Hizb uTahrir supports paedophilia!!!

Hizb uTahrir (Tahrir party) has done it again. It issued media release praising paedophilic action of "Muslim" boy "marrying" 12 years old girl (http://www.news.com.au/national/imam-charged-with-overseeing-the-marriage-between-12yearold-girl-and-man-26-is-dismissed-by-mosque-elders/story-fncynjr2-1226823004905). The media release was also published on takfiri Facebook pages. The release criticised the Muslim leaders who condemned the action, including the Grand Mufti of Australia...
Th media release was in Arabic, perhaps not to attract the attention of mainstream media or society members.

The media release can be found on: https://www.facebook.com/NoWahhabiExtremismInAustralia/posts/591818637572493

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
تناقلت وسائل الاعلام في استراليا في الايام الماضية خبر زواج شاب عمره ٢٦ عاما من فتاة عمرها ثلاثة عشر عاما .
الاعلام الذي يمثل ويعتز بحضارة!!! المثلية والشذوذ الجنسي ويفاخر بمواخير البغاء وتجارة الجنس ، الحضارة!!! التي جعلت من الزنا ثقافة وممارسة مشروعة منتشرة لدرجة ما عاد احد من اتباعها يكاد يعرف اباه ، ذلك الاعلام اراد استغلال تلك الحادثة كعادته للاساءة للاسلام والمسلمين.
كان من الممكن عدم الرد او التعليق على ذلك الاعلام ، لانهم اقل شأناً من ان ينالوا من الاسلام .
لكن صدرت تعليقات وبيانات من جهات اسلامية ، اتخذت القيم والقوانين والرأي العام والذوق الغربي مصدرا لتجريم فعل دون اي اعتبار للادلة الشرعية لا بل ولا اعتبار حتى لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو الذي وصفه سبحانه ،، وانّك لعلى خلق عظيم .
نعلم ان القانون سواء هنا في استراليا او في غيرها من الدول يمنع مثل هذا الزواج ويعاقب عليه ، وبالتالي فان على من يخرق القانون ان يكون مستعداً لتحمّل التبعات القانونيّة،
اما الانكار الشرعي على اي فعل او مدحه او تحليله او تحريمه او حبه اًو بغضه او وصفه بأنه اخلاقي او غير اخلاقي فلا يجوز بحال من الاحوال الا ان يكون مبنيا على الادلة الشرعية حصراً . لقوله تعالى فلا وربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم ....
ولقوله عليه السلام : لا يؤمن احدكم حتى يكون هواه تبعاً لما جئت به.
والاسلام هو الحق بذاته وفي ذاته ولا يُدافعُ عنه بمخالفة احكامه .
انّ هناك فرقاً بين توجيه الناس وإرشادهم في المباحات وبين تحريم او تجريم مباحٍ بعينه .
الكتاب والسنة ومنها فعله صلى الله عليه وسلم دلت على جواز مثل ذلك النكاح والذي يخلو من اي مانع شرعيّ اخر، ولا يحتاج الامر لسوق الادلة المعروفة حتى للمبتدئين .
انّ التحريم والتحليل بناءً على طلبٍ او توجيهٍ او ضغطٍ او ضعفٍ خيانةٌ للامانة ، ومن لم يجد في نفسه القدرة على قًول الخير والحق فليسكت .
وإذا كان البعض يريد ان يتّخذ من نفسه حبراً او راهباً يحرم ما أحلّ الله او أن يحلًًَّ ما حرّم الله ، فلا يجوز لمسلم ان يتخذه رباً بإطاعته في ذلك .

ألا بذكر الله تطمأن القلوب

اسماعيل الوحواح / ابو أنس

Hizb uTahrir should know that this is criminal act in Australia. It is also criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries.

The only exception is in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia...

As Muslims, Hizb uTahrir does not represent me... and does not represent the majority of Muslims in this country... and if its members want to live in societies ruled by medieval rules, they can remove themselves from Australia to live in Tora Bora or Mecca.

Why the attack on Wikileaks party participation in Syrian solidarity visit

After a week in Syria and many weeks in the Middle East, I am back to Australia. It was shocking that the media is attacking the Wikileaks party for participating in fact-finding visit to Syria. We also were in Syria for solidarity with Syrians, who were subjected to the worst waves of terrorism in contemporary history.

Even before making any comments, we were attacked and accused of all sorts of accusations. This raises very deep concerns.

I thought that media’s roles include trying to investigate issues and expose the truth. As any issue has many sides and involves many parties, it is very vital for any respected investigative journalism to contact all sides, get their version of what happens and then make conclusions.

The Australian media in its attack on our participation in the visit to Damascus sent the wrong message into the wrong direction. Some section of the media is in fact trying to hide truth, keep people ignorant, shut debate and keep trialling people by media reports.

In our visit, we met ordinary Syrians and heard their stories.

We heard the stories of Damascus University students who lost 8 of their colleagues when terrorists launched mortar attack on the Faculty of Architecture. They were not soldiers and carried no weapon.

We also heard stories of families who lost relativise in Adra. Some of their family members were kids who were thrown into industrial ovens alive.

We witnessed mortar attacks on civilians next street where we went shopping.

We heard countless stories of Syrians, both supporters and opponents of President Assad and his government. But both agreed on one issue: the alternative to the regime is total chaos. This includes wide-spread sectarian war as terrorists are declaring the majority of Syrians to be infidels that needed to be beheaded.

We are very disappointed that Australian media was very biased and sees in “one-eye”. I am very disappointed that no one single Australian media outlet mentioned the horrendous massacre of Adra. I could not find any report mentioning of confirmed account of throwing kids into oven by Wahhabi terrorists in Adra.

It seems that our media does not want to talk truth, and does not want any to talk about this truth.

Our politicians on other hands are trying to set precedent in international relations.

Our FM and opposition spokesperson want to cut ties with Syrian government and every Politician that talks directly to it. So our government and opposition want Australia to stop dealing and talking to Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, India, Brazil, Cuba, South Africa..... and the list will include dozens of influential governments. Our politiains in fact want to sideline Australia and marginalise its foreign influence.

I can reveal here that during our talk with Syrian PM Dr Wael Halqi, I asked him to confirm or deny many reports that Western countries are talking directly to Syrian government and seek security cooperation. He confirmed that many Western countries members of NATO are seeking cooperation in “fighting against terrorism” before its spread to their countries.

With confirmed reports that ASIO has serious concerns about Australians fighting currently in Syria and their possible return to Australia, the Australian politicians’ attitude here is denying Australia cooperation with Syrian authorities to fight against possible terrorism coming from Syria to the streets of Sydney and Melbourne.

We will post many specific stories of atrocities committed by rebels in Syria in the next few days. Such atrocities that turned the majority of Syrians against the so-called Syrian revolution. Not only this. The devastating impact of Syrian “revolution” is having many negative impacts on neighbouring countries. In Jordan, for example, the majority of Jordanians prefer corrupted government over any repeat of Syrian scenario. On the contrary. Jordanians are demanding from their government more crack down on extremists, even if this means more restrictions on human rights to avoid such evil scenario.

مؤتمر جنيف 2: انعقاد بين الحقيقة والخيال

المراقب لتسارع الاحداث و "حرد" المملكة العربية السعودية واوامرها الاخيرة للحركات الارهابية التابعة لها من جبهة النصرة الى داعش بالتصعيد وتصفية ما يسمى بالجيش الحر لاضعاف الصفة التمثيلية لائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول, يخيل اليه استحالة انعقاد مؤتمر جنيف 2 للوصول الى تسوية سلمية للصراع في سوريا. واذا اضفنا الى ذلك التصريحات المتشائمة التي يطلقها المسؤولون السوريون عن امكانية انعقاد المؤتمر, هذه التصريحات التي توجتها تصريحات الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد لقناة الميادين عن عدم نضوج الظروف لانجاح المؤتمر, تكون الصورة السوداوية قد اكتملت فصولها.

الا ان الواقع والتحليل المنطقي يودي الى استنتاجات مغايرة تماما.

فمؤتمر جنيف اصبح حقيقة مرتبطة بالقرار الاممي الصادر قبل شهرين بما يخص الكيماوي السوري. هذا القرار الذي جاء لربط مسالة تجريد سوريا من سلاحها الكيماوي بالتسوية الشاملة للازمة وبقرار اممي.

كما ان اندفاعة الجيش السوري الضخمة وعلى كل المحاور واستعادته معظم الغوطة الشرقية والكثير من احياء حمص وحماة وحلب ودير الزور وتقدم الاكراد في معظم المحافظات التي يتواجدون بها, تعطي مجالا ضيقا للدول المشاركة في المؤامرة على سوريا للانتظار اكثر قبل القبول بالتسوية. فان كان هذا المحور المتامر يستطيع التلويح ببعض اوراق سيطرة المعارضة على مساحات من سوريا الان, فان هذا التلويح سيفقد الكثير من قوته بتناقص مساحات المناطق الاستراتيجية التي تسيطر عليها مجاميع ارهابيي المعارضة.

كما ان تغير لهجة الدول المشاركة بالمؤامرة, ومنها اغلاق تركيا لمعابرها مع سوريا واعلان عمان انها لا تؤيد المعارضة السورية وان استمرار العنف سيؤدي الى انتشار الارهاب في الاقليم وبدء الاردن باعتقال افراد المجموعات الوهابية التي تحاول التسلل الى سوريا, يعطي انطباعا قويا عن مرحلة جديدة. كما ان تغير لهجة الرئيس اللبناني وتحرك الجيش اللبناني ضد الجماعات الوهابية في البقاع وطرابلس هو ايضا مؤشر قوي على ادراك دول الاقليم وخصوصا المجاورة لسوريا عن طبيعة المرحلة القادمة.

حتى التشنج الغربي ضد ايران واللهجة المعادية تراجعت كثيرا وحل محلها الكثير من الغزل واللغة التصالحية ووعود بتخفيف العقوبات القاسية, في مشاهد تدل على ان انتصار محور المقاومة في سوريا سينعكس ايجابا على كل دول المحور.

اما ما نراه من تصعيد للجماعات المسلحة لاعمالها الارهابية من قصف بالهاون لمناطق في العاصمة او العمليات الانتحارية في بعض المناطق, فما هي الا محاولات متوقعة ومعتادة في مناطق النزاعات من اجل تحسين شروط التمثيل والتفاوض لمحاولة الحصول على اكبر قدر من التنازلات من الدولة للخروج من هذا المازق ببعض ماء الوجه, وخصوصا انهم وعدوا مشغليهم وجماهيرهم بانهم قادرون على اسقاط الدولة باشهر معدودة.

اما حرد السعودية فهو شيء متوقع لا يجب ان يعطي انطباعات قوية بهذا الاتجاه او ذاك. فالسعودية وضعت كل امكانياتها في تصرف المؤامرة ورسمت مستقبل علاقاتها الاقليمية على اساس ان الدولة السورية ستنهار وتتقسم الى دويلات ومعها سينهار محور المقاومة والممانعة. وهي تدرك تماما ان خروج سوريا من ازمتها, سيؤدي بالضرورة الى ادخال المملكة في اكثر من ازمة.

بالرغم من ان القيادة السورية تدرك تماما ان مؤتمر جنيف سينعقد, فانها لا تريد ان تعول على المؤتمر قبل انعقاده لحل الازمة. ولهذا فان الجيش السوري تلقى اوامر بزيادة وتيرة العمليات لانهاء العنف المتصاعد ولوضع جميع الاطراف امام حقائق الميدان لوضع حد لكل احلام المتامرين بتمرير تسوية على حساب الدولة او بتسوية تمس بخياراتها الاستراتيجية ضمن محور المقاومة. هذا التصعيد والذي يعتبر مهما لمنع محاولة اي من الاطراف المتامرة للمطالبة بتنازلات من الدولة السورية بسبب ضغط الجماعات المسلحة وسيطرتها على مساحات من البلاد.

دول الممانعة متاكدة ان مؤتمر جنيف 2 سينعقد عاجلا وليس اجلا لاكثر من سبب. فكلفة المؤامرة اقتصاديا على الدول المتامرة عالية جدا وبدون ارباح متوقع جنيها في حال عدم سقوط الدولة. والكل متاكد من عدم القدرة على اسقاطها. كما ان الكلف الامنية على الدول المتامرة من حيث انتشار الارهاب الى هذه الدول, تزداد باضطراد مع تزايد امد الازمة.

المؤتمر سينعقد قبل نهاية العام. ومعارضة الخارج من ائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول ستحضر المؤتمر صاغرة وحسب الاوامر الامريكية. وايران ستشارك بفعالية وستكون دولة محورية للقضاء على الارهاب, والذي سيكون مطلبا دوليا ستشارك بتحقيقه كل الدول ومن ضمنها المتامرة.

قلنا وفي اكثر من مقال ومنذ بداية الازمة السورية ان نتائج ما سيحدث في سوريا سيؤدي الى رسم نظام عالمي جديد. وهذا ما سيؤكده مؤتمر جنيف 2 المتوقع انعقاده الشهر القادم. نظام عالمي ينهي احادية القطب المتوحش ويعيد التوازن للعلاقات الدولية.

For more info: http://resistancepic.com/index.php/en/

Analysis of Federal Election 2013 results

We expected that in the wake of devastating loss of Labor and Greens in last Saturday’s election, the loss will promote these two parties to admit their failures and work on correcting them. Surprisingly, leaders of both parties resorted to cover-up and hide these devastating results under many arguments. The Labor claimed (maybe rightly) that the loss could have been worse. But they claim that this loss was due to “disunity” in the party over Rudd-Gillard revenge fight over leadership.

On the Greens side, the party could outrageously claim that they achieved “outstanding results” despite the fact that their primary votes collapsed by 30% of their previous results.

The real story behind the loss:

- For Labor:
The Labor was quick to blame the infighting between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard since mid 2010 for the loss of their popularity and scoring the worst results since WWII. This argument can be refuted easily by pointing to the fact that the opinion poll since the beginning of 2010 was worse than what they actually got after the infighting started. This is very clear indication that the real reason behind the loss of popularity was the Labor’s inability to deal with the issue of boat people, at that time. The Labor was quick since April 2010 to retreat on this front. The Labor under Kevin Rudd was quick to cave-in for the Liberals racist attacks by freezing the processing of applications of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, April 2010. This sent clear sign that Labor is ready to back down on this issue and so cannot offer real alternative to the coalition racist arguments about boat people.

Instead of Labor understanding that Australians expected Labor to act more bravely on this issue, the Labor strategists thought that leaning more right on this issue would bring back to them some of their lost popularity. This is why these strategists thought that the leadership change would fix everything by replacing the PM, change the policy on boat people by adopting the Liberals racist harsh approach and then blame the previous PM for the leniency on boat people issue.

The move back clashed. We can prove this for second time by pointing to the fact that Rudd’s return to PM’ship saw surge in Labor’s popularity. This popularity evaporated the day Rudd announced the very harsh policy of adopting “PNG solution”.

The second most important issue in this election was the economic standstill. The voters saw the deteriorating financial circumstances in Australia and witnessed the Labor’s inability to do anything to try and stimulate the economy.

The third main important issue which lead to these devastating results was the voters’ outrage for the Labor weakness to manage minority government and succumb to Greens “black-mailing”. Many analysts indicated that introduction of Carbon Tax was not major issue in this election on its own. It was important as it was seen to be clear evidence that Labor was under Greens influence, or even control.

The Labor post-election post-mortem did not recognise these issues. And I think that the Labor’s popularity will remain low until they acknowledge these factors and work to correct them.

For the Greens:
The primary votes of the Greens were collapsed in ALL states. Nationally they got around 8.7%, when in fact they got more than 13% in the previous election. This means that the Greens lost around 4.4%, i.e. 33% of their popularity. Yet, the Greens MPs were outrageously claiming that they got “outstanding” results.

We believe that the Greens leadership will justify these disappointing results by resorting to their traditional cover-up argument of “in an election where voters was leaning to the right, it is very good that the Greens could keep the current level of popularity”. They did this to justify their failure to capitalise on the total collapse of Labor popularity in Victoria 2010 and NSW 2011, where the Greens failed to increase their voting base.

I think that the real reasons behind this collapse of voting were the fact that the Greens was seen as the small partner of the Labor government and share many responsibility for its failures. The largest failure attributed to the Greens is the introduction of Carbon Tax and the Liberals continuous link of this to the deteriorating life-style of Australians and the increase of life-costs.

In addition to this, the Greens, a party that controlled on its own the balance of power in the senate and shared in controlling the balance of power in the house of representatives (in addition to the fact that the government was dependent on Greens support of it) for the last three years could not prevent the government from going to the far-right on boat people issue. The Greens was able easily to introduce Carbon Tax, where the previous PM Gillard promised before 2010 as “will never be introduced under any government I will lead”, but was unable to move the government to ease its extreme dealing with thousands of desperate boat people.

Instead of Greens facing these failures, admit them and promise to work on correcting them, they deny that they in fact lost heavily in this election (even if their luck will see their representation stay the same or even increased by one senator). The reason behind this is the fact that the Greens party is still betting on the argument that there is no alternative to them on the left spectrum of the political scene. The Greens will be surprised to realise that this argument is not valid anymore. Many progressive voters are resorting to voting informally (informal voting was increased significantly in the last 6 years). We also believe that many progressive people will be able to create more progressive alternative to the Greens.

SO what is about Liberals?
The Liberals won in increasing majority because the other side failed, and not because any voters were convinced that they would be better government that will find solutions to the Australian challenges. We need to remember that the Labor massive loss in NSW was not because the opposition Liberals had better plan for the state. On the contrary. The Liberal government made more damage to the NSW residents’ lives than ever. The voters just gave up on Labor government, and did not trust the Greens, and wanted to send them strong message.

The Liberals did not present during the course of the election campaign any alternative plan to lift the people’s life-style and financial security. The Liberals campaigned on the failures of the Labor and Greens.

The practical results of the election:
The Labor-Greens after this election became powerless totally. The two parties have no influence (by numbers) in both houses. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals has absolute majority of 88 seats (they needed 76 to govern on their own).

In the senate, the Labor-Greens combined seats won is less than 39 seats needed to be able to stop important controversial legislations. While I do not think that “Balance of power” does exist at all as the majority of legislations (more than 85%) were passed by bipartisan support for the last 2 decades. Even this was lost in the last Saturday’s election. The balance of power is now in the hands of few senators mainly defected from Liberals and Nationals, which would be easier for Liberals to convince them to pass controversial legislations when Labor would not support them. Again, NSW LC is very clear example, where Liberal government did not have any legislation defeated in the LC for the last 2 years, where it depended on MLC from small conservative parties.

We hope that the Labor will admit the real reasons for their defeat last Saturday and start working on correcting them. Without doing this, we believe that Labor is heading for long time in opposition by repeating Beazley’s mistakes on the same issues.

We also understand that the Greens will find serious rivals in the next elections. If the Greens want to increase their voting, I believe that they need to start “putting their mouth where their money is” by acting on issues and not vending rhetoric and lies. We believe that the Greens party is not able to do so, and this is why we expect the Greens to head to more electoral defeats in the next 2 years. The first would be Tasmanian election next year.

Why lenient sentencing of Wahhabi extremist: poor judgment or "minorities: who cares... kill each other" argument!!!

Imagine that I am WHITE ANGLO-SAXON freelance journalist, blogger, political activist and community leader. Imagine that I am CHRISTIAN or JEW by religious faith affiliation. And then imagine that I was attacked physically in front of hundreds of community members and in front of channel 7 camera. Imagine all this and then imagine what would be the judgment by the judge..

Then imagine how the media will response to such attack. You can guess what kind of description of the attack and attackers...

I remember when member of parliament Belinda Neal was caught threatening (just threatening) staff member at a restaurant. She was enforced to retreat, apologise and quit politics altogether after media made her look as vampire. Imagine if she was caught punching the staff member....
And she was “true” outstanding member of the society.... and “true” community builder... and part of the attack on her that a “community builder” and “community leader” should not act this way....

So do we understand that there is two system of justice in this country: one for White Anglo- Saxon Judo-Christians and other for the rest of “minorities”?!!!

Was the judge given wrong information only, or he was “ignorant”.... Did he tell himself while making the decision “Muslim against Muslim..., who cares, let them kill each other”....

The judge should remember that it is now Muslim against Muslim... But in Britain it was recently “Terrorist Wahhabi against Anglo-Saxon soldier”... And in France, it started to spread to be “Extremist Muslims against the rest of France”... and in Spain, the bombing of trains there did not target Muslims and the bomb killed indiscriminately. So “Muslim against Muslim” argument is immature, as the violence of these “community builders” will spread to reach the judge himself.

I deeply believe that authorities now act on argument of “non-Anglo Saxons: who cares”... Let them kill each other.... We can even encourage them to do so by encouraging “tit for tat” attacks... And they may be right and things could be progressed soon to this...

Racism in our system??? We warned of this for long time... but this time it is very serious and will have great impact...

Justice was not done today.... and I am sure the implications will be dear... Australia should be prepared for the worst...

And listen to this sarcasm: the judge considers holding Al Qaeda flag and follow its teaching of absolute hate towards all “others”, attack police last September, burn down businesses, shooting innocents, spread sectarian hate and threatening Australians are in fact “community building” . If a magistrate in our judicial system has such thoughts, God helps Australia.....

I now understand why Ali (who was shot by Wahhabi extremists and was let down by our judicial system) decided to give up on the system and chose just to isolate himself totally form the community. The system did not protect him because the legal system works on “minorities: who cares... kill each other”....

We will not allow the system to prevail... We will use all available venues to change this argument of “minorities: who cares”...

My statement on the very lenient sentence of Wahhabi extremist: Dangerous message into many directions

Today the judicial system has sent very dangerous message into many directions.

An extremist was not charged for assaulting high profile community member in front of hundreds of community members in the day broad light and in front of the media cameras.

The physical assault was not because of brawl on financial dispute or fight between neighbours because of the behaviour of their children. The assault was to silence high profile community member from criticising radical elements in the society. These radical elements were free in the last 2 years to shoot people in front of their homes, attack businesses and burn them down, set up facebook pages to spread sectarian hate and violence and physically assaulting people in the streets of our peaceful cities. All these based on radical teachings and radical interpretation of Islam.

The devastating impact of such verdict will be seen and felt across Australia almost immediately.

This verdict will give the radical groups inspired by Al Qaeda terrorist organisation teachings green light to intensify their campaign of terrorising community members and business owners that do not agree with their radical views. This verdict will give these radical groups moral boost for their extreme agenda that started few years ago.

This verdict tarnishes community members’ faith in authority’s abilities and will to protect them from religious radical groups.

After this verdict can I ask few questions: who in Australia will dare to come forward and cooperate with authorities on criminal activities conducted by religious radical groups?? After this verdict who in Australia will dare to contact authorities to report suspicious activities by such radical groups??? After this verdict how will authorities expect our cooperation to fight against radicalisation and crimes related to religious extremism???

All this come at a time when our authorities are declaring that there is real threats of terrorist activities in Australia in the awake of the return of hundreds of Australians fighting currently in Syria. Such verdict will leave authorities on their own to stop terrorist activities in Australia conducted by these groups. And this is another and the real victory to these radical extreme groups.

After today’s verdict, I hold authorities and the judge who made this judgment the full responsibility of my safety and the safety of my family’s. After this verdict I hold authorities and the judge that made the judgment the full responsibility of any consequences to the verdict.

We believe that this verdict will send clear message that Australians should not wait for authorities to protect them from radical groups and they should be prepared from now on to take law in their hands.

The judicial system has failed me and my family miserably. It actually failed large section of society who was hoping for harsh decision to stop future similar crimes.

The judicial system has set a precedent in supporting radical groups to terrorise people based on their political views. The judicial system has set precedent to encourage violence based on political views and disagreement. The judicial system today has stood hand in hand with Al Qaeda terrorists teachings by allowing them to bully and physically assault opponents.

This is very sad day for Australia. We, I and my family, believe that all Australians will pay heavy price for this wrong message sent by this unfair decision.

We call on the government and authorities to take all necessary means to correct this fatal mistake. I, and other community leaders and members, will be in contact with our government to explore how to correct this mistake.

The last question to our judicial system: do you want to see ugly action of extremist Michael Adebolajo in London repeated in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne??? Are Australians prepared to see extremists cutting the flesh of fellow Australians (and maybe eat their hearts and livers) in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and other cities???This verdict could encourage extremists groups to carry on similar attacks. They would believe that they have immunity and green light from judicial system to do so...

For the last 2 years, no one extremist was convicted and sent to jail for his crimes related to Syrian crisis and their radical views related to what is happening there.

We have all reasons to suspect that for political reasons, authorities want to cover on these crimes and not making them issue of public interest. During the last few months since the actual assault, I was kept in dark on the progress of this trial. Despite my repeated communications with authorities, including communications with NSW Minister for Police, enquiring about the progress of the case, all these communications were ignored and no reply to them was received. And here we need to know what is Australia’s interest in protecting extremist groups and their horrendous crimes against fellow Australians that do not share their extreme ideology...

And want to thanks all friends and supporters who flooded me and my family with support messages. And I call on all of them to stay calm and do not take any actions in response to this verdict. We still have hope that other levels of authorities will work on turning back this decision.

The Greens real stance on Palestine: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”

When I joined the Greens in 2001, there was no clear position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The only justification I got from Greens officials and politicians that “the Greens is very small party that did not have a chance to be involved in foreign politics”. This was not accurate, as there was Greens member of Federal parliament (Bob Brown).

The Greens campaign that year was based on one issue: Tampa and boat people, despite the fact that the Greens until that time did not have policy on refugees and boat people. It was popular issue that Bob Brown thought he could capitalise to win more votes. But the Greens discovered from the campaign that there are many issues that form strong basis for their votes. One of them was the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine.

At one campaign gathering the Greens were faced with one question: what is your position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Greens member referred the voter to Lee Rhiannon (NSW MLC at that time and current senator for NSW). Ms Lee did not find any answer. She referred the public member to me. I made lies on the Greens position on Palestine. Lee and her Greens members were happy that I saved them from very crucial and embarrassing question.

After the election of Kerry Nettle in that election, Australians (including me) was sucked to the Greens lies that it is a progressive party. And they let them down badly.

In 2002 and in the wake of Israeli massacres during Defensive Wall operation, the Palestinian and pro-Palestinians decided to hold a fundraising event to help Palestinian victims of Israeli latest brutality. The organisers of the event (held in Addison Road Community centre) decided that no politician deserves to speak at the event, except the Greens politicians. The organisers decided to invite Bob Brown and ask him to speak at the event. The organisers were shocked when Bob Brown’s office declined the invitation. Not only this. No Greens politician attended the event. It was very clear that the Greens leadership took a decision not to show solidarity with Palestinian people. To be fair, I should mention that 2 Greens council members attended the event in very low profile way.

In the same year, the Australian unions decided to send fact-finding mission to West Bank to investigate what really happened and report back to Australian parliament and people. The same decision was taken: to invite only Greens politicians to head the mission. The organisers were shocked to receive very clear decline of this invitation. The organisers asked me (as Greens member and spokesperson) to explore the reasons behind the refusal. I met Kerry Nettle on 1 May 2002 at the rally for Labor Day. I asked her, on behalf of the organisers, and her reply was deeply shocking. She told me that the Greens cannot do this and face the upheaval of conservative media attack. She told me exactly: “I do not want to be branded as pro-Palestinian politician from the beginning of my term”.

Frankly I was not shocked. The same person (Kerry Nettle) asked me after her election to the senate to provide her with literature on Palestine issue as “I do not know anything about the issue”.

The Greens to date did not do anything significant, apart from rhetoric, to give specific practical support to advance the debate about the issue on the way to change official Australian position on the issue.

Maybe some people will tell me that some Greens former politicians participated recently in solidarity ventures. And the question remains: why they could not participate in such missions when they were members of parliament???

The answer is very clear. This is the heart of Greens deceptive campaign to keep “all sides happy”. When the media asked Greens party about Sylvia Hale (former Greens MLC) participation last year in Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, the answer was very clear. She is former politician and her actions do not represent official Greens position.

Even the latest Greens bid to deceive voters by introducing motion in Marrickville council to adopt BDS, the reasons for this motion and the final result was clear. The majority of Greens politicians retreated and condemned the BDS. And the party governing body met to confirm this. Officially, the Greens rejects the BDS.

My other articles on the issue is on: http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/bds-campaign-in-australia-one-step.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/greens-thirst-for-palestinian-blood.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/10-more-reasons-why-not-to-vote-greens.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/how-to-get-greens-attention-to-gaza.html

The Greens real stance on Palestine is simple: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”... And this is the main reasons why I left the Greens in 2006....

The “turmoil” in Wikileaks over preferecnes: the real reasons and Greens role in its making!!!

I would like to state first that I am not member of any party at the moment. I am also not doing any work for any party, including Wikileaks, at the moment.

In regard to the “turmoil” inside the Wikileaks currently, which resulted so far in resignation of candidate on the second place in Victorian ticket and many National Council members’ resignations, I expect that:
1- The turmoil resulted when Wikileaks party refused to accept to be a “shop front” for the Greens, when they (Greens) asked Wikileaks to run fake tickets under Wikileaks banner to enable re-election of Greens struggling senators. Information emerged that Greens offered to help Wikileaks (which was hesitant to run candidates in Western Australia because of limited resources) run fake ticket to attract voters from both Labor and Liberals and then direct them to the Greens through preferences. The Greens committed to finance the campaign and provide all logistical and organisational support it needs. This is clear bid to rig our electoral system with fake candidates to deceive voters.
After many opinion polls conducted in Western Australia, Wikileaks party came to understanding that good campaign could see Wikileaks candidates get more votes than unpopular Greens senator. So they refused the offer and instead run strong candidates and good campaign.
2- The Greens flooded the Wikileaks party with members at all levels to be able to know all decisions and directions inside the Wikileaks party. The Greens used these “sleeping cells” also to try to destroy the party at the right time (current time). Some Greens members are indeed on the National Council and as candidates. Otherwise, why the main reason for Dr Mathew’s resignation (and the resignation of the other National Council members) was that the preference deals will see Scot Ludlum lose his seat. And how would such high profile officials in any party abandon the party from the first obstacle or debacle they face???
3- The Greens cannot claim high moral ground when it comes to preferences. The Greens entered or tried to enter at many different occasions preference deals with very extreme right parties. This include the preference deal reached with One Nation at 2001 election, which saw the Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, win senate seat in NSW on just 4.5% of primary vote, defeating Democrats on 6.5% and One Nation on 8%. The Greens claimed that there was no deal with One Nation and that One Nation just decided to give the preference to the Greens candidate. This is mere lies, as the Greens entered intense negotiation to convince the One Nation to preference the Greens ahead of ALL other minor and major parties. The negotiation was conducted between Jo Edwards and Geoff Ash form the Greens with One Nation campaign manager. Read my detailed account on this deal on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-did-one-nation-preferecned-greens.html . The Greens also got preference deal with One Nation during Cunningham by-election 2002 that saw Greens candidate win. This is in addition to many secret negotiations between the Greens and Liberals which resulted in deals in Victorian election 2006, but was refused by Liberals in NSW 2007.
4- The Greens themselves, as according to their high profile candidate Hall Greenland, are no more than eco-Fascists and very extreme right. For Hall Greenland, Greens are more right-wing and conservative than Fisher and Shooters party, which is not following any ideological right, apart from fighting to increase recreational hunting sports.
5- This is not the first time the Greens is engaged with this low and cheap politics to destroy rivals that have potential to deprive Greens from seats. In 80s and early 90s the Greens were successful in swamping the Socialists and destroy the movement by spreading division and tactics to destroy morale. We also experienced such dirty tactics for the last 4 years when we tried to expose the real regressive agendas of the Greens. We will keep posting some of these tactics in the next few days.
6- Despite all these, we believe that time is approaching when the Greens will be totally exposed and will pay dearly for such dirty tactics.

Australians should not allow the Greens to rig our political system by resorting to dirty tactics of running fake candidates, spread roumers and lies and hide behind progressive face to achieve destructive agendas.

We do not know what is the urgency of mass resignations of people who were arguing from the first day of the need to make Greens happy, the need of keeping Greens in politics and the need to consult the Greens on decisions. The people who resigned in the last week in mass were in fact citing the Greens interests and not their “own” political party’s. Otherwise, the whole issues raised in their resignations are not urgent issues that require destroying the movement altogether and could wait until the dust of this crucial election settled...

Why did One Nation preferecned the Greens in 2001?

In the mid of October 2001, Jo Edwards (Greens campaign manager in NSW and then media advisor for Senator Kerry Nettle) got on the phone. On the other side of the line was One Nation campaign manager. One Nation was cornered, where all political parties refused to make preference deal with it. One Nation was made to be perceived as the only racist evil. Though other parties, including Liberal party, was more racist than One Nation. Currently, the politics of both major parties were stolen from One Nation policy on refugees and asylum seekers.

The One Nation negotiator wanted to come with clearer picture of the Greens politics to see how close the Greens policy to the One Nation’s. Apparently, One Nation negotiator was contacting all minor parties to put them in order on their Preferences Voting card. One Nation knew that no political party would dare to swap preferences with it. But at least they want to make sure that they give their preferences to the party that have something in common.

One Nation negotiator asked the Greens many questions about their (Greens party) policies on immigration, globalisation, work relations .... The negotiations continued more than once. Only Jo Edwards and Greens power broker Geoff Ash knew the details of the negotiation. No party member (including myself at that time) was aware of these details.

At the end of the negotiations, One Nation was convinced that the Greens was the closest party to them on many platforms. This understanding was echoed in their decision to give their preference to the Greens. The Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, won her seat on One Nation preferences. It was not random preferences. It came after intense and serious negotiations including exchanging documents and policy statements.

This was not the last time One Nation preferenced the Greens and gifted them seats. In the following year and during Cunningham by-election, One Nation took the same decision. They put the Greens second. And the Greens candidate Michael Organ, won the seat for 2 years.

Now we leave it to all of you to think: why did One Nation extreme racist party decided to give preferences to the Greens??? Does this ring bell about the Greens real commitments and politics?? Why the Greens is the only pure White political party in Australia?? Do you know that the Greens want our government to phase-out migration program gradually??? Did this come hand in hand to explain why the Greens did not use the power given to them in the last 3 years to end the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, despite the big noise against this treatment???

We do not believe that fascist party like One Nation would decide to preference Greens more than once on no basis. For any principled politician, he/she should refuse to negotiate with any fascist extreme racist party like One Nation....

And the story has continuation.....

Our story with the Australian extremists: Enough is enough!!

When we decided not to back down on the barbaric attacks by local extremists, we took this decision as enough is enough. The current barbaric medieval attacks on our democratic rights of freedom of speech and thoughts were not the first attacks we sustained. But we have decided that they should be the last.

The first time we decided to run candidates in local election was on September 2008. At that time, there were no controversial issues like the current violence in Syria. Our election campaign was going on very smoothly. Until one day we were alerted by a friend who attends Friday praying at musallah operated by one of these extremist groups.

We were told that the imam of the musallah had urged his followers not to vote for us, namely. The reason for this because he suspects that we are Shia seeking representation in the local council. The calls to boycott us spread like fire in the hay. We heard accounts that all other musallahs, masjids and mosques operated by extreme groups affiliated with Al Qaeda had done the same.

We approached one of these musallahs and encouraged the leaders of that musallahs not to spread sectarian hate. Regardless of the fact that we are not Shia, sectarian hate should not have place in Australian democracy and life-style. The leaders denied that they spread such sectarian hate. But at that election we heard more horrific accounts. The extremists in fact used all venues available to them to advocate people not to vote for us. They even utilised Islamic school to spread sectarian hate. Some of the school kids are in fact Shia, studying in Sunni dominated school. They were urged to tell their parents not to vote for “infidels” like us.

We decided not to take any action, as this could hurt the reputation of the community and could affect the fragile harmony between its sects.

The same story was repeated, in more ugly way, during the last year’s state election. While again during the last year’s election, the issue of Syria was not a factor in the election, violence against our campaign was very high. With no warning, we woke up one day to discover that all our posters had disappeared from the streets. Even posters inside shops were torn apart by angry mob. We then were told that the mob has left us message that they belong to Al Bukhari bookstore. When we tried to talk to Al Bukhari bookstore, we met with mixed response. Officially they denied encouraging their members to attack our posters because we are “infidels” and no Muslim should vote for us. But practically there were few members who admitted that they did all this. And the campaign to sabotage our campaign went on and on. All our efforts to stop these Al Bukhari members from attacking our campaign were unsuccessful. We left with one option: report these barbaric medieval attacks to authorities, including police. We also leaked news alert to media.

The police could not take practical step to stop these attacks. It was only when The Daily Telegraph published small article about these attacks that Sheikh Feiz and his group moved to stop their members from continuing their campaign. But with more threats to us.
At that time we again decided that the reputation of the community should be put above our interests of getting decent votes. And this is why we refused to talk directly or indirectly to the media. We had several requests from different TV stations (including SBS, ABC and other channels) in addition to newspapers and radio stations (including 2GB and 2UE). Even the Times contacted us from its offices in London and offered to send journalist to meet us and get the full story.

Eventhough it was the golden opportunity for us to get a lot of media during election campaign, we refused all offers. Some think that we could have lost a lot of Muslim votes if we accepted the offers. This is not true. And the result was clear evidence.

A lot of community members are against these extremists. We should remember that in the community there are a lot of Shia Muslims, Alawis and moderate Sunnis that are sick of these extremists and their extreme ideas and tactics. There are also a lot of racist and Anti-Muslim community members. Let us remember that One Nation racist and Anti-Muslim party got in many elections more than 10% of the votes in Auburn seat.

We did not take all these numbers and facts into account when we took the decision to refuse to talk to the media. All what was important for us is the interests of the community, including its reputation and harmony among its members.

But the attacks during this election led us to clear understanding that the reputation and interests of the Muslim community require us to stand up and stop these extreme groups from going on with their extreme tactics and agendas. If we continue to cave in and absorb attacks without counter attack, these groups will take the whole community as hostage. And the same tactics will be repeated in any future elections or public campaigns.

These groups were the reason for the very bad reputation of the Muslims around the world and gave us the bad name as “terrorists” “monsters” and “inhumane”. They in fact do not care about the reputation and harmony in the community. Not only this. Their tactic is very simple: to abuse our careful steps not to hurt the community’s reputation. They then attack and claim that any counter attack on them will divide the community and give the community bad reputation.

In this election we decided that “the best way to defend yourself is to attack your enemies”. And so we went on counter attack from the first day the extremists started to send us threatening sms, phone calls and Facebook messages. And we continued by alerting the media, politicians and other community members. And we will continue until they stop their dirty tactics.

We believe that in democracy people can exchange ideas, debate, make accusations and compromises to settle disputes. These extreme groups do not recognise democracy at all. This is why they resort immediately in any debate to threats, physical attacks and use of religious centres to attack opponents. We will do the same.

We know that the damage was done this election. We know that these groups resorted to all dirty tactics; including using “Islamic” schools to spread sectarian hate and lies.

But we are doing all this for future. They should stop taking the whole community a hostage for their extreme agendas. They should start to act like any other Australian in the society. If they do not like things, they can either shut up or debate, within the laws. Not threats and no physical attacks.

And we know that they are well organised and have no morals to do any low acts. And this is why we need to better organise and show them that we will not allow them to go on with their dirty tactics.

And we will do this.....

The Greens lies on Melbourne by election results: It is the time to rid of the Greens!

The Greens had deafened our ears for the last decade that they will win Melbourne seat, become major party and that they are lefty party seeking “clean politics”. The results of the Melbourne
by- election yesterday would be clear evidence against all these myths and lies.

I personally heard the Greens leader, Bob Brown, during the Victorian state election 2002 stressing to the members and media that the Greens will win Melbourne seat from Labor. He even went further. He predicted that the Greens will win 5-7 seats in the Victorian both houses. The results of that election were clear: the Greens won no seats. Not only this. Without Labor’s major reforms to voting system in Victoria, the Greens would have won no seats until today.

I also personally heard Mr Brown (who could be comfortably described as the best lying politician in Australian contemporary history) promising Greens members and supporters that the Greens will end Labor dominance in politics and would replace it. So far the best results for the Greens were during the exceptional 2010 election by winning 11.7% of the votes. This is not even near the 38% to Labor.

The other myth is that the Greens advocate and exercise “clean politics”.

The Greens so far vended many lies to justify their deceptions about winning the Melbourne seat easily from Labor. Logically, the Greens should have won the seat in this by-election for the following reasons:
1-This is a by-election, where voters usually vote against incumbent party. The voters usually can afford to send message of dissatisfaction to their traditional party, without costing them office.
2-The Greens control the seat Federally.
3-The Labor is sliding in all opinion polls with the mess at Federal level and extremely unpopular Federal government.

The Greens, instead of admitting the truth that they failed to impress the voters, resorted to vend more lies after lies of the reasons of such failure.

At the beginning, they accused Labor of making dirty deals with Christian conservative party, Family First.

Then they accused the voting system of handing the seat to Labor, despite the fact that the Greens won more primary votes than Labor.

The Greens have vended these accusations/lies disregarding the following facts:
1- The Greens have won almost ALL their seats on the back of preferences from conservative parties.
2- The Greens almost never won any seat on primary votes.

Let us mention details here:
- The Greens sealed a deal in 2001 Federal election with extreme racist One Nation Pauline Hanson party. The Greens senator, Kerry Nettle, actually won on the preferences she received from One Nation.
- In 2006 Victorian state election, the Greens entered negotiation with conservative Liberals party (who sealed at that time a preference deal with Family First) to swap preferences. The Liberals refused to swap deal with the Greens on principled reasons (because of the Greens Anti-family policies).
- In 2007 NSW state election, the Greens attempted to bribe the conservative Liberals party (controlled at that time by extreme Neo-Conservative faction) to swap preferences in certain areas (namely Balmain and Marrickville). Again the Liberals were more principled than the Greens and refused to swap deals with the Greens because of the Greens Anti-Family policies.
- The Greens leader, Bob Brown, won his seat in Tasmania first time (1998) on less than 5% of primary votes (the quota to win seat is 14.5%). Without preference deals, the Greens leader would never win the seat then.
- Almost ALL Greens politicians won on preference deal. The Greens only win on primary vote were in Tasmania and Victoria, 2010.

These facts would dismiss any claims by the Greens of “clean politics”.

So why the Greens lost this “unlosable election”.

The loss of election came after almost ALL political forces in Australia understood that the only way to increase their vote is to get rid of the Greens. Almost ALL parties understood that the Greens are very good in propaganda, including lies and deceptions on commitments and achievements. And it is very clear that they will combine forces to end this farce.

The Greens for the last decade could get votes from all political parties. Some votes came from Labor. Other votes came from the Democrats. A lot of votes come from new voters who swallowed the lies and deceptions of the Greens commitments to Multiculturalism, refugees rights, Anti-War and pro-public sector.

Let us go back to preference deals in yesterday’s election. The Greens failed to get any decent preference deal, even from parties that would have many in common with the Greens.

The Greens even failed to get preferences from Sex Party (even though the Greens are staunch supporters of promoting prostitution, drug abuse …). The Sex party came to clear understanding that they will never win any decent primary votes while the Greens get such level of voting and representation in parliaments.

The Labor started the campaign to isolate the Greens and convince other parties to direct preferences away from the Greens. The Labor and ALL other forces should intensify this campaign. The Greens should be isolated and denied preference votes, to enable other decent parties to get fair share of primary votes. And it seems that this is what will happen.

The only exception to this so far is the Socialists within the Socialist Alliance. They are still in bed with the Greens, despite the fact that the Greens are refusing to adopt any Socialist agenda and are considering the Socialist ideology to be laughable matter from dark era. The Socialists do not understand that the good work they are doing on many platforms, including refugees rights, Anti-War….. were hijacked on election days by the Greens. The Socialists alliance with the Greens gives wrong indication to the voters of who really have commitments and actions on social justice issues. The Socialists should start to distance themselves from the Greens, especially the Greens are treating the Socilaists as inferior, naïve and irrelevant in Australian politics.

If the trend will be repeated in the next elections, we would expect the disappearance of the Greens form the political scene soon. The same happened to extreme Pauline Hanson One Nation.

Carbon Tax: the myths vs reality!

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?

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...

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!!!

Open letter to our PM: Please stop supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria

Dear Hon Julia Gillard, Australian PM

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.

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??

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...