting your mouths, as we are talking on your behalf.
And you know very well that our sufferings are vital for you to continue abusing them and keep the power in your hands.
Well, our fellow White Anglo Saxon politicians (both progressive and regressive): you do not represent us. You do not speak for us. You do not understand us.
So, please climb down our backs.
And please try to learn: learn from us something different. Please try to learn to give us some space. Please try to learn to respect our difference. Difference in understanding. And differences in needs. And difference in thinking.
You need to understand one thing: our time is coming.
But please do not make it more painful. Move on and vacate space for us.
We need our voice, and we will get it: sooner or later.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
How to get The Greens’ attention to Gaza blockade?
Do you want to get the Greens to act promptly and demand the immediate lift of Gaza blockade?
Then we need to convince the Greens that:
1- The majority of Gaza residents are homosexuals and Israel is imposing the blockade because they (Israelis) are homophobes.
2- The drug addicts in Gaza cannot get their needs of drug freely and easily because of the blockade.
3- There is critical shortage of needles needed for drug addicts to have safe shots of drug.
4- There is shortage of prostitutes in Gaza, where Israel and Egypt is not allowing free travel of prostitutes in and out of the strip.
5- There is critical shortage of contraceptives and drugs to induce abortions.
6- The blockade is allowing Israel to hunt whales freely in Gaza waters without permission from Palestinians.
7- The blockade is preventing importing sustainable energy technologies to the strip.
8- Most of Gaza residents are blonde green-eyed English-speaking Anglo-Saxons.
9- Hamas government is in fact part of the Greens movement and they have agreed to sign Kyoto protocol.
10- Gaza residents are mostly hippies that never have shower for the last 3 years, in a bid to save water consumption.
No more comments, unfortunately.
Then we need to convince the Greens that:
1- The majority of Gaza residents are homosexuals and Israel is imposing the blockade because they (Israelis) are homophobes.
2- The drug addicts in Gaza cannot get their needs of drug freely and easily because of the blockade.
3- There is critical shortage of needles needed for drug addicts to have safe shots of drug.
4- There is shortage of prostitutes in Gaza, where Israel and Egypt is not allowing free travel of prostitutes in and out of the strip.
5- There is critical shortage of contraceptives and drugs to induce abortions.
6- The blockade is allowing Israel to hunt whales freely in Gaza waters without permission from Palestinians.
7- The blockade is preventing importing sustainable energy technologies to the strip.
8- Most of Gaza residents are blonde green-eyed English-speaking Anglo-Saxons.
9- Hamas government is in fact part of the Greens movement and they have agreed to sign Kyoto protocol.
10- Gaza residents are mostly hippies that never have shower for the last 3 years, in a bid to save water consumption.
No more comments, unfortunately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My experience inside the United Australia party: why UAP’s humiliating defeat & When will Ralph defect from UAP?
After running as a federal candidate for the United Australia party in the seat of Reid, these are my observation about the reasons why UA...
