We do not believe that any reasonable stable person would make comments or conflicting decisions as the Auburn councilors made lately. The council affairs have started to be not just a matter to be laughed at - but to be disgusted by too.
The councilors, especially the alliance of the left and far right (this is by itself is matter for deep disgust), were demanding changing the classification of the job they are doing. In simple words, they demanded a pay increase of 100% (Councilors put out hand for rise http://www.torchpublishing.com.au/read/index_assets/review_24_2_09/page_5.html.)
But then, and after they discovered that we are having deep financial troubles and a practical recession and that the council budget is in red, the same alliance demanded an increase of the residential rates by 7.2% (Council applying for residential rate rise http://www.torchpublishing.com.au/read/index_assets/review_14_4_09/page_1.html)
Then and before the Minister for Local Governments decided on changing the classification of the job to grant them an increase of 100%, they met and granted themselves a pay increase of 2.5% (Pay rise for council http://www.torchpublishing.com.au/read/index_assets/review_09_06_09/page_3.html).
The joke did not stop here. One of the newly elected councilors who ran his election campaign last September on representing the “community’s needs” was quoted stating that an increase of his pay by 102.5% is good to stimulate local economy (Pay rise is good local investment http://www.torchpublishing.com.au/read/index_assets/review_16_06_09/page_4.html).
The biggest joke is that we are talking about Auburn council, and not Woollahra or Manly. We are talking about one of the poorest areas in Australia, with one of the highest unemployment rates in Australia.
The joke goes on and on unchallenged. The councilors think that residents either do not read English so they do not know what these councilors are doing. Or that the residents are too stupid to understand their (I mean the councilors’) greed.
The most shameful part of this saga is that it comes from councilors alleging themselves to be progressive who won their seats on promises to fight for a better life for area residents.
All that we are seeing from these councilors since the election is:
1- Bid to close community centres that provide food vouchers to the most needy.
2- Bid to increase rates on residents.
3- Bid to increase salaries to themselves to more than double.
4- Bid to introduce meters to parking in the streets (unlike all neighbouring councils)
Yes, the council is in red, because of mismanagement and many other reasons including the global recession. But addressing this cannot be achieved by squeezing the poor rate payers on one side to inflate the pockets of councilors with allowances they do not deserve.
At the end, they were elected to do this job for this designated allowance. Anyone who thinks that they cannot do this job for this low payment, they also most welcome to resign.
We are watching closely the situation which is no more than cheap jokes. But we will have another say at the next election.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The solution for Australian historical racism
The attacks on Indians in Australia were not the only racist discriminatory event that had happened in the last few weeks. Despite the persistent denial from the authorities and the counter insistence of community leaders and members, the facts are clear.
It was not only Indians who were discriminated against during the last few weeks.
Last month, it was the Hispanics in the form of “Adios” to Sol Trujillo. Also during the same week it was Muslims in Camden, where the whities claimed that “we are not racists” but “we do not want Muslims here in our area”.
The only strategy put by government to fight this escalating racism was the denial. Kevin Rudd claimed that he was not racist. But he was caught on all media outlets around the world laughing with his “adios” attitude.
And in Camden, the council was in full denial mood. The councillors had no Anti-Muslim discrimination, though the court had dismissed all council’s arguments as baseless. Then the judges were in full denial after they took decision outside their authority. It was not about discrimination, they just wanted to stop “them” coming to the area.
And now all officials are claiming that Indians are not targeted. And when they were enforced to admit that the Indians “maybe” were targeted for racial reasons, the police leaked unconfirmed information that it was not whites who attacked them, but the Lebos. So it was not white racism. This is what Paul Sheehan said.
What a shameful joke.
Can we ask few questions here?
1- Was this the first time some Australians showed racism, while other Australians suffered from racism?
2- Why are the government and its arms of bureaucrats and security agencies “impotent” to take any action but denial?
3- What to do to address this issue and convince Indigenous, Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, Africans, Arabs… that racism is not flourishing in Australia?
What amazes all of us that the organisations that were established to fight for human rights and for multiculturalism were also ‘impotent” in the new continuous wave of racism. Their full denial of existence of racism in Australia was sending wrong message to the racists. These organisations were indeed complacent in the new racist wave, by offering blanket cover for the racists. It was very clear that they became part of the problem, and not part of any solution.
Instead of playing the role of multiculturalism defender, the commissioner for Community Relations was in full denial of any racism in Australia. He insisted that we are the ideal society that knows no racism or discrimination. Many other officials who were assigned to watch the situation of human rights, racism level and multiculturalism were also in full denial, stressing that Australia is one of the best multicultural countries in the world.
And this is the irony and the cause of all historical racism this country suffered since the invasion more than 2.5 centuries ago.
In a country where 98% of its population are from migrant background and where there are more than 150 different ethnicities, only one colour is dominant in its decision making bodies. This is why this one ethnicity would do everything they can to maintain their grip on power - even if this would mean deeply dividing the society, by spreading racial hate and fear.
We believed that the new government of Mr Smiley would take actions to stop (or at least reduce) racism. Instead, he was embroiled in racial slurs.
And where are the “progressive” small parties? Maybe they are not in full denial state, but they are definitely in either a full sleeping, full cowardliness or full agreement (with racists) state.
With a quick look at the composition of our parliaments (Federal and ALL states), we can discover the reasons for our long racist history.
Yes, we are in deep troubles. The troubles could get uglier if there will be no serious steps to counter the close - mindedness of our oldest migrant ethnicity. They should understand that Australia in 21 century is fundamentally different from Australia in the 18 – 20 centuries. Demographically it is fundamentally different too.
Our political class is shamefully very white. This is the root of all our troubles. And the first step is to challenge the colour of our decision-making class.
Without this, these white politicians will invent new Cronulla every year to keep their seats and their absolute grip on power.
But can Australia afford this?
It was not only Indians who were discriminated against during the last few weeks.
Last month, it was the Hispanics in the form of “Adios” to Sol Trujillo. Also during the same week it was Muslims in Camden, where the whities claimed that “we are not racists” but “we do not want Muslims here in our area”.
The only strategy put by government to fight this escalating racism was the denial. Kevin Rudd claimed that he was not racist. But he was caught on all media outlets around the world laughing with his “adios” attitude.
And in Camden, the council was in full denial mood. The councillors had no Anti-Muslim discrimination, though the court had dismissed all council’s arguments as baseless. Then the judges were in full denial after they took decision outside their authority. It was not about discrimination, they just wanted to stop “them” coming to the area.
And now all officials are claiming that Indians are not targeted. And when they were enforced to admit that the Indians “maybe” were targeted for racial reasons, the police leaked unconfirmed information that it was not whites who attacked them, but the Lebos. So it was not white racism. This is what Paul Sheehan said.
What a shameful joke.
Can we ask few questions here?
1- Was this the first time some Australians showed racism, while other Australians suffered from racism?
2- Why are the government and its arms of bureaucrats and security agencies “impotent” to take any action but denial?
3- What to do to address this issue and convince Indigenous, Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, Africans, Arabs… that racism is not flourishing in Australia?
What amazes all of us that the organisations that were established to fight for human rights and for multiculturalism were also ‘impotent” in the new continuous wave of racism. Their full denial of existence of racism in Australia was sending wrong message to the racists. These organisations were indeed complacent in the new racist wave, by offering blanket cover for the racists. It was very clear that they became part of the problem, and not part of any solution.
Instead of playing the role of multiculturalism defender, the commissioner for Community Relations was in full denial of any racism in Australia. He insisted that we are the ideal society that knows no racism or discrimination. Many other officials who were assigned to watch the situation of human rights, racism level and multiculturalism were also in full denial, stressing that Australia is one of the best multicultural countries in the world.
And this is the irony and the cause of all historical racism this country suffered since the invasion more than 2.5 centuries ago.
In a country where 98% of its population are from migrant background and where there are more than 150 different ethnicities, only one colour is dominant in its decision making bodies. This is why this one ethnicity would do everything they can to maintain their grip on power - even if this would mean deeply dividing the society, by spreading racial hate and fear.
We believed that the new government of Mr Smiley would take actions to stop (or at least reduce) racism. Instead, he was embroiled in racial slurs.
And where are the “progressive” small parties? Maybe they are not in full denial state, but they are definitely in either a full sleeping, full cowardliness or full agreement (with racists) state.
With a quick look at the composition of our parliaments (Federal and ALL states), we can discover the reasons for our long racist history.
Yes, we are in deep troubles. The troubles could get uglier if there will be no serious steps to counter the close - mindedness of our oldest migrant ethnicity. They should understand that Australia in 21 century is fundamentally different from Australia in the 18 – 20 centuries. Demographically it is fundamentally different too.
Our political class is shamefully very white. This is the root of all our troubles. And the first step is to challenge the colour of our decision-making class.
Without this, these white politicians will invent new Cronulla every year to keep their seats and their absolute grip on power.
But can Australia afford this?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Why the Greens did not discipline “unGreen” councillor in Auburn!!!
First of all let us assume that the Greens has indeed any clear “green” ideological agenda, that they will stick to it to get directions in taking any decision or when conducting any campaign. This assumption is very important to compare it with the reality of this “opportunist” party.
If this assumption is true, even for less extent, we would have expected that the Greens party would have taken major disciplinary steps against Greens councillor in Auburn, Ms Malikeh Michaels. So far during this term of the council she committed the followings:
1- She supported proposal to approve high-rise building in Queen St, Auburn (against her election campaign promises, and the Greens clear policy in opposing such buildings).
2- She supported the demolition of heritage-listed building in Harrow Rd, Auburn (again against the Greens clear policy on this issue)
3- She did not initiate any initiative to promote environmentally sustainable proposals to be implemented in Auburn development proposals.
4- She campaigned against the Greens candidate in First Ward during Auburn council election, September 08.
5- She attacked the party and encouraged members to defect to rival parties (including myself since 2005), as she labelled the Greens as “White Anglo middle class people’s club with no place for multiculturalism).
6- She built very close relationship with the highly regressive Liberal party and voted in block with them on EVERY proposal since last September.
Let me tell you the truth: I was not surprised on this as I did not expect the Greens to take any step against her for many reasons:
1- The Greens has no clear political agenda based on ideology. The Greens is punch of opportunist people who failed to secure any position in any different political parties. All what they are after is to increase votes and get themselves elected to parliament or any public office (or to secure staffer position) with some power and money, to secure comfortable retirement. Please read what another Greens councillor, Irene Doutney, on 31 Oct 07, had to say on this issue: “I think there are a couple of things about the greens that need to be explained. The Greens unlike other parties are more a group of individuals that work collectively. For better or worse there is no overarching ideology that informs policy decisions ….”
2- The Greens infact wants to get rid of the wrong label of being “Left” they were given because of the lack of real left.
3- The Greens are happy for Malikeh to break the ice with the far right Liberal party (enforced on them because of the label mentioned above). By doing this they can achieve many goals in one shot:
- They can wait until Malikeh establish good relationship with the Liberals to use the excuse of “not to be monarchist more than the king” to publicly announce deals with the Liberals. This would happen by saying: here is Muslim representative who have good relationship with Liberals, despite all Anti-Muslim sentiments mounted by that far right party. So why we should not enter any deal?
- The relationship will allow the secret negotiations between the Greens and the far-right Liberals to see the light just in time for the next Federal and State elections.
But how can any political party trust lady that attacks her own party, stab its candidate in the back and make secret deals with rivals?
But the more important question here would be: how would the community and progressive people of Australia support and trust such party that is waiting at the doors of the most regressive far right party to make “preferential deals” with?
The answer is not easy. And we would not know the answer right now. We should wait to see how the community (not only Muslims, but the progressive mainstream community too) will react to these dirty deals and assumptions. And clearly this is the main reason why the Greens hierarchy is very patient with Malikeh, if not supporting her. They clearly did not learn from the huge backlash when the community discovered similar deals during Victoria state election, 2006, and then NSW state election, 2007. Or maybe they are gambling that the community had forgotten all what the Liberals had done and stand for. Again they are clearly did not analyse closely the results of the recent Queensland state election (I will post our analysis very soon, as it gives good indication about what to expect in the next Federal and NSW state elections)
The Greens wants her to make all these mistakes, dirty deals and wrong assumptions, until the next election. Then if the community would show strong dissent and threaten to send strong protest message, the Greens would act at that time by putting all the blames on her (Malikeh). At that time and if the community’s reaction will be so loud, the Greens will easy say: we did not agree with her on this. Then they will blame her for all the dirty deals and tricks, and they may take strong disciplinary actions then.
But this step is very big gamble. Firstly, the community’s backlash could be so huge that it will not accept any justification. At the end of the day, Ms Malikeh is not new Greens councillor. She was on council for more than 5 years.
Secondly, the Greens hierarchy cannot guarantee Malikeh. She can cross the “floor” at anytime she will get “better deal” and better conditions of employment.
I think that the time ahead would be very interesting. But for now I should mention one thing at the end of this piece. When I urged Malikeh to run for council, I did not ask her to become “representative” of the community. I indeed urged her to run to become good example for Muslims’ participation in this society to demystify all ugly Liberals campaigns to stereotype our community. It is very clear that I made the wrong choice. And for this I do apologise deeply, to every Australian.
Sorry
If this assumption is true, even for less extent, we would have expected that the Greens party would have taken major disciplinary steps against Greens councillor in Auburn, Ms Malikeh Michaels. So far during this term of the council she committed the followings:
1- She supported proposal to approve high-rise building in Queen St, Auburn (against her election campaign promises, and the Greens clear policy in opposing such buildings).
2- She supported the demolition of heritage-listed building in Harrow Rd, Auburn (again against the Greens clear policy on this issue)
3- She did not initiate any initiative to promote environmentally sustainable proposals to be implemented in Auburn development proposals.
4- She campaigned against the Greens candidate in First Ward during Auburn council election, September 08.
5- She attacked the party and encouraged members to defect to rival parties (including myself since 2005), as she labelled the Greens as “White Anglo middle class people’s club with no place for multiculturalism).
6- She built very close relationship with the highly regressive Liberal party and voted in block with them on EVERY proposal since last September.
Let me tell you the truth: I was not surprised on this as I did not expect the Greens to take any step against her for many reasons:
1- The Greens has no clear political agenda based on ideology. The Greens is punch of opportunist people who failed to secure any position in any different political parties. All what they are after is to increase votes and get themselves elected to parliament or any public office (or to secure staffer position) with some power and money, to secure comfortable retirement. Please read what another Greens councillor, Irene Doutney, on 31 Oct 07, had to say on this issue: “I think there are a couple of things about the greens that need to be explained. The Greens unlike other parties are more a group of individuals that work collectively. For better or worse there is no overarching ideology that informs policy decisions ….”
2- The Greens infact wants to get rid of the wrong label of being “Left” they were given because of the lack of real left.
3- The Greens are happy for Malikeh to break the ice with the far right Liberal party (enforced on them because of the label mentioned above). By doing this they can achieve many goals in one shot:
- They can wait until Malikeh establish good relationship with the Liberals to use the excuse of “not to be monarchist more than the king” to publicly announce deals with the Liberals. This would happen by saying: here is Muslim representative who have good relationship with Liberals, despite all Anti-Muslim sentiments mounted by that far right party. So why we should not enter any deal?
- The relationship will allow the secret negotiations between the Greens and the far-right Liberals to see the light just in time for the next Federal and State elections.
But how can any political party trust lady that attacks her own party, stab its candidate in the back and make secret deals with rivals?
But the more important question here would be: how would the community and progressive people of Australia support and trust such party that is waiting at the doors of the most regressive far right party to make “preferential deals” with?
The answer is not easy. And we would not know the answer right now. We should wait to see how the community (not only Muslims, but the progressive mainstream community too) will react to these dirty deals and assumptions. And clearly this is the main reason why the Greens hierarchy is very patient with Malikeh, if not supporting her. They clearly did not learn from the huge backlash when the community discovered similar deals during Victoria state election, 2006, and then NSW state election, 2007. Or maybe they are gambling that the community had forgotten all what the Liberals had done and stand for. Again they are clearly did not analyse closely the results of the recent Queensland state election (I will post our analysis very soon, as it gives good indication about what to expect in the next Federal and NSW state elections)
The Greens wants her to make all these mistakes, dirty deals and wrong assumptions, until the next election. Then if the community would show strong dissent and threaten to send strong protest message, the Greens would act at that time by putting all the blames on her (Malikeh). At that time and if the community’s reaction will be so loud, the Greens will easy say: we did not agree with her on this. Then they will blame her for all the dirty deals and tricks, and they may take strong disciplinary actions then.
But this step is very big gamble. Firstly, the community’s backlash could be so huge that it will not accept any justification. At the end of the day, Ms Malikeh is not new Greens councillor. She was on council for more than 5 years.
Secondly, the Greens hierarchy cannot guarantee Malikeh. She can cross the “floor” at anytime she will get “better deal” and better conditions of employment.
I think that the time ahead would be very interesting. But for now I should mention one thing at the end of this piece. When I urged Malikeh to run for council, I did not ask her to become “representative” of the community. I indeed urged her to run to become good example for Muslims’ participation in this society to demystify all ugly Liberals campaigns to stereotype our community. It is very clear that I made the wrong choice. And for this I do apologise deeply, to every Australian.
Sorry
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Ms Michaels: this time it is very dangerous.
This time we should all stand together and say: enough is enough and not in our name. I am talking here about the decision taken by 6 councilors to investigate possibility of allowing demolition of heritage listed former fire station in Auburn.
We should send a clear message that the trio Michele Michaels – Izzet Anmack – Ronney Oueik does not represent us as a community.
Firstly we should mention things as they are. Both Ms Michaels and Mr Ronney ran in the last election not as Muslim candidates, but on behalf of their parties. And both their parties are very far from representing the interests of the Muslim community, if not representing the opposite. I will give details on this later in this opinion piece.
We noticed that after Ms Michele Michaels missed out on becoming Mayor of Auburn and missed out on the $50,000 allowance, her attitude changed significantly. The latest change is very dangerous to the harmony in the community and could badly backlash against us as a community of religious and cultural minorities.
This time this trio is sending a message to all Australians that the Muslims are banditos, arrogant and do not recognize or respect any law or rule. The trio is in fact finishing the job started by John Howard of stereotyping our community and branding us as “unAustralians”, supporting illegal activities.
The Auburn Council motion and subsequent media comments by Malikeh Michaels had the potential to achieve more than what John Howard tried to achieve in a decade of Anti-Muslim propaganda, if she is not stopped immediately. This dangerous trend here is the fact that this trio is claiming that they are representing Muslims in all their actions. Ms Michaels has even gone further when she was shedding tears at the Anti-Muslim behaviour of the councilors in opposing her motion. This resulted in threats of violence against those councilors by mislead community members after they heard the tears from this “representative of Muslims in Australia”.
Yes. As Muslims we are disadvantaged and treated as second class citizens. But we are fighting to be treated equally and only equally. We are not seeking to be treated as super citizens: citizens above laws. Citizens that can destroy, demolish and re-structure without following any rules or laws.
On the claims by this trio of “representing the Muslim community”, let us mention some facts.
Let us start with Mr Ronney Ouiek. He is member of the Liberal party. For the Australians who do not remember what the Liberal party has done, let me mention a few facts:
1- The Liberal party detained tens of thousands of asylum seekers (90% of them are Muslims) and then destroyed their lives by several inhumane pieces of legislation.
2- The Liberal party destroyed civil liberties and introduced Anti- Terrorism laws, which were introduced to mainly discriminate against and target Muslims.
3- The Liberal party refuted Multiculturalism and considered this word to be shameful.
4- The Liberal party sent our troops to participate in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and supported blindly Israeli massacres in Lebanon and Palestine.
5- The Liberal party promoted all lies about the Muslim community to label the community as terrorist and out of control.
Not only this. Ronney Ouiek was quoted at the pooling booths during the last council election supporting Israeli massacres against Palestinians and against his own Lebanese people.
Would such person represent Muslims?
And then let us ask where Ms Michaels was when the attack on Muslims was at its height? Where was she when the detentions were full of Muslims? Where was she when the Howard government legislated all these discriminatory laws against Muslims and labeled them as terrorist by birth? And where was she when Israel invaded Lebanon (2006), and then invaded Gaza (2008 -2009)? And where is she now where tens young Muslims are still behind bars for no reason, allegedly for “terrorism-related” activities?
For this lack of track history of any “commitment” to major issues of concern to Muslims, where did Ms Michaels get this claims that she represent Muslims? Has she not noticed that Zalmay Khalil Zadeh, the criminal member of George Bush administration, was in fact Muslim. Could he claim that he represented American Muslims?
If we add to this the fact that Ms Michaels claimed after the last council election that she got elected to the council on the votes from white middle class voters in the new suburbs of Auburn, then we should wonder how come she is claiming now that she is representing the Muslim community (who did not vote for her, as per her claim)?
The tight bond between Ms Michaels and the Liberal councilors is answering it all. It could be that she is still planning for her mayorship next term with the support of Liberals-Unity- Izzet councilors. And I do not think that it is anything to do with the Muslim rights.
And why did I say at the beginning that this time she is playing a very dangerous game?
1- She is playing dirty tactics to raise the feelings of Muslims against a few councilors, which could result in violence. This violence could result in media hysteria that would bring back the memories of the Howard dark ages of high racist attacks on Muslims. Then we, as a community, will start again from scratch to rebuild our shattered reputation.
2- Her hysterical campaign to apparently secure the mayorship position, even if will not resulted in physical violence, could be used to justify portraying our community with all ugly labels.
3- This hysterical campaign could also result in dividing the community itself and then could spark factional and sectarian violence or at least tension, between supporters of this development application and the ones who do not.
4- Her hysterical opportunist campaign (if not stopped) could clean the dark pages of Howard-Ruddock crimes and introduce the xenophobic Liberals as the Muslim friendly party.
What amazes me too is that she circulated an email earlier last week stating that she is a proud “Greens” party member. I checked the official policy of the Greens on the heritage issue. I will quote a few points:
Under Principles:
5- We should support appropriate development that is sympathetic to its environment, heritage considerations ….
Heritage is viewed by developers and, in some instances, by planners as an obstacle to the planning process, rather than an asset, as it should be.
Then under Goals:
30 - Establish a requirement that developers conserve and adaptively re-use heritage structures …
And there is special section for protecting heritage in the same policy (you can access the policy on http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/building-and-development)
So in reading this policy and then reading the decision by this Greens councilor to support potential demolition of a heritage building, we should come to either one of the following 3 conclusions:
1- It is either the Greens policy is published on the web just to mislead public and get more votes only (which is true in most cases)
2- Or that the Greens councilor did throw the Greens official policy into rubbish bin, for own benefit and agenda.
3- Or maybe it’s a combination of both, for combined interests and agendas.
Now let us ask what are these agendas of both the Greens and Ms Michaels:
1- It is possible that Ms Michaels is just planning for the next Mayorship election, only.
2- Or maybe she is planning to move parties to the Liberals.
3- Or maybe it is a bigger agenda of the Greens to enter coalition with the extreme right Liberal Party in the next election.
4- Or it could be combination of all the above.
As this is a very dangerous move that could backlash against the whole community, we should not be silent. And we should not be intimidated by emotional abuse tactics of Ms Michaels by abusing us as Anti-Muslims.
We opposed and condemned the move not to approve Mosques in Camden, Baulkham Hills and before that in Sefton, Dee Why and Earlwood, where development applications were done according to laws and regulations. We also (not like the Greens MLC) opposed denying Muslims to build schools, if they would be built according to rules and regulations. But we cannot support breaking the law in such a way.
I will seek a meeting with Br Shafiq Khan to explore any solution without any violent backlash against our community. But at the same time I want everyone to know that not in my name. Definetley Ms Michaels does not represent me as Muslim Australian. And I know that hundreds (if not thousands) do agree with me.
Accordingly, the trio of Michaels-Anmak-Oueik should not pursue their own agenda regardless if it will be built on more suffering of hundreds of thousands of our community members.
We should do all in our hands to let everyone know about this. And definitely we will be present at the next council meeting to let them know that: Not in our name.
And I should mention here that I wrote this piece regardless of my views on heritage preservation. I could have a different opinion, that is irrelevant. The most important thing for us is the interests of the community and to maintain and strengthen the harmony in the society. It would be very shameful if we were to go a few steps backwards because of the personal interests of a few community members, who have no mandate to speak in our name.
We should mention here that we expected something different from Independent Muslim councilor Izzet. But at the moment he proved to be naïve (at least) by following Ms Michaels’ misleading directions. He should remember that Ms Michaels has bigger agendas, he is definitely not part of them.
We should send a clear message that the trio Michele Michaels – Izzet Anmack – Ronney Oueik does not represent us as a community.
Firstly we should mention things as they are. Both Ms Michaels and Mr Ronney ran in the last election not as Muslim candidates, but on behalf of their parties. And both their parties are very far from representing the interests of the Muslim community, if not representing the opposite. I will give details on this later in this opinion piece.
We noticed that after Ms Michele Michaels missed out on becoming Mayor of Auburn and missed out on the $50,000 allowance, her attitude changed significantly. The latest change is very dangerous to the harmony in the community and could badly backlash against us as a community of religious and cultural minorities.
This time this trio is sending a message to all Australians that the Muslims are banditos, arrogant and do not recognize or respect any law or rule. The trio is in fact finishing the job started by John Howard of stereotyping our community and branding us as “unAustralians”, supporting illegal activities.
The Auburn Council motion and subsequent media comments by Malikeh Michaels had the potential to achieve more than what John Howard tried to achieve in a decade of Anti-Muslim propaganda, if she is not stopped immediately. This dangerous trend here is the fact that this trio is claiming that they are representing Muslims in all their actions. Ms Michaels has even gone further when she was shedding tears at the Anti-Muslim behaviour of the councilors in opposing her motion. This resulted in threats of violence against those councilors by mislead community members after they heard the tears from this “representative of Muslims in Australia”.
Yes. As Muslims we are disadvantaged and treated as second class citizens. But we are fighting to be treated equally and only equally. We are not seeking to be treated as super citizens: citizens above laws. Citizens that can destroy, demolish and re-structure without following any rules or laws.
On the claims by this trio of “representing the Muslim community”, let us mention some facts.
Let us start with Mr Ronney Ouiek. He is member of the Liberal party. For the Australians who do not remember what the Liberal party has done, let me mention a few facts:
1- The Liberal party detained tens of thousands of asylum seekers (90% of them are Muslims) and then destroyed their lives by several inhumane pieces of legislation.
2- The Liberal party destroyed civil liberties and introduced Anti- Terrorism laws, which were introduced to mainly discriminate against and target Muslims.
3- The Liberal party refuted Multiculturalism and considered this word to be shameful.
4- The Liberal party sent our troops to participate in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and supported blindly Israeli massacres in Lebanon and Palestine.
5- The Liberal party promoted all lies about the Muslim community to label the community as terrorist and out of control.
Not only this. Ronney Ouiek was quoted at the pooling booths during the last council election supporting Israeli massacres against Palestinians and against his own Lebanese people.
Would such person represent Muslims?
And then let us ask where Ms Michaels was when the attack on Muslims was at its height? Where was she when the detentions were full of Muslims? Where was she when the Howard government legislated all these discriminatory laws against Muslims and labeled them as terrorist by birth? And where was she when Israel invaded Lebanon (2006), and then invaded Gaza (2008 -2009)? And where is she now where tens young Muslims are still behind bars for no reason, allegedly for “terrorism-related” activities?
For this lack of track history of any “commitment” to major issues of concern to Muslims, where did Ms Michaels get this claims that she represent Muslims? Has she not noticed that Zalmay Khalil Zadeh, the criminal member of George Bush administration, was in fact Muslim. Could he claim that he represented American Muslims?
If we add to this the fact that Ms Michaels claimed after the last council election that she got elected to the council on the votes from white middle class voters in the new suburbs of Auburn, then we should wonder how come she is claiming now that she is representing the Muslim community (who did not vote for her, as per her claim)?
The tight bond between Ms Michaels and the Liberal councilors is answering it all. It could be that she is still planning for her mayorship next term with the support of Liberals-Unity- Izzet councilors. And I do not think that it is anything to do with the Muslim rights.
And why did I say at the beginning that this time she is playing a very dangerous game?
1- She is playing dirty tactics to raise the feelings of Muslims against a few councilors, which could result in violence. This violence could result in media hysteria that would bring back the memories of the Howard dark ages of high racist attacks on Muslims. Then we, as a community, will start again from scratch to rebuild our shattered reputation.
2- Her hysterical campaign to apparently secure the mayorship position, even if will not resulted in physical violence, could be used to justify portraying our community with all ugly labels.
3- This hysterical campaign could also result in dividing the community itself and then could spark factional and sectarian violence or at least tension, between supporters of this development application and the ones who do not.
4- Her hysterical opportunist campaign (if not stopped) could clean the dark pages of Howard-Ruddock crimes and introduce the xenophobic Liberals as the Muslim friendly party.
What amazes me too is that she circulated an email earlier last week stating that she is a proud “Greens” party member. I checked the official policy of the Greens on the heritage issue. I will quote a few points:
Under Principles:
5- We should support appropriate development that is sympathetic to its environment, heritage considerations ….
Heritage is viewed by developers and, in some instances, by planners as an obstacle to the planning process, rather than an asset, as it should be.
Then under Goals:
30 - Establish a requirement that developers conserve and adaptively re-use heritage structures …
And there is special section for protecting heritage in the same policy (you can access the policy on http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/building-and-development)
So in reading this policy and then reading the decision by this Greens councilor to support potential demolition of a heritage building, we should come to either one of the following 3 conclusions:
1- It is either the Greens policy is published on the web just to mislead public and get more votes only (which is true in most cases)
2- Or that the Greens councilor did throw the Greens official policy into rubbish bin, for own benefit and agenda.
3- Or maybe it’s a combination of both, for combined interests and agendas.
Now let us ask what are these agendas of both the Greens and Ms Michaels:
1- It is possible that Ms Michaels is just planning for the next Mayorship election, only.
2- Or maybe she is planning to move parties to the Liberals.
3- Or maybe it is a bigger agenda of the Greens to enter coalition with the extreme right Liberal Party in the next election.
4- Or it could be combination of all the above.
As this is a very dangerous move that could backlash against the whole community, we should not be silent. And we should not be intimidated by emotional abuse tactics of Ms Michaels by abusing us as Anti-Muslims.
We opposed and condemned the move not to approve Mosques in Camden, Baulkham Hills and before that in Sefton, Dee Why and Earlwood, where development applications were done according to laws and regulations. We also (not like the Greens MLC) opposed denying Muslims to build schools, if they would be built according to rules and regulations. But we cannot support breaking the law in such a way.
I will seek a meeting with Br Shafiq Khan to explore any solution without any violent backlash against our community. But at the same time I want everyone to know that not in my name. Definetley Ms Michaels does not represent me as Muslim Australian. And I know that hundreds (if not thousands) do agree with me.
Accordingly, the trio of Michaels-Anmak-Oueik should not pursue their own agenda regardless if it will be built on more suffering of hundreds of thousands of our community members.
We should do all in our hands to let everyone know about this. And definitely we will be present at the next council meeting to let them know that: Not in our name.
And I should mention here that I wrote this piece regardless of my views on heritage preservation. I could have a different opinion, that is irrelevant. The most important thing for us is the interests of the community and to maintain and strengthen the harmony in the society. It would be very shameful if we were to go a few steps backwards because of the personal interests of a few community members, who have no mandate to speak in our name.
We should mention here that we expected something different from Independent Muslim councilor Izzet. But at the moment he proved to be naïve (at least) by following Ms Michaels’ misleading directions. He should remember that Ms Michaels has bigger agendas, he is definitely not part of them.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The day Marat Aminov tried to end his life: the whole story!
I am writing this piece because I am appalld at the Australian treatment of this poor family. The treatment of this family could not be accepted by any nation with minimum of human rights respect. It especially appalld all of us the lack of compassion on all levels in dealing with this family.
The lack of media interest:
I will come to some of the reasons why Marat tried to end his life. One of the major reasons was the complete silence of the media outlets about reporting on this issue. It shocked Marat and his family the low level of interest on reporting on their case, even after many attempts by us to attract the attention of the media outlets which are constantly present in the Parliament House. It shocked us how the media would talk for days about torturing a cat at train station by irresponsible teenager, but are negligent about reporting on torturing whole family for years by adult ministers and department’s bureaucrats.
The eviction from Parliament:
The story started when we traveled to Canberra determined to attract the attention of the PM and his minister for immigration by all means. I will not talk now in details about the plans that were put to do so. All what I need to say that we could attract the attention of media, MP, his ministers and MPs of all different parties. The attempt resulted in evicting me and Marat from the Parliament and banned us from there for 24 hours. When we were escorted by Federal police to the area designated for us to protest, we were still making media comments and demanding that the minister spare few minutes to meet us and discuss a way out. After the end of media interviews, I noticed that there is blood coming from Marat’s chin. He was also in deep pain. We discovered later that he was beaten by security officers by kicking his face with their shoes. I called 000 asking for medical check.
Early signs of politicizing health services:
Upon ambulance arrival, a federal police agent blocked its way and talked for about 5 – 7 minutes to the ambulance officer. When she approached us, she immediately asked Marat to jump into the ambulance. After few seconds, she emerged alone from inside of the ambulance and told us that they need to take him to hospital for checks. I asked her to open the door to pass mobile phone to him, but she refused. She jumped to the ambulance, told us that they are taking him to Canberra hospital. Then the ambulance took off.
All this happened on Monday, 1 December. The parliament sitting for the year would end on Thursday, 4 December 08. The government needed to keep us away for another 3 days, until the parliament will close for Christmas period.
We collected all our chairs and table and went to hospital. After arriving to hospital and asking for him at reception, reception asked me to go immediately inside to help in calming Marat down. He was refusing to allow doctors to do anything to him. They wanted him to lie down on the bed and allow them to put collar around his neck, as they suspected that he hurt his neck when he jumped to the Parliament floor.
After his family’s long-time ordeal with the governmental departments, he had developed Schizophrenic disorder with deep anti-authorities feelings. He had suspicions about the doctors’ motives, so he would not lower his head. He needed to see always what the doctors and nurses are doing. I calmed him down and told him that we are there now and the doctors and nursed would not be able to hurt him. He then agreed to cooperate.
The doctor told me that they will keep him at hospital for several hours only to do some analysis and scans for his neck and vertebral column. We trusted the health officials, as we should in normal situation.
His parents told me to go back to Sydney and they will stay at hospital until he will be released. I asked them to contact me if anything would happen. I warned them to be very cautious as the government could try to do anything to make them look like violent or uncivilized people to justify the deeply inhumane treatment.
Around midnight, I received phone call from Alija, Marat’s mother. She was very distressed and crying. She told me that the police had arrested Samil, her husband, as he tried to take Marat home from hospital. I asked her not to do anything and ask Samil to go with them to police station and not resisting arrest.
Then politicizing judicial system:
On the next day Aliija called me again. She told me that Samil was taken to court without any interpreter or legal representative. The Legal Aid representative intervened, but with no success, as there was no interpreter to get Samil’s instruction to apply for bail. We learned too that Canberra hospital officials executed order to keep Marat in psychiatric unit for 3 days to “prevent suicidal attempts”.
The game was very clear. The government had politicized all services: medical, police, judicial,… in a bid to keep the family away from the Federal Parliament until the session ends.
Samil attempted to commit suicide:
While I started to talk about all these to media outlets, the family started to get very angry and frustrated. Then we knew that the sort of things that we warned off had happened: Samil tried to commit suicide inside his cell by slashing his wrist with metal object. The whole situation was headed to be out of control. The authorities were enforced to release Marat immediately from psychiatric unit. Marat and Alija called me to discuss the next move. We decided that they should go back to Parliament and continue their protest.
The day Marat tried to commit suicide:
Next day (Wednesday 3 December 08) I traveled to Canberra to be with the family and see what we can do. I traveled with my wife there.
On arrival, I heard what had happened. We then had extensive discussion about what we should do. We decided that we should do all what we can today, as the Parliament will go into rest for at least 50 days. The main issue for the family was the release of Samil from jail.
We noticed that next to our protest table, there were people preparing to celebrate in a big tent. We approached them and asked. It is the official celebration of the Day of people with disabilities. A very big irony. The government wanted to celebrate the resilience of people with disabilities, but was insisting to punish others and causes them deep disabilities. Very strange logic.
The journalists and cameramen started to flood the place. I approached Marat and told him that it is good time to do something to embarrass the government and to attract media attention. Marat did not say anything. He shock his head. Suddenly he disappeared. His mother asked about his whereabouts. We did not know, he simply did not say anything.
And suddenly he re-appeared. And suddenly many officials form the department of immigration appeared. They approached Marat and his mum asking how they are doing. Marat avoided them and moved to other place. They asked about her health and the health of Marat. The ministers started to arrive and the celebration started. Suddenly Marat stood up, started to pour petrol on himself and automatic lighter in his left hand and started shouting “Hey, listen to me why I will kill myself”.
Suddenly a huge Federal policeman jumped to the area, started approaching Marat trying to strip him from the lighter. I jumped and shouted warning the policeman that there is big chance that he will set himself alight if the policeman did not stop approaching him. I told the policeman that this man had tired to commit suicide at least three times in the last year. The policeman stopped and started negotiating with him. I kept warning the Federal policemen from making any stupid moves, as the situation is very dangerous and we could lose this young life. “Shut up and let me finish and tell them why I want to kill myself” Marat started to shout on me.
The real reason why Marat tried to commit suicide:
“I want to kill myself as the government not only treated my parents very badly, but they put my father in jail for no reason”. The main issue for Marat was his father and his unlawful arrest and the subsequent mistreatment. “How can government not provide him with Russian interpreter, just to keep him behind bars? What kind of democracy?”
The feelings were very high. The mother collapsed in front of us. My wife was trying to calm her down, but she was shouting “my son, I am losing my son, please help me” then she crawled, as she could not stand on her feet anymore. By that time, the policeman convinced Marat to through away the lighter and stop his attempt.
What amazed me that one cameraman was persistently abusing Alija in very bad way. My wife told me that he even told her to “shut your mouth and go to help your son away from minister’s speech”. I confronted him and asked for his name to complain against him for both assault and unprofessionalism. He ran away while the area turned into media theatre.
The scene was if there was a major war battle. Many fire brigades, tens of federal police cars and officers and few ambulances. One ambulance took Alija, against her well, to hospital.
Unprofessional moves by politicized health services:
As we understood by then that the unprofessional politicized acts taken by Canberra hospital health workers was the main reasons behind the attempt by Marat to end his life, we expected that he and his mother would be taken to the other government hospital. But they were taken to the same Canberra hospital. Another unprofessional and unethical act by health authorities.
When I arrived to the hospital with my wife, there was security alert. My wife was shocked. I started to joke with my wife to calm her down. “They are thinking that Bin Laden had arrived to hospital. My beard would not help us in these moments”.
Many huge security officers were everywhere in hospital. Immediately after our arrival, 2 female journalist from The Australian (Nicole Berkovic) and The Daily Telegraph (Alison Rehn) followed us to follow up on the family’s situation. Suddenly, officials form hospital approached us and asked the journalists to leave immediately. “They are ordinary citizens. Would you prevent ordinary citizens from coming to visit patients?” I asked these hospital officials. “No, they are journalists. We know this and they had admitted” they replied to my comments. “But even journalists are ordinary citizens” I argued. “If you want to argue, they can lodge complaint to the hospital management”. We were enforced to go out to the street outside the hospital to talk about the family’s case.
Health services became as corrective services:
After talking to journalists in the street outside the hospital, I went and asked to see Marat and his mother. The reception denied that Marat is there. They also told me that Alija is in bad situation and she preferred not to see anyone. They asked me to wait for few minutes until she calms down. I was suspicious about this. I then tried to call her mobile. She answered and asked me where I am. I said that they told me that she does not want to see anyone. She then started to cry. Suddenly few nurses approached me and asked me to follow them. When Alija knew that I was outside, she stood up and asked them to release her. When they refused, she stood up and started to shout and cry in the middle of the emergency department. They were enforced to let me see her. It was very clear that the minister of immigration gave them orders not to let me see her or her son.
In front of me, they were treating her as if she is criminal. I started to talk to them in very sharp language. I also started to make phone calls to journalists. After that they changed their language with her. Then the responsible nurse came to see us and told us that they will keep her in hospital for few hours, as her sugar level was very high. I asked about Marat, she told me that she cannot tell us.
We started to feel that we are back to Soviet era, where everything is done behind “iron curtain”.
After talking to doctor, who assured me that she will be released after sugar checks finished and stabilized. Alija at that time asked me to go back to Sydney, and she will let me know what will happen.
After arriving to Sydney around 9 pm, I tried to contact her, but her phone was switched off. I thought that she was released and she went to sleep.
Early at morning, I tried to call her again, but no answer. I started to feel that something is wrong. I called Canberra hospital, where they told me that they executed order to keep her in psychiatric unit for 3 days. The same is with Marat. At this end, I became very angry and frustrated.
Ultimatum to the minister to release everyone, or face the consequences:
I immediately called few network’s members and we decided to go straight to Federal Parliament. We did not have any plans. I just sent media release giving ultimatum to the government that if they will not release all Aminov’s family, we will take steps that will make Australian government a symbol of international shame. We also talked to people in Canberra in case we will need some help.
Before arriving to Canberra, I received phone call that Marat and his mum were released from psychiatric unit, before the 3 days ended. Then I received call form Marat that his father was released on bail.
Long way before restoring humanity to this nation’s politics:
We thought that by getting rid of John Howard’s xenophobic government we would automatically get rid of all its inhumane undemocratic practices. But we discovered that the new Labor government is enjoying abusing the same methods and practices. So far in the case of this family, the Labor government had mobilized all departments and services to keep the inhumane status quo. The politicizing of especially the health services is very appalling.
Where are the so-called “progressive politicians”?
There are few other questions will come to our mind, but the most important is the role of “progressive” political parties and independents in exposing these shameful practices.
While the Parliament of Australia is empty from any real progressive forces, we will continue fighting until Aminovs get final solution for their ordeal. And we will do this before any human lives lost.
And please do not think that this is unique case. The government is sitting on piles of similar cases. The issue is not about asylum seekers’ treatment. It is about racism related to feeling of need to maintain the grip of power by one ethnicity who does not want to share this power with people from other cultures.
We will write in details about this, and we will take all steps to expose the real face and agenda of all these so-called “regressive” forces that want to convince us of their progressiveness.
The lack of media interest:
I will come to some of the reasons why Marat tried to end his life. One of the major reasons was the complete silence of the media outlets about reporting on this issue. It shocked Marat and his family the low level of interest on reporting on their case, even after many attempts by us to attract the attention of the media outlets which are constantly present in the Parliament House. It shocked us how the media would talk for days about torturing a cat at train station by irresponsible teenager, but are negligent about reporting on torturing whole family for years by adult ministers and department’s bureaucrats.
The eviction from Parliament:
The story started when we traveled to Canberra determined to attract the attention of the PM and his minister for immigration by all means. I will not talk now in details about the plans that were put to do so. All what I need to say that we could attract the attention of media, MP, his ministers and MPs of all different parties. The attempt resulted in evicting me and Marat from the Parliament and banned us from there for 24 hours. When we were escorted by Federal police to the area designated for us to protest, we were still making media comments and demanding that the minister spare few minutes to meet us and discuss a way out. After the end of media interviews, I noticed that there is blood coming from Marat’s chin. He was also in deep pain. We discovered later that he was beaten by security officers by kicking his face with their shoes. I called 000 asking for medical check.
Early signs of politicizing health services:
Upon ambulance arrival, a federal police agent blocked its way and talked for about 5 – 7 minutes to the ambulance officer. When she approached us, she immediately asked Marat to jump into the ambulance. After few seconds, she emerged alone from inside of the ambulance and told us that they need to take him to hospital for checks. I asked her to open the door to pass mobile phone to him, but she refused. She jumped to the ambulance, told us that they are taking him to Canberra hospital. Then the ambulance took off.
All this happened on Monday, 1 December. The parliament sitting for the year would end on Thursday, 4 December 08. The government needed to keep us away for another 3 days, until the parliament will close for Christmas period.
We collected all our chairs and table and went to hospital. After arriving to hospital and asking for him at reception, reception asked me to go immediately inside to help in calming Marat down. He was refusing to allow doctors to do anything to him. They wanted him to lie down on the bed and allow them to put collar around his neck, as they suspected that he hurt his neck when he jumped to the Parliament floor.
After his family’s long-time ordeal with the governmental departments, he had developed Schizophrenic disorder with deep anti-authorities feelings. He had suspicions about the doctors’ motives, so he would not lower his head. He needed to see always what the doctors and nurses are doing. I calmed him down and told him that we are there now and the doctors and nursed would not be able to hurt him. He then agreed to cooperate.
The doctor told me that they will keep him at hospital for several hours only to do some analysis and scans for his neck and vertebral column. We trusted the health officials, as we should in normal situation.
His parents told me to go back to Sydney and they will stay at hospital until he will be released. I asked them to contact me if anything would happen. I warned them to be very cautious as the government could try to do anything to make them look like violent or uncivilized people to justify the deeply inhumane treatment.
Around midnight, I received phone call from Alija, Marat’s mother. She was very distressed and crying. She told me that the police had arrested Samil, her husband, as he tried to take Marat home from hospital. I asked her not to do anything and ask Samil to go with them to police station and not resisting arrest.
Then politicizing judicial system:
On the next day Aliija called me again. She told me that Samil was taken to court without any interpreter or legal representative. The Legal Aid representative intervened, but with no success, as there was no interpreter to get Samil’s instruction to apply for bail. We learned too that Canberra hospital officials executed order to keep Marat in psychiatric unit for 3 days to “prevent suicidal attempts”.
The game was very clear. The government had politicized all services: medical, police, judicial,… in a bid to keep the family away from the Federal Parliament until the session ends.
Samil attempted to commit suicide:
While I started to talk about all these to media outlets, the family started to get very angry and frustrated. Then we knew that the sort of things that we warned off had happened: Samil tried to commit suicide inside his cell by slashing his wrist with metal object. The whole situation was headed to be out of control. The authorities were enforced to release Marat immediately from psychiatric unit. Marat and Alija called me to discuss the next move. We decided that they should go back to Parliament and continue their protest.
The day Marat tried to commit suicide:
Next day (Wednesday 3 December 08) I traveled to Canberra to be with the family and see what we can do. I traveled with my wife there.
On arrival, I heard what had happened. We then had extensive discussion about what we should do. We decided that we should do all what we can today, as the Parliament will go into rest for at least 50 days. The main issue for the family was the release of Samil from jail.
We noticed that next to our protest table, there were people preparing to celebrate in a big tent. We approached them and asked. It is the official celebration of the Day of people with disabilities. A very big irony. The government wanted to celebrate the resilience of people with disabilities, but was insisting to punish others and causes them deep disabilities. Very strange logic.
The journalists and cameramen started to flood the place. I approached Marat and told him that it is good time to do something to embarrass the government and to attract media attention. Marat did not say anything. He shock his head. Suddenly he disappeared. His mother asked about his whereabouts. We did not know, he simply did not say anything.
And suddenly he re-appeared. And suddenly many officials form the department of immigration appeared. They approached Marat and his mum asking how they are doing. Marat avoided them and moved to other place. They asked about her health and the health of Marat. The ministers started to arrive and the celebration started. Suddenly Marat stood up, started to pour petrol on himself and automatic lighter in his left hand and started shouting “Hey, listen to me why I will kill myself”.
Suddenly a huge Federal policeman jumped to the area, started approaching Marat trying to strip him from the lighter. I jumped and shouted warning the policeman that there is big chance that he will set himself alight if the policeman did not stop approaching him. I told the policeman that this man had tired to commit suicide at least three times in the last year. The policeman stopped and started negotiating with him. I kept warning the Federal policemen from making any stupid moves, as the situation is very dangerous and we could lose this young life. “Shut up and let me finish and tell them why I want to kill myself” Marat started to shout on me.
The real reason why Marat tried to commit suicide:
“I want to kill myself as the government not only treated my parents very badly, but they put my father in jail for no reason”. The main issue for Marat was his father and his unlawful arrest and the subsequent mistreatment. “How can government not provide him with Russian interpreter, just to keep him behind bars? What kind of democracy?”
The feelings were very high. The mother collapsed in front of us. My wife was trying to calm her down, but she was shouting “my son, I am losing my son, please help me” then she crawled, as she could not stand on her feet anymore. By that time, the policeman convinced Marat to through away the lighter and stop his attempt.
What amazed me that one cameraman was persistently abusing Alija in very bad way. My wife told me that he even told her to “shut your mouth and go to help your son away from minister’s speech”. I confronted him and asked for his name to complain against him for both assault and unprofessionalism. He ran away while the area turned into media theatre.
The scene was if there was a major war battle. Many fire brigades, tens of federal police cars and officers and few ambulances. One ambulance took Alija, against her well, to hospital.
Unprofessional moves by politicized health services:
As we understood by then that the unprofessional politicized acts taken by Canberra hospital health workers was the main reasons behind the attempt by Marat to end his life, we expected that he and his mother would be taken to the other government hospital. But they were taken to the same Canberra hospital. Another unprofessional and unethical act by health authorities.
When I arrived to the hospital with my wife, there was security alert. My wife was shocked. I started to joke with my wife to calm her down. “They are thinking that Bin Laden had arrived to hospital. My beard would not help us in these moments”.
Many huge security officers were everywhere in hospital. Immediately after our arrival, 2 female journalist from The Australian (Nicole Berkovic) and The Daily Telegraph (Alison Rehn) followed us to follow up on the family’s situation. Suddenly, officials form hospital approached us and asked the journalists to leave immediately. “They are ordinary citizens. Would you prevent ordinary citizens from coming to visit patients?” I asked these hospital officials. “No, they are journalists. We know this and they had admitted” they replied to my comments. “But even journalists are ordinary citizens” I argued. “If you want to argue, they can lodge complaint to the hospital management”. We were enforced to go out to the street outside the hospital to talk about the family’s case.
Health services became as corrective services:
After talking to journalists in the street outside the hospital, I went and asked to see Marat and his mother. The reception denied that Marat is there. They also told me that Alija is in bad situation and she preferred not to see anyone. They asked me to wait for few minutes until she calms down. I was suspicious about this. I then tried to call her mobile. She answered and asked me where I am. I said that they told me that she does not want to see anyone. She then started to cry. Suddenly few nurses approached me and asked me to follow them. When Alija knew that I was outside, she stood up and asked them to release her. When they refused, she stood up and started to shout and cry in the middle of the emergency department. They were enforced to let me see her. It was very clear that the minister of immigration gave them orders not to let me see her or her son.
In front of me, they were treating her as if she is criminal. I started to talk to them in very sharp language. I also started to make phone calls to journalists. After that they changed their language with her. Then the responsible nurse came to see us and told us that they will keep her in hospital for few hours, as her sugar level was very high. I asked about Marat, she told me that she cannot tell us.
We started to feel that we are back to Soviet era, where everything is done behind “iron curtain”.
After talking to doctor, who assured me that she will be released after sugar checks finished and stabilized. Alija at that time asked me to go back to Sydney, and she will let me know what will happen.
After arriving to Sydney around 9 pm, I tried to contact her, but her phone was switched off. I thought that she was released and she went to sleep.
Early at morning, I tried to call her again, but no answer. I started to feel that something is wrong. I called Canberra hospital, where they told me that they executed order to keep her in psychiatric unit for 3 days. The same is with Marat. At this end, I became very angry and frustrated.
Ultimatum to the minister to release everyone, or face the consequences:
I immediately called few network’s members and we decided to go straight to Federal Parliament. We did not have any plans. I just sent media release giving ultimatum to the government that if they will not release all Aminov’s family, we will take steps that will make Australian government a symbol of international shame. We also talked to people in Canberra in case we will need some help.
Before arriving to Canberra, I received phone call that Marat and his mum were released from psychiatric unit, before the 3 days ended. Then I received call form Marat that his father was released on bail.
Long way before restoring humanity to this nation’s politics:
We thought that by getting rid of John Howard’s xenophobic government we would automatically get rid of all its inhumane undemocratic practices. But we discovered that the new Labor government is enjoying abusing the same methods and practices. So far in the case of this family, the Labor government had mobilized all departments and services to keep the inhumane status quo. The politicizing of especially the health services is very appalling.
Where are the so-called “progressive politicians”?
There are few other questions will come to our mind, but the most important is the role of “progressive” political parties and independents in exposing these shameful practices.
While the Parliament of Australia is empty from any real progressive forces, we will continue fighting until Aminovs get final solution for their ordeal. And we will do this before any human lives lost.
And please do not think that this is unique case. The government is sitting on piles of similar cases. The issue is not about asylum seekers’ treatment. It is about racism related to feeling of need to maintain the grip of power by one ethnicity who does not want to share this power with people from other cultures.
We will write in details about this, and we will take all steps to expose the real face and agenda of all these so-called “regressive” forces that want to convince us of their progressiveness.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Never ending greed in the name of “helping the community”!
Before we wake up from the news about the greedy Green hubby who eats all the food at council meeting, we discover more “Green” greed. This time it happens in Auburn council.
We noted earlier the sacred alliance formed behind closed doors between the highly regressive Liberal – Unity parties and the “progressive” Greens party. During the election campaign the main slogan of the Greens candidates was “community needs, not developers greed”. After the ballot papers count was over, the “community needs defender” put her hands with the “greedy developers”. The full details of the deal are still unknown to all of us.
The “community needs” defender is ignoring the fact that Auburn council is going through very difficult financial times with an expected $5 millions deficit. The Greens councilor in Auburn is also disregarding the “community needs” of spending on infrastructure to both create local jobs and raise the life-style of mainly marginalised new-migrants, refugees and poor people of Auburn.
The Greens councilor this time is demanding a pay-rise to herself and her Liberal-Unity alliance, to around double the allowance they are getting from the council at the moment.
We did not expect less from the Liberals-Unity mainly developers councilors. But when it comes to the Greens councilor, we should ask 5 million questions:
1- How many community projects would this rise in councilors allowance cancel?
2- How many local jobs will it cost the community?
3- How could this help with “defending the community needs”?
4- Who are the real “greedies” that we need a representative to protect the community from?
5- Why has the Greens councilor, who believes in public “accountability” and “transparency” not made this pay-rise an election promise or called for a referendum on it?
6- What is the difference between the Liberals and the Greens, after all these deals? Would they consider merging very soon?
It is very clear that the Greens councilor is planning well for her retirement. And she wants a very comfortable retirement.
But what happened to the “alternative voice” which the Greens were deafening our ears with in the last 2 decades? Maybe the right question would be: alternative of what and who?
It is very clear that it is an alternative in the kind of Greed, only. Or maybe it is an alternative in the rhetoric and the type of lies and deception.
What kind of Australia are we dreaming of, when the “alternative” is planning a comfortable retirement, while the debt on citizens is at its highest.
And what kind of “alternative” is demanding a pay-rise, while there is a freeze on any pay-rise for all workers and battlers?
The other question here is: if the Greens councilor thinks that running for council is not to help the community for better planning and governing and it should be just to secure people’s retirement, why did she run again last September. If she thinks that the pay is no good, why did she choose to run for “exploitation”?
All these questions are for the ordinary Australians to think about to enable them to make a very “informed” choice next time we go to polls. And at that time, the Greens should know that we had enough “greedy” people in the government and what is lacking in Australian politics is a real alternative: an alternative that feels with embattled marginalised people.
If the Greens want to help me by increasing my debt and reducing public services and projects, I would rather stick to the ordinary “greedies”. I prefer “Greedies that I know” over “greedies I need to know”.
What makes me feel bad this time is the fact that the same Greens councilor in Auburn was crying foul when she failed to be elected as Mayor earlier this year. She accused her opponents of being “racists” and “anti-Muslims” and distributed foul accusations to everyone who did not vote for her. She wanted to convince us that she is running to represent Muslim “needs” and “issues”. But this week we discovered that she was indeed after pay-rise from $20,000 (Councilor’s allowance) to $50,000 (Mayor’s allowance).
As Muslim Auburn citizen, I say that she does not represent me and my needs.
And for this and for everything else I say: we are sorry to Auburn residents.
We noted earlier the sacred alliance formed behind closed doors between the highly regressive Liberal – Unity parties and the “progressive” Greens party. During the election campaign the main slogan of the Greens candidates was “community needs, not developers greed”. After the ballot papers count was over, the “community needs defender” put her hands with the “greedy developers”. The full details of the deal are still unknown to all of us.
The “community needs” defender is ignoring the fact that Auburn council is going through very difficult financial times with an expected $5 millions deficit. The Greens councilor in Auburn is also disregarding the “community needs” of spending on infrastructure to both create local jobs and raise the life-style of mainly marginalised new-migrants, refugees and poor people of Auburn.
The Greens councilor this time is demanding a pay-rise to herself and her Liberal-Unity alliance, to around double the allowance they are getting from the council at the moment.
We did not expect less from the Liberals-Unity mainly developers councilors. But when it comes to the Greens councilor, we should ask 5 million questions:
1- How many community projects would this rise in councilors allowance cancel?
2- How many local jobs will it cost the community?
3- How could this help with “defending the community needs”?
4- Who are the real “greedies” that we need a representative to protect the community from?
5- Why has the Greens councilor, who believes in public “accountability” and “transparency” not made this pay-rise an election promise or called for a referendum on it?
6- What is the difference between the Liberals and the Greens, after all these deals? Would they consider merging very soon?
It is very clear that the Greens councilor is planning well for her retirement. And she wants a very comfortable retirement.
But what happened to the “alternative voice” which the Greens were deafening our ears with in the last 2 decades? Maybe the right question would be: alternative of what and who?
It is very clear that it is an alternative in the kind of Greed, only. Or maybe it is an alternative in the rhetoric and the type of lies and deception.
What kind of Australia are we dreaming of, when the “alternative” is planning a comfortable retirement, while the debt on citizens is at its highest.
And what kind of “alternative” is demanding a pay-rise, while there is a freeze on any pay-rise for all workers and battlers?
The other question here is: if the Greens councilor thinks that running for council is not to help the community for better planning and governing and it should be just to secure people’s retirement, why did she run again last September. If she thinks that the pay is no good, why did she choose to run for “exploitation”?
All these questions are for the ordinary Australians to think about to enable them to make a very “informed” choice next time we go to polls. And at that time, the Greens should know that we had enough “greedy” people in the government and what is lacking in Australian politics is a real alternative: an alternative that feels with embattled marginalised people.
If the Greens want to help me by increasing my debt and reducing public services and projects, I would rather stick to the ordinary “greedies”. I prefer “Greedies that I know” over “greedies I need to know”.
What makes me feel bad this time is the fact that the same Greens councilor in Auburn was crying foul when she failed to be elected as Mayor earlier this year. She accused her opponents of being “racists” and “anti-Muslims” and distributed foul accusations to everyone who did not vote for her. She wanted to convince us that she is running to represent Muslim “needs” and “issues”. But this week we discovered that she was indeed after pay-rise from $20,000 (Councilor’s allowance) to $50,000 (Mayor’s allowance).
As Muslim Auburn citizen, I say that she does not represent me and my needs.
And for this and for everything else I say: we are sorry to Auburn residents.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Homeland at last!
At last, Nasser Mubarak got citizenship after 60 years of statelessness. He became Australian citizen this week. As if the good news comes together for purpose. This week also saw him retiring on disability pension. At last he can put all his sufferings behind his back and start sleeping with eyes closed fully.
Nasser, who is widely known by friends and relatives as Abu Khaled, is a clear example of the cruelty of the Australian immigration system. Abu Khaled did not get citizenship so easy. To get to this week’s celebration, he needed to go through the whole inhumane immigration system of this beautiful country.
He was detained immediately after his arrival to Sydney airport. He spent more than 3 years behind razor wires in Villawood detention centre. The same detention that gave him the access to early pension this week. I will explain this later on.
He arrived to this “Five Star Detention” (as he would humorously call Villawood, after a Daily Telegraph article on Feb 2003), with no illnesses. After few years there, he started to suffer from hypertension, diabetes and mental-related illnesses including deep depression and anxiety.
The notorious former immigration minister, Phillip Ruddock, insisted that he is not a refugee. But at the same time, the department could not find any country on this planet to deport him to. Regardless, he was required to wait in detention until solution could be found. It was not clear what the minister was waiting for: change of international order or simply death of this “unwanted queue jumper”.
I started to know him since 2001, when I started to regularly visit Villawood. It was not until Akram Almasry successfully challenged the legality of this indefinite detention system, before his release. But even his release was meant by the department to be very cruel and most inhumane.
He was released with no rights at all. No right to work, no right to study, no right for Medicare, and no right even for photo ID. All what he was given was a plain piece of paper stating that he is “unlawful citizen”, no picture attached. It was meant to keep him and his suffering anonymous. Ruddock was master in committing crimes, and master in hiding them.
He lived with this piece of picture-free letter of “status notification” on hope that the new minister/s will look at his long-suffering with more humane way. Until he received a letter from the new minister, Kevin Andrews, stating that “Australia has no obligation to find him a solution”. This meant for him that he will be imprisoned at-large in Australia, until he will die. This also meant that he will never see his wife and 10 sons and daughters living overseas.
I remembered when he came to see me to show me the minister’s letter and ask for our help. He was so depressed and devastated that he told me “I am finished now. Please help me to at least get out from this country”.
Indeed he was stuck in this country. As stateless, when he left Kuwait, he lost his right to go back to live in that country again. And without valid passport, no other country will grant him visa to travel to. He was really stuck in Australia, indefinitely.
It was just before the last election, 2007. The minister was just too arrogant, or maybe naïve. Or maybe it is mixture of both: naivety because of arrogance.
The Social Justice Network needed to campaign for less than a month, before the minister gave up and offered “olive branch”. The minister was so desperate to stop our campaign, that he did not know what kind of visa to grant Abu Khaled. After going to Centrelink, Abu Khaled was told that he was granted carer visa, and he needed to name the person in his care. And nobody knows how old person with so many disabilities, can care for any. He needed someone to care for him. The minister was in so much hurry, that he granted him the very wrong visa type.
The system was very cruel, that Abu Khaled was retired, at the same time he was accepted as Australians. We are very sure that without this cruel inhumane system, Abu Khaled could work for Australia, at least for a decade. The criminal immigration system did not only cost us (as tax-payers) hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep this poor man detained. But it also costs us now hundreds of thousands of dollars caring (and treating) this disabled (because-of-the-system).
Abu Khaled is very happy now. He is citizen now. He has certificate to prove this now. And soon, he will have passport. He will travel to see his family members. We are happy too. We defeated the system, again. We defeated the minister and his department of mainly bureaucrats without heart or feelings. And we will celebrate this victory this coming Sunday. And we will keep our fight for better Australia. Also, we gained other member in our group. Abu Khaled whispered today in my ears: “I am with you in your fight against the system. You have my vote and support”
Abu Khaled: welcome to Australia.
Nasser, who is widely known by friends and relatives as Abu Khaled, is a clear example of the cruelty of the Australian immigration system. Abu Khaled did not get citizenship so easy. To get to this week’s celebration, he needed to go through the whole inhumane immigration system of this beautiful country.
He was detained immediately after his arrival to Sydney airport. He spent more than 3 years behind razor wires in Villawood detention centre. The same detention that gave him the access to early pension this week. I will explain this later on.
He arrived to this “Five Star Detention” (as he would humorously call Villawood, after a Daily Telegraph article on Feb 2003), with no illnesses. After few years there, he started to suffer from hypertension, diabetes and mental-related illnesses including deep depression and anxiety.
The notorious former immigration minister, Phillip Ruddock, insisted that he is not a refugee. But at the same time, the department could not find any country on this planet to deport him to. Regardless, he was required to wait in detention until solution could be found. It was not clear what the minister was waiting for: change of international order or simply death of this “unwanted queue jumper”.
I started to know him since 2001, when I started to regularly visit Villawood. It was not until Akram Almasry successfully challenged the legality of this indefinite detention system, before his release. But even his release was meant by the department to be very cruel and most inhumane.
He was released with no rights at all. No right to work, no right to study, no right for Medicare, and no right even for photo ID. All what he was given was a plain piece of paper stating that he is “unlawful citizen”, no picture attached. It was meant to keep him and his suffering anonymous. Ruddock was master in committing crimes, and master in hiding them.
He lived with this piece of picture-free letter of “status notification” on hope that the new minister/s will look at his long-suffering with more humane way. Until he received a letter from the new minister, Kevin Andrews, stating that “Australia has no obligation to find him a solution”. This meant for him that he will be imprisoned at-large in Australia, until he will die. This also meant that he will never see his wife and 10 sons and daughters living overseas.
I remembered when he came to see me to show me the minister’s letter and ask for our help. He was so depressed and devastated that he told me “I am finished now. Please help me to at least get out from this country”.
Indeed he was stuck in this country. As stateless, when he left Kuwait, he lost his right to go back to live in that country again. And without valid passport, no other country will grant him visa to travel to. He was really stuck in Australia, indefinitely.
It was just before the last election, 2007. The minister was just too arrogant, or maybe naïve. Or maybe it is mixture of both: naivety because of arrogance.
The Social Justice Network needed to campaign for less than a month, before the minister gave up and offered “olive branch”. The minister was so desperate to stop our campaign, that he did not know what kind of visa to grant Abu Khaled. After going to Centrelink, Abu Khaled was told that he was granted carer visa, and he needed to name the person in his care. And nobody knows how old person with so many disabilities, can care for any. He needed someone to care for him. The minister was in so much hurry, that he granted him the very wrong visa type.
The system was very cruel, that Abu Khaled was retired, at the same time he was accepted as Australians. We are very sure that without this cruel inhumane system, Abu Khaled could work for Australia, at least for a decade. The criminal immigration system did not only cost us (as tax-payers) hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep this poor man detained. But it also costs us now hundreds of thousands of dollars caring (and treating) this disabled (because-of-the-system).
Abu Khaled is very happy now. He is citizen now. He has certificate to prove this now. And soon, he will have passport. He will travel to see his family members. We are happy too. We defeated the system, again. We defeated the minister and his department of mainly bureaucrats without heart or feelings. And we will celebrate this victory this coming Sunday. And we will keep our fight for better Australia. Also, we gained other member in our group. Abu Khaled whispered today in my ears: “I am with you in your fight against the system. You have my vote and support”
Abu Khaled: welcome to Australia.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Is it practical or relaistic to ask somebody to get rid of their skin?
Brother Asem Judeh had circulated about 2 weeks ago email urging the Greens senators to put a motion in the senate to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist organisations. In this instance I would like to explain why this invitation is both unpractical and unrealistic.
First of all, to ask someone to push for an issue, he/she should have believed in the justice of the issue. To ask the Greens to put such motion, it seems that there is pre-assumption that the Greens consider Hamas to be legitimate national resistance force.
I listened to all Greens MPs and other hierarchy’s speeches on rallies in different states. During these speeches, there is no one word mentioning Hamas. There is no one word to condemn occupation. All speeches were about:
- condemning “the use of disproportionate force” by Israel.
- Condemning bloody Hamas rockets.
So infact the Green is not condemning the occupation. It is very clear that the Greens is only against use of “disproportionate force”. This means that the Greens does not mind if Israel “gently” kill Palestinians. They are not against killing maybe 500, but not 1500. And they may accept Israel to destroy 1000 house, but not 10, 000.
I even went back to explore the Greens official stance on the legitimacy of Hamas.
The only stance was contained in Bob Brown’s (The Greens leader) parliamentary speech, on 7 November 03, when he said “The bill is to proscribe the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas organisations, respectively in Pakistan and in Palestine, which have terrorist components. The Greens will have no opposition to these or other terrorist organizations being proscribed …” as the Greens “have no truck with terrorism”.
So the only official stance on Hamas by the Greens is that it is a terrorist organization.
So before we ask the Greens to put a motion to remove Hamas from Federal list of terrorist organizations, the Greens should remove Hamas from the “Greens” list of terrorist organizations.
I have no problem to spend tons of hours and energy to lobby the Labor or Liberals to change their stance on Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not the Greens.
Why?
The Labor and Liberals are big parties. They govern Australia alternately. They can direct our UN ambassador to vote in certain way or another. They can increase or decrease aid. They can lift or impose bans. But the Greens is too small to make any effect.
Instead of wasting our time and energy trying to lobby the Greens, we can do it in an easy way. Before the next election, we can conduct campaign to expose their opportunist stance. Making them lose few hundred votes could cost them dearly. They infact could disappear, except from Tasmania. After that, they will run after our votes in the following election, exactly as they did before 2001 Federal election.
The story with the Labor or Liberals is different. They are big. We need to make the issue big electoral issue to cost them government. Even if we could do this, we would not be able to make them disappear. We can cost them 1, 2, 3 seats out of hundreds of seats. On the other hand costing the Greens 1, 2 or 3 seats, this would mean to reduce their representation by 60%. And that is significant. And we can do it.
We can ask the Greens to proactively act on facilitating prostitution, encouraging drug abuse, approve homosexual marriage,… I would even assume that they will not wait for us to ask them to act on these issues. They are proactively acting on them, as they have deep commitments to them. They have detailed policy and stances.
But let me assure all of you that the Greens would not go further than “crying” on rallies of sadness of loss of lives “on both sides”. I am sure that they will not take different path. I hope that they can take different path (at least to make me look like liar), but they would not as I know the deep ideological commitments of the Greens.
Let us remember that the Greens hierarchy is made either of:
- Zionists
- “Ex-Stalinists” who still believe that “religion is the opium of the masses”.
- Opportunist white-racist who joined the Greens for better “job” and power grab
So, tell me who will push for these “revolutionary” changes!
I would prefer that we do it by intense lobbying the big parties. We can also take another approach by start building “real” alternative left force (which we started to do). But we cannot ask racists and Zionists to get rid of their real skin. And they would not do it, at the end of the day.
First of all, to ask someone to push for an issue, he/she should have believed in the justice of the issue. To ask the Greens to put such motion, it seems that there is pre-assumption that the Greens consider Hamas to be legitimate national resistance force.
I listened to all Greens MPs and other hierarchy’s speeches on rallies in different states. During these speeches, there is no one word mentioning Hamas. There is no one word to condemn occupation. All speeches were about:
- condemning “the use of disproportionate force” by Israel.
- Condemning bloody Hamas rockets.
So infact the Green is not condemning the occupation. It is very clear that the Greens is only against use of “disproportionate force”. This means that the Greens does not mind if Israel “gently” kill Palestinians. They are not against killing maybe 500, but not 1500. And they may accept Israel to destroy 1000 house, but not 10, 000.
I even went back to explore the Greens official stance on the legitimacy of Hamas.
The only stance was contained in Bob Brown’s (The Greens leader) parliamentary speech, on 7 November 03, when he said “The bill is to proscribe the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas organisations, respectively in Pakistan and in Palestine, which have terrorist components. The Greens will have no opposition to these or other terrorist organizations being proscribed …” as the Greens “have no truck with terrorism”.
So the only official stance on Hamas by the Greens is that it is a terrorist organization.
So before we ask the Greens to put a motion to remove Hamas from Federal list of terrorist organizations, the Greens should remove Hamas from the “Greens” list of terrorist organizations.
I have no problem to spend tons of hours and energy to lobby the Labor or Liberals to change their stance on Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not the Greens.
Why?
The Labor and Liberals are big parties. They govern Australia alternately. They can direct our UN ambassador to vote in certain way or another. They can increase or decrease aid. They can lift or impose bans. But the Greens is too small to make any effect.
Instead of wasting our time and energy trying to lobby the Greens, we can do it in an easy way. Before the next election, we can conduct campaign to expose their opportunist stance. Making them lose few hundred votes could cost them dearly. They infact could disappear, except from Tasmania. After that, they will run after our votes in the following election, exactly as they did before 2001 Federal election.
The story with the Labor or Liberals is different. They are big. We need to make the issue big electoral issue to cost them government. Even if we could do this, we would not be able to make them disappear. We can cost them 1, 2, 3 seats out of hundreds of seats. On the other hand costing the Greens 1, 2 or 3 seats, this would mean to reduce their representation by 60%. And that is significant. And we can do it.
We can ask the Greens to proactively act on facilitating prostitution, encouraging drug abuse, approve homosexual marriage,… I would even assume that they will not wait for us to ask them to act on these issues. They are proactively acting on them, as they have deep commitments to them. They have detailed policy and stances.
But let me assure all of you that the Greens would not go further than “crying” on rallies of sadness of loss of lives “on both sides”. I am sure that they will not take different path. I hope that they can take different path (at least to make me look like liar), but they would not as I know the deep ideological commitments of the Greens.
Let us remember that the Greens hierarchy is made either of:
- Zionists
- “Ex-Stalinists” who still believe that “religion is the opium of the masses”.
- Opportunist white-racist who joined the Greens for better “job” and power grab
So, tell me who will push for these “revolutionary” changes!
I would prefer that we do it by intense lobbying the big parties. We can also take another approach by start building “real” alternative left force (which we started to do). But we cannot ask racists and Zionists to get rid of their real skin. And they would not do it, at the end of the day.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Greens party supports environmental vandalism in Auburn!
I have written a lot recently about the Israeli barbaric attack on Gaza, but here I will try to highlight another issue. It is issue more related to Australian politics.
We can debate for days or even weeks about the Greens party commitment or lack of commitment towards social justice issues, including refugees’ rights, Palestinians’ rights, marginalised groups’ issues...., but I never thought that we should debate the Greens commitment to environmental issues.
Well, we discovered that we underestimated the Greens party’s opportunism.
In the attached article by the Auburn Review, you will discover something that will make you wonder what is the real “colour” of the Greens party.
During the last local government election, the unified message of ALL Greens candidates was “Oppose High Rise buildings”, in addition to the complementary statement “oppose the developers’ greed” and “Community needs, not developers’ greed”. This includes especially the electoral materials of the Greens candidate for Auburn Malikeh Michales, as more than half of Auburn councillors are developers or real estate agents. And Auburn council was in all media outlets for the last decade for “corruption” investigations related to dodge development approvals.
In the attached article, you will discover that the Greens councillor had aligned herself with Liberal – Unity councillors to discuss approval to increase the height and density of high rising buildings near St Johns Catholic Primary School. She did this, despite the Labor – RAGAA councillors’ fierce opposition to this proposal.
To tell the truth, I did not believe my eyes. I again underestimated the opportunism of the representatives of this party. Where are the Greens claims of “sticking to principles”?
I thought that the first and most important principle of the Greens party is to protect the environment. This issue indeed was the object of founding the Greens.
At this stage I recalled my conversations with many well-known environmentalists who quit the Greens for its failure to advocate for environmental sustainability, and instead engaging in power-thirst infightings.
The Greens councillor in Auburn should be proud that she already broke all her election promises and propaganda. Her election leaflet has only 2 main promises:
1- To increase services for refugees and marginalised groups.
2- To protect the environment, by opposing attacks on local (and global) environment by standing against developers’ and big corporations’ greed.
Earlier and before the end of the last year, the same Greens councillor was proud to propose amendments that could have seen the closure of one of the organisations serving mainly the refugees. Without intense lobbying from us, community members and local media, we could have seen the Greens councillor achieving the opposite of “increasing services for refugees”.
Now she wants to fulfil the second promise: to attack our fragile environment and help “greedy” developers to make more millions of $s by creating more noise and pollution in the heart of our suburb, in addition to all other implications.
This article is supporting what I have noticed in the last month, when the Greens (for political cheap score-pointing purposes) opposed any new Labor government action to tackle climate change. The Greens sent a clear message that if the government won’t approve its (The Greens’) sharp emission’s cut, the Greens would prefer to keep the lack of Howard’s government action on this issue.
But, let us discuss the issue more closely. What did the Greens achieve since they took the Democrats’ votes (in addition to large Muslim votes) and increased its political representation on all levels?
The simple answer is: NOTHING.
With intense attacks on our environment, one could start to seriously ask: what is the main platform of the Greens? Why it is still called the Greens?
My advice to the Greens hierarchy is to adopt new name: The Rainbow party. By doing this they can change the colour of the party’s skin as required. Sometimes they can be red, other times can be green. And if required they could be hidden anywhere silently with no colour at all.
We can debate for days or even weeks about the Greens party commitment or lack of commitment towards social justice issues, including refugees’ rights, Palestinians’ rights, marginalised groups’ issues...., but I never thought that we should debate the Greens commitment to environmental issues.
Well, we discovered that we underestimated the Greens party’s opportunism.
In the attached article by the Auburn Review, you will discover something that will make you wonder what is the real “colour” of the Greens party.
During the last local government election, the unified message of ALL Greens candidates was “Oppose High Rise buildings”, in addition to the complementary statement “oppose the developers’ greed” and “Community needs, not developers’ greed”. This includes especially the electoral materials of the Greens candidate for Auburn Malikeh Michales, as more than half of Auburn councillors are developers or real estate agents. And Auburn council was in all media outlets for the last decade for “corruption” investigations related to dodge development approvals.
In the attached article, you will discover that the Greens councillor had aligned herself with Liberal – Unity councillors to discuss approval to increase the height and density of high rising buildings near St Johns Catholic Primary School. She did this, despite the Labor – RAGAA councillors’ fierce opposition to this proposal.
To tell the truth, I did not believe my eyes. I again underestimated the opportunism of the representatives of this party. Where are the Greens claims of “sticking to principles”?
I thought that the first and most important principle of the Greens party is to protect the environment. This issue indeed was the object of founding the Greens.
At this stage I recalled my conversations with many well-known environmentalists who quit the Greens for its failure to advocate for environmental sustainability, and instead engaging in power-thirst infightings.
The Greens councillor in Auburn should be proud that she already broke all her election promises and propaganda. Her election leaflet has only 2 main promises:
1- To increase services for refugees and marginalised groups.
2- To protect the environment, by opposing attacks on local (and global) environment by standing against developers’ and big corporations’ greed.
Earlier and before the end of the last year, the same Greens councillor was proud to propose amendments that could have seen the closure of one of the organisations serving mainly the refugees. Without intense lobbying from us, community members and local media, we could have seen the Greens councillor achieving the opposite of “increasing services for refugees”.
Now she wants to fulfil the second promise: to attack our fragile environment and help “greedy” developers to make more millions of $s by creating more noise and pollution in the heart of our suburb, in addition to all other implications.
This article is supporting what I have noticed in the last month, when the Greens (for political cheap score-pointing purposes) opposed any new Labor government action to tackle climate change. The Greens sent a clear message that if the government won’t approve its (The Greens’) sharp emission’s cut, the Greens would prefer to keep the lack of Howard’s government action on this issue.
But, let us discuss the issue more closely. What did the Greens achieve since they took the Democrats’ votes (in addition to large Muslim votes) and increased its political representation on all levels?
The simple answer is: NOTHING.
With intense attacks on our environment, one could start to seriously ask: what is the main platform of the Greens? Why it is still called the Greens?
My advice to the Greens hierarchy is to adopt new name: The Rainbow party. By doing this they can change the colour of the party’s skin as required. Sometimes they can be red, other times can be green. And if required they could be hidden anywhere silently with no colour at all.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Rallies business: enough trading with blood of innocent Palestinians!
I was always critical of people not participating in rallies on important issues. I even fought several times with friends as they refused to attend rallies “supporting” refugees’ rights, Palestinians’ rights … But last Saturday I was convinced that they have good point of view.
I traveled from Sydney to Canberra to protest against the Israeli barbaric invasion of Gaza. We traveled to Canberra, even though we did not know many details of the rally. We did not know who was the organizer, who were the speakers and the route of the rally. The most important issue for us was to send a message of unequivocal condemnation of Israel’s barbaric action and express our opposition to Australian official silence in condemning these actions.
Outside the lodge where our prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is living, we knew the hidden agenda of the organizers.
Suddenly a lady emerged from nowhere and gave all of us a good lecture. The lecture was not about the history of Israeli occupation of Palestine nor was about the history of Israeli barbaric actions. The lady who wore a t-shirt with “Vote 1 The Greens” gave us a good lecture about the climate change and environmental sustainability. She then went into lengths with what are the Greens 4 principles and why we should vote for the Greens in the next election.
Then she told us, with no explanation that she was crying the whole night before, when she saw the victims on the TV. She spoke with highly ambiguous language. She did not specify if she was crying for the loss of the lives of Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinian resistance. I should be fair here. I heard her counting the numbers of people who lost their lives, on both sides. She was equalizing between the victim and the oppressor. She was putting on the same hand the loss of lives among the occupiers and the ones under occupation. I did not hear her condemning unequivocally the barbaric actions.
Sorry for this mistake. I heard her totally and utterly condemning the government. But she condemned Australian government, and not the Israeli.
With her late appearance only at the time of her speech, her T-shirt designed for election and her score-pointing speech, the goal of this farce was very clear. It was indeed an election auction: votes for each dead.
Shamelessly she was happy. Shamelessly the organizers were happy. Shamelessly some of the Greens supporters in the crowd were happy. Shamelessly we were there listening to this contempt of the 400 martyrs - heroes killed in Gaza.
I would not feel so bad if the Greens was the “revolutionary” party that stood up for Palestinians in the past.
However when I went back little bit into my memory I recalled that the Greens:
1- Refused to send any solidarity delegation to Palestine.
2- Strongly supported the listing of ALL resistance groups (except Fateh) as terrorist organizations (November 2003).
3- Presented to Australian politics the largest proportion of Zionist politicians.
4- Was deadly silent about the latest barbaric actions from 27 December 08 – 5 January 09. And when they put out a media release it was total disgust and shame, where they were equalizing between the victims and the oppressors.
I was astonished by the courage of both the organizers and the Greens politician in their contempt of the feeling of the crowd. Many among the crowd were from Gaza and have relatives there.
How dare they do this?
On another occasion, I learnt that Labor MP attended a rally and spoke about the issue. Unfortunately he said nothing about needing to convince his leader to abandon his pro-Israeli stance.
I understood now why the majority of community members refuse to be stupid and naïve and participate in rallies which are in contempt of human lives lost in conflicts. I understood why community members would laugh at us saying: enough is enough.
After last Saturday I said to all around me: enough is enough. Enough trading lives of innocent people for cheap electoral gains. The last time the auction was a heavy price for us. The blood of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis put another Greens Zionist to NSW parliament. We lost on both sides: in Palestine and Iraq and also in NSW.
I told everyone this time: not anymore.
Shame on me if I will silently participate in these auctions of blood for votes.
And there are many ways to express our feelings about the barbaric actions and how to help the victims of them.
I traveled from Sydney to Canberra to protest against the Israeli barbaric invasion of Gaza. We traveled to Canberra, even though we did not know many details of the rally. We did not know who was the organizer, who were the speakers and the route of the rally. The most important issue for us was to send a message of unequivocal condemnation of Israel’s barbaric action and express our opposition to Australian official silence in condemning these actions.
Outside the lodge where our prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is living, we knew the hidden agenda of the organizers.
Suddenly a lady emerged from nowhere and gave all of us a good lecture. The lecture was not about the history of Israeli occupation of Palestine nor was about the history of Israeli barbaric actions. The lady who wore a t-shirt with “Vote 1 The Greens” gave us a good lecture about the climate change and environmental sustainability. She then went into lengths with what are the Greens 4 principles and why we should vote for the Greens in the next election.
Then she told us, with no explanation that she was crying the whole night before, when she saw the victims on the TV. She spoke with highly ambiguous language. She did not specify if she was crying for the loss of the lives of Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinian resistance. I should be fair here. I heard her counting the numbers of people who lost their lives, on both sides. She was equalizing between the victim and the oppressor. She was putting on the same hand the loss of lives among the occupiers and the ones under occupation. I did not hear her condemning unequivocally the barbaric actions.
Sorry for this mistake. I heard her totally and utterly condemning the government. But she condemned Australian government, and not the Israeli.
With her late appearance only at the time of her speech, her T-shirt designed for election and her score-pointing speech, the goal of this farce was very clear. It was indeed an election auction: votes for each dead.
Shamelessly she was happy. Shamelessly the organizers were happy. Shamelessly some of the Greens supporters in the crowd were happy. Shamelessly we were there listening to this contempt of the 400 martyrs - heroes killed in Gaza.
I would not feel so bad if the Greens was the “revolutionary” party that stood up for Palestinians in the past.
However when I went back little bit into my memory I recalled that the Greens:
1- Refused to send any solidarity delegation to Palestine.
2- Strongly supported the listing of ALL resistance groups (except Fateh) as terrorist organizations (November 2003).
3- Presented to Australian politics the largest proportion of Zionist politicians.
4- Was deadly silent about the latest barbaric actions from 27 December 08 – 5 January 09. And when they put out a media release it was total disgust and shame, where they were equalizing between the victims and the oppressors.
I was astonished by the courage of both the organizers and the Greens politician in their contempt of the feeling of the crowd. Many among the crowd were from Gaza and have relatives there.
How dare they do this?
On another occasion, I learnt that Labor MP attended a rally and spoke about the issue. Unfortunately he said nothing about needing to convince his leader to abandon his pro-Israeli stance.
I understood now why the majority of community members refuse to be stupid and naïve and participate in rallies which are in contempt of human lives lost in conflicts. I understood why community members would laugh at us saying: enough is enough.
After last Saturday I said to all around me: enough is enough. Enough trading lives of innocent people for cheap electoral gains. The last time the auction was a heavy price for us. The blood of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis put another Greens Zionist to NSW parliament. We lost on both sides: in Palestine and Iraq and also in NSW.
I told everyone this time: not anymore.
Shame on me if I will silently participate in these auctions of blood for votes.
And there are many ways to express our feelings about the barbaric actions and how to help the victims of them.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Greens blocking of action on climate change: Striping own skin or displaying true colour!
I was laughing deeply when I saw Bob Brown, the Greens leader, threatening to block in the senate the proposal from the government to take action to reduce the emissions by 5 – 15 % by 2020. Such threat that was shared by Liberals and Nationals.
What does this actually mean?
It means that no action would be taken in regard to reduce the effect of climate change, let alone take action to reverse its effect. Then we will be lost watching all political parties engaging in blame game, for electoral reasons only.
Who can believe that the Greens, who was established to fight for this particular reason, would abandon this big goal? And for what in return?
The failure of the government to pass its bill will give all political parties the excuses not to do anything in this regard. The Labor government would say that “we” had failed to pass this bill, and will blame the alliance between the Liberals and The Greens for it. The Liberals would declare that John Howard was right not to take actions, and will declare that jobs are saved and we do not need to take any action in this regard.
But what the Greens would achieve from this lack of actions?
The Greens will maintain its viability by maintaining its loud voice on opposing any steps in this regards.
But would this be classified as childish move or opportunist one?
For the Greens supporters it’s called “sticking to principles”, even if this means that no real action to reduce the destructive effect of emissions on our environment will be ever taken. The Greens hierarchy would think that this means that the expiry date of this party would be prolonged, by prolonging the empty rhetoric on doing anything on environment and just resorting to political score-pointing.
For any political analysis this would be the biggest betrayal for the issue of protecting environment. The Greens infact stopped any actions taken to acknowledge the issue and take any step in this regard.
The Greens empty rhetoric and demands of “take full step or no step at all” are neither acceptable nor viable. If the Labor would adopt the agenda of the Greens in this regard, one of these political parties should disappear. In politics you negotiate, take what you can take. And then if it is not enough, you ask for more.
It is very clear that the Greens had many reasons to abort any action on climate change:
1- It wants to continue acting as “vocal syndrome” in Australian politics, where they complain about almost everything, but practically achieve none. By this way they think that they can just keep loud voice, before people start to forget about their presence.
2- It wants to establish good basis to justify its growing alliance with the racist far-right Liberals party. This relationship is not new, but it needs to be born in light, after years of secret dealings.
By doing this, the Greens would fail to fulfill its role and infact would reach its expiry date, exactly as happened to the Democrats. For the small “left” parties, who know that they will never govern a country, the philosophy behind its activities should be just to “keep bastards honest”, try to extract compromises and enforce them to make socio-economic changes. The philosophy is so easy. Small party should be active on few important issues, to get some votes from the current big governing parties. Then the government would act in a bid to stop the exhaustion of its votes. Also any presence in the decision making bodies (Parliaments and councils) is just to access a platform and resources to highlight the issues that matter. Through this process, the most important issue is that the power thirst should not divert the attention of such party to start making compromises, to achieve more power grabbing instead of more socio-economic changes. If this happens, the party would become part of the problem and not part of solution.
And this is exactly what happened to the Greens.
The power thirst of their hierarchy made them start to make compromises to “look attractive” for the “undecided” voters.
This is why the Greens had departed many platforms, departed its direct-action style and started to engage in behind-doors deals with “any” political force to attract “any” votes to keep its viability by “any” means.
Who remember when was the last time a Greens member had jumped on a tree and tied him/herself to it? When was the last time the Greens talked about the occupation of Afghanistan?
On the contrary. The Greens was talking recently about Afghanistan asking for more troops to be deployed to ensure that “the job had been done”.
Going back to climate change action.
If I was the Labor party hierarchy, I would invest millions of dollars to expose the Greens on these particular issues.
The Greens block of the bill in senate means that there will be no actions to reduce the emissions for long time to come. I will also remind people that the Greens is allying in their position with the Liberals, whose leaders were denying, and are still denying, the existence of climate change.
If I am in Labor party, I would be dancing for this opportunity to expose the true colour of the Greens: transparent colourless (to allow them change their colour when needed).
We are praying that the Greens opportunists will continue in their political naivety in displaying their pure opportunism.
What does this actually mean?
It means that no action would be taken in regard to reduce the effect of climate change, let alone take action to reverse its effect. Then we will be lost watching all political parties engaging in blame game, for electoral reasons only.
Who can believe that the Greens, who was established to fight for this particular reason, would abandon this big goal? And for what in return?
The failure of the government to pass its bill will give all political parties the excuses not to do anything in this regard. The Labor government would say that “we” had failed to pass this bill, and will blame the alliance between the Liberals and The Greens for it. The Liberals would declare that John Howard was right not to take actions, and will declare that jobs are saved and we do not need to take any action in this regard.
But what the Greens would achieve from this lack of actions?
The Greens will maintain its viability by maintaining its loud voice on opposing any steps in this regards.
But would this be classified as childish move or opportunist one?
For the Greens supporters it’s called “sticking to principles”, even if this means that no real action to reduce the destructive effect of emissions on our environment will be ever taken. The Greens hierarchy would think that this means that the expiry date of this party would be prolonged, by prolonging the empty rhetoric on doing anything on environment and just resorting to political score-pointing.
For any political analysis this would be the biggest betrayal for the issue of protecting environment. The Greens infact stopped any actions taken to acknowledge the issue and take any step in this regard.
The Greens empty rhetoric and demands of “take full step or no step at all” are neither acceptable nor viable. If the Labor would adopt the agenda of the Greens in this regard, one of these political parties should disappear. In politics you negotiate, take what you can take. And then if it is not enough, you ask for more.
It is very clear that the Greens had many reasons to abort any action on climate change:
1- It wants to continue acting as “vocal syndrome” in Australian politics, where they complain about almost everything, but practically achieve none. By this way they think that they can just keep loud voice, before people start to forget about their presence.
2- It wants to establish good basis to justify its growing alliance with the racist far-right Liberals party. This relationship is not new, but it needs to be born in light, after years of secret dealings.
By doing this, the Greens would fail to fulfill its role and infact would reach its expiry date, exactly as happened to the Democrats. For the small “left” parties, who know that they will never govern a country, the philosophy behind its activities should be just to “keep bastards honest”, try to extract compromises and enforce them to make socio-economic changes. The philosophy is so easy. Small party should be active on few important issues, to get some votes from the current big governing parties. Then the government would act in a bid to stop the exhaustion of its votes. Also any presence in the decision making bodies (Parliaments and councils) is just to access a platform and resources to highlight the issues that matter. Through this process, the most important issue is that the power thirst should not divert the attention of such party to start making compromises, to achieve more power grabbing instead of more socio-economic changes. If this happens, the party would become part of the problem and not part of solution.
And this is exactly what happened to the Greens.
The power thirst of their hierarchy made them start to make compromises to “look attractive” for the “undecided” voters.
This is why the Greens had departed many platforms, departed its direct-action style and started to engage in behind-doors deals with “any” political force to attract “any” votes to keep its viability by “any” means.
Who remember when was the last time a Greens member had jumped on a tree and tied him/herself to it? When was the last time the Greens talked about the occupation of Afghanistan?
On the contrary. The Greens was talking recently about Afghanistan asking for more troops to be deployed to ensure that “the job had been done”.
Going back to climate change action.
If I was the Labor party hierarchy, I would invest millions of dollars to expose the Greens on these particular issues.
The Greens block of the bill in senate means that there will be no actions to reduce the emissions for long time to come. I will also remind people that the Greens is allying in their position with the Liberals, whose leaders were denying, and are still denying, the existence of climate change.
If I am in Labor party, I would be dancing for this opportunity to expose the true colour of the Greens: transparent colourless (to allow them change their colour when needed).
We are praying that the Greens opportunists will continue in their political naivety in displaying their pure opportunism.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
When Australia’s humanity is worth less than $80,000.00!
The Aminovs case had exposed a very bitter reality: after 12 years of the neo-liberal agenda, the humanity of this great nation has been reduced to a worth of less than $80,000.00.
When Aminovs son called the Immigration Minister’s office yesterday, the Minister’s Adviser was talking only about the $80,000.00 (required for the visa to be granted within months, instead of decades). The Adviser did not care and did not want to discuss any humanitarian circumstances that could change the Minister’s opinion and heart. She also would not agree to arrange for meeting with the Minister to try to convince him of the logical reasons why this family should have been granted permanent visas a long time ago.
All the evidence of humanitarian circumstances we provided the Minister’s Office was either ignored and regarded as irrelevant or were never presented to the Minister. We believe that the latter is the case. This is why the Aminovs were left with no other option but to try to attract the attention of the media, in a bid to reach the Minister, instead of dealing all the time with his advisers and secretaries.
What had shocked us all is the lack of any interest by any media outlet to speak about this highly humanitarian issue that (until now) had devastated the life of a young Australian permanent resident, turning it into complete misery. This misery has the potential to progress to worse consequences if the issue continues to be totally ignored by the Minister and media outlets.
The latest report by the Aminov’s son’s mental therapist (which was definitely not read by the Minister or his advisers/secretaries) pointed out very clearly that the highly inhumane treatment of this family resulted in the suicidal thoughts and attempts by the son (who will become an Australian citizen early next year, if he will be still alive!!)
The heartlessness of all ministerial staff and other politicians in the Federal parliament casts a very dark shadow about the status of humanity in this great nation.
The Federal government is now talking about spending billions of $s of tax-payers money to correct the mistakes, the greed or the irresponsible actions of a few investors, money borrowers and lenders, or to compensate for the inaction of an irresponsible previous government. How is it that the same government can be so obsessed with the $80,000.00 it wants to collect eagerly from the Aminovs?
What kind of nation have we been reduced to by this current government and the previous government, where everything is calculated by “fiscal management” yardstick, by dollar measurement and by inhumane laws which were introduced by a government that was condemned by all national and international human rights organisations, by its own members and by historical figures of its party?
But even taking this “fiscal management stance” – why would the government not grant the Aminovs a permanent visa?
The decision to prolong the mental torture of Aminovs by prolonging the period until they will be granted PR (11 years so far, in addition to possibly 17 years of waiting) did cost me as a taxpayer the following:
1- The son, Marat, became very sick and so he was unfit for work for the last year and he is expected to retire soon on a disability pension. We lost an average of $8,000.00 taxes from his work.
2- His repeated admission to a mental health institution (north shore hospital – mental health unit) cost me as a tax-payer tens of thousands of dollars
3- The cost of looking after Marat after becoming mentally ill as a result of this ordeal could run to tens of thousands of dollars in rehabilitation programs, specialised employment programs, specialised home-care programs and other related programs.
4- The cost borne so far by community supporters trying to save Marat or any of his family members from physical collapse or attempted suicide to end their suffering has so far been huge.
5- The cost of measures taken by the family and its supporters to reach the Minister to try to change his heart and decision to end its ordeal is becoming more and more expensive. The current and latest effort required several people to travel to Canberra, leaving their families and jobs behind.
And after all these costs, we heard from the Minister’s office one demand to end this family’s deep humanitarian suffering: you should have paid $80,000.00!
How cheap has our great nation’s pride and humanity become?
And so we say: Dear Minister, Please act to end this family’s suffering, before it is too late. If anyone of this innocent family’s members would be lost through the process to reach you and your heart, our nation would suffer a lot. Our suffering will include moral suffering for generations to come. So please grant them permanent visas before it is too late.
When Aminovs son called the Immigration Minister’s office yesterday, the Minister’s Adviser was talking only about the $80,000.00 (required for the visa to be granted within months, instead of decades). The Adviser did not care and did not want to discuss any humanitarian circumstances that could change the Minister’s opinion and heart. She also would not agree to arrange for meeting with the Minister to try to convince him of the logical reasons why this family should have been granted permanent visas a long time ago.
All the evidence of humanitarian circumstances we provided the Minister’s Office was either ignored and regarded as irrelevant or were never presented to the Minister. We believe that the latter is the case. This is why the Aminovs were left with no other option but to try to attract the attention of the media, in a bid to reach the Minister, instead of dealing all the time with his advisers and secretaries.
What had shocked us all is the lack of any interest by any media outlet to speak about this highly humanitarian issue that (until now) had devastated the life of a young Australian permanent resident, turning it into complete misery. This misery has the potential to progress to worse consequences if the issue continues to be totally ignored by the Minister and media outlets.
The latest report by the Aminov’s son’s mental therapist (which was definitely not read by the Minister or his advisers/secretaries) pointed out very clearly that the highly inhumane treatment of this family resulted in the suicidal thoughts and attempts by the son (who will become an Australian citizen early next year, if he will be still alive!!)
The heartlessness of all ministerial staff and other politicians in the Federal parliament casts a very dark shadow about the status of humanity in this great nation.
The Federal government is now talking about spending billions of $s of tax-payers money to correct the mistakes, the greed or the irresponsible actions of a few investors, money borrowers and lenders, or to compensate for the inaction of an irresponsible previous government. How is it that the same government can be so obsessed with the $80,000.00 it wants to collect eagerly from the Aminovs?
What kind of nation have we been reduced to by this current government and the previous government, where everything is calculated by “fiscal management” yardstick, by dollar measurement and by inhumane laws which were introduced by a government that was condemned by all national and international human rights organisations, by its own members and by historical figures of its party?
But even taking this “fiscal management stance” – why would the government not grant the Aminovs a permanent visa?
The decision to prolong the mental torture of Aminovs by prolonging the period until they will be granted PR (11 years so far, in addition to possibly 17 years of waiting) did cost me as a taxpayer the following:
1- The son, Marat, became very sick and so he was unfit for work for the last year and he is expected to retire soon on a disability pension. We lost an average of $8,000.00 taxes from his work.
2- His repeated admission to a mental health institution (north shore hospital – mental health unit) cost me as a tax-payer tens of thousands of dollars
3- The cost of looking after Marat after becoming mentally ill as a result of this ordeal could run to tens of thousands of dollars in rehabilitation programs, specialised employment programs, specialised home-care programs and other related programs.
4- The cost borne so far by community supporters trying to save Marat or any of his family members from physical collapse or attempted suicide to end their suffering has so far been huge.
5- The cost of measures taken by the family and its supporters to reach the Minister to try to change his heart and decision to end its ordeal is becoming more and more expensive. The current and latest effort required several people to travel to Canberra, leaving their families and jobs behind.
And after all these costs, we heard from the Minister’s office one demand to end this family’s deep humanitarian suffering: you should have paid $80,000.00!
How cheap has our great nation’s pride and humanity become?
And so we say: Dear Minister, Please act to end this family’s suffering, before it is too late. If anyone of this innocent family’s members would be lost through the process to reach you and your heart, our nation would suffer a lot. Our suffering will include moral suffering for generations to come. So please grant them permanent visas before it is too late.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Morris Iemma: A Politician or Neighbourhood Thug!
I met Morris Iemma, NSW Premier, for the first time on the election day of 2003 state election outside one of the polling booths. I was shocked.
On the election day, all politicians behave themselves in a highly respectable and clever way.
He was acting as neighbourhood thug, and not a politician seeking to get the highest possible votes to keep his seat. He arrived to the booth in a very arrogant way, his nose was up touching the sky and surrounded with many of his supporters behaving as merely supporter thugs. He did not offer his hand to shake anyone’s hand, did not offer to help any voter and did not make any promise, even cheap deceiving ones.
He approached me, and I was helping his opponents, and said “anyone than Labor would need hundreds of years to snatch this seat from us”. I immediately shook my head in mockery and said “but Labor did lose Cunningham last year. It was very safe Labor seat for more than half century when your party behaved as thugs and ignored the people voting for them”
I was sure at that time that this arrogant “politician” who displayed no sense of political experience, would never climb beyond his current position. I judged this in a balanced pragmatic way.
A politician who lives on tax-payers money, should have acted in dealing with tax-payers better than this, to keep his employment at least.
But this thug was acting just as neighbourhood Al Capone gangster, using the argument that “you do not have any other alternative”.
Then I was shocked when he asssumed the top position in the state, after bloodless coup orchestrated behind closed doors in Terrigal.
But we say in Arabic “You bring curse on yourself”. And this is what happened.
The Terrigals, a newly formed Labor faction of mainly opportunists and named after secret meeting in the house of one of them in Terrigal, decided to absolutely control NSW Parliament. By appointing Morris, they actually decided to destroy their faction just shortly after its foundation.
The period of their control was marked only by scandals and chaos: fraud, corruption, sexual abuse (including child abuse), economic mismanagement, spreading culture of intimidation, bullying and racism... etc.
And I discovered more about Morris Iemma yesterday. In a visit to his electoral office, I discovered that it is not only him who is arrogant and ignorant. All workers at his office have the same attitude, or worse.
The worker there treated me as a criminal or at least beggar, who is hoping to get anything from this office. She treated me as parasite on them and the society. They forgot that they are the one who are getting the tax-payers money to help me and other residents of the area.
They forgot when they started to intimidate me when they could not fight my logic with similar logic that they are working in the office of the local MP and not at an office of ASIO or at correction service facility. They also forgot that I am a good law-abiding citizen, and not a criminal seeking some sort of amnesty.
The first thing that drew my attention at Morris’s office was the mono-colored ethnic background of the employees. At the office of one of the most multicultural seats in Australia, all the employees are very blonde, blue eye-colored and can speak only English. And the only English they are fluent in is the language of intimidation and bullying.
I compared Morris’s office with other MP’s offices.
At Tony Stewart office the picture is very different. The employee that I met earlier at the day was olive skin; spoke English with an accent, very polite and willing to help. She listened a lot, never lectured me and even went further to criticise the government action.
At the office of Ms Linda Burney, the atmosphere was very similar: very multicultural, polite and helpful. No intimidation or trace of any threats or bullying.
Usually the office of the local member is there (at tax-payers money expense) to help residents solve the obstacles they face or listen to their issues and try to address them (or take them into account and act upon them).
Usually, if the resident walks in the local member’s office with a bad image about the member or his party, he/she should walk out of the office with a better picture.
I walked in Morris Iemma’s office with bad image about him and his government. I walked out with a worse image.
Before I walked out the office, I swore to the employee there that I will soon move form the area which Morris represents its local member and in which they work as his employees. I also swore that we will do our best to get rid of such arrogant politicians.
Mr Morris Iemma,
If you think that Lakemba is a very safe Labor seat and it could take us hundreds of years to unseat you, you should think more. You should ask your colleague in arrogance and racism, Mr John Howard. He thought that Bennelong was very Liberal seat for about half century. Voters of his electorate sent a strong message last year to him, and to all arrogant politicians who acts as gangsters.
They sent him to the history dust bin, a lesson for you, Morris, to learn from.
And we have many alternatives.
On the election day, all politicians behave themselves in a highly respectable and clever way.
He was acting as neighbourhood thug, and not a politician seeking to get the highest possible votes to keep his seat. He arrived to the booth in a very arrogant way, his nose was up touching the sky and surrounded with many of his supporters behaving as merely supporter thugs. He did not offer his hand to shake anyone’s hand, did not offer to help any voter and did not make any promise, even cheap deceiving ones.
He approached me, and I was helping his opponents, and said “anyone than Labor would need hundreds of years to snatch this seat from us”. I immediately shook my head in mockery and said “but Labor did lose Cunningham last year. It was very safe Labor seat for more than half century when your party behaved as thugs and ignored the people voting for them”
I was sure at that time that this arrogant “politician” who displayed no sense of political experience, would never climb beyond his current position. I judged this in a balanced pragmatic way.
A politician who lives on tax-payers money, should have acted in dealing with tax-payers better than this, to keep his employment at least.
But this thug was acting just as neighbourhood Al Capone gangster, using the argument that “you do not have any other alternative”.
Then I was shocked when he asssumed the top position in the state, after bloodless coup orchestrated behind closed doors in Terrigal.
But we say in Arabic “You bring curse on yourself”. And this is what happened.
The Terrigals, a newly formed Labor faction of mainly opportunists and named after secret meeting in the house of one of them in Terrigal, decided to absolutely control NSW Parliament. By appointing Morris, they actually decided to destroy their faction just shortly after its foundation.
The period of their control was marked only by scandals and chaos: fraud, corruption, sexual abuse (including child abuse), economic mismanagement, spreading culture of intimidation, bullying and racism... etc.
And I discovered more about Morris Iemma yesterday. In a visit to his electoral office, I discovered that it is not only him who is arrogant and ignorant. All workers at his office have the same attitude, or worse.
The worker there treated me as a criminal or at least beggar, who is hoping to get anything from this office. She treated me as parasite on them and the society. They forgot that they are the one who are getting the tax-payers money to help me and other residents of the area.
They forgot when they started to intimidate me when they could not fight my logic with similar logic that they are working in the office of the local MP and not at an office of ASIO or at correction service facility. They also forgot that I am a good law-abiding citizen, and not a criminal seeking some sort of amnesty.
The first thing that drew my attention at Morris’s office was the mono-colored ethnic background of the employees. At the office of one of the most multicultural seats in Australia, all the employees are very blonde, blue eye-colored and can speak only English. And the only English they are fluent in is the language of intimidation and bullying.
I compared Morris’s office with other MP’s offices.
At Tony Stewart office the picture is very different. The employee that I met earlier at the day was olive skin; spoke English with an accent, very polite and willing to help. She listened a lot, never lectured me and even went further to criticise the government action.
At the office of Ms Linda Burney, the atmosphere was very similar: very multicultural, polite and helpful. No intimidation or trace of any threats or bullying.
Usually the office of the local member is there (at tax-payers money expense) to help residents solve the obstacles they face or listen to their issues and try to address them (or take them into account and act upon them).
Usually, if the resident walks in the local member’s office with a bad image about the member or his party, he/she should walk out of the office with a better picture.
I walked in Morris Iemma’s office with bad image about him and his government. I walked out with a worse image.
Before I walked out the office, I swore to the employee there that I will soon move form the area which Morris represents its local member and in which they work as his employees. I also swore that we will do our best to get rid of such arrogant politicians.
Mr Morris Iemma,
If you think that Lakemba is a very safe Labor seat and it could take us hundreds of years to unseat you, you should think more. You should ask your colleague in arrogance and racism, Mr John Howard. He thought that Bennelong was very Liberal seat for about half century. Voters of his electorate sent a strong message last year to him, and to all arrogant politicians who acts as gangsters.
They sent him to the history dust bin, a lesson for you, Morris, to learn from.
And we have many alternatives.
Monday, February 19, 2007
WHY boycott the next state election?
What made more than 25% of Marrickville voters boycott the last by-election, 2005?
What makes more than 10% of the state’s residents regularly express their total loss of faith in ALL political institutions, by boycotting the elections somehow?
What are the reasons behind our campaign to boycott the current state election in 2007?
The simple answer is: because there is a total absence of a true visionary leadership at the moment.
It is very clear that the Labor has abandoned its commitments to social justice issues, and is trying to creep more and more towards the right. Equally clear is the increasing influence of the Labor right faction on the decision-making inside Labor.
But what about the smaller parties? Why could they not present alternative leadership?
There is no doubt that the increase in popularity of the largest 2 small parties (the Democrats and Greens) were just as protest votes against the major parties.
The increased popularity of the Democrats was a protest vote against the Liberals ignoring some social justice issues like Environment, Refugees and Racism.
The increase of the vote to the Greens was a protest vote against Labor’s lack of true leadership to stand against the far-right extreme politics of John Howard. It was never because of the Australians’ awareness about the Environmental issues became suddenly high (if we can assume that the Greens are strong on defending the environment anyway). There was a core group who supported Environmental issues. However up to now even though more people support Environmental issues, this is only one of the “protests” which they want to make against the big parties.
But why this assumption that the increase of the vote of the Greens was in fact a message of no-confidence in Labor, rather than message of confidence in the Greens?
I can explain this by giving one simple example.
From all statistics, we can easily assume that more than half of the Muslims who voted in the last state election voted for the Greens.
Can anyone suggest that Muslims voters (who are socially conservative) did vote for the Greens because indeed they supported the Greens’ very liberal social policies? Can anyone suggest that this socially conservative group of voters support the Greens pro-abortion policy, pro-euthanasia policy, pro gay marriage policy, Greens drugs policy…?
It was clear that the vote for the Greens was just a protest vote against Labor’s loss of vision. It was a pragmatic move from the voters to see if the new emerging political force will present a real alternative and incorporate their issues in its agenda.
It is very clear, at least for me, that the small parties did fail the trust and the test.
We saw how the Democrats failed the voters on the GST (and even before).
And we did see how the Greens failed the voters.
The Greens, whose increased popularity in the last few years came on pure social justice issues, failed to take any practical step to advance these issues.
The party that promoted itself as a pro-Multiculturalism party is still a pure white party, with no trace of any other color in its leadership or membership. The party that claimed to seek better public education, public transport, and public housing did some attempts at campaigning on some of these issues, but with no practical effect. May be this is because it has no real grassroots supports and just puts intellectual arguments for electoral gains only. So of course it could not achieve any of these promises. The party that promotes the slogan of “clean politics” started to make very dirty deals and steps; the last was the deal with the extreme-right to swap preferences in Victorian state election late last year.
And this is why it could not attract any of the 25% of the voters who boycotted Marrickville by-election.
But more importantly is that our message of no-confidence in Labor was lost in the Greens translation as confidence in the Greens. And because of this, the Greens were able to fool us in the last few years. They got our vote, we got nothing in return (and I am not talking about “us” as Muslims only, but about all decent Australians who are looking for a real alternative)
So who would I vote for in the next state election?
In the last state election, we sent an ambiguous message (by punishing Labor by voting the Greens). This time (and until we build a real alternative political force to truly represent us) I will send an unequivocal and clear message. I will boycott. I will go to the polling booth, but will drop the ballot paper blank: no names and no votes.
It is not a waste of a vote, as some people who are members in these political parties are claiming. In fact it’s tripling my voting strength. If I vote for the Greens to punish Labor, I am only sending a message to the Labor. But by boycotting, I am sending multiple messages: one to the Labor, one to the Greens, one to the Democrats and one to the Liberals. The message is that: we still have an alternative – at the same time that we are still looking for better alternatives, ones which actually work with us at the grassroots level on things which matter to us.
What makes more than 10% of the state’s residents regularly express their total loss of faith in ALL political institutions, by boycotting the elections somehow?
What are the reasons behind our campaign to boycott the current state election in 2007?
The simple answer is: because there is a total absence of a true visionary leadership at the moment.
It is very clear that the Labor has abandoned its commitments to social justice issues, and is trying to creep more and more towards the right. Equally clear is the increasing influence of the Labor right faction on the decision-making inside Labor.
But what about the smaller parties? Why could they not present alternative leadership?
There is no doubt that the increase in popularity of the largest 2 small parties (the Democrats and Greens) were just as protest votes against the major parties.
The increased popularity of the Democrats was a protest vote against the Liberals ignoring some social justice issues like Environment, Refugees and Racism.
The increase of the vote to the Greens was a protest vote against Labor’s lack of true leadership to stand against the far-right extreme politics of John Howard. It was never because of the Australians’ awareness about the Environmental issues became suddenly high (if we can assume that the Greens are strong on defending the environment anyway). There was a core group who supported Environmental issues. However up to now even though more people support Environmental issues, this is only one of the “protests” which they want to make against the big parties.
But why this assumption that the increase of the vote of the Greens was in fact a message of no-confidence in Labor, rather than message of confidence in the Greens?
I can explain this by giving one simple example.
From all statistics, we can easily assume that more than half of the Muslims who voted in the last state election voted for the Greens.
Can anyone suggest that Muslims voters (who are socially conservative) did vote for the Greens because indeed they supported the Greens’ very liberal social policies? Can anyone suggest that this socially conservative group of voters support the Greens pro-abortion policy, pro-euthanasia policy, pro gay marriage policy, Greens drugs policy…?
It was clear that the vote for the Greens was just a protest vote against Labor’s loss of vision. It was a pragmatic move from the voters to see if the new emerging political force will present a real alternative and incorporate their issues in its agenda.
It is very clear, at least for me, that the small parties did fail the trust and the test.
We saw how the Democrats failed the voters on the GST (and even before).
And we did see how the Greens failed the voters.
The Greens, whose increased popularity in the last few years came on pure social justice issues, failed to take any practical step to advance these issues.
The party that promoted itself as a pro-Multiculturalism party is still a pure white party, with no trace of any other color in its leadership or membership. The party that claimed to seek better public education, public transport, and public housing did some attempts at campaigning on some of these issues, but with no practical effect. May be this is because it has no real grassroots supports and just puts intellectual arguments for electoral gains only. So of course it could not achieve any of these promises. The party that promotes the slogan of “clean politics” started to make very dirty deals and steps; the last was the deal with the extreme-right to swap preferences in Victorian state election late last year.
And this is why it could not attract any of the 25% of the voters who boycotted Marrickville by-election.
But more importantly is that our message of no-confidence in Labor was lost in the Greens translation as confidence in the Greens. And because of this, the Greens were able to fool us in the last few years. They got our vote, we got nothing in return (and I am not talking about “us” as Muslims only, but about all decent Australians who are looking for a real alternative)
So who would I vote for in the next state election?
In the last state election, we sent an ambiguous message (by punishing Labor by voting the Greens). This time (and until we build a real alternative political force to truly represent us) I will send an unequivocal and clear message. I will boycott. I will go to the polling booth, but will drop the ballot paper blank: no names and no votes.
It is not a waste of a vote, as some people who are members in these political parties are claiming. In fact it’s tripling my voting strength. If I vote for the Greens to punish Labor, I am only sending a message to the Labor. But by boycotting, I am sending multiple messages: one to the Labor, one to the Greens, one to the Democrats and one to the Liberals. The message is that: we still have an alternative – at the same time that we are still looking for better alternatives, ones which actually work with us at the grassroots level on things which matter to us.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Researchers found why Muslims are boring and violent
www.theaustralian.hatred.au/multiculturalismsux
Richar Kurbaji
15 November 2006
The researchers of human behavior in conjunction with genetic engineers are very close to isolating a unique gene in Muslims that determines why they are boring, depressing, depressed and violent.
Professor John Howard, the renowned expert on racial and religious hatred at the White Australia University (WAU) announced this discovery last night. He described his team researchers’ discovery as a milestone in solving global terrorism.
“We found a unique gene in each Muslim’s genetic material, regardless of their ethnic background, that makes them all terrorists by birth” said Prof Howard. “At last we can prove that the war on Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria... are not because of any economic reasons related to Oil, but as counter-terrorism exercises.”
His colleague on the reasearch, Prof Phillip Ruddock, made similar observations and claims. He said that the team put a few Muslims from different backgrounds and different social and economic classes under different circumstances. These were ranging from total isolation at Long Bay jail to total isolation at desert detentions in Woomera, then total isolation in the Ghettos of Lakemba and Bankstown. They all showed the same symptoms of depression which were then translated into violent actions. These violent actions were ranging from trying to run away to trying to commit suicide by drinking bleach or swallowing razor blades.
Another colleague on the research, Dr Tony Abbot, observed very clear signs of mistrust, inability to adapt and integrate and high inclination to easily explode among the Muslims under research conditions.
“They were very depressed, never understand humor, easy to jump to conclusions and believe in conspiracies” said Dr Abbot. “We acknowledge that we put them under big pressure, humiliate them immensely, degrade their humanity and torture them badly. But in a Western democracy, they should not act so depressed then violently. They should remember the suffering of our ancestors, the convicts, who (regardless of the circumstances) never reacted so violently”
Support for the results of this research also came form Prof Bob Brown, in his section on Biodiverse-related human behavior. He said that the only Muslims he saw in his life were the environmentally ignorant, violent and never smiling heavy-bearded men and totally covered women.
“I never saw a Muslim tying themselves to a tree to stop its uprooting” said Prof Brown. “I also never saw muslims in the park trying to plant a tree at the Tree day celebration. The only time I see Muslims in the park is when they are having BBQs cutting several trees branches to use them as charcoal. They only know how to destroy, never how to plant and construct”
Prof John Howard is now expressing his optimism for the future.
“Once we will isolate the gene, we will be able to produce peaceful genetically-modified Muslims. The new-born Muslims can fit easily in the Western societies, alongside their counterpart born-again Christians”
It is expected that the production of new generation of genetically modified Muslims will start within one year.
This was another satirical opinion piece, proudly brought to you by Jamal Daoud (http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com)
Richar Kurbaji
15 November 2006
The researchers of human behavior in conjunction with genetic engineers are very close to isolating a unique gene in Muslims that determines why they are boring, depressing, depressed and violent.
Professor John Howard, the renowned expert on racial and religious hatred at the White Australia University (WAU) announced this discovery last night. He described his team researchers’ discovery as a milestone in solving global terrorism.
“We found a unique gene in each Muslim’s genetic material, regardless of their ethnic background, that makes them all terrorists by birth” said Prof Howard. “At last we can prove that the war on Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria... are not because of any economic reasons related to Oil, but as counter-terrorism exercises.”
His colleague on the reasearch, Prof Phillip Ruddock, made similar observations and claims. He said that the team put a few Muslims from different backgrounds and different social and economic classes under different circumstances. These were ranging from total isolation at Long Bay jail to total isolation at desert detentions in Woomera, then total isolation in the Ghettos of Lakemba and Bankstown. They all showed the same symptoms of depression which were then translated into violent actions. These violent actions were ranging from trying to run away to trying to commit suicide by drinking bleach or swallowing razor blades.
Another colleague on the research, Dr Tony Abbot, observed very clear signs of mistrust, inability to adapt and integrate and high inclination to easily explode among the Muslims under research conditions.
“They were very depressed, never understand humor, easy to jump to conclusions and believe in conspiracies” said Dr Abbot. “We acknowledge that we put them under big pressure, humiliate them immensely, degrade their humanity and torture them badly. But in a Western democracy, they should not act so depressed then violently. They should remember the suffering of our ancestors, the convicts, who (regardless of the circumstances) never reacted so violently”
Support for the results of this research also came form Prof Bob Brown, in his section on Biodiverse-related human behavior. He said that the only Muslims he saw in his life were the environmentally ignorant, violent and never smiling heavy-bearded men and totally covered women.
“I never saw a Muslim tying themselves to a tree to stop its uprooting” said Prof Brown. “I also never saw muslims in the park trying to plant a tree at the Tree day celebration. The only time I see Muslims in the park is when they are having BBQs cutting several trees branches to use them as charcoal. They only know how to destroy, never how to plant and construct”
Prof John Howard is now expressing his optimism for the future.
“Once we will isolate the gene, we will be able to produce peaceful genetically-modified Muslims. The new-born Muslims can fit easily in the Western societies, alongside their counterpart born-again Christians”
It is expected that the production of new generation of genetically modified Muslims will start within one year.
This was another satirical opinion piece, proudly brought to you by Jamal Daoud (http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Al Hlialy and Muslims to be blamed for the global warming
www.theaustralian.lies.au/conspiracies/getridofthem
Ritchar Kurbaj
10 November 2006
While the row about the Hilaly's comments on rape and “uncovered meat”, did not finish totally yet, Al Hilaly and his community have been blamed by members of parliament, both state and federal for escalating global warming.
Those experts noticed that Al Hilaly is not preaching against his followers from the smoking of the Argilla, a type of water pipe (widely known in the western world as Hubbly Bubbly). The Argilla was found to emmit a large quantity of Carbon Dioxide and other poisonous gas. Taking into account that the Muslim numbers are exceeding 1 billion in population around the world, the emmited gases could cause a lot of damage to our environment and possibly contribute to global warming.
In one religious ceremony during last Ramadan, Al Hilaly was stressing that smoking the Argilla, while not promoted, it is not forbidden. He was quoted as saying “at the moment you can smoke Argilla without any fear of divine punishment”
On another occasion, he was saying that global warming is a “divine punishment” for following secularism. It is very clear that he urges his folowers not to care about the damage to environment.
The Australian prime minister has described his comments as “unAustralian” and urged his community to sack him immediately.
“It is very clear that the Egyptian born shiekh who cannot speak English well, does not feel the 'heat' caused by global warming and other events” said Mr Howard.
Kim Beazely, the federal opposition leader has questioned the reason why Shiekh Al Hilaly cannot feel the “heat”, as if he is not really from this earth. He demanded a royal commission to investigate these claims and the Muslim's responsibility for the global warming. He blamed the government for not doing enough to measure the amount of CO2 emmision from the Argillas, a policy vacuum he promised to fill when he wins government. He also questioned the ignorance from the Department of Immigration to stop the Argilla's smokers to gain residence in Australia, and later, Citizenship. Mr Beazely said, “they should at least learn to speak English before they go smoking the Argilla”.
Kevin Rudd was quick to demand an apology from the Mufti and his community. He also asked the Attorney General to investigate if the Mufti's act was such a serious breech of national security that it should warrant deportation.
Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens Party, demanded that the Muslim community to sack the Mufti immediately and replace him with environment-friendly Mufti, who would commit himself to sign the Kyoto protocol. Mr Brown noted that the Mufti and the Muslim community had the least participation in the rally on global warming last week.
“I did not see the Mufti at the rally last week; I was told that he refused an invitation to attend and commit himself and his community to the principles of Kyoto” Mr Brown noted.
When asked about these claims outside Lakemba Mosque, the Mufti shook his head, smiled and kept going. This could be translated that he cannnot find any excuses any more.
Some Muslims who are long term opponents of AL Hlilay said that he does not represent the Muslims, and without him as Mufti, the community could have easily signed the Kyoto Protocol decades ago. They added their voices to the chorus of politicians asking for his immediate sacking and for a candlelight vigil outside the Mosque until he does.
For more satirical comment, contact: Jamal Daoud (0413 467 367 – that's real!)
Note: The above text does not actually represent the views of those mentioned but the satirical position of our collective existence.
Ritchar Kurbaj
10 November 2006
While the row about the Hilaly's comments on rape and “uncovered meat”, did not finish totally yet, Al Hilaly and his community have been blamed by members of parliament, both state and federal for escalating global warming.
Those experts noticed that Al Hilaly is not preaching against his followers from the smoking of the Argilla, a type of water pipe (widely known in the western world as Hubbly Bubbly). The Argilla was found to emmit a large quantity of Carbon Dioxide and other poisonous gas. Taking into account that the Muslim numbers are exceeding 1 billion in population around the world, the emmited gases could cause a lot of damage to our environment and possibly contribute to global warming.
In one religious ceremony during last Ramadan, Al Hilaly was stressing that smoking the Argilla, while not promoted, it is not forbidden. He was quoted as saying “at the moment you can smoke Argilla without any fear of divine punishment”
On another occasion, he was saying that global warming is a “divine punishment” for following secularism. It is very clear that he urges his folowers not to care about the damage to environment.
The Australian prime minister has described his comments as “unAustralian” and urged his community to sack him immediately.
“It is very clear that the Egyptian born shiekh who cannot speak English well, does not feel the 'heat' caused by global warming and other events” said Mr Howard.
Kim Beazely, the federal opposition leader has questioned the reason why Shiekh Al Hilaly cannot feel the “heat”, as if he is not really from this earth. He demanded a royal commission to investigate these claims and the Muslim's responsibility for the global warming. He blamed the government for not doing enough to measure the amount of CO2 emmision from the Argillas, a policy vacuum he promised to fill when he wins government. He also questioned the ignorance from the Department of Immigration to stop the Argilla's smokers to gain residence in Australia, and later, Citizenship. Mr Beazely said, “they should at least learn to speak English before they go smoking the Argilla”.
Kevin Rudd was quick to demand an apology from the Mufti and his community. He also asked the Attorney General to investigate if the Mufti's act was such a serious breech of national security that it should warrant deportation.
Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens Party, demanded that the Muslim community to sack the Mufti immediately and replace him with environment-friendly Mufti, who would commit himself to sign the Kyoto protocol. Mr Brown noted that the Mufti and the Muslim community had the least participation in the rally on global warming last week.
“I did not see the Mufti at the rally last week; I was told that he refused an invitation to attend and commit himself and his community to the principles of Kyoto” Mr Brown noted.
When asked about these claims outside Lakemba Mosque, the Mufti shook his head, smiled and kept going. This could be translated that he cannnot find any excuses any more.
Some Muslims who are long term opponents of AL Hlilay said that he does not represent the Muslims, and without him as Mufti, the community could have easily signed the Kyoto Protocol decades ago. They added their voices to the chorus of politicians asking for his immediate sacking and for a candlelight vigil outside the Mosque until he does.
For more satirical comment, contact: Jamal Daoud (0413 467 367 – that's real!)
Note: The above text does not actually represent the views of those mentioned but the satirical position of our collective existence.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
David Hicks, Al Hilaly and the three Muslims in Yemen: Conviction by media because of faith!
In any civilised society, every citizen has the right of presumption of innocence, except in Howard's Australia. The golden rule of natural justice in any secular democratic society is that every “accused” is innocent until proven “guilty”.
For David Hicks who was in detention for more than 4 years, Howard and his ministers decided that he deserves this, even though there was no trial or conviction. They have not only abandoned him, but sent an envoy to England, to encourage them to refuse him English citizenship. After this attempt failed, the Australian envoy was sent to abort any diplomatic intervention on his behalf.
For Al Hilaly, he should be sacked, possible jail and prospective deportation. All this without any court conviction, sacking through legitimate channels or losing in polling boxes.
The Australian government is ready to spend millions of dollars following him from country to country, taping all his speeches and ceremonies, translating all these into English and then staging media and political circus after circus.
For the three Australians arrested in Yemen for possible links to a “terrorist organisation”, Howard has already decided that they “broke the laws and they deserve everything”; full-stop, no need for any further evidence, a fair trial or conviction.
Howard knows as a legally trained person that the ‘accused is innocent until proven guilty’. Does not he know as PM, who controls many security agencies, that Yemen is a very corrupt government from its head to toes?
What kind of a leader are we having in Australia?
Let us compare his response on other issues!
Do we remember Schapelle Corby?
She was caught red-handed trying to smuggle drugs into Bali. John Howard wrote a letter to her personally promising that he will use all in his power to save her.
Do you also remember Fred Nile, member of NSW Legislative Council. He attacked Muslim women's rights. Howard did not stage any media circus to sack him. On the contrary, he supported his right to express his personal and religious views, even if they are bigotted.
And I do not want to remind you with his response to Pope's remarks of “we should really move on.”
What hypocrisy?
Mr Hicks, Al Hilaly and the three Australians arrested in Yemen are all still innocents (not like Corby) and deserve fair treatment and presumption of innocence, until proven otherwise.
It is very clear that in Howard's Australia, you are guilty according to either your faith or your appearance.
You are guilty until prove your innocence if:
●You are Muslim.
●You are of Middle Eastern appearance.
●You speak English with an accent, unless you prove that you are not Arab or Muslim
This is a better and cheaper-to-run system, where any politician can decree a conviction. Even an ordinary policman can do this job. All what it needs is to add ethnic origin and faith/religion to the driving licence or ID card.
This Howard has a very good non-conventional method for every agenda item. This time he invented the persecution of his opponents by media. No need to spend money to construct cases, no need to spend money for diplomatic missions to help “accused”, no need to spend money for judges and courts.....
On the contrary: he will save a lot of money: ‘if you do not do what I want, I will withheld funds for your community’!
The actions of the Howard government mirror that of a kangaroo court process and affront the Australian constitution as it severely compromises the doctrine of the separation of political power and judicial power, an integral part of the Westminster system of government he supposedly cherishes so much.
And we still believe that we are living in a secular democratic society, not in a banana republic!!
For David Hicks who was in detention for more than 4 years, Howard and his ministers decided that he deserves this, even though there was no trial or conviction. They have not only abandoned him, but sent an envoy to England, to encourage them to refuse him English citizenship. After this attempt failed, the Australian envoy was sent to abort any diplomatic intervention on his behalf.
For Al Hilaly, he should be sacked, possible jail and prospective deportation. All this without any court conviction, sacking through legitimate channels or losing in polling boxes.
The Australian government is ready to spend millions of dollars following him from country to country, taping all his speeches and ceremonies, translating all these into English and then staging media and political circus after circus.
For the three Australians arrested in Yemen for possible links to a “terrorist organisation”, Howard has already decided that they “broke the laws and they deserve everything”; full-stop, no need for any further evidence, a fair trial or conviction.
Howard knows as a legally trained person that the ‘accused is innocent until proven guilty’. Does not he know as PM, who controls many security agencies, that Yemen is a very corrupt government from its head to toes?
What kind of a leader are we having in Australia?
Let us compare his response on other issues!
Do we remember Schapelle Corby?
She was caught red-handed trying to smuggle drugs into Bali. John Howard wrote a letter to her personally promising that he will use all in his power to save her.
Do you also remember Fred Nile, member of NSW Legislative Council. He attacked Muslim women's rights. Howard did not stage any media circus to sack him. On the contrary, he supported his right to express his personal and religious views, even if they are bigotted.
And I do not want to remind you with his response to Pope's remarks of “we should really move on.”
What hypocrisy?
Mr Hicks, Al Hilaly and the three Australians arrested in Yemen are all still innocents (not like Corby) and deserve fair treatment and presumption of innocence, until proven otherwise.
It is very clear that in Howard's Australia, you are guilty according to either your faith or your appearance.
You are guilty until prove your innocence if:
●You are Muslim.
●You are of Middle Eastern appearance.
●You speak English with an accent, unless you prove that you are not Arab or Muslim
This is a better and cheaper-to-run system, where any politician can decree a conviction. Even an ordinary policman can do this job. All what it needs is to add ethnic origin and faith/religion to the driving licence or ID card.
This Howard has a very good non-conventional method for every agenda item. This time he invented the persecution of his opponents by media. No need to spend money to construct cases, no need to spend money for diplomatic missions to help “accused”, no need to spend money for judges and courts.....
On the contrary: he will save a lot of money: ‘if you do not do what I want, I will withheld funds for your community’!
The actions of the Howard government mirror that of a kangaroo court process and affront the Australian constitution as it severely compromises the doctrine of the separation of political power and judicial power, an integral part of the Westminster system of government he supposedly cherishes so much.
And we still believe that we are living in a secular democratic society, not in a banana republic!!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Why mixing religion with politics again: Sheikh Hilaly's comments should not be gone on air?
In the context of the media circus about Al Hilaly's comments sparked by The Australian today, we want to put facts into context:
٭ There are no justifications for the violence inflicted on any rape victims. The perpetrators of such violence should be tried and punished accordingly.
٭ In a secular democracy like Australia, it is unacceptable to interfere in people's choice of their dress or the way they choose to go in their life, as long as it does not harm others.
٭ The issues of criminal justice, defamation and inciting hate and violence should be dealt with in the courtrooms, and not in the media by creating a circus that will interfere with the natural justice.
And here we want to ask basic questions:
٭ Why was a religious ceremony blown out of context and leaked to the media?
٭ Why did this happen at this particular time, and after a month of its delivery?
٭ What is the role of Howard's government in this leak and circus, taking into consideration the unacceptable remarks of Howard and his ministers about Islam and Muslims and their wish to change the Muslim “leadership” to a more “Liberal-friendly” one?
٭ Why did Pru Goward, the Liberal candidate who failed to be preselected for Epping seat because she is not far right-extremist, enter the debate in such provocative way?
And we can conclude:
٭ There is a fishy conspiracy here by the Liberal right-extremists to blow things out of its context to achieve electoral gains. As since when in a secular democracy, security agencies and media are spying on religious ceremonies? And why only on a Muslim ceremony? And why dealing with this ceremony in the media instead of appropriate channels, if there is no fishy conspiracy to use all these for electoral victories?
٭ The Al Hilaly's comments, while highly inappropriate, could not amount to inciting hate or rape. He was stating his opinion about events concerning some members of the community. He was not urging Muslim youth to rape any “uncovered meat”, but was urging them to stick to Islamic code of dress and behavior.
٭ By the same token as Al Hilaly cannot direct Australian women how to act, Muslims have the right to promote socially conservative code of dress and behavior according to their religion. As far as there is not incitement of hate or violence, this right should be respected for all (including Muslims).
٭ The Pru Goward attempt to match the Liberal extremists to win a candidacy somewhere by demanding deportation of Al Hilaly is not more than a pathetic move. Pru Goward should go and read the immigration law, principles of natural justice and principles of separation of powers in the secular democracy. She appointed herself as prosecutor, jury and Judge. She even gave instant judgment before looking into the evidence or heard the “accused”. Then Al Hilaly is an Australian citizen and, if convicted of inciting hate, should be sentenced in Australia and not sent overseas. We did not hear any suggestions that the “white” criminals should be deported and sent back to England.
We would like to stress here that this media circus about Al Hilaly's comments are not more than another episode from the Federal government to interfere in Muslim community affairs to further marginalise and criminalise the whole community on one hand. And it is another move to enforce Liberal-friendly “leadership” on the community that will work hand-in-hand with the government agenda to dehumanize the community to legitimise the neo-conservative attacks on Islam and Muslims.
٭ There are no justifications for the violence inflicted on any rape victims. The perpetrators of such violence should be tried and punished accordingly.
٭ In a secular democracy like Australia, it is unacceptable to interfere in people's choice of their dress or the way they choose to go in their life, as long as it does not harm others.
٭ The issues of criminal justice, defamation and inciting hate and violence should be dealt with in the courtrooms, and not in the media by creating a circus that will interfere with the natural justice.
And here we want to ask basic questions:
٭ Why was a religious ceremony blown out of context and leaked to the media?
٭ Why did this happen at this particular time, and after a month of its delivery?
٭ What is the role of Howard's government in this leak and circus, taking into consideration the unacceptable remarks of Howard and his ministers about Islam and Muslims and their wish to change the Muslim “leadership” to a more “Liberal-friendly” one?
٭ Why did Pru Goward, the Liberal candidate who failed to be preselected for Epping seat because she is not far right-extremist, enter the debate in such provocative way?
And we can conclude:
٭ There is a fishy conspiracy here by the Liberal right-extremists to blow things out of its context to achieve electoral gains. As since when in a secular democracy, security agencies and media are spying on religious ceremonies? And why only on a Muslim ceremony? And why dealing with this ceremony in the media instead of appropriate channels, if there is no fishy conspiracy to use all these for electoral victories?
٭ The Al Hilaly's comments, while highly inappropriate, could not amount to inciting hate or rape. He was stating his opinion about events concerning some members of the community. He was not urging Muslim youth to rape any “uncovered meat”, but was urging them to stick to Islamic code of dress and behavior.
٭ By the same token as Al Hilaly cannot direct Australian women how to act, Muslims have the right to promote socially conservative code of dress and behavior according to their religion. As far as there is not incitement of hate or violence, this right should be respected for all (including Muslims).
٭ The Pru Goward attempt to match the Liberal extremists to win a candidacy somewhere by demanding deportation of Al Hilaly is not more than a pathetic move. Pru Goward should go and read the immigration law, principles of natural justice and principles of separation of powers in the secular democracy. She appointed herself as prosecutor, jury and Judge. She even gave instant judgment before looking into the evidence or heard the “accused”. Then Al Hilaly is an Australian citizen and, if convicted of inciting hate, should be sentenced in Australia and not sent overseas. We did not hear any suggestions that the “white” criminals should be deported and sent back to England.
We would like to stress here that this media circus about Al Hilaly's comments are not more than another episode from the Federal government to interfere in Muslim community affairs to further marginalise and criminalise the whole community on one hand. And it is another move to enforce Liberal-friendly “leadership” on the community that will work hand-in-hand with the government agenda to dehumanize the community to legitimise the neo-conservative attacks on Islam and Muslims.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Did the Greens senators convert to Islam lately?
Since my attack started (on 18 July 06) on the hypocrisy and lack of any real commitments or vision of the Greens party (especially handling of the crisis in the Middle East) the election machine of the party are sending very strange messages.
I should mention here that the disgraceful stances of the Greens on these issues started when the Greens politicians were deadly silent on the banning of Hizboullah, on 14 June 03. Then they very noisily and enthusiastically supported the banning of Hamas and Lashker e Taybeh, 7 November 03.
After that, there was silence on all related issues, after I led a campaign against these disgraceful stances inside the Greens. This continued until this cease-fire was finished when the Greens federal election machine 04 re-opened fire on our community and its central issue, Palestine. The Greens machine put out a very disgraceful media release on 1 September 04 condemning Palestinian military factions and holding them responsible for the halt of the peace process (which peace process!!).
At that time I had no choice but to break my silence. I did condemn, publicly, such political prostitution to gain some Zionist support. I, proudly, attacked the Greens media release and the shift to total loss of principled stands and a visionary approach, in the media and the community. I also participated in collecting signatures and names to condemn this prostitution in a petition sent to both senators.
After the disgraceful media release of the Greens on the Israeli attack on Lebanon, 17 July 06, I had no choice but to attack in full force and on all fronts to expose the real colour of the “Greens”.
Since my initial attack on 18 July, the Greens were putting out media releases at the rate of one media release per week. Then they were keen to start talking about some issues that they refused to touch in the last half decade.
On November 2002 (during my campaigning in Victorian election), I organised a meeting with Senator Nettle and Asem Judeh, to encourage the Greens senators to talk about the issues that matter. We urged them to talk about the tax-deductibility of the money sent to be used in illegal activities (like building illegal settlements, buying arms and financing confiscation of Palestinian lands), Israeli army recruitment in Australia,... etc. All our requests were ignored and fell on deaf ears. No motion or discussion on such issues was initiated in the parliament by the Greens politicians.
Suddenly, and after my recent attack on the credibility of the Greens as a left party, The Greens senators showed a strong appetite to talk about some of these issues. We saw the pathetic motion after motion (including a motion to ask about arms trade with Israel), with no coordination with anyone in the Parliament, then media release after media release on the issue and many media interviews on the issues.
What a hypocrisy!!!
Could not these senators move these motions, ask for debate, and demand answers since 2002? Why this postponement?!!
Then came the biggest lie of its kind!
I should mention that the Greens was promoting for the last decade the “clean politics” slogan as an essential part of their claim of “political alternativeness” to the major parties.
On 30 July 06, The Greens senator Kerry Nettle claimed, on the air on the SBS radio – Arabic program, that the Greens regarded Hizboullah as national resistance and not a terrorist organisation, and they did oppose the legislation to put it on the list of terrorists organisations.
What a cheap lie!!
Let us start exposing this lie from recent events. This is strange and a total contradiction to the content of Bob Brown's media release on 17 July 06.
Where were the senators when Hizboullah was banned on 14 June 03? The Greens senators were deadly silent among a very noisy and big debate in the senate. And at the end of the session, they did not even abstain from voting.
I read the senate Hansard. The Greens tried to treat us (as a community) as naive immature children, who can receive any piece of lie unquestioningly. The truth is that the Democrats, while they supported banning Hizboullah as terrorist organisation, sought amendments to stop the retrospectivity of applying this legislation. The Greens supported these amendments and objected to this issue, not the issue of banning.
After the deterioration in the reputation of the Greens among the Muslim and Arabic communities, the election machine is desperate to do anything to gain some ground before the state and federal elections next year. They could even go to the extent of supporting Hizboullah as national resistance and not terrorist organisation!!!!!!
And they are keen now to pursue the issue of Israel’s arms trade with Australia. They are even organising a forum about this issue.
Halleluyah!!!
But why are they keen to talk about this irrelevant issue, where the trade is less than 2 million dollars and is non important item. Why are they not keen to ask about the tax-payers money which is going to support illegal activities like building settlements or buying arms!!
Then they cried for long time for the death of the Lebanese civilians.
If I was not a Greens member for long time, and read in those days the Greens' many media releases, speeches at the rallies, motions in the Parliament and interviews with the ethnic media, I would suspect that the Greens senators did convert to Islam and became members of Hizboullah, or maybe Hamas (at least they have the same Green flag).
There are a few questions to ask here:
1- Why did they convert to Islam just now?
2- Will they stay members of Hamas or Hizboullah after the end of the federal election, 2007?
3- Would they defy the Australian governments ban on sending money to help Hamas and Hizboullah?
4- How long will this cheap political prostitution last?
And in Arabic we say: “and your intelligence is enough”! (وفهمكم كفايه)
I should mention here that the disgraceful stances of the Greens on these issues started when the Greens politicians were deadly silent on the banning of Hizboullah, on 14 June 03. Then they very noisily and enthusiastically supported the banning of Hamas and Lashker e Taybeh, 7 November 03.
After that, there was silence on all related issues, after I led a campaign against these disgraceful stances inside the Greens. This continued until this cease-fire was finished when the Greens federal election machine 04 re-opened fire on our community and its central issue, Palestine. The Greens machine put out a very disgraceful media release on 1 September 04 condemning Palestinian military factions and holding them responsible for the halt of the peace process (which peace process!!).
At that time I had no choice but to break my silence. I did condemn, publicly, such political prostitution to gain some Zionist support. I, proudly, attacked the Greens media release and the shift to total loss of principled stands and a visionary approach, in the media and the community. I also participated in collecting signatures and names to condemn this prostitution in a petition sent to both senators.
After the disgraceful media release of the Greens on the Israeli attack on Lebanon, 17 July 06, I had no choice but to attack in full force and on all fronts to expose the real colour of the “Greens”.
Since my initial attack on 18 July, the Greens were putting out media releases at the rate of one media release per week. Then they were keen to start talking about some issues that they refused to touch in the last half decade.
On November 2002 (during my campaigning in Victorian election), I organised a meeting with Senator Nettle and Asem Judeh, to encourage the Greens senators to talk about the issues that matter. We urged them to talk about the tax-deductibility of the money sent to be used in illegal activities (like building illegal settlements, buying arms and financing confiscation of Palestinian lands), Israeli army recruitment in Australia,... etc. All our requests were ignored and fell on deaf ears. No motion or discussion on such issues was initiated in the parliament by the Greens politicians.
Suddenly, and after my recent attack on the credibility of the Greens as a left party, The Greens senators showed a strong appetite to talk about some of these issues. We saw the pathetic motion after motion (including a motion to ask about arms trade with Israel), with no coordination with anyone in the Parliament, then media release after media release on the issue and many media interviews on the issues.
What a hypocrisy!!!
Could not these senators move these motions, ask for debate, and demand answers since 2002? Why this postponement?!!
Then came the biggest lie of its kind!
I should mention that the Greens was promoting for the last decade the “clean politics” slogan as an essential part of their claim of “political alternativeness” to the major parties.
On 30 July 06, The Greens senator Kerry Nettle claimed, on the air on the SBS radio – Arabic program, that the Greens regarded Hizboullah as national resistance and not a terrorist organisation, and they did oppose the legislation to put it on the list of terrorists organisations.
What a cheap lie!!
Let us start exposing this lie from recent events. This is strange and a total contradiction to the content of Bob Brown's media release on 17 July 06.
Where were the senators when Hizboullah was banned on 14 June 03? The Greens senators were deadly silent among a very noisy and big debate in the senate. And at the end of the session, they did not even abstain from voting.
I read the senate Hansard. The Greens tried to treat us (as a community) as naive immature children, who can receive any piece of lie unquestioningly. The truth is that the Democrats, while they supported banning Hizboullah as terrorist organisation, sought amendments to stop the retrospectivity of applying this legislation. The Greens supported these amendments and objected to this issue, not the issue of banning.
After the deterioration in the reputation of the Greens among the Muslim and Arabic communities, the election machine is desperate to do anything to gain some ground before the state and federal elections next year. They could even go to the extent of supporting Hizboullah as national resistance and not terrorist organisation!!!!!!
And they are keen now to pursue the issue of Israel’s arms trade with Australia. They are even organising a forum about this issue.
Halleluyah!!!
But why are they keen to talk about this irrelevant issue, where the trade is less than 2 million dollars and is non important item. Why are they not keen to ask about the tax-payers money which is going to support illegal activities like building settlements or buying arms!!
Then they cried for long time for the death of the Lebanese civilians.
If I was not a Greens member for long time, and read in those days the Greens' many media releases, speeches at the rallies, motions in the Parliament and interviews with the ethnic media, I would suspect that the Greens senators did convert to Islam and became members of Hizboullah, or maybe Hamas (at least they have the same Green flag).
There are a few questions to ask here:
1- Why did they convert to Islam just now?
2- Will they stay members of Hamas or Hizboullah after the end of the federal election, 2007?
3- Would they defy the Australian governments ban on sending money to help Hamas and Hizboullah?
4- How long will this cheap political prostitution last?
And in Arabic we say: “and your intelligence is enough”! (وفهمكم كفايه)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My experience inside the United Australia party: why UAP’s humiliating defeat & When will Ralph defect from UAP?
After running as a federal candidate for the United Australia party in the seat of Reid, these are my observation about the reasons why UA...
-
I should mention here that when the crisis erupted in Syria more than a year ago, I was not supporting President Assad. At that time, I decl...
-
Bravo, bravo, bravo and million bravos. It is confirmed by the Tasmanian Greens leader and the Australian Greens leader: the Greens is seeki...
-
After running as a federal candidate for the United Australia party in the seat of Reid, these are my observation about the reasons why UA...