Before we go in depth with the issue of Greens control of balance of power in the senate, we should mention few issues here.
We campaigned in the last election against the election of Lee Rhiannon as Greens candidate in NSW, and we were very close to deny her a seat in the senate. Against the odds and all expectations, Lee Rhiannon got the least votes amongst Greens candidates in all states and territories. The Greens candidates in all states got between 12.76 – 14.7% in all states (except Tasmania), except Lee Rhiannon who got around 10.5%.
Now and against all our campaigns, we are more than happy that Lee was elected. We will argue the details of the reasons of this joy later, but we should summarise all these reasons in one sentence: Lee is the best chance of all Greens’ opponents to see this party destabilised as a first step to send them back to political wilderness.
The public tension between Bob Brown, the historical founding figure of the Greens, and Ms Rhiannon began very early even in the lead to the election campaign, 2010. Ms Lee was caught in a scandal of misusing parliamentary privileges, against all her rhetoric during her political career. Bob Brown publicly demanded that she resigns from the state parliament, and focus on federal campaign, to kill these allegations and avoid negative impact. Her response was swift of refusing to budge to her leader’s call and demand. We feel that she was feeling that her chances to win a seat are slim, so she wanted to keep her political career alive. Bob wanted to gamble of ending her political career before she starts to give him leadership headaches at Federal level. Such headache that was expected by Ian Cohen as early as 2005 when we met privately in his office to discuss many relevant issues.
The tension was very clear recently when Bob Brown appeared on several national media outlets condemning Lee’s political opportunist move to use Marrickville council as a tool to increase her popularity among progressive voters on the back of Palestinian people’s suffering. Mr Brown was very clear in indicating that “I am the leader of the Greens party, and not Lee Rhiannon”.
Before we go to the possible impact of the high tension between Lee and Bob on the stability and hence the future of the Greens, we should mention few observations.
Ms Lee wants to put the tension with Bob in the context of ideological differences, while in fact it is only about power thirst. Ms Lee is very notorious to be very thirsty to grab power regardless of any consequencies, including betraying principles or ideological setbacks.
Ms Lee campaigned for long time to destabilise Bob Brown environmental faction’s control of the Greens. She did not hesitate to use all clean and dirty tricks to achieve this goal.
In NSW, she was active to target Bob Brown’s strong ally, Ian Cohen and his faction. She did not hesitate to use all possible tricks to end Mr Cohen’s strong presence inside NSW Greens.
First trick was to conduct vicious campaign to limit the time in parliament to 8 years to end Mr Cohen’s bid for re-election in 2003 state election. Her campaign to enforce limited tenure failed miserably and Mr Cohen emerged victorious. And he did campaign to discredit her when she decided to run again for office in 2007 state election (in clear defiance of her demands and teachings that politicians should not stay in office for long time to prevent political corruption and power abuse).
Then, and after she failed to convince her party to implement limited tenure principle, she resorted to campaigns of political assassination nature, to stop Cohen’s re-election.
Even during last election, Ms Lee used these tactics of ideological differences to distance herself from Brown’s leadership and faction. One of Ms Lee’s supporter posted public email to blame Brown and his environmental faction for the limited campaigns during the election on Multiculturalism and against racism and Islamophobia.
There are many clear evidences that Ms Lee’s fight with Bob Brown and his influential environmental faction is only about power grab and control of the Greens.
If we assume that Lee wants to destabilise Bob’s leadership as an ideological struggle between “Socialist-Left” of Lee and “no-ideology” of Brown and his environmentalists, but how can we understand Lee’s attack on Lefties inside the party.
Ms Lee (and her long-time partner) systematically cleansed any potential threat to their absolute control of NSW Greens, using very dirty tricks most of the times.
This is what happened to Inner-West Greens. When respected active member could garner enough support to defeat Lee and her faction (2005) to impose their candidate for local government election, 2004. Lee did not hesitate to do all in her power to plot against the local group’s leadership even if this could have resulted in dissolving the group.
If Lee is really progressive and “lefties”, can she and her supporters explain to us why:
- She (and her “Greens Terrigal” faction) blocked any change to Greens constitution and procedure to see more people from marginalised groups (Indigenous, non-English, people with disabilities,..) elected to parliament to improve the very low representation of these marginalised groups in decision making bodies. She was quoted saying that “lack of English and ethnic background do not constitute barrier to participation in political leadership”.
- She (and her faction of opportunists) did not take any practical steps on social justice issues (like treatment of boat people, growing racism and Islamophobia, wars on developing nations like Iraq and Afghanistan,...). Apart from media releases and speeches at rallies, no practical steps were taken. Lee refused to participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine or Lebanon in the aftermath of Israeli aggressions. Lee participated in organising forums spreading Islamophobia. Lee blocked appointing Non-English speaking persons in the Greens hierarchy. Lee blocked preselecting Non-English speaking persons as candidates in safe seats.
- Lee did not oppose draconian “Anti-Terrorism laws” and the attacks on Muslim communities. On the contrary. She was active on participating in these attacks, as we mentioned above.
We can give tens of stories to prove that Lee was only interested in power grab, and not any ideological difference with Bob.
Now, Lee will do all in her best to destabilise Bob’s leadership in a bid to replace him. Lee, who has some allies of few other senators who used to spread similar lies about their progressive believes, will work almost immediately to undermine Bob’s position. From her track history in NSW Greens, she will not hesitate to use all tricks under her hat to do this.
We are certain that in the next few years, we will hear a lot about the dirty washings of the Greens on public ropes. As we heard a lot about allegations against Ian Cohen, including sexual harassment claims, we will start to hear a lot about Bob.
Combined efforts with Sarah Hanson-Young, both will do all in their best to destabilise the leadership of Tasmanian and environmentalists’ faction.
The worst mistake of the Greens environmentalist faction was that they did not match Lee and her faction in their dirty campaigns to undermine them. We expect that Bob and his faction will be enforced to resort to hanging the dirty washings of Lee and her opportunist faction, on the basis of “the attack is the best line of defence”.
The next few years will be very interesting in Australian politics. While there are a lot of scenarios in this regard, the best would be either of:
1- Lee and Bob engaging in public fight on leadership that would end them on the same track as the Democrats.
2- The conservative tide will swap Federal politics, as happened in NSW. Then the Greens presence in parliament becomes irrelevant.
Whatever scenario to prevail, we should continue exposing the opportunist nature of the Greens (both factions). Such opportunist nature that is clear in the Greens inability (or more accurately lack of desire) to neutralise the racist “boat people” debate. Such debate that could have been ended very easily if the Greens have the will to do so, the same way the Greens enforced the government to adopt Carbon Tax, against Labor committments.
Unlike the Greens misleading claims, we do not believe that their rise in popularity was due to increased understanding of Greens environmental or social policies. We deeply believe that the increase in Greens popularity is only because the unhappy voters had no other option. And when the real lefties create real alternative, the Greens popularity will return to its original level: 2.5%.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Friday, July 01, 2011
Debate over quotas in Parliament: English speaking women should not be the prime target!
First of all we should stress here that we strongly support the idea of quotas for all sections of society that are marginalised and low represented in decision making bodies. We were advocating for this in the last decade. The so-called progressive forces in the society, namely Left-Labor, Greens and Socialists, wrongly translated these fair campaigns into campaigns to advocate for better representation of groups which are equally represented in the decision making bodies. These forces were focussing on quotas for women (in general terms, as if all women are equally marginalised) and homosexuals.
In the issue of quota, we should be very careful, for two reasons:
1- The perception of marginalisation does not necessarily reflect actual marginalisation.
2- The issue of marginalisation is complex and is not uniformed within the same gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.
3- The quota issue, if there would be consensus on it, should be discussed by experts and not by lobby groups, as some lobby groups are more influential than others.
Let us discuss the above in more details.
There is perception in the society that the women and homosexuals are the only (or at least the most) marginalised groups in the society. This is because the mainstream women (or more frank, the Anglo-Saxon women) and the homosexual lobby groups are very powerful and can make the whole society hear their demands.
Let us take the women representation in Federal Parliament as clear example about the misleading claims (or at least naive claims by these groups) that women (in general) are the only (or at least the worst) marginalised group in the society. On this regard, let us examine the facts (from the official website of FP, as currently states):
- There are 67 women in both houses of the FP, which constitutes around 30% of overall numbers of MPs.
- Out of these, 6 women MPs were born in Non-English speaking countries (around 2.5% of overall MPs numbers).
- There is no woman in parliament from indigenous background.
- There is no woman with disabilities.
- There is no woman whose faith is not Judeo-Christian.
- There are 11 MPs (both male and female) who were born in Non-English speaking courtiers (mainly from Europe).
Taking into account that:
- Women constitute 50% of the society.
- 25% of these women were born in Non-English speaking countries (which means that 12.5% of Australians are women born in Non English speaking countries)
- 3% of society is Indigenous people (half of these are women).
- 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries.
Based on the above mentioned facts, we can see that:
- English speaking women (around 37% of population) have strong representation in FP with around 28% of MPs are English speaking women.
- Non English speaking women’s representation in the parliament is less than 2.5% (to represent around 12.5% of population)
- Indigenous women (around 1.5% of population) are totally unrepresented in parliament.
- Women with disabilities (Australian with physical disabilities are around 10% - so the women with disabilities in the society constitutes around 5% of the population) are totally unrepresented in FP.
- Not only this, non-English speaking men (more than 13% of population) is represented by less than 2.5% of MPs.
In this regard, we can safely conclude that English speaking women are approximately equally represented in the Federal Parliament.
Not only this.
We have now English speaking woman Governor General.
We also have English speaking woman PM.
We also have 2 premiers (out of 6) which mean 30% of premiers are English speaking women.
We also have English speaking woman as Chief Minister (out of 2) which means that 50% of Chief Ministers are English speaking women.
All this and we do not have any: Non-English speaking, Indigenous or People with disabilities in one of these powerful positions. Even Marie Bashir, the NSW governor, was born in NSW.
Now for the next issue: the marginalisation is not uniformed across the same gender, religion ...
We can see very clear that English speaking women are not deeply marginalised (as they have enough or near-enough representation on all decision making bodies) while women who speaks English as second language or from other ethnicity (rather than Anglo-Saxon) are deeply marginalised.
So we can conclude safely (even if the information on the federal parliament website is not recently updated) that women are not evenly marginalised. Place of birth, ethnicity, language spoken at home and religious believes are playing more significant role in deciding the marginalisation of women rather than merely gender. We even can safely claim that English speaking women are nearly equally represented in the parliament and in other decision making bodies.
We should note here that in addressing marginalisation and fight to end such marginalisation, sections of society cannot fully understand the issues cause this marginalisation. And the whole debate of enforcing quota is to recognise that marginalised groups are the only groups that can fight for their own rights.
The English speaking women cannot claim that by increasing their representation in parliament, is a positive step to end the marginalisation of Non-English speaking women or women of indigenous background.
The English speaking women was marginalised when the society was homogenously White and Christian. Few decades ago, more than 90% of Australians were white English speaking Christians. At that time, the power struggle was based on gender. White Christian men wanted to grab the whole power.
Now when more than 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries and around 1/3 of population declared that they are not following Judeo-Christian religions, the situation is different. The oppression has shifted from gender based, to be race-religion based. And we should act accordingly.
If the English speaking women think that men cannot fight for their rights, they should recognise that the same principle applies to the Non-English and Non-Anglo women.
We do not believe that English speaking women born in Australia or speak English as first language can understand the marginalisation of migrant and refugee women.
Not only this. We can safely claim that migrant men, indigenous men and men with disabilities are more marginalised than English speaking women. And definitely these women cannot fight for these men’s rights.
We support the principle of quota. But it should not be naively based on gender quota. It should be assessed by experts and the representatives of these highly marginalised communities. We also should look at the experience of other nations and take good lessons from them. NZ successfully enforced quota, but on indigenous base and not on gender one. The experience of Jordan, a semi-democratic society is different. There are quotas on gender base, on ethnic base and on religious base. There are quotas for Christians because they are religious minority. There are quotas for Chechen and charkas as ethnic minorities. And there is quota for women based on the fact that Jordan is a male dominated society.
Can we learn the lessons? I doubt. As the whites are fiercely fighting against any change in power balance. The facts that the so-called progressive forces like the Greens are fiercely fight against any representation of ethnic and religious minorities in the parliament give us grim picture. The Greens inside reports are proud that they presented high proportion of homosexuals to parliament, as the prime marginalised group. There is no report that supports this claim.
These white and English speaking politicians wants to confuse us by claiming that they are ready to fight for women rights, when the most dividing issues of the society these days are the racisms and Islamophobia.
But if the “left” of the political system has such regressive understanding of marginalisation, do we have strong excuses to be pessimistic?
Related story: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/women-quota-debate-to-fire-up-in-canberra/story-e6frfku0-1226085089521
In the issue of quota, we should be very careful, for two reasons:
1- The perception of marginalisation does not necessarily reflect actual marginalisation.
2- The issue of marginalisation is complex and is not uniformed within the same gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.
3- The quota issue, if there would be consensus on it, should be discussed by experts and not by lobby groups, as some lobby groups are more influential than others.
Let us discuss the above in more details.
There is perception in the society that the women and homosexuals are the only (or at least the most) marginalised groups in the society. This is because the mainstream women (or more frank, the Anglo-Saxon women) and the homosexual lobby groups are very powerful and can make the whole society hear their demands.
Let us take the women representation in Federal Parliament as clear example about the misleading claims (or at least naive claims by these groups) that women (in general) are the only (or at least the worst) marginalised group in the society. On this regard, let us examine the facts (from the official website of FP, as currently states):
- There are 67 women in both houses of the FP, which constitutes around 30% of overall numbers of MPs.
- Out of these, 6 women MPs were born in Non-English speaking countries (around 2.5% of overall MPs numbers).
- There is no woman in parliament from indigenous background.
- There is no woman with disabilities.
- There is no woman whose faith is not Judeo-Christian.
- There are 11 MPs (both male and female) who were born in Non-English speaking courtiers (mainly from Europe).
Taking into account that:
- Women constitute 50% of the society.
- 25% of these women were born in Non-English speaking countries (which means that 12.5% of Australians are women born in Non English speaking countries)
- 3% of society is Indigenous people (half of these are women).
- 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries.
Based on the above mentioned facts, we can see that:
- English speaking women (around 37% of population) have strong representation in FP with around 28% of MPs are English speaking women.
- Non English speaking women’s representation in the parliament is less than 2.5% (to represent around 12.5% of population)
- Indigenous women (around 1.5% of population) are totally unrepresented in parliament.
- Women with disabilities (Australian with physical disabilities are around 10% - so the women with disabilities in the society constitutes around 5% of the population) are totally unrepresented in FP.
- Not only this, non-English speaking men (more than 13% of population) is represented by less than 2.5% of MPs.
In this regard, we can safely conclude that English speaking women are approximately equally represented in the Federal Parliament.
Not only this.
We have now English speaking woman Governor General.
We also have English speaking woman PM.
We also have 2 premiers (out of 6) which mean 30% of premiers are English speaking women.
We also have English speaking woman as Chief Minister (out of 2) which means that 50% of Chief Ministers are English speaking women.
All this and we do not have any: Non-English speaking, Indigenous or People with disabilities in one of these powerful positions. Even Marie Bashir, the NSW governor, was born in NSW.
Now for the next issue: the marginalisation is not uniformed across the same gender, religion ...
We can see very clear that English speaking women are not deeply marginalised (as they have enough or near-enough representation on all decision making bodies) while women who speaks English as second language or from other ethnicity (rather than Anglo-Saxon) are deeply marginalised.
So we can conclude safely (even if the information on the federal parliament website is not recently updated) that women are not evenly marginalised. Place of birth, ethnicity, language spoken at home and religious believes are playing more significant role in deciding the marginalisation of women rather than merely gender. We even can safely claim that English speaking women are nearly equally represented in the parliament and in other decision making bodies.
We should note here that in addressing marginalisation and fight to end such marginalisation, sections of society cannot fully understand the issues cause this marginalisation. And the whole debate of enforcing quota is to recognise that marginalised groups are the only groups that can fight for their own rights.
The English speaking women cannot claim that by increasing their representation in parliament, is a positive step to end the marginalisation of Non-English speaking women or women of indigenous background.
The English speaking women was marginalised when the society was homogenously White and Christian. Few decades ago, more than 90% of Australians were white English speaking Christians. At that time, the power struggle was based on gender. White Christian men wanted to grab the whole power.
Now when more than 25% of Australians were born in Non-English speaking countries and around 1/3 of population declared that they are not following Judeo-Christian religions, the situation is different. The oppression has shifted from gender based, to be race-religion based. And we should act accordingly.
If the English speaking women think that men cannot fight for their rights, they should recognise that the same principle applies to the Non-English and Non-Anglo women.
We do not believe that English speaking women born in Australia or speak English as first language can understand the marginalisation of migrant and refugee women.
Not only this. We can safely claim that migrant men, indigenous men and men with disabilities are more marginalised than English speaking women. And definitely these women cannot fight for these men’s rights.
We support the principle of quota. But it should not be naively based on gender quota. It should be assessed by experts and the representatives of these highly marginalised communities. We also should look at the experience of other nations and take good lessons from them. NZ successfully enforced quota, but on indigenous base and not on gender one. The experience of Jordan, a semi-democratic society is different. There are quotas on gender base, on ethnic base and on religious base. There are quotas for Christians because they are religious minority. There are quotas for Chechen and charkas as ethnic minorities. And there is quota for women based on the fact that Jordan is a male dominated society.
Can we learn the lessons? I doubt. As the whites are fiercely fighting against any change in power balance. The facts that the so-called progressive forces like the Greens are fiercely fight against any representation of ethnic and religious minorities in the parliament give us grim picture. The Greens inside reports are proud that they presented high proportion of homosexuals to parliament, as the prime marginalised group. There is no report that supports this claim.
These white and English speaking politicians wants to confuse us by claiming that they are ready to fight for women rights, when the most dividing issues of the society these days are the racisms and Islamophobia.
But if the “left” of the political system has such regressive understanding of marginalisation, do we have strong excuses to be pessimistic?
Related story: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/women-quota-debate-to-fire-up-in-canberra/story-e6frfku0-1226085089521
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Open letter to the Greens: Actions are louder than inquiries!!!
I was jumping up and down from this morning until now. I did not feel tired or that I need any rest. My joy is limitless.
At the end, the Greens pushed the government to accept an inquiry about the mandatory detention system. At last we will know the problems of the system and we will have time to explore alternatives.
My God.
As if the wide spread riots since 1999 until now (including burning of Charismas Island detention centre and Villawood DC) is not clear indications.
As if 5 deaths – suicides in the last 8 months is not clear evidence of the brutality of this system.
As if tones of reports from different human rights organisations are not enough to expose the systematic problems in the system.
As if the Greens does not have the balance of power in the cabinet to enforce the government to retreat from the current inhumane practices.
And The Greens still have the courage to claim victory.
As if we do not know that the results of previous inquiries and committees ended in the government’s rubbish bin, with no one recommendations implemented.
We say to the Greens very loudly: please give us BREAK.
Enough prostitution and it is the time to either do something or go to hell.
Let me be very simplistic in asking the following question: why Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to accept all his demands and implement them, but your suggestions were largely ignored or laughed at?
I do not want to be very deep in my analysis at the moment. But the simple answer is because Andrew Willkie was very clear: accept my demands or let us go to early election that you will definitely lose.
Well. We are not impressed by your poor performance, on all level including leading Australia to a very possible recession soon.
And we are not expecting much from your inquiry, which was originally a Liberals suggestion. We know that after all, its recommendations will end up in the rubbish bin.
The racist brutal immigration system needs more than inquiry to be fixed. It needs commitment and courage. And we know that you do not have it. The white colour of your party gives very clear indication of your party’s lack of any commitment to real multiculturalism. And at the end of the day, it is all about attacks on Multiculturalism in a bid to increase racism and Islamophobia.
We deeply believe that the Labor-Greens racist government should go: to the history dust bin. And we will do all in our best to make sure that this will happen in the next election.
And do not scare us form Tony Abbot and his openly racist coalition. In Arabic we say: The racist we know is better than the racist we do not know.
At the end, the Greens pushed the government to accept an inquiry about the mandatory detention system. At last we will know the problems of the system and we will have time to explore alternatives.
My God.
As if the wide spread riots since 1999 until now (including burning of Charismas Island detention centre and Villawood DC) is not clear indications.
As if 5 deaths – suicides in the last 8 months is not clear evidence of the brutality of this system.
As if tones of reports from different human rights organisations are not enough to expose the systematic problems in the system.
As if the Greens does not have the balance of power in the cabinet to enforce the government to retreat from the current inhumane practices.
And The Greens still have the courage to claim victory.
As if we do not know that the results of previous inquiries and committees ended in the government’s rubbish bin, with no one recommendations implemented.
We say to the Greens very loudly: please give us BREAK.
Enough prostitution and it is the time to either do something or go to hell.
Let me be very simplistic in asking the following question: why Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to accept all his demands and implement them, but your suggestions were largely ignored or laughed at?
I do not want to be very deep in my analysis at the moment. But the simple answer is because Andrew Willkie was very clear: accept my demands or let us go to early election that you will definitely lose.
Well. We are not impressed by your poor performance, on all level including leading Australia to a very possible recession soon.
And we are not expecting much from your inquiry, which was originally a Liberals suggestion. We know that after all, its recommendations will end up in the rubbish bin.
The racist brutal immigration system needs more than inquiry to be fixed. It needs commitment and courage. And we know that you do not have it. The white colour of your party gives very clear indication of your party’s lack of any commitment to real multiculturalism. And at the end of the day, it is all about attacks on Multiculturalism in a bid to increase racism and Islamophobia.
We deeply believe that the Labor-Greens racist government should go: to the history dust bin. And we will do all in our best to make sure that this will happen in the next election.
And do not scare us form Tony Abbot and his openly racist coalition. In Arabic we say: The racist we know is better than the racist we do not know.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Greens politicians to be replaced by CD players: documents revealed
Parliamentary commentator
Serious Fun Herald online
The Australian Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, had agreed at the last meeting of the cabinet to accept her party’s motion to invite the Greens parliament members to be granted permanent leave from the parliament sessions. The suggestion includes replacing the Greens politicians with CD players recorded on them the infamous clichés usually used by the Greens politicians.
The CDs would include recording of messages like “we condemn Labor and Liberals race to the bottom on this issue”, “The Greens is the only progressive voice on this issue”, “The Greens would oppose these legislations and will look for minor amendments on them” and “The Greens will use its numbers in parliaments very responsibly”.
The suggestion that will be sent to the Greens leader for consideration later in the week, will include alternative measures to insure the parliament hear the empty rhetoric the Greens often use in the parliament. One of the alternatives is to use highly trained parrots to imitate the Greens clichés. The parrots will be the perfect solution for anyone who will miss the voices of the Greens politicians.
The idea behind the suggestion came after the Greens failed to take any action to interpret its empty rhetoric vended by its candidates before the last election. The Labor minority government expected a lot of trouble from the Greens politicians after the party held the balance of power in both houses. But the minority government was having more trouble from independents who vowed to topple the government on several occasions if it does not take actions to honour its commitments to form minority government.
We understand from the leaked document that the Labor party is not taking the Greens’ loud voice at rallies and community forums serious enough to bow to their demands. We understand that the Labor and the Liberals know very well that the Greens is no more than a loud sound system that will continue to play the inserted CD regardless if the songs or lectures are not impressing the audience.
To support this assumption, we note that the Greens did not insist on any demand they made. The Greens repeated clichés of demands which landed on Labor’s deaf ears, did not result in any positive (or even negative) change to Australian politics.
The Greens, for example, vowed before the last election to stop the “race to the bottom” on the boat people issue. After repeated Greens loud demands on rallies, forums, media comments and parliamentary speeches, the race to the bottom get lower and lower. Now, with the Greens presence in both houses and with the Greens loud threats, the race to the bottom has landed on Australia’s total departure from international convention on this issue. The Labor minority government vowed recently to deport genuine refugees to their possible deaths or torture. It vows also to trade refugees and asylum seekers with other countries, as if they are trading goods and services.
The Greens loud speeches on climate change have resulted in more taxes and hence deteriorating of Australian life-style (especially of marginalised communities) but no real actions to stop attack on environment.
The Greens suggestion to widen the Medicare and to include free dental care resulted in no actions so far on these issues. On the contrary. The latest budget after the historical Greens win in both houses saw the minority government slashing funding for many health programs and no mentioning of free or semi free dental care.
The net achievements of the Greens are in the negative territory, where human rights and fair go for Australians have deteriorated rapidly.
The suggestion to replace the Greens politicians with CD players or trained parrots has become sensible and logical solution. Such solution will save a lot of people confusion on where the Greens are standing on issues. It will also prevent people from suffering from hearing problems in listening to Greens loud speeches.
The motion, which was never made nor sent to our imagined media service, is a suggestion worth discussing by Australian politicians. Many Australians are becoming disturbed by the high level of lying by Greens politicians. At least they can go on with their lives without any delusion on what the Greens can achieve or ready to do.
If you have more suggestions to address the issue of Greens impotence to make any difference in Australian politics, please do not hesitate to contact us on our online services.
Serious Fun Herald online
The Australian Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, had agreed at the last meeting of the cabinet to accept her party’s motion to invite the Greens parliament members to be granted permanent leave from the parliament sessions. The suggestion includes replacing the Greens politicians with CD players recorded on them the infamous clichés usually used by the Greens politicians.
The CDs would include recording of messages like “we condemn Labor and Liberals race to the bottom on this issue”, “The Greens is the only progressive voice on this issue”, “The Greens would oppose these legislations and will look for minor amendments on them” and “The Greens will use its numbers in parliaments very responsibly”.
The suggestion that will be sent to the Greens leader for consideration later in the week, will include alternative measures to insure the parliament hear the empty rhetoric the Greens often use in the parliament. One of the alternatives is to use highly trained parrots to imitate the Greens clichés. The parrots will be the perfect solution for anyone who will miss the voices of the Greens politicians.
The idea behind the suggestion came after the Greens failed to take any action to interpret its empty rhetoric vended by its candidates before the last election. The Labor minority government expected a lot of trouble from the Greens politicians after the party held the balance of power in both houses. But the minority government was having more trouble from independents who vowed to topple the government on several occasions if it does not take actions to honour its commitments to form minority government.
We understand from the leaked document that the Labor party is not taking the Greens’ loud voice at rallies and community forums serious enough to bow to their demands. We understand that the Labor and the Liberals know very well that the Greens is no more than a loud sound system that will continue to play the inserted CD regardless if the songs or lectures are not impressing the audience.
To support this assumption, we note that the Greens did not insist on any demand they made. The Greens repeated clichés of demands which landed on Labor’s deaf ears, did not result in any positive (or even negative) change to Australian politics.
The Greens, for example, vowed before the last election to stop the “race to the bottom” on the boat people issue. After repeated Greens loud demands on rallies, forums, media comments and parliamentary speeches, the race to the bottom get lower and lower. Now, with the Greens presence in both houses and with the Greens loud threats, the race to the bottom has landed on Australia’s total departure from international convention on this issue. The Labor minority government vowed recently to deport genuine refugees to their possible deaths or torture. It vows also to trade refugees and asylum seekers with other countries, as if they are trading goods and services.
The Greens loud speeches on climate change have resulted in more taxes and hence deteriorating of Australian life-style (especially of marginalised communities) but no real actions to stop attack on environment.
The Greens suggestion to widen the Medicare and to include free dental care resulted in no actions so far on these issues. On the contrary. The latest budget after the historical Greens win in both houses saw the minority government slashing funding for many health programs and no mentioning of free or semi free dental care.
The net achievements of the Greens are in the negative territory, where human rights and fair go for Australians have deteriorated rapidly.
The suggestion to replace the Greens politicians with CD players or trained parrots has become sensible and logical solution. Such solution will save a lot of people confusion on where the Greens are standing on issues. It will also prevent people from suffering from hearing problems in listening to Greens loud speeches.
The motion, which was never made nor sent to our imagined media service, is a suggestion worth discussing by Australian politicians. Many Australians are becoming disturbed by the high level of lying by Greens politicians. At least they can go on with their lives without any delusion on what the Greens can achieve or ready to do.
If you have more suggestions to address the issue of Greens impotence to make any difference in Australian politics, please do not hesitate to contact us on our online services.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Open letter to Julia Gillard: Going Howard’s path will not save your government
Dear Hon Julia Gillard, our PM (unfortunately)
I decided to write this open letter to you after your government violated many of your Labor party declared policies (are you still Labor member?) and election promises.
Few weeks ago, your minster for immigration vowed to send genuine refugees back to their death (or at least to be tortured or imprisoned) if they commit offence, even if they were committing these offences out of desperation and under deep depression and mental instability. Even notorious Howard-Ruddock did not even dared to announce such regressive draconian measures.
And now we heard that your government is finalising very dodgy deal with Malaysian government to exchange refugees and asylum seekers. And we are also hearing that your government is negotiating with Papua New Guinea to reopen offshore detentions on Manus Island.
We are also hearing that your government is about to take another attack on our indigenous population.
Then, in this week’s budget you decided to target one of the high marginalised sections of the society. You have declared war on unemployed people, in a bid to improve the image about your government failure to deal with economic management. Again, in doing this you are imitating the highly regressive Howard government. Unfortunately, you even went very worse and more regressive than Howard regressive government.
During the last few months, our experience with your government was disastrously disappointing and depressing.
Let us talk about the asylum seeker issue. You have failed to keep any of your election promises, where you:
1- Are trying to send asylum seekers to country that did not sign the Geneva Convention to protect refugees’ rights.
2- You have failed to win support for any regional solution to this very minor issue, because you insisted on East Timor solution.
3- Your announcement on boat asylum seekers is in clear violation to international conventions.
We do not understand the reasons behind your government’s panic announcements. We acknowledge that there is crisis in detention system. But this crisis was made by your government’s mishandling of this issue. You thought for the last few months that slowing down the process of application to the point of total halt will stop the boat people arrival. You should remember that unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia did not stop for the last 2 centuries. But instead of rising up to the challenge, you decided to go Howard’s path. And you will fail miserably.
Before we tell you why you will fail miserably, let us ask few questions about your government “Malaysian solution”:
1- After you will deport 800 boat arrivals to Malaysia, what is your plan for the new arrivals beyond the 800?
2- Instead of taking 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees in Malaysia, why not taking 4000 UNHCR refugees from Indonesia?
3- Why you will accept UNHCR approved refugees from Malaysia, when your government failed to accept UNHCR recognised refugees currently inside detention centres in Australia?
Then the biggest question here is: Why Malaysia?
We proposed to your predecessor a suggestion to solve the issue for ever by introducing the “Indonesian solution”. Why your government is not considering taking these 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees from Indonesia, and not Malaysia?
We understand that your government, and after the steep slump in opinion polls since July last year, is trying to come back in these polls Howard’s style. We acknowledge that John Howard was successful in this mission, but you will not. The reason is so simple. This style was his invention, while you are trying to imitate him. The voters will decide to go with genuine version, rather than fake brand.
Let me explain it to you in more simple way. If a shop owner decided to sell original Adidas shoes and Adidas fake brand at the same price, which shoes customers will buy? They will definitely buy the original Adidas brand. That is why voters will side with Liberals, if you do not present them with alternative plan.
The same can be said about your government’s stance on other issues.
You are trying to follow the Howard’s footstep of deceiving voters on fighting unemployment by tightening legislations and make Centrelink a law and order agency, instead of welfare agency. At the end, the degrading treatment of unemployed people will prompt them to cheat the government one way or other. Or it will cause hundreds of thousands to lose their benefits and then depend on begging money from welfare agencies. Such policies that will have deep negative consequencies. I will write to you detailed study soon about this.
In this letter let us express to you our outrage about the conduct of your government. You have let us down deeply.
At the moment we cannot differentiate your government (and we know that it is a minority government with the support of the Greens and independents) from the Howard’s deeply regressive government.
Not only this. Your government is going even lower on human rights and the rights of marginalised to live in dignity and respect in this society, than Howard’s government.
We believe that your government job is to try to find solutions to problems we are facing, and not creating more. We note here that your government did not find any solution to the critical rental and accommodation crisis. We also note that the situation in the health system did not get better, if not worsened. We also note that the deterioration of life-styles is getting worse. We also note that the situation in our schools is not getting better. And we also definitely know very well that the situation of Multiculturalism is very bad, where racism is on alarming rise and Islamophobia at record high levels.
If you are trying to win some votes by resorting to Howard’s tactics, we can tell you safely that you have failed and will fail.
I can tell you an interesting story we have learnt from grandparents. When a crow liked the way rooster is walking, he tried to walk like him. After few weeks he failed in imitating the rooster. But when he tried to fly again, he failed. He forgot how to fly as a crow. So he continued his life jumping in very ugly way, neither like a rooster nor like a crow.
Do not try to be another Liberals. You will fail to get Liberals voters. And you will definitely lose traditional Labor voters.
I decided to write this open letter to you after your government violated many of your Labor party declared policies (are you still Labor member?) and election promises.
Few weeks ago, your minster for immigration vowed to send genuine refugees back to their death (or at least to be tortured or imprisoned) if they commit offence, even if they were committing these offences out of desperation and under deep depression and mental instability. Even notorious Howard-Ruddock did not even dared to announce such regressive draconian measures.
And now we heard that your government is finalising very dodgy deal with Malaysian government to exchange refugees and asylum seekers. And we are also hearing that your government is negotiating with Papua New Guinea to reopen offshore detentions on Manus Island.
We are also hearing that your government is about to take another attack on our indigenous population.
Then, in this week’s budget you decided to target one of the high marginalised sections of the society. You have declared war on unemployed people, in a bid to improve the image about your government failure to deal with economic management. Again, in doing this you are imitating the highly regressive Howard government. Unfortunately, you even went very worse and more regressive than Howard regressive government.
During the last few months, our experience with your government was disastrously disappointing and depressing.
Let us talk about the asylum seeker issue. You have failed to keep any of your election promises, where you:
1- Are trying to send asylum seekers to country that did not sign the Geneva Convention to protect refugees’ rights.
2- You have failed to win support for any regional solution to this very minor issue, because you insisted on East Timor solution.
3- Your announcement on boat asylum seekers is in clear violation to international conventions.
We do not understand the reasons behind your government’s panic announcements. We acknowledge that there is crisis in detention system. But this crisis was made by your government’s mishandling of this issue. You thought for the last few months that slowing down the process of application to the point of total halt will stop the boat people arrival. You should remember that unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia did not stop for the last 2 centuries. But instead of rising up to the challenge, you decided to go Howard’s path. And you will fail miserably.
Before we tell you why you will fail miserably, let us ask few questions about your government “Malaysian solution”:
1- After you will deport 800 boat arrivals to Malaysia, what is your plan for the new arrivals beyond the 800?
2- Instead of taking 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees in Malaysia, why not taking 4000 UNHCR refugees from Indonesia?
3- Why you will accept UNHCR approved refugees from Malaysia, when your government failed to accept UNHCR recognised refugees currently inside detention centres in Australia?
Then the biggest question here is: Why Malaysia?
We proposed to your predecessor a suggestion to solve the issue for ever by introducing the “Indonesian solution”. Why your government is not considering taking these 4000 UNHCR recognised refugees from Indonesia, and not Malaysia?
We understand that your government, and after the steep slump in opinion polls since July last year, is trying to come back in these polls Howard’s style. We acknowledge that John Howard was successful in this mission, but you will not. The reason is so simple. This style was his invention, while you are trying to imitate him. The voters will decide to go with genuine version, rather than fake brand.
Let me explain it to you in more simple way. If a shop owner decided to sell original Adidas shoes and Adidas fake brand at the same price, which shoes customers will buy? They will definitely buy the original Adidas brand. That is why voters will side with Liberals, if you do not present them with alternative plan.
The same can be said about your government’s stance on other issues.
You are trying to follow the Howard’s footstep of deceiving voters on fighting unemployment by tightening legislations and make Centrelink a law and order agency, instead of welfare agency. At the end, the degrading treatment of unemployed people will prompt them to cheat the government one way or other. Or it will cause hundreds of thousands to lose their benefits and then depend on begging money from welfare agencies. Such policies that will have deep negative consequencies. I will write to you detailed study soon about this.
In this letter let us express to you our outrage about the conduct of your government. You have let us down deeply.
At the moment we cannot differentiate your government (and we know that it is a minority government with the support of the Greens and independents) from the Howard’s deeply regressive government.
Not only this. Your government is going even lower on human rights and the rights of marginalised to live in dignity and respect in this society, than Howard’s government.
We believe that your government job is to try to find solutions to problems we are facing, and not creating more. We note here that your government did not find any solution to the critical rental and accommodation crisis. We also note that the situation in the health system did not get better, if not worsened. We also note that the deterioration of life-styles is getting worse. We also note that the situation in our schools is not getting better. And we also definitely know very well that the situation of Multiculturalism is very bad, where racism is on alarming rise and Islamophobia at record high levels.
If you are trying to win some votes by resorting to Howard’s tactics, we can tell you safely that you have failed and will fail.
I can tell you an interesting story we have learnt from grandparents. When a crow liked the way rooster is walking, he tried to walk like him. After few weeks he failed in imitating the rooster. But when he tried to fly again, he failed. He forgot how to fly as a crow. So he continued his life jumping in very ugly way, neither like a rooster nor like a crow.
Do not try to be another Liberals. You will fail to get Liberals voters. And you will definitely lose traditional Labor voters.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Greens shameful stance on refugees: their real agendas and ways to counteract them.
We are proud that we were the first to warn about the Greens destructive agendas of deceiving masses. And we are happy to start hearing dissatisfaction amongst Greens supporters and other human rights activists of the Greens politics.
We should first mention that the Greens have policies that are totally different than its real politics.
The Greens official policy on health, for example, is that the Greens support abolishing private health rebate. In action, the Greens opposed measures to abolish this rebate when it was introduced by Kevin Rudd’s government.
The Greens also had policy on Israeli occupation of Palestine, including supporting sanctions and boycotting of Israel. Recently, Bob Brown told all of us that this is not the case and the Greens do not support any move to boycott Israeli products or imposing any kind of sanctions.
The Greens official policy on Multiculturalism is that the non-English speaking people should be encouraged to participate in political process by all means, including taking positive-discrimination actions to achieve this. This is even imbedded in the Greens declaration. But in fact, the Greens are totally and exclusively White party with no non- Anglo officials or politicians.
Now, on the issue of the refugees and asylum seekers, the Greens are exercising high political opportunism.
We should mention that the issue of boat people was the real booster of the Greens popularity in the aftermath of Tampa. The issue of boat people is exclusively related (in the minds of people, media and politicians) with the Greens.
But what are the Greens real commitments on these issues?
The Greens is happy to vend fiery speeches and media comments on this issue. The line of these speeches is no more than Cliché of words designed to deceive voters and citizens. But the Greens will do no more on this issue, as they want to convince us that they cannot do more than media comments, speeches on rallies and crocodile tears for the suffering of the detainees.
In the aftermath of the wide spread riots inside Christmas Island DC and then Villawood DC, the Greens rhetoric even slide down to participate in criminalising these desperate detainees. We saw how Ms Hanson-Young, the Greens senator responsible for this portfolio, supported the move to criminalise anyone who participated in the riots.
The Greens, who have policy of the need to inform citizens about political process to enable them to make informed decisions, is in fact hiding the real picture form Australians.
The Greens is not telling the Australians that they in fact can enforce the government to act on this issue in very quick way. The Greens is hiding from the citizens that they are in unique position now of holding the balance of power in both houses. They do not mention that their sole MP, Adam Bandt, can bargain with the government significantly to change the heart of the minister and prime minister. The Greens is not telling us that their sole MP is essential for the stability of this government. He is essential for continuity of the current government too.
The Greens is not telling us how Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to act on Poker Machines. They did not tell us that Mr Willkie, who is not part of any party and does not control the balance of power in the senate, could achieve almost all his demands. He could do this by threatening to withdraw his support for this government. Such threat that could see the government loses its majority and enforces it to go to early election. Such scenario that the Labor party wants to avoid by any cost, as they would almost definitely lose the government.
The Greens tactics of “keeping everyone happy” is very clear. The Greens is continuing to play politics in very cheap way. The Greens will vote against any extra measures to further punish refugees and asylum seekers. And they know very well that the Labor will have easily the support of all Liberal politicians in both houses for these legislations. Then the Greens will say “hard luck, we tried but the Liberals decided to side with the Labor on this issue. We could not do anything”.
This is the kind of political cheap opportunism the Greens is exercising for the last decade.
If the Greens have the will to change the current gross abuse of human rights inside detention centres, they would seek urgent meeting with the prime minster. The Greens leader could have meeting with the prime minister to tell her in firm words “end this farce now, before we topple the government and enforce you to go for early election that you will lose”. And she will change the policy.
But are the Greens genuinely interested in changing the policy on boat people?
Frankly, we doubt. We should remember that the Greens got the record votes in the last election on the back of deep suffering of boat people. Why should the Greens push very hard to end the circumstances that gave them the balance of power in both houses? Especially the Greens have no record of principled progressive political stances.
In the face of this moral and political crisis that our political system goes through at the moment and for the last decade, we did suggest solution.
The solution is for the progressive forces and individuals to form a political coalition to present real alternative for dissatisfied and marginalised voters.
We were disappointed that many progressive forces (Socialists, Communists, Muslim groups, …) decided to back the Greens in the last elections. This sent the wrong message in the wrong direction. These groups’ close association with the Greens and their calls for voters to vote the Greens, gave the progressive voters impression that the only hope to achieve deep changes is by voting for the Greens and hence giving them more power. This in turn gave the Greens the impression that they have the progressive people’s mandate to keep acting in the opportunist way they acted in the last decade.
We believe that a new coalition is needed to present alternate voice for the marginalised and dissatisfied voters. In Britain, similar coalition under the name of Respect Party could present the British with real alternative of the parties that dominated the British politics for decades. And it worked. It brought many dissatisfied voters from socialists, communists, Muslims, new migrants and anti-war activists together.
We believe that such coalition is the only solution for the political stagnation Australia is suffering form for the last decades.
We should first mention that the Greens have policies that are totally different than its real politics.
The Greens official policy on health, for example, is that the Greens support abolishing private health rebate. In action, the Greens opposed measures to abolish this rebate when it was introduced by Kevin Rudd’s government.
The Greens also had policy on Israeli occupation of Palestine, including supporting sanctions and boycotting of Israel. Recently, Bob Brown told all of us that this is not the case and the Greens do not support any move to boycott Israeli products or imposing any kind of sanctions.
The Greens official policy on Multiculturalism is that the non-English speaking people should be encouraged to participate in political process by all means, including taking positive-discrimination actions to achieve this. This is even imbedded in the Greens declaration. But in fact, the Greens are totally and exclusively White party with no non- Anglo officials or politicians.
Now, on the issue of the refugees and asylum seekers, the Greens are exercising high political opportunism.
We should mention that the issue of boat people was the real booster of the Greens popularity in the aftermath of Tampa. The issue of boat people is exclusively related (in the minds of people, media and politicians) with the Greens.
But what are the Greens real commitments on these issues?
The Greens is happy to vend fiery speeches and media comments on this issue. The line of these speeches is no more than Cliché of words designed to deceive voters and citizens. But the Greens will do no more on this issue, as they want to convince us that they cannot do more than media comments, speeches on rallies and crocodile tears for the suffering of the detainees.
In the aftermath of the wide spread riots inside Christmas Island DC and then Villawood DC, the Greens rhetoric even slide down to participate in criminalising these desperate detainees. We saw how Ms Hanson-Young, the Greens senator responsible for this portfolio, supported the move to criminalise anyone who participated in the riots.
The Greens, who have policy of the need to inform citizens about political process to enable them to make informed decisions, is in fact hiding the real picture form Australians.
The Greens is not telling the Australians that they in fact can enforce the government to act on this issue in very quick way. The Greens is hiding from the citizens that they are in unique position now of holding the balance of power in both houses. They do not mention that their sole MP, Adam Bandt, can bargain with the government significantly to change the heart of the minister and prime minister. The Greens is not telling us that their sole MP is essential for the stability of this government. He is essential for continuity of the current government too.
The Greens is not telling us how Mr Andrew Willkie was successful in enforcing the government to act on Poker Machines. They did not tell us that Mr Willkie, who is not part of any party and does not control the balance of power in the senate, could achieve almost all his demands. He could do this by threatening to withdraw his support for this government. Such threat that could see the government loses its majority and enforces it to go to early election. Such scenario that the Labor party wants to avoid by any cost, as they would almost definitely lose the government.
The Greens tactics of “keeping everyone happy” is very clear. The Greens is continuing to play politics in very cheap way. The Greens will vote against any extra measures to further punish refugees and asylum seekers. And they know very well that the Labor will have easily the support of all Liberal politicians in both houses for these legislations. Then the Greens will say “hard luck, we tried but the Liberals decided to side with the Labor on this issue. We could not do anything”.
This is the kind of political cheap opportunism the Greens is exercising for the last decade.
If the Greens have the will to change the current gross abuse of human rights inside detention centres, they would seek urgent meeting with the prime minster. The Greens leader could have meeting with the prime minister to tell her in firm words “end this farce now, before we topple the government and enforce you to go for early election that you will lose”. And she will change the policy.
But are the Greens genuinely interested in changing the policy on boat people?
Frankly, we doubt. We should remember that the Greens got the record votes in the last election on the back of deep suffering of boat people. Why should the Greens push very hard to end the circumstances that gave them the balance of power in both houses? Especially the Greens have no record of principled progressive political stances.
In the face of this moral and political crisis that our political system goes through at the moment and for the last decade, we did suggest solution.
The solution is for the progressive forces and individuals to form a political coalition to present real alternative for dissatisfied and marginalised voters.
We were disappointed that many progressive forces (Socialists, Communists, Muslim groups, …) decided to back the Greens in the last elections. This sent the wrong message in the wrong direction. These groups’ close association with the Greens and their calls for voters to vote the Greens, gave the progressive voters impression that the only hope to achieve deep changes is by voting for the Greens and hence giving them more power. This in turn gave the Greens the impression that they have the progressive people’s mandate to keep acting in the opportunist way they acted in the last decade.
We believe that a new coalition is needed to present alternate voice for the marginalised and dissatisfied voters. In Britain, similar coalition under the name of Respect Party could present the British with real alternative of the parties that dominated the British politics for decades. And it worked. It brought many dissatisfied voters from socialists, communists, Muslims, new migrants and anti-war activists together.
We believe that such coalition is the only solution for the political stagnation Australia is suffering form for the last decades.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Bob Brown met Pauline Hanson for coordination as early as 2001: Wiikilinks revealed
The Satirical News
The political analysts had discovered the secrets behind the Pauline Hanson One Nation party’s decision to preference the Greens ahead of all political parties in the 2001 Federal election.
In a document leaked recently to the Wiikilinks site, it was revealed that the leader of the Greens, Sen. Bob Brown, and few advisors have met Ms Hanson and her advisor as early as July 2001. In the meeting, Mr Brown had told Ms Hanson that the Greens are the closest political party to her xenophobic One Nation party.
In the document, which was in fact the minutes of that meeting held in a secret location away from journalists’ eyes, Mr Brown has given Ms Hanson a picture of the politicians and hierarchy of his party. He pointed to her and her advisor that there is no trace to any Non-Anglo politician amongst his party’s politicians and officials.
“It is very clear proof that we share the same ideas and objectives” said Mr Brown according to the minutes. “You are vocally racist, but we are practically the most racist”.
But Ms Hanson demanded something in return for her party’s preference to the Greens. The Greens leader promised to compensate her for this deal later on.
“In this election, we cannot swap preferences with One Nation. This will be detrimental to us. But I promise you to give you a chance to return to politics later on” Sen. Brown promised Ms Hanson, according to document dated 15 July 2001.
The 2001 Federal election saw Greens candidate Ms Kerry Nettle elected to senate, against all odds, Ms Nettle was elected on the 8% preference she got from One Nation xenophobic party. At that election, Ms Hanson was boycotted by all political parties, including racist Liberal party, as she campaigned on openly extreme racist platform.
The leaked document is having more weight recently after the Greens decided not to preference Labor ahead of Liberals or One Nation founder. This odd decision threw life line to Mr Hanson’s bid to re-enter Australian politics through NSW state election.
According to many political analysts, the content of the document finds some interpretation in the Greens surprising decision not to swab preferences with Labor to guarantee that the last legislative council seat does not go to One Nation’s founder.
Ms Hanson was not contactable to comment on the content of the document. The Greens leader denied the content and said that the document and the Wiikilinks site is a hoax created by Labor party to undermine the Greens credibility. The Greens leader did not have convincing explanation why his party has no trace of Non-Anglo officials or politicians.
Ms Hanson is very close to win the 21st LC seat. The Greens will be responsible for the come-back of One Nation founder to politics. All analysists expects that racism and Islamopobia will be the constant issue in NSW politics for the next 4 years. The Greens is responsible for these huge political setbacks.
Other political analysts are expressing their surprise that the Greens is very principled in keeping its deals with xenophobic forces, but highly unprincipled with progressive voters.
To comment on the document that was never received by any imagined website, you can send it to our email and we will publish it promptly. Our email is jamal-daoud@bigpond.com
The political analysts had discovered the secrets behind the Pauline Hanson One Nation party’s decision to preference the Greens ahead of all political parties in the 2001 Federal election.
In a document leaked recently to the Wiikilinks site, it was revealed that the leader of the Greens, Sen. Bob Brown, and few advisors have met Ms Hanson and her advisor as early as July 2001. In the meeting, Mr Brown had told Ms Hanson that the Greens are the closest political party to her xenophobic One Nation party.
In the document, which was in fact the minutes of that meeting held in a secret location away from journalists’ eyes, Mr Brown has given Ms Hanson a picture of the politicians and hierarchy of his party. He pointed to her and her advisor that there is no trace to any Non-Anglo politician amongst his party’s politicians and officials.
“It is very clear proof that we share the same ideas and objectives” said Mr Brown according to the minutes. “You are vocally racist, but we are practically the most racist”.
But Ms Hanson demanded something in return for her party’s preference to the Greens. The Greens leader promised to compensate her for this deal later on.
“In this election, we cannot swap preferences with One Nation. This will be detrimental to us. But I promise you to give you a chance to return to politics later on” Sen. Brown promised Ms Hanson, according to document dated 15 July 2001.
The 2001 Federal election saw Greens candidate Ms Kerry Nettle elected to senate, against all odds, Ms Nettle was elected on the 8% preference she got from One Nation xenophobic party. At that election, Ms Hanson was boycotted by all political parties, including racist Liberal party, as she campaigned on openly extreme racist platform.
The leaked document is having more weight recently after the Greens decided not to preference Labor ahead of Liberals or One Nation founder. This odd decision threw life line to Mr Hanson’s bid to re-enter Australian politics through NSW state election.
According to many political analysts, the content of the document finds some interpretation in the Greens surprising decision not to swab preferences with Labor to guarantee that the last legislative council seat does not go to One Nation’s founder.
Ms Hanson was not contactable to comment on the content of the document. The Greens leader denied the content and said that the document and the Wiikilinks site is a hoax created by Labor party to undermine the Greens credibility. The Greens leader did not have convincing explanation why his party has no trace of Non-Anglo officials or politicians.
Ms Hanson is very close to win the 21st LC seat. The Greens will be responsible for the come-back of One Nation founder to politics. All analysists expects that racism and Islamopobia will be the constant issue in NSW politics for the next 4 years. The Greens is responsible for these huge political setbacks.
Other political analysts are expressing their surprise that the Greens is very principled in keeping its deals with xenophobic forces, but highly unprincipled with progressive voters.
To comment on the document that was never received by any imagined website, you can send it to our email and we will publish it promptly. Our email is jamal-daoud@bigpond.com
Monday, April 04, 2011
Open Letter to Bob Brown: enough lies and deception, please!
Dear Hon Bob Brown, The Greens leader
This letter is designed to ask you to stop lying and making deceptive claims. We have listened to you for long time, and we believe that the time has come to ask you to stop and to get more serious. Please respect our intelligence.
The latest very public lies and deceptive ideas you tried to sell was that the Greens voters support everything your party says, does or fights for. This is the cheapest lie we have ever heard.
You are clever enough to differentiate between party members, faithful voters and incidental voters. You should know very well that even party members do not share the same ideas or believe in the same philosophy (if your party has any philosophy to follow, anyway).
You have vented the cheapest lie ever when you claimed that the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election support your party’s family-destructive agenda. You suggested that all these voters support your policy to promote prostitution, drug abuse, abortion and same-sex marriage. Well you are lying.
Let me tell you that even your party members do not support these destructive policies. Recently, your party candidate for the NSW seat of Auburn indicated very clearly at a public gathering that he does not support your party’s policies on euthanasia, drug abuse and prostitution. This is a party member and frontline activist. I know very well that even some historical figures in the Greens do not support many of these destructive policies. Ian Cohen expressed on different occasions that he does not support the policy on promoting drug abuse and other policies that seek to destroy families.
Let me tell you that most of voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election did not even know your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. They have voted for your party on your party’s stance on totally different issues. Most of them have swallowed your party’s deceptive claims to support refugees’ rights or that your party is opposing Israeli crimes against its neighbours.
For the last few days you have branded the words of our PM, Julia Gillard, with wide range of outrageous descriptions for daring to criticise your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. You claimed that her comments are “insulting” to the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens. You have assumed that all these voters agree with your party’s Anti-moral stance.
You know very well that the 1.5 million voters voted for your party mainly for two reasons. Firstly, they were deceived by your party’s election machine to buy their claims of fighting for refugees’ rights and for other social justice issues in the society, including defending public assets and improving public services. The other reason was that they were deeply disappointed form the Labor for the way the leader was dumped and the inaction on refugees’ rights issue. So nothing was on the anti-family policies that you are defending today.
Well, let me tell you that your outrageously deceptive claims are the one which are very insulting to these 1.5 million voters. They are also insulting to all of us. What you tried to do is no more than undemocratically trying to shut any criticism of your party’s destructive agendas.
In this letter, I would like (as an Australian citizen) to ask you to stop your campaign of lying and making deceptive claims.
So please respect our intelligence and stop insulting it.
Yours
Jamal Daoud
Auburn - NSW
This letter is designed to ask you to stop lying and making deceptive claims. We have listened to you for long time, and we believe that the time has come to ask you to stop and to get more serious. Please respect our intelligence.
The latest very public lies and deceptive ideas you tried to sell was that the Greens voters support everything your party says, does or fights for. This is the cheapest lie we have ever heard.
You are clever enough to differentiate between party members, faithful voters and incidental voters. You should know very well that even party members do not share the same ideas or believe in the same philosophy (if your party has any philosophy to follow, anyway).
You have vented the cheapest lie ever when you claimed that the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election support your party’s family-destructive agenda. You suggested that all these voters support your policy to promote prostitution, drug abuse, abortion and same-sex marriage. Well you are lying.
Let me tell you that even your party members do not support these destructive policies. Recently, your party candidate for the NSW seat of Auburn indicated very clearly at a public gathering that he does not support your party’s policies on euthanasia, drug abuse and prostitution. This is a party member and frontline activist. I know very well that even some historical figures in the Greens do not support many of these destructive policies. Ian Cohen expressed on different occasions that he does not support the policy on promoting drug abuse and other policies that seek to destroy families.
Let me tell you that most of voters who voted for the Greens in the last Federal election did not even know your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. They have voted for your party on your party’s stance on totally different issues. Most of them have swallowed your party’s deceptive claims to support refugees’ rights or that your party is opposing Israeli crimes against its neighbours.
For the last few days you have branded the words of our PM, Julia Gillard, with wide range of outrageous descriptions for daring to criticise your party’s policies to destroy families and moral values. You claimed that her comments are “insulting” to the 1.5 million voters who voted for the Greens. You have assumed that all these voters agree with your party’s Anti-moral stance.
You know very well that the 1.5 million voters voted for your party mainly for two reasons. Firstly, they were deceived by your party’s election machine to buy their claims of fighting for refugees’ rights and for other social justice issues in the society, including defending public assets and improving public services. The other reason was that they were deeply disappointed form the Labor for the way the leader was dumped and the inaction on refugees’ rights issue. So nothing was on the anti-family policies that you are defending today.
Well, let me tell you that your outrageously deceptive claims are the one which are very insulting to these 1.5 million voters. They are also insulting to all of us. What you tried to do is no more than undemocratically trying to shut any criticism of your party’s destructive agendas.
In this letter, I would like (as an Australian citizen) to ask you to stop your campaign of lying and making deceptive claims.
So please respect our intelligence and stop insulting it.
Yours
Jamal Daoud
Auburn - NSW
Thursday, March 31, 2011
After selling community’s dignity: Muslim community demand rid of corrupt “leadership”
The elections usually are the best time to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their actions or lack of action. And usually lobby groups take the chance of elections to demand actions on issues they believe need attention or changes.
But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders”, especially the turbaned religious figures, defy all these trends and norms.
When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.
And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.
But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.
Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights and dignity of the community in return for promises to increase funding.
The conduct of Muslim “leaders”, especially the religious figures, in the last few days of the campaign and on the day of election was in fact a moral shamble. The acts of these religious figures and “leaders” sent simple message that we deserve what we got.
Now after the election is over, every community member has many questions to ask these “leaders”:
1- What are the benefits to community of voting to the Liberals, except making the community a laughable matter in Australian politics?
2- What were the secret deals struck between Liberal party and Muslim “leadership”?
3- How can we stop any future attacks on the Muslims after Muslims sided with the party that created Islamophobia in the country?
We here warn that if the community does not act to correct this moral shamble, Islamophibia will be constant main political agenda in all future elections. We would expect to face waves and waves of Islamophobic attacks, both verbally and physically.
We believe that it is the time for the Muslims in this country to demand rid of the corrupted illegitimate and undemocratic “leadership”. The leadership that sold our dignity and interests for unknown-to-us price. We believe that this community deserves better. And we are taking steps to rid of current one.
But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders”, especially the turbaned religious figures, defy all these trends and norms.
When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.
And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.
But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.
Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights and dignity of the community in return for promises to increase funding.
The conduct of Muslim “leaders”, especially the religious figures, in the last few days of the campaign and on the day of election was in fact a moral shamble. The acts of these religious figures and “leaders” sent simple message that we deserve what we got.
Now after the election is over, every community member has many questions to ask these “leaders”:
1- What are the benefits to community of voting to the Liberals, except making the community a laughable matter in Australian politics?
2- What were the secret deals struck between Liberal party and Muslim “leadership”?
3- How can we stop any future attacks on the Muslims after Muslims sided with the party that created Islamophobia in the country?
We here warn that if the community does not act to correct this moral shamble, Islamophibia will be constant main political agenda in all future elections. We would expect to face waves and waves of Islamophobic attacks, both verbally and physically.
We believe that it is the time for the Muslims in this country to demand rid of the corrupted illegitimate and undemocratic “leadership”. The leadership that sold our dignity and interests for unknown-to-us price. We believe that this community deserves better. And we are taking steps to rid of current one.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
10 more reasons why not to Vote the Greens
Let us first mention that we urge everyone who believes in social justice not to vote for either the Liberals or Labor.
But at the same time, we urge everyone who believes and works for social justice in society not to vote the Greens. The Greens is more dangerous than both the Liberals and the Labor. Here are 10 reasons to believe that the Greens is more dangerous and less trustworthy:
1- Political donations: Both Labor and Liberals are not denying that they receive political donations from big corporates. The Greens has consistently campaigned on banning political donations. Yet the Greens accepted all donations offered to them from any corporate. Indeed, they received the largest political donation from single donor in the Australian history.
2- Multiculturalism: The Greens insists that they are inclusive party which promotes and believes in Multiculturalism. Yet, the Greens failed to run single Non-English speaking candidate for any safe or semi-safe seats. The Greens has no single politician who speaks English as second language or from Indigenous background. The Greens is the ONLY Australian party that practice strict White Australia policy.
3- Family and moral values: The Greens work very hard to dismantle family and moral values, where it supports promoting drug addiction, prostitution (including in residential buildings), abortion … The same-sex marriage was the main issue the Greens campaigned on for decades.
4- Public Health: The Greens said that they support public health system and wanted to strengthen it by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance. When the Greens had chance to achieve this, the Greens voted against partially abolishing the rebate during Kevin Rudd primenistreship.
5- Reconciliation: The Greens said that they support reconciliation with indigenous people. Yet, the Greens (unlike even the Liberals) has no indigenous presence in the top positions of the party.
6- Palestine and Israel: The Greens resorted to use the Palestinian suffering and blood in this election by claiming that the Greens opposed Israeli crimes. Yet the fact is that the Greens is the ONLY mainstream political party represented in Federal parliament that never took any practical step to show this opposition or support for the Palestinian rights. The Greens never participated in solidarity visits to Palestine, unlike Labor, Liberals, Nationals and the Democrats. The Greens supported banning of Palestinian armed factions as terrorist organisations. In 2008, the Greens blamed Palestinian armed faction for the Israeli barbaric aggression on Gaza.
7- Economic Management: The Greens record to support services for marginalised is very poor. The Greens is responsible for the biggest waste of common wealth money when they approved stimulus package measures that saw huge waste of more than $50 billions on mainly bogus projects.
8- Housing Crisis: The Greens never came up with any idea or suggestion to relieve the critical housing crisis, the biggest single issue affecting life style of everyone in Australia.
9- Public Assets: The Greens claim to oppose selling public assets. While the Greens never was in position to hold balance of power to approve or disapprove such sales, but all indications suggest that they would approve such sales if they think they will win some votes in return. The Greens leader offered to trade the sale of Telstra in return of moratorium on old growth logging during Howard’s time. It was Howard that did not need the Greens to secure the sale.
10- Refugee and Asylum seekers rights: The Greens rise was mainly on their claim to defend refugees and asylum seekers rights. Yet, the situation of refugees and asylum seekers has deteriorated significantly under Labor-Greens coalition in the last year to the point of suicide of 4 detainees in the last 6 months and violent clashes in many detention centres.
The Greens has no credibility on any issues important for the marginalised communities. The Greens participated in spreading racism and Islamophobia. The Greens did not promote equality. The Greens did not take any practical steps on any issues they claim to have clear and strong stance on. The Greens is the least trustworthy party in Australian history.
Do not risk your and your family’s future.
Put the Greens last.
But at the same time, we urge everyone who believes and works for social justice in society not to vote the Greens. The Greens is more dangerous than both the Liberals and the Labor. Here are 10 reasons to believe that the Greens is more dangerous and less trustworthy:
1- Political donations: Both Labor and Liberals are not denying that they receive political donations from big corporates. The Greens has consistently campaigned on banning political donations. Yet the Greens accepted all donations offered to them from any corporate. Indeed, they received the largest political donation from single donor in the Australian history.
2- Multiculturalism: The Greens insists that they are inclusive party which promotes and believes in Multiculturalism. Yet, the Greens failed to run single Non-English speaking candidate for any safe or semi-safe seats. The Greens has no single politician who speaks English as second language or from Indigenous background. The Greens is the ONLY Australian party that practice strict White Australia policy.
3- Family and moral values: The Greens work very hard to dismantle family and moral values, where it supports promoting drug addiction, prostitution (including in residential buildings), abortion … The same-sex marriage was the main issue the Greens campaigned on for decades.
4- Public Health: The Greens said that they support public health system and wanted to strengthen it by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance. When the Greens had chance to achieve this, the Greens voted against partially abolishing the rebate during Kevin Rudd primenistreship.
5- Reconciliation: The Greens said that they support reconciliation with indigenous people. Yet, the Greens (unlike even the Liberals) has no indigenous presence in the top positions of the party.
6- Palestine and Israel: The Greens resorted to use the Palestinian suffering and blood in this election by claiming that the Greens opposed Israeli crimes. Yet the fact is that the Greens is the ONLY mainstream political party represented in Federal parliament that never took any practical step to show this opposition or support for the Palestinian rights. The Greens never participated in solidarity visits to Palestine, unlike Labor, Liberals, Nationals and the Democrats. The Greens supported banning of Palestinian armed factions as terrorist organisations. In 2008, the Greens blamed Palestinian armed faction for the Israeli barbaric aggression on Gaza.
7- Economic Management: The Greens record to support services for marginalised is very poor. The Greens is responsible for the biggest waste of common wealth money when they approved stimulus package measures that saw huge waste of more than $50 billions on mainly bogus projects.
8- Housing Crisis: The Greens never came up with any idea or suggestion to relieve the critical housing crisis, the biggest single issue affecting life style of everyone in Australia.
9- Public Assets: The Greens claim to oppose selling public assets. While the Greens never was in position to hold balance of power to approve or disapprove such sales, but all indications suggest that they would approve such sales if they think they will win some votes in return. The Greens leader offered to trade the sale of Telstra in return of moratorium on old growth logging during Howard’s time. It was Howard that did not need the Greens to secure the sale.
10- Refugee and Asylum seekers rights: The Greens rise was mainly on their claim to defend refugees and asylum seekers rights. Yet, the situation of refugees and asylum seekers has deteriorated significantly under Labor-Greens coalition in the last year to the point of suicide of 4 detainees in the last 6 months and violent clashes in many detention centres.
The Greens has no credibility on any issues important for the marginalised communities. The Greens participated in spreading racism and Islamophobia. The Greens did not promote equality. The Greens did not take any practical steps on any issues they claim to have clear and strong stance on. The Greens is the least trustworthy party in Australian history.
Do not risk your and your family’s future.
Put the Greens last.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Muslim “leaders” urging community to vote Liberals: Community’s interest on sale!
The elections usually are the best time to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their actions or lack of action. And usually lobby groups take the chance of elections to demand actions on issues they believe need attention or changes.
But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders” defy all these trends and norms.
When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.
And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.
But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.
Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights of the community members in return for promises to increase funding to these organisations.
The result of the next election in NSW will be crucial to prove or disapprove these assumptions.
If the Muslim votes increase for the liberals, this would simply mean that we deserve what we get.
If the votes to the Liberals will increase after the islamophobic slurs by Liberal leadership, no political party in this country will care about us and about our feelings or rights.
The Liberals will have clear proof that Muslims are so naïve and disorganised. The Liberals strategists will recommend attacking Muslims in full strength in all coming elections. This will not only win them the racist and extreme votes. But it will win them the votes of Muslims, too.
The Muslim community “leaders” (if there are any of them) are proving day after day that they are very naïve. They do not have any strategic planning to win the community some of its lost rights. Or they are very easily to be bought.
We do not advocate the Muslim community members to be segregated from the rest of the society. But we want the community to know how to vote in a way that would stop attacks on its members and attacks on their contributions and achievements in this great nation.
In this election, the community needs to send strong message. The community should punish the political party that regards it as rogue community of criminals and extremists. It should also send message to other parties that neglect and disregard its interests. This should include voting away from all parties that use the community as numbers in polling boxes.
We can see that neither of the political troika of Labor, Liberals and Greens is caring about our feelings, interests and suffering. If they do not care about us, why we should care about them and give them more power?
The history will judge harshly any “leader” who sells the interests of his community for any increase of funding to this organisation or to that one.
The community needs and interests should come first.
But the actions of some of the Muslim community “leaders” defy all these trends and norms.
When the Liberal party started promoting racism and Islamophobia, we thought that Muslim community “leadership” will demand strong actions to discipline this out-of-control racist party. We thought that the Muslim community “leaders” will declare open war on this party by all means.
And with the latest Liberal party slurs against Muslim community by demanding banning Muslim migration for ten years. And with the latest media leak about the Liberal party strategic plan to mount attacks on Muslims in Australia in their bid to win the next election. We expected that the Muslim “leadership” will cut all ties with this extreme party.
But we were devastated and shocked to see that few Muslim “leaders” and organisations are advocating Muslims in NSW to vote for the Liberals.
Strategically, this exposes the naked truth that the Muslim community has no leadership. Or maybe the community has either naïve leadership. Or maybe corrupted one that is ready to sell the rights of the community members in return for promises to increase funding to these organisations.
The result of the next election in NSW will be crucial to prove or disapprove these assumptions.
If the Muslim votes increase for the liberals, this would simply mean that we deserve what we get.
If the votes to the Liberals will increase after the islamophobic slurs by Liberal leadership, no political party in this country will care about us and about our feelings or rights.
The Liberals will have clear proof that Muslims are so naïve and disorganised. The Liberals strategists will recommend attacking Muslims in full strength in all coming elections. This will not only win them the racist and extreme votes. But it will win them the votes of Muslims, too.
The Muslim community “leaders” (if there are any of them) are proving day after day that they are very naïve. They do not have any strategic planning to win the community some of its lost rights. Or they are very easily to be bought.
We do not advocate the Muslim community members to be segregated from the rest of the society. But we want the community to know how to vote in a way that would stop attacks on its members and attacks on their contributions and achievements in this great nation.
In this election, the community needs to send strong message. The community should punish the political party that regards it as rogue community of criminals and extremists. It should also send message to other parties that neglect and disregard its interests. This should include voting away from all parties that use the community as numbers in polling boxes.
We can see that neither of the political troika of Labor, Liberals and Greens is caring about our feelings, interests and suffering. If they do not care about us, why we should care about them and give them more power?
The history will judge harshly any “leader” who sells the interests of his community for any increase of funding to this organisation or to that one.
The community needs and interests should come first.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Greens prepare comprehensive plan to end marginalisation in society
Political correspondent for serious fun issues
The Fun Herald
10 February 2011
In the face of the spreading popular revolutions in many different parts of the world seeking social justice and end of poverty and marginalisation, we understand that a comprehensive plan to end marginalisation in Australia once and for ever is prepared by the Australian Greens. The plan was leaked today to our newspaper and to other Australian media outlets. The plan consists of many aggressive steps suggested by the Greens party. The Greens party is even threatening of withdrawing from government and let it collapse if Labor would refuse to accept these “highly progressive” steps.
Bob Brown, the Greens leader, told us that the plan will see the end of marginalisation as we know it for the last centuries.
“The plan starts with proposed bill not only to legalise the drugs, but putting all kind of illicit drugs on PBS. By doing this, marginalised groups will have access to very cheap drugs that would keep them unconscious and so they would lose all feelings of being marginalised” said Bob Brown in his comments to our newspaper.
We know that addicted marginalised people will not have time to be engaged in employment to pay for the high rent, high power bills, high traffic fines and high life expenses. To address this, we understand that the Greens are proposing another bill. The bill will be introduced to legalise prostitution everywhere in the society. Any very poor marginalised person can start selling their bodies in their own residential areas, at schools and universities, in streets and even in parks and shopping centres.
By doing this, marginalised groups can forget about their marginalisation in very quick and easy way. All marginalised groups will be busy either sniffing drugs or selling their bodies to collect enough money to pay for increased cost of living. So there will be no time to feel of marginalisation.
In the face of expected high rate of unwanted pregnancies, the Greens plan is proposing to both promote abortion and educate the population about the benefits of abortion to society.
After effectively reaching a society of mainly drug addicts and prostitutes, the only unresolved issue in the society will be the gay marriage.
“In a society with no trace of any feeling of being marginalised and money is flowing at high rate by selling own bodies, the only issue to be addressed would be the issue of same sex marriage. For this, we are proposing bill to legalise same-sex marriage to end the final straw of marginalisation in the society”
When asked about the problems that would be resulted by such high controversial bills, Mr Brown expressed his believe that none of addicts or prostitutes will be conscious enough to realise that there are problems resulted.
The government also would have enough revenues from flourishing drugs-producing companies and brothels to fund rehabilitation centres and medical institutions.
“You should take into account that we will also close all jails and correction centres and save their budgets. Such money would be enough to fund treating institutions, in combination with tax revenues” stressed Greens leader.
The Greens leader and colleagues will launch this important plan in one of the inner city brothels. The launch will include free illicit drugs for each attendee, as according to invitation sent to one prostitute. The Greens members will also distribute kits titled “Simple steps to fight marginalisation by drugs and sex”.
It is unknown if the Greens leader and his colleagues are living in the same country on the same planet we are living in.
We welcome any comments to pass it to the Greens leader to give him real situation of deteriorating racism, Islamophobia and many kinds of discrimination in the society. This would help the Greens come back to earth.
The Fun Herald
10 February 2011
In the face of the spreading popular revolutions in many different parts of the world seeking social justice and end of poverty and marginalisation, we understand that a comprehensive plan to end marginalisation in Australia once and for ever is prepared by the Australian Greens. The plan was leaked today to our newspaper and to other Australian media outlets. The plan consists of many aggressive steps suggested by the Greens party. The Greens party is even threatening of withdrawing from government and let it collapse if Labor would refuse to accept these “highly progressive” steps.
Bob Brown, the Greens leader, told us that the plan will see the end of marginalisation as we know it for the last centuries.
“The plan starts with proposed bill not only to legalise the drugs, but putting all kind of illicit drugs on PBS. By doing this, marginalised groups will have access to very cheap drugs that would keep them unconscious and so they would lose all feelings of being marginalised” said Bob Brown in his comments to our newspaper.
We know that addicted marginalised people will not have time to be engaged in employment to pay for the high rent, high power bills, high traffic fines and high life expenses. To address this, we understand that the Greens are proposing another bill. The bill will be introduced to legalise prostitution everywhere in the society. Any very poor marginalised person can start selling their bodies in their own residential areas, at schools and universities, in streets and even in parks and shopping centres.
By doing this, marginalised groups can forget about their marginalisation in very quick and easy way. All marginalised groups will be busy either sniffing drugs or selling their bodies to collect enough money to pay for increased cost of living. So there will be no time to feel of marginalisation.
In the face of expected high rate of unwanted pregnancies, the Greens plan is proposing to both promote abortion and educate the population about the benefits of abortion to society.
After effectively reaching a society of mainly drug addicts and prostitutes, the only unresolved issue in the society will be the gay marriage.
“In a society with no trace of any feeling of being marginalised and money is flowing at high rate by selling own bodies, the only issue to be addressed would be the issue of same sex marriage. For this, we are proposing bill to legalise same-sex marriage to end the final straw of marginalisation in the society”
When asked about the problems that would be resulted by such high controversial bills, Mr Brown expressed his believe that none of addicts or prostitutes will be conscious enough to realise that there are problems resulted.
The government also would have enough revenues from flourishing drugs-producing companies and brothels to fund rehabilitation centres and medical institutions.
“You should take into account that we will also close all jails and correction centres and save their budgets. Such money would be enough to fund treating institutions, in combination with tax revenues” stressed Greens leader.
The Greens leader and colleagues will launch this important plan in one of the inner city brothels. The launch will include free illicit drugs for each attendee, as according to invitation sent to one prostitute. The Greens members will also distribute kits titled “Simple steps to fight marginalisation by drugs and sex”.
It is unknown if the Greens leader and his colleagues are living in the same country on the same planet we are living in.
We welcome any comments to pass it to the Greens leader to give him real situation of deteriorating racism, Islamophobia and many kinds of discrimination in the society. This would help the Greens come back to earth.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
When my rooster is more dangerous than violating building and rental laws: Open letter to Auburn council
Dear Auburn councillors
I bought 2 chickens and their rooster few months ago. After few days, Auburn council rangers visited my place. They told me that my rooster is so noisy and a neighbour had complained to the council about this. They asked me to remove the rooster ASAP.
Not only I complied in the same day. But I was very happy. The council was so quick to respond to rate-payers complaint, though it is very minor, and asked me to comply with noise “legislation”.
Not only this. I was also proud of my council and its stuff, especially the rangers.
But this pride and happiness evacuated pretty immediately.
Few neighbours, including myself, complained to the council about illegally built and rented garage in the backyard. The garage is not registered with the council, either as garage or for-rent-granny. Several complaints were lodged to the council, started from 1 April 2010. The complaints were repeated several times, especially after the garage was visited several times by local police for different matters. Several times the garage was used a hub for alcohol and drug abuse of large numbers of young people. At other times the police came to arrest criminal who seek refuge in the garage with his cousin living there.
The quiet street became theatre for police visits, chase and investigations.
And the council was impotent to implement its laws on this tiny garage, its owner and its tenant.
The rangers came to inspect the garage. They decided that it is illegal to be rented. They talked to its tenant. Then they talked to the real estate that manages it. And they even talked to its owner.
They issued letter to “cease the use of the outbuilding”. Then the council issued another letter to the owner to “clarify the non-compliance of the Council’s Order”. But nobody complied with these letters.
All these communications happened during the last year. But so far nothing had been achieved.
The tenants are still using illegally the garage, against the council order.
Now let me ask you the following important question: how come you were very quickly to implement the noise legislation in dealing with my rooster noise, but you cannot implement laws about building and renting “outbuildings”?
Why the rangers were enthusiastically responding to the complaints against my rooster? They visited my place twice in one week. They also called me several times to make sure that my rooster is not living in my backyard anymore.
But so far there was only one visit by rangers made to the illegally built and rented garage.
Let me assure you that my rooster was not very dangerous on himself or others. Maybe he was very noisy to highly sensitive very close neighbour. That is all.
But living in illegally built and rented garage is more dangerous, on its tenants and neighbours. The garage is lacking all safety measures needed for any building. It is also unhealthy to live in. And most importantly, its tenants are usually irresponsible youth who has problems with law-enforcement agencies. Hence it is very clear that they are dangerous on my family and the families living in the street.
The other vital question here: why you have authority to evacuate pretty immediately tenants or animals from dwellings in the council area, but you are so slow and hesitant to do so in this case? Has anything to do here with favouritism and even more?
As law-abiding residents and rate-payers we need either swift action on this case. Alternatively we need strong explanation of the reasons for slow response and lack of action.
We do not want to start thinking that there is something fishy deals related to tribalism and even further dirty deals to allow the law breaking to go on.
Jamal Daoud
I bought 2 chickens and their rooster few months ago. After few days, Auburn council rangers visited my place. They told me that my rooster is so noisy and a neighbour had complained to the council about this. They asked me to remove the rooster ASAP.
Not only I complied in the same day. But I was very happy. The council was so quick to respond to rate-payers complaint, though it is very minor, and asked me to comply with noise “legislation”.
Not only this. I was also proud of my council and its stuff, especially the rangers.
But this pride and happiness evacuated pretty immediately.
Few neighbours, including myself, complained to the council about illegally built and rented garage in the backyard. The garage is not registered with the council, either as garage or for-rent-granny. Several complaints were lodged to the council, started from 1 April 2010. The complaints were repeated several times, especially after the garage was visited several times by local police for different matters. Several times the garage was used a hub for alcohol and drug abuse of large numbers of young people. At other times the police came to arrest criminal who seek refuge in the garage with his cousin living there.
The quiet street became theatre for police visits, chase and investigations.
And the council was impotent to implement its laws on this tiny garage, its owner and its tenant.
The rangers came to inspect the garage. They decided that it is illegal to be rented. They talked to its tenant. Then they talked to the real estate that manages it. And they even talked to its owner.
They issued letter to “cease the use of the outbuilding”. Then the council issued another letter to the owner to “clarify the non-compliance of the Council’s Order”. But nobody complied with these letters.
All these communications happened during the last year. But so far nothing had been achieved.
The tenants are still using illegally the garage, against the council order.
Now let me ask you the following important question: how come you were very quickly to implement the noise legislation in dealing with my rooster noise, but you cannot implement laws about building and renting “outbuildings”?
Why the rangers were enthusiastically responding to the complaints against my rooster? They visited my place twice in one week. They also called me several times to make sure that my rooster is not living in my backyard anymore.
But so far there was only one visit by rangers made to the illegally built and rented garage.
Let me assure you that my rooster was not very dangerous on himself or others. Maybe he was very noisy to highly sensitive very close neighbour. That is all.
But living in illegally built and rented garage is more dangerous, on its tenants and neighbours. The garage is lacking all safety measures needed for any building. It is also unhealthy to live in. And most importantly, its tenants are usually irresponsible youth who has problems with law-enforcement agencies. Hence it is very clear that they are dangerous on my family and the families living in the street.
The other vital question here: why you have authority to evacuate pretty immediately tenants or animals from dwellings in the council area, but you are so slow and hesitant to do so in this case? Has anything to do here with favouritism and even more?
As law-abiding residents and rate-payers we need either swift action on this case. Alternatively we need strong explanation of the reasons for slow response and lack of action.
We do not want to start thinking that there is something fishy deals related to tribalism and even further dirty deals to allow the law breaking to go on.
Jamal Daoud
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The use of the Egyptian blood for Greens election campaign: stop political opportunism!
There is election in NSW on 26 March 2011.
And the Greens decided to launch its campaign on the blood of Egyptian people.
In the last Federal election, the Greens launched its campaign on the blood of Palestinian people and Turkish activists killed on Marvi Marmara.
This very cheap political prostitution should be stopped. Morally it is unacceptable.
Should we say the whole facts:
- The Tunisian Greens were partners and allies of Bin Ali regime’s oppression of Tunisian people.
- The Israeli Greens is part of Zionist state oppression of Palestinian people.
- The Jordanian Greens are partner of the regime’s oppression of Jordanians.
But the NSW Greens wants to convince us that they are different.
Before that, we note that German Greens were the ones who sent Germany soldiers for the first time since the end of the II World War to invade foreign country. And that was Afghanistan.
The NSW Greens chose to try to deceive us that they opposed the invasion.
So, please NSW Greens: stop political prostitution.
Our blood should not be material for your election campaign: on the federal or state level.
Our blood and the blood of all innocent people around the world in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt and Tunisia should not be used as election material for you to continue deceiving people.
If you really believe of what you tell us during election campaigns, do something practical.
If you really oppose oppression of Tunisians, do something to discipline your counterparts in Tunisian Greens.
If you really oppose oppression of Afghani people, expel German Greens from Global Greens.
If you really against Israeli massacres, issue single media release stating that Israel is a rogue state and is responsible for the cycle of violence in the Middle East.
We know that you are not genuine. We know very well that you are liars.
So please piss-off. And excuse me for this. The situation is so tense and I cannot be so polite.
Our blood should not be used as election material for your regressive campaign to continue deceiving us.
And shame on you.
Respect our grieve. Respect our suffering. Respect our blood. Respect our sacrifice.
And please do not let us hear your lies against our will.
So, Australian Greens: go to hell.
And the Greens decided to launch its campaign on the blood of Egyptian people.
In the last Federal election, the Greens launched its campaign on the blood of Palestinian people and Turkish activists killed on Marvi Marmara.
This very cheap political prostitution should be stopped. Morally it is unacceptable.
Should we say the whole facts:
- The Tunisian Greens were partners and allies of Bin Ali regime’s oppression of Tunisian people.
- The Israeli Greens is part of Zionist state oppression of Palestinian people.
- The Jordanian Greens are partner of the regime’s oppression of Jordanians.
But the NSW Greens wants to convince us that they are different.
Before that, we note that German Greens were the ones who sent Germany soldiers for the first time since the end of the II World War to invade foreign country. And that was Afghanistan.
The NSW Greens chose to try to deceive us that they opposed the invasion.
So, please NSW Greens: stop political prostitution.
Our blood should not be material for your election campaign: on the federal or state level.
Our blood and the blood of all innocent people around the world in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt and Tunisia should not be used as election material for you to continue deceiving people.
If you really believe of what you tell us during election campaigns, do something practical.
If you really oppose oppression of Tunisians, do something to discipline your counterparts in Tunisian Greens.
If you really oppose oppression of Afghani people, expel German Greens from Global Greens.
If you really against Israeli massacres, issue single media release stating that Israel is a rogue state and is responsible for the cycle of violence in the Middle East.
We know that you are not genuine. We know very well that you are liars.
So please piss-off. And excuse me for this. The situation is so tense and I cannot be so polite.
Our blood should not be used as election material for your regressive campaign to continue deceiving us.
And shame on you.
Respect our grieve. Respect our suffering. Respect our blood. Respect our sacrifice.
And please do not let us hear your lies against our will.
So, Australian Greens: go to hell.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Democracy for Sale: the Greens last nail in their credibility coffin!
We should admit first of a clear fact now: The Greens were masters in deceiving all of us. They have great skills in deceiving everyone in the society: academics and illiterates, poor and rich, marginalised and privileged, progressive and regressive, media, rival politicians and even international observers.
They told us that they support multiculturalism, but failed to promote any non Anglo-Saxon to parliament or hierarchy. They convinced us that they oppose racism and xenophobia, but negotiated deals with One Nation and Liberals to swap preferences on several occasions.
They claimed that they support public health, but voted down legislation to strengthen public health by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance.
They convinced us that they fight for better environment, but voted against legislation to reduce gas emissions.
They claimed to oppose Israeli aggression, but failed to condemn Israeli crimes or to show some practical solidarity with Palestinians and Lebanese.
They told us that they support public housing, but never demanded to increase funds to build some more public housing.
They criticised Labor and Liberals for attacks on Aboriginal rights, but never showed practical steps to improve these rights. Can you find any Greens politician in any parliament around Australia from Aboriginal background?
And they told us that they are the champions of defending human rights, but supported draconian Anti-Terrorism laws. And they said nothing about the mock trials of Muslim youth who were sentenced for lengthy periods on no clear charges.
Then they told us that “politics corrupts politicians” and so they pushed for limited tenure for politicians. But all their politicians are in parliaments for decades and they do not intend to retire soon. Now instead of “politics corrupts”, they replaced it with “vote for candidates with wealth of experience”.
And they told us that political donations corrupt our system and there is need to abolish them. They even created special organisation to advocate for this under the slogan of “Democracy for Sale” under Greens banner. But now we discovered that they received the largest single donation in Australian history.
Suddenly there is “good donations” vs. “bad donations”. There are donations that corrupt the political system vs. donations that strengthen our political system. There are progressive donors vs. regressive donors. There are donors with no intension to influence political decisions vs. donors that want something in return for their donations.
The Greens politics are very unique:
The racists are defending multiculturalism.
The Zionists criticise Israel.
The regressive privileged politicians defend poor and marginalised.
The Greens long serving politicians are the only corruption-proof politicians.
The corrupts are leading “clean politics”.
And the Stalinists advocate freedom of speech.
And on the top of all: Greens politicians are above any criticism. They are saints or angles. They do not make mistakes. And because of this they do not deserve to be criticised.
Yesterday, the Greens said that the democracy should not be for sale, mainly because no donors offered any donation. Now, when they had the chance, they sold the democracy. But they sold it very cheap.
The Greens auction of the democracy generated only $2 millions. Can they blame the Labor for selling the democracy for $62 millions?
Is there any credibility left for this party of bankrupt politicians: politically, morally and ideologically bankrupt.
The Greens sold Australia for $2 millions: how much they will sell NSW for?
NB: We think it is time for the Greens to dismantle the “Democracy for Sale” bogus organisation and scale down its website. Enough deception, please.
They told us that they support multiculturalism, but failed to promote any non Anglo-Saxon to parliament or hierarchy. They convinced us that they oppose racism and xenophobia, but negotiated deals with One Nation and Liberals to swap preferences on several occasions.
They claimed that they support public health, but voted down legislation to strengthen public health by abolishing government rebate for private health insurance.
They convinced us that they fight for better environment, but voted against legislation to reduce gas emissions.
They claimed to oppose Israeli aggression, but failed to condemn Israeli crimes or to show some practical solidarity with Palestinians and Lebanese.
They told us that they support public housing, but never demanded to increase funds to build some more public housing.
They criticised Labor and Liberals for attacks on Aboriginal rights, but never showed practical steps to improve these rights. Can you find any Greens politician in any parliament around Australia from Aboriginal background?
And they told us that they are the champions of defending human rights, but supported draconian Anti-Terrorism laws. And they said nothing about the mock trials of Muslim youth who were sentenced for lengthy periods on no clear charges.
Then they told us that “politics corrupts politicians” and so they pushed for limited tenure for politicians. But all their politicians are in parliaments for decades and they do not intend to retire soon. Now instead of “politics corrupts”, they replaced it with “vote for candidates with wealth of experience”.
And they told us that political donations corrupt our system and there is need to abolish them. They even created special organisation to advocate for this under the slogan of “Democracy for Sale” under Greens banner. But now we discovered that they received the largest single donation in Australian history.
Suddenly there is “good donations” vs. “bad donations”. There are donations that corrupt the political system vs. donations that strengthen our political system. There are progressive donors vs. regressive donors. There are donors with no intension to influence political decisions vs. donors that want something in return for their donations.
The Greens politics are very unique:
The racists are defending multiculturalism.
The Zionists criticise Israel.
The regressive privileged politicians defend poor and marginalised.
The Greens long serving politicians are the only corruption-proof politicians.
The corrupts are leading “clean politics”.
And the Stalinists advocate freedom of speech.
And on the top of all: Greens politicians are above any criticism. They are saints or angles. They do not make mistakes. And because of this they do not deserve to be criticised.
Yesterday, the Greens said that the democracy should not be for sale, mainly because no donors offered any donation. Now, when they had the chance, they sold the democracy. But they sold it very cheap.
The Greens auction of the democracy generated only $2 millions. Can they blame the Labor for selling the democracy for $62 millions?
Is there any credibility left for this party of bankrupt politicians: politically, morally and ideologically bankrupt.
The Greens sold Australia for $2 millions: how much they will sell NSW for?
NB: We think it is time for the Greens to dismantle the “Democracy for Sale” bogus organisation and scale down its website. Enough deception, please.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Marrickville council motion on boycotting Israel: Greens real agendas behind it
Again and again. We were hit with Greens cheap moves designed for political score pointing with no practical commitments or record of achievements.
The Greens has successfully put motion to the Marrickville council to “support the principles of the BDS global campaign”. And as expected, the move attracted huge media attention. And the community took notice too.
Before we go further into the issue, let us ask few questions:
1- Why now: 3 months before state election?
2- Why Marrickville: we know that the Greens are hoping to win Marrickville state seat?
3- What are the practical implications of this motion?
4- Why the Greens councillors, despite the total support from ALL Labor councillors, are attacking the Labor state and federal members of the area?
And before we go further into exploring the issue, let us hear the opinion of the motion initiator, Greens councillor Cathy Peters. In early interview with 2SER radio station (you can hear the interview on http://2ser.podomatic.com/entry/index/2010-12-17T21_34_06-08_00), Ms Peters admitted that:
1- The council does not urge residents to boycott Israeli products.
2- The practical implications of this motion are still unknown, and possibly nil on local government level.
3- The conflict in the Middle East because of Israeli occupation was going for long time.
4- It would be more practical for Federal and State governments to act on this issue.
Now let us start from the points we extract from Ms Peters interview:
1- While the issue of Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine was going for more than 6 decades, the Greens did not discover this issue but in recent years. The Greens never talked about this issue or had any idea about this issue until after 2002.
2- Even after the Greens discovered that there is Israeli brutal occupation, the Greens history on taking practical steps to oppose Israeli brutality is nil (you can read on this issue my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2009/01/rallies-business-enough-trading-with.html)
3- If the council is not advocating residents to boycott Israel and there is no known relationships between the council and Israeli companies and companies trade with Israel, it is very clear that he Marrickville Greens put this motion just for political score pointing for the coming state election.
4- Marrickville Greens should first write to their federal politicians to lobby them to start talking about the Israeli brutal occupation, before asking Labor state and Federal politicians to do so. We understand that Mr Tony Albanese has good track record on this issue, more than Bob Brown or any Greens federal politicians. Mr Albanese paid solidarity visit to Palestinian territories at the beginning of 90s of the last century, while the Greens politicians are still refusing to make such visit until now.
Then let us ask few other questions in this regard:
1- While the BDS campaign started long time ago, why the Greens put this motion just now. We should remember that the NSW election is on 26 March 2011 (3 months from now).
2- Why Marrickville: The Greens have councillors in other local government areas that are more suitable to introduce similar motion. For example, there is Greens councillor in Auburn, where the support for such motion is overwhelming as Muslims account for more than 50% of the residents. On the council, there are at least 4 Muslim councillors on the council. The answer is very simple: the Greens did not get more than 4% in the last state election (2007) in Auburn seat. While in Marrickville there is real chance for the Greens to win the seat from Labor (while I do not think that this will happen). So the story of the motion is not more than an item part of early election campaign in Marrickville area.
We know that the Greens will accuse us of attacking Palestine friends here. But as usual, the Greens gave themselves the right to attack everyone, but block such right from rivals to attack them (read my piece on this on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/11/greens-unique-attitude-we-can-dig-dirt.html). The Greens are attacking the Labor Federal members who has strong record of supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli brutality (Tony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek, for example), but would lead vicious attack against our criticism of them on this issue.
We are now very aware that the Greens is a party about nothing. They are just power hungry for the sake of accumulating power. The Greens Federal senate-elect in NSW, Ms Lee Rhiannon, has no credibility on any issue (read my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/story-of-greens-mp-lee-rhiannon-lies.html). So we, as strong advocate of Palestinian rights, do not take the latest motion as serious step to achieve anything. The motion, along with the NSW Greens motion on the issue earlier, will have one fate: the rubbish bin. The Greens has long track of passing motion after motion, adopt policy after policy, but practically they honoured none. (example of this could be read on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/bob-browns-press-club-address-what.html, http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2008/12/greens-blocking-of-action-on-climate.html and http://sjpmediacentre.blogspot.com/2009/09/submission-in-regard-to-discussion.html)
The Greens think that they achieved a lot by attracting media attention. They think that they are closer now to win Marrickville seat in the next state election, March 2011.
We think that this is not accurate. The community will hear from others, before they will cast their votes.
As before the Greens seek community vote, they should convince us why the NSW (and Australian) Greens were absent from all solidarity aid missions to Gaza and West Bank.
We deeply believe that actions are louder than talks (and motions). But the Greens insist to be the mountain that always gets into labour, but always give birth to mouse. (From Arabic proverb)
The Greens has successfully put motion to the Marrickville council to “support the principles of the BDS global campaign”. And as expected, the move attracted huge media attention. And the community took notice too.
Before we go further into the issue, let us ask few questions:
1- Why now: 3 months before state election?
2- Why Marrickville: we know that the Greens are hoping to win Marrickville state seat?
3- What are the practical implications of this motion?
4- Why the Greens councillors, despite the total support from ALL Labor councillors, are attacking the Labor state and federal members of the area?
And before we go further into exploring the issue, let us hear the opinion of the motion initiator, Greens councillor Cathy Peters. In early interview with 2SER radio station (you can hear the interview on http://2ser.podomatic.com/entry/index/2010-12-17T21_34_06-08_00), Ms Peters admitted that:
1- The council does not urge residents to boycott Israeli products.
2- The practical implications of this motion are still unknown, and possibly nil on local government level.
3- The conflict in the Middle East because of Israeli occupation was going for long time.
4- It would be more practical for Federal and State governments to act on this issue.
Now let us start from the points we extract from Ms Peters interview:
1- While the issue of Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine was going for more than 6 decades, the Greens did not discover this issue but in recent years. The Greens never talked about this issue or had any idea about this issue until after 2002.
2- Even after the Greens discovered that there is Israeli brutal occupation, the Greens history on taking practical steps to oppose Israeli brutality is nil (you can read on this issue my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2009/01/rallies-business-enough-trading-with.html)
3- If the council is not advocating residents to boycott Israel and there is no known relationships between the council and Israeli companies and companies trade with Israel, it is very clear that he Marrickville Greens put this motion just for political score pointing for the coming state election.
4- Marrickville Greens should first write to their federal politicians to lobby them to start talking about the Israeli brutal occupation, before asking Labor state and Federal politicians to do so. We understand that Mr Tony Albanese has good track record on this issue, more than Bob Brown or any Greens federal politicians. Mr Albanese paid solidarity visit to Palestinian territories at the beginning of 90s of the last century, while the Greens politicians are still refusing to make such visit until now.
Then let us ask few other questions in this regard:
1- While the BDS campaign started long time ago, why the Greens put this motion just now. We should remember that the NSW election is on 26 March 2011 (3 months from now).
2- Why Marrickville: The Greens have councillors in other local government areas that are more suitable to introduce similar motion. For example, there is Greens councillor in Auburn, where the support for such motion is overwhelming as Muslims account for more than 50% of the residents. On the council, there are at least 4 Muslim councillors on the council. The answer is very simple: the Greens did not get more than 4% in the last state election (2007) in Auburn seat. While in Marrickville there is real chance for the Greens to win the seat from Labor (while I do not think that this will happen). So the story of the motion is not more than an item part of early election campaign in Marrickville area.
We know that the Greens will accuse us of attacking Palestine friends here. But as usual, the Greens gave themselves the right to attack everyone, but block such right from rivals to attack them (read my piece on this on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/11/greens-unique-attitude-we-can-dig-dirt.html). The Greens are attacking the Labor Federal members who has strong record of supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli brutality (Tony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek, for example), but would lead vicious attack against our criticism of them on this issue.
We are now very aware that the Greens is a party about nothing. They are just power hungry for the sake of accumulating power. The Greens Federal senate-elect in NSW, Ms Lee Rhiannon, has no credibility on any issue (read my early piece on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/story-of-greens-mp-lee-rhiannon-lies.html). So we, as strong advocate of Palestinian rights, do not take the latest motion as serious step to achieve anything. The motion, along with the NSW Greens motion on the issue earlier, will have one fate: the rubbish bin. The Greens has long track of passing motion after motion, adopt policy after policy, but practically they honoured none. (example of this could be read on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/07/bob-browns-press-club-address-what.html, http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2008/12/greens-blocking-of-action-on-climate.html and http://sjpmediacentre.blogspot.com/2009/09/submission-in-regard-to-discussion.html)
The Greens think that they achieved a lot by attracting media attention. They think that they are closer now to win Marrickville seat in the next state election, March 2011.
We think that this is not accurate. The community will hear from others, before they will cast their votes.
As before the Greens seek community vote, they should convince us why the NSW (and Australian) Greens were absent from all solidarity aid missions to Gaza and West Bank.
We deeply believe that actions are louder than talks (and motions). But the Greens insist to be the mountain that always gets into labour, but always give birth to mouse. (From Arabic proverb)
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Victorian Election results: The winners and the losers!
We can claim safely and comfortably that the Victorian election came with unexpected results that have significant importance. The Victorian election, while saw the Labor lose heavily and unexpectedly, could benefit progressive forces and voters if results analysed carefully and courageous steps taken promptly to avoid future similar results.
The immediate impact of possible repeat of Victorian results in other elections, if serious steps not taken, could see similar scenarios happened in NSW March next year.
In this election there were some big winners and some big losers.
In our opinion, the biggest winner of the election was the Liberal party, as:
1- The Liberals won unwinnable election according to all opinion polls and strategists’ predictions.
2- The Liberals did not only win the votes, but won morally too. It is the first time since the rise of the Greens that Liberals took principled stance to put the Greens last on its preference voting. The Liberals gambled with its chances of winning the election by preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens, instead of trying to maximise Labor seats’ loss. The Liberals logic was simple and straightforward: if we do not agree with the Greens on many issues especially moral values in the heart of Liberal claimed agendas (like gay marriage, euthanasia, decriminalisation of illicit drug abuse,..), we should not preference them even for pure pragmatic reasons of costing Labor more seats. That is in opposition of the Greens logic of Machiavellian principles of “the End justifies the means”. While the most important thing for the Greens is to win more seats, even if this comes on Liberals or even One Nation preference votes. The Liberals proved that they are more principled than the Greens, hence they won more vote. This explains the core issue missing in Australian politics these days: the need for progressive political force that stays principled to achieve deep socio-economic changes, and not Machiavellian force to use the need of change to accumulate power by any means.
For the above mentioned reason and for other reasons, we believe that the biggest loser in the election was the Greens, as:
1- The Greens voting scrambled from 14.6% just 3 months ago (in Federal election) to 10.6%. Usually the small parties do better in state elections than in Federal ones (unlike major parties). The Greens were expected to get at least 16% of the votes. We believe that the Greens disappointing performance of achieving virtually nothing and acting on no major important issue for the last 3 months within the undeclared coalition government with Labor played major role in this.
2- The Greens deafening uproar that they will win at least 4-5 lower house seats and at least 4-5 Upper House seats, resulted in no Lower house seats won and the same Upper House seats won in the last election (3 seats) (or even may be less than 3).
3- The Greens lost moral basis as they were prostituting the Liberals to give them preferences ahead of Labor, despite their claim of having totally contradictious agendas and ideologies. Not only this. The Greens machine and leadership could not depart its addiction on vending lies and deceptions by claiming that the next time they will adopt open preference cards (leaving the voters to decide how to send their preferences). This suggestion from Bob Brown aimed to enforce the Liberals to consider sealing preference deal with the Greens next time. So far, the Liberals were the ones (in all states) who are refusing to even negotiate with the Greens any preference deals. In contradiction of our expectation that the Greens would be the side that will refuse to consider any deals with the Liberals, who were described by the Greens consistently as regressive, fascist and party from dark ages.
4- The Greens failed to keep its voting level similar to voting they got during last Federal election, despite the media hysterical campaign to groom Greens and advocate voters to vote for them. The media published repeated articles and interviews in the last days of the campaign, portraying the Greens to be the future of Australian politics. I was shocked to read articles like “Inside green zero” (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/inside-green-zero-20101122-18469.html) and see cartoonist, Ron Tandberg (http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/no-excuse-for-this-abuse-of-trust-20101123-185kb.html) gave some fantasies that the Greens could get more votes than Labor or Liberals and the future is for “Greens ideology”. Then we read many articles conducting hysterical campaign against Labor (on no real ground). After all this free and extensive propaganda by mainstream media (who are claimed by the Greens to be regressive), the Greens in fact lost grounds and its voting decreased.
The other loser in this election is, of course, the Labor party. The reasons for this are typical among all Labor parties in other states and on Federal level. The reason of the loss could be because:
1- Labor consistent creep towards the centre and right-centre, thinking that the voters will always want to have incompetent Labor government than conservative anti-public services and racist Liberal government.
2- The deterioration of Victorian life-style and the Labor governments inability to find solution for important crises (Housing, employment, health, public transport, energy …)
3- The long incumbency (least important among reasons)
4- The negative impact of other Labor parties (Federal Labor and Labor in other states)
5- The voters’ constant tendency not to keep powers in all states and Federal level in the hands of one party. The clearest example here is the voters’ tendency that gave Labor party power in all states during the Howard Federal Liberal government.
We believe that the Victorian election results should encourage Labor to rethink on its priorities in other states and on Federal level. If they wish to keep power in NSW, Queensland and then on Federal level, they should start to take courageous decisions. And we mean here not courageous decisions on issues that do not concern more than few Australians (same sex marriage or euthanasia), but decisions about finding solutions to crises in: housing, health, multiculturalism, energy supplies and conservative economic vandalism.
Not only this. The other left groups (apart from the Greens who we consider not to be on the left of politics) should start to discuss forming united front to fight for better life style, where resources should be more fairly used to benefit all classes of society. It is alarming that left groups are only talking about the necessity of same-sex marriage and euthanasia, while the society is deeply socio-economically unfair. More efforts and resources should be put into fighting against racism, for human rights, for better public services and for better Australian foreign policy independent from Western super power (currently USA).
We believe that if these results will be repeated on the same scale in NSW, the picture could be:
1- Heavy loss for Labor (we need to remember that all opinion polls in Victoria predicted narrow win for Brumby Labor government, while all opinion polls in NSW predicts big loss of Keneally Labor government).
2- The Greens will get less than 9%, which means that they will not win any lower house seats (Marrickville or Balmain) and no more than 2 Legislative Council seats (in the best scenario with good preference from other minor parties of Socialists, Communists and pro-drugs parties).
3- The Liberals will win comfortably.
Of course in politics time is very precious and things could change dramatically and quickly. The Labor party and other political forces still have time to change direction and take credible steps to restore confidence in politics among voters. But we doubt. Apart from expelling bad names in the Labor, the Labor is not ready to take courageous steps to address the deteriorating life style of NSW residents. We also believe that the Greens is not in better position to change its Machiavellian opportunist approach into more principled stance on issues matter to the majority of NSW residents.
The immediate impact of possible repeat of Victorian results in other elections, if serious steps not taken, could see similar scenarios happened in NSW March next year.
In this election there were some big winners and some big losers.
In our opinion, the biggest winner of the election was the Liberal party, as:
1- The Liberals won unwinnable election according to all opinion polls and strategists’ predictions.
2- The Liberals did not only win the votes, but won morally too. It is the first time since the rise of the Greens that Liberals took principled stance to put the Greens last on its preference voting. The Liberals gambled with its chances of winning the election by preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens, instead of trying to maximise Labor seats’ loss. The Liberals logic was simple and straightforward: if we do not agree with the Greens on many issues especially moral values in the heart of Liberal claimed agendas (like gay marriage, euthanasia, decriminalisation of illicit drug abuse,..), we should not preference them even for pure pragmatic reasons of costing Labor more seats. That is in opposition of the Greens logic of Machiavellian principles of “the End justifies the means”. While the most important thing for the Greens is to win more seats, even if this comes on Liberals or even One Nation preference votes. The Liberals proved that they are more principled than the Greens, hence they won more vote. This explains the core issue missing in Australian politics these days: the need for progressive political force that stays principled to achieve deep socio-economic changes, and not Machiavellian force to use the need of change to accumulate power by any means.
For the above mentioned reason and for other reasons, we believe that the biggest loser in the election was the Greens, as:
1- The Greens voting scrambled from 14.6% just 3 months ago (in Federal election) to 10.6%. Usually the small parties do better in state elections than in Federal ones (unlike major parties). The Greens were expected to get at least 16% of the votes. We believe that the Greens disappointing performance of achieving virtually nothing and acting on no major important issue for the last 3 months within the undeclared coalition government with Labor played major role in this.
2- The Greens deafening uproar that they will win at least 4-5 lower house seats and at least 4-5 Upper House seats, resulted in no Lower house seats won and the same Upper House seats won in the last election (3 seats) (or even may be less than 3).
3- The Greens lost moral basis as they were prostituting the Liberals to give them preferences ahead of Labor, despite their claim of having totally contradictious agendas and ideologies. Not only this. The Greens machine and leadership could not depart its addiction on vending lies and deceptions by claiming that the next time they will adopt open preference cards (leaving the voters to decide how to send their preferences). This suggestion from Bob Brown aimed to enforce the Liberals to consider sealing preference deal with the Greens next time. So far, the Liberals were the ones (in all states) who are refusing to even negotiate with the Greens any preference deals. In contradiction of our expectation that the Greens would be the side that will refuse to consider any deals with the Liberals, who were described by the Greens consistently as regressive, fascist and party from dark ages.
4- The Greens failed to keep its voting level similar to voting they got during last Federal election, despite the media hysterical campaign to groom Greens and advocate voters to vote for them. The media published repeated articles and interviews in the last days of the campaign, portraying the Greens to be the future of Australian politics. I was shocked to read articles like “Inside green zero” (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/inside-green-zero-20101122-18469.html) and see cartoonist, Ron Tandberg (http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/no-excuse-for-this-abuse-of-trust-20101123-185kb.html) gave some fantasies that the Greens could get more votes than Labor or Liberals and the future is for “Greens ideology”. Then we read many articles conducting hysterical campaign against Labor (on no real ground). After all this free and extensive propaganda by mainstream media (who are claimed by the Greens to be regressive), the Greens in fact lost grounds and its voting decreased.
The other loser in this election is, of course, the Labor party. The reasons for this are typical among all Labor parties in other states and on Federal level. The reason of the loss could be because:
1- Labor consistent creep towards the centre and right-centre, thinking that the voters will always want to have incompetent Labor government than conservative anti-public services and racist Liberal government.
2- The deterioration of Victorian life-style and the Labor governments inability to find solution for important crises (Housing, employment, health, public transport, energy …)
3- The long incumbency (least important among reasons)
4- The negative impact of other Labor parties (Federal Labor and Labor in other states)
5- The voters’ constant tendency not to keep powers in all states and Federal level in the hands of one party. The clearest example here is the voters’ tendency that gave Labor party power in all states during the Howard Federal Liberal government.
We believe that the Victorian election results should encourage Labor to rethink on its priorities in other states and on Federal level. If they wish to keep power in NSW, Queensland and then on Federal level, they should start to take courageous decisions. And we mean here not courageous decisions on issues that do not concern more than few Australians (same sex marriage or euthanasia), but decisions about finding solutions to crises in: housing, health, multiculturalism, energy supplies and conservative economic vandalism.
Not only this. The other left groups (apart from the Greens who we consider not to be on the left of politics) should start to discuss forming united front to fight for better life style, where resources should be more fairly used to benefit all classes of society. It is alarming that left groups are only talking about the necessity of same-sex marriage and euthanasia, while the society is deeply socio-economically unfair. More efforts and resources should be put into fighting against racism, for human rights, for better public services and for better Australian foreign policy independent from Western super power (currently USA).
We believe that if these results will be repeated on the same scale in NSW, the picture could be:
1- Heavy loss for Labor (we need to remember that all opinion polls in Victoria predicted narrow win for Brumby Labor government, while all opinion polls in NSW predicts big loss of Keneally Labor government).
2- The Greens will get less than 9%, which means that they will not win any lower house seats (Marrickville or Balmain) and no more than 2 Legislative Council seats (in the best scenario with good preference from other minor parties of Socialists, Communists and pro-drugs parties).
3- The Liberals will win comfortably.
Of course in politics time is very precious and things could change dramatically and quickly. The Labor party and other political forces still have time to change direction and take credible steps to restore confidence in politics among voters. But we doubt. Apart from expelling bad names in the Labor, the Labor is not ready to take courageous steps to address the deteriorating life style of NSW residents. We also believe that the Greens is not in better position to change its Machiavellian opportunist approach into more principled stance on issues matter to the majority of NSW residents.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Greens effectiveness on gay marriage and euthanasia: why not on boat people!
While the Iraqi asylum seeker, Ahmad Al Akabi, was swimming in his blood inside Villawood detention centre after giving up on humanity of department’s officials and the total lack of courage inside the federal parliament to end his and his fellow detainees ordeal.
And while Ahmad’s fellow detainees were protesting inside Villawood detention and in other detention centres around the country over the gross negligence that led to his death, by declaring hunger strike or burning some furniture.
And while we were busy trying to mobilise public opinion, inside Australia and around the globe against the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers inside Australian detention centres that led to death of 2 detainees in the last 2 months only.
While we were all busy in doing all this, the Greens MPs were busy fighting for gay marriage.
As if the Greens MPs are living in another country or on other planet.
During these extremely sad moments, The Greens MPs were jumping up and down inside and outside the federal parliament demanding approval of same-sex marriage.
The blood of detainees could not move any feeling with the Greens MPs.
The lips sewing of many and the hunger strike of hundreds protesting the inhumane treatment inside detention centres, did not win them any sympathy among the Greens MPs.
The dead body ready to be sent to homeland did not convince the Greens MPs that solving the impasse should be the absolute priority to prevent catastrophe from happening within the detention system.
During the last week we only hear the Greens MPs talk about one issue: same sex marriage.
As if the homosexuals will be extinct if the marriage will not legalised.
Or as if the homosexuals will face detrimental fate or total psychological collapse or jail for long time if the marriage will not be legalised in this week.
All this despite the reality that if all facts are taken into account, the Greens MPs should have camped outside detention centre day and night, with deep threats to the minister if he does not change current regulations to prevent deterioration of situation inside detention centres.
We should all remember that the issue of boat people and the Greens empty rhetoric of promising of supporting their rights and working on relieving their suffering was the single issue that increased the popularity of this party and brought it out of wilderness inside Tasmanian forests to the point of controlling the balance of power after this year’s election.
And the issue of boat people was the issue that gave the Greens some credibility as serious political party and diminished the perception of being one-coloured party that supports only environment and anti moral and anti family agendas.
To the opposite of this, the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia did not win the Greens any federal seat since the foundation of the party in the mid of seventies of last century to the first year of this century.
The issue of gay marriage (even if it has a support from large sections in the society) is not concerning many Australians and not many would change their pattern of voting merely on parties’ stance on it.
Political pragmatism should have seen the Greens uprise and demand immediate action to release detainees immediately after they were successful in increasing their representation in the parliament.
We expected that the Greens should have respected its voters who voted for this party after they swallowed its deceptive promises to take action against mandatory detention system. Even if it would threaten of withdrawing from the government which could lead to government collapse and going to very early election.
We have expected that the Greens will treat the highly humanitarian issue of indefinite detention of boat people as important issues, on the same level of importance as the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia. And we have witnessed how the Greens were successful in changing the Labor stance on these issues and now considering allowing continuous vote to pass these legislations.
We have expected that all Greens MPs and members will go the streets to show the Labor party the Greens deep commitments of this issue, to enforce immediate fundamental changes.
But if we take into account the shy response of the Greens party to the many deaths in detention, we can realise that the Greens has no real commitments towards this highly humanitarian issue. On the contrary. We would realise that the Greens is indeed enjoying these sad events to torture and exhaust the Labor party and extract more voters from it. It is very clear that Greens know very well that closing the chapter of boat people suffering would deprive the party from high-profile platform that could win it more seats in the next election.
We do not know how the Greens would face its voters from highly progressive people who support multiculturalism and human rights in society if it could not enforce changes to the harsh treatment of asylum seekers inside detention centres. While it could knee the government on issues of gay marriage and euthanasia.
May be the Greens will resort to its usual of climbing our back and the back of highly progressive people who campaigned very hard and will enforce the government to change its harsh treatment of boat people.
And the Greens have strong record of doing this on this issue and other human rights issues.
Related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqDjE6BmXI&feature=related
And while Ahmad’s fellow detainees were protesting inside Villawood detention and in other detention centres around the country over the gross negligence that led to his death, by declaring hunger strike or burning some furniture.
And while we were busy trying to mobilise public opinion, inside Australia and around the globe against the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers inside Australian detention centres that led to death of 2 detainees in the last 2 months only.
While we were all busy in doing all this, the Greens MPs were busy fighting for gay marriage.
As if the Greens MPs are living in another country or on other planet.
During these extremely sad moments, The Greens MPs were jumping up and down inside and outside the federal parliament demanding approval of same-sex marriage.
The blood of detainees could not move any feeling with the Greens MPs.
The lips sewing of many and the hunger strike of hundreds protesting the inhumane treatment inside detention centres, did not win them any sympathy among the Greens MPs.
The dead body ready to be sent to homeland did not convince the Greens MPs that solving the impasse should be the absolute priority to prevent catastrophe from happening within the detention system.
During the last week we only hear the Greens MPs talk about one issue: same sex marriage.
As if the homosexuals will be extinct if the marriage will not legalised.
Or as if the homosexuals will face detrimental fate or total psychological collapse or jail for long time if the marriage will not be legalised in this week.
All this despite the reality that if all facts are taken into account, the Greens MPs should have camped outside detention centre day and night, with deep threats to the minister if he does not change current regulations to prevent deterioration of situation inside detention centres.
We should all remember that the issue of boat people and the Greens empty rhetoric of promising of supporting their rights and working on relieving their suffering was the single issue that increased the popularity of this party and brought it out of wilderness inside Tasmanian forests to the point of controlling the balance of power after this year’s election.
And the issue of boat people was the issue that gave the Greens some credibility as serious political party and diminished the perception of being one-coloured party that supports only environment and anti moral and anti family agendas.
To the opposite of this, the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia did not win the Greens any federal seat since the foundation of the party in the mid of seventies of last century to the first year of this century.
The issue of gay marriage (even if it has a support from large sections in the society) is not concerning many Australians and not many would change their pattern of voting merely on parties’ stance on it.
Political pragmatism should have seen the Greens uprise and demand immediate action to release detainees immediately after they were successful in increasing their representation in the parliament.
We expected that the Greens should have respected its voters who voted for this party after they swallowed its deceptive promises to take action against mandatory detention system. Even if it would threaten of withdrawing from the government which could lead to government collapse and going to very early election.
We have expected that the Greens will treat the highly humanitarian issue of indefinite detention of boat people as important issues, on the same level of importance as the issue of gay marriage and euthanasia. And we have witnessed how the Greens were successful in changing the Labor stance on these issues and now considering allowing continuous vote to pass these legislations.
We have expected that all Greens MPs and members will go the streets to show the Labor party the Greens deep commitments of this issue, to enforce immediate fundamental changes.
But if we take into account the shy response of the Greens party to the many deaths in detention, we can realise that the Greens has no real commitments towards this highly humanitarian issue. On the contrary. We would realise that the Greens is indeed enjoying these sad events to torture and exhaust the Labor party and extract more voters from it. It is very clear that Greens know very well that closing the chapter of boat people suffering would deprive the party from high-profile platform that could win it more seats in the next election.
We do not know how the Greens would face its voters from highly progressive people who support multiculturalism and human rights in society if it could not enforce changes to the harsh treatment of asylum seekers inside detention centres. While it could knee the government on issues of gay marriage and euthanasia.
May be the Greens will resort to its usual of climbing our back and the back of highly progressive people who campaigned very hard and will enforce the government to change its harsh treatment of boat people.
And the Greens have strong record of doing this on this issue and other human rights issues.
Related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqDjE6BmXI&feature=related
Monday, November 15, 2010
Why was the Greens leader, Bob Brown, happy yesterday?!!!
The Greens leader was very happy yesterday. He was jumping up and down the whole day. And he was smiling in front of the media cameras. So why he was so happy?
He was very happy that Burmese opposition leader, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi was released from home arrest.
We also are happy for this result. And we do not agree on any political arrest.
But immediately after Greens leader sudden happiness, it came to our mind few questions.
Why the Greens leader was not vending support for more than 45 Palestinian MPs arrested by Israeli occupation forces for the last 4 years? Why the Greens leader, and all his Greens colleagues, did not jump up and down from happiness when the Palestinian parliament speaker, Mr Aziz Duweik, was released from Israeli prison last year? Why the Greens leader do not care about arbitrary arrest of more than 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners, most of them in jail (not home arrest) without charges.
Mr Brown happiness did not stop on just jumping up and down. He also vowed to travel to Burma to visit Mr Suu Kyi and pay tribute to her.
If we compare this with the Greens stance on Israeli brutal treatment of Palestinians, we note shameful comparison. Mr Brown and all his Greens colleagues refused on several occasions to join solidarity delegations to Palestinian occupied territories. On 2002, for example, the Greens leader and his colleague, Ms Kerry Nettle, refused utterly to join solidarity and fact-finding delegation to West Bank in the aftermath of Israeli massacres in Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. The Greens leader and his colleagues were not concerned about the home arrest of Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for more than 3 years.
We note that the Greens leader is only vocal and active on criticising socialist regimes:
- He is very vocal on criticising Maoist rebels in Nepal. But he was not critical of brutality of the Nepalese monarchy.
- He is very critical of FARC, the Colombian Marxist rebels, but was never quoted criticising American-puppet regime of Colombia, which conducted worse crimes than the Marxists.
- He is very critical of Chinese socialist government.
Bob Brown is very interesting creature.
On the night of NSW state election, 2003, I approached him and asked him why he never criticised Israeli illegal and inhumane occupation of Palestine. He replied: “I do not know anything about this issue, can you provide me with more information, and then we will discuss taking action”. On earlier occasion, Ms Nettle, made similar admission and asked me to provide her with any literature about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. And I did.
Imagine that the representative of the left in Australia do not know anything about the issue that is widely considered as the major threat of global security!!!
I remember when the Greens leader, Bob Brown, led noisy demonstration against Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, visit to Australia. Such noisy demonstration that was nearly resulted in his arrest.
But when a war criminal Israeli president, Moshe Katsav, visited Australia, 2005, Bob Brown and all his Greens MPs refused even to participate in protests against this visit. The Greens officials refused even to endorse such protest.
Few thoughts come to my mind when I saw Bob Brown very happy to see political prisoner released.
But it is very interesting to understand what the Greens classification of “political prisoners” is.
Last question for Bob Brown and his Greens party: would not the Australian Muslims arrested and jailed after mock trial based on medieval “Anti-Terrorism” laws, qualify to be classified as “political prisoners”?
He was very happy that Burmese opposition leader, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi was released from home arrest.
We also are happy for this result. And we do not agree on any political arrest.
But immediately after Greens leader sudden happiness, it came to our mind few questions.
Why the Greens leader was not vending support for more than 45 Palestinian MPs arrested by Israeli occupation forces for the last 4 years? Why the Greens leader, and all his Greens colleagues, did not jump up and down from happiness when the Palestinian parliament speaker, Mr Aziz Duweik, was released from Israeli prison last year? Why the Greens leader do not care about arbitrary arrest of more than 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners, most of them in jail (not home arrest) without charges.
Mr Brown happiness did not stop on just jumping up and down. He also vowed to travel to Burma to visit Mr Suu Kyi and pay tribute to her.
If we compare this with the Greens stance on Israeli brutal treatment of Palestinians, we note shameful comparison. Mr Brown and all his Greens colleagues refused on several occasions to join solidarity delegations to Palestinian occupied territories. On 2002, for example, the Greens leader and his colleague, Ms Kerry Nettle, refused utterly to join solidarity and fact-finding delegation to West Bank in the aftermath of Israeli massacres in Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. The Greens leader and his colleagues were not concerned about the home arrest of Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for more than 3 years.
We note that the Greens leader is only vocal and active on criticising socialist regimes:
- He is very vocal on criticising Maoist rebels in Nepal. But he was not critical of brutality of the Nepalese monarchy.
- He is very critical of FARC, the Colombian Marxist rebels, but was never quoted criticising American-puppet regime of Colombia, which conducted worse crimes than the Marxists.
- He is very critical of Chinese socialist government.
Bob Brown is very interesting creature.
On the night of NSW state election, 2003, I approached him and asked him why he never criticised Israeli illegal and inhumane occupation of Palestine. He replied: “I do not know anything about this issue, can you provide me with more information, and then we will discuss taking action”. On earlier occasion, Ms Nettle, made similar admission and asked me to provide her with any literature about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. And I did.
Imagine that the representative of the left in Australia do not know anything about the issue that is widely considered as the major threat of global security!!!
I remember when the Greens leader, Bob Brown, led noisy demonstration against Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, visit to Australia. Such noisy demonstration that was nearly resulted in his arrest.
But when a war criminal Israeli president, Moshe Katsav, visited Australia, 2005, Bob Brown and all his Greens MPs refused even to participate in protests against this visit. The Greens officials refused even to endorse such protest.
Few thoughts come to my mind when I saw Bob Brown very happy to see political prisoner released.
But it is very interesting to understand what the Greens classification of “political prisoners” is.
Last question for Bob Brown and his Greens party: would not the Australian Muslims arrested and jailed after mock trial based on medieval “Anti-Terrorism” laws, qualify to be classified as “political prisoners”?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Open letter to Julia Gillard, PM: Time to wake up before you lose next election!
Dear Hon Julia Gillard, our PM
We have watched you for the past few months. And we were disappointed by your government’s performance. We are not few. At the last election, millions of us have expressed such disappointment at your government’s performance.
In this letter, we would like to express to you why we are disappointed and will try to give you some ideas about what we expect from your government.
We have noticed that many in your party are talking now, rightly, how to stop the rise of the Greens vote. Your government’s inaction on many vital issues has left many voters with no option but to vote for the Greens. Such move that is not based on any concrete achievements of the Greens. They just believed that they do not have any other options. But in doing assessments of the reasons behind the mass voters’ change of voting pattern, your party’s strategists and MPs are reaching wrong conclusions
Let me tell you with high confidence that the voters, especially in the high multicultural suburbs like suburbs of Melbourne seat, did not change their vote from Labor to the Greens because of:
1- Carbon Tax
2- Gay marriage
3- Euthanasia.
4- Legalising drugs and promoting prostitution.
We, and any neutral political analyst, deeply believe that even if Labor changes its position on these above mentioned issues, it (Labor) will not win back many of its traditional voters departing it to either the Greens or informal voting.
On the contrary. By changing Labor stance on the above mentioned issues, you risk losing more voters.
As someone who is from marginalised community and lives in marginalised suburbs, I want to mention to you some issues that we need your government to act on:
1- Attacks on Multiculturalism, growing racism and all kinds of discrimination, including Islamophobia.
2- Housing crisis
3- Crisis in health system.
4- Crisis in welfare system.
5- Deteriorating life style.
Let me assure you that most of us in the poor high multicultural suburbs did not form yet an opinion on Carbon Tax (and we believe that the majority of Australians did not form any concrete opinion on this issue).
We also in the suburbs have too many problems and we are occupying with too many daily crises that gay marriage does not concern us. It does not come on the priority list, even for homosexuals living in these suburbs.
The same with euthanasia.
So, if you think that you can compete with the Greens on these issues by following their suites to win back the hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied voters, we can safely tell you that you will lose more.
Your party problems are coming from your bid to compete with other parties, to stop bleeding of your voting pools. And you are miserably failing.
Australians need a government that lead, not being led. What makes things worse is that your government is trying to follow (or even compete with) morons that have no ideology or concrete agendas.
While the Liberals have concrete destructive agendas and ideologies, the Greens have no such things, except for destructive agendas to destroy family and moral values. But they were successful in extracting many of your traditional voters, because you seemed to lose your path.
So far, your strategists’ assessment and soul searching resulted in wrong conclusions.
By their bid to avoid taking actions to quell racism and Islamophobia, and instead engage in debate over gay marriage, you send more disappointing signals to your traditional voters.
By ignoring taking actions to generate affordable housing, and instead talk about Carbon Tax, you again send wrong message and risk losing more votes.
By caving in to racists and ignore the suffering of poor and marginalised people at the hands of your departments (Centrelink, Immigration and Citizenship….) and instead talk about allowing conscious vote on euthanasia, you only send wrong signal about your lack of commitments to marginalised people.
Your bid to compete with the Greens on only these issues is something both naïve and hopeless.
Remember that the Greens have campaigned on these issues (promoting drugs and prostitution, gay marriage, euthanasia,…) for more than 4 decades, but won no more than 3% of Australians heart. It was only when they started to vend their lies and empty rhetoric about the issues your party was strong on (public services, workers rights, human rights, etc…) that they started to attract votes.
Hon Julia Gillard.
We expect you to take actions to end the racist debate about boat people. Such debate that aims to spread fear, racism and Islamophobia. And with the recent High Court ruling and increased community support for more humanitarian approach, you have golden opportunity to reform the policy on this issue.
We also expect that your government takes actions to stop deteriorating life style. This includes taking action to build more public houses and improve public health and education.
We also expect that your government (in cooperation with state government) would take actions to curb skyrocketing power bills.
And we can safely send you warning that if you do not take actions on these vital issues, you risk losing the government. And if you lose the government in such way with no legacy, you can expect staying in opposition for long time.
When we decided not to vote in the last election, we took this decision when we started to feel that there is no big difference between Labor and Liberals. While we understand that the Greens is no more than a machine to manufacture lies, deception and empty rhetoric, we notice that many in the society was fooled by the Greens empty rhetoric.
If we do not regain any confidence that your party is better than the opposition, you should expect that you will not get our vote in the next election. And our definition of “better” is different than the Greens definition. We more care about correcting injustices in the society, than taking action about dismantling family and moral values and vending lies and empty rhetoric on vital issues.
I am writing to you this letter because I cannot imagine Tony Abbot to be our next PM. But if Julia will be exact copy of Tony, who will care who will govern this country.
We hope that we will write to you next time praising your government for progressive steps to improve Australians life style. But if you insist on current policies and approaches, we assure you that you will fail to keep your job.
We have watched you for the past few months. And we were disappointed by your government’s performance. We are not few. At the last election, millions of us have expressed such disappointment at your government’s performance.
In this letter, we would like to express to you why we are disappointed and will try to give you some ideas about what we expect from your government.
We have noticed that many in your party are talking now, rightly, how to stop the rise of the Greens vote. Your government’s inaction on many vital issues has left many voters with no option but to vote for the Greens. Such move that is not based on any concrete achievements of the Greens. They just believed that they do not have any other options. But in doing assessments of the reasons behind the mass voters’ change of voting pattern, your party’s strategists and MPs are reaching wrong conclusions
Let me tell you with high confidence that the voters, especially in the high multicultural suburbs like suburbs of Melbourne seat, did not change their vote from Labor to the Greens because of:
1- Carbon Tax
2- Gay marriage
3- Euthanasia.
4- Legalising drugs and promoting prostitution.
We, and any neutral political analyst, deeply believe that even if Labor changes its position on these above mentioned issues, it (Labor) will not win back many of its traditional voters departing it to either the Greens or informal voting.
On the contrary. By changing Labor stance on the above mentioned issues, you risk losing more voters.
As someone who is from marginalised community and lives in marginalised suburbs, I want to mention to you some issues that we need your government to act on:
1- Attacks on Multiculturalism, growing racism and all kinds of discrimination, including Islamophobia.
2- Housing crisis
3- Crisis in health system.
4- Crisis in welfare system.
5- Deteriorating life style.
Let me assure you that most of us in the poor high multicultural suburbs did not form yet an opinion on Carbon Tax (and we believe that the majority of Australians did not form any concrete opinion on this issue).
We also in the suburbs have too many problems and we are occupying with too many daily crises that gay marriage does not concern us. It does not come on the priority list, even for homosexuals living in these suburbs.
The same with euthanasia.
So, if you think that you can compete with the Greens on these issues by following their suites to win back the hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied voters, we can safely tell you that you will lose more.
Your party problems are coming from your bid to compete with other parties, to stop bleeding of your voting pools. And you are miserably failing.
Australians need a government that lead, not being led. What makes things worse is that your government is trying to follow (or even compete with) morons that have no ideology or concrete agendas.
While the Liberals have concrete destructive agendas and ideologies, the Greens have no such things, except for destructive agendas to destroy family and moral values. But they were successful in extracting many of your traditional voters, because you seemed to lose your path.
So far, your strategists’ assessment and soul searching resulted in wrong conclusions.
By their bid to avoid taking actions to quell racism and Islamophobia, and instead engage in debate over gay marriage, you send more disappointing signals to your traditional voters.
By ignoring taking actions to generate affordable housing, and instead talk about Carbon Tax, you again send wrong message and risk losing more votes.
By caving in to racists and ignore the suffering of poor and marginalised people at the hands of your departments (Centrelink, Immigration and Citizenship….) and instead talk about allowing conscious vote on euthanasia, you only send wrong signal about your lack of commitments to marginalised people.
Your bid to compete with the Greens on only these issues is something both naïve and hopeless.
Remember that the Greens have campaigned on these issues (promoting drugs and prostitution, gay marriage, euthanasia,…) for more than 4 decades, but won no more than 3% of Australians heart. It was only when they started to vend their lies and empty rhetoric about the issues your party was strong on (public services, workers rights, human rights, etc…) that they started to attract votes.
Hon Julia Gillard.
We expect you to take actions to end the racist debate about boat people. Such debate that aims to spread fear, racism and Islamophobia. And with the recent High Court ruling and increased community support for more humanitarian approach, you have golden opportunity to reform the policy on this issue.
We also expect that your government takes actions to stop deteriorating life style. This includes taking action to build more public houses and improve public health and education.
We also expect that your government (in cooperation with state government) would take actions to curb skyrocketing power bills.
And we can safely send you warning that if you do not take actions on these vital issues, you risk losing the government. And if you lose the government in such way with no legacy, you can expect staying in opposition for long time.
When we decided not to vote in the last election, we took this decision when we started to feel that there is no big difference between Labor and Liberals. While we understand that the Greens is no more than a machine to manufacture lies, deception and empty rhetoric, we notice that many in the society was fooled by the Greens empty rhetoric.
If we do not regain any confidence that your party is better than the opposition, you should expect that you will not get our vote in the next election. And our definition of “better” is different than the Greens definition. We more care about correcting injustices in the society, than taking action about dismantling family and moral values and vending lies and empty rhetoric on vital issues.
I am writing to you this letter because I cannot imagine Tony Abbot to be our next PM. But if Julia will be exact copy of Tony, who will care who will govern this country.
We hope that we will write to you next time praising your government for progressive steps to improve Australians life style. But if you insist on current policies and approaches, we assure you that you will fail to keep your job.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
The Greens unique attitude: “We can dig dirt on rivals but rivals cannot do the same”!
I decided to write this piece after I had enough of the Greens unacceptable hostility against anyone who dares to criticise them. And anyone dares to do so will open himself for all kinds of abuses, attacks (both verbal and physical) under many headings, especially being Labor member or paid by Labor to do so.
From my own experience, I should mention here that during the last decade I managed to criticise many politicians by writing letters, opinion pieces (in English and Arabic), petitions, and letters to editors and many other forms. These criticisms were directed to many politicians from wide range of political parties. None of these politicians faced our campaigns of criticism by such hostility like the Greens politicians, members and supporters did.
We campaigned, for example, very hard against previous PM Howard and his ministers. We even tried several times to block their way to functions, meet them with high hostility and accusing them with all kind of accusations (most were right anyway). We never received email, letter or phone call asking us to stop these campaigns. The Greens hierarchies and politicians encouraged us to keep this campaign, and even sometimes participated with us. And that is their right anyway.
We also directed all kinds of criticism to Labor opposition during Howard for not standing against government’s harsh policies. We protested outside Labor conferences, protested outside Labor election campaigns launches, wrote letters and opinion pieces and wrote letters to editors. Also none of Labor politicians or supporters asked us to shut up and stop criticising them. We did the same when they won 2008 election and formed government. We never stopped our criticism, and they never asked us to stop doing this.
The same happened to the Democrats, before its disappearance.
But the Greens is different story.
When they became real player in Australian politics after 2004 election, we started criticising some aspects of Greens politics and behaviour.
So what happened then?
First we were accused of being paid by Labor to discredit the Greens.
When we refused to budge, we were subjected to verbal attacks and threats of physical attacks.
Suddenly our cars were vandalised, abusive letters received and things got nastier.
Suddenly we started to receive threats of persecution for supporting terrorist groups (namely Hamas and Hezbollah), complaints to authorities for alleged violation to Australian constitution …
And recently our website was hacked twice in the last few weeks.
Since we started criticising the Greens, we became “enemy of the progressiveness”, “enemy of masses” and even “servants of imperialism”.
When the Green criticised the Liberals and described Howard and his minister as Nazis, Fascists, xenophobic and racist, this was freedom of speech.
And when the Green viciously attacked Labor and branded them as racists, regressive, force form 20 Century, all this was legitimate as freedom of speech, again.
But when we started to criticise the Greens politics, a criticism that is based on facts and aims to open debates on vital issues, the Greens started to scream up and down and described such criticism as “hate” “ranting” slanders” and lately as “sectarian” attacks on the Greens.
We can note clearly here that the Greens is the only non-metaphysical idea that forbids people from discussing, debating and criticising its experience. The Greens, who consists largely from atheists who refuse to acknowledge the ideas of metaphysical forces, are appointing themselves as divine forces that do not make mistakes. Hence they demand shutting up any criticism.
And anyone who dares to criticise them deserves to be condemned and expelled from the Greens paradise
If we take into account that the Greens idea is not metaphysical, but at the same time is insisting on shutting up any debate and criticism, would not this remind us of Stalinism dark era? That was the only non-metaphysical ideology that practiced the Greens-like claim of monopoly on truth and progressiveness.
The Greens who brand themselves as the only progressive force of the 21 century because they promote anti-moral and anti-family values, on the basis that family idea is very old idea stemming from pre-civilisation era that needs to get revolutionarised and civilised, had actually added nothing progressive so far to the Australian politics.
The Greens did not, for example:
1- Introduce any politicians from ethnic and religious minorities (to promote real Multiculturalism).
2- Condemn Israel and regard Zionism as a form of racism. This include never issuing even one clear media release blaming Israel for the cycle of violence in the middle east for the last century.
3- Take practical steps to prove their verbal commitments to issues, including support public education, public health, public housing,... On the contrary. During the last few years, they opposed strengthening public services and even offered to support selling public assets.
So for the Greens, progressiveness means only promoting prostitution, drug abuse, abortion, assisted suicide …etc. The Greens regurgitate (without any practical evidence) claims of fighting to improve marginalised people’s lives. We do not understand how promoting drug abuse among new migrants, unemployed or very poor will reduce their marginalisation or feeling of social isolation. We don’t understand how promoting prostitution will restore the dignity of needy women and men who were enforced to sell their dignity to the point of selling their bodies.
While we cannot understand (nor accept) the Greens logic and definition of progressiveness, but we deeply believe that we are living in democracy. And in democracy, everyone has the right to participate in political process, including participating in debate and criticism of political parties. While we highly condemns the Greens Stalinist-like bids to shut up debate in this country by claiming monopoly on truth and progressiveness, we will insist on exercising our rights. We will harshly criticise the Greens if they continue their political prostitution of turning the suffering of innocent marginalised sections of the society into political football for cheap electoral gains. We will not hesitate to continue our campaign to expose the empty rhetoric the Greens is spreading before each election in the last decade, which is a clear evidence of “ideologless” Greens party.
And the Greens should respect the democratic environment in the country.
We fought before against Stalinism, until it was disintegrated to the history rubbish bin. We will continue fighting against the destructive agendas of the Greens party, until it will disintegrate to the history rubbish bin, too. Unless the Greens become party of democratic nature.
From my own experience, I should mention here that during the last decade I managed to criticise many politicians by writing letters, opinion pieces (in English and Arabic), petitions, and letters to editors and many other forms. These criticisms were directed to many politicians from wide range of political parties. None of these politicians faced our campaigns of criticism by such hostility like the Greens politicians, members and supporters did.
We campaigned, for example, very hard against previous PM Howard and his ministers. We even tried several times to block their way to functions, meet them with high hostility and accusing them with all kind of accusations (most were right anyway). We never received email, letter or phone call asking us to stop these campaigns. The Greens hierarchies and politicians encouraged us to keep this campaign, and even sometimes participated with us. And that is their right anyway.
We also directed all kinds of criticism to Labor opposition during Howard for not standing against government’s harsh policies. We protested outside Labor conferences, protested outside Labor election campaigns launches, wrote letters and opinion pieces and wrote letters to editors. Also none of Labor politicians or supporters asked us to shut up and stop criticising them. We did the same when they won 2008 election and formed government. We never stopped our criticism, and they never asked us to stop doing this.
The same happened to the Democrats, before its disappearance.
But the Greens is different story.
When they became real player in Australian politics after 2004 election, we started criticising some aspects of Greens politics and behaviour.
So what happened then?
First we were accused of being paid by Labor to discredit the Greens.
When we refused to budge, we were subjected to verbal attacks and threats of physical attacks.
Suddenly our cars were vandalised, abusive letters received and things got nastier.
Suddenly we started to receive threats of persecution for supporting terrorist groups (namely Hamas and Hezbollah), complaints to authorities for alleged violation to Australian constitution …
And recently our website was hacked twice in the last few weeks.
Since we started criticising the Greens, we became “enemy of the progressiveness”, “enemy of masses” and even “servants of imperialism”.
When the Green criticised the Liberals and described Howard and his minister as Nazis, Fascists, xenophobic and racist, this was freedom of speech.
And when the Green viciously attacked Labor and branded them as racists, regressive, force form 20 Century, all this was legitimate as freedom of speech, again.
But when we started to criticise the Greens politics, a criticism that is based on facts and aims to open debates on vital issues, the Greens started to scream up and down and described such criticism as “hate” “ranting” slanders” and lately as “sectarian” attacks on the Greens.
We can note clearly here that the Greens is the only non-metaphysical idea that forbids people from discussing, debating and criticising its experience. The Greens, who consists largely from atheists who refuse to acknowledge the ideas of metaphysical forces, are appointing themselves as divine forces that do not make mistakes. Hence they demand shutting up any criticism.
And anyone who dares to criticise them deserves to be condemned and expelled from the Greens paradise
If we take into account that the Greens idea is not metaphysical, but at the same time is insisting on shutting up any debate and criticism, would not this remind us of Stalinism dark era? That was the only non-metaphysical ideology that practiced the Greens-like claim of monopoly on truth and progressiveness.
The Greens who brand themselves as the only progressive force of the 21 century because they promote anti-moral and anti-family values, on the basis that family idea is very old idea stemming from pre-civilisation era that needs to get revolutionarised and civilised, had actually added nothing progressive so far to the Australian politics.
The Greens did not, for example:
1- Introduce any politicians from ethnic and religious minorities (to promote real Multiculturalism).
2- Condemn Israel and regard Zionism as a form of racism. This include never issuing even one clear media release blaming Israel for the cycle of violence in the middle east for the last century.
3- Take practical steps to prove their verbal commitments to issues, including support public education, public health, public housing,... On the contrary. During the last few years, they opposed strengthening public services and even offered to support selling public assets.
So for the Greens, progressiveness means only promoting prostitution, drug abuse, abortion, assisted suicide …etc. The Greens regurgitate (without any practical evidence) claims of fighting to improve marginalised people’s lives. We do not understand how promoting drug abuse among new migrants, unemployed or very poor will reduce their marginalisation or feeling of social isolation. We don’t understand how promoting prostitution will restore the dignity of needy women and men who were enforced to sell their dignity to the point of selling their bodies.
While we cannot understand (nor accept) the Greens logic and definition of progressiveness, but we deeply believe that we are living in democracy. And in democracy, everyone has the right to participate in political process, including participating in debate and criticism of political parties. While we highly condemns the Greens Stalinist-like bids to shut up debate in this country by claiming monopoly on truth and progressiveness, we will insist on exercising our rights. We will harshly criticise the Greens if they continue their political prostitution of turning the suffering of innocent marginalised sections of the society into political football for cheap electoral gains. We will not hesitate to continue our campaign to expose the empty rhetoric the Greens is spreading before each election in the last decade, which is a clear evidence of “ideologless” Greens party.
And the Greens should respect the democratic environment in the country.
We fought before against Stalinism, until it was disintegrated to the history rubbish bin. We will continue fighting against the destructive agendas of the Greens party, until it will disintegrate to the history rubbish bin, too. Unless the Greens become party of democratic nature.
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...
