First of all we should mention here that the idea of Carbon Tax is not a Labor party idea or project. It is pure Greens party idea and initiative. The Labor political immaturity makes them defend the tax as if it was in the heart of their policy. The Greens, on the other side, keep low profile on their initiative as part of their opportunistic policy for the last decade. The Greens are watching: If the tax generates disastrous outcomes, they will keep low profile on it and leave Labor to struggle with its impacts. If it will generate good outcome (highly unlikely), they will come forward and claim full responsibility.
From listening to both the Greens and Labor on the reasons for the tax and expected outcome, we can outline few unrealistic myths that the tax was based on for its introduction:
1- Australia is polluting more than any other nation on this planet, and so Australian government needs to act to reduce this pollution.
2- The tax will penalise big polluters and so make them pay for their pollution to clean the mess and enforce them to reduce such pollution.
3- The tax will revolutionarise Australian way of life into embracing sustainable energy and abandoning the traditional sources from fossil fuel.
Well let us talk precisely on each point before going into any conclusion.
Maybe Australia is classified as the “highest pollution nation” but “per capita”. This means that “Each Australian pollutes more than Each Indian or Malaysian or Jordanian”. But taking into account that the numbers of Australians are very limited to less than 22 millions, the pollution they make is very limited if compared to other nations. In fact Australians pollution is very insignificant if compared to huge nations like China, India, USA, Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia.
So any suggestion that Australian government action to curb pollution will significantly impact on the global warming devastation is no more than exaggeration for political reasons. This does not mean that we do not want Australians to reduce their pollution. But we want to put everything into factual context.
The Greens (and Labor) insistence to act locally on this issue is something very strange and does not make any sense. We are talking about GLOBAL warming where there are no borders in the sky. Australians do not live in closed compartments that can control emissions and impacts. Without Global approach to the issue, the efforts are fruitless.
I support any action on reducing emissions as a gesture and to lead other nations. But without international frame work, nothing will be changed.
The second lie/myth the Greens (and Labor) manufactured to justify this tax is that it will penalise ONLY the big polluters and enforce them to reduce their pollution. This is the biggest lie in the debate.
Yes, the biggest polluters will be taxed. But then they will have one of three options to deal with this tax:
1- Pass the full cost of the tax (and maybe even more) onto customers.
2- If passing the tax on customers will make them uncompetitive, they will close down businesses and take them to India, China, Indonesia or wherever there is less taxes and cheaper working forces.
3- Divide the burden on customer and their profit margin.
In the current globalisation atmosphere, there is no border for businesses to relocate their factories/shops/means of production to make profits. If it is not profitable in Australia, capital can migrate easily overseas and then import ready products to Australia. This means more unemployed people in Australia, less tax revenue for budget and more environmental pollution (as other developing countries will have less environmental safeguards for business establishment).
And if the business decided to pass the tax cost (fully or partially) onto customers, the Australian butlers will be the main losers. We have already seen how increased energy bills made these butlers life-style deteriorated. Recently, we have witnessed how people sacrificed basic needs as they cannot afford them anymore. With this tax, the sacrifice will be more.
Talking about the last myth, we do not know how the tax will revolutionarise Australian way of life into embracing sustainable energy and abandoning the traditional sources from fossil fuel. Beside steps like start using charcoal as heaters (with big dangerous of fires and suffocations), reduce using heaters and instead use blankets and increased criminal activities to afford increased cost of living, we cannot think of other alternatives available for Australians currently.
We understand that theoretically, Australians should start using energy generated by wind or solar system. But practically these means are beyond butlers’ availability at the moment. And the government has enough taxes and wealth to start generating such clean sustainable energy, without the need to destroy people’s life-style.
For the last 16 years I was living in this country, every government was promising Australians of “Paradise life” after introducing each tax or selling each public asset to fund this paradise life. But after introduction of these taxes or selling these assets, we will discover that our life-style in fact deteriorated. The Carbon tax will not be exemption.
We understand that the Greens party is no more than a machine to manufacture lies and deceptions. At the end of the day, ALL Greens politicians are very rich and will not be affected by increases to energy bill.
One would assume that any preacher should embrace their preach before asking others to do so. The Greens are exemption to this rule (mainly because they are naturally liars and opportunists).
The Greens are champions in embracing and calling for Australians to use public transport. But NO Greens politician start his/her working day with ride on public transport. They are calling for reduction in using fossil fuel energy, but all of them are using (heavily) electricity generated by coal. And of course they will not need to reduce the quality and quantity of their food after introducing carbon tax. I understand that their food is mainly heavily subsidised on tax-payers money.
The Greens politicians can afford to continue their luxurious life after the introduction of carbon tax.... But will you, as a butler, afford this increase?
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
The story of CJPP, Hebron-Leichhardt & Jennifer: Palestinian blood in election campaigns!!
Jennifer Killen does not hold any official position in the Greens. She even denies that she is Greens member. But she attends all meetings, events and celebrations. She participates in election campaigns. And she does many things with and for the Greens, but all behind scenes. All this because she has unique job: she is the Greens rubbish lady.
When the Greens officials make stupid mistakes, they need someone to clean their rubbish. Jennifer will step in.
And when the Greens need to throw rubbish on rivals, opponents or anyone criticising them, they need people like Jennifer to do the job.
In mid 2006, I contacted few community members active on the issue of Israeli occupation of Palestine. My idea was that we in Sydney, as the largest city in Australia, we need an organisation that coordinate activities on this issue and lobby the government, opposition parties and media. So we came with the idea of Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine. Even the name was my idea, adopted by the majority.
After the group started to grow steadily, Jennifer Killen appeared from nowhere. I never heard of her. But she was introduced to the committee by one of the founding members.
Immediately after accepting her, she started her dirty game. She is very good at bullying, intimidation and giving people very hard time until he/she would wish to just vanish from earth.
At every action we organised, she would squeeze the Greens speaker. Then at some stage, she swamped the meeting with Greens and pro-Greens Socialists. They hijacked the organisation that was growing very fast. You can go to the website and check the actions we organised in 2006. It was tremendous work that was easily hijacked by Jennifer, Greens and Greens-arse-licking Socialists.
For us it was very clear. We lost the organisation. But we did not have time to waste by fighting Jennifer and her Greens fellows. And because Palestine is very important for us, we withdrew silently and went other way in our activism.
Jennifer and the Greens hierarchy loved the game. So they asked Jennifer to continue her game within CJPP. Not only this. They set up few other fake organisations to mix up things and make it difficult for people to expose Jennifer and her Greens hierarchy.
The Greens are interested in Palestinian blood only before election and for electoral reasons. No more no less.
The Greens before one of the elections helped moving and supported motion for sistership between Leichhardt and Hebron (May 2007 – just few months before 2007 Federal election). These games proved to be highly effective, especially among voters from Middle Eastern origins who make judgments through their hearts. It was approved. After the media (especially Murdoch media) started to attack the move (as expected), the council met again and decided (with the support of the majority of the Greens councillors) to overturn the decision, as the purpose of the motion to attract voters to the Greens were achieved.
To avoid embarrassment and continue emotional abuse of highly desperate Middle Eastern, Palestinians and pro-Palestinian residents, the Greens decided to empower Jennifer again. They set up the Leichhardt friends of Hebron. The mission of this group is no more than to promote the Greens as pro-Palestinian politicians (without any evidence or practical achievements). The group has one mission: to have activities where only the Greens politicians are invited... take their pictures and put them on the website... issue media releases praises the Greens politicians... All this to attract more progressive vote, in very cheap way that does not cost them any regressive vote or criticism from Murdoch media.
And they were successful. They did the same in Marrickville. They put motion... The Greens politicians divided their vote... Then they accused Labor members of the council of failing the Palestinian cause.
Otherwise, how would the Leichhardt friends of Hebron refuse to allow an organisation that done a lot for the Palestinian cause from having a stall in the annual festival? This happened in the same time when an active member of the group was on the SBS radio asking the community to participate in the festival by all means, including bringing Palestinian traditional staff and donate to the festival. He was urging organisations to do this and refused Viva Palestina Australia (which had participated in 2 convoys to Gaza, in Global March to Jerusalem, in cooperating with Gazans to send money to purchase medicines.....) a stall!!!
The Leichhardt friends of Hebron mission is simple: to hide the reality of the Greens as a political party controlled by Zionists and pro-Zionists groups. Let us remember that the Greens:
1- Introduced the largest numbers of Zionist-Jews to the Parliament/s.
2- The ONLY political party that did not participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine.
3- Party that supported all legislations to list many Palestinian organisations on Australian terrorist lists, with no demand to list any Zionist terrorist groups...
4- Has no one practical achievement on the debate of Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The Leichhardt friends of Hebron maybe has some good people with good heart. But the influential people who are steering the organisation are Greens members who act always to enable the Greens to get more votes, even on deceptive claims.
We need to hear from this group why our organisation was not allowed to have stall, show Palestinian culture and fundraise money for the cause....
More on the reality of the Greens, CJPP, Leichhardt freidns of Hebron and Jennifer soon...
When the Greens officials make stupid mistakes, they need someone to clean their rubbish. Jennifer will step in.
And when the Greens need to throw rubbish on rivals, opponents or anyone criticising them, they need people like Jennifer to do the job.
In mid 2006, I contacted few community members active on the issue of Israeli occupation of Palestine. My idea was that we in Sydney, as the largest city in Australia, we need an organisation that coordinate activities on this issue and lobby the government, opposition parties and media. So we came with the idea of Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine. Even the name was my idea, adopted by the majority.
After the group started to grow steadily, Jennifer Killen appeared from nowhere. I never heard of her. But she was introduced to the committee by one of the founding members.
Immediately after accepting her, she started her dirty game. She is very good at bullying, intimidation and giving people very hard time until he/she would wish to just vanish from earth.
At every action we organised, she would squeeze the Greens speaker. Then at some stage, she swamped the meeting with Greens and pro-Greens Socialists. They hijacked the organisation that was growing very fast. You can go to the website and check the actions we organised in 2006. It was tremendous work that was easily hijacked by Jennifer, Greens and Greens-arse-licking Socialists.
For us it was very clear. We lost the organisation. But we did not have time to waste by fighting Jennifer and her Greens fellows. And because Palestine is very important for us, we withdrew silently and went other way in our activism.
Jennifer and the Greens hierarchy loved the game. So they asked Jennifer to continue her game within CJPP. Not only this. They set up few other fake organisations to mix up things and make it difficult for people to expose Jennifer and her Greens hierarchy.
The Greens are interested in Palestinian blood only before election and for electoral reasons. No more no less.
The Greens before one of the elections helped moving and supported motion for sistership between Leichhardt and Hebron (May 2007 – just few months before 2007 Federal election). These games proved to be highly effective, especially among voters from Middle Eastern origins who make judgments through their hearts. It was approved. After the media (especially Murdoch media) started to attack the move (as expected), the council met again and decided (with the support of the majority of the Greens councillors) to overturn the decision, as the purpose of the motion to attract voters to the Greens were achieved.
To avoid embarrassment and continue emotional abuse of highly desperate Middle Eastern, Palestinians and pro-Palestinian residents, the Greens decided to empower Jennifer again. They set up the Leichhardt friends of Hebron. The mission of this group is no more than to promote the Greens as pro-Palestinian politicians (without any evidence or practical achievements). The group has one mission: to have activities where only the Greens politicians are invited... take their pictures and put them on the website... issue media releases praises the Greens politicians... All this to attract more progressive vote, in very cheap way that does not cost them any regressive vote or criticism from Murdoch media.
And they were successful. They did the same in Marrickville. They put motion... The Greens politicians divided their vote... Then they accused Labor members of the council of failing the Palestinian cause.
Otherwise, how would the Leichhardt friends of Hebron refuse to allow an organisation that done a lot for the Palestinian cause from having a stall in the annual festival? This happened in the same time when an active member of the group was on the SBS radio asking the community to participate in the festival by all means, including bringing Palestinian traditional staff and donate to the festival. He was urging organisations to do this and refused Viva Palestina Australia (which had participated in 2 convoys to Gaza, in Global March to Jerusalem, in cooperating with Gazans to send money to purchase medicines.....) a stall!!!
The Leichhardt friends of Hebron mission is simple: to hide the reality of the Greens as a political party controlled by Zionists and pro-Zionists groups. Let us remember that the Greens:
1- Introduced the largest numbers of Zionist-Jews to the Parliament/s.
2- The ONLY political party that did not participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine.
3- Party that supported all legislations to list many Palestinian organisations on Australian terrorist lists, with no demand to list any Zionist terrorist groups...
4- Has no one practical achievement on the debate of Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The Leichhardt friends of Hebron maybe has some good people with good heart. But the influential people who are steering the organisation are Greens members who act always to enable the Greens to get more votes, even on deceptive claims.
We need to hear from this group why our organisation was not allowed to have stall, show Palestinian culture and fundraise money for the cause....
More on the reality of the Greens, CJPP, Leichhardt freidns of Hebron and Jennifer soon...
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Open letter to my Socialist friend: This is why I support President Assad!!
I should mention here that when the crisis erupted in Syria more than a year ago, I was not supporting President Assad. At that time, I declared that I oppose violence in Syria, oppose Western bid to destabilize regime against its people’s wish and oppose the plan for New Middle East, which includes destabilising Syria and divide it. But now, I am supporting President Assad and I will tell you why I changed my mind.
I have noticed that the majority of “Left” groups in Australia have very unique understanding of “Left and Right”, “progressive and regressive” …. I have noticed that it is in fact a “taboo” left, or maybe more accurate “left of slogans and dreams”… at some stage I called it “Left-Over”.
I understood from my conversation with you and with many of your colleagues Socialists and Greens that you support “Syrian revolution” because they declare that they are “revolutionarists”, take arms in their hands and revolt against the regime. For you it is not important to explore “revolution” against what, what is the “revolution” plan and objectives and what revolutionary means and methods they use.
I have noticed too that you did not ask important questions like: who is aiding this “revolution”, what is the cost for this aid and what are the possible consequencies for such “revolution”.
I have noticed that you and your Socialist and Greens “progressive” friends are vending your support for this “revolution” from the comfort of your homes in Newtown or Eastern Suburbs. Whatever happens in Syria (and in the Middle East) will not affect your life. So you can spare to support this terrorism that aims to bring dark-ages regimes to control the area, as you will not experience any of its devastating results.
I know that if the New Middle East plan succeeds and Arab Taliban (that you have supported in Libya and currently support in Syria) controls the area (from Morocco to Arab Gulf) all what you will do to counter act the consequence of this support is to issue media release condemning the persecution of women, secular men, religious and ethnic minorities and progressive forces. Your home in Newtown will have enough food, electricity, internet access and spare time to condemn killing of minorities, women and progressive people.
I have noticed that during Taliban control of Afghanistan, you (and your friends in Socialist groups and Greens party) were sleeping nice, eating well, have shower every day, watch TV and then walk in the street protesting the oppression of Afghanis. At the end of the protest, you would walk to the nearest pub, have several schooners of beer and then declare that you done all what you could to condemn the repression.
At the same time, I was living in Jordan. I witnessed several attacks from “Afghani Arabs” who were declaring that secularism is against religion. Cinemas were torched because they are against their interpretation of religion. Walking with non-veiled sister was scary experience that could bring devastating consequences. Talking politics was highly dangerous practice that we all avoided in public places or with strange people.
You were enjoying your time in the pub, university or at Mardi Gras. We were hiding in our homes avoiding deadly confrontation with these extremists. Can you see the difference!!!
I understand that someone who did not left the comfort of his home in Newtown would not understand why Syrians are praying day and night for this terror campaign to end soon with big failure.
But I wonder about one fact: did you notice very strangely the USA and NATO strong support for this “revolution”??? Did you and your friends Socialists and Greens notice that Israel supports the “revolution” and give the “revolutionarists” the maximum support?? Was this the first time for USA, NATO and Israel to support a “revolution”? Unless it is in fact not a revolution but a Western conspiracy!!!
I know that your “taboo” thinking is making it very hard for you to see beyond slogans. “Revolution”, “social justice”, “freedom”…. are slogans that fell on your mind with heavy impact. But the devastating consequencies will fell on us, our families and our future generations.
Now you may think that I am selling you big rhetoric and exaggeration of facts… To give you the right picture, I can volunteer to tour with you the streets of Qandahar. No, I will not volunteer to go with you to Qandahar of Afghanistan. I will take you to Australian Qandahar. I mean here Lakemba, maybe Punchbowl or Auburn too.
There I will take you to Ali Ibrahim to tell you why he was shot in front of his home by heavy bearded, totally closed-minded extremists that you support to rule the whole Middle East. I may take you to visit my friend, Talat, to show you the written and verbal threats to kill him. I may take you also to hear form Isa why he assaulted me and my friend, Omar, because he did not agree with our analysis of what is happening in Syria. Maybe I need to take you too to hear from our friend from the local police station about the accounts of extreme tension they became aware of in the streets of Lakemba and Auburn.
I know very well that ABC, SBS and Greens media releases did not report all these to you. But I deeply believe that it is your obligation to seek knowledge and equip yourself with information. Information from different sources not only ABC, SBS or Christine Milne.
I know that you are busy dreaming of making “revolutions” by walking in the streets shouting in support of “revolutions” in Libya, Syria and Egypt. I am sure that you do not know that these “revolutions” did not bring anything positive to the lives of people of these countries. They only brought to them instability, sectarian and ethnic division and hate, civil war and insecurity. And the only winner is USA, imperialism, NATO and Israel.
I know that beyond your dreams, protests and schooners in the pub, you are very sure that you and your family will not lose anything if the “revolution” of Syria succeed or fail.
If it will succeed, you will be back to streets to demand freedom for minorities, secular forces, women and gays. If it will fail, you will protest demanding ending the repression of Assad “regime”… Nothing more, nothing less.
But for me, it is very different story.
If Arab Taliban succeed to control Syria and other Middle East countries, my family will be in immediate danger there. My family currently enjoys some freedom in their life. At least they now enjoy some freedom in the way they dress, freedom to study and work and freedom to choose way of life. If the Arabic Taliban controls the Middle East, the oppression will be maximized and they would not be free to choose anything in their lives, not even the way they would die.
I know that your media release then to condemn their oppressor will not help them at all. The media releases issued by you, your organization, the Greens or even by our government did not help us when “Arab Afghanis” were torching cinemas, attacking non-veiled women and trying to shut public life.
I support President Assad because I do not want to lose one of my family members in the civil war that will break. Such civil war that is designed to protect Israel and prevent us from returning to our homeland, Palestine.
I know that you will accuse me of exaggerating things. Before you do so, please stop watching ABC & SBS and travel to Libya. Then you will know who is hiding information from you: myself or ABC!!!
I have noticed that the majority of “Left” groups in Australia have very unique understanding of “Left and Right”, “progressive and regressive” …. I have noticed that it is in fact a “taboo” left, or maybe more accurate “left of slogans and dreams”… at some stage I called it “Left-Over”.
I understood from my conversation with you and with many of your colleagues Socialists and Greens that you support “Syrian revolution” because they declare that they are “revolutionarists”, take arms in their hands and revolt against the regime. For you it is not important to explore “revolution” against what, what is the “revolution” plan and objectives and what revolutionary means and methods they use.
I have noticed too that you did not ask important questions like: who is aiding this “revolution”, what is the cost for this aid and what are the possible consequencies for such “revolution”.
I have noticed that you and your Socialist and Greens “progressive” friends are vending your support for this “revolution” from the comfort of your homes in Newtown or Eastern Suburbs. Whatever happens in Syria (and in the Middle East) will not affect your life. So you can spare to support this terrorism that aims to bring dark-ages regimes to control the area, as you will not experience any of its devastating results.
I know that if the New Middle East plan succeeds and Arab Taliban (that you have supported in Libya and currently support in Syria) controls the area (from Morocco to Arab Gulf) all what you will do to counter act the consequence of this support is to issue media release condemning the persecution of women, secular men, religious and ethnic minorities and progressive forces. Your home in Newtown will have enough food, electricity, internet access and spare time to condemn killing of minorities, women and progressive people.
I have noticed that during Taliban control of Afghanistan, you (and your friends in Socialist groups and Greens party) were sleeping nice, eating well, have shower every day, watch TV and then walk in the street protesting the oppression of Afghanis. At the end of the protest, you would walk to the nearest pub, have several schooners of beer and then declare that you done all what you could to condemn the repression.
At the same time, I was living in Jordan. I witnessed several attacks from “Afghani Arabs” who were declaring that secularism is against religion. Cinemas were torched because they are against their interpretation of religion. Walking with non-veiled sister was scary experience that could bring devastating consequences. Talking politics was highly dangerous practice that we all avoided in public places or with strange people.
You were enjoying your time in the pub, university or at Mardi Gras. We were hiding in our homes avoiding deadly confrontation with these extremists. Can you see the difference!!!
I understand that someone who did not left the comfort of his home in Newtown would not understand why Syrians are praying day and night for this terror campaign to end soon with big failure.
But I wonder about one fact: did you notice very strangely the USA and NATO strong support for this “revolution”??? Did you and your friends Socialists and Greens notice that Israel supports the “revolution” and give the “revolutionarists” the maximum support?? Was this the first time for USA, NATO and Israel to support a “revolution”? Unless it is in fact not a revolution but a Western conspiracy!!!
I know that your “taboo” thinking is making it very hard for you to see beyond slogans. “Revolution”, “social justice”, “freedom”…. are slogans that fell on your mind with heavy impact. But the devastating consequencies will fell on us, our families and our future generations.
Now you may think that I am selling you big rhetoric and exaggeration of facts… To give you the right picture, I can volunteer to tour with you the streets of Qandahar. No, I will not volunteer to go with you to Qandahar of Afghanistan. I will take you to Australian Qandahar. I mean here Lakemba, maybe Punchbowl or Auburn too.
There I will take you to Ali Ibrahim to tell you why he was shot in front of his home by heavy bearded, totally closed-minded extremists that you support to rule the whole Middle East. I may take you to visit my friend, Talat, to show you the written and verbal threats to kill him. I may take you also to hear form Isa why he assaulted me and my friend, Omar, because he did not agree with our analysis of what is happening in Syria. Maybe I need to take you too to hear from our friend from the local police station about the accounts of extreme tension they became aware of in the streets of Lakemba and Auburn.
I know very well that ABC, SBS and Greens media releases did not report all these to you. But I deeply believe that it is your obligation to seek knowledge and equip yourself with information. Information from different sources not only ABC, SBS or Christine Milne.
I know that you are busy dreaming of making “revolutions” by walking in the streets shouting in support of “revolutions” in Libya, Syria and Egypt. I am sure that you do not know that these “revolutions” did not bring anything positive to the lives of people of these countries. They only brought to them instability, sectarian and ethnic division and hate, civil war and insecurity. And the only winner is USA, imperialism, NATO and Israel.
I know that beyond your dreams, protests and schooners in the pub, you are very sure that you and your family will not lose anything if the “revolution” of Syria succeed or fail.
If it will succeed, you will be back to streets to demand freedom for minorities, secular forces, women and gays. If it will fail, you will protest demanding ending the repression of Assad “regime”… Nothing more, nothing less.
But for me, it is very different story.
If Arab Taliban succeed to control Syria and other Middle East countries, my family will be in immediate danger there. My family currently enjoys some freedom in their life. At least they now enjoy some freedom in the way they dress, freedom to study and work and freedom to choose way of life. If the Arabic Taliban controls the Middle East, the oppression will be maximized and they would not be free to choose anything in their lives, not even the way they would die.
I know that your media release then to condemn their oppressor will not help them at all. The media releases issued by you, your organization, the Greens or even by our government did not help us when “Arab Afghanis” were torching cinemas, attacking non-veiled women and trying to shut public life.
I support President Assad because I do not want to lose one of my family members in the civil war that will break. Such civil war that is designed to protect Israel and prevent us from returning to our homeland, Palestine.
I know that you will accuse me of exaggerating things. Before you do so, please stop watching ABC & SBS and travel to Libya. Then you will know who is hiding information from you: myself or ABC!!!
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Open letter to our PM: Please stop supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria
Dear Hon Julia Gillard, Australian
PM
And what did your government do to curb this wave of extremism in our streets? Nothing. On the contrary. Sending members of your ruling party to donate money to Al Qaeda operatives did send the opposite message.
I am writing this letter
in disgust of your government support of Al Qaeda in Syria, by adopting the
lies and deceptions vended by its armed faction, Syria Free Army. This disgust grew
very significantly after your government recent decision to expel two Syrian
senior diplomats on very flimsy basis. Your government took a decision before
any credible side take thorough investigation of what actually had happened in
Houla last Saturday and who is actually responsible for the horrendous crimes.
The initial facts point responsibility clearly towards the Al Qaeda terrorist
groups operating publicly in Syria.
In this letter I, on
behalf of many Australians, would like to raise alarm about possible devastating
impact of such policy of your party to support and praise the Al Qaeda actions.
I am sure that you have
been briefed last February that Al Qaeda operatives in Sydney shot fellow
citizen Ali Ibrahim. Mr Ibrahim was crippled because he opposes Al Qaeda crimes
in Syria. We believe that the Al Qaeda operatives who shot Mr Ibrahim took the
green light from your government’s line of supporting terrorist acts in Syria
and always blaming the secular regime of conducting them. The operatives are
enjoying great support not only from your government, but also from ALL opposition
parties and almost every mainstream media outlets. Such support that gave them
indication that they can carry on terrorist attacks against opponents here in
Australia.
We are aware that members
of your party have participated in fundraising dinners where organisers
declared before the events that the money will go to buy arms and ammunitions
to Al Qaeda operatives (under the umbrella of Free Syria Army). Can you imagine
that your colleagues in the parliament are attending and donating to buy arms
and ammunitions to terrorists groups??
I am also very sure that
you know of the wave of threats we, active community members who opposes Al
Qaeda terrorist activities in Syria, have been receiving for the last few months.
We did not only receive threats to kill us and our family members, but I am sad
to tell you that we were assaulted on many occasions by extremists who declare
publicly that they support Al Qaeda and its extreme teachings.
And what did your government do to curb this wave of extremism in our streets? Nothing. On the contrary. Sending members of your ruling party to donate money to Al Qaeda operatives did send the opposite message.
After yesterday’s verbal
and physical assault, I hold you responsible of any harm to me or to my family
in the future. Not only this. I did not insist to report to police that details
of the assault because we are very sure that if your government continues to
support, praise and aid AL Qaeda operatives in Sydney, things would get out of
hands.
Your government irresponsible
policy would (and indeed already did) import sectarian and religious hate into
our country. All what we are waiting now is the break of violence and counter
violence in the streets of the suburbs.
Walking in the streets of
Lakemba, Punchbowl, Auburn or Bankstown would give us feeling that we are walking
in the streets of Qandahar. And if you attend one of the many religious
ceremonies in some of the mosques or musallas, you would think that you are
listening to Bin Laden or Al Zawahri. The same terrorist rhetoric happening
here in our streets and under surveillance of our security agencies, including
ASIO. Such agencies that seem to be more busy with writing unsubstantiated
reports on poor asylum seekers arriving by boats, instead of following and interrogating terrorists and
their leaders.
I know very well that you
do not feel what we are feeling. At the end of the day, you and your government
are on the side of the terrorists. We believe and feel that we are left alone
to face and counteract terrorists in the streets of Sydney.
Instead of kicking out
Syrian diplomat and so lose any influence on the crisis, your government should
have arrested and publicly condemned the terrorists that shot fellow Australian
Ali Ibrahim, attacked and vandalised foreign embassies, threatened fellow Australians
and assaulted all opponents.
In this letter we would
like to condemn in the strongest possible words your government extreme
position to support extreme groups. We wonder why you and your government did
not take such extreme position when Israeli military massacred publicly and in
front of all media cameras, hundreds of innocent Palestinians who took shelter
in school operating under UN agency control. The UN agency (UNRWA) indicated
very clearly that Israeli soldiers carried out the massacre in cold blood. Many
Israeli soldiers admitted that they had orders to shoot at any moving Palestinian,
regardless if they were armed or not.
Your government which is
proving day after day to be the worst government in Australian contemporary history
will not make any new friend by supporting terrorists. On the contrary. Many
Australians from different communities who believe that Syria needs help and
not further punishment to end the civil war changed their voting intensions in
the aftermath of your government’s policy of supporting terrorist
organisations.
I will wait for any reply from your office
explaining to us that our assumptions are wrong. We welcome any evidence you
have that the regime is solely responsible of the wave of terrorist acts.
Otherwise and if you do not have such evidence, we can provide you with tons of
material that would cast serious doubts about such claims of regime’s responsibility
of these crimes.
Even if the regime is responsible
for every single crime happened in Syria for the last year, we believe that
your government is responsible of protecting our rights to live in peace with
no fear. We also believe that your government has the responsibility to enable
us to exercise our rights for freedom of speech and believes.
Thanks
Yours
Jamal Daoud
Berala, NSW 2141
Note: I already made my
mind to vote against your government and your party. And we will campaign to
encourage all peace loving progressive people to send your government to
history dust bins.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
NSW Political Donations Law: When eating my wife’s cooking is a crime!!
The Local Election seminar last Thursday turned to circus when activists and possible candidates for the election listened to the details of the lunatic NSW Political Donations Law.
We discovered (and we admitted responsibility by the end of the seminar) that we have committed offences and crimes under the above mentioned legislation.
By the legislation, every effort to interfere in any election in NSW is classified as “donations”. And for the purpose of serving the legislation, every cent spent by any person taking these efforts must be registered and reported to the Election Funding Authority (EFA).
So, if a local hairdresser during election time talks about election, who to vote for and why, this is considered by the legislation to be “donation” for the candidate the hairdresser supports. The hairdresser is obliged to appoint Official Agent and report how much money he spent or received in his “election campaign”.
The angry protestor, who climbed the Harbour Bridge few months ago to send a political message against current family law, is required by the legislation to appoint Official Agent. He is required to report who helped him, how much money they spent and the name, address and work of the donors. And he should be careful. If one of the donors is a worker in Tobacco Company, entertainment industry or Property Development Company, he would be liable for prosecution under the legislation. In other words, if one of the donors are one of the above mentioned categories, he is not entitled to take any action, legal or illegal.
The man will not prosecuted only for disturbing public peace, but also for electoral fraud offences.
And if an angry resident prints few hundreds of leaflets and distributed them to local homes, he would be under the same obligation of reporting. And if the money is more than $1,000, he needs to operate specific bank account, appoint Official Agent to operate the account and reporting system. And if the amount is more than $2,500, in addition to all these, he will need an auditor (who will probably charge him between $300 – 900).
If a teacher at school tries to educate the children (or adults at migrant language centre) about the political system in Australia, he would need permission from the Election Funding Authority. He/she will need to be registered for funding reporting.
We did not understand what the situation of the media is!!!
So if a journalist is angry form the Greens during election campaign and wrote an article or two against them, would this be classified as “election campaigning”? Would that journalist need to be registered with the EFA? Does he/she need to appoint Official Agent and open separate bank account for the purpose of writing this article?
What a chaos!!!
What amazes us (all the active community members in the seminar) is that the system (in addition to its lunatic nature) is so flawed, impractical, discriminatory, undeomcratic and draconian.
The legislation prevents any person who is either not registered on the electoral roll or is non-citizen to talk about politics. The system allows only citizens to be active in political participation. The more than 1.5 million permanent residents and temporary residents should remain silent. They also need to remain passive, cannot donate their times, efforts and money to the prosperity of this nation.
There is other side of the discriminatory nature of the law. The workers in specific industries are required to be silent, politically stupid, have no say in the future of their nation and remain neutral of decisions that could destroy their lives. The workers of only Tobacco company, gambling industry and property development industry should be regarded as thieves, crooks and irrelevant to the political process. But the workers of sex, pharmaceutical, retail and export and import industries can do whatever they want.
The system is not allowing non-citizens to donate.... So how would we, as campaigners at a street stall, know if the by-passer donating 5 cents is in fact on the electoral roll or no!!!
Most importantly, how would the Electoral Funding Authority prove that they were non-citizens!!!
Not only this. I discovered that I really committed big offence under the legislation. But I will repeat this offence in all next elections. In the last election and to feed the volunteers on the pooling booths, my wife made them delicious sandwiches. According to the legislation, my wife is a donor. We should report this donation to the authority. But my wife is non-citizen and not on the electoral roll. So and by the legislation, my wife cannot cook and feed me. She cannot cook and feed volunteers.
Whoever was behind this law (and we understand that the Greens are proud themselves to be behind the introduction of the law) should know that it will not work. Not only this. It did not help improving our political system. On the contrary. It reduced the political participation. The law makes it very hard for independents to think about even just giving opinion on the current candidates, their political parties’ policies and the future of this nation. The law in fact suffocates democracy, kills political debate and reduces political participation (especially from marginalised groups). And most importantly, the law is impractical.
We know that the Law-and-Order arm of the authority to implement these laws is impotent to enforce these laws. All what the politician could achieve is to encourage people to lie and make false claims.
How would you prove that the sandwiches we ate on the Election Day were made by my non-citizen wife??? Who did give the politicians the authority to prevent wife from feeding her politically active husband??
By the legislation, every effort to interfere in any election in NSW is classified as “donations”. And for the purpose of serving the legislation, every cent spent by any person taking these efforts must be registered and reported to the Election Funding Authority (EFA).
So, if a local hairdresser during election time talks about election, who to vote for and why, this is considered by the legislation to be “donation” for the candidate the hairdresser supports. The hairdresser is obliged to appoint Official Agent and report how much money he spent or received in his “election campaign”.
The angry protestor, who climbed the Harbour Bridge few months ago to send a political message against current family law, is required by the legislation to appoint Official Agent. He is required to report who helped him, how much money they spent and the name, address and work of the donors. And he should be careful. If one of the donors is a worker in Tobacco Company, entertainment industry or Property Development Company, he would be liable for prosecution under the legislation. In other words, if one of the donors are one of the above mentioned categories, he is not entitled to take any action, legal or illegal.
The man will not prosecuted only for disturbing public peace, but also for electoral fraud offences.
And if an angry resident prints few hundreds of leaflets and distributed them to local homes, he would be under the same obligation of reporting. And if the money is more than $1,000, he needs to operate specific bank account, appoint Official Agent to operate the account and reporting system. And if the amount is more than $2,500, in addition to all these, he will need an auditor (who will probably charge him between $300 – 900).
If a teacher at school tries to educate the children (or adults at migrant language centre) about the political system in Australia, he would need permission from the Election Funding Authority. He/she will need to be registered for funding reporting.
We did not understand what the situation of the media is!!!
So if a journalist is angry form the Greens during election campaign and wrote an article or two against them, would this be classified as “election campaigning”? Would that journalist need to be registered with the EFA? Does he/she need to appoint Official Agent and open separate bank account for the purpose of writing this article?
What a chaos!!!
What amazes us (all the active community members in the seminar) is that the system (in addition to its lunatic nature) is so flawed, impractical, discriminatory, undeomcratic and draconian.
The legislation prevents any person who is either not registered on the electoral roll or is non-citizen to talk about politics. The system allows only citizens to be active in political participation. The more than 1.5 million permanent residents and temporary residents should remain silent. They also need to remain passive, cannot donate their times, efforts and money to the prosperity of this nation.
There is other side of the discriminatory nature of the law. The workers in specific industries are required to be silent, politically stupid, have no say in the future of their nation and remain neutral of decisions that could destroy their lives. The workers of only Tobacco company, gambling industry and property development industry should be regarded as thieves, crooks and irrelevant to the political process. But the workers of sex, pharmaceutical, retail and export and import industries can do whatever they want.
The system is not allowing non-citizens to donate.... So how would we, as campaigners at a street stall, know if the by-passer donating 5 cents is in fact on the electoral roll or no!!!
Most importantly, how would the Electoral Funding Authority prove that they were non-citizens!!!
Not only this. I discovered that I really committed big offence under the legislation. But I will repeat this offence in all next elections. In the last election and to feed the volunteers on the pooling booths, my wife made them delicious sandwiches. According to the legislation, my wife is a donor. We should report this donation to the authority. But my wife is non-citizen and not on the electoral roll. So and by the legislation, my wife cannot cook and feed me. She cannot cook and feed volunteers.
Whoever was behind this law (and we understand that the Greens are proud themselves to be behind the introduction of the law) should know that it will not work. Not only this. It did not help improving our political system. On the contrary. It reduced the political participation. The law makes it very hard for independents to think about even just giving opinion on the current candidates, their political parties’ policies and the future of this nation. The law in fact suffocates democracy, kills political debate and reduces political participation (especially from marginalised groups). And most importantly, the law is impractical.
We know that the Law-and-Order arm of the authority to implement these laws is impotent to enforce these laws. All what the politician could achieve is to encourage people to lie and make false claims.
How would you prove that the sandwiches we ate on the Election Day were made by my non-citizen wife??? Who did give the politicians the authority to prevent wife from feeding her politically active husband??
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Bob Brown (and the Greens) real legacy: politics full of lies, deceptions and no achievement!
Bob Brown, the founder and first leader of the notorious Greens party, chose the right time to leave the party. The party currently is at its best look: record numbers of senators and MP, unique position on holding balance of power in both houses and in government. A really unique position that obviously will not last for long time.
The media, politicians and other entities were today busy talking nice about this politician, as part of normal farewell speeches and praises.
But what was the real, ugly and devastating legacy of this cunning opportunist highly regressive politician?
Bob Brown, in his own resignation media conference which was full of lies, could not mention any achievement for him or his party but the introduction of Carbon Tax. And of course a lot of talk about “his” struggle as openly gay activist and politician. Though, he failed to inform us how he struggled being openly gay, apart from some verbal abuses....
Let us go deep and examine the real legacy of Bob Brown (and his Greens party).
Bob Brown was no more than a liar who was very good in making lies, selling them and then believing them himself.
Bob Brown and his Greens party claimed that Bob and his Greens politicians were always taking political stance based on principles and not on its popularity. Let us dissect some of these stances.
Bob Brown launched the biggest lie in his life when he claimed that he was the only politician in Australian parliament that stood up during Tampa standoff.
Going back to senate Hansard, we can easily discover that Bob Brown never talked about refugees and asylum seekers, immigration, racism or Islamophobia. The first time he talked about these issues was during Tampa farce. He understood that the timing was right to talk about this issue in this way.
During Tampa, the Democrats (which was the main party that was standing up for refugees and asylum seekers for years) was embroiled in deep infighting and was losing its popularity in the wake of its deal with John Howard’s government to introduce GST. The Labor party chose to follow the Howard’s government’s handling of the case. Bob Brown knew that more than one third of Australians were looking for strong leadership to stop Howard’s attack on refugees and asylum seekers. At that time the Greens had only 2.5% of the vote. So 30% of voters were very popular, and not as the Greens claim that they always stand on principles and not popularity.
But why the Greens never talked about the immigration, refugees and asylum seekers rights and multiculturalism in general?
The answer is very easy: because the Greens is the only pure white party that stands stiffly against any increase of population, on ecological- balance grounds. The Liberals, on pragmatic grounds, moved away from the racist policy of decreasing immigration and allowed substantial increase in immigration intake. The Greens is still insisting on the need to reduce migration to keep the ecological balance right!!!
The Greens was and still lying by saying that Bob Brown was the first and the only politician that talked against harsh treatment of boat people. The democrats, for example, have long history to talk about these issues and to oppose the government’s policies.
For the Greens, lying is constant “principled” policy. I did not meet any Greens politicians that did not lie. In the next few weeks, I will write extensively about many greens politicians and their apparently “genetic” inclination to lie.
The Greens recently opposed the Gillard’s government decision to close down Tasmanian detention centre. The Greens alleges that they took this decision because they are concerned about the few jobs created by this inhumane “hell-hole”. The Greens is concerned that few security guards, cleaners, psychologists, psychiatrists and funeral services workers could lose their jobs if the detention centre closed down.
But the Greens do not care about hundred of thousands of jobs will be lost because of their policy to introduce Carbon Tax, end forest logging and other environmental policies. This does not mean that we support forest clearing or attack on environment. But it is just to give example of Greens political prostitution.
Bob Brown proud to be “human rights” activist. He is only active against Chinese rule of Tibet. He does not care about Israeli occupation of Palestine, parts of Syria and Lebanon. He was, and still, concerned about the human rights violations in Syria. But he does not care about the gross human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries ruled by regimes controlled by CIA.
Bob Brown concerned about refuges and asylum seekers, but only before elections. After elections, who cares? He participates in government that has the worst violation to human rights of asylum seekers beyond White Australia policy era. He also participates in a government that introduced the worst racist immigration policies in recent decades. Yet, he has the courage to appear on media and claim to be “left” and “human rights activist”. Frankly, I did not see Bob Brown on any rally against human rights abuses of boat people.
On economy: Bob claimed that he was responsible for saving Australia from the worst economic slowdown. In 2008, and in the face of turbulence in global markets, Kevin Rudd’s government introduced the worst economic stimulus package in any nation. What the Rudd government with complete support of Bob and his Greens party did was no more than the worst economic vandalism in this nation’s history. They wasted more than $60 Billion which created no single job. Yes, it was popular policy to give people cash in their hands, but such policy achieved nothing.
The slowdown was averted because China was able to create jobs and recover from the slow down, momentarily. So it was not Bob and his Greens party that saved Australian economy. It was Chinese economic stimulus in China that saved Australian jobs.
But the Greens and Bob are still having the courage to appear on National Press club and claim that they saved Australian economy from collapse.
The right legacy of Bob Brown (and his Greens): the best liar-politicians in Australia, ever.
The Greens leader was right to leave politics now. Now he can safely claim that he achieved the best result for the Greens. We deeply believe that in the next election, all these wins will evaporate as voters are discovering day after day the crystal clear fact about the Greens: The Greens is a party about nothing.... except power thirst. No ideology.. No comittments ... No achievments...
The media, politicians and other entities were today busy talking nice about this politician, as part of normal farewell speeches and praises.
But what was the real, ugly and devastating legacy of this cunning opportunist highly regressive politician?
Bob Brown, in his own resignation media conference which was full of lies, could not mention any achievement for him or his party but the introduction of Carbon Tax. And of course a lot of talk about “his” struggle as openly gay activist and politician. Though, he failed to inform us how he struggled being openly gay, apart from some verbal abuses....
Let us go deep and examine the real legacy of Bob Brown (and his Greens party).
Bob Brown was no more than a liar who was very good in making lies, selling them and then believing them himself.
Bob Brown and his Greens party claimed that Bob and his Greens politicians were always taking political stance based on principles and not on its popularity. Let us dissect some of these stances.
Bob Brown launched the biggest lie in his life when he claimed that he was the only politician in Australian parliament that stood up during Tampa standoff.
Going back to senate Hansard, we can easily discover that Bob Brown never talked about refugees and asylum seekers, immigration, racism or Islamophobia. The first time he talked about these issues was during Tampa farce. He understood that the timing was right to talk about this issue in this way.
During Tampa, the Democrats (which was the main party that was standing up for refugees and asylum seekers for years) was embroiled in deep infighting and was losing its popularity in the wake of its deal with John Howard’s government to introduce GST. The Labor party chose to follow the Howard’s government’s handling of the case. Bob Brown knew that more than one third of Australians were looking for strong leadership to stop Howard’s attack on refugees and asylum seekers. At that time the Greens had only 2.5% of the vote. So 30% of voters were very popular, and not as the Greens claim that they always stand on principles and not popularity.
But why the Greens never talked about the immigration, refugees and asylum seekers rights and multiculturalism in general?
The answer is very easy: because the Greens is the only pure white party that stands stiffly against any increase of population, on ecological- balance grounds. The Liberals, on pragmatic grounds, moved away from the racist policy of decreasing immigration and allowed substantial increase in immigration intake. The Greens is still insisting on the need to reduce migration to keep the ecological balance right!!!
The Greens was and still lying by saying that Bob Brown was the first and the only politician that talked against harsh treatment of boat people. The democrats, for example, have long history to talk about these issues and to oppose the government’s policies.
For the Greens, lying is constant “principled” policy. I did not meet any Greens politicians that did not lie. In the next few weeks, I will write extensively about many greens politicians and their apparently “genetic” inclination to lie.
The Greens recently opposed the Gillard’s government decision to close down Tasmanian detention centre. The Greens alleges that they took this decision because they are concerned about the few jobs created by this inhumane “hell-hole”. The Greens is concerned that few security guards, cleaners, psychologists, psychiatrists and funeral services workers could lose their jobs if the detention centre closed down.
But the Greens do not care about hundred of thousands of jobs will be lost because of their policy to introduce Carbon Tax, end forest logging and other environmental policies. This does not mean that we support forest clearing or attack on environment. But it is just to give example of Greens political prostitution.
Bob Brown proud to be “human rights” activist. He is only active against Chinese rule of Tibet. He does not care about Israeli occupation of Palestine, parts of Syria and Lebanon. He was, and still, concerned about the human rights violations in Syria. But he does not care about the gross human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries ruled by regimes controlled by CIA.
Bob Brown concerned about refuges and asylum seekers, but only before elections. After elections, who cares? He participates in government that has the worst violation to human rights of asylum seekers beyond White Australia policy era. He also participates in a government that introduced the worst racist immigration policies in recent decades. Yet, he has the courage to appear on media and claim to be “left” and “human rights activist”. Frankly, I did not see Bob Brown on any rally against human rights abuses of boat people.
On economy: Bob claimed that he was responsible for saving Australia from the worst economic slowdown. In 2008, and in the face of turbulence in global markets, Kevin Rudd’s government introduced the worst economic stimulus package in any nation. What the Rudd government with complete support of Bob and his Greens party did was no more than the worst economic vandalism in this nation’s history. They wasted more than $60 Billion which created no single job. Yes, it was popular policy to give people cash in their hands, but such policy achieved nothing.
The slowdown was averted because China was able to create jobs and recover from the slow down, momentarily. So it was not Bob and his Greens party that saved Australian economy. It was Chinese economic stimulus in China that saved Australian jobs.
But the Greens and Bob are still having the courage to appear on National Press club and claim that they saved Australian economy from collapse.
The right legacy of Bob Brown (and his Greens): the best liar-politicians in Australia, ever.
The Greens leader was right to leave politics now. Now he can safely claim that he achieved the best result for the Greens. We deeply believe that in the next election, all these wins will evaporate as voters are discovering day after day the crystal clear fact about the Greens: The Greens is a party about nothing.... except power thirst. No ideology.. No comittments ... No achievments...
Saturday, April 07, 2012
The Greens motion on Bahrain: Greens play sectarian bloody politics now....
The Greens have done it again, after again and again. The same tactics, the same timing for the same reasons.
Just before 4 months of NSW Local governments’ election, the Greens are waging huge deception campaign, this time using the Bahraini and Syrian blood.
Last year, before 4 months of NSW state election, the Greens waged huge deception campaign, that time on Palestinian blood. Do you remember when the Greens initiated motion in Marrickville council to boycott Israeli companies??? Then and immediately after the election, the same Greens councillors that initiated the motion sat down in the council chamber and voted against the same motion they initiated few months ago. The Palestinian blood was already sucked by the Greens in the NSW 2011 election campaign, and it was the time to move on....
Now it is the turn of Bahraini and Syrian blood.
First, the Greens moved a motion to condemn Syrian president, demand his resignation, trial in Hague, close Syrian embassy in Canberra and call on NATO to destroy the country. The motion was designed to win support of Muslim Sunni voters, including the very conservative extreme elements that usually do not vote for any political party.
But the Greens were not ready to lose the Shiia voters usually vote for the Greens in the last few elections because they swallowed the party’s huge deception campaigns about opposing Israeli occupation. So the Greens election machine came up with this idea: why not deceiving the Shiia voters the same way we deceived the Sunnis!!!
The Greens put the motion in NSW Legislative Council to “condemn the acts of the Government of Bahrain which stifle its people’s right to freely protest…”. Only to condemn Bahraini government, and not the king…. And only in NSW parliament…. Not in Federal parliament where foreign policy is made and updated…
The tactics is very simple.
The Greens want to deceive Sunni Muslims in NSW to vote for the party. But they do not want to upset the Shiia, who largely support the Syrian president and oppose any military action on Syria. So the Greens decided to create huge campaign to confuse Shiia Muslims and deceive them to prompt them to vote for the Greens, despite the Greens stance to encourage foreign military intervention in Syria to topple President Bashar Al Assad, in addition to the Greens support of sanctions on Iran.
Dirty tactics that play with people blood.
And the Greens have no intention to stop such bloody tactics, politics and campaigns.
To prove that the Greens motion on Bahrain was no more than a cheap bloody tactic to deceive mainly Shiia voters, let us ask few questions here:
1- Why did the Greens choose only NSW parliament to move this motion? Taking into account that the Greens have politicians in Federal parliament and parliaments of WA, Victoria, Tasmania, SA and ACT parliaments. Was this related to the fact that NSW will have election in September???!!
2- Why did the Greens move only this month on Bahraini issue and moved this motion, despite the fact that the revolution in Bahrain started February last year? Was this also related to the timing of NSW local government election?
3- Why the Greens put such a weak motion that only condemns the Bahraini government, with no demand to cut ties or sack the king and his government? Is this because the Greens do not want to upset USA, Saudi Arabia and its powerful lobby in Australia and extreme elements of Sunni communities?
The Greens motive behind this motion is very simple and very clear. The Greens want to deceive the Shiia Muslim voters.
The Shiia Muslim voters and all voters who oppose imperialist wars and American hegemonic bids to crush any opponent to its bloody politics should have been angry from the Greens stances on these issues.
The Greens support for NATO intervention in Syria and support for sanctions on Iran are something that could not be tolerated by any progressive voter. The Greens support for NATO intervention in both Syria and Iran exposes the real face of the Greens. The Greens is not a political party as such that have ambition to achieve socio-economic progressive reforms in the society (as they allege). The Greens is no more than an election machine to achieve better voting result for the sake of accumulating power only.
And this election machine has no morals or standards to adhere to. Now the Greens election machine decided to play on sectarian division in the society, after they played on suffering and blood of many people, including Palestinian and Lebanese blood and suffering.
The Greens should be urged thousand times before next election: please stop your Dracula-like bloody politics of sucking blood of fallen innocent people into your election machine….
On this instance we want to stress that we would not be very upset form the Greens if they have consistency in their politics. But we cannot understand how party supports peace, but urges NATO to destroy countries… How party supports multiculturalism, but does not tolerate any Non-English speaking elements in its hierarchy…. How party supports independence of nations, but at the same time supports listing of national resistance forces on terrorist lists (Greens supported listing of Hezbollah as terrorist organization).
And the Greens party is still claim to be “Left”…. Do not these actions qualify the Greens to be “Left-Over” instead…?
Just before 4 months of NSW Local governments’ election, the Greens are waging huge deception campaign, this time using the Bahraini and Syrian blood.
Last year, before 4 months of NSW state election, the Greens waged huge deception campaign, that time on Palestinian blood. Do you remember when the Greens initiated motion in Marrickville council to boycott Israeli companies??? Then and immediately after the election, the same Greens councillors that initiated the motion sat down in the council chamber and voted against the same motion they initiated few months ago. The Palestinian blood was already sucked by the Greens in the NSW 2011 election campaign, and it was the time to move on....
Now it is the turn of Bahraini and Syrian blood.
First, the Greens moved a motion to condemn Syrian president, demand his resignation, trial in Hague, close Syrian embassy in Canberra and call on NATO to destroy the country. The motion was designed to win support of Muslim Sunni voters, including the very conservative extreme elements that usually do not vote for any political party.
But the Greens were not ready to lose the Shiia voters usually vote for the Greens in the last few elections because they swallowed the party’s huge deception campaigns about opposing Israeli occupation. So the Greens election machine came up with this idea: why not deceiving the Shiia voters the same way we deceived the Sunnis!!!
The Greens put the motion in NSW Legislative Council to “condemn the acts of the Government of Bahrain which stifle its people’s right to freely protest…”. Only to condemn Bahraini government, and not the king…. And only in NSW parliament…. Not in Federal parliament where foreign policy is made and updated…
The tactics is very simple.
The Greens want to deceive Sunni Muslims in NSW to vote for the party. But they do not want to upset the Shiia, who largely support the Syrian president and oppose any military action on Syria. So the Greens decided to create huge campaign to confuse Shiia Muslims and deceive them to prompt them to vote for the Greens, despite the Greens stance to encourage foreign military intervention in Syria to topple President Bashar Al Assad, in addition to the Greens support of sanctions on Iran.
Dirty tactics that play with people blood.
And the Greens have no intention to stop such bloody tactics, politics and campaigns.
To prove that the Greens motion on Bahrain was no more than a cheap bloody tactic to deceive mainly Shiia voters, let us ask few questions here:
1- Why did the Greens choose only NSW parliament to move this motion? Taking into account that the Greens have politicians in Federal parliament and parliaments of WA, Victoria, Tasmania, SA and ACT parliaments. Was this related to the fact that NSW will have election in September???!!
2- Why did the Greens move only this month on Bahraini issue and moved this motion, despite the fact that the revolution in Bahrain started February last year? Was this also related to the timing of NSW local government election?
3- Why the Greens put such a weak motion that only condemns the Bahraini government, with no demand to cut ties or sack the king and his government? Is this because the Greens do not want to upset USA, Saudi Arabia and its powerful lobby in Australia and extreme elements of Sunni communities?
The Greens motive behind this motion is very simple and very clear. The Greens want to deceive the Shiia Muslim voters.
The Shiia Muslim voters and all voters who oppose imperialist wars and American hegemonic bids to crush any opponent to its bloody politics should have been angry from the Greens stances on these issues.
The Greens support for NATO intervention in Syria and support for sanctions on Iran are something that could not be tolerated by any progressive voter. The Greens support for NATO intervention in both Syria and Iran exposes the real face of the Greens. The Greens is not a political party as such that have ambition to achieve socio-economic progressive reforms in the society (as they allege). The Greens is no more than an election machine to achieve better voting result for the sake of accumulating power only.
And this election machine has no morals or standards to adhere to. Now the Greens election machine decided to play on sectarian division in the society, after they played on suffering and blood of many people, including Palestinian and Lebanese blood and suffering.
The Greens should be urged thousand times before next election: please stop your Dracula-like bloody politics of sucking blood of fallen innocent people into your election machine….
On this instance we want to stress that we would not be very upset form the Greens if they have consistency in their politics. But we cannot understand how party supports peace, but urges NATO to destroy countries… How party supports multiculturalism, but does not tolerate any Non-English speaking elements in its hierarchy…. How party supports independence of nations, but at the same time supports listing of national resistance forces on terrorist lists (Greens supported listing of Hezbollah as terrorist organization).
And the Greens party is still claim to be “Left”…. Do not these actions qualify the Greens to be “Left-Over” instead…?
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Queensland election: analysis of results and its causes...
Despite the fact that most of the political analysts and observers have considered the result of QLD election last weekend to be historical. But they failed to highlight the other interesting trends and results. They focussed only on the devastating loss of Labor and its failure to win more than 7 seats, so far.
We do not blame these analysts and observers for their focus on the Labor’s bloodbath and landslide loss of losing all seats but 7. They were shocked to wake up to a result where the Labor lost its party status, a rare scenario in Australian politics.
These analysts did not deeply investigate the holistic scenes and the real reasons for this Labor political catastrophe. Consequently, they failed to mention the other big losers and winners, apart from the LNP.
Any deep detailed investigation of what happened last weekend in QLD would definitely note the role of the Federal Labor and its failures on Federal level on the results of QLD election. For weeks, the Labor QLD premier, Anna Bligh, was asking both Gillard and Rudd to end their camps’ infighting on leadership. The indecisive Gillard victory did not put the infighting to rest for good.
Even after the failure of Rudd to unseat Gillard from the prime ministership, Julia is still the worst prime minister of this nation in recent decades. The consecutive opinion polls indicate very clearly that Ms Gillard is one of the most unpopular PM in Australian history. While Labor powerbrokers are very convinced that Gillard should go before the next federal election if it hopes to keep power or even to avoid total wipe-out, but Rudd’s arrogant and unpleasant character in working with his colleagues urged all of them to stick with Gillard, for the moment at least. The current circumstances of unstable minority government, enforced Labor powerbroker to stick with Gillard momentarily. This caused growing anger and dissatisfaction of Labor. The voters did not have opportunity to vend such anger, frustration and dissatisfaction of federal Labor, but on QLD Labor.
What makes things worse for QLD Labor is the impression among voters that the Labor became arrogant does not listen and have no flexibility to accommodate better political pragmatic solution for issues facing Australia. The voters saw the Labor fail to find any solution for any challenges Australia faces, even by retreating from solutions rejected by voters and their representatives.
There is no doubt that the Labor devastating defeat in QLD election was a devastating defeat for Labor at all levels, especially the Federal level. The government which was actually defeated last weekend was the Gillard paralysed and failed government, and not only Ana Bligh’s. This does not mean that Bligh’s government is good government that does not bear any responsibility, but it should take the whole blame and responsibility.
This fact was clear within some comments by Bligh and other Labor officials, when she resigned not only from the parliament but from all responsibilities within the party. She was quoted saying “we failed and we need fresh approach” in a clear indication that the current Labor loss of its direction was the real reason for failure.
The comments by some of previous Labor PMs added to this fact, when Peter Bettie and Paul Keating said very clearly that the Labor had lost its way and abandoned its traditions. And they are right. The Labor continued creeping to the right saw more and more Labor faithful departing for other alternatives.
In addition to the above issues, the political analysts and commentators have ignored many other emerging facts and results. They did not talk much about the Greens big defeat and crumbling voting.
The Greens did not only fail to win any seat in the state, but they failed to keep the votes they attracted in the last election.
In the last federal election conducted August 2010, the Greens secured the support of 260,000 of QLD’ers (11% of QLD voters). In the last weekend’s election, the QLD Greens secured the support of only 145,000 of QLD voters (7% of QLD voters). This means that the Greens faced big defeat by losing more than 40% of the votes they win in 2010 election. In less than 18 months, the Greens lost more than 110,000 voters.
This humiliating result came as confirmation to what we have been claiming for the last decade that the vote for the Greens is no more than a protest vote against Labor and Liberals, and not for Greens platform or policies.
The emerging of Bob Katter Australian party in QLD (won 2 seats for the first election they contest) as strong defender of ordinary people that stands up for poor against unemployment and against transfer of jobs overseas, against deteriorating life-style and against the powerful lobby of homosexuals, did affect greatly the voting for the Greens. This is another evidence of what we have said about the Greens vote as a protest vote against major parties that could be increased or decreased if alternative forces will emerge to defend the marginalised rights. Especially if the Greens achievement list within three decades of political representation is no more than serious talks about same-sex marriage and introducing Carbon Tax, which is highly unpopular among voters.
The result of the last weekend’s QLD election is a real warning message for this government (of 2 partners: Labor & Green). QLD voters sent clear message that we need effective government to find solutions for our problems, otherwise who cares of earthquake....
If the centre-left Labor-Greens government failed to stand up for multiculturalism, human rights (including rights of refugees and asylum seekers) and against Islamophobia. And if this government failed to stop the attacks on our welfare system and the attack on poor and unemployed. And if the government failed to find any solution for accommodation crisis. And if it failed to find any solution for crowded public health and public education. And if the government failed to improve working conditions, employment security and restore workers rights. And if the Labor-Greens government became a true copy of conservative Liberals one, but in a paralysed and subtly racist one, who will shed one tear if it loses power in the next election!!!!
QLD voters sent clear message. And according to all opinion polls conducted in the last few months, it represents the majority of Australians in other states.
Our message to Gillard government “learn from QLD election lessons, before you send Australia into Liberal-National-Katter tsunami”.
In our opinion, the first step for Labor powerbroker is to get rid of the crew that lead them in 2010 to the worst electoral defeat in Australian history. If Labor will not do this, it will not find one Australian sheds one tear when saying good-bye to them in the next election...
We do not blame these analysts and observers for their focus on the Labor’s bloodbath and landslide loss of losing all seats but 7. They were shocked to wake up to a result where the Labor lost its party status, a rare scenario in Australian politics.
These analysts did not deeply investigate the holistic scenes and the real reasons for this Labor political catastrophe. Consequently, they failed to mention the other big losers and winners, apart from the LNP.
Any deep detailed investigation of what happened last weekend in QLD would definitely note the role of the Federal Labor and its failures on Federal level on the results of QLD election. For weeks, the Labor QLD premier, Anna Bligh, was asking both Gillard and Rudd to end their camps’ infighting on leadership. The indecisive Gillard victory did not put the infighting to rest for good.
Even after the failure of Rudd to unseat Gillard from the prime ministership, Julia is still the worst prime minister of this nation in recent decades. The consecutive opinion polls indicate very clearly that Ms Gillard is one of the most unpopular PM in Australian history. While Labor powerbrokers are very convinced that Gillard should go before the next federal election if it hopes to keep power or even to avoid total wipe-out, but Rudd’s arrogant and unpleasant character in working with his colleagues urged all of them to stick with Gillard, for the moment at least. The current circumstances of unstable minority government, enforced Labor powerbroker to stick with Gillard momentarily. This caused growing anger and dissatisfaction of Labor. The voters did not have opportunity to vend such anger, frustration and dissatisfaction of federal Labor, but on QLD Labor.
What makes things worse for QLD Labor is the impression among voters that the Labor became arrogant does not listen and have no flexibility to accommodate better political pragmatic solution for issues facing Australia. The voters saw the Labor fail to find any solution for any challenges Australia faces, even by retreating from solutions rejected by voters and their representatives.
There is no doubt that the Labor devastating defeat in QLD election was a devastating defeat for Labor at all levels, especially the Federal level. The government which was actually defeated last weekend was the Gillard paralysed and failed government, and not only Ana Bligh’s. This does not mean that Bligh’s government is good government that does not bear any responsibility, but it should take the whole blame and responsibility.
This fact was clear within some comments by Bligh and other Labor officials, when she resigned not only from the parliament but from all responsibilities within the party. She was quoted saying “we failed and we need fresh approach” in a clear indication that the current Labor loss of its direction was the real reason for failure.
The comments by some of previous Labor PMs added to this fact, when Peter Bettie and Paul Keating said very clearly that the Labor had lost its way and abandoned its traditions. And they are right. The Labor continued creeping to the right saw more and more Labor faithful departing for other alternatives.
In addition to the above issues, the political analysts and commentators have ignored many other emerging facts and results. They did not talk much about the Greens big defeat and crumbling voting.
The Greens did not only fail to win any seat in the state, but they failed to keep the votes they attracted in the last election.
In the last federal election conducted August 2010, the Greens secured the support of 260,000 of QLD’ers (11% of QLD voters). In the last weekend’s election, the QLD Greens secured the support of only 145,000 of QLD voters (7% of QLD voters). This means that the Greens faced big defeat by losing more than 40% of the votes they win in 2010 election. In less than 18 months, the Greens lost more than 110,000 voters.
This humiliating result came as confirmation to what we have been claiming for the last decade that the vote for the Greens is no more than a protest vote against Labor and Liberals, and not for Greens platform or policies.
The emerging of Bob Katter Australian party in QLD (won 2 seats for the first election they contest) as strong defender of ordinary people that stands up for poor against unemployment and against transfer of jobs overseas, against deteriorating life-style and against the powerful lobby of homosexuals, did affect greatly the voting for the Greens. This is another evidence of what we have said about the Greens vote as a protest vote against major parties that could be increased or decreased if alternative forces will emerge to defend the marginalised rights. Especially if the Greens achievement list within three decades of political representation is no more than serious talks about same-sex marriage and introducing Carbon Tax, which is highly unpopular among voters.
The result of the last weekend’s QLD election is a real warning message for this government (of 2 partners: Labor & Green). QLD voters sent clear message that we need effective government to find solutions for our problems, otherwise who cares of earthquake....
If the centre-left Labor-Greens government failed to stand up for multiculturalism, human rights (including rights of refugees and asylum seekers) and against Islamophobia. And if this government failed to stop the attacks on our welfare system and the attack on poor and unemployed. And if the government failed to find any solution for accommodation crisis. And if it failed to find any solution for crowded public health and public education. And if the government failed to improve working conditions, employment security and restore workers rights. And if the Labor-Greens government became a true copy of conservative Liberals one, but in a paralysed and subtly racist one, who will shed one tear if it loses power in the next election!!!!
QLD voters sent clear message. And according to all opinion polls conducted in the last few months, it represents the majority of Australians in other states.
Our message to Gillard government “learn from QLD election lessons, before you send Australia into Liberal-National-Katter tsunami”.
In our opinion, the first step for Labor powerbroker is to get rid of the crew that lead them in 2010 to the worst electoral defeat in Australian history. If Labor will not do this, it will not find one Australian sheds one tear when saying good-bye to them in the next election...
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Open letter to Kevin Rudd on his comments about Iran and Syria
Dear Hon Kevin Rudd, Minister for Foreign Affairs
What prompted me to write this letter to you are your irresponsible comments in the last few days about issues important for the whole world.
In the last few days you were quoted first supporting the USA measures to isolate Iran and enforce more draconian measures of economical blockade and ban on oil exports.
Then yesterday you were quoted supporting USA and its allies in demanding international intervention in Syria and demanding President Assad to resign.
We would like to condemn your stances on both issues which are designed to initiate new military conflicts in the Middle East.
Let me explain to you the reasons behind our condemnation of your stance.
In the question of Iran, you think that such harsh embargo and sanctions are acceptable because of claims of Iranian military nuclear program. You and your government did not give us any explanation why you and your Western allies are very silent on the Israeli aggressive military nuclear program.
Where Iranian program is so far peaceful according to the latest report by IAEA, the Israeli military nuclear program is alive and running for the last few decades. We, as Australians, need to hear the reasons behind your clear hypocrisy on this issue. And we know that you will tell us that Iran is so different from Israel. And we believe so, too.
Iran so far did not invade, occupy and ethnically cleanse any of its neighboring countries and nations. Israel did all these. It occupies Palestine, parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It ethnically cleansed the indigenous people of Palestine, where the majority now are living as refugees, inside their country or in other countries. I and all my family were among those ethnically cleansed during the 1948 war.
On the question of Syria, we are sure that your comments came as you did not read the latest report of Arab observers sent to Syria a month ago. The observers noticed very clearly that the majority of crimes were conducted by armed militia financed and supported by foreign powers. You chose to follow blindly the stance of USA government, which is one of the foreign powers that are financing and supporting the armed militia’s activities against the Syrian civilians and armed forces.
You were quoted calling on president Assad of Syria to step down and give power to the opposition. We do not know if you are aware about the extreme risk of such move.
But we are very sure that President Assad will not listen to failed politician like you. If you cannot convince your failed leader to step down and hand the power back to you after she failed to manage this country, how would you convince president of independent foreign power to do so?
In this letter we want to convey to you a simple message: not in our name. Your participation of beating the war drums against Syria and Iran would not be supported by the majority of Australians. We also believe that the Australian participation in any future war in the Middle East will be major mistake that will destabilize the whole region, if not the whole world. We watched with deep concern the tensed debate in the UN Security Council meeting about the proposed military intervention in Syria. And we believe that invading Syria or Iran will not be without a lot of blood and very wide destruction.
We thought that Australian government under Labor-Greens should have been totally different (and less regressive) than a government under extreme Liberal-Nationals. Your comments in the last few days gave us deep suspicions about this.
The next election is not too far and we believe that peace-loving Australians will send your government a decisive tough message.
Thanks and I hope that you can find time to give us some convincing answers to our arguments and suspicions.
Yours
Jamal Daoud
Spokesperson, Social Justice Network
What prompted me to write this letter to you are your irresponsible comments in the last few days about issues important for the whole world.
In the last few days you were quoted first supporting the USA measures to isolate Iran and enforce more draconian measures of economical blockade and ban on oil exports.
Then yesterday you were quoted supporting USA and its allies in demanding international intervention in Syria and demanding President Assad to resign.
We would like to condemn your stances on both issues which are designed to initiate new military conflicts in the Middle East.
Let me explain to you the reasons behind our condemnation of your stance.
In the question of Iran, you think that such harsh embargo and sanctions are acceptable because of claims of Iranian military nuclear program. You and your government did not give us any explanation why you and your Western allies are very silent on the Israeli aggressive military nuclear program.
Where Iranian program is so far peaceful according to the latest report by IAEA, the Israeli military nuclear program is alive and running for the last few decades. We, as Australians, need to hear the reasons behind your clear hypocrisy on this issue. And we know that you will tell us that Iran is so different from Israel. And we believe so, too.
Iran so far did not invade, occupy and ethnically cleanse any of its neighboring countries and nations. Israel did all these. It occupies Palestine, parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It ethnically cleansed the indigenous people of Palestine, where the majority now are living as refugees, inside their country or in other countries. I and all my family were among those ethnically cleansed during the 1948 war.
On the question of Syria, we are sure that your comments came as you did not read the latest report of Arab observers sent to Syria a month ago. The observers noticed very clearly that the majority of crimes were conducted by armed militia financed and supported by foreign powers. You chose to follow blindly the stance of USA government, which is one of the foreign powers that are financing and supporting the armed militia’s activities against the Syrian civilians and armed forces.
You were quoted calling on president Assad of Syria to step down and give power to the opposition. We do not know if you are aware about the extreme risk of such move.
But we are very sure that President Assad will not listen to failed politician like you. If you cannot convince your failed leader to step down and hand the power back to you after she failed to manage this country, how would you convince president of independent foreign power to do so?
In this letter we want to convey to you a simple message: not in our name. Your participation of beating the war drums against Syria and Iran would not be supported by the majority of Australians. We also believe that the Australian participation in any future war in the Middle East will be major mistake that will destabilize the whole region, if not the whole world. We watched with deep concern the tensed debate in the UN Security Council meeting about the proposed military intervention in Syria. And we believe that invading Syria or Iran will not be without a lot of blood and very wide destruction.
We thought that Australian government under Labor-Greens should have been totally different (and less regressive) than a government under extreme Liberal-Nationals. Your comments in the last few days gave us deep suspicions about this.
The next election is not too far and we believe that peace-loving Australians will send your government a decisive tough message.
Thanks and I hope that you can find time to give us some convincing answers to our arguments and suspicions.
Yours
Jamal Daoud
Spokesperson, Social Justice Network
Monday, January 02, 2012
BDS campaign in Australia: one step forward ten backwards!!!
The Greens party’s latest decision to officially reject and abandon the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) campaign against Israel has exposed the naked truth that we were talking about for the last year. The decision by the Greens, while had great negative impact on the campaign for Palestinians rights in Australia, is a clear prove that the BDS campaign in Australia had started in the wrong way by the wrong people.
From the first day the Greens announced that they will push a motion in the Marrickville council to boycott Israel and Israeli companies, we announced that all circumstances are very suspicious. The timing was suspicious, just 3 months before NSW state election. The wording of the motion was highly suspicious. And the source of the motion was also highly suspicious. Since when was the Greens a credible “left” party that have any ideology or left agenda?
We put all our suspicions into few words and declared that the project would be a big failure (see our article on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html) for all above mentioned suspicious circumstances (and facts).
Then we were attacked by individuals and organisations that backed the move enthusiastically (the majority are Greens members assembled in pro-Palestinian “organisations” like the CJPP (Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine) to try to use the Palestinian blood and suffering for Greens electoral gains). The events in the following few months proved that we were right.
The Greens initiator of the motion and candidate for Marrickville seat in last year’s state election and after the first article in the Australian attacking her stance on the issue held a press conference and declared (and in written media release also) that she does not support BDS. She mentioned that she will not take the issue to the state parliament, if she wins the seat, contrary to the Greens careful wording of the original motion of the necessity to take the issue to the Federal and State levels of government.
And during the campaign the Greens leader, highly regressive Bob Brown who was never quoted talking about the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine during his 30 years career in politics, appeared on TV screens and announced that BDS is not supported officially by his party.
The last month’s decision by the Greens to officially abandon support for BDS should have sent wake call for all individuals and organisation that still putting all their bids on the Greens horse. These individuals and organisations (mainly either naive or Greens members) should wake up to the grim reality. The Greens is no more than a populist political prostitute that you never can count on for such important issue. The Greens record on acting on this issue is very poor, even poorer than Liberals record. Let us remember that the Greens proactively supported the banning of Palestinian national resistance forces, 2003. The Greens refused to participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine after Jenin massacres (2002), war on Lebanon (2006), war on Gaza (2008-2009),...
So what is next for BDS campaign?
In our opinion, the campaign was designed and started upside-down, and this is why it failed.
The campaign started from the top, trying to initiate the debate and campaign from councils and parliament. You do this only if you have strong lobby that is very well organised, have tremendous resources and plenty of political connections and influences.
The Zionist movement does depend on such campaigns. They have strong well organised lobby groups. They have plenty of resources, including plenty of powerful mainstream media outlets and strong political connections and influences, including Zionist MPs and ministers.
But for the pro-Palestinian camp, this is not the case. There is no strong organised lobby groups. There is no powerful resources. No support in media. And consequently no strong political connections and influences.
So the alternative would have been the grass-root campaigns among citizens. By doing this, the campaign would gather momentum to convince the politicians to support such camping for their electoral sake.
The BDS campaign should start by convincing Australians to embrace BDS principles on personal level. If we can convince Australians to start shopping away from Zionist products and stop using services provided by Zionist companies, then we could have strong start.
But we first need to start such campaign. Currently, even the Australians concerned about the Palestine issue do not have any clue about the importance and ways for BDS. How many times we have visited Palestinian, Muslim or pro-Palestinian friends and they offered Coca Cola or Nescafe for beverages? How many times we have seen them go to McDonalds or KFC for dinner? How many Israeli dates and products are sold in Muslim and Arabic shops?
This should be the first step. Not by helping the Greens trading the Palestinian blood and sufferings for cheap electoral gains.
The CJPP and other organisations should either declare that they are Greens-propaganda arms. Or they should maintain independence from the Greens and act in the interest of Palestinian people, as they declare in their declared objectives.
There is a lot of work to be done. And there is a long journey to walk to achieve any goals. But the direction is very important. If we start walking in the wrong direction, we will be lost with no achievement at all. We even would discover that we help the enemies, instead. And this is what we have discovered now after the Greens declaration of their real agenda, intents and belonging.
From the first day the Greens announced that they will push a motion in the Marrickville council to boycott Israel and Israeli companies, we announced that all circumstances are very suspicious. The timing was suspicious, just 3 months before NSW state election. The wording of the motion was highly suspicious. And the source of the motion was also highly suspicious. Since when was the Greens a credible “left” party that have any ideology or left agenda?
We put all our suspicions into few words and declared that the project would be a big failure (see our article on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html) for all above mentioned suspicious circumstances (and facts).
Then we were attacked by individuals and organisations that backed the move enthusiastically (the majority are Greens members assembled in pro-Palestinian “organisations” like the CJPP (Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine) to try to use the Palestinian blood and suffering for Greens electoral gains). The events in the following few months proved that we were right.
The Greens initiator of the motion and candidate for Marrickville seat in last year’s state election and after the first article in the Australian attacking her stance on the issue held a press conference and declared (and in written media release also) that she does not support BDS. She mentioned that she will not take the issue to the state parliament, if she wins the seat, contrary to the Greens careful wording of the original motion of the necessity to take the issue to the Federal and State levels of government.
And during the campaign the Greens leader, highly regressive Bob Brown who was never quoted talking about the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine during his 30 years career in politics, appeared on TV screens and announced that BDS is not supported officially by his party.
The last month’s decision by the Greens to officially abandon support for BDS should have sent wake call for all individuals and organisation that still putting all their bids on the Greens horse. These individuals and organisations (mainly either naive or Greens members) should wake up to the grim reality. The Greens is no more than a populist political prostitute that you never can count on for such important issue. The Greens record on acting on this issue is very poor, even poorer than Liberals record. Let us remember that the Greens proactively supported the banning of Palestinian national resistance forces, 2003. The Greens refused to participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine after Jenin massacres (2002), war on Lebanon (2006), war on Gaza (2008-2009),...
So what is next for BDS campaign?
In our opinion, the campaign was designed and started upside-down, and this is why it failed.
The campaign started from the top, trying to initiate the debate and campaign from councils and parliament. You do this only if you have strong lobby that is very well organised, have tremendous resources and plenty of political connections and influences.
The Zionist movement does depend on such campaigns. They have strong well organised lobby groups. They have plenty of resources, including plenty of powerful mainstream media outlets and strong political connections and influences, including Zionist MPs and ministers.
But for the pro-Palestinian camp, this is not the case. There is no strong organised lobby groups. There is no powerful resources. No support in media. And consequently no strong political connections and influences.
So the alternative would have been the grass-root campaigns among citizens. By doing this, the campaign would gather momentum to convince the politicians to support such camping for their electoral sake.
The BDS campaign should start by convincing Australians to embrace BDS principles on personal level. If we can convince Australians to start shopping away from Zionist products and stop using services provided by Zionist companies, then we could have strong start.
But we first need to start such campaign. Currently, even the Australians concerned about the Palestine issue do not have any clue about the importance and ways for BDS. How many times we have visited Palestinian, Muslim or pro-Palestinian friends and they offered Coca Cola or Nescafe for beverages? How many times we have seen them go to McDonalds or KFC for dinner? How many Israeli dates and products are sold in Muslim and Arabic shops?
This should be the first step. Not by helping the Greens trading the Palestinian blood and sufferings for cheap electoral gains.
The CJPP and other organisations should either declare that they are Greens-propaganda arms. Or they should maintain independence from the Greens and act in the interest of Palestinian people, as they declare in their declared objectives.
There is a lot of work to be done. And there is a long journey to walk to achieve any goals. But the direction is very important. If we start walking in the wrong direction, we will be lost with no achievement at all. We even would discover that we help the enemies, instead. And this is what we have discovered now after the Greens declaration of their real agenda, intents and belonging.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Opinion on London riots: Would Australia be next?!
I was refraining from writing about London riots for the last week. But the issue is very hot and attractive. And there are tons of questions to be asked about how “democracies” fail so miserably to the point of citizens looting public and private buildings.
My personal experiences for the last few months are clear example of reasons to reach the point of “let us take law on our hands”.
Today was the climax. I received a letter from the State Debt Recovery Office (the most hated state department in NSW) informing me that my drivers licence will be suspended sometime at the end of the month. The reasons were that I did not appear in the court, where I sought court review of parking fine. Then I failed to pay the money determined by the court. When I contacted the SDRO, I informed them that I never received notice to attend the court. I also did not receive any letter of the court decision. Not only this. I never received notice from the SDRO asking me to pay the money, ways to pay the money and how much I should pay.
It is not about the fine, anymore. It is about the system. The system where punch of politicians are using the might of the state (including many security agencies) to oppress the majority of population. All by laws they agreed to adopt and within “democratic” context.
The whole fine issue was about someone with authority has put a bus stop sign on telephone post, where not many people can notice it (as money trap to collect as much as possible for the council). Then the same authority sent rangers to issue fines. Then the same authority sent another office to punish the black goat that refused to put its head with other heads and give up. And if you do not accept the punishment, the same authority sends police to further punish the black goat and threaten with jail if it insists to stay rebellious.
Would this minor issue prompt me to accept the logic of rioters in London?
Let us go back few days in the week. Me and My friend Hussein went to obtain him a licence. Ordinary worker there who had prejudice against his ethnicity and against the unauthorised legal way that drove him to this country, told him that she will not do her job and facilitate achieving this mission. He can go and bang his head against any wall in the street, but no licence will be issued or tests organised. But he still has the right to shout, argue and get upset. But he cannot shout louder, as this would result into fines for “disturbing public peace”.
Is that all???
Of course not. I also remembered how I was treated like criminal when the minister for immigration lost control of his department when detainees in many detention centres decided that enough is enough. The minister so naively accused me of all these troubles and verbally asked the authorities to ban me from entering any detention centre. And racist police officers were leashed with full authority to humiliate me and oppress me to the point that I thought that I am living in Zimbabwe. And to date, I was unable to obtain written ban. And all my complaints against the racist police officers went unnoticed. And I also can bang my head against any wall. This is democracy: you have the right to bang your head against any wall, but not to the point of destroying this wall. That would be “damaging public or private properties”. And we are still in democracy.
And before that I was subjected to some of worst racist and degrading treatment at work. And because there are not enough evidences, the racism and Islamophobia went unnoticed but some very small amount of money to prove that it is still democracy, somehow.
All this in addition to the difficulty finding suitable accommodation, bad experience in public hospitals, expensive food, skyrocketing electricity and gas bills, block of access to decision making bodies, ....
But it is democracy: you have the right to ask, complain and criticise, but them they have the right to ignore you.
And now today at this moment, I wonder if I, as one of the highest law abiding citizen in this country who is doing all within his capacity (and even beyond that capacity sometimes) to help others and help building better society, is subjected to such humiliating treatment, what is about the rest of the society who are more marginalised than me (they are in millions)?
Was this the major reason behind London riots?
You feel humiliated, robbed by different organisations (including your own “democratic” government), cannot have decent life, expensive life style, high taxes, fines in violating laws or not violating any law, ailing health system where you can be humiliated by nurse or doctors for asking why you have waited for long time to see any professional, no decent accommodation .... All these while you can see that the common wealth is robbed by few people, including the politicians that punish you by either more taxes or fines for every move in your life.
And justice is very slow when you want something from them, they humiliated you, they denied your rights or when you need any vital service. They have the right to refuse your request. Then you have the right to appeal. This would take years. And the system is designed for your appeal to fail. Then you can go to higher legal system level. After all these accessed, you will be already lost more than what you will gain.
But the justice is very quick and decisive when they want something from you, when you make any small mistake or they discover that you have accessed more than is allowed for you. The justice fist at that time is very strong, even if they will destroy your life.
So in both scenarios, your life is destroyed. But in the first scenario, if you can prove that they hurt you or caused you any damage, they also do not care. Because they will compensate you from the tax you had paid during your life. Or maybe they compensate you from the taxes paid by your brother, sister, wife or neighbour. They do not lose anything.
Does this give grim picture? Can you imagine that 1 in every 4 Australians has mental health problems.
But all in democratic context. So we should be happy.
But why British were not happy within this democratic context. They are not happy with exercising their democratic rights to be humiliated, robbed and oppressed in democratic way.
Do you think that this is the reasons (or part of the reasons) that thousands of “hooligans” roamed London, Manchester, Liverpool .... in the last few days?
When people lose hope of being respected, listened to, cared for and participated in decision making, they will do this. And it is clearly that British had reached this point.
So the question here: is Australia too far from this stage?
I can declare very clearly here that I am not very far at all from this stage. But apart from me, are there many Australians feel the same?
The result of the last election where the informal vote was very high and people deliberately declared that “all politicians are the same, all are crooks”, is clear evidence that Australians (or large section of them) have reached close to the British state.
It is not British only. Few months ago, Greek, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese did similar things.
We lost the hope. Yes we did, where the laws became very blind, heavy handed and violate basic rights.
Would I participate in any riots if happened in Australia?
I am not sure if I have the courage.
But who cares about me: what about homeless (after the department of housing is telling them that there are cheap accommodation that they can rent, when the market is very dry), unemployed (who are tortured by Centrelink and authorities), marginalised in the suburbs (where laws turned them into criminals because they speed at some stage or they lost nerve at public department), former detainees who need to put up with prejudice and feel of guilt for the rest of their lives, sick people who are treated like trash in hospitals, students who needs big fortune to complete simple study, ....
Would they refuse to stand up for their rights, indefinitely?
After the uprising in most of Western countries, Australians will think about standing for their rights, their future and the future of their children. They are coming into terms with the bitter reality: The democracy will not stop politicians (who act mainly on behalf of big corporations) from taking away their rights and privileges.
Democracy needs power to protect democratic rights, especially after many of these democratic rights were already taken away in the last decades.
My personal experiences for the last few months are clear example of reasons to reach the point of “let us take law on our hands”.
Today was the climax. I received a letter from the State Debt Recovery Office (the most hated state department in NSW) informing me that my drivers licence will be suspended sometime at the end of the month. The reasons were that I did not appear in the court, where I sought court review of parking fine. Then I failed to pay the money determined by the court. When I contacted the SDRO, I informed them that I never received notice to attend the court. I also did not receive any letter of the court decision. Not only this. I never received notice from the SDRO asking me to pay the money, ways to pay the money and how much I should pay.
It is not about the fine, anymore. It is about the system. The system where punch of politicians are using the might of the state (including many security agencies) to oppress the majority of population. All by laws they agreed to adopt and within “democratic” context.
The whole fine issue was about someone with authority has put a bus stop sign on telephone post, where not many people can notice it (as money trap to collect as much as possible for the council). Then the same authority sent rangers to issue fines. Then the same authority sent another office to punish the black goat that refused to put its head with other heads and give up. And if you do not accept the punishment, the same authority sends police to further punish the black goat and threaten with jail if it insists to stay rebellious.
Would this minor issue prompt me to accept the logic of rioters in London?
Let us go back few days in the week. Me and My friend Hussein went to obtain him a licence. Ordinary worker there who had prejudice against his ethnicity and against the unauthorised legal way that drove him to this country, told him that she will not do her job and facilitate achieving this mission. He can go and bang his head against any wall in the street, but no licence will be issued or tests organised. But he still has the right to shout, argue and get upset. But he cannot shout louder, as this would result into fines for “disturbing public peace”.
Is that all???
Of course not. I also remembered how I was treated like criminal when the minister for immigration lost control of his department when detainees in many detention centres decided that enough is enough. The minister so naively accused me of all these troubles and verbally asked the authorities to ban me from entering any detention centre. And racist police officers were leashed with full authority to humiliate me and oppress me to the point that I thought that I am living in Zimbabwe. And to date, I was unable to obtain written ban. And all my complaints against the racist police officers went unnoticed. And I also can bang my head against any wall. This is democracy: you have the right to bang your head against any wall, but not to the point of destroying this wall. That would be “damaging public or private properties”. And we are still in democracy.
And before that I was subjected to some of worst racist and degrading treatment at work. And because there are not enough evidences, the racism and Islamophobia went unnoticed but some very small amount of money to prove that it is still democracy, somehow.
All this in addition to the difficulty finding suitable accommodation, bad experience in public hospitals, expensive food, skyrocketing electricity and gas bills, block of access to decision making bodies, ....
But it is democracy: you have the right to ask, complain and criticise, but them they have the right to ignore you.
And now today at this moment, I wonder if I, as one of the highest law abiding citizen in this country who is doing all within his capacity (and even beyond that capacity sometimes) to help others and help building better society, is subjected to such humiliating treatment, what is about the rest of the society who are more marginalised than me (they are in millions)?
Was this the major reason behind London riots?
You feel humiliated, robbed by different organisations (including your own “democratic” government), cannot have decent life, expensive life style, high taxes, fines in violating laws or not violating any law, ailing health system where you can be humiliated by nurse or doctors for asking why you have waited for long time to see any professional, no decent accommodation .... All these while you can see that the common wealth is robbed by few people, including the politicians that punish you by either more taxes or fines for every move in your life.
And justice is very slow when you want something from them, they humiliated you, they denied your rights or when you need any vital service. They have the right to refuse your request. Then you have the right to appeal. This would take years. And the system is designed for your appeal to fail. Then you can go to higher legal system level. After all these accessed, you will be already lost more than what you will gain.
But the justice is very quick and decisive when they want something from you, when you make any small mistake or they discover that you have accessed more than is allowed for you. The justice fist at that time is very strong, even if they will destroy your life.
So in both scenarios, your life is destroyed. But in the first scenario, if you can prove that they hurt you or caused you any damage, they also do not care. Because they will compensate you from the tax you had paid during your life. Or maybe they compensate you from the taxes paid by your brother, sister, wife or neighbour. They do not lose anything.
Does this give grim picture? Can you imagine that 1 in every 4 Australians has mental health problems.
But all in democratic context. So we should be happy.
But why British were not happy within this democratic context. They are not happy with exercising their democratic rights to be humiliated, robbed and oppressed in democratic way.
Do you think that this is the reasons (or part of the reasons) that thousands of “hooligans” roamed London, Manchester, Liverpool .... in the last few days?
When people lose hope of being respected, listened to, cared for and participated in decision making, they will do this. And it is clearly that British had reached this point.
So the question here: is Australia too far from this stage?
I can declare very clearly here that I am not very far at all from this stage. But apart from me, are there many Australians feel the same?
The result of the last election where the informal vote was very high and people deliberately declared that “all politicians are the same, all are crooks”, is clear evidence that Australians (or large section of them) have reached close to the British state.
It is not British only. Few months ago, Greek, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese did similar things.
We lost the hope. Yes we did, where the laws became very blind, heavy handed and violate basic rights.
Would I participate in any riots if happened in Australia?
I am not sure if I have the courage.
But who cares about me: what about homeless (after the department of housing is telling them that there are cheap accommodation that they can rent, when the market is very dry), unemployed (who are tortured by Centrelink and authorities), marginalised in the suburbs (where laws turned them into criminals because they speed at some stage or they lost nerve at public department), former detainees who need to put up with prejudice and feel of guilt for the rest of their lives, sick people who are treated like trash in hospitals, students who needs big fortune to complete simple study, ....
Would they refuse to stand up for their rights, indefinitely?
After the uprising in most of Western countries, Australians will think about standing for their rights, their future and the future of their children. They are coming into terms with the bitter reality: The democracy will not stop politicians (who act mainly on behalf of big corporations) from taking away their rights and privileges.
Democracy needs power to protect democratic rights, especially after many of these democratic rights were already taken away in the last decades.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Letter to NSW Premier about the draconian undemocratic and impractical political donations' reporting laws
2 August 2011
Dear Hon Barry O’Farrell, NSW Premier
In this letter we explain to you our deep concerns about the NSW unique political donations reporting system. We can easily argue that this unique system is impractical, complicated, undemocratic and designed to serve no good reason.
We cannot deny that there is some good will in the system, by disallowing donations from tobacco, liquor and gambling industries. But still we believe that such good will is not practical to be achieved and enforced.
Our biggest problem is with the complicated nature of the system, including:
1- The requirement of disclosing expenditures: The Electoral Expenditure to be reported is defined in the system as “expenditure on promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly, a political party, or the election of a candidate or candidates. It is also expenditure on influencing the voting at an election”
2- The complicated nature of reporting Electoral Expenditures. This includes the need to have “Official Agent” (with certain requirements of this agent) and the need to hire company auditor.
3- The discriminatory nature of prohibited donors.
We have major concern with the first item, mainly. We believe that this system is designed to limit political participation of mainly marginalised groups. Currently, the citizens’ participation in political system is very low, and such system will further decrease this participation.
But let us look at the practical aspect of this requirement.
The system as currently stands will require anyone who wants to send a message during election period, to go through very complicated and exhausting system.
Let me give you examples, to show how this system is both impractical and indeed an attack on the basic rights of citizens to voice their concerns. Indeed it aims to gagg people and limit freedom of speech of ordinary or active unorganised individuals.
Let us assume that I have only $200 and I want to use them to send message of dissatisfaction to my local member. I can use this $200 by:
1- Printing home-designed poster against the member and stick them on posts or on walls of local businesses or outside homes.
2- Print hundreds of leaflets and distribute them to letter-boxes of local residents.
In doing this, I will be obliged to:
1- Register with the NSW EFA.
2- Appoint Official Agent.
3- Fill forms to report expenditures every year.
4- Hire company auditor to go through these forms and approve them.
Would not this be called “crack down on freedom of speech and opinions”? Would not this create many obstacles for political participation and could lead either to marginalisation of citizens or resorting to under-ground activities?
Then the biggest question here is who will watch the millions of NSW voters during election period? Does not this look like that we are living in police state, now.
Also, will the NSW EFA hire enough people to go through streets to catch people who hang stickers or posters on posts and walls? Does the NSW EFA has the capacity to go through internet of people to follow people’s postings that will affect the election, attack candidate or advocate for a candidate? Do not we describe this to be “censorship of ideas and thoughts”?
We believe that these laws and this system are gross abuse of citizens’ rights to express opinions and thoughts. Now, the NSW EFA will be appointed as a guardian on our brains, pins and computers.
And here let me ask few questions:
1- The Friends of Auburn Library organised a “candidates’ debate” during the election period: are they require to report for “Electoral Expenditures”?
2- Some Falung Gong families organised small gathering to “meet the local candidates”: Did they register with NSW EFA for reporting?
3- My friend shouted on local member and demanded that people vote against her: Is he required to appoint “Official Agent” and provide the EFA about his “Electoral Expenditures”?
4- What is the status of journalists who criticised this candidate or that one? What about “casual” journalists or active community members who send “letter to editor” that could affect the outcome of the election?
5- What about private conversation between me and my GP about the election? Does not my GP require to register for reporting?
After these plain examples, do not you think that this system is very ridiculous, naive, and undemocratic and was introduced by government that lost its mandate and was very desperate to appease the Greens before the last election? Do not you think that it is the time to expose the naivety of this system, its impracticability and the draconian side of its requirements?
We, as a small group that campaigned for the last 2 state elections in different seats with high marginalised communities, we believe that this system was introduced to stop small groups like our to participate in the political system. It has nothing to do with making political system more efficient, more transparent or more progressive. On the opposite. It limits the participation of marginalised people in the political system and pushes them to shut their ideas and minds.
Now, why the prohibited donors were limited to groups that the Greens are enemies with? Why only developers? Do not the drug manufacturers make donations to influence the political decisions of law-makers?
Then why there is need for company auditor to audit the forms? This is a political process that should involve people active in politics. Does not this requirement constitute extra obstacle for independent people to run for election to voice their concerns? How would a poor protestor who shouted on local member find enough money to hire company auditor to audit the required forms?
We believe that this system does not serve any democratic system that allows grass root democratic campaigns. The irony here is that the system was proposed and enforced by the Greens, the party that pride themselves to be “progressive” party believes in grass-root campaigns.
We hope that you can take this letter into consideration in a bid to scrap this undemocratic unrealistic system. We believe that you (unlike Labor in its last term) have the mandate and the power to do so.
While we did not agree with Liberals before on any issue, but you will have our full support on this issue.
Thanks and if you need to discuss these issues further, I can be contacted on 0404 447 272
Yours sincerely
Jamal Daoud
Dear Hon Barry O’Farrell, NSW Premier
In this letter we explain to you our deep concerns about the NSW unique political donations reporting system. We can easily argue that this unique system is impractical, complicated, undemocratic and designed to serve no good reason.
We cannot deny that there is some good will in the system, by disallowing donations from tobacco, liquor and gambling industries. But still we believe that such good will is not practical to be achieved and enforced.
Our biggest problem is with the complicated nature of the system, including:
1- The requirement of disclosing expenditures: The Electoral Expenditure to be reported is defined in the system as “expenditure on promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly, a political party, or the election of a candidate or candidates. It is also expenditure on influencing the voting at an election”
2- The complicated nature of reporting Electoral Expenditures. This includes the need to have “Official Agent” (with certain requirements of this agent) and the need to hire company auditor.
3- The discriminatory nature of prohibited donors.
We have major concern with the first item, mainly. We believe that this system is designed to limit political participation of mainly marginalised groups. Currently, the citizens’ participation in political system is very low, and such system will further decrease this participation.
But let us look at the practical aspect of this requirement.
The system as currently stands will require anyone who wants to send a message during election period, to go through very complicated and exhausting system.
Let me give you examples, to show how this system is both impractical and indeed an attack on the basic rights of citizens to voice their concerns. Indeed it aims to gagg people and limit freedom of speech of ordinary or active unorganised individuals.
Let us assume that I have only $200 and I want to use them to send message of dissatisfaction to my local member. I can use this $200 by:
1- Printing home-designed poster against the member and stick them on posts or on walls of local businesses or outside homes.
2- Print hundreds of leaflets and distribute them to letter-boxes of local residents.
In doing this, I will be obliged to:
1- Register with the NSW EFA.
2- Appoint Official Agent.
3- Fill forms to report expenditures every year.
4- Hire company auditor to go through these forms and approve them.
Would not this be called “crack down on freedom of speech and opinions”? Would not this create many obstacles for political participation and could lead either to marginalisation of citizens or resorting to under-ground activities?
Then the biggest question here is who will watch the millions of NSW voters during election period? Does not this look like that we are living in police state, now.
Also, will the NSW EFA hire enough people to go through streets to catch people who hang stickers or posters on posts and walls? Does the NSW EFA has the capacity to go through internet of people to follow people’s postings that will affect the election, attack candidate or advocate for a candidate? Do not we describe this to be “censorship of ideas and thoughts”?
We believe that these laws and this system are gross abuse of citizens’ rights to express opinions and thoughts. Now, the NSW EFA will be appointed as a guardian on our brains, pins and computers.
And here let me ask few questions:
1- The Friends of Auburn Library organised a “candidates’ debate” during the election period: are they require to report for “Electoral Expenditures”?
2- Some Falung Gong families organised small gathering to “meet the local candidates”: Did they register with NSW EFA for reporting?
3- My friend shouted on local member and demanded that people vote against her: Is he required to appoint “Official Agent” and provide the EFA about his “Electoral Expenditures”?
4- What is the status of journalists who criticised this candidate or that one? What about “casual” journalists or active community members who send “letter to editor” that could affect the outcome of the election?
5- What about private conversation between me and my GP about the election? Does not my GP require to register for reporting?
After these plain examples, do not you think that this system is very ridiculous, naive, and undemocratic and was introduced by government that lost its mandate and was very desperate to appease the Greens before the last election? Do not you think that it is the time to expose the naivety of this system, its impracticability and the draconian side of its requirements?
We, as a small group that campaigned for the last 2 state elections in different seats with high marginalised communities, we believe that this system was introduced to stop small groups like our to participate in the political system. It has nothing to do with making political system more efficient, more transparent or more progressive. On the opposite. It limits the participation of marginalised people in the political system and pushes them to shut their ideas and minds.
Now, why the prohibited donors were limited to groups that the Greens are enemies with? Why only developers? Do not the drug manufacturers make donations to influence the political decisions of law-makers?
Then why there is need for company auditor to audit the forms? This is a political process that should involve people active in politics. Does not this requirement constitute extra obstacle for independent people to run for election to voice their concerns? How would a poor protestor who shouted on local member find enough money to hire company auditor to audit the required forms?
We believe that this system does not serve any democratic system that allows grass root democratic campaigns. The irony here is that the system was proposed and enforced by the Greens, the party that pride themselves to be “progressive” party believes in grass-root campaigns.
We hope that you can take this letter into consideration in a bid to scrap this undemocratic unrealistic system. We believe that you (unlike Labor in its last term) have the mandate and the power to do so.
While we did not agree with Liberals before on any issue, but you will have our full support on this issue.
Thanks and if you need to discuss these issues further, I can be contacted on 0404 447 272
Yours sincerely
Jamal Daoud
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Greens thirst for Palestinian blood: never ending game to gain some votes!!!
Tomorrow is the time for harvest of the latest Palestinian blood auction. NSW Greens senator is appearing to vend more lies about her party’s political prostitution on the continued Palestinian blood spells. And we know the cliché “The lies” about the Greens continued support for ... who ... Nobody knows. But she will open the auction: how much Palestinian blood in return for each vote to the Greens!!!
The Greens line is very clear: follow the safe line to win votes from all sides.
Let us concentrate on Palestinian issue.
The Greens refused to officially participate in Australian fact-finding mission to West Bank in the aftermath of Jenin and Ramallah massacres, 2002. The mission organised by Australian unions, who sent official invitation to the Greens to lead the mission. The Greens refused the invitation utterly because the Greens do not want to be seen in the media as “Pro-Palestinian” party (as I was personally told by Kerry Nettle, the Greens senator then). But the Greens would not miss this opportunity for political prostitution to win some Palestinian and pro-Palestine votes. They convinced someone from the Greens to participate in the mission, on individual basis.
As the mission visited West Bank, the Greens member presence gave indication that the Greens are a progressive party. When the mission returned back to Australia, the Greens member appeared in media and hence won the Greens a lot of votes among progressive voters. But at the same time, when the media contacted the Greens hierarchy, they were told that the Greens member went as individual, and not representative of the Greens.
The Greens killed too many birds with one stone.
The same is happening now.
The Greens never participated in Palestinian solidarity missions. This year, they wanted to kill too many birds with one stone, again. They convinced retired Greens MP to participate in the Freedom Flotilla II to Gaza. The Greens want the media to mention the Greens name on media outlets, so that many progressive voters could be deceived by this mentioning. But at the same time, the Greens official stance is that “this is individual participation from former MP”.
Otherwise, why the Greens:
1- Did not send one of its sitting MPs?
2- Why the Greens did not promote the flotilla and its mission on the Greens official sites?
3- Why the Greens did not announce its endorsement of the flotilla mission?
Bob Brown was very clear few months ago “I am the Greens leader, and I am the one who speak on foreign affairs”. The media knows this. The other politicians know this. But the public, especially desperate progressive public who is struggling to find any progressive politician to trust, do not know this.
It is our mission to let them know.
If the Greens support the mission of Ms Hale, former Greens MP, let Mr Brown tell us this. Not only this. Let them publish endorsement and progress of the mission on the Greens sites and in public papers and literature.
We know that the Greens cannot do this. We challenge them to do this.
We say now that it is enough playing with Palestinian blood. As one of the Palestinians whose blood on sale, please stop.
So fellow Greens politicians, please keep
The Greens line is very clear: follow the safe line to win votes from all sides.
Let us concentrate on Palestinian issue.
The Greens refused to officially participate in Australian fact-finding mission to West Bank in the aftermath of Jenin and Ramallah massacres, 2002. The mission organised by Australian unions, who sent official invitation to the Greens to lead the mission. The Greens refused the invitation utterly because the Greens do not want to be seen in the media as “Pro-Palestinian” party (as I was personally told by Kerry Nettle, the Greens senator then). But the Greens would not miss this opportunity for political prostitution to win some Palestinian and pro-Palestine votes. They convinced someone from the Greens to participate in the mission, on individual basis.
As the mission visited West Bank, the Greens member presence gave indication that the Greens are a progressive party. When the mission returned back to Australia, the Greens member appeared in media and hence won the Greens a lot of votes among progressive voters. But at the same time, when the media contacted the Greens hierarchy, they were told that the Greens member went as individual, and not representative of the Greens.
The Greens killed too many birds with one stone.
The same is happening now.
The Greens never participated in Palestinian solidarity missions. This year, they wanted to kill too many birds with one stone, again. They convinced retired Greens MP to participate in the Freedom Flotilla II to Gaza. The Greens want the media to mention the Greens name on media outlets, so that many progressive voters could be deceived by this mentioning. But at the same time, the Greens official stance is that “this is individual participation from former MP”.
Otherwise, why the Greens:
1- Did not send one of its sitting MPs?
2- Why the Greens did not promote the flotilla and its mission on the Greens official sites?
3- Why the Greens did not announce its endorsement of the flotilla mission?
Bob Brown was very clear few months ago “I am the Greens leader, and I am the one who speak on foreign affairs”. The media knows this. The other politicians know this. But the public, especially desperate progressive public who is struggling to find any progressive politician to trust, do not know this.
It is our mission to let them know.
If the Greens support the mission of Ms Hale, former Greens MP, let Mr Brown tell us this. Not only this. Let them publish endorsement and progress of the mission on the Greens sites and in public papers and literature.
We know that the Greens cannot do this. We challenge them to do this.
We say now that it is enough playing with Palestinian blood. As one of the Palestinians whose blood on sale, please stop.
So fellow Greens politicians, please keep
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Why the Greens are not rushing on boat people issue!!!
It will be so naive and unrealistic for anyone to deny the unique situation in Australian politics at the moment. It will also equally unrealistic to deny the Greens influence on the the current government, when they wish to use such influence.
The political influence is very clear on achievements on many fronts. Such achievements would not happen in normal situation, even if the Greens will continue to hold the balance of power in the senate.
The Greens political luck is double, at the moment:
1- The Greens are lucky to have the most naive unexperienced and inflexible government Australia had in recent decades.
2- The Greens are holding the balance of power with Labor government, and not Liberal-National.
The unique situation is that we are having minority government for the first time in the last few decades. This situation enables the Greens to be crucial in both houses. And this is why they could have crucial power if they wish.
The political power is displayed in the Greens successful in enforcing the minority government to introduce legislations or move Labor to change its stance on issues, that would not be possible in normal circumstances.
Some examples on this:
1- The Greens enforced Labor to introduce Carbon Tax, against clear commitments before the last election made by Julia Gillard’s government of “never ever under my government”.
2- The Labor change of heart on re-opening of the debate within the party on the same-sex marriage. This is against all commitments by Rudd’s government on the basis of religious commitment and Gillard’s refusal on the basis of anti-marriage stance she personally took.
3- The immediate ban of live cattle export to Indonesia.
While we think that the Greens luck would be short lived, as all indications suggest conservative tsunami in the next election. Such tsunami which would put the Greens face to face with their reality. Not only this. We would love to see the Greens continue to hold balance of power in the senate under conservative government, with their philosophy of being “cooperative opposition” that uses its control of balance of power “sensibly” as Bob Brown loves to put it.
We will explain such scenarios in next article.
But here, and after explaining the great influence of the Greens on Australian weak minority government, we need to ask a question: Why the Greens was successful on many issues, but stands impotent on stopping the Labor gross inhumane treatment of asylum seekers?
Before we answer this simple question, let us follow the Greens success story recently.
The Greens party started its political activism early 70s of the last century. Then a political party was formed in the mid of 70s of the last century. But since then, the Greens had no real political success or influence, apart from success in Tasmanian state election in late 80s. In all states, the Greens influence never exceeded one or two members of state parliaments in NSW and WA, only.
It was not until Tampa, that the Greens star started to shine. Again, the Greens were very lucky politically. At that time, the Democrats were losing its popularity because they held balance of power during very conservative government. Howard’s far right government could squeeze the Democrats on many issues, including especially the introduction of GST. So the only opposition voice the voters could hear during Tampa was the voice of the Greens.
So the rise of the Greens political success was on the back of the suffering of boat people. The Greens could double their popularity in 2001 election, from 2.5% to 4.96%. Such achievement that they could not achieve within more than 25 years of political existence. All this was because of Tampa.
The following election, 2004, the debate on boat people treatment was still raging. The Howard’s government was still campaigning on racism and Islamophobia. The Labor was not giving any real alternative. And the Democrats were already on boiling point with deep divisions and infightings. Again, the only alternative on issues of racism, Islamophobia and refugees (which were the main issue for the election) was the Greens. The Greens could again increase its voting by more than third (from 5% to 7.2%).
The issues of boat people, refugees and migration were negligible issues during the 2007 election. The only election item in that election was Work Choices. Surprisingly, The Greens voting stalled on 7.7%.
But when the boat people, refugees and migration became central issue for the last 2010 election, the Greens popularity jumped to historically high record of 11.76%. During the election, the only pressing issue was the boat people, border protection and fighting against people smugglers.
After this analysis, can anyone be doubt about the importance of raging racism, Islamophobia and boat people bashing in the Greens success story?
The Greens leadership and politicians know very well that without the debate on refugees and asylum seekers, their popularity will sink again.
This is why they keep talking on the issue, but no decisive actions or ultimatum to the minority government.
How ironic that the Greens did not include demands on asylum seekers to find humane solution to boat people bashing in the memorandum to form the minority government?
The Greens put 8 demands on Labor to support Julia Gillard to form minority government. No item was on boat people.
We deeply believe that the Greens wish the boat people continue to suffer, to keep this issue alive for the next election. Without this deafening racist debate, the Greens will have not much to be distinct from the Labor. Especially the Labor had agreed to introduce Carbon Tax scheme.
The only other issue where Labor has different stance from the Greens is on same-sex marriage. But we are sure that this issue will not make many Australians change their pattern of vote.
So the only hope for the Greens to keep this historic record voting is for the boat people’s issue to continue raging, regardless of blood spelt because of this.
Again and before anyone accuses us of Anti-Greens hysteria, we are open for the Greens to answer our questions. On the top of these questions is: Why the Greens is impotent to make changes in government’s policies only on boat people’s?
The political influence is very clear on achievements on many fronts. Such achievements would not happen in normal situation, even if the Greens will continue to hold the balance of power in the senate.
The Greens political luck is double, at the moment:
1- The Greens are lucky to have the most naive unexperienced and inflexible government Australia had in recent decades.
2- The Greens are holding the balance of power with Labor government, and not Liberal-National.
The unique situation is that we are having minority government for the first time in the last few decades. This situation enables the Greens to be crucial in both houses. And this is why they could have crucial power if they wish.
The political power is displayed in the Greens successful in enforcing the minority government to introduce legislations or move Labor to change its stance on issues, that would not be possible in normal circumstances.
Some examples on this:
1- The Greens enforced Labor to introduce Carbon Tax, against clear commitments before the last election made by Julia Gillard’s government of “never ever under my government”.
2- The Labor change of heart on re-opening of the debate within the party on the same-sex marriage. This is against all commitments by Rudd’s government on the basis of religious commitment and Gillard’s refusal on the basis of anti-marriage stance she personally took.
3- The immediate ban of live cattle export to Indonesia.
While we think that the Greens luck would be short lived, as all indications suggest conservative tsunami in the next election. Such tsunami which would put the Greens face to face with their reality. Not only this. We would love to see the Greens continue to hold balance of power in the senate under conservative government, with their philosophy of being “cooperative opposition” that uses its control of balance of power “sensibly” as Bob Brown loves to put it.
We will explain such scenarios in next article.
But here, and after explaining the great influence of the Greens on Australian weak minority government, we need to ask a question: Why the Greens was successful on many issues, but stands impotent on stopping the Labor gross inhumane treatment of asylum seekers?
Before we answer this simple question, let us follow the Greens success story recently.
The Greens party started its political activism early 70s of the last century. Then a political party was formed in the mid of 70s of the last century. But since then, the Greens had no real political success or influence, apart from success in Tasmanian state election in late 80s. In all states, the Greens influence never exceeded one or two members of state parliaments in NSW and WA, only.
It was not until Tampa, that the Greens star started to shine. Again, the Greens were very lucky politically. At that time, the Democrats were losing its popularity because they held balance of power during very conservative government. Howard’s far right government could squeeze the Democrats on many issues, including especially the introduction of GST. So the only opposition voice the voters could hear during Tampa was the voice of the Greens.
So the rise of the Greens political success was on the back of the suffering of boat people. The Greens could double their popularity in 2001 election, from 2.5% to 4.96%. Such achievement that they could not achieve within more than 25 years of political existence. All this was because of Tampa.
The following election, 2004, the debate on boat people treatment was still raging. The Howard’s government was still campaigning on racism and Islamophobia. The Labor was not giving any real alternative. And the Democrats were already on boiling point with deep divisions and infightings. Again, the only alternative on issues of racism, Islamophobia and refugees (which were the main issue for the election) was the Greens. The Greens could again increase its voting by more than third (from 5% to 7.2%).
The issues of boat people, refugees and migration were negligible issues during the 2007 election. The only election item in that election was Work Choices. Surprisingly, The Greens voting stalled on 7.7%.
But when the boat people, refugees and migration became central issue for the last 2010 election, the Greens popularity jumped to historically high record of 11.76%. During the election, the only pressing issue was the boat people, border protection and fighting against people smugglers.
After this analysis, can anyone be doubt about the importance of raging racism, Islamophobia and boat people bashing in the Greens success story?
The Greens leadership and politicians know very well that without the debate on refugees and asylum seekers, their popularity will sink again.
This is why they keep talking on the issue, but no decisive actions or ultimatum to the minority government.
How ironic that the Greens did not include demands on asylum seekers to find humane solution to boat people bashing in the memorandum to form the minority government?
The Greens put 8 demands on Labor to support Julia Gillard to form minority government. No item was on boat people.
We deeply believe that the Greens wish the boat people continue to suffer, to keep this issue alive for the next election. Without this deafening racist debate, the Greens will have not much to be distinct from the Labor. Especially the Labor had agreed to introduce Carbon Tax scheme.
The only other issue where Labor has different stance from the Greens is on same-sex marriage. But we are sure that this issue will not make many Australians change their pattern of vote.
So the only hope for the Greens to keep this historic record voting is for the boat people’s issue to continue raging, regardless of blood spelt because of this.
Again and before anyone accuses us of Anti-Greens hysteria, we are open for the Greens to answer our questions. On the top of these questions is: Why the Greens is impotent to make changes in government’s policies only on boat people’s?
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Lee Rhiannon in the senate: the best chance to destabilise the Greens!!!
Before we go in depth with the issue of Greens control of balance of power in the senate, we should mention few issues here.
We campaigned in the last election against the election of Lee Rhiannon as Greens candidate in NSW, and we were very close to deny her a seat in the senate. Against the odds and all expectations, Lee Rhiannon got the least votes amongst Greens candidates in all states and territories. The Greens candidates in all states got between 12.76 – 14.7% in all states (except Tasmania), except Lee Rhiannon who got around 10.5%.
Now and against all our campaigns, we are more than happy that Lee was elected. We will argue the details of the reasons of this joy later, but we should summarise all these reasons in one sentence: Lee is the best chance of all Greens’ opponents to see this party destabilised as a first step to send them back to political wilderness.
The public tension between Bob Brown, the historical founding figure of the Greens, and Ms Rhiannon began very early even in the lead to the election campaign, 2010. Ms Lee was caught in a scandal of misusing parliamentary privileges, against all her rhetoric during her political career. Bob Brown publicly demanded that she resigns from the state parliament, and focus on federal campaign, to kill these allegations and avoid negative impact. Her response was swift of refusing to budge to her leader’s call and demand. We feel that she was feeling that her chances to win a seat are slim, so she wanted to keep her political career alive. Bob wanted to gamble of ending her political career before she starts to give him leadership headaches at Federal level. Such headache that was expected by Ian Cohen as early as 2005 when we met privately in his office to discuss many relevant issues.
The tension was very clear recently when Bob Brown appeared on several national media outlets condemning Lee’s political opportunist move to use Marrickville council as a tool to increase her popularity among progressive voters on the back of Palestinian people’s suffering. Mr Brown was very clear in indicating that “I am the leader of the Greens party, and not Lee Rhiannon”.
Before we go to the possible impact of the high tension between Lee and Bob on the stability and hence the future of the Greens, we should mention few observations.
Ms Lee wants to put the tension with Bob in the context of ideological differences, while in fact it is only about power thirst. Ms Lee is very notorious to be very thirsty to grab power regardless of any consequencies, including betraying principles or ideological setbacks.
Ms Lee campaigned for long time to destabilise Bob Brown environmental faction’s control of the Greens. She did not hesitate to use all clean and dirty tricks to achieve this goal.
In NSW, she was active to target Bob Brown’s strong ally, Ian Cohen and his faction. She did not hesitate to use all possible tricks to end Mr Cohen’s strong presence inside NSW Greens.
First trick was to conduct vicious campaign to limit the time in parliament to 8 years to end Mr Cohen’s bid for re-election in 2003 state election. Her campaign to enforce limited tenure failed miserably and Mr Cohen emerged victorious. And he did campaign to discredit her when she decided to run again for office in 2007 state election (in clear defiance of her demands and teachings that politicians should not stay in office for long time to prevent political corruption and power abuse).
Then, and after she failed to convince her party to implement limited tenure principle, she resorted to campaigns of political assassination nature, to stop Cohen’s re-election.
Even during last election, Ms Lee used these tactics of ideological differences to distance herself from Brown’s leadership and faction. One of Ms Lee’s supporter posted public email to blame Brown and his environmental faction for the limited campaigns during the election on Multiculturalism and against racism and Islamophobia.
There are many clear evidences that Ms Lee’s fight with Bob Brown and his influential environmental faction is only about power grab and control of the Greens.
If we assume that Lee wants to destabilise Bob’s leadership as an ideological struggle between “Socialist-Left” of Lee and “no-ideology” of Brown and his environmentalists, but how can we understand Lee’s attack on Lefties inside the party.
Ms Lee (and her long-time partner) systematically cleansed any potential threat to their absolute control of NSW Greens, using very dirty tricks most of the times.
This is what happened to Inner-West Greens. When respected active member could garner enough support to defeat Lee and her faction (2005) to impose their candidate for local government election, 2004. Lee did not hesitate to do all in her power to plot against the local group’s leadership even if this could have resulted in dissolving the group.
If Lee is really progressive and “lefties”, can she and her supporters explain to us why:
- She (and her “Greens Terrigal” faction) blocked any change to Greens constitution and procedure to see more people from marginalised groups (Indigenous, non-English, people with disabilities,..) elected to parliament to improve the very low representation of these marginalised groups in decision making bodies. She was quoted saying that “lack of English and ethnic background do not constitute barrier to participation in political leadership”.
- She (and her faction of opportunists) did not take any practical steps on social justice issues (like treatment of boat people, growing racism and Islamophobia, wars on developing nations like Iraq and Afghanistan,...). Apart from media releases and speeches at rallies, no practical steps were taken. Lee refused to participate in any solidarity missions to Palestine or Lebanon in the aftermath of Israeli aggressions. Lee participated in organising forums spreading Islamophobia. Lee blocked appointing Non-English speaking persons in the Greens hierarchy. Lee blocked preselecting Non-English speaking persons as candidates in safe seats.
- Lee did not oppose draconian “Anti-Terrorism laws” and the attacks on Muslim communities. On the contrary. She was active on participating in these attacks, as we mentioned above.
We can give tens of stories to prove that Lee was only interested in power grab, and not any ideological difference with Bob.
Now, Lee will do all in her best to destabilise Bob’s leadership in a bid to replace him. Lee, who has some allies of few other senators who used to spread similar lies about their progressive believes, will work almost immediately to undermine Bob’s position. From her track history in NSW Greens, she will not hesitate to use all tricks under her hat to do this.
We are certain that in the next few years, we will hear a lot about the dirty washings of the Greens on public ropes. As we heard a lot about allegations against Ian Cohen, including sexual harassment claims, we will start to hear a lot about Bob.
Combined efforts with Sarah Hanson-Young, both will do all in their best to destabilise the leadership of Tasmanian and environmentalists’ faction.
The worst mistake of the Greens environmentalist faction was that they did not match Lee and her faction in their dirty campaigns to undermine them. We expect that Bob and his faction will be enforced to resort to hanging the dirty washings of Lee and her opportunist faction, on the basis of “the attack is the best line of defence”.
The next few years will be very interesting in Australian politics. While there are a lot of scenarios in this regard, the best would be either of:
1- Lee and Bob engaging in public fight on leadership that would end them on the same track as the Democrats.
2- The conservative tide will swap Federal politics, as happened in NSW. Then the Greens presence in parliament becomes irrelevant.
Whatever scenario to prevail, we should continue exposing the opportunist nature of the Greens (both factions). Such opportunist nature that is clear in the Greens inability (or more accurately lack of desire) to neutralise the racist “boat people” debate. Such debate that could have been ended very easily if the Greens have the will to do so, the same way the Greens enforced the government to adopt Carbon Tax, against Labor committments.
Unlike the Greens misleading claims, we do not believe that their rise in popularity was due to increased understanding of Greens environmental or social policies. We deeply believe that the increase in Greens popularity is only because the unhappy voters had no other option. And when the real lefties create real alternative, the Greens popularity will return to its original level: 2.5%.
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%.
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...
