Opinion on London riots: Would Australia be next?!

I was refraining from writing about London riots for the last week. But the issue is very hot and attractive. And there are tons of questions to be asked about how “democracies” fail so miserably to the point of citizens looting public and private buildings.

My personal experiences for the last few months are clear example of reasons to reach the point of “let us take law on our hands”.

Today was the climax. I received a letter from the State Debt Recovery Office (the most hated state department in NSW) informing me that my drivers licence will be suspended sometime at the end of the month. The reasons were that I did not appear in the court, where I sought court review of parking fine. Then I failed to pay the money determined by the court. When I contacted the SDRO, I informed them that I never received notice to attend the court. I also did not receive any letter of the court decision. Not only this. I never received notice from the SDRO asking me to pay the money, ways to pay the money and how much I should pay.

It is not about the fine, anymore. It is about the system. The system where punch of politicians are using the might of the state (including many security agencies) to oppress the majority of population. All by laws they agreed to adopt and within “democratic” context.

The whole fine issue was about someone with authority has put a bus stop sign on telephone post, where not many people can notice it (as money trap to collect as much as possible for the council). Then the same authority sent rangers to issue fines. Then the same authority sent another office to punish the black goat that refused to put its head with other heads and give up. And if you do not accept the punishment, the same authority sends police to further punish the black goat and threaten with jail if it insists to stay rebellious.

Would this minor issue prompt me to accept the logic of rioters in London?

Let us go back few days in the week. Me and My friend Hussein went to obtain him a licence. Ordinary worker there who had prejudice against his ethnicity and against the unauthorised legal way that drove him to this country, told him that she will not do her job and facilitate achieving this mission. He can go and bang his head against any wall in the street, but no licence will be issued or tests organised. But he still has the right to shout, argue and get upset. But he cannot shout louder, as this would result into fines for “disturbing public peace”.

Is that all???

Of course not. I also remembered how I was treated like criminal when the minister for immigration lost control of his department when detainees in many detention centres decided that enough is enough. The minister so naively accused me of all these troubles and verbally asked the authorities to ban me from entering any detention centre. And racist police officers were leashed with full authority to humiliate me and oppress me to the point that I thought that I am living in Zimbabwe. And to date, I was unable to obtain written ban. And all my complaints against the racist police officers went unnoticed. And I also can bang my head against any wall. This is democracy: you have the right to bang your head against any wall, but not to the point of destroying this wall. That would be “damaging public or private properties”. And we are still in democracy.

And before that I was subjected to some of worst racist and degrading treatment at work. And because there are not enough evidences, the racism and Islamophobia went unnoticed but some very small amount of money to prove that it is still democracy, somehow.

All this in addition to the difficulty finding suitable accommodation, bad experience in public hospitals, expensive food, skyrocketing electricity and gas bills, block of access to decision making bodies, ....

But it is democracy: you have the right to ask, complain and criticise, but them they have the right to ignore you.

And now today at this moment, I wonder if I, as one of the highest law abiding citizen in this country who is doing all within his capacity (and even beyond that capacity sometimes) to help others and help building better society, is subjected to such humiliating treatment, what is about the rest of the society who are more marginalised than me (they are in millions)?

Was this the major reason behind London riots?

You feel humiliated, robbed by different organisations (including your own “democratic” government), cannot have decent life, expensive life style, high taxes, fines in violating laws or not violating any law, ailing health system where you can be humiliated by nurse or doctors for asking why you have waited for long time to see any professional, no decent accommodation .... All these while you can see that the common wealth is robbed by few people, including the politicians that punish you by either more taxes or fines for every move in your life.

And justice is very slow when you want something from them, they humiliated you, they denied your rights or when you need any vital service. They have the right to refuse your request. Then you have the right to appeal. This would take years. And the system is designed for your appeal to fail. Then you can go to higher legal system level. After all these accessed, you will be already lost more than what you will gain.

But the justice is very quick and decisive when they want something from you, when you make any small mistake or they discover that you have accessed more than is allowed for you. The justice fist at that time is very strong, even if they will destroy your life.

So in both scenarios, your life is destroyed. But in the first scenario, if you can prove that they hurt you or caused you any damage, they also do not care. Because they will compensate you from the tax you had paid during your life. Or maybe they compensate you from the taxes paid by your brother, sister, wife or neighbour. They do not lose anything.

Does this give grim picture? Can you imagine that 1 in every 4 Australians has mental health problems.

But all in democratic context. So we should be happy.

But why British were not happy within this democratic context. They are not happy with exercising their democratic rights to be humiliated, robbed and oppressed in democratic way.

Do you think that this is the reasons (or part of the reasons) that thousands of “hooligans” roamed London, Manchester, Liverpool .... in the last few days?

When people lose hope of being respected, listened to, cared for and participated in decision making, they will do this. And it is clearly that British had reached this point.

So the question here: is Australia too far from this stage?

I can declare very clearly here that I am not very far at all from this stage. But apart from me, are there many Australians feel the same?

The result of the last election where the informal vote was very high and people deliberately declared that “all politicians are the same, all are crooks”, is clear evidence that Australians (or large section of them) have reached close to the British state.

It is not British only. Few months ago, Greek, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese did similar things.

We lost the hope. Yes we did, where the laws became very blind, heavy handed and violate basic rights.

Would I participate in any riots if happened in Australia?

I am not sure if I have the courage.

But who cares about me: what about homeless (after the department of housing is telling them that there are cheap accommodation that they can rent, when the market is very dry), unemployed (who are tortured by Centrelink and authorities), marginalised in the suburbs (where laws turned them into criminals because they speed at some stage or they lost nerve at public department), former detainees who need to put up with prejudice and feel of guilt for the rest of their lives, sick people who are treated like trash in hospitals, students who needs big fortune to complete simple study, ....

Would they refuse to stand up for their rights, indefinitely?

After the uprising in most of Western countries, Australians will think about standing for their rights, their future and the future of their children. They are coming into terms with the bitter reality: The democracy will not stop politicians (who act mainly on behalf of big corporations) from taking away their rights and privileges.

Democracy needs power to protect democratic rights, especially after many of these democratic rights were already taken away in the last decades.

Letter to NSW Premier about the draconian undemocratic and impractical political donations' reporting laws

2 August 2011
Dear Hon Barry O’Farrell, NSW Premier

In this letter we explain to you our deep concerns about the NSW unique political donations reporting system. We can easily argue that this unique system is impractical, complicated, undemocratic and designed to serve no good reason.

We cannot deny that there is some good will in the system, by disallowing donations from tobacco, liquor and gambling industries. But still we believe that such good will is not practical to be achieved and enforced.

Our biggest problem is with the complicated nature of the system, including:
1- The requirement of disclosing expenditures: The Electoral Expenditure to be reported is defined in the system as “expenditure on promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly, a political party, or the election of a candidate or candidates. It is also expenditure on influencing the voting at an election”
2- The complicated nature of reporting Electoral Expenditures. This includes the need to have “Official Agent” (with certain requirements of this agent) and the need to hire company auditor.
3- The discriminatory nature of prohibited donors.

We have major concern with the first item, mainly. We believe that this system is designed to limit political participation of mainly marginalised groups. Currently, the citizens’ participation in political system is very low, and such system will further decrease this participation.

But let us look at the practical aspect of this requirement.

The system as currently stands will require anyone who wants to send a message during election period, to go through very complicated and exhausting system.

Let me give you examples, to show how this system is both impractical and indeed an attack on the basic rights of citizens to voice their concerns. Indeed it aims to gagg people and limit freedom of speech of ordinary or active unorganised individuals.

Let us assume that I have only $200 and I want to use them to send message of dissatisfaction to my local member. I can use this $200 by:
1- Printing home-designed poster against the member and stick them on posts or on walls of local businesses or outside homes.
2- Print hundreds of leaflets and distribute them to letter-boxes of local residents.
In doing this, I will be obliged to:
1- Register with the NSW EFA.
2- Appoint Official Agent.
3- Fill forms to report expenditures every year.
4- Hire company auditor to go through these forms and approve them.

Would not this be called “crack down on freedom of speech and opinions”? Would not this create many obstacles for political participation and could lead either to marginalisation of citizens or resorting to under-ground activities?

Then the biggest question here is who will watch the millions of NSW voters during election period? Does not this look like that we are living in police state, now.

Also, will the NSW EFA hire enough people to go through streets to catch people who hang stickers or posters on posts and walls? Does the NSW EFA has the capacity to go through internet of people to follow people’s postings that will affect the election, attack candidate or advocate for a candidate? Do not we describe this to be “censorship of ideas and thoughts”?

We believe that these laws and this system are gross abuse of citizens’ rights to express opinions and thoughts. Now, the NSW EFA will be appointed as a guardian on our brains, pins and computers.

And here let me ask few questions:
1- The Friends of Auburn Library organised a “candidates’ debate” during the election period: are they require to report for “Electoral Expenditures”?
2- Some Falung Gong families organised small gathering to “meet the local candidates”: Did they register with NSW EFA for reporting?
3- My friend shouted on local member and demanded that people vote against her: Is he required to appoint “Official Agent” and provide the EFA about his “Electoral Expenditures”?
4- What is the status of journalists who criticised this candidate or that one? What about “casual” journalists or active community members who send “letter to editor” that could affect the outcome of the election?
5- What about private conversation between me and my GP about the election? Does not my GP require to register for reporting?

After these plain examples, do not you think that this system is very ridiculous, naive, and undemocratic and was introduced by government that lost its mandate and was very desperate to appease the Greens before the last election? Do not you think that it is the time to expose the naivety of this system, its impracticability and the draconian side of its requirements?

We, as a small group that campaigned for the last 2 state elections in different seats with high marginalised communities, we believe that this system was introduced to stop small groups like our to participate in the political system. It has nothing to do with making political system more efficient, more transparent or more progressive. On the opposite. It limits the participation of marginalised people in the political system and pushes them to shut their ideas and minds.

Now, why the prohibited donors were limited to groups that the Greens are enemies with? Why only developers? Do not the drug manufacturers make donations to influence the political decisions of law-makers?

Then why there is need for company auditor to audit the forms? This is a political process that should involve people active in politics. Does not this requirement constitute extra obstacle for independent people to run for election to voice their concerns? How would a poor protestor who shouted on local member find enough money to hire company auditor to audit the required forms?

We believe that this system does not serve any democratic system that allows grass root democratic campaigns. The irony here is that the system was proposed and enforced by the Greens, the party that pride themselves to be “progressive” party believes in grass-root campaigns.

We hope that you can take this letter into consideration in a bid to scrap this undemocratic unrealistic system. We believe that you (unlike Labor in its last term) have the mandate and the power to do so.

While we did not agree with Liberals before on any issue, but you will have our full support on this issue.

Thanks and if you need to discuss these issues further, I can be contacted on 0404 447 272

Yours sincerely


Jamal Daoud

The Greens thirst for Palestinian blood: never ending game to gain some votes!!!

Tomorrow is the time for harvest of the latest Palestinian blood auction. NSW Greens senator is appearing to vend more lies about her party’s political prostitution on the continued Palestinian blood spells. And we know the cliché “The lies” about the Greens continued support for ... who ... Nobody knows. But she will open the auction: how much Palestinian blood in return for each vote to the Greens!!!

The Greens line is very clear: follow the safe line to win votes from all sides.
Let us concentrate on Palestinian issue.

The Greens refused to officially participate in Australian fact-finding mission to West Bank in the aftermath of Jenin and Ramallah massacres, 2002. The mission organised by Australian unions, who sent official invitation to the Greens to lead the mission. The Greens refused the invitation utterly because the Greens do not want to be seen in the media as “Pro-Palestinian” party (as I was personally told by Kerry Nettle, the Greens senator then). But the Greens would not miss this opportunity for political prostitution to win some Palestinian and pro-Palestine votes. They convinced someone from the Greens to participate in the mission, on individual basis.

As the mission visited West Bank, the Greens member presence gave indication that the Greens are a progressive party. When the mission returned back to Australia, the Greens member appeared in media and hence won the Greens a lot of votes among progressive voters. But at the same time, when the media contacted the Greens hierarchy, they were told that the Greens member went as individual, and not representative of the Greens.

The Greens killed too many birds with one stone.

The same is happening now.

The Greens never participated in Palestinian solidarity missions. This year, they wanted to kill too many birds with one stone, again. They convinced retired Greens MP to participate in the Freedom Flotilla II to Gaza. The Greens want the media to mention the Greens name on media outlets, so that many progressive voters could be deceived by this mentioning. But at the same time, the Greens official stance is that “this is individual participation from former MP”.

Otherwise, why the Greens:
1- Did not send one of its sitting MPs?
2- Why the Greens did not promote the flotilla and its mission on the Greens official sites?
3- Why the Greens did not announce its endorsement of the flotilla mission?

Bob Brown was very clear few months ago “I am the Greens leader, and I am the one who speak on foreign affairs”. The media knows this. The other politicians know this. But the public, especially desperate progressive public who is struggling to find any progressive politician to trust, do not know this.

It is our mission to let them know.

If the Greens support the mission of Ms Hale, former Greens MP, let Mr Brown tell us this. Not only this. Let them publish endorsement and progress of the mission on the Greens sites and in public papers and literature.

We know that the Greens cannot do this. We challenge them to do this.

We say now that it is enough playing with Palestinian blood. As one of the Palestinians whose blood on sale, please stop.

So fellow Greens politicians, please keep

Why the Greens are not rushing on boat people issue!!!

It will be so naive and unrealistic for anyone to deny the unique situation in Australian politics at the moment. It will also equally unrealistic to deny the Greens influence on the the current government, when they wish to use such influence.

The political influence is very clear on achievements on many fronts. Such achievements would not happen in normal situation, even if the Greens will continue to hold the balance of power in the senate.

The Greens political luck is double, at the moment:
1- The Greens are lucky to have the most naive unexperienced and inflexible government Australia had in recent decades.
2- The Greens are holding the balance of power with Labor government, and not Liberal-National.

The unique situation is that we are having minority government for the first time in the last few decades. This situation enables the Greens to be crucial in both houses. And this is why they could have crucial power if they wish.

The political power is displayed in the Greens successful in enforcing the minority government to introduce legislations or move Labor to change its stance on issues, that would not be possible in normal circumstances.

Some examples on this:
1- The Greens enforced Labor to introduce Carbon Tax, against clear commitments before the last election made by Julia Gillard’s government of “never ever under my government”.
2- The Labor change of heart on re-opening of the debate within the party on the same-sex marriage. This is against all commitments by Rudd’s government on the basis of religious commitment and Gillard’s refusal on the basis of anti-marriage stance she personally took.
3- The immediate ban of live cattle export to Indonesia.

While we think that the Greens luck would be short lived, as all indications suggest conservative tsunami in the next election. Such tsunami which would put the Greens face to face with their reality. Not only this. We would love to see the Greens continue to hold balance of power in the senate under conservative government, with their philosophy of being “cooperative opposition” that uses its control of balance of power “sensibly” as Bob Brown loves to put it.

We will explain such scenarios in next article.

But here, and after explaining the great influence of the Greens on Australian weak minority government, we need to ask a question: Why the Greens was successful on many issues, but stands impotent on stopping the Labor gross inhumane treatment of asylum seekers?

Before we answer this simple question, let us follow the Greens success story recently.

The Greens party started its political activism early 70s of the last century. Then a political party was formed in the mid of 70s of the last century. But since then, the Greens had no real political success or influence, apart from success in Tasmanian state election in late 80s. In all states, the Greens influence never exceeded one or two members of state parliaments in NSW and WA, only.

It was not until Tampa, that the Greens star started to shine. Again, the Greens were very lucky politically. At that time, the Democrats were losing its popularity because they held balance of power during very conservative government. Howard’s far right government could squeeze the Democrats on many issues, including especially the introduction of GST. So the only opposition voice the voters could hear during Tampa was the voice of the Greens.

So the rise of the Greens political success was on the back of the suffering of boat people. The Greens could double their popularity in 2001 election, from 2.5% to 4.96%. Such achievement that they could not achieve within more than 25 years of political existence. All this was because of Tampa.

The following election, 2004, the debate on boat people treatment was still raging. The Howard’s government was still campaigning on racism and Islamophobia. The Labor was not giving any real alternative. And the Democrats were already on boiling point with deep divisions and infightings. Again, the only alternative on issues of racism, Islamophobia and refugees (which were the main issue for the election) was the Greens. The Greens could again increase its voting by more than third (from 5% to 7.2%).

The issues of boat people, refugees and migration were negligible issues during the 2007 election. The only election item in that election was Work Choices. Surprisingly, The Greens voting stalled on 7.7%.

But when the boat people, refugees and migration became central issue for the last 2010 election, the Greens popularity jumped to historically high record of 11.76%. During the election, the only pressing issue was the boat people, border protection and fighting against people smugglers.

After this analysis, can anyone be doubt about the importance of raging racism, Islamophobia and boat people bashing in the Greens success story?

The Greens leadership and politicians know very well that without the debate on refugees and asylum seekers, their popularity will sink again.

This is why they keep talking on the issue, but no decisive actions or ultimatum to the minority government.

How ironic that the Greens did not include demands on asylum seekers to find humane solution to boat people bashing in the memorandum to form the minority government?

The Greens put 8 demands on Labor to support Julia Gillard to form minority government. No item was on boat people.

We deeply believe that the Greens wish the boat people continue to suffer, to keep this issue alive for the next election. Without this deafening racist debate, the Greens will have not much to be distinct from the Labor. Especially the Labor had agreed to introduce Carbon Tax scheme.

The only other issue where Labor has different stance from the Greens is on same-sex marriage. But we are sure that this issue will not make many Australians change their pattern of vote.

So the only hope for the Greens to keep this historic record voting is for the boat people’s issue to continue raging, regardless of blood spelt because of this.

Again and before anyone accuses us of Anti-Greens hysteria, we are open for the Greens to answer our questions. On the top of these questions is: Why the Greens is impotent to make changes in government’s policies only on boat people’s?

Lee Rhiannon in the senate: the best chance to destabilise the Greens!!!

Before we go in depth with the issue of Greens control of balance of power in the senate, we should mention few issues here.

We campaigned in the last election against the election of Lee Rhiannon as Greens candidate in NSW, and we were very close to deny her a seat in the senate. Against the odds and all expectations, Lee Rhiannon got the least votes amongst Greens candidates in all states and territories. The Greens candidates in all states got between 12.76 – 14.7% in all states (except Tasmania), except Lee Rhiannon who got around 10.5%.

Now and against all our campaigns, we are more than happy that Lee was elected. We will argue the details of the reasons of this joy later, but we should summarise all these reasons in one sentence: Lee is the best chance of all Greens’ opponents to see this party destabilised as a first step to send them back to political wilderness.

The public tension between Bob Brown, the historical founding figure of the Greens, and Ms Rhiannon began very early even in the lead to the election campaign, 2010. Ms Lee was caught in a scandal of misusing parliamentary privileges, against all her rhetoric during her political career. Bob Brown publicly demanded that she resigns from the state parliament, and focus on federal campaign, to kill these allegations and avoid negative impact. Her response was swift of refusing to budge to her leader’s call and demand. We feel that she was feeling that her chances to win a seat are slim, so she wanted to keep her political career alive. Bob wanted to gamble of ending her political career before she starts to give him leadership headaches at Federal level. Such headache that was expected by Ian Cohen as early as 2005 when we met privately in his office to discuss many relevant issues.

The tension was very clear recently when Bob Brown appeared on several national media outlets condemning Lee’s political opportunist move to use Marrickville council as a tool to increase her popularity among progressive voters on the back of Palestinian people’s suffering. Mr Brown was very clear in indicating that “I am the leader of the Greens party, and not Lee Rhiannon”.

Before we go to the possible impact of the high tension between Lee and Bob on the stability and hence the future of the Greens, we should mention few observations.

Ms Lee wants to put the tension with Bob in the context of ideological differences, while in fact it is only about power thirst. Ms Lee is very notorious to be very thirsty to grab power regardless of any consequencies, including betraying principles or ideological setbacks.

Ms Lee campaigned for long time to destabilise Bob Brown environmental faction’s control of the Greens. She did not hesitate to use all clean and dirty tricks to achieve this goal.

In NSW, she was active to target Bob Brown’s strong ally, Ian Cohen and his faction. She did not hesitate to use all possible tricks to end Mr Cohen’s strong presence inside NSW Greens.

First trick was to conduct vicious campaign to limit the time in parliament to 8 years to end Mr Cohen’s bid for re-election in 2003 state election. Her campaign to enforce limited tenure failed miserably and Mr Cohen emerged victorious. And he did campaign to discredit her when she decided to run again for office in 2007 state election (in clear defiance of her demands and teachings that politicians should not stay in office for long time to prevent political corruption and power abuse).

Then, and after she failed to convince her party to implement limited tenure principle, she resorted to campaigns of political assassination nature, to stop Cohen’s re-election.

Even during last election, Ms Lee used these tactics of ideological differences to distance herself from Brown’s leadership and faction. One of Ms Lee’s supporter posted public email to blame Brown and his environmental faction for the limited campaigns during the election on Multiculturalism and against racism and Islamophobia.

There are many clear evidences that Ms Lee’s fight with Bob Brown and his influential environmental faction is only about power grab and control of the Greens.

If we assume that Lee wants to destabilise Bob’s leadership as an ideological struggle between “Socialist-Left” of Lee and “no-ideology” of Brown and his environmentalists, but how can we understand Lee’s attack on Lefties inside the party.

Ms Lee (and her long-time partner) systematically cleansed any potential threat to their absolute control of NSW Greens, using very dirty tricks most of the times.

This is what happened to Inner-West Greens. When respected active member could garner enough support to defeat Lee and her faction (2005) to impose their candidate for local government election, 2004. Lee did not hesitate to do all in her power to plot against the local group’s leadership even if this could have resulted in dissolving the group.

If Lee is really progressive and “lefties”, can she and her supporters explain to us why:
- She (and her “Greens Terrigal” faction) blocked any change to Greens constitution and procedure to see more people from marginalised groups (Indigenous, non-English, people with disabilities,..) elected to parliament to improve the very low representation of these marginalised groups in decision making bodies. She was quoted saying that “lack of English and ethnic background do not constitute barrier to participation in political leadership”.
- She (and her faction of opportunists) did not take any practical steps on social justice issues (like treatment of boat people, growing racism and Islamophobia, wars on developing nations like Iraq and Afghanistan,...). Apart from media releases and speeches at rallies, no practical steps were taken. Lee refused to participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine or Lebanon in the aftermath of Israeli aggressions. Lee participated in organising forums spreading Islamophobia. Lee blocked appointing Non-English speaking persons in the Greens hierarchy. Lee blocked preselecting Non-English speaking persons as candidates in safe seats.
- Lee did not oppose draconian “Anti-Terrorism laws” and the attacks on Muslim communities. On the contrary. She was active on participating in these attacks, as we mentioned above.

We can give tens of stories to prove that Lee was only interested in power grab, and not any ideological difference with Bob.

Now, Lee will do all in her best to destabilise Bob’s leadership in a bid to replace him. Lee, who has some allies of few other senators who used to spread similar lies about their progressive believes, will work almost immediately to undermine Bob’s position. From her track history in NSW Greens, she will not hesitate to use all tricks under her hat to do this.

We are certain that in the next few years, we will hear a lot about the dirty washings of the Greens on public ropes. As we heard a lot about allegations against Ian Cohen, including sexual harassment claims, we will start to hear a lot about Bob.

Combined efforts with Sarah Hanson-Young, both will do all in their best to destabilise the leadership of Tasmanian and environmentalists’ faction.

The worst mistake of the Greens environmentalist faction was that they did not match Lee and her faction in their dirty campaigns to undermine them. We expect that Bob and his faction will be enforced to resort to hanging the dirty washings of Lee and her opportunist faction, on the basis of “the attack is the best line of defence”.

The next few years will be very interesting in Australian politics. While there are a lot of scenarios in this regard, the best would be either of:
1- Lee and Bob engaging in public fight on leadership that would end them on the same track as the Democrats.
2- The conservative tide will swap Federal politics, as happened in NSW. Then the Greens presence in parliament becomes irrelevant.

Whatever scenario to prevail, we should continue exposing the opportunist nature of the Greens (both factions). Such opportunist nature that is clear in the Greens inability (or more accurately lack of desire) to neutralise the racist “boat people” debate. Such debate that could have been ended very easily if the Greens have the will to do so, the same way the Greens enforced the government to adopt Carbon Tax, against Labor committments.

Unlike the Greens misleading claims, we do not believe that their rise in popularity was due to increased understanding of Greens environmental or social policies. We deeply believe that the increase in Greens popularity is only because the unhappy voters had no other option. And when the real lefties create real alternative, the Greens popularity will return to its original level: 2.5%.

Debate over quotas in Parliament: English speaking women should not be the prime target!

First of all we should stress here that we strongly support the idea of quotas for all sections of society that are marginalised and low represented in decision making bodies. We were advocating for this in the last decade. The so-called progressive forces in the society, namely Left-Labor, Greens and Socialists, wrongly translated these fair campaigns into campaigns to advocate for better representation of groups which are equally represented in the decision making bodies. These forces were focussing on quotas for women (in general terms, as if all women are equally marginalised) and homosexuals.

In the issue of quota, we should be very careful, for two reasons:
1- The perception of marginalisation does not necessarily reflect actual marginalisation.
2- The issue of marginalisation is complex and is not uniformed within the same gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.
3- The quota issue, if there would be consensus on it, should be discussed by experts and not by lobby groups, as some lobby groups are more influential than others.

Let us discuss the above in more details.

There is perception in the society that the women and homosexuals are the only (or at least the most) marginalised groups in the society. This is because the mainstream women (or more frank, the Anglo-Saxon women) and the homosexual lobby groups are very powerful and can make the whole society hear their demands.

Let us take the women representation in Federal Parliament as clear example about the misleading claims (or at least naive claims by these groups) that women (in general) are the only (or at least the worst) marginalised group in the society. On this regard, let us examine the facts (from the official website of FP, as currently states):
- There are 67 women in both houses of the FP, which constitutes around 30% of overall numbers of MPs.
- Out of these, 6 women MPs were born in Non-English speaking countries (around 2.5% of overall MPs numbers).
- There is no woman in parliament from indigenous background.
- There is no woman with disabilities.
- There is no woman whose faith is not Judeo-Christian.
- There are 11 MPs (both male and female) who were born in Non-English speaking courtiers (mainly from Europe).

Taking into account that:
- Women constitute 50% of the society.
- 25% of these women were born in Non-English speaking countries (which means that 12.5% of Australians are women born in Non English speaking countries)
- 3% of society is Indigenous people (half of these are women).
- 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries.

Based on the above mentioned facts, we can see that:
- English speaking women (around 37% of population) have strong representation in FP with around 28% of MPs are English speaking women.
- Non English speaking women’s representation in the parliament is less than 2.5% (to represent around 12.5% of population)
- Indigenous women (around 1.5% of population) are totally unrepresented in parliament.
- Women with disabilities (Australian with physical disabilities are around 10% - so the women with disabilities in the society constitutes around 5% of the population) are totally unrepresented in FP.
- Not only this, non-English speaking men (more than 13% of population) is represented by less than 2.5% of MPs.

In this regard, we can safely conclude that English speaking women are approximately equally represented in the Federal Parliament.

Not only this.
We have now English speaking woman Governor General.
We also have English speaking woman PM.
We also have 2 premiers (out of 6) which mean 30% of premiers are English speaking women.
We also have English speaking woman as Chief Minister (out of 2) which means that 50% of Chief Ministers are English speaking women.

All this and we do not have any: Non-English speaking, Indigenous or People with disabilities in one of these powerful positions. Even Marie Bashir, the NSW governor, was born in NSW.

Now for the next issue: the marginalisation is not uniformed across the same gender, religion ...

We can see very clear that English speaking women are not deeply marginalised (as they have enough or near-enough representation on all decision making bodies) while women who speaks English as second language or from other ethnicity (rather than Anglo-Saxon) are deeply marginalised.

So we can conclude safely (even if the information on the federal parliament website is not recently updated) that women are not evenly marginalised. Place of birth, ethnicity, language spoken at home and religious believes are playing more significant role in deciding the marginalisation of women rather than merely gender. We even can safely claim that English speaking women are nearly equally represented in the parliament and in other decision making bodies.

We should note here that in addressing marginalisation and fight to end such marginalisation, sections of society cannot fully understand the issues cause this marginalisation. And the whole debate of enforcing quota is to recognise that marginalised groups are the only groups that can fight for their own rights.

The English speaking women cannot claim that by increasing their representation in parliament, is a positive step to end the marginalisation of Non-English speaking women or women of indigenous background.

The English speaking women was marginalised when the society was homogenously White and Christian. Few decades ago, more than 90% of Australians were white English speaking Christians. At that time, the power struggle was based on gender. White Christian men wanted to grab the whole power.

Now when more than 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries and around 1/3 of population declared that they are not following Judeo-Christian religions, the situation is different. The oppression has shifted from gender based, to be race-religion based. And we should act accordingly.

If the English speaking women think that men cannot fight for their rights, they should recognise that the same principle applies to the Non-English and Non-Anglo women.

We do not believe that English speaking women born in Australia or speak English as first language can understand the marginalisation of migrant and refugee women.

Not only this. We can safely claim that migrant men, indigenous men and men with disabilities are more marginalised than English speaking women. And definitely these women cannot fight for these men’s rights.

We support the principle of quota. But it should not be naively based on gender quota. It should be assessed by experts and the representatives of these highly marginalised communities. We also should look at the experience of other nations and take good lessons from them. NZ successfully enforced quota, but on indigenous base and not on gender one. The experience of Jordan, a semi-democratic society is different. There are quotas on gender base, on ethnic base and on religious base. There are quotas for Christians because they are religious minority. There are quotas for Chechen and charkas as ethnic minorities. And there is quota for women based on the fact that Jordan is a male dominated society.

Can we learn the lessons? I doubt. As the whites are fiercely fighting against any change in power balance. The facts that the so-called progressive forces like the Greens are fiercely fight against any representation of ethnic and religious minorities in the parliament give us grim picture. The Greens inside reports are proud that they presented high proportion of homosexuals to parliament, as the prime marginalised group. There is no report that supports this claim.
These white and English speaking politicians wants to confuse us by claiming that they are ready to fight for women rights, when the most dividing issues of the society these days are the racisms and Islamophobia.

But if the “left” of the political system has such regressive understanding of marginalisation, do we have strong excuses to be pessimistic?


Related story: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/women-quota-debate-to-fire-up-in-canberra/story-e6frfku0-1226085089521

Open letter to the Greens: Actions are louder than inquiries!!!

I was jumping up and down from this morning until now. I did not feel tired or that I need any rest. My joy is limitless.

At the end, the Greens pushed the government to accept an inquiry about the mandatory detention system. At last we will know the problems of the system and we will have time to explore alternatives.

My God.

As if the wide spread riots since 1999 until now (including burning of Charismas Island detention centre and Villawood DC) is not clear indications.
As if 5 deaths – suicides in the last 8 months is not clear evidence of the brutality of this system.
As if tones of reports from different human rights organisations are not enough to expose the systematic problems in the system.
As if the Greens does not have the balance of power in the cabinet to enforce the government to retreat from the current inhumane practices.

And The Greens still have the courage to claim victory.

As if we do not know that the results of previous inquiries and committees ended in the government’s rubbish bin, with no one recommendations implemented.

We say to the Greens very loudly: please give us BREAK.

Enough prostitution and it is the time to either do something or go to hell.

Let me be very simplistic in asking the following question: why Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to accept all his demands and implement them, but your suggestions were largely ignored or laughed at?

I do not want to be very deep in my analysis at the moment. But the simple answer is because Andrew Willkie was very clear: accept my demands or let us go to early election that you will definitely lose.

Well. We are not impressed by your poor performance, on all level including leading Australia to a very possible recession soon.
And we are not expecting much from your inquiry, which was originally a Liberals suggestion. We know that after all, its recommendations will end up in the rubbish bin.

The racist brutal immigration system needs more than inquiry to be fixed. It needs commitment and courage. And we know that you do not have it. The white colour of your party gives very clear indication of your party’s lack of any commitment to real multiculturalism. And at the end of the day, it is all about attacks on Multiculturalism in a bid to increase racism and Islamophobia.

We deeply believe that the Labor-Greens racist government should go: to the history dust bin. And we will do all in our best to make sure that this will happen in the next election.

And do not scare us form Tony Abbot and his openly racist coalition. In Arabic we say: The racist we know is better than the racist we do not know.

The Greens politicians to be replaced by CD players: documents revealed

Parliamentary commentator
Serious Fun Herald online

The Australian Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, had agreed at the last meeting of the cabinet to accept her party’s motion to invite the Greens parliament members to be granted permanent leave from the parliament sessions. The suggestion includes replacing the Greens politicians with CD players recorded on them the infamous clichés usually used by the Greens politicians.

The CDs would include recording of messages like “we condemn Labor and Liberals race to the bottom on this issue”, “The Greens is the only progressive voice on this issue”, “The Greens would oppose these legislations and will look for minor amendments on them” and “The Greens will use its numbers in parliaments very responsibly”.

The suggestion that will be sent to the Greens leader for consideration later in the week, will include alternative measures to insure the parliament hear the empty rhetoric the Greens often use in the parliament. One of the alternatives is to use highly trained parrots to imitate the Greens clichés. The parrots will be the perfect solution for anyone who will miss the voices of the Greens politicians.

The idea behind the suggestion came after the Greens failed to take any action to interpret its empty rhetoric vended by its candidates before the last election. The Labor minority government expected a lot of trouble from the Greens politicians after the party held the balance of power in both houses. But the minority government was having more trouble from independents who vowed to topple the government on several occasions if it does not take actions to honour its commitments to form minority government.

We understand from the leaked document that the Labor party is not taking the Greens’ loud voice at rallies and community forums serious enough to bow to their demands. We understand that the Labor and the Liberals know very well that the Greens is no more than a loud sound system that will continue to play the inserted CD regardless if the songs or lectures are not impressing the audience.

To support this assumption, we note that the Greens did not insist on any demand they made. The Greens repeated clichés of demands which landed on Labor’s deaf ears, did not result in any positive (or even negative) change to Australian politics.

The Greens, for example, vowed before the last election to stop the “race to the bottom” on the boat people issue. After repeated Greens loud demands on rallies, forums, media comments and parliamentary speeches, the race to the bottom get lower and lower. Now, with the Greens presence in both houses and with the Greens loud threats, the race to the bottom has landed on Australia’s total departure from international convention on this issue. The Labor minority government vowed recently to deport genuine refugees to their possible deaths or torture. It vows also to trade refugees and asylum seekers with other countries, as if they are trading goods and services.

The Greens loud speeches on climate change have resulted in more taxes and hence deteriorating of Australian life-style (especially of marginalised communities) but no real actions to stop attack on environment.

The Greens suggestion to widen the Medicare and to include free dental care resulted in no actions so far on these issues. On the contrary. The latest budget after the historical Greens win in both houses saw the minority government slashing funding for many health programs and no mentioning of free or semi free dental care.

The net achievements of the Greens are in the negative territory, where human rights and fair go for Australians have deteriorated rapidly.

The suggestion to replace the Greens politicians with CD players or trained parrots has become sensible and logical solution. Such solution will save a lot of people confusion on where the Greens are standing on issues. It will also prevent people from suffering from hearing problems in listening to Greens loud speeches.

The motion, which was never made nor sent to our imagined media service, is a suggestion worth discussing by Australian politicians. Many Australians are becoming disturbed by the high level of lying by Greens politicians. At least they can go on with their lives without any delusion on what the Greens can achieve or ready to do.

If you have more suggestions to address the issue of Greens impotence to make any difference in Australian politics, please do not hesitate to contact us on our online services.

Open letter to Julia Gillard: Going Howard’s path will not save your government

Dear Hon Julia Gillard, our PM (unfortunately)
I decided to write this open letter to you after your government violated many of your Labor party declared policies (are you still Labor member?) and election promises.

Few weeks ago, your minster for immigration vowed to send genuine refugees back to their death (or at least to be tortured or imprisoned) if they commit offence, even if they were committing these offences out of desperation and under deep depression and mental instability. Even notorious Howard-Ruddock did not even dared to announce such regressive draconian measures.

And now we heard that your government is finalising very dodgy deal with Malaysian government to exchange refugees and asylum seekers. And we are also hearing that your government is negotiating with Papua New Guinea to reopen offshore detentions on Manus Island.

We are also hearing that your government is about to take another attack on our indigenous population.

Then, in this week’s budget you decided to target one of the high marginalised sections of the society. You have declared war on unemployed people, in a bid to improve the image about your government failure to deal with economic management. Again, in doing this you are imitating the highly regressive Howard government. Unfortunately, you even went very worse and more regressive than Howard regressive government.

During the last few months, our experience with your government was disastrously disappointing and depressing.

Let us talk about the asylum seeker issue. You have failed to keep any of your election promises, where you:
1- Are trying to send asylum seekers to country that did not sign the Geneva Convention to protect refugees’ rights.
2- You have failed to win support for any regional solution to this very minor issue, because you insisted on East Timor solution.
3- Your announcement on boat asylum seekers is in clear violation to international conventions.

We do not understand the reasons behind your government’s panic announcements. We acknowledge that there is crisis in detention system. But this crisis was made by your government’s mishandling of this issue. You thought for the last few months that slowing down the process of application to the point of total halt will stop the boat people arrival. You should remember that unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia did not stop for the last 2 centuries. But instead of rising up to the challenge, you decided to go Howard’s path. And you will fail miserably.
Before we tell you why you will fail miserably, let us ask few questions about your government “Malaysian solution”:
1- After you will deport 800 boat arrivals to Malaysia, what is your plan for the new arrivals beyond the 800?
2- Instead of taking 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees in Malaysia, why not taking 4000 UNHCR refugees from Indonesia?
3- Why you will accept UNHCR approved refugees from Malaysia, when your government failed to accept UNHCR recognised refugees currently inside detention centres in Australia?

Then the biggest question here is: Why Malaysia?
We proposed to your predecessor a suggestion to solve the issue for ever by introducing the “Indonesian solution”. Why your government is not considering taking these 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees from Indonesia, and not Malaysia?

We understand that your government, and after the steep slump in opinion polls since July last year, is trying to come back in these polls Howard’s style. We acknowledge that John Howard was successful in this mission, but you will not. The reason is so simple. This style was his invention, while you are trying to imitate him. The voters will decide to go with genuine version, rather than fake brand.

Let me explain it to you in more simple way. If a shop owner decided to sell original Adidas shoes and Adidas fake brand at the same price, which shoes customers will buy? They will definitely buy the original Adidas brand. That is why voters will side with Liberals, if you do not present them with alternative plan.

The same can be said about your government’s stance on other issues.

You are trying to follow the Howard’s footstep of deceiving voters on fighting unemployment by tightening legislations and make Centrelink a law and order agency, instead of welfare agency. At the end, the degrading treatment of unemployed people will prompt them to cheat the government one way or other. Or it will cause hundreds of thousands to lose their benefits and then depend on begging money from welfare agencies. Such policies that will have deep negative consequencies. I will write to you detailed study soon about this.

In this letter let us express to you our outrage about the conduct of your government. You have let us down deeply.

At the moment we cannot differentiate your government (and we know that it is a minority government with the support of the Greens and independents) from the Howard’s deeply regressive government.

Not only this. Your government is going even lower on human rights and the rights of marginalised to live in dignity and respect in this society, than Howard’s government.

We believe that your government job is to try to find solutions to problems we are facing, and not creating more. We note here that your government did not find any solution to the critical rental and accommodation crisis. We also note that the situation in the health system did not get better, if not worsened. We also note that the deterioration of life-styles is getting worse. We also note that the situation in our schools is not getting better. And we also definitely know very well that the situation of Multiculturalism is very bad, where racism is on alarming rise and Islamophobia at record high levels.

If you are trying to win some votes by resorting to Howard’s tactics, we can tell you safely that you have failed and will fail.

I can tell you an interesting story we have learnt from grandparents. When a crow liked the way rooster is walking, he tried to walk like him. After few weeks he failed in imitating the rooster. But when he tried to fly again, he failed. He forgot how to fly as a crow. So he continued his life jumping in very ugly way, neither like a rooster nor like a crow.

Do not try to be another Liberals. You will fail to get Liberals voters. And you will definitely lose traditional Labor voters.

Greens shameful stance on refugees: their real agendas and ways to counteract them.

We are proud that we were the first to warn about the Greens destructive agendas of deceiving masses. And we are happy to start hearing dissatisfaction amongst Greens supporters and other human rights activists of the Greens politics.

We should first mention that the Greens have policies that are totally different than its real politics.

The Greens official policy on health, for example, is that the Greens support abolishing private health rebate. In action, the Greens opposed measures to abolish this rebate when it was introduced by Kevin Rudd’s government.

The Greens also had policy on Israeli occupation of Palestine, including supporting sanctions and boycotting of Israel. Recently, Bob Brown told all of us that this is not the case and the Greens do not support any move to boycott Israeli products or imposing any kind of sanctions.

The Greens official policy on Multiculturalism is that the non-English speaking people should be encouraged to participate in political process by all means, including taking positive-discrimination actions to achieve this. This is even imbedded in the Greens declaration. But in fact, the Greens are totally and exclusively White party with no non- Anglo officials or politicians.

Now, on the issue of the refugees and asylum seekers, the Greens are exercising high political opportunism.

We should mention that the issue of boat people was the real booster of the Greens popularity in the aftermath of Tampa. The issue of boat people is exclusively related (in the minds of people, media and politicians) with the Greens.

But what are the Greens real commitments on these issues?

The Greens is happy to vend fiery speeches and media comments on this issue. The line of these speeches is no more than Cliché of words designed to deceive voters and citizens. But the Greens will do no more on this issue, as they want to convince us that they cannot do more than media comments, speeches on rallies and crocodile tears for the suffering of the detainees.

In the aftermath of the wide spread riots inside Christmas Island DC and then Villawood DC, the Greens rhetoric even slide down to participate in criminalising these desperate detainees. We saw how Ms Hanson-Young, the Greens senator responsible for this portfolio, supported the move to criminalise anyone who participated in the riots.

The Greens, who have policy of the need to inform citizens about political process to enable them to make informed decisions, is in fact hiding the real picture form Australians.

The Greens is not telling the Australians that they in fact can enforce the government to act on this issue in very quick way. The Greens is hiding from the citizens that they are in unique position now of holding the balance of power in both houses. They do not mention that their sole MP, Adam Bandt, can bargain with the government significantly to change the heart of the minister and prime minister. The Greens is not telling us that their sole MP is essential for the stability of this government. He is essential for continuity of the current government too.

The Greens is not telling us how Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to act on Poker Machines. They did not tell us that Mr Willkie, who is not part of any party and does not control the balance of power in the senate, could achieve almost all his demands. He could do this by threatening to withdraw his support for this government. Such threat that could see the government loses its majority and enforces it to go to early election. Such scenario that the Labor party wants to avoid by any cost, as they would almost definitely lose the government.

The Greens tactics of “keeping everyone happy” is very clear. The Greens is continuing to play politics in very cheap way. The Greens will vote against any extra measures to further punish refugees and asylum seekers. And they know very well that the Labor will have easily the support of all Liberal politicians in both houses for these legislations. Then the Greens will say “hard luck, we tried but the Liberals decided to side with the Labor on this issue. We could not do anything”.

This is the kind of political cheap opportunism the Greens is exercising for the last decade.

If the Greens have the will to change the current gross abuse of human rights inside detention centres, they would seek urgent meeting with the prime minster. The Greens leader could have meeting with the prime minister to tell her in firm words “end this farce now, before we topple the government and enforce you to go for early election that you will lose”. And she will change the policy.

But are the Greens genuinely interested in changing the policy on boat people?

Frankly, we doubt. We should remember that the Greens got the record votes in the last election on the back of deep suffering of boat people. Why should the Greens push very hard to end the circumstances that gave them the balance of power in both houses? Especially the Greens have no record of principled progressive political stances.

In the face of this moral and political crisis that our political system goes through at the moment and for the last decade, we did suggest solution.

The solution is for the progressive forces and individuals to form a political coalition to present real alternative for dissatisfied and marginalised voters.

We were disappointed that many progressive forces (Socialists, Communists, Muslim groups, …) decided to back the Greens in the last elections. This sent the wrong message in the wrong direction. These groups’ close association with the Greens and their calls for voters to vote the Greens, gave the progressive voters impression that the only hope to achieve deep changes is by voting for the Greens and hence giving them more power. This in turn gave the Greens the impression that they have the progressive people’s mandate to keep acting in the opportunist way they acted in the last decade.

We believe that a new coalition is needed to present alternate voice for the marginalised and dissatisfied voters. In Britain, similar coalition under the name of Respect Party could present the British with real alternative of the parties that dominated the British politics for decades. And it worked. It brought many dissatisfied voters from socialists, communists, Muslims, new migrants and anti-war activists together.

We believe that such coalition is the only solution for the political stagnation Australia is suffering form for the last decades.

Bob Brown met Pauline Hanson for coordination as early as 2001: Wiikilinks revealed

The Satirical News

The political analysts had discovered the secrets behind the Pauline Hanson One Nation party’s decision to preference the Greens ahead of all political parties in the 2001 Federal election.

In a document leaked recently to the Wiikilinks site, it was revealed that the leader of the Greens, Sen. Bob Brown, and few advisors have met Ms Hanson and her advisor as early as July 2001. In the meeting, Mr Brown had told Ms Hanson that the Greens are the closest political party to her xenophobic One Nation party.

In the document, which was in fact the minutes of that meeting held in a secret location away from journalists’ eyes, Mr Brown has given Ms Hanson a picture of the politicians and hierarchy of his party. He pointed to her and her advisor that there is no trace to any Non-Anglo politician amongst his party’s politicians and officials.

“It is very clear proof that we share the same ideas and objectives” said Mr Brown according to the minutes. “You are vocally racist, but we are practically the most racist”.

But Ms Hanson demanded something in return for her party’s preference to the Greens. The Greens leader promised to compensate her for this deal later on.

“In this election, we cannot swap preferences with One Nation. This will be detrimental to us. But I promise you to give you a chance to return to politics later on” Sen. Brown promised Ms Hanson, according to document dated 15 July 2001.

The 2001 Federal election saw Greens candidate Ms Kerry Nettle elected to senate, against all odds, Ms Nettle was elected on the 8% preference she got from One Nation xenophobic party. At that election, Ms Hanson was boycotted by all political parties, including racist Liberal party, as she campaigned on openly extreme racist platform.

The leaked document is having more weight recently after the Greens decided not to preference Labor ahead of Liberals or One Nation founder. This odd decision threw life line to Mr Hanson’s bid to re-enter Australian politics through NSW state election.

According to many political analysts, the content of the document finds some interpretation in the Greens surprising decision not to swab preferences with Labor to guarantee that the last legislative council seat does not go to One Nation’s founder.

Ms Hanson was not contactable to comment on the content of the document. The Greens leader denied the content and said that the document and the Wiikilinks site is a hoax created by Labor party to undermine the Greens credibility. The Greens leader did not have convincing explanation why his party has no trace of Non-Anglo officials or politicians.

Ms Hanson is very close to win the 21st LC seat. The Greens will be responsible for the come-back of One Nation founder to politics. All analysists expects that racism and Islamopobia will be the constant issue in NSW politics for the next 4 years. The Greens is responsible for these huge political setbacks.

Other political analysts are expressing their surprise that the Greens is very principled in keeping its deals with xenophobic forces, but highly unprincipled with progressive voters.

To comment on the document that was never received by any imagined website, you can send it to our email and we will publish it promptly. Our email is jamal-daoud@bigpond.com

Open Letter to Bob Brown: enough lies and deception, please!

Dear Hon Bob Brown, The Greens leader
This letter is designed to ask you to stop lying and making deceptive claims. We have listened to you for long time, and we believe that the time has come to ask you to stop and to get more serious. Please respect our intelligence.

The latest very public lies and deceptive ideas you tried to sell was that the Greens voters support everything your party says, does or fights for. This is the cheapest lie we have ever heard.

You are clever enough to differentiate between party members, faithful voters and incidental voters. You should know very well that even party members do not share the same ideas or believe in the same philosophy (if your party has any philosophy to follow, anyway).

You have vented the cheapest lie ever when you claimed that the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election support your party’s family-destructive agenda. You suggested that all these voters support your policy to promote prostitution, drug abuse, abortion and same-sex marriage. Well you are lying.

Let me tell you that even your party members do not support these destructive policies. Recently, your party candidate for the NSW seat of Auburn indicated very clearly at a public gathering that he does not support your party’s policies on euthanasia, drug abuse and prostitution. This is a party member and frontline activist. I know very well that even some historical figures in the Greens do not support many of these destructive policies. Ian Cohen expressed on different occasions that he does not support the policy on promoting drug abuse and other policies that seek to destroy families.

Let me tell you that most of voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election did not even know your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. They have voted for your party on your party’s stance on totally different issues. Most of them have swallowed your party’s deceptive claims to support refugees’ rights or that your party is opposing Israeli crimes against its neighbours.

For the last few days you have branded the words of our PM, Julia Gillard, with wide range of outrageous descriptions for daring to criticise your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. You claimed that her comments are “insulting” to the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens. You have assumed that all these voters agree with your party’s Anti-moral stance.

You know very well that the 1.5 million voters voted for your party mainly for two reasons. Firstly, they were deceived by your party’s election machine to buy their claims of fighting for refugees’ rights and for other social justice issues in the society, including defending public assets and improving public services. The other reason was that they were deeply disappointed form the Labor for the way the leader was dumped and the inaction on refugees’ rights issue. So nothing was on the anti-family policies that you are defending today.

Well, let me tell you that your outrageously deceptive claims are the one which are very insulting to these 1.5 million voters. They are also insulting to all of us. What you tried to do is no more than undemocratically trying to shut any criticism of your party’s destructive agendas.

In this letter, I would like (as an Australian citizen) to ask you to stop your campaign of lying and making deceptive claims.

So please respect our intelligence and stop insulting it.

Yours

Jamal Daoud
Auburn - NSW

After selling community’s dignity: Muslim community demand rid of corrupt “leadership”

The elections usually are the best time to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their actions or lack of action. And usually lobby groups take the chance of elections to demand actions on issues they believe need attention or changes.

But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders”, especially the turbaned religious figures, defy all these trends and norms.

When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.

And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.

But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.

Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights and dignity of the community in return for promises to increase funding.

The conduct of Muslim “leaders”, especially the religious figures, in the last few days of the campaign and on the day of election was in fact a moral shamble. The acts of these religious figures and “leaders” sent simple message that we deserve what we got.

Now after the election is over, every community member has many questions to ask these “leaders”:
1- What are the benefits to community of voting to the Liberals, except making the community a laughable matter in Australian politics?
2- What were the secret deals struck between Liberal party and Muslim “leadership”?
3- How can we stop any future attacks on the Muslims after Muslims sided with the party that created Islamophobia in the country?

We here warn that if the community does not act to correct this moral shamble, Islamophibia will be constant main political agenda in all future elections. We would expect to face waves and waves of Islamophobic attacks, both verbally and physically.

We believe that it is the time for the Muslims in this country to demand rid of the corrupted illegitimate and undemocratic “leadership”. The leadership that sold our dignity and interests for unknown-to-us price. We believe that this community deserves better. And we are taking steps to rid of current one.

10 more reasons why not to Vote the Greens

Let us first mention that we urge everyone who believes in social justice not to vote for either the Liberals or Labor.

But at the same time, we urge everyone who believes and works for social justice in society not to vote the Greens. The Greens is more dangerous than both the Liberals and the Labor. Here are 10 reasons to believe that the Greens is more dangerous and less trustworthy:
1- Political donations: Both Labor and Liberals are not denying that they receive political donations from big corporates. The Greens has consistently campaigned on banning political donations. Yet the Greens accepted all donations offered to them from any corporate. Indeed, they received the largest political donation from single donor in the Australian history.
2- Multiculturalism: The Greens insists that they are inclusive party which promotes and believes in Multiculturalism. Yet, the Greens failed to run single Non-English speaking candidate for any safe or semi-safe seats. The Greens has no single politician who speaks English as second language or from Indigenous background. The Greens is the ONLY Australian party that practice strict White Australia policy.
3- Family and moral values: The Greens work very hard to dismantle family and moral values, where it supports promoting drug addiction, prostitution (including in residential buildings), abortion … The same-sex marriage was the main issue the Greens campaigned on for decades.
4- Public Health: The Greens said that they support public health system and wanted to strengthen it by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance. When the Greens had chance to achieve this, the Greens voted against partially abolishing the rebate during Kevin Rudd primenistreship.
5- Reconciliation: The Greens said that they support reconciliation with indigenous people. Yet, the Greens (unlike even the Liberals) has no indigenous presence in the top positions of the party.
6- Palestine and Israel: The Greens resorted to use the Palestinian suffering and blood in this election by claiming that the Greens opposed Israeli crimes. Yet the fact is that the Greens is the ONLY mainstream political party represented in Federal parliament that never took any practical step to show this opposition or support for the Palestinian rights. The Greens never participated in solidarity visits to Palestine, unlike Labor, Liberals, Nationals and the Democrats. The Greens supported banning of Palestinian armed factions as terrorist organisations. In 2008, the Greens blamed Palestinian armed faction for the Israeli barbaric aggression on Gaza.
7- Economic Management: The Greens record to support services for marginalised is very poor. The Greens is responsible for the biggest waste of common wealth money when they approved stimulus package measures that saw huge waste of more than $50 billions on mainly bogus projects.
8- Housing Crisis: The Greens never came up with any idea or suggestion to relieve the critical housing crisis, the biggest single issue affecting life style of everyone in Australia.
9- Public Assets: The Greens claim to oppose selling public assets. While the Greens never was in position to hold balance of power to approve or disapprove such sales, but all indications suggest that they would approve such sales if they think they will win some votes in return. The Greens leader offered to trade the sale of Telstra in return of moratorium on old growth logging during Howard’s time. It was Howard that did not need the Greens to secure the sale.
10- Refugee and Asylum seekers rights: The Greens rise was mainly on their claim to defend refugees and asylum seekers rights. Yet, the situation of refugees and asylum seekers has deteriorated significantly under Labor-Greens coalition in the last year to the point of suicide of 4 detainees in the last 6 months and violent clashes in many detention centres.

The Greens has no credibility on any issues important for the marginalised communities. The Greens participated in spreading racism and Islamophobia. The Greens did not promote equality. The Greens did not take any practical steps on any issues they claim to have clear and strong stance on. The Greens is the least trustworthy party in Australian history.

Do not risk your and your family’s future.

Put the Greens last.

Muslim “leaders” urging community to vote Liberals: Community’s interest on sale!

The elections usually are the best time to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their actions or lack of action. And usually lobby groups take the chance of elections to demand actions on issues they believe need attention or changes.

But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders” defy all these trends and norms.

When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.

And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.

But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.

Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights of the community members in return for promises to increase funding to these organisations.

The result of the next election in NSW will be crucial to prove or disapprove these assumptions.

If the Muslim votes increase for the liberals, this would simply mean that we deserve what we get.

If the votes to the Liberals will increase after the islamophobic slurs by Liberal leadership, no political party in this country will care about us and about our feelings or rights.

The Liberals will have clear proof that Muslims are so naïve and disorganised. The Liberals strategists will recommend attacking Muslims in full strength in all coming elections. This will not only win them the racist and extreme votes. But it will win them the votes of Muslims, too.

The Muslim community “leaders” (if there are any of them) are proving day after day that they are very naïve. They do not have any strategic planning to win the community some of its lost rights. Or they are very easily to be bought.

We do not advocate the Muslim community members to be segregated from the rest of the society. But we want the community to know how to vote in a way that would stop attacks on its members and attacks on their contributions and achievements in this great nation.

In this election, the community needs to send strong message. The community should punish the political party that regards it as rogue community of criminals and extremists. It should also send message to other parties that neglect and disregard its interests. This should include voting away from all parties that use the community as numbers in polling boxes.

We can see that neither of the political troika of Labor, Liberals and Greens is caring about our feelings, interests and suffering. If they do not care about us, why we should care about them and give them more power?

The history will judge harshly any “leader” who sells the interests of his community for any increase of funding to this organisation or to that one.

The community needs and interests should come first.

The Greens prepare comprehensive plan to end marginalisation in society

Political correspondent for serious fun issues

The Fun Herald

10 February 2011

In the face of the spreading popular revolutions in many different parts of the world seeking social justice and end of poverty and marginalisation, we understand that a comprehensive plan to end marginalisation in Australia once and for ever is prepared by the Australian Greens. The plan was leaked today to our newspaper and to other Australian media outlets. The plan consists of many aggressive steps suggested by the Greens party. The Greens party is even threatening of withdrawing from government and let it collapse if Labor would refuse to accept these “highly progressive” steps.

Bob Brown, the Greens leader, told us that the plan will see the end of marginalisation as we know it for the last centuries.

“The plan starts with proposed bill not only to legalise the drugs, but putting all kind of illicit drugs on PBS. By doing this, marginalised groups will have access to very cheap drugs that would keep them unconscious and so they would lose all feelings of being marginalised” said Bob Brown in his comments to our newspaper.

We know that addicted marginalised people will not have time to be engaged in employment to pay for the high rent, high power bills, high traffic fines and high life expenses. To address this, we understand that the Greens are proposing another bill. The bill will be introduced to legalise prostitution everywhere in the society. Any very poor marginalised person can start selling their bodies in their own residential areas, at schools and universities, in streets and even in parks and shopping centres.

By doing this, marginalised groups can forget about their marginalisation in very quick and easy way. All marginalised groups will be busy either sniffing drugs or selling their bodies to collect enough money to pay for increased cost of living. So there will be no time to feel of marginalisation.

In the face of expected high rate of unwanted pregnancies, the Greens plan is proposing to both promote abortion and educate the population about the benefits of abortion to society.

After effectively reaching a society of mainly drug addicts and prostitutes, the only unresolved issue in the society will be the gay marriage.

“In a society with no trace of any feeling of being marginalised and money is flowing at high rate by selling own bodies, the only issue to be addressed would be the issue of same sex marriage. For this, we are proposing bill to legalise same-sex marriage to end the final straw of marginalisation in the society”

When asked about the problems that would be resulted by such high controversial bills, Mr Brown expressed his believe that none of addicts or prostitutes will be conscious enough to realise that there are problems resulted.

The government also would have enough revenues from flourishing drugs-producing companies and brothels to fund rehabilitation centres and medical institutions.

“You should take into account that we will also close all jails and correction centres and save their budgets. Such money would be enough to fund treating institutions, in combination with tax revenues” stressed Greens leader.

The Greens leader and colleagues will launch this important plan in one of the inner city brothels. The launch will include free illicit drugs for each attendee, as according to invitation sent to one prostitute. The Greens members will also distribute kits titled “Simple steps to fight marginalisation by drugs and sex”.

It is unknown if the Greens leader and his colleagues are living in the same country on the same planet we are living in.

We welcome any comments to pass it to the Greens leader to give him real situation of deteriorating racism, Islamophobia and many kinds of discrimination in the society. This would help the Greens come back to earth.

When my rooster is more dangerous than violating building and rental laws: Open letter to Auburn council

Dear Auburn councillors
I bought 2 chickens and their rooster few months ago. After few days, Auburn council rangers visited my place. They told me that my rooster is so noisy and a neighbour had complained to the council about this. They asked me to remove the rooster ASAP.

Not only I complied in the same day. But I was very happy. The council was so quick to respond to rate-payers complaint, though it is very minor, and asked me to comply with noise “legislation”.

Not only this. I was also proud of my council and its stuff, especially the rangers.

But this pride and happiness evacuated pretty immediately.

Few neighbours, including myself, complained to the council about illegally built and rented garage in the backyard. The garage is not registered with the council, either as garage or for-rent-granny. Several complaints were lodged to the council, started from 1 April 2010. The complaints were repeated several times, especially after the garage was visited several times by local police for different matters. Several times the garage was used a hub for alcohol and drug abuse of large numbers of young people. At other times the police came to arrest criminal who seek refuge in the garage with his cousin living there.

The quiet street became theatre for police visits, chase and investigations.

And the council was impotent to implement its laws on this tiny garage, its owner and its tenant.

The rangers came to inspect the garage. They decided that it is illegal to be rented. They talked to its tenant. Then they talked to the real estate that manages it. And they even talked to its owner.

They issued letter to “cease the use of the outbuilding”. Then the council issued another letter to the owner to “clarify the non-compliance of the Council’s Order”. But nobody complied with these letters.

All these communications happened during the last year. But so far nothing had been achieved.

The tenants are still using illegally the garage, against the council order.

Now let me ask you the following important question: how come you were very quickly to implement the noise legislation in dealing with my rooster noise, but you cannot implement laws about building and renting “outbuildings”?

Why the rangers were enthusiastically responding to the complaints against my rooster? They visited my place twice in one week. They also called me several times to make sure that my rooster is not living in my backyard anymore.
But so far there was only one visit by rangers made to the illegally built and rented garage.

Let me assure you that my rooster was not very dangerous on himself or others. Maybe he was very noisy to highly sensitive very close neighbour. That is all.

But living in illegally built and rented garage is more dangerous, on its tenants and neighbours. The garage is lacking all safety measures needed for any building. It is also unhealthy to live in. And most importantly, its tenants are usually irresponsible youth who has problems with law-enforcement agencies. Hence it is very clear that they are dangerous on my family and the families living in the street.

The other vital question here: why you have authority to evacuate pretty immediately tenants or animals from dwellings in the council area, but you are so slow and hesitant to do so in this case? Has anything to do here with favouritism and even more?

As law-abiding residents and rate-payers we need either swift action on this case. Alternatively we need strong explanation of the reasons for slow response and lack of action.

We do not want to start thinking that there is something fishy deals related to tribalism and even further dirty deals to allow the law breaking to go on.

Jamal Daoud

The use of the Egyptian blood for Greens election campaign: stop political opportunism!

There is election in NSW on 26 March 2011.
And the Greens decided to launch its campaign on the blood of Egyptian people.
In the last Federal election, the Greens launched its campaign on the blood of Palestinian people and Turkish activists killed on Marvi Marmara.

This very cheap political prostitution should be stopped. Morally it is unacceptable.

Should we say the whole facts:
- The Tunisian Greens were partners and allies of Bin Ali regime’s oppression of Tunisian people.
- The Israeli Greens is part of Zionist state oppression of Palestinian people.
- The Jordanian Greens are partner of the regime’s oppression of Jordanians.

But the NSW Greens wants to convince us that they are different.

Before that, we note that German Greens were the ones who sent Germany soldiers for the first time since the end of the II World War to invade foreign country. And that was Afghanistan.

The NSW Greens chose to try to deceive us that they opposed the invasion.

So, please NSW Greens: stop political prostitution.

Our blood should not be material for your election campaign: on the federal or state level.
Our blood and the blood of all innocent people around the world in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt and Tunisia should not be used as election material for you to continue deceiving people.

If you really believe of what you tell us during election campaigns, do something practical.

If you really oppose oppression of Tunisians, do something to discipline your counterparts in Tunisian Greens.
If you really oppose oppression of Afghani people, expel German Greens from Global Greens.
If you really against Israeli massacres, issue single media release stating that Israel is a rogue state and is responsible for the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

We know that you are not genuine. We know very well that you are liars.
So please piss-off. And excuse me for this. The situation is so tense and I cannot be so polite.

Our blood should not be used as election material for your regressive campaign to continue deceiving us.

And shame on you.

Respect our grieve. Respect our suffering. Respect our blood. Respect our sacrifice.
And please do not let us hear your lies against our will.
So, Australian Greens: go to hell.

Democracy for Sale: the Greens last nail in their credibility coffin!

We should admit first of a clear fact now: The Greens were masters in deceiving all of us. They have great skills in deceiving everyone in the society: academics and illiterates, poor and rich, marginalised and privileged, progressive and regressive, media, rival politicians and even international observers.

They told us that they support multiculturalism, but failed to promote any non Anglo-Saxon to parliament or hierarchy. They convinced us that they oppose racism and xenophobia, but negotiated deals with One Nation and Liberals to swap preferences on several occasions.

They claimed that they support public health, but voted down legislation to strengthen public health by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance.

They convinced us that they fight for better environment, but voted against legislation to reduce gas emissions.

They claimed to oppose Israeli aggression, but failed to condemn Israeli crimes or to show some practical solidarity with Palestinians and Lebanese.

They told us that they support public housing, but never demanded to increase funds to build some more public housing.

They criticised Labor and Liberals for attacks on Aboriginal rights, but never showed practical steps to improve these rights. Can you find any Greens politician in any parliament around Australia from Aboriginal background?

And they told us that they are the champions of defending human rights, but supported draconian Anti-Terrorism laws. And they said nothing about the mock trials of Muslim youth who were sentenced for lengthy periods on no clear charges.

Then they told us that “politics corrupts politicians” and so they pushed for limited tenure for politicians. But all their politicians are in parliaments for decades and they do not intend to retire soon. Now instead of “politics corrupts”, they replaced it with “vote for candidates with wealth of experience”.

And they told us that political donations corrupt our system and there is need to abolish them. They even created special organisation to advocate for this under the slogan of “Democracy for Sale” under Greens banner. But now we discovered that they received the largest single donation in Australian history.

Suddenly there is “good donations” vs. “bad donations”. There are donations that corrupt the political system vs. donations that strengthen our political system. There are progressive donors vs. regressive donors. There are donors with no intension to influence political decisions vs. donors that want something in return for their donations.

The Greens politics are very unique:
The racists are defending multiculturalism.
The Zionists criticise Israel.
The regressive privileged politicians defend poor and marginalised.
The Greens long serving politicians are the only corruption-proof politicians.
The corrupts are leading “clean politics”.
And the Stalinists advocate freedom of speech.


And on the top of all: Greens politicians are above any criticism. They are saints or angles. They do not make mistakes. And because of this they do not deserve to be criticised.

Yesterday, the Greens said that the democracy should not be for sale, mainly because no donors offered any donation. Now, when they had the chance, they sold the democracy. But they sold it very cheap.

The Greens auction of the democracy generated only $2 millions. Can they blame the Labor for selling the democracy for $62 millions?

Is there any credibility left for this party of bankrupt politicians: politically, morally and ideologically bankrupt.

The Greens sold Australia for $2 millions: how much they will sell NSW for?

NB: We think it is time for the Greens to dismantle the “Democracy for Sale” bogus organisation and scale down its website. Enough deception, please.